Still, maybe they have a point about their ‘lovely’, ‘innocent’, little sprog. Maybe she did single him out because of race. However, without clear evidence/witnesses (did she call him the N word, for example?) it’s probably a waste of time because of how high the bar is for evidence at trial. Doubt that the police themselves are racially discriminating, either, if this is broadly their logic.
​
>Police have been strongly criticised for not prosecuting a white woman who hit a 12-year-old black boy
Did make me cringe reading this part tho. Imagine a few hundred years ago when the rhetoric may have been;
*”Police have been strongly criticised for not prosecuting a black woman who hit a 12-year-old white boy”*
How PrOgReSsIvE!
>The woman was arrested following the incident at a riverside park near Bristol but three weeks later Avon and Somerset police informed the boy’s family that no further action was being taken because the woman claimed she acted in self-defence and felt “threatened”.
Whatever happened to ‘believe women’? Funny how the ‘progressives’ at the Guardian ignore that, when it comes to pushing a narrative. They assume the woman must be lying, and the boy must have done nothing whatsoever wrong. I don’t know the truth, but nor do they. The police clearly think the woman doesn’t have a case to answer. By assuming the police and the woman are lying or racist, the Guardian are being prejudiced and biased.
Completely unrelated.
I’m mixed race. Growing up I referred to myself as black (for various reasons, many of them based on racial abuse I suffered) . As I’ve grown older I would say I’m mixed race, brown or simply a minority.
This article, in multiple instances, infers that mixed race and black is the same thing. Are we still doing this? Is this still a thing?
Back on topic, you can’t really judge this situation without first hand footage.
If you ever needed proof that the Guardian are race baiters, this article is a perfect example. It basically hits everything they want in their articles, a chance to criticise the police, and to race bait.
Why is a national publication running this story on their front page? A gang of little bastards cause havoc, end up squaring up to a woman on her own, and then when she pushes them away they cry foul.
Seriously? The fact the police aren’t prosecuting in those circumstances is a national news matter, according to the Guardian?
Fucking horrific publication.
The police do not make charging decisions on racially aggravated offences. This article is not clear whether the matter was referred to the CPS by the police; judging by the victims level of injury, I suspect it was. Nonetheless, from the article, we can assume one of the following:
a) This matter was treated as a hate crime and the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence.
b) The police can make a charging decision based on the threshold test as this matter was not treated as a hate crime, because at the time of the offence either the victim did not perceive it to be racially motivated, or there was no evidence of it being racially motivated uncovered during the investigation.
Those points taken into consideration, I can’t see how the police can be accused of racism in this instance.
Either way, the article is clear why the decision to prosecute was taken. The suspect raised the lawful defence of ‘self-defence’ which could not be negated through further evidence.
Seems to me like the Guardian are once again trying to stir controversy, smearing the police in the name of sensational journalism.
Anyone got a link to the video, please?
It’s been mentioned a few times in the comments here, but I can’t find it.
The police are just parking attendance and nothing more.
8 comments
The race element seems to be why the black boy was singled out.
The failure to prosecute seems perverse; hitting a 12 year old with a paddle, their head needs gluing and no prosecution?
>The boy’s father, Tyran Forrest, who is mixed race, said: “If it was me that had hit a white child, I would be in jail right now.
Uhh, he’s probably not wrong BUT funnily enough I think the fact that he’s a male is what would be the main factor, and not the colour of his skin! So I would say [this](https://img.ifunny.co/images/2ec2a7909e882bff4b594c541536d6fe4d94de58075ac954ea20d1d19550714c_1.jpg) to Tyran.
Still, maybe they have a point about their ‘lovely’, ‘innocent’, little sprog. Maybe she did single him out because of race. However, without clear evidence/witnesses (did she call him the N word, for example?) it’s probably a waste of time because of how high the bar is for evidence at trial. Doubt that the police themselves are racially discriminating, either, if this is broadly their logic.
​
>Police have been strongly criticised for not prosecuting a white woman who hit a 12-year-old black boy
Did make me cringe reading this part tho. Imagine a few hundred years ago when the rhetoric may have been;
*”Police have been strongly criticised for not prosecuting a black woman who hit a 12-year-old white boy”*
How PrOgReSsIvE!
>The woman was arrested following the incident at a riverside park near Bristol but three weeks later Avon and Somerset police informed the boy’s family that no further action was being taken because the woman claimed she acted in self-defence and felt “threatened”.
Whatever happened to ‘believe women’? Funny how the ‘progressives’ at the Guardian ignore that, when it comes to pushing a narrative. They assume the woman must be lying, and the boy must have done nothing whatsoever wrong. I don’t know the truth, but nor do they. The police clearly think the woman doesn’t have a case to answer. By assuming the police and the woman are lying or racist, the Guardian are being prejudiced and biased.
Completely unrelated.
I’m mixed race. Growing up I referred to myself as black (for various reasons, many of them based on racial abuse I suffered) . As I’ve grown older I would say I’m mixed race, brown or simply a minority.
This article, in multiple instances, infers that mixed race and black is the same thing. Are we still doing this? Is this still a thing?
Back on topic, you can’t really judge this situation without first hand footage.
If you ever needed proof that the Guardian are race baiters, this article is a perfect example. It basically hits everything they want in their articles, a chance to criticise the police, and to race bait.
Why is a national publication running this story on their front page? A gang of little bastards cause havoc, end up squaring up to a woman on her own, and then when she pushes them away they cry foul.
Seriously? The fact the police aren’t prosecuting in those circumstances is a national news matter, according to the Guardian?
Fucking horrific publication.
The police do not make charging decisions on racially aggravated offences. This article is not clear whether the matter was referred to the CPS by the police; judging by the victims level of injury, I suspect it was. Nonetheless, from the article, we can assume one of the following:
a) This matter was treated as a hate crime and the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence.
b) The police can make a charging decision based on the threshold test as this matter was not treated as a hate crime, because at the time of the offence either the victim did not perceive it to be racially motivated, or there was no evidence of it being racially motivated uncovered during the investigation.
Those points taken into consideration, I can’t see how the police can be accused of racism in this instance.
Either way, the article is clear why the decision to prosecute was taken. The suspect raised the lawful defence of ‘self-defence’ which could not be negated through further evidence.
Seems to me like the Guardian are once again trying to stir controversy, smearing the police in the name of sensational journalism.
Anyone got a link to the video, please?
It’s been mentioned a few times in the comments here, but I can’t find it.
The police are just parking attendance and nothing more.
Waste of time.