At this point I agree with you completely.

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
At that point I'd argue the only appropriate response is to put a file together with a view to taking it to court and letting the court decide.

Absolutely, this is what I think should have happened.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
At this point I agree with you completely.



Absolutely, this is what I think should have happened.

The trouble is that we are not at a time when physical punishment is seen as acceptable, so I guess the courts would much more likely to have sided with the girl - and the father knew this. Even though we are in the middle of a pandemic of violent teenage crime - particularly from girls.
[Rep]

Yes but we should trust in the systems that we have long trusted. If they fail us, then we should address that greater failure.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
The trouble is that we are not at a time when physical punishment is seen as acceptable, so I guess the courts would much more likely to have sided with the girl - and the father knew this. Even though we are in the middle of a pandemic of violent teenage crime - particularly from girls.

The jury would have choose who to believe - the father (reasonable chastisement) or the girl (assault and battery). If they choose to believe the girl so be it, that's how the system works. The guy's either guilty of assault and battery or he's not, in this case he was.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
The jury would have choose who to believe - the father (reasonable chastisement) or the girl (assault and battery). If they choose to believe the girl so be it, that's how the system works. The guy's either guilty of assault and battery or he's not, in this case he was.

Do you have children WCM?

I would contend it is essential that order is maintained within any family if the children are to grow and develop to their true potential. Most healthy and lively children will be testing their boundaries from an early age and for them to feel secure these must be clearly defined. Having reached puberty children will become more determined to test these boundaries because of the additional pressure of a growing sex drive.

For the state to interfere with the dynamic tensions involved in this process and effectively remove the parents authority it is placing this responsibility onto the child itself who will then test its new boundaries - which are those set by the laws of the land.

Unless there are demonstrable signs, most likely picked up by the child's teachers, that the child is the victim of abuse, it is far better for the state not to interfere in this process even if there are occasions when the parent[s] seems to have gone a little too far. Better too much energy than not enough.
[Rep]

The girl has learnt a valuable lesson. She is free to terrorise neighbours and her father can do nothing to stop her. When she goes to court, as she inevitably will if the neighbours complain enough, he will have to attend as well and the social services will descend on his house and make judgements of him. Whatever age the child reaches adulthood, the law says she is a minor until she is 18 and the father is responsible. The police have just told him he is not responsible, but when the girl is terrorising the neighbours nor are they.

The last time I went to the police station to make a complaint they directed me to a 'phone on the wall where I reported a crime. The police then took 11 days to contact me and filed the crime without ever interviewing me. I made a complaint and that was handled over the 'phone as well.

I feel for the father. He is undermined by the very people who should support him in his efforts to rein in his daughter's behaviour. If she now goes off the rails who will be to blame?

I would never accept a caution. As stated the police should have sufficient evidence to bring the case to court. They tried it with me once when I was hit and the assailant tried to say I went for him first, even though I was walking away. I told them to sod off so they took me to court. I pleaded not guilty as the evidence was 2-1 in my favour and another witness hadn't been interviewed which would have put me 3-1 against the liar who made false allegations. CPS backed off and asked if I would be bound over; I was polite and firm and told them if they thought they had evidence then they had to test it in a court of law. That was the end of the matter.

I do, however, realise that in a stressed situation, without the benefit of legal advice, it is easier to accept a caution than not. The man might want to be a Scout Master or a music teacher or help on a carnival float, but he will face a CRB check each time and will never work with children or vulnerable people ever again as the caution will always show.

Another member of society doing what he thought was right has received a life sentence.
[Rep]

This is the NSPCC interpretation of the law:

What the law says about hitting children

In the UK it is an offence for one person to assault another. However, when it comes to children, parents may claim a defence of "reasonable chastisement" if they smack or assault their child. This defence is not open to parents in many European countries, where hitting children is against the law. In the UK a parent could be prosecuted for assaulting a child if the hitting went beyond "reasonable chastisement".

What is "reasonable chastisement?"

The law does not define "reasonable chastisement" clearly - it depends on the circumstances. Physical punishment is unlikely to be seen as "reasonable" if it leaves a mark on the child or if the child is hit with a cane, stick, belt or other implement.


It seems to me that it is unlikely that slapping her face would not leave a mark, so it is very likely he would be found guilty of assault as he has not denied the incident.
[Rep]

Having listened yesterday to an interview with him and his daughter on Radio 2 at lunchtime I certainly feel he has been hard done by as did many listeners who contacted the show.
As regards the caution he has never been involved with the police before and I suspect rather naively did not understand what the implications of the caution would be he also appears to have refused a solicitor to speed up the process
It proves one thing under government targets he was a nice easy nick and helps hit a target whether it was justice is up to you personally I don't think so and given what she had been doing I fully support his actions but he should have got lawyered up probably got away with it

If children are not disciplined and not shown limits and punished then there will be more deaths like Gary Newlove in Cheshire

How the police continue to lose the respect of Joe Public
[Rep]