Zaphod Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 See here: Manx Radio Does this mean that men could not expect the same leniant sentence because they can't get pregnant? Is this not sexual discrimination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Is this not sexual discrimination? Hardly. Men can't get pregnant you see, didn't you hear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Is this not sexual discrimination? Hardly. Men can't get pregnant you see, didn't you hear? Keyboarder misses point in spectacular fashion. Good trolling, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Hardly. Men can't get pregnant you see, didn't you hear? Tw*t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Hardly. The point being, as the op stated that men can't get pregnant. So how can any possible discrimination be described as sexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 In a way I have to agree, why shouldn't a man be spared prison if his partner is pregnant ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Tw*t Lol, you're funny, you've censored your own tiny contribution, lol,lol. ; ))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 They read the daily mail and think that's how it's spelt. Everyone know's it's spelt like this 'keyboarder' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I deleted this, as I think she was silly to risk her child in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Kicked him in the groin! It must have been 'extremely serious' at the time! Am I getting the wrong impression here but are the consequences in terms of punishment worse if you assault a police officer than were you assault a normal person? I don't know the circumstances and given that I want rid of the state and hate the police, for all I know the boyfriend may have been wrongfully arrested or may have been arrested for a crime such as drugs use in which case kicking a police officer in the nads would seem a humorous form of resistance to an unjustified authority, in my opinion she may have done the right thing! The only thing that concerns me about this is that she is drinking alcohol and the obvious risk to her child, it is quite scary that she is either ignorant of the risk or too selfish to worry about them. I hope it is ignorance because if she is that selfish then she should not be having kids! Though I do think she knows better, and for that she could do with some sort of wake-up call, not that I am implying prison, the mere fact that a pregnant woman or a woman who needs to supports a child is thrown into gaol is so utterly wrong it begs belief. But then so many blindly believe in the use of prison. All I am saying is that she may have done the right thing, but what actually needs sorting is the alcohol problem. (edited as I originally said he may not have committed any crime, but this is obviously highly unlikely) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Kicked him in the groin! It must have been 'extremely serious' at the time! Am I getting the wrong impression here but are the consequences in terms of punishment worse if you assault a police officer than were you assault a normal person? I don't know the circumstances and given that I want rid of the state and hate the police, for all I know the boyfriend may not have committed any crime in which case kicking a police officer in the nads would seem a humorous form of resistance to an unjustified authority, in my opinion she may have done the right thing! The only thing that concerns me about this is that she is drinking alcohol and the obvious risk to her child, it is quite scary that she is either ignorant of the risk or too selfish to worry about them. I hope it is ignorance because if she is that selfish then she should not be having kids! Though I do think she knows better, and for that she could do with some sort of wake-up call, not that I am implying prison, the mere fact that a pregnant woman or a woman who needs to supports a child is thrown into gaol is so utterly wrong it begs belief. But then so many blindly believe in the use of prison. All I am saying is that she may have done the right thing, but what actually needs sorting is the alcohol problem. I agree with LDV on lots of points here and getting physically involved whilst carrying a baby, is stupidity at its best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minxie Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The only thing that concerns me about this is that she is drinking alcohol and the obvious risk to her child, it is quite scary that she is either ignorant of the risk or too selfish to worry about them. If the incident happened on 25 July and she is now six months pregnant, she was only a couple of weeks pregnant at the time so may not have realised that she was pregnant - she may well have stopped drinking when she found out she was pregnant. Being drunk is still no excuse for assault though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The only thing that concerns me about this is that she is drinking alcohol and the obvious risk to her child, it is quite scary that she is either ignorant of the risk or too selfish to worry about them. If the incident happened on 25 July and she is now six months pregnant, she was only a couple of weeks pregnant at the time so may not have realised that she was pregnant - she may well have stopped drinking when she found out she was pregnant. Being drunk is still no excuse for assault though. Or she may have got herself pregnant just after the incident in the belief that it would save her from a gaol sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The only thing that concerns me about this is that she is drinking alcohol and the obvious risk to her child, it is quite scary that she is either ignorant of the risk or too selfish to worry about them. If the incident happened on 25 July and she is now six months pregnant, she was only a couple of weeks pregnant at the time so may not have realised that she was pregnant - she may well have stopped drinking when she found out she was pregnant. Being drunk is still no excuse for assault though. Or she may have got herself pregnant just after the incident in the belief that it would save her from a gaol sentence? In that case the boot in the bollocks may not have been that hard if the same bloke was involved in the conception Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minxie Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 In that case the boot in the bollocks may not have been that hard if the same bloke was involved in the conception It was the policeman she booted in the crotch, not her boyfriend from what I read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.