Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34336104) If they've said something racist then yes, take it to the police, if they believe it isn't valid, then fine.

So you really believe the state has the right to limit freedom of speech? To scrutinise our opinions for acceptability?

Quote:

For all we know she actually said "I dun wanna work wiv no paki's who can't even speak english" You again appear to be falling into the trap of believing we know everything about this case, we weren't there, everything that took place hasn't been reported.

No I'm not Xaccers, I have consistently allowed for the fact that not all of the facts have been made public. But on the balance of what we do know, I am inclined to believe the girl was upset at being asked to work with a group she could not understand. I have made my position clear: had the girl made a racially motivated stand, the incident should have been dealt with in-school.

Quote:

Have you not considered what might have been said to justify reporting the incident to the police? Or do you consider nothing the girl could have said to be worthy of further action?

Yes. And in answer to your second question, GMP officers themselves did not take further action, releasing her without charge, and they take "hate crime reports very seriously" so it seems she did not say anything worthy of further action.

Quote:

Have you considered that the LEA's policy is that any racist comments of a serious nature are to be reported to the authorities? Have you really?

Oh yes, I have definitely considered that! I think there is a very good chance that is the official position. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34336132) Do you believe individuals have the right to harm others freely?

I take it we are not talking about physical harm? That being the case, what type of harm are we talking about?

Quote:

Hang on, at least one of them reportedly can speak english, so what's the issue? Would you also refuse to work with a group if only one could speak English?

It might well be that the child who could speak both languages was entirely fair and brought all the children, including Codie Sttott, into the discussion, but it would seem more likely than the bulk of the discussion was held in the language the majority could speak simply because that would have been the easiest option for the majority of the group. If that was how it happened it was surely Codie Stott's prerogative to ask to be moved to an English speaking group?

And no, I would not have refused to work with such a group in a one-off incidence, but then I'm a mature adult, and much less likely to be upset by that situation than a 14 year old girl. Had the situation occurred more frequently then I would have objected. I would be perfectly happy to help someone learn English and be taught a little of a different language in return in a non-academic setting.

Quote:

Which is their perogative.

Yes it is, but when the police take "hate crimes very seriously" it suggests that there was no crime to answer.

Quote:

I saw someone smash my window, he was arrested and later released, does that mean I was wrong to report him to the police?

No, it means that the police were wrong to release him without charge (if that is what happened) because criminal damage had occurred (assuming of course it wasn't purely accidental).

Quote:

So why are you asking these questions if you've considered that possibility already? PS try not to click on the indent button

I know what the state's position is. I asked because I wanted to know what you think.

I don't think I am clicking on the indent, unless somehow there is an "indent lock" like a caps lock. Each time I preview the text, it becomes an ever narrower column. It's not something I have ever come across before. :confused: