[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

There's no other information, but what if his grandparents were "concerned Christians" of the type who think that D&D and Heavy Metal lead to Devil Worship and simply over-reacted?

And the police are as well I suppose?

But *how many* young teens write stuff like that? Yet somehow 99.999% of them manage not to go on to commit Columbine style massacres, so to assume that just because this guy wrote that story he was going to go on do such a thing would be like (oh, I'm sorry, I just *can't* resist this! ) assuming that all Muslims are potential terrorists...

Precisely my point. What he said he did was normal, and natural. So why did his grandparents AND police get so worked up about it? The police would have better things to do than riciculous arrests and charges that won't go anywhere. And over there things work a bit differently in the charging system. In cases where evidence is shaky, they have to go to the District Attorney for the area to debate wether they have a case, and the DA would say to proceed or drop it, whereas here the guy would get charged and the CPS (or DPP now?) decides wether the case has merit.

ABH? I think not. AIUI you could, possibly, be charged with Affray, if the other person actually considered that you were going to carry out the action, but ABH requires, well, *actual* bodily harm!

Well I know so. http://www.wardle61.fsnet.co.uk/nfoap.pdf

There is no statutory definition of assault as it is a common law offence. Assault is both a crime and a tort. 1. Actus Reus Any threat which makes a person fear that unlawful force is about to be used against him. The victim must usually fear the immediate infliction of force, but the courts have been flexible in their definition of †˜immediateâ ۉâ₠¬Ã…¾Ã‚¢. The threat can come from an act, a gesture or words.

...

ACTUAL BODILY HARM (section 47) The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 section 47 provides that it is an offence to commit †˜any assault occasioning actual bodily harmââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢. The offence is triable either way. 1. Actus Reus There must first be an assault or battery. It is then necessary to show that the assault or battery caused ABH. The word †˜actualÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Å ¾Ã‚¢ indicates that the injury (although there is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant, and must be calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. Recently it has been accepted that ABH may consist of not only physical, but also psychological harm.

I.E. threating to kill someone without touching them constitutes ABH. Pyschological harm, such as fear for your life, does consitite actual bodily harm. Anyway, I thought affray had to consitiute an actual fight, and it had to be in public, else it would just be assault?

The Police are bound to act by the laws prevailing.

So you are now saying he did break the law?

The problem is that, once such an accusation is made, they are *forced* to follow it up, no matter what, they can't simply brush it off or say to the grandparents "don't be silly".

"Following it up" does not include charging a suspect. The police must always have some clear evidence to charge someone with a crime. And the police would be well within their rights to say don't be silly to the grandparents unless they are the named threat, and supposedly noone was named in the stories. It doesn't add up. There is something else to which we are not being told.