I imagine there's precedent in case law where hair has been included as part of the body for the definition of bodily harm
Oherwise it's like saying ripping off someones aerial on their car doesn't count for insurance purposes.
But yes, calling 999 does seem an overkill to a haircut
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 0:07,
Share,
Reply)
christ, I bore myself sometimes
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 0:08,
Share,
Reply)
Overkill?
I'd say that a 10-year-old boy under attack from a 21 year old man "while others sat around and laughed" is a damn fine reason to call 999.
(, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 5:50, Share, Reply)
under attack with mousse and comb
he wasn't being beaten
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 10:42,
Share,
Reply)
If only there were some source other than your imagination by which we could seek clarity on matters of criminal law.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 9:41,
Share,
Reply)
I used to create training for the coppers in the UK at the police training college in Hendon; criminal damge, PACE, misuse of drugs, etc
it was a few years ago now but I probably know far more than the layman. The statutes tend not to go into exhaustive definitions, e.g. "Spitting is but licking is not within the definition, unless it's on the eyeball", but instead rely on case law (unlike Frog law). It would take the CPS a few minutes of tapping to look at relevant precendent in GBH and Haircutting before deciding to proceed, if indeed the news report was accurate about the charge
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 10:32,
Share,
Reply)
