<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


I can't believe you wouldn't want someone punished for assault. Just because someone has a cause doesn't mean they can do anything they want. What if she wanted to make a point by slapping your mother? Would that be ok?

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

Ronn, it was a flower in the face. Charlie will probably just about survive the experience. What Smeagol meant was that punishing her will serve no purpose, she is far too young IMO to have thought it out fully. That much is plain simply in her choice of target.

Nice to see you back here BTW! :D

I know what he was trying to say, but I have to ask, should she go unpunished? Is that really ok? Because she's young? I don't think so.

Obviously Charles will survive, and even asked for leniency. As the article states, she will not be charged, but is there really anything wrong with punishment for wrong doing?

Thanks for the "welcome back". The holidays really took time to recover from..lol. Sad to see the forum's closing though :(

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

You've definately got a point that there should be punishment for wrong doing Ronnybaby, but I just thought peeps were going way over the top, saying she should go to a detention center for 6 months. I don't really think it was that big a deal (I'm sure it just bounced off his stiff upper lip) and allthough I think we should keep our mums out of this, I'm pretty sure my mum wouldn't press charges if she was "Carnationed".

P.S. I hope you don't object to being called Ronnybaby, I just feel it's less formal.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Smeagol:
allthough I think we should keep our mums out of this, I'm pretty sure my mum wouldn't press charges if she was "Carnationed".
<hr></blockquote>

I think my one would! (ummm - lets properly explain the comedy in that shall we. Everyone, meet my brother Smeagol. Smeagol, meet the IW crowd.)

I don't see what purpose a punishment can serve in this instance. It can't be to help the girl in question - seeing as she was on the front of every major newspaper across the globe she must have realised it was the wrong thing to do.

Possibly it might serve a purpose in deterring others. But really are there that many people who are going to go out and hit the Prince of Wales in the face with flowers to protest about a war he has nothing to do with?

Basically I think there would be no gain to punishing the girl, and it might seriuosly effect her life due to the criminal record etc that goes with it. So in general I don't think punishment is a good idea.

"ronnybaby" doesn't bother me at all :D

But the idea that anyone can commit a violent act without punishment does. As I stated in the thread, I don't think she she should face the maximum sentance (or anything close), but I also don't think she should be completely forgiven.

Having your picture on the cover of the paper isn't really punishment.

The fact that most the world thinks she's a fool that didn't know what she was doing is punishment enough though.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Smeagol:
The fact that most the world thinks she's a fool that didn't know what she was doing is punishment enough though.<hr></blockquote>

What she's caused people to think about her, quite honestly, isn't punishment enough. We all have to live with our actions and their consequences. If she'd been caught shoplifting, the embarrassment of being caught wouldn't be enough punishment.

Again, as I've said in this thread, I didn't want her to serve any time and was glad to see Charles ask for leniency. The charges being dropped didn't bother me either, but I do think she needs some sort of punishment like community service and probation.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>