Search results

I know you don’t, there’s no bait, and thank you for your suggestion which perhaps has some merit. But equally think your interpretation stems perhaps from believing I was somehow condoning Mr Punch. I wasn’t. In the same way I don’t Judy’s actions aka Mrs Foden. Anyway, glad sorted and bid you...

That’s my subsequent point and cause of our :catfight:. Understanding isn’t same as condoning or defending. I can just understand why these days, some men might hit back at a women that’s attacked them. Partly because it’s sort of a basic instinct and lots people don’t have that filter or check...

No, I’m not backtracking because I never said it’s proportionate nor, despite the inference, did I say it was acceptable or justified. You simply chose to interpret that way. Key word being You. I could take offence to your disparaging use of ‘Man’ too but will also forgive and take in the chin...

Ok, by your reckoning then, if I say you’re a Drama Queen that took a wrong junction way back then if you so much as reply again to this thread then it must mean you’re in a hole, should stop digging, doing a fine job and don’t need my help? Btw, I don’t want you to do that because it’s not a...

‘Worrying’, sake you are such a drama Queen. No actually, you’re being a bit of an unpleasant now because all your trying to do is engineer something that isn’t. Because Incan understand why someone fights back that’s all, regardless of genders involved these days. That’s not justification...

Nobody’s digging, you’re just wrongly trying to pigeon hole and I’m having none of your nonsense that’s all. I accept however that perhaps you’re not able to differentiate and can’t move beyond the Red Top headline of Man Strikes Women (with tiny footnote at bottom of story about how she struck...

Please, that was clearly a bit of daft humour albeit a dangerous one perhaps in woke era seemingly and with so many Knights of the Roundtable on NSC this afternoon defending a classless moron who didn’t need to attack someone who then retaliated against her. Sticks and stones (or fire...

:drama::facepalm: Your over dramatic myopic interpretation is more like. If you can’t differentiate between understanding and defending then I wouldn’t debate if so we’re you. (Awaits hysterical puts words in mouth judgey nothing like example by reply)

I don’t think it was self defence but an instinctive you’ve hurt me / I’ll hurt you back. However, don’t they also say attack is the best form of defence? What’s proportionate in that situation anyhow? It seem to quickly escalate to extremes all round. You’re always on a sticky wicket in my book...

Not defending. Understanding. You need to be less myopic and dated perhaps, it’s not the 1970s any more. Many more young (and not so) women are extremely violent these days and think nothing of attacking men physically and without restraint believing as said some chivalry code exists that...

You’ve watered it down already. She didn’t just push him. She pushed him OVER ie violently enough for the guy to fall down off the wall and onto the floor. Enough people have died that way from head injuries, so it’s not insignificant. Therefore can understand why he got up and probably...

I see things very differently now a days. So many women and girls are violent, attacking men under some dated chivalry code, kicking biting and punching like old nags, that I don’t blame blokes smacking them back. She who throws the first…and all that. What if that bloke had broken his arm...

Yes, difficult to see this happening at the Opera.

Is it?! Mine and my friends parents always believed the teacher, policeman, neighbour or complete and utter stranger first before ourselves!! We could only do wrong and got undeserved smacks, clip round ears, detentions etc. “You probably deserved it anyway” was my generations childhood, think...