Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

She cut my hair!

Announcements Posted on
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Are you quite sure you're not the four year old? :dry:
    • 22 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    I'll be honest, if my 4 year old cut my hair he'd be getting a bum smack. All of you saying "she was only 4" maybe haven't been around 4 year olds a whole lot. They're not stupid enough to think that cutting hair is permissible (not unless there's something wrong with them). I can see why the OP was annoyed at the time.

    Now, if she had been 2, that would have been different, but a four year old ought to know not to do that.

    However sending them home was a bit much.

    Now having said all that, I am totally baffled ad to why a) the 4 year old was sleeping over, b) where she got some scissors from, and c) why the OP is only now, more than half a year later, bringing it up as a problem.

    OP - don't invite the child round to sleep over any more. It was very peculiar in the first place. And drop the issue, the kid probably doesn't even remember doing it after this long!
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    "Cutting hair

    In DPP v Smith (Michael Ross), the defendant held down his former girlfriend and cut off her ponytail with kitchen scissors a few weeks before her 21st birthday. The Magistrates acquitted him on the ground that, although there was undoubtedly an assault, it had not caused actual bodily harm, since there was no bruising or bleeding, and no evidence of any psychological or psychiatric harm. The victim’s distress did not amount to bodily harm. The Divisional Court allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, rejecting the argument for the defendant that the hair was dead tissue above the scalp and so no harm was done. Judge P said:

    "In my judgment, whether it is alive beneath the surface of the skin or dead tissue above the surface of the skin, the hair is an attribute and part of the human body. It is intrinsic to each individual and to the identity of each individual. Although it is not essential to my decision, I note that an individual's hair is relevant to his or her autonomy. Some regard it as their crowning glory. Admirers may so regard it in the object of their affections. Even if, medically and scientifically speaking, the hair above the surface of the scalp is no more than dead tissue, it remains part of the body and is attached to it. While it is so attached, in my judgment it falls within the meaning of "bodily" in the phrase "actual bodily harm". It is concerned with the body of the individual victim."

    It has been accepted that actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim, and which is more than transient or trifling. To damage an important physical aspect of a person’s bodily integrity must amount to actual bodily harm, even if the element damaged is dead skin or tissue. As Creswell J. commented in his short concurring judgment:

    "To a woman her hair is a vitally important part of her body. Where a significant portion of a woman's hair is cut off without her consent, this is a serious matter amounting to actual (not trivial or insignificant) bodily harm.""

    As for the malicious intent, you'd have to prove that.

    Whilst I'm not actually advocating the girl take the four year old to court, I am showing that the courts do recognise that hair is important to people, specifically women in this particular case, so Frequency has every right to feel violated or upset given what happened. People telling her to get over it because the girl was 4 are ignoring that. Sure, it's not the worst thing in the world, but then some people get freaked out by someone invading their personal space.
    Ahhh DPP v Smith :sexface:
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm trying to look at it from your perspective as my hair is really long and I hate having my hair cut as I know I just don't like to see it go. Think of it this way, over a few inches of hair you blames her and her sister and told them to go away. I think you need to speak to someone if it's affecting you that much, maybe just tell your friend how you felt, at the end of the day she is just a child and probably thought you had nice hair and wanted to make you look pretty by giving you a nice haircut. Don't worry too much, it will grow back, if you want it to grow faster I'm taking these tablets which increase the growth hair rate, PM me and I'll send you a link x
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    I'll be honest, if my 4 year old cut my hair he'd be getting a bum smack. All of you saying "she was only 4" maybe haven't been around 4 year olds a whole lot. They're not stupid enough to think that cutting hair is permissible (not unless there's something wrong with them). I can see why the OP was annoyed at the time.

    Now, if she had been 2, that would have been different, but a four year old ought to know not to do that.

    However sending them home was a bit much.

    Now having said all that, I am totally baffled ad to why a) the 4 year old was sleeping over, b) where she got some scissors from, and c) why the OP is only now, more than half a year later, bringing it up as a problem.

    OP - don't invite the child round to sleep over any more. It was very peculiar in the first place. And drop the issue, the kid probably doesn't even remember doing it after this long!
    The OP is a well-known troll, their age changes with every thread (at one point they were a sixth former and then they were in Year 7).
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Is this all you have to worry about? Seriously, grow the **** up. I wish all I had to worry about was someone snipping my hair. It happened to a uni friend, he had a whole side shaved off. Do you know what he did? He laughed at changed his hairstyle until it grew back. Do the same and stop whining.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yothi5)
    Yes, I would actually laugh it off and see the funny side of it.
    mmhmmm, of course you would...
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    mmhmmm, of course you would...
    I would, as a man should. Permanent marker comes off with vodka anyway. I wouldn't give two ***** that someone drew on me. It's called banter.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    The OP is a well-known troll, their age changes with every thread (at one point they were a sixth former and then they were in Year 7).
    Can't believe I fell for it.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Go to the hairdressers and get a cut that incorporates your new lack of hair. As for the young girl doing that, maybe she thought you'd be pleased with the finished result? My cousin did a similar thing once and she was going on about wanting to work in a salon for months after...
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yothi5)
    Her case is different from this one, because the 4 year old girl did not pin down OP. OP's case wouldn't even stand in caught. It has to go through the police first and through other legal channels. The police would never even take a statement on it. The man was also accuqitted. And who is Creswell, J?! He is not the judge in this case, therefore his statement has no effect on the law whatsoever. Only the judge's statements are binding on future case laws/the law. (Ratio decidendi)

    It is impossible to prove the malicious aspect of the incident.

    She can feel upset and violated, but it has nothing to do with the law. However, I think she is stupid for feeling this way as...

    1.The girl is 4
    2. This was months ago.
    3. She can go to the hairdressers and get a new haircut (girls love that).
    4. Hair grows back. She's unlucky as her hair grows back slowly.
    I see you didn't even read what was said.

    "The Divisional Court allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, rejecting the argument for the defendant that the hair was dead tissue above the scalp and so no harm was done. Judge P said:

    "In my judgment, whether it is alive beneath the surface of the skin or dead tissue above the surface of the skin, the hair is an attribute and part of the human body. It is intrinsic to each individual and to the identity of each individual. Although it is not essential to my decision, I note that an individual's hair is relevant to his or her autonomy. Some regard it as their crowning glory. Admirers may so regard it in the object of their affections. Even if, medically and scientifically speaking, the hair above the surface of the scalp is no more than dead tissue, it remains part of the body and is attached to it. While it is so attached, in my judgment it falls within the meaning of "bodily" in the phrase "actual bodily harm". It is concerned with the body of the individual victim.""

    So, the additional comment by the other judge shows that the point doesn't have to include being held down, etc. 4 year olds can be tried as young offenders, if we really

    Do love your casual sexism, though. :yep:
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I;m sorry I'd be pretty upset if I woke up and found a chunk of my hair had been cut off! My advice would be to either go to a hairdressers and have it cut into a layered look or to get clip in extensions for that area ofyour hair to make it blend with the length of the rest of it, until it grows back.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    I see you didn't even read what was said.

    "The Divisional Court allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, rejecting the argument for the defendant that the hair was dead tissue above the scalp and so no harm was done. Judge P said:

    "In my judgment, whether it is alive beneath the surface of the skin or dead tissue above the surface of the skin, the hair is an attribute and part of the human body. It is intrinsic to each individual and to the identity of each individual. Although it is not essential to my decision, I note that an individual's hair is relevant to his or her autonomy. Some regard it as their crowning glory. Admirers may so regard it in the object of their affections. Even if, medically and scientifically speaking, the hair above the surface of the scalp is no more than dead tissue, it remains part of the body and is attached to it. While it is so attached, in my judgment it falls within the meaning of "bodily" in the phrase "actual bodily harm". It is concerned with the body of the individual victim.""

    So, the additional comment by the other judge shows that the point doesn't have to include being held down, etc. 4 year olds can be tried as young offenders, if we really

    Do love your casual sexism, though. :yep:
    Back to my original post...OP's case (whether she is a troll or not, as someone pointed on here), is nothing like the case you quoted above. Therefore, it wouldn't even stand in court or in a police station because is it so stupid and frivolous! How do we know Clerwell, J is the other judge? There is no mentioning of it on the page. The most important thing is that (even in this 'serious criminal case') the man accused was acquitted. Just shows how hair cutting is not worthy of a crime to be punished in the eyes of the law.

    You are the most petty person I have come across on TSR. For example, you corrected someone for saying the case was not "assault" but "battery". The person was merely being sarcastic.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    7 months later it hasn't grown back?? Are you black?

    (Original post by Frequency)
    ?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    I see you didn't even read what was said.

    "The Divisional Court allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, rejecting the argument for the defendant that the hair was dead tissue above the scalp and so no harm was done. Judge P said:

    "In my judgment, whether it is alive beneath the surface of the skin or dead tissue above the surface of the skin, the hair is an attribute and part of the human body. It is intrinsic to each individual and to the identity of each individual. Although it is not essential to my decision, I note that an individual's hair is relevant to his or her autonomy. Some regard it as their crowning glory. Admirers may so regard it in the object of their affections. Even if, medically and scientifically speaking, the hair above the surface of the scalp is no more than dead tissue, it remains part of the body and is attached to it. While it is so attached, in my judgment it falls within the meaning of "bodily" in the phrase "actual bodily harm". It is concerned with the body of the individual victim.""

    So, the additional comment by the other judge shows that the point doesn't have to include being held down, etc. 4 year olds can be tried as young offenders, if we really

    Do love your casual sexism, though. :yep:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_offender
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy

    You talk some utter bull.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katyness)
    7 months later it hasn't grown back?? Are you black?
    Lmao. OP is a troll.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Wow how terrible, it's not as if the hair will grow back...

    shocking.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yothi5)
    Lmao. OP is a troll.
    That's TSR's answer to everything -.-
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yothi5)
    Back to my original post...OP's case (whether she is a troll or not, as someone pointed on here), is nothing like the case you quoted above. Therefore, it wouldn't even stand in court or in a police station because is it so stupid and frivolous! How do we know Clerwell, J is the other judge? There is no mentioning of it on the page. The most important thing is that (even in this 'serious criminal case') the man accused was acquitted. Just shows how hair cutting is not worthy of a crime to be punished in the eyes of the law.

    You are the most petty person I have come across on TSR. For example, you corrected someone for saying the case was not "assault" but "battery". The person was merely being sarcastic.
    Wow, you really aren't reading the page at all. :facepalm2:

    It clearly says that he was originally acquitted and then the decision was overturned in an appeal, for the reasons outlined above. Seriously, actually read what was quoted fully, not just selectively. Thus, in the eyes of the law, it is a crime to be punished.

    I never said Clerwell J was the other judge on the case, but that they were the other judge, as in two judges were mentioned: the judge in the appeal case who sentenced the person with ABH and Clerwell J, who gave his opinion on the case where he states that it is also ABH.

    And what exactly is different? The simple fact is the court held that cutting off the girl's hair without her consent was ABH. The ruling makes no mention of her being held down. It was the act of cutting off the hair without consent. Same as in this. That the child is four means nothing.

    It clearly shows, despite your apparently inability to read the words, that hair is integral to our identity and an attack on it is not as simple as "get over it, the kid was four."

    And sarcasm is no reason to get it wrong. :p:

    Edit: On the point of the prosecuting, I misread the page, my mistake. Thank you for clearing it up, be nice next time. :p:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    Wait, are you eleven or a sixth former in this one?
    I was gonna just say that!

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 30, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources

Quick link:

Advice on everyday issues unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.