Black 12-year-old girl dragged by a rope around her neck by white classmates, schools says it was ‘accident’

First topic message reminder :

The group of white boys allegedly put a rope around her neck and jerked her to the ground


The girl suffered 'severe and painful' cuts on her neck from the rope

The parents of a black 12-year-old girl are suing her Texas school after it allegedly failed to investigate a group of white students who put a rope around their daughter’s neck and dragged her to the ground.

The incident, which the parents say was intentional bullying, left “severe and painful” rope cuts in her neck, causing her mother to believe her neck had been ripped open and stitched back together again when she first saw it.

The mostly white, Live Oak Classical school in Waco has called the incident “an unfortunate accident”.

Her parents are suing for $3 million worth of damages including medical bills, physical pain, disfigurement and suffering by daughter - identified by her initials “KP” - and alleges the school failed to properly investigate the incident.

During the school’s overnight camping trip at the end of April, a group of students were playing with a rope swing tied to a tree, according to the Waco Tribune.


Three boys came up behind the girl, according to the lawsuit, wrapped the rope around her neck and “violently jerked” her to the ground.

According to the lawsuit, nobody helped her off the ground and the teacher allegedly did not look into whether the incident was deliberate and did not alert her parents.

“KP looked up, and saw the three boys an arms length from where she was laying. None of the three boys, nor anyone else, helped her off the ground or helped remove the rope from her neck as they would have done if it had been an accident,” the lawsuit read.

The school said in a statement that the accusations by the parent’s lawyers surrounding the incident are “false”.
A member of the board of directors, Jeremy Counseller, emailed a statement to The Dallas News.

“The student received first aid treatment immediately after the accident by a parent chaperone who is also a physician, and she was able to enjoy the remainder of the field trip, which lasted through the next day. Live Oak takes the safety of its students seriously and is saddened that one of its family suffered an unfortunate accident and injury.”

The school has denied a history of bullying of KP, including people not wanting to talk to her and one of the boys in the group behind the rope swing incident pushing and kicking her when the teacher was not looking.

School principal Allison Buras wrote an email to her mother, Sandy Rougely: “It sounds like he may have pushed on the back of her leg to make her leg buckle, which is something the kids sometimes do. Rarely is that done out of meanness but more out of a desire for sport.”

KP’s parents had not removed their daughter from the school earlier as they had trusted the school to prevent future bullying and that the children were not capable of causing such severe harm, according to a statement from their family’s lawyer, Levi McCathern.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-12-year-old-girl-dragged-by-a-rope-around-her-neck-by-white-classmates-schools-says-it-was-a7087656.html




Some bloody 'accident'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The school has already denied the allegations of a history of bullying.

Tommy Monk wrote:

"The school interviewed all student witnesses and teachers who were present and each independently established that the accusation made by the attorney is absolutely false. The injuries were caused accidentally while the students were playing with the swing and attached pull rope."

So your theory is the rope 'touched' her and left that kind of a welt?  That's pretty stupid.  Without chemicals, touching a rope (or anything) would leave no mark.

Obviously the rope was made taut, and probably sawn along the line on her neck.  Mere touching wouldn't do it.

Rope was obviously moving down her neck to have made that injury.

Wouldn't have to be taut to cause rope burn...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Rope was obviously moving down her neck to have made that injury.

Wouldn't have to be taut to cause rope burn...

It would have had to be tighter than mere touching, or even lightly running over her neck. It would take some pressure to make that lesion.

Well... you get a length of thin rope and pull it at speed across a soft bit of skin and see what happens...!


Let us know the result!!!

Ok I am asking this because I do ask questions! (Sorry people who dislike questions )

But if there Are many witnesses who say this never happened agaisnt one girl who says it did.....why are we keen to dismiss these statements?
Are we saying every teacher is lying and corrupt?

(Funny how people believe corruption when it suits lol)

Just asking....?

Tommy Monk wrote:Well... you get a length of thin rope and pull it at speed across a soft bit of skin and see what happens...!

Yes, that's precisely what would not have happened if it was a short swing rope. That's a lesion from a taut rope, twisted or run 'round her neck.

eddie wrote:But if there Are many witnesses who say this never happened agaisnt one girl who says it did.....why are we keen to dismiss these statements?

The article says:

op wrote:Three boys came up behind the girl, according to the lawsuit, wrapped the rope around her neck and “violently jerked” her to the ground.

Did it say there were any contrary statements? The school concludes that, but I don't see any denials.

The injury looks like a friction/rope burn... and as I have already said, the injury is on left side and front of neck...


If rope was wrapped all the way around neck them there would be some injury all the way round... not a deep friction burn injury, and not only on front and left side...


The lawsuit action is only the claimants version... but even the girls claim that 3 boys came up behind her etc is speculative because she didn't see it unless she has eyes in the back of her head!


Plus if she knew for sure that what she claimed actually happened... she wouldn't also be saying that she had to ask them if it was deliberate...

Tommy Monk wrote:The injury looks like a friction/rope burn... and as I have already said, the injury is on left side and front of neck...


If rope was wrapped all the way around neck them there would be some injury all the way round... not a deep friction burn injury, and not only on front and left side...

I don't think that is the case.  The injury would occur where there is the most stress.  If the rope were used to pull her to the ground, then the lesion would be where the pressure cut into the neck, not necessarily all around.

Tommy wrote:The lawsuit action is only the claimants version... but even the girls claim that 3 boys came up behind her etc is speculative because she didn't see it unless she has eyes in the back of her head!

I realize the lawsuit will include some spin.  But my question is, where are the denials?  The lawsuit makes the allegation, and someone was talking about statements in denial.  I don't see mention of them in the article.

Tommy wrote:Plus if she knew for sure that what she claimed actually happened... she wouldn't also be saying that she had to ask them if it was deliberate...

She would if she were attacked from behind.  If they approached from behind, as it says, she wouldn't have seen the action, or any facial expressions...things that would have told her if it was deliberate.

You see how crucial is my concern...no one seems to be offering up statements in denial.  The school's denial is hearsay, that leaves the complaint factually uncontested.

Read the op... the school has made a statement saying all witnesses said girls version didn't happen... and claim of previous bullying are not true.



How can she be standing at the outside edge of area where swing would be moving about but then 3 boys managed to come up behind her with the rope on the swing?


And then wrap it round her neck and pull her onto floor?


The length of rope would mean that she couldn't have been pulled backwards onto floor and then still had rope wound round neck as she was already at the outer edge of area the swing could reach...


And how could they pull her forwards if they were behind her?


And if she was pulled forwards... how could the boys pull her that way if they were behind her? And why are the injuries on left side and front of neck?


The main injury would be round the back!?


So maybe she wasn't at the outer edge of swing reach... Maybe she was a bit inside this danger area and was just caught up by the swing while it was being swung on?


She couldn't be on the floor with the rope still wrapped round neck unless she was on floor in the middle of swing zone...



The whole story sounds dodgy to me... doesn't add up...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Read the op... the school has made a statement saying all witnesses said girls version didn't happen... and claim of previous bullying are not true.

I've read the op, tommy.  As I've told you, the school is not a percipient witness.  Therefore any statement it makes is hearsay.  We need someone who saw it.

Tommy wrote:How can she be standing at the outside edge of area where swing would be moving about but then 3 boys managed to come up behind her with the rope on the swing?

And then wrap it round her neck and pull her onto floor?

Sounds plausible to me just the way you state it.

Tommy wrote:The length of rope would mean that she couldn't have been pulled backwards onto floor and then still had rope wound round neck as she was already at the outer edge of area the swing could reach...

And how could they pull her forwards if they were behind her?

And if she was pulled forwards... how could the boys pull her that way if they were behind her? And why are the injuries on left side and front of neck?

The main injury would be round the back!?

Forward, backward, left or right...those are all orientations we use to describe the general event.  Testimony is not a contract.  Suppose they pulled her north by northeast?  Maybe a little to the left.  Or right?  I think the point of the narrative was that she was surprised by the boys.  Whether they were behind, or slightly to the left or right...she didn't see them.  But by their proximity, it could not have been anyone else.  In fact, the school seems to admit as much.

Tommy wrote:So maybe she wasn't at the outer edge of swing reach... Maybe she was a bit inside this danger area and was just caught up by the swing while it was being swung on?

She couldn't be on the floor with the rope still wrapped round neck unless she was on floor in the middle of swing zone...

The whole story sounds dodgy to me... doesn't add up...

The lesion is not consistent with that kind of contact.  They will have experts who will reconstruct the injury according to the forensic evidence.

eddie wrote:Ok I am asking this because I do ask questions! (Sorry people who dislike questions )

But if there Are many witnesses who say this never happened agaisnt one girl who says it did.....why are we keen to dismiss these statements?
Are we saying every teacher is lying and corrupt?

(Funny how people believe corruption when it suits lol)

Just asking....?

There were no teachers who witnessed the incident, according to reports so far...

The "many witnesses" that you prefer to cite were those who came upon her after those three bullies attacked her.

As teachers didn't witness the attack, but only the aftermath, that means any statements credited to those anonymous "witnesses" are only opinions..

The better question you should be asking yourself :  why are those RW/conservative blogs and media outlets so busy trying to deflect and mislead, creating anonymous "witnesses" and quoting teachers who weren't there at the time ?      

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Rope was obviously moving down her neck to have made that injury.

Wouldn't have to be taut to cause rope burn...

It would have had to be tighter than mere touching, or even lightly running over her neck.  It would take some pressure to make that lesion.

EVERY TIME that Tommy is shown to be wrong on here, he bounces back with ever more ridiculous claims, always trying to prove himself the biggest and most bigotted idiot on here...

. "the school has made a statement saying all witnesses said girls version didn't happen... and claim of previous bullying are not true"

Will these statements not be admissible in court then, out of interest?


@ Tommy, I have to say, the rope burn doesn't look a simple "she got caught in a rope swing"

REPEAT FROM PAGE#1 >

The lawsuit said the episode occurred at a swing: a disc-shape basket hanging from a tree with a separate rope that the children pulled to lift the swing higher. The girl said she had been pulling on the rope but then became tired and stood to the side. She then felt the rope around her neck, and she was “violently jerked” to the ground. “When it got around my neck, no one helped me, so I had to pull it off by myself,” she said in an interview with The Dallas Morning News.
The lawsuit said three boys — including one who previously targeted the girl — were standing behind her. She said that her neck was “really hurting” afterward and that a chaperone put Vaseline on the wound and gave her Motrin.
Mr. McCathern, the girl’s lawyer, said of school administrators, “They froze and they didn’t tell anybody.” That officials did not notify the girl’s parents, he said, “reeks of race.”
Mr. Deaconson, the school’s lawyer, said he had investigated what happened and gave this account: As many as a dozen children were pulling on the rope to give the swing height, and when they let go, the rope whipped past the girl, hit her in the neck and left her with a rope burn.
He said that the girl’s lawyer sent emails on May 11 that said the plaintiffs would settle for $2.7 million and remain quiet about the case, and that if a settlement was not reached by 5 p.m. May 12, Mr. McCathern would begin releasing information to the news media to coincide with observances of the 100th anniversary of the last lynching in Waco, on May 15.
Mr. McCathern, however, called Mr. Deaconson’s description of what happened “cockamamie.” As for the emails, he said, he sent them because the school wanted details of the damages being sought in writing, so that they could be passed on to an insurer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/us/texas-family-sues-after-rope-is-wrapped-around-black-girls-neck-on-school-trip.html?_r=0

As shown in this image: there is a length of nylon rope lying on the 'GROUND' {not the floor as Tommy keeps calling it} and is used by several children to pull as a unit to lift another child up into the air in that 'basked swing' ...then when they release the nylon pull rope it allows the seated swing to drop with the aid of angle & gravity & weight of the child rapidly as all swings do.

In order to believe Tommy's wild assumptions 'KD' would have had to be suspended {totally yanked up off of her feet by that nylon rope to have a full circle ring around her neck} but that's not where the rope burned into her soft tissues - not what she told the lady that applied the salve - what she told her parents - what she has never deviated from her original story --- the rope was looped around her neck by the boys behind her and she got jerked off of her feet and was laying on the 'GROUND'. 

Even the photo's taken later show bruising at the base - front of her neck - days after this event and those nit-wits are extremely lucky she didn't receive a crushed wind pipe. 
Tommy = the mentality of those same 'NIT-WITS' but keep moving the goal posts and making crap up because it suits your racial biased natural instinct to hate the victim in this horrid event!

THE fact that Tommy keeps referring to "the floor", only goes to show that he isn't reading the reports properly...

But, only searching for any contrary stories, and any photo's linked to them, looking for the slightest bit of "evidence" to deflect and mislead discussions on this thread..

You really are one desperate little loser, Tommy !

The floor is a word that's used in the UK - we say that more often than ground, in some areas.

Floor and ground mean pretty much the same thing.
Talk about nit-picking.

Seriously, get a life.

Pathetic deflections...


The girl didn't have a mark round the whole neck.


Only the left and front.


Seems pretty straight forward what happened... someone was on the swing... some were pulling it around (maybe a bit boisterously) by the thin rope attached to the bottom of swing... swing went close past girl... trailing rope ran down the side of her neck...

eddie wrote:. "the school has made a statement saying all witnesses said girls version didn't happen... and claim of previous bullying are not true"

Will these statements not be admissible in court then, out of interest?

@ Tommy, I have to say, the rope burn doesn't  look a simple "she got caught in a rope swing"

The school is run by educators, not lawyers. No actual eye witnesses have come forward (primarily because they don't want to be put in a position to lie). The school authorities have no relevant testimony to offer, except as to their own conduct in the aftermath.

No, the statements of non-witnesses will not be allowed unless they have other events to which they might testify (eg, perhaps those who attended 'cover-up' meetings at the school). Non-witnesses, by definition, would only give opinion or hearsay testimony, not direct, percipient testimony. A court has no use for opinion or hearsay testimony generally, and tries to exclude it as being unreliable.

Tommy Monk wrote:Pathetic deflections...

The girl didn't have a mark round the whole neck.

Only the left and front.

Seems pretty straight forward what happened... someone was on the swing... some were pulling it around (maybe a bit boisterously) by the thin rope attached to the bottom of swing... swing went close past girl... trailing rope ran down the side of her neck...

With all due respect tommy, you're whole series of posts on this thread constitute one huge deflection.  It's all 'ya but's' and 'maybe's', as you go through every possible, but improbable exculpatory scenario.  

It is obvious from first blush that this was a blatant racist attack on a black child, by some uncontrolled white males.  Surely you saw the film, A Time to Kill (1996).  That is precisely the kind of thing that was happening here.  You are being quite the apologist for what are no more than young, developing southern racists here.

Eddie... for a rope to burn it has to be moving across skin... if the rope was wrapped rounded the girls neck tightly and then she was pulled down... the rope wouldn't be moving across skin so no burn...

Tommy Monk wrote:Eddie... for a rope to burn it has to be moving across skin... if the rope was wrapped rounded the girls neck tightly and then she was pulled down... the rope wouldn't be moving across skin so no burn...

Wrong
Have you ever slid down a rope and it brunt your hands?
The article speaks nothing of being wrapped tightly round her neck either.
If tight, it would have strangled her
If the body was being dragged, it would be constantly rubbing against the skin and to the front part of the neck, which would fit if they were pulling her backwards.

Rope can burn by just being pulled across skin... especially on soft skin... just like a bit of paper can cut skin by glancing along its edge... no pressure need be applied... just contact and movement...

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:. "the school has made a statement saying all witnesses said girls version didn't happen... and claim of previous bullying are not true"

Will these statements not be admissible in court then, out of interest?

@ Tommy, I have to say, the rope burn doesn't  look a simple "she got caught in a rope swing"

The school is run by educators, not lawyers.  No actual eye witnesses have come forward (primarily because they don't want to be put in a position to lie).  The school authorities have no relevant testimony to offer, except as to their own conduct in the aftermath.

No, the statements of non-witnesses will not be allowed unless they have other events to which they might testify (eg, perhaps those who attended 'cover-up' meetings at the school).  Non-witnesses, by definition, would only give opinion or hearsay testimony, not direct, percipient testimony.  A court has no use for opinion or hearsay testimony generally, and tries to exclude it as being unreliable.

Okay thanks quill.
I do happen to beleive her anyway, just wanted to check the witness side of things.

Tommy Monk wrote:Rope can burn by just being pulled across skin... especially on soft skin... just like a bit of paper can cut skin by glancing along its edge... no pressure need be applied... just contact and movement...

Really?
Haver you ever been dragged around, with as rope around your neck?
I suggest you ask some friends to try on youi and post up the pictures of evidence of your neck.
Again if she was being draged around and not in a straight line, she would have the marks shown.

Tommy Monk wrote:Eddie... for a rope to burn it has to be moving across skin... if the rope was wrapped rounded the girls neck tightly and then she was pulled down... the rope wouldn't be moving across skin so no burn...

Tommy I'm not sure that's true.
I'd have to see the pictures of her whole neck.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Eddie... for a rope to burn it has to be moving across skin... if the rope was wrapped rounded the girls neck tightly and then she was pulled down... the rope wouldn't be moving across skin so no burn...

Wrong
Have you ever slid down a rope and it brunt your hands?
The article speaks nothing of being wrapped tightly round her neck either.
If tight, it would have strangled her
If the body was being dragged, it would be constantly rubbing against the skin and to the front part of the neck, which would fit if they were pulling her backwards.

This is what I think too

The pictures are on the links in op text to newspapers...


Injury is down left side and front only...


And dodge... didn't the girl claim somewhere that nobody helped unwrap the rope from round her neck and she had to do this herself...!?

Tommy what is the point you're making? Whatever the case, someone injured her (and quite badly) with a rope.

Tommy Monk wrote:The pictures are on the links in op text to newspapers...


Injury is down left side and front only...


And dodge... didn't the girl claim somewhere that nobody helped unwrap the rope from round her neck and she had to do this herself...!?

And its down mainly one side, which means the greater force was applied that side.
You are offering up nothing to suppirt your claim.
Your last part is nothing more than a deflection.

Injury not conducive with rope being wrapped all way round...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Injury not conducive with rope being wrapped all way round...

Based on what evidence?
Again it was not wrapped tightly all the way round, put force applied where being dragged from
No where does it state tight.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Injury not conducive with rope being wrapped all way round...

Tommy, didge is right. You are posing scenarios about which we don't have sufficient detail.

We have no witness testimony. We have no information of how the rope was wrapped...how tight, etc. We don't know how the rope moved along the victim's skin. We don't know what they were doing. We don't know in which way she was tugged. How hard. Up or down?

Her attorney is one of the finest in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. FGS, he is the lawyer for Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys. No doubt he will hire a reconstructionist, who will closely review the forensic evidence, perhaps make some tests of his own, and offer up his opinion as to such questions. Stay tuned.

If wrapped all round and pulled then it would tighten all way round and injury would occur all way round... and a double line burn mark would be apparent where rope was doubled up as it came all way round and met back up with itself...


The girl even said she had to unwrap rope from round neck...


Is it possible that one or more of the other kids came up behind her, threw loop of rope over her and pulled her down...?

Yes.


Is it possible that the kids were swinging the rope swing about by the trail rope and as the swing went round past girl, the trail rope made contact with girls neck and was drawn across neck by swing movement pulling trail rope?

Yes.

Tommy Monk wrote:If wrapped all round and pulled then it would tighten all way round and injury would occur all way round... and a double line burn mark would be apparent where rope was doubled up as it came all way round and met back up with itself...


The girl even said she had to unwrap rope from round neck...


Is it possible that one or more of the other kids came up behind her, threw loop of rope over her and pulled her down...?

Yes.


Is it possible that the kids were swinging the rope swing about by the trail rope and as the swing went round past girl,  the trail rope made contact with girls neck and was drawn across neck by swing movement pulling trail rope?

Yes.

Wrong

Even wrapped around the neck, the force would be applied to the area of the neck in which part the rope is pulling and rubbing against the neck from the direction she is being dragged on.
If the rope is placing force on the front of the neck, she is being dragged backwards on her back.
Its where the force is being applied.
At no point would the marks go all the way round, unless she is dragged from all positions, front, side and back with going backwards and forwards.
Have you not even seen those hanged or stangled, where the marks show up most where the force is applied.
You simply are going off zero facts, a failure to understand basic physics, as to why your point makes zero sense

Strangle marks are all the way round from rope or whatever is used being wrapped all around and then pulled tight...

Tommy Monk wrote:Strangle marks are all the way round from rope or whatever is used being wrapped all around and then pulled tight...

No that is incorrect also, as they will only be marks on where the force is apllied.
Only where a garrot is used or less likley a rope (dependent of force applied) to strangle a person to death would you see marks all the way round, but again the force would be greatest and worst on the front of the neck.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Again, look at victims who have been hanged, you will not see marks all the way around the neck, put to the front and partial to the sides dependent on which part of the neck the force is applied to

If you put a cord or rope all round so ends crossed over themselves and then pulled both ends then the loop would apply equal pressure all the way round and where cord/rope crosses over itself there would be visible double line at that point.


And this would not create a friction burn injury that is on the girls neck...


This injury looks like swing went past her and pulled trail rope across that side/front part of neck...

Tommy Monk wrote:If you put a cord or rope all round so ends crossed over themselves and then pulled both ends then the loop would apply equal pressure all the way round and where cord/rope crosses over itself there would be visible double line at that point.


And this would not create a friction burn injury that is on the girls neck...


This injury looks like swing went past her and pulled trail rope across that side/front part of neck...

First point, absolute nonsense, as where in any of the article does it say it crosses over?
Even then where it croses, over the greatest force apllied to an area is going to show the worst marks.
You are simply inventing things not even stated and going off hearsay
Even worse you failed to understand how force is applied.
Even with a garrot, the worst injuries, will be at the point of most force applied.
You again present no evidence to claim its a swing accident or how she even managed to get these iunjuries from a swing.

Tommy Monk wrote:




Back of girls neck has no injury.

it won't do if she was pulled backwards. All the stress would be the front and sides.

4EVER2 wrote:REPEAT FROM PAGE#1 >



As shown in this image: there is a length of nylon rope lying on the 'GROUND' {not the floor as Tommy keeps calling it} and is used by several children to pull as a unit to lift another child up into the air in that 'basked swing' ...then when they release the nylon pull rope it allows the seated swing to drop with the aid of angle & gravity & weight of the child rapidly as all swings do.

In order to believe Tommy's wild assumptions 'KD' would have had to be suspended {totally yanked up off of her feet by that nylon rope to have a full circle ring around her neck} but that's not where the rope burned into her soft tissues - not what she told the lady that applied the salve - what she told her parents - what she has never deviated from her original story --- the rope was looped around her neck by the boys behind her and she got jerked off of her feet and was laying on the 'GROUND'. 

Even the photo's taken later show bruising at the base - front of her neck - days after this event and those nit-wits are extremely lucky she didn't receive a crushed wind pipe. 
Tommy = the mentality of those same 'NIT-WITS' but keep moving the goal posts and making crap up because it suits your racial biased natural instinct to hate the victim in this horrid event!

Oh dearie me, are you taking $~***£~umbrage to ____ Tommy's 'UNIQUE SPELLING'?

Tommy Monk wrote:If you put a cord or rope all round so ends crossed over themselves and then pulled both ends then the loop would apply equal pressure all the way round and where cord/rope crosses over itself there would be visible double line at that point.


And this would not create a friction burn injury that is on the girls neck...


This injury looks like swing went past her and pulled trail rope across that side/front part of neck...

Perhaps she leaned one way to try and pull rope off? Them she'd have them down one side more?

Black kid,white kid. Doesn't matter to Tommy if the perpetrators were fellow far right wingers.
Would he be as defensive to the culprit if he was black or Muslim and the victim was a white kid.
I am not taking bets on the answer.

Handy Andy wrote:Black kid,white kid. Doesn't matter to Tommy  if the perpetrators  were fellow far right wingers.
Would he be as defensive to the culprit  if he was black or Muslim and the victim was a white kid.
I am not taking bets on the answer.

I've already asked him befroe if colour makes a difference and he said no.
I've no reason to think he lies.

If we come here to debate, and treat everyone we don't like, as liars, then what's the point in debating?

The lefties constantly make excuses and denials about high black crime rates... and the excuses and denials over the Pakistani Muslim child rape gangs raping young white children still goes on from them...


To the lefties, this must be a racist hate crime rather than an accident... but if the races were reversed they would be bending over backwards saying it wasn't...

Tommy Monk wrote:The lefties constantly make excuses and denials about high black crime rates... and the excuses and denials over the Pakistani Muslim child rape gangs raping young white children still goes on from them...


To the lefties, this must be a racist hate crime rather than an accident... but if the races were reversed they would be bending over backwards saying it wasn't...

And yet you just did the left motto

Divert, deflect and cover up, with zero point made now on the actiual article

Rather than look at the race issue, look at it in the way you would if it was your own child who came home with such an injury.

I know I for one would not be accepting the schools version of events, especially in light of what the girl had gone through before this 'accident' happened.

No record of any bullying...

eddie wrote:
The floor is a word that's used in the UK - we say that more often than ground, in some areas.

Floor and ground mean pretty much the same thing.
Talk about nit-picking.

Seriously, get a life.

WHAT a load of outright lying bullshit...

You are just as pathetic as your fascist friends Tommy and Stormee..

You losers are the ones who really need to "get a life" !

You Tommy apologist, you..