Tuesday, January 12, 2016

The Allegation of Assault Examined

After the Paris attack, this young woman claimed to have been assaulted.  

What do you see in her language?

An assault is very personal, and when contact is made with the face, the personal aspect is elevated, as the face is the means of communication.  The language should indicate this level of personal connection.  

I have not highlighted the points of sensitivity to allow you to consider her words.  Scroll down to see the result of the case. 


'I feel shocked and really scared that someone could attack you for no reason. I don't feel safe at all now.
I was walking to the train station to meet some friends when someone shoved me from behind.
When I turned around he punched me in the face and then just went off.
I was really upset afterwards. I can only think it was because he saw my hijab as he didn't take my bag or anything.
I've lived in Birmingham all my life and I've never experienced something like this before. 
'It's made life harder for innocent Muslims. We don't want people to be killed, that's not our religion. Our religion is all about peace.
'My parents are so scared that they're telling me to take my hijab off. My mum's telling me to wear a hat instead.' 
















Miss Choudhury has been fined 90 pounds for making a false police report.

30 comments:

Trigger said...


"I feel...etc...that someone could attack you...etc."

The pronoun "you" caught my eye after the word "attack."

This woman won't take ownership of the attack. She is deceptive.

Apple said...

"someone could attack you for no reason"
you, not me
" to meet some friends"
sensitivity as to why she is doing something
"when someone shoved me from behind. When I turned around he punched me in the face and then just went off."
she switches from gender neutral to "he". Would the expected be "a man" before stating "he"?

elf said...

She started off with her feelings, distancing herself from it by saying 'you' instead of 'me'. Gender neutral attacker is unusual because being attacked is very personal. Adding a reason why she was walking to the train station is unnecessary. What does she mean by 'just went off'? She also used weak language by stating she was really upset, stronger words would be expected after being punched in the face. 'Our religion is all about peace' why not say the simpler 'Our religion is about peace' or ' Our religion is peaceful'?
She had also stated that she feels shocked and scared by being attacked for no reason but goes on to state tha because she wasn't also mugged the reason for the attack was because of her hijab. The way someone dresses isn't a good reason to beat someone up but it is a reason and she had obviously considered that reason before making her statement.

laine333 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
laine333 said...

OT, but Lonzie Barton's remains appear to have been found. Dammit. :(

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/remains-found-garbage-heap-likely-belong-florida-toddler-missing-summer-n494431

Anonymous said...

"I fell shocked and really scared..." (Expected after an attack)
"...that someone could attack YOU for no reason." (In this sentence the attack was senseless. The word YOU is distancing. SA would flag this as deception;however, I've heard it used often when people are telling the truth. My personal opinion is the attack is worth looking into).
"I don't feel safe at all now." (Who would?)
"I was walking to the train station to meet some friends when someone shoved me from behind." (Someone is used. If attacked from behind this word makes sense as at that point in time she would not know who attacked).
" When I turned around he punched me in the face and then just went off." (When she turned she identified a man (HE). ..JUST minimizes. Not unusual if appalled and she expected more. Perhaps an apology, an explanation, something! No robbery. Just battering).

The last part:
..." I can only think it was because he saw my hijab as he didn't take my bag or anything. I've lived in Birmingham all my life and I've never experienced something like this before. 'It's made life harder for innocent Muslims. We don't want people to be killed, that's not our religion. Our religion is all about peace. 'My parents are so scared that they're telling me to take my hijab off. My mum's telling me to wear a hat instead.'"

It's got agenda written all over it. However, Christians feel the same under similar circumstances. Though she was fined, I think there's a 50/50 chance it could have been a retaliation attack. More are on the way after New Year's Day attacks.


JUST and YOU are red flags. THAT in relation to 'our religion' is another. SO describes scared according to SA indicates deception yet aligns with REALLY (though I use it myself and hear it often from others)AT ALL aligns with scared and unsafe.

She is frightened. I would be, too. Perhaps a hat will help.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 12:01,

What on earth do you mean by "However, Christians feel the same under similar circumstances?"

When's the last time you heard a Christian make a police report about being assaulted by a random person because they were a Christian?

I detect agenda.

Jen

Calvin said...

“…that someone could attack you for no reason”. The definition of could includes being “used to indicate possibility”. Even the definition of can is “to be able to”. The use of “could” leads me to believe it’s something that is possible in the future. I would almost expect that “would” be used instead. I agree with the other posts that “you” immediately raises a red flag and lacks ownership of the event/attack.
This statement (as written) is 12 lines long. 3 lines are dedicated to the actual act. 25% of the statement is dedicated to what occurred. More than 58% of it is dedicated to speaking of Muslims and their religion. This leads me to believe that speaking to the religion is the agenda here.
Additionally, I do take notice of “the face” instead of “my face”. It’s not a big red flag because people use it interchangeably. However, in something so personal I would expect she take ownership of her face.
“and then just went off” The use of “and then” skips time. I would ask more follow up questions here to see if she can fill in detail. “just” indicates more may occurred.
“It’s made life harder for innocent Muslims”. How has a single event which occurred to her only caused life to be harder for other Muslims? Although, she could be speaking in general regarding multiple attacks that occurred across Paris.

Anonymous said...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/12/the_mass_sexual_assault_in_germany_could_end_up_affecting_thousands.html

Hey Jude said...

Well, 'the face' is a bit non-specific, I think she would have said 'my face' if an assault had happened. P

'You' is distancing but it doesn't necessarily mean there is deception. In an earlier comment, I used 'you' more or less throughout when recalling being encircled by a gang of street hawkers in Paris. It happened some years ago, and while it was threatening, I was not assaulted - only aware that it could easily have escalated if I didn't buy something from them. Why did I use 'you' there? - maybe because I want to distance myself from it now, just as I wanted to be able to at the time - because it was frightening, and they seemed to materialise from nowhere. It was a behaviour I had not encountered before, and hope not to again. You just have to be careful (So do I, lol.) The scary thing is that 'being careful! would make no difference to anyone if the intention was assault. You can't get away from them unless they let you - they know it, and they know that you know it. They might have been all smiles once I'd bought their key-rings, or I might just be hoping that they were - I don't remember, except for feeling relieved when they went away. It's the sort of thing you (I) prefer to edit out, but like the deleted files on a hard disk, are often still retrievable.

Hey Jude said...

No, I do not have anything illegal or dubious on my hard drive - I just write a lot and then wish I didn't (in case I die and someone reads it).

Dee said...

'I feel shocked and really scared that someone could attack you for no reason. I don't feel safe at all now.

**Shocked and scared are acceptable (although she qualifies scared with really) as she is talking about this after the attack. Someone is vague and "attack you" is distancing the event from herself. She also uses "could attack" leaving doubt as to whether she was attacked. She says attacked for no reason here but further on in her statement she gives a reason she was attacked (Her hijab).

I was walking to the train station to meet some friends when someone shoved me from behind.
When I turned around he punched me in the face and then just went off.
I was really upset afterwards. I can only think it was because he saw my hijab as he didn't take my bag or anything.

** She qualifies why she was walking to the train station. Why? Was she anticipating being asked why she was there? That "someone" shoved her from behind is acceptable I think since she would not have known at that point who it was. When she turns around she refers to her attacker as he. She qualifies being upset with "really" upset. Anyone would be upset (and angry) after being punched in the face. What does "went off" mean to her? A flurry of punches? Angry words being yelled? She doesn't say. She uses "just" went off which weakens her assertion. Why is her wearing a hijab the only reason she can think of for the attack. There could be numerous reasons.


I've lived in Birmingham all my life and I've never experienced something like this before.
'It's made life harder for innocent Muslims. We don't want people to be killed, that's not our religion. Our religion is all about peace.

**This is where her agenda kicks in. She turns her experience into something that affects all muslims. She presumes to speak for all muslims. She pushes the "all about peace" meme.

'My parents are so scared that they're telling me to take my hijab off. My mum's telling me to wear a hat instead.'

**Now out comes the social justice agenda. The feel sorry for me part. Ugh. This story reeks.

mom2many said...

I like this format where the entire statement is presented. Even with teaching included in the articles, it would be nice to have the statement presented in its entirety either before or after the analysis.

My notes before reading others' analysis:
Emotion precedes all description of the attack, misplaced if this was a recent attack. -- "shocked," "really scared," "safe".
Pronoun switches from "I" to "you" around the attack, distancing.
"To meet friends," unnecessary explanation.
"Someone" becomes "he."
"In the face" -- I would expect "in my face," -- "the" is distant while "my" takes ownership.
Again emotion inserted into the description of the event, "really upset", unnecessarily qualified by "really" and the upset wasn't immediate, it was afterwards.
Attributes a motive to the attack, when one isn't known -- "can only think it was because he saw my hijab."
"I've never experienced something like this before" is sensitive, "never."
"It's made life harder for innocent Muslims." -- what does "it" refer to? What has made life harder?
"All about peace" -- "all," as in everything. Is Islam about peace and nothing else?
That the parent's are telling her to remove the hijab suggests she is a more devoted follower than her parents.

mom2many said...

On second reading, she initially states "no reason" for the attack and later presents the reason as being the hijab.

rob said...

Jen at 12:09, you do get that this has been shown to be a false report, right?

So yeah, SOMEONE does have an agenda.

Nanaof4 said...

Calvin and mom2many:

Your notes are in line with my notes before reading the comments. I also had that she did not state any injuries if she was punched in the face. I would expect her to provide more detail about her injuries. A punch to the face unexpectedly would surely hurt or cause some injury.

Also just walked away is not expected. If a person was going to attack you and punch you in the face, they will say something. Some slur, something! A agenda attacker will not be able to just attack and not say something. She didn't tell us he said anything. I would think that would be a part of her attack.

tania cadogan said...

'I feel shocked and really scared that someone could attack you for no reason.
Qualifier words feel and really why not say I am shocked and scared?
It is short and to the point, it tells us of her emotions.
She doesn't say she is shocked and really scared, only that she feels shocked and really scared.
The qualifier words weaken her statement.
She then changes pronoun to to You in relation to the attack which is distancing.
Expected is someone could attack ME.
Why does she feel the need to distance herself from the attack.
Everything happens for a reason, no matter how dumb, vague or whatever.
I look to see if she gives a reason for the attack, plausible or not, further in her statement.

I don't feel safe at all now.
Note the qualifiers at all. did she feel safe before the alleged attack?

I was walking to the train station to meet some friends when someone shoved me from behind.
She explains what she was doing and why without being asked which makes it sensitive
She then says someone shoved me from behind
The qualifier someone is used which weakens the statement.
She could have said i was shoved from behind which is stronger.

When I turned around he punched me in the face and then just went off.
On first thought it sounds strong, however it is weakened by the addition ofThen just went off
I now have a gender as she saw who allegedly shoved her.
She then tells us Hepunched her.
Then she drops the pronoun and tells us just went off
She doesn't tell us who went off.
She doesn't tell us the attacker walked or ran away, she doesn't even tell us the attacker left.
He just went off is passive
She doesn't tell us what went off means in her personal dictionary.
It could mean he left, it could mean he shouted at her in anger, did he do a good impression of a firework exploding or was it more like a bottle of milk going off? It could mean something else.
Just is used to minimise downwards.
There is no indication of any verbal contact between them, this is unexpected in a supposedly racial incident.
The protagonist will most likely say why they don't like the victim, so it is clear why they were attacked.
The lack of dialogue is a red flag and unexpected.

I was really upset afterwards.
Note the qualifier word really which weakens the statement.
She makes no mention of any pain which would be expected after a punch.
Nor does she tell us if she met up with her friends and told them what happened.
The incident ends when he went off.

I can only think it was because he saw my hijab as he didn't take my bag or anything.
She now tells us what he was thinking, his motive which makes it sensitive.
He didn't take her bag or anything, what would the anything be?
She tells us he thinking and motive, but the attacker has not yet been given a voice or an identity.
There is no description of him, how he looked, his nationality, his emotional appearance such as anger, hatred, blank, psychotic.
He is present yet he isn't present.

tania cadogan said...

cont.

I've lived in Birmingham all my life and I've never experienced something like this before.
Why the need to tell us where she has lived all her life?
Is it because it is multicultural?
I've never experienced something like this before.
Something not anything?
What is the something she has not experienced before?
Something is the same as similiar to or akin to a specific thing.
Anything is wide open to interpretation, it encompasses everything.
The alleged attack?
Her story?
The publicity?

'It's made life harder for innocent Muslims.
Note the qualifier innocent.
Are there non innocent muslims?
Why does she say innocent Muslims. rather than the expected Us
Does she exclude herself from innocent muslims?
Why would she exclude herself from innocent Muslims unless she herself is instead not innocent, rather, guilty of making life harder for innocent Muslims by stirring hatred.


We don't want people to be killed, that's not our religion
Here she now speaks for all muslims, telling us what they don't want.
She tells us they don't want people killed.
Why does she feel the need to introduce these words, making it sensitive?
She is aware of what atrocities are being committed in the name of islam.
Note though she distances herself by saying that's not our religion
This is close, that is distancing.
For there to be a That there has to be a This
Note also the pronouns she uses, WE and OUR rather then speaking for herself with the pronouns I and MY
We is used to show unity and shared cooperation.


Our religion is all about peace.
Again she doesn't speak for herself as expected with the pronoun My, she instead uses the pronoun Our
I would ask about her definition of religion.
I would ask about her definition of all about peace since the koran is anything but.
She doesn't tell us it is a peaceful religion, only that it is all about peace.
Peace on whose terms?
If people convert they do not get killed and they are left alone to an extent.
Those who refuse to convert get killed or enslaved and are not left in peace.
Peace is only on islam's terms.

'My parents are so scared that they're telling me to take my hijab off.
She speaks about her parents being scared and wanting her to take her hijab off, she doesn't tell us that she is scared and considering taking her hijab off.
Would not wearing a hijab make any difference?

My mum's telling me to wear a hat instead.'
Would wearing a hat make any difference?
What kind of hat would fulfill the criteria of dressing modestly as per islam?
What does her dad have to say about the alleged attack?

tania cadogan said...

cont.

On form alone it indicates for deception.
Approx. 25% is pre event, approx. 50% is the actual event and the final approx. 25% is post event.

Here we have 12 sentences.
3 sentences are pre and up to the commencement of the event (the initial alleged shove).
1 sentence is the actual event.(the punch)
8 sentences are post event.

Usually there are more sentences/ words prior to the sensitive portion of the statement as the subject tries to delay/ avoid the important or sensitive portion of the event, the actual event gets rushed through and then the post event where there is no longer sensitivity reverts to near normal pace.
Here we see her priority is not the build up to the event , nor the event itself, rather it is the post event that gets most time.

There is a total of 139 words.
32 words are pre event
19 words for the actual event including just went off
86 words post event.

On form it seems her priority is not what allegedlky happened to her, rather it is about her religion and how it is perceived by non muslims.
She is aware that muslims are killing other muslims as well as anyone else they can get their hands on.

I wonder if part of this is because she doesn't want to wear a hijab and perhaps hopes to get round it by wearing a hat instead.
She doesn't want to go against her parents wishes, instead she comes up with an alleged attack and hopes that to avoid another alleged attack she can wear western clothes instead?

What is also worth noting is she makes no mention of any injuries she would have sustained from said punch such as swelling, bruising, cuts , scrapes.
She makes no mention of meeting with her friends to tell them what happened.
She tells us she was really upset, yet doesn't tell us she was crying.
No mention is made of anyone who may have witnessed the attack, saw her before the attack or afterwards.
No mention is made for any cctv images or video
She also makes no appeal for the attacker to hand themselves in or witnesses to come forward.
Nor does she suggest other women be a bit more careful as there is a racist woman hater on the loose.

In her story there is only herself and the man.
In her world there is only herself and the alleged attacker.
No pedestrians, no vehicles, no shoppers, nothing, just an empty street.

Trigger said...

This woman sounds like she has an agenda. A "fake hate" scam that proves that she has contempt for anyone who will believe her deception.

Why are the followers of Islam compelled to murder their family members in what is termed "honor killings?"

Why the commands from religious leaders to kill people who they deem to be "blasphemous" against Islam and Allah?

Why the attack on Paris, a Russian plane, cop killing, and shoot up a Christmas party in San Bernardino?

The Muslims have given the world the gift of terrorism and make no apologies for their massacre of innocent people They celebrate their bloody savagery and openly take responsibility.

This woman claims "innocent" status coupled with a "fake hate" crime?

She forgot to tell her audience that the Koran allows the believer to lie in an effort to convert followers.


Anonymous said...

Rob at 3:13 - yes, I think the person commenting who believed the story and threw in a jab at Christians does indeed have an agenda. :)

Best,
Jen

Anonymous said...

Dear Miss Jen,

That loud popping noise you hear from time to time may very well be your head exiting your anus.

Christians are attacked often. It isn't highlighted like Muslims being attacked.

More recently an elder woman was robbed in the foyer of her church. Her robber had an assistant that hit her in the head and knocked her to the ground though the robber already had her purse and was leaving the area.

Churches are robbed frequently. It isn't headline making news, but it happens.

One young woman was raped at church...a Christian church.

I'm gonna stop at three 'cuz three is a liars number and I'd assume you to think I am lying.

elf said...

I just now caught another indication of possible deception, 'I feel shocked and really scared that someone COULD attack you for no reason' . By saying someone COULD doesn't mean that someone DID.

Anon @6:45- giving three examples is different than using the number three In a statement, I think.

Anonymous said...

This "assault" reminds me of the recent bombing of a Houton mosque which turned out to be one of little damage and perpetrated by a Muslim. Not an infidel! I'm shocked!

Hey Jude said...

I agree with Tania - Miss Choudhury no longer wants to wear a hijab. I'd say she is from a Westernised family and that her mother probably does not wear the hijab herself, or otherwise that she did not make her daughter/s wear one - otherwise she would not have suggested she should wear a hat instead - she'd still want her to wear a hijab. I expect that like a lot of young Muslim girls/women these days, she has taken to wearing the hijab herself, but has now tired of the novelty, maybe feels vulnerable to abuse when she wears it, and wants to go back to dressing as she did before. The 'attack' could be a reason to give her friends, from whom she maybe feels pressure to wear the hijab, as to why she is no longer going to wear it.

There's no logic to her claim that the (alleged) assault had made life harder for innocent Muslims - it makes no sense (particularly when it turned out not to have happened). Is that a type of leakage - that her false report had made life harder, as in caused fear, amongst 'innocent' Muslims, possibly her friends (herself not innocent because the report is false)? Also, I found it strange she said 'we don't want people to be killed, that's not our religion'. Who is the 'we', and why have they been introduced into an account of an assault by a stranger at the point I'd expect her to continue with what happened - that she was left reeling/disorientated from the punch, that someone came to help her, or that no-one did - whether she went home, or went on to meet her friends, who called the police, and when, and what they had said etc.

Is 'I've never experienced something like this (before)' an embedded confession? Shouldn't that have been 'I'd never experienced something like that before? I don't know, except it was all in the past tense until she said that.

casual observer said...


Last night's speech sounded like recruitment;
"democrats are the party of muslims",
Republicans are the party of divisiveness and evil,.
I would love to see a breakdown, how much time on Republican hate,
how much time on muslim good,
how much time on his world view as the only one to accept,
and any time at all on positives of America that he acknowledges?

I am convinced only a psychological consultant could describe correctly
the grooming this man has done of so many people who deserve better and
will never get beyond his emotional dictator rhetoric.

And I am thankful everyday for this blog which allows me some access
to the truths behind this dangerous facade.

Anonymous said...

White people are easy targets. If you are a minority and make accusations against a white person, uproar will ensue. In addition, if you are white and complain about white people being targeted, chances are you'll be "schooled" online, and told to take a seat because being white is a privilege. It's like open season on white people really and the truth be damned.

Anonymous said...

Obama fooled me, twice. Now, I can't look at him, let alone listen to his voice. I believed him! Now, I understand how gullible I was.
I wonder when he gave up or if he EVER had any intention of following through.

Trigger said...



"...I've never experienced something like this before."

"experienced something" This is minimizing language, from a victim of an assault which included, unprovoked pushing, punching in the face, and a verbal abuse.

Where's the horror of the moment? Where is the anger?













Anonymous said...

In a reliable account that first sentence would be at the end.