Kingston girl-muggers

Cheap said :

Also, for the record, there are about 600-odd individual dwellings on the Kingston foreshore, compared with the causeway’s 50.

True, but people on the Kingston foreshore are not the kind of toerags who – for example – live at The Causeway.

For a moment there I thought pedos were kidnapping girls…

Cheap said :

mouthface said :

Cheap said :

I like how they automatically assumed the girls were heading for the causeway…. there’s a lot of other stuff between wentworth avenue and the causeway

Yeah, maybe the were headed to one of those million-dollar terrace houses on the foreshore, or to Canberra Milk, or to the railway to jump on a train to Sydney, or to Jim Murphy’s Market Cellars, or to that wholesale meat place.. who knows?

The point is, you can’t just make that assumption. Also, for the record, there are about 600-odd individual dwellings on the Kingston foreshore, compared with the causeway’s 50.

Have you been to the Causeway? I’d say that its a fair assumption that two girls that attempted to rob a woman, chased her, punched her in the face and then robbed her, were heading to The Causeway!

Cheap said :

Stevian said :

Cheap said :

mouthface said :

Cheap said :

I like how they automatically assumed the girls were heading for the causeway…. there’s a lot of other stuff between wentworth avenue and the causeway

Yeah, maybe the were headed to one of those million-dollar terrace houses on the foreshore, or to Canberra Milk, or to the railway to jump on a train to Sydney, or to Jim Murphy’s Market Cellars, or to that wholesale meat place.. who knows?

The point is, you can’t just make that assumption. Also, for the record, there are about 600-odd individual dwellings on the Kingston foreshore, compared with the causeway’s 50.

You have a problem with the concept of “in the direction of” don’t you. You are making the assumption. If they said they headed south, you’d assume they meant headed for the south pole and that’s just stupid

In this case, “heading in the direction of” implies that it was their destination. The article could easily have said they were heading towards Kingston Foreshore, or they were simply seen heading east.

It’d be like saying that a stolen car seen heading north on commonwealth avenue was heading “in the direction of bega courts.”

I hope my phrasing and terminology is simply enough for you, as you clearly have trouble with taking things too literally. Also, no need to bring up any spelling errors in my post, as I know that’s how people like you love to argue.

You still fail to comprehend basic English

“About 7.59pm on Friday …”

So, it was ‘About 8pm on Friday’..? Why say ‘about’ then give an exact time?

Cheap said :

Stevian said :

Cheap said :

mouthface said :

Cheap said :

I like how they automatically assumed the girls were heading for the causeway…. there’s a lot of other stuff between wentworth avenue and the causeway

Yeah, maybe the were headed to one of those million-dollar terrace houses on the foreshore, or to Canberra Milk, or to the railway to jump on a train to Sydney, or to Jim Murphy’s Market Cellars, or to that wholesale meat place.. who knows?

The point is, you can’t just make that assumption. Also, for the record, there are about 600-odd individual dwellings on the Kingston foreshore, compared with the causeway’s 50.

You have a problem with the concept of “in the direction of” don’t you. You are making the assumption. If they said they headed south, you’d assume they meant headed for the south pole and that’s just stupid

In this case, “heading in the direction of” implies that it was their destination. The article could easily have said they were heading towards Kingston Foreshore, or they were simply seen heading east.

It’d be like saying that a stolen car seen heading north on commonwealth avenue was heading “in the direction of bega courts.”

I hope my phrasing and terminology is simply enough for you, as you clearly have trouble with taking things too literally. Also, no need to bring up any spelling errors in my post, as I know that’s how people like you love to argue.

So… Lets say it happened on Wentworth Avenue near the train station, the two girls then started running down Cunningham Street (don’t know if this is where it happened, but Wentworth Ave is kinda long), should they have said they were heading for Fyshwick instead?

Are you just a PC moron who wants everything to be your way?

Cheap said :

I like how they automatically assumed the girls were heading for the causeway…. there’s a lot of other stuff between wentworth avenue and the causeway

My money is on the offender who was located, detained and arrested was located, detained and arrested beyond the swanky Kingston foreshore apartments, but before the wetlands. This may or may not put the location in the Causeway, but then again it very well might, on the balance of probabilities.

Maybe, but in this case they were correct the ratbag who attacked my friend does live there. Rightiousness is only appropriate when the suppositions were wrong.

Stevian said :

Cheap said :

mouthface said :

Cheap said :

I like how they automatically assumed the girls were heading for the causeway…. there’s a lot of other stuff between wentworth avenue and the causeway

Yeah, maybe the were headed to one of those million-dollar terrace houses on the foreshore, or to Canberra Milk, or to the railway to jump on a train to Sydney, or to Jim Murphy’s Market Cellars, or to that wholesale meat place.. who knows?

The point is, you can’t just make that assumption. Also, for the record, there are about 600-odd individual dwellings on the Kingston foreshore, compared with the causeway’s 50.

You have a problem with the concept of “in the direction of” don’t you. You are making the assumption. If they said they headed south, you’d assume they meant headed for the south pole and that’s just stupid

In this case, “heading in the direction of” implies that it was their destination. The article could easily have said they were heading towards Kingston Foreshore, or they were simply seen heading east.

It’d be like saying that a stolen car seen heading north on commonwealth avenue was heading “in the direction of bega courts.”

I hope my phrasing and terminology is simply enough for you, as you clearly have trouble with taking things too literally. Also, no need to bring up any spelling errors in my post, as I know that’s how people like you love to argue.

Cheap said :

mouthface said :

Cheap said :

I like how they automatically assumed the girls were heading for the causeway…. there’s a lot of other stuff between wentworth avenue and the causeway

Yeah, maybe the were headed to one of those million-dollar terrace houses on the foreshore, or to Canberra Milk, or to the railway to jump on a train to Sydney, or to Jim Murphy’s Market Cellars, or to that wholesale meat place.. who knows?

The point is, you can’t just make that assumption. Also, for the record, there are about 600-odd individual dwellings on the Kingston foreshore, compared with the causeway’s 50.

You have a problem with the concept of “in the direction of” don’t you. You are making the assumption. If they said they headed south, you’d assume they meant headed for the south pole and that’s just stupid