She said it back at the station though, not immediately after kicking out a window. She was slouched there pissed as a fart running her mouth talking shit. It was hardly aggressive. The officer was simply adding another charge on because he could, and was probably sick of her constant dribble.
2 Likes
Not really,
There is no requirement for actual or intended alarm or distress, only hostility based on race.
Can I humbly suggest, given the misunderstandings we had last time this was discussed, that instead of merely block quoting text from Wikipedia or wherever, we all take the time to actually put some explanation behind our quotes? Rather than leaving others to try and guess what how you interpret things?
A London cop would only lose their job for racism if they physically assaulted someone. If they verbally racially abuse a fellow officer, they have to do some self reflection.
edited for clarity
I don’t think what you’ve posted actually says that.
It says the offence involves hostility based on race, then gives examples of actions that would be considered hostility based on race - including the act in question - causing the policeman to feel alarm or distress.
No, it says it CAN involve alarm or hostility, they are not prerequisites. The first point is non-negotiable, the others are optional.
Here’s the actual wording of the law rather than a summary since I can see the path we’re on
We’re back to quoting blocks of text with no explanation or interpretation.
You’re saying it’s not (1)(b)? So it has to be (1)(a)? She intended to harass? I reckon the DPP would have to make quite an argument for that to stick, beyond reasonable doubt.
Therell be a legal test for harassment - that won’t merely be “she said that shit”
Given that I’ve already provided my interpretation it seemed redundant to repeat it.
and yes, she absolutely intended to harass, she swore at him, denigrated him and referred to his race, what would you call it? Banter? There was malice and insult in her words.
If the CPS (not DPP) didn’t think it would stick they wouldn’t have taken it to court.
2 Likes
She’s really not that drunk based on body language, she’s sitting there playing on her phone and is reasonably coherent imo. Like she’d be over the legal driving limit but using this as an excuse probably won’t and shouldn’t hold up. I have been drunk before and racially abusing someone hasn’t really entered my mind tbh. Her brain isn’t so distorted that she doesn’t know what she’s doing and there a few comments in this thread and elsewhere ostensibly blaming alcohol, not her.
Legally I’m not sure what she deserves or is guilty of, but in England you can get hefty prison sentences for saying naughty things on the internet so things like this are taken a bit more serious over there.
Yet she’s being taken to court and officers who racially abuse fellow officers are given a slap on the wrist with wet lettuce.
“I was asked if I had onions for dinner last night,” one South Asian officer said. “They were laughing, implying I smell of curry. They just make it so hard for us.”
If what Sam Kerr said is legally racism but the above isn’t, I’ll eat an onion Tony Abbott style.
1 Like
Id want to see some harm caused. She swore at a cop? Gimme a break. He experiences no trauma due to the racist nature of the “denigration”.
Id want to see a world where people who experience actual racism aren’t made criminals by the laws that were made to protect them. This is just a cop dealing with a drunk jerk and wanting to flex the full extent of the law on them because of the inconvenience. Pure power trip.
1 Like
I want to see a world where there are no double standards and everyone is equally accountable regardless of race, gender, social class etc. That may be where we differ on this.
That said I generally agree with you that this case and trial is a bit over the top, but it has some interesting moral and legal elements which is why it is getting coverage and causing some debate. It has some feeling of importance imo.
5 Likes
Her & Tim Cahill are the same kind of primadonna in my opinion.
4 Likes
Yes but you have a weird libertarian fantasy.
We as a society will always and should always treat people differently based on their circumstances.
Where does the law require harm caused or trauma? The law only speaks to intent. And I never once said that the cop experienced harm or trauma, and we’ve already been through my views on demonstrating mental anguish as a basis for crime.
I don’t think it’s racism either, it’s missing the power dynamic, but it is discriminatory language and you can’t have a law that says harassing someone based on their race is only a crime if the judge/jury thinks it made the target feel bad, way too many scenarios where the jury decides that calling someone a ‘b%^ck cunt’ isn’t a problem.
I’m no fan of cops on power trips but I’m also no fan of drunk rich sports stars acting like pork chops and getting away with it due to a lack of sympathy for the target, that way leads to hell and is exactly the reverse discrimination that cunts like Tommy Robinson latch onto and use as cover for dangerous violent racist shit.
She’s subject to the same laws as everyone else, and cops are entitled to the same protections as everyone else, this looks a lot like her being in the find out stage of proceedings and having her entitlement triggered.
We do. Typically the rich get away with most, and your average Joe gets punished…
This is true 
It’s a tough one but I feel it is a slippery slope when you start trying to apply laws differently to certain individuals. I understand your point of view though, sometimes it makes logical and moral sense to read in between the lines of certain laws and situations. But imo that law has to apply equally, ultimately it was not hard for her to not be racist in this situation, and I would expect anyone calling a police officer ‘stupid and black’ to be dealt with just as harshly. I believe in this thread there has previously been arguments against this perspective (e.g. history of oppression means nothing said or done to a white person can be considered racist - something that I personally think is a scary and radical perspective going against the dictionary and legal definition).
She is not the victim here imo.
1 Like
The part where it has to be “harrassment”.
Alarm or distress would count as a harm.
Mostly agree with the rest of what you said. I just think the law is capable of identifying that power dynamic you spoke of and addressing the problem properly.
I think we discussed the differences of opinion on this topic back when it first came to light. Frankly, I want to live in the world you’re describing. But we don’t. We live in one where the police have a culture of systemic racism against non-whites (the Met, in NSW, elsewhere in former British colonies).
2 Likes