By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
It would seem that calling a police officer stupid and white is acceptable in today's society..
Imagine the uproar if that particular slur had been used against someone of BAME origin.. think the sentence and certainly reaction to it would have been different
11
This has got 10 pages and.... on 16:03 - Feb 11 with 1963 views
This has got 10 pages and.... on 15:59 - Feb 11 by Jimmy86
If you say so... there would be a completely different reaction if the slur was made to an officer of BAME origin and to suggest otherwise is ignorant to say the least.. the media for one would be all over it
Easily a 10 year sentence the free pass has been played well here.
-2
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:04 - Feb 11 with 1960 views
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 15:58 - Feb 11 by bluelagos
And I genuinely hope you don't let her racist outburst upset you Jimmy.
Be strong, don't let them win - it's what they want.
Being called stupid and white isn't what's offended me.. what's offended me is the pure hypocrisy of it all and the fact it would have been different if the ethnicity of an officer of BAME origin was used as a slur in the same way.. but hey, it is what it is..
I'm not racist and wouldn't ever use someone's ethnicity as a slur against them.. if she had called him stupid then there's no discussion.. that's an opinion, which she's entitled to.. but when you bring ethnicity into it, that's what I think is wrong..
1
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:06 - Feb 11 with 1945 views
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:01 - Feb 11 by MattinLondon
I believe that context is important here. If Sam Kerr is to be believed (as the jury did) then she felt threatened due to the fact that she was trapped in a taxi. And that her heritage led her to feeling scared by this. The context being that the Police Officer couldn’t understand her fear due to the fact that he is white. And rather derogatory ‘stupid’ as well.
If she had insulted him by using racially derogatory language with no mitigating circumstances then the verdict would probably have been different.
That’s my understanding - I could be wrong - but context is key rather than claiming some sort of racist agenda against white people.
[Post edited 11 Feb 16:02]
Ah, thanks.
So racism is fine against white people if the black person is upset (or pretending to be). It's all about context.
That's a brilliant explanation and i can't believe some of us have been so stupid not to understand.
Oh I do feel silly now
0
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:11 - Feb 11 with 1896 views
Why am i not surprised! Seems you can get pissed, chuck up in a taxi, refuse to pay for the cleaning of said taxi. Also when the taxi driver goes to the local nick to report it ,you then abuse the local plod. Typical Chelsea player.
2
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:11 - Feb 11 with 1887 views
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:06 - Feb 11 by waveneyblue
Ah, thanks.
So racism is fine against white people if the black person is upset (or pretending to be). It's all about context.
That's a brilliant explanation and i can't believe some of us have been so stupid not to understand.
Oh I do feel silly now
You should feel silly because you probably didn’t read my post properly.
She was trapped in a car - she felt threatened - she thought that the police officer couldn’t understand how she was feeling as he was white. The ‘stupid’ comment was uncalled for.
The jury believed her, and as I said if she used ‘white’ as an insult the outcome would probably have been different - And right rightly as well.
1
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:11 - Feb 11 with 1884 views
I feel that the case may not have turned on the alleged racism of the comment, but the way in which it did (or did not) impact the police officer, who amended his statement after the original decision was made not to charge Kerr.
A Reddit user sums it up particularly well:
"I would urge people not to jump to conclusions and assume the jury has found that calling someone white is not racist.
"Ms Kerr's lawyer Grace Forbes said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had violated its own guidance, adding that a "loophole" in the victims' right of review scheme was used to justify prosecution proceedings a year after the alleged offence.
During the trial, it was put to PC Lovell that he only provided a statement alleging that Ms Kerr's comments had caused "alarm or harassment" after that decision.
In his first statement to the CPS, the officer made no mention of the "stupid and white" comment having an impact on him, the jury was told.
A second statement from PC Lovell was provided in December 2023, mentioning the alleged impact."
I think it is entirely possible that the jury has then reasoned, "if you'd genuinely been caused harassment/alarm/distress by the comment then you would have mentioned this in your original statement, and we therefore have a reasonable doubt as to whether it was caused"."
It has the same ring to it as police officers charging people under s.5 Public Order Act for swearing at them or within their earshot. If you're that offended by swearing, perhaps a career in the police force isn't for you.
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:13 - Feb 11 by Zx1988
I feel that the case may not have turned on the alleged racism of the comment, but the way in which it did (or did not) impact the police officer, who amended his statement after the original decision was made not to charge Kerr.
A Reddit user sums it up particularly well:
"I would urge people not to jump to conclusions and assume the jury has found that calling someone white is not racist.
"Ms Kerr's lawyer Grace Forbes said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had violated its own guidance, adding that a "loophole" in the victims' right of review scheme was used to justify prosecution proceedings a year after the alleged offence.
During the trial, it was put to PC Lovell that he only provided a statement alleging that Ms Kerr's comments had caused "alarm or harassment" after that decision.
In his first statement to the CPS, the officer made no mention of the "stupid and white" comment having an impact on him, the jury was told.
A second statement from PC Lovell was provided in December 2023, mentioning the alleged impact."
I think it is entirely possible that the jury has then reasoned, "if you'd genuinely been caused harassment/alarm/distress by the comment then you would have mentioned this in your original statement, and we therefore have a reasonable doubt as to whether it was caused"."
It has the same ring to it as police officers charging people under s.5 Public Order Act for swearing at them or within their earshot. If you're that offended by swearing, perhaps a career in the police force isn't for you.
[Post edited 11 Feb 17:09]
"if you'd genuinely been caused harassment/alarm/distress by the comment then you would have mentioned this in your original statement, and we therefore have a reasonable doubt as to whether it was caused"
Again, if the boot was on the other foot here it wouldn't matter, if a BAME officer hadn't put it in their statement for x, y or z then people would be inventing the reasons as to why they didn't, and why it still matters
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:11 - Feb 11 by MattinLondon
You should feel silly because you probably didn’t read my post properly.
She was trapped in a car - she felt threatened - she thought that the police officer couldn’t understand how she was feeling as he was white. The ‘stupid’ comment was uncalled for.
The jury believed her, and as I said if she used ‘white’ as an insult the outcome would probably have been different - And right rightly as well.
I read it fine thanks.
There were two of them One of them threw up and put the back windscreen in. They were p1ssed up and continued to act p1ssed up in the Police Station.
The whole thing stinks and still the usual suspects on here try and justify it.
Laughable and wholly predictable.
8
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:32 - Feb 11 with 1741 views
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:24 - Feb 11 by waveneyblue
I read it fine thanks.
There were two of them One of them threw up and put the back windscreen in. They were p1ssed up and continued to act p1ssed up in the Police Station.
The whole thing stinks and still the usual suspects on here try and justify it.
Laughable and wholly predictable.
That's exactly it.. racism is wrong, full stop.. whether that be against BAME people or white people, it's still wrong and should be called out as such..
I hate hypocrisy and double standards.. I also hate the fact the reaction would be so different if the slur was aimed at a BAME officer.. be interesting to see how the media report this..
1
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:36 - Feb 11 with 1724 views
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:11 - Feb 11 by ronnyd
Why am i not surprised! Seems you can get pissed, chuck up in a taxi, refuse to pay for the cleaning of said taxi. Also when the taxi driver goes to the local nick to report it ,you then abuse the local plod. Typical Chelsea player.
I think you have it right personally. This isn't about race - its about privilege / fame winning.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:32 - Feb 11 by Jimmy86
That's exactly it.. racism is wrong, full stop.. whether that be against BAME people or white people, it's still wrong and should be called out as such..
I hate hypocrisy and double standards.. I also hate the fact the reaction would be so different if the slur was aimed at a BAME officer.. be interesting to see how the media report this..
Whether you like it or not, these double standards exist because of white people and the whole idea of racism (certainly in the Western world) is a construct of that group.
The race of people has been used (almost exclusively by whites in our/allied countries) to enslave, persecute, humiliate and marginalise people who aren't white in a way that white people haven't been (in the sense of just because of their perceived skin colour). It is because of this that there is (an admittedly very unfortunate difference) between using white as an insult compared to other race related words. Historical context carries a lot of weight.
5
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:58 - Feb 11 with 1601 views
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 16:46 - Feb 11 by JakeITFC
Whether you like it or not, these double standards exist because of white people and the whole idea of racism (certainly in the Western world) is a construct of that group.
The race of people has been used (almost exclusively by whites in our/allied countries) to enslave, persecute, humiliate and marginalise people who aren't white in a way that white people haven't been (in the sense of just because of their perceived skin colour). It is because of this that there is (an admittedly very unfortunate difference) between using white as an insult compared to other race related words. Historical context carries a lot of weight.
Historical context carries a lot of weight....except it seems when people get cancelled for certain words they may have said long in the past which nowadays are deemed offensive. Historical context goes out the window then.
0
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 17:16 - Feb 11 with 1486 views
Sam Kerr found not guilty of racial aggravated harassment on 17:14 - Feb 11 by mikeybloo88
Historical context carries a lot of weight....except it seems when people get cancelled for certain words they may have said long in the past which nowadays are deemed offensive. Historical context goes out the window then.
"long in the past" is the key here. they've had a very long time to get used to modern world!
I know we don't like context here, but there's also a (much) higher bar for "alarm, harassment and distress" for police officers than the general public.
My guess is that the jury might have had some of that sort of info and it contributed to the outcome
0
This has got 10 pages and.... on 17:33 - Feb 11 with 1372 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
