-
Existing user of old message board?
Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.
Sam Kerr
- Topic starter The Dolphin
- Start date
Forest Hillbilly
Member
- Location
- in a hidey-hole
- Country
Wales
I thought hurty words (stupid) carried a lengthy custodial sentence these days. ?
The added racial comment, should mean a minimum tariff of life and all her personal details, including address, posted on all the media platforms.
Oh, racism only works one way
The added racial comment, should mean a minimum tariff of life and all her personal details, including address, posted on all the media platforms.
Oh, racism only works one way
Only in the upside down land of Holmesdale Online where people do not bother to fully read anything of substance before rushing to make a conclusion and posting it on here.
PalazioVecchio
Member
- Location
- south pole
- Country
Netherlands
reminds me of some religions. Those who will accuse you of being 'xyzz'ophobic about their religion. Meanwhile they can take pot-shots at all other religions themselves...........and blindly unaware of the double-standard or the hypocrisy of the whole exercise.
a) "boo hoo, those people said something disrespectful about my core-beliefs. I am feeling murderously triggered. "
b) "aha ha ha ....look at that other faith and the silly clothes they wear, the false God they follow and all their stupid ceremonies & daft songs. What a bunch of totally deluded clowns."
Last edited:
So no one in the Summer was sent to prison for “hurty” words? Did she use racial aggravative language? Is calling someone a white ….. more acceptable than calling someone a black …, or a Muslim ….. ? This is what people have a problem with but you obviously don’t believe there is a problem
Nope - not from any case I saw, but happy to be proven wrong if you can provide one. But to be clear, there is a very big difference between calling someone a name (even an extremely pleasant one), to inciting race related rioting (even online).
I found Sam Kerr's language unnecessary and unpleasant, but she was found not guilty by a jury of 12 who were far more informed of the full facts and background of the situation as to whether or not she committed any crime, so happy to trust that verdict.
PalazioVecchio
Member
- Location
- south pole
- Country
-
Netherlands
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
England
13 years ago.What, like this famous case where John Terry was found not guilty of racial abuse despite admitting calling Anton Ferdinand a "f*cking black c*nt"?
R v Terry - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Seems pretty consistent to me.
Laws on offence have literally been introduced since.
You may not be blind but your obviously are determined not to see.
Got a more recent version for me then to prove your point?
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Sure, since 2012 there have been several amendments of the Public Order Act (1986) covering 'hate speech'. To quote from 'Part 3A of the act, which deals with racial and religious hatred, has been updated to include protections for freedom of expression while criminalizing threatening words or behavior intended to stir up hatred'.
I meant, have you got a more recent version of a case where the fact pattern is reversed where it is a white person saying similar to a black person and being found guilty, as has been asserted by several in this thread absolutely would happen.
Not lazily sticking my question into ChatGPT and pasting new laws (of which 1 and 2 are totally irrelevant to this discussion, by the way) that have been introduced since the case.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
So for some reason asking an AI program is worse than going through Google? Weird perspective but whatever.
Samuel Melia, was found guilty of stirring up racial hatred by distributing what was called 'white supremacist' stickers under the Public Order Act.....a ridiculous shoe horned verdict but it happened nevertheless.
Paul Bussetti. In 2019, was found guilty of sending a grossly offensive video on WhatsApp. The video showed a model of Grenfell Tower being burned, and it included racist commentary....charged under a different act but still for using racial offence.
- R v. D: In 2018, a man was convicted under the Public Order Act for racially abusing a black police officer during a traffic stop. He used racially offensive language and was found guilty of causing harassment, alarm, or distress.
- R v. B: In 2017, a man was convicted for racially aggravated harassment after he verbally abused an Asian shopkeeper. He used racially derogatory terms and was sentenced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which deals with racially or religiously aggravated offences.
- R v. M: In 2016, a man was found guilty of racially aggravated public order offences after he shouted racial slurs at a group of non-white individuals in a public park. He was charged under the Public Order Act 1986.
All found using Copilot by the way.
No issue with using an AI program, the issue is with just lazily posting the results without thinking about it. Those two in bold are completely different to what is being discussed so also totally irrelevant.
Did Copolit provide any links to those 3 other cases? It's impossible to compare the fact patterns without it.
georgenorman
Member
- Country
-
England
You are being lazist - lazy lives matter.
PalazioVecchio
Member
- Location
- south pole
- Country
-
Netherlands
are you again looking for documentary clarificatory evidence ? its still not going to change your Gary Linekar mind.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Every case has some point of difference, however if you are charged under a particular law and it relates to racial offence then I think you are trying to create a difference out of what is the same thing.
The reality is that you have been caught doing what you accuse others of doing. Your own emotional prejudices about the right resulted in a rather easy to disprove statement.....of course those cases were going to exist, silly.
You can find those cases by yourself Dan, unless you are accusing Copilot of providing false information or something. You call me lazy yet it's always you asking me to do work.
Not at all - quite the opposite. The assertion from the OP was:
"It would be interesting to know what the result might have been if the insult had been reference to a different colour. Likely to have been a guilty verdict and straight to prison"
I provided a, extremely high profile, case where the fact pattern was very similar, to disprove this was the case. You then countered this by saying there were new laws so that case is no longer relevant. I asked you to provide a case with a similar fact pattern to back up your statement. You seem to have got a bit of the way there but not provided anything for me to investigate, and now apparently unwilling to go any further.
Edit - Also, the information provided for those cases don't give anywhere near enough information for them to be found online easily.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
A bit of the way there? Oh come on Dan, those last three cases were 'back of the net' stuff.
Of course these types of cases are going to exist.....As I say I don't really agree with most of them (though the Grenfell Tower guy did cross the line in my view) and as I say I wouldn't have charged Kerr with racial stuff because I just don't like those laws....exactly because of this subjective element.
Like I say, she got off because all you need is a bit of soy in the jury and bingo.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
Scotland
This was an interesting story. It doesn't seem that ago that the second part of the sentence would have caused the offence.
www.theguardian.com
Chelsea fan ‘denies racially abusing Raheem Sterling’
A Chelsea fan pictured shouting insults at Raheem Sterling has been quoted as saying he was ‘deeply ashamed’ of his behaviour but had not racially abused the Manchester City player
www.theguardian.com