I agree with that by and large.
But if someone 'of colour' called me stupid and white I'd call them a racist ****.
I wouldn't call them a racist black **** though.
Because that would be racist.
Money has won here.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Sam Kerr (well someone had to)
- Thread starter wellquickwoody
- Start date
But if someone 'of colour' called me stupid and white I'd call them a racist ****.
I wouldn't call them a racist black **** though.
Because that would be racist.
Money has won here.
I disagree.
Racism is racism.
How much it hurts may differ according to who is on the receiving end.
That is irrelevant.
Racism is racism.
The decision here is wrong.
I have to say that if someone called me a white **** I think I'd be bemused. Certainly not hurt.
But that's because I have enjoyed a lifetime of white privilege.
I'd see it as racism though and respond accordingly.
portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 18,490
I did think that if you referred to someone’s colour, religion or nationality in such situations it was deemed racist. Clearly this isn’t the case. But I haven’t really read beyond headlines. And I thought she was white, so what do I know? Today’s world is confusing!
It appears then you are either trite in your consideration, particularly that 'religion or nationality' is relevant or you really are confused. Either way you are un-informed. Can I go around muttering all day 'stupid and black' and not accept I will be castigated?
Dave Fishwick
Well-known member
Quite ironic that she was moaning about power and privilege when it seems like her privilege of being famous may have done her a small turn here
portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 18,490
Neither. Answer c) wasn’t really paying attention (and don’t really care if honest)
Tony Towner's Toe
Active member
So depressingly predictable, some of these replies... why bother with facts when its so much fun being an ignorant bigot.
In a nutshell for those that havent bothered finding out before commenting, her and her girlfriend called a cab after a big? night out. Worse for wear, Kerr then puked out of the cab window while on their way home and it kicked off with the driver. What was said who knows (why no footage from the cab cam?) but the result was at some point he locked all the doors and started driving them away from their destination while refusing to tell them where they were going. (He was actually taking them to the cop shop but they didnt know that). Surprises surprise they freaked out thinking they were being abducted. After calling 999 and reporting what was happening they broke a side window to escape. When the car stopped they climbed out and ran to a parked police car and told the cops they'd just escaped being kidnapped (funnily enough no bodycam footage -nice one old bill). So once in the station the cops refuse to engage with their side of the story and tell them if they want to leave they have to pay up for the ride, the cleanup and a new window. Kerr says they will pay for all of it but not the window. This goes on for hours and only after having their story repeatedly dismissed and ignored does Kerr start to lose it and give them the 'stupid white" line. CPS weren't going near it as a case until the one of the cops revised his statement months later to say he was suffering from the racial abuse! IMO the only people who should have been on trial here are the Met police and possibly the taxi driver. Not saying Kerr is lilly white but FFS!
In a nutshell for those that havent bothered finding out before commenting, her and her girlfriend called a cab after a big? night out. Worse for wear, Kerr then puked out of the cab window while on their way home and it kicked off with the driver. What was said who knows (why no footage from the cab cam?) but the result was at some point he locked all the doors and started driving them away from their destination while refusing to tell them where they were going. (He was actually taking them to the cop shop but they didnt know that). Surprises surprise they freaked out thinking they were being abducted. After calling 999 and reporting what was happening they broke a side window to escape. When the car stopped they climbed out and ran to a parked police car and told the cops they'd just escaped being kidnapped (funnily enough no bodycam footage -nice one old bill). So once in the station the cops refuse to engage with their side of the story and tell them if they want to leave they have to pay up for the ride, the cleanup and a new window. Kerr says they will pay for all of it but not the window. This goes on for hours and only after having their story repeatedly dismissed and ignored does Kerr start to lose it and give them the 'stupid white" line. CPS weren't going near it as a case until the one of the cops revised his statement months later to say he was suffering from the racial abuse! IMO the only people who should have been on trial here are the Met police and possibly the taxi driver. Not saying Kerr is lilly white but FFS!
- Thread starter
- #68
Just to put some context into the discussion, Kerr often refers to racism, perceived racism and being disadvantaged by racial background. She was born to an English mother, and a father whose parentage was half Indian, half English, making her one quarter Indian heritage. She was raised in Fremantle, Western Australia which is one of the most Anglo Saxon English populated conurbations in Australia. As an exceptional athlete one would imagine that she would have been more than capable of defending herself against any bullying at school and the like.
Perhaps she doth protest a little too much.
Perhaps she doth protest a little too much.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 19,103
Thank you for explaining someone you have never met's life experiences. I feel like everything is so much clearer now. Hopefully, she will read this to help her understand how foolish she has been to use her experiences to shape her views rather than your view of them.
We are lucky to have you to start these conversations and then correct those involved
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 19,103
Seems like a wholly embarrassing episode for all involved.
Including those who are using it to further their own agenda.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 19,103
I think one bold thing explains the other.
The first two lines seem unnecessary. I’m politely explaining my view.
I didn’t say that you have to be a victim of racism to understand it, just that it makes it easier to understand. Hence ‘stupid and white’ people might not understand it.
To agree with this line I would have to believe that people are being convicted for similar instances of racism (said once, relatively mild, sitting down, not physically aggressive etc) and I don’t.
- Thread starter
- #74
Pot, kettle, black, you dullard.Thank you for explaining someone you have never met's life experiences. I feel like everything is so much clearer now. Hopefully, she will read this to help her understand how foolish she has been to use her experiences to shape her views rather than your view of them.
We are lucky to have you to start these conversations and then correct those involved
Most of what was in my post is FACT. I only made a supposition about her experience as a young athlete, not her heritage.
Klaas
I've changed this
- Nov 1, 2017
- 2,702
Which was the bit he was commenting on...
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 19,103
I was commenting on that but to be fair was also commenting on the rest of it as well. WQW cherry-picked information (I assume it is factual but haven't double-checked) to paint a picture of her to provide the context he requires to paint Sam Kerr in a certain way - to again further his own agenda (or those he parrots, I am unsure).
In his first sentence, he mentions that 'Kerr often refers to racism, perceived racism and being disadvantaged by racial background.' but chooses not to reference those things or to investigate the incidents in her life that may have driven such feelings or outlook. Instead, he picks some 'facts' that suggest that she has no right ot feel how she feels about her own identity.
I stand by my comment that WQW has spoken for someone and attempted to explain why she has no right to feel as they feel (classic rightwing tactic to avoid discussion) without any clue of what caused them to feel that way (or if he has a clue then he has chosen not to post that information.
- Thread starter
- #77
I also stand by my previous comment, dullard
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 19,103
I am a 50 year old man and you are insulting me by calling me a dullardI also stand by my previous comment, dullard
It's a badge of honour my friend.
A far easier comment to stand by than that other nonsense though I suppose.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 19,103
From what I am reading this boils down to the jury not seeing what Kerr said as causing "harassment, alarm or distress".
This appears to be partly because the police officer who claims to have been caused "harassment, alarm or distress" did not mention it in his first statement and only added it 11 months later. To me, the video doesn't prove that she was trying to cause this but rather making a point about feeling unfairly treated.
So people must be seeing other evidence that suggests she caused or intended to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" with her words. Surely we can assume that the jury also saw said evidence so one wonders what they got wrong?
Were their medical records from the policeman that showed psychology or DR visits, time off work or something like that? Surely if such things existed they would have gone in the original report?
This appears to be partly because the police officer who claims to have been caused "harassment, alarm or distress" did not mention it in his first statement and only added it 11 months later. To me, the video doesn't prove that she was trying to cause this but rather making a point about feeling unfairly treated.
So people must be seeing other evidence that suggests she caused or intended to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" with her words. Surely we can assume that the jury also saw said evidence so one wonders what they got wrong?
Were their medical records from the policeman that showed psychology or DR visits, time off work or something like that? Surely if such things existed they would have gone in the original report?