Colin Kazim-Richards to face trial over homophobic gesture

[Postman Pat]

Who gets the £75 victim surcharge?

(For anyone wondering where the victim surcharge goes to, it won't be split equally between everyone who was at The Amex - it's used to fund victim services through the Government's Victim and Witness General Fund.)

I'm sure that £75 will go a long way.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

If it's a serious question, it goes into a general fund that is split to help various 'victim' groups.

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing/victim-surcharge.htm

Ah, right, cheers, never knew that, just sort of assumed it went to a victim in the specific case. Somebody who, say, screamed for a police officer.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Well the book was well and truly thrown at him. What sort of a detterent is a fine of £750 to someone who earns thousands per week.

Not a good advertisment for the kick it out campaings either.

The size of the fine is pretty much an irrelevance to him, but its not important. He now has a criminal record (for a 'hate crime') which in terms of precedent, is not something to take at all lightly.

It has implications for employment prospects (not particularly in his specific case), visa applications, etc.

 

[nail-Z]

Ah, right, cheers, never knew that, just sort of assumed it went to a victim in the specific case. Somebody who, say, screamed for a police officer.

Wasn't that the Diouf incident at Leeds?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The size of the fine is pretty much an irrelevance to him, but its not important. He now has a criminal record (for a 'hate crime') which in terms of precedent, is not something to take at all lightly.

It has implications for employment prospects (not particularly in his specific case), visa applications, etc.

Bang goes that cushy retirement contract with LA Galaxy

 

[Eeyore]

£1,445. More than I expected. Serves him right.

It's not real justice though. In any case that involves a fine it should realistically take account of a persons wealth. £1,445 would really damage most people, but to him that's like losing a fiver in the street. The judicial system still has a bias towards the wealthy, whether intended or not.

 

[surrey jim]

Wasn't that the Diouf incident at Leeds?

Yes it was

 

[WhingForPresident]

Pretty much every comment on this subject on Twitter is from a fat Northerner hailing him as a "lad".. Shame so many thick ****s are still living in the dark ages.

 

[Acker79]

(For anyone wondering where the victim surcharge goes to, it won't be split equally between everyone who was at The Amex - it's used to fund victim services through the Government's Victim and Witness General Fund.)

I'm sure that £75 will go a long way.

Wait, so I'm not going to get 3 tenths of a penny? This is an injustice!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Pretty much every comment on this subject on Twitter is from a fat Northerner hailing him as a "lad".. Shame so many thick ****s are still living in the dark ages.

This enlightened Spurs fan has joined the party.

https://twitter.com/arryyid/status/453912184360542208

 

[Nitram]

Really is this going to serve any purpose in addressing the serious issue of homophobia? It was an infantile gesture to the crowd most of whom I presume were not gay so not sure where the real hurt is. I would have thought it was more a public order offence. If you are giving out banter be prepared to take it back and don't whine and get all hurt if someone gives something back. Really pathetic use of public funds getting this to court, hardly a Rosa Parks moment in the history of equality.

 

[albion534]

Liz.

i thought it was free to yell for a policeman?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Really is this going to serve any purpose in addressing the serious issue of homophobia? It was an infantile gesture to the crowd most of whom I presume were not gay so not sure where the real hurt is. I would have thought it was more a public order offence. If you are giving out banter be prepared to take it back and don't whine and get all hurt if someone gives something back. Really pathetic use of public funds getting this to court, hardly a Rosa Parks moment in the history of equality.

So, by extension of this, if someone was making monkey gestures to a large crowd, of which only a few were black, you'd see it the same way?

 

[Nitram]

So, by extension of this, if someone was making monkey gestures to a large crowd, of which only a few were black, you'd see it the same way?

I fail to see the logic and link between monkey chants and the incident under discussion. As a man of reason, as I see you are, I like to look at the merits of each case and make a judgement. You are creating an extension that does not make sense, unless you a straw man in which case of course you must win.

 

[Acker79]

I fail to see the logic and link between monkey chants and the incident under discussion. As a man of reason, as I see you are, I like to look at the merits of each case and make a judgement. You are creating an extension that does not make sense, unless you a straw man in which case of course you must win.

Of course it's an extension that works. You make the claim that since most of the crowd isn't gay, no one is really hurt by it. ("It was an infantile gesture to the crowd most of whom I presume were not gay so not sure where the real hurt is."). If your argument is the insult doesn't apply to most people it was directed at so no one should complain, it is a fair extension to put other examples of prejudiced taunting to large groups when the majority in that group aren't the subject of the abuse.

 

[Seaber]

I suppose the link between the two is that homophobia and racism are both hate crimes. Even though it was fairly tame action, it should still be dealt with the same way as racism is.

 

[Nitram]

Of course it's an extension that works. You make the claim that since most of the crowd isn't gay, no one is really hurt by it. ("It was an infantile gesture to the crowd most of whom I presume were not gay so not sure where the real hurt is."). If your argument is the insult doesn't apply to most people it was directed at so no one should complain, it is a fair extension to put other examples of prejudiced taunting to large groups when the majority in that group aren't the subject of the abuse.

Really are people so offended by this they see it as a homophobic act? The insult was so bad it needed to be taken to court? The crowd can dish out abuse but can't take it back? It's a disservice to people who are effected by real acts of homophobia. Would a gay person be really offended by this gesture or would they just think the guy was a prat. Just so it's clear I'm fully supportive of acting on acts of homophobia involving hate and menace, this is totally different and a showcase for the authorities to tick a box and loads on here to get on their high horses.

 

[studio150]

Really are people so offended by this they see it as a homophobic act?

Clearly some people did, given the evidence that they gave in Court, and both the Police and CPS believed that the actions were in the public interest to take to Court.

The guilty verdict demonstrates the standards that society expects to-day, and should act as a clear message to stop others following.

 

[Acker79]

Really are people so offended by this they see it as a homophobic act? The insult was so bad it needed to be taken to court? The crowd can dish out abuse but can't take it back? It's a disservice to people who are effected by real acts of homophobia. Would a gay person be really offended by this gesture or would they just think the guy was a prat. Just so it's clear I'm fully supportive of acting on acts of homophobia involving hate and menace, this is totally different and a showcase for the authorities to tick a box and loads on here to get on their high horses.

Given it was reported to the police, the police investigate and the CPS prosecuted and a jury of peers found him guilty, it would appear that yes, it is a homophobic gesture that has caused offence.

As for dishing it out and not taking it, I might often agree with that sentiment when it comes to football crowds, but jeering someone when they have miscontrolled a football doesn't give that person carte blanche to use any homophobic (or racist or any hate speech) abuse on the basis of "if you can't take it, don't dish it out".

It's a disservice to all people to presume that because you don't find it offensive or even understand why others do, that they're not allowed to, or if they do it somehow undermines other people's pain. I imagine you could find plenty of gay people who thought it was simply a stupid gesture from some immature footballer, but I also suspect you could find gay people who were offended, (maybe because they find any sort of slight homophobia to be a reminder of more severe homophobic experiences they have had that perhaps started as minor insults and quickly escalated, or maybe they view accepting "minor" homophobia blurs the lines and makes others think "what I said isn't much worse than that guy..." so take a strong stance). People are different, and have different lines of what is acceptable.

Just because you're fine with it, doesn't mean no one else has a right to be offended, or that authorities are ticking boxes.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Really are people so offended by this they see it as a homophobic act? The insult was so bad it needed to be taken to court? The crowd can dish out abuse but can't take it back? It's a disservice to people who are effected by real acts of homophobia.

Sort of agree with that.