[News] Sam Kerr (well someone had to)

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Yes but she didn't get into trouble with the taxi driver for not being white.
She brought it up herself when the situation appeared to not be going her way.

She brought it up when she said the police weren't listening to her complaints that they were scared because the taxi driver locked the door.

She told the police she called them. The officer said she didn't. She had done.
The officer told them they wern't in danger, despite them saying they FELT in danger.

That was the point where Kerr said the officer was showing white privelege for not understanding why she was (in her words) concerned at being locked in a taxi.
She then said he was being stupid, stupid and then stupid and white.

I can understand why, after being called Little Missy, told you weren't scared enough to call the police (they did) and told you weren't worried about being attacked that you might just eventually snap.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not yet read the entire thread. But what I have read so far (start of page 4) I'm seeing a lot of gnashing of teeth about how the jury made the wrong decision. But did they? IMO Kerr's conduct was poor, and fits within a very strict definition of "racism". There was no need to mention skin colour at all.

HOWEVER:

Did her conduct meet the threshold for a criminal conviction? Not sure it does (especially given the revelation that the issue wasn't flagged until 11 months later and appears to have been driven by the CPS), and I suspect that is why the jury gave a not guilty verdict.

It's not a black-and-white situation (edit: no pun intended, poor choice of words ... shades of grey and all that). Her conduct can be defined as "racist" while still not being criminally racist.

Interesting.

I am inclined to agree and refer back to an earlier post of mine where I suggested the system was tumbled into prosecution for fear of being seen to be favouring celebrities. Nothing much to see here, really.

But consequently it has triggered some interesting debate.

Plus the usual clap trap from middle aged white males who think the world is against them, while at the same time thinking that political correctness has gone mad. Again. Which is ironic.

 

[ROSM]

If that was the case then the officer is an incredibly bold and principled man who should be applauded for sticking to his guns on this matter and I hope that they have fully recovered from the trauma.

If however you had read the reports during the trial you will see that he was asked during his evidence why he didn't raise it in his initial statement and yet did in his second statement (which followed the cps advising there was insufficient evidence to bring a charge and that an apology was the likely outcome). His reported responses to this question are less than clear. Perhaps more was said and the jury based their view on his fuller answer that they heard.

There is no mention of him being pressured not to mention it in the 1st statement and given the met were the ones who asked the cps to review their decision (the action that led to the cps requesting a second statement) it doesn't seem likely they did.

 

[Cheggers]

No.

If someone calls me a 'white bastard', that's racism.
That fact that I would think them a silly wanka is neither here nor there.

If I perceive that I was served slowly in a pub in Dublin because of racisms, that's just perception.
If the landlord could be shown (with evidence) that he repeatedly ignored English punters, that's racism.

I accept that it is hard to prove that perceived racism is indeed racism or not, when for example, you apply for a job and don't get it.
Or if someone looks at you in a funny way.

But there is very much an objective definition of racism. I
I can't quote verbatim but it refers to speaking or acting in a negatively judgmental or prejudicial way about someone, based on race.
But it can be hard to prove, especially if the racist is careful, like our old friend Das Reich was, for many years.

What we have here is someone being accused of racism because of what they said.
I maintain it was racist.
Apparently a jury disagreed.

Now, whether a definition of anything is 'objectively right' is always something for debate.
If it transpires the law looks like an ass in the present case then maybe the wording will need to be changed.
That's how laws evolve, with cases setting precedents and judiciary reacting where deemed necessary.

I suspect this thread has gone on so long because individuals have an axe to grind and keep side tracking.
For example, the emergence of statements based on white male perspective that there is a two tier system,
One for upstanding white men like themselves, which is harsh,
And a soft one for women, 'poofs', muslims, peadeophiles, 'colourds' and such like.
And by mentioning this obvious truth someone will be along soon to call me 'clueless'

So, just for clarity (and my own sanity), you are saying that there is indeed an objective definition of racism, deployed by the laws and system of law of the land. The system of law, that uses the objective definition, found Kerr to be not guilty. And you don't agree with the decision that was put to a jury with the objective definition in mind.

Out of interest, when you say laws evolve, do you think they progress or evolve? Laws may be applied objectively, but apply to certain groups disproportionately, and therefore arguably unfairly.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

She brought it up when she said the police weren't listening to her complaints that they were scared because the taxi driver locked the door.

She told the police she called them. The officer said she didn't. She had done.
The officer told them they wern't in danger, despite them saying they FELT in danger.

That was the point where Kerr said the officer was showing white privelege for not understanding why she was (in her words) concerned at being locked in a taxi.
She then said he was being stupid, stupid and then stupid and white.

I can understand why, after being called Little Missy, told you weren't scared enough to call the police (they did) and told you weren't worried about being attacked that you might just eventually snap.

Indeed. She snapped. She was provoked.
And she came out with racist crap.
But in context it should probably not have gone to court, unless other similar cases do go to court.
I have no idea if the do or don't.
If they answer is typically they don't go to court then I am guessing it went to court because she is famous.
The jury then decided she was just being a drunken arse, I would imagine.
Yet I suspect that had the officer been black and she white the outcome may have been different.
On the other hand, it may not.
Who knows?
Nobody knows.

 

[Pevenseagull]

If however you had read the reports during the trial you will see that he was asked during his evidence why he didn't raise it in his initial statement and yet did in his second statement (which followed the cps advising there was insufficient evidence to bring a charge and that an apology was the likely outcome). His reported responses to this question are less than clear. Perhaps more was said and the jury based their view on his fuller answer that they heard.

There is no mention of him being pressured not to mention it in the 1st statement and given the met were the ones who asked the cps to review their decision (the action that led to the cps requesting a second statement) it doesn't seem likely they did.

Wel yes, indeed.

 

[sydney]

It’s a tough one who to believe here. Jurors who sat through the whole trial, heard and evaluated evidence and were legally directed by a judge.

Or someone on the other side of the world who can’t spell “hurty”.

Jesus Christ man , you are such a fuckin bell end.

I haven't seen any of the footage , only know what I read in the Australian paper today whilst waiting for a coffee.I couldn't really be less interested in the whole palaver , as it has apparently turned out , non event....other than coppers goading a pissed up sportswoman and her getting away with criminal damage and getting a top shelf brief to make her look like the victim.

what's next..?

 

[sydney]

Oh, really.

You must be much younger that I imagined.

Anyway, you need to focus on your two tier conspiracy and not get sidetracked by old-timers like me

guess it comes down to who you hang around with old chap.....you must know some right fuckwitts.

 

[Cheggers]

guess it comes down to who you hang around with old chap.....you must know some right fuckwitts.

Is there any need for that?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So, just for clarity (and my own sanity), you are saying that there is indeed an objective definition of racism, deployed by the laws and system of law of the land. The system of law, that uses the objective definition, found Kerr to be not guilty. And you don't agree with the decision that was put to a jury with the objective definition in mind.

Out of interest, when you say laws evolve, do you think they progress or evolve? Laws may be applied objectively, but apply to certain groups disproportionately, and therefore arguably unfairly.

1.

Yes, I think that definitions of racism are objective.
But I don't agree that the jury necessarily reached a decision with the definition in mind.

Now, ironically, I don't actually mind this in principle.
There are occasions when a common sense decision is 'right' or rightous.
I recall a case here in Kent where 30 years ago a bloke with no driving license crushed a boy on a bike to death due to careless driving of a large commercial vehicle.
He had broken practically every driving law and had killed a boy.
He had numerous previous convictions for driving without a license.
He was a selfish piece of shit.
He received the usual light sentence.
After he was released, the boy's dad took a shotgun and blasted the bloke.
This caused life changing injuries.
The dad admitted the shooting but pled not guilty.
A jury found him 'not guilty'.

Juries are a law unto themselves,
Sometimes they are right(ous). Sometimes not.

I think they got it wrong this time, but I am not particularly bovvered.
Perhaps Kerr will desist from tittish behaviour going forward.

2.

I think the judiciary try to change laws to make them better.
As for applying fairly to everyone, surely that depends on how they are applied?
Which depends on who is arrested. Bear with me*....
If you are thinking the present case represents an unfair prosecution of a 'non-white' person when a white person would not have been....
No, obviously you can't be thinking that, because the trope is that only white people are accused of racism.... (not you view I appreciate).

Generally I don't think laws are applied unfairly, albeit the outcomes may *appear so.
For example, the number of white parents who are convicted of abusing their own kids,
versus the number of parents of Pakistani heritage who are convicted of abusing other people's kids.
I bring up this 'example' because it is one of the best scenarios where 'our' prejudices dictate our perceptions of how the laws work.

To digress further...
I am generally not someone who objects to profiling, because this is about applying probabilities to resource management in the pursuit of evidence.
I object to assuming someone is guilty because of their race.
Managing the former without slipping into the latter has been a hard process to manage
But I suspect it is now managed hugely better than in the past,
where we had, on the one hand, relentless harassment of young black males in parts of the UK by the police
and later what appears to be relentless disregarding of a racial pattern of child abuse up north.

Things improve slowly as we learn from mistakes.
That's the human condition

 

[sydney]

Is there any need for that?

yes , the usual protagonist , keyboard gimps having a dig,he know's how old I am,he's being a dick and so am i.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Jesus Christ man , you are such a fuckin bell end.

I haven't seen any of the footage , only know what I read in the Australian paper today whilst waiting for a coffee.I couldn't really be less interested in the whole palaver , as it has apparently turned out , non event....other than coppers goading a pissed up sportswoman and her getting away with criminal damage and getting a top shelf brief to make her look like the victim.

what's next..?

So disinterested you've now posted on this thread nine times.

 

[Cheggers]

1.

Yes, I think that definitions of racism are objective.
But I don't agree that the jury necessarily reached a decision with the definition in mind.

Now, ironically, I don't actually mind this in principle.
There are occasions when a common sense decision is 'right' or rightous.
I recall a case here in Kent where 30 years ago a bloke with no driving license crushed a boy on a bike to death due to careless driving of a large commercial vehicle.
He had broken practically every driving law and had killed a boy.
He had numerous previous convictions for driving without a license.
He was a selfish piece of shit.
He received the usual light sentence.
After he was released, the boy's dad took a shotgun and blasted the bloke.
This caused life changing injuries.
The dad admitted the shooting but pled not guilty.
A jury found him 'not guilty'.

Juries are a law unto themselves,
Sometimes they are right(ous). Sometimes not.

I think they got it wrong this time, but I am not particularly bovvered.
Perhaps Kerr will desist from tittish behaviour going forward.

2.

I think the judiciary try to change laws to make them better.
As for applying fairly to everyone, surely that depends on how they are applied?
Which depends on who is arrested. Bear with me*....
If you are thinking the present case represents an unfair prosecution of a 'non-white' person when a white person would not have been....
No, obviously you can't be thinking that, because the trope is that only white people are accused of racism.... (not you view I appreciate).

Generally I don't think laws are applied unfairly, albeit the outcomes may *appear so.
For example, the number of white parents who are convicted of abusing their own kids,
versus the number of parents of Pakistani heritage who are convicted of abusing other people's kids.
I bring up this 'example' because it is one of the best scenarios where 'our' prejudices dictate our perceptions of how the laws work.

To digress further...
I am generally not someone who objects to profiling, because this is about applying probabilities to resource management in the pursuit of evidence.
I object to assuming someone is guilty because of their race.
Managing the former without slipping into the latter has been a hard process to manage
But I suspect it is now managed hugely better than in the past,
where we had, on the one hand, relentless harassment of young black males in parts of the UK by the police
and later what appears to be relentless disregarding of a racial pattern of child abuse up north.

Things improve slowly as we learn from mistakes.
That's the human condition

Good answer!

I wasn't thinking of this particular case. More along the lines of, and I know this is a cliche, laws against shoplifting. The law can be applied objectively in line with the definition, but it likely disproportionately affects the those who are worse off. There are all sorts of arguments about the injustice of capitalist society per se, but in terms of the law applied, it can be argued that it is very much unfair. Anyway, I digress. I am logging off now as I am meant to be working.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

yes , the usual protagonist , keyboard gimps having a dig,he know's how old I am,he's being a dick and so am i.

Well, one of us us.

 

[Bodian]

Jesus Christ man , you are such a fuckin bell end.

I haven't seen any of the footage , only know what I read in the Australian paper today whilst waiting for a coffee.I couldn't really be less interested in the whole palaver , as it has apparently turned out , non event....other than coppers goading a pissed up sportswoman and her getting away with criminal damage and getting a top shelf brief to make her look like the victim.

what's next..?

She didn't commit any criminal damage. So she didn't 'get away with it'.

It was her partner that broke the window of the cab, and it's arguable whether that was 'criminal' or in a misplaced attempt to get out of a car where the driver had locked the doors and wouldn't tell them where he was taking them - to the extent where they called the Police for help, and when they finally got out ran over the a Police car.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Good answer!

I wasn't thinking of this particular case. More along the lines of, and I know this is a cliche, laws against shoplifting. The law can be applied objectively in line with the definition, but it likely disproportionately affects the those who are worse off. There are all sorts of arguments about the injustice of capitalist society per se, but in terms of the law applied, it can be argued that it is very much unfair. Anyway, I digress. I am logging off now as I am meant to be working.

You can read this later then.

I think that data showing that, to use your example, shoplifters are disproportionately poor does not mean (to me) that laws against shoplifting are unfair.

I can accept considering of mitigation is appropriate during sentencing, but not for determining conviction.

Incidentally I don't consider that being poor is mitigation against shoplifting.

Interesting chat. Best wishes

 

[rippleman]

Has anybody come across an explanation for why it took 11 months for the officer to become “shocked, upset and humiliated” by the "supid and white" comment? He made no mention that he found the comments hurty in his original statement.

My understanding is that the CPS initially decided that there was insufficient evidence of "racially aggravated" for Kerr to be charged. And then abracadabra the copper comes up with a new statement.

Kerr was being stitched up wasn't she?

 

[Audax]

getting away with criminal damage

My understanding is that she didn't. Damages were paid.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

We’re going round in circles a bit now.

Which ironically is often the crime taxi drivers are accused of

n.b adding in potential whoosh awareness just in case after timing is suggested but not 100%

 

[sydney]

So disinterested you've now posted on this thread nine times.

interested enough to read the write up on the BBC sports page where in the second paragraph it clearly states that Kerr called the copper " stupid and white" ......has a nice ring to it , perhaps a good name for a band.