[News] Sam Kerr (well someone had to)

[rippleman]

I suspect (not having yet seen any official report of the case), that the jury will have attached some significance to the fact that in his original statement the police officer made no reference to the "stupid and white" comment. Kerr's defence counsel would surely have asked the officer why it took him 11 months to become offended by the comment and revise his statement.

Not only would Kerr's counsel have asked the question, so should the officer's employer and the CPS before taking it to Court.

There is no excuse for not paying the sick clean-up charge - but I think that would have been down to the driver to sue Kerr in a civil action. Kicking in the taxi window was criminal damage but I have no explanation why she (or her partner) were not charged for that offence.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I suspect (not having yet seen any official report of the case), that the jury will have attached some significance to the fact that in his original statement the police officer made no reference to the "stupid and white" comment. Kerr's defence counsel would surely have asked the officer why it took him 11 months to become offended by the comment and revise his statement.

Not only would Kerr's counsel have asked the question, so should the officer's employer and the CPS before taking it to Court.

There is no excuse for not paying the sick clean-up charge - but I think that would have been down to the driver to sue Kerr in a civil action. Kicking in the taxi window was criminal damage but I have no explanation why she (or her partner) were not charged for that offence.

Weren’t they charged but it never made it to trial?

 

[sydney]

Nonsense, she won't face a suspension, the TV commentators will ignore her drunken, racist, entitled potty mouth, and the kids will still scream her name and sing the utterly embarrassingly banal Aussie Aussie Aussie at her. Anyone who says otherwise will not only be deemed racist but "un-Australian" as well

yeah the msm may mention it briefly but English women's football is so niche here .............anyone over 35 thinks she's an entitled twatt. she puked in a taxi , abused the driver , smashed the window and called the copper a stupid/white etc......she's lost a lot of respect here in Perth.

oh and I'll see your nonsense and raise you a bollox.

 

[sydney]

Perceptions of racism is a grey area issue for many.

Racism is however not a grey area.

I will remind you of when and whether it was OK to give the missus a slap 50 years ago.
Back then, this was a grey area for men.
It was also a grey area for many women, strangely.

Sometimes its necessary to give one's head a wobble.

what a load of bollocks H , slapping women and racism has always been on the nose to any educated person .

 

[Cheggers]

Perceptions of racism is a grey area issue for many.

Racism is however not a grey area.

I will remind you of when and whether it was OK to give the missus a slap 50 years ago.
Back then, this was a grey area for men.
It was also a grey area for many women, strangely.

Sometimes its necessary to give one's head a wobble.

If perceptions of racism are subjective, wouldn't that mean, on some level, that racism is subjective? Unless we think there is an objective definition of racism that everyone carries with them. The rule of law may well set out a definition, and act according to that definition, but that doesn't make the definition objectively 'right': just right or valid) in the opinon of those who set the definition.
My head needs no further wobbling. The only thing that wobbles more than my head is my belly.

 

[schmunk]

What is the world coming to when, despite being presented with a full set of evidence detailing this heinous, aggravated racial assault, a jury of 12 ZEALOTS can find this coloured, homo, Chelski, member of the lesser sex to be "Not Uppity".

FUMMIN


#judiciaryout

extremely well played by her brief......poc , lezzo , millionaire sports personality (role model) .....never gunna work was it....she's got out of it and the system let her by vilifying the Met.....70/30 split here in OZ in favour of a guilty verdict , not well liked , bad publicity for the country.

Nailed it.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Met police officer in the family said if I were to call a black police officer, black and stupid it would be a hate crime. So this shows it is 2 tier.

I see.

I'm pretty sure that the CPS take into account 'previous' if they decide to escalate the charge to 'hate crime'.

Looking at a selection of successful prosecutions under hate crime it certainly seems to be the case.

Perhaps this was her first offence of this nature and the CPS therefore didn't see a reasonable chance of success on the higher charge. Obviously I have no idea if this is the case here or indeed if you have a history of such behaviour that led your Met officer relative to this conclusion in the scenario you have outlined (I'm assuming not).

In any case, once the officer had ramped matters sufficiently, it did go to court on a similar charge.

The prosecution may well have had more chance of being successful if the PC had made clear how upset they were in the first instance rather than adding that later on. Personally I am a bit surprised that a Met officer didn't know how to most effectively provide evidence for a successful prosecution. Perhaps in the first instance he was too traumatised to acknowledge that he was upset. Perhaps some Met officers need a better understanding of the prosecution process.

I don't see how this is a two-tier system.

I would concede that having access to better (more expensive?) legal representation can give rise to different outcomes and thought that might have been what you meant.

One thing's for sure, Ms Kerr is guilty of sometimes being an absolute nightmare when she's had a few too many and her awful behaviour on this occasion and the subsequent legal shenanigans will impact her negatively for some time.

 

[sydney]

If perceptions of racism are subjective, wouldn't that mean, on some level, that racism is subjective? Unless we think there is an objective definition of racism that everyone carries with them. The rule of law may well set out a definition, and act according to that definition, but that doesn't make the definition objectively 'right': just right or valid) in the opinon of those who set the definition.
My head needs no further wobbling. The only thing that wobbles more than my head is my belly.

racism ....?? meh ..? really..?

 

[sydney]

I see.

I'm pretty sure that the CPS take into account 'previous' if they decide to escalate the charge to 'hate crime'.

Looking at a selection of successful prosecutions under hate crime it certainly seems to be the case.

Perhaps this was her first offence of this nature and the CPS therefore didn't see a reasonable chance of success on the higher charge. Obviously I have no idea if this is the case here or indeed if you have a history of such behaviour that led your Met officer relative to this conclusion in the scenario you have outlined (I'm assuming not).

In any case, once the officer had ramped matters sufficiently, it did go to court on a similar charge.

The prosecution may well have had more chance of being successful if the PC had made clear how upset they were in the first instance rather than adding that later on. Personally I am a bit surprised that a Met officer didn't know how to most effectively provide evidence for a successful prosecution. Perhaps in the first instance he was too traumatised to acknowledge that he was upset. Perhaps some Met officers need a better understanding of the prosecution process.

I don't see how this is a two-tier system.

I would concede that having access to better (more expensive?) legal representation can give rise to different outcomes and thought that might have been what you meant.

One thing's for sure, Ms Kerr is guilty of sometimes being an absolute nightmare when she's had a few too many and her awful behaviour on this occasion and the subsequent legal shenanigans will impact her negatively for some time.

perhaps the MET officer was told to leave it alone from above so as not to attract bad press.

 

[Bodian]

I was thinking about this in a different way.

If I was being patronising to a female colleague at work and saying, for example, she would just get a promotion if she worked a bit harder, after years of her feeling like her gender had restricted her opportunities....and she said "you are being stupid and male" I wouldn't think that was her being sexist. I wouldn't be offended. Because the context was there. She is saying I'm being stupid and I am not understanding what she is facing because I am male so not subjected to her situation. That's with her sober as well, instead of, lets say, a team outing after a few drinks where people's censorship can drop slightly.

That would be her expressing (poorly and in an angry manner) that I do not understand the challenges she faces because I am not female.

Now, if the office just heard "she called him stupid and male" I have no doubt people would say "that's sexist. She can't use your gender in a derogatory manner" etc etc

Pretty much what the jury concluded. They watched the 30 minutes leading up to her comment - so saw the context in which it was said.

 

[Audax]

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.

 

[Pevenseagull]

perhaps the MET officer was told to leave it alone from above so as not to attract bad press.

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.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

what a load of bollocks H , slapping women and racism has always been on the nose to any educated person .

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

 

[Guinness Boy]

sorry , didn't she call the copper stupid and white ? that is, in itself racist and given that people are being locked up for 3 and a half years for hurry words in England to me this is double standards

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”.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

There was no need to mention skin colour at all.

Not trying to catch you out, but what if she had said "You are being stupid and I feel that you, as a white person, do not understand how this made me feel"

Her choice of wording/phrasing was poor. I think we can all agree. Have that scenario again she would no doubt have phrased it differently, but context is everything.

I would worry if we believe you can't utter anything about race, even if it was a legitimate concern for the party involved.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If perceptions of racism are subjective, wouldn't that mean, on some level, that racism is subjective? Unless we think there is an objective definition of racism that everyone carries with them. The rule of law may well set out a definition, and act according to that definition, but that doesn't make the definition objectively 'right': just right or valid) in the opinon of those who set the definition.
My head needs no further wobbling. The only thing that wobbles more than my head is my belly.

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 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'

 

[jcdenton08]

We’re going round in circles a bit now.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not trying to catch you out, but what if she had said "You are being stupid and I feel that you, as a white person, do not understand how this made me feel"

Her choice of wording/phrasing was poor. I think we can all agree. Have that scenario again she would no doubt have phrased it differently, but context is everything.

I would worry if we believe you can't utter anything about race, even if it was a legitimate concern for the party involved.

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.

If I do something ****ish (which I do from time to time) it would be churlish for me to start bleating on about how people don't understand how I feel because I'm autistic.

Number one, how would they know (and I maintain that Kerr looks white to me, and I don't 'look' autistic).
Number two, how could I justify perception of prejudicial behaviour if there is no evidence for it?
Number three, my bringing up autism has no bearing on my ****ish behaviour unless I am trying to use it as an excuse.

All in all I am not following any narrative here that explains Kerr's behaviour (which was not on trial) or her justification for invoking racist tropes (which was, and she seems to have got away with it).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We’re going round in circles a bit now.

Always fun.
Make people dizzy and they will either quit or lash out.

 

[Audax]

Not trying to catch you out, but what if she had said "You are being stupid and I feel that you, as a white person, do not understand how this made me feel"

Her choice of wording/phrasing was poor. I think we can all agree. Have that scenario again she would no doubt have phrased it differently, but context is everything.

I would worry if we believe you can't utter anything about race, even if it was a legitimate concern for the party involved.

Yes, agree. The phrasing is significant and can make the use of colour acceptable in certain contexts. It's generally safer to avoid it, though, and your version could be further refined to something like "You are being stupid and I believe you do not understand me because your background differs from mine".

The one thought that crosses my mind is that alcohol has all sorts of effects. In this case ... it may be as simple as generating a poor choice of words and that her intent was exactly as she claimed (and hence not, strictly speaking, racist). Or it could be that her normal caution over revealing her inner thoughts went bye-bye and she really did have a racist element in her thinking.

Worth noting here: while I have a lot of respect for those who take a very black/white view on racism (it's never acceptable, etc) ... I also take a view that often non-white people express what can be considered racist views from a very different perspective of having been subjected to racism for long periods of time, subjected to receiving in-equitable outcomes because of racism (whether conscious racism or unconscious bias), and are quite simply struggling to express themselves when they come out with statements like Kerr's.

Hence why I do not believe her conduct could sustain a criminal conviction. There's enough doubt over her actual intent (both in context of all the evidence available, and in context of the defense she offered in court) to make it very difficult to convict.

But we're all still free to form our own opinions over her conduct. Which IMO was very poor.