Racist lady on Brit tram.

This is the law she is being charged under:


31[F1Racially or religiously aggravated] public order offences..

(1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits— .

(a)an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (fear or provocation of violence); .

(b)an offence under section 4A of that Act (intentional harassment, alarm or distress); or .

(c)an offence under section 5 of that Act (harassment, alarm or distress), .

which is [F2racially or religiously aggravated] for the purposes of this section.


(2)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above. .
...

(4)A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above shall be liable— .

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; .

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both.
Click to expand...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/31

Since she was arrested, she would appear to fall under either 1 a or 1 b (1 c is just a fine)

Which means that she violated Section 4A of the Public Order Act of 1986

4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress..

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— .

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or .

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, .

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling. .

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove— .

(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or .

(b)that his conduct was reasonable.
Click to expand...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

Which apparently means she could be fined and/or get up to 2 years in prison for her Tram outburst.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
She should have been arrested and charged with creating a public disturbance, plain and simple. It doesn't look like her rant was inspiring any of the fellow passengers to go out and kill foreign people (edit: nor people of non-caucasian descent- my apologies for not being more nuanced), quite the opposite, so I don't think it can be considered "incitement". If she went around screaming "f*** all fat people!" it would seriously offend a lot of passengers all the same, but what would the charges be in that case? If she had said what she had said but toned down the decibel level in a more private conversation with someone who actually wanted to engage her on the topic, she wouldn't get much more than dirty looks. In terms of actual harm caused to other people, I think futball/soccer hooligans are a more serious threat.
 
Last edited:
CptBork said:
She should have been arrested and charged with creating a public disturbance, plain and simple. It doesn't look like her rant was inspiring any of the fellow passengers to go out and kill foreign people, quite the opposite, so I don't think it can be considered "incitement". If she went around screaming "f*** all fat people!" it would seriously offend a lot of passengers all the same, but what would the charges be in that case? If she had said what she had said but toned down the decibel level in a more private conversation with someone who actually wanted to engage her on the topic, she wouldn't get much more than dirty looks. In terms of actual harm caused to other people, I think futball/soccer hooligans are a more serious threat.
Click to expand...

Did you just skip reading the UK laws I just posted?

There is no requirement that her rant incite anyone to do anything.

Clearly she is in violation of Section 4A of the Public Order Act of 1986

4A
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— .

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour
Click to expand...

Since she was clearly harrassing people with insulting words and behaviour.

And the penalty is increased because it was "Racially Aggravated" based on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
 
adoucette said:
Did you just skip reading the UK laws I just posted?

There is no requirement that her rant incite anyone to do anything.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't skip over your post, and you do have an excellent knack for finding the essential core info underlying a given issue, even if you're pretty selective about the info you find relevant. I personally noted that the laws you cited pertain to racial and religious aggravation, and my argument is simply that it should be prosecuted purely as a case of creating a public disturbance, no more and no less. As for the incitement issue, that's generally the motivation behind curbing hate speech. I should broaden that to include incitement towards discrimination, not just violence.
 
I cant believe almost 70% of the comments [on ytube] actually support her, like:

"emma west for prime minister!
she is a legend for having the balls to stand up against the parasites from aborad.
she has nothing to be ashamed of."

We even have one here but thats acceptable.
But man, 70%!
And I thought brits were a well educated, rational, athiestic/irreligious and pleasant bunch with only a wierd accent to complain about.
Yes, I know she's a chav, but still, tell me, most of the guys aren't like this are they?
 
In times of economic uncertainty insecure people seek scapegoats. Hitler built a career by using this weakness.
 
aaqucnaona said:
I cant believe almost 70% of the comments [on ytube] actually support her, like:

"emma west for prime minister!
she is a legend for having the balls to stand up against the parasites from aborad.
she has nothing to be ashamed of."

We even have one here but thats acceptable.
But man, 70%!
And I thought brits were a well educated, rational, athiestic/irreligious and pleasant bunch with only a wierd accent to complain about.
Yes, I know she's a chav, but still, tell me, most of the guys aren't like this are they?
Click to expand...

Remember that's a self selected sample.

I think people who are disgusted by it are less likely to pass it on, while people who see that and agree with her pass it on to like minded people.
 
I mean think about it- stupid lady makes a racist verbal rant on a tram and could possibly get up to 2 years in prison as a result. Disproportionate, much? How about mandatory anger management counseling?
 
We have newspapers called the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, which has articles every day about asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
mail171111.png

dailyracist.jpg


All that woman was doing was repeating what she reads in the newspapers, with a few choice words added.
Why shouldn't she be allowed to say in her inarticulate way, what our august press can say without the police at their doors?
She said nothing worse than they do, and abused no one in particular.

If she doesn't plead guilty, this could become quite a circus.
I think she could win.
 
CptBork said:
She should have been arrested and charged with creating a public disturbance, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that covers it. I'm with nietzsche here, she has a right to her opinion no matter how dumb it is

edit: on seeing the entire video, it doesn't even warrant a disturbance charge. A couple of people got pissed and responded for a couple of minutes. Most people just looked embarassed, like they wished they were elsewhere. Not really a big deal. The whole thing was for less than 3 minutes. I think the video was not even worth watching - the decision to arrest her was poorly thought out, its going to give unnecessary importance to basically, a moron

@Capt. Kremmen: I like your posts in this thread. :p
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
Yes, I think that covers it. I'm with nietzsche here, she has a right to her opinion no matter how dumb it is

edit: on seeing the entire video, it doesn't even warrant a disturbance charge. A couple of people got pissed and responded for a couple of minutes. Most people just looked embarassed, like they wished they were elsewhere. Not really a big deal. The whole thing was for less than 3 minutes. I think the video was not even worth watching - the decision to arrest her was poorly thought out, its going to give unnecessary importance to basically, a moron

@Capt. Kremmen: I like your posts in this thread. :p
Click to expand...

Some worrying posts even in a science forum??? :confused:
 
Captain Kremmen said:
We have newspapers called the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, which has articles every day about asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
All that woman was doing was repeating what she reads in the newspapers, with a few choice words added.
Why shouldn't she be allowed to say in her inarticulate way, what our august press can say without the police at their doors?
She said nothing worse than they do, and abused no one in particular.

If she doesn't plead guilty, this could become quite a circus.
I think she could win.
Click to expand...

How so?

I posted the UK laws she was charged with breaking and it seems pretty clear she did so.

If those laws had been passed in some PC town in the US and that same thing happened here, she could win, but she would do so only by proving the laws were unconstitutional under our 1st Amendment, which she could probably do since it is so open ended it protects our freedom to say the just about anything we want.

But it would appear that the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 is valid under your Article 10.

Article 10 Human Rights Act 1998: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Click to expand...

So again, how do you think she could win?

Arthur
 
She is ignorant. She is stupid. She is a loud mouth. She is going to jail for it.

These people are valuable litmus tests for freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top