Solicitor fined for racially abusing mum in first-class train carriage

[unlevel42]

Q A woman and child are being verbally abused by a drunken man.

A.1 Is it the fault of the woman?
2 The fault of the child?
3 The fault of the train staff?
4 The fault of the abuser?
5 The fault of 'Daesh'?
6 Different definitions of "Freedom of Speech"?
7 The natural response of crying when upset?

When I went to school I was never told to ignore those who abused me or who abused others - I was shown a range of ways deal with it.
Unfortunately there are too many people around who ignore situations when others are being abused and blame others, even the victims, for their inaction.

 

[yorkie]

J-2739, I think you're on your own on this one. I just can't agree with what you say. I won't tolerate someone being racially abused. I am disappointed that some people think it is acceptable but I won't be changing my views on the matter.

We learnt in primary school that ignoring someone in these situations is the best weapon you could ever have. ....

I would say yes to not reacting to them, and ignoring them from that perspective. But I would absolutely say that it should be reported to an appropriate person at the earliest practicable opportunity.

I very much doubt you were taught at primary school to accept such abuse, and say nothing to anyone. Surely not?!

 

[J-2739]

Can you explain to me how any of this (quoted below, from the Herald's article) could possibly have been an option rather than abuse?

"demanding to know where she came from, why didn’t she go back there and that she shouldn’t be travelling in first class"

Ok, I withdraw that statement.

May I refer you to the Race Relations Act 1976, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006? The law is very clear that it is indeed a crime.

I wish it wasn't. I still feel people should be allowed to despise someone and voice their honest opinion as much as they want, without fear of being criminally convicted.

However, if the law is like this, then so shall be it.

 

[me123]

I wish it wasn't. I still feel people should be allowed to despise someone and voice their honest opinion as much as they want, without fear of being criminally convicted.

And was the victim not permitted to travel on a train without the fear of being subjected to racist abuse?

 

[J-2739]

J-2739, I think you're on your own on this one. I just can't agree with what you say. I won't tolerate someone being racially abused. I am disappointed that some people think it is acceptable but I won't be changing my views on the matter.

Okay, I don't think any of us can agree, so I'll just leave this argument here.

Thanks.

I would say yes to not reacting to them, and ignoring them from that perspective. But I would absolutely say that it should be reported to an appropriate person at the earliest practicable opportunity.

I very much doubt you were taught at primary school to accept such abuse, and say nothing to anyone. Surely not?!

Yes, we should report somebody if we are getting abuse. But it doesn't require a criminal conviction, in my opinion.

 

[Roast Veg]

It is my personal opinion that the freedom of speech is actually pretty far down on the list of freedoms I would like people to have as a priority. In this case, the woman and child were being verbally assaulted and their rights were being infringed upon, which takes precedence over the man's right to speak his mind.

 

[miami]

Sounds like this was very well handled by the train manager, full marks to him and the BTP

 

[Llanigraham]

We learnt in primary school that ignoring someone in these situations is the best weapon you could ever have. Why couldn't she do that? Not acknowledge his existence.

By crying, she's only provoking him even more.


Freedom of speech includes allowing to voice an opinion of something, even hate.

You don't seem to understand the real concept.

If, as it seems, the "attack" was continuous, even after the intervention of both the Guard and the Police, then your above comment is totally unjustified. No-one, but no-one, has the right to abuse another person for their race, gender or anything else.

Your comments suggest that you may have an "agenda" over this. Perhaps you would care to explain it?

 

[mickulty]

I'm not sure there's a single country in the world where causing someone to fear physical violence is covered by the protection of freedom of expression. There is an obvious grey area, but a racist tirade from someone who is obviously drunk - and therefore unpredictable and potentially violent - is not in the grey area. Any reasonable person would feel unsafe, not merely that their fellow passenger had expressed an opinion.

I'm very glad to read that the train manager and BTP were so effective in dealing with it.

 

[Juniper Driver]

We learnt in primary school that ignoring someone in these situations is the best weapon you could ever have. Why couldn't she do that? Not acknowledge his existence.

By crying, she's only provoking him even more.


Freedom of speech includes allowing to voice an opinion of something, even hate.

You don't seem to understand the real concept.

By boozing and not being in control provokes him even more.

I'm fed up with drunken idiots on trains and anywhere else.

 

[NSEFAN]

Yes, we should report somebody if we are getting abuse. But it doesn't require a criminal conviction, in my opinion.

Why not? If the abuse is very agressive then it needs to be dealt with, especially given he was drunk and a potential risk to other passengers and staff. This chap can serve as an example to others as to how not to conduct yourself in public.

 

[BestWestern]

Yes, we should report somebody if we are getting abuse. But it doesn't require a criminal conviction, in my opinion.

But then surely, without the potential of repurcussions, reporting serves no purpose?

 

[Roast Veg]

Particularly the threat of just being thrown off the train, without an actual conviction from the BTP, suggests that their jurisdiction ends at the train doors. Not only that, but it suggests that if this happened on the street all the police would be able to do is tell them to "move along" - which is of course the first action before necessary escalation; hate crime is crime nonetheless, not something you should just be slapped on the wrist for.

 

[AndyY]

All the debate aside, I cannot help but think that race laws are applied very selectively in this country.

1. I wonder if the police and court would have been involved, had this been the other way round (e.g. black woman shouting racial abuse at white man)?

2. I have never heard of anybody being convicted of racial abuse against Chinese, for example. Do they just think some ethnic minorities take it quietly and don't kick up a fuss?

Disclaimer: I am not white.

 

[Carntyne]

Great result. Should be banned from travelling on the railway in future too.

 

[mickulty]

All the debate aside, I cannot help but think that race laws are applied very selectively in this country.

1. I wonder if the police and court would have been involved, had this been the other way round (e.g. black woman shouting racial abuse at white man)?

2. I have never heard of anybody being convicted of racial abuse against Chinese, for example. Do they just think some ethnic minorities take it quietly and don't kick up a fuss?

Disclaimer: I am not white.

Googling "convicted for racially abusing white" turns up at least three different examples on the first page, including - interestingly - a white person convicted for racially abusing other white people. Same for "convicted for racially abusing asian". I can link news stories if you want, but they're mostly from papers I prefer not to give the traffic to.

Actual statistics are more elusive.

 

[Roast Veg]

Great result. Should be banned from travelling on the railway in future too.

I draw the line somewhere before that. The court has a ruling on crimes of this nature, which should be deterrent enough on their own (that's their job), so there should be no need for a rail travel ban.

 

[Carntyne]

I draw the line somewhere before that. The court has a ruling on crimes of this nature, which should be deterrent enough on their own (that's their job), so there should be no need for a rail travel ban.

Valid point, I just disagree, I wouldn't give him the opportunity to do the same again to passengers or railway staff.

 

[Roast Veg]

And the railway have a right to do so if they choose, under the Conditions of Carriage I believe. Though in that situation you and I would make different decisions on whether to exercise that or not, it seems.

 

[anti-pacer]

All the debate aside, I cannot help but think that race laws are applied very selectively in this country.

1. I wonder if the police and court would have been involved, had this been the other way round (e.g. black woman shouting racial abuse at white man)?

2. I have never heard of anybody being convicted of racial abuse against Chinese, for example. Do they just think some ethnic minorities take it quietly and don't kick up a fuss?

Disclaimer: I am not white.

Similar to what I asked earlier.

 

[2HAP]

He should have been ejected off the train.

Agreed, but was there really a need to stop the train first?

 

[kevconnor]

Anyone who pulls out the freedom of speech card I would remind them of the following from European Convention on Human Right.

ARTICLE 17

Prohibition of abuse of rights

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

 

[Dvorak]

I wonder what would have happened had he just been ejected from the train? I suspect that he wouldn't have sat down for a think about the foolishness and offensiveness of his actions. Rather more likely that he would have continued his drunken aggression, quite possibly against the first member of staff he encountered.

 

[furnessvale]

I wonder what would have happened had he just been ejected from the train? I suspect that he wouldn't have sat down for a think about the foolishness and offensiveness of his actions. Rather more likely that he would have continued his drunken aggression, quite possibly against the first member of staff he encountered.

Given that he was a solicitor, a lack of action by the railway or BTP would probably have seen a counter action by him for whatever trumped up charges he could have invented.

 

[me123]

I wonder what would have happened had he just been ejected from the train? I suspect that he wouldn't have sat down for a think about the foolishness and offensiveness of his actions. Rather more likely that he would have continued his drunken aggression, quite possibly against the first member of staff he encountered.

According to the Daily Mail:

MacKinnon reportedly 'liked' Donald Trump, English Defence League, the BNP, the Scottish BNP and various Scottish Conservative associations on social media and posted articles about former Ukip leader Nigel Farage prior to the incident.

This isn't a once-off event. There is a distinct pattern here - this man is an overt racist, and clearly looks like he enjoys more than a few drinks. It seems rather likely that he would do this again.

(FWIW, I'm not putting the Scottish Conservative party in the same basket as the others!).

 

[yorkie]

Indeed. I'm glad justice was done.

 

[6Gman]

All the debate aside, I cannot help but think that race laws are applied very selectively in this country.

1. I wonder if the police and court would have been involved, had this been the other way round (e.g. black woman shouting racial abuse at white man)?

2. I have never heard of anybody being convicted of racial abuse against Chinese, for example. Do they just think some ethnic minorities take it quietly and don't kick up a fuss?

Disclaimer: I am not white.

1. We have no way of knowing, because it wasn't a black woman shouting racial abuse at a white man.
2. I'm pretty sure there have been, though I can't provide chapter and verse.

 

[jon0844]

Shouldn't it say ex-solicitor?

I think the mods will amend the thread title in a few days...!

 

[Robertj21a]

Ok, I withdraw that statement.



I wish it wasn't. I still feel people should be allowed to despise someone and voice their honest opinion as much as they want, without fear of being criminally convicted.

However, if the law is like this, then so shall be it.

I have to say that I'm really concerned if you truly believe in all that you've been writing on this subject. I think most of the rest of us became far more enlightened some decades ago.

 

[Master29]

How can the law society continue to allow such a person to practice as a solicitor...

He`ll probably be offered a position in Donald Trumps cabinet.