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

[47271]

Wasn't there a similar case related here recently - I've got a feeling that it was on Thameslink or Southern - where another old grump took exception to anyone who might be in a First Class section with a young child? This one seems a lot worse - a drunken racist - but at least he got lifted for it. It makes you wonder about his fitness to practice as a solicitor.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...ly_abusing_mum_in_first_class_train_carriage/

A solicitor who racially abused a mum in front of her toddler son on a train has been fined more than £1,000.

Alexander MacKinnon, of Glasgow, unleashed a torrent of abuse at his fellow passenger in a first class carriage.

The 47-year-old pleaded guilty at a court in Carlisle to the Racially Aggravated Public Order offence and was hit with a penalty of £1,154 as well as £50 compensation, a £150 victim surcharge and costs of £85.

The lawyer was investigated by British Transport Police in England because his offences took place on a cross-border train as he returned to Glasgow from London.

The court heard how on 29 December last year, MacKinnon, who had been drinking and was seated in the first class carriage of the 2.30pm train from London Euston shouted at a four year old child, telling him to be quiet.

When the child’s mother asked him not to raise his voice, Mr MacKinnon responded with a barrage of racist 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.

His victim began to cry and reported the man to a member of rail staff. The train manager was informed who told MacKinnon he would be taken off the train at Carlisle and met by police.

He responded by continuing his racist rant, accusing his victim of wasting police time by reporting the matter and adding that she shouldn’t be in this country.

In police interview, MacKinnon continued to be abusive and racist about his victim, according to British Transport Police.

Investigating officer PC Mark Mellenthin said: “The victim was visibly distressed and shaken by MacKinnon’s frightening racist outburst. Thankfully the train manager stepped in before the abuse escalated.

“People like MacKinnon must understand that abusive, racist behaviour like this has no place on the railway and will not be tolerated. Everyone has the right to travel in safety without fear of abuse like this, violence or intimidation.

He added: “When it does happen we will do everything in our power to bring them before the courts. Hopefully MacKinnon’s substantial fine will make him think twice before unleashing such vitriol on other members of the public.”

 

[Qwerty133]

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

 

[jopsuk]

Well the conviction was today, so presumably any disciplinary proceedings will only now start. Certainly cannot be good for his career.

 

[JaJaWa]

Shouldn't it say ex-solicitor?

 

[adrock1976]

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

I suppose it would depend upon how he is viewed among his peer group.

I remember in the late 1990s or early noughties that Donald Findlay QC was caught on video singing "The Billy Boys of Brigton" at a karaoke event. With the furor it caused, he resigned from his role as the chair (or other high heid yin position) at the original Glasgow Rangers FC.

Findlay still practices law to this very day.

 

[Llanigraham]

The Law Society can do very little until he has been convicted.
Now their action can start.

 

[PHILIPE]

The Law Society can do very little until he has been convicted.
Now their action can start.

Is that right ? Shiner, the tank chasing lawyer, has been struck off but I don't think he's ever been charged with anything.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is that right ? Shiner, the tank chasing lawyer, has been struck off but I don't think he's ever been charged with anything.

Where a criminal investigation is being brought that takes primacy.

Not all incidents where solicitors are struck off involve crimes.

 

[steveandrews]

Kudos to the train manager. Perhaps the sentence handed down was too lenient. A couple of weeks in jail might have had a more salutary affect on a well-off lawyer.

 

[J-2739]

Freedom of speech, no?

 

[Phil.]

Is that right ? Shiner, the tank chasing lawyer, has been struck off but I don't think he's ever been charged with anything.

Not yet but one lives in hope.

 

[me123]

Freedom of speech, no?

What about the victim's freedoms? The freedom to travel, the freedom to spend her money as she pleases, the freedom to go about her business without being subject to an attack?

Freedom of speech is a good thing, but you should not be allowed to use your own freedom to impinge upon the freedoms of others. This is where legislation regarding incitement of racial hatred comes from.

 

[CardiffKid]

Freedom of speech, no?

That's not what freedom of speech means.

I'm really fed up of people assuming 'freedom of speach' means say what you want when you want.

 

[anti-pacer]

I'm against racism but had this have been the other way round would it have been treated the same? For example..

Solicitor: "Can you be quiet"? (to child)
Woman: "Don't speak to my child like that, you white (insert word".

...followed her racially abusing him.

Had it have been THAT way round, would it have gone the same way?

Anyway, back to the facts of this story. I hope this solicitor never practices law again.

 

[jopsuk]

Freedom of speech, no?

Nowhere has unrestricted freedom of speech.

 

[J-2739]

What about the victim's freedoms? The freedom to travel, the freedom to spend her money as she pleases, the freedom to go about her business without being subject to an attack?

Freedom of speech is a good thing, but you should not be allowed to use your own freedom to impinge upon the freedoms of others. This is where legislation regarding incitement of racial hatred comes from.

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.

That's not what freedom of speech means.

I'm really fed up of people assuming 'freedom of speach' means say what you want when you want.

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

You don't seem to understand the real concept.

 

[yorkie]

Freedom of speech, no?

Definitely not. No-one has the right to dish out racist abuse. That is not "freedom of speech". I would not want to live in a world where everyone had complete freedom to dish out racist abuse.

I'd expect him to be sacked and barred from practising as a solicitor again for this, and I'd certainly hope he is!

 

[BestWestern]

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.

You don't think that yelling drunken racise abuse at somebody deserves a response and punishment?

Presumably she cried because she was upset....

 

[me123]

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.

Jesus Christ...

So it's the victim's fault, because she should have just shut up and tolerated being racially abused? That's the most repulsive thing I've heard in a long time, and a view I wouldn't have expected to hear outside Daesh. Or perhaps a Richard Littlejohn column.

Even if we are going down that path, freedom of speech is not the same as an unprovoked attack, which is what this is.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm against racism but had this have been the other way round would it have been treated the same? For example..

Solicitor: "Can you be quiet"? (to child)
Woman: "Don't speak to my child like that, you white (insert word".

...followed her racially abusing him.

Had it have been THAT way round, would it have gone the same way?

Anyway, back to the facts of this story. I hope this solicitor never practices law again.

I don't see why not.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...l-abuse-interviewed-police/amp/?client=safari

"F***ing white b***h".

 

[J-2739]

You don't think that yelling drunken racise abuse at somebody deserves a response and punishment?

Presumably she cried because she was upset....

It most definitely isn't right of what Alexander said, and being of a racial minority, is not something I'd agree with. But even then, he should be allowed to voice his opinion on people without fear of being criminally convicted. That's what true Freedom of Expression is.

The best thing to do with this man, in my opinion, was to eject him from the train and leave him at the station. Getting the police involved in this situation was too far.

 

[me123]

It most definitely isn't right of what Alexander said, and being of a racial minority, is not something I'd agree with. But even then, he should be allowed to voice his opinion on people without fear of being criminally convicted. That's what true Freedom of Expression is.

We're assuming that his comments can even be classified as an "opinion". Frankly, it just seems to be abuse.

 

[BestWestern]

It most definitely isn't right of what Alexander said, and being of a racial minority, is not something I'd agree with. But even then, he should be allowed to voice his opinion on people without fear of being criminally convicted. That's what true Freedom of Expression is.

The best thing to do with this man, in my opinion, was to eject him from the train and leave him at the station. Getting the police involved in this situation was too far.

Well, we are of course all entitled to our views. I couldn't disagree more with you, though. Our civilised society doesn't make provision for those who wish to abuse others, whatever the reason. And I'm glad for that.

Involving the police is seldom 'too far' if a crime has been committed.

 

[J-2739]

Jesus Christ...

So it's the victim's fault, because she should have just shut up and tolerated being racially abused? That's the most repulsive thing I've heard in a long time, and a view I wouldn't have expected to hear outside Daesh. Or perhaps a Richard Littlejohn column.

Even if we are going down that path, freedom of speech is not the same as an unprovoked attack, which is what this is.

Yes actually. It's his opinion (which I don't agree with), and thus, should be allowed to voice it as much as he can.

I think none of this would have happed if the rail staff acted much earlier when the man was shouting at the child for no reason. You should always take caution talking to drunken louts like this.

PS- I don't think Daesh promote freedom of speech either...

 

[BestWestern]

Not sure if we're being wound up at this point... I hope so!

 

[Monty]

Yes actually. It's his opinion (which I don't agree with), and thus, should be allowed to voice it as much as he can.

I think none of this would have happed if the rail staff acted much earlier when the man was shouting at the child for no reason. You should always take caution talking to drunken louts like this.

PS- I don't think Daesh promote freedom of speech either...

You sir are a moron.

#Freedomofspeech

 

[47271]

It most definitely isn't right of what Alexander said, and being of a racial minority, is not something I'd agree with. But even then, he should be allowed to voice his opinion on people without fear of being criminally convicted. That's what true Freedom of Expression is.

The best thing to do with this man, in my opinion, was to eject him from the train and leave him at the station. Getting the police involved in this situation was too far.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/you-dont-deserve-here-bloody-9753726

By the looks of him in the video in this story I very much doubt that he would have left the train without the police getting involved.

 

[me123]

Yes actually. It's his opinion (which I don't agree with), and thus, should be allowed to voice it as much as he can.

Do you not accept that there's a difference between voicing an opinion and verbal abuse?

PS- I don't think Daesh promote freedom of speech either...

My understanding of Daesh is that they expect minorities, such as women, to be subservient and obedient. An position that is not unlike your suggestion that this lady should have just been quiet. She was absolutely right to speak up, and I applaud her for doing so. Perhaps if she hadn't, this "man" might not have been punished.

 

[J-2739]

You sir are a moron.

#Freedomofspeech

Why?

Do you not accept that there's a difference between voicing an opinion and verbal abuse?

Who knows? Maybe what he said to her was meant in an opinionated way, but due to being drunk, came out wrong.

My understanding of Daesh is that they expect minorities, such as women, to be subservient and obedient. An position that is not unlike your suggestion that this lady should have just been quiet. She was absolutely right to speak up, and I applaud her for doing so. Perhaps if she hadn't, this "man" might not have been punished.

Which he shouldn't have. He should have been ejected off the train.

 

[me123]

Who knows? Maybe what he said to her was meant in an opinionated way, but due to being drunk, came out wrong.

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"

Which he shouldn't have. He should have been ejected off the train.

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.