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

[PaxVobiscum]

The plot has thickened.
The story now posted on BBC Scotland with an interesting addition - the victim is a laywer as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38868403

Mrs Shahid, who is also a lawyer, said she was targeted by MacKinnon on the 14:30 train on 29 December after he took exception to her and her son's presence in first class.

 

[HowardGWR]

The plot has thickened.
The story now posted on BBC Scotland with an interesting addition - the victim is a laywer as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38868403

How is it thickened?

 

[aylesbury]

He is clearly a stupid drunken idiot who deserves everything that is thrown at him by the police .Also why do some people not like the Daily Mail or are do they prefer the Sun !Hope the lady concerned has got over this assault because that is what it is as it can take a while to get over things like this.

 

[amarshe]

Similar to what I asked earlier.

Let me help you. An article from that well known liberal bastion, the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/the-shocking-reality-of-racist-bullying-in-british-schools/

It doesn't matter the colour or creed of the victim. This was a case of racism - unless you deny that simple fact? - and whilst many on this forum are male and insensitive and have thick skins (myself included, and no disrespect intended), remember that this case involved a mother and her young son.

Racism in any form is abhorrent. End of. If that your wife and son, how would you react?

 

[PaxVobiscum]

How is it thickened?

In the sense that our loudmouth racist solicitor chose the wrong person (from his point of view) to try and intimidate. Upset though she undoubtedly was, she was in a better position than many to pursue this matter and see justice done.

Perhaps it will help ram home to him the message about why racial stereotyping is such a bad idea.

 

[rebmcr]

Some points to note:

• Freedom of Speech is not part of UK law.

• In countries where it is a feature, it is referring to an individual's protection from government censorship. Twisting it to mean "everyone's opinion is sacred, and guaranteed a voice" is wholly incorrect.

• If the only attempt at defence of an opinion (regardless of whether that defence holds any legal weight) is "it's illegal to stop me", then you can guarantee it's a terrible opinion that we would all be better off without.

 

[All Line Rover]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38868403

Given the person's 'attitude problem' (as is clear from watching just a few seconds of that short clip), I sincerely hope he is struck off.

It's clearly not a case of acting stupidly in public when blind drunk (which, for a lawyer, would be bad enough).

 

[All Line Rover]

...people should be allowed to despise someone and voice their honest opinion as much as they want...

We could put that into practice. Let us know your next long distance rail journey.

 

[Butts]

Does anyone know what he actually said as the video and written accounts seem heavily redacted.

It is difficult to have an informed opinion without being privy to the actual dialogue.

 

[Abpj17]

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 suspect that fact he was drunk and loud - let alone at a child - may have been bigger factors than the racism.

Even without the racist element, it was straightforward harassment.

(And as Pax suggests, I suspect it was taken further because the victim was less likely to be intimated by court proceedings as a lawyer herself)

 

[Trog]

Some points to note:

• Freedom of Speech is not part of UK law.

Surely in UK law everything that is not illegal is deemed to be legal. Therefore while we do not have an enshrined positive right to free speech, no one has the right to stop us saying what we want, which amounts to the same thing just coming in the other direction. So long as we do not say something specifically made illegal in law, such as inciting racial hatred, slander etc.

 

[al78]

Surely in UK law everything that is not illegal is deemed to be legal. Therefore while we do not have an enshrined positive right to free speech, no one has the right to stop us saying what we want, which amounts to the same thing just coming in the other direction. So long as we do not say something specifically made illegal in law, such as inciting racial hatred, slander etc.

Of course, just because something is not technically illegal in law, doesn't make it right, and unprovoked verbal abuse is not right (sometimes verbal abuse is classed as assault, if it makes the victim feel threatened).

 

[Trog]

Of course, just because something is not technically illegal in law, doesn't make it right, and unprovoked verbal abuse is not right (sometimes verbal abuse is classed as assault, if it makes the victim feel threatened).

Did I ever say it did?

 

[paddington]

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)?

Yes, if the white man did not take it quietly, and the black woman's racial abuse and circumstances were of the same calibre as this man's.

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?

There aren't that many Chinese in the UK, so you're less likely to have heard of such a case.

In Australia there are more Chinese and fewer South Asians, and so racist incidents against Chinese are to be found more often in the Australian media.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

Just because you don't hear about things happening doesn't mean they don't happen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/artic...ese-people-say-racism-against-them-is-ignored

British Chinese people and community leaders have been telling Newsbeat that racism against them isn't taken seriously enough.
Michael Wilkes from the British Chinese Project says people regularly contact the community group about physical and verbal abuse.
"We've been getting calls and emails about racist incidents from right across the UK," he says.
"There's a lack of knowledge about the words Chinese people find offensive."

 

[WelshBluebird]

Freedom of speech, no?

But not freedom from the consequences of that speech

 

[miami]

But not freedom from the consequences of that speech

Yes it does - you had freedom of speech in east Germany, the consequences were you'd end up disappearing.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes it does - you had freedom of speech in east Germany, the consequences were you'd end up disappearing.

If you threaten to kill someone in this country, you will probably be arrested (or at the very least have a talking to). If you joke about bombing an airport in the US and then fly there you will possibly be treated as a terrorist etc etc. There is no absolute freedom of speech anywhere. Sure you can say what you like, but there are always consequences. Sometimes those are just people not liking what you say, sometimes those are protests against what you say, sometimes those involve criminal convictions against you.

 

[Ambient Sheep]

I always thought this was quite a good take on the whole Freedom of Speech thing:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

...not that I entirely agree with it, as I don't think someone should be immune from arrest for hurling racist abuse, but perhaps that would be better framed under harrassment laws etc. rather than actually what they're saying.

 

[miami]

If you threaten to kill someone in this country, you will probably be arrested (or at the very least have a talking to). If you joke about bombing an airport in the US and then fly there you will possibly be treated as a terrorist etc etc. There is no absolute freedom of speech anywhere. Sure you can say what you like, but there are always consequences. Sometimes those are just people not liking what you say, sometimes those are protests against what you say, sometimes those involve criminal convictions against you.

Yes, even in the US with the vaunted "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech", there have been exceptions for decades - for example 'fighting words'.

However that doesn't mean that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech, it means that freedom of speech has specific exceptions.

...not that I entirely agree with it, as I don't think someone should be immune from arrest for hurling racist abuse, but perhaps that would be better framed under harrassment laws etc. rather than actually what they're saying.

Absolutely, if you're breeching the peace, you should be dealt with

 

[Marklund]

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.

Was he ever convicted, or was this just a chance to have a pop at The Rangers?

If he wasn't, it's not very "In peace" is it?

 

[fowler9]

This guy was free to say what he wanted. He can shout fire in a theatre where there is no fire if he wants. He is also free to suffer the consequences. Swearing at a 4 year old child after drinking wine straight from the bottle on a train is likely to land anyone in trouble purely from a public order point of view whatever you shout at said child.

 

[traintimemf]

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.

I don't really like how this gets brought up seems like a straw man argument, that is not what happened and I imagine black on white abuse happens a whole lot less

further to this even if I encountered such a thing, I doubt it would bother me however, perhaps if I had come from a country or had ancestry from places which had been subject to war/slavery/invasion and supression as a result of actions from a western country I was now living in, as a minority, the words might have a deeper impact emotionally than just brushing it off as some drunk running his mouth on the train...

 

[DarloRich]

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

surely if he is registered in Scotland it will be a matter for the Law Society of Scotland to consider rather than the Law Society

( The Law Society don't regulate Solicitors in England and Wales anymore - that job falls to the Solicitors Regulation Authority)

 

[gray1404]

So much as I do not agree with racism, and we can only go with what the report says, it sounds typical:

a. child doing something wrong
b. person's says something
c. parent then rather then accept responsibility try to turn it on the person making the complaint and gets offended by the way it was said
d. then as we see here it snow balls from there

Had the behavior been prevented in the first place or the parent's respond a non defensive one then this could have been avoided.

 

[DarloRich]

So much as I do not agree with racism, and we can only go with what the report says, it sounds typical:

a. child doing something wrong
b. person's says something
c. parent then rather then accept responsibility try to turn it on the person making the complaint and gets offended by the way it was said
d. then as we see here it snow balls from there

Had the behavior been prevented in the first place or the parent's respond a non defensive one then this could have been avoided.

oh dear - blame the victim. :roll:

 

[al78]

I always thought this was quite a good take on the whole Freedom of Speech thing:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

...not that I entirely agree with it, as I don't think someone should be immune from arrest for hurling racist abuse, but perhaps that would be better framed under harrassment laws etc. rather than actually what they're saying.

I don't think that is what it is saying, if anything the contrary. It is saying that if you voice an opinion, and get a hostile reaction because your opinion is controversial or offensive, that reaction is not an attack on your freedom of speech, but rather a consequence. It is aimed at those who think they can mouth off what they like and expect everyone in earshot to go "oh, ok then".

 

[Liam]

Was he ever convicted, or was this just a chance to have a pop at The Rangers?

If he wasn't, it's not very "In peace" is it?

What would he have been convicted of? Donald Findlay did nothing criminal.

 

[Busaholic]

surely if he is registered in Scotland it will be a matter for the Law Society of Scotland to consider rather than the Law Society

( The Law Society don't regulate Solicitors in England and Wales anymore - that job falls to the Solicitors Regulation Authority)

A quick look at the website of the Law Society of Scotland shows that solicitors are expected to act with 'personal integrity' at all times, even in the context of a private citizen.

 

[Marklund]

What would he have been convicted of? Donald Findlay did nothing criminal.

Precisely.
So to bring it up in the first place was irrelevant.