When there's actual or implied threat...I mean it's pretty obvious tbh. I mean would you go crying to the police if someone called you an offensive name? Or would you just...adult?
Man sends banana to black mans table in Wetherspoons pub
- Thread starter Bassmansam
- Start date
- Status
When there's actual or implied threat...I mean it's pretty obvious tbh. I mean would you go crying to the police if someone called you an offensive name? Or would you just...adult?
One takes 5 seconds and zero thought.
Installing a burning cross in somebody's garden is a much more involved affair. Clearly people went to a lot of trouble, and the cross being a sign of crucifixion (and historical lynching) is clearly an implied threat.
Sending a banana to a table is a racist prank, and a dick move, but hardly an implied threat. It's pretty low effort idiocy.
You've stated a burning cross is directly threatening - the reason that is so is due to the associated negative connotations. Just like the banana incident you stated had negative connotations.
My question was how related those two are within rhe UK law as mentioned by @Caracus2k
No but not understanding how receiving a banana as a black man could be extremely upsetting is. Just because it's a fruit doesn't mean there isn't any intention behind it.
Would I go to the police if someone called me a nasty name? No I wouldn't. Would I go to the police if I was subjected to an act of obvious racism? Absolutely. I'm just fortunate enough that to me a banana is a snack but to someone who is black it's implying that they're no different to a monkey.
Incorrect. When has a banana being sent to a table ever been a precursor or signal of the lynching and murder of a black person by the kkk?
The burning of a crucifix is a declaration or signal of war - a violent act. A banana is a signal of a dick move.
If you can't see the difference well...
Yea, it's an implication of a derogatory nature. An insult. Nothing more. Name calling. Like I said. Kids cry over people calling them names. Adults shrug their shoulders and get on with their day/life.
Possibly different if it was part of a prolonged campaign of harassment. But it wasn't. It was one isolated incident.
I know you think you are being clever but I'm afraid you are an idiot if you think leaving a burning cross or lower case 't' on someones lawn is comparable to sending someone a banana in 'spoons.
Both events might be' racist' but being racist, making racist jokes or expressing racist opionons are not (yet) offences in and of themselves and its probably just as well as lots of 'people of colour' (to use the ridiculous modern terminology) are some of the worst groups for actually expressing racist views in the UK.
My post was directed re whether the defendants actions broke the law not whether they were motivated by racism (even if only in the form of a joke) which i took largely to be a given in the circumstances.
Racist remarks run a little bit deeper than name calling though.
Ignoring the inaccurate lynching aspect, the historical declaration of war is definitely threatening I concede. My question was in terms of the legalities re: "abusive".
Im not sure what you're reading in to here
Police aren't there to investigate hurt feels tho. Being upset is not cause to get the police involved.
Otherwise the next time somebody calls me poor, or says all Cornish are inbred, I'd better hurry along to the station to report a hate crime.
People being dicks is not new. As said, a banana is a pretty low effort prank. Sure it's intended to be offensive, but how is it different to countless other examples of offensive things that the police don't care about?
I guess the answer is the police want to be seen as taking this seriously, so as not to give the woke rabble something to write The Guardian about.
Why? What's the difference between that and a kid being mocked for being ginger? Or wearing glasses? Or someone being short? Or tall?
Absolutely nothing. All are factors generally beyond your control. Why cry over it?
The lower case "t" was a South Park reference, perhaps that humour has swayed your perspective of my post. My question was regarding the law you mentioned, and not about any motivation.
Perhaps you could clarify, if you know of course, now I have explained?
If someone "pranked" someone by leaving a burning cross on their lawn, would the technicality to overrule any magistrates conviction be applicable too?
Strange interpretation of my post, considering how short and simple it was
"White privellege" is being prosecuted for sending a 'person of colour' a banana in south east London.....
.... when a person in a position of some authority and appranrent importance (diversity coordinator for a University in South east London) isn't prosecuted for using her position of influence to send out messages sayimg "kill all white men" (see the Goldsmiths uni /Bahar Mustafa case)
And who's fault is this, BTW?
His post was all about the law and the technicality, my post was how applicable that law was to my related example. This is becoming tiring, perhaps I don't explain myself well? I know my English is pretty poor.
Quite a lot different actually.. see football fans being banned for monkey chants etc. Or are we saying that they are just making noises and it shouldn't be taken so personally?
- Status