Man sends banana to black mans table in Wetherspoons pub

[Caracus2k]

If someone "pranked" someone by leaving a burning cross on their lawn, would the technicality to overrule any magistrates conviction be applicable too?

What "technicality" are you refering to?

Appeal courts, in Crown courts, can hear appeals against sentence and/or conviction from Magistrates courts in all circumstances.

There is a clear difference between sending someone an everyday object with a negative racial connotation in certain circumstances and leaving something burning on their front lawn!

 

[Dis86]

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?

You haven't explained what the difference is. You've simply stated something quite random. Ultimately they are making noises, which is what any verbal insult is, a series of noises. They're banned because clubs want to portray a certain image.

So why is someone mocking one uncontrollable characteristic of someone's appearance any different to someone mocking another uncontrollable characteristic of someone's appearance?

 

[Caracus2k]

And who's fault is this, BTW?

I beleive it was the CPS that made the decision to discontinue the case against Bahar Mustafa...

But yet the CPS, in the same regional area, prosecuted someone for sending a black person a banana in 'spoons.

Is the later really more deserving of court time than the former?

 

[FoxEye]

There is a clear difference between sending someone an everyday object with a negative racial connotation in certain circumstances and leaving something burning on their front lawn!

I would have thought the difference was obvious and apparent, but hey.

Now a burning banana, on the other hand, perhaps as part of some effigy

 

[NVP]

What "technicality" are you refering to?

Appeal courts, in Crown courts, can hear appeals against sentence and/or conviction from Magistrates courts in all circumstances.

Interesting...
This is what you said

The lowest/easiest to prove public order offence in England is detailed in section 5 of the public order act which says that a person is guilty of an offence if they 'display any writing sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive within the sight or hearing or anyone likely to be causes harassment, alarm or distress'.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 can be racially aggravated under section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 but the all the parts of the non racially aggravated bit have to be proved before the parts for racial aggravation.

The sending of a banana certainly isn't, in of itself threatening, and its rather a stretch to say that alone it's abusive sign or representation either.

What it clearly is, at best, is a very bad taste racist 'prank'. I don't think many would beleive the defendants claims in this case.

I would not be surprised however if the case was overturned, if appealed, based on the higher courts interpretation of what counts as 'abusive'.

I asked if you think it could also be overturned for a similar prank re: the lower case "t" post

There is a clear difference between sending someone an everyday object with a negative racial connotation in certain circumstances and leaving something burning on their front lawn!

Please clarify for this "idiot" as I'm not seeing the legal difference. You've said there is a clear difference, multiple people have, yet only dis has mentioned it relating to a threat of lynching, which in this day and age and in the UK is such a rarity that the "prank" excuse could be perfectly warranted.

So what's the legal stance on the difference?

 

[AiiR]

You haven't explained what the difference is. You've simply stated something.

So why is someone mocking one uncontrollable characteristic of someone's appearance any difference to someone mocking another uncontrollable characteristic of someone's appearance?

I'm surprised the difference needs explaining to be honest?

If you think singling someone out based on the colour of their skin is equal to being called four eyes then no amount of explaining from me is going to change that, I'd rather not waste my time.

 

[FoxEye]

I'm surprised the difference needs explaining to be honest?

If you think singling someone out based on the colour of their skin is equal to being called four eyes then no amount of explaining from me is going to change that, I'd rather not waste my time.

No this is clearly an agenda at play.

"Racism is more important than other types of discrimination."

Perhaps you could explain why racism is more important than discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, or disability, or poverty...

 

[Thekwango]

You haven't explained what the difference is. You've simply stated something quite random. Ultimately they are making noises, which is what any verbal insult is, a series of noises. They're banned because clubs want to portray a certain image.

So why is someone mocking one uncontrollable characteristic of someone's appearance any different to someone mocking another uncontrollable characteristic of someone's appearance?

If you need the difference between being racist and calling a ginger kid Fanta pants explained to you then this really ain’t the place for you pal.

 

[fretted]

You haven't explained what the difference is. You've simply stated something quite random. Ultimately they are making noises, which is what any verbal insult is, a series of noises. They're banned because clubs want to portray a certain image.

So why is someone mocking one uncontrollable characteristic of someone's appearance any different to someone mocking another uncontrollable characteristic of someone's appearance?

Is this comment real?

 

[FoxEye]

If you need the difference between being racist and calling a ginger kid Fanta pants explained to you then this really ain’t the place for you pal.

"I can't answer the question so I'll substitute an insult for an answer."

 

[NVP]

If you need the difference between being racist and calling a ginger kid Fanta pants explained to you then this really ain’t the place for you pal.

Tbf... I don't see why it is different

 

[Caracus2k]

Please clarify for this "idiot" as I'm not seeing the legal difference.

I really cant help you if you think being sent an everyday item from the menu in a pub is comparable with leaving a burning item on someone's lawn!

If either (theoretical) case was appealed the crown court judges would look at the respective case based on it's individual circumstances.

I'm going to suggest that it would be far harder to suggest that leaving something burning on a person's lawn would not be seen as threatening /abusive vs sending a banana to them in a pub

 

[fretted]

There is no reason to insult a black person or a ginger, it is both wrong. If a person can only gain mirth from belittling someone then they have failed in life

 

[FoxEye]

Tbf... I don't see why it is different

Because it isn't. Discrimination can be done on any grounds, there's no reason to believe the end result of various different types of discrimination is not the same.

Or the intentions of the party causing the discrimination.

 

[AiiR]

No this is clearly an agenda at play.

"Racism is more important than other types of discrimination."

Perhaps you could explain why racism is more important than discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, or disability, or poverty...

Clearly an agenda? Is there evidence of that?

Why do you want me to explain why it's more important? I've never said such a thing.

 

[NVP]

I really cant help you if you think being sent an everyday item from the menu in a pub is comparable with leaving a burning item on someone's lawn!

Both incidents are extremely offensive, one may have a scarier past but in the present day the implied connotations of both are pretty equal, no? Belief of superiority and attempt at offence, not abuse.

If either (theoretical) case was appealed the crown court judges would look at the respective case based on it's individual circumstances.

I'm going to suggest that it would be far harder to suggest that leaving something burning on a person's lawn would not be seen as threatening /abusive vs sending a banana

So it would come down to the crown court judges interpretation of the motivation? A "grey" area.

 

[FoxEye]

Clearly an agenda? Is there evidence of that?

Why do you want me to explain why it's more important? I've never said such a thing.

Well you gave two examples of discrimination based on appearance (which is what skin colour discrimination could arguably be described as).

Then you said racism was clearly the more important discrimination.

So clearly there is a discrimination league table, and racism clearly trumps some other forms of discrimination, at least in cases of discrimination based on appearance

 

[Dis86]

I'm surprised the difference needs explaining to be honest?

If you think singling someone out based on the colour of their skin is equal to being called four eyes then no amount of explaining from me is going to change that, I'd rather not waste my time.

Come on, why's it different? Both are nothing more than uncontrollable aspects of ones appearance.

I'm guessing you've got a bugbear about one because it affects you and so are naturally putting it as a point of focus whereas the other doesn't so you fail to see the relevance.

If you don't think people have been equally hurt by being bullied because they wear glasses or have ginger hair or any other characteristic that's seen as a negative then I'd suggest you have the problem.

 

[JohnG7]

 

[AiiR]

Well you gave two examples of discrimination based on appearance (which is what skin colour discrimination could arguably be described as).

Then you said racism was clearly the more important discrimination.

So clearly there is a discrimination league table, and racism clearly trumps some other forms of discrimination, at least in cases of discrimination based on appearance

Did I say it was more important? I don't remember typing those words.