Taxi Driver Online

Don't know why I didn't latch on to that earlier, but 'speaking my truth' is one of those woke BS phrases which basically means you can say whatever you want and it's the truth, because it's my truth

So it could just be an opinion, or totally BS, or invert reality, or be simple lies, but it's the truth. Because it's my truth

There's an interesting article from the Mail, well at least the headline is but the link to the article is broken.

The headline says something along the lines of she paid $1,800 to the cabby for an offence she says she didn't commit.

Who knows if that's true.

_________________
IDFIMH

I did read that piece earlier today, Sussex, and obviously the headline seems very curious (apart from the fact the monetary value was in $Aus; but she's Australian, and the Mail Online site carries a lot of articles from Australia...)

Not bothering posting it on here, but the crux of it is basically that it was her other half who kicked the window out, but Kerr actually made the payment, because she thought it might have affected her partner's chances of playing for the USA team if she'd admitted she was personally responsible.

So it's basically just the Australian take on the fact that Kerr paid for the damage to the window, and then they were 'de-arrested' on the criminal damage charge.

https://archive.is/uz3al

I'm just delighted the cabby didn't lose out.

I also think it's fair to point out that people who are without fault seldom pay up.

_________________
IDFIMH

This is the version of today's proceedings that I'd intended posting earlier, but couldn't for, er, technical reasons.

Anyway, for what it's worth, this is it. And some interesting extra nuances. In particular, it's surprising that in view of the amount of times it's been mentioned that they'd tried to escape because they'd been locked in and kidnapped, this is the first time it's been mentioned that the taxis doors would lock automatically while on the move (or, I think, with the brake applied)


Sam Kerr: I was hostile over officer’s ‘whiteness’ but it wasn’t insult

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football ... -mfxd3zpp3

The Chelsea and Australia forward, who denies a charge of racially aggravated harassment, admits calling a police officer ‘stupid and white’

Sam Kerr has conceded that she was hostile to a Metropolitan Police officer because of his “whiteness” but says this was not her intention and denied using race as an insult.

Kerr, the Chelsea and Australia footballer, denies a charge of racially aggravated harassment under the Public Order Act 1986 and Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The offence carries a maximum sentence of six months to two years in prison.

Bodycam footage has revealed that Kerr called PC Stephen Lovell “f***ing stupid and white” in the early hours of January 30, 2023 at Twickenham police station. The incident came after a taxi driver had taken Kerr, 31, and her partner, the United States footballer Kristie Mewis, 33, to the station. Kerr and Mewis had been drinking on a night out, and believed the driver was kidnapping them. Mewis eventually smashed a taxi window so that they could “escape”.

Kerr’s cross-examination resumed on Thursday — the fourth day of the trial — before Mewis gave evidence. It was revealed that the taxi driver is Asian, which the prosecutor, Bill Emlyn Jones, KC, said undermined Kerr’s claim that officers were believing the driver over Kerr because of race. Kerr, who said on Wednesday that she was racially profiled in the police station and “treated differently based on what they perceived to be the colour of my skin”, rejected Jones’s suggestion that this accusation was “completely unfair”.

Kerr’s father is of Indian heritage and was born in Calcutta, and it has been noted in court that she identifies as “white Anglo-Indian”.

Jones turned his focus to the “stupid and white comment”. “If someone drunk, angry, aggressive, a stranger, starts abusing you personally, that’s going to make you upset, isn’t it?” Jones asked. Kerr agreed with this notion.

Jones then asked: “So when you say to him, ‘You’re f***ing stupid,’ we’re clear that you meant that to upset him?” Kerr again agreed.

This meant Kerr had weaponised PC Lovell’s race, Jones asserted. Kerr denied saying that Lovell was stupid because he was white and turning his whiteness into an insult, but accepted that she had rolled the terms “stupid” and “white” into an insult.

Jones continued: “At the moment you were expressing his stupidity, you chose to demonstrate your hostility towards him because of his whiteness.”

Kerr said this what not what she meant, to which Jones replied, “It’s what you did.” Kerr answered, “It’s what I did, yes.”

Kerr confirmed that her claim from the police station to “get the f***ing Chelsea lawyers on this” was a bluff. Jones claimed these sort of comments meant she, not PC Lovell, held the power and privilege. Kerr rejected this and denied “giving it the big I am”.

On Wednesday, Kerr had said that the officers held “power and privilege” as white men, therefore they “had never had to experience what we had gone through because we were fearing for our lives”. She explained that she believed the officers were trying to “pin it on me” even though it was Mewis, who is white, that smashed the window.

Mewis testified on Thursday afternoon. She said that PC Lovell was “more snide with Sam, shorter with Sam, and didn’t believe what she was saying”.

On Kerr’s “stupid and white” comment, Mewis said: “In that moment she was speaking the truth of how she was feeling. Subconsciously, she was feeling that she was being treated differently. I’ve seen Sam be treated differently multiple times.”

When cross-examined by Jones, Mewis said the varying treatment was not because Kerr was behaving differently to her.

Jones, referencing the bodycam footage, asked Mewis: “Do you agree that when [Kerr] starts calling the officers ‘stupid and white’, you look like you want the ground to swallow you up?” Mewis did not agree.

Equally, Mewis believed she and Kerr were victims of “gaslighting”, and that the officers felt “it would have been easier for them if the whole thing was our fault”.

As with Kerr, Mewis remembers the driver changing his behaviour after Kerr leant out of a window because she felt like vomiting. The driver “quickly turned very manic”, Mewis said. She added: “I’ve never driven in a car that fast before.”

Mewis became tearful in the dock but refused the offer of a break and outlined how she felt during the journey. “I felt like someone else had control over me and that was obviously very scary.”

She then explained why she smashed a window. “I knew I had to do something dramatic to save us,” she said. “I didn’t know if it was a kidnapping, or whether we were going to crash. All the horrible things that you think about in your head, I thought something like that was going to happen.”

Mewis is carrying the couple’s baby boy, which is due in May. They plan to marry in December. On Kerr’s character, Mewis said: “One of the things I love about her so much is how helpful, humble and loving she is. She is so inspiring, she inspires me every day. I wouldn’t want anybody else to be the mother of my child.”

When asked by Jones, Mewis said her memory was not impaired by alcohol and that she did not know that taxi doors are automatically locked when the vehicle is moving. She did not know how the plastic screen between the taxi’s front and back seats became smashed, nor remember what happened when she tried to call 911.

Earlier on Thursday, Jones pressed Kerr on why she did not make an emergency call until the taxi had arrived at the police station. Kerr said she “didn’t know where we were” and that the taxi moved after she made the call.

Soundless bodycam footage of Kerr showing her phone to PC Lovell was played, with Kerr believing she was showing him evidence of her emergency call rather than her bank account.

PC Lovell has claimed that Kerr showed him her bank account to prove that she could pay for the taxi’s repairs and that he felt “belittled” by this. Kerr does not recall showing him her bank account, but recalls having conversations about money with PC Lovell.

During her re-examination by her lawyer, Grace Forbes, Kerr said that Lovell had told her: “I’m aware of who you are.” This comment, she said, “felt like a threat” and was seemingly a reference to her status as a professional athlete.

Kerr detailed her recollections of the taxi journey on Wednesday. She said that after she vomited out of the vehicle the driver tried to shut the window with her head still out of it. He then began to drive erratically, leading to Kerr and Mewis believing they were being kidnapped.

Kerr, the Australia captain, is one of the most famous women in her homeland. She has scored 99 goals for Chelsea and is considered one of the best footballers in the world. She has not played for more than 12 months because of an anterior cruciate ligament injury.

On Tuesday, PC Lovell denied “making up” his feeling of harassment, alarm or disorder to get Kerr charged.

The trial continues.

Yes, I'm sure being a police officer in the Met is a real bed of roses, and nothing ever to fear at all

And, you know, taxi drivers never feel fear either.

Except maybe when they're dealing with drunken, aggressive, elitist and entitled women. And men

Did I read evidence that says that the ladies believe the police officer was being racist because he was taking more notice of an Asian-heritage taxi driver rather than an Asian-heritage drunk lady?

Makes so much sense to me.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sounds about right, Sussex. As I said, she 'identifies' as 'white anglo-Indian', so basically a couple of different race cards there waiting to be played, depending on the circumstances

And, of course, they're both women, and lesbians, so another couple of victimhood cards waiting to be played. While entitled and imperious at the same time


Anyway, didn't come across any articles on my travels earlier, so assumed the court was maybe having Friday off...but it would appear not. Have normally managed to wade through at least two different articles per day on this, but I'm only bothering with this one tonight.

Quite a lot of rehash here, though, and the main stuff is the prosecution summing up and the references from other elite players...


Sam Kerr’s ‘stupid and white’ remark was hostile, says prosecutor

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football ... -bfh37xc5j

Prosecution’s closing argument comes after court hears eight positive character references for Chelsea star, including from club legends Emma Hayes and Millie Bright

The prosecutor in Sam Kerr’s trial has told the jury that her “stupid and white” comment to a Metropolitan Police officer should be treated with the same legal significance as if she had said “stupid and black”.

Bill Emlyn Jones KC’s closing remarks on Friday came after eight positive character references for Kerr, including written testimonies from the Chelsea legends Emma Hayes and Millie Bright, were heard at Kingston upon Thames crown court.

Jones asserted that Kerr “being very angry and very drunk” meant her behaviour would have been out of character on the night in question. Kerr’s defence lawyer, Grace Forbes, will make her closing remarks to the jury on Monday.

Kerr, the Chelsea and Australia footballer, denies a charge of racially aggravated harassment under the Public Order Act 1986 and Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The offence carries a maximum sentence of six months to two years in prison.

Bodycam footage has revealed that Kerr called PC Stephen Lovell “f***ing stupid and white” in the early hours of January 30, 2023 at Twickenham police station. The incident came after a taxi driver had taken Kerr, 31, and her partner, the United States footballer Kristie Mewis, 33, to the police station. Kerr and Mewis had been drinking on a night out, and have said they believed the driver was kidnapping them. Mewis eventually smashed a taxi window in order for them to “escape”.

Kerr’s father is of Indian heritage and was born in Calcutta. She identifies as “white Anglo-Indian”.

For a guilty verdict, the jury must decide that Kerr intended to cause PC Lovell harassment, alarm or distress; that he felt any of these emotions; and that the offence was racially aggravated. On the issue of racial aggravation, Jones asked the jury to imagine that PC Lovell was black.

“Of course, the words ‘black’ and ‘white’ in this context are not a like-for-like swap,” he said. “Calling a white man ‘white’ is not as loaded as calling a black man ‘black’. It does not carry the hurt and injustice of years, decades and centuries of personal and collective experience of prejudice.

“The fact remains that in the heat of the moment, this insult was delivered in reference to race, and that is what the law prohibits.”

Jones added: “The law does not discriminate when it comes to racist language. The test for you is the same regardless of the ethnicity.

“She was insulting him and was hostile to him in reference to his race. The fact that you may be able to think of much worse examples of racial aggravation is not relevant.

“Would you consider this a racially aggravated incident if she had said ‘stupid and black’? Of course you would. It would not even be contestable. This is the same. Not the same in terms of seriousness and depth of the offence, the shock value of the insult, of overt racism. It may not be as serious an example, but it satisfies the legal definition.”

Kerr has denied saying that PC Lovell was stupid because he was white and turning his whiteness into an insult, but accepted that she had rolled the terms “stupid” and “white” into an insult. She said she did not mean to show hostility to PC Lovell because of his whiteness, but accepted that is what she did.

On Wednesday Kerr said she thought PC Lovell “treated me differently based on what they perceived to be the colour of my skin”. Kerr and Mewis have both explained that they feared for their lives in the taxi, which was driven by a man. Kerr, recalling her time in the police station with three white and male officers, said on Wednesday that PC Lovell “had no idea about the power and privilege he had”.

On these topics, Jones said: “It doesn’t matter that the defendant felt that PC Lovell had been racist to her. Justification is no excuse nor defence.”

Jones also addressed the defence’s claim that PC Lovell was “making something up” to get Kerr charged, because he only referenced being affected by Kerr’s comment in his second witness statement. PC Lovell has denied this accusation.

Jones said PC Lovell was entitled to include new details in his second statement, which came after the Crown Prosecution Service had initially deemed the evidence as insufficient to charge Kerr.

Earlier on Friday Hayes was among those to describe Kerr’s character via written testimony. “Sam’s one of the warmest, friendliest, kindest and considerate players I have ever coached,” Hayes, who was Chelsea head coach from 2012 to 2024 and signed Kerr in 2019, said. “Not only was she an exemplary role model to all her team-mates but in particular to the younger players.”

Bright, the Chelsea captain and England defender, wrote: “Sam is that person who connects with everyone and brings them together. She makes everyone feel valued and puts a smile on their face, even when they are having their worst days.”

Another Chelsea player, Erin Cuthbert, also praised Kerr’s character in writing. Carly Telford, the former Chelsea goalkeeper who is now the club’s commercial manager, did so in person.

Asked by Forbes who the “real Sam” is, Telford said: “Someone who is reliable, someone who I would trust with my life if I needed to.”

Jones questioned the weight of the references because of the night out, taxi ordeal and argument that preceded her comment to PC Lovell. “The combination of being very angry and very drunk makes people behave as they would not ordinarily behave,” Jones said.

Jones added that “the suggestion that Miss Kerr and Miss Mewis were being kidnapped or falsely imprisoned, is plainly based on a misunderstanding”, and that the jury did not have to decide who had been at fault in the taxi.

He concluded: “Normally she wouldn’t commit this offence. But drink and anger, even righteous anger, all of that meant that these were not normal circumstances. These were circumstances in which she sadly did something that she should not have done. Something which makes her guilty.”

Kerr, the Australia captain, is one of the most famous women in her homeland. She has scored 99 goals for Chelsea and is considered one of the best footballers in the world. She has not played for more than 12 months because of an anterior cruciate ligament injury.

The trial continues.

So she's all sweetness and light with her fellow professionals, obviously

But don't forget her in the police station. And, thing is, if she's like that in front of the police and on camera, imagine what she would have been like in the cab

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wbMpFVriyM


In fact worth watching the full 10 minute version. They're all over the place, basically...

Most telling bit from the trade perspective is the stuff about needing to believe them because they're two women and he's a taxi driver, c***, etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeoFxRd0Bvo

Was looking at some stuff from back in Aus earlier, and came across the news report below. Thought the two presenters seemed a bit flippant about her, as if they were laughing at her situation - which I thought was a bit off - she should be brought to book, but I mean...

Anyway, when I got to a certain stage of the video, realised I was misconstruing what they were thinking about it all - they weren't laughing at her; instead, they think it's all one big joke, essentially

And the only problem is that it might damage her 'brand', says 'advertising executive'

And also that her 'brand' might protect her - have these people no self-awareness? Basically she seems to be saying that the court should treat her more lightly because of her wealth, fame and status, essentially...

It's elitism and smugocracy on stilts. And because there are some dodgy taxi drivers out there then we're all the same, basically. As for the racism thing per se, that's just brushed over because it's 'systemic', or whatever.

But that's why it's brushed over, because it's all totes awkward for the likes of the three white people in the video - Samanantha Kerr was simply saying in the video that they're also 'white and privileged', so let's not go there

And, of course, Samanatha Kerr's a multimillionaire, so she's hardly unprivileged for someone who's not white. Equally, apart from personal wealth, there's also the whole 'Chelesea lawyers' and do-you-know-who-I-am' sort of shtick big in the police station back in Twickenham

So, of course, it's all the male taxi driver's and police officer's fault, rather than the poor, downtrodden perma-victim Samantha Kerr

Which is redolent of another recent one on here which was very telling - yes, the North Wales coroner again. Off course, it was all the taxi driver's fault that that drunken/drugged-up chap got run over and killed.

And, of course, imagine if the driver had let the two 'ladies' out of the car at some point, and in their drunken rage they'd gotten run over...

Guess whose fault that would have been

Anyway, here's the video, and it should start at the appropriate bit (it seems to be several different news reports sown together):

https://youtu.be/Q9pZz0WKHB4?t=311

(And, to be fair, the section immediately after the one above is a bit less gushing...but only slightly less so - they too seem to think it's all about 'keeping up appearances', sort of thing, rather than substantive attitudes and behaviour.)

Well this is a report on yesterday's proceedings, which in the interests of balance and completeness I should maybe include on here.

Apparently the jury retired at 3.30pm on Monday afternoon, so presumably the verdict should come today.

And although it's all very instructive in terms of the taxi driver-passenger power dynamics and the like (and how that all intersects with the hate crime and identity politics kind of stuff), from the overall perspective of the legal system it seems one huge amount of rigmarole over something relatively minor.

Of course, if a high-profile male sportsman had called a female black police officer 'privileged' and 'stupid' in relation to their skin colour then that would have caused a huge furore, so I suppose to that extent it's all justified...


Sam Kerr trial: conduct of police was ‘completely unacceptable’, defence claims

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... lty-ntwnfb

Jury sent out to consider verdict after barrister claims officers made ‘no meaningful attempt’ to investigate the footballer’s taxi claim

The conduct of police was “completely unacceptable” in dealing with Matildas and Chelsea star Sam Kerr when she arrived at a police station, her defence barrister told a court.

Kerr, 31, the captain of the Australian women’s football team and Chelsea’s star striker, is on trial at Kingston crown court accused of racially aggravated harassment after calling PC Stephen Lovell “[edited by admin] stupid and white” when he doubted her claim of being “held hostage” by a taxi driver. She denies the charges.

Grace Forbes, defending Kerr, gave her closing argument on Monday morning. She described the conduct of police on 30 January 2023 as “completely unacceptable” after they failed to take claims by the footballer and her partner, Kristie Mewis about the taxi driver’s alleged dangerous driving and false imprisonment seriously.

After a night out, the pair hailed a black cab from central London back to their home in south-west London, the court has heard. During the journey, Kerr felt sick and vomited out of the window, sparking a dispute about paying for cleaning. After this, the couple claim the driver locked the car and began speeding and swerving, prompting Mewis to smash a window with a kick.

Unbeknownst to the couple, the taxi driver had rung the police, who told him to drive to Twickenham police station, the court was told. After he parked up, Kerr crawled out of the broken window and opened the car door from the outside to let Mewis out. The pair then approached a marked police car outside the station.

Forbes said the first “20 vital minutes” of Kerr and Mewis’ encounter with police were never captured on camera. Bodyworn footage shown to the court begins when Kerr and Mewis are inside Twickenham police station.

“Two individuals went straight up to a marked police car looking for help in a state of distress. How and why did we go from that to what was an utterly unproductive, heated, argument?

“It seems that no one thought that it was worth putting on their body-worn footage when they saw a woman climbing through a broken window, when they were making allegations of false imprisonment,” said Forbes.

She told the jury to treat the “one dimensional image” they had been presented of a “drunk and angry woman” with caution. The prosecution had played footage of Kerr saying “[edited by admin] stupid and white” to, in part, “capitalise on the shock factor” and wear them down after “hearing those words time and time again”.

Commenting on Kerr’s mention of lawyers in the exchange, Forbes said the footballer felt the “need to front it out” and compared her to “a puffer fish blowing itself up” to feel more secure.

Forbes described the conduct of police that night as “completely unacceptable”, saying the police officers “had made no meaningful attempt” to investigate the pair’s claims.

“Even if you are drunk, you can still be a victim of crime,” said Forbes. “PC Lovell conceded in evidence that their allegations were capable of amounting to dangerous driving and false imprisonment. Why did he say on the night what she had told him didn’t amount to any offences?

“No officer swept the vehicle for a device themselves. No one has ever bothered to take a witness statement from Kristie Mewis. No wonder the police have never heard from the driver again.”

She also cast doubt on the extent to which Lovell’s claims he was impacted by being called “stupid and white”, noting that no other officers “in that room claimed to feel impact”.

When PC Lovell was on the witness stand, she told the court, “four valiant attempts” were made to emphasise how much he was impacted. She said “the height of his feeling” was “that upset me I guess”.

The jury was later sent out to consider its verdict.

Personally it was the other ten minutes or so that cemented the image of the 'drunk and angry woman' for me, so to an extent the prosecution are doing her a favour if they're only concentrating on that bit. At least at that point she sounded a bit calmer


More like it gave the impression that she was imperious and considered herself above the law


Swept the vehicle for what kind of device?

Even assuming they genuinely thought they were being kidnapped, what evidence was there from the police's perspective if the driver had phoned them and they told him to drive to the station?

Have read a few of these opinion pieces on Australian news websites - it's obviously a bigger issue there than here

Can't help but agree with what he says here about the huge rigmarole about it all.

On the other hand, this kind of thing is hugely problematic from the trade perspective, in my opinion at least, and make it sound like pax like Kerr and her partner are just some kind of minor nuisance.

But when you see their level of rage and aggression in the police station (although the other one wasn't quite so loud), imagine what they'd be like in the taxi itself

Which is probably why he phoned the police in the first place.

But, of course, according to this below, the main problem is with the system, and of course the taxi driver

This is from the Sydney Morning Herald.


I was a London judge. Sam Kerr’s case should never have gone to trial

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/i-w ... 5lb1e.html

The trial of Sam Kerr will shortly end, but whether the verdict is “guilty” or “not guilty”, questions must be asked about whether it should have taken place at all. It arose from an incident that could cause no public danger or alarm, as two distressed young women argued with three male police officers in the safe confines of a police station.

It was, as one of these officers admitted, a “childish” exchange on both sides which went on for half an hour before Kerr’s comment that an officer was white (as well as stupid) was jumped on to charge her with “racially aggravated harassment”.

Prosecutors initially thought that this insult had caused no “alarm or distress” and refused to take the case to trial. But one officer, 11 months later, made a statement that he had been. This has resulted in an eight-day trial costing the UK taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds, for words that (as heard and seen in the video) had no apparent impact at all.

What will surprise most London lawyers was that this was ever brought to trial. Similar cases are dealt with by a caution involving no criminal finding or else by a short hearing in a magistrates court, probably resulting in a fine or a conditional discharge.

Instead, the heavy machinery of English criminal law was wheeled out against Kerr – a charge serious enough to carry a prison sentence, a jury trial and a prosecution for which no expense was spared, by a King’s Counsel (old Etonian, of course) usually found dealing with serious fraud at the Old Bailey. Why this excessive zeal to obtain a conviction over an incident of no consequence? The junior police officer admitted at the trial that he was “determined to pursue the case to the criminal courts”, but why did his superiors and government lawyers in the Crown prosecution service spend so much time and money to do so? Merely because a police officer has been called “white”? Or were they really stung by the suggestion that English policemen might be stupid?

This would hardly come as a revelation. A rich comic vein begins with Shakespeare’s Constable Dogberry and Gilbert and Sullivan’s policemen of Penzance. Recently, the epithet was used by every media and political commentator of senior officers at Scotland Yard, who in “Operation Midland” accused renowned public figures of being paedophiles on the palpably false allegation of a fantasist. I sued Metropolitan Police on behalf of one victim and obtained nearly $2 million for their gross negligence – i.e. their stupidity.

The police were originally minded to lay charges for criminal damage over the taxi window being kicked. Kerr and her partner immediately agreed to pay the fare and cleaning bill, but refused to pay for the damage to the window on the grounds that the taxi driver had falsely imprisoned them in the course of driving to the police station.

To show they were genuinely frightened at the time, Kerr said they had called emergency services, a claim the officers pooh-poohed. Only at the trial were they forced to admit that the call had indeed been made. So Kerr’s claim that they were stupid was not an unreasonable response to their refusal to believe her true story about making the emergency call.

The jury will have to decide, with the help of a 35-minute recording, whether Kerr’s insult at the end amounted to a crime. For the rest of the recording, the two women are heard begging the police to take action against the taxi driver for imprisoning them and it is clear from the emergency call they made that their fear was genuine. The police wrongly believed they were lying and went ahead to charge them with criminal damage to the taxi (a charge that would at most have incurred a small fine) and only when Kerr added that the policeman was “white” did they over-react by adding the charge alleging racial aggravation.

This element was added to English law in 1998 to give courts the power to sentence more heavily for crimes motivated by racial hatred. Care was taken to protect free speech, by requiring the prosecution to prove that they were intended to cause alarm or distress. Whether mere words are likely to do so must depend on the circumstances: a Pakistani policeman would be insulted if called a “[edited by admin]” because of the derogatory connotations of the word itself and there are now places where “whitey” might provoke concern. But uncouth words from a distressed woman uttered to a cop who refused to believe her when she was in fact telling the truth in an empty police station are not equivalent to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.

I served for some years as a part-time judge for cases like this in London and I do find it deplorable that police should make mountains out of molehills like this. The law was passed to deter explosions of racist violence in cities; it should not have been used to punish a silly insult by an angry detainee, uttered in a police station. Law enforcers have a duty to act proportionately; their attack on Sam Kerr has been an attempt to break a butterfly on a wheel.

Geoffrey Robertson, AO, KC, is author of Crimes Against Humanity, the fifth edition of which is published by Penguin this month.

Geoffrey Robertson KC is a London-based Australian human rights barrister and founding head of Doughty Street Chambers. He is the author of Rather His Own Man: In Court with Tyrants, Tarts and Troublemakers.

Unanimously NOT GUILTY - jury took three hours, apparently.

yup she got away with it but I do feel this whole thing was a HUGE waste of taxpayers money over something that whilst it shouldn't have been said was minor compared to some stuff you hear about

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector