Chav does Britain proud

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15923875

Arrest over video of 'racist rant' on Croydon to Wimbledon tram
Woman in the tram The clip shows a woman swearing at passengers on the tram

A woman has been arrested after an online video apparently showed a woman abusing ethnic minority passengers on a packed south London tram.

The clip, viewed more than two million times since being uploaded to YouTube on Sunday, shows a woman sitting with a child, shouting at fellow passengers.

British Transport Police said a woman, 34, had been arrested on suspicion of a racially-aggravated offence.

The incident happened on the Croydon to Wimbledon Tramlink route.

Police are yet to clarify exactly where or when the incident happened.

In the online clip, the woman confronts several passengers, saying: "You are not British". She then starts swearing.

When one passenger asks her to mind her language, saying "there are little kids on the tram", the woman points to the child on her lap and says "I've got a little kid here".

The woman then says: "Go back to where you come from".
'Not entirely clear'

In the video she then starts shouting at the woman who asked her not to swear, before another passenger intervenes, saying: "I am English, what have you got to say to me?"

A British Transport Police spokesman said: "The video posted on YouTube and Twitter has been brought to our attention and our officers have launched an investigation.

"At present it is not entirely clear which tram stops the offence took place between and when it occurred.

"As a result, we need anyone who witnessed this incident, or with any information that could assist our investigation - including the identity of the woman - to contact us.

"We will not tolerate racism in any form on the rail network and will do everything in our power to locate the person responsible."

PS the video isn't safe for work because of the swearing. But otherwise hilarity ensures as she doesn't realise Nigaragua is a country in South America and not Africa.



Well since Anglo Saxons came from Germany, maybe the Chav should go back to Germany while speaking her West Germanic dialect which has become corrupted influenced by numerous other languages. Whats this language called again? Oh thats right, English.

[evilsoup]

I was going to write some sarcastic 'this is why I'm proud to be British' stuff, but then I actually watched the video. Oh god that was just depressing.

She sounds drunk.

[Thanas]

Well since Anglo Saxons came from Germany, maybe the Chav should go back to Germany while speaking her West Germanic dialect which has become corrupted influenced by numerous other languages.

She definitely should do that. I guarantee you that she will have much success with that and totally not become a bitter idiot beaten down by the police.

[UnderAGreySky]

I thought the term "chav" was reserved for young folk; the hoodie-wearing under-20 kids. Does an age of 34 qualify?

(yes, yes, I know "chav" is probably just a state of mind, just curious here...)

[Mr. Tickle]

I was going to write some sarcastic 'this is why I'm proud to be British' stuff, but then I actually watched the video. Oh god that was just depressing.

I think the most depressing thing was she did this with her child in her lap.

[Stark]

I thought the term "chav" was reserved for young folk; the hoodie-wearing under-20 kids. Does an age of 34 qualify?

(yes, yes, I know "chav" is probably just a state of mind, just curious here...)

What do you think happened to chavs of the 90s?

They got old, they didn't get smart.

[SpaceMarine93]

From Huffington Post:

A woman has been charged with racial harassment after a video emerged in which she is allegedly shouting abuse aboard a Croydon-Wimbledon tram in South London.

Emma West, 34, of New Addington, Croydon, was charged with a racially-aggravated public order offence, after an appeal by the British Transport Police to find the person at the centre of the incident aboard the tram.

A video published on YouTube showed a woman with a toddler on her knee apparently shouting abuse at ethnic minority passengers.

British Transport Police said they responded after the video was brought to their attention.

West, who was arrested on Monday, remained in custody overnight and will appear before magistrates at Croydon crown court on Tuesday.

I frankly hope she rot in prison, blacklisted from finding employment afterwards and have her child given to a person who isn't a f***ing Nazi.

[Serafina]

I frankly hope she rot in prison, blacklisted from finding employment afterwards and have her child given to a person who isn't a f***ing Nazi.

Seriously, what is it with you?
Yes, that woman is likely a racist (which doesn't equal being a Nazi, so +1 to your cluelessness). Guess what, having even the most detestable opinion is not a criminal offense. But i guess you want to introduce thought-crime now.
We charge people for criminal actions. This woman insulted some people, and you want to utterly ruin her life - leave her a broken wreck without money or perspective and taking away her child. That's just as sick as everything she did.

[Eternal_Freedom]

What I want to know is why tagging something as "racially motivated" makes a difference in the justice system at all. If I go shouting and swearing at other white people on a train, I get charged with breaching the peace or whatnot, but if I'm swearing at/about black/brown/yellow/whatever people, I get charged with "racial harassment."

Seriously, why does everyone care so much about racist crimes? It's a crime, someone's a victim and someone is guilty. The race of either person shouldn't make a bloody difference.

And for reference, you can swap out "racially motivated" for "homophobically motivated" or soemthing similar. It makes me mad.

EDIT: On a completely unrelated note, I like the new av Serafina

[Korto]

I frankly hope she rot in prison, blacklisted from finding employment afterwards and have her child given to a person who isn't a f***ing Nazi.

Way to have a sense of perspective. Alternatively, what about a bit of community service, and maybe some kind of class in how to behave in polite society?

[Stark]

What I want to know is why tagging something as "racially motivated" makes a difference in the justice system at all. If I go shouting and swearing at other white people on a train, I get charged with breaching the peace or whatnot, but if I'm swearing at/about black/brown/yellow/whatever people, I get charged with "racial harassment."

Seriously, why does everyone care so much about racist crimes? It's a crime, someone's a victim and someone is guilty. The race of either person shouldn't make a bloody difference.

And for reference, you can swap out "racially motivated" for "homophobically motivated" or soemthing similar. It makes me mad.

EDIT: On a completely unrelated note, I like the new av Serafina

Are you serious in this post?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Would I have posted something that long if I were not?

[Serafina]

The reason is that the state has an interest in painting such motivations in a bad light, in order to reduce how widespread they are.

There is also the fact that they create greater unrest than some person randomly insulting people, specifically among the group targeted.
As a personal example:
A few years ago (before i was aware of my own transsexuality and thus didn't see myself as part of any minority group) i sat next in a train to an old man ranting about homosexuals. I felt annoyed by that, but that was it.
A few months ago (now belonging to three "minority groups": women, lesbians and transsexual people) i was in the same train wagon as another man, who also ranted about homosexuals. This time i felt slightly threatened.

The reason for this is quite simple: If a person randomly insults people, it doesn't give those people the impression that they are specifically targeted. If a person insults a specific group of people, that specific group of people is, well, specifically targeted.


Note that the woman specifically ranted against foreigners. She didn't just insult people who happened to be foreigners, she insulted people BECAUSE they were foreigners.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Thank you. Now I understand why, and I can understand the reasoning behidn it. But I still feel slightly unnerved that crimes directed against minorities seem to carry much more weight than other crimes (for reference, I count as part of a minority as I am registered severely visually imparied).

It just seems...unfair in a way.

[Zablorg]

Thank you. Now I understand why, and I can understand the reasoning behidn it. But I still feel slightly unnerved that crimes directed against minorities seem to carry much more weight than other crimes (for reference, I count as part of a minority as I am registered severely visually imparied).

It just seems...unfair in a way.

Lucky minorities, catching all the breaks in the justice system.

[Stark]

You mean crimes against those made more vulnerable by centuries of systemic prejudice aren't worse than regular crimes?

[Serafina]

Keep in mind that minorities are also, well, minorities. In quite a few ways, that makes them more vulnerable.

What's more heinous - attacking a person who can defend herself, or attacking a person who can't? We can easily argue that a person who can't defend herself deserves special protection to put her at the same level of security as a person who can defend herself. Why shouldn't we apply the same principle to groups of people?
That's why minorities have this sort of special protection - because they as a group are more vulnerable, to both democratic processes and direct attacks (the bystander effect is more likely to kick in the higher the difference between you and the person attacked is).

Also, despite my usage of the term minorities here, if you'd attack men, white people or heterosexuals in such a way you'd be charged with the same (sexist, racist, sexuality-ist) offenses. It's just that people are much less likely to do so, because they are more afraid of (social) retaliation if they do - because these groups have more power, by virtue of being more numerous or, well, having more power. Minority-protection laws (despite not just protecting minorities) balance that out by adding extra retaliation-potential in favor of the minority groups that are otherwise at a disadvantage.

[SpaceMarine93]

Seriously, what is it with you?
Yes, that woman is likely a racist (which doesn't equal being a Nazi, so +1 to your cluelessness). Guess what, having even the most detestable opinion is not a criminal offense. But i guess you want to introduce thought-crime now.
We charge people for criminal actions. This woman insulted some people, and you want to utterly ruin her life - leave her a broken wreck without money or perspective and taking away her child. That's just as sick as everything she did.

Sorry. I put too much weight in my words. I was outraged by this woman's attitude. You would be if you happened to be a Chinese with British / EU citizenship. The Nazi designation is probably unwarranted. Perhaps she's with the EDL. She's going to up at court tomorrow, so chances are to set an example she would be going to jail anyway.

[Zablorg]

As a curiousity, are hate-crimes against the visually impared comparable to racial/sexual/etc. hate crimes? I haven't heard of them being a thing, but I could be totally wrong.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Also, despite my usage of the term minorities here, if you'd attack men, white people or heterosexuals in such a way you'd be charged with the same (sexist, racist, sexuality-ist) offenses. It's just that people are much less likely to do so, because they are more afraid of (social) retaliation if they do - because these groups have more power, by virtue of being more numerous or, well, having more power. Minority-protection laws (despite not just protecting minorities) balance that out by adding extra retaliation-potential in favor of the minority groups that are otherwise at a disadvantage.

I think this is what I was getting caught on. I guess I was working with an idealised vision. I thought Lady Justice was supposed to be blindfolded after all. That a crime was equally heinous no matter what gender, colour or creed the perpetrator and the victims are.

[Serafina]

I think this is what I was getting caught on. I guess I was working with an idealised vision. I thought Lady Justice was supposed to be blindfolded after all. That a crime was equally heinous no matter what gender, colour or creed the perpetrator and the victims are.

They ARE.
If a white person kills a black person in order to steal his wallet (or clobbers&injures him), he doesn't get any worse sentence than if a black person had done it or he had done it to a white person.
(Well, at least that's the way it should be, biases by judges can of course occur, more so in a jury system).

But if a white person attacks a black person because the person is black, he will get charged differently than if he attacked some person because he didn't like his nose or something. At least he is more likely to do so again, but he has also created greater civil unrest with his actions and he is threatening a larger group of people, who also happens to be somewhat vulnerable.

Racist and sexist crimes get charged differently because they happen to be different crimes. A racially motivated assault is different from a normal assault etc.

[mr friendly guy]

What I want to know is why tagging something as "racially motivated" makes a difference in the justice system at all. If I go shouting and swearing at other white people on a train, I get charged with breaching the peace or whatnot, but if I'm swearing at/about black/brown/yellow/whatever people, I get charged with "racial harassment."

Seriously, why does everyone care so much about racist crimes? It's a crime, someone's a victim and someone is guilty. The race of either person shouldn't make a bloody difference.

And for reference, you can swap out "racially motivated" for "homophobically motivated" or soemthing similar. It makes me mad.

EDIT: On a completely unrelated note, I like the new av Serafina

Its the deterence factor really. Not only do we want to deter the actual physical crime, but we also want to deter the racism part, thus in total the sentence is higher because you are detering two things.

[SpaceMarine93]

It's a good system.

(Look, Serafina I am really sorry about that comment, okay?)

[Stark]

Crimes against minorities are also often seen as less socially risky - people who would frown on or ostracise someone who punched their dad will rationalise away crimes against 'other' groups, like black people or gays or whatever. These groups also have systematic problems obtaining legal help and the crimes invovled are often those requiring a difficult standard of evidence and are thus easier to get away with.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Let me see if I have this down now:

In an ideal justice system and world where all groups are treated equally, there wouldn't be a distinction; but as we don't have a perfect system or world and all groups are not treated equally, we put more weight on crimes against minority groups to try and balance the system.

Is that right?