tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993615971333537173.post3875614122637209626..comments2024-01-26T16:33:37.692+00:00Comments on plumbum: Racial abuse in sportsPaulBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16861432701458977844noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993615971333537173.post-18369667865816831382011-11-25T00:53:30.911+00:002011-11-25T00:53:30.911+00:00Good point: a court might accept a defence of &quo...Good point: a court might accept a defence of "reasonable conduct" under 4A(3b) of the POA from a player who swore at an opponent without referring to his race, but not from one who did so refer.<br /><br />In this particular case, I think the charge would fail under 4A(1) - no one claims to have heard what Terry said, so no one can have been caused harassment, alarm or distress. Unless you count sensitive souls who lip-read his words on video.PaulBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16861432701458977844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993615971333537173.post-76193406404382190532011-11-23T15:17:38.929+00:002011-11-23T15:17:38.929+00:00"It can't be a racially aggravated offenc..."It can't be a racially aggravated offence under Part II of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, because no one thinks it's a crime for footballers to swear at each other non-racially."<br /><br />Without intending to speculate on what the possible charges under investigation might be, there's an interesting flaw of logic in your comment. ("Interesting" in the sense that I can't identify the type of fallacy at play here; you appear to have put together the elements of the crime in the wrong way so it smells a bit like the Fallacies of Composition or Division, but neither's quite it.)<br /><br />The "racially aggravated" offences created under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are not "things that would otherwise have been crimes **were there no racial element**, but which are also racially aggravated within the meaning of Section 28". The part in stars is extraneous.<br /><br />If the allegation, in your terms, is that a sportsman was "swearing racially at another", then that's the thing that has to be adjudged e.g. under the Public Order Act 1986, after which it's almost a nailed-on certainty that it will also qualify as "racially aggravated". It's not the criminality of the fictitious deed of "swearing at the other player, but with the racial epithets censored out" that matters. Given the added force carried by racial insults, it's entirely possible they would qualify as causing "intentional harassment, alarm or distress" or even "fear or provocation of violence" whereas non-racial versions may be considered a legally acceptable part and parcel of a sporting contest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993615971333537173.post-91935084860171541242011-11-12T19:36:47.543+00:002011-11-12T19:36:47.543+00:00"Terry's defence is that he did use the w..."Terry's defence is that he did use the words, but only in order to deny having used them"<br /><br />ITYM "mention"Edward Lockharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17787650446459633432noreply@blogger.com