|Get the dog warden - It's canine abuse|
Recently there was a case in Macclesfield that makes my point, I think. A woman who was Czech-born has been found guilty of racially abusing her New Zealand-born neighbour by calling her a "stupid, fat Australian". The judge took exception to the word "Australian" and ruled that it was racial. How, exactly? Neither of the two women involved in the fracas was actually a native Australian, so both were from somewhere else. Even if they were born in Australia, how come two white women from Macclesfield can be identified with being racially "Australian"? What if the Czech or New Zealand aspects had been used? Any further contemplation might lead to madness because it is nonsense to start with. It belittles real racial abuse. How far does this racial distinction go?
Maybe as far as Wales. Another ridiculous case was of a drunk Welsh wedding guest who insulted the English whilst he was on a coach going home from a smart country wedding in Wales. He started singing anti-English songs to wind people up. He has been convicted of racism too.
These judgements make a total mockery not only of the way we deal with racial abuse but of the judiciary and the CPS. How far does their nonsense take them? If aggressive rude people are trouble charge them with that but for crying out loud do not bring race into it when race has nothing to do with it.
I've seen Brummies having a ding-dong with folk from Dudley. Any judge care to split the difference between the two?