Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Chelsea Racist Who Pushed Man Off Paris Metro Train Is An Ex-Copper
http://
Oh dear. But he is adamant he is not a racist. He used to be a police officer, so it must be true.
Unfortunate that it is the bad apples who get the most publcity. He has let his colleagues down, and every other serving police officer down by his loutish behaviour, do you agree?
Oh dear. But he is adamant he is not a racist. He used to be a police officer, so it must be true.
Unfortunate that it is the bad apples who get the most publcity. He has let his colleagues down, and every other serving police officer down by his loutish behaviour, do you agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Something can be "alleged" and still have happened exactly as described. The official authorites in particular have to be careful just in case, for whatever reason, no charges are brought or no-one is found guilty. Thus until that happens it will always be "alleged", even when it's as plain as day what actually happened. It doesn't mean there's real doubt, just some official care not to commit and bias possible court cases.
The video evidence is clear - the Mr Barklie was one of the individuals who pushed the commuter off the train.
Now quite how anyone is going to try and wriggle out of that - either him in person, or the defenders on this site, will be interesting to see.
Although Mr Barklie denies being a racist, he was involved in a racist incident and was filmed assaulting a member of the public.
So if his defence is that he is not a racist, what else was he doing? Pushing a man off the train because he felt like it, but it was not based on his colour, so that makes it OK?
There is a dwindling hope that these individuals may be able to slide out of their odious behaviour and its consequences, but it is just that - dwindling.
Now quite how anyone is going to try and wriggle out of that - either him in person, or the defenders on this site, will be interesting to see.
Although Mr Barklie denies being a racist, he was involved in a racist incident and was filmed assaulting a member of the public.
So if his defence is that he is not a racist, what else was he doing? Pushing a man off the train because he felt like it, but it was not based on his colour, so that makes it OK?
There is a dwindling hope that these individuals may be able to slide out of their odious behaviour and its consequences, but it is just that - dwindling.
ummm - AOG waxes long and lyrical about how he is not going to 'follow the herd', or be made to change his views, even though no-one ever attempts to make him do either, so he will feel honour bound to advise you that your views mean nothing.
Until he feels persecuted and bullied, in which case he will complain loud and long.
Until he feels persecuted and bullied, in which case he will complain loud and long.
Andy-Hughes,
///There is a dwindling hope that these individuals may be able to slide out of their odious behaviour and its consequences, but it is just that - dwindling.
I'm not a Defence barrister and no charges brought as yet but I would imagine from the bullet points in the link that there are a number of points which the Defence could work on:-
had been involved in an "incident" in which a man - identified as Souleymane S - was "unable to enter part of the train"
had not taken part in racist singing and "condemns any behaviour supporting that"
had contacted the Met Police to "explain the context and circumstances" and wanted to "put on record his total abhorrence for racism"
wanted to state his "sincerest apologies for the trauma and stress suffered by Mr Souleymane"
went to the match alone and did not know anyone shown in the video
had travelled to games for more than 20 years "without incident" and had never been part of any "group or faction" of Chelsea fans
So, could well be a character based Defence, i.e, is he likely to have engaged in racist behaviour 'beyond reasonable doubt'? (again, assuming he is charged with any offence)
Time will tell....
///There is a dwindling hope that these individuals may be able to slide out of their odious behaviour and its consequences, but it is just that - dwindling.
I'm not a Defence barrister and no charges brought as yet but I would imagine from the bullet points in the link that there are a number of points which the Defence could work on:-
had been involved in an "incident" in which a man - identified as Souleymane S - was "unable to enter part of the train"
had not taken part in racist singing and "condemns any behaviour supporting that"
had contacted the Met Police to "explain the context and circumstances" and wanted to "put on record his total abhorrence for racism"
wanted to state his "sincerest apologies for the trauma and stress suffered by Mr Souleymane"
went to the match alone and did not know anyone shown in the video
had travelled to games for more than 20 years "without incident" and had never been part of any "group or faction" of Chelsea fans
So, could well be a character based Defence, i.e, is he likely to have engaged in racist behaviour 'beyond reasonable doubt'? (again, assuming he is charged with any offence)
Time will tell....
The chanting "we are racists" and the denying Sulyman S., access onto the train are two different incidents.
I think it will be impossible to prove that any individual did any chanting because the video does not capture anyones mouth syncing with 'we are racists'. It did occur however because it is completely audible on the recording (unless you have cloth ears).
The assault on the Frenchman will be easier to prove. We can see who fronted the gang at the doors of the carriage, and see their faces. We can see arms and colour of clothing and it should be easy to match those to the face of the person who repeated pushed Mr Sulyman S.
I think it will be impossible to prove that any individual did any chanting because the video does not capture anyones mouth syncing with 'we are racists'. It did occur however because it is completely audible on the recording (unless you have cloth ears).
The assault on the Frenchman will be easier to prove. We can see who fronted the gang at the doors of the carriage, and see their faces. We can see arms and colour of clothing and it should be easy to match those to the face of the person who repeated pushed Mr Sulyman S.
agchristie - your points are well made, and your argument is sound, in my view.
Speaking personally, on the very rare occasions when I have been in the vicinity of any kind of violence - actual, or brewing, my response has been to be moving in the opposite direction as quickly as possible.
If you are standing next to someone who is assaulting someone, and you are not either intervening, or making obvious moves to exit the area, and you are being filmed, then the possibility of you being seen as involved becomes very strong, and the ability to demy or explain becomes seriously weakened.
As you say, charges may or may not be brought, and the legal process will proceed, but as an unbiased observer, it appears to me that this man was involved in this incident, and willingly so.
But we shall see what happens from here.
As for other posters still trying doggedly to play 'Devil's Advocate' - except when they take arguments against them personally - hopefully that has finally run out of steam.
Speaking personally, on the very rare occasions when I have been in the vicinity of any kind of violence - actual, or brewing, my response has been to be moving in the opposite direction as quickly as possible.
If you are standing next to someone who is assaulting someone, and you are not either intervening, or making obvious moves to exit the area, and you are being filmed, then the possibility of you being seen as involved becomes very strong, and the ability to demy or explain becomes seriously weakened.
As you say, charges may or may not be brought, and the legal process will proceed, but as an unbiased observer, it appears to me that this man was involved in this incident, and willingly so.
But we shall see what happens from here.
As for other posters still trying doggedly to play 'Devil's Advocate' - except when they take arguments against them personally - hopefully that has finally run out of steam.
Andy,
Thank you. I suppose there would be some people who are so public spirited that they would attempt to assist a person who is being abused or obstructed and there are others who would move away so as to not run the risk of being incriminated.
Merely, being in the 'thick of it' is not going to be enough but there is obviously an explanation needed from Mr B to give an account of his own actions. If he is proven to have been a willing participant, charged and convicted then I hope that he is given the harshest sentence possible.
I must see the video and this may provide me with further insight.
Thank you. I suppose there would be some people who are so public spirited that they would attempt to assist a person who is being abused or obstructed and there are others who would move away so as to not run the risk of being incriminated.
Merely, being in the 'thick of it' is not going to be enough but there is obviously an explanation needed from Mr B to give an account of his own actions. If he is proven to have been a willing participant, charged and convicted then I hope that he is given the harshest sentence possible.
I must see the video and this may provide me with further insight.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.