Friday, 25 July 2008

‘Go Home’ – Now A Racist Instruction…

…if the people you use it to can claim they believe it means ‘back to the god-forsaken third world hellhole of your ethnic heritage’ rather than ‘back to No 69 Chav Avenue’:
After being woken for the third time in one night by a group of drunken and noisy students, Jo Calvert-Mindell was at her wits' end.

The former policewoman got dressed, went outside and shouted at them: 'Why can't you go back to where you come from and make some noise there? I bet your families and neighbours wouldn't put up with it.

'You don't care about us and do just as you like. What gives you the right to frighten my elderly neighbours, cause damage and keep us awake at night?'

She also reported the incident to police, who came and dispersed the eight students.
So far, so ordinary. But then, it seems, the rights of people to sleep soundly in their beds pale into insignificance before the rights of students to drink and make noise, so two of the group promptly played the race card:
The 51-year-old grandmother was astonished when four months later she was arrested and accused of being a racist. It turned out that two Asians in the group had complained to the police.

In April, Miss Calvert-Mindell, who has never been in trouble with the police before, was charged with using racially aggravated threatening words or behaviour under section 5 of the Public Order Act.
Wow! Four months to decide if this case was worth pursuing. That’s some detecting. Obviously, Canterbury is the place to live – it must be a crime free paradise, if this is considered worth spending time over.

However, someone in the CPS must have had cold feet, or possibly an ounce of common sense, and deep-sixed the case at the 11th hour:
In May, she appeared at Folkestone Magistrates' Court in Kent, where she denied the charge.

The case hung over her until the Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop it last week, admitting there was little chance of conviction. Now she is filing a complaint about the way the police treated her.
I hope she wins.
Yesterday, Miss Calvert-Mindell, a Liberal Democrat councillor and community volunteer, said: 'The last thing I am is a racist.

'I have a totally inclusive attitude to different races and cultures - I don't care if you are black, white, green or a Martian.

'Their colour had nothing to do with it - it was their behaviour.

'I think there is something very wrong in our society when a resident can't go out and try and prevent crime and disorder and encourage the defendants to go back home and that they can then play the race card to completely absolve themselves of responsibility for that behaviour.

'The authorities today are so sensitive to being criticised for being racist that any claims of racism just raises their antennae, instead of using common sense.'
Sadly, that ‘sensitivity’ has been developed by the legions of liberals and race-hustlers, and the adopting of the approach that anytime someone thinks a statement is ‘racist’ it must be, no matter the clear and stated intent of the utterer of that statement. We aren’t quite at the stage yet where we are prepared to sack someone for using a perfectly normal word that happens to sound like a ‘forbidden’ word, but we might yet get there if this kind of knee-jerk action isn’t stopped.

No doubt no action will be taken against the two students, who will simply claim they ‘honestly believed’ she was being racist, and therefore be allowed to escape any censure. Likewise the police will adopt the ‘only following orders’, and indeed it seems they have:
Kent Police refused to apologise. Superintendent Chris Hogben said: 'An allegation was made that was fully investigated. A case was presented to the CPS and the decision was made to prosecute.

'If Miss Calvert-Mindell would like to discuss our response and the conduct of officers I would urge her to contact me direct.'
I don’t think it’s ‘discussion’ that is needed here. A large payout for false imprisonment or malicious prosecution might concentrate the minds of Kent Police a little better in future, except of course that then we, the taxpayers, would end up footing the bill.

Sadly, in current police leadership circles, such dedication to the progressive cause will only enhance Supt Hogben’s promotion prospects…


Letters From A Tory said...

Yet again, the political correctness brigade almost score a victory over common sense and decency.

Anonymous said...

Oh, but for every one they lose, there's more they win...

Anonymous said...

Haven't the offence of "false imprisonment" and "false imprisonment" fallen into desuetude since the enactment of the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005. This act - particularly S110 - effectively gives the police power to arrest anyone for any offence no matter how trivial if arrest is thought "reasonable" by the arresting officer. You can imagine the thoughts which went through what passes for the jobsworths' minds when Mrs Calvert-Mindell was arrested:

1."I am satisfied that an offence under the Black and Minority Ethnic Scrotes Protection Act 1998 was committed by the accused".
2."Why didn't Mrs C-M call the police to disperse the BME offenders? We would have turned up sooner or later or not at all depending on the gravity of alternative calls on our time like this".

Don't start me on the West Midlands Police; West Bengal Police more like. No coincidence that it's the same force which tried to prosecute Channel 4 for disclosing that mosques in the area "policed" by the WMP harboured extremists.

Anonymous said...

"2."Why didn't Mrs C-M call the police to disperse the BME offenders?"

Oh, she did. And they did turn up, and did move them on.

It was after that that they decided to make their complaint.

Anonymous said...


Partial apologies to the police then and my apologies also to Jo C-M: she's a "Miss" not a "Mrs".

However, on a tangential matter, the prosecution was dropped because "there was no longer sufficient evidence" to continue it. I wonder why. At one point - if the quote is accurate and the person quoted was telling the truth - there was sufficient evidence, in the opinion of the CPS, to convict Mrs C-M. Since the only "evidence" was the perception that the remarks made by Miss C-M were racially abusive then the apparent victims of the abuse would have had to swear to this in court. I suspect that the scrotes either refused to testify or, having agreed, just didn't appear. Tenuous reasoning no doubt but isn't "wasting police time" also an offence even if committed by those of Asian extraction?