No, it's just a description of the basterd. Let's switch tall with "baggy jeans", "You baggy jeans wearing basterd". The insult is basterd not the descriptor.
Sam Kerr | Found not guilty of racially aggravated harassment
- Thread starter ryansgirl
- Start date
No, it's just a description of the basterd. Let's switch tall with "baggy jeans", "You baggy jeans wearing basterd". The insult is basterd not the descriptor.
The bolded is the whole point and despite her poor choice of words it is the crux of the case. I am a white man and by God have I enjoyed the privilege throughout my life. I don't worry about any of the things that my female friends do because they don't apply to me and now that I live in the American deep south I also get to enjoy not living with the terror of being profiled by the police in the way my black friends are. I cannot as an individual do anything about this other than thank my lucky stars for being born into this every day but I am able to empathize with those who are less fortunate. PC Lovell shares in my privilege and yet despite a mountain of context that he as a Police Officer should have been more aware of than most he chose to show no empathy at all leading to Sam Kerr saying something stupid in frustration. I am unclear why anyone in CPS thought exposing his ignorance to the media blitz of a trial was a good idea.
So, if I call you a "black bastard" or a "homosexual bastard", I'm just (for the sake of...what...accuracy?) pointing out that you're black or homosexual, but your blackness or homosexuality is in no way part of the insult?
whats the intent? this often gets omitted
With these examples it's generally part of the insult. That's why I said not necessarily and gave you examples where it wasn't, these things depends a lot on context.
And example that is likely to happen with white, is somewhat using the term pale instead of white folllowed by an insult, in this case it's often colorism.
I really don’t want to get into the weeds of this discussion, as this thread is quite depressing. But your take shows a poor understanding of English insults in my opinion.
If someone gets called a cocky prick. Cocky is the insult. I was called a Nirvana bastard at school by a fine young gentleman, and the bastard part is an accent to calling me for enjoying Nirvana. This is really common. The expletive is not really the insult in my experience. That said, I don’t care about the general discussion, so I’m out. Just thought I’d add some context from a Salford perspective
Where I come from, it’s the opposite. If someone says you tall bastard, it's usually your height they're focused on. You can add cnut or bastard behind anything and it's usually the descriptor just before it that is the real insult. If someone calls me a black cnut, or Chelsea cnut it's my blackness or the fact that I support they're insulting.
Yes, I know that - I'm not stupid.
But your examples are not very good - in fact your entire argument is pretty silly, no offence to you personally.
If you call someone a "baggy jeans bastard" you are clearly highlighting the fact that the person is wearing baggy jeans as something negative. Why would you mention the baggy jeans if that were not the case?
Yeah maybe it's my english but cocky on its own is an adjective that isn't an insult, prick on his own is a noun and an insult there is no sense in suggesting that in cocky prick the insult is cocky.
This is a crazy tangent but, trust me, when someone is insulted in English using a noun and and adjective, they are both intended to be insulting words in their own right. You might get called a fat bastard but you will never be called a lean bastard.
The only time you might have a non-insulting adjective paired with an insulting noun would be in a friendly or complimentary context, when joking between friends ("you're a strong bastard, aren't you?" "he's such a handsome bastard"). This won't ever happen if the intention is to hurt, or when having an argument with a stranger.
It depends on context. With things like 'cocky prick', the 'issue' is that someone is cocky and a noun like 'prick' is added to give it power as an insult. I mean, saying 'cocky person' wouldn't quite have the same feel to it.
With something like 'black bastard', 'black' is rather used to make 'bastard' more insulting: they're picking an adjective that they think is negative and will make it hurt more.
Although that depends on context as well, cause a racist that calls someone a 'black bastard' out of nowhere is definitely picking 'black' first and then adding their insulting noun of choice second.
So, a lot of options, and it all depends on context.
The short answer is the point is to personalize the insult. The insult is the noun not the adjective, the adjective makes it personal, in other words you add injury to insult because you customized the insult for that person specifically.
Which ones are the definite insults?
You are freckled.
You basterd.
You freckled basterd.
not true... been called that and other confusing terms on multiple occasions
This is reminding me of the scene in ‘The Gentlemen’, with Bugzy Malone and Colin Farrell
I agree and said it. It depends on context and mentioned examples where the context can be that it's just a descriptor.
As I said, this is a crazy tangent but I'm willing to bet good money that you have never once been in an argument with a stranger where either of you called each other handsome/strong/lean/intelligent (delete as appropriate) bastard. It just doesn't happen.
shut up you intelligent prick
Your post is intelligent twat
If the adjective is too positive you need to switch up and use terms like freak, weirdo or mofo. But yeah, i'm not saying that 100% of the time the descriptor isn't part of the insult, I'm saying that it's no necessarily the case. Now the noun is what makes the insult 100% of the time that's the structure of an insult.
I'm bringing back middle english.
Doth I see a cnut before me?
given the context of this situation, you are 100% wrong. she was not just describing the colour of his skin for the sake of it, she was making a very clear point with her words - she literally says so herself in court.
agreed on all of this. it's fascinating, and quite depressing, that so many people in this thread (not all, thankfully) have missed the point, whether willingly due to their own prejudices, or just because they're too lazy to read beyond the headline. the whole affair definitely doesn't make the police look good at all, and as you say, absolutely mental they pursued it.
Fair enough.
Whats clear from this trial is that Sam Kerr is a serial liar.
The taxi driver told Sam Kerr if she didn't pay for the cab to be cleaned he was phoning the police. She refused. He phoned the police at 02.11 am. Following instructions from the police he then drove to the police station. During the journey the toughened glass screen between the driver and passengers was kicked and damaged on the passengers side. If they were worried about being attacked by the driver I hardly think they would try to break through the screen that separated them from him.
7 minutes after he made the call the taxi arrived at the police station and the driver rang them again to say they had arrived. This was at 02.18
I'm sorry but if two people thought they were being kidnapped, surely the first thing they would have done is called the police. Wouldn't you agree? They didn't. Sam Kerr did not phone the police until 02.21, ten minutes after the driver set off for the police station and 3 minutes after the driver rang the police to say they had arrived.
Kerr rang the police just as the officers were approaching the car and after the car had been parked outside of the station for 3 minutes! Their story completely lacks credibility.
By the way, Kerr also initially denied calling the officer f***ing stupid and white mulitple tiems. She only admitted it when she realised they had film of her saying it. That is when she came up with the "I didn't mean anything racist by it" defence.
Conclusion: The story about the taxi driver kidnapping and holding them hostage is just as likely as Sam Kerr trying to break the glass between herself and the driver in attempt to murder him, the fact that people give it credibility is proof the world has gone mad.
The fact that Sam Kerr is now seen as some kind of victim and hero is not only a great shame, but a complete farce.
The taxi driver told Sam Kerr if she didn't pay for the cab to be cleaned he was phoning the police. She refused. He phoned the police at 02.11 am. Following instructions from the police he then drove to the police station. During the journey the toughened glass screen between the driver and passengers was kicked and damaged on the passengers side. If they were worried about being attacked by the driver I hardly think they would try to break through the screen that separated them from him.
7 minutes after he made the call the taxi arrived at the police station and the driver rang them again to say they had arrived. This was at 02.18
I'm sorry but if two people thought they were being kidnapped, surely the first thing they would have done is called the police. Wouldn't you agree? They didn't. Sam Kerr did not phone the police until 02.21, ten minutes after the driver set off for the police station and 3 minutes after the driver rang the police to say they had arrived.
Kerr rang the police just as the officers were approaching the car and after the car had been parked outside of the station for 3 minutes! Their story completely lacks credibility.
By the way, Kerr also initially denied calling the officer f***ing stupid and white mulitple tiems. She only admitted it when she realised they had film of her saying it. That is when she came up with the "I didn't mean anything racist by it" defence.
Conclusion: The story about the taxi driver kidnapping and holding them hostage is just as likely as Sam Kerr trying to break the glass between herself and the driver in attempt to murder him, the fact that people give it credibility is proof the world has gone mad.
The fact that Sam Kerr is now seen as some kind of victim and hero is not only a great shame, but a complete farce.
Last edited:
This screams whataboutism, isn't at all accurate, and again, I'm struggling to see the link to this case in this thread. She wasn't saying it in a racist way, so what does your view on black people being racist have to do with Sam kerr?
She wasn't using race to insult someone.
But this isn't the thread for that discussion? It looks as if you thought she was black, thought she was insulting the police officer because they're white, and wanted to point out that black people can be racist too.
The issue with this is, none of that happened.
See ya
If it’s true that they were attempting to break the glass panel between the driver and the passengers, then that really does change the perception of what was happening.
The jury asked the judge before deliberations to the extent of the damages of the glass shield between the driver and the passengers.
Kerrs wife also lied during the trial saying she had no idea what happened to the criminal damage charges that Kerr paid to have dropped (which she of course knew about)
Why do we trust a drunk person who was so intoxicated she could not even remember she had called the police stupid and white and could not get her story straight at all?
But hey in Sam Kerrs world she could say she was trying to break the glass to unlock the doors of the cab and people would lap it up immediately!
Ah right, because whenever women have been kidnapped and/or murdered by cab drivers, usually it happens whilst the cab is in transit. Of course they should not do anything to interfere with the would-be-perpetrator's driving!
Sounds like a smart idea to try and take a driver out while he is driving a vehicel without any evidence at all the driver is out to hurt you?
"Without any evidence" except for the fact that they were being taken against their will away from the requested destination, the cabbie was driving erratically, tracking / safety options are limited since it's a cab and not an Uber, numerous recent examples of women being kidnapped and murdered were top of mind and especially relevant for an Australian in that context, and the definitive proof that you conveniently omitted from your earlier summary that they tried to call the police and were hung up on would all point to a dangerous situation.
Your inability to empathise and put yourself in their shoes speaks volumes; good grief.
How is it a dangerous situation sitting in a cab outside a police station with the driver calling the police several times to announce their arrival at the station? And with the driver being instructed by police to drive there? Just because you are drunk and paranoid does not mean reality changes! What evidence do you have for the driver driving erratically expect 2 drunken perjurers word? Of course if they were trying to break the glass the driver could be distracted. It was so dangerous Kerr waited 13 minutes to call the police sitting outside a police station. Come back to real life and leave the fantasy Kerr-land!
Credit to the taxi drivers for locking the doors, or else Kerr might had herself killed jumping out of the taxi to avoid paying the fees in her drunken state! He was keeping them all safe. The way she mocked the taxi driver profession was really disgusting, entitlement at its worst.
Last edited:
Ah yes. Clearly those drunk women who were panicking should have just taken in their surroundings rationally! Also, as when any man is speaking they should have been quiet and thus would have understood they were being taken to a police station.
Your timeline is based entirely on false premises by the way because evidence was proven in court that Kerr called the police earlier and was hung up on. You have also conveniently omitted the fact that the driver insisted on payment mid-transit instead of just taking them to where they asked to go and settling the tab then like literally any competent taxi driver would - and when they objected he went completely rogue.
Every time I think the bar can't be lowered someone surprises me. Congratulations on hitting this milestone today!
I don't disagree with it being a real fear based on the situation she was in, even though she wasn't alone, i just don't see why the same doesn't apply to a man in a similar situation and why it gets so easily dismissed. Sure, being sexually assaulted is probably not the first thing running through your mind if your a man in a taxi with a male driver, but it's not the only bad thing that can happen and why wouldn't there be real fear about the overall situation if there's an agitated situation, you've been locked in and he's driving somewhere else than originally planned? It's not the first time someone has completely lost the plot.
I've had plenty of situations where i've decided to take a shortcut back to the hotel which suddenly had me in a back alley with people walking towards me and i've instantly thought that i've fecked up badly, it's just been people walking in the opposite direction probably thinking that they've done something stupid. You never really know, one day it'll be nothing, the next day you might get robbed, the next day you might run into the wrong person at the worst possible time and you get stabbed.
Feel free to point out any contemporary (i.e. not Dahmer) example of men being killed in this type of situation
Feel free to point out the last time two women together in a taxi got abducted and statistically how often it happens.
Not to mention it's fairly fecking meaningless. If you're in a situation where you feel you've lost control and the person you are with is behaving in a manner you perceive as uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, it's not like you're going to rationalize it by looking up stats to decide if you're in trouble or not.
Are you seriously suggesting the situations should feel and/or actually are exactly the same for men and women?
I'm suggesting that there's no reason a man in a similar faced situation shouldn't fear for his overall safety.
Ah ok - so because TWO women haven't been abducted from a cab at the same time they're being irrational.
Clearly they should have suppressed all of their instincts and just gone along with being taken somewhere they didn't ask to go because there were two of them!