12-year-old arrested over racial abuse targeted at Wilfried Zaha

Watch
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a9614961.html

Crystal Palace footballer was subjected to vile racist abuse over Instagram ahead of the Premier League match against Aston Villa

West Midlands Police have arrested a 12-year-old boy (in Solihull) after Crystal Palace footballer Wilfried Zaha was targeted with online racial abuse on Sunday morning.
A statement issued on Sunday afternoon read: “We were alerted to a series of racist messages sent to a footballer today and after looking into them and conducting checks, we have arrested a boy."


Sharing a series of screenshots online, Zaha highlighted the scale of sickening online abuse he had received prior to this afternoon’s Premier League match between Palace and Aston Villa, appearing to be from a supporter of the West Midlands side.
One post included an image of the white supremacist hate group, the Ku Klux Klan, and a message that read: ‘’You better not score tomorrow your black c*** or I’ll come to your house dressed as a ghost.’’


-----------------------------------------------

Pretty sickening behaviour from someone so young.

Do you think that he got what he deserved?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Depressing and glad they arrested him.
I hope they take him to court over it plus the club bans him for at least 5 years.
At 12 you definitely know thw difference between right and wrong.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
Get the parents involved, assuming they give a ****.
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
Typical keyboard warrior, some 12 year old probably still in his nappies spouting racist BS behind a screen, how pathetic can you get?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
Awful but should we really be arresting 12 year olds for abusing social media? Surely this is down to social media letting 12 year olds have access to their public megaphone.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
Christ alive, what a ****. Seems the 'kid' could do with having this claptrap scared out of him. A few days in jail might do that, who can say?
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Awful but should we really be arresting 12 year olds for abusing social media? Surely this is down to social media letting 12 year olds have access to their public megaphone.
Yes, we should, because it sets an example that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated. At 12 years old, they would know exactly what they’re doing.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
I am going to make the unpopular case here, for a change.

And say, this is a child. He is only twelve years old. What kind of society have we turned into that we are arresting little boys for "hate speech"??

The disparity in the power dynamic here is grotesque, too. On the one hand we have a mega rich, famous, professional footballer supported by the full force of the State, the police, the courts, the panoply of state violence.

And on the other someone who left primary school last year.

But the powerful fully grown man is black and the small child (presumably?) white, so of course "white privilege" is the elephant in the room here... :rolleyes:
1
reply
JSG29
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by generallee)
I am going to make the unpopular case here, for a change.

And say, this is a child. He is only twelve years old. What kind of society have we turned into that we are arresting little boys for "hate speech"??
The child was old enough to decide to send threatening messages, racially abusing someone - he should face the consequences. Is your opposition on the grounds that the law shouldn't apply to 12 year olds or that it should be legal for anyone to send racist abuse to whoever they want?

(Original post by generallee)
The disparity in the power dynamic here is grotesque, too. On the one hand we have a mega rich, famous, professional footballer supported by the full force of the State, the police, the courts, the panoply of state violence.

And on the other someone who left primary school last year.
So it's ok because the victim is rich and famous? And what do you mean by the 'panoply of state violence'? Afaik he has been arrested, and that is it. In what way is that state violence?
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by generallee)
I am going to make the unpopular case here, for a change.

And say, this is a child. He is only twelve years old. What kind of society have we turned into that we are arresting little boys for "hate speech"??

The disparity in the power dynamic here is grotesque, too. On the one hand we have a mega rich, famous, professional footballer supported by the full force of the State, the police, the courts, the panoply of state violence.

And on the other someone who left primary school last year.

But the powerful fully grown man is black and the small child (presumably?) white, so of course "white privilege" is the elephant in the room here... :rolleyes:
I agree with you.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by JSG29)
The child was old enough to decide to send threatening messages, racially abusing someone - he should face the consequences. Is your opposition on the grounds that the law shouldn't apply to 12 year olds or that it should be legal for anyone to send racist abuse to whoever they want?



So it's ok because the victim is rich and famous? And what do you mean by the 'panoply of state violence'? Afaik he has been arrested, and that is it. In what way is that state violence?
To your first question, both.

To your second, yes.

To your third, you knew exactly what I meant.
0
reply
JSG29
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by generallee)
To your first question, both.

To your second, yes.

To your third, you knew exactly what I meant.
At what age should the law start to apply then?

I can see the argument for 'hate speech' not being illegal - in plenty of cases I would agree - but this was a racially aggravated death threat. That is not someone being censored for posting their opinion. IMO it is rightly illegal.

At what point does it stop being ok to commit crimes against the rich? Robbery? Assault? Murder? At what point does someone become rich enough that crimes against them are ok? Billionaire? Millionaire? £100k/year?

And no, I don't know what you mean or I wouldn't have asked. If you mean it is overreach on the part of the state, I disagree, but understand your view, though I'm not sure why you're calling it state violence.
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Get the parents involved, assuming they give a ****.
Highly likely the parents are copies of the child. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by JSG29)
At what age should the law start to apply then?

I don't know when the law should start to take effect, but I do think that our age of criminal responsibility, (ten!) is too young.

I can see the argument for 'hate speech' not being illegal - in plenty of cases I would agree - but this was a racially aggravated death threat. That is not someone being censored for posting their opinion. IMO it is rightly illegal.

At what point does it stop being ok to commit crimes against the rich? Robbery? Assault? Murder? At what point does someone become rich enough that crimes against them are ok? Billionaire? Millionaire? £100k/year?

And no, I don't know what you mean or I wouldn't have asked. If you mean it is overreach on the part of the state, I disagree, but understand your view, though I'm not sure why you're calling it state violence.
I don't know when the law should start to take effect, but I do think that our age of criminal responsibility, (ten I think?) is too young.

As for it being a racially aggravated death threat, I don't accept racial aggravation as a valid legal principle in the first place. Why should a murder that is motivated by race be worse morally than one not?

And it wasn't a serious death threat, context is everything, it needs to be credible, and in this case was a playground taunt.

This isn't about legality, (let alone justice!) anyway, it is about the police indulging in woke virtue signalling. This constabulary as the paramilitary wing of the Guardian. The police need to be above politics, and not enforcing the law on one side of the cultural divide. We saw the same phenomenon when they stood back and allowed the BLM mob to tear down the statue in Bristol. Our system is of policing by consent, and they are losing that consent with half the population when they pull this kind of stunt.

No, of course it isn't OK to break the law if the victim is rich, as a matter of general principle. But in this case the imbalance in power between the claimed "victim" and his supposed tormentor is so grotesquely large, the "crime" so nugatory, the police should have used some common sense.

Finally, the state arresting a little boy is committing a violent act. Not all violence is physical, you know.

(Edit: I accused the West Midland Police of indulging in woke virtue signalling above, and here is the exemplar of that...

https://twitter.com/WMPolice/status/1282341956199350272

Could there be anything more pathetic than this glorying in their brave arrest of a child? Still good to know that they have their priorities right. I am sure there was nothing better for them to be doing in the crime infested West Midlands)
Last edited by generallee; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Surnia
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by generallee)
But the powerful fully grown man is black and the small child (presumably?) white, so of course "white privilege" is the elephant in the room here... :rolleyes:
How does white privilege play into someone being racially abused online because the abuser didn't like the colour of their skin or the job they do? The boy has a sense of entitlement for thinking he could post what he liked and not expect consequences, but that's not privilege.
1
reply
ih8stupidppl
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
A grown Black man, can't take a few offensive tweets from a 12 year old kid?

Whats worse, the British police (protect and serve grooming gangs) treat a 12 year old, worse than a murderer.


If a 12 year old commits murder, their names are protected. A kid tweets some offensive things, and he's targetted for life along with his family and even school?
1
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Surnia)
How does white privilege play into someone being racially abused online because the abuser didn't like the colour of their skin or the job they do? The boy has a sense of entitlement for thinking he could post what he liked and not expect consequences, but that's not privilege.
Yeah an underclass child has a "sense of entitlement" for sending a couple of stupid tweets, whilst his "victim" who makes more in a month than he will in ten years, tries to trash the kid's life in between cocaine fuelled spit roasts of wannabe models.

My heart bleeds for him. How terrible is the systemic racism he encounters. Oh, the racy racy racism, how awful it must have been to read such tweets! They must have so hurt his feelings!

The gap between "progressive" dogma in our country and the reality of every day life is laughable.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
My view is that there are probably more important things for the police to spend time on.

Either way, my solution would be to send both his parents and his school the tweets, and let them sort it out.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by generallee)
I am going to make the unpopular case here, for a change.

And say, this is a child. He is only twelve years old. What kind of society have we turned into that we are arresting little boys for "hate speech"??

The disparity in the power dynamic here is grotesque, too. On the one hand we have a mega rich, famous, professional footballer supported by the full force of the State, the police, the courts, the panoply of state violence.

And on the other someone who left primary school last year.

But the powerful fully grown man is black and the small child (presumably?) white, so of course "white privilege" is the elephant in the room here... :rolleyes:
I find myself mostly in agreement with you here. I don't think we should criticise Zaha though. For him, he doesn't know the kid was only 12.

What the kid said was disgusting and racist, yes. He should have been given a very stern talking to by his school and/or the police.

But we need to realise that he is a kid. It was completely stupid what he did. However, it's not proportionate to treat him like an adult.

We all do stupid things at that age and at 12 you don't really understand just how stupid things are. And we are now living in a world where kids are able to mesage famous people, which was never the case for us. These witch hunts are unnerving.
Last edited by DSilva; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by DSilva)
I find myself mostly in agreement with you here. I don't think we should criticise Zaha though. For him, he doesn't know the kid was only 12.

What the kid said was disgusting and racist, yes. He should have been given a very stern talking to by his school and/or the police.

But we need to realise that he is a kid. It was completely stupid what he did. However, it's not proportionate to treat him like an adult.

We all do stupid things at that age and at 12 you don't really understand just how stupid things are. And we are now living in a world where kids are able to mesage famous people, which was never the case for us. These witch hints are unnerving.
Yes they are unnerving, and there can be no end to them.

First they came for right wingers, and they were shut up. Certainly in academia and the public sector, and now corporate life. The sort of stuff I come out with on this website would not be acceptable for someone in public life. They would be cancelled.

But now, because of the dearth of targets, fellow progressives are falling victim to it. And the irony of it is that even to criticise this phenomenon from a left wing perspective, as the famous signed letter did, gets you attacked viciously. It is OK for JK Rowling, she will always get published, but a fellow writer of less prominence supported her and lost her publishing contract.

This isn't normal, and it isn't right.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (201)
39.26%
Take autumn exams (155)
30.27%
Look for a job (17)
3.32%
Consider an apprenticeship (21)
4.1%
Take a year out (88)
17.19%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (30)
5.86%

Watched Threads

View All