The Ridiculous Case of the Non Racist Sam Kerr

Are we innocent till proven guilty when convictions depend on how our accusers feel? It's time to take The Sniff Test.

A Genuine Gender Divide

“Be extra careful on the way home, boys” advised the deputy head. Word spread that the city was in flames and we faced long journeys home from school. As the carriages rolled through the inner city, we strained at the windows imagining the chaos on the streets. To a 12-year old’s mixture of disappointment and relief, my train passed nowhere near the troubles.

When Uber launched in London in 2012, there was a spate of stories about attacks on women by unlicensed drivers. My wife refused to use the service and to this day wears an air of scepticism about it. In contrast, a near lifetime of familiarity mean my daughters shop around for the cheapest fare.

It’s hard to recall how febrile the atmosphere was in 1980s Britain. As a suburban child my streets were safe and the tensions behind the troubles were a million miles away. As the Battle of Orgreave raged between striking miners and police, residents of the manufacturing city of Birmingham were glued to the nightly news, but had no experience of the bloodshed.

There is a difference in how men and women perceive danger. Videos of deserted paths at night show women weaving between patches of street light, while men wander in and out of the dark. Women fear the unseen, the potential for violence, the sudden mood swings. Men tend to bravado, at least until a situation unfolds.

When asked how others feel, we project how we hope to react in a similar situation. We have the safety of distance, in space and time. It is impossible to know what others experience in moments of stress, but the law requires a jury to do so.

Luther and Relativism

Martin Luther is considered the father of relativism. It is a label he would abhor. While Luther argued with great success that the scriptures were an open book, he was adamant that his interpretation was the truth. If the whole Catholic Church stood in opposition, then the whole church was in error.

Luther faced excommunication and being burnt at the stake. He stood by his beliefs because the eternal fires of damnation were a more vivid fear that the physical tortures of the real world. There was no earthly power greater than the spiritual one he worshipped.

Part of Luther’s legacy is the importance of individual interpretation. Never mind his appeal to the central authority of ancient texts, or his antisemitic vitriol in later life. What is remembered, is an individual’s right to defy all in defence of their beliefs.

Modern relativism challenges the idea of objective knowledge. It argues that truth is a construct of language, power structures and social context. Relativists see themselves as tolerant and enlightened, albeit their supporters are often the ones tearing down statues, because historical figures do not conform to today’s norms. Any academic theory in the hands of others may be twisted to support immediate political ends.

Moral and cultural relativism are pervasive throughout society. They are behind the cover-up of grooming young girls in English cities and the no-go areas of inner London, where monoculture rejects our multicultural narrative. They are visible every day on social media, as people twist news stories to their interpretation of events. The latest example is the ridiculous case of the non racist Sam Kerr.

Blurring the Lines

The Public Order Act of 1986 was the considered response to the riots of 1979 and ’81 and the violence of the 1984-5 miners strike. It introduced three new offences of riot, violent disorder and affray, codifying what had been covered by common law. Its purpose was to control public processions and assemblies and the stirring up of racial hatred. The preamble is all about ensuring public order.

The act also introduced lesser offences relating to the fear or provocation of violence. Words, gestures and writing could now be threatening, abusive, or insulting and result in a prison sentence. The trigger is that another person is caused harassment, alarm or distress.

There is a high threshold for the most serious offences under the act. After the summer riots of 2024, in response to the murder of young girls at a birthday party, over 1,000 people were arrested and over 500 charged. Only two were accused of riot. The ‘summer violent disorder of 2024’ doesn’t have the same ring to it.

The common purpose of rioters may be inferred from their conduct. In other words, a jury can determine what the accused intended to do. It has proved far easier to show that a person of reasonable firmness would fear for their safety, and thereby convict someone of violent disorder. Prosecutions proceed on the path of least resistance to securing a conviction.

Section 4A of the Public Order Act introduces the crime of intentional harassment, alarm or distress. To my untrained legal mind, this blurs the line of guilty till proven innocent. It is possible to be accused by someone of causing them distress and convicted by a jury that decides what you and they believed. Sam Kerr was charged under Section 4A.

The Horror in the Shadows

In the early hours of January 30, 2023 a vomit-splattered taxi pulled up outside Twickenham police station. A rear window was smashed and the screen separating driver from passengers was damaged. Both the driver and a passenger had called the police, although the driver called first and was the only one to speak with them.

Criminal charges over what occurred in the cab were dismissed when Kerr paid the driver £900. Despite this, her version of events and that of her partner Kristie Mewis, became central to determining her state of mind.

Kerr apparently grew up in fear of taxi drivers following a murder in Australia during her childhood. She prefers Uber because its routes are tracked but none were available. Fortuitously, the absence of tracking allowed Kerr and Mewis to claim they were driven as prisoners at high speed around the streets of London, before the taxi driver stopped at a police station.

The charge against Kerr was racially aggravated harassment of PC Lovell. Their petty and childish squabbling is viewable online and was enough for the judge to say Kerr contributed to her own predicament. This would be taken into account when determining costs and Kerr’s defence team didn’t seek any.

Relativists would say we cannot know the mind of Sam Kerr, who identifies as White-Anglo-Indian, is gay and a celebrated footballer. This is tantamount to saying we can only be judged by our tribe. No one would be convicted of anything if only friends and supporters could sit on the jury.

There are no consistent records of crimes on or by taxi drivers in the UK. What is available for London suggests around 150 a year, each way. That’s a 0.0002% chance of being assaulted by a driver, given an average 10 taxi rides a year in England and 6.2 million Londoners aged 16 and above. That’s not saying anything about the nature of those assaults. They might be disputes over fares, or paying for cleaning up vomit.

Perception is reality, however. There need be only one publicised crime for fear to stalk the mind of potential victims. Who knows the horrors they see in the shadows. As a man, I most likely don’t.

Not a Difficult Choice

In the US, Kayne West posts antisemitic diatribes and sells swastika tees on his website. In the UK, we prosecute sports stars for name calling. Who is more ridiculous?

We have a choice. When we say we are equal before the law, we can mean either that we be judged by 12 fellow citizens, or only by those who understand our situation. If the latter, society concedes that others cannot know our mind.

This lowers the bar to accuse people of harassing us. If you don’t know me, then you might assume I am offended by almost anything you say. When Sam Kerr says she felt threatened by the authority of a white policeman, she is close to arguing that white policemen cannot judge her.

This may explain why the police pursued the case. The Crown Prosecution Service threw it out, but someone high up chose to appeal. Only at that point did PC Lovell amend his statement, to say he had taken offence at Kerr’s comments.

Being drunk does not excuse you of harassment. Being unaware you caused offence, does. The huge hole in the prosecution case was that the policeman appeared uncertain if he was offended. Nonetheless they persisted.

The police may be fed up of suffering routine abuse by drunks. They might want to show the law is colour blind and they don’t just arrest white keyboard warriors for tweeting. Most likely, they feel the need to resist the idea that they cannot pursue cases against people who claim a different cultural background.

The 1980s were different times. The public demanded an end to disorder and the politicians had to act. But the law cannot cover every eventuality. Its interpretation depends on social context and this changes through time. The rise of cultural relativism makes it easy for me to claim both that I am offended and that I cannot understand why you might be.

Common sense prevailed in the acquittal of Sam Kerr. The jury understood the intention behind the law. I have to wonder whether senior police officers and politicians share this view, or see the law as a weapon of cultural change.