She should obviously file a civil suit. Firstly, even a cursory examination of available evidence would have shown that she had had no interaction with the accuser. Secondly, even if she had, calling somebody a nasty name is not a crime. This was a case of malicious prosecution. She should be entitled to hefty damages.
About the only thing that surprises me about this story is that the video footage was preserved and not destroyed.
I remember a little paperback with the title, “It’s Fun To Be A Polack”. I was just a kid when one of my dad’s younger brothers happened to borrow it from a friend of his. They gathered in the basement kitchen to browse through it and it didn’t seem like such a big deal then, but hey, it was the ‘60s!
This is the path the UK is on. The State gets to subjectively decide if something said is a ‘crime’.
Free Speech MUST have broad reach, where the only limits are ‘calls to violence’ or ‘inciting panic that causes unnecessary harm’ (shout ‘fire’ in theater). Outside that, any restrictions mean you don’t have free speech and the State gets to imprison people for ‘hurty words’...as they subjectively interpret them. Which is an endlessly slippery slope that governments cannot be trusted with.
Anything can be contorted into some bizarrely interpreted meaning.
E.g. “Please speak English” = “interpreted as racial hatred” = “crime”
It’s nuts. You should be able to be the biggest a**hole you want, offend everyone on everything...not a crime. Everyone else has the right to hate and avoid you. Anyone that thinks the State gets to stick their nose into it doesn’t understand freedom, period.