A leopard can't change its spots.

[bozo]

This culminated in the accused, Jena Mason , displaying the golliwog in a prominent window in her 16th century manor house.

No, this culminated in the accused allegedly displaying the golliwog in a prominent window of her house. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Not that I think displaying dolls in your window is any grounds for arrest, but the fact remains that Mrs Mason claims that the doll was put there by a child. It is up to the courts to prove otherwise, which I doubt very much that they can do (and if they do find her guilty, we'll see just how corrupt the court system in the UK has become).

The neighbour, Mrs O'donnell , lives in a £1 million converted barn.
It is clear we are dealing here with rich people.

I fail to see how this is in any way relevant. I'd support the freedom of expression for any person, whether they are rich or poor, black or white, racist or not.

The court will decide whether the accused's actions constitute racial harassment that the complainant is alleging.
The magistrates will need to judge whether the accused intended to harass the complainant by use of the golliwog, KNOWING THAT SO DOING IS RACIALLY OFFENSIVE TO THE NEIGHBOUR.

So now you can get convicted for offending someone? Seriously, what is the UK coming to. People need to lighten up; there are ideas out there that are dangerous to society, but you can't control them by locking up the people who espouse them. Even if you locked up all the racists, the idea of racism would survive. If you want to end racism, you need to do it by allowing it to die naturally, and by enforcing positive legislation (focusing on equal rights).

It can only be offensive if the history of the golliwog figure is taken account of and if it is, in the magistrates' eyes, still offensive today.

I understand how it can be offensive to black people. I simply do not see how it is any of their business what people believe, what ideas they espouse, or even what things they decide to display in their windows. You have the right to be offended; you shouldn't have the right to have someone arrested for offending you. It's a slippery slope towards fascism; something that this country is quickly becoming.

The accused looks old, about my age and she will be well aware of the history of the golliwog and how, over time, its popularity dropped because of the racist connotations. I think it likely, but it is for the court to decide, that she knew exactly what she was doing by displaying the doll so prominently at the time she did so i.e whilst in conflict with her neighbour.

If she did display the doll in her window, then I agree with you. She probably did do it as some racist message. I still support her right to have those views though, and to espouse them in any way she wants to. The fact remains though, that she never attacked Mrs O'Donnell; she never did anything to cause her harm; all she did was display a doll with racist implications in her window. It caused offense, sure, but why should that be a crime?

You are correct in the first part. She is indeed inocent until proven guilty. My mistake. And yes again, the court will make a judgement about whether she did or not.
I only mention how well off they both are because it would not be surprising for a woman of that age and background ( shire woman not nouveau riche I am speculating ) to have racist tendencies. Again speculating, part of the problem may, stress, may, be their different backgrounds. The case may prove me right or wrong on these.

You obviously don't like the idea of punishment for race hate crimes, but that's your problem. The law does punish such crimes. So lighten up yourself to actual reality. If mrs. Mason had stoped to think about the possible implications for her actions ( if she did it ) then she took the risk and the risk bit her.