|
|
Post by zeopold on Jan 5, 2022 17:39:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jan 5, 2022 17:52:06 GMT
Great photo  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2022 18:13:07 GMT
Great news  |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 5, 2022 18:57:17 GMT
It'd make any sane person cry. An absolutely ridiculous decision that makes a mockery of the law: people do not have the right to cause criminal damage to other people's property with impunity, however strongly they may believe they are in the right. They should have thrown the book at these vandals. The result now will be anarchy, very likely with a spate of copycat crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jan 5, 2022 19:06:40 GMT
Interesting reaction Poly, and one I'd guess that only a minority would share So do you therefore agree that... Anything that is illegal is instantly wrong? When it was still legal to discriminate on grounds of race, sexuality, faith etc that was okay as it was legal at the time? Being gay was wrong when it was illegal? That we should continue to honour slave traders? etc etc Sometimes the law has yet to catch up with a more enlightened public sentiment This article reckons the Colston 4 are heroes in Bristol and will never have to buy another drink in the city as long as they live.... www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/05/how-bristol-came-out-in-support-of-the-colston-four |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 5, 2022 19:09:47 GMT
I suspect the majority of the British public would be appalled by this decision, which effectively means that the law is now being applied selectively.
The issue isn't whether it's "wrong" or not; that's a value judgment. The issue is that the law must be applied consistently. Criminal damage is either a crime or it isn't. It can't be a crime for some people and legal for others, depending on whether a jury is sympathetic to the motivations of the defendant. That creates a very worrying precedent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2022 19:42:42 GMT
I suspect the majority of the British public would be appalled by this decision, which effectively means that the law is now being applied selectively. The issue isn't whether it's "wrong" or not; that's a value judgment. The issue is that the law must be applied consistently. Criminal damage is either a crime or it isn't. It can't be a crime for some people and legal for others, depending on whether a jury is sympathetic to the motivations of the defendant. That creates a very worrying precedent. I suspect that a very significant number of the UK public will be elated by this decision too.
If the Tory party can be exempt from the law and take the piss out of the man in the street then it makes sense for it to work the other way too. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jan 5, 2022 20:53:45 GMT
a spate of copycat crimes.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2022 21:01:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jan 5, 2022 21:01:38 GMT
I suspect the majority of the British public would be appalled by this decision, which effectively means that the law is now being applied selectively. Trial by jury is part of the law That a group of the accused peers can find defendants not guilty is baked into the process That you are unhappy is neither here nor there The jury heard the evidence, listened to the guidance by the judge, and came to a decision based on that |
|
|
|
Post by wardance on Jan 5, 2022 21:07:08 GMT
The defendants never denied the damage. "Each defendant described being motivated by sincere antiracist conviction, frustration that previous attempts to persuade the council to remove the statue had failed, and a belief that the statue was so offensive it constituted an indecent display or a hate crime."
Clive Lewis, the Labour MP, said: “A British jury has confirmed the toppling of Edwards Colston’s statue was not a criminal act. The real crime was the fact the statue was still there when protestors pulled it down."
Bristol City Council had plenty of opportunity to deal with this issue, but failed.
When a population is greeted on a daily basis by the veneration of a man guilty of such dreadful crimes is it any wonder that people take action into their own hands?
The usual suspects have already made their anger felt about this result ( tory MP's, Kelvin McKenzie et al ), but the world is changing. THe world of the privileged white male is ( hopefully ) coming to an end. It will take a while, but things are moving in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by stu77 on Jan 5, 2022 21:15:19 GMT
I'm amazed a jury voted this way. I've seen quite a few trials and juries are normally quite conservative and take a dim view of unconventional people.
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 5, 2022 21:16:53 GMT
The jury heard the evidence, listened to the guidance by the judge, and came to a decision based on that In that case, they were misdirected by the Judge. Criminal damage is criminal damage. it doesn't matter how justified one feels about committing vandalism against other people's property. This decision gives entitled left-wing protestors carte blanche to go on the rampage, confident that they will not face the consequences of their crimes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2022 21:20:11 GMT
The jury heard the evidence, listened to the guidance by the judge, and came to a decision based on that In that case, they were misdirected by the Judge. Criminal damage is criminal damage. it doesn't matter how justified one feels about committing vandalism against other people's property. This decision gives entitled left-wing protestors carte blanche to go on the rampage, confident that they will not face the consequences of their crimes. Entitled? That's a laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jan 5, 2022 21:21:40 GMT
Entitled? That's a laugh. The situation is very far from being funny. Now that these people believe they can commit politically motivated crimes with impunity, they'll be on the rampage. |
|
