Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Colston Vandals Cleared
the judge just greenlighted it's ok to vandalise, if you don't like a statue or painting just knock it down or rip it up, history is there to be trodden on if it offends you...
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"The verdict cannot be overturned and the defendants cannot be retried without fresh evidence."
It was a travesty of justice, & I cannot see how you could have more evidence than photographs of them actually doing the criminal act!
With no further ruling it is now no longer a crime to destroy public property.
It was a travesty of justice, & I cannot see how you could have more evidence than photographs of them actually doing the criminal act!
With no further ruling it is now no longer a crime to destroy public property.
This gives details of the process.
https:/
https:/
jim, I've just read through that link -thank you. But his conclusion;
"10. Does this create a precedent? Does it mean that anybody can now pull down a statute of somebody they don’t like without consequence?
No. And no. Jury verdicts create no precedent in law..."
Though it may not create a true legal precedent, I cannot see how this case would not be referred to in any similar future trial.
"10. Does this create a precedent? Does it mean that anybody can now pull down a statute of somebody they don’t like without consequence?
No. And no. Jury verdicts create no precedent in law..."
Though it may not create a true legal precedent, I cannot see how this case would not be referred to in any similar future trial.
//I cannot see how this case would not be referred to in any similar future trial.//
The verdict turned on a matter of fact - i.e. what did the jury believe and what did they disbelieve. They gave their verdict on that basis.
Jury acquittals cannot generally be challenged but there is talk that the Attorney-General may ask the Court of Appeal to clarify the law. Much of the jury's deliberations would have been founded around the defendants' claim that they were acting to prevent a crime. Their counsel suggested that the statue's presence was so offensive that it constituted an indecent display or a hate crime, so the defendants were justified in removing it. This is perhaps stretching the "lawful excuse" to its limit and perhaps beyond because (some might argue) a statue is incapable of committing a crime and removing it cannot therefore prevent one.
This is something the Court of Appeal may be asked to consider and issue a ruling on. It will not overturn these acquittals but it will give binding guidance to judges facing a similar situation.
The verdict turned on a matter of fact - i.e. what did the jury believe and what did they disbelieve. They gave their verdict on that basis.
Jury acquittals cannot generally be challenged but there is talk that the Attorney-General may ask the Court of Appeal to clarify the law. Much of the jury's deliberations would have been founded around the defendants' claim that they were acting to prevent a crime. Their counsel suggested that the statue's presence was so offensive that it constituted an indecent display or a hate crime, so the defendants were justified in removing it. This is perhaps stretching the "lawful excuse" to its limit and perhaps beyond because (some might argue) a statue is incapable of committing a crime and removing it cannot therefore prevent one.
This is something the Court of Appeal may be asked to consider and issue a ruling on. It will not overturn these acquittals but it will give binding guidance to judges facing a similar situation.
I have no trouble with the notion of trial by jury, as a cornerstone of British justice, to which everyone is entitled.
And i accept that there is evidence and proceedure that we know nothing about that may have swayed the jury in what seems to be a bizarre verdict.
What does concern me is the twin factors involved here.
The first is the notion of criminal damage, which is clear from all the filmed and witnessed activity where a statue was pulled down, defaced, and rolled into the harbour.
That would appear to indicate an open-and-shut case of criminal damage.
But the factor that does appear to have come into play is 'what' was damaged - a statue of a historic slaver.
I believe that the two issues should be kept totally separate, and this does not appear to have happened here.
The only way I can see sympathy for the defendants is on the basis of 'what' they vandalised, a divisive figure. the future of whose statue was already the subject of debate in the town.
But this cannot be right.
It allows, as the freed individuals have now crowed loud and long, for anyone to vandalise something simply on the basis that they don't like or approve of it, however supposedly laudable those sentiments may be.
Since you can find a group of people anywhere to diskike and disapprove of absolutely anything anywhere, where do we then draw the line?
Can someone walk down Oxford Street slashing taxi cab and bus tyres because he prefers the older obsolete models and doesn't approve of the new ones that have replaced them?
Can someone deface any and all representations of the Queen because his a Republican?
Quite apart from the apparent ludicrousness of the jury failing to convict on clear and undeniable evidence, it is the message, and potential precedent that is st by this verdict that i think is seriously worrying.
It means we are going to have hoards of woke numpties convinced that their mission to re-write history with wholesale destruction, now has the legal backing and support of the legal system.
And that cannot be right
And i accept that there is evidence and proceedure that we know nothing about that may have swayed the jury in what seems to be a bizarre verdict.
What does concern me is the twin factors involved here.
The first is the notion of criminal damage, which is clear from all the filmed and witnessed activity where a statue was pulled down, defaced, and rolled into the harbour.
That would appear to indicate an open-and-shut case of criminal damage.
But the factor that does appear to have come into play is 'what' was damaged - a statue of a historic slaver.
I believe that the two issues should be kept totally separate, and this does not appear to have happened here.
The only way I can see sympathy for the defendants is on the basis of 'what' they vandalised, a divisive figure. the future of whose statue was already the subject of debate in the town.
But this cannot be right.
It allows, as the freed individuals have now crowed loud and long, for anyone to vandalise something simply on the basis that they don't like or approve of it, however supposedly laudable those sentiments may be.
Since you can find a group of people anywhere to diskike and disapprove of absolutely anything anywhere, where do we then draw the line?
Can someone walk down Oxford Street slashing taxi cab and bus tyres because he prefers the older obsolete models and doesn't approve of the new ones that have replaced them?
Can someone deface any and all representations of the Queen because his a Republican?
Quite apart from the apparent ludicrousness of the jury failing to convict on clear and undeniable evidence, it is the message, and potential precedent that is st by this verdict that i think is seriously worrying.
It means we are going to have hoards of woke numpties convinced that their mission to re-write history with wholesale destruction, now has the legal backing and support of the legal system.
And that cannot be right
As is pointed out in jim's link, the verdict of the jury cannot be overturned, -though a re-trial is possible if new evidence was forthcoming,- but referring to this case in another trial would not be outside the law -would it?
I'm also stuck with the concept of what the sculpture, a standing figure of a man, 'represents'.
The British Museum is packed with portrait busts of Roman emperors who committed heinous crimes, should we therefor be entitled to destroy them?
I'm also stuck with the concept of what the sculpture, a standing figure of a man, 'represents'.
The British Museum is packed with portrait busts of Roman emperors who committed heinous crimes, should we therefor be entitled to destroy them?
Khandro - // The British Museum is packed with portrait busts of Roman emperors who committed heinous crimes, should we therefor be entitled to destroy them? //
They must take a ticket and join the queue.
When the IOW (Idiots Of Woke) have exhausted themselves destroying every image of every political and social concept that offends their ignorant insufferably self-righteous ideas of what history should be, as opposed to what it is, they will get to the Romans.
It's just a matter of time.
It makes my blood boil because the very last thing these moronic self-obsessed nazi history re-writers need is anyone anywhere making them think they are more right then they already believe themselves to be - difficult though that clearly is.
And what do we have - the legal system of this country telling them exactly that!
They must take a ticket and join the queue.
When the IOW (Idiots Of Woke) have exhausted themselves destroying every image of every political and social concept that offends their ignorant insufferably self-righteous ideas of what history should be, as opposed to what it is, they will get to the Romans.
It's just a matter of time.
It makes my blood boil because the very last thing these moronic self-obsessed nazi history re-writers need is anyone anywhere making them think they are more right then they already believe themselves to be - difficult though that clearly is.
And what do we have - the legal system of this country telling them exactly that!
Latest Posts
Body & Soul6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
ChatterBank33 mins ago
Music36 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.