Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins 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.
This is a clear case of a rogue jury (nullification), similar case here:
http://
the evidence is undeniable yet they acquit out of some sort ideological stance.
http://
the evidence is undeniable yet they acquit out of some sort ideological stance.
yikes
"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."
do we have an award for the longest sentence? ( 4 lines)
as so often - so very often on AB - it doesnt have to make sense
"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."
do we have an award for the longest sentence? ( 4 lines)
as so often - so very often on AB - it doesnt have to make sense
-- answer removed --
Apologies if this has been covered somewhere above but the verdict was not that they didn’t vandalise the statue but that they weren’t guilty of criminal damage. And it wasn’t the jury not the judge.
Whatever you think of this case it doesn’t mean all such cases will be similarly treated.
As for the demolition of statues, we cheer when Dzerzhinsk or Saddam Hussein, Lenin or Stalin are toppled. At least many do, so these things are never cut and dried
Whatever you think of this case it doesn’t mean all such cases will be similarly treated.
As for the demolition of statues, we cheer when Dzerzhinsk or Saddam Hussein, Lenin or Stalin are toppled. At least many do, so these things are never cut and dried
maybe the jury should be had up for contempt of court? :)
thank god Abers dont read Ab before they reopen their mouths with much repeated guff
1670 - when the jury who declined to convict Penn ( he of Pennsylvania(*)) of seditious assembly - should NOT ( ruled the Chief Justice Vaughan ) should NOT be fined and imprisoned.
so we have none of that
Jee-larn Maxwell is different - those two jurors MAY be proceeded against ( no possible grounds in London). THOSE jurors can speak on the principle of - free speech. - - - some principle if it lands you in the slammer
thank god Abers dont read Ab before they reopen their mouths with much repeated guff
1670 - when the jury who declined to convict Penn ( he of Pennsylvania(*)) of seditious assembly - should NOT ( ruled the Chief Justice Vaughan ) should NOT be fined and imprisoned.
so we have none of that
Jee-larn Maxwell is different - those two jurors MAY be proceeded against ( no possible grounds in London). THOSE jurors can speak on the principle of - free speech. - - - some principle if it lands you in the slammer
Jim at 13.17 feels there may be a possibility that the judge made an error in law in directing the jury. If that’s so, firstly how did the judge direct the jury - does anyone know? - and secondly if he was in error surely a re-trial must be called for?
This is reminiscent of a case brought before the ECHR a few years ago which, in an effort to maintain social cohesion and avoid civil unrest, resulted in a blatant miscarriage of justice. If this is what happened here there’s something very wrong without our justice system.
This is reminiscent of a case brought before the ECHR a few years ago which, in an effort to maintain social cohesion and avoid civil unrest, resulted in a blatant miscarriage of justice. If this is what happened here there’s something very wrong without our justice system.
TTT // but what is special about "that" statue? it's one of thousands. //
It's the one in this criminal damage case, and if it was in a museum and it was damaged then I am sure the perpetrators would have been found guilty. Khandro was concerned that because of this ruling, Roman Busts in museums were not adequately protected by the law and I was seeking to reassure him.
It's the one in this criminal damage case, and if it was in a museum and it was damaged then I am sure the perpetrators would have been found guilty. Khandro was concerned that because of this ruling, Roman Busts in museums were not adequately protected by the law and I was seeking to reassure him.
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.