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.
I dont know how these things work but is it possible the prosecution lawyer's actually had some sympathy politically with the cause of the defendents and actually did'nt press as hard as they might if they the accused was a Tommy Robinson type. Yes I know there suppose to do the best they can for there clients but its possible to go through the motions and not give 100%
Has anyone noted the police involvement in this action? Jake Skuse, the fourth defendant, noted in court that the police stood by during Colston’s deposition and did nothing. “How can I think it’s a crime?” he asked. He appeared to mean not only that he thought it the right thing to do, but also that the authorities were letting him do it.
Shouldn't questions be asked?
Shouldn't questions be asked?
Khandro - // ... “How can I think it’s a crime?” he asked. //
How indeed.
If he has ever been taught the simple difference between right and wrong as a child, he has clearly forgotten it on the way to adulthood - physically at least.
The people he mixes with, are of a similar lack of basic morality, and it does appear that the police and the the jury, have assisted him with his perception.
I expect to find him and his friends doing exactly the same somewhere else, anytime soon.
How indeed.
If he has ever been taught the simple difference between right and wrong as a child, he has clearly forgotten it on the way to adulthood - physically at least.
The people he mixes with, are of a similar lack of basic morality, and it does appear that the police and the the jury, have assisted him with his perception.
I expect to find him and his friends doing exactly the same somewhere else, anytime soon.
tigger - // If his grave had been vandalised then I would class that as an act of criminality but to me its a statue and one that has evoked a cause to bring it down for a number of years. //
To me the issue is not 'what' was damaged, or the controversy surrounding it in recent years, but the fact that this was simple vandalism of public property, and that is not excusable.
Well, apparently it is excusable, but it should not be excusable.
If you are OK with this statue being vandalised on the basis that it is a monument, rather than a gravestone, would you be happy if, for example, the statues of Gordon Banks and Stanley Mathews, both venerated footballers from my city, were pulled down and graffitied by disgruntled MU fans?
To me the issue is not 'what' was damaged, or the controversy surrounding it in recent years, but the fact that this was simple vandalism of public property, and that is not excusable.
Well, apparently it is excusable, but it should not be excusable.
If you are OK with this statue being vandalised on the basis that it is a monument, rather than a gravestone, would you be happy if, for example, the statues of Gordon Banks and Stanley Mathews, both venerated footballers from my city, were pulled down and graffitied by disgruntled MU fans?
Atheist, //Khandro; go ahead and ask a question. This is the Answer Bank, after all.//
Khandro did ask a question. Noting that the police stood by and did nothing whilst this was happening (and it's not the first time the police have been aware of crime being committed and done nothing) Khandro said, 'Shouldn't questions be asked?'
My response to that is yes, questions should most definitely be asked.
This thread is peppered with hot air and mealy-mouthed excuses for this travesty. So many seemingly accept the reasons given for this judgement jumping through hoops to justify it, but ask why the crime is acceptable and suddenly acceptance is denied. Then the Suffragettes are wheeled in as usual as if in some way their purpose has some bearing on this. Just what is the purpose of these vandals? What is their ultimate goal? What do they hope to achieve? When they've pulled down all the statues, renamed all the streets and colleges, and airbrushed what they consider to be the unsavoury from our history, then what?
bobbin, Other people may know more than you do about the things they've studied but that's all. No university offers a degree course in common sense.
The law in this country, from the police to the courts, used to be dependable but no more. Yes, Khandro, questions should certainly be asked - and rigorously.
Khandro did ask a question. Noting that the police stood by and did nothing whilst this was happening (and it's not the first time the police have been aware of crime being committed and done nothing) Khandro said, 'Shouldn't questions be asked?'
My response to that is yes, questions should most definitely be asked.
This thread is peppered with hot air and mealy-mouthed excuses for this travesty. So many seemingly accept the reasons given for this judgement jumping through hoops to justify it, but ask why the crime is acceptable and suddenly acceptance is denied. Then the Suffragettes are wheeled in as usual as if in some way their purpose has some bearing on this. Just what is the purpose of these vandals? What is their ultimate goal? What do they hope to achieve? When they've pulled down all the statues, renamed all the streets and colleges, and airbrushed what they consider to be the unsavoury from our history, then what?
bobbin, Other people may know more than you do about the things they've studied but that's all. No university offers a degree course in common sense.
The law in this country, from the police to the courts, used to be dependable but no more. Yes, Khandro, questions should certainly be asked - and rigorously.
//So many seemingly accept the reasons given for this judgement jumping through hoops to justify it,..//
I don't think that's quite true, naomi. Many explanations have been given for the jury's verdict. I've provided a couple of posts where I have tried to explain (from the very little I know about the trial, which lasted some weeks) the rationale behind the defence offered. I haven't "jumped through hoops" to justify it. In fact I haven't tried to justify it at all; I've simply offered by explanation for the jury's decision.
I believe the Attorney-General should offer the case for review by the Court of Appeal to provide clarification on the law because I think the "lawful excuse" defence was stretched beyond its reasonable limits in this case. But there is always the risk with jury trials that, despite being sworn to try the matter purely on the evidence presented to them, they will reach a perverse verdict on other grounds. There's really nothing that can be done to avoid this. Judges cannot direct a jury to convict a defendant in any circumstances and jury verdicts are not, generally, subject to appeal. The idea that this particular charge could be re-tried if new and compelling evidence came to light is incorrect. The "Double Jeopardy" legislation provides for such a retrial for only a very limited number (about 25-30, from memory) of "grave" offences, all of which carry a maximum sentence of Life imprisonment.
I don't think that's quite true, naomi. Many explanations have been given for the jury's verdict. I've provided a couple of posts where I have tried to explain (from the very little I know about the trial, which lasted some weeks) the rationale behind the defence offered. I haven't "jumped through hoops" to justify it. In fact I haven't tried to justify it at all; I've simply offered by explanation for the jury's decision.
I believe the Attorney-General should offer the case for review by the Court of Appeal to provide clarification on the law because I think the "lawful excuse" defence was stretched beyond its reasonable limits in this case. But there is always the risk with jury trials that, despite being sworn to try the matter purely on the evidence presented to them, they will reach a perverse verdict on other grounds. There's really nothing that can be done to avoid this. Judges cannot direct a jury to convict a defendant in any circumstances and jury verdicts are not, generally, subject to appeal. The idea that this particular charge could be re-tried if new and compelling evidence came to light is incorrect. The "Double Jeopardy" legislation provides for such a retrial for only a very limited number (about 25-30, from memory) of "grave" offences, all of which carry a maximum sentence of Life imprisonment.
NJ //... I think the "lawful excuse" defence was stretched beyond its reasonable limits in this case. ..//
You are absolutely right with that, and the lawyer for the defence is by all accounts a highly skilled wordsmith capable of putting things in a compelling manner to sway the jury (which is is job after all).
Add to that, outside in the street during the trial there was a very vociferous crowd shouting support for the defendants & apparently a good deal of commotion continually coming from the public gallery, which makes one wonder how intimidated the jurors felt.
Britain may value its juror system, but in other countries such as France, the state is more revered and juries have only a marginal existence, they think our system is strange, and looking at this outcome, so do I.
You are absolutely right with that, and the lawyer for the defence is by all accounts a highly skilled wordsmith capable of putting things in a compelling manner to sway the jury (which is is job after all).
Add to that, outside in the street during the trial there was a very vociferous crowd shouting support for the defendants & apparently a good deal of commotion continually coming from the public gallery, which makes one wonder how intimidated the jurors felt.
Britain may value its juror system, but in other countries such as France, the state is more revered and juries have only a marginal existence, they think our system is strange, and looking at this outcome, so do I.
We have a Government that is very cynical of the law and due process. If a verdict goes against them, such as an independent inquiry into Owen Patterson’s sleazy dealings, then it ignores the verdict, wants to sack the judge, change the law and dictate a different verdict.
With Patterson it result in the massive own goal of losing the seat to the LibDems. Nobbling a Jury used to be an offence. That is what the Government are trying to do to this one. Suella Braverman didn’t hear the evidence (as did none of us) so cannot say the verdict was wrong.
With Patterson it result in the massive own goal of losing the seat to the LibDems. Nobbling a Jury used to be an offence. That is what the Government are trying to do to this one. Suella Braverman didn’t hear the evidence (as did none of us) so cannot say the verdict was wrong.
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.