Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News0 min ago
‘Colston Four’ Statue-Toppling Case To Be Reviewed By Court Of Appeal
Writing for The Telegraph, the Attorney General says the right to protest should not be a licence to commit criminal damage
https:/
Correct ! do you agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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 agree that something should have been done two years ago rather than now.//
No Sue Ella Mann as Att Gen can refer a case for clarification to one of the higher courts. After suitable advice etc
Here it is whether free speech can be a defence to criminal damage
Rather obviously no - that is the instant case is perverse or in American speak - jury nullification
and yes I think the point is way above the average ABer
Other perverse cases - Ponting 1973 - public interest as a defence to spying - oh god there arent many you know
The jury has to be pretty teed off to say to the judge - no we have not convicted even tho you said we must....There is no power as there is in certain AMerican courts, for the judge to substitute a verdict he wants.
( I mean come on, some of us have to obey the law ! haw haw haw)
No Sue Ella Mann as Att Gen can refer a case for clarification to one of the higher courts. After suitable advice etc
Here it is whether free speech can be a defence to criminal damage
Rather obviously no - that is the instant case is perverse or in American speak - jury nullification
and yes I think the point is way above the average ABer
Other perverse cases - Ponting 1973 - public interest as a defence to spying - oh god there arent many you know
The jury has to be pretty teed off to say to the judge - no we have not convicted even tho you said we must....There is no power as there is in certain AMerican courts, for the judge to substitute a verdict he wants.
( I mean come on, some of us have to obey the law ! haw haw haw)
I think the problem begins here:
“The right to protest should be jealously guarded,..."
No it shouldn't. The right to "protest" (i.e. disrupt the lawful activities of everybody else) should not be sacrosanct. here should be clearly defined areas where protests are committed and they should not interfere with anybody else. The fact that some people have little else to occupy them doesn't mean everybody has. This "protest" was particularly annoying. Britain's history cannot be amended by chucking a statue into the docks and it was doing no harm.
“The right to protest should be jealously guarded,..."
No it shouldn't. The right to "protest" (i.e. disrupt the lawful activities of everybody else) should not be sacrosanct. here should be clearly defined areas where protests are committed and they should not interfere with anybody else. The fact that some people have little else to occupy them doesn't mean everybody has. This "protest" was particularly annoying. Britain's history cannot be amended by chucking a statue into the docks and it was doing no harm.
'Suella Braverman, the Attorney General, has asked the court to clarify the law amidst concerns that the “Colston Four” verdict sets a legal precedent that allows people to argue their rights to protest override criminal damage.
The move will not overturn the four protesters’ acquittal, but it could have far-reaching consequences for the defence that protesters use in future to defend violent demonstrations be it blocking roads and oil depots or tearing down statues or memorials.'
The move will not overturn the four protesters’ acquittal, but it could have far-reaching consequences for the defence that protesters use in future to defend violent demonstrations be it blocking roads and oil depots or tearing down statues or memorials.'
Politically motivated attack on our legal system.
These people were prosecuted and cleared by a jury.
The right did not like the verdict so they are using their political might to get the jury’s judgement overturned.
That is a slippery slope.
Instead of taking the obvious lesson here, and making sure prosecutions are tight and robust, they instead want a second go because they failed first time.
These people were prosecuted and cleared by a jury.
The right did not like the verdict so they are using their political might to get the jury’s judgement overturned.
That is a slippery slope.
Instead of taking the obvious lesson here, and making sure prosecutions are tight and robust, they instead want a second go because they failed first time.
They were guilty they were video'd doing it the evidence is undeneiable. The jury acquitted out of some sort of sympathy with their actions. That is a fault with the jury system that can happen. We should accept the verdict and also that the jury system does have this fault but it is unusual. As much as I'd like to see these low lives thrashed to within an inch of their worthless lives I value the jury system higher and accept this rare short coming.
Good luck with their review, but they've already let the #^&££s set a precedent for the Bristol area now, and proved that over the last half century many residents there seem to have utterly lost touch with reality to the extent that they encourage vandalism and the destruction of symbols of history. (All the allowed graffiti must have been a major clue
but the council leaves it, nay seems to be encoraging it.) I can not fathom what could possibly have brainwashed generations into such a mad state. Perhaps it's something in the water, or maybe the atmosphere, or possibly years of inappropriate teaching. (Let's be brutally honest here, you only need to listen to talk/phone-in shows on the local radio to hear what a hard-of-thinking bunch now reside there, what with their disapproval of anything sane, and wholehearted support of anything that ruins life & society further.) Lord only knows what's gone on in the recent past.
but the council leaves it, nay seems to be encoraging it.) I can not fathom what could possibly have brainwashed generations into such a mad state. Perhaps it's something in the water, or maybe the atmosphere, or possibly years of inappropriate teaching. (Let's be brutally honest here, you only need to listen to talk/phone-in shows on the local radio to hear what a hard-of-thinking bunch now reside there, what with their disapproval of anything sane, and wholehearted support of anything that ruins life & society further.) Lord only knows what's gone on in the recent past.
//The attorney general has his view, and the 12 jurors disagreed with him. End of.//
It's not quite the end of and in fact it's the other way round. The jury made their decision (directed by the judge) and the attorney-general has sought a clarification of the law, as interpreted by the judge when giving his direction. The issue revolves around whether people, who disagree with what (say) a statue reminds those seeing it of, are entitled to commit criminal damage because of its presence. It will not alter the acquittals of those involved in this incident but it will clarify what damage people are entitled to inflict in the furtherance of their beliefs. It actually has considerably wider implications because the lunatic currently gluing themselves to things like roads and trains claim a similar defence - that their actions are justified in pursuit of their aims.
It's not quite the end of and in fact it's the other way round. The jury made their decision (directed by the judge) and the attorney-general has sought a clarification of the law, as interpreted by the judge when giving his direction. The issue revolves around whether people, who disagree with what (say) a statue reminds those seeing it of, are entitled to commit criminal damage because of its presence. It will not alter the acquittals of those involved in this incident but it will clarify what damage people are entitled to inflict in the furtherance of their beliefs. It actually has considerably wider implications because the lunatic currently gluing themselves to things like roads and trains claim a similar defence - that their actions are justified in pursuit of their aims.
//The attorney general has his view, and the 12 jurors disagreed with him. End of.//
Yes well with your commie beliefs you would like it to be 'end of'.
However, as NJ points out, this case could open the floodgates for all sorts of vandalism in the name of the cause. And remember you may well agree with this particular cause but the precedent could apply to people doing it for causes you hate too.
Yes well with your commie beliefs you would like it to be 'end of'.
However, as NJ points out, this case could open the floodgates for all sorts of vandalism in the name of the cause. And remember you may well agree with this particular cause but the precedent could apply to people doing it for causes you hate too.
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.