Shopping & Style12 mins ago
How Can They Deny Criminal Damage?
14 Answers
https:/
it was torn from a plinth, rolled through the down and dumped in the harbour, all on camera! Bang the savages up!
it was torn from a plinth, rolled through the down and dumped in the harbour, all on camera! Bang the savages up!
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
If accused of just about anything, it is a standard response to deny responsibility.
That means that legal process swings into place, and a trial will be held, when the burden of proving guilt wiill rest with the prosecution.
Since the prosecution have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defence do not have to prove innocence, it makes common sense to deny the charge, and let the system take its course.
Any chance of a 'not guilty, however slim, is still better than pleading guilty and simply being convicted and punished.
That means that legal process swings into place, and a trial will be held, when the burden of proving guilt wiill rest with the prosecution.
Since the prosecution have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defence do not have to prove innocence, it makes common sense to deny the charge, and let the system take its course.
Any chance of a 'not guilty, however slim, is still better than pleading guilty and simply being convicted and punished.
and dont forget the cocktail sticks - under the nails !
Hey you could invent the TTT later flow test, where you shove the cocktail stick up their noses - and scream, "I have just about reached where you brayne should be!"
AH's post is good - in short there is a defence to just about anything and should never be denied (*)
xc the last sentence.
// Any chance of a 'not guilty, however slim, is still better than pleading guilty and simply being convicted and punished.//
Jury trial acquittal used to be 67% so it worf a go
BUT
if you have gone for trial then pleas of mitigation are frequently ignored.
[I strongly object to the idea of: say you have done something you havent done because the outcome may otherwise be worse...I said this to an afro-caribbean in 1980 and still boil with rage that the system did and still does this]
Hey you could invent the TTT later flow test, where you shove the cocktail stick up their noses - and scream, "I have just about reached where you brayne should be!"
AH's post is good - in short there is a defence to just about anything and should never be denied (*)
xc the last sentence.
// Any chance of a 'not guilty, however slim, is still better than pleading guilty and simply being convicted and punished.//
Jury trial acquittal used to be 67% so it worf a go
BUT
if you have gone for trial then pleas of mitigation are frequently ignored.
[I strongly object to the idea of: say you have done something you havent done because the outcome may otherwise be worse...I said this to an afro-caribbean in 1980 and still boil with rage that the system did and still does this]
(*) oh and cases have been reversed or thrown out on appeal because the defence wasnt heard.
oh yeah when did that start?
1330 - Edward II's regicides ( the fella with the red hot poker up the hoo-hoo) - their acts of attainder ( dont want to go into that, technical) were reversed as their defence was not heard.
actually boys and gurlz, acts of attainder ( still technical ,dont want to go into that) sort of fell out of fashion 1640 and were replaced by impeachment
saying just saying for chrissakes
oh yeah when did that start?
1330 - Edward II's regicides ( the fella with the red hot poker up the hoo-hoo) - their acts of attainder ( dont want to go into that, technical) were reversed as their defence was not heard.
actually boys and gurlz, acts of attainder ( still technical ,dont want to go into that) sort of fell out of fashion 1640 and were replaced by impeachment
saying just saying for chrissakes
anne - // Hands up if you are a toppler ? //
I think the come-lately cod-concience of citizens who have lived in a city that would not exist without the largesse of Mr Colston is utterly appalling.
There is a debate to be had about the merit of continuing to display the statue of someone who, for all his generous philanthropy, made his fortune from slaves, but this was not a debate, this was mindless yobbery and destruction from people old enough to know better.
You cannot pretend your city's heritage does not exist, but you can discuss how you wish to move forward in dealing with it.
Destruction like this does not obliterate history, it simply turns a blind eye to the bits it does not like, and that is not the way a civilised society should be operating.
I think the come-lately cod-concience of citizens who have lived in a city that would not exist without the largesse of Mr Colston is utterly appalling.
There is a debate to be had about the merit of continuing to display the statue of someone who, for all his generous philanthropy, made his fortune from slaves, but this was not a debate, this was mindless yobbery and destruction from people old enough to know better.
You cannot pretend your city's heritage does not exist, but you can discuss how you wish to move forward in dealing with it.
Destruction like this does not obliterate history, it simply turns a blind eye to the bits it does not like, and that is not the way a civilised society should be operating.
Romans did it - reprise of a few years ago here - damnatio memoriae
My fave C Gallus was subject to this sortta 26BC
It is SAID - (legunt - dicitur)- that Augustus ( per Suetonius) was referring to this when Aug said, you can forgive your enemies but if you forgive your frenz, it looks like weakness. (*)
WE were accused of forging C Gallus' poetry ( 10 lines) when it was found and Robt Anderson esq said regally: "There is no one on this site who can write first century Latin" - wh kinda settled that. Imperially I shouldda said
https:/
TRISTIA NEQUITIA LYCORI TUA.... I remember it coming out at me from the sand ( and completely missed the crucial Lycori)
(*) C Gallus sin? he set up statues to himself instead of Augustus...
A trilingual inscription is here
https:/
where Gallus overblows HIS feats rather than Augustus ( really bad move) . The statue is thrown down and the stela ends up under the altar of the Temple of Hadrian in Philae
This is a note on the throwing down of statues in Roman times and what happens to the bits
My fave C Gallus was subject to this sortta 26BC
It is SAID - (legunt - dicitur)- that Augustus ( per Suetonius) was referring to this when Aug said, you can forgive your enemies but if you forgive your frenz, it looks like weakness. (*)
WE were accused of forging C Gallus' poetry ( 10 lines) when it was found and Robt Anderson esq said regally: "There is no one on this site who can write first century Latin" - wh kinda settled that. Imperially I shouldda said
https:/
TRISTIA NEQUITIA LYCORI TUA.... I remember it coming out at me from the sand ( and completely missed the crucial Lycori)
(*) C Gallus sin? he set up statues to himself instead of Augustus...
A trilingual inscription is here
https:/
where Gallus overblows HIS feats rather than Augustus ( really bad move) . The statue is thrown down and the stela ends up under the altar of the Temple of Hadrian in Philae
This is a note on the throwing down of statues in Roman times and what happens to the bits
There were three events.
1. The toppling of the statue from its plinth.
2. The rolling or dragging to the dock.
3. The plunging of the statue into the dock.
The whole thing probably involved up to 50 people.
It could be argued that the four defendants could not have accomplished this deed without many others who are not on trial. To blame the damage on just four people is clearly incorrect.
1. The toppling of the statue from its plinth.
2. The rolling or dragging to the dock.
3. The plunging of the statue into the dock.
The whole thing probably involved up to 50 people.
It could be argued that the four defendants could not have accomplished this deed without many others who are not on trial. To blame the damage on just four people is clearly incorrect.
Law can't work like that, gromit.
If only 1 out of 3 bank robbers were caught, you can't let him off cos otherwise it doesn't seem fair.
Don't worry about them. They'll be let off cos they're upper middle class like the Judge and the PTB that decide the outcome. (usually before these trials start) ;-)
If only 1 out of 3 bank robbers were caught, you can't let him off cos otherwise it doesn't seem fair.
Don't worry about them. They'll be let off cos they're upper middle class like the Judge and the PTB that decide the outcome. (usually before these trials start) ;-)
1 to 14 of 14
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.