Colston Four Cleared

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Some are saying we cannot have "anarchy" and mobs cannot break the law like this. Okay. But then when the judicial process is followed to the letter of the law according to the enshrined laws of the land.....It's somehow wrong. Which is it people?

You want the law to be upheld when the statue is pulled down (it was. They were arrested, charged and tried by a jury of their peers) but call for the law to be abandoned because you don't like the verdict?

It makes no sense.

I find it telling that a former football hooligan, two posters who have repeatedly demonstrated that they struggle to understand complex (and sometimes fairly basic) concepts, and a rabid and relentless campaigner for any pig in a blue rosette, are the ones making the most ludicrous and hysterical comments on this thread.

It is almost as if they prefer slavery to the rule of law.

Who could possibly have known?

 

[clapham_gull]

You misunderstood my post.

A guilty verdict and zero punishment would, in my opinion, have been a better result.

The precedent, as I said to another legal expert on here, would be that other people could tear down other statues and use this case as justification.

No they couldn't legally because no precedent has been set.

 

[rogersix]

Shocking outcome. Who decides what statue is offensive? Is anyone allowed to take offense to a statue and rip it down with no repercussion.

How about I am offended by Booby Moore's statue because I am anti drugs and he once used drugs. Is that okay and legal for me to rip his statue down now?

It's a very thin end of the wedge to allow people like this to get away with mindless vandallism.

I also have a massive issue with judging people of hundreds of year ago by our own standards. In time we will be judged the same way and our appalling record on what we have done to the planet, animals, Africa will mean none of us are safe from judgement.

if you are incensed by moore's statue and you think a jury will agree with your justification, try it

 

[clapham_gull]

I hope their defence that "I can chuck bricks through the Town Hall window because I own the Town Hall" doesn't get established in law.

No because that would mean a precedent had been set and Juries can't set precedents.

You've also clearly misunderstood the defence. The defence wasn't that the protestors claimed ownership of the statue, it was they reasonably believed consent would be given by those who did.

Do keep up.

 

[rogersix]

In time we will be judged the same way and our appalling record on what we have done to the planet, animals, Africa will mean none of us are safe from judgement.

and, of course, none of us should be safe from judgement.

 

[clapham_gull]

Shocking outcome. Who decides what statue is offensive?

The Jury under existing laws.

It was successfully argued that the existence of the statue itself was a public order offence.

For instance if somebody erected a statue of Jimmy Saville in Leeds City Centre, you could smash it up and direct your Barrister to use the same defence.

I also have a massive issue with judging people of hundreds of year ago by our own standards

Wait a hundred years then.

 

[The Clamp]

Shocking outcome. Who decides what statue is offensive? Is anyone allowed to take offense to a statue and rip it down with no repercussion.

How about I am offended by Booby Moore's statue because I am anti drugs and he once used drugs. Is that okay and legal for me to rip his statue down now?

It's a very thin end of the wedge to allow people like this to get away with mindless vandallism.

I also have a massive issue with judging people of hundreds of year ago by our own standards. In time we will be judged the same way and our appalling record on what we have done to the planet, animals, Africa will mean none of us are safe from judgement.

We should be judged by future generations on how we treat the planet. I think a lot of companies and people should be judged NOW on what they are doing.

The rest of your post is too stupid to comment further on.

 

[WATFORD zero]

No because that would mean a precedent had been set and Juries can't set precedents.

You've also clearly misunderstood the defence. The defence wasn't that the protestors claimed ownership of the statue, it was they reasonably believed consent would be given by those who did.

Do keep up.

How many times have you now tried to explain this using different words and increasingly simpler terms

If my experience is anything to go by, I can guarantee that when (and it often doesn't) the penny finally drops, you'll be accused of being condescending and trying to make people look stupid

 

[rogersix]

As we now have many muslim people in the UK then perhaps it also time to consider removing all statues to avoid causing possible offense to our Islamic citizens

It's not permissible to keep pictures or statues of animate objects for display (e.g for decoration, beautification) as per the values of Islam. The Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: "The angels do not enter a house in which there are pictures.." (Reported in Sahıh al Bukhāri).

Mannequins could also be problematic or so it seems .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LMDVlmn5o

wrong thread

 

[clapham_gull]

It's a long time ago since I studied law at university but I do recall that because we don't have a Bill of Rights or written constitution, English Law is based on precedent set by the decisions and reasoning / interpretation of the law by judges in the higher courts - and thereafter followed by judges in equal or lower courts. So whilst it is correct to say juries don't set precedent, it is undeniable that their decisions do have the potential to create persuasive precedent, potentially making the CPS reluctant to bring charges in similar instances. So to say the verdicts of juries don't / can't establish legal precedent or influence how the law is / isn't applied in future cases isn't wholly accurate.

But that wasn't and won't be the case here, unless somebody pulls down another publicly owned and publicly displayed statue that celebrates a slave trader or similar individual.

In actual fact, the CPS (and the Police) weren't particularly interested in pursuing this one at all, but were lent on by the Home Secretary in manner described by senior members of the Police Force as "chilling".

She is well known to be privately "obsessed" with the issue of statues and public monuments because it plays well to the baying crowd and people will always bring up Churchill or the grave of Karl Marx.

Many of whom post on here.

This has massively back fired on her. That's why she is annoyed and Boris has kept relatively quiet on this one.

 

[clapham_gull]

How many times have you now tried to explain this using different words and increasingly simpler terms

If my experience is anything to go by, I can guarantee that when (and it often doesn't) the penny finally drops, you'll be accused of being condescending and trying to make people look stupid

Juries can't set precedent mate.

 

[rogersix]

I find it telling that a former football hooligan, two posters who have repeatedly demonstrated that they struggle to understand complex (and sometimes fairly basic) concepts, and a rabid and relentless campaigner for any pig in a blue rosette, are the ones making the most ludicrous and hysterical comments on this thread.

It is almost as if they prefer slavery to the rule of law.

Who could possibly have known?

 

[Is it PotG?]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I completely agree with you but a jury will only get the opportunity to give a verdict if the CPS believe they have a good chance of securing a conviction and bring the case before a court. It could be argued that decisions like yesterday's may make the CPS less confident that a conviction will be secured in similar cases and thus not prosecute. This is where the decision of a jury has the ability to (passively) establish legal precedent.

The CPS had all the evidence they needed, photos, witnesses but juries are unpredictable.

 

[rogersix]

so you realised you've lost this argument and that you are on the wrong side of history

 

[rogersix]

Juries can't set precedent mate.

who can't what?

asking for a friend

 

[beorhthelm]

May as well say it again, just to bang the point home.

Decisions made by a jury CAN'T set a precedent.

That isn't your opinion, it's your misunderstanding.

the nuance being overlooked is that it may be seen as a precedent in the eyes of some of the public. some person might do something similar on the mis-apprehension it is not unlawful. it may in effect encourage an act of vandalism even if they could still be prosecuted and guilty. a guilty verdict with trivial suspended sentence would be better in not leaving that ambiguity.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

so you realised you've lost this argument and that you are on the wrong side of history

I wouldn't bank on it. He's fast turning into another one like Cartman on Southpark. When everyone disagrees with him he just acts like he's 'winning'.

 

[clapham_gull]

the nuance being overlooked is that it may be seen as a precedent in the eyes of some of the public. some person might do something similar on the mis-apprehension it is not unlawful. it may in effect encourage an act of vandalism even if they could still be prosecuted and guilty. a guilty verdict with trivial suspended sentence would be better in not leaving that ambiguity.

As you've now redefined the meaning of "precedent" (a legal term) for the sake of argument, I may as well respond.

I'm not sure a judge should direct the Jury to ignore a very well argued case of not guilty on the basis that it might cause someone else purely hypothetically to commit (contextually) a different crime.

Now that's anarchy.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I find it most queer that a certain poster frequently (and only ever) gives thumbs ups to posts that mock him. Isn't that a form of trolling? I suspect it is