Colston Four Cleared

[The Clamp]

I’ve done jury duty. I’m sure many on here have. Jury’s do not convict on “a feeling” or a personal sense of right or wrong. You decide based on the evidence presented and the argument built upon that evidence. Not as an ideal, not when it suits your politics, not on a “feeling” or sense of justice. You decide on evidence based argument. Every single time.

Its my understanding that if a judge suspects a jury has decided on principal then a mistrial will be declared.

The wally earlier who suggested they had picked a so called “woke” jury to get this dealt with quickly has either never been into a court room or is too stupid to understand what goes on in courts or jury selection.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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.

But sentencing guidelines may not have allowed that. As has been repeatedly explained, the not guilty verdict is probably the best way of avoiding these folk getting punished. There is a separate argument about whether stopping punishment is the correct outcome, here. I personally am not comfortable with civic vandalism, but there again, I'm not black, or a Bristol resident or someone who has been campaigning to have the statue put into a museum. If the law allowed what you propose then I'd not argue the toss about it, but....

Separately, if members of the public should be permitted to use the outcome of an investigation as the arbiter of their behaviour, going forward, then perhaps we should all base our moral code on the behaviour of our prime minister. Personally I suspect people are smarter than that

 

[The Clamp]

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.

That’s fundamentally not how our justice system works. If the evidence proves they are not guilty, as it has in their case, we don’t then find them guilty anyway just in case some idiot misunderstands and decides it’s okay for them to smash up something.

If someone is accused of burglary, goes to trial and is found unequivocally innocent, we don’t find them guilty and give them a suspended in case some moron takes that as permission to rob houses.

The impact of a guilty verdict on a persons life, regardless of the sentence can be huge, from employment to reputation.

I guess my point is;

Why would they find them guilty and give a suspended sentence when the evidence has proved them innocent?

 

[WATFORD zero]

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

I think it's simpler than that. Certain posts annoy him so much that he just has to react but, in the past when he tried replying quickly he would go and say something that made him look stupid on a forum of strangers. This way he has registered his anger, but only one stranger knows

The thing I find strange is that when I post, I often get the thumbs up in seconds even though he isn't logged in when I make the post. It's almost as if he spends 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week lurking on NSC, but that couldn't be right, could it

 

[Deleted member 2719]

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

I wonder why that could be?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think it's simpler than that. Certain posts annoy him so much that he just has to react but, in the past when he tried replying he would go and say something that made him look stupid on a forum of strangers. This way he has registered his anger, but only one stranger knows

The thing I find strange is that when I post, I often get the thumbs up in seconds even though he isn't logged in when I make the post. It's almost as if he spends 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week lurking on NSC, but that couldn't be right, could it

I find that a lot of these extreme right wingers are angry little ****ers who can't leave anything alone, whether they understand it or not. The 'thumbs upping' is so passive-agressive. I can imagine them perpetually straining at stool, not sure whether to force it out or hold it in

 

[The Clamp]

I find that a lot of these extreme right wingers are angry little ****ers who can't leave anything alone, whether they understand it or not. The 'thumbs upping' is so passive-agressive. I can imagine them perpetually straining at stool, not sure whether to force it out or hold it in

View attachment 143502

Veering into the realms of Bear Pittery, easy to do but I reckon they are best ignored on the main board

 

[clapham_gull]

I wonder why that could be?

Because they are not legal experts and picked from the general public.

Can I ask, did you just arrive here from outer space ?

Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

 

[drew]

That’s fundamentally not how our justice system works. If the evidence proves they are not guilty, as it has in their case, we don’t then find them guilty anyway just in case some idiot misunderstands and decides it’s okay for them to smash up something.

If someone is accused of burglary, goes to trial and is found unequivocally innocent, we don’t find them guilty and give them a suspended in case some moron takes that as permission to rob houses.

The impact of a guilty verdict on a persons life, regardless of the sentence can be huge, from employment to reputation.

I guess my point is;

Why would they find them guilty and give a suspended sentence when the evidence has proved them innocent?

I'm intrigued as to what evidence you believe actually found them not guilty? None of us were in the jury room so we don't know whether it was the evidence that made them find them not guilty or if the majority of the jury just support the cause.

You can commit a crime and be found not guilty for a variety of reasons. It's all down to the jury.

 

[The Clamp]

I'm intrigued as to what evidence you believe actually found them not guilty? None of us were in the jury room so we don't know whether it was the evidence that made them find them not guilty or if the majority of the jury just support the cause.

You can commit a crime and be found not guilty for a variety of reasons. It's all down to the jury.

That is simply not how it works or is allowed to work. The defence would have had to have given compelling evidence as to why they should be acquitted. We all know they performed the act, that’s not in dispute. The act was declared not a crime, therefore they could not be found guilty of a crime.

Honestly, I give up. People just don’t seem to understand how our judicial system works. Or be prepared to learn.

I imagine the court notes will be made public. I will look when I have more time.

 

[portlock seagull]

Good point - but a huge amount of this country's wealth was built on plundering the rest of the world....when do we start making the reparations?

Precisely. Because you can’t, sensibly. Especially when 11th commandment has always been f uck thy neighbour and everywhere’s been built on rape and pillage since. Instead of attacking history, how about these SJW focus on something here and now, a modern equivalent eg Big Tech and Corporates? That would be worthy. Or are they too hard and it’s easier to be righteous when taking on a 300year old lumps of metal that most people were blind to? Yes, proper heroes are ‘The Colston Four’, right up there with the best from Marvel Comics are they.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I wonder why that could be?

Human beings. People are all different.

 

[The Clamp]

A large number of slave traders took the compensation for loss of “property and business” out to Australia where they set about colonisation, oppressing and enslaving aboriginals and using children and prisoners as slave Labour.

Look at the compensation they received as more of a relocation fee.

 

[drew]

That is simply not how it works or is allowed to work. The defence would have had to have given compelling evidence as to why they should be acquitted. We all know they performed the act, that’s not in dispute. The act was declared not a crime, therefore they could not be found guilty of a crime.

Honestly, I give up. People just don’t seem to understand how our judicial system works. Or be prepared to learn.

I imagine the court notes will be made public. I will look when I have more time.

If the evidence proved them innocent then we wouldn't need a jury. It is, whether you like it or not, up to the opinion of the jury. Another jury may have found them guilty or another unanimously not guilty (this I believe was a majority verdict). Like I said, you have no idea what made the jury vote the way they did but it's seems simpler for you just to claim it was all the evidence.

I don't know whether you have served on a jury but I know I have and from that I have an idea what discussions go on. Some will vote for and some against and then it's about making persuasive arguments to see if you can get an acceptable consensus. It's all about the opinion of the jury whether they think one sides argument is more convincing than the other.

The court notes will be interesting to read.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm intrigued as to what evidence you believe actually found them not guilty? None of us were in the jury room so we don't know whether it was the evidence that made them find them not guilty or if the majority of the jury just support the cause.

You can commit a crime and be found not guilty for a variety of reasons. It's all down to the jury.

it seems it wasnt a case of evidence (does anyone doubt they removed the statue?), but of presenting a defense that justified the actions. for example arguing whether a sentance would be proportional. essentially the jury have said they dont think it was a crime, because the statue it was.

 

[rogersix]

I wonder why that could be?

i expect it's because they're decent, thoughtful people

 

[drew]

mps voted for the bill only if they were paid vast sums?

It would have been the MPs profiting from or their influential constituents. Remember at the time of the abolition, there wasn't a universal vote. Not sure but think you had to have property to have a right to vote.

 

[pocketseagull]

This was linked via twitter upthread:

Liam (Walker, Barrister) , a former resident of Bristol, used his knowledge of the City to prepare the case and make specific points on the history of Edward Colston and Britain’s involvement in the slave trade.

From the outset of being instructed, Liam worked closely with the local community so that he could present the case for the defence powerfully. As a result of his preparation, Liam was able to call esteemed historian, Professor David Olusoga OBE and respected local community leader, Mr. Lloyd Russell.

In addition to the unique factual aspects of the case presented by Liam, the trial involved new and complex legal arguments:

Liam successfully submitted that ‘prevention of crime’ could be relied upon as a defence and that the jury could consider whether the presence of the statue itself constituted an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Liam also identified that the jury should consider if the statue constituted an ‘indecent display’ under Section 1 of the, more obscure, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

In addition, following the case of DPP v. Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, the trial is believed to be the first trial in which a jury was required to consider whether a conviction of the defendants would have been a disproportionate infringement of the defendants' rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

[A1X]

Precisely. Because you can’t, sensibly. Especially when 11th commandment has always been f uck thy neighbour and everywhere’s been built on rape and pillage since. Instead of attacking history, how about these SJW focus on something here and now, a modern equivalent eg Big Tech and Corporates? That would be worthy. Or are they too hard and it’s easier to be righteous when taking on a 300year old lumps of metal that most people were blind to? Yes, proper heroes are ‘The Colston Four’, right up there with the best from Marvel Comics are they.

To be fair most people are able to be annoyed about multiple things most of the time.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

In this case a jury decided. The very basis of our justice system and democracy.



No, because a different jury sitting a different case may well convict.



They haven't got away with anything, a jury decided they didn't commit a crime. It's a very thin end of a wedge it we suddenly start making our justice system bend to populism or political will.



Given there were rulings against slavery as far back as 1700 in English courts, and anti slavery groups formed in this period, safe to say that even by 18th century standards, it wasn't exactly treated as a great thing. We may well be judged in the future, hence always good to be on the right side of history I would think.

Stop waffling on about history and deal with what actually happened , mob turns up pulls down statue without any prior agreement that's criminal damage in most people's book


Regards
DF