Colston Four Cleared

[The Clamp]

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.

I have served on a jury and my experience is that we all thought the person was guilty of something. The police painted a picture of someone who was “up to something”. However, they could not produce a convincing argument based on the evidence they had, to demonstrate he was guilty of the crime he was accused of.

So regardless of how we felt about the accused, who was clearly a petty gangster, we had to acquit because the case against him was so weak. I suppose if you wish to call that our opinion then fair enough. Personally, we listened to the judge and took on board the instruction that if there is not enough evidence and there is reasonable doubt, we must acquit. Our opinion didn’t really enter into it.

And that’s how it works in my experience.

Edit; having said that, I do take on board your point about jury’s having an opinion and also that this was an unusual case in that they were trying to prove what they did was or wasn’t a crime rather than whether they did it or not.

 

[Sorrel]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, that is a rubbish analogy - Bristol is not entirely populated by the descendants of slaves.

In a pedantic mode I would say that everyone on earth is very likely to have slavey in their ancestors and to also have been slave owners as well. Not if we define slavery as only occurring in the western world in the last few centuries of course - but slavery and serfdom has been common throughout history until very recently.

As for the trial, sounds like the jury did their job; I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Creaky]

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

But not in the view of the jury who actually heard all the evidence.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

But not in the view of the jury who actually heard all the evidence.

They don't represent most people's views that's what makes it more concerning, cut out the politics and look at the law. i expect a change in the law in the near future to address this decision

Regards
DF

 

[rogersix]

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

you're that football hooligan chap, aren't you?

 

[Creaky]

They don't represent most people's views that's what makes it more concerning, cut out the politics and look at the law. i expect a change in the law in the near future to address this decision

Regards
DF

How on Earth do you know that?

There was no argument that damage was caused - the question put to the jury by the defence however was, was it criminal?

The opinion of the jury was that it wasn’t criminal - any action can be defended against criminal conviction if the defendant can show it was justified - all the way up to killing another person.

On that basis it really doesn’t matter what new law may be introduced - there will always be the defence of justification and there will always be the chance that a jury will accept such a defence.

 

[rogersix]

They don't represent most people's views that's what makes it more concerning, cut out the politics and look at the law. i expect a change in the law in the near future to address this decision

Regards
DF

have you fired off another angry e-mail?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

you're that football hooligan chap, aren't you?

Don't concern yourself with me

Regards
DF

 

[Curious Orange]

In a pedantic mode I would say that everyone on earth is very likely to have slavey in their ancestors and to also have been slave owners as well. Not if we define slavery as only occurring in the western world in the last few centuries of course - but slavery and serfdom has been common throughout history until very recently.

As for the trial, sounds like the jury did their job; I don't have a problem with that.

I assume you hadn't got to my later post?

Now I don't think I've commented on the actual trial before, and don't think I have anything to add - the jury will have heard the evidence, been given direction by the judge, and come to their verdict. That is how it is supposed to work, justice has been done.

 

[nicko31]

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

The crime of murdering 19,000 innocent people is far greater, this was clearly in the minds of the jury

Hopefully they will replace the statue with someone who represents the common good

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

I hadn't realised you were such a stickler for the law. I don't recall you piling in, bible in one hand and the Book of Rules in the other when someone posts a thread about criminal racism.

And when did you renounce criminal football hooliganism?

Is criminal activity, in your mind, simply anything with which you disagree?

In this case the courts found them not guilty so who are you to call them criminal? Getting a bit above yourself .

 

[ewe2]

……so is Bobby Moores statue safe I wonder….

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

They don't represent most people's views that's what makes it more concerning, cut out the politics and look at the law. i expect a change in the law in the near future to address this decision

Regards
DF

You don't represent most people's views.

I find the 'sight' of you fulminating about criminality to be laughable.

You're just pissed off because the blacks won.

Whining for a change in the law. So pompous. Absolutely pathetic.

Just suck up the defeat. You lost. You will always lose.

 

[nicko31]

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?

Bobby Moore and Edward Colston, emmm......

 

[rogersix]

Don't concern yourself with me

Regards
DF

but your such good value

 

[Is it PotG?]

but your such good value

You're, it's you're.

 

[rogersix]

You're, it's you're.

oh yeah, soz. lost concentration cos as i was giggling so much at my own funny

 

[drew]

I have served on a jury and my experience is that we all thought the person was guilty of something. The police painted a picture of someone who was “up to something”. However, they could not produce a convincing argument based on the evidence they had, to demonstrate he was guilty of the crime he was accused of.

So regardless of how we felt about the accused, who was clearly a petty gangster, we had to acquit because the case against him was so weak. I suppose if you wish to call that our opinion then fair enough. Personally, we listened to the judge and took on board the instruction that if there is not enough evidence and there is reasonable doubt, we must acquit. Our opinion didn’t really enter into it.

And that’s how it works in my experience.

Edit; having said that, I do take on board your point about jury’s having an opinion and also that this was an unusual case in that they were trying to prove what they did was or wasn’t a crime rather than whether they did it or not.

I think this is the rub for me. As I've said previously, this sets a defensive precedent for others that take the law into their own hands. For example, lets say Extinction Rebellion start torching cars on the basis that the use of those cars is contributing to the destruction of the planet and therefore destroying the cars is, in the long term, justifiable.

My view is it would have served a better purpose if they had been found guilty but given a token punishment eg fine 1p which would reflect the historical nature of what they did.

 

[portlock seagull]

Bobby Moore and Edward Colston, emmm......

The slope is indeed slippery

 

[Guinness Boy]

The slope is indeed slippery

Are you sticking to it as well?