Colston Four Cleared

[Eeyore]

No I didn't, what a limp wristed response to the topic being discussed LMFAO, let's have more damage too statues by mob handed middle class students eh


Regards
DF

You might damage to towns by mobbed handed football hoolies though ?

 

[Baldseagull]

"Two wrongs don't make one right"

Okay, so if I come across a statue, who I do not believe to be a hero or thought they may have been a very naughty boy.


So I can damage and remove the statue without any criminal damages........................game on then.


It's this sort of judgment that will see repeat offending. No doubt they are being plotted as we speak.

Isn't this one rule for them a different rule for everyone else scenario?

If you think that you could argue in court that your act was legitimate, yes.

Smash EDO provoked a situation where they would be taken to court for criminal damage, in order to show that it was defendable. They had earlier been forced to accept an out of court settlement from EDO who had taken them to court for harassment of staff, by a bit of sneaky stuff from Kier Starmer in his previous role.

I expect you could even defend taking a piss on a Policeman, if he was on fire, so long as you had not just deliberately set him alight.

Context is everything.

 

[Bold Seagull]

We know what the usual suspects are upset about, it isn’t a statue. Back to the ‘pit soon enough for them.

 

[The Clamp]

"Two wrongs don't make one right"

Okay, so if I come across a statue, who I do not believe to be a hero or thought they may have been a very naughty boy.


So I can damage and remove the statue without any criminal damages........................game on then.


It's this sort of judgment that will see repeat offending. No doubt they are being plotted as we speak.

Isn't this one rule for them a different rule for everyone else scenario?

I think there’s a whole other set of laws pertaining to that!

 

[A1X]

[tweet]1479003784596664320[/tweet]

[tweet]1479006745150345218[/tweet]

 

[The Clamp]

Personally, I see both sides of this argument as valid. I agree with the verdict and the act but I can also see why people might have concerns about people tearing down statues, no matter how abhorrent the subject of the tribute. I totally understand why it could be unsettling for some people.

 

[goldstone]

You can't have folks going round pulling down statues of people they don't like. If this continues there'll be no statues left.

 

[Napper]

probably a very left wing hand picked jury to get the verdict to cause the minimum fuss and backlash so the story can just disappear and everyone can move on

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

I'm loving reading about these Universities that have removed statues and renamed buildings that have been associated with this historic and barbaric practice; have yet to read about any of them returning money / buildings and land to the families. Can't have it all ways?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

probably a very left wing hand picked jury to get the verdict to cause the minimum fuss and backlash so the story can just disappear and everyone can move on

Has anyone on Nsc, who has done jury service, ever been questioned about their political leanings, in the jury room?

 

[Jim in the West]

I'm loving reading about these Universities that have removed statues and renamed buildings that have been associated with this historic and barbaric practice; have yet to read about any of them returning money / buildings and land to the families. Can't have it all ways?

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?

 

[MJsGhost]

Has anyone on Nsc, who has done jury service, ever been questioned about their political leanings, in the jury room?

I've done it twice and have never been asked about my political leanings at any point of the whole process.

 

[beorhthelm]

...

sort of neutralises much criticism of proposed legislation. the laws can go on the statue books but if a jury finds a protest or action is justified, they'll acquit.

 

[A1X]

sort of neutralises much criticism of proposed legislation. the laws can go on the statue books but if a jury finds a protest or action is justified, they'll acquit.

Yes I agree, I think the point is more that the Government might find it can't achieve it's stated (and unstated for that matter) aims in the way it thinks it can with this blunt force legislation, as there is a point at which the public simply will not put up with authoritarianism.

 

[clapham_gull]

It's an interesting aside that NSC will immediately ban any Palace fan who still misunderstands on here that Lewis Dunk was cleared of all charges in his case.

Why does a minority of NSC think it's ok to continue to misrepresent these cleared defendants? They are Not Guilty. End of.

Because the verdict offends their political beliefs.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

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?

I think we already are.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Because the verdict offends their political beliefs.

Cuts both ways, can you imagine what this thread would look like if a mob from the opposite side of the cculture war had smashed something up and been acquitted ...

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[clapham_gull]

Cuts both ways

Good, so we are agreed.

 

[clapham_gull]

Verdict undermines Rule of Law says ex-Minister who acted unlawfully:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ward-colston-statue-rule-of-law-b1987838.html

 

[Randy McNob]

Because the verdict offends their political beliefs.

This. The people that think statues of slavers are still valid today tend to be the same voices that are angry at Blair getting a knighthood