Colston Four Cleared

[Eeyore]

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.

No, because there is no way you would escape conviction from a 12 person jury.

 

[A1X]

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

For someone who doesn’t like the idea of things being seen as a slippery slope this…

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.

…seems an odd position to take.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Quite right.

My 4 year old daughter asked me about it when I was watching the news.

I explained what slavery was

She said "That sounds really bad".

I took your advice and said "Oh no. I wouldn't want to say slavery was bad as that would be a bit unfair on the chap judging him by today's standards"

Indeed.

My 5 year old was just asking me about Ghengis Khan and the fact he killed thousands of innocent people based on his concept of 'surrender or die', he said it "made him feel sad".

I immediately accused him of naive historical relativity and explained that "the success of Mongol tactics hinged on fear to induce capitulation of enemy populations. From the perspective of modern theories of international relations, Quester suggested, "Perhaps terrorism produced a fear that immobilised and incapacitated the forces that would have resisted." Although perceived as being bloodthirsty, the Mongol strategy of "surrender or die" still recognised that conquest by capitulation was more desirable than continually being forced to expend soldiers, food, and money to fight every army and sack every place on the campaign's route."

 

[Bry Nylon]

it's not the perpetrator's opinion that's the deciding factor, but that of the jury

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.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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.

Quite. But also it depends on the case and the verdict. Nobody would seek to defend common assault on the grounds that the case to which I refer above (bereaved father attacks the man who killed his son and is given 'not guilty') sets a precedent. Thus, one may attempt to argue a position, invoking precedent if one chooses, but a jury (or judge) may not agree with the argument.

Thus, one may attempt to argue that the present case means that anyone can now vandalise anything with impugnity. I see that some people are making this argument. It is for them to know their motive, i.e., whether they are being foolish or disingenuous.

 

[carlzeiss]

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

 

[WATFORD zero]

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.

For very stupid people it would certainly be the the thin end of the wedge, and as is proved frequently in both the UK and on NSC, it is certainly something we are not short of.

Good point, well made

 

[Hugo Rune]

It is for them to know their motive, i.e., whether they are being foolish or disingenuous.

.....or just damn right idiotic:

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.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I can't imagine what the opposite side of the culture war could argue was a legitimate object to remove, can you? If the culture war is those who don't want honorific statues to historic figures if they have been despicable, v those that want to honor an historic figure for their good deeds, despite any despicable aspects of their life, surely the act would be to put up statues, not take them down.

There are no historic figures who could be honoured for their good deeds. Who in history had all the right views about slavery, votes for women, homosexuality, and transgender rights? I suspect it is no-one at all.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Shocking outcome. Who decides what statue is offensive?

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[WATFORD zero]

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

I guess you finally got fed up with people totally ignoring you on the race baiting threads in the pit

 

[dsr-burnley]

That's a defence in law. It's not criminal damage if you reasonably believed you had consent to do so by the "owners".

Since the statue was publicly (not privately) owned by the "People of Bristol" who best placed placed to judge ? Probably 12 randomly selected members of the Bristol general public.

They also argued that the statue itself was a public order offence.

I think lastly some argument about a prosecution being disproportionate to the crime.

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.

But if it does, then does anyone want to buy a school premises in Burnley? Prime building land, in the grounds of Towneley Hall. I own it, so I am selling it.

 

[rogersix]

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

such as what? could you give me a real world example?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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 deciding it is not worth spending taxpayer money because the chance of a conviction is low is not 'legal precedent'. It is 'rationing of the legal system', a bit like 'rationing of health care' when a local authority denies expensive cancer treatment on the grounds that 'it may not work'. In any case, the idea that the CPS would ration the legal system based on the outcome of one trial by jury seems a little far-fetched.

When the recipient of vandalism is someone who is widely well-regarded, the verdict will likely be 'guilty', as it was in this case:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54476521

 

[rogersix]

Where as the verdict appeases the one's who think its the right thing to be doing eh


Regards
DF

eh?

 

[Hugo Rune]

such as what? could you give me a real world example?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...ffiti-after-champions-league-win-b937993.html

Not sure they were caught and acquitted though.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Quite an interesting thread this.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

Calm down dear. This is England, not Afghanistan. They eat horse in France, and dogs in China. Best you saddle-up and sally forth, so you can keep England safe from the foreign hoards. We are all behind you, I'm sure.

 

[rogersix]

I'm sure you can explain......

how to read?

 

[rogersix]

That's true but you have to ask was that a price worth paying to get the bill through parliament? I would suggest that it was.

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