Colston Four Cleared

[pure_white]

Im deeply offended by garden noames. Do these 4 have any as me and 3 mates would like to re-site them in the nearest river.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I haven'' lost ' anything what a strange accusation and yes I do expect this case to come under the spotlight of reform, we can't have people taking things into their own hands because THEY believe it to be right

Regards
DF

800 years of trial by jury, but pretty poor fool thinks it's wrong.

The jury gave the verdicts (all four of them) because they believe the prosecution didn't prove their case.

 

[Is it PotG?]

The jury gave the verdicts (all four of them) because they believe the prosecution didn't prove their case.

Shirley there is a world of difference between someone being technically 'guilty' of any offence and the case not being proven?

Morally at the very least.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Shirley there is a world of difference between someone being technically 'guilty' of any offence and the case not being proven?

Morally at the very least.

Not proven is a Scottish verdict, but doesn't apply in English law courts.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that criminal damage was caused. Nobody doubted that damage was caused, but it wasn't criminal.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Not proven is a Scottish verdict, but doesn't apply in English law courts.

I think you miss my point.

The case was not proven, a fault of the CPS or whatever.

Morally they may well be guilty though.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think you miss my point.

The case was not proven, a fault of the CPS or whatever.

Morally they may well be guilty though.

Morals are subjective.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Morals are subjective.

In the eyes of those being subjective

Regards
DF

 

[GT49er]

800 years of trial by jury, but pretty poor fool thinks it's wrong.

The jury gave the verdicts (all four of them) because they believe the prosecution didn't prove their case.

It wasn't a case of the prosecution not proving their case. The statue was public property, it was pulled down and damaged, it was rolled in to the harbour and the defendants didn't dispute the fact that they did it. They claimed it was justified, and the jury decided to make what was essentially a political decision to acquit, in spite of the overwhelming evidence.

That, of course, was their absolute right - there is a long history of 'perverse' verdicts being delivered by juries. 200 years ago, for instance, children (I'm not sure how young the youngest were exactly, but certainly far too young) could be (and were) hanged for stealing goods worth more than 5 shillings. Horrible? Yes absilutely, and Joe Public (aka the jurors) also thought so at the time. Faced with a cases where a child faced the gallows, they simply returned a not guilty verdict fully in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Good for them, and the law was rightly changed.

This is what happened in this trial - although the defendants did in fact damage the statue and roll it in the harbour. The jury opted to return a not guilty verdict.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Morals are subjective.

To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society - Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Bold Seagull]

Morals are subjective.

You may now have to explain what subjective means.

 

[Is it PotG?]

You may now have to explain what subjective means.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

You think the jury was selected from one demographic? You do know that prosecution lawyers can object to jurors being selected, as well as defence?
One juror voted guilty, but the judge accepted a majority vote.

Yes, I read it somewhere, am I wrong?
Slightly off topic, do you think freemason should be allowed to be judges or on the jury?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It wasn't a case of the prosecution not proving their case. The statue was public property, it was pulled down and damaged, it was rolled in to the harbour and the defendants didn't dispute the fact that they did it. They claimed it was justified, and the jury decided to make what was essentially a political decision to acquit, in spite of the overwhelming evidence.

That, of course, was their absolute right - there is a long history of 'perverse' verdicts being delivered by juries. 200 years ago, for instance, children (I'm not sure how young the youngest were exactly, but certainly far too young) could be (and were) hanged for stealing goods worth more than 5 shillings. Horrible? Yes absilutely, and Joe Public (aka the jurors) also thought so at the time. Faced with a cases where a child faced the gallows, they simply returned a not guilty verdict fully in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Good for them, and the law was rightly changed.

This is what happened in this trial - although the defendants did in fact damage the statue and roll it in the harbour. The jury opted to return a not guilty verdict.

This is a very good blog by a barrister explaining the law in this case.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022...th-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

As you rightly said, the statue was public property and the 'public' removed it, after long campaigns to get it moved.

 

[clapham_gull]

.. and swampy types itching to pull down some artifact of imperialist oppression.

oohh, let your mask slip there.

 

[rogersix]

FFS ! nothing to fo with history it was about the act that was carried out, You must live on stupid street along with the jury

Regards
DF

you don't get this

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes, I read it somewhere, am I wrong?
Slightly off topic, do you think freemason should be allowed to be judges or on the jury?

Ah, Freemasonry. A law unto themselves.
Before you reply, my cousin was lodge master of the Brighton lodge.

 

[rogersix]

In the eyes of those being subjective

Regards
DF

eh?

you don't get this

 

[rogersix]

You may now have to explain what subjective means.

and then "morals"

 

[Is it PotG?]

and then "morals"

I think the joke has gone now......

 

[beorhthelm]

oohh, let your mask slip there.

what mask?