Colston Four Cleared

[rogersix]

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

that's merely a subjective view, thank you

 

[Bold Seagull]

 

[GT49er]

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.

Members of the public pulled it down, not the public - there is a difference!

 

[Is it PotG?]

that's merely a subjective view, thank you

 

[Deleted member 2719]

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

I am glad we are speaking again, I felt you were blanking me, a new year's resolution maybe

I am not sure if you are proud or not of that statement? No need to tell me, he is your cousin after all.

My grandfather was a freemason in the 1930s for a short time and realised this wasn't a good place to be for the morals he stood for. He soon left. My father was offered to join multiple times and turned it down, due to morals again.
I suppose I just prefer to be what you see is what you get, no hidden agendas with me.
Straight as a die.

I was a member of the scouts though, and my knot tying badge really helped me through life.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I am glad we are speaking again, I felt you were blanking me, a new year's resolution maybe

I am not sure if you are proud or not of that statement? No need to tell me, he is your cousin after all.

My grandfather was a freemason in the 1930s for a short time and realised this wasn't a good place to be for the morals he stood for. He soon left. My father was offered to join multiple times and turned it down, due to morals again.
I suppose I just prefer to be what you see is what you get, no hidden agendas with me.
Straight as a die.

I was a member of the scouts though, and my knot tying badge really helped me through life.

I've never blanked you. No, I am not proud of that fact and feel the same way as you do about 'secret societies'. Good for your Grandfather and Father.

 

[drew]

The problem with your argument is the defendants never tried (they couldn't) deny that they pulled down a statue and dumped it in the dock. It was done in plain site, recorded and the footage distributed widely.

Not only by the media but by the wider protestors at large.

The evidence was never in question.

The only debate in court surrounded whether their actions were criminal. The defence successfully argued they weren't, most compellingly convincing the jury that the existence of the statue was a crime in itself (under current legislation) and it's removal was an act of stopping a crime taking place. You may not agree with that, but be honest and agree you'd never thought of that either.

This was a unique case and investigation that I probably won't see again in my lifetime.

It was also unfortunately completely muddied by political interference behind the scenes.

Where I hope there has been a "precedent" (but not in legal terms) is that any future administration (well actually an individual MP) thinks twice about interfering with an investigation to advance their popularity with their fanbase.

The Home Secretary is well known to be privately "obsessed" with the issue of statues. Her behaviour (I'm guessing because I have no idea) potentially led to the Police and the CPS somewhat going through the motions and allowed a brilliant defence barrister to pull the rug under any idea of a culture war show trial by using the law to suggest otherwise.

I suggest you direct your sense of justice not served to them. In the long term it will be a better use of it.

I appreciate what you are saying but I would just question your interpretation in that the defence argued 'most compellingy convincing the jury etc etc'. You don't know that. The defence only need to sow an element of doubt in the minds of the jury and if the jury aren't convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the statue was legitimately there then they can't convict, We don't know if the jurors that voted for not guilty were absolutely convinced it was illegal for the statue to be there or if they just weren't sure. In either case they would have to return a verdict of not guilty. Any convincing would have to have be done by the prosecution. Had there been a guilty verdict it would be easier to argue that the prosecution had 'convinced' the jury of the legality of the statue because there can't be any element of doubt!

As for Patel, the sooner she's gone (as well as many in this Government) the better for the country.

 

[Swansman]

Statues are overrated.

Melt all of them and build some houses with the materials.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Members of the public pulled it down, not the public - there is a difference!

And then 12 random members of 'the public' were chosen and 91.66% of them agreed it wasn't a criminal act. The majority of 'The public' so far seem to agree

 

[pure_white]

I thought in 'local' issues sometimes the court hearing is held outside the area, I think there is reasonable argument that the hearing should have been away from the Bristol area.

 

[GT49er]

And then 12 random members of 'the public' were chosen and 91.66% of them agreed it wasn't a criminal act. The majority of 'The public' so far seem to agree

Although the anti-Colston movement has been gaining considerable momentum, there is no certainty - actually quite a bit of doubt - that the majority of Bristolians would have supported taking down the statue. As some idiot has now got this thread into the bear pit I'm not going to hang around here. Regardless of whether the verdict was right or wrong, I would suggest they got a bit lucky with the jury. Twelve other random members may have taken a different line. All history now, innit?

 

[Lever]

One of the first things I learnt about Bristol years ago was that its prosperity was historically based on the slave trade. I am not a person who advocates wanton vandalism but I feel that a stain on Bristol has been removed and there was no gentle way to do it.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

One of the first things I learnt about Bristol years ago was that its prosperity was historically based on the slave trade. I am not a person who advocates wanton vandalism but I feel that a stain on Bristol has been removed and there was no gentle way to do it.

How do you get on with your washing ?

Regards
DF

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am glad we are speaking again, I felt you were blanking me, a new year's resolution maybe

I am not sure if you are proud or not of that statement? No need to tell me, he is your cousin after all.

My grandfather was a freemason in the 1930s for a short time and realised this wasn't a good place to be for the morals he stood for. He soon left. My father was offered to join multiple times and turned it down, due to morals again.
I suppose I just prefer to be what you see is what you get, no hidden agendas with me.
Straight as a die.

I was a member of the scouts though, and my knot tying badge really helped me through life.

Mine the same

 

[nicko31]

And then 12 random members of 'the public' were chosen and 91.66% of them agreed it wasn't a criminal act. The majority of 'The public' so far seem to agree

Quite, it wasn't an effy 52/48....

 

[Is it PotG?]

Quite, it wasn't an effy 52/48....

I demand a retrial 'til I get the result I want.

 

[Boys 9d]

Perhaps it should be noted that Bristol has had a history of civil unrest for over 200 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_riots

 

[Lever]

How do you get on with your washing ?

Regards
DF

Relevance?
Of you as well as your post?

 

[vegster]

Not sure if it's the government's remit to order a re-trial, I would have thought that was a matter for the CPS ? And given that there is a huge backlog of cases that need trials is it really in the public interest to keep pursuing the four defendants in a desperate attempt to get the result that Johnson and his cronies demand ?

It would be a strange dichotomy of British " Justice " if aggrieved vandals are prosecuted to the max but Priti Patel is allowed to order Border Force and other rescue services to refuse to assist drowning refugees and physically "push back " vulnerable people at sea thus breaking with the most hallowed traditions of sailors and mariners.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Relevance?
Of you as well as your post?

Tried this yet ?
https://youtu.be/SSS-bcblJ4Y

Regards
DF