Colston Four Cleared

[Thunder Bolt]

They are still young and misguided.

Surely you don't agree with organised vandalism?

I not sure if you have noticed I have hardly said anything on Brexit for 2 years, it's all done and we are moving forward it's only the few that keep harping back to it at every opportunity.
We could bash over the subject for hours, but I don't intend to because I am more than happy at what I voted for and look forward to new growth down the line.

Back on topic do you really believe people can wreck property and get off Scot-free?

Sometimes things are justified. The Suffragettes caused criminal damage, but the cause was right.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Don’t play with words.

You said “The Bristolians”.

You knew exactly what you were saying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you say so. You’ve obviously made your mind up.

 

[Uter]

They should have been found guilty because they were but then given a token fine, say 1p.

This now means that anyone can damage anything and justify it based on this case. Yes there were petitions to get rid of the statue but I believe there was also a vote that failed to win a majority. If things are changed just because some petition against it where does it end.

It absolutely does not mean that. This is a terrible interpretation of the verdict.

A jury found the defendants not guilty based upon the evidence put to them. That is all.

 

[Lower West Stander]

If you say so. You’ve obviously made your mind up.

No. You have.

I feel extremely strongly about this because I know exactly what happened.

And gross generalisations from people who don’t I find extremely unnecessary.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

Back on topic do you really believe people can wreck property and get off Scot-free?

Does all property glorify a slave trader involved in the enslavement of over 84,000 black men, women and children as a 'most virtuous and wise' man?

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Were the jury kids then ?

Mentally, it sound like it, what were they thinking?

Can you imagine aeeing four kids smashing up a memorial park bench, because they didn't like the guy who it was a memorial for?

Or someone smashing up a grave stone of someone they didn't agree with.

This judgement is off the plot, if you ask me.

Seriously, it makes no sense at all.

 

[Machiavelli]

Which judge was that then?

Also, can you clarify what is the distinction between history and the past as that escapes me?

The past is what came before the present. History is an account of the past, which is necessarily selective, and the accounts are informed by the contextual concerns, ideological and philosophical viewpoints, and methodologies of those that write that account.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Mentally, it sound like it, what were they thinking?

Can you imagine aeeing four kids smashing up a memorial park bench, because they didn't like the guy who it was a memorial for?

Or someone smashing up a grave stone of someone they didn't agree with.

This judgement is off the plot, if you ask me.

Seriously, it makes no sense at all.

That's because you're basing it on your political prejudices rather than spending the whole trial being presented with the evidence before making a decision as a group

 

[Lower West Stander]

I can’t recall a thread on NSC which I feel as strongly about as this one.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that but when you are close to it as I was, some of this is very difficult to read.

I’m not posting on this thread again. Please just respect opinion and leave it there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[clapham_gull]

Can you imagine aeeing four kids smashing up a memorial park bench, because they didn't like the guy who it was a memorial for?

If the very presence of the bench under current legislation could be a crime in itself yes.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

That's because you're basing it on your political prejudices rather than spending the whole trial being presented with the evidence before making a decision as a group

This is nothing to do with politics at all.

It's pure premeditated crime.

All vandals especially mob led, should feel the full force of the law, or where does it all stop?

 

[Guinness Boy]

This is nothing to do with politics at all.

It's pure premeditated crime.

All vandals especially mob led, should feel the full force of the law, or where does it all stop?

You don't get it do you?

There was no crime. They are not vandals. That's the whole point of the trial verdict. You have decided otherwise and are now on very dodgy legal ground yourself. I'd be pretty careful what and how you post, given the verdict.

 

[heathgate]

Brilliant news.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

There should be no statues of slavers in Britain.
I’m sure Germany has not kept it’s Nazi statutes, this is not about brushing history under the carpet, it’s about not having offensive imagery in people’s faces. Those wishing to admire the statue can do so now it’s in it’s rightful place with other history; the museum (not the bottom of the estuary).

A lesson to local government; if you keep ignoring the people and brushing stuff under the carpet, eventually they’ll take matters into their own hands.

Bravo to the four even if they didn’t do it.

...and if a mob descended on Highate Cemetery and trashed the Marx memorial, you know, that fella who created the ideology directly responsible for millions of deaths... millions.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Bold Seagull]

The past and history are one of the same, the only thing that changes is interpretation.

That’s because history is interpretation whereas the past happens regardless of whether someone interprets it or not. That’s why we have ‘prehistory’ as a term. Reminds me of a Samuel Butler quote “God can’t alter the past, though historians can”.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

If the very presence of the bench under current legislation could be a crime in itself yes.

At this point, with all above I now understand that this is about politics and not crime.

So will leave you guys to keep rejoicing the four hereos.

Enjoy your evening.

 

[drew]

That's because you're basing it on your political prejudices rather than spending the whole trial being presented with the evidence before making a decision as a group

Really? Didn't they admit they were the ones that pulled the statue down. Their only defence was that it wasn't a criminal act.

 

[johanngull]

Sometimes things are justified. The Suffragettes caused criminal damage, but the cause was right.

Were the Suffragettes who were caught causing criminal damage found not guilty if they found themselves in court on those charges?
Is all criminal damage justified or just criminal damage if someone believes their cause is right?

 

[heathgate]

That’s why museums and libraries exist, not a statue in the middle of town. The Bristolians has asked for it to be moved several times.

Some Bristolians,.. a politically active minority, most of them transient students at the university and colleges.... 700k people in Bristol,...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Mentally, it sound like it, what were they thinking?

Can you imagine aeeing four kids smashing up a memorial park bench, because they didn't like the guy who it was a memorial for?

Or someone smashing up a grave stone of someone they didn't agree with.

This judgement is off the plot, if you ask me.

Seriously, it makes no sense at all.

Talking to the wrong people I'm afraid

Regards
DF

 

[drew]

It absolutely does not mean that. This is a terrible interpretation of the verdict.

A jury found the defendants not guilty based upon the evidence put to them. That is all.

Get off your high horse!!

They admitted they pulled the statue down but my understanding is their argument was that it wasn't a criminal act.

I wasn't in court and I'm guessing neither were you so we didn't hear or see any evidence. Neither of us heard the Judges summing up or direction to the jury. But juries do get it wrong, or, as I suspect in this case, there were people on the jury that didn't want to convict them.

It's my opinion they were as guilty as sin of causing criminal damage.