Colston Four Cleared

[Thunder Bolt]

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

Trial by jury has been in place for over 800 years in this country. Verdicts may not always be agreeable but they do not undermine any rule of law.

 

[Curious Orange]

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.

An interesting point. Though I think reparations is something we as a planet are a bit beyond, as there were far too many European, American, and West African communities involved in the Atlantic slave trade, and I'm not including all the other slave trade routes here, to make it easy to work out who owes what to whom (you could find that you owe yourself some reparation).

Personally, I think it is all too easily forgotten that this country played an active role through the Royal Navy in physically bringing the Atlantic slave trade to a stop; something that wasn't entirely legal at the time.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

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

I think its more about how the statue was removed rather than whether it should be removed or not

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Because the verdict offends their political beliefs.

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


Regards
DF

 

[Is it PotG?]

I think its more about how the statue was removed rather than whether it should be removed or not

Precisely.

Done by official methods, an eyebrow would not have been raised.

Now, if something pees one off, one can trash it.

 

[highflyer]

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?

If you haven't read about the reparations movement then I can only assume that is because you haven't actually tried. Or wanted to try.
It's not a simple issue obviously and I wouldn't pretend to have a grasp of all the nuance and complications.. But there is plenty of discussion, writing and activism on it.

Eg relating to this specific Bristol case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-56258320 and more generally: https://fortune.com/2020/06/18/george-floyd-protests-uk-slavery-reparations/

Interesting fact, when slavery was abolished slave owners were paid (huge at the time) compensation. Slaves were not.
The government took out loans to pay the compensation and the repayment of those loans only ended in 2015. So up until then somewhere, someone, has been happily profiting from that sordid saga. And we still (as far as I am aware) donlt know who that was.

Have a read about it here: https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/09/slavery-compensation-uk-questions/

 

[clapham_gull]

Precisely.

Done by official methods, an eyebrow would not have been raised.

Now, if something pees one off, one can trash it.

View attachment 143473

Not at all. That wasn't their defence.

There are all sorts of interpretation on here about the case, I suggest some read up on it.

 

[clapham_gull]

If you haven't read about the reparations movement then I can only assume that is because you haven't actually tried. Or wanted to try.
It's not a simple issue obviously and I wouldn't pretend to have a grasp of all the nuance and complications.. But there is plenty of discussion, writing and activism on it.

Eg relating to this specific Bristol case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-56258320 and more generally: https://fortune.com/2020/06/18/george-floyd-protests-uk-slavery-reparations/

Interesting fact, when slavery was abolished slave owners were paid (huge at the time) compensation. Slaves were not.
The government took out loans to pay the compensation and the repayment of those loans only ended in 2015. So up until then somewhere, someone, has been happily profiting from that sordid saga. And we still (as far as I am aware) donlt know who that was.

Have a read about it here: https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/09/slavery-compensation-uk-questions/

Yes some people became very rich on the abolition of slavery.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Not at all. That wasn't their defence.

There are all sorts of interpretation on here about the case, I suggest some read up on it.

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

 

[WATFORD zero]

Not at all. That wasn't their defence.

There are all sorts of interpretation on here about the case, I suggest some read up on it.

Reading up on facts before jumping to a conclusion - It'll never catch on



Timing is the art of comedy

 

[Is it PotG?]

Reading up on facts before jumping to a conclusion - It'll never catch on

 

[clapham_gull]

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

.. and I'm sure you can read.

Two of the defence arguments (based on law) was:

1) They had consent to do so
2) The statue being there was against the law itself

.. and the jury agreed.

 

[Baldseagull]

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

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.

 

[Jim in the West]

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

Why does everything have to be a "culture war"? It's thoroughly depressing how pretty much anything these days has to be framed as "woke" (or the opposite, whatever that's called). On the flip side, it's mildly entertaining how easy it is to upset people when something even marginally progressive happens!

 

[Randy McNob]

I think its more about how the statue was removed rather than whether it should be removed or not

no it isn't. If it was purely that - it wouldn't be a national story, no one would give a flying fig.

 

[Is it PotG?]

.. and I'm sure you can read.

Two of the defence arguments (based on law) was:

1) They had consent to do so
2) The statue being there was against the law itself

.. and the jury agreed.

They had consent to launch a statue belonging to somebody else into a river?

Funny old world.

PS. Ta for the explanation.

 

[clapham_gull]

They had consent to launch a statue belonging to somebody else into a river?

Funny old world.

PS. Ta for the explanation.

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.

 

[Is it PotG?]

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.

I see what you're saying.

I'll stick with the 'slippery slope'.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I see what you're saying.

I'll stick with the 'slippery slope'.

How do you stick on a slippery slope? Surely you slip?

 

[Is it PotG?]

How do you stick on a slippery slope? Surely you slip?

What ARE you prattling on about?

In post #145 I pointed out that I thought the decision set a dangerous precedent and set us on a slippery slope.

I am sticking with that.

Not TOO difficult a concept, or so I thought.