Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: phil old leake on January 05, 2022, 10:57:07 pm
-
What an absolutely disgraceful decision By the jury
Potentially opens flood gates for people to do as they feel free
Definition of Criminal Damage
Destroying or damaging property
Section 1(1) CDA 1971 - A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence
They had no lawful excuse to damage the property
The property belonged to someone else
They intended to destroy/ damage it
This isn’t anything to do with the BLM movement or their motivation the definition is as above and what they did was criminal.
This has nothing to do with their motivation for their act
People cannot be given carts Blanche permission to do as they feel fit
They may have acted as they did for their own belief it was for the better good. That does not make it lawful
-
How is this possible? So if i go and smash the windows at Charlton is that ok?
-
How is this possible? So if i go and smash the windows at Charlton is that ok?
No ….just normal…lololololol
-
Should have been jailed…..
-
Agreed sha66y it’s a disgrace
-
what we need is a government that will change the laws so that ministers can overrule the judiciary.
-
what we need is a government that will change the laws so that ministers can overrule the judiciary.
Absolutely not.
-
what we need is a government that will change the laws so that ministers can overrule the judiciary.
Absolutely not.
totally agree with that Glyn, my post was a bit tongue-in-cheek
''Why the UK government’s plan to overturn court decisions is a bad idea''
https://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-governments-plan-to-overturn-court-decisions-is-a-bad-idea-173441
-
Bizarre decision
-
A clear and concise reasoning as to why the Colston 4 decision is a farce:
https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1479094358120878080
-
She speaks slot of sense albeit she is a bit annoying
-
I thought she was taking the piss, but there you go
Just went back to listen again .................... it is satire read the comment below the interview.
''Pls no one sue me this is satire. If you would like to support my work instead of sue me you can do so here and that would be really nice -: https://ko-fi.com/rosieholt NO WORRIES IF NOT THOUGH xx''
-
I just don't get it. I thought "not guilty" meant that a jury hadn't had it proven to them beyond reasonable doubt that you'd done something... not that it had been proven but you agreed with their rationale so that's ok?
I could have understood it if they were found guilty but not given a custodial sentence because it "wasn't in the public interest" or whatever but this just seems to make a mockery of the system.
-
Ah well, don't worry the minister for dishonesty and misrepresentation is going to fix it. It's strange he hasn't fallen over as he doesn't have a leg to stand on either.
''Minister vows to close ‘loophole’ after court clears Colston statue topplers
Grant Shapps leads calls to change law limiting prosecution of people who damage memorials''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/06/minister-grant-shapps-crackdown-court-colston-four-statue
''Grant Shapps, the Tory party chair, did not “permanently publish” his full name alongside the alias he used when he operated as an “online marketing millionaire” despite claiming that he did so, according to an analysis of hundreds of pages of his website''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/25/grant-shapps-did-not-publish-own-name-on-marketing-website-analysis-finds
-
You’re right Superspy. That decision has made a mockery of the judicial system
-
Ah well, don't worry the minister for dishonesty and misrepresentation is going to fix it. It's strange he hasn't fallen over as he doesn't have a leg to stand on either.
''Minister vows to close ‘loophole’ after court clears Colston statue topplers
Grant Shapps leads calls to change law limiting prosecution of people who damage memorials''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/06/minister-grant-shapps-crackdown-court-colston-four-statue
''Grant Shapps, the Tory party chair, did not “permanently publish” his full name alongside the alias he used when he operated as an “online marketing millionaire” despite claiming that he did so, according to an analysis of hundreds of pages of his website''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/25/grant-shapps-did-not-publish-own-name-on-marketing-website-analysis-finds
Do you not agree that they should have been banged up then?
If not, why not?
-
Because I believe in the the jury system, the law allowed for them to be found innocent and they were.
-
Lots of posters on here have said people aren’t found to be innocent, but that they have been found not guilty.
-
Because I believe in the the jury system, the law allowed for them to be found innocent and they were.
That's not what i asked. Do YOU think they should be in the boob?
-
Lots of posters on here have said people aren’t found to be innocent, but that they have been found not guilty.
In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty but if you're found not guilty you are not proved innocent!
-
This.
https://mobile.twitter.com/simonjhix/status/1479444604978143234
-
Ah well, don't worry the minister for dishonesty and misrepresentation is going to fix it. It's strange he hasn't fallen over as he doesn't have a leg to stand on either.
''Minister vows to close ‘loophole’ after court clears Colston statue topplers
Grant Shapps leads calls to change law limiting prosecution of people who damage memorials''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/06/minister-grant-shapps-crackdown-court-colston-four-statue
''Grant Shapps, the Tory party chair, did not “permanently publish” his full name alongside the alias he used when he operated as an “online marketing millionaire” despite claiming that he did so, according to an analysis of hundreds of pages of his website''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/25/grant-shapps-did-not-publish-own-name-on-marketing-website-analysis-finds
Do you not agree that they should have been banged up then?
If not, why not?
You must understand by now that I'm a strong advocate for equality and fairness for all and as non-whites are still discriminated against in all aspects of their lives, chucking a statue of a slave trader in the water by people fighting for fairness is not something I get too concerned about, it was a statue after all and not someone being assaulted at a football match or being knifed in the street. Should the statue have still been there is probably a better question, colston was celebrated for the good work he did for the people of Bristol but as slave trading was a lucrative business a lot of what he gave had to have come from those profits, he was certainly responsible for many thousands of deaths. I think a better tack for the government would be to ensure that everything possible is done to ensure non-whites in Britain are treated with the same respect and have the same opportunities as everyone else, rather than look at appealing the case or changing the law. If non-whites were already treated as equals in their own country then maybe the colston statue wouldn't have been such an issue or it would have been removed at an earlier point.
Read this if you haven't already and tell me what you think.
''The toppling of Edward Colston's statue is not an attack on history. It is history''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/08/edward-colston-statue-history-slave-trader-bristol-protest
-
And you’re point about the criminal unpunished anarchistic behaviour of these 4 and others is ???
No one is disputing Colstons history. The thread was about the fact that a jury has been allowed to make a ridiculous decision which condones criminal behaviour
It’s not about racism it’s about law and order and criminal behaviour being allowed to go unpunished
-
And you’re point about the criminal unpunished anarchistic behaviour of these 4 and others is ???
No one is disputing Colstons history. The thread was about the fact that a jury has been allowed to make a ridiculous decision which condones criminal behaviour
It’s not about racism it’s about law and order and criminal behaviour being allowed to go unpunished
I hope you gained hound's indulgence before you asked phil? and of course all question have to be asked and replied to in order, please ensure you are up-to date.
-
Colston .... could say another 4 free result :chair:
Remember the definition of a white Christmas is one "snowflake" and the world is full of them.
-
ooh look a report by
Graham Hayes, Brian Doherty & Steven Cammiss
who actually attended the trial for 10 days
Have a read and with permission let me know what you think, anyone?
https://theconversation.com/we-attended-the-trial-of-the-colston-four-heres-why-their-acquittal-should-be-celebrated-174481
-
And you’re point about the criminal unpunished anarchistic behaviour of these 4 and others is ???
No one is disputing Colstons history. The thread was about the fact that a jury has been allowed to make a ridiculous decision which condones criminal behaviour
It’s not about racism it’s about law and order and criminal behaviour being allowed to go unpunished
'jury allowed to make a ridiculus decision'
Juries should be told what to do now should they - or droped altogether. Proper fascism.
Juries make the decision they see fit with the evidence they are presented. The fact the government's lawyers were not able to make a stronger and better case than the defence is not the juries fault - its on those lawyers.
What this case does demonstrate is how strong democracy still is in this country. Juries can come to a decision without someone higher up 'allowing it' like a medieval feudal baron. A different jury or a different prosecution case might have seen a different decision. And thats the way it should be.
-
So Wilts and Sydney. Taking this to an extreme. Would a jury be correct to acquit someone who openly killed a paedophile who openly admitted being a sex offender because they thought it was in the public interest and that the majority of the public wouldn’t object
The article states what we already knew Nothing there that enlightens anyone.
It was a decision driven by political correctness
-
Off topic phil, were talking about a real case and about real people, not scenarios.
-
It’s not off topic it’s a similar scenario albeit to the extreme that you can’t / won’t say you have an opinion on because or doesn’t meet your thought agenda
-
You can speak for me any time you wish phil, as long as it's reciprocal.
-
So Wilts and Sydney. Taking this to an extreme. Would a jury be correct to acquit someone who openly killed a paedophile who openly admitted being a sex offender because they thought it was in the public interest and that the majority of the public wouldn’t object
The article states what we already knew Nothing there that enlightens anyone.
It was a decision driven by political correctness
So Wilts and Sydney. Taking this to an extreme. Would a jury be correct to acquit someone who openly killed a paedophile who openly admitted being a sex offender because they thought it was in the public interest and that the majority of the public wouldn’t object
The article states what we already knew Nothing there that enlightens anyone.
It was a decision driven by political correctness
So you personally know that all 12 jurors are politically correct snowflakes?
-
In my opinion for what it's worth, in a case like this the jury should have found them guilty and then let the magistrates or judge make the decision on the severity of any punishment.
-
I’m not speaking for you Syd I wouldn’t dream of it but you are once again avoiding a very simple question
-
I pretty much agree with the article from 'the conversation' that I posted
-
In my opinion for what it's worth, in a case like this the jury should have found them guilty and then let the magistrates or judge make the decision on the severity of any punishment.
But you have no idea what issues were raised in court. You are basing this opinion purely on media reports.
-
Criminal damage is criminal damage, you just can’t go around destroying things because you don’t like it
-
Not vandalism Filo, but if you have tried every route possible to right a wrong for 30 years, then as an activist I am happy to consider NVDA and have. I don't consider this vandalism.
-
Not vandalism Filo, but if you have tried every route possible to right a wrong for 30 years, then as an activist I am happy to consider NVDA and have. I don't consider this vandalism.
It’s criminal damage against property they don’t own, they should be accountable for their actions, I didn’t realise BLM had been active for 30 years
-
I don't know either but people have being trying to get the statue removed for 30 years. It's now in a museum, someone should maybe have thought of that solution before.
It always goes back to the core of the problem which is a lack of equality and respect for non-whites, how long have non-whites been asking for equality, why should they have to wait?
-
So Wilts and Sydney. Taking this to an extreme. Would a jury be correct to acquit someone who openly killed a paedophile who openly admitted being a sex offender because they thought it was in the public interest and that the majority of the public wouldn’t object
The article states what we already knew Nothing there that enlightens anyone.
It was a decision driven by political correctness
No Phil - taking this to the extreme you would do away with trial by jury - or only allow people to serve on a jury who would come up a verdict the government wants.
Like a proper fascist state.
-
Criminal damage is criminal damage, you just can’t go around destroying things because you don’t like it
That is correct. And this case does nothing to disabuse that.
These people were found innocent on the evidence put before the jury. If different evidence had been put forward then they may have been found guilty. The defence had a better case than the prosection - thats all that happened.
-
I haven't been following this case,who ever put the evidence package together did a poor job. They got off with it! They are not innocent they got off with it! Get ready will be the statue of Sir Winston Churchill next!
-
I suspect (just a guess) the key issue here is the definition of "criminal" in "criminal damage". As in, could their actions be considered to actually be a service to the community.
Phil suggested an extreme example to consider. Here's an alternative one.
If I erected a statue in my garden in full view of passers by, of an 18th century slave owner whipping a slave, with a plaque reading "Know your place, scum", would it be considered criminal damage if someone pulled it down?
-
I suspect (just a guess) the key issue here is the definition of "criminal" in "criminal damage". As in, could their actions be considered to actually be a service to the community.
Phil suggested an extreme example to consider. Here's an alternative one.
If I erected a statue in my garden in full view of passers by, of an 18th century slave owner whipping a slave, with a plaque reading "Know your place, scum", would it be considered criminal damage if someone pulled it down?
Regardless of the meaning of the statue it would still be criminal damage, and that is the point, there is too much put into the meaning of the statue and emotion gets in the way, good or bad, they committed a criminal act and that is all they should be judged on
-
That's not true under the law as I understand it Filo. Might be wrong but I think an act isn't considered "criminal" damage if it prevents another offence taking place.
-
That's not true under the law as I understand it Filo. Might be wrong but I think an act isn't considered "criminal" damage if it prevents another offence taking place.
it could be pleaded the action "dissipated the stored up energy from a charged up situation" and prevented alleged "further breaking of the law"
then you have to find a previous legal case in law (cite) to back it up ... Going back as long as you like in history
Defendants with "loads of money" can afford the sharpest minds to plead a case from a "technical " angle.
The phrase is case law
-
Billy that would be criminal damage because the statue quite clearly belongs to you in your garden
You would be looking at some kind of public order offences
In this case part of their argument was that the statue had been erected by the people of Bristol so the people owned it making its removal lawful somehow The council were the custodian of it so had in my view management and control of it basically making it theirs
It wasn’t maintained by the people
The hypocrisy of it all gets me. Pull down a statue that represents something that offends you
Are these same people campaigning to close Bristol university which Colston funded and to close down every institution he helped to establish
Sydney I see you are still avoiding answering my question by trying to answer a question that wasn’t asked.
Don’t worry about it you obviously have no proper thoughts on this apart from agitation
-
Phil, give upon expecting a response.
He doesn’t do answers, he only diverts questions.
-
He never answers when he is on thin ice,a real keyboard Warrior
-
Billy that would be criminal damage because the statue quite clearly belongs to you in your garden
You would be looking at some kind of public order offences
In this case part of their argument was that the statue had been erected by the people of Bristol so the people owned it making its removal lawful somehow The council were the custodian of it so had in my view management and control of it basically making it theirs
It wasn’t maintained by the people
The hypocrisy of it all gets me. Pull down a statue that represents something that offends you
Are these same people campaigning to close Bristol university which Colston funded and to close down every institution he helped to establish
Sydney I see you are still avoiding answering my question by trying to answer a question that wasn’t asked.
Don’t worry about it you obviously have no proper thoughts on this apart from agitation
The definition of criminal damage precludes acts of damage that are done in order to prevent another offence.
In the hypothetical case I gave, it's clear that I would be committing several offences by erecting that statue (inciting racial hatred, offending public decency are two that come to mind immediately). So the principle that "deliberate damage to property" does not automatically equate to "criminal damage" is established. From there, as Wilts pointed out, it's down to who makes the better case to the jury.
-
I don't expect everyone to understand what happened in Bristol that day nor agree or accept why a verdict of not-guilty was reached. People throughout history have made a stances and tried to force change on reluctant governments and society such as, Peterloo, Suffragettes and of course slavery. But these people are not luddites, they are attempting to improve our world, look at XR they are trying to save our world, I would have thought they would have most people's support. Insulate Britain are fighting for a logical change that should have been made decades ago and UK would be in a much better place now for many reasons.
Slavery ended in Britain in 1807 and from that point discrimination should have gone with it, I know society is reluctant and slow to change but 200+ years ffs?
I think I hit on a simple question in an earlier comment, 'why should non-whites have to wait for equality and respect' if anyone can answer that and give me a good reason I'd be interested to hear it.
I talking here and now in Britain, why?
-
I don’t believe, for one second, that the Colston 4 are trying to improve our world.
-
I don’t believe, for one second, that the Colston 4 are trying to improve our world.
Not the question, but if you can't answer it ...................
-
I was responding to one of your comments, not attempting to answer your question.
But, in response to your question, they shouldn’t.
-
I was responding to one of your comments, not attempting to answer your question.
But, in response to your question, they shouldn’t.
But they are, you made a stand at the game they are making a stand, why should gay people have suffer insults and abuse, why should non-whites have to suffer racism, why should they have to wait?
-
They shouldn’t.
I don’t know what else you want me to say.
-
They shouldn’t.
I don’t know what else you want me to say.
That's right, they shouldn't have to wait, there is no other answer.
-
But I said that the first time.
-
#likestobecontroversial.
-
But I said that the first time.
yep, sorry I missed it.
-
I did add it as an edit.
Get us being polite to each other.
-
yes, I did see the edit but I thought I would let it go, see what I did there?
-
Now here's the thing, are you ready for the next stage? you agree they shouldn't have to wait for justice, and yet they have waited for at least two centuries, since slavery was ended, so could you see that as being unjust?
-
The government are attempting to build a tunnel under Stonehenge so that holidaymakers from London can get to Cornwall quicker in the summer. The eastern portal is planned to start in an area known as Blick Mead/Vespian's Camp.
Excavations at Blick Mead have shown continuous habitation and use of this site for c9000 years. It was occupied for around 3000 years before Stonehenge was built - and through the period of building the monument - so the people who lived there almost certainly were heavily involved in building it.
Blick Mead is totally unique in the history and understanding of the history of the very earliest people who lived on these islands. Nowhere else yet discovered has such evidence of continual habitation ever been found. And the government wish to destroy all evidence of it. Give over with your pathetic pleas of 'criminal damage' - that is real criminal damage.
If you want to jail people for pulling down a statue of a bloke you had never heard of that you can go look at in a museum any time you want - yet you are happy to see one of the most historic and unique places on these islands destroyed forever without even a thought - then I doubt it is history you are interested in.
-
The government are attempting to build a tunnel under Stonehenge so that holidaymakers from London can get to Cornwall quicker in the summer. The eastern portal is planned to start in an area known as Blick Mead/Vespian's Camp.
Excavations at Blick Mead have shown continuous habitation and use of this site for c9000 years. It was occupied for around 3000 years before Stonehenge was built - and through the period of building the monument - so the people who lived there almost certainly were heavily involved in building it.
Blick Mead is totally unique in the history and understanding of the history of the very earliest people who lived on these islands. Nowhere else yet discovered has such evidence of continual habitation ever been found. And the government wish to destroy all evidence of it. Give over with your pathetic pleas of 'criminal damage' - that is real criminal damage.
If you want to jail people for pulling down a statue of a bloke you had never heard of that you can go look at in a museum any time you want - yet you are happy to see one of the most historic and unique places on these islands destroyed forever without even a thought - then I doubt it is history you are interested in.
I’m not sure that comparison really works, Wilts.
For the record, I think the four committed a crime and should be punished accordingly.
The Stone Henge thing is outrageous and should not be allowed to happen.
Who’s said they are happy to see it happen?
-
This was a protest trial, in which the defendants focus on justifying their actions with a "lawful excuse". Invariably, this explicitly brings politics into the court.
The defendants accept they caused criminal damage but argue there were still good reasons for acquittal and ultimately the jury accepted this.
Does anyone really think the city of Bristol should be publicly honouring a slave trader in this day and age?
-
This was a protest trial, in which the defendants focus on justifying their actions. Invariably, this explicitly brings politics into the court.
The defendants accept they caused criminal damage but argue there were still good reasons for acquittal and ultimately the jury accepted this.
Does anyone really think the city of Bristol should be publicly honouring a slave trader in this day and age?
Bristol was an area that saw riots due to ethnic tensions way back in 1980.
-
This was a protest trial, in which the defendants focus on justifying their actions. Invariably, this explicitly brings politics into the court.
The defendants accept they caused criminal damage but argue there were still good reasons for acquittal and ultimately the jury accepted this.
Does anyone really think the city of Bristol should be publicly honouring a slave trader in this day and age?
Bristol was an area that saw riots due to ethnic tensions way back in 1980.
Hence the judge allowed the jury to consider whether the statue was offensive.
-
It's similar to the issues in the USA with statues of General Lee standing proud over Deep South cities. Statues like that are not simply about reflecting history. They make political points every day to citizens who have to walk past them and be reminded of both past atrocities and present day discrimination.
-
There's certainly a long way to go?
''Ashley Cole: police investigate claim of racial abuse at Swindon match
Retired professional footballer was working for ITV Sport at County Ground as Wiltshire club played Manchester City''
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/08/ashley-cole-police-investigate-claim-of-racial-abuse-at-swindon-match
-
The conservatives - a party that doesn't seem to want to conserve anything:
Letter From London
Back to England, where trial by jury has been called into question by Tory semiologists and clickbait Hegelians who think that history is some sort of list.
To recap: Eighteen months ago a mob, high on a dangerous psychoactive called idealism, toppled a brass tiki of a local slaver. They had concluded that if morality exists, it probably does not favour placing images of traders in human flesh on pedestals. This week the ringleaders, the Colston Four, were acquitted by a jury of their peers on the reasonable grounds that Colston was a git.
Step forward the broadcasters with channel numbers bigger than their audience figures and Tories with poll numbers lower than their IQs.
‘But he was of his time’ insisted the shockjocks who didn’t know they had an opinion on the subject until at least ninety seconds after they started riffing on it.
‘But he was of his time’ repeated the MPs who didn’t know they had an opinion on the subject until the shockjocks started having theirs.
Maybe the 80,000 whom Colston enslaved and the 19,000 who died shackled in their own filth, were not of his time.
Maybe the eleventh-century bishop Wulfstan who railed against slavery from Bristol docks six hundred years before Colston made his fortune from it, and a full thousand before his statue failed its Ducklings Level Three, was not of his time either.
Or maybe, this cub reporter is tempted to speculate, the people trafficker who built his fortune on those whom he caused to be manacled, battered, raped, and killed, committed so much of it to philanthropy because he knew that four centuries later there would be swivel-eyed and blue-rosetted successors who were still under his spell.
So, perhaps inevitably, we look to Suella Braverman, the no-win-no-fee Attorney General, who seeks to talk past the verdict and appease all the wrong people by wondering whether to refer the matter to the court of appeal. That trial by jury, a proceeding Ye Olde England exported around the world, is now expendable to the Conservatives, a party that doesn’t appear to want to conserve anything, comes as no surprise. And who cares? As the famous Govian saying goes, “We’ve all had enough of exports.”
https://twitter.com/secrettory12/status/1480086942196850688/photo/1
-
The government are attempting to build a tunnel under Stonehenge so that holidaymakers from London can get to Cornwall quicker in the summer. The eastern portal is planned to start in an area known as Blick Mead/Vespian's Camp.
Excavations at Blick Mead have shown continuous habitation and use of this site for c9000 years. It was occupied for around 3000 years before Stonehenge was built - and through the period of building the monument - so the people who lived there almost certainly were heavily involved in building it.
Blick Mead is totally unique in the history and understanding of the history of the very earliest people who lived on these islands. Nowhere else yet discovered has such evidence of continual habitation ever been found. And the government wish to destroy all evidence of it. Give over with your pathetic pleas of 'criminal damage' - that is real criminal damage.
If you want to jail people for pulling down a statue of a bloke you had never heard of that you can go look at in a museum any time you want - yet you are happy to see one of the most historic and unique places on these islands destroyed forever without even a thought - then I doubt it is history you are interested in.
I’m not sure that comparison really works, Wilts.
For the record, I think the four committed a crime and should be punished accordingly.
The Stone Henge thing is outrageous and should not be allowed to happen.
Who’s said they are happy to see it happen?
I know Belton and thats my point. These things should be reported more so that people can see what is and isn't 'criminal'.
This government are happy to see it happen because it is entirely their project. National heritage groups and local people are disgusted by it.
There was a High Court case that said it should not be allowed to go ahead because of the importance of Blick Mead. As per Colston, the government have said they are going to ignore it and go ahead anyway.
-
Not going to comment on this particular case and the legal technicalities as I'm no expert.
But those wanting to abolish or diminish the use of the jury system off the back of one decision they disagree with seriously need to think again.
Imagine the uproar with debatable/controversial decisions if it was down to privileged, wealthy judges to decide on the guilt or innocence of defendants for imprison-able offences!
Being judged by fellow citizens who are independent of the state is a cornerstone of our freedom. Juries were first introduced by Henry II in the 12th Century, long before democratic elections, and have survived many tyrannical rulers in the time since. This fair system, it's very early adoption here and it's spread to other countries is something we should be hugely proud of not looking to destroy!