Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: phil old leake on March 14, 2022, 05:24:36 pm
-
Ukraine: Balcony protest at oligarch's mansion continues despite riot police https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60736583
I agree with sanctions and I agree that lawful seizure of Oligarchs property is appropriate. I do not agree with freelance hoodlums who think they can do as they please
What is happening in the Ukraine is outrageous and deplorable but this does not give people the right to behave as they please
The ridiculous outcome of the Colston 4 trial in Bristol has made people believe they can do as they please
This was bound to happen. I’m guessing when nothing is done to punish this crowd or the police are pilloried (by some on the forum who seem to hate law and order) for enforcement of the law there will be more and more of this type of behaviour
-
Down with jury trials - lets just live in a police state.
-
Wilts, don’t forget that some people don’t like or trust the police.
-
Yep, why not adopt the Russian way of dealing with enemies of the state .......... that's anyone they don't like the look of, 99% are found guilty at trial.
-
squatters?
To evict squatters safely and legally from your property, the following guidelines usually apply: Call the police immediately – The police will be able to determine if they are trespassing or squatting on your property. Police have the authority to legally remove trespassers.
-
I agree with phil, the law is an ass
-
As do I dude.
-
I agree with phil, the law is an ass
[/quote
What would you like to see change RD?
-
I disagree with Phil. The Colston 4 got a fair trial - as should everyone charged with a crime.
That's not something you want to give up lightly.
-
Amazing how many people who weren't in that court room are so sure that the jury got it wrong.
-
Amazing how many people who weren't in that court room are so sure that the jury got it wrong.
Were you in the courtroom bst?
-
Billy how could the jury have got it right
Destroying or damaging property.
(1)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.
(2)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—
(a)intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b)intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;
shall be guilty of an offence.
(3)An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.
They had no lawful excuse to damage the property
The property belonged to someone else
They intended to cause the damage
They were there and admitted causing the damage. Believing the public wanted it to happen isn’t an excuse
If that was the case there would be an argument for killing offenders like the Yorkshire Ripper or Harold Shipman or Ian Huntley or serial sex offenders
Right or wrong the law is the law. You don’t need to have been in the court room to understand the definition
-
Phil.
My understanding (and it is limited) is that the defence was one of preventing a larger crime. The crime being one of constant offence to everyone, Afro-Caribbean and others) who had to walk past a statue honouring someone who had taken part in genocide for profit.
It's a question of balance. Comparing pulling down a statue with extra-judicial murder is not sensible.
If the Germans had won WWII and 200 years later, a statue of Hitler in Golders Green had been torn down, would you consider that to have been morally wrong?
-
Equally, if people occupy the mansion of a thief who has supported a dictator who has destroyed cities and killed tens of thousands of civilians, is that a bigger crime than allowing the thief to keep it?
-
I know what the defence was but for me it isn’t one and neither should people be allowed to occupy someone else’s property because they think it’s right. Just my opinion
I just feel that the flood gates are opening. What about animal rights activists who force their way into laboratories and smash the place up because they don’t feel it’s right to find cure for fatal diseases by experimenting on animals.
-
And if everyone that disagreed with any particular verdict had their way?
-
I guess Australia is full of people who disagreed with verdicts lol
-
I guess Australia is full of people who disagreed with verdicts lol
What would you like to see changed RD?
-
I know what the defence was but for me it isn’t one and neither should people be allowed to occupy someone else’s property because they think it’s right. Just my opinion
I just feel that the flood gates are opening. What about animal rights activists who force their way into laboratories and smash the place up because they don’t feel it’s right to find cure for fatal diseases by experimenting on animals.
Phil, with regards to your first paragraph.
It isn’t just your opinion, it is the law that people can’t just trespass on someone else’s property.
-
I rather think trespass is a civil matter. If my memory is correct then trespass is not enshrined in law.
BobG
-
Agreed hound.
Let’s see how it plays out
-
Abit off topic but .............
People squatted all over London in the 70s and 80s, houses empty while people can't find somewhere affordable to live? There was a push on a few years ago by some councils to force owners to use them.
''Britain is in the midst of a housing crisis, but has more than 260,000 empty homes. How on earth do houses such as 20 Hayles Street – a council-owned property in a city ravaged by homelessness – stay unoccupied?''
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/20/how-does-london-family-home-end-up-empty
-
I rather think trespass is a civil matter. If my memory is correct then trespass is not enshrined in law.
BobG
https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law/remove-squatters
I'm looking here and not seeing anything in the Remove Squatters section that says, "Phone the Met and they will send round a dozen tooled up riot squad within minutes."
Looks like different rules apply in London to kleptocrats' mansions.
-
I rather think trespass is a civil matter. If my memory is correct then trespass is not enshrined in law.
BobG
Bob, see below matey:
squatters?
To evict squatters safely and legally from your property, the following guidelines usually apply: Call the police immediately – The police will be able to determine if they are trespassing or squatting on your property. Police have the authority to legally remove trespassers.
-
SR you’re absolutely right and I imagine the number of empty houses you quote doesn’t include all the empty and unused military married quarters
-
A fair amount of empty council homes are empty because the previous tenant trashed it. It’s amazing the state of some of the council homes in Bradford get into. It’s always the same minority that are damaging doors and windows and gardens full of crap. They cost the council a fortune and help run estates down.
-
There are several common reasons why homes become empty and they are:
The inability of the owner to financially meet the cost of repairs and the upkeep of the house.
Planning restrictions relating to the occupancy of the property.
Access problems such as land disputes or road closures.
Problems with leaseholders or banks.
Difficulty in finding tenants to live there.
The property may be languishing on the subdued housing market for too long because of market conditions or poor pricing and marketing of the house.
Problems with someone inheriting the house and they are untraceable or may not even know they suddenly own a property somewhere.
Problems with death duties or unpaid taxes.
Stubborn owners refusing to let the property for whatever reason or investment reasons, waiting for the market to rise before repairing the house.
Development reasons, but plans have gone awry for some reason.
-
Phil.
My understanding (and it is limited) is that the defence was one of preventing a larger crime. The crime being one of constant offence to everyone, Afro-Caribbean and others) who had to walk past a statue honouring someone who had taken part in genocide for profit.
It's a question of balance. Comparing pulling down a statue with extra-judicial murder is not sensible.
If the Germans had won WWII and 200 years later, a statue of Hitler in Golders Green had been torn down, would you consider that to have been morally wrong?
I'm just wondering what the Afro carribbean and other communities DIDN'T find offensive for the other 125 years that this statue was in place?
Or is it now a case of you can do what you like, because you want to?
I'm off round to my neighbors tomorrow to rip his door down and squat in his house because his BMW is better than mine!!
-
There's some proper drivel talked on this subject. I wonder why this in particular gets so many folks' backs up?
-
It could be because some people are trying to find an argument where there isn’t or wasn’t one for 125 years.
-
There's some proper drivel talked on this subject. I wonder why this in particular gets so many folks' backs up?
Nothing about this in particular, but then why would you ever miss an opportunity to throw in some cryptic insinuations,
The fact that this prevailing woke agenda with "warriors" like you to the fore is what winds up the majority even if its a mostly silent one.
I wonder who you and them will be calling when their house, belongings or family are affected.
-
Phil.
My understanding (and it is limited) is that the defence was one of preventing a larger crime. The crime being one of constant offence to everyone, Afro-Caribbean and others) who had to walk past a statue honouring someone who had taken part in genocide for profit.
It's a question of balance. Comparing pulling down a statue with extra-judicial murder is not sensible.
If the Germans had won WWII and 200 years later, a statue of Hitler in Golders Green had been torn down, would you consider that to have been morally wrong?
I'm just wondering what the Afro carribbean and other communities DIDN'T find offensive for the other 125 years that this statue was in place?
Or is it now a case of you can do what you like, because you want to?
I'm off round to my neighbors tomorrow to rip his door down and squat in his house because his BMW is better than mine!!
So the argument now is: this can't be right or it would have been done before now. Close your eyes. Take a deep breath. Relax and have a think how daft that argument is.
-
Try applying that logic to...say...Peterloo.
The hussars who killed the demonstrators were only applying law and order. And the demonstrators in favour of votes for working class folk...if it was that important to them, why didn't they demonstrate for votes in the previous 800 years.
-
Apply the logic to Gandhi's Salt March.
If this was so important, how come they didn't march years earlier.
-
Apply the logic to Rosa Parkes.
If being told that blacks could not sit at the front of the bus was such a racist insult, how come she didn't go against the law earlier?
-
There's some proper drivel talked on this subject. I wonder why this in particular gets so many folks' backs up?
Accusing people of spouting drivel is rich coming from you, Colston took part in Genoside! How please explain?
-
Sproty.
If it's not bleeding obvious, turn off RT for a few minutes and apply your ample brain to the question.
-
There must be 20 police officers outside the Belgrave Square property occupied by anarchists, which is I reckon approximately 20 more than ever checked the provenance of the money that bought it.
Oliver Bullough, expert and author on oligarch finances
https://twitter.com/OliverBullough/status/1503402092928643072
It's one rule for one and one for another - which amazingly seems to be what some people want in this country.
-
There must be 20 police officers outside the Belgrave Square property occupied by anarchists, which is I reckon approximately 20 more than ever checked the provenance of the money that bought it.
Oliver Bullough, expert and author on oligarch finances
https://twitter.com/OliverBullough/status/1503402092928643072
It's one rule for one and one for another - which amazingly seems to be what some people want in this country.
Just think, if all those resources went into crime prevention
-
There's some proper drivel talked on this subject. I wonder why this in particular gets so many folks' backs up?
Nothing about this in particular, but then why would you ever miss an opportunity to throw in some cryptic insinuations,
The fact that this prevailing woke agenda with "warriors" like you to the fore is what winds up the majority even if its a mostly silent one.
I wonder who you and them will be calling when their house, belongings or family are affected.
It certainly isn't the majority. It's just a bunch of right wing 50+ year old (no Sproty this isn't ageism, calm down) who are against change. There was petitions to remove the statue which fell on deaf ears and all the council needed to do was move it into a museum. Slavers shouldn't be celebrated in this day and age with statues in public. It's not that hard to understand.
-
Sproty.
If it's not bleeding obvious, turn off RT for a few minutes and apply your ample brain to the question.
No, you stated Colton took part in Genoside, I disagree and I want you to substantiate your silly remark!
-
There's some proper drivel talked on this subject. I wonder why this in particular gets so many folks' backs up?
Nothing about this in particular, but then why would you ever miss an opportunity to throw in some cryptic insinuations,
The fact that this prevailing woke agenda with "warriors" like you to the fore is what winds up the majority even if its a mostly silent one.
I wonder who you and them will be calling when their house, belongings or family are affected.
I don't expect protestors to destroy images of my forebears, because they worked down the pit, not as financiers of genocide.
I don't expect protestors to occupy my house because it's a humdrum semi,paid for by years of humdrum work. Not a mansion paid for by theft, under the blessing of a fascist dictator.
You make it clear which side of these moral issues you are on. I hope you sleep well.
-
Sproty.
If it's not bleeding obvious, turn off RT for a few minutes and apply your ample brain to the question.
No, you stated Colton took part in Genoside, I disagree and I want you to substantiate your silly remark!
.and I told you to clear your head of your fascist propaganda and think about it before you decide that you want to continue with that line.
-
Sproty.
If it's not bleeding obvious, turn off RT for a few minutes and apply your ample brain to the question.
No, you stated Colton took part in Genoside, I disagree and I want you to substantiate your silly remark!
.and I told you to clear your head of your fascist propaganda and think about it before you decide that you want to continue with that line.
No, I want you to evidence your purple comment or take it back!
-
There's some proper drivel talked on this subject. I wonder why this in particular gets so many folks' backs up?
Nothing about this in particular, but then why would you ever miss an opportunity to throw in some cryptic insinuations,
The fact that this prevailing woke agenda with "warriors" like you to the fore is what winds up the majority even if its a mostly silent one.
I wonder who you and them will be calling when their house, belongings or family are affected.
I don't expect protestors to destroy images of my forebears, because they worked down the pit, not as financiers of genocide.
I don't expect protestors to occupy my house because it's a humdrum semi,paid for by years of humdrum work. Not a mansion paid for by theft, under the blessing of a fascist dictator.
You make it clear which side of these moral issues you are on. I hope you sleep well.
I don't think i made anything clear about any side that I'm on, i've no truck with racist slave traders or oligarchs on the make, I'd rather folk can sleep well in their beds on a night safe from agitators who wish to destabilize the nation because we have a totally incompetent and corrupt government, who just don't happen to agree to their leftist woke nonsense. You don't have to be 50plus and right wing to want to see justice metered out to criminals who attack other peoples property, belongings or family.
The statue of Coulson should of been removed if the people of Bristol wanted it, I'm all for a democratic society but when people decide to take the law into their own hands then the only thing that can come from that is anarchy, then even the likes of you in your humdrum semi paid for by humdrum work(years of) will not be safe.
I'm sure come that day you will be wanting the state to protect you and yours, just like us all.
Oh and i do sleep very well in my bed on a night but that's mostly because i don't have nightmares listening to James O'Brien whipping acolytes into a frenzy.
-
So those three examples I gave you of out and out law breaking. Presumably you disapprove of all three?
-
''From the 1990s onward the debate on the morality of glorifying Colston intensified. In 2018, a Bristol City Council project to add a second plaque to better contextualise the statue and summarise Colston's role in the slave trade resulted in an agreed wording and a cast plaque ready for installation. Its installation was vetoed in March 2019 by Bristol's mayor, Marvin Rees, who promised a rewording of the plaque which never materialised''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Edward_Colston
It has been debated for a long time and common sense surely would have dictated that it be put somewhere else.
One doesn't have to be woke to work that out.
-
So those three examples I gave you of out and out law breaking. Presumably you disapprove of all three?
Just because you quoted them doesn't make them relative to my point, you quoted out of context.
-
I quoted three examples of long-drlayed law-breaking. Do you agree that the people who broke those laws were morally correct in what they did?
-
I quoted three examples of long-drlayed law-breaking. Do you agree that the people who broke those laws were morally correct in what they did?
Morally correct and legally correct are two different things. one can be morally right but still end up doing time for breaking the law as it currently sits in the statute book.
-
Precisely. That's the issue. Sometimes breaking a law is the morally correct thing to do. To effect change.
It's notable that few people think the Colston statue should be re-erected.
Similarly, the occupation of a kleptocrat's mansion puts the issue of how we have disgustingly accommodated them right into the centre of discussion.
-
I posted this on an earlier thread about the case, these journalists attended the trial.
''We attended all ten days of the trial from the public gallery. While we cannot know the jury’s reasoning, it is unlikely that this was a “perverse” verdict – where the jury believes the defendants are guilty in law but still choose to acquit. In this case, the judge gave the jury a range of legal reasons to acquit the defendants''
https://theconversation.com/we-attended-the-trial-of-the-colston-four-heres-why-their-acquittal-should-be-celebrated-174481