Colston 4

[phil old leake]

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

[Axholme Lion]

How is this possible? So if i go and smash the windows at Charlton is that ok?

[sha66y]

How is this possible? So if i go and smash the windows at Charlton is that ok?

No ….just normal…lololololol

[sha66y]

Should have been jailed…..

[phil old leake]

Agreed sha66y it’s a disgrace

[SydneyRover]

what we need is a government that will change the laws so that ministers can overrule the judiciary.

[Glyn_Wigley]

what we need is a government that will change the laws so that ministers can overrule the judiciary.

Absolutely not.

[SydneyRover]

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

[roversdude]

Bizarre decision

[wilts rover]

A clear and concise reasoning as to why the Colston 4 decision is a farce:

https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1479094358120878080

[phil old leake]

She speaks slot of sense albeit she is a bit annoying

[SydneyRover]

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''

[Superspy]

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.

[SydneyRover]

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

[phil old leake]

You’re right Superspy.  That decision has made a mockery of the judicial system

[Axholme Lion]

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?

[SydneyRover]

Because I believe in the the jury system, the law allowed for them to be found innocent and they were.

[drfchound]

Lots of posters on here have said people aren’t found to be innocent, but that they have been found not guilty.

[Axholme Lion]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

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!

[BillyStubbsTears]

This.

https://mobile.twitter.com/simonjhix/status/1479444604978143234

[SydneyRover]

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

[phil old leake]

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

[SydneyRover]

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.

[Colemans Left Hook]

Colston .... could say another 4 free result   


Remember the definition of a white Christmas is one "snowflake" and the world is full of them.

[SydneyRover]

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

[wilts rover]

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.

[phil old leake]

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

[SydneyRover]

Off topic phil, were talking about a real case and about real people, not scenarios.

[phil old leake]

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