Colston 4

[SydneyRover]

You can speak for me any time you wish phil, as long as it's reciprocal.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[idler]

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.

[phil old leake]

I’m not speaking for you Syd I wouldn’t dream of it but you are once again avoiding a very simple question

[SydneyRover]

I pretty much agree with the article from 'the conversation' that I posted

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Filo]

Criminal damage is criminal damage, you just can’t go around destroying things because you don’t like it

[SydneyRover]

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.

[Filo]

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

[SydneyRover]

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?

[wilts rover]

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.

[wilts rover]

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.

[Sprotyrover]

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!

[BillyStubbsTears]

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? 

[Filo]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Colemans Left Hook]

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

[phil old leake]

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

[drfchound]

Phil, give upon expecting a response.
He doesn’t do answers, he only diverts questions.

[Sprotyrover]

He never answers when he is on thin ice,a real keyboard Warrior

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[SydneyRover]

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?

[belton rover]

I don’t believe, for one second, that the Colston 4 are trying to improve our world.

[SydneyRover]

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 ...................

[belton rover]

I was responding to one of your comments, not attempting to answer your question.

But, in response to your question, they shouldn’t.

[SydneyRover]

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?

[belton rover]

They shouldn’t.
I don’t know what else you want me to say.

[SydneyRover]

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.

[belton rover]

But I said that the first time.

[drfchound]

#likestobecontroversial.