This is why the Colston statue crowd should not have got off

[phil old leake]

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

[wilts rover]

Down with jury trials - lets just live in a police state.

[drfchound]

Wilts, don’t forget that some people don’t like or trust the police.

[SydneyRover]

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.

[drfchound]

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.

[roversdude]

I agree with phil, the law is an ass

[drfchound]

As do I dude.

[SydneyRover]

I agree with phil, the law is an ass
[/quote

What would you like to see change RD?

[wilts rover]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Amazing how many people who weren't in that court room are so sure that the jury got it wrong.

[drfchound]

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?

[phil old leake]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[phil old leake]

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.

[SydneyRover]

And if everyone that disagreed with any particular verdict had their way?

[roversdude]

I guess Australia is full of people who disagreed with verdicts lol

[SydneyRover]

I guess Australia is full of people who disagreed with verdicts lol

What would you like to see changed RD?

[drfchound]

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.

[BobG]

I rather think trespass is a civil matter. If my memory is correct then trespass is not enshrined in law.

BobG

[phil old leake]

Agreed hound. 

Let’s see how it plays out

[SydneyRover]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[drfchound]

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.

[phil old leake]

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

[idler]

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.

[drfchound]

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.

[danumdon]

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!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

There's some proper drivel talked on this subject. I wonder why this in particular gets so many folks' backs up?

[drfchound]

It could be because some people are trying to find an argument where there isn’t or wasn’t one for 125 years.