Oh noes, how will I sleep at night
Great stuff FoxEye, well said.
I’ve no time for slavery nor the supporters of slavery, but having said that, had I been
on the jury I would have found the four accused guilty of causing criminal damage.
Tearing down statues
- Thread starter siezar
- Start date
Great stuff FoxEye, well said.
I’ve no time for slavery nor the supporters of slavery, but having said that, had I been
on the jury I would have found the four accused guilty of causing criminal damage.
Why do you consider the law to be more important than what is right?
This is a funny question.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,714
- Location
- Under the Hill
Because it is not up to you or I to simply decide what is legal or not on a whim.
mob-rule is now right - imagine if one of these was a work colleague - I suppose some unfortunates must be -
the BBC had already deified them a few months back making a programme about them.
“Make no mistake members of the jury, your decision is not just going to be felt in this court room or this city,” said Liam Walker QC, representing Sage Willoughby. “It will be reverberate around the world. I urge you all to be on the right side of history.”
how does the judge permit such statements, worse the idea that the QC was playing to the media, and what it says about the jury members if he thought they were susceptible to such comments.
the BBC had already deified them a few months back making a programme about them.
“Make no mistake members of the jury, your decision is not just going to be felt in this court room or this city,” said Liam Walker QC, representing Sage Willoughby. “It will be reverberate around the world. I urge you all to be on the right side of history.”
how does the judge permit such statements, worse the idea that the QC was playing to the media, and what it says about the jury members if he thought they were susceptible to such comments.
It's surely is: that's why we have a jury of our peers.
However, that wasn't the question.
If you know something to be morally correct, why would you defend a law that persecuted it?
I just don't understand that outlook.
Why?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,972
Also in democracies we make our case, change public opinion and follow the law. The rule of law is what makes democracy possible. When we decide that breaking the law is acceptable on aesthetic grounds we lose our democracy but by bit. But the numb nuts who did this are part of a so called progressive movement that across a wide array of issues show themselves to be the enemies of genuine liberalism.
I don’t approve of giving in to the mob whether they be mugs for CRT or Extinction Rebellion idiots.
I don’t approve of giving in to the mob whether they be mugs for CRT or Extinction Rebellion idiots.
“A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property belonging to another”
So, the lawful excuse was to prevent a hate crime from continuing, and the statue wasn’t taken down legally because everyone was disavowing ownership. No ownership of it means no victim, which means no crime. There are multiple legal arguments that taking the statue down was legal.
Not only has this thread exposed the cowards who dare not break a law even if it is wrong, but who also don’t have the intelligence to understand how to get around laws and provide a defence.
I imagine they sleep stupidly, like dullards, and afraid, as per their telling on themselves.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
So, the lawful excuse was to prevent a hate crime from continuing, and the statue wasn’t taken down legally because everyone was disavowing ownership. No ownership of it means no victim, which means no crime. There are multiple legal arguments that taking the statue down was legal.
Not only has this thread exposed the cowards who dare not break a law even if it is wrong, but who also don’t have the intelligence to understand how to get around laws and provide a defence.
I imagine they sleep stupidly, like dullards, and afraid, as per their telling on themselves.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
We did follow the law - they were found Not Guilty.
Why do you consider that you have the right to decide what is right or wrong?
And why do you consider that if you don’t approve of something you should be able to destroy it even when destroying it is unlawful?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,345
- Location
- London
Hard to argue that when the verdict reached has no lawful reason.
The jury found them not guilty. Seems pretty solid to me.
Multiple legal arguments were put forward to the jury as to why it was legal.
Because I have an inate moral compass that doesn't rely on the law to tell me what is right and wrong. Surely everyone can do the same?
Explain how the law against criminal damage is unjust. I'll wait.
Also please explain how an inanimate object erected before any of us were born (1895 for the record) can constitute a hate crime. Presumably the perpetrator (in your view) is anyone who disagrees with its removal? Or maybe the sculptor who made it? Or the person who erected it? Who is committing this hate crime?
e: One last thing. You cannot be guilty of a crime that did not exist at the time of the alleged offense. That's a basic human right, btw. Laws cannot (or should not) be retroactively applied after creation.
So the people who erected the statue cannot be guilty of these hate crimes. So you'll need to find another perp.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,345
- Location
- London
As is the right of the jury, doesn't mean it follows the law.
Similar to the Shell HQ Vs Extinction Rebellion verdict, just because a legal argument is presented doesn't mean it's applicable. The Shell case had no basis in law and the jurors were specially told this.
You can still support the verdict and admit that it's not technically following the law.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,084
What a total joke. If they were going let people committing criminal damage off scot free why bother wasting public money and time with the trial in the first place?
It was a silly prosecution, it's fair to say.
No it wasn't. Now we're saying that the police and CPS should only selectively apply the law.
Seriously, you guys are asking for the law to be selectively applied based on either individual conscience, or social media trends, etc, etc.
You cannot seriously want the law to be a popularity contest? Really? That's what you actually want?