Tearing down statues
- Thread starter siezar
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,345
- Location
- London
Oh noes, how will I sleep at night
Hurf supports beating up people he imagines to be fascists (which judging by his posting history would be a fair amount of society)
Probably the simplest lesson to take from this is to not take lessons on morality or the law from a (former?) BDSM prostitute.
And the Rosa Park comparison is as silly as you would expect from Hurf as well.
The segregation laws were unjust because the were targeted at people based on their apparent ethnicity.
The laws on criminal damage apply to everyone equally and there is very broad support for the idea that you should not just be able to smash stuff up because you dislike it.
One of the reasons the statue had remained in place for so long was that when the council had canvassed wider public opinion there wasn't support for its removal.
Nonsence on stilts that everyone was disavowing ownership. Go look at the wrangling over changing the plaque on the statue in the years before to see how many people took a very keen interest in what happened to it.
Prevent a 'hate crime' from continuing ffs the state of the contemporary hysterical left!
No I have not, so you'll have to explain that one to me.You ever been to Notting Hill Carnival? The law is selectively applied.
Anyway, let's take a theoretical here, because it's fun. @hurfdurf has asserted that the law surrounding criminal damage is unjust.
So let's say a rich (and evil!) banker evicts a destitute old man, and makes him homeless. He turns the house into a love nest where he beds his new 16 year old girlfriend (the banker is much, much older). Later, the old man (now homeless) is seen on surveillance footage slashing the tyres of the rich bankers car. The case goes to courts, where the jury acquits the old man. Does that further show the law on criminal damage to be unjust by definition? Does the jury reach the morally correct outcome? They clearly don't reach the lawful outcome. Is the old man's action justified because we dislike the rich banker?
I'm just interested in his thought process, so indulge me
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,714
- Location
- Under the Hill
The jury is there to determine if the perpetrator commited the unlawful act. Instead they decided that despite the perpetrators being clearly known and that criminal damage did indeed take place, they were not guilty.
Imagine a case of child murderer caught by a mob who hang the perpetrator. I fully understand their actions, but they are not entitled to act without recourse and a jury should never find them not guilty.
If you don't like the statue then start a petition, get overwhelming support if the moral cause has concsensus and then force the council to act.
Is it known that the majority wanted it to come down? If so, where is the conclusive evidence that this was the will of the majority?
Or is it simply that decades of campaigning did not effect the specific outcome the campaigners wanted?
They were asked repeatedly and the mob didn't get the answer they wanted...
One of the the problems of jury service is that hard working decent people often have to ask to be excused because they can't take 2 weeks to an unspecified length of time away from work and so juries are dissproportionally filled with the idle and often more feckless members of society.
It would certainly be a monument to the utter depravity of a large section of society....
And I would not erect a new statue of Colston either but vandalising historical monuments is a bit different.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Or just someone that is more worthy of a place on a plinth. Or just an abstact statue with a plaque saying this statue replaces the slave trader Colston who donated money to Bristol.
I know you're baiting, but in the extremely unlikely event that you're serious, what is GF's relevance to Bristol, or indeed anyone in the UK, and why would anyone want a statue of GF over here?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Not that I would but probably more than those that want a Colston statue.
Well in all seriousness I might point towards one of Floyd's ancestors being trafficked across the Atlantic, but yes it was mostly in jest.
Ah but you're forgetting that so many of these folks involved in these events are far more morally superior to everyone else and, as such, they're allowed to do absolutely anything they want without issue i.e. burning down part of a city = peaceful protest etc or pulling down a statue = perfectly legal etc because they, and only they, are "on the right side of history" which, and I'm absolutely sure of this, no bad person has ever thought.
On the other hand personally I find it disgusting that the bigoted, racist hypocrites of Bristol are apparently still happy to live in Houses built by this evil man, use the Hospital founded by this evil man, get educated in the various Schools and the University funded by this evil man and every single person who has ever benefited from living in Bristol since Colston's time should be legally forced to pay reparations after they have all directly benefited from Slavery, the evil bigots.
Hell, I'd even go a step further and immediately shut down every single thing in Bristol that Colston paid for, founded, or even has even had his name on it and demolish all of it within a week and if you don't agree with me 100% then you're a hypocritical racist bigot too, you white supremacist bigot!!!!!
am I doing it right?
I think that you’re totally out of order with that statement.
When I did jury service, which I did my best to get out of, purely because of the earnings I’d inevitably lose, they all seemed a reasonable cross section of society to me, no Mastermind contestants, but a mixture of housewives, manual workers, white collar workers and one retiree.
They discussed the case intelligently, put forward cogent arguments, asked questions and made suggestions, and made a fair and legal decision in the end.
No matter your feelings on the subject, they broke the law by committing criminal damage, so it wasn’t a silly prosecution.
You’re not that far off saying, “Okay my brother robbed a bank, but he needed the money, it would be silly to prosecute him.”
Your anecdotal experience may not have been typical of the wider picture which isn't great. Too many old people and people unable to understand the instructions given to them. And I'm not sure what your mention of trying to get out of jury service adds other than to show that Juries have a self selecting factor in them because certain groups from society are more likely to try and get out of Jury service
Are juries fair? (justice.gov.uk)
Judges even had to stop using 'beyond reasonable doubt' as this was too tricky for so many juries
Judges have been told to stop using 'beyond reasonable doubt' because jurors don't understand what it means and ask if they're 'satisfied that they are sure' instead.
It became so bad that they had to overturn the previous direction that barred police officer, barristers, judges, doctors, midwife's etc from sitting in Juries so there was at least a slightly greater chance or at least some juries having some people on them that might understand what they were being told
Last edited: