Tearing down statues

FoxEye said:
No I have not, so you'll have to explain that one to me.

Anyway, let's take a theoretical here, because it's fun. @hurfdurf has asserted that the law surrounding criminal damage is unjust.

I'm just interested in his thought process, so indulge me :p
Click to expand...


I’ve not said this. I have pointed out your lack of understanding of the law and how stupid you are being when it comes to discussing this, as evident by you claiming I’ve said that criminal damage laws are unjust.

I’ve quoted the law and presented at least 2 of the legal defences presented by the defendants. I’ve explained them to you. You’ve not understood them and replied that I think the law is unjust.

Then you’ve presented a scenario where neither defence fits at all. This shows your complete lack of understanding of the topic.

You’ve also outed yourself as the kind of coward that would follow an unjust law.
 
hurfdurf said:
I’ve not said this. I have pointed out your lack of understanding of the law and how stupid you are being when it comes to discussing this, as evident by you claiming I’ve said that criminal damage laws are unjust.

I’ve quoted the law and presented at least 2 of the legal defences presented by the defendants. I’ve explained them to you. You’ve not understood them and replied that I think the law is unjust.

Then you’ve presented a scenario where neither defence fits at all. This shows your complete lack of understanding of the topic.

You’ve also outed yourself as the kind of coward that would follow an unjust law.
Click to expand...

Your posts have been coherent, legally just and sensible. Your point about the statue having no owner is key here. You can't commit criminal damage against something with no owner, it doesn't satisfy the law.

Also, it's entirely right that laws change and whilst it is the responsibility of our politicians to amend the statute books; they have to be led to do so by public action as well as the courts interpretation of the law. Law isn't, and hasn't ever been, black and white. It's completely open to interpretation and is changed, frequently. This is part of the reason we have appeals. Also, it's entirely right that some things that were seen as crimes in the past are no longer and people have been acquitted (see the recent acquittal of some gay men). This can only be done by changing views in society. Blindly following the law, as Foxeye suggests, is not only cowardly but it's also against the entire point of our law and our society. We should respect the law, but we should also be guided what we know to be right and wrong. Of course, if this breaks the law of the day (or is seen to) then that should be investigated and tried. The law can then change if necessary. However, it should be noted that if IIRC, a jury decision doesn't change the law at all. Therefore, this decision doesn't give carte blanche to anything.

Finally, we don't prosecute because someone breaks the law. We prosecute because there's a public interest in doing so.

I'd also be interested in our own Bristol lawyer's view on this given his location and profession but I shan't out him! However, I understand that Hurf lives in Bristol (or did?) so perhaps has a better understanding of the case as not all of which he has said I've read.
 
Last edited:
Ahleckz said:
Your posts have been coherent, legally just and sensible.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I often feel like I’m shouting into a void on here bar for the amount of PM’s I get thanking me for my posts, it’s nice when someone does it publicly.

It’s easy to forget, but I think there are a handful of posters on here with learning difficulties or autism that literally cannot understand things beyond very basic black and white concepts who then try arguing with me, not due to bad faith, but because they literally cannot grasp anything slightly complex.

There are also some fairly intelligent people who genuinely disagree on topics because their world view is so vastly different, these people are utterly fascinating to me and I enjoy the way they explain their logic and framing of events to get to their conclusions. They haven’t shown up in this thread but are in most others I’ve had lots of back and forth with.

I do indeed still live in Bristol and have been involved in Countering Colston long before BLM.
 
LabR@t said:
Black washing history.
I feel sorry for kids of the future, history will make no sense.
Click to expand...

LabR@t said:
First they came for the statutes.....
Click to expand...

I think you've mdae your feelings pretty clear. Maybe we should continue to white wash history - it is written by the victors, as they say.

hurfdurf said:
It’s this kind of cowardice act that led to Rosa Parks being arrested. “Just following the law”.

Luckily there are brave people willing to stand up to unjust laws. It’s no surprise to me that you are not one of them.
Click to expand...

hurfdurf said:
Lot of very hysterical scared posters itt
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Typical case of racists being worried that someone will impinge on their ability to express their illogical hatred without recourse.

Jean-F said:
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?
Click to expand...

I understand the point you're making, but I think "laws are made to be broken" applies strongly here. When we had a smaller society, if there was a law that the collective you didn't like, it would eventually be changed. Now our society is enormous, the changing of laws is a lengthy and arduous process. The alternative to the legal route is to force societal change by common consensus. I think the message we should take from this case is that it is OK to remove public celebrations of our shameful past, and the action was carried out by society collectively. Surely no one is objecting to removal of celebrations of slavery - more the manner in which it was carried out?
 
hurfdurf said:
Thank you. I often feel like I’m shouting into a void on here bar for the amount of PM’s I get thanking me for my posts, it’s nice when someone does it publicly.

It’s easy to forget, but I think there are a handful of posters on here with learning difficulties or autism that literally cannot understand things beyond very basic black and white concepts who then try arguing with me, not due to bad faith, but because they literally cannot grasp anything slightly complex.

There are also some fairly intelligent people who genuinely disagree on topics because their world view is so vastly different, these people are utterly fascinating to me and I enjoy the way they explain their logic and framing of events to get to their conclusions. They haven’t shown up in this thread but are in most others I’ve had lots of back and forth with.

I do indeed still live in Bristol and have been involved in Countering Colston long before BLM.
Click to expand...

LMAO, talk about blowing smoke up ones arse.

"The amount of PM's I get thanking me for my posts" :cry::cry::cry:
 
tear it all down the whole country then rebuild it in our woke image.

I noticed in Necastle upon Toon a few placards around the city showing how cramped slave ships were like I give a monkeys......

what about some placards around "how little boys were abused by the Victorian age and forced to work horrendous jobs?
how the royal family came to power? was it giving out chocolates and sweets? or did they take it by force... did they crush the peasantry etc

the whole planets build on crap.... just wait 100 years it will be the billionaires like musk, gates, bezos etc getting all the flack for amassing insane fortunes whilst paying "slave labour wages"

it's no different to back in the day, no one got as rich as modern slave masters accept the modern ones aren't building schools, houses, hospitals, parks etc or anything that benefits society, so there won't be much to tear down when they are gone apart from a bunch of mansions
 
I don't even think @hurfdurf knows what the point he's making half the time. It's apparently he does like to feel superior, tho.

Is it just me or did he not repeatedly say we have a duty to break unjust laws. Given the law in question here is the law in criminal damage, either he has no point at all or he was saying that the law on criminal damage is unjust. But no, he tries to argue both ways. Both that breaking the law was just, and that the law itself is not unjust.

So it must be my "lack of intelligence" that fails to comprehend the brilliance of his argument, as always. Nice to see some of his onlyfans customers coming here to blow smoke up his ass, too. Who said customer loyalty is dead? :D
 
C Kent said:
Don't have that option - probably a post count thing
Click to expand...
The person in question has to have enabled (or not disabled) the PM option. I can't remember if it's enabled by default or disabled by default. So you may or may not get the option depending on the poster you're trying to PM.
 
FoxEye said:
The person in question has to have enabled (or not disabled) the PM option. I can't remember if it's enabled by default or disabled by default. So you may or may not get the option depending on the poster you're trying to PM.
Click to expand...
Well I clicked Hurf after his claim and didn't see the option, no biggie though.

As to the 4 getting off, I'm not surprised. This forced morality at the expense of laws has been creeping in for a few years now.
 
Ahleckz said:
Your posts have been coherent, legally just and sensible. Your point about the statue having no owner is key here. You can't commit criminal damage against something with no owner, it doesn't satisfy the law.

Also, it's entirely right that laws change and whilst it is the responsibility of our politicians to amend the statute books; they have to be led to do so by public action as well as the courts interpretation of the law. Law isn't, and hasn't ever been, black and white. It's completely open to interpretation and is changed, frequently. This is part of the reason we have appeals. Also, it's entirely right that some things that were seen as crimes in the past are no longer and people have been acquitted (see the recent acquittal of some gay men). This can only be done by changing views in society. Blindly following the law, as Foxeye suggests, is not only cowardly but it's also against the entire point of our law and our society. We should respect the law, but we should also be guided what we know to be right and wrong. Of course, if this breaks the law of the day (or is seen to) then that should be investigated and tried. The law can then change if necessary. However, it should be noted that if IIRC, a jury decision doesn't change the law at all. Therefore, this decision doesn't give carte blanche to anything.

Finally, we don't prosecute because someone breaks the law. We prosecute because there's a public interest in doing so.

I'd also be interested in our own Bristol lawyer's view on this given his location and profession but I shan't out him! However, I understand that Hurf lives in Bristol (or did?) so perhaps has a better understanding of the case as not all of which he has said I've read.
Click to expand...
So riddle me this. What happens when an angry mob has one definition of "right and wrong" and the silent majority do not agree with them?

Does the angry mob get to override the law because they see "right and wrong" differently?

Does the jury acquiescing to the angry mob prove that the their view was correct? Or can fear of retribution be a factor too... Who wants to be the member of the jury "outed" for voting the wrong way?
 
FoxEye said:
So it must be my "lack of intelligence" that fails to comprehend the brilliance of his argument, as always.
Click to expand...

It genuinely is this. You’ve failed to comprehend even basic ideas surrounding law and morality.


I’ll happily put more effort into engaging with you, but you must first post a lengthy and detailed explanation about how your old man being evicted analogy doesn’t fit the scenario or legal defences presented by the Colston 4 to demonstrate that you have the ability to learn from your past mistakes. Until then, I’m just going to point out how dumb your points are without helping you. If your posting meets my satisfaction I’ll engage more.
 
hurfdurf said:
It genuinely is this. You’ve failed to comprehend even basic ideas surrounding law and morality.


I’ll happily put more effort into engaging with you, but you must first post a lengthy and detailed explanation about how your old man being evicted analogy doesn’t fit the scenario or legal defences presented by the Colston 4 to demonstrate that you have the ability to learn from your past mistakes. Until then, I’m just going to point out how dumb your points are without helping you. If your posting meets my satisfaction I’ll engage more.
Click to expand...
Just lol.

Man you've been smoking something really strong today.

For the record, my scenario does not need to be exactly as the situation with the statue. It was merely to highlight that we don't enforce laws based on who the "good guys" and who the "bad guys" are. We enforce laws even against "good guys".

This is why we have laws against vigilantism and such.

It would appear that you view law as something that can and should be discarded when the people breaking it are the "good guys" and your morality agrees with theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom