Tearing down statues

Freddie1980 said:
I wonder if the CPS will appeal the verdict in the CoA?
Click to expand...

A nice thought, but I doubt it, reading a column in a paper today the writer said;
“This acquittal surely diminishes the severity of ideolologically-motivated destruction of property.
Yes we have to respect that the four defendants on trial for this are now nothing but innocent under the law.
That is an unfortunate reality I and others will reluctantly swallow.”
I guess that in taking that as a regrettable fact, I presumed that that is the end of the story as far as judicial proceedings go, but in another piece in the paper a source said,
“The integrity of the jury system is under serious question.”
Ex Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said, “It is open to the prosecution to consider whether to make a reference to The Court of Appeal for clarity about the law.”
So who knows, we can live in hope.
 
They're still wrong as the refurbishment isn't complete and won't be until next year.

Googled wrong no doubt whilst I am looking at the building right now. :D
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59909823
The Attorney General is "carefully considering" whether to refer the Bristol Edward Colston statue case to the Court of Appeal.

Four people were cleared of criminal damage at Bristol Crown Court for toppling the monument in June 2020 during a Black Lives Matter protest.

Suella Braverman said trial by jury was "an important guardian of liberty" but the result was "causing confusion".
Click to expand...
Trial by jury an important guardian of liberty but we dont like the outcome. Not surprising really coming from the same government that brought in a rule to say the government dont have to listen to the courts/judges if they dont want to.
 
hurfdurf said:
Answer the question. You’ve made a statement, back it up. Following your logic, what would you rather a plaque in Savilles name honouring him or we tear down the whole wing?
Click to expand...

Oh the plaque. For sure, the hospital wing gives succour and healing to countless sick people, the plaque merely offends the overly sensitive who are blind to the good but rampantly tenacious over the evil side of men. I have yet to meet a man or woman without a dark side of some shade.

If you are mounting your high horse over those you feel unworthy of historical reference, physical or textual, at least take the trouble to get their names correct in your blur of bile ;)

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG
 
Attorney general , Buckland etc - Concensus that there has been a miscarriage, so reasoned debate, and appeal - not a mob reaction of
dragging the defendants to the water and throwing them in ? (the fact that the witches may now be pardonned is probably little solace to them)
 
Chris Wilson said:
Oh the plaque. For sure, the hospital wing gives succour and healing to countless sick people, the plaque merely offends the overly sensitive who are blind to the good but rampantly tenacious over the evil side of men. I have yet to meet a man or woman without a dark side of some shade.

If you are mounting your high horse over those you feel unworthy of historical reference, physical or textual, at least take the trouble to get their names correct in your blur of bile ;)

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG
Click to expand...

And you see no alternative, where by we don’t honour the child rapist, but keep the hospital wing?
 
jpaul said:
Attorney general , Buckland etc - Concensus that there has been a miscarriage, so reasoned debate, and appeal - not a mob reaction of
dragging the defendants to the water and throwing them in ? (the fact that the witches may now be pardonned is probably little solace to them)
Click to expand...
But, Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg said juries were the "great sublime protector of liberties".
Click to expand...
Well I never.
 
hurfdurf said:
And you see no alternative, where by we don’t honour the child rapist, but keep the hospital wing?
Click to expand...

If Mr Savile raised the money and the hospital utilised it, keep the plaque. You could put another under it to satisfy your contempt "This wing was built by money raised by Sir James Savile, later found by his peers to be a child molester, but we decided to keep the wing anyway, because our morals have financially boundaries".

That better? ;)
 
hurfdurf said:
I mean, the statue is essentially a large plaque, it offers nothing of value to anyone other than to honour the person it’s a statue of.
Click to expand...

It has artistic and historic value, could you make one? Are you in support of works of art and literature being destroyed because someone is "offended"?
 
hurfdurf said:
I mean, the statue is essentially a large plaque, it offers nothing of value to anyone other than to honour the person it’s a statue of.
Click to expand...
You would have thought that after 26 pages that was the whole point of the discussion.

I could maybe understand the annoyance in this thread more if it was Churchills statue but its a slave trader that no one outside of Bristol really even knows or had heard of before the toppling.
 
Chris Wilson said:
If Mr Savile raised the money and the hospital utilised it, keep the plaque. You could put another under it to satisfy your contempt "This wing was built by money raised by Sir James Savile, later found by his peers to be a child molester, but we decided to keep the wing anyway, because our morals have financially boundaries".

That better? ;)
Click to expand...

Funnily enough a new plaque was suggested for the Colston statue which would outline both the good and bad of what he did.

Typically no one could agree on the wording.
 
Caracus2k said:
Juries can and do return perverse verdicts. It's one of the primary weaknesses of the jury system.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it's the sole merit of the Jury system. Juries are completely unnecessary for assessing evidence; and their many, many well documented and systematic biases and flaws mean they are likely much worse at correctly assessing evidence than continental style "inquisitorial" courts. The merit is that they give a system for the conscience of the public to override the letter of the law: by issuing a perverse verdict.

adam cool dude said:
No but it was built to use slaves to fight each other to the death. Isn't that even worse?
Click to expand...

Complete aside: but, actually, gladiators very rarely fought to the death. While some died in the arena and there were some fights to the death these were usually between criminals who had been sentenced to death in the arena: actual gladiators were much too valuable to be routinely thrown into fights to the death.
 
I saw the judgment on the news the other day. How the hell can that NOT be criminal damage. Have they just made case law that we can pull down statues just because a large number of people disagree with them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom