hardly. watch it, at least for the first minute. you're over dramatic reply will match what your watching quite well
Tearing down statues
- Thread starter siezar
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I have a mental image of hurfdurf taking the knee before four losers whose claim to short term fame is vandalising a statue in Bristol
Done something = criminal damage ? or, obstructing others in their everyday life (extinction rebellion) -
the defendents, if Australians, would probably have become interested in sport over the last week, and would now be celebrating outside Novak's hotel, posting selfies of one another, living their best life.
the defendents, if Australians, would probably have become interested in sport over the last week, and would now be celebrating outside Novak's hotel, posting selfies of one another, living their best life.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,362
That Sage guy is so cringe. I think they're in part just feeling guilty about growing up in a place so central to the slave trade. They're acting like they've solved racism when all they've done is help cover up some inconvenient truths about the place they live.
“Between 1730 and 1746, Bristol’s slave voyages made up 20% of the whole of British trade.”
MYTH
In fact, it was much more: about 40% of British trade was made up by Bristol’s slaving voyages in this period. In the 1730s, on average 36 slave voyages left Bristol each year, with 53 in 1738. For these 16 years, Bristol was the leading slaving port, overtaking London and being overtaken in turn by Liverpool.
“Bristol’s slavers were responsible for shipping over half a million enslaved Africans.”
TRUE
British ships carried an estimated 3.1 million enslaved Africans altogether, although only 2.7 million survived the Atlantic crossing. Bristol traders were responsible for shipping about one-fifth of the total of enslaved Africans carried on British ships, that’s over 500,000.
“Many street names are connected to slavery.”
TRUE
https://www.bristolmuseums.org.uk/stories/bristol-transatlantic-slave-trade-myths-truths/
The issue most people seem to take is that they took the law into their own hands, admitted what they did and still were not punished. No-one is supporting what went on during the slave trade or venerating Colston. They just want a civil society where these kinds of things are debated and go through proper channels. Not simply decided by mob rule which is exactly what this was.
Anyway I'm sure it will all be sunshine and flowers in Bristol now and there will be nothing left to do for Antifa and friends. /sarcasm.
“Between 1730 and 1746, Bristol’s slave voyages made up 20% of the whole of British trade.”
MYTH
In fact, it was much more: about 40% of British trade was made up by Bristol’s slaving voyages in this period. In the 1730s, on average 36 slave voyages left Bristol each year, with 53 in 1738. For these 16 years, Bristol was the leading slaving port, overtaking London and being overtaken in turn by Liverpool.
“Bristol’s slavers were responsible for shipping over half a million enslaved Africans.”
TRUE
British ships carried an estimated 3.1 million enslaved Africans altogether, although only 2.7 million survived the Atlantic crossing. Bristol traders were responsible for shipping about one-fifth of the total of enslaved Africans carried on British ships, that’s over 500,000.
“Many street names are connected to slavery.”
TRUE
- Colston Street was named after Edward Colston, well known for his involvement in the slave and sugar trade: however there are many other lesser known connections.
To name just a few: - Elton Road – the Elton family were investors in the brass industry, and also owned slave ships.
- Farr Lane – the Farrs were rope makers and slave traders.
- Tyndalls Avenue – the Tyndalls invested in slaving ventures.
- Winterstoke Road – Lord Winterstoke was head of the Wills family, associated with the slave-grown commodity of tobacco.
https://www.bristolmuseums.org.uk/stories/bristol-transatlantic-slave-trade-myths-truths/
The issue most people seem to take is that they took the law into their own hands, admitted what they did and still were not punished. No-one is supporting what went on during the slave trade or venerating Colston. They just want a civil society where these kinds of things are debated and go through proper channels. Not simply decided by mob rule which is exactly what this was.
Anyway I'm sure it will all be sunshine and flowers in Bristol now and there will be nothing left to do for Antifa and friends. /sarcasm.
i like this post. sums up a lot of this thread quite well. a load of semi incomprehensible waffle.
Was he the working class kid who became a ballet dancer?
They admitted to bringing the statue down, they didn’t admit to breaking the law. The court have found they did not commit a criminal offence. In fact, one of the arguments put forth is that the statue has now dramatically increased in value, so no damage done.
You’ve mentioned proper channels, have you looked into the efforts made and the private corruption and lies put forth by the council to delay and prevent the legal removal?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,362
Bringing the statue down IS criminal damage and was even filmed as you well know. Whether the statue has increased in value is irrelevant.
I'm aware at least in part of some of the issues with the process yes. The correct response is to fix the process, not bypass it entirely using mob tactics. That's not a world most sensible people want to live in.
Of all the nonsensical arguments it this thread the claim that the statue has (according to some) gone up in value ergo there was no criminal damage is the most impressively ignorant.
Most UK laws (Inc criminal damage) rely on two things being proven... often expressed by their Latin terms.
Actus refused - the actual act completed
Mens rea - the 'guilty mind' of a person. Basically their intent or recklessness
The suggestion that the people pulling down the statue and dumping it in the water had anything but its wanton destruction in mind is quite impressively risible!
That their actions and the attention it drew may have inadvertently caused the value of something to go up, according to some, is totally irrelevant to the law.
As much so as if someone famous stole something mundane in a high profile manner and then claimed it was OK when they were arrested and the stolen item was recovered as it would now be 'worth more' because of the connection to them.
Most UK laws (Inc criminal damage) rely on two things being proven... often expressed by their Latin terms.
Actus refused - the actual act completed
Mens rea - the 'guilty mind' of a person. Basically their intent or recklessness
The suggestion that the people pulling down the statue and dumping it in the water had anything but its wanton destruction in mind is quite impressively risible!
That their actions and the attention it drew may have inadvertently caused the value of something to go up, according to some, is totally irrelevant to the law.
As much so as if someone famous stole something mundane in a high profile manner and then claimed it was OK when they were arrested and the stolen item was recovered as it would now be 'worth more' because of the connection to them.
Last edited:
Read the criminal damage legislation they were charged under and get back to me before you are so sure about that, because some very expensive well to do barristers successfully argued in court that they did not commit the crime of criminal damage.
Can tell you don’t have a law degree, as you are now confusing the 1968 Theft act with the Criminal Damage act of 1971. It would be very poor form to try and use a criminal damage defence to defend someone being prosecuted for theft wouldn’t it. Come on. Use your brain.
The same principles apply to both.
It's an impressively stupid claim to make that a criminals actions inadvertently causing the victim to have financially benefitted in some manner means no crime has been committed.
he was ridiculing defendent rhian graham - who suggested increased value somehow abdicated her responsibility - which reflects on her lack of intelligence and credibiliity of whatever she said in her defence.
No it doesn’t? One actively counters the wording in the act, the other doesn’t.
Only her defence worked…
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,713
- Location
- Under the Hill
You're on a forum, all your words are equally without substance from behind the safety of a keyboard
You're on a forum, all your words are equally without substance from behind the safety of a keyboard
I say watching myself in some of the footage
Renaming street names could easily include signage detailing the history of the street, ergo no loss of history just like with the statue being in a museum.
Very inconsiderate of you to take part in a super spreader eventI say watching myself in some of the footage