Tearing down statues

[Caracus2k]

No it doesn’t? One actively counters the wording in the act, the other doesn’t.

What are you on about? I post the exact wording of the relevant act/ section before... S1. Criminal damage act 1971

1Destroying or damaging property.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

I covered 'lawful excuse in my previous post, the statue was obviously damaged, the statue did belong to another party (it was a listed monument looked after by the local authority) and the intent to cause the damage is clear.


There is zero requirement for their to be a net loss to the owner in a financial sense. So there is no lawful defence in UK law to criminal damage to claim that the damage inadvertently caused the value of the damaged item to rise.

To be clear it would not even matter if that was the intention of the person causing the damage (to raise the value of the item by their actions) if they believed that the own would not consent to them causing the damage in the 1st place!

 

[hurfdurf]

But the council gave the run around for 10 years, agreeing it should come down but then denying ownership. The council has also agreed it should have come down years ago.

The statue was not damaged, it was significantly improved.

And finally, the tearing down of the statue was legal because it prevented the greater hate crime of it being put up in the first place.

 

[C Kent]

Hurt fee fees take president over an actual crime, love it

 

[jpaul]

yep - lost it now, or, satire mode - significantly improved - prevented greater hate crime

misconception of those people involved in the riots who thought they were doing the will of the majority, who, they thought, thought the statues were some kind of accolade/celebration, as opposed to poignant reminder of the past, in fact they were doing it for themselves as a sign of appeasement for their own realised ignorance.
has parallelsa with likes of fahrenheit 9/11 book burning, or Cambodia return to agricultural collectivism strategy.

what has actually been improved now ? - has there been any post-mortem survey of local communities, to see if they feel more cohesive,
above what ? - a well placed plaque to educate people of the statues origins

 

[Caracus2k]

But the council gave the run around for 10 years, agreeing it should come down

As posted earlier in the thread there were multiple polls none of which had a win for the statues removal. Individual may have suggested taking the statue down but it wasn't the ever the agreed position to remove it.

Bristol had not considered removing Colston statue before toppling, trial hears
Bristol had not considered removing the statue of Edward Colston before its toppling by protesters, despite “significant concerns” about its presence among the local black community, the city council’s head of culture has said.

The last proposal was in relation to adding a new plaque to contextualise Colstons actions which makes your next claim even more ridiculous....

but then denying ownership.

Unsubstantiated nonsense

Finch gave evidence for the prosecution about the damage caused to the Colston statue and surrounding street furniture when it was toppled during a Black Lives Matter protest attended by 10,000 people on 7 June last year. He said the maintenance and upkeep of the statue was his department’s role, and that no permission had been given by the council for it to be removed or altered.

The council has also agreed it should have come down years ago.

No they didn't, see above, another repeated Hurf lie

The statue was not damaged, it was significantly improved.

The statute was obviously damaged by any coherent use of the word and any (subjective/ alleged) change in value is irrelevant to the offence as proving a net financial loss isn't a necessary part of the offence

And finally, the tearing down of the statue was legal because it prevented the greater hate crime of it being put up in the first place.

More nonsense. What 'greater hate crime' was that?

For example If a shop had a sign up that you thought breached S.4A of the public order 1984 act and that was racially aggravated as per S.28 of the crime and disorder act 1988 the correct approach would be to report the matter to police not assemble a mob and pull down the shopfront containing the sign in question.


The fact that something might upset or annoy you personally or even a collection of people isn't in and of itself grounds to claim something is a 'hate crime'





All this nonsense over statues reminds me of my previous post where the supposedly post systemic racial oppression 'rainbow nations' of SA erected a statue to a vicious, genocidal war monger in 2015 and they complainants were not that such a statue was inappropriate in its time because of the subject but because he was shown in a pastoral scene and not armed with the weapons of war used to commit said genocide!

The Zulu's are (not always so well) remembered for their vicious warmongering and expansionist drive (launched under Shaka) through the south of the African continent which is known as the Mfecane 'The Crushing'

'The Zulu practice was to absorb only the women and young men of a clan or village. They killed the elderly and men of fighting age; the lucky ones escaped.'

It was of course this expansionistic, bloodthirsty warmongering that bought the Zulu's into conflict with another, at the time, colonialist force, The British Empire, around the time of the Battle of Rourke's drift .

Fast forward to today and we have the wonderful 'Rainbow nation' that is South Africa complete with legitimised open state racism against whites and we find a fairly recently re dedicated airport named in honour of the bloodthirsty murdering tyrant that was Shaka....

King Shaka International Airport so dedicated in 2010...........


An internet search for 'controversy king shaka zulu airport' on a popular internet search engine brings up a front page filled with stories concerned not with whether it was a good idea, in modern times, to name an international airport after a murdering, expansionistic warlord but instead a page filled with articles about how people were annoyed that a recently erected statue to said murdering tyrant didn't show him armed to the teeth with the very weapons used by his troops to kill what may have been 1 - 2 million of their fellow 'black' Africans


Of course the good old BBC described Shaka rather euphemistically as being a 'Warrior King' where as they describe a white man (who was arguably far less destructive in his time), Cecil Rhodes as being an 'imperialist'

 

[hurfdurf]

As posted earlier in the thread there were multiple polls none of which had a win for the statues removal. Individual may have suggested taking the statue down but it wasn't the ever the agreed position to remove it.



The last proposal was in relation to adding a new plaque to contextualise Colstons actions which makes your next claim even more ridiculous....



Unsubstantiated nonsense







No they didn't, see above, another repeated Hurf lie






The statute was obviously damaged by any coherent use of the word and any (subjective/ alleged) change in value is irrelevant to the offence as proving a net financial loss isn't a necessary part of the offence






More nonsense. What 'greater hate crime' was that?

For example If a shop had a sign up that you thought breached S.4A of the public order 1984 act and that was racially aggravated as per S.28 of the crime and disorder act 1988 the correct approach would be to report the matter to police not assemble a mob and pull down the shopfront containing the sign in question.


The fact that something might upset or annoy you personally or even a collection of people isn't in and of itself grounds to claim something is a 'hate crime'





All this nonsense over statues reminds me of my previous post where the supposedly post systemic racial oppression 'rainbow nations' of SA erected a statue to a vicious, genocidal war monger in 2015 and they complainants were not that such a statue was inappropriate in its time because of the subject but because he was shown in a pastoral scene and not armed with the weapons of war used to commit said genocide!

I’ll give it to you, you are well sourced and have engaged intelligently enough that I am actually going to put in an effort post for the first time in months to reply to this when I’ve got a moment! Fair play Caracus2k, this is a first for a long long time in GD, someone actually worth having a discussion with.

 

[godinman]

Now all Caracus needs is a decent opponent.

Burn.

 

[Richie]

I’ll give it to you, you are well sourced and have engaged intelligently enough that I am actually going to put in an effort post for the first time in months to reply to this when I’ve got a moment! .

You do realise how pompous, patronising and arrogant you come across here?... Quite an unintelligent post TBH.

 

[jpaul]

don't really think this is his damascene conversion (fool me once) but - as an apparent attendee if he can explain net benefit of the Bristol event.

 

[alchal]

But the council gave the run around for 10 years, agreeing it should come down but then denying ownership. The council has also agreed it should have come down years ago.

The statue was not damaged, it was significantly improved.

And finally, the tearing down of the statue was legal because it prevented the greater hate crime of it being put up in the first place.

Does that mean any kind of Roman or viking statue etc requires tearing down due to what they did as well?
The amphitheaters in particular I would guess due to the carnage and slaves used?


Just curious in how far back this can all go?

 

[PlacidCasual]

We don't need to tear anything down. Slavery was the World norm everywhere until the 19th Century. It was only colonialism that actually stopped slavery in many countries by imposing relatively new (at the time) Western norms on those countries. Which it should go without saying is not a defence of colonialism (though one might be made) but rather an observation about the pervasiveness of slavery. Our view of slavery is utterly distored by the American Civil War, the civli rights movement and most recently the culture war in the US that is spilling it's poison through the rest of the Western World.

If people want their public spaces changed to reflect current cultural norms then they should do it deomcratically.If it takes time or they don't always get their way they should respect that as part of democracy's intrinisic benefits that most systems lag cultural change and that small vocal minorities don't always get to define the changes for larger less vocal majorities.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Does that mean any kind of Roman or viking statue etc requires tearing down due to what they did as well?
The amphitheaters in particular I would guess due to the carnage and slaves used?


Just curious in how far back this can all go?

Can anyone prove their ancestry back to the ancient Britons? They have grounds to tear down everything apart from Stonehenge. All those Norman churches will have to go as well.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

I would bet money that even stonehenge had slaves involved in its construction. In fact there probably isn't a single aspect of history that didn't have some form of involvement with slavery at some point.

 

[i-bert]

I would bet money that even stonehenge had slaves involved in its construction. In fact there probably isn't a single aspect of history that didn't have some form of involvement with slavery at some point.

But these structures/buildings sole purpose isn't to honour the person involved in slave trading. That's where they differ from statues.

 

[potatolord]

Can anyone prove their ancestry back to the ancient Britons? They have grounds to tear down everything apart from Stonehenge. All those Norman churches will have to go as well.

My Mrs did a family tree recently and I was disappointed to find out nearly all my ancestors were farm labourers, miners, ironworkers and other similarly boring jobs. She got back to the 18th century before hitting a brick wall as everyone was called William Williams, John Jones etc which makes things rather tricky.

Not a single pirate or slaver to be found, which was rather disappointing.

 

[hurfdurf]

You do realise how pompous, patronising and arrogant you come across here?... Quite an unintelligent post TBH.

Have you seen the utter dross that gets posted in GD normally? It’s nice to actually have someone reply decently for once.

 

[jpaul]

But these structures/buildings sole purpose isn't to honour the person involved in slave trading. That's where they differ from statues.

and at Dachau etc. we re-purpose/maintain objects as memorials of genocide (not sure I've really seen slavery labelled as such)

 

[Efour]

But these structures/buildings sole purpose isn't to honour the person involved in slave trading. That's where they differ from statues.

Cant you not see slavery was just the JCB excavator of history?

Is it morally repugnant now? Yes it is.

Was it morally repugnant in the time? Apparently not for 1000s of years, until in Western Europe a bunch of Christians come along and decided that we are all gods children and its easier to subdue and convert them to religion whilst exploiting their homeland.

People need to get a grip. There's millions still involved in modern slavery all over the middle east, Asia and northern Africa but we dont give a **** about them.

Its much easier to pull down a 10 foot statue than actually do anything to help real people alive today.

 

[C Kent]

Have you seen the utter dross that gets posted in GD normally? It’s nice to actually have someone reply decently for once.

And yet by your own admission you regularly contribute to said dross

 

[i-bert]

Cant you not see slavery was just the JCB excavator of history?

Is it morally repugnant now? Yes it is.

Was it morally repugnant in the time? Apparently not for 1000s of years, until in Western Europe a bunch of Christians come along and decided that we are all gods children and its easier to subdue and convert them to religion whilst exploiting their homeland.

People need to get a grip. There's millions still involved in modern slavery all over the middle east, Asia and northern Africa but we dont give a **** about them.

Its much easier to pull down a 10 foot statue than actually do anything to help real people alive today.

I totally agree. I just believe that this particular statue should have been moved through the official channels, and I think they should been charged with criminal damage and at least done some community service.