Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,350
- Location
- London
This line of thinking would make sense if they were pulling down things Colston built, rather than a statue to the man.
Tearing down statues
- Thread starter siezar
- Start date
This line of thinking would make sense if they were pulling down things Colston built, rather than a statue to the man.
Was to avoid a riot, normally they would have hung them all from the nearest tree
Give it time, with this verdict they'll be emboldened to pull anything down they fancy. You can bet this is just the start.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,350
- Location
- London
Can't say i'm bothered about more slave owner statues being pulled down.
So the law should not apply to an angry mob? Angry mobs of SJWs should have free reign to cause criminal damage, so long as they or their supporters are offended?
Seems an odd stance to take.
Let's not forget that there are legal avenues to have statues removed, via public debate and consensus.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,976
Well that's an ok line of thinking right up until it is something you care about. Then it's too late because you've happily turned over any kind of process to the mob.
Now we'll get more Khmer Rouge antics from the Year Zero brigade. Christ the youth of today are hopeless.
I am unsurprised by the NG verdict from the jury.
Though I was curious at the reported defence to criminal damage being of justification. Even more curious that they were granted permission at some point to call an academic as an expert witness in support of their defence to criminal damage.
Though I was curious at the reported defence to criminal damage being of justification. Even more curious that they were granted permission at some point to call an academic as an expert witness in support of their defence to criminal damage.
Everything today is hopeless. In previous generations, the police would have kicked their asses once they became an angry mob.
Today's police are taking the knee to pose for selfies. Today's police are afraid to investigate minorities, be they Roma or black people or muslims. Perhaps the police on the ground are acutely aware that modern Chief Constables are gender studies graduates, who would quite happily throw them under the bus if they were to arrest the "wrong" people.
Today's teachers are even encouraged to avoid saying "no" to their pupils, because it might upset them.
Ways Teachers Avoid Saying “No.” - McSweeney’s Internet Tendency (mcsweeneys.net)
Funny how these things happen when authority figures lose their authority, isn't it?
It's probably worth having a quick read of this:
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1478782094251802630
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1478782094251802630
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,350
- Location
- London
Another false equivalence, they were arrested, tried, and found not guilty, hardly free reign is it?
Nothings been turned over to the mob.
This was the right decision if only because it will infuriate some people, I mean that's how debased our society is right?
Anyway, nobody gives a **** about Colston enough to throw the book at people? I can hardly hold back my lack of surprise at that. No history has been erased, it has merely been archived so I see no fundamental loss to society.
Anyway, nobody gives a **** about Colston enough to throw the book at people? I can hardly hold back my lack of surprise at that. No history has been erased, it has merely been archived so I see no fundamental loss to society.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Not at all surprised at the verdict, even with established lawyers stating around the time of the incident that even without a defence in law, there's isn't a jury in the UK that would convict them.
Would you prefer "free from consequence" then? Ultimately they got away with breaking the law, because the jury decided the law couldn't/shouldn't be upheld. Because of social pressure.
So all you have to do is claim that a thing is offensive, and then get an angry mob to tear it down, and claim it was an act of reparation or whatever.
You can pretty much guarantee this will happen again, probably in the near future, now that this verdict opens the door to getting away with it.
Don't think it has anything to do with social pressure (this isn't the US), people just don't care about what the statue represented. If it had been Churchill they would have been charged, I'd guarantee it.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,350
- Location
- London
Social pressure is not a bad thing if it leads to a positive outcome.
They will need the jury to agree with them every time, if they do so, what exactly is the issue?
What was the reason they did this unlawfully, when a lawful avenue exists?
Social pressure is not a bad thing if it leads to a positive outcome.
They will need the jury to agree with them every time, if they do so, what exactly is the issue?
a) They did not believe they could get broad consensus for the legal removal
b) They believed they were above the law
and/or
c) They believed their opinion mattered more than anyone who disagreed
Would you agree?
A jury can be pressured not by the weight of a broad consensus, but by fear of reprisals from a vocal minority/angry mob.
The jury are a disgrace and will have broken the law to have come to the verdict they did.
They would have all sworn or attested at the outset of the trial to judge the case according to the law, not their own personal view as to whether the defendant's actions were acceptable or not.
The judge is solely responsible for the law and the jury must follow the judges directions on the law to properly exercise their role in assessing whether the defendant's were guilty or not.
It's also highly questionable that a barrister should be allowed to run a defence that encourages jury nullification.
I would suggest that such an act in lieu of actually putting up a genuine defence in law should lead to consideration for the barrister being disbarred.
They would have all sworn or attested at the outset of the trial to judge the case according to the law, not their own personal view as to whether the defendant's actions were acceptable or not.
The judge is solely responsible for the law and the jury must follow the judges directions on the law to properly exercise their role in assessing whether the defendant's were guilty or not.
It's also highly questionable that a barrister should be allowed to run a defence that encourages jury nullification.
I would suggest that such an act in lieu of actually putting up a genuine defence in law should lead to consideration for the barrister being disbarred.