|
|
Post by LandieMark on Jan 5, 2022 19:28:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jan 5, 2022 19:37:50 GMT
Yep. My first line of defence against any motorway speeding fine: the historical implementation of speed limits on motorways is an affront to the capability of vehicles in the modern world. I’ll call in a few thousand advocates to say I was merely implementing the will of the majority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2022 20:23:55 GMT
I wonder how history can be taught without the 'evidence', as for a balanced history.....
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 6, 2022 7:50:14 GMT
Regardless of the reasons for doing so, criminal damage is criminal damage and this verdict does justice no favours.
If I were to key the car of the guy who regularly parks in my space and knows he shouldn't, greatly pissing me off, I would be prosecuted and found guilty. The verdict isn't really in question but if the law wants to say something about blame then the sentence might be very light.
If they wanted to say they appreciated/understood the reasons that people pulled the statues down then they should have been found guilty (it was a well documented fact) but the sentence should have been weighted accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 6, 2022 9:18:07 GMT
It does set an odd president to allow this statue to be torn down on the basis of what it represents. Presumably if they'd just pulled down and thrown some other random civic kerbside structure and thrown it in the drink that would have been illegal but this was not because the statue was of a slave trader, is that what they're saying? Presumably if the same group go out to a National Trust property that was built off the proceeds of slavery and burn it to the ground the courts wouldn't consider this to be arson? It's an odd day when 4 white people defend their actions in court as not being criminal as they were simply removing a statue they felt was offensive to black people and the jury agrees.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that some people who history looks favourably upon by the standards of their day are perhaps no longer deemed to be considered good people when you consider their deeds in the context of today's morals but I do disagree with the idea that you can use this to excuse criminal behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 6, 2022 9:49:50 GMT
I hope they've got armed guards around the Churchill statue in Whitehall as it seems open season has now been declared on it, with no comebacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 6, 2022 10:02:16 GMT
I hope they've got armed guards around the Churchill statue in Whitehall as it seems open season has now been declared on it, with no comebacks. I fear you are right. What next? More statues? Burning books that you don't agree with? This is another one of those daft situations that "the law" (the combined might of government, MP's, police, CPS and court system) seems to get into. Which basically makes the law look an ass. It too often sits by while people suffer (Insulate Britain); encourages behaviour that is clearly wrong (vandalism in the name of some political cause); or punishes behaviour that many people agree with (like when that guy was charged with murder for shooting burglars). |
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Jan 6, 2022 10:07:40 GMT
Don't get it either. It has to be considered Criminal damage and the sensible punishment should probably have been a suspended sentence given that there actions might well have reflected the will of Bristolians.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 6, 2022 12:31:28 GMT
Don't get it either. It has to be considered Criminal damage and the sensible punishment should probably have been a suspended sentence given that there actions might well have reflected the will of Bristolians. I think it definitely was criminal damage. I would like to think the judge summed up with that in mind, although with our judiciary you can never tell. But then the jury had to convict. And if 1 or 2 of them supported what the vandals did, there was no way they could convict. And we don't know what the jury voting was. 12-0, 2-10? One of those occasions where a jury trial helped the defendants, erroneously. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jan 6, 2022 13:09:31 GMT
Someone that I once knew who had done jury service told me “if you’re guilty ask for trial by jury. If you’re innocent refuse a jury trial if you can.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Jan 6, 2022 19:46:28 GMT
Completely agree with Jeff's advice above. Smart move by the defendants, being tried by their peers rather than by the magistrates.
It's clearly a case of the jury deciding to find them not guilty, despite the evidence. In case law, this type of trial outcome will be distinguished from other similar cases as being decided 'on its own special facts'.
I think it's the case that a judge can direct a jury to acquit, but can never direct a jury to convict. So the decision in this case will to some extent reflect public/local sentiment rather than the actual law of the land.
An unsurprising decision, really.
|
|
