Mister Gee   823 #193 Posted January 6, 2022 I thought it would be interesting to give this thread a bump considering what happened yesterday.  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/four-cleared-of-toppling-edward-colston-statute Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Delbow   700 #194 Posted January 6, 2022 20 minutes ago, Mister Gee said: I thought it would be interesting to give this thread a bump considering what happened yesterday.  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/four-cleared-of-toppling-edward-colston-statute Excellent news. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sheffbag   229 #195 Posted January 6, 2022 1 hour ago, Delbow said: Excellent news. Why is it excellent news, they broke the law so now there is precedent for anyone to cause criminal damage because they are offended by something Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Waldo   96 #196 Posted January 6, 2022 Brilliant news. You can now go out and pull down any statues you don't like! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Delbow   700 #197 Posted January 6, 2022 2 minutes ago, sheffbag said: Why is it excellent news, they broke the law so now there is precedent for anyone to cause criminal damage because they are offended by something The council should clearly have taken it down years ago. Colston's company branded children as young as 9 with hot irons, he was a child abuser. It's like complaining that people tore a statue of Jimmy Savile down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
The_DADDY   3,475 #198 Posted January 6, 2022 Where blm choose to "protest" trouble soon follows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sheffbag   229 #199 Posted January 6, 2022 19 minutes ago, Delbow said: The council should clearly have taken it down years ago. Colston's company branded children as young as 9 with hot irons, he was a child abuser. It's like complaining that people tore a statue of Jimmy Savile down. It doesnt matter what Colston did at the time or how offensive the statue was to some people. In the eyes of the law criminal damage was caused and now there is a precedent in place that future cases can be defended against because "it offended me so i destroyed public property".  I may personally agree with you but we are talking about law here and any lawyer worth his salt will now use this case to defend people. So where does it end now? where is the line drawn? Do nationalists start to take down the statue of Prince Albert at Grimsby because it offends them due to his role in the british empire? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Magilla   510 #200 Posted January 6, 2022 23 minutes ago, West 77 said: It's not excellent news for law and order. The defendants were clearly guilty of causing criminal damage. The jury would seem to disagree Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Delbow   700 #201 Posted January 6, 2022 2 minutes ago, sheffbag said: It doesnt matter what Colston did at the time or how offensive the statue was to some people. In the eyes of the law criminal damage was caused and now there is a precedent in place that future cases can be defended against because "it offended me so i destroyed public property".  I may personally agree with you but we are talking about law here and any lawyer worth his salt will now use this case to defend people. So where does it end now? where is the line drawn? Do nationalists start to take down the statue of Prince Albert at Grimsby because it offends them due to his role in the british empire? The number of people involved in removing Colston's statue I think gives an idea of the extent to which he had become despised by Bristolians. I really don't think we need to worry about crowds of Hull residents pulling down the Wilberforce statue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclecar   24 #202 Posted January 6, 2022 So what now constitutes criminal damage? I accept that it was a magistrates' ruling and hence not case law but it sets a precedence.  If a mob toppled the statue of William Wilberforce in Hull would that be ignored? Or the statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square? These were good people, however there will be others who think otherwise and who feel they now have licence to vandalise.  Strange times............... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Delbow   700 #203 Posted January 6, 2022 Also, I'm not sure whether jury decisions do establish legal precedent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Magilla   510 #204 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, sheffbag said: It doesnt matter what Colston did at the time or how offensive the statue was to some people. In the eyes of the law criminal damage was caused and now there is a precedent in place that future cases can be defended against because "it offended me so i destroyed public property". Channel4 news last night... according to the legal pundits, and the defence in this case, no precedent was set.  The case hinged entirely on the facts specific to this case. Edited January 6, 2022 by Magilla Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...