To be fair, the law allows you to use force against people in certain permitted circumstances, as it is also allowed in this case with force used against a statue.
Yes, I know they won the case but it is worrying to see that happened. Democracy in that case also means brute force which is scary to say the least.
... however, unlike the other cases, no tangible harm was being prevented by the defendant’s actions, unless you include the ‘harm’ of an ‘offensive’ object being present. Sadly, the jury fell for the defence team’s sophism.
Yes, I know there is no harm but such action is worrying. Remember, I am a Buddhist and over the centuries in many countries/locations we see the destruction of Buddha statues (they love destroying Buddhas for whatever reasons, yes no harm to the people) and that is a concern.
Many of these woke people think that all problems would be solved if we just gave the woke Philosopher-Kings enough power.
If the situation is the other way round, I wonder how they would feel ... funny world this is.
Aaaaaaawwwwww.
I love a good bromance 😃
LOL!
p/s: please don't buy Buddha head for interior decoration. Why do people want someone's head for decoration? Are you our native head hunters?
I wonder how those 4 would have gotten on then with just a panel of judges adjudicating in their trial.
4 guilty verdicts I imagine
Why just imagine?
Why don’t you just move to a country where they do that kind of thing - North Korea perhaps? Maybe China? - and you can give us all a live commentary
Oh… erm… maybe not, because they wouldn’t actually allow you to do that
Still… dictatorships… on balance… probably great if you’re a statue
I am going to say none, which makes it the end. But if someone does, for example, take down the statue of Eric Morecambe then they would be found guilty of criminal damage and quite rightly (I don’t think disliking someone’s comedy style would hold as a defence)
What if someone does not find them funny or feel offended?
I find them offensive for not being funny after spending time trying to understand their jokes, LOL! (crikey I had to ask my colleagues to explain their jokes! How offensive is that!)
P/s: Benny Hill is good ... LOL!
Well they did the 'old man river' sketch. So people could then feel justified on going mob handed to Morecambe and tearing down the statue.
At least the sea is close by and they wouldn't need to roll it that far.
Why don’t you just move to a country where they do that kind of thing – North Korea perhaps? Maybe China? – and you can give us all a live commentary
Naff off binners. Im not saying its right or just or anything like that. I've just pointed out if we followed the advice given in the AVOIDING JURY DUTY thread, they wouldn't have gotten a not guilty verdict. If you disagree with that fine but dont go all weird and spouty on us thanks.
Being around Bristol, i'm seeing this on the news a lot today, and the most striking thing i note about this is that there are 4 people rolling the statue and about 300 videoing it with their phones, it really does sink in how this wasn't really a big deal, not exactly the march on washington!
Naff off binners. Im not saying its right or just or anything like that. I’ve just pointed out if we followed the advice given in the AVOIDING JURY DUTY thread, they wouldn’t have gotten a not guilty verdict. If you disagree with that fine but dont go all weird and spouty on us thanks.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were advocating trial by a panel of judges rather than a jury, so don’t start getting your petticoats all ruffled, buttercup
You lot who object so vociferously about snowflakes don’t half get snowflakey at every available opportunity 😂
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were advocating trial by a panel of judges rather than a jury,
No Binners I wasnt. I wasnt advocating anything.
I'm enjoying this thread a little bit more than feels appropriate given the serious nature of the topic.
I never imagined it could lead to a Brokeback Mountain style happy ending.
Like Fred always says on First Dates, there really is someone out there for everyone
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were advocating trial by a panel of judges rather than a jury
You're wrong he wasn't advocating it.
Sadly, the jury fell for the defence team’s sophism.
No the prosecution failed to make their case as our law requires. Do keep up and read the legal commentary linked above. You're either trolling or displaying wilful ignorance neither are attractive.
No the prosecution failed to make their case as our law requires
That's just a tautology based upon the verdict.
Getting back once again to the case in point - boring I know - but for brainbox Braverman to actually refer it to the court of appeal, as she says she’s considering doing, the CPS would have to actually recommend that she do so.
There is absolutely no indication, nor legal reason, that they would do so
So the woman who is somewhat laughably our Attorney General seemed to have been unaware that she can’t just do what she wants, because she doesn’t like something, she actually needs a legal precedent to do so
Is anyone surprised?
She makes Liz Truss look bright
That’s just a tautology based upon the verdict.
No it ****ing isn't. It's the underlying principle of our criminal law.
Either educate yourself, or go and whine somewhere else.
No it **** isn’t. It’s the underlying principle of our criminal law.
Either educate yourself, or go and whine somewhere else.
Then point me to their defence on point of law. They didn't have one so the jury chose a perverse verdict for political purposes.
Did you read the secret barrister article? I thought it explained it well.
so the jury chose a perverse verdict for political purposes
When you say ‘perverse’ verdict, you mean one you don’t like, right?
Here’s how any jury trial works:
1. A jury is given the evidence
2. They deliver their verdict on the strength of that evidence, having assessed it.
Managed to comprehend that?
Good. Refreshingly simple, isn’t it?
So it isn’t a ‘perverse’ verdict. It is simply a verdict. As the law demands.
‘Perverse’ is a word we normally reserve for the Sunday paper expose’s about the sexual proclivities of the sort of Tory MP’s who have been describing this verdict as ‘perverse’
What I object to is this woke urge to centre the whole of British history around the Atlantic slave trade, to make everything about race, slavery and a national shame that can never be atoned for.
Actually without the atlantic slave trade the UK as we know it now would be very different - its an absolutely key thing to the development of empire and the wealth and power of the UK
So yes - the slave trade and understanding it is a hugely important part of the UKs history.
Binners - this sort of verdict is known as a "perverse verdict" thats the official term for a Jury aquitting against the evidence
It is simply a verdict. As the law demands.
Which you advocate as being wholly the correct one, simply because that was the verdict of this jury.
Hardly the basis of any argument, especially one concerning the law. And you talking earlier about North Korean showtrials. 🙄 😆
'Im happy with the verdict, because the jury made it'. And what if the jury hadnt found them not guilty. Are you saying you'd be on here saying they were rightly convicted. I have doubts as to your standpoint on that 😕
If you are a POC in Britain today it’s quite possible that your ancestors were complicit in either the Atlantic slave trade or other slave trades (such as in India, the Arab world, North Africa, China, etc).
What horseshit is this? Got any evidence for this absurd allegation? Its actually really offensive/
All those west Indians in the UK are the descendants of slaves.
Binners – this sort of verdict is known as a “perverse verdict” thats the official term for a Jury aquitting against the evidence
They’ve not aquitted against the evidence though, have they?
They have assessed the evidence and delivered ‘a’ verdict
This ‘perverse’ terminology is just utter nonsense, meaning ‘verdict I don’t agree with’
Which you advocate as being wholly the correct one, simply because that was the verdict of this jury.
yes - thats how courts and justice work in the UK.
Actually without the atlantic slave trade the UK as we know it now would be very different – its an absolutely key thing to the development of empire and the wealth and power of the UK
A factor? Maybe. A key factor? Absolutely not.
As I mentioned, there have been numerous slaves trades throughout human history but only Britain was able to Industrialise first. Slavery cannot thus be a sufficient condition for industrialisation.
Did you read the secret barrister article? I thought it explained it well.
As has been pointed out several times already. So please educate yourself on how the law works, and how it led to this verdict. Go back a few pages and I didn't understand it either.
Binners - no - its a term used for verdicts like this. Longstanding usage. I put up a link to other perverse verdicts and a discussion of them
What horseshit is this? Got any evidence for this absurd allegation? Its actually really offensive/
All those west Indians in the UK are the descendants of slaves.
It's no more offensive than saying white people may have ancestors complicit in slavery. It's a historical fact that black Africans sold slaves, that there was an Arab slave trade, an Ottoman one, one in India, one in China.
Not all black people in the UK are from the Caribbean you know? And not all POC are black.
Then point me to their defence on point of law. They didn’t have one so the jury chose a perverse verdict for political purposes.
Can I ask on what you are basing this assertion? Particularly the political bit
Have you ever sat on a jury?
Without sitting through the whole trial and sitting in on the jury room deliberations personally I can’t see how anyone can be sure of the reason as why they chose their verdict. That’s true of any jury trial. In English law no one should know.
That is the strength of the jury system, or it’s flaw depending perhaps on your like or dislike of the verdict in any trial.
A key factor?
Absolutely certainly totally key to the empire building and wealth we enjoy today. without slavery britain would be a much different place. Empire and our wealth was built on slavery and those slave owners are our aristocracy today
you really need to educate yourself a bit
I'm calling TJ being accused of being a racist within 10 posts.
Nothing useful to add, this thread really is a flaming dumpster fire falling into a septic tank.
Binners – no – its a term used for verdicts like this
Then the term is perverse in itself. There is only one verdict in a jury trial. The one that the jury delivers.
Who exactly is it who gets to attach labels to it?
You can’t and neither can I or anyone else
It is simply ‘a’ verdict
Jeepers cake - when in a hole stop digging
"If you are a POC in Britain today it’s quite possible that your ancestors were complicit in either the Atlantic slave trade or other slave trades (such as in India, the Arab world, North Africa, China, etc)."
Got any evidence for this absurd and offensive allegation? some sort of basis in fact?
It’s no more offensive than saying white people may have ancestors complicit in slavery
Yes it is - for a start your claim about white folk uses "may" whereas for the former slaves its " quite possibly" - a qualitative differnce
then the fact you are victim blaming
Its really offensive to say that - can you really not see that?
@tjagain the secret barrister article points out that:
1. They could be not guilty of criminal damage
2. They could be not guilty on grounds of prosecution not being suitable (or something similar)
3. They could be guilty and the jury delivered a perverse verdict of not guilty.
It also points out that we will never know which of these three the jury chose so there’s not point guessing.
Absolutely certainly totally key
Which you just keep asserting.
to say white folk may have ansestors that were slavers is also pretty daft - I do not know the numbers but with a UK population of tens of millions how many slavers? 10 000 at a guess? The odds on being descended from slavers is pretty low
I want to see something to back up this claim
"If you are a POC in Britain today it’s quite possible that your ancestors were complicit in either the Atlantic slave trade or other slave trades (such as in India, the Arab world, North Africa, China, etc).”"
Which you just keep asserting.
~Whuich actually is a historical fact. The empire and the wealth of modern Britain was built on slavery
Lloyds of London - slave trade money. Much of our landowners - slave trade money. Most of the wealthy families - slave trade money. etc etc
with a UK population of tens of millions how many slavers
The population of the UK wasn't 10s of millions - in the mid 18th Century it was only around 6.5 million. Go back far enough and everybody was related to you.
"A factor? Maybe. A key factor? Absolutely not."
Seemed to be a fairly key factor in this particular moment of history...
Ok - so how many slavers? 1 in 10000?
They didn’t have one so the jury chose a perverse verdict for political purposes.
An accusation which would have more weight if it were substantiated. Off you pop.
“If you are a POC in Britain today it’s quite possible that your ancestors were complicit in either the Atlantic slave trade or other slave trades (such as in India, the Arab world, North Africa, China, etc).”
This is possible, but not probable. It's certain not "quite possible" which implies a high probability.
Alex Scott, the footballer, was quite upset on "Who do you think you are?" when she found out that a paternal great-something grandfather was a free black man in Jamaica who kept 26 slaves, and even had children with one of them.
Unfortunately, people like i_scoff_cake will seize onto these cases and try to use them to equate their behaviour with that of the large landowning slave owners, like the Draxs. They had 30,000 slaves, though, not 26!
This ‘perverse’ terminology is just utter nonsense, meaning ‘verdict I don’t agree with’
Jeez binners, read the Secret Barrister link, please.
Ok – so how many slavers? 1 in 10000?
Define 'slavers'. Just the people who literally bought and sold slaves in person? Not that many.
But slavery was integrated into society at virtually every level and thousands will have profited directly or indirectly. Almost anyone involved in shipping, construction, trading sugar, rubber etc while maybe not owning slaves themselves would be profiting from their forced labour. And as stated already many middle-class people took part in what were essentially slave-owning co-operatives.
I notice . I scoff cake has no response to the secret barristers blog on why the jury's verdict is legot
Hes much keener on diverting the topic elsewhere
46,000 slave owners in Britain when slavery was abolished:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/british-history-slavery-buried-scale-revealed
Paid off by the modern equivalent of £16bn.
There's a link to a database of slave owners at then bottom of the article:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/
