Protecting Statues

[RedDwarf 1881]

So, shall we get rid of jurys and let Twitter etc decide?

The real crime here is the fact that the statue was allowed to stay in place for years after the facts around him became widely known.

Well have a local vote on it then and if the statue gets the thumbs down it can be removed safely by the council.

[RedDwarf 1881]

A dangerous precident has been set.
The jury either had learning difficulties, were afraid of reprocussions or were far left lunatics themselves.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's OK to vandalise it. They should be in jail, but it's a victory for the far left anarchists. You learn from history, you don't destroy it.

So, if you have a problem with historical institutional racism and the Slave Trade then you are a far left anarchist?

We all know who and what Colston was and removing a monument to him, no matter how, is morally correct.

Removing it might be morally correct but it's all about the how .

[The Mindsweep]

A quick search reveals there have been decades long campaigns to remove

Thanks to looking at history, people get a greater understanding of people like Colston, who was responsible and profited from the killing and slavery of millions, how can anyone deny that it should have gone. A jury has decided that they agree

[ComeOnYouOs]

The best thing about this verdict, is, it has pi55ed off right wingers/Brexit types, sooooo much, I'm loving it.

[The Mindsweep]

By pulling down the statue our understanding of history has been enhanced as the number of people who now know who Colston was and what he did have been vastly increased.

[Beradogs]

Indeed. And pulling down the statue of Mandela will do the same. See, it doesn’t really work does it.

[The Mindsweep]

Indeed. And pulling down the statue of Mandela will do the same. See, it doesn’t really work does it.

How do you equate Mandela with Colston? You really should try to read a little more to gain some understanding of topics you struggle with.

[cymruO]

This has set a precedent that is being enacted across the US. If you are offended vandalise it even though you are breaking the law in doing so. Your offence - however deeply felt entitles you to act in ways that are above the law; the law must respect that. Interesting that in US, in the case of the Statue in Richmond VA of Robert E Lee, the Governor of VA has acted illegally in ordering the statue to be taken down. The statue stands on private property - the land was bought 130 years ago by the Daughters of Confederate Veterans. All of it's a bit rich from the age we live in when exploitation, trafficking and brutality are to be found in just about every strata of life, and where to be offended by it is to be accused of being bigoted and ignorant.

[StillSpike]

Imagine this had been in Leeds, and the statue in question had been of, say, Jimmy Saville - erected in the 70s due to his "charity work".

Now imagine that there had been a long public campaign to have the statue removed, since Saville's crimes and true character had come to light, yet for some reason the Council had refused to remove it.

Now, had a group of folk decided among themselves to tear down the statue to the nonce - should they be prosecuted for criminal damage? If they were, and you were on the jury - would you acquit?

[Beradogs]

Indeed. And pulling down the statue of Mandela will do the same. See, it doesn’t really work does it.

How do you equate Mandela with Colston? You really should try to read a little more to gain some understanding of topics you struggle with.

I can’t, obviously. But it sets a precedent. If I happen to not like the Mandela statue I can just pull it down and say I didn’t like him. Why not?

[Beradogs]

Imagine this had been in Leeds, and the statue in question had been of, say, Jimmy Saville - erected in the 70s due to his "charity work".

Now imagine that there had been a long public campaign to have the statue removed, since Saville's crimes and true character had come to light, yet for some reason the Council had refused to remove it.

Now, had a group of folk decided among themselves to tear down the statue to the nonce - should they be prosecuted for criminal damage? If they were, and you were on the jury - would you acquit?

99.9% of people don’t like nonces though so it’s a false equivalence. Pulling down this statue splits the country down the middle. It’s political.

[StillSpike]

Imagine this had been in Leeds, and the statue in question had been of, say, Jimmy Saville - erected in the 70s due to his "charity work".

Now imagine that there had been a long public campaign to have the statue removed, since Saville's crimes and true character had come to light, yet for some reason the Council had refused to remove it.

Now, had a group of folk decided among themselves to tear down the statue to the nonce - should they be prosecuted for criminal damage? If they were, and you were on the jury - would you acquit?

99.9% of people don’t like nonces though so it’s a false equivalence. Pulling down this statue splits the country down the middle. It’s political.

I'd imagine a few more than half of people now recognise that slavery and slavers are not OK.

[Dunners]

The jury reached their decision, on a majority (i.e. democratic) vote, based on evidence submitted to the Court as to Colston's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of slaves. This provided that the perpetrators had "just cause" behind their actions, and therefore means that their actions do not constitute criminal damage.

This is not "mob rule", as some pundits are trying to make out. It's judicial process. And judicial process is only now being relied upon because the local authority had ignored calls for many years to review whether or not the display of the statue was appropriate. Judicial process is part of our democracy so, while some people may not like the outcome, the system works and has delivered.

If people now feel entitled to tear down a statue of Nelson Mandela, then for them to rely upon the same legal principle as this case, they would need to be able to point to evidence of Mandela's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of people. If they can't, because he isn't, then that means they probably do not have "just cause" and their actions will constitute criminal damage.

FFS. I cannot believe that I'm having to argue on behalf of the woke protest crowd. I need to take a shower.

[Long slender neck]

So, shall we get rid of jurys and let Twitter etc decide?

The real crime here is the fact that the statue was allowed to stay in place for years after the facts around him became widely known.

Did residents campaign to take it down earlier?

I don't know. What do you mean by "residents"?

People who live in and around the statue?

[Mr Wonderful]

The jury reached their decision, on a majority (i.e. democratic) vote, based on evidence submitted to the Court as to Colston's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of slaves. This provided that the perpetrators had "just cause" behind their actions, and therefore means that their actions do not constitute criminal damage.

This is not "mob rule", as some pundits are trying to make out. It's judicial process. And judicial process is only now being relied upon because the local authority had ignored calls for many years to review whether or not the display of the statue was appropriate. Judicial process is part of our democracy so, while some people may not like the outcome, the system works and has delivered.

If people now feel entitled to tear down a statue of Nelson Mandela, then for them to rely upon the same legal principle as this case, they would need to be able to point to evidence of Mandela's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of people. If they can't, because he isn't, then that means they probably do not have "just cause" and their actions will constitute criminal damage.

FFS. I cannot believe that I'm having to argue on behalf of the woke protest crowd. I need to take a shower.

Well Dunners, Mandela did take part in a car bombing campaign which cost lives, including those of children.
The Savile comparison is stupid. You can't compare a modern day paedo with somebody who made their money from a lawful trade in that day and age. We have moved on, we don't have slavery anymore, but vandalism against items you don't agree with is not the way fwd.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

IMO, they were guilty of criminal damage . By all means remove the statue if that's what people wish but it should have been done through a local referendum . That way the whole community could have had a say . At the same time as the referendum there could have been a questionnaire on who's statute the council could replace it with. If the result was to get rid of the Coulson statue then the council could have taken it down safely and properly .

Gosh, why didn’t anyone think of going down this route?

[Dunners]

We have moved on, we don't have slavery anymore, but vandalism against items you don't agree with is not the way fwd.

I agree. Which is why the local authority should have looked into this much sooner. If they had, and local residents had elected to retain the statute, then the actions of the protestors would be viewed under a very different light.

But as for this ruling, while I do not agree with people vandalising property, the outcome is probably the least worst.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

The jury reached their decision, on a majority (i.e. democratic) vote, based on evidence submitted to the Court as to Colston's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of slaves. This provided that the perpetrators had "just cause" behind their actions, and therefore means that their actions do not constitute criminal damage.

This is not "mob rule", as some pundits are trying to make out. It's judicial process. And judicial process is only now being relied upon because the local authority had ignored calls for many years to review whether or not the display of the statue was appropriate. Judicial process is part of our democracy so, while some people may not like the outcome, the system works and has delivered.

If people now feel entitled to tear down a statue of Nelson Mandela, then for them to rely upon the same legal principle as this case, they would need to be able to point to evidence of Mandela's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of people. If they can't, because he isn't, then that means they probably do not have "just cause" and their actions will constitute criminal damage.

FFS. I cannot believe that I'm having to argue on behalf of the woke protest crowd. I need to take a shower.

HES COMING HOME, HES COMING HOME, DUNNEMS COMING HOME

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Imagine this had been in Leeds, and the statue in question had been of, say, Jimmy Saville - erected in the 70s due to his "charity work".

Now imagine that there had been a long public campaign to have the statue removed, since Saville's crimes and true character had come to light, yet for some reason the Council had refused to remove it.

Now, had a group of folk decided among themselves to tear down the statue to the nonce - should they be prosecuted for criminal damage? If they were, and you were on the jury - would you acquit?

99.9% of people don’t like nonces though so it’s a false equivalence. Pulling down this statue splits the country down the middle. It’s political.

I'd imagine a few more than half of people now recognise that slavery and slavers are not OK.

I wouldn’t.

Look at this thread as an example.

[Long slender neck]

The jury reached their decision, on a majority (i.e. democratic) vote, based on evidence submitted to the Court as to Colston's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of slaves. This provided that the perpetrators had "just cause" behind their actions, and therefore means that their actions do not constitute criminal damage.

This is not "mob rule", as some pundits are trying to make out. It's judicial process. And judicial process is only now being relied upon because the local authority had ignored calls for many years to review whether or not the display of the statue was appropriate. Judicial process is part of our democracy so, while some people may not like the outcome, the system works and has delivered.

If people now feel entitled to tear down a statue of Nelson Mandela, then for them to rely upon the same legal principle as this case, they would need to be able to point to evidence of Mandela's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of people. If they can't, because he isn't, then that means they probably do not have "just cause" and their actions will constitute criminal damage.

FFS. I cannot believe that I'm having to argue on behalf of the woke protest crowd. I need to take a shower.

Didnt know anything about criminal damage or 'just cause'. Will have a google.

[Long slender neck]

Could someone torch a petrol station/oil refinery and claim 'just cause' etc?

[Dunners]

Definitely.

[Long slender neck]

I've only found the following defence which I'm not sure applies in this case.

Without lawful excuse

Section 5 of the 1971 Act provides a defence of ‘lawful excuse’ to a charge of criminal damage, in the following situations:

At the relevant time, the person believed that consent was given, or
If the damage was caused during the protection of the person’s own property, if that property was in immediate need of protection, and that the means taken to protect that property were in fact reasonable.

The damage will be deemed to have been caused without lawful excuse if it does not fall within Section 5.

[Long slender neck]

The jury reached their decision, on a majority (i.e. democratic) vote, based on evidence submitted to the Court as to Colston's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of slaves. This provided that the perpetrators had "just cause" behind their actions, and therefore means that their actions do not constitute criminal damage.

This is not "mob rule", as some pundits are trying to make out. It's judicial process. And judicial process is only now being relied upon because the local authority had ignored calls for many years to review whether or not the display of the statue was appropriate. Judicial process is part of our democracy so, while some people may not like the outcome, the system works and has delivered.

If people now feel entitled to tear down a statue of Nelson Mandela, then for them to rely upon the same legal principle as this case, they would need to be able to point to evidence of Mandela's involvement in the misery and deaths of thousands of people. If they can't, because he isn't, then that means they probably do not have "just cause" and their actions will constitute criminal damage.

FFS. I cannot believe that I'm having to argue on behalf of the woke protest crowd. I need to take a shower.

Prove it. Or rather, show me where it says in the criminal damage act you can do this? Or is this not how law works?

[StillSpike]

Could someone torch a petrol station/oil refinery and claim 'just cause' etc?

Of course they could claim it. But then they'd have to hope that their counsel could persuade a jury of the merit of that claim - because if they couldn't, then they'd have to pay the penalty.