Protecting Statues

[faldO]

This article contains details on some of the legal points argued by the defence:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... ot-6448800

[Beradogs]

Yes. I am not buying what Dunners is selling. If someone can prove that the majority want something done then they are not liable for prosecution?. Get an easy one out the way to start with then and not pay the licence fee. After all, the majority would rather TV was free and in court I can say the Daleks caused the failure of my marriage. She was always more attracted to metal.

[Long slender neck]

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.

Is 'just cause' a legal defence you can apply to anything?

[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.

Is 'just cause' a legal defence you can apply to anything?

You can try it. Whether you succeed depends on whether the jury agree with you. Same as any defence offered in any trial.

[Dohnut]

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.

Is 'just cause' a legal defence you can apply to anything?

You can try it. Whether you succeed depends on whether the jury agree with you. Same as any defence offered in any trial.

Precedent can be argued.

[Dunners]

Yes. I am not buying what Dunners is selling. If someone can prove that the majority want something done then they are not liable for prosecution?. Get an easy one out the way to start with then and not pay the licence fee. After all, the majority would rather TV was free and in court I can say the Daleks caused the failure of my marriage. She was always more attracted to metal.

I'm not selling anything. It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with the outcome. It's about the process. And the process, irrespective of outcome, is part of our legal and democratic framework. Therefore, this is not 'mob rule'.

If someone wants to argue that their actions have "just cause", then they are free to do so. But they will need to convince a jury of that. And that's a gamble, but one that has paid off here.

In this case, a majority (but not all) of the jury was convinced by expert evidence submitted by historian, David Olusoga. Therefore, the key decision in this trial was whether or not to allow that evidence to be heard by the jury. It appears that the Judge decided that the jury should hear it, as this wasn’t an ordinary criminal damage trial. And it is a Judge's prerogative to make that call.

In a perfect world we'd all move on from what has been a bitter and divisive issue, because a jury made a decision on our behalf based upon all of the available evidence. But we wont, because we're all caught up in this tiresome culture war. It's not enough that one 'side' wins, but they want to see their opponents lose and then rub salt in their wounds.

[Max B Gold]

Is 'just cause' a legal defence you can apply to anything?

You can try it. Whether you succeed depends on whether the jury agree with you. Same as any defence offered in any trial.

Precedent can be argued.

Thank you President bollix for a brain.

[Long slender neck]

Found this from the defence website https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/ed ... -defendant

In addition to the unique factual aspects of the case presented by Liam, the trial involved new and complex legal arguments:

Liam successfully submitted that ‘prevention of crime’ could be relied upon as a defence and that the jury could consider whether the presence of the statue itself constituted an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Liam also identified that the jury should consider if the statue constituted an ‘indecent display’ under Section 1 of the, more obscure, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

In addition, following the case of DPP v. Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, the trial is believed to be the first trial in which a jury was required to consider whether a conviction of the defendants would have been a disproportionate infringement of the defendants' rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[StillSpike]

Is 'just cause' a legal defence you can apply to anything?

You can try it. Whether you succeed depends on whether the jury agree with you. Same as any defence offered in any trial.

Precedent can be argued.

Well in that the defence counsel could state to the jury - "the folk in Bristol got off" - yes. But no legal precedent's been set here - the hypothetical defence still has to persuade the jury of the validity of the "just cause".

[Max B Gold]

[Long slender neck]

This article contains details on some of the legal points argued by the defence:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... ot-6448800

"They had a number of defences but, broadly, they had a lawful excuse as to why they committed the act that they did.

"That excuse included their right to free speech, their right to conscience and that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference with those grounds.

"And that they were preventing a crime.

"It was a criminal offence to keep that statue up because it was so offensive."

[StillSpike]

Yes. I am not buying what Dunners is selling. If someone can prove that the majority want something done then they are not liable for prosecution?. Get an easy one out the way to start with then and not pay the licence fee. After all, the majority would rather TV was free and in court I can say the Daleks caused the failure of my marriage. She was always more attracted to metal.

I'm not selling anything. It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with the outcome. It's about the process. And the process, irrespective of outcome, is part of our legal and democratic framework. Therefore, this is not 'mob rule'.

If someone wants to argue that their actions have "just cause", then they are free to do so. But they will need to convince a jury of that. And that's a gamble, but one that has paid off here.

In this case, a majority (but not all) of the jury was convinced by expert evidence submitted by historian, David Olusoga. Therefore, the key decision in this trial was whether or not to allow that evidence to be heard by the jury. It appears that the Judge decided that the jury should hear it, as this wasn’t an ordinary criminal damage trial. And it is a Judge's prerogative to make that call.

In a perfect world we'd all move on from what has been a bitter and divisive issue, because a jury made a decision on our behalf based upon all of the available evidence. But we wont, because we're all caught up in this tiresome culture war. It's not enough that one 'side' wins, but they want to see their opponents lose and then rub salt in their wounds.

In a perfect world, it wouldn't have been a bitter and divisive issue, would it?

[Max B Gold]

As with all matters legal I usually say:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

[Beradogs]

Yes. I am not buying what Dunners is selling. If someone can prove that the majority want something done then they are not liable for prosecution?. Get an easy one out the way to start with then and not pay the licence fee. After all, the majority would rather TV was free and in court I can say the Daleks caused the failure of my marriage. She was always more attracted to metal.

I'm not selling anything. It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with the outcome. It's about the process. And the process, irrespective of outcome, is part of our legal and democratic framework. Therefore, this is not 'mob rule'.

If someone wants to argue that their actions have "just cause", then they are free to do so. But they will need to convince a jury of that. And that's a gamble, but one that has paid off here.

In this case, a majority (but not all) of the jury was convinced by expert evidence submitted by historian, David Olusoga. Therefore, the key decision in this trial was whether or not to allow that evidence to be heard by the jury. It appears that the Judge decided that the jury should hear it, as this wasn’t an ordinary criminal damage trial. And it is a Judge's prerogative to make that call.

In a perfect world we'd all move on from what has been a bitter and divisive issue, because a jury made a decision on our behalf based upon all of the available evidence. But we wont, because we're all caught up in this tiresome culture war. It's not enough that one 'side' wins, but they want to see their opponents lose and then rub salt in their wounds.

No. Let’s supposing I go to court because I don’t want to pay the licence fee and in the process of not paying the license fee I smashed up the postbox. In the land mark case of beradogs vs whether the BBC license fee should be scrapped i won because the jury saw that if I did win they would never have to pay the licence fee again. The postbox? Postboxshmokebox. Free TV forever. Yay!

[Max B Gold]

Yes. I am not buying what Dunners is selling. If someone can prove that the majority want something done then they are not liable for prosecution?. Get an easy one out the way to start with then and not pay the licence fee. After all, the majority would rather TV was free and in court I can say the Daleks caused the failure of my marriage. She was always more attracted to metal.

I'm not selling anything. It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with the outcome. It's about the process. And the process, irrespective of outcome, is part of our legal and democratic framework. Therefore, this is not 'mob rule'.

If someone wants to argue that their actions have "just cause", then they are free to do so. But they will need to convince a jury of that. And that's a gamble, but one that has paid off here.

In this case, a majority (but not all) of the jury was convinced by expert evidence submitted by historian, David Olusoga. Therefore, the key decision in this trial was whether or not to allow that evidence to be heard by the jury. It appears that the Judge decided that the jury should hear it, as this wasn’t an ordinary criminal damage trial. And it is a Judge's prerogative to make that call.

In a perfect world we'd all move on from what has been a bitter and divisive issue, because a jury made a decision on our behalf based upon all of the available evidence. But we wont, because we're all caught up in this tiresome culture war. It's not enough that one 'side' wins, but they want to see their opponents lose and then rub salt in their wounds.

No. Let’s supposing I go to court because I don’t want to pay the licence fee and in the process of not paying the license fee I smashed up the postbox. In the land mark case of beradogs vs whether the BBC license fee should be scrapped i won because the jury saw that if I did win they would never have to pay the licence fee again. The postbox? Postboxshmokebox. Free TV forever. Yay!

You on the sauce mate?

[StillSpike]

But your Jury wouldn't "never have to pay the licence fee again" were they to find you not guilty of smashing up the postbox. They're not changing the law and allowing all postboxes to be fair game in all cases, neither are they deciding no-one has to pay the TV licence.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Someone needs to check in on bera. Urgently.

[Dunners]

I think we can safely say that the County Lines problem has finally reached the Welsh border.

[Beradogs]

Right. But just about every one of those jurors was corrupted. Would you want to be the juror who sides with the racists. How did you vote Maude? Well, everyone was saying how Coulson was a racist and made his money in the slave trade. He was hated by the city of Bristol and a dear chap even spoke about the history of it all and how he oversaw hundreds of deaths. BLM were marching over the death of a lovely young man in America who the police killed. Anyway.. I voted to send them down for 2 years. Come on!

[Dunners]

Right. But just about every one of those jurors was corrupted. Would you want to be the juror who sides with the racists. How did you vote Maude? Well, everyone was saying how Coulson was a racist and made his money in the slave trade. He was hated by the city of Bristol and a dear chap even spoke about the history of it all and how he oversaw hundreds of deaths. BLM were marching over the death of a lovely young man in America who the police killed. Anyway.. I voted to send them down for 2 years. Come on!

The jury were originally ordered to reach a 100% decision. They failed to do so, so the Judge directed them to at least reach a majority decision. This they did within a few minutes.

Nobody knowns which way individual jurors voted. So they could have voted however they liked and not have to face any backlash. Clearly some did vote against the accused, and felt comfortable in doing so.

That's hardly corrupted.

The issue here appears to be that some people are struggling to separate the process (and the outcome it led to) from the verdict they would have personally liked.

[tuffers#1]

Yes. I am not buying what Dunners is selling. If someone can prove that the majority want something done then they are not liable for prosecution?. Get an easy one out the way to start with then and not pay the licence fee. After all, the majority would rather TV was free and in court I can say the Daleks caused the failure of my marriage. She was always more attracted to metal.

yould have to show evidence of the metal fetish ! jurors are broad minded so bring the video evidence !

[tuffers#1]

Right. But just about every one of those jurors was corrupted. Would you want to be the juror who sides with the racists. How did you vote Maude? Well, everyone was saying how Coulson was a racist and made his money in the slave trade. He was hated by the city of Bristol and a dear chap even spoke about the history of it all and how he oversaw hundreds of deaths. BLM were marching over the death of a lovely young man in America who the police killed. Anyway.. I voted to send them down for 2 years. Come on!

what about juror john bull send the d*rk#e lovers down is what i say , shoot em if you want !!

[The Mindsweep]

[Winchestorfan]

Edward Colston. MP born 1636 died 1721.

Made some of his money as a member of Royal African Company who transported over 80,000 slaves from West Africa to the Americas.

He used much of his wealth to benefit, mainly in Bristol:
Almshouses
Hospitals
Schools
Workhouses
Churches

On his death he left £71,000.00 to charities (in today’s money that would be fortune)
Over 150 years after his death it was decided to erect this statue as a response to another statue close by of Edmund Burke, who had opposed the slave trade. The cost of the Colston statue was raised by public appeals.

The slave trade was a despicable act of trading BUT was perfectly legal, unlike today when this disgusting trade , whilst now illegal, continues in this country.

By all means object to Colston and the slave trade but removing and rewriting history will ultimately help confine the slave trade to a distant and mainly forgotten part of our blemished history. Like the Holocaust we must never forget that it happened and make our children fully aware of what was done in the past.

Therefore the statue of Colston must be reinstated along with a description of what he did, both good and bad. Likewise Auschwitz must be preserved to remind people of what atrocities happened there.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Still the boy