Reply to: Not in the public interest

[SueEllen]

It's a slippery slope.
5 year ago, according to the far right, judges were the "enemies of the people". Now juries are the enemy of the people. It's almost like when a judgement goes against the reicht, they get upset and call those passing judgement enemies.

The 1996 case was the first case I became aware of where this reasonable excuse was used to get off criminal damage charge by having the case argued in front of a jury. Apparently since then lots of campaigners, particularly environmental and anti-war, have got off using it. In each case they have had to show that the campaign was an ongoing one and their act criminal was their last resort.

Reading the left of centre press coverage over the weekend it appears that every single campaigner/group tries to cause over £5k of damage to ensure they can have a jury trial. The new police and criminal justice bill will make it worse as they don't need to cause that amount of damage. So it means more jury trials....

[WTFH]

It's a slippery slope.
5 year ago, according to the far right, judges were the "enemies of the people". Now juries are the enemy of the people. It's almost like when a judgement goes against the reicht, they get upset and call those passing judgement enemies.

[northernladuk]

Interesting to see if these spurs other mobs to remove statues and someone gets hurt or killed doing it.

[Lance]

I'll just leave this here in the name of balance.

[malvolio]

If you have a lawful excuse you can commit criminal damage but you have to prove that lawful excuse beyond reasonable doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...of-culture-war

So exactly what greater crime has been prevented by the destruction of a statue to someone who died in 1721? Offending some under-educated idiot's sensibilities perhaps? Not really sure that is a criminal act.

Or preventing a riot developing from a protest march around the representation of someone who died in 1721 leading to the destruction of public property? Oh, hang on...

The jury's decision may well be correct: in fact, it has to be, since they made it and that isn't going to change. The law behind it though, that's another question.

[SueEllen]

If you have a lawful excuse you can commit criminal damage but you have to prove that lawful excuse beyond reasonable doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...of-culture-war

However, legal experts have pointed out the law does allow property to be damaged if there is “a lawful excuse”. The Colston verdict follows similar cases where juries have found environmental and anti-war campaigners were justified in damaging property to prevent greater crimes

[SueEllen]

No, as they were acquitted then the law hasn't been properly applied in this case. The jury couldn't reach a majorty verdict and it's hardly surprising. The whole lot of them would have been targetted and called racist if they had. The decision was made on opinions and fear not the law.

I though jury rooms, who is on a particular jury and how jurors come to their conclusions are all confidential in the UK?

You can't argue they did the right thing as half the people in the subsequent poles either said it shouldn't have been taken down or if so not like that. So only half the people agree it was right. That's not enough.

I can because the jury, made up of people who were told to see if the law applied in their cases, acquitted them.

Either way, if the did do it then they should pay for the repairs and recover costs at the very least. They did it so they should be held responsible.

Nope because they were acquitted by a jury.

[NotAllThere]

There is one poster that far out does sasgurus post to be fair.

As leasts sasguru was usually coherent.

[northernladuk]

In a sea of exceptionally dull posters, sasguru's posts still stand out as exceptionally dull.

There is one poster that far out does sasgurus post to be fair.

[northernladuk]

Actually as they were acquitted the law says it was ok in their particular circumstances.

Just don't try doing what they did with any random statue unless you have led a peaceful campaign of a good few years to get it removed.

No, as they were acquitted then the law hasn't been properly applied in this case. The jury couldn't reach a majorty verdict and it's hardly surprising. The whole lot of them would have been targetted and called racist if they had. The decision was made on opinions and fear not the law.

You can't argue they did the right thing as half the people in the subsequent poles either said it shouldn't have been taken down or if so not like that. So only half the people agree it was right. That's not enough.

Either way, if the did do it then they should pay for the repairs and recover costs at the very least. They did it so they should be held responsible.

[malvolio]

The bad thing was that the case tried them for criminal damage, but their defence was that it was a political act and the jury decided that was the case and therefore justifiable. While you cannot do anything about the absolute right of the jury to render their verdict, no matter how they were persuaded get to it, this has set a very dangerous precedent.

It seems legislation is in progress to close off that loophole at its source. That might be a good outcome.

[SueEllen]

The law says not. If we start disregarding the law like this then anarchy ensues. What statue is next, will that be the right thing to do? Who cares? A baying mob thinks they will get away with it so it's open season to vandalise anything people want.

Actually as they were acquitted the law says it was ok in their particular circumstances.

Just don't try doing what they did with any random statue unless you have led a peaceful campaign of a good few years to get it removed.

[minestrone]

In a sea of exceptionally dull posters, sasguru's posts still stand out as exceptionally dull.

[northernladuk]

Those four people did the right thing.

The law says not. If we start disregarding the law like this then anarchy ensues. What statue is next, will that be the right thing to do? Who cares? A baying mob thinks they will get away with it so it's open season to vandalise anything people want.

[agentzero]

The struggle for black rights was decades/centuries of pain and suffering and slow incremental progress fighting against and within the system. People lost their lives and their livelihoods for it, but a bunch of teenagers today can't comprehend the idea of something taking longer than a week to achieve so they just smash things.

You are ill informed, yet again.

Over many years a large number of people tried to persuade the Tory controlled council to add context to the statue in the form of a small explanation underneath Colston's name plaque. Rejected. Various other changes were proposed and rejected, with the Tory council then removing existing information and just leaving the name.

The issue with this is that without education people just walk past it. Should people taking photos of it, tourists and locals, not be able to see just who this Colston man was? It didn't take long before his actions were seen as abhorrent. It is the perfect example of a statue that belonged in a museum and not outside among the public, as if he done some noble deeds to deserve a statue. The rationale behind the Tory council, from the minutes of their meetings and subsequent responses, shows that they don't appear to truly represent the council in which they operate. No decent person thinks a slave trader should have a statute, without explanation, with all amendments rejected and one previous improvement to the statue then removed by the Tory council.

Rather than use logic to recognise an issue clearly existed, the council doubled down and performed tasks to irritate those asking for change. The statue would've been great in a museum display, with comprehensive explanation of just what this evil man, by modern standards, did.

Saville had a statue and it was rightly removed, despite all the 'good' charity work that he did over the decades. The case of Colston is no different. Campaigns for years upon years lead nowhere. Those four people did the right thing.