Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

It's the fascinating thing about juries. They also deliver the "there may be no evidence, but we don't like him, so guilty" verdict once in a while too.

Over in the US, a juror has just been explaining how he persuaded his fellow jurors to find Maxwell guilty based on his own experiences of sexual abuse. Something he failed mention at the outset.

No idea how many jurors end up being prosecuted.

A retrial seems a distinct possibility there. On the face of it, the juror appears to have lied about this during the selection process.

In the UK, they can't talk about the case, but in the US they can, and it is always really alarming. I watched one TV programme which followed the jurors throughout the trial. One of them said at the beginning, before seeing any evidence, that the defendant didn't look remorseful for what he had done. He was then disappointed when the death penalty was removed as an option for him. I didn't think the evidence of his guilt was all that persuasive.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

It's the fascinating thing about juries. They also deliver the "there may be no evidence, but we don't like him, so guilty" verdict once in a while too.

Over in the US, a juror has just been explaining how he persuaded his fellow jurors to find Maxwell guilty based on his own experiences of sexual abuse. Something he failed mention at the outset.

No idea how many jurors end up being prosecuted.

A retrial seems a distinct possibility there. On the face of it, the juror appears to have lied about this during the selection process.

In the UK, they can't talk about the case, but in the US they can, and it is always really alarming. I watched one TV programme which followed the jurors throughout the trial. One of them said at the beginning, before seeing any evidence, that the defendant didn't look remorseful for what he had done. He was then disappointed when the death penalty was removed as an option for him. I didn't think the evidence of his guilt was all that persuasive.

It doesn't fill you with confidence. Mind you, we let the same people elect governments, so...

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

It's the fascinating thing about juries. They also deliver the "there may be no evidence, but we don't like him, so guilty" verdict once in a while too.

Over in the US, a juror has just been explaining how he persuaded his fellow jurors to find Maxwell guilty based on his own experiences of sexual abuse. Something he failed mention at the outset.

No idea how many jurors end up being prosecuted.

A retrial seems a distinct possibility there. On the face of it, the juror appears to have lied about this during the selection process.

In the UK, they can't talk about the case, but in the US they can, and it is always really alarming. I watched one TV programme which followed the jurors throughout the trial. One of them said at the beginning, before seeing any evidence, that the defendant didn't look remorseful for what he had done. He was then disappointed when the death penalty was removed as an option for him. I didn't think the evidence of his guilt was all that persuasive.

It doesn't fill you with confidence. Mind you, we let the same people elect governments, so...

Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried". I think that holds for juries as well.

kingstonian

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

I don't imagine they spent 10 days arguing about whether they rolled the statue into the Floating Harbour. Clearly the argument was about the justification for that action.

But that’s the problem this decision opens up - are we really wanting a situation where jurors ignore the crime but decide whether or not they think the reason behind the action was okay?

For the record, I’m astonished it took a protest like this to make it clear that a city really shouldn’t have the name of a slave trader plastered everywhere.

shirley_basso

Do the means justify the cause (or whatever)

kingstongraham

kingstonian said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

I don't imagine they spent 10 days arguing about whether they rolled the statue into the Floating Harbour. Clearly the argument was about the justification for that action.

But that’s the problem this decision opens up - are we really wanting a situation where jurors ignore the crime but decide whether or not they think the reason behind the action was okay?

For the record, I’m astonished it took a protest like this to make it clear that a city really shouldn’t have the name of a slave trader plastered everywhere.

There's a decision like this every now and then, always has been the case.

laurentian

Listening to the radio this morning, it appears that the defendants actions were justified on the baisis that the continuing presence of a statue venerating and celebrating a slave trader was a continuing hate crime against members of the community in Bristol. Their actions stopped this ongoing hate crime and were therefore justified.

rick_chasey

Honest question, d'ya think if there was a Jimmy Saville statue up that got pulled down they'd be arrested and found guilty?

DeVlaeminck

I don't mind a jury ignoring the law - we can debate whether that is the correct description of what's happened here but it seems accurate enough.

In practice

kingstonian said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

I don't imagine they spent 10 days arguing about whether they rolled the statue into the Floating Harbour. Clearly the argument was about the justification for that action.

But that’s the problem this decision opens up - are we really wanting a situation where jurors ignore the crime but decide whether or not they think the reason behind the action was okay?

Yes I'm ok with it.

Democracy has always been a broad concept mixing elements of process - how we reach decisions - with elements of principle or what are acceptable outcomes.

In practice how often are jurors in the UK acting like this and why - it seems broadly within our conception of democracy, justice and so on.

Now if we had a situation where say juries were refusing to convict people of crimes against minorities then I'd say we have a problem.

TheBigBean

David Olusoga was an expert witness. Here is his view. I don't see how the justification of taking the law into someone's own hands is different here to any other case.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/06/britains-shameful-slavery-history-matters-thats-why-a-jury-acquitted-the-colston-4

Pross

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

This, I'm not sure how they can be found not guilty unless they were determined not to have been involved. Under the current laws you can't destroy something just because you don't agree with it.

pblakeney

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

This, I'm not sure how they can be found not guilty unless they were determined not to have been involved. Under the current laws you can't destroy something just because you don't agree with it.

If you listen to the Police statement following the verdict you can tell that they are just waiting on the actions being repeated.

Pross

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't mind a jury ignoring the law - we can debate whether that is the correct description of what's happened here but it seems accurate enough.

In practice

kingstonian said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

I don't imagine they spent 10 days arguing about whether they rolled the statue into the Floating Harbour. Clearly the argument was about the justification for that action.

But that’s the problem this decision opens up - are we really wanting a situation where jurors ignore the crime but decide whether or not they think the reason behind the action was okay?

Yes I'm ok with it.

Democracy has always been a broad concept mixing elements of process - how we reach decisions - with elements of principle or what are acceptable outcomes.

In practice how often are jurors in the UK acting like this and why - it seems broadly within our conception of democracy, justice and so on.

Now if we had a situation where say juries were refusing to convict people of crimes against minorities then I'd say we have a problem.

Democracy and the law are different things.

Some people might acquit a driver who kills a cyclist on the basis that they "weren't wearing a helmet" or "shouldn't be riding on the road" and many would agree with them. If people want a law amended then they should push their MP to go through the correct process.

kingstongraham

I'm not sure why Grant Shapps thinks increasing the sentence for the offence that they committed but were cleared of would make all the difference and is "closing a loophole".

kingstonian

kingstongraham said:

I'm not sure why Grant Shapps thinks increasing the sentence for the offence that they committed but were cleared of would make all the difference and is "closing a loophole".

Agreed, increasing the potential sentence really does nothing. Fix the loophole !!!

kingstonian

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

This, I'm not sure how they can be found not guilty unless they were determined not to have been involved. Under the current laws you can't destroy something just because you don't agree with it.

If you listen to the Police statement following the verdict you can tell that they are just waiting on the actions being repeated.

This decision has put the police in a really tough position, potentially arresting people for an offence whilst knowing the courts won’t back them. And if they stand back, they’ll be criticised for not upholding the law. The law must be clear and the police and courts need to follow the law - if there’s an issue, the law is what needs fixing.

rjsterry

kingstonian said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

I don't imagine they spent 10 days arguing about whether they rolled the statue into the Floating Harbour. Clearly the argument was about the justification for that action.

But that’s the problem this decision opens up - are we really wanting a situation where jurors ignore the crime but decide whether or not they think the reason behind the action was okay?

For the record, I’m astonished it took a protest like this to make it clear that a city really shouldn’t have the name of a slave trader plastered everywhere.

I don't know the details of their defence, but I imagine they are recorded somewhere. As far as I am aware, juries are given guidance on what they need to decide and how this affects their verdict.

rjsterry

kingstonian said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

This, I'm not sure how they can be found not guilty unless they were determined not to have been involved. Under the current laws you can't destroy something just because you don't agree with it.

If you listen to the Police statement following the verdict you can tell that they are just waiting on the actions being repeated.

This decision has put the police in a really tough position, potentially arresting people for an offence whilst knowing the courts won’t back them. And if they stand back, they’ll be criticised for not upholding the law. The law must be clear and the police and courts need to follow the law - if there’s an issue, the law is what needs fixing.

This is not the case. Jury trials do not set precedent like that.

rjsterry

kingstonian said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm not sure why Grant Shapps thinks increasing the sentence for the offence that they committed but were cleared of would make all the difference and is "closing a loophole".

Agreed, increasing the potential sentence really does nothing. Fix the loophole !!!

There is no loophole. The law deliberately allows for 'lawful excuses'.

Meaning of Without Lawful Excuse
Section 5 of the CDA 1971 sets out a defence to criminal damage charges, though not to aggravated criminal damage under s.1(2) – see s.5(1) CDA 1971. A person has a lawful excuse if

they believed at the time that those whom they believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence they believed:
that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
Section 5(3) CDA 1971 includes a subjective element: For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

kingstonian said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

This, I'm not sure how they can be found not guilty unless they were determined not to have been involved. Under the current laws you can't destroy something just because you don't agree with it.

If you listen to the Police statement following the verdict you can tell that they are just waiting on the actions being repeated.

This decision has put the police in a really tough position, potentially arresting people for an offence whilst knowing the courts won’t back them. And if they stand back, they’ll be criticised for not upholding the law. The law must be clear and the police and courts need to follow the law - if there’s an issue, the law is what needs fixing.

This is not the case. Jury trials do not set precedent like that.

Maybe not in a legal sense but do you not foresee people thinking that they now have carte blanche?

DeVlaeminck

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't mind a jury ignoring the law - we can debate whether that is the correct description of what's happened here but it seems accurate enough.

In practice

kingstonian said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

I don't imagine they spent 10 days arguing about whether they rolled the statue into the Floating Harbour. Clearly the argument was about the justification for that action.

But that’s the problem this decision opens up - are we really wanting a situation where jurors ignore the crime but decide whether or not they think the reason behind the action was okay?

Yes I'm ok with it.

Democracy has always been a broad concept mixing elements of process - how we reach decisions - with elements of principle or what are acceptable outcomes.

In practice how often are jurors in the UK acting like this and why - it seems broadly within our conception of democracy, justice and so on.

Now if we had a situation where say juries were refusing to convict people of crimes against minorities then I'd say we have a problem.

Democracy and the law are different things.

Some people might acquit a driver who kills a cyclist on the basis that they "weren't wearing a helmet" or "shouldn't be riding on the road" and many would agree with them. If people want a law amended then they should push their MP to go through the correct process.

Pross said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I don't mind a jury ignoring the law - we can debate whether that is the correct description of what's happened here but it seems accurate enough.

In practice

kingstonian said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

I don't imagine they spent 10 days arguing about whether they rolled the statue into the Floating Harbour. Clearly the argument was about the justification for that action.

But that’s the problem this decision opens up - are we really wanting a situation where jurors ignore the crime but decide whether or not they think the reason behind the action was okay?

Yes I'm ok with it.

Democracy has always been a broad concept mixing elements of process - how we reach decisions - with elements of principle or what are acceptable outcomes.

In practice how often are jurors in the UK acting like this and why - it seems broadly within our conception of democracy, justice and so on.

Now if we had a situation where say juries were refusing to convict people of crimes against minorities then I'd say we have a problem.

Democracy and the law are different things.

Some people might acquit a driver who kills a cyclist on the basis that they "weren't wearing a helmet" or "shouldn't be riding on the road" and many would agree with them. If people want a law amended then they should push their MP to go through the correct process.

Yes democracy and the law are different things I agree. Democracy is broader than a means of making law through a public vote. The jury system is part of that wider democratic system.

Where for example it fails to protect minority rights - such as cyclists - that is a failure of the system. It's not a perfect system but it's the Churchill quote about give me a better alternative if we don't want trial by jury - one that would better safeguard democratic principles?

laurentian

I think the issues of "putting the police in a difficult position" as mentioned by Kingstonian above and what is seen by some as the potential for future similar acts to go unpunished, could be mitigated by contextualising existing, controversial statues and memorials now.

I believe the idea of contextualising the Edward Coulson statue had been suggested and campaigned for over many years prior to it being pulled down and that people had asked for something on the plinth to explain the source of the wealth that he had gifted to the city of Bristol. "He did these great things but could only do this because he did these awful things"

Surely both "sides" of the argument could be satisfied by doing this and the potential for future cases like this could be reduced significantly.

I am thinking particularly about the statue of Churchill that is often a target for "vandalism" - there are doubtless dozens of others. Without doubt, the guy did some great things during a particularly difficult time in our history but he also said some terrible and abhorrent things that should also be a matter of record on any public monument.

Any Member of Parliament worried about "erasing our history" should consider that much of it is as good as erased on many statues and monuments.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

kingstonian said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

This, I'm not sure how they can be found not guilty unless they were determined not to have been involved. Under the current laws you can't destroy something just because you don't agree with it.

If you listen to the Police statement following the verdict you can tell that they are just waiting on the actions being repeated.

This decision has put the police in a really tough position, potentially arresting people for an offence whilst knowing the courts won’t back them. And if they stand back, they’ll be criticised for not upholding the law. The law must be clear and the police and courts need to follow the law - if there’s an issue, the law is what needs fixing.

This is not the case. Jury trials do not set precedent like that.

Maybe not in a legal sense but do you not foresee people thinking that they now have carte blanche?

They would find out the hard way.

rjsterry

laurentian said:

I think the issues of "putting the police in a difficult position" as mentioned by Kingstonian above and what is seen by some as the potential for future similar acts to go unpunished, could be mitigated by contextualising existing, controversial statues and memorials now.

I believe the idea of contextualising the Edward Coulson statue had been suggested and campaigned for over many years prior to it being pulled down and that people had asked for something on the plinth to explain the source of the wealth that he had gifted to the city of Bristol. "He did these great things but could only do this because he did these awful things"

Surely both "sides" of the argument could be satisfied by doing this and the potential for future cases like this could be reduced significantly.

I am thinking particularly about the statue of Churchill that is often a target for "vandalism" - there are doubtless dozens of others. Without doubt, the guy did some great things during a particularly difficult time in our history but he also said some terrible and abhorrent things that should also be a matter of record on any public monument.

Any Member of Parliament worried about "erasing our history" should consider that much of it is as good as erased on many statues and monuments.

Statues aren't history, so removing them cannot possibly erase history. Ironically, the statue of Colston did erase his history. He wasn't a great man. He got very rich from buying and selling people. He later gave away some of that wealth as he had no heirs.

rick_chasey

Surely context *is* everything in the law?

Isn't that entirely why there are multiples types of things like murder and huge discretion on the shape and size of any punishment for a given crime?

laurentian

rjsterry said:

laurentian said:

I think the issues of "putting the police in a difficult position" as mentioned by Kingstonian above and what is seen by some as the potential for future similar acts to go unpunished, could be mitigated by contextualising existing, controversial statues and memorials now.

I believe the idea of contextualising the Edward Coulson statue had been suggested and campaigned for over many years prior to it being pulled down and that people had asked for something on the plinth to explain the source of the wealth that he had gifted to the city of Bristol. "He did these great things but could only do this because he did these awful things"

Surely both "sides" of the argument could be satisfied by doing this and the potential for future cases like this could be reduced significantly.

I am thinking particularly about the statue of Churchill that is often a target for "vandalism" - there are doubtless dozens of others. Without doubt, the guy did some great things during a particularly difficult time in our history but he also said some terrible and abhorrent things that should also be a matter of record on any public monument.

Any Member of Parliament worried about "erasing our history" should consider that much of it is as good as erased on many statues and monuments.

Statues aren't history, so removing them cannot possibly erase history. Ironically, the statue of Colston did erase his history. He wasn't a great man. He got very rich from buying and selling people. He later gave away some of that wealth as he had no heirs.

Agreed, hence the use of my quotation marks around "erasing our history"

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

kingstonian said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

This, I'm not sure how they can be found not guilty unless they were determined not to have been involved. Under the current laws you can't destroy something just because you don't agree with it.

If you listen to the Police statement following the verdict you can tell that they are just waiting on the actions being repeated.

This decision has put the police in a really tough position, potentially arresting people for an offence whilst knowing the courts won’t back them. And if they stand back, they’ll be criticised for not upholding the law. The law must be clear and the police and courts need to follow the law - if there’s an issue, the law is what needs fixing.

This is not the case. Jury trials do not set precedent like that.

Maybe not in a legal sense but do you not foresee people thinking that they now have carte blanche?

They would find out the hard way.

Yeahbut, damage is done, time and money is wasted on teaching people a lesson.
Or, maybe not as this case has proven. Nice little earner for lawyers though.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

kingstonian said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm always impressed by a jury coming out with a "yes obviously they did it but whatever" verdict.

This, I'm not sure how they can be found not guilty unless they were determined not to have been involved. Under the current laws you can't destroy something just because you don't agree with it.

If you listen to the Police statement following the verdict you can tell that they are just waiting on the actions being repeated.

This decision has put the police in a really tough position, potentially arresting people for an offence whilst knowing the courts won’t back them. And if they stand back, they’ll be criticised for not upholding the law. The law must be clear and the police and courts need to follow the law - if there’s an issue, the law is what needs fixing.

This is not the case. Jury trials do not set precedent like that.

Maybe not in a legal sense but do you not foresee people thinking that they now have carte blanche?

They would find out the hard way.

Yeahbut, damage is done, time and money is wasted on teaching people a lesson.
Or, maybe not as this case has proven. Nice little earner for lawyers though.

I'm not sure how many people are sitting their itching to smash something up, but had held off pending the results of this case. The 'lawful excuse' provision has been there since the 1970s. There's nothing new or precedent-setting about the case as far as I can see.

pblakeney

Time will tell.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Surely context *is* everything in the law?

Isn't that entirely why there are multiples types of things like murder and huge discretion on the shape and size of any punishment for a given crime?

That's where sentencing rules come in though. The judge could have given the minimum sentence possible due to the mitigation of what the statue represented and the failure of the authorities to do anything about it. What shouldn't be allowed is that juries can find someone not guilty because they think the law is wrong.