Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting
Comments
-
That isn't what happened, though.Pross said:
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.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?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:0 -
^ Indeed. Reality. Not the batshit bollox being perpetrated by politicos, clickbaiters et al.0
-
Very useful thanks.mrb123 said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The Secret Barrister's two books are highly recommended for anyone who wants to gain a clear and accurate picture of how our justice system really works and how our press and politicians distort the truth of what goes on in the courts. Should be mandatory reading in school citizenship lessons.0
-
-
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:1 -
TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
Yes, indeed, I don't think anyone's disagreeing that the media culture isn't corrosive. There's a nice ambivalence about 'value' too, in that description.
Have you read Peter Oborne's post about his escaping the grip of print media?
0 -
All their posts I've read have been very good. Balanced and looking at the actual legal side of things rather than being led by the heart or personal opinion like most of us.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:0 -
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:0 -
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:0 -
It's not that I think journalism couldn't be improved. I just think that journalism is trying to do something different from what you want. It's quite rare to find someone with the writing ability, the expertise and the spare time to commentate in that degree of detail in an accessible and readable manner. Newspapers just don't have the space for that length of article on a story that will only be front page for a day or two and then be gone. Nor would they sell many copies even if they did. And at the end of the day, most media outlets are there to make money first. Their readers expect short pithy stories that can be easily grasped.TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yeah that's really not very much.TheBigBean said:
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
FT, which I rate pretty highly on this stuff (though understandably an FS bias), is roughly £350 a year, and even then that's digital only no print, no premium content.
Good journalism costs money and I don't have much sympathy for the people who complain about it but won't pay for it.
If it's free or heavily subsidised, then you are the product, and you might want to consider why that is.0 -
Wikipedia is an example against all that, and in case it is not obvious, I really don't like the FT.rick_chasey said:
Yeah that's really not very much.TheBigBean said:
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
FT, which I rate pretty highly on this stuff (though understandably an FS bias), is roughly £350 a year, and even then that's digital only no print, no premium content.
Good journalism costs money and I don't have much sympathy for the people who complain about it but won't pay for it.
If it's free or heavily subsidised, then you are the product, and you might want to consider why that is.0 -
-
I understand why the existing structures don't deliver, but times have changed. It is very easy to publish now, so what is required is to bring together a lot of the blogs and expertise out there. If you put the effort in, you can usually find someone somewhere who has written about the subject matter and published it for free.rjsterry said:
It's not that I think journalism couldn't be improved. I just think that journalism is trying to do something different from what you want. It's quite rare to find someone with the writing ability, the expertise and the spare time to commentate in that degree of detail in an accessible and readable manner. Newspapers just don't have the space for that length of article on a story that will only be front page for a day or two and then be gone. Nor would they sell many copies even if they did. And at the end of the day, most media outlets are there to make money first. Their readers expect short pithy stories that can be easily grasped.TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:0 -
Wikipedia is... patchy. Just expecting people to give up their time for free to educate the public is, frankly, insulting.TheBigBean said:
Wikipedia is an example against all that, and in case it is not obvious, I really don't like the FT.rick_chasey said:
Yeah that's really not very much.TheBigBean said:
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
FT, which I rate pretty highly on this stuff (though understandably an FS bias), is roughly £350 a year, and even then that's digital only no print, no premium content.
Good journalism costs money and I don't have much sympathy for the people who complain about it but won't pay for it.
If it's free or heavily subsidised, then you are the product, and you might want to consider why that is.
BTW, another barrister* has written a piece for the Spectator with a rather different take.
*he has omitted to mention that he doesn't practise criminal law.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Wikipedia is excellent. I would never have imagined that people would have given up their free time, but they do appear to do so.rjsterry said:
Wikipedia is... patchy. Just expecting people to give up their time for free to educate the public is, frankly, insulting.TheBigBean said:
Wikipedia is an example against all that, and in case it is not obvious, I really don't like the FT.rick_chasey said:
Yeah that's really not very much.TheBigBean said:
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
FT, which I rate pretty highly on this stuff (though understandably an FS bias), is roughly £350 a year, and even then that's digital only no print, no premium content.
Good journalism costs money and I don't have much sympathy for the people who complain about it but won't pay for it.
If it's free or heavily subsidised, then you are the product, and you might want to consider why that is.
BTW, another barrister* has written a piece for the Spectator with a rather different take.
*he has omitted to mention that he doesn't practise criminal law.0 -
350 is a lot thoughrick_chasey said:
Yeah that's really not very much.TheBigBean said:
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
FT, which I rate pretty highly on this stuff (though understandably an FS bias), is roughly £350 a year, and even then that's digital only no print, no premium content.
Good journalism costs money and I don't have much sympathy for the people who complain about it but won't pay for it.
If it's free or heavily subsidised, then you are the product, and you might want to consider why that is.
Apples and pears I know but it's more than twice the TV licence
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Someday we'll get back to my preferred method of paying for journalism. Free communal paper along with my coffee and scone.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I know it’s obvious but that’s why the FT is good.tailwindhome said:
350 is a lot thoughrick_chasey said:
Yeah that's really not very much.TheBigBean said:
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
FT, which I rate pretty highly on this stuff (though understandably an FS bias), is roughly £350 a year, and even then that's digital only no print, no premium content.
Good journalism costs money and I don't have much sympathy for the people who complain about it but won't pay for it.
If it's free or heavily subsidised, then you are the product, and you might want to consider why that is.
Apples and pears I know but it's more than twice the TV licence
If ya don’t want clickbait, and you want journalists to have the bandwidth to research properly, a pound a paper doesn’t seem that unreasonable.
2 -
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-colston-verdict-is-the-triumph-of-values-not-law/amprjsterry said:
Wikipedia is... patchy. Just expecting people to give up their time for free to educate the public is, frankly, insulting.TheBigBean said:
Wikipedia is an example against all that, and in case it is not obvious, I really don't like the FT.rick_chasey said:
Yeah that's really not very much.TheBigBean said:
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
FT, which I rate pretty highly on this stuff (though understandably an FS bias), is roughly £350 a year, and even then that's digital only no print, no premium content.
Good journalism costs money and I don't have much sympathy for the people who complain about it but won't pay for it.
If it's free or heavily subsidised, then you are the product, and you might want to consider why that is.
BTW, another barrister* has written a piece for the Spectator with a rather different take.
*he has omitted to mention that he doesn't practise criminal law.
I presume its this one...
I feel like he has rather oversimplified the case compared to the secret barrister, and I think his writing off any chance of Colston being offensive is rather stupid.
0 -
That's the one. TSB has tweeted a paragraph by paragraph dissection of why it's all wrong, but broadly the same conclusion as you.Jezyboy said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-colston-verdict-is-the-triumph-of-values-not-law/amprjsterry said:
Wikipedia is... patchy. Just expecting people to give up their time for free to educate the public is, frankly, insulting.TheBigBean said:
Wikipedia is an example against all that, and in case it is not obvious, I really don't like the FT.rick_chasey said:
Yeah that's really not very much.TheBigBean said:
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
FT, which I rate pretty highly on this stuff (though understandably an FS bias), is roughly £350 a year, and even then that's digital only no print, no premium content.
Good journalism costs money and I don't have much sympathy for the people who complain about it but won't pay for it.
If it's free or heavily subsidised, then you are the product, and you might want to consider why that is.
BTW, another barrister* has written a piece for the Spectator with a rather different take.
*he has omitted to mention that he doesn't practise criminal law.
I presume its this one...
I feel like he has rather oversimplified the case compared to the secret barrister, and I think his writing off any chance of Colston being offensive is rather stupid.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I didn't find the two articles that contradictory. It's ok to argue for law change if you don't like a verdict.rjsterry said:
That's the one. TSB has tweeted a paragraph by paragraph dissection of why it's all wrong, but broadly the same conclusion as you.Jezyboy said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-colston-verdict-is-the-triumph-of-values-not-law/amprjsterry said:
Wikipedia is... patchy. Just expecting people to give up their time for free to educate the public is, frankly, insulting.TheBigBean said:
Wikipedia is an example against all that, and in case it is not obvious, I really don't like the FT.rick_chasey said:
Yeah that's really not very much.TheBigBean said:
Depends on the amount of stuff they covered. If it is just a summary of a free blog then I wouldn't pay. If they got together a collection of experts who could cover most news stories, then I'd probably pay for a subscription. Probably not more than £10/month though, so that may mean that it is not economically viable. That said, it would really depend on how good it was.rick_chasey said:
How much would you pay per year for journalism like that?TheBigBean said:
Incidentally, when you disagree with my desire for better journalism, this is sort of thing I would like more of. Yes, it could be an easier read, but I haven't seen any other media publication lay out just how many ways they could have been found not guilty (beyond the final one). I particularly like the argument that the statue wasn't damaged as its value has now increased.rjsterry said:
It is good. Very thorough.TheBigBean said:
Was just about to post that. It's a good article.mrb123 said:
FT, which I rate pretty highly on this stuff (though understandably an FS bias), is roughly £350 a year, and even then that's digital only no print, no premium content.
Good journalism costs money and I don't have much sympathy for the people who complain about it but won't pay for it.
If it's free or heavily subsidised, then you are the product, and you might want to consider why that is.
BTW, another barrister* has written a piece for the Spectator with a rather different take.
*he has omitted to mention that he doesn't practise criminal law.
I presume its this one...
I feel like he has rather oversimplified the case compared to the secret barrister, and I think his writing off any chance of Colston being offensive is rather stupid.0 -
It's odd the jury verdicts some people object to.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
More from the secret lawyer. Seems clear as the laws are currently drafted, but equally I can understand that some think the laws should be changed.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/10/a-thought-experiment-on-criminal-damage/0 -
The final argument is interesting and seeing that I can understand how a not guilty decision could have been made (assuming that was the jury's reasoning).TheBigBean said:More from the secret lawyer. Seems clear as the laws are currently drafted, but equally I can understand that some think the laws should be changed.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/10/a-thought-experiment-on-criminal-damage/
It still feels very odd that a jury can be left to decide if someone who they agree committed the act and had no legal reason to do so can be found not guilty because convicting wouldn't be proportionate. To my mind that's where sentencing guidelines would come into play or the law should be amended so the act wasn't illegal.
Also, I know they say the example used is deliberately exaggerated and isn't meant to relate to this case but to me it seemed flawed as the original mural would have been criminal damage as it was painted on the property by a tenant without any mention of consent.0 -
There was some crank on BBC Broadcasting House, last night, chiselling away at Gill’s Prospero and Ariel statue.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0
