Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting
Comments
-
There is a discretion in the law. The discretion in the case of Crimdam is lawful excuse. It is laid down in statute where discretion can be applied. ie Sect 5.rick_chasey said:
The judgement did. All judgments take context into account and this is no exception.TheBigBean said:
I don't think the law makes a distinction.rick_chasey said:
A public statue in a public place is not the same as a sticker on a private car for multiple reasons, so I think it is a false analogy.ballysmate said:
If you look back, I was actually arguing that NO change in the law was needed. Others appeared to think change was required.rjsterry said:Again, you seem to be jumping from explanations that seem reasonable to you, to 'that's what the jury must have decided. Maybe but it's possible they did think the defences reasonable. Either way, it's a feature of our system rather than a bug, and I don't think it warrants a change of law and I'm not even sure what you would change.
The various 'defences' discussed by the secret barrister are somewhat contradictory.
It was argued that the statue was the property of the people of Bristol and its presence amounted to a Sect 5 Public offence. ie the people of Bristol were committing that offence. (Statues cannot be guilty of an offence) It was also argued that the same people would have consented to the statue being destroyed.
One claim would seem to negate another would it not? That's before it is decided whether a public order offence actually had been committed.
On the subject of "reasonable", if you saw a car with the most offensive bumper sticker on it, to which you rightly took offence, what would you consider a reasonable course of action?
Report the driver to the police? Take steps to cover the offending sticker? Or tie a rope to the car and wrench the rear bumper off?
But I agree that "reasonable" is a subjective view.
The analogy is false as it excludes material context.
There is an awful lot of discretion in law to take context into account.
To show lawful excuse, you have to satisfy either element A or element B of Section 5 subsection 2.
0 -
Surely in the sticker example, removing the statue is like removing the sticker. Ripping off the whole bumper would be like tearing up the road the statue was on.ballysmate said:
Exactly the same. Offensive item in a public place. Ownership is immaterial.rick_chasey said:
A public statue in a public place is not the same as a sticker on a private car for multiple reasons, so I think it is a false analogy.ballysmate said:
If you look back, I was actually arguing that NO change in the law was needed. Others appeared to think change was required.rjsterry said:Again, you seem to be jumping from explanations that seem reasonable to you, to 'that's what the jury must have decided. Maybe but it's possible they did think the defences reasonable. Either way, it's a feature of our system rather than a bug, and I don't think it warrants a change of law and I'm not even sure what you would change.
The various 'defences' discussed by the secret barrister are somewhat contradictory.
It was argued that the statue was the property of the people of Bristol and its presence amounted to a Sect 5 Public offence. ie the people of Bristol were committing that offence. (Statues cannot be guilty of an offence) It was also argued that the same people would have consented to the statue being destroyed.
One claim would seem to negate another would it not? That's before it is decided whether a public order offence actually had been committed.
On the subject of "reasonable", if you saw a car with the most offensive bumper sticker on it, to which you rightly took offence, what would you consider a reasonable course of action?
Report the driver to the police? Take steps to cover the offending sticker? Or tie a rope to the car and wrench the rear bumper off?
But I agree that "reasonable" is a subjective view.
Besides, was it not part of the defence that said statue was owned by the people of Bristol, which would make it private property.
FWIW I think the notion that the statue was owned by the people of Bristol and not the local authority utter bollox.
If a car had a sticker celebrating slavery and someone removed the sticker, I doubt they'd get in much trouble.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
You are right, they wouldn't get into much trouble, as they hadn't caused any damage.pangolin said:
Surely in the sticker example, removing the statue is like removing the sticker. Ripping off the whole bumper would be like tearing up the road the statue was on.ballysmate said:
Exactly the same. Offensive item in a public place. Ownership is immaterial.rick_chasey said:
A public statue in a public place is not the same as a sticker on a private car for multiple reasons, so I think it is a false analogy.ballysmate said:
If you look back, I was actually arguing that NO change in the law was needed. Others appeared to think change was required.rjsterry said:Again, you seem to be jumping from explanations that seem reasonable to you, to 'that's what the jury must have decided. Maybe but it's possible they did think the defences reasonable. Either way, it's a feature of our system rather than a bug, and I don't think it warrants a change of law and I'm not even sure what you would change.
The various 'defences' discussed by the secret barrister are somewhat contradictory.
It was argued that the statue was the property of the people of Bristol and its presence amounted to a Sect 5 Public offence. ie the people of Bristol were committing that offence. (Statues cannot be guilty of an offence) It was also argued that the same people would have consented to the statue being destroyed.
One claim would seem to negate another would it not? That's before it is decided whether a public order offence actually had been committed.
On the subject of "reasonable", if you saw a car with the most offensive bumper sticker on it, to which you rightly took offence, what would you consider a reasonable course of action?
Report the driver to the police? Take steps to cover the offending sticker? Or tie a rope to the car and wrench the rear bumper off?
But I agree that "reasonable" is a subjective view.
Besides, was it not part of the defence that said statue was owned by the people of Bristol, which would make it private property.
FWIW I think the notion that the statue was owned by the people of Bristol and not the local authority utter bollox.
If a car had a sticker celebrating slavery and someone removed the sticker, I doubt they'd get in much trouble.
If on the other hand you damaged the paint work in the process you would be liable for any damage caused.
Any action you take must be legal, proportionate, justified and necessary to be considered to be lawful. For proportionate, read minimum required.
Even if it is held that the presence of the statue constituted an offence (This has not been shown anywhere btw), was the action taken proportionate?0 -
A private car with a sticker is not the same as a statue in the middle of a public square.
If you really think that’s the same then it’s a bit pointless argument.
Just because they are *in* public does not make them the same, nor do they have the same impact or meaning.
0 -
It's worth reading the local paper's reporting of how the Merchant Venturers apparently blocked (or tried to whitewash) a second plaque to be attached to the statue.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/how-city-failed-remove-edward-4211771
The conservative councillor who objected to the proposed wording on the plaque referencing Colston's slave trading "said he objected so strongly to the proposed wording of the proposed plaque that if it were put onto the statue of Edward Colston, then vandalising it or stealing it 'may be justified'."0 -
Have you read the second article from the secret barrister?rick_chasey said:A private car with a sticker is not the same as a statue in the middle of a public square.
If you really think that’s the same then it’s a bit pointless argument.
Just because they are *in* public does not make them the same, nor do they have the same impact or meaning.
0 -
The car sticker example was purely for a demonstration of proportionality.rick_chasey said:A private car with a sticker is not the same as a statue in the middle of a public square.
If you really think that’s the same then it’s a bit pointless argument.
Just because they are *in* public does not make them the same, nor do they have the same impact or meaning.
But that aside, can you please show me the legal difference in respect to the CDA?
1Destroying or damaging property.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
.0 -
I claim offence on behalf of my partially sighted mother in law.Ben6899 said:Stevo_666 said:
That's getting a bit silly now. Wonder what classic car enthusiasts who own MG Midgets are going to do to avoid offending anyone?DeVlaeminck said:
I sold mine. Saw this coming...
She sees nowt coming.0 -
ballysmate said:
The car sticker example was purely for a demonstration of proportionality.rick_chasey said:A private car with a sticker is not the same as a statue in the middle of a public square.
If you really think that’s the same then it’s a bit pointless argument.
Just because they are *in* public does not make them the same, nor do they have the same impact or meaning.
But that aside, can you please show me the legal difference in respect to the CDA?
1Destroying or damaging property.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
.The second ‘lawful excuse’, which set out in section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, was raised by two of the defendants, who said that they honestly believed that the statue was owned by the people of Bristol, and that had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have consented to what was done.
The prosecution case was that the defendants had no such belief, and had taken no steps to consult the people of Bristol.
Again, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the defence. If there’s any doubt, the defendants are entitled to the benefit. That is the cornerstone of our justice system.
Good luck doing that with a car.0 -
You're reading the wrong bit.rick_chasey said:ballysmate said:
The car sticker example was purely for a demonstration of proportionality.rick_chasey said:A private car with a sticker is not the same as a statue in the middle of a public square.
If you really think that’s the same then it’s a bit pointless argument.
Just because they are *in* public does not make them the same, nor do they have the same impact or meaning.
But that aside, can you please show me the legal difference in respect to the CDA?
1Destroying or damaging property.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
.The second ‘lawful excuse’, which set out in section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, was raised by two of the defendants, who said that they honestly believed that the statue was owned by the people of Bristol, and that had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have consented to what was done.
The prosecution case was that the defendants had no such belief, and had taken no steps to consult the people of Bristol.
Again, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the defence. If there’s any doubt, the defendants are entitled to the benefit. That is the cornerstone of our justice system.
Good luck doing that with a car.0 -
I bet these people wouldn't like if they bought something and it was shredded before their eyes.0
-
If the jury took that on board and decided it was a honestly held belief and was the reason for the acquittal, then surely they would then have found the other two guilty as they held no such belief?rick_chasey said:ballysmate said:
The car sticker example was purely for a demonstration of proportionality.rick_chasey said:A private car with a sticker is not the same as a statue in the middle of a public square.
If you really think that’s the same then it’s a bit pointless argument.
Just because they are *in* public does not make them the same, nor do they have the same impact or meaning.
But that aside, can you please show me the legal difference in respect to the CDA?
1Destroying or damaging property.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
.The second ‘lawful excuse’, which set out in section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, was raised by two of the defendants, who said that they honestly believed that the statue was owned by the people of Bristol, and that had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have consented to what was done.
The prosecution case was that the defendants had no such belief, and had taken no steps to consult the people of Bristol.
Again, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the defence. If there’s any doubt, the defendants are entitled to the benefit. That is the cornerstone of our justice system.
Good luck doing that with a car.
Btw You still haven't answered how criminal damage to cars is treated differently to damage to any other property under the law. Crimdam is crimdam no matter the owner or location of the property.0 -
Probably not but not sure of the relevance.focuszing723 said:I bet these people wouldn't like if they bought something and it was shredded before their eyes.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You wokie-dokies have gone too far now and Tucker Carlson is mad as hell and isn't going to take it anymore
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
He's upset because he no longer finds a cartoon chocolate sexy?
That is very weird.0 -
Nah he's upset because he's old and doesn't understand the world anymore.
And lacks the self awareness to see that's what is making him upset.0 -
I couldn't work it out, I was thinking Tucker Carlson was the hitman in No Country For Old Men. Was wondering why he was upset about M&Ms!0
-
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. That's fine, their prerogative. Everyone should accept the verdict.ballysmate said:
If the jury took that on board and decided it was a honestly held belief and was the reason for the acquittal, then surely they would then have found the other two guilty as they held no such belief?rick_chasey said:ballysmate said:
The car sticker example was purely for a demonstration of proportionality.rick_chasey said:A private car with a sticker is not the same as a statue in the middle of a public square.
If you really think that’s the same then it’s a bit pointless argument.
Just because they are *in* public does not make them the same, nor do they have the same impact or meaning.
But that aside, can you please show me the legal difference in respect to the CDA?
1Destroying or damaging property.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
.The second ‘lawful excuse’, which set out in section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, was raised by two of the defendants, who said that they honestly believed that the statue was owned by the people of Bristol, and that had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have consented to what was done.
The prosecution case was that the defendants had no such belief, and had taken no steps to consult the people of Bristol.
Again, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the defence. If there’s any doubt, the defendants are entitled to the benefit. That is the cornerstone of our justice system.
Good luck doing that with a car.
Btw You still haven't answered how criminal damage to cars is treated differently to damage to any other property under the law. Crimdam is crimdam no matter the owner or location of the property.
People on here are happy at the verdict because they are sympathetic to the cause. Again, that is fine, their prerogative.
As Rick points out, two of the accused hung their hats on the "owners of the statue would have consented" defence. This was a massive stretch of the law at best, and even if this was to be accepted by the jury, they would have had to have found the other two defendants guilty, as they had no similar belief that the owners would have consented.
The jury appears to have found them not guilty, not based on the evidence, but because they didn't want to convict. This should be of concern to everybody.
A more satisfactory outcome would be that they were found guilty and the judge had passed a sentence of a conditional discharge if that sentence was appropriate.
Consider the example of a few years ago when mobs attacked the homes of suspected paedophiles. Nobody has any sympathy for paedos so there would be the likelihood that any jury would sympathise with the defendants motives and acquit.
Around the same time, the houses of paediatricians were attacked. Fair enough, the people who did it were too stupid to know the difference between the 2 terms. But the people that carried out these attacks performed the same acts with the same motives as the ones that attacked the houses of paedophiles.
As the attacks were the same and the motives the same, it would follow that the jury should find these defendants not guilty as well, which would be nonsense.
That is the problem when juries ignore evidence and choose to convict/acquit based on their personal sympathies.
1 -
Nobody has sympathy with paedophiles but that doesn't mean they have sympathy with those who attack them.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
You reckon?DeVlaeminck said:Nobody has sympathy with paedophiles but that doesn't mean they have sympathy with those who attack them.
As a certain Jimmy Saville's name has come up previously in this thread, I will use him as an example.
If someone like him gets a good kicking and an old lady gets done over, which defendant would elicit sympathy do you reckon?
That aside, do you get the point about the dangers of juries ignoring the evidence?0 -
I mean it's already been covered - there are dangers both ways - trial by jury is part of our democratic system - on balance I don't have a problem with the way it is working.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
No it wouldn't follow the same. You're stretching the boundaries of what is actually likely to happen in reality to suit some sort of crazy hypothesis.ballysmate said:
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. That's fine, their prerogative. Everyone should accept the verdict.ballysmate said:
If the jury took that on board and decided it was a honestly held belief and was the reason for the acquittal, then surely they would then have found the other two guilty as they held no such belief?rick_chasey said:ballysmate said:
The car sticker example was purely for a demonstration of proportionality.rick_chasey said:A private car with a sticker is not the same as a statue in the middle of a public square.
If you really think that’s the same then it’s a bit pointless argument.
Just because they are *in* public does not make them the same, nor do they have the same impact or meaning.
But that aside, can you please show me the legal difference in respect to the CDA?
1Destroying or damaging property.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
.The second ‘lawful excuse’, which set out in section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, was raised by two of the defendants, who said that they honestly believed that the statue was owned by the people of Bristol, and that had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have consented to what was done.
The prosecution case was that the defendants had no such belief, and had taken no steps to consult the people of Bristol.
Again, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the defence. If there’s any doubt, the defendants are entitled to the benefit. That is the cornerstone of our justice system.
Good luck doing that with a car.
Btw You still haven't answered how criminal damage to cars is treated differently to damage to any other property under the law. Crimdam is crimdam no matter the owner or location of the property.
People on here are happy at the verdict because they are sympathetic to the cause. Again, that is fine, their prerogative.
As Rick points out, two of the accused hung their hats on the "owners of the statue would have consented" defence. This was a massive stretch of the law at best, and even if this was to be accepted by the jury, they would have had to have found the other two defendants guilty, as they had no similar belief that the owners would have consented.
The jury appears to have found them not guilty, not based on the evidence, but because they didn't want to convict. This should be of concern to everybody.
A more satisfactory outcome would be that they were found guilty and the judge had passed a sentence of a conditional discharge if that sentence was appropriate.
Consider the example of a few years ago when mobs attacked the homes of suspected paedophiles. Nobody has any sympathy for paedos so there would be the likelihood that any jury would sympathise with the defendants motives and acquit.
Around the same time, the houses of paediatricians were attacked. Fair enough, the people who did it were too stupid to know the difference between the 2 terms. But the people that carried out these attacks performed the same acts with the same motives as the ones that attacked the houses of paedophiles.
As the attacks were the same and the motives the same, it would follow that the jury should find these defendants not guilty as well, which would be nonsense.
That is the problem when juries ignore evidence and choose to convict/acquit based on their personal sympathies.
Rather than making stuff up, do you know what actually happened?0 -
I know that they were found not guilty although all the elements that are necessary to demonstrate the offence were complete.shirley_basso said:
No it wouldn't follow the same. You're stretching the boundaries of what is actually likely to happen in reality to suit some sort of crazy hypothesis.ballysmate said:
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. That's fine, their prerogative. Everyone should accept the verdict.ballysmate said:
If the jury took that on board and decided it was a honestly held belief and was the reason for the acquittal, then surely they would then have found the other two guilty as they held no such belief?rick_chasey said:ballysmate said:
The car sticker example was purely for a demonstration of proportionality.rick_chasey said:A private car with a sticker is not the same as a statue in the middle of a public square.
If you really think that’s the same then it’s a bit pointless argument.
Just because they are *in* public does not make them the same, nor do they have the same impact or meaning.
But that aside, can you please show me the legal difference in respect to the CDA?
1Destroying or damaging property.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
.The second ‘lawful excuse’, which set out in section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, was raised by two of the defendants, who said that they honestly believed that the statue was owned by the people of Bristol, and that had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have consented to what was done.
The prosecution case was that the defendants had no such belief, and had taken no steps to consult the people of Bristol.
Again, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the defence. If there’s any doubt, the defendants are entitled to the benefit. That is the cornerstone of our justice system.
Good luck doing that with a car.
Btw You still haven't answered how criminal damage to cars is treated differently to damage to any other property under the law. Crimdam is crimdam no matter the owner or location of the property.
People on here are happy at the verdict because they are sympathetic to the cause. Again, that is fine, their prerogative.
As Rick points out, two of the accused hung their hats on the "owners of the statue would have consented" defence. This was a massive stretch of the law at best, and even if this was to be accepted by the jury, they would have had to have found the other two defendants guilty, as they had no similar belief that the owners would have consented.
The jury appears to have found them not guilty, not based on the evidence, but because they didn't want to convict. This should be of concern to everybody.
A more satisfactory outcome would be that they were found guilty and the judge had passed a sentence of a conditional discharge if that sentence was appropriate.
Consider the example of a few years ago when mobs attacked the homes of suspected paedophiles. Nobody has any sympathy for paedos so there would be the likelihood that any jury would sympathise with the defendants motives and acquit.
Around the same time, the houses of paediatricians were attacked. Fair enough, the people who did it were too stupid to know the difference between the 2 terms. But the people that carried out these attacks performed the same acts with the same motives as the ones that attacked the houses of paedophiles.
As the attacks were the same and the motives the same, it would follow that the jury should find these defendants not guilty as well, which would be nonsense.
That is the problem when juries ignore evidence and choose to convict/acquit based on their personal sympathies.
Rather than making stuff up, do you know what actually happened?
Only the jurors know the reason they returned the verdict and they are barred from discussing it.
Out of curiosity, why do you think you would differentiate between the two scenarios I outlined?
Same actus reus and same mens rea.0 -
It's not a new thing, though. We've just not heard about it for a while.ballysmate said:
You reckon?DeVlaeminck said:Nobody has sympathy with paedophiles but that doesn't mean they have sympathy with those who attack them.
As a certain Jimmy Saville's name has come up previously in this thread, I will use him as an example.
If someone like him gets a good kicking and an old lady gets done over, which defendant would elicit sympathy do you reckon?
That aside, do you get the point about the dangers of juries ignoring the evidence?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This thread, yikes.
Good job the rozzers now have discretion to shut down any protests they fancy
0 -
If I use a woman's saddle, does this mean I can race with the ladies?0
-
As long as you remove your testicles while you are racing.thedirector135 said:If I use a woman's saddle, does this mean I can race with the ladies?
1 -
Ahem. Perhaps ask Rachel McKinnon or Veronica Ivy or whatever the current name is.webboo said:
As long as you remove your testicles while you are racing.thedirector135 said:If I use a woman's saddle, does this mean I can race with the ladies?
0 -
Another criminal damage prosecution not sticking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-tees-602576540 -
TheBigBean said:
Another criminal damage prosecution not sticking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-tees-60257654
Were they the right charges?0
