Colston Vandals Cleared

[fender62]

the judge just greenlighted it's ok to vandalise, if you don't like a statue or painting just knock it down or rip it up, history is there to be trodden on if it offends you...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10371949/BLM-protestors-not-guilty-criminal-damage-toppling-Edward-Colston-statue-Bristol.html

[royfromaus]

I'm assuming Fender told remainers they lost and should get over it.

[Atheist]

All those who have posted protesting at the outcome of a legal trial, but who disagree with the verdict, can be said to have lost a battle in that their wishes have not been complied with.

[naomi24]

Ah, right. Atheist is confused again. Thanks roy.

[dannyk13]

Gromit // It would be fairly pointless and a waste of money.//
You really don't understand what the Attorney General is asking for if she decides to go ahead.Oh well ,another case of 'non so blind etc.'

[jno]

dannyk, the jury appear to have decided otherwise: the prosecution had to prove the defendants had no lawful excuse, and evidently failed to do so.

[jno]

You really don't understand what the Attorney General is asking for

as Gromit has pointed out, she hasn't asked for anything, so there's nothing to "understand".

[dannyk13]

jno, I know what the jury decided.Thank you.

[Atheist]

Naomi, I only asked those who disagree with the jury's verdict to bite the bullet and accept the outcome of due legal process. I'm sure that most here would agree with that if they thought about it. Perhaps I came across as confused because I didn't clearly explain my thinking.

[naomi24]

//the prosecution had to prove the defendants had no lawful excuse, and evidently failed to do so. //

I wonder what lawful excuse there is for vandalising public property?

[dannyk13]

you conveniently missed the next part of my post i.e 'if she decides to go ahead'

[dannyk13]

Naomi. @ 14.35. exactly.

[Khandro]

//fender and the rest of like mind:- you lost, get over it//

That's about what it comes down to from the left; a juvenile binary outcome of win or loose, when the real issue at stake here is justice.

[jno]

I replied to the part of the sentence using the present tense, dannyk.

[dannyk13]

jno. you may be looking for an argument, I am not.

[jno]

you are arguing with the jury decision nonstop, dannyk, presumably on the grounds that they aren't here so can't answer back, and everyone will thus be swayed by your opinion. But everyone isn't. Bad luck.

[Atheist]

Khandro; you would be right to say that 'get over it' is not a polite or constructive way to comment here, but I was echoing the style that was made popular after the Brexit vote, when there was much crowing and sowing of division in the country. I remember judges being attacked in the right wing press as 'enemies of the people'.
Now we have ABers arguing that a jury verdict was wrong. Such an argument goes against the whole prinicple of juries, that a panel of ordinary people are involved, partly to protect people from domination by a ruling class or selfish elite.
I don't think that 'get over it' is a left-wing thing.

[royfromaus]

Seems Athiest is admitting that regardless of evidence he hoped the alleged (cough) criminals would get away with it....because they are his kind of alleged criminals.

[THECORBYLOON]

As the reasons for the verdict are unknown, it cannot be said with certainty the Jury agreed there had been criminal damage.

[Khandro]

Atheist; In British law, the decision of a jury stands whether that was a good outcome or not is always going to be open to debate & in this case, I think 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' would agree that this simply isn't right.

[dannyk13]

Khandro // In British law, the decision of a jury stands whether that was a good outcome or not //
Not strictly true.A finding of guilty can be appealed against.