Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Colston Vandals Cleared
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:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
pixie - // Andy, the statue was asked to be removed for a long time, and nobody listened. It may be the problem with having white men continue to decide what matters? //
I don;t believe there is an arbitrary time limit on council procedures decided in a moment by an un-elected mob of hooligans.
// You agree that the statue should be removed, is that right? //
I think it should have been relocated to a museum, where proper contextual information could be provided, explaining that Colston made his money in a legitimate fashion, but that trade is no longer regarded as acceptable.
He should be lauded for his philanthropy and vision, not for the method by which the fortune he distributed was obtained, and that can be explained with a few information boards in front of the statue in a museum.
I don;t believe there is an arbitrary time limit on council procedures decided in a moment by an un-elected mob of hooligans.
// You agree that the statue should be removed, is that right? //
I think it should have been relocated to a museum, where proper contextual information could be provided, explaining that Colston made his money in a legitimate fashion, but that trade is no longer regarded as acceptable.
He should be lauded for his philanthropy and vision, not for the method by which the fortune he distributed was obtained, and that can be explained with a few information boards in front of the statue in a museum.
Atheist - // Andy, but we do have hindsight, and we may choose to remove a statue that was erected without hindsight. //
'We' did not choose to remove the statue, it was removed by a mob acting on their own pious and self-aggrandising instincts.
// In this case, the choice was siezed by 'activists' and I disagree with that; they should in my view have lobbied for a result and not just taken the law into their own hands. //
No argument there at all.
// But 'twas ever thus! //
I disagree.
This sort of wanton vandalism is a by-product of the woke generation.
It is not something that is an unfortunate quirk of human behaviour and we have to shrug our shoulders and accept it.
We should kick back at the legal judgement by an appeal which will hopefully, as I have pointed out , and echoing New Judge's typically thoughtful and qualified points on the subject - allow for better guidance for the legal process in the future, lest anyone should labour under the illusion that release from a criminal charge gives this mob of idiots the moral high ground to continue acting on their unrestrained destructive impulses.
'We' did not choose to remove the statue, it was removed by a mob acting on their own pious and self-aggrandising instincts.
// In this case, the choice was siezed by 'activists' and I disagree with that; they should in my view have lobbied for a result and not just taken the law into their own hands. //
No argument there at all.
// But 'twas ever thus! //
I disagree.
This sort of wanton vandalism is a by-product of the woke generation.
It is not something that is an unfortunate quirk of human behaviour and we have to shrug our shoulders and accept it.
We should kick back at the legal judgement by an appeal which will hopefully, as I have pointed out , and echoing New Judge's typically thoughtful and qualified points on the subject - allow for better guidance for the legal process in the future, lest anyone should labour under the illusion that release from a criminal charge gives this mob of idiots the moral high ground to continue acting on their unrestrained destructive impulses.
naomi - // AH, we have no option but to accept it. That doesn’t mean the outcome doesn’t stink though. //
Absolutely no argument there at all.
Because, unlike the mob involved, we are law-abiding citizens who accept the decisions made by due legal process, we will accept the verdict handed down.
But equally, because we are thinking, reasoning mature adults with a finely developed sense of right and wrong, we shall continue to hold our noses for some considerable time to come.
Absolutely no argument there at all.
Because, unlike the mob involved, we are law-abiding citizens who accept the decisions made by due legal process, we will accept the verdict handed down.
But equally, because we are thinking, reasoning mature adults with a finely developed sense of right and wrong, we shall continue to hold our noses for some considerable time to come.
pixie - // Whoever mentioned the suffragettes had a good point, unfortunately, sometimes people have to actually fight for themselves. //
That's true, but this is not what we have here.
What we have is a mob of people who simply can;t wait to advertise to anyone who will look and listen, and everyone else who won't as well, their credentials as understanders of suffering and injustice.
These people aren't looking for right or justice, they are shouting Look at me! See how socially conscious I am! I'm so in touch with my feelings that I am going to live in a permanent pity party where no-one understands wrong things anything like as well as I do.
And all the jury have done is underline that perception for them, making them even more insufferably smug and pompous than they were before, if such a thing is actually possible.
That's true, but this is not what we have here.
What we have is a mob of people who simply can;t wait to advertise to anyone who will look and listen, and everyone else who won't as well, their credentials as understanders of suffering and injustice.
These people aren't looking for right or justice, they are shouting Look at me! See how socially conscious I am! I'm so in touch with my feelings that I am going to live in a permanent pity party where no-one understands wrong things anything like as well as I do.
And all the jury have done is underline that perception for them, making them even more insufferably smug and pompous than they were before, if such a thing is actually possible.
PP - // // It may be the problem with having white men continue to decide what matters? //
erm AB in full flow again (*) - the Mayor of Bristol is afro caribbean - first one in a major european city //
The term used was 'men' not 'man' - the mayor is not autonomous, he must abide by the decision of the council, which, like every other council in the country, has a majority of white men as its ruling body.
// (*) stupid gormless unresearched untrue etc etc ticks all the boxes for an AB post //
Happy to bow to your superior knowledge on what is stupid, gormless, un-researched and untrue
erm AB in full flow again (*) - the Mayor of Bristol is afro caribbean - first one in a major european city //
The term used was 'men' not 'man' - the mayor is not autonomous, he must abide by the decision of the council, which, like every other council in the country, has a majority of white men as its ruling body.
// (*) stupid gormless unresearched untrue etc etc ticks all the boxes for an AB post //
Happy to bow to your superior knowledge on what is stupid, gormless, un-researched and untrue
I'm not convinced about that, andy- and have no doubt that the same could have been said for many different groups before.
People are not listened to, equally. Still, people who are not white, female, young, old gay and so on... are not properly represented. It will take a long time.
No offence here... but I fully understand why white males are willing to just continue with "tradition" and why so many others feel the need to challenge it.
People are not listened to, equally. Still, people who are not white, female, young, old gay and so on... are not properly represented. It will take a long time.
No offence here... but I fully understand why white males are willing to just continue with "tradition" and why so many others feel the need to challenge it.
pixie - // People are not listened to, equally. Still, people who are not white, female, young, old gay and so on... are not properly represented. It will take a long time.
No offence here... but I fully understand why white males are willing to just continue with "tradition" and why so many others feel the need to challenge it. //
I have no problem whatsoever with appropriate legitimate protest which can actually cause lasting change - especially on behalf of minorities who need a voice to speak for them, to the white males who do remain in charge, with vested interests in the status quo.
But I reiterate my point - this is not what this was about.
This was not about causing change, or a statement about injustice.
This was a mob of self-righteous attention-seeking idiots enjoying being on camera pretending to understand something, and act on it, when in fact I would dispute they have the wit and intelligence to do either.
No offence here... but I fully understand why white males are willing to just continue with "tradition" and why so many others feel the need to challenge it. //
I have no problem whatsoever with appropriate legitimate protest which can actually cause lasting change - especially on behalf of minorities who need a voice to speak for them, to the white males who do remain in charge, with vested interests in the status quo.
But I reiterate my point - this is not what this was about.
This was not about causing change, or a statement about injustice.
This was a mob of self-righteous attention-seeking idiots enjoying being on camera pretending to understand something, and act on it, when in fact I would dispute they have the wit and intelligence to do either.
//…the prosecution had to prove they didn't [have a lawful excuse].//
That is somewhat arguable and I believe “The Secret Barrister” has muddied the waters.
It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, especially one so nebulous as that put forward by the defendants. Without a lawful excuse these defendants would almost certainly have been found guilty. It was common ground, I believe, that they damaged the statue. If they had simply said to the police “I had a lawful excuse” (without further explanation) the police would not have simply put their notebooks and tape recorder away and sent them home. They would want to hear the details of the lawful excuse to put before the CPS. Having heard it, the CPS decided that they had sufficient evidence to see a realistic chance of a conviction (otherwise they would not have prosecuted).
And so to court. The prosecution provides its evidence. It also provides details of the “lawful excuse” they say they were told about (probably by way of interview). They then close their case. At this stage the judge has the option to direct the jury to acquit, as there is “no case to answer”. He obviously did not do so, so must have believed that sufficient evidence was presented so that, without hearing anything further, the jury could (though not necessarily would) convict the defendants. Bear in mind at this stage the prosecution has presented all its evidence including details of the “lawful excuse” they believe does not cut the mustard.
Now it’s the defendant’s turn. Their defence depends on the lawful excuse being accepted as valid by the jury. The judge has already agreed that the prosecution has done enough so that they could convict and the strength of the lawful excuse has not yet been considered by them. If the defendants offered no evidence at that point, all the jury would have heard is what the prosecution had told them – i.e. that the defendants told them about their lawful excuse but they still decided to prosecute nonetheless. It would be a brave defence advocate who left It at that, on the basis that the prosecution had not proved that no lawful excuse was evident. The defendants would have to give their evidence to convince the jury of their case – as indeed they did, including some “expert evidence” surrounding the slavery issues. This was as clear a case for a jury decision as there could be. The prosecution believed that the lawful excuse did not provide a defence, the defendants believed it did. The prosecution did not have to prove that no excuse existed, they simply had to contend that the excuse presented did not provide sufficient defence. Without presenting their case (basically rebutting the prosecution’s contention so proving they had a lawful excuse) I’m quite sure they would have been convicted.
//Savile was a criminal.//
Was he? None of the allegations against him were ever tested. They remain just that – allegations (against a dead man).
That is somewhat arguable and I believe “The Secret Barrister” has muddied the waters.
It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, especially one so nebulous as that put forward by the defendants. Without a lawful excuse these defendants would almost certainly have been found guilty. It was common ground, I believe, that they damaged the statue. If they had simply said to the police “I had a lawful excuse” (without further explanation) the police would not have simply put their notebooks and tape recorder away and sent them home. They would want to hear the details of the lawful excuse to put before the CPS. Having heard it, the CPS decided that they had sufficient evidence to see a realistic chance of a conviction (otherwise they would not have prosecuted).
And so to court. The prosecution provides its evidence. It also provides details of the “lawful excuse” they say they were told about (probably by way of interview). They then close their case. At this stage the judge has the option to direct the jury to acquit, as there is “no case to answer”. He obviously did not do so, so must have believed that sufficient evidence was presented so that, without hearing anything further, the jury could (though not necessarily would) convict the defendants. Bear in mind at this stage the prosecution has presented all its evidence including details of the “lawful excuse” they believe does not cut the mustard.
Now it’s the defendant’s turn. Their defence depends on the lawful excuse being accepted as valid by the jury. The judge has already agreed that the prosecution has done enough so that they could convict and the strength of the lawful excuse has not yet been considered by them. If the defendants offered no evidence at that point, all the jury would have heard is what the prosecution had told them – i.e. that the defendants told them about their lawful excuse but they still decided to prosecute nonetheless. It would be a brave defence advocate who left It at that, on the basis that the prosecution had not proved that no lawful excuse was evident. The defendants would have to give their evidence to convince the jury of their case – as indeed they did, including some “expert evidence” surrounding the slavery issues. This was as clear a case for a jury decision as there could be. The prosecution believed that the lawful excuse did not provide a defence, the defendants believed it did. The prosecution did not have to prove that no excuse existed, they simply had to contend that the excuse presented did not provide sufficient defence. Without presenting their case (basically rebutting the prosecution’s contention so proving they had a lawful excuse) I’m quite sure they would have been convicted.
//Savile was a criminal.//
Was he? None of the allegations against him were ever tested. They remain just that – allegations (against a dead man).
//To align these vandals to the suffragettes is an insult to those ladies.//
Is that because you agree with the aims of the suffragettes and you disagree with these defendants, naomi? Among other things, suffragettes destroyed letterboxes and smashed the windows of thousands of shops and offices. They cut telephone wires, burned down the houses of politicians and prominent members of society, set cricket pavilions alight and carved slogans into golf courses. Compared to that, pulling down a statue and chucking it in the docks is fairly small beer, I'm sure you'll agree. So surely it must be the cause that makes one acceptable and the other not?
Is that because you agree with the aims of the suffragettes and you disagree with these defendants, naomi? Among other things, suffragettes destroyed letterboxes and smashed the windows of thousands of shops and offices. They cut telephone wires, burned down the houses of politicians and prominent members of society, set cricket pavilions alight and carved slogans into golf courses. Compared to that, pulling down a statue and chucking it in the docks is fairly small beer, I'm sure you'll agree. So surely it must be the cause that makes one acceptable and the other not?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.