Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Raeturbo on 05 January 2022, 17:28:43
-
https://apple.news/AycdgHbkgTVGa8pWvhsP2lg
-
"the law is an ass"
very little justice is being dispensed in the UK
which is why there is so much crime
you need to deter people from doing wrong
bring back hard labour and hanging
-
The outcome I believe was predictable.
For many years there has been strong suggestions made to the authorities in Bristol to remove this statue, so now, although done in a dubious manner, 'the people' decided to demolish it themselves after a political movement formed to do so. Democracy in action? Well now no doubt many on both sides of any argument will have their opinions on this, but what is done is now done. ;)
Who would now demand the statue is re-instated? ??? ???
-
"the law is an ass"
very little justice is being dispensed in the UK
which is why there is so much crime
you need to deter people from doing wrong
bring back hard labour and hanging
.
Or let's be allowed to shoot the bastards.
-
Rule for one group and a rule for another, anybody who shows resistance to this bo((0x is certainly treated far more harshly. I’ve said it before it’s a recipe for disaster.
-
Just seen the arrogant cu**s walk out of court on the news , need their arses kicking or a trip into Brixton to see the nightlife that would be poetic justice.
-
So, in summary, four white middle class sociology students from a University built and paid for by the very chap whose statue they destroyed get cleared after doing what they wanted because a convicted drug dealing arse hole died of a drug overdose. 4,000 miles away.
Only in the current 'reality' could that be considered predictable, let alone acceptable. >:(
-
That's probably a Pandora's box that's been opened this afternoon in Brizzle. ::) :-\
-
Makes you wonder who the f@cks in charge
-
Makes you wonder who the f@cks in charge
Someone's in charge ? :o
when did that happen ? :D
-
So, in summary, four white middle class sociology students from a University built and paid for by the very chap whose statue they destroyed get cleared after doing what they wanted because a convicted drug dealing arse hole died of a drug overdose. 4,000 miles away.
Only in the current 'reality' could that be considered predictable, let alone acceptable. >:(
Zackly. :y
-
So, in summary, four white middle class sociology students from a University built and paid for by the very chap whose statue they destroyed get cleared after doing what they wanted because a convicted drug dealing arse hole died of a drug overdose. 4,000 miles away.
Only in the current 'reality' could that be considered predictable, let alone acceptable. >:(
Zackly. :y
But the facts are that 3 residents of Bristol, and one from elsewhere, and none students, along with many others, pulled the statue of Colton, a 17th century slave trader who’s company was responsible for the shipment of about 84,000 black, men, women and children slaves, down after years of local disquiet over it’s presence. Some of the protestors may have been students at the University of Bristol, but that institution was first conceived in the 19th century as a College, later becoming a university, all without any financial support from the long dead Colston of the 17th century.
The pulling down of the statue was part of the global Black Lives Matter protests, sparked by the illegal killing of a black man by US police, but all as a result of centuries of injustice to black people, with racial discrimination very prevalent in many white countries, including the UK and Bristol in particular. This city, along with others, witnessed racially fuelled riots in the 1980’s that is still remembered by the black communities, which has not been helped by events affecting young black men, with the case of Stephen Lawerence highlighting proven institutional racism by the police.
Therefore the death of a US drug dealer, in the manner it happened with the visual evidence available, was just the spark to set the tinderbox off, with the BLM movement the result.
Those are the facts, but why any white person should feel affected by the downing of a statue of a largely forgotten and unknown 17th century slave trader is personally beyond me. I certainly have better things to worry about in this world than that. :D
-
Indeed and a learned influential person such as yourself should realise this will make things worse not better let sleeping dogs lay. I wonder what would happen if it was a WLM group that pulled down a statue they didn’t like, this is the thin end of the wedge and I’m speaking up because I want to keep some of the history/ culture alive and well so as ordinary kids growing up know it.
-
not forgetting that some black men also owned black slaves in the day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001106h/who-do-you-think-you-are-series-18-3-alex-scott
-
Ask yourself this, if I had gone and pulled it down for similar reasons, what would have happened to me?
-
Ask yourself this, if I had gone and pulled it down for similar reasons, what would have happened to me?
.
Surely this judgement gives all of us the right to pull anything down that we don't like or offends us, somehow I don't think that will be the case what a sad helpless country the UK has become churches to be pulled down next is it ? I personally don't like the design of Mosques they look totally out of place , might start demolishing one , wonder what actions that would provoke ?
-
Indeed and a learned influential person such as yourself should realise this will make things worse not better let sleeping dogs lay. I wonder what would happen if it was a WLM group that pulled down a statue they didn’t like, this is the thin end of the wedge and I’m speaking up because I want to keep some of the history/ culture alive and well so as ordinary kids growing up know it.
;D ;D ;D You flatter me!! :-* :-*
No, seriously, there is so much written account of the slave trade and the countries / people involved in it, with documented evidence, that this history can never be forgotten. We do not need a statue of Hitler to remember the Holocaust, nor do we need a statue of a slave trader to remember that historical event. Why have something in material form, that stands proud in a city that offends so many people, who found it completely obscene. In anycase, to again remind all that want to be reminded of the history, the statue is safe in a museum, in it's vandalised state which reflects it's new part in history
However, as I stated in my first post on this thread, it was removed in a "dubious" way which I do not support in itself. But I understand the frustration of many in Bristol that for years have been protesting that this statue was now inappropriate given the need for racial harmony, which is far more important than an old statue of someone most people in the UK would never have known about and was only erected 174 years after Colston's death. The law also made the mistake of targeting just four out of a crowd of hundreds all around the event, with another dozen or so actively involved in the toppling of the statue.
For me there is more about this world for us to worry about in Eastern Europe and Asia that IS relevant to our modern times. ;)
-
Ask yourself this, if I had gone and pulled it down for similar reasons, what would have happened to me?
.
Surely this judgement gives all of us the right to pull anything down that we don't like or offends us, somehow I don't think that will be the case what a sad helpless country the UK has become churches to be pulled down next is it ? I personally don't like the design of Mosques they look totally out of place , might start demolishing one , wonder what actions that would provoke ?
No it does not Rangie as you are one person who has no clear reason in law for taking such action. This toppling was supported by hundreds on site, and thousands upon thousands across the country, after much protest, over years / decades, to Bristol City Council about it's continuing existence. Elsewhere in the UK 70 plaques, memorials and statues connected to the slave trade were removed by democratic process by the councils concerned, but Bristol dug it's heals in. I personally wish the full legal democratic process had taken place in Bristol as well to remove what was obscene to so many who live in the City, but yes mob rule took over as it has over centuries in this fair country of ours when the masses want change. For instance, The Chartists from 1838 to 1848 represented numerous political and social interests to get the government of the day to give the lower classes their rights, which after slow progress, we now value today. Those rights, not forgetting working conditions, the right to vote for men, the right to education, and especially women's emancipation amoungst others, were won after mass protests and so much mob rule. That is how our society, and not forgetting for a minute the French society of 1789, has been changed. Indeed, the Peterloo Massacre of 1819, with fifteen protesters in a crowd of 60,000 killed by British cavalry, led to further demands for political reform which eventually fed on to the Chartist movement.
I do not support mob rule, but if the powers of the day ignore populace democratic demands, this is what happens. Change has always followed blood, sweat, toil, death and general protest, but at least we can do that, unlike those in China and Russia. ;)
-
No, what they done was against the law and the law should be upheld against the BLM movement as it is with everyone else, It’s giving momentum to a group who want their way no matter the cost, and stirring the racism pot imo.
-
And straight to Hitler... ;D
George Floyd died as a direct result of a drug overdose. They could have left him sat in HIS car and the outcome would have been the same.
As to Mark's question... What if it had been four black people or four kids bunking off from the local comprehensive?
-
The original charge of criminal damage (of which they were guilty) turned into was Edward Colston an evil bastard (very likely)
So, in effect, Colston was put on trail 300 years after his death for being an evil bastard and found guilty.
It's politics. If the 'Colston 4' had been found guilty BLM would have taken to the streets.
-
The original charge of criminal damage (and which they were guilty) turned into was Edward Colston an evil bastard (very likely)
So, in effect, Colston was put on trail 300 years after his death for being an evil bastard and found guilty.
It's politics. If the 'Colston 4' had been found guilty BLM would have taken to the streets.
To defend four white middle class oiks? ;D
-
No, what they done was against the law and the law should be upheld against the BLM movement as it is with everyone else, It’s giving momentum to a group who want their way no matter the cost, and stirring the racism pot imo.
And yet a jury of "12 good men and true" decided that they were not guilty based on the evidence they heard. The verdict does not set any kind of legal precedent, so any future trial on similar grounds will just be judged on it's individual merits.
I've no real opinion on this - I wasn't in court to hear all the evidence, so am not in a position to come to an informed verdict. However, I do think it is a good thing that sometimes juries come to unexpected verdicts, and kick the establishment in the teeth occasionally. Parliament may make and pass the laws, but the public decide whether they're "broken" or not.
-
I agree with your sentiment regarding law and the public etc but I still think pandering to this sort of vandalism by select groups will cause far more trouble than it prevents
-
I agree with your sentiment regarding law and the public etc but I still think pandering to this sort of vandalism by select groups will cause far more trouble than it prevents
Yep....As far as I am aware there has not been a huge demand from the people of Bristol to remove the statue. If there had been then by all means remove old Eddie.
It seems to me that a small minority of middle class wokesters have decided they know what is best for Bristol. These 'white saviours' love to attach themselves to BLM.
-
No, what they done was against the law and the law should be upheld against the BLM movement as it is with everyone else, It’s giving momentum to a group who want their way no matter the cost, and stirring the racism pot imo.
And yet a jury of "12 good men and true" decided that they were not guilty based on the evidence they heard. The verdict does not set any kind of legal precedent, so any future trial on similar grounds will just be judged on it's individual merits.
I've no real opinion on this - I wasn't in court to hear all the evidence, so am not in a position to come to an informed verdict. However, I do think it is a good thing that sometimes juries come to unexpected verdicts, and kick the establishment in the teeth occasionally. Parliament may make and pass the laws, but the public decide whether they're "broken" or not.
Indeed and exactly right. A legal decision was made to find the four not guilty, and for us who respect the legal process that should be enough. If a mistake was made legally, then let the lawyers establish that. For us who were not part of that jury, we cannot possibly know how they arrived at their decision, right or wrong, but that is true of all court findings.
All of us in this democratic society have the right to protest, but we have to understand that if we cross a legal line in the sand then we will be brought to book. If the law establishes we have no case to answer, then that is that until proven otherwise by the legal system, not trial by social media. When the democratic governed people of Great Britain feel any judgement is wrong, then due protest to MP's and onto the Government of the day is the necessary step to take. If our Government can then be persuaded to change any part of, or all of a particular law, then that should transpire. But all of us must be conscious of the fact that if a sizable majority of our society want change, but are ignored by the political establishment, then there will be repercussions that you and I may not want in a process often witnessed in the history of our nation. Everyone must then listen to reason and fairly consider through democratic means a possible resolution.
-
I agree with your sentiment regarding law and the public etc but I still think pandering to this sort of vandalism by select groups will cause far more trouble than it prevents
Yep....As far as I am aware there has not been a huge demand from the people of Bristol to remove the statue. If there had been then by all means remove old Eddie.
It seems to me that a small minority of middle class wokesters have decided they know what is best for Bristol. These 'white saviours' love to attach themselves to BLM.
As someone who lived and worked around Bristol for 18 years, I can say there was an underlying desire by those so educated in what Colston represented to have the statue removed which grew louder and louder after the St. Paul's race riots of 1981. If it had been a "small minority" of people who felt this way, then you would not have seen the hundreds of people in Bristol and thousands upon thousands across the country who bothered to support BLM and the toppling of statues.
-
The original charge of criminal damage (of which they were guilty) turned into was Edward Colston an evil bastard (very likely)
So, in effect, Colston was put on trail 300 years after his death for being an evil bastard and found guilty.
It's politics. If the 'Colston 4' had been found guilty BLM would have taken to the streets.
Was he though? ???
It's very unlikely that he ever actually set foot on a slave ship and saw for himself the wretched conditions that the unfortunate people who were captured had to endure. It's almost certain that he never took part in a slaving expedition into the West African interior and saw for himself the violence and suffering that was dished out by the slavers who were usually Africans themselves.
Attitudes in the 17th century were very different to today, slavery was generally condoned even amongst the great and the good, intellectuals and clergy, and I guess just a fact of life. It should be remembered that Colston's time predated the abolitionist movement by well over 100 years.
His philanthropy suggests a kinder gentler nature than the contemporary narrative would have it, and my guess is that Colston was so far removed from the realities of slavery that he regarded slaves as any other commodity that he traded like textiles, gold, silver, oils etc, and that would have been normal in the 1600's.
The modern equivalent of the Atlantic slave trader I reckon would be those evil bastards who entice young girls from poor countries like Moldova or Montenegro to Western Europe or North America with the promise of good jobs, but then force them into prostitution. I think that rather than judge characters like Edward Colston with our modern attitudes to their actions centuries ago, we should ask ourselves had Colston been alive today, would he be a people trafficker?
Somehow I doubt it. ;)
-
maybe we should raze Liverpool city centre buildings to the ground ??? .... loads of references to the slave trade in Liverpool
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-stone-carving-of-two-slave-boys-carrying-money-bags-on-martins-bank-51432486.html
-
I agree with your sentiment regarding law and the public etc but I still think pandering to this sort of vandalism by select groups will cause far more trouble than it prevents
.
Agree completely, it is nothing but vandalism, bugger what happened years ago ,this is just a mob being allowed to run riot and getting away scot free. As for the BLM shite George the druggie should not have resisted but he was another waste of space, the Cop should have got a medal not a prison sentence, he used a method of restraint that is taught in the US services when "fight or flight" kicks in you do what is necessary.
-
I agree with your sentiment regarding law and the public etc but I still think pandering to this sort of vandalism by select groups will cause far more trouble than it prevents
Yep....As far as I am aware there has not been a huge demand from the people of Bristol to remove the statue. If there had been then by all means remove old Eddie.
It seems to me that a small minority of middle class wokesters have decided they know what is best for Bristol. These 'white saviours' love to attach themselves to BLM.
As someone who lived and worked around Bristol for 18 years, I can say there was an underlying desire by those so educated in what Colston represented to have the statue removed which grew louder and louder after the St. Paul's race riots of 1981. If it had been a "small minority" of people who felt this way, then you would not have seen the hundreds of people in Bristol and thousands upon thousands across the country who bothered to support BLM and the toppling of statues.
I lived in Bristol for nearly 10 years from 2001 and I don't remember any significant movement to remove Colston's statue, and I agree with Lord Opti that it was brought about by a noisy minority who think they know best. ::)
Your 'hundreds of people' are just that a minority. Maybe well meaning, but a minority none the less. ;)
-
I agree with your sentiment regarding law and the public etc but I still think pandering to this sort of vandalism by select groups will cause far more trouble than it prevents
Yep....As far as I am aware there has not been a huge demand from the people of Bristol to remove the statue. If there had been then by all means remove old Eddie.
It seems to me that a small minority of middle class wokesters have decided they know what is best for Bristol. These 'white saviours' love to attach themselves to BLM.
As someone who lived and worked around Bristol for 18 years, I can say there was an underlying desire by those so educated in what Colston represented to have the statue removed which grew louder and louder after the St. Paul's race riots of 1981. If it had been a "small minority" of people who felt this way, then you would not have seen the hundreds of people in Bristol and thousands upon thousands across the country who bothered to support BLM and the toppling of statues.
Has there ever been a public vote on it, Lizzie?
I'd be (would have been) happy to go along with the vote regardless of whether or not I agree with it.
-
I agree with your sentiment regarding law and the public etc but I still think pandering to this sort of vandalism by select groups will cause far more trouble than it prevents
Yep....As far as I am aware there has not been a huge demand from the people of Bristol to remove the statue. If there had been then by all means remove old Eddie.
It seems to me that a small minority of middle class wokesters have decided they know what is best for Bristol. These 'white saviours' love to attach themselves to BLM.
As someone who lived and worked around Bristol for 18 years, I can say there was an underlying desire by those so educated in what Colston represented to have the statue removed which grew louder and louder after the St. Paul's race riots of 1981. If it had been a "small minority" of people who felt this way, then you would not have seen the hundreds of people in Bristol and thousands upon thousands across the country who bothered to support BLM and the toppling of statues.
I lived in Bristol for nearly 10 years from 2001 and I don't remember any significant movement to remove Colston's statue, and I agree with Lord Opti that it was brought about by a noisy minority who think they know best. ::)
Your 'hundreds of people' are just that a minority. Maybe well meaning, but a minority none the less. ;)
I think most white liberals are well meaning......albeit is a patronising 'we know what is best for you plebs way' :)
-
I agree with your sentiment regarding law and the public etc but I still think pandering to this sort of vandalism by select groups will cause far more trouble than it prevents
Yep....As far as I am aware there has not been a huge demand from the people of Bristol to remove the statue. If there had been then by all means remove old Eddie.
It seems to me that a small minority of middle class wokesters have decided they know what is best for Bristol. These 'white saviours' love to attach themselves to BLM.
As someone who lived and worked around Bristol for 18 years, I can say there was an underlying desire by those so educated in what Colston represented to have the statue removed which grew louder and louder after the St. Paul's race riots of 1981. If it had been a "small minority" of people who felt this way, then you would not have seen the hundreds of people in Bristol and thousands upon thousands across the country who bothered to support BLM and the toppling of statues.
Has there ever been a public vote on it, Lizzie?
I'd be (would have been) happy to go along with the vote regardless of whether or not I agree with it.
I think there were a few petitions over the years, but as far as I'm aware none that ever gained any significant traction amongst the general population of the great city of Brizzle! :)
-
I can only recall going to Bristol once.
When I was 22 or 23 I stayed at The St Vincent Rocks hotel with my then 20 year old girlfriend. We thought it very posh.
We were on our way to Porlock and then on the Cornwall for the week. :y
-
Sennen Cove has just come into my mind.
-
I agree with your sentiment regarding law and the public etc but I still think pandering to this sort of vandalism by select groups will cause far more trouble than it prevents
.
Agree completely, it is nothing but vandalism, bugger what happened years ago ,this is just a mob being allowed to run riot and getting away scot free. As for the BLM shite George the druggie should not have resisted but he was another waste of space, the Cop should have got a medal not a prison sentence, he used a method of restraint that is taught in the US services when "fight or flight" kicks in you do what is necessary.
The facts are though Rangie is that a United States of America Court listened to all the evidence and found the police officer Chauvin guilty of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. No matter what the perceived circumstances were from a general public point of view, the court's jury decided the white officer officer acted as judge, jury and executioner and held George Floyd down by the neck for a far longer period than is acceptable in US police practice, as confirmed by white serving and retired police officers when giving evidence. The jury reached their verdict, as the Bristol Crown Court jury did, based on the law of the land, not social media opinion.
However, the BLM movement was not just down to that incident, although it acted as a catalyst for many decades of bitterness held by the black community in the USA over proven injustice and discrimination, especially by white police officers. This was reflected in a smaller way by the protests in the UK and blew up into something even bigger as old frustrations rose up. Yes discrimination is a worldwide challenge, and has been for centuries, but in our democratic societies we should attempt to address the white vs. black issues once and for all. I have witnessed that type of discrimination in both the US and UK, which is far from pleasant especially when threats of "I will shoot you n..gger" is publicly made with a white man with a hand gun in the former country in front of my young children and my American friends when told of the incident responded by saying "that is very common"!. In the UK I have seen many times how the Met. Police white officers have acted against black men, especially if they are driving an expensive car! My black friends have also described the level of discrimination that can be dished out.
This must stop, and although the dubious toppling of the Colston statue has proved to be a focus for white protests, it is nothing compared to what the black, and Asian, communities can suffer everyday. The legal system in both the US and UK is now recognising the mistakes of the past, as is their societies generally. People may disagree with the legal verdicts, but as said previously, they are what counts. That is no more, no less, of what you and me would expect if we ended up in a court of law.
-
Bothered to support BLM ???
What the actual f :-X :-X :-X
The very notion of BLM is an affront to decent people everywhere.
-
I see that MP's are trying to get an appeal of the verdict underway using some old power to do so, due to a public outcry. Yeh, good luck with that. Surely a court decides whether the accused are guilty or not based on the evidence placed before them. We know that they are guilty as every man and his dog can watch them doing it on the internet videos. The historical reasons behind it are irrelevant, they were being tried for committing a crime of vandalism or whatever, not the reasons to commit that crime. It should have been a simple guilty of vandalism verdict, but has somehow turned in to a 'it's ok to vandalise if you think you have good reason' verdict.
It stinks to be honest.
-
It's the same mentality that believes stealing property and shoplifting are acceptable behaviour.
-
I'm glad I decided to totally ignore lizzies posts, it's so much easier ;D
-
Our country & a lot of its inhabitants are just too soft & can't see the problem with scum getting away scot free when a crime has been committed , it's a very slippery slope unfortunately we appear to be too far down it now to claw our way back up it, a very sad state of affairs when some try to justify blatant vandalism.
-
It's the same mentality that believes stealing property and shoplifting are acceptable behaviour.
Apparently it's a form of reparation..... ;) :)
-
I'm glad I decided to totally ignore lizzies posts, it's so much easier ;D
Unfortunately it's a nationwide blind eye to such nonsense that has got us to this point of wokist buggery :'(
-
I'm glad I decided to totally ignore lizzies posts, it's so much easier ;D
Unfortunately it's a nationwide blind eye to such nonsense that has got us to this point of wokist buggery :'(
Wokist buggery? Got any pics? ;D
-
I'm glad I decided to totally ignore lizzies posts, it's so much easier ;D
Unfortunately it's a nationwide blind eye to such nonsense that has got us to this point of wokist buggery :'(
Wokist buggery? Got any pics? ;D
What, and get banned again ::)
-
BLM? What about standing up for WLM? Or is that too old fashioned maybe??
-
On a serious point...
Unfortunately, from a social perspective, ignoring these people is incredibly dangerous. Not only does it give them a free and unopposed reign, it also gives them the moral high ground because we don't apparently care enough to argue with them.
Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
-
BLM? What about standing up for WLM? Or is that too old fashioned maybe??
Whole life milk?
-
BLM? What about standing up for WLM? Or is that too old fashioned maybe??
Whole life milk?
I believe there was plane above Burnley football ground trailing the message 'white lives matter' Apparently the police looked into the matter to see if it represented a hate crime. :-X
Black lives matter..... Just fine. :y
White lives matter...racist. :-X
All lives matter...racist. :-X
-
BLM? What about standing up for WLM? Or is that too old fashioned maybe??
Whole life milk?
I believe there was plane above Burnley football ground trailing the message 'white lives matter' Apparently the police looked into the matter to see if it represented a hate crime. :-X
Black lives matter..... Just fine. :y
White lives matter...racist. :-X
All lives matter...racist. :-X
No lives matter?
-
On a serious point...
Unfortunately, from a social perspective, ignoring these people is incredibly dangerous. Not only does it give them a free and unopposed reign, it also gives them the moral high ground because we don't apparently care enough to argue with them.
Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
I agree with that DG. Wholeheartedly.
It looks like LZ is on the outer perimeter of this discussion!
This is a (so called) democracy, so why should have we to appease to the minority? This is really getting out of hand.
As Rangie quotes he knows better than some of us on here!
Our country & a lot of its inhabitants are just too soft & can't see the problem with scum getting away scot free when a crime has been committed , it's a very slippery slope unfortunately we appear to be too far down it now to claw our way back up it, a very sad state of affairs when some try to justify blatant vandalism.
-
On a serious point...
Unfortunately, from a social perspective, ignoring these people is incredibly dangerous. Not only does it give them a free and unopposed reign, it also gives them the moral high ground because we don't apparently care enough to argue with them.
Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
I agree with that DG. Wholeheartedly.
It looks like LZ is on the outer perimeter of this discussion!
This is a (so called) democracy, so why should have we to appease to the minority? This is really getting out of hand.
As Rangie quotes he knows better than some of us on here!
Our country & a lot of its inhabitants are just too soft & can't see the problem with scum getting away scot free when a crime has been committed , it's a very slippery slope unfortunately we appear to be too far down it now to claw our way back up it, a very sad state of affairs when some try to justify blatant vandalism.
No I am not. All I have done, as is usual for me, is detail out the facts surrounding the BLM movement, the murder of George Floyd and the toppling of a statue in Bristol. I have detailed what the juries have decided in the court of laws in both the USA and UK through due legal process. No more, no less, with my added views of white vs. black discrimination that is part of the argument.
Those who wish to ignore the ruling of those courts I believe are as bad, if not worse, than the people they are condemning for their vandalism and apparent breaking of the law, which the courts have not upheld in their democratic rulings.
As I have said, but some like STEMO wish to ignore, all legal facts must be taken into account, not some ranting on a social media site. I could not care one way or another about what happens out there about these particular incidents and events, but I do care about the known, established facts as I do when reading history, when people are discussing such a sensitive series of subjects.
But, hey, carry on believing what you want, true or untrue. And yes DG, the ways of Hitler and the Nazis must be a consideration of how the masses can be manipulated when the so called (white) majority are convinced they are right after directed propaganda that suits their mindsets.
Let’s keep open minds, ok?
-
..........
Those who wish to ignore the ruling of those courts I believe are as bad, if not worse, than the people they are condemning for their vandalism and apparent breaking of the law, which the courts have not upheld in their democratic rulings.
As I have said, but some like STEMO wish to ignore, all legal facts must be taken into account, not some ranting on a social media site..............
Let’s keep open minds, ok?
;D ;D
Apparent breaking of the law ::) , there are videos of them doing it on YouTube. ;D
That's the confusion Lizzie, they are definitely guilty, so how come the verdict, and hence this thread. :-\ They were tried for vandalism, nothing else is really relevant.
I can only hope that I get those Bristol residents on my jury if I'm ever in court. :)
-
..........
Those who wish to ignore the ruling of those courts I believe are as bad, if not worse, than the people they are condemning for their vandalism and apparent breaking of the law, which the courts have not upheld in their democratic rulings.
As I have said, but some like STEMO wish to ignore, all legal facts must be taken into account, not some ranting on a social media site..............
Let’s keep open minds, ok?
;D ;D
Apparent breaking of the law ::) , there are videos of them doing it on YouTube. ;D
That's the confusion Lizzie, they are definitely guilty, so how come the verdict, and hence this thread. :-\ They were tried for vandalism, nothing else is really relevant.
I can only hope that I get those Bristol residents on my jury if I'm ever in court. :)
It'll only be for something trivial like, erm......speeding ;D
-
..........
Those who wish to ignore the ruling of those courts I believe are as bad, if not worse, than the people they are condemning for their vandalism and apparent breaking of the law, which the courts have not upheld in their democratic rulings.
As I have said, but some like STEMO wish to ignore, all legal facts must be taken into account, not some ranting on a social media site..............
Let’s keep open minds, ok?
;D ;D
Apparent breaking of the law ::) , there are videos of them doing it on YouTube. ;D
That's the confusion Lizzie, they are definitely guilty, so how come the verdict, and hence this thread. :-\ They were tried for vandalism, nothing else is really relevant.
I can only hope that I get those Bristol residents on my jury if I'm ever in court. :)
Yes, I know. But there were dozens involved in bringing that statue down, and the law decided to only prosecute just 4. Then the 12 members of the jury decided that they were not guilty, and on that basis they have been cleared of breaking the law.
Now it is down to the legal system to re-evaluate that finding and decide whether or not to appeal.
It is as simple as that.
-
The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. ::)
One might think that the jury was quietly directed. :-X
-
Exactly what he said^^^^^^👍👍
-
The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. ::)
One might think that the jury was quietly directed. :-X
Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing :-X
-
The more people that forgive/sympathise this blatant miscarriage of justice the more it will fuel similar cases. The more we ordinary people stand up and complain about this bullshit the better as I believe it’s a matter of time before we get overwhelmed by this continuing assault on the traditional British way of life.
-
The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. ::)
One might think that the jury was quietly directed. :-X
Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing :-X
Yes, I wonder how many criminal damage cases get a trial by jury in Crown Court. ::)
-
The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. ::)
One might think that the jury was quietly directed. :-X
Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing :-X
Yes, I wonder how many criminal damage cases get a trial by jury in Crown Court. ::)
you'd have to do considerable damage to something expensive to justify the cost .
I guess the defendants won't be paying ::)
-
The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. ::)
One might think that the jury was quietly directed. :-X
Your problem lies in your over simplistic view of the law. You can legally destroy other peoples property under certain circumstances. If we assume the prosecution was under Section 1 or the Criminal damage act 1971 then Section 1 of that act states :
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.
Note (my) highlighted section. The Jury presumably decided the defendants had "lawful excuse" (or probably more correctly the prosecution failed to prove they didn't have lawful excuse beyond reasonable doubt), and therefore they were not guilty of the offence. The full act is available here : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/contents
There aren't many absolute offences in English law whereby you're automatically guilty by virtue of a single act. There are usually other things that "qualify" your guilt. For instance - you aren't automatically guilty of a speeding offence even if a speed camera records you doing 100MPH - A NIP has to be issued within certain timescales, the case has to be layed within 6 months, etc, etc. All the conditions for guilt have to be met - not just the basic offence.
-
Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing :-X
They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.
-
The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. ::)
One might think that the jury was quietly directed. :-X
Your problem lies in your over simplistic view of the law. You can legally destroy other peoples property under certain circumstances. If we assume the prosecution was under Section 1 or the Criminal damage act 1971 then Section 1 of that act states :
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.
Note (my) highlighted section. The Jury presumably decided the defendants had "lawful excuse" (or probably more correctly the prosecution failed to prove they didn't have lawful excuse beyond reasonable doubt), and therefore they were not guilty of the offence. The full act is available here : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/contents
There aren't many absolute offences in English law whereby you're automatically guilty by virtue of a single act. There are usually other things that "qualify" your guilt. For instance - you aren't automatically guilty of a speeding offence even if a speed camera records you doing 100MPH - A NIP has to be issued within certain timescales, the case has to be layed within 6 months, etc, etc. All the conditions for guilt have to be met - not just the basic offence.
I think your problem lies in your simplistic view that the law was actually applied in this case. :P
-
I think your problem lies in your simplistic view that the law was actually applied in this case. :P
Which part of the law wasn't applied?
-
It seems the law was applied, but obviously justice wasnt. Shouldnt be too shocked I suppose as they are only distant cousins. :)
-
Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing :-X
They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.
Whether it's the way you worded it, but that isn't entirely correct. Just because Criminal Damage carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years, doesn't mean cases can only be tried in a Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts can try and sentence cases of Criminal Damage, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is classed as a 'triable either way' offence, meaning it can be tried in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court. However, once the evidence is heard if the likely penalty with the facts taken into account, or the defendants previous conviction history, the Magistrates deem they don't have sufficient powers to sentence the defendant, then they will send the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The Prosecution too can ask a Magistrates Court that a case of Criminal Damage, after a Guilty Plea, is referred to the Crown Court for sentencing if the circumstances, seriousness of the offence, or the defendants previous convictions, the likely sentence is in excess of 6 months.
But Criminal Damage offences can be heard in a Magistrates Court.
-
The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. ::)
One might think that the jury was quietly directed. :-X
Yep.....criminal damage to start with but mission creep spread to Colston being a very naughty boy 300 years ago and BLM and their supporters being all goodness and light.
Politically driven rather than driven by the rule of law being applied.....in my view. :)
-
Would like to see the vandals walk around Brixton at night and see the kind of respect they get from " people of colour" sweet f all I would guess .(mustn't upset anyone by calling them black.)
-
Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing :-X
They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.
Whether it's the way you worded it, but that isn't entirely correct. Just because Criminal Damage carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years, doesn't mean cases can only be tried in a Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts can try and sentence cases of Criminal Damage, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is classed as a 'triable either way' offence, meaning it can be tried in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court. However, once the evidence is heard if the likely penalty with the facts taken into account, or the defendants previous conviction history, the Magistrates deem they don't have sufficient powers to sentence the defendant, then they will send the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The Prosecution too can ask a Magistrates Court that a case of Criminal Damage, after a Guilty Plea, is referred to the Crown Court for sentencing if the circumstances, seriousness of the offence, or the defendants previous convictions, the likely sentence is in excess of 6 months.
But Criminal Damage offences can be heard in a Magistrates Court.
Fair enough. I didn't check whether is was 'either way' or 'on indictment only'. It appears sentencing guidelines say up to £5K damage is Mags only, £5K-£10K is either way, and £10K+ is Crown Court only.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/criminal-damage.pdf
AIUI the defendant can opt for Crown Court on an either way charge, and in this sort of case I suspect the defendants believed (correctly as it turned out) they were more likely to be found not guilty (aka get away with it) before a jury of 12 civilians than before a grizzeled old district judge who misses the black cap days, or 3 'hang-em-high' magistrates. ::)
If anyone is really interested in the way these sorts of cases are handled....
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/
-
Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing :-X
They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.
Whether it's the way you worded it, but that isn't entirely correct. Just because Criminal Damage carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years, doesn't mean cases can only be tried in a Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts can try and sentence cases of Criminal Damage, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is classed as a 'triable either way' offence, meaning it can be tried in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court. However, once the evidence is heard if the likely penalty with the facts taken into account, or the defendants previous conviction history, the Magistrates deem they don't have sufficient powers to sentence the defendant, then they will send the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The Prosecution too can ask a Magistrates Court that a case of Criminal Damage, after a Guilty Plea, is referred to the Crown Court for sentencing if the circumstances, seriousness of the offence, or the defendants previous convictions, the likely sentence is in excess of 6 months.
But Criminal Damage offences can be heard in a Magistrates Court.
Fair enough. I didn't check whether is was 'either way' or 'on indictment only'. It appears sentencing guidelines say up to £5K damage is Mags only, £5K-£10K is either way, and £10K+ is Crown Court only.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/criminal-damage.pdf
AIUI the defendant can opt for Crown Court on an either way charge, and in this sort of case I suspect the defendants believed (correctly as it turned out) they were more likely to be found not guilty (aka get away with it) before a jury of 12 civilians than before a grizzeled old district judge who misses the black cap days, or 3 'hang-em-high' magistrates. ::)
If anyone is really interested in the way these sorts of cases are handled....
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/
I have missed my calling in life.I should have been a district court judge or a Magistrate. :)
-
Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing :-X
They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.
Whether it's the way you worded it, but that isn't entirely correct. Just because Criminal Damage carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years, doesn't mean cases can only be tried in a Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts can try and sentence cases of Criminal Damage, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is classed as a 'triable either way' offence, meaning it can be tried in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court. However, once the evidence is heard if the likely penalty with the facts taken into account, or the defendants previous conviction history, the Magistrates deem they don't have sufficient powers to sentence the defendant, then they will send the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The Prosecution too can ask a Magistrates Court that a case of Criminal Damage, after a Guilty Plea, is referred to the Crown Court for sentencing if the circumstances, seriousness of the offence, or the defendants previous convictions, the likely sentence is in excess of 6 months.
But Criminal Damage offences can be heard in a Magistrates Court.
Fair enough. I didn't check whether is was 'either way' or 'on indictment only'. It appears sentencing guidelines say up to £5K damage is Mags only, £5K-£10K is either way, and £10K+ is Crown Court only.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/criminal-damage.pdf
AIUI the defendant can opt for Crown Court on an either way charge, and in this sort of case I suspect the defendants believed (correctly as it turned out) they were more likely to be found not guilty (aka get away with it) before a jury of 12 civilians than before a grizzeled old district judge who misses the black cap days, or 3 'hang-em-high' magistrates. ::)
If anyone is really interested in the way these sorts of cases are handled....
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/
I have missed my calling in life.I should have been a district court judge or a Magistrate. :)
You'd be known as 'the hanging judge' like in the old westerns set in Tombstone or Dead man creek. ;D
-
The only people you'd let off is the French because you love their cars. :)
-
Bloody thing hasnt turned a wheel in weeks. ::)
I need to find out if it needs a new turbo. Then decide if its worth spending the money to do it, considering it has a nasty rattle from the top end.
Then again, If a scrap it, I spent over £300 on it in November and that will be money down the drain. Plus I will have to replace it.
That would mean flogging either the Omega, or more likely, the Boxster. :(
-
Back on topic. The Attorney general has said she is considering referring the case to the court of appeal.
Lets hope it happens.
-
Let’s hope indeed👍
-
Back on topic. The Attorney general has said she is considering referring the case to the court of appeal.
Lets hope it happens.
I suspect the consideration will last several nano-seconds, and then be discounted. Appealing just on the basis you don't like the verdict? I'd expect the appeal court to slap that down fairly rapidly. If there is some new evidence, or there was something wrong with the way the trial judge instructed the jury perhaps, but trying to overrule the verdict of 12 jurors because they came to the 'wrong' verdict?
-
https://order-order.com/2022/01/07/braverman-carefully-considering-referring-colston-four-case-to-court-of-appeal/
-
https://youtu.be/-KiWuKxixMM (https://youtu.be/-KiWuKxixMM)
I like Calvin Robinson he doesn't buy into the black victim mentality. Speaks sense. :y
-
https://youtu.be/-KiWuKxixMM (https://youtu.be/-KiWuKxixMM)
I like Calvin Robinson he doesn't buy into the black victim mentality. Speaks sense. :y
I agree, his summary of what happened, and his feelings about the subject generally is correct to a point.
However, as I and LOC112G have emphased over various posts, you, me and Calvin Robinson was not a member of the trials jury, nor I believe in the court when all the evidence was heard.
Given that it is only lay thinking that says the four were guilty. We have not heard the relevant legal presentations for the prosecution, nor defence. In addition, I think this could be THE legal difficulty in not securing a guilty verdict, far more people were seen to be actively involved in the toppling, then the ‘disposal’ in Bristol docks of the statue. The police / CPS only focused on what the four had allegedly done; they ignored all the involvement of others. That could have easily effected the jury’s decision, with others also involved why just accuse the four? Lazy police work? Difficulties in building a case against others? Lack of evidence that makes a conviction that is “beyond all reasonable doubt” absolutely certain with so many others being involved? Who knows, I was not unfortunately in court to hear the evidence so cannot judge on any of that. But they are the possibilities as to why the verdict that has obviously upset so many was arrived at.
But, that is the British justice we all live with in our democratic society, which, although at times far from perfect, gives us commoners normally the legal protection and rights that have been so hard fought for over centuries. We live with the verdicts, or we protest as thousands have done over those centuries with, yes, sometimes mob rule being involved as none of us are perfect and some are far more volatile than others. But in the end good justice is achieved. The Colston verdict will no doubt be discussed for years to come and studied, along with the wider racial issues, by future historians as we now study the Chartists and Suffragette movements.
-
https://youtu.be/-KiWuKxixMM (https://youtu.be/-KiWuKxixMM)
I like Calvin Robinson he doesn't buy into the black victim mentality. Speaks sense. :y
I agree, his summary of what happened, and his feelings about the subject generally is correct to a point.
However, as I and LOC112G have emphased over various posts, you, me and Calvin Robinson was not a member of the trials jury, nor I believe in the court when all the evidence was heard.
Given that it is only lay thinking that says the four were guilty. We have not heard the relevant legal presentations for the prosecution, nor defence. In addition, I think this could be THE legal difficulty in not securing a guilty verdict, far more people were seen to be actively involved in the toppling, then the ‘disposal’ in Bristol docks of the statue. The police / CPS only focused on what the four had allegedly done; they ignored all the involvement of others. That could have easily effected the jury’s decision, with others also involved why just accuse the four? Lazy police work? Difficulties in building a case against others? Lack of evidence that makes a conviction that is “beyond all reasonable doubt” absolutely certain with so many others being involved? Who knows, I was not unfortunately in court to hear the evidence so cannot judge on any of that. But they are the possibilities as to why the verdict that has obviously upset so many was arrived at.
But, that is the British justice we all live with in our democratic society, which, although at times far from perfect, gives us commoners normally the legal protection and rights that have been so hard fought for over centuries. We live with the verdicts, or we protest as thousands have done over those centuries with, yes, sometimes mob rule being involved as none of us are perfect and some are far more volatile than others. But in the end good justice is achieved. The Colston verdict will no doubt be discussed for years to come and studied, along with the wider racial issues, by future historians as we now study the Chartists and Suffragette movement.
I do accept the verdict, Lizzie. I just find it hard to agree with.
Buts that's life. :y
I don't expect the world to change for me. ;)
-
I think it's a fair point that only four of the mob were in the dock that day, but it's still no excuse for acquitting them of a criminal act that they were clearly involved in, and a lengthy diatribe by a historian detailing Mr Colston's alleged misdeeds as part of the defence should have been ruled inadmissable.
A guilty verdict and a suspended sentence would have been an acceptable outcome in my view, seeing as we don't put people in the stocks or give them a sound flogging any more. :)
-
I think it's a fair point that only four of the mob were in the dock that day, but it's still no excuse for acquitting them of a criminal act that they were clearly involved in, and a lengthy diatribe by a historian detailing Mr Colston's alleged misdeeds as part of the defence should have been ruled inadmissable.
A guilty verdict and a suspended sentence would have been an acceptable outcome in my view, seeing as we don't put people in the stocks or give them a sound flogging any more. :)
Is putting a woman across your knee and giving her 6 of the best considered a flogging in 2022?
If so I plead guilty as charged. :D :D
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a statue of Saint George Floyd was pulled down and then thrown in the river.
Criminal damage and probably a hate crime, I imagine. :-X
-
I think it's a fair point that only four of the mob were in the dock that day, but it's still no excuse for acquitting them of a criminal act that they were clearly involved in, and a lengthy diatribe by a historian detailing Mr Colston's alleged misdeeds as part of the defence should have been ruled inadmissable.
A guilty verdict and a suspended sentence would have been an acceptable outcome in my view, seeing as we don't put people in the stocks or give them a sound flogging any more. :)
....especially as he has been six feet under for the last 300 years.
-
I think it's a fair point that only four of the mob were in the dock that day, but it's still no excuse for acquitting them of a criminal act that they were clearly involved in, and a lengthy diatribe by a historian detailing Mr Colston's alleged misdeeds as part of the defence should have been ruled inadmissable.
A guilty verdict and a suspended sentence would have been an acceptable outcome in my view, seeing as we don't put people in the stocks or give them a sound flogging any more. :)
....especially as he has been six feet under for the last 300 years.
I don't believe Mr Colston did anything illegal, so putting him on trial 300 years after his death for things that were not illegal at the time is patently ridiculous, yet in effect that is what it seems happened. :-\
The modern Edward Colston would have probably gone to Eton and then on to Oxbridge to read classics or something, before going down to London and a successful career in the City as a Commodities Trader. He probably would have had fingers in all sorts of pies and been a country gent farmer, property developer etc and no doubt would have been a Tory MP like his 17th century namesake. Although the hard left would have despised him as much as his ancestor, I don't believe he would have been a criminal.
The 17th century Edward Colston was a respectable merchant, pillar of society and MP. It's only when viewed through our 21st century lenses does he become some kind of monster. ;)
-
I believe there is a statue of Karl Marx in Highgate cemetery.
Surely it will be fine for someone to pull that down.
More people have been slaughtered in his name and due to his beliefs than were ever killed under Hitler, for example.
Oh bollix. I just used the H word, so Ive lost the argument. ;D
-
I think it's a fair point that only four of the mob were in the dock that day, but it's still no excuse for acquitting them of a criminal act that they were clearly involved in, and a lengthy diatribe by a historian detailing Mr Colston's alleged misdeeds as part of the defence should have been ruled inadmissable.
A guilty verdict and a suspended sentence would have been an acceptable outcome in my view, seeing as we don't put people in the stocks or give them a sound flogging any more. :)
....especially as he has been six feet under for the last 300 years.
I don't believe Mr Colston did anything illegal, so putting him on trial 300 years after his death for things that were not illegal at the time is patently ridiculous, yet in effect that is what it seems happened. :-\
The modern Edward Colston would have probably gone to Eton and then on to Oxbridge to read classics or something, before going down to London and a successful career in the City as a Commodities Trader. He probably would have had fingers in all sorts of pies and been a country gent farmer, property developer etc and no doubt would have been a Tory MP like his 17th century namesake. Although the hard left would have despised him as much as his ancestor, I don't believe he would have been a criminal.
The 17th century Edward Colston was a respectable merchant, pillar of society and MP. It's only when viewed through our 21st century lenses does he become some kind of monster. ;)
Broadly speaking he was a man of his time. He would not have been seen as a monster, more a businessman.
Look at the list of people who were 'pro eugenics' in the UK in the 1930's.......Churchill being one of many. Yet his views were considered ordinary by the standards of the time.
-
They’re on a run now….,
https://apple.news/AZF6aW5UKT9W1PCyh7RrPZA
-
Some bloke climbed up the front of BBC's Broadcasting House today and chipped away at an apparently controversial statue there. ::)
Wonder if he'll get done for criminal damage or has the precedent been set? ???
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10395493/Hammer-wielding-activist-scales-BBCs-Broadcasting-House-starts-destroying-Eric-Gill-sculpture.html
-
Some bloke climbed up the front of BBC's Broadcasting House today and chipped away at an apparently controversial statue there. ::)
Wonder if he'll get done for criminal damage or has the precedent been set? ???
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10395493/Hammer-wielding-activist-scales-BBCs-Broadcasting-House-starts-destroying-Eric-Gill-sculpture.html
Inevitable really.......following the verdict on the Colston four.
Apparently not only did Eric Gill rape his daughters, he also had sex with his sister, and 'boned' the family mutt.
-
Some bloke climbed up the front of BBC's Broadcasting House today and chipped away at an apparently controversial statue there. ::)
Wonder if he'll get done for criminal damage or has the precedent been set? ???
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10395493/Hammer-wielding-activist-scales-BBCs-Broadcasting-House-starts-destroying-Eric-Gill-sculpture.html
Inevitable really.......following the verdict on the Colston four.
Apparently not only did Eric Gill rape his daughters, he also had sex with his sister, and 'boned' the family mutt.
Just had to google that to see if you'd made that up ;D ...... but no, it appears to be correct. Apparently, the family dog was heard saying "I'll give you ten minutes to stop doing that and then I'm reporting you". ::)
-
Some bloke climbed up the front of BBC's Broadcasting House today and chipped away at an apparently controversial statue there. ::)
Wonder if he'll get done for criminal damage or has the precedent been set? ???
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10395493/Hammer-wielding-activist-scales-BBCs-Broadcasting-House-starts-destroying-Eric-Gill-sculpture.html
Inevitable really.......following the verdict on the Colston four.
Apparently not only did Eric Gill rape his daughters, he also had sex with his sister, and 'boned' the family mutt.
Just had to google that to see if you'd made that up ;D ...... but no, it appears to be correct. Apparently, the family dog was heard saying "I'll give you ten minutes to stop doing that and then I'm reporting you". ::)
I'm feeling physically sick just reading that!! :o :o :o None more queer than folk eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D
As for the man climbing the BBC building and chipping away at the statue with the police doing nothing to stop it; would you as a copper start climbing a building, with all the danger that entails, to stop an idiot like that? No, I bloody would not!! Nor should they if they are to follow their procedures.
In anycase the police obviously did not do "nothing" as claimed in that piece of journalistic exaggeration as it does state the fire brigade were called and got the man down with a cherry picker after 4 hours. So the police DID do something in getting the specialists involved with such health & safety considerations. Typical media sensationalism to stir up anger in those who do not know police procedures or are anti-police! ::) ::) ::)
-
.........
In anycase the police obviously did not do "nothing" as claimed in that piece of journalistic exaggeration as it does state the fire brigade were called and got the man down with a cherry picker after 4 hours. So the police DID do something in getting the specialists involved with such health & safety considerations. Typical media sensationalism to stir up anger in those who do not know police procedures or are anti-police! ::) ::) ::)
I find that when people are climbing things that they shouldn't be climbing, an air rifle is much quicker at getting them down. ;)
-
Surely he should have been chipping away at his todger? ;D
-
Surely he should have been chipping away at his todger? ;D
Looking at the pictures he certainly chipped away the statues todger! :D
-
Gill has nothing to do with slavery or BLM and neither does 'Harry the Hammer' so I doubt the charge of criminal damage will be waived as with the Colston four.
Let's see. He didn't knock many lumps out of it so.......he might just get lucky ::)
-
.........
In anycase the police obviously did not do "nothing" as claimed in that piece of journalistic exaggeration as it does state the fire brigade were called and got the man down with a cherry picker after 4 hours. So the police DID do something in getting the specialists involved with such health & safety considerations. Typical media sensationalism to stir up anger in those who do not know police procedures or are anti-police! ::) ::) ::)
I find that when people are climbing things that they shouldn't be climbing, an air rifle is much quicker at getting them down. ;)
Or the more humane water cannon............it would still kill them! ;D ;D ;)
-
I always liked a flame thrower, smells like barbecued pork chops my favourite.
-
Begs the question why the fick did the BBC have a statue of him on their building ? ! ::)
-
Begs the question why the fick did the BBC have a statue of him on their building ? ! ::)
They didn't, Paddy, they had a statue made by him. ;D
-
Dont you have a whippet to walk or some hub caps to nick ? :P ;D
-
Dont you have a whippet to walk or some hub caps to nick ? :P ;D
Hub caps? The whole car goes nowadays mate. ;D
-
Begs the question why the fick did the BBC have a statue of him on their building ? ! ::)
Currently watching BBC news at 6. No mention of it so far. ::)
They seemed very interested in the BLM connection when the Colston statue was toppled. Strange that. ::) :)