Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Back on topic. The Attorney general has said she is considering referring the case to the court of appeal.
Lets hope it happens.

[Raeturbo]

Let’s hope indeed👍

[LC0112G]

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?

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

https://order-order.com/2022/01/07/braverman-carefully-considering-referring-colston-four-case-to-court-of-appeal/

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

https://youtu.be/-KiWuKxixMM

I like Calvin Robinson he doesn't buy into the black victim mentality. Speaks sense.

[Lizzie Zoom]

https://youtu.be/-KiWuKxixMM

I like Calvin Robinson he doesn't buy into the black victim mentality. Speaks sense.

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.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

https://youtu.be/-KiWuKxixMM

I like Calvin Robinson he doesn't buy into the black victim mentality. Speaks sense.

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.

I don't expect the world to change for me.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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. 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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. 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

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. 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[Raeturbo]

They’re on a run now….,

     https://apple.news/AZF6aW5UKT9W1PCyh7RrPZA