Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by pwa »

Pebble wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 9:36am
pwa wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 5:33am
But BLM is a single issue movement. Should they campaign on every other issue too? They don't have a lot to say on climate change or the cost of heating a home either.

And we are not going back deep into history and punishing long-dead individuals. What is proposed is that here and now, in our own age, we cease having effigies of those people on pedestals as if we admire them. All that is required is to take statues down from their pedestals and stick them in museums instead, with text explaining what we know about the subjects of those statues. Just as we already do with most Roman statues. Continuing to have those statues on pedestals in prestigious locations carries the message that we consider that slave trading (in this instance) was excusable because it was okay at the time. And that we can't be bothered looking again at whether we really still admire this bloke, even when we know his effigy upsets some people. That's just so lazy.
Yes a single issue movement that spells it out very clearly in the title. Just astonishing that they seem to have no interest in the continuing slave trade
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/2 ... ls-in-mali
Or indeed the vast number of people the police shoot dead in Lagos.

But getting back to the statue, I don't even no why they had a jury, the video evidence was clear of the law breaking, the judge should of been asking of the police why so few were being charged.
I couldn't care less about the statue being removed, but it should have been through a lawful democratic process and not torn down by a rioting mob.
Why would you assume that individuals supporting the BLM movement aren't also concerned and active on other topics? BLM is a single issue movement, so it is not going to be a forum for other important matters. People can support BLM and the RSPCA, Amnesty and any other cause you can think of. It isn't one or the other. If BLM were a political party it would be another matter, because political parties do have to offer a package that covers everything.

If you want people charged and convicted without a jury, you might prefer living in the PRC or somewhere like that. The jury saw the images you saw, plus a few more, and decided that what they saw was possibly not criminal in the circumstances. This should make us reflect on what it was that made the jury react this way, and how that should influence the way we go forward. The Tories seem to favour a reactionary approach (as per tradition), but if we want stability, peace and contentment we have to bring the temperature down and look for understanding and consensus. These things have clearly been lacking in Bristol.
Last edited by pwa on 11 Jan 2022, 11:49am, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24640
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

Tangled Metal wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 10:24amWhat will our ancestors study about us to learn from the mistakes and exploitation of the past.
Possibly rather less than our descendants... ?

: - )

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 11:48am
Tangled Metal wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 10:24amWhat will our ancestors study about us to learn from the mistakes and exploitation of the past.
Possibly rather less than our descendants... ?

: - )

Jonathan
If our ancestors really are studying us, then I think you'd be wise not to understimate them!
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Tangled Metal »

Jdsk wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 11:48am
Tangled Metal wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 10:24amWhat will our ancestors study about us to learn from the mistakes and exploitation of the past.
Possibly rather less than our descendants... ?

: - )

Jonathan
Really? Ho hum! In the lives of many here there's been possibly one world war, Mau Mau, pol pot and Kyme rouge, uk support of Pinochet, Falklands, yugoslavia, countless dictatorships. Nixon, Vietnam, cold War, modern day slavery and exploitation, dodgy dossier and going to war on the back of it, etc
Mike Sales
Posts: 7883
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Mike Sales »

Tangled Metal wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 1:30pm
Jdsk wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 11:48am
Tangled Metal wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 10:24amWhat will our ancestors study about us to learn from the mistakes and exploitation of the past.
Possibly rather less than our descendants... ?

: - )

Jonathan
Really? Ho hum! In the lives of many here there's been possibly one world war, Mau Mau, pol pot and Kyme rouge, uk support of Pinochet, Falklands, yugoslavia, countless dictatorships. Nixon, Vietnam, cold War, modern day slavery and exploitation, dodgy dossier and going to war on the back of it, etc
Since our ancestors are dead they are unlikely to study and learn anything!
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by thirdcrank »

If you want people charged and convicted without a jury, you might prefer living in the PRC or somewhere like that.
I just did a quick google - hardly definitive - but I don't thing trial without a jury is a monopoly of "the PRC or somewhere like that."

As far as I can see, even some countries formerly part of the British Empire don't seem to use juries. I only mention this because it reflects the way we are socialised to believe British is best.
Stevek76
Posts: 2086
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Stevek76 »

mattheus wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 11:24am The text that explains "lawful excuses" most definitely leave open a door for the defendants to escape through. But it's a very subjective matter ...
For me, having followed the trial live reporting to a reasonable extent but not having attended it so unable to make an 'in person' judgement as to the defendants' truthfulness in their evidence, I think I'd probably be unconvinced that the lawful excuses re preventing a crime were 'honestly held', though would probably clear all on the final proportionality point, which to a layman like myself appears to in a sense almost just be a legal version of jury equity/nullification.

The defence offered by Rhian's barrister that she honestly believed that the owners (which, for clarity, are the 'people of Bristol') would have consented I find rather more compelling. Given the social bubbles in which people tend to operate I can quite easily buy that people living in the more central parts of Bristol and younger social circles could easily have held that belief.


Of a separate note, it seems the final proportionality point is the most controversial of the legal decisions, a number of barristers seem to think that for the judge to offer that went beyond existing precedent and rulings and should be reviewed, though it is quite interesting that that concern is overwhelmingly from barristers who practise in commercial and other law, the criminal law ones seem far more relaxed about it.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
DaveReading
Posts: 746
Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by DaveReading »

Stevek76 wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 3:29pmFor me, having followed the trial live reporting to a reasonable extent but not having attended it so unable to make an 'in person' judgement as to the defendants' truthfulness in their evidence, I think I'd probably be unconvinced that the lawful excuses re preventing a crime were 'honestly held', though would probably clear all on the final proportionality point, which to a layman like myself appears to in a sense almost just be a legal version of jury equity/nullification.

The defence offered by Rhian's barrister that she honestly believed that the owners (which, for clarity, are the 'people of Bristol') would have consented I find rather more compelling. Given the social bubbles in which people tend to operate I can quite easily buy that people living in the more central parts of Bristol and younger social circles could easily have held that belief.

Of a separate note, it seems the final proportionality point is the most controversial of the legal decisions, a number of barristers seem to think that for the judge to offer that went beyond existing precedent and rulings and should be reviewed, though it is quite interesting that that concern is overwhelmingly from barristers who practise in commercial and other law, the criminal law ones seem far more relaxed about it.
A fair summary - though of course we have no way of knowing how much weight (if any) the jury put on each of those considerations in reaching its verdict.
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by reohn2 »

Tangled Metal wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 10:24am
reohn2 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 3:56pm What percentage of peoples lives were ruined due his involvement in the slave trade?
And whilst we're at it what percentage of his estate was from his illgotten gains?
That surely is the burning question not that he gave 41% of his estate away when he had no further use for it!
True enough.

I wonder what is acceptable now that might be deemed totally unacceptable a few hundred years down the line, if we're still here. Perhaps the fact that modern day slavery and exploitation will happens. With Ia significantly higher population much lower occurrence rate would still mean more slaves. Could there be more slaves in our times?

I remember watching a programme about a region of an African country with two tribal groups. One has the power and money which they use to trick the other tribe into debt which they then legally use to force the other tribal members into effective slavery. Then there's the Uigher camps in China or Bangladeshi sweatshops where the workers have been chained to their machines possibility supplying into British fast fashion. Should we tear down any memorials to the founder of Nike or Adidas? How about primark or other cheap fast fashion outlets? How clean are they?

Then exploitation. Bezos, apple, amazon, etc etc. Where do they stand on exploitation? We're still giving them our money information and being exploited. All be it in a less heinous way that slavery.
It speaks for itself what unbridled capitalism is doing and has done in the past to powerless people some of whom risk imprisonment or worse if they so much as lift their hands in protest,the rich get richer on such exploitation.That's a fact we all should know about and by buying such products we incriminate ourselves,and there's not a one of us that's not guilty to a greater or lesser degree.
It's the systemic greed where some live in opulence whilst most go hungry that's the true obscenity.
What will our ancestors study about us to learn from the mistakes and exploitation of the past. What metaphorical statues from our time will they tear down?
Those who have the nous and who care to look will say we did a bit but did nowhere near enough,but the vast majority won't care to look and will carry voting for the likes of Johnson and Trump,that's those who'll have a vote.

EDIT:- going back my hypothetical question about a statue of Jimmy Savile being erected on the pretext of his charitable work,would four people be considered criminals if they pulled it down and threw it in the river?

Another point that just sprung to mind was the debate we had about slate slag heaps in North Wales etc,are we to consider the unsightly mess acceptable because the mine owners just left them there after they made their profit?
Last edited by reohn2 on 11 Jan 2022, 5:56pm, edited 2 times in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by reohn2 »

Tangled Metal wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 1:30pm
Jdsk wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 11:48am
Tangled Metal wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 10:24amWhat will our ancestors study about us to learn from the mistakes and exploitation of the past.
Possibly rather less than our descendants... ?

: - )

Jonathan
Really? Ho hum! In the lives of many here there's been possibly one world war, Mau Mau, pol pot and Kyme rouge, uk support of Pinochet, Falklands, yugoslavia, countless dictatorships. Nixon, Vietnam, cold War, modern day slavery and exploitation, dodgy dossier and going to war on the back of it, etc
Those conflicts are usually supported by those who don't have go and fight such wars but stand to make profit from them!
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by pwa »

thirdcrank wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 2:48pm
If you want people charged and convicted without a jury, you might prefer living in the PRC or somewhere like that.
I just did a quick google - hardly definitive - but I don't thing trial without a jury is a monopoly of "the PRC or somewhere like that."

As far as I can see, even some countries formerly part of the British Empire don't seem to use juries. I only mention this because it reflects the way we are socialised to believe British is best.
It isn't a British Is Best thing really. It is more that I think a jury of citizens is a safeguard against bad laws and law working contrary to justice. In exceptional circumstances a jury can refuse to find guilty even when they know that the defendant is guilty. It is a jury putting justice, as they see it, above the letter of the law.

I remember many years ago a case where a lorry driver who had neglected to maintain his vehicle, and who had a history of similar offences, had lost control of his vehicle and killed a child. The driver made the mistake of smirking at the father of the victim in court. The father later acquired a shotgun and shot the driver in the groin. The police charged the father (can't remember what with) and a jury, despite clear evidence to the contrary, found the father not guilty. They knew he was guilty but refused to go along with a legal process that would have been contrary to their idea of justice.

On the whole, I like that. Law is a useful tool but it is not the same as justice and sometimes it fails to deliver justice. I suspect the Bristol jury may have been thinking "I know they are guilty but I also know that to declare them guilty would be morally wrong". It is the jury refusing to play ball. I know that will be immensely frustrating for someone who thinks the prosecution was just and right, but on the whole I see it as a safeguard in our system. And I also think that in instances where a jury do act in this way, the wisest course is to listen to them and try to address the injustice that they perceive.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by thirdcrank »

In short, juries are a "good thing" if you approve of the verdict.
Pebble
Posts: 1935
Joined: 7 Jun 2020, 11:59pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Pebble »

Were the Jury from Bristol ? It seems that a great part of the reason they were let off was that the statue belonged to the people of Bristol therefor that somehow give them a right to destroy it. If that is correct then it was a mistrial and needs to be reheld in another part of the country with no one from Bristol on the Jury.


pwa wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 5:33am Why would you assume that individuals supporting the BLM movement aren't also concerned and active on other topics? BLM is a single issue movement, so it is not going to be a forum for other important matters. People can support BLM and the RSPCA, Amnesty and any other cause you can think of. It isn't one or the other. If BLM were a political party it would be another matter, because political parties do have to offer a package that covers everything.
I wasn't talking about different topics, one was black people being enslaved in modern day africa https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/2 ... ls-in-mali and the other was police shooting dead black people in Nigeria, these should be central to their cause but for some reason they're not?
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by reohn2 »

Pebble wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 9:52am Were the Jury from Bristol ? It seems that a great part of the reason they were let off was that the statue belonged to the people of Bristol therefor that somehow give them a right to destroy it. If that is correct then it was a mistrial and needs to be reheld in another part of the country with no one from Bristol on the Jury.
Isn't the jury a jury of their peers?
If so then a jury of Bristolians are the people to judge the case I would've thought.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

reohn2 wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 10:02am
Pebble wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 9:52am Were the Jury from Bristol ? It seems that a great part of the reason they were let off was that the statue belonged to the people of Bristol therefor that somehow give them a right to destroy it. If that is correct then it was a mistrial and needs to be reheld in another part of the country with no one from Bristol on the Jury.
Isn't the jury a jury of their peers?
If so then a jury of Bristolians are the people to judge the case I would've thought.
Exactly. [see also: "what would the Man on the Clapham Omnibus think" ! ]

I believe jurors are always locals; it would massively increase costs to ship "neutral" jurors around the country.
Post Reply