FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Colton 4

Colton 4

Jump to: Newest in thread

By *mateur100 OP Man over a year ago

nr faversham

They had a lawful excuse fir criminal damage...views on the verdict against the charge, not the moral argument?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

The Colston 4.

When one of the defendents is filmed astride the statue vandalising it, then I'm not sure what defence they have used to get off the charge?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

tried and found not guilty by their peers ... justice has been met

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"tried and found not guilty by their peers ... justice has been met

So is i go and deface and damage something that I say offends me and its all caught on camera then I can plead not guilty and expect tp be found as such then ?

totoal misscarage of justice and the jury should be looked into

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

far righties are losing their shit because they don't agree with verdict from a fair trial. justice has been met. now the precedent is set to remove venerations of murdering racist scum from our public spaces.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

"tried and found not guilty by their peers ... justice has been met

So is i go and deface and damage something that I say offends me and its all caught on camera then I can plead not guilty and expect tp be found as such then ?

totoal misscarage of justice and the jury should be looked into"

If you want to give it a go then that's fine.

If you don't like our justice system and society you can move somewhere else.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"tried and found not guilty by their peers ... justice has been met

So is i go and deface and damage something that I say offends me and its all caught on camera then I can plead not guilty and expect tp be found as such then ?

totoal misscarage of justice and the jury should be looked into

If you want to give it a go then that's fine.

If you don't like our justice system and society you can move somewhere else. "

This was not justice, the law was broken fact video evidence and all.

The jury did not follow the law

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"far righties are losing their shit because they don't agree with verdict from a fair trial. justice has been met. now the precedent is set to remove venerations of murdering racist scum from our public spaces.

Yes a precedent has been very much set.

However that precedent can cut both ways.

What it has done is to legalise criminal damage as long as the perpetrator can justify its offensiveness.

So would it now be legal for a gang of Jewish men/women to smash up a Labour party office or HQ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"tried and found not guilty by their peers ... justice has been met

So is i go and deface and damage something that I say offends me and its all caught on camera then I can plead not guilty and expect tp be found as such then ?

totoal misscarage of justice and the jury should be looked into

If you want to give it a go then that's fine.

If you don't like our justice system and society you can move somewhere else. "

I wonder what the reaction would be if I (or anyone else) used that last sentence in a different context.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"tried and found not guilty by their peers ... justice has been met

So is i go and deface and damage something that I say offends me and its all caught on camera then I can plead not guilty and expect tp be found as such then ?

totoal misscarage of justice and the jury should be looked into"

Get over it, move on , stop being a snowflake etc etc etc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

Just wait for all the appeals to go in now, the breafs are going to be busy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just wait for all the appeals to go in now, the breafs are going to be busy

You cant make an appeal based on the result of another trial ,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"Just wait for all the appeals to go in now, the breafs are going to be busy

You cant make an appeal based on the result of another trial , "

No I mean all do the pending cases that others are going to use this to get off of vandalism

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just wait for all the appeals to go in now, the breafs are going to be busy

You cant make an appeal based on the result of another trial ,

No I mean all do the pending cases that others are going to use this to get off of vandalism

It doesn’t work like that ,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one. "

It was a trial by jury, so it is irrelevant , they were found not guilty, no sentence was required ,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one. "

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome. "

Exactly

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackal1Couple over a year ago

Manchester

I’ve not read the detail but scanning over this I wonder if the historical figure was on trial not the vandalism.

I haven’t formed a view on what should be done with all this history. Hiding it doesn’t seem right as that’s denying what a terrible force in manny cases we were for hundreds of years. Empire built on the back of a cannon . It’s like saying if we personally don’t see racism it doesn’t exist so all’s well with the world. It needs showing.

So do we ignore or remember the poor buggers doing the fighting and whether you like it or not bringing wealth to this country way above our size and status.

Do we ignore those grunts who died making us relatively rich just because their masters were greedy flawed people.

Like I said I have very mixed views. I didn’t know until recently that we hadn’t paid off the U.K. sl4ve owners compensation until the mid 1970s the loan figure was so large. A lot of obscene personal wealth in this country is purely based on that sl4ve trade. Do we ignore that too?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works, "

So you get tried, admit you did it and then get found not guilty

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works,

So you get tried, admit you did it and then get found not guilty

Yep, and it is all within the law,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works,

So you get tried, admit you did it and then get found not guilty

Yep, and it is all within the law,

And peoples use the government of being corrupt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works,

So you get tried, admit you did it and then get found not guilty

Yep, and it is all within the law,

And peoples use the government of being corrupt

Who is corrupt? The jury are the people who made this decision

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works,

So you get tried, admit you did it and then get found not guilty

Yep, and it is all within the law,

And peoples use the government of being corrupt

Who is corrupt? The jury are the people who made this decision "

The law is about facts and the video clearly shows the 4 damaging pulling down the statue therefore they are guilty

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works,

So you get tried, admit you did it and then get found not guilty

Yep, and it is all within the law,

And peoples use the government of being corrupt

Who is corrupt? The jury are the people who made this decision

The law is about facts and the video clearly shows the 4 damaging pulling down the statue therefore they are guilty "

Mitigating circumstances, So are you saying the jury, the defence and the judge are corrupt ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebjonnsonMan over a year ago

Maldon

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works,

So you get tried, admit you did it and then get found not guilty

Yep, and it is all within the law,

And peoples use the government of being corrupt

Who is corrupt? The jury are the people who made this decision "

Was there a jury?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works,

So you get tried, admit you did it and then get found not guilty

Yep, and it is all within the law,

And peoples use the government of being corrupt

Who is corrupt? The jury are the people who made this decision

Was there a jury? "

Yep

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eanoCoolMan over a year ago

wisbech

I wonder if some of those laughing on here would still feel the same if someone vandalised there house or personal property and walked out of court like these 4 have. It shouldn't matter if you are a lefty or a righty, vandalism is a criminal offence, the object being vandalised should be immaterial in my opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *isandhers691127Couple over a year ago

Bournemouth

Poor bleating snowflakes ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wonder if some of those laughing on here would still feel the same if someone vandalised there house or personal property and walked out of court like these 4 have. It shouldn't matter if you are a lefty or a righty, vandalism is a criminal offence, the object being vandalised should be immaterial in my opinion. "

Really?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome.

Exactly

A mockery

You obviously haven’t got a clue how the law works,

So you get tried, admit you did it and then get found not guilty

Yep, and it is all within the law,

And peoples use the government of being corrupt

Who is corrupt? The jury are the people who made this decision

The law is about facts and the video clearly shows the 4 damaging pulling down the statue therefore they are guilty "

If you see the law in that way, 1 man band justice systems could operate and punish as they see fit. Thankfully, it is not how it is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

"
yes the act should be what matters in this case as some have said is it ok to say pull nelson column down or Winston Churchill or God forbid a statue of nelson Mandela because I didn't like what they stood for the act was criminal yes a jury found them not guilty was the easy lead or did most of the jury already think not guilty if I was part of the colson family I'd look at definitely pulling funding and also look at the leniency of the verdict.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

yes the act should be what matters in this case as some have said is it ok to say pull nelson column down or Winston Churchill or God forbid a statue of nelson Mandela because I didn't like what they stood for the act was criminal yes a jury found them not guilty was the easy lead or did most of the jury already think not guilty if I was part of the colson family I'd look at definitely pulling funding and also look at the leniency of the verdict."

So the sentence should be the same for all acts of vandalism?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes a precedent has been very much set.

However that precedent can cut both ways.

What it has done is to legalise criminal damage as long as the perpetrator can justify its offensiveness.

So would it now be legal for a gang of Jewish men/women to smash up a Labour party office or HQ?

Who would ever notice? Those buildings have been deserted for years

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

Really?

So the sentence should be the same for all acts of vandalism? "

Of course not.

But that isn't the issue here. There was no sentence because there was no guilty verdict.

It isn't for a jury to take into account mitigation. That is for the judge when passing sentence.

The jury's decision should be solely based on whether or not they committed the act. If so then guilty, if not then not, and the judge should have directed the jury accordingly. It is not for jury's to make up their own law on the hoof.

In this case they did vandalise the statue so should have been found guilty of criminal damage.

Then the judge could have passed sentence at his discretion taking into account mitigating factors.

I don't know if there is any way that the crown could appeal this case, but if so then they should.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

Yes a precedent has been very much set.

However that precedent can cut both ways.

What it has done is to legalise criminal damage as long as the perpetrator can justify its offensiveness.

So would it now be legal for a gang of Jewish men/women to smash up a Labour party office or HQ?

Who would ever notice? Those buildings have been deserted for years

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

So the sentence should be the same for all acts of vandalism?

Of course not.

But that isn't the issue here. There was no sentence because there was no guilty verdict.

It isn't for a jury to take into account mitigation. That is for the judge when passing sentence.

In this case they did vandalise the statue so should have been found guilty of criminal damage.

Then the judge could have passed sentence at his discretion taking into account mitigating factors.

I don't know if there is any way that the crown could appeal this case, but if so then they should."

Why would the crown appeal the case? On what grounds would they make an appeal? You do realise it is within the law for a jury to make this decision.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arleyfatboy2019Couple over a year ago

Devon

I wonder how many people present at the scene at the time were or had benefited from any of Coulstons educational scholarships or visited the halls for plays,pantomimes etc. I would imagine if they are currently in receipt of this then they would withdraw and repay any money owed ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wonder how many people present at the scene at the time were or had benefited from any of Coulstons educational scholarships or visited the halls for plays,pantomimes etc. I would imagine if they are currently in receipt of this then they would withdraw and repay any money owed ? "

I wonder how many present were ancestors of the sl*ves who died whilst being transported or worked to death by Colston?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arleyfatboy2019Couple over a year ago

Devon

Who knows ?

I’m sure there were some. But traders weren’t just white were they?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who knows ?

I’m sure there were some. But traders weren’t just white were they?"

Why is that relevant? Do any of these ‘ non white’ sl*ve traders have a statue in Bristol?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arleyfatboy2019Couple over a year ago

Devon

I have absolutely no idea.

Read the bio these people have done.

What he did was terrible and there are no excuses. Maybe towards the end of his life he realised??

SMV’s historical and modern-day links to Edward Colston

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I have absolutely no idea.

Read the bio these people have done.

What he did was terrible and there are no excuses. Maybe towards the end of his life he realised??

SMV’s historical and modern-day links to Edward Colston"

Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t , Jimmy Saville used to do a lot for charity , he was still an evil cunt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arleyfatboy2019Couple over a year ago

Devon

He absolutely was. Still it’s interesting to hear other peoples views on Coulston.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"He absolutely was. Still it’s interesting to hear other peoples views on Coulston. "

Yeah, maybe they like him because they have them money and didn’t care that it came from the sl*ve trade? Jimmy Saville was well liked, especially by the royal family and the Tory party at the time

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

"I’ve not read the detail but scanning over this I wonder if the historical figure was on trial not the vandalism.

So do we ignore or remember the poor buggers doing the fighting and whether you like it or not bringing wealth to this country way above our size and status.

Do we ignore those grunts who died making us relatively rich just because their masters were greedy flawed people.

"
I think I’m with you on this jackal it’s a tricky one aint history good and bad that’s the point of it to learn from it ain’t it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

"I’ve not read the detail but scanning over this I wonder if the historical figure was on trial not the vandalism.

So do we ignore or remember the poor buggers doing the fighting and whether you like it or not bringing wealth to this country way above our size and status.

Do we ignore those grunts who died making us relatively rich just because their masters were greedy flawed people.

I think I’m with you on this jackal it’s a tricky one aint history good and bad that’s the point of it to learn from it ain’t it "

Name the top 3 things you have learned from a statue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"The law works off precedents.

This case has just set an entirely new one.

No, it hasn't.

A lot of people don't seem to have bothered reading the facts here.

The defendants admitted what they did, but the defence convinced the jury that applying a punishment for criminal damage was not correct in this instance.

A jury has the right to do this.

If someone else wants to deface a statue or any other public property, they can be arrested and tried, and it will be up to their defence to similarly convince a jury.

This isn't a new precedent, just an unusual outcome. "

Even if they're smelly lefties?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"I’ve not read the detail but scanning over this I wonder if the historical figure was on trial not the vandalism.

So do we ignore or remember the poor buggers doing the fighting and whether you like it or not bringing wealth to this country way above our size and status.

Do we ignore those grunts who died making us relatively rich just because their masters were greedy flawed people.

I think I’m with you on this jackal it’s a tricky one aint history good and bad that’s the point of it to learn from it ain’t it "

The statue is now an exhibit in the museum of Bristol history. With lots of factual information about Colstons life and deeds.

Personally, I think this is fitting.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"They had a lawful excuse fir criminal damage...views on the verdict against the charge, not the moral argument?"

This has been confusing for me. I don't know much about the law and always thought I jury was only concerned with guilty or not guilty. I thought the judge passed sentences. Does anyone know if it was found guilty but no punishment given or found not guilty?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?"

If you give it a try, let us know what happens.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

If you give it a try, let us know what happens."

Well he was a racist and one of the founding fathers of an ideology that has lead to the deaths of millions

So surely i should in wealthy and hungs eyes as it meets his criteria

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"They had a lawful excuse fir criminal damage...views on the verdict against the charge, not the moral argument?

The Avon and Somerset police have a statement about the verdict from the chief superintendent which included the line...

“Having been presented with the evidence, a jury has now determined their actions were not criminal and we respect its decision.”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

If you give it a try, let us know what happens.

Well he was a racist and one of the founding fathers of an ideology that has lead to the deaths of millions

So surely i should in wealthy and hungs eyes as it meets his criteria "

Was he a big name in the sl*ve trade then? And is his tomb up on a plinth in a public park for maximum veneration?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"They had a lawful excuse fir criminal damage...views on the verdict against the charge, not the moral argument?

The Avon and Somerset police have a statement about the verdict from the chief superintendent which included the line...

“Having been presented with the evidence, a jury has now determined their actions were not criminal and we respect its decision.”"

Ok so a not guilty verdict then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS over a year ago

Notts

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

If you give it a try, let us know what happens.

Well he was a racist and one of the founding fathers of an ideology that has lead to the deaths of millions

So surely i should in wealthy and hungs eyes as it meets his criteria "

and there lies the problem! its mob rule in a courtroom! either we have laws or we dont, i can live with either! but a jury simply saying, well they deserved to be killed? robbed? beat up a bit? people shouldnt wear posh stuff ..... is a dangerous direction.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"They had a lawful excuse fir criminal damage...views on the verdict against the charge, not the moral argument?

The Avon and Somerset police have a statement about the verdict from the chief superintendent which included the line...

“Having been presented with the evidence, a jury has now determined their actions were not criminal and we respect its decision.”

Ok so a not guilty verdict then"

I was trying to understand it. But the was the closest I could find to an explanation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"They had a lawful excuse fir criminal damage...views on the verdict against the charge, not the moral argument?

The Avon and Somerset police have a statement about the verdict from the chief superintendent which included the line...

“Having been presented with the evidence, a jury has now determined their actions were not criminal and we respect its decision.”

Ok so a not guilty verdict then"

Well to be honest they have to accept the decision even if it was a perversion of justice

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't understand why my black brothers and sisters didn't pull the statue down, there were plenty around and would have been justified in doing so. The "Colston 4" just used their white privilege to barge their way to the front to get all the media attention. I think they should apologise to the black community for acting on their behalf and taking away the rights of black people to take action and be heard.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"They had a lawful excuse fir criminal damage...views on the verdict against the charge, not the moral argument?

The Avon and Somerset police have a statement about the verdict from the chief superintendent which included the line...

“Having been presented with the evidence, a jury has now determined their actions were not criminal and we respect its decision.”

Ok so a not guilty verdict then

Well to be honest they have to accept the decision even if it was a perversion of justice

Absolutely, the decision is made and that's what stands. I was just reading a couple of odd comments. Grant Shapps: Britain is not a country where destroying public property us acceptable-clearly this case proves he is mistaken.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS over a year ago

Notts

[Removed by poster at 06/01/22 20:19:13]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

If you give it a try, let us know what happens.

Well he was a racist and one of the founding fathers of an ideology that has lead to the deaths of millions

So surely i should in wealthy and hungs eyes as it meets his criteria

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They had a lawful excuse fir criminal damage...views on the verdict against the charge, not the moral argument?

The Avon and Somerset police have a statement about the verdict from the chief superintendent which included the line...

“Having been presented with the evidence, a jury has now determined their actions were not criminal and we respect its decision.”

Ok so a not guilty verdict then

Well to be honest they have to accept the decision even if it was a perversion of justice

I don't think perversion of justice means what you think it means. Back to law school for you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

Worth reading Edward Henry QC thread on Twitter for some informed insight of the case

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"They had a lawful excuse fir criminal damage...views on the verdict against the charge, not the moral argument?

The Avon and Somerset police have a statement about the verdict from the chief superintendent which included the line...

“Having been presented with the evidence, a jury has now determined their actions were not criminal and we respect its decision.”

Ok so a not guilty verdict then

Well to be honest they have to accept the decision even if it was a perversion of justice

I don't think perversion of justice means what you think it means. Back to law school for you."

If you say so

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackal1Couple over a year ago

Manchester

The new crime bill which has just had it’s second reading will stop most protests peaceful or otherwise . Including static protests .

Our freedom to protest is being closed down. The choice of who can and can’t protest will be with the government. Remind you of any communist states in the far east??

It’s our supposedly democratically elected government right now introducing these laws. Violent protest are already covered under existing law so why do we need these new draconian laws.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't understand why my black brothers and sisters didn't pull the statue down, there were plenty around and would have been justified in doing so. The "Colston 4" just used their white privilege to barge their way to the front to get all the media attention. I think they should apologise to the black community for acting on their behalf and taking away the rights of black people to take action and be heard. "

What are you on about?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

If you give it a try, let us know what happens.

Well he was a racist and one of the founding fathers of an ideology that has lead to the deaths of millions

So surely i should in wealthy and hungs eyes as it meets his criteria

What is ‘posh stuff’? A top hat and tails?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eanoCoolMan over a year ago

wisbech

Really?

Yes, what difference does the object that was vandalised make to the fact that a criminal offence of vandalism took place, it should make no difference wether its a statue or a road sign. Or are you saying its OK to vandalise something of somebody else's just because you don't like it? Would you be OK if your neighbour put graffiti over the front of your property because they thought it would look nicer to them for instance? You would just shake there hand and thank them? Or would call the police and report it. I wonder.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

Was the neighbour a people merchant?, did they profit off the misery of others?

Bristol have lived under the shadow of this person for years, this disgusting practice was abolished in the early 1800’s his statue was put up in the late 1800’s just like those statues of confederate generals were put up in US southern states well after the American civil war by supremacists.

For many years Bristolians have tried legitimately to remove the statue but were blocked by a small minority of people.

Usually the loudest shouts of the ruling being unfair, are people who are happy to want maintain there superiority over others.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

If you give it a try, let us know what happens.

Well he was a racist and one of the founding fathers of an ideology that has lead to the deaths of millions

So surely i should in wealthy and hungs eyes as it meets his criteria

Was he a big name in the sl*ve trade then? And is his tomb up on a plinth in a public park for maximum veneration?"

Tbf his post didnt even mention sl4very

Ok should be start using different names for the months aswell? You are aware July is named so after Julius Ceasar? You know the guy who genocided all of Gaul. You know he was a Roman who where quite fond of sl4ves.

Moral Relativism when it comes to History is fucking stupid

Each and every country and culture in History has been involved in the sl4ve trade. People where taken from Cornwall and the south or Britain by the Moores ffs.

The same people who smashed up the statue dont give as fuck about the real actual sl4ve trade that is happening right now. Three times the people who where ever sl4ves in the trans Atlantic sl4ve trade (that we stopped) are living as sl4ves right now in Africa, Asia and the Middle East

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eanoCoolMan over a year ago

wisbech

Really?

Was the neighbour a people merchant?, did they profit off the misery of others?

For many years Bristolians have tried legitimately to remove the statue but were blocked by a small minority of people.

Usually the loudest shouts of the ruling being unfair, are people who are happy to want maintain there superiority over others.

My whole post is about criminal damage and law, the object that was damaged is immaterial to me whatsoever, well aware of the history thankyou and I know my own views on the man are probably very similar to those that did it. My argument is about the rule of law, nowhere do I hint at superiority over others in anything I have said so you have no cause to accuse me of this either thankyou. My opinion of the law clearly differs to yours but thats as far as it goes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

Was the neighbour a people merchant?, did they profit off the misery of others?

For many years Bristolians have tried legitimately to remove the statue but were blocked by a small minority of people.

Usually the loudest shouts of the ruling being unfair, are people who are happy to want maintain there superiority over others.

Again so it's fine for me to smash up marxs tomb then?

seeing as some of my extended family are Russian and died at the hands of Socialists and Communists

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

Really?

Was the neighbour a people merchant?, did they profit off the misery of others?

For many years Bristolians have tried legitimately to remove the statue but were blocked by a small minority of people.

Usually the loudest shouts of the ruling being unfair, are people who are happy to want maintain there superiority over others.

Again so it's fine for me to smash up marxs tomb then?

seeing as some of my extended family are Russian and died at the hands of Socialists and Communists

1. You are talking about desecrating a grave as opposed to a statue.

2. Karl Marx was not Russian, nor responsible for the use of his ideas to justify mass murder, as opposed to Colston who was the CEO of a company that ensl*ved and killed thousands of people.

3. If you were talking about smashing up a statue of Joseph Stain that was up in this country then you might have a point but you don't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?"

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Any, I think you should know there is a big difference between toppling a statue and desecration of a grave, which is what someone would be doing with Marx as it’s the headstone to his burial place in Highgate cemetery!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

Anyway the other I think truely fascinating thing about the trial is how close it came to be thrown out and declared a mistrial because of our lovely friends at GBNEWS, who we now find out were that close to being found guilty of “contempt of court” over some of their “opinion pieces” during the trial

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS over a year ago

Notts

the jury decides if there is enough evidence to prove the crime was committed by said individual, the judge then hands out the appropriate sentence. Being found not guilty because the jury have empathy for your cause is not a good route, in my opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eanoCoolMan over a year ago

wisbech

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ? "

Maybe you could answer my questions first instead of replying with a question. I believe I have made myself perfectly clear in my posts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

If you give it a try, let us know what happens.

Well he was a racist and one of the founding fathers of an ideology that has lead to the deaths of millions

So surely i should in wealthy and hungs eyes as it meets his criteria

Was he a big name in the sl*ve trade then? And is his tomb up on a plinth in a public park for maximum veneration?

Tbf his post didnt even mention sl4very

Moral Relativism when it comes to History is fucking stupid

Each and every country and culture in History has been involved in the sl4ve trade. People where taken from Cornwall and the south or Britain by the Moores ffs.

"
yep there ya go some common sense for a change best post on this subject by far but it will upset some in here the truth hurts

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Maybe you could answer my questions first instead of replying with a question. I believe I have made myself perfectly clear in my posts. "

I wouldn’t be happy if a neighbour put graffiti on my property just because they didn’t like it,

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

What are you on about. Marx was an anti semite. His parents where Jewish but he was baptised If anything he was an atheist and at most a lapsed Christian.

No I dont watch GBNews so I dont know what you are on a out

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Well said

The system is looking like a joke at the moment and no doubt the jury was specially selected

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Exactly

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"Exactly "

Excellent

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

What are you on about. Marx was an anti semite. His parents where Jewish but he was baptised If anything he was an atheist and at most a lapsed Christian.

No I dont watch GBNews so I dont know what you are on a out "

GBNews got a proper ticking off from the judge for their opinion pieces as we found out after the trial has finished because reporting restrictions were lifted as to not in any way prejudice the jury in their deliberations……

So close to gbeebies causing a mistrial!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

What are you on about. Marx was an anti semite. His parents where Jewish but he was baptised If anything he was an atheist and at most a lapsed Christian.

No I dont watch GBNews so I dont know what you are on a out

So close to gbeebies causing a mistrial!!!

They weren't alone. There was another organisation that got told off by the Judge.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Well said

The system is looking like a joke at the moment and no doubt the jury was specially selected "

It wasn’t, there are a lot of right wing snowflakes losing their shit over this

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

Was the neighbour a people merchant?, did they profit off the misery of others?

For many years Bristolians have tried legitimately to remove the statue but were blocked by a small minority of people.

Usually the loudest shouts of the ruling being unfair, are people who are happy to want maintain there superiority over others.

Again so it's fine for me to smash up marxs tomb then?

seeing as some of my extended family are Russian and died at the hands of Socialists and Communists

1. You are talking about desecrating a grave as opposed to a statue.

2. Karl Marx was not Russian, nor responsible for the use of his ideas to justify mass murder, as opposed to Colston who was the CEO of a company that ensl*ved and killed thousands of people.

3. If you were talking about smashing up a statue of Joseph Stain that was up in this country then you might have a point but you don't.

I am aware Marx was German thanks, from Trier

My point is i find him offensive.

Him and Engels are the grandfather of an ideolgy that has lead to the deaths of millions.

I find him offensive and extended parts of my family actually where effected by his ideas.

So therefore if i was to follow the logic of certain posters here. I should be let off smashing his monument. Smashing a grave and smashing a statue is vandalism. Why is it different.

But the difference between me and those people is i dont think its acceptable to smash statues based off historical figures in the first place because of some modern morality and guilt over being white

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

"
let me guess fab you think it should of been smashed up lol ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

let me guess fab you think it should of been smashed up lol ? "

It should have been removed years ago, let me guess, you think it should still be there

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

I'm just going to add something here. It's called 'lol-raging'.

Where people find an opinion, real or imagined, 'hilarious' or post a laughing or grinning emoji, or add lol at the end of their post to try and hide their true anger and aggressiveness that their post shows.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So many ‘right wing tears’

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm just going to add something here. It's called 'lol-raging'.

You're quite correct. Fortunately, that makes them easier to spot and ignore.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

The Attorney General is considering referring this to a higher Court.

The acquittals cannot be overturned, as they were reached by a jury, but more to clarify the legal position.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

let me guess fab you think it should of been smashed up lol ?

It should have been removed years ago, let me guess, you think it should still be there

Do you think the statue of Trajan should be pulled down then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

let me guess fab you think it should of been smashed up lol ?

It should have been removed years ago, let me guess, you think it should still be there

Do you think the statue of Trajan should be pulled down then?

Please don’t reply to my posts

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

let me guess fab you think it should of been smashed up lol ?

It should have been removed years ago, let me guess, you think it should still be there

Do you think the statue of Trajan should be pulled down then?

Please don’t reply to my posts "

Back to this now are we

Was fine for you to reply to mine a couple of weeks ago and you didnt cry when i responded to that

But when i ask you a difficult question you seem not to want me to talk to you

You are like the definition of Bad Faith

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"So many ‘right wing tears’

"
Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes."

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"The Attorney General is considering referring this to a higher Court.

The acquittals cannot be overturned, as they were reached by a jury, but more to clarify the legal position. "

This could be very useful to get some clarity. As some posts here suggest, what's now stopping anyone breaking public property and then claiming it offends them. We can no longer claim acts of vandalism, even if caught red handed, will be punished. One of the things I find slightly odd is if this statue offended those involved so much for so long why did they not vanderlise it before. The decision is made but clarity would help

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land? "

Do you ever actually answer a question?

Was you never taught at school answering a question with a question is bad form

Its also a trait of narcissim and a having superiority complex. Which seems about right

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS over a year ago

Notts

"The Attorney General is considering referring this to a higher Court.

The acquittals cannot be overturned, as they were reached by a jury, but more to clarify the legal position.

I think it's more dangerous than that, he votes labour I vote green so find him guilty.... they are trans let them off, instead of justice we will end up with who belongs to the bigger gang! In America the fight over who is on the jury in the first place can win the court case! Do we want that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS over a year ago

Notts

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land?

Do you ever actually answer a question?

Was you never taught at school answering a question with a question is bad form

Its also a trait of narcissim and a having superiority complex. Which seems about right"

Careful, some people talk tough but report other site members often... coz they want justice

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkywife1981Couple over a year ago

A town near you

What if an individual finds the religious teachings of any one religion offensive, will they be lawful in their actions if they take it upon themselves to vandalise places of worship associated with that religion?

Or perhaps due to the Roman conquest of much of the known world at the time,are statues and icons of Roman emporers in museums around the world fair game.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land?

Do you ever actually answer a question?

Was you never taught at school answering a question with a question is bad form

Its also a trait of narcissim and a having superiority complex. Which seems about right"

Will you please stop replying to my posts, I have no desire or need to interact with you , thanks

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

let me guess fab you think it should of been smashed up lol ?

It should have been removed years ago, let me guess, you think it should still be there

"
yes I do it’s history every country as been involved with it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS over a year ago

Notts

"What if an individual finds the religious teachings of any one religion offensive, will they be lawful in their actions if they take it upon themselves to vandalise places of worship associated with that religion?

Or perhaps due to the Roman conquest of much of the known world at the time,are statues and icons of Roman emporers in museums around the world fair game.

yes its a brave new world, im already ordering a tank... tally ho misguided liberals... jeeves get me more cartridges theyve put up some modern carbuncle

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

let me guess fab you think it should of been smashed up lol ?

It should have been removed years ago, let me guess, you think it should still be there

yes I do it’s history every country as been involved with it "

History? Do you think they should have kept the jimmy saville statue in Glasgow, or the plaque , it is history ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

let me guess fab you think it should of been smashed up lol ?

It should have been removed years ago, let me guess, you think it should still be there

yes I do it’s history every country as been involved with it

History? Do you think they should have kept the jimmy saville statue in Glasgow, or the plaque , it is history ? "

Slav3ry in the 1600s was the norm and socially accepted

Paedophilia during the 70s is not

Try harder

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eanoCoolMan over a year ago

wisbech

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Maybe you could answer my questions first instead of replying with a question. I believe I have made myself perfectly clear in my posts.

I wouldn’t be happy if a neighbour put graffiti on my property just because they didn’t like it,

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ? "

Saying you "wouldn't be happy" does not answer the questions I asked you at all, so I assume either you don't understand or are purposely being obtuse in your reply. I have stated my beliefs quite clearly but you seem less inclined to do the same.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Maybe you could answer my questions first instead of replying with a question. I believe I have made myself perfectly clear in my posts.

I wouldn’t be happy if a neighbour put graffiti on my property just because they didn’t like it,

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

I wouldn’t be ‘OK’ if my neighbours put graffiti over the front of my property, however, I don’t have a statue of a sl@ve trader at my home so I am not sure why this is relevant

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land?

Do you ever actually answer a question?

Was you never taught at school answering a question with a question is bad form

Its also a trait of narcissim and a having superiority complex. Which seems about right

Will you please stop replying to my posts, I have no desire or need to interact with you , thanks "

This post is the perfect allegory for the extreme left wing mantra, especially in regard to this thread and the statue. If you don't like it or don't understand it - destroy it or try to cancel it rather then explain it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land?

Do you ever actually answer a question?

Was you never taught at school answering a question with a question is bad form

Its also a trait of narcissim and a having superiority complex. Which seems about right

Will you please stop replying to my posts, I have no desire or need to interact with you , thanks

That makes less sense than your suggestion that it should have been black people that pulled down the Colston statue, is everything ok?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

So the statue of Colston was put up 174 years after he died (and 88 years after the UK banned the trade in the word you cannot post beginning with S).

Colston’s employees were guilty of mass murder (literally throwing people overboard).

For years people in Bristol petitioned the Council to remove the statue. Not only did they refuse, they actually added a new plaque celebrating his philanthropy.

Anger boiled over and the statue toppled.

I wonder if anyone would think it wrong to erect a statue of Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 2119?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land? "
well thats good then because its not a left or right thing,yes of course i do its the best country in the world.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So the statue of Colston was put up 174 years after he died (and 88 years after the UK banned the trade in the word you cannot post beginning with S).

Colston’s employees were guilty of mass murder (literally throwing people overboard).

For years people in Bristol petitioned the Council to remove the statue. Not only did they refuse, they actually added a new plaque celebrating his philanthropy.

Anger boiled over and the statue toppled.

I wonder if anyone would think it wrong to erect a statue of Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 2119?"

Did Adolf Hitler do amazing philanthropy at the same time that his "business" was completely legal and a social norm? No.

Im sorry but what Colston was involved in, in that day aand age was just the same as selling wood or any other tradeable product

Again people are using moral relativism. You cant do that, it doesnt work.

As i have given multiple examples. Do you want the month of july changed as it was named after Julius Caesar? His Army during the Gallic wars killed upwards of a Million Gauls and enslved just as many

How about the statue of Trajan which was put up in 1980. Trajan is actually a good example as he was seen as a "progressive" leader who enacted social reforms. But still took around half a million slves during The Dacian Wars

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eanoCoolMan over a year ago

wisbech

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Maybe you could answer my questions first instead of replying with a question. I believe I have made myself perfectly clear in my posts.

I wouldn’t be happy if a neighbour put graffiti on my property just because they didn’t like it,

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

I wouldn’t be ‘OK’ if my neighbours put graffiti over the front of my property, however, I don’t have a statue of a sl@ve trader at my home so I am not sure why this is relevant "

Its relevant because my stance is the law is the law and vandalism is a criminal offence and should be treat as such regardless of the object that was vandalised. Where as it appears you are OK with a act of criminal vandalism against something if you dont like it but yet you would act differently if it was something you owned or supported. As I have stated at least 3 times in this thread now the object that was vandalised is immaterial to me, its about the law to me plain and simple.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land? well thats good then because its not a left or right thing,yes of course i do its the best country in the world."

So you respect the decision of the jury and respect that this didn’t warrant a prosecution

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Maybe you could answer my questions first instead of replying with a question. I believe I have made myself perfectly clear in my posts.

I wouldn’t be happy if a neighbour put graffiti on my property just because they didn’t like it,

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

I wouldn’t be ‘OK’ if my neighbours put graffiti over the front of my property, however, I don’t have a statue of a sl@ve trader at my home so I am not sure why this is relevant

And the law wasn’t broken , plain and simple

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"So the statue of Colston was put up 174 years after he died (and 88 years after the UK banned the trade in the word you cannot post beginning with S).

Colston’s employees were guilty of mass murder (literally throwing people overboard).

For years people in Bristol petitioned the Council to remove the statue. Not only did they refuse, they actually added a new plaque celebrating his philanthropy.

Anger boiled over and the statue toppled.

I wonder if anyone would think it wrong to erect a statue of Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 2119?

Did Adolf Hitler do amazing philanthropy at the same time that his "business" was completely legal and a social norm? No.

Im sorry but what Colston was involved in, in that day aand age was just the same as selling wood or any other tradeable product

Again people are using moral relativism. You cant do that, it doesnt work.

But you are assuming the values of today will still be prevalent in 2119.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So the statue of Colston was put up 174 years after he died (and 88 years after the UK banned the trade in the word you cannot post beginning with S).

Colston’s employees were guilty of mass murder (literally throwing people overboard).

For years people in Bristol petitioned the Council to remove the statue. Not only did they refuse, they actually added a new plaque celebrating his philanthropy.

Anger boiled over and the statue toppled.

I wonder if anyone would think it wrong to erect a statue of Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 2119?

Did Adolf Hitler do amazing philanthropy at the same time that his "business" was completely legal and a social norm? No.

Im sorry but what Colston was involved in, in that day aand age was just the same as selling wood or any other tradeable product

Again people are using moral relativism. You cant do that, it doesnt work.

But you are assuming the values of today will still be prevalent in 2119."
]

You are missing the point.

People wont build a statue to Hitler in 2119. Because what he did was not socially acceptable or a normal occurance at the time of it happening.

While what colston did was completely normal in the time he was around

You CANNOT judge historical figures with the morales of the present day. They are not fixed or set and can change. Public execution is an example of this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land? well thats good then because its not a left or right thing,yes of course i do its the best country in the world."

Why does right win hand left wing come into it. I would have thought political opinion does not matter in this event.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS over a year ago

Notts

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land? well thats good then because its not a left or right thing,yes of course i do its the best country in the world.

Why does right win hand left wing come into it. I would have thought political opinion does not matter in this event. "

Agree.... its about how we want our law to work, isn't it.... pull a statue down, have a party in lockdown.... it erodes public faith in the system...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"So many ‘right wing tears’

Do you really think only right wing people find these people cleared of vandalism was wrong? not everything is left or right wing although it maybe in your eyes.

No, just the ones on here . Do you believe in the law of the land? well thats good then because its not a left or right thing,yes of course i do its the best country in the world.

Why does right win hand left wing come into it. I would have thought political opinion does not matter in this event.

Agree.... its about how we want our law to work, isn't it.... pull a statue down, have a party in lockdown.... it erodes public faith in the system... "

The decision has been reached and will stand as far as I understand. It would be better in my opinion if it was explained in clear and simple terms why it's suddenly ok to destroy public property. Preferably before some French people decide to pull down Nelson column or attack Waterloo station

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"So the statue of Colston was put up 174 years after he died (and 88 years after the UK banned the trade in the word you cannot post beginning with S).

Colston’s employees were guilty of mass murder (literally throwing people overboard).

For years people in Bristol petitioned the Council to remove the statue. Not only did they refuse, they actually added a new plaque celebrating his philanthropy.

Anger boiled over and the statue toppled.

I wonder if anyone would think it wrong to erect a statue of Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 2119?

Did Adolf Hitler do amazing philanthropy at the same time that his "business" was completely legal and a social norm? No.

Im sorry but what Colston was involved in, in that day aand age was just the same as selling wood or any other tradeable product

Again people are using moral relativism. You cant do that, it doesnt work.

But you are assuming the values of today will still be prevalent in 2119.]

You are missing the point.

People wont build a statue to Hitler in 2119. Because what he did was not socially acceptable or a normal occurance at the time of it happening.

While what colston did was completely normal in the time he was around

You CANNOT judge historical figures with the morales of the present day. They are not fixed or set and can change. Public execution is an example of this.

But I think you can judge whether something causes offence and remove the statue and place in a museum with suitable info surrounding it instead of pretending it was all positive and about his philanthropy (partially funded by the abduction and sale of other human beings).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So the statue of Colston was put up 174 years after he died (and 88 years after the UK banned the trade in the word you cannot post beginning with S).

Colston’s employees were guilty of mass murder (literally throwing people overboard).

For years people in Bristol petitioned the Council to remove the statue. Not only did they refuse, they actually added a new plaque celebrating his philanthropy.

Anger boiled over and the statue toppled.

I wonder if anyone would think it wrong to erect a statue of Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 2119?

Did Adolf Hitler do amazing philanthropy at the same time that his "business" was completely legal and a social norm? No.

Im sorry but what Colston was involved in, in that day aand age was just the same as selling wood or any other tradeable product

Again people are using moral relativism. You cant do that, it doesnt work.

But you are assuming the values of today will still be prevalent in 2119.]

You are missing the point.

People wont build a statue to Hitler in 2119. Because what he did was not socially acceptable or a normal occurance at the time of it happening.

While what colston did was completely normal in the time he was around

You CANNOT judge historical figures with the morales of the present day. They are not fixed or set and can change. Public execution is an example of this.

Well we might aswell have no statues or any memorials for anyone then

You know just incase something quite normal today is seen as bad 400 years later.

Using my example from earlier. Would you want Trajan's column to be removed? Im sure Wellington had some lovely opinions about other races. Do we take his statue down aswell?

Where does it stop? Is there some sort of Time limit? if they lived 500+ years ago its fine but under that then they are disgusting people? or is it based off how much offense a white sociology student takes for others?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eanoCoolMan over a year ago

wisbech

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Maybe you could answer my questions first instead of replying with a question. I believe I have made myself perfectly clear in my posts.

I wouldn’t be happy if a neighbour put graffiti on my property just because they didn’t like it,

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

I wouldn’t be ‘OK’ if my neighbours put graffiti over the front of my property, however, I don’t have a statue of a sl@ve trader at my home so I am not sure why this is relevant

And the law wasn’t broken , plain and simple "

So if criminal vandalism is not breaking law then why did it go to court in the first place?? You have to commit a criminal act before you end up in front of a court of law.

. They did break the law, more than one actually, criminal damage act of 1971, also because the statue was classed as a grade 2 listed building by heritage England they were also in breach of the 1990 planning (listed buildings and conservation areas) act. If you dont me do some research. You believe it was right for them to be let off and I dont, end of.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS over a year ago

Notts

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Maybe you could answer my questions first instead of replying with a question. I believe I have made myself perfectly clear in my posts.

I wouldn’t be happy if a neighbour put graffiti on my property just because they didn’t like it,

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

I wouldn’t be ‘OK’ if my neighbours put graffiti over the front of my property, however, I don’t have a statue of a sl@ve trader at my home so I am not sure why this is relevant

And the law wasn’t broken , plain and simple

So if criminal vandalism is not breaking law then why did it go to court in the first place?? You have to commit a criminal act before you end up in front of a court of law.

Yes trump supporters were right go storm building to.... at last people can see the light.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why don’t the ridiculous right admit they want to cancel the legal system and cancel democracy?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why don’t the ridiculous right admit they want to cancel the legal system and cancel democracy? "

and yet we have been trending to more "democratic" country since Labour were booted out. Interesting

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Really?

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

Maybe you could answer my questions first instead of replying with a question. I believe I have made myself perfectly clear in my posts.

I wouldn’t be happy if a neighbour put graffiti on my property just because they didn’t like it,

Are you saying that the punishment for every act of vandalism should be the same ?

I wouldn’t be ‘OK’ if my neighbours put graffiti over the front of my property, however, I don’t have a statue of a sl@ve trader at my home so I am not sure why this is relevant

And the law wasn’t broken , plain and simple

So if criminal vandalism is not breaking law then why did it go to court in the first place?? You have to commit a criminal act before you end up in front of a court of law.

You have to be charged with a criminal act not commit a criminal act before you end up in court . here are the facts, they were charged, tried by jury and found not guilty of that charge , no law was broken . You believe it is right not to accept and respect the courts ruling and I don’t , end off

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why don’t the ridiculous right admit they want to cancel the legal system and cancel democracy? "

Exactly, whilst having a toddler tantrum because they didn’t get the result they wanted, such snowflakes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

The example the other poster gave about Karl Marx is valid I think. You dismiss it as its illegal to desecrate a grave which is correct. Would you not agree that criminal damage is also illegal? That is what the colston defendants were accused of. So both the colston incident and the example of Karl Marx incident are illegal acts so it's a valid question. The problem could be people using this as an excuse to attack anything they like because they feel offended. This is why I think it should be explained clearly as to why this decision has been taken.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

Its almost as if Colston was on trial, and not the four defendants.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

It’s done and dusted, the crusties won and the state lost.

Just wait to see what they think they are entitled to cancel out next

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 08/01/22 13:07:57]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

"They won, you lost get over it.

Respect the result!!!!

Exactly, they need to ‘move on’ and respect the law of the land

let me guess fab you think it should of been smashed up lol ?

It should have been removed years ago, let me guess, you think it should still be there

yes I do it’s history every country as been involved with it

History? Do you think they should have kept the jimmy saville statue in Glasgow, or the plaque , it is history ?

Slav3ry in the 1600s was the norm and socially accepted

Paedophilia during the 70s is not

Try harder "
exactly that Every country in tne word as took part in it but it’s only us that should be ashamed same old shot of same old cupcakes lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why don’t the ridiculous right admit they want to cancel the legal system and cancel democracy?

Exactly, whilst having a toddler tantrum because they didn’t get the result they wanted, such snowflakes "

Says the Guy who demands people dont reply to them when they have difficult questions you cant answer

Think must of us know who the real child of this forum is

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

[Removed by poster at 08/01/22 14:04:09]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

Try harder exactly that Every country in tne word as took part in it but it’s only us that should be ashamed same old shot of same old cupcakes lol"

Another Lol rager.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

If you Google secret barrister and Colston 4 then he sets out clearly how this came about. I can't post the link cos it's against the forum rules. Nothing is stopping you do this now, or indeed before you posted to educate yourself before offering an opinion..

Karl Marx is not Joseph Stalin. Karl Marx did not kill or people traffic/ trade people.

There is no statue of him separate to his grave.

It's amazing how many people who claim to be free thinkers seem to be trotting out the same lines that do not follow any sort of logic.

If you want to smash up a grave on camera and take your chances on a jury trial you are more than welcome to get a lawyer to explain your action to a jury. No one is stopping you.

The central claim is that this statue was causing a bigger crime.

Essentially if you saw me physically attacking your wife/husband /parent/child/significant other and pushed me over you would be guilty of common assault or something similar.

Now if the crown wanted to take it to court they would be more than welcome and I'm pretty sure that you saying 'i saw him hitting my *insert person* so I pushed him over' would result in a not guilty verdict.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

Karl Marx is not Joseph Stalin. Karl Marx did not kill or people traffic/ trade people.

There is no statue of him separate to his grave.

It's amazing how many people who claim to be free thinkers seem to be trotting out the same lines that do not follow any sort of logic.

If you want to smash up a grave on camera and take your chances on a jury trial you are more than welcome to get a lawyer to explain your action to a jury. No one is stopping you.

The central claim is that this statue was causing a bigger crime.

Essentially if you saw me physically attacking your wife/husband /parent/child/significant other and pushed me over you would be guilty of common assault or something similar.

I think if you read what I said and my other posts on this thread you will see its the principal I was questioning. On this particular post I simply pointed out that attacking Karl Marx grave was illegal and so is pulling down a statue. Both are criminal damage. The history of Karl Marx is irrelevant as anyone can say they are offended by it which is the same for the statue. Both are illegal acts. As I said before its clarity that's needed in case others decide to chance their luck. Before I would have been confident if someone was seen and filmed committing criminal damage they would have been found guilty. Now that is no longer true hence why I think it should be explained. I totally accept this is the decision, just would like to know how that was reached

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uddy laneMan over a year ago

dudley

This verdict is going to set in motion an unregulated form of democracy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

Karl Marx is not Joseph Stalin. Karl Marx did not kill or people traffic/ trade people.

There is no statue of him separate to his grave.

It's amazing how many people who claim to be free thinkers seem to be trotting out the same lines that do not follow any sort of logic.

If you want to smash up a grave on camera and take your chances on a jury trial you are more than welcome to get a lawyer to explain your action to a jury. No one is stopping you.

The central claim is that this statue was causing a bigger crime.

Essentially if you saw me physically attacking your wife/husband /parent/child/significant other and pushed me over you would be guilty of common assault or something similar.

I have told you to Google the secret barrister Colston 4 already.

This will explain it to you.

If you don't to do this then I'm afraid you will always be in ignorance wondering why this decision was reached.

I've also tried to give you and example as to how the law works.

Sadly the law does not work how you think it does and you appear not to want to educate yourself when given suggestions as to how help bridge that gap.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

the usual sour faced far righty urge to change the result of things just because they don't like them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"the usual sour faced far righty urge to change the result of things just because they don't like them."

Remain is right wing now?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

Karl Marx is not Joseph Stalin. Karl Marx did not kill or people traffic/ trade people.

There is no statue of him separate to his grave.

It's amazing how many people who claim to be free thinkers seem to be trotting out the same lines that do not follow any sort of logic.

If you want to smash up a grave on camera and take your chances on a jury trial you are more than welcome to get a lawyer to explain your action to a jury. No one is stopping you.

The central claim is that this statue was causing a bigger crime.

Essentially if you saw me physically attacking your wife/husband /parent/child/significant other and pushed me over you would be guilty of common assault or something similar.

I have told you to Google the secret barrister Colston 4 already.

This will explain it to you.

If you don't to do this then I'm afraid you will always be in ignorance wondering why this decision was reached.

I've also tried to give you and example as to how the law works.

Sadly the law does not work how you think it does and you appear not to want to educate yourself when given suggestions as to how help bridge that gap."

When I say this should be clearly explained I mean to the nation not just me. It received coverage on the national news so an explanation nationally would help. I am not about to go and pull down any chunks of metal because I find them offensive but there may be some that will. To me and possibly many more criminal damage is a crime so feel it is important the general public are updated as to why in this case it was not deemed a crime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"So the statue of Colston was put up 174 years after he died (and 88 years after the UK banned the trade in the word you cannot post beginning with S).

Colston’s employees were guilty of mass murder (literally throwing people overboard).

For years people in Bristol petitioned the Council to remove the statue. Not only did they refuse, they actually added a new plaque celebrating his philanthropy.

Anger boiled over and the statue toppled.

I wonder if anyone would think it wrong to erect a statue of Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 2119?

Did Adolf Hitler do amazing philanthropy at the same time that his "business" was completely legal and a social norm? No.

Im sorry but what Colston was involved in, in that day aand age was just the same as selling wood or any other tradeable product

Again people are using moral relativism. You cant do that, it doesnt work.

But you are assuming the values of today will still be prevalent in 2119.]

You are missing the point.

People wont build a statue to Hitler in 2119. Because what he did was not socially acceptable or a normal occurance at the time of it happening.

While what colston did was completely normal in the time he was around

You CANNOT judge historical figures with the morales of the present day. They are not fixed or set and can change. Public execution is an example of this.

Well we might aswell have no statues or any memorials for anyone then

You know just incase something quite normal today is seen as bad 400 years later.

Using my example from earlier. Would you want Trajan's column to be removed? Im sure Wellington had some lovely opinions about other races. Do we take his statue down aswell?

According to Eric Williams by the middle of the 18th century there was hardly any British town of any size that was not in some way connected to the sla** trade or colonial rule.

Thus, the accumulation of capital in England that helped to fuel the Industrial Revolution was made on the back of the trade.

As enslav** Africans made the sugar colonies the sweetest prizes of imperialism in the Caribbean, the Africans in the American South made cotton king of the realm in Manchester.

When you talk about the Romans it is a moot point because you cannot trace a direct line from the past to the present. With the trade in humans you can, quite easily.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ealthy_and_HungMan over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

the explaination of points raised by the defence during the trail were frank and thoroughly explained to all including the public by means of the record. those that fail to understand or indeed unable to understand, clearly need to go over the record again. the thorough and frank explaination was fully understood by a jury of the defendents piers. they gave their verdict based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. the verdict was not guilty, and now the righties are losing their shit and like spoilt little brats seek to change the result just because they don't like it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't begrudge this as a small win for the looney left - they've had fuck all to celebrate for a very long time and this gives them the opportunity to cream their jeans at "getting one over on the man". I bet most of the regulars on here are currently hunkered down in their squalid bedsits wanking over pictures of Sir Queer Stammerer right now. Hopefully, it'll take away a bit of their usual aggression and give the good people on the Samaritans helpline a much needed break.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ired_upMan over a year ago

ashton

So i can go smash up the Tomb of Karl Marx then?

A) oooh …. Someone has been following Darren grimes, although I don’t think that something should be bragged about!!!

Desecrating a grave…. Definitely illegal!!!

Desecrating his grave…. Definitely illegal, possibly antisemitic… but that’s “dazza” for you!!!!

Karl Marx is not Joseph Stalin. Karl Marx did not kill or people traffic/ trade people.

There is no statue of him separate to his grave.

It's amazing how many people who claim to be free thinkers seem to be trotting out the same lines that do not follow any sort of logic.

If you want to smash up a grave on camera and take your chances on a jury trial you are more than welcome to get a lawyer to explain your action to a jury. No one is stopping you.

The central claim is that this statue was causing a bigger crime.

Essentially if you saw me physically attacking your wife/husband /parent/child/significant other and pushed me over you would be guilty of common assault or something similar.

I have told you to Google the secret barrister Colston 4 already.

This will explain it to you.

If you don't to do this then I'm afraid you will always be in ignorance wondering why this decision was reached.

I've also tried to give you and example as to how the law works.

Sadly the law does not work how you think it does and you appear not to want to educate yourself when given suggestions as to how help bridge that gap.

Maybe you should clearly explain what you mean.

It was explained on various websites, newspapers, radio and tv news reports and has even been signposted on the fabswingers forum.

Where is it that is not reporting it? Then, and take your time with this, why do you think this is?