Colston Four Cleared

[clapham_gull]

.. you mother.

 

[The Clamp]

.. you mother.

Can I shock you?….

 

[drew]

I said earlier that I understand this point of view but don't agree with it. Extinction Rebellion have been tried and acquitted on similar charges. Doesn't seem to have sparked a wave in criminal damage.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ebellion-protesters-despite-no-defence-in-law

You say they should have been found guilty and given a token charge. But they were found innocent. So they should be found guilty and fined? Even though they are innocent? Just to appease people who don't understand the law and might attack another statue? Again. that is simply not how the law works.

Frankly, I worry that you have been on Jury service with that philosophy!

Ok, you keep banging on about the not understanding the judicial system. If a jury finds you not guilty, it does not mean you are innocent of the crime. It could do but it can also mean they don't consider the evidence convinces them beyond reasonable doubt. We have an appeals court because sometimes juries get it wrong.

As an example, if you kill someone with intent, ie murder them, you are a murderer whether you are convicted or not. It's up to the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. If they can't, that doesn't change the fact you are still a murderer.

In this case, in my opinion, based on the fact they don't deny what they did and I don't agree with their defence that damage wasn't criminal then, again, in my view they are guilty. And please remember it was not a unanimous verdict so some jurors didn't agree with the majority. Our judicial system is not black or white, it's about one side putting up an argument and the other side putting up their argument. One needs to convince the jury their argument supports a case beyond reasonable doubt, the other just needs to establish an element of doubt. I'm pretty sure you know that. What is beyond reasonable doubt to one juror might not be to another.

And just for the record, the verdict does not prove them innocent, it merely advise that the juror did not think the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Our jury system only has two verdicts, guilty or not guilty. There is no innocent verdict.

 

[clapham_gull]

Can I shock you?….

 

[pastafarian]

They identify as black? How do you mean?

Ummm ask Harry if you don’t understand his comment.
One poster said the opinion of the jury that this was not criminal damage by the accused was not representative of wider public opinion who thought it was.
Harry countered with “You're just pissed off because the blacks won.”
The defendants who won, on the face of it appear white. Appearances may be deceptive though. It is entirely possible they identify as black. It is 2022 after all, people are entitled to identify as anything they want.
It is entirely possible Harry believes it was only black people accused of criminal damage on the statue, but that would be quite astonishing given the media coverage of the whole incident.

 

[The Clamp]

Ummm ask Harry if you don’t understand his comment.
One poster said the opinion of the jury that this was not criminal damage by the accused was not representative of wider public opinion who thought it was.
Harry countered with “You're just pissed off because the blacks won.”
The defendants who won, on the face of it appear white. Appearances may be deceptive though. It is entirely possible they identify as black. It is 2022 after all, people are entitled to identify as anything they want.
It is entirely possible Harry believes it was only black people accused of criminal damage on the statue, but that would be quite astonishing given the media coverage of the whole incident.

I see.

 

[pastafarian]

I see.

Not difficult was it

 

[The Clamp]

Ok, you keep banging on about the not understanding the judicial system. If a jury finds you not guilty, it does not mean you are innocent of the crime. It could do but it can also mean they don't consider the evidence convinces them beyond reasonable doubt. We have an appeals court because sometimes juries get it wrong.

As an example, if you kill someone with intent, ie murder them, you are a murderer whether you are convicted or not. It's up to the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. If they can't, that doesn't change the fact you are still a murderer.

In this case, in my opinion, based on the fact they don't deny what they did and I don't agree with their defence that damage wasn't criminal then, again, in my view they are guilty. And please remember it was not a unanimous verdict so some jurors didn't agree with the majority. Our judicial system is not black or white, it's about one side putting up an argument and the other side putting up their argument. One needs to convince the jury their argument supports a case beyond reasonable doubt, the other just needs to establish an element of doubt. I'm pretty sure you know that. What is beyond reasonable doubt to one juror might not be to another.

And just for the record, the verdict does not prove them innocent, it merely advise that the juror did not think the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Our jury system only has two verdicts, guilty or not guilty. There is no innocent verdict.

Okay.

 

[The Clamp]

Not difficult was it

You struggle to make yourself understood. I'm not sure if your posts are deliberately opaque or if it's that your thoughts don't translate well to the page. Interesting.

 

[pastafarian]

You struggle to make yourself understood. I'm not sure if your posts are deliberately opaque or if it's that your thoughts don't translate well to the page. Interesting.

I find having an open mind helps in the process.

 

[The Clamp]

I find having an open mind helps in the process.

 

[clapham_gull]

Ok, you keep banging on about the not understanding the judicial system. If a jury finds you not guilty, it does not mean you are innocent of the crime. It could do but it can also mean they don't consider the evidence convinces them beyond reasonable doubt. We have an appeals court because sometimes juries get it wrong.

As an example, if you kill someone with intent, ie murder them, you are a murderer whether you are convicted or not. It's up to the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. If they can't, that doesn't change the fact you are still a murderer.

In this case, in my opinion, based on the fact they don't deny what they did and I don't agree with their defence that damage wasn't criminal then, again, in my view they are guilty. And please remember it was not a unanimous verdict so some jurors didn't agree with the majority. Our judicial system is not black or white, it's about one side putting up an argument and the other side putting up their argument. One needs to convince the jury their argument supports a case beyond reasonable doubt, the other just needs to establish an element of doubt. I'm pretty sure you know that. What is beyond reasonable doubt to one juror might not be to another.

And just for the record, the verdict does not prove them innocent, it merely advise that the juror did not think the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Our jury system only has two verdicts, guilty or not guilty. There is no innocent verdict.

The problem with your argument is the defendants never tried (they couldn't) deny that they pulled down a statue and dumped it in the dock. It was done in plain site, recorded and the footage distributed widely.

Not only by the media but by the wider protestors at large.

The evidence was never in question.

The only debate in court surrounded whether their actions were criminal. The defence successfully argued they weren't, most compellingly convincing the jury that the existence of the statue was a crime in itself (under current legislation) and it's removal was an act of stopping a crime taking place. You may not agree with that, but be honest and agree you'd never thought of that either.

This was a unique case and investigation that I probably won't see again in my lifetime.

It was also unfortunately completely muddied by political interference behind the scenes.

Where I hope there has been a "precedent" (but not in legal terms) is that any future administration (well actually an individual MP) thinks twice about interfering with an investigation to advance their popularity with their fanbase.

The Home Secretary is well known to be privately "obsessed" with the issue of statues. Her behaviour (I'm guessing because I have no idea) potentially led to the Police and the CPS somewhat going through the motions and allowed a brilliant defence barrister to pull the rug under any idea of a culture war show trial by using the law to suggest otherwise.

I suggest you direct your sense of justice not served to them. In the long term it will be a better use of it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I love the Banksy t-shirts.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Oh, I have no doubt. I was just wandering what he actually meant.

Is it worth it? Trying to fathom the reasoning of a tortured and deluded mind?
Try something easier, like herding cats, or counting the stars in a clear night sky!

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Because they are not legal experts and picked from the general public.

Can I ask, did you just arrive here from outer space ?

Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

No, that wasn't me, it was a group of 12 people living on a different planet.

Human beings. People are all different.

As above, human beings, doing this job would return a common sense result, so send them back to planet zog for me.

Can I ask why they should get them from one demographic?

 

[beorhthelm]

...This was a unique case and investigation that I probably won't see again in my lifetime.

apart from it cant be literally the same statue again, i confidently predict we'll see another similar case involving a statue or other civic furniture in couple of years. there will be people from the "other side" making a point, and swampy types itching to pull down some artifact of imperialist oppression.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As above, human beings, doing this job would return a common sense result, so send them back to planet zog for me.

Can I ask why they should get them from one demographic?

You think the jury was selected from one demographic? You do know that prosecution lawyers can object to jurors being selected, as well as defence?
One juror voted guilty, but the judge accepted a majority vote.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

The crime of murdering 19,000 innocent people is far greater, this was clearly in the minds of the jury

Hopefully they will replace the statue with someone who represents the common good

FFS ! nothing to fo with history it was about the act that was carried out, You must live on stupid street along with the jury

Regards
DF

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You don't represent most people's views.

I find the 'sight' of you fulminating about criminality to be laughable.

You're just pissed off because the blacks won.

Whining for a change in the law. So pompous. Absolutely pathetic.

Just suck up the defeat. You lost. You will always lose.

Who mentioned blacks H ? Leave out the casual racism eh

Regards
DF

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You don't represent most people's views.

I find the 'sight' of you fulminating about criminality to be laughable.

You're just pissed off because the blacks won.

Whining for a change in the law. So pompous. Absolutely pathetic.

Just suck up the defeat. You lost. You will always lose.

I haven'' lost ' anything what a strange accusation and yes I do expect this case to come under the spotlight of reform, we can't have people taking things into their own hands because THEY believe it to be right

Regards
DF