Search results

maybe the attorney general has a good idea of what is a valid reason. reading the tweet yesturday seemed more balanced than "because im told to". probably just playing the gallery, hoping it blows over and we dont hear of it again. https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1479402576986656772

lets go to Court of Appeal. if they find the defense argument that the act wasnt criminal is valid, clears up the ambiguity. everyone can move on.

why not. most have been vaccinated and a small minority cant. another small minority think they dont need to. we then risk additional restrictions to protect them from themselves, and they cause disproportionate pressure on the health service. lets call out that selfish action for what it is.

:lolol: what mask?

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...

it seems it wasnt a case of evidence (does anyone doubt they removed the statue?), but of presenting a defense that justified the actions. for example arguing whether a sentance would be proportional. essentially the jury have said they dont think it was a crime, because the statue it was.

the nuance being overlooked is that it may be seen as a precedent in the eyes of some of the public. some person might do something similar on the mis-apprehension it is not unlawful. it may in effect encourage an act of vandalism even if they could still be prosecuted and guilty. a guilty...

sort of neutralises much criticism of proposed legislation. the laws can go on the statue books but if a jury finds a protest or action is justified, they'll acquit.

its not a technically a precedent, but it will be refered to as in future cases. it does muddy the water for what constitutes criminal damage, if you can convince a jury the damage is justified, it isnt criminal.