Search results

I appreciate what you are saying but I would just question your interpretation in that the defence argued 'most compellingy convincing the jury etc etc'. You don't know that. The defence only need to sow an element of doubt in the minds of the jury and if the jury aren't convinced beyond...

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...

I'm intrigued as to how you know what was 'clearly' in the mind of the jurors?

I think this is the rub for me. As I've said previously, this sets a defensive precedent for others that take the law into their own hands. For example, lets say Extinction Rebellion start torching cars on the basis that the use of those cars is contributing to the destruction of the planet...

It would have been the MPs profiting from or their influential constituents. Remember at the time of the abolition, there wasn't a universal vote. Not sure but think you had to have property to have a right to vote.

:facepalm: If the evidence proved them innocent then we wouldn't need a jury. It is, whether you like it or not, up to the opinion of the jury. Another jury may have found them guilty or another unanimously not guilty (this I believe was a majority verdict). Like I said, you have no idea...

I'm intrigued as to what evidence you believe actually found them not guilty? None of us were in the jury room so we don't know whether it was the evidence that made them find them not guilty or if the majority of the jury just support the cause. You can commit a crime and be found not guilty...

That's true but you have to ask was that a price worth paying to get the bill through parliament? I would suggest that it was.

Bizarre comment. You don't have to be somewhere to have an idea what went on. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/04/jury-in-colston-statue-trial-urged-to-be-on-the-right-side-of-history Read the comments relating to the closing arguments for the defence and no where do they try to...

Get off your high horse!! They admitted they pulled the statue down but my understanding is their argument was that it wasn't a criminal act. I wasn't in court and I'm guessing neither were you so we didn't hear or see any evidence. Neither of us heard the Judges summing up or direction to...

Really? Didn't they admit they were the ones that pulled the statue down. Their only defence was that it wasn't a criminal act.

The jury found them not guilty, not the judge. Unless you're going to advise us that you aware of the Judges summing up and that he directed the jury to the verdict they gave your wrong. This case does set a precedent however I'm not arguing that anyone that tries it will always come up with...

The past and history are one of the same, the only thing that changes is interpretation.

Which judge was that then? Also, can you clarify what is the distinction between history and the past as that escapes me?

They should have been found guilty because they were but then given a token fine, say 1p. This now means that anyone can damage anything and justify it based on this case. Yes there were petitions to get rid of the statue but I believe there was also a vote that failed to win a majority. If...