Jokes1 min ago
Colston Vandals Cleared
the judge just greenlighted it's ok to vandalise, if you don't like a statue or painting just knock it down or rip it up, history is there to be trodden on if it offends you...
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//I think on C4 News earlier (probably available online somewhere) they said the claimed value of the damage (by the prosecution) was sufficiently high that the defence could ask for it to be tried in the Crown Court rather than a Magistrates' Court.//
That's the only explanation. £5k is the threshold for the matter to become "either way" and I'd never heard of that high a figure quoted. Hence my puzzlement.
The disadvantage for a defendant in a case like this being tried by Magistrates is that they have to give the reasons for their verdict in open court. Juries, of course, do not. A Bench of Magistrates might have some difficulty formulating reasons along the lines of "Well, they were banged to rights, but we didn't particularly like what the statue represented, so we'll acquit them."
That's the only explanation. £5k is the threshold for the matter to become "either way" and I'd never heard of that high a figure quoted. Hence my puzzlement.
The disadvantage for a defendant in a case like this being tried by Magistrates is that they have to give the reasons for their verdict in open court. Juries, of course, do not. A Bench of Magistrates might have some difficulty formulating reasons along the lines of "Well, they were banged to rights, but we didn't particularly like what the statue represented, so we'll acquit them."
why is everyone so outraged?
it is called jury nullification
ury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) refers to when members of a criminal trial's jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway. ... A defendant who is acquitted cannot in many jurisdictions be tried a second time for the same offence.
Clive Ponting was acquitted on the non-defence of public interest ( sinking of the Belgrano inter alios
so there is a jury verdict you dont like
so what?
it is called jury nullification
ury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) refers to when members of a criminal trial's jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway. ... A defendant who is acquitted cannot in many jurisdictions be tried a second time for the same offence.
Clive Ponting was acquitted on the non-defence of public interest ( sinking of the Belgrano inter alios
so there is a jury verdict you dont like
so what?
Here you go ...
https:/
Colston: ‘It’s shameful the prosecution was ever brought in the first place’, says defence lawyer
Lawyer Raj Chada successfully represented two of the four defendants, who have been cleared of causing criminal damage over the removal of the statue of Edward Colston.
https:/
Colston: ‘It’s shameful the prosecution was ever brought in the first place’, says defence lawyer
Lawyer Raj Chada successfully represented two of the four defendants, who have been cleared of causing criminal damage over the removal of the statue of Edward Colston.
It's a given we don't know what occurred during the trial that resulted in the verdict being reached, and jury decisions in criminal trials do not set precedents, so it doesn't open the floodgates for vandalism, but this aside, surely it's rather odd, isn't it, that these people were filmed being involved, were seen involved, admitted they were involved in the damage, but were acquitted?
I find it very odd...but then it seems to me the jury were trying Colston himself rather than the four accused, and by acquitting they were passing sentence on Colston.
I find it very odd...but then it seems to me the jury were trying Colston himself rather than the four accused, and by acquitting they were passing sentence on Colston.
All of them, (& me & you) are by ancestry in some way connected to slavery. If they went back into their family history, anyone from the early part of the 19th century & beyond who so much as put a spoonful of sugar in their tea or wore cotton was implicated in slavery.
The mistaken belief that vandalising a bronze statue is somehow correcting a past wrong is ludicrous. What took place in this court is a miscarriage of justice. Public property was vandalised & the perpetrators should pay, even in a token sense if you will, but getting off scot-free is shameful.
The mistaken belief that vandalising a bronze statue is somehow correcting a past wrong is ludicrous. What took place in this court is a miscarriage of justice. Public property was vandalised & the perpetrators should pay, even in a token sense if you will, but getting off scot-free is shameful.
//Edward Colston statue case could be sent to appeal court//
https:/
And so it should be.
https:/
And so it should be.
Latest Posts
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Body & Soul11 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.