So whatever you find offensive you can rectify

[Borchester]

Despite the fact I believe the jury got it wrong and it might be an imperfect system it's the best in the long run....and posh Mogg is correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-59893024

Quite.

One of the corner stones of our liberty is twelve annoying bastards in a jury box.

Rees Mogg may be the MP for 18th century, but it appears to be the better part.

[srb7677]

Prosecuting anyone for doing what the council should have done years, if not decades, ago is clearly not in the public interest. If the council had given a damn about it's own citizens, this should never have needed to happen anyway.

And statues commemorating mass murderers are clearly an incitement to all decent people. I mean would we prosecute anyone for tearing down a statue of Hitler? Did we think ill of those ripping down the statues of Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Would it have been in the public interest to prosecute them? And when a statue commemorating a mass murderer and enslaver is allowed to stand and all legitimate calls for it's removal blatantly ignored by the authorities, that itself is a de facto incitement to disorder, for the people themselves to defy authority and do the right thing.

I applaud those for doing what they should never have had to do because the council should have done it years ago. I applaud those who had the courage to tear it down. Generally, it is those willing to defy bad law in pursuit of a better cause who get things changed. The suffragettes broke the law because the authorities refused to do the right thing. No one would say their cause was not just today. Likewise the chartists. History will be on the side of those who tore this moral affront to decency down. But for once the law has decided to be on the right side of history.

[Sampanviking]

The very people celebrating the victory of mob rule, will be no doubt, the very same to the be first to scream the place down if confronted by an even bigger mob with views contrary to their own.

This verdict is positively dangerous and should certainly be set aside.

[johnofgwent]

Despite the fact I believe the jury got it wrong and it might be an imperfect system it's the best in the long run....and pushy Mogg is correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-59893024

I'm with Mr Jenrick ...


Former communities secretary Robert Jenrick tweeted: "We undermine the rule of law, which underpins our democracy, if we accept vandalism and criminal damage are acceptable forms of political protest. They aren't. Regardless of the intentions."

[Barry]

It does seem that the jury found the statue guilty.

[cromwell]

Despite the fact I believe the jury got it wrong and it might be an imperfect system it's the best in the long run....and posh Mogg is correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-59893024

[johnofgwent]

Bingo

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/how-city-failed-remove-edward-4211771

This is the only record Google's BLM biased search engines now allow.

Former mayor George Ferguson "regrets" not pulling down the statue and placing it in a crimes against blacks museum, but the Bristol post states that every time the people were asked, the respinsecwas that the statue should stay where it was.

It has been a target for blacks to whinge about for a while. Clearly the black label ves matter most cement decided that majority views didn't matter where their desires to destroy in the name of black rights mattering more than white majority votes were concerned.

[johnofgwent]

On the day after the statue was dumped in the harbour, the Metro ran an opinion piece from the black mayor who naturally said he didn't give a F@@@ the demonstrators behaved as they did.

The metro stated quite categorically to here had been a poll in the past in which the majority said the statue should remain.

Of course, now the woke agenda has taken hold, as ll you will find anywhere are blacks mouthing off how wonderful it is, and that only twenty percent of Bristol's population now disagree that this was a good thing.

I think it was about five be per cent of St pails who started a riot in the eighties.

Clearly, the way forward now is to riot, loot and pillage.

[Good old]

If we pulled down every statue , memorial or building and destroyed any property that has its origins in slavery we would turn London never mind Bristol into somewhere looking like  Aleppo .

Beyond that , the notion that this could all be accomplished by a minority of opinion , simply because they felt offended , has to be resisted. Surely  this judgement, amounts to little more than a Pat on the back for anarchy.
All judgements set a precedent .

[Sheepy]

A bit of a double-edged sword that one, because by finding them not guilty it just makes the new crime and sentencing bill look all the more attractive. 

[Streetwalker]

You might have noticed I mention the jury in a second post. Judges direct juries. It doesn't look as if the jury defied the judge. That or any other statue could only not be illegal if it had been on ground not owned by the owner of the statue and put there without permission. This was an assault on someone else's property .plain and simple. That City was built to a large degree on the activities of men like Coulston. Why not find any remnants of that period left and pull them down. Or indeed any property that owes its origins to to those activities.?

If we pulled down every statue , memorial or building and destroyed any property that has its origins in slavery we would turn London never mind Bristol into somewhere looking like  Aleppo . 

[Good old]

It was actually a jury who found them not guilty, essentially on the grounds that the statue commermorated a mass murderer and that the local council had for decades ignored legitimate and legal requests that it be removed. The statue itself was deemed to be illegally present considering it's obvious offensiveness and the refusal of the council to recognise that.

Clearly, prosecuting these four in the first place was not in the public interest, and should never have happened.

You might have noticed I mention the jury in a second post. Judges direct juries. It doesn't look as if the jury defied the judge. That or any other statue could only not be illegal if it had been on ground not owned by the owner of the statue and put there without permission. This was an assault on someone else's property .plain and simple. That City was built to a large degree on the activities of men like Coulston. Why not find any remnants of that period left and pull them down. Or indeed any property that owes its origins to to those activities.?

[HallowedBrexit]

It is the woke agenda.

[cromwell]

It was actually a jury who found them not guilty, essentially on the grounds that the statue commermorated a mass murderer and that the local council had for decades ignored legitimate and legal requests that it be removed. The statue itself was deemed to be illegally present considering it's obvious offensiveness and the refusal of the council to recognise that.

Clearly, prosecuting these four in the first place was not in the public interest, and should never have happened.

So which is correct yours or Johns assertion,can you present some evidence how this statue was in place illegally?

[srb7677]

I really do agree with you on this one. What the hell is this judge thinking . What next desecrate war memorials? offending art work.? The possibilities are endless none of them good.

It was actually a jury who found them not guilty, essentially on the grounds that the statue commermorated a mass murderer and that the local council had for decades ignored legitimate and legal requests that it be removed. The statue itself was deemed to be illegally present considering it's obvious offensiveness and the refusal of the council to recognise that.

Clearly, prosecuting these four in the first place was not in the public interest, and should never have happened.