The Colston Four

[Octavian]

Hopefully this (correct) verdict will be a warning to the Tories. The more they seek to criminalise protest and put their thumbs blatantly on the scales in the criminal justice system, the more chance that (some) juries will interpret their role in political terms and return verdicts the government doesn’t like.

Wow

 

[meltonblue]

Those that fought in wars or lead us are all innocent until proven otherwise and if you can prove otherwise about specific monuments then have civilised discussion and a poll about what to do.

What we cannot and shouldn’t stand for is vigilante protestors deciding to attack/graffiti war memorials like this little **** - https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/protestor-union-flag-cenotaph-257875

I couldn’t really care less about Colston going in the river but it’s the wrong way to do it. What I care about is the Cenotaph and Churchill’s statue and people we should be proud of having their statues and moments graffiti’d or damaged.

I highly doubt a jury would be as sympathetic to damage to the cenotaph or Churchill, nor would it be able to be defended as well as it was in this particular case.

 

[Gabriel]

Hopefully this (correct) verdict will be a warning to the Tories. The more they seek to criminalise protest and put their thumbs blatantly on the scales in the criminal justice system, the more chance that (some) juries will interpret their role in political terms and return verdicts the government doesn’t like.

Isn’t that to interpret this jury’s decision through political terms? For all any of us know, it may solely have been swayed solely by the legal arguments put before it.

 

[Octavian]

I highly doubt a jury would be as sympathetic to damage to the cenotaph or Churchill, nor would it be able to be defended as well as it was in this particular case.

I agree, I was talking to someone who said those defending both were weirdos.

There were plenty of ex forces lads guarding the Cenotaph who deserve respect.

Those that would target it are the freaks.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Those that fought in wars or lead us are all innocent until proven otherwise and if you can prove otherwise about specific monuments then have civilised discussion and a poll about what to do.

What we cannot and shouldn’t stand for is vigilante protestors deciding to attack/graffiti war memorials like this little **** - https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/protestor-union-flag-cenotaph-257875

I couldn’t really care less about Colston going in the river but it’s the wrong way to do it. What I care about is the Cenotaph and Churchill’s statue and people we should be proud of having their statues and moments graffiti’d or damaged.

I'm still not convinced this wasn't just an attention seeking attempt at conceptual art.

1) He is wearing the same colours as the flag.

2) He is an Arts Student.

The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill's career

The UK is marking the 50th anniversary of of Winston Churchill's death. Many regard him as the greatest Briton, but for some he remains intensely controversial.

www.bbc.com

 

[Octavian]

I'm still not convinced this wasn't just an attention seeking attempt at conceptual art.

1) He is wearing the same colours as the flag.

2) He is an Arts Student.

The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill's career

The UK is marking the 50th anniversary of of Winston Churchill's death. Many regard him as the greatest Briton, but for some he remains intensely controversial.

www.bbc.com

He was on a protest and went over to do that. I couldn’t care less what his motivations were, he’s doing something way beyond the line of moral protest there.

Yeah we all know Churchill was controversial, if you want a statue of someone who lived a perfect life let’s move back over to the religion thread :-)

Would you agree that Churchill deserves a statue and that it would be wrong to graffiti or try and remove it without proper public consultation?

 

[Vic]

Those targeting statues of war heroes are weirder.

Unless the war involved massacring our colonial subjects in cold blood.

 

[meltonblue]

Isn’t that to interpret this jury’s decision through political terms? For all any of us know, it may solely have been swayed solely by the legal arguments put before it.

Well this seemingly has been moved to the politics forum!

 

[Vic]

And a police station attacked in the following protests which got out of hand, police vans set alight. If it was on the end of Kaz's Street would she be so tolerant?

Those protests were about the right to protest.

 

[Octavian]

Unless the war involved massacring our colonial subjects in cold blood.

That doesn’t sound like a war to me, more like genocide.

Do you have any examples of statues or monuments of people who did that?

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

I am not sure that I am persuaded by what I take to be the ‘slippery slope’ aspect of the fallout from this trial, for the simple reason that slippery slope arguments are not especially compelling anyway.

According to the sceptical author Michael Shermer, the slippery slope fallacy typically involves constructing a scenario in which one thing leads ultimately and inevitably to an end so extreme that the first steps should never have been taken.

For example, ‘Eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream will cause you to put on weight. Putting on weight will make you overweight. Soon, you will weigh 350 pounds and die of heart disease. Eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream leads to death.’

Similarly, it does not follow that the result of this trial will necessarily lead to juries delivering the same verdict in other cases of criminal damage, so that those who might now feel emboldened to commit such acts end up getting let off for them.

Let's not forget that - according to David Olusoga, "... the statue depicted a man whose wealth was based on the enslavement of 84,000 men, women and children was immaterial. As was the fact that he was complicit in the deaths of 19,000 of them, who died, squirming in agony, chained to the decks of the Royal African Company’s slave ships."

Britain’s shameful slavery history matters – that’s why a jury acquitted the Colston Four | David Olusoga

Jurors were asked to rule that Edward Colston’s heinous crimes were immaterial, but they chose to put themselves on the right side of history, says historian David Olusoga

www.theguardian.com

Taking this into account, I am reminded of the compassion-inspired leniency with which cases of friends/relatives assisting the suicide of terminally ill patients are sometimes treated. This doesn't create a precedent for others to bump off their elderly and infirm family members or encourage them to seek doctor-assisted suicide (in countries where doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia is presently legal), in order to get their hands on an inheritance.

As it happens, there is no evidence of a slippery slope effect having taken hold in countries where doctor-assisted suicide has been legalized.

At the same time, I am not oblivious to the concerns raised by others regarding the outcome of this trial. This is a tricky issue (or rather, it raises a number of tricky issues), and so the thoughts I am venturing here are tentative and provisional.

 

[Octavian]

I am not sure that I am persuaded by what I take to be the ‘slippery slope’ aspect of the fallout from this trial, for the simple reason that slippery slope arguments are not especially compelling anyway.

According to the sceptical author Michael Shermer, the slippery slope fallacy typically involves constructing a scenario in which one thing leads ultimately and inevitably to an end so extreme that the first steps should never have been taken.

For example, ‘Eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream will cause you to put on weight. Putting on weight will make you overweight. Soon, you will weigh 350 pounds and die of heart disease. Eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream leads to death.’

Similarly, it does not necessarily follow that the result of this trial will inevitably lead to juries delivering the same verdict in other cases of criminal damage, so that those who might now feel emboldened to commit such acts end up getting let off for them.

Let's not forget that - according to David Olusoga, "... the statue depicted a man whose wealth was based on the enslavement of 84,000 men, women and children was immaterial. As was the fact that he was complicit in the deaths of 19,000 of them, who died, squirming in agony, chained to the decks of the Royal African Company’s slave ships."

Britain’s shameful slavery history matters – that’s why a jury acquitted the Colston Four | David Olusoga

Jurors were asked to rule that Edward Colston’s heinous crimes were immaterial, but they chose to put themselves on the right side of history, says historian David Olusoga

www.theguardian.com

Taking this into account, I am reminded of the compassion-inspired leniency with which cases of friends/relatives assisting the suicide of terminally ill patients are sometimes treated. This doesn't create a charter for others to bump off their elderly and infirm family members or encourage them to seek doctor-assisted suicide (in countries where doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia is presently legal), in order to get their hands on an inheritance.

As it happens, there is no evidence of a slippery slope effect having taken hold in countries where doctor-assisted suicide has been legalized.

At the same time, I am not oblivious to the concerns raised by others regarding the outcome of this trial. This is a tricky issue and the thoughts I am venturing here remain provisional.

Leniency isn’t something anyone is arguing about, neither is anyone defending Colston, it’s more the fact they were found innocent by the jury. A very small fine and a criminal record would have been sufficient. It was clearly the wrong verdict but it’s up to the jury of course and no system is ever perfect when human beings are involved. The jury of peers system is the best we have but it does occasionally throw up cases where clear bias and emotion (sometimes stupidity in other cases) has overridden the facts.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

Leniency isn’t something anyone is arguing about, neither is anyone defending Colston, it’s more the fact they were found innocent by the jury. A very small fine and a criminal record would have been sufficient. It was clearly the wrong verdict but it’s up to the jury of course and no system is ever perfect when human beings are involved. The jury of peers system is the best we have but it does occasionally throw up cases where clear bias and emotion (sometimes stupidity in other cases) has overridden the facts.

I hear what you are saying but am not convinced that this was necessarily the wrong verdict. That still has to be demonstrated in my view.

My point was that in medical ethics, room appears to have been found for emotion in the form of empathy and compassion in some circumstances. So maybe it is relevant in other situations.

Of course, whether and to what extent a place should allotted for emotion in trials by jury or should have a part to play in any legal system is one of those tricky issues that I mentioned.

Among the ethicists, Kant would have allowed no room for feelings to have any say in a moral or legal matter. So he was a bit like a Vulcan in Star Trek to this extent.

On the other hand, David Hume famously wrote that reason is the slave of the passions. In other words, the emotion guides the reasoning. Neuroscience has subsequently confirmed this.

It makes me wonder whether philosophers of law, like the late Ronald Dworkin, have said anything about this.

The suggestion that a small fine would have been order would, perhaps, have been a better compromise is very appealing, though. So perhaps you are right after all.

I also recall being personally disconcerted by the outcome of the phone hacking trials a few years ago (as would anyone who knows how a newsroom operates). So I can see where you might be coming from in that respect too.

 

[Vic]

That doesn’t sound like a war to me, more like genocide.

Do you have any examples of statues or monuments of people who did that?

Kitchener?

Oh wait, he only starved people in concentration camps.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I hear what you are saying but am not convinced that this was necessarily the wrong verdict. That still has to be demonstrated in my view.

My point was that in medical ethics, room appears to have been found for emotion in the form of empathy and compassion in some circumstances. So maybe it is relevant in other situations.

Of course, whether and to what extent a place should allotted for emotion in trials by jury or should have a part to play in any legal system is one of those tricky issues that I mentioned.

Among the ethicists, Kant would have allowed no room for feelings to have any say in a moral or legal matter. So he was a bit like a Vulcan in Star Trek to this extent.

On the other hand, David Hume famously wrote that reason is the slave of the passions. In other words, the emotion guides the reasoning. Neuroscience has subsequently confirmed this.

It makes me wonder whether philosophers of law, like the late Ronald Dworkin, have said anything about this.

The suggestion that a small fine would have been order would, perhaps, have been a better compromise is very appealing, though. So perhaps you are right after all.

I also recall being personally disconcerted by the outcome of the phone hacking trials a few years ago (as would anyone who knows how a newsroom operates). So I can see where you might be coming from in that respect too.

because people either do something, or they don't. The statue was vandalised and dumped in the river, it's a factual occurrence. How you feel afterwards is irrelevant. Same way everyone on here got pissed that no-one got prosecuted for the coach attack because that time we weren't happy about it. Facts are in both instances people committed a criminal act and were wrongly not punished for it.

 

[Octavian]

I hear what you are saying but am not convinced that this was necessarily the wrong verdict. That still has to be demonstrated in my view.

My point was that in medical ethics, room appears to have been found for emotion in the form of empathy and compassion in some circumstances. So maybe it is relevant in other situations.

Of course, whether and to what extent a place should allotted for emotion in trials by jury or should have a part to play in any legal system is one of those tricky issues that I mentioned.

Among the ethicists, Kant would have allowed no room for feelings to have any say in a moral or legal matter. So he was a bit like a Vulcan in Star Trek to this extent.

On the other hand, David Hume famously wrote that reason is the slave of the passions. In other words, the emotion guides the reasoning. Neuroscience has subsequently confirmed this.

It makes me wonder whether philosophers of law, like the late Ronald Dworkin, have said anything about this.

The suggestion that a small fine would have been order would, perhaps, have been a better compromise is very appealing, though. So perhaps you are right after all.

I also recall being personally disconcerted by the outcome of the phone hacking trials a few years ago (as would anyone who knows how a newsroom operates). So I can see where you might be coming from in that respect too.

You’re far too intelligent for me to start quoting Hume haha!

I’m a simple bloke who likes to be straight forward. These four are on video camera causing criminal damage to public property, the emotional side of it should have come with sentencing imo as guilt isn’t a question as they’ve clearly committed a crime.

 

[Vic]

Leniency isn’t something anyone is arguing about, neither is anyone defending Colston, it’s more the fact they were found innocent by the jury. A very small fine and a criminal record would have been sufficient. It was clearly the wrong verdict but it’s up to the jury of course and no system is ever perfect when human beings are involved. The jury of peers system is the best we have but it does occasionally throw up cases where clear bias and emotion (sometimes stupidity in other cases) has overridden the facts.

Juries don't decide sentences. Why would you trust the judge to be lenient. And a criminal conviction can still be a career-changing thing.

 

[Hart of the Matter]

All I can see here is a load of rightwing snowflakes being offended by left wing snowflakes being offended and doing something about it.
There is a beautiful symmetry and irony at work here.
Signed
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

 

[Octavian]

Juries don't decide sentences. Why would you trust the judge to be lenient. And a criminal conviction can still be a career-changing thing.

I am aware of that but by committing the crime then you are running that risk.

Judge’s are where they are because they’re highly intelligent, I doubt a judge would throw the book at someone for chucking a statue of a slave trader in a river.

 

[Octavian]

Kitchener?

Oh wait, he only starved people in concentration camps.

No need to be sarcastic.

I am perfectly happy for the locals of where his statue is located to have a vote to decide to remove it. In fact that sounds like a good idea if enough signatures are drawn up venting discontent.