The Colston Four

[Bigga]

We have laws, because we are a civilised Nation. Taking the law into your own hands because you think you are helping someone isn't and shouldn't be the way things work.

If you think that Joe public should be praised for clearing the country of filth is a good thing, then that's your prerogative.

I hate the thought of killers and rapists etc still being at large, but having vigilantes get rid of them, isn't the way our country is run and, imo correctly so

But you don't seem to understand that they were judged on the 'law' and their peers found them 'not guilty'.

You just disagree with the verdict!!

 

[mosssideblue]

But you don't seem to understand that they were judged on the 'law' and their peers found them 'not guilty'.

You just disagree with the verdict!!

If, asa few on here seem to be in agreement with, that not all the material facts of the defence are in the public domain, I fail to reconcile how they think the right verdict was met.

I'm all for ensuring innocent people are not wrongly convicted but yes, I absolutely I disagree with the verdict in this instance because a) they were filmed causing damage and b), they admitted causing damage.

 

[Bigga]

If, asa few on here seem to be in agreement with, that not all the material facts of the defence are in the public domain, I fail to reconcile how they think the right verdict was met.

I'm all for ensuring innocent people are not wrongly convicted but yes, I absolutely I disagree with the verdict in this instance because a) they were filmed causing damage and b), they admitted causing damage.

But... your main argument was that these kids 'broke the law'.

The jury said 'no, they didn't' and they were the ones who listened to all the evidence presented and followed the direction of the judge.

To be fair, I feel the same way when a cop is found 'not guilty' as they 'feared for their lives' when they kill a Human, not an inanimate object.

 

[mosssideblue]

But... your main argument was that these kids 'broke the law'.

The jury said 'no, they didn't' and they were the ones who listened to all the evidence presented and followed the direction of the judge.

To be fair, I feel the same way when a cop is found 'not guilty' as they 'feared for their lives' when they kill a Human, not an inanimate object.

So now in the UK, you can rip down a public monument because it causes you offence, spray it with paint and discard it in the drink and it's legal.

I suspect there were considerable costs picked up by Bristol Council to make good the damage to the statue area, any damage to the road leading to the water and recovery and transportation of the statue. Those costs are borne by us all

 

[Bigga]

So now in the UK, you can rip down a public monument because it causes you offence, spray it with paint and discard it in the drink and it's legal.

I suspect there were considerable costs picked up by Bristol Council to make good the damage to the statue area, any damage to the road leading to the water and recovery and transportation of the statue. Those costs are borne by us all

Well, that depends, doesn't it?

There are laws to deal with all these offences and, clearly, when it comes to 'The Colston Four', context matters. Context, the jury, agreed with.

The damage caused would also be contextual and paid for by the same taxpayer that also, unwittingly, paid for a statue depiction of a mass murderer.

It seems to me your argument falls apart here.

 

[Octavian]

But... your main argument was that these kids 'broke the law'.

The jury said 'no, they didn't' and they were the ones who listened to all the evidence presented and followed the direction of the judge.

To be fair, I feel the same way when a cop is found 'not guilty' as they 'feared for their lives' when they kill a Human, not an inanimate object.

How often does that happen in the uk?

 

[Zuriblue]

Is this "skin colour" thing serious? White people talking about white people as "gammon" is about race?

Not really. It’s more about playing the victim card. It’s always amusing to see them disparage Scousers since most Liverpudlians would be embarrassed at the level of victimhood shown by the right.

 

[mosssideblue]

Well, that depends, doesn't it?

There are laws to deal with all these offences and, clearly, when it comes to 'The Colston Four', context matters. Context, the jury, agreed with.

The damage caused would also be contextual and paid for by the same taxpayer that also, unwittingly, paid for a statue depiction of a mass murderer.

It seems to me your argument falls apart here.

My argument has never fallen apart as the only concrete evidence that those outside of the courtroom know is that the said people were filmed and admitted damage.

 

[Bigga]

How often does that happen in the uk?

You're questioning an emotion...?

 

[Bigga]

My argument has never fallen apart as the only concrete evidence that those outside of the courtroom know is that the said people were filmed and admitted damage.

Yes, it does.

The jury disagrees with your PoV despite the accused admitting to the charges presented. They had to explain why they did what they did which the jury decided was acceptable.

You disagree, so your argument must fall apart somewhere for the jury not to agree with you.