On culture wars, what I think we don't always get in the UK is how far this is driven by divisions in the US which go back to their civil war. This was fought largely so that southern states could continue slavery. Sure 1865 was a while ago, but segregation went on into the 1970s. Some of the last slaves lived into the 1970s, overlapping many of our lives. the resentment in the south is very much still there, as is a lot of de facto segregation.
Clearly this ain't Bristol, but it does drive a lot of the racist bollocks you see online originating in the states.
No matter what happens it isnt something ill be losing sleep over.
No one has suggested you should lose sleep over it. Accepting that the comfortable life we live in the UK was to a large degree created off the back of slavery and colonial exploitation (and yes there was exploitation of poor British people too, captain whatabout) is just part of understanding reality though.
One thing I do find interesting/borderline unsettling with this whole episode is if you look at this photo of the toppling, there is barely a black person to be seen in it.
Never mind that virtually everyone is a photographer/taking photos 🙄
Bristol is a city with a very high proportion black population, isn't it a bit weird there weren't more black people involved? Not really sure why that would be, genuinely.
This was fought largely so that southern states could continue slavery
The average pleb couldn't afford a slave. The slaves were the property of the land owning gentry.
1/4 of a million Southerners died protecting the right of a few individuals to get out of paying people or workers any wages.
Zero hour contract anyone 😉
Of course it was the common people who did the fighting. Those rich landowners and their offspring formulated a plan into law to keep themselves nice and safe -
more horseshit and selective reporting
try this
glad to see the verdict has wound up the right people. More please.
Sure clearly in some strange faraway places slavery does exist.
And here.
I’d rather not rename stuff like the colston hall tbh
IIRC there was a consultation on changing its name, which is I think what some people are suggesting should've happened regarding removal of his statue. It's worth remembering that i) the hall doesn't fall under the influence of the Merchant Venturers and ii) Colston's only link with it was to own a building on the same site 150 years earlier.
more horseshit and selective reporting
try this
Well my pic shows more of the crowd so I don't see how it's selective. If anything yours appears to have selected a position that exaggerates the number of black people in the crowd.
I'm not trying to discredit the toppling of the statue or claim they didn't have the support of the wider Bristol community, I just think it's interesting. More for me a potential indictment of social media that many of the people most motivated were looking for content for their vlogs or whatever.
The average pleb couldn’t afford a slave.
Average plebs no but a great many middle class people owned shares in slaves and/or profited from sugar/tea/cotton businesses etc, both here and in the US - David Olusoga has done some good stuff on this from a UK perspective.
Of course it was the common people who did the fighting.
well yes - and they're still going on facebook comments, voting Trump etc
with the recent judgement, it would be perfectly legal.
I posted a little earlier about this. If you don't want to take my word for it, try googling
"What is the difference between Common Law and Criminal Law?"
or
"Do jury verdicts in criminal trials set precedent?"
and if you're still in a learning mood after that you could explore
"Are judgements and verdicts the same thing?"
Actually that last one probably makes the other bit easier to follow so perhaps start there.
Grum, I once put a similar point to Paul Gilroy and his response was 'racism is a white man's problem.'
The average pleb couldn’t afford a slave.
I think you may need to do some reading. I think the notion that all slaves were black-African decent, or that all slaves were owned by wealthy plantation owners has been de-bunked a while back. Up until quite recently (20thC) Irish, Italian and eastern European migrants to the US were classed as non-white, who could be indentured, or owned as slaves (pre anti slavery legislation obvs), there are well documented instances of cases (often called edge-slavery) where we see people being held as slaves by companies, by women (remember this is an era where women could largely not own property in their own right) and by very poor people (often inherited slaves, or the unwanted children of slaves) and by free black folks.
Bristol is a city with a very high proportion black population, isn’t it a bit weird there weren’t more black people involved?
If I were black I might have reservations about joining in civil disobedience.
For those struggling with the morality of Colston there is this tweet from my timeline today.
https://twitter.com/bethanyusher/status/1270103944359038979?s=20
I think you may need to do some reading. I think the notion that all slaves were black-African decent, or that all slaves were owned by wealthy plantation owners has been de-bunked a while back. Up until quite recently (20thC) Irish, Italian and eastern European migrants to the US were classed as non-white, who could be indentured, or owned as slaves (pre anti slavery legislation obvs), there are well documented instances of cases (often called edge-slavery) where we see people being held as slaves by companies, by women (remember this is an era where women could largely not own property in their own right) and by very poor people (often inherited slaves, or the unwanted children of slaves) and by free black folks.
Sorry mate but that sounds a little vague. I dont think the numbers equate to put the non Africans in the same league as African slaves.
First off 'Indentured' Indentured is not slavery, it is like an apprenticeship where the individual is bound to the craftsman. The labourer to the landowner. but always for a set payment. Example would be an apprentice blacksmith would be bound for 7 years.,
And I would say the vast, vast majority of slaves were of African decent, and working the land. Small farmers didnt hold a great deal of land, though I suspect could hire slaves off plantations.
the cost of a slave in the 19th century would have been $500+. The average wage of a small holding farmer would have been $250-300/year. They simply couldnt afford such luxuries.
<th>4.5 million people of African descent lived in the United States.
Of these:
3.6 million</b> lived on farms and plantations (half in the Deep South).</td>
First off ‘Indentured’ Indentured is not slavery, it is like an apprenticeship where the individual is bound to the craftsman. The labourer to the landowner. but always for a set payment.
Sometimes in rare cases indentured people were taught a craft and could buy their way out of their contract, but very very rarely - contracts were drawn up specifically to make this fictionally possible, but not realistically possible. Most indentured workers understood that they were buying a way into freedom for their children (indentured worker's children could not be kept unlike the children of slaves) You entered into indenture-ship to get passage to the US, and freedom for your kids. Wages if there were any - were often given in tokens that could be only used at certain shops, some contracts specified that wages earned under the indenture-ship could not be used to buy the indentured worker from his contract
But mostly It's a way of owning a person for a fixed period of time (often 10 or 20 years, if they lasted that long of course) without having to explicitly call them a slave. People in the 17-18thC would have understood that being indentured was to be a slave. This is well known and referenced endlessly in literature, books, and newspapers at the time
the cost of a slave in the 19th century would have been $500+. The average wage of a small holding farmer would have been $250-300/year. They simply couldnt afford such luxuries.
The cost of slaves was a few hundred dollars in adjusted 21stC prices.. Average was $230. Some slaves were given away, some children of slave owners and slaves were passed along to poor workers who worked land tithed to wealthier land owners to increase productivity. The average lower middle class family could and very often did own slaves. To your previous statement (the average)...Yes they could, and yes they did.
ransos
Free Member
I’d rather not rename stuff like the colston hall tbhIIRC there was a consultation on changing its name, which is I think what some people are suggesting should’ve happened regarding removal of his statue. It’s worth remembering that i) the hall doesn’t fall under the influence of the Merchant Venturers and ii) Colston’s only link with it was to own a building on the same site 150 years earlier.
It changed it's name to Bristol Beacon a while back, same with the girls school, now known as Montpellier High School. There's not much left in Bristol named after him now.
Saying indentured workers were slaves is seriously wrong and is the kind of BS used by racist Irish-Americans to denigrate black people for their struggles in modern America.
Black slaves were property in the same manner as cattle and their children and their children's children would be slaves too. Totally different from voluntarily agreeing to work for a finite period in return for something.
Saying indentured workers were slaves is seriously wrong
speak with David Northrup who wrote the work on slavery I just quoted from.
White slavery certainly was a concern albeit on a smaller scale, 1-1.25m enslaved between 1500s and 1800s and they weren't just indentured. I think the Rutland dwarf was banged up (and I use the words advisedly) for 20 yrs in the Ottoman empire until a ransom was paid. Marauding corsairs led to whole villages in Cornwall and Ireland moving inland.
I once put a similar point to Paul Gilroy and his response was ‘racism is a white man’s problem.’
Well white people are in the positions of power to enable them to deal with it more effectively, just as men are in the positions of power to deal with sexual equality - you can see why progress is slow can't you...
Hi all; thought I’d pop out of ‘exile’ for a moment, as I believe freedom and equality of speech, thought and expression are vital in a civilised society, and to add some what I feel is much needed empiricism to this fascinating debate.
As a ‘Person of Colour’ (that’s what we’re called now, it sounds a bit nicer than ‘Darkies’ etc…), I along with millions of others, experience the legacy of racism through colonialism and biological determinism brought about by British imperialism, Every. Single. Day. Of. My. Life. The institutionalised racism that I, and millions of others suffer, every single day, isn’t ‘imagined’, it isn’t a ‘myth’, I haven’t got an ‘axe to grind’, or a ‘chip on my shoulder’; it’s real. I won’t bore everybody with the details of how this is manifest, but mere statistics will bear this out, as will the testimonies of millions.
When I saw the Colston Toppling™ unfold on TV, I was truly overjoyed; overjoyed that so many people had become so motivated to perform such an incredibly powerful and symbolic act, on behalf of countless others. This to me was one of the most significant and defining moments of history in my own lifetime. This was the moment when people said ‘enough of this shit’, and brought down a monument to the darkest stain on this nation’s history. To those who performed this act, to those who acted on my behalf, I have nothing but gratitude and respect. Because they stood up for something the believed in, and acted accordingly. That takes some balls. And I’m delighted with this verdict, because it shows that such direct action is not only acceptable, it is also lawful.
I had the privilege to grow up amongst many people from myriad backgrounds, many from African and West Indian heritage. Many for whom the legacy of British slavery exists to this day; in people’s names, in their religious beliefs, their cultural practices, and their genes. You cannot simply forget slavery, as some would prefer would happen, when your great-great grandmother was raped, and you are living proof of that abhorrent violence. So to those who claim slavery is ‘over’, that we should ‘move on’, that it has no effect on their lives, well, I’ll just say this; I’m not Gay, but homophobia affects my life because it infects the society in which I live. Therefore, it’s as much my problem as anyone else’s. Because I don’t want to live in a world of hate. Towards anyone. As someone who was once a ’14 year old in Tower Hamlets’, I feel I would have benefitted greatly from being taught history that bore more relation to our modern society than simply how many wives some rich bloke had. That I wasn’t taught about the reality of British colonialism, about such atrocities as the Bengal Famine, and how our system of elitist rule is founded on the horrors of slavery and ‘empire’, is an absolute disgrace. The revisionism and airbrushing of truth which happens, is downright criminal. This is why it is vital we all learn the truth, not a carefully edited version that suits the needs of those who wish to cover up the stench of their own inherited privilege.
But I don’t want to attack those who offer up such revisionist and parochial views; I want to understand them. I want to understand where their fear and hatred comes from. I want to find that common ground where we can actually realise we’re not all that different, and that we can actually get on. Because this can happen; I have experience this myself throughout my life. I was once homophobic, I was once anti-Semitic. I was sexist, misogynist and actually racist. I feared and despised people with disabilities. But none of those things were because I am an ‘evil’ person, or that I actually hated anyone; they were because I was ignorant and felt threatened. So I took the time to learn, and educate myself. And a lot of that came from simply talking to others. Which is why debates such as this are so important. Views should be expressed openly; sunlight kills germs. It’s far too easy to want to score points, to want to better your ‘opponent’. What is more difficult, is to empathise, to try to understand where someone else is coming from, and if they are demonstrating fear, then to try to help alleviate those fears, instead of perpetuating division. If someone else is taking an opposing stance, ask why. Sure, you can counter their arguments with better ones, and with facts, common sense and reason. But don’t make them your enemy. I’ve learned a lot about myself over the years, and I genuinely feel pity for those who go through life with fear and loathing for others, and who can’t feel comfortable amongst diversity. That must be really shit.
I’d just like to end this by saying that it’s good to see this forum has moved on somewhat, in terms of overall consensus on such issues, and that it’s really good to see that there is actually much more reasoned, sensible and respectful debate going on. Monuments to fear, ignorance, oppression and hatred need to be knocked down. Keep on pushing, folks.
Peace. X
Yep, plus the point above about black people being wary of putting themselves on a collision course with the police.
good post Aziz
Looks like the AG is determined to get the actions of the 4 into case-law as an approved action.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59909823
The prosecution failed to make their case as our law demands, there was no failing in the system nor was there confusion. The government's lawyer looks like she has taken an ill-advised course.
@aziz good post and honest too. The opposing stance is probably down to the truth being too painful to acknowledge and some would prefer to argue than acknowledge that they may be wrong.
Well said Aziz.
This thread needed that post Aziz.
Well if one man said it in a book it must be true @nickc
Though he appears to be very much in the minority.
I feel an asshole for thinking it but I really hope aziz isn't yet another Fred pseudonym.
Oooooooff - great post Aziz, thank you for taking the time to write it.
I wonder how many of the anti-statue topplers had a problem when Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled?
Well said Aziz!
I see the Daily Mail & now Braverman have leapt on this
with the Tories desperately flagging as brexit flops & their innate corruption is exposed , this verdict was the perfect result for them.
culture war issues galvanises their current base
I would expect to amplified over & over (though obviously no actual discussion about slavery or racism will be the focus)
Great post Fred!
I see that legal genius Braverman is looking at referring it to the Court of Appeal to waste yet more public money and everyone’s time on the distraction that is their ‘Culture War’
Really.
Doubling down yet again to appease the far right, foaming-at-the-mouth backbench headbangers.
All this to defend a statue of a slave trader
It’s truly pathetic!
This thread needed that post Aziz.
Absolutely.
Interesting article from the Secret Barrister: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/
The key point for me is that there were several possible reasons why the jury could've found the defendants not guilty, and we will never know which one(s) they relied on. SB notes that there was no loophole and no precedent set.
Just to reiterate, colonialism and slavery are not the same thing. Britain's colonial project was barely off the ground when the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was passed. This is especially true in Africa.
As I young child IIRC I visited a slavery museum in Liverpool. This is back in the 80s. It's just not true that slavery has been airbrushed or hidden. We all know about it. What I object to is this woke urge to centre the whole of British history around the Atlantic slave trade, to make everything about race, slavery and a national shame that can never be atoned for. Of course, this is done for some extremely dodgy theoretical reasons where to end racism not-white racial categories must be leaned into. In the name of 'uniting' kids, we divide them into a moral order based upon skin colour. The white kids are born into sin. To resist this is to fight a 'culture war' the Left say.
I've already said why Britain's participation in the Atlantic slave trade isn't unique or particularly interesting; slavery is a near-universal in human history, and the Atlantic slave trade was only one of many slave trades at the time. The Atlantic slave trade did not make all black people victims; 90% of slaves were sold by other Africans. If you are a POC in Britain today it's quite possible that your ancestors were complicit in either the Atlantic slave trade or other slave trades (such as in India, the Arab world, North Africa, China, etc). The whole business of slavery doesn't break down into this model of white villain vs black victim that the Left would like it to. Now, who is airbrushing history?
I don’t normally read long posts (though I’ve probably written some). I read Aziz’s. Twice.
Thanks Aziz
What I object to is this woke urge to centre the whole of British history around the Atlantic slave trade, to make everything about race, slavery and a national shame that can never be atoned for.
Hang on.
No, the slave trade is not the centre of the whole of British history
Yes, it is a national shame that can never be atone for.
Britain’s colonial project was barely off the ground when the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was passed.
What tosh! The East India Company (private colony) started in 1612. Jamestown Virginia colonised from 1607, other American colonies shortly after. West Indies from 1648.
@Sandwich - the loss of the Thirteen Colonies in 1783 marks the end of the so-called first British Empire which is roughly when the Atlantic slave trade peaked. It's true that the British had India by proxy (through company rule) but the (second) British Empire doesn't get into high gear until the mid 19th century and peaks in 1919. The Atlantic slave trade is long gone by then.
The implication of conflating slavery and colonialism is that the British sought colonies to acquire slaves which is a total lie, certainly after 1800 or so. The British actually banned slavery in their colonies such as India, for example.
Whatevs.
Getting back to (literally) the case in point, it’s difficult to see what Braverman and co hope to achieve by escalating this?
Surely the Court of Appeal are just going to look at it and say ‘the jury delivered a verdict. You don’t like it. WTF do you expect us to do about it?’
Resulting in them looking even more stupid than they do now. If that’s possible?
Also quite amusing coming from a government that has broken the law on multiple occasions.
Most recently for not disclosing PPE contracts for their dodgy mates, but also for proroguing parliament.
Getting back to (literally) the case in point, it’s difficult to see what Braverman and co hope to achieve by escalating this?
Appease the Tory faithful - plays well to their core supports.
Then quietly forget about it and move on to drowning asylum seekers in the channel or whatever the next Tory bright idea is....
Beaten to it, but the Secret Barrister link above explains the actual legal angles of the case really well.
And in case anyone agrees with the view of some politicians that the law needs to be "fixed" to deal with this kind of issue, I suggest you read his book Fake Law, which points out how everyone's right to access justice in this country has been eroded by governments, of both parties, who kneejerk to appease ill informed headlines.
It's definitely possible binners, one might say it's even probable!
As so often is the case with this lot: this seems a very bizarre hill to choose to die on
Defending slave traders?
See also: defending Owen Patterson for obvious corruption
Not very bright this lot, are they?
Defending slave traders?
Makes perfect sense, the Tories are the party of the landed gentry most of whom's wealth is built upon the work of others, slaves, serfs, citizens etc.
Can't be long before they suggest that one of the benefits of leaving the EU is we can bring back indebted servitude and slowly build back up to slavery....
Makes perfect sense, the Tories are the party of the landed gentry most of whom’s wealth is built upon the work of others, slaves, serfs, citizens etc.
Imagine if UK has no Tories then what do we have? One party system like CCP?
These 4 were for criminal damage.
I wonder what which statues they are going to topple next and where is the end.
Just to reiterate, colonialism and slavery are not the same thing.
Nobody said they were but they are both part of a system of exploitation based on perceived racial and cultural superiority.
90% of slaves were sold by other Africans
Yes slavery has always existed and no it wasn't the preserve of white people but the transatlantic slave trade was particularly egregious because it was carried out relatively recently by an incredibly powerful empire, backed up by supposed scientific knowledge that white people were the superior race and it was their duty/privilege to own and 'civilise' the savages. The fact that some people still seek to downplay its importance or employ whataboutery is telling.
Coulston wasn’t on trial. These 4 were for criminal damage.
And what was the outcome of that?
Coulston wasn’t on trial. These 4 were for criminal damage.
And were found not guilty by a jury of their peers, as is the English way, for the reasons set out in the Secret Barrister article on the previous page.
Surprisingly all makes a lot more sense when you have facts and expert opinion rather than random press and politicians describing it.
Coulston wasn’t on trial. These 4 were for criminal damage
No shit, Sherlock!
And to repeat my question: what do Braverman (and by obvious extension: people like you) hope to achieve by taking a jury verdict to the court of appeal? Other than a stampy feet ‘it’s just, like, SOOOOOOOOO NOT FAIR!!!’
How on earth do they (you) think this advances the cause of anything, other than the obvious dog whistle to racists that they’re on their side and slave traders are indeed worthy of veneration, because presumably that’s what put the Great in Britain, or some other pseudo-colonial, nationalist bollocks (Empire 2.0)?
Can I commend you on your prolonged vociferous defence of slave traders. Seems a subject close to your heart. Relatives?
Coulston wasn’t on trial. These 4 were for criminal damage
And the suffragettes broke the laws of the day. What makes you think the law here is correct?
Or maybe, for those who like getting out into the country, the Kinder trespass or how about joining a Union which was a crime for which people were deported.
relatively recently
The various slave trades in the Arab world and North Africa continued until much more recently. As did the Ottoman slave trade, and that's only two examples of many.
The point is to contextualise the 'sin' of British (involvement in) slavery in historical times when everyone was doing slavery and many considered it fair game. History shouldn't be a moral crusade where the past is everyday denounced through the righteous lens of the present.
Or not if you don’t want to take it down 🙂
I’d rather not rename stuff like the colston hall tbh it’s just the colston hall to most as it’s been called that all their lives and the new names pretty random but the statues fine in the museum as a piece of history.
I’d rather put a Wallace and Grommit statue on the plinth.
I was just referring to the statue as I don't really know about the name on other locations like the hall tbh.
Nahhh ... Wallace and Grommit will be criticised. Just built a giant robot!
... expression are vital in a civilised society
Is brute force civilised?
As a ‘Person of Colour’ ...
I come from SE Asia (Borneo) and I ain't European nor am I fair in skin colour so am I qualified to be considered as "person of colour"? Why see the colour? Whatever others see in me (colour) that's their problem. I ain't going to impose on them coz that's who they are. Not all people behave like them and Not all condone their own history just as we do. I see my ancestral history as distinguishing and our forefathers/mothers had to escape the land they called home. It's still happening by the way.
I see NO joy in the brute force applied in a civilised society unless it is war (even that can be civilised), because that's why I am escaping from the place I called home as "2nd class" citizen. My previous generations had moved to a land to find peace only to receive "similar" treatment after two generations again so it is my turn to uproot to a land that is cold (I don't like cold).
If you wish to talk about slavery we, non-Europeans or white, had built our "empire" with slaves in the past because that's how the system worked in those days. Kingdoms after Kingdoms (from the Egyptian Kingdom, Chinese Kingdom to Majapahit Kingdom) relied on slaves to perform basic duties from Middle East, Africa, Asia to SE Asia perhaps even further. In China we loved slaves and were proud it. Those were the time. British colonialism is just but a change of "master" and Dutch colonialism in Indonesia was the most brutal. (many actually preferred British colonial administration apart from native political elites who considered themselves as the "rightful" owner of the land ... yeah we get that and see that coming)
Moral of the story is that the use of brute force is no different to those where we escaped from ... albeit lynch mob towards a statue.
I wonder what which statues they are going to topple next and where is the end.
I am going to say none, which makes it the end. But if someone does, for example, take down the statue of Eric Morecambe then they would be found guilty of criminal damage and quite rightly (I don't think disliking someone's comedy style would hold as a defence)
Moral of the story is that the use of brute force is no different to those where we escaped from
Apart from it being used against inanimate objects, not people?
I’d say that’s an absolutely ****ing enormous difference
Wouldn’t you?
Can I commend you on your prolonged vociferous defence of slave traders.
To be fair he's really not doing that at all.
As pointed out to you; Europeans industrialised slavery. But your narrative is consistently justifying and downplaying it, while accusing others of overplaying it. Nothing you are posting is accurate. Your reasons for doing that are increasingly clear.
I wonder what which statues they are going to topple next and where is the end.
They best not bring down the one of Fred West that I’ve had commissioned.
Yes, he might have raped, beaten to death and buried many young women, but he also worked as a builder and many peoples homes benefit from extensions that he constructed, so overall I think we can take his contribution to society to be be, on balance, largely positive and worthy of commemorating
Apart from it being used against inanimate objects, not people?
I’d say that’s an absolutely ****ing enormous difference
Wouldn’t you?
Aren't you a civilised society? A democracy?
Why brute force? Where do you stop?
Statue is the least important aspect of this entire sorry episode as it is just an object, but it is the action of brute force that is a concern.
In other part of the world the action will snowball into something else and seeing this happens is worrying especially in a so called civilised society.
As pointed out to you; Europeans industrialised slavery.
Pale by comparison to China. People were born into a slave class just like Japan in those feudal era. No industrialised needed as you are own from the day your were born to the feudal lords.
'Industrialised'? What do you mean by that? The industrial revolution (in the UK) didn't really begin until the Atlantic slave trade was in decline. It's estimated that the Arab slave trade probably enslaved more Africans than the Atlantic slave trade.
You say I want to downplay the trade. I'd ask you why you want to frame it as a unique evil?
...and no, I have never justified it.
Imagine if UK has no Tories then what do we have? One party system like CCP?
I reckon you'd have one less political party....
And were found not guilty by a jury of their peers, as is the English way, for the reasons set out in the Secret Barrister article on the previous page.
Surprisingly all makes a lot more sense when you have facts and expert opinion rather than random press and politicians describing it.
Yep,I do find his stuff great and that is well worth a read , as you say hearing his explanation.
Still Priti will soon sort that legal loophole of allowing the courts to return verdicts that the government doesn’t want.
I reckon you’d have one less political party….
Like CCP? You can have as many parties as you wish so long as they all swear allegiance to CCP just like the recent HK election. What a circus.
Who'd have thought a racially charged thread would diverge so much, still not had Godwin's Law invoked yet though!
Moral of the story is that the use of brute force is no different to those where we escaped from
Apart from it being used against inanimate objects, not people?
To be fair, the law allows you to use force against people in certain permitted circumstances, as it is also allowed in this case with force used against a statue.
@chewkw - It's been pointed out that in several 'protest' cases the jury hasn't convicted despite the defendants having no defence in law. In this case, however, unlike the other cases, no tangible harm was being prevented by the defendant's actions, unless you include the 'harm' of an 'offensive' object being present. Sadly, the jury fell for the defence team's sophism.
It's a green light for people quite certain of their own righteousness.
@chewkw - Many of these woke people think that all problems would be solved if we just gave the woke Philosopher-Kings enough power.
Aaaaaaawwwwww.
I love a good bromance 😃
And were found not guilty by a jury of their peers
And just the other day people were arguing about how to avoid jury duty, especially if the crimes were not to their liking and a bit traumatic and stressful.
I wonder how those 4 would have gotten on then with just a panel of judges adjudicating in their trial.
4 guilty verdicts I imagine.
To be fair, the law allows you to use force against people in certain permitted circumstances, as it is also allowed in this case with force used against a statue.
Yes, I know they won the case but it is worrying to see that happened. Democracy in that case also means brute force which is scary to say the least.
... however, unlike the other cases, no tangible harm was being prevented by the defendant’s actions, unless you include the ‘harm’ of an ‘offensive’ object being present. Sadly, the jury fell for the defence team’s sophism.
Yes, I know there is no harm but such action is worrying. Remember, I am a Buddhist and over the centuries in many countries/locations we see the destruction of Buddha statues (they love destroying Buddhas for whatever reasons, yes no harm to the people) and that is a concern.
Many of these woke people think that all problems would be solved if we just gave the woke Philosopher-Kings enough power.
If the situation is the other way round, I wonder how they would feel ... funny world this is.
Aaaaaaawwwwww.
I love a good bromance 😃
LOL!
p/s: please don't buy Buddha head for interior decoration. Why do people want someone's head for decoration? Are you our native head hunters?
I wonder how those 4 would have gotten on then with just a panel of judges adjudicating in their trial.
4 guilty verdicts I imagine
Why just imagine?
Why don’t you just move to a country where they do that kind of thing - North Korea perhaps? Maybe China? - and you can give us all a live commentary
Oh… erm… maybe not, because they wouldn’t actually allow you to do that
Still… dictatorships… on balance… probably great if you’re a statue
I am going to say none, which makes it the end. But if someone does, for example, take down the statue of Eric Morecambe then they would be found guilty of criminal damage and quite rightly (I don’t think disliking someone’s comedy style would hold as a defence)
What if someone does not find them funny or feel offended?
I find them offensive for not being funny after spending time trying to understand their jokes, LOL! (crikey I had to ask my colleagues to explain their jokes! How offensive is that!)
P/s: Benny Hill is good ... LOL!
Well they did the 'old man river' sketch. So people could then feel justified on going mob handed to Morecambe and tearing down the statue.
At least the sea is close by and they wouldn't need to roll it that far.
Why don’t you just move to a country where they do that kind of thing – North Korea perhaps? Maybe China? – and you can give us all a live commentary
Naff off binners. Im not saying its right or just or anything like that. I've just pointed out if we followed the advice given in the AVOIDING JURY DUTY thread, they wouldn't have gotten a not guilty verdict. If you disagree with that fine but dont go all weird and spouty on us thanks.
Being around Bristol, i'm seeing this on the news a lot today, and the most striking thing i note about this is that there are 4 people rolling the statue and about 300 videoing it with their phones, it really does sink in how this wasn't really a big deal, not exactly the march on washington!
