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.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were advocating trial by a panel of judges rather than a jury, so don’t start getting your petticoats all ruffled, buttercup
You lot who object so vociferously about snowflakes don’t half get snowflakey at every available opportunity 😂
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were advocating trial by a panel of judges rather than a jury,
No Binners I wasnt. I wasnt advocating anything.
I'm enjoying this thread a little bit more than feels appropriate given the serious nature of the topic.
I never imagined it could lead to a Brokeback Mountain style happy ending.
Like Fred always says on First Dates, there really is someone out there for everyone
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were advocating trial by a panel of judges rather than a jury
You're wrong he wasn't advocating it.
Sadly, the jury fell for the defence team’s sophism.
No the prosecution failed to make their case as our law requires. Do keep up and read the legal commentary linked above. You're either trolling or displaying wilful ignorance neither are attractive.
No the prosecution failed to make their case as our law requires
That's just a tautology based upon the verdict.
Getting back once again to the case in point - boring I know - but for brainbox Braverman to actually refer it to the court of appeal, as she says she’s considering doing, the CPS would have to actually recommend that she do so.
There is absolutely no indication, nor legal reason, that they would do so
So the woman who is somewhat laughably our Attorney General seemed to have been unaware that she can’t just do what she wants, because she doesn’t like something, she actually needs a legal precedent to do so
Is anyone surprised?
She makes Liz Truss look bright
That’s just a tautology based upon the verdict.
No it ****ing isn't. It's the underlying principle of our criminal law.
Either educate yourself, or go and whine somewhere else.
No it **** isn’t. It’s the underlying principle of our criminal law.
Either educate yourself, or go and whine somewhere else.
Then point me to their defence on point of law. They didn't have one so the jury chose a perverse verdict for political purposes.
Did you read the secret barrister article? I thought it explained it well.
so the jury chose a perverse verdict for political purposes
When you say ‘perverse’ verdict, you mean one you don’t like, right?
Here’s how any jury trial works:
1. A jury is given the evidence
2. They deliver their verdict on the strength of that evidence, having assessed it.
Managed to comprehend that?
Good. Refreshingly simple, isn’t it?
So it isn’t a ‘perverse’ verdict. It is simply a verdict. As the law demands.
‘Perverse’ is a word we normally reserve for the Sunday paper expose’s about the sexual proclivities of the sort of Tory MP’s who have been describing this verdict as ‘perverse’
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.
Actually without the atlantic slave trade the UK as we know it now would be very different - its an absolutely key thing to the development of empire and the wealth and power of the UK
So yes - the slave trade and understanding it is a hugely important part of the UKs history.
Binners - this sort of verdict is known as a "perverse verdict" thats the official term for a Jury aquitting against the evidence
It is simply a verdict. As the law demands.
Which you advocate as being wholly the correct one, simply because that was the verdict of this jury.
Hardly the basis of any argument, especially one concerning the law. And you talking earlier about North Korean showtrials. 🙄 😆
'Im happy with the verdict, because the jury made it'. And what if the jury hadnt found them not guilty. Are you saying you'd be on here saying they were rightly convicted. I have doubts as to your standpoint on that 😕
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).
What horseshit is this? Got any evidence for this absurd allegation? Its actually really offensive/
All those west Indians in the UK are the descendants of slaves.
Binners – this sort of verdict is known as a “perverse verdict” thats the official term for a Jury aquitting against the evidence
They’ve not aquitted against the evidence though, have they?
They have assessed the evidence and delivered ‘a’ verdict
This ‘perverse’ terminology is just utter nonsense, meaning ‘verdict I don’t agree with’
Which you advocate as being wholly the correct one, simply because that was the verdict of this jury.
yes - thats how courts and justice work in the UK.
Actually without the atlantic slave trade the UK as we know it now would be very different – its an absolutely key thing to the development of empire and the wealth and power of the UK
A factor? Maybe. A key factor? Absolutely not.
As I mentioned, there have been numerous slaves trades throughout human history but only Britain was able to Industrialise first. Slavery cannot thus be a sufficient condition for industrialisation.
Did you read the secret barrister article? I thought it explained it well.
As has been pointed out several times already. So please educate yourself on how the law works, and how it led to this verdict. Go back a few pages and I didn't understand it either.
Binners - no - its a term used for verdicts like this. Longstanding usage. I put up a link to other perverse verdicts and a discussion of them
What horseshit is this? Got any evidence for this absurd allegation? Its actually really offensive/
All those west Indians in the UK are the descendants of slaves.
It's no more offensive than saying white people may have ancestors complicit in slavery. It's a historical fact that black Africans sold slaves, that there was an Arab slave trade, an Ottoman one, one in India, one in China.
Not all black people in the UK are from the Caribbean you know? And not all POC are black.
Then point me to their defence on point of law. They didn’t have one so the jury chose a perverse verdict for political purposes.
Can I ask on what you are basing this assertion? Particularly the political bit
Have you ever sat on a jury?
Without sitting through the whole trial and sitting in on the jury room deliberations personally I can’t see how anyone can be sure of the reason as why they chose their verdict. That’s true of any jury trial. In English law no one should know.
That is the strength of the jury system, or it’s flaw depending perhaps on your like or dislike of the verdict in any trial.
A key factor?
Absolutely certainly totally key to the empire building and wealth we enjoy today. without slavery britain would be a much different place. Empire and our wealth was built on slavery and those slave owners are our aristocracy today
you really need to educate yourself a bit
I'm calling TJ being accused of being a racist within 10 posts.
Nothing useful to add, this thread really is a flaming dumpster fire falling into a septic tank.
Binners – no – its a term used for verdicts like this
Then the term is perverse in itself. There is only one verdict in a jury trial. The one that the jury delivers.
Who exactly is it who gets to attach labels to it?
You can’t and neither can I or anyone else
It is simply ‘a’ verdict
Jeepers cake - when in a hole stop digging
"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)."
Got any evidence for this absurd and offensive allegation? some sort of basis in fact?
It’s no more offensive than saying white people may have ancestors complicit in slavery
Yes it is - for a start your claim about white folk uses "may" whereas for the former slaves its " quite possibly" - a qualitative differnce
then the fact you are victim blaming
Its really offensive to say that - can you really not see that?
@tjagain the secret barrister article points out that:
1. They could be not guilty of criminal damage
2. They could be not guilty on grounds of prosecution not being suitable (or something similar)
3. They could be guilty and the jury delivered a perverse verdict of not guilty.
It also points out that we will never know which of these three the jury chose so there’s not point guessing.
Absolutely certainly totally key
Which you just keep asserting.
to say white folk may have ansestors that were slavers is also pretty daft - I do not know the numbers but with a UK population of tens of millions how many slavers? 10 000 at a guess? The odds on being descended from slavers is pretty low
I want to see something to back up this claim
"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).”"
Which you just keep asserting.
~Whuich actually is a historical fact. The empire and the wealth of modern Britain was built on slavery
Lloyds of London - slave trade money. Much of our landowners - slave trade money. Most of the wealthy families - slave trade money. etc etc
with a UK population of tens of millions how many slavers
The population of the UK wasn't 10s of millions - in the mid 18th Century it was only around 6.5 million. Go back far enough and everybody was related to you.
"A factor? Maybe. A key factor? Absolutely not."
Seemed to be a fairly key factor in this particular moment of history...
Ok - so how many slavers? 1 in 10000?
They didn’t have one so the jury chose a perverse verdict for political purposes.
An accusation which would have more weight if it were substantiated. Off you pop.
“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).”
This is possible, but not probable. It's certain not "quite possible" which implies a high probability.
Alex Scott, the footballer, was quite upset on "Who do you think you are?" when she found out that a paternal great-something grandfather was a free black man in Jamaica who kept 26 slaves, and even had children with one of them.
Unfortunately, people like i_scoff_cake will seize onto these cases and try to use them to equate their behaviour with that of the large landowning slave owners, like the Draxs. They had 30,000 slaves, though, not 26!
This ‘perverse’ terminology is just utter nonsense, meaning ‘verdict I don’t agree with’
Jeez binners, read the Secret Barrister link, please.
Ok – so how many slavers? 1 in 10000?
Define 'slavers'. Just the people who literally bought and sold slaves in person? Not that many.
But slavery was integrated into society at virtually every level and thousands will have profited directly or indirectly. Almost anyone involved in shipping, construction, trading sugar, rubber etc while maybe not owning slaves themselves would be profiting from their forced labour. And as stated already many middle-class people took part in what were essentially slave-owning co-operatives.
I notice . I scoff cake has no response to the secret barristers blog on why the jury's verdict is legot
Hes much keener on diverting the topic elsewhere
46,000 slave owners in Britain when slavery was abolished:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/british-history-slavery-buried-scale-revealed
Paid off by the modern equivalent of £16bn.
There's a link to a database of slave owners at then bottom of the article:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/
Grum - I agree with that totally - the slave trade made the UK rich
My arguement was with cakes statement "It’s no more offensive than saying white people may have ancestors complicit in slavery" which I took to mean owning slaves - and its one in tens of thousands at a guess so a fairly low probability. If it means " profited from" then the whole of the UK did and still does
*Checks back in on thread*
*backs away slowly*
I notice . I scoff cake has no response to the secret barristers blog on why the jury’s verdict is legot
Hes much keener on diverting the topic elsewhere
Well i did. Partly 😆
" If the jury rejected all of the other defence arguments, there was one final issue for the jury to decide. And, to put it in its simplest terms, it relates to the right to freedom of thought and conscience and the right to freedom of expression."
So if this is the basis for them not finding them guilty, then it goes to say that the insulate britain protestors have strong grounds for appealing their sentences, and in that case no property was damaged(even though the argument by the protestors was that it hadn't been damaged. It rests on the human rights freedoms, and of that the insulate britain protestors shouldnt also been found guilty.
