+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 121

Thread: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

  1. #41

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    The trial was not if the Colston statue was offensive

    It was was did they commit criminal damage, which as they did not dispute the roles they had played in pulling down the statue and throwing it in the River Avon ( which of course was criminal damage ) seems the trial was a bit of a farce

    The defence arguing what they did was justified because they thought the statue was offensive isn't really defence for criminal damage

    Jake Skuse ( one of the guys ) said "knew he was in the right" and that it was "what the people of Bristol wanted".

  2. #42

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue matt View Post
    The trial was not if the Colston statue was offensive

    It was was did they commit criminal damage, which as they did not dispute the roles they had played in pulling down the statue and throwing it in the River Avon ( which of course was criminal damage ) seems the trial was a bit of a farce

    The defence arguing what they did was justified because they thought the statue was offensive isn't really defence for criminal damage

    Jake Skuse ( one of the guys ) said "knew he was in the right" and that it was "what the people of Bristol wanted".
    Correct verdict. Had it been a statue of a paedophile would community feelings not have taken into consideration? I think the mistake was taking this to court in the first place. The sensible course of action would have been to have had a community discussion about the status of these artifacts and what should be done about them.

  3. #43

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dorcus View Post
    Correct verdict. Had it been a statue of a paedophile would community feelings not have taken into consideration? I think the mistake was taking this to court in the first place. The sensible course of action would have been to have had a community discussion about the status of these artifacts and what should be done about them.
    if it was a statue of a paedophile and it was pulled down by a mob, would that have been criminal damage, yes

    the fact that the statue was offensive was not on trial, the trail was did criminal damage take place

  4. #44

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Can’t believe Matt wants statues of peadophiles erected, perverse.

  5. #45

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by splott parker View Post
    ‘Personally don't like it’, in this day and age who’d personally like it Just because stuff like dog shite was accepted on our streets in the past doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be cleaned up now.
    James Wales is always talking about nuance, and how matters are complex...Then he boils this down to whether people like or don't like the statue. Even Newsround would go deeper than that

  6. #46

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    slavery is bad , islam at the time of colston was more involved in slavery than the west therefore islam bad

  7. #47

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by + the native hipster View Post
    slavery is bad , islam at the time of colston was more involved in slavery than the west therefore islam bad
    Are you the same poster who thinks whipping up race hate is truly abhorrent?

  8. #48

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue matt View Post
    if it was a statue of a paedophile and it was pulled down by a mob, would that have been criminal damage, yes

    the fact that the statue was offensive was not on trial, the trail was did criminal damage take place
    Thank goodness the law doesn't work that way.

  9. #49

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dorcus View Post
    Thank goodness the law doesn't work that way.
    Not at the moment maybe but fear not, Priti is coming along soon to sort that out with prison tariffs potentially double that than for rape.

  10. #50

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays View Post
    Not at the moment maybe but fear not, Priti is coming along soon to sort that out with prison tariffs potentially double that than for rape.
    Yes it's chilling, Priti would not look out of place in jackboots.

  11. #51

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dorcus View Post
    Yes it's chilling, Priti would not look out of place in jackboots.
    I swear you have a fetish for Priti Patel. You always seem to be picturing her in an array of exotic outfits and scenarios.

    She's an attractive and dominant lady. Go for it.

  12. #52

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by splott parker View Post
    ‘Personally don't like it’, in this day and age who’d personally like it Just because stuff like dog shite was accepted on our streets in the past doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be cleaned up now.
    Ahh white dog poo, kids these days don't know they're born.

    It sounds as though the local people had been trying to get this statue removed for years through the official channels but the local authority did nothing. The next step was to forcibly remove it (and rightly so in my opinion). These protesters could be some of the last to be found not guilty of this kind of thing once the new Policing Bill passes into law, it sounds like a horrific attack on our civil liberties.

  13. #53

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays View Post
    Are you the same poster who thinks whipping up race hate is truly abhorrent?
    yes, what part of my statement evokes hate? if there is white guilt then there is islamic guilt ,ashanti guilt ect

  14. #54
    International jon1959's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sheffield - out of Roath
    Posts
    12,578

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dorcus View Post
    Me neither, for me this is the right verdict.

    This is not rewriting history, it's more a question of a community declaring what they find offensive and thereby ensuring the removal of the offending item away from general view. By all means put it in a museum where it belongs.

    I definitely would not have wanted the statue to have been destroyed because it tells a story of a mindset long ago and it should be recognised as an important historical artefact. However that story should be available to be explored with its own narrative in a place where people make the conscious choice to learn about it. Having it on public display in a city centre for all and sundry to see is not right.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Edward_Colston

    The graffiti covered statue was on display (horizontal) in a Bristol museum for 3 months over the summer - with a full description of Colston's life and career, and the history of the statue.

    I think there are discussions about a more permanent display - in a context that will allow education and discussion about the history and role of the Atlantic slave trade, rather than endorsing the Victorian celebration of a slaver.

    In Liverpool a lot of the street names that celebrate slavers have been retained, but with information plaques to give the history - many of them done by or with local communities.

    That is reclaiming history - not re-writing it in the sense of airbrushing it out.

    Well done the jury!

  15. #55

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
    I swear you have a fetish for Priti Patel. You always seem to be picturing her in an array of exotic outfits and scenarios.

    She's an attractive and dominant lady. Go for it.
    If I came across Priti Patel I would swear I can assure you.

  16. #56

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by jon1959 View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Edward_Colston

    The graffiti covered statue was on display (horizontal) in a Bristol museum for 3 months over the summer - with a full description of Colston's life and career, and the history of the statue.

    I think there are discussions about a more permanent display - in a context that will allow education and discussion about the history and role of the Atlantic slave trade, rather than endorsing the Victorian celebration of a slaver.

    In Liverpool a lot of the street names that celebrate slavers have been retained, but with information plaques to give the history - many of them done by or with local communities.

    That is reclaiming history - not re-writing it in the sense of airbrushing it out.

    Well done the jury!
    Absolutely right John. Slowly but ever so surely people are becoming enlightened. (Note I avoided using the word "woke" for fear it would enrage our gammon friends.)

  17. #57

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond Holt View Post
    Ahh white dog poo, kids these days don't know they're born.

    It sounds as though the local people had been trying to get this statue removed for years through the official channels but the local authority did nothing. The next step was to forcibly remove it (and rightly so in my opinion). These protesters could be some of the last to be found not guilty of this kind of thing once the new Policing Bill passes into law, it sounds like a horrific attack on our civil liberties.
    Yes this is the worry though most would agree that you cannot have vigilantes taking the law into their own hands even if it is, as in this case, a just cause.

    As foxy used to say "Power to the people!"

  18. #58

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Milo Ponsford, Sage Willoughby, Rhian Graham and Jake Skuse.

    I'm not saying they're made up names, but if I was making up names they would look like these.

  19. #59

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuerto View Post
    Why?
    Because the defence was that they didn't commit a crime as the statue was owned by the people of Bristol so as citizens of the city it was theirs to do with what they wanted. One of them living in Hampshire doesn't support that defence.

  20. #60

    Re: Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by lisvaneblue View Post
    Because the defence was that they didn't commit a crime as the statue was owned by the people of Bristol so as citizens of the city it was theirs to do with what they wanted. One of them living in Hampshire doesn't support that defence.
    Not withstanding whatever defence Ponsford's barrister put up that the jury believed, this Daily Mail hit piece has him working as a carpenter living in a motorhome in Bristol, so Hampshire may be his registered address but not his place of residence.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-vandals.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •