| This'll upset a few... on 22:29 - Jan 6 with 1519 views | XYZ |
| This'll upset a few... on 21:32 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
You are wrong. I never stated the jury hands out punishment, so please do not misquote me.
The jury is there to decide if you should receive punishment, which is the decision of guilty or not guilty to receive punishment for the events laid out to them, the judgethen hands out the sentence.
The crime has been committed or not already. Going to court is to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime or not, it's not the same as what you are saying, because there was still a crime committed just the person wasn't convicted for it doesn't mean there was no crime involved.
As I said it's a nuance of law. Either you understand or you don't. |
The jury appears to have decided there was no crime in this case. The judge accepted their verdict.
The facts were admitted.
Funny things, nuances. |  | |  |
| This'll upset a few... on 22:29 - Jan 6 with 1519 views | jeera |
| This'll upset a few... on 21:32 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
You are wrong. I never stated the jury hands out punishment, so please do not misquote me.
The jury is there to decide if you should receive punishment, which is the decision of guilty or not guilty to receive punishment for the events laid out to them, the judgethen hands out the sentence.
The crime has been committed or not already. Going to court is to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime or not, it's not the same as what you are saying, because there was still a crime committed just the person wasn't convicted for it doesn't mean there was no crime involved.
As I said it's a nuance of law. Either you understand or you don't. |
Clearly the judge and co decided that the removal of an offensive inanimate object was, in this instance at least, not a crime.
Case closed then. |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 22:37 - Jan 6 with 1491 views | Darth_Koont |
| This'll upset a few... on 22:29 - Jan 6 by jeera |
Clearly the judge and co decided that the removal of an offensive inanimate object was, in this instance at least, not a crime.
Case closed then. |
Basically they did the Bristol City Council’s job for them. Just the disposal that was wrong from a local statute perspective.
If they’d put it in a skip then they could have sent an invoice. |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 22:51 - Jan 6 with 1460 views | jeera |
| This'll upset a few... on 22:37 - Jan 6 by Darth_Koont |
Basically they did the Bristol City Council’s job for them. Just the disposal that was wrong from a local statute perspective.
If they’d put it in a skip then they could have sent an invoice. |
And probably saved them a small fortune in biscuits for several more years of meetings. | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:06 - Jan 6 with 1449 views | Bluedicea |
| This'll upset a few... on 22:29 - Jan 6 by XYZ |
The jury appears to have decided there was no crime in this case. The judge accepted their verdict.
The facts were admitted.
Funny things, nuances. |
Wrong.
The jury decided they were not guilty of the crimes presented. That is not the same as saying no crime was committed. They were not prosecuted for the crimes that were committed because in the jury's opinion, what they did was justified and acceptable.
So in the rule of law. A crime was committed, 4 people were tried for said crime, the jury decided they shouldn't be found guilty of said crime. The crime was still committed though, yet due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding it, they were found not guilty of the crime, so not punished for actions they carried out.
At no point was it a not a crime, as a crime is basically any event that breaks the written laws of the land. Just that the jury believe they shouldn't be punished for it in any way. Hence not guilty of committing the crimes presented, doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. |  |
| What is the use of knowing about everything else, when you do not yet know who you are. |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:12 - Jan 6 with 1438 views | Herbivore |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:06 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
Wrong.
The jury decided they were not guilty of the crimes presented. That is not the same as saying no crime was committed. They were not prosecuted for the crimes that were committed because in the jury's opinion, what they did was justified and acceptable.
So in the rule of law. A crime was committed, 4 people were tried for said crime, the jury decided they shouldn't be found guilty of said crime. The crime was still committed though, yet due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding it, they were found not guilty of the crime, so not punished for actions they carried out.
At no point was it a not a crime, as a crime is basically any event that breaks the written laws of the land. Just that the jury believe they shouldn't be punished for it in any way. Hence not guilty of committing the crimes presented, doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. |
So if a crime was committed, who committed it? |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:17 - Jan 6 with 1432 views | bluelagos |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:06 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
Wrong.
The jury decided they were not guilty of the crimes presented. That is not the same as saying no crime was committed. They were not prosecuted for the crimes that were committed because in the jury's opinion, what they did was justified and acceptable.
So in the rule of law. A crime was committed, 4 people were tried for said crime, the jury decided they shouldn't be found guilty of said crime. The crime was still committed though, yet due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding it, they were found not guilty of the crime, so not punished for actions they carried out.
At no point was it a not a crime, as a crime is basically any event that breaks the written laws of the land. Just that the jury believe they shouldn't be punished for it in any way. Hence not guilty of committing the crimes presented, doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. |
Why are you so convinced a crime was committed? I know we all saw a statue being pulled down, damaged etc. but the guys on trial never denied they did those acts.
They denied that those acts amounted to the crime they were charged with and the jury agreed with them. |  |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:18 - Jan 6 with 1429 views | eireblue |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:06 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
Wrong.
The jury decided they were not guilty of the crimes presented. That is not the same as saying no crime was committed. They were not prosecuted for the crimes that were committed because in the jury's opinion, what they did was justified and acceptable.
So in the rule of law. A crime was committed, 4 people were tried for said crime, the jury decided they shouldn't be found guilty of said crime. The crime was still committed though, yet due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding it, they were found not guilty of the crime, so not punished for actions they carried out.
At no point was it a not a crime, as a crime is basically any event that breaks the written laws of the land. Just that the jury believe they shouldn't be punished for it in any way. Hence not guilty of committing the crimes presented, doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. |
That just sounds like what happens when a tree falls over on a deserted island argument?
If a statue is assisted in making its way into a nearby body of water, and the people doing the assisting are not guilty of a criminal act, did a criminal act take place. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This'll upset a few... on 23:20 - Jan 6 with 1428 views | Kievthegreat |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:06 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
Wrong.
The jury decided they were not guilty of the crimes presented. That is not the same as saying no crime was committed. They were not prosecuted for the crimes that were committed because in the jury's opinion, what they did was justified and acceptable.
So in the rule of law. A crime was committed, 4 people were tried for said crime, the jury decided they shouldn't be found guilty of said crime. The crime was still committed though, yet due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding it, they were found not guilty of the crime, so not punished for actions they carried out.
At no point was it a not a crime, as a crime is basically any event that breaks the written laws of the land. Just that the jury believe they shouldn't be punished for it in any way. Hence not guilty of committing the crimes presented, doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. |
The defence argument in this case (part of it, at least) was that the act of removing the statue was in itself a lawful act and was done to prevent a crime:
"All defendants argued that the public display by the council of the Edward Colson statue was itself a crime, or potentially two crimes. First, it was said that displaying the statue amounted to an offence of displaying indecent material contrary to section 1 of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.
Second, it was said that there was an offence of displaying a visible representation which is abusive, within the sight of a person likely to be caused distress by it, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986."
Now it's impossible to know which part of the defence was successfully argued, but it leaves open the possibility that the act was deemed lawful and that the only crime was for the statue to be on display.
The quote is from this piece by the Secret Barrister.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-co |  | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:20 - Jan 6 with 1423 views | XYZ |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:06 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
Wrong.
The jury decided they were not guilty of the crimes presented. That is not the same as saying no crime was committed. They were not prosecuted for the crimes that were committed because in the jury's opinion, what they did was justified and acceptable.
So in the rule of law. A crime was committed, 4 people were tried for said crime, the jury decided they shouldn't be found guilty of said crime. The crime was still committed though, yet due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding it, they were found not guilty of the crime, so not punished for actions they carried out.
At no point was it a not a crime, as a crime is basically any event that breaks the written laws of the land. Just that the jury believe they shouldn't be punished for it in any way. Hence not guilty of committing the crimes presented, doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. |
The defendants admitted their actions. If their actions constituted a crime, with no acceptable defence, the judge would have directed them to make a guilty verdict. He or she didn't do that, probably influenced by the evidence given by the historian on the nature of the slave trade and the barrister's arguments about human rights.
Read the court reports before mouthing off faux legal knowledge.
The jury found that no crime was committed by these defendants and the judge accepted their verdict.
By the way the "written laws of the land" speak of "offences" not of "crimes", so they were not guilty of the offence they were charged with because the jury found that no offence had been committed by them. Given they admitted their actions (admirably honest of them) there's simply no other logical conclusion. | | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:22 - Jan 6 with 1395 views | Bluedicea |
| This'll upset a few... on 22:29 - Jan 6 by jeera |
Clearly the judge and co decided that the removal of an offensive inanimate object was, in this instance at least, not a crime.
Case closed then. |
If it was not a crime, it would never have made it to trial. Trials are there only to decide if those people presented should be found guilty or not of committing said crime. So the crime still happened, just no one is held to account for it.
The judge and jury decided they shouldn't be found guilty of the crime.
Sure, I agree with you. That it was offensive to some and they wanted it removed, I have no problem whatsoever with that. The reason it became a crime is because it's a criminal offence to desecrate any statue or monument in this country.
The rule of law applies to everything and everyone equally, or should we rewrite laws to say it's ok to desecrate some monuments or statues we find offensive, or just all of them, like the cenotaph because I'm sure some are offended we remember those who fought for freedom or kicking over people's gravestones, why should we consider that a crime???
EDIT: Just realised a mistake. There are trials that are held to decide if a crime has been committed, but as they are basically just arguments about the wording of the laws, I discounted them as they weren't pertinent to this discussion, but realised I made an absolute statement without mentioning it, which was wrong. [Post edited 6 Jan 2022 23:38]
| |
| What is the use of knowing about everything else, when you do not yet know who you are. |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:25 - Jan 6 with 1380 views | bluelagos |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:20 - Jan 6 by Kievthegreat |
The defence argument in this case (part of it, at least) was that the act of removing the statue was in itself a lawful act and was done to prevent a crime:
"All defendants argued that the public display by the council of the Edward Colson statue was itself a crime, or potentially two crimes. First, it was said that displaying the statue amounted to an offence of displaying indecent material contrary to section 1 of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.
Second, it was said that there was an offence of displaying a visible representation which is abusive, within the sight of a person likely to be caused distress by it, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986."
Now it's impossible to know which part of the defence was successfully argued, but it leaves open the possibility that the act was deemed lawful and that the only crime was for the statue to be on display.
The quote is from this piece by the Secret Barrister.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-co |
Which begs the question will whoever put up the statue now be charged instead?  | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:32 - Jan 6 with 1372 views | Herbivore |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:18 - Jan 6 by eireblue |
That just sounds like what happens when a tree falls over on a deserted island argument?
If a statue is assisted in making its way into a nearby body of water, and the people doing the assisting are not guilty of a criminal act, did a criminal act take place. |
It's Shrodinger's crime, simultaneously committed and not committed. | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:32 - Jan 6 with 1369 views | XYZ |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:22 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
If it was not a crime, it would never have made it to trial. Trials are there only to decide if those people presented should be found guilty or not of committing said crime. So the crime still happened, just no one is held to account for it.
The judge and jury decided they shouldn't be found guilty of the crime.
Sure, I agree with you. That it was offensive to some and they wanted it removed, I have no problem whatsoever with that. The reason it became a crime is because it's a criminal offence to desecrate any statue or monument in this country.
The rule of law applies to everything and everyone equally, or should we rewrite laws to say it's ok to desecrate some monuments or statues we find offensive, or just all of them, like the cenotaph because I'm sure some are offended we remember those who fought for freedom or kicking over people's gravestones, why should we consider that a crime???
EDIT: Just realised a mistake. There are trials that are held to decide if a crime has been committed, but as they are basically just arguments about the wording of the laws, I discounted them as they weren't pertinent to this discussion, but realised I made an absolute statement without mentioning it, which was wrong. [Post edited 6 Jan 2022 23:38]
|
The Home Secretary had put pressure on the police and CPS to prosecute people.
The prosecutors decided that they could argue a crime had been committed and that they could charge these 4 with an offence.
They lost because the jury found (11-1) that, despite the accused admitting their actions, no offence had been committed.
It's not uncommon.
One notorious example ...
Rape prosecutions regularly fail because the accused claims there was consent to sex. If there's consent to sex, then there's no rape offence committed. | | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:36 - Jan 6 with 1359 views | bluelagos |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:22 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
If it was not a crime, it would never have made it to trial. Trials are there only to decide if those people presented should be found guilty or not of committing said crime. So the crime still happened, just no one is held to account for it.
The judge and jury decided they shouldn't be found guilty of the crime.
Sure, I agree with you. That it was offensive to some and they wanted it removed, I have no problem whatsoever with that. The reason it became a crime is because it's a criminal offence to desecrate any statue or monument in this country.
The rule of law applies to everything and everyone equally, or should we rewrite laws to say it's ok to desecrate some monuments or statues we find offensive, or just all of them, like the cenotaph because I'm sure some are offended we remember those who fought for freedom or kicking over people's gravestones, why should we consider that a crime???
EDIT: Just realised a mistake. There are trials that are held to decide if a crime has been committed, but as they are basically just arguments about the wording of the laws, I discounted them as they weren't pertinent to this discussion, but realised I made an absolute statement without mentioning it, which was wrong. [Post edited 6 Jan 2022 23:38]
|
"If it was not a crime, it would never have made it to trial..."
Give it up pal, with comments like that you are just making yourself look silly tbh. | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:59 - Jan 6 with 1318 views | Bluedicea |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:36 - Jan 6 by bluelagos |
"If it was not a crime, it would never have made it to trial..."
Give it up pal, with comments like that you are just making yourself look silly tbh. |
I was just imparting information to folks. There's no need to start throwing insults into a discussion.
Read a few law books, attend a few trials and then maybe your snide opinion would carry more weight and you would understand the rule of law better than you currently do.
Crime happens all the time, sometimes people are found guilty of committing them sometimes they are found innocent or not guilty of committing the crime. The crime remains, because it's an incident in time that breaks the rules of the land that govern us. | |
| What is the use of knowing about everything else, when you do not yet know who you are. |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:02 - Jan 7 with 1301 views | bluelagos |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:59 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
I was just imparting information to folks. There's no need to start throwing insults into a discussion.
Read a few law books, attend a few trials and then maybe your snide opinion would carry more weight and you would understand the rule of law better than you currently do.
Crime happens all the time, sometimes people are found guilty of committing them sometimes they are found innocent or not guilty of committing the crime. The crime remains, because it's an incident in time that breaks the rules of the land that govern us. |
I've spent quite a few days in court rooms as it goes (as an observer) and am yet to see a defense lawyer accept a crime has taken place just because it is being prosecuted....
But you carry on with that argument if you wish to. | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:13 - Jan 7 with 1277 views | jeera |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:59 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
I was just imparting information to folks. There's no need to start throwing insults into a discussion.
Read a few law books, attend a few trials and then maybe your snide opinion would carry more weight and you would understand the rule of law better than you currently do.
Crime happens all the time, sometimes people are found guilty of committing them sometimes they are found innocent or not guilty of committing the crime. The crime remains, because it's an incident in time that breaks the rules of the land that govern us. |
Holy sh!t, how rude and arrogant.
Just like many of your posts on here from what I've seen, full of self-importance waffle but little else.
You'd do well to take a step back and consider who you may be addressing sometimes.
You come across as someone who is desperate to impress and thinks your audience is to blame for not finding you informative or interesting. | |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:29 - Jan 7 with 1262 views | eireblue |
| This'll upset a few... on 23:59 - Jan 6 by Bluedicea |
I was just imparting information to folks. There's no need to start throwing insults into a discussion.
Read a few law books, attend a few trials and then maybe your snide opinion would carry more weight and you would understand the rule of law better than you currently do.
Crime happens all the time, sometimes people are found guilty of committing them sometimes they are found innocent or not guilty of committing the crime. The crime remains, because it's an incident in time that breaks the rules of the land that govern us. |
Imparting information or opinion?
The secret barrister article was very interesting.
Paired with
“ Result - The actus reus may relate to the result of the act or omission of the defendant. The conduct itself may not be criminal, but the result of the conduct may be. Eg it is not a crime to throw a stone, but if it hits a person or smashes a window it could amount to a crime. Causation must be established in all result crimes.
Examples of result crimes:
Assault
Battery
ABH
Wounding and GBH
Murder & Manslaughter
Criminal damage”
So in this case, as an example, it was argued that the value of the statue could in fact be greater now than it was, so no damage was done. Also, the intention of the people was to prevent a crime using reasonable force.
So by doing some reading, I conclude no crime was performed, I impart this knowledge to you, free of charge.
No, no need to thank me. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 0:29]
| | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:35 - Jan 7 with 1257 views | Bluedicea |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:13 - Jan 7 by jeera |
Holy sh!t, how rude and arrogant.
Just like many of your posts on here from what I've seen, full of self-importance waffle but little else.
You'd do well to take a step back and consider who you may be addressing sometimes.
You come across as someone who is desperate to impress and thinks your audience is to blame for not finding you informative or interesting. |
Oh wow. Thankyou for analysing my whole personality from just a few short sentences.
Having intelligence does seem like arrogance to some I do agree. And yes rudeness abounds on this site, with people using profanity and blasphemy with scant regard to their audience, it's almost like this site is a gathering of people in the pub having a chat, than a public space where we should be mindful of our manners and the correct way to have friendly intelligent discussions with strangers.
Maybe rather than go for abusive behaviour towards others, you should try having a polite intelligent conversation, you may actually get some friends that way. After all who wants to be friends with someone who abuses other people. | |
| What is the use of knowing about everything else, when you do not yet know who you are. |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:42 - Jan 7 with 1241 views | eireblue |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:35 - Jan 7 by Bluedicea |
Oh wow. Thankyou for analysing my whole personality from just a few short sentences.
Having intelligence does seem like arrogance to some I do agree. And yes rudeness abounds on this site, with people using profanity and blasphemy with scant regard to their audience, it's almost like this site is a gathering of people in the pub having a chat, than a public space where we should be mindful of our manners and the correct way to have friendly intelligent discussions with strangers.
Maybe rather than go for abusive behaviour towards others, you should try having a polite intelligent conversation, you may actually get some friends that way. After all who wants to be friends with someone who abuses other people. |
Yea you see blasphemy isn’t covered by the T&C’s, that’s one that slipped through, so we can do as much of that as we like, no crime in it. | | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:46 - Jan 7 with 1234 views | XYZ |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:35 - Jan 7 by Bluedicea |
Oh wow. Thankyou for analysing my whole personality from just a few short sentences.
Having intelligence does seem like arrogance to some I do agree. And yes rudeness abounds on this site, with people using profanity and blasphemy with scant regard to their audience, it's almost like this site is a gathering of people in the pub having a chat, than a public space where we should be mindful of our manners and the correct way to have friendly intelligent discussions with strangers.
Maybe rather than go for abusive behaviour towards others, you should try having a polite intelligent conversation, you may actually get some friends that way. After all who wants to be friends with someone who abuses other people. |
You're a know-nothing bullsh!tter as far as the law goes.
You've shown nothing approaching intelligence in this thread.
"Blasphemy" lol.
Haven't seen you round here before, but boy have you underestimated your audience.
Totally, forensically, dismantled by a number of long-standing respected posters but too blindly thick to even realise.
Honestly, we've had much better trolls than this. 0/10. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 0:46]
| | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:50 - Jan 7 with 1220 views | Kievthegreat |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:42 - Jan 7 by eireblue |
Yea you see blasphemy isn’t covered by the T&C’s, that’s one that slipped through, so we can do as much of that as we like, no crime in it. |
Blasphemy is a victimless crime isn't it? | | | |
| This'll upset a few... on 01:01 - Jan 7 with 1187 views | Bluedicea |
| This'll upset a few... on 00:29 - Jan 7 by eireblue |
Imparting information or opinion?
The secret barrister article was very interesting.
Paired with
“ Result - The actus reus may relate to the result of the act or omission of the defendant. The conduct itself may not be criminal, but the result of the conduct may be. Eg it is not a crime to throw a stone, but if it hits a person or smashes a window it could amount to a crime. Causation must be established in all result crimes.
Examples of result crimes:
Assault
Battery
ABH
Wounding and GBH
Murder & Manslaughter
Criminal damage”
So in this case, as an example, it was argued that the value of the statue could in fact be greater now than it was, so no damage was done. Also, the intention of the people was to prevent a crime using reasonable force.
So by doing some reading, I conclude no crime was performed, I impart this knowledge to you, free of charge.
No, no need to thank me. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 0:29]
|
Usinv you exact example in a different setting and it becomes ridiculous.
So if someone sprays graffiti all over your car and person then offers you 1p over the current value of the car, it's no longer a crime because it increases the value.
And the statue is worth more as scrap metal than as a statue, so defacing it or desecrating it, doesn't add to it's value. It's adds nothing whatsoever to it. So that argument is invalid. The fact as it was toppled over it almost hit people, watch the videos, means it was a action that could potentially put people in danger of injury which would then of resulted in a more serious crime.
A crime was committed, the 4 folks were found not guilty of committing the crime they were charged with. It doesn't make the crime go away, it just means they haven't been prosecuted for the crime.
If you incapable of understanding the difference there, then I'm sorry I can't help you. I've tried explaining what a crime is by definition, but it's your choice to disagree with what it is, facts obviously can't change your opinion. | |
| What is the use of knowing about everything else, when you do not yet know who you are. |
| |
| This'll upset a few... on 02:00 - Jan 7 with 1391 views | XYZ |
| This'll upset a few... on 01:01 - Jan 7 by Bluedicea |
Usinv you exact example in a different setting and it becomes ridiculous.
So if someone sprays graffiti all over your car and person then offers you 1p over the current value of the car, it's no longer a crime because it increases the value.
And the statue is worth more as scrap metal than as a statue, so defacing it or desecrating it, doesn't add to it's value. It's adds nothing whatsoever to it. So that argument is invalid. The fact as it was toppled over it almost hit people, watch the videos, means it was a action that could potentially put people in danger of injury which would then of resulted in a more serious crime.
A crime was committed, the 4 folks were found not guilty of committing the crime they were charged with. It doesn't make the crime go away, it just means they haven't been prosecuted for the crime.
If you incapable of understanding the difference there, then I'm sorry I can't help you. I've tried explaining what a crime is by definition, but it's your choice to disagree with what it is, facts obviously can't change your opinion. |
Oh dear, this is sad to see. Show this thread to a trusted friend and get them to explain it to you. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
