It seems to be the jury that decided they didn't commit a crime, not they themselves.So damage to public property is not 'criminal damage' if the persons causing (and admitting) the damage, believe in what they are doing is right?
Seems the judgement leaves obvious loopholes that will undoubtedly be exploited, in a different context.... unless there is likely to be an appeal?
What would have happened if someone, directly involved or not, had been injured, there would be no recompense, or would there?
Sympathy with the reasoning behind wanting this statute removed but English law is based mainly on precedent and this could come back to bite, in many different ways!
Sounds like the end of a terrible movieEveryone in the courtroom hugged and clapped after
Like what?won't this encourage a bunch of other people to start destroying things they don't like the history of?
seems a bit bonkers
just whatever you fancy reallyLike what?
Presumably only if they think a jury is likely to agree that whatever they don't like is as objectionable as human slavery. Which seems a rather high bar.won't this encourage a bunch of other people to start destroying things they don't like the history of?
seems a bit bonkers
It's not a problem at all this is exactly what courts are for. Your whataboutery is irrelevant as causing bodily harm to a person is a different legal matter entirely.So damage to public property is not 'criminal damage' if the persons causing (and admitting) the damage, believe in what they are doing is right?
Seems the judgement leaves obvious loopholes that will undoubtedly be exploited, in a different context.... unless there is likely to be an appeal?
What would have happened if someone, directly involved or not, had been injured, there would be no recompense, or would there?
Sympathy with the reasoning behind wanting this statute removed but English law is based mainly on precedent and this could come back to bite, in many different ways!
How would you feel about someone collecting Nazi memorabilia? What about if they displayed it in public with no appropriate historical context?just whatever you fancy really
I'm sure you can find something offensive about most old stuff
It has been displayed since, with the new context.I think the better way to handle this would have been to add a new plaque to the statue saying this man made his money in a heinous trade, rather like the National Trust are doing in those lovely 18th century country houses paid for on the back of Africans being brutalised on Caribbean sugar plantations. Otherwise, the real history of a city like Bristol and its elegant Georgian buildings starts to fade away.
I think it's a bit weird but not much of an opinion on it reallyHow would you feel about someone collecting Nazi memorabilia? What about if they displayed it in public with no appropriate historical context?
Exactly this. If the government won't add the plaque then you've only 2 extreme options really - display the statue as if the guy was a hero, or take the statue down illegally. Pretty silly to create that dilemma.I think the better way to handle this would have been to add a new plaque to the statue saying this man made his money in a heinous trade, rather like the National Trust are doing in those lovely 18th century country houses paid for on the back of Africans being brutalised on Caribbean sugar plantations. Otherwise, the real history of a city like Bristol and its elegant Georgian buildings starts to fade away.
So you don't think it would be highly inappropriate and offensive?I think it's a bit weird but not much of an opinion on it really
why?
Cheers. I forgot he had been fished out.It has been displayed since, with the new context.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-57350650
There's a review due this year as to what's gonna be done with it long term.
If you're confident the court rule will go in your favor, go ahead. I suspect people offended by silly things would find the hard way different things get different court results.just whatever you fancy really
I'm sure you can find something offensive about most old stuff
like I said I don't have much on an opinion on collecting it other than its weird. Beyond that you'd need to be more specificSo you don't think it would be highly inappropriate and offensive?
Not sure about that.So damage to public property is not 'criminal damage' if the persons causing (and admitting) the damage, believe in what they are doing is right?
Seems the judgement leaves obvious loopholes that will undoubtedly be exploited, in a different context.... unless there is likely to be an appeal?
What would have happened if someone, directly involved or not, had been injured, there would be no recompense, or would there?
Sympathy with the reasoning behind wanting this statute removed but English law is based mainly on precedent and this could come back to bite, in many different ways!
What about if they hung a Nazi flag outside their house?like I said I don't have much on an opinion on collecting it other than its weird. Beyond that you'd need to be more specific
If someone hung a nazi flag across the street from a holocaust museum, then yeah of course
do you have a point?What about if they hung a Nazi flag outside their house?
No, I'm just wondering whether your opinion about displaying offensive things in public without context is as weird as you seemed to be implying. I take it that it probably is given you don't want to answer the question.do you have a point?
That’s far too sensible and not nearly as much fun as chucking the bugger in a riverI think the better way to handle this would have been to add a new plaque to the statue saying this man made his money in a heinous trade, rather like the National Trust are doing in those lovely 18th century country houses paid for on the back of Africans being brutalised on Caribbean sugar plantations. Otherwise, the real history of a city like Bristol and its elegant Georgian buildings starts to fade away.
I think some things are offensiveNo, I'm just wondering whether your opinion about displaying offensive things in public without context is as weird as you seemed to be implying. I take it that it probably is given you don't want to answer the question.
And has only happened since the statue was chucked in the river.That’s far too sensible and not nearly as much fun as chucking the bugger in a river
Part of their defence was that for years people have been petitioning to have that statue removed andall calls for it had been completely ignored by the council. All legal avenues had been followed with no success. It was well known the offence the statue caused. So it needs a bit more rather than just disliking something.won't this encourage a bunch of other people to start destroying things they don't like the history of?
seems a bit bonkers
I might be wrong but I think that was suggested and turned down previously, might be wrong though.I think the better way to handle this would have been to add a new plaque to the statue saying this man made his money in a heinous trade, rather like the National Trust are doing in those lovely 18th century country houses paid for on the back of Africans being brutalised on Caribbean sugar plantations. Otherwise, the real history of a city like Bristol and its elegant Georgian buildings starts to fade away.
that does provide a bit more context so the ruling makes slightly more sense to mePart of their defence was that for years people have been petitioning to have that statue removed andall calls for it had been completely ignored by the council. All legal avenues had been followed with no success. It was well known the offence the statue caused. So it needs a bit more rather than just disliking something.
but to be fair they should have never been prosecuted in the first place and the council should never have backed the prosecution.
Ahh you just want to throw stuff in riversAnd has only happened since the statue was chucked in the river.
The thing you wanted literally only happened after it was chucked in the river. It had stood there for years with the thing you wanted never going to be put in place, it's fished out the river and is done in a matter of months. What on earth are you whinging about? You got exactly what you wanted.Ahh you just want to throw stuff in rivers
