|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 5, 2022 18:35:12 GMT
Did you hear the four interviewed after the verdict? What a bunch of classic white, woke planks. The one lad could barely string a sentance together without swearing. If anyone has the clip, it's worth posting just to illustrate the type of ignorant turds who ripped down the Colston statue. A similar type to those who vandalised the Abraham Lincoln statue. I'd be amazed if any of them had any real understanding of African history, Caribbean history or indeed, British history. No doubt they’re 4 student drop outs living off mummy and daddy’s cash to enlighten their sad little lives. The real world may as well be Mars to them
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 5, 2022 18:36:42 GMT
Did you hear the four interviewed after the verdict? What a bunch of classic white, woke planks. The one lad could barely string a sentance together without swearing. If anyone has the clip, it's worth posting just to illustrate the type of ignorant turds who ripped down the Colston statue. A similar type to those who vandalised the Abraham Lincoln statue. I'd be amazed if any of them had any real understanding of African history, Caribbean history or indeed, British history. No doubt they’re 4 student drop outs living off mummy and daddy’s cash to enlighten their sad little lives. The real world may as well be Mars to them Almost certainly. They like to use capitalism and then abuse it 😊
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 5, 2022 18:43:22 GMT
Well you’re usually a sensible considered poster which on the odd occasions I have found myself agreeing with you Then all of a sudden you dangle what smells like very dodgy bait in your ridiculous original post There is no excuse for vandalism anywhere or anytime Were the Iraqi's right to tear down all the Saddam Hussain statues and memorials, were the Germans right to tear down Nazi statues and memorials, or was it inexcusable behaviour from those involved? That was a revolution this is a few criminals destroying something they don’t agree with. You could liken it to a few “fans” smashing up the Terry Conroy Suite after we lost 7-0 to Brum. I guess they were equally as innocent because they were unhappy with the way the club was being run. To smash up something you don’t agree with is never the answer.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 5, 2022 18:45:15 GMT
Were the Iraqi's right to tear down all the Saddam Hussain statues and memorials, were the Germans right to tear down Nazi statues and memorials, or was it inexcusable behaviour from those involved? That was a revolution this is a few criminals destroying something they don’t agree with. You could liken it to a few “fans” smashing up the Terry Conroy Suite after we lost 7-0 to Brum. I guess they were equally as innocent because they were unhappy with the way the club was being run. To smash up something you don’t agree with is never the answer. A few unemployed Islington elite left wing bozos more like😏
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 5, 2022 18:45:16 GMT
Did you hear the four interviewed after the verdict? What a bunch of classic white, woke planks. The one lad could barely string a sentance together without swearing. If anyone has the clip, it's worth posting just to illustrate the type of ignorant turds who ripped down the Colston statue. A similar type to those who vandalised the Abraham Lincoln statue. I'd be amazed if any of them had any real understanding of African history, Caribbean history or indeed, British history. Like most people that hide behind protests like Bristol and this they’re just anarchists. Let’s hope that any future employers will see what they’re about and how they deal with an argument and steer clear. I’m not arguing with there argument just the way they dealt with it.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 5, 2022 18:46:28 GMT
Were the Iraqi's right to tear down all the Saddam Hussain statues and memorials, were the Germans right to tear down Nazi statues and memorials, or was it inexcusable behaviour from those involved? the way they were removed yes It’s not often I find myself agreeing with American methods when the authorities removed several confederate statues with decency Is not tearing down a statue you don’t agree with One step behind nazis burning books They tried all other avenues political or otherwise, and Bristol City Council chose to do nothing about it. Now they have argued - successfully - that it wasn't criminal damage on the grounds that they did it, but proved beyond reasonable doubt in front of a jury as to WHY they did it..........
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 5, 2022 18:46:49 GMT
how’s that then it’s just encouraging people to smash things up if they don’t agree with something. Letting them off could set a very worrying precedent. Playing devils advocate If someone was to deface a statue that was representing marxism because they had politically right views would that be OK? That attitudes how rioting starts. The laws the law and they broke it. You mean like in 2019 when the tomb of Marx in Highgate was vandalised beyond repair? Were you equally outraged, I missed the thread on that one I'll be honest......... Probably because, just like the memorial to Captain Tom that was vandalised with IRA graffiti recently, it wasn't as big a story as this one. No one was stopping you from starting a thread on it though?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 5, 2022 18:48:03 GMT
the way they were removed yes It’s not often I find myself agreeing with American methods when the authorities removed several confederate statues with decency Is not tearing down a statue you don’t agree with One step behind nazis burning books They tried all other avenues political or otherwise, and Bristol City Council chose to do nothing about it. Now they have argued - successfully - that it wasn't criminal damage on the grounds that they did it, but proved beyond reasonable doubt in front of a jury as to WHY they did it.......... What avenues did they try? And when?
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jan 5, 2022 18:48:05 GMT
I find that very surprising. The defence seemed to rest on an appeal to emotion ("be on the right side of history") rather than actual law. This is surely legal carte blanche to go and vandalise anything connected with Colston's name isn't it? Dozens of buildings, schools, streets, pubs.... Basically if you don’t like what something stands for you can go and destroy it. Case law has now set this precedent. Be interesting to see what gets smashed up. I just hope they apply this consistently now as there are plenty of statues, buildings etc which I don’t agree with.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 5, 2022 18:50:25 GMT
Were the Iraqi's right to tear down all the Saddam Hussain statues and memorials, were the Germans right to tear down Nazi statues and memorials, or was it inexcusable behaviour from those involved? Slightly different situation. A bunch of people tearing down a statue of a present day individual who had persecuted them, murdered many of their friends and family and inflicted years of oppression on THEIR life is different to a bunch of posh white, privileged kids who have no real understanding of what they are professing to defend, no understanding of history and a complete inability to contextualise figures from over 300 years ago. I'm pretty sure if you went through most senior figures around the world from the 1700s you'd unearth some horrors. To compare the two is absurd. Was there a debate to be had over the statue? Maybe.
The debate had been going on for years in Bristol, despite overwhelming support for the statue being pulled down the local council did nothing, the people have spoken. Do you always respect the rule of law?
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 5, 2022 18:51:34 GMT
Ridiculous decision it sets a dangerous precedent of damaging something you don't agree with. There is no defence of "it upset me so I decided to rip it down" bonkers.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 5, 2022 18:51:40 GMT
Slightly different situation. A bunch of people tearing down a statue of a present day individual who had persecuted them, murdered many of their friends and family and inflicted years of oppression on THEIR life is different to a bunch of posh white, privileged kids who have no real understanding of what they are professing to defend, no understanding of history and a complete inability to contextualise figures from over 300 years ago. I'm pretty sure if you went through most senior figures around the world from the 1700s you'd unearth some horrors. To compare the two is absurd. Was there a debate to be had over the statue? Maybe.
The debate had been going on for years in Bristol, despite overwhelming support for the statue being pulled down the local council did nothing, the people have spoken. Do you always respect the rule of law? Show us the overwhelming support
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 5, 2022 18:53:08 GMT
I find that very surprising. The defence seemed to rest on an appeal to emotion ("be on the right side of history") rather than actual law. This is surely legal carte blanche to go and vandalise anything connected with Colston's name isn't it? Dozens of buildings, schools, streets, pubs.... Bizarre wasn't it, there did not seem to be any recourse to the law itself. I'd be fascinated to hear a legal expert explain the decision.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 5, 2022 19:05:32 GMT
Slightly different situation. A bunch of people tearing down a statue of a present day individual who had persecuted them, murdered many of their friends and family and inflicted years of oppression on THEIR life is different to a bunch of posh white, privileged kids who have no real understanding of what they are professing to defend, no understanding of history and a complete inability to contextualise figures from over 300 years ago. I'm pretty sure if you went through most senior figures around the world from the 1700s you'd unearth some horrors. To compare the two is absurd. Was there a debate to be had over the statue? Maybe.
The debate had been going on for years in Bristol, despite overwhelming support for the statue being pulled down the local council did nothing, the people have spoken. Do you always respect the rule of law? I did until covid bollocks started 😉
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jan 5, 2022 19:07:55 GMT
I find that very surprising. The defence seemed to rest on an appeal to emotion ("be on the right side of history") rather than actual law. This is surely legal carte blanche to go and vandalise anything connected with Colston's name isn't it? Dozens of buildings, schools, streets, pubs.... Bizarre wasn't it, there did not seem to be any recourse to the law itself. I'd be fascinated to hear a legal expert explain the decision. I believe the charge contained the words “without lawful excuse”. So I’d guess they successfully argued that their excuse was lawful.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jan 5, 2022 19:17:52 GMT
I love this “they’d tried all over avenues” line.
Literally just “it was ok for us to commit this crime because we asked for something and didn’t get it”
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 5, 2022 19:24:10 GMT
I love this “they’d tried all over avenues” line. Literally just “it was ok for us to commit this crime because we asked for something and didn’t get it” Quite a interesting defence Maybe Blair could use it if he ever found himself in a war crimes trial I tried every avenue but saddam wouldn’t remove himself So I was left no other alternative but to kill thousands
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 5, 2022 19:24:25 GMT
I love this “they’d tried all over avenues” line. Literally just “it was ok for us to commit this crime because we asked for something and didn’t get it” I wonder what the other avenues were? The man in the know still hasn’t divulged his inside info🤔
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Jan 5, 2022 19:28:22 GMT
Glad the statue is gone, It's 2022, we shouldn't be venerating those who were heavily involved in the slave trade, regardless of how different times were back then.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 5, 2022 19:28:36 GMT
Spit it out fella, what's on your mind? Well you’re usually a sensible considered poster which on the odd occasions I have found myself agreeing with you Then all of a sudden you dangle what smells like very dodgy bait in your ridiculous original post There is no excuse for vandalism anywhere or anytime There is no excuse for vandalism otherwise where does it end?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 5, 2022 19:32:59 GMT
I find that very surprising. The defence seemed to rest on an appeal to emotion ("be on the right side of history") rather than actual law. This is surely legal carte blanche to go and vandalise anything connected with Colston's name isn't it? Dozens of buildings, schools, streets, pubs.... Bizarre wasn't it, there did not seem to be any recourse to the law itself. I'd be fascinated to hear a legal expert explain the decision. Haven't we got one on here
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Jan 5, 2022 19:34:59 GMT
Well you’re usually a sensible considered poster which on the odd occasions I have found myself agreeing with you Then all of a sudden you dangle what smells like very dodgy bait in your ridiculous original post There is no excuse for vandalism anywhere or anytime There is no excuse for vandalism otherwise where does it end? What if there was a statue of a historic figure who it since came to light was a known paedophile?
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 5, 2022 19:38:37 GMT
There is no excuse for vandalism otherwise where does it end? What if there was a statue of a historic figure who it since came to light was a known paedophile? Then it should be removed lawfully not ripped down by anyone. So if a convicted peado lives in my street I can go and smash all the widows in their house.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 5, 2022 19:40:02 GMT
There is no excuse for vandalism otherwise where does it end? What if there was a statue of a historic figure who it since came to light was a known paedophile? Like Micheal Jackson?
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 5, 2022 19:41:34 GMT
Glad the statue is gone, It's 2022, we shouldn't be venerating those who were heavily involved in the slave trade, regardless of how different times were back then. But it should've been taken down professionally and placed in a museum. What if someone had been injured (it's happened elsewhere)? Fair play to them for moving a statue though, from the look of them I'm surprised they could lift a chess piece.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 5, 2022 19:41:41 GMT
There is no excuse for vandalism otherwise where does it end? What if there was a statue of a historic figure who it since came to light was a known paedophile? Then it should be removed lawfully by the authorities after due process.
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Jan 5, 2022 19:47:34 GMT
What if there was a statue of a historic figure who it since came to light was a known paedophile? Then it should be removed lawfully by the authorities after due process. Even if that meant it being stood there for years? I don't know enough about what was done beforehand in this instance to be able to properly comment.
|
|
|
Post by hoffgreen on Jan 5, 2022 19:53:37 GMT
There is no excuse for vandalism otherwise where does it end? What if there was a statue of a historic figure who it since came to light was a known paedophile? You mean like the one adorning Broadcasting House? When are they going to tear that one down?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 5, 2022 19:53:58 GMT
Then it should be removed lawfully by the authorities after due process. Even if that meant it being stood there for years? I don't know enough about what was done beforehand in this instance to be able to properly comment. Do you really think a statue of a convicted paedophile would be allowed to stand there for years, really? Completely different to an historical figure from centuries back now being re-evaluated.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 5, 2022 20:00:45 GMT
What about a convicted criminal terrorist who then went onto live an amazing life and became president after all its only the bad part of a person's life that counts.
|
|