Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Colston Four

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Colston Four

Old 5th Jan 2022, 18:15
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 773
The Colston Four

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

Well I didnít see this verdict coming and I imagine the four individuals didnít either.

It now seems that itís okay to damage anything that you disagree with. The ĎColston Defenceí will now be used as an excuse from now on to justify any vandalism carried out by mobs or individuals against things they donít like.

Another can of worms openedÖ

Saintsman is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 18:51
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 21,252
Agreed………..
NutLoose is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 18:52
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 0
The jury were probably fearful of racist accusations had they returned a guilty verdict,this was an act of wanton vandalism,caught on camera for all to see.
Tallmantz is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 19:09
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 73
Posts: 9,188
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
AgreedÖÖÖ..
Also agreed.
chevvron is online now  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 19:13
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Saintsman View Post
It now seems that itís okay to damage anything that you disagree with. The ĎColston Defenceí will now be used as an excuse from now on to justify any vandalism carried out by mobs or individuals against things they donít like.
Not necessarily. It depends on why the verdict went that way

If the prosecution failed to prove its case then that's a completely different matter from a jury saying this is a valid excuse to "to justify any vandalism" etc
Sue VÍtements is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 19:21
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Location: Location!
Posts: 2,108
Originally Posted by Saintsman View Post
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

Well I didnít see this verdict coming and I imagine the four individuals didnít either.

It now seems that itís okay to damage anything that you disagree with. The ĎColston Defenceí will now be used as an excuse from now on to justify any vandalism carried out by mobs or individuals against things they donít like.

Another can of worms openedÖ
Thoroughly agree with the second paragraph, especially observing that a quotation in the DT online reads, 'Blinne NŪ GhrŠlaigh, barrister in the case, said: "This case demonstrates the fundamental importance of trial by jury. That is because juries represent the collective sense of justice of the community." ' one wonders happened to juries deciding on the legal merits of a case, and the very specific advice received from the trial judge in this case, rather than a proportion of public opinion. The Bristol Twelve and the Colston Four should bow their heads in shame.

It is also relevant to state that the whole matter might have been much more satisfactorily resolved at the outset if only Avon and Somerset Police had been resolute enough to carry out their duty instead of allowing mob rule to prevail.

Jack

Union Jack is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 19:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newark'ish
Posts: 94
The slippery slope just got a lot more slippery!
mikemmb is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 20:39
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,504
Originally Posted by Union Jack View Post
one wonders happened to juries deciding on the legal merits of a case, and the very specific advice received from the trial judge in this case, rather than a proportion of public opinion
Unless you were in court listening to the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence, you have no way to judge the merits of the case, nor any right to accuse the jury of failing to do so.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 21:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,490
It now seems that itís okay to damage anything that you disagree with.
It would seem from most of the above that some would predicate a general principle on a specific, possibly unique, example. I'm fairly certain that in a regime of adversarial law, such an assumption would be quite vigorously challenged.
One has to wonder just how many of the righteously indignant contributors ever raised their eyes from pavement level to 'admire' such structures ?
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 22:14
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 50
Posts: 1,164
Not exactly a new thing. I remember some years ago when a group of women were acquitted of criminal damage after they broke into Warton and damaged a Hawk awaiting delivery to Indonesia in the grounds that they were attempting to prevent war crimes against the East Timorese.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 22:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Unless you were in court listening to the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence, you have no way to judge the merits of the case, nor any right to accuse the jury of failing to do so.
Why would you have needed to be in court? Surely the statements issued by the defendants and their legal councils during the case would be good enough and these clearly show that people in court never denied damaging the statue, simply that they believed they had a legal and moral right to do as they wished.

Milo Ponsford:
He told the court: "I believe I had a lawful excuse to damage that statue, preventing further harm to the people of Bristol."

Jen Reid:
"What we did that day had a ripple affect around the world."

And there are plenty more snippets from the court case easily available online.
747 jock is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 22:33
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 173
I agree with Dave. I have been involved in plenty of trials - not as the accused I should emphasise - where what was reported in the press was so far from an accurate account of the evidence and arguments as to be laughable. Because this was a jury trial there is no judgment which we can look at to determine why the verdicts were what they were. Everyone involved in the trial will want to put their own spin on why the defendants were found not guilty, which may not reflect the jury's reasoning at all.

Sure, the result looks a bit weird, but very few people, about 12 actually, really know what led to the acquittals.
Bull at a Gate is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 22:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 461
So "I shot the PM because public opinion approved," is now an acceptable defense? Call me "Appalled in Canada."
ChrisVJ is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 22:39
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 199
For the permanently outraged and offended can I suggest the two excellent books by the secret barrister. Theyíll give you a good insight in to English criminal law and how the newspapers have warped the opinion of the criminal justice system beyond all recognition.
back to Boeing is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 22:55
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Location: Location!
Posts: 2,108
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Unless you were in court listening to the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence, you have no way to judge the merits of the case, nor any right to accuse the jury of failing to do so.
Considering that I regard you as one of the most informed and informative posters on this website, not least regarding incidents or events which you have almost certainly not witnessed personally, I have to admit with a degree of ruefulness that you and I will have to differ in this case (pun available if desired). That said, living much closer to Bristol than to Heathrow, as I suspect you do, and perhaps with greater access to information than many other posters, notably including the judge's summing-up, I have to say that I have followed its progress in great detail all the way from the live destruction of the statue to the announcement of the verdict. Consequently, I received the news of the acquittal with almost the same amount of surprise as that clearly displayed by the accused!

Jack
Union Jack is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 23:05
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: HERE
Posts: 23
The woke snowflakes are taking over !
EXEL1966 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 23:06
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,504
Originally Posted by 747 jock View Post
Why would you have needed to be in court? Surely the statements issued by the defendants and their legal councils during the case would be good enough and these clearly show that people in court never denied damaging the statue, simply that they believed they had a legal and moral right to do as they wished.

Milo Ponsford:
He told the court: "I believe I had a lawful excuse to damage that statue, preventing further harm to the people of Bristol."

Jen Reid:
"What we did that day had a ripple affect around the world."

And there are plenty more snippets from the court case easily available online.
If you really think that based on a handful of soundbites you can second guess the deliberations of a jury that has listened to 10 days of evidence, then I rest my case.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 00:32
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 855
History (good, bad or indifferent) is there to be learned from. Destroying symbology of that history is pure vandalism and no different to what Islamic State have done to many Religious and Cultural buildings and artefacts in the Middle East recently. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destru..._Islamic_State

I wonder how many of the Woke brigade supported that vandalism?

I wasn't in court but nothing will convince me that this was a 'just' verdict. This was 'wokery' perverting the course of justice and is very worrying for the future. It will all end in tears and the people who are helping to make this happen will suffer as much as anyone else. Sheer madness.
BANANASBANANAS is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 01:02
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 20
So how do all you members of the Angry Brigade feel about Christianity then?
Sue VÍtements is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 01:18
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: HERE
Posts: 23
Shall we have The Coliseum in Rome and the Pyramids in Egypt razed to the ground because of the historical use of slaves and treacherous murder of many for sporting entertainment ?

The verdict is a damning indictment of the British Judiciary and the way British society is bowing to wokeism !
EXEL1966 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.