The Football Lads

Clearly not cos a court of Law not a mob on the street determined that, you’ve just made my point, it took process and legal activities to change that rule.

 

Again the Statue was not asked to be removed but the wording on the Plaque, a significant difference and it was acted upon but not to completion.
As for the Police just because they choose to not prosecute(if true) could be for whole number of reasons, but because the authorities choose not to prosecute does not make it OK to break the law.

 

No, because there's no moral justification for smashing the car up.

Aside from that, I think we're fundamentally having a debate as to legal theory and whether law is to be separated from principles of morality. You're HLA Hart, I'm Ronald Dworkin

 

I haven't proved your point. Surely if the act was legal but morally reprehensible then on your theory of the legal system he should have been acquitted and then the law should have been changed.

 

Lets just say legal picketing wasn't the only tool used. In my mind rightly so, I got into law enforcement I wanted to be better than those who used the law, shall we say inappropriately during the strike to oppress peaceful protest.

Fire will always be met by fire. That's why good governance is required. Starting by listening not assuming or stereotyping.

 

Not at all you are doing that. by claiming it’s morally right , my claim has been clear from post one which is it is not acceptable to break the law.

 

No, I have said there are processes and ways to change the law which clearly is what happened. What did not happen was for that Wives family and friends to act in Criminal proceedings to have the law changed.

 

Fire meeting fire is one thing and again there is a significant difference for someone fighting for their’s and their families livelihoods and wanton violence and vandalism.

 

But it's a key tenet of the rule of law that all laws should be prospective, open and clear. Changing the law retrospectively violates this. So if you're fine with legal acts being deemed worthy of prosecution after the fact based on a moral judgment then why aren't you fine with illegal acts being deemed unworthy of prosecution after the fact based on a moral judgment?

 

You’re correct, the debate is about legal theory & morality.
But if you drive a Mercedes Benz, by the same token of defining a Slaver, I could smash your car up because they were significant supporters of the Nazi party and anything anti Jewish offends me.

Now, I except my example is being pedantic, but I make it to try to make my point.

 

The whole reason the Bristol incident happened was due to lack of governance. They didn't listen to the many people over many years either wanting it removed or having a reference attached to the guys slaver past.

The Tories under John Major ( I actually quite like him) was undone by the poll tax and sleaze.
The poll tax riots included normal folk at the end of their tether. Rank and file normal folk willingly breaking the law.

Our current government doesn't listen, it's tone deaf and only when completely shamed will they change course. Poor governance and communication.

 

No, because my car is a functional item rather than something which serves no purpose other than to glorify Mr Benz the Nazi whilst ignoring his Nazi sympathies. There's an obvious and massive difference.

 

I haven’t said that have I ever?
I said IMO it is not acceptable to carry out Criminal activities.
In this case if the Police decide it does not warrant a prosecution, that is for them to determine not me.

I commented earlier on the video doing the rounds about a War memorial being defaced in Portsmouth with large tins of paint at one of the protests, is that acceptable?

 

Not really to me as a person who hates anything linked to Nazi’s.
That’s my point of view and in my opinion it’s morally wrong for anyone or thing to do with Benz to be in existence due to the amount of suffering it caused at the time.
So based on principal I can damage something because I believe it’s morally(not legally correct), according to this thesis I can destroy said car.

 

Many people?
It was a very small minority of the population of Greater Bristol who objected when asked for their views.

 

Folk are getting too caught up with pieces of stone and metal. The Tories have changed the narrative again.
Marcus Rashford today fought an issue which would again disproportionately affect BAME children.
We're in the middle of a pandemic which affects BAME people disproportionately.

Lets talk about statues of white guys instead (not women cos they were where they belonged the kitchen or the bedroom), who might at one time or another have built something useful (using slaves or the underclasses, with many fatalities) and marvel at their brillance.

 

No you can't, because I would suggest that the letter of the law has to be interpreted by reference to an underlying web of principles and morality held by society. Your actions would be justifiable to yourself only. I am not saying that anything which is morally defensible to the individual is justified but that things which are morally justifiable given the prevailing principles and morality of the time can be.

 

Not seeing a great deal of activity being reported about the Bristol population wanting it back up?

 

But that's the logical extrapolation of your view when applied to the legal system as a whole.

 

But it is the individual or collection of individuals that determine that. Whom judges what the morality is at the time?
You can’t because it changes form person to person/group.