There are times I really like our Jury system

then if Helen committed similar actions she could reasonably expect that a jury could find her innocent.

Laws change. The actions of the Suffragettes were illegal but prompted discussion debate and changes in the law.

“Disobedience is man’s original virtue”. - Oscar Wilde.

 

Of course it doesn't, it's just strange that some of the people who fight to condemn slavery (rightly so) seem to have no problem with George's behavior.

 

You're spectacularly missing the point here. George's behaviour has nothing to do with anything. The arresting officers knew nothing of it.

The worldwide protests were because a black man was murdered, in cold blood, by the police, for no other reason than his skin colour.

 

This is the best bit of whataboutery I've ever seen. Sublimely awful.

 

I don't think I've ever read or heard anyone say that it was ok for him to be a criminal....

 

You're right, I'd forgotten that.

 

Conjecture. No evidence at all that his skin colour had anything to do with it. There is however evidence that a thug criminal murderous cop took his opportunity to do what his sick mind wanted when a man resisted arrest.

Murderous disgraceful cop isnt necessarily murderous racist cop. The only evidence that it was race related was that George happened to be black. It could just as easily been another race as Derek chauvin had previous for choking people of all races, black, Latino, white, native American.

 

It's quite worrying that the situation you're describing is that if you are offended by a statue it can be ripped down by yourself and you should reasonably be expected to get away with it.

Personally I think they should have been found guilty and handed a nominal fine of a few quid or if we even do this here pardoned immediately.

 

I went to Gambia in 2006 and we met an English couple who lived there. They had a "boy" who drove them around and looked after their house etc. They paid him almost nothing but gave him a room over their garage to live in. Slavery is still alive and well....

 

I like your irony....

 

Unfortunately it’s also going on in this country too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-47419366

 

Personally speaking I don’t think we should celebrate the actions of mass murderers and that statues of them have no place in a modern country other than in a museum with the emphasis on the evils of slavery.

Did you hear all the evidence? Many pretty esteemed lawyers seem to think the verdict was reasonable.

A few years ago in Iraq when they were knocking down the saddam statues did you feel a similar outrage? Not a dig just a question.

 

No I haven't seen any of the evidence or anything like that and I've only read the very basics. I think you've misunderstood me here,l because I have absolutely no outrage and don't really care. I did say I think they should have been pardoned or something remember. I just think the have to be very careful about setting a precedent because we all know there are some absolute dicks who would pull down thatchers statue for example and try to use the same defence citing precedents. That's not a defence of Thatcher having a statue or anything either, it was just because someone mentioned her in this thread.

The main thing is though that we need a system where peaceful campaigns such as petitions etc are taken more seriously because if they were then nobody except dicks would have any need or desire to take the law into their own hands.

 

Yeah can agree with much of that but history proves that sometimes direct action is the only lever to change.

 

This post has struck a chord. I've been on here pontificating about the rights and wrongs of the world all day, but I have dealings with the Nazarbayev's and other similar families at work and I'm happy to accept their money despite the source.

In the modern era they are possibly as bad as Colston was in his time. Makes me wonder if I'd have done business with Colston. Never really thought of the context of it before.

 

Jury verdicts don’t create precedents, in order to commit the same offence and use the same defence, you’d still be relying on the jury reaching the same verdict. And as no one except the jurors know why they reached their verdict, that’s a gamble.
Have a read… you might end up as addicted to legal Twitter as me
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022...th-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

 

I was referring to England yes.

In fact, slavery has never been legal in England. No laws enacting allowing slavery a legal status have ever been enacted in England.

So, the Empire can not have been on the same legal framework as England, in fact Scotland is not on the same legal framework as England. They may have been considered British soil, but were held to be different in many respects.

None of this of course makes 'England' a more moral place.

 

Isn’t the legal jurisdiction England and Wales?

I’ll get mi coat