Colston 4 not guilty

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Jurors are absolutely required to base their decisions on the evidence presented in court,  with direction from the judge,  and nothing else.  Opinions,  guesses,  balance of probability are not 'allowed'.  In practice it of course happens.  You're not allowed to discuss the case and share / influence opinion in the jury room until the case is completed.  But it happens.

 

Jurors are completely discouraged from attempting to be lawyers and judges.  This jury clearly did not stick to the wording of the law bug it happens thousands of times every year.

 

Read the article that Robbo posted and you'll see that this claim is wrong for two reasons - (i) we don't know why the jury decided the case in the way that they did, so we can't comment on the reasoning thereof without it being conjecture, (ii) there were several ways in which the jury could have come to a not guilty decision and be completely within the "wording of the law". If there had been no way that the jury could have come to a not guilty verdict within the wording of the law, then the judge would have directed them accordingly. He didn't.

[RobboM]

6 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

That is an excellent article - many thanks indeed for posting it, Robbo. It's nice to see some common sense expressed here rather than the Chicken Licken "the sky is falling in" over-reactions we've been having. Please feel free to repost it in response to those sorts of posts on the thread, if you can handle the potential case of RSI you might get as a result.

Whoever they are they have a really interesting twitter, well worth looking at occasionally
 

 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Read the article that Robbo posted and you'll see that this claim is wrong for two reasons - (i) we don't know why the jury decided the case in the way that they did, so we can't comment on the reasoning thereof without it being conjecture, (ii) there were several ways in which the jury could have come to a not guilty decision and be completely within the "wording of the law". If there had been no way that the jury could have come to a not guilty verdict within the wording of the law, then the judge would have directed them accordingly. He didn't.

 

Of course.  But I say the overwhelming chances are that they ended up arriving at subjective judgements and employed opinion,  prejudice,  common sense as they saw it,  etc.  Just mh opinion.

 

It happens all the time.  I sat on a jury over 8 days and it was a disgrace of a dynamic in the jury room.  Everything being discussed and opinions about the accused being done throughout.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Of course.  But I say the overwhelming chances are that they ended up arriving at subjective judgements and employed opinion,  prejudice,  common sense as they saw it,  etc.  Just mh opinion.

 

It happens all the time.  I sat on a jury over 8 days and it was a disgrace of a dynamic in the jury room.  Everything being discussed and opinions about the accused being done throughout.

 

I completely disagree, Victorian, no matter your personal experience at the specific trial in question. Your saying so in this case in particular demeans the decision-making process of the jury and the ability of the judge to ensure that they understood the issues involved, and proposes that this was the reason for the verdict rather than the prosecution simply not being able to sufficiently argue their case on the various points involved to the jury's satisfaction. Your claim is almost as bad as those who are saying that we should rejig the jury system because of the decision in one individual case. The article Robbo posted, which I hope you will take the time to read, shows the rationale by which a jury could come to the verdict they did, one that did not require prejudice.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

I completely disagree, Victorian, no matter your personal experience at the specific trial in question. Your saying so in this case in particular demeans the decision-making process of the jury and the ability of the judge to ensure that they understood the issues involved, and proposes that this was the reason for the verdict rather than the prosecution simply not being able to sufficiently argue their case on the various points involved to the jury's satisfaction. Your claim is almost as bad as those who are saying that we should rejig the jury system because of the decision in one individual case. The article Robbo posted, which I hope you will take the time to read, shows the rationale by which a jury could come to the verdict they did, one that did not require prejudice.

 

I only experienced that one case but I'm not basing my opinion solely on it.  It's my opinion that many jurys will undoubtedly stray off the rules of how they should conduct themselves.  I'm not disagreeing with your points but my opinion remains that I think this jury probably arrived at the verdict via an amount of 'common sense',  prejudice,  opinion.  It's no big deal because it undoubtedly happens routinely.

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I only experienced that one case but I'm not basing my opinion solely on it.  It's my opinion that many jurys will undoubtedly stray off the rules of how they should conduct themselves.  I'm not disagreeing with your points but my opinion remains that I think this jury probably arrived at the verdict via an amount of 'common sense',  prejudice,  opinion.  It's no big deal because it undoubtedly happens routinely.

 

Out of interest, how do you come to that opinion, if not based largely on the one case on which you were on jury duty?

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Out of interest, how do you come to that opinion, if not based largely on the one case on which you were on jury duty?

 

Just my opinion that people will tend to hold prejudged views,  apply their opinions and so forth when they should be deciding upon only the evidence presented,  etc.  They're only human.  I think some cases and the details within some cases will be more predisposed to jurors straying off the course they should be on.  Unscientifically supported by one jury experience but certainly not any proof.  I dare say that a lot of jurys are conducted really,  really well and follow what they're told to the letter.  It's my belief that a lot wont.  

[NANOJAMBO]

28 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Read the article that Robbo posted and you'll see that this claim is wrong for two reasons - (i) we don't know why the jury decided the case in the way that they did, so we can't comment on the reasoning thereof without it being conjecture, (ii) there were several ways in which the jury could have come to a not guilty decision and be completely within the "wording of the law". If there had been no way that the jury could have come to a not guilty verdict within the wording of the law, then the judge would have directed them accordingly. He didn't.

Sorry, I think we do and I posted the legal arguments for the defence on this thread (sorry, can't be arsed going back to find it). The item I posted put three specific points forward and some (perhaps all ?) had never before been used in an ENglish court.

 

In essence their defence lawyers made  a case that what they'd done was not a "criminal " act (I'm not saying I agree) , in addition the defence said  what the 4 were faced in that trial with was actually a breach of their human rights (again, not saying I agree). 

So , If you know what the defence was (and it's easy reading) , you can see why the the jury could be persuaded to accept it.

 

I think what I'm trying to say is, people looked at the charge ("criminal" damage, my emphasis) but the defence persuade the jury it was not a criminal act. I think if people understood the nuances/novelty of the defence they might understand  the outcome (although clearly there are some who will never accept it). 

[Don Dan]

It now appears that the definition of criminal damage has changed provided you can prove a benefit from the criminal damage you caused. 
A wild example (I need to be careful here, I have history of bad examples😉) 

If I suspect say a set of traffic lights imo do not benefit the position they are in and I bulldoze them down and take them to the tip. I then get arrested, charged and taken to court and my defence make a my case to the court. The jury then, if the jury agree with my defence, find me not guilty it’s ok? 
Seems like a plan! It could be the way forward. 
The bottom line is there was criminal damage but the reasoning behind it swayed a majority of the jury it was ok to do the criminal damage. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments behind the actions and the outcome it has opened the door to many things being ripped down or defaced and there being no consequences or  responsibility for the clean up. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Boy Daniel

[redjambo]

14 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

It now appears that the definition of criminal damage has changed provided you can prove a benefit from the criminal damage you caused. 
A wild example (I need to be careful here, I have history of bad examples😉) 

If I suspect say a set of traffic lights imo do not benefit the position they are in and I bulldoze them down and take them to the tip. I then get arrested, charged and taken to court and my defence make a my case to the court. The jury then, if the jury agree with my defence, find me not guilty it’s ok? 
Seems like a plan! It could be the way forward. 
The bottom line is there was criminal damage but the reasoning behind it swayed a majority of the jury it was ok to do the criminal damage. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments behind the actions and the outcome it has opened the door to many things being ripped down or defaced and there being no consequences or  responsibility for the clean up. 

 

Try it then. The Colston case was a very singular case with specific issues related to it. It hasn't created any legal precedent, except in the behaviour that some members of the public are going to get very angry and slag off the legal system when jury trial decisions don't go their way, and that sort of sentiment in society is a dangerous thing, especially if those members of public happen to be top-ranking politicians.

[NANOJAMBO]

14 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

The bottom line is there was criminal damage but the reasoning behind it swayed a majority of the jury it was ok to do the criminal damage. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments behind the actions and the outcome it has opened the door to many things being ripped down or defaced and there being no consequences or  responsibility for the clean up. 

Mate, I'm not sure if you're replying directly to my last post but regardless, you seem incapable of grasping what actually happened .

There was an allegation of criminal damage.

The four insisted on their right to a trial by jury (it could have been settled in a magistrates court).

The defence gave the jury grounds to acquit on the basis the act was not "criminal"  and the jury agreed .

Perhaps you could invest some time in actually acquainting yourself with the actual matter & content of the defence - it's on this thread - and then you might not make such simplistic arguments.

The jury accepted the defence argument , hence the charge of "criminal" damage does not stand.

 

[Unknown user]

7 hours ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

Ok so why did they not pull down the university that slave money paid for? You can't put today's values onto the past. These people committed criminal damage and should have been fined or jailed, it's the law.

IF they felt so passionate then why not start a campaign to get it removed and done properly by the council?

To top it all they put up a statue of their own without the proper permissions.

 

There was a campaign, it was roundly ignored by the council.

 

 

One of the most interesting things here is people complaining about history being erased etc, awareness and education are paramount.

 

Yet this one act has done more to educate the nation on who Colston was, what he did, and has opened up a national debate on the subject.

 

 

[Savage Vince]

24 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

It now appears that the definition of criminal damage has changed provided you can prove a benefit from the criminal damage you caused. 
A wild example (I need to be careful here, I have history of bad examples😉) 

If I suspect say a set of traffic lights imo do not benefit the position they are in and I bulldoze them down and take them to the tip. I then get arrested, charged and taken to court and my defence make a my case to the court. The jury then, if the jury agree with my defence, find me not guilty it’s ok? 
Seems like a plan! It could be the way forward. 
The bottom line is there was criminal damage but the reasoning behind it swayed a majority of the jury it was ok to do the criminal damage. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments behind the actions and the outcome it has opened the door to many things being ripped down or defaced and there being no consequences or  responsibility for the clean up. 

 

The nick of this. 😁

[Don Dan]

4 minutes ago, Savage Vince said:

 

The nick of this. 😁

Is this your standard response. 😂 It’s wearing thin. 

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, Boy Daniel said:

Is this your standard response. 😂 It’s wearing thin. 

I think it's justified here, sadly. 😅

[Unknown user]

34 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

The jury then, if the jury agree with my defence, find me not guilty it’s ok? 

 

Well yes! What do you think the jury's there for?

They decide if it was a criminal act

[Don Dan]

8 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Mate, I'm not sure if you're replying directly to my last post but regardless, you seem incapable of grasping what actually happened .

There was an allegation of criminal damage.

The four insisted on their right to a trial by jury (it could have been settled in a magistrates court).

The defence gave the jury grounds to acquit on the basis the act was not "criminal"  and the jury agreed .

Perhaps you could invest some time in actually acquainting yourself with the actual matter & content of the defence - it's on this thread - and then you might not make such simplistic arguments.

The jury accepted the defence argument , hence the charge of "criminal" damage does not stand.

 

I am capable of grasping that the jury ignored the criminal damage charge and accepted the defences argument that doesn’t mean I accept it as a correct decision. The bottom line is the ripped down a statue and threw it in the sea which to many people is criminal damage. If we ignore that then the door is wide open for others to do the same. Then use this case as an example in any future trial. 
 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Boy Daniel said:

I am capable of grasping that the jury ignored the criminal damage charge and accepted the defences argument that doesn’t mean I accept it as a correct decision. The bottom line is the ripped down a statue and threw it in the sea which to many people is criminal damage. If we ignore that then the door is wide open for others to do the same. Then use this case as an example in any future trial. 
 

 

It doesn't matter what it is to many people, to the 12 in the jury who had the law explained to them it wasn't criminal damage.

[Don Dan]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It doesn't matter what it is to many people, to the 12 in the jury who had the law explained to them it wasn't criminal damage.

  A mute point but it wasn’t an unanimous decision the judge allowed them to use the majority outcome. 

[redjambo]

56 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Just my opinion that people will tend to hold prejudged views,  apply their opinions and so forth when they should be deciding upon only the evidence presented,  etc.  They're only human.  I think some cases and the details within some cases will be more predisposed to jurors straying off the course they should be on.  Unscientifically supported by one jury experience but certainly not any proof.  I dare say that a lot of jurys are conducted really,  really well and follow what they're told to the letter.  It's my belief that a lot wont.  

 

Fair enough, Vic. I personally believe that the subject matter of some trials broaching very technical subjects might be beyond the ken of your average juror, including me, and that raises the question of whether we should look at having a more focussed juror selection for such trials, even looking at the possibility of having professional jurors or specialist juror pools, but that would be a huge change from the jury system that we have employed for hundreds of years. And I don't think the trial in question was one of those specialist trials. It may be difficult for us to grasp the nuances when we didn't sit through the whole trial, but I don't think the jury in question would have had too many difficulties understanding the issues when they were explained over the course of the trial. Anyway, thanks for explaining your position.

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

  A mute point but it wasn’t an unanimous decision the judge allowed them to use the majority outcome. 

 

Not a moot point at all. It is also important to note however that the judge instructed the jury to ensure that the verdict had the approval of at least 10 jurors out of the 12.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

  A mute point but it wasn’t an unanimous decision the judge allowed them to use the majority outcome. 

Moot.

The point is, you can't say that it was criminal damage, it officially wasn't.

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Not a moot point at all. It is also important to note however that the judge instructed the jury to ensure that the verdict had the approval of at least 10 jurors out of the 12.

Sorry about the spelling ☹️ 

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Moot.

The point is, you can't say that it was criminal damage, it officially wasn't.

Indeed if officially wasn’t however sometimes the law is an ass and in this occasion it is imo. 
By the way the statue should have been removed long ago and it should not have been left to a mob to remove it. 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Boy Daniel said:

Sorry about the spelling ☹️ 

 

Seriously, please don't apologise for that. Spelling, schmelling. All that counts is that the message gets across.

[Victorian]

9 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Fair enough, Vic. I personally believe that the subject matter of some trials broaching very technical subjects might be beyond the ken of your average juror, including me, and that raises the question of whether we should look at having a more focussed juror selection for such trials, even looking at the possibility of having professional jurors or specialist juror pools, but that would be a huge change from the jury system that we have employed for hundreds of years. And I don't think the trial in question was one of those specialist trials. It may be difficult for us to grasp the nuances when we didn't sit through the whole trial, but I don't think the jury in question would have had too many difficulties understanding the issues when they were explained over the course of the trial. Anyway, thanks for explaining your position.

 

I agree.  I've been for full time,  vocational jurors for years.  It does tend to dispense with an important tenet of the legal system because people would no longer be judged by absolute peers.  Vocational jurors would become like a body of para-legal civil servants.  Part of the justiciary.  But I think it would bring a lot of consistency of process.  

[Savage Vince]

28 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Is this your standard response. 😂 It’s wearing thin. 

 

Hopefully the 4 INNOCENT legends will be enjoying themselves tonight. 😊

[redjambo]

Just now, Boy Daniel said:

Indeed if officially wasn’t however sometimes the law is an ass and in this occasion it is imo. 
By the way the statue should have been removed long ago and it should not have been left to a mob to remove it. 

 

I suspect that if the statue had even just had a plaque attached to it in order to explain Colston's significant involvement in the slave trade, then it might not have been pulled over either. However, that recourse was denied repeatedly. It's a little like kettling, if you ramp up the pressure too high, something's going to blow. In this case, the BLM marches and protests provided the catalyst for action to be taken by the public.

[NANOJAMBO]

36 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

I am capable of grasping that the jury ignored the criminal damage charge and accepted the defences argument that doesn’t mean I accept it as a correct decision. The bottom line is the ripped down a statue and threw it in the sea which to many people is criminal damage. If we ignore that then the door is wide open for others to do the same. Then use this case as an example in any future trial. 
 

Well, that may be so , but the beauty  of jury trials is that it's the jury who get decide on the basis of evidence/legal submissions and not some kneejerk armchair ignoramuses.

 

Best of luck to them. Hopefully they'll be able to rope in an eminent historian and a former lady mayor to speak on their behalf. at their trial. 

 

. 

[NANOJAMBO]

23 minutes ago, Savage Vince said:

 

Hopefully the 4 INNOCENT legends will be enjoying themselves tonight. 😊

😄

[Cade]

The whole point of Jury trials is that all the legalese language has to be turned into layman's terms.

Arguments have to be simplified.

The general public can then understand the course of events.

Because the general public form the Jury.

This keeps things more or less honest without the intricate legal point scoring and obscure loopholes that are sometimes used when cases are being heard only by a Magistrate or a Judge.

 

Which is precisely WHY the Colston 4 asked for a Jury trial.

 

Which is also why protest groups have been attempting to keep property damage below certain limits, and why the Government are rapidly trying to remove the valuation limits from the trial process, so nobody will ever get this kind of thing seen by a Jury again, it'll be Magistrates and Judges only.

 

 

 

[Don Dan]

7 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

some kneejerk armchair ignoramuses.

 Who may we’ll be cited as a juror for some case in the future. 

[NANOJAMBO]

Just now, Boy Daniel said:

 Who may we’ll be cited as a juror for some case in the future. 

... and be expected to judge the case on its individual merits with the full facts , not  what they think SHOULD happen based on their personal bias/opinion. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

8 minutes ago, Cade said:

The whole point of Jury trials is that all the legalese language has to be turned into layman's terms.

Arguments have to be simplified.

The general public can then understand the course of events.

Because the general public form the Jury.

This keeps things more or less honest without the intricate legal point scoring and obscure loopholes that are sometimes used when cases are being heard only by a Magistrate or a Judge.

 

Which is precisely WHY the Colston 4 asked for a Jury trial.

 

Which is also why protest groups have been attempting to keep property damage below certain limits, and why the Government are rapidly trying to remove the valuation limits from the trial process, so nobody will ever get this kind of thing seen by a Jury again, it'll be Magistrates and Judges only.

 

 

 

That's very worrying. 

[Don Dan]

4 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

... and be expected to judge the case on its individual merits with the full facts , not  what they think SHOULD happen based on their personal bias/opinion. 

You would hope so but if they are knee jerk armchair ignoramuses you can’t guarantee they would think as you do. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Boy Daniel

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

 Who may we’ll be cited as a juror for some case in the future. 

 

Then you'll be instructed to put your prejudices aside and judge on points of law only. Like this jury did.

[Cade]

A criminal damage trial collapsing because of a juror going on some rant about "string em all up" on kickback.

 

  

[jack D and coke]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

Yet this one act has done more to educate the nation on who Colston was, what he did, and has opened up a national debate on the subject.

 

 

Great point. 
I’ll be honest when I read the posts on here and the moronic braindead posts on twitter and FB I actually see some of my younger self. I was a UJ waving, rule Brittania, bigotted and I still am the latter at times when I’ve had a bevvy and timothy rolls into town but - and I credit my daughter with this - changing my views and opinions greatly on things like this. There would’ve been a time I’d have listened to what the sun and the horrible wankers that inhibit British media and and that verminous govt shouted about it. 
Get that murdering ***** Colston in the sea. Get that ***** Dundas statue down an all and have a vote on who we’d like to see towering over our city instead of that *****. A different time yes and it’s a different time now so in the sea ya wank. Anywhere these pricks are lauded get them in the ****ing sea and try act like human beings for a change instead of this superior I’m British and I’m better than you shite that they’re still shagging you 🤡🤡hard with. 
I don’t care what happens in Africa or China or Japan or anywhere else either about what they have or their murderous statues depict. 
We should show the way. 

 

[Gizmo]

On 07/01/2022 at 11:01, i8hibsh said:

Love Candace Owens - she really does nail it.  Black people can go two ways....be a victim or be a victor.  Glad to say that as a regular watcher of her - many black people take the latter.

Could you - since you "love" her - explain her reasoning as to how a black person in the US can avoid being a victim just be deciding to, against a backdrop of a routine traffic stop for a busted tail light resulting in them being shot dead inside their car? I'm keen to know how they do this as I think it's a message many black people would follow. I'd also, if it's not too much trouble, be interested to know how people with obvious minority names or living in an area known to be primarily black, can improve their job prospects or college applications and prevent them from being binned on sight? Can they just will people to, um, not be racist?

PS Has Owens admitted being vaccinated yet whilst preaching a no vaccination message to her cult? Or, alternatively, has the plod done her for fake papers since she's routinely accessing events in place like Madison Sq Gardens which are "vaccination only"? Just asking.  
 

8 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

We disagree on many points, James, so it's nice that we agree on this one.

 

The Gammonati are besides themselves with rage over this decision. So much for their ardent support for the rule of law. Aye, only where it benefits them.

It's absolutely delicious. Twitter is full of people who championed the jury decision in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial tying themselves in knots now that a decision has not went exactly how they demand it. 

[Hmfc1965]

1 hour ago, Boy Daniel said:

 Who may we’ll be cited as a juror for some case in the future. 

And may have been cited for the Colston 4.

[Savage Vince]

8 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Great point. 
I’ll be honest when I read the posts on here and the moronic braindead posts on twitter and FB I actually see some of my younger self. I was a UJ waving, rule Brittania, bigotted and I still am the latter at times when I’ve had a bevvy and timothy rolls into town but - and I credit my daughter with this - changing my views and opinions greatly on things like this. There would’ve been a time I’d have listened to what the sun and the horrible wankers that inhibit British media and and that verminous govt shouted about it. 
Get that murdering ***** Colston in the sea. Get that ***** Dundas statue down an all and have a vote on who we’d like to see towering over our city instead of that *****. A different time yes and it’s a different time now so in the sea ya wank. Anywhere these pricks are lauded get them in the ****ing sea and try act like human beings for a change instead of this superior I’m British and I’m better than you shite that they’re still shagging you 🤡🤡hard with. 
I don’t care what happens in Africa or China or Japan or anywhere else either about what they have or their murderous statues depict. 
We should show the way. 

 

 

Great post. 

[Nookie Bear]

36 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Great point. 
I’ll be honest when I read the posts on here and the moronic braindead posts on twitter and FB I actually see some of my younger self. I was a UJ waving, rule Brittania, bigotted and I still am the latter at times when I’ve had a bevvy and timothy rolls into town but - and I credit my daughter with this - changing my views and opinions greatly on things like this. There would’ve been a time I’d have listened to what the sun and the horrible wankers that inhibit British media and and that verminous govt shouted about it. 
Get that murdering ***** Colston in the sea. Get that ***** Dundas statue down an all and have a vote on who we’d like to see towering over our city instead of that *****. A different time yes and it’s a different time now so in the sea ya wank. Anywhere these pricks are lauded get them in the ****ing sea and try act like human beings for a change instead of this superior I’m British and I’m better than you shite that they’re still shagging you 🤡🤡hard with. 
I don’t care what happens in Africa or China or Japan or anywhere else either about what they have or their murderous statues depict. 
We should show the way. 

 

Ironically, by doing this and being at the forefront of re-evaluating our statues and memorials, we would confirm the UK’s status as ‘Better’ 🙂

[jack D and coke]

51 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Ironically, by doing this and being at the forefront of re-evaluating our statues and memorials, we would confirm the UK’s status as ‘Better’ 🙂

We really could aye. 
Some of our ancestors weren’t very nice it’s no reflection on me or you etc. I don’t take offence to someone wishing that removed. 

Statues down and replaced by modern Britons.
These people and their ideas belong at the bottom of the sea. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by jack D and coke

[jack D and coke]

Same with continually naming bridges, buildings and hospitals etc after the royal family. 

Get tae ****. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by jack D and coke

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

6 hours ago, Victorian said:

Jurors are absolutely required to base their decisions on the evidence presented in court,  with direction from the judge,  and nothing else.  Opinions,  guesses,  balance of probability are not 'allowed'.  In practice it of course happens.  You're not allowed to discuss the case and share / influence opinion in the jury room until the case is completed and deliberations begin.  But it happens.

 

Jurors are completely discouraged from attempting to be lawyers and judges.  This jury clearly did not stick to the wording of the law bug it happens thousands of times every year.

 

i don’t know the specifics of this case but I agree with the general point you make

 

every process has a failure rate - that expected failure rate can be quantified    - a case such as this will have had a higher risk of failure than many others and so it proved .,............ possibly

 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

3 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Great point. 
I’ll be honest when I read the posts on here and the moronic braindead posts on twitter and FB I actually see some of my younger self. I was a UJ waving, rule Brittania, bigotted and I still am the latter at times when I’ve had a bevvy and timothy rolls into town but - and I credit my daughter with this - changing my views and opinions greatly on things like this. There would’ve been a time I’d have listened to what the sun and the horrible wankers that inhibit British media and and that verminous govt shouted about it. 
Get that murdering ***** Colston in the sea. Get that ***** Dundas statue down an all and have a vote on who we’d like to see towering over our city instead of that *****. A different time yes and it’s a different time now so in the sea ya wank. Anywhere these pricks are lauded get them in the ****ing sea and try act like human beings for a change instead of this superior I’m British and I’m better than you shite that they’re still shagging you 🤡🤡hard with. 
I don’t care what happens in Africa or China or Japan or anywhere else either about what they have or their murderous statues depict. 
We should show the way. 

 

 

agree totally on the encouragement of debate around these things but regarding the exposure of the evils of the trade being highlighted I think plenty people were aware of that (albeit plenty too wrapped-up in their own lives to do something about it)

 

the encouragement of debate has also brought to the surface the good some of these people have done - that sort of stuff was more likely imo to be unknown to the public

 

dont know about this chap in particular but others have done great things particularly via education - that doesn’t excuse their wrong-doings (albeit they were of a time) nor does it put them level or in front it just makes the debate slightly more complicated if it’s to be an educated debate 

[jack D and coke]

1 hour ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

agree totally on the encouragement of debate around these things but regarding the exposure of the evils of the trade being highlighted I think plenty people were aware of that (albeit plenty too wrapped-up in their own lives to do something about it)

 

the encouragement of debate has also brought to the surface the good some of these people have done - that sort of stuff was more likely imo to be unknown to the public

 

dont know about this chap in particular but others have done great things particularly via education - that doesn’t excuse their wrong-doings (albeit they were of a time) nor does it put them level or in front it just makes the debate slightly more complicated if it’s to be an educated debate 

Are you telling me Colston was a good man? I’ve read enough about him tbh that makes me wonder about the mentality of some people. Children being branded with the name of his company. People who died or were ill on the journey were thrown overboard. Ah but he done this etc…

He gave money to people who shared his political views too he wasn’t a man to just give out of the goodness of his heart. 
It’s just a pity it wasn’t actually him getting hoyed into the severn and drowned. 

 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

14 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Are you telling me Colston was a good man? I’ve read enough about him tbh that makes me wonder about the mentality of some people. Children being branded with the name of his company. People who died or were ill on the journey were thrown overboard. Ah but he done this etc…

He gave money to people who shared his political views too he wasn’t a man to just give out of the goodness of his heart. 
It’s just a pity it wasn’t actually him getting hoyed into the severn and drowned. 

 

 

i think your question is answered by the bit in my post where I say I don’t know about this chap (colston) in particular

 

 

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

i think your question is answered by the bit in my post where I say I don’t know about this chap (colston) in particular

 

 

Oops ok apologies. Didn’t read it properly then. 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

36 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Oops ok apologies. Didn’t read it properly then. 

 

no bother easy done 👍