What should replace the Colston statue in Bristol?

[MedwayModernist]

An unruly right wing mob galvanise and attack Capitol Hill and are convicted as criminals.

An unruly left wing mob galvanise and attack an inanimate statue in Bristol and are acquitted and considered heroes by some.

Funny old world innit ?

It's called context.

One was tearing down a locally hated statue honouring a slaver, the other was invading the capitol, heavily armed, on the basis of lies that a legal and fair election was stolen. This is a not a two sided argument.

 

[MedwayModernist]

I (and many others) object to having to drive at a ridiculous 20mph when travelling through London, can I put my foot down now then?

If you did that, knocked someone down, and went to court, do you honestly think the jury would think you are entitled to some leniency based on you just wanting to drive faster?

For example, if you were speeding because your wife was in the car giving birth, then I bet you'd get some leniency of sorts, depending on the context.

Sorry Nobby, but this is democracy in action.

We are governed by consent, and if we as a population decide we don't like something, and don't agree with it, then it can be changed. A jury deciding they don't want to convict people who tore down a statue honouring a slaver, that has been locally hated for years, is exactly the sort of thing that that is for.

 

[ThreeSixes]

Do people want to get rid of juries now, just because they don't like the decision?

.

Says the bloke that whined for years about a majority decision (Brexit vote) that he didn't agree with.

 

[jokerman]

And so it begins. Poor old Nazarbayev!

 

[MedwayModernist]

What offences would you draw the line at? Theft? Assault? Murder?

Depends on the context.

Murder - that's pre meditated and obviously can't be mitigated. But the killing of people is always dependent on the circumstances. If you defend yourself using reasonable force and your attacker dies as a result, should you be imprisoned as a result?

 

[ThreeSixes]

If you did that, knocked someone down, and went to court, do you honestly think the jury would think you are entitled to some leniency based on you just wanting to drive faster?

.

But juries do give leniency depending on who you are. If a man and a woman do the same crime, a man is more likely to be convicted, same as a black person is more likely to be convicted than a white person, or poor person more likely to be convicted than someone richer. Context, I suppose

 

[MedwayModernist]

Says the bloke that whined for years about a majority decision (Brexit vote) that he didn't agree with.

Pretty sure the jury were a tad better informed than the 52%.

 

[ThreeSixes]

Depends on the context.

Murder - that's pre meditated and obviously can't be mitigated. But the killing of people is always dependent on the circumstances.

What if the victim was a paedophile, and deserved it? Or a murderer?

 

[ThreeSixes]

Pretty sure the jury were a tad better informed than the 52%.

Just the 52%?

You are so arrogant

 

[Gills 58]

No it's not, the answer is to educate the jury and ensure they know what their responsibility is.

Such as telling them to convict Redknapp and Dodd rather than being starstruck?

 

[ThreeSixes]

Such as telling them to convict Redknapp and Dodd rather than being starstruck?

Or OJ in the US. Police, courts and prosecutors just have to do their jobs I suppose

 

[shotshy]

There is a statue of James II just outside of the Sainsbury Wing National Gallery at Trafalgar Square.
He was a friend of Colston and a historically recognised slaver.
I’m guessing he’d be next.
What about Clive of India ?
General Gordon of Khartoum?
General Haig has a monumental statue in Whitehall. He was responsible for millions of deaths with his decisions in WWI.
Karl Marx statue could be pulled down by the right wingers?
Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist?

What next?
The bonfire of the vanities ?

 

[MedwayModernist]

Just the 52%?

You are so arrogant

Am I? Any proof for that?

Sadly, the 52% contained the majority of the misinformed portion. They believed the lies the Brexit bullshitters wer selling, and were lied to by the charlatans who are currently in power.

There are frankly an insane amount of "I told you so"s that you could bring up, but I just can't be arsed to get in to it again.

Pointing out the that 52% were the ones who were lied to, and therefore mis-informed, isn't arrogant, it's just basic logic.

 

[Tarian]

The democracy is a jury deciding that the context of this specific incident, the ends justified the means, and not a jackboot/robot/judge dredd type simply deciding that the law says this so it must be done.

Again....
...A leftist redefining a word, i.e. "democracy".

Two unrelated matters.
and before '58 chips in...
It is not about "getting rid of juries".
It is (as Nobby says):
"educate the jury and ensure they know what their responsibility is"

One wonders what steer the Judge gave in his/her summing up.

And you know that, you oxygen thieving bore.

That reads like an insult
[Typical of a hard-leftie. I thought people had stopped the unnecessary insult
( Isn't "hard left" a badge of honour ??)]

......but what on earth is "oxygen thieving" ????
If you mean "free speech", then what the hell is pulling down a statue if not denial of an "expression" of something ?

 

[ThreeSixes]

There is a statue of James II just outside of the Sainsbury Wing National Gallery at Trafalgar Square.
He was a friend of Colston and a historically recognised slaver.
I’m guessing he’d be next.
What about Clive of India ?
General Gordon of Khartoum?
General Haig has a monumental statue in Whitehall. He was responsible for millions of deaths with his decisions in WWI.
Karl Marx statue could be pulled down by the right wingers?
Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist?

What next?
The bonfire of the vanities ?

Ghandi as well

 

[ThreeSixes]

The OJ Simpson trial is actually a pretty good comparison IMO. He clearly did it (as did the Colston 4, unless the statue fell down on it's own) but the black jurors decided that, in context, they didn't want to convict a famous rich man for 2 murders.

 

[MedwayModernist]

Again....
...A leftist redefining a word, i.e. "democracy".

Two unrelated matters.
and before '58 chips in...
It is not about "getting rid of juries".
It is (as Nobby says):
"educate the jury and ensure they know what their responsibility is"

One wonders what steer the Judge gave in his/her summing up.


That reads like an insult
[Typical of a hard-leftie. I thought people had stopped the unnecessary insult
( Isn't "hard left" a badge of honour ??)]

......but what on earth is "oxygen thieving" ????
If you mean "free speech", then what the hell is pulling down a statue if not denial of an "expression" of something ?

Again....
a word that means the act or process of adding or uniting.

Leftist....
a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views.

Redefine...
to define (something) again or differently

Democracy...
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Now, given the above, I struggle to see how your point holds water?

You say leftist, however do you have any proof for this? and who are you possibly applying this to?

You then say democracy, which is defined above, how exactly is this related to the points originally made by said, as yet, undefined so called "leftists"

Redefine - clearly this means to do something again, now given I'm unsure who originally defined the word "democracy", I find it remarkably unlikely that the person who did so would happen to be posting on this board, and therefore would be able to change his or her previous definition, therefore being able to complete the process of "redefining" something.

Finally the word "again", as defined above, this means to do something an additional time.

So, given that we don't know anyone who could reasonably be considered a leftist on this board based on the above definitions, the person who originally defined the word democracy is likely not on this board, and therefore they would be unable to redefine anything, how on earth would they be able to redefine something they didn't define originally, once more?!?!?!

My word you've made yourself look a fool there good sir.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=oxygen thief

 

[Tarian]

It's called context.

Presumably we can now re-name the "Poll Tax Protests" as the "Poll Tax Riots" - or maybe the "Poll Tax Insurrection".

One was tearing down a locally hated statue honouring a slaver, the other was invading the capitol, heavily armed, on the basis of lies that a legal and fair election was stolen.

Define "heavily armed" ?

More importantly, how many of the thousands protesting outside the Capitol could reasonably be described as a "mob" ?
20 ? 50 ?

How do you know that the election was:
a) legal
b) fair
c) not stolen
d) the above are not also "lies"

The Arizona Election Audit uncovered a list of around a dozen irregularities.
One was thousands of mail-in ballots having no signature on the outer envelope, yet stamped "Approved" by the Election Commissioner.
Some voters appeared to have two or more voter IDs using the same email or phone number.

What the Audit was unable to conclude was whether the numbers of ballots in each irregularity were large enough to swing the result.

Given that other States blocked election Audits, we will never know.
How can such uncertainty be good for democracy ?

This is a not a two sided argument.

So says the Authoritarian dismissing the views of others.
i.e. who's defence of "free speech" is "if I agree with it".

Presumably we can now re-name the "Poll Tax Protests" as the "Poll Tax Riots" - or maybe the "Poll Tax Insurrection".

 

[SteveTreacle]

Pointing out the that 52% were the ones who were lied to, and therefore mis-informed, isn't arrogant, it's just basic logic.

That is your opinion not fact and presenting your opinion as fact (presumably as you know better) is the epitome of arrogance. And on top of that your assertion that the 52% were the ones lied to (and with that in mind the 48% weren't) is also arrogant, not to mention misguided, as can you say, hand on heart, say that the remain camp didn't tell any lies or the British population weren't lied to for 40 years from joining the Common Market, a mere trading bloc, which stealthily turned into the EEC then EU?

 

[Tarian]

Pretty sure the jury were a tad better informed than the 52%.

Oh dear. That old dismissal of Leave voters