| Colston Statue vandals innocent 18:40 - Jan 5 with 20416 views | Flashberryjack |
Colston vandals are CLEARED: Gleeful BLM activists thank Banksy for his support after they are acquitted of criminal damage over toppling of Edward Colston statue - sparking outrage that jury has given a 'greenlight to political vandalism. |  |
| |  |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:02 - Jan 13 with 1020 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:54 - Jan 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
You can say it 1000 times if you like but it makes no difference.
The arguments made against the convicting of them were absolutely sympathy based. They admitted taking the rope, admitted tying it on and admitted being part of the mob that did it.
The arguments were that the statue stood for something they disagreed with (even though it didn’t, it was there for philanthropy) and that it was not criminal damage because they argued that their damage increased in value.
I tried to bring this up with you before but you left abruptly citing a link… even though your link said just that. |
Sonic for example, the statue could be said to have increased in value due to notoriety and being moved to a museum and the jury acquitted on that basis, they did so on a factual argument, nothing to do with politics.
How can you, in reality suggest anything with certainty when you were not in court to hear any of the evidence and know nothing of the jury’s discussions ?
We were going round in circles, both of us repeating ourselves. |  | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:06 - Jan 13 with 1016 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:02 - Jan 13 by Sirjohnalot |
Sonic for example, the statue could be said to have increased in value due to notoriety and being moved to a museum and the jury acquitted on that basis, they did so on a factual argument, nothing to do with politics.
How can you, in reality suggest anything with certainty when you were not in court to hear any of the evidence and know nothing of the jury’s discussions ?
We were going round in circles, both of us repeating ourselves. |
But an increase in value does not mean criminal damage does not occur. It wasn’t created for saleable purposes.
If you had a one of a kind car and I came along and vandalised it and said, it’s ok I know someone who will buy that off you for more than you paid. It’s still criminal damage.
The arguments by the defence did not consist of them not doing what they were accused of, they were excuse based; that’s a sympathetic view. |  |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:12 - Jan 13 with 1014 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:06 - Jan 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
But an increase in value does not mean criminal damage does not occur. It wasn’t created for saleable purposes.
If you had a one of a kind car and I came along and vandalised it and said, it’s ok I know someone who will buy that off you for more than you paid. It’s still criminal damage.
The arguments by the defence did not consist of them not doing what they were accused of, they were excuse based; that’s a sympathetic view. |
I’ve told you what the law is. I’ve been doing it for 20 years, the barristers successfully argued the same thing, the prosecution did not argue the law was wrong and the judge allowed it to go before the jury, but you say we’re all wrong.
There you go | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:20 - Jan 13 with 1003 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:12 - Jan 13 by Sirjohnalot |
I’ve told you what the law is. I’ve been doing it for 20 years, the barristers successfully argued the same thing, the prosecution did not argue the law was wrong and the judge allowed it to go before the jury, but you say we’re all wrong.
There you go |
You don’t have to be doing law for 20 years to understand the law, and the jury also did not do law for 20 years.
Who do you believe I am saying is wrong? I don’t think anyone is wrong other than the jury for finding clearly guilty people not so.
The defence aren’t wrong for making ridiculous arguments that should have no impact on law, it’s their job. It’s all they had left.
An increase in value does not negate criminal damage, read the judges considerations that he put to the jury - he didn’t mention it, because it’s irrelevant.
The fact these arguments worked does not mean they were lawfully correct. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 08:06 - Jan 14 with 960 views | Superjan |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:20 - Jan 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
You don’t have to be doing law for 20 years to understand the law, and the jury also did not do law for 20 years.
Who do you believe I am saying is wrong? I don’t think anyone is wrong other than the jury for finding clearly guilty people not so.
The defence aren’t wrong for making ridiculous arguments that should have no impact on law, it’s their job. It’s all they had left.
An increase in value does not negate criminal damage, read the judges considerations that he put to the jury - he didn’t mention it, because it’s irrelevant.
The fact these arguments worked does not mean they were lawfully correct. |
Whether or not you or anyone or else doesn’t agree with THAT jury’s decision is fine , absolutely fine . Whether or not it reflects a societal change in this country only time will tell . Whether or not the person who appeared to damage a work by Eric Gill had left wing views will be explored in due course . We are in the realms of speculation in respect of these last two points . However one fact that is clear in this discussion is that the Bristol jury performed the job they were chosen to do . They came to a verdict based on the law and the facts that they had heard in that courtroom. I know it’s boring to advance this proposition and I’ll be accused of having my head in books and not understanding how society works but this is how it is . I asked if you could suggest an alternative to the jury system and in all fairness to you , you said you couldn’t . |  | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 08:16 - Jan 14 with 956 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 08:06 - Jan 14 by Superjan |
Whether or not you or anyone or else doesn’t agree with THAT jury’s decision is fine , absolutely fine . Whether or not it reflects a societal change in this country only time will tell . Whether or not the person who appeared to damage a work by Eric Gill had left wing views will be explored in due course . We are in the realms of speculation in respect of these last two points . However one fact that is clear in this discussion is that the Bristol jury performed the job they were chosen to do . They came to a verdict based on the law and the facts that they had heard in that courtroom. I know it’s boring to advance this proposition and I’ll be accused of having my head in books and not understanding how society works but this is how it is . I asked if you could suggest an alternative to the jury system and in all fairness to you , you said you couldn’t . |
Well it isn’t my duty to come up with an alternative to the jury system.
But if the jury system is not fit for purpose in political cases due to a societal sympathy towards left wing extremism then that is something we may have to address.
Just like a jury making a decision based on race in Alabama in 1930, just because they made that decision doesn’t mean it complies with the law of the land. Once external factors look to be interfering with the course of justice then that system needs looking at.
This isn’t an iffy case where we aren’t sure if they did it or not, we know they did. That’s the issue. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 08:40 - Jan 14 with 944 views | Superjan |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 08:16 - Jan 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
Well it isn’t my duty to come up with an alternative to the jury system.
But if the jury system is not fit for purpose in political cases due to a societal sympathy towards left wing extremism then that is something we may have to address.
Just like a jury making a decision based on race in Alabama in 1930, just because they made that decision doesn’t mean it complies with the law of the land. Once external factors look to be interfering with the course of justice then that system needs looking at.
This isn’t an iffy case where we aren’t sure if they did it or not, we know they did. That’s the issue. |
I fully appreciate its not your duty to come up with an alternative but you say “ we “ may have to address the issue of juries in “ political cases “ , who are the “ we “ ? A Conservative government, the judiciary ? You may think the Bristol four did it and you’re entitled to your view and opinion . The twelve jurors who we know nothing about didn’t . Their decision was not unlawful and therefore complied with the “ laws of the land ‘ . I don’t think anyone irrespective of their politics is suggesting that it was unlawful . They may find infuriating and in their opinion illogical and they are entitled to feel like that . They are entitled to think that people are morons too but as with the result for example of the recent referendum , you have to accept the result , because that was the process whether you agreed with the decision or not . | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 08:47 - Jan 14 with 941 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 08:40 - Jan 14 by Superjan |
I fully appreciate its not your duty to come up with an alternative but you say “ we “ may have to address the issue of juries in “ political cases “ , who are the “ we “ ? A Conservative government, the judiciary ? You may think the Bristol four did it and you’re entitled to your view and opinion . The twelve jurors who we know nothing about didn’t . Their decision was not unlawful and therefore complied with the “ laws of the land ‘ . I don’t think anyone irrespective of their politics is suggesting that it was unlawful . They may find infuriating and in their opinion illogical and they are entitled to feel like that . They are entitled to think that people are morons too but as with the result for example of the recent referendum , you have to accept the result , because that was the process whether you agreed with the decision or not . |
Well I don’t live in the U.K. so it was the “royal we” referring to the sensible among society that don’t see life through a political lens.
I don’t think they did it, I know they did it, they admitted it. The jury found them not guilty because they were sympathetic to the defence arguments which largely revolves around the fact that the criminal damage increased the value of the statue (in their opinion) and that they felt justified to commit vandalism due to what they felt it represented.
So whether they did it wasn’t in question. It’s not about what result “I” wanted, it’s about the law being broken and that being ignored. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 10:54 - Jan 14 with 913 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 08:06 - Jan 14 by Superjan |
Whether or not you or anyone or else doesn’t agree with THAT jury’s decision is fine , absolutely fine . Whether or not it reflects a societal change in this country only time will tell . Whether or not the person who appeared to damage a work by Eric Gill had left wing views will be explored in due course . We are in the realms of speculation in respect of these last two points . However one fact that is clear in this discussion is that the Bristol jury performed the job they were chosen to do . They came to a verdict based on the law and the facts that they had heard in that courtroom. I know it’s boring to advance this proposition and I’ll be accused of having my head in books and not understanding how society works but this is how it is . I asked if you could suggest an alternative to the jury system and in all fairness to you , you said you couldn’t . |
The decision was yet another indicator that law and order has broken down.
We have video footage of these people destroying public property, we have them admitting what they did...and yet when they are prosecuted for destroying public property they do not face any consequences.
So, if the police are too cowed to stop the Left from destroying public property or rioting or any of their other poisonous activities.
...and the legal system won't prosecute them
...what alternative do the people who disagree with the Left and the Left's goals have?
I''ll tell you what some will be thinking...
1 - Start to destroy things that the Left values
2 - The next time a Left mob turns up to cause a riot we will meet them with a larger mob
You see where this could end up?
It is the break down of law and order that creates anarchy.
The Left of course want this to happen. The violence they use is targeted to agitate.
If it is ignored they progress their aims.
If the state responds they get to say; 'told you they were heavy handed authoritarian fascists'
...but the Left should be very careful of what they wish for, because once law and order breaks down and we have anarchy they might find that they don't have the numbers to win that fight (the public is not with them) and certain easily led individuals might find themselves on the street with a lot of multi coloured haired freaks getting battered.
Law and Order needs to be respected, to use a religious word...it is sacred.
Anyone who supports people who break the law and get away with it is playing with fire...
and it is shocking to me to see people who work in the Legal system and the Education system defending the breakdown of law and order. Genuinely disgraceful, irresponsible.
...but then again this is the direction the Left has steered our society in the last 10 years with their agitation, the political violence has been expressed in all forms, speech, thought and physical consistently by the Left.
It is as if they can't imagine that there will ever be a reaction.
The communists in 1920s Germany believed the same thing. The reaction was terrible. |  |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 11:11 - Jan 14 with 899 views | onehunglow |
Ive glossed over the finer detail to be frank but having put in Court countles cretins fo Crim Dam,I dont ever remember one admitting causing damage to the property of others then being found not guilty.
This property DID belong to someone else
This property was damaged and there is not doubt they did.
Reasonable excuse .How? Who decided it was so and why.
Furthermore,why is not this important decision being appealed right now.
It makes us a laughing stock and we are.
If the statue was offensive,it was only so for some members of the public.
It also begs the question a to why Public Order offences were not utilised as many people were outraged at this action,slave trader or not,it is part of a city's history and history is both good and bad.
Would the same apply if a Mandela statue were dumped into the Thames as it offended Afrikaners or those subjected to the more violent aspects of Mandela's fight against apartheid.
It is madness | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 11:13 - Jan 14 with 901 views | Superjan |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 10:54 - Jan 14 by Ajack_Kerouac |
The decision was yet another indicator that law and order has broken down.
We have video footage of these people destroying public property, we have them admitting what they did...and yet when they are prosecuted for destroying public property they do not face any consequences.
So, if the police are too cowed to stop the Left from destroying public property or rioting or any of their other poisonous activities.
...and the legal system won't prosecute them
...what alternative do the people who disagree with the Left and the Left's goals have?
I''ll tell you what some will be thinking...
1 - Start to destroy things that the Left values
2 - The next time a Left mob turns up to cause a riot we will meet them with a larger mob
You see where this could end up?
It is the break down of law and order that creates anarchy.
The Left of course want this to happen. The violence they use is targeted to agitate.
If it is ignored they progress their aims.
If the state responds they get to say; 'told you they were heavy handed authoritarian fascists'
...but the Left should be very careful of what they wish for, because once law and order breaks down and we have anarchy they might find that they don't have the numbers to win that fight (the public is not with them) and certain easily led individuals might find themselves on the street with a lot of multi coloured haired freaks getting battered.
Law and Order needs to be respected, to use a religious word...it is sacred.
Anyone who supports people who break the law and get away with it is playing with fire...
and it is shocking to me to see people who work in the Legal system and the Education system defending the breakdown of law and order. Genuinely disgraceful, irresponsible.
...but then again this is the direction the Left has steered our society in the last 10 years with their agitation, the political violence has been expressed in all forms, speech, thought and physical consistently by the Left.
It is as if they can't imagine that there will ever be a reaction.
The communists in 1920s Germany believed the same thing. The reaction was terrible. |
It wasn’t the state who acquitted the Colston Four , it was twelve members of the public selected at random . The machinery of the state was used used appropriately. The Police arrested them. The Crown Proseccution Service reviewed the case and advised that there should be a prosecution . Independent counsel will have further advised . There was an acceptance there was a case to answer and the Learned Judge’s summing up is available. It was a hearing held publicly. The only part of the case that we weren’t party to was the jury’s deliberations . This is an example of the system in operation, Exactly the same system would be employed if a person with differing political views was alleged to have committed an offence . The fact that twelve people from potentially different backgrounds came to a decision doesn’t suggest that law and order has broken down . | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 11:27 - Jan 14 with 886 views | Superjan |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 11:11 - Jan 14 by onehunglow |
Ive glossed over the finer detail to be frank but having put in Court countles cretins fo Crim Dam,I dont ever remember one admitting causing damage to the property of others then being found not guilty.
This property DID belong to someone else
This property was damaged and there is not doubt they did.
Reasonable excuse .How? Who decided it was so and why.
Furthermore,why is not this important decision being appealed right now.
It makes us a laughing stock and we are.
If the statue was offensive,it was only so for some members of the public.
It also begs the question a to why Public Order offences were not utilised as many people were outraged at this action,slave trader or not,it is part of a city's history and history is both good and bad.
Would the same apply if a Mandela statue were dumped into the Thames as it offended Afrikaners or those subjected to the more violent aspects of Mandela's fight against apartheid.
It is madness |
Whether there was a “ reasonable excuse “ was decided by the jury . The Attorney General Suella Braverman indicated she was considering referring the case to the Court of Appeal but she can only seek an opinion of the Court on a point of law under the provisions of S36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 . The Court won’t rule on whether the jury were correct in their decision. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 11:36 - Jan 14 with 882 views | onehunglow |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 11:27 - Jan 14 by Superjan |
Whether there was a “ reasonable excuse “ was decided by the jury . The Attorney General Suella Braverman indicated she was considering referring the case to the Court of Appeal but she can only seek an opinion of the Court on a point of law under the provisions of S36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 . The Court won’t rule on whether the jury were correct in their decision. |
Thanks
Howe can it be a reasonable excuse when
1.damage is caused and
2. It is not in doubt as to whom the property belongs .
With damage caused in this manner,it begs the question as to just wtf the Jury were on. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 11:41 - Jan 14 with 880 views | Boundy |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 11:27 - Jan 14 by Superjan |
Whether there was a “ reasonable excuse “ was decided by the jury . The Attorney General Suella Braverman indicated she was considering referring the case to the Court of Appeal but she can only seek an opinion of the Court on a point of law under the provisions of S36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 . The Court won’t rule on whether the jury were correct in their decision. |
Sometimes society should be protected from "public" decisions . Reading comments about the behaviour of a gang of kids performing and running riot in the llansamlet area recently and the defence and support they're getting by some so called "parents" of said arse wipes makes me want to weep . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 12:31 - Jan 14 with 851 views | Dr_Parnassus |
The point here of course is that the 12 jury clearly did not decide to uphold the law. We all know they did it, they said they did.
The arguments the defence put across does not alter the law. A value change due to the object vandalised does not negate the law against vandalism. The fact they didn’t like the statue also does not negate the law against vandalism.
In this case the jury simply didn’t want to find guilty people guilty, that’s the issue. That isn’t their job to do - to make their own laws up, their job is to determine whether they did break the laws already set whether they agree with those laws or actions or not - and that law break is beyond doubt. The rest (value, didn’t like the statue etc) is, or should have been, an irrelevance.
Saying “that’s what they decided” doesn’t cut the mustard. The law was not upheld and that is of concern for anyone who values a fair and just society. Nobody should be happy about criminals being let off, it’s a terrible indictment of the very foundation of civilisation which is the laws of the land. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 12:36]
| |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 13:14 - Jan 14 with 827 views | ItchySphincter |
Punish them! Grab your pitchforks fellas!
 |  |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 13:31 - Jan 14 with 822 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 12:31 - Jan 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
The point here of course is that the 12 jury clearly did not decide to uphold the law. We all know they did it, they said they did.
The arguments the defence put across does not alter the law. A value change due to the object vandalised does not negate the law against vandalism. The fact they didn’t like the statue also does not negate the law against vandalism.
In this case the jury simply didn’t want to find guilty people guilty, that’s the issue. That isn’t their job to do - to make their own laws up, their job is to determine whether they did break the laws already set whether they agree with those laws or actions or not - and that law break is beyond doubt. The rest (value, didn’t like the statue etc) is, or should have been, an irrelevance.
Saying “that’s what they decided” doesn’t cut the mustard. The law was not upheld and that is of concern for anyone who values a fair and just society. Nobody should be happy about criminals being let off, it’s a terrible indictment of the very foundation of civilisation which is the laws of the land. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 12:36]
|
But no competent barrister including the QC who prosecuted it has said that. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 13:40 - Jan 14 with 814 views | Superjan |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 12:31 - Jan 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
The point here of course is that the 12 jury clearly did not decide to uphold the law. We all know they did it, they said they did.
The arguments the defence put across does not alter the law. A value change due to the object vandalised does not negate the law against vandalism. The fact they didn’t like the statue also does not negate the law against vandalism.
In this case the jury simply didn’t want to find guilty people guilty, that’s the issue. That isn’t their job to do - to make their own laws up, their job is to determine whether they did break the laws already set whether they agree with those laws or actions or not - and that law break is beyond doubt. The rest (value, didn’t like the statue etc) is, or should have been, an irrelevance.
Saying “that’s what they decided” doesn’t cut the mustard. The law was not upheld and that is of concern for anyone who values a fair and just society. Nobody should be happy about criminals being let off, it’s a terrible indictment of the very foundation of civilisation which is the laws of the land. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 12:36]
|
No , the Colston Four didn’t say that they were guilty of Criminal Damage , they pleaded not guilty to the charge as per the indictment. It was for the jury to decide whether they were guilty or not guilty. The defence sort to advance statutory defences on behalf of the defendants. It is matter for a jury to consider these arguments and decide whether to accept them tandem with the evidence they heard . We can only assume that they accepted the arguments but that again is an assumption. I’m sorry that in your opinion the explanation doesn’t cut the mustard but that’s what happened. I don’t know where you live and to be honest you don’t have to tell me , but if you live in a country that has jury trials, go and watch you might be surprised to see how the process works in practice. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:06 - Jan 14 with 762 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 13:31 - Jan 14 by Sirjohnalot |
But no competent barrister including the QC who prosecuted it has said that. |
Said what? | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:12 - Jan 14 with 756 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 13:40 - Jan 14 by Superjan |
No , the Colston Four didn’t say that they were guilty of Criminal Damage , they pleaded not guilty to the charge as per the indictment. It was for the jury to decide whether they were guilty or not guilty. The defence sort to advance statutory defences on behalf of the defendants. It is matter for a jury to consider these arguments and decide whether to accept them tandem with the evidence they heard . We can only assume that they accepted the arguments but that again is an assumption. I’m sorry that in your opinion the explanation doesn’t cut the mustard but that’s what happened. I don’t know where you live and to be honest you don’t have to tell me , but if you live in a country that has jury trials, go and watch you might be surprised to see how the process works in practice. |
I didn’t say they pleaded guilty, I said they admitted doing it. There is a very big difference.
They said they did it but felt they were justified because they didn’t like the statue and also didn’t think criminal damage and vandalism applied because they believe the value of the statue increased due to the interest generated in the damaged statue.
It’s like me punching you in the face, admitting it but saying I don’t plead guilty to GBH because I think I was justified because I didn’t like you, and also think you look better and tougher with a black eye which may attract you a top mating partner. (That’s the level of ridiculousness we are talking here)
So whether they did it or not was not in question.
Neither of those arguments negate the rule of law, it was a left field punt hoping to curry favour with a jury that may share their political beliefs or have sympathy for their “claimed” cause.
They were correct, the trial turned from “did they do it” (we know they did) into “shall we allow them to do it” turns out that answer is yes. So again, what “I” want is irrelevant, it’s the law of the land.
That jury decision does not cut the mustard for anyone who appreciates and values a fair society and justice system. If that upsets you then tough I suppose. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 21:26]
| |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:14 - Jan 14 with 754 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 13:14 - Jan 14 by ItchySphincter |
Punish them! Grab your pitchforks fellas!
|
No need for pitchforks, simply applying the laws of the land will do.
Reckon you would want the Capitol Hill rioters walking free? Or would that be different of course?
Not that you know the first thing about politics, but pretend for me. Humour me. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:28 - Jan 14 with 723 views | ItchySphincter |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:14 - Jan 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
No need for pitchforks, simply applying the laws of the land will do.
Reckon you would want the Capitol Hill rioters walking free? Or would that be different of course?
Not that you know the first thing about politics, but pretend for me. Humour me. |
Would you?
Pipe down bedsit boy. 😂 | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:31 - Jan 14 with 721 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:25 - Jan 14 by Superjan |
Trust me , I value a fair society and a fair justice system. I’m really , really not upset . You seem to be the angry one . You said previously you don’t live in this country and I’m surprised therefore that you refer to the “law of the land “ the implication being the law of England and Wales . I can’t comment and wouldn’t presume to comment about legal system I know nothing about. |
What have I said that you believe displays anger of any kind? Could you point it out to me?
I did say I don’t live in England and Wales yes, are you suggesting I don’t know the law of the land? Explain to me what you believe I am not correct with. Be specific.
So again, we know they did it because they admitted it - right? Meaning the only logical path for a not guilty verdict is that the jury sympathised with the defence arguments.
The defence arguments were that:-
i) they didn’t like the statue
ii) thought due to the interest the case generated the damage they caused to the statue probably increased its value
Neither of those arguments negate the law of the land. Whether I have chosen to move from there or not also does not change that fact. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:33 - Jan 14 with 720 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 21:28 - Jan 14 by ItchySphincter |
Would you?
Pipe down bedsit boy. 😂 |
Would I what?
I don’t think I understood any of that frustrated cry for help.
Try answering the question. But if you think the posters on the other site are watching then probably best to avoid it unless you say the wrong thing.
Turn into a child instead would be the best move… oh you have, good. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
