[kanga]

It seems from when I tried to make a post 8 years later, I'm still on moderation, so I won't bother and step back out again.

Pity

[StratoTramp]

The River Mersey that passeth thru’ Warrington is but 100 yards from the Academy.

Anyone want to join me next Saturday?

It wouldn't surprise me if the woke puritans eventually get back that far.

I think It's a bit like Isis blowing up UNESCO sites in Syria. There's some dude at the BBC trying to wreck some statue. Usually all for attacks on the BBC But just leave it be you wally. If it offends you walk past. It's not like it's a person getting 'up in your face'

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... ting-house

[Cessna571]

Oh dear, the BBC statue was apparently sculpted by a chap who recorded in his diary that he’d been abusing his young daughters.

This is going to be interesting.

On the BBC site it makes the point that if it’s legal to tear down a statue of a slave trader, (it is! it’s actually legal!)

why isn’t it legal to tear down a statue of a young child sculpted by a paedophile.

Slave traders bad.
Paedophiles acceptable ?

[defcribed]

For crying out loud, how many times?

Tearing down statues isn't, by and large, legal. The decision of the jury in this case sets no precedent whatsoever.

The next person or group of persons to tear down a statue can expect to be prosecuted under the relevant law, probably criminal damage. If the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt (or "satisfied that they are sure", in modern parlance) that they were guilty of that offence then the jury is likely, but not required, to find them guilty.

Neither reasonable doubt nor the strict definition of the offence and all possible defences against it include a sense-check with what you or I think.

How many times does the system of trial by jury, and a jury's right (indeed, duty) to either acquit or convict without explaining or justifying their decision, need to be repeated before people understand it?

[Cessna571]

For crying out loud, how many times?

Tearing down statues isn't, by and large, legal. The decision of the jury in this case sets no precedent whatsoever.

The next person or group of persons to tear down a statue can expect to be prosecuted under the relevant law, probably criminal damage. If the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt (or "satisfied that they are sure", in modern parlance) that they were guilty of that offence then the jury is likely, but not required, to find them guilty.

Neither reasonable doubt nor the strict definition of the offence and all possible defences against it include a sense-check with what you or I think.

How many times does the system of trial by jury, and a jury's right (indeed, duty) to either acquit or convict without explaining or justifying their decision, need to be repeated before people understand it?

Nope, I don’t get it tbh.

I thought the point of the jury was to decide if somebody had done something

I thought the law was fixed and the jury decided if they did it.

In this case, the defendants admitted they did it, and there was even proof they did it.

Can a jury let someone off a murder if they say “yep, I murdered him, and there’s even film of it”.

The jury can say “well, he obviously did it, but we are finding him not guilty”

I suppose they can if they want?
I never considered that, even if there is proof someone did something, it doesn’t mean they are guilty!

So, what are we saying?

Slave traders unacceptable to jurys, paedophiles acceptable to jurys ?

[Cessna571]

Here’s the quote from the BBC, so you can see the confusion.

“ At a time when statues across the country are being reassessed, there'll be those who believe that if it's legal to tear down a monument to a prominent slaver, as happened in Bristol, it is also time to do the same to an artwork by a man who committed horrific sexual crimes.”

[nallen]

Can a jury let someone off a murder if they say “yep, I murdered him, and there’s even film of it”.

If the defence makes a good insanity plea, or proves coercive control was involved, then yes. (Obviously, if the perpetrator actually pleads guilty to the murder, then the jury isn't involved -- but you knew that …)

Slave traders unacceptable to jurys, paedophiles acceptable to jurys ?

Is it really so difficult to distinguish between a statue depicting a bad person and a statue made by a bad person? If it's not, then we better start clearing out the nation's galleries because artists through the ages don't have a great track record of moral rectitude.

[eltonioni]

The BBC have been brought to task over the Gill artwork for years. Perhaps their approach is best - to keep a very close eye on known paedophiles by putting them above the front door of HQ and on primetime children's TV.

[Paultheparaglider]

I'm apparently on moderation so shall now head off and join Timothy et al.

Good bye

It seems from when I tried to make a post 8 years later, I'm still on moderation, so I won't bother and step back out again.

Welcome back. And stick around. Make those mods work for their money.

[Sooty25]

Colston wasn't considered a bad person in his era. His business was legal, generated revenue, employment and no doubt paid taxes. Bristol benefited very nicely from him. The fact the world changed after Colston does not retrospectively make him a criminal, yet the "baying mob" have done so.

With regard to the BBC sculpture, where do we stop? Do we investigate every single artist that has work in public view? What if the construction company that built the BBC building turned out to have been run by criminals, do we tear down the whole building? What if a document appeared suggesting Turner or Constable may have had a dark moment in their past, do we burn their paintings? At some point the work of art has to be treated as the work it is, not the artist who created it. 99% of people walking past it would have no idea.

History is there for us all to learn from, not delete. I find the current "my rights rule" attitude very sad and these vandals need to be tackled. As do the media witch hunts, whether it be Colston, JK Rowling or Prince Andrew, the media have a lot to answer for.

[eltonioni]

Colston wasn't considered a bad person in his era. His business was legal, generated revenue, employment and no doubt paid taxes. Bristol benefited very nicely from him. The fact the world changed after Colston does not retrospectively make him a criminal, yet the "baying mob" have done so.

With regard to the BBC sculpture, where do we stop? Do we investigate every single artist that has work in public view? What if the construction company that built the BBC building turned out to have been run by criminals, do we tear down the whole building? What if a document appeared suggesting Turner or Constable may have had a dark moment in their past, do we burn their paintings? At some point the work of art has to be treated as the work it is, not the artist who created it. 99% of people walking past it would have no idea.

History is there for us all to learn from, not delete. I find the current "my rights rule" attitude very sad and these vandals need to be tackled. As do the media witch hunts, whether it be Colston, JK Rowling or Prince Andrew, the media have a lot to answer for.

I agree, but how should we feel about Jimmy Savile's headstone being removed and destroyed?

[JAFO]

...how should we feel about Jimmy Savile's headstone being removed and destroyed?

Apparently, when it and the shubbery surrounding it were removed all that was left was a small hole and no bush. It's what he would have wanted.

[kanga]

Colston wasn't considered a bad person in his era. His business was legal, generated revenue, employment and no doubt paid taxes. Bristol benefited very nicely from him. ...

.. but the statue was commissioned and erected many decades later by a 'business owners club'*, by which time Colston's activity had long been illegal and deplored, apparently in an attempt to enhance the reputation of those later businessfolk. The analogy would be the BBC commissioning Gill to create a statue and then erecting it at Broadcasting House after the details of his private diaries and proclivities were publicly known; that's not what happened.

* still active, with professed wholly philanthropic purpose; which is not to deny that they do good things today:

https://www.merchantventurers.com/

[defcribed]

Nope, I don’t get it tbh.

I thought the point of the jury was to decide if somebody had done something

I thought the law was fixed and the jury decided if they did it.

In this case, the defendants admitted they did it, and there was even proof they did it.

Can a jury let someone off a murder if they say “yep, I murdered him, and there’s even film of it”.

The jury can say “well, he obviously did it, but we are finding him not guilty”

I suppose they can if they want?
I never considered that, even if there is proof someone did something, it doesn’t mean they are guilty!

So, what are we saying?

Slave traders unacceptable to jurys, paedophiles acceptable to jurys ?

Not quite. The role of the jury is to decide whether someone is guilty of the charge or not. In many cases that turns out to be, on a practical level, deciding whether they performed a particular act or not. A judge may even direct them quite explicitly on this, and it is not unknown for a 'finger-wagging' judge to let it be not-so-subtlety known that they expect a guilty verdict. Remember that a judge can direct to acquit, but not to convict.

Juries have their responsibilities explained to them in detail, but their rights (to ignore the judge's summing up and 'route to a verdict' guidance and decide whatever they like for whatever reason they like) are somewhat glossed over - mainly because the legal system does not look to encourage jury nullification. Jurors swear an oath to reach a verdict only on the facts, but they can do otherwise if they wish and there is no possible sanction - it is a matter for them and their consciences.

There is some debate in legal circles whether or not juries should have their rights explained to them more explicitly. Similarly there is debate on whether they should be asked to provide a reason for their verdict. On this second point I tend to say absolutely not, because why do you want the reasoning if not to (a) challenge it, or (b) establish precedent, which jury verdicts don't do anyway.

The answer to all your questions is "yes", but the questions are largely irrelevant if you accept the premise that they can return any verdict they wish for any reason, without explanation and without challenge. For your last point, who knows what will prove 'acceptable' or not to any given jury in the future - that's the point of the system.

The right to a trial by a jury of your peers, and the freedom that jury has from interference, is an important safeguard against a tyrannical state oppressing citizens via the legal system. We've evolved this situation rather by accident, unlike the Americans who have it by design. Prior to Bushel's Case there were myriad examples in this country of the state (and/or the Crown) using the legal system to enforce its will and oppress people. In countries which do not employ trial by jury, once the state decides to screw you via the legal system then you are done for because the question of your guilt or innocence is decided by a government employee.

[OCB]

Many years ago, prior to the whole backlog of sexual abuse being acknowledged (cos, let's face - it was publicly know) - I heard this argument, that went something like:

"The various churches and especially cathedrals around the UK were often built by those working - effectively - as slaves. Workplace mortality was known to be high, probably debilitating workplace injuries much more so.

Maybe instead of having the dirt-poor serfs pay unfair taxes, and some of them work on those cathedrals - they'd have been better served by spending their energies building better housing, improved farming, better access to water etc.

Those constructions should clearly be labelled as monuments to slavery and exploitation."

I'm not saying that synopsis is right or wrong - but if a bunch of angry-ists turned up at St Pauls with a bulldozer and a legit manifesto.....