For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 46
User avatar
By Rob P
#1892563
Aerials wrote:I take it that the quoted post explaining how the not guilty verdict was arrived at caused this contributer to eventually be lost to this forum?


No. I think it was calling all those who didn't see it his way "pompous old farts"

I make posts like that, usually well into the second bottle.

Rob P
Nick liked this
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1892590
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:nope, the barrister, who may then become a judge in the future.


You may know a lot about many things but not how the courts work in the UK.

The defence did it's job in presenting the points of law in the case which demonstrate that the defendants were not guilty.

A good knowledge of UK law is a prerequisite for the job of barrister, as is the ability to represent clients irrespective of the clients' alleged crime.

In civilised countries those working in the judicial system are expected to do their duties in accordance with the law, not their personal views.

That goes for other professionals too.

Isn't great that anyone, whatever their of race or ethnic background, gender, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation, life views or political affiliation can walk into a clinic and expect to be dealt with in a professional manner.

Compare that with any merchant who can decide not to sell me something, anything on principle, because of what I write on an internet forum or my political views, until of course the profit made from such an interaction would be such that principles are set aside.

Where such behaviour occurs in politics that is called corruption and in most civilised countries those committing it would need to avail themselves of good lawyers. Just as well isn't? We should not let mob-rule decide whether what appears to be a pretty open and shut case is indeed that.

That's not justice.

Sooty25 wrote:Lets rewrite this, a bunch of environmentalists break into your hangar and torch half a dozen privately owned, vintage aircraft, get caught in the act and admit it. I court the jury let them off as "they believed they were doing the right thing for the environment by stopping wasteful pilots burning unfair amounts of lead contain fuel". Still not guilty?


Of course they are guilty.

It's called arson.

:roll:

The defendants in the Bristol case were not guilty because the jury found that the 4 points that need to be proven, weren't.

For those who don't want to go back several pages here the post of an erstwhile contributor who has chosen not to go on pre-posting moderation as was offered to him.

It's pretty terrible that he was hounded off these shores, in essence for his tenacity, then kicked in the teeth by some cowards who felt the need give it some welly, safe in the knowledge that @johnm would not get back to defend himself.

In the meantime racist posts are just left on here, just as in places with unjust cultures or institutional racism as the Met laughed of as 'banter', as are various other threads on subjects which are 90% about politics, but where the tone must meet fervour with those holding the blue pen of moderation.

Eventually too many dissenting posts, such as this one, will appear on the thread, it will be donked, contributors berated and another plea for better behaviour will do the rounds.

Rinse and repeat.

If you don't like people expressing views that oppose those which fit in your narrative then the options are easy, just ban those who espouse them or cull any thread which has a political side to it.

Here is John's excellent post and quote.

johnm wrote:For anyone still clinging to the will to live here is a summary of the legal eagle bits :D

Liam Walker appeared for Sage Willoughby who was tried in Bristol Crown Court, along with 3 others, for pulling down and damaging the statue of slaver, Edward Colston.

After 3 hours of deliberation the jury acquitted Mr Willoughby and his co-defendants.

Liam, a former resident of Bristol, used his knowledge of the City to prepare the case and make specific points on the history of Edward Colston and Britain’s involvement in the slave trade.

From the outset of being instructed, Liam worked closely with the local community so that he could present the case for the defence powerfully. As a result of his preparation, Liam was able to call esteemed historian, Professor David Olusoga OBE and respected local community leader, Mr. Lloyd Russell.

In addition to the unique factual aspects of the case presented by Liam, the trial involved new and complex legal arguments:

Liam successfully submitted that ‘prevention of crime’ could be relied upon as a defence and that the jury could consider whether the presence of the statue itself constituted an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Liam also identified that the jury should consider if the statue constituted an ‘indecent display’ under Section 1 of the, more obscure, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

In addition, following the case of DPP v. Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, the trial is believed to be the first trial in which a jury was required to consider whether a conviction of the defendants would have been a disproportionate infringement of the defendants' rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998.


I started to compile a detailed response to this and you know what, I just can't be bothered. I have however read both section 5 of Public Order Act 1986, and section 1 of Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 and their content only confirms this was a sham.

@eltonioni hit it squarely on the head with
This seems to me to be a lawyer bigging himself up after getting very lucky with a jury, rather than a sound legal argument that could be rolled out again.


On the subject of sham's, whilst I may not see eye to eye with @johnm from time to time his presence here is appreciated and he should be encouraged back on an equal and unrestricted basis.

Other than that, with regards to this thread, I'm done.
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1892609
I'm personally rather less worried by the verdict (while agreeing that it's 'perverse') than I am about the Justice Secretary saying she's contemplating referring it to the Court of Appeal, supposedly for 'clarification of the law'; obviously not for reversal or annulment which would not be in the Courts' powers. I'm glad that her Ministerial colleague, the Leader of the House, implicitly rebuked her.
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1892610
We can only hope for a Justice Secretary who is open minded at an initial court decision. They will be judged by their... err... judgement.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1892662
kanga wrote:I'm personally rather less worried by the verdict (while agreeing that it's 'perverse') than I am about the Justice Secretary saying she's contemplating referring it to the Court of Appeal.


Cough … you mean the Attorney General. (But yes, it's a dark day when ministers make knee-jerk reactions to jury verdicts.)
Flyin'Dutch', Newfy liked this
User avatar
By Timothy
#1893199
johnm wrote: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.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 46