The Good News Only - thread...

Fab Foodie

Well-Known Member
I'm happy with the outcome, but think it's a strange result. Vandalism of public property is clearly OK under certain circumstances.
 

Hitchington

Colossal Member
Twitter is ablaze with goons complaining about how it's unfair that they are not allowed to desecrate the grave of a 19th century political philosopher and economist who wrote a book about the inequalities in industrial Europe and the conflicts that could arise if these inequalities were left unchecked, and jointly wrote a pamphlet about a way to improve the lives of everyone in an industrial society.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Über Member
Twitter is ablaze with goons complaining about how it's unfair that they are not allowed to desecrate the grave of a 19th century political philosopher and economist who wrote a book about the inequalities in industrial Europe and the conflicts that could arise if these inequalities were left unchecked, and jointly wrote a pamphlet about a way to improve the lives of everyone in an industrial society.
Thing is they are 'allowed' to .

It's more that their difficulty will be finding twelve people, who will accept their moral argument for having done so, once they've been arrested and charged for their actions.

Some folks seem to have lost all ability to discern between 'this' and 'that'
 

Beebo

Regular
Whether I like the outcome or not the decision does look questionable on a purely legal basis.
A Bristol jury refuses to convict. It looks like a home town decision to me.
The whataboutery on the radio is very disappointing but predictable.
 
OP
OP
mudsticks

mudsticks

Über Member
It's a pisser when you lose .....

I quite liked the argument from the Colston 4's defence lawyer that it couldn't be considered criminal damage as their actions had added value to the statue which is now in a museum.^_^

It certainly added context
Which is what had been missing for years .

That such an offensive monument had been allowed to stay unchallenged for so long was a far greater crime

The need to do something about 'The Colston Legacy' was being discussed when I was a kid growing up in Bristol -
- one or two years back now..

Well done that Bristol jury for refusing to convict.
 

Unkraut

Regular
Vandalism of public property is clearly OK under certain circumstances.
I would have thought the trial ought to have been about criminal damage and nothing else. The morality or otherwise of Colston was not on trial and is irrelevant.

The initial reason for the statue was to commemorate Colston's philanthropy and sundry good works. The involvement in slavery was on the debit side, but the almshouses on the credit side. I have often wondered if the protestors wanting his statue removed (a perfectly laudable aim) had their lives assessed on a debit and credit side basis how much philanthropy would be on their credit side.

It may well be good that the statue is now in a museum, it ought in any event be a visual reminder that even those who do good can have an evil strain in their behaviour that the former doesn't annul or excuse.

Still, we can now get to work on anything commemorating Marx, he doesn't appear to have anything on the credit side ...
 

Fab Foodie

Well-Known Member
It's a pisser when you lose .....

I quite liked the argument from the Colston 4's defence lawyer that it couldn't be considered criminal damage as their actions had added value to the statue which is now in a museum.^_^
I didn't lose if you read my post.
But as @Beebo says it seems odd on a purely legal basis. But, you know, 12 Angry men and all that....
 
Top Bottom