What must fall to make us forget slavery?

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Will these tofu knitting, designer clothing wearing idiots stop wearing Hugo Boss.
Stop driving VW, Audi, Porsche
Stop using products made by BASF.

Companies made products off the back of the NAZI regime, using JEWISH SLAVE LABOUR to run their factories.

Or is that the wrong kind of slavery?

You mean like this?

1641890129474.png


 
I just made the mistake of putting the news at ten on :)
It seems Boris Johnson is despicable for having a gathering during lockdown.

It seems he was heartless to break rules as people had died of covid during lockdown.

Silly old Boris, he should have said it was a BLM party and he would be OK :)

View attachment 630417

I almost gave a SABC for that. Please take this as a warning to your future conduct. :)
 

Slime

LE
I almost gave a SABC for that. Please take this as a warning to your future conduct. :)

Yes, it’s all my own fault :)

I just sometimes have a silly idea that the situation on the Ukraine border, or the fire in the Bronx block of flats might just be more important than a tennis player being treated the same as anyone else entering Australia.

I should know better :)
 

Chinggis

War Hero
It supports the view that the defence relied on highly questionable semantics, contentions and interpretations - including the idea that the statue of a bloke who's been dead for three centuries is capable of causing distress and that action may be taken on that basis.
As I pointed out earlier, the defence argument about honest belief doesn't depend on the belief being accurate. The defence still applies even if the belief was completely wrong, as long as it was genuinely held at the time. If the trial judge ruled that the argument was one that could properly be considered by the jury (as he did) the prosecution had to prove that the belief wasn't genuinely held at the time. The defence didn't have to prove that it was.

In any case, that defence argument was put forward for two of the accused, not for all of them, but they were all acquitted. We can't know why the jury decided to acquit them. They might have accepted that argument or they might have acquitted for another reason. We can't make any assumptions about that.

The defence can put forward as many alternative arguments as it likes and the prosecution has to disprove all of them. If the prosecution fails to disprove any single defence argument they fail to prove the whole case.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
As I pointed out earlier, the defence argument about honest belief doesn't depend on the belief being accurate. The defence still applies even if the belief was completely wrong, as long as it was genuinely held at the time. If the trial judge ruled that the argument was one that could properly be considered by the jury (as he did) the prosecution had to prove that the belief wasn't genuinely held at the time. The defence didn't have to prove that it was.

In any case, that defence argument was put forward for two of the accused, not for all of them, but they were all acquitted. We can't know why the jury decided to acquit them. They might have accepted that argument or they might have acquitted for another reason. We can't make any assumptions about that.

The defence can put forward as many alternative arguments as it likes and the prosecution has to disprove all of them. If the prosecution fails to prove any single defence argument they fail to prove the whole case.

Honest belief still has to meet the test of reasonableness. If politicians hadn't enshrined the alien principle that anyone on the Woke spectrum was entitled to have a fit of the vapours about whatsoever they chose, which is inherently unreasonable, then that defence would have failed.

Full marks to the defence but the whole exercise was a legal tap dance which played heavily on the prevailing zeitgeist of wokeness and is covered by the thinnest of thin legal veneers.
 

Slime

LE
This thread has highlighted the ‘relevance’ of situations, and how the relevance can sometimes have no basis in reality, but CAN alter the course of history.

We are discussing slavery, something very much alive and well in 2022, but a subject often brushed under the carpet or ignored. We are discussing the long since abolished Atlantic slave trade, a subject relevant enough to some to cause physical damage to objects or other people.

We have seen the murder of one man in the USA start a worldwide backlash against racism. It doesn’t matter that there were over 21,000 other murders that year the the USA, or that this murder had NOTHING at all to do with racism (as his court case proved), or that his murderer was dealt with and sentenced according to law………..Somehow all this could be overlooked and literally millions of people saw it as relevant to racism.

We not only saw loads of BLM activists in the U.K. shout ‘don’t shoot’ to unarmed U.K. police in England…….In response to the actions of US police in America!!!

We also then saw the anti vaxxer activists see the BLM activists breaking of lockdown rules ‘as proof’ the corona virus wasn’t real, and and anti vaxxers then protested on the streets (breaking lockdown rules).

We now see Boris johnson being called despicable as his breaking lockdown rules has relevance to the people who died during lockdown, or lost loved ones during lockdown. We saw the same said about Dominic Cummings……These two awful men were and are seen as the reason the common man didn’t bother to follow lockdown rules.
Of course, the above reasons and relevance hasn’t been applied to the perhaps thirty activist marches in Bristol alone, let alone anywhere else.

As a comical thought on relevance or deeply held opinion. At the time Colstons statue was topples it’s likely that the 98% figure who wanted it to stay in place was still correct, but the people who pulled it down went unpunished.

At the start of WW2 some people in the U.K. openly supported the Nazi party or Hilter, as it was, nothing really happened to them, but if the Germans had set foot on mainland U.K. soil the Auxillieries in and around Bristol would have assassinated those Nazi supporters within a few days……….for the greater good.

Bringing things back to 2022, we have seen Colston’s statue pulled down due to public feeling, as the standards of today were applied to the MPs statue, a statue put up long after his death.

Should we put the statue of another contentious MP on the plinth, then just pull it straight away due to public disgust………….to cut out the bother of waiting years to do it :)

Anyone have a statue of the former MP for Sedgefield?
 

Chinggis

War Hero
Honest belief still has to meet the test of reasonableness. If politicians hadn't enshrined the alien principle that anyone on the Woke spectrum was entitled to have a fit of the vapours about whatsoever they chose, which is inherently unreasonable, then that defence would have failed.

Full marks to the defence but the whole exercise was a legal tap dance which played heavily on the prevailing zeitgeist of wokeness and is covered by the thinnest of thin legal veneers.
The reasonableness test only applies to the question of whether or not the belief was actually held at all. If the jury decide that the defendant did in fact hold that belief, it is irrelevant whether or not any other reasonable person would also have held it.

"The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the defendant's belief is material to the question of whether the belief was held by the defendant at all. If the belief was in fact held, its unreasonableness, so far as guilt or innocence is concerned, is neither here nor there. It is irrelevant. Were it otherwise, the defendant would be convicted because he was negligent in failing to recognise that the victim was not consenting or that a crime was not being committed and so on. In other words the jury should be directed first of all that the prosecution have the burden or duty of proving the unlawfulness of the defendant's actions; secondly, if the defendant may have been labouring under a mistake as to the facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken view of the facts; thirdly, that is so whether the mistake was, on an objective view, a reasonable mistake or not.”
- Lord Chief Justice Lane in R v Gladstone Williams (1984) 78 Cr App R 276

If the jury believed that the defendants did have a fit of the vapours it doesn't matter whether or not it was reasonable for them to have it. Of course the jury might have acquitted them for another reason, we can't know what the reason was.
 
Last edited:
You'll be waiting a very long time for that. I'll comment on points of law but it will be sub-zero in the infernal regions before you'll see any comment about a verdict itself.

You forgot to define a temperature scale. I introduce the Hades scale, which defines zero degrees hades as the mean temperature of a thousand souls screaming in eternal agony in the burning sands of the Third Ring of the Seventh Circle of Inferno at standard pressure, assuming spherical souls of standard volume.

Of course, you've got a problem anyway, unless you mean the Kelvin scale. Cocytus, the Ninth Circle of Hell, is a frozen lake. :twisted:
 

Chinggis

War Hero
You forgot to define a temperature scale. I introduce the Hades scale, which defines zero degrees hades as the mean temperature of a thousand souls screaming in eternal agony in the burning sands of the Third Ring of the Seventh Circle of Inferno at standard pressure, assuming spherical souls of standard volume.

Of course, you've got a problem anyway, unless you mean the Kelvin scale. Cocytus, the Ninth Circle of Hell, is a frozen lake. :twisted:
That sounds like a perfectly valid definition but I'll use Kelvin, if that's 0 K with you.
And yes, I know that it's not possible to be sub-zero on that scale but I'm sure you'll allow me a small rhetorical flourish. :)
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
The reasonableness test only applies to the question of whether or not the belief was actually held at all. If the jury decide that the defendant did in fact hold that belief, it is irrelevant whether or not any other reasonable person would also have held it.

"The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the defendant's belief is material to the question of whether the belief was held by the defendant at all. If the belief was in fact held, its unreasonableness, so far as guilt or innocence is concerned, is neither here nor there. It is irrelevant. Were it otherwise, the defendant would be convicted because he was negligent in failing to recognise that the victim was not consenting or that a crime was not being committed and so on. In other words the jury should be directed first of all that the prosecution have the burden or duty of proving the unlawfulness of the defendant's actions; secondly, if the defendant may have been labouring under a mistake as to the facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken view of the facts; thirdly, that is so whether the mistake was, on an objective view, a reasonable mistake or not.”
- Lord Chief Justice Lane in R v Gladstone Williams (1984) 78 Cr App R 276

Not so, that judgement includes the principle that the defendant may be labouring under a mistake as to the facts and applies the test of reasonableness to that.

As far as this case is concerned, the jury saw nothing wrong in tearing down the statue - i.e. no crime was committed and, once that conclusion was reached, the 'belief' defence ensured that the accused would walk. The defence did its job but it does suggest that the prosecution should have spent more time establishing that a crime had been committed.
 

Chinggis

War Hero
As far as this case is concerned, the jury saw nothing wrong in tearing down the statue - i.e. no crime was committed and, once that conclusion was reached, the 'belief' defence ensured that the accused would walk. The defence did its job but it does suggest that the prosecution should have spent more time establishing that a crime had been committed.
You are making an assumption with no evidential basis. We will never know the reason or reasons why the jury returned the not guilty verdict. Even the trial judge is not allowed to know that. The only thing that we know is that the verdict was not guilty.

You are also incorrect on a a point of law. If the jury believed that no offence had been committed it would not have been necessary for them to consider the honest belief defence or any other defence for that matter. There would simply have been no case to answer.

What is certain is that the charges against each defendant, and any defences that they relied on, had to be considered for each of them individually, not for all of them collectively. The jury could only have considered the reasonable belief defence in the case of the two defendants whose counsel put it forward on their behalf. The jury couldn't have considered that defence for the two whose counsel didn't put it forward.

It might have been that the jury decided that no offence was committed, or it might have been that they decided that the actus reus of the offence had been committed but that the accused had a valid defence, which may have been the reasonable belief argument or some other defence argument,. We don't know the reason and I don't care to speculate about it.
 
Last edited:

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
You are making an assumption with no evidential basis. We will never know the reason or reasons why the jury returned the not guilty verdict. Even the trial judge is not allowed to know that. The only thing that we know is that the verdict was not guilty.

You are also incorrect on a a point of law. If the jury believed that no offence had been committed it would not have been necessary for them to consider the honest belief defence or any other defence for that matter. There would simply have been no case to answer.

It might have been that the jury decided that no offence was committed, or it might have been that they decided that the actus reus of the offence had been committed but that the accused had a valid defence. We don't know the reason and I don't care to speculate about it.

Based on the available evidence, it was a prima facie case of public damage and the judgement you posted is very clear about the need to apply the test of reasonableness to any action taken on the basis of belief if there is the possibility of being mistaken in fact. If, as you contend, reasonableness was not a factor then that can only be because you have assumed that the jury did not believe that a crime had been committed in the first place and therefore had no need to test belief. I was simply following the logic of your argument. As you say, we will never know.

What this case has thrown up is that we have a nineteenth century legal system trying to accommodate twenty first century social attitudes and outlooks.
 

Chinggis

War Hero
Based on the available evidence, it was a prima facie case of public damage and the judgement you posted is very clear about the need to apply the test of reasonableness to any action taken on the basis of belief if there is the possibility of being mistaken in fact. If, as you contend, reasonableness was not a factor then that can only be because you have assumed that the jury did not believe that a crime had been committed in the first place and therefore had no need to test belief. I was simply following the logic of your argument. As you say, we will never know.

Clearly the police and the CPS believed that the offence of criminal damage had been committed and that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Code for Crown Prosecutors defines a reasonable prospect as "more likely than not" or a better than 50% chance. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt only comes into play at the trial itself.

I didn't contend that reasonableness was not a factor in this case, I cited the relevant case law. I didn't make any assumption about what the jury did or did not believe. I have been very clear about that.

The legal principles involved may have been formulated in previous centuries but they remain valid. They are not trying to accommodate 21st Century social attitudes and outlooks. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the right to trial by a jury of one's peers is a concept from the 13th Century.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Clearly the police and the CPS believed that the offence of criminal damage had been committed and that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Code for Crown Prosecutors defines a reasonable prospect as "more likely than not" or a better than 50% chance. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt only comes into play at the trial itself.

I didn't contend that reasonableness was not a factor in this case, I cited the relevant case law. I didn't make any assumption about what the jury did or did not believe. I have been very clear about that.

The legal principles involved may have been formulated in previous centuries but they remain valid. They are not trying to accommodate 21st Century social attitudes and outlooks. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the right to trial by a jury of one's peers is a concept from the 13th Century.

The 13th Century did not have to accommodate post-modern philosophy and moral relativism.
 
The Colston four.One of them was called Milo for God’s sake. Isn’t that a dogs name? All four of them were stood outside court in casual clothes, one of them drinking a Frappuccino or something from Starbucks/ Costa.
I doubt anyone of them have meaningful jobs or contribute anything significant to society.
And going back to that daft Cnut carrying his coffee in his hand, does he realise his coffee is a product of slaves? Who does he think sources the coffee beans? Twats,all four of em.

I expected him to be, well, more purpley.

OIP.-LYNomcK2tRj-AEd9zfmtAHaOa
 

Chinggis

War Hero
The 13th Century did not have to accommodate post-modern philosophy and moral relativism.
Neither does 21st Century law. The case law that I cited is from 38 years ago, at at time that wasn't particularly renowned for alleged "wokeness" and it still applies today.
If the law didn't change in response to changing attitudes in society, we would still be hanging homosexuals.
 
Last edited:

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Neither does 21st Century law. The case law that I cited is from 38 years ago, at at time that wasn't particularly renowned for alleged "wokeness" and it still applies today.
If you take the view that the law shouldn't change in response to changing attitudes in society, we would still be hanging homosexuals.

Good straw man however that's not what I'm arguing at all.

Our system is predicated on the assumption that society generally shares a fundamental set of values which will, through the wisdom of crowds, broadly define the outcomes of jury decisions to society's satisfaction. If you introduce a conflicting set of values or, indeed, any set of philosophical or political assumptions which undermine the legitimacy of the system, then our system breaks down and it has to adapt.

Since 38 years is your benchmark, let us go back 38 years to prove this principle in the context of UK legal practice. Talk me through the Diplock Courts.
 

Chinggis

War Hero
Good straw man however that's not what I'm arguing at all.

Our system is predicated on the assumption that society generally shares a fundamental set of values which will, through the wisdom of crowds, broadly define the outcomes of jury decisions to society's satisfaction. If you introduce a conflicting set of values or, indeed, any set of philosophical or political assumptions which undermine the legitimacy of the system, then our system breaks down and it has to adapt.

Since 38 years is your benchmark, let us go back 38 years to prove this principle in the context of UK legal practice. Talk me through the Diplock Courts.
So instead you choose to introduce a straw man of your own, assuming that my citation of case law from 1984 makes that my only "benchmark". Then you throw in another straw man with a reference to Diplock Courts, which were
(a) created by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and
(b) abolished by the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007
both of which were enacted by Parliament, the supreme law-making body of the UK that has the power to make or unmake any law as it sees fit.

Your statement that "the wisdom of crowds, broadly define the outcomes of jury decisions to society's satisfaction" makes no sense. The jury's decision (verdict) is for them alone to make. The outcome of that decision, as the sentence imposed by the court after the verdict, is for the judge to decide. The "wisdom of crowds" has noting to do with the outcome, and nor should it.

The law adapts to changing values, philosophical and political assumptions - as does the society that it serves. The changing law on marital rape is a good example of that.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
So instead you choose to introduce a straw man of your own, assuming that my citation of case law from 1984 makes that my only "benchmark". Then you throw in another straw man with a reference to Diplock Courts, which were
(a) created by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and
(b) abolished by the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007
both of which were enacted by Parliament, the supreme law-making body of the UK that has the power to make or unmake any law as it sees fit.

Your statement that "the wisdom of crowds, broadly define the outcomes of jury decisions to society's satisfaction" makes no sense. The jury's decision (verdict) is for them alone to make. The outcome of that decision, as the sentence imposed by the court after the verdict, is for the judge to decide. The "wisdom of crowds" has noting to do with the outcome, and nor should it.

Your post misses the point entirely. I was simply reacting to what you wrote and at no point have I ever suggested that the law shouldn't change, in fact I'm arguing for greater definition around what appears to be accepted practice.
 

Latest Threads

Top