Extinction Rebellion Aquitted

[JohnfromUK]

I hear the BLM lot who pulled down the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol have all been acquitted. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

[12gauge82]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I hear the BLM lot who pulled down the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol have all been acquitted. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

That's unbelievable, how on earth can they have got a not guilty for that! 

That's a jury making a political decision, nothing to do with the rule of law and what implications will that cause after setting a precident like that. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

That's a jury making a political decision, nothing to do with the rule of law and what implications will that cause after setting a precident like that.

Exactly.

[clangerman]

this is what happens when the police stand about filming instead of making arrests vast expense to tax payers again for nothing 

[scolopax]

Is it possible to prosecute the jury? 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

I hear the BLM lot who pulled down the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol have all been acquitted. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

Yeah, saw this on the news. Good for them, they’ll no doubt be heading for Mount Rushmore as we speak.  👍

[ShootingEgg]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

Yeah, saw this on the news. Good for them, they’ll no doubt be heading for Mount Rushmore as we speak.  👍

Watched the local news today as am only a few miles out and they are so happy with themselves on being not guilty, it should never matter what the reason or what it is you damage, criminal damage is exactly that. And ripping down anything and then dumping it into a harbor is surely criminal damage

[oowee]

28 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

Watched the local news today as am only a few miles out and they are so happy with themselves on being not guilty, it should never matter what the reason or what it is you damage, criminal damage is exactly that. And ripping down anything and then dumping it into a harbor is surely criminal damage

They were found not guilty by the court. Its a tough one but we either have the courts or we have rough justice. 

[Scully]

32 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

Watched the local news today as am only a few miles out and they are so happy with themselves on being not guilty, it should never matter what the reason or what it is you damage, criminal damage is exactly that. And ripping down anything and then dumping it into a harbor is surely criminal damage

Quite agree. I was done for criminal damage as a teen’, and that was an accident. 

[12gauge82]

24 minutes ago, oowee said:

They were found not guilty by the court. Its a tough one but we either have the courts or we have rough justice. 

So what happens next time if someone burns down a hospital because it had ties to a pedophile or some other criminal offence because theyve taken offence. 

That's set a precidence of mob rule and now the genies out the bottle, what makes one persons feelings of offensive worth more than someone elses. I'd say it was a very dangerous ruling and certainly not one that reflects the average person's view at all. 

[Newbie to this]

This has yet again proved, that our joke of a justice system, is not fit for purpose.

[ditchman]

and wernt they a bunch of swampies...........and idaresay were momentum surportors

[ShootingEgg]

42 minutes ago, oowee said:

They were found not guilty by the court. Its a tough one but we either have the courts or we have rough justice. 

So that means I can smash up the hospitals in Bristol, the wills memorial, the university buildings, the old tobacco factories.... And is just say well slavery ..????

Not saying I don't get the reasons behind what they did, but they commited an offence! End of.

[JohnfromUK]

12 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

So what happens next time if someone burns down a hospital

Or as suggested by one Piers Corbyn, burns down M.P.'s offices because you don't like the way they vote?  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/19/piers-corbyn-arrested-on-suspicion-of-calling-for-mps-offices-to-be-burned-down

 

[JohnfromUK]

14 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

is not fit for purpose.

The problem lies in the Jury on this occasion - as the Extinction Rebellion trial.  The Jury can be "directed" by the Judge, but don't have to follow that "direction".  If they did have to follow it - it would not be 'trial by Jury', but 'trial by Judge'.

A Jury is supposed to find the verdict based solely on evidence, not on their personal political beliefs or any other personal feeling.

For example - you might also find a jury ignoring evidence and convicting or acquitting based on the accused's ethnicity.

[Scully]

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Or as suggested by one Piers Corbyn, burns down M.P.'s offices because you don't like the way they vote?  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/19/piers-corbyn-arrested-on-suspicion-of-calling-for-mps-offices-to-be-burned-down

 

Or try to blow up Mount Rushmore! 🙂

Logic dictates it has to be at least dismantled, surely? I don’t know about the others, but Jefferson and Washington certainly owned slaves. 

[oowee]

51 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

So what happens next time if someone burns down a hospital because it had ties to a pedophile or some other criminal offence because theyve taken offence. 

That's set a precidence of mob rule and now the genies out the bottle, what makes one persons feelings of offensive worth more than someone elses. I'd say it was a very dangerous ruling and certainly not one that reflects the average person's view at all. 

 

36 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

So that means I can smash up the hospitals in Bristol, the wills memorial, the university buildings, the old tobacco factories.... And is just say well slavery ..????

Not saying I don't get the reasons behind what they did, but they commited an offence! End of.

That would be criminal damage or worse. I would agree it's a dangerous precedent but it's a decision of the jury. How do we change it? Take away trial by jury? Or can the judge just decide the case on the basis of the evidence that they hear, and direct the jury to find them guilty? 

[ShootingEgg]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

 

That would be criminal damage or worse. I would agree it's a dangerous precedent but it's a decision of the jury. How do we change it? Take away trial by jury? Or can the judge just decide the case on the basis of the evidence that they hear, and direct the jury to find them guilty? 

If what I said is then so is the removal of the statue in the way it was removed.

[Rob85]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

The problem lies in the Jury on this occasion - as the Extinction Rebellion trial.  The Jury can be "directed" by the Judge, but don't have to follow that "direction".  If they did have to follow it - it would not be 'trial by Jury', but 'trial by Judge'.

A Jury is supposed to find the verdict based solely on evidence, not on their personal political beliefs or any other personal feeling.

For example - you might also find a jury ignoring evidence and convicting or acquitting based on the accused's ethnicity.

Would it not be possible for the judge to then decide to dismiss the jury or have the offenders retried? When I done jury service we were minded that we have no say in matters of what is law and what isn't, thats for judges and lawyers, we merely had to decide if they committed the offence or not based on the evidence presented, we were not to be taking into consideration any mitigating factors, that again is up to the judge and lawyers to decide. You merely say they are guilty or not guilty. If you are directed by the judge, that means there is no other possible verdict but guilty. In that sense this jury may as well have let Myra Hindley and Ian Brady go free, or Rose and Fred West.

There are trials that are decided by judges and lawyers without  jury, but I think they are reserved for terrorist cases, which it could be argued this may well be as it is people using acts of violence and civil unrest (somewhat terror possibly?) for political means.

I'm sure the powers that be are hoping these people will slink of quietly into the night but if the insulate Britain rent-a-mob are anything to go by then this idea of mob mentality will only get worse. Perhaps time to bring back "special constables" with the big stick?

[Stonepark]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

They were found not guilty by the court. Its a tough one but we either have the courts or we have rough justice. 

And if the courts (and juries) don't do their jobs according to the law... rough justice will commence...

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The problem lies in the Jury on this occasion - as the Extinction Rebellion trial.  The Jury can be "directed" by the Judge, but don't have to follow that "direction".  If they did have to follow it - it would not be 'trial by Jury', but 'trial by Judge'.

A Jury is supposed to find the verdict based solely on evidence, not on their personal political beliefs or any other personal feeling.

For example - you might also find a jury ignoring evidence and convicting or acquitting based on the accused's ethnicity.

 

6 hours ago, Rob85 said:

Would it not be possible for the judge to then decide to dismiss the jury or have the offenders retried? When I done jury service we were minded that we have no say in matters of what is law and what isn't, thats for judges and lawyers, we merely had to decide if they committed the offence or not based on the evidence presented, we were not to be taking into consideration any mitigating factors, that again is up to the judge and lawyers to decide. You merely say they are guilty or not guilty. If you are directed by the judge, that means there is no other possible verdict but guilty. In that sense this jury may as well have let Myra Hindley and Ian Brady go free, or Rose and Fred West.

There are trials that are decided by judges and lawyers without  jury, but I think they are reserved for terrorist cases, which it could be argued this may well be as it is people using acts of violence and civil unrest (somewhat terror possibly?) for political means.

I'm sure the powers that be are hoping these people will slink of quietly into the night but if the insulate Britain rent-a-mob are anything to go by then this idea of mob mentality will only get worse. Perhaps time to bring back "special constables" with the big stick?

Absolutely, the Judge should have dismissed the jury. The evidence in this case is so overwhelming, only a guilty verdict could be returned in law. They were videoed in the act of their crime.

This is a blatant disregard for our laws, and sets a dangerous president.

[JohnfromUK]

6 hours ago, Rob85 said:

Would it not be possible for the judge to then decide to dismiss the jury or have the offenders retried?

I don't know enough to answer that, but I presume the judge didn't think so.

 

6 hours ago, Rob85 said:

I'm sure the powers that be are hoping these people will slink of quietly into the night but if the insulate Britain rent-a-mob are anything to go by then this idea of mob mentality will only get worse.

Agreed.

5 hours ago, Stonepark said:

And if the courts (and juries) don't do their jobs according to the law...

If the jury say they cannot find "guilty" because it is not (in their eyes) "proved beyond reasonable doubt" - then the judge would have no choice.  It is entirely their call I think.

[Newbie to this]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

If the jury say they cannot find "guilty" because it is not (in their eyes) "proved beyond reasonable doubt" - then the judge would have no choice.  It is entirely their call I think.

Heard this morning on the LBC, they were not denying it, they admitted to pulling the statue down. Which given it was all on video, is not surprising, the not guilty verdict on the other hand, is very surprising, given the admission and overwhelming evidence.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Newbie to this

[enfieldspares]

This is England. Not East Germany. Or anywhere else. The jury is there to guilt or non-guilt. And it does that by deciding what is right and what is just. And if you look back the prosecution was in many parts as a result of the meddling of Priti Patel. Maybe, just maybe, the people of Bristol (who composed this jury) don't take kindly to Ms Patel deciding what she thinks the local Chief Constable should or shouldn't choose to prosecute. The statue had no place back in 1895 when it was erected and it has no place today. Public works do not excuse wickedness. What next statutes of Hitler to celebrate his creation of the autobahn system in Germany? A plaque to Goebbels at the Volkswagen factory?

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Heard this morning on the LBC, they were not denying it, they admitted to pulling the statue down. Which given it was all on video, is not surprising, the not guilty verdict on the other hand, is very surprising, given the admission and overwhelming evidence.

Well - given the LBC report is correct - and therefore the jury acquitted them - not because they were not guilty on the grounds that there was "reasonable doubt" - but on political grounds (the jury agreeing with what they were demonstrating about - I don't know where the law stands.  By that I mean that I don't know whether a retrial can be ordered, an appeal (by the prosecution) launched, or what (if anything) can legally be done.