Edward Colston statue case could be sent to appeal court
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59909823
bbc.co.ukPosted Jan 7, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC
1623
bbc.co.ukFOR fucks sake
IT WOULD NOT GET OVER THE CLERKS DESK
This is what you get when you put someone with out the relevant experience in a job they couldn't do even if they had.
eta:
21
This is the kind of comment you get when you don't read the article. That's not the purpose of sending it to the CoA, as stated by Suella.
-9
your comment don't make any sense.
Braveman wants to send it to the CoA to get judges to tell her that the law is the law, something that won't get past the clerks desk because it is a stupid request.
Explain to me what you don't get here.
15
No, that's not the point. It's effectively an investigation into whether the jury were given the correct instructions.
-13
Putting a judge on trial because she hasn't a clue. As I have previously said...
eta:
Here: Suella Braverman accused of politically-driven meddling over Colston Four
4
Suella Braverman said trial by jury was "an important guardian of liberty" but the result was "causing confusion".
The referral would not affect the acquittal, she added.
The verdict cannot be overturned and the defendants cannot be retried without fresh evidence.
Ms Braverman said she would decide whether to use powers that, as Attorney General, allow her to seek a Court of Appeal hearing so senior judges "have the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases".
11
In other words they are worried that people are going to use this as an excuse to yeet the Churchill statue into the Thames and so want a judge to publicly say "no, the verdict wouldn't make that legal".
20
Would have said the forthcoming Thatcher statue in Grantham rather than the Churchill statue, but your point still stands.
11
[zoidberg why not both gif]
8
That's still happening? I give it a year before it's head is mounted over the fireplace of a pub up north somewhere.
1
[deleted]
1
Ask the same people complaining, what was the point of a trial if you're so adamant they were guilty regardless?
I personally find it odd, more surprised it wasn't a guilty but acquitted/admonished by the judge.
8
Their counsel made some pretty good arguments in their defence clearly.
11
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
1
Well..
To play devil's advocate here...
Does this not start a precedent that says that I can destroy whatever I like as long as I can prove I find it 'offensive'?
-2†
If you can convince a jury. Good luck.
7
Except you're not playing devils advocate because you haven't understood the situation.
4
If you mean a legal precedent then no it doesn’t, crown court trials with a jury never set any legal precedent, another jury in another case exactly the same would have absolute autonomy over the verdict.
If you mean a social precedent, maybe in some people’s heads, but you’d have to be stupid to believe it. The law will apply to you in exactly the same way.
This Is a very interesting post about the case if you care to know more.
4
The most chilling thing here is the quote from Jenrick:
"If you've broken the law and committed criminal damage you should be punished, If the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed."
In other words - we don't like this jury's verdict. How can we get rid of juries?
People in glasshouses should learn to shut their fucking mouths!
That's proper dictatorship stuff.