This doesn’t affect the existing ~~convictions~~ (edit:) _not guilty verdicts_ but clarifies the law around criminal damage during protests, which will affect any future court cases involving criminal damage during protests.
Awesome.
Now do the same for Government causing deaths through deliberately negligent policy.
Was that ever questioned, it’s pretty clear it was a violent act… I think the true issue is, does it matter.
Could have killed him!
Oh wait it’s a fucking statue…
Probably the right answer.
You can’t have a right to commit criminal damage as part of your right to protest. I agree it should have been removed sooner, but if you codify that right in law then you can’t legalise degrees of criminal damage. You also then could easily have it being used as a defence when not part of wider protests – like someone writing something obscene on a gay couple’s wall.
The way to deal with it is probably for CPS to consider its not on the public interest, and then juries to return the (technically incorrect) verdict that they did regarding thr statue.
Regardless of how people feel, unilateral violent action by a mob never leads to positive outcomes
If it wasn’t illegal it would kind of take away the point of felling it really. Unless we want statues to be some sort of social stress ball
Slavery was a series of millions of violent acts so I still don’t see a problem with dumping the statue in a harbour. It’s a publicly owned monument, the public decided it looked better underwater.
They must have infringed on the human rights of the statue.
If you feel that strongly about the statue, accept the consequences of removal. It’s still a win if it’s gone.
10 comments
This doesn’t affect the existing ~~convictions~~ (edit:) _not guilty verdicts_ but clarifies the law around criminal damage during protests, which will affect any future court cases involving criminal damage during protests.
Awesome.
Now do the same for Government causing deaths through deliberately negligent policy.
Was that ever questioned, it’s pretty clear it was a violent act… I think the true issue is, does it matter.
Could have killed him!
Oh wait it’s a fucking statue…
Probably the right answer.
You can’t have a right to commit criminal damage as part of your right to protest. I agree it should have been removed sooner, but if you codify that right in law then you can’t legalise degrees of criminal damage. You also then could easily have it being used as a defence when not part of wider protests – like someone writing something obscene on a gay couple’s wall.
The way to deal with it is probably for CPS to consider its not on the public interest, and then juries to return the (technically incorrect) verdict that they did regarding thr statue.
Regardless of how people feel, unilateral violent action by a mob never leads to positive outcomes
If it wasn’t illegal it would kind of take away the point of felling it really. Unless we want statues to be some sort of social stress ball
Slavery was a series of millions of violent acts so I still don’t see a problem with dumping the statue in a harbour. It’s a publicly owned monument, the public decided it looked better underwater.
They must have infringed on the human rights of the statue.
If you feel that strongly about the statue, accept the consequences of removal. It’s still a win if it’s gone.