Black Lives Matter

Sluffy wrote:

Err no, that's not what the Attorney General is considering doing it for, this is her reasoning -

“Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and must not be undermined. However, the decision in the Colston statue case is causing confusion.

“Without affecting the result of this case, as attorney general, I am able to refer matters to the court of appeal so that senior judges have the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases. I am carefully considering whether to do so.”

If the case does go to the court of appeal, the judges will not be able to rule on whether the jury’s decision was correct, only on whether there was an error in law in the directions that were given to the jury.

It is all about ruling on a point of law and not for vindictive reasons at all.

I don't think anyone can't face up to the past, I think the problem is more that we shouldn't be held accountable for the sins of our fathers.

What happened three hundred years ago can't be changed and Colston statue was put up years ago in memory of all the good he did for Bristol not to honour him as a slave trader.

Yes society changes and what was once acceptable is no longer deemed so and we all must move with the times and it clearly was the time for the statue to go.

It's just the way it was done and that Colston is judged by our society's values and not those of his time.

No doubt if he was born today he wouldn't be a slave trader and if you or I was born in his time we'd probably think nothing of people owning slaves.

For many years Colston was seen as a good person, the last 50 years no so much and today nothing but toxic.

It is what it is and Colstons time was simply up to be remembered in a prominent centre of a big city.

I don't think many couldn't accept that then was the right time to take the statue down and I'm fairly confident that some sort of high profile peaceful protest would have achieved just that without the need for going way over the top as the activists did on that day.

Anyway what is done is done and we simply move on from there.

One day you’ll learn that politicians don’t always speak the truth. Braverman has a particularly questionable record in this area, she’s playing to the constantly outraged crackpots in her party who haven’t bothered to look at what happened in court. If she does push forward on this (I doubt she will) she’ll be wasting public money and the court’s time.

Whitesince63 wrote:

okocha wrote:Seemed to be with UK blessing that we tore down the statue of Saddam Hussain.

Exactly and look where that got us?

Good to see that you are both now are condoning the pulling down of statues by angry mobs - which of course is the point I've been making all along...!

Sluffy wrote:

Good to see that you are both now are condoning the pulling down of statues by angry mobs - which of course is the point I've been making all along...!

Excuse me Sluffy, where did I say that I agreed with mobs pulling down statues??

Whitesince63 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Good to see that you are both now are condoning the pulling down of statues by angry mobs - which of course is the point I've been making all along...!

Excuse me Sluffy, where did I say that I agreed with mobs pulling down statues??

Didn't you agree that that the toppling of Saddam's statue by an angry mob didn't achieve anything much really?

The statue could have easily been removed without any fuss and bother without the need of mob rule - which is the point I was making about Colston's statue.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:One day you’ll learn that politicians don’t always speak the truth. Braverman has a particularly questionable record in this area, she’s playing to the constantly outraged crackpots in her party who haven’t bothered to look at what happened in court. If she does push forward on this (I doubt she will) she’ll be wasting public money and the court’s time.

Of course I know politicians lie, I've been lied to a number of times myself by them in my career (mostly by Labour politicians as at happens).

And if the Attorney General forwards the case for what in a sense is similar to a judicial Review, isn't it in the interest of everyone to have a ruling and clarification as to whether the trial judges instructions to the jury was legally correct, as case law sets the bases of determining court cases in the future.

If the judge gave the jury the correct legal advice then wouldn't you want that to be reviewed and upheld on appeal?

I certainly would.

Sluffy wrote:

Of course I know politicians lie, I've been lied to a number of times myself by them in my career (mostly by Labour politicians as at happens).

And if the Attorney General forwards the case for what in a sense is similar to a judicial Review, isn't it in the interest of everyone to have a ruling and clarification as to whether the trial judges instructions to the jury was legally correct, as case law sets the bases of determining court cases in the future.

If the judge gave the jury the correct legal advice then wouldn't you want that to be reviewed and upheld on appeal?

I certainly would.

Is there an accusation the judge misled the jury?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Of course I know politicians lie, I've been lied to a number of times myself by them in my career (mostly by Labour politicians as at happens).

And if the Attorney General forwards the case for what in a sense is similar to a judicial Review, isn't it in the interest of everyone to have a ruling and clarification as to whether the trial judges instructions to the jury was legally correct, as case law sets the bases of determining court cases in the future.

If the judge gave the jury the correct legal advice then wouldn't you want that to be reviewed and upheld on appeal?

I certainly would.

Is there an accusation the judge misled the jury?

That's the only grounds an appeal could be made.

Didn't you read the article?

"If the case does go to the court of appeal, the judges will not be able to rule on whether the jury’s decision was correct, only on whether there was an error in law in the directions that were given to the jury".

Exactly, which isn’t the accusation Braverman or any of the Tory MPs kicking off have made. They’ve claimed it ‘undermines the law’ - which is entirely nonsensical.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Exactly, which isn’t the accusation Braverman or any of the Tory MPs kicking off have made. They’ve claimed it ‘undermines the law’ - which is entirely nonsensical.

Not sure of the point you are making?

If there is an appeal then that's good for everyone as it clears the air and everyone knows what the score is.

If there's no appeal the Attorney General accepts the court decision to be correct and as such 'clears the air' and everyone 'knows what the score is' too.

Everything else are just empty words really - are they not?

Why then worry about 'empty words' from Tory MP's 'kicking off' that being the case???

I referenced the Tory MPs kicking off initially to highlight the ignorance we still have in this country. I've no interest in Braverman's posturing to be honest, i doubt she has any intention of pushing this beyond her initial soundbite.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I referenced the Tory MPs kicking off initially to highlight the ignorance we still have in this country. I've no interest in Braverman's posturing to be honest, i doubt she has any intention of pushing this beyond her initial soundbite.

The problem seems to me that ignorance and the hatred deriving from it is growing exponentially and fed by those on social media - irrespective of which side they are on.

It's only going to get worse - look at America where I saw recently iirc that 10% of the population still believed Trump won the election!

I can see it all ending up in tears one day!

Hope I'm wrong though.

Sorry, deriving from what?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry, deriving from what?

Hating deriving from ignorance.

Why do people hate blacks, homosexuals, the Tory Party, or whatever it is they do hate?

If you can understand where they are coming from then why hate them?

It's not that they've done anything personal to you, me or anyone else, it is just a hatred of what people think they represent.

Are all blacks, homosexuals, Tory voters, whatever - bad, of course they aren't.

If you learn to see life through their eyes - and they through yours - then isn't there a better chance of finding common ground and understanding of each other?

Instead people tend to band together and perpetuate their own hatred and ignorance by feeding it to each others who think the same and believe whatever tripe they are fed that reinforces those belief's.

Indeed folks on twitter even identify themselves in their intro's by using acronyms or other such means so they can associated with people who share the same views as they do and perpetuate their hatred and their anger amongst themselves and follow the social media influencers who feed and stoke this hatred.

You seemed to have found out from social media of Tory MP's kicking off and Braverman's 'tweet' - and reacted to it along with others who share your views.

Why though?

It's only words on the ether.

Nobody has actually done anything have they?

Even you don't believe they will.

So why the reaction (I don't specifically mean by you but rather from social media in general).

Why the hatred - I see plenty on twitter with hate the Tories hashtags or whatever it is they identify themselves with - spouting their anger and disdain, over what exactly - just a tweet from someone else.

No doubt there is equally as many supporting the MP's and Braverman's tweet.

I just find it all pathetic - grown men and women behaving like big babies really.

Pull your hair out and have a rant if there is an appeal by the government - but even then I think it is a positive because the judiciary are clearly still impartial in their judgements.

If the trial judge got it wrong then it needs correcting, if he didn't the judgement will be enshrined even more in case law.  

People need to come together if they want to sort things out.

To my mind social media simply helps attract people into opposite groups which in turn leads to driving them further apart than ever from each others standpoint.

I believe this ignorance or unwillingness to try to see the others view leads directly to such hatred.

It's mob mentality.

Unless you think my comments are abusive or out of line then including my comments in your response is nonsense. Abuse over social media is a stain on society, conducted by oddballs behind a keyboard whose motivations I don’t understand.

Being critical of government policy and communications is entirely valid in a democracy. You’re blurring two separate points again, and I’m sure you are sharp enough to understand the obvious distinction.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Unless you think my comments are abusive or out of line then including my comments in your response is nonsense. Abuse over social media is a stain on society, conducted by oddballs behind a keyboard whose motivations I don’t understand.

Being critical of government policy and communications is entirely valid in a democracy. You’re blurring two separate points again, and I’m sure you are sharp enough to understand the obvious distinction.

And you are certainly sharp enough to know the answers to these without without needing to query them...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry, deriving from what?

Sluffy wrote:The problem seems to me that ignorance and the hatred deriving from it

and...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Unless you think my comments are abusive or out of line then including my comments in your response is nonsense.

Sluffy wrote:(I don't specifically mean by you but rather from social media in general).

I also never said being critical about anything, let alone the government, is wrong - I've said I see it pointless when there's nothing actual to be critical about - it's just a tweet saying that she 'may' do something (or may not!) - and that social media causes the mass 'pile on' of reaction and hatred and that sadly  a large chunk of it doesn't just come from 'oddballs' but by normal members of the public who now live their life's on social media, have their views and opinions formed (or reinforced) by what they see and read on there and join together in groups to perpetuate those views and which leads to the anger and hatred some/many post on there.