Toppling Edward Colston’s statue was not protected by human rights laws, judges have decided in a landmark ruling.
The Court of Appeal ruled that human rights was not a defence for significant damage or that caused during violent protests such as the felling of Colston’s statue in Bristol.
Instead, the three judges – led by Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett – ruled protesters might only “theoretically” be able to claim human rights as a defence for criminal damage if it was “minor or trivial”.
You don’t get to riot or cause criminal damage over feelz.
The implication of which is that collars should be feelz. So, where are those pics of the riot then?
Just because something is “offensive” to one person doesn’t give them the right to commit criminal damage “for the greater good”. If it was, then beating up XR protesters would be acceptable.
Perhaps all these wicked rioters should be deported back to where the law is more favourable to their point of view.
Unless they come from Oz that is!!!!!!
What is really good is the amount of egg on the face of leftist lawyers and commentators over this. But as they are so shameless they have already moved onto complaining about tax cuts.
In this case double jeopardy still applies and the Colston four remain acquitted although the judge badly ballsed the whole thing up.
And as I keep saying, the WHOLE POINT of civil disobedience is the willingness to trade your personal freedom to put out a message. If there is no threat to your personal freedom, there is no protest.
Does this mean that the owners of the statue can go after them in a civil case?
Alas, the “Colston Four” still got away with it. This judgement, welcome though it is, only applies to future cases where human rights laws might be invoked.
Is that statue of the convicted African terrorist still in Parliament Square?
Yeah. And let’s see what happens when the next similar case comes up in court. The justice system isn’t there to ensure justice. It’s there to ensure the Establishment remain in control. Human rights laws are not about your personal rights. You don’t have any. There was no doubt that what was done to the statue was criminal. But convictions wouldn’t have been in the interests of the Establishment. So they didn’t happen. And they won’t happen next time if they’re not convenient. But remember. This does not apply to you
Spanish bloke, yep, human rights laws are laws that restrict what the state (and latterly corporations) do. People don’t have any human rights per se.
human rights laws are laws that restrict what the state (and latterly corporations) do.
Who writes your material, SBML? You should try stand up.
States find the law restricts what they want to do, they change the law. If it’s corporations are restricted, they ask the state to change the law.
Human rights laws (whatever that strange combination of words is supposed to mean) are just a way of forcing obligations on you.
@Sam Vara
“Is that statue of the convicted African terrorist still in Parliament Square?”
And the shrine to noted antisemite and insulter of black people Karl Marx.
Although he can almost be forgiven for his athletic sister, Onya.
“ And the shrine to noted antisemite and insulter of black people Karl Marx.”
I’m planning on being in Trier tomorrow, when I was last there in 2019 his statue loomed large. My betting is the good Bürgers and Bürgerins of Trier have let it be.
I’m not sure this would have made much difference. Ultimately, if a jury wants to say “not guilty” because they also don’t like the statue, that’s it.
The problem here is listed buildings and that we’ve nationalised local monuments. A load of central government bureaucrats decided this should be listed and even though the local people wanted it rid of, they can’t do anything about it. If local monuments were decided at a local level, this would have been removed years ago.
@BiND
I thought to myself “I don’t remember seeing a Marx statue in Trier”, but it turns out to be a 2018 gift from the CCP. Why the city accepted it I don’t know. Do Germans do irony?