|
|
Post by barbara on Jan 7, 2022 13:09:46 GMT
Meanwhile back in lala land.... www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/07/bbc-god-save-the-queen-every-day-ministersThe novelist Jonathon Coe tweeted in response: "Weren't we a serious country once? Quite recently." Straight out of the Trump playbook. Populism at its most silliest. What an insecure country we have become that we need the constant sight of flags and the sound of the National Anthem to remind us we're still British. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,686
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 13:11:23 GMT
barbara Another reason not to watch the Tory propaganda channel .
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 7, 2022 13:14:27 GMT
Perhaps we should scrap Jury trials and just let Priti Patel decide on guilt or innocence or maybe make it even easier and just let the Police decide? We are going to have more of them-not less :- "Yesterday Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, said the government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) bill, which is going through parliament, would crack down on protesters who attack monuments. It will increase the maximum sentence for the crime from three months to ten years but, significantly, the bill will also widen the number of cases that have to be heard at a crown court, which is tried by a jury. Had the defendants not requested it, the case would have been heard by magistrates because the damage caused to the statue was £3,750 — less than the £5,000 threshold to go to crown court. Under the PCSC bill, any case where the “emotional value” is deemed “significant” will go to a crown court. This means more cases will be tried by jury, and the verdict will be at the mercy of the jury in any case, regardless of judicial direction. A jury acquitting defendants of criminal damage despite evidence that they dislodged a statue, defacing it before tipping it into a harbour may seem illogical but this is a bulwark of the criminal justice system. English juries are entitled under common law to arrive at verdicts on the basis of conscience — ie, to believe that the crown should not have brought the prosecution. We cannot know what the jury thought, because unlike in the US, where jurors speak to the media after verdicts, they are legally prohibited from doing so." Times "Emotional value". That's an interesting concept to introduce into lawfor a Government and party which campaigns against "wokeness" and easily reaches for the word "snowflake" to ridicule those who express dismay or distress about events or issues. Whose emotions about what and how are they valued? |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 13:19:16 GMT
Wasnt there a recent documentary showing (from memory) 3 out of about 20 skeletons of crew raised with the Mary Rose tudor warship had mediterranean or african ancestry? I think at least one of them had mineralogical evidence of being born and raised in Britain? Similarly Roman burials have revealed people ethnically from all over the then known world.
As to gay, didnt this take a turn for the wose in Victorian times with the sexual offences act which Oscar Wild fell foul of? Plainly before that such activity had been much more open, and indeed the legislation was a reaction to it based upon then current morality. Although I seem to recall it mostly passed by MPs being absent and dodging the issue of stating an opinion. Something of a brexit vote, expected to fall but didnt.
A while back on UKPR we discussed people being slipped drugs and then taking part in sex, and some people seemed quite disturbed when I did a tally and said i had probably been drugged unawares maybe by five different people (though only three for their own sexual entertainment). Obviously its quite common and goes unremarked for people to do this by simply plying others with alcohol. Anyway, my point is that none of these did me any harm. Whereas I would judge the general atmosphere of homophobia as I was growing up did me a great deal of harm. And it still does to others.
It may be that ethnic characters or non normative sexual behaviour do get over represented in dramas. But the problem there has to be the need to cover all options with a limited total cast, so you cannot allocate on a statistically representative basis. When did you last see inspector Barnaby in the quiet rural Midsummer spend an hour without a murder or three taking place? However....i have met an awful lot of people who started out having heterosexual relationships because of peer pressure, switching to stable homosexual ones later in life as perceptions changed. You need to take responsibility for the harm done to them.
The point about this sort of woke issue is that this sort of discrimination has become endemic and many imposing it simply do not realise the harm they are causing. You comments seem a case in point.
On your first point there may have been a few non-white sailors in Tudor warships, but we are talking small numbers here. As regards the Romans, their empire did not include areas that were non-white; most of their north African and near eastern lands would have been inhabited by peoples who would have been whiter than their modern populations. The great Arab and (later) Turkish migrations into these lands had not yet occurred. My general point is that most normal people rightly condemn things like homophobia and racism, but that doesn't mean that they want political correctness rammed down their throats. One of my friends started out in his 20s having a heterosexual relationship (to my surprise), got married and fathered a boy. His marriage then failed, predictably, and he ended up in a relationship with another man. I have no issue with this at all. My issue is with the proselytization of homosexuality that some extreme groups practice. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 7, 2022 13:20:40 GMT
robert - "Perhaps if you read the barrister, Stephen Barrett's article in the Spectator you might understand more." Indeed. I understand perfectly well. This is the kind of half-witted,intellectually vapid, inconstant politicized crap that you apparently support - www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/07/attorney-general-considering-referring-colston-statue-case-to-appeal-courtNot so long ago people like you were bemoaning how the judges were enemies of the people and couldn't be trusted, but at the first sign of the people doing something you don't like, you run back to the judges and start whinging about how everything is so unfair. It's like watching a bunch of spoilt brats being told that they can't do whatever they like. And you are part of that pathetic parade. The law is the law. Stephen Barret is talking rubbish, and the Spectator is just where you would expect to find such viewa. It's a surprising verdict, but it is based on perfectly sound legal reasoning, even if the result is a surprise. I dunno - lets just say a Libyan cultural organisation wanted to erect a statue of Muammar Gaddafi in front of New Scotland Yard, or perhaps a libertarian sexual freedom group fancied a statue of Jummy Saville near the entrance to Stoke Mandeville hospital. Weird, but lets run with it. Lets imagine that there was nothing in planning law that could prevent this, and the statues get erected, on private land, clearly against public sentiment and interest. I'd support a bit of direct action to rectify the glorification of violence or sexual abuse. Wouldn't you? I'd hope the legal system would develop and provide new precedent that would ensure such things were unlikely to happen again. You just want the courts to rule in your favour, and if that means politicizing the process you couldn't give two hoots. It's only political when someone else does it to you, and that's the bit I find pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 13:26:58 GMT
If you believe that the "crime was manifestly committed" then you have not understood the legal position outlined by the Secret Barrister. Most crimes, save those of strict liability (such as driving without insurance) have to have two elements so called actus reus and mens rea or the guilty act and the guilty mind. You have, no doubt, considered that the causing of the damage being admitted by the defendant's is sufficient to establish guilt, it is not, and has not been for at least a thousand years of common law jurisprudence. The mental element in criminal damage is met up of a number of elements and in particular the state of mind of the Defendant's as to the lawfulness, given that such damage must, as required by the statute, be e.g. unlawful (amongst the other things mentioned in the article) and the Defendant's state of mind must be that they know or believe it's unlawful or, alternatively are reckless as to whether it is unlawful or not. If the prosecution fail to prove to the jury, so that they are sure, that the Defendant's state of mind was such that they either knew or believed or were reckless as to whether their action was unlawful then the jury would enter a not guilty verdict. However, if you were to remove the mental element of the crime then you make damage a strict liability offence so that simply causing damage is sufficient to prove the crime. The consequences of such a change would be, e.g. that if you jointly own a home and come home and forget your key so that you break a window to get in, the fact that it is joint property would mean that you would be guilty of the strict liability offence of criminal damage. However, whether you, or anyone else, believe this verdict is correct, or not, is simply a matter of opinion. It does not, on that basis, seem to me me to be an occasion to rush to change a thousand years of an approach to criminal liability. Thanks for the law lesson, most interesting. I understand the reason for the mens rea but do find it hard to believe that defendants would not have been aware that they were committing an offence. I could perhaps have accepted this defence if they were teenagers, but surely any adult would be aware that damaging a public structure is an offence. It would be interesting to see the jury's justification for their decision, if they are ever willing to release it. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 7, 2022 13:30:49 GMT
robert - "...why I am unlikely to ever vote Labour, no matter how bad the Tories get. Soft on crime, soft on punishment." Um....the Bristol Four were acquitted after the Conservatives have been in power for 12 years. Soft on crime, soft on punishment..... You make me smile sometimes.  Perhaps if you read the barrister, Stephen Barrett's article in the Spectator you might understand more. I quote: "I keep politics out of my articles. I defend the rule of law and our rules-based system because it is the one we have. But it is under heavy and sustained assault. There are clearly people who instead want a values-based system — one where what matters is not following the rules, but holding the right opinion. Moving from a rules-based system to the supremacy of values is a political act — it isn’t for the legal system to enact policy. If you all decide you want a values-based system, then it is for the political sphere to do that — by elections, and referenda, and through politics. But the oddest thing of all is that I cannot see anyone in the political arena publicly calling for this shift." In other words, yes, this has happened after a decade of Conservative government but it is not the Government pushing the change but they most certainly look seriously at the problem. The one failing in our system is that jurors don't have to explain their action as do in the US. I read reports that the Maxwell trial maybe have to be reheard as at least one juror, maybe two, lied on their assessment forms and so arrived with pre-conceived ideas of her guilt. As for the Bristol jury we will never know but if they were local people in a particular age band, then the suspicion has to be, that they were sympathetic to their cause. So are you proposing that a jury should be chosen which is not the same demographic and not local to the accused? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,469
|
Post by Danny on Jan 7, 2022 13:36:26 GMT
Australian tennis continues as another player is interned, and more under investigation. It seems the state government wants to let them in but the federal government to exclude them. Its all got rather political. Meanwhile Campbell reports omicron is now widesprad everywhere and has replaced or is fast replacing other strains even in places such as Australia or Japan where it supposedly is very low prevalence. Its odd how it could do that unless it has become ubiquitous, even if reported cases are very low. There is no preventing its spread. My issue is with the proselytization of homosexuality that some extreme groups practice. Whose that then? My issue is with the proselytization of heterosexuality that many mainstream groups practice. I always wondered just what they fear if their beliefs are truly grounded in nature. Obvious answer- they arent. |
|
|
|
Post by turk on Jan 7, 2022 13:38:17 GMT
Wb61
The example you give of somebody breaking a window to obtain entry to there property even though it is jointly owned is certainly not the same as pulling down publicly owned property. In the first instance the person breaking the window would have the reasonable assumption that the joint owner would have given permission in the circumstances and the cost of the replacement pane would have been born by the person breaking the pane and therefore a charge of criminal damage would not apply.
In the circumstances of the public statue the persons responsible would have known the statue was not there property ,that pulling it down would cause damage and nor would they consider repaying the local ,authority for any damaged caused. In addition to that it would be reasonable for a normal person present to know that destroying or attempting to destroy public property is illegal.
As I understand it in this case the defendants admitted there guilt and were filmed on cctv actually participating in the said act. The fact that they were found not guilty was a decision arrived at by the jury not based on the facts as they were indisputable ,but on the emotional argument put forward by the defence so be it ,but don’t conflate the two. Had they appeared in front of a magistrate based on the facts they would have been found guilty, however the defence elected trial by jury which is there right ,just so they could convince the locally elected jury of the “righteousness “ of the defendants case which they did.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on Jan 7, 2022 13:45:20 GMT
Meanwhile back in lala land.... www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/07/bbc-god-save-the-queen-every-day-ministersThe novelist Jonathon Coe tweeted in response: "Weren't we a serious country once? Quite recently." Straight out of the Trump playbook. Populism at its most silliest. What an insecure country we have become that we need the constant sight of flags and the sound of the National Anthem to remind us we're still British. "What an insecure country we have become that we need the constant sight of flags and the sound of the National Anthem to remind us we're still British" - Indeed. I grew up believing that a fundamental tenet of being British was viewing things like that with amused disdain. But then this new breed of right wing ideologues doesn't seem very 'British' to me |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jan 7, 2022 13:46:39 GMT
Robert Maybe and I'm just putting it as a possibility wading into an otherwise peaceful if boisterous crowd of thousands who had injured no one and had caused no other damage to rescue a frickin statue might have been thought inappropriate and unnecessarily aggressive. When you had perfectly sufficient evidence from video recording to detain those who were directly involved peacefully after the event. But I am sure it really had something to do with the size of the officers posteriors instead! Whether it was a statue, a building, cars parked in the street or whatever, this mob was causing criminal damage. I appreciate that a decision may have been taken to let them get on with it as it was being filmed and they could be rounded up later but the minute that statue toppled, the police should have stepped in. In Continental countries of course, they use water cannon to control rampaging mobs. I'm sure that many ordinary coppers would be only too keen to do their job and would have been dismayed at the court result. The problem as I see it is the total unsuitability of Chief Constables generally for their role. They seem more interested in keeping a quiet profile and ticking their diversity boxes for the duration of their tenure and collecting their gong at the end, having created no ripples, than they are in criminal profiling and nicking miscreants and getting them locked up. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,686
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 13:51:23 GMT
tancred By the sixteenth century there were around 10-15000 black British people. Equivalent to approximately the entire population of Bristol at the time. Around 2- 3% of the indigenous population of London were black and a large number of the migrant population were also of colour. By 1700 there were hundreds of black sailors.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 7, 2022 13:52:52 GMT
The Secret Barrister dissects the Spectator article by Steven Barrett (who is not a criminal lawyer):
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on Jan 7, 2022 13:56:28 GMT
tancred "most of their north African and near eastern lands would have been inhabited by peoples who would have been whiter than their modern populations" - Whhaatt?? I'm not even sure what point this is supposed to be making but I'm pretty sure that the Arab conquest of North Africa brought mainly religion, culture and language not ethnicity or a replacement of population. The Berbers who are still a large part of the population of this region are remaining direct cultural descendants of the original people and they don't look any different to the Arabic dialect speaking inhabitants that I'm aware of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 14:01:00 GMT
robert - "...why I am unlikely to ever vote Labour, no matter how bad the Tories get. Soft on crime, soft on punishment." Um....the Bristol Four were acquitted after the Conservatives have been in power for 12 years. Soft on crime, soft on punishment..... You make me smile sometimes. Perhaps if you read the barrister, Stephen Barrett's article in the Spectator you might understand more. I quote: "I keep politics out of my articles. I defend the rule of law and our rules-based system because it is the one we have. But it is under heavy and sustained assault. There are clearly people who instead want a values-based system — one where what matters is not following the rules, but holding the right opinion. Moving from a rules-based system to the supremacy of values is a political act — it isn’t for the legal system to enact policy. If you all decide you want a values-based system, then it is for the political sphere to do that — by elections, and referenda, and through politics. But the oddest thing of all is that I cannot see anyone in the political arena publicly calling for this shift." In other words, yes, this has happened after a decade of Conservative government but it is not the Government pushing the change but they most certainly look seriously at the problem. The one failing in our system is that jurors don't have to explain their action as do in the US. I read reports that the Maxwell trial maybe have to be reheard as at least one juror, maybe two, lied on their assessment forms and so arrived with pre-conceived ideas of her guilt. As for the Bristol jury we will never know but if they were local people in a particular age band, then the suspicion has to be, that they were sympathetic to their cause. Spot on robert |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,686
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 14:04:30 GMT
robert Actually the " mob" your word not mine was overwhelmingly peaceful, I made it abundantly clear that the identity of those involved in moving the statue was readily established without recourse to exacerbating unnecessary conflict at the time. It might have escaped your attention but the individuals concerned were arrested and charged , that's why they were in court. I was an ordinary copper the fact that a few demonstrators got away with chucking a statue into a river wouldn't have caused even a ripple of concern.Far more significant things to worry about. Your comment about a " rampaging mob" is totally irrelevant as this demonstration didn't consist of a " rampaging mob" If water cannon had been used on them they might have turned into one, fortunately in general the police service isn't managed based on the Chuck Norris principle and doesn't have the moral compass of Priti Patel. The primary function of a police service is maintaining public peace and prevention of crime, where crime has occurred the detection and prosecution of offenders.What happens afterwards isn't down to us. If you're an operational police officer and you are dismayed by the decision of court's, you're in the wrong job.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 14:06:25 GMT
Australian tennis continues as another player is interned, and more under investigation. It seems the state government wants to let them in but the federal government to exclude them. Its all got rather political. Meanwhile Campbell reports omicron is now widesprad everywhere and has replaced or is fast replacing other strains even in places such as Australia or Japan where it supposedly is very low prevalence. Its odd how it could do that unless it has become ubiquitous, even if reported cases are very low. There is no preventing its spread. My issue is with the proselytization of homosexuality that some extreme groups practice. Whose that then? My issue is with the proselytization of heterosexuality that many mainstream groups practice. I always wondered just what they fear if their beliefs are truly grounded in nature. Obvious answer- they arent. For the avoidance of doubt I am opposed to any proselytization of any type of sexuality. Modern society is obsessed with sexuality to a ridiculous degree. This obsession with sex is creating unnecessary angst among the section of the population that is unable to feed this appetite, and then this anger and frustration often leads to sexual crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jan 7, 2022 14:07:08 GMT
Nice to see that statue-gate continues to dominate: makes for speedy scrolling. I'm putting you in the indifferent category  |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jan 7, 2022 14:08:24 GMT
Alec
"Stephen Barret is talking rubbish,"
Apologies, I didn't appreciate that you are a Barrister. The serious point is though that Barrett is a Barrister; the secret Barrister is likewise. Unsurprisingly in matters legal, they don't always agree with each other.
Your examples as stated are simply ridiculous as you know full well that planning permission would be refused in the first instance.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 14:10:44 GMT
tancred "most of their north African and near eastern lands would have been inhabited by peoples who would have been whiter than their modern populations" - Whhaatt?? I'm not even sure what point this is supposed to be making but I'm pretty sure that the Arab conquest of North Africa brought mainly religion, culture and language not ethnicity or a replacement of population. The Berbers who are still a large part of the population of this region are remaining direct cultural descendants of the original people and they don't look any different to the Arabic dialect speaking inhabitants that I'm aware of. Berbers are usually whiter than Arabs - generally closer in appearance to Spanish people in most cases. The Arab invasions did change the population as they mixed with the native Berbers, perhaps more in Libya and Tunisia than elsewhere in the Maghreb. As for Roman times, Carthage, for example, was mostly inhabited by Iberians, and the statues of Hannibal clearly show that he was a white man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 14:12:49 GMT
"Emotional value". That's an interesting concept to introduce into lawfor a Government and party which campaigns against "wokeness" and easily reaches for the word "snowflake" to ridicule those who express dismay or distress about events or issues. Whose emotions about what and how are they valued? Dont ask me-I'm completely thrown by all of this. I thought-in my ignorance there was:- 1. The Law 2 . A Judge to explain it to the Jury 3 ,A Jury to decide if that law had been broken. 4 A Judge ( same one) to pass sentence Now I read ( wb61 ) :- "If the prosecution fail to prove to the jury, so that they are sure, that the Defendant's state of mind was such that they either knew or believed or were reckless as to whether their action was unlawful then the jury would enter a not guilty verdict." wb61 explains that this is ensure that I don't get prosecuted for breaking my own windows ( or statue !!). And to provide me with that protection it seems the price is that anyone can smash property up and simply say-didn't know it was illegal m'lud. I mean-who knew  |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 7, 2022 14:13:10 GMT
Wb61 The example you give of somebody breaking a window to obtain entry to there property even though it is jointly owned is certainly not the same as pulling down publicly owned property. In the first instance the person breaking the window would have the reasonable assumption that the joint owner would have given permission in the circumstances and the cost of the replacement pane would have been born by the person breaking the pane and therefore a charge of criminal damage would not apply. In the circumstances of the public statue the persons responsible would have known the statue was not there property ,that pulling it down would cause damage and nor would they consider repaying the local ,authority for any damaged caused. In addition to that it would be reasonable for a normal person present to know that destroying or attempting to destroy public property is illegal. As I understand it in this case the defendants admitted there guilt and were filmed on cctv actually participating in the said act. The fact that they were found not guilty was a decision arrived at by the jury not based on the facts as they were indisputable ,but on the emotional argument put forward by the defence so be it ,but don’t conflate the two. Had they appeared in front of a magistrate based on the facts they would have been found guilty, however the defence elected trial by jury which is there right ,just so they could convince the locally elected jury of the “righteousness “ of the defendants case which they did. The defendents did not admit their guilt otherwise they would have pleaded guilty. In a trial, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to make a case so that a jury is sure of the guilt of the accused. The defense put forward legal arguments as explained in the thread by the Secret Barrister. There is no basis on which you can say that magistrates would have found for the prosecution. Juries are not elected they are selected and the point of juries is that people are tried by their "peers". I always enjoy reading your posts as they are always so fundamentally wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 7, 2022 14:14:16 GMT
Perhaps if you read the barrister, Stephen Barrett's article in the Spectator you might understand more. I quote: "I keep politics out of my articles. I defend the rule of law and our rules-based system because it is the one we have. But it is under heavy and sustained assault. There are clearly people who instead want a values-based system — one where what matters is not following the rules, but holding the right opinion. Moving from a rules-based system to the supremacy of values is a political act — it isn’t for the legal system to enact policy. If you all decide you want a values-based system, then it is for the political sphere to do that — by elections, and referenda, and through politics. But the oddest thing of all is that I cannot see anyone in the political arena publicly calling for this shift." In other words, yes, this has happened after a decade of Conservative government but it is not the Government pushing the change but they most certainly look seriously at the problem. The one failing in our system is that jurors don't have to explain their action as do in the US. I read reports that the Maxwell trial maybe have to be reheard as at least one juror, maybe two, lied on their assessment forms and so arrived with pre-conceived ideas of her guilt. As for the Bristol jury we will never know but if they were local people in a particular age band, then the suspicion has to be, that they were sympathetic to their cause. Spot on robertBarrett is not a criminal lawyer. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 14:16:17 GMT
Perhaps if you read the barrister, Stephen Barrett's article in the Spectator you might understand more. I quote: "I keep politics out of my articles. I defend the rule of law and our rules-based system because it is the one we have. But it is under heavy and sustained assault. There are clearly people who instead want a values-based system — one where what matters is not following the rules, but holding the right opinion. Moving from a rules-based system to the supremacy of values is a political act — it isn’t for the legal system to enact policy. If you all decide you want a values-based system, then it is for the political sphere to do that — by elections, and referenda, and through politics. But the oddest thing of all is that I cannot see anyone in the political arena publicly calling for this shift." In other words, yes, this has happened after a decade of Conservative government but it is not the Government pushing the change but they most certainly look seriously at the problem. The one failing in our system is that jurors don't have to explain their action as do in the US. I read reports that the Maxwell trial maybe have to be reheard as at least one juror, maybe two, lied on their assessment forms and so arrived with pre-conceived ideas of her guilt. As for the Bristol jury we will never know but if they were local people in a particular age band, then the suspicion has to be, that they were sympathetic to their cause. Spot on robert The problem, as I see it, is that the jury system is inherently flawed. People are by nature, likely to be guided by their own values and political opinions. Bristol is a very liberal city with a high student population and, unsurprisingly, a jury from this city is likely to be supportive of the defendants. Controversial decisions such as this one should be automatically referred to the Appeal Court. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 14:17:43 GMT
Wasnt there a recent documentary showing (from memory) 3 out of about 20 skeletons of crew raised with the Mary Rose tudor warship had mediterranean or african ancestry? I think at least one of them had mineralogical evidence of being born and raised in Britain? Similarly Roman burials have revealed people ethnically from all over the then known world.
As to gay, didnt this take a turn for the wose in Victorian times with the sexual offences act which Oscar Wild fell foul of? Plainly before that such activity had been much more open, and indeed the legislation was a reaction to it based upon then current morality. Although I seem to recall it mostly passed by MPs being absent and dodging the issue of stating an opinion. Something of a brexit vote, expected to fall but didnt.
A while back on UKPR we discussed people being slipped drugs and then taking part in sex, and some people seemed quite disturbed when I did a tally and said i had probably been drugged unawares maybe by five different people (though only three for their own sexual entertainment). Obviously its quite common and goes unremarked for people to do this by simply plying others with alcohol. Anyway, my point is that none of these did me any harm. Whereas I would judge the general atmosphere of homophobia as I was growing up did me a great deal of harm. And it still does to others.
It may be that ethnic characters or non normative sexual behaviour do get over represented in dramas. But the problem there has to be the need to cover all options with a limited total cast, so you cannot allocate on a statistically representative basis. When did you last see inspector Barnaby in the quiet rural Midsummer spend an hour without a murder or three taking place? However....i have met an awful lot of people who started out having heterosexual relationships because of peer pressure, switching to stable homosexual ones later in life as perceptions changed. You need to take responsibility for the harm done to them.
The point about this sort of woke issue is that this sort of discrimination has become endemic and many imposing it simply do not realise the harm they are causing. You comments seem a case in point.
On your first point there may have been a few non-white sailors in Tudor warships, but we are talking small numbers here. As regards the Romans, their empire did not include areas that were non-white; most of their north African and near eastern lands would have been inhabited by peoples who would have been whiter than their modern populations. The great Arab and (later) Turkish migrations into these lands had not yet occurred. My general point is that most normal people rightly condemn things like homophobia and racism, but that doesn't mean that they want political correctness rammed down their throats. One of my friends started out in his 20s having a heterosexual relationship (to my surprise), got married and fathered a boy. His marriage then failed, predictably, and he ended up in a relationship with another man. I have no issue with this at all. My issue is with the proselytization of homosexuality that some extreme groups practice. Have you heard of the Iliad? In that (800 BCE cca) the Gods dine with Ethiopians and those are also allies of Troy and they are described as dark coloured. And just in case for Britain: www.ourmigrationstory.org.uk/oms/roman-britain-the-ivory-bangle-lady |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,686
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 14:17:44 GMT
Just a quick covid update about the prevalence or otherwise of covid in hospital not being the reason for hospitalization.
UK coronavirus live: nearly 40% of hospital patients with Covid in England primarily treated for something else,the figure for Scotland is over 40%.
So getting on for half of covid "admissions" would likely to have been there anyway.
The political relevance of this relates to perception, the less public concern is focused on the pandemic the more focus on the corruption of the regime and the failure of Brexit will become significant.
Interesting to see the daily telegraph of all places with a major spread on the failure of brexit, I suspect if " world beating" covid response becomes less salient and the claim " got Brexit done" is a good way to loose votes then the Tories are in real trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 7, 2022 14:18:32 GMT
Thanks for the law lesson, most interesting. I understand the reason for the mens rea but do find it hard to believe that defendants would not have been aware that they were committing an offence. I could perhaps have accepted this defence if they were teenagers, but surely any adult would be aware that damaging a public structure is an offence. It would be interesting to see the jury's justification for their decision, if they are ever willing to release it. In respect of the last matter the Jury are not permitted, on penalty of potential imprisonment, to reveal any of their discussions in retirement and the reasons for coming to their verdict. There is a prohibition on such disclosure when a juror intentionally discloses information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced, or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court, or to solicit or obtain such information (sections 20D, 20E, 20F and 20G Juries Act 1974) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 14:19:08 GMT
. Had they appeared in front of a magistrate based on the facts they would have been found guilty, however the defence elected trial by jury which is there right ,just so they could convince the locally elected jury of the “righteousness “ of the defendants case which they did. A choice made by their legal team ,either in the knowledge that, or strong reason to suppose that, 12 random Bristolians would agree with the actions of the accused. Pretty good bet. I know Bristol is Lab/Green politically-but even the Labour Mayor has expressed reservations Do Defence Lawyers get to know who the Jury are in UK I wonder ? |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 14:19:29 GMT
tancred By the sixteenth century there were around 10-15000 black British people. Equivalent to approximately the entire population of Bristol at the time. Around 2- 3% of the indigenous population of London were black and a large number of the migrant population were also of colour. By 1700 there were hundreds of black sailors. I suspect these are spurious figures - where is the evidence? And the majority of these people were servants or slaves of one kind or another. There is no evidence that they intermarried into the general population in large numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 14:21:42 GMT
I am aware of the Iliad, but this is a legend, not literal historical fact. And even if true, 'dark' may simply means swarthy, not black skinned. |
|
