About time too

VespaPX

Will they prosecute him?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10395493/Hammer-wielding-activist-scales-BBCs-Broadcasting-House-starts-destroying-Eric-Gill-sculpture.html

"The corporation has previously described the statue 'as a metaphor for broadcasting"
About right

lucy4

No doubt he will be arrested and charged (rightly so) but a precedent has been set as to securing a conviction.

hhyftrftdr

lucy4 said:

No doubt he will be arrested and charged (rightly so) but a precedent has been set as to securing a conviction.

Explain how?

lucy4

hhyftrftdr said:

lucy4 said:

No doubt he will be arrested and charged (rightly so) but a precedent has been set as to securing a conviction.

Explain how?

I'm sure that you're perfectly aware of the recent court case involving a 'Criminal Damage' trial. I've no need or desire to engage in a prolonged pointless debate with you.

goldon

Will there be a removal charge or free TV licence for life. Mm!

hhyftrftdr

lucy4 said:

hhyftrftdr said:

lucy4 said:

No doubt he will be arrested and charged (rightly so) but a precedent has been set as to securing a conviction.

Explain how?

I'm sure that you're perfectly aware of the recent court case involving a 'Criminal Damage' trial. I've no need or desire to engage in a prolonged pointless debate with you.

Yes, I know what you're referring to.

I'm curious to know what precedent has been set?
They were charged, a jury of their peers heard all the evidence and testimonies during a trial and found them not guilty.

No ''precedent has been set'' and our much lauded British justice system did the job it's been doing for decades.

Also, a jury coming to a perhaps surprising or unexpected verdict is nothing new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Worth a read if you can be bothered....

https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-summing-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/

Tikay10

With so much of huge interest n current news, I find it hard to get too exercised by an obscure statue of a man who died over 80 years ago, but we live in strange times & many are hooting & hollering about it.

Having said that it caused me to have a look at is Wiki. Not a man to do things by half measures....




His religious views and subject matter contrast with his sexual behaviour, including his erotic art, and (as mentioned in his own diaries) his extramarital affairs and sexual abuse of his daughters, sisters, and dog




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill

hhyftrftdr

Tikay10 said:

With so much of huge interest n current news, I find it hard to get too exercised by an obscure statue of a man who died over 80 years ago, but we live in strange times & many are hooting & hollering about it.

Having said that it caused me to have a look at is Wiki. Not a man to do things by half measures....




His religious views and subject matter contrast with his sexual behaviour, including his erotic art, and (as mentioned in his own diaries) his extramarital affairs and sexual abuse of his daughters, sisters, and dog




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill

Chilling stuff.

VespaPX

Tikay10 said:

With so much of huge interest n current news, I find it hard to get too exercised by an obscure statue of a man who died over 80 years ago, but we live in strange times & many are hooting & hollering about it.

Having said that it caused me to have a look at is Wiki. Not a man to do things by half measures....




His religious views and subject matter contrast with his sexual behaviour, including his erotic art, and (as mentioned in his own diaries) his extramarital affairs and sexual abuse of his daughters, sisters, and dog




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill

I did post about this a year or so ago.
Not really appropriate given the scandals at the BBC

Essexphil

Everyone has their own opinions on this sort of thing.

Personally, I could understand it more if someone wanted to attack him with a hammer (if he were still alive). Likewise, people while alive should never be able to profit from works while alive.

But-he is not. Consequently, his art should be judged on its artistic merit.

PS-Purely because of this man's vile life, part of wishes I could agree with @lucy4 . But I am with @hhyftrftdr on this one.

Personally, if charges are brought, I would hope he is found Guilty. And receives an Absolute Discharge. So-no fine etc unless he does it again.

My dog thinks he should be dug up and chemically castrated.

Tikay10

Essexphil said:

Everyone has their own opinions on this sort of thing.

Personally, I could understand it more if someone wanted to attack him with a hammer (if he were still alive). Likewise, people while alive should never be able to profit from works while alive.

But-he is not. Consequently, his art should be judged on its artistic merit.

PS-Purely because of this man's vile life, part of wishes I could agree with @lucy4 . But I am with @hhyftrftdr on this one.

Personally, if charges are brought, I would hope he is found Guilty. And receives an Absolute Discharge. So-no fine etc unless he does it again.

My dog thinks he should be dug up and chemically castrated.

Can't help wonder what sort of life the accused leads if this is the sort of thing he does in his spare time. Imagine being sat next to him on a long-haul flight & listening to him droning on about injustices from a century ago.

Essexphil

Tikay10 said:

Essexphil said:

Everyone has their own opinions on this sort of thing.

Personally, I could understand it more if someone wanted to attack him with a hammer (if he were still alive). Likewise, people while alive should never be able to profit from works while alive.

But-he is not. Consequently, his art should be judged on its artistic merit.

PS-Purely because of this man's vile life, part of wishes I could agree with @lucy4 . But I am with @hhyftrftdr on this one.

Personally, if charges are brought, I would hope he is found Guilty. And receives an Absolute Discharge. So-no fine etc unless he does it again.

My dog thinks he should be dug up and chemically castrated.

Can't help wonder what sort of life the accused leads if this is the sort of thing he does in his spare time. Imagine being sat next to him on a long-haul flight & listening to him droning on about injustices from a century ago.

Imagine? Sure he doesn't post on here?

VespaPX

Would this apply at the BBC?

chilling

Well done that man.
Folks don’t know what it symbolises.
Clue.

lucy4

@hhyftrftdr My point was (without going over old ground) persons being filmed causing criminal damage and getting acquitted. Everyone could see the evidence of the crime (criminal damage) taking place. Perhaps I'm a too old school person who still thinks that if you do the crime you do the time. I don't give a **** about which statues get toppled or not but those that do topple them should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent regardless of their so called beliefs. Criminal Damage is Criminal Damage no matter what excuses are put forward.

goldon

Are you saying " Birds of a Father stick together " I wasn't fancied as a choir boy. luckily

hhyftrftdr

lucy4 said:

@hhyftrftdr My point was (without going over old ground) persons being filmed causing criminal damage and getting acquitted. Everyone could see the evidence of the crime (criminal damage) taking place. Perhaps I'm a too old school person who still thinks that if you do the crime you do the time. I don't give a **** about which statues get toppled or not but those that do topple them should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent regardless of their so called beliefs. Criminal Damage is Criminal Damage no matter what excuses are put forward.

But they were found not guilty of criminal damage.
Due legal process was followed and that was the verdict, regardless of whether you like or agree with it or not.
So no crime was committed and thus no time to serve.
It seems you're struggling to reconcile what you saw vs the verdict given, which suggests you think a 'mistake' was made, however.....(the following aren't my words but those of someone involved in the legal system I vaguely know)

It’s important to remember that just because the offence is prima facie made out that doesn’t mean someone is guilty of an offence.

Most statutory offences have specified defences which are available to the accused to raise. Pretty much every regulatory offence has a due diligence defence, for example. Criminal damage has a number of statutory defences. In addition most offences have common law defences that are also available to defendants such as necessity and duress.

So just because someone plainly seems to have committed the act, does not necessarily mean they are guilty of the offence in law.

This is principally what the jury were asked to consider, not whether the statue was damaged (increase in value arguments notwithstanding).

chilling

goldon said:

Are you saying " Birds of a Father stick together " I wasn't fancied as a choir boy. luckily

Joe the sniff, lets 100,000’s of unaccompanied kids across the border.
Who in their right minds would send that many kids across the border?
Not really organised then? Shocker. They don’t even know where most of those are now.

All those that came out and said they knew about Saville.
A world wide pedophile cult.
Children’s homes around the world under the cover of charity organisations.

lucy4

hhyftrftdr said:

lucy4 said:

@hhyftrftdr My point was (without going over old ground) persons being filmed causing criminal damage and getting acquitted. Everyone could see the evidence of the crime (criminal damage) taking place. Perhaps I'm a too old school person who still thinks that if you do the crime you do the time. I don't give a **** about which statues get toppled or not but those that do topple them should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent regardless of their so called beliefs. Criminal Damage is Criminal Damage no matter what excuses are put forward.

But they were found not guilty of criminal damage.
Due legal process was followed and that was the verdict, regardless of whether you like or agree with it or not.
So no crime was committed and thus no time to serve.
It seems you're struggling to reconcile what you saw vs the verdict given, which suggests you think a 'mistake' was made, however.....(the following aren't my words but those of someone involved in the legal system I vaguely know)

It’s important to remember that just because the offence is prima facie made out that doesn’t mean someone is guilty of an offence.

Most statutory offences have specified defences which are available to the accused to raise. Pretty much every regulatory offence has a due diligence defence, for example. Criminal damage has a number of statutory defences. In addition most offences have common law defences that are also available to defendants such as necessity and duress.

So just because someone plainly seems to have committed the act, does not necessarily mean they are guilty of the offence in law.

This is principally what the jury were asked to consider, not whether the statue was damaged (increase in value arguments notwithstanding).

@hhyftrftdr I agree wholeheartedly with what you've said but what's good for one is good for another.

hhyftrftdr

lucy4 said:

hhyftrftdr said:

lucy4 said:

@hhyftrftdr My point was (without going over old ground) persons being filmed causing criminal damage and getting acquitted. Everyone could see the evidence of the crime (criminal damage) taking place. Perhaps I'm a too old school person who still thinks that if you do the crime you do the time. I don't give a **** about which statues get toppled or not but those that do topple them should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent regardless of their so called beliefs. Criminal Damage is Criminal Damage no matter what excuses are put forward.

But they were found not guilty of criminal damage.
Due legal process was followed and that was the verdict, regardless of whether you like or agree with it or not.
So no crime was committed and thus no time to serve.
It seems you're struggling to reconcile what you saw vs the verdict given, which suggests you think a 'mistake' was made, however.....(the following aren't my words but those of someone involved in the legal system I vaguely know)

It’s important to remember that just because the offence is prima facie made out that doesn’t mean someone is guilty of an offence.

Most statutory offences have specified defences which are available to the accused to raise. Pretty much every regulatory offence has a due diligence defence, for example. Criminal damage has a number of statutory defences. In addition most offences have common law defences that are also available to defendants such as necessity and duress.

So just because someone plainly seems to have committed the act, does not necessarily mean they are guilty of the offence in law.

This is principally what the jury were asked to consider, not whether the statue was damaged (increase in value arguments notwithstanding).

@hhyftrftdr I agree wholeheartedly with what you've said but what's good for one is good for another.

So no precedent has been set then.

In the case of the OP, if he's charged and it goes to court then it will follow the same legal process as the Colston Four.

What happens after that depends on the evidence and testimonies given and the jury (assuming there is one) coming to a verdict accordingly.

On a side note, is it criminal damage if the object rockets in value after the event? (as has happened with Colston)
The legal guy I vaguely know genuinely didn't know when this was put to him, or wasn't sure enough to answer either way.

Phil, any ideas?

goldon

Don't think ( could be wrong ) anyone got prosecuted here...the scrappy made few bob.