Post by GB Post by Robin Post by GB Post by The Natural Philosopher
Four white blokes, who were clearly guilty as hell, were declared
innocent by an almost completely white jury.
How does that support your argument that "white indigenous britain
is under attack"?
because they werent ripping out a statue of Nelson Mandela
I understand that a large number of Bristolians had been campaigning
for this statue to be removed, perfectly peacefully, for around ten
years. Patience had expired, and it does seem that 12 out of 12
jurors thought that taking direct action was justified on this
Given that the jury was almost completely "white indigenous", how
can this possibly be an attack on white indigenous Britain?
JOOI how do you know 'the jury was almost completely "white
indigenous"'? We don't use for voir dire for jury selection in this
It's interesting that it is 2 days since I made that claim about the
jury, and you are the first person to challenge it. You can get away
with blue murder on the internet!
No. 2 days ago you referred to "an almost completely white jury". I
have no idea if that is true but I can see that it could be based on
sight of the jurors. Today you added "indigenous". That makes a
difference. See below.
Post by GB
The Bristol population is 84% white.
If the jury is roughly 84% white, my claim is correct, of course, but
I can't prove it. :)
No, it's not necessarily correct. Much depends on how you define
"indigenous". But I would find it odd (or perhaps stark raving) to
equate it with "white". E.g. there are over 6,000 residents of Bristol
born in Poland who may not even be UK citizens.
I stand corrected, but I also stand defiant! :)
One reason is that the stats are:
77.9% White British, 0.9% White Irish, 0.1% Gypsy or Irish Travellers,
5.1% other white
So, on average you'd expect 9-10 White British in a jury of 12, which is
'almost completely' in my book, although I think there's room for
discussion about that, too.
That's unless you only count Celts as indigenous, in which case I'm lost.
The other reason is that my main point is valid. In a city with a very
large white preponderance in the population, the jury voted unanimously
to exonerate the defendants. If the indigenous white population is
doomed, as Jim claims, it's because the indigenous white population
wants that. Of course, they don't want it, and they are not doomed.
(Note the pronoun! I'm of immigrant stock.)
By the way, did you read what The Secret Barrister wrote about this?
"What is a lawful excuse for damaging property?
Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides examples of what
might amount to a “lawful excuse”. In this case, two lawful excuses were
raised, and the judge agreed that they should be left for the jury to
The first was that reasonable force was used to prevent a crime. All
defendants argued that the public display by the council of the statue
was itself a crime, or potentially two crimes. First, it was said that
displaying the statue amounted to an offence of displaying indecent
material contrary to section 1 of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act
1981. Second, it was said that there was an offence of displaying a
visible representation that is abusive, within the sight of a person
likely to be caused distress by it, contrary to section 5 of the Public
Order Act 1986.
When considering this defence, there were three key questions for the
jury: did the defendants honestly believe that a crime was being
committed? (Note that the question is not whether a crime had been
committed by displaying the statue, but whether the defendants honestly
believed that a crime was being committed.) Were the defendants’ actions
to prevent one or both of those crimes? If so, did the actions amount to
the use of reasonable force, in the circumstances as the defendants
perceived them to be?
The prosecution case was “no” to each question. And the prosecution has
the burden of disproving this defence.
The second “lawful excuse”, which is set out in section 5 of the
Criminal Damage Act 1971, concerns who owned the statue. It was raised
by two of the defendants, who said that they honestly believed that the
statue was owned by the people of Bristol — not the council — and that
had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have
consented to what was done.
The prosecution case was that the defendants had no such belief, and had
taken no steps to consult the people of Bristol. Again, the burden is on
the prosecution to disprove the defence. If there’s any doubt, the
defendants are entitled to the benefit. That is the cornerstone of our
Based on this, I'm happy to retract my 'guilty as hell' comment.