Moving statues

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Moving statues

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 32 of 32 << First < 28 29 30 31 32

Badger11 Beckenham 13 Jan 22 8.21am
Originally posted by The Dolphin I look up and see this statue and have no idea who it is - just artwork to me I'm afraid. However these guys will quite rightly get done. Very amusing though to see a BBC building with some non pc stuff attached. Expect to see taxpayers money wasted on removal! Well that didn't take long then did it. I expect he will use the same defence as the Colston 4. I'm surprised that the BBC hadn't previously undertaken a review of all artwork and buildings they occupy, isn't that the done thing these days? On a more serious note this is why it is important that the AG goes to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. The verdict about the Colston 4 is done and cannot be undone but it is reasonable for the AG to ask the court if their defence is legal. If the court says it is I expect the government will then bring legislation to the house to close that loophole otherwise we will see more of this stuff. Edited by Badger11 (13 Jan 2022 8.24am) One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 13 Jan 22 8.21am

Originally posted by The Dolphin

I look up and see this statue and have no idea who it is - just artwork to me I'm afraid.
However these guys will quite rightly get done.
Very amusing though to see a BBC building with some non pc stuff attached.
Expect to see taxpayers money wasted on removal!

Well that didn't take long then did it. I expect he will use the same defence as the Colston 4.

I'm surprised that the BBC hadn't previously undertaken a review of all artwork and buildings they occupy, isn't that the done thing these days?

On a more serious note this is why it is important that the AG goes to the Court of Appeal on a point of law.

The verdict about the Colston 4 is done and cannot be undone but it is reasonable for the AG to ask the court if their defence is legal.

If the court says it is I expect the government will then bring legislation to the house to close that loophole otherwise we will see more of this stuff.

Edited by Badger11 (13 Jan 2022 8.24am)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Slimey Toad Karsiyaka, North Cyprus 13 Jan 22 8.45am
What was the charge against the 4? If it was simply criminal damage and 'removing and throwing a piece of property owned by the City council into the river without permission' (and they more or less admitted that) then why aren't they guilty? Or was the charge 'removing and throwing a piece of property owned by the City council into the river without permission, but having a just and legal reason to do so' then the jury can deliberate on that one I guess??
Alert a moderator to this post

Slimey Toad

Karsiyaka, North Cyprus 13 Jan 22 8.45am

What was the charge against the 4? If it was simply criminal damage and 'removing and throwing a piece of property owned by the City council into the river without permission' (and they more or less admitted that) then why aren't they guilty?

Or was the charge 'removing and throwing a piece of property owned by the City council into the river without permission, but having a just and legal reason to do so' then the jury can deliberate on that one I guess??

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 32 of 32 << First < 28 29 30 31 32

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Moving statues

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors