Peace protesters cleared of air base damage!

Ok can you post the jury verdict so I can read it for myself.
I'm not questioning your logic - I just would like to read it for myself or whatever you read - cheers.

 

Yes it was "not guilty" by 12 votes to none

 

this case did not set a precedent, to set a precedent the judge must rule the verdict as a necessary verdict due to the incongruity of the logic at play between various laws. a jury verdict cannot set a precedence unless the judge rules tin favour of it, it is up to the judge in such cases to guide the jury to its decision

For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/304869.stm

 

Incidentally they cannot have as a defence "anything they like". Part of their defence was due to be that the war itself was illegal but as has already been mentioned the judge dismissed that as a valid defence on the basis that the question was beyond his court's competence.

The part of this case which does create a precedent is that the defence of taking this kind of action in order to prevent greater crimes like the killing of innocent civilians is a valid one.

 

Ok lithium I see I'm not going to get anywhere with you so forget about it.

 

Yes they can have any defence they like - that does not mean it will be deemed valid or within the courts competence.

I'll try once more - can you post anything that has informed your opinion and conclusion aside from what is within the BBC link or anything that has pretty much the same text.

 

Meaningless. If they submit a defence which is ruled not to be valid they are not allowed to use that defence. Were you really simply suggesting by saying "they can have as a defence anything they like" that they can submit any defence even if that defence is not valid and ruled inadmissable? If so of what possible relevance is that to the topic at hand? We are talking about the defences they used not the ones they were not allowed to use.

I have read extensively most of the publicly available information about this trial and the one that preceded it. I have neither the time nor the inclination to compensate for the fact that you are poorly informed. You can research the subject yourself. If you want to participate in informed debate it's rather a good idea to inform yourself *before* attempting to do so rather than demonstrating ignorance and requesting that your fellow debaters cure you of it.

 

I think that is what I have said ''Yes they can have any defence they like - that does not mean it will be deemed valid or within the courts competence.''

Nothing

I don't want to participate in your debate - As you were online and seemed to know a lot about the case - I was asking for some information.
I have attempted to research it myself - all I come up with is the same kind of information contained in the BBC link - wich is pretty flimsy.
If you don't have the time or the inclination - then fine - i'll ask another person. Why are you seemingly so angry and hostile - i'm not questioning your logic - all I wanted was a little bit of help finding some information.
Anybody would think i'd asked to sleep with your mum.

ok I did ask ''Are you suggesting the jurors deemed that they WERE ''saving lives'' -'' you are seemingly implying that is the case. I don't want to get into anything with you - I just wanted to read what you read to come to that conclusion.

:chill:

 

The jurors do not have to "deem" anything. Their deliberations are private, they simply deliver a verdict - in this case a unanimous one. We have no way of knowing on what specific aspects of the case they based their verdict. Given that there's no debate about whether the pair conspired to cause damage to property, the question was whether it was a criminal act. The defence offered lawful excuse that they were preventing war crimes and preventing damage to life and property. This defence was upheld - or more technically, the prosecution did not successfully prove that the pair conspired to cause criminal damage (that they caused some damage and intended to cause more is not in dispute). The verdict that the two were not guilty of a criminal act despite confessing to the actions of which they were accused necessarily demonstrates that this was a proper and lawful response to the real possibility of war crimes being committed with these planes and these bombs.

Sorry. I'm just tired of having these never-ending debates with you and wasting so much time digging up information because you don't have the first clue about the topic under discussion.

 

You do not spend any time ''digging up facts'' infact the lack of you digging up ''facts'' is something that is prelevant in your responses to my comments.
I have no doubt you are clued up with the case - that is why I asked for a more informative view of the case than I could find or was being offered within this thread.
All I asked was for a little bit more information about the case.
What is so wrong with that ?
The only information I could find was parroting what was within the link.
I'm not questioning your logic - i'm not suggesting you are wrong.

 

mbworkrelated, the use of such words as, would you kindly please, might assist in future attempts at requesting assistance, maybe.

Tis a strange decision by the jury though, "a citizen has a right to attempt to stop the armed forces", I wonder if that will also mean they have the right to succeed though ?

 

dapabloi either you are stupid or just going on for no reason I have already told you, the jury cannot set a precedent with legal implications in law unless directed by a judge over what verdict to bring. A judge may rule that he will not accept certain verdicts, so the only words that mattered were "guilty" or "not guilty" any other words issued by the jury were not valid. They chose to find not guilty - they do not have to qualify this and the judge did not order them to qualify it, so it is a verdict tyhat is not setting a precedence

it is merely a "not guilty verdict " into which nothing is or can be read than that they found they were not guilty of criminal damage, or attempted criminal damage - thats it ! not guilty -

not guilty does not imply that some other party is now encumbered with a guilty verdict it means all being equal - not guilty

 

I'll be happy to accept that proposition, am I to assume therfore that your clever ?

Instead of you for a change maybe.

I didn't realise we were in discussion sorry.

Ill comprende, but the jury found them not guilty for a reason and that reason was ?

 

They cut a fence, guilty...end of

 

Referring to other threads in which I have spent a long time digging up facts. I know I have not dug up many facts here. Reason being, bored of talking to you matty

 

End of what? The world, your tether? Or are you absolutely correct in your statement because you've finished your sentence with end of.....welcome to the forum by the way Gruff

 

Thanks for this fascinating and illuminating interpretation of the case. What interests those of us who choose to think a little further into the issue is why two people who have confessed to planning and attempting to carry out an act of sabotage against the perpetrators of the Iraq war were found to have been carrying out lawful actions by a jury of twelve of their peers.

 

Oh yes welcome along Gruff

 

You could almost call it a Gruff entrance.

 

Like it dappy