Only a Ratio Decidendi (core point) of a judge's judgement can set binding precedent.
So the ideal would be for a Supreme Court judge to rule that it can't be a crime to remove a statue erected to honour someone who committed crimes against humanity IF due process has failed.
(Felt the above clarification was needed as my video definitely blurs the line between the two definitions of precedent: Legal and Societal.)
So there were legal justifications for the jury to find the Colston 4 not guilty, e.g defendents believed the statue itself to be a crime for the reasons I proposed above.
So I was wrong to say the rules were "thrown out" by the Jury. I just don't believe they mattered to them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Any time Boris Johnson throws the "You never believed in Brexit" line at Keir Starmer, the reply is simple:
"In 2011 you said Single Market membership was responsible for London's prosperity. In 2013 you said "I'd vote to stay in the Single Market." Then you supported Leaving it and it made you PM.
You don't believe in Brexit. You believe in power at the expense of the British people."
My point:
Any Labour leader who refuses to call out the consequences of Brexit because Boris Johnson might question their commitment to Brexit, is either uninformed, incompetent, or a coward.
Can the people defending Keir Starmer's "Make Brexit Work" please THINK!
What happens in an election?
Johnson will demand specifics.
Starmer will admit that he means following EU rules.
Johnson: 'That's not Brexit, that's giving up our sovereignty.'
Starmer will have no answer!
COMPARE THAT WITH THIS:
If I see British people suffering from Brexit, I will negotiate with the EU to help protect them.
How does Johnson arguing against that without admitting that Brexit is damaging the national interest?
Johnson's attack line will demolish the Make Brexit Work slogan.
But it will have no effect against the approach I'm suggesting.
Why? Because it doesn't pretend to be about making a success of Brexit. It recognises that the objective is damage limitation.
Not only is it dishonest to Leavers & Remainers to say "make Brexit work" when you mean copy EU rules to protect the economy,
But you can't out-Brexit Boris Johnson!
You KNOW he'll just say: ''Keir Starmer can't make Brexit work as he never believed in it!''
It's BAD STRATEGY, Keir Starmer!
Unless you commit to the idea your job is to limit the damage of Brexit, then you'll continue to be judged on how enthusiastic you are about Brexit being this bright shining opportunity...
And Boris Johnson wins that game EVERY SINGLE TIME!
I'm SICK of politicians telling us our futures have to be limited by their inability to communicate convincingly.
Anyone with half a brain who watches this video can see Brexit is bad.
So Starmer, either Leave voters are stupid, or you are.
PICK ONE!
Remoaners, Enemies of the People, Remain-Ultras, anti-democrats, sore losers...
All words used to describe people who predicted the suffering we see Brexit inflicting on people now, and refused to compromise in their opposition to it.
Maybe now we can just call them patriots?
The fact that after all the damage below, "FPBE" is still used to describe thosw who were 'too panicky about stopping Brexit', blows my mind.
@OBR_UK says Brexit is harming our economy twice as much as a pandemic that crippled the planet!
Panic Justified!
I don't like making a distinction between patriots & non-patriots as most 2016 Leave voters believed it would make the country better.
But after seeing 3years of chaos, nobody could reasonably believe Brexit was making the UK better. Supporting Brexit in 2019 was pure tribalism.
If I help create the next ISIS by destabilising an entire region under false pretences, can I get a knighthood too? theguardian.com/politics/2021/…
To those commenting,
You can talk about all the good he did, as much as you want, but if someone in your family was one of the innocent civilians who died in the Iraq War or from the resulting instability... Seeing him granted our country's highest honour, might sting a little.
But admittedly I hold the extremely controversial opinion that knighthoods shouldn't be for controversial politicians...and should instead be mainly for people like nurses, firefighters, community organisers...People who suffered to help others, and tend not to have a body count.