|
18 Dec 02 - 07:34 AM (#849530) Subject: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Bagpuss clicky What criminal damage would you like to make a statement with - or can this one not be bettered? Headless Thatcher divides the jury Sarah Hall Wednesday December 18, 2002 The Guardian For some 25 years, she has divided the nation - as either our greatest prime minister bar Churchill, or the premier who fragmented a society she insisted did not exist. Yesterday, Margaret Thatcher even succeeded in splitting a jury tasked with deciding if it was legally justifiable to wield a pole at her statue and to "lop off" her head. For three hours and 46 minutes, the eight women and four men at Southwark crown court were locked in deliberations as they questioned whether Paul Kelleher had a "lawful excuse" for taking a cricket bat and stanchion to the £150,000 marble sculpture with the deliberate intention of decapitating it. Defending himself, Mr Kelleher, 37, an events organiser from Isleworth, west London, admitted "there was no dispute" he had "lopped off" the head of the 7ft statue at London's Guildhall gallery on July 3 - a case of criminal damage. But he insisted he was acting lawfully since this was a justifiable protest against her political ideology, and an act "of artistic expression and satirical humour". Directing the jury, Mr Justice Aikens said they could only decide that Mr Kelleher was legally justified in behaving in this way if they felt his well-being and that of his two-year-old son were immediately endangered by the economic and political system personified by Baroness Thatcher. An hour and a half after being given permission to return a majority verdict, they were still no closer to a consensus. The judge then hauled them into court and asked if there were any reasonable prospect that 10 of them might ever agree. "No, your honour," the jury forewoman replied emphatically, if apologetically. The group, smiling with relief at being relieved of this torturous decision, was dismissed. The outcome - or rather the lack of it - means Mr Kelleher, a father who was partly motivated by his desire to protect his two-year-old son from the ills of global capitalism, will now stand trial again on January 22. Asked by the judge for any comments, Mr Kelleher added: "I just want this cleared up as soon as possible. I would just like to draw a line under this proceeding so that I can move on one way or another." "I appreciate that," the judge replied. In his closing speech on Monday, Mr Kelleher had implored the jury to acquit him, saying "you will have martyrs' crowns placed upon your heads and your names written in the history books as the people who took back power from the establishment". |
|
18 Dec 02 - 07:54 AM (#849536) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Rapparee Cromwell was only making an artistic statement? Oh, wait, he used a real person. No, it was Charles I.... |
|
18 Dec 02 - 08:13 AM (#849544) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: leprechaun I really like that idea, that people who claim to be acting out of a sincere political belief should be absolved of consequences when they damage property. Mind you, I don't think they should be able to physically harm animals or people. At least not innocent people. I suppose it would be Okay to throw rocks or bottles at cops, because they're just the oppressive arm of the global capitalists, so I suppose it should be okay to hurt them. And then again, if you could ever get your hands on a rich capitalist and beat the crap out of him, I suppose you could argue that it's just self-defense, based on a sincere political belief that the rich capitalists like Margaret Thatcher are threatening our two-year-old children. We need more juries like that. |
|
18 Dec 02 - 08:37 AM (#849552) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Rapparee Most cops, at least in the US, are guys doing a job. Somebody says, "Go preserve disorder" and they do. Cops I know are nice guys who don't want any more trouble than you or I do, want to pay off the house, raise their kids, and certainly don't want to get hurt doing their job. Now, politicians, on the other hand.... |
|
18 Dec 02 - 09:00 AM (#849563) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Mr Red My redness is not political so I can ask (if it has not been before) if this was a head case? Thatcher the snatcher or Mr Kelleher - you chose. |
|
18 Dec 02 - 09:54 AM (#849580) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Amos Well, it was certainly a capital offense! A |
|
18 Dec 02 - 10:44 AM (#849618) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Bobert Well, in the US if a guy did that, he would be lucky if he wasn't shot dead at the base of the statue by one of Tom Ridge's marksmen. But, seriously, when one does "civil disobedience" one should keep in mind the old saying, "If you ain't willing to do the time, don't do the crime". Bobert |
|
18 Dec 02 - 10:51 AM (#849624) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: mooman I believe Mr Kelleher should be paid at the public expense for infinitely improving a publicly accessible "work of art"! moo |
|
18 Dec 02 - 10:53 AM (#849627) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Bagpuss The real crime was for someone to erect a statue of Maggie in the first place.... |
|
18 Dec 02 - 10:56 AM (#849631) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Bagpuss Maybe the people who put the statue up could be done for incitement. |
|
18 Dec 02 - 10:58 AM (#849634) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: kendall I doubt very much if the 1st amendment would protect him over here. Regardless of how you feel about someone, it is still criminal to destroy another's property. Now, if he had lopped off HER head, that wuld make sense; her head isn't worth 150,000 pounds! |
|
18 Dec 02 - 11:31 AM (#849656) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Bobert Heck, Bagpuss, I gotta agree with ya' that a Maggie Thatcher stautue is in poor taste but we gotta live with Ronald Reagan National Airport right accross the Potomac River from the US Capital. Now Ronnie didn't do a danged thing for anyone other than the ruling class and they gotta go name an airport after him! Bobert |
|
18 Dec 02 - 10:06 PM (#850030) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: leprechaun So now it's Bobert's civic duty to go out and damage a few runways, or planes, or control towers. But if they get Bobert, who's gonna keep a running tally of how many people are shot dead each day by Tom Ridge's marksmen? What are we up to now Bobert? And what's up with that? Doesn't he hire any markswomen? |
|
19 Dec 02 - 02:34 AM (#850134) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Liz the Squeak That's not true Bobert - he was very good to that chimp. Oh, hang on.... that was Nancy.... Er........ LTS - who would acquit him, get the court to pay his costs AND order the statue ground down into gravel to fix potholes in the road that her swingeing cuts in government money left to get bigger. |
|
19 Dec 02 - 07:05 AM (#850210) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Rapparee Maybe this guy just wanted to get a little head from Maggie???? |
|
19 Dec 02 - 07:12 AM (#850212) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Willie-O Now THERE'S a mental image best left alone. Oops. Too late. W-O |
|
20 Dec 02 - 12:47 AM (#850935) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Hrothgar I suppose Maggie thought it was quite a blow. |
|
20 Dec 02 - 07:58 AM (#851051) Subject: RE: BS: Criminal Damage? From: Dave Bryant I would definitely call it CRIMINAL DAMAGE - after all he was damaging a criminal. |