Edward Colston statue: Four cleared of criminal damage

[Ihavenojob]

So you think that statues of "Adolph" should be retained in Warsaw and Coventry?

Are there any ? There are pictures and statues of many people from history that are deemed to be unsavoury by todays standards. If criminal damage is condoned by the English legal system, why shouldn't we attack things to do with firms such as VW, Siemens, Bayer, IBM, Ford, Kodak, plus many others worked with the Nazis, probably doing what they were told, just like Colston and others. I am glad you would be happy for any of your property to be damaged if people don't like it, which is what agreeing that the result of this case is right means. It is not about whether Colston should be celebrated or reviled, but the criminal damage caused.

 

[JohnD]

I am glad you would be happy for any of your property to be damaged if people don't like it

I don't have any statues of slave traders or Nazis, on public display or otherwise.

If I did, and somebody politely asked me to move them, I doubt I would take ten years to not do it.

 

[Trazor]

I don't have any statues of slave traders or Nazis, on public display or otherwise.

If I did, and somebody politely asked me to move them, I doubt I would take ten years to not do it.

And of course. you would then be perfectly happy for them to come and smash them up, if you prevaricated.

 

[Ihavenojob]

Perhaps JohnD would be just as pleased if these people were found not guilty if they ever get to court.
Police release image of woman sought after anti-vax protest at Milton Keynes test and trace centre | ITV News Anglia

 

[cwhaley]

The problem with the radical and dangerous left is that they do not look at history in context. Slavery is - quite rightly - viewed as an historical wrong, but it was an economic norm of the time. People were traded as commodities throughout the world throughout many centuries. We bought African slaves from African leaders who sold them to us (and who also traded their own people amongst themselves). We also stole people to make into slaves, just as our coasts were pillaged by the Barbary pirates who stole people from our coastal towns and villages. We have evolved since then and there is nobody alive who can take any credit for the slave trade. I cannot understand why people have to ignore the achievements of somebody once they learn they had a connection to the slave trade -- doing that is cherry-picking at history. It should all be remembered, but it is up to a society to decide what it wants to learn from or celebrate. I recently went to the Museum of Industry and Science in Manchester and was saddened to see that so many of the exhibits were interlaced with comments about the slave trade. It detracted from what we were trying to learn about and it seemed to be the only topic of conversation amongst the school trip who were there. It is getting too political.

Colston was fundamental in Bristol for improving the lives of the labouring poor, and it's criminal to tear down a statue of him because the radical, dangerous and militant left refuse to be civilised in their analysis of history.

 

[festive]

The problem with the radical and dangerous left is that they do not look at history in context. Slavery is - quite rightly - viewed as an historical wrong, but it was an economic norm of the time. People were traded as commodities throughout the world throughout many centuries. We bought African slaves from African leaders who sold them to us (and who also traded their own people amongst themselves). We also stole people to make into slaves, just as our coasts were pillaged by the Barbary pirates who stole people from our coastal towns and villages. We have evolved since then and there is nobody alive who can take any credit for the slave trade. I cannot understand why people have to ignore the achievements of somebody once they learn they had a connection to the slave trade -- doing that is cherry-picking at history. It should all be remembered, but it is up to a society to decide what it wants to learn from or celebrate. I recently went to the Museum of Industry and Science in Manchester and was saddened to see that so many of the exhibits were interlaced with comments about the slave trade. It detracted from what we were trying to learn about and it seemed to be the only topic of conversation amongst the school trip who were there. It is getting too political.

Colston was fundamental in Bristol for improving the lives of the labouring poor, and it's criminal to tear down a statue of him because the radical, dangerous and militant left refuse to be civilised in their analysis of history.

What a refreshingly level headed post thankyou.

 

[joe384]

they did, there were protests and petitions going back years

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/how-city-failed-remove-edward-4211771

From the article:

"Whenever the question was asked in the past two decades in opinion polls, letters pages and radio phone-ins, it seemed that the majority of people in Bristol said they wanted the Colston Statue to stay.


They also wanted the Colston Hall name to remain. The argument was that removing Colston's statue and the name from city landmarks and venues would mean the city's slave trade past could be forgotten."

People in the town could have lobbied their Mayor

Which is exactly what happened

Can you provide a link to a vote or where this happened?

Strawman argument

?????

 

[^woody^]

In the same way that it would be illogical and bizarre to insist on retaining on public display a statue of a noted beneficiary from the slave trade in 21st Century Britain, set among thousands of people descended from slaves.

Just because someone is personally offended by something should not give them the right to commit criminal damage to it. That's anarchy, and you can see where that leads to if that excuse applies to other things.

Your comments seem to indicate that you can't view the verdict dispassionately. It's the principle you should be concerned with.

BTW, the people of Bristol are the beneficiaries of the slade trade, not that statue. So the buildings, infrastructure, companies and employees, you name it, are all beneficiaries and therefore targets under your logic. You don't seem to be able to grasp that the statute is in fact irrelevant to the [non-legal] precedent and principle the verdict sets.

 

[motorbiking]

The problem for the CPS is that the damage amounted to more than £5K, so it gave the defendants the ability to go for a jury trial rather than magistrates. Probably their best bet given the perverse verdict delivered and the statistical bias of magistrates courts towards guilty verdicts. It is not a defence to criminal damage, to argue the property was offensive or whatever. It would need to be appealed to form a legal precedent as Lower crown court rulings are not usually binding on other courts. I've not seen a statement from the CPS, but would be interested to see if they'd said anything.

The police seem to be responding with - we respect the jury's decision. Very difficult for them given they have been tagged with institutional racism for decades.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Does the verdict mean the jury thought the damage was not criminal or that the accused did not do it?

 

[joe384]

Does the verdict mean the jury thought the damage was not criminal or that the accused did not do it?

I haven't looked at any of the court documents, but the law reads "without lawful excuse" and one of the arguments was that they did have a lawful excuse:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/colston-statue-trial-does-not-6448800

 

[THFC]

This is good news if it actually happens:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-vow-close-loophole-jail-25869202

Hopefully, these mindless vandals will be the last ones to get away with it using their pathetic excuses.

 

[motorbiking]

There does not appear to be any defence of "it wasn't me gov" though one of the accused was charged broadly on the doctrine of joint enterprise "cheering people on and telling them what to do", that is bit weak IMO.

The defence did a good job of getting the jury to dance the wokey cokey. The judge even directed them to ignore the "justification" and find on the facts of the damage. The prosecution possibly thought the win too easy and didn't do a decent job. Hard when comparisons to the Berlin wall are made.

Does the verdict mean the jury thought the damage was not criminal or that the accused did not do it?

The definition of a perverse verdict is when the jury think they are guilty but choose to find differently based on some other view of what is right and wrong.

There is another view. That being that the Jury bought the spin on the defence claiming a prevention of crime, i.e. its being was a hate crime. The problem with these defences is that the defendant only need believe it, for it to be an angle.

Plenty of drunks get off criminal damage for breaking down the wrong door, because their key wont open the lock. i.e. perceived authority to commit damage

 

[noseall]

It's an illogical and bizarre verdict when looked at dispassionately.

Crazy. They are basically saying it's ok to the rid the country of objects (statues, monuments etc) glorifying despots or horrific human beings. I always wondered why there were no statues of Hitler anywhere.

 

[^woody^]

Crazy. They are basically saying it's ok to the rid the country of objects (statues, monuments etc) glorifying despots or horrific human beings. I always wondered why there were no statues of Hitler anywhere.

The fact that there are none is irrelevant. However, Hitler was never a person that this country chose to iconify.

If there were statues, then it should not mean that anyone can just go along, not just remove them of their own accord, but damage the area the were seated on, do what they like with them, and then expect the local council to incur costs (at council tax payer's expense?) to clear up the mess.

Again, don't let your beliefs cloud your thinking.

I'm sure there must be some posts of your's somewhere lauding the democratic process for implementing change. I never had you down as an anarchist against the rule of law.