GB News

[Lower]

Apparently they were acting lawfully. As they were found not guilty.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/four-cleared-of-toppling-edward-colston-statute

I respect the rule of law and trial by jury so therefore have to accept their ruling.

I think it's wrong however, and case law will correct it it in time. I think the jury have made their finding on the political argument, not on the facts of the law.

 

[Notch7]

I respect the rule of law and trial by jury so therefore have to accept their ruling.

I think it's wrong however, and case law will correct it it in time. I think the jury have made their finding on the political argument, not on the facts of the law.

I agree, its the wrong decision

I think this sets a bad precedent

If a crime is committed, the law should be followed. No excuses

 

[AngleEyes]

I agree, its the wrong decision

I think this sets a bad precedent

If a crime is committed, the law should be followed. No excuses

But some deeds are not considered criminal in certain scenarios.
That is what the jury decided: that in this scenario, a deed which might have been a crime in any other scenario, was not a criminal act in this scenario.

 

[Notch7]

I suppose there is another way of looking at this:

what would people think if it was a statue of Jimmy Saville?

 

[AngleEyes]

I suppose there is another way of looking at this:

what would people think if it was a statue of Jimmy Saville?

I understand that a statue of Hitler being seen by Jews was the analogy used in court.

 

[IT Minion]

I respect the rule of law and trial by jury so therefore have to accept their ruling.

I think it's wrong however, and case law will correct it it in time. I think the jury have made their finding on the political argument, not on the facts of the law.

You might think that, but there has been a strong trend of protestors being found not guilty when they're protesting something that the country feels is wrong, even though they're clearly in violation of the law.

 

[Notch7]

Here's another thought:

Who on this forum thinks Blair shouldnt get a knighthood because of the Iraq?

And

Who on this forum thinks the statue of a slave trader should stay?

 

[AngleEyes]

Here's another thought:

Who on this forum thinks Blair shouldnt get a knighthood because of the Iraq?

And

Who on this forum thinks the statue of a slave trader should stay?

Are those questions, by any chance, meant to be related?

My answers:
I'm totally ambivalent about Blair's knighthood.

And I think that all offensive statutes should now be protected by round the clock, armed security guards , or covered up, so no-one can see them, and they can't cause offence anymore. In case anyone tries to topple them.

 

[JP_]

If a crime is committed, the law should be followed. No excuses

Like when breaking the speed limit by 1mph? Quick, hand yourself in!

 

[Lower]

Here's another thought:

Who on this forum thinks Blair shouldnt get a knighthood because of the Iraq?

And

Who on this forum thinks the statue of a slave trader should stay?

I didn't like Blair, but am comfortable with him getting a knighthood. Every current and ex prime minister will have their supporters and detractors, particularly when its a different political climate once the prime minister in question has moved on. But it's still a hell of task that any prime minister takes on.

I don't think that a small group of protestors should be allowed to unilaterally make a decision that breaks the law and get away with it. The decision what to do with the statue was for the whole of Bristol to deal with in a civilised manner, no matter how long it took. If Bristol wanted to keep it, that's fine with me. If Bristol wanted to remove it, that's fine with me too.

If you were to ask me about the statues of Nelson or Churchill, i'd have a strong view on those statues remaining and not being defaced or disrespected.

 

[sxturbo]

Here's another thought:

Who on this forum thinks Blair shouldnt get a knighthood because of the Iraq?

And

Who on this forum thinks the statue of a slave trader should stay?

the colston history has been muddled recently and done so in a way to support the rhetoric.

Colston became a member of the royal african merchant company, they had share holders and royalty to answer to, Colston was the deputy governor for a short period of time. Colstons involvment in the slave trade has been over stated to support a narrative. The slaves were branded with DoY for duke of york, who later became King James II, and was the Governor of the company.

Colston was connected to the slave trade, but he was not solely responsible, and only some of his riches came from the african slave trade, he was a very successful merchant outside of the african trading company

His philanthropic work should be continued to be celebrated.

Tony Blair does do some philanthropic work, but it isnt as grass roots as colstons was, maybe its to do with the different times, with there being less destitute brits than there were in the 1700's

https://www.philanthropy-impact.org/inspiration/personal-stories/tony-blair

Are we going to over throw the monarchy for their involvement in the slave trade?

the ruling is wrong and is one of emotion and not based on facts or evidence. However as a law abiding citizen we must respect it.

 

[AngleEyes]

the colston history has been muddled recently and done so in a way to support the rhetoric.

In your opinion. But to others it's been clarified, just not sufficiently, and it has been muddled in error for too long for the benefit of the 'supporters' of slavery's contribution to capitalism.

Colstons involvment in the slave trade has been over stated to support a narrative.

It was ignored for a narrative for far too long.

Colston was connected to the slave trade, but he was not solely responsible,

Of course he wasn't

and only some of his riches came from the african slave trade, he was a very successful merchant outside of the african trading company

So could we excuse Jimmy Saville's behaviour on balance of his charitable work?

His philanthropic work should be continued to be celebrated.

As long as it's balanced with his slavery connotations. That's all that was being asked for... for ten long years.

Are we going to over throw the monarchy for their involvement in the slave trade?

It's right and proper that involvement in, and beneficiaries of, the slave trade should be acknowledged and not covered up.

the ruling is wrong and is one of emotion and not based on facts or evidence. However as a law abiding citizen we must respect it.

The ruling is based on whether the statue was allowed to continue to offend people, and was sufficient attempts made to recognise and remove the offensiveness. In the juries verdict, sufficient attempt was made to address the offensiveness, but that was ignored, or unacceptably delayed, by the powers that had the authority to act.

 

[Lower]

I suppose there is another way of looking at this:

what would people think if it was a statue of Jimmy Saville?

I don't think a statue of Jimmy Saville would be left up by the authorities.

I get the point you're trying to make, but Saville is a recent example and the kind of abuse he was directly responsible for has never really been acceptable (to my knowledge)

Colston's statue is different because of the age of the statue and his alleged guilt by association.

 

[Tigercubrider]

Colston's statue is different because of the age of the statue and his alleged guilt by association.

The statue only dates from 1895, he died in 1721.
The campaign started in the 1990's.
The majority of respondents (self selecting by nature) of a local newspaper poll voted that the statue should be removed.
The council refused.

 

[JohnD]

guilt by association

what do you mean by that?