Colston statue topplers acquitted

[SerendipityJane]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

Four people accused of illegally removing a statue of Edward Colston have been cleared of criminal damage.

Sage Willoughby, 22, Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, and Jake Skuse, 33, were charged after a monument to the 17th Century slave trader was pulled down and then thrown into the harbourside in Bristol last June.

It happened during a Black Lives Matter protest in the city.

A jury at Bristol Crown Court found them all not guilty.

During a highly publicised trial, the court heard that the statue was ripped down before being thrown into the harbour during a wave of protests triggered by the murder of African-American George Floyd by a white police officer.

The four defendants, together with "others unknown", were accusing of damaging the Colston statue and plinth of a value unknown without lawful excuse.

During the trial, Mr Skuse said he took part in rolling the statue to the docks to stage a symbolic "sentencing" of the slave trader.

Jury trials aren’t a bad idea but sometimes juries get it wrong.

Just bear that in mind when Priti Patel brings back the death penalty to cheers from a lot of MNetters.

Just bear that in mind.

(Actually there is clip of Priti Patel telling Ian Hislop on a QT that there are never miscarriages of justice these days "because of DNA". This was well over 10 years ago).,

@SerendipityJane people have a touching faith in the reliability of DNA evidence. Very often it's useless because of contamination and degradation. That's okay for fans of CSI but I expect higher standards from the Home Secretary.

Imagine having to walk past a statue of the man responsible for the death of your grandmother, every single day. How would that feel. I get that this goes further back but all the same, that is what this is about. We can still learn from history. We are not in need of visual reminders. In many cases these statues were vanity projects funded by the merchant himself.

A lot of historical figures have done awful things and if we start describing historical items as a hate crimes I think we might lose a good chunk of visual history in towns and cities.

I'm from Eastern Europe. It was 1990 onwards when all the Lenins and other communist scarecrows were toppled. Yes, it was history - but painful, shameful, and most importantly - over and finished for good. We didn't want those particular monuments to be visual centerpieces of our cities.
As for Colston, I don't think anyone would have minded that much, if he stood in some churchyard or park out of sight, out of mind. But right in the centre - it was just wrong.

[quote limitedperiodonly]@SerendipityJane people have a touching faith in the reliability of DNA evidence. Very often it's useless because of contamination and degradation. That's okay for fans of CSI but I expect higher standards from the Home Secretary.[/quote]
To be fair she wasn't home secretary then. Although when she came out with that, I knew she was marked for high office.

Going back "in the day" it was fingerprints that meant you'd never have a wrongful conviction. Before that it was Gods will.

@SerendipityJane forget DNA, the number one component for crimebusters is mobile phone evidence followed by debit and credit card transactions and CCTV. If you have all that you have someone banged to rights circumstantially speaking unless a jury of lefties inexplicably wants to let them off.

DNA is so 1990s. I expect Patel is up to speed on that one now. Though considering she confused terrorism with counter terrorism a little while ago I wouldn't be so sure we are in her hands

Imagine having to walk past a statue of the man responsible for the death of your grandmother, every single day.

I thought we were talking about Edward Colston, not Winston Churchill.

speaking unless a jury of lefties inexplicably wants to let them off.

How do you know what their political leanings are righty?

@VikingOnTheFridge

Jury trials aren’t a bad idea but sometimes juries get it wrong. This one did. We all watched the criminal damage being done on our TV screens. It’s beyond belief that, based on the facts, the jury reached this verdict. It reminds me ofAlice told the White Queen, “One can't believe impossible things,” the Queen answered, in a huff, “I daresay you haven't had much practice…. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast”?

Have you considered the possibility that maybe you find it beyond belief because you don't actually understand the law and system you're complaining about and you didn't hear all the evidence?

Have you considered the possibility that the jury came to its conclusion on moral, not legal, grounds. Only in the 21st century could people be filmed committing criminal damage while the police stood by and watched and then be acquitted by an allegedly reasonably intelligent and sane jury.

And in my non-legal opinion I believe jury trials to be a broadly good thing. What would you suggest would be fairer than 12 of your peers randomly selected from the electoral roll to sit in judgement on you rather than someone appointed to the position?

I agree with what you say about juries but they do get it wrong - and back in the days when we had capital punishment (which will never be revived no matter how much Patel might lust after it) people were hanged when juries got it wrong.

I read the Secret Barrister piece this morning and he’s in Through the Looking Glass territory as far as I’m concerned.

Have you considered the possibility that the jury came to its conclusion on moral, not legal, grounds

Seems we need to eliminate this "morality" you speak of from public life then.

Oh, we already are. Carry on.

@SerendipityJane

Have you considered the possibility that the jury came to its conclusion on moral, not legal, grounds

Seems we need to eliminate this "morality" you speak of from public life then.

Oh, we already are. Carry on.

Morality and legality are different things. It would appear that, far from eliminating the former, it’s replacing the latter - let’s just axe our legal system, shall we?

Have you considered the possibility that the jury came to its conclusion on moral, not legal, grounds. Only in the 21st century could people be filmed committing criminal damage while the police stood by and watched and then be acquitted by an allegedly reasonably intelligent and sane jury.

I have indeed, and incidentally juries in England have done that on numerous occasions over multiple centuries. It's a feature of our system, not a bug. A safeguard. But either way, you don't know. It's a fact that there are multiple defences to CD and that some were argued here.

You still don't understand the process you're commenting on and didn't see all the evidence, have failed to take on fairly basic points throughout the discussion and as such it isn't a surprise that you find it all so incomprehensible.

I agree with what you say about juries but they do get it wrong - and back in the days when we had capital punishment (which will never be revived no matter how much Patel might lust after it) people were hanged when juries got it wrong.

There's also the rather inconvenient fact that executing an innocent person pretty much gives the real culprit a licence to kill and kill again (she writes damn well knowing this is what Christie did after Timothy Evans was murdered hanged). Which isn't often mentioned in such discussions, but is a nice one to tuck away for a rainy day ...

I agree with what you say about juries but they do get it wrong - and back in the days when we had capital punishment (which will never be revived no matter how much Patel might lust after it) people were hanged when juries got it wrong

Now out of the EU, changes to human rights legislation... then we leave ECHR, Boris wins in 2024, promising a Capital Punishment referendum... & wins, all of this is more than possible.

Anyone in 2011 saying we would leave the EU within 5 years would have been told they were crazy.

I don’t find it incomprehensible at all.

Morality and legality are different things

Ah, but what about architecture and morality ?

(Age-outing reference there )

@JuneOsborne

Ah, but it's their time now. The youth do this stuff (have done for decades) and it causes change. In the 60s all the marches, the huge social changes, free love, the movements were the youth. It's all been a bit quiet really since. It's good to see young people shaking us up.

It's like people are waking up too. We've had a Tory government for ages now and I'm amazed that there isn't more shit like this going on.

I did drive past some graffiti the other day. It said: join a union. Scruffy, not art graffiti, and I was marvelling that maybe the youth are going to rescue us!

Fantastic!

@SerendipityJane

Morality and legality are different things

Ah, but what about architecture and morality ?

(Age-outing reference there )

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark has no place on this thread.

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark has no place on this thread.

I think you've crossed a line there

OK, maybe a tad dated (I can already head the youth saying a tad ????) but they represent an age when a band could have a hit single with the name of an atomic bomber (at the same time there was a band with the name of Rudolph Hess' final prison in the charts), And then follow it up with a relatively rare 3/4 (waltz time) song about Joan of Arc.

Rather puts todays warblers about booty and milkshake into context ...

Some May Say this is all a bit off topic, but Liverpool does have a connection with Bristol and slave-trading ...

@JustAnotherPoster00

speaking unless a jury of lefties inexplicably wants to let them off.

How do you know what their political leanings are righty?

I don't. We don't know anything about the jury - age, sex, race, political persuasion - but someone upthread whose name I've shamefully forgotten said they were lefties.

@stairway

I think the difference between Saville and Colston is that his victims are still alive , same with Hitler, the crimes are not historical yet imo. A lot of historical figures have done awful things and if we start describing historical items as a hate crimes I think we might lose a good chunk of visual history in towns and cities.

You think there are no victims of slavery alive today? The north Atlantic slave trade may have ended, but the legacy of it very much lives on. George Floyd's murder was a direct legacy of that slave trade.

You think there are no victims of slavery alive today?

Of course there are but apparently those of 200 years ago are far more important. Who gives a shit about the child labour in the Far East producing fast fashion?

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that it's completely impossible to care about more than one thing at a time.

And George Floyd was not 200 years ago.