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.

@Blossomtoes

I don’t find it incomprehensible at all.

Yeah, you do. You quite evidently don't understand. Your posts make that abundantly clear. The problem is that you decided you don't like the verdict first then tried to come up with reasons why it was wrong to try and justify that opinion, despite it having been formed in ignorance.

@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.

But by that reasoning, it would be acceptable to erect a statue to (say) Dr Josef Mengele a respectable time after his last victim has passed away. While much of the data he gained from his 'experiments' was worthless, he donated thousands of organs from murdered holocaust victims to medical science. So.... Mengele statue in 50 years or so, for the visual history?

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.

I think it's a fair point of view that if there are beneficiaries of slavery around today then axiomatically there must be victims. Not sure if it's a popular view - or even one that has a name. But thought I would throw it in anyway.

How far do you go though? Is one a beneficiary because they live in a country that has benefitted from slavery such as the UK, USA, Spain, Morocco and almost every other (but not quite all) countries? Or is one a victim because we all lose out due to the legacy making the world a less tolerant or fearful place? We all lose and gain to different degrees. I suspect what matters is whether it is tangible or not.

@Blossomtoes

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.

Really? I thought it was clear. You are fond of comparisons to Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass. It's the second time you've mentioned it.

I'm curious to know in what way you thought the Secret Barrister was like the 19th century novelist Charles Dodgson. Otherwise I'd think it was irrelevant.

Are you a practising barrister or solicitor or someone with a similar insight to modern English and Welsh law? Perhaps you could explain exactly why you think the analysis is wrong.

@Blossomtoes what better alternative do you have for juries and why?

I think it's a fair point of view that if there are beneficiaries of slavery around today then axiomatically there must be victims. Not sure if it's a popular view - or even one that has a name. But thought I would throw it in anyway.

Makes sense. If your great great granddad was a wealthy slave trader, that money gets passed down through generations and you'll likely benefit from it. Conversely, if your great great granddad was impoverished because someone else took all the money he should rightfully have earned, there's nothing to pass down. No money to put kids through school/uni, or to move to where the well-paid jobs are, and so the cycle continues.

I also think structural racism is a clear legacy of slavery and the kind of attitudes that arose through slavery.

@JesusInTheCabbageVan

I think it's a fair point of view that if there are beneficiaries of slavery around today then axiomatically there must be victims. Not sure if it's a popular view - or even one that has a name. But thought I would throw it in anyway.

Makes sense. If your great great granddad was a wealthy slave trader, that money gets passed down through generations and you'll likely benefit from it. Conversely, if your great great granddad was impoverished because someone else took all the money he should rightfully have earned, there's nothing to pass down. No money to put kids through school/uni, or to move to where the well-paid jobs are, and so the cycle continues.

I also think structural racism is a clear legacy of slavery and the kind of attitudes that arose through slavery.

I think the population of Britain as a whole did better out of slavery than the slaves.

Cheap sugar if nothing else.

The judge in the Colston statue case feared undue pressure was being placed on the jury by rhetoric from defence barristers urging them to ensure they were on the “right side of history”.

Are you saying that the Prosecution barristers weren't up to the job? What was stopping them from persuading the jury that the Prosecution's case was sound and that they should convict?

You quite evidently don't understand. Your posts make that abundantly clear. The problem is that you decided you don't like the verdict first then tried to come up with reasons why it was wrong to try and justify that opinion, despite it having been formed in ignorance

My posts make it abundantly clear that I do understand and don’t agree with a perverse and distorted interpretation of the law. Please don’t tell me what I think.

@Blossomtoes

You quite evidently don't understand. Your posts make that abundantly clear. The problem is that you decided you don't like the verdict first then tried to come up with reasons why it was wrong to try and justify that opinion, despite it having been formed in ignorance

My posts make it abundantly clear that I do understand and don’t agree with a perverse and distorted interpretation of the law. Please don’t tell me what I think.

You have made ignorant and objectively incorrect statements throughout the thread. This is a fact. You quite clearly jumped to a conclusion first and then flailed round trying to come up with reasons to support it second. And your posts stand as testament to that.

In your opinion. Is it within your capability to respond to the posts of those who disagree with you without employing insult? If so, maybe give it a go and address the argument rather than attacking the poster.

My posts make it abundantly clear that I do understand and don’t agree with a perverse and distorted interpretation of the law. Please don’t tell me what I think.

That's though then, isn't it? If you had been on the jury you might have persuaded them to convict. As it stands, for reasons we don't know, the jury weren't convinced by the Prosecution's case.

Tough not though!

@Blossomtoes

In your opinion. Is it within your capability to respond to the posts of those who disagree with you without employing insult? If so, maybe give it a go and address the argument rather than attacking the poster.

No, in objective fact. It doesn't become an insult because you don't like it being pointed out.

You think a jury trial has set a precedent. That's just plain not true, yet you've said it more than once. This means you don't understand.

You think a jury trial has set a precedent. That's just plain not true, yet you've said it more than once. This means you don't understand

I understand it can’t constitute legal precedent. It could easily set a precedent for future juries in similar cases. It will undoubtedly be raised in jury discussions in the future. Perhaps if you hadn’t been so busy telling me I’m stupid and ignorant we could have cleared that up several posts ago. 🤷‍♀️

@Blossomtoes what's clear is that you are one of those people who mistake the rule of law with "something with which I don't agree".

@Blossomtoes

You think a jury trial has set a precedent. That's just plain not true, yet you've said it more than once. This means you don't understand

I understand it can’t constitute legal precedent. It could easily set a precedent for future juries in similar cases. It will undoubtedly be raised in jury discussions in the future. Perhaps if you hadn’t been so busy telling me I’m stupid and ignorant we could have cleared that up several posts ago. 🤷‍♀️

You have no idea whether it will be raised in jury discussions in the future. This is an invention on your part.

Let's talk about another aspect of this case you have demonstrated your inability to understand. You've stated several times that an act of criminal defence as defined by our legal system was committed. But the fact that the statue was torn down doesn't actually mean all parts of the offence are made out. You are wrong to take that view. You used the term perversion, I think, upthread, but the fact is that the 'lawful excuse' part of the statute and the defences are of exactly the same importance as the part about destroying or damaging property (which is also debatable in this context anyway). You can't make them not be there.

@Blossomtoes juries can discuss what they like but their decisions present no legal precedents. You are wrong.

No, what’s clear is that I understand a distortion of the law when I see it. The Attorney General does too apparently. Given that she’s a barrister, she’s more likely to be correct than the supercilious randoms on MN.

I take that back. Juries are free to deliver the verdict they want. This one did and no one can gainsay that.

The Attorney General has no power to overturn a jury verdict as long as they were correctly advised by the judge.Do you think the AG should be able to do that? If so why?

@Blossomtoes

No, what’s clear is that I understand a distortion of the law when I see it. The Attorney General does too apparently. Given that she’s a barrister, she’s more likely to be correct than the supercilious randoms on MN.

Scrolling back through the thread, you stated on I think page 10 that we all saw an act of criminal damage committed on TV. This again is evidence of misunderstanding on your part, because it indicates you think toppling the statue is CD in itself. It isn't. There are multiple elements, and defences, and the legal definition of criminal damage isn't met if the elements aren't all made out or if a defence applies. You still show no signs of understanding this. If you did, you'd be arguing against the actual point rather than speculating about what the people who are correcting you might or might not do for a living.

As for Suella, she's frankly not got the best record, and I'm not sure if she ever did criminal law anyway, but on this point it looks like she's politically grandstanding. Not the use of 'might' in her comments. Let's meet back here whenever the results of any attempt she makes to get involved are clear...

I don't think Suella Braverman has ever faced a jury in her life.

@Blossomtoes do you understand that the Attorney General is a political appointee and not an independent member of the judiciary?