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.

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

Where did I make such speculations? I haven’t mentioned anyone else’s occupation. I have argued against “the actual point” consistently - and without inventing posts from other people. This has just become a pile on now - nobody’s mind is going to be changed.

[quote limitedperiodonly]@Blossomtoes do you understand that the Attorney General is a political appointee and not an independent member of the judiciary?[/quote]
She’s a barrister. They tend to be quite knowledgeable about the law.

@Blossomtoes

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

Where did I make such speculations? I haven’t mentioned anyone else’s occupation. I have argued against “the actual point” consistently - and without inventing posts from other people. This has just become a pile on now - nobody’s mind is going to be changed.

You said the AG is a barrister and as such more likely to be correct than randoms on MN, which indicates that you've taken a view on whether the people telling you why you're wrong are barristers or not.

And you still demonstrably don't understand what you're talking about.

I know precisely what I’m talking about. Do you always take disagreement so badly and so personally @VikingOnTheFridge?

@Blossomtoes

I know precisely what I’m talking about. Do you always take disagreement so badly and so personally *@VikingOnTheFridge*?

No you don't. Your posts indicate that. We know, because you have told us, that you think the mere fact that the statue was toppled and thrown into the harbour means an act of criminal damage according to our law was committed. This is wrong, fundamentally so.

@Blossomtoes do you understand the difference between a barrister who is a political appointee in service to the government of the day and one who is an independent member of the Judiciary?

In case you don't let me explain.

Lord (Peter) Goldsmith was the Attorney General (a political appointee) who advised the government headed by Tony Blair who was a fellow barrister. He signed off the Iraq war.

Suella Braverman is also a barrister and the current Attorney General (political appointee) advising this government headed by a newspaper columnist who brushes his hair with a balloon and tonight has been caught out attending an office party in May 2020 when the rest of us were in lock down.

Can you honestly not understand the difference between the Attorney General and an independent member of the judiciary? Hint - it's barrister who is a political appointee.

It is like when you pay a solicitor. They cannot lie but but they are on your side so long as you are paying their fees and will do the best to polish a turd unless it really stinks and they can't stand it any more.

Ms Braverman is currently busy with the Duraglit with a peg on her nose.

I am assuming you have a vote. Everyone over 18 does.

Chucking the statue of Edward Colston into the canal was not a criminal offence. A jury said so. If the same thing happened tomorrow another jury might take a different view. They would also be right.

@Blossomtoes

I know precisely what I’m talking about. Do you always take disagreement so badly and so personally *@VikingOnTheFridge*?

Are you reading the same thread as everyone else?

Or are you just lashing out as a way to deflect from your tenous grasp of the issues?

Where’s the “lashing out”? Let’s see your forensic grasp of the issues @Ihaventgottimeforthis. It appears you’re another one who can’t deal with anyone disagreeing with you.

@limitedperiodonly

Chucking the statue of Edward Colston into the canal was not a criminal offence. A jury said so. If the same thing happened tomorrow another jury might take a different view. They would also be right.

Thats not quite true.

But we have a jury system, 12 of your peers decide on the evidence & i think, whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, Governments shouldn't go getting involved in trying to get the result that they might want.
Isn't Johnson looking at the Supreme court because they found he acted illegally?

This is what dictators do.

Here is another barrister explaining exactly how the jury were directed.

It's worth pointing out that juries sometimes do acquit when the defendant has pleaded guilty as in the case of Clive Ponting back in 1982. He fully expected to be imprisoned.

The Government at the time didn't like it, and Suella Braverman and her Tory chums don't like this either, but it still doesn't make the law wrong. She can't change the jury's decision however much she wants to. She might well try and waste taxpayers (i.e. our) money going to the Court of Appeal to 'clarify' the law, but I haven't yet seen any informed commentary to say that the law wasn't clear.

@Peregrina

Here is another barrister explaining exactly how the jury were directed.

It's worth pointing out that juries sometimes do acquit when the defendant has pleaded guilty as in the case of Clive Ponting back in 1982. He fully expected to be imprisoned.

The Government at the time didn't like it, and Suella Braverman and her Tory chums don't like this either, but it still doesn't make the law wrong. She can't change the jury's decision however much she wants to. She might well try and waste taxpayers (i.e. our) money going to the Court of Appeal to 'clarify' the law, but I haven't yet seen any informed commentary to say that the law wasn't clear.

She probably wont even do that, this was a message for the base Tory voter, they hear Court of Appeal so theyre expecting the jury result to be overturned and wont look into it in greater detail, Tory voters and Brexit supporters are extremely gullible and this will stave them off temporarily

Good to know that as long as I morally and loudly disagree with something, I can do whatever damage I want......

...and if you are happy to face criminal prosecutions and go to court and then can persuade 12 random members of the general public that the thing you object to is indeed so offensive that its display constitutes a criminal offence and that you have exhausted all normal channels of getting it removed. Yes, sounds like a piece of cake, knock yourself out.

Good to know that as long as I morally and loudly disagree with something, I can do whatever damage I want......

Some people do feel that they need to take a stand against something morally wrong, and then face the consequences. One of those consequences was being arrested and being tried in a Court of Law.

It was up to the Prosecution to prove to the Jury that they should have been convicted, which they failed to do.

Clearly fuck all knowledge of English history on display by some here.

The Pankhursts must be turning in their graves.

In 1903 Pankhurst founded the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), an all-women suffrage advocacy organisation dedicated to “deeds, not words” .[5] The group identified as independent from – and often in opposition to – political parties. It became known for physical confrontations: its members smashed windows and assaulted police officers. Pankhurst, her daughters, and other WSPU activists received repeated prison sentences, where they staged hunger strikes to secure better conditions, and were often force-fed.

Clearly some posters here would rather they had stuck to letter writing (as long as it wasn't too offensive to the menz).

@SerendipityJane

Clearly fuck all knowledge of English history on display by some here.

The Pankhursts must be turning in their graves.

In 1903 Pankhurst founded the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), an all-women suffrage advocacy organisation dedicated to “deeds, not words” .[5] The group identified as independent from – and often in opposition to – political parties. It became known for physical confrontations: its members smashed windows and assaulted police officers. Pankhurst, her daughters, and other WSPU activists received repeated prison sentences, where they staged hunger strikes to secure better conditions, and were often force-fed.

Clearly some posters here would rather they had stuck to letter writing (as long as it wasn't too offensive to the menz).

What an interesting example. The suffragettes, as far as I’m aware, didn’t plead not guilty or attempt to claim they weren’t committing criminal damage. They were pretty clear that they were breaking the law and accepted the consequences. Unlike the Colston four who, ironically, are perpetuating the name they were seeking to erase.

They weren't seeking to erase his name

The suffragettes, as far as I’m aware, didn’t plead not guilty or attempt to claim they weren’t committing criminal damage.

On the basis the historical record is "sketchy" (already making my paranoia senses tingle) I am going to assert* did plead not guilty and they did claim it was a necessary action in the face of tyranny.

You are free to cite and disprove if you will. After all, some facts would be nice.

*Learn from your opponents. Always. In this case unsupported assertions as fact.

Oh. Look.

www.upi.com/Archives/1913/04/03/Suffragette-defiant-as-convicted-of-bomb-conspiracy/7843019160971/

Facing the jurors without emotion, but with earnestness in every word, Mrs. Pankhurst told them she would call no witnesses, and then proceeded to tell the men why it was that she pleaded not guilty and asked acquittal.

(of course no women on juries then either).

Learn from your opponents. Always. In this case unsupported assertions as fact.

You missed “as far as I know” then? Perhaps learn to read what’s actually written?

Perhaps learn to read what’s actually written?

Perhaps don't post about subjects you know very little about?

@Blossomtoes

Learn from your opponents. Always. In this case unsupported assertions as fact.

You missed “as far as I know” then? Perhaps learn to read what’s actually written?

Well, now you do know. Suffragettes did plead not guilty.

@JesusInTheCabbageVan

Perhaps learn to read what’s actually written?

Perhaps don't post about subjects you know very little about?

I’ll post about whatever I like. Censorship of anyone who disagrees with you might be the way to go in your world, but you’re not going to shut me up. Bloody inconvenient for you though it might be.

*I’ll post about whatever I like. Censorship of anyone who disagrees with you might be the way to go in your world, but you’re not going to shut me up. Bloody inconvenient for you though it m might be."

But I wasn't censoring you, I was only making a suggestion. You missed “perhaps” then? Perhaps learn to read what’s actually written?