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.

FFS, bold fail.

Seems slavery isn't quite the history we're told it is ... rather puts all those "what's the best chocolate" threads into a context of some sort.

returntonow.net/2022/01/09/nestle-admits-to-using-actual-slavery-on-african-cocoa-farms-u-s-supreme-court-defends-it/

Not many are aware that slavery is still alive and well in the modern world, especially on cocoa plantations in West Africa.

The cocoa used in the majority of the world’s cheap chocolate – sold by Nestlé, Hershey’s and Mars – is planted, harvested and processed by 1.5 million children, about 4000 of which are actual slaves, according to a 2015 lawsuit filed against the companies by customers.

“Some children are kidnapped by traffickers who sell them to recruiters or farmers,” the complaint states.

“The children are held against their will on isolated farms, locked away at night, threatened with beatings and forced to work long hours even when they are sick.”

Is it really news to you that slavery exists in the modern world @SerendipityJane? Where do you think Primark’s stock comes from? The sweat shops depending on slave labour is where.

Are you reading the same thread as everyoneelse?

She's evidently not been reading the bits about what the legislation actually says...

She’s been reading everything. And has come to her own conclusions, not those she’s told to draw. It’s independent thought. Some of you should try it.

@Blossomtoes

She’s been reading everything. And has come to her own conclusions, not those she’s told to draw. It’s independent thought. Some of you should try it.

The problem is that your 'independent thought' has led to you being objectively and demonstrably wrong.

No, it’s led me to a different conclusion to you.

@Blossomtoes

No, it’s led me to a different conclusion to you.

It has, and yours is wrong. Because the law on criminal damage says things you don't like.

Look, this is pointless. It’s a difference of opinion. A different jury on a different day might have reached a different conclusion. There is no right or wrong, it’s a matter of interpretation.

@Blossomtoes

Look, this is pointless. It’s a difference of opinion. A different jury on a different day might have reached a different conclusion. There is no right or wrong, it’s a matter of interpretation.

No, there is a correct and an incorrect here and you are in the latter group.

You have claimed more than once that the footage we saw meant criminal damage had been committed. It doesn't, and this is the part that's wrong and not a matter of opinion. This is because the law simply doesn't say what you think it does, and because the defences are as much a part of our criminal damage law as the damage part.

There are aspects of this issue that are a matter of opinion, but you've weighed in on one of the parts that isn't.

OK. You’re right. I’m stupid. I don’t understand. Happy now? 🤷‍♀️

@Blossomtoes

Look, this is pointless. It’s a difference of opinion. A different jury on a different day might have reached a different conclusion. There is no right or wrong, it’s a matter of interpretation.

I said a different jury on an different day might reach a different conclusion and that would be equally valid and set no precedent. I have no legal training and was paraphrasing The Secret Barrister with whom who you previously claimed not to agree and accused of living in a looking glass world, whatever that means.

But now it appears you do agree with The Secret Barrister. Would you make your mind up because I can't be doing with believing six things before breakfast let alone your muddled reasoning. What legal training do you have, by the way?

@Blossomtoes

OK. You’re right. I’m stupid. I don’t understand. Happy now? 🤷‍♀️

I don't know whether you're stupid, but you don't understand. As for whether I'm happy, that will depend on whether you manage to get through the rest of the thread without saying anything demonstrably incorrect or making spurious accusations about people who explain why you're wrong.

Not sure if there are any fans of the facts here, but just in case, here's the judges summing up to the jury

barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-summing-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/

Well worth a read ... one of the best examples of law in plain speaking I've seen since Arkell v. Pressdram

I don't know whether you're stupid,

You said I was. 🤷‍♀️ And ignorant. The spurious accusations are all yours, my dear. Insulting other people really isn’t my style. Enjoy your thread. You won’t have to put up with anyone disagreeing with you any more.

If I vandalised a statute, could I use this case as a defence? I mean the four on trial committed a crime on camera for the world to see.
Surely you can’t let people off a criminal act become the state was unpopular?
Do people realise that many cities and towns were built by slaves? Do we demolish these buildings?
I’m sorry but I cannot see how these four got away with this.

@Blossomtoes

I don't know whether you're stupid,

You said I was. 🤷‍♀️ And ignorant. The spurious accusations are all yours, my dear. Insulting other people really isn’t my style. Enjoy your thread. You won’t have to put up with anyone disagreeing with you any more.

No actually, I didn't say you were stupid.

I said you didn't understand and that you were ignorant of the law, both of which are clear from your previous posts. Are we to gather from the attempt to play the victim that you now see where you were going wrong?

There’s no attempt to play victim. I haven’t gone wrong. We disagree. Simple as that.

@Hearwego

If I vandalised a statute, could I use this case as a defence? I mean the four on trial committed a crime on camera for the world to see. Surely you can’t let people off a criminal act become the state was unpopular? Do people realise that many cities and towns were built by slaves? Do we demolish these buildings? I’m sorry but I cannot see how these four got away with this.

Read the judges summing up - it's incredibly clear.

@Blossomtoes

There’s no attempt to play victim. I haven’t gone wrong. We disagree. Simple as that.

It isn't. We disagree because you're wrong about the law on criminal damage and I'm not.

And your attempt to play the victim was clear when you described pointing out that you are wrong as making spurious accusations, whilst literally making one yourself at the same time. I knew you wouldn't stick the flounce!

I don't think there's anything wrong with being stupid and ignorant. Refusing to accept and learn from it though...

@Blossomtoes

She’s been reading everything. And has come to her own conclusions, not those she’s told to draw. It’s independent thought. Some of you should try it.

To confirm - you think other posters draw different conclusions because they were told ?

told to that should say

@Hearwego

If I vandalised a statute, could I use this case as a defence? I mean the four on trial committed a crime on camera for the world to see. Surely you can’t let people off a criminal act become the state was unpopular? Do people realise that many cities and towns were built by slaves? Do we demolish these buildings? I’m sorry but I cannot see how these four got away with this.

i’m sorry but I cannot see how these four got away with this.

No need to apologise. If you scan back through thread, you'll find lots of information about how the legal process determined that this wasn't a criminal act. A pp linked to a Secret Barrister article which would be a great starting point.

Read the judges summing up - it's incredibly clear.**

I don’t need to. I saw a number of people commit a criminal act on tv. The jury found them not guilty. I don’t understand how they were found not guilty.
By the way, one of them was holding a coffee cup after the court. Maybe he should be educated that the coffee beans actually derived from people on low wages in South America.
But that’s ok eh ?