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.

KenDodd

Why do you think that those "unhappy with the acquittal" want the statue put back up?

I can’t do links but the Guardian has a very interesting article on why there should be no statues full stop. I don’t disagree but I don’t agree with them being torn down by members of the public either.

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jun/01/gary-younge-why-every-single-statue-should-come-down-rhodes-colston

Apparently the links now do themselves…

@twelly

Would you have wanted the statue to remain then?
Do you think it should be put back?

@FrippEnos

I don't know if they do, that's why I asked the question.

@twelly

I think that given this case people can argue that lots of statues cause deep offence. Its a difficult emotion to quantify - slavery is abhorrent, but so were so many other actions by the victorians. Maybe there should be no statues and then no-one can be offended.

A lot of Islamic countries manage ....

They shouldn’t have been acquitted, now other people will think it’s ok to tear down anything deemed offensive.

Defo time to get rid of them, glad the schools have all changed their names and Colsten Hall is no more! About bloody time

@stairway

It’s not deemed offensive, it is offensive

Verdicts like these are useful when people are claiming that a rape acquittal means the victim was lying.

Jury verdicts aren't findings of fact, they are an expression of beliefs.

@KenDodd

Those on the thread unhappy with the acquittal, do you want the statue put back?

No I want them punished for a crime though

[quote KenDodd]**@FrippEnos

I don't know if they do, that's why I asked the question.[/quote]
I think that posters/people want to know the reasoning behind the verdict especially when those accused have admitting being part of the (in this case) pulling down a statue.

The worry being that the defense could be used for vandalising anything.

@NightmareSlashDelightful

I'd be interested to understand the finer points of the argument as to why this wasn't a criminal act for geeky law reasons but more broadly I think acquittal is the right result, actually. That Colston statue was a breathtaking disgrace.

Jury decisions are opaque. They don't have to provide their reasons or findings like a judge would. Which means when they make decisions to acquit based on biases or political beliefs or disliking the victim rather than on the law or facts, their decision cannot be challenged.

It's not a system that is compatible with establishing truth or achieving fairness and justice.

That's great news, maybe issues like the statue will be taken more seriously in future before things like this happen

@Theunamedcat
Thank you for answering.

Anyone know when the Thatcher statue is going up in Grantham? Asking for several thousand scousers...

Utterly fantastic news. An excellent outcome.

There is some lack of nuance and understanding of our legal system on this thread.

It's a great outcome. All things are not equal.

It seems it's not uncommon for statues of hated people to be torn down by the public. It happens all over the world.

@CorrBlimeyGG that’s not a serious plan is it???

@Malariahilaria

I wonder what the reaction would have been if they weren't white? I hated that statue for years when I lived in Bristol, people campaigned, wrote letters and tried everything. 'we must respect history' was the reply. I cheered when it went into the harbour but was pleased when they put it in a museum. It's important to remember history, we don't need to celebrate all of it though, just know about it.

I suspect they would have been convicted if they weren't white, ironically.

I'm happy with this result ( as are most of my friends here in Bristol), and Im surpised opinion is so divided on mumsnet.
A couple of years ago i used to cycle to work past this statue, then go between colston hall and colston tower, up colston street, and past the colston Yard and Colston arms. So many Brisrolians were offended by this and are glad they have all gone or changed name.

As long as everyone’s ok when The Other Side come for a monument/statue/artefact that they find offensive and not in keeping with their values…

I would have supported a lesser charge, or as someone else suggested a guilty verdict with a fine of pennies or an hour each of community service.
Aquital no.

I think it's horrific that they've just walked away with no consequences.

History is what makes us who we are. How else do you learn if not from the past? Slavery is a heinous part of history, but you can't airbrush it from existence.

Vandalism is vandalism, full stop. And without being funny, they all look like privately educated middle class white people whose idea of injustice is someone cutting off their trust funds