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.

OnceUponaRainbow18 what’s offends is subjective though. It’s just a statue to me, that tells the story of a horrible past. Getting rid of it might make people feel better but it doesn’t change the past or right a wrong. I feel uneasy about the current cancel culture and I think the next generations won’t approve either.
I think it’s similar to Taliban pulling down statues of Buddhist Gods as they ring them offensive.

Ok so all I need to know is, can I now go and destroy or vandalise any statue/ work of art/ books that I find offensive? Pictures in a gallery painted by any dubious artist, can I slash them? Libraries housing books by authors with a nasty past, can I march in and burn them?
After all the precedent has been set it seems….

@LondonWolf

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…

Yep, I think the best course of action would have been for them to be punished (lightly) and councils or whatever make a pledge to make the process of removing statues easier/more transparent. Its set a precedent really, which ones are next?

It’s a hard one on one hand you can argue that they did cause damage, so the question really is, was it criminal? I think the fact that it was a principle however I think it has the potential to set a precedent for people to damage with impunity providing there is a principle behind it.

@BoodleBug51 totally agree, bunch of posh kids who have no idea of hardship or prejudice. I hope their parents pay for the damage their little darling's caused.

Condoning vandalism pure and simple.

Well, I know which side, morally I'm on. And that side was found not guilty. Works for me.

I think this should have been dealt with better by the council at an earlier stage and would not want it put back but think this verdict is shameless condoning of vandalism and lawbreaking.
I also wonder if the verdict would have been the same if the perpetrators had been young, black men from inner city backgrounds

We can't change the past but we need to remember things that happened so they are not repeated. I've never seen any of these "warriors of justice" protesting about modern day slavery which is happening right now the world over. Not a glamorous enough cause?

What's happened to mn?
A lot of right wing racist pearl clutching yobs here now.
Urgh. Go away with your history garbage.

@Georgeskitchen

We can't change the past but we need to remember things that happened so they are not repeated. I've never seen any of these "warriors of justice" protesting about modern day slavery which is happening right now the world over. Not a glamorous enough cause?

By that logic, should there be statues of Hitler in our public spaces to remind us not to repeat genocide?

We don't need statues dominating public spaces to learn from our past. Statues are about who we consider important, not about learning from history.

@ArblemarzipanTFruitcake

It should have been officially removed to a museum long ago, then it wouldn't have been there to upset people. It's time we stopped venerating people whose wealth came at the expense of the misery of ordinary people. Coulston is the tip of the iceberg.

This.

This is a similar case in terms of a jury clearly acquitting based on political views rather than the law - the judge specifically directed that there was no defense in law for the actions but the jury acquitted anyway:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56853979

The people in that case set out to cause damage over the threshold necessary to get a jury trial because they wanted to bring attention to their cause. There is video evidence and witnesses of them smashing windows etc. Their actions are not disputed, the law is clear it was criminal conduct - but a jury refused to convict.

Vandalism is vandalism, full stop

And Brexit means Brexit.

We return to one persons vandalism is another persons political protest is another persons feng shui.

A lot of people have chosen to ignore the fact this is a verdict of 12 jurors, which sets no precedent. Well sets no precedent unless another jury decides to acquit based on - what I have to assume in this - very specific and local issues.

Apparently the councils behaviour in this - over the course of many decades - hasn't really won them many friends. And ultimately democracy should be about winning - not requiring - public support.

Fuckwit councils are close to my heart. DM was arrested (with a few other "gobby mums" as they were called) for blocking a rat run after two children (separated by a year) were killed by speeding cars. I can only imagine her now up there looking down.

It's all well and good supporting juries who disregard the law and evidence in their decision-making - until you're an innocent person being convicted because a jury doesn't like you or your beliefs rather than because you're guilty of a crime...

@user114653217696248626

It's all well and good supporting juries who disregard the law and evidence in their decision-making - until you're an innocent person being convicted because a jury doesn't like you or your beliefs rather than because you're guilty of a crime...

I'd take my chances I think.

And - given the #BLM issue here - I think juries have shat on black people enough for this to be some karma, if you believe in such nonsense.

I'm delighted. I cheered its fall, I cheered it going in the docks and I couldn't be happier with the verdict.

History is what makes us who we are. How else do you learn if not from the past

Presumably you wouldn't have wanted the Jimmy Savile statue taken down then?

Every now and then an randomly selected English jury decides that there is a principle at stake which outweighs the letter of the law, and declines to convict a defendant who is technically guilty beyond reasonably doubt. For very good reasons the jury cannot be punished for finding the "wrong" verdict. But by definition these cases don't set any precedent.

If you wish to flagrantly break the law in pursuit of a cause in which you fervently believe then you have always had the option of taking your chance to persuade twelve jurors that your actions were justified and should not be punished, but you need to be prepared to take the consequences when and if you fail to persuade them.

How does this in any way address the issue of discrimination by juries?

Supporting juries acting outside the law supports a system that enables that discrimination.

Personally, I don't think anybody should have been prosecuted in the first place - I fail to see how it was in the public interest - but I do take major issue with the corruption of the jury system, so I cannot celebrate a verdict like this from that perspective.

Easy to say you don't care about the prospect of a wrongful conviction when it isn't your freedom actually on the line.

Hurray! People had been trying for thirty years to even get a plaque mentioning that colston had been involved in the slave trade. It was a shame on the city to have that statue there.

How was it not criminal damage?

How do we decide which public works can be vandalised without consequence?

Supporting juries acting outside the law supports a system that enables that discrimination

The jury didn't act outside the law.
You are allowed in law, to commit a crime to prevent a greater crime happening.
The fact this slave traders statue stood proud in Bristol was deemed to be so offensive, it constituted a hate crime. I believe this is what the case hinged on.

SerendipityJane

So what are your views on the Rittenhouse verdict, should he have gone to jail because #BLM?
or the media harassment of Sandmann because of racism?

And what's all this nonsense about them being posh, having trust funds etc?

Do any of you actually know that?
And even if true, so what? What does that have to do with anything?