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.

@maxbabi

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

MN is increasingly becoming Parler with pearls with shouts of woke and left and I dont doubt the word snowflake will be used on this thread and likely these people who comment this are right wing authoritarians that MN attract more of month on month

I think it’s similar to Taliban pulling down statues of Buddhist Gods as they ring them offensive
Really? You think pulling down a statue of a slave trader, responsible for untold death and misery is similar to the Taliban destroying statues of Buddhist gods?

When I was a child we used to celebrate Colston Day at school, him supposedly being one of the great men of the city.

Makes me sick to think of it.

’I think it’s similar to Taliban pulling down statues of Buddhist Gods’

Really? They should teach critical thinking in schools.

Ridiculous - they should have been charged with unlawful damage.

It’s just a statue to me, that tells the story of a horrible past
It didn't tell a story though did it. The council vetoed any attempt to put a full history on his statue. The statue glorified a slave trader and fabricated a past.

Ridiculous - they should have been charged with unlawful damage.

So would you also have wanted one of Jimmy savile's victims charged with unlawful damage if they'd taken it upon themselves to destroy his statue?
Please answer. None of the 'outraged' seem willing to argue their position.

Well if they can break the law and get away with it, next time I feel like breaking the law and feel it’s justified, I’ll go right ahead?

If I had been a juror, I’d have found them innocent for fear of the backlash for finding them guilty. Twitter and the like can be really dangerous. Can you imagine someone tweeting the addresses of the jurors in the event of a guilty verdict?

@KenDodd - yes, damage is damage. If someone is a victim it does not give them the right to destroy public property.

If you read the full history of the statue, you’ll see that those who refused to acknowledge what Colston did helped bring the situation to a head. They spent two years arguing about the wording of a plaque that was to be attached to the statue to give it context - to describe Colston’s involvement with the slave trade.

*’ The historians tasked with coming up with the wording wrote 'trafficking' to describe the way in which enslaved African men, women and children were taken from Africa to America and the Caribbean - those objecting and coming up with their own drafts used the word 'transported'.

In the July, and faced with the prospect of the official council-commissioned project to come up with the wording of the plaque digging in over the debate, Cllr Richard Eddy went public again.

Theft or vandalism of second Colston statue plaque 'may be justified' - Tory councillor
He said he objected so strongly to the proposed wording of the proposed plaque that if it were put onto the statue of Edward Colston, then vandalising it or stealing it 'may be justified'.

By August, Mr Greenacre's alternative draft even dropped the word 'enslaved' to describe those people, and those involved in the process accused the supporters of Edward Colston of 'sanitising' the slave trade.

www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/how-city-failed-remove-edward-4211771

KenDodd

So would you also have wanted one of Jimmy savile's victims charged with unlawful damage if they'd taken it upon themselves to destroy his statue?

Were any of these four victims of colston?

@KenDodd

Ridiculous - they should have been charged with unlawful damage.

So would you also have wanted one of Jimmy savile's victims charged with unlawful damage if they'd taken it upon themselves to destroy his statue?
Please answer. None of the 'outraged' seem willing to argue their position.

Yes. If I was on the jury in the case of your Jimmy Saville statue I would have returned a guilty verdict.

Because they would have been guilty. I would also have written letters to my MP (and voted accordingly) to get the statue taken down.

It's called democracy and the rule of law. If everyone gets to make up their own laws then you end up in the state the USA is with Trump supporters feeling "justified" in storming Congress because it's "the right thing to do".

@AutumnAlmanack

Ridiculous - they should have been charged with unlawful damage.

You haven't actually read the story have you? They were charged with criminal damage, and acquitted, that's the story.

’If it goes through, it will be a further slap-in-the-face for true Bristolians and our city's history delivered by ignorant, left-wing incomers,” he added.’

’Cllr Richard Eddy said someone taking the law into the own hands and ‘unilaterally removing’ the plaque, which recognises Colston’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, ‘might be justified’.’

Apparently vandalism can be justified if you don’t like a monument

www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/theft-vandalism-second-colston-statue-1815967

@KenDodd

Ridiculous - they should have been charged with unlawful damage.

So would you also have wanted one of Jimmy savile's victims charged with unlawful damage if they'd taken it upon themselves to destroy his statue?
Please answer. None of the 'outraged' seem willing to argue their position.

Fine I will bite

Yes

You cannot break the law and have the expectation that you are above it just because someone else did something heinous first

They should have used the momentum of BLM to highlight and bring to the front the damage that statue represents public opinion was on there side the statue would have gone

’You cannot break the law and have the expectation that you are above it just because someone else did something heinous first’

But they didn’t. They accepted the right of the courts to rule on their behaviour.

They should have used the momentum of BLM to highlight and bring to the front the damage that statue represents public opinion was on there side the statue would have gone

They tried for years and years to have the statue removed. Councillors repeatedly prevented it. One Tory councillor was particularly fond of the statue and a staunch defender of it. He's pictured in the article linked above holding his gollywog mascot. He's still an elected official so his voters obviously like him.

Totally agree with everyone questioning what the hell has happened to mumsnet.

There are people teasing the verdict through and people may have different opinions which is obviously fine (even if I don’t agree with you).

But it feels like Mumsnet has been ambushed by the hard right, conspiracy theorists and goons who shout about the rule of law and freedom of speech learnt from some sad YouTuber sat alone in his basement. They don’t understand the British constitution, traditions or law. Their cod debating tactics are smoke and mirrors.

Reasonable people can disagree reasonably, but I wish the far right would just fuck off.

Great result.
They're not above the law, they were charged & taken to court and defended their actions before a jury, who decided on a majority to acquit.
The statue is still on display, in a museum, where it continues to educate people about our slave trade past, activism & protest, and hopefully our future anti-racist society.
If anyone feels they have a justifiable reason to remove a statue or similar, do go ahead. You never know, a jury & society may support you too.

So anyone who disagrees with wanton vandalism is a far right racist ?? Right ok then.

@FridayiminlovewithRobertSmith

Totally agree with everyone questioning what the hell has happened to mumsnet.

There are people teasing the verdict through and people may have different opinions which is obviously fine (even if I don’t agree with you).

But it feels like Mumsnet has been ambushed by the hard right, conspiracy theorists and goons who shout about the rule of law and freedom of speech learnt from some sad YouTuber sat alone in his basement. They don’t understand the British constitution, traditions or law. Their cod debating tactics are smoke and mirrors.

Reasonable people can disagree reasonably, but I wish the far right would just fuck off.

Can you quote something on this thread that fits the definition of “Far Right”? Or are you asserting this from the new definition of “Far Right”, which now means centrists and just right and left of centre?

I said what I said.

It wasn't wanton vandalism because it was done with a very specific purpose in mind.

@FridayiminlovewithRobertSmith

I said what I said.

Quite 😏

The point is there are people sharing views in good faith, sharing perspectives and working through the issues. And there are people shouting loudly who aren’t.

I’m just reminding the people in the first camp that not everyone has integrity. I’m not going to be drawn into a bun fight.