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.

@AutumnAlmanack

Ridiculous - they should have been charged with unlawful damage.

Assuming you mean criminal damage, what the fuck do you think the trial was for?

The statue is a better piece of living history now it’s been through this event. It reflected the attitude of the time the man lived in, now it’s ended up reflecting the times we live in.

@FridayiminlovewithRobertSmith

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.

Those posting in good faith being the ones who agree with you? No bun fighting but do you really expect to be able to tell anyone who doesn’t agree with you or tries to discuss ramifications around the law that they’re Far Right “Goons” and whatever else you called them, without being challenged. I know calling people Far Right Racists usually frightens them into shutting up immediately but I don’t think that’s going to keep working and thank goodness for that!

@Saucery

The statue is a better piece of living history now it’s been through this event. It reflected the attitude of the time the man lived in, now it’s ended up reflecting the times we live in.

Including the way our jury system works. Information that appears to have come as a shock to a number of people.

The OP is right.

How many of you know that the apartheid South African government abolished juries and replaced them with state-appointed assessors?

It was because juries were acquitting people who were clearly criminally liable but even more clearly in the moral right.

Juries can stop the law from being a complete ass.

Obviously these individuals were very likely to have been technically guilty (albeit they ran a pretty clever defence that they were preventing a crime as the statue itself constituted a public order offence) but juries vote with their heart sometimes. It’s like when a someone assists their terminally ill loved one to die - such people are rarely convicted because the juries don’t want to convict them.

It’s part and parcel of the jury system and I don’t think it will open the floodgates to a new epidemic of vandalism.

@TomPinch

The OP is right.

How many of you know that the apartheid South African government abolished juries and replaced them with state-appointed assessors?

It was because juries were acquitting people who were clearly criminally liable but even more clearly in the moral right.

Juries can stop the law from being a complete ass.

And a jury acquitted the Police Officers who beat up Rodney King.

No. I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is far right and racist.

As my post says, reasonable people can disagree with each other and people can have different opinions. So no I don’t conflate people I disagree with and the far right.

You don’t have to be a scum bag to query the judgement, but every scum bag will do so. I’m not sure why you are so offended by this?

@FridayiminlovewithRobertSmith

No. I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is far right and racist.

As my post says, reasonable people can disagree with each other and people can have different opinions. So no I don’t conflate people I disagree with and the far right.

You don’t have to be a scum bag to query the judgement, but every scum bag will do so. I’m not sure why you are so offended by this?

I’m not offended. I’m challenging you asserting that those not toeing the party line or disagreeing that the correct verdict was reached are “Far Right”. I asked you to quote anything that had been said that fit the definition of “Far Right”. I do this because I’m find the reframing of the political spectrum and its definitions to push anyone not agreeing with a specific point, a not particularly political point even, into the far right, really concerning. It’s a big accusation to make and I think if you’re comfortable making it then you should be able to support it and provide evidence. You’re not the only one, a few posters have lamented that MN has drifted to the “Far Right” and I don’t see it. I just see a wide range of viewpoints - as there has always been - only increasingly any that don’t toe a particular line are dismissed as hate/racism/far right views etc.

@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.

www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/edward-colston-statue-toppling-trial-liam-walker-represents-acquitted-defendant

Summary of the points raised here

@FridayiminlovewithRobertSmith

No. I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is far right and racist.

As my post says, reasonable people can disagree with each other and people can have different opinions. So no I don’t conflate people I disagree with and the far right.

You don’t have to be a scum bag to query the judgement, but every scum bag will do so. I’m not sure why you are so offended by this?

I’m pleased about the verdict, but not sure what has been said on this thread that is “far right”?

And a jury acquitted the Police Officers who beat up Rodney King.

And a white jury acquitted the Police Officers who beat up Rodney King.

Thought Id fix that for you

@JustAnotherPoster00

And a jury acquitted the Police Officers who beat up Rodney King.

And a white jury acquitted the Police Officers who beat up Rodney King.

Thought Id fix that for you

I'm not disagreeing, yes it was a white jury. It was also wrong.

My point stands. Jury's get verdicts wrong when they put their own pet-interests, political views and biases ahead of doing the job they should be doing which is strictly working out whether the defendant is objectively guilty or not guilty.

2boysDad Juries do indeed get it wrong luckily this time they were correct and had the statue been removed as residents of Bristol had demanded then had they committed other acts of vandalism they would have rightly been convicted but of course the thread has had to drift into false equivalences because some of the posters cant publicly state why they are outraged at this result without getting themselves banned

@JustAnotherPoster00

2boysDad Juries do indeed get it wrong luckily this time they were correct and had the statue been removed as residents of Bristol had demanded then had they committed other acts of vandalism they would have rightly been convicted but of course the thread has had to drift into false equivalences because some of the posters cant publicly state why they are outraged at this result without getting themselves banned

How do you know the residents of Bristol had demanded the statue be removed? Serious question.

JustAnotherPoster00

Only you and one other poster has used "outraged" and you are both on the side of the decision.

You can be against the verdict without being "far right", "racist" or "pearl clutching". You can also be pro removing the statue and not agree with the verdict.

Great precedent. Just rip down anything you don’t like and there are no consequences. It’s a fucking disgrace.

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/05/colston-timeline-of-protest-against-one-slave-trader

1921: Rev H J Wilkins publishes a short book based on archival research that acknowledges Colston as a slave trader. Wilkins is the first in the modern era to question the image built around Colston and to ask if such veneration is appropriate for a man who traded in human beings.

1973: In response to historical silence surrounding the 600th anniversary of Bristol as a city and county, Derek Robinson writes A Shocking History of Bristol, exposing Colston as a leading financier of the slave trade and drawing attention to his continued celebration in annual rituals.

May 1996: Complaints pour in after Bristol’s Festival of the Sea fails almost entirely to mention the city’s role in the slave trade, with multicultural arts groups launching a counter Anti-Festival of the Sea. The Bristol trip hop band Massive Attack announce they are boycotting Colston Hall over its association with the slave trader.

January 1998: The first direct action against the Colston statue takes place, with “fuck off slave trader” painted on the statue overnight in red paint. Days later a Bristol councillor, Ray Sefia, said he could understand why the statue was targeted. “It’s like having a monument to Hitler,” he told the Bristol Post. “We have to be very clear about Colston’s role in the slave trade.”

September-October 2007: Protests outside Colston Hall are orchestrated by activists angry at the venue being used to host events celebrating the bicentenary of the end of the slave trade. The protests, some months after renewed calls by civil rights campaigners to rename the hall, come as a number of public debates are held re-examining Colston’s legacy.

July 2018: Bristol council agrees to attach a new plaque to the Colston statue to make clear his “active role in the enslavement of over 84,000 Africans”. However, after an intervention by Bristol’s Society of Merchant Venturers, the wording of the plaque is watered down. Bristol’s mayor, Marvin Rees, responds to the re-wording by blocking its installation.

October 2018: The Bristol MP Thangam Debbonaire calls for the removal of the statue of Edward Colston. Days later an art installation made up of concrete figures depicting enslaved Africans packed into a slave ship appears in front of the statue of Colston.

@Blossomtoes

Great precedent. Just rip down anything you don’t like and there are no consequences. It’s a fucking disgrace.

Why do you feel the statue should have remained up?

You could do the same and hope that the jury and their moral choices align with yours

@FrippEnos

JustAnotherPoster00

Only you and one other poster has used "outraged" and you are both on the side of the decision.

You can be against the verdict without being "far right", "racist" or "pearl clutching". You can also be pro removing the statue and not agree with the verdict.

Do you feel the jury should have been over ridden? Do you think that would be a more worrying step for the justice system?

@Blossomtoes

Great precedent. Just rip down anything you don’t like and there are no consequences. It’s a fucking disgrace.

It's a jury trial. It doesn't set any precedent.

Juries having the right not to convict in situations like these isn't new. Anyone wanting to do something like this and then see if they can persuade a jury of their peers to let them off had that option long before any of this ever happened. That's how our legal system works.

@JustAnotherPoster00

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/05/colston-timeline-of-protest-against-one-slave-trader

1921: Rev H J Wilkins publishes a short book based on archival research that acknowledges Colston as a slave trader. Wilkins is the first in the modern era to question the image built around Colston and to ask if such veneration is appropriate for a man who traded in human beings.

1973: In response to historical silence surrounding the 600th anniversary of Bristol as a city and county, Derek Robinson writes A Shocking History of Bristol, exposing Colston as a leading financier of the slave trade and drawing attention to his continued celebration in annual rituals.

May 1996: Complaints pour in after Bristol’s Festival of the Sea fails almost entirely to mention the city’s role in the slave trade, with multicultural arts groups launching a counter Anti-Festival of the Sea. The Bristol trip hop band Massive Attack announce they are boycotting Colston Hall over its association with the slave trader.

January 1998: The first direct action against the Colston statue takes place, with “fuck off slave trader” painted on the statue overnight in red paint. Days later a Bristol councillor, Ray Sefia, said he could understand why the statue was targeted. “It’s like having a monument to Hitler,” he told the Bristol Post. “We have to be very clear about Colston’s role in the slave trade.”

September-October 2007: Protests outside Colston Hall are orchestrated by activists angry at the venue being used to host events celebrating the bicentenary of the end of the slave trade. The protests, some months after renewed calls by civil rights campaigners to rename the hall, come as a number of public debates are held re-examining Colston’s legacy.

July 2018: Bristol council agrees to attach a new plaque to the Colston statue to make clear his “active role in the enslavement of over 84,000 Africans”. However, after an intervention by Bristol’s Society of Merchant Venturers, the wording of the plaque is watered down. Bristol’s mayor, Marvin Rees, responds to the re-wording by blocking its installation.

October 2018: The Bristol MP Thangam Debbonaire calls for the removal of the statue of Edward Colston. Days later an art installation made up of concrete figures depicting enslaved Africans packed into a slave ship appears in front of the statue of Colston.

I honestly don't know if this was a response to my question "How do you know the residents of Bristol had demanded the statue be removed? Serious question." but assuming it is....

Isn't the fact that the (elected) council and (elected) mayor both didn't call for the removal of the statue evidence that the people of Bristol didn't want the statue taken down?

You're on stronger ground with the MP's actions.... but even there, Bristol Council is the body who should take the decision re: the statue not the MP.

I'm genuinely trying to be argumentative but you can't just state that the people of Bristol wanted the statue taken down and not provide supporting evidence of that.

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

This goes into it in greater detail

JustAnotherPoster00

Do you feel the jury should have been over ridden?

No I don't.

Do you think that would be a more worrying step for the justice system?

Yes I do.

but I also worry about the precedent that it sets for a defence.

And I also (like others) am concerned about the deliberate attempts by several posters on here to stifle debate and discussion with the name calling and accusations.

For information, I think that the statue should have been taken down a long time ago.