Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Colston statue topplers acquitted

409 replies

SerendipityJane · 05/01/2022 16:43

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.

OP posts:
Beeth0ven · 05/01/2022 22:34

Posters glibly suggesting that this is about letting those who don’t like the statue get away with something would do well to remember that slavery was an act of violence of such scale, atrocity and shame, that it is akin to genocide.

In the case of other recent genocides, such as the Holocaust, nations are legally prevented from erecting statues to the perpetrators.

Whilst I think there might be valid arguments for retaining statues to remind us of the shame of slavery and the bloodshed in which our wealth is constructed, arguing this is about “letting yobs get away with stuff” seems woefully ignorant.

VikingOnTheFridge · 05/01/2022 22:39

I wonder how much educational purpose the statue was serving while it was up anyway. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of that.

Blossomtoes · 05/01/2022 22:40

Why do you feel the statue should have remained up?

Where did I say I felt the statue should remain where it was? That’s entirely irrelevant. Four people committed an act of criminal damage as defined by our legal system and have been acquitted. There’s film of them doing it, ffs. If that doesn’t open the floodgates for similar acts of vandalism, I don’t know what does.

WeAreTheHeroes · 05/01/2022 22:40

This case doesn't set a legal precedent as it's not in a high enough court. It demonstrates that juries do reach what are known as "perverse decisions" when they don't agree with the charges/feel the defendants shouldn't be found guilty. It's used as both a criticism and a defence of the jury system.

I don't know if that is actually what happened here as I wasn't in court and I don't know what the judge's summing up was, but it seems likely.

hangonamo · 05/01/2022 22:41

@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…
Surely everyone finds slavery offensive and not in keeping with their values. Do you not?
Beeth0ven · 05/01/2022 22:42

@Blossomtoes

Why do you feel the statue should have remained up?

Where did I say I felt the statue should remain where it was? That’s entirely irrelevant. Four people committed an act of criminal damage as defined by our legal system and have been acquitted. There’s film of them doing it, ffs. If that doesn’t open the floodgates for similar acts of vandalism, I don’t know what does.

Are you not able to understand that the law was upheld?

Because the defence successfully argued that a greater crime was committed by the presence of the statue, than was committed by its removal.
Indeed it’s removal prevented the greater crime from happening.

The law was upheld!

Beeth0ven · 05/01/2022 22:43

Quite right!! This thread is unreal.

Blossomtoes · 05/01/2022 22:44

So two wrongs make a right @Beeth0ven? What utter nonsense.

Beeth0ven · 05/01/2022 22:45

Not nonsense @blossomtoes - the law. Whether you want it to be or not.

Blossomtoes · 05/01/2022 22:47

@Beeth0ven

Not nonsense *@blossomtoes* - the law. Whether you want it to be or not.
A very bizarre interpretation of the law.
lollipoprainbow · 05/01/2022 22:54

No doubt they all had very good lawyers paid for by mummy and daddy.

2boysDad · 05/01/2022 22:56

"Surely everyone finds slavery offensive and not in keeping with their values. Do you not?"

Agreed - slavery is wrong.

So is mob-rule

JustAnotherPoster00 · 05/01/2022 23:01

@2boysDad

"Surely everyone finds slavery offensive and not in keeping with their values. Do you not?"

Agreed - slavery is wrong.

So is mob-rule

How is being arrested and charged with a crime mob law?
2boysDad · 05/01/2022 23:05

"How is being arrested and charged with a crime mob law?"

When a jury allows it.

If Tommy Robinson and his EDF mates pull Nelson Mandela's statue down & throw it in the Thames and subsequently an all white jury let's them off, I'll say the say thing.

Blossomtoes · 05/01/2022 23:06

How is being arrested and charged with a crime mob law?

Maybe watch the footage of the statue being toppled by a mob instead of asking disingenuous questions.

LondonWolf · 05/01/2022 23:07

Surely everyone finds slavery offensive and not in keeping with their values. Do you not?

Stop trying to reframe disagreement or alternative viewpoints around the law or suggestions of how others might take advantage of a judgment such as this, as personal racism, right wing views, that person being pro slavery or holding offensive values. It’s actually sly and disgusting and I for one am tired of this kind of debate/discussion stifling, via attempts to shame, force and frighten people into not speaking up and/or having to defend themselves against poisonous accusations of holding views which they gave absolutely no indication of having.

Thanks Smile

JustAnotherPoster00 · 05/01/2022 23:08

@Blossomtoes

How is being arrested and charged with a crime mob law?

Maybe watch the footage of the statue being toppled by a mob instead of asking disingenuous questions.

They were arrested and charged and had the court decided they would of being convicted and sentenced as per the criminal justice system, again how is that mob law?
Magnited · 05/01/2022 23:08

@givethatbabyaname

Sage, Rhian, Milo and Jake.

That cannot be real Confused

Teletubbies.
Blossomtoes · 05/01/2022 23:10

Is that sentence supposed to make sense @JustAnotherPoster00?

Magnited · 05/01/2022 23:10

Because the defence successfully argued that a greater crime was committed by the presence of the statue, than was committed by its removal.
Indeed it’s removal prevented the greater crime from happening.

Well that is just bollocks. The guy is already dead.

JustAnotherPoster00 · 05/01/2022 23:11

@Magnited

*Because the defence successfully argued that a greater crime was committed by the presence of the statue, than was committed by its removal. Indeed it’s removal prevented the greater crime from happening.*

Well that is just bollocks. The guy is already dead.

So you feel the ongoing disrespect to the POC of Bristol was a cheap price to pay to keep up a statue of a slaver?
MatildaJayne · 05/01/2022 23:23

FFS, it’s Bristol. Would you be arresting Banksy for grafitti? The lauding of Colston was a disgrace and embarrassment and I’m glad they were acquitted.

SlidingInto2022sDMs · 05/01/2022 23:25

@LondonWolf

Surely everyone finds slavery offensive and not in keeping with their values. Do you not?

Stop trying to reframe disagreement or alternative viewpoints around the law or suggestions of how others might take advantage of a judgment such as this, as personal racism, right wing views, that person being pro slavery or holding offensive values. It’s actually sly and disgusting and I for one am tired of this kind of debate/discussion stifling, via attempts to shame, force and frighten people into not speaking up and/or having to defend themselves against poisonous accusations of holding views which they gave absolutely no indication of having.

Thanks Smile

I notice you often come into these sort of threads, single out one or two people who say the sort of things you don't like or agree with, then beat this drum Every. Single. Time. As if anyone is actually stopping your "debate" or that people don't call each other names when they disagree with them on MN.

There are more phrases/names you're getting ready to use but you let things build up first as per usual in your agenda on these threads.

It's tedious. I can always predict it but carry on sticking it to the "woke", "pc", etc if it helps you feel morally superior.

budgiegirl · 05/01/2022 23:28

No doubt they all had very good lawyers paid for by mummy and daddy

So because they are rich (I have no idea if they are rich or not, by the way) they are not allowed to stand up for what they believe?

hangonamo · 05/01/2022 23:29

@LondonWolf

Surely everyone finds slavery offensive and not in keeping with their values. Do you not?

Stop trying to reframe disagreement or alternative viewpoints around the law or suggestions of how others might take advantage of a judgment such as this, as personal racism, right wing views, that person being pro slavery or holding offensive values. It’s actually sly and disgusting and I for one am tired of this kind of debate/discussion stifling, via attempts to shame, force and frighten people into not speaking up and/or having to defend themselves against poisonous accusations of holding views which they gave absolutely no indication of having.

Thanks Smile

The way you phrased your post (below) suggested that you think one side finds slavery offensive and then there's The Other Side who find other, different things offensive. You didn't seem to understand that for there to be a not guilty verdict, the public display of the statue was deemed to be a greater crime. It's not about the individual sensibilities of people on one side or the other of whatever you are on about.

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…