Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
twelly · 05/01/2022 23:32

When the statue was pulled down it was done so by an angry crowd - tensions were high falling the murder in America. This trial was in my view political and should not have been - the law is clear as far as criminal damage is concerned. We live in a society where angry groups whatever their views should not be destroying property.

CayrolBaaaskin · 05/01/2022 23:40

It’s shocking that some people think the jury’s duty is to vote however they like and ignore the law. You can’t pick and choose the laws you obey even if you are white and privileged (well obviously it seems you can to some degree but you shouldn’t be able to).

A statute of a historical figure is not a hate crime. There are a great many historical figures who had offensive views or who did offensive things (tbh probably most if not all) but we can’t go around smashing things up for that reason.

SlidingInto2022sDMs · 05/01/2022 23:45

And I also find that most, if not all, of the anti-woke brigade do the very same thing they accuse "the woke" of doing. Just switch their whining about "the woke" around and you'll find little to no difference between them.

CayrolBaaaskin · 05/01/2022 23:47

Tolerance means tolerating views you disagree with as well as those you agree with. I don’t agree with people smashing things up even if they don’t like them.

LondonWolf · 05/01/2022 23:52

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.

I suggested no such thing. That is the interpretation you chose which would allow you to slyly imply that I support racism/right wing views etc. I won’t be explaining my post to you as it’s crystal clear already and I don’t engage with those who argue in bad faith and are so comfortable in using such sly tactics. I just let them and onlookers know that I see them Smile

hangonamo · 06/01/2022 00:08

@LondonWolf

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.

I suggested no such thing. That is the interpretation you chose which would allow you to slyly imply that I support racism/right wing views etc. I won’t be explaining my post to you as it’s crystal clear already and I don’t engage with those who argue in bad faith and are so comfortable in using such sly tactics. I just let them and onlookers know that I see them Smile

Maybe write your post a bit more carefully next time, if you don't want to come across as a right wing loon trying to separate people into one side and The Other 👍
JustAnotherPoster00 · 06/01/2022 00:51

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

VioletLemon · 06/01/2022 01:01

Thanks to the youth of the 60's who benefitted hugely from free uni, apprenticeships by the truckload, affordable homes, pensions. Then what happened? Many grew up to vote for a Tory brexit and give this youth a life with none of the benefits they enjoyed.
How very impressive.

VikingOnTheFridge · 06/01/2022 07:07

@twelly

When the statue was pulled down it was done so by an angry crowd - tensions were high falling the murder in America. This trial was in my view political and should not have been - the law is clear as far as criminal damage is concerned. We live in a society where angry groups whatever their views should not be destroying property.
The rights of juries are very clear too, though. No less so than the law relating to criminal damage. There's really no doubt at all about this. If people want to pick and choose which parts of our legal system they're in favour of, that's fine, but be clear about it.
Blossomtoes · 06/01/2022 07:40

@VioletLemon

Thanks to the youth of the 60's who benefitted hugely from free uni, apprenticeships by the truckload, affordable homes, pensions. Then what happened? Many grew up to vote for a Tory brexit and give this youth a life with none of the benefits they enjoyed. How very impressive.
I think you’ve posted on the wrong thread!
frazzledali · 06/01/2022 07:49

absolutely thrilled to see the frothers out here too - you're all giving your little racist selves away far too easily. You just look so very stupid.

frazzledali · 06/01/2022 07:50

@CayrolBaaaskin

It’s shocking that some people think the jury’s duty is to vote however they like and ignore the law. You can’t pick and choose the laws you obey even if you are white and privileged (well obviously it seems you can to some degree but you shouldn’t be able to).

A statute of a historical figure is not a hate crime. There are a great many historical figures who had offensive views or who did offensive things (tbh probably most if not all) but we can’t go around smashing things up for that reason.

fortunately lots of people - and those on that jury - disagree. That statue remaining up was a hate crime. Let's remove the others too.
Blossomtoes · 06/01/2022 07:55

Which others would you like removed? I have no problem with the removal of any public art if it’s the result of a proper, legal process. That wasn’t the case here. Interesting that you interpret respect for the law as racism.

stairway · 06/01/2022 08:00

Frazzledali why was keeping the statue a hate crime? What other statues do you want removed?

lollipoprainbow · 06/01/2022 08:04

@frazzledali grow up

lollipoprainbow · 06/01/2022 08:05

@frazzledali expecting law and order doesn't make people racist ffs.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 06/01/2022 08:09

This WAS law & order - they were acquitted by a majority decision of a jury in a court.

You might not agree, but you can't say it's not the law.

Thatldo · 06/01/2022 08:18

@frazzledali

absolutely thrilled to see the frothers out here too - you're all giving your little racist selves away far too easily. You just look so very stupid.
Yes,totally agree with you.thank goodness that bloody statue has been pulled down(every time I see the statue being drowned,I cheer!!)and a big big cheer to all the anti racist people.It is not so surprising,we have loads of little (or large) racists on MN.shame on all of you!
frazzledali · 06/01/2022 08:21

@stairway

Frazzledali why was keeping the statue a hate crime? What other statues do you want removed?
I'd start with all slavers and colonialists. We can put them in museums. Melt them down and make new statues. Sell them to Little Britainers and put the profits into the community.

And it was a hate crime because for years and years the community explained why it was an issue, why it was offensive and upsetting and the racists said it had to stay because of... traditions. Even though it was celebrating someone who enslaved black people.

frazzledali · 06/01/2022 08:23

[quote lollipoprainbow]@frazzledali grow up [/quote]
Well, I will happily admit to a childish delight in seeing all the little racists being put in their box. But I'm 42, so sadly rather too grown up for my liking. Very happy to see the young people out there standing up for what they believe in, though.

Tal45 · 06/01/2022 08:30

The statue should have been taken down and put in a museum, it's weird that it wasn't as it's so obviously offensive to be celebrating the slave trade - there really isn't any question. People removing it from the plinth is one thing - and as much a part of history as the statue itself IMO - but then they chucked it in the harbour which meant, I assume, a cost to the tax payer to recover it. I think they should have been made to cover the cost of that. Having the statue may be a bigger crime than removing it but chucking it in the harbour wasn't necessary to make that point IMO.

Flapjacker48 · 06/01/2022 08:35

So let's say a war memorial, or memorial plaque of some sort was vandalised/defaced - is that okay if someone has sincere (to them), strongly held beliefs that the conflict was "illegal" say?

twelly · 06/01/2022 08:42

People's who think the statue should not have pulled down in this manner are not racist. they are expressing view about adherence to the law.

NightmareSlashDelightful · 06/01/2022 08:54

Sometimes breaking the law with the right intentions* is the right thing to do, and opens up broader conversations about more considered, meaningful change which happen entirely within the law.

(*I realise that in this case the court decided that these people did not break the law. But my point is a broader one)

Subsequent to that godawful statue being pulled down, what's happening now is a kind of mass public conversation about what public elements of our history are ugly and should be re-examined, or at least looked at in a more complete and honest way.

The council where I live is currently holding a huge public consultation about whether it should change some street names and remove some statues because they could be seen to celebrate slavery, oppression and colonialism. I would be very surprised if they don't end up changing some of these things based on public opinion.

If we by which I mean people who live in the UK can't get our heads around the fact that a huge part of our privilege and position now was built on the bodies and freedom of many, many Black and Asian people 200 years ago, and that this should be appraised and considered more honestly within the context of now, then we're a bit thick.