letting the Colston 4 go unpunished was a vandal's charter

[MaMaLa321]

As I type, there is a man on the front of Broadcasting House, bashing away at Eric Gill's statue of Prospero with a sledgehammer. The police, as ever, are standing around ineffectually. Now that you can attack whatever piece of art offends your sensibilities (vs Colston) you are free to destroy it.
FWIW I think Gill was a disgusting human being. But where does this stop?

Tell the police he has said something racist about the statue then refused to take the knee. They will arrest him immediately.

Well no, you’re not free to do it. The Colston 4 were acquitted by a jury of their peers in the particular circumstances of their case. However, that doesn’t mean it’s a free for all or that others won’t be prosecuted for criminal damage for the same or similar acts.

Since Colston came down more people are talking about his life and (terrible) legacy than ever before. Far from erasing history it’s got people actually engaging with it.

They were found not guilty - what exactly is it you want done?

Id vandalise a statue commemorating a person who enslaved people too. Shouldn't have been there in the first place. And calling it 'art' is a stretch of the imagination. Art is not why those statues were erected, they are there to commemorate your supposed betters.

I agree with you, OP. It's not about who the statue is of. If it's no longer deemed fit for view in our society that should be decided by whomever owns / displays it (in the case of public bodies) and removed. Not pulled to the ground by angry young men who just want to smash shit up (as angry young men have always done) under a veneer if righteousness.

Jury verdict doesn’t set legal precedent, so the law hasn’t changed.

@Ohsugarhoneyicetea

Id vandalise a statue commemorating a person who enslaved people too. Shouldn't have been there in the first place. And calling it 'art' is a stretch of the imagination. Art is not why those statues were erected, they are there to commemorate your supposed betters.

I look forward to seeing more of the self-righteous prats pulling a statue down on top of themselves.

The Colston verdict did not change the law.

I have no issue with someone having a go at a statue by a paedophile.

Does anyone know if there are any statues of Boris anywhere?

Don't be silly. That's why we have a legal system - so that each case can be tried on its own merit.

Id vandalise a statue commemorating a person who enslaved people too. Shouldn't have been there in the first place. And calling it 'art' is a stretch of the imagination. Art is not why those statues were erected, they are there to commemorate your supposed betters.

Agree and wasn’t it a mix of the statue being asked to be taken down several times over the years and many people not exactly knowing who it was anyway and thinking it some random statue of an old guy.

Statues like those should be put in museums with their history attached so people can learn from it.

The law was properly applied here.
The nuance was the wording, "with lawful authority or reasonable excuse." In terms of the criminal damage charge.
The Colston 4 had to convince a jury that they they honestly held the belief that it was reasonable and lawful to pull the statue down.
In terms of public order, the jury may have decided that the defendants did honestly hold the belief that the statue was either indecent or offensive publicly displayed material or that the statue would cause harassment, alarm and distress to some of those within sight or hearing of it.
By removing the statue from public view, the defendants would have to show the honestly held belief that they were preventing a (further) crime from being committed.
Another possibility is that after decades of public campaigning and petitioning the council, that here in Bristol, the Colston 4 held the reasonable belief that people wanted the statue removed.
The Secret Barrister is far more eloquent in his explanations than I am.
On another day, this could have gone another way and we will never know on what point of law the jury acquitted the Colston 4.
The law was stringently applied in this trial and the opinion of the jury was that the defendants held honest beliefs or that they believed people wanted it gone.
The jury were told that their opinion of the statue was not relevant and that they had to consider the reasoning of the defendants.
The other points to prove for criminal damage were met.
It really annoys me that the media give such trite account of the trial that people cannot understand why it went the way that it did on the day.

I don't think you are wrong, but once you roll out the phrase "vandal's charter", it becomes extremely difficult to actually agree with you.

@HotSauceCommittee

The law was properly applied here. The nuance was the wording, "with lawful authority or reasonable excuse." In terms of the criminal damage charge. The Colston 4 had to convince a jury that they they honestly held the belief that it was reasonable and lawful to pull the statue down. In terms of public order, the jury may have decided that the defendants did honestly hold the belief that the statue was either indecent or offensive publicly displayed material or that the statue would cause harassment, alarm and distress to some of those within sight or hearing of it. By removing the statue from public view, the defendants would have to show the honestly held belief that they were preventing a (further) crime from being committed. Another possibility is that after decades of public campaigning and petitioning the council, that here in Bristol, the Colston 4 held the reasonable belief that people wanted the statue removed. The Secret Barrister is far more eloquent in his explanations than I am. On another day, this could have gone another way and we will never know on what point of law the jury acquitted the Colston 4. The law was stringently applied in this trial and the opinion of the jury was that the defendants held honest beliefs or that they believed people wanted it gone. The jury were told that their opinion of the statue was not relevant and that they had to consider the reasoning of the defendants. The other points to prove for criminal damage were met. It really annoys me that the media give such trite account of the trial that people cannot understand why it went the way that it did on the day.

I am sure you believe all the steps you have laid out. But can we try it with other situations?

"The law was properly applied here.

The nuance was the wording "protected characteristic" (Equalities Act 2010 - actually no nuance)

The "people" had to convince a jury that they they honestly held the belief that it was reasonable and lawful to "ask for single sex spaces".

In terms of public order, the jury may have decided that the defendants did honestly hold the belief that "single sex spaces were necessary" or "it was offensive that single sex spaces were not clearly signposted and displayed" or that the "lack of single sex spaces would cause harassment, alarm and distress to some of those within sight or hearing of it."

By removing "single sex spaces" from public view (or enjoyment), the defendants would have to show the honestly held belief that they were preventing a (further) crime from being committed.

Another possibility is that after decades of public campaigning and petitioning the council, that here in the United Kingdom, the public held the reasonable belief that people wanted single sex spaces.

It really annoys me that the media give such trite account of the trial that people cannot understand why it went the way that it did on the day"

• yet do you campaign for single sex rights in the same way? After all they are law and taking down a statue of a person of historical history doesn't break any current equalities law that I am aware of.

Honestly can’t get het up about statues being destroyed. Obviously not beautiful statues of amazing people but when it’s slave traders and paedophiles I’m not going to lose any sleep.

If the law hasn't changed why are the police doing nothing

So do you think the statues in post world war 2 Germany to Hitler should have remained too because they were historical and it was vandalism to remove them?

I mean, Hitler took actions that led to the murders and enslavement of Jewish people just as Colston took actions that led to the murders and enslavement of Black African people...

We don't need statues of Hitler to help us learn about the evil he committed. So we don't need statues of slave traders!!

Some unpleasant far right people may point out some of the few positive aspects of Hitler's regime... just like some misguided folk like to refer to some of Colstons' philanthropy as mitigation.

Statues to individuals are generally there either as Art or to celebrate the individual.
Times change and if the individual is not to be celebrated then the statue should be removed.

Never forget, Colston was a man who traded in human misery - at least 84 000 Black Africans were enslaved and shipped to the Caribbean on his orders, 19000 died or were murdered on the way. Others were raped or tortured on the ships.

Those who removed the statue of that inhuman monster are heroes and I'm glad that they were acquitted.

As for Eric Gill.
Well, I heard of him a while back.
I didn't know who he was so read some articles about him.
I think I was nearly sick.

We no longer have Rolf Harris' artwork in our galleries so why do we have Eric Gill's??

Presumably this man will be arrested, charged and (if he claims he is innocent) tried by a court. The jury can then decide if he is guilty or not. The verdict in the Colston case will have precisely zero impact on any of that. The law hasn’t changed, and juries made up of ordinary people still get to decide guilt.

Alternatively, of course, we could have a system whereby juries are abolished or explicitly told they must convict. I personally prefer to have juries (who hear all the evidence) make the decisions.

did we ever have Rolf Harris' art in galleries?

And, fine, let's just remove the art created by unpleasant people. Carravagio, Picasso - I could go on.

I loath Gill, but he created beautiful pieces of art.

If you don't want a statue or other piece of artwork to be displayed there are legal ways to attempt to get it removed. I hadn't heard of the Colston statue before it was removed. I hadn't heard of the Gill statue until it was attacked. Why wasn't everyone aware of these things that were so offensive being displayed? Why aren't there peaceful demonstrators protesting against them? If people are overwhelmingly against a statue remaining on display it usually gets removed, the reason things stay in place is because not enough people care.

The Defence for the C4 made a case on legal grounds, the jury accepted it.

That is not a vandals charter.

We don’t know which (or all) of the defence arguments the jury accepted (no damage / hate crime) but a defence within the law was made.

The statue was able to be displayed after toppling, and demonstrably held its value. There was a well documented trail of requests by the citizens of Bristol to have the statue removed. The displaying of a statue of a man who turned black people (protected characteristic) into an enslaved tortured commodity isn’t hard to understand ad a hate crime.

Also not hard to argue that the continued presence of the statue was a threat to public order.

@phoenixrosehere

Id vandalise a statue commemorating a person who enslaved people too. Shouldn't have been there in the first place. And calling it 'art' is a stretch of the imagination. Art is not why those statues were erected, they are there to commemorate your supposed betters.

Agree and wasn’t it a mix of the statue being asked to be taken down several times over the years and many people not exactly knowing who it was anyway and thinking it some random statue of an old guy.

Statues like those should be put in museums with their history attached so people can learn from it.

Yes... In Bristol complaints about Colston at Al have been on for years... The authorities have done nothing, and kept kicking can dowb Road.

In the end, modern sensibilities could tolerate no longer...

I mean who in 2021/2022 wants to walk down a street past statues commemorating these people that enslaved so many??

Needs to be in the museum

@MorningStarling The public had been asking for the removal of Colston for decades. There had been demonstrations.

@Theunamedcat

If the law hasn't changed why are the police doing nothing

They did nothing in the Colston case - it seems to be their default approach.