Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

95 replies

MaMaLa321 · 12/01/2022 18:59

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?

OP posts:
StrifeOfBath · 13/01/2022 10:02

the reason things stay in place is because not enough people care

Or maybe, the people who care aren’t listened to….Legacy of racism and all that. Demonstrated both in the oblivion of white people to black history and the lack of response to black opinion. Or seeing the Colston issue as a solely black issue, rather than sickening to all.

Original poster
MaMaLa321 · 13/01/2022 10:05

I think the people who pulled the statue down were affronted that they weren't getting their own way.
I live in Bristol, and would love to know how people get the idea that 'the people of Bristol' wanted the statue to be taken down. I'm sure their friends and the people in their social bubble thought that. And that's all that counts - right?
FWIW there's a lot of people in Bristol who are unhappy about it. And no, it's not because they're racist/support slavery/love Colston, it's because Bristol doesn't just belong to social justice warriors with a strong sense of entitlement.
and, as I said at the top - where does this stop, when a mob can do whatever it pleases? I believe that one of the Pankhursts had strong nazi sympathies, is it her statues next?

OP posts:
daimbarsatemydogsbone · 13/01/2022 11:14

I don't go along with this "vandals charter" and "where will it end" stuff - it's a bit too Nigel Farage for me (it's pretty much what he said on the BBC - although he did make the excellent point that the Police should step in when crimes are being committed).

Whoever the daft twat smashing up the Eric Gill stuff will presumably be spoken to and brought to court - and then a jury can decide on his case. That is how we do it.

Those of a certain age might recall the Clive Ponting case - where a Civil Servant leaked details of some of Thatcher's lies. He was tried and despite the Judge telling the Jury to convict him, he was acquitted. Sometimes Juries do what the twats in power refuse to.

Gargellen · 13/01/2022 11:16

@Mrssebastianstan

Jury verdict doesn’t set legal precedent, so the law hasn’t changed.
Except that it does. When cases are run, previous cases are cited for reference.

It was an appalling outcome. It should have been guilty but with mitigation.

PartyOnKale · 13/01/2022 11:21

Tbh I have some sympathy for the Eric Gill statue basher having read about the sculptor.

PartyOnKale · 13/01/2022 11:22

As presumably the jurors in the Bristol case had some sympathy.

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 13/01/2022 11:25

Except that it does. When cases are run, previous cases are cited for reference.

You are mistaken - this case (the Colston 4) isn't binding, some decisions in higher courts are, that's the difference you are missing

www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/law-reports

It was an appalling outcome. It should have been guilty but with mitigation.
No it was an entirely reasonable outcome - the trying of people by a jury of their peers.

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 13/01/2022 11:26

The twat smashing up the BBC statue has been removed and charged with criminal damage.

lucillelarusso · 13/01/2022 11:27

Good. The BBC are a state broadcaster and have no business celebrating a paedophile that they referred to as having "had sex" with his daughters on the today show this morning. He was a predator and a rapist. Rip it down. Smash it up. Shame on the BBC who protected Savile, Harris and others for decades.

EmpressCixi · 13/01/2022 11:27

Colston 4 is a bit strange because they were all white. So to my mind, their tearing down the statue was mostly about virtue signalling to assuage their white guilt. To get their white ally ticket punched so to speak. I think too if they had not been white, their chances of acquittal would have been much lower.

It’s the whole getting offended on behalf of other people and acting in a way you assume they’d want you to. So you project instead of listening to those that are actually impacted by the art work or whatever.

I don’t think their acquittal is a vandals charter, but I do think it’s an example that vandals can use in their defence and this will embolden them to start a U.K. wide purge of public works of art. It is all very Cromwellian and similar to the widespread destruction of many works of art in English churches that happened because they were seen as offensive merely by being similar to what Catholic Churches had in them.

PartyOnKale · 13/01/2022 11:32

Empress yes I take that point on vandalism of the reformation.
I just don't like the protection of Gill's work. It's not possible to separate his depiction of children from his life story imo.

jgw1 · 13/01/2022 11:33

*Except that it does. When cases are run, previous cases are cited for reference.

It was an appalling outcome. It should have been guilty but with mitigation.*

If I step in to prevent an adult beating up a child and in restraining the adult break their arm, am I guilty of assault?

ForPingsSake · 13/01/2022 11:36

I cheered when I saw the Colston statue go and I'll lose no sleep over a statue of a naked child created by a paedophile! Sometimes it is necessary to break laws to effect social change. Or are we going to say now that the Suffragettes got it wrong?

As a society we need to reflect on the historical figures we celebrate and the evils we ignore when we do. What message are we sending?

Ponoka7 · 13/01/2022 11:46

@ChloeCrocodile, his crimes came to light after his death via his private diaries etc. One of his daughter's, the only one living, who'd he'd sexually abused confirmed his crimes, including those towards his dog.

@EmpressCixi, so if a rapist only rapes males and his statue is put up and a house in a University named after him, no women can object? There had been campaigns since the 90's to get rid of the statue, the MP wanted it removed, she isn't white, but born in the UK, is that good enough?
Unless we have men standing up for the rights of women, we will never get full equality.

Ponoka7 · 13/01/2022 11:48

Although if anyone tried to take a hammer to our (Liverpool's) Dickie Lewis statue, they won't last long.

EnglishMcSwedeFace · 13/01/2022 11:52

@SirSamuelVimes

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.
I can tell you're not from Bristol. The people there have been trying to get the statue removed for a long time but committees, councils and anyone else responsible passed the buck and tried to bury it. It would have stood there through a nuclear winter if it had been left there for the owners to deal with.
Toomanyradishes · 13/01/2022 11:55

Apparently the man damaging the statue has been arrested. I sincerely hope he goes free as well.

The statue is of a naked child, put there by a paedophile. Do we also defend photos of naked children taken by paedophiles, what about videos? Is it okay because its 'art'? What if a paedophile defends a collection of photos of naked children as art?

If someone found a stack of videos of naked children and the authorities refused to do anything about them, would you also be up in arms if they were burnt and the men who had been enjoying watching them complained?

Something made out of stone doesnt suddenly become pure and innocent. Let him have at it with a chisel, why the fuck not

Honestly humans are so flawed I think the religions that ban art of people arent necessarily wrong, even if it is for a different reason

SinisterBumFacedCat · 13/01/2022 11:59

Eradicating Gill would be interesting, seeing as his type face GillSans is probably one of the most popular in use. All those Keep Calm and Carry On posters Hmm

VikingOnTheFridge · 13/01/2022 12:00

@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?
Where does what stop, the right to jury trial? The wording of the law relating to criminal damage?
PartyOnKale · 13/01/2022 12:04

@SinisterBumFacedCat

Eradicating Gill would be interesting, seeing as his type face GillSans is probably one of the most popular in use. All those Keep Calm and Carry On posters Hmm
The issue today is not over typeface.Hmm
Original poster
MaMaLa321 · 13/01/2022 12:20

I can tell you're not from Bristol. The people there have been trying to get the statue removed for a long time but committees, councils and anyone else responsible passed the buck and tried to bury it.

Sorry - I do live in Bristol. Who are the 'people' you're talking about? Some people have, but those pesky democratically elected bodies i.e. committees and councils, have to represent everybody. Not just you and your friends.

OP posts:
C8H10N4O2 · 13/01/2022 12:52

@MaMaLa321

I think the people who pulled the statue down were affronted that they weren't getting their own way. I live in Bristol, and would love to know how people get the idea that 'the people of Bristol' wanted the statue to be taken down. I'm sure their friends and the people in their social bubble thought that. And that's all that counts - right? FWIW there's a lot of people in Bristol who are unhappy about it. And no, it's not because they're racist/support slavery/love Colston, it's because Bristol doesn't just belong to social justice warriors with a strong sense of entitlement. and, as I said at the top - where does this stop, when a mob can do whatever it pleases? I believe that one of the Pankhursts had strong nazi sympathies, is it her statues next?
There are museums and galleries if an object has artistic or historical merit.

Public statuary makes a statement about what we as a society subscribe to and admire either for the subject being held up as the good example or the artist promoted as of public merit.

The Colston statue is not artistic and represents wealth built on the backs of misery. You may be keen to promote those ideals but my family in Bristol certainly are not.

SlidingInto2022sDMs · 13/01/2022 13:12

Or are we going to say now that the Suffragettes got it wrong?

Indeed. Some people laud the Suffragettes all day long, yet when it comes to other issues, they're banging on about peaceful this, proper channels that. Tells you they have no idea what they're talking about either way, and simply follow the latest 'cool' bandwagon.

Original poster
MaMaLa321 · 13/01/2022 13:15

The Colston statue is not artistic and represents wealth built on the backs of misery. You may be keen to promote those ideals but my family in Bristol certainly are not.
here we go again - you object to a mob pulling down a statue so you are racist/approve of slavery etc etc.

OP posts:
EmpressCixi · 13/01/2022 13:20

@Ponoka7
EmpressCixi, so if a rapist only rapes males and his statue is put up and a house in a University named after him, no women can object?

There is a difference between merely “objecting” and white knighting.