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?

For me the difference is that the suffragette movement had a specific aim, an action, something concrete that would be different in future - women having the legal right to vote. What is the specific aim of the men who pulled down the Colston statue? What is the specific aim of the man hammering at the Gill statue? What is the concrete thing that will be different in the future?

Not to mention the fact that the suffragettes wanted to be jailed, despite knowing they would be force fed (tortured) and abused, to further their cause. These four men seem delighted with their acquittal.

Why some people need to constantly harp on about objecting to tearing down the statue of a slave trader and the legal outcome of it is beyond me. Actually, no it isn't - I know why. It's simply interesting to observe.

There are lots of things that require this level of outrage and disagreement but perhaps these people are equally as outraged and vocal about them...somewhere.

Would you like to spell out that accusation, @SlidingInto2022sDMs?

What are you talking about? My post wasn't directed at you or any particular person - I'd posted before I saw yours.

But yes, some people are simply racist and this is one of their ways of showing it. Wasn't trying to hide that fact and can say it clearly. Now what?

For people happy to destroy the Gill statue, are you suggesting that all depictions of naked children need to be removed and destroyed?

If so, that’s a vast proportion of art going right back to antiquity, our galleries and museums will be half empty.

Otherwise, if we just destroy things based on our views of the artist, do we have to admire these works very very cautiously - so that if we suddenly learn something terrible about the artist we can whip out a hammer and start smashing them up?

For people happy to destroy the Gill statue, are you suggesting that all depictions of naked children need to be removed and destroyed?

Only those by paedophiles..

Vandals' Charter, where will it end, blah blah. The truth is it makes you uneasy to see these monuments being ripped down, because it represents a small piece of the infrastructure that keeps your privilege alive being eroded. As white people we all benefit from the ongoing consequences of slavery and oppression. The court, as an organ of the state, sanctioning its removal unsettles people, because it threatens the whole rotten edifice.

@CorrBlimeyGG - so in your view, if you were presented with two all but identical statues, if one were by a paedophile then that statue should be destroyed, regardless of any artistic merit? It’s nothing to do with the statue itself, it is purely down to the behaviour of the artist that has somehow “tainted” the stone and made it unacceptable.

Does that just apply to paedophile’s, or should art by murderers also be destroyed?

I find it really interesting how this moral position applies, and what the thinking is behind it.

@MaMaLa321

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.

@MaMaLa321 you could provide an alternative explanation as to why you think the statue should stay and the law of the land should not apply to those who took it down?

The issue with the Colston statue was that people had been campaigning for it to be removed for years. No one in authority cared about it so it stayed there, a monument celebrating the life of a man who enslaved literally thousands of people, shipping them around the world like cattle. He didn't deserve to be commemorated for using money earned in such a despicable way to buy himself regard as a philanthropist. Sometimes the only way to make things progress is to take this sort of stance and in this instance, talking and asking and being polite had paid no toll. His statue should have been removed many years ago.

@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?

That was Adela Pankhurst, one of the lesser known daughters of Emmeline... she became estranged from her family and emigrated to Australia where she was a founding member both of the Australian Communist Party and then the right wing Australia First party (quite a change!). I don't think we have any statues of her, but as a campaigner for women's suffrage (she received a hunger strike medal) I think she's one of the names listed on the plinth of that newish Millicent Fawcett statue. Happy to be corrected if there are statues in the UK/Australia, of course!

I'm not saying the statue should stay melt it fucking down for all I care

I just dont think that the law should be broken and I do think there should be some form of punishment for that even if its a token fine

@Theunamedcat

I'm not saying the statue should stay melt it fucking down for all I care

I just dont think that the law should be broken and I do think there should be some form of punishment for that even if its a token fine

The law wasn't broken.

@sadpapercourtesan

Vandals' Charter, where will it end, blah blah. The truth is it makes you uneasy to see these monuments being ripped down, because it represents a small piece of the infrastructure that keeps your privilege alive being eroded. As white people we all benefit from the ongoing consequences of slavery and oppression. The court, as an organ of the state, sanctioning its removal unsettles people, because it threatens the whole rotten edifice.

Pretty much spot on.

And I’ll make the point again that removing the statue in the way that it was removed means that Edward Colston, his actions and legacy, and the wider actions and legacy of Britain at that time are now being discussed more than ever before - it’s the opposite of erasing history.

@Theunamedcat

I'm not saying the statue should stay melt it fucking down for all I care

I just dont think that the law should be broken and I do think there should be some form of punishment for that even if its a token fine

Do you get that the trial was to ascertain if the law was broken, and the state can't really be fining people who were found not guilty? I mean this in a non-arsey way.

I think the problem here is that a lot of people genuinely don't get that people having toppled the statue doesn't actually mean they broke the law, because the criminal damage legislation requires a bit more than that.

*Do you get that the trial was to ascertain if the law was broken, and the state can't really be fining people who were found not guilty? I mean this in a non-arsey way.

I think the problem here is that a lot of people genuinely don't get that people having toppled the statue doesn't actually mean they broke the law, because the criminal damage legislation requires a bit more than that.*

I thought the law said that nasty people I dont like who are very different from me and my nice gentle wine and cheese work dos should go to prison if they do something I don't like.

I also hate this thought that removing statues and other historical things is somehow erasing history. I have 2 degrees in archaeology, the changing of our landscapes has always happened throughout human history. Some civilisations did it to control the narrative but mostly it's just what happens over time. In modern times these things aren't lost, they're preserved in museums and we'll recorded in many other ways. We can't just allow our world to stagnate just because we won't remove old and now unrepresentative statues.

Why should we keep up any of these statues of people who don't represent the values we want in our society? I certainly don't want to see them and I can see why with everything that was going on at the time why this statue was a particular target. It's clear many people wanted it removed for a long time (op appears to be willfully ignoring this) and there was a spark that encouraged people to take this action.

*CorrBlimeyGG - so in your view, if you were presented with two all but identical statues, if one were by a paedophile then that statue should be destroyed, regardless of any artistic merit? It’s nothing to do with the statue itself, it is purely down to the behaviour of the artist that has somehow “tainted” the stone and made it unacceptable.

Does that just apply to paedophile’s, or should art by murderers also be destroyed?

I find it really interesting how this moral position applies, and what the thinking is behind it.*

But thats not quite the same analogy. The same analogy would be if we destroyed art murderers make of their dead victims. If this artist had done a statue of a dog for example then maybe the conversation about destroying it would be different.

If a male rapist decides to create a statue of naked women are you really comfortable with that being displayed in a publuc space? What if you were the woman he raped? Still comfortable? What if you were the woman he raped and the statue is identical to you, still comfortable?

Private art collections are one thing. Museums and art galleries, places where people can avoid going. But public art, art people have no choice but to see, I dont think that its that wrong to question whether that art is morally and ethically appropriate.

@spongedog, your analogy simply doesn't work, because asking for single sex spaces is neither a crime nor a civil wrong, and the issue would never come before a jury anyway.

@Theunamedcat

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

Ask them? Because it is undoubtedly the case that the law hasn't changed. That would have to be done by Parliament.

@MorningStarling

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.

As I understand it, the people of Bristol were well aware of the Colston statue and its background, and it had been the subject of requests to remove it literally for years, as well as petitions attracting thousands of signatures. So your optimism would seem to be misplaced.

Agree it is setting a precedent for further such acts. I'm surprised a Labour/Green/Lib Dem politician did not make themselves spokesperson for the campaign to (legally) remove it, and get it done with kudos for their party.

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.

It really doesn't, @Gargellen. Previous decisions of judges are cited as precedents, and generally judges at a higher level. The decisions of juries are never cited as precedents and couldn't possibly be, because we are never told the reasons for their decisions.

It wasn't at all appalling. Juries are entitled to make a decision based on the facts and evidence as presented to them. One of the glories of the jury system is that, just sometimes, they give what might appear to be a contrary verdict - it's well known, for instance, that in the days of capital punishments they would regularly deliver Not Guilty verdicts or verdicts of guilt of a lesser offence because they didn't feel the accused deserved t die.

None of us (I assume) were in court so can't claim to have better knowledge of the case as presented to the jury than they do. Even if we were, it doesn't mean we know best. I was once on a jury where we all agreed that the accused was almost certainly guilty of something but the prosecution simply hadn't produced the evidence to show he was guilty of what he was charged with, so we found him Not Guilty. I was unfortunately foreman, and the prosecutor was obviously absolutely furious - if looks could kill I'd be dead now. But it was his own fault for not assessing the evidence properly.

@ginghamstarfish

Agree it is setting a precedent for further such acts. I'm surprised a Labour/Green/Lib Dem politician did not make themselves spokesperson for the campaign to (legally) remove it, and get it done with kudos for their party.

Please, read the thread and in particular the post below yours. It doesnt.

@MaMaLa321

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.

I wasn't replying to your post but whatever. The 'people' (why the marks?) I'm talking about are my friends, family members and former colleagues. I haven't lived in Bristol (or the UK) for a long time but it's been a discussion going on for as long as I remember. Those pesky democratically elected bodies have done fuck all about moving the statue as mentioned by myself and several other posters upthread. Would you have been happy to see it go if the fucking council had done their job and taken it down or are you one of the people who think it should stay up come what may?