BLM protesters cleared over toppling of Edward Colston statue

I agree with Rosie

No it's not the same Coastpath. The suffragettes knowingly broke the law and accepted that they'd be punished for doing so and I am not suggesting that force feeding them was lawful.

If these protesters had the same conviction, they would have proudly accepted a guilty verdict and the punishment that went with it.

All this does is encourage them to stick two fingers up to the law of the land, which they did by toppling the statue to begin with.

The law has always made allowances for things that are just. Sometimes what is illegal in most circumstances is legal to protect from harm being done.

It is the same though isn't it? If the suffragettes hadn't broken the law and challenged society, possibly to their own detriment, then we might not have the vote now. All other legal appeals had been rejected repeatedly.

If these people hadn't toppled the statue of a slave trader would still be standing in Bristol now...in the heart of a multicultural city in 2022. All other avenues had been exhausted. What was the next step in order to make change?

I agree Rosie51

I agree that the statue should have been removed a long time ago and put in a museum.
The pigeons will miss it.

However, this is condoning criminal damage and technically it is the wrong verdict.
What precedent does it set?

Rosie51 totally agree with your post.

Excellent post Rosie.

No worries love0c it was quite clear to me what you meant.

That's what I expected too 25Avalon. Regardless of how much anyone was in agreement with the action, those jurors did not keep the oath they swore which was to reach a verdict 'according to the evidence'. There was video evidence of the defendants participating in the felling of the statue and then throwing it into the river. When jurors decide their personal preference outweighs the correct application of the law we're on a slippery slope. As someone who has done jury service several times I've had to make some difficult and unwelcome decisions based purely on the evidence, not my personal feelings.

What I think about them breaking the law is irrelevant Coastpath.

These protesters weren't acquitted because they were innocent, so what does that say about this jury?

"public property"

It should have gone a very long time ago.

If these things need to be protected for whatever reason, shove them in a museum and name it "The British museum of Shame" or something

The public has spoken. They should have been heard, they spoke louder.

That is kind of you Smileless to go to the trouble on my behalf. You are quite correct , I do not go along with breaking the law.

I agree Avalon and would go as far to say it sets a very bad precedence.

Juries represent "the people" to see that justice is served Ilovecheese and IMO this jury has let the people down. It's got nothing to do with what this statue represented, it was wilful damage to public property which is against the law.

I wonder what you think about the suffragettes breaking the law Smileless2012.

I'm glad it is gone and I am glad that the jury made that decision.

The people have spoken

Juries are representing "the people" They made the correct decision in my view. Slavery is nothing to be proud of, and those that worked in that disgusting industry should not be honoured in any way.

I was expecting a guilty verdict and then a very minimal fine. This sets a bad precedence.

"thousands of people had tried to have to removed through peaceful, constructive channels".

Whether or not you approve of a particular deed, the law is the law. There was footage of this statue being toppled by protesters. They broke the law and the verdict should have been based on evidence given at the time, not on whether or not any of the jury were one of "many thousands" who tried to have it removed by other means.

Perhaps this is what you meant love0c.

Decent people don't break the law.

I was born and raised in Bristol and lived there for over 50 years. The statue was a stain on the city and many thousands of people had tried to have it removed through peaceful, constructive channels.

"Colston was “chief executive officer” of a company that branded children as young as nine, and which was eventually responsible for enslaving more Africans than any other in British history"

When I heard it was pulled down I stood up from my gardening and punched the air. I've never done that before and don't expect I'll do it again in a hurry! Good on those kids with the conviction and fire in their belly to do what decent people should have done decades earlier.

love0c

Crazy and sad. We can all see where this country is heading. In completely the wrong direction.

What direction is that, loveOc?

Crazy and sad. We can all see where this country is heading. In completely the wrong direction.

Just 12 on a jury Ilovecheese.

I suppose it indicates what most "people in the street " think.

Must have fallen over all by its self then.