BLM protesters cleared over toppling of Edward Colston statue

GrannyGravy13

So basically those who agree with the verdict are in fact saying that criminal damage is not a crime when it is the right sort of criminal damage…

Well it is more nuanced than what you suggest.

If you look at the past in history as both trisher and iam pointed out juries have acquitted the lesser of the two evils.

So a child guilty of theft, was found innocent because the jury considered transportation was the greater evil.

The Colston 4 were found innocent because the jury considered that the statue represented a greater evil.

That is the joy of our jury service.

The law was broken but those charged were innocent

Exactly GrannyGravy and Annie.

The thing is Colston was not a one dimensional character, identified only by his connections with the slave trade.
His statue was erected in Bristol in recognition of his philanthropic work. He made large charitable donations to various establishments around the city.

It’s strange that it ever went to a jury when the video evidence of those responsible for toppling the statue was clear.

The verdict was clearly wrong.

Maybe it was a jury trial so of they were acquitted some people could rejoice in 'the voice of the people' even though it's blatantly obvious that justice has not been served JenniferEccles.

So jury can find any guilty person innocent even with proof of
guilt , no different when juries have found innocent people guilty and they were hanged , the joy of our jury service!

What would you prefer that should replace jury

It does look that way Annie when a jury fails it's responsibilities to go on the evidence produced during the trial.

I think the verdict was wrong simply because it was criminal damage and was seen to be criminal damage.

The ethics of the case are irrelevant as far as the verdict is concerned - the ethics can be reflected in the sentencing.
Eg they should have been found guilty of criminal damage but fined enough to clean the statue, or ordered to clean it.
A nominal sum.

We're going to Bristol tomorrow- if I go armed with a sledgehammer can I damage something I find unethical and get away with it?
I should do as a precedent has been set.

A vegan can smashed the Windows of a butchers shop

*The thing is Colston was not a one dimensional character, identified only by his connections with the slave trade.
His statue was erected in Bristol in recognition of his philanthropic work. He made large charitable donations to various establishments around the city.*

He was responsible for the enslavement, death, branding and rape of thousands and thousands of people - men, women and children.

His charitable donations were entirely found from the profits of this 'trade', they were miniscule in relation to his wealth and came with obligations to follow his religious beliefs. His donations to schools were in order to educate boys to work on his slave trading ships and in his businesses.

The statue was erected 170 years after his death, partly due to the difficulty in raising the funds necessary from the Bristolian people who did not want to donate.

Perhaps the statue was so ashamed it jumped.

Calistemon You ask if in Bristol tomorrow you can damage something you find unethical and get away with it?

Have you previously tried raising the thing you find unethical through all the normal channels over a period of many years?
Is your view supported by thousands of other people including mayors of the city, MPs, other community leaders who have unsuccessfully tried raising the matter in many ways?

If so, and if you are brave enough, then it might just be the way to go. You'll have to face court, publicity and all that comes with it. That said, if you believe in it strongly enough then Bristol might just be the place to stand up for what you and many others believe is right. Good luck and well done for having the courage of your convictions.

Much as I now understand why the statue was pulled down. What they did was still against the law. Im sorry but mob rule is not the way to go. We better hope this does not encourage others to vandalize, riot etc when there is a situation or an object they don't agree with. Much as it is awful, we cannot erase history and in fact it shouldn't be erased as we need to learn from the past. I say this as a person who signed a petition to get a name removed under similar circumstances, but, we did this legally.

They were found not guilty so that’s the verdict. It’s unjust to pick on a tiny number out of dozens .

It doesn’t ( shouldn’t) matter if the ‘cause’ was a just one, it was criminal damage.If the jury had found them guilty but with mitigating factors they could have been fined £10 and that would have been the end of it.
What this jury has done is decide for themselves that criminal damage is just fine and dandy when they themselves agree with the ‘cause’. It’s troubling actually, if men and women now think that’s how a jury works.

It's how the government works. Rot is top down, maybe.

Anniebach

A vegan can smashed the Windows of a butchers shop

And get away with it.....if there are many vegans or sympathisers to the vegan ‘cause’ on the jury!

So how much more public property will they vandalise or destroy, and yet jurors will ignore the evidence and go along with their own personal preference to decide a verdict. Thugs rule.

I don't think it should be troubling Lemongrove. Knowing very little about how a jury works I've done some reading and have found this. It seems that there is is scope for this to be just how a jury can work. A jury can return a verdict according to conscience. More information here.

www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/magazine-extras/Law%20Review/LawRev%2011_1/LawReview11_1_Jury_answers.pdf?ext=.pdf

A jury have to accept the evidence provided in court, and cannot interpret the law to suit themselves.
Clearly the rioters toppled the statue, dragged it to the riverbank and pushed it in.

It’s troubling if it happens more than the ‘odd time’ Coastpath as the link you provide shows in what it says towards the end.Hopefully it won’t happen regularly or the jury system would be in danger.

Apparently the jury couldn't reach a unanimous decision and were told as long as 10 of the 12 agreed it would be accepted

JenniferEccles

The thing is Colston was not a one dimensional character, identified only by his connections with the slave trade.
His statue was erected in Bristol in recognition of his philanthropic work. He made large charitable donations to various establishments around the city.

It’s strange that it ever went to a jury when the video evidence of those responsible for toppling the statue was clear.

The verdict was clearly wrong.

And Hitler was a vegetarian and did great work for the German economy....

Funny I can't recall seeing his statutes. It's almost as if doing a few good deeds does not erase atrocity and evil.

Wonder if people believe those who toppled Saddams statue were wrong.

I couldn't be happier. The people have the power, The Governments represent the people.

trisher

The law may have been broken but justice was done. The defense may have been one of necessity- committing a crime to prevent a greater one.

What is the greater one?

Do you mean what we think of as crimes now that were committed by the slave traders centuries ago?
Obviously they happened so cannot now be prevented.

I agree that the statue should have been removed some time ago but hiding history does not eradicate it. Hiding it away means we can never learn from it.

I think the emotional aspect of the removal of the statue should not have entered into the decision of whether or not this was criminal damage.
It was obvious that this was criminal damage and they should have been found guilty and a nominal sentence should have been passed eg a very small fine.

This verdict sets a dangerous precedent for people taking the law into their own hands.