BLM protesters cleared over toppling of Edward Colston statue

The law may have been broken
So the verdict should have been guilty.

The sentence should have been nominal.

Calistemon

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.

A jury verdict does not set a precedent in law.

this shews the history of the statue,

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/05/colston-timeline-of-protest-against-one-slave-trader

There is a lot of misunderstanding on this thread.

There have been less publicised cases of environmental activists being found not guilty in similar cases. The ethics do matter. If the law is an ass then juries can show it to be so. In this case, the defendants admitted to being part of a large crowd but stated that this particular statue was targeted, not as a random act of vandalism, but as a long established protest of a centuries old dispute. This statue should have been removed years ago - not to eradicate history but to show our collective disgust at a constant reminder of a man who was acknowledged to be the biggest slave trader , who became wealthy literally off the backs and bodies of fellow humans. This does not give the green light to any sort of criminal damage - it shows that when people do something which should have been done years ago it will be supported by fellow citizens despite it not being in the letter of the law.

The jury decided that there was no case to answer.

Those who say a guilty verdict could have been followed by a nominal fine or other sentence seem to be forgetting, the jury doesn’t sentence. The jury reaches guilty or not guilty based on the evidence it hears, the Judge sentences. This jury decided not guilty was the way to go.

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.

As a Bristolian I can assure you that the history of slavery and its links to the city and Colston are not hidden or eradicated. The story of slavery is told clearly and graphically in several museums and many other places across Bristol.

It is one thing to remember the past and learn from it, it is another to revere the perpetrators of past, evil deeds by keeping a huge, bronze statue sited at the very heart of a multicultural city in 2022.

I feel that the fact that our young people don't want these statues shows that now we are learning from our history and acting on it in a positive way.

For anyone wanting more information about how the history of the slave trade, Colston and those who seek to protect his statue there is some interesting stuff here. These guys actually still have Colstons hair and fingernails. That's what those who sought to remove the statue have been up against for over 20 years.

tribunemag.co.uk/2020/06/the-slavers-toenail-clippings/

Also a timeline of the statue.
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/05/colston-timeline-of-protest-against-one-slave-trader

.

Well said Trisher and through this the name Colston has been removed from schools and buildings and bane eradicated in Bristol. Colston wasn’t some hero but a man who treated his fellow human beings in an appallingly way to make money. It was the best decision

So delighted with this verdict. I was actually there when it was toppled. Sitting in the car with my daughter, as we had dropped off three teenagers who wished to attend that BLM meeting. We saw people suddenly running past the car in the opposite direction to where the meeting was being held. I was concerned about our youngsters (two g.children plus a friend), but my daughter remarked that they are running TO something not AWAY from it.

I think that for the preceding twenty years, there had been continuous requests to get rid of this statue. Trying to do it the 'proper' way, and had got nowhere. The direct action carried out finally sorted this, and this statue is now in a museum with information as to its proper history including the 119,000 people who died on his ships as transported slaves.

This sets a dangerous precedent for future "reasons for breaking the law" that "make it OK to do it"

I understand the frustration that peaceful methods hadn't worked/reached a compromise but that cannot be a reason for breaking the law!

Smashing up Kew Gardens green houses next because of its botanist founders slavery links maybe? Maybe not but just where will such a verdict take us I wonder?

David Olusoga was amongst the many witnesses who spoke in support of the 4.

Banksy sold art to fund their fees.

This was a verdict by the people in the country whose message is that we want to face head on what took place in our colonial and slave trading past.

The statue was offensive, and an act of abuse when it stood in a city that is so multi-cultural, whose ancestors suffered at his hands and who continue to suffer through acts like the “cultural war” this government is pursuing. Patel is guilty of overstepping her roll as Home Secretary in this case and should be held to account.

The defendants are on the right side of history.

The defence of committing a crime in order to prevent a greater one was used by the Greenham Common Women www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/crisis-in-the-gulf-1.135596

It is mob violence; don't do what we want therefore we will take the law into our own hands.

eazybee

It is mob violence; don't do what we want therefore we will take the law into our own hands.

This argument has been used throughout history to try to defend the indefensible.

Do the people who disagree with the acquittal want to abolish the jury system?

I understand why people wanted this statue taken down and it should have been, but I feel very uneasy about this with respect to what will happen next.

The message has been given that artefacts that were set up to glorify evil deeds done to people are no longer ac eatable.

Councils and governments must therefore listen when requests to remove them or ensure their evil acts are made clear by the public.

THE IS NO PRECEDENT SET WITH REGARDS TO VANDALISM AS IT WAS DEEMED THAT NONE TOOK PLACE.

Iam64

Those who say a guilty verdict could have been followed by a nominal fine or other sentence seem to be forgetting, the jury doesn’t sentence. The jury reaches guilty or not guilty based on the evidence it hears, the Judge sentences. This jury decided not guilty was the way to go.

I know that.

Don't treat other posters as if they are stupid because they put an alternative viewpoint.
And there is no need to shout.

It is good that the statue has gone but the campaign to get rid of it cannot have been very strong as even Marvin didn't act.

luluaugust

I understand why people wanted this statue taken down and it should have been, but I feel very uneasy about this with respect to what will happen next.

Yes, this.
Removal of the statue, no problem. The way the statue was removed and the subsequent decision by the jury, problematic.

Someone just asked the question of those who are vociferously arguing that the protest was a violent and an act of vandalism.

What are their thoughts on the government who is intent on making peaceful protest criminal?

What happens when those cases come to court.

Would they defend the accused?

Whatever anyone thinks about Colston, we all saw what was done and it was an act of criminal damage. The jury should have reached a guilty verdict solely on the evidence and left it to the judge to decide the appropriate sentence in the circumstances. The jurors should not have been swayed by their own feelings about Colston or whether the statue should already have been removed by legal means. What hope is there for someone wrongly charged with a crime who the jury decide they just don’t like the look of? What would we be saying if the statue had been of Churchill, who has been alleged to have had racist views?

and the subsequent decision by the jury, problematic.

The jury's decision was consistent with the rule of law, which allows for trial by jury. This is not the first time that a jury has come to a different conclusion from the judge (and the army of self appointed legal experts on social media) and it won't be the last. This is how our legal system works.

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/06/jurors-see-the-bigger-picture-activists-who-were-cleared-in-court?utm_term=61d68c3b00825a38ea4eb5bfdb086e68&utm_campaign=MorningBriefingUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=morningbriefinguk_email

There were counter arguments, GSM. Have you read the details of the case?

Whitewavemark2

David Olusoga was amongst the many witnesses who spoke in support of the 4.

Banksy sold art to fund their fees.

This was a verdict by the people in the country whose message is that we want to face head on what took place in our colonial and slave trading past.

The statue was offensive, and an act of abuse when it stood in a city that is so multi-cultural, whose ancestors suffered at his hands and who continue to suffer through acts like the “cultural war” this government is pursuing. Patel is guilty of overstepping her roll as Home Secretary in this case and should be held to account.

The defendants are on the right side of history.

Maybe it’s the Avon and Somerset Police who should be held to account. They stood by and let it happen so what other choice did the jury have but to find the 4 not guilty of criminal damage when the police did nothing. They acted disgracefully that day.