BLM protesters cleared over toppling of Edward Colston statue

Germanshepherdsmum

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?

You conclusion is wrong on so many levels.

You must be aware of historic verdicts by jurors which absolutely goes against what is the law at the time.

The jury was not persuaded by “their feelings” as you so wrongly stated, but by arguments so ably put forward by expert witnesses.

That is the reason they reached the verdict that they did. They showed wisdom clearly lacking in much of the opposition.

We must agree to disagree wwm.

Nightsky2

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.

Patel used her political authority to ensure that the police acted as they did.

This is politicising the police and goes against what is accepted in this country in ensuring separation of the execut I’ve from the police.

I’m sure their are posters who are knowledgable about this historic separation.

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.

Yes, they did and there was no proper excuse.

Germanshepherdsmum

We must agree to disagree wwm.

I think you probably know more about the law than Googlers on GN, Germanshepherdsmum

A vote was held last October in Denbigh, north Wales on whether to remove a statue of H M Stanley (of Dr Livingston fame) and there was a large majority for keeping it in place.

His links with King Leopold of Belgium and the killing of thousands of natives were cited as reasons for removal.

The problem with statues is that few people have no faults at all - maybe they should all be taken down?

Does the judge not have some part to play here? He permitted the evidence and defence that was put forward so surely the jury were entitled to take it into consideration? Did he not direct the jury before they were sent out? The jury were not unanimous so the judge instructed that a majority verdict was acceptable. The jury are either being praised or blamed for their decision and no mention of the judge who permitted the proceedings to take place as they did.

Calistemon

Germanshepherdsmum

We must agree to disagree wwm.

I think you probably know more about the law than Googlers on GN, Germanshepherdsmum

?

The acquittal of the 4 shows a system that is both healthy and working.

The state arrested, the people acquitted.

Whitewavemark2

The acquittal of the 4 shows a system that is both healthy and working.

The state arrested, the people acquitted.

The verdict is a joke because the charge was criminal damage and the evidence was on film.

It doesn't matter what the morals or ethics are, those can be reflected in the sentencing.

They pleaded “not guilty” - the jury agreed.

Have you listened to the witnesses arguments? Because if you have, how can you continue to argue as you do?

Thank you Calistemon. It was my profession for over 40 years but I have found it best to state my unbiased opinion and let others argue the toss.
Avalon I imagine the arguments for the defence were legally admissible. Had they fallen foul of the rules of evidence the judge would have stopped them and/or directed to the jury to ignore them, but that's easier said than done. Whether the jury attached undue weight to some arguments is debatable but I think the decision is unlikely to be appealed by the prosecution.

? Unbiased opinion?

Presumably anyone can now cause criminal damage without any consequences. The law should apply to everyone.

Gwyneth

Presumably anyone can now cause criminal damage without any consequences. The law should apply to everyone.

No, no precedent was set.

Should the statue remain in situ - no (Colston committed hideous acts, despite his philanthropic gestures later)

Should the mob have pulled it down and dumped it in the river - no (video evidence seen by millions on mainstream news bulletins of criminal/wilful damage to street furniture I think statues come into this category)

Since when do two wrongs make a right

Thank you Germanshepherdsmum that’s what I thought. It is getting very emotive on here. If the arguments for the defence were legally admissible then they had to be considered. That being so it puts the jury on the spot. Quite difficult and they were supposed to have no bias when they selected for this case.
To me personally I think it was criminal damage but the way the case was permitted to be presented I can understand how the not guilty verdict was reached. It is going to cause some widespread ripples.

GrannyGravy13

Should the statue remain in situ - no (Colston committed hideous acts, despite his philanthropic gestures later)

Should the mob have pulled it down and dumped it in the river - no (video evidence seen by millions on mainstream news bulletins of criminal/wilful damage to street furniture I think statues come into this category)

Since when do two wrongs make a right

In the case of the greater of two evils.

Language like mob etc is straight out of the tabloids and not recommended.

There's a few more that need " coming down ".

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

Should the statue remain in situ - no (Colston committed hideous acts, despite his philanthropic gestures later)

Should the mob have pulled it down and dumped it in the river - no (video evidence seen by millions on mainstream news bulletins of criminal/wilful damage to street furniture I think statues come into this category)

Since when do two wrongs make a right

In the case of the greater of two evils.

Language like mob etc is straight out of the tabloids and not recommended.

Having watched the footage multiple times on the mainstream news, (I have not read a tabloid in over two years by the way) assuming you have seen the footage how would you describe the assembled folk ?

English dictionary definition of a mob a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence a mob of protesters

This verdict sets a precedent, are we to stand by when all statues of people involved in the slave trade, the large houses they built and the estates they accrued are torched, or pulled down.If we look closely we might get a shock who actually gained from this despicable trade as we see it today.
If the statue was believed to not be acceptable then moves to have it removed should have been made through the proper channels.

Yammy

This verdict sets a precedent, are we to stand by when all statues of people involved in the slave trade, the large houses they built and the estates they accrued are torched, or pulled down.If we look closely we might get a shock who actually gained from this despicable trade as we see it today.
If the statue was believed to not be acceptable then moves to have it removed should have been made through the proper channels.

There were and it wasn’t.

It seems to me that those continually putting the same argument erroneously forward have not read the excellent arguments put forward by various witnesses.

Germanshepherdsmum

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?

So are you saying that trial by jury should be abandoned?

Yammy

This verdict sets a precedent, are we to stand by when all statues of people involved in the slave trade, the large houses they built and the estates they accrued are torched, or pulled down.If we look closely we might get a shock who actually gained from this despicable trade as we see it today.
If the statue was believed to not be acceptable then moves to have it removed should have been made through the proper channels.

No, it doesn't set a legal precedent.