BLM protesters cleared over toppling of Edward Colston statue

There seems to be an assumption that this outcome will mean more destruction.

Is there a hope that this case might reduce destruction? Might now statues which cause near universal offence (because history has shown the subject worthy of contempt rather than idolisation) be removed without the need for desperate measures?

There are also those who offend far fewer, but very vociferous, people. As I said earlier, Churchill has been accused of having racist views, maybe not untypical of his time, and most see him as the man who steered us through WW2, but his statue has been attacked and has had to be protected. I’m looking at this in terms of populist rather than legal precedent.

Germanshepherdsmum

There are also those who offend far fewer, but very vociferous, people. As I said earlier, Churchill has been accused of having racist views, maybe not untypical of his time, and most see him as the man who steered us through WW2, but his statue has been attacked and has had to be protected. I’m looking at this in terms of populist rather than legal precedent.

And you're a former lawyer?

What's populist precedent?

Fortunately, the UK still has laws.

Surely you know what I mean growstuff. Not a legally binding precedent but a precedent for people to act in a particular way and think they can get away with it. Which is what I think we will see happening.

Margeret Thatcher should have got a statue as first woman Prime Minister but unfortunately her performance only deserves her Spitting Image likeness

Germanshepherdsmum

Surely you know what I mean growstuff. Not a legally binding precedent but a precedent for people to act in a particular way and think they can get away with it. Which is what I think we will see happening.

So it's up to strong laws to ensure they can't get away with unjustified acts.

Once the laws of a country start giving way to "populist" verdicts, the country is in deep sh*t. Lynching might as well be brought back.

Whitewavemark2

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?

I presume you mean you support the Kill the Bill protestors.

Ryan Roberts protested in Bristol against the proposed bill and said that he was fighting for a cause he felt strongly about and was upset by the way police reacted on the night.

He said he got “carried away” fighting for freedom of speech

He was charged and sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Should he have been found not guilty of all charges because you and others believe he was fighting for the right to protest?
Do you believe he has been subjected to a miscarriage of justice and will you fight for the verdict to be overturned?

Would you defend the accused?

One of those cleared of criminal damage lives in Colston Road

The irony! Would you want to rent or buy a property in a road named after someone you despise?
?

I wouldn’t disagree with you growstuff.

Not really a laughing matter. Given the housing situation for young people I imagine that there wasn't much choice.

Bristol is pretty much at the top of the country's list in terms of numbers of rough sleepers and the homelessness rate has soared during the pandemic whilst house prices and rents have gone through the roof.

Given the housing situation for young people I imagine that there wasn't much choice

Rubbish. In a large city (where my DD lived and a lot of our family lives) it is ironic that one of the four lives in Colston Road!

It has not gone unnoticed, either, that the middle class four were cleared of criminal damage but the not-so-middleclass Roberts got 14 years.

Calistemon

^Given the housing situation for young people I imagine that there wasn't much choice^

Rubbish. In a large city (where my DD lived and a lot of our family lives) it is ironic that one of the four lives in Colston Road!

It has not gone unnoticed, either, that the middle class four were cleared of criminal damage but the not-so-middleclass Roberts got 14 years.

Good heavens Roberts set fire to a police car with policemen inside.

It hardly merits comparison!!

Yes, but he was protesting about Johnson's proposed Bill, current problems, not some long-dead slave trader.

Calistemon

Yes, but he was protesting about Johnson's proposed Bill, current problems, not some long-dead slave trader.

The Colston protest was very very much about current problems. If you don’t get that then no wonder you can’t understand the verdict.

Roberts was found guilty of rioting, attempted arson with intent to endanger life, attempted arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, and two counts of arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered - not criminal damage! The same defence did not apply.

Whitewavemark2

Calistemon

Yes, but he was protesting about Johnson's proposed Bill, current problems, not some long-dead slave trader.

The Colston protest was very very much about current problems. If you don’t get that then no wonder you can’t understand the verdict.

I do know. Yes, I did hear of George Floyd.
We are not America.

Bristol has a black Mayor too.

If you don’t get that then no wonder you can’t understand the verdict.
You just don't get it, do you.

The statue should have been removed long ago.
Peaceful protests were allowed to take place.
Removing public property in such a way was criminal damage.
The verdict was wrong whatever one thinks about the ethics of the statue remaining in situ.
The not guilty verdict sends out the message that it's ok to break the law as long as you think you're in the right.

growstuff

Roberts was found guilty of rioting, attempted arson with intent to endanger life, attempted arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, and two counts of arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered - not criminal damage! The same defence did not apply.

Yes, but Whitewave thinks we should be protesting about that Bill too.

The same standards should apply - if you think you are morally and ethically right, you should not be found guilty if you break the law when protesting.

Sorry Calistemon that's nonsense.

Roberts wasn't charged with Criminal Damage, therefore the "loophole" about a "lawful excuse".

What lawful excuse could there be to attempt to set people on fire?

You have misunderstood the "Colston Four" verdict, if you think it's because they thought they were morally and ethically right.

You have misunderstood the "Colston Four" verdict, if you think it's because they thought they were morally and ethically right.

That's the excuse being made on here.

I have misunderstood nothing

Calistemon

Whitewavemark2

Calistemon

Yes, but he was protesting about Johnson's proposed Bill, current problems, not some long-dead slave trader.

The Colston protest was very very much about current problems. If you don’t get that then no wonder you can’t understand the verdict.

I do know. Yes, I did hear of George Floyd.
We are not America.

Bristol has a black Mayor too.

If you don’t get that then no wonder you can’t understand the verdict.
You just don't get it, do you.

The statue should have been removed long ago.
Peaceful protests were allowed to take place.
Removing public property in such a way was criminal damage.
The verdict was wrong whatever one thinks about the ethics of the statue remaining in situ.
The not guilty verdict sends out the message that it's ok to break the law as long as you think you're in the right.

No, the verdict was right because it was made by a legal jury following legal guidelines according to the law of the land.

In your opinion, it was wrong, but that's not the same thing.

Calistemon

^You have misunderstood the "Colston Four" verdict, if you think it's because they thought they were morally and ethically right^.

That's the excuse being made on here.

I have misunderstood nothing

So maybe some of the people posting on here have it wrong too. It's not the reason they weren't found guilty.

Calistemon

Whitewavemark2

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?

I presume you mean you support the Kill the Bill protestors.

Ryan Roberts protested in Bristol against the proposed bill and said that he was fighting for a cause he felt strongly about and was upset by the way police reacted on the night.

He said he got “carried away” fighting for freedom of speech

He was charged and sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Should he have been found not guilty of all charges because you and others believe he was fighting for the right to protest?
Do you believe he has been subjected to a miscarriage of justice and will you fight for the verdict to be overturned?

Would you defend the accused?

I don't think you read WWmk2's post properly, Calistemon

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

As far as I am aware, Roberts is not a member of the government, which is what she was talking about.

Also, he was not 'peacefully protesting'. 'Peaceful protest' was the subject of her question.

Nothing like evading the issue to pursue your own agenda.

In your opinion, it was wrong, but that's not the same thing.

So what you are saying is that juries never make a wrong decision!

Of course an appeal court may not agree with the verdict but I doubt the decision will be appealed. You never know though.

Calistemon

growstuff

Roberts was found guilty of rioting, attempted arson with intent to endanger life, attempted arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, and two counts of arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered - not criminal damage! The same defence did not apply.

Yes, but Whitewave thinks we should be protesting about that Bill too.

The same standards should apply - if you think you are morally and ethically right, you should not be found guilty if you break the law when protesting.

And why shouldn't we protesting about that bill? Peaceful protest is not illegal in the UK, and it never should be.

Muddying the waters by bringing up the case of a non peaceful protestor is evading the issue.

Do you not care that your right to protest peacefully is being taken away?