BLM protesters cleared over toppling of Edward Colston statue

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.

Exactly GrannyGravy and Annie.

The law was broken but those charged were innocent

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.

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…

Absolutely!

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.

Whitewavemark2

Those who disagree with the verdict are going against that which we hold dear in the U.K.

That is the rule of law.

Rosie, I read you posts and agree with you, these people did commit criminal damage.
I see CD as a serious offence because it’s one of a small number of offences that Dan be disclosed by police at a safeguarding conference. It’s relevant to safeguarding because it can demonstrate a lack of control, anger management issues that are all too often seen in domestic abuse.
Yet, I cheered when driving home at 4pm when I heard the verdict. This CD wasn’t an angry impulsive response to being thwarted, smashing a fist into a pane of glass, throwing a pan, smashing a hole in a door because you had no self control. This was a deliberate, political act. And it was a similar, deliberate act by 12 just men and women to reach a nit guilty plea. Well done them. This verdict feels similar to not sending little 9 year old Jimmy to Australia for stealing bread for his family.

What would you have done?

Reverse the verdict?

That way lies totalitarianism.

Be proud of our judicial processes and accept that there will always be verdicts with which you disagree.

It was a verdict by a jury, they were perfectly right in what they decided. Even if technically they had broken the law, the jury are using their right to decide wisely that the accused should be found innocent.

It doesn’t set a precedent.

Video evidence of the four pulling down the statue rolling it to the river wall and pushing it over. This is blatant criminal damage.

Whether or not the statue should have been legally removed due to its slavery connections is irrelevant to the case.

They did what they were accused of, the verdict was wrong

I really don’t think that there could have been any other verdict.

Smileless2012

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.

Apartheid was once law of the land. People fought against it. Jim Crow laws in the US were wrong and people fought against them.

Not every law is right.

Those who disagree with the verdict are going against that which we hold dear in the U.K.

That is the rule of law.

And even more people tried peacefully to have it left where it was. A petition to keep the statue was signed by 100 people over a three year period. The petition to have it removed was signed by over 10,000 in three days.

I hear exactly what posters are saying about setting a precedent. I don't know enough about the law to comment on the decision and will be very interested to read more in the coming days.

That said I am grateful to the people who removed the statue. They could have been punished and were brave enough to risk this for their beliefs.

They were guilty

Why pick on 4 people when dozens were involved? I’m glad they were acquitted.

No that's not true, self defense as an example. You can use reasonable force to protect yourself, even before you are actually hurt.

This statue was doing harm, now it has been prevented from doing harm.

Rosie51

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.

According to the evidence and according to the law.

Rosie.

Coastpath

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.

And even more people tried peacefully to have it left where it was.

It was an outrageous decision and these 4 people should have been convicted of criminal damage.

crossposted Smileless same point

Coastpath the suffragettes took the punishment for breaking the law, which was incredibly inhumane in some cases.

These defendants have broken the law, there is plenty of evidence, they should have been found guilty, then the judge could have shown clemency and fined them a token amount. That the 12 jurors chose to break the solemn oath they took does not bode well as a precedent. The next jury may have a dislike for the defendant/s in a case and give a guilty verdict despite there not being the evidence to support it. It's a dangerous precedent to applaud.

VioletSky the allowances the law has made is in the sentencing not the verdict which must be according to the evidence.

The law never makes allowances for what is just when it comes to a conviction, allowances can be made when it comes to sentencing but that's not the same thing.