Four cleared of Colston statue criminal damage

[Fambo Number Mive]

Good news from Bristol: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

...Speaking afterwards, Raj Chada, who represented Mr Skuse, said the "defendants should never have been prosecuted".

He added: "It is shameful that Bristol City Council did not take down the statue of slaver Edward Colston that had caused such offence to people in Bristol and equally shameful that they then supported the prosecution of these defendants."

Blinne Ni Ghralaigh, for Rhian Graham, claimed that the case "demonstrates the fundamental importance of trial by jury".

"In this case, they determined that a conviction for the removal of this statue - that glorified a slave trader involved in the enslavement of over 84,000 black men, women and children as a 'most virtuous and wise' man - would not be proportionate."...

I'm sure the GB News pundits and other gammon pokers will be pretending to be angry about this.

[Pink Gregory]

Ace.

[idunnosomename]

a shame as I enjoy young people being locked up. hope the queen gets involved.

[Buelligan]

Over the moon with this, Clive.

[danwho9]

a shame as I enjoy young people being locked up. hope the queen gets involved.

I prefer teary-eyed hipsters like that Sage guy being banged up personally.

[Ambient Sheep]

The Guardian has more details, especially on the specifics of their defence:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/four-cleared-of-toppling-edward-colston-statute

[shoulders]

Interesting verdict, definitely shifts the dial when you consider how frequently people who have never and will never protest gatekeep on how protestors should 'go through the proper channels', 'do it the right way'. If they had their way no protestors would ever have accomplished anything.

I don't think these people should have been prosecuted, it's a total disgrace, waste of money and PR disaster.

However, I am a tad concerned that it moves law slightly towards mob justice, the idea that vandalism and endangerment perpetrated in the face of perceived injustice can be acceptable but only when a jury decides. It leaves a situation which empowers those who feel injustice, which is good, but surely not in a mob setting without  arbitration. Who decides which perceived injustice is worthy enough or not...? Surely not a judge every single time. That's unworkable and it is potentially quite scary too. I can imagine that principle being used against progressive causes. I can see situations like in America where if the right quantity of fascists enter the courts they can defend white power rioting, for instance.

They should have been let go, maybe given a formal warning for the vandalism and endagering others and asked to cover repairs. I expect they could get that crowdfunded easily if need be.

If you follow this through, the politicians responsible for maintaining the presence of the statue should receive some punishment of some sort, given they have been maintaining what is described as a situation of abuse on black residents. That sounds genuinely horrific and justice hasn't been served on those people purely by letting some young white people off.

[Johnny Yesno]

Excellent news.

[Buelligan]

Interesting verdict, definitely shifts the dial when you consider how frequently people who have never and will never protest gatekeep on how protestors should 'go through the proper channels', 'do it the right way'. If they had their way no protestors would ever have accomplished anything.

I don't think these people should have been prosecuted, it's a total disgrace, waste of money and PR disaster.

However, I am a tad concerned that it moves law slightly towards mob justice, the idea that vandalism and endangerment perpetrated in the face of perceived injustice can be acceptable but only when a jury decides. It leaves a situation which empowers those who feel injustice, which is good, but surely not in a mob setting without  arbitration. Who decides which perceived injustice is worthy enough or not...? Surely not a judge every single time. That's unworkable and it is potentially quite scary too. I can imagine that principle being used against progressive causes. I can see situations like in America where if the right quantity of fascists enter the courts they can defend white power rioting, for instance.

They should have been let go, maybe given a formal warning for the vandalism and endagering others and asked to cover repairs. I expect they could get that crowdfunded easily if need be.

If you follow this through, the politicians responsible for maintaining the presence of the statue should receive some punishment of some sort, given they have been maintaining what is described as a situation of abuse on black residents. That sounds genuinely horrific and justice hasn't been served on those people purely by letting some young white people off.

I don't really understand this argument - if you agree that toppling the statue was a good and correct thing, what is the difference, in terms of righteousness, justice, value to a lawful society, between a behind-closed-doors smoke-filled-room decision not to prosecute and a judge and jury acquittal?

Why is the second option more dangerous/problematic?

[Butchers Blind]

Did anyone ask the statue how he felt about this?

[Pink Gregory]

Did anyone ask the statue how he felt about this?

"blub blub glub glub" - Edward Colston

[Gurke and Hare]

Who decides which perceived injustice is worthy enough or not...? Surely not a judge every single time.

No, the jury. A judge didn't decide this time.

[bgmnts]

Tricky business all this, would have been ace if the cunts just relented and moved it to a museum but this is why we can't have nice things.

Destroying public property is illegal though and they should have been tried though shouldnt they? Unsure if this sets the precedent that mob justice is good. To be fair, I'm all for that if it gets good stuff done I just dont think anyone else is, surprised anyone here is tbh.

Well done to the people of Bristol though for finally saying enough is enough.

[thenoise]

the politicians responsible for maintaining the presence of the statue should receive some punishment of some sort, given they have been maintaining what is described as a situation of abuse on black residents.

The Society of Merchant Venturers, among other shady organisations hoarding vast wealth acquired from slavery and other shady trading operations. The same people that paid for it to be erected in the first place.

[idunnosomename]

The Merchant Venturers had a veto on the council to stop even contextualising info going up near the statue. They apologised in the wake of all this

I dont think it sets a bad precedent because the case took into account this statue has been campaigned against for DECADES and the process to getting it done was anti-democratic.

[Gurke and Hare]

It doesn't set any precedent at all. No jury is bound by the verdict of any previous jury.

[beanheadmcginty]

I think the judge should have ordered them to work as slave traders for six months so that they could understand what a difficult job it is and gain a bit more respect.

[Dayraven]

would have been ace if the cunts just relented and moved it to a museum

Bristol Museum's been displaying it — graffitied and on its side, which is a clever way of giving it more historical interest than it had in place.

[Endicott]

Very good news, juries occasionally amaze me.

As I understand it they had the right to trial by jury because the criminal damage charge was for more than 5 grand, or thereabouts. Just as well, I can't imagine a magistrate coming to the same decision.

[shoulders]

Very good news, juries occasionally amaze me.

As I understand it they had the right to trial by jury because the criminal damage charge was for more than 5 grand, or thereabouts. Just as well, I can't imagine a magistrate coming to the same decision.

Well yes, which kind of illustrates that this can get turned on the left, or liberals, just as well as anyone else.

[jobotic]

[Johnny Yesno]

Did anyone ask the statue how he felt about this?

'I was deeply moved.' - Edward Colston.

[Fambo Number Mive]

Isn't that Marx's grave, not just a statue?

[Johnny Yesno]

Darren Grimes, not a worker.

[shoulders]

I don't really understand this argument - if you agree that toppling the statue was a good and correct thing, what is the difference, in terms of righteousness, justice, value to a lawful society, between a behind-closed-doors smoke-filled-room decision not to prosecute and a judge and jury acquittal?

Why is the second option more dangerous/problematic?

I agree the toppling happened  because the council failed to act and apparently in failing to do so were effectively abusing the city's black population, so yes, of course I agree it had to come down.

I also agree that those involved should be treated leniently, though I also think there should be at least notional recognition that what happened wasn't where society needs to go, and that this wouldn't be necessary if there was true political accountability, true justice where citizens don't need to risk becoming criminals to see justice served. A democracy with checks and balances.

This appears absent from some of the coverage despite being crucial.

The problem, from what I'm reading, is in the nature of the reasoning backing the decision. In this case it has protected some righteous dudes, but it would only take a few wrong uns to use the same kind of argument to justify let's say 'unilateral action' by a group that goes passed common accepted norms (vandalism of property, reckless endangerment and more) but protects interests they think are important. Indeed, such things happen across the world all the time to excuse horrific things.

I want us to not only win but improve things for the next people along, not to support tactics or reasoning just because it happened to be expedient, when that may get used against us. As I typed Darren Grimes has just fired the starting pistol. Careful folks.

I'll watch with interest for future cases.

---Also up thread someone pulled me up on use of judge, I did mention the jury in that post, and meant to say so there, apologies.

[Buelligan]

TBH, not that bovved about whether Darren Grimes tries to push over a model of Karl Marx. 

And anyway, the idea that the jury's decision is some kind of open season declaration on statues is risible.  But, as I said, even if it were, personally, not arsed.

[bgmnts]

I suppose if there have been repeated peaceful and legal attempts to bin a Marx monument that have been ignored then I guess it should go? Unsure.

[jobotic]

Wonder who the "lads" are that Grimes is appealling to there.

Love to see him try and topple it himself. Cunt would shit his pants with the effort then shatter like Tom from Tom and Jerry after he's been hit with a mallet.

[Buelligan]

End of the day, they're statues.  Not even statues of great artistic merit. 

[bgmnts]

It's amazing how easy it is to bin monuments when it comes to business though innit? No issue demolishing the lovely, historically and culturally significant Chartist mural in Newport's John Frost Square eh? Just to make room for a shitty gaudy crap retail centre to line the pockets of the kind of cunt that this slaver was.

Easy to get rid of that stuff innit?