- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
![www.theguardian.com](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fmedia%2Fce8eade4eb95987a44ac61db3eccfe87fb62c4af%2F0_227_5238_3144%2Fmaster%2F5238.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D630%26quality%3D85%26auto%3Dformat%26fit%3Dcrop%26overlay-align%3Dbottom%252Cleft%26overlay-width%3D100p%26overlay-base64%3DL2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctYWdlLTIwMjIucG5n%26enable%3Dupscale%26s%3D4adde29fe36130a652bb3f1ece5c0fba&hash=45384c2612dc95aea1501e9db6c6c7bf&return_error=1)
BLM protesters cleared over toppling of Edward Colston statue
Rhian Graham, Milo Ponsford, Sage Willoughby and Jake Skuse found not guilty over act of public dissent during Bristol protest
I'm pretty certain one of them is a woman4 middle class white boys obviously feel so very strongly about black oppression, they have to mindlessly vandalise stuff..
Of course they were going to be found not guilty.
It’s a shame they don’t put in as much effort actually helping the cause as they do destroying stuff.
4 middle class white boys obviously feel so very strongly about black oppression, they have to mindlessly vandalise stuff..
Of course they were going to be found not guilty.
It’s a shame they don’t put in as much effort actually helping the cause as they do destroying stuff.
That is taking the law into their own hands and getting away with it. Just because you don't agree with something does not mean you should be able to smash it. Regardless of the cause.
Would it be ok for me to do the same to the same to any statues of Sir Robert Peel, Francis Drake or even Churchill as they may have done some naughty things?
It seems a jury of their peers thought otherwise.That is taking the law into their own hands and getting away with it.
Not really a good comparison as those people also had some achievements. All Colston did was spend the money he made from slavery.
What's the other side of the story to slave trading, Simon?I would say a more powerful thing would be for the statues to tell a story of the times from both sides.
Absolutely nothing.Pretty sure getting rid of the statue did help the cause.
What have you done to help it?
As I understand it, most of the money he left, rather than spent, and the statue was put up by the Victorians, 150 years after his death. There was definitely hero worship gong on then.Not really a good comparison as those people also had some achievements. All Colston did was spend the money he made from slavery.
Regardless of who the statue was or why it was erected they damaged it without permission so surely that’s criminal damage? If I went down into town and destroyed the statue of Andrew Carnegie because I disagreed with his history of workers rights in the USA-despite the many good things he did in his home town-I would expect to be in bother, and hold my hands up and plead guilty.
It's what's known in criminal law as a perverse verdict, where the jury brings in a verdict that is contradicted by the evidence - usually out of sympathy for the defendant(s).4 defendants, some of which had ropes in back-packs. To a BLM demo...
I think you are right about the next defence. Case law is powerful.
There were loud calls to bring it down (which I support) but there are also loud calls to stop vaccination. (insert your current loud call meme in here)
There’s a new law that would probably apply? Defacing monuments, or something like that.It's what's known in criminal law as a perverse verdict, where the jury brings in a verdict that is contradicted by the evidence - usually out of sympathy for the defendant(s).
It won't affect any future cases.
New laws or not. it is always down to the jury. There is no doubt at all that they did remove and damage the statue.There’s a new law that would probably apply? Defacing monuments, or something like that.
I'm pretty certain one of them is a woman![]()
I’m not saying they should’ve been sent down for years, but a big fine, maybe, public service, definitely, a not guilty verdict wasn’t the right call, it was irresponsible. (IMO)
In this country we have quite a lot of questions to ask and answer about what slavery did for the country.
I think that would have been a better outcome, but, as far as I know, juries in this country do not determine sentencing that is the jurisdiction of the judge, and there is no guarantee he would have given a unconditional discharge.Guilty and an unconditional discharge?
"cancel"
how so - you learn about history from books, not statues
There are two things to this - Firstly the way it was done, it sets a precedent for people to do criminal damage on things they don't like/agree with. Secondly, its a slippery slope. As others have said what about other people of the time who supported it and made money out of it like Drake, George III etc... do we rip down those people too, many will. And then we come to people like Churchill or Bomber Harris for what they did. Where and when will it end? I don't think many would have objected if a statue was taken down properly and displayed in a museum.
If they put up a statue of Prof. Gilbert who designed the AZ vaccine, I am guessing it would be ok if the anti-tax mob pulled that down or defaced it?
Was it to hero-worship him or simply to identify to financial contributions he made to the city?I think a more interesting question to answer is when and why these statuses were put up? If a statue is put up 150 years after someones death to hero worship them ( or surpress part of the community) then I don't think the 'history' argument stands and it then becomes legitimate to take them down
However repulsive slavery now is, back in the day it was normal. Slaves were the technology of the day (high capital cost, low running cost, disposable when worn out and part of an inferior species [as taught by the church] and were regarded in much the same way as farm animals of today). The people who grew rich from exploiting them didn't see anything wrong with their behaviour, and many contributed to society (or at least to white society) with their generosity.Back in December 2020, following the BLM protests, the Labour councillors of Medway decided to "cancel" one of our greatest 16th century seafarers, Sir John Hawkins who designed the ships which defeated the Spanish Armada and was vice admiral in that battle. He had links to slavery as did most seafaring men of that era, yet the people who commanded him - Mary 1st and Elizabeth 1st, plus others such as Sir Francis Drake seem to get a free pass - why?
Where does this all end? Do we have to erase all traces of these people from history, from artistic works?
![]()
New name approved for controversial car park
A new name has been agreed for a car park formerly named after slave trader John Hawkins.www.kentonline.co.uk
![]()
John Hawkins (naval commander) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Was it to hero-worship him or simply to identify to financial contributions he made to the city?