Not Guilty

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.
 
TCR4x4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty certain one of them is a woman (y)
 
TCR4x4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure getting rid of the statue did help the cause.

What have you done to help it?
 
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?
 
cambsno said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not really a good comparison as those people also had some achievements. All Colston did was spend the money he made from slavery.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Not really a good comparison as those people also had some achievements. All Colston did was spend the money he made from slavery.
Click to expand...

You say that but people like Thomas Guy (hospital) and many of these people while making vast sums (doing something that was quite legal at the time), also put a lot of money into their local areas, helping countless people get an education, medical treatment etc... Many of these cities were built on the slave trade. I would say a more powerful thing would be for the statues to tell a story of the times from both sides.
 
cambsno said:
I would say a more powerful thing would be for the statues to tell a story of the times from both sides.
Click to expand...
What's the other side of the story to slave trading, Simon?
 
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.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Pretty sure getting rid of the statue did help the cause.

What have you done to help it?
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing.

I am not and never have been racist to anyone. I was not involved in slavery, I have made no money from the oppression or control of anyone.

What our ancestors did, happened and was nothing to with me.
I treat everyone equally no matter their background or heritage.

I also don’t go around vandalising stuff.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Not really a good comparison as those people also had some achievements. All Colston did was spend the money he made from slavery.
Click to expand...
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.

In this country we have quite a lot of questions to ask and answer about what slavery did for the country. Major port cities often reek with the proceeds of slavery. Liverpool now has a Slavery museum, which is very enlightening.
 
mj4456 said:
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.
Click to expand...

On the face of it you're right which is why I added a 'like' . However, the jury, were allowed to come to a majority decision because it wasn't initially unanimous.Maybe they thought that here were 4 defendants out of a large crowd that helped bring down the statue and roll it into the Avon. It was seen as an act of desperation because the city authorities,despite loud calls for years to remove it, failed to do so. Time went on and we entered the BLM era. The defence lawyer asked the jury to be "on the right side of history"

Wisely, mayor Marvin Rees..he's a black man for those who don't know him..has,so far declined to comment when asked to do so by our regional TV news Points West.

You have to wonder if the next defence lawyer will cite this verdict (case law) when he/she is defending people who have damaged property in the name of a particular cause which, like this one, became a national issue.
 
Last edited:
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)
 
Why are the vandals who are determined to erase history, not bothered about the present day slavery which goes on in Saudia Arabia, UAE and Qatar?
Why don't they protest about the current slaughter of people in Yemen and Palestine, which is done using weapons supplied by our government?
Are BLM and other Marxist organisations going after Belgium, France, Italy and Germany who were also involved in the slave trade?
People who vandalise public monuments should be put away, otherwise we are on a very slippery slope towards anarchy.
 
Pound Coin said:
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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
I think the jury did what juries are supposed to do: they listened to the evidence, considered the legal arguments and then applied their own opinions to what they had heard.

As in the Clive Ponting case, the jury decided that they accepted the claims of the defence and regardless of the law were not prepared to convict. I don't agree with the jury but I believe that they acted in good conscience and should not be criticised.
 
Garry Edwards said:
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.
Click to expand...
There’s a new law that would probably apply? Defacing monuments, or something like that.
 
Can't understand the outrage when you see all the other perceived injustices going on.

For a start everyone's not favourite royal, the diplomatic immunity hit and run woman and the Christmas Party offenders.

Now lets talk about a real injustice
Anyone of a certain age from my neck of the woods will remember the George Davis Is Innocent campaign.
Headingley wicket damaged and his missus legging it about stark b*****k naked on the island in Vicky Park.
 
Last edited:
Pound Coin said:
There’s a new law that would probably apply? Defacing monuments, or something like that.
Click to expand...
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.
However the Jury clearly found that there were extenuating circumstances, that resulted in finding them not guilty,
 
In hindsight, perhaps Bristol City Council should have considered the protests and proposed a solution. The solution might have been to officially remove the statue to a more appropriate place (museum?) and or considered a Slavery Museum like Liverpool. The advantage is the the history of Bristol can be truthfully told for future generations. If acts of vandalism were to be overlooked, then there will be few statues and works of art that did not offend somebody.

Dave
 
jakeblu said:
I'm pretty certain one of them is a woman (y)
Click to expand...

Doesn't that count as hate speech in some quarters these days?

Only kidding :D

I'm all for legally protesting and campaigning for things but mob rule and the destruction of property just seems wrong, a vandals charter as someone else said today.

I do think that judging historical figures by the standards of today is highly questionable as are the wider BLM, gender and cancel culture movements, the replacement of JK Rowling, replaced by Kelly Holmes, being a fine example of idiocy and double standards in the name of progressiveness.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it is that as a dad, sometimes my kids really, really want something, and if it’s a reasonable request, if their behaviour shows they deserve whatever it is and it’s in my power to sort it then it usually comes to be. However, if they want something and they kick, scream, stomp their feet and trash their rooms then they’re firstly not going to get what they want, but also they’re gonna get sent to bed with no pudding.

My point being that there are ways and means of getting what you want, and as long as it’s a reasonable request that’s not going to inflict suffering on people then there is no reason why it shouldn’t at least be considered, but if you’re going to take the law into your own hands and cause damage to something that doesn’t belong to you, then you deserve to go to bed with no pudding, and by the looks of it that hasn’t happened. And as we all know children that get what they want regardless of how awful their behaviour is usually turn out to be outstanding members of society, oh wait…and now it’s all over the news that you can get away with acting criminally as long as you say you are doing it for a cause you believe in, that’s just gonna be a rinse and repeat excuse for anyone to smash up or deface property, or worse.

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)
 
Pete R said:
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)
Click to expand...

I think I heard somewhere they caused £5k of damage and actually I don't think that sounds too bad but I'd need to see a quote from someone who'd normally be contracted to take down a statue. £5k might be a bit of a bargain for all I know.
 
I know you’re most probably joking, but I’m sure most people would prefer to pay a contractor to do a job safely instead of potentially pay a bit less repairing what was perfectly good property, plus the potential for people to get hurt in the process, that statue didn’t look like it was made out of fibre glass, someone could’ve stepped in the way, maybe a small child, debris could’ve flown up from it hitting the floor and gone anywhere. Also didn’t a contractor have to be employed anyway to remove it from where they dumped it?
 
Pound Coin said:
In this country we have quite a lot of questions to ask and answer about what slavery did for the country.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?

www.kentonline.co.uk

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 www.kentonline.co.uk

en.wikipedia.org

John Hawkins (naval commander) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Guilty and an unconditional discharge?
 
Pound Coin said:
Guilty and an unconditional discharge?
Click to expand...
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.
 
If nothing else surely they were guilty of breach of the peace, actions such as theirs and the result of the court case may not endear some folk to their cause.
 
The stupid thing is, that statue had been voted on before and over 50% of the population of Bristol voted to keep it. A small group of yobs later decided that democracy wasn’t good enough. Most of the same group who also went out after the last election as they didn’t like the democratic result of that either.

Very very slippery slope.
 
boyfalldown said:
how so - you learn about history from books, not statues
Click to expand...

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?
 
cambsno said:
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?
Click to expand...

I was replying direct to Andy and his comments about Hawkins. My thoughts about a slippery slope can be found in post 29

By anti tax mob do you mean the likes of Facebook, google etc or is it just a miss-spelling lol
 
Last edited:
I am obviously too simplistic a person.. they damaged someone else property... they should be punished..
 
boyfalldown said:
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
Click to expand...
Was it to hero-worship him or simply to identify to financial contributions he made to the city?
andya700 said:
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?

www.kentonline.co.uk

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 www.kentonline.co.uk

en.wikipedia.org

John Hawkins (naval commander) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
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.

So, what has actually changed? Wealthy people still exploit the people who have no power, by paying low wages, providing zero hours contracts, moving production to cheaper labour countries and getting dodgy contracts from governments. They often use their ill-gotten gains by buying influence, a peerage and setting up fake charities to gain even more money and a false respectability.

Even our greatest national hero, Nelson, once wrote a letter in support of slavery, even as late as the early 19th century, slavery was normal and acceptable.

Nobody, myself included, can support slavery now but we should not, IMO, judge the past by current standards. What we should be doing now, instead of removing old statues, is to get rid of modern slavery, which exploits illegal immigrants and other vulnerable people.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Was it to hero-worship him or simply to identify to financial contributions he made to the city?
Click to expand...

whatever the motivation that statue was erected 150 years after his death and is simply a memorial to a wealthy Victorian’s idea of him
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top