Edward Colston

FatCat

FatCat

Well-known member
Accused cleared of criminal damage - I’m a bit surprised about this verdict as regardless of the rights and wrongs of their cause you can’t just take the law into your own hands.

strange verdict for me.

news.sky.com

Edward Colston statue: Black Lives Matter protesters found not guilty of criminal damage after toppling monument of slave trader

The statue of the 17th century slave merchant was pulled down on 7 June 2020 following a Black Lives Matter march, before being rolled into Bristol harbour.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
I
FatCat said:
Accused cleared of criminal damage - I’m a bit surprised about this verdict as regardless of the rights and wrongs of their cause you can’t just take the law into your own hands.

strange verdict for me.

news.sky.com

Edward Colston statue: Black Lives Matter protesters found not guilty of criminal damage after toppling monument of slave trader

The statue of the 17th century slave merchant was pulled down on 7 June 2020 following a Black Lives Matter march, before being rolled into Bristol harbour.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised.

Sometimes the underlying cause is more important than what happened on the surface.

Justice is served I feel.
 
FatCat said:
you can’t just take the law into your own hands.
Click to expand...
They were found not guilty in a jury trial so they never did in fact take the law into their own hands because they were never guilty.

12 of our fellow countrymen and women have made a decision having reviewed all the facts and circumstances.

If we lose trust in our justice system we'll be well on the way to anarchy.
 
BoroFur said:
They were found not guilty in a jury trial so they never did in fact take the law into their own hands because they were never guilty.

12 of our fellow countrymen and women have made a decision having reviewed all the facts and circumstances.

If we lose trust in our justice system we'll be well on the way to anarchy.
Click to expand...
Aren’t the jury meant to consider the law when reaching a verdict and not base it on emotions.
 
FatCat said:
Accused cleared of criminal damage - I’m a bit surprised about this verdict as regardless of the rights and wrongs of their cause you can’t just take the law into your own hands.

strange verdict for me.

news.sky.com

Edward Colston statue: Black Lives Matter protesters found not guilty of criminal damage after toppling monument of slave trader

The statue of the 17th century slave merchant was pulled down on 7 June 2020 following a Black Lives Matter march, before being rolled into Bristol harbour.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by taking the law into their own hands. They protested and removed what they and many others perceived as an oppressive monument.

What about the taking down of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of the Sadam Hussain statue, what about the suffragettes, the Tolpuddle martyrs, Slavery reformers, trade union movement, and many more, all protested and took some direct action to bring about change regarding injustice, or should we just say the laws that were created to protected the rich and privileged at the expense of others should just remain and accepted as they are.

BLM
 
Corco65 said:
Depends on what you mean by taking the law into their own hands. They protested and removed what they and many others perceived as an oppressive monument.

What about the taking down of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of the Sadam Hussain statue, what about the suffragettes, the Tolpuddle martyrs, Slavery reformers, trade union movement, and many more, all protested and took some direct action to bring about change regarding injustice, or should we just say the laws that were created to protected the rich and privileged at the expense of others should just remain and accepted as they are.

BLM
Click to expand...
Well said 👍
 
I can’t see on the face of it that they have a defence under the Criminal Damage Act. The jury appear to have just decided morally the statute should not have been there and refused to convict.

I must admit the statue should have been taken down years ago it was totally inappropriate for it to be there in 2021.
 
FatCat said:
Accused cleared of criminal damage - I’m a bit surprised about this verdict as regardless of the rights and wrongs of their cause you can’t just take the law into your own hands.

strange verdict for me.

news.sky.com

Edward Colston statue: Black Lives Matter protesters found not guilty of criminal damage after toppling monument of slave trader

The statue of the 17th century slave merchant was pulled down on 7 June 2020 following a Black Lives Matter march, before being rolled into Bristol harbour.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Does it not come under the new protest and noise nuisance laws ?
Get thrown in jail for sitting on the highway .
 
If you look on the Wikipedia page there was a really big argument going on at the time about a second or even third plaque that was going to be placed by the statue. Something that would explain why and where Edward Colston made his fortune and so the source of his philanthropy. It is interesting that the memorial wasn't erected until nearly 200 years after Colston's death.
 
FatCat said:
Aren’t the jury meant to consider the law when reaching a verdict and not base it on emotions.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about emotions?

The judge can direct a jury but cannot oblige it to go along with his interpretation but if the accusation is proven by evidence beyond any reasonable doubt he/she would probably request a guilty verdict to be returned.

I don't think that happened here.
 
I agree with the decision today, but there could be future grey areas e.g if young people start pulling Churchill's stature down.
 
I do get where you're coming from, and to extent I agree, but I also am not really that bothered about a slaver's statue being vandalised.
 
BoroFur said:
Who said anything about emotions?

The judge can direct a jury but cannot oblige it to go along with his interpretation but if the accusation is proven by evidence beyond any reasonable doubt he/she would probably request a guilty verdict to be returned.

I don't think that happened here.
Click to expand...
I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty of criminal damage- indeed there is plenty of footage of them being caught in the act.

Reading the article I think they got off as the judge didn’t deem a criminal conviction proportionate.

"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."
 
FatCat said:
"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."
Click to expand...
Are those the judge's words?
 
BoroFur said:
Are those the judge's words?
Click to expand...
no, the defence lawyer I think. I’m still confused how they arrived at that verdict and that there is provision in the law to justify criminal damage. (Personally I’m pleased they got off as their cause is just) but I just don’t understand how the law allows for that verdict! Maybe laughing can come along and explain it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top