Reply With Quotethe act of tearing it down and throwing it in the river was an act of public art, with far more artistic merit and resonance than the statue itselfOriginally Posted by JamesWales
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I don't think Edward Colston had the powers that Saddam Hussain had, given he died several hundred years ago.
Look, Edward Colston judged by todays standards is an utter c**t. Slavery to us all is as abhorrent as it gets. That's not in dispute. The question in hand was whether this act of tearing down his statue was about the act (vandalism) or the statue (of Colston).
Quite clearly it's about the statue. That's why we are talking about it, and not four kids smashing up a bus shelter in Middlesbrough or four lads smashing a grave in Portsmouth or any other cases in the last few months.
the act of tearing it down and throwing it in the river was an act of public art, with far more artistic merit and resonance than the statue itself
Aneurin Bevan = good
Bristol fella = bad.
Not complicated.
If the verdict upsets right wing loons all the better.
You may well disagree with the jury's views (we don't know precisely which arguments they found persuasive) but they were given entirely lawful routes to the acquittals.I don't think Edward Colston had the powers that Saddam Hussain had, given he died several hundred years ago.
Look, Edward Colston judged by todays standards is an utter c**t. Slavery to us all is as abhorrent as it gets. That's not in dispute. The question in hand was whether this act of tearing down his statue was about the act (vandalism) or the statue (of Colston).
Quite clearly it's about the statue. That's why we are talking about it, and not four kids smashing up a bus shelter in Middlesbrough or four lads smashing a grave in Portsmouth or any other cases in the last few months.
A fair trial was held, prosecution and defence presented admissible evidence and made arguments in accordance with the law, and an independent jury acquitted.
Happy days!
I was very specifically referring to this from Lisvane Blue, which Dorcus then scoffed at.
The worrying thing is that the statue has been put on trial and not the defendants.
I've done jury service, and one thing I have always said is to trust the jury, so I agree with you! However, it is plainly the case that the person in the statue was on trial here. Had it been a statue of someone else, I suspect a different decision would have been come to. And that may be fine, I'm just saying, clearly this is about Colston and we all know it because that's why we are talking about it.
Owain Glyndwr?
Let it go, Jimbo. You've lost this one.
Probably good advice!
But no, I agree, and I claim the title for using the strongest language against Colston in using the C bomb. But clearly, it's about the nature of the statue, not the statue itself. And that may be fine...but it's the truth.
The people were charged with criminal damage.
In my mind they were guilty as charged.
There were mitigating circumstances in as much as the citizens had asked a number of times for the statue to be removed and Colstons history of the slave trade has been a stain on the City’s history.
But, the people charged should nevertheless have been found guilty and released pending an appeal which quite correctly they would have won.
My concern is that the rule of law is being overwritten by a misplaced moral conscience.
What if I decided that I didn’t like what happened in South Africa following apartheid and decided to destroy a statue of Mandela. I should be found guilty of criminal damage as charged but would clearly lose any appeal. Plus I would be castigated by society and in the media for my actions.
In my opinion it’s a madness to rewrite the law.
And how do you see the "criminal" acts of, for instance, the Suffragettes or The Civil Rights Movement?
History is replete with examples of civil disobedience in support of noble causes.
A good read on the realities of the legal system in England and Wales is Stories of the Law and How It's Broken by The Secret Barrister. I think the person who wrote that would have zero problem with the acquittals is the Colston case.
I made this point earlier, the 4 were obviously guilty of criminal damage, the pictures were for all to see, the defence of we did it because we thought the statue was offensive is quiet frankly embarrassing for a country that prides itself in its justice system, what happened when another mob decides something is offensive to them and damages it, will that be ok ? ? ?, after all they ( the baying mob who just happened to have ropes / paint / petrol in their backpacks ) found the statue offensive
shortly after the statue was pulled down, a bronze bust of Alfred Fagon in Bristol had bleach thrown on it and the press implied it was racially motivated and Marvin Rees ( Bristol mayor ) said it could have been a revenge attack after the Colston statue was pulled down
Of course both statues were criminally damage, no-one can argue that fact
There are so many stupid laws and 'we' break them all the time. There are many sensible laws which 'we' break and get away with. The only difference between a criminal and a law-breaker is conviction. I'm so glad these people didn't get criminal records but, as with a lot of activists, we are prepared to do so and break the law when necessary. Most people just post on message boards which is safe and anonymous.
In my opinion, it's 'madness' NOT to rewrite the law. Which, incidentally happens not by you or me but by people with title, power, privilege, and money.
Very dangerous though
as this Criminal damage Verdict is saying if a baying mob finds something offensive, they have the right to destroy / damage it
No 'rights' have been dished out, Matt.
but we are discussing that its ok ( break / change the law ) to damage / destroy a statue we feel is offensive
This verdict does in no way give a baying mob the right to destroy property. If someone is found not guilty of murder, it doesn’t give another person the right to coming murder.
No precedent has been set, that’s not how the law works in this country.
The Legal Definition of Criminal Damage is
‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged.’
That the statue and railings were damaged is obvious to all. It would appear the jury considered the charges and evidence and in this particular case concluded there was lawful excuse. We might agree or disagree with that conclusion but I for one was not sitting in the courtroom listening to the evidence.
It is not a change in law and it's not open season on statues.
but we are saying that as society found the statue offensive, the mob we ok to pull down the statue , as we can all see that criminal damage took place, they pulled a statue of a plinth and slung it in the river, yet they were found not guilty
Posting Permissions
