Wasn’t expecting that verdict.

[Citizen's Nephew]

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

I've crossed swords with Mr J on occasions about environmental activism and the need to break laws. I've also cited apartheid and Mandela and Gandhi as prominent law-breakers. I get that this upsets people and makes them nervous and I also get that there are horrendous acts of law-breaking in the form of violent terrorism. I only endorse and condone peaceful acts of civil disobedience. This peaceful demonstration is often met with law-abiding officers with riot gear and batons becoming legally violent. Quite often against disabled and vulnerable people when it comes to fighting injustices against.....disabled and vulnerable people.

If people aren't prepared to challenge injustices by breaking laws and risking conviction and incarceration, who will do it?

[blue matt]

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.

My reply was to Citizen's Nephew who said

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.

The only "lawful excuse." was that society found the statue offensive , we can all see why the Jury did what they did, and fair enough imho

[blue matt]

If people aren't prepared to challenge injustices by breaking laws and risking conviction and incarceration, who will do it?

Which is fair enough ( Ive been on protests in my younger years ), they know the risks, they face the consequences, but in this case they didnt, they were obviously guilty ( we can see that ) but the Jury decided it was acceptable because of the nature of the statue and the public opionion at the time ( which comes back to the question, was the nature of the statue on trial not the 4 who committed criminal damage

[ToTaL ITK]

when i was kid we did protests against racism and fascism and sexism..but god forbid we take down a statue of a slave trader.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Which is fair enough ( Ive been on protests in my younger years ), they know the risks, they face the consequences, but in this case they didnt, they were obviously guilty ( we can see that ) but the Jury decided it was acceptable because of the nature of the statue and the public opionion at the time ( which comes back to the question, was the nature of the statue on trial not the 4 who committed criminal damage

I respect your views and the wider debate about the law and verdict. I would just add that at least they were tried. Many have already said we do not know the full details of the court proceedings and newspaper reporting is notoriously bad at this. But something in the defence argument was enough to convince the jury by 11/1 that they were not guilty.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Several Conquistador statues in Colombia were attacked/toppled last year too.

[Dorcus]

Which is fair enough ( Ive been on protests in my younger years ), they know the risks, they face the consequences, but in this case they didnt, they were obviously guilty ( we can see that ) but the Jury decided it was acceptable because of the nature of the statue and the public opionion at the time ( which comes back to the question, was the nature of the statue on trial not the 4 who committed criminal damage

Perhaps we can agree that at least it was good the statue was put on trial. Goodness knows what other criminal action it was up to in the dead of night when nobody could witness it.

[lisvaneblue]

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.

Perverse that for a group that wanted his statue and his name erased from Bristol's history , they will forever be known as 'The Colston Four'

[Dorcus]

Perverse that for a group that wanted his statue and his name erased from Bristol's history , they will forever be known as 'The Colston Four'

Perhaps, but will they ever be as good as the Dave Clark Five?

[Canton Kev]

Perverse that for a group that wanted his statue and his name erased from Bristol's history , they will forever be known as 'The Colston Four'

The group and their nickname will be mostly forgotten by 2023 I’d imagine. The statue itself would’ve probably outlived them.

[MacAdder]

Perhaps, but will they ever be as good as the Dave Clark Five?

They must be feeling glad all over

[Dorcus]

They must be feeling glad all over

Yes because the statue is in bits and pieces.

[Mr Soul '68]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...olston-statute

They might not be getting away with their vandalism

Edward Colston statue case could be sent to appeal court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59909823

[ninian opinian]

They might not be getting away with their vandalism

Edward Colston statue case could be sent to appeal court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59909823

The Tory’s are literally attempting to undermine one of the key principles of law because the outcome clashes with their desired culture war narrative. We are in very dangerous territory here.

[ninian opinian]

The Tory’s are literally attempting to undermine one of the key principles of law because the outcome clashes with their desired culture war narrative. We are in very dangerous territory here.

The jury gave its verdict on the specifics of this case. As such no precedent is set. If this case is referred to the Court of Appeal then it won't change the verdict, but will set a binding precedent and undermine the jury system. This is a dangerous path.

[Dorcus]

The Tory’s are literally attempting to undermine one of the key principles of law because the outcome clashes with their desired culture war narrative. We are in very dangerous territory here.

100% agree. This smacks of the Law being the Law except when we don't like it.

[blue matt]

They might not be getting away with their vandalism

Edward Colston statue case could be sent to appeal court:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59909823

from that link

The defendants claimed in court that the presence of the statue was a hate crime and it was therefore not an offence to remove it.

[Dorcus]

from that link

The defendants claimed in court that the presence of the statue was a hate crime and it was therefore not an offence to remove it.

In all fairness it's hard to disagree with that.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Let's face it, it was just an inanimate object celebrating an old white slave-trader. If that's not an afront on public decency and morality and warranting an act of vandalism then what is?

It's not like it was a clock or anything.

[lisvaneblue]

Let's face it, it was just an inanimate object celebrating an old white slave-trader. If that's not an afront on public decency and morality and warranting an act of vandalism then what is?

It's not like it was a clock or anything.

Just reading a letter in one of the national newspapers from someone who has a defunct Colston dishwasher and wants to know if it's OK to dump it in Bristol docks

[Citizen's Nephew]

Just reading a letter in one of the national newspapers about someone who has a defunct Colston dishwasher and wants to know if it's OK to dump it in Bristol docks

That would be flytipping Mr L!