Edward Colston Statue Replaced By Protest Figure

[Mister Gee 823]

I thought it would be interesting to give this thread a bump considering what happened yesterday.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/four-cleared-of-toppling-edward-colston-statute

[Delbow 700]

20 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

I thought it would be interesting to give this thread a bump considering what happened yesterday.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/four-cleared-of-toppling-edward-colston-statute

Excellent news. 

[sheffbag 229]

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

Excellent news. 

Why is it excellent news, they broke the law so now there is precedent for anyone to cause criminal damage because they are offended by something

[Waldo 96]

Brilliant news. You can now go out and pull down any statues you don't like!

[Delbow 700]

2 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Why is it excellent news, they broke the law so now there is precedent for anyone to cause criminal damage because they are offended by something

The council should clearly have taken it down years ago. Colston's company branded children as young as 9 with hot irons, he was a child abuser. It's like complaining that people tore a statue of Jimmy Savile down.

[The_DADDY 3,475]

Where blm choose to "protest" trouble soon follows. 

[sheffbag 229]

19 minutes ago, Delbow said:

The council should clearly have taken it down years ago. Colston's company branded children as young as 9 with hot irons, he was a child abuser. It's like complaining that people tore a statue of Jimmy Savile down.

It doesnt matter what Colston did at the time or how offensive the statue was to some people. In the eyes of the law criminal damage was caused and now there is a precedent in place that future cases can be defended against because "it offended me so i destroyed public property".

 

I may personally agree with you but we are talking about law here and any lawyer worth his salt will now use this case to defend people. So where does it end now? where is the line drawn? Do nationalists start to take down the statue of Prince Albert at Grimsby because it offends them due to his role in the british empire?

[Magilla 510]

23 minutes ago, West 77 said:

It's not excellent news for law and order. The defendants were clearly guilty of causing criminal damage.

The jury would seem to disagree

[Delbow 700]

2 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

It doesnt matter what Colston did at the time or how offensive the statue was to some people. In the eyes of the law criminal damage was caused and now there is a precedent in place that future cases can be defended against because "it offended me so i destroyed public property".

 

I may personally agree with you but we are talking about law here and any lawyer worth his salt will now use this case to defend people. So where does it end now? where is the line drawn? Do nationalists start to take down the statue of Prince Albert at Grimsby because it offends them due to his role in the british empire?

The number of people involved in removing Colston's statue I think gives an idea of the extent to which he had become despised by Bristolians. I really don't think we need to worry about crowds of Hull residents pulling down the Wilberforce statue.

[Cyclecar 24]

So what now constitutes criminal damage? I accept that it was a magistrates' ruling and hence not case law but it sets a precedence.

 

If a mob toppled the statue of William Wilberforce in Hull would that be ignored?  Or the statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square?  These were good people, however there will be others who think otherwise and who feel they now have licence to vandalise. 

 

Strange times...............

[Delbow 700]

Also, I'm not sure whether jury decisions do establish legal precedent.

[Magilla 510]

8 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

It doesnt matter what Colston did at the time or how offensive the statue was to some people. In the eyes of the law criminal damage was caused and now there is a precedent in place that future cases can be defended against because "it offended me so i destroyed public property".

Channel4 news last night... according to the legal pundits, and the defence in this case, no precedent was set.

 

The case hinged entirely on the facts specific to this case.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Magilla