They aren’t not history either. They mark something in the context of its time and what was happening at that time. So history.
Not in this case. The statue was erected long after his death and long after the abolition of slavery. If you want to talk about airbrushing history, then this statue was a pretty good example.
Yep a statue or monument would probably have been put up way sooner by the locals if they thought he deserved the recognition.
The statue was erected to try & whitewash the slave trade
"the Colston statue was proposed as a response to the nearby erection of another statue in Bristol, depicting Edmund Burke, who had been critical of the city's involvement in the slave trade."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Edward_Colston
I’m happy for the verdict but kind of confused as well.
Seems to me from the footage that the statue was damaged by a criminal act, so what was the successful defence? Can’t seem to find a clear explanation anywhere.
It’s one thing for a jury to decide someone is innocent because the jury support the cause in a case like this, but surely the law is there to stop juries making it up on the hoof? I’m missing something obvious somewhere.
I haven't found any coherent reporting of the actual case, but the legal people on twitter seem to suggest that the defence was based around this part of the definition: "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 shall be guilty of an offence."
The debate then becomes what is a lawful excuse (the legislation does elaborate - although I think it is not exhaustive). The Secret Barrister made a "self-defence" analogy this morning - which I think probably helps: the jury didn't rewrite the law, they applied the tests the barristers and judge described to them and came to a conclusion on the facts they heard. It might be one that seems odd, but its exactly what we ask juries to do everyday. IF the DPP believes that the Judge misdirected them in doing so - they could appeal, but that does open the risk of the appeal court genuinely creating precedent and clarifying the tests the jury should be applying!
It's a weird one, as others say, they were on trial for criminal damage, so by the fact they admitted to doing the act, i'm not sure how they were able to be found not guilty, even with the reasoning behind the removal of the statue.
The reality is that it should have been removed via official means, same as other statues that were causing outrage, but all i see now is that this sets a precedent, where criminal damage is allowed in the removal if public opinion is that it's the 'right' thing to do. This type of case is meant to be why we have the separation of powers in the UK.
Wonder when they'll start removing the statues of James II, as he was the governor of the Royal African Company, to be fair i'm not exactly a huge fan of statues in the first place, always a bit of a weird thing in this day and age!
Thanks poly, that makes more sense.
In many ways the best outcome. I'm not convinced prosecuting was a "bad" political decision as there clearly was criminal damage, and not prosecuting may have been seen to give a green light to idiots at both ends of the spectrum.
You asked me where I thought it should end, and though I’m not entirely sure which of my comments that was in response to (please let it be the SDP 😉) let me have a go.
I don’t want to pull statues down, though I understand why others might.
I want some honesty.
If you pull the statue down, you can pretend it never happened.
I want big signs on everything named after Coulston saying this guy was a slaver and much of Bristol’s wealth was based on slavery.
I want all those tobacco lord’s streets in Glasgow to note the suffering they were associated with.
I want the Duke of Wellington to have a BLM cone stuck on his head.
And Churchill’s views on race need noting whenever folk are lionising him.
We are who we are - for better or worse. But we should know who we are, what this country was built on - and all the good things we did too.
Honesty. And not doing it again (or anything that even smacks of it). That is where it should end.
Ahh Coulston (or Colonel Saunders), a statue put up in 1895 a fair few years after his death in 1721 by a shadowy group ‘Society of Merchant Venturers’ for some reason.
You mean this lot?
There are certainly some similarities like the communists/marxists who destroyed all the religious statues that they considered idols and symbolised a belief they do not agree with.
This isn't really about removing statues.
Chewkw, that’s a pop-culture reference that has obviously gone over your head; Idols are a loud, political post-punk band from Bristol.
Obviously this is not exactly the key point in this thread, but I think we mean Idles:
In many ways the best outcome. I’m not convinced prosecuting was a “bad” political decision as there clearly was criminal damage, and not prosecuting may have been seen to give a green light to idiots at both ends of the spectrum
And there we have the root of the problem, in a nutshell. We have a government that thrives on creating and stoking division and setting people against each other. It worked a treat for them with leavers/remainers
That’s why they started (or continued, post-Brexit) their culture war in the first place, of which this was very much a part. Let’s not delude ourselves that this wasn’t a politically motivated prosecution to court the kind of people who use ridiculous terms like ‘woke tribunals’ and refer to anyone to the left of Thatcher as Snowflakes.
I see this is a jury passing comment on what they clearly saw as a politically driven case, particularly given the new harsher sentences being proposed, which they are perfectly entitled to do. That’s why we have jury trials in the first place. An independent judicial system is one of the checks and balances of our democracy
I’m sure this lot would put a stop to that in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it and have some government appointee passing judgement instead. In fact I’m sure Priti is presently looking into doing so.
And that’s the point. This looks to me like a perfectly functioning piece of our democracy doing the job it was meant to do
Woke tribunals indeed? There’s some claptrap gets posted on this forum sometimes, but that should be up for some kind of award.
This looks to me like a perfectly functioning piece of our democracy doing the job it was meant to do
The obvious difference to the ridiculous comparison by Chewy to the communists is of course that the CCP were as anti-democratic as it's possible to be. It must take quite the compartmentalism to both hold that both the CCP are bad to try to remove statuary while at the same time largely agreeing with their politics.
To state the obvious these protestors are trying to expose history rather than expunge it. The removal of the statute ironically has highlighted the fact that Coulson made his fortune by selling people (please spare us your thoughts on how that was legal at the time) and the holders of his wealth have largely used that to whitewash his role. As @igm and others have pointed out, these statues were put up after the event by people interested only in promoting a certain version of history (or we could just call it a myth and have done with it) It hardly needs saying that if any people deserve memorialising it should be the victims. I can't imagine the Merchant Venturers would be keen though.
It hardly needs saying that if any people deserve memorialising it should be the victims. I can’t imagine the Merchant Venturers would be keen though.
On that point, fans of irony might like to know that the statue was thrown into the harbour next to Pero's bridge. Pero Jones lived and died a slave.
The "public interest" aspect to the guidelines for prosecution pretty much requires that the decision, in a case such as this, be political one. An example of the separation of powers not being complete. Either way it would have been a political decision.
@binners I assume when you call it political what you mean is that you disagree with it?
To follow on from @poly the judge left all the defence arguments (did not direct against them as is his right if the point of law is not adequately argued).
The Home Secretary had her sticky little paws involved as well and has received a slap on the wrist and been reminded of the separation of powers that exist here.
Watching Sky News last night, the toad from the Daily Mail consistently placed the blame at the foot of the "black" Mayor of Bristol, for blocking the placing of a plaque, (whilst failing to mention that he was blocking it because the proposed text sought to continue to whitewash history.)
The Statue is always referred to as "public property" by those on the Right in order to give the impression that it was placed there by public demand and with public funds, rather than by a group of shady Masonic types.
The more the RW tries to push these tropes, the more the public will see them as lies, no matter their personal political persuasion.
Those attacking the verdict are actually attacking the Jury system. Unless we are to assume that the Jury was stacked with Snowflakes (perhaps the Governments next gambit?) then perhaps we have to accept that what we saw was just Democracy in action. We live in a Country where the Government is subject to the Law and via the Jury system, the Law is subject to the people. The Government forgot this and was basically found guilty in this trial, hoisted by their own petard.
@binners I assume when you call it political what you mean is that you disagree with it?
It doesn't matter what I think. Just as it shouldn't matter what Priti Patel thinks either. Thats the benefits of living in a democracy with an independent judicial process
I called it politically motivated, because it so obviously was
The jury clearly saw it that way too, hence the acquittal
Maybe this government might learn something from that. They probably will, though no doubt all the wrong things
Those attacking the verdict are actually attacking the Jury system. Unless we are to assume that the Jury was stacked with Snowflakes (perhaps the Governments next gambit?) then perhaps we have to accept that what we saw was just Democracy in action. We live in a Country where the Government is subject to the Law and via the Jury system, the Law is subject to the people. The Government forgot this and was basically found guilty in this trial, hoisted by their own petard
Perfectly summed up!
greystoke,
I'm sure binners can speak for himself but when he said "political" I took it that he was referring to a Government trying and succeeding in pushing through legislation that might influence an on going trial?
This was just one of those rare incidences where the public (jury) got to hold government malfeasance to account.
The Government put the cart before the horse. Rushing unnecessary legislation through influenced an on going trial and by doing so they compromised the Jury system.
Here is the part of what you said I was discussing @binners
I see this is a jury passing comment on what they clearly saw as a politically driven case, particularly given the new harsher sentences being proposed, which they are perfectly entitled to do.
The decision to prosecute and the management of the case was by public prosecuting authorities. Are you suggesting that they bowed to political pressure from the government in some way? And do you think the jury thought this (if so, why)? It may be that the jury was using the case to pass its own political comment, I rather think they did. But that is different from thinking the bringing of the prosecution was anything other than in accordance with normal procedures (which, as I have said, involve a political aspect).
IIRC this kind of thing happened a good few times during the poll tax protests where jury's acquitted people because they regarded their prosecutions as being politically motivated and lacking legitimacy
Are you suggesting that they bowed to political pressure from the government in some way?
I'm suggesting that by its overbearing behaviour the government deliberately 'leaned' on those involved in the judicial process and sent out a very clear message (mainly to their own base) about how they would like this case resolved
The government should not be doing that. In a functioning democracy, it should remain impartial and keep its nose out of an ongoing legal case. It's that simple. It backfired massively as that, thankfully, is still a commonly held view
But we all know that they've got form for this with all their 'Enemies of the People' nonsense during legal challenges to Brexit. this was just more of the same. They have a disdain for the judiciary as they think that they should be able to do what they like and the legal system should be there to do their bidding
We live in a Country where the Government is subject to the Law and via the Jury system, the Law is subject to the people. The Government forgot this and was basically found guilty in this trial, hoisted by their own petard.
Or, they fought the law, and the law won?
then perhaps we have to accept that what we saw was just Democracy in action.
In the phrase "democracy and the rule of law" the two things are separate. You can have either one, both, or neither. It was the mechanism of justice that was in action. Obviously it is connected to democratic institutions in various ways, but an independent judiciary means one that is not subject to democratic forces.
I’m suggesting that by its overbearing behaviour the government ‘leaned’ on those involved in the judicial process and sent out a very clear message (mainly to their own base) about how they would like this case resolved
I agree mate, but I can see nothing to suggest that the prosecuting and judicial authorities took any notice of this pressure. We haven't got to the stage where judicial appointments are political yet.
Not sure why so many on here are confused by the verdict. 'Perverse verdicts' have always been part of our legal system and allow juries to make judgements as to whether a prosecution is in the public interest or not. If they find the defendants not guilty against the evidence then all it means is that it was never in the public interest to prosecute them in the first place.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/not-only-a-right-but-a-duty-a-history-of-perverse-verdicts/
I agree mate, but I can see nothing to suggest that the prosecuting and judicial authorities took any notice of this pressure. We haven’t got to the stage where judicial appointments are political yet.
In that case we seem to be in violent agreement. 😂
I don’t think for a minute that anyone actually bowed to the pressure. Quite the reverse. Whether they say so publicly or not, I’m sure everyone involved is happy to see the government get a bloody nose from trying to influence the judicial process with quasi-dictatorial behaviour. I'm sure the attitude of both the police and judiciary (thankfully), when it comes to this kind of political pressure being applied, is very much 'get your tanks off our lawn'
more anthem on the beeb for “unity” so more rebellious scots to crush
When this was still a thing on the TV or radio in the sixties and seventies my dad would race to switch it off before the end of the first drum roll.
But since the BBC and other broadcasters now have 24/7 coverage when would they play it? Edit: just seen they propose when they switch to News 24 in the early hours.
But since the BBC and other broadcasters now have 24/7 coverage when would they play it?
R4 plays it every night at about 1AM when it switches to the World Service
We haven’t got to the stage where judicial appointments are political yet.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. MrsMC is a fan of Judge John Deed and the political machinations on that seem awfully likely to me.
This was just one of those rare incidences where the public (jury) got to hold government malfeasance to account.
I think you overstate the importance of the government (or any political message back to government) in any of it! One of the jurors dissented from the other 11. I'm sure that other 11 were made up, like most juries of a mixture of:
- people who really couldn't care and just want to find the quickest way to go home
- people who take their responsibilities and the judge's instructions very seriously
- people who almost regardless of the facts made their mind up before the first witness was called
R4 plays it every night at about 1AM when it switches to the World Service
Yes, I know. I usually follow my dad’s example if I am still awake by then
I can remember 40 odd years ago they talked about removing his statue. We did a thing about it in school at the time. I always felt that a statue installed 150 years after his death by a bunch of Victorians who should have known better. It was conscientious when it was first installed for the same reasons we are aware of now. Least discussion over its removal the better.
There was a temporary instillation a few years back showing the outline and human contents of a slave ship, and the companies built on the back of the slave trade. I always thought this was a good compromise
poly,
I am neither over nor understating the importance of government. Wether the Jury intended to send a message or not is irrelevant.
The circumstances of this trial had been unduly influenced by the sitting administration and that act would inevitably be reflected in any verdict. It's the way things are, not the way any of us want them to be.
You describe the composition of the Jury in such a way as to imply that I hadn't thought of this? Did you think I thought the Jury was somehow made up of wokeists sending a message to government? Why would I assume that the Jury was composed any differently to the way in which you describe?
I write it off as pedantry because for the most part all I can see is that we are in 'violent agreement'.
A number of buildings in Bristol have had his name removed. I quite like how people have already forgotten how to spell it.
Ugh - I have found myself agreeing with a haunted pencil -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59893024
Im torn over this, i get a judge and jury have tried to ensure that we dont support the right wing hetoric from gov.uk, however i cannot help feel that the charge of criminal damage was simple enough and obvious enough to warrant a guilty verdict.
A geniune question, can a judge, and therefore a jury find someone not guilty for something which is as clear as day, as long as the mitigating circumstances are such that it invalidates a guilty verdict? (as in what we've seen with this verdict) Can you already, or does this allow a precedcence to be set allowing something as extreme as murder (apologies for the crude example), but dad finds (not in the process off, but after) rapist of 5 year old daughter and kills him?
however i cannot help feel that the charge of criminal damage was simple enough and obvious enough to warrant a guilty verdict.
That they pulled down the statue and chucked it in the harbour wasn't disputed. As noted upthread, there are valid defences to the charge, which is I believe what happened.
As @igm and others have pointed out, these statues were put up after the event by people interested only in promoting a certain version of history (or we could just call it a myth and have done with it) It hardly needs saying that if any people deserve memorialising it should be the victims.
And now that a certain interpretation of slavery has been impressed upon us, i.e., that the history of slavery is and only is something done by white people to black people, now what?
thanks ransos
there are valid defences to the charge, which is I believe what happened.
but generally -to what extend does a valid defence stretch? UK law is built on the basis that it's applied consitently. It could easily argue that the valid defence would have been, you should have used a constructive approach for it's removal. And in my rather crdue example above, that joe bloggs is not allowed to be judge jury and executioner?
@sui not per your example but there are a lot of cases each year that are "not in the public interest" so don't get processed, I'm pretty sure that some of them would throw up the odd jury response if they were processed. Also various legal means of removing the statue had been agreed but had been stalled.
That’s why they started (or continued, post-Brexit) their culture war in the first place
The government aren't the one wanting to tear down statues.
The government aren’t the one wanting to tear down statues.
Statues? No. Statutes? Yes.