Bristol slaver statue | Protestors found not guilty of criminal damage

So damage to public property is not 'criminal damage' if the persons causing (and admitting) the damage, believe in what they are doing is right?

Seems the judgement leaves obvious loopholes that will undoubtedly be exploited, in a different context.... unless there is likely to be an appeal?
What would have happened if someone, directly involved or not, had been injured, there would be no recompense, or would there?

Sympathy with the reasoning behind wanting this statute removed but English law is based mainly on precedent and this could come back to bite, in many different ways!
 
So damage to public property is not 'criminal damage' if the persons causing (and admitting) the damage, believe in what they are doing is right?

Seems the judgement leaves obvious loopholes that will undoubtedly be exploited, in a different context.... unless there is likely to be an appeal?
What would have happened if someone, directly involved or not, had been injured, there would be no recompense, or would there?

Sympathy with the reasoning behind wanting this statute removed but English law is based mainly on precedent and this could come back to bite, in many different ways!
It seems to be the jury that decided they didn't commit a crime, not they themselves.

Causing injury sounds like a different case to a criminal damage one.
 
That's a dodgy precedent to set that i bet will get overturned in a higher court next time its used.
 
won't this encourage a bunch of other people to start destroying things they don't like the history of?

seems a bit bonkers
 
won't this encourage a bunch of other people to start destroying things they don't like the history of?

seems a bit bonkers

Presumably only if they think a jury is likely to agree that whatever they don't like is as objectionable as human slavery. Which seems a rather high bar.
 
So damage to public property is not 'criminal damage' if the persons causing (and admitting) the damage, believe in what they are doing is right?

Seems the judgement leaves obvious loopholes that will undoubtedly be exploited, in a different context.... unless there is likely to be an appeal?
What would have happened if someone, directly involved or not, had been injured, there would be no recompense, or would there?

Sympathy with the reasoning behind wanting this statute removed but English law is based mainly on precedent and this could come back to bite, in many different ways!

It's not a problem at all this is exactly what courts are for. Your whataboutery is irrelevant as causing bodily harm to a person is a different legal matter entirely.
 
I think the better way to handle this would have been to add a new plaque to the statue saying this man made his money in a heinous trade, rather like the National Trust are doing in those lovely 18th century country houses paid for on the back of Africans being brutalised on Caribbean sugar plantations. Otherwise, the real history of a city like Bristol and its elegant Georgian buildings starts to fade away.
 
just whatever you fancy really

I'm sure you can find something offensive about most old stuff

How would you feel about someone collecting Nazi memorabilia? What about if they displayed it in public with no appropriate historical context?
 
I think the better way to handle this would have been to add a new plaque to the statue saying this man made his money in a heinous trade, rather like the National Trust are doing in those lovely 18th century country houses paid for on the back of Africans being brutalised on Caribbean sugar plantations. Otherwise, the real history of a city like Bristol and its elegant Georgian buildings starts to fade away.
It has been displayed since, with the new context.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-57350650

There's a review due this year as to what's gonna be done with it long term.
 
How would you feel about someone collecting Nazi memorabilia? What about if they displayed it in public with no appropriate historical context?

I think it's a bit weird but not much of an opinion on it really

why?
 
I think the better way to handle this would have been to add a new plaque to the statue saying this man made his money in a heinous trade, rather like the National Trust are doing in those lovely 18th century country houses paid for on the back of Africans being brutalised on Caribbean sugar plantations. Otherwise, the real history of a city like Bristol and its elegant Georgian buildings starts to fade away.

Exactly this. If the government won't add the plaque then you've only 2 extreme options really - display the statue as if the guy was a hero, or take the statue down illegally. Pretty silly to create that dilemma.
 
The pork flakes will be seething.
 
just whatever you fancy really

I'm sure you can find something offensive about most old stuff

If you're confident the court rule will go in your favor, go ahead. I suspect people offended by silly things would find the hard way different things get different court results.
 
I'm happy for those who were acquitted but thoughts are with the victim's family - they may never know who was really responsible.
 
So you don't think it would be highly inappropriate and offensive?

like I said I don't have much on an opinion on collecting it other than its weird. Beyond that you'd need to be more specific

If someone hung a nazi flag across the street from a holocaust museum, then yeah of course
 
So damage to public property is not 'criminal damage' if the persons causing (and admitting) the damage, believe in what they are doing is right?

Seems the judgement leaves obvious loopholes that will undoubtedly be exploited, in a different context.... unless there is likely to be an appeal?
What would have happened if someone, directly involved or not, had been injured, there would be no recompense, or would there?

Sympathy with the reasoning behind wanting this statute removed but English law is based mainly on precedent and this could come back to bite, in many different ways!

Not sure about that.

The defence argued that this statue was so egregiously offensive that their actions were justified and (presumably) the jury agreed.

Other people may want to argue "well if racism is offensive enough to justify vandalism then so is X" but that doesn't mean future juries have to agree with them. Much though it may dismay some people who want to draw equivalences, juries are presumably allowed to decide a racist statue of a human slaver is actually significantly more offensive than most other statues or pieces of public property.

There was an attempt by some on the right to frame anti-racism as a political opinion no more valid than their own, with "so we can pull down any statues we disagree with now?" comments no doubt flooding the internet in the wake of this verdict. But just because they insist their political POV is just as valid as that of these anti-racism protesters that doesn't mean a jury has to agree.
 
like I said I don't have much on an opinion on collecting it other than its weird. Beyond that you'd need to be more specific

If someone hung a nazi flag across the street from a holocaust museum, then yeah of course

What about if they hung a Nazi flag outside their house?
 
do you have a point?

No, I'm just wondering whether your opinion about displaying offensive things in public without context is as weird as you seemed to be implying. I take it that it probably is given you don't want to answer the question.
 
I think the better way to handle this would have been to add a new plaque to the statue saying this man made his money in a heinous trade, rather like the National Trust are doing in those lovely 18th century country houses paid for on the back of Africans being brutalised on Caribbean sugar plantations. Otherwise, the real history of a city like Bristol and its elegant Georgian buildings starts to fade away.
That’s far too sensible and not nearly as much fun as chucking the bugger in a river
 
No, I'm just wondering whether your opinion about displaying offensive things in public without context is as weird as you seemed to be implying. I take it that it probably is given you don't want to answer the question.

I think some things are offensive

I think some offensive things shouldn't be displayed in public

I don't necessarily think that means people have the right to destroy them

you find this really weird do you? okay then
 
won't this encourage a bunch of other people to start destroying things they don't like the history of?

seems a bit bonkers

Part of their defence was that for years people have been petitioning to have that statue removed andall calls for it had been completely ignored by the council. All legal avenues had been followed with no success. It was well known the offence the statue caused. So it needs a bit more rather than just disliking something.

but to be fair they should have never been prosecuted in the first place and the council should never have backed the prosecution.
 
I think the better way to handle this would have been to add a new plaque to the statue saying this man made his money in a heinous trade, rather like the National Trust are doing in those lovely 18th century country houses paid for on the back of Africans being brutalised on Caribbean sugar plantations. Otherwise, the real history of a city like Bristol and its elegant Georgian buildings starts to fade away.
I might be wrong but I think that was suggested and turned down previously, might be wrong though.
 
Part of their defence was that for years people have been petitioning to have that statue removed andall calls for it had been completely ignored by the council. All legal avenues had been followed with no success. It was well known the offence the statue caused. So it needs a bit more rather than just disliking something.

but to be fair they should have never been prosecuted in the first place and the council should never have backed the prosecution.

that does provide a bit more context so the ruling makes slightly more sense to me

but yeah I agree they just shouldn't have prosecuted them, or just anyway around not having to give a ruling like this which sets a weird precedent
 
Ahh you just want to throw stuff in rivers
The thing you wanted literally only happened after it was chucked in the river. It had stood there for years with the thing you wanted never going to be put in place, it's fished out the river and is done in a matter of months. What on earth are you whinging about? You got exactly what you wanted.