I can't wait for the Gammons to trash something they don't like in retaliation for this ruling and end up going to jail 
Bristol slaver statue | Protestors found not guilty of criminal damage
- Thread starter jojojo
- Start date
What do you think they have the right to do with them then?
okay that's enough of this bizarre conversation for me
by your own omission you have no point other than to establish how weird I am, which I think all observers can agree you have spectacularly failed at
have a nice day
I’m nowhere near as invested in this as you imagine
From what I've read it doesn't set any precedent, as that word actually means something in a legal context. The jury already had the right to follow their conscience and decline to convict even when the evidence/law suggests they should, so this verdict changes nothing in the law.
And obviously coming to a particular moral conclusion in this case doesn't put any extra obligation on different juries to come to the same moral conclusion in entirely different cases. They all get judged on their own circumstances, as before. So again nothing changes.
The comparison I'm seeing being mentioned online is Clive Ponting, who went on trial for breaching the Official Secrets Act after leaking documents regarding the sinking of the General Belgrano in the Falklands War. The jury acquitted even though the judge actually instructed them that he had no legal defence and they should convict. But obviously that acquittal didn't mean people accused of the same crime in the future couldn't be convicted, or that future juries were suddenly any more obliged to accept the same argument that it was in the public interest.
Yes, I seem to remember something about the local council dragging their feet.
Just read his Wikipedia entry and it seemed there was disagreement about what the new plaque should say rather than about the concept of the plaque (the controversy involved reference to the involvement of Africans in slavery). He was a senior officer in the Royal African Company rather than some passive shareholder and so the issue seems a bit academic to me even though, having done a tour on this issue in West Africa, there is some coyness about acknowledging the role of Africans in bringing the slaves to shore for collection by the Europeans.
thanks, it sounds like apt resolution now that you've explained that
mind you, this won't necessarily stop random knob-heads from thinking they have cart-blanche to destroy stuff..
That seems... meh.
incredible how why he thinks chucking a statue of a slave trader in the river is part of marxist ideology
you'd hope slavery was an issue we could all agree on in this day and age
Jury equity.
He's basically suggesting if you're against slavery you have to be a leftist.
There are quite a lot of iconic images of statues being demolished in e.g. post-Soviet Russia, post-Nazi Germany and post-Saddam Iraq. I don't think that set a precident in any way. I don't think Iraqi, Russian or German people think it's now legal to go around tearing shit down, and I don't think Iraqi, Russian or German people are now feeling emboldened to go around tearing shit down regardless of the legality.
In this specific instance I think someone tore down a statue of a piece of shit slaver and that's that. Nothing more will happen.
yeah fair enough
but did those examples result in court cases where they were acquitted of criminal damage?
look just to be clear, I was massively in favour of their actions. I just found it a bit strange they took this to court and then found them innocent.. as just because they were morally right to do what they did they still technically broke the law. It would've made much more sense to just not press charges.
but as was explained later, the ruling doesn't set any legal precedent anyway.. so all good as far as I'm concerned
I still think right-wing knob-heads will use this as an excuse to destroy stuff, but that won't prevent them from being charged and found guilty of course
I do feel the examples you’ve given are somewhat different. I don’t want to draw conclusions either way (as I don’t know) but I will explain why.
1) Time - A lot of time has elapsed between Colston and now. Nobody has living memory of the trauma he caused. It wasn’t a reaction to a sudden freedom from tyranny, rather opportunism based on the George Floyd murder. They are also all white. (Does that matter?)
2) Societally acceptable behaviour - This was back in the time of George I and earlier. This was what rich tories did. By all accounts he was also a generous socially conscious man. I don’t think it’s quite as simple as calling him a scum and leaving it at that. If so, where do we stop? What about John Locke? What about statues of Romans who fiddled little boys and girls. do we tear all the history down because we don’t like it, kinda like ISIS did?
I found this on Colston: http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/History/bristolrecordsociety/publications/bha096.pdf Worth a skim read.
No we put an appropriate plaque on it for it's location and nip all this type of silliness in the bud. Or move it somewhere where it's context might make more sense like a museum if that is deemed appropriate. This whole case came about because the local council refused to do one of these things and because the Home Secretary is a massive cnut.
The problem is that you can't really move a house, and you can move a statue. Nobody would argue with the statue being on display in a museum, which I believe it now is or will be with the new context of having been toppled by anti-racist protestors.
I don't agree with leaving the statue there with a plaque when the statue was originally celebratory.
I have recently been on jury service in that same Crown Court in Bristol. Albeit not on this particular case.
And in my experience, unless you have listened to all of the evidence, from both sides and the guidence given by the judge, it is difficult to criticise the decision of the jury.
So many technicalities. So many statements by the witnesses. So many points made by each of the lawyers.
And of course, 12 disparate people of the jury.
I am sure that they made their decision based purely on the evidence given. And we should all respect that, whatever we think about the outcome.
I agree, I was commenting on the various reports of the outcome, rather than the official verdict.
I doubt if many people would disagree that such a statue should have been removed by the council, but for whatever reason it wasn't. The fact that the public, in the form of the four defendants claiming to act on behalf of the public, removed the statue illegally is the precedent that seems to have been accepted.
This is the danger under English law, it seems a precedent has now been set, (at least in respect of statues) which may cause problems in another context, namely that actual damage to public displays e.g. statues, can be allowed if the persons perpetrating the damage can show
their belief that it was the right thing to do.
It was in my mind wrong to have even prosecuted these four people, as they were obviously not the only ones involved and therefore being treated as 'scapegoats', there were many more who joined in and probably many who were in a sense 'only here for the beer'.
A much better approach might have been to investigate why the council did not itself remove a statue which the public clearly felt was depicting past offences.
Understood and agree with all that.
As you say, it is the headline reporting that very often carries the wrong message.
And most people don't take the time to put any thought into such headlines. You do that. But many don't.
Incidentally. I was actually on court duty when the jurors were being selected for this particular case. And that took some time to get to a balanced 12, from the initial 16 available.
I would have loved to have been selected. But was not assigned to that case. The ones I was on were far more mundane.
Well if other statues (in Bristol) start toppling now, then you might get your chance.
(I believe 70+ years old jurors can be recalled now up to being 75, might even get extended more with Covid etc.)
That is right. Maximum age now 75, so still a few years to go.Well if other statues (in Bristol) start toppling now, then you might get your chance.
(I believe 70+ years old jurors can be recalled now up to being 75, might even get extended more with Covid etc.)
You will know of course that much of the wealth created in Bristol centuries ago was its part in the slave trade triangle. And not something to be proud of.
But in my view, you should not try to re-write history, or whitewash it's evidence. It is what it is.
Far better to learn from it and move forward with that knowledge to not make the same mistakes as the past.
Yes indeed, no argument from me, my concern was the reporting of the verdict, and the way the law works.
It would appear that a precedent has been set regarding public displays (statues) that such displays can be 'removed' by anyone (and not be considered to be criminally damaged) if those doing so can show they believe it is the right thing to do, on behalf of the public!
My other point was what happened to Health & Safety requirements and who gets the blame if the non criminal damage operations leads to damage to other property nearby, or indeed to onlookers or passers-bye?
Its opened a can of worms and was a stupid/scapegoat type prosecution in the first place!
Can't believe they were found not guilty to be honest.
Even if you agree the statue had to go, it doesn't give them the right to damage pavements and Railings to remove the statue.
Should maybe be paid for the thousands of pounds of damage to the surroundings, and acquitted for the statue to be removed.
That's my take on it, and I do believe other people will falsely believe they have the right to damage things they disagree with, in the view of the verdict
Even if you agree the statue had to go, it doesn't give them the right to damage pavements and Railings to remove the statue.
Should maybe be paid for the thousands of pounds of damage to the surroundings, and acquitted for the statue to be removed.
That's my take on it, and I do believe other people will falsely believe they have the right to damage things they disagree with, in the view of the verdict
I was called (late in life) to jury service a few years back (an experience perhaps everyone should have to do, no matter what!) However I am 76 this year, so now shall never return!
Yes, I understand Bristol's affluence was probably built largely on the slave trade, but as you say 'cancelling' such history or rewriting it, does future generations no service whatsoever..." those who do not learn from the mistakes in history are destined to repeat them".
Yes it should obviously never have been prosecuted, because in no world was it in the public interest to prosecute. But that doesn’t address the overarching issues regarding what to do with the damned things. I don’t think a plaque would have stopped the mob on that day. And I’m not sure I really have much sympathy for said mob and their politics.
Now if you had a mob of immigrants after priti Patel, or poor people after Theresa Coffey …. I could certainly find more sympathy!
It's possible you're right but on the other hand we'll never know since the council didn't do what was sensible. So to convict them in one's head of a crime in a scenario that didn't happen doesn't really serve a purpose in my view.
They should never have been charged in the first place. Once you charge them with it, I don’t see how they can be found not guilty of it really - regardless of how justified it was. Just don’t take it to court in the first place.
Bringing in more subjective arguments about what is or isn't 'woke should clear things up
Little-known power may be used to stop ‘woke jurors’ blocking justice in future
Little-known power may be used to stop ‘woke jurors’ blocking justice in future
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17246006/jury-wokeness-blocking-justice/
You'd think local auhorities / councils would start to read the room now and start the organised removal of statues representing anything that appears to glorify links to slavery. Keep them in a museum by all means as contextual education but remove from public spaces.
If it's a statue of a shit, you must acquit
So every Roman, German, Dutch, Swedish, and pretty much every historical statue then? All scum because they don’t conform to our current values?
It’s a matter of record John Locke profited from slaves. That the Romans not only had slaves but buggered young kids. That Dutch leaders ordered the rape and pillage of villages including children. That many politicians and leaders were unkind to Jews.
You can’t just remove history. Put a plaque or something on it sure. It’s disturbing how these snowflakes have already destroyed black hip hop culture and continue to cancel anything that doesn’t roll with current societal values.
You're not removing history! You can be as against removing statues as you like, I even quite often think it's sensible, but "removing history" is such a bullshit point. If you want to be pedantic, it's removing history in the same way you're removing history every time you build something. Before that statue was put up something else was there, putting the statue up removed that. The area I'm living in used to be mostly farmland no more than 60-70 years ago, now it's not. That's gone.
And talking about 'snowflakes' is such a low. It's like I've riden a time machine back to 2015. What's next, SJW? You're a consistent high-quality poster, what's going on? Black hip-hop culture is alive as well, too, of course, this is bizarre. Maybe I'm missing something and this is a parody post, in that case egg on my face.
You’re certainly removing historical evidence though, and often actual history. If a statue is 400 or 2000 years old, is it not itself a physical piece of history? (I’m a coin and medal collector, as well as maps and am a history nerd so this may be reflected in my opinion that the physical links are important) How old does a statue have to be before it becomes history itself ? For example, you’d likely agree statues in Palmyra are history, you’d perhaps agree Roman busts are history, but what qualifies them as such? (If a statue of colston isn’t ) And yes, not all history is preserved sadly.
The last sentence was somewhat tongue in cheek. I conflated a few different mostly right wing concepts and applied it to hip hop culture. (Not the thread for it, but you absolutely struggle to vibe like you did back when I was a teen these days at concerts. The energy just seems so different in hip hop. So we disagree on that too hah.)
It's not about removing history, I'm dead against that and besides which, you can't actually remove history. Removing (carefully) statues of historic local figures from our own history that directly profited from the slave trade is just a gesture of recognition and a worthy one IMO. I'm more concerned that it will become more acceptable to actually wreck pieces of local history. Isn't it much better to remove certain, maybe provocative figures and put them on display as a means of further education?
Removing in what sense? If it's a proper and quality statue, and/or very old, then you mostly wouldn't be "removing history", you'd be moving it. Or remove it to a different location, if you really, really want to use the word remove. The statues in Palmyra aren't just history, they're a historic area. Even if you preserve them perfectly it wouldn't be the same because the area is part of it.
Roman busts, in the sense that they're (part of) history, isn't usually considered that because of who they depict. It's considered that because of the time period they're from. You can also move them, very few roman busts are tied to the area they were originally put. The Colston statue was made in 1895, almost 200 years after he died. If it's a really good statue they can put it somewhere else, if it's a shit statue they can just bin it because we have plenty of other statues from that time period (by far most of roman busts ever created are now gone, history still exists).
I also strongly disagree about hip-hop, the things that have changed is that it has gotten more mainstream and commercialised. That's capitalism, not those stupid woke snowflake *****. You can still go to less mainstream concert if you want to experience that, even though the vibe for you might be impossible to bring back both because you've gotten old(er) and because when people remember their youth they tend to forget the shit or mediocre parts. A lot of the concerts I went to were a bit shit, but I don't remember much (or anything) about them. I have vivid memories of the really great ones, but even those I don't really remember how hard it was to go to the toilet or buy a beer, or the queue to get in. The only thing that the snowflakes have changed is that some of the white people in the audience might blank out the n-words while singing along, and some artists might cool it a bit with the misogny and homophobia relative to the 90s (which goes for all genres, of course, not just hip-hop). I really doubt your vibe is contingent on that.
My problem with it is, that makes us the arbiters of what was historically acceptable, and I'm not sure where you stop if that's the case. London is full of statues of murderers, rapists, slavers, and other undesirables, as are likely most other major cities. Surely it's better to keep them there as a discussion point of the past rather than attempting to erase them?
I absolutely love that result.
I have always thought that jury’s are strange though, it can take one big personality to convince a court room, regardless of the evidence.
I have always thought that jury’s are strange though, it can take one big personality to convince a court room, regardless of the evidence.