Re: Edward Colston statue pulled down
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:38 pm
And there have been several criminal damage convictions for Extinction Rebellion protestors in recent years. IMHO it would still be risky for a protestor to rely upon an acquittal.
I wonder whether all the outrage will make similar acquittals more likely in the future. Potential jury members are being informed that its an option whatever the judge says.
That's definitely something others are wondering.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:44 pmI wonder whether all the outrage will make similar acquittals more likely in the future. Potential jury members are being informed that its an option whatever the judge says.
In June the UK’s highest court quashed the convictions of Nora Ziegler and three others who had formed a blockade outside a London arms fair, saying there must be a test of “proportionality” weighing up the defendants’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly against the disruption caused. The defence of proportionality was subsequently used in the DLR and Colston cases.
No, it's not. The defense made serious and plausible points, which a sober and careful jury could use to find the defendants not guilty, even if they were not inclined to join that kind of protest or support that kind of action.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:00 pmIs it just me who thinks the defence made some good points then?
I think a key difference here is the nature of what was damaged.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:40 pmAnd there have been several criminal damage convictions for Extinction Rebellion protestors in recent years. IMHO it would still be risky for a protestor to rely upon an acquittal.
I think the closest apolitical kind of thing you could come up with is vandalism to something that caused unnecessary loud noises, bad smells, or something like bright lights that shone at on houses at night.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:36 pmI think a key difference here is the nature of what was damaged.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:40 pmAnd there have been several criminal damage convictions for Extinction Rebellion protestors in recent years. IMHO it would still be risky for a protestor to rely upon an acquittal.
This wasn't just a protest that got out of hand, or symbolic damage against a company's headquarters or something. The statue itself was problematic, sufficiently so that there had already been various initiatives to have it removed. Due to the offence it was causing its value was negative, unlike an aeroplane or a building.
A lot of the defence case was about the indecency/abusiveness of the statue's presence, which isn't really an argument that easily transfers to many other cases.
Except it wasn't a racist statue. It was erected long after he was dead because of Colston's philanthropy and politics. If anything, it served as a reminder of the history of the area. If it had never been erected there would have been far fewer people as well informed.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:11 pmThe defence lawyers have certainly been throwing some hilarious shade on the racist statue.
This is why I have an 11 ft statue of Stalin in my garden.*Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:22 amWow, real "statues teach us history" posting! Amazeballs.
Jimmy Savile's grave and a cottage he owned in Scotland were repeatedly vandalised.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:32 pmVigilante manslaughter/murder of a paedophile, for instance, might do it.
Good point, will the Home Secretary push for prosecution of the perpetrators of this criminal damage to the memorial of a man who did so much for charity?Tessa K wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 9:50 amJimmy Savile's grave and a cottage he owned in Scotland were repeatedly vandalised.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:32 pmVigilante manslaughter/murder of a paedophile, for instance, might do it.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... als-again/
OK. Confession time. For a very long time I had confused Colston's statue with that of Edmund Burke that also stands in the city centre. I only realised my confusion when I went to Bristol after the Colston statue came down and saw it was still standing (yes, I know they have different poses, and Burke's says his name very prominently on the base, but I really didn't look that closely at boring statues of old white guys, especially when I'm crossing the centre, dodging bikes on invisible cycle paths* and trying not to miss my bus). I knew Colston from the Colston Hall, from Colston Street and from Colston Girls School, not from the statue. While growing up I wouldn't have been able to tell you a single thing about the man, and it would have taken some proper consideration to realise there was a man behind the name. It was just a name that cropped up around the place.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:23 amExcept it wasn't a racist statue. It was erected long after he was dead because of Colston's philanthropy and politics. If anything, it served as a reminder of the history of the area. If it had never been erected there would have been far fewer people as well informed.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:11 pmThe defence lawyers have certainly been throwing some hilarious shade on the racist statue.
It was pulled down because it's a lot easier to re-fight battles from history than to do something useful today.
In the spirit of compromise how about we all settle on “chucking statues in rivers teach us history”.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:22 amWow, real "statues teach us history" posting! Amazeballs.
There isn't one in Grantham.Little waster wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:44 pm... there’s a Maggie one not far from the Thames in Westminster.
Good post as ever from our Bristolian correspondent.
Out of curiosity - how do you feel about the USAdians pulling down that statue of Saddam Hussein? How about Iron Curain countries taking down statues of Lenin? The Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha? If North Korea overthrew the current regime, do you think they'd be justfied in taking down the statues of Kim Jung Blah the first, second and third, nor not? Could you point me in the direction of the criteria that says "taking down these good, taking down these bad"?Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:23 amIt was pulled down because it's a lot easier to re-fight battles from history than to do something useful today.
Rees Mogg in the right????science_fox wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:54 pmIn an unlikely turn of events Ress-Mogg says something more reasonable than his Tory colleagues https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59893024
"Juries must be free to come to decisions that they choose to come to on the facts that are in front of them in relation to a specific case and what they hear from the prosecuting counsel, from the defence counsel and from the judge," he said.
So if nothing had been named after Colston and there had been no statue, you would never have learned any of that stuff? I think that proves my point.Fishnut wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:36 pmIt was only with the campaign (prominently backed by Massive Attack) to rename the Colston Hall that really got me aware of who Colston was and what he did. Despite being educated in Bristol at a good school I learned nothing about the slave trade. I certainly never learned anything about Bristol's central role in it. It was mostly through osmosis that I came to understand where the city's wealth came from (and, in more recent years, through actively trying to learn about it).
The statue couldn't have come down if it hadn't been up in the first place.My point to this rambling mess is that the statue was in no way a "reminder of the history of the area" and did absolutely nothing to ensure that people were "well informed". People have become far better informed about Colston since the statue came down.
I think it's clear that the Saddam Hussein statue was pulled down as part of an active war - to provide propaganda. It certainly wasn't re-fighting a battle long over. Things like Lenin and the Kims, are likely to be current events. While such destruction is likely pointless, where there is a significant number of people who still support the person or cause it represents it can serve to demoralise them by showing the strength of the opposition. Since Buddha and Buddhists are no threat to the Taliban, their actions were obviously just pure vandalism.Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 6:53 pmOut of curiosity - how do you feel about the USAdians pulling down that statue of Saddam Hussein? How about Iron Curain countries taking down statues of Lenin? The Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha? If North Korea overthrew the current regime, do you think they'd be justfied in taking down the statues of Kim Jung Blah the first, second and third, nor not? Could you point me in the direction of the criteria that says "taking down these good, taking down these bad"?Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:23 amIt was pulled down because it's a lot easier to re-fight battles from history than to do something useful today.
I expect they do suffer from that delusion.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:24 pmobviously the people who took the statue down know that slavery is still abolished.