… says the Mayor of Bristol. I think that means something like “gesture politics”.
He thinks there are many more important things to do to improve black people’s lives.
Indeed there are, but getting rid of the stature didn’t take too long and it was overdue. IMHO the reaction of Farage et al proves that it was the right thing to do.
Chapeau to the jury, a real triumph for British justice. 
1 Like
Sorry to disagree John, but criminal damage is criminal damage, whatever the motivation. As a jury decision it does not set a legal precedent but, if allowed to stand certainly sets an undesirable one for anyone deciding to take the law into their own hands.
As I understand it the removal of the statue was already under council discussion because of its undesirable history, which was the way to go, democratically, and legally.
3 Likes
Obviously I respect your position David, but I think this discussion had being going on for some time. There comes a point, I guess, when people just get fed up with prevarication. Justice delayed is justice denied, as we can see with Johnson kicking all the embarrassing cans down the road in the hope people will either forget or become exhausted waiting.
1 Like
One of the points Mr Rees made was that trivial but attention-grabbing matters like the statue could easily push more important matters down the agenda. He was worried that spending time on the statue’s future could have taken up his entire mayoral term!
They had provaricated for way too long. Eventually people had had enough & Colston’s fall was the result.
If it helps at all there are now a lot more people who are aware of Colston’s place in history, both bad & good.
1 Like
So the Colston four did him a favour really 
But that is democracy in action, I suppose the millions that hate what Johnson has done to the country, in partnership with others, could march on parliament and string him up out of sheer frustration. But that would be murder, which is illegal. However, a jury might find the ‘Downing Street Four’ justified in their action and they would be free to join in the joy and celebration outside the court.
2 Likes
Nigel Farage is a tosspot.
Nevertheless, the whole debate over the outcome of the trial boils down to who agrees with the jury and who doesn’t, so I can’t really see it going anywhere fast as I imagine nobody’s going to change their minds in a hurry.
You’ll always get people celebrating or comiserating jury decisions based on their own perspectives / beliefs…either way it’s the law, so the decision holds.
Personally I think it was the wrong decision - you can’t just go around causing criminal damage because you feel like it. I doubt the perpetrators are a major threat to anyone, but they should have got a slap on the wrist of some kind (a small fine?) for what they did.
People educated in the UK are well versed on the horrors of slavery…we don’t need marauding young hot-heads kicking the hell out of our public spaces to teach us anything about our history.
2 Likes
Yes, the end justifies the means is probably not a philosophy that should be endorsed by the courts. But was a “slap” an option?
I’m (thankfully) not aquatinted with the subtleties of the criminal legal system, but isn’t there a lower court, rather than jury based one, that could have been used? A jury based trial seemed to have upped the ante somewhat. A couple of hundred quid fine would have been OK with me, a period in prison would not.
Was there a degree of vindictiveness in throwing the book at them? The OTT reaction of Suella Braverman to the result might lead one to believe so.
Yes I strongly suspect her decision is political…appointed by BoJo so part of the corrupt ruling elite which has captured our state.
1 Like
Yes, she helped whitewash Cummins unbelievable excuse for a family spin to Barnard Castle too.
I thought this was an amusing response. I believe it sold out rapidly.
1 Like
I’ll drink to that!
1 Like
Criminal damage is an unusual offence because if the offence avers simple damage - ie not arson, no risk to life - then where it is tried depends on whether the cost of the damage is under or over £5,000. Over £5,000 and it’s the Crown Court.
1 Like
France has taken a different approach to their ‘slavery past’, rather than re-naming roads or taking down statues plaques have been put up explaining what the person did to gain their importance, seems a sensible way to educate future generations.
4 Likes
In Oxford the students wanted to take down a statue of Rhodes, but because it is part of a Grade 1 building, they would be letting themselves in for a real bollocking.
1 Like
I said that is what should happen, it makes sense instead of taking them down/ hiding them away in a museum, tell the history behind who they were and how they made their money through misery and educate people, but I was ignored 
Very, very funny view here:
1 Like
I think in Oxford they should identify all the buildings, institutions and trusts that benefit the people of Oxford paid for by Rhodes. It may make the campaigners appreciate what they stand to lose - If they don’t want to be part of his dirty legacy, they should demolish all the buildings and close all things Rhodes.
1 Like
That’s the point, they can’t as the Oxford buildings are nearly all listed historical monuments, or in a conservation area.