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.
Well that’s something the book burning, statue toppling masses don’t appreciate. We cannot (and should not in my opinion) be re writing history or just removing it.
3 Likes
There are certain chapters of UK history which should not be celebrated - Slavery is one of them.
The statues are a difficult subject - they are traditionally erected to celebrate someone’s life and I don’t think that someone who’s fortune is built on slavery should be celebrated. I cannot see that a statue would be built to celebrate such a person now.
Now what you do with existing statues - who knows, perhaps an information plaque beside them, or perhaps replace them with someone more deserving. The local community should decide.
The defendants chose to go to the Crown Court. The fact that it was a unanimous verdict is very telling. I doubt the case will go to the Court of Appeal. Is there really any mechanism for challenging this result?
The problem is that when these statues were erected they were seen as someone deserving of the honour at that time in history. Replacing them today with someone who the current society might think is deserving may be thought of differently in the future.
History cannot be changed and should not be erased to suit the current thinking.
1 Like
If that were to happen they could again be replaced, or an information board beside them - the local population should decide.
Good repeat business for statue makers 
One of the Colston 4 has just been interviewed on Politics Live (BBC 2), apparently they were acquitted because they were able to demonstrate that there was a ‘lawful excuse’ for their behaviour.
The discussion points being raised in this thread have already been the subject of detailed discussion in the ‘George Floyd’ thread - including much detail on the ‘lawful excuse’ finding.
Discussion of the actual toppling is earlier in the thread, but that on the court verdict starts here:
I thought my comment was directly related to the Colston statue toppling Geof. Watching the interview ‘live’ gave me more of an insight into why the four did what they did and why they were acquitted than reading media reports. One of the points the person made was that anyone considering do a similar thing in the future could not expect to be automatically ‘let off’ as there were a unique set of circumstances surrounding the Colston statue incident.
Absolutely Tim. On this - preferring video presentation to written - it’s you that’s in the mainstream now and me that’s out of the loop (it’s a discussion I have with a very old friend of mine, who loves ‘Youtube’ - which I just find frustrating; mind you she is a professional musician so obviously lives in a very audio-visual world).
My post wasn’t critical - just a (hopefully) useful pointer for those interested in the legal detail.
The other problem with all this is that if we wanted to truly cleanse ourselves of our disgraceful slave driving past we’d have to give away about 80% of the nation’s entire wealth…why not to African countries? Britain (along with many other developed countries today) owes its good fortune to its shady past.
1 Like
Because a substantial amount of British wealth (it would be interesting to know how much, if there were a breakdown) would have come from India and other Asian nations too.
And since we’re asking hypothetical questions, would it also be expected that the descendants of black Africans that sold their fellows into slavery to Europeans would also be expected to make reparations? My perception of slavery is that there’s quite a tangled web of guilt, and restitution if it were possible and beneficial, would involve a lot of nations.
It seems to me that slavery is almost as old as humanity, and deeply embedded. It would be interesting to know if it is now possible to really stop it, and what changes could be made (enforced into cultures?) that would make slavery an unacceptable practice across the planet. Is there something the west - as the wealthiest nations - could do that would change parts of the world in a positive way where selling people into slavery is not unusual? Is there a means other than legislation that could change the practice of millennia?
We need to find a way to not only talk about this, but also for everyone to culturally move on. Not so that we can pretend it didn’t happen, but so that everyone is free. Slavery traps both the slave and master.
3 Likes