Should History be airbrushed/side stepped because of the Black Lives Matter movement?

[Lady Elanore]

Yes, I'd be interested to see their reasoning, because on the face of it they defaced public property. I'm not sure a defence of "he was a terrible human being" overrides the law?? Interesting case I think 

[PetrolDave]

13 hours ago, john999boy said:

Not too sure how this verdict was reached?

Pictures clearly show the statue daubed in paint and being retrieved from the harbour - so clearly criminal damage has been caused by some one (or some group of people).

 

Maybe in the interests of an unbiased trial the case should have been heard in another city where emotions regarding Colston's past are less raw?

 

Things that happened in the past when they were legal and moral cannot be undone by trying to impose our legal and moral standards. There's also the issue of the number of young people that have benefitted from educational grants funded by those past actions, are we now to tell those young people that their education is invalid?

Edited 6 January, 2022 by PetrolDave

[Lady Elanore]

14 hours ago, @Lee said:

Time for it to go in a museum and none of his or the court case story to be airbrushed out of history. 

Slaves and the abominable trade in human beings made a lot of money for wealthy traders whether people want to admit that or not. They certainly don't deserve statues venerating them. 

I realise that doesn't answer the question but none of us were in court listening to all the evidence from both sides.

 

 

It probably would be fitting to now go into a museum. There could be an explanation of who the man was and what happened to the statue as well as it would preserve a potentially well made piece of sculpture/casting. 

 

I see Rees-Mogg has defended the jury decision

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59893024

Edited 6 January, 2022 by Lady Elanore

[@Lee]

From that BBC piece, Amanda;
 

Quote

MP for Ipswich Tom Hunt told the Telegraph: "If you've broken the law and committed criminal damage you should be punished. If the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed."

So what's he trying to say? If the jury delivers a verdict he doesn't agree with, then their verdict should be dismissed? Sounds like dangerous territory to me. 'Enemies of the people' kinda stuff. I've seen that before.

Then there's Jenrick;
 

Quote

"We undermine the rule of law, which underpins our democracy, if we accept vandalism and criminal damage are acceptable forms of political protest. They aren't. Regardless of the intentions."

WTF?! Is he that simple that he doesn't understand that the jury is a part of the rule of law?

This seems like a reasonable thread.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1478845243340599304.html

[skomaz]

9 minutes ago, @Lee said:

From that BBC piece, Amanda;
 

So what's he trying to say? If the jury delivers a verdict he doesn't agree with, then their verdict should be dismissed? Sounds like dangerous territory to me. 'Enemies of the people' kinda stuff. I've seen that before.

Then there's Jenrick;
 

WTF?! Is he that simple that he doesn't understand that the jury is a part of the rule of law?

This seems like a reasonable thread.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1478845243340599304.html

 

No...   I think what Tom Hunt was saying is that if criminal damage has been caused then that should be punished and the determination of guilt should be based on evidence and not be biased by the personal beliefs of the jury etc. - the jury are supposed to determine the outcome in an impartial way based on the evidence presented and are not supposed to be swayed by external influences outside the courtroom, or their own view of the matter at hand.

 

As for Jenrick - I believe you are conflating his words.  He is simply stating that criminal damage should not be acceptable just because it is caused during a protest, whatever the basis of that protest is.  If we accept that it is then the basis of 'Law' gets undermined. 

[@Lee]

19 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

No...   I think what Tom Hunt was saying is that if criminal damage has been caused then that should be punished and the determination of guilt should be based on evidence and not be biased by the personal beliefs of the jury etc. - the jury are supposed to determine the outcome in an impartial way based on the evidence presented and are not supposed to be swayed by external influences outside the courtroom, or their own view of the matter at hand.

 

As for Jenrick - I believe you are conflating his words.  He is simply stating that criminal damage should not be acceptable just because it is caused during a protest, whatever the basis of that protest is.  If we accept that it is then the basis of 'Law' gets undermined. 

Read what Tom Hunt said again.
 

Quote

 If the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed

And as for Jenrick, he, like us, wasn't in the court to hear the evidence from either side.

As much as I hate to say it, Rees-Mogg's right on this one. He's a pompous arse, but on this, he's right.
 

Quote

"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,"

You might not agree with the jury's decision but that's life. 

Edited 6 January, 2022 by @Lee

[skomaz]

2 minutes ago, @Lee said:

Read what Tom Hunt said again.
 

And as for Jenrick, he, like us, wasn't in the court to hear the evidence from either side.

As much as I hate to say it, Rees-Mogg's right on this one. He's a pompous arse, but on this, he's right.

 

I've read it multiple times - it would be easier for you to explain your point...

 

I read it as 'if the jury is a barrier because they are biased by things outside the courtroom and evidence then that should be addressed and the jury changed to one that isn't' - he's not saying 'the jury should be changed to guarantee a guilty verdict' - which is what you seem to be reading.

 

Lets face it - none of us were in the courtroom and the reasons for the Not-Guilty verdict haven't yet been made clear but a number of  people have been asking why that verdict has been reached.

 

However, regardless of how it was reached  the verdict stands (unless appealed and overturned) - so of course Rees Mogg is right - the case has gone through Due Process and the courts and a verdict has been reached!

[@Lee]

4 minutes ago, skomaz said:

I read it as 'if the jury is a barrier because they are biased by things outside the courtroom and evidence then that should be addressed and the jury changed to one that isn't' - he's not saying 'the jury should be changed to guarantee a guilty verdict' - which is what you seem to be reading.

So you've read it multiple times as have I and we've drawn different conclusions to what we think he means. 
That doesn't mean either of us is right nor does it mean either of us is wrong. 
 

[@Lee]

Here's an explainer
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

[skomaz]

11 minutes ago, @Lee said:

Here's an explainer
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

 

That's a good explainer of the various arguments that may have been / were potentially put forward (assuming it was written by someone not present at the trial), but unfortunately is also a 'non-explainer', as it does not answer the question that various people are asking - namely 'why' did the Jury reach the verdict they did and what parts of which argument (assuming those in the article are correct) did they base their verdict on...

 

So the crux is we shall never know because, as stated in the article, Jurys are not allowed release details of their deliberations or reasoning...   unless of cause one of them decides to break the silence and elaborate, in which case they may find themselves on court!

[john999boy]

The Attorney General is 'carefully considering' whether to refer the Colston statue case to the Court of Appeal.

[@Lee]

Is it the verdict that's causing some confusion or is it the false narrative from certain quarters surrounding it?
What's causing Suella Braverman confusion? I know she had a brief legal career but AFAIK she never tried a case in court herself. What I do know about her is she used to chair the hard right faction of the tory party known as the ERG. It's almost as if there's a pattern with those on the politically right end of the spectrum being upset about the verdict.  The ERG morphed into the Covid Research Group containing some of the dumbest MPs ever.  'The Peter Principle'.
 

Edited 7 January, 2022 by @Lee

[PetrolDave]

For me it's that the evidence (video and physical) doesn't sit well with the verdict - the accused can be seen in the videos toppling the statue and rolling it towards the harbour, so to say that they did not commit criminal damage seems perverse in the extreme to me?

[EnterName]

The protesters' focus of historical slavery and apparent apathy regarding modern slavery is remarkable.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50228549

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-auctions/index.html

 

Still, yay for broken statues. That'll teach those long-dead slave-traders!

[AnnoyingPentium]

I saw this on Twitter yesterday and had been meaning to post it.

 

[@Lee]

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

The protesters' focus of historical slavery and apparent apathy regarding modern slavery is remarkable.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50228549

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-auctions/index.html

 

Still, yay for broken statues. That'll teach those long-dead slave-traders!

What's that got to do with the Colston case? Are you close enough to them to know for certain they don't care about modern slavery or are you just making things up now?
It's clear that modern slavery isn't being erased from history as you've linked two articles from two sources highlighting the issue so it's not got anything to do with the topic either AFAICT. 
Is this what's known as a straw man?

Edited 8 January, 2022 by @Lee

[cheezemonkhai]

I think the issue is that four people trash a statue on camera and are somehow found not guilty.

 

As the AG has said her referral won’t change the verdict, but if it goes ahead would ask the court to clarify the law for future cases.

This could mean something like adding to the law such that trashing it is automatic guilt, but mitigation can be applied to sentences.

 

I don’t see the issue with the referral as it won’t change the verdict for this case.
 

Also I don’t see the point in criticism of a person’s legal career as valid. I very much doubt people posting have more legal experience themselves.

 

From the local news coverage it appears you had four privileged white kids on trial, rather than hard up kids whose families were directly and negatively affected. Of course you always have to take news with a pinch of salt, so it may not have been entirely accurate.

[@Lee]

Was it 'trashed' by them pulling it down though? 
I didn't criticise Suella Braverman - I said "I know she had a brief legal career" and gave a bit about her background which is a matter of record.
Not everything is as it appears.

Anyway, I came across this today which is a lengthy read...
 

Quote

Colston summing up: those legal directions in full

January 9, 2022 Matthew Uncategorized

Below is the full text of the legal directions given to the Colston 4 jury by the Recorder of Bristol, HHJ Peter Blair QC.  Unfortunately some of the formatting has been unavoidably altered, but not the text itself.

R v MILO PONSFORD, SAGE WILLOUGHBY, RHIAN GRAHAM & JAKE SKUSE

LEGAL DIRECTIONS – JUDGE’S HANDOUT

https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-summing-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/

[Ootohere]

If any of us go out now and pull down a statue that is publicly owned or privately owned and damage the plinth or the statue then we are likely to face the legal consequences.

 

 

If i do it and i am filmed doing it and admit to doing it then the chance of appearing in court in front of a jury and getting away without a finding of guilty is highly unlikely,

but as now shown it is not impossible.

Maybe i could get a 'Not proven' verdict in Scotland. 

[skomaz]

On 09/01/2022 at 12:53, roottoot said:

If any of us go out now and pull down a statue that is publicly owned or privately owned and damage the plinth or the statue then we are likely to face the legal consequences.

 

 

If i do it and i am filmed doing it and admit to doing it then the chance of appearing in court in front of a jury and getting away without a finding of guilty is highly unlikely,

but as now shown it is not impossible.

Maybe i could get a 'Not proven' verdict in Scotland. 

 

Looks like we should be able to blow up the pyramids and sphynx too...   They were built with slave labour...

 

Looks like we should be able to blow up the pyramids and sphynx too...   As they are monuments to people who kept and used slaves and forced labour...

 

Edited 10 January, 2022 by skomaz
Edited following comment by Lee pointing me in the direction of recent research that puts doubt on the use of slave labour (as opposed to people having to labour to pay taxes) in building the pyramids and sphynx

[KenONeill]

At least half of more or less anything Roman.

[cheezemonkhai]

What about some bridges from the ww2 period, much of the southern USA and many other parts of the world.

 

It’s a sad state off affairs when people treat other people like this, however it’s a global problem with human kind. I wonder if the 4 defendants buy shiny electronic devices or clothing from countries where people are either treated as slaves or paid so little they can’t afford to feed themselves.

 

Still, the local news said they had some t-shirts made for them by banksy, so all is good with the world 😂

 

Sadly people are still selling people today and it’s nothing to do with race, nationality or country. It’s due to greedy people with power over others.

[Chorlton]

On 09/01/2022 at 11:38, cheezemonkhai said:

I think the issue is that four people trash a statue on camera and are somehow found not guilty.

 

As the AG has said her referral won’t change the verdict, but if it goes ahead would ask the court to clarify the law for future cases.

This could mean something like adding to the law such that trashing it is automatic guilt, but mitigation can be applied to sentences.

 

I don’t see the issue with the referral as it won’t change the verdict for this case.
 

Also I don’t see the point in criticism of a person’s legal career as valid. I very much doubt people posting have more legal experience themselves.

 

From the local news coverage it appears you had four privileged white kids on trial, rather than hard up kids whose families were directly and negatively affected. Of course you always have to take news with a pinch of salt, so it may not have been entirely accurate.

I'm extremely surprised to learn that Attorneys General are not required to have had an extensive legal career at the bar. (the legal bar not the Nag's Head).

[Ootohere]

No more of a surprise really that they were not in the military. 

Some might have worked in their youth in a local shop, sometimes called a General Store. 

 

 Many now in Government senior positions would not get an interview for the position as a shelf filler. 

Guaranteed a position on a board though.  Directorships aplenty. 

Edited 10 January, 2022 by roottoot

[skomaz]

Not suite sure why I'm the only recent post to get a groan from Lee when other similar ones haven't - but there you go...   true to form!