So Colston made money from the slave trade and then used it to glorify himself through religious guilt. No place for a statue for someone like that in a public place. Plenty of more deserving cases.
Edward Colston statue case could be sent to appeal court
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
As blunt as it may seem,what happened, happened. We can't turn the clock back or change it. We can only learn and move forward.
Wrong doers and tyrants have existed forever...in remembered history and history documented.
Wasn't Julius Ceasar a complete murderer?
Wrong doers and tyrants have existed forever...in remembered history and history documented.
Wasn't Julius Ceasar a complete murderer?
e Commons and scrutiny in the Lords, good you would have to wake them up, and gharge them 300 quid for doing it 
Very true, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. This was a statue in a public place that didn't represent the opinions of locals. Ideally, it should have been shifted to a museum earlier and replaced with something a bit more worthy. We're not short of statues.
Going off this you would have to just demolish Bristol
A cry that often goes up is "you can't rewrite history!"
But history is CONSTANTLY being rewritten, that's how it works. And things look different in different contexts.
You're right, in general many historical figures have many sides to them. Even Churchill.
Statues have taken this weird status where they're suddenly sacred, immortal objects.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Colston statue belongs in a museum of Bristol, one that can talk about the multi-faceted and fascinating story of the place. And if anything, the marks on it now are just part of that story.
![BREWING THERMOMETER STICKERS ACCURATELY MONITOR FERMENTING BEER & WINE LIQUID TEMPERATURES 5PCS HOME BREW SPIRITS WINE LCD ADHESIVE [US]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/311DDjo2X3L._SL500_.jpg)
A good point, but as Clint pointed out, we can only learn and move forward, the buildings aren't an obvious memorial to the dirty money that helped to build the city but the statue is.
GhostShip
Junior Member
I'm not sure the jury were properly guided towards concentrating solely on the charge, which was criminal damage. During peacetime, if you throw a rope around a public monument or artwork, pull it to the ground and then roll it into a canal or river, I cannot under any circumstances see how that can be anything other than criminal damage. If the subject's past is a mitigating factor, then we now all have the green light to pull down an awful lot of statues in this country, whether they have connections to the slave trade, have been members of terrorist organisations or even been involved in serious child abuse. A precedent has now been set and I think it's a huge mistake.
And Liverpool...
and London
That was the job of the prosecution, and for whatever reason, the jury didn't accept their argument.
Worth reading the links I put up earlier
No you don't
No precedent has been set, that's not how jury trials work. No lawyer can now tell a jury "you must find not guilty because of this case"
What precedent? A jury listened to the current legal position and decided that the accused didn't break the law. Where's the problem?
moto748
Landlord.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,755
- Reaction score
- 1,730
Juries will sometimes vote with their hearts, regardless of the judge's instructions. As I saw someone mention earlier, the Clive Ponting trial was another example. But that's what happens when you have a jury of ordinary folk. And I wouldn't have it any other way. And I am mightily suspicious of the motives of anyone trying to change trial by jury.
Exactly. Any "ordinary" person who thinks it's a good idea for the government to override courts is storing up trouble for themselves in a BIG way.
Spot on GS and this was what the thread was about what happens if someone pulls down a statue tonight because they don't like what it represents.
They'll be arrested, charged and face a trial by jury.
They cannot have one law for one person and another for another, any decent solicitor would have a field day with a guilty verdict.
I don't know any.
Precedent is set by a judge, not a jury.
The potential irony is if ministers refer the case to the court of appeal and the judge there decides to support the decision, THAT is what sets the precedent in future cases (assuming it is argued that case is broadly similar)
https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-precedent.php
(See hierarchy of courts)
It could very much be "be careful what you wish for" to them.
So I'll say it again - no solicitor in a future trial could currently say to the jury "the Colston 4 were found not guilty, so you must find my client not guilty". The jury would be directed to disregard by the judge.
No different to how if someone is found not guilty of a death by dangerous driving charge we don't assume anyone who kills behind the wheel in future will therefore by not guilty
The potential irony is if ministers refer the case to the court of appeal and the judge there decides to support the decision, THAT is what sets the precedent in future cases (assuming it is argued that case is broadly similar)
https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-precedent.php
(See hierarchy of courts)
It could very much be "be careful what you wish for" to them.
So I'll say it again - no solicitor in a future trial could currently say to the jury "the Colston 4 were found not guilty, so you must find my client not guilty". The jury would be directed to disregard by the judge.
No different to how if someone is found not guilty of a death by dangerous driving charge we don't assume anyone who kills behind the wheel in future will therefore by not guilty
