Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Whilst I absolutely agree with you, the "mob" took the Law into their own hands and have got away with it.
A dangerous road...
Colston 4
- Thread starter spongebob59
- Start date
- Status
A dangerous road...
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Correct. This sort of subject is a right wing political trope, the usual tactic deployed to divert attention from the serious stuff.
But since it’s been allowed to continue…I would not be particularly bothered if every statue of a historical individual was removed to a place where we could see it and understand it in historical context. Most of us pay no attention whatsoever to statues in public places, they might as well not be there as we walk past them.
But let’s just test the water for example with Churchill, as he is often used by the right wingers as the counter.
Well my grandfather detested Churchill for what happened to British soldiers in the ‘forgotten’ front of the First War…that fought against axis forces in the Salonika Campaign and the Dardanelles, where when in the Scottish Horse / Black Watch he served and saw friends and thousands of his countrymen die, it was a shambles. And for right or wrong he blamed Churchill for their death and suffering. And nothing that happened 1939-45 seemed to change my grandfathers mind. Churchill a hero for all? - well not for many, all of whom time has now taken, but I can honour the life and sacrifice of my grandfather by keeping his memory alive. Would he be supportive of statues of Churchill in public places…I doubt it.
I note that the Colston Hall in Bristol was renamed a couple of years ago after decades of protests and boycotts. So likewise the statue should have been removed. The jury seemed to understand that and clearly based their decision upon that understanding and other precedents set in the city where reference to Colston had been removed. Btw - I believe the statue was recovered and is now elsewhere - undamaged…
Last edited:
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
Swop Colston for Saville and I do not think anyone would object.
...........but which of those did the most damage to humanity
...........but which of those did the most damage to humanity
Last edited:
larmen
Head Pro
Lose the public, lose your case. I think that’s the difference, but not how it should work.
On TV motive is one thing the prosecutors use, now it seems to be the defendant using it.
D
Deleted member 27823
Guest
It is but something that happened due to years of political failure.
Now we have a government that is seeking to ban protest altogether to make it even easier for them to ignore the will of the people.
Oops, lucky this isn’t a political topic.
I can definitely see a precedent being set here and fear it may direct judges/magistrates down a similar path when we see the climate activists next out in force and arrested. I can see, to a point, the point of the Colston 4's protest but don't condone any act of criminal damage. There is little we can do to erase the past, just learn and apply the lessons.
Neilds
Assistant Pro
Colston Hall, along with a school and many other buildings were only renamed after the statue was removed as part of the backlash.
Like many things, this episode is not black and white (no pun intended). Yes, the slave trade was wrong and Colston was wrong. However, the money he gave to the poor and needy in Bristol and wider in the UK helped many people. He set up alms houses, schools and donated to hospitals. I suspect the statue was to commemorate these deeds not the fact he shipped slaves to the UK. People only hear what they want o hear instead of taking a more balanced view and therefore they think he was 100% evil.
PS - I am not denying the slave trade was wrong but you need to look at the whole picture.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
It doesn't need to be unless people choose to make it so. For a good number of posters this is not about the statue and what is stands for but the act of vandalism and how it should have been removed.This is how jury trials work.
Isn’t this a political thread? It soon will be. ?
Sometimes, when the state gets it wrong, affirmative action is needed to put it right. Isn’t that what protesting is about? Sometimes it goes too far but, arguably, sometimes it needs to.
PNWokingham
Journeyman Pro
some very typical posts from certain people going blatantly off piste
This is a case on the application of the law - and it was clearly wrong (despite most feeling it was morally right - that is a different issue) and an extremely bad precedent to set. The actus reus was in no doubt and i cannot see how the law can by applied to defend the mens rea of the peole who did this as it makes a mockery of our laws. The same happened to some of the swampy, entitled halfwhits in Extinction Rebellion. Both examples undermine our society and open the floodgates on multitudes of defences on rightious, environmental or any other rhetoric that defendants think is justified
This is a case on the application of the law - and it was clearly wrong (despite most feeling it was morally right - that is a different issue) and an extremely bad precedent to set. The actus reus was in no doubt and i cannot see how the law can by applied to defend the mens rea of the peole who did this as it makes a mockery of our laws. The same happened to some of the swampy, entitled halfwhits in Extinction Rebellion. Both examples undermine our society and open the floodgates on multitudes of defences on rightious, environmental or any other rhetoric that defendants think is justified
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
The jury found them not guilty and they heard all the arguments…we have not. Or are we doubting the appropriateness of trial by jury…hmmm.
And of course the usual suspects attack others of going ‘blatantly off piste’ by referring to ’swampy, entitled, halfwhits…’ whilst implicitly attacking the jury by talking of making a ‘mockery’ of law, and let’s not miss out ‘undermining our society’…and ‘rightious, environmental and other rhetoric’…
of course this subject isnt political ?
- Status
