Edward Colston

newusername said:
It was listed...
historicengland.org.uk

STATUE OF EDWARD COLSTON, Non Civil Parish - 1202137 | Historic England

List entry 1202137. Grade II Listed Building: Statue Of Edward Colston. May include summary, reasons for designation and history.
historicengland.org.uk historicengland.org.uk
Click to expand...

Ah. I misunderstood the lawyers tweet then. He was saying that the defence used, or one of them, was possible because of the offence they were charged under, but wouldn't have been possible had they been charged with a different offence under the listed buildings legislation. Not that either would likely have led to a conviction in a Bristol Court in his view.
 
Yearbyred said:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on it but there was a trial and a jury heard all the evidence (which everyone on here I’m assuming wasn’t party too) and they found them not guilty.

More worrying is the calls, from some, to somehow not have a jury if they aren’t going to give the “right” results.
Click to expand...
More worrying that Rees mogg was the voice of reason. :LOL:
 
Ultimately it’s all done and dusted. The current laws, current morals/beliefs/opinions, view of the world etc all applied. What’s right today may be wrong tomorrow as colston and his generation would find out if they were alive.
only time will tell if it opened a can of worms.
The story will be tomorrow’s fish and chip paper and we move on.
 
Lefty said:
Ah. I misunderstood the lawyers tweet then. He was saying that the defence used, or one of them, was possible because of the offence they were charged under, but wouldn't have been possible had they been charged with a different offence under the listed buildings legislation.
Click to expand...
Bizare that he says that, I mean the status of Colston doesn't exactly meet the description of a building, there isn't a door, or a roof for starters.
 
Facefuzz said:
I think reasonable people think that the law was broken, which it was, and the final outcome was based on the emotion and feeling towards the subject.
Click to expand...
Don't be so patronising Facefuzz. The defendants were judged not guilty by a jury of their peers therefore they were never guilty. Who are you to say that you are reasonable and others who respect the jury's decision are not?

And have you spoken to all the jurors yourself to establish that their verdict was based on emotion?
 
55YEARSABOROFAN said:
In my opinion which I am entitled to, they broke the law!! It is irrelevant that it was causing offence.
If they were offended by it they should take it up with the authority that put it there to take it down and not take the law into their own hands.
Whether it should have been there or not is beside the point.
We are on a sticky wicket when the law can't protect peoples property because that's what is happening.
When people decide to take the law in to their own hands only anorchy can pursue.
Click to expand...
It was a public monument - not any particular person's property.

Had it been privately owned then I'm quite sure the result would have been different.
 
BoroFur said:
Don't be so patronising Facefuzz. The defendants were judged not guilty by a jury of their peers therefore they were never guilty. Who are you to say that you are reasonable and others who respect the jury's decision are not?

And have you spoken to all the jurors yourself to establish that their verdict was based on emotion?
Click to expand...
Not being patronising.
They might not have been found guilty but they certainly committed criminal damage. I guess public opinion was the victor in this case
 
BoroMart said:
not quite as simple as that is it. Accentuating circumstances, common sense, nuance, context all can and have com into play for a whole variety of cases, if it was purely on law then the jury would be made up of lawyers because only they understand the law fully.

Anyway, would like to see some kind of summary on why they found not guilty, law is complex, and to simply say they are clearly guilty but the jury didn't follow the law is a simplification
Click to expand...
Not if they're called Robert Jenrick
 
What Millbrook posted earlier regarding juries and reducing the worth of goods is true.

I have read of cases in the 18th & 19th century of juries reducing the worth of silk gloves or bolts of cloth that were stolen and the thief apprehended. This was in the days when there were hundreds of capital charges, (going around with a blackened face was one). Property owners were fearful of a crime wave of property thefts, and so an amount was brought into the rules whereby a capital charge was brought if the item stolen was valued above that amount.

Juries would find the defendant guilty, but would de value the item to be under the capital charge amount, as most didn't agree with the laws, and the guilty party would be transported rather than hanged (not sure which was worse tbh).
 
I don't think there can be any doubt that they caused criminal damage.
Arguably they were provoked.
Guilty in my mind but I would have handed them a community service order.
 
My opinion that's all.
Can you legitimately go round destroying monuments to causes that you don't agree with? There's a lot of statues still standing that arguably shouldn't be if thats the case. James Cook would fall into that category for one.
 
Bristolians had been trying to get shot of colston for years. Not the same for cook and north yorks. ( a friend’s mum from the pacific had a word with James cook when she visited Whitby.)
 
Cress said:
Bristolians had been trying to get shot of colston for years. Not the same for cook and north yorks. ( a friend’s mum from the pacific had a word with James cook when she visited Whitby.)
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20220107-073308_Chrome.jpg
Many indigenous people in Australia have a different view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top