Colston Vandals Cleared

[fender62]

the judge just greenlighted it's ok to vandalise, if you don't like a statue or painting just knock it down or rip it up, history is there to be trodden on if it offends you...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10371949/BLM-protestors-not-guilty-criminal-damage-toppling-Edward-Colston-statue-Bristol.html

[Ellipsis]

If the statue still stood where it was, what do you think the plaque should have said?

[pixie374]

I really don't agree, that deciding to no longer celebrate someone, is "airbrushing". It obviously can't change history (so far as we know it recorded), but just means... our values are different now. And we no longer worship people because they are rich, but immoral. Fine then, not now.

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - // If the statue still stood where it was, what do you think the plaque should have said? //

I think it should have its original plaque, which is of its time, like the statue.

But I think it should have been relocated to a museum a.s.a.p., and then had appropriate context documentation placed around it.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // I really don't agree, that deciding to no longer celebrate someone, is "airbrushing". //

Nor do I, which is why I didn't say it.

In my posts, references to 'airbrushing' are more concerned with periods and events in history, than individuals - 'apologising' for slavery and similarly pointless empty gestures.

If society wishes to relocate statues because their location and purpose is no longer seen as appropriate, then I have no problem with that.

But relocating them in the harbour covered in paint is to the way a civilised society adjusts its attitudes to its historical figures.

[Ellipsis]

> But I think it should have been relocated to a museum a.s.a.p., and then had appropriate context documentation placed around it.

OK, and given that didn't happen ASAP, or even after some years ... then what?

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - // > But I think it should have been relocated to a museum a.s.a.p., and then had appropriate context documentation placed around it.

OK, and given that didn't happen ASAP, or even after some years ... then what? //

Then I think the plaque should have remained exactly as it was.

It's in context with the time and motivation for the statue's erection, and tampering with it is tampering with history, and I absolutely do not agree with it.

[Deskdiary]

I’m astonished this thread is still running.

The fact is some Tarquins and Cressidas (I can’t be arsed to remember their names) we’re filmed causing criminal damage, admitted causing criminal damage, but were acquitted from causing criminal damage.

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. It was an utterly bizarre decision, and it was a verdict on Colston 300 years after his death rather than a verdict on what anybody with eyes saw, and as wrong as the decision was, it ain’t gonna he changed.

[andy-hughes]

Deskdiary - // I’m astonished this thread is still running.

The fact is some Tarquins and Cressidas (I can’t be arsed to remember their names) we’re filmed causing criminal damage, admitted causing criminal damage, but were acquitted from causing criminal damage.

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. It was an utterly bizarre decision, and it was a verdict on Colston 300 years after his death rather than a verdict on what anybody with eyes saw, and as wrong as the decision was, it ain’t gonna he changed. //

You can simplify and minimise anything, if you want to.

Had you been part of the debate, you would have enjoyed an interesting and stimulating exchange of ideas and viewpoints as we have.

By all means leap on while the thread is running, but simply popping up at the end to dismiss it is really rather redundant.

[pixie374]

Well, no. There is nobody in a position to apologise, that's pointless. We can only decide what we want from here... honestly, think we should get rid of them all. It was a silly idea in the first place. Straight to museums, as part of history, would make more sense.

[jno]

amazingly, history remains untampered with. He was deputy governor of Britain's biggest slave trader - and he still is, because nobody has yet overtaken his efforts..

The only change is that now, a lot of people know about it. Something should be done to stop this spread of knowledge.

[Ellipsis]

> Then I think the plaque should have remained exactly as it was.
> It's in context with the time and motivation for the statue's erection, and tampering with it is tampering with history, and I absolutely do not agree with it.

OK, well the people whose noses were being rubbed in it ... the descendants of the slaves who lived in that city ... did not appreciate the lies that were being told on that plaque, without any context. And then their friends the Tarquins and Cressidas joined with them to do something about it. And then the jury agreed that it was the right thing to do. I understand that you don't agree with that, but you're on the losing side of this one.

[Spicerack]

Don't worry. When they encourage then catch some white working class lads indulging in criminal damage they'll crucify them.
To show they mean business.

[Deskdiary]

There’s a lot of achingly right on BS on this thread ; the focus should be on what happened and not why it happened - all this “rectifying history” nonsense is just that - it’s nonsense. These people caused criminal damage, they just did, but because it was damage against a statue against somebody who died 300 years ago, it’s deemed acceptable.

Kew Gardens better watch out.

[Ellipsis]

> These people caused criminal damage, they just did

No need for a trial then, was there ...

[Deskdiary]

It was a forgone conclusion pretty much; had the correct verdict been returned (that of criminal damage - there was criminal damage, sometimes verdicts are just wrong), I suspect there’d have been riots (although the BBC would have referred to them as ‘protests’. Natch.)

[bobbinwales]

//had the correct verdict been returned...//
You mean your correct verdict? We might of wanted and expected a guilty verdict but the jury disagreed. Do you think there was foul play, maybe pressure put on them or maybe some legal mistake deskdiary... if so exactly what and what should be done

[Ellipsis]

Do you believe in the jury system?

Do you believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty?

[naomi24]

I don’t believe this bunch were innocent until ‘proven’ (and that’s debatable) .. erm ….innocent. Morons … and that includes the jury!

For the record I don’t agree that statues should become a thing of the past. I like them and never pass one without reading whatever information is there. Long may they stand and long may history live!!

[andy-hughes]

Deskdiary - Everyone has their own impression of the 'correct' verdict, but it's only 'correct' if it comes down on your side.

That's why juries are as impartial as possible, and selected with exactly that in mind.

I'm not happy with the verdict, but it's still the correct one because it's the one the jury returned.

[naomi24]

It’s not the first time a jury got it wrong. Perhaps they didn’t watch the news that day.