The Colston Four
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,165
The word "ilk" recently featured on here. Good word ilk, hence here it is again.. in the third letter. However, the fourth letter may induce various levels of apoplectic rage for being definitive.
The acquittal of the Colston Four does not edit history | Letters | The Guardian
The acquittal of the Colston Four does not edit history | Letters | The Guardian
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SAM. u.k.
Age: 79
Posts: 274
Just popped in for a shufti, now just popping back out after seeing this...........................The acquittal of the Colston Four does not edit history | Letters | The Guardian 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,826
At the risk of upsetting up some of our more dogmatic contributors, here's a link to an article from yesterday by their bęte noire - the Secret Barrister - where he (or she) indulges in a thought experiment by means of a case study of an imaginary trial involving the issue of when (and why) damage may not necessarily be criminal damage.
It's far too long and detailed to reproduce here. but the last few paragraphs might ring some bells
:
A thought experiment on criminal damage
It's far too long and detailed to reproduce here. but the last few paragraphs might ring some bells
:
People are angry. Politicians are warning that the rule of law is in peril. Many say that this trial was open and shut – the only question for the jury was whether damage had been caused, and the answer to that was obvious. One even suggests we may need to abolish juries.
The anger is not because people have somehow discovered the reasons for the verdicts, and can show the jury have abandoned reason in favour of emotion. Not because people have carefully considered the legal directions and put forward arguments as to how the judge may have got it wrong in how he approached the law (for instance, in the way he dealt with the novel argument on “proportionality”). Not because people sat through the trial and heard all the evidence and can articulate how the jury logically erred in their approach to the questions they had to answer – the angriest people in fact appear not to know anything more than the bare prosecution allegations.
But because, instinctively, some people had wanted the verdicts to be something else. Not delivered independently by a jury hearing evidence; but ordained by somebody sharing their exact personal and political beliefs.
The jury got it wrong, the cry goes up.
But nobody can explain why.
The anger is not because people have somehow discovered the reasons for the verdicts, and can show the jury have abandoned reason in favour of emotion. Not because people have carefully considered the legal directions and put forward arguments as to how the judge may have got it wrong in how he approached the law (for instance, in the way he dealt with the novel argument on “proportionality”). Not because people sat through the trial and heard all the evidence and can articulate how the jury logically erred in their approach to the questions they had to answer – the angriest people in fact appear not to know anything more than the bare prosecution allegations.
But because, instinctively, some people had wanted the verdicts to be something else. Not delivered independently by a jury hearing evidence; but ordained by somebody sharing their exact personal and political beliefs.
The jury got it wrong, the cry goes up.
But nobody can explain why.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,165
Originally Posted by denachtenmai
Just popped in for a shufti, now just popping back out after seeing this...........................The acquittal of the Colston Four does not edit history | Letters | The Guardian
However, I get the impression you are not entirely receptive to critical commentary and enlightenment but, if you read the many posts on here, you will be gratified to learn you are not alone.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Not far from a lot of solar panels.
Posts: 117
K n C
Your location claims that you are' firmly in the real world' yet you continually reference that particular newspaper on this forum. Newspapers are by nature written, and read by, people of (usually) a particular persuasion, be it political, ideological, or whatever.
How does that represent being in the real world? As for the crackpots who write letters to the papers or BBC, well............!
RE your statement that the newspaper you seem to promote on an almost daily basis contains enlightenment , then that is purely a matter of opinion - yours and others, and depends entirely on ones own particular beliefs.
Your location claims that you are' firmly in the real world' yet you continually reference that particular newspaper on this forum. Newspapers are by nature written, and read by, people of (usually) a particular persuasion, be it political, ideological, or whatever.
How does that represent being in the real world? As for the crackpots who write letters to the papers or BBC, well............!
RE your statement that the newspaper you seem to promote on an almost daily basis contains enlightenment , then that is purely a matter of opinion - yours and others, and depends entirely on ones own particular beliefs.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,677
Not forgetting that The Guardian pays minimal tax despite making a lot of fuss about other entities who take advantage of similar schemes.
Anyhoo, I wonder how far this petition will get? Not very far I would imagine.
[QUOTE]A petition for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to make the 'Colston 4' defendants stand trial for a second time has reached over 12k signatures since the verdict on Wednesday (January 5).
The petition started by campaign group 'Save Our Statues' says that there has been a "miscarriage of justice" that sets a "dangerous precedent", arguing that the jury was "intimidated" by the defence leading to the not guilty verdict.
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The description reads: "We the undersigned believe that a miscarriage of justice has taken place with significant public interest enough to warrant an appeal or retrial.
"The acquittal of those who toppled the Colston statue in Bristol sets a dangerous precedent that endangers all of our national heritage, legitimising direct physical action against it.
"This way lies chaos and mob rule. The jury was also intimidated by the defence warning them that the world was watching their decision."
[QUOTE]
Anyhoo, I wonder how far this petition will get? Not very far I would imagine.
[QUOTE]A petition for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to make the 'Colston 4' defendants stand trial for a second time has reached over 12k signatures since the verdict on Wednesday (January 5).
The petition started by campaign group 'Save Our Statues' says that there has been a "miscarriage of justice" that sets a "dangerous precedent", arguing that the jury was "intimidated" by the defence leading to the not guilty verdict.
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The description reads: "We the undersigned believe that a miscarriage of justice has taken place with significant public interest enough to warrant an appeal or retrial.
"The acquittal of those who toppled the Colston statue in Bristol sets a dangerous precedent that endangers all of our national heritage, legitimising direct physical action against it.
"This way lies chaos and mob rule. The jury was also intimidated by the defence warning them that the world was watching their decision."
[QUOTE]
Last edited by LowNSlow; 11th Jan 2022 at 18:27.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Station 42
Age: 67
Posts: 959
[QUOTE=LowNSlow;11168665]Not forgetting that The Guardian pays minimal tax despite making a lot of fuss about other entities who take advantage of similar schemes.
Anyhoo, I wonder how far this petition will get? Not very far I would imagine.
I'll leave my opinion of the ruling out for the time being but it doesn't say much for any jury's moral fibre if they allow themselves to be swayed like that. And I very much doubt that 'the world' was watching their decision. 
Anyhoo, I wonder how far this petition will get? Not very far I would imagine.
The description reads: "We the undersigned believe that a miscarriage of justice has taken place with significant public interest enough to warrant an appeal or retrial.
"The acquittal of those who toppled the Colston statue in Bristol sets a dangerous precedent that endangers all of our national heritage, legitimising direct physical action against it.
"This way lies chaos and mob rule. The jury was also intimidated by the defence warning them that the world was watching their decision."
"The acquittal of those who toppled the Colston statue in Bristol sets a dangerous precedent that endangers all of our national heritage, legitimising direct physical action against it.
"This way lies chaos and mob rule. The jury was also intimidated by the defence warning them that the world was watching their decision."
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,677
Not forgetting that The Guardian pays minimal tax despite making a lot of fuss about other entities who take advantage of similar schemes.
Anyhoo, I wonder how far this petition will get? Not very far I would imagine.
Anyhoo, I wonder how far this petition will get? Not very far I would imagine.
A petition for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to make the 'Colston 4' defendants stand trial for a second time has reached over 12k signatures since the verdict on Wednesday (January 5).
The petition started by campaign group 'Save Our Statues' says that there has been a "miscarriage of justice" that sets a "dangerous precedent", arguing that the jury was "intimidated" by the defence leading to the not guilty verdict.
The description reads: "We the undersigned believe that a miscarriage of justice has taken place with significant public interest enough to warrant an appeal or retrial.
"The acquittal of those who toppled the Colston statue in Bristol sets a dangerous precedent that endangers all of our national heritage, legitimising direct physical action against it.
"This way lies chaos and mob rule. The jury was also intimidated by the defence warning them that the world was watching their decision."
The petition started by campaign group 'Save Our Statues' says that there has been a "miscarriage of justice" that sets a "dangerous precedent", arguing that the jury was "intimidated" by the defence leading to the not guilty verdict.
"The acquittal of those who toppled the Colston statue in Bristol sets a dangerous precedent that endangers all of our national heritage, legitimising direct physical action against it.
"This way lies chaos and mob rule. The jury was also intimidated by the defence warning them that the world was watching their decision."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,826
Originally Posted by LowNSlow
The jury was also intimidated by the defence warning them that the world was watching their decision.
The world is watching ...
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kristiansand
Posts: 49
I know to C&P is frowned upon, but to omit any of this letter would not convey the whole sentiment:
Jonathan Sumption, Telegraph January 8th
(Jonathan Sumption was for a number of years a member of the Supreme Court)
The Colston Four admitted to pulling down the Colston statue and dumping it in the river.
Legally, that is criminal damage.
The only duty of a jury is to honour the oath that they swore: to " give a true verdict according to the evidence."
By acquitting the C4 in defiance of the uncontested facts, they dishonoured their oath and undermined the rule of law.
This is not unusual as some think.
In politically charged cases , juries quite often defy the law and ignore the facts, because they sympathise with the defendant.
Those who admitted springing the traitor George Blake from prison because they thought 42 years inside was too long , were acquitted.
Trial judges cannot direct juries to convict, even if the admitted facts clearly show defendants are guilty.
The criminal justice system therefore depends on the willingness of jurors to do their duty.
There are however more fundamental issues at stake than the occasional aberrant jury.
Were the C4 even morally justified , let alone legally?
They claimed to be entitled to take direct action , by violence if necessary, to express their own moral values and to efface the memory of human wickedness.
Many people think like that.
Colston was a minor shareholder in the Royal Africa Company which traded slaves from West Africa.
He also took part in slaving ventures for a few years after the RAC lost its monopoly.
He, and 1000s like him, lived at a time when slavery was regarded as morally justifiable.
I accept that we ought not to commemorate an activity that is abhorrent to our own values , even if it was fine for those who practised it and for their contemporaries.
But the Colston statue did not commemorate his slave trading.
It commemorated his generosity to the city of Bristol.
He founded almshouses , hospitals and schools, activities reflecting values that are admirable, universal and timeless.
The moral objection of the statue-wreckers is that their actions were based on the idea that if someone has done something to which they strongly object , nothing else about them matters.
This attitude is an obsessive and fanatical attack on humanity itself.
Societies are a product of their past.
The past is light and shade.
Its values are never wholly good nor wholly bad in the eyes of later generations.
We learn from the mistakes and the wickedness of our forebears, while celebrating their noblest achievements.
It is an essential part of the process by which human societies develop.
Slavery is abhorrent to us, but it has been practised by most human societies throughout history until quite recently.
Should we remove the many beautiful artefacts of the ancient world in the British Museum because they were the product of slave societies?
Or throw out the Benin bronzes because the slave trade was universal in pre-colonial Africa?
We have a duty to understand the past and learn from it.
But to try to efface its memory is morally worthless.
What purpose does it serve?
The past has happened; we cannot change it.
The actions of the C4 were pure self-indulgence .
All they achieved was to advertise the strength of their own feelings.
As a historical phenomenon , slavery matters.
But the strength of their feelings about it is of no importance.
It is customary when defendants are acquitted in a criminal court to say they leave the courthouse without a stain on their character .
The Bristol statue-wreckers left it branded by their own admissions as bigots and philistines.
Jonathan Sumption, Telegraph January 8th
(Jonathan Sumption was for a number of years a member of the Supreme Court)
The Colston Four admitted to pulling down the Colston statue and dumping it in the river.
Legally, that is criminal damage.
The only duty of a jury is to honour the oath that they swore: to " give a true verdict according to the evidence."
By acquitting the C4 in defiance of the uncontested facts, they dishonoured their oath and undermined the rule of law.
This is not unusual as some think.
In politically charged cases , juries quite often defy the law and ignore the facts, because they sympathise with the defendant.
Those who admitted springing the traitor George Blake from prison because they thought 42 years inside was too long , were acquitted.
Trial judges cannot direct juries to convict, even if the admitted facts clearly show defendants are guilty.
The criminal justice system therefore depends on the willingness of jurors to do their duty.
There are however more fundamental issues at stake than the occasional aberrant jury.
Were the C4 even morally justified , let alone legally?
They claimed to be entitled to take direct action , by violence if necessary, to express their own moral values and to efface the memory of human wickedness.
Many people think like that.
Colston was a minor shareholder in the Royal Africa Company which traded slaves from West Africa.
He also took part in slaving ventures for a few years after the RAC lost its monopoly.
He, and 1000s like him, lived at a time when slavery was regarded as morally justifiable.
I accept that we ought not to commemorate an activity that is abhorrent to our own values , even if it was fine for those who practised it and for their contemporaries.
But the Colston statue did not commemorate his slave trading.
It commemorated his generosity to the city of Bristol.
He founded almshouses , hospitals and schools, activities reflecting values that are admirable, universal and timeless.
The moral objection of the statue-wreckers is that their actions were based on the idea that if someone has done something to which they strongly object , nothing else about them matters.
This attitude is an obsessive and fanatical attack on humanity itself.
Societies are a product of their past.
The past is light and shade.
Its values are never wholly good nor wholly bad in the eyes of later generations.
We learn from the mistakes and the wickedness of our forebears, while celebrating their noblest achievements.
It is an essential part of the process by which human societies develop.
Slavery is abhorrent to us, but it has been practised by most human societies throughout history until quite recently.
Should we remove the many beautiful artefacts of the ancient world in the British Museum because they were the product of slave societies?
Or throw out the Benin bronzes because the slave trade was universal in pre-colonial Africa?
We have a duty to understand the past and learn from it.
But to try to efface its memory is morally worthless.
What purpose does it serve?
The past has happened; we cannot change it.
The actions of the C4 were pure self-indulgence .
All they achieved was to advertise the strength of their own feelings.
As a historical phenomenon , slavery matters.
But the strength of their feelings about it is of no importance.
It is customary when defendants are acquitted in a criminal court to say they leave the courthouse without a stain on their character .
The Bristol statue-wreckers left it branded by their own admissions as bigots and philistines.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lagos
Age: 64
Posts: 3
I wonder what the reaction from the people who consider what the "Colston four" did to be acceptable would be if they were to wake up one morning only to find that a mob of Extinction Rebellion activists had trashed their car and the when tried in court for the damage, the jury found them not guilty because the accused stated that as internal combustion engines caused harm and suffering to mankind, they were within their rights to act as they did.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lagos
Age: 64
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by HOVIS
What a load of cobblers!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,826
Colston Four verdict: Lord Sumption tells LBC he doesn't particularly admire jury system
Sadly, Lord S has spent much of the last three years demonstrating why judges nowadays are expected to step down from the Bench when they reach 70. His latest diatribe is entirely predictable.
Sadly, Lord S has spent much of the last three years demonstrating why judges nowadays are expected to step down from the Bench when they reach 70. His latest diatribe is entirely predictable.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,826
Originally Posted by blimey
If you've served on a jury you'll know that you can never underestimate the idiocy and prejudice of your fellow man.
You can never be sure what a jury's decision is going to be until it's delivered.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by LowNSlow
Anyhoo, I wonder how far this petition will get? Not very far I would imagine.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by annakm
I know to C&P is frowned upon, but to omit any of this letter would not convey the whole sentiment:
Jonathan Sumption, Telegraph January 8th
(Jonathan Sumption was for a number of years a member of the Supreme Court)
The Colston Four admitted to pulling down the Colston statue and dumping it in the river.
Legally, that is criminal damage.
Jonathan Sumption, Telegraph January 8th
(Jonathan Sumption was for a number of years a member of the Supreme Court)
The Colston Four admitted to pulling down the Colston statue and dumping it in the river.
Legally, that is criminal damage.
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 4,296
"If you've served on a jury you'll know that you can never underestimate the idiocy and prejudice of your fellow man."
I've served on several and I'd agree with some of that but I've also seen a jury decide to convict after the prosecution made a complete mess of the case. The guy had a string of identical crimes as long as your arm when it came to sentencing - luckily, in the jury room, we were able to untangle the critical facts that m'learned friend for the Crown seemed to have not noticed
I've served on several and I'd agree with some of that but I've also seen a jury decide to convict after the prosecution made a complete mess of the case. The guy had a string of identical crimes as long as your arm when it came to sentencing - luckily, in the jury room, we were able to untangle the critical facts that m'learned friend for the Crown seemed to have not noticed
