Not in the public interest

[NotAllThere]

Something tells me you're all drinking from the same can of Special Brew.

[Zigenare]

Something tells me you're all drinking from the same can of Special Brew.

Bucky, Shirley?

[agentzero]

The struggle for black rights was decades/centuries of pain and suffering and slow incremental progress fighting against and within the system. People lost their lives and their livelihoods for it, but a bunch of teenagers today can't comprehend the idea of something taking longer than a week to achieve so they just smash things.

You are ill informed, yet again.

Over many years a large number of people tried to persuade the Tory controlled council to add context to the statue in the form of a small explanation underneath Colston's name plaque. Rejected. Various other changes were proposed and rejected, with the Tory council then removing existing information and just leaving the name.

The issue with this is that without education people just walk past it. Should people taking photos of it, tourists and locals, not be able to see just who this Colston man was? It didn't take long before his actions were seen as abhorrent. It is the perfect example of a statue that belonged in a museum and not outside among the public, as if he done some noble deeds to deserve a statue. The rationale behind the Tory council, from the minutes of their meetings and subsequent responses, shows that they don't appear to truly represent the council in which they operate. No decent person thinks a slave trader should have a statute, without explanation, with all amendments rejected and one previous improvement to the statue then removed by the Tory council.

Rather than use logic to recognise an issue clearly existed, the council doubled down and performed tasks to irritate those asking for change. The statue would've been great in a museum display, with comprehensive explanation of just what this evil man, by modern standards, did.

Saville had a statue and it was rightly removed, despite all the 'good' charity work that he did over the decades. The case of Colston is no different. Campaigns for years upon years lead nowhere. Those four people did the right thing.

[northernladuk]

Those four people did the right thing.

The law says not. If we start disregarding the law like this then anarchy ensues. What statue is next, will that be the right thing to do? Who cares? A baying mob thinks they will get away with it so it's open season to vandalise anything people want.

[minestrone]

In a sea of exceptionally dull posters, sasguru's posts still stand out as exceptionally dull.

[SueEllen]

The law says not. If we start disregarding the law like this then anarchy ensues. What statue is next, will that be the right thing to do? Who cares? A baying mob thinks they will get away with it so it's open season to vandalise anything people want.

Actually as they were acquitted the law says it was ok in their particular circumstances.

Just don't try doing what they did with any random statue unless you have led a peaceful campaign of a good few years to get it removed.

[malvolio]

The bad thing was that the case tried them for criminal damage, but their defence was that it was a political act and the jury decided that was the case and therefore justifiable. While you cannot do anything about the absolute right of the jury to render their verdict, no matter how they were persuaded get to it, this has set a very dangerous precedent.

It seems legislation is in progress to close off that loophole at its source. That might be a good outcome.

[northernladuk]

Actually as they were acquitted the law says it was ok in their particular circumstances.

Just don't try doing what they did with any random statue unless you have led a peaceful campaign of a good few years to get it removed.

No, as they were acquitted then the law hasn't been properly applied in this case. The jury couldn't reach a majorty verdict and it's hardly surprising. The whole lot of them would have been targetted and called racist if they had. The decision was made on opinions and fear not the law.

You can't argue they did the right thing as half the people in the subsequent poles either said it shouldn't have been taken down or if so not like that. So only half the people agree it was right. That's not enough.

Either way, if the did do it then they should pay for the repairs and recover costs at the very least. They did it so they should be held responsible.

[northernladuk]

In a sea of exceptionally dull posters, sasguru's posts still stand out as exceptionally dull.

There is one poster that far out does sasgurus post to be fair.

[NotAllThere]

There is one poster that far out does sasgurus post to be fair.

As leasts sasguru was usually coherent.