Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

ANTONISH wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 9:29am There are any number of statues or monuments which some one or other may find objectionable.
I could argue that Richard 1 was a war criminal and I had a moral right to tear down his equestrian statue outside parliament - I might need a mob to help me.
How about having the discussion out in the open first?

Any judgement and action should follow that discussion. And as posted many times above we have many options open to us other than mob action.

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

slowster wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 8:43pm
mattheus wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 6:07pm I know quite a few non-racist people who were also against the vandalism of statues. These are people I've known for years.
I would expect a 'non-racist' who learnt that there had been a prominent statue of slave trader in the centre of Bristol to be appalled. I would expect them to be horrified by what that statue may have signified to someone in Bristol who was black.
What an absurd comment.

Anyone growing up in a 1st world country will have been surrounded by statues of people who have done bad things - usually before we were alive.
To be "horrified" by the Colston statue would suggest a very naive life upto that day!
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

Excellent piece in the Economist:

"What a previous iconoclastic period reveals about the present one":
https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/ ... resent-one
(Might be paywalled.)

Jonathan
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Stevek76 »

ANTONISH wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 9:29am There are any number of statues or monuments which some one or other may find objectionable.
I could argue that Richard 1 was a war criminal and I had a moral right to tear down his equestrian statue outside parliament - I might need a mob to help me.
You are welcome to try, you would face the same consequences as the individuals that sparked this debate.

I.e. you would likely be arrested, possibly offered some sort of caution and restorative justice (6 in the colston case accepted a conditional caution) else charged. If the damage was valued at under £5k the charge would be treated summarily by magistrates, if over you'd have the option of a jury trial where you'd have to convince the jury you had a lawful excuse or that your actions were proportionate re balancing of rights (if that defence does not get removed by the CoA, if it gets referred) or for the jury to just not want to convict you.

If you think you could convince the jury that it was your honest belief that the owners (? in this case) would have consented, or that the presence of the statue was so offensive to amount to a crime then crack on. I do think you might struggle however, and remember that as much as the jury will be told they need to assess that the law is strictly that it's your honestly held belief that is relevant, it's very likely that how reasonable they consider that belief to be will still factor into how convinced they are that you honestly held it.

Colston was a unique case with it's own set of circumstances, many of which will have made the defendants lives easier:

- unusual ownership situation
- easy demonstration of considerable offensiveness to significant minority of the residents
- unenthusiastic council witnesses
- prosecution could not (did not try to even) demonstrate a monetary or value damage to the statue
- repeated failure of democratic efforts
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4629
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by slowster »

mattheus wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 11:32am Anyone growing up in a 1st world country will have been surrounded by statues of people who have done bad things - usually before we were alive.
It is what the statues mean and signify to people who are alive now that is at the heart of this, not least to people who are black. I am not interested in the judgement of what a few of your 'non-racist' friends consider to be right or wrong. I am interested in what that statue meant to black people. This issue is not about the bad things done by historical figures, but about the veneration and celebration of them in the present, and what that means to those who are discriminated against and disadvantaged because of their skin colour.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Vorpal »

ANTONISH wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 9:29am The problem with the term racist is that it can be thrown at anyone who disagrees with some of the actions of anti racist protesters.
The problem with the term racist is that there are two commonly used definitions for the word.

Many people define racism as 'hatred of people based on their race', which makes it quite easy for most people, even many white supremacists, to say, "But I don't *hate* Black people. I'm not racist"

The victims of racism, however tend to consider it a societal & systemic issue. One where people are, often unconsciously, disadvantaged because of race. One where most people just don't get why that statue was so, so offensive, or how subtle racism plays out in almost every area of life for Black and ethnic minorities.

Using the second definition, it's quite easy to think that anyone doesn't agree with anti-racist protesters is racist.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

slowster wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 12:59pm I am not interested in the judgement of what a few of your 'non-racist' friends consider to be right or wrong.
Really? You seem sufficiently interested to condemn them as racists!
ANTONISH
Posts: 2967
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 9:49am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by ANTONISH »

[quote=Vorpal

Using the second definition, it's quite easy to think that anyone doesn't agree with anti-racist protesters is racist.
[/quote]

I actually mentioned disagreeing with SOME OF THE ACTIONS of anti racists.
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

Vorpal wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 2:48pm
ANTONISH wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 9:29am The problem with the term racist is that it can be thrown at anyone who disagrees with some of the actions of anti racist protesters.
The problem with the term racist is that there are two commonly used definitions for the word.

Many people define racism as 'hatred of people based on their race', which makes it quite easy for most people, even many white supremacists, to say, "But I don't *hate* Black people. I'm not racist"

The victims of racism, however tend to consider it a societal & systemic issue. One where people are, often unconsciously, disadvantaged because of race. One where most people just don't get why that statue was so, so offensive, or how subtle racism plays out in almost every area of life for Black and ethnic minorities.

Using the second definition, it's quite easy to think that anyone doesn't agree with anti-racist protesters is racist.
[my bold] This may be a straw man. Is hatred really a key component? First page of google has a number of definitions, and hate/hatred appear in none of them.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4629
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by slowster »

mattheus wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 3:24pm
slowster wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 12:59pm I am not interested in the judgement of what a few of your 'non-racist' friends consider to be right or wrong.
Really? You seem sufficiently interested to condemn them as racists!
You introduce the opinions of a few of your unnamed friends and expect those opinions to be considered relevant to this discussion because you have known them for years and because you tell us they are 'non-racists'. Argument to authority is a logical fallacy, but when the authority is a few of your mates whom you yourself have determined to be good arbiters because you have decided that they are not racist, it is a ridiculous argument.
mattheus wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 6:07pm
slowster wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 4:33pm
mattheus wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 3:12pm
Have you actually spoken to any of "those people"?

Did any say anything to you to support these allegations you make?
Spoken to them? Some of them have made their views very clear on this forum. They start by posting about their concern for respect for the law and democratic process etc., but after a while their true colours show through. If you want actual examples they are not difficult to find, e.g. just read through the original thread about the George Floyd protests and the statue.
So that would be "No" then.

Whereas I know quite a few non-racist people who were also against the vandalism of statues. These are people I've known for years.

To be honest I've seen hardly any racists posting on this forum (and I think I've read all the George Floyd / Colston threads). I guess we see the world through different prisms.
Instead of telling us what your friends think, I suggest you read those threads again.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Vorpal »

mattheus wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 4:06pm
Vorpal wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 2:48pm
ANTONISH wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 9:29am The problem with the term racist is that it can be thrown at anyone who disagrees with some of the actions of anti racist protesters.
The problem with the term racist is that there are two commonly used definitions for the word.

Many people define racism as 'hatred of people based on their race', which makes it quite easy for most people, even many white supremacists, to say, "But I don't *hate* Black people. I'm not racist"

The victims of racism, however tend to consider it a societal & systemic issue. One where people are, often unconsciously, disadvantaged because of race. One where most people just don't get why that statue was so, so offensive, or how subtle racism plays out in almost every area of life for Black and ethnic minorities.

Using the second definition, it's quite easy to think that anyone doesn't agree with anti-racist protesters is racist.
[my bold] This may be a straw man. Is hatred really a key component? First page of google has a number of definitions, and hate/hatred appear in none of them.
OK. dislike. prejudice, believing that one race is inferior. I don't think it really matters whether hatred is a component. If you ask people, the vast majority will say that they are not racist. Because they don't believe that they have any prejudice.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

Vorpal wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 10:47am
mattheus wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 4:06pm
Vorpal wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 2:48pm
The problem with the term racist is that there are two commonly used definitions for the word.

Many people define racism as 'hatred of people based on their race', which makes it quite easy for most people, even many white supremacists, to say, "But I don't *hate* Black people. I'm not racist"

The victims of racism, however tend to consider it a societal & systemic issue. One where people are, often unconsciously, disadvantaged because of race. One where most people just don't get why that statue was so, so offensive, or how subtle racism plays out in almost every area of life for Black and ethnic minorities.

Using the second definition, it's quite easy to think that anyone doesn't agree with anti-racist protesters is racist.
[my bold] This may be a straw man. Is hatred really a key component? First page of google has a number of definitions, and hate/hatred appear in none of them.
OK. dislike. prejudice, believing that one race is inferior. I don't think it really matters whether hatred is a component. If you ask people, the vast majority will say that they are not racist. Because they don't believe that they have any prejudice.
Just about EVERYONE* is prejudiced (including the most liberal progressive rights campaigners). It's stronger for some people, and some are more/less self-aware. But anyway: I'm not sure your point has any weight (once you remove the "hatred" bit).


*By which I mean studies have proven subconscious bias in a vast spectrum of subjects.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Vorpal »

mattheus wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 12:47pm
Vorpal wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 10:47am
mattheus wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 4:06pm
[my bold] This may be a straw man. Is hatred really a key component? First page of google has a number of definitions, and hate/hatred appear in none of them.
OK. dislike. prejudice, believing that one race is inferior. I don't think it really matters whether hatred is a component. If you ask people, the vast majority will say that they are not racist. Because they don't believe that they have any prejudice.
Just about EVERYONE* is prejudiced (including the most liberal progressive rights campaigners). It's stronger for some people, and some are more/less self-aware. But anyway: I'm not sure your point has any weight (once you remove the "hatred" bit).


*By which I mean studies have proven subconscious bias in a vast spectrum of subjects.
if everyone is prejudiced, then aren't those who disagree with some of the actions of anti racist protesters, in fact, racist?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by mattheus »

Vorpal wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 1:21pm
mattheus wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 12:47pm
Vorpal wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 10:47am
OK. dislike. prejudice, believing that one race is inferior. I don't think it really matters whether hatred is a component. If you ask people, the vast majority will say that they are not racist. Because they don't believe that they have any prejudice.
Just about EVERYONE* is prejudiced (including the most liberal progressive rights campaigners). It's stronger for some people, and some are more/less self-aware. But anyway: I'm not sure your point has any weight (once you remove the "hatred" bit).


*By which I mean studies have proven subconscious bias in a vast spectrum of subjects.
if everyone is prejudiced, then aren't those who disagree with some of the actions of anti racist protesters, in fact, racist?
I suppose if the protestors are, then yes I'd agree that those who criticise are also!

(don't things get tricky when we allow for shades of grey ... )
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by thirdcrank »

thirdcrank wrote: 7 Jan 2022, 2:28pm I'm a slow thinker these days so I'm still catching up with Suella Benjamin's reported spin (note the "could")

Edward Colston statue case could be sent to appeal court

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59909823

If I've understood this correctly, then the prosecution's right to appeal is here:-

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/part/9

Perhaps the significant points here are that the right to appeal is restricted to rulings made by the trial judge and the outcome of the appeal only decides that bit of the law for future prosecutions. I've no idea which, if any, of the trial judge's rulings the attorney general or her spinners may have in mind.

NB No prizes for this but spot the (unlikely to be deliberate) mistake in the BBC report I've linked.

Re the decisionmaking of either jury we can all speculate, safe in the knowledge that under the existing system we will never know.
It seems I had not understood this correctly, or at least not fully.

Colston Four trial: Attorney General defends 'considering' referring acquittal
Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 allows the Attorney General, following a submission from the Crown Prosecution Service, to ask a higher court to clarify a point of law, but it is not a means of changing the outcome of an individual case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60133938

Here's the relevant bit of the legislation
36 Reference to Court of Appeal of point of law following acquittal on indictment.
  • (1)Where a person tried on indictment has been acquitted (whether in respect of the whole or part of the indictment) the Attorney General may, if he desires the opinion of the Court of Appeal on a point of law which has arisen in the case, refer that point to the court, and the court shall, in accordance with this section, consider the point and give their opinion on it.
(No mention of the CPS, which didn't exist in 1972 but that's a minor point.)
Post Reply