Forum Topic

The "Colston Four"

I am not impressed with the verdict reached by the court.I understand the perpetrators sentiment and agree that Black Lives Matter.But destroying a statue that belongs to the city, the county and the country is something I do consider criminal.There are many avenues to be pursued to achieve the removal of the statue legally.  It may take some time but it will be achieved.But mob rule removing the statue is something I certainly do not agree with.  Also, by toppling one statue they cannot erase the fact that England did deal in slavery, however much we disagree with this today; it happened, sadly.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1256d48 Comments

Look what happened to the Windrush Generation's records.https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/yes-minister-it-human-rights-issue/seventy-years-after-windrush?

Philippa Bond ● 1251d

Exactly Michael just another means of destroying historical records. Lost in the post!

Ed Robinson ● 1253d

Why would one have to provide an original copy; surely a certified copy would be adequate in most cases? Seems very dubious to me. I cant image some of the in house lawyers I've known giving me anything other than a copy of a contract with a large supplier for me to check something!

Michael Ixer ● 1253d

Exactly David, if only there was a means to copy documents before loaned out. I guess we have to wait for such an invention?

Ed Robinson ● 1253d

As you mention "Operation Legacy" where to avoid UK government embarrassment whole colonial archives were dumped at sea as well as being destroyed in other ways (I believe that no statues got wet), there is also this:-"Government admits 'losing' thousands of papers from National Archives.Documents on the Falklands, Northern Ireland’s Troubles, and the infamous Zinoviev letter among those ‘misplaced’, leaving historians suspicious""The disappearances highlight the ease with which government departments can commandeer official papers long after they have been declassified and made available to historians and the public at the archives at Kew, south-west London.A Freedom of Information Act request in 2014 showed that 9,308 files were returned to government departments in this way in 2011. The following year 7,122 files were loaned out, and 7,468 in 2013. The National Archives says Whitehall departments are strongly encouraged to promptly return them, but they are not under any obligation to do so."https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/26/government-admits-losing-thousands-of-papers-from-national-archives"The National Archives says Whitehall departments are strongly encouraged to promptly return them, but they are not under any obligation to do so."This is astounding, isn't it? No obligation to return them!This leaves archives at risk from carelessness as well as manipulation.

David Ainsworth ● 1253d

https://thebristolcable.org/2020/10/the-problematic-past-of-the-merchant-venturers-wulfstan-to-colston/Colston is everywhere in Bristol.  The statue was put up by the Merchant Venturers...We were only told a part of the story of slavery in history lessons at school.  There was little detail.  We never saw that plan of a slave trading ship.Is the Home Office still dealing incredibly slowly with the mistreated Windrush generation?  Or has it been taken away from them to be speeded up so that more of them don't die before they get their compensation?

Philippa Bond ● 1253d

"David are you suggesting we return some of the swag?"I wasn't heading that way currently, but it is an idea. The big boys' sums are frightening and I only got a middling O-Level.Maybe we could try paying the descendants of the Caribbean slaves the equivalent amount to that which we paid to the slaveowners in compensation 190 years ago. It was probably a reasonable valuation. The freed slaves were not compensated at the time. Although I believe that they were generously offered unpaid apprenticeships for a few years.It would be quite a sum today, obviously depending on what measure of inflation was used to calculate the equivalent. Quite a lot of billions. Of course, it might be a lot harder for the government to find willing lenders. We are not such a safe bet today.

David Ainsworth ● 1254d

"Something like a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission perhaps?"Reconciliation?? David are you suggesting we return some of the swag?

Ed Robinson ● 1254d

Plus that old standby, "Times were different then, and you can't judge their actions by today's standards."

Richard Carter ● 1254d

"Let us all tweak history to our way of thinking today. Let us topple all the statues of all the pirates and slave dealers so we do not see them, study them or even read about them.But then, we should blacken the reputation of all the British industries that grew on the proceeds of piracy and slavery."Something like a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission perhaps?But don't worry yourself, we will certainly "see them, study them or even read about them". It is obvious that many of us have been doing so for a long time.Mind you, if we do have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where should we begin?"Of the almost 200 current member states (and one observer state) of the United Nations, the British have, at some point in history, invaded and established a military presence in 171 of them."I know, I know, "but everybody did it then, and, (clincher), it wasn't against the law then".

David Ainsworth ● 1254d

"By the way, it is not unusual that people do not know the origin or reason for the name of the street they live on or visit."My street name is not repeated in London, although there is a road with the name in the UK, unlike Colston in Bristol:-"The 20 other things in Bristol which commemorate slave trader Edward ColstonThe statue is by no means the only thing which is named after him or celebrates him"https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/things-named-after-edward-colston-4204173Somewhat of a cult.

David Ainsworth ● 1254d

Well, for a start your comment about the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court is irrelevant since they don't have juries (except in exceptional cases before the High Court). Anyway, back to the main point: I think you have confused the setting of the law, which relies in large part on precedent, with jury decisions, which do not.Googling "Can a jury set a precedent" produces an entry on juries (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury) that includes this: "A jury trial verdict in a case **is binding only in that case, and is not a legally binding precedent in other cases** [my emphasis]. For example, it would be possible for one jury to find that particular conduct is negligent, and another jury to find that the conduct is not negligent, without either verdict being legally invalid, on precisely the same factual evidence."

Richard Carter ● 1254d

No Richard, the comment is not wide of the mark. That you do not agree with it is another matter.What the Colston Four did was, basically, out of sight out of mind.  Including the philanthropic side of Colston.One of the Colston Four did say they were not trying to rewrite history, just tweak it. Let us all tweak history to our way of thinking today.  Let us topple all the statues of all the pirates and slave dealers so we do not see them, study them or even read about them.But then, we should blacken the reputation of all the British industries that grew on the proceeds of piracy and slavery.By the way, it is not unusual that people do not know the origin or reason for the name of the street they live on or visit.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1254d

There is an awful lot of denial in the UK. We do seem to have a very strong belief that we are a special case. (Actually that deranged belief is not very unusual for a nation).

David Ainsworth ● 1254d

So will all your future postings on this forum be limited to campaigning against the murders of young Black people, Ms Hammond?It is not either/or, is it?-----------------------------------------Wording of a rejected additional plaque for the Colston statue when in situ:-"As a high official of the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, Edward Colston played an active role in the enslavement of over 84,000 Africans (including 12,000 children) of whom over 19,000 died en route to the Caribbean and America. Colston also invested in the Spanish slave trade and in slave-produced sugar. As Tory MP for Bristol (1710–1713), he defended the city's 'right' to trade in enslaved Africans. Bristolians who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not permitted to benefit from his charities."

David Ainsworth ● 1254d

I was reading that last night on twitter.A must read on understanding the process and of course highlighting that it is for the prosecution to prove their case.Apparently there have been other lawyers making comments are writing articles who are not criminal lawyers which prompted the publication.

Ed Robinson ● 1254d

"Jury decisions do not and cannot set a precedent"; well, perhaps because this court was not senior enough (meaning not the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court).As I am not a lawyer, I googled the statement and found: From Oxford LibGuides:"The UK is a common law country and as such judgments and case law are particularly important as the doctrine of precedent applies. This means that the judgment of each case can bind all subsequent cases depending on the seniority of the court (the court system has a hierarchical structure.)."But we all know that direct action (as in toppling the statue) can have results, over a period of time, but results they can get.  The suffragette movement comes to mind.   

Ivonne Holliday ● 1254d

Very good (and not too long summary here)https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

Matt Palmer ● 1254d

And another thing: the answer to all the questions about "Where will all this lead?" is: precisely nowhere. Jury decisions do not and cannot set a precedent, each one is unique so all the blather about this acquittal is just so much hot air.

Richard Carter ● 1254d

"...by toppling one statue they cannot erase the fact that England did deal in slavery."I have to say that this comment is quite extraordinarily wide of the mark. No one was trying to erase the fact, but the very opposite as they were drawing attention to it, and this remark highlights the falsity of the claim of the anti-woke brigade that people are trying to "rewrite" or "erase" history.Now here's a thing: I lived in Bristol for 9 years in the 1960s, went often to the Colston Hall and was familiar with the various Colston streets around the Centre, but I knew precisely nothing about Colston's record, and I don't think I was at all unusual in this. So the BLM actions in Bristol did everyone a favour in drawing attention to the dreadful history of Edward Colston.

Richard Carter ● 1254d

@David 17.52I think protesting about the number of black kids being killed is much more important than vandalising a statue.  Don't you?

Sue Hammond ● 1254d

An interesting legal comment on the matter. As I said earlier, the jury were obviously convinced by the defence? (None of us sat through the arguments so were perhaps not in as position to make an alternative decision.) I think the government should consider very carefully before tinkering with the law or legal system. (Some of there current proposed legislation seems to be enough to reduce our rights.) Obviously, one doesn't want anarchy but I think this was likely a one off case where frustration over inaction after inconclusive discussions concerning the statue lead to direct action. The statue is now where it's best located: in a museum along with (I assume) an appropriate explanation.https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

Michael Ixer ● 1255d

Hello Richard,I am aware of juries deciding to acquit a defendant in the past.  As you say, the reasons are many and complex.However, none of the reasons you provide apply to the Colston Four (though I admit I do not know what the punishment in this case would have been).  Neither does the comparison of people giving a helping hand to fugitive slaves in the USA in the 19th century.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1255d

It looks like the Tory government are going to look into ways of curbing such independent behaviour by a jury. Their usual reaction these days to anything which is beyond their limited understanding."the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases." Yeah, CLARIFY, that's what they mean. It begins with a "C" anyway. Perhaps Constrict. Or maybe Constrain.They may need new Statue-Tory powers to do this.

David Ainsworth ● 1255d

"However although relevant this is a digression from the main point of the thread"More than a digression, Ms Hammond. What makes it relevant for you?

David Ainsworth ● 1255d

Maybe so, but there is a long history of juries deciding to acquit in cases where they believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit anyway. Reasons may include beliefs that: - the law itself is unjust,- the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,- the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or - general frustrations with the criminal justice system.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullificationThe refusal to convict people of helping fugitive slaves in the USA in the 19th century is a particular example of this: would you argue that such acquittals were wrong?

Richard Carter ● 1255d

I thought the role of a jury was to decide whether the defendant(s) is/are innocent or guilty based on the facts presented to them.I did not know that sympathies with the defendant(s) was an official role for the jury.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1255d

Silly Braverman's claim that the law is "causing confusion" is obvious nonsense. The law is perfectly clear, and there's no reason to suppose the jury misunderstood it, they just decided to interpret so as to acquit because of the background to the case. Incidentally, the prosecution claimed that the fact that Colston was a slave trader was "wholly irrelevant." Daft comment of the year so far!

Richard Carter ● 1255d

@ Ivonne" I am not impressed with the verdict reached by the court."Neither am I Ivonne.  Whatever reasons these people gave for their actions they are not justification for acts of vandalism and criminal damage. "In the very recent news, we have heard of some 30 black teenagers killed in the UK."The four were allegedly BLM protestors but why aren't they, (and all the other Black Lives Matter protestors for that matter), out on the streets protesting about these black teenagers killed in 2021?  Could it be because it is predominantly black teenagers who are killing other black teenagers? Does the BLM movement not care about this or are they simply ignoring it because they don't want to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth about these crimes? I am certain they would be out on the streets rioting 24/7 if white teenagers had been the perpetrators.  However although relevant this is a digression from the main point of the thread which is whether these four were guilty (or not) of criminal damage when they pulled down a public statue and threw it into the Bristol harbour. Richard Littlejohn thinks so, and so do I."Even though they were caught on camera committing criminal damage and made no attempt to deny it, they were found not guilty by a majority of 11 to one.So much for the wisdom of juries."https://mol.im/a/10376803The Attorney General is now considering referring this matter to the Court of Appeal. Suella Braverman said that the case "is causing confusion" and would therefore consider referring it to senior judges to give them "the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases."

Sue Hammond ● 1255d

An awful lot of tosh has been uttered over this affair, notably by rentagob Grant Shapps, but the prize utterance was Johnson's: people should not "go around retrospectively seeking to change our history." What does the fool think historians' job is, other than to write/rewrite history?Actually, the jury's verdict was interesting and it would be fascinating to hear their reasoning. My guess is that was something along the lines that the prosecution was technically correct, but that they entirely sympathised with the accused four's motives, in view of the fact that any attempt official to modify even the plaque on the statue was vetoed by the bigots of the merchant Venturers' Society. In that, they would be acting like the jury in the prosecution of Clive Ponting in the aftermath of the Falklands War, the problem being that they were faced with a wholly rigid but non-ideal choice: either convict when they strongly sympathised with the accused's case, or acquit in spite of the technical nature of the case against the accused.

Richard Carter ● 1255d

Thanks, David. Perhaps Rees-Mogg should draw that moustache on Cromwell's statue outside the HoP: more wealth generation for Sunak?

Michael Ixer ● 1255d

Re: "generating wealth""Rhian Graham, who along with three co-defendants was found not guilty of causing criminal damage at Bristol Crown Court on Wednesday, said a valuation was obtained by their defence team."[The art valuer] valued the statue, pre toppling, at around £6,000," she said. "Post toppling, at auction, is around £150,000 if not up to £300,000, which is a huge increase."She added: "In that sense, have we really damaged it?"https://news.sky.com/story/edward-colston-statue-toppled-artwork-now-worth-300-000-50-times-its-original-value-12510440So a Tory government is against wealth creation?:-"Vandals who criminally damage statues face up to 10 years in jail plus £2,500 fine under new law" (Daily Mail)Philistines!

David Ainsworth ● 1255d

Interesting, Ed. If slave traders like Colston were putting money into building schools then that was investing in the educational capital of the UK which in turn should help generate wealth for the country.One also imagines that the compensation slave traders received when the Act of Anolition was passed found it's way into industrial investments?

Michael Ixer ● 1256d

"Colston's links to Mortlake are neither here nor there."It is part of our local history too. His money was not just spent in Bristol but also more locally. Did we know before the publicity? Probably not.With regard to Stephen Lawrence - policing may have been completely different if the Straw recommendations were not blocked then perhaps we wouldn't have had 30 black teenagers killed in the UK.As regards to the British Museum: Operation legacy destroyed documentation that may have been embarrassed  the UK as the empire collapsed. Perhaps it included what happen to the trophies heads of those that lead an uprising. Zimbabwe believe they are held by the British Museum and have been trying to reunite them.Incidentally the Queen also had a no ethnic policy during the time you mentioned and officials even lobbied to be exempt from legislation.

Ed Robinson ● 1256d

Mr Rolink:- "The UK & western Europe didn't gain their prosperity from slavery."So the Colston of the statue was not a rich slave trader after all? If there was no profit in slavery, then how could he be a benefactor to Bristol? So the statue must be wrong. Best to demolish it then.I do wonder from where came the wealth to invest in the industrial revolution then.

David Ainsworth ● 1256d

And where did the financing come from to invest in the new industrial processes? Perhaps money earned from slavery and cheap goods plundered by colonial powers, of which the UK was both a leader in industrialisation and had the largest colonial empire? You suppose it might just be coincidence ... I'd agree history can't be changed but it's  worth studying to understand current situations?

Michael Ixer ● 1256d

The UK & western Europe didn't gain their prosperity from slavery. If it had done we would have collapsed when it was abolished. Our wealth came from the industrial revolution, which is why it went. It was a rubbish system that benefited hardly anyone & why it wasn't going to work against capitalism. This fighting of long since settled questions is baffling.Fighting ghosts as one commentator put it.I blame lockdown.

Paul Rolink ● 1256d

I am not too sure I follow your post, really. Colston's links to Mortlake are neither here nor there.Steven Lawrence's assassination happened under Maggie Thatcher's premiership.  This was followed by Major and then Blair.What is the association with Zimbabwe and the British Museum, please?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1256d

Just to add: I don't think it's about re writing or tweaking history, shouldn't we be refocusing on the data and interpreting them in a broader context?

Michael Ixer ● 1256d

Let's not forget Colston's links to Mortlake. I think some pillars of his house (Cromwell House) are still there but not in there original location.Also there are other links to the area:https://mortlakehall.co.uk/about-us/Sealed papers released recently at Kew indicate that Tony Blair may have watered down reforms following the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Perhaps policing would be different today?It seems to take longer than it should to get to shine a light on some of these historic events.Still at least there are some papers to unseal!Operation legacy was surely an exercise in cancelling history??I understand that Zimbabwe is still trying to get the heads of those hanged and decapitated following an uprising returned from the British museum.https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/news/more-prime-ministers-files-from-1997-released/

Ed Robinson ● 1256d

I think most people are aware of Britain's participation in the slave trade. In the 1960s when I was at school it wasn't taught in any detail although it was obviously considered 'a bad thing'. However, it wasn't mentioned how much of the UK's (and most of western Europe's) wealth and prosperity was based on slavery and colonialism. Abolition of slavery was mentioned as a positive action but compensation for slave owners was quietly forgotten. I've discovered more about the wealth and compensation aspects from my own reading and visiting museums. (To be fair I didn't study history for long in secondary school - I had to give it up as I chose to concentrate on maths and sciences - and most of what I remember doing was Roman Britain (interesting, love visiting the sites now) and the Kings and Queens of England (tedious and mostly forgotten) but that might have been the teaching.)I suspect the toppling of Colston's statue and the subsequent debates has opened a few eyes to some of the realities of Britain's history? Let's hope so. I'm not sure a mass toppling of statues would be useful but perhaps some better, balanced explanations would be helpful?

Michael Ixer ● 1256d

Thank you Sean and Ed for your comments.While I agree that Edward Colston was probably introduced to some people by the toppling of his statue, surely the subject of slavery has been known for quite some time?  Are people not aware of Sir Francis Drake? Should his statues and those of Queen Elizabeth I be toppled too?  Have people not heard about William Wilberforce?I dislike the subject of slavery as much as anybody else, but it happened 400 years ago.  What about slavery and trafficking that happens today?  Should this not be at the forefront of our thoughts?  Yes, Colston became very rich with dealing in slavery, but his fortune was left to Bristol when he died.  It is also true that his statue was put up in 1895 so I very much doubt that it was Colston's wish to be remembered by it because he died in 1721 but I may be wrong.  Strangely, the statue was granted Grade II listing in the 1970s.... Funnily enough, it was a time when some guest houses in the UK had signs:  "No blacks, no Irish and no dogs"......The Black Lives Matter exploded in the UK after the death (or assassination?) of George Floyd in the USA.  Fair enough, in the UK we have the disgraceful death of Steven Lawrence and, in the very recent news, we have heard of some 30 black teenagers killed in the UK.  This I think is an incredibly shocking statistic that needs greater attention than events that happened long before we were born.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1256d

Seems that we only just finished paying off the slave owners in 2014/15.With regards history - more people are aware of Edward Colston than before the statue was toppled, so I'm not sure you can say it is destroying history. Perhaps the version of history that he wanted us to remember??On the public vandalism argument - I assume the jury weighed that up. I can only conclude that the prosecution case for the delays was not strong enough.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/680456/FOI2018-00186_-_Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833_-_pdf_for_disclosure_log__003_.pdfhttps://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-k-paid-off-debts-slave-owning-families-2015/3283908001/

Ed Robinson ● 1256d

No history is changed by toppling a statue. Instead, an unjustified honour has been removed. The distortion was putting up a statue to a slaver. Now the truth has been given a bit of an airing. Part of this country coming to terms with some of its more loathsome history

Sean Hodges ● 1256d

Hello Michael,I agree that sometimes things do not happen until direct action is taken; the suffragette movement is the first thing that comes to mind.  In the case of Colson, Why not cover the statue with cloth, repeatedly, graffiti even?  I somehow think, incorrectly perhaps, that there are strong similarities with the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue.  The main difference, it was the reality at the time in Iraq, not something that happened 400 years ago...

Ivonne Holliday ● 1256d

Hello Matt,I am not surprised (though yes disgusted) that discussions with the Council have gone on for so long.  But these discussions were not had by the four - they were between 13 and 15 years old at the time.  It could be possible but I think it rather unlikely.I can understand the frustration, but the behaviour of the 4 could be considered as the beginning of anarchy???Also, why not take the plaque away as they complained it indicated Colston was a philanthropist? But I suppose that doing so was not as newsworthy or had the same impact as destroying a statue that did not belong only to the four...It is extraordinary that they say we live in a multicultural society (I hope they refer to the country, not just Bristol) but in order to "celebrate" this they needed to destroy history (as awful as it was) from 400 years ago.  Oooops, sorry, what did one of them say?  "We did not rewrite history, we tweaked it" .... Hmmmmmmmm

Ivonne Holliday ● 1256d

Unfortunately, sometimes nothing happens until direct action is taken. The jury were obviously impressed by the defendants' case.

Michael Ixer ● 1256d

Apparently there were discussions with the council on and off for over 15 years about either removing it or adding some context to the plaque. As these went nowhere people took matters into their own hands I guess.

Matt Palmer ● 1256d