I would imagine there are a considerable number of people wondering how these four people have been found innocent of the crime of criminal damage by toppling the statue of the slave trader Edward Colson of which it seems there was clear CCTV evidence to convict them
Now, I’m a simple man and I was wondering had they been accused of murder and there was clear evidence of them participating in the crime and DNA evidence to link them to the dead body would the same feckless jury have found them innocent of that crime too?
There was considerable criticism of Marvin Rees the Mayor of Bristol who was the first black Mayor of African descent of a major European city who has apparently been in the job for some four years and has seemingly ignored a petition to remove the statue and here I have to come to his defence.
Apparently the petition was signed by nearly 18000 people which although quite a considerable number of people it is a tiny minority of the total population of Bristol which stands at 465900, so I have to assume the vast majority of the population were quite happy to see the statue remain in place, I personally favour placing a large plaque on them explaining both the good and bad aspects of the deeds of people like this so people can learn from seeing them.
Some 10000 people took part in the protest but only four were charged with criminal damage, Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, and Sage Willoughby, 22, were caught on CCTV passing the ropes around the statue that were used to pull it down and Jake Skuse, 33, was accused of orchestrating a plan to throw it in the harbour.
An estimated £3,750 of damage was done to the statue which included the removal of its staff and a coat tail and £350 of damage was caused to the railings of Pero’s Bridge.
I’m led to believe that when similar damage has been done by climate change activists the results of the following court cases are similar with none of them being found guilty either, which leaves me to question the intelligence of members of the jury who have a very simple job to do which is, when faced with clear CCTV evidence showing these people committing the act of criminal damage to bring in a guilty verdict, it really is that simple.
What a strange world we now find ourselves living in!
The Diary of a Country Bumpkin 
Strange indeed.
The Bristol Activist, a post that popped up under yours, said “it came down to a question of doing the right thing”
One defendant said ‘I believe I had a lawful excuse to damage that statue, preventing further harm to the people of Bristol.’
The mind boggles!
As I said it’s fairly simple if you do criminal damage and there is evidence to prove you did criminal damage you are guilty of criminal damage. It’s the same thing as, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it very probably is a duck, except in this topsy-turvy world, it’s not a duck and they are bizarrely found not guilty. It leaves me lost for words too!
Joe, very well said, but I wish you had a much louder voice!
Me too!