December 14, 2021
From Alternative Bristol (UK)
219 views

Before we begin, do see our pre-trial information article and also our coverage of day one. Today was an odd day, marked by debate as to the value of the alleged criminal damage; Yesterday the cost of damage to the statue was put at £3750 (plus damage to the poor pavement) yet today there was confusion as to what that figure represented, as the Bristolian reported;

Instead £3,750 was the cost of of the plinth the council had built for the statue to display it in the M Shed. Indeed, it increasingly appears, that any damage to the statue came at zero cost and that this major prosecution with an international reach is over who’s responsible for the cost of some municipal pavement maintenance.

So the net result for the council is an educational object now on prominent display in a prominent city cultural institution providing a great ‘educational’ value to the city, and that also now happens to now have ‘solved’ a long-running controversy the council itself failed to deal with? Yet the people in the dock are the ones accused? What they are accused of seems to be a clear net-benefit to the city; so where is the damage, we wonder?

That is not all – the statue is owned by the people; some of the same people allegedly chose to remove it?

Remember folks, the cost of this farcical trial – and the expensive legal bills from the prosecution QC – is a cost to us all. If there is no net damage; what are we paying for here? What we’re paying for Boris’ culture war agenda. (You can see this in the amount of coverage GBNews aka GBeebies is giving the trial!)

Perhaps the Merchant Venturers should fess up and pay all the legal costs? After all, it is their toxic legacy we’re left to clean up, at great cost to the people of the city past and present.




Source: Alternativebristol.com