Assignment Example: Discourse Analysis of Image and Text

Here is a sample that showcases why we are one of the world’s leading academic writing firms. This assignment was created by one of our UK assignment writers and demonstrated the highest academic quality. Place your order today to achieve academic greatness.

Executive Summary

The toppling of 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston has raised a lot of controversy about the rule of the law and criminal damage (Hare 2021). The 1971 Criminal Damage Act clearly states the repercussions of committing such criminal damage (Grace 2021). The act further criminalizes any action that leads to vandalism and damage to public property. Jake Skuse 33, Rhian Graham 30, Milo Ponsford 26, and Sage Willoughby, 22 through the CCTV, were identified toppling the Colston statue from its plinth and throwing it on the Pero’s bridge. The four admitted to having taken part in the act but the jury did punish them arguing that it was within their rights of expression (Habib et al. 2021).

The defender also claimed that the statue was offensive as it spread a hate crime. The democratic process was challenged following this verdict as the law was very clear concerning the criminal damage. The twelve members of the jury’s decision to clear the Colston four compromised the democratic process thus history may judge them harshly. The four were seen celebrating after winning the case out of the Crown Court of Bristol.

Introduction

The damage to slave trader Edward Colston’s statue happened after it was pulled by four people including Jake Skuse 33, Rhian Graham 30, Milo Ponsford 26, and Sage Willoughby, 22. The four people faced charges after they were sported on the CCTV contributing to the amputation of the statue (Hare 2021). They took advantage of the black lives matter protest in June 2020 in Bristol. The act can be described as criminal damage which is stated in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 Chapter 48 (Habib et al. 2021).

The Act criminalizes any attempt to destroy or damage any property belonging to another person or destroys or damages the property shall be held guilty of the offence. The Act also states that if a person destroys or damages any property belonging to himself or another person shall be guilty of the offence. Under this section, an offence of destroying or damaging property shall be charged as arson. The four-person according to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 committed an offence chargeable by the law (Steinberg, 2021). Letting such offences go will pose danger to other public monuments.

Analysis of the Image and text

Criminal damage can be described as an offence of damaging or destroying a property tangible property is a common activity which includes pulling down offences, breaking windows, scratching cars’ paintwork, and spraying or writing slogans on walls (Habib et al. 2021). The four in the image were seen through the CCTV pulling down the statue of slaver Edward Colston. Jake Skuse 33, Rhian Graham 30, Milo Ponsford 26, and Sage Willoughby, 22 wore T-shirts that showed their happy faces after being charged not guilty of the offence. From the CCTV the Colston four were seen passing the ropes around the Colston statue and pulling it down using the ropes. The action took place during the protest of black lives matter that took place in the street of Bristol in June 2020 (Grace 2012).

A large crowd took to the streets during the protest and gathered around the plinth which holds the statue of the 17th Edward Colston who was known to be a slave trader of that century where they attempted to pull down or remove the Colston’s statue. The Colston four passed the rope around the statue which they then used to pull down the structure from its normal position (Oliver 2022). They managed to remove the Colston statue and once it was down they threw it into the harbour which was nearby at the Pero’s Bridge. Jake Skuse, who was the final defendant was accused of orchestrating the entire plan of throwing the statue on the Pero’s Bridge. Skuse said during the trial he participated in the rolling of the statue to stage the symbolic sentencing of Colston the slave trader. The damage to the statue was estimated to be£3,750 in total with its bill totalling£350which includes the damage caused to the Pero’s Bridge railings (Steinberg 2021).

The crowd was large following the protest but the four got identified by the CCTV and were charged with the criminal damage. After the charges, the four admitted to having participated in the toppling of the Colston statue. Although the law was clear they claimed to be innocent with no crime as they claimed that the presence of the statue was a hate crime against the people living in Bristol.

From the image, the Colston four are seen smiling after the verdict was returned, and the four hugged in laughter after winning the case (Hare 2021). The Colston four were declared not guilty by the jury despite them admitting they had participated in the toppling of the infamous slave trader statue.

The black lives matter from the image were observed cheering for their freedom while the opponents caused a twist in their hands concerned about the danger of the new precedent that may have been set. The Colston four where three of them wore T-shirts which were designed by Banksy are seen laughing and hugging their supporters waiting outside the courtroom. All the offenders admitted to having taken part in the toppling of the statue but did not accept that their actions were illegal or criminal, they supported this by claiming that the statue was a hate crime which was against the people living in Bristol.

The campaign group in the Bristol Save our Statue argued and said that the verdict was disgraceful that allowed a green light to vandalism in the political arena and sets an example to anyone to damage and destroy whatever they don’t approve or disagree with (Grace 2021). They termed the act as injustice.

They further added that the Edward Colston bronze memorial to the 7th-century statue being toppled was defining the black lives matter the protest that took place in 2020. However, the prosecution side claimed that the case was based on straightforward criminal damage and termed it irrelevant (Hare 2021). Robert Poll the founder of the Save Our Statue argued that the judgement legitimizes the mob rules the act that is going to put the national heritage at risk. He also added that British history is tainted by a growing tenuous of slavery based associations and he felt everything was unsafe and was concerned for those who held contrary opinions to Churchill.

Dr Alan Mendoza belonging to the Henry Jackson Society argued that it was wrong to acquit people such freedom to damage statues, harbour rails and pavements because they don’t agree with it or find it offensive and will make the street end up losing control (Habib et al. 2021). He also added up democracy should equalize all people before the law by not favouring some because it will cause trouble. Ponsford, Tom Wainwright told the court that things could be different if the prosecution was there when the Berlin Wall was pulled down but there never showed concern at that time an act that shows selective democracy.

A representative of Willoughby, Liam Walker QC warned the attorneys about their stand that would resonate around the world. He urged them to be on the right side of history because it will not judge them kindly in the future. However, the Colston four barristers claimed that Colston’s legacy was very vital to the direction that the case will take (Grace 2021).

Tom Wainwright suggested the Colston four repay the damages of the destruction of the statues but Judge Peter Blair QC argued that such applications were inappropriate regarding the high-profile support the Colston four had received. Their actions went viral and were mentioned during the send-off of black American George Floyd who was murdered by a white police officer in 2020. Rev Al Sharpton was shown his frustrations seeing the grandchildren of slave masters toppling down the statue of the slave master and throwing it in the river.

A vice-chair of the parliamentary Common Sense Group Tom Hunt was concerned with the jury and the example it set (Hadley et al. 2022). He suggested that anyone who has committed criminal damage should be answerable to the law and if the law acted as a barrier in ensuring that justice was served it should be addressed and revisited.

In addition, Tory MP Robert Jenrick tweeted that undermining rule of law will underpin democracy as well. Accepting criminal damage and vandalism will lead to acceptance of it as a form of political protest which is wrong (Hare 2021). According to the jury’s decision, damaging the Colston statue was acceptable and allowed a form of a political protest simply by accepting the argument of the defence lawyers. They argued that convicting the Colston four was interfering with their human rights to gather, express themselves and think freely. Tom Hunt in this context was wrong in defining and understanding the not-guilty of the Colston four with they did not cause damage to Colstons’ statue and did not break the law.

Colston’s statue was alarming as it described Bristol’s most virtuous slave trader according to the defence side and suggested its removal as per Public Order Act (Oliver 2022). There is a need for Britain to worry about the continuous reckoning of its uncomfortable past of slavery and empire and the terrifying future of global warming. The probability of more defendants following the suit of the Colston four will rise as they have followed the footstep of those who came before them (Hare 2021). The protesters demonstrate the principled and political views that they put into action and actualize them accountably and give explanations in the court as they do not hide their actions.

However, the defendants believe the verdict of letting off the Colston four was according to the law and a great win for those who supported them and fight injustice. The Colston issue was very particular to Bristol and it pointed out not only the slave trader but also the plague offence (Habib et al. 2021).

The defendants argued that the Colston four were acquitted ultimately as they had a lawful excuse for committing the actions they did. The lawful excuses are such as the right to conscience, and right to free speech and it would be inappropriate for conviction to interfere with their rights. Further, the offenders pointed out that it was a criminal offence to let the statue up as they viewed it to be offensive thus they were preventing crime from happening.

Mr Shapps giving his take on the Colston four told Times radio they all live in a democratic country and for them to see the change they aspire for they can do through the voting process or by creating a petition in their local council (Oliver 2022). Rather than involving themselves in the criminal damage. He further suggests that the loopholes in the law can be fixed when necessary to ensure that it is followed accordingly. Potential loopholes can be closed by the Government Police Crime Courts Bill and Sentencing by ensuring that those who admit to having damaged memorials get a maximum of ten years sentence.

The clause in Police, Crime and Sentence Bill perhaps can close the loophole and this will fix the menace of going around damaging and destroying or vandalizing the public statues and going unpunished or unprosecuted (Habib et al. 2021). The newly established Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill contains legislation that could prosecute criminals involved in the vandalism of statues to a ten-year jail term if they are guilty as charged (Hadley et al. 2022). The establishment of the new Police Bill followed the damaging of statues countrywide in the previous years which was brought about by the increased tension over Britain’s colonial history. Under the newly formed law, the criminal damage will not go unprosecuted as in the case of Colston four rather it will ensure the culprits are either fined or are sent to prison for a maximum period of ten years (Habib et al. 2021).

The case was considered a summary trial because the damage involved was less than £5,000, this was according to the law at the time of prosecution. This meant it could only be heard by the magistrate and could sentence the offender to no more than three months imprisonment or pay a fine of up to £2,500. However, the suggested Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will see the scrapping of the existing monetary divide which impacts the sentencing of powers while dealing with criminal damage to the statues. It will add an imprisonment period of up to ten years for those who will be caught vandalizing the public statues (Hare 2021). The proposed bill will be of help and will ensure no citizen will take the law into their hand while dealing with public heritage and properties like the Colston slave trader statue.

The judges in charge of the cases could have been guided by this bill to prosecute the Colston four to discourage the future vandalizing of any statues causing criminal damage no matter how offensive they are or disagree with the statue erection (Habib et al. 2021). However, the jury was under a lot of pressure to favour the right hand in the history thus the verdict could not have been different apart from bowing down to the historical side. Therefore, democracy was challenged and it leaned on the wrong side of the law according to those who challenged the verdict. It was a worrying state of things as they sought justice and truth was not found in the walls of justice.

By ruling the not guilty verdict, it sets a common precedent for people that they can go unprosecuted after committing destruction and vandalism to the public property instead of following the appropriate democracy process as stated by the law (Hadley et al. 2022). Democracy should be encouraged and create faith in it by not encouraging vigilantism. Making a comparison of vandalism and destruction of the statues with the suffragettes is wrong because them they took direct action to topple and threw the slave trader statue on the bridge.

Further, democracy was compromised to favour the black lives matter thugs while for the other group the democracy did not access the democratic process (Hare 2021). The jury can be relied on but it is far from being perfect or rather following the law without compromising the democratic rights of the people in the question. Loopholes in the jury can cause people to lose faith in it, therefore, creating doubt and unsatisfactory situations when the verdict is mentioned. In the case of the Colston verdict, some people were not satisfied as they felt the law was not followed and the four could have been prosecuted by following the democratic process as required. They argued that this was criminal activity and the four could have not set free and felt that further action is supposed to be taken against the Colston four (Grace 2021). Letting these four out is an injustice that is supposed to be checked on and addressed to discourage such acts of toppling the country’s heritage and the statues down. According to law criminal damage is an offence that is punishable by the law thus the law could have followed while concluding on the toppling of the Colston statue. The anomalies found in the rule of law cause severe damage to the justice and democratic process.

The jury decided to acquit the Colston four defenders raises the question of who is supposed for the damages caused by the toppling of the statue which was estimated to be £3,750, the statue was torn out of its plinth (Grace 2021). The Pero’s Bridge railings were also damaged during the toppling and protest. Thus it requires fixation to rectify the damages that amount to £350 which also need to be paid (Hare 2021). Setting free the Colston four has led to these confusions because the rule of law and democratic process were not followed as required. The impact of the twelve members of the jury according to Mr Walker was to be felt countrywide and beyond. Their decision has set a precedent to be followed by the coming generations which portrays the loopholes in the democratic process.

The decision was not reversible and it will spread around the world it is not pleasant to be on the wrong side of history as it will judge them harshly (Habib et al. 2021). Judge Blair one of the twelve members of the jury claimed that Mr Walker was placing unnecessary pressure on the jury. He further advised concerning their decision to be based on the defendant’s accounts of what transpired and not paying attention to the wider impact of removing the statue which was referenced in the defence barrister’s summary and the case should be based on the evidence presented in court in December 2012 (Oliver 2022).

Despite their verdict on the Colston statue judge Blair insisted that vandalism remains to be a crime punishable by the law and advised the police officers to take it seriously. Judge Blair’s statement is in contradiction with the verdict they gave regarding the criminal damage that was committed by the four. The wrong impression and precedent were created despite the law stating clearly the charges to be taken when such crimes are committed. The 1971 Criminal Damage Act is very clear on how the democratic process must be followed to offer justice to both the prosecutor and the defendant. It states that damaging or vandalizing another person is criminal damage (Habib et al. 2021). Therefore, following this Act, the Colston four committed a crime and they needed to be charged with criminal damage which is punishable by the law. The verdict also did not find Colson four thus raising the questions of who is supposed to rectify or pay for the damages of the Pero’s Bridge railings and the slave trader statue.

The official spokesman of the Prime Minister stated that they respected the decision made by the jury and will not comment nor challenge the verdict but urged the police officer to take any crime seriously whether vandalism or damage to the public property (Habib et al. 2021). He further stated the suggestion of changing the law to certain the punishment of those found guilty of vandalizing memorial properties as they impact the emotions and sentiments of the people. Judge Blair allowing David Olusoga to present his expert evidence despite the prosecution raised concerns about him desperately wanting to join the black lives matter in their protest showed loopholes in the democratic process (Grace 2021). Olusoga argued that letting the statue stand for 125 years was validating the slave trade and mass murder and it was offensive to the people whose ancestors were enslaved by Edward Colston.

Conclusion

In the 17th century Edward Colston a known slave trader of ancient times was toppled by Jake Skuse, Rhian Graham, Milo Ponsford, and Sage Willoughby and later were thrown in the Pero’s Bridge. The four argued to have committed this crime following the wrong impression the statue was creating terming it as a hate crime against the people whose ancestors were enslaved by the slave trader. Following the hearing in the Crown courts of Bristol, the twelve members of the jury decided to set the four free arguments they were practising their rights of expression. The 1971 Criminal Damage Act criminalizes vandalism and damage to public property and it states clearly that such acts should be punishable by the law either through three-month imprisonment or payment of a fine. Despite the law being clear the four were declared not guilty thus the celebrations in the text and the image.

References

Hare, I., 2021. Statues, statute and freedom of expression.PUBLIC LAW, (4), pp.691-706.

Habib, S., Peacock, C., Ramsden-Karelse, R. and Tinsley, M., 2021. The Changing Shape of Cultural Activism: Legislating Statues in the Context of the Black Lives Matter Movement.

Oliver, A., 2022. Edward Colston, Nostalgia and Resistance: How Does Britain (Mis) Remember and (Re) Imagine Colonialism?.The SOAS Journal of Postgraduate Research,14(2020-2021), SEAL, L., 2022. Book Review: Historical Criminology by DAVID CHURCHILL, HENRY YEOMANS and IAIN CHANNING.pp.70-89.

Grace, J., 2021. From Statues to Statute: Protests and Vigils in the Time of COVID-19.Available at SSRN 3814145.

Steinberg, P., 2021. Blue planet, Black lives: Matter, memory, and the temporalities of political geography.Political Geography, p.102524.

Hadley, M., Hook, S. and Orr, N., 2022. Ideological Vandalism of Public Statues: Copyright, The Moral Right of Integrity and Racial Justice.Griffith Journal of Law & Human Dignity,9(2). Brown, D., 2001. Mandatory sentencing: A criminological perspective.Australian Journal of Human Bauer, A.A., 2021. Itineraries, iconoclasm, and the pragmatics of heritage.Journal of Social Archaeology,21(1), pp.3-27. Rights,7(2), pp.31-49.

Mahony, E., 2021. Empty plinths: The significance of absence.Art & the Public Sphere,10(1), pp.55-70.

Branscome, E., 2021. Colston’s Travels, or Should We Talk About Statues?.ARENA Journal of Architectural Research,6(1).

Carlson, B. and Farrelly, T., 2022. Monumental upheavals: Unsettled fates of the Captain Cook statue and other colonial monuments in Australia.Thesis Eleven,169(1), pp.62-81.

Kerr, M.M. and Thomas-Davis, M., 2021. ‘There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in’.Socialist Lawyer.

Frequently Asked Questions