A year and a half after its removal, the statue of Edward Colston has again become a focal point for difficult and antagonistic debate. The interpretation of the Colston Four’s acquittal varies greatly. Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps has decried the verdict, promising the removal of similar ‘loopholes’ under the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is due for its third reading in the coming months.

Speaking to Times Radio, a belief in democracy underpins Shapps' criticism: ‘if you want to see things changed you can get them changed, you do that through the ballot box, or petitioning your local council'. His comments reflect the Achilles heel of many Conservative MPs’ responses – a detachment to the events occurring in Bristol for the past 30 years. The reframing of Colston away from a benevolent philanthropist began as early as the 90s, as his history within the Atlantic slave trade reared its head - when the Colston Four defendants were children and ‘wokery’ as a word was yet to be co-opted by the press.

Where hushed petitioning and outrage failed anti-Colston campaigners decades ago, it appears to be the approach of the government heading forward. Given her disquiet in the days after the statue's removal, Priti Patel’s reticence after the verdict is surprising; at the time, Whitehall sources revealed that the Home Secretary adopted a ‘hands-on’ approach in the immediate aftermath, criticising police for not making arrests on the day or taking greater precautions to protect the statue.

The Colston Four’s trial being held by jury, as opposed to at a magistrate’s court, has become a crux of discourse across the political spectrum. Amongst anti-colonialist activists, the acquittal represents a powerful and pivotal alleviation of a cultural pressure valve. It is estimated that over 84,000 slaves were traded during Edward Colston’s time with the Royal African Company, and some interpret the verdict as a tacit and rightful condemnation of the atrocities it propagated. While traditionalist Jacob Rees-Mogg extolled the inherent virtue of trial by jury, the Daily Mail reports that there is a mounting insistence that Attorney General Suella Braverman invokes unusual powers to appeal such verdicts. Doing so would perhaps be a counterintuitive move since jury decisions are decided on their unique facts and are therefore not precedent-setting.

Equally surreptitiously, the government is maintaining its drive to pass through the Police Bill, which would have served the defendants in the Colston case with a maximum sentence of 10 years. The calm and calculated response to the verdict may strengthen its opprobrium to the ‘mobs’ the Bill intends to target and paint an authoritative picture of the government. While an irrevocable milestone in British cultural history, the story of Colston and those who toppled his statue is unlikely to be a closed book yet.

by Dite Bagdonaite

The Edward Colston Statue Saga Continues