Experts lament the decision to let a TV historian openly sympathize with Black Lives Matter protestors provide expert testimony. As fears rise that Edward Colston, a 17-century slaver and vandal who was self-professed to be a vandal, will not face trial but four others, experts are critical.
David Olusoga, the presenter had stated that he wanted to be part of the Bristol protests in which a bronze monument to Edward Colston was placed into Bristol’s harbour.
Radio Times later reported that he was following the masses on social media, as they moved towards the statue.
The 52-year-old, who previously shared sharp criticism with former PM Winston Churchill’s actions, was nevertheless invited to give two hours of expert testimony for defense purposes in the “Colston Four” trial.
Ministers are set to press ahead with sweeping changes to legislation following the jury’s decision to clear protestors Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, Sage Willoughby, 22, and Jake Skuse, 33, of all criminal damage charges.
Political commentators and lawyers have criticised the verdict of the jury. Some even admitted to expressing concern that the trial was held at Bristol Crown Court rather than against the vandals.
David Olusoga (pictured), historian and presenter, previously claimed that he wanted to be part of the Bristol protests in which a bronze commemoration to Edward Colston was thrown into Bristol’s harbour in June 2020. On December 16th, Mr Olusoga was pictured in front of Bristol Crown Court.
The bronze statue of Edward Colston, a 17-century merchant, was torn down by Black Lives Matter activists on June 7. It was later dumped into the harbour (pictured).
At the base of Bristol’s empty plinth, a banner supporting the vandals was placed.
Judge Peter Blair QC permitted Mr Olusoga evidence, even though the prosecution pointed out that there was a conflict of interest because the presenter had stated in the past that he had ‘desperately’ wanted to join Black Lives Matter protestors.
Calvin Robinson, a political commentator and activist said that he was skeptical of the defense’s decision not to call Olusoga ‘biased” as an expert witness.
MailOnline received this statement from him: “David Olusoga was clearly biased. But more importantly, he’s not an authority in property destruction. He’s a historian.
“This court case ought not to have any connection with history. This case was about the desecration of public property.
“Clearly, it was Colston who was on trial and not Black Lives Matter thugs. Colston was the focus of the whole trial. It wasn’t relevant, and it now looks like a political result.
Although the prosecution raised concerns about Mr Olusoga’s expert testimony, the defense at Bristol Crown Court welcomed the verdict.
On Thursday, he told Good Morning Britain that the statue had stood there for 125 year and was validating his career as a mass killer.
“And it’s offensive to those whose ancestors were slaved by Colston or men like him. You can speak to thousands in Bristol who find it offensive.
The verdict shows that when individuals are presented with the evidence regarding Edward Colston’s participation in slavery in Britain, as well as the bizarre story of the Bristol cult built around Edward Colston in the 19th Century, they react directly to that evidence and not to the culture war beats that revolve around it.
“Most people don’t get the full story of the statue’s history and of the lengthy campaign to remove it peacefully.
Calvin Robinson (pictured), a campaigner and political commentator, said that he was skeptical about the decision of defense to summon historian Olusoga as expert witness.
Winston Churchill, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain (pictured), has been criticized by Mr Olusoga before. He accused him of involvement in Africa activities that could be considered war crimes today.
Cleo Lake, former Lord Mayor, Bristol and Lloyd Russell (65), were also defence witnesses who spoke out about the racism within the city.
Ms. Lake was a Green Party politician, who previously attempted to take Colston’s symbols from the city.
The court heard her describe being shocked, alarmed, and startled to find a portrait depicting a slave trader in Lord Mayor’s Parlour. She tried to get it taken down.
She was once a Colston Girl’s School student. In the middle of the 1990s, her memory brought back protests by members from Bristol’s Afro Caribbean community demanding that the bronze 17-century memorial be taken down.
Former Bristol Mayor, who spoke out for defense and celebrated the fall of Colston’s statue
Cleo lake, a former Lord Mayor in Bristol, who tried previously to take symbols of Edward Colston from the city, spoke out for defendants.
The Green Party politician, while being question by the defense, admitted that she had celebrated Colston’s removal on June 7.
The court heard her describe being shocked, alarmed, and startled to find a portrait depicting a slave trader in Lord Mayor’s Parlour. She tried to get it taken down.
Cleo Lake
She was once a Colston Girl’s School student. In the middle of the 1990s, her memory brought back protests by members from Bristol’s Afro Caribbean community demanding that the bronze 17th-century memorial be taken down.
Ms. Lake stated to the court that she was relieved at the statue of Colston being taken down on June 7th and felt a great sense of relief when it fell into the harbor.
Ms. Lake stated to the court that she was relieved at the statue of Colston being toppled on June 7 and felt a great sense of relief when it fell into the harbor.
Lloyd Russell (65), a charity worker, was also called as a witness in this case. He claimed that his family moved to Bristol in 1950s from Jamaica.
His experience in St Paul was likened to New York’s Bronx. He also explained that he attended Montpelier’s predominantly white grammar school where he encountered racism his first time around, aged 11.
According to him, the school was not for me at that time. My mum shared with me the story of how vigilante white men threw things through windows in Bristol when they arrived.
“My father, a proud black man, didn’t hear the warning. My mum was taken into Broadmead by him and the two of them spat on her.
Former Prime Minister Winston Churchill has been criticized by Olusoga, accusing him in the past of taking part in actions in Africa which would be considered war crimes today.
Olusoga acknowledged that the ex-PM was a national hero, but he said that while he was glad Churchill won Halifax in 1940, and Churchill faced Nazis in the following years, it doesn’t mean that Churchill wasn’t responsible for or at least largely responsible for the Bengal Famine. [of 1943-44].
“It does not mean that he wasn’t someone who participated in war crimes in Africa. This doesn’t necessarily mean his views and opinions were not shocking for his Cabinet members, or people of the time.
Both of these things can be true. They both exist. These things will be true. We have to accept that there are many sides and it is not easy to see both.
Reacting to the verdict, William Hughes QC, of the prosecution, told MailOnline: ‘Ultimately it was a disappointing result.
“In terms of David Olusoga we [the prosecution]Colston was not denied his backstory.
We accept that he is a slaver. He was also involved with the Royal African Company. Olusoga’s testimony did not add any value to our understanding.
“Rather, it was an opaque gloss that I could imagine would put any jury member in a state of disease.
‘The judge had a discretion to deal with matters that were relevant or not. Although we said that it wasn’t relevant, he believed it important that the jury hear it. This is what we have to do.
‘Although it wasn’t a unanimous decision by the jury, and it is an unusual case, it demonstrates the jury can think about matters of importance in this day and age, relating back to matters 300/400 years ago.
“Whether or not I agree, it is a vindication for the jury-based trial system in the UK.