"Demonstrably untrue" to say City Council didn't act on Colston, says Bristol Mayor
Marvin Rees has defended his actions on the Colston statue and racism, insisting his administration had acted to tackle the issue
Bristol's Mayor has defended his actions on the statue of Edward Colston, telling us it is "demonstrably untrue" to suggest the City Council had not acted to try and address the problem.
We have spoken to Marvin Rees a day after the so called "Colston Four" were found not guilty of criminal damage for tearing it down.
During a trial at Bristol Crown Court that lasted more than two weeks none of Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, Jake Skuse, 33, and Sage Willoughby, 22 ever denied that they had acted to remove the statue.
Instead they argued their actions were justified because the existence of the statue was a crime and after just less than three hours deliberating, the jury agreed, by a majority verdict.
While summing up their arguments, the defence suggested it should have been the City Council on trial, for having allowed the statue to remain up for so long.
We put the criticism to the Mayor.
"One of the arguments is, there's inaction," Mr Rees said.
"Inaction in general, inaction on the statue in particular.
"Well that's just demonstrably untrue...
"If they're saying there's inaction around Colston and the Colston legacy in the city, why are they not talking about Bristol Beacon? That's not a result of inaction is it?
"The name, which was actually the target of a lot of activity, that the biggest concert venue in the city was named after Colston, well that name was changed, so why are people not talking about that?
"Even if you think that is not important, that's demonstrably that there was action."
WATCH: Our full interview with Bristol Mayor Marvin Rees
Also during the trial several petitions that attempted to have the statue either removed or altered by democratic means were also brought up, as evidence of how the council had failed to act.
In 2018 it was announced a second plaque contextualising Colston's role in the slave trade would be added to the statue, but after much wrangling in the city over how it should be worded, one never materialised.
"In terms of the plaque, it is important to understand what actually happened there as well," Mr Rees said.
"I think people have taken half an insight and tried to present it as the whole truth.
"There was work on the plaque. I wanted a plaque on the statue that was clearer about who Colston was and how he made his money in the number of people who died, and the number of children who died as a result of the way he made his money.
"Work was done on the plaque. The plaque was brought to me, and I said, 'I'm not paying for that,' because the plaque that was then presented to me at the end of that initial process was so weak and sanitised that it was an insult.
"I said I would prefer to have no additional plaque on the statue and have the city actually confront the fact that it was such a contentious issue that we couldn't even come to an agreement on the plaque, and off the back of that have a discussion on the statue, rather than put up a sanitised plaque on the statue that attempted to put the debate to bed, but was an insult to history and an insult to people who had been enslaved, and an insult to people who opposed slavery and wanted better for Bristol.
"So there's a little bit more nuance to the plaque than has necessarily been presented," he said.
Despite the difficulties, does Mr Rees regret not being able to do more about the statue?
"The search for regret, I have big respect for your journalism but the search for regret is a silly search," he said.
"On the petitions that have been handed in over the statue, they've been going on for a long time.
"There's another interesting question to be asked, is it that you wait 100 odd years for something to happen on the statue and then it's the black guy's fault, when he comes along?
"That's a little bit of an interesting conclusion to draw," he said.