Some are calling it "the end of the rule of lawThe idea that those who govern and the government itself must be subject to the same laws as everyone else.". For others, it was 12 ordinary citizens delivering a mighty blow against racism. This weekend, Britain split down the middle over a jury's controversial decision to free the "Colston fourFour protesters, Sage Willoughby, Rhian Graham, Milo Ponsford and Jake Skuse, who were arrested and charged with criminal damage for their involvement in pulling down a statue of Edward Colston in Bristol in May 2020.".

This case started back in 2020. Black Lives Matter protests were sweeping the globe after the murder of George FloydAn African-American man who died in Minneapolis in May 2020 when a white police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. in Minnesota. Hundreds of thousands gathered all over the world to protest against racism and police brutality.

But in Britain, all eyes were on the city of BristolThe largest city in south-west England. Because of its position on the River Avon and proximity to the coast, it has been a trading city for most of its existence.. A group of protesters ripped down a statue of a man, jumped on its head, and threw it into the sea.

Why? The statue depicted Edward Colston, a merchant who traded some 84,000 slaves between 1680 and 1692. Bristolians had been campaigning for the statue's removal for decades, but the local council had been slow to make any changes.

Last week, the jury made its decision: not guilty.

This has worried some. They fear that if a group of protesters can rip down a statue simply because they do not like it, then all monuments could be at risk.

If Colston can come down, critics ask, then why not Winston ChurchillThe British prime minister during World War Two, and later from 1951 to 1955. , or Mahatma GandhiAn Indian political activist and lawyer (1869-1948), who emphasised passive resistance.? Both men held racist views but achieved great things. They worry the jury in the "Colston four" trial has set an example; now, any statues might be demolished as social trends change.

Good, say others. They argue that statues are pointless and ugly. They suggest that, in contrast, pulling down statues could be an effective way of teaching people about our history. In 2019, Colston was an obscure historical figure. Outside Bristol, many of whose buildings are named after him, he is almost unknown. But now, he is a household name in the UK. Millions know the part he played in slavery.

But some think there is a middle ground. Colston's statue, they argue, is a special case, because its purpose was to accept - and even celebrate - slavery. Statues that exist to glorify racism should be taken down. Those put up to honour people who did great things should remain standing, even if we now disapprove of their views.

Yes. Statues are only ever put up by the powerful to glorify their own. Behind every statue lies a crime against human beings. By ripping them down, we can at last make peace with the ugliness of our past.

No. In demolishing statues we denigrate the past and put the future at risk. We cannot allow our public monuments to fall prey to changing social attitudes, or nothing will be permanent.

Or...? Judge statues by their intention, not by the person they depict. If a statue was put up to defend racism, it should come down. If it honours a great but flawed individual, let it stay up.