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 Floyd 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 dragging its feet.

In the end, the protesters took matters into their own hands. They were charged and put on trial.

Last week, the trial ended. After just three hours of deliberating, the jury had their verdict. The Colston four were not guilty.

That, say their critics, is the problem.

They worry 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, they 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 a precedent that any and all statues might be demolished as social trends change.

Good, say others. They argue that statues are at best pointless, and at worst ugly and offensive. While sculptures once lit up the world of art, they have now become kitsch and boring. They do little to beautify public space, and still less to educate people about the figures they depict.

Indeed, in recent years there has been a growing feeling that statues are not an appropriate way of honouring people. A statue dedicated to Mary WollstonecraftA British writer who is often called the mother of feminism. In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman she argued for equal rights for both genders. caused controversy last year, with critics complaining it objectified women.

Some suggest that pulling down statues could be an effective way of teaching people about our history. In 2019, Colston was an obscure historical figure, almost unknown outside Bristol. Today, most of the country knows his name and the role he played in the sale of human beings. Intentionally or not, the Colston four are responsible for the biggest public history lesson in modern times.

But some think there is a middle ground. Colston's statue, they argue, is a special case. It was put up in 1895 - a century and a half after Colston's death. Its instillation was a response to the creation of another statue in Bristol of Edmund BurkeIrish statesman, economist and philosopher. Often regarded as the founder of modern British conservatism., who criticised the city for its role in the slave trade. 

The Colston statue, they claim, has always condoned slavery. They argue statues like this should be taken down; those genuinely put up to honour great men and women, regardless of the nuances of their lives and ideas, should remain standing.

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 attack 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.