2026-09-18
Apparently the miscreant who daubed orange paint on Sir Winston's statue in Parliament Square isn't criminally liable as the structure of the statue wasn't damaged.
It must be admitted that simple logic could readily support that position, since the statue as installed isn't (normally) painted and decorated. No damage, no "criminal damage" offence. How can you damage something that isn't there? This jury fulfilled its proper function by making that legal determination, whatever we may think of their viewpoint.
If he had been charged with "defacing" the statue they may have had more luck with the jury. But is "defacing" a crime?
"Insulting the memory of a national hero" perhaps ought to be a crime, but only for unspoken insults since we have to maintain the illusion of free speech. And for clarity, the written word must legally be regarded as "speech" for the purposes of defending "free speech", so this too would be tricky to make stick.
"Conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace" might have been more successful, but the British are unlikely to become too agitated about a single such event so long after the great man's passing, and foreigners who seem capable of objecting to anything involving the Middle East situation were probably too thin on the ground to cause a ruckus.
But perhaps there is some ancient law somewhere on the Statute Book that everyone has forgotten about but which could have been invoked to deal with this situation and send him to the Tower to await beheading? Such is the apparent incompetence of the CPS that we may never know ...
Anyway, Westminster Council (or whoever had to meet the clean-up bill) should now sue him for the costs incurred by the necessary clean-up operation.
What do you think the chances are?
