It is a fact that a British jury, like the Supreme Court, can never be wrong – and that even to hint that one might have been is to chip away at the very foundations of our legal system.

So if it seems to you that pulling down Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol with rope, beating it, spraying it with red paint and then throwing it into the city’s harbour last year constituted criminal damage, then all I can say is that, like me, you weren’t present at the trial, and are in no position to contradict the jury.

And as Liam Walker, the Defence Counsel in the trial, reminded all present, the four defendants were also “on the right side of history”.  It must be possible to be on the right side of history and still guilty of criminal damage, so how delighted we should all be that it didn’t prove so in this case.

So for the Government to have issued a formal statement declaring that it is still illegal to vandalise statues was unnecessary, since no reasonable person could believe that the defendants treated Colston’s in that way.  Furthermore, everyone understands the difference between his statue and that of, say, Karl Marx.

For the latter was incontravertibly on the right side of history – and that millions of people were killed because of the application of his theories makes no difference to that truth.  Please take no notice of any former columnist for this site who seeks to persuade you otherwise.

Frankly, it was pettifogging for William Hughes, the Prosecuting Counsel, to tell the jurors that the case was about “cold, hard facts”.  Bliss is it in this dawn to be alive!