Or maybe Dame Maureen objected to Sir Ben playing the Jewish accountant Yitzhak Stern in "Schindler's List"?
I read David Baddiel’s short polemic ‘Jews Don’t Count’ over the Xmas break, where he considers this very issue of Kingsley playing Stern and Gandhi, amongst many other things. I found it very interesting, worth a read if anyone’s interested.
He examines the view of Jews on and by the progressive left. Obvs Corbyn and the party under him get a few mentions.
While I don't agree with the Dame at all because I think the current trend of in effect suggesting actors should mirror their role in race/gender etc, that book did come to mind when I saw her comment, since people very much do complain about casting and race and, while counter examples exist, she probably is right about it being a bigger deal but for the subject in this case.
One of Baddiel’s observations is that it is fashionable amongst progressives to call for gay characters to be played by gay actors, etc, etc, but there isn’t a similar call for Jewish characters to be played by Jewish actors, and no outcry if it happens from the people who would complain if, say, a white actor blacked up to play Mandela.
I think it’s outrageous that in Sausage Party, that they didn’t cast a real sausage to play the lead roles but a bunch of white dudes.
Sheldon: You can't be Professor Proton. You're not a scientist. Wil Wheaton: Well, I was never on a starship, but pretending I was bought me this house. And if I'd pretended a little longer, it would have a swimming pool.
Or maybe Dame Maureen objected to Sir Ben playing the Jewish accountant Yitzhak Stern in "Schindler's List"?
I read David Baddiel’s short polemic ‘Jews Don’t Count’ over the Xmas break, where he considers this very issue of Kingsley playing Stern and Gandhi, amongst many other things. I found it very interesting, worth a read if anyone’s interested.
He examines the view of Jews on and by the progressive left. Obvs Corbyn and the party under him get a few mentions.
While I don't agree with the Dame at all because I think the current trend of in effect suggesting actors should mirror their role in race/gender etc, that book did come to mind when I saw her comment, since people very much do complain about casting and race and, while counter examples exist, she probably is right about it being a bigger deal but for the subject in this case.
One of Baddiel’s observations is that it is fashionable amongst progressives to call for gay characters to be played by gay actors, etc, etc, but there isn’t a similar call for Jewish characters to be played by Jewish actors, and no outcry if it happens from the people who would complain if, say, a white actor blacked up to play Mandela.
The broader point about left wing hypocrisy is well-made, but I don't think it's actually valid in this case: it ties into the idea of "lived experience" which is very much in fashion with the left at the moment. If you make a film where one of the characters happens incidentally to be gay, or whatever, then it's not important whether the actor is or isn't. If the entire focus of the film is on how the character's sexuality affects their lives, then you can argue that a non-gay actor would struggle to represent that as well as someone who actually understands what it's like to be discriminated against for that reason. Put simply, Hollywood does not make too many films with Jewish characters in which their religion is actively important. This isn't really a big deal for gay characters anymore, but does come into play for disabled roles quite a bit, and I have some sympathy with the argument that (for example) putting an able-bodied actor in a wheelchair is wrong to play a character explicitly written as a paraplegic.
The other point is that there are a large number of Jewish actors (and producers, directors, etc) quite happily playing non-Jewish roles in Hollywood, so it's very hard to argue that representation is a problem. In contrast, with the disabled example above, it is obviously far harder for disabled actors to get cast in roles not written for them, without making (sometimes substantial) changes to the script.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Colton, I’d quite like to stop judging historical figures by the laws, morals and customs of the present day.
That's unavoidable though.
What we need as Garius on Twitter pointed out earlier today is somewhere to move the awkward statues to in the Bulgaria and Hungary now have memorial parks for their Communist statues.
We could have Slaveowners Quarter leading to the smaller Slavetraders Square.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn a nd axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I have answered the vat question before
At 5% it is not a great help to the lower paid but it gives a 5% cut to the wealthy
The answer is for the treasury to make a one off payment to the lower paid and those on UC similar to the £300 winter fuel payment given to pensioners over 80
So unlike HYUFD, you will be disappointed if Boris takes the political hit, and then U turns on what I think is a sensible stand you briefly spelled out?
Novak now in solitary without his mobile at the airport.
This is profoundly depressing . I have had the jabs but respect everybody' right to not have intrusive injections if they do not want them.He is obviously very principled about this himself yet is getting bullied by people, media and even the state about this personal decision. It is an alarming negative trait of human nature that they will bully if they think they have right on their side
So principled that his medical exemption seems a bit... interesting.
The number of other players that have such "medical exemptions" suggest that either severe conditions are endemic in high end tennis, or some doctors are liars.
Given that the Australian authorities have started looking at this we are going to be seeing some fun over the next few days.
Which would get pathetic given its one player with a personal decision he made . The whole covid governance is frankly pathetic though
Why should the Australian authorities turn a blind eye to making false medical statements? Which seems to be a thing in tennis.
I didn't think there was issue with criminals going to Oz?
I think they wanted honest criminals - forthright highwaymen, murders, cut-purses, horse thieves etc.
They are probably unused to international tennis players.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
Were the four prosecuted for dumping the statue in the water? I'd have thought that would have warranted a separate charge.
Are yes, disposing of inert or non-hazardous waste without complying with the provisions of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.
IIRC dumping "un-classified" material is a big no no.
There is big money in taking material excavated from buildings during construction - which comes in as "potential hazardous waste" and dealing with it. The congruency of ownership of business providing aggregate for concrete/concrete itself is to be noted. Remarking on it might be rude....
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn and axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
IMO VAT on fueld
I expect Boris will cut it in time, though the eco friendly position would arguably be to keep VAT on fuel and help cut energy use
Thank you for your answer. Your answer is wrong on many levels I think.
First Point being, U turn earlier it’s less remembered as a U turn. If you are known as U Turn politician your authority seeps away, because why believe someone with track record for U turning when they say they won’t?
Actually I don’t think Boris should surrender as you think on the point he is making, I have a feeling Boris is right in that cutting fuel Vat benefits a lot of people who don’t need the benefit even though it doesn’t stop Daily’s mail and mirror bogusly claiming Xx families helped. Cutting the fuel Vat seems a glib position from lazy opposition who don’t have smarter attack lines. I say glib and lazy from opposition because I think it makes a more complicated issue, as you suggest of green levies sound more straightforward than it is.
Tough on “heat or eat” situations by being tough on real causes of “heat or eat” situations and that is this government is going to end up with a tax and waste reputation. If I say Boris is a High Tax High Spend politician, I’m right aren’t I. The next part of the equation is how much waste of tax payer money is going on.
I am disappointed in Ed Davey and all opposition today, you see I could have done better myself linking fuel poverty to high taxes and waste?
Of course Sunak will be mindful it was VAT on fuel following on from Black Wednesday that destroyed Lamont's Chancellorship in 1993
VAT on fuel is just 5%. Not enough difference imo.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn a nd axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I have answered the vat question before
At 5% it is not a great help to the lower paid but it gives a 5% cut to the wealthy
The answer is for the treasury to make a one off payment to the lower paid and those on UC similar to the £300 winter fuel payment given to pensioners over 80
That final statement has a bit of an "I'm on the bus, Conductor ring the bell" sentiment about it.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Colton, I’d quite like to stop judging historical figures by the laws, morals and customs of the present day.
That's unavoidable though.
What we need as Garius on Twitter pointed out earlier today is somewhere to move the awkward statues to in the Bulgaria and Hungary now have memorial parks for their Communist statues.
We could have Slaveowners Quarter leading to the smaller Slavetraders Square.
C4 News just showed pictures of Kazakh president Nazarbayev's statue being toppled - it was hollow inside
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
If the Epping Conservatives have their way that is the future! Inherit or suck it up and stop moaning.
No, you will still be able to make a fortune in the City or in property development or tech or if you are a top footballer or popular as well
Or donate to the right politicians.....
No, that is just for the knighthood or place in the Lords...
Ooh, skating on thin ice! Didn't Tony get his collar felt by plod for that kind of loose talk?
I was appalled that Tony was selling peerages for less in actual pounds sterling than Lloyd George.....
I was also appalled at the way he closed a door on me.....
In my un-married days, I had planned to pay off my flat, then donate a substantial sum to a political party over a number of years. The resulting peerage would have provided me with an effective pension for life at vastly less cost than the cost of a similarly yielding annuity. It would also have amused my farther....
There's a time and a place for jury nullification, it's part of the reason why we have juries and not judges.
If I were in the jury for a driver who'd nudged an XR protestor with their car then I'd be attracted to nullification in those circumstances as I'm sure would many of those bemoaning nullification for the BLM protestors.
What's sauce for the goose ...
And that's the slippery slope....
yes on a jury of 12 you will nearly always get political views across the spectrum so politics should be kept well away from consideration of whether somebody is guilty or not given the usual need to get at least 10 jurors to find a defendant guilty .
Interesting thought.
So it could have been 3 die-hards who blocked a conviction.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Colton, I’d quite like to stop judging historical figures by the laws, morals and customs of the present day.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Colton, I’d quite like to stop judging historical figures by the laws, morals and customs of the present day.
That's unavoidable though.
What we need as Garius on Twitter pointed out earlier today is somewhere to move the awkward statues to in the Bulgaria and Hungary now have memorial parks for their Communist statues.
We could have Slaveowners Quarter leading to the smaller Slavetraders Square.
C4 News just showed pictures of Kazakh president Nazarbayev's statue being toppled - it was hollow inside
Will this be the end of Nazarbayev?
I don't know, it looks possible, but thought similarly about Myanmar a year ago I'm less optimistic this time.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn a nd axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I have answered the vat question before
At 5% it is not a great help to the lower paid but it gives a 5% cut to the wealthy
The answer is for the treasury to make a one off payment to the lower paid and those on UC similar to the £300 winter fuel payment given to pensioners over 80
That final statement has a bit of an "I'm on the bus, Conductor ring the bell" sentiment about it.
What about us peasants twenty years your junior?
No sure your point but as a taxpayer and not on pension credits I do not expect to receive any payment towards my much increased energy bills, as that should be generously targeted to the lower paid and those on uc
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
“The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.”
I think you are completely missing the point of all this. There are so many historians on this site! They will quickly correct me if I am wrong.
The point is so many statues went up so long after death of philophrantic slave traders, in a period towards end of nineteenth century. They went up to make the point it wasn’t morally compromised.
Does this ‘not morally compromised’ period have an actual name? The ‘we are proud of our empire and what made it, two fingers to you if not joining in’ period?
The point being, Colston was from a different age, mercantilism had been revoked and we are in full swing of capitalism and Empire when the statues went up?
Art and history, and getting muddy playing sport, only thing I was interested at school. 🙂
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
You don't seem to be very bright. The fact that "The triangular trade was a horror show" (which it was) surely doesn't preclude us from asking what it entailed and what it didn't? So where do the child murders come in to it?
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
As a Bristol resident for 35+ years I think it has all worked out rather well.
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
And the life of a slave in the British Carribean was short and brutal. Few lasted more than five years. Hence the need for continued importation of slaves.
Or maybe Dame Maureen objected to Sir Ben playing the Jewish accountant Yitzhak Stern in "Schindler's List"?
I read David Baddiel’s short polemic ‘Jews Don’t Count’ over the Xmas break, where he considers this very issue of Kingsley playing Stern and Gandhi, amongst many other things. I found it very interesting, worth a read if anyone’s interested.
He examines the view of Jews on and by the progressive left. Obvs Corbyn and the party under him get a few mentions.
While I don't agree with the Dame at all because I think the current trend of in effect suggesting actors should mirror their role in race/gender etc, that book did come to mind when I saw her comment, since people very much do complain about casting and race and, while counter examples exist, she probably is right about it being a bigger deal but for the subject in this case.
One of Baddiel’s observations is that it is fashionable amongst progressives to call for gay characters to be played by gay actors, etc, etc, but there isn’t a similar call for Jewish characters to be played by Jewish actors, and no outcry if it happens from the people who would complain if, say, a white actor blacked up to play Mandela.
The broader point about left wing hypocrisy is well-made, but I don't think it's actually valid in this case: it ties into the idea of "lived experience" which is very much in fashion with the left at the moment. If you make a film where one of the characters happens incidentally to be gay, or whatever, then it's not important whether the actor is or isn't. If the entire focus of the film is on how the character's sexuality affects their lives, then you can argue that a non-gay actor would struggle to represent that as well as someone who actually understands what it's like to be discriminated against for that reason. Put simply, Hollywood does not make too many films with Jewish characters in which their religion is actively important. This isn't really a big deal for gay characters anymore, but does come into play for disabled roles quite a bit, and I have some sympathy with the argument that (for example) putting an able-bodied actor in a wheelchair is wrong to play a character explicitly written as a paraplegic.
The other point is that there are a large number of Jewish actors (and producers, directors, etc) quite happily playing non-Jewish roles in Hollywood, so it's very hard to argue that representation is a problem. In contrast, with the disabled example above, it is obviously far harder for disabled actors to get cast in roles not written for them, without making (sometimes substantial) changes to the script.
Just as it's very difficult to play a king who wants to divide his kingdom between his three daughters if the actor isn't a king who has had to divide his kingdom between his three daughters.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn a nd axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I have answered the vat question before
At 5% it is not a great help to the lower paid but it gives a 5% cut to the wealthy
The answer is for the treasury to make a one off payment to the lower paid and those on UC similar to the £300 winter fuel payment given to pensioners over 80
So unlike HYUFD, you will be disappointed if Boris takes the political hit, and then U turns on what I think is a sensible stand you briefly spelled out?
I do not expect a U turn as I believe Rishi is more likely to be the one to make the case against taking away the 5% vat but to make direct payments to the lower paid
I will be very surprised if a fair scheme is not implemented by the April new fix deadline
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Colton, I’d quite like to stop judging historical figures by the laws, morals and customs of the present day.
People thought slavery was wrong in Colton's day.
I’m not really just talking about Colston though. It’s every historical figure. We are to an extent moulded by our upbringing, and that includes the culture around us. I’ve not doubt that ideas we take for granted and ‘right’ will appear antuquated in 50 years time. You even see that within a lifetime.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
You don't seem to be very bright. The fact that "The triangular trade was a horror show" (which it was) surely doesn't preclude us from asking what it entailed and what it didn't? So where do the child murders come in to it?
Children were traded, and were left with no means of support when their parents were kidnapped.
Or maybe Dame Maureen objected to Sir Ben playing the Jewish accountant Yitzhak Stern in "Schindler's List"?
I read David Baddiel’s short polemic ‘Jews Don’t Count’ over the Xmas break, where he considers this very issue of Kingsley playing Stern and Gandhi, amongst many other things. I found it very interesting, worth a read if anyone’s interested.
He examines the view of Jews on and by the progressive left. Obvs Corbyn and the party under him get a few mentions.
While I don't agree with the Dame at all because I think the current trend of in effect suggesting actors should mirror their role in race/gender etc, that book did come to mind when I saw her comment, since people very much do complain about casting and race and, while counter examples exist, she probably is right about it being a bigger deal but for the subject in this case.
One of Baddiel’s observations is that it is fashionable amongst progressives to call for gay characters to be played by gay actors, etc, etc, but there isn’t a similar call for Jewish characters to be played by Jewish actors, and no outcry if it happens from the people who would complain if, say, a white actor blacked up to play Mandela.
The broader point about left wing hypocrisy is well-made, but I don't think it's actually valid in this case: it ties into the idea of "lived experience" which is very much in fashion with the left at the moment. If you make a film where one of the characters happens incidentally to be gay, or whatever, then it's not important whether the actor is or isn't. If the entire focus of the film is on how the character's sexuality affects their lives, then you can argue that a non-gay actor would struggle to represent that as well as someone who actually understands what it's like to be discriminated against for that reason. Put simply, Hollywood does not make too many films with Jewish characters in which their religion is actively important. This isn't really a big deal for gay characters anymore, but does come into play for disabled roles quite a bit, and I have some sympathy with the argument that (for example) putting an able-bodied actor in a wheelchair is wrong to play a character explicitly written as a paraplegic.
The other point is that there are a large number of Jewish actors (and producers, directors, etc) quite happily playing non-Jewish roles in Hollywood, so it's very hard to argue that representation is a problem. In contrast, with the disabled example above, it is obviously far harder for disabled actors to get cast in roles not written for them, without making (sometimes substantial) changes to the script.
I think you touch upon, in part, one of the problems with this particular current trend, in that sometimes it is a confusion of the problem of say, breadth of roles available for asian american actors (which in particular does seem to be a problem), that is of representation, and a 'solution' which overcorrects by leads to the implication of outright suggestion that only x can play x by complaints about actors not sharing characteristics of their roles (and there still are complaints around non gay actors playing gay roles etc).
However, I don't agree with the argument made about some thinking 'a non-x actor would struggle as well as someone who understands what it's like' because that itself is still fraught with problems. Samuel L Jackson initially commented about a British guy playing the lead in Get Out on the basis a black british guy would supposedly find it more difficult to understand the themes at play in that movie, but even if it that was the case, not all would struggle and even if they didn't they might still a far better actor than someone who did. And someone might actually be a perfect ethnic or whatever match for their role and still not understand.
So if filmmakers presume that will be the case, they are going to miss out on some great performances.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
As a Bristol resident for 35+ years I think it has all worked out rather well.
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
What about a statute of someone complaining about Banksy suggesting a new statue of the old statue being torn down by the protestors?
"Scenes in locked down #Xian are eerily reminiscent of the early days of Covid in Wuhan. For 2 weeks, 13 million people have been in hard lockdown after a handful of cases were detected. As netizens become bolder in expressing their desperation, #ZeroCovid cracks are emerging."
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
We also understood that redemption is possible, with philanthropy being seen as a positive action to demonstrate a changed heart. Today the view is that money is tainted and sin can not be forgiven
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Great minds think alike. I just asked that same question, only come to a completely different answers to you 🙂
Whoever put them up Alastair obviously making the political point it’s not morally repugnant. You see what I mean?
In 1895 who are the people putting them up? They are clearly thumbing their noses at someone as they do this? Weren’t the Liberals in 1895 nearly as Republican as Screaming Eagles now is?
Or maybe Dame Maureen objected to Sir Ben playing the Jewish accountant Yitzhak Stern in "Schindler's List"?
I read David Baddiel’s short polemic ‘Jews Don’t Count’ over the Xmas break, where he considers this very issue of Kingsley playing Stern and Gandhi, amongst many other things. I found it very interesting, worth a read if anyone’s interested.
He examines the view of Jews on and by the progressive left. Obvs Corbyn and the party under him get a few mentions.
While I don't agree with the Dame at all because I think the current trend of in effect suggesting actors should mirror their role in race/gender etc, that book did come to mind when I saw her comment, since people very much do complain about casting and race and, while counter examples exist, she probably is right about it being a bigger deal but for the subject in this case.
One of Baddiel’s observations is that it is fashionable amongst progressives to call for gay characters to be played by gay actors, etc, etc, but there isn’t a similar call for Jewish characters to be played by Jewish actors, and no outcry if it happens from the people who would complain if, say, a white actor blacked up to play Mandela.
The broader point about left wing hypocrisy is well-made, but I don't think it's actually valid in this case: it ties into the idea of "lived experience" which is very much in fashion with the left at the moment. If you make a film where one of the characters happens incidentally to be gay, or whatever, then it's not important whether the actor is or isn't. If the entire focus of the film is on how the character's sexuality affects their lives, then you can argue that a non-gay actor would struggle to represent that as well as someone who actually understands what it's like to be discriminated against for that reason. Put simply, Hollywood does not make too many films with Jewish characters in which their religion is actively important. This isn't really a big deal for gay characters anymore, but does come into play for disabled roles quite a bit, and I have some sympathy with the argument that (for example) putting an able-bodied actor in a wheelchair is wrong to play a character explicitly written as a paraplegic.
The other point is that there are a large number of Jewish actors (and producers, directors, etc) quite happily playing non-Jewish roles in Hollywood, so it's very hard to argue that representation is a problem. In contrast, with the disabled example above, it is obviously far harder for disabled actors to get cast in roles not written for them, without making (sometimes substantial) changes to the script.
Just as it's very difficult to play a king who wants to divide his kingdom between his three daughters if the actor isn't a king who has had to divide his kingdom between his three daughters.
Have I got that right?
Amusing, but missing the point. Which is that there aren't: a) lots of kings with three daughters watching films who don't ever see themselves represented on screen; or b) lots of actors who are also kings with three daughters, who struggle to get acting work in Hollywood.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Colton, I’d quite like to stop judging historical figures by the laws, morals and customs of the present day.
Few things make me angrier than this kind of thing. It takes glacier-thick kind of stupidity, and a stupidity of such an egregious nature that it's scarcely believable that someone could even bring themselves to utter those words. Slavery has always been wrong, and if you have any doubts, think about the lengths that slaves themselves went to to avoid it. You can look to individual tales of suicide if you like your history on the human level. If you prefer grand sweeping historical narratives, read up on the Servile Wars of ancient Rome and the Haitian revolution.
What you mean with you 100% pure distilled idiocy is, let's judge historical people on the SOME of the metrics that come down to us from their own time, which to an almost exclusive degree excludes the voices of their victims, because slaves often couldn't and were not permitted to write.
To ignore their voices now is literally to add insult to injury, and it's frankly unbelievable that you could get as far as typing your post out without realising what a shocking moron it makes you sound.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
As a Bristol resident for 35+ years I think it has all worked out rather well.
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
The strong impression I got was that the statue had been argued about for many years but was just being left there by the reluctant Bristol elite as effectively two fingers to a rather large body of opinion in the city. Whether this was a miscalculation or deliberate insult I don't know. And I'm sure it's bound up with the need to address the issue of slavery in Bristol - its trade, its descendants, and so on.
But I saw it years back and what people unfamiliar with Bristol might not realise is that it was in an absolutely prime place, a junction for people on foot going for instance to the docks for a beer. Imagine, perhaps, Jimmy Savile's statue in Piccadilly Circus - and Savile was once a heroic benefactor and charitable worker.
The people who thought judges were enemies of the people and that activist lawyers are frustrating the noble intentions of HMG will be moving on to the juries. Who's left in the legal system to demonise, court ushers?
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Colton, I’d quite like to stop judging historical figures by the laws, morals and customs of the present day.
People thought slavery was wrong in Colton's day.
Indeed, also if you don't want people to judge these figures from the past, then perhaps we shouldn't put statues up of them.
It seems bizarre a previous generation (s) can direct what future generations have to put up statue wise.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
As a Bristol resident for 35+ years I think it has all worked out rather well.
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Colton, I’d quite like to stop judging historical figures by the laws, morals and customs of the present day.
Few things make me angrier than this kind of thing. It takes glacier-thick kind of stupidity, and a stupidity of such an egregious nature that it's scarcely believable that someone could even bring themselves to utter those words. Slavery has always been wrong, and if you have any doubts, think about the lengths that slaves themselves went to to avoid it. You can look to individual tales of suicide if you like your history on the human level. If you prefer grand sweeping historical narratives, read up on the Servile Wars of ancient Rome and the Haitian revolution.
What you mean with you 100% pure distilled idiocy is, let's judge historical people on the SOME of the metrics that come down to us from their own time, which to an almost exclusive degree excludes the voices of their victims, because slaves often couldn't and were not permitted to write.
To ignore their voices now is literally to add insult to injury, and it's frankly unbelievable that you could get as far as typing your post out without realising what a shocking moron it makes you sound.
Additional... in Rome, if a slaveowner was murdered, it was the law that all his slaves should be put to death. This was in place because the Romans knew all too well the temptation to do away with their slavemasters was great. A little basic historical knowledge five seconds of thought is all that's needed to realise that such a system was known to be wrong. They did it anyway.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
As a Bristol resident for 35+ years I think it has all worked out rather well.
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
But, perhaps what should happen, MrBristol, is that some of the wealth of Bristol -- a city whose riches derive from the slave trade -- should be reallocated to those descendants of slavery?
Perhaps a tax on the wealthy residents of Clifton that goes directly to the residents of St Pauls?
I am not too surprised that wealthy West Bristolians are relieved that it can all be washed away by tipping a statue over.
Or maybe Dame Maureen objected to Sir Ben playing the Jewish accountant Yitzhak Stern in "Schindler's List"?
I read David Baddiel’s short polemic ‘Jews Don’t Count’ over the Xmas break, where he considers this very issue of Kingsley playing Stern and Gandhi, amongst many other things. I found it very interesting, worth a read if anyone’s interested.
He examines the view of Jews on and by the progressive left. Obvs Corbyn and the party under him get a few mentions.
While I don't agree with the Dame at all because I think the current trend of in effect suggesting actors should mirror their role in race/gender etc, that book did come to mind when I saw her comment, since people very much do complain about casting and race and, while counter examples exist, she probably is right about it being a bigger deal but for the subject in this case.
One of Baddiel’s observations is that it is fashionable amongst progressives to call for gay characters to be played by gay actors, etc, etc, but there isn’t a similar call for Jewish characters to be played by Jewish actors, and no outcry if it happens from the people who would complain if, say, a white actor blacked up to play Mandela.
The broader point about left wing hypocrisy is well-made, but I don't think it's actually valid in this case: it ties into the idea of "lived experience" which is very much in fashion with the left at the moment. If you make a film where one of the characters happens incidentally to be gay, or whatever, then it's not important whether the actor is or isn't. If the entire focus of the film is on how the character's sexuality affects their lives, then you can argue that a non-gay actor would struggle to represent that as well as someone who actually understands what it's like to be discriminated against for that reason. Put simply, Hollywood does not make too many films with Jewish characters in which their religion is actively important. This isn't really a big deal for gay characters anymore, but does come into play for disabled roles quite a bit, and I have some sympathy with the argument that (for example) putting an able-bodied actor in a wheelchair is wrong to play a character explicitly written as a paraplegic.
The other point is that there are a large number of Jewish actors (and producers, directors, etc) quite happily playing non-Jewish roles in Hollywood, so it's very hard to argue that representation is a problem. In contrast, with the disabled example above, it is obviously far harder for disabled actors to get cast in roles not written for them, without making (sometimes substantial) changes to the script.
Just as it's very difficult to play a king who wants to divide his kingdom between his three daughters if the actor isn't a king who has had to divide his kingdom between his three daughters.
Have I got that right?
Amusing, but missing the point. Which is that there aren't: a) lots of kings with three daughters watching films who don't ever see themselves represented on screen; or b) lots of actors who are also kings with three daughters, who struggle to get acting work in Hollywood.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
If the Epping Conservatives have their way that is the future! Inherit or suck it up and stop moaning.
No, you will still be able to make a fortune in the City or in property development or tech or if you are a top footballer or popular as well
Or donate to the right politicians.....
No, that is just for the knighthood or place in the Lords...
Ooh, skating on thin ice! Didn't Tony get his collar felt by plod for that kind of loose talk?
I was appalled that Tony was selling peerages for less in actual pounds sterling than Lloyd George.....
I was also appalled at the way he closed a door on me.....
In my un-married days, I had planned to pay off my flat, then donate a substantial sum to a political party over a number of years. The resulting peerage would have provided me with an effective pension for life at vastly less cost than the cost of a similarly yielding annuity. It would also have amused my farther....
Sorry that didn't work out. Try writing to this guy. I can't promise, but you might have better luck this time; The Right Hon Boris Johnson MP, 10 Downing St. London SW1A 2AB
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
And the life of a slave in the British Carribean was short and brutal. Few lasted more than five years. Hence the need for continued importation of slaves.
Well, quite. Indeed I said on this site a year or two ago that there wasn't much to choose between being a Jew waiting for a train in 1940 Berlin and an African waiting for a slave ship on the 1750 Slave Coast, and there was an unaccoutable attempt to shout me down. However, ascertaining the facts is never a bad thing, and I have very little time for wannabe adults who think that Yebbut lots of adults died of neglect is a good justification for a claim that Lots of children were murdered.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Colton, I’d quite like to stop judging historical figures by the laws, morals and customs of the present day.
Few things make me angrier than this kind of thing. It takes glacier-thick kind of stupidity, and a stupidity of such an egregious nature that it's scarcely believable that someone could even bring themselves to utter those words. Slavery has always been wrong, and if you have any doubts, think about the lengths that slaves themselves went to to avoid it. You can look to individual tales of suicide if you like your history on the human level. If you prefer grand sweeping historical narratives, read up on the Servile Wars of ancient Rome and the Haitian revolution.
What you mean with you 100% pure distilled idiocy is, let's judge historical people on the SOME of the metrics that come down to us from their own time, which to an almost exclusive degree excludes the voices of their victims, because slaves often couldn't and were not permitted to write.
To ignore their voices now is literally to add insult to injury, and it's frankly unbelievable that you could get as far as typing your post out without realising what a shocking moron it makes you sound.
Wow. I’m not really talking about slavery, just this idea that historical figures should be expected to have held to societal standards of 2022, when everyone else in say 1381 didn’t. Personally I find the very idea of slavery abhorrent, but I question if I would have had the same insight if I had been raised as a member of the Roman elite. Like it or not, we are products of our culture.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn a nd axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I have answered the vat question before
At 5% it is not a great help to the lower paid but it gives a 5% cut to the wealthy
The answer is for the treasury to make a one off payment to the lower paid and those on UC similar to the £300 winter fuel payment given to pensioners over 80
That final statement has a bit of an "I'm on the bus, Conductor ring the bell" sentiment about it.
What about us peasants twenty years your junior?
No sure your point but as a taxpayer and not on pension credits I do not expect to receive any payment towards my much increased energy bills, as that should be generously targeted to the lower paid and those on uc
I misread your point. I assumed you were paying the over 80s, but you were merely suggesting the over 80 winter fuel payment mechanism could pay the recipients.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
As a Bristol resident for 35+ years I think it has all worked out rather well.
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
The strong impression I got was that the statue had been argued about for many years but was just being left there by the reluctant Bristol elite as effectively two fingers to a rather large body of opinion in the city. Whether this was a miscalculation or deliberate insult I don't know. And I'm sure it's bound up with the need to address the issue of slavery in Bristol - its trade, its descendants, and so on.
But I saw it years back and what people unfamiliar with Bristol might not realise is that it was in an absolutely prime place, a junction for people on foot going for instance to the docks for a beer. Imagine, perhaps, Jimmy Savile's statue in Piccadilly Circus - and Savile was once a heroic benefactor and charitable worker.
I think that is a fair summary, and that is covered in the exhibition. They even let them put a stupid patronising sub plack on the statue as a weazel compromise.
In the end I think it had all worked out for the best, and a conviction today would have been a mistake.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
You are confusing Catholicism in general with the specific kind mediated through the Roman Papacy. I'm sure the nice chap in Lambeth Palace can explain it all to you.
Dame Helen Mirren has been criticised after she was cast as Israel's former prime minister Golda Meir despite not being Jewish.
Actress Dame Maureen Lipman said Dame Helen should not have been asked to play the Israeli leader, adding that she was uncomfortable with the casting.
A publicity image of the film Golda, where Dame Helen portrayed Ms Meir during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, showed Dame Helen covered in prosthetic to look more like the politician.
Dame Maureen told the Jewish Chronicle: 'The Jewishness of the character is so integral. I'm sure she will be marvellous, but it would never be allowed for Ben Kingsley to play Nelson Mandela. You just couldn't even go there.'
Does she remember that Sir Ben played a brown chap called Mahatma Gandhi way back in 1982?
That would be Krishna Pandit Bhanji who played Gandhi.
I swear I've recently seen that described as 'problematic' and it wouldn't happen now. From some googling just now in addition to playing racist caricatures, anything to adjust one's skin tone is right out, whatever your descent.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
As a Bristol resident for 35+ years I think it has all worked out rather well.
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
But, perhaps what should happen, MrBristol, is that some of the wealth of Bristol -- a city whose riches derive from the slave trade -- should be reallocated to those descendants of slavery?
Perhaps a tax on the wealthy residents of Clifton that goes directly to the residents of St Pauls?
I am not too surprised that wealthy West Bristolians are relieved that it can all be washed away by tipping a statue over.
Do you doubt that the residents of Clifton pay more in tax, and receive less per capita in state benefits than the residents of St Pauls?
I don't think anyone claims that addressing Britain's past is the only thing needed for racial and social justice. It is reasonable though for that to be part of the solution.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
You are confusing Catholicism in general with the specific kind mediated through the Roman Papacy. I'm sure the nice chap in Lambeth Palace can explain it all to you.
As I said there are plenty of Protestant evangelical Anglicans who would not even consider themselves Catholic in that sense
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
You don't seem to be very bright. The fact that "The triangular trade was a horror show" (which it was) surely doesn't preclude us from asking what it entailed and what it didn't? So where do the child murders come in to it?
Children were traded, and were left with no means of support when their parents were kidnapped.
Yes, but the great thing about human language is that we have well differentiated concepts, to cover different situations. If I deliberately drove my car over your foot, I would have done you a great wrong, but would you be telling me that I had LITERALLY RAPED YOU?
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
You are confusing Catholicism in general with the specific kind mediated through the Roman Papacy. I'm sure the nice chap in Lambeth Palace can explain it all to you.
As I said there are plenty of Protestant evangelical Anglicans who would not even consider themselves Catholic in that sense
Not relevant. You were talking about Catholics without distinguishing betweem the RCC and the C of I.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC.
Try and get that past the Pope. Is "utterly null and void" still the official phrase?
Episcopalians are Anglicans in Americanish. At least in NA.
Except they engage in permanent ecclesiastical civil war much of the time. No apetitite for fudge, and a lot of cultural practices.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
You are confusing Catholicism in general with the specific kind mediated through the Roman Papacy. I'm sure the nice chap in Lambeth Palace can explain it all to you.
As I said there are plenty of Protestant evangelical Anglicans who would not even consider themselves Catholic in that sense
Not relevant. You were talking about Catholics without distinguishing betweem the RCC and the C of I.
Yes relevant, for starters most Protestants in Northern Ireland are evangelical Presbyterian not Anglican anyway and the point only related to the birthrate amongst Protestants compared to Catholics in Northern Ireland
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
That’s one interpretation. I also note he left vast sums to charity. That doesn’t undo the terrible harms of how he made the money. As I say, people may not agree with me, and will say that slavery has always been wrong, but I prefer to judge people on the way society and belief was at the time. Maybe I’m the only one on here who thinks this.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 3h 2 striking things in Commons today..
Tory show of unity: roars at PMQs and both wings lined up to heap praise on PM for holding lockdown nerve - rare to see May, Hunt + Baker all praising BoJo.
Unity of all sides of House screaming for more to be done on cost of living crisis.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
That’s one interpretation. I also note he left vast sums to charity. That doesn’t undo the terrible harms of how he made the money. As I say, people may not agree with me, and will say that slavery has always been wrong, but I prefer to judge people on the way society and belief was at the time. Maybe I’m the only one on here who thinks this.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
That’s one interpretation. I also note he left vast sums to charity. That doesn’t undo the terrible harms of how he made the money. As I say, people may not agree with me, and will say that slavery has always been wrong, but I prefer to judge people on the way society and belief was at the time. Maybe I’m the only one on here who thinks this.
I think Cleopatra's Needle should be pushed into the Thames.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC.
Try and get that past the Pope. Is "utterly null and void" still the official phrase?
Episcopalians are Anglicans in Americanish. At least in NA.
Except they engage in permanent ecclesiastical civil war much of the time. No apetitite for fudge, and a lot of cultural practices.
Quite so, but HYUFD lives in a post-mediaeval theocracy where C of E doctrine is the official belief, including a different view of the meaning of 'Catholic' from HHtP. We wouldn't want him to end up as a heretic and political subversive all unknowing and without a gentle word to warn him.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
So, stick all this on a sign below the statue and use it as a lesson in history.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
And the life of a slave in the British Carribean was short and brutal. Few lasted more than five years. Hence the need for continued importation of slaves.
Well, quite. Indeed I said on this site a year or two ago that there wasn't much to choose between being a Jew waiting for a train in 1940 Berlin and an African waiting for a slave ship on the 1750 Slave Coast, and there was an unaccoutable attempt to shout me down. However, ascertaining the facts is never a bad thing, and I have very little time for wannabe adults who think that Yebbut lots of adults died of neglect is a good justification for a claim that Lots of children were murdered.
Yorkshire Gen Z school child shares education:
Wan’t there an international law the Dutch owned all black slaves until 1700 (not five o’clock) and UK had to wait, so we used white slaves in Caribbean and America we got from UK, like prisons, but they die in half time Black Slaves do?
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
That’s one interpretation. I also note he left vast sums to charity. That doesn’t undo the terrible harms of how he made the money. As I say, people may not agree with me, and will say that slavery has always been wrong, but I prefer to judge people on the way society and belief was at the time. Maybe I’m the only one on here who thinks this.
I think Cleopatra's Needle should be pushed into the Thames.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
You are confusing Catholicism in general with the specific kind mediated through the Roman Papacy. I'm sure the nice chap in Lambeth Palace can explain it all to you.
As I said there are plenty of Protestant evangelical Anglicans who would not even consider themselves Catholic in that sense
Not relevant. You were talking about Catholics without distinguishing betweem the RCC and the C of I.
Yes relevant, for starters most Protestants in Northern Ireland are evangelical Presbyterian not Anglican anyway and the point only related to the birthrate amongst Protestants compared to Catholics in Northern Ireland
But it is an interesting issue how many non-RCs are actually members of the C of I. Entirely relevant. And you can't separate Catholics and Protestants. YTour own doctrine says quite clearly you can't. Got to be more specific and precise.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
That’s one interpretation. I also note he left vast sums to charity. That doesn’t undo the terrible harms of how he made the money. As I say, people may not agree with me, and will say that slavery has always been wrong, but I prefer to judge people on the way society and belief was at the time. Maybe I’m the only one on here who thinks this.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
As a Bristol resident for 35+ years I think it has all worked out rather well.
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
But, perhaps what should happen, MrBristol, is that some of the wealth of Bristol -- a city whose riches derive from the slave trade -- should be reallocated to those descendants of slavery?
Perhaps a tax on the wealthy residents of Clifton that goes directly to the residents of St Pauls?
I am not too surprised that wealthy West Bristolians are relieved that it can all be washed away by tipping a statue over.
Not a bad suggestion, certainly the merchant ventures have a large body of assets available.
Bristol does have pretty large variety of poor and rich areas next to each other (much like London). The mayor's efforts to bring in a congestion charge is an attempt to get more finances to pay to improve the centre and redistribute some wealth.
Definitely agree the statue going doesn't actually change the lives of people. There was a very good documentary last year with mayor basically saying the same thing and being annoyed at the focus on a old statue rather than real lives.
Makes me wonder what would happen if we could harness all the noise/energy about it being removed and focus it on child poverty/educational imbalances/homeless.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
You don't seem to be very bright. The fact that "The triangular trade was a horror show" (which it was) surely doesn't preclude us from asking what it entailed and what it didn't? So where do the child murders come in to it?
Children were traded, and were left with no means of support when their parents were kidnapped.
Yes, but the great thing about human language is that we have well differentiated concepts, to cover different situations. If I deliberately drove my car over your foot, I would have done you a great wrong, but would you be telling me that I had LITERALLY RAPED YOU?
No, but if he was unable to work as a direct result, it would absolutely be your fault that his children were starving.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
That’s one interpretation. I also note he left vast sums to charity. That doesn’t undo the terrible harms of how he made the money. As I say, people may not agree with me, and will say that slavery has always been wrong, but I prefer to judge people on the way society and belief was at the time. Maybe I’m the only one on here who thinks this.
I think Cleopatra's Needle should be pushed into the Thames.
To hide the sins of your ancestors?
People do say I have a Cleopatra like look, so who knows?
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
The motivating factor in putting it up at the time was the elites of Bristol patting themselves on the back and pushing any discussion of the seedy origins of their wealth outside of the acceptable discourse in the city. A state of affairs that obviously continued for some time.
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn a nd axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I have answered the vat question before
At 5% it is not a great help to the lower paid but it gives a 5% cut to the wealthy
The answer is for the treasury to make a one off payment to the lower paid and those on UC similar to the £300 winter fuel payment given to pensioners over 80
That final statement has a bit of an "I'm on the bus, Conductor ring the bell" sentiment about it.
What about us peasants twenty years your junior?
No sure your point but as a taxpayer and not on pension credits I do not expect to receive any payment towards my much increased energy bills, as that should be generously targeted to the lower paid and those on uc
I misread your point. I assumed you were paying the over 80s, but you were merely suggesting the over 80 winter fuel payment mechanism could pay the recipients.
My mistake. Feel free to off-topic.
Yes indeed, that has been my logic in all this
The 5% vat to the lower paid is insufficient in monetary terms and a scheme similar to the over 80s winter fuel allowance would be sensible and fair
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
So, stick all this on a sign below the statue and use it as a lesson in history.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
So, stick all this on a sign below the statue and use it as a lesson in history.
The past is another country etc etc...
People tried to get historical context added to the statue for years but, would you believe it, Colston linked groups like the Society of Merchant Venturers repeatedly interfered and blocked the addition of such a thing.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
The statue wasn’t erected because of his contribution to slavery, it was his contributions to Bristol. In general most Bristolians of the time would have approved. Now they don’t, and that’s fine. Still shouldn’t get to have a mob decide on whether the statue should stay or go.
It was erected in response to a statue to Edmund Burke, noted critic of slavery, being put up. Its funding came principally from orgs with a long history of whitewashing Colston's slave trading.
That’s a great answer. But where did you get it from? Where is written down it was tit for tat statues across a political divide.
It sounds pretty true to me. But it also means 99% of the statues argument on blogs like this and in politics today in bollocks, getting it completely wrong barking up the wrong tree?
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I’m sure the enslaved Africans he traded were comforted by the knowledge that a portion of the profits from their enslavement was going to be spent on polishing the PR image of the man who profited from them.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
You don't seem to be very bright. The fact that "The triangular trade was a horror show" (which it was) surely doesn't preclude us from asking what it entailed and what it didn't? So where do the child murders come in to it?
Children were traded, and were left with no means of support when their parents were kidnapped.
Yes, but the great thing about human language is that we have well differentiated concepts, to cover different situations. If I deliberately drove my car over your foot, I would have done you a great wrong, but would you be telling me that I had LITERALLY RAPED YOU?
No, but if he was unable to work as a direct result, it would absolutely be your fault that his children were starving.
Fuck. me. yes. but. the. wrong. i. would. undoubtedly. have. done. to. his. children. would. not. properly. be. called. murdering. them. Would. it?
The people who thought judges were enemies of the people and that activist lawyers are frustrating the noble intentions of HMG will be moving on to the juries. Who's left in the legal system to demonise, court ushers?
It's such a shame that the gammon society is upset...
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
As a Bristol resident for 35+ years I think it has all worked out rather well.
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
But, perhaps what should happen, MrBristol, is that some of the wealth of Bristol -- a city whose riches derive from the slave trade -- should be reallocated to those descendants of slavery?
Perhaps a tax on the wealthy residents of Clifton that goes directly to the residents of St Pauls?
I am not too surprised that wealthy West Bristolians are relieved that it can all be washed away by tipping a statue over.
Do you doubt that the residents of Clifton pay more in tax, and receive less per capita in state benefits than the residents of St Pauls?
I don't think anyone claims that addressing Britain's past is the only thing needed for racial and social justice. It is reasonable though for that to be part of the solution.
Bristol seems to me to be in an unusual position as its wealth is very directly derived from the slave trade (also Liverpool, Glasgow).
So, I expect more than the toppling of a statue ... That seems to me to be a mere displacement activity.
As for statues generally, I am happy to see all of them taken down and replaced by geometric figures.
My take on PMQs is late because I have caught up on it on YouTube because the weather is nice here and I went out for a hike. And I have been into loft of my Dads house. Back in my loungewear now.
Important stuff first. Rayners hair is on a journey. I don’t like it now, but a lob will be great for her. It didn’t look great today from the back for someone using a “brush your hair” attack. I don’t even like it from the front, maybe that is just me as there is zilch about Rayner or her politics I like. But the dress was cool. If we had a lady Primeminister that is exactly the type of dress imo as I would play safe - it’s already easy to stand out in a room of men in their best suits, it doesn’t need extra femininity or anything to go on to distract from what you are saying, your style choice in those situations has to support what you are saying imo. My girlfriend certainly trusts me when I pick things out for her.
Johnson’s hair is on a journey too. It looks awful now. It doesn’t suit his head or face - whoever posted yesterday it makes him look more thuggish is spot on. I think it’s been forced on him by his better haircut ravaged by time. All it will do is associate in minds of voters this is a different Boris Johnson than Love Actually Boris they loved and voted for, which is the last thing he needs.
Boris is in trouble, but I’m not picking this up on PB.com. Just about all 360 degree factions around in the commons called for fuel vat axe to help the “heat or eat” families yet Boris fought back against this £1.5B U turn.
Where do you stand on this Big G and HYUFD? Boris position right or wrong? U turn a nd axe it at such small cost, or continue to have everyone against the position?
I have answered the vat question before
At 5% it is not a great help to the lower paid but it gives a 5% cut to the wealthy
The answer is for the treasury to make a one off payment to the lower paid and those on UC similar to the £300 winter fuel payment given to pensioners over 80
That final statement has a bit of an "I'm on the bus, Conductor ring the bell" sentiment about it.
What about us peasants twenty years your junior?
No sure your point but as a taxpayer and not on pension credits I do not expect to receive any payment towards my much increased energy bills, as that should be generously targeted to the lower paid and those on uc
I misread your point. I assumed you were paying the over 80s, but you were merely suggesting the over 80 winter fuel payment mechanism could pay the recipients.
My mistake. Feel free to off-topic.
I think BJ will do something quite noticeable here, not least because he has so many holes below his waterline that he doesn't need any more.
It is also worth noting that the fuel price cap is due to be set in early Feb, so he can't sit on his arse forever.
It may well be a matter of short term smoothing of the markets, and a dose of fudge to deal with the not-very-optimal calculations in the setting of the cap for the current position.
However BJ may mess it up as he did the Nurse's Pay Increase. No no no no no until all the potential political benefit has evaporated, then a too-late Yes which loses the money anyway.
There should also be an opportunity to create a storage buffer for next winter, but that requires BJ to plan beyond the end of his next BJ, so it may not happen.
IMO the correct way top do it is with a long-delayed reset in Green initiatives as cover, which will let him take another £150 or so of "Ed Milliband" fuel-taxes off fuel bills, and pivot attention back to a successful policy area, then enough other items to take fuel bills down to zero further increase. A £300 or £400 credit might do that, which would keep them at around £1250.
It needs a fix now to deal with the current hump (in prices), not a long term new arrangement when we don't know where it will land. We have another 3GW of windfarms coming on stream this year at a 50% load factor, and I think 2GW+ of burnt down interconnector being brought back, so the gas-for-power situation will ease. Undermined slightly by potential tantrums from little Macron.
But he's Boris the Useless Tosswazzock, so it will be a mess.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
Thanks for the advice though.
The traditional approach to inheriting a “reasonable chunk” is to give it away
Comments
Wil Wheaton: Well, I was never on a starship, but pretending I was bought me this house. And if I'd pretended a little longer, it would have a swimming pool.
The other point is that there are a large number of Jewish actors (and producers, directors, etc) quite happily playing non-Jewish roles in Hollywood, so it's very hard to argue that representation is a problem. In contrast, with the disabled example above, it is obviously far harder for disabled actors to get cast in roles not written for them, without making (sometimes substantial) changes to the script.
What we need as Garius on Twitter pointed out earlier today is somewhere to move the awkward statues to in the Bulgaria and Hungary now have memorial parks for their Communist statues.
We could have Slaveowners Quarter leading to the smaller Slavetraders Square.
They are probably unused to international tennis players.
In blunter terms: what the fuck is wrong with you? The triangular trade was a horror show & anyone who knowingly profited from it at the time is morally compromised by so doing. It was a great wrong then, just as it would be a great wrong today.
& who gives a shit if he was “actually” a white supremecist? He directly profited from the appalling treatment of thousands of people, in a process which inevitable caused the deaths of many of them.
Your flippant comments about the murder of children demonstrate how little you really understand about this: death rates on the middle passage alone are believed to have been around 15%, with those trafficed from Africa were treated as nothing more than cargo. The loss of a fraction of them was simply a cost of doing business. The idea that a major slave trader like Colston would care about the death of any particular individual they traded is a sick joke.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
There is big money in taking material excavated from buildings during construction - which comes in as "potential hazardous waste" and dealing with it. The congruency of ownership of business providing aggregate for concrete/concrete itself is to be noted. Remarking on it might be rude....
And I wonder when BLDNM Gandhi's statue is going to get torn down..
What about us peasants twenty years your junior?
I was also appalled at the way he closed a door on me.....
In my un-married days, I had planned to pay off my flat, then donate a substantial sum to a political party over a number of years. The resulting peerage would have provided me with an effective pension for life at vastly less cost than the cost of a similarly yielding annuity. It would also have amused my farther....
So it could have been 3 die-hards who blocked a conviction.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
I don't know, it looks possible, but thought similarly about Myanmar a year ago I'm less optimistic this time.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
I think you are completely missing the point of all this. There are so many historians on this site! They will quickly correct me if I am wrong.
The point is so many statues went up so long after death of philophrantic slave traders, in a period towards end of nineteenth century. They went up to make the point it wasn’t morally compromised.
Does this ‘not morally compromised’ period have an actual name? The ‘we are proud of our empire and what made it, two fingers to you if not joining in’ period?
The point being, Colston was from a different age, mercantilism had been revoked and we are in full swing of capitalism and Empire when the statues went up?
Art and history, and getting muddy playing sport, only thing I was interested at school. 🙂
The statue has been removed and now forms part of an exhibition discussion the role of these figures from the past. It is rather striking laying down with paint on especially in a museum context.
He can now forming part of a useful dialogue with how we see the past, and ironically far more known about since his removal.
The acquittal today is just a nice ending to it - jury's are great (local laws for local people 🙂)
MrBristol.
PS would quite like to see Bankys's suggestion of a new statue of the old statue being torn down by protestors
Have I got that right?
I will be very surprised if a fair scheme is not implemented by the April new fix deadline
However, I don't agree with the argument made about some thinking 'a non-x actor would struggle as well as someone who understands what it's like' because that itself is still fraught with problems. Samuel L Jackson initially commented about a British guy playing the lead in Get Out on the basis a black british guy would supposedly find it more difficult to understand the themes at play in that movie, but even if it that was the case, not all would struggle and even if they didn't they might still a far better actor than someone who did. And someone might actually be a perfect ethnic or whatever match for their role and still not understand.
So if filmmakers presume that will be the case, they are going to miss out on some great performances.
"Scenes in locked down #Xian are eerily reminiscent of the early days of Covid in Wuhan. For 2 weeks, 13 million people have been in hard lockdown after a handful of cases were detected. As netizens become bolder in expressing their desperation, #ZeroCovid cracks are emerging."
https://twitter.com/klustout/status/1478751194424262661?s=20
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
Whoever put them up Alastair obviously making the political point it’s not morally repugnant. You see what I mean?
In 1895 who are the people putting them up? They are clearly thumbing their noses at someone as they do this? Weren’t the Liberals in 1895 nearly as Republican as Screaming Eagles now is?
a) lots of kings with three daughters watching films who don't ever see themselves represented on screen; or
b) lots of actors who are also kings with three daughters, who struggle to get acting work in Hollywood.
Slavery has always been wrong, and if you have any doubts, think about the lengths that slaves themselves went to to avoid it. You can look to individual tales of suicide if you like your history on the human level. If you prefer grand sweeping historical narratives, read up on the Servile Wars of ancient Rome and the Haitian revolution.
What you mean with you 100% pure distilled idiocy is, let's judge historical people on the SOME of the metrics that come down to us from their own time, which to an almost exclusive degree excludes the voices of their victims, because slaves often couldn't and were not permitted to write.
To ignore their voices now is literally to add insult to injury, and it's frankly unbelievable that you could get as far as typing your post out without realising what a shocking moron it makes you sound.
But I saw it years back and what people unfamiliar with Bristol might not realise is that it was in an absolutely prime place, a junction for people on foot going for instance to the docks for a beer. Imagine, perhaps, Jimmy Savile's statue in Piccadilly Circus - and Savile was once a heroic benefactor and charitable worker.
It seems bizarre a previous generation (s) can direct what future generations have to put up statue wise.
Mb
#novaxdjokovic
Perhaps a tax on the wealthy residents of Clifton that goes directly to the residents of St Pauls?
I am not too surprised that wealthy West Bristolians are relieved that it can all be washed away by tipping a statue over.
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
My mistake. Feel free to off-topic.
In the end I think it had all worked out for the best, and a conviction today would have been a mistake.
Mb.
I don't think anyone claims that addressing Britain's past is the only thing needed for racial and social justice. It is reasonable though for that to be part of the solution.
Episcopalians are Anglicans in Americanish. At least in NA.
Except they engage in permanent ecclesiastical civil war much of the time. No apetitite for fudge, and a lot of cultural practices.
As I say, people may not agree with me, and will say that slavery has always been wrong, but I prefer to judge people on the way society and belief was at the time.
Maybe I’m the only one on here who thinks this.
@MrHarryCole
·
3h
2 striking things in Commons today..
Tory show of unity: roars at PMQs and both wings lined up to heap praise on PM for holding lockdown nerve - rare to see May, Hunt + Baker all praising BoJo.
Unity of all sides of House screaming for more to be done on cost of living crisis.
Like, the majority of people opposed slavery.
The past is another country etc etc...
Wan’t there an international law the Dutch owned all black slaves until 1700 (not five o’clock) and UK had to wait, so we used white slaves in Caribbean and America we got from UK, like prisons, but they die in half time Black Slaves do?
Bristol does have pretty large variety of poor and rich areas next to each other (much like London). The mayor's efforts to bring in a congestion charge is an attempt to get more finances to pay to improve the centre and redistribute some wealth.
Definitely agree the statue going doesn't actually change the lives of people. There was a very good documentary last year with mayor basically saying the same thing and being annoyed at the focus on a old statue rather than real lives.
Makes me wonder what would happen if we could harness all the noise/energy about it being removed and focus it on child poverty/educational imbalances/homeless.
Mb
Can you see it in my avatar?
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
The 5% vat to the lower paid is insufficient in monetary terms and a scheme similar to the over 80s winter fuel allowance would be sensible and fair
And I would not off topic you (or anyone) anyway
It sounds pretty true to me. But it also means 99% of the statues argument on blogs like this and in politics today in bollocks, getting it completely wrong barking up the wrong tree?
So, I expect more than the toppling of a statue ... That seems to me to be a mere displacement activity.
As for statues generally, I am happy to see all of them taken down and replaced by geometric figures.
It is also worth noting that the fuel price cap is due to be set in early Feb, so he can't sit on his arse forever.
It may well be a matter of short term smoothing of the markets, and a dose of fudge to deal with the not-very-optimal calculations in the setting of the cap for the current position.
However BJ may mess it up as he did the Nurse's Pay Increase. No no no no no until all the potential political benefit has evaporated, then a too-late Yes which loses the money anyway.
There should also be an opportunity to create a storage buffer for next winter, but that requires BJ to plan beyond the end of his next BJ, so it may not happen.
IMO the correct way top do it is with a long-delayed reset in Green initiatives as cover, which will let him take another £150 or so of "Ed Milliband" fuel-taxes off fuel bills, and pivot attention back to a successful policy area, then enough other items to take fuel bills down to zero further increase. A £300 or £400 credit might do that, which would keep them at around £1250.
It needs a fix now to deal with the current hump (in prices), not a long term new arrangement when we don't know where it will land. We have another 3GW of windfarms coming on stream this year at a 50% load factor, and I think 2GW+ of burnt down interconnector being brought back, so the gas-for-power situation will ease. Undermined slightly by potential tantrums from little Macron.
But he's Boris the Useless Tosswazzock, so it will be a mess.