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?
It's the opinion of a faculty member from Bristol University. Good enough for me, I will take it as gospel truth as it aligns with my prejudices (that's right, I'm prejudiced against Slave Traders and people who put up statues to Slave Traders)
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
And I would not off topic you (or anyone) anyway
You are right on this one Big G. Just two of you then. You and Boris. Help needs to be targeted at fuel poverty, not in universal cuts.
Up against the two of you, the Tory back benches, every opposition speaker at PMQs, and every newspaper from Mail to Mirror.
There’s the economic case you and Boris are making, and then a political reality of saying no tax cut using Brexit freedom isn’t there?
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
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?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
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?
It's the opinion of a faculty member from Bristol University. Good enough for me, I will take it as gospel truth as it aligns with my prejudices (that's right, I'm prejudiced against Slave Traders and people who put up statues to Slave Traders)
Life is complicated. Was Oscar Schindler a good man? Pretty shitty morals for much of his life, joined the Nazi party (I believe to aid his career, like many others) then tries like a Trojan to save as many lives as he could. Was Colston a good man? Slave trader, made his fortune partly by slavery. Also left huge sums of money for philanthropic reasons and did much good with it. Do I want the statue back in the square? No. Should it have been pulled down in the way it was? For me, no. Others disagree. That’s great, it’s a democracy.
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?
It's the opinion of a faculty member from Bristol University. Good enough for me, I will take it as gospel truth as it aligns with my prejudices (that's right, I'm prejudiced against Slave Traders and people who put up statues to Slave Traders)
I didn't remember seeing that Burke one, but interestingly on checking it was placed bang opposite the Colston Hall
And the Colston statue was placed on the other side from the Colston Hall - along the road to the docks to the south, in the same central reservation thingy.
(Not sure if there was some movement since WW2/road improvements etc.)
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
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.
Actually, they were willing to put it on, but they and Marvin Rees (who had wanted the statue taken down for years) couldn't agree on the wording.
Or to be exact, Rees would not agree to any wording that they put forward that didn't say something along the lines of 'Anyone who thinks this statue should stay up should be shot dead and are a bunch of Nazis.'*
Personally I hold no brief for Colston but there were plenty of Bristolians including a very large number of non-white ones who wanted that statue left up, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds it deeply uncomfortable that a bunch of self-righteous, not very bright, rich predominantly white anarchists from elsewhere not only disagree using violence but get away with it.
As for Rees, he's the one who obsesses about statues to hide the fact that Bristol's schools are now even more shit than when I worked in them a decade ago.
*OK, I exaggerate slightly. The Merchant Venturers wanted it just to say baldly that he made money from slaving, Rees wanted to say more about the numbers and the harm.
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?
Ahhh... so this whole thing is about finding a new role for Prince Andrew.
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?
Seems to me that: - it is technically wrong to call him a "child murderer" because he didn't actively murder any children - it is also fair to say that lots of people died as fairly direct results of his actions, and almost certainly lots of others (including children) died as an indirect result
On balance, I am uninterested in the defence that he did not actively "murder children for profit". There were loads of equally bad charges the OP could've laid that would have supported their argument adequately without resulting in this pointless and boring side argument.
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
Certainly not argue it, unless one wants OGH to get sued.
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
And I would not off topic you (or anyone) anyway
You are right on this one Big G. Just two of you then. You and Boris. Help needs to be targeted at fuel poverty, not in universal cuts.
Up against the two of you, the Tory back benches, every opposition speaker at PMQs, and every newspaper from Mail to Mirror.
There’s the economic case you and Boris are making, and then a political reality of saying no tax cut using Brexit freedom isn’t there?
I think you will find this is more Rishi than Boris and of course it is very much the right thing to do
The fact many politicians and journalists cannot see past the 5% cut is maybe a commentary on how poor their thought processes are
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.
All cities in the UK have their wealth derived, to a greater or lesser extent, from the slave trade. Manchester was built on cotton, picked by slaves. Birmingham was built on artisanal manufacturing, where the goods were used to buy slaves. London's banking sector grew out of the financing of slave ships.
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.
I have made a note of "tosswazzock". I hope to use it in relation to Johnson too, and soon.
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
48% of NI considered themselves of "Protestant background" in 2011, 45% "Catholic background", 1% other, 6% none/not stated.
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?
This seems an odd hill for you to choose to die on. Anyway, here is one example of the murder of enslaved children for you to enjoy. There are many, many others.
(was it "really" murder? In terms of the laws of the time, the vexed question of whether slaves were really people or simply property muddies the water somewhat. I hope that we can be more unequivocal in our judgement).
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
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.
I have made a note of "tosswazzock". I hope to use it in relation to Johnson too, and soon.
I'm genuinely amazed at such an inventive piece of invective being created by somebody other than @malcolmg . How could he possibly lose his crown?
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
Really, Charles? How many people who you know who have inherited a reasonable chunk have given it away vs clung on to it?
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?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
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?
It's the opinion of a faculty member from Bristol University. Good enough for me, I will take it as gospel truth as it aligns with my prejudices (that's right, I'm prejudiced against Slave Traders and people who put up statues to Slave Traders)
What I like about your theory is it shows not just one point of view about statues going up. It’s probably lazy and wrong today say at a particular period of time everyone thought it was okay and happy with it - and contrasts periods of everyone okay with it with bunch of wokists today. Political battle of the statues putting them up in first place seems much more like the true history to me.
I feel inspired to read into late 19thC politics in UK, as it sounds like a proper bun fight on dividing line of proper issues? 📚
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.
Baddiel is very nuanced in his approach to this whole issue, it’s not something he labours over. As I said a few minutes ago I think Baddiel’s wary of the whole practice himself. He simply uses it as one of a number of examples where people of the left, who see themselves as moral, empathetic, enlightened people conversant with the plight of minorities, don’t apply those sensitivities to Jewish people.
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’m of the left myself so I’m not sure I agree about left-wing hypocrisy! In the book Baddiel says (and I paraphrase greatly) something along the lines of ‘It goes without saying a lot of right-wingers, especially the far right, are nasty, rascist bastards who are beyond redemption. So I’m going to use this book to look at the failings of my side, the left, who should know better but often don’t.’
But despite being on the left myself I don’t think I’m persuaded by the whole ‘lived experience’ thing. Maybe to a point. I don’t know, I don’t have strong opinions either way really. I can see what you’re saying, but a good actor is, I suppose, a good actor because they can imagine themselves into a character’s emotions. Do you have to a quadriplegic actor playing a quadriplegic character? I’m not convinced personally but I can see why people think you should.
Your point about Jewish actors playing non-Jews is apposite to one of Baddiel’s points, I think. He says that Jews are perhaps viewed by many progressives as too rich to be oppressed, too white to be BAME, too ‘privileged’ to fall into the status of a minority. They are perceived, Baddiel argues, as too much like ‘us’, by which I mean white Europeans who are, in global and historical terms, quite lucky in life’s lottery, generally speaking. So Jews, Baddiel essentially says, are very low down on the list of minorities - so low that very often they aren’t recognised as a minority at all.
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
I'm very surprised they were up in front of a jury, rather than the magistrates.
Did the DPP make the decision to go for a jury trial to up the potential sentences?
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?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
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
48% of NI considered themselves of "Protestant background" in 2011, 45% "Catholic background", 1% other, 6% none/not stated.
And most of those of Protestant background and most DUP voters are of Scottish Presbyterian origin. If it was not for Scottish Presbyterians settling in Ulster in the early 17th century under James 1st of England and VIth of Scotland then Catholics would always have been the majority even in Ulster and Northern Ireland would never have been formed and a United Irish Free State created even in 1921.
There would just be a small Anglican Church of Ireland minority as there still is now in the Republic of Ireland
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
I'm very surprised they were up in front of a jury, rather than the magistrates.
Did the DPP make the decision to go for a jury trial to up the potential sentences?
I thought they requested it themselves? Because after all, magistrates would have convicted them but they were hoping a jury would let them off.
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?
This seems an odd hill for you to choose to die on. Anyway, here is one example of the murder of enslaved children for you to enjoy. There are many, many others.
(was it "really" murder? In terms of the laws of the time, the vexed question of whether slaves were really people or simply property muddies the water somewhat. I hope that we can be more unequivocal in our judgement).
Jesus Christ, did IQs drop sharply while I was away? The claim was that slavers were "white supremacists who murder children for profit," a charge which is wrong both as a whole, and taken word by word. What slave traders did was EQUALLY DREADFUL but also NOT THE SAME THING. How incomprehensible is that to you?
It's not so long ago that many on the right decried judges as "enemies of the people". In our legal system, trial by jury is the epitome of justice being dispensed by the "people" - a jury of our peers, and all that.
So in the Bristol case, it would appear than many on the right now regard "people" as enemies of the people. You couldn't make it up - the people are enemies of the people.
(Incidentally, although I don't have the details, the jury will have been given clear direction on their options by the judge, and their decision to acquit will have been in line with one of those options).
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
And I would not off topic you (or anyone) anyway
You are right on this one Big G. Just two of you then. You and Boris. Help needs to be targeted at fuel poverty, not in universal cuts.
Up against the two of you, the Tory back benches, every opposition speaker at PMQs, and every newspaper from Mail to Mirror.
There’s the economic case you and Boris are making, and then a political reality of saying no tax cut using Brexit freedom isn’t there?
The "Tory Back Benches", certainly afaics the Red Wall ones, are in favour of measures to reduce bills.
He's off message in suggesting fracking, though, but uses the same "transition" line used by Germany. Though we need it less.
And he's speaking about living with coin meters etc, and his poorer constituents, - he was himself in a small terrace not long ago. No explicit call for spring / summer fuel payments, though.
“In today’s Xian, you can starve to death, can get sick and die, but you just cannot die of covid.” Now who’s excited 4 #BeijingWinterOlympics!! In China’s Xian lockdown, tales of anguish as hospitals demand patients be covid-free - The Washington Post
It's not so long ago that many on the right decried judges as "enemies of the people". In our legal system, trial by jury is the epitome of justice being dispensed by the "people" - a jury of our peers, and all that.
So in the Bristol case, it would appear than many on the right now regard "people" as enemies of the people. You couldn't make it up - the people are enemies of the people.
(Incidentally, although I don't have the details, the jury will have been given clear direction on their options by the judge, and their decision to acquit will have been in line with one of those options).
If you believe that juries always take Judges' advice under which circumstances an acquittal is warranted, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Is there a law under which jurors can be prosecuted for being a bunch of knobheads?
The joy of the jury system is that the jury can acquit for whatever reason they like.
Yes.
Fred West was acquitted of a rape charge by a jury, a couple of years before the remains of his first murder victim were discovered. Anyone who fails to see the joy in that is a fun sponge to the max.
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?
It's the opinion of a faculty member from Bristol University. Good enough for me, I will take it as gospel truth as it aligns with my prejudices (that's right, I'm prejudiced against Slave Traders and people who put up statues to Slave Traders)
What I like about your theory is it shows not just one point of view about statues going up. It’s probably lazy and wrong today say at a particular period of time everyone thought it was okay and happy with it - and contrasts periods of everyone okay with it with bunch of wokists today. Political battle of the statues putting them up in first place seems much more like the true history to me.
I feel inspired to read into late 19thC politics in UK, as it sounds like a proper bun fight on dividing line of proper issues? 📚
I've been reading up about Robert Burns's statues, to make a timely comparison since Burns' Night is almost upon us. It was quite a surprise to find out how much argument there was about putting him up in stone (and no, it wasn't because he almost became a plantation supervisor).
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
I'm very surprised they were up in front of a jury, rather than the magistrates.
Did the DPP make the decision to go for a jury trial to up the potential sentences?
I thought they requested it themselves? Because after all, magistrates would have convicted them but they were hoping a jury would let them off.
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
If the accused have been acquitted, they are "not guilty of criminal damage". That is how the jury system works.
Maybe you would prefer retrials until we get the right result, or we could vet all juries so the woke liberals are weeded out so we get the right result on the first time of asking every time
It's not so long ago that many on the right decried judges as "enemies of the people". In our legal system, trial by jury is the epitome of justice being dispensed by the "people" - a jury of our peers, and all that.
So in the Bristol case, it would appear than many on the right now regard "people" as enemies of the people. You couldn't make it up - the people are enemies of the people.
(Incidentally, although I don't have the details, the jury will have been given clear direction on their options by the judge, and their decision to acquit will have been in line with one of those options).
It's not so long ago that many on the right decried judges as "enemies of the people". In our legal system, trial by jury is the epitome of justice being dispensed by the "people" - a jury of our peers, and all that.
So in the Bristol case, it would appear than many on the right now regard "people" as enemies of the people. You couldn't make it up - the people are enemies of the people.
(Incidentally, although I don't have the details, the jury will have been given clear direction on their options by the judge, and their decision to acquit will have been in line with one of those options).
Are you sure? Juries can acquit even when directed to convict:
Is there a law under which jurors can be prosecuted for being a bunch of knobheads?
The joy of the jury system is that the jury can acquit for whatever reason they like.
Have you ever done jury service? I've been shanghaied twice. You just have 3-4 sensible people trying to get out of there and clarify to the other 8 idiots what the facts of the case are. There really isn't a twelve wise men situation.
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
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?
This seems an odd hill for you to choose to die on. Anyway, here is one example of the murder of enslaved children for you to enjoy. There are many, many others.
(was it "really" murder? In terms of the laws of the time, the vexed question of whether slaves were really people or simply property muddies the water somewhat. I hope that we can be more unequivocal in our judgement).
Jesus Christ, did IQs drop sharply while I was away? The claim was that slavers were "white supremacists who murder children for profit," a charge which is wrong both as a whole, and taken word by word. What slave traders did was EQUALLY DREADFUL but also NOT THE SAME THING. How incomprehensible is that to you?
You know, IshmaelZ, I don't know which species is worse - you don't see the Aliens enslaving millions of their own kind for a goddam percentage!
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
I'm very surprised they were up in front of a jury, rather than the magistrates.
Did the DPP make the decision to go for a jury trial to up the potential sentences?
I thought they requested it themselves? Because after all, magistrates would have convicted them but they were hoping a jury would let them off.
"Thought" or do you know?
I don't 'know,' and I haven't the energy to Google, but that is what I seem to remember from the original hearing - that they were the ones who demanded an escalation.
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
48% of NI considered themselves of "Protestant background" in 2011, 45% "Catholic background", 1% other, 6% none/not stated.
And most of those of Protestant background and most DUP voters are of Scottish Presbyterian origin. If it was not for Scottish Presbyterians settling in Ulster in the early 17th century under James 1st of England and VIth of Scotland then Catholics would always have been the majority even in Ulster and Northern Ireland would never have been formed and a United Irish Free State created even in 1921.
There would just be a small Anglican Church of Ireland minority as there still is now in the Republic of Ireland
Using 2011 data from both the UK and the Republic, the full nine-county Ulster gives us:
51% "Catholic" 43% "Protestant" 1% other 5% none/not stated
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?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
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?
This seems an odd hill for you to choose to die on. Anyway, here is one example of the murder of enslaved children for you to enjoy. There are many, many others.
(was it "really" murder? In terms of the laws of the time, the vexed question of whether slaves were really people or simply property muddies the water somewhat. I hope that we can be more unequivocal in our judgement).
Jesus Christ, did IQs drop sharply while I was away? The claim was that slavers were "white supremacists who murder children for profit," a charge which is wrong both as a whole, and taken word by word. What slave traders did was EQUALLY DREADFUL but also NOT THE SAME THING. How incomprehensible is that to you?
This is the kind of tedious quibbling & equivocating that people who are apologists for slavery or other atrocities tend to enter into.
I’d hope that you were not one of those people, but this discussion has made me start to doubt that.
Slave traders absolutely profited from the murder of children. They may not have specifically set out to murder children but murdering children was an inevitable outcome of their choice of actions, actions which they profited from immensely. Therefore they profited from the murder of children.
270 new cases reported in Greenland. Which doesn't sound like much, but if that was per capita'd up to the UK it would be in the region of 300,000. Being on a massive ice sheet at the top of the world is no hiding place, it seems. This bug is everywhere.
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.
Mb
That will never be the case because this is essentially a middle class/elite revolt.
Rather than racial or social justice it is actually about identity and power.
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
Nah, they’re not making a substantive point. It’s just a mega froth.
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
I'm very surprised they were up in front of a jury, rather than the magistrates.
Did the DPP make the decision to go for a jury trial to up the potential sentences?
The curious delusion that the law is what a poster vaguely surmises that it might be, rather than what it actually is. A triable either way offence can be sent to a jury trial either by the magistrates, or by the defendant. The DPP doesn't come in to it
Is there a law under which jurors can be prosecuted for being a bunch of knobheads?
The joy of the jury system is that the jury can acquit for whatever reason they like.
Yes.
Fred West was acquitted of a rape charge by a jury, a couple of years before the remains of his first murder victim were discovered. Anyone who fails to see the joy in that is a fun sponge to the max.
The difference being that in that instance, I doubt the prosecution case was supported by video evidence and a full confession.
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?
This seems an odd hill for you to choose to die on. Anyway, here is one example of the murder of enslaved children for you to enjoy. There are many, many others.
(was it "really" murder? In terms of the laws of the time, the vexed question of whether slaves were really people or simply property muddies the water somewhat. I hope that we can be more unequivocal in our judgement).
Jesus Christ, did IQs drop sharply while I was away? The claim was that slavers were "white supremacists who murder children for profit," a charge which is wrong both as a whole, and taken word by word. What slave traders did was EQUALLY DREADFUL but also NOT THE SAME THING. How incomprehensible is that to you?
This is the kind of tedious quibbling & equivocating that people who are apologists for slavery or other atrocities tend to enter into.
I’d hope that you were not one of those people, but this discussion has made me start to doubt that.
Slave traders absolutely profited from the murder of children. They may not have specifically set out to murder children but murdering children was an inevitable outcome of their choice of actions, actions which they profited from immensely. Therefore they profited from the murder of children.
Could I respectfully invite you to lick a dog's arse till it bleeds?
It's not so long ago that many on the right decried judges as "enemies of the people". In our legal system, trial by jury is the epitome of justice being dispensed by the "people" - a jury of our peers, and all that.
So in the Bristol case, it would appear than many on the right now regard "people" as enemies of the people. You couldn't make it up - the people are enemies of the people.
(Incidentally, although I don't have the details, the jury will have been given clear direction on their options by the judge, and their decision to acquit will have been in line with one of those options).
Are you sure? Juries can acquit even when directed to convict:
Is there a law under which jurors can be prosecuted for being a bunch of knobheads?
The joy of the jury system is that the jury can acquit for whatever reason they like.
Yes.
Fred West was acquitted of a rape charge by a jury, a couple of years before the remains of his first murder victim were discovered. Anyone who fails to see the joy in that is a fun sponge to the max.
The difference being that in that instance, I doubt the prosecution case was supported by video evidence and a full confession.
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
I think it is a stupid verdict. I wouldn't want a statue like that in my city, but that doesn't give me the right to tear it down. Not my statue to tear down. HOWEVER, I have followed none of the trial, and no doubt the jurors are much better informed than me. Also, I quite like the way that British justice is 'flexible' in this way. Rather that than a machinewhich churned out justice unthinkingly.
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
And I would not off topic you (or anyone) anyway
You are right on this one Big G. Just two of you then. You and Boris. Help needs to be targeted at fuel poverty, not in universal cuts.
Up against the two of you, the Tory back benches, every opposition speaker at PMQs, and every newspaper from Mail to Mirror.
There’s the economic case you and Boris are making, and then a political reality of saying no tax cut using Brexit freedom isn’t there?
The "Tory Back Benches", certainly afaics the Red Wall ones, are in favour of measures to reduce bills.
He's off message in suggesting fracking, though, but uses the same "transition" line used by Germany. Though we need it less.
And he's speaking about living with coin meters etc, and his poorer constituents, - he was himself in a small terrace not long ago. No explicit call for spring / summer fuel payments, though.
These Green Levies are spent on means tested energy efficiency measures, so need replacing - any simple abolition will hit poorer people.
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?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
Anything that’s weird about the USA can usually be traced back to slavery or racism against the children of slaves somehow.
Thanks for that.
Artistically I don’t dislike it. The first thing you do by looking at it is laugh.
In its unrealistic colours and contortion it’s not trying to be sincere, so how is it being sincere about racism? It’s more like from a loony tunes comedy send up than something serious.
It’s on the wrong place perhaps. But more so than than the Colston statue this one challenges us that should we simply take other peoples opinion at face value it’s intention is malign?
270 new cases reported in Greenland. Which doesn't sound like much, but if that was per capita'd up to the UK it would be in the region of 300,000. Being on a massive ice sheet at the top of the world is no hiding place, it seems. This bug is everywhere.
Well it hit a Belgian outpost on Antarctica only last week!
Okay, following a bit of kick back from my previous comment, may I be blunt?
It's only a fucking statue of some slave trader who died 300 years ago. Nobody was hurt in the bringing down of said statue, no harm done. It's no big deal. Had I been on the jury, I'd have shrugged my shoulders and said 'not guilty', and I don't care whether the perpetrators were middle class or whatever.
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
Well that depends on your definition of oppression. I don't think a law against destroying public monuments qualifies.
I can't help but feel there are a fair number of middle class parents on here with woke(ish) kids who are worried about the idea of Cassia or Tarquin having their collars felt. Surely that must be wrong.
My main concern is with a politicised justice system in which jury members decide to use their position to make a political point. How about a Tommy Robinson type on trial for something but the jury (probably not in Bristol) acquits because although the evidence suggests he's guilty, they're convinced he's a good 'un with the right ideas so doesn't deserve to go down.
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?
The 1890's were a period of rampant, competitive statue building mania across the country. With each town furiously throwing up hideous representations of ever more obscure local "personalities". They really weren't considering why. For some reason these monstrosities are now sacrosanct.
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
Nah, they’re not making a substantive point. It’s just a mega froth.
+1 - 12 randomly selected people from the local area said no crime was committed.
Hard to argue against that without going full loopy.
Which they have because a jury case is based on the evidence presented and doesn’t have any impact on other cases.
It's not so long ago that many on the right decried judges as "enemies of the people". In our legal system, trial by jury is the epitome of justice being dispensed by the "people" - a jury of our peers, and all that.
So in the Bristol case, it would appear than many on the right now regard "people" as enemies of the people. You couldn't make it up - the people are enemies of the people.
(Incidentally, although I don't have the details, the jury will have been given clear direction on their options by the judge, and their decision to acquit will have been in line with one of those options).
Are you sure? Juries can acquit even when directed to convict:
Ultimately, it comes down to when one considers nullification appropriate. I think there probably was a case for it with Ponting, though I don’t know the details that we’ll. Personally, I think the case was weaker when it comes to these four.
But... much more important is that Labour politicians and supporters need to shut the fuck up about rape conviction rates. They are what they are. Accept it.
Okay, following a bit of kick back from my previous comment, may I be blunt?
It's only a fucking statue of some slave trader who died 300 years ago. Nobody was hurt in the bringing down of said statue, no harm done. It's no big deal. Had I been on the jury, I'd have shrugged my shoulders and said 'not guilty', and I don't care whether the perpetrators were middle class or whatever.
In comparison, pissy man, despite handing himself in and apologising, went to jail for taking a whizz next to a memorial.
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?
This seems an odd hill for you to choose to die on. Anyway, here is one example of the murder of enslaved children for you to enjoy. There are many, many others.
(was it "really" murder? In terms of the laws of the time, the vexed question of whether slaves were really people or simply property muddies the water somewhat. I hope that we can be more unequivocal in our judgement).
Jesus Christ, did IQs drop sharply while I was away? The claim was that slavers were "white supremacists who murder children for profit," a charge which is wrong both as a whole, and taken word by word. What slave traders did was EQUALLY DREADFUL but also NOT THE SAME THING. How incomprehensible is that to you?
You know, IshmaelZ, I don't know which species is worse - you don't see the Aliens enslaving millions of their own kind for a goddam percentage!
Got a new TV coming tomorrow, and it's going to be an intergalactic, mega penis megafest. Gonna be viewing aliens on my 55 incher.
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
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?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
Okay, following a bit of kick back from my previous comment, may I be blunt?
It's only a fucking statue of some slave trader who died 300 years ago. Nobody was hurt in the bringing down of said statue, no harm done. It's no big deal. Had I been on the jury, I'd have shrugged my shoulders and said 'not guilty', and I don't care whether the perpetrators were middle class or whatever.
In comparison, pissy man, despite handing himself in and apologising, went to jail for taking a whizz next to a memorial.
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
Well that depends on your definition of oppression. I don't think a law against destroying public monuments qualifies.
I can't help but feel there are a fair number of middle class parents on here with woke(ish) kids who are worried about the idea of Cassia or Tarquin having their collars felt. Surely that must be wrong.
My main concern is with a politicised justice system in which jury members decide to use their position to make a political point. How about a Tommy Robinson type on trial for something but the jury (probably not in Bristol) acquits because although the evidence suggests he's guilty, they're convinced he's a good 'un with the right ideas so doesn't deserve to go down.
Bearing in mind that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has several convictions, I think the evidence is that juries are happy to convict him.
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?
This seems an odd hill for you to choose to die on. Anyway, here is one example of the murder of enslaved children for you to enjoy. There are many, many others.
(was it "really" murder? In terms of the laws of the time, the vexed question of whether slaves were really people or simply property muddies the water somewhat. I hope that we can be more unequivocal in our judgement).
Jesus Christ, did IQs drop sharply while I was away? The claim was that slavers were "white supremacists who murder children for profit," a charge which is wrong both as a whole, and taken word by word. What slave traders did was EQUALLY DREADFUL but also NOT THE SAME THING. How incomprehensible is that to you?
You know, IshmaelZ, I don't know which species is worse - you don't see the Aliens enslaving millions of their own kind for a goddam percentage!
Got a new TV coming tomorrow, and it's going to be an intergalactic, mega penis megafest. Gonna be viewing aliens on my 55 incher.
Hey, IshmaelZ, don't worry! I got a "Making of Aliens" book for Christmas!
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
And I would not off topic you (or anyone) anyway
You are right on this one Big G. Just two of you then. You and Boris. Help needs to be targeted at fuel poverty, not in universal cuts.
Up against the two of you, the Tory back benches, every opposition speaker at PMQs, and every newspaper from Mail to Mirror.
There’s the economic case you and Boris are making, and then a political reality of saying no tax cut using Brexit freedom isn’t there?
I think you will find this is more Rishi than Boris and of course it is very much the right thing to do
The fact many politicians and journalists cannot see past the 5% cut is maybe a commentary on how poor their thought processes are
Boris hasn’t helped himself, floating it as a benefit of Brexit and then denying it when it is most needed.
His line at PMQs was bizarre - trying at the same time to have a go at the ‘remainers’ opposite for not wanting the UK to have the ‘freedom’ to remove VAT on fuel whilst - in the same answer - trying to explain why the people of the UK weren’t going to get it removed.
The politics of the impending cost of living crisis is that the government will be pushed towards some fairly significant help for the poor AND some sort of giveaway for all voters. For the latter, knocking away the 5% VAT appears ideal, and I’d say it’s odds-on that the PM has another humiliating u-turn coming his way….
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
Well that depends on your definition of oppression. I don't think a law against destroying public monuments qualifies.
I can't help but feel there are a fair number of middle class parents on here with woke(ish) kids who are worried about the idea of Cassia or Tarquin having their collars felt. Surely that must be wrong.
My main concern is with a politicised justice system in which jury members decide to use their position to make a political point. How about a Tommy Robinson type on trial for something but the jury (probably not in Bristol) acquits because although the evidence suggests he's guilty, they're convinced he's a good 'un with the right ideas so doesn't deserve to go down.
Bearing in mind that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has several convictions, I think the evidence is that juries are happy to convict him.
They have been in the past but if the justice system starts to look political? Ultimately this isn't a big enough case for a meaningful impact but the message isn't good.
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?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
Regarding Bristol, there are two very separate issues. One is whether the statue of Colston should be there or not, the other is whether the people that the jury has just acquitted are guilty of criminal damage. I am not sure anyone can contest the second point reasonably.
Apart from the jury of course.
@Northern_Al has liked your post but his musings on the matter are definitely of the 'statue shouldn't be there variety'. Juries can nullify, but you can't argue it's applying the law properly. Any magistrate would have convicted.
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?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
It's not so long ago that many on the right decried judges as "enemies of the people". In our legal system, trial by jury is the epitome of justice being dispensed by the "people" - a jury of our peers, and all that.
So in the Bristol case, it would appear than many on the right now regard "people" as enemies of the people. You couldn't make it up - the people are enemies of the people.
(Incidentally, although I don't have the details, the jury will have been given clear direction on their options by the judge, and their decision to acquit will have been in line with one of those options).
If you believe that juries always take Judges' advice under which circumstances an acquittal is warranted, then I have a bridge to sell you.
That's not what I said. I said that the judge will have laid out the options to the jury in his closing remarks. Among those options will have been "if you accept the defendants' argument that....." then acquittal is an option. The judge may well have summed up that the defendants' case was weak. That's how it works.
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.
I guess they need to address some of the street names too: Blackboy Hill, Whiteladies Road. [kicks hornets nest and waits to see what happens]
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
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?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
And then their bodies were eaten.
Not that that makes a huge amount of difference to Blair's remarks, TBF.
Bristol juries have a bit of history, they found Ben Stokes innocent....again despite video evidence and a confession.
Reminds me of when Stevie G was alleged to have beaten up that dj for not playing abba. And acquitted.
The thing about the Stokes incident was I can believe at least in the beginning he was acting in self-defence, because a guy did come at him with a bottle. Flattening the second guy was unnecessary. However, Alex Hales on the other hand managed to escape any issues despite running up and booting the first guy in head (who was already on the floor and no danger).
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...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
Well that depends on your definition of oppression. I don't think a law against destroying public monuments qualifies.
I can't help but feel there are a fair number of middle class parents on here with woke(ish) kids who are worried about the idea of Cassia or Tarquin having their collars felt. Surely that must be wrong.
My main concern is with a politicised justice system in which jury members decide to use their position to make a political point. How about a Tommy Robinson type on trial for something but the jury (probably not in Bristol) acquits because although the evidence suggests he's guilty, they're convinced he's a good 'un with the right ideas so doesn't deserve to go down.
Bearing in mind that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has several convictions, I think the evidence is that juries are happy to convict him.
I find the use of his original name strangely irritating. Is he not allowed to use a different name because you think he is an utter shit? Would you refer to say Elton John as Reg Dwight?
Comments
Up against the two of you, the Tory back benches, every opposition speaker at PMQs, and every newspaper from Mail to Mirror.
There’s the economic case you and Boris are making, and then a political reality of saying no tax cut using Brexit freedom isn’t there?
Was Colston a good man? Slave trader, made his fortune partly by slavery. Also left huge sums of money for philanthropic reasons and did much good with it.
Do I want the statue back in the square? No. Should it have been pulled down in the way it was? For me, no. Others disagree. That’s great, it’s a democracy.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4538164,-2.5973117,3a,75y,328.16h,85.68t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOG0ot4EbpzMVT2gZ2R3jxsHOG6HBO00uR56gQH!2e10!3e11!6shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipOG0ot4EbpzMVT2gZ2R3jxsHOG6HBO00uR56gQH=w203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya113.20927-ro-0-fo100!7i6912!8i3456
And the Colston statue was placed on the other side from the Colston Hall - along the road to the docks to the south, in the same central reservation thingy.
(Not sure if there was some movement since WW2/road improvements etc.)
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Or to be exact, Rees would not agree to any wording that they put forward that didn't say something along the lines of 'Anyone who thinks this statue should stay up should be shot dead and are a bunch of Nazis.'*
Personally I hold no brief for Colston but there were plenty of Bristolians including a very large number of non-white ones who wanted that statue left up, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds it deeply uncomfortable that a bunch of self-righteous, not very bright, rich predominantly white anarchists from elsewhere not only disagree using violence but get away with it.
As for Rees, he's the one who obsesses about statues to hide the fact that Bristol's schools are now even more shit than when I worked in them a decade ago.
*OK, I exaggerate slightly. The Merchant Venturers wanted it just to say baldly that he made money from slaving, Rees wanted to say more about the numbers and the harm.
- it is technically wrong to call him a "child murderer" because he didn't actively murder any children
- it is also fair to say that lots of people died as fairly direct results of his actions, and almost certainly lots of others (including children) died as an indirect result
On balance, I am uninterested in the defence that he did not actively "murder children for profit". There were loads of equally bad charges the OP could've laid that would have supported their argument adequately without resulting in this pointless and boring side argument.
The fact many politicians and journalists cannot see past the 5% cut is maybe a commentary on how poor their thought processes are
Anyway, here is one example of the murder of enslaved children for you to enjoy. There are many, many others.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_massacre
(was it "really" murder? In terms of the laws of the time, the vexed question of whether slaves were really people or simply property muddies the water somewhat. I hope that we can be more unequivocal in our judgement).
Anything that’s weird about the USA can usually be traced back to slavery or racism against the children of slaves somehow.
I feel inspired to read into late 19thC politics in UK, as it sounds like a proper bun fight on dividing line of proper issues? 📚
But despite being on the left myself I don’t think I’m persuaded by the whole ‘lived experience’ thing. Maybe to a point. I don’t know, I don’t have strong opinions either way really. I can see what you’re saying, but a good actor is, I suppose, a good actor because they can imagine themselves into a character’s emotions. Do you have to a quadriplegic actor playing a quadriplegic character? I’m not convinced personally but I can see why people think you should.
Your point about Jewish actors playing non-Jews is apposite to one of Baddiel’s points, I think. He says that Jews are perhaps viewed by many progressives as too rich to be oppressed, too white to be BAME, too ‘privileged’ to fall into the status of a minority. They are perceived, Baddiel argues, as too much like ‘us’, by which I mean white Europeans who are, in global and historical terms, quite lucky in life’s lottery, generally speaking. So Jews, Baddiel essentially says, are very low down on the list of minorities - so low that very often they aren’t recognised as a minority at all.
His book is worth a read. Made me think anyway.
Did the DPP make the decision to go for a jury trial to up the potential sentences?
Such is the enthusiasm for history in America's Deep South.
There would just be a small Anglican Church of Ireland minority as there still is now in the Republic of Ireland
So in the Bristol case, it would appear than many on the right now regard "people" as enemies of the people. You couldn't make it up - the people are enemies of the people.
(Incidentally, although I don't have the details, the jury will have been given clear direction on their options by the judge, and their decision to acquit will have been in line with one of those options).
Here's my MP Lee Anderson calling for green levies and VAT to be dropped (worth about £200-250 per bill per year).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiIRZyGC6hE
He's off message in suggesting fracking, though, but uses the same "transition" line used by Germany. Though we need it less.
And he's speaking about living with coin meters etc, and his poorer constituents, - he was himself in a small terrace not long ago. No explicit call for spring / summer fuel payments, though.
https://twitter.com/TheDragonFeeder/status/1478730187265089538?s=20
Fred West was acquitted of a rape charge by a jury, a couple of years before the remains of his first murder victim were discovered. Anyone who fails to see the joy in that is a fun sponge to the max.
https://birlinn.co.uk/product/immortal-memory/
Maybe you would prefer retrials until we get the right result, or we could vet all juries so the woke liberals are weeded out so we get the right result on the first time of asking every time
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting
Edit - curiosity trumps exhaustion
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/25/four-charged-colston-statue-damage-bristol-tried-crown-court
51% "Catholic"
43% "Protestant"
1% other
5% none/not stated
Sums that statue up quite nicely.
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
I’d hope that you were not one of those people, but this discussion has made me start to doubt that.
Slave traders absolutely profited from the murder of children. They may not have specifically set out to murder children but murdering children was an inevitable outcome of their choice of actions, actions which they profited from immensely. Therefore they profited from the murder of children.
Which doesn't sound like much, but if that was per capita'd up to the UK it would be in the region of 300,000.
Being on a massive ice sheet at the top of the world is no hiding place, it seems.
This bug is everywhere.
Rather than racial or social justice it is actually about identity and power.
HOWEVER, I have followed none of the trial, and no doubt the jurors are much better informed than me.
Also, I quite like the way that British justice is 'flexible' in this way. Rather that than a machinewhich churned out justice unthinkingly.
And Lee Andersen needs his camera at eye level.
Artistically I don’t dislike it. The first thing you do by looking at it is laugh.
In its unrealistic colours and contortion it’s not trying to be sincere, so how is it being sincere about racism? It’s more like from a loony tunes comedy send up than something serious.
It’s on the wrong place perhaps. But more so than than the Colston statue this one challenges us that should we simply take other peoples opinion at face value it’s intention is malign?
It's only a fucking statue of some slave trader who died 300 years ago. Nobody was hurt in the bringing down of said statue, no harm done. It's no big deal. Had I been on the jury, I'd have shrugged my shoulders and said 'not guilty', and I don't care whether the perpetrators were middle class or whatever.
I can't help but feel there are a fair number of middle class parents on here with woke(ish) kids who are worried about the idea of Cassia or Tarquin having their collars felt. Surely that must be wrong.
My main concern is with a politicised justice system in which jury members decide to use their position to make a political point. How about a Tommy Robinson type on trial for something but the jury (probably not in Bristol) acquits because although the evidence suggests he's guilty, they're convinced he's a good 'un with the right ideas so doesn't deserve to go down.
They really weren't considering why.
For some reason these monstrosities are now sacrosanct.
Hard to argue against that without going full loopy.
Which they have because a jury case is based on the evidence presented and doesn’t have any impact on other cases.
But... much more important is that Labour politicians and supporters need to shut the fuck up about rape conviction rates. They are what they are. Accept it.
Wow. That is so beautiful.
Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray.
Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
His line at PMQs was bizarre - trying at the same time to have a go at the ‘remainers’ opposite for not wanting the UK to have the ‘freedom’ to remove VAT on fuel whilst - in the same answer - trying to explain why the people of the UK weren’t going to get it removed.
The politics of the impending cost of living crisis is that the government will be pushed towards some fairly significant help for the poor AND some sort of giveaway for all voters. For the latter, knocking away the 5% VAT appears ideal, and I’d say it’s odds-on that the PM has another humiliating u-turn coming his way….
Bit like the early Coronavirus discussions in that respect.
It’s not for juries to be setting laws. That’s why we have elections.
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
Top tip: "As certain PB posters were saying 18 months ago" gives an even greater margin of safety
As is planned via the new Police Bill.
Not that that makes a huge amount of difference to Blair's remarks, TBF.