Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I think the Luftwaffe had a hand in clearing many of the historical buildings in Bristol; for some reason they left the Colston statue in place.
Oh, indeed. But it was used as an excuse to clear rather than rebuild. And things like the inner urban motorway - M32 - and inner ring road around Broadmead were not created by H. Goering.
In fact IIRC the place where the statue was wasn't where it was in WW2, as that was infilled only in postwar years - it used to be part of the quayside.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
Well, apart from you know…trading in slaves.
Which was legal at the time, sanctioned by the church and social mores. We should be wary of judging historical figures by modern laws and mores.
Yet there were also plenty at the time who said slavery was wrong. (Indeed, slavery in England had been outlawed for many centuries.)
Since the 1100s I think.
The troubling analogue for all of us is eating meat. I do worry from time to time (when not composing hypothetical come done with me dinners) about a future world condemning the brutality of the animal trade of the 21st century.
But slavery as you say was already anathema in domestic law. The analogy would be living in a Britain where meat eating was banned, but making a fortune trading in meat.
There are a few examples out there: marital rape legal until a few decades ago, as was beating one’s wife (“within reason”).
I’d distinguish these from examples of activities being banned for regulatory or personal safety reasons. Nobody’s condemning historical figures because they drank and drove, didn’t build to modern building regs or didn’t wear a seatbelt.
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time, and the whole planet's ecosystem depends on a food chain where some creatures consume other creatures - in fact, that's essential. In fact, it applies to our own bodies after we die too.
Pure ethics doesn't come into it, because it's not a black and white issue. It's just how it is.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
What about comedy? Should we have warnings on offensive content? I see they now have warnings on The IT Crowd.
Personally I wouldn’t, no4 would I on old plays, Agatha Christie novels etc. People seem to want to take offence at almost anything these days and these warnings are part of this weird world.
So what about getting rid of ratings on films? Where do you draw the line?
Ratings is a totally different question. That’s about age appropriateness.
Why is choosing if something is appropriate that different to whether we have warnings? Perhaps you don’t feel IT Crowd is appropriate for you, isn’t that the point of the warning?
An interesting point, but surely the danger is that people end up in their own bubbles, never challenging themselves with ‘difficult’ stuff.
If they do, that’s their choice. Others, as up thread, will seek out material with content warnings. Shouldn’t people get to decide what they want to do themselves?
Why would a warning be needed on a programme from the 70’s say? Surely a viewer would know that Porridge was written and performed in a different time? What does a warning actually achieve?
The good news is, unless I’ve missed it, programmes like Porridge don’t come with warnings at least not yet.
Time is a great evaluator. The comedies that contain at their heart a general humanity, universal insights into human nature, are good enough to laugh at themselves, and are actually funny, tend to last. So porridge remains funny and watchable as do Dad’s Army, Fawlty Towers, the good life, the fast show, Friends… whereas others that were either too stuck in their time, or just uncharitable and nasty, fall out of fashion and disappear.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.
The name has been taken off the concert hall, as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour
Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent
What about comedy? Should we have warnings on offensive content? I see they now have warnings on The IT Crowd.
Personally I wouldn’t, no4 would I on old plays, Agatha Christie novels etc. People seem to want to take offence at almost anything these days and these warnings are part of this weird world.
So what about getting rid of ratings on films? Where do you draw the line?
Ratings is a totally different question. That’s about age appropriateness.
Why is choosing if something is appropriate that different to whether we have warnings? Perhaps you don’t feel IT Crowd is appropriate for you, isn’t that the point of the warning?
An interesting point, but surely the danger is that people end up in their own bubbles, never challenging themselves with ‘difficult’ stuff.
If they do, that’s their choice. Others, as up thread, will seek out material with content warnings. Shouldn’t people get to decide what they want to do themselves?
Why would a warning be needed on a programme from the 70’s say? Surely a viewer would know that Porridge was written and performed in a different time? What does a warning actually achieve?
The good news is, unless I’ve missed it, programmes like Porridge don’t come with warnings at least not yet.
Time is a great evaluator. The comedies that contain at their heart a general humanity, universal insights into human nature, are good enough to laugh at themselves, and are actually funny, tend to last. So porridge remains funny and watchable as do Dad’s Army, Fawlty Towers, the good life, the fast show, Friends… whereas others that were either too stuck in their time, or just uncharitable and nasty, fall out of fashion and disappear.
I don't think I relly have a problems with warnings. They are a bit like the parental advisory notices on records in my opinion. They don't stop me watching or listening to anything.
What I do object to is programmes being cut or edited to remove content deemed unacceptable either completely or because of the time it is shown. I am a huge Big Bang Theory fan and it frustrates me immensely that E4 edit the programmes and remove huge swathes of them so they can put them on at 4pm.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour
Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent
Colston could have been anybody. It's just the activists needed a target at the time to advance their reputations and their cause, and he was it.
No, he was always a major figure in Bristol and the issue had been building up for years. It may have come as a surprise to you and many others, but not to anyone who knew Bristol.
What about comedy? Should we have warnings on offensive content? I see they now have warnings on The IT Crowd.
Personally I wouldn’t, no4 would I on old plays, Agatha Christie novels etc. People seem to want to take offence at almost anything these days and these warnings are part of this weird world.
So what about getting rid of ratings on films? Where do you draw the line?
Ratings is a totally different question. That’s about age appropriateness.
Why is choosing if something is appropriate that different to whether we have warnings? Perhaps you don’t feel IT Crowd is appropriate for you, isn’t that the point of the warning?
An interesting point, but surely the danger is that people end up in their own bubbles, never challenging themselves with ‘difficult’ stuff.
If they do, that’s their choice. Others, as up thread, will seek out material with content warnings. Shouldn’t people get to decide what they want to do themselves?
Why would a warning be needed on a programme from the 70’s say? Surely a viewer would know that Porridge was written and performed in a different time? What does a warning actually achieve?
The good news is, unless I’ve missed it, programmes like Porridge don’t come with warnings at least not yet.
Time is a great evaluator. The comedies that contain at their heart a general humanity, universal insights into human nature, are good enough to laugh at themselves, and are actually funny, tend to last. So porridge remains funny and watchable as do Dad’s Army, Fawlty Towers, the good life, the fast show, Friends… whereas others that were either too stuck in their time, or just uncharitable and nasty, fall out of fashion and disappear.
I think that’s fair, for the most part. Although Fawlty Towers has an abusive (both physically and verbally) boss, a ghastly charicature of a Spanish waiter, sexual assault (Basil reading for the light switch) and so on. I’ll fairly sure Fawlty Towers has been prefaced by warnings recently.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I think there’s some context you’re missing from the Colston events. Many of those with concerns about Colston had spent years and years trying to do something like that, have some explanation, some acknowledgement of his slave trading, put next to the statue, while others had just been campaigning for its removal. (The earliest criticism of the statue was in 1920 and it had been often discussed in the 1990s.) However, agreement on a plaque of explanation was elusive and supporters of Colston kept blocking moves. The toppling of the statue represented a reaction against that refusal to engage in some sort of compromise. Campaigners had tried other routes and become frustrated.
Not sure that 'I was frustrated' is much of a defence under the law for criminal damage. Turning to violence when you can't get your own way is infantile in the extreme.
The Coulston Four were acquitted.
Wrongly.
The jury sat through all the evidence and came to their conclusion. Have you spent as much time as the jury considering the case? Or have you just read a few news articles and rushed to judgement?
Jury system has strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes there are cases where every jury member knows the case before the trial - thiscwould have been the case here (unless @CorrectHorseBattery@BatteryCorrectHorse etc) was on the jury. In this case it looked like a slam dunk, but the jury acquitted, presumably because they had sympathy for the accused, not because they didn’t think them guilty of the offence.
They didn’t think them guilty of the offence. That’s literally the only thing the jury said, that they weren’t guilty.
They jury members had probably heard about the case beforehand, but they would have been instructed by the judge to put what they had heard previously aside and to attend just to what they heard in court.
And of course our fellow man and woman did just that? Right. I think you are naive if you believe all juries behave as we would like them too.
If you don’t think juries listen to judge’s instructions, do you think we should get rid of the jury system?
I was on a jury once, for a murder trial. I’m not saying juries are perfect, but I and my fellow jurors listened to what the judge told us and took our role seriously.
You can think the jury in the Colston 4 case got it right or got it wrong, but your casual dismissal of their actions, like your casual prejudice towards all those who toppled the statue, doesn’t suggest you are interested in a sensible discussion.
What about comedy? Should we have warnings on offensive content? I see they now have warnings on The IT Crowd.
Personally I wouldn’t, no4 would I on old plays, Agatha Christie novels etc. People seem to want to take offence at almost anything these days and these warnings are part of this weird world.
So what about getting rid of ratings on films? Where do you draw the line?
Ratings is a totally different question. That’s about age appropriateness.
Why is choosing if something is appropriate that different to whether we have warnings? Perhaps you don’t feel IT Crowd is appropriate for you, isn’t that the point of the warning?
An interesting point, but surely the danger is that people end up in their own bubbles, never challenging themselves with ‘difficult’ stuff.
Again, don’t think I’m not agreeing with you I’m just understanding.
Is a warning on an Inbetweeners episode that it contains swearing not necessary then?
I thought that was what we had the watershed for.
You've heard of streaming?
As I said, on the normal channels they passcode the programmes. And on Netflix etc they have child controls for responsible parents to use.
What about comedy? Should we have warnings on offensive content? I see they now have warnings on The IT Crowd.
Personally I wouldn’t, no4 would I on old plays, Agatha Christie novels etc. People seem to want to take offence at almost anything these days and these warnings are part of this weird world.
So what about getting rid of ratings on films? Where do you draw the line?
Ratings is a totally different question. That’s about age appropriateness.
Why is choosing if something is appropriate that different to whether we have warnings? Perhaps you don’t feel IT Crowd is appropriate for you, isn’t that the point of the warning?
An interesting point, but surely the danger is that people end up in their own bubbles, never challenging themselves with ‘difficult’ stuff.
If they do, that’s their choice. Others, as up thread, will seek out material with content warnings. Shouldn’t people get to decide what they want to do themselves?
Why would a warning be needed on a programme from the 70’s say? Surely a viewer would know that Porridge was written and performed in a different time? What does a warning actually achieve?
Why would someone who grew up in the 2000s know what the mores of the ‘70s were like?
The warnings let people know what they’re going to see. If you don’t find them useful, so what? They’re not stopping you from doing anything.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.
The name has been taken off the concert hall, as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.
Colston school renamed. The concert hall renamed. The charitable trust wound down.
A pretty good effort to remove the name of Colston from civic life.
And you know, if that’s what the people of Bristol want, that’s fine. I just wanted to give an example of where extremist woke misses a more complex picture.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I think the Luftwaffe had a hand in clearing many of the historical buildings in Bristol; for some reason they left the Colston statue in place.
Statues are blast resistant. Explosions are lazy - just flow round…
On one occasion, the PIRA put bags of blasting gelignite around the base of a statue they didn’t like. The statue was barely scratched. Most of the Catholic families living on the square had their windows blown in - a couple of houses were actually wrecked.
The games will not follow the rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency, meaning that athletes will be able to take performance-enhancing drugs.
The founders hope that it will eventually become a competitor to the Olympics.
And to anyone who responds 'Is that Tuesday's Leader or Friday's?', hello.
Oh dear. I know Christian Angermeyer pretty well
He’s a complete chance and hype merchant! I’m not a believe in longevity research but its fans are quite something!
Longevity research is an area where 1) the basic idea is fairly sensible 2) it attracts a horde of fruit and nut cakes.
What’s the regulatory pathway to approval given the inability to design a properly controlled clinical study?
The sane kind of longevity research creates things that we can actually run scientific trials upon. For example, there is research into treatments to reduce muscle wastage and bone issues in the elderly.
It’s almost as if doing something ethical and reproducible is a good idea.
The kind of longevity technology which will work is one that incrementally fixes/alleviates various issues on a one by one basis. Almost certainly.
May be we are talking at cross-purposes.
Research into a treatment for osteoporosis, for example, is a good thing. It may be a disease associated with aging but that doesn’t make it longevity research.
You can run a controlled clinical study comparing a product vs a bisphosphonate (it’s been 20 years since I have looked at osteoporosis- spend more time in OA at the moment - so don’t know if that is still the SOC).
You can’t really with some of the crackpot stuff that Christian promotes
Yes - that’s what I mean. The fact you can fit such work into an ethical and scientific framework is very indicative.
Medical science will advance. Almost inevitably this will lead to life extension. If we stop old people decaying physically and mentally, what is left?
Consider how many gazillions that is worth…..
The wu wu stuff - might as well do chants with cheap glass “crystals”.
There was a physician who I met once whose response to being asked what he specialised in was “diseases of the rich”. He was rather successful.
(He meant cardio-metabolic, neuro-degeneration and oncology. But basically he was a very good GP with a team of specialists on call).
She could hardly be dumped as winning PM could she? And if she loses the election, what does it matter to the electorate how the Tory party deals with her?
She should commit to putting herself up for re-election should she lose anyway.
You'd have to change the rule book for that to happen.
Not really, she could resign and commit to standing again.
A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election
Constitution of the Conservative Party, Schedule 2, Article 2, page 18.
Well researched. Indeed they would need a rule change then - but they should make one in this case.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Quite so. Gallipoli, his attitude to Empire, his tendency to try and make serious mistakes in WW2 and having to be counteracted by Alanbrooke (that was an interesting discussion the other day), they're all part of history together with his successes.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I think there’s some context you’re missing from the Colston events. Many of those with concerns about Colston had spent years and years trying to do something like that, have some explanation, some acknowledgement of his slave trading, put next to the statue, while others had just been campaigning for its removal. (The earliest criticism of the statue was in 1920 and it had been often discussed in the 1990s.) However, agreement on a plaque of explanation was elusive and supporters of Colston kept blocking moves. The toppling of the statue represented a reaction against that refusal to engage in some sort of compromise. Campaigners had tried other routes and become frustrated.
Not sure that 'I was frustrated' is much of a defence under the law for criminal damage. Turning to violence when you can't get your own way is infantile in the extreme.
The Coulston Four were acquitted.
Wrongly.
The jury sat through all the evidence and came to their conclusion. Have you spent as much time as the jury considering the case? Or have you just read a few news articles and rushed to judgement?
Jury system has strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes there are cases where every jury member knows the case before the trial - thiscwould have been the case here (unless @CorrectHorseBattery@BatteryCorrectHorse etc) was on the jury. In this case it looked like a slam dunk, but the jury acquitted, presumably because they had sympathy for the accused, not because they didn’t think them guilty of the offence.
They didn’t think them guilty of the offence. That’s literally the only thing the jury said, that they weren’t guilty.
They jury members had probably heard about the case beforehand, but they would have been instructed by the judge to put what they had heard previously aside and to attend just to what they heard in court.
And of course our fellow man and woman did just that? Right. I think you are naive if you believe all juries behave as we would like them too.
If you don’t think juries listen to judge’s instructions, do you think we should get rid of the jury system?
I was on a jury once, for a murder trial. I’m not saying juries are perfect, but I and my fellow jurors listened to what the judge told us and took our role seriously.
You can think the jury in the Colston 4 case got it right or got it wrong, but your casual dismissal of their actions, like your casual prejudice towards all those who toppled the statue, doesn’t suggest you are interested in a sensible discussion.
You ignore the fact that the Court of Appeal thought they got it wrong as well.
That said, I am dubious about the state having any ability to interfere with Jury trials. Which is why I said I was glad they did not demand a retrial. But that doesn't stop me thinking that, as a point of law, they got it wrong even if they should have the right to do so.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.
The name has been taken off the concert hall, as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.
Colston school renamed. The concert hall renamed. The charitable trust wound down.
A pretty good effort to remove the name of Colston from civic life.
And you know, if that’s what the people of Bristol want, that’s fine. I just wanted to give an example of where extremist woke misses a more complex picture.
But that *is* based on a more complex picture than what was portrayed in Bristol for decades. The result is inevitable.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I think there’s some context you’re missing from the Colston events. Many of those with concerns about Colston had spent years and years trying to do something like that, have some explanation, some acknowledgement of his slave trading, put next to the statue, while others had just been campaigning for its removal. (The earliest criticism of the statue was in 1920 and it had been often discussed in the 1990s.) However, agreement on a plaque of explanation was elusive and supporters of Colston kept blocking moves. The toppling of the statue represented a reaction against that refusal to engage in some sort of compromise. Campaigners had tried other routes and become frustrated.
Not sure that 'I was frustrated' is much of a defence under the law for criminal damage. Turning to violence when you can't get your own way is infantile in the extreme.
The Coulston Four were acquitted.
Wrongly.
The jury sat through all the evidence and came to their conclusion. Have you spent as much time as the jury considering the case? Or have you just read a few news articles and rushed to judgement?
Jury system has strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes there are cases where every jury member knows the case before the trial - thiscwould have been the case here (unless @CorrectHorseBattery@BatteryCorrectHorse etc) was on the jury. In this case it looked like a slam dunk, but the jury acquitted, presumably because they had sympathy for the accused, not because they didn’t think them guilty of the offence.
They didn’t think them guilty of the offence. That’s literally the only thing the jury said, that they weren’t guilty.
They jury members had probably heard about the case beforehand, but they would have been instructed by the judge to put what they had heard previously aside and to attend just to what they heard in court.
And of course our fellow man and woman did just that? Right. I think you are naive if you believe all juries behave as we would like them too.
If you don’t think juries listen to judge’s instructions, do you think we should get rid of the jury system?
I was on a jury once, for a murder trial. I’m not saying juries are perfect, but I and my fellow jurors listened to what the judge told us and took our role seriously.
You can think the jury in the Colston 4 case got it right or got it wrong, but your casual dismissal of their actions, like your casual prejudice towards all those who toppled the statue, doesn’t suggest you are interested in a sensible discussion.
I think in this case the jury reached the appropriate decision - the one that probably most people thought was right. I am not casually dismissing their actions, I am suggesting what they did.
I have not yet had the pleasure of jury service. I don’t think we should scrap it, but it clearly is never going to be perfect. I note not all trials involve juries. My mother in law did serve and frankly made a mockery of the system ‘he just looked guilty’.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
How has his name been “obliterated from history”? We are talking about him now. He has received vastly more attention since his statue was toppled than he ever did before. His statue is in the Bristol museum. He was an extremely minor figure in British history, he had a hall named after him but very few knew who was behind that name. And now we do.
What about comedy? Should we have warnings on offensive content? I see they now have warnings on The IT Crowd.
Personally I wouldn’t, no4 would I on old plays, Agatha Christie novels etc. People seem to want to take offence at almost anything these days and these warnings are part of this weird world.
So what about getting rid of ratings on films? Where do you draw the line?
Ratings is a totally different question. That’s about age appropriateness.
Why is choosing if something is appropriate that different to whether we have warnings? Perhaps you don’t feel IT Crowd is appropriate for you, isn’t that the point of the warning?
An interesting point, but surely the danger is that people end up in their own bubbles, never challenging themselves with ‘difficult’ stuff.
If they do, that’s their choice. Others, as up thread, will seek out material with content warnings. Shouldn’t people get to decide what they want to do themselves?
Why would a warning be needed on a programme from the 70’s say? Surely a viewer would know that Porridge was written and performed in a different time? What does a warning actually achieve?
The good news is, unless I’ve missed it, programmes like Porridge don’t come with warnings at least not yet.
Time is a great evaluator. The comedies that contain at their heart a general humanity, universal insights into human nature, are good enough to laugh at themselves, and are actually funny, tend to last. So porridge remains funny and watchable as do Dad’s Army, Fawlty Towers, the good life, the fast show, Friends… whereas others that were either too stuck in their time, or just uncharitable and nasty, fall out of fashion and disappear.
I don't think I relly have a problems with warnings. They are a bit like the parental advisory notices on records in my opinion. They don't stop me watching or listening to anything.
What I do object to is programmes being cut or edited to remove content deemed unacceptable either completely or because of the time it is shown. I am a huge Big Bang Theory fan and it frustrates me immensely that E4 edit the programmes and remove huge swathes of them so they can put them on at 4pm.
I think that makes sense. If the choice is earnings or editing then earnings are a far better option. Leave editing for the absolute most offensive examples.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I think the Luftwaffe had a hand in clearing many of the historical buildings in Bristol; for some reason they left the Colston statue in place.
Oh, indeed. But it was used as an excuse to clear rather than rebuild. And things like the inner urban motorway - M32 - and inner ring road around Broadmead were not created by H. Goering.
In fact IIRC the place where the statue was wasn't where it was in WW2, as that was infilled only in postwar years - it used to be part of the quayside.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour
Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent
I am also not sure about editing works to remove “offensive” parts.
Not sure how you edit to add lots of non-white people...
Which is a weird request, in some ways.
American social life, even among the very liberal, is (and was) quite segregated. A group of friends in the 90s would be very likely to be all white or all black or all Hispanic etc.
It’s improved in the funkier bits of New York, more recently. But it’s not like London, where mixing together is far more common.
What about comedy? Should we have warnings on offensive content? I see they now have warnings on The IT Crowd.
Personally I wouldn’t, no4 would I on old plays, Agatha Christie novels etc. People seem to want to take offence at almost anything these days and these warnings are part of this weird world.
So what about getting rid of ratings on films? Where do you draw the line?
Ratings is a totally different question. That’s about age appropriateness.
Why is choosing if something is appropriate that different to whether we have warnings? Perhaps you don’t feel IT Crowd is appropriate for you, isn’t that the point of the warning?
An interesting point, but surely the danger is that people end up in their own bubbles, never challenging themselves with ‘difficult’ stuff.
If they do, that’s their choice. Others, as up thread, will seek out material with content warnings. Shouldn’t people get to decide what they want to do themselves?
Why would a warning be needed on a programme from the 70’s say? Surely a viewer would know that Porridge was written and performed in a different time? What does a warning actually achieve?
The good news is, unless I’ve missed it, programmes like Porridge don’t come with warnings at least not yet.
Time is a great evaluator. The comedies that contain at their heart a general humanity, universal insights into human nature, are good enough to laugh at themselves, and are actually funny, tend to last. So porridge remains funny and watchable as do Dad’s Army, Fawlty Towers, the good life, the fast show, Friends… whereas others that were either too stuck in their time, or just uncharitable and nasty, fall out of fashion and disappear.
I don't think I relly have a problems with warnings. They are a bit like the parental advisory notices on records in my opinion. They don't stop me watching or listening to anything.
What I do object to is programmes being cut or edited to remove content deemed unacceptable either completely or because of the time it is shown. I am a huge Big Bang Theory fan and it frustrates me immensely that E4 edit the programmes and remove huge swathes of them so they can put them on at 4pm.
I think that makes sense. If the choice is earnings or editing then earnings are a far better option. Leave editing for the absolute most offensive examples.
I assume you mean 'warnings not 'earnings' but get your drift.
What about comedy? Should we have warnings on offensive content? I see they now have warnings on The IT Crowd.
Personally I wouldn’t, no4 would I on old plays, Agatha Christie novels etc. People seem to want to take offence at almost anything these days and these warnings are part of this weird world.
So what about getting rid of ratings on films? Where do you draw the line?
Ratings is a totally different question. That’s about age appropriateness.
Why is choosing if something is appropriate that different to whether we have warnings? Perhaps you don’t feel IT Crowd is appropriate for you, isn’t that the point of the warning?
An interesting point, but surely the danger is that people end up in their own bubbles, never challenging themselves with ‘difficult’ stuff.
If they do, that’s their choice. Others, as up thread, will seek out material with content warnings. Shouldn’t people get to decide what they want to do themselves?
Why would a warning be needed on a programme from the 70’s say? Surely a viewer would know that Porridge was written and performed in a different time? What does a warning actually achieve?
The good news is, unless I’ve missed it, programmes like Porridge don’t come with warnings at least not yet.
Time is a great evaluator. The comedies that contain at their heart a general humanity, universal insights into human nature, are good enough to laugh at themselves, and are actually funny, tend to last. So porridge remains funny and watchable as do Dad’s Army, Fawlty Towers, the good life, the fast show, Friends… whereas others that were either too stuck in their time, or just uncharitable and nasty, fall out of fashion and disappear.
I don't think I relly have a problems with warnings. They are a bit like the parental advisory notices on records in my opinion. They don't stop me watching or listening to anything.
What I do object to is programmes being cut or edited to remove content deemed unacceptable either completely or because of the time it is shown. I am a huge Big Bang Theory fan and it frustrates me immensely that E4 edit the programmes and remove huge swathes of them so they can put them on at 4pm.
I think that makes sense. If the choice is earnings or editing then earnings are a far better option. Leave editing for the absolute most offensive examples.
Why edit them at all?
Little Britain had blackface. Should we edit it out?
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I think the Luftwaffe had a hand in clearing many of the historical buildings in Bristol; for some reason they left the Colston statue in place.
Oh, indeed. But it was used as an excuse to clear rather than rebuild. And things like the inner urban motorway - M32 - and inner ring road around Broadmead were not created by H. Goering.
In fact IIRC the place where the statue was wasn't where it was in WW2, as that was infilled only in postwar years - it used to be part of the quayside.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I think there’s some context you’re missing from the Colston events. Many of those with concerns about Colston had spent years and years trying to do something like that, have some explanation, some acknowledgement of his slave trading, put next to the statue, while others had just been campaigning for its removal. (The earliest criticism of the statue was in 1920 and it had been often discussed in the 1990s.) However, agreement on a plaque of explanation was elusive and supporters of Colston kept blocking moves. The toppling of the statue represented a reaction against that refusal to engage in some sort of compromise. Campaigners had tried other routes and become frustrated.
Not sure that 'I was frustrated' is much of a defence under the law for criminal damage. Turning to violence when you can't get your own way is infantile in the extreme.
The Coulston Four were acquitted.
Wrongly.
The jury sat through all the evidence and came to their conclusion. Have you spent as much time as the jury considering the case? Or have you just read a few news articles and rushed to judgement?
Jury system has strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes there are cases where every jury member knows the case before the trial - thiscwould have been the case here (unless @CorrectHorseBattery@BatteryCorrectHorse etc) was on the jury. In this case it looked like a slam dunk, but the jury acquitted, presumably because they had sympathy for the accused, not because they didn’t think them guilty of the offence.
They didn’t think them guilty of the offence. That’s literally the only thing the jury said, that they weren’t guilty.
They jury members had probably heard about the case beforehand, but they would have been instructed by the judge to put what they had heard previously aside and to attend just to what they heard in court.
And of course our fellow man and woman did just that? Right. I think you are naive if you believe all juries behave as we would like them too.
If you don’t think juries listen to judge’s instructions, do you think we should get rid of the jury system?
I was on a jury once, for a murder trial. I’m not saying juries are perfect, but I and my fellow jurors listened to what the judge told us and took our role seriously.
You can think the jury in the Colston 4 case got it right or got it wrong, but your casual dismissal of their actions, like your casual prejudice towards all those who toppled the statue, doesn’t suggest you are interested in a sensible discussion.
You ignore the fact that the Court of Appeal thought they got it wrong as well.
That said, I am dubious about the state having any ability to interfere with Jury trials. Which is why I said I was glad they did not demand a retrial. But that doesn't stop me thinking that, as a point of law, they got it wrong even if they should have the right to do so.
That’s fine with me. I was responding there to turbotubbs’s cynicism about the operations of juries.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
How has his name been “obliterated from history”? We are talking about him now. He has received vastly more attention since his statue was toppled than he ever did before. His statue is in the Bristol museum. He was an extremely minor figure in British history, he had a hall named after him but very few knew who was behind that name. And now we do.
As I have already posted - Colston school - renamed, concert hall - renamed, charitable trust - wound up. His name has been whitewashed, erased from the things he founded and endowed. Now that’s a choice of thise involved, fine. Perhaps ‘obliterated from history’ is too strong, but his name has certainly been removed from the good things that he did. People are complex.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I have no skin in the game either way, I am just against revisionist history and using Colston as an example of where extreme wokeness gets you. Nuance is lost, and as @ydoethur says uneducated, frequently rich white teenagers vandalise things in the name of stuff they haven’t really thought about.
All history is revisionist, else you end up teaching Our Island Story for the next 200 years. It works both ways. There is many a right-wing revisionist work of histdory.
Colston is actually arguably what reaction gets you. The Merchant Venturers stuck out for far too long. It isn't their city and it's not for them to dictate to the elected Mayor what to do and what not to do.
The statue was private property. It’s not for the Mayor to insist that a private organisation make a change
(As I understand it each side blamed the other for being intransigent on the precise wording of the plaque. So it was an issue of detail not principle - although could have been frustrating action by one or other)
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I think the Luftwaffe had a hand in clearing many of the historical buildings in Bristol; for some reason they left the Colston statue in place.
Oh, indeed. But it was used as an excuse to clear rather than rebuild. And things like the inner urban motorway - M32 - and inner ring road around Broadmead were not created by H. Goering.
In fact IIRC the place where the statue was wasn't where it was in WW2, as that was infilled only in postwar years - it used to be part of the quayside.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
I hope he will look at European health systems where the private sector plays a much bigger role but is very strictly controlled. Which of course is the bit that has been missing from the British variety of privatisation for decades.
I am also not sure about editing works to remove “offensive” parts.
Not sure how you edit to add lots of non-white people...
Which is a weird request, in some ways.
American social life, even among the very liberal, is (and was) quite segregated. A group of friends in the 90s would be very likely to be all white or all black or all Hispanic etc.
It’s improved in the funkier bits of New York, more recently. But it’s not like London, where mixing together is far more common.
Ross had a black girlfriend for a while, played by the delightful Aisha Tyler:
I think the warnings are mostly about the gay jokes and treatment of Chandler’s transvestite father. There’s nothing there that wasn’t of its time though. The ethnic minority characters in Seinfeld are much dodgier, in terms of stereotyping.
I am also not sure about editing works to remove “offensive” parts.
Not sure how you edit to add lots of non-white people...
Which is a weird request, in some ways.
American social life, even among the very liberal, is (and was) quite segregated. A group of friends in the 90s would be very likely to be all white or all black or all Hispanic etc.
It’s improved in the funkier bits of New York, more recently. But it’s not like London, where mixing together is far more common.
Ross had a black girlfriend for a while, played by the delightful Aisha Tyler:
I think the warnings are mostly about the gay jokes and treatment of Chandler’s transvestite father. There’s nothing there that wasn’t of its time though. The ethnic minority characters in Seinfeld are much dodgier, in terms of stereotyping.
Today's Times contains some very important, and illuminating, quotes on Rishi Sunak. I'm not always a huge fan of Tim Shipman's columns - they focus too much on the Westminster "games" rather than policy - but this week's has some really useful nuggets. 🧵
I read that article this morning. Big Rish sounds like he is completely lost and the tories will try to icepick his cranium after the inevitable May 2nd debacle. To be replaced by a Patel/Mourdant cheeky girls anti-immigration dream ticket apparently.
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, But to be a semi-literate 68 year old GB News watching gammon with a fat neck was very heaven.
Sounds about OK. Your disparaging comments about her medal appropriation aside, PM is fine. She should have some things she wants to do as leader (if she doesn't after all the leadership elections she's been in God help us all), and a good idea of what can be achieved in the little time that remains. Patel shores up the right flank a bit.
Mordaunt is suspected of being insufficiently belligerent toward trans people for tory tastes so Patel balances the ticket because nobody is under any doubt that at her core is a black torrent of spite that springs from Avernus itself.
That's a left-wing pastiche of Tory sentiment.
The truth is she doesn't have the intellectual rigour to challenge ways of thinking - so she simply co-opts what's already there. The concern Tories have about identity politics is that if you view people through the prism of colour, sex, sexuality or class, it leads to hell. No-one who devotes a quarter of their book to bashing It Ain't Half Hot Mum, thinking that gave the royal flush, is thinking straight, or even just thinking.
To be fair, she almost certainly didn't write it, and probably didn't even read it either, but her trouble is it chimed with the suspicions people had about her already.
I think your criticisms are fair.
However what the country desperately needs in my opinion, is the end of the disastrous political consensus that is currently calcifying around the two (make that four) main parties, which if carried through, will destroy our economy and our living standards.
The Tories could be that party, and all sins would be forgiven - elections are about the future, not the past. I will vote for the party that offers a brighter future (of course I have to have a reasonable expectation that they will deliver it).
For that to happen, Sunak has to go. It really has nothing to do with his qualities as a leader, it's the fact that he is identified with the current way of doing things and cannot relaunch the Government credibly.
If Penny can create a good cabinet with all strands of the party represented (Boris, Truss, and Sunak have all had cliquey cabinets and talent has suffered) and unite the party around an agenda for real economic recovery and growth, the election outcome could be called into question.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
I hope he will look at European health systems where the private sector plays a much bigger role but is very strictly controlled. Which of course is the bit that has been missing from the British variety of privatisation for decades.
I am also not sure about editing works to remove “offensive” parts.
Not sure how you edit to add lots of non-white people...
Which is a weird request, in some ways.
American social life, even among the very liberal, is (and was) quite segregated. A group of friends in the 90s would be very likely to be all white or all black or all Hispanic etc.
It’s improved in the funkier bits of New York, more recently. But it’s not like London, where mixing together is far more common.
Ross had a black girlfriend for a while, played by the delightful Aisha Tyler:
I think the warnings are mostly about the gay jokes and treatment of Chandler’s transvestite father. There’s nothing there that wasn’t of its time though. The ethnic minority characters in Seinfeld are much dodgier, in terms of stereotyping.
Labour will digitise children's NHS 'red book' of medical records if they win the general election - vowing to use technology to reform the health service and buck falling MMR vaccination rates.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
How has his name been “obliterated from history”? We are talking about him now. He has received vastly more attention since his statue was toppled than he ever did before. His statue is in the Bristol museum. He was an extremely minor figure in British history, he had a hall named after him but very few knew who was behind that name. And now we do.
As I have already posted - Colston school - renamed, concert hall - renamed, charitable trust - wound up. His name has been whitewashed, erased from the things he founded and endowed. Now that’s a choice of thise involved, fine. Perhaps ‘obliterated from history’ is too strong, but his name has certainly been removed from the good things that he did. People are complex.
Being into music, the only time I’d heard of Colston before his newfound fame was Colston Hall, which you mention above. So let’s consider the former Colston Hall.
Colston Hall was built in 1867, over 150 years after Colston had died. He didn’t found it. He didn’t endow it. It is not a “good thing[] that he did”. I don’t feel that Edward Colston has been hard done by because something he had nothing to do with had its name changed.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I have no skin in the game either way, I am just against revisionist history and using Colston as an example of where extreme wokeness gets you. Nuance is lost, and as @ydoethur says uneducated, frequently rich white teenagers vandalise things in the name of stuff they haven’t really thought about.
All history is revisionist, else you end up teaching Our Island Story for the next 200 years. It works both ways. There is many a right-wing revisionist work of histdory.
Colston is actually arguably what reaction gets you. The Merchant Venturers stuck out for far too long. It isn't their city and it's not for them to dictate to the elected Mayor what to do and what not to do.
The statue was private property. It’s not for the Mayor to insist that a private organisation make a change
(As I understand it each side blamed the other for being intransigent on the precise wording of the plaque. So it was an issue of detail not principle - although could have been frustrating action by one or other)
I note that local government often gets to tell private bodies what to do. If I erected a replica of the Colston statue in the front garden, the council would have it removed. (We’re in a conservation area and I wouldn’t have planning permission.)
Let's take the idea of vaccines. Are vaccines a post humanist/trans humanist improvement of the body? I think that if you regard contraception as trans humanist then they must be. Is she seriously arguing that conservatives should be opposed to vaccines? Because if she is, and we have heard some of this nonsense in the US, not least from RFK, she's lost me and, I hope, most rational people.
Is genetic medicine treating hereditary disorders something we are supposed to oppose? I mean, really?
Or is this supposed axis just not very useful in making sensible decisions about the complicated questions we actually face? That's where I am heading.
Let's take the issue of transgender (hang in there, this will be brief). The issue there is surely not whether some people want to dress as the opposite sex. Good luck to them. Who cares? The State, and anybody even vaguely sane, only shows an interest when the rights that they are asserting interfere with the rights of others or puts them at unacceptable risk. That is the battlefield, not some deontological analysis of what we "ought" to be.
Your last paragraph is absolutely spot on
At its core democracy is simply a mechanism for resolving disputes without violence. It works more often than not.
The whole trans debate boils down to a debate about conflicting rights between different individuals
The whole trans debate boils down to a debate about conflicting rights between different individuals.
If only. It actually boils down to competing ideologies. I know which side I'm on in that battle, but I would never have chosen to fight it. It does no-one any good.
It’s been seized by ideologues but that’s not the same thing.
Take the example of women’s refuges: does a physical male who identifies as female have the right to enter because they are deemed female? Do the women who are currently there have the right to an environment free from the presence of a physical male?
That’s a straight conflict between the rights of two individuals
The manager of a women's refuge in Wales was canvassed on this for the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill. She said her refuge had hosted a couple of trans women but not a single other woman had complained about it. They all realised they were in the same boat and all were looking for a safe space.
Rights don't need to conflict if people are as sensible and humane as the women in that Welsh refuge.
They don’t need to *IF* people are as sensible and human as that
Unfortunately you need to write laws based on the worst case potential outcomes
So you could come up with a structure where women’s’ refuges have the right but not the obligation to allow physical males to stay.
Yes to your last point. And if you do that, you don't need to legislate for the worst case. You deal with each case on its merits. No women's refuge is obliged to accept men pretending to be trans with no need for a safe space, nor would they ever do so.
The Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill was about making it less difficult for people legally to be who they want to be. I think it was wrong for the UK government to kibosh the whole thing. I doubt the bill required women's refuges to accept trans women but would certainly get rid of that requirement if it did.
The issue is comparable to requiring Catholic adoption agencies to place children with gay couples. Blair’s government wouldn’t compromise (the proposal was referrals to a paired agency).
The result was that a lot of agencies closed. And fewer children were placed with new families. What was worse was that these agencies often specialised in the hardest cases with children most in need.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
How has his name been “obliterated from history”? We are talking about him now. He has received vastly more attention since his statue was toppled than he ever did before. His statue is in the Bristol museum. He was an extremely minor figure in British history, he had a hall named after him but very few knew who was behind that name. And now we do.
As I have already posted - Colston school - renamed, concert hall - renamed, charitable trust - wound up. His name has been whitewashed, erased from the things he founded and endowed. Now that’s a choice of thise involved, fine. Perhaps ‘obliterated from history’ is too strong, but his name has certainly been removed from the good things that he did. People are complex.
Being into music, the only time I’d heard of Colston before his newfound fame was Colston Hall, which you mention above. So let’s consider the former Colston Hall.
Colston Hall was built in 1867, over 150 years after Colston had died. He didn’t found it. He didn’t endow it. It is not a “good thing[] that he did”. I don’t feel that Edward Colston has been hard done by because something he had nothing to do with had its name changed.
The link is the school that he DID found in 1707. The hall was on in the site of the old school. Are you going to argue that the school was not a good thing too?
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.
The name has been taken off the concert hall, as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.
Colston school renamed. The concert hall renamed. The charitable trust wound down.
A pretty good effort to remove the name of Colston from civic life.
And you know, if that’s what the people of Bristol want, that’s fine. I just wanted to give an example of where extremist woke misses a more complex picture.
In my opinion, the original erection of the statue was actually a culture war statement. It happened over a hundred years (I think?) after his death, at a time of big debates around race, and it just looks to me like a Carlyle-esque riposte to the do-gooders. That said, I think that makes it all the more interesting historically, and I wouldn't have removed it - I would have added something else there for context. The vandals should have had the book thrown at them, along with that negligent useless waste of space Chief Constable.
I am also not sure about editing works to remove “offensive” parts.
Not sure how you edit to add lots of non-white people...
Which is a weird request, in some ways.
American social life, even among the very liberal, is (and was) quite segregated. A group of friends in the 90s would be very likely to be all white or all black or all Hispanic etc.
It’s improved in the funkier bits of New York, more recently. But it’s not like London, where mixing together is far more common.
Ross had a black girlfriend for a while, played by the delightful Aisha Tyler:
I think the warnings are mostly about the gay jokes and treatment of Chandler’s transvestite father. There’s nothing there that wasn’t of its time though. The ethnic minority characters in Seinfeld are much dodgier, in terms of stereotyping.
Does it need warnings?
I’m looking at my Netflix app. I have pulled up Friends. There are no warnings.
Anger at King Charles' plan to build an 'ideal town' in Kent: Locals lash out at Duchy of Cornwall over proposals for 2,500 homes on 320 acres of farmland which they fear will 'swallow up historic villages into an urban mass'
Anger at King Charles' plan to build an 'ideal town' in Kent: Locals lash out at Duchy of Cornwall over proposals for 2,500 homes on 320 acres of farmland which they fear will 'swallow up historic villages into an urban mass'
Has anyone else got a video of of a gig they were at with about a hundred people in a central London venue (the Alleycat on Denmark Street) as good as this?
I am also not sure about editing works to remove “offensive” parts.
Not sure how you edit to add lots of non-white people...
Which is a weird request, in some ways.
American social life, even among the very liberal, is (and was) quite segregated. A group of friends in the 90s would be very likely to be all white or all black or all Hispanic etc.
It’s improved in the funkier bits of New York, more recently. But it’s not like London, where mixing together is far more common.
Ross had a black girlfriend for a while, played by the delightful Aisha Tyler:
I think the warnings are mostly about the gay jokes and treatment of Chandler’s transvestite father. There’s nothing there that wasn’t of its time though. The ethnic minority characters in Seinfeld are much dodgier, in terms of stereotyping.
Does it need warnings?
I’m looking at my Netflix app. I have pulled up Friends. There are no warnings.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I have no skin in the game either way, I am just against revisionist history and using Colston as an example of where extreme wokeness gets you. Nuance is lost, and as @ydoethur says uneducated, frequently rich white teenagers vandalise things in the name of stuff they haven’t really thought about.
All history is revisionist, else you end up teaching Our Island Story for the next 200 years. It works both ways. There is many a right-wing revisionist work of histdory.
Colston is actually arguably what reaction gets you. The Merchant Venturers stuck out for far too long. It isn't their city and it's not for them to dictate to the elected Mayor what to do and what not to do.
The statue was private property. It’s not for the Mayor to insist that a private organisation make a change
(As I understand it each side blamed the other for being intransigent on the precise wording of the plaque. So it was an issue of detail not principle - although could have been frustrating action by one or other)
I note that local government often gets to tell private bodies what to do. If I erected a replica of the Colston statue in the front garden, the council would have it removed. (We’re in a conservation area and I wouldn’t have planning permission.)
I considered adding “assuming that said private property is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations” but decided not to because (i) I am not a lawyer; and (ii) I didn’t think anyone would be so puerile as to try to make that argument
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
How has his name been “obliterated from history”? We are talking about him now. He has received vastly more attention since his statue was toppled than he ever did before. His statue is in the Bristol museum. He was an extremely minor figure in British history, he had a hall named after him but very few knew who was behind that name. And now we do.
As I have already posted - Colston school - renamed, concert hall - renamed, charitable trust - wound up. His name has been whitewashed, erased from the things he founded and endowed. Now that’s a choice of thise involved, fine. Perhaps ‘obliterated from history’ is too strong, but his name has certainly been removed from the good things that he did. People are complex.
Being into music, the only time I’d heard of Colston before his newfound fame was Colston Hall, which you mention above. So let’s consider the former Colston Hall.
Colston Hall was built in 1867, over 150 years after Colston had died. He didn’t found it. He didn’t endow it. It is not a “good thing[] that he did”. I don’t feel that Edward Colston has been hard done by because something he had nothing to do with had its name changed.
The link is the school that he DID found in 1707. The hall was on in the site of the old school. Are you going to argue that the school was not a good thing too?
I don’t know about the school. As I said, I’d heard of the Hall, which you listed as a “good thing” he’d done. I have an opinion of the Hall, and that’s that it wasn’t founded or endowed by Colston, so I don’t think Colston’s ghost can complain that it changed its name.
If a concert hall was built on the site of one of my schools, I wouldn’t expect them to name it after the school.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I'm all for 'reform' but he might as well just say 'woke blob' rather than 'middle-class lefties' and save time on his way to a gushing Daily Mail headline.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I have no skin in the game either way, I am just against revisionist history and using Colston as an example of where extreme wokeness gets you. Nuance is lost, and as @ydoethur says uneducated, frequently rich white teenagers vandalise things in the name of stuff they haven’t really thought about.
All history is revisionist, else you end up teaching Our Island Story for the next 200 years. It works both ways. There is many a right-wing revisionist work of histdory.
Colston is actually arguably what reaction gets you. The Merchant Venturers stuck out for far too long. It isn't their city and it's not for them to dictate to the elected Mayor what to do and what not to do.
The statue was private property. It’s not for the Mayor to insist that a private organisation make a change
(As I understand it each side blamed the other for being intransigent on the precise wording of the plaque. So it was an issue of detail not principle - although could have been frustrating action by one or other)
I note that local government often gets to tell private bodies what to do. If I erected a replica of the Colston statue in the front garden, the council would have it removed. (We’re in a conservation area and I wouldn’t have planning permission.)
I considered adding “assuming that said private property is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations” but decided not to because (i) I am not a lawyer; and (ii) I didn’t think anyone would be so puerile as to try to make that argument
I think your computer autocorrected “pedantic” there.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I'm all for 'reform' but he might as well just say 'woke blob' rather than 'middle-class lefties' and save time on his way to a gushing Daily Mail headline.
It strikes me as basic grift. US companies have been wanting to get their hands on the NHS for donkey's years - Labour will open it up under the guise of 'taking tough decisions' and it's doubles all round.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
But the statue is in a modern town with lots of descendants of those unfortunates.
There's no law that a statue has to remain in situ forever. Nor is there a law that enables the local oligarchy to say no forever.
If it had been in the way of traffic - it would have gone instantly. Or if it had been in the way of modern architects and developers. A single walk around Bristol is quite sufficient to show that. Look, for instance, at what happened to the central area.
I have no skin in the game either way, I am just against revisionist history and using Colston as an example of where extreme wokeness gets you. Nuance is lost, and as @ydoethur says uneducated, frequently rich white teenagers vandalise things in the name of stuff they haven’t really thought about.
All history is revisionist, else you end up teaching Our Island Story for the next 200 years. It works both ways. There is many a right-wing revisionist work of histdory.
Colston is actually arguably what reaction gets you. The Merchant Venturers stuck out for far too long. It isn't their city and it's not for them to dictate to the elected Mayor what to do and what not to do.
The statue was private property. It’s not for the Mayor to insist that a private organisation make a change
(As I understand it each side blamed the other for being intransigent on the precise wording of the plaque. So it was an issue of detail not principle - although could have been frustrating action by one or other)
I note that local government often gets to tell private bodies what to do. If I erected a replica of the Colston statue in the front garden, the council would have it removed. (We’re in a conservation area and I wouldn’t have planning permission.)
I considered adding “assuming that said private property is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations” but decided not to because (i) I am not a lawyer; and (ii) I didn’t think anyone would be so puerile as to try to make that argument
I think your computer autocorrected “pedantic” there.
Has anyone else got a video of of a gig they were at with about a hundred people in a central London venue (the Alleycat on Denmark Street) as good as this?
Sadly pre-phone era, but I was at a very good gig where - as I hazily remember - Sean Ryder had a heart attack after a few too many happy pills.
And I remember an especially good Digital Hardcore gig at the Suicide Club in Berlin in the early/mid 90s. But again, no video.
So you win! If it wasn't for you pesky kids....
(Also "Has anyone else got a video of of a gig they were at with about a hundred people in a central London venue (the Alleycat on Denmark Street)" is a really quite specific challenge)
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
Well, apart from you know…trading in slaves.
Which was legal at the time, sanctioned by the church and social mores. We should be wary of judging historical figures by modern laws and mores.
Yet there were also plenty at the time who said slavery was wrong. (Indeed, slavery in England had been outlawed for many centuries.)
Since the 1100s I think.
The troubling analogue for all of us is eating meat. I do worry from time to time (when not composing hypothetical come done with me dinners) about a future world condemning the brutality of the animal trade of the 21st century.
But slavery as you say was already anathema in domestic law. The analogy would be living in a Britain where meat eating was banned, but making a fortune trading in meat.
There are a few examples out there: marital rape legal until a few decades ago, as was beating one’s wife (“within reason”).
I’d distinguish these from examples of activities being banned for regulatory or personal safety reasons. Nobody’s condemning historical figures because they drank and drove, didn’t build to modern building regs or didn’t wear a seatbelt.
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time, and the whole planet's ecosystem depends on a food chain where some creatures consume other creatures - in fact, that's essential. In fact, it applies to our own bodies after we die too.
Pure ethics doesn't come into it, because it's not a black and white issue. It's just how it is.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
Do you know who have been obliterated from history? The ~84,000 enslaved people traded as part of Colston’s work. Their names will never even be known, and you’re worrying about Colston’s name coming off a few buildings?
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I'm all for 'reform' but he might as well just say 'woke blob' rather than 'middle-class lefties' and save time on his way to a gushing Daily Mail headline.
It strikes me as basic grift. US companies have been wanting to get their hands on the NHS for donkey's years - Labour will open it up under the guise of 'taking tough decisions' and it's doubles all round.
Electronic medical records are hard. But the savings are potentially immense. Politically it sounds obvious and sensible so easy to promise.
It’s not really anything to with the US healthcare companies.
But… remember Project Lorenzo! (To be fair Digital Spine is working better because it was more defined and less crazily ambitious. The red book programme sounds more like the Spine approach)
It strikes me as basic grift. US companies have been wanting to get their hands on the NHS for donkey's years - Labour will open it up under the guise of 'taking tough decisions' and it's doubles all round.
Which might be fine were they efficient. They are not.
The idea of contracting the Health Service out to foreign investors is even more daft than what was done with Thames Water. The consequences would be a great deal more expensive to fix.
(btw, someone did something funky with the blockquotes.)
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
Well, apart from you know…trading in slaves.
Which was legal at the time, sanctioned by the church and social mores. We should be wary of judging historical figures by modern laws and mores.
Yet there were also plenty at the time who said slavery was wrong. (Indeed, slavery in England had been outlawed for many centuries.)
Since the 1100s I think.
The troubling analogue for all of us is eating meat. I do worry from time to time (when not composing hypothetical come done with me dinners) about a future world condemning the brutality of the animal trade of the 21st century.
But slavery as you say was already anathema in domestic law. The analogy would be living in a Britain where meat eating was banned, but making a fortune trading in meat.
There are a few examples out there: marital rape legal until a few decades ago, as was beating one’s wife (“within reason”).
I’d distinguish these from examples of activities being banned for regulatory or personal safety reasons. Nobody’s condemning historical figures because they drank and drove, didn’t build to modern building regs or didn’t wear a seatbelt.
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time, and the whole planet's ecosystem depends on a food chain where some creatures consume other creatures - in fact, that's essential. In fact, it applies to our own bodies after we die too.
Pure ethics doesn't come into it, because it's not a black and white issue. It's just how it is.
Humans have a capability for ethics - fact. Animals have feelings - fact. Humans can choose not to cause unnecessary suffering to animals (non-human ones and indeed human ones) - fact. Flesh-eating is unethical and disgusting.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
Well, apart from you know…trading in slaves.
Which was legal at the time, sanctioned by the church and social mores. We should be wary of judging historical figures by modern laws and mores.
Yet there were also plenty at the time who said slavery was wrong. (Indeed, slavery in England had been outlawed for many centuries.)
Since the 1100s I think.
The troubling analogue for all of us is eating meat. I do worry from time to time (when not composing hypothetical come done with me dinners) about a future world condemning the brutality of the animal trade of the 21st century.
But slavery as you say was already anathema in domestic law. The analogy would be living in a Britain where meat eating was banned, but making a fortune trading in meat.
There are a few examples out there: marital rape legal until a few decades ago, as was beating one’s wife (“within reason”).
I’d distinguish these from examples of activities being banned for regulatory or personal safety reasons. Nobody’s condemning historical figures because they drank and drove, didn’t build to modern building regs or didn’t wear a seatbelt.
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time, and the whole planet's ecosystem depends on a food chain where some creatures consume other creatures - in fact, that's essential. In fact, it applies to our own bodies after we die too.
Pure ethics doesn't come into it, because it's not a black and white issue. It's just how it is.
Humans have a capability for ethics - fact. Animals have feelings - fact. Humans can choose not to cause unnecessary suffering to animals (non-human ones and indeed human ones) - fact. Flesh-eating is unethical and disgusting.
Contraception as transhumanist? (@DavidL). Yep. Watch the link. She's against it.
Vax as transhumanist? (@DavidL). Possibly. She does say "Since covid in particular it's clear that both sides agree the state absolutely does have a say in what you do with your body"
Suicide as transhumanist? (@Chris). Yes, definitely. I looked again and she specifically mentions "assisted suicide" (twice) and "Big Death" (once)
Is this an American discussion? (@TimS). I think her position comes from a very English and Anglican stance: her use of Hobbes' "Leviathan" being an obvious example. It's like "Fall" for Autumn: yes they use it but we invented it.
Is this useful/relevant? (@bondegezou). Fair question. But I am struck that she presaged the assisted dying debate in the UK, so possibly yes?
The truth lies in a muddled middle (@algarkirk). Yup, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of the axis.
Is Harrington a rightwinger? (@WhisperingOracle). Well, she is speaking in the National Conservative conference and is urging the right to vote in her direction. But the transhumanist axis, like Green politics and Euroscepticism, is not innately right-wing, although I assume the right will congregate in an antitranshumanist direction
What was the use of AI in this article (@Foxy, @Casino_Royale). I will/have PM'd you
Why puberty blockers? (@darkage). Fair point. I'll use a more general example in the extended cut.
"Cishumanist" as an alternate to "Humanist"? (@kyf_100). Technically yes but I doubt it'll get traction. I'd go for "baseline" myself.
And lastly
The article was portentious (@Luckyguy1983). Oh, guilty as charged. I do have that tendency in my writing, apols.
I'll do an extended cut later in the year at an as-yet unfixed date and I'll invite you to a backstage discussion.
Any places named after the following should be renamed too
Thomas Malthus Herbert Spencer H G Wells Any fucking slave owner or trader.
One understands the Kray brothers were nice to their mum. Oh they were so complex.
Rightwingers can be so whingey. They really don't like it up them. Slaveowners are scum. No humane culture should honour them. About as clear as clear can possibly be.
The letter described how corporate management was leading the major plane manufacturer to its eventual demise, through out-sourcing, cost-cutting, layoffs, and mismanagement, with prescient warnings of how this would impact safety, reliability, and ultimately exact a toll of innocent lives.
Written in 2002 and posted to the online forum airliner.net, the letter eviscerates Boeing over their decision to outsource important design work to international ‘design centers’ - notably one in Moscow, while in subsequent years design centers for software development, including the notorious 737MAX, were opened up in India. The letter details how establishing a large, disaggregated supply chain for plane parts will inevitably lead to errors, mistakes, and oversights, risking the proper functioning of safety-critical systems. “We are willing to state that Boeing's management is "betting the company" on a misguided and ridiculous outsourcing plan that is gutting the company of its hard-won knowledge base and human assets. The safety and quality of Boeing airplanes is at jeopardy because of the foolhardy actions of Boeing's senior management, and even the hint of safety and quality issues with Boeing's airplanes can have disastrous results for its Commercial Airplane business.” What has happened in the intervening years is exactly that - a long and sordid list of violations, blunders, mismanagements, cost-overruns, preventable disasters, and more recently, what appears to be violent and murderous cover-up of whistleblowers.
In the following text, italic sections are specific quotes taken directly from the letter with my own context provided. The entirety of the letter is reproduced at the bottom of the post...
Contraception as transhumanist? (@DavidL). Yep. Watch the link. She's against it.
Vax as transhumanist? (@DavidL). Possibly. She does say "Since covid in particular it's clear that both sides agree the state absolutely does have a say in what you do with your body"
Suicide as transhumanist? (@Chris). Yes, definitely. I looked again and she specifically mentions "assisted suicide" (twice) and "Big Death" (once)
Is this an American discussion? (@TimS). I think her position comes from a very English and Anglican stance: her use of Hobbes' "Leviathan" being an obvious example. It's like "Fall" for Autumn: yes they use it but we invented it.
Is this useful/relevant? (@bondegezou). Fair question. But I am struck that she presaged the assisted dying debate in the UK, so possibly yes?
The truth lies in a muddled middle (@algarkirk). Yup, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of the axis.
Is Harrington a rightwinger? (@WhisperingOracle). Well, she is speaking in the National Conservative conference and is urging the right to vote in her direction. But the transhumanist axis, like Green politics and Euroscepticism, is not innately right-wing, although I assume the right will congregate in an antitranshumanist direction
What was the use of AI in this article (@Foxy, @Casino_Royale). I will/have PM'd you
Why puberty blockers? (@darkage). Fair point. I'll use a more general example in the extended cut.
"Cishumanist" as an alternate to "Humanist"? (@kyf_100). Technically yes but I doubt it'll get traction. I'd go for "baseline" myself.
And lastly
The article was portentious (@Luckyguy1983). Oh, guilty as charged. I do have that tendency in my writing, apols.
I'll do an extended cut later in the year at an as-yet unfixed date and I'll invite you to a backstage discussion.
This is a pretty good article. The mistake we made was making one PM.
Why We Need Fools: Jesters, Power, and Cults of Personality The history of court jesters and fools reveals lessons about the nature of modern power, from narcissistic hubris to cults of personality—and the necessity of being told when you're wrong. https://www.forkingpaths.co/p/why-we-need-fools-jesters-power-and
Contraception as transhumanist? (@DavidL). Yep. Watch the link. She's against it.
Vax as transhumanist? (@DavidL). Possibly. She does say "Since covid in particular it's clear that both sides agree the state absolutely does have a say in what you do with your body"
Suicide as transhumanist? (@Chris). Yes, definitely. I looked again and she specifically mentions "assisted suicide" (twice) and "Big Death" (once)
Is this an American discussion? (@TimS). I think her position comes from a very English and Anglican stance: her use of Hobbes' "Leviathan" being an obvious example. It's like "Fall" for Autumn: yes they use it but we invented it.
Is this useful/relevant? (@bondegezou). Fair question. But I am struck that she presaged the assisted dying debate in the UK, so possibly yes?
The truth lies in a muddled middle (@algarkirk). Yup, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of the axis.
Is Harrington a rightwinger? (@WhisperingOracle). Well, she is speaking in the National Conservative conference and is urging the right to vote in her direction. But the transhumanist axis, like Green politics and Euroscepticism, is not innately right-wing, although I assume the right will congregate in an antitranshumanist direction
What was the use of AI in this article (@Foxy, @Casino_Royale). I will/have PM'd you
Why puberty blockers? (@darkage). Fair point. I'll use a more general example in the extended cut.
"Cishumanist" as an alternate to "Humanist"? (@kyf_100). Technically yes but I doubt it'll get traction. I'd go for "baseline" myself.
And lastly
The article was portentious (@Luckyguy1983). Oh, guilty as charged. I do have that tendency in my writing, apols.
I'll do an extended cut later in the year at an as-yet unfixed date and I'll invite you to a backstage discussion.
portentous pôr-tĕn′təs adjective Of the nature of or constituting a portent;portentous Full of unspecifiable significance; exciting wonder and awe. Marked by pompousness; pretentiously weighty. foreboding.
I don't mind the article being written in a portentous style, it's just the unsupported assertion that neoliberalism is dead that I can't climb aboard with.
'NEW: Rishi Sunak has offered to finance his aides after they leave No 10 if they remain loyal
“Rishi has said to some of the people around him, ‘Don’t worry, just stick with me. I’ll bankroll you after this. If you want to start a business, I’ll invest in it.’” https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1776884169655648450
'NEW: Rishi Sunak has offered to finance his aides after they leave No 10 if they remain loyal
“Rishi has said to some of the people around him, ‘Don’t worry, just stick with me. I’ll bankroll you after this. If you want to start a business, I’ll invest in it.’” https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1776884169655648450
'NEW: Rishi Sunak has offered to finance his aides after they leave No 10 if they remain loyal
“Rishi has said to some of the people around him, ‘Don’t worry, just stick with me. I’ll bankroll you after this. If you want to start a business, I’ll invest in it.’” https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1776884169655648450
If they wanted to start a business, they wouldn't be his aides...
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I'm all for 'reform' but he might as well just say 'woke blob' rather than 'middle-class lefties' and save time on his way to a gushing Daily Mail headline.
It strikes me as basic grift. US companies have been wanting to get their hands on the NHS for donkey's years - Labour will open it up under the guise of 'taking tough decisions' and it's doubles all round.
It assuredly rather depends. Labour quite successfully used the private sector to bring down waiting lists the last time they were very high. Because it made sense for both. You need extra short-term capacity to get rid of the backlog and as normal but not extra permanent capacity that will be redundant. So you use the private sector to clear the backlog. They use up their spare capacity and are paid for it. It may save the NHS some money from the raw cost because the longer people are on waiting lists, the sicker they tend to get.
As for other stuff like the IT wizardry and data analysis that's supposed to help revolutionise everything. Well you're going to need the private sector to do it, as government can't itself these days. Which doesn't mean one shouldn't be sceptical - look at Fujitsu - but if you want a shiny, state of the art NHS tech, it's going to be bought from private tech firms.
I suspect it's a situation where everyone's rhetoric is miles away from each other but end up in the same place. More than a decade after the dreadful Lansley reforms, private sector spending in the NHS budget has ticked up from 4 to 7 percent.
Streeting will big up his 'reform' agenda but it'll mainly be tinkering and troubleshooting. Meanwhile, if we ever had got a Corbyn/McDonnell govt. they'd have quickly (well hopefully) found principles hard to keep to when confronted with realities.
The letter described how corporate management was leading the major plane manufacturer to its eventual demise, through out-sourcing, cost-cutting, layoffs, and mismanagement, with prescient warnings of how this would impact safety, reliability, and ultimately exact a toll of innocent lives.
Written in 2002 and posted to the online forum airliner.net, the letter eviscerates Boeing over their decision to outsource important design work to international ‘design centers’ - notably one in Moscow, while in subsequent years design centers for software development, including the notorious 737MAX, were opened up in India. The letter details how establishing a large, disaggregated supply chain for plane parts will inevitably lead to errors, mistakes, and oversights, risking the proper functioning of safety-critical systems. “We are willing to state that Boeing's management is "betting the company" on a misguided and ridiculous outsourcing plan that is gutting the company of its hard-won knowledge base and human assets. The safety and quality of Boeing airplanes is at jeopardy because of the foolhardy actions of Boeing's senior management, and even the hint of safety and quality issues with Boeing's airplanes can have disastrous results for its Commercial Airplane business.” What has happened in the intervening years is exactly that - a long and sordid list of violations, blunders, mismanagements, cost-overruns, preventable disasters, and more recently, what appears to be violent and murderous cover-up of whistleblowers.
In the following text, italic sections are specific quotes taken directly from the letter with my own context provided. The entirety of the letter is reproduced at the bottom of the post...
The problem with blaming outsourcing is for Boeing's woes is... Airbus.
On the 787: " Boeing decided to outsource 70% of the design, engineering and manufacturing of entire modules to over 50 strategic partners. These partners, in turn, could outsource various parts to their suppliers." (1)
On Airbus: "Around 80% of Airbus’ activity is sourced externally. We work with more than 12,000 suppliers worldwide, who provide products and services for flying and non-flying parts." (2). 75% of the A350 program was outsourced (3)
Leaving aside the A380 debacle, Airbus has been brilliant at getting disparate companies spread around different countries to work together to build competitive and successful products. Perhaps that was because Airbus had to do that from the beginning, so developed better processes as it grew.
Or perhaps Boeing's problems are not outsourcing, but management. I see little reason to believe that Bowing's mistakes would not have happened even if Bowing owned and controlled all their suppliers. The decision to build the 737Max, for instance, was not caused by outsourcing, and neither was the MCAS decision.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
Private companies do a lot of waiting list work already, and have done for decades. They cherry pick the straightforward cases and leave the complex and expensive work to the rNHS, I really don't see what is new or "Reforming" about this.
There isn't much evidence that it has resolved the fundamental problem of capacity, not least because the personnel in the private sector were nearly all trained in the NHS
Wes Streeting combines bombastic language with a failure to understand the issues to the point that I won't support Labour.
It's not that I an against the private sector, indeed I advocated how to make it work in my first PB header.
Anger at King Charles' plan to build an 'ideal town' in Kent: Locals lash out at Duchy of Cornwall over proposals for 2,500 homes on 320 acres of farmland which they fear will 'swallow up historic villages into an urban mass'
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour
Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent
Colston could have been anybody. It's just the activists needed a target at the time to advance their reputations and their cause, and he was it.
No, he was always a major figure in Bristol and the issue had been building up for years. It may have come as a surprise to you and many others, but not to anyone who knew Bristol.
Err, I lived in Bristol for several years you moron and still have friends there now.
Colston wasn't a big issue outside an activist minority- even the Labour mayor wasn't bothered by it.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour
Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent
Colston could have been anybody. It's just the activists needed a target at the time to advance their reputations and their cause, and he was it.
No, he was always a major figure in Bristol and the issue had been building up for years. It may have come as a surprise to you and many others, but not to anyone who knew Bristol.
Err, I lived in Bristol for several years you moron and still have friends there now.
Colston wasn't a big issue outside an activist minority- even the Labour mayor wasn't bothered by it.
Marvin Rees certainly *was* bothered by it.
But the general feeling was that it was better to keep the statue rather than airbrush Bristol‘s role in the slave trade out of it.
Which is what has now happened. Sure, we’re talking about it but there are fewer visible reminders of it in Bristol.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour
Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.
The name has been taken off the concert hall as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.
It was put on display in a way that celebrates and memorialises its violent destruction- on its side and covered in red daubed paint - for all time.
They should have cleaned him up and put him on display with the contrasting views. But they didn't.
It'd have been better to leave him in the harbour.
That isn't presenting Colston in a fair or neutral way.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
The slave trade is a particularly horrible business. I actually felt ill after visiting an exhibition about it in Liverpool years ago.
I am more in favour of understanding history than trying to change it. Calling out Colston is absolutely fine in my book, albeit criminal damage isn't.
Those accused of criminal damage were acquitted. Ergo, no criminal damage took place!
Incorrect. Five others were cautioned and fined for criminal damage before the trial took place.
Another example. Jimmy Saville had his name on buildings and a tombstone that was vandalised. Were these acceptable actions?
I guess as before there is a line.
Saville committed awful crimes during his life. As far as I know, Colston did not.
from his wikibio:
During Colston's involvement with the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, it is estimated that the company transported over 84,000 African men, women and children to the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, of whom as many as 19,000 may have died on the journey.
We should be wary of judging historical figures with modern laws.
We live in the present day, and in the present day we can choose who we wish to celebrate now. Do we want to celebrate a slave trader?
I could choose to celebrate a philanthropist who did much good in his life.
Of course we can choose who to celebrate. I just find it rather odd that we judge historical figures against modern standards, as if we would all have been anti slavery if we had been educated as those figures were. People are of their time. There character, and personality are formed from the world they live in. Should we tear down statues of Roman emporers because of the old slavery thing?
Statues go up and come down all the time. Just because someone once erected a statue to you doesn’t mean that that statue has to remain for all eternity. Our towns and cities change around us all the time. We make choices.
There have been many philanthropists we can celebrate. Why celebrate the one who was a slave trader? Most of Colston’s contemporaries thought slavery was fine. They were wrong. It was horrendous. The African slave trade was one of the greatest horrors to ever have occurred.
I don’t quite know how I have become a Colston defender. Your point was about applying nuance to appraising historical figures. If you dont like Colston as an example how about Churchill?
I’m not seeking to pull down any Churchill statues. I think we should talk about Churchill’s good and bad side. I wish we could do that without having to worry about hurting the feelings of the snowflakes who don’t want anyone to ever mention the bad stuff.
Can we talk about Colston good side then? Or must his name be obliterated from history, as has happened now in Bristol?
But it hasn't. He - or rather his statue - has been put in the city museum with considerable display material.
The name has been taken off the concert hall as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.
It was put on display in a way that celebrates and memorialises its violent destruction- on its side and covered in red daubed paint - for all time.
They should have cleaned him up and put him on display with the contrasting views. But they didn't.
It'd have been better to leave him in the harbour.
That isn't presenting Colston in a fair or neutral way.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour
Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent
Colston could have been anybody. It's just the activists needed a target at the time to advance their reputations and their cause, and he was it.
No, he was always a major figure in Bristol and the issue had been building up for years. It may have come as a surprise to you and many others, but not to anyone who knew Bristol.
Err, I lived in Bristol for several years you moron and still have friends there now.
Colston wasn't a big issue outside an activist minority- even the Labour mayor wasn't bothered by it.
You lose the argument immediately if you call people morons, old fruit. Helpful hint straight out of Viz.
And how do you know I don't know Bristol or have friends there myself? You don't. So that doesn't work either.
As for your assertion that it would be better to leave him in the harbour - I thought you didn't approve of vandalism and wokery. But you forget that it wasn't presenting Colston in a fair and neutral way to leave thje statue where it was in the first place. And the Merchant Venturers refused to compromise. So we are where we are.
Mordaunt who as far as I can see would naturally probably bring the silly culture wars to an end is held as being "too woke", despite not being woke at all.
Nah, she's Woke.
Read her "book".
Good, 'woke' just means respecting others.
No, it doesn't - as has been exhaustively explained to you on numerous occasions on here.
But, you either don't want to listen or are a professional timewaster. Possibly both.
I'd like to engage with you on this.
Some of the views and actions by those on the extreme of what they themselves would term 'progressive politics' are of course ridiculous, offensive and dangerous. I doubt anyone on here would disagree with that for the most egregious examples. It is right to object to such extemes and many on the left do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, I beleive we'd all agree* on some basic universal fairness, equality, and inclusion rules that should apply - e.g. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. etc. (*Although, historically, it wasn't always thus.)
So the issue is surely where to draw the line?
I probably embrace a few diversity and inclusion measures that you find unnecessary or troubling (e.g. I think unconscious bias awareness is good thing; I don't mind the National Trust explaining how some of its stately home were built on slave profits). But these are issues of scale or interpretation, not fundamental diametrically-opposed views.
So I find it a bit baffling that so many on the right get so het up about 'woke' - a term they, not the left, use.
I think the fuss over the Colston statue is as good a place to start as any. Slave trader = bad. But philanthropist = good. He did good works with his I’ll gotten gains. But those I’ll gotten gains were legal at the time, and his use of them would not have been frowned upon by society at the time.
So rather than tear down his statue and remove his name from things he created, how about a bit more nuance. Explanation. But the great danger is the extremes don’t want to engage in debate. The win is the only thing.
I’m sorry to be ignorant but who took down the Colson statue?
I’d agree taking it down is ridiculous and self-defeating however would a notice really not be called out for “wokeness”.
A mob of agitators threw it in the harbour
Haven’t read the below article but attaching based on headline so no ideas if it is good/bad/indifferent
Colston could have been anybody. It's just the activists needed a target at the time to advance their reputations and their cause, and he was it.
No, he was always a major figure in Bristol and the issue had been building up for years. It may have come as a surprise to you and many others, but not to anyone who knew Bristol.
Err, I lived in Bristol for several years you moron and still have friends there now.
Colston wasn't a big issue outside an activist minority- even the Labour mayor wasn't bothered by it.
Marvin Rees certainly *was* bothered by it.
But the general feeling was that it was better to keep the statue rather than airbrush Bristol‘s role in the slave trade out of it.
Which is what has now happened. Sure, we’re talking about it but there are fewer visible reminders of it in Bristol.
Which was my point, which some seem to miss last night.
'NEW: Rishi Sunak has offered to finance his aides after they leave No 10 if they remain loyal
“Rishi has said to some of the people around him, ‘Don’t worry, just stick with me. I’ll bankroll you after this. If you want to start a business, I’ll invest in it.’” https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1776884169655648450
Comments
In fact IIRC the place where the statue was wasn't where it was in WW2, as that was infilled only in postwar years - it used to be part of the quayside.
Pure ethics doesn't come into it, because it's not a black and white issue. It's just how it is.
Time is a great evaluator. The comedies that contain at their heart a general humanity, universal insights into human nature, are good enough to laugh at themselves, and are actually funny, tend to last. So porridge remains funny and watchable as do Dad’s Army, Fawlty Towers, the good life, the fast show, Friends… whereas others that were either too stuck in their time, or just uncharitable and nasty, fall out of fashion and disappear.
The name has been taken off the concert hall, as he's not considered a good example today. Matter of opinion, but it's certainly arguable - and much more so than the older assessment of him as immaculate.
I am also not sure about editing works to remove “offensive” parts.
What I do object to is programmes being cut or edited to remove content deemed unacceptable either completely or because of the time it is shown. I am a huge Big Bang Theory fan and it frustrates me immensely that E4 edit the programmes and remove huge swathes of them so they can put them on at 4pm.
I was on a jury once, for a murder trial. I’m not saying juries are perfect, but I and my fellow jurors listened to what the judge told us and took our role seriously.
You can think the jury in the Colston 4 case got it right or got it wrong, but your casual dismissal of their actions, like your casual prejudice towards all those who toppled the statue, doesn’t suggest you are interested in a sensible discussion.
The warnings let people know what they’re going to see. If you don’t find them useful, so what? They’re not stopping you from doing anything.
A pretty good effort to remove the name of Colston from civic life.
And you know, if that’s what the people of Bristol want, that’s fine. I just wanted to give an example of where extremist woke misses a more complex picture.
On one occasion, the PIRA put bags of blasting gelignite around the base of a statue they didn’t like. The statue was barely scratched. Most of the Catholic families living on the square had their windows blown in - a couple of houses were actually wrecked.
(He meant cardio-metabolic, neuro-degeneration and oncology. But basically he was a very good GP with a team of specialists on call).
These were removed for possibly causing offence?
That said, I am dubious about the state having any ability to interfere with Jury trials. Which is why I said I was glad they did not demand a retrial. But that doesn't stop me thinking that, as a point of law, they got it wrong even if they should have the right to do so.
I have not yet had the pleasure of jury service. I don’t think we should scrap it, but it clearly is never going to be perfect. I note not all trials involve juries.
My mother in law did serve and frankly made a mockery of the system ‘he just looked guilty’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dutch_House,_Bristol
American social life, even among the very liberal, is (and was) quite segregated. A group of friends in the 90s would be very likely to be all white or all black or all Hispanic etc.
It’s improved in the funkier bits of New York, more recently. But it’s not like London, where mixing together is far more common.
Little Britain had blackface. Should we edit it out?
Richard Grenell’s shadow foreign policy campaign is unsettling diplomats and threatens to collapse US interests
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/05/richard-grenell-trump-far-right-foreign-policy
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
https://x.com/mrharrycole/status/1777086645365248092
Now that’s a choice of thise involved, fine. Perhaps ‘obliterated from history’ is too strong, but his name has certainly been removed from the good things that he did.
People are complex.
(As I understand it each side blamed the other for being intransigent on the precise wording of the plaque. So it was an issue of detail not principle - although could have been frustrating action by one or other)
I think the warnings are mostly about the gay jokes and treatment of Chandler’s transvestite father. There’s nothing there that wasn’t of its time though. The ethnic minority characters in Seinfeld are much dodgier, in terms of stereotyping.
However what the country desperately needs in my opinion, is the end of the disastrous political consensus that is currently calcifying around the two (make that four) main parties, which if carried through, will destroy our economy and our living standards.
The Tories could be that party, and all sins would be forgiven - elections are about the future, not the past. I will vote for the party that offers a brighter future (of course I have to have a reasonable expectation that they will deliver it).
For that to happen, Sunak has to go. It really has nothing to do with his qualities as a leader, it's the fact that he is identified with the current way of doing things and cannot relaunch the Government credibly.
If Penny can create a good cabinet with all strands of the party represented (Boris, Truss, and Sunak have all had cliquey cabinets and talent has suffered) and unite the party around an agenda for real economic recovery and growth, the election outcome could be called into question.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/labour-vaccine-mmr-nhs-app-red-book/
Colston Hall was built in 1867, over 150 years after Colston had died. He didn’t found it. He didn’t endow it. It is not a “good thing[] that he did”. I don’t feel that Edward Colston has been hard done by because something he had nothing to do with had its name changed.
The result was that a lot of agencies closed. And fewer children were placed with new families. What was worse was that these agencies often specialised in the hardest cases with children most in need.
https://x.com/mailonline/status/1776771852326535366
I love the Monarchy now!
https://youtu.be/wUhTsp_7bEc?si=alxHVlN59FlKpok1
If a concert hall was built on the site of one of my schools, I wouldn’t expect them to name it after the school.
It strikes me as basic grift. US companies have been wanting to get their hands on the NHS for donkey's years - Labour will open it up under the guise of 'taking tough decisions' and it's doubles all round.
And I remember an especially good Digital Hardcore gig at the Suicide Club in Berlin in the early/mid 90s. But again, no video.
So you win! If it wasn't for you pesky kids....
(Also "Has anyone else got a video of of a gig they were at with about a hundred people in a central London venue (the Alleycat on Denmark Street)" is a really quite specific challenge)
[runs and hides]
Electronic medical records are hard. But the savings are potentially immense. Politically it sounds obvious and sensible so easy to promise.
It’s not really anything to with the US healthcare companies.
But… remember Project Lorenzo! (To be fair Digital Spine is working better because it was more defined and less crazily ambitious. The red book programme sounds more like the Spine approach)
https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn
https://digital.nhs.uk/services/spine
They are not.
The idea of contracting the Health Service out to foreign investors is even more daft than what was done with Thames Water.
The consequences would be a great deal more expensive to fix.
(btw, someone did something funky with the blockquotes.)
Animals have feelings - fact.
Humans can choose not to cause unnecessary suffering to animals (non-human ones and indeed human ones) - fact.
Flesh-eating is unethical and disgusting.
Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 flight to Houston returns to Denver after engine cover tears away during takeoff
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1777022213515805018
Thank you for all your responses. I cannot address all of them here, but some of them are below
- The aptness of the word "humanist" or variants? (@jamesdoyle, @eristdoof @Carnyx @Nigelb @Richard_Tyndall and others). I checked the link and yes, that's the word she uses.
- Contraception as transhumanist? (@DavidL). Yep. Watch the link. She's against it.
- Vax as transhumanist? (@DavidL). Possibly. She does say "Since covid in particular it's clear that both sides agree the state absolutely does have a say in what you do with your body"
- Suicide as transhumanist? (@Chris). Yes, definitely. I looked again and she specifically mentions "assisted suicide" (twice) and "Big Death" (once)
- Is this an American discussion? (@TimS). I think her position comes from a very English and Anglican stance: her use of Hobbes' "Leviathan" being an obvious example. It's like "Fall" for Autumn: yes they use it but we invented it.
- Is this useful/relevant? (@bondegezou). Fair question. But I am struck that she presaged the assisted dying debate in the UK, so possibly yes?
- The truth lies in a muddled middle (@algarkirk). Yup, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of the axis.
- Is Harrington a rightwinger? (@WhisperingOracle). Well, she is speaking in the National Conservative conference and is urging the right to vote in her direction. But the transhumanist axis, like Green politics and Euroscepticism, is not innately right-wing, although I assume the right will congregate in an antitranshumanist direction
- What was the use of AI in this article (@Foxy, @Casino_Royale). I will/have PM'd you
- Why puberty blockers? (@darkage). Fair point. I'll use a more general example in the extended cut.
- "Cishumanist" as an alternate to "Humanist"? (@kyf_100). Technically yes but I doubt it'll get traction. I'd go for "baseline" myself.
And lastly- The article was portentious (@Luckyguy1983). Oh, guilty as charged. I do have that tendency in my writing, apols.
I'll do an extended cut later in the year at an as-yet unfixed date and I'll invite you to a backstage discussion.see also
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jun/ucl-denames-buildings-named-after-eugenicists
Any places named after the following should be renamed too
Thomas Malthus
Herbert Spencer
H G Wells
Any fucking slave owner or trader.
One understands the Kray brothers were nice to their mum. Oh they were so complex.
Rightwingers can be so whingey. They really don't like it up them.
Slaveowners are scum. No humane culture should honour them. About as clear as clear can possibly be.
https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1771325364050260382
An internal letter written 22 years ago by Boeing Engineers detailed exactly what the company's mismanagement would lead to. Their worst fears have all come true.
The letter described how corporate management was leading the major plane manufacturer to its eventual demise, through out-sourcing, cost-cutting, layoffs, and mismanagement, with prescient warnings of how this would impact safety, reliability, and ultimately exact a toll of innocent lives.
Written in 2002 and posted to the online forum airliner.net, the letter eviscerates Boeing over their decision to outsource important design work to international ‘design centers’ - notably one in Moscow, while in subsequent years design centers for software development, including the notorious 737MAX, were opened up in India. The letter details how establishing a large, disaggregated supply chain for plane parts will inevitably lead to errors, mistakes, and oversights, risking the proper functioning of safety-critical systems.
“We are willing to state that Boeing's management is "betting the company" on a misguided and ridiculous outsourcing plan that is gutting the company of its hard-won knowledge base and human assets. The safety and quality of Boeing airplanes is at jeopardy because of the foolhardy actions of Boeing's senior management, and even the hint of safety and quality issues with Boeing's airplanes can have disastrous results for its Commercial Airplane business.”
What has happened in the intervening years is exactly that - a long and sordid list of violations, blunders, mismanagements, cost-overruns, preventable disasters, and more recently, what appears to be violent and murderous cover-up of whistleblowers.
In the following text, italic sections are specific quotes taken directly from the letter with my own context provided. The entirety of the letter is reproduced at the bottom of the post...
And tbf, in this case it might just be incompetent maintenance.
The mistake we made was making one PM.
Why We Need Fools: Jesters, Power, and Cults of Personality
The history of court jesters and fools reveals lessons about the nature of modern power, from narcissistic hubris to cults of personality—and the necessity of being told when you're wrong.
https://www.forkingpaths.co/p/why-we-need-fools-jesters-power-and
portentous
pôr-tĕn′təs
adjective
Of the nature of or constituting a portent;portentous
Full of unspecifiable significance; exciting wonder and awe.
Marked by pompousness; pretentiously weighty. foreboding.
I don't mind the article being written in a portentous style, it's just the unsupported assertion that neoliberalism is dead that I can't climb aboard with.
“Rishi has said to some of the people around him, ‘Don’t worry, just stick with me. I’ll bankroll you after this. If you want to start a business, I’ll invest in it.’”
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1776884169655648450
It assuredly rather depends. Labour quite successfully used the private sector to bring down waiting lists the last time they were very high. Because it made sense for both. You need extra short-term capacity to get rid of the backlog and as normal but not extra permanent capacity that will be redundant. So you use the private sector to clear the backlog. They use up their spare capacity and are paid for it. It may save the NHS some money from the raw cost because the longer people are on waiting lists, the sicker they tend to get.
As for other stuff like the IT wizardry and data analysis that's supposed to help revolutionise everything. Well you're going to need the private sector to do it, as government can't itself these days. Which doesn't mean one shouldn't be sceptical - look at Fujitsu - but if you want a shiny, state of the art NHS tech, it's going to be bought from private tech firms.
I suspect it's a situation where everyone's rhetoric is miles away from each other but end up in the same place. More than a decade after the dreadful Lansley reforms, private sector spending in the NHS budget has ticked up from 4 to 7 percent.
Streeting will big up his 'reform' agenda but it'll mainly be tinkering and troubleshooting. Meanwhile, if we ever had got a Corbyn/McDonnell govt. they'd have quickly (well hopefully) found principles hard to keep to when confronted with realities.
On the 787:
" Boeing decided to outsource 70% of the design, engineering and manufacturing of entire modules to over 50 strategic partners. These partners, in turn, could outsource various parts to their suppliers." (1)
On Airbus:
"Around 80% of Airbus’ activity is sourced externally. We work with more than 12,000 suppliers worldwide, who provide products and services for flying and non-flying parts." (2). 75% of the A350 program was outsourced (3)
Leaving aside the A380 debacle, Airbus has been brilliant at getting disparate companies spread around different countries to work together to build competitive and successful products. Perhaps that was because Airbus had to do that from the beginning, so developed better processes as it grew.
Or perhaps Boeing's problems are not outsourcing, but management. I see little reason to believe that Bowing's mistakes would not have happened even if Bowing owned and controlled all their suppliers. The decision to build the 737Max, for instance, was not caused by outsourcing, and neither was the MCAS decision.
It's mismanagement, plain (plane?) and simple.
(1): https://www.industryweek.com/supply-chain/supplier-relationships/article/21282352/boeings-organizational-problems-date-back-two-decades
(2): https://www.airbus.com/en/be-an-airbus-supplier
(3): https://researchleap.com/supply-chain-management-risks-the-a350-development-program/
There isn't much evidence that it has resolved the fundamental problem of capacity, not least because the personnel in the private sector were nearly all trained in the NHS
Wes Streeting combines bombastic language with a failure to understand the issues to the point that I won't support Labour.
It's not that I an against the private sector, indeed I advocated how to make it work in my first PB header.
Colston wasn't a big issue outside an activist minority- even the Labour mayor wasn't bothered by it.
But the general feeling was that it was better to keep the statue rather than airbrush Bristol‘s role in the slave trade out of it.
Which is what has now happened. Sure, we’re talking about it but there are fewer visible reminders of it in Bristol.
We shouldn't give them credence by suggesting they are in any way representative - in Bristol they were certainly not.
They should have cleaned him up and put him on display with the contrasting views. But they didn't.
It'd have been better to leave him in the harbour.
That isn't presenting Colston in a fair or neutral way.
And how do you know I don't know Bristol or have friends there myself? You don't. So that doesn't work either.
As for your assertion that it would be better to leave him in the harbour - I thought you didn't approve of vandalism and wokery. But you forget that it wasn't presenting Colston in a fair and neutral way to leave thje statue where it was in the first place. And the Merchant Venturers refused to compromise. So we are where we are.