It's hard to get it done. That doesn't mean we sanction vandalism by accepting that the target (in this case) deserves it, it means you don't give up. A ramping up of protests like we have seen, without violence, would probably have given campaigns to remove such things a shot in the arm.
Edit: I really do find that thread singularly unconvincing, not brilliant. It basically boils down to being frustrated that some people opposed bringing it down, got bogged down in minor details, and implicitly suggests that because people have to be upset by its continued presence a frustrating, but legal and official, process has no merit.
Well it does. Talking it out may take a long time and people will oppose it, perhaps it won't even succeed, but I'd bet there are people who wanted it down or with a very condemnatory plaque who also want it returned now, out of bloodymindedness against vandals.
Amazing all the labourites cheering on criminal behaviour. Remember their outrage at Big Dom behaviour and.claims he would encourage the dangerous behaviour by the public.
Now we literally have labourites advocating forget covid (that think that disproportionately kills BAME individuals) and get into mobs to go smash shit up.
Lots of stuff used to be illegal that shouldn't have been. Some stuff is still illegal that shouldn't be. Sometimes doing what's right matters more than obeying the law. Plenty of stuff would never have changed if nobody had been willing to break the law. A statue of a man who became wealthy on the bloody murder of the slave trade should have been taken down years ago. If this was the only way to get it done, I am happy to applaud it.
So give me an apology for your role in the Irish Potato Famine.
Now.
Are you drinking already? That doesn't even make sense.
Irish Lives Matter
though not to you it seems
I would happily endorse the removal of any statues of British people who played any role in the Irish famine. It was a monstrous crime and another example of our problematic history. The Atlantic slave economy and the plantations at their core built on the British colonial experiment in Ireland, as you know, so the two issues are of course related. Since I am part Irish I'm certainly not going to deny that Irish lives matter, I'd like to see them mattering a whole lot more, in a united Ireland by consent. I'm just a bit confused as to why you are bringing it up since we weren't talking about it.
]Because you asking people to apolgise for evernts outside there experience is as logical as me holding you responsible for potato blight.
When did I ask anybody to apologise? I am just glad that a man who profited from the greatest crime in the history of humanity is no longer being honoured with a statue in one of our cities. I am genuinely surprised that is a controversial view, TBH.
You are genuinely surprised that a bunch of white extremists telling the people of Bristol what statues they can and can’t have because of their own particular views on how people should respond to race and racism is controversial?
It’s a view.
Yes it is surprising to me. The guy is a mass murderer, the statue should have been removed years ago. Like I say, the crowd I saw was mixed, but I don't know why the race of the people involved is important.
Wasn't the Prophet Mohammed a slave owner ?
Would you favour the closure of mosques because of it ?
Sure, why not?
I'm going to file pulling down a statue to a slave trader in the same kind of category as driving to Barnhard Castle during lockdown - sure its illegal technically but I honestly couldn't care less about it.
Its right not to have statues to slave traders in 21st century. Maybe the statue can be recovered and put in a museum somewhere but not out and about on display.
Surely, the right response is to destroy statues of Muhammad?
Living dangerously Foxy!!!!!
More likely converted to Islam
No, just teasing. Obviously there are no statues of Muhammad to tear down. Muslims don't like idols.
I take the point of view that Mohammad was a false prophet, and there is little in common between Islam and Christianity.
Little in common? Are you sure?
Yes. The God described in the New Testament is very different to the one in the Koran. They are incompatible.
What about the one in the Old Testament?
The Old Testament certainly includes depictions of a vengeful, violent intolerant God, but is superseded by the New Testament.
The Old Testament is best viewed non literally as an evolving understanding of the nature of God. Starting with the tribal deity described in Genesis, then gradually developing into the more ethereal God of the later prophets. It is not that God changed, but our understanding did.
I also don't think revalation ended at any point, so there never is a finalised understanding of God. The conventional Muslim view is that the Koran is the literal word of Allah and cannot be superseded.
Or the whole of all of these religious stories can be interpreted as people of their time creating stories based upon the era they were living in.
God didn't change, our understanding didn't change, the invention of him changed depended upon who was inventing him.
It all depends on what you believe. No doubt Muslims believe me to be fundamentally mistaken, as do Bhuddists, Hindus, as well as Athiests, but mine is an unremarkable Christian view.
It must be weird to believe that all religions historical and current were made up works of fiction, except for one.
Total BLM PR disaster today. The silent majority will not be impressed. It doesn’t matter that Churchill was a racist. His statue represents our nation’s finest hour, victory over fascism, not the man himself.
Also historical figures are complicated. Gandhi was also a racist. Better cancel him too.
A problem with all this is the assumption by the statute tearing down brigade that there is nothing in their own views, outlooks, way of life and so on that future generations will not think outrageous and unacceptable.
How would we know?
We can't see the future?
Perhaps in two or three generations time it will be seen as a great crime to have gone on multi-flight gap year travel burning up carbon like there's no tomorrow?
Total BLM PR disaster today. The silent majority will not be impressed. It doesn’t matter that Churchill was a racist. His statue represents our nation’s finest hour, victory over fascism, not the man himself.
Also historical figures are complicated. Gandhi was also a racist. Better cancel him too.
Only whites can be racist - you must have missed the memo
The public process being slow and frustrating is no excuse for taking the law into your own hands.
I disagree.
So long as no people are hurt there's a time and a place for protests and taking the law into your own hands.
And why on earth is this one of them? A 125 year old statue of a bloke dead for centuries, a crime against property, art and freedom of speech. I thought you thought you were a tory?
And it's naive in the extreme to think that damaging property doesn't feed into injuring people, and horses.
The public process being slow and frustrating is no excuse for taking the law into your own hands.
I disagree.
So long as no people are hurt there's a time and a place for protests and taking the law into your own hands.
And why on earth is this one of them? A 125 year old statue of a bloke dead for centuries, a crime against property, art and freedom of speech. I thought you thought you were a tory?
And it's naive in the extreme to think that damaging property doesn't feed into injuring people, and horses.
Boris and co are going to have to do more than send a tweet saying please play nice. With no school or college for most of the protesters for months, they will be out day in day it and if it gets hot, i can see real trouble ahead.
And of course the useless Mayor just tweets i am on your side, but please remember to stay 2m away from one another
Hot sunshine starts in about a week, according to the forecast
Riots generally continue until 1. The weather turns terrible or 2. Law enforcers finally react, with counter violence, as in 2011
Eadric, I thought you were the Site Equestrian Correspondent. Have you been switched to the Weather Service now, or will you be performing both duties?
The public process being slow and frustrating is no excuse for taking the law into your own hands.
I disagree.
So long as no people are hurt there's a time and a place for protests and taking the law into your own hands.
And why on earth is this one of them? A 125 year old statue of a bloke dead for centuries, a crime against property, art and freedom of speech. I thought you thought you were a tory?
And it's naive in the extreme to think that damaging property doesn't feed into injuring people, and horses.
One of the earliest recorded instances came in 1776, just five days after the Declaration of Independence was ratified. In a moment that was immortalized in a mid-19th-century painting, soldiers and civilians tore down a gilded statue of Britain’s King George III in Manhattan.
So it's ok if Corbynistas take the same approach over repeated election defeats too then?
Why are you sharing this rot?
He’s a fucking cretin enraged by Brexit, still, and sees this as some kind of pitiful revenge. God knows why
I often share tweets/photos I don't agree with but I think are part of that day's events and therefore worth discussing in the context of political betting.
On Topic: Boris and the Brexit Brigade will sign any deal the US puts in front of them and then lie through their teeth about it.
Because what choices do they have?
Not to bother if the deal doesn't suit them.
No trade deals will be done at all, except in circumstances where they can plausibly be sold to the Tories' own voters. It's exactly the same logic as applies to the negotiations with the EU
Except it will not work that way. Boris & the Brexiteers need to have a success to wave around, to show how we are free to sign trade deals.
If they cannot sign Trade Deals after Brexiting then what the hell was the whole point of the thing?
Sovereignty! We have regained our Sovereign nation status (which in reality we never really lost, but let's not be clouded by fact). Hallelujah!
We will have implemented the democratically expressed instructions of the electorate and reminded the political class who is in charge
One of the earliest recorded instances came in 1776, just five days after the Declaration of Independence was ratified. In a moment that was immortalized in a mid-19th-century painting, soldiers and civilians tore down a gilded statue of Britain’s King George III in Manhattan.
Total BLM PR disaster today. The silent majority will not be impressed. It doesn’t matter that Churchill was a racist. His statue represents our nation’s finest hour, victory over fascism, not the man himself.
Also historical figures are complicated. Gandhi was also a racist. Better cancel him too.
A problem with all this is the assumption by the statute tearing down brigade that there is nothing in their own views, outlooks, way of life and so on that future generations will not think outrageous and unacceptable.
How would we know?
We can't see the future?
Perhaps in two or three generations time it will be seen as a great crime to have gone on multi-flight gap year travel burning up carbon like there's no tomorrow?
Exactly...and of course these protests have arisen from the death of a man, who was imprisoned 5 times, including once threatening to shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach. But we are going to celebrate his life and cancel Winston Churchill.
When, we should be exploring the good and the bad. Churchill did many many good things, but certainly there is bad and in most people's opinions the good vastly outweighs the bad.
George Floyd doesn't appear to be a very good person, but absolutely didn't deserve to be killed by the police, and they should be prosecuted.
Amazing all the labourites cheering on criminal behaviour. Remember their outrage at Big Dom behaviour and.claims he would encourage the dangerous behaviour by the public.
Now we literally have labourites advocating forget covid (that think that disproportionately kills BAME individuals) and get into mobs to go smash shit up.
Lots of stuff used to be illegal that shouldn't have been. Some stuff is still illegal that shouldn't be. Sometimes doing what's right matters more than obeying the law. Plenty of stuff would never have changed if nobody had been willing to break the law. A statue of a man who became wealthy on the bloody murder of the slave trade should have been taken down years ago. If this was the only way to get it done, I am happy to applaud it.
So give me an apology for your role in the Irish Potato Famine.
Now.
Are you drinking already? That doesn't even make sense.
Irish Lives Matter
though not to you it seems
I would happily endorse the removal of any statues of British people who played any role in the Irish famine. It was a monstrous crime and another example of our problematic history. The Atlantic slave economy and the plantations at their core built on the British colonial experiment in Ireland, as you know, so the two issues are of course related. Since I am part Irish I'm certainly not going to deny that Irish lives matter, I'd like to see them mattering a whole lot more, in a united Ireland by consent. I'm just a bit confused as to why you are bringing it up since we weren't talking about it.
]Because you asking people to apolgise for evernts outside there experience is as logical as me holding you responsible for potato blight.
When did I ask anybody to apologise? I am just glad that a man who profited from the greatest crime in the history of humanity is no longer being honoured with a statue in one of our cities. I am genuinely surprised that is a controversial view, TBH.
You are genuinely surprised that a bunch of white extremists telling the people of Bristol what statues they can and can’t have because of their own particular views on how people should respond to race and racism is controversial?
It’s a view.
Yes it is surprising to me. The guy is a mass murderer, the statue should have been removed years ago. Like I say, the crowd I saw was mixed, but I don't know why the race of the people involved is important.
Wasn't the Prophet Mohammed a slave owner ?
Would you favour the closure of mosques because of it ?
Sure, why not?
I'm going to file pulling down a statue to a slave trader in the same kind of category as driving to Barnhard Castle during lockdown - sure its illegal technically but I honestly couldn't care less about it.
Its right not to have statues to slave traders in 21st century. Maybe the statue can be recovered and put in a museum somewhere but not out and about on display.
Surely, the right response is to destroy statues of Muhammad?
Living dangerously Foxy!!!!!
More likely converted to Islam
No, just teasing. Obviously there are no statues of Muhammad to tear down. Muslims don't like idols.
I take the point of view that Mohammad was a false prophet, and there is little in common between Islam and Christianity.
Little in common? Are you sure?
Yes. The God described in the New Testament is very different to the one in the Koran. They are incompatible.
What about the one in the Old Testament?
The Old Testament certainly includes depictions of a vengeful, violent intolerant God, but is superseded by the New Testament.
The Old Testament is best viewed non literally as an evolving understanding of the nature of God. Starting with the tribal deity described in Genesis, then gradually developing into the more ethereal God of the later prophets. It is not that God changed, but our understanding did.
I also don't think revalation ended at any point, so there never is a finalised understanding of God. The conventional Muslim view is that the Koran is the literal word of Allah and cannot be superseded.
OK. So how about these. They are both monotheistic religions believing in an omniscient infallible deity. They both trace their history back to Abraham and emerged in the Middle East. Both believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, who was sent to Earth by God. Both have prophets who corrected errors in the same earlier texts. Both practice fasting and place emphasis on charity. Both believe in a Judgement Day and eternal life or damnation,I.e., salvation. Both consider each other the next best. Nothing in common? Sound pretty similar to me.
Bit of an insult to refer to that as a 'Bristol take'. Is it Bristolian to go 'I didn't get what I wanted, therefore I'll commit a crime and that's ok'?
I really don't know why things get so divisive on issues like this. You could be fully in support of the statue being removed, righteously furious that the authorities dragged their feet on a solution, any solution, and still oppose people commiting vandalims to do so.
There are laws it is probably reasonable to be proud of defying. Criminal damage though?
When voters want a tough approach to law and order they shift back to the Tories
Why, what are the Tories doing about it?
Patel has been in front of the cameras all weekend
Starmer, Khan and the shadow home secretary who knows what his name is have all done a runner
The impression is that the government are paralysed by indecision, and terrified of the protests.
Far from it, both Boris and Patel came out with tough statements today, saying peaceful protest was fine but violence and criminal damage was unacceptable and thuggery.
I am surprised that the statue was only put up in 1895. What was it that caused the people of Bristol to suddenly want to commemorate a pioneer of the slave trade?
Was it like the slew of Confederate statues put up in the 1920s and renaming of schools In the deep south in the 1960's?
Bit of an insult to refer to that as a 'Bristol take'. Is it Bristolian to go 'I didn't get what I wanted, therefore I'll commit a crime and that's ok'?
It's a funny line, that works best with a Bristol accent.
When voters want a tough approach to law and order they shift back to the Tories
Why, what are the Tories doing about it?
Patel has been in front of the cameras all weekend
Starmer, Khan and the shadow home secretary who knows what his name is have all done a runner
The impression is that the government are paralysed by indecision, and terrified of the protests.
Patel has been useless. Her whole USP is a hard-hitting Home Sec with a BAME background so she’s unfraid of offending the Guardian.
Her TV appearances are dreadful: nervous, stammering, inarticulate.
Get rid of her. And half of her colleagues. They all look terrified off saying the wrong thing.
Unfair, she was the one who wanted a quarantine months ago but was overruled, she was also firm in condemning the damage caused by the protestors today.
Patel is one of the toughest within the Cabinet, she and Sunak and Hancock are probably the ablest there in the main roles
One of the earliest recorded instances came in 1776, just five days after the Declaration of Independence was ratified. In a moment that was immortalized in a mid-19th-century painting, soldiers and civilians tore down a gilded statue of Britain’s King George III in Manhattan.
When voters want a tough approach to law and order they shift back to the Tories
Why, what are the Tories doing about it?
Patel has been in front of the cameras all weekend
Starmer, Khan and the shadow home secretary who knows what his name is have all done a runner
The impression is that the government are paralysed by indecision, and terrified of the protests.
Patel has been useless. Her whole USP is a hard-hitting Home Sec with a BAME background so she’s unfraid of offending the Guardian.
Her TV appearances are dreadful: nervous, stammering, inarticulate.
Get rid of her. And half of her colleagues. They all look terrified off saying the wrong thing.
I don't think she's allowed much autonomy, and she doesn't have the gift of the gab, but from the Sky clip she seems to have genuinely passionate anger at public disorder and lawlessness. I think she might be a rough diamond who just needs some polish.
Maybe he said it because he thinks that people who commit vandalism and attack the police are in fact thugs?
OED:
Thug. historical A member of an organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travellers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.
Amazing all the labourites cheering on criminal behaviour. Remember their outrage at Big Dom behaviour and.claims he would encourage the dangerous behaviour by the public.
Now we literally have labourites advocating forget covid (that think that disproportionately kills BAME individuals) and get into mobs to go smash shit up.
Lots of stuff used to be illegal that shouldn't have been. Some stuff is still illegal that shouldn't be. Sometimes doing what's right matters more than obeying the law. Plenty of stuff would never have changed if nobody had been willing to break the law. A statue of a man who became wealthy on the bloody murder of the slave trade should have been taken down years ago. If this was the only way to get it done, I am happy to applaud it.
So give me an apology for your role in the Irish Potato Famine.
Now.
Are you drinking already? That doesn't even make sense.
Irish Lives Matter
though not to you it seems
I would happily endorse the removal of any statues of British people who played any role in the Irish famine. It was a monstrous crime and another example of our problematic history. The Atlantic slave economy and the plantations at their core built on the British colonial experiment in Ireland, as you know, so the two issues are of course related. Since I am part Irish I'm certainly not going to deny that Irish lives matter, I'd like to see them mattering a whole lot more, in a united Ireland by consent. I'm just a bit confused as to why you are bringing it up since we weren't talking about it.
]Because you asking people to apolgise for evernts outside there experience is as logical as me holding you responsible for potato blight.
When did I ask anybody to apologise? I am just glad that a man who profited from the greatest crime in the history of humanity is no longer being honoured with a statue in one of our cities. I am genuinely surprised that is a controversial view, TBH.
You are genuinely surprised that a bunch of white extremists telling the people of Bristol what statues they can and can’t have because of their own particular views on how people should respond to race and racism is controversial?
It’s a view.
Yes it is surprising to me. The guy is a mass murderer, the statue should have been removed years ago. Like I say, the crowd I saw was mixed, but I don't know why the race of the people involved is important.
Wasn't the Prophet Mohammed a slave owner ?
Would you favour the closure of mosques because of it ?
Sure, why not?
I'm going to file pulling down a statue to a slave trader in the same kind of category as driving to Barnhard Castle during lockdown - sure its illegal technically but I honestly couldn't care less about it.
Its right not to have statues to slave traders in 21st century. Maybe the statue can be recovered and put in a museum somewhere but not out and about on display.
Surely, the right response is to destroy statues of Muhammad?
Living dangerously Foxy!!!!!
More likely converted to Islam
No, just teasing. Obviously there are no statues of Muhammad to tear down. Muslims don't like idols.
I take the point of view that Mohammad was a false prophet, and there is little in common between Islam and Christianity.
Little in common? Are you sure?
Yes. The God described in the New Testament is very different to the one in the Koran. They are incompatible.
What about the one in the Old Testament?
The Old Testament certainly includes depictions of a vengeful, violent intolerant God, but is superseded by the New Testament.
The Old Testament is best viewed non literally as an evolving understanding of the nature of God. Starting with the tribal deity described in Genesis, then gradually developing into the more ethereal God of the later prophets. It is not that God changed, but our understanding did.
I also don't think revalation ended at any point, so there never is a finalised understanding of God. The conventional Muslim view is that the Koran is the literal word of Allah and cannot be superseded.
OK. So how about these. They are both monotheistic religions believing in an omniscient infallible deity. They both trace their history back to Abraham and emerged in the Middle East. Both believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, who was sent to Earth by God. Both have prophets who corrected errors in the same earlier texts. Both practice fasting and place emphasis on charity. Both believe in a Judgement Day and eternal life or damnation,I.e., salvation. Both consider each other the next best. Nothing in common? Sound pretty similar to me.
The clowns have taken controls of the car....and of course businesses and rich people will just leave ala Detroit. Leaving the poor, poorer and in more danger.
I am surprised that the statue was only put up in 1895. What was it that caused the people of Bristol to suddenly want to commemorate a pioneer of the slave trade?
Was it like the slew of Confederate statues put up in the 1920s and renaming of schools In the deep south in the 1960's?
If that is the statue, then a. It is rather good and b. He has been made to look like a man with a seriously tortured conscience, surely in deliberate reference to the slavery? I had pictured a standard and boring bit of second rate civic statuary. I am now a lot angrier than I was.
Bullcrap. I think Boris has said racist things in the past, but that is really a stretch. It's like overly contrived explanations for terms which are supposedly acronyms (eg Port Out Starboard Home for Posh), it relies on far too much over interpretation of a single word so that someone can be condemned regardless of what they said or meant, by telling us they meant what we want them to mean. He cannot even defend himself because we're told it means that. I could counter the good professor by claiming, truthfully, that I have heard people use it to refer to white people but no doubt he would not be convinced.
Christ, might as well say he's racist against indians for using the word thug because of its origin.
When voters want a tough approach to law and order they shift back to the Tories
Why, what are the Tories doing about it?
Patel has been in front of the cameras all weekend
Starmer, Khan and the shadow home secretary who knows what his name is have all done a runner
The impression is that the government are paralysed by indecision, and terrified of the protests.
Patel has been useless. Her whole USP is a hard-hitting Home Sec with a BAME background so she’s unfraid of offending the Guardian.
Her TV appearances are dreadful: nervous, stammering, inarticulate.
Get rid of her. And half of her colleagues. They all look terrified off saying the wrong thing.
Unfair, she was the one who wanted a quarantine months ago but was overruled, she was also firm in condemning the damage caused by the protestors today.
Patel is one of the toughest within the Cabinet, she and Sunak and Hancock are probably the ablest there in the main roles
She might be, but she came across very badly on the BBC Ten just now. Stuttery, uncertain, garbled. Weak.
I don't think so at all, she is the toughest on law and order in the Cabinet
When voters want a tough approach to law and order they shift back to the Tories
Why, what are the Tories doing about it?
Patel has been in front of the cameras all weekend
Starmer, Khan and the shadow home secretary who knows what his name is have all done a runner
The impression is that the government are paralysed by indecision, and terrified of the protests.
Patel has been useless. Her whole USP is a hard-hitting Home Sec with a BAME background so she’s unfraid of offending the Guardian.
Her TV appearances are dreadful: nervous, stammering, inarticulate.
Get rid of her. And half of her colleagues. They all look terrified off saying the wrong thing.
Unfair, she was the one who wanted a quarantine months ago but was overruled, she was also firm in condemning the damage caused by the protestors today.
Patel is one of the toughest within the Cabinet, she and Sunak and Hancock are probably the ablest there in the main roles
She might be, but she came across very badly on the BBC Ten just now. Stuttery, uncertain, garbled. Weak.
A good elocutionist could do a lot for her - not to get rid of her dropped 'g's, but to get her to breathe between sentences and come over with more gravitas.
Maybe he said it because he thinks that people who commit vandalism and attack the police are in fact thugs?
OED:
Thug. historical A member of an organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travellers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.
Maybe he said it because he thinks that people who commit vandalism and attack the police are in fact thugs?
What exactly should we call people who brutally and violently assault the police, if not “thugs”.
Is there a preferred term? Legalistically-challenged elements? Largely peaceful violent attackers?
Remember you can't say somebody was a fighter against a disease...now about that death of woke-ism....if anything, it is back and on steroids.
I was certainly wrong about the death of Woke, however I do believe we are seeing its final, maddened, tertiary stages. It’s just a Q of how long it lasts and how much damage it does to the West
Cancelling all police in a city...gonna be fascinating how that plays out. The yellow vested community officials going around telling people to be nice to another and please could you put that telly back in that shop otherwise I will have to take your name and ask you to attend a workshop.
Amazing all the labourites cheering on criminal behaviour. Remember their outrage at Big Dom behaviour and.claims he would encourage the dangerous behaviour by the public.
Now we literally have labourites advocating forget covid (that think that disproportionately kills BAME individuals) and get into mobs to go smash shit up.
Lots of stuff used to be illegal that shouldn't have been. Some stuff is still illegal that shouldn't be. Sometimes doing what's right matters more than obeying the law. Plenty of stuff would never have changed if nobody had been willing to break the law. A statue of a man who became wealthy on the bloody murder of the slave trade should have been taken down years ago. If this was the only way to get it done, I am happy to applaud it.
So give me an apology for your role in the Irish Potato Famine.
Now.
Are you drinking already? That doesn't even make sense.
Irish Lives Matter
though not to you it seems
I would happily endorse the removal of any statues of British people who played any role in the Irish famine. It was a monstrous crime and another example of our problematic history. The Atlantic slave economy and the plantations at their core built on the British colonial experiment in Ireland, as you know, so the two issues are of course related. Since I am part Irish I'm certainly not going to deny that Irish lives matter, I'd like to see them mattering a whole lot more, in a united Ireland by consent. I'm just a bit confused as to why you are bringing it up since we weren't talking about it.
]Because you asking people to apolgise for evernts outside there experience is as logical as me holding you responsible for potato blight.
When did I ask anybody to apologise? I am just glad that a man who profited from the greatest crime in the history of humanity is no longer being honoured with a statue in one of our cities. I am genuinely surprised that is a controversial view, TBH.
You are genuinely surprised that a bunch of white extremists telling the people of Bristol what statues they can and can’t have because of their own particular views on how people should respond to race and racism is controversial?
It’s a view.
Yes it is surprising to me. The guy is a mass murderer, the statue should have been removed years ago. Like I say, the crowd I saw was mixed, but I don't know why the race of the people involved is important.
Wasn't the Prophet Mohammed a slave owner ?
Would you favour the closure of mosques because of it ?
Sure, why not?
I'm going to file pulling down a statue to a slave trader in the same kind of category as driving to Barnhard Castle during lockdown - sure its illegal technically but I honestly couldn't care less about it.
Its right not to have statues to slave traders in 21st century. Maybe the statue can be recovered and put in a museum somewhere but not out and about on display.
Surely, the right response is to destroy statues of Muhammad?
Living dangerously Foxy!!!!!
More likely converted to Islam
No, just teasing. Obviously there are no statues of Muhammad to tear down. Muslims don't like idols.
I take the point of view that Mohammad was a false prophet, and there is little in common between Islam and Christianity.
Little in common? Are you sure?
Yes. The God described in the New Testament is very different to the one in the Koran. They are incompatible.
What about the one in the Old Testament?
The Old Testament certainly includes depictions of a vengeful, violent intolerant God, but is superseded by the New Testament.
The Old Testament is best viewed non literally as an evolving understanding of the nature of God. Starting with the tribal deity described in Genesis, then gradually developing into the more ethereal God of the later prophets. It is not that God changed, but our understanding did.
I also don't think revalation ended at any point, so there never is a finalised understanding of God. The conventional Muslim view is that the Koran is the literal word of Allah and cannot be superseded.
OK. So how about these. They are both monotheistic religions believing in an omniscient infallible deity. They both trace their history back to Abraham and emerged in the Middle East. Both believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, who was sent to Earth by God. Both have prophets who corrected errors in the same earlier texts. Both practice fasting and place emphasis on charity. Both believe in a Judgement Day and eternal life or damnation,I.e., salvation. Both consider each other the next best. Nothing in common? Sound pretty similar to me.
No. The God of the New Testament teaches forgiveness, non violence and turning the other cheek, even if that means his own death. The Allah of the Koran believes in killing. It is pretty fundamental as a difference.
Maybe he said it because he thinks that people who commit vandalism and attack the police are in fact thugs?
What exactly should we call people who brutally and violently assault the police, if not “thugs”.
Is there a preferred term? Legalistically-challenged elements? Largely peaceful violent attackers?
Remember you can't say somebody was a fighter against a disease...now about that death of woke-ism....if anything, it is back and on steroids.
I was certainly wrong about the death of Woke, however I do believe we are seeing its final, maddened, tertiary stages. It’s just a Q of how long it lasts and how much damage it does to the West
Cancelling all police in a city...gonna be fascinating how that plays out. The yellow vested community officials going around telling people to be nice to another and please could you put that telly back in that shop otherwise I will have to take your name and ask you to attend a workshop.
Is there a Mafia in Minneapolis to fill the breach?
Amazing all the labourites cheering on criminal behaviour. Remember their outrage at Big Dom behaviour and.claims he would encourage the dangerous behaviour by the public.
Now we literally have labourites advocating forget covid (that think that disproportionately kills BAME individuals) and get into mobs to go smash shit up.
Lots of stuff used to be illegal that shouldn't have been. Some stuff is still illegal that shouldn't be. Sometimes doing what's right matters more than obeying the law. Plenty of stuff would never have changed if nobody had been willing to break the law. A statue of a man who became wealthy on the bloody murder of the slave trade should have been taken down years ago. If this was the only way to get it done, I am happy to applaud it.
So give me an apology for your role in the Irish Potato Famine.
Now.
Are you drinking already? That doesn't even make sense.
Irish Lives Matter
though not to you it seems
I would happily endorse the removal of any statues of British people who played any role in the Irish famine. It was a monstrous crime and another example of our problematic history. The Atlantic slave economy and the plantations at their core built on the British colonial experiment in Ireland, as you know, so the two issues are of course related. Since I am part Irish I'm certainly not going to deny that Irish lives matter, I'd like to see them mattering a whole lot more, in a united Ireland by consent. I'm just a bit confused as to why you are bringing it up since we weren't talking about it.
]Because you asking people to apolgise for evernts outside there experience is as logical as me holding you responsible for potato blight.
When did I ask anybody to apologise? I am just glad that a man who profited from the greatest crime in the history of humanity is no longer being honoured with a statue in one of our cities. I am genuinely surprised that is a controversial view, TBH.
You are genuinely surprised that a bunch of white extremists telling the people of Bristol what statues they can and can’t have because of their own particular views on how people should respond to race and racism is controversial?
It’s a view.
Yes it is surprising to me. The guy is a mass murderer, the statue should have been removed years ago. Like I say, the crowd I saw was mixed, but I don't know why the race of the people involved is important.
As I have said three times, because most black people in Bristol actually wanted to keep it for a number of good reasons that had nothing to do with admiration of Colston. And that has been overruled by a bunch of whites who think they know better than they do.
And I am getting sick of trying to get this simple message across. This crowd are not heroes. They are not legitimate protestors. THey are certainly not protesting about the murder of George Floyd. They are violent, racist and anti-democratic thugs and scum.
Anyone who defends them is defending that.
I am queasy at statues being toppled, but it seems clear that Colston was a bad ‘un. He may have done a lot of good work for charidee, but so did Jimmy Savile.
Can’t we agree that the statue probably doesn’t belong where it stood any more, and that toppling the statue, while regrettable, is perhaps understandable in this political climate?
I am surprised that the statue was only put up in 1895. What was it that caused the people of Bristol to suddenly want to commemorate a pioneer of the slave trade?
Was it like the slew of Confederate statues put up in the 1920s and renaming of schools In the deep south in the 1960's?
Height of the empire (near enough), looking back nostalgically at significant earlier figures?
On Topic: Boris and the Brexit Brigade will sign any deal the US puts in front of them and then lie through their teeth about it.
Because what choices do they have?
Not to bother if the deal doesn't suit them.
No trade deals will be done at all, except in circumstances where they can plausibly be sold to the Tories' own voters. It's exactly the same logic as applies to the negotiations with the EU
Except it will not work that way. Boris & the Brexiteers need to have a success to wave around, to show how we are free to sign trade deals.
If they cannot sign Trade Deals after Brexiting then what the hell was the whole point of the thing?
Sovereignty! We have regained our Sovereign nation status (which in reality we never really lost, but let's not be clouded by fact). Hallelujah!
We will have implemented the democratically expressed instructions of the electorate and reminded the political class who is in charge
Giving us peasants universal suffrage worked out rather well for the ruling classes.
I am surprised that the statue was only put up in 1895. What was it that caused the people of Bristol to suddenly want to commemorate a pioneer of the slave trade?
Was it like the slew of Confederate statues put up in the 1920s and renaming of schools In the deep south in the 1960's?
What kind of mentality is it that comes up with the idea of adding a plaque, when the obvious course of action was to take it down? Especially given its location in one of the most multicultural cities in the country.
One thing I’d be pretty sure about is that it’s not going back up, and that in itself is vindication of the protestors’ actions.
Without knowing the full details as its an emerging story, sounds perfectly sensible to me, and presumably welcomed by all those who think UK policing is significantly better than US policing.
Amazing all the labourites cheering on criminal behaviour. Remember their outrage at Big Dom behaviour and.claims he would encourage the dangerous behaviour by the public.
Now we literally have labourites advocating forget covid (that think that disproportionately kills BAME individuals) and get into mobs to go smash shit up.
Lots of stuff used to be illegal that shouldn't have been. Some stuff is still illegal that shouldn't be. Sometimes doing what's right matters more than obeying the law. Plenty of stuff would never have changed if nobody had been willing to break the law. A statue of a man who became wealthy on the bloody murder of the slave trade should have been taken down years ago. If this was the only way to get it done, I am happy to applaud it.
So give me an apology for your role in the Irish Potato Famine.
Now.
Are you drinking already? That doesn't even make sense.
Irish Lives Matter
though not to you it seems
I would happily endorse the removal of any statues of British people who played any role in the Irish famine. It was a monstrous crime and another example of our problematic history. The Atlantic slave economy and the plantations at their core built on the British colonial experiment in Ireland, as you know, so the two issues are of course related. Since I am part Irish I'm certainly not going to deny that Irish lives matter, I'd like to see them mattering a whole lot more, in a united Ireland by consent. I'm just a bit confused as to why you are bringing it up since we weren't talking about it.
]Because you asking people to apolgise for evernts outside there experience is as logical as me holding you responsible for potato blight.
When did I ask anybody to apologise? I am just glad that a man who profited from the greatest crime in the history of humanity is no longer being honoured with a statue in one of our cities. I am genuinely surprised that is a controversial view, TBH.
You are genuinely surprised that a bunch of white extremists telling the people of Bristol what statues they can and can’t have because of their own particular views on how people should respond to race and racism is controversial?
It’s a view.
Yes it is surprising to me. The guy is a mass murderer, the statue should have been removed years ago. Like I say, the crowd I saw was mixed, but I don't know why the race of the people involved is important.
Wasn't the Prophet Mohammed a slave owner ?
Would you favour the closure of mosques because of it ?
Sure, why not?
I'm going to file pulling down a statue to a slave trader in the same kind of category as driving to Barnhard Castle during lockdown - sure its illegal technically but I honestly couldn't care less about it.
Its right not to have statues to slave traders in 21st century. Maybe the statue can be recovered and put in a museum somewhere but not out and about on display.
Surely, the right response is to destroy statues of Muhammad?
Living dangerously Foxy!!!!!
More likely converted to Islam
No, just teasing. Obviously there are no statues of Muhammad to tear down. Muslims don't like idols.
I take the point of view that Mohammad was a false prophet, and there is little in common between Islam and Christianity.
Little in common? Are you sure?
Yes. The God described in the New Testament is very different to the one in the Koran. They are incompatible.
What about the one in the Old Testament?
The Old Testament certainly includes depictions of a vengeful, violent intolerant God, but is superseded by the New Testament.
The Old Testament is best viewed non literally as an evolving understanding of the nature of God. Starting with the tribal deity described in Genesis, then gradually developing into the more ethereal God of the later prophets. It is not that God changed, but our understanding did.
I also don't think revalation ended at any point, so there never is a finalised understanding of God. The conventional Muslim view is that the Koran is the literal word of Allah and cannot be superseded.
OK. So how about these. They are both monotheistic religions believing in an omniscient infallible deity. They both trace their history back to Abraham and emerged in the Middle East. Both believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, who was sent to Earth by God. Both have prophets who corrected errors in the same earlier texts. Both practice fasting and place emphasis on charity. Both believe in a Judgement Day and eternal life or damnation,I.e., salvation. Both consider each other the next best. Nothing in common? Sound pretty similar to me.
I'm not really sure what the point is there.
Err. That Christianity and Islam have many common traits? Whereas Foxy claimed they had nothing in common.
I am surprised that the statue was only put up in 1895. What was it that caused the people of Bristol to suddenly want to commemorate a pioneer of the slave trade?
Was it like the slew of Confederate statues put up in the 1920s and renaming of schools In the deep south in the 1960's?
Height of the empire (near enough), looking back nostalgically at significant earlier figures?
It may have actually been done to annoy abolitionists. Especially with the glowing caption. A 19th century troll. There was a fierce debate in Victorian Britain between non-conformist Christian abolitionists and Dickens and Carlyle, who promoted a much more racist and ethnocentric perspective that gained currency over the era.
I am surprised that the statue was only put up in 1895. What was it that caused the people of Bristol to suddenly want to commemorate a pioneer of the slave trade?
Was it like the slew of Confederate statues put up in the 1920s and renaming of schools In the deep south in the 1960's?
What kind of mentality is it that comes up with the idea of adding a plaque, when the obvious course of action was to take it down? Especially given its location in one of the most multicultural cities in the country.
One thing I’d be pretty sure about is that it’s not going back up, and that in itself is vindication of the protestors’ actions.
I wouldn't be so sure. Funding won't be an issue, that will be provided privately if the state won't avail. Then there's only its legal status, which is fine.
I'm surprised at your shock. Surely it's always better to add something new from our era rather than just tear something down from another era like it never existed?
I am surprised that the statue was only put up in 1895. What was it that caused the people of Bristol to suddenly want to commemorate a pioneer of the slave trade?
Was it like the slew of Confederate statues put up in the 1920s and renaming of schools In the deep south in the 1960's?
Height of the empire (near enough), looking back nostalgically at significant earlier figures?
Without knowing the full details as its an emerging story, sounds perfectly sensible to me, and presumably welcomed by all those who think UK policing is significantly better than US policing.
Depends how far they're proposing to take disarmament.
Having routinely unarmed officers in charge of public security is widely accepted and normally works well in the UK, but the UK doesn't have a gun culture and isn't saturated with firearms.
Maybe he said it because he thinks that people who commit vandalism and attack the police are in fact thugs?
What exactly should we call people who brutally and violently assault the police, if not “thugs”.
Is there a preferred term? Legalistically-challenged elements? Largely peaceful violent attackers?
Remember you can't say somebody was a fighter against a disease...now about that death of woke-ism....if anything, it is back and on steroids.
I was certainly wrong about the death of Woke, however I do believe we are seeing its final, maddened, tertiary stages. It’s just a Q of how long it lasts and how much damage it does to the West
Cancelling all police in a city...gonna be fascinating how that plays out. The yellow vested community officials going around telling people to be nice to another and please could you put that telly back in that shop otherwise I will have to take your name and ask you to attend a workshop.
Is there a Mafia in Minneapolis to fill the breach?
When voters want a tough approach to law and order they shift back to the Tories
Why, what are the Tories doing about it?
Patel has been in front of the cameras all weekend
Starmer, Khan and the shadow home secretary who knows what his name is have all done a runner
The impression is that the government are paralysed by indecision, and terrified of the protests.
Patel has been useless. Her whole USP is a hard-hitting Home Sec with a BAME background so she’s unfraid of offending the Guardian.
Her TV appearances are dreadful: nervous, stammering, inarticulate.
Get rid of her. And half of her colleagues. They all look terrified off saying the wrong thing.
The real problem here is that in order to address a problem like this, the entire political culture must be renewed. Wokeness and identity politics is entrenched, everywhere you look.
Without knowing the full details as its an emerging story, sounds perfectly sensible to me, and presumably welcomed by all those who think UK policing is significantly better than US policing.
When voters want a tough approach to law and order they shift back to the Tories
Why, what are the Tories doing about it?
Patel has been in front of the cameras all weekend
Starmer, Khan and the shadow home secretary who knows what his name is have all done a runner
The impression is that the government are paralysed by indecision, and terrified of the protests.
Patel has been useless. Her whole USP is a hard-hitting Home Sec with a BAME background so she’s unfraid of offending the Guardian.
Her TV appearances are dreadful: nervous, stammering, inarticulate.
Get rid of her. And half of her colleagues. They all look terrified off saying the wrong thing.
The real problem here is that in order to address a problem like this, the entire political culture must be renewed. Wokeness and identity politics is entrenched, everywhere you look.
I think it's only anything like entrenched in the media (seems to run right through Beeb) but it provides the oxygen for the mindless minority amongst us plebs.
The clowns have taken controls of the car....and of course businesses and rich people will just leave ala Detroit. Leaving the poor, poorer and in more danger.
I am surprised that the statue was only put up in 1895. What was it that caused the people of Bristol to suddenly want to commemorate a pioneer of the slave trade?
Was it like the slew of Confederate statues put up in the 1920s and renaming of schools In the deep south in the 1960's?
If that is the statue, then a. It is rather good and b. He has been made to look like a man with a seriously tortured conscience, surely in deliberate reference to the slavery? I had pictured a standard and boring bit of second rate civic statuary. I am now a lot angrier than I was.
The inscription says he is a jolly good bloke. No mention of slavery.
Comments
Starmer, Khan and the shadow home secretary who knows what his name is have all done a runner
Edit: I really do find that thread singularly unconvincing, not brilliant. It basically boils down to being frustrated that some people opposed bringing it down, got bogged down in minor details, and implicitly suggests that because people have to be upset by its continued presence a frustrating, but legal and official, process has no merit.
Well it does. Talking it out may take a long time and people will oppose it, perhaps it won't even succeed, but I'd bet there are people who wanted it down or with a very condemnatory plaque who also want it returned now, out of bloodymindedness against vandals.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1269739265350656006
Why are you sharing this rot?
The only wall he built is round the White house
How would we know?
We can't see the future?
Perhaps in two or three generations time it will be seen as a great crime to have gone on multi-flight gap year travel burning up carbon like there's no tomorrow?
And it's naive in the extreme to think that damaging property doesn't feed into injuring people, and horses.
He thinks Brexiteers will be annoyed by it, so he posts it.
Only an idiot would be offended. Oh...
The United States has been dismantling statues since its very foundation.
One of the earliest recorded instances came in 1776, just five days after the Declaration of Independence was ratified. In a moment that was immortalized in a mid-19th-century painting, soldiers and civilians tore down a gilded statue of Britain’s King George III in Manhattan.
https://twitter.com/TinaDaheley/status/1269742693313282053
When, we should be exploring the good and the bad. Churchill did many many good things, but certainly there is bad and in most people's opinions the good vastly outweighs the bad.
George Floyd doesn't appear to be a very good person, but absolutely didn't deserve to be killed by the police, and they should be prosecuted.
They are both monotheistic religions believing in an omniscient infallible deity. They both trace their history back to Abraham and emerged in the Middle East. Both believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, who was sent to Earth by God. Both have prophets who corrected errors in the same earlier texts. Both practice fasting and place emphasis on charity. Both believe in a Judgement Day and eternal life or damnation,I.e., salvation. Both consider each other the next best.
Nothing in common? Sound pretty similar to me.
I really don't know why things get so divisive on issues like this. You could be fully in support of the statue being removed, righteously furious that the authorities dragged their feet on a solution, any solution, and still oppose people commiting vandalims to do so.
There are laws it is probably reasonable to be proud of defying. Criminal damage though?
I am surprised that the statue was only put up in 1895. What was it that caused the people of Bristol to suddenly want to commemorate a pioneer of the slave trade?
Was it like the slew of Confederate statues put up in the 1920s and renaming of schools In the deep south in the 1960's?
Patel is one of the toughest within the Cabinet, she and Sunak and Hancock are probably the ablest there in the main roles
Barely anything will be classed as locked down by end of July if not sooner.
Raheem Sterling: Only disease right now is the racism we're fighting'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-52957638/raheem-sterling-only-disease-right-now-is-the-racism-we-re-fighting
Racism is real, but COVID is killing 10,000s of people in the UK now, and dis-proportionality people from BAME backgrounds.
https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1269740447699816448
Thug. historical A member of an organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travellers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.
Christ, might as well say he's racist against indians for using the word thug because of its origin.
Let's use it to erect statues to slave traders instead."
I don't think that would have been a vote winner.
For my dimmer fans, this is a joke...
Trump will have a field day, reform yes, abolish no
One thing I’d be pretty sure about is that it’s not going back up, and that in itself is vindication of the protestors’ actions.
https://time.com/5848705/disband-and-replace-minneapolis-police/
Without knowing the full details as its an emerging story, sounds perfectly sensible to me, and presumably welcomed by all those who think UK policing is significantly better than US policing.
Whereas Foxy claimed they had nothing in common.
I'm surprised at your shock. Surely it's always better to add something new from our era rather than just tear something down from another era like it never existed?
a charitable body formed in 1769 in honour of Colston and which has been raising money for good causes ever since (for 250 years).
Having routinely unarmed officers in charge of public security is widely accepted and normally works well in the UK, but the UK doesn't have a gun culture and isn't saturated with firearms.
The police department is possibly behind redemption in its current state.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/video-officers-slashing-tires-minneapolis-protests.html