To put this into context, almost everyone lauded the UK's adherence to rule of law when Gina Miller beat the government in the Supreme Court and forced parliamentary approval of A50. It was a prime example of how the rights of everyone were equal, even in the face of 17m voters and overwhelming government pressure a decision was made that was at the time seen a huge setback for the government and 17m voters. Even though o disagreed with the decision it actually was a moment that made me happy to live in this country, a nation that respects rule of law to an extent that the government are bound by it as much as everyone else.
It's one of the reasons I quit the party when Boris decided Dom's decision making process was more important than these rules.
Did Brexiteers riot in front of the supreme court or tear down any statues of judges? Or injure any policemen? even though we had won that referendum fair and square against all the odds?
Nope. Back to the ballot box.
In fairness, the big Remain protests were also peaceful. That is how protest and how democracy should be. The big anti-war against the Iraq war was too.
Indeed, I never begrudged the remain protesters their days in the sun. I even went to one because it was a nice day out with a few friends and we ended up in the pub afterwards.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
That would obviously be harming people. People making these ridiculous arguments seem to be admitting to being massive racists. Otherwise how is anyone harmed by the removal of this statue?
"Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people"
There are plenty of more positive examples of the aftermath of pulling down statues.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
In shock news, years ago slavery was widespread across the world. We know African's were involved in providing bodies for the slave trade and that Arabs had plenty. And most people's relatives from back in the day were all involved in some pretty heinous stuff, wars, raping, pillaging. History is complicated.
It's estimated the barbary pirates sold up to a million Europeans into slavery. Mostly from countries in the Med but with outing to Ireland and Britain too. The entire population of Baltimore in Co. Cork was taken off in one raid.
One of the great curiosities of the whole period is that the peak of the Barbary corsairs slave trading Europeans, overlapped with the establishment of the Atlantic triangular trade. It seems that we were appalled by the one at the same time as being enriched by the other.
Probably we didn't care that much about the Barbary Trade as that largely affected Southern Europeans.
Yes, but also the West Country. Indeed there lies my own connection to Slavery, and a Jamaican born ancestor.
In the Seventeenth Century, Lady Jane Mico set up a trust to ransom and rehabilitate British slaves from North Africa. The money was well invested, and little was spent on the original purpose, but in 1834 the Trust set up several training schools for teachers in the West Indies, and set up 400 schools for freed slaves. Deemed a reasonable extension of the original Trust.
Of these only one remains, but Mico College, Kingston is still an eminent training college. My Great Grandfather was born there, as his father was one of the original faculty. A rather more positive bit of philanthropy.
To put this into context, almost everyone lauded the UK's adherence to rule of law when Gina Miller beat the government in the Supreme Court and forced parliamentary approval of A50. It was a prime example of how the rights of everyone were equal, even in the face of 17m voters and overwhelming government pressure a decision was made that was at the time seen a huge setback for the government and 17m voters. Even though o disagreed with the decision it actually was a moment that made me happy to live in this country, a nation that respects rule of law to an extent that the government are bound by it as much as everyone else.
It's one of the reasons I quit the party when Boris decided Dom's decision making process was more important than these rules.
Did Brexiteers riot in front of the supreme court or tear down any statues of judges? Or injure any policemen? even though we had won that referendum fair and square against all the odds?
Nope. Back to the ballot box.
I mean, it’s only one Brexiteer, but Brendan O’Neill believed there should be riots if Brexit was delayed by Parliament:
It is an interesting line by leading Labour politicians saying well this statue should have come down ages ago. They are the majority in the council and have the elected mayor since 2016. What have they been waiting for?
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
Is that in the same manner Jeffersons' descendants were fairly recently dismayed to learn that they had some cousins whose ancestors were slaves ?
One wonders whether it was the fact that they were slaves or that their lily white ancestors had participated in some (likely non consensual) sexual activity with their black ancestors was the more shocking to them.
The Jeffersons were shocked and appalled by the suggestion about their illustrious ancestor, and insisted that he did not have sexual relations with that woman*... Until the DNA evidence.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
That would obviously be harming people. People making these ridiculous arguments seem to be admitting to being massive racists. Otherwise how is anyone harmed by the removal of this statue?
"Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people"
There are plenty of more positive examples of the aftermath of pulling down statues.
Interested in your examples. Genuinely.
To be expanded on at greater length, I hope!
Ah! Because I was thinking of writing something on the topic but if you are already doing so ......
I am sorry but I am not sure I am understanding what you think the government is doing wrong.
Not specifically on Cyclefree Junior's travails, but the govt seems to think that solutions are simplistic ON/OFF decisions. "Pubs can open on this date" misses the point that the supply lines for pubs take WEEKS to get going. If they were announcing that Brewers etc can start on this date and pubs (say) 4 weeks later then there is a schedule that is realistic.
Are you aware that if a pilot stops flying then they become non-current? This means they are not allowed to fly. Now think of the thousands of pilots who have been sitting on their backsides for months. They all have to undergo revalidation training or else govts have to agree that the currency regulations can be dropped, but you just cannot say "Next Tuesday planes can fly again". If the regulations are dropped then insurers need to agree because accidents will increase. And who will be flying where? Holidays have been cancelled.
We just cannot say "Lockdown is over, back to normal tomorrow" and that is what the government seems to miss. Industry and business is complex chain of events that must happen in a sequence without disruption. And that BTW is also the worry of businesses about Brexit.
No one is saying that, least of all the government. What they are saying is that right now it is illegal for a pub to operate. Come 20th June it will no longer be so provided the pub has worked out how to protect its staff and customers. So those businesses once again have a choice. There is so much to criticise this government's handling of this pandemic for and I have but this is bordering on silly.
There is no point on making it legal for them to operate if they cannot do so. That is just flag waving.
Some can, some can't. Some will, some won't. Should they all be banned? Those that do will learn how to adapt and provide a model for others to follow.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
In Scotland the miners used to be slaves! Technically, serfs. There's a neck collar in the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh marked something like 'Property of the Duke of Glentumblers' or whoever it was.
The lairds liberated them oh, about 1790 or whatever it was. Turns out that the real reason was not lairdly benevolence, but the fact that this depressed the status of mining so much that free men were reluctant to come and work in mines - meaning that the owners were stuck with the number of serfs they startted off with, never mind if the demand grew. It was themselves they were liberating, to take on and dump labour as they wished.
Really need to visit the Museum of Scotland when it is allowed - heard excellent things about it and never been. Never really sauntered down that end of the Mile much.
Consider the concert hall in Bristol, Colston Hall. It was built with money from the profits of the slave trade. Most people are ignorant of that fact.
You could rename it the Wilberforce Hall, and then the small number who found out who Wilberforce was would be able to feel warm and fuzzy about being in a place named after the slave trade abolitionist - and so even more people would be ignorant of the fact that the hall was built with the profits of the slave trade.
It's worth remembering that's not quite correct. The actual building is the fourth on that site, and dates from 1956 after a fire (bizarrely, started by a dropped cigarette) burned down an earlier, nineteenth century building in 1945.
Colston's name link is because it was the site of Colston School until 1857, rather than because he paid for it.
But equally, to misquote one comment about Liverpool, every brick in ?Bristol is mortared with the blood of a slave.
Magnificent concert hall though. Fabulous organ. Here played by my old friend Dr Benedict Todd (the guy with the pony tail, who is only visible at the end).
To put this into context, almost everyone lauded the UK's adherence to rule of law when Gina Miller beat the government in the Supreme Court and forced parliamentary approval of A50. It was a prime example of how the rights of everyone were equal, even in the face of 17m voters and overwhelming government pressure a decision was made that was at the time seen a huge setback for the government and 17m voters. Even though o disagreed with the decision it actually was a moment that made me happy to live in this country, a nation that respects rule of law to an extent that the government are bound by it as much as everyone else.
It's one of the reasons I quit the party when Boris decided Dom's decision making process was more important than these rules.
Did Brexiteers riot in front of the supreme court or tear down any statues of judges? Or injure any policemen? even though we had won that referendum fair and square against all the odds?
Nope. Back to the ballot box.
I mean, it’s only one Brexiteer, but Brendan O’Neill believed there should be riots if Brexit was delayed by Parliament:
This kind of sentiment was everywhere on Twitter if you went looking a\t the time.
And yet brexit was delayed twice with no riots. We had that pathetic march for freedom and that was about it, until leave voters delivered a majority of 80 for Boris. The ballot box is where to effect change not by burning down buildings or, in this case, destroying historic monuments.
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
I am sorry but I am not sure I am understanding what you think the government is doing wrong. If this comes to pass pubs will have the option of opening. Some will, some won't, depending upon their situation, access to outdoor space etc. No one is obliged to open on 20th June or indeed 4th July but they are free to do so. Of course some businesses will find it difficult to work out if they can actually trade at a profit with the current restrictions and there is uncertainty about what those restrictions are going to be. But these problems will arise however and whenever we come out of lockdown. Being in a business at a time of a pandemic is problematical. Of course there is a risk of a second wave. The government can do nothing about that risk which we all hope doesn't come to pass. Are you really suggesting that the taxpayer should continue to fund these businesses remaining closed indefinitely just in case? There is no magic solution. There is no magic bullet. We need to open up our economy as quickly as we can whilst watching that R number carefully. That is what the government seems to be doing.
You are missing the point. This isn’t about profitability. The government has no understanding of the logistics involved. You do not announce a date that is simply unachievable. You make announcements and give certainty so that businesses can make plans - about ordering / staff / insurance / training etc etc. You tell people what is actually legally required so people know what they have to do and can get ready in time.
And as for your last point, that is laughable: the government seems to have junked the science. It is just making stuff up as it goes along.
There is a difference between announcing pubs can open from a particular date, to announcing that pubs must or will open from a particular date.
If pubs have an ample supply of products (and some rely on bottles more than draught for instance) and are eager and capable of opening why shouldn't they? If others take longer to do things then they can take longer, the furlough scheme isn't ending for another four months so taking time to reopen properly then being ready and able to do so as soon as you are ready yourself seems logical.
I'm not sure what else you propose. I have been agreeing with you that beer gardens should be open already, but you seem irritated at the proposed opening from date being brought forwards if businesses think its safe to open and they're ready to do so?
It is the uncertainty which is the problem.
Guidance: great. Is it legally enforceable or not?
The changes in the furlough scheme raise a lot of questions and answers come there none, so far anyway.
The government has closed down a sector. It behoves it - when it comes to reopening - to plan for that reopening in a sensible way and to provide sensible timetable and clear information about the laws and rules which will apply and their status. They are not doing this. It is all over the place and this is making a difficult situation very much worse than it otherwise need be.
How hard is this for people to understand? We don’t - with the greatest of respect - need jury speeches about reopening of the economy to stop public services collapsing. I get this. We all do.
What we do need are practical well though through steps and advice.
I agree with you 100% on the difficulties and pressures the industry faces. I agree its ridiculous that beer gardens weren't already permitted to be open. I agreed with you on licencing for off trade and said I thought that should be liberalised so all licensed premises could immediately trade off as well without seeking permission.
But I'm not sure I agree here. I don't think you need well thought through steps and advice. I think businesses frankly need to do some of the thinking for themselves. The situation in your daughters property she will know better and understand better than anyone in Whitehall will. She needs to be permitted to use her common sense and do within reason whatever she thinks is right as the solution.
They do need to clearly express the rules under which the pubs can open though, grouping, distancing, hygiene, toilet availability etc and penalties for non compliance and how they are enforced.
Lancashire schools to remain closed. Council still thinks 2 of 5 tests are not being met and is keen to emphasise that the stats in Lancashire are different to other regions. Decision to be reviewed next week.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
In shock news, years ago slavery was widespread across the world. We know African's were involved in providing bodies for the slave trade and that Arabs had plenty. And most people's relatives from back in the day were all involved in some pretty heinous stuff, wars, raping, pillaging. History is complicated.
It's estimated the barbary pirates sold up to a million Europeans into slavery. Mostly from countries in the Med but with outing to Ireland and Britain too. The entire population of Baltimore in Co. Cork was taken off in one raid.
One of the great curiosities of the whole period is that the peak of the Barbary corsairs slave trading Europeans, overlapped with the establishment of the Atlantic triangular trade. It seems that we were appalled by the one at the same time as being enriched by the other.
Probably we didn't care that much about the Barbary Trade as that largely affected Southern Europeans.
Yes, but also the West Country. Indeed there lies my own connection to Slavery, and a Jamaican born ancestor.
In the Seventeenth Century, Lady Jane Mico set up a trust to ransom and rehabilitate British slaves from North Africa. The money was well invested, and little was spent on the original purpose, but in 1834 the Trust set up several training schools for teachers in the West Indies, and set up 400 schools for freed slaves. Deemed a reasonable extension of the original Trust.
Of these only one remains, but Mico College, Kingston is still an eminent training college. My Great Grandfather was born there, as his father was one of the original faculty. A rather more positive bit of philanthropy.
Lancashire schools to remain closed. Council still thinks 2 of 5 tests are not being met and is keen to emphasise that the stats in Lancashire are different to other regions. Decision to be reviewed next week.
But going on a protest with 1000s of other kids OK?
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
In Scotland the miners used to be slaves! Technically, serfs. There's a neck collar in the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh marked something like 'Property of the Duke of Glentumblers' or whoever it was.
The lairds liberated them oh, about 1790 or whatever it was. Turns out that the real reason was not lairdly benevolence, but the fact that this depressed the status of mining so much that free men were reluctant to come and work in mines - meaning that the owners were stuck with the number of serfs they startted off with, never mind if the demand grew. It was themselves they were liberating, to take on and dump labour as they wished.
Really need to visit the Museum of Scotland when it is allowed - heard excellent things about it and never been. Never really sauntered down that end of the Mile much.
'End'? Are you thinking of the City Council's Huntly House? - well worth a visit, nothijng wrong with it, but the museum I'm thinking of is the National Museum of Scotland, off the 'middle' of the RM. The modern wing which deals with Scottish history from the year dot is what used to be called the Museum of Scotland from itys opening in 1998 till recently - all rather confusing. I THINK this may be ther exhibit I remember - but it's quite possible they have nmore than one. Also, I haven't looked recently to see if it is still on display. But you can always email in advance to check if that is important.
To put this into context, almost everyone lauded the UK's adherence to rule of law when Gina Miller beat the government in the Supreme Court and forced parliamentary approval of A50. It was a prime example of how the rights of everyone were equal, even in the face of 17m voters and overwhelming government pressure a decision was made that was at the time seen a huge setback for the government and 17m voters. Even though o disagreed with the decision it actually was a moment that made me happy to live in this country, a nation that respects rule of law to an extent that the government are bound by it as much as everyone else.
It's one of the reasons I quit the party when Boris decided Dom's decision making process was more important than these rules.
Did Brexiteers riot in front of the supreme court or tear down any statues of judges? Or injure any policemen? even though we had won that referendum fair and square against all the odds?
Nope. Back to the ballot box.
I mean, it’s only one Brexiteer, but Brendan O’Neill believed there should be riots if Brexit was delayed by Parliament:
This kind of sentiment was everywhere on Twitter if you went looking a\t the time.
And yet brexit was delayed twice with no riots. We had that pathetic march for freedom and that was about it, until leave voters delivered a majority of 80 for Boris. The ballot box is where to effect change not by burning down buildings or, in this case, destroying historic monuments.
Some truth except about "leave voters delivered a 80 seat majority". Many remain voters voted (through gritted teeth) because they did not want Corbyn. Corbyn delivered the Bozo majority, and by extension, Brexit, and by extension to that a PM so incompetent that a no-deal is almost nailed on.
I am sorry but I am not sure I am understanding what you think the government is doing wrong. If this comes to pass pubs will have the option of opening. Some will, some won't, depending upon their situation, access to outdoor space etc. No one is obliged to open on 20th June or indeed 4th July but they are free to do so. Of course some businesses will find it difficult to work out if they can actually trade at a profit with the current restrictions and there is uncertainty about what those restrictions are going to be. But these problems will arise however and whenever we come out of lockdown. Being in a business at a time of a pandemic is problematical. Of course there is a risk of a second wave. The government can do nothing about that risk which we all hope doesn't come to pass. Are you really suggesting that the taxpayer should continue to fund these businesses remaining closed indefinitely just in case? There is no magic solution. There is no magic bullet. We need to open up our economy as quickly as we can whilst watching that R number carefully. That is what the government seems to be doing.
You are missing the point. This isn’t about profitability. The government has no understanding of the logistics involved. You do not announce a date that is simply unachievable. You make announcements and give certainty so that businesses can make plans - about ordering / staff / insurance / training etc etc. You tell people what is actually legally required so people know what they have to do and can get ready in time.
And as for your last point, that is laughable: the government seems to have junked the science. It is just making stuff up as it goes along.
There is a difference between announcing pubs can open from a particular date, to announcing that pubs must or will open from a particular date.
If pubs have an ample supply of products (and some rely on bottles more than draught for instance) and are eager and capable of opening why shouldn't they? If others take longer to do things then they can take longer, the furlough scheme isn't ending for another four months so taking time to reopen properly then being ready and able to do so as soon as you are ready yourself seems logical.
I'm not sure what else you propose. I have been agreeing with you that beer gardens should be open already, but you seem irritated at the proposed opening from date being brought forwards if businesses think its safe to open and they're ready to do so?
It is the uncertainty which is the problem.
Guidance: great. Is it legally enforceable or not?
The changes in the furlough scheme raise a lot of questions and answers come there none, so far anyway.
The government has closed down a sector. It behoves it - when it comes to reopening - to plan for that reopening in a sensible way and to provide sensible timetable and clear information about the laws and rules which will apply and their status. They are not doing this. It is all over the place and this is making a difficult situation very much worse than it otherwise need be.
How hard is this for people to understand? We don’t - with the greatest of respect - need jury speeches about reopening of the economy to stop public services collapsing. I get this. We all do.
What we do need are practical well though through steps and advice.
I agree with you 100% on the difficulties and pressures the industry faces. I agree its ridiculous that beer gardens weren't already permitted to be open. I agreed with you on licencing for off trade and said I thought that should be liberalised so all licensed premises could immediately trade off as well without seeking permission.
But I'm not sure I agree here. I don't think you need well thought through steps and advice. I think businesses frankly need to do some of the thinking for themselves. The situation in your daughters property she will know better and understand better than anyone in Whitehall will. She needs to be permitted to use her common sense and do within reason whatever she thinks is right as the solution.
They do need to clearly express the rules under which the pubs can open though, grouping, distancing, hygiene, toilet availability etc and penalties for non compliance and how they are enforced.
Indeed, I'd hope there'd be news on that this week if the decision has been made to permit reopening. I've not looked into this but public toilets are already open in the supermarket when I go there. I'm assuming the rules must already be public for that and might be similar?
Keep them clean probably being the guiding principle would be my guess.
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
You are missing the point. This isn’t about profitability. The government has no understanding of the logistics involved. You do not announce a date that is simply unachievable. You make announcements and give certainty so that businesses can make plans - about ordering / staff / insurance / training etc etc. You tell people what is actually legally required so people know what they have to do and can get ready in time.
And as for your last point, that is laughable: the government seems to have junked the science. It is just making stuff up as it goes along.
There is a difference between announcing pubs can open from a particular date, to announcing that pubs must or will open from a particular date.
If pubs have an ample supply of products (and some rely on bottles more than draught for instance) and are eager and capable of opening why shouldn't they? If others take longer to do things then they can take longer, the furlough scheme isn't ending for another four months so taking time to reopen properly then being ready and able to do so as soon as you are ready yourself seems logical.
I'm not sure what else you propose. I have been agreeing with you that beer gardens should be open already, but you seem irritated at the proposed opening from date being brought forwards if businesses think its safe to open and they're ready to do so?
It is the uncertainty which is the problem.
Guidance: great. Is it legally enforceable or not?
The changes in the furlough scheme raise a lot of questions and answers come there none, so far anyway.
The government has closed down a sector. It behoves it - when it comes to reopening - to plan for that reopening in a sensible way and to provide sensible timetable and clear information about the laws and rules which will apply and their status. They are not doing this. It is all over the place and this is making a difficult situation very much worse than it otherwise need be.
How hard is this for people to understand? We don’t - with the greatest of respect - need jury speeches about reopening of the economy to stop public services collapsing. I get this. We all do.
What we do need are practical well though through steps and advice.
I agree with you 100% on the difficulties and pressures the industry faces. I agree its ridiculous that beer gardens weren't already permitted to be open. I agreed with you on licencing for off trade and said I thought that should be liberalised so all licensed premises could immediately trade off as well without seeking permission.
But I'm not sure I agree here. I don't think you need well thought through steps and advice. I think businesses frankly need to do some of the thinking for themselves. The situation in your daughters property she will know better and understand better than anyone in Whitehall will. She needs to be permitted to use her common sense and do within reason whatever she thinks is right as the solution.
*Hits head on table. Again.*
She is not being permitted to do the thinking for herself. Or what is right for her pub.
Take loos: if she closes them, she is worried that she would be in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. If she closes them where will people relieve themselves? Will she be held legally responsible if they go outside and piss (or worse) against the tree on the green? And what does that do to the pub’s reputation?
Her common-sense view is to keep them open, put in hand sanitiser dispensers outside and have a continued rigorous cleaning regime.
Will this be legal? Yes or no? Will this be acceptable to EHO’s? Yes or no?
Only the government can answer such questions.
Common-sense only takes you so far.
Now multiply these questions for all the other issues that arise and you will see that it really is not as simple as you seem to think it is.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
In Scotland the miners used to be slaves! Technically, serfs. There's a neck collar in the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh marked something like 'Property of the Duke of Glentumblers' or whoever it was.
The lairds liberated them oh, about 1790 or whatever it was. Turns out that the real reason was not lairdly benevolence, but the fact that this depressed the status of mining so much that free men were reluctant to come and work in mines - meaning that the owners were stuck with the number of serfs they startted off with, never mind if the demand grew. It was themselves they were liberating, to take on and dump labour as they wished.
Really need to visit the Museum of Scotland when it is allowed - heard excellent things about it and never been. Never really sauntered down that end of the Mile much.
You are missing the point. This isn’t about profitability. The government has no understanding of the logistics involved. You do not announce a date that is simply unachievable. You make announcements and give certainty so that businesses can make plans - about ordering / staff / insurance / training etc etc. You tell people what is actually legally required so people know what they have to do and can get ready in time.
And as for your last point, that is laughable: the government seems to have junked the science. It is just making stuff up as it goes along.
There is a difference between announcing pubs can open from a particular date, to announcing that pubs must or will open from a particular date.
If pubs have an ample supply of products (and some rely on bottles more than draught for instance) and are eager and capable of opening why shouldn't they? If others take longer to do things then they can take longer, the furlough scheme isn't ending for another four months so taking time to reopen properly then being ready and able to do so as soon as you are ready yourself seems logical.
I'm not sure what else you propose. I have been agreeing with you that beer gardens should be open already, but you seem irritated at the proposed opening from date being brought forwards if businesses think its safe to open and they're ready to do so?
It is the uncertainty which is the problem.
Guidance: great. Is it legally enforceable or not?
The changes in the furlough scheme raise a lot of questions and answers come there none, so far anyway.
The government has closed down a sector. It behoves it - when it comes to reopening - to plan for that reopening in a sensible way and to provide sensible timetable and clear information about the laws and rules which will apply and their status. They are not doing this. It is all over the place and this is making a difficult situation very much worse than it otherwise need be.
How hard is this for people to understand? We don’t - with the greatest of respect - need jury speeches about reopening of the economy to stop public services collapsing. I get this. We all do.
What we do need are practical well though through steps and advice.
I agree with you 100% on the difficulties and pressures the industry faces. I agree its ridiculous that beer gardens weren't already permitted to be open. I agreed with you on licencing for off trade and said I thought that should be liberalised so all licensed premises could immediately trade off as well without seeking permission.
But I'm not sure I agree here. I don't think you need well thought through steps and advice. I think businesses frankly need to do some of the thinking for themselves. The situation in your daughters property she will know better and understand better than anyone in Whitehall will. She needs to be permitted to use her common sense and do within reason whatever she thinks is right as the solution.
*Hits head on table. Again.*
She is not being permitted to do the thinking for herself. Or what is right for her pub.
Take loos: if she closes them, she is worried that she would be in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. If she closes them where will people relieve themselves? Will she be held legally responsible if they go outside and piss (or worse) against the tree on the green? And what does that do to the pub’s reputation?
Her common-sense view is to keep them open, put in hand sanitiser dispensers outside and have a continued rigorous cleaning regime.
Will this be legal? Yes or no? Will this be acceptable to EHO’s? Yes or no?
Only the government can answer such questions.
Common-sense only takes you so far.
Now multiply these questions for all the other issues that arise and you will see that it really is not as simple as you seem to think it is.
In Phillip's world only those who agree with him are allowed to "think for themselves"...
My old shipmate the B744 driver is still getting his sim sessions to stay current. And his multiple overlapping STDs have cleared up due to lack of longhaul action with BA's geriatric cabin crew.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
In Scotland the miners used to be slaves! Technically, serfs. There's a neck collar in the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh marked something like 'Property of the Duke of Glentumblers' or whoever it was.
The lairds liberated them oh, about 1790 or whatever it was. Turns out that the real reason was not lairdly benevolence, but the fact that this depressed the status of mining so much that free men were reluctant to come and work in mines - meaning that the owners were stuck with the number of serfs they startted off with, never mind if the demand grew. It was themselves they were liberating, to take on and dump labour as they wished.
Really need to visit the Museum of Scotland when it is allowed - heard excellent things about it and never been. Never really sauntered down that end of the Mile much.
'End'? Are you thinking of the City Council's Huntly House? - well worth a visit, nothijng wrong with it, but the museum I'm thinking of is the National Museum of Scotland, off the 'middle' of the RM. The modern wing which deals with Scottish history from the year dot is what used to be called the Museum of Scotland from itys opening in 1998 till recently - all rather confusing. I THINK this may be ther exhibit I remember - but it's quite possible they have nmore than one. Also, I haven't looked recently to see if it is still on display. But you can always email in advance to check if that is important.
Sorry, I'm an idiot, I was thinking of the Museum of Edinburgh. I've been to the National Museums on Chambers Street a fair amount - never seen that object because the place is vast and I never know quite what to look at. I should (again when it's allowed) go and do one of their guided tours, if such things will still exist in a post-corona world. I need people to tell me about things, if I'm just wandering around I feel like a fish in a bowl.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
In Scotland the miners used to be slaves! Technically, serfs. There's a neck collar in the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh marked something like 'Property of the Duke of Glentumblers' or whoever it was.
The lairds liberated them oh, about 1790 or whatever it was. Turns out that the real reason was not lairdly benevolence, but the fact that this depressed the status of mining so much that free men were reluctant to come and work in mines - meaning that the owners were stuck with the number of serfs they startted off with, never mind if the demand grew. It was themselves they were liberating, to take on and dump labour as they wished.
Really need to visit the Museum of Scotland when it is allowed - heard excellent things about it and never been. Never really sauntered down that end of the Mile much.
'End'? Are you thinking of the City Council's Huntly House? - well worth a visit, nothijng wrong with it, but the museum I'm thinking of is the National Museum of Scotland, off the 'middle' of the RM. The modern wing which deals with Scottish history from the year dot is what used to be called the Museum of Scotland from itys opening in 1998 till recently - all rather confusing. I THINK this may be ther exhibit I remember - but it's quite possible they have nmore than one. Also, I haven't looked recently to see if it is still on display. But you can always email in advance to check if that is important.
Sorry, I'm an idiot, I was thinking of the Museum of Edinburgh. I've been to the National Museums on Chambers Street a fair amount - never seen that object because the place is vast and I never know quite what to look at. I should (again when it's allowed) go and do one of their guided tours, if such things will still exist in a post-corona world. I need people to tell me about things, if I'm just wandering around I feel like a fish in a bowl.
It's at the modern end, ie in the 'Museum of Scotland' as was, not the Victorian bit. IIRC quite near the big wooden beam engine, or was.
And have you discovered the rooftop garden? A hidden gem.
You are missing the point. This isn’t about profitability. The government has no understanding of the logistics involved. You do not announce a date that is simply unachievable. You make announcements and give certainty so that businesses can make plans - about ordering / staff / insurance / training etc etc. You tell people what is actually legally required so people know what they have to do and can get ready in time.
And as for your last point, that is laughable: the government seems to have junked the science. It is just making stuff up as it goes along.
There is a difference between announcing pubs can open from a particular date, to announcing that pubs must or will open from a particular date.
If pubs have an ample supply of products (and some rely on bottles more than draught for instance) and are eager and capable of opening why shouldn't they? If others take longer to do things then they can take longer, the furlough scheme isn't ending for another four months so taking time to reopen properly then being ready and able to do so as soon as you are ready yourself seems logical.
I'm not sure what else you propose. I have been agreeing with you that beer gardens should be open already, but you seem irritated at the proposed opening from date being brought forwards if businesses think its safe to open and they're ready to do so?
It is the uncertainty which is the problem.
Guidance: great. Is it legally enforceable or not?
The changes in the furlough scheme raise a lot of questions and answers come there none, so far anyway.
The government has closed down a sector. It behoves it - when it comes to reopening - to plan for that reopening in a sensible way and to provide sensible timetable and clear information about the laws and rules which will apply and their status. They are not doing this. It is all over the place and this is making a difficult situation very much worse than it otherwise need be.
How hard is this for people to understand? We don’t - with the greatest of respect - need jury speeches about reopening of the economy to stop public services collapsing. I get this. We all do.
What we do need are practical well though through steps and advice.
I agree with you 100% on the difficulties and pressures the industry faces. I agree its ridiculous that beer gardens weren't already permitted to be open. I agreed with you on licencing for off trade and said I thought that should be liberalised so all licensed premises could immediately trade off as well without seeking permission.
But I'm not sure I agree here. I don't think you need well thought through steps and advice. I think businesses frankly need to do some of the thinking for themselves. The situation in your daughters property she will know better and understand better than anyone in Whitehall will. She needs to be permitted to use her common sense and do within reason whatever she thinks is right as the solution.
*Hits head on table. Again.*
She is not being permitted to do the thinking for herself. Or what is right for her pub.
Take loos: if she closes them, she is worried that she would be in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. If she closes them where will people relieve themselves? Will she be held legally responsible if they go outside and piss (or worse) against the tree on the green? And what does that do to the pub’s reputation?
Her common-sense view is to keep them open, put in hand sanitiser dispensers outside and have a continued rigorous cleaning regime.
Will this be legal? Yes or no? Will this be acceptable to EHO’s? Yes or no?
Only the government can answer such questions.
Common-sense only takes you so far.
Now multiply these questions for all the other issues that arise and you will see that it really is not as simple as you seem to think it is.
In Phillip's world only those who agree with him are allowed to "think for themselves"...
No. In my world everyone should be able to, even those I disagree with. Where have I denied that right to others?
Now I'm saying my opinion of what SHOULD happen rather than what will. Personally I think Miss Cyclefree's suggestion of keeping them open with a rogorous cleaning regime and hand sanitiser dispensers sounds like an excellent solution and one that should be embraced. Unless anyone has said that isn't permitted, then it is what I'd think she should be able to go with. Why has said that she can't do that?
Personally I doubt the EHO will be doing much more than giving guidance to anyone who is trying to be sensible like Miss Cyclefree. If people are flouting the guidance and not trying to put any effort in then those will be the ones the EHO will need to be worried about I'd think.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
In Scotland the miners used to be slaves! Technically, serfs. There's a neck collar in the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh marked something like 'Property of the Duke of Glentumblers' or whoever it was.
The lairds liberated them oh, about 1790 or whatever it was. Turns out that the real reason was not lairdly benevolence, but the fact that this depressed the status of mining so much that free men were reluctant to come and work in mines - meaning that the owners were stuck with the number of serfs they startted off with, never mind if the demand grew. It was themselves they were liberating, to take on and dump labour as they wished.
Really need to visit the Museum of Scotland when it is allowed - heard excellent things about it and never been. Never really sauntered down that end of the Mile much.
Not on the Royal Mile. Over by Greyfriar’s Bobby.
I was thinking of the Museum of Edinburgh. I've been to the National Museum of Scotland a fair few times.
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
I think I I were angry enough at Britains Colonial and slave trading past, and able to qualify for another country's passport, I'd do so.
Surely it must gnaw at people who can't abide the statues etc, and I must admit to being amazed such statues existed, that they are part of such a nation?
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
People can claim to be from the same household and avoid the distancing.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
In Scotland the miners used to be slaves! Technically, serfs. There's a neck collar in the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh marked something like 'Property of the Duke of Glentumblers' or whoever it was.
The lairds liberated them oh, about 1790 or whatever it was. Turns out that the real reason was not lairdly benevolence, but the fact that this depressed the status of mining so much that free men were reluctant to come and work in mines - meaning that the owners were stuck with the number of serfs they startted off with, never mind if the demand grew. It was themselves they were liberating, to take on and dump labour as they wished.
Really need to visit the Museum of Scotland when it is allowed - heard excellent things about it and never been. Never really sauntered down that end of the Mile much.
'End'? Are you thinking of the City Council's Huntly House? - well worth a visit, nothijng wrong with it, but the museum I'm thinking of is the National Museum of Scotland, off the 'middle' of the RM. The modern wing which deals with Scottish history from the year dot is what used to be called the Museum of Scotland from itys opening in 1998 till recently - all rather confusing. I THINK this may be ther exhibit I remember - but it's quite possible they have nmore than one. Also, I haven't looked recently to see if it is still on display. But you can always email in advance to check if that is important.
Sorry, I'm an idiot, I was thinking of the Museum of Edinburgh. I've been to the National Museums on Chambers Street a fair amount - never seen that object because the place is vast and I never know quite what to look at. I should (again when it's allowed) go and do one of their guided tours, if such things will still exist in a post-corona world. I need people to tell me about things, if I'm just wandering around I feel like a fish in a bowl.
It's at the modern end, ie in the 'Museum of Scotland' as was, not the Victorian bit. IIRC quite near the big wooden beam engine, or was.
And have you discovered the rooftop garden? A hidden gem.
Yes, I love it. Bizarrely long lift journey to get up there. But amazing view. I know the area you mean. I'll have wandered past it no doubt. Silly to do the museum in a day I suppose. One gallery you might be able to assimilate.
MPs passing through the division lobbies in Parliament today have had a first look at the new solution to in-person voting, ending the so called Rees-Mogg conga snaking to the chamber. Instead of voting in the chamber itself by the dispatch box and announcing their name and vote (a task that proved too complicated for many MPs), members will now vote by tapping their card on one of two new card readers in each voting lobby, away from the prying eyes of the press. A simpler solution…
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
Lab has had a majority on Bristol Council since 2003.
I'm interested to know why he couldn't 'get it through'.
Perhaps the same reason that certain environmentalist lawyers were upset as to how fracking got banned in the UK.
Instead of "Banning Fracking", the government followed a scientific study that said it was impossible to guarantee levels of ground water pollution and micro-quakes would meet standards. Hence no fracking.
I was told, informally, that the hope was that the government would ban fracking. This could be overturned on appeal, and lead to lots of nice lawfare. Plus claims that EvulTories were really in league with the frackers.
Instead, no fracking, no legal argy bargy. No money, no publicity for some.....
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
"Chaotic good" as a position needs testing against an adverse situation, like the "chaotic good" moralist with a knife who has decided that the world will be even better in the absence of Philip Thompson and intends to act on it. I say "The law is the law. Stop him. protect Philip Thompson."
Well one would not want to lose Philip.
But tbf I do not think what he is saying here is particularly incendiary.
He feels the people who pulled down the statue were acting in a morally impeccable fashion and he fully supports them in doing it even though it was against the law.
He is NOT saying the relevant law should be adjusted so it comes into line with his personal view - e.g. to exempt statues of scarred old slavers from protection from vandalism - or that it should not be enforced in this case.
I think various people are misunderstanding Philip on this one.
Oh lord, please don't let Philip be misunderstood.
And if in my morally impeccable view taxes as immoral then should I stop paying?
Yes - so long as you are prepared to go to jail for the principle.
"During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle. I have fought against taxation. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities and with no need to put the hand in to bail out scroungers. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to do 6 months porridge."
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
It isn't either / or, unless you haven't been on the internet for 2 weeks, it is was a major story and extremely shocking incident. Thus, it is relevant to link that the authorities have charged somebody.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Black live don't matter when a black person kills a black person
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
There's already guidance for shops etc on this that seems relevant.
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
Lab has had a majority on Bristol Council since 2003.
I'm interested to know why he couldn't 'get it through'.
Perhaps the same reason that certain environmentalist lawyers were upset as to how fracking got banned in the UK.
Instead of "Banning Fracking", the government followed a scientific study that said it was impossible to guarantee levels of ground water pollution and micro-quakes would meet standards. Hence no fracking.
I was told, informally, that the hope was that the government would ban fracking. This could be overturned on appeal, and lead to lots of nice lawfare. Plus claims that EvulTories were really in league with the frackers.
Instead, no fracking, no legal argy bargy. No money, no publicity for some.....
That pretty much happened in Scotland under the SNP - I suspect much earlier, which would esplain why the Tories and LDs were going on and on at the SNP for many months for blocking industry, wrecking the economgy, etc. And so did the Greens, in particular, only from the other side of the row.
One point would be that the sale of oil exploration rights is not devolved - so if what you say is true for England I would be very cheesed off if I were an oil industry exec which had bought rights for fracking.
I think I I were angry enough at Britains Colonial and slave trading past, and able to qualify for another country's passport, I'd do so.
Surely it must gnaw at people who can't abide the statues etc, and I must admit to being amazed such statues existed, that they are part of such a nation?
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Stops the voices in the head for a little while though.
'Can you still hear George Floyd saying he can't breath, Clarice?'
I think I I were angry enough at Britains Colonial and slave trading past, and able to qualify for another country's passport, I'd do so.
Surely it must gnaw at people who can't abide the statues etc, and I must admit to being amazed such statues existed, that they are part of such a nation?
That's a complex set of sentiments.
It's the kind of argument that makes perfect sense when you're half-asleep.
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
All of which sounds perfectly sensible and achievable in a pub...
I think I I were angry enough at Britains Colonial and slave trading past, and able to qualify for another country's passport, I'd do so.
Surely it must gnaw at people who can't abide the statues etc, and I must admit to being amazed such statues existed, that they are part of such a nation?
That's a complex set of sentiments.
I think the problem there is that you will not find your perfect country.
Where would you go? A good number of them had their slaving activities stopped by European imperialists.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Black live don't matter when a black person kills a black person
No, a bad guy who happens to be black kills a cop who also happens to be black is not a mitigating factor for cops to kill black people or anyone else for that matter.
How do some of you people reach such conclusions? Ridiculous!
If, as I've said all along, you're prepared to face the consequences of that decision.
Unlike Cummings, who denied doing anything wrong, even while admitting it on live national TV
You don't seem to understand that there are two laws. One for them and one for us.
Although it's ok for the government because Labour aren't going to hammer away at this point for the next four years. No siree.
What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on.
Poland recorded the highest number of new cases in the EU on Sunday – 575 - due to an outbreak at the Zofiowka mine. Many infected miners have not shown symptoms, which has helped to spread the virus.
I think I I were angry enough at Britains Colonial and slave trading past, and able to qualify for another country's passport, I'd do so.
Surely it must gnaw at people who can't abide the statues etc, and I must admit to being amazed such statues existed, that they are part of such a nation?
That's a complex set of sentiments.
I think the problem there is that you will not find your perfect country.
Where would you go? A good number of them had their slaving activities stopped by European imperialists.
Also the idea that participation in a system founded on pillage starts and ends with which country you live in.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Black live don't matter when a black person kills a black person
Yes if there's one community that hasn;t got the memo that Black Lives Matter, then its......er.......the black community. Judging by the crime figures anyway.
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
Lab has had a majority on Bristol Council since 2003.
I'm interested to know why he couldn't 'get it through'.
Perhaps the same reason that certain environmentalist lawyers were upset as to how fracking got banned in the UK.
Instead of "Banning Fracking", the government followed a scientific study that said it was impossible to guarantee levels of ground water pollution and micro-quakes would meet standards. Hence no fracking.
I was told, informally, that the hope was that the government would ban fracking. This could be overturned on appeal, and lead to lots of nice lawfare. Plus claims that EvulTories were really in league with the frackers.
Instead, no fracking, no legal argy bargy. No money, no publicity for some.....
That pretty much happened in Scotland under the SNP - I suspect much earlier, which would esplain why the Tories and LDs were going on and on at the SNP for many months for blocking industry, wrecking the economgy, etc. And so did the Greens, in particular, only from the other side of the row.
One point would be that the sale of oil exploration rights is not devolved - so if what you say is true for England I would be very cheesed off if I were an oil industry exec which had bought rights for fracking.
The whole point of banning it that way was to ensure that any court case (and there was one) would find that the decision was proper, scientifically justified etc. So no compensation payout for the companies involved.
Rather than a HulkSmash from the government. Which would probably be overturned.
Back to the statutes - claiming that "reasons" meant you couldn't move them would mean that (a) You'd keep the grievance to amuse your base and (b) not have a row with any opponents. Win, win, win.....
Interesting, thanks for sharing. The tactic being used sounds a bit like starving the beast - much beloved of the American right.
I'm pretty sure the true story will be more complicated than portrayed in a single article - but it's certainly true in general that US city police funding has escalated at the same time as other civic spending has been slashed (and as crime rates overall have continued to fall).
It does at least suggest this isn't the reckless gamble others are claiming.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
it creates a certain context tho. these protesters think its a one way street.... it isn't.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Stops the voices in the head for a little while though.
'Can you still hear George Floyd saying he can't breath, Clarice?'
Let's just demolish the whole planet and start again on Mars. Everybody has ancestors who supported in the slave trade somehow, even if it was only tacitly allowing it to continue.
That's where imputing 21st century standards of political correctness onto historical figures gets you.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
it creates a certain context tho. these protesters think its a one way street.... it isn't.
George Floyd was murdered. David Dorn was murdered. Who wants their murderers to be treated differently? Hint: it's not the protesters.
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
All of which sounds perfectly sensible and achievable in a pub...
Which is why it should be up to pubs and their customers to think for themselves what is achievable and what is not.
I don't think there either will be or should be a detailed checklist saying this is what you must do because what suits some might not suit others. Use your common sense and you should be fine.
If your question is: Is rigorously cleaning my toilets and providing sanitiser acceptable and you haven't heard anything to the contrary my assumption would be: Yes.
The guidance is out there - try to keep people 2m apart etc. How you want to implement that though should be entrusted to those who know their businesses not know it alls who have no involvement in Whitehall.
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
Lab has had a majority on Bristol Council since 2003.
I'm interested to know why he couldn't 'get it through'.
Perhaps the same reason that certain environmentalist lawyers were upset as to how fracking got banned in the UK.
Instead of "Banning Fracking", the government followed a scientific study that said it was impossible to guarantee levels of ground water pollution and micro-quakes would meet standards. Hence no fracking.
I was told, informally, that the hope was that the government would ban fracking. This could be overturned on appeal, and lead to lots of nice lawfare. Plus claims that EvulTories were really in league with the frackers.
Instead, no fracking, no legal argy bargy. No money, no publicity for some.....
That pretty much happened in Scotland under the SNP - I suspect much earlier, which would esplain why the Tories and LDs were going on and on at the SNP for many months for blocking industry, wrecking the economgy, etc. And so did the Greens, in particular, only from the other side of the row.
One point would be that the sale of oil exploration rights is not devolved - so if what you say is true for England I would be very cheesed off if I were an oil industry exec which had bought rights for fracking.
The whole point of banning it that way was to ensure that any court case (and there was one) would find that the decision was proper, scientifically justified etc. So no compensation payout for the companies involved.
Rather than a HulkSmash from the government. Which would probably be overturned.
Back to the statutes - claiming that "reasons" meant you couldn't move them would mean that (a) You'd keep the grievance to amuse your base and (b) not have a row with any opponents. Win, win, win.....
Thank you. I suppose it's one thing to move the statue but another just to add a label? The Olusoga piece in the Graun has links to past local newspaper reports - evidently the Society of Merchant Venturers (the equivalent of the Corporation of London?) were strongly opposed, or at least reported as such. So there may be more to local attitudes, indeed, than seemed at first glance. If it had been a long-running sore, all the more reason in some folk's view to give it a bath, so to speak.
One thing that might be a big step forward to support the black community in the UK would be free prescriptions of Vitamin D supplements. Black people are more vulnerable to illnesses in which Vitamin D deficiency is implicated, due to the superior sun-blocking abilities of black skin. These include diabetes, and it's logical that coronavirus also falls into this category.
Is it OK to destroy houses of religion if that religion approves of slavery, in some contexts?
I don't think anyone is wanting to destroy everything ever built on the backs of slaves. That would be quite some undertaking in any case. It is specific memorials to slave traders that are the issue. Ornament, not use.
Let's just demolish the whole planet and start again on Mars. Everybody has ancestors who supported in the slave trade somehow, even if it was only tacitly allowing it to continue.
That's where imputing 21st century standards of political correctness onto historical figures gets you.
You don't see a difference between removing a statue and destroying a planet? Yeah that's smart.
It doesn't matter if past eras had different standards, we are talking about what statues should be up today not in the past. If something doesn't meet our ethics today it doesn't need to be up today.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
If, as I've said all along, you're prepared to face the consequences of that decision.
Unlike Cummings, who denied doing anything wrong, even while admitting it on live national TV
You don't seem to understand that there are two laws. One for them and one for us.
Although it's ok for the government because Labour aren't going to hammer away at this point for the next four years. No siree.
What exactly are Labour going to 'hammer away at'? They've got their own stupid hypocrite MPs either deliberately breaking lockdown for personal reasons or explicitly celebrating the mob's vandalism. They don't have a leg to stand on.
'r' looks to have increased from 0.69 to 0.75 to me, crucially below 1 through the whole of the lockdown though. Of course working from death stats I'm always about 3 weeks into the rear view mirror. So up till the first half of May we were doing a good job.
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
Lab has had a majority on Bristol Council since 2003.
I'm interested to know why he couldn't 'get it through'.
Perhaps the same reason that certain environmentalist lawyers were upset as to how fracking got banned in the UK.
Instead of "Banning Fracking", the government followed a scientific study that said it was impossible to guarantee levels of ground water pollution and micro-quakes would meet standards. Hence no fracking.
I was told, informally, that the hope was that the government would ban fracking. This could be overturned on appeal, and lead to lots of nice lawfare. Plus claims that EvulTories were really in league with the frackers.
Instead, no fracking, no legal argy bargy. No money, no publicity for some.....
That pretty much happened in Scotland under the SNP - I suspect much earlier, which would esplain why the Tories and LDs were going on and on at the SNP for many months for blocking industry, wrecking the economgy, etc. And so did the Greens, in particular, only from the other side of the row.
One point would be that the sale of oil exploration rights is not devolved - so if what you say is true for England I would be very cheesed off if I were an oil industry exec which had bought rights for fracking.
The whole point of banning it that way was to ensure that any court case (and there was one) would find that the decision was proper, scientifically justified etc. So no compensation payout for the companies involved.
Rather than a HulkSmash from the government. Which would probably be overturned.
Back to the statutes - claiming that "reasons" meant you couldn't move them would mean that (a) You'd keep the grievance to amuse your base and (b) not have a row with any opponents. Win, win, win.....
Thank you. I suppose it's one thing to move the statue but another just to add a label? The Olusoga piece in the Graun has links to past local newspaper reports - evidently the Society of Merchant Venturers (the equivalent of the Corporation of London?) were strongly opposed, or at least reported as such. So there may be more to local attitudes, indeed, than seemed at first glance. If it had been a long-running sore, all the more reason in some folk's view to give it a bath, so to speak.
I think the Merchant Venturers are more like a livery company. The Corporation is the Council iirc.
I sense we are on the verge of being able to conclude that slavery is and always has been an integral part of the human condition, popping up here there & everywhere for as long as homo sapiens have walked the earth, and thus any attempt to portray the involvement of Britain in it as worthy of any particular consideration - even in Britain - is to succumb to an exercise of the utmost futility.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
it creates a certain context tho. these protesters think its a one way street.... it isn't.
It contextualises nothing. If a cop needlessly kills a civilian it is wrong. If a bad civilian kills a cop it is wrong. Colour doesn't come into the part of the equation.
BLM comes into the picture only because the above scenario of cop needlessly kills civilian tends to generate substantially more black casualties.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
In Scotland the miners used to be slaves! Technically, serfs. There's a neck collar in the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh marked something like 'Property of the Duke of Glentumblers' or whoever it was.
The lairds liberated them oh, about 1790 or whatever it was. Turns out that the real reason was not lairdly benevolence, but the fact that this depressed the status of mining so much that free men were reluctant to come and work in mines - meaning that the owners were stuck with the number of serfs they startted off with, never mind if the demand grew. It was themselves they were liberating, to take on and dump labour as they wished.
Really need to visit the Museum of Scotland when it is allowed - heard excellent things about it and never been. Never really sauntered down that end of the Mile much.
I was blown away by it when I visited a few years ago. It reminded me of what museums used to be like when I was a kid. I am disappointed by the London museums these days. Wasn't sure if they had changed or whether it was fond memories of 50+ years ago playing tricks on me, but on visiting the Museum of Scotland it took me back in time.
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
Lab has had a majority on Bristol Council since 2003.
I'm interested to know why he couldn't 'get it through'.
Perhaps the same reason that certain environmentalist lawyers were upset as to how fracking got banned in the UK.
Instead of "Banning Fracking", the government followed a scientific study that said it was impossible to guarantee levels of ground water pollution and micro-quakes would meet standards. Hence no fracking.
I was told, informally, that the hope was that the government would ban fracking. This could be overturned on appeal, and lead to lots of nice lawfare. Plus claims that EvulTories were really in league with the frackers.
Instead, no fracking, no legal argy bargy. No money, no publicity for some.....
That pretty much happened in Scotland under the SNP - I suspect much earlier, which would esplain why the Tories and LDs were going on and on at the SNP for many months for blocking industry, wrecking the economgy, etc. And so did the Greens, in particular, only from the other side of the row.
One point would be that the sale of oil exploration rights is not devolved - so if what you say is true for England I would be very cheesed off if I were an oil industry exec which had bought rights for fracking.
The whole point of banning it that way was to ensure that any court case (and there was one) would find that the decision was proper, scientifically justified etc. So no compensation payout for the companies involved.
Rather than a HulkSmash from the government. Which would probably be overturned.
Back to the statutes - claiming that "reasons" meant you couldn't move them would mean that (a) You'd keep the grievance to amuse your base and (b) not have a row with any opponents. Win, win, win.....
Thank you. I suppose it's one thing to move the statue but another just to add a label? The Olusoga piece in the Graun has links to past local newspaper reports - evidently the Society of Merchant Venturers (the equivalent of the Corporation of London?) were strongly opposed, or at least reported as such. So there may be more to local attitudes, indeed, than seemed at first glance. If it had been a long-running sore, all the more reason in some folk's view to give it a bath, so to speak.
The piece I read said that it was agreed by all parties to add the additional plaque about Colston's role in the slave trade. A text was agreed upon, but the language used was opposed by the Merchant Venturers and allies for being too condemning and politically slanted (it mentioned his Tory MP credentials, and of 'trafficking' slaves etc.).
During the actual manufacture of the plaque, influence was brought to bear and the text was altered to make the wording a lot more neutral sounding (changing 'trafficking' to 'transporting' for example) without the Mayor's knowledge. When he found out, he hit the roof, and wouldn't allow it to be installed.
Tricky test for Starmer - but this sounds like a pretty good line to take. I saw the Bristol mayor on tv last night, thought he did a decent job setting out his views on the topic.
A better question would be what has Marvin Rees been doing for 4 years if this statue offended him so much and that the comprise was a new plaque to explain the context. He is the elected mayor, the council is dominated by Maomentumers, but they couldn't organize a new plaque in years.
I think he did face some opposition from other councilors. Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
Lab has had a majority on Bristol Council since 2003.
I'm interested to know why he couldn't 'get it through'.
Perhaps the same reason that certain environmentalist lawyers were upset as to how fracking got banned in the UK.
Instead of "Banning Fracking", the government followed a scientific study that said it was impossible to guarantee levels of ground water pollution and micro-quakes would meet standards. Hence no fracking.
I was told, informally, that the hope was that the government would ban fracking. This could be overturned on appeal, and lead to lots of nice lawfare. Plus claims that EvulTories were really in league with the frackers.
Instead, no fracking, no legal argy bargy. No money, no publicity for some.....
That pretty much happened in Scotland under the SNP - I suspect much earlier, which would esplain why the Tories and LDs were going on and on at the SNP for many months for blocking industry, wrecking the economgy, etc. And so did the Greens, in particular, only from the other side of the row.
One point would be that the sale of oil exploration rights is not devolved - so if what you say is true for England I would be very cheesed off if I were an oil industry exec which had bought rights for fracking.
The whole point of banning it that way was to ensure that any court case (and there was one) would find that the decision was proper, scientifically justified etc. So no compensation payout for the companies involved.
Rather than a HulkSmash from the government. Which would probably be overturned.
Back to the statutes - claiming that "reasons" meant you couldn't move them would mean that (a) You'd keep the grievance to amuse your base and (b) not have a row with any opponents. Win, win, win.....
Thank you. I suppose it's one thing to move the statue but another just to add a label? The Olusoga piece in the Graun has links to past local newspaper reports - evidently the Society of Merchant Venturers (the equivalent of the Corporation of London?) were strongly opposed, or at least reported as such. So there may be more to local attitudes, indeed, than seemed at first glance. If it had been a long-running sore, all the more reason in some folk's view to give it a bath, so to speak.
I think the Merchant Venturers are more like a livery company. The Corporation is the Council iirc.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
it creates a certain context tho. these protesters think its a one way street.... it isn't.
George Floyd was murdered. David Dorn was murdered. Who wants their murderers to be treated differently? Hint: it's not the protesters.
There is zero evidnece that the murderers have been treated differently to date, so why the protests? why the injured policemen in Britain?
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
I am comfortable with that. Throw the book at the young hooligans.
The artefact should be restored and placed somewhere more appropriate and Edward Colston contextualised as a historical villain as well a Bristolian philanthropist. History should not have the unpopular bits airbrushed out.
Another fear I have for Bristol would be further acts of vandalism by the Council in renaming some of the unusual historic street names. By all means rename Colston Square to George Floyd Piazza, but not the ones named after some historic pubs.
I am also fearful for Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, and here in Wales, Drakeford had to deal with a stupid question from LBC at lunchtime, tacitly inviting nutjobs to pull down the statue of Thomas Picton in Cardiff.
I'm pretty sure that my Welsh miner ancestors didn't have the best of lives working for the 18th/19thC coal owners.
Very true, and I have the same collier ancestors as you. Maybe we are related?
However we do not have the right to pull down Cardiff Castle or Castell Coch because the Earl of Bute made his fortune from exploitation. Do we?
In Scotland the miners used to be slaves! Technically, serfs. There's a neck collar in the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh marked something like 'Property of the Duke of Glentumblers' or whoever it was.
The lairds liberated them oh, about 1790 or whatever it was. Turns out that the real reason was not lairdly benevolence, but the fact that this depressed the status of mining so much that free men were reluctant to come and work in mines - meaning that the owners were stuck with the number of serfs they startted off with, never mind if the demand grew. It was themselves they were liberating, to take on and dump labour as they wished.
Really need to visit the Museum of Scotland when it is allowed - heard excellent things about it and never been. Never really sauntered down that end of the Mile much.
I was blown away by it when I visited a few years ago. It reminded me of what museums used to be like when I was a kid. I am disappointed by the London museums these days. Wasn't sure if they had changed or whether it was fond memories of 50+ years ago playing tricks on me, but on visiting the Museum of Scotland it took me back in time.
I love it too - I had actually visited the one Carynx mentioned. Magnificent.
I am not sure that showing us pictures of lots of bad people who just happen not to be Minnesota cops or Bristolian slave traders makes the sins of the Minneapolis PD or Edward Colston go away.
it creates a certain context tho. these protesters think its a one way street.... it isn't.
George Floyd was murdered. David Dorn was murdered. Who wants their murderers to be treated differently? Hint: it's not the protesters.
There is zero evidnece that the murderers have been treated differently to date, so why the protests? why the injured policemen in Britain?
The murderers have been treated differently to date. People have gotten away with murder to date. When the protests started three of the four accused weren't even arrested!
Injuring policemen in Britain is inexcusable and is because some people get off on violence and are jumping on a bandwagon to do it, they don't represent everyone else.
And it is all very well talking about common-sense and then announcing two days beforehand that these are the rules and you have to comply with them and businesses then realising that they can’t and then facing problems.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
No, they won't. The current guidance for offices deals with situations where the 2m recommendation cannot be met. It provides the business must: Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible Staggering arrival and departure times Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’ So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
All of which sounds perfectly sensible and achievable in a pub...
Which is why it should be up to pubs and their customers to think for themselves what is achievable and what is not.
I don't think there either will be or should be a detailed checklist saying this is what you must do because what suits some might not suit others. Use your common sense and you should be fine.
If your question is: Is rigorously cleaning my toilets and providing sanitiser acceptable and you haven't heard anything to the contrary my assumption would be: Yes.
The guidance is out there - try to keep people 2m apart etc. How you want to implement that though should be entrusted to those who know their businesses not know it alls who have no involvement in Whitehall.
It is not possible to keep people apart in a pub. The point of a pub is for people to meet up and be together.
If it is not a rule - and it isn’t - then let people come if they want, have hand sanitizers available, have rigorous hygiene, clean tables etc. Let customers decide. From what my daughter’s customers are saying, they want it reopened. Many will use it. How many is the question. But if they do come, it will not be physically possible to have any form of social distancing.
Will insurance be valid? Will a venue be legally liable if someone becomes ill?
And the answer is.......?
If 2 metres is a legally enforceable rule then many pubs, including my daughter’s will have to close.
So the distinction between whether this is a legally enforceable rule or merely guidance which can be ignored if it is not reasonable to do so for a particular venue is a critical one.
And as yet there is no answer. It is not unreasonable for people in government to be thinking about such issue and providing clarity. The government took on responsibility for the hospitality sector when it shut it down. It cannot wash its hands now just because a bit of hard thinking is needed.
BLM comes into the picture only because the above scenario of cop needlessly kills civilian tends to generate substantially more black casualties.
Is that definitely true ?
I believe one has a greater probability of being arrested/ killed by law enforcement in the USA as a result of racial profiling. If that is incorrect I daresay someone will put me right.
I think I I were angry enough at Britains Colonial and slave trading past, and able to qualify for another country's passport, I'd do so.
Surely it must gnaw at people who can't abide the statues etc, and I must admit to being amazed such statues existed, that they are part of such a nation?
Who loves their country most? The person who cannot admit its failings, and so never seeks to make it better? Or the person who acknowledges its flaws so that it can improve? I would argue the latter.
Comments
https://twitter.com/SunApology/status/1269946215829065736?s=20
This kind of sentiment was everywhere on Twitter if you went looking a\t the time.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1269954173992345601?s=20
Colston's name link is because it was the site of Colston School until 1857, rather than because he paid for it.
But equally, to misquote one comment about Liverpool, every brick in ?Bristol is mortared with the blood of a slave.
Magnificent concert hall though. Fabulous organ. Here played by my old friend Dr Benedict Todd (the guy with the pony tail, who is only visible at the end).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZA37B0Qt-I
Apparently mentioning Colston's role as a slaver was revisionist history.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/theft-vandalism-second-colston-statue-1815967
Although it's ok for the government because Labour aren't going to hammer away at this point for the next four years. No siree.
http://nms.scran.ac.uk/database/record.php?usi=000-100-001-337-C
Keep them clean probably being the guiding principle would be my guess.
I'm interested to know why he couldn't 'get it through'.
She is not being permitted to do the thinking for herself. Or what is right for her pub.
Take loos: if she closes them, she is worried that she would be in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. If she closes them where will people relieve themselves? Will she be held legally responsible if they go outside and piss (or worse) against the tree on the green? And what does that do to the pub’s reputation?
Her common-sense view is to keep them open, put in hand sanitiser dispensers outside and have a continued rigorous cleaning regime.
Will this be legal? Yes or no? Will this be acceptable to EHO’s? Yes or no?
Only the government can answer such questions.
Common-sense only takes you so far.
Now multiply these questions for all the other issues that arise and you will see that it really is not as simple as you seem to think it is.
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1269981116460666882
And have you discovered the rooftop garden? A hidden gem.
Now I'm saying my opinion of what SHOULD happen rather than what will. Personally I think Miss Cyclefree's suggestion of keeping them open with a rogorous cleaning regime and hand sanitiser dispensers sounds like an excellent solution and one that should be embraced. Unless anyone has said that isn't permitted, then it is what I'd think she should be able to go with. Why has said that she can't do that?
Personally I doubt the EHO will be doing much more than giving guidance to anyone who is trying to be sensible like Miss Cyclefree. If people are flouting the guidance and not trying to put any effort in then those will be the ones the EHO will need to be worried about I'd think.
We still don’t know whether any of the social distancing advice will be made into enforceable rules. For instance, will pubs be legally required to keep people 2 metres apart?
Anyone know?
Surely it must gnaw at people who can't abide the statues etc, and I must admit to being amazed such statues existed, that they are part of such a nation?
https://order-order.com/2020/06/08/end-of-the-rees-mogg-conga/
Instead of "Banning Fracking", the government followed a scientific study that said it was impossible to guarantee levels of ground water pollution and micro-quakes would meet standards. Hence no fracking.
I was told, informally, that the hope was that the government would ban fracking. This could be overturned on appeal, and lead to lots of nice lawfare. Plus claims that EvulTories were really in league with the frackers.
Instead, no fracking, no legal argy bargy. No money, no publicity for some.....
"During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle. I have fought against taxation. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities and with no need to put the hand in to bail out scroungers. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to do 6 months porridge."
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/my-great-grandfather-the-nigerian-slave-trader
https://www.instagram.com/p/CA89U7OA9Ab/
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19/shops-and-branches
One point would be that the sale of oil exploration rights is not devolved - so if what you say is true for England I would be very cheesed off if I were an oil industry exec which had bought rights for fracking.
Consider whether an activity needs to continue for the business to operate
Keeping the activity time involved as short as possible
Using screens or barriers to separate people from each other
Using back-to-back or side-to-side working whenever possible
Staggering arrival and departure times
Reducing the number of people each person has contact with by using ‘fixed teams or partnering’
So a restaurant will need to keep people 2m apart where they can; to restrict the time they are closer where they can't; to use screens (masks) etc where possible; to encourage queues that are side by side rather than behind each other (unlike those idiot MPs); to have as much of a gap as possible between front of house and back of house staff; to keep smaller teams in different parts of the establishment working together. etc. etc.
Fitness brands including Reebok have cut ties with CrossFit after the company's CEO posted a tweet making light of George Floyd's death.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52963102
Interestingly he was aiming his ill judged tweets at our favourite COVID modellers, University of Washington.
'Can you still hear George Floyd saying he can't breath, Clarice?'
Where would you go? A good number of them had their slaving activities stopped by European imperialists.
How do some of you people reach such conclusions? Ridiculous!
Rather than a HulkSmash from the government. Which would probably be overturned.
Back to the statutes - claiming that "reasons" meant you couldn't move them would mean that (a) You'd keep the grievance to amuse your base and (b) not have a row with any opponents. Win, win, win.....
Tomorrow and Wednesday's numbers will be interesting – usually the 'worst' days of the week.
It does at least suggest this isn't the reckless gamble others are claiming.
That's where imputing 21st century standards of political correctness onto historical figures gets you.
I don't think there either will be or should be a detailed checklist saying this is what you must do because what suits some might not suit others. Use your common sense and you should be fine.
If your question is: Is rigorously cleaning my toilets and providing sanitiser acceptable and you haven't heard anything to the contrary my assumption would be: Yes.
The guidance is out there - try to keep people 2m apart etc. How you want to implement that though should be entrusted to those who know their businesses not know it alls who have no involvement in Whitehall.
It doesn't matter if past eras had different standards, we are talking about what statues should be up today not in the past. If something doesn't meet our ethics today it doesn't need to be up today.
Of course it won;t but what it will hopefully do is make these protests go away by showing up the protestors as the hypocrites they are.
Black people could be slaughtering each other on an industrial scale, and that would be completely ignored by Black Lives Matter.
I sense we are on the verge of being able to conclude that slavery is and always has been an integral part of the human condition, popping up here there & everywhere for as long as homo sapiens have walked the earth, and thus any attempt to portray the involvement of Britain in it as worthy of any particular consideration - even in Britain - is to succumb to an exercise of the utmost futility.
One more heave (!) and we're there.
bad civilian kills a cop it is wrong. Colour doesn't come into the part of the equation.
BLM comes into the picture only because the above scenario of cop needlessly kills civilian tends to generate substantially more black casualties.
During the actual manufacture of the plaque, influence was brought to bear and the text was altered to make the wording a lot more neutral sounding (changing 'trafficking' to 'transporting' for example) without the Mayor's knowledge. When he found out, he hit the roof, and wouldn't allow it to be installed.
It's a bit of a sorry saga on both sides.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/colston-girls-school-statue-edward-4204536
Statue, undented.
Injuring policemen in Britain is inexcusable and is because some people get off on violence and are jumping on a bandwagon to do it, they don't represent everyone else.
If it is not a rule - and it isn’t - then let people come if they want, have hand sanitizers available, have rigorous hygiene, clean tables etc. Let customers decide. From what my daughter’s customers are saying, they want it reopened. Many will use it. How many is the question. But if they do come, it will not be physically possible to have any form of social distancing.
Will insurance be valid? Will a venue be legally liable if someone becomes ill?
And the answer is.......?
If 2 metres is a legally enforceable rule then many pubs, including my daughter’s will have to close.
So the distinction between whether this is a legally enforceable rule or merely guidance which can be ignored if it is not reasonable to do so for a particular venue is a critical one.
And as yet there is no answer. It is not unreasonable for people in government to be thinking about such issue and providing clarity. The government took on responsibility for the hospitality sector when it shut it down. It cannot wash its hands now just because a bit of hard thinking is needed.