On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
It's not just what happens in the classroom though. It's the school run, the dinner ladies and so on. And in state schools, there is very little slack in the system to do any sort of distancing with everyone in.
Conclusion: the right thing from an education and safeguarding point of view would be a rota, so that everyone is in for part of the week. As the nationwide risk falls, go from 6 in a group 1 day a week, to 12 and 2 days to 18 and 3 days. And have a package based on TV (not online, access isn't reliable enough) for home learning days.
That hasn't happened for a couple of reasons. One is the bullish attitude of the government- they produced some guidance that was a hot mess and got upset when schools didn't follow it. Another is the tendency of the government to leak wishful thinking. "It'll all be fine in 2 weeks and pubs/schools/shops/hairdressers will be open!" It buys them a good front page in The Sun and Express, but it means it isn't worth coming up with grown-up plans for a temporary world where things aren't normal.
Or we do a more realistic assessment of where these kids will be if they are not in school and come to the conclusion that they are actually much safer in a regulated and structured environment at school than in the park with their mates.
Black Lives Matter are the equivalent of Mugabe's ZANU PF in Rhodesia; Marxist/Communists who use race as a tool to get extreme left ideas into the mainstream.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
LOL nevermind! What squirrel will he point to next?
My actual objection to the removal - that historical monuments should not be removed for the sake of transient political advantage or pressure from a mob, both of which apply to Khan's action here.
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
The designation is the important bit, everything else is context...
And for due process to have been followed by Khan, the question of the curtilage of the listed building in relation to the statue should have been formally assessed by the local conservation officers.
Was it?
If it was Grade 1 listed, any change without proper listed building consent is an offence. How that applies here will require more details than I have.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
I don't think here is any doubt; it is in the listing therefore it is listed.
There is no application for Listed Building Consent on the Tower Hamlets website, which is where it would need to be.
There is a 21 day statutory public consultation period, regardless of the time taken for admin process.
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
I gave a talk to 200 or so people on Saturday. The one thing that dawned on me more and more as I gave it was that I had no means gauging if I was pitching at the right level and whether they had grasped a point before I moved on to the next point.
I've done the same on zoom for talks on insolvency and employment. It is discombobulating to have no feedback from your screen, no indication as to whether or not my witticisms are appreciated and no idea whether a point could usefully be expanded or not. One thing that my Chambers has done is to restrict each talk to about 15 minutes with 4 speakers in the hour just to break things up a bit. I think peoples' attention span is inevitably much shorter with a screen than it is in person. It must be a real challenge to teachers with 40 minute periods.
I have worked with remote teams for years. If you follow up one on one, it's fine: did you get the information you need, are on board with it, do you have any ideas we can take forward? In fact you end up with more clarity than relying on vibes and ad hoc remarks. The efficiency of no travel compensates for the inefficiency of the extra meetings.
But I can see that doesn't work in a school environment.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
LOL nevermind! What squirrel will he point to next?
My actual objection to the removal - that historical monuments should not be removed for the sake of transient political advantage or pressure from a mob, both of which apply to Khan's action here.
Both objections are arguments against democracy.
There is nothing new to statues coming down. Nothing whatsoever. People are acting hysterically like some horrendous rubicon is being crossed, like Pandora's Box is being opened.
Statues have always come down as well as gone up. They will continue to do so.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
I don't think here is any doubt; it is in the listing therefore it is listed.
There is no application for Listed Building Consent on the Tower Hamlets website, which is where it would need to be.
There is a 21 day statutory public consultation period, regardless of the time taken for admin process.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Good header, Alastair. Agree with sentiments. As I said before, the slave trade is for me a standout. We should not imo have public statues honouring men whose fortunes were built directly on such an unspeakable crime. Or rather the default should be removal with a very compelling case required for retention.
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
LOL nevermind! What squirrel will he point to next?
My actual objection to the removal - that historical monuments should not be removed for the sake of transient political advantage or pressure from a mob, both of which apply to Khan's action here.
Both objections are arguments against democracy.
There is nothing new to statues coming down. Nothing whatsoever. People are acting hysterically like some horrendous rubicon is being crossed, like Pandora's Box is being opened.
Statues have always come down as well as gone up. They will continue to do so.
For democracy to work you need to give the electorate some prior notice of what you're going to do in office. Leaving the EU after winning an election on that basis is perfectly democratic, to do so without having campaigned on it in advance would be monstrous. Ditto the removal of the common historic fabric of this country without giving the electorate a prior indication of that policy.
I must say there is something amusing about Litttle Britain and League of Gentlemen being 'cancelled'. The middle class white men behind the shows pride themselves as being right-on Liberals, only to find in the eyes of the middle class hard left they're daft old racists.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
They've been trying to since 2012 - one side continually vetoing what the other half wanted on the second plague.
The decision which statues are retained should be made locally, in cities and towns. And they should go hand in hand with decisions about which new statues should be erected -- for those whose lives we (locals) actually want to honour.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
LOL nevermind! What squirrel will he point to next?
My actual objection to the removal - that historical monuments should not be removed for the sake of transient political advantage or pressure from a mob, both of which apply to Khan's action here.
Both objections are arguments against democracy.
There is nothing new to statues coming down. Nothing whatsoever. People are acting hysterically like some horrendous rubicon is being crossed, like Pandora's Box is being opened.
Statues have always come down as well as gone up. They will continue to do so.
For democracy to work you need to give the electorate some prior notice of what you're going to do in office. Leaving the EU after winning an election on that basis is perfectly democratic, to do so without having campaigned on it in advance would be monstrous. Ditto the removal of the common historic fabric of this country without giving the electorate a prior indication of that policy.
No you don't. You categorically do not have to do so.
Elected politicians make decisions all the freaking time. Did Boris Johnson have to announce the furlough scheme before the election? Did he have to announce lockdown before the election?
In representative democracy we elect people we trust to make decisions within their authority. That may include their manifesto, or it may include other actions. That power to make decisions is delegated to them by virtue of their office.
The "common historic fabric" of this country isn't being removed. A statue is becoming part of history itself.
On topic I think all statues in Britain need to be covered with huge inflatable models of the covid19 virus, to remain there until such time as the British stop fucking about with culture wars and make an actual workable plan to deal with it.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
I gave a talk to 200 or so people on Saturday. The one thing that dawned on me more and more as I gave it was that I had no means gauging if I was pitching at the right level and whether they had grasped a point before I moved on to the next point.
I've done the same on zoom for talks on insolvency and employment. It is discombobulating to have no feedback from your screen, no indication as to whether or not my witticisms are appreciated and no idea whether a point could usefully be expanded or not. One thing that my Chambers has done is to restrict each talk to about 15 minutes with 4 speakers in the hour just to break things up a bit. I think peoples' attention span is inevitably much shorter with a screen than it is in person. It must be a real challenge to teachers with 40 minute periods.
I have worked with remote teams for years. If you follow up one on one, it's fine: did you get the information you need, are on board with it, do you have any ideas we can take forward? In fact you end up with more clarity than relying on vibes and ad hoc remarks. The efficiency of no travel compensates for the inefficiency of the extra meetings.
But I can see that doesn't work in a school environment.
I think that there is a big difference between instructing a team and giving a class. The team has something specific and concrete to focus on, they are looking for individual instructions to carry out. The class, whether of lawyers so bored with WFH that they will listen to my wittering or school kids distracted by other devices in their rooms it is very different. To use your analogy I have been doing consultations with clients and solicitors online as well. They work well because there is much more interactivity. Indeed I suspect that after this many more consultations will take place by video link than people trailing to meeting rooms. It is a little harder to be confident that the client has got the message but the trade off in time and cost is considerable.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
"Moreover, the uniform of color, because it is involuntary and irremovable, becomes an irresistible force for dominating and disciplining those who wear it. They are literally marked people, expected to rally to whatever is designated as their cause and treated as manifest traitors if they fail to do so. When one has witnessed how the invisible uniform of religion enables the IRA to exert over the mass of peaceful and law-abiding Roman Catholic citizens in Northern Ireland a terror and compulsion far severer than that under which their Protestant fellow citizens live, one can form some idea of the consolidating potential of the visible uniform of color. Finally, color polarizes, and reinforces differentiation and segregation, because the individual, however much, as an individual, he may become, and wish to become, assimilated to the host population, is firmly identified, and thus eventually obliged to identify himself, with the minority to which he belongs. Color is a recruiting sergeant, and a recruiting sergeant for officer material."
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
I am afraid whatever the conservation officer says this whole argument is a bit of a red herring. Sad to say that, if you are a local council and you want a listed building or part of one removed, destroyed or altered, then in the end you generally will get your way. All across England there are examples of listed buildings that are 'inconvenient' for developers which end up being destroyed no matter what their legal status - often with the complicity or the quite open assistance of the local council. There are examples of this in recent years in many of our cities and towns. If Khan, as the elected leader, wants the statue removed then I am not sure there is a reasonable moral objection and, even if there is a legal one, experience indicates it will not make much difference.
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
So the Suffragettes should have waited until democracy worked? Rosa Parks should have waited until democracy worked? Martin Luther King should have waited until democracy worked?
Civil disorder has existed for as long as society has. When people aren't listened to by the majority, even in a democracy, people can act. That can have legal consequences, but if people are prepared to risk that then the majority need to either become more totalitarian to quash dissent - or listen to the minority taking direct action.
We have a proud history of rejecting totalitarianism. I hope that continues.
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
I gave a talk to 200 or so people on Saturday. The one thing that dawned on me more and more as I gave it was that I had no means gauging if I was pitching at the right level and whether they had grasped a point before I moved on to the next point.
I've done the same on zoom for talks on insolvency and employment. It is discombobulating to have no feedback from your screen, no indication as to whether or not my witticisms are appreciated and no idea whether a point could usefully be expanded or not. One thing that my Chambers has done is to restrict each talk to about 15 minutes with 4 speakers in the hour just to break things up a bit. I think peoples' attention span is inevitably much shorter with a screen than it is in person. It must be a real challenge to teachers with 40 minute periods.
I opened a work presentation recently by saying "The Comedian Josoie Long has been doing free gigs on Twitch but she says it is really hard to do stand up without feedback so she gets her audience to write 'ha ha ha' every so often so she knows she is hitting the mark. I feel the same thing about business presentations so if you could type 'that's interesting' and 'nods head in agreement' every so often that would really help my flow"
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
Same BS argument made by Mr Meeks at trying to reject Brexit because of extreme racists associated with it.
Just because some people are extreme doesn't make a cause wrong.
Black Lives Matter are the equivalent of Mugabe's ZANU PF in Rhodesia; Marxist/Communists who use race as a tool to get extreme left ideas into the mainstream.
Photos of pro segregationists in the South in the 1960s show them with "race mixing = Communism" placards so certainly this accusation has been made whenever racism is challenged through direct action. If anti communists want to make sure that communists don't exploit anti racism protests, then perhaps they should ask why the communists are on the side of anti racism and they're not?
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
LOL nevermind! What squirrel will he point to next?
My actual objection to the removal - that historical monuments should not be removed for the sake of transient political advantage or pressure from a mob, both of which apply to Khan's action here.
Both objections are arguments against democracy.
There is nothing new to statues coming down. Nothing whatsoever. People are acting hysterically like some horrendous rubicon is being crossed, like Pandora's Box is being opened.
Statues have always come down as well as gone up. They will continue to do so.
For democracy to work you need to give the electorate some prior notice of what you're going to do in office. Leaving the EU after winning an election on that basis is perfectly democratic, to do so without having campaigned on it in advance would be monstrous. Ditto the removal of the common historic fabric of this country without giving the electorate a prior indication of that policy.
Not really, because you have to react to events. Can't remember the Tory Party winning a mandate to close all our pubs. In fact if they'd put that in the manifesto I'd wager the Red Wall would have held and it would be PM Corbyn.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
LOL nevermind! What squirrel will he point to next?
My actual objection to the removal - that historical monuments should not be removed for the sake of transient political advantage or pressure from a mob, both of which apply to Khan's action here.
Both objections are arguments against democracy.
There is nothing new to statues coming down. Nothing whatsoever. People are acting hysterically like some horrendous rubicon is being crossed, like Pandora's Box is being opened.
Statues have always come down as well as gone up. They will continue to do so.
For democracy to work you need to give the electorate some prior notice of what you're going to do in office. Leaving the EU after winning an election on that basis is perfectly democratic, to do so without having campaigned on it in advance would be monstrous. Ditto the removal of the common historic fabric of this country without giving the electorate a prior indication of that policy.
No you don't. You categorically do not have to do so.
Elected politicians make decisions all the freaking time. Did Boris Johnson have to announce the furlough scheme before the election? Did he have to announce lockdown before the election?
In representative democracy we elect people we trust to make decisions within their authority. That may include their manifesto, or it may include other actions. That power to make decisions is delegated to them by virtue of their office.
The "common historic fabric" of this country isn't being removed. A statue is becoming part of history itself.
Of course elected politicians have some leeway to act on their own judgement, but that leeway is not unlimited, and especially for optional actions such as the removal of historic monuments it would be best practice for Khan to have explicitly promised 'I will remove public monuments if politically expedient to do so', so that at least the electorate would know where he stood on the issue in general.
Yours parallels with the furlough scheme and lockdown are pretty poor, because those are clear emergency actions, whereas there is no such thing as an emergency statue removal. A statue is, by its very nature, not going anywhere
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
So the Suffragettes should have waited until democracy worked? Rosa Parks should have waited until democracy worked? Martin Luther King should have waited until democracy worked?
Civil disorder has existed for as long as society has. When people aren't listened to by the majority, even in a democracy, people can act. That can have legal consequences, but if people are prepared to risk that then the majority need to either become more totalitarian to quash dissent - or listen to the minority taking direct action.
We have a proud history of rejecting totalitarianism. I hope that continues.
Poor examples. In the case of the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement in the US there was, literally, no democratic way for their voice to be heard. In the case of the Bristol statue there was - indeed there had been an actual vote on it and those supporting it remaining won.
Personally I would have voted the other way. Which is why I don't have an issue with Khan doing what he is doing in London. But mob rule and destruction is not the way it should be done. And certainly not under the guise of the BLM movement (I disagree with isam on the nature of that movement)
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
They've been trying to since 2012 - one side continually vetoing what the other half wanted on the second plague.
Which means they have had at least 2 elections to make this an election issue in the democratic process.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
This is the same argument the segregationists made in America in the 50s and 60s. That the civil rights movement was a covert front for communism.
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
LOL nevermind! What squirrel will he point to next?
My actual objection to the removal - that historical monuments should not be removed for the sake of transient political advantage or pressure from a mob, both of which apply to Khan's action here.
Both objections are arguments against democracy.
There is nothing new to statues coming down. Nothing whatsoever. People are acting hysterically like some horrendous rubicon is being crossed, like Pandora's Box is being opened.
Statues have always come down as well as gone up. They will continue to do so.
For democracy to work you need to give the electorate some prior notice of what you're going to do in office. Leaving the EU after winning an election on that basis is perfectly democratic, to do so without having campaigned on it in advance would be monstrous. Ditto the removal of the common historic fabric of this country without giving the electorate a prior indication of that policy.
Not really, because you have to react to events. Can't remember the Tory Party winning a mandate to close all our pubs. In fact if they'd put that in the manifesto I'd wager the Red Wall would have held and it would be PM Corbyn.
See my reply to Philip above your post - there's no such thing as a statue-removal emergency.
Black Lives Matter are the equivalent of Mugabe's ZANU PF in Rhodesia; Marxist/Communists who use race as a tool to get extreme left ideas into the mainstream.
Re: BLM, I thought I`d take a bit of time this morning educating myself (belatedly I agree) about their grievances and demands.
Below are some key points I gleaned from interviews and websites in case anyone else is as baffled as I am:
- They believe that "blacks lives are being sytematically targeted for demise" - They are extreme collectivists, believing in a "global black family". They aim to "connect black people from all over the world". - They oppose stop and search - Want an end to the detention of illegal imigrants - Demand that illegal immigrants are de-criminalised and welcomed instead - oppose any disincentives designed to control immigration numbers - They believe that immigrants are fleeing conflicts, economic disadvantage and climate change (cough) - oppose the "surveillance of muslim students". (Presumably they mean ceasing terrorism intelligence activities.) - oppose the "gangs matrix". (This a database of suspected gang members.)
All this, in their minds, justifies the law breaking and vandalism. Comments?
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
It's more a comment on the incompetence of yet another left-wing Labour council.
There were no excuses. They had a large majority and a Labour Mayor.
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
It's more a comment on the incompetence of yet another left-wing Labour council.
There were no excuses. They had a large majority and a Labour Mayor.
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
I am afraid whatever the conservation officer says this whole argument is a bit of a red herring. Sad to say that, if you are a local council and you want a listed building or part of one removed, destroyed or altered, then in the end you generally will get your way. All across England there are examples of listed buildings that are 'inconvenient' for developers which end up being destroyed no matter what their legal status - often with the complicity or the quite open assistance of the local council. There are examples of this in recent years in many of our cities and towns. If Khan, as the elected leader, wants the statue removed then I am not sure there is a reasonable moral objection and, even if there is a legal one, experience indicates it will not make much difference.
That's true actually (on the development point) - there's been great desecration of historic architecture in our major cities for the convenience of developers.
On schools the position is complicated but that really doesn't excuse the mess we are now in. My son's school breaks up for the summer in just over a week anyway but he has been getting 10-12 virtual classes a week with interaction with his teachers and the ability to ask questions. His maths teacher, who is very good, has been covering the syllabus "lightly". He has said that he wants to leave the more complicated stuff for next year when he can see their faces and see if they are actually getting it. It is a good example of the limitations of even the best virtual teaching. Most kids are not getting that. Kids are a very low risk group and so are most of their teachers. There seems to be either an inability to assess risk or a bizarrely extreme precautionary position. We need to stop this. We have to learn to live with this virus. We have to start doing so.
I gave a talk to 200 or so people on Saturday. The one thing that dawned on me more and more as I gave it was that I had no means gauging if I was pitching at the right level and whether they had grasped a point before I moved on to the next point.
I've done the same on zoom for talks on insolvency and employment. It is discombobulating to have no feedback from your screen, no indication as to whether or not my witticisms are appreciated and no idea whether a point could usefully be expanded or not. One thing that my Chambers has done is to restrict each talk to about 15 minutes with 4 speakers in the hour just to break things up a bit. I think peoples' attention span is inevitably much shorter with a screen than it is in person. It must be a real challenge to teachers with 40 minute periods.
I have worked with remote teams for years. If you follow up one on one, it's fine: did you get the information you need, are on board with it, do you have any ideas we can take forward? In fact you end up with more clarity than relying on vibes and ad hoc remarks. The efficiency of no travel compensates for the inefficiency of the extra meetings.
But I can see that doesn't work in a school environment.
I think that there is a big difference between instructing a team and giving a class. The team has something specific and concrete to focus on, they are looking for individual instructions to carry out. The class, whether of lawyers so bored with WFH that they will listen to my wittering or school kids distracted by other devices in their rooms it is very different. To use your analogy I have been doing consultations with clients and solicitors online as well. They work well because there is much more interactivity. Indeed I suspect that after this many more consultations will take place by video link than people trailing to meeting rooms. It is a little harder to be confident that the client has got the message but the trade off in time and cost is considerable.
I think follow-ups are useful in the educational environment too. So you record your longer talk, which attendees can view at a convenient time to them (efficient!) and you follow up with quick chats one on one to find out if they have questions or there was something they didn't fully understand. The problem I see is practical. If you are giving that talk to 20+ people, that's a huge number of follow-ups.
Black Lives Matter are the equivalent of Mugabe's ZANU PF in Rhodesia; Marxist/Communists who use race as a tool to get extreme left ideas into the mainstream.
Photos of pro segregationists in the South in the 1960s show them with "race mixing = Communism" placards so certainly this accusation has been made whenever racism is challenged through direct action. If anti communists want to make sure that communists don't exploit anti racism protests, then perhaps they should ask why the communists are on the side of anti racism and they're not?
Because communists know that it is a great tactic to sneak their ideas in without people noticing. Who supplied Mugabes men with ammo in Rhodesia?
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
It was the leave campaign that brought identity politics into mainstream. What's happening now is just a natural consequence.
I will be very surprised yet delighted if it leads to the destruction of capitalism.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
Same BS argument made by Mr Meeks at trying to reject Brexit because of extreme racists associated with it.
Just because some people are extreme doesn't make a cause wrong.
What had the overthrow of capitalism, destruction of the police force and nuclear family got to do with a Black Lives?
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
This is the same argument the segregationists made in America in the 50s and 60s. That the civil rights movement was a covert front for communism.
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
Wow, that is a reach. So you're saying black people in the UK have no say in democracy?
The sudden destruction or removal of statues and monuments generally happens when a nation has suffered defeat in war or been overturned by a revolution.
For this to happen in a few days either directly due to the actions of a mob or out of fear of them is disquieting because it betokens that kind of top-to-bottom upheaval.
In an democracy, the memorials of history don't just get destroyed or removed without the slightest hint of due process or democratic consent. I own a listed building, and I can't change the roof tiles without due process - but Khan gets to rip a Grade I-listed statue off its foundations by fiat? Rioters get to destroy a Grade-II listed statue because their feelings were hurt? No, that's not how it works in a civilized country.
So after days of PB Tory pearl-clutching about a statue being torn down by a mob, and oh, why didn't they get it taken down legally and legitimately, now a statue is taken down legally by the mayor of London, and, surprise surprise, the goalposts move.
It's illegal to move a Grade-I listed monument without gaining listed building consent first. Which part of that do you not understand?
If the monument is the bit that is listed.. As I've already shown it is the warehouses that are listed not the statue.
If the statue is within the curtilage of a listed building - which it most certainly was - then it will be protected by the listing as well. That's standard in conservation law.
If there's any doubt at all about the matter, the local conservation officers need to be consulted to adjudicate as to what the relationship between the statue and the listed building is (the fact that the statue wasn't there at the time of listing does not prevent it being protected by the listed once it is in place).
I'd be very surprised if Khan followed due process and got all that done within the space of a few days.
(5)In this Act “listed building” means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a)any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b)any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before lst July 1948,
LOL nevermind! What squirrel will he point to next?
My actual objection to the removal - that historical monuments should not be removed for the sake of transient political advantage or pressure from a mob, both of which apply to Khan's action here.
Both objections are arguments against democracy.
There is nothing new to statues coming down. Nothing whatsoever. People are acting hysterically like some horrendous rubicon is being crossed, like Pandora's Box is being opened.
Statues have always come down as well as gone up. They will continue to do so.
For democracy to work you need to give the electorate some prior notice of what you're going to do in office. Leaving the EU after winning an election on that basis is perfectly democratic, to do so without having campaigned on it in advance would be monstrous. Ditto the removal of the common historic fabric of this country without giving the electorate a prior indication of that policy.
No you don't. You categorically do not have to do so.
Elected politicians make decisions all the freaking time. Did Boris Johnson have to announce the furlough scheme before the election? Did he have to announce lockdown before the election?
In representative democracy we elect people we trust to make decisions within their authority. That may include their manifesto, or it may include other actions. That power to make decisions is delegated to them by virtue of their office.
The "common historic fabric" of this country isn't being removed. A statue is becoming part of history itself.
Of course elected politicians have some leeway to act on their own judgement, but that leeway is not unlimited, and especially for optional actions such as the removal of historic monuments it would be best practice for Khan to have explicitly promised 'I will remove public monuments if politically expedient to do so', so that at least the electorate would know where he stood on the issue in general.
Yours parallels with the furlough scheme and lockdown are pretty poor, because those are clear emergency actions, whereas there is no such thing as an emergency statue removal. A statue is, by its very nature, not going anywhere
The leeway is pretty unlimited. Best practice is to list your key priorities, not every single action you may do. Public monuments have been moved entirely regularly, I wonder if there's a single long serving Mayor or Prime Minister who hasn't seen public monuments be moved so why on Earth should Khan list that as a priority in his manifesto?
He's put back into storage a statue that spent the majority of the postwar era in storage.
PS There is such a thing as emergency statute removal, when a mob is potentially going to pull down a statue it can be an emergency. Interestingly in Derby yesterday those who want to keep a black man's head pub sign chose to pull it down themselves before others might do so: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-52976741
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
It's more a comment on the incompetence of yet another left-wing Labour council.
There were no excuses. They had a large majority and a Labour Mayor.
Labour being incompetent is hardly news is it?
I think the role and influence of the Merchant Venturers In Bristol needs investigating and made public. They appear to have the ability to influence wide swathes of Civic and business life in bristol and it’s surrounds. I would not be surprised to find out they wield more influence than the council.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
Same BS argument made by Mr Meeks at trying to reject Brexit because of extreme racists associated with it.
Just because some people are extreme doesn't make a cause wrong.
What had the overthrow of capitalism, destruction of the police force and nuclear family got to do with a Black Lives?
I don't see either the overthrow of capitalism, nor destruction of the Police force listed in the quote.
Regarding "the nuclear family requirement", supporting extended families and non-nuclear options is very relevant to black lives since many black families are not nuclear families.
The nuclear family is a good thing in my opinion, but it shouldn't be required or considered the only true family.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
This is the same argument the segregationists made in America in the 50s and 60s. That the civil rights movement was a covert front for communism.
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
Wow, that is a reach. So you're saying black people in the UK have no say in democracy?
Of course not. I'm pointing out the history of the 'trojan horse' argument when it comes to black progressive causes.
Go and read copies of National Review from the 1960s and you'll see similar themes between the way conservative voices reacted then and now to the BLM movement.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
This is the same argument the segregationists made in America in the 50s and 60s. That the civil rights movement was a covert front for communism.
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
Wow, that is a reach. So you're saying black people in the UK have no say in democracy?
Of course not. I'm pointing out the history of the 'trojan horse' argument when it comes to black progressive causes.
Go and read copies of National Review from the 1960s and you'll see similar themes between the way conservative voices reacted then and now to the BLM movement.
My argument is that it is not progressive to oppose capitalism and destroy freedom of expression. But you cannot compare the situation to apartheid or Jim Crow, by law in the UK in 2020 people of all colours have the same rights even if on an individual basis they do not always have the same economic opportunities.
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
They've been trying to since 2012 - one side continually vetoing what the other half wanted on the second plague.
Which means they have had at least 2 elections to make this an election issue in the democratic process.
Did they?
I think a further question is around the wording of the plaque proposed. The Council seem to have agreed to it, then gone back on the agreement when the Mayor found out.
Since it is the Council who hold the whip hand, and no sign of eg civil legal action to overrule them, the history seems peculiar.
India proved a noble prospect for Scots on the make. So much so, in fact, that as early as 1750 almost 40 per cent of the writers — or clerks — working for the company in Bengal were Scots. Thirty years later the proportion of Scots had risen to nearly half; this at a time when Scotland’s population was barely a sixth of England’s. Half of the East India Company’s regiments were raised in Scotland. There was no English Empire; it was a British enterprise and often a brutal and sinful one.
The Scots are more British than the English when it comes to leading the Empire. Sorry Nats, much as nationalists all round the world like to burn books and rewrite history, you cannot cover that fact up. The Scots loved to expand empire.
You are absolutely right. Scots of all classes enthusiastically took part in the plunder and brought the money home. It is a part of our history we need to talk about and deal with. I can see this may lead to statue toppling and street renaming in the process Alistair so eloquently describes in the header. The first step in dealing with a problem is to admit you have one, and Scotland as a nation needs to do this just as Bristol does. Glasgow, as a west coast port where sugar and tobacco and rum were landed, has just as big a problem. Doubtless there will be many there who want to brush it under the carpet just as in Bristol.
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
It's more a comment on the incompetence of yet another left-wing Labour council.
There were no excuses. They had a large majority and a Labour Mayor.
Labour being incompetent is hardly news is it?
I think the role and influence of the Merchant Venturers In Bristol needs investigating and made public. They appear to have the ability to influence wide swathes of Civic and business life in bristol and it’s surrounds. I would not be surprised to find out they wield more influence than the council.
Black Lives Matter are the equivalent of Mugabe's ZANU PF in Rhodesia; Marxist/Communists who use race as a tool to get extreme left ideas into the mainstream.
Photos of pro segregationists in the South in the 1960s show them with "race mixing = Communism" placards so certainly this accusation has been made whenever racism is challenged through direct action. If anti communists want to make sure that communists don't exploit anti racism protests, then perhaps they should ask why the communists are on the side of anti racism and they're not?
In the polling I posted almost 50% of Americans though that the Communists were responsible for the civil rights movement.
I am not angry at all. In fact I am absolutely loving lockdown. I get to work from home with my family around me and have several acres of flower meadow and woodland of my own to wander through. To be honest from a purely personal point of view I would like lockdown to go on permanently. I am genuinely enjoying pricking the pompous idiocy of those who think any of these UK demonstrations are really about making things better for ethnic minorities.
It's curious though that the BAME people I know seem pretty enthused and positive about them. And these are middle-aged parents and government workers, not a bunch of Student Grants.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
The lingo might be a bit offputting to some so a translation is, I think, useful -
We create places where Black women can live free of the shit they usually have to put up. We treat everybody good and try to learn from each other. We allow women to work by providing an environment where their kids are safe - e.g. child-care in the community so they don't have to rely on a bloke. We are blind to sexuality. Gay, straight, neither, it's all the same to us.
Incidentally for those complaining about ulterior motives of BLM please stop and pause for a second and think about Rotherham.
In Rotherham because of who was raising concerns and their perceived ulterior motives, the legitimate concerns about grooming and rape were ignored for years leading to avoidable harm to many victims of it.
Do you support what happened in Rotherham?
If not, pause for a second and think are you sure you want to repeat the same with BLM. If BLM have both legitimate grievances and ulterior motives (allegedly) or the people behind it do, the solution is not to ignore them and wish it all away. The solution is not to worry about a slippery slope and "where does it stop".
The solution has to be to deal with the legitimate grievances, while fighting any illegitimate ones. That may be harder to do, but its the right thing to do.
Incidentally for those complaining about ulterior motives of BLM please stop and pause for a second and think about Rotherham.
In Rotherham because of who was raising concerns and their perceived ulterior motives, the legitimate concerns about grooming and rape were ignored for years leading to avoidable harm to many victims of it.
Do you support what happened in Rotherham?
If not, pause for a second and think are you sure you want to repeat the same with BLM. If BLM have both legitimate grievances and ulterior motives (allegedly) or the people behind it do, the solution is not to ignore them and wish it all away. The solution is not to worry about a slippery slope and "where does it stop".
The solution has to be to deal with the legitimate grievances, while fighting any illegitimate ones. That may be harder to do, but its the right thing to do.
You've literally flipped the actual argument on its head. The police didn't bother looking into what happened in Rotherham because of fears of political correctness. If you don't question an organisation and they become untouchable then bad things can slip through the cracks. Nothing should be beyond being held to account. If you want to shut down any critisism of BLM then be prepared to allow skeletons to remain in the closets.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
This is the same argument the segregationists made in America in the 50s and 60s. That the civil rights movement was a covert front for communism.
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
Wow, that is a reach. So you're saying black people in the UK have no say in democracy?
Of course not. I'm pointing out the history of the 'trojan horse' argument when it comes to black progressive causes.
Go and read copies of National Review from the 1960s and you'll see similar themes between the way conservative voices reacted then and now to the BLM movement.
My argument is that it is not progressive to oppose capitalism and destroy freedom of expression. But you cannot compare the situation to apartheid or Jim Crow, by law in the UK in 2020 people of all colours have the same rights even if on an individual basis they do not always have the same economic opportunities.
We never need to rest on our laurels.
In Jim Crow days people like you of that day could say the same and say that the situation then was not comparable to Dred Scott days.
In the future no doubt things we take for granted OK will be considered in the wrong then. They should be fixed then if so.
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
The lingo might be a bit offputting to some so a translation is, I think, useful -
We create places where Black women can live free of the shit they usually have to put up. We treat everybody good and try to learn from each other. We allow women to work by providing an environment where their kids are safe - e.g. child-care in the community so they don't have to rely on a bloke. We are blind to sexuality. Gay, straight, neither, it's all the same to us.
India proved a noble prospect for Scots on the make. So much so, in fact, that as early as 1750 almost 40 per cent of the writers — or clerks — working for the company in Bengal were Scots. Thirty years later the proportion of Scots had risen to nearly half; this at a time when Scotland’s population was barely a sixth of England’s. Half of the East India Company’s regiments were raised in Scotland. There was no English Empire; it was a British enterprise and often a brutal and sinful one.
The Scots are more British than the English when it comes to leading the Empire. Sorry Nats, much as nationalists all round the world like to burn books and rewrite history, you cannot cover that fact up. The Scots loved to expand empire.
You are absolutely right. Scots of all classes enthusiastically took part in the plunder and brought the money home. It is a part of our history we need to talk about and deal with. I can see this may lead to statue toppling and street renaming in the process Alistair so eloquently describes in the header. The first step in dealing with a problem is to admit you have one, and Scotland as a nation needs to do this just as Bristol does. Glasgow, as a west coast port where sugar and tobacco and rum were landed, has just as big a problem. Doubtless there will be many there who want to brush it under the carpet just as in Bristol.
And we (or at least I) can admire their enterprise, their wish to better themselves and provide a better life for their families, and their dauntless adventurous spirit, at the same time as recognising that much of their enrichment came from the oppression of those weaker than them.
It seems odd that many here who rail against identity politics and culture wars spend much of their commentary indulging in identity politics and culture wars.
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
Welcome to the Year Zero Revolution, comrade. I know my uncompromising blueness rubs many - even Tories! - the wrong way, but I hope things like this at least help some on my side to understand my policy of never, ever, ever giving the Left a win if it can possibly be helped.
Because if you give them a statue, they take the country.
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
Imagine trying to remove arguably the most famous film of all time from the audience. Ludicrous cultural vandalism that doesn't let grown ups decide what they can and cannot watch.
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
I mentioned last night that Dumbo already has a warning. That's what HBO should do with Gone with the Wind. The following description appears when you select Dumbo on DisneyPlus and its quite appropriate:
"The inspiration tale of the courageous baby elephant, who - with the help of clever friend Timothy Q. Mouse - uses his sensational ears to soar to fame. The program is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions."
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
"Frankly my dear, I don't give a d*mn"
Would you advocate putting up re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" because it displays the race humour prevalent in the 1970s and therefore should stand as representative of its time? What about Alf Garnet who was considered by many to be beyond the pale when it was broadcast in the 60s and 70s?
Sometimes things outlive their era. Besides, Hollywood will remake it, they always do.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
This is the same argument the segregationists made in America in the 50s and 60s. That the civil rights movement was a covert front for communism.
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
Wow, that is a reach. So you're saying black people in the UK have no say in democracy?
Of course not. I'm pointing out the history of the 'trojan horse' argument when it comes to black progressive causes.
Go and read copies of National Review from the 1960s and you'll see similar themes between the way conservative voices reacted then and now to the BLM movement.
My argument is that it is not progressive to oppose capitalism and destroy freedom of expression. But you cannot compare the situation to apartheid or Jim Crow, by law in the UK in 2020 people of all colours have the same rights even if on an individual basis they do not always have the same economic opportunities.
We never need to rest on our laurels.
In Jim Crow days people like you of that day could say the same and say that the situation then was not comparable to Dred Scott days.
In the future no doubt things we take for granted OK will be considered in the wrong then. They should be fixed then if so.
With all due respect 'people like you' dont seem very intelligent. If you think you can just transfer today's situation to a different era and think it's exactly the same. The times have changed and 'people like you' who try and close down dissent will always be on the wrong side of history.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
This is the same argument the segregationists made in America in the 50s and 60s. That the civil rights movement was a covert front for communism.
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
Wow, that is a reach. So you're saying black people in the UK have no say in democracy?
Of course not. I'm pointing out the history of the 'trojan horse' argument when it comes to black progressive causes.
Go and read copies of National Review from the 1960s and you'll see similar themes between the way conservative voices reacted then and now to the BLM movement.
My argument is that it is not progressive to oppose capitalism and destroy freedom of expression. But you cannot compare the situation to apartheid or Jim Crow, by law in the UK in 2020 people of all colours have the same rights even if on an individual basis they do not always have the same economic opportunities.
We never need to rest on our laurels.
In Jim Crow days people like you of that day could say the same and say that the situation then was not comparable to Dred Scott days.
In the future no doubt things we take for granted OK will be considered in the wrong then. They should be fixed then if so.
With all due respect 'people like you' dont seem very intelligent. If you think you can just transfer today's situation to a different era and think it's exactly the same. The times have changed and 'people like you' who try and close down dissent will always be on the wrong side of history.
I'm not trying to transfer today's situation to a different era, I'm talking about what we do today in today's era.
Who we have on our plinths today is a matter of judgement for today. Not a different era.
Incidentally for those complaining about ulterior motives of BLM please stop and pause for a second and think about Rotherham.
In Rotherham because of who was raising concerns and their perceived ulterior motives, the legitimate concerns about grooming and rape were ignored for years leading to avoidable harm to many victims of it.
Do you support what happened in Rotherham?
If not, pause for a second and think are you sure you want to repeat the same with BLM. If BLM have both legitimate grievances and ulterior motives (allegedly) or the people behind it do, the solution is not to ignore them and wish it all away. The solution is not to worry about a slippery slope and "where does it stop".
The solution has to be to deal with the legitimate grievances, while fighting any illegitimate ones. That may be harder to do, but its the right thing to do.
Once again I find myself in agreement with Philip Thompson. I shall have to reconsider my stance on Brexit at this rate
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
Soon there will be a local book burning pile in every city and people knocking on doors asking for books that don't conform so they can be burned.
Oh @Casino_Royale you've misread the article, Disney have not said they're reviewing Dumbo. They've already reviewed it and put that disclaimer in its description before you watch it. Just as HBO have said they'll do when they put back Gone With The Wind back on their platform. So HBO are proposing to do what Disney have done, have a few words then show the movie unaltered.
Disney OTOH as I said last night have put that disclaimer on Dumbo and a few other comparable movies, but don't have Song of the South available on their platform. I doubt they ever will again. My school in the 80s played that, but it wouldn't be considered acceptable today.
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
"Frankly my dear, I don't give a d*mn"
Would you advocate putting up re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" because it displays the race humour prevalent in the 1970s and therefore should stand as representative of its time? What about Alf Garnet who was considered by many to be beyond the pale when it was broadcast in the 60s and 70s?
Sometimes things outlive their era. Besides, Hollywood will remake it, they always do.
Their is a bit of a class thing too. More high-brow entertainment is likely to get a pass than low-brow things. Personally I'm a liberal and think people should be allowed to make up their own minds about these things.
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
This is the same argument the segregationists made in America in the 50s and 60s. That the civil rights movement was a covert front for communism.
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
Wow, that is a reach. So you're saying black people in the UK have no say in democracy?
Of course not. I'm pointing out the history of the 'trojan horse' argument when it comes to black progressive causes.
Go and read copies of National Review from the 1960s and you'll see similar themes between the way conservative voices reacted then and now to the BLM movement.
My argument is that it is not progressive to oppose capitalism and destroy freedom of expression. But you cannot compare the situation to apartheid or Jim Crow, by law in the UK in 2020 people of all colours have the same rights even if on an individual basis they do not always have the same economic opportunities.
We never need to rest on our laurels.
In Jim Crow days people like you of that day could say the same and say that the situation then was not comparable to Dred Scott days.
In the future no doubt things we take for granted OK will be considered in the wrong then. They should be fixed then if so.
With all due respect 'people like you' dont seem very intelligent. If you think you can just transfer today's situation to a different era and think it's exactly the same. The times have changed and 'people like you' who try and close down dissent will always be on the wrong side of history.
I'm not trying to transfer today's situation to a different era, I'm talking about what we do today in today's era.
Who we have on our plinths today is a matter of judgement for today. Not a different era.
You literally did transfer it to a different era. It was a ridiculous argument. It's a crap way of shutting down debate by suggesting if you don't go along with throwing statues in rivers or banning TV shows then you're on the wrong side of history. If you want a lazy historical analogy of your own to chomp on you could argue your attitude was exactly what swept the Nazis to power.
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
Self-censorship is so dangerous because it's so much harder to fight against.
That's a really interesting, powerful article by Alastair and some very interesting ripostes on the thread from Cyclefree, Casino and others. I've never given statues any real thought and I feel that both sides of the argument have enriched my understanding.
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
The answer to the local authorities doing nothing is to vote in people who will, if it matters that much, do something. Not take direct action. Democracy matters. People in Bristol are not oppressed with no vote. Mob rule is not acceptable. So I think that part of Alastair’s argument is very weak indeed.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
Two things on this:
1) As I said in the piece, I think something went very wrong that it came to this. Action should have been taken long ago.
2) Relying on democracy to sort this kind of problem out runs into exactly the same problem, interestingly, as relying on democracy to sort out problems with nationalised industries. Quite simply, not enough people see this as their top priority for the exercise of their vote, so the democratic accountability is illusory, leaving the decisions in practice left to an effectively unaccountable executive.
This was in fact neatly illustrated by Sadiq Khan’s decision to remove a statue yesterday. He could have done this last week, but didn’t. He acted opportunistically this week. The chances of it affecting his re-election prospects next year are minuscule.
We rely in practice on those in authority to make the right decisions for us. But what if, as in Bristol, they don’t?
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
Imagine trying to remove arguably the most famous film of all time from the audience. Ludicrous cultural vandalism that doesn't let grown ups decide what they can and cannot watch.
Except they're not trying to remove it, a commercial company has made a decision to temporarily delist something it offers. So other than that . . .
It said the film itself would return "as it was originally created", saying "to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed".
Very quick post: my wife has just come in furious about this - HBO have pulled Gone with the Wind.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
"Frankly my dear, I don't give a d*mn"
Would you advocate putting up re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" because it displays the race humour prevalent in the 1970s and therefore should stand as representative of its time? What about Alf Garnet who was considered by many to be beyond the pale when it was broadcast in the 60s and 70s?
Sometimes things outlive their era. Besides, Hollywood will remake it, they always do.
I've constantly seen "Love thy neighbour" referenced in these sorts of discussions so I thought I'd watch the pilot on youtube. The show, so far as I can tell has Eddie as the main character we're laughing at with his stuck in his ways racist attitude toward his new Tory neighbour Bill.......
"We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
I suppose the message 'black lives matter' however the group 'black lives matter' should be separated from the message as clearly they're a load of nutjobs.
Focussing on colour in order get other ideas through the back door is a great tactic
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
Agreed, as far as I'm concerned there is a big fucking BLM trojan horse being sent in to disrupt society, sow division, introduce identity politics to the UK and destroy capitalism. The black rights angle just acts as a cover and makes them largely untouchable with huge swathes of the media.
This is the same argument the segregationists made in America in the 50s and 60s. That the civil rights movement was a covert front for communism.
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
Wow, that is a reach. So you're saying black people in the UK have no say in democracy?
Of course not. I'm pointing out the history of the 'trojan horse' argument when it comes to black progressive causes.
Go and read copies of National Review from the 1960s and you'll see similar themes between the way conservative voices reacted then and now to the BLM movement.
My argument is that it is not progressive to oppose capitalism and destroy freedom of expression. But you cannot compare the situation to apartheid or Jim Crow, by law in the UK in 2020 people of all colours have the same rights even if on an individual basis they do not always have the same economic opportunities.
We never need to rest on our laurels.
In Jim Crow days people like you of that day could say the same and say that the situation then was not comparable to Dred Scott days.
In the future no doubt things we take for granted OK will be considered in the wrong then. They should be fixed then if so.
With all due respect 'people like you' dont seem very intelligent. If you think you can just transfer today's situation to a different era and think it's exactly the same. The times have changed and 'people like you' who try and close down dissent will always be on the wrong side of history.
I'm not trying to transfer today's situation to a different era, I'm talking about what we do today in today's era.
Who we have on our plinths today is a matter of judgement for today. Not a different era.
You literally did transfer it to a different era. It was a ridiculous argument. It's a crap way of shutting down debate by suggesting if you don't go along with throwing statues in rivers or banning TV shows then you're on the wrong side of history. If you want a lazy historical analogy of your own to chomp on you could argue your attitude was exactly what swept the Nazis to power.
No I didn't, you made that leap.
There are always differences between eras, that was my point. You claimed that today was not the same as apartheid or Jim Crow as if that matters. Jim Crow wasn't the same as Dred Scott. The past is not the present. The present is not the future.
We need to decide what we think is right or wrong for today, not for the past.
It seems odd that many here who rail against identity politics and culture wars spend much of their commentary indulging in identity politics and culture wars.
Or asserting that their identity is so core to them that it must be preserved unsullied.
So the "Global Britain" that we were assured was coming down the track dislikes Europeans, cannot cope with BLM and has a near-lunatic for their "best ally".
Comments
Boris has lost it through Cummings and covid and I doubt he will regain it
My view FWIW is that it's appropriate and interesting to keep past monuments in museums with appropriate discussions, while public monuments outside museums should reflect current understanding (and yes, Bristol Council's failure to bother with the issue is pathetic).
I'm on the law-abiding end of the spectrum rather than a natural insurgent, so direct action is normally alien to me. But Alistair makes a strong case that the opponents of the statue could reasonably say that they had raised the issue over many years and run into "indifferent agreement" - not that the authorities said that the statue was a good idea, but that they promised to take action (by at least changing the notice) and then did nothing.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
There is no application for Listed Building Consent on the Tower Hamlets website, which is where it would need to be.
There is a 21 day statutory public consultation period, regardless of the time taken for admin process.
The law which applies is the Planning Act 1990:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/9/contents
But I can see that doesn't work in a school environment.
There is nothing new to statues coming down. Nothing whatsoever. People are acting hysterically like some horrendous rubicon is being crossed, like Pandora's Box is being opened.
Statues have always come down as well as gone up. They will continue to do so.
I do not understand why the Council simply did not put up a plaque explaining who Colston was and how he made his money and why they allowed themselves to be stymied in this way.
I must say there is something amusing about Litttle Britain and League of Gentlemen being 'cancelled'. The middle class white men behind the shows pride themselves as being right-on Liberals, only to find in the eyes of the middle class hard left they're daft old racists.
Elected politicians make decisions all the freaking time. Did Boris Johnson have to announce the furlough scheme before the election? Did he have to announce lockdown before the election?
In representative democracy we elect people we trust to make decisions within their authority. That may include their manifesto, or it may include other actions. That power to make decisions is delegated to them by virtue of their office.
The "common historic fabric" of this country isn't being removed. A statue is becoming part of history itself.
"Differentiation by color, where it exists, is an enormously important factor in this context, effective in a number of ways which all operate in the same direction. It is, first, a permanent and involuntary uniform, which performs all and more of the functions of a uniform in warfare, distinguishing one side from the other, friend from foe, and making it possible to see at a glance what is happening, where to render assistance, and where to attack. This is why those who have sought to organize the domination of a majority by a minority have commonly, where possible, used insignia and means of mutual recognition to increase the potency of small numbers..." 1/2
To use your analogy I have been doing consultations with clients and solicitors online as well. They work well because there is much more interactivity. Indeed I suspect that after this many more consultations will take place by video link than people trailing to meeting rooms. It is a little harder to be confident that the client has got the message but the trade off in time and cost is considerable.
Rosa Parks should have waited until democracy worked?
Martin Luther King should have waited until democracy worked?
Civil disorder has existed for as long as society has. When people aren't listened to by the majority, even in a democracy, people can act. That can have legal consequences, but if people are prepared to risk that then the majority need to either become more totalitarian to quash dissent - or listen to the minority taking direct action.
We have a proud history of rejecting totalitarianism. I hope that continues.
Just because some people are extreme doesn't make a cause wrong.
Yours parallels with the furlough scheme and lockdown are pretty poor, because those are clear emergency actions, whereas there is no such thing as an emergency statue removal. A statue is, by its very nature, not going anywhere
Personally I would have voted the other way. Which is why I don't have an issue with Khan doing what he is doing in London. But mob rule and destruction is not the way it should be done. And certainly not under the guise of the BLM movement (I disagree with isam on the nature of that movement)
Did they?
It's also the same argument defenders of the South African Apartheid regime made in the 80s. That giving black the votes would unleash Soviet style communism on the country.
Below are some key points I gleaned from interviews and websites in case anyone else is as baffled as I am:
- They believe that "blacks lives are being sytematically targeted for demise"
- They are extreme collectivists, believing in a "global black family". They aim to "connect black people from all over the world".
- They oppose stop and search
- Want an end to the detention of illegal imigrants
- Demand that illegal immigrants are de-criminalised and welcomed instead
- oppose any disincentives designed to control immigration numbers
- They believe that immigrants are fleeing conflicts, economic disadvantage and climate change (cough)
- oppose the "surveillance of muslim students". (Presumably they mean ceasing terrorism intelligence activities.)
- oppose the "gangs matrix". (This a database of suspected gang members.)
All this, in their minds, justifies the law breaking and vandalism. Comments?
Then they came for the comedians,
And then they came for the commentators.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1270646971083169799
Or is deposing Boris a proxy for getting rid of Cummings?
There were no excuses. They had a large majority and a Labour Mayor.
Unstable nuclear families - or broken families, with absent fathers - is one of the biggest things holding back disadvantaged black youths.
Even David Lammy wrote movingly on this.
I will be very surprised yet delighted if it leads to the destruction of capitalism.
Play nicely everyone.
He's put back into storage a statue that spent the majority of the postwar era in storage.
PS There is such a thing as emergency statute removal, when a mob is potentially going to pull down a statue it can be an emergency. Interestingly in Derby yesterday those who want to keep a black man's head pub sign chose to pull it down themselves before others might do so: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-52976741
Regarding "the nuclear family requirement", supporting extended families and non-nuclear options is very relevant to black lives since many black families are not nuclear families.
The nuclear family is a good thing in my opinion, but it shouldn't be required or considered the only true family.
Go and read copies of National Review from the 1960s and you'll see similar themes between the way conservative voices reacted then and now to the BLM movement.
Since it is the Council who hold the whip hand, and no sign of eg civil legal action to overrule them, the history seems peculiar.
https://www.merchantventurers.com/who-we-are/members/
Perhaps a bit more listening is called for?
We create places where Black women can live free of the shit they usually have to put up. We treat everybody good and try to learn from each other. We allow women to work by providing an environment where their kids are safe - e.g. child-care in the community so they don't have to rely on a bloke. We are blind to sexuality. Gay, straight, neither, it's all the same to us.
In Rotherham because of who was raising concerns and their perceived ulterior motives, the legitimate concerns about grooming and rape were ignored for years leading to avoidable harm to many victims of it.
Do you support what happened in Rotherham?
If not, pause for a second and think are you sure you want to repeat the same with BLM. If BLM have both legitimate grievances and ulterior motives (allegedly) or the people behind it do, the solution is not to ignore them and wish it all away. The solution is not to worry about a slippery slope and "where does it stop".
The solution has to be to deal with the legitimate grievances, while fighting any illegitimate ones. That may be harder to do, but its the right thing to do.
In Jim Crow days people like you of that day could say the same and say that the situation then was not comparable to Dred Scott days.
In the future no doubt things we take for granted OK will be considered in the wrong then. They should be fixed then if so.
They've said it: "glorifies the antebellum south" and (perpetuates) "painful stereotypes of people of colour", although they claim they will restore it at some point in the future with a warning. Let's see if they do.
The BBC article goes on to say that Disney are reviewing Dumbo. I'm not making this up:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52990714
This madness won't end. It's not just statues: it's music, art, films, show, words.. culture. Anything that might not sit well now with the professionally offended and the leading-edge norms of today, policed by an extremely nervous media politik.
Because if you give them a statue, they take the country.
"The inspiration tale of the courageous baby elephant, who - with the help of clever friend Timothy Q. Mouse - uses his sensational ears to soar to fame. The program is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions."
Would you advocate putting up re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" because it displays the race humour prevalent in the 1970s and therefore should stand as representative of its time? What about Alf Garnet who was considered by many to be beyond the pale when it was broadcast in the 60s and 70s?
Sometimes things outlive their era. Besides, Hollywood will remake it, they always do.
Who we have on our plinths today is a matter of judgement for today. Not a different era.
Disney OTOH as I said last night have put that disclaimer on Dumbo and a few other comparable movies, but don't have Song of the South available on their platform. I doubt they ever will again. My school in the 80s played that, but it wouldn't be considered acceptable today.
You are a worker bee, not the Queen....
Perhaps that's why it's happened.
1) As I said in the piece, I think something went very wrong that it came to this. Action should have been taken long ago.
2) Relying on democracy to sort this kind of problem out runs into exactly the same problem, interestingly, as relying on democracy to sort out problems with nationalised industries. Quite simply, not enough people see this as their top priority for the exercise of their vote, so the democratic accountability is illusory, leaving the decisions in practice left to an effectively unaccountable executive.
This was in fact neatly illustrated by Sadiq Khan’s decision to remove a statue yesterday. He could have done this last week, but didn’t. He acted opportunistically this week. The chances of it affecting his re-election prospects next year are minuscule.
We rely in practice on those in authority to make the right decisions for us. But what if, as in Bristol, they don’t?
It said the film itself would return "as it was originally created", saying "to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed".
Classic Dom...
There are always differences between eras, that was my point. You claimed that today was not the same as apartheid or Jim Crow as if that matters. Jim Crow wasn't the same as Dred Scott. The past is not the present. The present is not the future.
We need to decide what we think is right or wrong for today, not for the past.
So the "Global Britain" that we were assured was coming down the track dislikes Europeans, cannot cope with BLM and has a near-lunatic for their "best ally".