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.
I think that's the wrong question - they are an organisation of business people and need to be representative of the business community in Bristol not the populus. And I question whether a crude evaluation by skin colour from photographs of a subset of members is acceptable; isn't that what racists do?
The thing only has 70 members so it's not exactly difficult to do it properly.
I think you'll also find that the "womens' organisations" in Bristol are not representative of the men.
One of the more interesting processes that has been happening has been the updating of the SMV.
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.
Till Death Do Us Part is an interesting one. The author, Johnny Speight intended it as a parody and was horrified when he perceived people were not only taking the principal character seriously but found him sympathetic and sided with him. I think the actor Warren Mitchell, who played Garnet, was similarly concerned, as was the actress Dandy Nicholls who played his long-suffering wife.
As an Eastender myself (though Hackney rather than Newham) I found the character utterly recognisable and had no doubt that many other Eastenders would have read the character straight and been rooting for him.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there
You have put your finger on it. That's exactly why, as a general rule, they should stay.
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.
Continually? AIUI there was a proposal from the council (which mentioned he was a Tory MP) there was a counter proposal from the Merchant Venturers trust which while still talking about slavery put a more positive gloss on it. The Mayor vetoed that and had not come back with an alternative. There appears to have been little energy behind fixing it.
Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.
Much like Boris and his government.
Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
The Coliseum didn't do anything, it's just a building.
Can you genuinely not see a difference between a building where something evil happened and a statue glorifying someone who actually did those evil things?
The whole of Rome's tourist trade is based on the persecution, torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of people.
How many people have died to promote Christianity? Should all churches and statues of Jesus be torn down.
How many catholics were killed at the hand of Elizabeth I . Should her statue be torn down and her tomb removed?
Keep pursuing this line. You don't sound like a twat.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
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?
I agree with you about the general principle of issues getting lost in the democratic process but isn't it the case that in Bristol there was a specific vote on this issue rather than it just being tied up in elections for councillors? As such the argument that this was not a specific issue, addressed by the democratic process, must surely fail.
As I said earlier personally I would have voted for the thing to be removed (and shoved in a museum somewhere) but given that I would have been on the losing side I still would not have supported the direct action that we have just witnessed.
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.
Eh? Rotherham demolishes your argument, it doesn't support it. The police in Rotherham (and elsewhere) did not fail to investigate because of the ulterior motives of those bringing the crimes to their attention, they did so due to a culture of extreme political correctness that made it impossible to contemplate the widespread arrest of men from Muslim communities. Perpetrators knew this, and frequently warded off police intrusion into their activities by threatening racial discrimination tribunals. Police inaction itself, in my opinion, resulted in a massively bigger problem, as many more men found that they could gratify their worst instincts with no legal consequences.
The BLM protestors appear to be highlighting as a grievance the greater frequency of stopping, searching and/or arresting of black men by the police. If acted upon in a simplistic and tokenistic way (and what else do our public servants do?), it will result in the police once again deliberately failing to act on their suspicions because it would result in accusations of harassment, and make their statistics look bad. Once again, that could lead to immunity from arrest for some crimes for members of the black community, and once again, it would be likely to result in a rise in those crimes.
So there is a direct parallel, but it certainly isn't the one you're pushing.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
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.
Till Death Do Us Part is an interesting one. The author, Johnny Speight intended it as a parody and was horrified when he perceived people were not only taking the principal character seriously but found him sympathetic and sided with him. I think the actor Warren Mitchell, who played Garnet, was similarly concerned, as was the actress Dandy Nicholls who played his long-suffering wife.
As an Eastender myself (though Hackney rather than Newham) I found the character utterly recognisable and had no doubt that many other Eastenders would have read the character straight and been rooting for him.
I think the same applies with Al Murray's pub landlord. There are a few comedies that slip in some politically incorrect comedy under the cover of the real comedy supposedly being about the characters themselves. The Office and I'm Alan Partridge fall into this category.
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.
Not really understanding the outrage. And you are genuinely outraged, I can feel it, it's not some sort of reverse virtue-signalling.
So I'm hoping to be allowed to probe.
Are you worried about "where we draw the line" or about the drawing of any line at all?
To help answer, I would ask you to consider that -
On The Buses is never repeated. Neither is Love Thy Neighbour. The name of the dog - "N*gg*r" - in the Battle Of Britain film is now edited out. We get no opportunity these days to enjoy the Black & White Minstrels. Jim Davison is effectively banned from primetime TV. The late great Bernard Manning has been relegated to YouTube. There are warnings published for LOADS of works from the past that contain outmoded racist stereoptyes.
Are you unhappy with all the above and wish to see it reversed?
Or do you think this process of revisionism should simply STOP - right here and right NOW - because iyo the line has been drawn in exactly the right place?
Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there.
Much like Boris and his government.
Should the Coliseum in Rome be bulldozed?
The Coliseum didn't do anything, it's just a building.
Can you genuinely not see a difference between a building where something evil happened and a statue glorifying someone who actually did those evil things?
The whole of Rome's tourist trade is based on the persecution, torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of people.
How many people have died to promote Christianity? Should all churches and statues of Jesus be torn down.
How many catholics were killed at the hand of Elizabeth I . Should her statue be torn down and her tomb removed?
Keep pursuing this line. You don't sound like a twat.
What's the matter? I though BLM told us we should all be doing our best to acknowledge historical realities? How could that be twattish?
"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.
Oh if it's not in the quote they can't be wanting that then, sorry.
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.
Till Death Do Us Part is an interesting one. The author, Johnny Speight intended it as a parody and was horrified when he perceived people were not only taking the principal character seriously but found him sympathetic and sided with him. I think the actor Warren Mitchell, who played Garnet, was similarly concerned, as was the actress Dandy Nicholls who played his long-suffering wife.
As an Eastender myself (though Hackney rather than Newham) I found the character utterly recognisable and had no doubt that many other Eastenders would have read the character straight and been rooting for him.
Having grown up about as far away from the East End as you can get in the UK, I can say that I had family and friends who identified with Alf and thought he was hilarious. If I had been born 10 years earlier and brought up in that social milieu I might well have developed the same attitudes myself. Thankfully, that did not happen to me.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
People barely change their Brexit positions on this board - which begs the question
Why's the polling moving toward preventing an extension ? That's the hard question I'm asking as someone in favour of Andrex Brexit.
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.
Not really understanding the outrage. And you are genuinely outraged, I can feel it, it's not some sort of reverse virtue-signalling.
So I'm hoping to be allowed to probe.
Are you worried about "where we draw the line" or about the drawing of any line at all?
To help answer, I would ask you to consider that -
On The Buses is never repeated. Neither is Love Thy Neighbour. The name of the dog - "N*gg*r" - in the Battle Of Britain film is now edited out. We get no opportunity these days to enjoy the Black & White Minstrels. Jim Davison is effectively banned from primetime TV. The late great Bernard Manning has been relegated to YouTube. There are warnings published for LOADS of works from the past that contain outmoded racist stereoptyes.
Are you unhappy with all the above and wish to see it reversed?
Or do you think this process of revisionism should simply STOP - right here and right NOW - because iyo the line has been drawn in exactly the right place?
That's a fine post, although I do sympathise with Casino.
The one that really rubs my fur up the wrong way is the attempt to sanitise the works of Mark Twain, the most intelligent of anti-racists.
And as a matter of interest, just what do you do with a title like 'Nigger Of The Narcissus'?
PMQs -- I'll miss them but: 1) is Boris breathless?
2) even if he does not answer questions, does he deflect them in a way that suggests that he has at least understood them or is he just going off on pre-planned rants?
3) does increased barracking (if there is any) hinder rather than help Boris?
4) has CCHQ thought of having Boris's PS find the right page in the folder for him?
5) has Number 10 provided answers to obvious questions like BAME Covid excess deaths?
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.
Till Death Do Us Part is an interesting one. The author, Johnny Speight intended it as a parody and was horrified when he perceived people were not only taking the principal character seriously but found him sympathetic and sided with him. I think the actor Warren Mitchell, who played Garnet, was similarly concerned, as was the actress Dandy Nicholls who played his long-suffering wife.
As an Eastender myself (though Hackney rather than Newham) I found the character utterly recognisable and had no doubt that many other Eastenders would have read the character straight and been rooting for him.
It was blindingly obvious to anyone who watched it that the no-doubt intended satire of Empire Loyalist working class tories was failing in its aim - Alf was just too well played, his frustrations and self-delusions too well written to create anything other than sympathy and, from the most secret and dark parts of their minds, a public expression of their own opinions for millions of people.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
People barely change their Brexit positions on this board - which begs the question
Why's the polling moving toward preventing an extension ? That's the question I'm asking as someone in favour of andrex Brexit.
Because Leavers always have spare emotion and spare energy for hating the EU. The sheer irrationality of it is almost the point - it’s a demonstration of their Leaver purity.
Two months ago the site’s self-proclaimed moderate Leavers were all angrily telling me that it was outrageous to suggest that there wouldn’t be an extension. Today, yet again, they’ve self-radicalised and persuaded themselves that an extension would be a crime against Brexit. The chaos, pain and disruption is the point.
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.
Not really understanding the outrage. And you are genuinely outraged, I can feel it, it's not some sort of reverse virtue-signalling.
So I'm hoping to be allowed to probe.
Are you worried about "where we draw the line" or about the drawing of any line at all?
To help answer, I would ask you to consider that -
On The Buses is never repeated. Neither is Love Thy Neighbour. The name of the dog - "N*gg*r" - in the Battle Of Britain film is now edited out. We get no opportunity these days to enjoy the Black & White Minstrels. Jim Davison is effectively banned from primetime TV. The late great Bernard Manning has been relegated to YouTube. There are warnings published for LOADS of works from the past that contain outmoded racist stereoptyes.
Are you unhappy with all the above and wish to see it reversed?
Or do you think this process of revisionism should simply STOP - right here and right NOW - because iyo the line has been drawn in exactly the right place?
That's a fine post, although I do sympathise with Casino.
The one that really rubs my fur up the wrong way is the attempt to sanitise the works of Mark Twain, the most intelligent of anti-racists.
And as a matter of interest, just what do you do with a title like 'N... Of The Narcissus'?
Well I don't post it to pb because of its likely effect on "safe for work" web filters!
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.......
And?
Trust me, there are episodes of that show that, if broadcast today, would result in writs being issued.
People have been banned on here for using the "N" word - what about a show that constantly uses it?
Blazing Saddles was a movie about the triumph of BLM against outright bigotry, but I doubt it will be getting rebroadcast any time soon.
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.
Not really understanding the outrage. And you are genuinely outraged, I can feel it, it's not some sort of reverse virtue-signalling.
So I'm hoping to be allowed to probe.
Are you worried about "where we draw the line" or about the drawing of any line at all?
To help answer, I would ask you to consider that -
On The Buses is never repeated. Neither is Love Thy Neighbour. The name of the dog - "N*gg*r" - in the Battle Of Britain film is now edited out. We get no opportunity these days to enjoy the Black & White Minstrels. Jim Davison is effectively banned from primetime TV. The late great Bernard Manning has been relegated to YouTube. There are warnings published for LOADS of works from the past that contain outmoded racist stereoptyes.
Are you unhappy with all the above and wish to see it reversed?
Or do you think this process of revisionism should simply STOP - right here and right NOW - because iyo the line has been drawn in exactly the right place?
Just for accuracy the dog was from The Dambusters not BoB. :-)
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.
I think that's the wrong question - they are an organisation of business people and need to be representative of the business community in Bristol not the populus. And I question whether a crude evaluation by skin colour from photographs of a subset of members is acceptable; isn't that what racists do?
The thing only has 70 members so it's not exactly difficult to do it properly.
I think you'll also find that the "womens' organisations" in Bristol are not representative of the men.
One of the more interesting processes that has been happening has been the updating of the SMV.
I didn't make any comment, let alone evaluate by skin colour. You did that. But if these middle aged/elderly men are truly representative of the Bristol business community it does suggest that the Bristol business community is not very diverse. And I've looked at all 70.
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.
Till Death Do Us Part is an interesting one. The author, Johnny Speight intended it as a parody and was horrified when he perceived people were not only taking the principal character seriously but found him sympathetic and sided with him. I think the actor Warren Mitchell, who played Garnet, was similarly concerned, as was the actress Dandy Nicholls who played his long-suffering wife.
As an Eastender myself (though Hackney rather than Newham) I found the character utterly recognisable and had no doubt that many other Eastenders would have read the character straight and been rooting for him.
Having grown up about as far away from the East End as you can get in the UK, I can say that I had family and friends who identified with Alf and thought he was hilarious. If I had been born 10 years earlier and brought up in that social milieu I might well have developed the same attitudes myself. Thankfully, that did not happen to me.
Would you recommend it for rebroadcast nowadays?
Yes I would. It's an interesting period piece.
Do we not show Othello in case some side with Iago?
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
People barely change their Brexit positions on this board - which begs the question
Why's the polling moving toward preventing an extension ? That's the hard question I'm asking as someone in favour of Andrex Brexit.
Amongst Remainers I suspect there's a large element of: a non-extended crash-out will be a disaster, but we just have it thrown back in our faces when we say anything, so let Boris and the Leavers go ahead and suffer the consequences. A bit sulky perhaps, but a human reaction.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
People barely change their Brexit positions on this board - which begs the question
Why's the polling moving toward preventing an extension ? That's the hard question I'm asking as someone in favour of Andrex Brexit.
Well I oppose an extension as jumping off the cliff, or getting the petrol on the BBQ or trying to dislodge bread from a toaster with a fork is the quickest route to hospitalisation and hopefully some rehabilitation.
The country has to learn the relationship between cause and effect: it won't without the effect.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
I think we have enough uncertainly without adding yet another period of transition to it. I think it is important that our businesses are given as clear a set of rules as possible. I detect the possibility that we and they have many more important things to worry about just might reduce some of the pointless posturing that has plagued this process to date. And I think that there is a better chance of us negotiating successful and mutually beneficial arrangements with the EU once they finally come to terms with the idea that we are not beholden to them. But we shall see. I expect some of the issues to be dumped into a too difficult pile with agreements to agree at some future date.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
People barely change their Brexit positions on this board - which begs the question
Why's the polling moving toward preventing an extension ? That's the question I'm asking as someone in favour of andrex Brexit.
Because Leavers always have spare emotion and spare energy for hating the EU. The sheer irrationality of it is almost the point - it’s a demonstration of their Leaver purity.
Two months ago the site’s self-proclaimed moderate Leavers were all angrily telling me that it was outrageous to suggest that there wouldn’t be an extension. Today, yet again, they’ve self-radicalised and persuaded themselves that an extension would be a crime against Brexit. The chaos, pain and disruption is the point.
More lies. Those of us who supported an extension - or at least saw no reasonable objections to it - still feel the same way. Stop making stuff up.
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.
We can agree that the slave trade is something to be ashamed of, and be happy to see statues pulled down without having to ignore the fact the current protests are on behalf of the extreme left and are also a great way of pushing the rest of their communist agenda. Their agenda isn't even necessarily bad, people are attracted to Marxism, it is taught in our Universities.
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.
Eh? Rotherham demolishes your argument, it doesn't support it. The police in Rotherham (and elsewhere) did not fail to investigate because of the ulterior motives of those bringing the crimes to their attention, they did so due to a culture of extreme political correctness that made it impossible to contemplate the widespread arrest of men from Muslim communities. Perpetrators knew this, and frequently warded off police intrusion into their activities by threatening racial discrimination tribunals. Police inaction itself, in my opinion, resulted in a massively bigger problem, as many more men found that they could gratify their worst instincts with no legal consequences.
The BLM protestors appear to be highlighting as a grievance the greater frequency of stopping, searching and/or arresting of black men by the police. If acted upon in a simplistic and tokenistic way (and what else do our public servants do?), it will result in the police once again deliberately failing to act on their suspicions because it would result in accusations of harassment, and make their statistics look bad. Once again, that could lead to immunity from arrest for some crimes for members of the black community, and once again, it would be likely to result in a rise in those crimes.
So there is a direct parallel, but it certainly isn't the one you're pushing.
No you are being simplistic and ignorant.
Nobody is saying now that the Police shouldn't act rationally based on accusations or evidence. Nobody is saying the Police shouldn't act within reason.
What people are saying is that the Police should act rationally. Which they don't do in ignoring complaints about grooming, they don't do by stopping black people because they're black and they don't do by kneeling on the neck of protestors for nine minutes.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
I think we have enough uncertainly without adding yet another period of transition to it. I think it is important that our businesses are given as clear a set of rules as possible. I detect the possibility that we and they have many more important things to worry about just might reduce some of the pointless posturing that has plagued this process to date. And I think that there is a better chance of us negotiating successful and mutually beneficial arrangements with the EU once they finally come to terms with the idea that we are not beholden to them. But we shall see. I expect some of the issues to be dumped into a too difficult pile with agreements to agree at some future date.
Why on earth should EU leaders extend energy on what is now nowhere near their top priority to deal with a faithless negotiating party on a farcically tight deadline?
Yet again you make the basic Leaver mistake of thinking of the EU as a single body. At this point there are at least 29 different interests and most of them are disengaged, for good reasons.
"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.
Meanwhile, Chris Patten continues to take no shit:
'The chancellor of the University of Oxford has defended the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College, accusing the movement to topple it of hypocrisy, after hundreds of monuments across the country were targeted for removal.
Lord Patten of Barnes told Today on BBC Radio 4 that there was “a bit of hypocrisy” about “taking money for a hundred scholars a year, a fifth of whom are African, then saying we want to throw the statue wherever it is”.
The former Conservative Party chairman added: “If it’s good enough for Mandela it’s good enough for me”, referring to the involvement of the former South African president in setting up the Mandela Rhodes Foundation, a leadership development initiative.'
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.
Can I take this as a challenge to come up with something a Tory government has done which was both not in a manifesto and not an emergency?
Hope so because I reckon I'm up to that. The only slightly tricky part will be which one to pick.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
People barely change their Brexit positions on this board - which begs the question
Why's the polling moving toward preventing an extension ? That's the hard question I'm asking as someone in favour of Andrex Brexit.
The biggest move has been among Conservative voters and it will likely be because Conservative Cabinet members have repeatedly said an extension would be a bad thing, and their voters are willing to follow them.
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.
Communists were behind Mugabe in Rhodesia, that's a matter of fact. I'd like to hear a black persons view on whether they'd rather live in Harare today, Salisbury in 1970, or Bristol last week.
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.
We can agree that the slave trade is something to be ashamed of, and be happy to see statues pulled down without having to ignore the fact the current protests are on behalf of the extreme left and are also a great way of pushing the rest of their communist agenda. Their agenda isn't even necessarily bad, people are attracted to Marxism, it is taught in our Universities.
The extreme left may be involved in the current protests, but then the extreme left loves to join in to protests in general. That's not what the protests are about though, ignore them just like Brexit isn't about the extreme right however much Mr Meeks likes to insinuate it is.
When I was a student I marched against Top Up Fees in London when there was talk about Blair increasing the fees from the £1000 I was paying to potentially up to £10,000 and was disappointed to so many joining in the march waving irrelevant placards like Palestine or Socialist Workers etc - they were jumping on the bandwagon but I wasn't protesting for socialism or against Palestine.
Statues are motionless visitors from another time unable to perceive or adapt to the world as it unfolds around them. Ultimately they stand out as anachronistic reminders that serve no purpose, beyond asking the question why are they there
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.
Can I take this as a challenge to come up with something a Tory government has done which was both not in a manifesto and not an emergency?
Hope so because I reckon I'm up to that. The only slightly tricky part will be which one to pick.
The conditions are:
1. Not in a manifesto. 2. Not an emergency. 3. An act of cultural vandalism. 4. Conducted in support of an act of illegal cultural vandalism by a mob.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
I think we have enough uncertainly without adding yet another period of transition to it. I think it is important that our businesses are given as clear a set of rules as possible. I detect the possibility that we and they have many more important things to worry about just might reduce some of the pointless posturing that has plagued this process to date. And I think that there is a better chance of us negotiating successful and mutually beneficial arrangements with the EU once they finally come to terms with the idea that we are not beholden to them. But we shall see. I expect some of the issues to be dumped into a too difficult pile with agreements to agree at some future date.
Why on earth should EU leaders extend energy on what is now nowhere near their top priority to deal with a faithless negotiating party on a farcically tight deadline?
Yet again you make the basic Leaver mistake of thinking of the EU as a single body. At this point there are at least 29 different interests and most of them are disengaged, for good reasons.
If they don't want to extend effort on it they can just agree to whatever we want and move on.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
I think we have enough uncertainly without adding yet another period of transition to it. I think it is important that our businesses are given as clear a set of rules as possible. I detect the possibility that we and they have many more important things to worry about just might reduce some of the pointless posturing that has plagued this process to date. And I think that there is a better chance of us negotiating successful and mutually beneficial arrangements with the EU once they finally come to terms with the idea that we are not beholden to them. But we shall see. I expect some of the issues to be dumped into a too difficult pile with agreements to agree at some future date.
Why on earth should EU leaders extend energy on what is now nowhere near their top priority to deal with a faithless negotiating party on a farcically tight deadline?
Yet again you make the basic Leaver mistake of thinking of the EU as a single body. At this point there are at least 29 different interests and most of them are disengaged, for good reasons.
For external trade they are a single body, that was kinda the point. But the solution is obvious. Just do a deal and move on to more important matters like the imminent collapse of the Italian and Iberian economies.
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.......
And?
Trust me, there are episodes of that show that, if broadcast today, would result in writs being issued.
People have been banned on here for using the "N" word - what about a show that constantly uses it?
Blazing Saddles was a movie about the triumph of BLM against outright bigotry, but I doubt it will be getting rebroadcast any time soon.
Which is a pity because it's a wonderful film that parodies the stupidity of racism rather than its wickedness.
Coming back to Death Do Us Part, I don't think it was actually that good. The early episodes were the best, but these were the ones in which the ambivalence of the Alf character was nicely protrayed. Speight broadened the parody later as he became aware than Alf was becoming something of a hero in some quarters. Art lost out to political correctness as a consequence.
As for Othello, maybe it's time for a production emphasisng how the hero was perhaps just a bit too sensitive?
PMQs -- I'll miss them but: 1) is Boris breathless?
2) even if he does not answer questions, does he deflect them in a way that suggests that he has at least understood them or is he just going off on pre-planned rants?
3) does increased barracking (if there is any) hinder rather than help Boris?
4) has CCHQ thought of having Boris's PS find the right page in the folder for him?
5) has Number 10 provided answers to obvious questions like BAME Covid excess deaths?
2 and 3 would certainly raise questions of functional deafness (that can be dealt with, but would need to be addressed first).
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.
Till Death Do Us Part is an interesting one. The author, Johnny Speight intended it as a parody and was horrified when he perceived people were not only taking the principal character seriously but found him sympathetic and sided with him. I think the actor Warren Mitchell, who played Garnet, was similarly concerned, as was the actress Dandy Nicholls who played his long-suffering wife.
As an Eastender myself (though Hackney rather than Newham) I found the character utterly recognisable and had no doubt that many other Eastenders would have read the character straight and been rooting for him.
Having grown up about as far away from the East End as you can get in the UK, I can say that I had family and friends who identified with Alf and thought he was hilarious. If I had been born 10 years earlier and brought up in that social milieu I might well have developed the same attitudes myself. Thankfully, that did not happen to me.
Would you recommend it for rebroadcast nowadays?
It's already been redone for the modern era, it's called 'Citizen Khan'
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
I think we have enough uncertainly without adding yet another period of transition to it. I think it is important that our businesses are given as clear a set of rules as possible. I detect the possibility that we and they have many more important things to worry about just might reduce some of the pointless posturing that has plagued this process to date. And I think that there is a better chance of us negotiating successful and mutually beneficial arrangements with the EU once they finally come to terms with the idea that we are not beholden to them. But we shall see. I expect some of the issues to be dumped into a too difficult pile with agreements to agree at some future date.
Why on earth should EU leaders extend energy on what is now nowhere near their top priority to deal with a faithless negotiating party on a farcically tight deadline?
Yet again you make the basic Leaver mistake of thinking of the EU as a single body. At this point there are at least 29 different interests and most of them are disengaged, for good reasons.
For external trade they are a single body, that was kinda the point. But the solution is obvious. Just do a deal and move on to more important matters like the imminent collapse of the Italian and Iberian economies.
They’ll start with the more important matters.
Why would they waste time on a now-minor distraction that requires the agreement of all member states and the European Parliament? Let the small stuff sweat itself.
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.
We can agree that the slave trade is something to be ashamed of, and be happy to see statues pulled down without having to ignore the fact the current protests are on behalf of the extreme left and are also a great way of pushing the rest of their communist agenda. Their agenda isn't even necessarily bad, people are attracted to Marxism, it is taught in our Universities.
The extreme left may be involved in the current protests, but then the extreme left loves to join in to protests in general. That's not what the protests are about though, ignore them just like Brexit isn't about the extreme right however much Mr Meeks likes to insinuate it is.
When I was a student I marched against Top Up Fees in London when there was talk about Blair increasing the fees from the £1000 I was paying to potentially up to £10,000 and was disappointed to so many joining in the march waving irrelevant placards like Palestine or Socialist Workers etc - they were jumping on the bandwagon but I wasn't protesting for socialism or against Palestine.
'Black Lives Matter' is the headline act this time, and they are pushing an extreme left, communist agenda by way of encouraging racial conflict
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.
Till Death Do Us Part is an interesting one. The author, Johnny Speight intended it as a parody and was horrified when he perceived people were not only taking the principal character seriously but found him sympathetic and sided with him. I think the actor Warren Mitchell, who played Garnet, was similarly concerned, as was the actress Dandy Nicholls who played his long-suffering wife.
As an Eastender myself (though Hackney rather than Newham) I found the character utterly recognisable and had no doubt that many other Eastenders would have read the character straight and been rooting for him.
Having grown up about as far away from the East End as you can get in the UK, I can say that I had family and friends who identified with Alf and thought he was hilarious. If I had been born 10 years earlier and brought up in that social milieu I might well have developed the same attitudes myself. Thankfully, that did not happen to me.
Would you recommend it for rebroadcast nowadays?
Yes I would. It's an interesting period piece.
Do we not show Othello in case some side with Iago?
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
People barely change their Brexit positions on this board - which begs the question
Why's the polling moving toward preventing an extension ? That's the hard question I'm asking as someone in favour of Andrex Brexit.
Amongst Remainers I suspect there's a large element of: a non-extended crash-out will be a disaster, but we just have it thrown back in our faces when we say anything, so let Boris and the Leavers go ahead and suffer the consequences. A bit sulky perhaps, but a human reaction.
I tend to agree. Of course if it isn't that bad then that will positively affect me, so I will be happy. If it is a total disaster, and pores further misery on the UK on top of the incompetence that the government has already shown with respect to the epidemic then leavers will have to own it, though no doubt the arch proponents of this pointless exercise will no doubt be completely insulated form the consequences. Bozo will be further shown to be the disaster many of us have long predicted. Sadly the man that is already seen as a joke internationally will also make our once proud country also the subject of ridicule for electing him.
You have to understand that Leave voters are utterly unhinged. Once you’ve grasped that there is nothing, not even a pandemic, that will interrupt their foaming Europhobia, you understand the most malign force in operation in British politics today.
Yes Alastair. And you don't sound even slightly unhinged yourself, not even a tiny bit.
So you think it’s sane to insist on a hard short self-imposed deadline while the entire continent is deadline with the worst pandemic in living memory and a consequent economic crisis? Okayyyyy.
I think we have enough uncertainly without adding yet another period of transition to it. I think it is important that our businesses are given as clear a set of rules as possible. I detect the possibility that we and they have many more important things to worry about just might reduce some of the pointless posturing that has plagued this process to date. And I think that there is a better chance of us negotiating successful and mutually beneficial arrangements with the EU once they finally come to terms with the idea that we are not beholden to them. But we shall see. I expect some of the issues to be dumped into a too difficult pile with agreements to agree at some future date.
Why on earth should EU leaders extend energy on what is now nowhere near their top priority to deal with a faithless negotiating party on a farcically tight deadline?
Yet again you make the basic Leaver mistake of thinking of the EU as a single body. At this point there are at least 29 different interests and most of them are disengaged, for good reasons.
If they don't want to extend effort on it they can just agree to whatever we want and move on.
Meanwhile, Chris Patten continues to take no shit:
'The chancellor of the University of Oxford has defended the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College, accusing the movement to topple it of hypocrisy, after hundreds of monuments across the country were targeted for removal.
Lord Patten of Barnes told Today on BBC Radio 4 that there was “a bit of hypocrisy” about “taking money for a hundred scholars a year, a fifth of whom are African, then saying we want to throw the statue wherever it is”.
The former Conservative Party chairman added: “If it’s good enough for Mandela it’s good enough for me”, referring to the involvement of the former South African president in setting up the Mandela Rhodes Foundation, a leadership development initiative.'
If there's anyone who can stay firm in a trench under unrelenting pressure, it's Patten.
"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.
Racists who said 'Enoch was right' whenever a black man was on the news accused of a misdemeanour were bang wrong - that wasn't what he was predicting. Powell's point was never that non white people were more disposed to wrongdoing, it was that racial differences would be exploited for political ends, and that members of that race would feel obliged to go along with the policies of 'their' party. This would cause conflict, leading to violence and a civil war... we'll see.
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.......
And?
Trust me, there are episodes of that show that, if broadcast today, would result in writs being issued.
People have been banned on here for using the "N" word - what about a show that constantly uses it?
Blazing Saddles was a movie about the triumph of BLM against outright bigotry, but I doubt it will be getting rebroadcast any time soon.
Which is a pity because it's a wonderful film that parodies the stupidity of racism rather than its wickedness.
Coming back to Death Do Us Part, I don't think it was actually that good. The early episodes were the best, but these were the ones in which the ambivalence of the Alf character was nicely protrayed. Speight broadened the parody later as he became aware than Alf was becoming something of a hero in some quarters. Art lost out to political correctness as a consequence.
As for Othello, maybe it's time for a production emphasisng how the hero was perhaps just a bit too sensitive?
The best version I have ever seen of Othello had Iago played by a black actor. Can't remember his name but he was fantastic in the role
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?
I agree with you about the general principle of issues getting lost in the democratic process but isn't it the case that in Bristol there was a specific vote on this issue rather than it just being tied up in elections for councillors? As such the argument that this was not a specific issue, addressed by the democratic process, must surely fail.
As I said earlier personally I would have voted for the thing to be removed (and shoved in a museum somewhere) but given that I would have been on the losing side I still would not have supported the direct action that we have just witnessed.
I don't believe there was an actual vote, although I could be wrong. There have been at least two consultations, rather than votes, since the mid 90s and the ultimate decision has always been against removal. Part of the most recent consultation included polling done by the local paper, although I am not sure on what terms.
The problem in this case which led to recent events is that while there was no agreement to remove it, there was also no agreement on what to actually do with it next.
Now breathlessly banging the dispatch box with "turgidisation" or something and "I'm going to announce that we're reopening more". Not that the science of the stages previously announced will allow such a thing
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.......
And?
Trust me, there are episodes of that show that, if broadcast today, would result in writs being issued.
People have been banned on here for using the "N" word - what about a show that constantly uses it?
Blazing Saddles was a movie about the triumph of BLM against outright bigotry, but I doubt it will be getting rebroadcast any time soon.
Which is a pity because it's a wonderful film that parodies the stupidity of racism rather than its wickedness.
Coming back to Death Do Us Part, I don't think it was actually that good. The early episodes were the best, but these were the ones in which the ambivalence of the Alf character was nicely protrayed. Speight broadened the parody later as he became aware than Alf was becoming something of a hero in some quarters. Art lost out to political correctness as a consequence.
As for Othello, maybe it's time for a production emphasisng how the hero was perhaps just a bit too sensitive?
The best version I have ever seen of Othello had Iago played by a black actor. Can't remember his name but he was fantastic in the role
I was lucky enough to see Sir Laurence Olivier paly the part, but that was back in the days when 'blacking up' was controversial.
Meanwhile, Chris Patten continues to take no shit:
'The chancellor of the University of Oxford has defended the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College, accusing the movement to topple it of hypocrisy, after hundreds of monuments across the country were targeted for removal.
Lord Patten of Barnes told Today on BBC Radio 4 that there was “a bit of hypocrisy” about “taking money for a hundred scholars a year, a fifth of whom are African, then saying we want to throw the statue wherever it is”.
The former Conservative Party chairman added: “If it’s good enough for Mandela it’s good enough for me”, referring to the involvement of the former South African president in setting up the Mandela Rhodes Foundation, a leadership development initiative.'
If there's anyone who can stay firm in a trench under unrelenting pressure, it's Patten.
Good man.
From an era when Conservatives really were Conservatives. He makes todays lot look like a bunch of numpties
Now breathlessly banging the dispatch box with "turgidisation" or something and "I'm going to announce that we're reopening more". Not that the science of the stages previously announced will allow such a thing
So, reopening pubs gardens by 22nd and not July will be back by 5pm then?
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.......
And?
Trust me, there are episodes of that show that, if broadcast today, would result in writs being issued.
People have been banned on here for using the "N" word - what about a show that constantly uses it?
Blazing Saddles was a movie about the triumph of BLM against outright bigotry, but I doubt it will be getting rebroadcast any time soon.
Which is a pity because it's a wonderful film that parodies the stupidity of racism rather than its wickedness.
Coming back to Death Do Us Part, I don't think it was actually that good. The early episodes were the best, but these were the ones in which the ambivalence of the Alf character was nicely protrayed. Speight broadened the parody later as he became aware than Alf was becoming something of a hero in some quarters. Art lost out to political correctness as a consequence.
As for Othello, maybe it's time for a production emphasisng how the hero was perhaps just a bit too sensitive?
The best version I have ever seen of Othello had Iago played by a black actor. Can't remember his name but he was fantastic in the role
I was lucky enough to see Sir Laurence Olivier paly the part, but that was back in the days when 'blacking up' was controversial.
He's utterly shameless. The reason why our schools haven't gone back is simply because of attitude and political game playing.
He`s in cahoots with Teacher Unions, who have a common aim of making this as difficult as possible for the government - and they are revelling in it. What I took from the exchange is that Starmer has the government over a barrel. He wants to be part of the planning to get schools back (joint taskforce), then the unions will suddenly become extremely helpful, and then Starmer can claim that it was Labour that got the schools back not the government. Truly depressing stuff.
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.......
And?
Trust me, there are episodes of that show that, if broadcast today, would result in writs being issued.
People have been banned on here for using the "N" word - what about a show that constantly uses it?
Blazing Saddles was a movie about the triumph of BLM against outright bigotry, but I doubt it will be getting rebroadcast any time soon.
Which is a pity because it's a wonderful film that parodies the stupidity of racism rather than its wickedness.
Coming back to Death Do Us Part, I don't think it was actually that good. The early episodes were the best, but these were the ones in which the ambivalence of the Alf character was nicely protrayed. Speight broadened the parody later as he became aware than Alf was becoming something of a hero in some quarters. Art lost out to political correctness as a consequence.
As for Othello, maybe it's time for a production emphasisng how the hero was perhaps just a bit too sensitive?
The best version I have ever seen of Othello had Iago played by a black actor. Can't remember his name but he was fantastic in the role
I was lucky enough to see Sir Laurence Olivier paly the part, but that was back in the days when 'blacking up' was controversial.
I think you meant not controversial...
I thought it was still uncontroversial - Justin Trudeau, lefty icon and Leader of the Free World blacked up all the time!
He's utterly shameless. The reason why our schools haven't gone back is simply because of attitude and political game playing.
He`s in cahoots with Teacher Unions, who have a common aim of making this as difficult as possible for the government - and they are revelling in it. What I took from the exchange is that Starmer has the government over a barrel. He wants to be part of the planning to get schools back (joint taskforce), then the unions will suddenly become extremely helpful, and then Starmer can claim that it was Labour that got the schools back not the government. Truly depressing stuff.
Didn't RLB welcome the Governments decision yesterday?
So is a Blue Plaque to a Chairman of the Eugenics Society acceptable?
What is the role of the blue plaque?
"London’s blue plaques scheme, run by English Heritage, celebrates the links between notable figures of the past and the buildings in which they lived and worked. "
So, is it reasonable to celebtrate a Chairman of the Eugenics Society?
This argument about schools and whose fault it is they aren't back - listen to the PM when he breathlessly bangs the dispatch box. 2m distancing is here to stay. And 2m spacing Means Schools Cant Go Back. Not because of teachers. Because there isnt physical space in schools to bring all students back and have 2m spacing.
Why are the teachers saying it's unsafe? Because 2m spacing requirements of the government say it's unsafe...
Comments
Gone with the Wind will come back with a disclaimer, like Disney has already done with Dumbo.
The thing only has 70 members so it's not exactly difficult to do it properly.
I think you'll also find that the "womens' organisations" in Bristol are not representative of the men.
One of the more interesting processes that has been happening has been the updating of the SMV.
As an Eastender myself (though Hackney rather than Newham) I found the character utterly recognisable and had no doubt that many other Eastenders would have read the character straight and been rooting for him.
As I said earlier personally I would have voted for the thing to be removed (and shoved in a museum somewhere) but given that I would have been on the losing side I still would not have supported the direct action that we have just witnessed.
The BLM protestors appear to be highlighting as a grievance the greater frequency of stopping, searching and/or arresting of black men by the police. If acted upon in a simplistic and tokenistic way (and what else do our public servants do?), it will result in the police once again deliberately failing to act on their suspicions because it would result in accusations of harassment, and make their statistics look bad. Once again, that could lead to immunity from arrest for some crimes for members of the black community, and once again, it would be likely to result in a rise in those crimes.
So there is a direct parallel, but it certainly isn't the one you're pushing.
So I'm hoping to be allowed to probe.
Are you worried about "where we draw the line" or about the drawing of any line at all?
To help answer, I would ask you to consider that -
On The Buses is never repeated.
Neither is Love Thy Neighbour.
The name of the dog - "N*gg*r" - in the Battle Of Britain film is now edited out.
We get no opportunity these days to enjoy the Black & White Minstrels.
Jim Davison is effectively banned from primetime TV.
The late great Bernard Manning has been relegated to YouTube.
There are warnings published for LOADS of works from the past that contain outmoded racist stereoptyes.
Are you unhappy with all the above and wish to see it reversed?
Or do you think this process of revisionism should simply STOP - right here and right NOW - because iyo the line has been drawn in exactly the right place?
Would you recommend it for rebroadcast nowadays?
Why's the polling moving toward preventing an extension ? That's the hard question I'm asking as someone in favour of Andrex Brexit.
The one that really rubs my fur up the wrong way is the attempt to sanitise the works of Mark Twain, the most intelligent of anti-racists.
And as a matter of interest, just what do you do with a title like 'Nigger Of The Narcissus'?
1) is Boris breathless?
2) even if he does not answer questions, does he deflect them in a way that suggests that he has at least understood them or is he just going off on pre-planned rants?
3) does increased barracking (if there is any) hinder rather than help Boris?
4) has CCHQ thought of having Boris's PS find the right page in the folder for him?
5) has Number 10 provided answers to obvious questions like BAME Covid excess deaths?
Two months ago the site’s self-proclaimed moderate Leavers were all angrily telling me that it was outrageous to suggest that there wouldn’t be an extension. Today, yet again, they’ve self-radicalised and persuaded themselves that an extension would be a crime against Brexit. The chaos, pain and disruption is the point.
Trust me, there are episodes of that show that, if broadcast today, would result in writs being issued.
People have been banned on here for using the "N" word - what about a show that constantly uses it?
Blazing Saddles was a movie about the triumph of BLM against outright bigotry, but I doubt it will be getting rebroadcast any time soon.
I'd add "Arrival Quarantine" to the list.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Do we not show Othello in case some side with Iago?
The country has to learn the relationship between cause and effect: it won't without the effect.
So is a Blue Plaque to a Chairman of the Eugenics Society acceptable?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-tinto-blasts-46000-year-old-aboriginal-site-to-expand-iron-ore-mine
Rio Tinto blew up a 4000 Year old ancient aboloriginal sacred cave.
Nobody is saying now that the Police shouldn't act rationally based on accusations or evidence. Nobody is saying the Police shouldn't act within reason.
What people are saying is that the Police should act rationally. Which they don't do in ignoring complaints about grooming, they don't do by stopping black people because they're black and they don't do by kneeling on the neck of protestors for nine minutes.
Yet again you make the basic Leaver mistake of thinking of the EU as a single body. At this point there are at least 29 different interests and most of them are disengaged, for good reasons.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm
Meanwhile, Chris Patten continues to take no shit:
'The chancellor of the University of Oxford has defended the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College, accusing the movement to topple it of hypocrisy, after hundreds of monuments across the country were targeted for removal.
Lord Patten of Barnes told Today on BBC Radio 4 that there was “a bit of hypocrisy” about “taking money for a hundred scholars a year, a fifth of whom are African, then saying we want to throw the statue wherever it is”.
The former Conservative Party chairman added: “If it’s good enough for Mandela it’s good enough for me”, referring to the involvement of the former South African president in setting up the Mandela Rhodes Foundation, a leadership development initiative.'
Hope so because I reckon I'm up to that. The only slightly tricky part will be which one to pick.
Political leadership works.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4e7e7702-57e8-483d-8729-fa350f9610a9
When I was a student I marched against Top Up Fees in London when there was talk about Blair increasing the fees from the £1000 I was paying to potentially up to £10,000 and was disappointed to so many joining in the march waving irrelevant placards like Palestine or Socialist Workers etc - they were jumping on the bandwagon but I wasn't protesting for socialism or against Palestine.
1. Not in a manifesto.
2. Not an emergency.
3. An act of cultural vandalism.
4. Conducted in support of an act of illegal cultural vandalism by a mob.
Good luck with the challenge.
Coming back to Death Do Us Part, I don't think it was actually that good. The early episodes were the best, but these were the ones in which the ambivalence of the Alf character was nicely protrayed. Speight broadened the parody later as he became aware than Alf was becoming something of a hero in some quarters. Art lost out to political correctness as a consequence.
As for Othello, maybe it's time for a production emphasisng how the hero was perhaps just a bit too sensitive?
Why would they waste time on a now-minor distraction that requires the agreement of all member states and the European Parliament? Let the small stuff sweat itself.
I know I keep going on about this but he is suffering big style.
Well. Yes.
https://twitter.com/hughlaurie/status/1270632988573827072
Good man.
The problem in this case which led to recent events is that while there was no agreement to remove it, there was also no agreement on what to actually do with it next.
Government lurching from one whim to the next.
But him in "good order" was pretty fucking substandard to start with. So any diminution will be magnified significantly.
So, is it reasonable to celebtrate a Chairman of the Eugenics Society?
His performance today and Starmers were much of a muchness
Why are the teachers saying it's unsafe? Because 2m spacing requirements of the government say it's unsafe...