Richard_Tyndall said:

Endillion said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

O/T looks like Joss Whedon will soon become a non person, which is an utter shame, as I loved Buffy, Firefly, and the first Avengers film.

I don't know. In spite of what she says, Carpenter has been making these accusations for 20 years or more. And if you look at the substance of her accusations it would apply equally to practically every director in the 20th century. Yes it sounds like he was a bit of a shit to work with but all the accusations from all quarters amount to 'he was nasty to me'. No excuse but certainly not something that should be career ending.

The campaign against Whedon has been going on for a while, and I don't really understand the accusations. The idea that "he's not a real feminist because he cheated on his wife" seems really weird (also I'm unclear if the same logic would apply to a woman in a same-sex relationship - I suspect not) and it hardly seems to stack up with the venom of the campaign, which feels like it should be reserved for much more serious accusations. I often have to remind myself he's not actually been accused of molesting anyone, which is what the tone of stories about him imply these days.

Indeed. A lot of the Whedon hate away from the immediate accusations seems to be driven by the fact the DC fanboys hated his Justice League. I mean really hated it. This apparently makes him an evil man who should be driven out of the business for ever.

Those types of people really make me worry for humanity.

Andy_Cooke said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BluestBlue said:

Stocky said:

MaxPB said:

Stocky said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1359543750561853442?s=20

Someone on social media re above:

"Average night in prison costs £118 to a UK tax payer.

£430,700 overall cost to tax payers. "

And how much does a new three month lockdown cost if one of these idiots brings back a vaccine evading mutation and lies to avoid the quarantine?

I knew someone would say something like that. I didn`t expect it to be you though, Max.

We`re never getting out of this are we. UK is starting to feel like prison.

No, we want to get out of this as soon as humanly possible. Given that the importation of a new vaccine-resistant strain at this point could mean the difference between opening back up and endless lockdown for the whole country, like any good (temporary) Benthamite I think we can briefly curtail the frivolities of the few to ensure the freedom of the many.

What really annoys me about Covid deniers is that they don't realise if we end the formal lockdown early/before it is medically appropriate to do so the citizens will have their own de facto lockdown as they don't want to catch the plague/give it to their families.

A de facto citizen led lockdown would have been much more efficient and cost us a great deal less than an enforced lockdown. And would have hit our economy much less hard.

Look at South Dakota, Florida, Sweden etc.

More deaths? now maybe, but far fewer down the line from the effects of lockdown.

So, if people chose en masse not to go to the pub, the pub would be better off than if it was closed by the Government?
How is that better? They're still not at the pub...

Almost all pubs invested thousands protecting themselves against COVID spread and so people would have selectively patronised them, as they were doing before lockdown.

Takings would have been down, true, but many who are going to to wall would have survived.

gealbhan said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

gealbhan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FF43 said:

Now this IS interesting. Apparently people were already woke way back in 1899. They objected to Cecil Rhodes of statue fame being given an honorary degree by Oxford University because Black Lives Matter

https://twitter.com/AsheLaura/status/1359097874135547907

That's an interesting insight. I have a theory that the statue in Bristol was put there deliberately to 'provoke the woke' of the era, because it went up well after slavery abolition, and the caption with it is so unremittingly adoring. There was a big debate at the time between the abolitionist 'chattering classes' and the more red in tooth and claw imperialists (who accused the former group of caring little about the condition of the domestic poor). I didn't think this was a good reason to tear it down though - makes it more interesting historically in my opinion. Contrasting it with a memorial to slaves would have been far more fitting and interesting.

I think you are absolutely spot on Lucky. I think this is a piece of the history poorly debated.

Colston was long gone when the statue went up. His charitable works being honoured by it long in the tooth by then. The argument it was charity paid for by slavery very well known. Yet up it went.

There is something about the politics of that era.

Fortunately this site is blessed with historians who can help us.

Was there something particularly entrenched and divided of the politics of that era, 1880s and 90’s? The imperialists utterly emboldened?

I don't know enough about that to say but I know that many of the statues to the Confederate generals went up in the first two decades of the 20th century - 50 years after the events they commemorate - at the height of the Jim Crow era.

Interestingly when you read the articles bout it, whilst most statues went up in the years immediately after the war they are almost entirely remembering men who fell - so could be considered a reasonable excuse. But those statues that went up just before and after the turn of the century were mostly of the leaders and generals and were designed to send a message about the valour of the Confederate cause. That is not supposition, it was the stated aim of the organisations which raised money for the statues.

That’s an interesting point Richard.

Yesterday a statue was posted spouting confederate doctrine putting the words in Winston Churchill’s mouth to legitimate it.

I’m not hot on US civil war history, so correct me where I am wrong historians, but I know enough that the leaders of the confederacy didn’t whole heartedly believe in everything they were doing, so retrospect statue of them might represent a more current idea than what they actually believed in themselves. Like aforementioned Churchill Statue. They certainly believed in fighting for the autonomy of states, and against federalism. But who was it spoke against slave ownership then inherited a whole load of them?

It’s certainly a way we should look at statues in this debate.

You are right. Lee for example was no fan of slavery but chose to put his state above his country - or rather considered that his state was his country.

That said, for me that cannot excuse the fact he fought in support of slavery, whether he believed in it or not. Indeed it perhaps makes it even worse. It is easy to see people fighting for their state and what it stands for if they believe in both but Lee made a choice and decided that his state was more important than rejecting slavery.

Certainly there can be no doubt in my mind that those putting up the statues in the Jim Crow era were not doing so to commemorate great military leaders, but to perpetuate a segregated society and prevent any moves to end it.

Flatlander said:

Anabobazina said:

SandyRentool said:

Argh!!! Hols again!

What's wrong with asking this exactly?

I can't get a haircut, go to any number of shops, have a cup of tea in cafe, travel any distance from my house, or go out for pretty much any reason other than exercise or propping up elderly relatives. Most importantly, children aren't in school.

Given that, journalists asking about going on holiday is ... rather annoying.

A lot of my friends - a real mix, young/old, rich/poor, breast feeders/chest feeders - are absolutely OBSESSED about holidays. Most because they want to go on one: or finally go see much-missed family and friends abroad (that’s a lot of people). Others are obsessed because their livelihoods depend on travel and tourism, which support millions of jobs in the UK and constitute 10% of global GDP. And travel is probably the economic sector hit hardest by Covid, worldwide

The media are quite justified in focusing on this.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

O/T looks like Joss Whedon will soon become a non person, which is an utter shame, as I loved Buffy, Firefly, and the first Avengers film.

I don't know. In spite of what she says, Carpenter has been making these accusations for 20 years or more. And if you look at the substance of her accusations it would apply equally to practically every director in the 20th century. Yes it sounds like he was a bit of a shit to work with but all the accusations from all quarters amount to 'he was nasty to me'. No excuse but certainly not something that should be career ending.

I think the specific allegation of making her work at 1am/longer hours when she was pregnant and against medical advice is the kicker.

With them following on from the Ray Fisher allegations and the fact that Amber Benson has endorsed Carpenter's allegations means in the court of public opinion means it is very problematic for him.

Thing is she made these claims (which I suspect are true) years ago and, in spite of them being widely reported, they made no difference to his career. I think it is sad but true that the biggest risk to his career right now is a successful release of the Zack Snyder version of Justice League.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Endillion said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

O/T looks like Joss Whedon will soon become a non person, which is an utter shame, as I loved Buffy, Firefly, and the first Avengers film.

I don't know. In spite of what she says, Carpenter has been making these accusations for 20 years or more. And if you look at the substance of her accusations it would apply equally to practically every director in the 20th century. Yes it sounds like he was a bit of a shit to work with but all the accusations from all quarters amount to 'he was nasty to me'. No excuse but certainly not something that should be career ending.

The campaign against Whedon has been going on for a while, and I don't really understand the accusations. The idea that "he's not a real feminist because he cheated on his wife" seems really weird (also I'm unclear if the same logic would apply to a woman in a same-sex relationship - I suspect not) and it hardly seems to stack up with the venom of the campaign, which feels like it should be reserved for much more serious accusations. I often have to remind myself he's not actually been accused of molesting anyone, which is what the tone of stories about him imply these days.

Indeed. A lot of the Whedon hate away from the immediate accusations seems to be driven by the fact the DC fanboys hated his Justice League. I mean really hated it. This apparently makes him an evil man who should be driven out of the business for ever.

He gets a lot more hate from lefty Twitter feminists than from the DC fanboys, from what I can see. Those two groups are far from being natural allies.

I think the former group feel betrayed having been tricked into liking Buffy (and in some case, pretending to like it, so they could pen long articles about how culturally important it was).

gealbhan said:

contrarian said:

solarflare said:

If the government were in a position to frame it as "you can't go on foreign holidays but the upside of that is you can go on domestic holidays with fewer restrictions", I think plenty of people would buy that trade-off.

Whether that's actually a factor in the equation though is probably a different story.

Now maybe the would buy it In six weeks time, with COVID disappearing and new vaccines and treatments coming on line all the time, not so much.

PLus the downsides of lockdown will start to become more apparent. Tax increases. Huge job losses when furlough ends. Maybe the return of inflation.

You implying return of a bit of inflation is a bad thing?

It depends whether you are getting a regular big paycheck, like the government and its advisors, or not, I guess.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Endillion said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

O/T looks like Joss Whedon will soon become a non person, which is an utter shame, as I loved Buffy, Firefly, and the first Avengers film.

I don't know. In spite of what she says, Carpenter has been making these accusations for 20 years or more. And if you look at the substance of her accusations it would apply equally to practically every director in the 20th century. Yes it sounds like he was a bit of a shit to work with but all the accusations from all quarters amount to 'he was nasty to me'. No excuse but certainly not something that should be career ending.

The campaign against Whedon has been going on for a while, and I don't really understand the accusations. The idea that "he's not a real feminist because he cheated on his wife" seems really weird (also I'm unclear if the same logic would apply to a woman in a same-sex relationship - I suspect not) and it hardly seems to stack up with the venom of the campaign, which feels like it should be reserved for much more serious accusations. I often have to remind myself he's not actually been accused of molesting anyone, which is what the tone of stories about him imply these days.

Indeed. A lot of the Whedon hate away from the immediate accusations seems to be driven by the fact the DC fanboys hated his Justice League. I mean really hated it. This apparently makes him an evil man who should be driven out of the business for ever.

The DC film universe has been shit since Nolan finished with his trilogy

https://twitter.com/TheGoodLiars/status/1359553025833115654

DougSeal said:

gealbhan said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

gealbhan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FF43 said:

Now this IS interesting. Apparently people were already woke way back in 1899. They objected to Cecil Rhodes of statue fame being given an honorary degree by Oxford University because Black Lives Matter

https://twitter.com/AsheLaura/status/1359097874135547907

That's an interesting insight. I have a theory that the statue in Bristol was put there deliberately to 'provoke the woke' of the era, because it went up well after slavery abolition, and the caption with it is so unremittingly adoring. There was a big debate at the time between the abolitionist 'chattering classes' and the more red in tooth and claw imperialists (who accused the former group of caring little about the condition of the domestic poor). I didn't think this was a good reason to tear it down though - makes it more interesting historically in my opinion. Contrasting it with a memorial to slaves would have been far more fitting and interesting.

I think you are absolutely spot on Lucky. I think this is a piece of the history poorly debated.

Colston was long gone when the statue went up. His charitable works being honoured by it long in the tooth by then. The argument it was charity paid for by slavery very well known. Yet up it went.

There is something about the politics of that era.

Fortunately this site is blessed with historians who can help us.

Was there something particularly entrenched and divided of the politics of that era, 1880s and 90’s? The imperialists utterly emboldened?

I don't know enough about that to say but I know that many of the statues to the Confederate generals went up in the first two decades of the 20th century - 50 years after the events they commemorate - at the height of the Jim Crow era.

Interestingly when you read the articles bout it, whilst most statues went up in the years immediately after the war they are almost entirely remembering men who fell - so could be considered a reasonable excuse. But those statues that went up just before and after the turn of the century were mostly of the leaders and generals and were designed to send a message about the valour of the Confederate cause. That is not supposition, it was the stated aim of the organisations which raised money for the statues.

That’s an interesting point Richard.

Yesterday a statue was posted spouting confederate doctrine putting the words in Winston Churchill’s mouth to legitimate it.

I’m not hot on US civil war history, so correct me where I am wrong historians, but I know enough that the leaders of the confederacy didn’t whole heartedly believe in everything they were doing, so retrospect statue of them might represent a more current idea than what they actually believed in themselves. Like aforementioned Churchill Statue. They certainly believed in fighting for the autonomy of states, and against federalism. But who was it spoke against slave ownership then inherited a whole load of them?

It’s certainly a way we should look at statues in this debate.

I would turn the debate on its head. What was the intent of the people who put up the statutes? Putting up statues of Churchill after the war was to commemorate a defining national moment and our victory in a noble war. The identity of the person is almost secondary to that. If King Geirge VI had been a better orator and had made the speeches Churchill did one might have seen statues of him go up. But what was the purpose of putting up a statue, often several decades after the US Civil War ended, to Confederate generals?

Sure, in many cases the purpose was explicitly ideological, and the construction not immediately contemporary with the person or event commemorated. But then so what? Tastes will differ, but I've generally found that the interest of a monument or piece of architecture is enhanced when there's a polemical or ideological aspect to exactly why, when, how, and where it was put up. There are many places around the world where you can find arrays of monuments that have been set up in succession to conduct an unspoken debate or competition with one another - sometimes that discourse is carried on over the course of decades and centuries. It's why I'd much rather see eloquent additions to the physical context of our built heritage, rather than displacement or destruction.

Leon said:

Flatlander said:

Anabobazina said:

SandyRentool said:

Argh!!! Hols again!

What's wrong with asking this exactly?

I can't get a haircut, go to any number of shops, have a cup of tea in cafe, travel any distance from my house, or go out for pretty much any reason other than exercise or propping up elderly relatives. Most importantly, children aren't in school.

Given that, journalists asking about going on holiday is ... rather annoying.

A lot of my friends - a real mix, young/old, rich/poor, breast feeders/chest feeders - are absolutely OBSESSED about holidays. Most because they want to go on one: or finally go see much-missed family and friends abroad (that’s a lot of people). Others are obsessed because their livelihoods depend on travel and tourism, which support millions of jobs in the UK and constitute 10% of global GDP. And travel is probably the economic sector hit hardest by Covid, worldwide

The media are quite justified in focusing on this.

Well said.

It’s reminiscent of last summer, whereby PBers assured us pubs were dead and nobody wanted to go to them anyway.

Imagine my surprise when I arrived in the pub for a pint on reopening day on 4 July to find it was very popular!

contrarian said:

Now Mr lockdown Jeremy Hunt is having a dig at the government for being 'overzealous' on something!! Meanwhile Charles Walker today was more scathing than any opposition MP.

Like a child who can’t have a unicorn as Devi Sridhar described his contribution on C4News earlier.

Charles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Allow me, a strange stranger from a strange(r) land, to rise in defense of the Great British Ice Cream Van!

In particular, like how they stick a stick of chocolate into your soft ice cream cone!!

The 99 is indeed one of the wonders of these isles.

Although, the 98 things they stuck in it before getting it right with the chocolate flake is quite a list.

#68 - a monkey wrench......

(The real reason is apparently that there were 99 members of the elite Nepolitan guard around the king. So that is why "99" is the very best...)

Although as Italian soldiers, when put to the test they flaked

Point of order: Not 'Italian' soldiers at the relevant time, surely.

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - worth noting that one very big reason that Britain was victorious in WW1 and WW2 was that could effectively command the foreign policy and defence forces of Australia, Canada, NZ, South Africa and India - so it was effectively already four eyes plus India as the status quo. Not to mention the contribution made by West/East Africa. That's what made us a force to be reckoned with.

We'd have been largely fucked if it has really just been the "UK alone" because our 'punch' would only have been about 30-35% of what we had combined

But is that sort of influence in that sort of grouping - us plus the US plus the White Commonwealth plus maybe possibly India and at a push bits & pieces of Africa - coming back? I don't think so. It has a strong 'retro fantasy' feel to me. I think it's strictly for Brexit nostalgiacs.

BluestBlue said:

DougSeal said:

gealbhan said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

gealbhan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FF43 said:

Now this IS interesting. Apparently people were already woke way back in 1899. They objected to Cecil Rhodes of statue fame being given an honorary degree by Oxford University because Black Lives Matter

https://twitter.com/AsheLaura/status/1359097874135547907

That's an interesting insight. I have a theory that the statue in Bristol was put there deliberately to 'provoke the woke' of the era, because it went up well after slavery abolition, and the caption with it is so unremittingly adoring. There was a big debate at the time between the abolitionist 'chattering classes' and the more red in tooth and claw imperialists (who accused the former group of caring little about the condition of the domestic poor). I didn't think this was a good reason to tear it down though - makes it more interesting historically in my opinion. Contrasting it with a memorial to slaves would have been far more fitting and interesting.

I think you are absolutely spot on Lucky. I think this is a piece of the history poorly debated.

Colston was long gone when the statue went up. His charitable works being honoured by it long in the tooth by then. The argument it was charity paid for by slavery very well known. Yet up it went.

There is something about the politics of that era.

Fortunately this site is blessed with historians who can help us.

Was there something particularly entrenched and divided of the politics of that era, 1880s and 90’s? The imperialists utterly emboldened?

I don't know enough about that to say but I know that many of the statues to the Confederate generals went up in the first two decades of the 20th century - 50 years after the events they commemorate - at the height of the Jim Crow era.

Interestingly when you read the articles bout it, whilst most statues went up in the years immediately after the war they are almost entirely remembering men who fell - so could be considered a reasonable excuse. But those statues that went up just before and after the turn of the century were mostly of the leaders and generals and were designed to send a message about the valour of the Confederate cause. That is not supposition, it was the stated aim of the organisations which raised money for the statues.

That’s an interesting point Richard.

Yesterday a statue was posted spouting confederate doctrine putting the words in Winston Churchill’s mouth to legitimate it.

I’m not hot on US civil war history, so correct me where I am wrong historians, but I know enough that the leaders of the confederacy didn’t whole heartedly believe in everything they were doing, so retrospect statue of them might represent a more current idea than what they actually believed in themselves. Like aforementioned Churchill Statue. They certainly believed in fighting for the autonomy of states, and against federalism. But who was it spoke against slave ownership then inherited a whole load of them?

It’s certainly a way we should look at statues in this debate.

I would turn the debate on its head. What was the intent of the people who put up the statutes? Putting up statues of Churchill after the war was to commemorate a defining national moment and our victory in a noble war. The identity of the person is almost secondary to that. If King Geirge VI had been a better orator and had made the speeches Churchill did one might have seen statues of him go up. But what was the purpose of putting up a statue, often several decades after the US Civil War ended, to Confederate generals?

Sure, in many cases the purpose was explicitly ideological, and the construction not immediately contemporary with the person or event commemorated. But then so what? Tastes will differ, but I've generally found that the interest of a monument or piece of architecture is enhanced when there's a polemical or ideological aspect to exactly why, when, how, and where it was put up. There are many places around the world where you can find arrays of monuments that have been set up in succession to conduct an unspoken debate or competition with one another - sometimes that discourse is conducted over the course of decades and centuries. It's why I'd much rather see eloquent additions to the physical context of our built heritage, rather than displacement or destruction.

I accept your point as to taste but to many people having a statute to a slaver, or someone who faught to defend slavery, is as personally offensive as keeping up a memorial to Jimmy Saville.

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Flatlander said:

Anabobazina said:

SandyRentool said:

Argh!!! Hols again!

What's wrong with asking this exactly?

I can't get a haircut, go to any number of shops, have a cup of tea in cafe, travel any distance from my house, or go out for pretty much any reason other than exercise or propping up elderly relatives. Most importantly, children aren't in school.

Given that, journalists asking about going on holiday is ... rather annoying.

A lot of my friends - a real mix, young/old, rich/poor, breast feeders/chest feeders - are absolutely OBSESSED about holidays. Most because they want to go on one: or finally go see much-missed family and friends abroad (that’s a lot of people). Others are obsessed because their livelihoods depend on travel and tourism, which support millions of jobs in the UK and constitute 10% of global GDP. And travel is probably the economic sector hit hardest by Covid, worldwide

The media are quite justified in focusing on this.

Well said.

It’s reminiscent of last summer, whereby PBers assured us pubs were dead and nobody wanted to go to them anyway.

Imagine my surprise when I arrived in the pub for a pint on reopening day on 4 July to find it was very popular!

Your thing about pubs and PB commenters is really over-generalised. Take me, for example:

1. I love pubs: the pub is the core of my social life, and has been for decades.
2. I used to go the pub at least once a day. Nowadays, I go 3/4 times a week when they're open.
3. I really miss the pub.
4. Pubs should be closed at the moment as they are likely to lead to infection spread. They were re-opened too early last summer.
5. I look forward to them re-opening again when it's safe.

I'm not alone - the same applies to many of my contemporaries (50-65) who were raised in a pub culture. It's just not true when you say none of us care about pubs because we don't use them.

Forecast to be -11 in Newmarket and Bury St Edmunds tonight.

Andy_JS said:

Forecast to be -11 in Newmarket and Bury St Edmunds tonight.

The cold weather is just God's way of reminding us to burn more Catholics at the stake.

DougSeal said:

It does strike me that the reaction to this pandemic is probably one unique to our age. In the Spanish Flu pandemic there were grim statistics piling up in your newspaper every morning but they were just that - statistics. You see the same thing in Defoe's "Journal of the Plague Year" (although he wrote it after the event) but here we have the immediacy of the visual representation of actual people, rather than numbers, beamed to our screens 24/7. You see the lives behind the statistics. That has informed the government's reaction in a way that it would not have done in earlier generations. I reckon as recently as the 90s a lockdown of this severity would not have happened - hell before 2005 how many people could work from home using dial-up?

Agree. As recently as 10 years ago the lockdown would have significantly different.

DougSeal said:

BluestBlue said:

DougSeal said:

gealbhan said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

gealbhan said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FF43 said:

Now this IS interesting. Apparently people were already woke way back in 1899. They objected to Cecil Rhodes of statue fame being given an honorary degree by Oxford University because Black Lives Matter

https://twitter.com/AsheLaura/status/1359097874135547907

That's an interesting insight. I have a theory that the statue in Bristol was put there deliberately to 'provoke the woke' of the era, because it went up well after slavery abolition, and the caption with it is so unremittingly adoring. There was a big debate at the time between the abolitionist 'chattering classes' and the more red in tooth and claw imperialists (who accused the former group of caring little about the condition of the domestic poor). I didn't think this was a good reason to tear it down though - makes it more interesting historically in my opinion. Contrasting it with a memorial to slaves would have been far more fitting and interesting.

I think you are absolutely spot on Lucky. I think this is a piece of the history poorly debated.

Colston was long gone when the statue went up. His charitable works being honoured by it long in the tooth by then. The argument it was charity paid for by slavery very well known. Yet up it went.

There is something about the politics of that era.

Fortunately this site is blessed with historians who can help us.

Was there something particularly entrenched and divided of the politics of that era, 1880s and 90’s? The imperialists utterly emboldened?

I don't know enough about that to say but I know that many of the statues to the Confederate generals went up in the first two decades of the 20th century - 50 years after the events they commemorate - at the height of the Jim Crow era.

Interestingly when you read the articles bout it, whilst most statues went up in the years immediately after the war they are almost entirely remembering men who fell - so could be considered a reasonable excuse. But those statues that went up just before and after the turn of the century were mostly of the leaders and generals and were designed to send a message about the valour of the Confederate cause. That is not supposition, it was the stated aim of the organisations which raised money for the statues.

That’s an interesting point Richard.

Yesterday a statue was posted spouting confederate doctrine putting the words in Winston Churchill’s mouth to legitimate it.

I’m not hot on US civil war history, so correct me where I am wrong historians, but I know enough that the leaders of the confederacy didn’t whole heartedly believe in everything they were doing, so retrospect statue of them might represent a more current idea than what they actually believed in themselves. Like aforementioned Churchill Statue. They certainly believed in fighting for the autonomy of states, and against federalism. But who was it spoke against slave ownership then inherited a whole load of them?

It’s certainly a way we should look at statues in this debate.

I would turn the debate on its head. What was the intent of the people who put up the statutes? Putting up statues of Churchill after the war was to commemorate a defining national moment and our victory in a noble war. The identity of the person is almost secondary to that. If King Geirge VI had been a better orator and had made the speeches Churchill did one might have seen statues of him go up. But what was the purpose of putting up a statue, often several decades after the US Civil War ended, to Confederate generals?

Sure, in many cases the purpose was explicitly ideological, and the construction not immediately contemporary with the person or event commemorated. But then so what? Tastes will differ, but I've generally found that the interest of a monument or piece of architecture is enhanced when there's a polemical or ideological aspect to exactly why, when, how, and where it was put up. There are many places around the world where you can find arrays of monuments that have been set up in succession to conduct an unspoken debate or competition with one another - sometimes that discourse is conducted over the course of decades and centuries. It's why I'd much rather see eloquent additions to the physical context of our built heritage, rather than displacement or destruction.

I accept your point as to taste but to many people having a statute to a slaver, or someone who faught to defend slavery, is as personally offensive as keeping up a memorial to Jimmy Saville.

Some people will no doubt feel like that even today. But there are living victims of Jimmy Savile who were personally abused by him, which places their standing in this debate on an entirely different level than the descendants of slaves (or, much more often, those getting animated on behalf of the descendants of slaves) in relation to a long-dead slaver who may have have nothing to do with their particular ancestors at all. If the study of history has any purpose, then that must include being able to view the past from a more dispassionate perspective than we do the present.

Northern_Al said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Flatlander said:

Anabobazina said:

SandyRentool said:

Argh!!! Hols again!

What's wrong with asking this exactly?

I can't get a haircut, go to any number of shops, have a cup of tea in cafe, travel any distance from my house, or go out for pretty much any reason other than exercise or propping up elderly relatives. Most importantly, children aren't in school.

Given that, journalists asking about going on holiday is ... rather annoying.

A lot of my friends - a real mix, young/old, rich/poor, breast feeders/chest feeders - are absolutely OBSESSED about holidays. Most because they want to go on one: or finally go see much-missed family and friends abroad (that’s a lot of people). Others are obsessed because their livelihoods depend on travel and tourism, which support millions of jobs in the UK and constitute 10% of global GDP. And travel is probably the economic sector hit hardest by Covid, worldwide

The media are quite justified in focusing on this.

Well said.

It’s reminiscent of last summer, whereby PBers assured us pubs were dead and nobody wanted to go to them anyway.

Imagine my surprise when I arrived in the pub for a pint on reopening day on 4 July to find it was very popular!

Your thing about pubs and PB commenters is really over-generalised. Take me, for example:

1. I love pubs: the pub is the core of my social life, and has been for decades.
2. I used to go the pub at least once a day. Nowadays, I go 3/4 times a week when they're open.
3. I really miss the pub.
4. Pubs should be closed at the moment as they are likely to lead to infection spread. They were re-opened too early last summer.
5. I look forward to them re-opening again when it's safe.

I'm not alone - the same applies to many of my contemporaries (50-65) who were raised in a pub culture. It's just not true when you say none of us care about pubs because we don't use them.

Hey, I’m not saying all PBers. Not for a minute. But there are far too many people on PB who lecture others with their pub wisdom, despite very rarely going into them.

Anabobazina said:

Northern_Al said:

Anabobazina said:

Leon said:

Flatlander said:

Anabobazina said:

SandyRentool said:

Argh!!! Hols again!

What's wrong with asking this exactly?

I can't get a haircut, go to any number of shops, have a cup of tea in cafe, travel any distance from my house, or go out for pretty much any reason other than exercise or propping up elderly relatives. Most importantly, children aren't in school.

Given that, journalists asking about going on holiday is ... rather annoying.

A lot of my friends - a real mix, young/old, rich/poor, breast feeders/chest feeders - are absolutely OBSESSED about holidays. Most because they want to go on one: or finally go see much-missed family and friends abroad (that’s a lot of people). Others are obsessed because their livelihoods depend on travel and tourism, which support millions of jobs in the UK and constitute 10% of global GDP. And travel is probably the economic sector hit hardest by Covid, worldwide

The media are quite justified in focusing on this.

Well said.

It’s reminiscent of last summer, whereby PBers assured us pubs were dead and nobody wanted to go to them anyway.

Imagine my surprise when I arrived in the pub for a pint on reopening day on 4 July to find it was very popular!

Your thing about pubs and PB commenters is really over-generalised. Take me, for example:

1. I love pubs: the pub is the core of my social life, and has been for decades.
2. I used to go the pub at least once a day. Nowadays, I go 3/4 times a week when they're open.
3. I really miss the pub.
4. Pubs should be closed at the moment as they are likely to lead to infection spread. They were re-opened too early last summer.
5. I look forward to them re-opening again when it's safe.

I'm not alone - the same applies to many of my contemporaries (50-65) who were raised in a pub culture. It's just not true when you say none of us care about pubs because we don't use them.

Hey, I’m not saying all PBers. Not for a minute. But there are far too many people on PB who lecture others with their pub wisdom, despite very rarely going into them.

Never trust a man who doesn’t love a pub

Sound advice I received at a young age. Has done me very good service

GideonWise said:

Leon said:

Flatlander said:

Anabobazina said:

SandyRentool said:

Argh!!! Hols again!

What's wrong with asking this exactly?

I can't get a haircut, go to any number of shops, have a cup of tea in cafe, travel any distance from my house, or go out for pretty much any reason other than exercise or propping up elderly relatives. Most importantly, children aren't in school.

Given that, journalists asking about going on holiday is ... rather annoying.

A lot of my friends - a real mix, young/old, rich/poor, breast feeders/chest feeders - are absolutely OBSESSED about holidays. Most because they want to go on one: or finally go see much-missed family and friends abroad (that’s a lot of people). Others are obsessed because their livelihoods depend on travel and tourism, which support millions of jobs in the UK and constitute 10% of global GDP. And travel is probably the economic sector hit hardest by Covid, worldwide

The media are quite justified in focusing on this.

Grandma can't breathe versus Dubai trip for Towie stars can't *yet* be booked. What a tough choice for the Prime Minister.

Stupid comment yet someone has liked it.

By summer, Granny has had both jabs.

NEW THREAD

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1359590857939300355?s=20

gealbhan said:

contrarian said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/SimonClarkeMP/status/1359569234641248257?s=20

When the cases are very low in the spring and, as RCS put it, we are awash with vaccines, I wonder how the average voter is going to take statements like this.

the phrase 'go f8ck yourself' comes to mind.

But I could be wrong.

What was the flaw in RCS argument?

Is it over estimating vaccine production ramping up. He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

Is it over estimating speed of roll out? He’s convinced me it isn’t that.

Is it over estimating the impact of vaccination on quickly changing the picture?

Or maybe RCS is spot on. Whatever, it’s clear RCS and his back to normal tribe, and the government messaging is not on the same page tonight, Is it?

Worth remembering I was on the "shut the borders now!" side of this site back in last spring and summer. (And, I was ridiculed by some posters for suggesting that we would follow the path of cases Spain had had.)

The government was wrong to not shut the borders then.

And I suspect they will be wrong to shut them over the summer.

That being said... what I'd really recommend is shutting the borders now, and then being flexible in the Summer. If we're all vaccinated with Pfizer/CureVac/Moderna by the end of May and cases are close to zero and there's no evidence of any mutation that looks likely to make a dent in the mRNA vaccines' efficiency, then we should be prepared to open up more quickly.

gealbhan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_JS said:

Forecast to be -11 in Newmarket and Bury St Edmunds tonight.

The cold weather is just God's way of reminding us to burn more Catholics at the stake.

It was the catholics who brought back the old laws for burning I think. The Protestants preferred half hanging, sex organs chopped off whilst still alive, disemboweled contents torched, quartered, head boiled and put on pole and the bits hung in different parts of the city. Very thorough. Like what ManC done to Liverpool last weekend.

Though burning could go on for many minutes with victim urging crowd to fan the flames and get it over with. Again, A bit like you must feel watching Liverpool at the moment.

Question: Has the human species evolved over the past 500 years to become less cruel?

Too few generations, you say. But if it's not evolution* what has happened to make seemingly dramatic change?

(*It's also hard to see any possible natural selection advantage in reduced cruelty.)