(06-08-2020, 12:43 PM)WWHO Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:17 AM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:08 AM)WWHO Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 10:54 AM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 10:19 AM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ]What will be more interesting is who will want to put it back up again? In a way, that in itself 'almost' justifies tearing it down.
It shouldn't go back up, in my opinion.
But whatever happens it needs to be decided in a lawful way, not because an out of control mob decided upon itself to take the law into it's own hands.
What next, vigilantes? Summary execution by the mob for walking on the cracks in the pavement?
We have to have law enforcement otherwise we end up with anarchy and civil war. And I'm no apologist for the Police, far from it. But someone has to enforce the law.
I think you're being a little harsh in your criticism of Tory Councillor Richard Eddy and the Society of Merchant Venturers ...
I was going to make a post on the relative merits of both peaceful and violent direct action, forms of protest I personally have participated in; but instead I'm going to reflect on the fact that a poster on this thread has advocated the army shooting his/her fellow citizens. Wow.
What would have happened if the tumbling statue had crushed someone??
HASAW would have had a field day!!
I can just imagine the scenes in East Germany, on that historic day in November 1989, as a huddled mass of Mauerspechtes approached the Berlin Wall - a much loathed symbol of tyranny and division.
Then, just as they unsheathed their tiny little axes in order to engage in what would have been an epoch-making act of civil disobedience, they were stopped dead in their tracks by a hard helmet clad party official. After he read out the article 2, section b of the new Health and Safety Act, their leader David Hasslehoff agreed to climb down and his supporters dispersed immediately.
Having been forced to conduct their protest by legitimate means, they subsequently wrote a succession of strongly worded letters to the East Berlin council calling for the wall's removal. But, with the lobbying campaign being filibustered by the political establishment, the wall remained.
The rest, as they say, is history ...
If only the protestors had gone down to their municipal town hall and filled out form 815C - Removal of racist artifacts from public land and waited 6-8 weeks for a letter promising to put it on the agenda for the next municipal round table...
keep seeing bristol compared with baghdad and berlin. dont think the incidents are anyway comparable imo.
has there really been a huge clamour in bristol for it to be removed?
i just cant see how it has stayed up for so long if the citys poulation as a whole cared enough for it to be removed.
have the xcouncil never been under enough pressure to bring it down?
(06-08-2020, 12:43 PM)WWHO Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:17 AM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 11:08 AM)WWHO Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 10:54 AM)Kit Kat Chunky Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 10:19 AM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ]What will be more interesting is who will want to put it back up again? In a way, that in itself 'almost' justifies tearing it down.
It shouldn't go back up, in my opinion.
But whatever happens it needs to be decided in a lawful way, not because an out of control mob decided upon itself to take the law into it's own hands.
What next, vigilantes? Summary execution by the mob for walking on the cracks in the pavement?
We have to have law enforcement otherwise we end up with anarchy and civil war. And I'm no apologist for the Police, far from it. But someone has to enforce the law.
I think you're being a little harsh in your criticism of Tory Councillor Richard Eddy and the Society of Merchant Venturers ...
I was going to make a post on the relative merits of both peaceful and violent direct action, forms of protest I personally have participated in; but instead I'm going to reflect on the fact that a poster on this thread has advocated the army shooting his/her fellow citizens. Wow.
What would have happened if the tumbling statue had crushed someone??
HASAW would have had a field day!!
I can just imagine the scenes in East Germany, on that historic day in November 1989, as a huddled mass of Mauerspechtes approached the Berlin Wall - a much loathed symbol of tyranny and division.
Then, just as they unsheathed their tiny little axes in order to engage in what would have been an epoch-making act of civil disobedience, they were stopped dead in their tracks by a hard helmet clad party official. After he read out the article 2, section b of the new Health and Safety Act, their leader David Hasslehoff agreed to climb down and his supporters dispersed immediately.
Having been forced to conduct their protest by legitimate means, they subsequently wrote a succession of strongly worded letters to the East Berlin council calling for the wall's removal. But, with the lobbying campaign being filibustered by the political establishment, the wall remained.
The rest, as they say, is history ...
(06-08-2020, 12:31 PM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:26 PM)WWHO Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed, in terms of propaganda, that's a strategic fail by BLM.
Reminds me of the anti-capitalist demonstration i attended in Parliament Sq in May 2000. I was photographed walking past the Churchill statue just as a protester was adorning it with red paint (representing the blood of British and Commonwealth troops) and a lump of turf (modelled, quite skillfully IMVHO, as a mohawk). My gran, having seen the image, didn't speak to her 'traitorous ungrateful bastard grandson' for about three months. Lesson learnt.
Interestingly enough, the guy charged with vandalising the statue had toured Bosnia with the Royal Marines. My gran hadn't, though she was incredibly patriotic. I dread to think what she'd be saying in these post-Brexit times, the mad old racist cow. God bless her.
she was lovely, just 'of her time' !
Yes, if her time was the Dark Ages.
Thank god i took after my granddad; a lefty gobshite who had a troubled relationship with both alcohol and figures of authority.
So what did she post on here as?
(06-08-2020, 12:36 PM)Remi_Moses Wrote: [ -> ]Whilst all this is going on, the leadership from our elected MPs has been deafening.
Priti is going to insist that once the statue is fished out of the water that it must
Quarantine for 14 days
(06-08-2020, 12:16 PM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Big Daddy Cool Wrote: [ -> ]Churchill statue has been damaged now
Big mistake. That's the problem with direct action, you alienate moderates. You're not going to gain coverts with this. We all know he was a racist (it's well documented) but he is one where it would be expedient to turn a blind eye. I'd conveniently put him in the "he was of his time" category and move on.
One way of looking at statues, is to consider what the person was mainly known for and why do we have a statue of them?
For Churchill, it's for clearly very good deeds as opposed to his dubious opinions. That's why he's remembered.
Colson, on the other hand, is famed for the wealth he acquired via the slave trade.
I would emphasise that I don't think tearing statues down is necessarily the way to go in the UK, it would be better to discuss matters sensibly, but this bored shows why that may be difficult.
You reveal a lot about yourself if you're more upset about how they're protesting as opposed to why they're protesting, lads.
(06-08-2020, 12:59 PM)Squid Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:16 PM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Big Daddy Cool Wrote: [ -> ]Churchill statue has been damaged now
Big mistake. That's the problem with direct action, you alienate moderates. You're not going to gain coverts with this. We all know he was a racist (it's well documented) but he is one where it would be expedient to turn a blind eye. I'd conveniently put him in the "he was of his time" category and move on.
One way of looking at statues, is to consider what the person was mainly known for and why do we have a statue of them?
For Churchill, it's for clearly very good deeds as opposed to his dubious opinions. That's why he's remembered.
Colson, on the other hand, is famed for the wealth he acquired via the slave trade.
I would emphasise that I don't think tearing statues down is necessarily the way to go in the UK, it would be better to discuss matters sensibly, but this bored shows why that may be difficult.
So what about Jimmy Saville? Before he died, he was generally know as a fundraiser. Now we know different, would you leave the statue up? Should they have taken it down? Would you rename the 'Jimmy Saville Hospital Ward'?
I take your point, though.
I think you have to judge people in their own time. But , if you want to 'live on' as a statue, you have to also be willing to be judged in contemporary times.
Unfortunately, very few will stand up to such dual scrutiny - we need to compromise. Churchill I can understand, this bristol guy and saville not so much!
(06-08-2020, 12:59 PM)Squid Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:16 PM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Big Daddy Cool Wrote: [ -> ]Churchill statue has been damaged now
Big mistake. That's the problem with direct action, you alienate moderates. You're not going to gain coverts with this. We all know he was a racist (it's well documented) but he is one where it would be expedient to turn a blind eye. I'd conveniently put him in the "he was of his time" category and move on.
One way of looking at statues, is to consider what the person was mainly known for and why do we have a statue of them?
For Churchill, it's for clearly very good deeds as opposed to his dubious opinions. That's why he's remembered.
Colson, on the other hand, is famed for the wealth he acquired via the slave trade.
I would emphasise that I don't think tearing statues down is necessarily the way to go in the UK, it would be better to discuss matters sensibly, but this bored shows why that may be difficult.
I'd argue that many of his more dubious or contentious acts (nice way of putting it) are unknown to the wider public because they have been deliberately written out of popular history books and, moreover, the school curriculum.
(06-08-2020, 01:36 PM)WWHO Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:59 PM)Squid Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:16 PM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Big Daddy Cool Wrote: [ -> ]Churchill statue has been damaged now
Big mistake. That's the problem with direct action, you alienate moderates. You're not going to gain coverts with this. We all know he was a racist (it's well documented) but he is one where it would be expedient to turn a blind eye. I'd conveniently put him in the "he was of his time" category and move on.
One way of looking at statues, is to consider what the person was mainly known for and why do we have a statue of them?
For Churchill, it's for clearly very good deeds as opposed to his dubious opinions. That's why he's remembered.
Colson, on the other hand, is famed for the wealth he acquired via the slave trade.
I would emphasise that I don't think tearing statues down is necessarily the way to go in the UK, it would be better to discuss matters sensibly, but this bored shows why that may be difficult.
I'd argue that many of his more dubious or contentious acts (nice way of putting it) are unknown to the wider public because they have been deliberately written out of popular history books and, moreover, the school curriculum.
But how far in history do you go back. Even the Bible has been amended over the years, this makes it more acceptable to religion. The book of Enoch was thought to have been removed as Giants and Aliens don't fit in.
(06-08-2020, 01:36 PM)WWHO Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:59 PM)Squid Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:16 PM)fuzzbox Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2020, 12:09 PM)Big Daddy Cool Wrote: [ -> ]Churchill statue has been damaged now
Big mistake. That's the problem with direct action, you alienate moderates. You're not going to gain coverts with this. We all know he was a racist (it's well documented) but he is one where it would be expedient to turn a blind eye. I'd conveniently put him in the "he was of his time" category and move on.
One way of looking at statues, is to consider what the person was mainly known for and why do we have a statue of them?
For Churchill, it's for clearly very good deeds as opposed to his dubious opinions. That's why he's remembered.
Colson, on the other hand, is famed for the wealth he acquired via the slave trade.
I would emphasise that I don't think tearing statues down is necessarily the way to go in the UK, it would be better to discuss matters sensibly, but this bored shows why that may be difficult.
I'd argue that many of his more dubious or contentious acts (nice way of putting it) are unknown to the wider public because they have been deliberately written out of popular history books and, moreover, the school curriculum.
Can't be true. I just read on this thread his racism is "well documented"
Comedy gold
'I tagged the statue of Churchill because he's a confirmed racist': Defiant Black Lives Matter protester says he desecrated the wartime PM's plinth because he fought the Nazis to protect colonialism - NOT for 'people of colour'