There are times I really like our Jury system

This; it actually had the opposite effect; it led to a load of statues being reframed, it led to a discussion around context, it moved the story on.

I’m not supporting vandalism (it’s been a pet hate since I was a kid).

But let’s stop the binary view of life; and let’s line up properly.

I’m not aligned 100% with the BLM movement, or the people who toppled this statue. But I’m closer to them than I am to the BNP thugs who leapt up to ‘protect the statues’ as an excuse for getting pissed and having a fight.

And id suggest everyone defending this statue look in the mirror and ask themselves why are they OK with thousands of deaths of black people but toppling statues is a step too far.

 

There's a massive difference between statues and houses mate.

 

Is that accurate? Not wishing to detract from the main topic but I thought/assumed we had been both during our history

 

I will make no comment on the rights & wrongs of the statue but to me it was sheer vandalism witnessed by everyone who has watched the footage , the ruling yesterday has now set a precedence & given a green light for anyone to carry out criminal damage to public monuments

 

It was a bit of a sweeping statement on my behalf, but it is clear that white Brits have not been oppressed as much as black slaves. So it's difficult to think of an equivalent statue which would provoke a similar emotion.

 

It's pointless and extremely naive ignoring the context of what was vandalised.

 

True, we've been invaded by Romans, Angles, Vikings, Normans etc but that was further in the past than our empire building and crusades even.

 

No its not , vandalism is vandalism , you cannot pick & choose , its a crime to me & always will be

 

Slavery was abolished in the East India company in 1843 (10 years after the 1833 act that ended the Transatlantic slave trade), however the last vestiges of slavery in the British Empire were finally abolished in 1928 in Sierra Leone - within living memory and 33 years after the statue was erected.

 

Sweet, and as I posted earlier. That opinion shows at best a lack of compassion and at worst is pretty racist.

Only you know where you fit on that spectrum.

 

Instead of pulling down the (now historic) houses, such as Cannon Hall or Wentworth Woodhouse, how about taking the money from the descendants of those who profited from slavery. People such as Richard Drax MP (South Dorset) who still owns a plantation in the Caribbean, or some of the other Tory MPs and Lords who are only in positions of power because their ancestors were the bigger ******** around at the time.

 

I think most decent people would say that any form of destruction of property is wrong. I personally dislike any form of physical aggression and situations where people could get hurt. However, there are two contexts here. The first context is the long-term historical one where there is a statue of a man, praising him him for work he had done based on his exploitation of black people. Effectively he supported and maintained the horrors of the middle passage and the plantation system in America. In that context the statue should at least have been removed a long time ago. It's not an appropriate thing to now have adorning one of our towns and cities. The second context was the outcry over the Floyd case in the USA. The whole BLM issue was very sensitive at the time and brought the historical context into more focus. Its to do with these contexts I think really and although I didn't follow the trial closely I suspect that the defence will have used context (and long standing local sentiment) as their tactics. This is therefore quite a specific case and I dont personally think it will give a green light for vandals to destroy any statue they like.
Mind you, there's a statue of Dickie Bird in town.....

 

So we are in agreement that it was erected nearly 200 years after Slavery was illegal in this country.
Thank you.

 

Slavery in this Country was illegal well before 200 years, indeed, the docks at Liverpool were extended, after legislation had been brought in. The statue was that of a slave trader who made a fortune out of slavery of that you cannot deny

 

As I’ve said before m8 I’ve never denied he was a Slaver just the statue was not put up because he was a trader.

 

I know you have, and believe me I’m not trying to be pedantic or disrespectful, but my point still stands that his philanthropy was assisted/ funded by his fortunes made as a slave trader and therefore he shouldn’t be commemorated in any way.

 

TBH, I agree with where you are coming from but equally, I think in the world we live in people should be allowed to make amends for their mistakes.
Ultimately the statue was erected to reflect the good he did, interestingly the real noise about this statue only started when the local council wanted to change the wording so people seeing it knew about his slavery past and the wording was objected to.

 

Appreciate what you're trying to say here lk, but I'm not sure if the 'everyone makes mistakes line' is a good one to follow for someone who killed 19,000 people and entrapped many more thousands along with further generations in slavery.

Appreciate slavery was of its time and not viewed through the current lens back then. However we now live in a globalised world, the descendants of these slaves now live in the UK, and it sends such a bad message having a statue like this celebrating the gains made by slavery.

The issue here is with Bristol council who should have replaced the statue a very long time ago. The British aren't short of heroes to look up to. A better one could surely have been sourced.

 

Technically offence my arse. It was damage to public property.

 

Slavery in this country hasn't been illegal for 200 years yet - that anniversary comes around in 11 years. It was erected 62 years after the ban on Transatlantic slavery came into force, but 33 years before slavery was finally abolished within the Empire - which was considered British soil at the time.