Feels like these are teachable moments. Does there come a point at which historic commemorations are no longer considered apt? I personally think there's room for that. Obviously it isn't binary, and you're never going to have a clear cut set of rules. There will always be edge cases, because there will always be differing opinion. Do I think a National Trust museum should be torn down, because it used materials brought over on slave ships? No. Do I think those museums could be used as a platform to educate and renounce slavery? Absolutely. Do I think Fred West's house should have been torn down? Absolutely. Do I think it's appropriate to keep a Jimmy Saville wing open, because he did actually raise a shed load of money for charities? Obviously not. Do I think it's appropriate to keep a statue celebrating a renowned slave trader, in the middle of a city square? Absolutely not. I don't agree at all that a single case in some way 'opens the floodgates' to mass public disorder and wholesale destruction of monuments. I think we should give a nation of 60+ million people a little more credit than that. I personally think the Culture Secretary should launch a programme to have a root and branch review of all this, and come up with a sensible framework....oh. It's Nadine Dorries.
I was once in the Talbot for sunday lunch and that ******* left all his roast potatoes, I kid you not. The statue has to come down.
So let people have a vote on whether they want all statues of known slave traders/participants in crimes/tarnished politicians etc removing. Unfortunately that won't happen, because whilst we do live in a "demockeracy" we don't get a say very often on individual issues as the "will of the people" is interpreted and filtered through MPs, cabinet ministers and our elite readers who decide what we really meant. There's not many of them left now, but a number of people who fought in those wars have stood up and made their opinions heard on many issues. It seems to me that the very people who complain about snowflakes being offended on behalf of others, are the same people who tell us exactly what the soldiers who laid down their life for this country would have wanted. I hope the irony of that filters through. The majority of people who fought in the first and second world wars did so under conscription and at the behest of their elite overlords on either side.
I've read Mein Kampf . I would not want it to be on the school curriculum. What is on public display is a different decision .
Yes, please tell this govt. and in particular, Pritti Patel when they shove their new white papers through Parliament, which will criminalise democratic things like protesting. Those who fought and died, my grandad in WW2 included, didn’t fight for the upper echelons of our society to continue to make it harder and turn back the clock to Victorian times for the masses. They would probably turn in their graves if they saw how the ordinary people of this country were putting up with the crap Tory Govts have imposed on most of us.
I once lost a quiz by putting the wrong answer for the final question it was for a meat hamper too,the question was “who had millions of followers and was born in a stable”,tell you I’m off to Aintree to rag that Red Rums statue down
I was reading the other day that one of the Wentworth-Fitzwilliams was a signatory of the "Peace of Vienna" - a series of treaties from the 1720s that granted Gibraltar to the British, but also gave Britain control of the Atlantic slave trade (from the Spanish). He, and at least one of the descendants, then made a lot of money through the slave trade. Should Wentworth Woodhouse be torn down because of this link, should it be ignored, or should the owners have a responsibility to show the links to this part of our history and educate visitors on the causes, events and ramifications of it?
Ah fair enough! If the Govt ignore laws (especially the people responsible for actually making the laws and it is deemed OK the that sets the trend. Juries are and should remain an essential part of the justice system. However in my opinion, and I know the legal experts disagree, but they should solely determine guilt or innocence of the defendant(s) based on the evidence presented. They should not, IMO, (as was the case here) make a decision based on whether the action was 'justified' or not. Criminal damage occurred. taking the law into your own hands is a dangerous precedent. Is it OK to beat someone up who is an un-convicted paedophile then (I know that is stretching it ) but vigilantism is surely unacceptable in a society.
Comparing the two situations is apples and pears. Certainly Saddam in a war zone where the tyrant was deposed after causing great suffering . Stalin is similar but did not the State ultimately expunge him. After all it was not the people that renamed Stalingrad after a referendum?
How do you know that the jury did that? No need to answer, because we all know the answer. You don’t. But that won’t stop you typing things that you know to be lies Crack on lad, you make yourself look worse with every post.
Interesting piece on Rolf Harris and his paintings https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28129274