LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

Pross

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Makes the old colonialists feel like the UK is still a major player.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

rjsterry

More seriously, if you are actually trying to tackle the people trafficking gangs (as opposed to wasting Rwanda's time) then keeping on the best terms with Greece -through whose territory a lot of the trafficking routes run - would seem like a no-brainer.

drhaggis

monkimark said:

I think it's a complete non-issue for most people - I lived/worked in London for 20 years and I've never seen them. If you live in Glasgow, it'd probably be cheaper/easier to go and see them in Athens.

Seriously? I used to work nearby, and passing by the British Museum on a late opening (Thursday & Friday back then) after work was brilliant. No one around the Rosetta or the marbles. All quiet. I loved it, and it's one of the few things I truly miss from London.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

What is your opinion?

rick_chasey

There is obviously no moral argument, but they are indeed in the UK's possession from an era where this stuff was acceptable.

If the UK is to repatriate things (fine, by the way) they should really use their leverage to get some material gains/compensation.

How much do these countries really want their stuff back and how much is it political play?

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

What is your opinion?

Stuff that was stolen should be returned. Stuff that was legitimately bought should not.

First.Aspect

What do you think Greece should give the UK?

Do they still have Henry VIII's gold death mask or the Magna Carta or anything like that?

Jezyboy

drhaggis said:

monkimark said:

I think it's a complete non-issue for most people - I lived/worked in London for 20 years and I've never seen them. If you live in Glasgow, it'd probably be cheaper/easier to go and see them in Athens.

Seriously? I used to work nearby, and passing by the British Museum on a late opening (Thursday & Friday back then) after work was brilliant. No one around the Rosetta or the marbles. All quiet. I loved it, and it's one of the few things I truly miss from London.

Given no one was around, sort of gives credence to the idea that it's a bit of a non issue for lots of people!

MidlandsGrimpeur2

As a little kid I thought the Elgin marbles were literally giant marbles. I was very disappointed to learn they were actually sculptures!

monkimark

Jezyboy said:

drhaggis said:

monkimark said:

I think it's a complete non-issue for most people - I lived/worked in London for 20 years and I've never seen them. If you live in Glasgow, it'd probably be cheaper/easier to go and see them in Athens.

Seriously? I used to work nearby, and passing by the British Museum on a late opening (Thursday & Friday back then) after work was brilliant. No one around the Rosetta or the marbles. All quiet. I loved it, and it's one of the few things I truly miss from London.

Given no one was around, sort of gives credence to the idea that it's a bit of a non issue for lots of people!

I'm not denying that they are important/impressive or whatever but a large proportion of the UK population will never make the effort to see them so they may as well be in Greece for all the difference it makes.
Straw poll in my office - zero out of 5 people have seen them, and we're in Holborn (i am on a building site so possibly not the most arty/historically inclined group). Certainly I doubt many of my mates back home in Lancashire are going to travel 200 miles each way to see them.

I also thought they were actual marbles, well past what could reasonably be described as childhood.

Pross

I've never found that sort of thing impressive when they are out of context in a museum. Would people go to see Stonehenge if it was relocated to a large room in a museum?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

Not sure that the inverse argument is any less ridiculous.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

More seriously, if you are actually trying to tackle the people trafficking gangs (as opposed to wasting Rwanda's time) then keeping on the best terms with Greece -through whose territory a lot of the trafficking routes run - would seem like a no-brainer.

Serious question - Are folk trafficked here via small boats or are they actually doing their best to get here of their own volition?

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

More seriously, if you are actually trying to tackle the people trafficking gangs (as opposed to wasting Rwanda's time) then keeping on the best terms with Greece -through whose territory a lot of the trafficking routes run - would seem like a no-brainer.

Serious question - Are folk trafficked here via small boats or are they actually doing their best to get here of their own volition?

Both, no? The traffickers are just taking advantage of fairly desperate people.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

Not sure that the inverse argument is any less ridiculous.

What even is the inverse argument?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

Not sure that the inverse argument is any less ridiculous.

What even is the inverse argument?

Arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing in one part. Therefore, bagsy.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

Serious question - Are folk trafficked here via small boats or are they actually doing their best to get here of their own volition?

The overwhelming majority are trying to get here of their own volition. However, in order to get to destination countries such as the UK, they will have to pay traffickers to get them across borders.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

Not sure that the inverse argument is any less ridiculous.

What even is the inverse argument?

Arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing in one part. Therefore, bagsy.

The first sentence I agree with although I'd modify that to 'in it's context'. Not sure what you mean by bagsy in this case.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

Not sure that the inverse argument is any less ridiculous.

What even is the inverse argument?

Arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing in one part. Therefore, bagsy.

The first sentence I agree with although I'd modify that to 'in it's context'. Not sure what you mean by bagsy in this case.

Claiming ownership because it looks nicer doesn't make sense.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

More seriously, if you are actually trying to tackle the people trafficking gangs (as opposed to wasting Rwanda's time) then keeping on the best terms with Greece -through whose territory a lot of the trafficking routes run - would seem like a no-brainer.

Serious question - Are folk trafficked here via small boats or are they actually doing their best to get here of their own volition?

Both, no? The traffickers are just taking advantage of fairly desperate people.

Doesn't trafficking involve coercion into forced labour etc? I don't doubt some of that goes on but isn't the majority of "small boats" immigration just people coming here willingly and paying handsomely for the privilege and then waiting months in sub-optimal conditions before their asylum application is heard?

wallace_and_gromit

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

Serious question - Are folk trafficked here via small boats or are they actually doing their best to get here of their own volition?

The overwhelming majority are trying to get here of their own volition. However, in order to get to destination countries such as the UK, they will have to pay traffickers to get them across borders.

Don't doubt there are middlemen involved, but all the definitions of trafficking I've read involve some element of coercion, forced labour etc. which isn't the case in the scenario you describe.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

Not sure that the inverse argument is any less ridiculous.

What even is the inverse argument?

Arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing in one part. Therefore, bagsy.

The first sentence I agree with although I'd modify that to 'in it's context'. Not sure what you mean by bagsy in this case.

Claiming ownership because it looks nicer doesn't make sense.

Ownership is a different and fairly trivial question. This is about where they are. Both the Acropolis and the Parthenon sculptures are better understood together and both are diminished by being separated and dismantled.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

It is a complex mix (I worked for a few years with a research centre that led the largest migration research project in Europe during the 2010's). It is not really like sex trafficking or modern slavery whereby people are essentially kidnapped (at worst), or forcibly coerced into leaving their home and are then trafficked abroad without consent.

If we are talking specifically about small boat crossings into the UK, the majority of people will have left their home country under their own choice, usually to escape conflict, personal danger or poverty. Some of them will engage a trafficker in their own country and pay them to get them to a destination. However, most will not realise this person is a trafficker, they believe they are literally paying for safe passage to another country. Obviously what happens in many cases is they arrive at destination country and are then told they owe more money and are going to have to work to pay it off (then essentially becoming coerced into modern slavery).

Others will make their way across borders and when they get to certain areas where it is simply impossible to cross under their own initiative, they will pay someone to get them across. In most cases, again this costs far more than they actually have and leads many into effectively being trafficked and then modern slavery.

In short, many people will make a conscious decision to seek out a better life but in doing so they will, through circumstance, then become 'trafficked' and taken advantage of by scumbags who exploit their vulnerability and desperation for financial gain.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

More seriously, if you are actually trying to tackle the people trafficking gangs (as opposed to wasting Rwanda's time) then keeping on the best terms with Greece -through whose territory a lot of the trafficking routes run - would seem like a no-brainer.

Serious question - Are folk trafficked here via small boats or are they actually doing their best to get here of their own volition?

Both, no? The traffickers are just taking advantage of fairly desperate people.

Doesn't trafficking involve coercion into forced labour etc? I don't doubt some of that goes on but isn't the majority of "small boats" immigration just people coming here willingly and paying handsomely for the privilege and then waiting months in sub-optimal conditions before their asylum application is heard?

I don't think it's quite as black and white as that. They're not just running an illicit travel agency.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

Not sure that the inverse argument is any less ridiculous.

What even is the inverse argument?

Arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing in one part. Therefore, bagsy.

The first sentence I agree with although I'd modify that to 'in it's context'. Not sure what you mean by bagsy in this case.

Claiming ownership because it looks nicer doesn't make sense.

Ownership is a different and fairly trivial question. This is about where they are. Both the Acropolis and the Parthenon sculptures are better understood together and both are diminished by being separated and dismantled.

It's probably also true that Van Gough's works are better appreciated when viewed side by side, but it is not a good enough reason to expect donations of his works when legally owned by others.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

Not sure that the inverse argument is any less ridiculous.

What even is the inverse argument?

Arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing in one part. Therefore, bagsy.

The first sentence I agree with although I'd modify that to 'in it's context'. Not sure what you mean by bagsy in this case.

Claiming ownership because it looks nicer doesn't make sense.

Ownership is a different and fairly trivial question. This is about where they are. Both the Acropolis and the Parthenon sculptures are better understood together and both are diminished by being separated and dismantled.

It's probably also true that Van Gough's works are better appreciated when viewed side by side, but it is not a good enough reason to expect donations of his works when legally owned by others.

Funnily enough you do not see much of a movement in Western Europe to have their masterpieces repatriated from the US, who took a lot of it as spoils for liberating Europe.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

monkimark said:

It seems bizarre - presumably Mitsotakis was asked about them and gave the expected answer that he would like them returned.
It reminds me of drunk arguments when someone takes offence at something that they mistakenly thought you said, leaving you entirely baffled as to what the argument is about.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone is still making the argument that they should be in London.

Is that because of the way they were acquired or because you think everything should return it its country of origin?

I think arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing two parts in different places is pretty ridiculous. The way they got here is pretty irrelevant. It was over 200 years ago. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist over a century ago. Greece would like them back and that's good enough for most people.

Not sure that the inverse argument is any less ridiculous.

What even is the inverse argument?

Arguing that a work of art can be best appreciated by housing in one part. Therefore, bagsy.

The first sentence I agree with although I'd modify that to 'in it's context'. Not sure what you mean by bagsy in this case.

Claiming ownership because it looks nicer doesn't make sense.

Ownership is a different and fairly trivial question. This is about where they are. Both the Acropolis and the Parthenon sculptures are better understood together and both are diminished by being separated and dismantled.

It's probably also true that Van Gough's works are better appreciated when viewed side by side, but it is not a good enough reason to expect donations of his works when legally owned by others.

Individual paintings and sculptures are frequently loaned from one gallery to another from both private and public collections. That was essentially the deal that was being proposed before this row. I think it's also pretty clear what the difference is between individual works by an artist and parts of the same work. If someone suggested loaning just one panel of a Bosch Triptych or splitting off one of Canova's Three Graces that would not unreasonably be viewed as vandalism.

vincesummerskRoxcBTr

The 'marbles' are just part of a marble frieze that is in a proper museum at the Parthenon and if returned would make the whole thing much more complete. They are not a stand alone piece of art.