Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting
Comments
-
You really are a disgrace.tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
According to you the police who uphold the law and protect the citizens of this country should be proud of running away from mobs who are attacking them and allowing said mobs to vandalise historic monuments.
That their superiors blocked them from maintaining law and order is another utter disgrace
2 -
Well you've just had that confirmed by the simple minded one.tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
1 -
And people like you are going to hate when military veterans in their berets guard the military monuments this weekend to stop the vandalism taking place again.tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
I will salute and have massive respect for the military veterans who are defending our historical monuments0 -
Oh, that's an easy one - the institutions and social media are dominated by one side, and I'll give you a clue: it's not the government.veronese68 said:A question my son just asked me. If taking it down was undemocratic and the majority of people wanted it kept, why is the conversation now about which other statues should be taken down rather than about putting it back up?
1 -
Also, do they have a vote before putting statues up in the first place?veronese68 said:A question my son just asked me. If taking it down was undemocratic and the majority of people wanted it kept, why is the conversation now about which other statues should be taken down rather than about putting it back up?
0 -
You demonstrate your ignorance of what taking a knee means to an NFL footballer. It is in no way a submissive act.tailwindhome said:It says a lot about a man's mindset if they hear 'take a knee with' as 'take a knee for'.
Funny, I don't remember it being seen as a submissive gesture when Colin Kaepernick was doing it.0 -
Are you sad you're not well known enough to get the Katie Hopkins gig ?coopster_the_1st said:
You really are a disgrace.tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
According to you the police who uphold the law and protect the citizens of this country should be proud of running away from mobs who are attacking them and allowing said mobs to vandalise historic monuments.
That their superiors blocked them from maintaining law and order is another utter disgrace
So a few monuments got paint on. Big deal. All cleaned off now. Won't be the first time and won't be the last.
Much preferable to a full on riot with heavy injuries on both sides.
The police did an excellent job.0 -
You mean let's just agree with you? No let's not.tailwindhome said:shortfall said:
Yeah I'm up for that, except it didn't happen that way. Some people started protesting in London about a policeman killing a black man in America. The police in London went down on one knee in front of the protestors and in one instance actualky ran away from them, as well as simply standing by watching whilst monuments were vandalised. A yob element amongst the protestors was emboldened by the Polices apparent unwillingness to er... police and when further protests took place around the country, in the case of Bristol, a criminal element tore down the Colston statue and threw it in the harbour seemingly untroubled by Mr Plod. Now if you want to defend mob justice then sorry I'm not going to agree with you. Once the idea gets abroad that the police aren't going to uphold the law it isn't going to end well, particularly when only a short while ago they were salivating at being able to enforce arbitary government dictat to preserve the lockdown, just so long as it was only lone walkers in the peak district or the odd sunbather in a park of course.tailwindhome said:How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?
I'll ask the question, which was clearly with regards to this thread, again.
How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?
Maybe think about it without deflecting to the issues you have with the police strategy or strawmen about defending mob justice.0 -
The role of the police is to maintain law and order, not allow mob rule, which they endorsed by running away.fenix said:
Are you sad you're not well known enough to get the Katie Hopkins gig ?coopster_the_1st said:
You really are a disgrace.tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
According to you the police who uphold the law and protect the citizens of this country should be proud of running away from mobs who are attacking them and allowing said mobs to vandalise historic monuments.
That their superiors blocked them from maintaining law and order is another utter disgrace
So a few monuments got paint on. Big deal. All cleaned off now. Won't be the first time and won't be the last.
Much preferable to a full on riot with heavy injuries on both sides.
The police did an excellent job.0 -
I am going to enjoy seeing a few vandals getting their heads cracked open as a lesson to respect the property of others and our country.
They have confidence at the moment that they are above the law and will learn the hard way that is not the case.0 -
I always thought you had killed yourself in the bunker alongside Eva.coopster_the_1st said:
The role of the police is to maintain law and order, not allow mob rule, which they endorsed by running away.fenix said:
Are you sad you're not well known enough to get the Katie Hopkins gig ?coopster_the_1st said:
You really are a disgrace.tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
According to you the police who uphold the law and protect the citizens of this country should be proud of running away from mobs who are attacking them and allowing said mobs to vandalise historic monuments.
That their superiors blocked them from maintaining law and order is another utter disgrace
So a few monuments got paint on. Big deal. All cleaned off now. Won't be the first time and won't be the last.
Much preferable to a full on riot with heavy injuries on both sides.
The police did an excellent job.0 -
veronese68 said:
Well you've just had that confirmed by the simple minded one.tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
Perhaps 'TSMO' might be useful shorthand for the Trump tribute act.0 -
?
Since you're a very brave and militant person, why don't you go and have a crack yourself?coopster_the_1st said:I am going to enjoy seeing a few vandals getting their heads cracked open as a lesson to respect the property of others and our country.
They have confidence at the moment that they are above the law and will learn the hard way that is not the case.
0 -
Who is having the conversation of which you speak?veronese68 said:A question my son just asked me. If taking it down was undemocratic and the majority of people wanted it kept, why is the conversation now about which other statues should be taken down rather than about putting it back up?
I suspect the answer you seek will be found there.
Not sure why you think the majority want Colston's statue put back up.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Which part do you disagree with?shortfall said:
You mean let's just agree with you? No let's not.tailwindhome said:shortfall said:
Yeah I'm up for that, except it didn't happen that way. Some people started protesting in London about a policeman killing a black man in America. The police in London went down on one knee in front of the protestors and in one instance actualky ran away from them, as well as simply standing by watching whilst monuments were vandalised. A yob element amongst the protestors was emboldened by the Polices apparent unwillingness to er... police and when further protests took place around the country, in the case of Bristol, a criminal element tore down the Colston statue and threw it in the harbour seemingly untroubled by Mr Plod. Now if you want to defend mob justice then sorry I'm not going to agree with you. Once the idea gets abroad that the police aren't going to uphold the law it isn't going to end well, particularly when only a short while ago they were salivating at being able to enforce arbitary government dictat to preserve the lockdown, just so long as it was only lone walkers in the peak district or the odd sunbather in a park of course.tailwindhome said:How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?
I'll ask the question, which was clearly with regards to this thread, again.
How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?
Maybe think about it without deflecting to the issues you have with the police strategy or strawmen about defending mob justice.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Millicent Fawcet is the slightly more complex one.TheBigBean said:Sir Francis Drake has been moved on to the hitlist which at least demonstates some consistency. Just his statues and not the replica boat, so a stroll along the Thames can still take in the Clink prison and a pirate ship.
I'm wondering about making the case for Jane Austen being a bit racist. I could then encourage everyone to dump their tenners.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think that's his point.blazing_saddles said:
Who is having the conversation of which you speak?veronese68 said:A question my son just asked me. If taking it down was undemocratic and the majority of people wanted it kept, why is the conversation now about which other statues should be taken down rather than about putting it back up?
I suspect the answer you seek will be found there.
Not sure why you think the majority want Colston's statue put back up.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So, most of us (certainly everyone posting on an Internet forum) benefits from goods that involve cheap / exploited labour.shortfall said:
I'm not making a direct comparison as well you know, I'm saying it's easy for people to make value judgements on past behaviours whilst being (wilfully) blind to some of the terrible things going on around us today that they could actually change or not support simply by changing their shopping habits. Most of us own consumer goods that are made in sweat shops and I am simply saying that we would do well to look at ourselves before excusing mobs who tear down statues of people from history. And you're right I don't know a great deal about Bristol and Colston other than what I've read up on since recent events took place. I do know enough to say though that if you allow a mob to decide on what should be agreed by a democratic process whilst the police stand idly by then it won't end well.rjsterry said:
Who are you referring to here, and how are you determining whether they buy fast fashion or not? If you don't know anything about Colston or Bristol, that's fine, but don't pretend the transatlantic slave trade is remotely comparable to modern clothing production.shortfall said:
I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.rjsterry said:
I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.shortfall said:
I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.kingstongraham said:
Where do you stand on child labour?shortfall said:
It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.rjsterry said:
Have another whataboutery sticker.shortfall said:
If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?Jeremy.89 said:Why does one have to preclude the other?
And yet somehow possession of such goods can be used as some sort of collective adjective to define this ‘mob’.
It’s almost like people are looking for a means to generalise the people involved in a negative way that is separate from their actual behaviour.
If only there was a distinguishing characteristic that could be used...0 -
Now that's a good strawman. Well done.morstar said:
So, most of us (certainly everyone posting on an Internet forum) benefits from goods that involve cheap / exploited labour.shortfall said:
I'm not making a direct comparison as well you know, I'm saying it's easy for people to make value judgements on past behaviours whilst being (wilfully) blind to some of the terrible things going on around us today that they could actually change or not support simply by changing their shopping habits. Most of us own consumer goods that are made in sweat shops and I am simply saying that we would do well to look at ourselves before excusing mobs who tear down statues of people from history. And you're right I don't know a great deal about Bristol and Colston other than what I've read up on since recent events took place. I do know enough to say though that if you allow a mob to decide on what should be agreed by a democratic process whilst the police stand idly by then it won't end well.rjsterry said:
Who are you referring to here, and how are you determining whether they buy fast fashion or not? If you don't know anything about Colston or Bristol, that's fine, but don't pretend the transatlantic slave trade is remotely comparable to modern clothing production.shortfall said:
I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.rjsterry said:
I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.shortfall said:
I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.kingstongraham said:
Where do you stand on child labour?shortfall said:
It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.rjsterry said:
Have another whataboutery sticker.shortfall said:
If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?Jeremy.89 said:Why does one have to preclude the other?
And yet somehow possession of such goods can be used as some sort of collective adjective to define this ‘mob’.
It’s almost like people are looking for a means to generalise the people involved in a negative way that is separate from their actual behaviour.
If only there was a distinguishing characteristic that could be used...0 -
Great little story of the another different statue0 -
Given the choice, would you put the statue back up or not?shortfall said:
Now that's a good strawman. Well done.morstar said:
So, most of us (certainly everyone posting on an Internet forum) benefits from goods that involve cheap / exploited labour.shortfall said:
I'm not making a direct comparison as well you know, I'm saying it's easy for people to make value judgements on past behaviours whilst being (wilfully) blind to some of the terrible things going on around us today that they could actually change or not support simply by changing their shopping habits. Most of us own consumer goods that are made in sweat shops and I am simply saying that we would do well to look at ourselves before excusing mobs who tear down statues of people from history. And you're right I don't know a great deal about Bristol and Colston other than what I've read up on since recent events took place. I do know enough to say though that if you allow a mob to decide on what should be agreed by a democratic process whilst the police stand idly by then it won't end well.rjsterry said:
Who are you referring to here, and how are you determining whether they buy fast fashion or not? If you don't know anything about Colston or Bristol, that's fine, but don't pretend the transatlantic slave trade is remotely comparable to modern clothing production.shortfall said:
I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.rjsterry said:
I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.shortfall said:
I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.kingstongraham said:
Where do you stand on child labour?shortfall said:
It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.rjsterry said:
Have another whataboutery sticker.shortfall said:
If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?Jeremy.89 said:Why does one have to preclude the other?
And yet somehow possession of such goods can be used as some sort of collective adjective to define this ‘mob’.
It’s almost like people are looking for a means to generalise the people involved in a negative way that is separate from their actual behaviour.
If only there was a distinguishing characteristic that could be used...0 -
And just for those treating the law as divine.
Sometimes change only happens through protest and struggle. Even in democracies.
Rosa Parks, Mass trespass, Suffrage.
Sometimes it takes more than just words to make a necessary change. Otherwise laws will be written and maintained that are perverse or unacceptable.
Whether this fits your criteria is a broader discussion but I don’t adhere to the idea that all laws are sacrosanct.
Sometimes the enforcement agencies have to realise they are in danger of being on the wrong side when upholding laws. Otherwise tyranny reigns.
Look across the pond to see how tyranny can twist even an established democracy.
0 -
Don't hide history, says Oxford head in statue row
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-52999319
"We need to confront our past, we need to learn from it," said Prof Richardson.
"My own view on this is that hiding our history is not the route to enlightenment.
We need to understand this history and understand the context in which it was made and why it was that people believed then as they did.
Goes on to make several more relevant/irrelevant points (depending on POV) and some background info."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Just establishing what is between the lines.shortfall said:
Now that's a good strawman. Well done.morstar said:
So, most of us (certainly everyone posting on an Internet forum) benefits from goods that involve cheap / exploited labour.shortfall said:
I'm not making a direct comparison as well you know, I'm saying it's easy for people to make value judgements on past behaviours whilst being (wilfully) blind to some of the terrible things going on around us today that they could actually change or not support simply by changing their shopping habits. Most of us own consumer goods that are made in sweat shops and I am simply saying that we would do well to look at ourselves before excusing mobs who tear down statues of people from history. And you're right I don't know a great deal about Bristol and Colston other than what I've read up on since recent events took place. I do know enough to say though that if you allow a mob to decide on what should be agreed by a democratic process whilst the police stand idly by then it won't end well.rjsterry said:
Who are you referring to here, and how are you determining whether they buy fast fashion or not? If you don't know anything about Colston or Bristol, that's fine, but don't pretend the transatlantic slave trade is remotely comparable to modern clothing production.shortfall said:
I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.rjsterry said:
I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.shortfall said:
I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.kingstongraham said:
Where do you stand on child labour?shortfall said:
It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.rjsterry said:
Have another whataboutery sticker.shortfall said:
If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?Jeremy.89 said:Why does one have to preclude the other?
And yet somehow possession of such goods can be used as some sort of collective adjective to define this ‘mob’.
It’s almost like people are looking for a means to generalise the people involved in a negative way that is separate from their actual behaviour.
If only there was a distinguishing characteristic that could be used...0 -
Interesting that in that case the promises of adding an explanatory plaque some years previously came to nothing as well. Almost as though it was an attempt to fob people off.blazing_saddles said:Don't hide history, says Oxford head in statue row
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-52999319
"We need to confront our past, we need to learn from it," said Prof Richardson.
"My own view on this is that hiding our history is not the route to enlightenment.
We need to understand this history and understand the context in which it was made and why it was that people believed then as they did.
Goes on to make several more relevant/irrelevant points (depending on POV) and some background info.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You see this is where you always take it too far.coopster_the_1st said:I am going to enjoy seeing a few vandals getting their heads cracked open as a lesson to respect the property of others and our country.
They have confidence at the moment that they are above the law and will learn the hard way that is not the case.
0 -
I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
0 -
Really? Seeing policemen being pelted with missiles and running away didn't exactly fill me with pride. The police are actually supposed to use appropriate force when necessary which doesn't have to include beating people up.tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
0 -
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?0 -
Good point but one that will fall on deaf ears. When Christopher Chope blocked the upskirting bill some people couldn't get their head round that he should apply his principles even to legislation he'd support were it presented correctly.shortfall said:
Town hall politics is crippled by bureaucracy who knew? Just remember that if you support the sort of direct action that results in statues you disapprove of getting lobbed in the ocean, next time it might be something you wish to protect, and then what?rjsterry said:
In Bristol that is exactly what happened. Long before last weekend. For years Colston's apologists blocked the efforts to remove the statue, then they blocked the efforts to change the plaque.shortfall said:
Yeah I'm up for that, except it didn't happen that way.tailwindhome said:How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?
0
