Selfish Sunak.didn't Think About Us...
News4 mins ago
Colston Vandals Cleared
the judge just greenlighted it's ok to vandalise, if you don't like a statue or painting just knock it down or rip it up, history is there to be trodden on if it offends you...
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro, I wasn't hoping for any particular outcome of the trial; I have lots to do without scouring the news for things I agree or disagree with. I'm just rather law-abiding, and prefer due process to social media judgments. I personally disagree with people taking the law into their own hands, whether they be active 'activists' or keyboard activists.
naomi - //
//the prosecution had to prove the defendants had no lawful excuse, and evidently failed to do so. //
I wonder what lawful excuse there is for vandalising public property? //
If I understand it, from what I have read on the thread thus far -
Not exactly an 'excuse' per se, but a legal argument that the law was not broken because the action was part of a lawful legitimate public protest, and no permanent damage was done to the object in question.
I must admit i remain baffled by the verdict, but I do accept it.
I am however interested to see if it is appealed even if, as NJ has advised, it offer firmer guidance for future cases of this nature.
//the prosecution had to prove the defendants had no lawful excuse, and evidently failed to do so. //
I wonder what lawful excuse there is for vandalising public property? //
If I understand it, from what I have read on the thread thus far -
Not exactly an 'excuse' per se, but a legal argument that the law was not broken because the action was part of a lawful legitimate public protest, and no permanent damage was done to the object in question.
I must admit i remain baffled by the verdict, but I do accept it.
I am however interested to see if it is appealed even if, as NJ has advised, it offer firmer guidance for future cases of this nature.
'Colston supported and endowed schools, houses for the poor, almshouses, hospitals and Anglican churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. His name features widely on Bristol buildings and landmarks.
In Bristol, he founded almshouses in King Street and Colstons Almshouses on St Michael's Hill, endowed Queen Elizabeth's Hospital school, and helped found Colston's Hospital, a boarding school which opened in 1710, leaving an endowment to be managed by the Society of Merchant Venturers for its upkeep. He gave money to schools in Temple (one of which went on to become St Mary Redcliffe and Temple School) and other parts of Bristol, and to several churches and the cathedral.
David Hughson, writing in 1808, described Colston as "the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than £70,000 in charitable institutions", equivalent to £5,581,350 in 2020.'
Not much of comparison to Jimmy Saville really.
In Bristol, he founded almshouses in King Street and Colstons Almshouses on St Michael's Hill, endowed Queen Elizabeth's Hospital school, and helped found Colston's Hospital, a boarding school which opened in 1710, leaving an endowment to be managed by the Society of Merchant Venturers for its upkeep. He gave money to schools in Temple (one of which went on to become St Mary Redcliffe and Temple School) and other parts of Bristol, and to several churches and the cathedral.
David Hughson, writing in 1808, described Colston as "the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than £70,000 in charitable institutions", equivalent to £5,581,350 in 2020.'
Not much of comparison to Jimmy Saville really.
Savile was a criminal.
Why were the 3 mentioned here criminals?
//Monuments to Jimmy Savile were rightly taken down when his vile crimes against hundreds of innocent people were exposed. Monuments to criminals like William Beckford, John Cass and Robert Geffrye—men who profited from a trade that enslaved and brutalised 12.8 million people over 400 years—not only still stand but are protected by the government.
Their attempts to substitute actual history with Tory myths and obscure the bloody roots of the British establishment will not succeed. The slavers will fall.//
Why were the 3 mentioned here criminals?
//Monuments to Jimmy Savile were rightly taken down when his vile crimes against hundreds of innocent people were exposed. Monuments to criminals like William Beckford, John Cass and Robert Geffrye—men who profited from a trade that enslaved and brutalised 12.8 million people over 400 years—not only still stand but are protected by the government.
Their attempts to substitute actual history with Tory myths and obscure the bloody roots of the British establishment will not succeed. The slavers will fall.//
Tiggerblue - In my view, the comparison of Jimmy Savile's monuments to the monuments of slavers is entirely bogus.
You cannot possibly equate the behaviour of historical figures profiting from slavery, with the abuse of adults and children within the last twenty years.
When Colson et al were profiting from slavery, slavery was an accepted part of life at the time, and intrinsic part of the world economy.
Now it is quite rightly seen for the evil it was - but to try and inflict 21 cenrtury thinking on 17th century history is absolutely pointless.
Slavery was an evil thing, and no-one would suggest for a moment that it was anything else.
But the statues of Colston and so on are not erected to celebrate and laud their trafficking in human misery - if they were, their removal would be entirely appropriate.
It is their philanthropy and generosity that was celebrated at the time, not their slavery, even though, as I have said, that was considered as normal as trading in tea and coffee etc.
So to compare that with the undiluted evil that was Jimmy Savile, who committed such heinous acts that were never ever acceptable in civilised society, even when slavery was normal, is making a comparison that simply does not bear scrutiny.
If, as a modern society, we are questioning the correctness of keeping statues of people who are commemorated for their generosity, even though that generosity was funded by practices that are not longer acceptable, then that is absolutely fine, that is how society progresses and evolves.
But that means discussion and agreement of the way forward, and the removal of such statues by common consent.
It does not mean the wanton vandalism of a mob of self-obsessed idiots who think they invented the word 'injustice' and that they are the first people to feel passionate about the ill-treatment of others.
That is not how society works, nor should it.
It is a supreme irony, missed entirely by the author of the piece in your link, that all Savile's commemorations were quietly removed, and not torn down by a screaming mob, even though they would have had an entirely just cause for such action.
You cannot possibly equate the behaviour of historical figures profiting from slavery, with the abuse of adults and children within the last twenty years.
When Colson et al were profiting from slavery, slavery was an accepted part of life at the time, and intrinsic part of the world economy.
Now it is quite rightly seen for the evil it was - but to try and inflict 21 cenrtury thinking on 17th century history is absolutely pointless.
Slavery was an evil thing, and no-one would suggest for a moment that it was anything else.
But the statues of Colston and so on are not erected to celebrate and laud their trafficking in human misery - if they were, their removal would be entirely appropriate.
It is their philanthropy and generosity that was celebrated at the time, not their slavery, even though, as I have said, that was considered as normal as trading in tea and coffee etc.
So to compare that with the undiluted evil that was Jimmy Savile, who committed such heinous acts that were never ever acceptable in civilised society, even when slavery was normal, is making a comparison that simply does not bear scrutiny.
If, as a modern society, we are questioning the correctness of keeping statues of people who are commemorated for their generosity, even though that generosity was funded by practices that are not longer acceptable, then that is absolutely fine, that is how society progresses and evolves.
But that means discussion and agreement of the way forward, and the removal of such statues by common consent.
It does not mean the wanton vandalism of a mob of self-obsessed idiots who think they invented the word 'injustice' and that they are the first people to feel passionate about the ill-treatment of others.
That is not how society works, nor should it.
It is a supreme irony, missed entirely by the author of the piece in your link, that all Savile's commemorations were quietly removed, and not torn down by a screaming mob, even though they would have had an entirely just cause for such action.
I disagree, Andy. Not with vandalism... but that we (hopefully) move on. Who was worth lauding at the time- perfectly acceptable. A difference in views, years later, also perfectly acceptable. And if people no longer want to celebrate him as a person- that's reasonable. Even if the methods are debatable.
Khandro posted while i was composing my post, but the detail he supplies simply underlines the generosity of Colston, for which he was honoured with a statue and other monuments.
He was not lauded for being a slaver, but for his generosity with the money his legitimate and accepted trade generated.
I fail to see anything legitimate in Jimmy Savile's behaviour, since it was entirely created to give him limitless access to innocent victims.
He was not lauded for being a slaver, but for his generosity with the money his legitimate and accepted trade generated.
I fail to see anything legitimate in Jimmy Savile's behaviour, since it was entirely created to give him limitless access to innocent victims.
pixie - // I disagree, Andy. Not with vandalism... but that we (hopefully) move on. Who was worth lauding at the time- perfectly acceptable. A difference in views, years later, also perfectly acceptable. And if people no longer want to celebrate him as a person- that's reasonable. Even if the methods are debatable. //
I don;t think you actually disagree with me at all pix.
As I pointed out, the changes in attitudes and acceptances of actions and attitudes is what makes society evolve and develop.
It is a point of view, to question the validity of Colston's statue et al, given the source of his wealth, but that is the point - questioning.
That means a debate, a consensus of opinion, and an agreed course of action which the majority agree with.
The methods are not 'debatable', they are indefensible, morally if not legally.
Mob rule and mob violence are never a valid action for any change of opinion, under any circumstances.
I don;t think you actually disagree with me at all pix.
As I pointed out, the changes in attitudes and acceptances of actions and attitudes is what makes society evolve and develop.
It is a point of view, to question the validity of Colston's statue et al, given the source of his wealth, but that is the point - questioning.
That means a debate, a consensus of opinion, and an agreed course of action which the majority agree with.
The methods are not 'debatable', they are indefensible, morally if not legally.
Mob rule and mob violence are never a valid action for any change of opinion, under any circumstances.
pixie - // Just to ask one question.... knowing everything you do now, about Colston- would you be petitioning to raise a statue or not? //
No - but that's with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
People then thought noting of slavery, and everything of generosity - today thoughts are entirely different.
And with the same 20/20 hindsight, I would not have had what amounted to a state funeral for Jimmy Savile, or monuments to him anywhere under any circumstances.
Hindsight lets us all do that - but it doesn't negate the actions of the time, because hindsight was not part of the process.
No - but that's with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
People then thought noting of slavery, and everything of generosity - today thoughts are entirely different.
And with the same 20/20 hindsight, I would not have had what amounted to a state funeral for Jimmy Savile, or monuments to him anywhere under any circumstances.
Hindsight lets us all do that - but it doesn't negate the actions of the time, because hindsight was not part of the process.
Atheist - // And don't forget that Colston was in an industry where thousands of people died; even more than Saville's victims. //
What an utterly pointless observation.
This is not a 'whose the bigger villain' contest for heaven's sake!
Just because Colston's legitimate trading activity caused more deaths than Savile's wholesale sex abuse is not a comparison that stands up in any way shape or form.
Both are now considered to be evil practices.
But only one was ever considered to be normal at any time in history.
What an utterly pointless observation.
This is not a 'whose the bigger villain' contest for heaven's sake!
Just because Colston's legitimate trading activity caused more deaths than Savile's wholesale sex abuse is not a comparison that stands up in any way shape or form.
Both are now considered to be evil practices.
But only one was ever considered to be normal at any time in history.
Andy, but we do have hindsight, and we may choose to remove a statue that was erected without hindsight. In this case, the choice was siezed by 'activists' and I disagree with that; they should in my view have lobbied for a result and not just taken the law into their own hands. But 'twas ever thus!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Jokes18 mins ago
News20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.