// Just because a statue erected two hundred years ago does not reflect modern attitudes is no reason to destroy it. Rather, it should be relocated in a museum as part of an exhibition in social history, with appropriate context to show how it came to be made and erected. //
On this, though, I will agree. I don't claim to be particularly upset that Colston's statue is at the bottom of a canal or whatever, but I will at least agree that it would have been significantly better had it been removed with the consent and agreement of the city as a whole, and preserved in a Museum somewhere. It may yet be: I doubt the Council will want to move too fast, but I've no doubt it will be retrieved at some point.