I am not dismissing ANY evidence. ALL I am saying is when one viewpoint is silent, then a balanced perspective is impossible. It's not as difficult to comprehend as you appear to find it.

Everything else you assert is hearsay at best, and very possibly deliberately constructed to paint the picture the authorities wanted painted, so they could get the resources they believed were needed to maintain their positions.

Using words like "clearly", "specifically" and "undoubtably" when what actually went on, how and why, is shrouded in the mists of time and compromised by a tainted enquiry, is merely demonstrating your willingness to accept things at face value. Those who swallow spoon-fed propaganda are never going to be able to make objective judgements. You would make a rotten juror!

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You are seriously suggesting that your viewpoint is ‘balanced’!
Everything you assert is clearly, specifically and undoubtedly to mitigate the actions of the terrorist, racist, incitor of murder, Chilembwe.

Yes, it's balanced as it seeks to see things in their context and recognises that not everything that others say is actually true. I am not mitigating anything, as from my perspective, nothing has been established that requires mitigation. Mitigation occurs after a fact has been established, and not before.

You on the other hand take what has been reported at face value. I bet you are the type who believes everything that is "reported" in the Mail and the Sun!

I am done with this. If you don't understand by now, you never will.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You have written plenty on this subject and the majority of it appears to be you excusing away the murder of British subjects.
I think I will draw my conclusions from that.

You asked me to give a clear answer on whether I supported, or not, the erection of this statue. I have already done so. You can find it, if you really want to.

You trying to throw mud with ridiculous suggestions that I have "excused murder" is just another of your diversions. I have done no such thing, and the long explanations on why historical accounts need to be treated with scepticism are unconnected to the merits of any statue.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I cannot imagine you accepting having to answer twice, and would doubtless tell me to do my own work! There are only 12 pages to look through!

Whether a statue of this guy is "anti-British" is another matter on which I make no comment. What I said was:-

"Putting up a statue to someone who has no direct connection to us, when there are many other candidates whose contributions to our country have established merit, seems strange.

If he deserves to be recognised, and I pass no comment on that, then it would be appropriate in his home country".

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.