Moving statues

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Moving statues

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 23 of 32 < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >

Spiderman Horsham 05 Jan 22 6.59pm
Originally posted by Wilesy01 There was never an official referendum on the status of the statue. There were polls in the local newspaper but nothing like an actual referendum. As opposed to your last point the defendants never stated they didn't damage the statue, but maintained the point I made about the historical context of the statue and the inaction of the council to remove it as to why they acted. So they were guilty of criminal damage then? Was that not what Jury should have been deciding on? Unbelievable
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 05 Jan 22 6.59pm

Originally posted by Wilesy01

There was never an official referendum on the status of the statue. There were polls in the local newspaper but nothing like an actual referendum.

As opposed to your last point the defendants never stated they didn't damage the statue, but maintained the point I made about the historical context of the statue and the inaction of the council to remove it as to why they acted.

So they were guilty of criminal damage then? Was that not what Jury should have been deciding on? Unbelievable

Alert a moderator to this post

Pembroke Bristol 05 Jan 22 6.59pm
Originally posted by Badger11 There are lots of things that people find offensive there are also plenty of ways to seek redress without resorting to violence. Bristol Council held a referendum on the statue and the people did not vote to remove it but then I guess democracy is only acceptable when it comes up with the right answer. This is not about whether Colston was a good or bad person but about criminal damage. There were polls and petitions. That less than .. Well it might not have been even 1% of the population ever took part ... It was a non issue.
Alert a moderator to this post

Pembroke

Bristol 05 Jan 22 6.59pm

Originally posted by Badger11

There are lots of things that people find offensive there are also plenty of ways to seek redress without resorting to violence.

Bristol Council held a referendum on the statue and the people did not vote to remove it but then I guess democracy is only acceptable when it comes up with the right answer.

This is not about whether Colston was a good or bad person but about criminal damage.

There were polls and petitions. That less than .. Well it might not have been even 1% of the population ever took part ... It was a non issue.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 05 Jan 22 7.01pm
Originally posted by Pembroke Yes towards schools, the University, hospitals, churches and almshouses. What he paid for will not be taken down. Much of it cannot be due to its listed status. There are still charities bearing Colstons name like the Colston society, which instead of changing its name intends to cease benefitting the poor of Redcliffe area (near the docks) of the City it was set up to help. Colston philanthropy was the reason the statue in the centre existed. I am sure a listed status would not stop these thugs, unless of course they have benefited from any of these establishments
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 05 Jan 22 7.01pm

Originally posted by Pembroke

Yes towards schools, the University, hospitals, churches and almshouses.

What he paid for will not be taken down. Much of it cannot be due to its listed status.

There are still charities bearing Colstons name like the Colston society, which instead of changing its name intends to cease benefitting the poor of Redcliffe area (near the docks) of the City it was set up to help.

Colston philanthropy was the reason the statue in the centre existed.

I am sure a listed status would not stop these thugs, unless of course they have benefited from any of these establishments

Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd 05 Jan 22 7.01pm
Originally posted by georgenorman Following a mob pulling down the statue of Colston in Bristol, London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, set up a committee to look at which statues in London should be taken down. Now Khan has praised the decision to put up a statue of John Chilembwe on the ‘4th Plinth’ in Trafalgar Square, stating that it is: "shining a spotlight on important issues that our society continues to face, and I know they will spark debate and interest at home and abroad." Chilembwe was a Baptist preacher in Nyasaland (now Malawi). In 1915 he was a leader of an insurrection against colonial rule. He sent his followers with orders to “kill all European men” and bring back the head of William Livingstone, a local plantation boss. Livingstone was decapitated with an axe – in front of his wife and two small children. Chilembwe proceeded to conduct a sermon in church next to the severed head of Livingstone, impaled on a pole. Colston founded and endowed schools, houses for the poor, hospitals and churches. Yet his statue was pulled down due to his business connections to slavery. Chilembwe was a terrorist, racist and inciter of murder. The likes of Khan clearly don't want to remove statues that may cause offence, nor do they want to remove statues of racist individuals from the past – they want to remove dead white men in their anti-white, anti-British agenda. Chilembwe sounds awful, you should appeal against it being put up. I think.most of us would support you. But Colston could only build schools, hospitals and churches because of slave money, so its a big no from me. If Mugabe found god in the last few years and built loads of houses and hospitals in the last few years it would be the same result. This is not a whataboutism kind of conversation.
Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd

05 Jan 22 7.01pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

Following a mob pulling down the statue of Colston in Bristol, London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, set up a committee to look at which statues in London should be taken down.
Now Khan has praised the decision to put up a statue of John Chilembwe on the ‘4th Plinth’ in Trafalgar Square, stating that it is: "shining a spotlight on important issues that our society continues to face, and I know they will spark debate and interest at home and abroad."
Chilembwe was a Baptist preacher in Nyasaland (now Malawi). In 1915 he was a leader of an insurrection against colonial rule. He sent his followers with orders to “kill all European men” and bring back the head of William Livingstone, a local plantation boss. Livingstone was decapitated with an axe – in front of his wife and two small children. Chilembwe proceeded to conduct a sermon in church next to the severed head of Livingstone, impaled on a pole.
Colston founded and endowed schools, houses for the poor, hospitals and churches. Yet his statue was pulled down due to his business connections to slavery. Chilembwe was a terrorist, racist and inciter of murder.
The likes of Khan clearly don't want to remove statues that may cause offence, nor do they want to remove statues of racist individuals from the past – they want to remove dead white men in their anti-white, anti-British agenda.

Chilembwe sounds awful, you should appeal against it being put up. I think.most of us would support you.
But Colston could only build schools, hospitals and churches because of slave money, so its a big no from me. If Mugabe found god in the last few years and built loads of houses and hospitals in the last few years it would be the same result. This is not a whataboutism kind of conversation.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wilesy01 Bristol 05 Jan 22 7.07pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Haha. You think that people that who hold these views might just be tabloid employees until you read the likes of Wilesy. The lunatic fringe has always been with us. Some grow older and wiser, and the remaining few just grow old. A majority of a jury seemingly agrees with me, Hrolf. Seems you're on the lunatic fringe now!
Alert a moderator to this post

Wilesy01

Bristol 05 Jan 22 7.07pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Haha.

You think that people that who hold these views might just be tabloid employees until you read the likes of Wilesy.

The lunatic fringe has always been with us. Some grow older and wiser, and the remaining few just grow old.

A majority of a jury seemingly agrees with me, Hrolf.

Seems you're on the lunatic fringe now!

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Jan 22 7.16pm
Originally posted by Wilesy01 A majority of a jury seemingly agrees with me, Hrolf. Seems you're on the lunatic fringe now! All is not always as it seems Wilesy. I think the vast majority have just about had enough of 'woke'.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Jan 22 7.16pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wilesy01

A majority of a jury seemingly agrees with me, Hrolf.

Seems you're on the lunatic fringe now!

All is not always as it seems Wilesy.

I think the vast majority have just about had enough of 'woke'.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pembroke Bristol 05 Jan 22 7.21pm
Originally posted by Spiderman I am sure a listed status would not stop these thugs, unless of course they have benefited from any of these establishments Many people benefit in Bristol, particularly the wealthy and middle class students. These four benefitted from their status. If they were from working class areas like Hartcliffe and Knowle West they would have been convicted and be receiving prison sentences.
Alert a moderator to this post

Pembroke

Bristol 05 Jan 22 7.21pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

I am sure a listed status would not stop these thugs, unless of course they have benefited from any of these establishments

Many people benefit in Bristol, particularly the wealthy and middle class students.

These four benefitted from their status. If they were from working class areas like Hartcliffe and Knowle West they would have been convicted and be receiving prison sentences.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 05 Jan 22 7.24pm
Should the judge not have directed the Jury to decide on offences rather than their ownpolitical views?
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 05 Jan 22 7.24pm

Should the judge not have directed the Jury to decide on offences rather than their ownpolitical views?

Alert a moderator to this post

Pembroke Bristol 05 Jan 22 7.27pm
Originally posted by Beanyboysmd Chilembwe sounds awful, you should appeal against it being put up. I think.most of us would support you. But Colston could only build schools, hospitals and churches because of slave money, so its a big no from me. If Mugabe found god in the last few years and built loads of houses and hospitals in the last few years it would be the same result. This is not a whataboutism kind of conversation. Colston was born into money. His money came from a wide variety of businesses. He was also an MP in Bristol.
Alert a moderator to this post

Pembroke

Bristol 05 Jan 22 7.27pm

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

Colston was born into money. His money came from a wide variety of businesses. He was also an MP in Bristol.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 05 Jan 22 7.49pm
Originally posted by Pembroke Colston was born into money. His money came from a wide variety of businesses. He was also an MP in Bristol. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 05 Jan 22 7.49pm

Originally posted by Pembroke

Colston was born into money. His money came from a wide variety of businesses. He was also an MP in Bristol.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 05 Jan 22 8.16pm
Originally posted by Wilesy01 There was never an official referendum on the status of the statue. There were polls in the local newspaper but nothing like an actual referendum. As opposed to your last point the defendants never stated they didn't damage the statue, but maintained the point I made about the historical context of the statue and the inaction of the council to remove it as to why they acted. Yup back to that pesky democracy, direct action is the answer. Don't like Tony Blair getting a knighthood go smash up his house. If the jury had any sense they would have found them guilty the judge would then have taken any mitigation into account, but they didn't so it is a moot point. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 05 Jan 22 8.16pm

Originally posted by Wilesy01

There was never an official referendum on the status of the statue. There were polls in the local newspaper but nothing like an actual referendum.

As opposed to your last point the defendants never stated they didn't damage the statue, but maintained the point I made about the historical context of the statue and the inaction of the council to remove it as to why they acted.

Yup back to that pesky democracy, direct action is the answer. Don't like Tony Blair getting a knighthood go smash up his house.

If the jury had any sense they would have found them guilty the judge would then have taken any mitigation into account, but they didn't so it is a moot point.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Jan 22 8.34pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Yup back to that pesky democracy, direct action is the answer. Don't like Tony Blair getting a knighthood go smash up his house. If the jury had any sense they would have found them guilty the judge would then have taken any mitigation into account, but they didn't so it is a moot point. What mitigation? A man makes money, the same as thousands of others, using legal slave labour and because a few Black people and White guilt morons can't understand that people of the past cannot have their historical morality and laws judged by today's, we should forgive them their irrationality, thuggery and vandalism? Statues are a side issue. This is about who holds the power in this country. Do we uphold our institutions and democratic process, or allow a load of mentally immature fruitcakes to erase and rewrite our history so they feel better about themselves?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Jan 22 8.34pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Yup back to that pesky democracy, direct action is the answer. Don't like Tony Blair getting a knighthood go smash up his house.

If the jury had any sense they would have found them guilty the judge would then have taken any mitigation into account, but they didn't so it is a moot point.

What mitigation?

A man makes money, the same as thousands of others, using legal slave labour and because a few Black people and White guilt morons can't understand that people of the past cannot have their historical morality and laws judged by today's, we should forgive them their irrationality, thuggery and vandalism?

Statues are a side issue. This is about who holds the power in this country. Do we uphold our institutions and democratic process, or allow a load of mentally immature fruitcakes to erase and rewrite our history so they feel better about themselves?

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 23 of 32 < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Moving statues

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors