The point is that we don't actually know that much about him do we? We have a Wiki report. Not exactly a Court of Law. We don't know if he was a murderer at all. It's reported he led an uprising and spoke with a decapitated head beside him, during a time of violence and oppression.

Brady was tried and convicted of several murders. So no comparison. Yet.

The very fact that this man's history is now being evaluated is healthy. Maybe he will eventually be cast in the same category as Brady, but I think that's unlikely.

Whether he deserves a place on the plinth is another matter, and I have already said it seems a strange decision to me.

someone who ordered the killing of people based on their ethnicity

The point is that we don't actually know that much about him do we? We have a Wiki report. Not exactly a Court of Law. We don't know if he was a murderer at all. It's reported he led an uprising and spoke with a decapitated head beside him, during a time of violence and oppression.

Brady was tried and convicted of several murders. So no comparison. Yet.

The very fact that this man's history is now being evaluated is healthy. Maybe he will eventually be cast in the same category as Brady, but I think that's unlikely.

Whether he deserves a place on the plinth is another matter, and I have already said it seems a strange decision to me.

You are making evidence free assertions, hence the completely valid accusations of jumping to conclusions.

You have no more idea than anyone else what actually happened and why. I have no doubt at all that the contemporary reports published in England would have reflected the biases of the day, and that's primarily all that's available.

That he fought against his people being oppressed seems to be established, but not that he "ordered the killing of people based on their ethnicity". There was an uprising against those in control, who were armed and, allegedly, frequently killed to maintain order. I doubt whether their ethnicity played a role.

Truth has nothing at all to do with left or right.

You are making evidence free assertions, hence the completely valid accusations of jumping to conclusions.

You have no more idea than anyone else what actually happened and why. I have no doubt at all that the contemporary reports published in England would have reflected the biases of the day, and that's primarily all that's available.

That he fought against his people being oppressed seems to be established, but not that he "ordered the killing of people based on their ethnicity". There was an uprising against those in control, who were armed and, allegedly, frequently killed to maintain order. I doubt whether their ethnicity played a role.

Truth has nothing at all to do with left or right.

We have a very clear idea of what happened from contemporary reports. The terrorist, racist, incitor of murder, ordered that ‘European men’ (ie: white) should be killed and that, specifically, William Livingstone should be beheaded and his head brought to him. Do you accept that he preached in his church with Livingstone’s head on a pole beside him, or perhaps you think he was shot-sighted and thought it was a flower arrangement put there by the local women’s institute?