Tearing down statues

banbom44 said:
You could say tear down the Colosseum it glorified slavery but the lefties would laugh and say how far back are you going but you could turn round and say well if Colston's statue was 2000 years old would it have been ok.
Click to expand...
Ah you mean like the Colossus of Nero (the big statue of Nero in front of the colosseum)?

Oh wait, that has been destroyed. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


banbom44 said:
Most British people have never heard of him before the statue came down ill say what i like mate.
Click to expand...
Maybe in your circle of friends :cry:
:rolleyes:
 
BowdonUK said:
The reality is that back in his time slavery was acceptable by certain classes of people. Remember at the time these same people have superiority complexes over the poor working class people too that they were paying a pittance. I think some people, most notably those influenced by an American view, seem to think white people in Britain are all one homogeneous social block, which is far from the truth.
Click to expand...
Paedophilia was also acceptable by certain classes of people yet we dont have statues of the paedophiles (actually we do but that is a different matter). We do how ever have a plaque some where remembering the work done by the woman that lead that campaign to close down child brothels.
 
hurfdurf said:
it should have come down legally when it was overwhelmingly requested to do so, and that all the insidious people who kept it up have now retired.
Click to expand...
This is a false narrative, isn't it. Not that you have much regards for factual accuracy.
 
What a surprise, A jury from a left wing, hippy crap hole like Bristol, deliver a nonsense verdict that could lead to more vandalism by mindless lefty Twitter mob wasters, crawling out of their basements & student unions.
 
Cooper said:
What a surprise, A jury from a left wing, hippy crap hole like Bristol, deliver a nonsense verdict that could lead to more vandalism by mindless lefty Twitter mob wasters, crawling out of their basements & student unions.
Click to expand...
Ironically there is only one chap in this thread who lives in his dads basement and he is also of similar opinion to you. As are the two gents who didn't even know slavery was a thing and think statues are how people learn things in school.

Not quite sure what happened to the right but the IQ seems to have dropped considerably :cry:
 
Tony Edwards said:
Paedophilia was also acceptable by certain classes of people yet we dont have statues of the paedophiles (actually we do but that is a different matter). We do how ever have a plaque some where remembering the work done by the woman that lead that campaign to close down child brothels.
Click to expand...

Running child brothels was never seen as a good idea for society from what I know, unless you have an example?

I think the principle in this situation isn't about Colston specifically, its about how slavery was an accepted form of business.

There is more objectification in society today than ever before. So it's important to be able to use every opportunity to educate people to be warned not to fall in to that mind set again.

Opinions never die, only people do.
 
dLockers said:
Ironically there is only one chap in this thread who lives in his dads basement and he is also of similar opinion to you. As are the two gents who didn't even know slavery was a thing and think statues are how people learn things in school.

Not quite sure what happened to the right but the IQ seems to have dropped considerably :cry:
Click to expand...
Yawn. You are the same person who said we're stupid for seeing things in black and white, and then later said if you didn't agree with this criminal damage you were supporting a slaver and agreeing with slavery.

Seems your own IQ might be questionable.

Not to mention, that your esteemed leader here, who has declared himself an intellectual, is effectively a rent boy. Wow, taking lectures in morality from him, eh?
 
R4 interview - cleo lake (ex) bristol lord mayor who gave evidence - it was the right thing to do and - if the barrister said it won't set a precident, it won't.
- moreover Robert Buckland (ex solicitor general) doesn't preclude that prosecution could appeal
 
FoxEye said:
Yawn. You are the same person who said we're stupid for seeing things in black and white, and then later said if you didn't agree with this criminal damage you were supporting a slaver and agreeing with slavery.
Click to expand...
I never said you were stupid for seeing things black and white.
Seems your own IQ might be questionable.
Click to expand...
I'm the first to admit it.

Not to mention, that your esteemed leader here, who has declared himself an intellectual, is effectively a rent boy. Wow, taking lectures in morality from him, eh?
Click to expand...


Its the oldest form of trading, after all.
 
FoxEye said:
Well, I would 100% back a statue of hurf wearing assless chaps to replace Colston. Give the people what they want ;)
Click to expand...
It has my vote. As long as he has stopped discriminating against pre-op transexuals.
 
BowdonUK said:
Running child brothels was never seen as a good idea for society from what I know, unless you have an example?

I think the principle in this situation isn't about Colston specifically, its about how slavery was an accepted form of business.

There is more objectification in society today than ever before. So it's important to be able to use every opportunity to educate people to be warned not to fall in to that mind set again.

Opinions never die, only people do.
Click to expand...
I can never tell if you are trolling or not most of the time.

The slave trade was never seen as a good idea for society.
 
FoxEye said:
No I have not, so you'll have to explain that one to me.

Anyway, let's take a theoretical here, because it's fun. @hurfdurf has asserted that the law surrounding criminal damage is unjust.

So let's say a rich (and evil!) banker evicts a destitute old man, and makes him homeless. He turns the house into a love nest where he beds his new 16 year old girlfriend (the banker is much, much older). Later, the old man (now homeless) is seen on surveillance footage slashing the tyres of the rich bankers car. The case goes to courts, where the jury acquits the old man. Does that further show the law on criminal damage to be unjust by definition? Does the jury reach the morally correct outcome? They clearly don't reach the lawful outcome. Is the old man's action justified because we dislike the rich banker?

I'm just interested in his thought process, so indulge me :p
Click to expand...

Basically turns into little Amsterdam, police will happily turn a blind eye if you're not causing any trouble, see also how often they find traces of cocaine in the houses of parliament. The law is very much selectively applied, heck forces can decide what they want to focus on and even choose to ignore specific crimes: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-33628363
 
explicit4u said:
Basically turns into little Amsterdam, police will happily turn a blind eye if you're not causing any trouble, see also how often they find traces of cocaine in the houses of parliament. The law is very much selectively applied, heck forces can decide what they want to focus on and even choose to ignore specific crimes: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-33628363
Click to expand...
Too right. We waste far too much time and resource on offences no one gives a toss about.
 
explicit4u said:
Basically turns into little Amsterdam, police will happily turn a blind eye if you're not causing any trouble, see also how often they find traces of cocaine in the houses of parliament. The law is very much selectively applied, heck forces can decide what they want to focus on and even choose to ignore specific crimes: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-33628363
Click to expand...
Isnt a lot of that based on the fact they dont have the funds or resources available to spend on minor issues though?
Ron Hogg says officers will focus on tackling drugs gangs and dealers rather than prosecuting people who cultivate the drug on a small scale.
Click to expand...
 
It's quite difficult to argue that toppling statues is not causing trouble, tho.

Selective application of the law isn't something I'd say is a good thing. We all agree that "the wealthy and powerful should not be above the law".

It certainly isn't just when one person is prosecuted for a crime and another is not, simply because of social standing or different priorities in different regions.

Selective application of the law isn't in itself evidence of a just society, imho.
 
FoxEye said:
Selective application of the law isn't something I'd say is a good thing. We all agree that "the wealthy and powerful should not be above the law".
Click to expand...
This is the odd thing about what you're advocating for though - which is essentially a more authoritarian police state type setup as seen in places like Singapore where chewing gum is illegal.

For the everyman, literally the "boots on the ground" dictate whether your behaviour is 'illegal' or not. Police offers who earn less than £40k, jurors who are randomly selected and profiled for any significant bias. These are the people who decide whether we have wronged the state or not.

This "selective application" means we can safely say we do not live in an authoritarian police state. We are judged by our peers through a controlled process. Discretion can be applied to ensure that the bigger picture is taken into account.

It is what differentiates us from savages, frankly.

--

We can all agree these guys broke the law. But hopefully we can empathise with their cause and take solace in the fact that the facts were heard in an approved room and a jury made up of people just like you and I, agreed that it was not in the publics interest to convict these chaps.

Now should they go and destroy the living statue of Concorde because they hate climate change - I highly doubt a jury of peers would agree that was sensible given the much wider good Concorde has delivered in terms of economic benefit, engineering prowess, putting Britain on the world stage.
 
It doesn't appear to be the case that the law was selectively applied, it appears that the Jury were either convinced my one of the arguments using the legitimate types of defences applicable to criminal damage (in the public interest isn't one of the legal defences) or they agreed it would be a contravention of other rights.

I was annoyed when I thought they were found innocent purely on a public interest defence because there is no such defence for criminal damage, instead it appears to have been down to a well considered technical legal argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom