Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 10:51:28 GMT
Despite this and other perverse verdicts that fly in the face of logic, I agree @dj ... I think a jury remains the most 'just' method. Rog In some ways perverse verdicts help strengthen/establish law - they force the legal people to consider whether the laws are still just.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jan 7, 2022 11:21:05 GMT
The case seems to have been decided on the question "Was slavery wrong?" rather than on the facts and the law. With four defendants there would have been plenty of opportunities to object to potential jurors until a likely looking jury was selected. I see they had a historian give a lot of evidence. It would be interesting to know why the judge allowed the evidence, not that I think it's totally irelevant but just to see why he let it go that way. An interesting case, one where I presume they didn't deny the act but concentrated on the reasons behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 7, 2022 12:46:39 GMT
I don't think so ..... I would have said it was bound to be as there is a strong "public interest" in people not getting away with vandalism of public property (whatever the woke think)
that sentence opens too many worm cans
I was speaking tongue in cheek. Obviously it will be reviewed because Pritti and her gang don’t like/agree with the outcome. I have some sympathy with the protesters. Such statues shouldn’t be on display. The thing is, if you want to delete everything that Colston and his ilk did, there wouldn’t be much left of many city centres (well, the ones that weren’t bombed flat by the Nazis). You cannot delete the past and why would you want to? I don’t see a problem with a statue of Colston IF it is there in context. Surely it would be far better to leave the statue in place and add a descriptive plaque explaining how he was able to fund all the building, rather than remove it and pretend it never happened?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 13:08:55 GMT
I was speaking tongue in cheek. Obviously it will be reviewed because Pritti and her gang don’t like/agree with the outcome. I have some sympathy with the protesters. Such statues shouldn’t be on display. The thing is, if you want to delete everything that Colston and his ilk did, there wouldn’t be much left of many city centres (well, the ones that weren’t bombed flat by the Nazis). You cannot delete the past and why would you want to? I don’t see a problem with a statue of Colston IF it is there in context. Surely it would be far better to leave the statue in place and add a descriptive plaque explaining how he was able to fund all the building, rather than remove it and pretend it never happened? Incorrect, should have been removed and moved to a museum somewhere, one that shown him in a true light with the story that goes with it.
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Jan 7, 2022 13:10:35 GMT
I was speaking tongue in cheek. Obviously it will be reviewed because Pritti and her gang don’t like/agree with the outcome. I have some sympathy with the protesters. Such statues shouldn’t be on display. The thing is, if you want to delete everything that Colston and his ilk did, there wouldn’t be much left of many city centres (well, the ones that weren’t bombed flat by the Nazis). You cannot delete the past and why would you want to? I don’t see a problem with a statue of Colston IF it is there in context. Surely it would be far better to leave the statue in place and add a descriptive plaque explaining how he was able to fund all the building, rather than remove it and pretend it never happened? I thought like this until I heard a black woman say that every time she walked past this statue, she felt as though it made what he did seem acceptable. She also asked if it would be equally ok to have statues of Hitler in town centres for instance. It made me think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 13:16:50 GMT
The protests have highlighted the history and encouraged new discussions on Colston and his generation.
Let's be honest, most of us have walked by statues in towns and cities without giving any thought to them.
I have no problem with removal and replacement of statues if the locals decide that's appropriate, but not damage and destruction.
We shall see.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 7, 2022 13:23:37 GMT
I don't think so ..... I would have said it was bound to be as there is a strong "public interest" in people not getting away with vandalism of public property (whatever the woke think)
that sentence opens too many worm cans
I was speaking tongue in cheek. Obviously it will be reviewed because Pritti and her gang don’t like/agree with the outcome. I have some sympathy with the protesters. Such statues shouldn’t be on display. I think on that count you and I will always disagree.
I don't believe in hiding history be it good, bad or just embarrasing.
Slaving and slave owning is part of world history, it happened, it happened for thousands of years to hundreds of different races. Why try and pretend it didn't ?
Many became rich from it ..... but that is history ....
Yet we are expected to forget the wealth of African kingdoms that were based on the taking of slaves for trading with Europeans or Arabs and only acknowledge the part that Britain took in the trade
(the very English word slave comes from slav's who were traded as slaves by the muslim world in the 9th century)
We don't destroy statues of Caligula, Nero or Edward I , however much evil was perpetuated under their rule .... It's history, you acknowledge it was evil or good .... but you should not try to erase it.
British traders may have become incredibly wealthy from the trade but Britain was still the nation that decided slave trading was wrong and not only stopped British trading but forced everybody else to stop it as well
That stopping the trade was not paid for by the profiteers of the trade but the rest of the population who were often apalled by it.
It is worth noting that for some 60 years Britain spent approximately 1.8% of her GDP on anti slavery work in the Atlantic (Britain today spends about 2% of GDP on ALL her military)
Things change over time and people cherry pick bits of history to suit their own agendas but you should not excuse attempts to "change" history by removing parts of it
Statues of people who become unpopular because of modern sensibilities are sometimes removed because of that, but I think it wrong .... Sir Athur Harris is one such.
There is a good possibility that we have only been able to develop those modern sensibilities because of some of the decisions he took, however awful the result.
Both need to be remembered
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 7, 2022 13:33:45 GMT
The thing is, if you want to delete everything that Colston and his ilk did, there wouldn’t be much left of many city centres (well, the ones that weren’t bombed flat by the Nazis). You cannot delete the past and why would you want to? I don’t see a problem with a statue of Colston IF it is there in context. Surely it would be far better to leave the statue in place and add a descriptive plaque explaining how he was able to fund all the building, rather than remove it and pretend it never happened? I thought like this until I heard a black woman say that every time she walked past this statue, she felt as though it made what he did seem acceptable. She also asked if it would be equally ok to have statues of Hitler in town centres for instance. It made me think. I see the point to some extent, but the difference is that Hitler didn’t leave a nice legacy. Quite the opposite. Colston did leave a huge legacy to benefit all the people of Bristol (people of all colours) and the way the wealth was created was legal and socially acceptable at the time. He is being judged for his historic actions, by modern standards. Which is never fair. The lady in question was not one of his slaves and she does not know anyone who was one of his slaves. So she is choosing to be offended on behalf of other people none of whom she has ever known. As I said, if there is a concern that the statue seems to make what he did acceptable by modern standards, then the solution is to explain the circumstances for everyone passing to see. Not to hide the statue away and pretend it didn’t happen. If we are going to take the view that anyone has the right to be offended on behalf of anyone else about anything and have the thing removed from their sight, we are in an untenable situation where anyone can demand the removal of anything and then do so by force themselves if they don’t get their way.
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Jan 7, 2022 13:54:40 GMT
The protests have highlighted the history and encouraged new discussions on Colston and his generation. Let's be honest, most of us have walked by statues in towns and cities without giving any thought to them. I have no problem with removal and replacement of statues if the locals decide that's appropriate, but not damage and destruction. We shall see. Rog Problem is, from what I’ve read, people have been asking for years for this statues removal. Sometimes direct action is the only way.
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Jan 7, 2022 13:58:03 GMT
I was speaking tongue in cheek. Obviously it will be reviewed because Pritti and her gang don’t like/agree with the outcome. I have some sympathy with the protesters. Such statues shouldn’t be on display. I think on that count you and I will always disagree.
I don't believe in hiding history be it good, bad or just embarrasing.
Slaving and slave owning is part of world history, it happened, it happened for thousands of years to hundreds of different races. Why try and pretend it didn't ?
Many became rich from it ..... but that is history ....
Yet we are expected to forget the wealth of African kingdoms that were based on the taking of slaves for trading with Europeans or Arabs and only acknowledge the part that Britain took in the trade
(the very English word slave comes from slav's who were traded as slaves by the muslim world in the 9th century)
We don't destroy statues of Caligula, Nero or Edward I , however much evil was perpetuated under their rule .... It's history, you acknowledge it was evil or good .... but you should not try to erase it.
British traders may have become incredibly wealthy from the trade but Britain was still the nation that decided slave trading was wrong and not only stopped British trading but forced everybody else to stop it as well
That stopping the trade was not paid for by the profiteers of the trade but the rest of the population who were often apalled by it.
It is worth noting that for some 60 years Britain spent approximately 1.8% of her GDP on anti slavery work in the Atlantic (Britain today spends about 2% of GDP on ALL her military)
Things change over time and people cherry pick bits of history to suit their own agendas but you should not excuse attempts to "change" history by removing parts of it
Statues of people who become unpopular because of modern sensibilities are sometimes removed because of that, but I think it wrong .... Sir Athur Harris is one such.
There is a good possibility that we have only been able to develop those modern sensibilities because of some of the decisions he took, however awful the result.
Both need to be remembered
I don’t think this is about trying to change, or hide history. It’s about not celebrating historic figures who have dark pasts.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 7, 2022 14:22:54 GMT
I must admit I've always had a rather wicked desire to own a boat called "Black Joke"
Just to wind up the woke that have never heard of the "HMS Black Joke"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 14:26:07 GMT
Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter to name but a few ... erased from public life for their conduct within their lifetimes.
I see no difference in deciding to cease lauding historic figures if that is the decision of locals.
The history remains ... the praise and idolatry ends.
But action must follow discussion not as a result of vandalism surely ?
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 14:29:41 GMT
Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter to name but a few ... erased from public life for their conduct within their lifetimes. I see no difference in deciding to cease lauding historic figures if that is the decision of locals. The history remains ... the praise and idolatry ends. But action must follow discussion not as a result of vandalism surely ? Rog I wish folk in Rotherham would tidy up the mess there before attempting to interfere with matters of much less importance elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 7, 2022 14:30:48 GMT
I must admit I've always had a rather wicked desire to own a boat called "Black Joke" Just to wind up the woke that have never heard of the "HMS Black Joke" Nice one JohnVTo save others the trouble: The third HMS Black Joke was probably built in Baltimore in 1824, becoming the Brazilian slave ship Henriquetta.[2] The Royal Navy captured her in September 1827 and purchased her into the service. The Navy re-named her Black Joke, after an English song of the same name, and assigned her to the West Africa Squadron (or Preventive Squadron). Her role was to chase down slave ships, and over her five-year career she freed many hundreds of slaves. The Navy deliberately burnt her in May 1832 because her timbers had rotted to the point that she was no longer fit for active service.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 7, 2022 14:43:48 GMT
The thing is, if you want to delete everything that Colston and his ilk did, there wouldn’t be much left of many city centres (well, the ones that weren’t bombed flat by the Nazis). You cannot delete the past and why would you want to? I don’t see a problem with a statue of Colston IF it is there in context. Surely it would be far better to leave the statue in place and add a descriptive plaque explaining how he was able to fund all the building, rather than remove it and pretend it never happened? Incorrect, should have been removed and moved to a museum somewhere, one that shown him in a true light with the story that goes with it. I disagree. Moving it to a museum somewhere means that most people will never see it. Most people never or very rarely go to any museum, never mind the specific museum holding the statue. You might as well just hide it away in the bottom of Bristol docks.
|
|