In the news

It has become pretty standard now with this current group. Lots of releasing "stories" with favoured newspapers.

It was a very long time ago now, so I may have misremembered, but when I was studying modern antisemitism I'm sure I read references to his speeches in the HoC on the Jewish Question. IIRC his views weren't hugely out of step with others around that time, but they weren't exactly progressive.

What aggi said really. If you consider that BBC R4 were effectively boycotted throughout the election and BJ carried out Q&A via stage managed FB feeds it's pretty clear which way things are going.

It makes you nostalgic for Campbell's spin machine.

One nice thing about the Priti P tweet is the secret barrister's response:
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1269937943474507781

I dunno, its perfectly possible to be of the opinion that criminal damage is bad and symbolism of slavery is also bad.

Yeah. Surely the overall point and message he needs to convey is easy.

What's tricky is how to answer the question; "what should action should be taken against those involved."

Then you're into wishy-washy shit with an answer along the lines of, "I support the police in whatever decision they take / it's not my place to tell them how to do their job"

What's tricky is how to answer the question; "what should action should be taken against those involved."

Then you're into wishy-washy shit with an answer along the lines of, "I support the police in whatever decision they take / it's not my place to tell them how to do their job"

He should be alright at those kind of questions - he ran the CPS didn't he? He's presumably got history at backing up Police investigations and acting on them.

Plus he's a QC and very capable of answering questions.

But as you can see from user800813590210's comment, lots of people on the left will view his answers as being an apologist kowtowing to the right wing rags and middle England.

What's tricky is how to answer the question; "what should action should be taken against those involved."

There is a stance you can take that removes some of those problems, which is "the purpose of civil disobedience/protest is to knowingly break the law and invite it to punish you in order to highlight the validity of your cause" i.e., if you being punished for your actions causes enormous public outcry then you have succeeded, but the crux of this kind of protest is taking the personal risk by willingly putting yourself on the wrong side of the law and daring it to punish you.

Agreed, I'm really impressed by his responses of late - I expect it'll take a lot to outmanoeuvre him argumentatively.

I thought his response pretty reasonable - it was low key common sensicial, and firmly put the problem back onto those who were always going to go mental at the crowd for removing such a 'historical' figure (because anyone who has a statue must be given Respect, as they're clearly important).

He set the stage nicely for people like Patel to then tramp into.

I think one thing he's proving to be extremely adept at is letting people dig their own holes. It's not taken much for the govt to come out in support of a slaver today. Whilst it would have easy to explicitly support the protestors shouting against the Tories - he's instead used them (the Tories) as his own mouthpiece to point out their own despicable positions.

I can believe your memory isn't wrong, but he also said those things. As people have said, complex. At least he has the defence of it being a different time, unlike Priti!

Priti want us all to remove racist statues the right way, so everyone should sign this petition to remove the Rhodes statue in Oxford which previously wasn't removed when people tried to do it the right way before because a load of racist old farts with deep pockets threatened to write the university of out of their presumably fairly imminent wills:
https://www.change.org/p/oriel-college-rhodes-must-fall-2-0-oriel-college-to-take-down-the-cecil-rhodes-statue?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=share_petition&recruited_by_id=fcffe900-a9a1-11ea-90ae-a1c1186d98ba

The statue is probably best off in a museum where it can be studied for what it is, a sad reflection on how attitudes change over centuries and things that were legally acceptable (or at least the authorities turned a blind eye to the atrocities that were so obviously going on) hundreds of years ago are now (and have been for many years) considered abhorrent.

In the future people may be looking back at the behaviour of the mega-wealthy and wondering how the fuck society/Governments let them take so much of the pie.

Anyway, there are much better underwater memorials/statues regarding the slave trade (and immigration).

Just do a google image search for: underwater slave statue

Colston's statue being invisible at the bottom of a river doesn't really help people learn from the mistakes of those times.

Colston's statue being invisible at the bottom of a river doesn't really help people learn from the mistakes of those times.

Not if you make a big deal of it, actually make a plaque to explain what happen to the statue and another plaque near where it went overboard to symbolised what happen to the slaves during the voyager.

She is the absolute worst which is saying something when Raab is in the cabinet as well.

The thing is you don't need a statue to learn about a historical figure. There's no need to keep it for any reason. Statues are about reverence and respect.

Agreed. While I'd like it to have been done differently, the end result of what I'd like to see can easily be achieved with keeping the plinth plus putting a plaque and a sign next to the harbour. You can interlink the two and use it to promote or create a larger historic walk that deals with the city's history.

I dunno. If what I understand as the originally proposed rewording had been added and it had been taken off the plinth I think it would have been a powerful statement and felt less revisionist.

In the US context my understanding is quite a few of the statues were recent and erected during periods of African American advancement.

“As a high official of the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, Edward Colston played an active role in the enslavement of over 84,000 Africans (including 12,000 children) of whom over 19,000 died en route to the Caribbean and America. Colston also invested in the Spanish slave trade and in slave-produced sugar. As Tory MP for Bristol (1710-1713), he defended the city’s ‘right’ to trade in enslaved Africans. Bristolians who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not allowed to benefit from his charities

The problem with this particular statue was they could never do anything with it because it was always blocked, so I don't think a new plaque would even happen.

You can interlink the two and use it to promote or create a larger historic walk that deals with the city's history

The Boston Tea Party come to mind, which was also a riot that change the course of history.

Yeah. I mean this is all just my ideal. Whatever your view on the statue it's pretty shameful of those who blocked the rewording. Hopefully questions will be asked of them.

It's funny how people talk about removing statues as erasing history, when the Edward Colston has been raised and debates in mainstream media and public consciousness more in the last two days than in the previous three centuries.

As a history teacher who teaches two courses about colonialism I can confirm you can teach about people who do not have statues erected in their honour. And that there are probably more statues in London of complete unknowns who don't merit a mention than there are right-wing talking heads complaining about the end of history.

Lots of the Founding Fathers strongly disagreed with the Boston Tea Party as well, there were lots of tears shed over the destruction of private property then as well. In the end, it's turned into quite a nice founding story and they've decided the flawed principle they think it represents outweighs those concerns.

There's also the Gaspee Incident, a celebrated affair from 1772 where Rhode Islanders shot a British customs officer legitimately pursuing smugglers in the crotch and then burned his ship to the waterline.

Smugglers in the crotch? They get everywhere.

Budgie smugglers, I guess.

legitimately pursuing smugglers in the crotch

Ok but a bit nsfw

Why waste money and time dredging it up. It’s fine where it is.