International News Black Lives Matter

True, but if there is a will from the community to remove it, then it should be removed. Statues aren't for life, if their time is done then they should be removed.

And I'll say it again, this should never be done by mob rule.

But there wasn't a dominant will for it being removed from the community based on reading I've done about it from the media of the time. There was a group that wanted it to go and there was a group that wanted it to stay and a compromise was agreed to put up plaques explaining the history. The Local Authorities leading it didn't do their job decisively enough over the wording of the plaques after disagreement over it with both groups* and then the mob happened. My memory of reading on this may be wrong though.

*As said above, the LA should have gone warts and all about Colston's history on the plaques regardless of the complaints of either group. Probably doing the job right if they irritate both sides in thsi case.
 
But there wasn't a dominant will for it being removed from the community based on reading I've done about it from the media of the time. There was a group that wanted it to go and there was a group that wanted it to stay and a compromise was agreed to put up plaques explaining the history. The Local Authorities leading it didn't do their job decisively enough over the wording of the plaques after disagreement over it with both groups* and then the mob happened. My memory of reading on this may be wrong though.

*As said above, the LA should have gone warts and all about Colston's history on the plaques regardless of the complaints of either group. Probably doing the job right if they irritate both sides in thsi case.
I was speaking more generally, but the Bristol statue, even a cursory search finds a story of 11, 000 people signing a petition for its removal in 2018, and a majority of respondents wanted it removed in a 2014 poll.

.

So the question should be, if so many wanted it removed, why was it still there?
 
Brixton............. well I`ll be. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Go in and go in hard, send in the army if the plod don`t fancy it.
Play by the rules you won`t get her head cracked, act up like some sort of hoodlum and you might.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Oh sorry, it`s because the "community" is down trodden and victimised isn`t it?

No... it is because they are breaking the law.

Play silly games win silly prizes.
 
I was speaking more generally, but the Bristol statue, even a cursory search finds a story of 11, 000 people signing a petition for its removal in 2018, and a majority of respondents wanted it removed in a 2014 poll.

.

So the question should be, if so many wanted it removed, why was it still there?

Because the population of Bristol is around 680,000?
Stop pandering to gobby minorities until they learn what a minority is.
 
I thought you were against the rewriting of history.
She closed the pits because economically it was the right thing to do. We could have kept them open and have huge stock piles of coal which we couldn’t sell as we were to expensive in comparison with other countries. Now if the price of coal had been reduced in this country then I doubt whether all the pits would have closed. Scargill taking the miners out on strike may have been the righty thing and the miners would have known it would cause hard ship. The violence that happened as a result of the strike was wrong violence doesn’t solve but may bring about a different attitude over whether to help strikers.
No one likes to be out of work but companies close because of rival companies undercutting so attracting the buyers to them. When we are back to normal as normal as we could get over COVID-19 how many companies will survive? I hope most will but inevitably there will be job losses and no doubt some on here will blame the Tories.
But it’s all down to economics if I owned a company that required stock from “ Smith & Jones “ and it cost £10 an item yet “ Blodget & Sons “ make the same items as “ Smith& Jones “ but only cost £7 I know where I would go and my attitude would be Tough luck to •Smith & Jones “
 
Because the population of Bristol is around 680,000?
Stop pandering to gobby minorities until they learn what a minority is.
No. Its views like that which causes the issues, but then you do support a government which a minority of the country actually voted for...

Its quite simple, you have a number of votes to get an inquiry, then once that is reached you then have a vote on the issue.

Set up a framework for appealing these things if there isn't one, then let people decide.
 
She closed the pits because economically it was the right thing to do. We could have kept them open and have huge stock piles of coal which we couldn’t sell as we were to expensive in comparison with other countries. Now if the price of coal had been reduced in this country then I doubt whether all the pits would have closed. Scargill taking the miners out on strike may have been the righty thing and the miners would have known it would cause hard ship. The violence that happened as a result of the strike was wrong violence doesn’t solve but may bring about a different attitude over whether to help strikers.
No one likes to be out of work but companies close because of rival companies undercutting so attracting the buyers to them. When we are back to normal as normal as we could get over COVID-19 how many companies will survive? I hope most will but inevitably there will be job losses and no doubt some on here will blame the Tories.
But it’s all down to economics if I owned a company that required stock from “ Smith & Jones “ and it cost £10 an item yet “ Blodget & Sons “ make the same items as “ Smith& Jones “ but only cost £7 I know where I would go and my attitude would be Tough luck to •Smith & Jones “

But she did it in a way to deliberately cause a conflict. Whilst not planning to invest in those communities or people losing their livelihood to mitigate the damage to those communites of which plenty are still being affected. She also used the Police as her personal paramilitary force (ie. the Battle of Orgreave).
 
No. Its views like that which causes the issues, but then you do support a government which a minority of the country actually voted for...

Its quite simple, you have a number of votes to get an inquiry, then once that is reached you then have a vote on the issue.

Set up a framework for appealing these things if there isn't one, then let people decide.

Who votes? Locals? Those "offended"? County wide? National?

Or should society just re-label the "offending" statue and use them as educational tools?

What is to stop Scum supporters being "offended" by the Ox statue? Or the skewered Robin flag? Where does it stop when minorities write the rules?

PS: I am fully supportive of genuine PR and mandatory voting but that is another thread. ;-)
 
Brixton............. well I`ll be. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Go in and go in hard, send in the army if the plod don`t fancy it.
Play by the rules you won`t get her head cracked, act up like some sort of hoodlum and you might.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Oh sorry, it`s because the "community" is down trodden and victimised isn`t it?

No... it is because they are breaking the law.

Play silly games win silly prizes.
Meaning?
 
But she did it in a way to deliberately cause a conflict. Whilst not planning to invest in those communities or people losing their livelihood to mitigate the damage to those communites of which plenty are still being affected. She also used the Police as her personal paramilitary force (ie. the Battle of Orgreave).
agree 100% @Marked Ox .... more or less 'said'/ pointed out the same, a page or two back on this thread :rolleyes: :sneaky:
 
This seems to indicate there was a BLM live music protest earlier in the day:
EbWsl5tXQAE8AF8

In which case it should be treated exactly the same as if a football related violence had occured. if you replace BLM live protest with oufc fixture I'm certain tvp would not have been so accommodating. Were England fans not treated differently in the media in world cup 98 because a few of them started rioting they had football banning orders and passport removal working overtime such was the response perhaps these people need banning from protest like the England fans.
 
I was speaking more generally, but the Bristol statue, even a cursory search finds a story of 11, 000 people signing a petition for its removal in 2018, and a majority of respondents wanted it removed in a 2014 poll.

.

So the question should be, if so many wanted it removed, why was it still there?

The newspaper poll had a majority for it to stay, from the article:

"In a 2014 poll in the local newspaper, the Bristol Post, 56% of the 1,100 respondents said it should stay while 44% wanted it to go."

While I don't doubt plenty wanted it gone it wasn't clear it was a majority that wanted it gone.
 
Who votes? Locals? Those "offended"? County wide? National?

Or should society just re-label the "offending" statue and use them as educational tools?

What is to stop Scum supporters being "offended" by the Ox statue? Or the skewered Robin flag? Where does it stop when minorities write the rules?

PS: I am fully supportive of genuine PR and mandatory voting but that is another thread. ;-)
I'll ignore the whatifs, as irrelevant.

Who votes? Good question, how about people on the council tax list for the area the statue resides in? It's not a question that can't be solved.

So you would want Jimmy Savile statues left standing with a plaque added? Once again, statues aren't forever, they can be removed without changing history if society wishes, to deny that right isn't democracy.
 
The newspaper poll had a majority for it to stay, from the article:

"In a 2014 poll in the local newspaper, the Bristol Post, 56% of the 1,100 respondents said it should stay while 44% wanted it to go."

While I don't doubt plenty wanted it gone it wasn't clear it was a majority that wanted it gone.
If that was solidified in a proper vote, then as far as I am concerned, add the plaque and move on. Democracy had worked.
 
So Jake Hepple has not had a good few days. He was behind the 'White Lives Matter Burnley' banner, although he claims 60 people were involved in the stunt. Anyway, he's been sacked from his job. His girlfriend has been sacked from hers after making a racist post. Burnley FC have banned him for life. His mate Tommy Robinson - who he was pictured with on his FB page - hasn't come forward in support. Still, Hepple says it was all blown out of proportion and he's certainly not a racist, so seems he's been hard done by.


 
So Jake Hepple has not had a good few days. He was behind the 'White Lives Matter Burnley' banner, although he claims 60 people were involved in the stunt. Anyway, he's been sacked from his job. His girlfriend has been sacked from hers after making a racist post. Burnley FC have banned him for life. His mate Tommy Robinson - who he was pictured with on his FB page - hasn't come forward in support. Still, Hepple says it was all blown out of proportion and he's certainly not a racist, so seems he's been hard done by.


Was their a picture of Cassox with them....?
 
But she did it in a way to deliberately cause a conflict. Whilst not planning to invest in those communities or people losing their livelihood to mitigate the damage to those communites of which plenty are still being affected. She also used the Police as her personal paramilitary force (ie. the Battle of Orgreave).
Sorry but the police had to go to prevent the violence that the pickets were causing, initially it was the local forces that were doing there jobs and making sure the pickets acted accordingly however as that most of the NUM were militant led by militants they decided to use violence ( which doesn’t achieve things ) which led to Police all over the country going to the main areas of where the strikes were to try and quell the violence, it did lead to good old football hooliganism with punch ups and a size10 DM in the B*****s from both sides. Of course it would have been helpful to at least try and help the communities but that has to come from companies prepared to invest in the community by bringing their business to those communities A and create jobs, but maybe they just thought everyone was to militant and their companies would suffer and thought no.
 
Sorry but the police had to go to prevent the violence that the pickets were causing, initially it was the local forces that were doing there jobs and making sure the pickets acted accordingly however as that most of the NUM were militant led by militants they decided to use violence ( which doesn’t achieve things ) which led to Police all over the country going to the main areas of where the strikes were to try and quell the violence, it did lead to good old football hooliganism with punch ups and a size10 DM in the B*****s from both sides. Of course it would have been helpful to at least try and help the communities but that has to come from companies prepared to invest in the community by bringing their business to those communities A and create jobs, but maybe they just thought everyone was to militant and their companies would suffer and thought no.

Read up on the Battle of Orgreave, the link below gives a summary:


And on the last part, no it isn't the responsibility of the private sector to help these communities but they will be part of the solution. It is down to Govt especially as it knew these actions would gut whole communities to re-train and provide eductional for miners/those in the community and for financial/tax breaks to encourage new development in those areas to provide the jobs. Or are you suggesting it was right for Thatcher to abandon whole swathes of the North and its people to economic desolation as revenge for them being "militant"?
 
Back
Top Bottom