advertisement


Edward Colston: Bristol slave trader statue 'was an affront'

But the discussion isn't about Churchill or Turing, it's about Colston's statue.
I don’t think it’s possible to compare Colston, a commercial trader/ human trafficker/ benefactor with Churchill or Turing who’s achievements are of a different order. I’m wondering if Priti Patel is doing a William Barr in threatening to overrule the local police and demand arrests because she’s an authoritarian opportunist and Colston was a Tory MP?
 
In cities such as Liverpool and Bristol the slave trade is in the mortar of almost every building and street, it is said that there were more Confederate flags flying in Liverpool during the American Civil War than there were in Richmond Virginia.The shipyards on the river(incl Lairds) built the Confederate fleet. The city's merchants armed the Southern army and broke the Union blockade.
Albert Dock, built with slave trade money. Take the Georgian Quarter,19 Abercromby Sq was allegedly built to be the Embassy of the Confederacy, became the Bishops Palace and is now part of the Uni-it is adorned with Confederate flags and other slave states ephemera, it is a listed building. You'd need to nuke the city to remove the stains of its slave trade past.
 
Last edited:
Starmer tried to do the balance thing, I get that, even though I find his continued reluctance to stand on a point of principle increasingly annoying. However he should certainly have acknowledged that peaceful and legal efforts to remove the statue have been going on for years and have hit a brick wall. This would have given him the opportunity to express some kind of solidarity with the protestors, even if he wished to avoid full-throated support of their actions. As it is, what he said is barely distinguishable from Boris Johnson's stated position (though I'm sure Starmer is more sincere). That can't be right.

As for Johnson's position, the Daily Mirror has a full transcript of all exchanges on this matter in the lobby briefing this morning:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-spokesman-repeatedly-refuses-22156755

Reading it, you can see why protestors might despair of ever making progress via peaceful and democratic means, unless they take matters into their ow hands.
Full exchange with Boris Johnson's spokesman on Black Lives Matter protests
On the Black Lives Matter protests, the PM said last night they were 'subverted by thuggery'. Which particular bits was he talking about?

"There were a significant number of injuries to police officers over the course of the weekend.

"I think the Met Commissioner has set out that the Met has had over 30 officers who reported injuries in the protests yesterday.

"There have also been incidents of criminal damage which have been reported."

So was he talking about the scenes we saw on Saturday, where police were being attacked by some protesters? Is he talking about the statue in Bristol? Is he talking about the Churchill memorial?

"He is talking about the attacks which have taken place against police officers, police officers suffering injuries, objects being hurled at police officers as they try to do their job, and also acts of criminal damage.

"It is never acceptable to commit acts of violence against police officers as they seek to carry out their work protecting the public."

On the Edward Colston statue, does the PM understand why some people are very unhappy having statues to slave traders?

"So I think the Policing Minister Kit Malthouse set out the position on behalf of the government this morning.

"He said a crime was committed in removing the statue, an investigation is under way, and a prosecution will follow as that’s not the way we do things in the UK - we settle our differences democratically. The PM would share that view."

Does the PM understand why some people don't want statues of slave traders?

"So, as I say, the PM’s view is that in this country, where there is strong opinion, there is a democratic process which should be followed.

"People can campaign for the removal of the statue, but what happened yesterday was a criminal act and when the criminal law is broken, that is unacceptable and the police will want to hold to account those responsible."

I'll try for a third time - does the PM understand why some people want statues of slave traders to be taken down?

"The PM absolutely understands the strength of feeling but as I say in this country we settle our differences democratically and if people wanted the removal of the statue, there are democratic routes which can be followed."

Okay, so he doesn't have a view himself on whether it's acceptable to have a statue like this up in a public place these days?

"So the policing minister was asked about this this morning, and he said... the law was broken yesterday and it's possible to abhor both that fact and the memorialisation of Edward Colston."

Does the PM abhor the memorialisation of Colston and other slavers?

"Look, I think with great respect, I have covered this. As I say, fully understand the strength of feeling but in this country we settle our differences democratically. And a criminal act was committed and that's not an acceptable way of going about things."

Does the PM think the statue should be put back up?

"It's not something I've discussed with him, but I would point you back to my previous answer - which is that where there is strong feeling on some issues, that should be settled democratically."

[Other discussion before questioning returns to Colston statue].

Does the PM think there is a difference of opinion on whether we should have statues of slave traders up? Or does he think it should have come down, but it should have come down in a democratic way?

"Look, I can only talk to what happened yesterday, which I think we'll have to agree was an act of criminal damage.

"The Police Minister said I can certainly understand the objections to the statue's presence, and I can see why people would want to campaign for its removal... but that's a separate question."

[Other discussion before questioning returns...].

Does the PM sympathise with these protests?

“You should look to his words last week at the press conference, where he said he was appalled and sickened to see what happened to George Floyd, and people have a right to protest and to make their feelings known about this and other injustices, but that people should protest peacefully and absolutely in accordance with the rules on social distancing.

These protests seem to have evolved from … George Floyd to what’s happening in the UK. Does the PM accept the wider message of some of these people that Britain itself is racist?

“The Prime Minister certainly recognises the strength of feeling in response to George Floyd’s death and supports the right for people to make their feelings known about injustices in general.

“We have made significant progress on racism in this country, but the PM accepts there is still more to do and that we cannot be complacent in our efforts to stamp out racism and discrimination.

Is he going to do anything [more] in response to that?

“The PM is absolutely committed to continuing efforts to stamp out racism and discrimination.”

Does he think Britain a racist country?

“No. the PM doesn’t doubt there continues to be discrimination and racism, but would not agree this is a racist country.

“We have made very significant progress on this issue but there remains more to do and we will not be complacent in our efforts to stamp out racism and discrimination where it happens.

Has he had a chance to talk to Trump about the George Floyd case yet?

“There are no PM calls with the President that you’re unaware of. The Ambassador to Washington did speak with the US… last week and raised concerns…”

The PM obviously feels strongly about the act of criminal damage against the statue in Bristol. Does he feel more strongly about that than he does about the actions of the slave trader himself in enslaving people all those years ago?

“I think that’s not a fair question to ask.

“As I said, the PM fully understands the strength of feeling on this issue, but in this country, where there is strong feeling we have democratic processes to use which can resolve these matters and we have to uphold the law.”
Basically, Johnson's more outraged about the damage to property than about racism. Hardly surprising given he leads a party that is racist to its core and he wrote a novel full of racist stereotypes.
 
Here’s another famous benefactor- raised an estimated £40m for charitable causes. Should his statues go back up?

c4GpjuF.jpg
 
Now you're just being p*ssy because we don't all see things your way.
It’s what he said. Message couldn’t be clearer and it’s already found its audience. He’s f—ed Labour as an organisation for young people.
 
David Olusoga, who presents BBC 2 programme A House Through Time , said protesters should have never had to topple the bronze figure because it should have been taken down years ago.
""I'm afraid today should never have happened because this statue should have been taken down and it should have been a great collective day for Britain and Bristol when the statue was peacefully taken down and put in a museum which is where, after all, we remember history properly." Which is exactly what Starmer said.
And yes I now he then goes further than Starmer has.
He's not trying to get elected though!
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/he-slave-trader-murderer-david-4202819

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-statue-history-slave-trader-bristol-protest

I'd highly recommend all three series of this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l64y9

Series 1 Liverpool, 2 Newcastle and 3 and currently showing, from Bristol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Olusoga
 
Starmer tried to do the balance thing, I get that, even though I find his continued reluctance to stand on a point of principle increasingly annoying. However he should certainly have acknowledged that peaceful and legal efforts to remove the statue have been going on for years and have hit a brick wall. This would have given him the opportunity to express some kind of solidarity with the protestors, even if he wished to avoid full-throated support of their actions. As it is, what he said is barely distinguishable from Boris Johnson's stated position (though I'm sure Starmer is more sincere). That can't be right.

As for Johnson's position, the Daily Mirror has a full transcript of all exchanges on this matter in the lobby briefing this morning:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-spokesman-repeatedly-refuses-22156755

Reading it, you can see why protestors might despair of ever making progress via peaceful and democratic means, unless they take matters into their ow hands.

Basically, Johnson's more outraged about the damage to property than about racism. Hardly surprising given he leads a party that is racist to its core and wrote a novel full of racist stereotypes.
Johnson/Patel will fall back on the “we are the party of law and order” and try to reposition Starmer as friend of the criminals (‘letting off the Asian grooming gangs’ smears as precedent). The convicted violent criminal Yaxley Lennon is already fanning outrage, Farage, Hate-monger Katie Hopkins ( immigrants swarming like cockroaches over the cenotaph), Sarah Vine, Isabel Oakshott, Daniel Hannan Guido Fawkes, Rod Liddle and even Pantomime Dame of The British Empire, Charles Moore will be cashing in on the Enemies Within hysteria. Have I left anyone out?

oh yea I forgot Melanie Phillips and Heartless-Brewer.
 
David Olusoga, who presents BBC 2 programme A House Through Time , said protesters should have never had to topple the bronze figure because it should have been taken down years ago.
""I'm afraid today should never have happened because this statue should have been taken down and it should have been a great collective day for Britain and Bristol when the statue was peacefully taken down and put in a museum which is where, after all, we remember history properly." Which is exactly what Starmer said.
And yes I now he then goes further than Starmer has.
He's not trying to get elected though!
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/he-slave-trader-murderer-david-4202819

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-statue-history-slave-trader-bristol-protest

I'd highly recommend all three series of this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l64y9

Series 1 Liverpool, 2 Newcastle and 3 and currently showing, from Bristol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Olusoga
It’s not what Starmer said.
 
Johnson/Patel will fall back on the “we are the party of law and order” and try to reposition Starmer as friend of the criminals (‘letting off the Asian grooming gangs’ smears as precedent). The convicted violent criminal Yaxley Lennon is already fanning outrage, Farage, Hate-monger Katie Hopkins ( immigrants swarming like cockroaches over the cenotaph), Sarah Vine, Isabel Oakshott, Daniel Hannan Guido Fawkes, Rod Liddle and even Pantomime Dame of The British Empire, Charles Moore will be cashing in on the Enemies Within hysteria. Have I left anyone out?

oh yea I forgot Mad Melanie and Heartless-Brewer.
Yep. Untriangulable. Time to pick a side.
 
It’s not what Starmer said.
It is!
"...that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. You can’t, in 21st-century Britain, have a slaver on a statue.
A statue is there to honour people. And you can’t have that in 21st-century Britain. That statue should have been brought down properly with consent and put, I would say, in a museum."
What is the difference between that and:
"I'm afraid today should never have happened because this statue should have been taken down and it should have been a great collective day for Britain and Bristol when the statue was peacefully taken down and put in a museum which is where, after all, we remember history properly."
?
 
Johnson/Patel will fall back on the “we are the party of law and order” and try to reposition Starmer as friend of the criminals (‘letting off the Asian grooming gangs’ smears as precedent). The convicted violent criminal Yaxley Lennon is already fanning outrage, Farage, Hate-monger Katie Hopkins ( immigrants swarming like cockroaches over the cenotaph), Sarah Vine, Isabel Oakshott, Daniel Hannan Guido Fawkes, Rod Liddle and even Pantomime Dame of The British Empire, Charles Moore will be cashing in on the Enemies Within hysteria. Have I left anyone out?
Yup. Farage is already warning that "If Boris Johnson won't lead and stand up for the country, as its symbols are trashed, then people will start taking it into their own hands. Full on race riots are now possible. Show leadership and fast." and his far-right ****face of a mate Raheem Kassam popped up in the comments to promote his "Enoch Was Right" book. I'd like to throw the lot of these far-right bastards into the sea and watch them drown.
 
Yup. Farage is already warning that "If Boris Johnson won't lead and stand up for the country, as its symbols are trashed, then people will start taking it into their own hands. Full on race riots are now possible. Show leadership and fast." and his far-right ****face of a mate Raheem Kassam popped up in the comments to promote his "Enoch Was Right" book. I'd like to throw the lot of these far-right bastards into the sea and watch them drown.
I was naively thinking a few months ago that it was N.Ireland about to go up. With the Covid-Brexit political/ economic disaster, and incompetent government, there’s never been a better time to go after scapegoats
 
It is!
"...that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago. You can’t, in 21st-century Britain, have a slaver on a statue.
A statue is there to honour people. And you can’t have that in 21st-century Britain. That statue should have been brought down properly with consent and put, I would say, in a museum."
What is the difference between that and
"I'm afraid today should never have happened because this statue should have been taken down and it should have been a great collective day for Britain and Bristol when the statue was peacefully taken down and put in a museum which is where, after all, we remember history properly."
?
“It’s completely wrong”! Where does he say that? Because that was Starmer’s message and the rest was pious qualification.
 
Actually I don’t want to tempt fate but openly racist Liddle is too quiet. He almost succeeded in collapsing the Stephen Lawrence murder trial by claiming his racist killers wouldn’t get a fair trial. Can’t believe he’s going to keep his mouth shut this time.
 
Statute in the river made my weekend! We have every right to protest and take action when authorities don't listen to good reason.
 
It’s what he said. Message couldn’t be clearer and it’s already found its audience. He’s f—ed Labour as an organisation for young people.

Keir Starmer on LBC said:
It shouldn't have been done in that way. Completely wrong to pull a statue down like that.

But that statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago.

You can't in 21st century Britain have a slaver on a statue. Statues are there to honour people. It should have been brought down properly with consent and put in a museum.

And young people, as an entire demographic, would feel so alienated by the concept of behaving lawfully that they'd withdraw their support for Labour?
 
I remember the poll tax riots attracted wide-spread criticism but ultimately led to the ending of the poll tax. It seems to me this was, as David Olsuga writes, not an attack on history, but history itself. Seeing the event on the news I was struck by the visual parallels with the toppling of Sadam Hussein's statue in Baghdad in 2003. The only thing I lament about the affair is that it should happen during a pandemic and I pray that such large gatherings don't turn out to be super-spreader events.
 
I remember the poll tax riots attracted wide-spread criticism but ultimately led to the ending of the poll tax.

That's strecthing things a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(Great_Britain)

After the poll tax was announced, opinion polls showed the Labour opposition opening a strong lead over the Conservative government. After the Poll Tax Riots, Conservative ministers contemplated abolition of the tax but knew that, as a flagship Thatcherite policy, its abolition would not be possible while Thatcher was still Prime Minister.[12] Kinnock had vowed to abolish the poll tax if he won the next general election.[13]

For this, among other reasons, Thatcher was challenged by Michael Heseltine for the Conservative leadership in November 1990. Although she prevailed by a margin of fifty votes, she narrowly missed the threshold to avoid a second vote, and on 22 November 1990 she announced her resignation after more than a decade in office. All three of the contenders to succeed her pledged to abandon the tax.

What finished the poll tax was the threat of a trouncing in the GE by Labour and like they normally do, the Conservative Party put party survival ahead of everything else. It's just that this time, it seemed to work in the favour of the population.
 


advertisement


Back
Top