I know the question is not aimed at me, and I'd have worded my post completely different to Saffy. Where my point would have been, I'm surprised no one was hurt with the removal of the Bristol Statue, nothing to do with the removal of the statue itself. So I guess it was only going to be a matter of time, that foolish actions resulted in serious injury. Foolish in the regards of no consideration for health and safety, especially at such large gatherings, the guy even had a sledge hammer up there for christ sake. It toppled unexpectedly, but when you've got so many people, performing so many different unorganised actions to bring it down, it was lucky the guy wasn't killed. Edit: So it goes without saying, some of those people are very lucky, not to be facing some very serious criminal charges.
Suppose my answer to that is that people have been campaigning for decades if not centuries to have these icons of racism and oppression removed in a safe and organised way and they have fallen on deaf ears.
I hear what you are saying, but it does not excuse you in a court of law, just because you did it under a black lives matter banner. For all we know, the guy injured, may well go on to want to place an injuries claim against those responsible, dependent on the cost of hospital treatment and his recovery, let alone the loss of personal income. Least case scenario, it's criminal damage, worst case scenario they could have been looking at manslaughter charges. We can't excuse what happened, just because it was a protest.
What I'm saying here is people are not void of liability, just because you encompass the role of protestor.
It is criminal damage I agree. Whether you think it’s justified criminal damage is another debate. I remember a case around 20 years ago where some protesters broke into an air base and damaged some fighter jets that had been sold to an oppressive regime (I can’t remember which one) the judge and jury acquitted them of criminal damage charges on the basis that their actions were designed to prevent the oppression of innocent people. I’ll try and dig out the case if I can find it.
Like I say mate, I'm not disputing their actions, and I honestly couldn't give a shhite about the statues. But if I'm a protestor, I am still liable for my own actions, if I injure someone, it could be me that potentially pays, if they decide to sue me or the police decide to charge me.
yep I agree, if you injure somebody else through your actions, then you’re responsible. If the guy injured he suffered brain damage and needs years of rehab and care, then it will be interesting to see who is liable to pay for that.
All the stuff about the TV shows, all a bit meh to me tbh. I remember Matt Lucas saying a few years ago, that he regretted the blacking up he did in Little Britain and Come fly with me, and that he’d never do it again, and iirc David Walliams came out with something similar. I remember thinking I don’t quite get it, as I liked both shows and I never made the correlation with racism tbh. However, maybe that was me judging it on the basis of who was doing it, as opposed to what it actually was. As I’d never have either of them down as being even remotely racist, whereas maybe if I’d have watched similar and it was Jim Davidson or Chubby Brown, I’d have had a different view.
Apparently the dumb **** fascists are planning to rip down the Mandela statue to ensure it kicks off on Saturday.
Good points and I agree ... Little Britain, by definition, was about stereotypes ... and that was what made it funny... in a strange way it was 'inclusive' because it covered such a breadth of characters... would the non white characters have been more acceptable if played by non white actors? ... or just as exaggerated and ridiculous? ... I loved the "only gay in the village" character ... not because I am in any way homophobic but because the character was incredibly funny ... and nowt to do with that one perhaps being 'acceptable' just because it was played by a gay man.
Yeah same principle I suppose, had a straight bloke played that character it’d have maybe have been an uncomfortable watch.
Things getting a bit ridiculous now if we are looking to remove monuments to the likes of Baden-Powell. His place in history was down to founding the Boy Scout movement - an institution that has been inspirational for boys throughout the world. Apparently he was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and a bit of a rascist and also homophobic ... so that should mean that he can't be celebrated for his role in the Scouts movement? The guy died in 1941 - two years into the war and in his 80s. Hitler had a huge number of admirers from all around the world for the way in which he dragged a post WWI Germany economy from desperate recession to rapid economic growth. In the early years of that transformation Hitler's warped personality and his final solution ideology were not readily apparent. I have no idea whether Baden-powell had an inkling but he was near the end of his life when the Nazi's invaded Poland, he would have been 81 then. Was he rascist? ... possibly by today's understanding and enlightenment but he was born in the 1850s and it seems more likely to me that he was more 'guilty' of the general ignorance of the time. ... and lastly the homophobia ... the Boy Scout movement arose out of Christian principles and homosexuality was a sin according to the bible. Indeed, homosexual acts were not decriminalised until 25 years after Baden-Powell's death ... so homophobic ... or just a church going Christian with the Christian values of the time? My worry is that if we carry on with this wholescale posthumous denigrating and dismantling of history we are in danger of some partial legitimising or, at least, the fueling of numpty right wing reaction and retaliation.
Oh give over If that happened to a right wing protestor everybody on here would be in fits of giggles. I’m calling you (And any other lefty on here) a liar if you even try and deny that. With regards to your last little bit about supporting racial discrimination. I support it. I don’t support BLM.
