Jdsk wrote:Yes.
But of course "It couldn't happen here"...
Jonathan
But it has. See Ricky Tomlinson and his colleagues.
Jdsk wrote:Yes.
But of course "It couldn't happen here"...
Jonathan
Also what about statues that represent an organisation or event through the depiction of a person but are not about those people? In West Auckland there is a statue commemorating both West Auckland as winners of the first 'World Cup' and the fact that pretty well all the players were miners. In Durham there is a statue commemorating the Durham Light Infantry. These statues are of men but they aren't about identified men. Is football, or mining or soldiering really always better represented by some abstract sculpture?661-Pete wrote: ↑1 Jun 2021, 1:14pm Interesting, albeit lengthy reading from Gary Younge in the Grauniad today, suggesting that every statue of a person should come down - even those of saintly figures like Mandela and Gandhi. I think few would wish to take things as far as that! Surely he doesn't wish to include classical Greek, Roman and Renaissance sculptures.
But he's right in that historical perceptions are bound to change with time - whereas the only change you get with a statue is as often as not the accumulation of pigeon poo. Memorials on the other kind, like the Cenotaph, give out a specific message which needs to be upheld.
I knew the radio was behind the times but this is surely not newsworthy any moreMike Sales wrote: ↑6 Oct 2021, 10:04am I have just heard on the radio about the destruction of a statue of George III in New York during the American Revolution.
george iii statue..jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_null ... _slave_lawIn 1982, during the Falklands War, the British Royal Navy sank an Argentine cruiser, the ARA General Belgrano. Three years later a civil servant (government employee) named Clive Ponting leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to a Member of Parliament (Tam Dalyell) and was subsequently charged with breaching section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.[37] The prosecution in the case demanded for the jury to convict Ponting as he had clearly contravened the Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence, that it was in the public interest that the information be made available, was rejected on the grounds that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is", but the jury acquitted him, much to the consternation of the government. He had argued that he had acted out of "his duty to the interests of the state", but the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government.[citation needed]
In 2021, a noteworthy case of jury nullification took place when a six activists associated with the environmental protest organisation Extinction Rebellion were placed on trial for causing criminal damage to the UK Headquarters of multinational oil company Royal Dutch Shell. Though the judge instructed the jury that there was 'no defence in law' for the protestors' actions, which according to the prosecutor had caused 'significant damage' to the building,[38] the activists were acquitted by the jury.[39]
Fugitive slave law
Jury nullification was practised in the 1850s to protest the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which was part of the Compromise of 1850. The Act had been passed to mollify the slave owners from the South, who were otherwise threatening to secede from the Union. Across the North, local juries acquitted men accused of violating the law.
Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous "Seventh of March" speech. He wanted high-profile convictions, but the jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution when defendants were accused of rescuing Shadrach Minkins in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner; the juries convicted none of the men. Webster tried to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his Whig Party passed over him again when they chose a presidential nominee in 1852.[44]
Idiot. You mean like the Tailiban blowing up sculptures. Or this kind of thing needs to come down?661-Pete wrote: ↑1 Jun 2021, 1:14pm Interesting, albeit lengthy reading from Gary Younge in the Grauniad today, suggesting that every statue of a person should come down -