Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
-
- Posts: 3151
- Joined: 5 May 2009, 6:32am
Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
I'm not sure we need a separate law, doesn't Criminal Damage cover this?
I'm aware that 10 years is the maximum and unlikely to be used but it does seem rather excessive.
There must be other ways to stop the 'rent a mob' infiltrating peaceful protests.
Protests are a part of a Democracy and should be valued. Stopping them has a whiff of dictatorship.
I'm aware that 10 years is the maximum and unlikely to be used but it does seem rather excessive.
There must be other ways to stop the 'rent a mob' infiltrating peaceful protests.
Protests are a part of a Democracy and should be valued. Stopping them has a whiff of dictatorship.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
I agree. Quite unnecessary. I guess the government is just trying to make a point and keep Churchill from criticism.
John
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
On Road CC someone suggests making the bollards and wands protecting cycle lanes in the form of Churchill statues.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
-
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Though l already said on another thread that this is excessive it does also apply to statues of Nelson Mandela (whose statue in London has been protected from far right protestors before) or Captain Cook (who had nothing to do with slavery) or Emily Wilding Davison (fighting for women's rights being so wrong in a non-binary world )....
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Statues can be repaired, restored or replaced. George Floyd can't. Need any more be said?
Removal of statues, some of which seem to serve as 'idols' in the biblical sense, isn't "rewriting history", as some of their defenders claim. History is not being erased, though it is constantly being added to and unfortunate gaps, errors and omissions are being corrected. Otherwise why should anyone study history as an academic subject? There are no statues of Hitler in Germany, but that doesn't mean people have 'forgotten' what Hitler did.
Regarding Churchill, for instance. No-one's about to expunge his heroic achievements, especially those during WW2, from the record! But we should be aware that he had a murkier side to his character. Not only the alleged racism, but also the fact that he stayed on as PM in the '50s when he was apparently no longer in a fit state to perform his duties. That too is history.
Removal of statues, some of which seem to serve as 'idols' in the biblical sense, isn't "rewriting history", as some of their defenders claim. History is not being erased, though it is constantly being added to and unfortunate gaps, errors and omissions are being corrected. Otherwise why should anyone study history as an academic subject? There are no statues of Hitler in Germany, but that doesn't mean people have 'forgotten' what Hitler did.
Regarding Churchill, for instance. No-one's about to expunge his heroic achievements, especially those during WW2, from the record! But we should be aware that he had a murkier side to his character. Not only the alleged racism, but also the fact that he stayed on as PM in the '50s when he was apparently no longer in a fit state to perform his duties. That too is history.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
-
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
661-Pete wrote:Regarding Churchill, for instance. No-one's about to expunge his heroic achievements, especially those during WW2, from the record! But we should be aware that he had a murkier side to his character. Not only the alleged racism, but also the fact that he stayed on as PM in the '50s when he was apparently no longer in a fit state to perform his duties. That too is history.
Surely anyone with any interest in the subject either knows this or can find it out? How long do you want the plaques at the bases of statues to be? And what interpretation of history do you want to believe?
Was Richard I a valiant Christian commander fighting for what western Europe believed? Was he responsible for slaughtering innocent Muslims - just as Muslims slaughtered innocent Christians? Was he an absentee king who didn't rule England well? Was he responsible for anti-Jewish violence or did he try to prevent it? Why did we have to pay literally a king's ransom to get him back? And all this for a single statue in Parliament Square.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
francovendee wrote:I'm not sure we need a separate law, doesn't Criminal Damage cover this?
I'm aware that 10 years is the maximum and unlikely to be used but it does seem rather excessive.
There must be other ways to stop the 'rent a mob' infiltrating peaceful protests.
Protests are a part of a Democracy and should be valued. Stopping them has a whiff of dictatorship.
Yes, there's no need for new legislation.
This is very often the case. But managing and funding the police and the legal system are hard compared to dog-whistling.
Democracies are always vulnerable to this, but we should expect even more than usual with the current populists in power.
Jonathan
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Ben@Forest wrote:661-Pete wrote:Regarding Churchill, for instance. No-one's about to expunge his heroic achievements, especially those during WW2, from the record! But we should be aware that he had a murkier side to his character. Not only the alleged racism, but also the fact that he stayed on as PM in the '50s when he was apparently no longer in a fit state to perform his duties. That too is history.
Surely anyone with any interest in the subject either knows this or can find it out? How long do you want the plaques at the bases of statues to be? And what interpretation of history do you want to believe?
Was Richard I a valiant Christian commander fighting for what western Europe believed? Was he responsible for slaughtering innocent Muslims - just as Muslims slaughtered innocent Christians? Was he an absentee king who didn't rule England well? Was he responsible for anti-Jewish violence or did he try to prevent it? Why did we have to pay literally a king's ransom to get him back? And all this for a single statue in Parliament Square.
Interesting questions. And we already know the best way to discuss them: openly and based on the available facts. As far from current politics as possible, without the restrictions of a school curriculum influenced by politicians and without a governmental watchdog checking what's said in universities. And with an expectation that views will change over time.
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Jdsk wrote:Interesting questions. And we already know the best way to discuss them: openly and based on the available facts. As far from current politics as possible, without the restrictions of a school curriculum influenced by politicians and without a governmental watchdog checking what's said in universities. And with an expectation that views will change over time.
And not a student union council either.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Ben@Forest wrote:Jdsk wrote:Interesting questions. And we already know the best way to discuss them: openly and based on the available facts. As far from current politics as possible, without the restrictions of a school curriculum influenced by politicians and without a governmental watchdog checking what's said in universities. And with an expectation that views will change over time.
And not a student union council either.
Private organisations are completely different from governments.
You can generalise this into culture wars if you want, but the original question was about a specific current issue and I think it more useful to stay reasonably close to that.
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Jdsk wrote:Ben@Forest wrote:And not a student union council either.
Private organisations are completely different from governments.
You can generalise this into culture wars if you want, but the original question was about a specific current issue and I think it more useful to stay reasonably close to that.
Not really no. Governments oversee a myriad of authorities and if you're going to bring up their 'freedom of speech' tsar it's appropriate to bring up the reason given for that appointment. And unions aren't really 'private' if they impact upon others' decisions. If Society X says it is inviting Person Y to speak on campus and the union makes it difficult or uncomfortable or impossible for that to happen that is an action in the public sphere.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
What does "in the public sphere" mean except that we're free to discuss both?
Governments should be accountable to the people, but student unions only to their members. Completely different, except in totalitarian systems.
Making things "uncomfortable" is a very long way from completely unnecessary new legislation. And there are many views where it's excellent if those who hold them are made to feel very uncomfortable indeed... because those views are irrational or bigoted or dangerously discriminatory.
Jonathan
PS: I've recently held senior academic posts in several of the universities whose problems in this are have been publicised, and am currently on the governing body of one of those most affected. This issue is grossly overblown in the politically-motivated media. And the cancellation on which the Government recently made its case didn't actually happen.
Governments should be accountable to the people, but student unions only to their members. Completely different, except in totalitarian systems.
Making things "uncomfortable" is a very long way from completely unnecessary new legislation. And there are many views where it's excellent if those who hold them are made to feel very uncomfortable indeed... because those views are irrational or bigoted or dangerously discriminatory.
Jonathan
PS: I've recently held senior academic posts in several of the universities whose problems in this are have been publicised, and am currently on the governing body of one of those most affected. This issue is grossly overblown in the politically-motivated media. And the cancellation on which the Government recently made its case didn't actually happen.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Yep I know a bit about Richard I ! I know that his portrayal in the Errol Flynn movie Robin Hood was a bit wide of the mark. But I agree, I'm not in favour of demolishing statues across the board - or even adding to their inscriptions - unless there's a very good reason. Two reasons come to my mind. One: that the statue's presence might upset a number of people seeing it (as with Colston and Rhodes). Two: that the statue might become a focus point for extremist groups.Ben@Forest wrote:Surely anyone with any interest in the subject either knows this or can find it out? How long do you want the plaques at the bases of statues to be? And what interpretation of history do you want to believe?
Was Richard I a valiant Christian commander fighting for what western Europe believed? Was he responsible for slaughtering innocent Muslims - just as Muslims slaughtered innocent Christians? Was he an absentee king who didn't rule England well? Was he responsible for anti-Jewish violence or did he try to prevent it? Why did we have to pay literally a king's ransom to get him back? And all this for a single statue in Parliament Square.
When we visited the USA a few years ago one of our stops was at Gettysburg, and of course we went round the battlefield, taking many photos. One photo was taken at the statue of Robert E Lee on horseback (which, we noted, is situated right at the edge of the site). My view is, it's a historical figure, and we snapped ourselves in front of him 'for the record'. Maybe it was wrong of us - I don't know - nor do I know if there's a campaign to remove it. Again, I would suggest, only if either of my two criteria are met.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
661-Pete wrote:When we visited the USA a few years ago one of our stops was at Gettysburg, and of course we went round the battlefield, taking many photos. One photo was taken at the statue of Robert E Lee on horseback (which, we noted, is situated right at the edge of the site). My view is, it's a historical figure, and we snapped ourselves in front of him 'for the record'. Maybe it was wrong of us - I don't know - nor do I know if there's a campaign to remove it. Again, I would suggest, only if either of my two criteria are met.
One of the most interesting features of this and many similar is how recently they were erected. 1913 to 1917 in this case. Lee died in 1870. It was always political.
Jonathan
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Hmmm... that would be during Woodrow Wilson's presidency. And for all that he was regarded as one of the more progressive POTUS's, he was equally a segregationist and a white supremacist (though not to be compared with Tr*mp). It figures.Jdsk wrote:661-Pete wrote:When we visited the USA a few years ago one of our stops was at Gettysburg, and of course we went round the battlefield, taking many photos. One photo was taken at the statue of Robert E Lee on horseback (which, we noted, is situated right at the edge of the site). My view is, it's a historical figure, and we snapped ourselves in front of him 'for the record'. Maybe it was wrong of us - I don't know - nor do I know if there's a campaign to remove it. Again, I would suggest, only if either of my two criteria are met.
One of the most interesting features of this and many similar is how recently they were erected. 1913 to 1917 in this case. Lee died in 1870. It was always political.
Jonathan
But Gettysburg is effectively an open-air museum. So it makes sense to display objects which may be objectionable in other settings. Like Madame Tussaud's used to have the Chamber of Horrors....
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).