Politics Today

[DB9]

These decision should be done by consent, Not a baying mob. If a statue is controversial then indeed get rid but done in a lawful way.

Statues to get protection from 'baying mobs'

The government is planning new laws to stop England's monuments being removed "on a whim" by protesters.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[lamrobhero]

Comments on BBC piece about statues:

• "The legislation would require planning permission for any changes and a minister would be given the final veto." - Democracy in action? - NOT
• "In the paper, the communities secretary said Britain should not try to edit or censor its past" - ALL choices mean editing or censoring, I think he means HIS idea of Britains past
• "Our view will be set out in law, that such monuments are almost always best explained and contextualised, not taken and hidden away." - "Our view" - who are you to dictate? Democracy in action - NOT. They have to rely on law to impose their view, not consent.
• "Mr Jenrick added that he had noticed an attempt to set a narrative which seeks to erase part of the nation's history, saying this was "at the hand of the flash mob, or by the decree of a 'cultural committee' of town hall militants and woke worthies". - So what Democratic process is he proposing for these choices to be made? - NONE
• "We live in a country that believes in the rule of law, but when it comes to protecting our heritage, due process has been overridden. That can't be right." - because the due process was illegitimate
• "Local people should have the chance to be consulted whether a monument should stand or not." - i.e. NOT VOTE
• "What has stood for generations should be considered thoughtfully, not removed on a whim or at the behest of a baying mob." - Patronising

 

[DB9]

Comments on BBC piece about statues:

• "The legislation would require planning permission for any changes and a minister would be given the final veto." - Democracy in action? - NOT

Just like any other planning application if controversial, A minister always gets the final vote.

• "In the paper, the communities secretary said Britain should not try to edit or censor its past" - ALL choices mean editing or censoring, I think he means HIS idea of Britains past

Erm how do you know this without any evidence? Who are you to say what you think is right?

• "Our view will be set out in law, that such monuments are almost always best explained and contextualised, not taken and hidden away." - "Our view" - who are you to dictate? Democracy in action - NOT. They have to rely on law to impose their view, not consent.
• "Mr Jenrick added that he had noticed an attempt to set a narrative which seeks to erase part of the nation's history, saying this was "at the hand of the flash mob, or by the decree of a 'cultural committee' of town hall militants and woke worthies". - So what Democratic process is he proposing for these choices to be made? - NONE

Its not up to individuals, Council or Government to "Erase" our past, Its there good or bad, We live with it and learn.

• "We live in a country that believes in the rule of law, but when it comes to protecting our heritage, due process has been overridden. That can't be right." - because the due process was illegitimate

What was illegitimate?

• "Local people should have the chance to be consulted whether a monument should stand or not." - i.e. NOT VOTE

Local consultations do work, Perhaps not everytime but the locals should have a say, Its not difficult to get the jist of how eople think.

• "What has stood for generations should be considered thoughtfully, not removed on a whim or at the behest of a baying mob." - Patronising

Not patronising at all, These statues have stood for years, Just because a mob wants to tear them down doesn't make it right.

So you agree with a mob pulling down statues then? I remember the Coulston one in Bristol, When all this was happening the head of the local Council said they were discussing removing it anyway when it was torn down, Why not let the public know that before it took place, It could of saved a lot of hassle. Nope they are getting this one right, You learn from history and if that means removing statues then fine but done in a lawful way, You put them in a museum and learn from the reason why they were put there.

 

[lamrobhero]

So you agree with a mob pulling down statues then?

No.
Do you agree with politicians defining our cultural identity for us?

 

[DB9]

No.
Do you agree with politicians defining our cultural identity for us?

They are not and no i wouldn't, They are simply saying if a statue is considered contorversial and local council/people decide to get rid then that's fine but if there is no agreement and like any controversial planning application it goes to Government, This has happened for decades and no one has ever batted an eyelid about it.

And this bit you wrote "I think he means HIS idea of Britains past" That is YOUR opinion and not fact.

 

[lamrobhero]

And this bit you wrote "I think he means HIS idea of Britains past" That is YOUR opinion and not fact.

"Britain should not try to edit or censor its past". He does seem to think that there is a "True perception pf our past" which should not be edited or censored by anyone. I did assume that that is HIS idea of the past.

 

[DB9]

"Britain should not try to edit or censor its past". He does seem to think that there is a "True perception pf our past" which should not be edited or censored by anyone. I did assume that that is HIS idea of the past.

No, He's just saying as a nation we shouldn't edit or censor our past, No point editing the bad bits out, Again we learn from it and try not to make the same mistakes.

 

[RedPaul]

No.
Do you agree with politicians defining our cultural identity for us?

Nor do I agree with a baying mob defining it.

 

[Mr Jinx]

So you agree with a mob pulling down statues then? I remember the Coulston one in Bristol, When all this was happening the head of the local Council said they were discussing removing it anyway when it was torn down, Why not let the public know that before it took place, It could of saved a lot of hassle. Nope they are getting this one right, You learn from history and if that means removing statues then fine but done in a lawful way, You put them in a museum and learn from the reason why they were put there.

Our council discusses a lot of things, the most of which never get done.

 

[Spoonz Red E]

"In the paper, the communities secretary said Britain should not try to edit or censor its past"

There's a misrepresentation by Jenrick right there.

There is every cause to challenge how we present the past.

For instance:
The Edward Colston legacy was first challenged in 1920 when his history of slavery was researched.
The Bristol Colston statue was pulled down after 30 years of disquiet and a continued failure to even agree wording on a plaque to add context while leaving it in situ.

The past can also be edited by erecting statues.
In the states the United Daughters of the Confederacy erected statues in the early 1900s which effectively edited the Civil War history very effectively.

You could argue that almost any statue or iconography 'edits' history because they preserve and present the version of history determined by those who commission the statue/icon.

What would Jenrick say about those who blew up Nazi stonework in Berlin or toppled Saddam Hussein's statue I wonder?

Having said that I have no argument with allowing the local community to debate and decide the process.