BLM protestors: British antique bronze statue toppled and tossed into harbour

[jackg]

I'm tryin to work out how just this is as an action because I, at first, was pretty imprested that a statue of a wealthy slave trader was being tossed into the harbour, I had wondered how it had lasted this long but then again, I'm not sure if a government ordered disfigurement to the statue would've been more appropriate (I'm quite shocked the statue lasted this long here).

Also the police are looking to arrest the people who threw the statue into the river however that doesn't seem very fair and it could be argued the plaque that came along with it was provocative and thus was against freedom of "reasonable" speech laws (since it clearly provoked violence).


There is the flip side of this though that he was a speaker on the board for the slave trade which was a very profitible endeavour and the excuse of "if I don't do it someone else will" might just be a similar grounds here since he seemed to follow local philanthropic efforts (according to his wikipedia).

[1714863810]

1714863810

[1714863810]

1714863810

[1714863810]

1714863810

[1714863810]

1714863810

[PrimeNumber7]

Is it okay to deface property that does not belong to you? No.

It is okay to change public policy (the statute) just because a small number of people don't like it without the consent of the people? No.

It appears the insurrection is spreading from the US to other Western countries.

[jackg]

But it's been argued for years that the statue should either be taken down or have an additional plaque added to it. It was ruled in favour of the additional plaque 2 years ago and nothing has come of it.

I'd agree vandalising the stature is criminal damage however if they merely moved it, it's public property and wouldn't have mattered.

And there were at least hundreds in that crowd, no police seemed to intervene either. I can't think anyone would stand on the side of a slave owner especially in this country...

[TECSHARE]

Lets stop pretending these people have any principles and stop excusing rioters.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/not-onion-blm-protesters-vandalize-abraham-lincoln-statue-london

[coins4commies]

What a Beautiful thing to see the Bristol tea party was. We are seeing a spark ignite around the world.  This may be the start of something special. 

[jackg]

Lets stop pretending these people have any principles and stop excusing rioters.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/not-onion-blm-protesters-vandalize-abraham-lincoln-statue-london

Now that also has a valid reason behind it, wealthy countries spend far too long discussing how poorer and more volatile countries should be run for their own good that they fail to take into account each other.

The protests in the UK did aim to try to get the government to interact with the US government, it should continue escalating if they . We've been looking at the cells under the microscope for so long we didn't think to identify them by looking at what they were on.

What a Beautiful thing to see the Bristol tea party was. We are seeing a spark ignite around the world.  This may be the start of something special. 

It sure was different... We'll wait and see what can come of this now 

[PrimeNumber7]

And there were at least hundreds in that crowd, no police seemed to intervene either. I can't think anyone would stand on the side of a slave owner especially in this country...

My assumption is the mayor of Bristol ordered the police not to intervene.

I am not familiar with the person, or why there is a statue of him up, however, I would repeat my previous points that if the electorate believes it should come down, they should vote as such. I condemn "mob rule" no matter how bad a person the mob is attacking.

[KingScorpio]

Lets stop pretending these people have any principles and stop excusing rioters.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/not-onion-blm-protesters-vandalize-abraham-lincoln-statue-london

BLM is a racist movement it only cares about black people

[squatz1]

But it's been argued for years that the statue should either be taken down or have an additional plaque added to it. It was ruled in favour of the additional plaque 2 years ago and nothing has come of it.

I'd agree vandalising the stature is criminal damage however if they merely moved it, it's public property and wouldn't have mattered.

And there were at least hundreds in that crowd, no police seemed to intervene either. I can't think anyone would stand on the side of a slave owner especially in this country...

I just want to start off by saying that I don't think this statue had a place in the city anyway, it really doesn't make sense to have a statue of a slave trader sitting in a city where that is being denounced now. I totally understand putting a statue like this in a museum or something along those lines, to be able to save the history behind it, but yeah a statue really isn't too fitting.

But -- I do think it is important to note that there are legal ways to go about having this removed. Like going to city council meetings, starting a petition, lobbying government officials, voting for officials that vow to remove it -- and so on and so forth.

Not a good precedent to set to just start destroying things, as there is a legal way to go about this. Even if it isn't the easiest way to remove it, it's still possible and should be followed to set a good precedent.

[madnessteat]

I also disagree with the decision to tear down the statue without official permission. The more unauthorized decisions there are, the scarier the consequences. Tomorrow one of the protesters may decide that someone in the city behaves unworthyly and is lynched.

[squatz1]

I also disagree with the decision to tear down the statue without official permission. The more unauthorized decisions there are, the scarier the consequences. Tomorrow one of the protesters may decide that someone in the city behaves unworthyly and is lynched.

I'm not sure I would go this far with this sort of line of thinking, though I do have to agree in saying that this steps a bad precedent of lawlessness and that anarchy is the only way to get what you want.

Does this maybe show that the democratic process of having things removed is too slow and should be speed up? Yes. But it doesn't show that vigilantes should go around and destroy things because they think it should be destroyed.

As I said before -- I think it should be taken down too, but the legal means should've been followed to do so.

[andulolika]

I don't understand how someone can be as stupid of destroying a library or a piece of history instead of the police station in exchange.
In this case the statue might represent something undesirable but markets and stores haven't done much either.

It appears the insurrection is spreading from the US to other Western countries.

Actually quite a bit.

[TECSHARE]

I'm not sure I would go this far with this sort of line of thinking, though I do have to agree in saying that this steps a bad precedent of lawlessness and that anarchy is the only way to get what you want.

Does this maybe show that the democratic process of having things removed is too slow and should be speed up? Yes. But it doesn't show that vigilantes should go around and destroy things because they think it should be destroyed.

As I said before -- I think it should be taken down too, but the legal means should've been followed to do so.

No, it shows that mobs are dangerous and easily used as weapons and they need to be stopped early or else the cost will be unimaginable.

[TwitchySeal]

Is it okay to deface property that does not belong to you? No.

It is okay to change public policy (the statute) just because a small number of people don't like it without the consent of the people? No.

It appears the insurrection is spreading from the US to other Western countries.

Was it ok to toss the Tea into the Boston harbor?  No.  But also yeah.

[coins4commies]

I also disagree with the decision to tear down the statue without official permission. The more unauthorized decisions there are, the scarier the consequences. Tomorrow one of the protesters may decide that someone in the city behaves unworthyly and is lynched.

I'm not sure I would go this far with this sort of line of thinking, though I do have to agree in saying that this steps a bad precedent of lawlessness and that anarchy is the only way to get what you want.

Does this maybe show that the democratic process of having things removed is too slow and should be speed up? Yes. But it doesn't show that vigilantes should go around and destroy things because they think it should be destroyed.

As I said before -- I think it should be taken down too, but the legal means should've been followed to do so.

Please stop equating destruction of property with the destruction of human life. It comes off as being an apologist for white supremacy.  There is nothing more democratic than a large group of citizens, skipping bureaucracy and changing public property themselves.  The people needing permission from an official about what is acceptable on public property is not democracy.  

[squatz1]

I also disagree with the decision to tear down the statue without official permission. The more unauthorized decisions there are, the scarier the consequences. Tomorrow one of the protesters may decide that someone in the city behaves unworthyly and is lynched.

I'm not sure I would go this far with this sort of line of thinking, though I do have to agree in saying that this steps a bad precedent of lawlessness and that anarchy is the only way to get what you want.

Does this maybe show that the democratic process of having things removed is too slow and should be speed up? Yes. But it doesn't show that vigilantes should go around and destroy things because they think it should be destroyed.

As I said before -- I think it should be taken down too, but the legal means should've been followed to do so.

Please stop equating destruction of property with the destruction of human life. It comes off as being an apologist for white supremacy.  There is nothing more democratic than a large group of citizens, skipping bureaucracy and changing public property themselves.  People needing permission from an official about what is acceptable on public property is not democracy. 

What?

What?

What?

You do understand that an angry mob of people doesn't equal the majority of the voting population of the municipality where this occurred, right? What happened was undemocratic because we were unable to see what the voters of the area wanted.

The end result was the destruction of this, while it could've been put into a museum -- a much nicer ending if you really care about wanting to save the history behind what happened instead of just destroying it.

This wasn't democratic at all.

[PrimeNumber7]

Is it okay to deface property that does not belong to you? No.

It is okay to change public policy (the statute) just because a small number of people don't like it without the consent of the people? No.

It appears the insurrection is spreading from the US to other Western countries.

Was it ok to toss the Tea into the Boston harbor?  No.  But also yeah.

The Boston tea party was an act of war against a dictator (monarch). I would think twice before comparing what is happening to the Boston tea party. I don’t think these thugs would win in a war.

You can hardly compare today to being ruled by a dictator.

[madnessteat]

Please stop equating destruction of property with the destruction of human life. It comes off as being an apologist for white supremacy.  There is nothing more democratic than a large group of citizens, skipping bureaucracy and changing public property themselves.  The people needing permission from an official about what is acceptable on public property is not democracy. 

I do not divide people by color of skin or religious affiliation, as in any nation there are both good and bad people. I divide people by their deeds and the destruction of a monument is the destruction of cultural heritage no matter how much you like this monument. Therefore, I consider such actions unacceptable.

[TwitchySeal]

Is it okay to deface property that does not belong to you? No.

It is okay to change public policy (the statute) just because a small number of people don't like it without the consent of the people? No.

It appears the insurrection is spreading from the US to other Western countries.

Was it ok to toss the Tea into the Boston harbor?  No.  But also yeah.

The Boston tea party was an act of war against a dictator (monarch). I would think twice before comparing what is happening to the Boston tea party. I don’t think these thugs would win in a war.

You can hardly compare today to being ruled by a dictator.

Ok.

What about the civil rights movement, or the protests against the Vietnam war?

Why do we have a federal holiday for this guy:

[KingScorpio]

Is it okay to deface property that does not belong to you? No.

It is okay to change public policy (the statute) just because a small number of people don't like it without the consent of the people? No.

It appears the insurrection is spreading from the US to other Western countries.

Was it ok to toss the Tea into the Boston harbor?  No.  But also yeah.

The Boston tea party was an act of war against a dictator (monarch). I would think twice before comparing what is happening to the Boston tea party. I don’t think these thugs would win in a war.

You can hardly compare today to being ruled by a dictator.

Ok.

What about the civil rights movement, or the protests against the Vietnam war?

Why do we have a federal holiday for this guy:

because america is bigotted towards black people and black people try to keep that privilege and don't want justice, and trump tries to change that make america truly multiracial and a republic for all and not a mob democracy only caring about black gangbangers