Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Black Lives Matter demos and protests UK, 2020-2021

Presumably the council can withdraw the criminal damage complaint if they want to? Also suspect the decision on this may not have come from the top and consequences may not have been properly considered.
 
Pickman's model said:
if they wanted that they'd not be doing what they're doing
Click to expand...
No I don't think so, organisations and institutions act in a different way to individuals, there are probably some coppers who agree with the destruction of the statue and probably some coppers who recognized some of the protestors and thought "Yes at last I can nail the bastards". But at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what any of them as individuals think, they're part of something bigger than themselves. Organisations have to follow a path due largely to organisational inertia, even if everyone doing it can see what they're doing is dumb.
There will be an investigation into the statue's destruction because the rules say there should be and no-one wants to be the person that everyone else criticises for making the decision.
Plod (and the council officers) will fall over themselves to hide behind procedure rather than doing the sensible thing and saying "Fuck it"
That's the reason why the statue stayed up as long as it did (and why it will never go back up) no-one amongst the people in a position to make decisions truly cared enough to stand up and say "Yeah chuck the damn thing in the skip!" so they just wasted time in silly debates over wording for a plaque until events overtook them.
 
MickiQ said:
No I don't think so, organisations and institutions act in a different way to individuals, there are probably some coppers who agree with the destruction of the statue and probably some coppers who recognized some of the protestors and thought "Yes at last I can nail the bastards". But at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what any of them as individuals think, they're part of something bigger than themselves. Organisations have to follow a path due largely to organisational inertia, even if everyone doing it can see what they're doing is dumb.
There will be an investigation into the statue's destruction because the rules say there should be and no-one wants to be the person that everyone else criticises for making the decision.
Plod (and the council officers) will fall over themselves to hide behind procedure rather than doing the sensible thing and saying "Fuck it"
That's the reason why the statue stayed up as long as it did (and why it will never go back up) no-one amongst the people in a position to make decisions truly cared enough to stand up and say "Yeah chuck the damn thing in the skip!" so they just wasted time in silly debates over wording for a plaque until events overtook them.
Click to expand...
i have never known the police to hold back from an investigation into left-wing people as you're suggesting they will do here. i suspect in the weeks and months to come you will be eating your words with a side order of coleslaw
 
MickiQ said:
No I don't think so, organisations and institutions act in a different way to individuals, there are probably some coppers who agree with the destruction of the statue and probably some coppers who recognized some of the protestors and thought "Yes at last I can nail the bastards". But at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what any of them as individuals think, they're part of something bigger than themselves. Organisations have to follow a path due largely to organisational inertia, even if everyone doing it can see what they're doing is dumb.
There will be an investigation into the statue's destruction because the rules say there should be and no-one wants to be the person that everyone else criticises for making the decision.
Plod (and the council officers) will fall over themselves to hide behind procedure rather than doing the sensible thing and saying "Fuck it"
That's the reason why the statue stayed up as long as it did (and why it will never go back up) no-one amongst the people in a position to make decisions truly cared enough to stand up and say "Yeah chuck the damn thing in the skip!" so they just wasted time in silly debates over wording for a plaque until events overtook them.
Click to expand...
The reason that the statue stayed up so long was the local power the merchant venturers hold and their ability to financially blackmail the city in order to pursue their interests - one of which, was, until recently, in keeping this bloody statue up. It wasn't because of bureaucratic inertia.
 
butchersapron said:
The reason that the statue stayed up so long was the local power the merchant venturers hold and their ability to financially blackmail the city in order to pursue their interests - one of which, was, until recently, in keeping this bloody statue up. It wasn't because of bureaucratic inertia.
Click to expand...
Why do you think it would be in the interests of the merchant venturers to keep the statue up assuming they have the power that you and probably they imagine they have? In my experience people like this are mostly interested in how much money they can get out of something.
 
MickiQ said:
Why do you think it would be in the interests of the merchant venturers to keep the statue up assuming they have the power that you and probably they imagine they have? In my experience people like this are mostly interested in how much money they can get out of something.
Click to expand...
They thought it was in their interests, hence them fighting over many many years to a) put it up b) keep it up c) sabotage any moves towards taking it down or even putting a fully explanatory plaque up. You clearly don't know what'[s been going on here or who these people are. have provided some in-depth links on this thread before - you may want to have a look at them.
 
butchersapron said:
They thought it was in their interests, hence them fighting over many many years to a) put it up b) keep it up c) sabotage any moves towards taking it down or even putting a fully explanatory plaque up. You clearly don't know what'[s been going on here or who these people are. have provided some in-depth links on this thread before - you may want to have a look at them.
Click to expand...
The statue was erected in 1895 so clearly the people who erected the statue and the people who dithered over the plaque are not the same ones, Unless the Society of Merchant Venturers are a branch of the Illuminati (rather than as I suspect a group of pompous local businessmen with an overinflated sense of their own importance), I can't see their motives being anything other "Oh Well it's always been there why should it change?". They were probably more worked up over the fact that someone wanted to change something rather than going into the reasons behind it.
It's illuminating (no pun intended) to me that in the immediate aftermath of the BLM movement, there was an unseemly rush by countless commercial organisations to express their solidarity with the BLM movement, do they fuck as care, they just care about how they look to the public that buys their shit and are worried that the public will stop buying it.
Why would the SoMV be any different? Would you care about a statue your great-granddad put up to his great-granddad if you thought someone might put a brick through your window or worst end up costing you money.
 
MickiQ said:
The statue was erected in 1895 so clearly the people who erected the statue and the people who dithered over the plaque are not the same ones, Unless the Society of Merchant Venturers are a branch of the Illuminati (rather than as I suspect a group of pompous local businessmen with an overinflated sense of their own importance), I can't see their motives being anything other "Oh Well it's always been there why should it change?". They were probably more worked up over the fact that someone wanted to change something rather than going into the reasons behind it.
It's illuminating (no pun intended) to me that in the immediate aftermath of the BLM movement, there was an unseemly rush by countless commercial organisations to express their solidarity with the BLM movement, do they fuck as care, they just care about how they look to the public that buys their shit and are worried that the public will stop buying it.
Why would the SoMV be any different? Would you care about a statue your great-granddad put up to his great-granddad if you thought someone might put a brick through your window or worst end up costing you money.
Click to expand...
Ok, you have no idea then of the actual merchant venturers and their local reach and if you aren't prepared to countenance the idea that they're anything beyond what you imagine (based on what?) then this discussion is pointless.

edit: and they didn't dither over the plaque - they intervened to sabotage it and remove a series of truths damaging to them.
 
Last edited:
I don't claim to know what Avon and Somerset's finest will be up to over this, but I think the government will not want the investigation to proceed because of the likelihood of a politically awkward trial (the defendants will have a lot of public sympathy) ending in a jury acquittal.
 
butchersapron said:
Ok, you have no idea then of the actual merchant venturers and their local reach and if you aren't prepared to countenance the idea that they're anything beyond what you imagine (based on what?) then this discussion is pointless.

edit: and they didn't dither over the plaque - they intervened to sabotage it and remove a series of truths damaging to them.
Click to expand...
If you're not interested in further debate fine, your privilege but that edit is just plain daft. What truths damaging to them? The fact that Colton was a slave trader is hardly a secret and even if it was how does it reflect badly on current members of the Society? I rather doubt they've ever traded in slaves. Them denying he was isn't actually damaging to them is it? The most likely consequence is someone saying to them "Come On everyone knows what he was"
 
MickiQ said:
If you're not interested in further debate fine, your privilege but that edit is just plain daft. What truths damaging to them? The fact that Colton was a slave trader is hardly a secret and even if it was how does it reflect badly on current members of the Society? I rather doubt they've ever traded in slaves. Them denying he was isn't actually damaging to them is it? The most likely consequence is someone saying to them "Come On everyone knows what he was"
Click to expand...

All wrong of course. And the venturers consequent scrabbling around to remove themselves from precisely the sort of damage they feared the truth about colston being on the plaque might bring sort of proves it Their twitter since is hilarious and revealing). But then you wouldn't know about their reactions since would you because firstly, you know sweet FA about them beyond what you imagine they must be based on some comparison with another group you have heard of - and that seemingly being enough for you to translate into reality, and secondly been following the case - even from afar (i don't know where you are but it can't be bristol) to have even minimal knowledge of what's been taking place, even on the surface evening news level, never mind anything more substantive. You don't even know what the plaque controversy was about.
 
butchersapron said:
But my, you do sound very sensible and common sense don't you?
Click to expand...
I think you mean that as an insult but most people would consider it a compliment but I am genuinely curious about your point of view.
I understand this is the original wording of the plaque:-

From 1680-1692, Bristol-born merchant, Edward Colston was a high official of the Royal African Company which had the monopoly on the British slave trade until 1698.[4] Colston played an active role in the enslavement of over 84,000 Africans (including 12,000 children) of whom over 19,000 died en route to the Caribbean and America.[5] He also invested in the Spanish slave trade[6] and in slave-produced sugar.[7] Much of his fortune was made from slavery and as Tory MP for Bristol (1710-1713), he defended the city’s ’right’ to trade in enslaved Africans.[8]
Local people who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not permitted to benefit from his charities.

It certainly doesn't paint Edward Colston in a favourable light at all but I totally fail to see how it would damage the reputation of anyone alive today 300 years after his death.
What am I missing?
 
MickiQ said:
I think you mean that as an insult but most people would consider it a compliment but I am genuinely curious about your point of view.
I understand this is the original wording of the plaque:-

From 1680-1692, Bristol-born merchant, Edward Colston was a high official of the Royal African Company which had the monopoly on the British slave trade until 1698.[4] Colston played an active role in the enslavement of over 84,000 Africans (including 12,000 children) of whom over 19,000 died en route to the Caribbean and America.[5] He also invested in the Spanish slave trade[6] and in slave-produced sugar.[7] Much of his fortune was made from slavery and as Tory MP for Bristol (1710-1713), he defended the city’s ’right’ to trade in enslaved Africans.[8]
Local people who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not permitted to benefit from his charities.

It certainly doesn't paint Edward Colston in a favourable light at all but I totally fail to see how it would damage the reputation of anyone alive today 300 years after his death.
What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Once again, maybe ask the venturers as it was their sabotage not mine that got the plaque pulled. In line with decades of previous sabotage of attempts to put the historical record straight on them and their activities.
 
Raheem said:
I don't claim to know what Avon and Somerset's finest will be up to over this, but I think the government will not want the investigation to proceed because of the likelihood of a politically awkward trial (the defendants will have a lot of public sympathy) ending in a jury acquittal.
Click to expand...
If they have any sense, the charges will be such that it will be a magistrate's court rather than a jury. Agree with you otherwise. My money would be on no charges.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
If they have any sense, the charges will be such that it will be a magistrate's court rather than a jury. Agree with you otherwise. My money would be on no charges.
Click to expand...
Anyone who's charged with an offence can opt for a Crown Court trial, which is what they would be likely to do.
 
Yes, very minor offences could be dealt with in a magistrates' court. My bad. But the government also isn't going to want that, because it will set precedent (not in the legally binding sense) for "pull down a statue, get a fifty quid fine".
 
MickiQ said:
I think you mean that as an insult but most people would consider it a compliment but I am genuinely curious about your point of view.
I understand this is the original wording of the plaque:-

From 1680-1692, Bristol-born merchant, Edward Colston was a high official of the Royal African Company which had the monopoly on the British slave trade until 1698.[4] Colston played an active role in the enslavement of over 84,000 Africans (including 12,000 children) of whom over 19,000 died en route to the Caribbean and America.[5] He also invested in the Spanish slave trade[6] and in slave-produced sugar.[7] Much of his fortune was made from slavery and as Tory MP for Bristol (1710-1713), he defended the city’s ’right’ to trade in enslaved Africans.[8]
Local people who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not permitted to benefit from his charities.

It certainly doesn't paint Edward Colston in a favourable light at all but I totally fail to see how it would damage the reputation of anyone alive today 300 years after his death.
What am I missing?
Click to expand...
You need to do some reading. I don't live in Bristol but I've learnt a lot from reading these threads and similar on Twitter.

Start by asking yourself why anyone would put up a statue in 1895 for a man who died in 1721. Then find out who helped put it up. Then that might help you answer your own ponderings:

The statue was erected in 1895 so clearly the people who erected the statue and the people who dithered over the plaque are not the same ones, Unless the Society of Merchant Venturers are a branch of the Illuminati (rather than as I suspect a group of pompous local businessmen with an overinflated sense of their own importance), I can't see their motives being anything other "Oh Well it's always been there why should it change?"
Click to expand...
 
mauvais said:
You need to do some reading. I don't live in Bristol but I've learnt a lot from reading these threads and similar on Twitter.

Start by asking yourself why anyone would put up a statue in 1895 for a man who died in 1721. Then find out who helped put it up. Then that might help you answer your own ponderings:
Click to expand...
I can tell precisely why they put up a statue to Colston, it's in the link that butchersapron posted. The gentlemen of Bristol wanted a fancy statue for their rising city, they picked Colston because his name was plastered all over the place because he spent money like water while he was alive, no doubt some of them went to the schools he endowed even.
He was re-invented as a great philanthropist due to the money he spent and the sordid means by which he gained his cash was airbrushed out of the myth of Colston.
Even then there wasn't that much enthusiasm for it (Probably due to not wanting to fork out rather than any noble objections) and a few of them paid for it themselves which is why it actually turned out to be cheap and nasty.
According to that same link the idea of the corrective plaque was floated in 2019 (not really decades) and the SoMV or rather I suspect a few councillors (wanna bet they were Tories) who were probably also members of it got antse probably because of well reasons.
Their first objection was to the fact that it mentioned he was a Tory MP, Seriously were they worried it would cost votes? Cameron/Osborne's policy of reducing millions to destitution via austerity didn't cost votes, Windrush didn't cost votes. They were worried about this costing votes? They were worried that the 'truth' he was a slaver would come out? Any kid with a smartphone could stand in front of the statue and learn all about Edward Colston in seconds. What they were worried about was having to explain to their buddies at the next lodge dinner why they didn't put up a better argument with the uppity plebs who wanted to change the plaque on the statue of the man whose painting was above the fireplace.
And this is the real problem people are getting all excited that a few folks took the law into their own hands and chucked a cheap and nasty statue into the drink, Good for them, true people power in action. A few other statues have been taken down as well but let's be honest the best way to preserve position, power and privilege is throw the peasants a few crumbs and they will think they have won while nothing changes. We will see if that strategy works this time round.
Chucking statues in the water is a kinds of bonus, the real prize will be significant police reform in the US so kids don't get shot for being black, In this country it will be whether or not the CV's of black kids get read or chucked in the bin (and that I have seen with my own eyes), let's not get excited about statues or start imagining conspiracies by shadowy powerful groups to protect them.
 
MickiQ said:
I can tell precisely why they put up a statue to Colston, it's in the link that butchersapron posted. The gentlemen of Bristol wanted a fancy statue for their rising city, they picked Colston because his name was plastered all over the place because he spent money like water while he was alive, no doubt some of them went to the schools he endowed even.
He was re-invented as a great philanthropist due to the money he spent and the sordid means by which he gained his cash was airbrushed out of the myth of Colston.
Even then there wasn't that much enthusiasm for it (Probably due to not wanting to fork out rather than any noble objections) and a few of them paid for it themselves which is why it actually turned out to be cheap and nasty.
According to that same link the idea of the corrective plaque was floated in 2019 (not really decades) and the SoMV or rather I suspect a few councillors (wanna bet they were Tories) who were probably also members of it got antse probably because of well reasons.
Click to expand...
It's remarkable how wrong you're getting this.

Was Bristol really 'rising' in 1895? And putting that aside - which gentlemen? Who paid for it?

en.wikipedia.org

Statue of Edward Colston - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
mauvais said:
It's remarkable how wrong you're getting this.

Was Bristol really 'rising' in 1895? And putting that aside - which gentlemen? Who paid for it?

en.wikipedia.org

Statue of Edward Colston - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Again I refer to butchersapron's link the driving force was one James Arrowsmith, (in the wikipedia link as well) As for rising, well 1895 may look different now to us looking back but the people of the UK had a very different view of the world than we do now. Britain was the the empire on which the sun never sets and all that tosh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Orang Utan
Anti-Racist Counter Demos Summer 2024
2 3 4
Replies
109
Views
5K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Jeremiah18.17
Council Section 114 Lobbies and Demos
Replies
0
Views
287
Jeremiah18.17
Jeremiah18.17
PR1Berske
Protests - further clampdowns
Replies
21
Views
1K
mihaly
M
furluxor
Stop Rwanda deportations demo - all UK
Replies
1
Views
474
hitmouse
hitmouse
Jeremiah18.17
UK Anti-fascist mobilisations 2023
2 3 4
Replies
101
Views
6K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Back
Top Bottom