Sunak would be the first minority Prime Minister since Disraeli I think.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Sunak would be the first minority Prime Minister since Disraeli I think.
I haven’t shifted anything. I’m the one with a nuanced position.
Committing a crime doesn’t make you a bad person but you have broken the law.
I’m not saving face. Maybe I’m just smarter than you if you’re failing to grasp this, over points of language and definitions.
Apartheid vs a statue of someone who you don't like
Do I have to explain why one might merit justified violence if peace doesn't work, while the other doesn't?
Is it too much to expect grown adults to behave responsibly and accept the consequences when they don't? They didn't get their way, big deal, that is life. Grow up. The statue should have been taken down but it wasn't. Its a collective decision to make.
I agree there is such thing as tyranny of the majority but unless it infringes on your individual rights its tough titties. That is living in a society.
Go feck yourself if you think you are above the law just because you are in the right on an issue where your individual rights are not infringed.
Do I have to explain why one might merit justified violence if peace doesn't work, while the other doesn't?
Is it too much to expect grown adults to behave responsibly and accept the consequences when they don't? They didn't get their way, big deal, that is life. Grow up. The statue should have been taken down but it wasn't. Its a collective decision to make.
I agree there is such thing as tyranny of the majority but unless it infringes on your individual rights its tough titties. That is living in a society.
Go feck yourself if you think you are above the law just because you are in the right on an issue where your individual rights are not infringed.
With the greatest of respect he’s not seen as an Asian by the Asian community. He’s slicker than likes of Javed and Priti but also seen as a cultural sell out in the same way.
As for the likes of @Drainy @UnrelatedPsuedo are you guys serious?
If people just followed the law all the time there would be no such thing as progress. Throughout evolution of society you need agitation and bending of the rules in order for the legal system to respond by either becoming more robust or begin to disapply the rule because it is no longer an accepted norm in society.
We have touched on Mandela but what about Rosa Parks defying the law and sitting on the wrong sides of the bus to fight segregation.
You’re seriously going to argue that the statue shouldn’t have been brought down and these people are vandals? To be honest I find anyone with that viewpoint a tad racist or massively ignorant.
Why should Black people be forced to live in a society where Slave Traders who killed their ancestors and treated them like shit be idolised as heroes of society and given statues? If the racist U.K. can’t give them that minimal level of dignity to take them down then feck em - burn every one of these statues.
Law is at the end of the day an ever changing beast - it’s not perfect or ‘God’s Word/scientific principle’ to put it another way, it’s just a group of humans saying this is what we think is right at any given moment and at times the Law can be an ass and gravely immoral. For these statues to still be up is immoral and a disgrace quite frankly.
Last edited:
Where society infringes on an individual's rights they are justified in taking proportionate action if the process doesn't correct itself. This is tyranny and should be fought against.
Where is is not a matter of individual rights if you don't get your way, you have to continue within the process until you do through political means or accept the result. This is ultimately a matter of opinion and taking the law into your own hands is infringing on the rights of others. If you break the law you accept responsibility.
Racist apparently.
Where is is not a matter of individual rights if you don't get your way, you have to continue within the process until you do through political means or accept the result. This is ultimately a matter of opinion and taking the law into your own hands is infringing on the rights of others. If you break the law you accept responsibility.
Racist apparently.
How is it not infringing someone’s human rights and mental health by having a statue promoting slavery in their city which they have to look upon a daily basis. A daily reminder of when they were the pets of White people.
Imagine a statue of Hitler being put up in London? How would that make Jews feel?
Yes it is racist.
Racist to treat all people equally with equal rights and responsibilities towards society. OK.
Which human right are you referring to?
If there was a Hitler statue put up the person putting it up would face severe consequences and it would be taken down immediately because there is awareness of his actions and the context.
With a man from 400 years ago people would need more persuasion and education but I trust that the argument would win in the end. No point now, its become a law and order question and I don't believe in infantalising people.
So in 400 years time will a statue of Hitler be okay because in time his actions will be less fresh in the memory?
Article 3 of the Human Rights Act...Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
It is degrading to have to be exposed to a statue promoting slavery and racism. I would also argue it is inhuman although this predominantly applies to physical torture whereas degrading can also apply to mental. Cannot see why anyone would see the need to defend the erection of such a statue, it defies common sense and decency. It demonstrates moral bankruptcy.
If everyone just toed the party line to appease people like your self who are clearly ignorant, nothing would ever change because people like you do not actually want to see change.
Sounds like something that could be resolved through the legal system then
Nuanced, or taking a flexible approach is very sensible. Especially nowadays.
Because life is never completely right or wrong or black or white.
I live in Bristol; a city who's wealth partially came from trade. Trade of many commodities including slavery.
But. That happened hundreds of years ago and has nothing to do with modern Bristol.
History cannot and should not be rewritten just to suit current standards.
It is what it is. History.
Dude, you’re misrepresenting me. Perhaps accidentally, I hope so.
I’ve literally said in posts above (in response to a direct question) that yes I’d look the people who tore the statue down in the eye and tell them it was vandalism, but I supported them.
I pointed out that the act of breaking the law to do the right thing is brave, and should be celebrated. Not legalised.
We don’t change laws regarding destruction of public property. That’s not how society functions.
It shocks me that people can’t take a more nuanced position.
The statue coming down is people saying : “Your system doesn’t work. You didn’t hear us. Change the system”
But you don’t change the law to “Tear down property if it has a suspect history”. The change comes inside of existing law. A more effective way is then created to remove objects of offence in an efficient and swift manner that society is happy with.
No, you are not being nuanced - that’s my point. I’m using your own words. Your idea of ‘nuance’ meant you would label someone acting in self-defence as ‘violent’.
You also said the people who removed the statue are vandals. That is not a nuanced position to adopt. I’ve asked you twice if you would say to a black person involved that they are a vandal and you either evaded it or changed it to ‘I’d tell them they committed an act of vandalism’. My whole point has been the label of vandal is innapropriate and tacitly you actually seem to have conceded and be in agreement but are masquerading it as your superior intelligence which seems rather bizarre and quite sad.
You’ve failed to answer the Mandela question or tackle my point of why we do not call him a terrorist and why we should object to someone who insists we do. If you’re so smart, answer it. And then explain why it is also ok to label those who removed the statue as vandals (not say they committed an act of vandalism).
To the bold : No I didn’t.
You’ve hinged some huge back and forth over something you told me I’ve said.
You’re tripping over an act and a label.
Regarding your Mandela point : Of course he was responsible for acts that were labelled as Terrorism. I’m not going to wade into the deep waters of South African apartheid politics. But an accepted consensus sets his behaviours alongside a cause that most people believed to be valid. For what it’s worth : I don’t think it’s smart to pick the most extreme examples to make a point about something else in a different country and political climate.
so did they own the statue? No
did they damage the statue? Yes
was it intentional? Yes
Ipso facto...
Being a vandal by definition https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vandal does not question motive - factually they are vandals
should there have really been a statue of a slave trader in a major UK city in the 21st century - totally different question and to my mind no but there are better and safer ways to remove said statue
and that pretty much seems to be the most popular opinion
In the grand scheme so much focus on a statue and the use of the word vandal probably detracts from the bigger and far more important structural questions IMO
Last edited:
Ffs Bobby, give your head a wobble.
You asked me to qualify a comment. You made it specifically about that one case with that one statue. You asked;
“Would you look a black person in the eye and call them a vandal for pulling the statue down”
I said that I would happily tell them they had committed an act of vandalism.
That’s what nuance is. I stole things in the past but I don’t consider myself a thief. I’m educating you about the principle of nuance but I’m sure as Fcuk not a teacher.
Hope someone can lift his spirits after the defeat regarding schools reopening.
Happened hundreds of years ago but we are reaping the benefits of it to this day and the stench of the racism still lingers around to this day.
This is rather sad. You called them vandals. I disputed that. You backtracked and said you'd say they committed an act of vandalism, then even denied saying it altogether - the attempted denial clearly reveals you accept that it may not be such a valid or nuanced label seen as you seem to see yourself as the Master of Nuance for some strange reason. You have now come round to the exact position ('I stole but I am not a thief') that I was arguing for against your position of 'they committed vandalism and are vandals'. But apparently you're the one educating me on nuance?
I must say this is the first time I've seen someone switch positions during a debate and then claim that it was their position all along.This is rather sad. You called them vandals. I disputed that. You backtracked and said you'd say they committed an act of vandalism, then even denied saying it altogether - the attempted denial clearly reveals you accept that it may not be such a valid or nuanced label seen as you seem to see yourself as the Master of Nuance for some strange reason. You have now come round to the exact position ('I stole but I am not a thief') that I was arguing for against your position of 'they committed vandalism are are vandals'. But apparently you're the one educating me on nuance?
You really don’t get it do you.
I stole but I’m not a thief..... But if I get caught Stealing - on camera - I am charged as one.
That’s the entire point.
Yes someone that vandalises is a vandal while they commit that crime. It’s just a word. But when you asked me about one single person you change those terms. I’m not going to brand one person something. But if I see a group of people looting I’ll sure as shit say “Look at the looters”. I’ve explained all of this.
You’re stripping something back to a tiny point of transitional English that you don’t seem to understand, to put some points on whatever weird little scoreboard you keep.
This is tiresome. It seems after all you do agree with me and accept you would not call them vandals but I don’t even know what you’re arguing for anymore. Let’s just leave it at that.
Indeed. And will do for time to come.
While I applaud the stand up to racism, I am not convinced that this will fundamentally in the short term.
I am a member of a Gym. And I regularly hear 2 or more dark skinned guys talking to each other, using a torrent of highly racist language.
Language that frankly I would never use to another human being.
Ok. It is banter. I get that.
But they are perfectly happy to use such language openly and in front of a crowd of others.
When I hear this, I am embarrassed for them.
Someone who vandalizes something is a vandal, no amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that. Whether @UnrelatedPsuedo would 'say it to their faces' or not is entirely irrelevant.
He’s already riddled himself to a place he’s happy with I think.
Just watching Marr at the moment, and apparently it’s up to 10 years for criminal damage anyway.
I would assume that would be causing actual physical damage, or spray painting something offensive on there.
Presumably expensive criminal damage? Anything under £5000 gets community orders, usually attached to unpaid work, ie spray painting.
Yeah probably, I meant specially on war memorials though. There has been examples of people putting racist symbols on memorials before, but I’ve got no idea what the punishments were.
Of course they have. Surprised they never asked for more years to out tory the tories.
Fines and community service should be enough.
Jail is overkill and does no good in the long run anyway. Better to keep that for people who need to be kept off the streets.
Disappointed in Labour backing this move.
Nobody is going to go to jail for 10 years for vandalising a statue. In fact, I’m willing to bet nobody goes to jail at all. This is just politicians (on both sides) saying what the electorate want to hear. Nothing will come of it.
It's Johnson governing by headlines again, and learning nothing.
Alternatively they have been smart enough not to fall into an obvious Tory trap. The Tories will be pissed off they couldn't sucker Labour with that one, Labour have been gifted some easy 'tough on crime' bonus points by the Tories so job done. And slowly that is how Labour wins back lost political credibility.
Last edited:
This is the opening salvo. We haven't even got to fines for not wearing a poppy and the like yet, that the bidding war will bring.
Maybe but the best way of all to stop right wing hegemony is to get into power.
The 10 year thing over statues is the govt chasing this Sunday's headline. Labour are right to play a straight bat to it and not get diverted.
Labour strategy seems to be playing into the whole "forgotten white traditional working class Labour voter" shtick with a hope that anyone under the age of 40 has no where else to go. It could work(Although the Tories have yet to go under 40% in the polls) but it's going to come at the expense of any decent policy, considering the planet is dying due to climate change and we are about to enter quite possibly the biggest depression since the early 20th century it's not exactly reassuring.
But in all honesty I would put the party stance down to Starmer and Labour just agreeing with the idea of jail time for vandalising war memorials. They both have history for this sort of stuff. Corbyn was a mild break(And even he supported big investment into policing)from the standard Labour position which is British capital alternative when the Tories fail.
For a lot of people this is fine but anyone left of Ed Miliband is wasting their time(Given the current crisis even Corbyn politics as Labour leader look outdated).
The monsters! Supporting an offence to protect war memorials!
This is not a hill to die on (so to speak).