Quote Originally Posted by Dubbag View Post
Times change.......it should be put in a museum so if people want to see it let them go and see it.
There had been petitions before for years to remove it but councils ignored it...the law is an ass anyway.
Slavery is part of our history but doesn't mean you have to show case it today. Stick it in a museum where it belongs...not in public as a reminder of the past....Good decision.......Never forget the past just don't continuously honor the inhumanity by those of the past.....
I think the judge knew the resentment that had caused in Bristol for years...good on him.....
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I still think that it was an act of criminal damage despite any mitigating factors and as such the judge should have been far less lenient. The country is littered with statues and reminders of its colonial past and these are of historic significance even if they no longer represent our values. As such, I totally agree, many should not remain in public places and should be relocated to museums where people can learn more about their backgrounds and put them in context. Other statues are more problematic-Churchill for example. Churchill,'s writings show him to be very much of his time and he believed in eugenics and showed racist beliefs for example. His treatment of India both over the famine and Partition is indefensible yet without him the outcome of world war 2 might have been very different. On balance, however, I believe he should still be celebrated for his impact on the latter .The trick is to ensure that more people are aware of the whole truth, both good and bad-but this is not always that easy. As Churchill himself recognised-"history is written by the victors".