Racism And The Colston Statue

[Ray]

I agree with the thrust of what you say Paul but not the water cannon, tear gas and armed military units. Escalation is a terrible thing, we don't want rent-a-mob turning up armed in response!

[Paul]

No Ray, you have to be prepared to use these measures if you want to stop this rubbish. I'm not suggesting using it lightly, or as a matter of course, but it must be there, it must be seen. The fact that these yobs know that the worst they are going to face is perhaps a batten charge and some posturing by a few mounted units is what lets them get away with it, what's been letting them get away with it for years. 

I would rather see water cannon, which by the way can do anything from give these people a good cold soaking to driving them up the street on their backsides in use, than see an officer dragged from his horse and being kicked and stamped on the ground yards from any support, which so nearly happened in London this weekend. What would you do then, to protect that officer?

You haven't got time to create a line and form an organised batten charge, the officers life is at risk. Your horses are scattered and need to regroup,

Your in the control room, you have the radio in your hand, what do you do? 

I would rather be able to loose tear gas than be forced in to a position where deadly force becomes the only way to protect that officer. 

[CambridgeCabby]

those protesters who feel that violence is an ok way to behave and are captured on video should be charged with affray for which they would have no real defence and upon conviction should be handed the 3 year imprisonment which the crime carries (if it is the first conviction for affray 5 years if it is a repeat conviction) perhaps then these “professional protesters” may rethink their behaviour 

[Ray]

5 hours ago, Paul said:

I would rather be able to loose tear gas than be forced in to a position where deadly force becomes the only way to protect that officer. 

I can't argue with that Paul, in fact I can't really disagree with anything you say in your post. I tend to view violence as a failure but I'm not a complete pacifist and have to acknowledge that when all else fails violence has to be confronted by force. The threat of quelling rioters by force alone won't work, everyone has to know for a fact that it will be used if need be.

Sad old world at times.

[MauriceMynah]

I agree with the vast majority of Pauls post but I sympathize with Rays. The message that needs to be got across is "Lawful protest methods will be encouraged and even assisted by the security authorities. Violence will be met with counter violence and prison sentences." It's a message that mustn't be watered down. 

[Chelsea14Ian]

As I mentioned  before this whole thing has been taken over by the rent a mob.This devalues the true meaning  of the protest.Fully agree those that have clearly broken the law.Easy to identify, there photos are on tv and press.They must be charged  and face the courts.What is I think unacceptable many very high profile people are almost accepting the mob law breaking. In my opinion organisers need to distance themselves from the out and out law breakers that are just causing trouble for the sake of it.If this continues there cause  will loose support amongst the majority of society. 

[rightsaidfred]

I was determined not to get involved with this element of the discussion but having witnessed what has transpired this weekend and reading through the last few days posts I feel the need to speak out and agree with Paul`s appraisal.

Firstly I don`t condone racism in any shape or form, however the culture of racism in the USA is totally different to that here, also having lived and worked in a multi cultural society in London all my life I feel confident in stating that while there are undoubtedly  racist in the white community there is far more racism amongst various non white cultures and institutionally against the domicile white population.

Having lived through the numerous protests come riots in London over the decades I am not surprised that what are supposedly peaceful protests become everything but, that they are being used as a front for anarchists and in the worst instances the criminal element for looting is no surprise and one look at the makeup and behaviour of many of those taking part white as well as coloured is running true to form, sadly it is the police who carry the brunt of this however low key they try to play this and I largely agree with Paul although I would draw the line at involving the military, we certainly don`t want martial law here but Boris had it right with his water cannons.

Fred 

[Paul]

The tactic of these people, not the true protesters but "rent a mob", for want of a better phrase, is to provoke a response from Police officers. It's like a game to them, feint, attack, counter attack. They will goad and badger and inflame the situation hoping to isolate officers, or small groups of officers and then it turns really nasty, and they will make sure that when an officer defends him or herself with a baton round somebodies head there is always someone with a mobile phone to record it, and within second it s all over social media, within minutes it's on the news, and the message coming from this protest is not what it should be, but it's about so called police brutality, it's about making them themselves the victims, and then they have won. 

I don't disagree with you Ray, a non violent response is always the best option when it can be achieved, but these people are out to make sure it cannot be in these circumstances. They are out to provoke a violent response and we must be prepared to do that in a way that doesn't endanger the officers involved. 8 officers injured in London yesterday is 8 too many in my book. 

I'm amazed at the restraint that officers show in these type of situations. I appreciate they are trained for it but still it takes great resolve to remain professionally detached as they do 99.9% of the time. Of course it's that 0.1% that these criminals are working towards. This is an organised paramilitary attack, we should treat it, and respond to it as such. That's why I believe that our professional armed forces should be more involved though I accept that is not an opinion everyone will share. This is not about using force to quell protests as we see, sadly in many parts of the world, it is about standing up to violence on our streets and sending a clear message that it, and it's perpetrators will not be tolerated. 

[Vaughan]

I am afraid I have been waiting for this to happen ever since the crisis started and I am only surprised it didn't surface earlier.  I will also not be surprised to see it get far worse once mass unemployment and deep recession start to take hold in the months to come.

Remember Extinction Rebellion?  They are still there you know - they haven't gone away, they are just waiting for the next excuse for their innate and blind hatred of any authority to break out again.  Coronavirus and (whatever) government reaction to it will now be the latest excuse.  A bit like a fire in moorland peat : it is always there smouldering under the surface and you can't put it out. 

The breakdown of law and order, down the ages, is always hard to understand but is usually based on hatred of authority. This is not helped when there is also a serious breakdown in respect for police behaviour towards the public. The police have done themselves no favours at all in the early days of this crisis and in London this weekend, it showed!

I understand the wish to involve the Army but we should remember that their role in this is called Assistance to the Civil Power. The civil power remains the police, at all times. When we see soldiers on the streets of our mainland cities (and I think we will before long) it will be a mark of a shameful failure on the part of all concerned : the government, the police and above all, the general public itself.

Such an escalation also carries a great risk. If a situation boils over and gets out of control, it can end up being carved on the hearts of the terrorist element, for all time, as "Bloody Sunday".

 

[Paul]

11 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

The civil power remains the police

Surely the civil power remains the Government, who deploy forces as necessary to protect the public. I would advocate engaging armed forces as an alternative to further arming our police forces. I would rather see that than lines of Police Officers with their Heckler and Koch's at the ready (do they still use MP5s?).

The reason for this is very much down to respect for the Police force which I feel is eroded by scenes of them on the evening news parading with weapons. I am a strong advocate of our (largely) unarmed police force. That's the pacifist bit in me emerging!

Anyway, I've said my piece, I'll let this get back to the original topic!

[Vaughan]

34 minutes ago, Paul said:

Surely the civil power remains the Government, who deploy forces as necessary to protect the public.

For the sake of semantics, the police remain the "instrument" of the civil power.

The Army serve the Queen, as keepers of the Queen's Peace. A traditional principle which is always worth remembering, in our democracy. This is why we are not a banana republic.

 

[Paladin]

50 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

For the sake of semantics, the police remain the "instrument" of the civil power.

The Army serve the Queen, as keepers of the Queen's Peace. A traditional principle which is always worth remembering, in our democracy. This is why we are not a banana republic.

 

For the sake of semantics, the Police also serve the Queen. The declaration made by all police officers is contained in the Police Act:

"I....................of....................do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

Note the word "impartiality". 'Taking the knee' while on duty in front of a crowd of demonstrators is hardly an expression of impartiality. Not for one moment can I imagine a member of our armed forces acting in such a manner. I'll say no more!

[batrabill]

2 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

I feel confident in stating that while there are undoubtedly  racist in the white community there is far more racism amongst various non white cultures and institutionally against the domicile white population.

This is quite possibly the most untrue statement I have ever read. 
 

I can’t be bothered to unpick it. If you don’t recognise quite how false  it is then you really have a problem. 
 

It is quite clear what tradition this thinking comes from. 
 

 

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

 I feel confident in stating that while there are undoubtedly  racist in the white community there is far more racism amongst various non white cultures and institutionally against the domicile white population.

 

30 minutes ago, batrabill said:

This is quite possibly the most untrue statement I have ever read. 
I can’t be bothered to unpick it. If you don’t recognise quite how false  it is then you really have a problem. 
It is quite clear what tradition this thinking comes from. 
 

I'd love to see you try to unpick that statement, batrabill. But before you do, you might like to read this article

and that's before we discuss the happenings in East Timor, Myanmar, Iraq ... shall I go on?

[batrabill]

Right. 
 

This statement was not about East Timor or anywhere else. It was about London. 
 

It states quite simply that

  “there is far more racism amongst various non white cultures and institutionally against the domicile white population.“

Domicile can only mean white Londoners. 
 

The claim is that white Londoners experience far more racism than anyone else, and that it’s “institutional”

 

This is Yaxley-Lennon doublethink. 
 

Let’s review that, in London it is the white population that is the main victim of racism. 
 

I’m embarrassed that anyone would defend this. 

[Vaughan]

I hope you can read this as I am trying to take a photo of a document framed under glass.

The Queen's signature, by hand in royal purple ink, is in the top left hand corner but it has faded over the years.

I don't see anything here that mentions "government".

[batrabill]

18 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I'd love to see you try to unpick that statement, batrabill. But before you do, you might like to read this article

and that's before we discuss the happenings in East Timor, Myanmar, Iraq ... shall I go on?

This is what is known as whataboutism 

 

That is, someone highlights something bad, people rush in to say what about....?

It’s just a distraction. 

I don’t have time in my life to address problems in other parts of the world, but when I see blatant racism in my own county it is my responsibility to call it out. 

[RumPunch]

My daughter, a teenager, was vocalising the BLM viewpoint the other day. When I said ALL lives matter I was told I had no idea what it was like. Maybe - but I'll stand by the view that all people are equal and should be afforded the same level of rights and respect, up until the point they step outside what a reasonable human being would be expected to do. My response would then depend on both their and my situation at the time, from ignoring to physical intervention.

[MauriceMynah]

I thought I'd start a thread dedicated to this problem and let the Virus thread return to it's original subject. 

Ok, lets first clear away some of the more obvious points. I am against racism, as I believe are the vast majority of people.

I am against violence within legitimate demonstrations, as I believe are the vast majority of people.

BUT... What is racism? What constitutes a racist person? and What constitutes a racist act?

I ask these questions because some years ago, a drinking friend of mine told me I was a racist! He was being completely straight with me, and he believed it to be the case. I was somewhat shocked by what he'd said. The reason he'd made the observation was that whilst describing a situation, I had said "they were accompanied by a large black gentleman" . Those were my exact words. He asked me if it was relevant that the man was black.

It wasn't an important point other than painting the picture of the incident. The thing that made me "racist" was that I both noticed he was black and that I remembered it, whilst I was unable to describe any one of the dozen or so other people present.

This had me wondering. Would Alf Garnet have thought himself "racist". How did Enoch Powel think of himself ? (try to avoid party politics in any replies)

Perhaps the statement "I'm not a racist but..." isn't that red rag to a bull after all!

 

The other point is "history". Is it racist to accept things that happened when society was very different? 

Edward Colston made his fortune as a slave trader. That is not in dispute and it must be remembered that this was not an illegal trade. He spent much of his fortune to benefit the people of Bristol. That too is not in dispute. His slave trading was only brought to the publics attention in the 1920s and discussions about the removal of his statue were only really starting in the late 1990s. 

Well it's gone now, but should it be forgotten? should he be forgotten? These are the problems that arise when we use todays morals to evaluate yesterdays situations. It can lead to altering the history books of the world, but that history needs to be remembered "Warts and all".

If we start editing history who is to decide which bits? If (heaven forbid) the British National Party were to come to power, would the Holocaust be edited out ? (I think I can mention the "British National Party").

The counter point to this is of course is should we permit a statue of Adolf the dictator? Lets face it, if anyone changed the world, he did!!

So, my final statement has to be that the statue of Edward Colston should have been placed in the Bristol Museum with a full description of what he'd done. All of what he'd done! It should not have been torn down illegally, it should not have been dumped in the harbour.

My final final statement is...   I'm not a racist but... 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

Key word there is reasonable, what is reasonable to one could be unreasonable to another. Having moved from large town to small villiage I found a huge difference in a few aspects.

[batrabill]

Google “all lives matter”

[MauriceMynah]

It might have been even more to the BLM cause's advantage if their slogan had read...

BLACK LIVES MATTER AS WELL

 

[batrabill]

“Save the whales!”

 

Hey, what about Porpoises?? You people are Porpoise haters. 

[RumPunch]

28 minutes ago, OldBerkshireBoy said:

Key word there is reasonable, what is reasonable to one could be unreasonable to another. Having moved from large town to small villiage I found a huge difference in a few aspects.

And is the word that much of British Law is based upon

[Cal]

The statue should be placed back where it was. You can not change history and Bristol's history and fortune were made around the slave trade. No amount of marching, protesting and rioting can change that.

And no. I am not a racist either.