The IOPC are the independent body. The force can self refer if it feels necessary or they can choose to look at it. They automatically become involved in criminal matters or those which involve death/serious injury.
Would it not be fair to say that right now confidence in the police is at its lowest in a long time? A simple gesture to forward this to an independent body goes a long way against the narrative that the police out each other before the citizens. It's just a bit tone deaf in the current climate to keep things internally, that's all.
I'm just wondering what you feel would be an appropriate outcome? Is it not one that could by dealt with by the force? The whole thing is on bodycam anyway and the force has been quick to address the matter publicly.
Absolute bizarre comments, its so fecking weird, like why is it bothering them? It’s just not a big deal at all. How is it any different to the kick racism out of football shirts they’ve previously worn or any of the other messaging they’ve done in the past.
They're inanimate historical objects. They don't deserve or not deserve anything.
Because that statue also represented someone who funded schools and hospitals and helped to shape the town of Bristol into what it is. It was never a statue glorifying racism. It was a statue of a man from a time when racism was viewed as normal.
Similar to the kneeling debate in the US. Its casually chalked up as an unseemly intrusion of politics into sport.
I guess they think it's an easy way to dismiss it or to hide their bigotry behind what they try to pass off as valid criticism. You see it with gamers a lot too, they're perfectly fine with Fallout, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear and countless others, but suddenly when the main character of game is gay, a woman or black it's suddenly "politics" being forced in.
I can't really think of an end goal tbh. By all means the force can deal with it but I'm just questioning how it looks to the public. I was admittedly snarky before because personally my trust in the police is low as hell (no point going into it because it's boring but suffice to say it was one incident in many that just confirmed/instilled what I think about our local officers) and for a lot of people I know it's the same - even some of my family (who are sizeable police and military funnily enough). I guess it depends on individual experiences but when you've got an atmosphere that's fuelling distrust in the police, and the way the service goes about their business, to say that it'll be investigated internally is a little on the nose for me.
The problem at the moment is again it isn't a straight forward one to judge. Some people will look at it and see racism, others will look at it and see the police doing their job. Others will look at it and feel they need more context to know where it falls between these two things.
I think sports can be a good platform to make political/social /moral statements. But someone who feels 'keep that out of ...'. aren't being 'negative' purely because they have a different view to yours. If they're hateful and discriminatory then sure, that's a real problem. Everyone being 100 per cent in agreement with every single part of your cause, isn't.
Nailed on.
These monuments of slavers were shown outside to commemorate them, while inanimate objects for purely historical purposes are usually found in museums. Regardless, if his contribution to history was large enough, he would already be in a history book or a museum. It has nothing to do with power. It's about respect, baseline level at that.
If there's a person who brought society mostly harm then they have no business having statues. However, it's an interesting one. Much of the UK's colonial leadership built their empire on pillaging, butchering and discriminating against their colonies. Would the UK remove all their statues if there are any about ? Genuinely curious. Because I agree that when it's an obviously terrible person, it makes sense but what about those cases where the individual was exceptionally good in many ways but also damaging in others.
"The cops don't just pull you out of your car man"
Would you advocate for the removal of the vast majority of Roman and Greek antiquity monuments, statues, arches, forums and temples, all which fall directly in the content of your very definition? Or do we make concessions based on modernity? Only modern statues, etc, of this definition ought to be removed. If only modern, why?
Something being a priceless historical artifact should surely be the main criterion? By which I mean that the piece itself (not what it commemorates) is of historic significance.
Who has been trying? If enough people actually wanted rid it would've gone. The people didn't want it gone.
Wasn't it true that most people didnt want the Colston statue in the first place, it didn't get support to be erected and so it was privately funded?
Gargoyles was a brilliant show.
Not necessarily. They could build a big-ass museum that would most likely be named after Genghis Kahn.
I read somewhere that it was protected by English Heritage, so it wasn’t as simple as just getting rid.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I definitely agree with this in principle, but if we're going to place all problematic statues in museums, there won't be room for anything else. I suspect we'll run into the same problem as libraries do with books. Nobody destroys as many books as libraries do, simply because people donate so many that they can't keep and maintain them all. We'd probably have to decide on a few to represent the issue.
Did the Roman and Greek figures only bring only harm? Regardless, I'm wary of removal if it's based on cherry picking of traits. There can be highly influential/great achievers throughout history who may fail on some levels on the moral compass.
I don't know... I don't even really care. They're fecking statues, nobody cares.
I totally get why people are bothered with statues but I also don't think that removing them change much. The genuine activist should organize educating campaigns where they expose these historical figures, for example they could have the "Churchill was a vile racist day", "Napoleon stunk and was therefore sent to an island far away day" or "Leopold II was one of the worst human being ever day".
If it was about respect then it would be white people removing or changing monuments because they recognise that they are an afront to black people and so are also an afront to them. It wouldn't be angry mobs scribbling "was a racist" on Winston Churchill or vandalising street signs that are part of people's homes/community, and that in some cases actually have no link to slavery at all, or people standing around literally guarding a statue for some reason. My mind boggles as to how anyone thinks these kinds of actions will bring about anything positive. It'll bring about Boris and the authorities rallying people against it.
So you don't know yet you are stating things which are not true. And clearly people care even if you don't. Probably best you don't speak for others especially on topics you know little about.
I'm not sure they are nazi salutes watching videos from other angles. Not that it would be surprising mind... They seem to be your standard moronic England fans looking for a fight.Defending Churchill's statue while throwing at Nazi salutes... Jesus wept
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The advocate got 85% of the funding from the public but only after several appeals so had to pay the remainder himself. Safe to say it wasn’t an issue deemed to be of significant importance by Bristolians at the time.
