Ships on Club badges...

[AshtonGreat]

1 hour ago, Mike Hunt-Hertz said:

Now you've done it!

Don't worry, they're already on that

[Red-Robbo]

19 hours ago, Clutton Caveman said:

People who have paid thousands of pounds to the traffickers and then announce themselves as refugees. Again we live in a democracy and IMO the majority do not want their hard earned tax used to put these people in 4 star hotels. Perhaps we should have an opt in system. If you want to house these people in luxury, give them access to the NHS, provide translators at every government department, pay benefits and then repeat when their families join them, opt in, double your tax (if you pay any)  and pay for it.

 

I agree, but the way around it is to have more staff processing those claims so migrants/refugees are quickly assessed and either returned or allowed to live where they want in the country and earn money and pay taxes.

Very few are in "luxury" hotels, most are in run-down B&Bs in parts of the country where no one wants to go on holiday. They get £40 a week and are forbidden from working until their asylum claims are assessed.

Just shorten the process from months to days or weeks, then prolonged stays that neither the migrants or the taxpayers want take place.

Thing is, the government wants UK voters to be angry about this issue.  They figure somehow their deliberate incompetence on immigration, combined with meaningless rhetoric - flights to Rwanda costing £240,000 per person - is somehow a vote winner for them. 

[Calculus]

7 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I agree, but the way around it is to have more staff processing those claims so migrants/refugees are quickly assessed and either returned or allowed to live where they want in the country and earn money and pay taxes.

Very few are in "luxury" hotels, most are in run-down B&Bs in parts of the country where no one wants to go on holiday. They get £40 a week and are forbidden from working until their asylum claims are assessed.

Just shorten the process from months to days or weeks, then prolonged stays that neither the migrants or the taxpayers want take place.

Thing is, the government wants UK voters to be angry about this issue.  They figure somehow their deliberate incompetence on immigration, combined with meaningless rhetoric - flights to Rwanda costing £240,000 per person - is somehow a vote winner for them. 

Agree that ideally the initial process needs to get down to 'days or weeks'. One of the issues would be the small industry of lawyers engaging in lengthy appeals processes. Perhaps we need some sort or triage process so that those that aren't fleeing war or persecution can be returned straight away. Suspect.a change of law might be necessary, not to mention issues with ECHR.

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I agree, but the way around it is to have more staff processing those claims so migrants/refugees are quickly assessed and either returned or allowed to live where they want in the country and earn money and pay taxes.

Very few are in "luxury" hotels, most are in run-down B&Bs in parts of the country where no one wants to go on holiday. They get £40 a week and are forbidden from working until their asylum claims are assessed.

Just shorten the process from months to days or weeks, then prolonged stays that neither the migrants or the taxpayers want take place.

Thing is, the government wants UK voters to be angry about this issue.  They figure somehow their deliberate incompetence on immigration, combined with meaningless rhetoric - flights to Rwanda costing £240,000 per person - is somehow a vote winner for them. 

Personally I think the whole asylum process needs to change throughout the world. 

The amount of people being displaced every year is rising and predicted to do so. 

South Americans were some of the highest amount of applications to Europe in the last few months. 

It's simply unsustainable long term, to have so many heading to Europe, especially when there are other countries doing very little to take people in. 

I look at Sweden, which has taken the most people...and the negative affect its had on the country in a very short time. 

The number of people in Sweden born abroad has doubled in the last two decades to 2 million, or a fifth of the population.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integration-immigrants-has-failed-fueled-gang-crime-2022-04-28/

We are purely looking short term. We should be looking long term. 

Some really good info on here. 

https://www.nrc.no/shorthand/fr/a-few-countries-take-responsibility-for-most-of-the-worlds-refugees/index.html

Edited April 22, 2023 by spudski

[cidered abroad]

On 21/04/2023 at 09:22, Silvio Dante said:

100% this. It’s a total non story and nobody is seriously suggesting it. Nobody’s coming to take away ships on badges. Golly dolls - yes, boats -no.

To be fair they had to redo it after the “A” bomb there 

For the bloody umpteenth time…

Thanks for your post. Like many others I did not know the history but wondered if the name "Blackboy" was a corruption from the French word for "wood - Bois".

Then on the Downs is the road "Ladies Mile" which is so named after the "working women" who made their living from the randy male population.

As for the history of so many towns and cities in Europe and Britain, every country in the world has abused other humans and many animals ever since our time on this Earth. We should never forget the past but use that knowledge to make ourselves better humans but treating all races and religions and other football teams with respect and equality.

 

[BigTone]

4 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

and other football teams with respect and equality.

 

Hold on mate, there are limits !!!

[Robbored]

“Next week there will be an expose of the lack of diversity within Bowls clubs”

In the local bowls fraternity I know of three non white players. Two women and one man so to those of a woke persuasion would have a case if they wanted to organise a protest…………

 

[Port Said Red]

Bristol, or at least merchant ships that sailed from here, was really only involved in the slave trade for around 15 years old n the early part of the 1700's. I realise that sounds like an attempt to minimize our involvement, but the point is that trading, merchant activity by sea and associated businesses were prominent from around the year 1000 to the 1990's, and if you include Avonmouth and Portbury it continues today. So, suggesting that a ship on a coat of arms represents 1.5% of the overall activity would seem very selective indeed.

[spudski]

13 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Thanks for your post. Like many others I did not know the history but wondered if the name "Blackboy" was a corruption from the French word for "wood - Bois".

Then on the Downs is the road "Ladies Mile" which is so named after the "working women" who made their living from the randy male population.

As for the history of so many towns and cities in Europe and Britain, every country in the world has abused other humans and many animals ever since our time on this Earth. We should never forget the past but use that knowledge to make ourselves better humans but treating all races and religions and other football teams with respect and equality.

 

I completely agree with the sentiment in your last paragraph. 

It would be great if everyone did the same. 

Sadly a lot of cultures and beliefs are at odds with one another. 

 

[TheReds]

On 21/04/2023 at 09:22, Silvio Dante said:

100% this. It’s a total non story and nobody is seriously suggesting it. Nobody’s coming to take away ships on badges. Golly dolls - yes, boats -no.

To be fair they had to redo it after the “A” bomb there 

For the bloody umpteenth time…

Marvin Rees was happy to go along with the racial aspect of both of these live on GMB after the Colston statue story,, and Susanna Reid said the names "made my skin crawl" when she was at University here. Never said a word previously until it suited her though as far as I'm aware. I think the Bristolian weatherman was on there as well at the same time, and not one of them said these names were probably not associated with slavery and were all more than happy to say they were. Amazing how they were all happy to go along with it to millions of viewers though, and all to suit the narrative at the time. 

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

Bristol, or at least merchant ships that sailed from here, was really only involved in the slave trade for around 15 years old n the early part of the 1700's.

That isn't correct, Slave ships used Bristol as a port for over 100 years from the late 1600's to the early 1800's.  Another problem with the view is that Bristol became incredibly wealthy from exploiting Sugar and Tobacco both the products of slave labour.

Most major Bristol families had fingers in the wealth generated from slaves, the Smyth family from Ashton Court owned plantations, Colstons from the slave trade and the Wills family from tobacco grown on slave plantations.

And this should all be about 'correcting' history not 'deleting' it.  As my O-Level history teacher often stated, "History is written by the victors, not those they oppressed."

[spudski]

2 hours ago, Hxj said:

That isn't correct, Slave ships used Bristol as a port for over 100 years from the late 1600's to the early 1800's.  Another problem with the view is that Bristol became incredibly wealthy from exploiting Sugar and Tobacco both the products of slave labour.

Most major Bristol families had fingers in the wealth generated from slaves, the Smyth family from Ashton Court owned plantations, Colstons from the slave trade and the Wills family from tobacco grown on slave plantations.

And this should all be about 'correcting' history not 'deleting' it.  As my O-Level history teacher often stated, "History is written by the victors, not those they oppressed."

I mentioned this in another post about history, when it came to being documented... It was written as you say... propaganda...and often exaggerated or untrue. Yet still taught as correct. 

I find the whole view on the past...and apologising for it and feeling like we should be ashamed as very odd. 

We live in a time that is awakened some what...we can't compare to the past. 

We can't get our heads around it...but slavery was legal and normal.

That's how people thought. 

We compare, because we have a complete view of the world. Back then they didn't. 

Let's bring football back into the context... Hartlepool are known as the monkey hangers, because a monkey was captured from a French ship...and the locals thought it was a  French man and hanged it. 

This is the type of intelligence we are dealing with. 

You can't compare. 

[Hxj]

21 minutes ago, spudski said:

I find the whole view on the past...and apologising for it and feeling like we should be ashamed as very odd. 

I agree completely, correction and recognition are entirely different from apologising.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Hxj

[Keepers Ball]

The Guardian.

Are you surprised?

[Keepers Ball]

3 hours ago, TheReds said:

Marvin Rees was happy to go along with the racial aspect of both of these live on GMB after the Colston statue story,, and Susanna Reid said the names "made my skin crawl" when she was at University here. Never said a word previously until it suited her though as far as I'm aware. I think the Bristolian weatherman was on there as well at the same time, and not one of them said these names were probably not associated with slavery and were all more than happy to say they were. Amazing how they were all happy to go along with it to millions of viewers though, and all to suit the narrative at the time. 

Susanna Reid comment was ridiculous and ignorant.

The places she named have no links to the Slave Trade

Black Boy Hill after the nickname of King Charles II, for his long dark hair being one

[Totterdown's Finest]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I mentioned this in another post about history, when it came to being documented... It was written as you say... propaganda...and often exaggerated or untrue. Yet still taught as correct. 

I find the whole view on the past...and apologising for it and feeling like we should be ashamed as very odd. 

We live in a time that is awakened some what...we can't compare to the past. 

We can't get our heads around it...but slavery was legal and normal.

That's how people thought. 

We compare, because we have a complete view of the world. Back then they didn't. 

Let's bring football back into the context... Hartlepool are known as the monkey hangers, because a monkey was captured from a French ship...and the locals thought it was a  French man and hanged it. 

This is the type of intelligence we are dealing with. 

You can't compare. 

There were many people- politicians, religious figures, ordinary folk-who did not think it was normal or moral at the time. Personally, for what it's worth, I can't see too much wrong with a ship on a badge. A statue of a slave trader, on the other hand...

[South Somerset Red]

To be honest Im shocked that neither of those clubs are called themchester yet

[Bristol Oil Services]

It's probably just me but:

Ships on club badges and whiskers on kittens,

Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens,

Brown paper envelopes tied up with string,

Etc, etc.

 

[spudski]

3 hours ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

There were many people- politicians, religious figures, ordinary folk-who did not think it was normal or moral at the time. Personally, for what it's worth, I can't see too much wrong with a ship on a badge. A statue of a slave trader, on the other hand...

Can I ask why you have a problem with Colston? Yes he was what he was at the time. But as I've pointed out in previous posts, there are numerous statues and such like around the world in place, glorifying them, who did far worse than Colston, yet we rock up as tourists and take photographs, pay for the privilege, enjoy the experience...typical Instagram photo...' here's me and my loved one inside the Rome Amphitheatre where they enslaved, killed, all for entertainment '  

Again...'here's me with my loved one photographed with the statue of a Caesar...who was worse than Hitler...isn't history amazing'

And this goes on around the world...tourist industries based on it. 

You can go down a whole rabbit hole with slavery... We are the tip of the iceberg. 

Imagine living in the States where Slavery was rife. The money and culture that came about in the deep south....even the music. Are you going to cancel the music that came from the cotton fields? 

Kinnel...the Stones might as well go drown themselves now if we are going to be so apologetic, as they've made a fortune from that. 

[Totterdown's Finest]

14 minutes ago, spudski said:

Can I ask why you have a problem with Colston? Yes he was what he was at the time. But as I've pointed out in previous posts, there are numerous statues and such like around the world in place, glorifying them, who did far worse than Colston, yet we rock up as tourists and take photographs, pay for the privilege, enjoy the experience...typical Instagram photo...' here's me and my loved one inside the Rome Amphitheatre where they enslaved, killed, all for entertainment '  

Again...'here's me with my loved one photographed with the statue of a Caesar...who was worse than Hitler...isn't history amazing'

And this goes on around the world...tourist industries based on it. 

You can go down a whole rabbit hole with slavery... We are the tip of the iceberg. 

Imagine living in the States where Slavery was rife. The money and culture that came about in the deep south....even the music. Are you going to cancel the music that came from the cotton fields? 

Kinnel...the Stones might as well go drown themselves now if we are going to be so apologetic, as they've made a fortune from that. 

A statue of a person literally celebrates that person. I don't think he's anyone worth celebrating.

And the Rolling Stones, as far as I'm aware, no longer play at least one of their songs that could be considered inappropriate in a contemporary context.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

A statue of a person literally celebrates that person. I don't think he's anyone worth celebrating.

And the Rolling Stones, as far as I'm aware, no longer play at least one of their songs that could be considered inappropriate in a contemporary context.

Yet everyone else I've mentioned and more is? 

The Stones music and many others, are based on the music that came out of the deep south and essentially the slave trade. A genre from the fields. Sung in churches and the music industry. Celebrated. 

[Totterdown's Finest]

9 minutes ago, spudski said:

Yet everyone else I've mentioned and more is? 

The Stones music and many others, are based on the music that came out of the deep south and essentially the slave trade. A genre from the fields. Sung in churches and the music industry. Celebrated. 

Eh? I didn't say they were worthy of statues. If the local communities think statues of people with dubious pasts should be removed, that's for them to decide. 

And are you really drawing equivalence between the music slaves sang and a statue celebrating a slave-trader erected by the Victorians!?

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

Eh? I didn't say they were worthy of statues. If the local communities think statues of people with dubious pasts should be removed, that's for them to decide. 

And are you really drawing equivalence between the music slaves sang and a statue celebrating a slave-trader erected by the Victorians!?

You are completely missing the bigger picture. 

So if every local community decided to rip down everything related to slavery, war, overpowering, taking advantage of others...there would be pretty much nothing less in the world. 

The whole world has been built on taking advantage of others. 

As for your last question...yes...think about it. Put yourself in the deep south of America...the culture, money etc that came from slavery. Just think about the links that have come from it. 

Edited April 22, 2023 by spudski

[Totterdown's Finest]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

You are completely missing the bigger picture. 

So if every local community decided to rip down everything related to slavery, war, overpowering,cracking advantage of others...there would be pretty much nothing less in the world. 

The whole world has been built on taking advantage of others. 

As for your last question...yes...think about it. Put yourself in the deep south of America...the culture, money etc that came from slavery. Just think about the links that have come from it. 

Mate, I think you're the one losing sight of the bigger picture. Colston's statue literally celebrated him. The War Memorials remember those who lost their lives. Holocaust memorials remind us all of the awfulness of that particular period of history. You need to consider the purpose and context of memorials. I wouldn't pull down Colston School, for the very reason it's a school, a place where good things happen. But it's right that the school have decided to change the name.

[Lewisdabaron]

Antifa don’t seem to have an issue with ships on their badge. 

[spudski]

10 minutes ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

Mate, I think you're the one losing sight of the bigger picture. Colston's statue literally celebrated him. The War Memorials remember those who lost their lives. Holocaust memorials remind us all of the awfulness of that particular period of history. You need to consider the purpose and context of memorials. I wouldn't pull down Colston School, for the very reason it's a school, a place where good things happen. But it's right that the school have decided to change the name.

I've not mentioned anything you've replied with. You've completely avoided everything I've put before you and changed the subject. 

As for Colston's statue...answer the question ..is he any worse than all the statues, buildings and monuments, tourists pay to visit and enjoy in the likes of Rome, Egypt, South America etc. Answer the question... don't deflect with something that hasn't been mentioned or even relevant. 

[Totterdown's Finest]

5 minutes ago, spudski said:

I've not mentioned anything you've replied with. You've completely avoided everything I've put before you and changed the subject. 

As for Colston's statue...answer the question ..is he any worse than all the statues, buildings and monuments, tourists pay to visit and enjoy in the likes of Rome, Egypt, South America etc. Answer the question... don't deflect with something that hasn't been mentioned or even relevant. 

You literally mention, and I quote..."slavery, war, overpowering, taking advantage of others...". I stated. I think clearly, that you have to consider the context and purpose of a memorial if you want it to stay or be removed. As for question about whether Colston is "any worse than statues, buildings " etc., it totally depends which one(s) you are talking about

 

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

You literally mention, and I quote..."slavery, war, overpowering, taking advantage of others...". I stated. I think clearly, that you have to consider the context and purpose of a memorial if you want it to stay or be removed. As for question about whether Colston is "any worse than statues, buildings " etc., it totally depends which one(s) you are talking about

 

Christ mate...you should take up Politics...that's a talent deflecting and avoiding the question in plain English. 

If explained in plain English...you've twisted it and mentioned the word ' memorials'. 

Please don't be a dick...you are looking stupid now. It's a simple question and I've explained in simple terms. 

[IAmNick]

39 minutes ago, spudski said:

I've not mentioned anything you've replied with. You've completely avoided everything I've put before you and changed the subject. 

As for Colston's statue...answer the question ..is he any worse than all the statues, buildings and monuments, tourists pay to visit and enjoy in the likes of Rome, Egypt, South America etc. Answer the question... don't deflect with something that hasn't been mentioned or even relevant. 

Why does it matter if he's better or worse (however you even measure that) than them?

It's once again the implication that if you can't do everything, you shouldn't do anything at all. It's nonsense.

The options aren't rip down literally everything with any even tangential relation to slavery (or whatever) or do nothing at all are they? Things are much more nuanced than that, obviously. Why do you keep going back to this black and white, divisive thinking?

Edited April 22, 2023 by IAmNick

[spudski]

13 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Why does it matter if he's better or worse (however you even measure that) than them?

It's once again the implication that if you can't do everything, you shouldn't do anything at all. It's nonsense.

The options aren't rip down literally everything with any even tangential relation to slavery (or whatever) or do nothing at all are they? Things are much more nuanced than that, obviously. Why do you keep going back to this black and white, divisive thinking?

Because it's that thinking that's being promoted to being normal. 

It's not divisive at all. It's common sense. 

Why do people ignore the obvious comparisons, and try to fit a ' nuance'. ? That's pathetic. 

What we do in Bristol in trying to erase our connection with slavery is pathetic. It's simply putting a plaster over the obvious. Erasing it, so we can't be reminded of it. 

It's the equivalent of a kid sticking his fingers in his ears, shutting his eyes and screaming, so as to not see the truth. 

[BCFC Rich]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

Because it's that thinking that's being promoted to being normal. 

It's not divisive at all. It's common sense. 

Why do people ignore the obvious comparisons, and try to fit a ' nuance'. ? That's pathetic. 

What we do in Bristol in trying to erase our connection with slavery is pathetic. It's simply putting a plaster over the obvious. Erasing it, so we can't be reminded of it. 

It's the equivalent of a kid sticking his fingers in his ears, shutting his eyes and screaming, so as to not see the truth. 

It's not being erased though, is it? It's being contextualized. Rather than a statue glorifying a slave trader, it's now in a museum that puts his historical role into perspective. Not erased at all.

[Fuber]

On 21/04/2023 at 09:08, Robbored said:

So what’s next?  Change the name of Whiteladies Rd? surely that has racist implications…..not to mention BlackBoy Hill………….

Realise this is said in jest but I can't help myself.

Actually it's not - BlackBoy Hill, at least, is a nickname of Charles II.

[Lewisdabaron]

Just what the people of Bristol want their taxs spent on. The ego on a MP…

[Totterdown's Finest]

8 hours ago, spudski said:

Christ mate...you should take up Politics...that's a talent deflecting and avoiding the question in plain English. 

If explained in plain English...you've twisted it and mentioned the word ' memorials'. 

Please don't be a dick...you are looking stupid now. It's a simple question and I've explained in simple terms. 

I'll ignore your insults. If nuance is too tricky for you, so be it, but I think my point is clear. If a statue/memorial serves simply to commemorate the actions or life of a person who made their money on the back of the slave trade, I would take it down. If said memorial has a purpose beyond that (educational,  architectural significance, etc), I would probably expect it to remain.

The world isn't black and white and arguments around this are rarely simple, but I hope this clarifies it for you.

[Totterdown's Finest]

22 minutes ago, Lewisdabaron said:

Just what the people of Bristol want their taxs spent on. The ego on a MP…

I think a museum to slavery would be a good thing, for several different reasons. And Asher Craig isn't an MP.

[spudski]

36 minutes ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

I'll ignore your insults. If nuance is too tricky for you, so be it, but I think my point is clear. If a statue/memorial serves simply to commemorate the actions or life of a person who made their money on the back of the slave trade, I would take it down. If said memorial has a purpose beyond that (educational,  architectural significance, etc), I would probably expect it to remain.

The world isn't black and white and arguments around this are rarely simple, but I hope this clarifies it for you.

So in that respect, you would take down all the statues in the vicinity of the amphitheatre in Rome and such like historical places. 

Why not leave the statues up including Colston's with a plaque educating people of his past. 

As it stands...the Colston statue is on its side, on the floor of the museum, and the info attached to it, is more about the people and reason why they removed it. 

 

 

[Totterdown's Finest]

24 minutes ago, spudski said:

So in that respect, you would take down all the statues in the vicinity of the amphitheatre in Rome and such like historical places. 

Why not leave the statues up including Colston's with a plaque educating people of his past. 

As it stands...the Colston statue is on its side, on the floor of the museum, and the info attached to it, is more about the people and reason why they removed it. 

 

 

I'm not sure you grasp my point. I certainly wouldn't tear down the Coliseum  that would be blatantly ridiculous. As for the statues, if they glorified people with dubious pasts, had little other value and the people of Rome thought it better to remove them, so be it. That would be for them to decide.

As for the Colston statue, you say it now says more about "the reason it was removed", as if that's a bad thing! Like it or not, the life of Colston, and the role he played in the Transatlantic slave trade, is now much more widely known than it ever was before. As someone who values history and, in your words, doesn't want it "erased", you must think that's a positive outcome of all this.

[Red-Robbo]

23 hours ago, Calculus said:

Agree that ideally the initial process needs to get down to 'days or weeks'. One of the issues would be the small industry of lawyers engaging in lengthy appeals processes. Perhaps we need some sort or triage process so that those that aren't fleeing war or persecution can be returned straight away. Suspect.a change of law might be necessary, not to mention issues with ECHR.

It doesn't help that the rules around granting asylum status are complex, open to interpretation and have developed ad hoc.  As you say, a clearer "playbook" is needed to make assessment swifter.  I don't think it's lawyers halting the process often - not much money to be made off coves on £40 a week or the charities working in the area - but simply lack of Home Office staff (reduced by 2/3rds in 15 years, despite claims about 'ramping up border security') and no real will to tackle the issue.  People are making money, and political capital, out of it NOT being solved. 

[Selred]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

So in that respect, you would take down all the statues in the vicinity of the amphitheatre in Rome and such like historical places. 

Why not leave the statues up including Colston's with a plaque educating people of his past. 

As it stands...the Colston statue is on its side, on the floor of the museum, and the info attached to it, is more about the people and reason why they removed it. 

 

 

Were you calling for these plaques before the statue was taken down? 

[spudski]

24 minutes ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

I'm not sure you grasp my point. I certainly wouldn't tear down the Coliseum  that would be blatantly ridiculous. As for the statues, if they glorified people with dubious pasts, had little other value and the people of Rome thought it better to remove them, so be it. That would be for them to decide.

As for the Colston statue, you say it now says more about "the reason it was removed", as if that's a bad thing! Like it or not, the life of Colston, and the role he played in the Transatlantic slave trade, is now much more widely known than it ever was before. As someone who values history and, in your words, doesn't want it "erased", you must think that's a positive outcome of all this.

I have a different point of view to you. 

There was no democratic vote on removing the Colston Statue. It was removed by a mob. The people of Bristol had no say in it. 

I also think the people of Bristol and Rome and such like, shouldn't have a say in it. The world population has every right to see our history. 

Once we remove or destroy things...that's it...they are pretty much gone for good. What gives us the right to destroy things, just because our generation feels offended about history. 

Future generations won't have the choice once destroyed/ removed. 

As I've pointed out, whole tourist industries make £millions of pounds every year...people visiting and admiring statues, buildings all built by overpowered enslaved people. 

Total admiration. 

Yet we in Bristol want to hide our history. A city built partly on the money of the slave trade. We can't change that. It's our history. 

Statue taken down, names of institutions and buildings changed, road names changed. 

The hypocrisy is ridiculous. 

The positive outcome for me would to leave things in place and put plaques up explaining things. Educating. Learning. 

[spudski]

14 minutes ago, Selred said:

Were you calling for these plaques before the statue was taken down? 

Tbh...it hadn't crossed my mind. But if the City asked whether to remove or put a plaque up, I'd have said put plaque up. 

[Calculus]

Much talk of removing symbols of regrettable history.

But then, we have a local organisation who glory in the deeds and consequences of piracy. Time for a ban and an apology to the victims of piracy maybe.

[spudski]

5 minutes ago, Calculus said:

Much talk of removing symbols of regrettable history.

But then, we have a local organisation who glory in the deeds and consequences of piracy. Time for a ban and an apology to the victims of piracy maybe.

Britain pretty much acted as Pirates when ' we ruled the waves' and raped and pilleged our way around the World. That's how we built our Empire and became a nation of power and wealth. 

It's time we stopped apologising and being offended....and instead concentrated on building a better future. 

It's ironic how the Colston Hall became the Bristol Beacon...yet the Welsh have decided to change the name of the Brecon Beacons, because in part, and I quote... to show support for the Welsh language and because a fiery greenhouse gas-emitting beacon did not fit well with its ethos of creating a more sustainable, nature-rich area.

We'll have the Climate activists demanding they change the name again now

[View from the Dolman]

23 minutes ago, spudski said:

Tbh...it hadn't crossed my mind. But if the City asked whether to remove or put a plaque up, I'd have said put plaque up. 

There was a whole palaver about doing exactly that but the likely names objected describing it as vandalism and effectively encouraging people to vandalise any such plaque put in place.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-44951380

[Totterdown's Finest]

13 minutes ago, spudski said:

I have a different point of view to you. 

There was no democratic vote on removing the Colston Statue. It was removed by a mob. The people of Bristol had no say in it. 

I also think the people of Bristol and Rome and such like, shouldn't have a say in it. The world population has every right to see our history. 

Once we remove or destroy things...that's it...they are pretty much gone for good. What gives us the right to destroy things, just because our generation feels offended about history. 

Future generations won't have the choice once destroyed/ removed. 

As I've pointed out, whole tourist industries make £millions of pounds every year...people visiting and admiring statues, buildings all built by overpowered enslaved people. 

Total admiration. 

Yet we in Bristol want to hide our history. A city built partly on the money of the slave trade. We can't change that. It's our history. 

Statue taken down, names of institutions and buildings changed, road names changed. 

The hypocrisy is ridiculous. 

The positive outcome for me would to leave things in place and put plaques up explaining things. Educating. Learning. 

You lament the fact that the people of Bristol "had no say" in the removal of the statue, in your next paragraph you say they "shouldn't have a say in it"!?!

The statue is not "gone for good". It was put on display in a museum ( y' know, education), but with context and as part of a wider story.

Personally, I was glad it was pulled down. It was ridiculous to celebrate a "virtuous" (not my words) person in this way. I didn't feel strongly about the Colston Hall changing its name, to be honest, as it was a music venue, but the people responsible for it (council, trustees, whatever) decided to. They had good reasons: so be it. I'm certainly not going to lose my shit over the new name and I look forward to it reopening.

Tourists come to Bristol for lots of different reasons. I doubt many of them flocked from around the world to come and see a rather ordinary statue of an obscure 18th Century slave-trader.

And were not hiding our history. The council are literally planning to build a museum that tells that part of the City's story. There's one in Liverpool which is excellent. I went there to see it.

[Red-Robbo]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

Britain pretty much acted as Pirates when ' we ruled the waves' and raped and pilleged our way around the World. That's how we built our Empire and became a nation of power and wealth. 

It's time we stopped apologising and being offended....and instead concentrated on building a better future. 

It's ironic how the Colston Hall became the Bristol Beacon...yet the Welsh have decided to change the name of the Brecon Beacons, because in part, and I quote... to show support for the Welsh language and because a fiery greenhouse gas-emitting beacon did not fit well with its ethos of creating a more sustainable, nature-rich area.

We'll have the Climate activists demanding they change the name again now

 

To be fair, the hills were always called Bannau Brycheiniog, so they haven't renamed it, they've simply decided, as with Snowdonia, that the national park will be officially given its original Welsh name, rather than its newer English one.  The signs will still be bilingual and feature Brecon Beacons as the English name for the region.

[spudski]

14 minutes ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

You lament the fact that the people of Bristol "had no say" in the removal of the statue, in your next paragraph you say they "shouldn't have a say in it"!?!

The statue is not "gone for good". It was put on display in a museum ( y' know, education), but with context and as part of a wider story.

Personally, I was glad it was pulled down. It was ridiculous to celebrate a "virtuous" (not my words) person in this way. I didn't feel strongly about the Colston Hall changing its name, to be honest, as it was a music venue, but the people responsible for it (council, trustees, whatever) decided to. They had good reasons: so be it. I'm certainly not going to lose my shit over the new name and I look forward to it reopening.

Tourists come to Bristol for lots of different reasons. I doubt many of them flocked from around the world to come and see a rather ordinary statue of an obscure 18th Century slave-trader.

And were not hiding our history. The council are literally planning to build a museum that tells that part of the City's story. There's one in Liverpool which is excellent. I went there to see it.

The statue was raised to celebrate the good things he did for Bristol. 

Yes he made dirty money from the slave trade...but he made good use of that money for the benefit of the people. It wasn't put up to glorify his involvement in the slave trade. 

It was put up in the same way other statues have been put up around the world...glorifying people that did good for their nation or people...using money or slaves from overpowered nation's. There is no difference. 

 

[Red Skin]

On 21/04/2023 at 11:28, spudski said:

It's obviously a leading article. It has no proof the ships were used in the slave trade, but has now put the idea in people's heads that they may have been.

 

How'd the lyrics go....

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never will be slaves.

There may not be a direct link to to slavery when this was written, but whoever 'ruled the sea' dominates trade.  And unfortunately at one point in history slaves were 'commodity' of that trade when the Royal Navy did dominant.  Whoever 'ruled the waves' would have traded in slaves at that time.  It's an uncomfortable truth for many when this is pointed out.   

I reckon we are of a similar age judging from your posts and I was certainly not taught anything about the slave trade when I was at school.  Maybe just a different curriculum?  I learnt more about slavery from the TV series Roots than in any history lesson.  

[spudski]

18 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

To be fair, the hills were always called Bannau Brycheiniog, so they haven't renamed it, they've simply decided, as with Snowdonia, that the national park will be officially given its original Welsh name, rather than its newer English one.  The signs will still be bilingual and feature Brecon Beacons as the English name for the region.

I know that RR...but they spent two years and a think tank company using public money to re name it. The amount of money in rebranding and resigning will cost a fortune. Better spent elsewhere. 

Let's face it...and even the authorities agree, people will still call it the Brecon Beacons. So it's a complete waste of time and money imo. 

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Red Skin said:

 

How'd the lyrics go....

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never will be slaves.

There may not be a direct link to to slavery when this was written, but whoever 'ruled the sea' dominates trade.  And unfortunately at one point in history slaves were 'commodity' of that trade when the Royal Navy did dominant.  Whoever 'ruled the waves' would have traded in slaves at that time.  It's an uncomfortable truth for many when this is pointed out.   

I reckon we are of a similar age judging from your posts and I was certainly not taught anything about the slave trade when I was at school.  Maybe just a different curriculum?  I learnt more about slavery from the TV series Roots than in any history lesson.  

We learnt about it in Geography rather than History oddly. We even had a school trip to Bristol centre and discussion on the subject. I remember vividly the horror of the drawings onf the slaves led out like sardines in the ships. 

[Red-Robbo]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

I know that RR...but they spent two years and a think tank company using public money to re name it. The amount of money in rebranding and resigning will cost a fortune. Better spent elsewhere. 

Let's face it...and even the authorities agree, people will still call it the Brecon Beacons. So it's a complete waste of time and money imo. 

Unless they are Welsh speaking, which a lot of communities in that area are. WE will continue to call it the Brecon Beacons, locals won't, hence the policy. 

Still, got to love those Welsh signs. We had a holiday in the Cambrian Mountains last year and got so used to seeing signs saying Araf ("slow") that me and the missus now use it if we think one of us is driving too fast. You have to deliver the word in the style of a dog barking. 

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

Unless they are Welsh speaking, which a lot of communities in that area are. WE will continue to call it the Brecon Beacons, locals won't, hence the policy. 

Still, got to love those Welsh signs. We had a holiday in the Cambrian Mountains last year and got so used to seeing signs saying Araf ("slow") that me and the missus now use it if we think one of us is driving too fast. You have to deliver the word in the style of a dog barking. 

Brilliant

[Totterdown's Finest]

32 minutes ago, spudski said:

The statue was raised to celebrate the good things he did for Bristol. 

Yes he made dirty money from the slave trade...but he made good use of that money for the benefit of the people. It wasn't put up to glorify his involvement in the slave trade. 

It was put up in the same way other statues have been put up around the world...glorifying people that did good for their nation or people...using money or slaves from overpowered nation's. There is no difference. 

 

My friend, if you weigh up his considerable charitable donations (which were far from universal and targetted to support his own conservatjve political and religious  views) against the enslavement, death and torture of those from whose misery he benefited, and, on balance. still think he deserves a statue, there really is something wrong with you.

 

[Jim Davey]

won't be allowed to wear my Blue peter badge anymore then.

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

My friend, if you weigh up his considerable charitable donations (which were far from universal and targetted to support his own conservatjve political and religious  views) against the enslavement, death and torture of those from whose misery he benefited, and, on balance. still think he deserves a statue, there really is something wrong with you.

 

I don't think he deserves a statue now perse...however... I don't believe in removing historical statues because of past misdemeanors. I'd prefer a plaque offering an historical context. 

And if it's money you are worried about...look at the millions of £££s in today's money, paid to slave owners by the Government, when they gave them up in the UK. 

The biggest ever borrowing to pay them. 20% of our whole economy. With interest. 

We only finished paying for that debt in 2015. 

Complete madness. 

Over 3000 beneficiary's. 

[Red-Robbo]

3 minutes ago, Jim Davey said:

won't be allowed to wear my Blue peter badge anymore then.

 I've got one of those as well! Never realised I was supporting the slave trade.  

[Jim Davey]

8 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 I've got one of those as well! Never realised I was supporting the slave trade.  

I hang my head in shame and  apologise for any offence I may of caused  to anyone back in the 1970's .

Edited April 23, 2023 by Jim Davey

[Red-Robbo]

7 minutes ago, Jim Davey said:

I hang my head in shame and  apologise for any offence I may of caused  to anyone back in the 1970's .

 

I blame John Noakes. 

[Totterdown's Finest]

7 minutes ago, spudski said:

I don't think he deserves a statue now perse...however... I don't believe in removing historical statues because of past misdemeanors. I'd prefer a plaque offering an historical context. 

And if it's money you are worried about...look at the millions of £££s in today's money, paid to slave owners by the Government, when they gave them up in the UK. 

The biggest ever borrowing to pay them. 20% of our whole economy. With interest. 

We only finished paying for that debt in 2015. 

Complete madness. 

Over 3000 beneficiary's. 

I accept you don't want statues removed and can understand that point. Obviously, I don't agree, (as I think I've made clear!), and also understand that you wouldn't want support one being created now. In fact, I can't believe any rational, reasonable person would!

We certainly agree about the atrocity of taxpayers compensating, after abolition, those who benefited from the slave trade. It's appalling, and symptomatic of the ridiculous way we are beholden to the rich and powerful.  In fact there remains a very strong case for reparations to be sought ( voluntarily or through the courts) from the families of those who benefitted, and continue to benefit, from the slave trade.

[spudski]

20 minutes ago, Totterdown's Finest said:

I accept you don't want statues removed and can understand that point. Obviously, I don't agree, (as I think I've made clear!), and also understand that you wouldn't want support one being created now. In fact, I can't believe any rational, reasonable person would!

We certainly agree about the atrocity of taxpayers compensating, after abolition, those who benefited from the slave trade. It's appalling, and symptomatic of the ridiculous way we are beholden to the rich and powerful.  In fact there remains a very strong case for reparations to be sought ( voluntarily or through the courts) from the families of those who benefitted, and continue to benefit, from the slave trade.

We can agree. 

[Dr Balls]

14 minutes ago, spudski said:

I don't think he deserves a statue now perse...however... I don't believe in removing historical statues because of past misdemeanors. I'd prefer a plaque offering an historical context. 

And if it's money you are worried about...look at the millions of £££s in today's money, paid to slave owners by the Government, when they gave them up in the UK. 

The biggest ever borrowing to pay them. 20% of our whole economy. With interest. 

We only finished paying for that debt in 2015. 

Complete madness. 

Over 3000 beneficiary's. 

The other issue with the Colston Statue is that it was political at the time it was erected in 1895. It wasn’t erected shortly after he died but nearly 200 years later. It was in part done to promote “The Empire” and to celebrate a certain class of Bristolian, and not the masses that’s for sure. A plaque had been completed in 2019 to go onto the plinth to explain more about Colston, his time, and the legacies both good and bad, but thanks to dithering by Mayor Marvin it never got put up, before the statue itself was pulled down in 2020.

I don’t have a problem with the Colston statue being in the M Shed. It’s probably the best place for it. I have been and seen it as well and the explainers are reasonable. But Colston needs to be seen as of his time as well. In the same 17th Century, Barbary Pirates from North Africa were raiding the South West coast and stealing women to take back home as slaves and concubines. Coastal villages in Devon and Cornwall lived in fear of being raided. Slavery and piracy were part of a fairly unpleasant time.

The issue for us in this country now is that much of the wealth we see around us did come from the exploitation of others, and that slavery didn’t end just because it was banned by the U.K. Parliament 200 years ago. The Americans had a civil war over the issue and before it was stopped in the South. So much of the wealth of places like Manchester was made from slave labour picking the cotton up until 1865. Not that those working in the dark satanic mills had it a lot better either by current standards with child labour and awful working conditions, pay etc.

The important thing now is that we appreciate how exploitation and slavery still exist in large parts of the globe, whether it’s people trafficking into this country, and how we treat them, or it’s sweat shops in Asia with minimal pay and potentially child labour producing cheap clothes for those of us in the West, thanks to the “benefits” of globalisation. If asking potential awkward and uncomfortable questions about our past raises people’s awareness of the injustices happening now, then that’s a good thing. If all it leads to is people shouting at each other as part of some conflated “culture wars” then that’s no use to anyone except the politicians who benefit from a “divide and rule” approach.

As for the ships on the badges of the Manchester clubs, I would leave that for those involved with clubs to decide what they want to do. Clubs often change their crests and emblems as we well know. And on a historical note for those getting wound up about it, the City of Bristol coat of arms with a ship sailing out from the castle predates the involvement of some from the city in the slave trade by around 2-3 centuries, so there is no need to apologise or replace it in my view.

[spudski]

20 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

The other issue with the Colston Statue is that it was political at the time it was erected in 1895. It wasn’t erected shortly after he died but nearly 200 years later. It was in part done to promote “The Empire” and to celebrate a certain class of Bristolian, and not the masses that’s for sure. A plaque had been completed in 2019 to go onto the plinth to explain more about Colston, his time, and the legacies both good and bad, but thanks to dithering by Mayor Marvin it never got put up, before the statue itself was pulled down in 2020.

I don’t have a problem with the Colston statue being in the M Shed. It’s probably the best place for it. I have been and seen it as well and the explainers are reasonable. But Colston needs to be seen as of his time as well. In the same 17th Century, Barbary Pirates from North Africa were raiding the South West coast and stealing women to take back home as slaves and concubines. Coastal villages in Devon and Cornwall lived in fear of being raided. Slavery and piracy were part of a fairly unpleasant time.

The issue for us in this country now is that much of the wealth we see around us did come from the exploitation of others, and that slavery didn’t end just because it was banned by the U.K. Parliament 200 years ago. The Americans had a civil war over the issue and before it was stopped in the South. So much of the wealth of places like Manchester was made from slave labour picking the cotton up until 1865. Not that those working in the dark satanic mills had it a lot better either by current standards with child labour and awful working conditions, pay etc.

The important thing now is that we appreciate how exploitation and slavery still exist in large parts of the globe, whether it’s people trafficking into this country, and how we treat them, or it’s sweat shops in Asia with minimal pay and potentially child labour producing cheap clothes for those of us in the West, thanks to the “benefits” of globalisation. If asking potential awkward and uncomfortable questions about our past raises people’s awareness of the injustices happening now, then that’s a good thing. If all it leads to is people shouting at each other as part of some conflated “culture wars” then that’s no use to anyone except the politicians who benefit from a “divide and rule” approach.

As for the ships on the badges of the Manchester clubs, I would leave that for those involved with clubs to decide what they want to do. Clubs often change their crests and emblems as we well know. And on a historical note for those getting wound up about it, the City of Bristol coat of arms with a ship sailing out from the castle predates the involvement of some from the city in the slave trade by around 2-3 centuries, so there is no need to apologise or replace it in my view.

It's exactly that...and pretty much covered in my posts in this thread. So it's nice to feel I'm not the only one seeing it that way.

 

[BCFC Rich]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

I don't think he deserves a statue now perse...however... I don't believe in removing historical statues because of past misdemeanors. I'd prefer a plaque offering an historical context. 

 

A plaque was pushed for and proposed multiple times there was even a phase when an unofficial one was regularly put up and then taken down: 

It was successfully eventually agreed there should be a plaque, but the council of merchant ventures caused lots of problems with the wording they wanted, and it took over a year to get the text agreed, then when it was thrown out by Mayor Ress for being to diluted by the merchant ventures interference. His office said it would be redone but it then didn't do anything about it. So the plaque was the plan, was agreed 3 1/2 years before the statue was pulled down, but never actually added. 

[spudski]

1 hour ago, BCFC Rich said:

A plaque was pushed for and proposed multiple times there was even a phase when an unofficial one was regularly put up and then taken down: 

It was successfully eventually agreed there should be a plaque, but the council of merchant ventures caused lots of problems with the wording they wanted, and it took over a year to get the text agreed, then when it was thrown out by Mayor Ress for being to diluted by the merchant ventures interference. His office said it would be redone but it then didn't do anything about it. So the plaque was the plan, was agreed 3 1/2 years before the statue was pulled down, but never actually added. 

Merchant Venturers...now that's a whole new can of worms. 

[Red Skin]

8 hours ago, spudski said:

We learnt about it in Geography rather than History oddly. We even had a school trip to Bristol centre and discussion on the subject. I remember vividly the horror of the drawings onf the slaves led out like sardines in the ships. 

I wasn't raised in Bristol so nothing about slavery in my geography classes either.   We didn't learn anything about the brutal side of British Colonialism in class though.  Personally, I think it's important that this is taught. 

[Trueredsupporter]

The West Africa squadron sailed in ships. Now there is a history.

[Clutton Caveman]

On 22/04/2023 at 12:28, spudski said:

Personally I think the whole asylum process needs to change throughout the world. 

The amount of people being displaced every year is rising and predicted to do so. 

South Americans were some of the highest amount of applications to Europe in the last few months. 

It's simply unsustainable long term, to have so many heading to Europe, especially when there are other countries doing very little to take people in. 

I look at Sweden, which has taken the most people...and the negative affect its had on the country in a very short time. 

The number of people in Sweden born abroad has doubled in the last two decades to 2 million, or a fifth of the population.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integration-immigrants-has-failed-fueled-gang-crime-2022-04-28/

We are purely looking short term. We should be looking long term. 

Some really good info on here. 

https://www.nrc.no/shorthand/fr/a-few-countries-take-responsibility-for-most-of-the-worlds-refugees/index.html

For me any person who passes through several European countries to get to UK whilst paying thousands to traffickers are not refugees.

[Rebounder]

On 23/04/2023 at 07:59, Lewisdabaron said:

Just what the people of Bristol want their taxs spent on. The ego on a MP…

Asher is a decent person from my interactions with her. 

Are you against Museums in general? Something that really adds to a City and attracts people? 

Strange take really. 

[spudski]

24 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

For me any person who passes through several European countries to get to UK whilst paying thousands to traffickers are not refugees.

I tend to agree. 

Hence why I think the whole asylum system world wide needs to change. 

If you are in fear for your life...it makes sense to declare yourself an asylum seeker at the next safest border. 

Obviously there are countries that will have borders that receive more asylum seekers than others, due to their proximity to waring countries. 

This is where Governments would have to work together. To go through procedures then distribute accordingly. 

I don't think it's fair that asylum seekers choose where they want to live. There are plenty of people that would like to live in other countries, but don't tick boxes and qualify to live and work there. Even if they have money, qualifications and experience to offer a country. But if your country goes to war...you can choose to leave and claim asylum wherever you want. 

This is why so many illegal immigrants try to use the system to their advantage. 

The system is broke.