Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Countryfox

Also in the news

By Countryfox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted
On 14/06/2020 at 11:47, Alf Bentley said:

 

My understanding is that strict shielding only applied to those deemed "clinically extremely vulnerable" due to specified medical conditions like cancer, suppressed immune system, transplants etc.

 

Unless that applies to Soulsby, I presume it is the general rules for over-70s/"clinically vulnerable" that apply - basically to take even more care than under-70s to minimise social contact:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/full-guidance-on-staying-at-home-and-away-from-others/full-guidance-on-staying-at-home-and-away-from-others

 

"If you have any of the following health conditions, you are clinically vulnerable, meaning you are at higher risk of severe illness from coronavirus. You should take particular care to minimise contact with others outside your household.

Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 

- aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)

- under 70 with an underlying health condition"

 

I imagine Soulsby would say that he and his lady-friend are in the same household, even if he doesn't stay every night with her and has a place of his own.

 

Anyway, more than enough time spent on this....

Well he admits he was wrong

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicester-mayor-peter-soulsby-reveals-4226775

Leicester mayor Sir Peter Soulsby says he feels ‘very embarrassed and very angry with himself’ for making visits to see his partner during lockdown.

It emerged yesterday that the Labour politician had been making journeys from his home in Evington to see his partner Lesley Summerland who lives in Groby some five miles away while such visits were prohibited to try to stop the spread of the virus.

Sir Peter was photographed at her home up a ladder fixing a window.

There have been calls for Sir Peter, 71, to resign and for the police to investigate.  Leicestershire Police issued a statement on Monday afternoon.

Sir Peter has already told LeicestershireLive he is sorry for making the visits and staying overnight at his partner's home but said he will not be resigning.

 

The police will not take it any further because what he did wrong is 'historic'

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/police-issue-statement-sir-peter-4227934

The Labour politician, who lives in Evington, visited a police station on Sunday after it emerged he had been travelling, to and staying overnight at, the house of his partner in Groby.

The visits came while restrictions were in place saying that people from separate households should not be meeting.

No official complaint has been made against the mayor.

But officers talked to the 71-year-old and gave him advice about Government guidelines.

They have also said they will not be taking further action against him because the allegations, which the mayor has admitted, were ‘historic’.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, davieG said:

They have also said they will not be taking further action against him because the allegations, which the mayor has admitted, were ‘historic’.

I wonder what other offences people can get their defence to use this argument.

 

Offender - Ha you can't arrest me for that is was 2 months ago. :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blue-fox

Blue-fox

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, LCFCbwoi said:

Of course you can, so Edward Colston wasn’t a bad person because slavery was perfectly ‘legal’ when he was alive? I’m not really arsed about the statues but to suggest that we shouldn’t be teaching people about the realities of historic figures because it might ‘cause some grief’ is ridiculous IMHO. let’s present a balanced argument about historic figures, and suggest why they shouldn’t or wouldn’t be revered in modern day due to their actions, whether that be Churchill, Gandhi etc.

However, he left his money to the city of Bristol and to charities and that did a lot of good for the city, does that just get ignored? And also RE Churchill etc, teach away about everything they did which was bad and good but you will still come to the conclusion that the good far outweighed the bad and therefore the statues would still stand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CosbehFox

CosbehFox

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I keep hearing this argument, but what Saville did was illegal. What Colston did was not (at the time obviously).

The statue was erected in 1895 when slavery was abolished. (1833 in the UK). So it was an illegal act when the statue went up which gives a fair bit of context here. 
 

There’s also a similarity in how after a period time, we have a retrospective image on a figure who did some good but ultimately was a detestable character as we learn more information about them. (1920 - Colston’s story became the topic of a book where the slavery links were more researched) 
 

That celebrated charitable money he collected was partly through the profit Colston gained through a horrid business. By granting the city such money he could gain favour with the important people of the time. There’s additionally accusations that Colston would only grant that charity to groups who were of a similar political or religious belief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

The statue was erected in 1895 when slavery was abolished. (1833 in the UK). So it was an illegal act when the statue went up which gives a fair bit of context here. 
 

There’s also a similarity in how after a period time, we have a retrospective image on a figure who did some good but ultimately was a detestable character as we learn more information about them. (1920 - Colston’s story became the topic of a book where the slavery links were more researched) 
 

That celebrated charitable money he collected was partly through the profit Colston gained through a horrid business. By granting the city such money he could gain favour with the important people of the time. There’s additionally accusations that Colston would only grant that charity to groups who were of a similar political or religious belief. 

It wasn't illegal at the time though.

 

We'll look back on him as a horrible character and rightly so, but if we're comparing views and beliefs of today vs. 400 years ago, there are going to be questions about what they did and said, as there will with every character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Blue-fox said:

He was good to me, showed me how to milk a cow whilst wearing a blindfold. 

When @Dr The Singh pulls that face, you know you have crossed the line.

 

It is known.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CosbehFox

CosbehFox

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

It wasn't illegal at the time though.

 

We'll look back on him as a horrible character and rightly so, but if we're comparing views and beliefs of today vs. 400 years ago, there are going to be questions about what they did and said, as there will with every character.

So does Colston deserve celebration? As that’s what the statue was signalling. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

So does Colston deserve celebration? As that’s what the statue was signalling. 

Perhaps. This is one way of looking at it. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCFCbwoi

LCFCbwoi

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Blue-fox said:

However, he left his money to the city of Bristol and to charities and that did a lot of good for the city, does that just get ignored? And also RE Churchill etc, teach away about everything they did which was bad and good but you will still come to the conclusion that the good far outweighed the bad and therefore the statues would still stand. 

No it doesn’t get ignored and it’s exactly the reason we’re having this conversation. For some reason, people believe a slave trader who is responsible for the death of thousands of Africans doesn’t deserve a statue that recognises only his contribution to the city of Bristol. Remember people tried to get the statue removed legally and couldn’t, and even tried to get the plaque changed and struggled. Statues with a 100 word plaque has never been a way to teach people about the history of a person.

 

And the point on Churchill is probably relative to who you are. People in the southern asian region and Kenya may have a different viewpoint to someone from England but learning why they have these different viewpoints should be the end goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

So does Colston deserve celebration? As that’s what the statue was signalling. 

 

Ok, let me ask a question in return. You tear down all the statues that are associated with slavery. What have you learnt?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CosbehFox

CosbehFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Ok, let me ask a question in return. You tear down all the statues that are associated with slavery. What have you learnt?

Yes. I’ve just had a flick through the Wikipedia article in relation to statues related to slavery in the UK and we wouldn’t miss anyone of them. 
 

You could argue for Francis Drake given his connection to the defeat of the Armada 

Edited by Cardiff_Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

So does Colston deserve celebration? As that’s what the statue was signalling. 

 

For what he did for the community and his investments? Probably.

 

For trading slaves? Definitely not.

 

I just don't think comparisons to Saville are really relevant.

 

All this has been said for about 40 pages anyway, we're just rehashing the same old conversations.

Edited by Leicester_Loyal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CosbehFox

CosbehFox

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

For what he did for the community and his investments? Probably.

 

For trading slaves? Definitely not.

 

I just don't think comparisons to Saville are really relevant.

 

All this has been said for about 40 pages anyway, we're just rehashing the same old conversations.

His investment which was made from the slave trade.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nnfox

nnfox

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

So does Colston deserve celebration? As that’s what the statue was signalling. 

 

The thing is, what Colston did was deemed fine at the time.  He did a lot of good with his money.  He lived in a different era to now.  

 

I don't know when his statue was erected. Maybe it came after his death (probably did).  That's when the conversation should have taken place.  If it was deemed OK then, then that's fine too 

 

It has prompted some positive education around his life and what went on back then.  Clearly his statue is not something that is in keeping with modern Britain and shouldn't act as a permanent reminder.  It still represents our history so should be confined to a museum IMO.

 

It raises questions about other statues and we have to accept that there is a degree of permanence to these memorials.  Maybe instead of being viewed as a celebration, they should provide a spark for debate? There should perhaps be some form of 50 year review for all of them.  Keep them on display or move to a museum.  Churchill survives right now, but in 100 years from now? 200 years from now? Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, nnfox said:

It has prompted some positive education around his life and what went on back then.  Clearly his statue is not something that is in keeping with modern Britain and shouldn't act as a permanent reminder.  It still represents our history so should be confined to a museum IMO.

 

This echoes my thoughts on the matter. It shouldn't be flung into a river or whatever, but should be put into a museum somewhere.

Edited by Leicester_Loyal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CosbehFox

CosbehFox

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, nnfox said:

The thing is, what Colston did was deemed fine at the time.  He did a lot of good with his money.  He lived in a different era to now.  

 

I don't know when his statue was erected. Maybe it came after his death (probably did).  That's when the conversation should have taken place.  If it was deemed OK then, then that's fine too 

 

It has prompted some positive education around his life and what went on back then.  Clearly his statue is not something that is in keeping with modern Britain and shouldn't act as a permanent reminder.  It still represents our history so should be confined to a museum IMO.

 

It raises questions about other statues and we have to accept that there is a degree of permanence to these memorials.  Maybe instead of being viewed as a celebration, they should provide a spark for debate? There should perhaps be some form of 50 year review for all of them.  Keep them on display or move to a museum.  Churchill survives right now, but in 100 years from now? 200 years from now? Who knows.

His statue was erected post the abolishment of slavery. However the general public wasn’t aware of Colston’s full details of his links until 1920
 

We have great museums such as Liverpool’s International Slavery Museum which could be further extended or replicated. 
 

Your last sentence is very on the mark. History and retrospective have a natural ability to carry this out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...