[News] Margaret Thatcher Statue

[Billy the Fish]

For me, above is the most thought provoking comment.

Most of us know people who feel that either Thatcher or Blair made some very unnecessary, damaging decisions.
Maybe the time has come to stop creating statues of politicians.

We now live in a very binary world where unfortunately there seems to be no middle ground for opinions.

Another vote for this.

Statues seem to be a relic of the past, I can't see any need for them in modern times where people have access to the history of the world at their fingertips.

 

[Arthur]

I think that is absolutely spot on.

If we have to respect the position of those people supporting a figure by letting them put a statue up, then we also have to respect the opinions of those dislike the same figure by letting them protest. If neither of those options are acceptable, then the answer is surely don't put any statues up of polticians.

Agreed. Whatever your views on Thatcher she was a very controversial figure. Any memorial to her will attract negative attention. We've gone this long without anything why do we need it now, especially in a time we should be giving the old bill all the help they need not adding to their workload?

 

[Swansman]

Another vote for this.

Statues seem to be a relic of the past, I can't see any need for them in modern times where people have access to the history of the world at their fingertips.

Exactly. They are obsolete.

And not sure they ever were a good idea. Most of all the old kings and shit were ***** and are only glorified because they choosed to glorify themselves.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

We know scum have attacked Churchill’s statue and the Cenotaph. Peter Kyle’s offices have been attacked. Just another brainless mob who can’t take someone past or present having dissimilar politics to them.

It cuts both ways, if we ever see a Tony Blair statue, it will be a target.

All of this.

People are morons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zefarelly]

10 foot plinth you say??


View attachment 130986

THere was a time when I could piss that high

Not that I'd waste it.

 

[nicko31]

Tories praying it gets attacked, keep the culture war going...

 

[zefarelly]

For me, above is the most thought provoking comment.

Most of us know people who feel that either Thatcher or Blair made some very unnecessary, damaging decisions.
Maybe the time has come to stop creating statues of politicians.

We now live in a very binary world where unfortunately there seems to be no middle ground for opinions.

Many of those damaging decisions are still clear as day for anyone to see, all over the country, and indeed the world.

No need for statues .

 

[Is it PotG?]

Tories praying it gets attacked, keep the culture war going...

 

[hart's shirt]

The great Doris Stokes was from there. Legend.

View attachment 130992

With so much polarization of politics these days, it's good to have a happy medium.

 

[Is it PotG?]

With so much polarization of politics these days, it's good to have a happy medium.

 

[maffew]

Waste of good eggs.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Waste of good eggs.

For those that are obsessed with doing it, surely they can muster up some out of date produce.

 

[T.G]

Not as many as Iraq.

Neither were ok

 

[Mackenzie]

Only lefty wimp rats won’t like this

They’re scum anyway so who cares


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think that is absolutely spot on.

If we have to respect the position of those people supporting a figure by letting them put a statue up, then we also have to respect the opinions of those dislike the same figure by letting them protest. If neither of those options are acceptable, then the answer is surely don't put any statues up of polticians.

That's reasonable. I am in favour of protest. But I am also in favour of the law and propriety. Standing in front of a statue with a plackard and booing for an hour or so, fine. Chucking eggs at a statue is a step beyond protest, as was the defacing of the Churchill statue with paint.

I do think that we understand what a legitimate statue is, though. Thatcher in Grantham - legitimate. Scargill in Barnsley - legitimate. Bobby Sands in London - not legitimate.

The idea of having to remove a legitimate statue in case it gets damaged offends me, just as the judge who blamed a woman who was sexually assaulted for wearing a short skirt (contributory negligence) offends me. Neither were asking for it.

The issue of legitimacy (who should have a statue made of them) is a separate matter. There was a long discussion on here about the Colston statue in Bristol, so I recall. It probably boils down to the wishes of the locals. If a significant minority in Grantham want to pay for a Thatcher statue, fine. Likewise Barnsley and Scargill. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of local due process (indeed there probably is). Thus, if the marxist club of the London School of Economics wanted to put up a statue of Bobby Sands in Russell Square the local authority would have the right to say no (on the grounds that students are itinerant and the statue would be offensive to the vast majority of locals - they could even have a vote on it if necessary - a referendum!).

Anyway, I have garden refuse to deal with, now. Perhaps I should build a bonfire....

 

[Rogero]

This has caused a bit of uproar in Grantham, they are putting on a 10 ft Plinth to avoid vandalism

An agg throwing contest has been planned on the same day.

I give it 1 week max before it's toppled


https://news.sky.com/story/margaret...g-contest-at-unveiling-amid-backlash-12147303

Where do you get aggs from?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Where do you get aggs from?

Can beat a bit of 'agg'.

 

[clapham_gull]

Everyone has to sit down find a solution and I don't like to see food wasted even in protest.

Can't the local council provide toilet rolls to throw at the statue?



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

[Braggfan]

That's reasonable. I am in favour of protest. But I am also in favour of the law and propriety. Standing in front of a statue with a plackard and booing for an hour or so, fine. Chucking eggs at a statue is a step beyond protest, as was the defacing of the Churchill statue with paint.

I do think that we understand what a legitimate statue is, though. Thatcher in Grantham - legitimate. Scargill in Barnsley - legitimate. Bobby Sands in London - not legitimate.

The idea of having to remove a legitimate statue in case it gets damaged offends me, just as the judge who blamed a woman who was sexually assaulted for wearing a short skirt (contributory negligence) offends me. Neither were asking for it.

The issue of legitimacy (who should have a statue made of them) is a separate matter. There was a long discussion on here about the Colston statue in Bristol, so I recall. It probably boils down to the wishes of the locals. If a significant minority in Grantham want to pay for a Thatcher statue, fine. Likewise Barnsley and Scargill. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of local due process (indeed there probably is). Thus, if the marxist club of the London School of Economics wanted to put up a statue of Bobby Sands in Russell Square the local authority would have the right to say no (on the grounds that students are itinerant and the statue would be offensive to the vast majority of locals - they could even have a vote on it if necessary - a referendum!).

Anyway, I have garden refuse to deal with, now. Perhaps I should build a bonfire....

Personally I believe protest and potentially direct action are cornerstones of democracy. Sometimes bad laws are put in place, lines of democracy become blurred and taking direct action which could be unlawful under those bad laws is the only way to change society for the better.

It's worth noting that a lot of Tories were anti Nelson Mandela (putting it mildly) and described the ANC as terrorists. History judges Mandela as a hero, but the ANC did break laws, were they right? And if they were right at what point does it become acceptable to break a law to fight for what you believe is right? So I think protest and potentially direct action has a place.

In terms of chucking eggs at politically divisive figure, its doesnt seem to be the most damaging of direct actions, its more about the statement it makes and the expression of people's dislike for the figure. Somebody does have to clear it up, but if you're going to put up a statue of a politically divisive figure then you probably have to factor that in. And as 'Change at Barnham' summarised, if we can't find a middle ground amongst ourselves then maybe we shouldn't put any statues of political figures up.

 

[studio150]

About time Churchill Square was renamed