Black Lives Matter and the American Protests

First topic message reminder :

Because this issue is seeping into other threads, why not talk about it here instead? I don't really have anything particularly pithy to say, so write your own bloody topic intros.

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Content providers considering what media they offer isn't new though. The BBC never offered Come Fly with Me (another Lucas/Walliams show) on iPlayer for instance and Britbox removed it back in November. Gone with the Wind has been criticised for years and I believe other channels and cinemas that show old movies have stopped screening it long before now, HBO have now joined them.

The conversation is become louder and broader now as these topics come into the spotlight more. I believe that is a brilliant and vital thing to finally be happening.

Out of interest, though, how far would you take this?

For example, Netflix currently offers Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and Life on Mars on its streaming service. The first of those had multiple uses of the ni**er word, the second used outdated terms and phrases like 'ch*nk' and 'black man's pinch', and the third had a character use numerous homophobic and a few racial terms, like 'p**i'.

Do you think these shows should be removed from Netflix/Britbox, and not shown again on the BBC?

That's for the executives at those companies to decide.

In Fawlty Towers the Major is basically a caricature of an increasingly senile old man who can't process that the war is over and the world has changed. Their relationship also shows Basil as the ignorant man he is given that he instinctively likes and agrees with the Major regardless of these views due to him having the establishment background that Basil views as necessary for a high class customer. He has a military background, respectable rank and familiar accent, so he's a good 'un. The butt of the joke there in my opinion is those who fail to accept or understand social progress rather than ethnic minorities.

I can't say I'm familiar enough with Only Fools or Life on Mars to comment on either. The context around these examples is everything though. Hence why executives at content providers will come to decisions on a case by case basis. If people don't like the decisions they make then they will use other providers. If people do like these decisions then more will use those providers.

The argument against airbrushing history sits far more with the BLM movement than those arguing against change. TV and film has helped airbrushed history for years. Gone with the Wind being a very good example. As John Ridley said, "The movie had the very best talents in Hollywood at the time working together to sentimentalise a history that never was".

I think that context matters duty.

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Content providers considering what media they offer isn't new though. The BBC never offered Come Fly with Me (another Lucas/Walliams show) on iPlayer for instance and Britbox removed it back in November. Gone with the Wind has been criticised for years and I believe other channels and cinemas that show old movies have stopped screening it long before now, HBO have now joined them.

The conversation is become louder and broader now as these topics come into the spotlight more. I believe that is a brilliant and vital thing to finally be happening.

Out of interest, though, how far would you take this?

For example, Netflix currently offers Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and Life on Mars on its streaming service. The first of those had multiple uses of the ni**er word, the second used outdated terms and phrases like 'ch*nk' and 'black man's pinch', and the third had a character use numerous homophobic and a few racial terms, like 'p**i'.

Do you think these shows should be removed from Netflix/Britbox, and not shown again on the BBC?

That's for the executives at those companies to decide.

In Fawlty Towers the Major is basically a caricature of an increasingly senile old man who can't process that the war is over and the world has changed. Their relationship also shows Basil as the ignorant man he is given that he instinctively likes and agrees with the Major regardless of these views due to him having the establishment background that Basil views as necessary for a high class customer. He has a military background, respectable rank and familiar accent, so he's a good 'un. The butt of the joke there in my opinion is those who fail to accept or understand social progress rather than ethnic minorities.

I can't say I'm familiar enough with Only Fools or Life on Mars to comment on either. The context around these examples is everything though. Hence why executives at content providers will come to decisions on a case by case basis. If people don't like the decisions they make then they will use other providers. If people do like these decisions then more will use those providers.

The argument against airbrushing history sits far more with the BLM movement than those arguing against change. TV and film has helped airbrushed history for years. Gone with the Wind being a very good example. As John Ridley said, "The movie had the very best talents in Hollywood at the time working together to sentimentalise a history that never was".

A fair answer. I agree that tv and film have, in some instances, airbrushed history, in so far as they make historical errors and/or are adherent to certain biases. But no one should take a whole view of a certain time period from one film, and films like Gone With the Wind are helpful to understand certain mindsets at the time the film was made.

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Content providers considering what media they offer isn't new though. The BBC never offered Come Fly with Me (another Lucas/Walliams show) on iPlayer for instance and Britbox removed it back in November. Gone with the Wind has been criticised for years and I believe other channels and cinemas that show old movies have stopped screening it long before now, HBO have now joined them.

The conversation is become louder and broader now as these topics come into the spotlight more. I believe that is a brilliant and vital thing to finally be happening.

Out of interest, though, how far would you take this?

For example, Netflix currently offers Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and Life on Mars on its streaming service. The first of those had multiple uses of the ni**er word, the second used outdated terms and phrases like 'ch*nk' and 'black man's pinch', and the third had a character use numerous homophobic and a few racial terms, like 'p**i'.

Do you think these shows should be removed from Netflix/Britbox, and not shown again on the BBC?

That's for the executives at those companies to decide.

In Fawlty Towers the Major is basically a caricature of an increasingly senile old man who can't process that the war is over and the world has changed. Their relationship also shows Basil as the ignorant man he is given that he instinctively likes and agrees with the Major regardless of these views due to him having the establishment background that Basil views as necessary for a high class customer. He has a military background, respectable rank and familiar accent, so he's a good 'un. The butt of the joke there in my opinion is those who fail to accept or understand social progress rather than ethnic minorities.

I can't say I'm familiar enough with Only Fools or Life on Mars to comment on either. The context around these examples is everything though. Hence why executives at content providers will come to decisions on a case by case basis. If people don't like the decisions they make then they will use other providers. If people do like these decisions then more will use those providers.

The argument against airbrushing history sits far more with the BLM movement than those arguing against change. TV and film has helped airbrushed history for years. Gone with the Wind being a very good example. As John Ridley said, "The movie had the very best talents in Hollywood at the time working together to sentimentalise a history that never was".

A fair answer. I agree that tv and film have, in some instances, airbrushed history, in so far as they make historical errors and/or are adherent to certain biases. But no one should take a whole view of a certain time period from one film, and films like Gone With the Wind are helpful to understand certain mindsets at the time the film was made.

I'd argue that is what HBO have done with regards to Gone with the Wind though. They have stated it will return to the platform with "a discussion of it's historical context". That discussion is vital to the context being understood. For too long films such as it have obscured that context by portraying history inaccurately. In Gone with the Wind's case through a largely white dominated industry producing a film that portrayed a manipulative view of how the slave trade operated.

I think Duty proposed a fair compromise earlier in the thread but this whole things been blown way apart - include a warning about the language and themes. We already have them for sexual content, strong language, violence and depictions of drug use so why not for racist (historical or otherwise) content?

I dont think racist language should be removed from TV shows or movies, partly because I dont believe in censorship like that and partly because that could do more harm than good. I think things with racist language or things that portray racist stereotypes should come with a disclaimer explaining that these stereotypes were once common place however they are no longer acceptable in modern times. If you go on Amazon and look at Tom and Jerry DVD's for example it comes with pretty much that exact warning.

In regards to things like Only Fools and Fawlty Towers it was the language of the time and we cant pretend otherwise - rightly or wrongly. Instead of pretending it didnt happen by removing it we need to explain why it seemed OK then and why it isnt now.

It's a difficult question for me.

I'm from one of the backgrounds often mocked by Little Britain etc, but I used to find it pretty funny when it originally aired. I happened to watch a couple episodes while bored stiff at the start of lockdown, and thought it was quite crass and they'd never have got away with it today.

I didn't think it should instantly be removed off Netflix or any other platform, but Netflix is a private company, they have the freedom to publish whatever content they like (or remove any they don't). The BBC is a bit of a different question, because of their funding.

On the whole I think I would have preferred an approach like the one taken by Warner Bros, with cartoons having a brief information card setting out the company's current position - https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3i679m/warner_bros_message_on_prejudice_being_played/

Perhaps Only Fools and Horses etc could have similar added

BamBam wrote:

On the whole I think I would have preferred an approach like the one taken by Warner Bros, with cartoons having a brief information card setting out the company's current position - https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3i679m/warner_bros_message_on_prejudice_being_played/

I went down a bit of a rabbit hole after visiting that thread and found this on YouTube

Spoiler:

At the end of the day, they've just chosen to make it less readily available. They aren't burning copies.

I see Leigh Francis (Keith Lemon) apologised for Bo Selecta. It's interesting because his masks were probably a different type of black face, but you could at least argue that he didn't usually portray racial stereotypes. Mel B was a Northerner, Craig David was a fragile ego, Michael Jackson was a diddler. At least, those are the ones I remember.

But you could rightfully take those things out of such free circulation. Worth remembering too that the creators of many of these things are saying it is a problem, so it's hard to call it censorship.

I guess you could say we censored school libraries when we went through them to take out offensive books. Those included a Jimmy Savile's Stranger Danger book, the books with negro written in or the alphabet of careers where women could only be nurses, ballet dancers and mums.

I wouldnt say that removing them from circulation is censorship, but editing out the offensive parts is.

Article on Beeb wrote:In 2015, the Washington Post began to log every fatal shooting by an on-duty police officer in the US. Since then, they have recorded more than 5,000 people killed by police, using a mixture of news reports, social media and police reports. Their data, which is often used by policy researchers, shows that black people were almost 2.5 times more likely to be killed than white people.

1000 a year? Population in the US is something like 5x UK's. Imagine if UK police were killing 200 people a year.

lostinwales wrote:

Article on Beeb wrote:In 2015, the Washington Post began to log every fatal shooting by an on-duty police officer in the US. Since then, they have recorded more than 5,000 people killed by police, using a mixture of news reports, social media and police reports. Their data, which is often used by policy researchers, shows that black people were almost 2.5 times more likely to be killed than white people.

1000 a year? Population in the US is something like 5x UK's. Imagine if UK police were killing 200 people a year.

This is a different issue. Now you are talking about gun laws and in the US it's a free for all.

The claim that black people are more likely to be killed than white has been roundly disputed by many equality activists. Reducing the statistic to a black or while category is first of all racist in their opinion, but secondly just plain misleading. It doesn’t look at all the other social factors just as broken homes, schooling, etc and when you then look at that, there is no proportional increase on deaths of one colour to another but it does show the difference in your personal circumstances that could then lead to you being shot by the police.

If you ever want to listen to more about this, go listen to Morgan Freeman or Denzil Washington.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jun/10/netflix-pulls-the-mighty-boosh-and-the-league-of-gentlemen-over-blackface

Netflix don't understand our local ways.

They've pulled Fawlty Towers, well one episode but the episode in which the offensive content had already been removed. The content I refer to involved the Major and not Basil's goosestepping hilarity. If they've also deemed the 'don't mention the war' content then we are indeed at a crossroads where the road ahead looks filled with bland, unseasoned, beige, PC comedy. I am very much in favour of ridding the world of racism but sanitising comedy to such a degree will rid the world of comedy. I cannot stand Gavin & Stacey as far as comedy goes, it was already very bland but to pull it because of a few comments is not doing the BLM cause any favours. It's all becoming laughable in that respect.
I would point out right now that I deplore racism of any kind. I've never experienced any racism but an ex girlfriend did tell me about her experiences and I was shocked. I've obviously grown up in a bit of a racial bubble being from Northern Ireland. We had very little diversity growing up but the few people we knew of colour were simply seen as other people, not people of any other race. Am I naive to think that way? I don't have the answer to that but I do feel that the BLM movement needs to focus on more important elements in society than Gavin & Stacey and the Mighty Boosh etc.

The thing about the German episode of Fawlty Towers is it wasnt making fun of the Germans but it was mocking the rampant xenophobia and racist attitudes that were seen in the middle classes of the time. Even the scene where he’s visting Sybil in the hospital and gets a fright when the black man approaches him only to find he’s a doctor.

I dont see the need in Majors comments though about how to tell the difference between Africans and West Indians. I understand the character was a demented old man who still thought they were at war but that joke felt unneeded and didnt add anything.

BLM protests aren’t focusing on this Poopie. They don’t care. It’s TV companies trying to show they’re doing something.

That episode of Fawlty Towers had been removed due to the wild racism in repeated use of the n word and w word. The bbc have edited that scene out since 2013, with Cleese’s approval, but UKTV and Netflix were showing unedited versions. The episode will most likely return with edited versions.

You have to remember that at the time that kind of comedy, whilst being met with shock these days, was perfectly acceptable at the time, rightly or wrongly. It was a time when the comedy of Jim Davidson, Bernard Manning and the like was par for the course, the accepted norm. Even 'The Young Ones' had a number of scenes that would invoke protest in this day and age, it'll most likely fall victim to this purge. I remember enjoying 'Mind Your Language' as a kid, these days it would not be so much as thought about let alone broadcasted. We thankfully live in very different times but is a purge of the past achieving anything? What about purging any history of WW2 in case German people are wrongly judged?

Pete330v2 wrote:They've pulled Fawlty Towers, well one episode but the episode in which the offensive content had already been removed. The content I refer to involved the Major and not Basil's goosestepping hilarity. If they've also deemed the 'don't mention the war' content then we are indeed at a crossroads where the road ahead looks filled with bland, unseasoned, beige, PC comedy. I am very much in favour of ridding the world of racism but sanitising comedy to such a degree will rid the world of comedy. I cannot stand Gavin & Stacey as far as comedy goes, it was already very bland but to pull it because of a few comments is not doing the BLM cause any favours. It's all becoming laughable in that respect.
I would point out right now that I deplore racism of any kind. I've never experienced any racism but an ex girlfriend did tell me about her experiences and I was shocked. I've obviously grown up in a bit of a racial bubble being from Northern Ireland. We had very little diversity growing up but the few people we knew of colour were simply seen as other people, not people of any other race. Am I naive to think that way? I don't have the answer to that but I do feel that the BLM movement needs to focus on more important elements in society than Gavin & Stacey and the Mighty Boosh etc.

They've only pulled that one episode on the UKTV service, not on Netflix, I believe. Silly people are likely to go off and edit bits of it now before they put it back up, or maybe they won't after the social media backlash where even figures like Owen Jones say this should be reversed.

There was quite a big purge in german Pete. Nazi insignia destroyed toppling of Hitlet statues pretty widespread. Its not the main aim of BLM for some of the soul searching but personally a review and some self reflection of what is acceptable is refreshing and welcome.
This issue has allowed Johnson to start his dog whistles again and move away from his call to review statues. Cummings obviously rethinking what plays best to his audience.

Pete330v2 wrote:You have to remember that at the time that kind of comedy, whilst being met with shock these days, was perfectly acceptable at the time, rightly or wrongly. It was a time when the comedy of Jim Davidson, Bernard Manning and the like was par for the course, the accepted norm. Even 'The Young Ones' had a number of scenes that would invoke protest in this day and age, it'll most likely fall victim to this purge. I remember enjoying 'Mind Your Language' as a kid, these days it would not be so much as thought about let alone broadcasted. We thankfully live in very different times but is a purge of the past achieving anything? What about purging any history of WW2 in case German people are wrongly judged?

Yeah, me too. I thought Mind Your Language was a celebration of diversity... with some funny cultural altercations thrown in for a laugh. That's all.

There's also the Private Plane episode in Blackadder when they're in the prison cell and the Baron, says to Blackadder:

"You English and your sense of humour! During your brief stay, I look forward to learning more of your wit, your punning and all your amusing jokes about ze breaking of ze wind! How lucky you English are to find ze toilet so amusing. For us, it is a mundane and functional item... for you, it is ze basis of an entire culture!"

At least you know how to laugh at yourselves... which is both brave and amusing. It might help if others can lighten up a little especially when we're only talking about comedy shows here.

Nice of Prime Minister Johnson to actually wake up and condemn the violence and mob rule that has happened, but not before statues of Churchill and Mandela had to be boarded up. Hopefully he'll have encouraged the police to come down hard on the first signs of any more violence or destruction over the weekend, otherwise we'll end up with the likes of Millwall football hooligans acting as vigilante groups.

That would incredibly stupid of him....so yeah expect it to happen.

Duty281 wrote:Nice of Prime Minister Johnson to actually wake up and condemn the violence and mob rule that has happened, but not before statues of Churchill and Mandela had to be boarded up. Hopefully he'll have encouraged the police to come down hard on the first signs of any more violence or destruction over the weekend, otherwise we'll end up with the likes of Millwall football hooligans acting as vigilante groups.

Because that always works really well.

I find it interesting that the only thing you appear to care about in this situation is the apprehension and punishment of the "thugs" and "vandals".

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Nice of Prime Minister Johnson to actually wake up and condemn the violence and mob rule that has happened, but not before statues of Churchill and Mandela had to be boarded up. Hopefully he'll have encouraged the police to come down hard on the first signs of any more violence or destruction over the weekend, otherwise we'll end up with the likes of Millwall football hooligans acting as vigilante groups.

Because that always works really well.

I find it interesting that the only thing you appear to care about in this situation is the apprehension and punishment of the "thugs" and "vandals".

I can certainly see Johnson's statement that removing statues is "to lie about our history" doing little more than fanning the flames. The argument behind the review of celebrating these figures is that the darker aspects of their legacies have been ignored for a very long time.

The p*** poor history curriculum in the UK that tries to largely ignore British imperialism is the greatest example of lying about our history that you can possibly find. Many Brits like to joke about America trying to rewrite history with themselves as the hero. Britain is no better in lacking thorough education of its past.

king_carlos wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Nice of Prime Minister Johnson to actually wake up and condemn the violence and mob rule that has happened, but not before statues of Churchill and Mandela had to be boarded up. Hopefully he'll have encouraged the police to come down hard on the first signs of any more violence or destruction over the weekend, otherwise we'll end up with the likes of Millwall football hooligans acting as vigilante groups.

Because that always works really well.

I find it interesting that the only thing you appear to care about in this situation is the apprehension and punishment of the "thugs" and "vandals".

I can certainly see Johnson's statement that removing statues is "to lie about our history" doing little more than fanning the flames. The argument behind the review of celebrating these figures is that the darker aspects of their legacies have been ignored for a very long time.

The p*** poor history curriculum in the UK that tries to largely ignore British imperialism is the greatest example of lying about our history that you can possibly find. Many Brits like to joke about America trying to rewrite history with themselves as the hero. Britain is no better in lacking thorough education of its past.

I can't speak for everyone, but when I was at secondary school (a state one) we did learn about the British Empire, some human rights abuses that were carried out by said Empire, and the transatlantic slave trade.

The problem with British history is its so vast, and everyone has their own ideas on what is important and what isn't important and, of course, there's only so much time available for history lessons. For instance, I was never taught at secondary school about the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights Act, Anglo-Saxon kingdoms prior to 1066, the reforms of 1258 by Henry III, the Interregnum period, the Hundred Years War, the Peasants Revolt, the Act of Union 1707 or Pax Britannica - I only learnt about these topics later.

Some people would regard some of these topics as being of vital importance and that they should be on the curriculum, but in doing so you would need to elbow other topics to make room. We'll never be universally happy with the history curriculum in this country.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Nice of Prime Minister Johnson to actually wake up and condemn the violence and mob rule that has happened, but not before statues of Churchill and Mandela had to be boarded up. Hopefully he'll have encouraged the police to come down hard on the first signs of any more violence or destruction over the weekend, otherwise we'll end up with the likes of Millwall football hooligans acting as vigilante groups.

Because that always works really well.

I find it interesting that the only thing you appear to care about in this situation is the apprehension and punishment of the "thugs" and "vandals".

A choice of cracking down now or later. If violent disorder spills over again from a minority, and the police are seen to be doing nothing, then the situation will likely escalate to the point where we have vigilantes (the Football Lads Alliance, or whatever they call themselves, chief amongst it) meting out return violence against protestors. Then the riot police really will have to step in.

I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Nice of Prime Minister Johnson to actually wake up and condemn the violence and mob rule that has happened, but not before statues of Churchill and Mandela had to be boarded up. Hopefully he'll have encouraged the police to come down hard on the first signs of any more violence or destruction over the weekend, otherwise we'll end up with the likes of Millwall football hooligans acting as vigilante groups.

Because that always works really well.

I find it interesting that the only thing you appear to care about in this situation is the apprehension and punishment of the "thugs" and "vandals".

I can certainly see Johnson's statement that removing statues is "to lie about our history" doing little more than fanning the flames. The argument behind the review of celebrating these figures is that the darker aspects of their legacies have been ignored for a very long time.

The p*** poor history curriculum in the UK that tries to largely ignore British imperialism is the greatest example of lying about our history that you can possibly find. Many Brits like to joke about America trying to rewrite history with themselves as the hero. Britain is no better in lacking thorough education of its past.

I can't speak for everyone, but when I was at secondary school (a state one) we did learn about the British Empire, some human rights abuses that were carried out by said Empire, and the transatlantic slave trade.

The problem with British history is its so vast, and everyone has their own ideas on what is important and what isn't important and, of course, there's only so much time available for history lessons. For instance, I was never taught at secondary school about the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights Act, Anglo-Saxon kingdoms prior to 1066, the reforms of 1258 by Henry III, the Interregnum period, the Hundred Years War, the Peasants Revolt, the Act of Union 1707 or Pax Britannica - I only learnt about these topics later.

Some people would regard some of these topics as being of vital importance and that they should be on the curriculum, but in doing so you would need to elbow other topics to make room. We'll never be universally happy with the history curriculum in this country.

It is a fair point, but there is a reason that the history being taught in schools has been largely focussed on the Tudors and then jumps forward to the 2nd World War with a brief interlude to discuss the Victorians and the Industrial Revolution.  Those are the points at which England/Britain either starts to become a global power or is a global power.  Other than for a brief period during the reign of Henry V, England, Scotland and Wales were irrelevant backwaters and had little influence on the outside world.  The reign of Henry VIII saw England becoming more prominent among the European powers and this continued through the reign of Elizabeth and the beginnings of the British Empire. Our taught history is designed to highlight our historical global prominence rather than actually teach important domestic history.

Theres so much anger as well when other things are brought up. See the churchill thing. Hes there to represent the 'fact ' the uk stood alone against the Nazis and won the war. Any mention that hes a bit of a bad guy and yikes. We're taught that we're purely the good guys. Hence when issues of race arise people get similarly offended. Lack of awareness.

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's not the only thing, or your beliefs would change every time the law changes, rather than having your own view on what is right and what is wrong, or what is important and what isn't. Women getting the vote - bad. Oh, now it's OK. Homosexuality - bad. Oh, now it's OK.
You have to admit that from your posts you do seem more worried about what happens to the statues of slave traders than you do about black lives.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's not the only thing, or your beliefs would change every time the law changes, rather than having your own view on what is right and what is wrong, or what is important and what isn't. Women getting the vote - bad. Oh, now it's OK. Homosexuality - bad. Oh, now it's OK.
You have to admit that from your posts you do seem more worried about what happens to the statues of slave traders than you do about black lives.

As touched upon before, the statues issue is a relatively new one and it's a topic that triggers discussion and contrasting opinions, hence the multitude of posts.

With regards to black lives, I think we all agree on here that prejudice or discrimination against someone because of the colour of their skin is wrong. As we're presumably in agreement, and as it isn't a new issue, there's very little to add.

Dave Chappelle’s new special 8:46 is on YouTube and is a must see. Powerful stuff.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's not the only thing, or your beliefs would change every time the law changes, rather than having your own view on what is right and what is wrong, or what is important and what isn't. Women getting the vote - bad. Oh, now it's OK. Homosexuality - bad. Oh, now it's OK.
You have to admit that from your posts you do seem more worried about what happens to the statues of slave traders than you do about black lives.

As touched upon before, the statues issue is a relatively new one and it's a topic that triggers discussion and contrasting opinions, hence the multitude of posts.

With regards to black lives, I think we all agree on here that prejudice or discrimination against someone because of the colour of their skin is wrong. As we're presumably in agreement, and as it isn't a new issue, there's very little to add.

And yet lots of things seem to be happening with hopefully more to come, which we can all contribute to in small or large ways. While it is not a new issue, it is still very prevalent and thus still very relevant.

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's the only thing you're really talking about, and even you have to admit there's an awful lot more than "vandalism" by "thugs" going on.

I wonder why, given your apparent passion for law and order, you weren't as vocal about George Floyd actually being murdered.

It's also hard to stomach a lecture on how one should react to institutional racism from a bloke who has called black people "picanninies" with "watermelon smiles".

His comments reek of Trump divisiveness.

Trump's Dad has a lot to answer for....He was a White supremacist from Germany....Got arrested before he became a magnate for going on a KKK march....Didn't want Women in major roles in his Companies...

Lots of stories about Trump's Daddy being rude to some of Trump's ambitious female business associates..

Like with Stanley Johnson....Kids tend to idolize Daddy..

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's the only thing you're really talking about, and even you have to admit there's an awful lot more than "vandalism" by "thugs" going on.

I wonder why, given your apparent passion for law and order, you weren't as vocal about George Floyd actually being murdered.

The wheels of justice have already acted for George Floyd's murder. The person that committed the cowardly murder has been arrested and charged, now it's just a matter of time for the trial and conviction or a guilty plea. Hopefully the other three will also be convicted for their roles as accomplices. That's all there is to say about it, really.

The protests are ongoing and have cast dividing opinion, hence more discussion.

Far right on the streets of london. Fighting the police. Protecting the cenotaph whilst giving nazi salutes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Far right on the streets of london. Fighting the police. Protecting the cenotaph whilst giving nazi salutes.

It will be interesting to see whether the media characterise those opposing change on the basis of the most extreme examples of their argument...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Far right on the streets of london. Fighting the police. Protecting the cenotaph whilst giving nazi salutes.

What do you mean? Surely not the same bunch who just last week couldnt care enough about the wellbeing of the Police and Churchill was their number 1 hero because he beat the Nazis?

Well I never.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's the only thing you're really talking about, and even you have to admit there's an awful lot more than "vandalism" by "thugs" going on.

I wonder why, given your apparent passion for law and order, you weren't as vocal about George Floyd actually being murdered.

The wheels of justice have already acted for George Floyd's murder. The person that committed the cowardly murder has been arrested and charged, now it's just a matter of time for the trial and conviction or a guilty plea. Hopefully the other three will also be convicted for their roles as accomplices. That's all there is to say about it, really.

The protests are ongoing and have cast dividing opinion, hence more discussion.

Obviously it isn't. That much is abundantly clear.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's the only thing you're really talking about, and even you have to admit there's an awful lot more than "vandalism" by "thugs" going on.

I wonder why, given your apparent passion for law and order, you weren't as vocal about George Floyd actually being murdered.

The wheels of justice have already acted for George Floyd's murder. The person that committed the cowardly murder has been arrested and charged, now it's just a matter of time for the trial and conviction or a guilty plea. Hopefully the other three will also be convicted for their roles as accomplices. That's all there is to say about it, really.

The protests are ongoing and have cast dividing opinion, hence more discussion.

Obviously it isn't. That much is abundantly clear.

What else would you like to say about George Floyd's murder?

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's the only thing you're really talking about, and even you have to admit there's an awful lot more than "vandalism" by "thugs" going on.

I wonder why, given your apparent passion for law and order, you weren't as vocal about George Floyd actually being murdered.

The wheels of justice have already acted for George Floyd's murder. The person that committed the cowardly murder has been arrested and charged, now it's just a matter of time for the trial and conviction or a guilty plea. Hopefully the other three will also be convicted for their roles as accomplices. That's all there is to say about it, really.

The protests are ongoing and have cast dividing opinion, hence more discussion.

Obviously it isn't. That much is abundantly clear.

What else would you like to say about George Floyd's murder?

It seems to have started a discussion on how to create a more equal society. Any ideas on how to go about that?

Just leave it. He's being deliberately obtuse.

Just forget it. They're thugs and vandals that need to be brought to justice.

The far right 'counter protests' today sum up the issue pretty well. The mere fact that not only there are protests against anti-racism demonstrations happening but it's been reported on as something to be expected.

The man that's been pictured urinating on the memorial to PC Keith Palmer and Nazi salutes in front of the Cenotaph sums it up pretty well.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's the only thing you're really talking about, and even you have to admit there's an awful lot more than "vandalism" by "thugs" going on.

I wonder why, given your apparent passion for law and order, you weren't as vocal about George Floyd actually being murdered.

The wheels of justice have already acted for George Floyd's murder. The person that committed the cowardly murder has been arrested and charged, now it's just a matter of time for the trial and conviction or a guilty plea. Hopefully the other three will also be convicted for their roles as accomplices. That's all there is to say about it, really.

The protests are ongoing and have cast dividing opinion, hence more discussion.

Obviously it isn't. That much is abundantly clear.

What else would you like to say about George Floyd's murder?

It seems to have started a discussion on how to create a more equal society. Any ideas on how to go about that?

Yes, I understand about the follow-up discussions and protests (which I've mentioned), but I was referring to the original point of 'George Floyd actually being murdered' as a stand-alone topic. I've stated what I thought about the crime, a different poster says there's more to add to that, but declines to say exactly what.

king_carlos wrote:The man that's been pictured urinating on the memorial to PC Keith Palmer and Nazi salutes in front of the Cenotaph sums it up pretty well.

Appalling scenes, not just in London but around the rest of the country too. I'm glad the police took a stronger stance, it was needed, but we also need more political leadership from those at the top. The Prime Minister is still largely absent.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's the only thing you're really talking about, and even you have to admit there's an awful lot more than "vandalism" by "thugs" going on.

I wonder why, given your apparent passion for law and order, you weren't as vocal about George Floyd actually being murdered.

The wheels of justice have already acted for George Floyd's murder. The person that committed the cowardly murder has been arrested and charged, now it's just a matter of time for the trial and conviction or a guilty plea. Hopefully the other three will also be convicted for their roles as accomplices. That's all there is to say about it, really.

The protests are ongoing and have cast dividing opinion, hence more discussion.

Obviously it isn't. That much is abundantly clear.

What else would you like to say about George Floyd's murder?

It seems to have started a discussion on how to create a more equal society. Any ideas on how to go about that?

Yes, I understand about the follow-up discussions and protests (which I've mentioned), but I was referring to the original point of 'George Floyd actually being murdered' as a stand-alone topic. I've stated what I thought about the crime, a different poster says there's more to add to that, but declines to say exactly what.

Yes, I get that, which is why I asked a different question. For example, do you welcome the renaming of buildings named after those associated with the slave trade? Would you like to see the school curriculum detail the less savoury aspects of British history and teach more about black British history?

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:The man that's been pictured urinating on the memorial to PC Keith Palmer and Nazi salutes in front of the Cenotaph sums it up pretty well.

Appalling scenes, not just in London but around the rest of the country too. I'm glad the police took a stronger stance, it was needed, but we also need more political leadership from those at the top. The Prime Minister is still largely absent.

I'd argue that Johnson stating that removing statues is "to lie about our history" without really acknowledging that the UK has lied about it history through poor curriculum for a long time has stoked the fires as much as anything.

It's a difficult topic for Johnson to talk about though frankly. Reffering to Commonwealth citizens as, "piccanninies with watermelon smiles". Comparing Muslim women to "letter boxes" and "bank robbers". Suggesting that Malaysian women would only go to university "to find men to marry". In a column whilst editor of the Spectator he wrote that colonialism in Africa is "not a blot upon our conscience" and that "the problem is not that we were once in charge, but we are not in charge anymore".

Never mind though, he ruffles his hair up before TV appearances so his overt and ingrained racist views aren't dangerous.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do care very much about the rule of law, though it isn't the only thing.

It's the only thing you're really talking about, and even you have to admit there's an awful lot more than "vandalism" by "thugs" going on.

I wonder why, given your apparent passion for law and order, you weren't as vocal about George Floyd actually being murdered.

The wheels of justice have already acted for George Floyd's murder. The person that committed the cowardly murder has been arrested and charged, now it's just a matter of time for the trial and conviction or a guilty plea. Hopefully the other three will also be convicted for their roles as accomplices. That's all there is to say about it, really.

The protests are ongoing and have cast dividing opinion, hence more discussion.

Obviously it isn't. That much is abundantly clear.

What else would you like to say about George Floyd's murder?

It seems to have started a discussion on how to create a more equal society. Any ideas on how to go about that?

Yes, I understand about the follow-up discussions and protests (which I've mentioned), but I was referring to the original point of 'George Floyd actually being murdered' as a stand-alone topic. I've stated what I thought about the crime, a different poster says there's more to add to that, but declines to say exactly what.

Yes, I get that, which is why I asked a different question. For example, do you welcome the renaming of buildings named after those associated with the slave trade? Would you like to see the school curriculum detail the less savoury aspects of British history and teach more about black British history?

If the renaming of buildings or streets is agreed within the confines of a civil, inclusive and democratic process, than absolutely.

As mentioned yesterday, when I was at secondary school history did cover unpleasant aspects of Britain's past, including the slave trade, and there's no reason to oppose that. British history education should aim to cover as much ground as possible, both the good and the bad.

Schools could teach more about black British history, but they could also teach more about British Asian history or British LGBT history.

I would, from now on, suggest schools are made to use Black History Month as a force of change in their schools to delivery black history during that month in every classroom of primary schools. The syllabus needs to change in GCSE to reflect the need to teach black history.

I would hope they do it more than just that month, but if every school is doing it that month, it's a month more per year than a lot would be doing

Gove wouldn't like that.