Jump to content

Manx Radio


Desperate Dan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mr Newbie said:

 But demanding the right that some people arbitrarily get to decide what stays up or comes down is just crazy.

Image arbitrarily taking down statues of people who essentially committed crimes...  Would it be okay if these ones had been left up?  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-memorials-across-country-1370596

@woolley  Don't forget that the UK tax payer has only very recently, in 2015, paid of the loan that the Government took out to compensate the "gentry" for the loss of their slaves when the slave trade was abolished.  Guess what the slaves and their descendants got?  Not a penny.  

https://www.rt.com/uk/418814-slave-compensation-bristol-taxpayer/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

Image arbitrarily taking down statues of people who essentially committed crimes...  Would it be okay if these ones had been left up?  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-memorials-across-country-1370596

@woolley  Don't forget that the UK tax payer has only very recently, in 2015, paid of the loan that the Government took out to compensate the "gentry" for the loss of their slaves when the slave trade was abolished.  Guess what the slaves and their descendants got?  Not a penny.  

https://www.rt.com/uk/418814-slave-compensation-bristol-taxpayer/

Reasonable people need to think very carefully about how far they want to go with this train of thought, where might it end, and how to stop it once the genie is out of the bottle. Because it risks a massive backlash and it won't be pretty for anyone of any race. There are groups just itching to jump into the tit for tat attacks. They'll be protecting statues and kicking a few heads in at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2020 at 4:32 PM, Shake me up Judy said:

Of course language is objective. Otherwise we couldn't communicate or have this 'conversation'. You've used the words 'right' and 'wrong'. QED ?

This isn't the place to discuss this though. I think you're talking bollocks but if you want to continue then begin a new thread. Some examples would be helpful.

I won't start a new thread and I'll end this exchange with this, but consider the word "mainland" here on the Isle of Man. Its use and interpretation tells you an awful lot about the person who is using it and the reasons they are using it and their own interpretation of it, and their own expectations of how its use will be received. There is no "right" definition of it, and people can use and repurpose it to either assimilate with locals, or to antagonise them. The word and its definition don't belong to anybody - the context it is used in and the reason it is chosen are all that matters, not only the word itself.

Edited by parchedpeas
punch-u-hating
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Image arbitrarily taking down statues of people who essentially committed crimes...  Would it be okay if these ones had been left up?  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-memorials-across-country-1370596

Sorry but that’s not the same. Nobody puts up a statue to a criminal in the first place (you highlight a very rare case). The reputation of these people is being judged by today’s standards that’s what’s changed. Over 100 years ago rightly or wrongly these people were regarded as being worthy of public recognition. It’s only the society judging them that has changed. A criminal will be generally always be a criminal. And my point wasn’t on them being taken down per see but on self-appointed persons arbitrarily taking them down out of some self created sense of outrage without any wider debate around it. Society should have a say in what goes up or comes down and what is acceptable in today’s world not random nutters. 

Edited by Mr Newbie
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

If anyone has concerns about bias and corruption in the police anywhere, they should now be very concerned if matters are handed over to, effectively,  partisan vigilantes.

Well I suppose some would argue that is pretty much the existing situation there anyway.  But in practice it's never a good idea to get rid of an institution before you have something to replace it with - not least because you can end up with something pretty much the same as you started with.

It's also worth pointing out that this is not usually just a police problem -  the way that other, interacting, institutions (the judicial and prosecuting process, jails, politics) work may also act as an incentive to encourage certain patterns of behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep the statues, but put a clear explanation on a plaque to explain. EG that while he did good for the locale or whatever, he also made his money from the slave trade and explain what his role was.  That is recognising history and not erasing it. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

Sorry but that’s not the same. Nobody puts up a statue to a criminal in the first place (you highlight a very rare case). The reputation of these people is being judged by today’s standards that’s what’s changed. Over 100 years ago rightly or wrongly these people were regarded as being worthy of public recognition. It’s only the society judging them that has changed. A criminal will be generally always be a criminal. And my point wasn’t on them being taken down per see but on self-appointed persons arbitrarily taking them down out of some self created sense of outrage without any wider debate around it. Society should have a say in what goes up or comes down and what is acceptable in today’s world not random nutters. 

Saville went his whole lifetime without ever having been convicted of a crime.  It was after his death that the truth started to pour out and then the statues and plaques were removed.  As he died and could not face trial he has never actually been convicted of criminality.  What he did was despicable but technically the statues and plaques were never of a criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, woolley said:

Reasonable people need to think very carefully about how far they want to go with this train of thought, where might it end, and how to stop it once the genie is out of the bottle. Because it risks a massive backlash and it won't be pretty for anyone of any race. There are groups just itching to jump into the tit for tat attacks. They'll be protecting statues and kicking a few heads in at the same time.

 

103532374_2559360134163636_5775958480906267313_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

Sorry but that’s not the same. Nobody puts up a statue to a criminal in the first place. The reputation of these people is being judged by today’s standards that’s what’s changed. Over 100 years ago rightly or wrongly these people were regarded as being worthy of public recognition. It’s only the society judging them that has changed. A criminal will be really always be a criminal. 

But the statues of Savile weren't put up because he was a criminal, but because of his charitable work, just as Colston's was.  (And technically Savile was never convicted of anything).  It's as stupid to say that nothing should ever be removed as to say they should be removed on demand.

20 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Keep the statues, but put a clear explanation on a plaque to explain. EG that while he did good for the locale or whatever, he also made his money from the slave trade and explain what his role was.  That is recognising history and not erasing it. 

I don't know if you saw the Twitter thread I linked to earlier from Kate Williams, but that gave the background to the long discussions there had already been around Colston's statue and how a lot of the problem was how the supporters of the statue wouldn't really compromise.  So that may be a special case.  In other instances contextualisation may well work.

Edited to add:  Just seen another Twitter stream (unrolled here) from Williams explaining the background to why the Colston statue was erected so long after his death.

Edited by Roger Mexico
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Gladys said:

If anyone has concerns about bias and corruption in the police anywhere, they should now be very concerned if matters are handed over to, effectively,  partisan vigilantes.

Tarquin and his millennial mates will have a struggle to find anyone to report to the next time someone calls them a rude name on the internet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, parchedpeas said:

I won't start a new thread and I'll end this exchange with this, but consider the word "mainland" here on the Isle of Man. It's use and interpretation tells you an awful lot about the person who is using it and the reasons they are using it and their own interpretation of it, and their own expectations of how its use will be received. There is no "right" definition of it, and people can use and repurpose it to either assimilate with locals, or to antagonise them. The word and its definition don't belong to anybody - the context it is used in and the reason it is chosen are all that matters, not only the word itself.

In answer: In your use of the word 'mainland' in this context I'd say that's really a political and cultural thing. But yes, language can be politicised, contested and interpreted - which is what you're saying I think. I see where you're coming from :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But the statues of Savile weren't put up because he was a criminal, but because of his charitable work, just as Colston's was.  (And technically Savile was never convicted of anything).  It's as stupid to say that nothing should ever be removed as to say they should be removed on demand.

You’re another one looking to be outraged without actually reading what I said. I’m not saying that statutes shouldn’t be removed. I’m just saying that a load of angry self appointed nutters arbitrarily deciding what goes up and what comes down on behalf of “society” is neither democratic or acceptable. There should be wider and open debate and dialogue before an informed public decides who should be recognized by this this current society and who shouldn’t . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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