Splish Splash, I Was Having A Bath. Colston Statue Topplers Not Guilty

The question is @Keighley, now you know you have top cover from the good serfs of Bristol, who or what will you be lobbing in the harbour at the first opporunity?

 

Nigel Pearson?

 

Very good (in my view) explanation of the outcome here from the Secret Barrister if anyone’s interested…

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022...th-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

 

Good read. Thanks for sharing.

 

Excellent read! I struggled to find a justification to find them not guilty even though I wanted that to be the verdict, but this provides it. It just shows how the nuances of the law can be used to argue a case effectively enough to convince a jury - which as the article points out, could have found them guilty.

The phrase that rankles me (and because Johnson used it with reference to this case, rankles me even more!) is 'We need to protect our history from those who seek to change it'. In my opinion, what factually happened in history cannot be changed, but its representation can. History is usually written through the eyes of those with power and in a way that justifies their version of it. If a more accurate version surfaces (and I'm not just talking about Colston here) then its recording must be changed to reflect that. Good historians are those who always question their source material.

 

I wonder if the defendants were black as opposed to white middle class types if they would have received the same "justice" .
I wonder if Wilf Zaha is right , actually, I think he is right .

 

Err. Protesters topple a statue, supported by Clive Lewis, and it's the government pursuing a culture war.

You couldn't make it up.

Not at all bothered by this silly story or the statue, but taking Clive Lewis seriously is beyond the pale.

 

Good for him. BLM are a modern bunch of nazi styled CRT racists, there is no way out of that. However, the opinion of every genuine person who detests racism, rather than wishes to use it to achieve hateful ideologies, is a different matter, and should be taken seriously. But that is not BLM, or the sheep who promote their ideals and words without enlightening themselves of how they are being used.

You can tell the sheep from the way they use Americanisms and make arguments against issues that are only prevalent in the US.

 

Maybe, but if true, there’s more reason to keep pushing.

 

I think they would, yes: given that the whole episode was fundamentally about race.

 

Funny argument this. A statue of a sex trafficker and torturer can’t be opposed by people suspected of being white and middle class.

 

Fair enough, Suella Braverman was "shootin' from the hip" when she first gave an opinion on the Colston4 - wonder if her 'carefully considered' [sic] official opinion will be received like all of her previous opinions as AG: met with howls of derision from the legal profession?

 

Well, if true , that's progress .
Perhaps Wilf Zaha should consider his opinion given the new data on
social equality ?

 

I think middle classed is the more prevalent get out of jail free card.

Lefties have just as much contempt, though far more fear, of working class non-white people than the average man (of any colour or creed) in the street.

They fear what they do not know, and middle classed people are the only people who can be trusted, as far as the left is concerned. The rest of us are just oiks who are to be feared and despised.

How many lefties on here either work or socialise with non-white people? I can say that I have done so all my life with many of my closest friends being immigrants, predominantly natives of Africa and Asia.

 

What an odd comment. I do and so does every leftie I know, across every different "friend group" as well.

 

I think it would be instructive in any attempt to continue this discussion if you could submit your definitions for:

'middle class'
'working class'
'oik'
'lefty'

Thanks in anticipation,

a working class, lefty, oik.

 

How tiresome.

Read the post. It is clearly written from my perception of how middle class lefties view social classes, based on their attitudes and behaviours.

You seem desperate to pick an argument with me, but so far you have misquoted me on matters of sexism alluding to a post you couldn't find, that I suggested didn't exist, and eventually asked me to find for you! Then, just recently, you asked me to justify another posters opinion, despite the fact I had expressed no opinion upon it what so ever. And now you are asking me to explain why your middle class left wing compatriots have such a condescending view of perceived, to them, lower social classes and 'otherly' races.

You will be asking me to justify CRT NEXT, but if you can get around that piece of academic leftie, middle class pseudo intellectualism, you may actually see where I am coming from, and start to understand what is going on in the class, no, race, sorry, culture war. You may be able to figure out why the left believe so many 'black' people are white supremacists, uncle Toms and house n*****s. All Americanisms, all being used in the UK by staunch middle class supporters of BLM.

I thank you.

a working class left leaning realist, and most certainly the oikiest council estate raised oik you have ever conversed with.

 

That's one of you then.

Anyone else?

There is at least one 'lefty' on here who admitted to not having such contact with 'black and brown' people. I am just not sure how insisting people be categorised by the colour of their skin, social class or immigration status goes down with having friends and colleagues that a person sees in such a way.

The same question could certainly be asked of people on the right, but seeing as there only seems to be one or two on here, none of whom have defended or expressed support for the racism of CRT and BLM, the question seems rather pointless.

 

Sorry, but your post was most certainly not clearly written at all; it made no reference to 'lefties' from any other constituency than 'the middle classes' and contained an obvious attempt to imply a sharp distinction between such pernicious 'lefties' and God's own, salt-of-the-earth types you decided to term 'oiks', implying that's what 'the left' call those who are not middle class. I decided I would be unable to respond adequately if I was not aware of how you define the labels littered through that post. I was not 'desperate to pick an argument' with you; I was anxious to disagree with you based on full comprehension of what you understand by those terms. If your understanding were to prove different to mine, then it would be advisable to establish mutually-agreed terms of reference first.
I am working class; I have regularly been described as an 'oik' and have openly been told that I did not get a job applied for because of 'my unfortunate background', despite the level of my qualifications; I suppose I am what you seem to perjoratively call a 'lefty', although that does not mean I slavishly accept everything that passes for 'left-wing ideology'. The reason I am keen to see your definition of all these terms is that, as it stands, I have no intention of allowing you free rein in representing 'working class oiks.'

I thought we'd buried the canard of the 'post that didn't exist' as the only person who mentioned that post was you when you replied to a post of mine commenting on something you had written in a post to Moose, I believe. You proceeded to bang on about it so many times, I decided that as it was clearly so important to you I would read it if you could point me in the direction of where it could be found. That is quite the correct way of doing things; the person who wishes to convince someone of something in a reasoned debate by using some other 'evidence' actually has a duty to make that 'evidence' available to the other party; saying 'do your own research' is puerile to say the least.

I did not once misquote you on sexism, despite your claim I was accusing you of misogyny. I made it absolutely clear that I was certain you were in no way misogynist, but was suggesting that even those men who are totally anti-misogyny could probably benefit from some education on the matter, better to understand the issue from the perspective of women. I obviously include myself in that.

I did not ask you to 'justify another poster's opinion' out of the blue. You had taken it upon yourself to 'explain' that person's post to, I think, SLB and focussed on an issue that I decided to comment upon. If you don't want any response to your posts, then don't post them in the first place.

As for 'tiresome'; what is really tiresome is the way you seem to have appropriated some self-appointed role as the omniscient arbiter of the 'Politics 2.0' section of this forum, indefatigably patrolling the threads on the look out for posts that you deem to fall foul of whatever idiosyncratic values for 'relevance' and 'accuracy' you have decided should apply. You once accused me of being 'condescending'. I suggest you take a look back at the exchange you had with SLB referred to earlier in this post if you want to see a classic example of patronising condescension.

Let's not get into any sort of 'I'm oikier than you' BS, eh? We're both council-estate raised; well I was from the age of 13 after my family were allocated a council house that allowed us to move out of the squalid, tied-accommodation hovels we'd had the pleasure of inhabiting until then. Moving into a proper house on a council estate felt like moving into a palace.
I presume you think I never spoke with my immediate family if you think you're the 'oikiest oik' I've ever conversed with.

 

The ‘Oikiest Oik’. Possible new reality/quiz show format? With Anne Robinson and Bill Oddie?

 

Like I say. You are just trying to find a reason for and argument. Obviously my context was clear, because you even recognise that I was speaking of how the left saw the working class. I very clearly stated that I was expressing my opinion of the views of Middle class lefties, and therefore not you. So please don't tell me it wasn't clear when you so obviously understood what I was talking about, but chose to take offence anyway.

Tiresome? Ask the mods.

And if you don't want me to engage in an 'oikier than you' oik off, don't end your post withe the sign off

Do you even begin to see the irony of saying "Let's not get into any sort of I'm oikier than you BS" when, firstly, you started it, and, secondly, you go on to explain how you are the oikiest oik ever (you saying it, not me) in the remainder of the paragraph.

I am happy for you to be oik number 1 on here if that is your wish. All I was doing was pointing out that your virtue signalling 'oik' sign off did not make you especially unique on this forum.

 

Your context was NOT clear in the post I initially responded to.
"Lefties have just as much contempt..."
"...and middle classed people are the only ones who can be trusted as far as the left is concerned."

No suggestion you were referring only to middle class lefties. You clarified this in your subsequent post, not the initial one, which is the one I decided to debate with you. I use the term 'debate', you use 'argument'. I am assuming we mean the same thing, but previous exchanges with you led me to think it may be possible that we meant different things, hence my request for you to define what you meant by the labels within your post so that any subsequent debate/argument could be conducted within a mutually comprehensible frame of reference. I notice those definitions have not been forthcoming.

Why would the mods have anything to do with this? I can see no evidence to suggest either of us has posted anything unacceptable.

How did I start the 'oik' discussion? You were the one to use it in your initial post; you were also the one to decide to utilise the superlative form in your subsequent one.
I signed off with 'a working class, lefty oik' as a declaration that not everyone who could be so described identifies with the view you seemed to be propounding that 'middle class lefties' are all really semi-fascist extremists in their outlook.

I have no interest in who may be the 'oikiest oik' as that is an epithet you decided to use in reference to yourself. My comments on where I lived before we got a council house were as much to point out that 'council house tenants' in many ways are, and have been, quite fortunate compared to many others. I will admit I was also a little irked by the assumptions made about my background implicit in the comment you made.

 

You have a point about the absolute clarity, I apologise, though I still think, given that I stated lefties fear the working classes, and that I regularly describe lefties as middle class intellectuals, that it was clear enough.

I do not consider left wing working class, or level headed, practical left wing libertarians to be "lefties" in the sense of those middle class, afluent, idealist extremists. I have hardly ever referred to the working class left wing, unless it was to say they have been let down, or looked down upon.

I also started with a comment stating that class was the major factor.

So sorry if it wasn't clear to you, but I am afraid it was none the less clear.

Your little spat about oiks is ludicrous and does you no credit. When I mentioned the word, I was referring to the opinions of lefties, and you have known this for several posts now. Get real please. If it skipped your notice, I consider myself among those they consider to be oiks, and have made that abundantly clear.

You are trying to pick an argument. If you were debating, you would take the trouble to read my posts, and consider what I am actually saying. You wouldn't necessarily agree with me, but you would at least present me with a subject that I can respond to you on.

Asking me to justify or explain other people's opinions is a tad unfair.

 

Can't you oiks go and argue somewhere befitting your status? Like the car park of a working men's club?

 

OK. I am uncomfortable with your use of 'lefty' as a shorthand for 'middle class, affluent, idealist extremists' as I don't find it useful and it is clearly open to misunderstanding. It also ignores the existence of other people who could be described in the same manner who are in no way 'left-wing.' I appreciate you find the standpoint of many 'middle-class lefties' to be patronising and hypocritical, and I am willing to accept this is definitely true for some of their number, but I remain unconvinced it is true for all of them. The way you frame things in some of your posts suggests you think ALL of them should be vilified in that manner and I just do not think that is reasonable and I am happy to emphasise I can be classified as a 'working class oik' as a way of confirming my views on the matter do not come from any fraternal self-identification as 'middle class'.
I will take the opportunity of asking you a straight question. Could you please specify your definition of a 'level headed, practical, left wing libertarian' as it is clearly central to your views on this whole subject and as such your definition would be helpful to anyone reading subsequent posts on this issue.

It was not 'none the less clear', because had it been I would not have asked you to define the terms you were using.

I am aware you consider yourself one who is liable to be termed an 'oik' and clearly I was not suggesting otherwise. I was trying to highlight that being considered an 'oik' can lead to a different perspective than yours.

I have read your posts and have responded directly to their contents. It was also in the hope of 'present(ing) a subject to respond on' that I asked you to define 4 specific terms you used in a post. I have not asked you to justify or explain other people's opinions, certainly not in this instance, but I would remind you that you are very willing to do so when it suits you, even if you may attempt to palliate it with a comment such as 'I was only trying to be helpful.'

 

I am sorry. You have so far misinterpreted virtually everything I have said, resulting in you asking me to justify the opinions of other people. You are doing it again above.

I can't do that because I am not those people. I have explained it enough times. I am sorry if it is not clear to you.

 

Please itemise where I have done so 'above' as you claim.
Still awaiting ANY of the definitions I have requested from you.

You find me tiresome; the feeling is mutual. Almost everyone else on here find this particular exchange equally tiresome, so let's leave it there.

 

Britain's Oikiest Oik? Sounds like a winner to me

 

That first paragraph sums it up completely.

Exactly the same as the feminism discussion. You are saying I made these definitions, I have tediously repeated to you that they are not my definitions, but were my perception of how lefties view people who are not “of them”.

Try this one. If you said to me that such and such thinks Starmer is a nob, to make the point that you believed that is what they thought, and I insisted you justify why YOU would categorise Starmer as a nob, citing you ‘above’ comment, do you think you would take time to explain an opinion you had never expressed?

So, same as the feminism chat. You show me where I made those definition, and I will respond to you.

I suspect you will be coming to ask me to find the posts for you. Because that is what happened the first time.

 

I’ve dropped out of the race. I’m not oiky enough. I’m a positive little Lord Fauntleroy

 

#BOO.

 

I may pitch it alongside my Kes inspired reality show that seeks to find the UK’s top falconer while highlighting their emotional back stories of grinding poverty and grandparent death. Working title is Britain’s Got Talons.

 

Channel 4 will love that

 

So the 'other side' in the Culture Wars rears its righteous anger by attacking a BBC statue by, the absolutely fu**ing loathsome, Eric Gill.

Now, if the bloke had attacked the BBC's (or anyone's) statue of Eric Gill I would applaud it - but the work of an artist?

 

So will Bill Oddie.