Well that took a while

Focusing on the specific point of 'Where do we draw the line with erasing the past that offends a few irrational knuckleheads?

It's not erasing the past.

As for your new point above – you'd have to ask them. But to speculate, this particular statue had, from what can be read, already had several attempts at removal by the local community for the reasons well covered in previous posts.

Yet again I don't condone the manner of removal, but I see no issue in the concept of removal of a statue as contentious as this and replacing it with someone with more worth. I'd bet you'd be able to find someone from around the same time who was just as philanthropic but was nowhere near as odious. Or, simply, someone who had done more than just give money to good causes perhaps to mask their own guilt.

People always talk about 'well that's just how it was back then' as if no one at the time actually questioned the practice, in this instance, of slavery – everyone just went along with it because it was 'normal'. This is again, nonsense.

Anyway, back to the point at hand – As mentioned before, it's no different than replacing the celebrated figures on the front of banknotes. Simply persisting with the permanence of a statue 'because it's always been there' irrespective of what it represents is ridiculous. Societies and cultures should and are perfectly within their rights to re-evaluate the figures they choose to celebrate, anytime, anyplace.

BBC having second thoughts?

Earlier today their main headline read "Protestors removed statue..."

I was going to post on here that that was a disgusting headline considering it was an act of vandalism.

Anyway I didn't get the chance. Now I notice the headline read "Protestors tear down statue" a more accurate description. I wonder why it changed, did the new DG tell them ?

I have read some comments on here defending the actions of the protestors but I stand by my comments. Rather than commit an act of vandalism the protestors should be asking why Labour held Bristol City Council has not removed it if it so offensive to the people of Bristol.

For the record I don't care either way but if you allow this sort of thing to go unchallenged they will start attacking McDonald's or Starbucks next or the local offices of the Tory party or anything they don't like. There is no right to destroy property that way lies anarchy.

Been in split minds about this all day.

Obviously, bad people shouldn't have statues.

But I don't think it is something that we should forget about.

I've watched the Jeffrey Epstein documentary today. It shows how the rich and powerful get away with atrocious, especially if they are seen as philanthropist. A few good deeds can cover thousands of bad ones... same with Jimmy Savile.

The statue got me looking at what life in 17 Century England was like. Charles 1 on the throne, the Civil War, the knife and fork, upholstered furniture and poor people living in stone houses becoming common. Newton discovered his laws, expansion of grammar schools.

The industrial revolution hadnt started. No coal destroying the planet for everyone.

Hardly anyone was educated, the wealthy had almost all the power. We made a big change from Flash Cavaliers to sober Roundheads.

I think it should stay up. With an explanation of exactly what it is. People need to remember exactly how the slave trade started, what were the circumstances. Without a statue like that. I wouldnt have looked up all this. People need to know that history is complex.

Put it in a museum, where history is documented and for people to learn. A statue suggests they have done something good and should be commemorated.

To be honest....left/right is less the issue when the Police are under mob attack. There are no doubt leftist anarchists in there but it's also going to be violent blm and a mix of anti police criminals there for the opportunity.

The Police are not paid to run away....get the women out and get the trunctions out.