Absolutely. And people were defending it. Then the Police moved them on. And allowed it to be defaced. That statue could have been protected but they CHOSE not to.

Not so much the cops on the ground, who are clearly being sacrificed hence them not being allowed to wear protective gear from the start, but their leadership are fully compromised.

From that idiot Cop down in Bristol effectively giving his blessing to what happened with that statue to the Chief Constable of Kent taking the knee along with numerous other examples the leadership of those we expect to uphold law and order are in cahoots with the rioters. Helping them get away with literally murder.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

The police do what they are told.

I share Matov's abhorrence to the feeble Police response acting on orders.

The Government really need to have a long hard look at Policing in this country in response to reprobates hell-bent on wanton damage,violence and thuggery.

Personally I would have been delighted to witness water-cannons showering the cowering oafs with plumes of liquid, tear-gas being deployed, or even rubber bullets and batons used with some force.

I viewed with disgust a chap on the Cenotaph being urged (Or would encouraged be more appropriate) by Police to get down and this person was probably hurling bile in their faces.A few hefty thwacks on the legs with a baton would have had the desired effect.

Police simply allowing thugs to deface buildings and statues and to dismantle a statue is certainly not what I like to see. It has been reported that those who committed acts of violence and thuggery will be held responsible. I won't hold my breath.

A total of an 27 officers injured,images of an officer with blood running down his face, a lady officer lying on the ground after falling off her horse and taken to hospital with a broken collar bone and other injuries, a cycle being hurled at a Police horse etc etc. Totally and utter despicable.

I don't have a proclivity to engage in such debates, in actual fact I rarely view any of the political threads as I engage in numerous such discussions outside of HOL.
I have made my views patently clear and I have no more to add to this subject.

Edited by Willo (08 Jun 2020 11.57am)

If you read the plaque that as an MP he defended the city’s ’right’ to trade in enslaved Africans you can see how people felt the statue should have been removed. It may have been legal, but it was highly immoral and he defended against people telling him it was immoral to trade human beings. In time nobody will give a toss that it’s been moved as nobody cared or knew it was there. Other more significant statues on the other hand...

Attachment: 940A646A-5D51-44D5-9186-82AAA466CABD.jpeg (474.25Kb)

COYP

I suspect number 10 are in agreement to let them embarrass themselves. If it continues the batons have to come out and many won’t care. Owen Jones has missed his chance to criticise the government now because the police will be responding to rioters and not peaceful protesters after it’s got out of hand and his feeble attempt was to criticise the tactic of using horses on Saturday. Well if you hurl bricks and bicycles at a horse then the horse becomes dangerous. Before then all I saw of horses was them standing there. Funny that. The right to throw bricks and bicycles at buildings, police and defenceless animals. Sums him and these college age losers up for me.

COYP

Just a little side point here. I kind of agree that Colston should have been removed some time ago. However, the statue should be in a museum, university, council building or something - in a back room yet preserved. Not all history can be 'good' or ethically 'correct' for today's standards. Ripping things down and chucking them in a river is not a decent way to go about things, in my book.
Slave trading was abolished early 1800s by Britain. They still turned a blind eye, however, in some circumstances.
Nevertheless, have you ever noticed you never really hear about slaves working in England or Britain as a whole? Well, Henry VII (father of Henry VIII) had actually decreed that bonds men and serfdom of any type was illegal in England (the other countries either didn't count or weren't in the union, whichever way you look at it) and that all bonded men had to be freed. That law was never removed and meant that having slaves in Britain was, essentially, illegal.
I know BLM won't care, but I thought someone might be interested. I never hear about it in the slavery narrative/debate so I thought I'd share.

Red and Blue Army!