 |
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
A madman has attacked a statue outside the BBC as police look on and do nothing. Apparently the man who made the statue was a sex abuser. We don't know if that was the motive but this madness will go on and on... It's all over the news.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iss KissWoman
over a year ago
near Coventry |
Yeah the guy who created it was a pedophile. I can't say I am bothered that another guy took a hammer to it. I've seen the statue and I don't like the nudity considering the creator was a pedophile. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think all statues involved in Noncery, or oppression of people should be pulled down. We barely know anything about them anyways so don’t get why people get so upset when they’re damaged. We can create new statues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yeah the guy who created it was a pedophile. I can't say I am bothered that another guy took a hammer to it. I've seen the statue and I don't like the nudity considering the creator was a pedophile. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Strange to think that the bbc has a statue created by a self-confessed pedo at their door…..
I mean they don’t rerun Jim’ll Fix It (and the bbc will repeat ANYTHING) or play Gary Glitter songs on the radio….
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Strange to think that the bbc has a statue created by a self-confessed pedo at their door…..
I mean they don’t rerun Jim’ll Fix It (and the bbc will repeat ANYTHING) or play Gary Glitter songs on the radio….
"
But they still play Michael Jackson... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Strange to think that the bbc has a statue created by a self-confessed pedo at their door…..
I mean they don’t rerun Jim’ll Fix It (and the bbc will repeat ANYTHING) or play Gary Glitter songs on the radio….
But they still play Michael Jackson... "
People also still watch films by Roman Polanski |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Strange to think that the bbc has a statue created by a self-confessed pedo at their door…..
I mean they don’t rerun Jim’ll Fix It (and the bbc will repeat ANYTHING) or play Gary Glitter songs on the radio….
But they still play Michael Jackson... "
Never proven guilty.
Whereas the creator of the bbc statue wrote extensively of his horrific crimes against children (including his own daughters) in his diaries |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How should the Police have got him down?
They should have done what the Dutch do. Got a water cannon and blasted the bigger. It would have cleaned the statue too"
Boris got some water cannons when he was Mayor at a premium price. Teresa May denied approval for their use so they were sold at a loss.
So no water cannons to wash the noncey statue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It should be taken down. Bloody offensive."
I agree that the statue should not sit outside the entrance to a public building. Certainly one that provides entertainment for children
Whether the statue should exist at all is a greater debate, we cannot cancel art because of the abhorrent actions of the artist, or can we? Given the nature of this man’s crimes and the actual representation in the statue, I think this piece feels like it’s almost gloating.
It’s challenging because I don’t think we should whitewash our history but nor should we celebrate it. Normally I am against tearing statues down and I am for providing further context to the statues with plaques stating who they were. But this statue represent an idea and not a person, so it is art and nothing else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No question Op it is tricky.
In a nutshell
When does the behaviour of the creator or the source of funding mean that we should destroy things they facilitated? Do other people today have a *right* to destroy such things arbitrarily?
Own view - how much would we have left if we removed all things - including the money - that came through methods and people we would now judge? Not a lot, in fact practically nothing. Better to be transparent, contextualise (not forget) and heal.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No question Op it is tricky.
In a nutshell
When does the behaviour of the creator or the source of funding mean that we should destroy things they facilitated? Do other people today have a *right* to destroy such things arbitrarily?
Own view - how much would we have left if we removed all things - including the money - that came through methods and people we would now judge? Not a lot, in fact practically nothing. Better to be transparent, contextualise (not forget) and heal. "
Yeah taken to an extreme we wouldn't have a great deal left.
I think statues are a little clearer in that to me they represent something or someone to be celebrated and continuing to celebrate certain people isn't a great reflection on us.
There are plenty of people in our history that are worthy of being celebrated. Stick those up instead and make them a thing of inspiration, not shame. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No question Op it is tricky.
In a nutshell
When does the behaviour of the creator or the source of funding mean that we should destroy things they facilitated? Do other people today have a *right* to destroy such things arbitrarily?
Own view - how much would we have left if we removed all things - including the money - that came through methods and people we would now judge? Not a lot, in fact practically nothing. Better to be transparent, contextualise (not forget) and heal.
Yeah taken to an extreme we wouldn't have a great deal left.
I think statues are a little clearer in that to me they represent something or someone to be celebrated and continuing to celebrate certain people isn't a great reflection on us.
There are plenty of people in our history that are worthy of being celebrated. Stick those up instead and make them a thing of inspiration, not shame."
Yes the statue may literally personify the individual at fault - so I do take your point. However there are an awful lot of buildings - public and private - that were massive ego trips for nasty people. My concern is to make sure it is ALL contextualised and discussed as a democracy, not random acts of violence that retrospectively seek justification on court of social media, or a revisionist approach serving a current political agenda. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
