Punk Teen Charged criminal damage Churchill statue in Parliament Square

[arista]

[An 18-year-old man has been charged with
criminal damage after the Winston Churchill
state in Parliament Square was defaced.
Benjamin Clark, of Wilton Crescent, Hertford,
is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates'
Court on Friday, 9 October.]


https://news.sky.com/story/teen-charged-with-criminal-damage-after-churchill-statue-defaced-12069272

[Oliver_W]

Quite right too. XR were doing fine up to that point.

[Crimson Dynamo]

great news and good luck getting a job going forward you silly boy

[UserSince2005]

let the leftie rot

[Oliver_W]

great news and good luck getting a job going forward you silly boy

Ahh he's called Ben Clark, there's probably at least twenty people called that within any given square mile :joker: He can say it was someone else and be fine.

When one has a)a double barrelled name and b)one of those is ****ing Wilberforce one has to be careful D:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Ahh he's called Ben Clark, there's probably at least twenty people called that within any given square mile :joker: He can say it was someone else and be fine.

When one has a)a double barrelled name and b)one of those is ****ing Wilberforce one has to be careful D:

no you have to declare a criminal record, its the law

[AnnieK]

no you have to declare a criminal record, its the law

You only have to declare it if asked.....its illegal to not disclose if asked but if you are not asked you don't have to volunteer the information

[bots]

im glad i managed to navigate my youth without doing anything too stupid ... or ... getting caught. Criminal record checks appear in a lot a places, many that you wouldn't expect

[Tom4784]

Tear down the Churchill Statue and replace it with a monument to lives lost in WW2.

Churchill was a white supremacist that wanted to commit genocide against tribes with poison gas, he allowed a famine to kill three million people in India by refusing to offer aid and insisting they export rice that they needed to feed their people and he blamed the indian people for the famine by saying they 'breed like rats'. He was not a good man and his statue should not be confused with that of a memorial to those who perished in WW2.

His actions in WW2 do not override the other things he did in power.

[Beso]

Tear down the Churchill Statue and replace it with a monument to lives lost in WW2.

Churchill was a white supremacist that wanted to commit genocide against tribes with poison gas, he allowed a famine to kill three million people in India by refusing to offer aid and insisting they export rice that they needed to feed their people and he blamed the indian people for the famine by saying they 'breed like rats'. He was not a good man and his statue should not be confused with that of a memorial to those who perished in WW2.

His actions in WW2 do not override the other things he did in power.

His statue is in parliament square alongside many other game changers..

The only reason its there is because he pulled us through the war..if he hadn't, then it wouldn't be there.

Its merely his achievement as a simple mp that rose to the top to unfortunately have to lead his country he is serving through a war., that put it there.

He managed that, and that's why it stands alongside others in parliament square .

[joeysteele]

Tear down the Churchill Statue and replace it with a monument to lives lost in WW2.

Churchill was a white supremacist that wanted to commit genocide against tribes with poison gas, he allowed a famine to kill three million people in India by refusing to offer aid and insisting they export rice that they needed to feed their people and he blamed the indian people for the famine by saying they 'breed like rats'. He was not a good man and his statue should not be confused with that of a memorial to those who perished in WW2.

His actions in WW2 do not override the other things he did in power.

I think this is the issue with anyone given a statue.
I can agree with the last sentence too.
It shouldn't override other things too.

Since being a child, I've never got why statues are necessary for anyone in public places.
I've never even bothered to look at them when I've travelled, driven or walked past them

If a statue is deemed a necessity then put it in a hall or other building.
Where those who want to see it and revere it can.
Not shoved in people's way and faces in public areas.

Churchill was PM during the war, yes, there were many advising him and around him, those who worked with him, (it was a coalition government at the time), who equally put in hours and toil to ensure success.
He was so popular, he was turfed out of office massively in the election held just at the end of the war.
So he wasn't seen as such the great hero by the public at that time it seems.

I don't agree with defacing anything really, however I've always felt statues were grotesque things anyway.

By all means have them in Castles and Palaces.
Plus as I said in relevant halls if they have to be made, paid for and by those wanting them.

As for this teen in bother on this now.
The law says he did wrong, so the court will decide his punishment.
Personally, I hope it's not too severe.

I just wish all statues were moved indoors so those who want to see them can, anytime they wish.
Then for those who don't want to see the grotesque personal.glorification things, they then never have to in public.

[Beso]

Only ones that looks like the person in the square is Mandela's and churchill's, imo..so yeah I'm with Joey on this. If they look grotesque get rid of them.

If they look like the person and it makes an area look nice keep them.

But dont protect them, it's only metal or stone after all.

[Denver]

Churchill was a horrible person

[bots]

Did he?

In the war for me, it was the servicemen and women who did all the vital things.
Plus the wives back home who kept the Country going.
With young families, while tending their older relatives too.

Politicians and leaders are rewarded enough by being elected by given the trust of the people.

We don't know what kind things or good others do because most who genuinely do so don't go about crowing about it, looking for or accepting personal glorification.
Unlike I'd say most of celebrity or the other so called famous.

The population of Britain alive at the time celebrated and attributed the winning of the war to Winston Churchill. That is what counts

[Denver]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767

10 reasons why he was a racist bigot

[Crimson Dynamo]

Did he?

In the war for me, it was the servicemen and women who did all the vital things.
Plus the wives back home who kept the Country going.
With young families, while tending their older relatives too.

Politicians and leaders are rewarded enough by being elected by given the trust of the people.

We don't know what kind things or good others do because most who genuinely do so don't go about crowing about it, looking for or accepting personal glorification.

Unlike I'd sa6y most of celebrity or the other so called famous.

Led by?

[joeysteele]

The population of Britain alive at the time celebrated and attributed the winning of the war to Winston Churchill. That is what counts

Yes, then threw him out of power.
Not just narrowly but massively.

[Liam-]

Did he lie?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes, then threw him out of power.
Not just narrowly but massively.

And what?

Do you expect him to be pm now??

[joeysteele]

And what?

Do you expect him to be pm now??

If you can't see the contradiction of hailing someone being seen as a so called war hero worthy of full acclamation.
Then him being swept massively out of power by the public, who it is claimed owed him for the victory in a world war.
Only getting 36% of their votes in that election, meaning just under two thirds voted him out.

Then nothing I would or could say would be of any help to you in the slightest
As nothing I say ever is anyway.

[Oliver_W]

Yes, then threw him out of power.
Not just narrowly but massively.

And in the following election he came back!

[joeysteele]

And in the following election he came back with an even bigger majority.

No he didn't.
He narrowly lost the 1950 election.
Then narrowly won in October 1951 with only a 21 overall majority.


He never had one in the war, it was a Coalition government.
Labour won in 1945 with a 145 overall majority, gaining 239 seats!!!!

[Oliver_W]

No he didn't.
He narrowly lost the 1950 election.
Then narrowly won in October 1951 with only a 21 overall majority.


He never had one in the war, it was a Coalition government.
Labour won in 1945 with a 145 overall majority, gaining 239 seats!!!!

Ninja'd, I realised I misread it and edited, but you replied to the original post :joker:

When I clicked the "previous election" button on 1951 it took me to 1950, I didn't know there was a snap #duhh

[joeysteele]

Ninja'd, I realised I misread it and edited, but you replied to the original post :joker:

When I clicked the "previous election" button on 1951 it took me to 1950, I didn't know there was a snap #duhh


No worries Oliver.

Elections fascinate me I'm afraid, no matter who wins.

[joeysteele]

Although Oliver in my haste to respond to your post.
I quoted the wrong overall majority, I quoted Major's Conservative win of a 21 overall majority in 1992.
Rather than Churchill's narrower 17 in 1951.

The other point about the Churchill elections is he never won the most votes cast in any he fought.
Despite getting that narrow election win in 1951.
Attlee's Labour still just taking more votes in said 1951 election too.

So it seems at the time, even despite the war, the THEN population were not over keen on him.