Not President Churchill!

No he didn't. Just because those views were practically a consensus, it doesn't mean they were the truth.

He wasn’t a bad one either! :rolleyes:

Some might say that.. they are entitled to say that.. Just didn’t realise you were so against freedom of speech brillo.

Well it is likely neither of us would be able to enjoy free speech without him and his efforts. Never wise to bite the hand that feeds you so to speak.

....you’re trying to limit free speech though?... shes either not allowed to say bad stuff about this historical figure because free speech doesnt matter... or she is allowed to say what she likes because free speech does matter, and your thread is silly?

:laugh2:

She can say what she likes - what she can’t do is re-write history by pulling down status and trying to enforce her views on others.

Firstly, this is a complete 180 from the points you brought up in your OP
Secondly, why, are you not trying to enforce your views on tibb readers? Whats the difference apart from the size of your platform?

I think you need to think about why youre angry. The answer is, she thinks differently to you... thats okay brillo, we dont all have to think the same..

More fool her and any others for thinking heroes or historical figures need to be 100% perfect anyway.

They're remembered for the good they did/the things they achieved. To suggest his character flaws should somehow take those away from him is quite pathetic.

Maybe focus on modern day racism and those that are... you know, still alive and, in some cases, still ruling countries.

Which one of those two statements do you believe in?

...the second, obviously. She can say what she likes idc. Makes no real difference to me, or anybody else.

she's black and he's a racist so why would y'all expect her to respect him and his achievements?

if someone wants to make a point, it's never a smart move to target someone who is universally respected for what he achieved.

Some people, especially those of the 2nd world war generation and those that understand his achievements for all of us, are likely to be offended by her words, so it matters to them. So she has no more right to openly offend people then others have to openly offend her.

can you explain this please?

Does it make a difference to people who worship Churchill like a God or a British person who feels insulted by their war-time leader being insulted?

What I'm saying is, why is Tommy Robinson so wrong for criticising Islam? Isn't this lady just doing the same as Tommy, stirring up hate?

Isn't it kind of obvious? Another way to put it would be even if she had a good point, it would be better made if she didn't aim it at someone with as much respect as Churchill.
Criticizing Churchill will make some just automatically dismiss whatever's being said. If she wanted to be listened to, she should have spoke about some more neutrally regarded.

Depends if you think Churchill and religion is the exact same thing I suppose.

He is not anything as he is no longer here. But he left his mark and played a considerable part in giving us all the freedoms we have today. At the time he and most people believed their views to be right.

On the same note none of us have any reason to respect her.

He was also homophobic, but I respect him and his achievements.

Good point Alf,it's kinda like Mandela some hail him as a hero,others say he was a terrorist,all of us have a dark side, This woman just has a huge chip on her shoulder.

understandable but you can't expect her to

*he WAS a racist, then

he wasn't when measured against the time he lived in.

If a law is introduced in the year 2000 and someone lived in the 1800's they are not subject to the law introduced in 2000 and can't be measured against it. If that law was in place during his lifetime he may have been a completely different person.

Where did I say that - he was not.