[Northern Monkey]

I knew who it was going to be before i even clicked.
She was calling out for our historical statues to be torn down the other month.
I’ve seen her on a couple of things.She basically takes the anti British view on any topic.
(And she said she’s got a book coming out so she’s trying to get attention).

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I knew who it was going to be before i even clicked.
She was calling out for our historical statues to be torn down the other month.
I’ve seen her on a couple of things.She basically takes the anti British view on any topic.
(And she said she’s got a book coming out so she’s trying to get attention).

Silly c*w - who does she think she is. She has no right to try to destroy our history or it’s legends whatever SHE thinks of them. A loud mouth control freak using PC to to get her own way and endorse that massive chip on her shoulder. History is history and cannot be changed by tearing down statues - it does not dictate the future, and neither does she. Neither does she dictate the rights and wrongs of the past.

The day she can prove to the world she is PERFECT is the day anyone should even consider taking her seriously on this - and on many other issues I suspect.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Lets face it she is doing this to make herself feel important, its more about her than anyone else

This, pretty much.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Churchill was a racist wasn't he?

Not to undermine his achievements during WWII obviously but he did have his issues that had him be controversial with his people at the time for a reason.

He was around in the first half of the 20th century. Of course he was a racist.

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Why was that woman even given airtime?

Because believe it or not, this is an impartial news programme where all views are heard.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Redway

He was around in the first half of the 20th century. Of course he was a racist.

It's true that, Nelson Mandela was a massive one.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Underscore

Because believe it or not, this is an impartial news programme where all views are heard.

I have the view that we shouldn't keep building over the countryside, but that wouldn't get me on GMB. But the random and pointless views of that woman need to be heard?

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I have the view that we shouldn't keep building over the countryside, but that wouldn't get me on GMB. But the random and pointless views of that woman need to be heard?

How are they pointless? Also this is a contentious issue which is largely not covered.

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Underscore

How are they pointless? Also this is a contentious issue which is largely not covered.

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

She shouldn't be censored, but she should be ridiculed and insulted. That's free speech.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Underscore

How are they pointless? Also this is a contentious issue which is largely not covered.

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

Churchill existed, and did good and bad things, mostly good. He deserves his place in history, despite the bad. Does she want History lessons to include "and let's not forget, Churchill was a naaaaasty racist!!1" or something? It's pointless because there's nothing worth changing. Like I said upthread, most people acknowledge Churchill had views of his time.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Underscore

Also just because you don't like her views doesn't mean she should be censored - thats very PC

SHe would be getting a taste of her own medicine then wouldn’t she! Karma - isn’t’ it great!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

SHe would be getting a taste of her own medicine then wouldn’t she! Karma - isn’t’ it great!

'Grrr being PC is bad unless it's me doing it!'

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Churchill existed, and did good and bad things, mostly good. He deserves his place in history, despite the bad. Does she want History lessons to include "and let's not forget, Churchill was a naaaaasty racist!!1" or something? It's pointless because there's nothing worth changing. Like I said upthread, most people acknowledge Churchill had views of his time.

I never got taught in school the criticisms of Churchill - quite the opposite.

Students should be taught a balanced view of Churchill. He had his good points and he had his bad points. End of story.

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

'Grrr being PC is bad unless it's me doing it!'

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

'Grrr being PC is bad unless it's me doing it!'

Yeah it’s bad - isn’t that the point! Those on the left can’t just dish it out and then whine when it gets directed back at them. People are being censored and labelled by the PC brigade endlessly so if she now feels censored herself - I for one won’t be crying about it.

[Tom4784]

People are more than their achievements, we shouldn't aim to silence someone because they are speaking hard truths about someone that history considers a hero. Pretty much every 'Hero' in history is deeply flawed and operated in a shade of grey, to ignore that for the sake of their legacies is revisionist history at it's best.

Churchil did a lot for the country, he was also a bastard and, like many people at the time, he had views that would be considered racist today. I don't see the issue with talking about the more problematic aspects of his life for it's a part of who he was.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Underscore

I never got taught in school the criticisms of Churchill - quite the opposite.

Students should be taught a balanced view of Churchill. He had his good points and he had his bad points. End of story.

Everything has its good and bad points - including PC. I would imagine just about every person in history and everyone living today has their good points and bad points.

So should only certain historical figures that largely did good be singled out for such treatment by some PC troublemaker with an agenda! Definitely not!

[AnnieK]

To be honest, it would be good to see the "bad" side of Churchill and many others of his time to show the "good" that came of WWII and being able to become more progressive as a nation and embrace other ethnicities. Times were different then no doubt about it and we should now be able to celebrate how much further we have come to become more tolerant of others by showing the attitudes of the times back then.

[Nicky91]

i also have my good and bad points, everyone has their good and bad points as Brillo pointed out

i tend to look at the good points more, cause i don't like criticism or talking negatively about other people, i find that rude


Churchill's good points rise above his bad points, i don't want him to go from hero to villain, and then all his actions during WWII to be just forgotten

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

People are more than their achievements, we shouldn't aim to silence someone because they are speaking hard truths about someone that history considers a hero. Pretty much every 'Hero' in history is deeply flawed and operated in a shade of grey, to ignore that for the sake of their legacies is revisionist history at it's best.

Churchil did a lot for the country, he was also a bastard and, like many people at the time, he had views that would be considered racist today. I don't see the issue with talking about the more problematic aspects of his life for it's a part of who he was.

It’s problematic if she is trying to suggest racism is purely a ‘white’ phenomena and trying to take the moral high ground. If she is too dumb to recognise that he was simply a product of his time, as are most people, that is her problem. Anyway she is just a troublemaker and most are aware of that.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It’s problematic if she is trying to suggest racism is purely a ‘white’ phenomena and trying to take the moral high ground. If she is too dumb to recognise that he was simply a product of his time, as are most people, that is her problem. Anyway she is just a troublemaker and most are aware of that.

any attention is good for the book sales, positive or negative attention

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It’s problematic if she is trying to suggest racism is purely a ‘white’ phenomena and trying to take the moral high ground. If she is too dumb to recognise that he was simply a product of his time, as are most people, that is her problem. Anyway she is just a troublemaker and most are aware of that.

While plenty of people do believe the "racism=power+privilege, only white people can be racist" rubbish, I don't think she was arguing that. Saying "a man from the last century is racist" isn't the same as saying "all white people are racist".

[Withano]

He wasn't a good man. People are allowed that opinion.

Christ. You'd be the first to cry freedom of speech, yet you're here saying people aren't allowed an opinion on a president haha.

[bots]

He was a privileged politician. How many of them have we had through history without fault. Indeed, how many politicians have we had without fault full stop

He won the war, he was the right man for the task at that time. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Beso]

At the time he spoke the truth.