Bigga
Well-Known Member
Because it was erected in a time when most men and women weren't eligible to vote?
And now there are and, unofficially, voted to take it down!
Fair's fair.
Because it was erected in a time when most men and women weren't eligible to vote?
Nothing has changed in my mind. I've stated my opinion, if you don't agree, fine
And now there are and, unofficially, voted to take it down!
Fair's fair.
Although...
In a 2014 poll in the local newspaper, the Bristol Post, 56% of the 1,100 respondents said it should stay while 44% wanted it to go.[24]
Probably swung by the older average age of the newspaper readers.
Almost 10 years ago and in light of the 'George Floyd' tragedy, I'm sure removal would have won.
Seems you are right. But a referendum could have been a lightning rod for gammons and racists and ignored by the apathetic normal folks.
They have done the mayor and his successors a favour, Rees and his predecessor didn't really want the distraction and nuisance the statue brought with it.
I think that’s the default position in Worcester.You seem to be suggesting that in certain circumstances a jury has a duty to convict, and that hasn’t been the law since 1670.
I think that’s the default position in Worcester.
I have no issue with the statue going, my issue was the manner in which it was done.I wonder if this is enough for a certain ironically named 'mosssideblue' to decide the people have spoken?
Why do you think ironically named?I wonder if this is enough for a certain ironically named 'mosssideblue' to decide the people have spoken?