Statues To Get Protection From 'Baying Mobs'

[naomi24]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55693020

Good news? I think so.

[Maydup]

I wonder if this will change anything, or might it simply create more red tape to acheive the some outcome?

[woofgang]

Well it will give the law a new offence to charge people with but I am not sure that "baying mobs" are in the habit of considering planning law.

[naomi24]

I think the point is, Woofgang, that some councils and institutions have taken it upon themselves to decide to remove statues simply as the result of the actions of baying mobs.

[woofgang]

If the institution is a private one then I think that requiring planning permission will be difficult unless the place already has listed building status or would be entitled to it.

[Theland]

Smack great big fines on the miscreants with CCTV evidence.
£10k should do the trick.

[Stickybottle]

I am glad that this is happening, like it or not we cannot erode history and many of these monuments are of people with a chequered past but that’s true of so many public figures throughout history.
Some are just more divisive than others.

[Theland]

Erect more erections I say.

[Ellipsis]

> Four people were later charged with criminal damage over the removal of the Colston statue, and six people accepted conditional cautions over their involvement.

In other words, statues already have legal protection and those who break the law are made to pay. It's not clear what extra protection will be offered by a new law, or why people would be less likely to break it, but baying mobs taking the law into their own hands are definitely a bad thing ...

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, See my post at 10:00 Mon. This is clearly not intended to stop baying mobs tearing down statues, but to stop councils, institutions, etc., being influenced by their behaviour and acting upon it without consultation.

[Theland]

A bigger, much much bigger fine will stop the mob units tracks.

[Ellipsis]

> This is clearly not intended to stop baying mobs tearing down statues

But your OP reads "Statues To Get Protection From 'Baying Mobs'"

[naomi24]

Ellipsis. As does the BBC's. Reading the article will help you.

[Ellipsis]

I read it.

You're quoting the BBC, the BBC is quoting the Telegraph and the Telegraph is printing the words of Robert Jenrick ... so it's Jenrick's words that you have an issue with if you're writing "This is clearly not intended to stop baying mobs."

[naomi24]

I don't have an issue with anyone's words, ellipsis. You do. Nothing I can do about that.

[Theland]

Medtime and bedtime - speak in a few hours :-)

[naomi24]

Why are you telling us that in the middle of a news thread, Theland?

[sevenOP]

"Local people should have the chance to be consulted whether a monument should stand or not." - Communities secretary Robert Jenrick.

Or be erected( on Public Land ) in the first place ?

'Under the legal changes, if a local council wants to approve the removal of a statue but heritage body Historic England objects, the communities secretary will get the final call...Jenrick said he would apply a ‘retain and explain’ policy, meaning statues would only be removed in the ‘most exceptional circumstances’.

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/jenrick-plans-laws-to-protect-statues-and-monuments-from-baying-mob

[Khandro]

Wokery is finally outed, defined & on the back foot.

[pixie374]

I agree, ellipsis. Vandalism is illegal anyway. And why the fuss about needing "locals'" approval? Did they ask for that to put them up in the first place? It seems a bit one-sided.

[naomi24]

//Wokery is finally outed, defined & on the back foot. //

We can hope, Khandro.