Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'News' started by Corvuscorax, Jun 14, 2020.
What are you talking about when you refer to the Mayor of London in this way?
the guy is basically supporting the vandalism of statues. And then when the footy lads come to protect the statues he calls them ‘far right thugs’ the day before which obviously would spark anger.
That still doesn’t explain your post imho which referenced the word ‘terrorist’:
‘its a joke. Media want this, I mean we have a mayor of London who is a terrorist so I don’t hold out much hope....’
Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
We can agree vandalising Churchill statue is terrorism. He did nothing about it, said nothing, didn’t call those thugs or anything. However when people want to come to protect it from terrorism he calls them ‘far right thugs’.
Someone (especially in his position) who supports and encourages terrorism is a terrorist IMO. They don’t have to actively do the damage themselves.
What unlawful violence exactly has the Mayor committed?
He did tweet this to be fair:
‘ To anyone planning to join #BlackLivesMatterprotests over the coming days: for you and your families safety, please stay at home and find a safe way to make your voice heard.
To the extreme far-right groups hijacking this crucial cause: Londoners have no time for your hatred.’
But your post provides no real evidence of what it accuses the Mayor of?
Many people in my family would not be here today-some wouold not have been allowed to live eve in that time period had Churchill not stood against fascism-at one point he alone did (I know America helped later). No teacher I know would say that his language is acceptable today-but nor is the way many heroes spoke about women.
Petty vandalism =/= terrorism, by your own quoted definition.
he has no problem with terrorism but when people are trying to stop the terrorism and vandalism of our statues, he has a big problem.
Some more examples of the great Churchill's handiwork.
It is terrorism. If white people now started to target and destroy black memorials like Nelson Mandela etc and black owned businesses, I’d say exactly the same.
you don’t have to set off a bomb for it to be classed as terrorism.
And if the Mayor of London was a terrorist as you wrongly claim imho, then why don’t you report him ?
Context is all in my view.
Churchill along with all those who fought were not perfect, but they gave us our lives and our freedom imho.
I admire Churchill imho (but not what he did to my distant ancestors), and look up to Mandela (although he wasn’t perfect),and the peaceful actions of Gandhi (although he was seemingly racist).
And here is the VDay speech in case some forget the struggle at that time and the threats to the democracy that we now have or the right to even speak our views:
Ok, he supports terrorism and opposes anyone who is anti-terrorism. This is 100% clear. So you decide if you would regard that as a terrorist.
You don't have to set off a bomb, no, but you do have to have some intention of terrorising people. If you're terrified by a statue getting paint on it then I think you need to make an appointment with your GP because that can't be good for you.
The expansion of the definition of terrorism is dangerous and exactly what those of us wary of the anti-terrorism laws were worried about.
But he doesn’t support terrorism. Again imho that is not true. And why not report him it if you genuinely believe that to be true?
Your definition isn't the UK statutory definition:
"We" can agree nothing of the sort. Vandalising the Churchill statue (or any other statue for that matter) is not within the legal definition of terrorism in the UK.
That will lead to others vandalising all black memorials. What do u think that will lead to? Look at the higher level of terrorism in US.