Statues

[Scotty]

5 minutes ago, finlo said:

I was thinking more dryers and cleaners as opposed dying your shirt pink!

Understood, I think.

There were Tanners too, but they never gave you sixpence

Edited June 14, 2020 by Scotty

[James Hampton]

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

Was it the same lot of Cowens as Tossy Cowens shop in the street? 

[Max Power]

I rest my case...

 

[Shake me up Judy]

Channel 4 News always promotes a leftist agenda. Friday night's broadcast was particularly biased, even for them.

Edited to correct and add: Even worse tonight (Monday)

Edited June 15, 2020 by Shake me up Judy

[Rhumsaa]

On 6/14/2020 at 8:42 AM, James Hampton said:

My guess would be that anyone who really did want to make a positive impact would be horrified at the thought of wasting resources on something so pointless, but that’s just my thoughts. 

 

If Ramsey town ever commission one of you I will be lobbying hard to have them use the guy who did this...

 

Hah!

I like statues generally speaking, I think they are excellent pieces of artwork in a town but I prefer things like Cumil the Sewer Worker in Bratislava 

Much to my disappointment they have moved that bust of Ronaldo from the airport in Madeira

[Donald Trumps]

[Andy Onchan]

On 6/14/2020 at 8:34 AM, James Hampton said:

I think that’s pretty much exactly my thoughts. Good to know I’m not the only numpity numpty.

To me statues (and portraits hanging in Tynwald if you like) are a clear representation of the divide that exists within society - and probably always will. Those who want to be lead, who want to glorify leadership or ‘personal greatness’ and those who don’t - those who understand that there is no such thing as ‘personal greatness’ in almost any case - nobody acts alone to achieve their supposed great feats. That is how they are portrayed because that is how the people who want to glorify them wish to see it. This isn’t an issue most of the time, because outside periods of political stress they are almost entirely ignored or forgotten - because most people understand it’s not worth worrying about and are happy enough if some people wish to idolize a historical figure, in the same way most people are happy for people to practice whatever religion they like (statues are pretty close to religious artifacts in that sense) so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rest of us. Their simplicity of purpose or message (just ‘greatness’ rather than a monument to what this person and the people they relied upon actually did), is what allows them to become totemic - and so antagonistic. 

Should they be removed, probably not, for the same reason we wouldn’t remove a religious symbol. The problem would seem to be a political system which promotes antagonism. A political system based on the individual of course. :-)

Just out of interest and it's a rhetorical question as I think I know the answer but do Tynwald members themselves personally pay for any portraits done or do we taxpayers pick up the bill?

[Roger Mexico]

11 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Just out of interest and it's a rhetorical question as I think I know the answer but do Tynwald members themselves personally pay for any portraits done or do we taxpayers pick up the bill?

You don't really need to ask, do you?  The government even put it out to tender.  Here's a thread from last year discussing the latest one.

[pongo]

5 hours ago, Shake me up Judy said:

Channel 4 News always promotes a leftist agenda.

Seems unlikely. On what scale?

And why - what would be the possible reason?

People often say that the old fashioned BBC is left wing. But then left wingers accuse it of being establishment and right wing. Isn't the truth that it's the nutty fringes, left and right, who imagine left or right wing bias? The same sorts of people who use the word mainstream as a pejorative?

[the stinking enigma]

Fully agree. With you all the way, everyone knows the word is lamestream.

[James Hampton]

3 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

Now that is the sort or thing I can agree with. Excellent. 

[James Hampton]

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Just out of interest and it's a rhetorical question as I think I know the answer but do Tynwald members themselves personally pay for any portraits done or do we taxpayers pick up the bill?

We approve their greatness don’t we? Only fitting that we should pay to have it immortalised.

 I assume there is a basic formula with the provision of a Tynwald portrait, rather than a committee or individual who decides if you’re ‘great’ enough? Altogether more civilized as you’d expect. 

[Roger Mexico]

45 minutes ago, James Hampton said:

 I assume there is a basic formula with the provision of a Tynwald portrait, rather than a committee or individual who decides if you’re ‘great’ enough? Altogether more civilized as you’d expect. 

Basically it's restricted to Speakers and (more recently) Presidents going back to the first popular elections in 1867, though there are a couple of gaps and there's also some other things that I suspect were gifts.  It's pretty similar to what most organisations do, who do that sort of thing.

[James Hampton]

8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Basically it's restricted to Speakers and (more recently) Presidents going back to the first popular elections in 1867, though there are a couple of gaps and there's also some other things that I suspect were gifts.  It's pretty similar to what most organisations do, who do that sort of thing.

And what a fine parade they make, a few busts in there too. Even Charlie got one, I didn’t know that. Thanks for the link!

So now I wonder more things...

Who started the tradition?

And how many have ever refused?

 

[PaulJ]

I see Labrador Dali is starting work on a Howard Quayle statue