Shelbourne Hotel remove historic statues due to association with slavery - *Read OP**

Be right back

Anyone know why she asked about Hitler statues?!

markodaly

Be right back wrote: »

Anyone know why she asked about Hitler statues?!

Because every comeback always has to go back to 'Well, what about a Hitler statue', as if whataboutism wins the argument.

Yyhhuuu

Muahahaha wrote: »

No one knew what they were till yesterday when they got taken down. But I certainly remember them when going there for a couple of pints in the Shelbournes front bar on a Friday before heading elsewhere. On dark winter nights you couldnt help but notice these statues holding up the big lights with their hands above their heads. Statues venerating a specific person are one thing but these are not that. They are simply a display of opulence outside an opulent 5 star deluxe hotel in the heart our capital city.

It annoys me now that there have been removed as they were an integral part of the fascade and fabric of the building. I've always have a soft spot for the Shelbourne as despite its 5 star standing it has always been what I would call an 'Everyman hotel'. They may sell the Princess Grace suite upstairs for 12 grand a night but so long as you have a fiver in your pocket you can go in there and order a cup of coffee, get a free Irish Times and lounge on a comfy sofa whilst enjoying the beautiful surroundings. There is always a welcome on the mat and the staff in there are absolutely top drawer.

If Dublins Shelbourne Hotel were in New York, Paris or London you wouldnt get in their door without being wearing a three piece suit and polished shoes, a polcy designed to automatically exclude 90% of people. With the Shelbourne it is different, everyone is welcome as a customer.

Dr.Ebun seems to have taken over this whole story now but I hope people actually realise and focus on the owners Kennedy Wilson and tenants the Marriot Hotel Group who unilaterally made this decision to remove these statues. They need to be restored back to their plinths, either voluntarily by the landlord and tenant or by court order for them desecrating a listed building for no good reason whatsoever.[/quote






The correct term is "Protected Structure". The hotel is on the Council's Register of Protected Structures. "Listed" is the term used in England.I did not like the manner in which the new Prime Time female journalist contradicted Michael Mc Dowell.

kowloonkev

Be right back wrote: »

Anyone know why she asked about Hitler statues?!

Because she's uneducated. She's using her skin colour to sell herself and make a career. Morally, prostitutes are more respectable.

Quantum Erasure

Be right back wrote: »

Anyone know why she asked about Hitler statues?!

Hitler's brother worked in the Shelbourne

the immortals

Ebun is a fraud, I can't stand her, an African immigrant telling Irish people how Racist we are in our own country, a country she knows nothing about, our ancestors went through famine and oppression that she will never understand or relate to, how could she? She's from Africa, imagine a white Irish woman on a TV programme in Nigeria or wherever shes from saying "is this what we want in Nigeria" she's the real life version Ali g's "is it because I's black"? character, she also comes across as being not very bright but hey she's black so that's OK

Tokyo

Mod: alan partridge aha - don't post in the thread again.

Just watched it on RTE player, which surprisingly works without a VPN or anything. Had to pause multiple times to process what I was hearing. Incredible stuff.

Reminded me of Dara Ó Briain's absolute classic.

Tokyo

Mod: Thread has gone wildly off topic. Can we please get back to discussing the removal of historic statues from the Shelbourne Hotel and the actual content of the Prime Time discussion, rather than your personal feelings about Dr Ebun Joseph.

TheCitizen

markodaly wrote: »

McDowell and the PD's always got a hard time, especially from the media, looney left and SF crowd because he called them out for what they are.

Now, 13 years out of politics people are realising that he was much more correct in his views than wrong.


Like, this is what we have in the Dail right now.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerSP/status/1288946190155997185

Charming. I guess McDowell should have chopped his penis off and flayed himself on Primetime instead of voicing his own opinion, after all are we not a free society?

THIS is why the left in the form of PBP/SOL will never be in power in Ireland.

Won’t someone think of the statues. McDowell was rejected by the Irish electorate as well and for good reason. If McDowell has his way Nelson’s Pillar would be reinstated. No thanks McDowell.

tororosso

I really hope this thread is not going to be closed. Everything from last night's debate on RTE is hugely related to the subject matter...i.e. the removal of the statues and the associated guff coming from ideologies that have largely come from outside of Ireland. Mcdowell debating Joseph was a classic example of the reason vs emotion (often irrational) contrast that should be highlighted more on these types of subjects. The ludicrous position from one side is so obvious and the vast majority can see that when they watch the debate.

Hey, everyone.

Did anyone see that Prime Time episode last night talking about the removal of historic statues from the Shelbourne Hotel? This definitely seems like the appropriate place considering the thread title is Shelbourne Hotel remove historic statues due to association with slavery.

I thought your one was an absolute clown.

TheCitizen

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

It is disappointing that RTE felt the need to give this grifter Ebun Joseph airtime as it gives legitimacy to her that she doesn’t deserve.

A grifter? Did you just throw that in cos you think it sounds offensive?

TheCitizen

tororosso wrote: »

I really hope this thread is not going to be closed. Everything from last night's debate on RTE is hugely related to the subject matter...i.e. the removal of the statues and the associated guff coming from ideologies that have largely come from outside of Ireland. Mcdowell debating Joseph was a classic example of the reason vs emotion (often irrational) contrast that should be highlighted more on these types of subjects. The ludicrous position from one side is so obvious and the vast majority can see that when they watch the debate.

The vast majority eh? I think McDowell had the temerity to say something similar about the people of Dublin wanted Nelson’s Pillar to remain, projecting his own ridiculous bias on the rest of the population back then. From what I heard the removal of that pillar was very popular at the time and The Dubliners used to go around to gigs with ould Nelson’s head on display to much amusement and hilarity. McDowell and the virtue signalling Rightists on here can speak for themselves, and it ain’t the “vast majority.”

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

The vast majority eh? I think McDowell had the temerity to say something similar about the people of Dublin wanted Nelson’s Pillar to remain, projecting his own ridiculous bias on the rest of the population back then. From what I heard the removal of that pillar was very popular at the time and The Dubliners used to go around to gigs with ould Nelson’s head on display to much amusement and hilarity. McDowell and the virtue signalling Rightists on here can speak for themselves, and it ain’t the “vast majority.”

She said We took down the statue of Nelson in 1966, and you take issue with what he said. Why is she calling all of us terrorists?

Quantum Erasure

TheCitizen, do you think that Ebun didn't come across as irrational?

TheCitizen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She said We took down the statue of Nelson in 1966, and you take issue with what he said. Why is she calling all of us terrorists?

She got that wrong.

The statue was correctly taken down btw. The powers that be were slow to act, the IRA did the right thing by taking it out of it in my view. As Ronnie Drew said in Nelson’s Farewell; “no one will tell the Irish what they view”. McDowell bellyaching about it was pathetic.

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

She got that wrong.

The statue was correctly taken down btw. The powers that be were slow to act, the IRA did the right thing by taking it out of it in my view. As Ronnie Drew said in Nelson’s Farewell; “no one will tell the Irish what they view”. McDowell bellyaching about it was pathetic.

I think the point is that a person who knows so little of Irish history as to say We took it down shouldn't be opining on other statues in this country.

Nigeria didn't have any hand in it. I have no idea why she is trying to claim that the Nigerian government in 1966 helped us, the Irish people, blow it up.

splinter65

TheCitizen wrote: »

She got that wrong.

The statue was correctly taken down btw. The powers that be were slow to act, the IRA did the right thing by taking it out of it in my view. As Ronnie Drew said in Nelson’s Farewell; “no one will tell the Irish what they view”. McDowell bellyaching about it was pathetic.

“Dr” Joseph was pretty much laying down the law last night about what is acceptable aesthetically to her and what isn’t.
She’s so damn pleased she’s living in a country where currently, if the left decide that tarmac being black is offensive, we’ll immediately start digging it up. We’re so progressive you see.

DelaneyIn

Dr Ebun Joseph said members of the black community could not afford to go to the hotel so perhaps did not know the statues even existed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0729/1156195-shelbourne-hotel/

This woman must be on the wind up. She’s beyond parody.

The other thing she proved without doubt is the slippery slope argument. She brought up Nelson's Pillar as a means to say we've done this before so it's fine to do it again. That's why this shortsighted "Who cares?" by posters is so dangerous.

If this is allowed to happen, next year it will be used as part of an argument to remove something else. It's neverending and she proved it. She'll spend the next decade arguing to have stuff taken down around the country.

TheCitizen

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

TheCitizen, do you think that Ebun didn't come across as irrational?

She was wrong about the way Nelson was (correctly in my view) removed. She was right that we removed other statues from prominent places like ould Vic from the front of Leinster House IIRC.

These statues that were in the front of the Shelbourne, they weren’t depicting slavery was McDowell’s argument but were they depicted servitude? It doesn’t bother me that they were removed if it was deemed that they were depicting an outdated stereotype. I don’t get the argument that the owners of the property needed to get planning permission to remove the statues? Isn’t that different than if they wanted to change the facade of the front of the hotel for example?

The contributor Ebun didn’t come across fully informed but I think McDowell was chancing his arm as well. He used to take liberties with Dail privilege at times when he was a TD as well as I recall.

Montage of Feck

TheCitizen wrote: »

A grifter? Did you just throw that in cos you think it sounds offensive?

grifter
/ˈɡrɪftə/
nounINFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
a person who engages in petty or small-scale swindling.
"I saw her as a grifter who preys upon people"

TheCitizen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The other thing she proved without doubt is the slippery slope argument. She brought up Nelson's Pillar as a means to say we've done this before so it's fine to do it again. That's why this shortsighted "Who cares?" by posters is so dangerous.

If this is allowed to happen, next year it will be used as part of an argument to remove something else. It's neverending and she proved it. She'll spend the next decade arguing to have stuff taken down around the country.

Well it is a fact that monuments and statues and place names get changed or moved around from time to time. This current thing is in relation to BLM, there aren’t many monuments in Ireland that come under that category given that we didn’t have slavery as part of our history like it was in Britain or France or especially the USA, so I think you’re over reacting a bit.

TheCitizen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the point is that a person who knows so little of Irish history as to say We took it down shouldn't be opining on other statues in this country.

Nigeria didn't have any hand in it. I have no idea why she is trying to claim that the Nigerian government in 1966 helped us, the Irish people, blow it up.

I don’t think she claimed that? You’re just hyperventilating now.

Quantum Erasure

McDowell's argument was that they didn't depict slaves, but even if they did, it didn't matter, they form part of the building and require permission to change / remove them.

TheCitizen

splinter65 wrote: »

“Dr” Joseph was pretty much laying down the law last night about what is acceptable aesthetically to her and what isn’t.
She’s so damn pleased she’s living in a country where currently, if the left decide that tarmac being black is offensive, we’ll immediately start digging it up. We’re so progressive you see.

More shrill overreaction

Rodney Bathgate

TheCitizen wrote: »

A grifter? Did you just throw that in cos you think it sounds offensive?

Well played. Game, set and match to TheCitizen.

markodaly

TheCitizen wrote: »

Won’t someone think of the statues. McDowell was rejected by the Irish electorate as well and for good reason. If McDowell has his way Nelson’s Pillar would be reinstated. No thanks McDowell.

How do you know? Oh you don't, you are making it up?

Right...

McDowell is actually a Republican, no not the kill toddlers and women Provo types but an 'actual' Republican. (If you don't know what that means, look it up)

I remember him, in a Prime Time debate, sitting next to Eamon o'Cuiv facing Kevin Myers and John Bruton. The debate, which was actually a very good one, was about the Easter Rising itself and violent Irish Republicanism and the War of Independence. 'Did the end justify the means'

McDowell was on the side of the Irish Revolution, while Myers and Bruton were more of the, 'we should have seen the Home Rule act through before rising up in violence'.
A decent debate with good substantive points made by both sides.

Anyway, to conclude, I think you are wrong about your assumption on him.

o1s1n

TheCitizen wrote: »

More shrill overreaction

Anything else in your debating arsenal other than ad hominem attacks?