New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

Except the UK public support removing the statue, just not the way it was done. They're also not likely to be aware of the fact that a plaque describing the fact he was a slave trader was rejected by the council. It was the fact that such solutions were rejected...

A majority disagree with statues being criminally removed, is a far more accurate interpretation.

83% of black Britons also agree that criminally taking down statues is totally wrong, too.

Nobody is arguing against the removal of statues. But the argument is that if statues are to be removed, it should be done through peaceful and democratic means and not by allowing a bunch of mindless, unemployed losers to unilaterally do as they wish, whose raison d'etre in life is to be perpetually offended by absolutely everything in society.

If a council disapproves of removing the statue via democratic means, this cannot be taken as carte blanche for criminality. Go down that route and bedlam reigns supreme.

You cannot possibly compare the rights of women, who didn't even have the vote, to criminally tearing down statues - which has no bearing on anyone's rights in 2021.

The existence of the statue simply hurts the feelings of a minority of social extremists.

I'm pointing out the fact that historically protest is neither lawful or peaceful much of time.

You're still not willing to discuss the fact that the council was unwilling to describe his role as a slave trader. You're ignoring the fact that the majority of the public actually favour taking down the statue, just not the way it was fine. Instead you're getting offended by the statue coming down. Eg you have no desire to discuss the British relationship with its history of empire which invariably whitewashes rather than viewing it critically.

Instead you want Farage chatting about how they were always great.

You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware the IRA decommissioned in 2005 and no such terrorist incidents have occurred since Farage began less than a month ago on GB News.

On your second question, yes, Farage absolutely would have covered an Islamist terrorist attack in Plymouth because such an attack would be politically-motivated.

Above, a poster argued that "terrorism is terrorism", as if to argue that terrorism is simply the act of killing people. To argue that is to rob the meaning of terrorism, which is the act of deploying violence against civilians for political purposes. Unfortunately, this also reminds me of Mrs. May's oft-repeated banality that "Brexit is Brexit", without actually telling us what her definition of Brexit was.

Now, it may well turn out that this chap had political intentions. Should the evidence for this manifest, then we should re-classify the crime as terrorism. Until then, we must simply describe it for what it is; an act of mass murder by a demented nihilistic misanthrope. I'm not in favour of describing these idiots as "mentally ill" either, because that implies, by contrast, that bog-standard terrorists are somehow mentally stable.

But, as I've said, Farage has on many occasions referred to and condemned the IRA, often in excoriating language. If Farage was only interested in black and brown-based terrorism, he wouldn't ever mention the IRA. Should there be a recrudescence of IRA terrorism, I'm more than confident that Farage will have his say. To constantly refer back to skin colour is simply unhelpful. Terrorism has a definition - and this definition has nothing to do with the quantity of eumelanin found in someone's skin.

Andrew Neil on Farage tonight discussing the US and Afghanistan.

Should be a good show, viewing figures never been higher on YouTube Live as they are now.

Andrew Neil hasn't left GB News after all!

We've seen some of that kind of racism on this thread, where black people with "the wrong opinions" (i.e. conservative views) were referred to as Quislings.