Fury as ‘woke' Colston plaque condemns his ‘prominent role in slavery'
A new plaque on the empty plinth of Edward Colston's statue in Bristol condemns his 'prominent role in the enslavement of African people'.
The plaque, installed on Wednesday evening, removes any mention of Colston as a 'benefactor' to the city.
Instead, it emphasises his 'prominent role in the enslavement of African people', adding that the statue is now in 'the collections of Bristol City Council's museums'.
It comes five years after the statue was toppled and dumped into the River Avon by Black Lives Matter protesters following the murder of George Floyd during the Covid lockdown.
The plaque provoked criticism from Arron Banks, the Reform UK candidate for West of England, who branded it 'woke nonsense'.
'Colston was a complex character of his time, he made money from slavery and then donated nearly all of it back to good causes,' he told The Telegraph.
'He was a man of his time. The British were the first proper country to declare slavery illegal and enforce it worldwide with the British Navy.
'The Black Lives Matters idiots choose to celebrate the life of a criminal who held up pregnant women in the street as their hero. Their movement was exposed when their leaders pocketed the cash for themselves.
'As Mayor I'll pull the statue out of the river and put it back up. I'll then write to the cowardly governors at Colston Grammar and request they reinstate the name. We shouldn't be rewriting British or Bristol history for anyone.
'This woke nonsense has to end.'
The new plaque reads: 'On 13 November, 1895, a statue of Edward Colston (1636-1721) was unveiled here.
'In the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, the celebration of Colston was increasingly challenged given his prominent role in the enslavement of African people.
'On 7 June 2020, the statue was pulled down during Black Lives Matter protests and rolled into the Floating Harbour.
'Following consultation with the city in 2021, the statue entered the collections of Bristol City Council's museums.'
It sits below an original plaque from 130 years ago which describes Mr Colston as 'one of the most virtuous and wise sons of the city' and was agreed after several re-writes, drafts and arguments at City Hall between councillors.
In November, Conservative city councillor Richard Eddy voted against the revision, calling it 'utterly shameful'.
He said at the time: 'Deleting the reference to Edward Colston, one of Bristol's greatest sons, being a benefactor is outrageous – an utterly historical revision that is worthy of the Nazis.'
At a meeting last year, Cllr Eddy described the people who pulled down the statue in 2020 as a 'mob of criminals and hooligans' for 'vandalising' a listed monument.
The 'Colston Four', as they came to be known, openly admitted their involvement in removing the statue, insisting that they had committed no crime.
They argued that their actions had been justified because the statue was a hate crime to the people of Bristol because of Colston's links to the slave trade.
A lengthy police investigation eventually led to nine people being interviewed, five of whom were offered conditional discharges, while four were charged with criminal damage.
The idea for another plaque to be attached to the plinth was never dropped, even after the statue was toppled in 2020, and was brought back to the council in 2023 and into 2024 by the then Labour administration, before councillors finally voted to approve it last November.
The wording of the plaque was finally agreed after work by the Bristol Legacy Foundation, but councillors made changes and objected to it at several meetings in 2023 and 2024.
It is the fourth plaque to be created for the plinth: one was fitted unofficially in the 2010s as part of protests against the celebration of Colston, while another was created but never installed due to the watering down of its wording.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
How RFK Jr. is quickly changing U.S. health agencies
WASHINGTON — In just a few short months, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has begun to transform U.S. health policy: shrinking staff at health agencies, restructuring the focus of some regulators and researchers, changing Covid vaccine regulations and reshaping the mission of his department to focus more on alternative medicine. The directives are all part of the same issue set that drove a slice of health-conscious, left-leaning Americans to eventually vote for a Republican president whose favorite meal is from McDonald's, Trump and Kennedy catered to a type of voter who has grown distrustful of America's health care establishment — but possibly fomented a new type of distrust in federal health policy along the way. Bernadine Francis, a lifelong Democrat who backed Joe Biden for president in 2020 before supporting Donald Trump in 2024, told NBC News in an interview that she approves of Kennedy's efforts so far, despite his 'hands being tied' by entrenched forces in the administration and in Congress. 'From what I have seen so far with what RFK has been trying to do,' she said, 'I am really, really proud of what he's doing.' Francis is among the voters who left the Democratic Party and voted for Trump because 'nothing else mattered' apart from public health, which they — like Kennedy — felt was going in the wrong direction. Concerns about chemicals in food and toxins in the environment, long championed by Democrats, has become a galvanizing issue to a key portion of Trump's Republican Party, complete with an oversaturation of information that in some cases hasn't been proven. It's wrapped up, as well, in concerns about the Covid vaccine, which was accelerated under Trump, administered under Biden and weaponized by anti-vaccine activists like Kennedy amid lockdowns and firings in the wake of the devastating pandemic. 'We knew in order to get RFK in there so he can help with the situation that we have in the health industry, we knew we had to do this,' said Francis, a retired Washington, D.C., public school administrator, who said she left her 'beloved' career because she had refused the vaccine. 'It seemed to me, as soon as [Biden] became president, the vaccine was mandated, and that was when I lost all hope in the Democrats,' Francis told NBC News, referring to vaccination mandates put in place by the Biden administration for a large portion of the federal workforce during the height of the pandemic. There are not currently any federal Covid vaccine mandates. There have been 1,228,393 confirmed Covid deaths in the United States since the start of the pandemic, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How RFK Jr.'s picks are changing public health agencies Dr. Marty Makary, Kennedy's hand-picked commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and a John Hopkins scientist and researcher, told NBC News in an interview that he wants to transform the agency, which he said faced 'corruption' over influence from the pharmaceutical and food industries. 'I mean, you look at the food pyramid, it was not based on what's best for you, it was based on what companies wanted you to buy,' he said, referring to the 1992 and later iterations of official government nutritional guidance. He said there would be 'entirely new nutrition guidance' released later this year, as soon as this summer. He praised the FDA's mission of research and regulation, saying the agency is 'incredibly well-oiled, and we've got the trains running on time.' He also highlighted the 75-page 'Make America Healthy Again' commission report — which focused on ultraprocessed foods and toxins in the environment — as having set 'the agenda for research' at the FDA, HHS and agencies overseeing social safety net programs such as Medicare and food stamps moving forward. (The MAHA report initially cited some studies that didn't exist, a mistake that Kennedy adviser Calley Means said was a 'great disservice' to their mission.) 'I think there's a lot we're going to learn. For example, the microbiome, which gets attention in the MAHA report, needs to be on the map. We don't even talk about it in our medical circles,' Makary said. 'The microbiome, food is medicine, the immune response that happens when chemicals that don't appear in nature go down our GI tract.' Pressed on other areas of the administration, like the Environmental Protection Agency, making decisions that run counter to the pro-regulatory ideas presented in the MAHA report, Makary said he can 'only comment on the FDA' where they are 'committed to Secretary Kennedy's vision.' But Kennedy's public health agenda goes beyond looking at the food supply and chemicals. Recently, Kennedy said in a video posted on X last month that the Covid vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, a change in CDC guidance that skipped the normal public review period. Days later, after critics questioned the decision and raised concerns over a lack of public data behind the move, the administration updated its guidance again, urging parents to consult with their doctors instead. Pressed about the confusion and whether Americans are now trading one side of public distrust in the health system for another, Makary defended Kennedy, who has been criticized for spreading misinformation. 'My experience with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy is that he listens. He listens to myself, he listens to Jay Bhattacharya, listens to Dr. Mehmet Oz, he listens to a host of scientists that are giving him guidance,' Makary argued, referring to the director of the National Institutes of Health and the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, respectively. 'So he may have big questions, but the questions he's asking are the questions most Americans are asking.' The intersection of medicine and healthy lifestyle choices Dr. Dawn Mussallem, a breast cancer oncologist and integrative medicine doctor — a physician who combines conventional treatments with research-based alternative therapies — has tried to help her patients wade through medical misinformation they encounter online and in their social circles. Mussallem has an incredible story of personal survival: While in medical school, she was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and, after conventional therapies like chemo saved her life, was diagnosed with heart failure. After undergoing a heart transplant, Mussallem ran a 26-mile marathon just one year later. 'I learned a lot in medical school, but nothing compared to what I learned being a patient,' said Mussallem, who dedicates, on average, 90 minutes each in one-on-one sessions with her patients. 'This is not about any one political choice. But we know lifestyle matters.' For example, a new study from the American Society of Clinical Oncology that finds eating food that lowers inflammation in the body may help people with advanced colon cancer survive longer. Mussallem's mission, along with her colleagues, is to elevate the modern medicine that saved her life, as well as encouraging her patients to live healthy lifestyles, including regular exercise, minimally processed foods, less screen time, more social connection and better sleep. But politics do get in the way for millions of Americans who are inundated daily with social media influencers and 'nonmedical experts,' as Mussallem puts it, who stoke fear in her patients. 'Patients come in with all these questions, fears,' she said. 'I've heard this many times from patients, that their nervous system is affected by what they're seeing happening in government.' Mussallem acknowledges that 'a lot of individuals out there' have questioned traditional medicine. For her, it isn't one or the other — it's both. 'We have to trust the conventional medicine,' she said. 'With the conventional care that marches right alongside more of an integrative modality to look at the root causes of disease, as well as to help to optimize with lifestyle, is where we need to be.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Labour hails ‘incredible' by-election victory – but can it see off Reform to win Holyrood in 2026?
Against expectations, Labour won the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for the Scottish parliament. Anas Sarwar, its leader in Scotland, hailed the result as an 'incredible victory' and declared that voters are 'tired of SNP failure' but have 'rejected Reform 's poison'. However, with a little less than a year before the next elections at Holyrood, it's by no means clear who the next first minister will be. What happened in Hamilton? The by-election was held following the death earlier this year of Scottish government minister, Christina McKelvie. Labour's Davy Russell won after a swing of more than 7 per cent from the SNP to Labour, with 8,559 votes, beating SNP candidate Katy Loudon on 7,957 and Reform's Ross Lambie on 7,088. Mr Sarwar said: 'The choice is stark next year ... it is about choosing a government here in Scotland. The choice is stark – a third decade of the SNP with John Swinney as first minister or a new direction for Scotland with me as first minister.' Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice insisted his party was 'delighted' with coming third. 'We've come from nowhere to being in a three-way marginal, and we're within 750 votes of winning that by-election and just a few hundred votes of defeating the SNP, so it's an incredible result,' he said. Was it an 'incredible victory' for Labour? No. Labour did far worse than in a 2023 by-election for Westminster, and in last year's election. It even did a little worse here than it did in the 2021 Holyrood elections. What's more, it was hardly ahead of the SNP or, more shockingly, Reform UK. A shift of a few hundred votes out of the total of 27,155 cast could have swung it for any of three main contenders. It was really a three-way fight, and could easily have been won by either of the other two, with Labour possibly finishing a close third. The outstanding features were the collapse in SNP and Conservative support, plus a Reform UK surge in unpromising territory. What does it tell us about Labour? This took place in the central belt, where Labour staged a remarkable revival last year but has since suffered a steep decline, so the result was broadly in line with what opinion polls are telling us. So who will win the Scottish elections next year? Nobody, in the sense that the SNP will suffer heavy losses and Labour may do scarcely better than it did in 2021. On the current showing, the SNP will most likely emerge as the largest party unless Labour can stage a recovery and take voters away from the SNP, who've been in power since 2007. On the basis of this by-election and the opinion polls, no one will get anywhere near an overall majority, and it will be difficult for any realistic majority to be cobbled together. The Scottish election system has a good deal of proportionality in it which means that, unlike the first-past-the-post arrangement for the House of Commons, many more parties will gain a larger representation. Thus it seems likely that the SNP, Labour, Reform, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and possibly the Scottish Greens and Alba will be represented to some extent. The SNP, despite its slump since 2021, may well still be the largest single party, on about 32 per cent of the vote, ahead of Labour. But the SNP would need the support of other, mostly unionist, parties if it wanted to govern on a truly stable basis – at the moment, an unlikely scenario. Alternatively, the SNP, possibly under new leadership, could follow the example of Alex Salmond in his first term as first minister from 2007 to 2011, and govern on a 'policy by policy' basis as a minority administration. Either way, the relative weakness of the SNP would stymie any further push for independence. But Labour, who beat the SNP in Scotland at last year's Westminster election, will be disappointed in 2026 if they fail to retake Holyrood, which they once dominated so effortlessly.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
FBI director Kash Patel reveals bombshell breakthrough that'll have Anthony Fauci trembling: 'We're on to him'
The Trump administration has allegedly 'found' the cell phone Dr Anthony Fauci used during the Covid pandemic, the president's intelligence head revealed. FBI director Kash Patel revealed on the latest episode of the Joe Rogan Experience that he and leaders like Senator Rand Paul have been on the hunt for any devices Fauci used while advising Americans during the pandemic. Patel said while Paul and health secretary Robert F Kennedy 'are doing a great job' finding the origins of Covid, the team had struggled for years to find Fauci's phone and other devices. But this week, the team 'had a great breakthrough.' Patel told Rogan the FBI had just found a phone Fauci used at the time, mere days before the podcast was filmed. It's unclear exactly when the phone was used and how they verified it belonged to Fauci. Patel did not specify how they seized it or what the team's 'multiple investigations' thus far on the origins of Covid have found. He also cautioned Americans 'shouldn't jump to the conclusion that everything's in there' and that incriminating data could have been deleted. However, he called the bombshell 'a victory for the American people' and said his team is immediately working to comb through any data on the device. Patel said: 'We found it, and at least we can tell the American people we've been looking because it is of public importance to figure out, did that guy lie? Did he intentionally mislead the world and cause countless deaths? 'We owe those answers to the American people, and the best evidence ever is always the people's evidence who created it. So now we're going to go and exploit those hard drives.' 'We did find it, we're not done, we're still looking and we're on the case.' Patel did not specify how his team got the old phone or how they verified it was Fauci's. Generally, a warrant is required to seize a cell phone, even for a government official. There are no publicly available warrants out against Fauci currently. Mounting evidence has suggested Covid may have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, with some reports estimated '80 to 95 percent certainty.' The Chinese government has always denied the lab-leak theory and maintained Covid was the product of an animal spillover. American agencies like the FBI and CIA believe a lab leak is the most likely possibility. Patel did not say on the podcast what he thinks. Dr Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, previously told 'The main points are clear: All informed persons - without exception - knew by early 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 likely entered humans through a research-related incident in Wuhan. 'But most chose to lie or to stay silent.' Fauci has denied all accusations of Covid being 'covered up' or originating from a lab. Patel said: 'My mission has always been to put out the truth, whatever the consequences, whoever it's against.
