Edward Colston plaque installed with new slave trade wording
He said: "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."Opposition councillors pointed out to Mr Eddy that Edward Colston's fortune came from "forced transportation of 84,000 slaves, almost 20,000 of whom died", the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
Edward Colston was a prominent 17th Century slave trader and his legacy has been a source of controversy in Bristol for many years.He was a member of the Royal African Company, which transported about 80,000 men, women and children from Africa to the Americas.On his death in 1721, he bequeathed his wealth to charities and his legacy can still be seen on Bristol's streets, memorials and buildings.After the statue was toppled, a protester was pictured with his knee on the figure's neck - reminiscent of the video showing George Floyd who died while being restrained in that way by a Minnesota police officer.
Four people accused of illegally removing the statue were cleared of criminal damage in January 2022. The statue is now on permanent display in M Shed's Bristol People gallery in the city.Seven years after it was suggested, the new plaque has been placed below the original plaque - part of the plinth when the statue was first erected 130 years ago.
The new plaque reads: "On 13 November, 1895, a statue of Edward Colston (1636-1721) was unveiled here. "In the late 20th and early 21st 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."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
a few seconds ago
- Daily Mail
Taxman's guilt at being British: Fury as HMRC, which can't even answer your phone calls, allows staff event, held during office hours, discussing the 'Guilt of Being British'
Civil servants working for the taxman has come under fire after holding a seminar on the 'Guilt of Being British'. Staff at HM Revenue and Customs were able to log-in remotely and attend the session during office hours yesterday, prompting a furious backlash. It comes amid repeated criticism of HMRC 's performance, with hundreds of thousands of calls from taxpayers going unanswered every month, customers getting surreptitiously cut off, and general concern from MPs over the 'failing' phone service. Kemi Badenoch on Wednesday night described the session as 'nonsense', and challenged Whitehall aides to leave the service if they were not proud of Britain. The Tory leader told the Mail: 'Is it any wonder the public hate dealing with HMRC, now we learn the staff are being taught to feel guilty about being British? 'In government I fought to remove all this nonsense from the Civil Service. Under my leadership, a Conservative government will ensure public bodies are proud of Britain, not ashamed of it. 'We'll defend our history, not apologise for it. And if that offends the Civil Service's seminar circuit, they're welcome to go somewhere else.' The hour-long 'Guilt of Being British: Listening circle' was run by the HMRC Race Network and held from 11am until midday. It was billed as 'a powerful, interactive, and reflective listening circle exploring the emotional complexity of being South Asian and British', covering topics including 'the emotional weight of colonial history' as part of the taxman's commitment to diversity, equality and inclusion. According to a post published on the HMRC's intranet, the session promised to 'delve into themes of guilt, pride, and identity, offering space for personal stories and cultural insights'. Workers were told participants would explore 'the duality of identity - balancing heritage and belonging', and the 'emotional weight of colonial history and inherited trauma'. The internal advert said those attending would discover more about 'career challenges faced by South Asian women - barriers, bias and expectations', and learn how 'storytelling and representation help reclaim our narratives.' A dumbfounded Civil Service source told the Mail: 'This example of a work-time staff event pushing a highly divisive anti-British narrative perfectly encapsulates the nightmare that is Civil Service staff networks. 'Those focused on race and trans in particular seem to operate entirely without scrutiny, and attract large numbers of activist staff, intent on pushing their personal beliefs on their colleagues rather than identifying and tackling actual workplace issues. 'This is a total abandonment of the vital principle of Civil Service political neutrality and makes a lot of us very uncomfortable, but if you challenge these groups on their approaches you risk putting a target on your back. 'As is seen in this event, these networks also enable many people to treat the workplace like their personal therapy centres. 'So many of us are getting on with our jobs and we see colleagues holding listening circles to talk about personal traumas - it fosters resentment and damages public trust.' Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Tory Cabinet Minister, added: 'It is peculiar that people who hate their country want to run it. 'Perhaps I should offer a course on why being British is to win first prize in the lottery of life.' Joanna Marchong, investigations campaign manager at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Taxpayers are fed up of bankrolling woke staff networks. 'While HMRC quangocrats sit around in circles whining about colonialism, hard-working Brits are being left on hold for hours on end. 'Staff networks should not be funded by taxpayers and they certainly shouldn't be happening during working hours.' It is not known how many of HMRC's more than 60,000 staff attended the remote event. A spokesman for the taxman said it would have been less than 0.1% and had no impact on its call handling ability. Earlier this year a report by Parliament's Public Accounts Committee found HMRC answered just 66.4 per cent of customers' attempts to speak to an adviser, well below the target of 85 per cent. It said performance reached 'an all-time low'. Around 40,000 customers were cut off in the year 2023-24 if they were waiting for more than 70 minutes, without an explanation, and no callback option was available. The average call wait time exceeded 23 minutes, with HMRC saying it did not have adequate resources to meet telephone demand from customers. The report said: 'HMRC's already poor service to taxpayers has become even worse. 'The PAC is concerned that HMRC has degraded its own phone services - willing to let them fail, in the hope that people will be forced to go online.' HMRC's most recent monthly performance report, however, shows signs of improvement - 80 per cent of calls were handled in March, while average call time waits were down to 14 minutes and 44 seconds. An HMRC spokesman said: 'Events by staff networks should not be taken as reflecting the views of HMRC. 'An event like this would only be attended by around 0.1% of staff, which would have no impact on our ability to staff our helplines. We have robust processes in place to ensure our phonelines are well-resourced throughout the day.' It comes after the Mail last week revealed the NHS budgeted nearly £2 million for similar staff networks in the health service, many of whom hold 'woke' events for staff. They included an event on 'Embracing Asexuality', a talk on 'Embracing your Afro/Curly hair' and another on 'International Pronouns Day'.
The Sun
a few seconds ago
- The Sun
Harry's response to charity row is typically him – blame others and then flounce off instead of trying to fix things
PRINCE Harry has flounced out – yet again. This time, not from the monarchy. Not from a podcast deal. Not from the Army, that many believe he quit too soon. 6 6 6 This time, from Sentebale – the worthy African children's charity he co-founded in memory of his mother, Princess Diana. Once a passion project. Now just another scorched bridge. The exit wasn't quiet or dignified. It followed an ugly row with the chair of trustees, Dr Sophie Chandauka, a punchy Zimbabwean-born lawyer and major donor. Several trustees stepped down, too. What followed was familiar: leaked emails, bullying allegations, duelling statements and headlines Harry tried — and failed — to control. Now comes the Charity Commission's verdict: No laws broken. But the rebuke was clear: governance failures, damaging behaviour and a serious lack of leadership. Harry insists he was forced out. That the chair was impossible to work with. That the environment had turned toxic. What else could he do? Harry always throws toys out of pram - latest charity move is childish But leadership isn't about walking away when the mood turns. In any serious institution — royalty, the boardroom or charity — you don't storm out. You stay in the room. You resolve the problem for the greater good. Instead, Harry bailed. Same old story. And like so many of his recent exits, this one fits the pattern. When pressure mounts and compromise is needed, he withdraws. Rather than engage, Harry flushed red and scarpered back to the luxury of Montecito, and Megs to mop his furrowed brow Robert It's a shame. Because Sentebale mattered. Founded in 2006, it provides long-term support to children in Lesotho and Botswana affected by HIV and poverty. It wasn't a vanity project. It was purposeful — touching the lives of 100,000 youngsters — and at one point, so was Harry. I travelled to Lesotho with him twice. I saw the work up close. Those children in need of help didn't see him as a prince. They saw someone who listened, who cared, somebody who came back. His presence wasn't performative. It was real. His royal rank and media profile opened doors. His conviction helped break stigma of HIV/AIDS, just as his late mother had done right at the outset of the fight. For years, he gave Sentebale visibility and momentum. It was, without question, his most meaningful contribution. But cracks appeared. His decision to quit royal life was costly. In 2023, Dr Chandauka initiated a financial review. She flagged a sharp drop in donations following Harry's withdrawal from royal duties; income fell to £2.39million in 2020, though later rebounded. She reportedly labelled his image a 'reputational risk' and raised questions about whether he was now more liability than asset. Rather than engage, Harry flushed red and scarpered back to the luxury of Montecito, and Megs to mop his furrowed brow. No formal rebuttal. No quiet diplomacy. No attempt to repair. He threw his toys out of the pram. He could have shown resolve, offered solutions, and strengthened the structure. Instead, he vanished. And that's what makes this so frustrating. Harry had no shortage of templates to help lead through turbulence. His grandfather, Prince Philip, oversaw the Duke of Edinburgh's Award for more than six decades — often in silence, always with rigour. His son Edward, the new Duke, is its leader. His father, King Charles, spent years building The Prince's Trust — now the King's Trust — from a niche programme into a national institution. 6 His sister-in-law, Catherine, champions important causes such as early years development with longevity, consistency and focus. His brother, William, leads Earthshot, a well-structured mission with financial backing. None of them walked out mid-crisis. They worked through it. Harry could have done the same. He could have stayed on the board in a non-executive role. Helped recruit new trustees. Brought in independent mediators. Stabilised the organisation rather than adding to the unrest. But that would have required discipline — and a willingness to listen. 'Squandered legacy' Instead, he defaulted to the same script: leave, blame, reposition. And this time, the people most affected weren't palace courtiers or out-of-pocket podcast executives. They were the children of Lesotho — many living with HIV, others orphaned, some still stigmatised. Those were the ones who stood to lose most. The pattern goes back further. His early exit from the Army — ten solid years of exemplary service, but he chose not to be a career soldier and go on, to rise further through the ranks and gain his braided uniforms on merit rather than royal birthright. His abrupt departure from working royal life. His mudslinging. His family ties frayed. Promises to reinvent himself in California have mostly yielded media spats, stalled projects and carefully lit documentaries. What's missing is institutional maturity. And staying power. This isn't about empathy or charisma; Harry has plenty of both. But he's never learned to sit with discomfort, to fix what's failing. Instead, he blames. Then bails. Since relocating to Montecito, his inner circle of advisers has narrowed. 6 He listens to American PR consultants and is guided, above all, by his Duchess, Meghan Markle — who built her brand around control and survival, not compromise or tradition. The problem is that leadership — particularly in the charitable sector — requires grit, continuity and people willing to challenge you, not flatter you. It's not that Dr Chandauka is beyond reproach. Under her tenure, annual accounts remain unpublished, and the next set is delayed until 2025. She may face valid questions. But here's the telling detail: the Commission didn't ask her to go. She stayed. Harry didn't. Now his team says Harry will support African kids 'in new ways.' In practice, that means nothing. His seat at the Sentebale table is empty. His voice, once essential, is absent. It's the institutional equivalent of ghosting. And this wasn't just another cause. This was personal. A living tribute to his mother. One of the few initiatives he helped build from the ground up. He could have pushed for reform. Brought in fresh trustees. Set a better standard. The options were there. What they didn't need was drama. What they couldn't survive was abandonment. This isn't scandal. It's waste. A squandered legacy. A cautionary tale. Another institution left to sweep up the debris of brand-driven burnout. The headlines will fade. The charity may recover. But something has shifted. The Harry I saw in Lesotho back in 2006 –- he had a purpose. A spark. A sense of something larger than himself. Now, all we're left with is another clean break, and another promise unkept. When Harry chose the name Sentebale, it meant forget-me-not — a tribute to Diana and her favourite flowers. It was a promise never to let her memory fade. Well, sadly, it looks like he's done just that. Robert Jobson is a royal editor and the No1 bestselling author of Catherine, The Princess of Wales – The Biography 6
Times
26 minutes ago
- Times
‘Nimby' attacks alienate rural voters, Labour MPs warn Keir Starmer
Sir Keir Starmer is being warned by Labour MPs to tone down the government's attack on 'nimbys' amid fears it is alienating voters in rural constituencies that the party won for the first time in 2024. The prime minister was told the phrase was divisive and risked a further drop in the 'goodwill' shown by rural voters that handed Labour a historic election win last year. The Rural Research Group, which represents 26 MPs from countryside constituencies, said it was wrong to label people 'nimbys'. The acronym stands for 'not in my back yard' and has been adopted frequently by Starmer to characterise those he has said are standing in the way of Labour's growth plans by blocking new housing and infrastructure. But the group said there was a tendency in Westminster to 'focus on dividing lines' that 'often pit rural against urban, and nimbys against yimbys ['yes in my back yard']' — with the former 'seen as people living in rural or semi-rural communities'. They conducted polling that found 56 per cent rural of rural voters did not see themselves as nimbys, compared with 16 who did. 'For development to succeed in rural areas, it must respect and reflect the deep connection to land, nature and local identity,' the MPs said. • Pro-growth Labour MPs dismayed at concession to green 'nimbys' Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, who chairs the group and won the seat of Suffolk Coastal for Labour for the first time in 2024 from the former deputy prime minister Thérèse Coffey, said that calling people nimbys was 'toxic'. She told The Times: 'We need to put the term 'nimbyism' to bed. It excludes a whole set of voters from a conversation about what local growth and local opportunity means for them, in their area. 'Shouting people down and calling them nimbys won't win support for local growth. 'But if we capture what matters locally, build in for nature, and make growth inclusive for our rural areas — we can succeed where the previous government failed.' Starmer has repeatedly attacked 'nimbys' in a bid to demonstrate the government's commitment to boosting growth through housebuilding and new infrastructure projects. Since becoming prime minister, he has vowed to 'take on the nimbys', branding them 'blockers' who want to 'frustrate growth' and are part of 'the alliance of naysayers'. The group's intervention will be seen as evidence of growing concern among rural MPs about Labour's poll ratings, particularly given the hit to farmers from Rachel Reeves's changes to inheritance tax in her budget. • James Rebanks: 'The farming crisis? It's much bigger than inheritance tax' The emergence of more 'research group' caucuses in parliament also mirrors how Conservative factions sought to wield their power under previous administrations and demonstrates the restlessness felt by some Labour MPs. Starmer was told to show more recognition of rural identity, which the rural group said had 'for too long been misunderstood and overlooked by policymakers'. They said housebuilding was still important, with 80 per cent of those surveyed saying they were concerned younger people will not be able to buy their own home. Most — 65 per cent — were happy for development to proceed, so long as it was done thoughtfully and with consideration for local identity and needs. However, the group said that rural areas 'often have higher housing targets than their urban neighbours' and are bearing the brunt of big energy projects and grid upgrades as part of the government's drive towards net zero. 'For many rural voters, this is something that they are increasingly aware of, as they witness new infrastructure and developments appearing in their locality,' the MPs said in their report, Understanding Rural Britain. • Why Labour is failing to build the homes Britain needs Their polling showed rural voters prioritised spending on the NHS above all else (59 per cent), followed by agriculture and the rural economy (51 per cent), education (48 per cent) and tackling crime (44 per cent). The most popular spending cuts were foreign aid (53 per cent) and welfare (44 per cent).Given the potential threat posed by Reform UK, the group also highlighted widespread disillusionment with the established political parties. Almost two thirds of rural voters — 65 per cent — said they have little trust in politicians, according to the poll. The MPs said: 'This should serve as a clear warning sign to all parties: disillusionment in rural Britain runs deep, and restoring trust will require more than promises — it must be backed by visible, long-term local action rooted in authenticity.' A Labour source defended the party's record, saying: 'We are proud of our ambition to create a fairer Britain.' They said that working families were yet to 'feel that sense of fairness' and that all people 'deserve a secure place to call home for them and their loved ones'. The source added Labour would 'unashamedly deliver on that promise', as well as its commitment to build 1.5 million new homes during the parliament with adequate infrastructure and healthcare for new residents.
