How times have changed. I remember the whole of the UK stopping in its tracks watching the funeral of Churchill in goold old fashioned black and white. Showing my age a bit but the whole of the UK stopped and showed the respect due to a great man and a great leader.
I personally don't find it that offensive but I would question the use of Churchill as a role model for mental health. I don't think it offends HM Forces but I find it rather tasteless considering the high opinions people still have of him. But then that's art or what the media considers art nowadays. Is Nelson going to be the next gay icon? The Duke of Wellington also? I'm a dead celebrity, get me out of here?
If the statue had been of an anonymous bag lady then the media would have stayed away in droves. Let the people decide I suppose. Hammer anybody?
The statue is apparently a reference to Churchill's depression but there are many who grew up or served when he was in charge who have been quite scarred by the coverage never mind the statue.
I'm not sure whether there was any contact with the family but considering the fact that (like him or not) he did a necessary job and provided those who have freedom with the means to maintain it I think that this is perhaps more than a little ill advised.
To quote Norwich N MP Ian Gibson concerning what is nothing more than a publicity stunt - after all can there be any 'bad' publicity?
"The publicity itself is paying off. The campaign is gaining a lot of publicity from this statue."
So once agains the means justify the ends. Is nothing sacrosant? Not even the memory of a man who might have been flawed but provided leaderhsip when it was needed. Aparently nobody is safe (unless they have Â£1.5M to lend and fancy a peerage) not even those who were once regarded as heroic and loyal citizens.
I think this is 'dissing' Churchill no matter what others might say and does nothing for depression or other mental illness.
I personally find it offensive A Great leader used as a cheap publicity stunt for a Charity, when i say cheap I mean low rather than not expensive.
Whats next a statue of the QUEEN shooting up to show people its ok to do drugs????
Ok fine but how much of an uproar would there have been if the statue had been the Princess of Wales with her head in the toilet as this promotes awareness of Bulimia/anorexia which even she said she had.
I find the connection between depression and straitjackets quite tenuous.
(if you want to get into discussions about monopolar hypomania or or psychotic behaviour then even then we'd be a bit tenuous)
I don't think Churchill was into self-harm (one of the reasons for restraint within the MHA) nor was he a danger to others (unless you count the Germans ). I have worked as a counsellor and many of my clients were depressives (manic and otherwise) and to have them protrayed as requiring restrait such as displayed in this case is damaging and insulting to them and their conditions.
How can a charity seeking to support mental illness buy into such a poor image of it?
Isn't the point though, that mental illness isn't only the stereotypical strait-jacketed raving loonies but also includes many otherwise normal or even great folk?
As for Princess Di, if someone wants to do a statue of her barfing to raise awareness of bulemia, you'll get no complaint from me.
However, despite me despising her (steady here, Current Affairs forum after all ) she did at least go on TV and into print to discuss eating disorders and may have helped some sufferers.
I believe the stature has been commisioned by a mental health charity , Rethink , the answer is obvious . If you support their use of the stature of Churchill make a donation , if you object to it don't give them a penny.
By the way my money is stying in my pocket
True, but the way to attack stereotypes is not to use them for this, surely, is self-defeating.
There are many who are fighting to live and work with depression. They aren't certifiable and they don't need restraint but do need acceptance, understanding and an end to prejudice - doesn't this stand alongside Amin's 'art' and the 'cows cut in half is art' brigade.
No matter what they meant - communication is in the ear and eye of the recipient - intent is not communication no matter how well it might be intended.