Churchill in a straitjacket

As a piece of art work it is contraversal, it has the medias attention which is what the charity wants. Tjou I would preffer to see Blair in a straightjacket, a real one that is!


Well he was voted out pretty quick after VE and VJ, what makes for a good war time leader is not always what people want in peace.
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?


Well Churchill wasn't beyond having a poke...there's the (in)famous Lady Astor incident....

He: "You're ugly."
She: "You're drunk!"
He: "Yes, but tomorrow i will be sober."
She: "If you were my husband, I'd put arsenic in your coffee."
He: "If I were your husband, I'd drink it!"
I wonder what the commission for racial equality would have said if it had been of Frank Bruno?,don't get me wrong I thought Frank was ok but he went a bit barking and is well known
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 £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????
I think you're missing the point a little here, chaps.

Our greatest Prime Minister (sorry TCB, you ain't it .....) suffered from mental illness, and 1 in 4 of us will.

Despite that, he led the Empire throughout a terrible war against an evil enemy and never gave in.

The purpose of the statue seems to be to point out that even those who suffer mental illness can be useful and shouldn't be written-off as basket cases too readily.
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.
Well said MSI64,

some folks in high places would have had a sense of humour failure if Diana had been portrayed in that light. :evil: :x

I personally find the statue both offensive and in bad taste. Spend the money on therapy and not a piece of 'Turner Prize'rubbish! :twisted: :twisted:

Churchill....not a bad bloke, respect where it is due.
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
Its not who bought it that upsets me its the complete lack of thought of its contents thats p***es me off would you be happy if it was your DAD up there????
FluffyBunny said:
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?
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.

Churchill did not suffer from mental illness. He had depression that he called 'black dog' and it came about when things were difficult for him. I think the statue is an insult to him.
Rethink said the image of Churchill - who suffered bouts of depression - was designed to "portray a more positive image of people with mental illness".
Then why the feck did they portray him in a straight jacket, which was traditionally used to secure dangerous mental patients?

Hardly a clever way to portray mental illnes in a better light, more likely to build further stigmatism