Red Ken does it again

#1
Ken Livingstone wants a statue og Mahatma Ghandi to be erected in Parliament Square in celebration of the fact that Ghandi was an integral part of British history (WTF?). Correct me if I am wrong but all that Ghandi did for British was become a pain in the arrse, was instrumental in the collapse of a once great Empire, failed to condemn attacks on members of the Forces by Extremists (but he allegedly secretly supported them) and (give him his due) "peacefully demonstrated" for independence.

Ken had that brainwave to have Mandelas statue erected as he was part of out natins heritage. He did fcuk all for our country.

WAKE UP LIVINSTONE. Instead of these crappy statues why not erect one for our forces or for our police and other emergency services? Not some tinpot sheet wearing slaphead.
 
#3
If it was to replace that naked half body female statue, I'd be more for it. In fact I'd even go for one of an asda cashier to replace that crap. Other than that, no. Mr. L has a long back garden in his NW London home, he ought to test his ideas there instead.
 
#4
I'm surprised he hasn't tried to get a statue of Adams being rogered by McGuinness in trafalgar square as a gesture of peace. :lol:

Ken is, and has always been a knobber of the first order and a pain in the political arrse of any party(including his own) that was in power 8O


fastmedic
 
#6
Livingston is fast becoming a bore, it is he, and his friends policies over the last twenty years that have turned this one pleasent easy going country, into a hand wringing, mealy mouthed, egg shell walking embarrassment of a country. It's bloody sad what has happened to this country over the last few years. Humour has dissapeared too, everything is so serious now, you can't even open your mouth to say something without some official branding you with the 'R' word, I would emigrate if I had any money, but I'm skint. :?
 
#9
FABLONBIFFCHIT said:
Correct me if I am wrong but all that Ghandi did for British was become a pain in the arrse,
Not really so, he was very pro Empire for much of his early life and I believe did a fair bit ref our wounded in the Boer War as a volunteer. He also published a guide to surviving in London as a student, which I am told is a cracking read. Us giving up India had nothing to with him and everything to do with the deal that the Yanks insisted on for help during WWII as in we had to give it up as it was major threat as a trading block to emerging US supremacy. They obviously dressed it up as somthing else.

To be honest given Red Kens track record this could have been much much worse. Ghandi I can live with, Bobby Sands I couldn't.
 
#10
Sergeant-Major Mohandas Gandhi, awarded Kaisar-i-Hind, George V, 1st variety, gold, QSA and Natal 08 what ever his politics he did his bit, when many others didnt
 
#11
MyssL said:
node said:
:?Is here is a Ghandi statue in Tavistock Square Gardens :?: What needed is a statute for red KenR.I.P.asap :lol:
Yep indeed:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Cheers I remember him, bet Red Ken cannot cross his legs like Ghandi, be nice to see Ken next to Ghandi so the birds can post their messages on him. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
#12
armchair_jihad said:
Us giving up India had nothing to with him and everything to do with the deal that the Yanks insisted on for help during WWII as in we had to give it up as it was major threat as a trading block to emerging US supremacy. They obviously dressed it up as somthing else.
.
Interesting comment a_j - any evidence to support it?

On the issue of Ken and his "brilliant" ideas - when is he due to fcuk off & die / leave office - can't happen soon enough :D

lancslad
 
#13
I think Ken’s spot on about getting rid of the tedious generals, slave owners, empire builders and n*****-drivers who populate London’s public places. They don’t represent majority Britain and never have. They’ve nothing to do with freedom and standing up to bullies and justice and fair play – perennial British values. In other words they’re unpatriotic and the sooner Red Ken pulls them all down the better. Plus London keeps voting for him so what Ken does has a mandate behind it.

One advantage of a Gandhi statue is that the wonderful Dickie Attenborough might be persuaded to unveil it (as he did the recent Mandela). In fact, can't Dickie be persuaded to post on ARSSE? He’d call UKIP and BNP members ‘darling!’ while violently disagreeing with them. It would be great.
 
#16
annakey said:
I think Ken’s spot on about getting rid of the tedious generals, slave owners, empire builders and n*****-drivers who populate London’s public places. They don’t represent majority Britain and never have. They’ve nothing to do with freedom and standing up to bullies and justice and fair play – perennial British values. In other words they’re unpatriotic and the sooner Red Ken pulls them all down the better. Plus London keeps voting for him so what Ken does has a mandate behind it.

One advantage of a Gandhi statue is that the wonderful Dickie Attenborough might be persuaded to unveil it (as he did the recent Mandela). In fact, can't Dickie be persuaded to post on ARSSE? He’d call UKIP and BNP members ‘darling!’ while violently disagreeing with them. It would be great.
I do not see why you would expect statues to represent the average Brit. Surely the fact that they wheren't average is the reason why they have a statue. Anyway I see no value in destroying stuff that is historical for something that may be a passing fad.
I have no strong objections to a statue to Ghandi but fail to see why it would be considered money well spent when there is already one of him there.
 
#17
Perturbed said:
annakey said:
I think Ken’s spot on about getting rid of the tedious generals, slave owners, empire builders and n*****-drivers who populate London’s public places. They don’t represent majority Britain and never have. They’ve nothing to do with freedom and standing up to bullies and justice and fair play – perennial British values. In other words they’re unpatriotic and the sooner Red Ken pulls them all down the better. Plus London keeps voting for him so what Ken does has a mandate behind it.

One advantage of a Gandhi statue is that the wonderful Dickie Attenborough might be persuaded to unveil it (as he did the recent Mandela). In fact, can't Dickie be persuaded to post on ARSSE? He’d call UKIP and BNP members ‘darling!’ while violently disagreeing with them. It would be great.
I do not see why you would expect statues to represent the average Brit. Surely the fact that they wheren't average is the reason why they have a statue.
I'm just fed up with all those damn Victorian generals. They're everywhere in London. So what they bashed some fuzzy-wuzzies in 1863... so British businessmen could nick their stuff... and draw arbitrary lines on maps they're still fighting over today...

Sure, the values of Rudyard Kipling and John Buchan have much to recommend them, they're part of our history so shouldn't be airbrushed, but please... Give us sodding break... It’s all part of British lack of cultural self confidence that old battles (many of which weren’t particularly great to start with – anyone can machine-gun savages with spears) organised by toffs to steal other people’s land should still be celebrated overwhelmingly in the Capital’s public places. It presents such a skewed picture of what it is to be British. It is, in fact, a lie and Livingstone’s right to be giving it the boot.
 
#18
Anna woke up again this morning shivering with rage over the class issue as she does every morning.

It's a pity that as she pops down to Tesco's for her milk in her nice car and returns to her nice house and thinks about going back to her nice job tomorrow, she somehow forgets that all this nice prosperity that she enjoys was built by those nasty Victorian Imperialists that she pretends to detest so much.

Class hatred is so Seventies Anna...things have moved on now.

Honest.
 
#19
Awol said:
Anna woke up again this morning shivering with rage over the class issue as she does every morning.
I think that's very unfair. :x I wake up, often, filled to the brim with kindly thoughts about the British upper class. They make me laugh. They say funny things. They have odd receding chins. They send their children to funny schools. They refuse to integrate into the general population. They read magazines like 'Tatler'. They've just had their formal political power stripped off them. I think they’re great. In fact, what’s the point of having them if the nation can’t laugh at them? That's their main function now isn't it?

Awol said:
It's a pity that as she pops down to Tesco's for her milk in her nice car and returns to her nice house and thinks about going back to her nice job tomorrow, she somehow forgets that all this nice prosperity that she enjoys was built by those nasty Victorian Imperialists that she pretends to detest so much.
I'm very much aware that current British prosperity is based, in part, on the actions of nineteenth century robber barons. All I'm suggesting is that their image, in statue form, needn't adorn almost every public square in London. Is that really so radical?

Awol said:
Class hatred is so Seventies Anna...things have moved on now.
Nonsense. Things haven’t 'moved on' at all. If anything they've got worse, the rich-poor gap widened, and the British white working class stripped by Thatcher of their trade union power.

Awol said:
I know you're trying to be honest. But it's not my fault you fail to see, or willfully ignore, the class dynamics operating in front of your nose.

(((Awol)))



:wink:
 
#20
annakey said:
I'm just fed up with all those damn Victorian generals. They're everywhere in London. So what they bashed some fuzzy-wuzzies in 1863... so British businessmen could nick their stuff... and draw arbitrary lines on maps they're still fighting over today...

Sure, the values of Rudyard Kipling and John Buchan have much to recommend them, they're part of our history so shouldn't be airbrushed, but please... Give us sodding break... It’s all part of British lack of cultural self confidence that old battles (many of which weren’t particularly great to start with – anyone can machine-gun savages with spears) organised by toffs to steal other people’s land should still be celebrated overwhelmingly in the Capital’s public places. It presents such a skewed picture of what it is to be British. It is, in fact, a lie and Livingstone’s right to be giving it the boot.
The only thing that I dissagree with is the bit I bolded. They have been in London longer than you or anyone else alive today. For that reason alone I think they deserve to stay unless there is a really good reason to remove them.

How much money is Ken going to spend on this petty little project that will improve whose life anyway? Whatever is planned I bet will bear no relation to the actuall cost.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads