The statue of a Confederate soldier we saw in Durham was destroyed, not removed. And it was an ordinary soldier, not a general or a slave-owner. I believe the inscription was a dedication to the ‘Boys who wore gray’, which would outrage anyone.

These people are now so emboldened by the irresponsible support they’re getting from the Democrats and the mainstream media that the USA could be heading for dark days.

The ‘Alt-Left’ simply doesn’t exist, except in the minds of people like Trump and apologists for neo-nazis like those in Charlottesville.

To be discussing slavery in the context of the removal of statues of Confederate leaders is to miss the point. A little research would reveal that most of these statues were erected in the 1920s when there was an upsurge in the implementation of ‘Jim Crow’ laws and a resurgance in white supremacy. The statues are being removed because they are symbols of present day white supremacist ideas, and not because of their associations with slavery.

There is, of course, an argument against the removal of the statues, but that is only as relevant as the removal of statues dedicated to the stalwarts of socialism/communism after the collapse of communism, or indeed, the removal of statuary dedicated to British imperialists in India. However, all of these arguments only really have validity if there is an attempt to destroy these monuments,thus attempting to erase history, instead of moving them to less conspicuous locations, where they can still be readily seen, but are no longer dominating public spaces.

Your final comment is a little strange, as all historians write history according to their own agendas and prejudices, especially right-wing historians, such as David Irving. The point to remember when it comes to history, as well as newspapers, is to remember that they are all written from a biased perspective, even left-wing histories.

Falsely interpreting history is one thing, but I suspect that many of those making up the Alt-Left are simply fucking ignorant.

You mention Lee, and the fact that he was offered command of the Union armies, but what the example of Lee tells us is that in a huge new country like the USA, with poor communications, most men’s loyalty was to their state, and that’s why Lee waited until Virginia seceded. Had Virginia not seceded then Lee might have taken up the command offered and the American Civil War would have been a brief affair.

While Lincoln, more favourably reviewed by the Alt-Left, is on record as saying that if he could have maintained the Union without freeing a single slave then he would have done so. And when he issued his famous Emancipation Proclamation it only applied to territory still under Confederate control, not slave states that had stayed in the Union. Which meant that in areas stripped of able-bodied white men he was hoping to provoke a slave rebellion against women and children.

But then, these are inconvenient facts, which is why the Alt-Left prefers to re-write history to accord with its own agenda and prejudices.

Like our conflicting rabid groups here in UK and EU the 2 sides of the debate in the US are highly fragmented and fluid. Causes can be of fleeting relevance to large numbers of these people like fashion items. Today it’s nasty rebel Generals, next week back to Trump but they will never get to grips with the real issues that divide their country because too many of them are wealthy in their own right and are spending time on these “ishoos” as though they form part of some perverse leisure interest. Reminds me a bit of something nearer home – remember Bryn Fon’s “Rebel Weekend” it kind of chimes with a lot of these jerks.

If it was not for the “pesky” citizens this would be a good public sector job! I think there are good public servants with integrity who do a good job but there are many more whose self interest always dominates.

Wynne your text illuminates this perfectly.

On any day you can find a story that highlights the self interest of the public servant and how they pursued their perceived interest to the bitter end.

Take just one story today that relates to the UK Governement, but you will all be able to find similar stories today related to Welsh Government, Local Government, the Police, Health Boards etc

In July, 2005, Sue Smith’s son, Pte Phillip Hewett, was killed by a roadside bomb while travelling in a lightly armoured “snatch” Land Rover in Iraq.
Mrs Smith’s efforts took 12 years to unearth the real hard truth, it took the Supreme Court, the final Chilcot Inquiry Report before the Defence Secretary acknowledged their short comings, made an apology and there maybe compensation to follow.

Mrs Smith is obviously no “ordinary” citizen. However, it takes ordinary citizens great effort to steel themselves to battle with most public servants about issues important to them, let alone the death of your child.

Many citizens feel disrespected by public servants, I would however, use a stronger word and describe how people are treated with “contempt”. I saw it powerfully when I lived and worked in Liverpool, I see it today in Wales.

It is maybe more important than anything else in a new Wales that those in public power see their task as being always open and transparent, the interest of the citizen first and their personal self interest solely in terms of serving the interest of the individual citizen.

I see no political party addressing this real deep seated concern about the actions of the State in all its forms and the appropriate deeply profound ethics of the public servant whether politician or professional officer.

Calon Lan, Sosban Fach, Ar Lan y Mor. Diolch Brchan

Worked with a French chap some years ago, in a multinational company. An expert in his field. Towards the end of the project he announced he was leaving to be a French civil servant. I thought he was mad. For less than half the pay and a free metro pass. He said he was humbled to have been invited. To serve the republic was a great honour, and that to be a servant of the citizens of the municipality was the pinnacle of achievement. Somehow, he doesn’t remind me of Mark James.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSRb1R6-Ls
After independence, I propose that every civil servant in Wales should be appointed kneeling in a gutter or the lowest pew, the steps of the welfare hall, or in a quarry pit, and sing that to the citizens for whom they work. It’s our language, our values, our principles, our freedoms and OUR country.

In the “old days” a public servant would end his letter with the phrase “I beg to remain sir your most loyal, humble and obedient servant”. Now we are required to use the FOI Act before a public servant is prepared to respond to even a simple enquiry when the information is readily available. How times have changed, not necessarily for the better.

That is roughly correct Wynne. The Freedom of Information Act says:

“A public authority must comply with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt”.

The stipulated “reasonable” time for response is 20 days. If no information is received after the first 20 day period it is recommended that you write to the authority e.g.

It is now over twenty working days since my/ our FOI request was made. We have not yet received a satisfactory response from the department that is dealing with the request.

If you have a good reason why the request is going to take longer to process than stipulated by the FOIA, then I/ we would find it helpful if you can inform us with a sentence or two stating what is happening, and when we can expect your full response.

If no satisfactory response is then forthcoming (a further 20 days), then it’s time to make a formal request for an internal review. If you’re still not satisfied, then it’s time to get tough by contacting the Freedom of Information Commissioners office (ICO).

With regard to FOI requests, you refer to internal review Big Gee. I have previously been informed by Information Commissioner that they regard 20 working days as a “reasonable” timeframe for internal review although this is not a statutory requirement. In theory therefore possible to refer the matter to Information Commissioner after 40 working days {20 for FOI response and a further 20 for internal review}.