Elginism, 'Guardian Poll shows that more than 17 out of every 20 people support return of Marbles', February 17, 2014
There have been many polls about the Parthenon Marbles in recent years and only a few have shows anything other than a high level of support for their return. The Guardian recently ran a poll, following the publicity from George Clooney’s statements about the sculptures. The results speak for themselves – but the end of the two day poll, the web page attracted over 2,500 comments, and the end result of the poll itself showed that 88% of those who took part were in favour of the sculptures being returned. Politicians have a tendency to state that the marbles are a complex issue and that the country is deeply divided over them – the reality though is that nearly everyone supports return – so why can’t they listen to this and respond sensibly to it, by entering into serious negotiations to resolve it?
 | |
| The notice says "Duveen Gallery closed due to British magnanimity, have a nice day" |
.jpg)
6 comments:
Seventy per cent or more of public comments to CPAC before regarding the Cypriot, Italian, Greek and Bulgarian MOUs were either against the MOU or against its extension to coins. That's even less a complex issue, but somehow the State Department ignored that and imposed import restrictions on coins anyway. And the AIA could not even bring itself to mention these lopsided numbers in their reporting on the issue. So, I'm glad you think the will of the people should control.
Still, as to this poll, I doubt it was scientific and the UK should not voluntarily give up its cultural property (there for centuries) so easily.
Pull the other one. Lots of comments by a self-interested sub-set have far less democratic validity than the voice of a general population devoid of vested interest.
You must know that. Are you paid to say this stuff?
"You must know that. Are you paid to say this stuff?"
I think you may have got it in one.
Well I think they wuz robbed. If they wanted someone to state the bleedin' obviously untrue they could have hired a metal detectorist at a tenth of the cost.
Well, he has a couple on his blog to help him, Stout, Howland, Baines and gives a link (at the bottom) to the Stout metal-detecting blog. Can't get clearer than that....
While I'm at it, I see the same gentleman has written:
"One problem I have with Messrs. Barford, Elkins and Gill is that they make value judgments about metal detectorists, collectors snd dealers, but they don't have any appreciation for the practical issues facing these groups."
Whereas a lawyer in Washington knows all about British metal detectorists does he?! Personally I've been in the back room of the Cleveland Arms in Wolverhampton with 3 dozen metal detectorists. Has he?
In any case, his reference to a need to have an appreciation of "the practical issues facing these groups" is pure lobbery. An understanding of the stats on who reports and behaves and who doesn't is ALL that's required in order to make a judgement on metal detecting. There are no practical difficulties preventing them from behaving.
What next, a plea for understanding of the practical difficulties involved in lobbyists telling the truth?
Post a Comment