Thursday, 11 February 2021

Guido Statue Removal Lie BUSTED

Just to prove once more that Peter Oborne was right when he described the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog as the “provisional wing of CCHQ”, The Great Guido has, right on cue, done his master’s bidding and begun to pretend the Rotten Lefties™ are as bent on violence as the far right.

What time is it Eccles?

In doing so, the Fawkes massive props up the lame attempt by former Labour MP John Woodcock to “both sides” the issue of extremism. The problem is that this latest bout of Fawkes dishonesty has been entrusted to replacement teaboy Tom Harwood, whose tendency to talk well, but lie badly, has made the deception look all too obvious.

That the Fawkes rabble was shilling for the Tories once more was made clear yesterday when Harwood told readers ofSadiq’s Radical Statues Commission”, going on to claim erroneously “Khan’s Cultural Cleansing Committee Bringing Down Elizabeth I” and going on to assert “Sadiq Khan’s ‘Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm’ established in the midst of the summer’s statue-mania when statues were being torn down has now been constituted, and its membership is eyebrow raising to say the least”. There is more.

Behold another crude pack of lies

In the summer, Khan announced a review of all of London’s statues and street names, saying any with links to slavery ‘should be taken down’. Now he seems to be making good on his promise by collecting a group of people who seem keen to strip London of its history”. Seems to be. Seem keen to strip. Then comes the deceit.

Harwood names just four members of the Commission (but there are 15 in total). The Commission is not about “cultural cleansing”, and nor does Teaboy Tom have evidence to back up his lies. But he does have the front to claim “Guido can guess what conclusions they are going to come to and fears most for the 1586 statue of Queen Elizabeth I”.

Has anyone in City Hall even peeped about this statue? That does not detain Harwood, who goes on “London’s oldest statue and the only one remaining that was carved in her reign, originally stood above Ludgate at the entrance to the City of London. She of course profited from the trans-Atlantic slave trade. She will be a priority for Khan’s woke panel”.

Yep, get the W-Word in there and bank a few pundit spots on GB News. But no evidence that Sadiq Khan, or anyone else to the left of Himself Personally Now, has any intention of taking down any statues, let alone that of Elizabeth I. What’s a witless, talking point regurgitating creep to do? Simples. Carry on lying through his teeth.

And so it came to pass this morning, with Harwood Tweeting out “This is a statue of Elizabeth I. Carved in 1586, it is the oldest statue in London. Elizabeth I herself sponsored John Hawkins’ slaving voyages. Should this statue be toppled from its plinth? Yes or no”. Shouting the lie often enough, he clearly hopes, will make it reality.

Sadly, the Guardian already got the reality take in before Harwood had a chance to shout at this particular cloud. “London’s commission on diversity in the public realm is not about tearing statues down” is the opening line from their article on the non-controversy.

Tom Harwood is an unprincipled, lying, rabble-rousing shit. But you knew that already.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


  1. "in the midst of the summer’s statue-mania when statues were being torn down"

    That should be statue singular. Only one statue was "torn down" in the UK last summer, and it was one where the local Tories had cynically blocked every civil route to its removal, despite majority approval from the public. They just can't help lying at this point. Fabricated culture war nonsense is all they have left.

  2. Frankly, I couldn't care less about "London's statues" of its seedy assortment of thieves, genociders, racists and discredited hypocrites.

    Where Lizzy Tudor's version is concerned the descendants of those who defeated the Armada might have an opinion. Especially the vast majority who were deliberately scattered and abandoned to poverty along the south coast.

    Still, the truth ey?....21st century far right tory Britain no more gives a shit for it than 16th century loony religious Tudor England.

  3. Like at least 99.99% of the population I've never seen this statue or even heard of it. Would seeing it add to my knowledge of her? No.

  4. Ah yes, Tom Harwood, beloved of Question Time, who counts Evan D as a 'bezzie'. What did this country do to deserve such as he? Along, of course, with a hard core of others whose sole purpose seems to be to seed doubt and prop up their Tory masters.

  5. Britain creeps further to the right each day.

    The Starmer Quiff now wants all Labour party members to wave or wear the Butcher's Apron.

    One guess where this will all go.

  6. "She of course profited from the trans-Atlantic slave trade."

    Did she though, Tom? The British didn't really get involved in the slave trade in any significant way until decades after her death. Instead, under Liz1, Britain had diplomatic/trading relations with both the Barbary States as well as the Ottoman empire and serious consideration was given to an alliance with the latter in order to fight the Spanish. In fact relationships were good with those dastard Muslims with the Ottoman Sultan saying that Muslims and Protestants had "much more in common than either did with Roman Catholicism, as both rejected the worship of idols." But, y'know, Tom Harwood.

  7. Harwood approaches Warp Factor 8 twattishness.

    The Elizabeth statue is one of three at St Dunstan-in-the-West. It has been 'restored' successively over the centuries. Is elizabeth older than King Led and his sons in the church porch? Did they not all come from Lud-Gate (geddit?)

    Arguably older is King Alfred (late fourteenth century?) at Trinity Church Square, Southwark. But Guido-types, like taxis, probably don't know sarf uv da river.

    Then there's the tomb of William Marshall in the Temple Church. Thirteenth century?

    Older still are the contents of the Roman, Greek and Egyptian galleries of the British Museum. Off the top of my uncelebrated head, I'd reckon seven tons of Ramesses II from the Nineteenth Dynasty trumps Elizabeth for age, grandeur, and impact.

  8. They dont get that the 'Statue Commission' was a devilishly clever thing by Khan to kick this in to the longest of long grass and basically bore this issue away....and its only happening now as this is the last possible moment it can be delayed to so a process can be happening to head off further potential issues starting at roughly at Easter -

    This is basically the Blair technique of anything difficult announcing an enquiry that will not report until long after everyone has forgotten why it was started....and any further questions....Blair...voice please...'I cannot prejudice the findings of the enquiry'...

    This also means if any naughty lefties do liberate a statue in will be without waiting for the democratic results of the commission....and anyone who doesn't want that to happen will have 100x more legal clout to go after them and stop it...

    Ive also seen outrage at £200k cost - erm - how much cheaper is that than guarding 1000s statues 24/7 for years.....?

    The ultimate outcome is a vanishingly small number of the most offensive statues (you would not let other communities have to put up with this stuff - utterly rightly) end up in a museum gallery safe and sound in a lovely well designed exhibition that contextualises this - tells all sides of the story - including the end of slavery - which is not unflattering to some....

    And it also remembers a wonderful moment in awful 2020 when people talked about history...values...ideas...noticed and thought about their a really fresh and new way....and patriots actually turned up to guard George Elliot...we still have no idea who from...violent militants Bronte fans - angry at her playing fast and loose with greek Myth - her interpretation Feuerbach’s conception of Christianity - is this 1st time in history anyone potentially violently radicalised by the Mill on the Floss - I hope one of the patriots reads it - seriously - good on ya - who says the world isn't getting better? And I do not wish to make light of this - the crimes were the absolute worst - but the tiny bit of Coluston that was good - I dont think he would have the slightest problem with any of that....

    This could be the beginning of a very significant wonderful thing indeed and become foundation of some form of long overdue museum of empire/colonialism - even the Tweedy colonels (who whatever else know a lot about the real history - not the made up version) say this needs to be done better - whatever the empire did some of the people who worked for it worked very hard with great alturism and even if unhelpful were the vanguard of the time - they need commemorating - this is long overdue and the misunderstanding of all this is part of the mess we are in now - if you accept the bad parts of the empire (many very very bad indeed)(suddenly the less bad bits - seem even better)....

    They just aren't very good at this....

    There is of course an even bigger statue problem that we still have not even mentioned or begun to think about....

    They are all men...

    1. @10:42.

      Denis Healey once said, "The only thing the British Empire left behind were the words 'Fuck off' and the game of Association Football."

      You could have saved yourself an awful lot of windbaggery if you knew that.

  9. Well I have seen the statue and made a special effort to see it on my tour of the City Churches, it is a magnificent artwork. It is also the property of the Church so Khan and his selection box of looney tunes have no jurisdiction on this nor indeed probably on anything they are thinking of changing. None of this is within the Mayor of London's remit and he is misusing public money and should be held to account for this.

  10. @15:31 really? What would Indians, Pakistanis, Bangaldeshis, Sri Lankans, be doing if they didn't have cricket? Then in the Caribbean .....

    Carry on windbagging