It’s now been over a year since the statue of the merchant, philanthropist and slaver Edward Colston was pulled down and deposited unceremoniously in Bristol harbour during protests over racism in society. The toppling of the statue triggered a wave of debate, in varying degrees of good faith, and became a key battlefield in the ‘culture war’, with many other local authorities considering or being asked to consider whether their own local statuary needed review.

At the time, we wrote about the potential risks and benefits of consultations on removing statues, concluding ultimately that if they were to be done they must be done perfectly. We’re now starting to see some of those debates becoming more substantial, and unfortunately the prediction that Rhion made in his piece that there was a risk of a descent into “unresponsive dialogue” may well be coming to fruition.

This week, the Observer reported on the challenges the Cotswold’s town of Stroud is facing around the so-called “Blackboy clock”, a jaquemart clock in the centre of the town which depicts a black slave child with exaggerated characteristics and dressed in only a leaf skirt. It’s certainly the sort of thing that were it to be built now would be deemed socially unacceptable.

To consider the question of whether it should be removed and relocated to a museum or other more appropriate location, the Council commissioned a report, which concluded that the figure is undoubtedly connected to the slave trade; and arranged a panel of local councillors, historians and community representatives to run a consultation on the automaton.

Their actions however have not received universal support, with one of the primary objectors being the town’s Conservative MP Siobhan Baillie who has accused the campaigners to have the statue removed as having “an unquenchable desire to be constantly finding things to be outraged at” and suggesting that they are bullying the local community.

So far the consultation, which ends next month, has received over 900 responses from the community. Looking at the survey it is a relatively good example of the genre, allowing reasons for views and taking a positive approach to its subject matter- it doesn’t just ask about statues that might need reviewing, but also asks what they might be replaced with. Although this is somewhat mixing purposes, as a technique for ameliorating the criticisms of “erasing history” it may well prove to be effective.

The case does highlight the challenges of dealing with these sort of issues, especially when it may well be a vocal minority who oppose the issue. Public polling on the matter is notably difficult, with much depending on how the question is phrased, and many people being willing to express strong views on the matter of specific statues even if they don’t know the history. Many people will express support for removing statues of slavers but become less confident when it comes to specific ones.

We’ll be looking forward to seeing the end of the consultation in Stroud, and seeing what recommendations the panel makes, and how they take account of the many strong and competing views. We’ll put something together when we see the result and review the process fully.