The statue that commemorated the London Olympics of 2012 is an interesting story for the town in many ways.
It throws up two fundamental questions that we hope we can address in this blog post. Namely, should the statue remain (?), and how should the decision on keeping or removing statues be made in Beaconsfield?
Statues and their status in commemoration have never been more discussed than in the last twelve months for differing reasons; of course, they are still in the debate locally today. Iconoclasm has come to Beaconsfield which in the UK is something that is cyclical in history, we seem to go through phases of removing statues from time to time.
The debate on the keeping of losing the current 'Wenlock' statue is helped here we think by a bit of history and a little advice on decision making at Town Council in their committees.
The Olympic Games in London in 2012 challenged the country not just to host games but to leave a legacy to youth and sport that would outlive the games over the month or two in which they were held. The organising committee and the country hoped to seek approval for the vast expense of the country. Therein lies the reason to adopt a mascot that would not merely be present at the games stadia but also cross the country in a similar vein to the traversing by the Olympic flame and spread the message of sporting hope across the nation.
But from the very start, the design of the mascots was controversial. Wenlock (named for Much Wenlock in Shropshire, where the inspiration of the modern Olympics came from as the Wenlock Olympian Society games in 1850 there) and Mandeville named after Stoke Mandeville Hospital which held the precursor tot Paralympics in their games held in 1948).
Both designs drew criticism and praise from the moment they were unveiled.
Creative Review said, "They were both clearly designed for the digital age, and we really rather like them", whilst columnists in the Times claimed they were the product of "a drunken one night stand between a Teletubby and a Dalek".
From our research in town, these quotes seem to sum up sentiment towards the statue today.
What is not in doubt is that the mascots were successful, with Economists estimating they contributed one and a half billion pounds to the UK economy during the games. They are now recorded as the most successful mascots in Olympic history.
The reason Beaconsfield had the statue at all was that a Councillor called Alan Walter, known by many in town, was then the head of the District Council as well as the head of our Town Council and he secured one for the town as part of the mission to support the transport of the Olympic flame through Denham on the route and because Buckinghamshire had close ties to Stoke Mandeville Hospital and the Bray lakes where rowing events were taking place,
This is where the history of our statue gets even more interesting - because it has so far been in two locations in the town has been replaced twice and has been repaired and has changed from Mandeville to Wenlock.
Originally situated on the pavement in front of the Town Hall green this had to alter as late-night revellers damaged the statue and so it was moved to its current position after a repair. It was then that Mandeville went away and a Wenlock returned!
The statue has had a holiday from the town too when it was requisitioned to go to be beside the A4 on the approach to Dorney Rowing lake for promotion of the rowing events. The statue was eventually returned and offered to three local towns with Taplow and Gerrards Cross changing their minds about having the statues so Beaconsfield got a Mandeville and a Wenlock back - with Wenlock taking up the current place and Mandeville going to the local school where it still resides.
Hundreds of the statues were made for local towns throughout the UK and very few remain with many (including Maidenhead's) being auctioned off in late 2012. There are still examples and collectors versions in London and even an App to show you where they all are but many are now in private collections and gardens across the UK.
( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-20599424.amp )
Which brings us on to why discuss the statue now?
The Town Council Community and Safety Committee on the 1st July discussed the statue and its potential removal recently at their meeting (see here https://youtu.be/2gPp06SNOsE ) where it seemed that Councillors were keen to see the statue removed.
It is an inconvenience for the main stage of the Festival of Lights amongst other things and Councillor Paul Henry and Mohammed Khaled wanted "it gone" but others seemed to just find it ugly and not in keeping with the town. So some practical and some aesthetic considerations clearly. We have heard it argued that it has no relevance to Beaconsfield so should be removed and replaced with something else? But others argue their kids love it and it is fulfilling the original plan to spread awareness for kids and many kids in town love the statue according to comments shared with us. There was also am implications in the meeting that residents had mentioned its removal to Councillors. This prompted a thought for the Society.
We did some digging on this and worryingly it seems that this discussion on removal may well be based on a very small number of conversations held privately with Councillors as no one had written to the Council or Councillors about getting it removed. We checked.
So the debate on whether it should or should not be removed was clearly one that was seemingly building a head of steam for removal with Councillor Anita Cranmer saying she had tried for a year to remove the statue without success and mainly it seems because of expense. There were additional suggestions that perhaps the statue could tour the town in a different location but vandalism thoughts quashed that and the sheer cost or removal and movement might well impede that too.
So should this statue be removed (?) and if so should it be moved or merely disposed of? The Beaconsfield Society decided that rather than basing this on a few residents conversations with Councillors perhaps a wider 'consultation' could be held so we asked our followers on various social platforms the question and then compiled the results into one rounded figure to see what public sentiment was towards the statue.
The results came back with 65% in favour of keeping the statue and 35% want to see it gone. It also kicked off further discussions about other commemorations in town and also about what other options for the statue might be suitable.
So whichever way you feel about it - important commemoration of the Olympics in London in 2012 or ugly monstrosity the residents we heard from seemed keener on keeping than not.
This raises our second question of how this decision is made when parts of the town are altered. Should residents be consulted about this before discussions on what action to take? We as a civic society think certainly they should. Should a few louder voices speaking on a subject be put in the context of the whole before street furniture and displays are moved or removed? We think they should. As such public servants should be exactly that and on such issues as this ask the people of the town not to let outspoken minority views lead the decision making.
We did contact Councillors about this and have been told the discussion in the meeting was a precursor to consultation but this certainly wasn't mentioned in the meeting it appeared to be a removal discussion in the main. So let's hope a consultation is forthcoming.
We do agree Councillors need to get on with their jobs and represent local sentiment but on issues like this, it should be a wider discussion where sentiment is properly gauged not just reacting to limited conversations - which we have hopefully created here - on the next steps.
What do you think - please comment below?
(We would like to thanks Councillor Anita Cranmer for her comments and background, the current Town Clerk for her clarification on the position and the past Town Clerk Margaret Mathie for her assistance on the history and background but we would also like to ask the hundred who commented or wrote to express their thoughts on the statue and its future.)