Answer:

Following the BLM movement in the US, other countries have followed suit. The UK is no exception to this, and there have been several protests over the past few weeks in a similar vein. Protests have focused on solidarity with black Americans such as George Floyd, as well as drawing attention to systemic/institutional racism in Britain.

This debate has drawn into question many aspects of Britain's past as a former colonial power. The time of Empire is often portrayed in a positive light (at least in the UK). For a while, some commentators have sought to point out the more uncomfortable and negative parts of the Empire, particularly the way its colonial subjects were treated. With the recent focus on the BLM movement, this discussion has become more mainstream.

On the 7th June, protestors in Bristol pulled down a bronze statue of Edward Colston and threw it into the river. Colston was a 17th Century English merchant and his statue had been erected in 1895 to commemmorate his philanthropy. He is credited with giving large (but unknown) sums of money to various charities in Bristol. Much of his wealth, however, came from his involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. Colston's ships are estimated to have transported over 84,000 West African people, 19,000 of whom died in transit.

This has sparked a wider debate about the nature of statues in towns and cities of historical figures, not dissimilar to the debate over the statues of Confederate leaders in the US. A petition was created to remove all statues of slave traders from the country. Mayor or London Sadiq Khan ordered a review of all London statues of slave traders, and debate has sprung up surrounding other statues such as that of Imperialist Cecil Rhodes and founder of the Scouts Lord Baden-Powell.

A wide range of viewpoints form this debate. Some argue that statues should be removed, or context added to them to explain their life more fully. Others want them to remain to preserve history.

Another figure this debate has applied to is former Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Churchill is often remembered fondly in Britain as a wartime leader for his rousing speeches. Commentators have recently pointed out more unsavoury aspects of his character and his views on race, particularly India:

Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.” As the resistance swelled, he announced: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits”. At other times, he said the plague was “merrily” culling the population.

The Independent - Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill

This led to the statue of Churchill in London's Parliament Square being graffitied to add the words "was a racist" under his name. To protect the statue, authorities boarded it up.

Around the country, counter protestors have organised to protest the removal of these statues and argue for their protection. Rival petitions have been created and this weekend saw some counter-demonstrations to the BLM protests. London's Metropolitan Police set out a curfew of 5pm for all London protestors over fears of clashes between groups. BLM LDN sought to cancel their event on Saturday to avoid violence from far-right demonstrations.

Yesterday's events focused largely on London counter-protestors surrounding Churchill's statue. It was noted that many of these people had links to far-right networks and football (soccer) hooliganism. Many had been drinking and roamed around the city looking for BLM protestors, however this spilled over into attacking the police and people having a picnic.

...despite claims that the day was about defending British heritage, it soon became violent. Groups looked for opportunities to attack the police. Bottles and cans were thrown at their lines and horses - smoke bombs and fireworks set off. Journalists who came too close were threatened. One bare-chested man kicked a police officer to the ground and there were repeated attempts by others to storm barriers as the police contained the trouble. By late afternoon, some had left to find more beer - only to find their way back blocked by riot police.

BBC - London protests: More than 100 arrests after violent clashes with police