Things have been quiet on the wallflower woke merry go round, and I had hoped that this sort of thing had gone away, and that common sense had finally returned, as we focus on the extremely serious issues that face this country and indeed the world.
But oh, no. Just when I thought it was safe, here we go round again.
The target this time is one of the most recognisable landmarks in London. Standing at 176ft tall, the Albert Memorial, built by Queen Victoria.
Not literally. You know how the woke amongst us like to interpret things that way, dissecting language in its most clinical form to find offence.
Nana Akua wades in on Prince Albert’s memorial being considered 'offensive'
GB News
Anyway, the Albert Memorial was commissioned by Queen Victoria in 1862 to honour her late husband, Prince Albert, and was built ten years later. A year and a century before I was born.
Now situated in Hyde Park, the monument depicts a gold statue of the prince alongside four groups of large statues which represent the four continents of the world. Asia, America, Africa and Europe.
Now the statues representing Asia include a woman on an elephant. America is represented by a Native American with a bison. Africa shows a woman riding a camel, and there's a white European woman reading a book to a black African and the black African tribesman.
Now, the Royal Parks website claims that these statues draw on racial stereotypes. Apparently, the extra detail in the African bit, according to the Victorian guidebooks at the time, was supposed to represent Prince Albert rising up from barbarism. The Royal Parks, who manage parks in London, deemed it as highly offensive because it reflects a Victorian view of the world.
I've heard it all now. Of course it reflects a Victorian view of the world. It was built in the Victorian era by request of Queen Victoria. Shock, horror. And it only reflects this view, if you even know what that is.
But how you interpret this incredible piece of artwork, that represents the history of this great country is, frankly, down to you. I mean, so what if that's what was meant or thought of them? Why would this be offensive?
Surely you could at least appreciate the fact and the feat of this artwork, which is quite impressive, even now, especially given the tools available in the day. I mean, it's an incredible feat. There's even an intricate network of tunnels built underneath it. Frankly it's amazing.
And on the 150 year anniversary of Daily Mail, journalist Robert Hardman went on a tour of those incredible tunnels. He said: "It goes on and on like the catacombs, until you realise that you're actually going round and round a series of concentric circles. This is a monument in itself to the technical rigour and pride which went into the Victorian engineering."
Surely that tells you more about the Victorians. They were impressive.
On the Royal Parks website, it states: "Though the empire has traditionally been celebrated as a symbol of British supremacy. Many today consider this view as problematic because colonialism often relied on the oppression and exploitation of people, resources, and cultures."
Colonialism and empire. Are you on your own? Look, there is nothing wrong with artefacts that remind us of a bygone era. We've moved on. We've evolved. But it doesn't mean we should forget where we came from.
Those are the building blocks to where we are now. It's so easy to forget history. These monuments are a reminder of our past failures and our successes.
Rather than indoctrinate a narrow view into the minds of the innocent, why can't we be allowed to innocently view a piece of art and appreciate it for just that?