Trafalgar Square's 4th Plinth

In the early days of my employment here before the rain started to fall, I used to frequently walk from Embankment, through Trafalgar Square and up Haymarket to work. One day I noticed that one plinth was curiously empty. A short amount of research revealed that this is the famous fourth plinth that, for those who don't know it, was built to house a statue much like the others but, curiously, funds ran out. I'm not sure what sort of desperate times you are in when those building it, presumably the government, run out of funds. As a result, the fourth plinth was left as just that. A large stone cube with nothing on top. It's lucky Lord Nelson is looking the other way as I doubt he would have been impressed.

Now, my complaint with it isn't that they shouldn't use this as a showcase for art. Actually, it is but this isn't what has been annoying me recently. In my opinion, as this is almost the centrepiece of London, an attraction brimming with tourists eager to find the most famous landmarks and a showpiece commemorating great militaristic achievements on every other turn, the fourth plinth should be kept in a similar vein. The case for not hoisting a great militaristic leader up there now is that there hasn't been one for about 60 years. In this day and age with the rise of peace protesters and widespread use of the Internet and photography in the media, I don't think there ever will be military victories held in wide regard as a great victory in a just war. Our last leader in this respect was Churchill and it seems that the idea of raising an effigy of him has been dismissed.

So in principal, I agree with using it for showcasing art because I feel that using it for something is much better than using it for nothing.

My gripe seems to be the giant statue that has perched itself on there now. I should probably make a few things clear before I start. I don't go out of my way to see a lot of art and don't think of myself as a critic through not paying enough interest. I do think that I am rational and pensive enough to criticise or acclaim a piece of art if I feel genuinely inspired or moved by it. In addition, I don't carry prejudices as I try and be open minded to everything.

But why does there have to be a statue of a naked disabled woman sat on top of the plinth. I know what you might be thinking and it's "she's pregnant too". Frankly, the fact she is pregnant strikes me as irrelevant. Perhaps it is good to see disability in everyday life. No, I don't accept that. You see disability all the time if you live anywhere resembling civilisation. Perhaps it's a symbol of femininity. Why not put Margaret thatcher up there, Britain's first female Prime Minister? Perhaps it's dealing with victory of a personal battle. I can't begin to understand the difficulties that Alison Lapper has been through but every human being on this planet has battles to fight through on a personal level. By recognising Alison's efforts in her personal battle, you are discriminating against those that do not have disabilities.

I was even starting to accept the disability argument. In the broad scale of humanity, the world was inhabitable for able bodied people and society made it usable for disabled people. To be able to go through your life living it in a full and personally rewarding fashion is remarkable indeed but more so when you have to compete with prejudices and disabilities. On top of that I was even starting to go along with Alison's views when she was examining how accessible a bank was until she blurted out the most ridiculous line when confronted by a step that inhibited her entry to the building.

"If there were two separate doors, one for white people and one for black people, there would be an uproar"

I don't know what warped part of the brain that came from but it's a different situation entirely and it seems almost insulting to use such an example. For God's sake, how could they ever have invisaged access for disabled people when they built these steps decades ago?