-
@MiketheSnow said in British Politics:
@Bones said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow said in British Politics:
@Bones said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow yeah true - that guy should try watching some courtroom battles so he can get a good hold on that kinda stuff. He's way out of his depth....
Mike, did you understand what he meant? I'm willing to bet you and 90% of other people can understand what he was implying and don't need it spelled out to them - and don't need people saying it needs to be spelled out. If people want to try and pretend it's dastardly (like the Stay Alert moaners) then so be it, but we all know what it means really, so just will ignore them.
Yes I did. As I suspect everyone on here did.
But we are not representative of the Great British public.
If there's ambiguity some will exploit it, and lots will not understand it.
Yeah see that's not the impression I get - I think lots that do understand will intentionally pretend they don't and/or point out that it could be misunderstood by the "thickos". But it's not.
It's clear what he meant, if some want to misconstrue it, they're going to no matter what and can be deservedly ignored. We don't have to cater for an imaginary "thicko" group.
We'll see come the elections
Which ones?
-
Excellent article by William Hague. Required reading for UK BLM ideologues: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/08/exposing-injustice-not-destroying-statues-brought-ban-slavery/
-
@MiketheSnow said in British Politics:
@Bones said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow said in British Politics:
@Bones said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow yeah true - that guy should try watching some courtroom battles so he can get a good hold on that kinda stuff. He's way out of his depth....
Mike, did you understand what he meant? I'm willing to bet you and 90% of other people can understand what he was implying and don't need it spelled out to them - and don't need people saying it needs to be spelled out. If people want to try and pretend it's dastardly (like the Stay Alert moaners) then so be it, but we all know what it means really, so just will ignore them.
Yes I did. As I suspect everyone on here did.
But we are not representative of the Great British public.
If there's ambiguity some will exploit it, and lots will not understand it.
Yeah see that's not the impression I get - I think lots that do understand will intentionally pretend they don't and/or point out that it could be misunderstood by the "thickos". But it's not.
It's clear what he meant, if some want to misconstrue it, they're going to no matter what and can be deservedly ignored. We don't have to cater for an imaginary "thicko" group.
We'll see come the elections
No one will have time to vote as there'll be so many messages around to find ways to misconstrue.
-
Horrific story to compare with the protest outrage we're currently seeing.
What isn't mentioned in the article, and correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen it reported anywhere yet, is that the attacker was black and was calling the white kid out for slavery as he repeated stabbed him.
According to the MP in the article is that the problem here is that social media didn't stop this video from spreading.
-
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
Horrific story to compare with the protest outrage we're currently seeing.
What isn't mentioned in the article, and correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen it reported anywhere yet, is that the attacker was black and was calling the white kid out for slavery as he repeated stabbed him.
According to the MP in the article is that the problem here is that social media didn't stop this video from spreading.
Sounds horrendous.
-
-
It wasn't just one on one either. The kid was already severely injured when this group kept pushing a girl trying to protect him away and pulling up his shirt to stab him more as they laughed.
Can't for the life of me work out why certain key details are left out of every report.
-
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
It wasn't just one on one either. The kid was already severely injured when this group kept pushing a girl trying to protect him away and pulling up his shirt to stab him more as they laughed.
Can't for the life of me work out why certain key details are left out of every report.
Ever read 1984?
-
Actually I have to correct myself here. There are two irish beating videos, one with the laughing and stabbing the other just with a guy on the ground being kicked in the head by multiple attackers It was just the latter one that was talking about slavery.
-
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
It wasn't just one on one either. The kid was already severely injured when this group kept pushing a girl trying to protect him away and pulling up his shirt to stab him more as they laughed.
Can't for the life of me work out why certain key details are left out of every report.
-
@pakman said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
It wasn't just one on one either. The kid was already severely injured when this group kept pushing a girl trying to protect him away and pulling up his shirt to stab him more as they laughed.
Can't for the life of me work out why certain key details are left out of every report.
This is what really worries me here. By minimising some crimes and maximising others we're actually going to see real racism make a comeback.
-
Not too sure what systemic racism is. Perhaps the likes of John Barnes could explain it. Perhaps if we all understood it, we could take action.
Is it the London Mayor standing idly by while hundreds of deprived black kids get stabbed to death by rival gangs - but only taking it seriously when an innocent white teenager is killed?
Is it the police, councils and social working knowingly ignoring the sexual abuse of young, deprived girls for years by a specific ethnic group for fear of "racism" accusations?
Or is it that, because in some of the poorest most deprived areas of the country race isn't a factor, these areas get far less attention from our enlightened guardians of social justice?
I'm getting this sneaking feeling that well-off people using terms like "systemic racism" & "white privilege" are just mouthing an easy, lazy mantra to make themselves look & feel good rather than highlight and fight the real, hard social problems that exist in large parts of the UK - and which have sod-all to do with race or skin colour.
Rant over...
-
@pakman said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow said in British Politics:
@Bones said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow said in British Politics:
@Bones said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow yeah true - that guy should try watching some courtroom battles so he can get a good hold on that kinda stuff. He's way out of his depth....
Mike, did you understand what he meant? I'm willing to bet you and 90% of other people can understand what he was implying and don't need it spelled out to them - and don't need people saying it needs to be spelled out. If people want to try and pretend it's dastardly (like the Stay Alert moaners) then so be it, but we all know what it means really, so just will ignore them.
Yes I did. As I suspect everyone on here did.
But we are not representative of the Great British public.
If there's ambiguity some will exploit it, and lots will not understand it.
Yeah see that's not the impression I get - I think lots that do understand will intentionally pretend they don't and/or point out that it could be misunderstood by the "thickos". But it's not.
It's clear what he meant, if some want to misconstrue it, they're going to no matter what and can be deservedly ignored. We don't have to cater for an imaginary "thicko" group.
We'll see come the elections
Which ones?
The next ones where carefully edited soundbites will attempt to discredit politicians from all parties.
-
@MiketheSnow said in British Politics:
@pakman said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow said in British Politics:
@Bones said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow said in British Politics:
@Bones said in British Politics:
@MiketheSnow yeah true - that guy should try watching some courtroom battles so he can get a good hold on that kinda stuff. He's way out of his depth....
Mike, did you understand what he meant? I'm willing to bet you and 90% of other people can understand what he was implying and don't need it spelled out to them - and don't need people saying it needs to be spelled out. If people want to try and pretend it's dastardly (like the Stay Alert moaners) then so be it, but we all know what it means really, so just will ignore them.
Yes I did. As I suspect everyone on here did.
But we are not representative of the Great British public.
If there's ambiguity some will exploit it, and lots will not understand it.
Yeah see that's not the impression I get - I think lots that do understand will intentionally pretend they don't and/or point out that it could be misunderstood by the "thickos". But it's not.
It's clear what he meant, if some want to misconstrue it, they're going to no matter what and can be deservedly ignored. We don't have to cater for an imaginary "thicko" group.
We'll see come the elections
Which ones?
The next ones where carefully edited soundbites will attempt to discredit politicians from all parties.
#defundBBC?
-
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
Horrific story to compare with the protest outrage we're currently seeing.
What isn't mentioned in the article, and correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen it reported anywhere yet, is that the attacker was black and was calling the white kid out for slavery as he repeated stabbed him.
According to the MP in the article is that the problem here is that social media didn't stop this video from spreading.
The plot thickens!
-
@pakman said in British Politics:
Excellent article by William Hague. Required reading for UK BLM ideologues: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/08/exposing-injustice-not-destroying-statues-brought-ban-slavery/
Paywalled unfortunately
-
@booboo said in British Politics:
@pakman said in British Politics:
Excellent article by William Hague. Required reading for UK BLM ideologues: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/08/exposing-injustice-not-destroying-statues-brought-ban-slavery/
Paywalled unfortunately
For some years I studied the life and work of William Wilberforce, when I came to see slavery and the slave trade as among the greatest abominations of history. More than two centuries have passed since the night in 1807 when the House of Commons finally passed the abolition of the slave trade, declaring that it could no longer accept “that British subjects are allowed to tear by violence from their home their fellow creatures, to convert them from free men into slaves, and to subject them for the remainder of their lives to the arbitrary will and wanton caprice of others”.
Yet we still have much to learn from the long campaigns that led to such a moment, if we are to defeat injustice today. Such learning is not assisted by the toppling of statues as witnessed in Bristol on Sunday. Denying our history rarely contributes to an understanding of it. Nor does the judging of all historical figures by the standards and morals of a later age. The awful truth is that legal slavery was endemic in the world for most of the time human civilisation has existed – on a vast scale in the classical world and, in later centuries, through a huge trade across the Sahara as well as the Atlantic. Most people alive at the time took part in it or acquiesced in it.
If we are to remove the statues of all historical figures who offend our more advanced concepts of human rights today there will be some very empty public squares. Why is Cromwell outside Parliament after the way he treated the Irish and Scots? Wasn’t Richard the Lionheart a crusader against Muslims? What about Churchill’s bombing of German cities? And no one should think that our own age will in future be regarded as the highest point of human morality. I am convinced that generations to come will regard our abuse and degradation of the natural world as little short of barbarism. But they will be wrong if they remove the statues of today’s heroes because they were not vegan.
The right thing to do is not to erase our history but to benefit from studying it. We have to ask ourselves how a campaign like the one to abolish the slave trade ultimately succeeded, despite being opposed by many vested interests, being the source of much wealth and capital, and in the face of widespread apathy. Furthermore, we should try to understand why it succeeded in Britain, leading a country that was steeped in the guilt of the slave trade to devote immense resources to harassing other nations to desist from their own trade and freeing huge numbers of slaves on the high seas. How did a nation that had joined in causing so much harm then turn around and unite behind doing a great deal of good?
First of all, the 18th-century abolitionists were adamantly opposed to violence – their strongest voices were among Quakers and evangelicals who would only ever support peaceful measures. Whenever their opponents could depict them as undermining good order they lost ground – an insight later shared by Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Violence turns the middle ground of a society to shelter behind leaders who may be failing but can stand for maintaining order, just as rioting in America rather than protesting peacefully can help Donald Trump win re-election.
Secondly, they focused on revealing the disturbing truth about the world around them so that it could no longer be evaded. They circulated drawings of the appalling conditions on slave ships, eye-witness accounts of the brutal treatment of slaves and statistics on the number who died at sea. Once people were confronted with the devastating inhumanity of the trade, the campaign to abolish it gathered immense popular support.
There is a strong parallel with today’s efforts to combat modern slavery, still “out of sight and out of mind” for most people and therefore continuing on a huge scale. The Walk Free Foundation estimated last year that over 40 million people live in some form of slavery today. In recent years that has included those horrendously abused in crimes of sexual violence – Yazidi women seized by Isil or Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. Sadly, the trafficking of human beings for the purposes of sexual abuse or forced labour reaches into our own country, with criminal gangs profiting from our desire for cheap products and services.
We should be shining a more powerful light into these dark corners, and understanding how some of the products we buy are made. For instance, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has reported that tens of thousands of Uighur people have been forcibly transferred away from their home area by the Chinese authorities “under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour”. They are working in the supply chains of many leading global brands.
Transparency and public knowledge were crucial ingredients in the abolitionist campaign, bringing massive public participation – much of the British public boycotted West Indian sugar in the later campaign against slavery itself in the 1820s. The same applies now to the racial divides in this country. The Covid-19 crisis has highlighted a serious issue: the age standardised death rate in confirmed cases is over three times as high for black people as white people. From this statistic we can see that something is profoundly wrong.
A third factor in the triumph of abolition was that Britain was a country with relatively free and open debate. Countries without that freedom, like the absolutist monarchies of Europe at the time, lagged behind in freeing slaves because their public opinion was not so informed or powerful. Today, there is no one to speak for Uighurs inside China. But there is every opportunity in democratic nations to employ reason and knowledge to improve the condition of humanity – ending discrimination, abuse and slavery.
That freedom should be treasured and used to the full. But it requires more than a simplistic rejection of figures from an earlier age, and instead an appreciation of the wisdom of those who did effect positive change. Instead of pulling down statues, we should learn from the likes of Wilberforce that in a country with freedom of speech it is relentless exposure of truth combined with implacable opposition to violence that brings the triumph of lasting reform.
-
Looking at today, it's ironic that the people who fought most strongly against the abolition of slavery (apart from slave-traders) were Churches & religious groups, workers in the sugar industry and African tribal leaders.
Equally ironic is the most powerful argument used against slavery (alongside the human rights one) was the economic benefits abolition would bring - using the theories of that right-wing champion of capitalism and free markets, Adam Smith.
British Politics