Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Clever, or just transparently cynical? That isn't a good sign at all.
The point about the need for development is fair enough - Scampton is not exactly an area with limitless opportunities - but why tag on that nonsense?
Unless the assylum seekers are envisaged as a permanent fixture, I don't see how it does damage the long-term prospects for the site to be developed.
I would imagine most voters in the area would prefer them to be housed in a disused military base than in local hotels.
There isn't much of anything in Scampton other than the RAF base.
OK, Lincoln isn't too far away but there's not some vast reservoir of jobs for everyone to move to. Some development would probably be welcomed, and sooner rather than later. If it is left for any length of time the place will be hollowed out.
I haven't seen the plans though. Would the centre use up the entire airfield? It is quite large.
Very interesting insight in to the late-Thatcher period from John Redwood - relating to the journey toward the ERM
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/04/06/the-sad-history-of-the-exchange-rate-mechanism/ "I argued [as MT's economic adviser] that ERM membership would be destabilising. When the pound was rising money would be created to sell pounds, swelling sterling money and credit. This would prove inflationary. When the pound wanted to go down the Bank would buy up pounds. This would be contractionary. I wanted the government to stick with the Medium Term Financial strategy Nigel Lawson had helped to create. Margaret agreed and thought her new Chancellor accepted the position.She made her view clear.
It later became apparent to me that despite the MTFS in place, despite the PM’s wishes, and despite the absence of any formal statement to Parliament of a change of economic policy control the Treasury and Bank were shadowing the DM. Interest rate moves seemed to be related to maintaining the exchange rate. I appreciated this was an inconvenient view for the PM but she came to believe it. One day when I was with her in the study she turned on the news only to hear the BBC claim a policy shift based on DM fluctuations. In later years Treasury pressure to join the ERM worsened the relationship with Number 10 more."
It's very striking to me that even as a PM who had a reputation for riding roughshod over her ministers, the Treasury and Chancellor frustrated Thatcher's wishes.
Her latter period is often seen as when she went off the rails and became a parody and a liability, but there is a strong counter-argument here that the Bank and the Treasury were already the ones fucking everything up, not the PM, and that she was right to be testy.
It will be a very positive thing for our economy and politics when the Treasury is neutered.
You would have thought so but Liz and Kwasi tested that to destruction.
Liz was naive, and was obsessed with doing things quickly to 'get Britain moving' in the remaining lifespan of the Boris Government. Her tactics were very flawed, but her intentions certainly were not - not in my opinion.
I've been fairly fortunate with Ofsted inspections over the years, although I've encountered a few lay inspectors who should not have been anywhere near any kind of responsible job. Ofsted came in, saw what was happening to staff, students and parents, and ousted a very bad head that our governing body did not know how to deal with.
I recognise that in other regions of the UK, the inspectorate is not well led, and that the conduct of the inspectorate reflects that. The Regional Director for the South East needs to resign, in my opinion.
Safeguarding checks should be conducted much more frequently, but the 'teaching and learning' judgement is utterly meaningless. All it is really telling you at present is where the affluent middle classes live.
Well you do touch on a good point there, though the example you give is an unusual one (at least in my experience). Ofsted - or even the better system of HMIs which preceded it - is no substitute for effective school governance. Outside inspectors simply aren’t around often enough to do that job: it can be a decade between inspections for some schools.
I was a school governor for eight years, and am still on an academy members board, so I’ve made the effort. Not enough people do.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
We can also be sure the Conservatives, after 14 years in power, will be as hopeless in Opposition as they were from 1997-2005.
We can't be sure of anything.
Hang on. You just said "Starmer will become rapidly unpopular possibly within months." Are you sure about that?
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
Nobody really has any sky-high expectations of a Starmer government either, so he's more likely to surprise on the upside than the down.
I doubt that. Look at Yousef. ..in office 5 mins and the shit hits the fan. A week is a long time in politics.....If Starmer is in a minority or v small majority,, the propensity for trouble is immense. Add that to the fact that Starmer is a v poor communicator.... let's see.how it pans out.. he might be lucky......
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
I was rather surprised to see that Iain Duncan Smith has been re-adopted to stand in Chingford. I had assumed he would retire given that he will surely lose next time. He's 68 and his majority is just 1200.
Theresa May and Boris also readopted. Not heard about Truss but imagine she will stand again.
Is this a record - 4 former Conservative Party leaders standing for re-election?
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
I was rather surprised to see that Iain Duncan Smith has been re-adopted to stand in Chingford. I had assumed he would retire given that he will surely lose next time. He's 68 and his majority is just 1200.
Theresa May and Boris also readopted. Not heard about Truss but imagine she will stand again.
Is this a record - 4 former Conservative Party leaders standing for re-election?
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
These issues are complicated, but part of that complexity that we need to acknowledge is that there was always plenty of opposition to slavery. Plenty didn't think slavery fitted their moral compass then. Some people bought and sold slaves, and others condemned them and said slavery was wrong. Indeed, slavery had been outlawed as being immoral and unChristian since the 11th century in England.
I think though that we underestimate how embedded slavery was in our economy. It wasn't easy to pick and choose about participating.
The mill hands in Lancashire, the iron workers in the Midlands, the consumers of rum and tobacco all were parts of the economy that rested on the backs of slaves.
And which rested on the backs of said workers. Their lives were not rosy ones.
It’s pretty well impossible to avoid trade with nations that practice slavery (informally) or treat their workers appallingly. We know where most cheap consumer goods come from.
Very interesting insight in to the late-Thatcher period from John Redwood - relating to the journey toward the ERM
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/04/06/the-sad-history-of-the-exchange-rate-mechanism/ "I argued [as MT's economic adviser] that ERM membership would be destabilising. When the pound was rising money would be created to sell pounds, swelling sterling money and credit. This would prove inflationary. When the pound wanted to go down the Bank would buy up pounds. This would be contractionary. I wanted the government to stick with the Medium Term Financial strategy Nigel Lawson had helped to create. Margaret agreed and thought her new Chancellor accepted the position.She made her view clear.
It later became apparent to me that despite the MTFS in place, despite the PM’s wishes, and despite the absence of any formal statement to Parliament of a change of economic policy control the Treasury and Bank were shadowing the DM. Interest rate moves seemed to be related to maintaining the exchange rate. I appreciated this was an inconvenient view for the PM but she came to believe it. One day when I was with her in the study she turned on the news only to hear the BBC claim a policy shift based on DM fluctuations. In later years Treasury pressure to join the ERM worsened the relationship with Number 10 more."
It's very striking to me that even as a PM who had a reputation for riding roughshod over her ministers, the Treasury and Chancellor frustrated Thatcher's wishes.
Her latter period is often seen as when she went off the rails and became a parody and a liability, but there is a strong counter-argument here that the Bank and the Treasury were already the ones fucking everything up, not the PM, and that she was right to be testy.
It will be a very positive thing for our economy and politics when the Treasury is neutered.
You would have thought so but Liz and Kwasi tested that to destruction.
Liz was naive, and was obsessed with doing things quickly to 'get Britain moving' in the remaining lifespan of the Boris Government. Her tactics were very flawed, but her intentions certainly were not - not in my opinion.
Nothing wrong with going for growth as a principle but, as you say, her execution was flawed.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
We can also be sure the Conservatives, after 14 years in power, will be as hopeless in Opposition as they were from 1997-2005.
We can't be sure of anything.
History does tell us parties which govern for long periods do not immediately transform to being effective oppositions. Frequent changes in Government mean parties and their leaders are used to both Government and Opposition which are two very different things.
The current group of senior Conservatives have never experienced Opposition and there’s a set of political skills which Opposition requires. In time a new generation will emerge which will be bloodied by a decade of Opposition and they will become effective again.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
I've been fairly fortunate with Ofsted inspections over the years, although I've encountered a few lay inspectors who should not have been anywhere near any kind of responsible job. Ofsted came in, saw what was happening to staff, students and parents, and ousted a very bad head that our governing body did not know how to deal with.
I recognise that in other regions of the UK, the inspectorate is not well led, and that the conduct of the inspectorate reflects that. The Regional Director for the South East needs to resign, in my opinion.
Safeguarding checks should be conducted much more frequently, but the 'teaching and learning' judgement is utterly meaningless. All it is really telling you at present is where the affluent middle classes live.
Well you do touch on a good point there, though the example you give is an unusual one (at least in my experience). Ofsted - or even the better system of HMIs which preceded it - is no substitute for effective school governance. Outside inspectors simply aren’t around often enough to do that job: it can be a decade between inspections for some schools.
I was a school governor for eight years, and am still on an academy members board, so I’ve made the effort. Not enough people do.
Very true - it is so hard to find people to take on governance roles. We now have a solid board of trustees from a range of backgrounds, including retired heads, and we're in a much better place (albeit with the challenges/pressures facing the state system at present).
I'm not against accountability but Ofsted as an organisation is simply not fit for purpose, does not contribute meaningfully to school improvement (which should be the sole aim of the organisation) and is causing active and distressing harm in some cases.
With my deepest sympathies to Ruth Perry's family, I do believe her death will be the catalyst for meaningful change, we simply cannot go on like this.
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
Nobody really has any sky-high expectations of a Starmer government either, so he's more likely to surprise on the upside than the down.
Wasn’t the Eccleston thing fairly early in Blair’s first term? Did not seem to do much damage. Suspect it would have been more damaging later on.
It was in the very early days of his honeymoon period. And even then, he feared it would bring him down. But the press gave him a free ride on it.
I’ve been on the road all day in France (which, by the way, is not looking particularly like it’s in flames and on the cusp of revolution) and just seen the Labour attack ad.
What a pathetic effort. Trying to out dogwhistle the Tories, and in the most childish manner. A timely reminder why I’m a Lib Dem.
I suspect Charles' interest in slavery comes in large part from his role as Head of the Commonwealth. He looks to take that role seriously. Bear in mind the Commonwealth were largely the enslaved.
I’ve been on the road all day in France (which, by the way, is not looking particularly like it’s in flames and on the cusp of revolution) and just seen the Labour attack ad.
What a pathetic effort. Trying to out dogwhistle the Tories, and in the most childish manner. A timely reminder why I’m a Lib Dem.
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
I was rather surprised to see that Iain Duncan Smith has been re-adopted to stand in Chingford. I had assumed he would retire given that he will surely lose next time. He's 68 and his majority is just 1200.
Theresa May and Boris also readopted. Not heard about Truss but imagine she will stand again.
Is this a record - 4 former Conservative Party leaders standing for re-election?
He's also got over 11k electors from Ilford North in the new boundaries. So that 1200 majority probably doesn't exist at all.
Very interesting insight in to the late-Thatcher period from John Redwood - relating to the journey toward the ERM
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/04/06/the-sad-history-of-the-exchange-rate-mechanism/ "I argued [as MT's economic adviser] that ERM membership would be destabilising. When the pound was rising money would be created to sell pounds, swelling sterling money and credit. This would prove inflationary. When the pound wanted to go down the Bank would buy up pounds. This would be contractionary. I wanted the government to stick with the Medium Term Financial strategy Nigel Lawson had helped to create. Margaret agreed and thought her new Chancellor accepted the position.She made her view clear.
It later became apparent to me that despite the MTFS in place, despite the PM’s wishes, and despite the absence of any formal statement to Parliament of a change of economic policy control the Treasury and Bank were shadowing the DM. Interest rate moves seemed to be related to maintaining the exchange rate. I appreciated this was an inconvenient view for the PM but she came to believe it. One day when I was with her in the study she turned on the news only to hear the BBC claim a policy shift based on DM fluctuations. In later years Treasury pressure to join the ERM worsened the relationship with Number 10 more."
It's very striking to me that even as a PM who had a reputation for riding roughshod over her ministers, the Treasury and Chancellor frustrated Thatcher's wishes.
Her latter period is often seen as when she went off the rails and became a parody and a liability, but there is a strong counter-argument here that the Bank and the Treasury were already the ones fucking everything up, not the PM, and that she was right to be testy.
It will be a very positive thing for our economy and politics when the Treasury is neutered.
You would have thought so but Liz and Kwasi tested that to destruction.
Liz was naive, and was obsessed with doing things quickly to 'get Britain moving' in the remaining lifespan of the Boris Government. Her tactics were very flawed, but her intentions certainly were not - not in my opinion.
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
I was rather surprised to see that Iain Duncan Smith has been re-adopted to stand in Chingford. I had assumed he would retire given that he will surely lose next time. He's 68 and his majority is just 1200.
Theresa May and Boris also readopted. Not heard about Truss but imagine she will stand again.
Is this a record - 4 former Conservative Party leaders standing for re-election?
I've been fairly fortunate with Ofsted inspections over the years, although I've encountered a few lay inspectors who should not have been anywhere near any kind of responsible job. Ofsted came in, saw what was happening to staff, students and parents, and ousted a very bad head that our governing body did not know how to deal with.
I recognise that in other regions of the UK, the inspectorate is not well led, and that the conduct of the inspectorate reflects that. The Regional Director for the South East needs to resign, in my opinion.
Safeguarding checks should be conducted much more frequently, but the 'teaching and learning' judgement is utterly meaningless. All it is really telling you at present is where the affluent middle classes live.
Well you do touch on a good point there, though the example you give is an unusual one (at least in my experience). Ofsted - or even the better system of HMIs which preceded it - is no substitute for effective school governance. Outside inspectors simply aren’t around often enough to do that job: it can be a decade between inspections for some schools.
I was a school governor for eight years, and am still on an academy members board, so I’ve made the effort. Not enough people do.
Very true - it is so hard to find people to take on governance roles. We now have a solid board of trustees from a range of backgrounds, including retired heads, and we're in a much better place (albeit with the challenges/pressures facing the state system at present).
I'm not against accountability but Ofsted as an organisation is simply not fit for purpose, does not contribute meaningfully to school improvement (which should be the sole aim of the organisation) and is causing active and distressing harm in some cases.
With my deepest sympathies to Ruth Perry's family, I do believe her death will be the catalyst for meaningful change, we simply cannot go on like this.
Ok, question.
Last time I had an OFSTED inspector in my classroom, last summer - the fourth time in my career I'd been inspected and the first time there was ever an issue - he not only committed a massive safeguarding breach, it turned out he had been fired from a previous job for an earlier offence.
And OFSTED were unaware of this because they do not do basic safeguarding checks, notably, they do not use update nor oblige their inspectors to identify themselves (if he'd told me his name I would have known there was an issue, because although I'd never met him I had heard of him).
It was reported, but because their safeguarding procedures do not include a proper reporting mechanism it has not been followed up by the centre. As far as I know he is no longer working for OFSTED but he has never been disciplined or properly investigated, nor has the lead inspector (who also should have known and proved very reluctant to accept the report).
Is it worth me emailing a report to the Secretary of State and the members of the Education Select Committee drawing to their attention to the fact that due to the neglect of simple and indeed legally required precautions OFSTED are harming children? Also, that a case could be made that due to this inspectors could be refused entry by schools not out of spite but on the grounds they were not compliant with safeguarding regulations - including their own guidelines?
I can't imagine it would make me popular but I'm wondering if it might be the push that brings the rotten edifice down. If so it would seem worth doing.
I've been fairly fortunate with Ofsted inspections over the years, although I've encountered a few lay inspectors who should not have been anywhere near any kind of responsible job. Ofsted came in, saw what was happening to staff, students and parents, and ousted a very bad head that our governing body did not know how to deal with.
I recognise that in other regions of the UK, the inspectorate is not well led, and that the conduct of the inspectorate reflects that. The Regional Director for the South East needs to resign, in my opinion.
Safeguarding checks should be conducted much more frequently, but the 'teaching and learning' judgement is utterly meaningless. All it is really telling you at present is where the affluent middle classes live.
Well you do touch on a good point there, though the example you give is an unusual one (at least in my experience). Ofsted - or even the better system of HMIs which preceded it - is no substitute for effective school governance. Outside inspectors simply aren’t around often enough to do that job: it can be a decade between inspections for some schools.
I was a school governor for eight years, and am still on an academy members board, so I’ve made the effort. Not enough people do.
Very true - it is so hard to find people to take on governance roles. We now have a solid board of trustees from a range of backgrounds, including retired heads, and we're in a much better place (albeit with the challenges/pressures facing the state system at present).
I'm not against accountability but Ofsted as an organisation is simply not fit for purpose, does not contribute meaningfully to school improvement (which should be the sole aim of the organisation) and is causing active and distressing harm in some cases.
With my deepest sympathies to Ruth Perry's family, I do believe her death will be the catalyst for meaningful change, we simply cannot go on like this.
Ok, question.
Last time I had an OFSTED inspector in my classroom, last summer - the fourth time in my career I'd been inspected and the first time there was ever an issue - he not only committed a massive safeguarding breach, it turned out he had been fired from a previous job for an earlier offence.
And OFSTED were unaware of this because they do not do basic safeguarding checks, notably, they do not use update nor oblige their inspectors to identify themselves (if he'd told me his name I would have known there was an issue, because although I'd never met him I had heard of him).
It was reported, but because their safeguarding procedures do not include a proper reporting mechanism it has not been followed up by the centre. As far as I know he is no longer working for OFSTED but he has never been disciplined or properly investigated, nor has the lead inspector (who also should have known and proved very reluctant to accept the report).
Is it worth me emailing a report to the Secretary of State and the members of the Education Select Committee drawing to their attention to the fact that due to the neglect of simple and indeed legally required precautions OFSTED are harming children? Also, that a case could be made that due to this inspectors could be refused entry by schools not out of spite but on the grounds they were not compliant with safeguarding regulations - including their own guidelines?
I can't imagine it would make me popular but I'm wondering if it might be the push that brings the rotten edifice down. If so it would seem worth doing.
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
I was rather surprised to see that Iain Duncan Smith has been re-adopted to stand in Chingford. I had assumed he would retire given that he will surely lose next time. He's 68 and his majority is just 1200.
Theresa May and Boris also readopted. Not heard about Truss but imagine she will stand again.
Is this a record - 4 former Conservative Party leaders standing for re-election?
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
It's also better to get these things in hand and deal with them before they become a forced larger issue. Ignoring them is fair enough - unless they suddenly become a forced issue, Something you have no control over.
Hand-wringing over slavery is so very 2020.
We all know it happened in the UK before its abolition. This is a precursor to a hustle.
Whether it comes to the Crown jewels, slavery, the institutions of the British state, or even his role as monarch and head of the commonwealth realms Charles is deeply embarrassed to be monarch and his response to any challenge is, "Well, you have a very good point and I agree with. Not sure i particularly like it or the role myself. How would you like me to concede to you?"
That only invites more.
In general, I would say that the Industrial Revolution, the growth of Free Trade, and the discovery of fossil fuels, were remarkable blessings to humanity. They made the world a far better place (despite all of its injustices) than it was in 1800.
Without these things, the world would still be much more of a dog eat dog place.
On topic, I'm not sure the quid pro quo of this argument has been considered.
If Labour are stacking up votes in areas of strength like London, then they're not stacking them up as much in the key marginals.
Isn't it the opposite? The swing in London is smaller than the national swing.
No, it's not the opposite. A 40% lead in London is absolutely huge and it's nothing like that elsewhere.
Labour won 48% of the vote in London at the last GE. London is a Labour heartland these days, so even during an otherwise disastrous election they still won nearly half the popular vote there.
I was rather surprised to see that Iain Duncan Smith has been re-adopted to stand in Chingford. I had assumed he would retire given that he will surely lose next time. He's 68 and his majority is just 1200.
Theresa May and Boris also readopted. Not heard about Truss but imagine she will stand again.
Is this a record - 4 former Conservative Party leaders standing for re-election?
Can't be many elections when there was more than one previously. Balfour in 1918, Austen Chamberlain in 1922,23,24,29,31,35. Winston Churchill in 1955,59. Home in 1966,70. Heath for ever. But I wonder if two - variations on Hague, Duncan Smith and May - is the previous record.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
These issues are complicated, but part of that complexity that we need to acknowledge is that there was always plenty of opposition to slavery. Plenty didn't think slavery fitted their moral compass then. Some people bought and sold slaves, and others condemned them and said slavery was wrong. Indeed, slavery had been outlawed as being immoral and unChristian since the 11th century in England.
@ydoethur would know more, but although formal slavery went in the 11th century, for many inhabitants of these isles, there was still significant bondage. Being a villein meant rather limited rights. It took the Black Death and later revolts to end the feudal system.
So, what are you saying? That even those whose moral compasses are so different to ours that they thought serfdom was OK, even they could tell that chattel slavery was abhorrent? Good point, well made. Thanks.
I've been fairly fortunate with Ofsted inspections over the years, although I've encountered a few lay inspectors who should not have been anywhere near any kind of responsible job. Ofsted came in, saw what was happening to staff, students and parents, and ousted a very bad head that our governing body did not know how to deal with.
I recognise that in other regions of the UK, the inspectorate is not well led, and that the conduct of the inspectorate reflects that. The Regional Director for the South East needs to resign, in my opinion.
Safeguarding checks should be conducted much more frequently, but the 'teaching and learning' judgement is utterly meaningless. All it is really telling you at present is where the affluent middle classes live.
Well you do touch on a good point there, though the example you give is an unusual one (at least in my experience). Ofsted - or even the better system of HMIs which preceded it - is no substitute for effective school governance. Outside inspectors simply aren’t around often enough to do that job: it can be a decade between inspections for some schools.
I was a school governor for eight years, and am still on an academy members board, so I’ve made the effort. Not enough people do.
Very true - it is so hard to find people to take on governance roles. We now have a solid board of trustees from a range of backgrounds, including retired heads, and we're in a much better place (albeit with the challenges/pressures facing the state system at present).
I'm not against accountability but Ofsted as an organisation is simply not fit for purpose, does not contribute meaningfully to school improvement (which should be the sole aim of the organisation) and is causing active and distressing harm in some cases.
With my deepest sympathies to Ruth Perry's family, I do believe her death will be the catalyst for meaningful change, we simply cannot go on like this.
Ok, question.
Last time I had an OFSTED inspector in my classroom, last summer - the fourth time in my career I'd been inspected and the first time there was ever an issue - he not only committed a massive safeguarding breach, it turned out he had been fired from a previous job for an earlier offence.
And OFSTED were unaware of this because they do not do basic safeguarding checks, notably, they do not use update nor oblige their inspectors to identify themselves (if he'd told me his name I would have known there was an issue, because although I'd never met him I had heard of him).
It was reported, but because their safeguarding procedures do not include a proper reporting mechanism it has not been followed up by the centre. As far as I know he is no longer working for OFSTED but he has never been disciplined or properly investigated, nor has the lead inspector (who also should have known and proved very reluctant to accept the report).
Is it worth me emailing a report to the Secretary of State and the members of the Education Select Committee drawing to their attention to the fact that due to the neglect of simple and indeed legally required precautions OFSTED are harming children? Also, that a case could be made that due to this inspectors could be refused entry by schools not out of spite but on the grounds they were not compliant with safeguarding regulations - including their own guidelines?
I can't imagine it would make me popular but I'm wondering if it might be the push that brings the rotten edifice down. If so it would seem worth doing.
That's outrageous. Please follow this up, it is a scandal what they are getting away with.
Much like the Met, they seemingly get to inspect themselves and say 'no problems here, guv'.
(This did bring to mind at least one person I know of, who has been struck off by the DfE - my blood would run cold at the though of him being anywhere near an inspection).
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
These issues are complicated, but part of that complexity that we need to acknowledge is that there was always plenty of opposition to slavery. Plenty didn't think slavery fitted their moral compass then. Some people bought and sold slaves, and others condemned them and said slavery was wrong. Indeed, slavery had been outlawed as being immoral and unChristian since the 11th century in England.
@ydoethur would know more, but although formal slavery went in the 11th century, for many inhabitants of these isles, there was still significant bondage. Being a villein meant rather limited rights. It took the Black Death and later revolts to end the feudal system.
So, what are you saying? That even those whose moral compasses are so different to ours that they thought serfdom was OK, even they could tell that chattel slavery was abhorrent? Good point, well made. Thanks.
No, I was saying that while slavery was outlawed, what remained was pretty similar. So saying slavery was done in the 11th century is only really partly true.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
I don't believe I have any moral obligation to pay a penny to the descendants of slaves.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
I'd say yes. Chattel slavery of black people wasn't a run-of-the-mill example of worker exploitation. It was an absolute abomination and the toxic legacy lives on. As with the holocaust efforts to contextualize and downplay it are best avoided imo.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
These issues are complicated, but part of that complexity that we need to acknowledge is that there was always plenty of opposition to slavery. Plenty didn't think slavery fitted their moral compass then. Some people bought and sold slaves, and others condemned them and said slavery was wrong. Indeed, slavery had been outlawed as being immoral and unChristian since the 11th century in England.
@ydoethur would know more, but although formal slavery went in the 11th century, for many inhabitants of these isles, there was still significant bondage. Being a villein meant rather limited rights. It took the Black Death and later revolts to end the feudal system.
It never formally went in the Middle Ages, but it became very rare. It was finally in effect abolished by the Somerset case of 1772, which held that there was no law allowing somebody to be held as a slave in England (Scotland was about six years later).
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Were they routinely raped? Were there children taken away from them? Could they be beaten to death with impunity?
Sir Keir Starmer: Government's migrant accommodation plans will 'ruin the legacy of the Dambusters'
The Government's plans to house asylum seekers in the disused military base RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire are "completely wrong" and should be reversed, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The Labour leader told reporters during a visit to Scunthorpe this morning: "I think the Government’s completely wrong to press ahead with the plan to put 2,000 asylum seekers at Scampton.
"It will cut across, drive a coach and horses through a really important initiative for investment, for jobs, of tech jobs in an area that desperately needs them.
"The idea of cutting through all that is wrong in principle. That’s why so many local people are so concerned about it, because they can glimpse the future there and the Government’s about to take it away from them. It is also likely to ruin the legacy of the Dambusters. You know, this is an iconic site."
Keir Starmer going all Daily Mail. He is full of shit.
Yes, but I think people know that and also don't care. They want the Tories out.
What it means is that Starmer will become rapidly unpopular - possibly within months.
I'm not sure what happens, politically, in 2025-2026 in a world where both Labour and the Conservatives are deeply unpopular.
My guess would be a rising of the radicals with the Greens and Reform resurging, and probably the former doing better as they pick into Labour - a bit like how SF have cleaned up in Ireland.
Many were convinced Labour would become deeply unpopular very quickly after 1997 too. In reality, incoming governments of all stripes get a heck of a lot of political leeway for a good length of time.
We can also be sure the Conservatives, after 14 years in power, will be as hopeless in Opposition as they were from 1997-2005.
We can't be sure of anything.
History does tell us parties which govern for long periods do not immediately transform to being effective oppositions. Frequent changes in Government mean parties and their leaders are used to both Government and Opposition which are two very different things.
The current group of senior Conservatives have never experienced Opposition and there’s a set of political skills which Opposition requires. In time a new generation will emerge which will be bloodied by a decade of Opposition and they will become effective again.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
I’m on board with returning artefacts. I detest apologies by people who didn’t do it on behalf of nations of people who also didn’t do it, to people who didn’t experience it. Trite nonsense.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Were they routinely raped? Were there children taken away from them? Could they be beaten to death with impunity?
Many dreadful things could be, and were, done to them.
Struggling in that second half but impressive nonetheless. Penalties more interesting with the women. Goalkeepers more in the game with less raw power.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
This discussion came out of the news that King Charles is cooperating with a historical study on slavery and the Royal family. Certain conservatives then jumped on a slippery slope argument and started talking about reparations. We've also seen some whataboutery chucked in as well. It's the same old nonsense, a massive snowflakery at anything that suggests that the worldview that they grew up with might possibly benefit from any updating whatsoever.
All Charles has done is cooperate with some research, but for a few here, that means the sky is falling in.
Struggling in that second half but impressive nonetheless. Penalties more interesting with the women. Goalkeepers more in the game with less raw power.
The second goal that was disallowed looked ok, tbf. They were a bit lacklustre in the second half, but great victory.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
This discussion came out of the news that King Charles is cooperating with a historical study on slavery and the Royal family. Certain conservatives then jumped on a slippery slope argument and started talking about reparations. We've also seen some whataboutery chucked in as well. It's the same old nonsense, a massive snowflakery at anything that suggests that the worldview that they grew up with might possibly benefit from any updating at whatsoever.
I don’t agree. The next step for much of this is a call for reparations, as is already happening around the world. I’m fully on board with examining the past and history is constantly reinterpreted. That’s a good thing. What’s not is somehow claiming unique status for the African slave trade, and then leading on to somehow needing to make amends.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
I’m on board with returning artefacts. I detest apologies by people who didn’t do it on behalf of nations of people who also didn’t do it, to people who didn’t experience it. Trite nonsense.
There is surely more to a nation than the collection of people alive in it at any point in time?
If we are proud of our national heritage and our nation's historic achievements we must acknowledge our nation's past failings too.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
I’m on board with returning artefacts. I detest apologies by people who didn’t do it on behalf of nations of people who also didn’t do it, to people who didn’t experience it. Trite nonsense.
There is surely more to a nation than the collection of people alive in it at any point in time?
If we are proud of our national heritage and our nation's historic achievements we must acknowledge our nation's past failings too.
We are not the nation that ran the triangular trade any more than we are the ones who fought in WW2. People say it’s nuts to feel pride in what ‘we’ did in 1939-45, so I say the same about the evils of the slave trade.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
I don't believe I have any moral obligation to pay a penny to the descendants of slaves.
Nor do I.
But I do believe Britain as a nation has some moral obligations.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Err, no.
Reread my post and don't make up things. I have not advocated financial payments.
Apology and restoration of traceable important cultural artefacts, something that you supported too a week or so back.
I would also open up educational scholarships and work visas too, but that is little financial cost, and an important part of soft power.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
I’m on board with returning artefacts. I detest apologies by people who didn’t do it on behalf of nations of people who also didn’t do it, to people who didn’t experience it. Trite nonsense.
There is surely more to a nation than the collection of people alive in it at any point in time?
If we are proud of our national heritage and our nation's historic achievements we must acknowledge our nation's past failings too.
An apology only has moral worth if it is for actions that you have done, or for actions done by those who work for you. An apology for actions done by people long dead to people long dead is worthless.
To take one recent example, Nicola Sturgeon apologising to people burned as witches was laughable.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
I’m on board with returning artefacts. I detest apologies by people who didn’t do it on behalf of nations of people who also didn’t do it, to people who didn’t experience it. Trite nonsense.
There is surely more to a nation than the collection of people alive in it at any point in time?
If we are proud of our national heritage and our nation's historic achievements we must acknowledge our nation's past failings too.
We are not the nation that ran the triangular trade any more than we are the ones who fought in WW2. People say it’s nuts to feel pride in what ‘we’ did in 1939-45, so I say the same about the evils of the slave trade.
That's fine, it's a consistent view. Might as well go the whole hog though and do away with the nation state altogether.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
I’m on board with returning artefacts. I detest apologies by people who didn’t do it on behalf of nations of people who also didn’t do it, to people who didn’t experience it. Trite nonsense.
There is surely more to a nation than the collection of people alive in it at any point in time?
If we are proud of our national heritage and our nation's historic achievements we must acknowledge our nation's past failings too.
We are not the nation that ran the triangular trade any more than we are the ones who fought in WW2. People say it’s nuts to feel pride in what ‘we’ did in 1939-45, so I say the same about the evils of the slave trade.
That's fine, it's a consistent view. Might as well go the whole hog though and do away with the nation state altogether.
That’s a bit much? The current nation has a role, surely.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
I’m on board with returning artefacts. I detest apologies by people who didn’t do it on behalf of nations of people who also didn’t do it, to people who didn’t experience it. Trite nonsense.
There is surely more to a nation than the collection of people alive in it at any point in time?
If we are proud of our national heritage and our nation's historic achievements we must acknowledge our nation's past failings too.
An apology only has moral worth if it is for actions that you have done, or for actions done by those who work for you. An apology for actions done by people long dead to people long dead is worthless.
To take one recent example, Nicola Sturgeon apologising to people burned as witches was laughable.
There is precedent, for example pardoning those adults persecuted under laws against homosexuals, and also to pardon those shot for cowardice in WW1 etc.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
These issues are complicated, but part of that complexity that we need to acknowledge is that there was always plenty of opposition to slavery. Plenty didn't think slavery fitted their moral compass then. Some people bought and sold slaves, and others condemned them and said slavery was wrong. Indeed, slavery had been outlawed as being immoral and unChristian since the 11th century in England.
@ydoethur would know more, but although formal slavery went in the 11th century, for many inhabitants of these isles, there was still significant bondage. Being a villein meant rather limited rights. It took the Black Death and later revolts to end the feudal system.
It never formally went in the Middle Ages, but it became very rare. It was finally in effect abolished by the Somerset case of 1772, which held that there was no law allowing somebody to be held as a slave in England (Scotland was about six years later).
Bit later still in Scotland, depending on whether you think that the situation of the colliers and salters was slavery or not. Probably serf rather than slave, though. Evelyn Lord paper here.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
I’m on board with returning artefacts. I detest apologies by people who didn’t do it on behalf of nations of people who also didn’t do it, to people who didn’t experience it. Trite nonsense.
There is surely more to a nation than the collection of people alive in it at any point in time?
If we are proud of our national heritage and our nation's historic achievements we must acknowledge our nation's past failings too.
An apology only has moral worth if it is for actions that you have done, or for actions done by those who work for you. An apology for actions done by people long dead to people long dead is worthless.
To take one recent example, Nicola Sturgeon apologising to people burned as witches was laughable.
There is precedent, for example pardoning those adults persecuted under laws against homosexuals, and also to pardon those shot for cowardice in WW1 etc.
My view is that no posthumous pardon should have been given to people who were shot for cowardice, which however harsh it may seem, was an act of military necessity.
There is a case for pardoning people who are alive, who were convicted of consensual same sex activity with adults, but none for those who are dead, IMHO.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Pay to who, though? And are descendants in the U.K. say, better or worse off than if slavery hadn’t happened and their lineage had stayed in Africa?
Well that's a different question - I was just responding to Pagan's suggestion that Foxy wanted 'reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves'. People who are in fact long dead themselves and who aren't going to paying anyone anything.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
I’m on board with returning artefacts. I detest apologies by people who didn’t do it on behalf of nations of people who also didn’t do it, to people who didn’t experience it. Trite nonsense.
There is surely more to a nation than the collection of people alive in it at any point in time?
If we are proud of our national heritage and our nation's historic achievements we must acknowledge our nation's past failings too.
An apology only has moral worth if it is for actions that you have done, or for actions done by those who work for you. An apology for actions done by people long dead to people long dead is worthless.
To take one recent example, Nicola Sturgeon apologising to people burned as witches was laughable.
In principle I agree people should not have any reason to feel pride or shame in things done by different people in different times.
But, apologies to historically wronged people (not people burned as witches, but for example indigenous people in Australia or Canada) can have a very powerful signalling effect. They say the majority population and its leadership no longer accepts the behaviour of their ancestors as morally justified. Therefore it won’t happen again.
To give a topical example, an apology by a defeated and reformed Russia to Ukraine not only for crimes in this lifetime but for the Holodomor and oppression under the USSR would go a long way to repairing relations because it would draw a line in the sand.
Analysts believe that the UK should be building *at least* 300k houses a year, and some suggest we need as many as *600k a year* to make up the gap with other countries.
Tory planning proposals are expected to reduce current build rates to 156k a year, according to analysis from Lichfields.
It wasn't that long ago that most people, whether on the left or right, were strongly in favour of preserving the green belts, because otherwise towns and cities would simply blend into each other, like they already have in some parts of the south-east.
I’m in favour of the green belts. I’m also in favour of proper densification, which Britain doesn’t really do.
You can have two of:
1. Green belt / countryside preservation 2. Low rise cities 3. Unaffordable housing
Britain chooses 1 and 2.
We leave planning to the developers. So we get rat tip Barrett houses thrown up where they want, offering microscopic bedroom executive homes and tiny gardens where they lay turf on top of rubble.
What we need to really push is the idea of younger people living in central apartments. Regenerate city and town centres, fit more people into a smaller space, bring shops and restaurants to life.
Instead? Crush in homes people don't want into places with no services and watch as these new estates slowly corrode into petty crime and vandalism hotspots.
The issue is that people don't want either Barrett wonders or central apartments. They want decent sized detached or semi-detached houses, with good sized gardens. Our stupid planning laws make getting a new site signed off for planning very difficult, but if you get planning at-all, the planners will let you squeeze in twice as many houses as it will sensibly bear.
For a lot of developments, we should have maximum densities we will permit, probably at 30% of what is typical at the moment, but that would horrify the developers, planners and the nimbys, so fat chance of it happening.
I wonder how inflexible people are, though? If you're struggling to find somewhere decent to live with reasonable facilities, and a block of flats near the centre is on offer, might the prejudice against central apartments not decline? They're almost universal in other countries, probably not because people hate detached housing but because affordable and pleasant beats waiting for perfection.
It's worth thinking about why people dislike flats. I'd suggest a couple of big reasons are leasehold and poor public transport. Fix those things, and other issues, and the popularity of flats would probably increase.
Comments
Where's Mr Trump going?
Ofsted - or even the better system of HMIs which preceded it - is no substitute for effective school governance. Outside inspectors simply aren’t around often enough to do that job: it can be a decade between inspections for some schools.
I was a school governor for eight years, and am still on an academy members board, so I’ve made the effort. Not enough people do.
You just said "Starmer will become rapidly unpopular possibly within months."
Are you sure about that?
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
Theresa May and Boris also readopted. Not heard about Truss but imagine she will stand again.
Is this a record - 4 former Conservative Party leaders standing for re-election?
It’s pretty well impossible to avoid trade with nations that practice slavery (informally) or treat their workers appallingly. We know where most cheap consumer goods come from.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
The current group of senior Conservatives have never experienced Opposition and there’s a set of political skills which Opposition requires. In time a new generation will emerge which will be bloodied by a decade of Opposition and they will become effective again.
I'm not against accountability but Ofsted as an organisation is simply not fit for purpose, does not contribute meaningfully to school improvement (which should be the sole aim of the organisation) and is causing active and distressing harm in some cases.
With my deepest sympathies to Ruth Perry's family, I do believe her death will be the catalyst for meaningful change, we simply cannot go on like this.
What a pathetic effort. Trying to out dogwhistle the Tories, and in the most childish manner. A timely reminder why I’m a Lib Dem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/65148216
So that 1200 majority probably doesn't exist at all.
Last time I had an OFSTED inspector in my classroom, last summer - the fourth time in my career I'd been inspected and the first time there was ever an issue - he not only committed a massive safeguarding breach, it turned out he had been fired from a previous job for an earlier offence.
And OFSTED were unaware of this because they do not do basic safeguarding checks, notably, they do not use update nor oblige their inspectors to identify themselves (if he'd told me his name I would have known there was an issue, because although I'd never met him I had heard of him).
It was reported, but because their safeguarding procedures do not include a proper reporting mechanism it has not been followed up by the centre. As far as I know he is no longer working for OFSTED but he has never been disciplined or properly investigated, nor has the lead inspector (who also should have known and proved very reluctant to accept the report).
Is it worth me emailing a report to the Secretary of State and the members of the Education Select Committee drawing to their attention to the fact that due to the neglect of simple and indeed legally required precautions OFSTED are harming children? Also, that a case could be made that due to this inspectors could be refused entry by schools not out of spite but on the grounds they were not compliant with safeguarding regulations - including their own guidelines?
I can't imagine it would make me popular but I'm wondering if it might be the push that brings the rotten edifice down. If so it would seem worth doing.
It's a scandal.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
Without these things, the world would still be much more of a dog eat dog place.
Much like the Met, they seemingly get to inspect themselves and say 'no problems here, guv'.
(This did bring to mind at least one person I know of, who has been struck off by the DfE - my blood would run cold at the though of him being anywhere near an inspection).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_MPs_by_seniority_(2019–present)
A few left from the class of 2005 and before, but not many to set the pulses racing.
I assume the reparations would go to fund good works in the countries historically affected but I accept it's not straightforward.
I am ambivalent about financial reparations. Apologies on behalf of the nation and the return of cultural artefacts would get my vote though.
However, to be a chattel slave was the worst.
Penalties more interesting with the women. Goalkeepers more in the game with less raw power.
All Charles has done is cooperate with some research, but for a few here, that means the sky is falling in.
If we are proud of our national heritage and our nation's historic achievements we must acknowledge our nation's past failings too.
But I do believe Britain as a nation has some moral obligations.
Reread my post and don't make up things. I have not advocated financial payments.
Apology and restoration of traceable important cultural artefacts, something that you supported too a week or so back.
I would also open up educational scholarships and work visas too, but that is little financial cost, and an important part of soft power.
To take one recent example, Nicola Sturgeon apologising to people burned as witches was laughable.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjEjcyglZb-AhWVaMAKHfOLDpsQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https://www.balh.org.uk/download?file=publication-tlh-the-local-historian-volume-37-number-4-november-2007&pub=tlh&usg=AOvVaw0Q6rnPxnDTtvlJCkuUoDGG
New Thread
There is a case for pardoning people who are alive, who were convicted of consensual same sex activity with adults, but none for those who are dead, IMHO.
But, apologies to historically wronged people (not people burned as witches, but for example indigenous people in Australia or Canada) can have a very powerful signalling effect. They say the majority population and its leadership no longer accepts the behaviour of their ancestors as morally justified. Therefore it won’t happen again.
To give a topical example, an apology by a defeated and reformed Russia to Ukraine not only for crimes in this lifetime but for the Holodomor and oppression under the USSR would go a long way to repairing relations because it would draw a line in the sand.