Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Biden edges up a touch in the WH2023 betting -Trump down – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,047
edited April 2023 in General
imageBiden edges up a touch in the WH2023 betting -Trump down – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    Is that a First?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,092

    Is that a First?

    Like Biden.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,910

    Is that a First?

    Like Biden.
    All right thinking people hope so.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,571
    Biden looks as though he could meet his maker with every step he takes...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    edited April 2023
    "Jake Shields
    @jakeshieldsajj
    ·
    5 Apr
    I just found out my good friend was killed last night while walking him in San Francisco

    He was in the “good” part of the city and appeared to have been targeted in a random mugging/attack

    F**k San Francisco


    Elon Musk

    @elonmusk
    Replying to
    @jakeshieldsajj
    Very sorry to hear that. Many people I know have been severely assaulted.

    Violent crime in SF is horrific and even if attackers are caught, they are often released immediately.

    Is the city taking stronger action to incarcerate repeat violent offenders
    @BrookeJenkinsSF
    ?
    10:27 am · 5 Apr 2023
    ·
    6.5M Views"

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1643545966811975680
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    edited April 2023
    FPT:


    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.
    What is that role if you disallow the sense of shared heritage, history, national achievement, and yes, disgrace?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,866

    Is that a First?

    Like Biden.
    All right thinking people hope so.
    And left thinking people too.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,910
    edited April 2023

    FPT:

    [SNIP]
    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.
    What is that role if you disallow the sense of shared heritage, history, national achievement, and yes, disgrace?
    Football, every other year…😀

    That’s fair. I think you can have pride in a nation as it is, without evoking past glories/infamies. For instance, despite some people views, I think Britain is a remarkably tolerant country, welcoming, friendly and generally a country who does the right thing.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,866
    At work today two colleagues started discussing the arrangements for Easter services at their respective churches.

    What kind of sick in the head feckers am I having to deal with here?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,731

    At work today two colleagues started discussing the arrangements for Easter services at their respective churches.

    What kind of sick in the head feckers am I having to deal with here?

    No need to egg them on!
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,520
    These are my current rules on the US election in 2024 and it’ll take quite a bit to convince me otherwise.

    1. If Biden runs, he gets the nomination.
    2. If Biden faces Trump, Biden will win.
    3. If Biden faces pretty much anyone else - he’s the underdog, but with a decent chance.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,866
    Anyway, I impressed these wet lettuce Prods by informing them that I used to go to church twice on Good Friday.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,977

    Biden looks as though he could meet his maker with every step he takes...

    No he doesn't. He looks old, because he is, but not 'about to collapse' old.

    One might as well say Trump looks like he's about 5 seconds from a heart attack whenever we see him, though that might just be the impression from his sheer manic energy.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,272

    These are my current rules on the US election in 2024 and it’ll take quite a bit to convince me otherwise.

    1. If Biden runs, he gets the nomination.
    2. If Biden faces Trump, Biden will win.
    3. If Biden faces pretty much anyone else - he’s the underdog, but with a decent chance.

    4 If Trump runs he gets the nomination.
    I've been saying since the last one it would be a two legged affair.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,977
    No love for those declared major Democratic candidates, Marianne Williamson and Robert F Kennedy Jr?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,279

    Anyway, I impressed these wet lettuce Prods by informing them that I used to go to church twice on Good Friday.

    On Palm Sunday, my childhood church would have a procession, in the church, complete with donkey. Plastic was put down.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,860
    Judging by his recent actions, California Governor Gavin Newsom is running for something. (He's been campaigning in Mississippi and, more recently, in Florida.)

    And he's been claiming, with some justice, that he has kept the anti-business nuts in the California Democratic Party in check.

    President in 2028? (He's 55.)
    Vice president in 2024, replacing Harris (who could be given a big job in California, perhaps)?
    President in 2024, should Biden be unable, or unwilling, to run?

    All of the above?

    (For the record: On the whole, I think he's been bad for California, which helps explain why the state has been losing population. He was, however, better on COVID than Abbot of Texas, DeSantis of Florida, and Cuomo of New York, though some of his success is due to the high proportion of East Asians in California.

    He is one of the better campaigners in the Democratic Party.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom )
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,977

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,533
    Andy_JS said:

    "Jake Shields
    @jakeshieldsajj
    ·
    5 Apr
    I just found out my good friend was killed last night while walking him in San Francisco

    He was in the “good” part of the city and appeared to have been targeted in a random mugging/attack

    F**k San Francisco


    Elon Musk

    @elonmusk
    Replying to
    @jakeshieldsajj
    Very sorry to hear that. Many people I know have been severely assaulted.

    Violent crime in SF is horrific and even if attackers are caught, they are often released immediately.

    Is the city taking stronger action to incarcerate repeat violent offenders
    @BrookeJenkinsSF
    ?
    10:27 am · 5 Apr 2023
    ·
    6.5M Views"

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1643545966811975680

    Could you repost that with the formatting even more messed up? Ta!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    The current Republican Party simply doesn't believe in democracy.
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/06/tennessee-expulsion-future-democrats-00090911

    God forbid they win the presidency next year.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,446
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    edited April 2023
    O/T

    Just been watching extended highlights of the 1970 Wimbledon Ladies' final between Billie-Jean King and Margaret Court. Quality of the footage is excellent.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzbw0OH76Og
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,465
    FPT

    .



    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.
    Yes, certainly public transport was a big plus when I grew up in Denmark with tower blocks much in demand - we lived on thr 8th floor within 5 minutes of a mainline station, in a two-floor mainsonette with 5 rooms, two lifts and a full-time porter for (then) £300/month. Leasehold is harder to fix - the thing in Denmark was that very few people were interested in owning property; since rentals were so cheap and well-managed, why bother? I gather that's changed and lots of Danes now own their homes - but they too are pretty cheap, because the density allows it (that same flat seems to be about £500,000). It's the dominance of houses (detached and semis) that makes British housing so expensive.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,977
    edited April 2023

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    But even without trying to be precise it just isn't as simple as 'give x group money' nor are many of the problems of racial disparity in modern likely to be solved by cash - we already have cash which we can target, and issues of discrimination are not money driven for example.

    It looks like an attempt to make a gesture in the absence of something meaningful, but hard to grapple with. Gestures can be useful, but not always, indeed sometimes they can be the opposite of useful as people think that the gesture (even a gesture with some cash) is all that is needed, job done.

    I get the impulse, but even from advocates it seems to come down to 'We must do something, this is something'.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    edited April 2023

    This is not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in. I say to the people who have taken the decision to publish this ad, please withdraw it. We, the Labour Party, are better than this.

    https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellmp/status/1644066942867894272

    I think John McDonnell is right, this isn't the way to attract new voters to the party. Seems misjudged, in the same way that the Tony Blair "demon eyes" campaign in the 1990s was from the Tories.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,977

    This is not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in. I say to the people who have taken the decision to publish this ad, please withdraw it. We, the Labour Party, are better than this.

    https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellmp/status/1644066942867894272

    I don't have data on this, but I suspect when it looks like a GE could happen within 12 months or so the rhetoric on law and order probably gets even more hysterical than usual as parties compete to see who can be toughest on crime. Probably not a good time for nuance, reform or reflection about issues with prison, sentencing guidelines or policing policies (we may get an exception on the latter due to just how many crappy stories we've seen in the last few years).
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,279
    It has attracted a twitter community note:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1643973886311297028
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,310
    edited April 2023

    FPT:

    [SNIP]
    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.
    What is that role if you disallow the sense of shared heritage, history, national achievement, and yes, disgrace?
    Football, every other year…😀

    That’s fair. I think you can have pride in a nation as it is, without evoking past glories/infamies. For instance, despite some people views, I think Britain is a remarkably tolerant country, welcoming, friendly and generally a country who does the right thing.
    "Welcoming" is difficult to substantiate objectively, given that most other European countries take in more refugees per capita than we do, and that one of our main topics of political discourse is how to stop any more from coming.

    Edit: And after Iraq. "does the right thing" is on pretty shaky ground too.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,440

    FPT

    .



    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.
    Yes, certainly public transport was a big plus when I grew up in Denmark with tower blocks much in demand - we lived on thr 8th floor within 5 minutes of a mainline station, in a two-floor mainsonette with 5 rooms, two lifts and a full-time porter for (then) £300/month. Leasehold is harder to fix - the thing in Denmark was that very few people were interested in owning property; since rentals were so cheap and well-managed, why bother? I gather that's changed and lots of Danes now own their homes - but they too are pretty cheap, because the density allows it (that same flat seems to be about £500,000). It's the dominance of houses (detached and semis) that makes British housing so expensive.
    What is the 500k referring to, the UK or current Danish price ?
    500k isn't particularly cheap for a flat or house except for London
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    kle4 said:

    This is not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in. I say to the people who have taken the decision to publish this ad, please withdraw it. We, the Labour Party, are better than this.

    https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellmp/status/1644066942867894272

    I don't have data on this, but I suspect when it looks like a GE could happen within 12 months or so the rhetoric on law and order probably gets even more hysterical than usual as parties compete to see who can be toughest on crime. Probably not a good time for nuance, reform or reflection about issues with prison, sentencing guidelines or policing policies (we may get an exception on the latter due to just how many crappy stories we've seen in the last few years).
    It’s worse than meaningless.
    One day U.K. governments might work out that actually running the criminal justice system competently is necessary before legislating policy changes actually means anything.
    Pandering to people’s retributive instincts isn’t great for society Competing to do so with an incompetent government is seriously disappointing from an opposition which had sounded as though they might have started to understand the first point.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    To put it another way, the country wants change, not triangulation.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,759

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    Even if that were so, there are very few parts of the world that are poorer now than they were prior to 1750. Industrialisation benefitted almost everybody who is alive in the world today.

    A reparations approach does nothing either to deal with bad government, widespread corruption, religious fanaticism, and the other ills that keep some places poor, relative to the rest of the world.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    This is the editor of the left-of-centre New Statesman.

    "George Eaton
    @georgeeaton
    ·
    10h
    This is one of the worst political adverts in recent UK history and not the first time Labour has pandered to prejudice in the hope of electoral gain."

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1644006655724597249
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    Even if that were so, there are very few parts of the world that are poorer now than they were prior to 1750. Industrialisation benefitted almost everybody who is alive in the world today.

    A reparations approach does nothing either to deal with bad government, widespread corruption, religious fanaticism, and the other ills that keep some places poor, relative to the rest of the world.
    Without industrialisation, the world’s population would not be meaningfully different from that in 1750.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    For those who enjoy the genre, I recommend Kill Boksoon on Netflix.
    A bit like John Wick, except the protagonist is a single mum.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139

    At work today two colleagues started discussing the arrangements for Easter services at their respective churches.

    What kind of sick in the head feckers am I having to deal with here?

    Maybe you should tell them you believe in the extinction of all human life on earth?

    That will show them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139
    Andy_JS said:

    This is the editor of the left-of-centre New Statesman.

    "George Eaton
    @georgeeaton
    ·
    10h
    This is one of the worst political adverts in recent UK history and not the first time Labour has pandered to prejudice in the hope of electoral gain."

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1644006655724597249

    Keir will be pleased with that. He's played right into his hands.

    We all know SKS doesn't really believe this but getting attacked by luvvies from his own side will help credentialise his cynicism to his target audience.

    It's all a game really, isn't it?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    But even without trying to be precise it just isn't as simple as 'give x group money' nor are many of the problems of racial disparity in modern likely to be solved by cash - we already have cash which we can target, and issues of discrimination are not money driven for example.

    It looks like an attempt to make a gesture in the absence of something meaningful, but hard to grapple with. Gestures can be useful, but not always, indeed sometimes they can be the opposite of useful as people think that the gesture (even a gesture with some cash) is all that is needed, job done.

    I get the impulse, but even from advocates it seems to come down to 'We must do something, this is something'.
    What we should do is build strong and friendly political links with Carribean countries, as we are in the Pacific, to lock out China and bridge them into the West as strong and prosperous allies. We should emphasise the positive historical links we have in common with them in this, our mutual friendship, and the values we share. Development aid should be based on targeting these objectives, which is in their interests and our own, and helping them adapt to climate change.

    Angry calls for justice and reparations are going to divide the countries, both domestically and internationally, fuel resentment and do nothing to build a positive and trusting relationship going forwards based on mutual respect.

    And China and our enemies will pick over the carcass.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139
    On topic, I'll be buying Joe with a bit of spare cash each month now until the Nom, for as long as his price remains attractive.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,228
    Andy_JS said:

    "Jake Shields
    @jakeshieldsajj
    ·
    5 Apr
    I just found out my good friend was killed last night while walking him in San Francisco

    He was in the “good” part of the city and appeared to have been targeted in a random mugging/attack

    F**k San Francisco


    Elon Musk

    @elonmusk
    Replying to
    @jakeshieldsajj
    Very sorry to hear that. Many people I know have been severely assaulted.

    Violent crime in SF is horrific and even if attackers are caught, they are often released immediately.

    Is the city taking stronger action to incarcerate repeat violent offenders
    @BrookeJenkinsSF
    ?
    10:27 am · 5 Apr 2023
    ·
    6.5M Views"

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1643545966811975680

    It is worth noting that San Francisco had just 55 homicides last year, exactly the same number as 2021.

    I'm not saying it's some oasis of safety, but it isn't - in general - a dangerous place. There are very few large cities in the US that boast just one homicide a week.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,228

    These are my current rules on the US election in 2024 and it’ll take quite a bit to convince me otherwise.

    1. If Biden runs, he gets the nomination.
    2. If Biden faces Trump, Biden will win.
    3. If Biden faces pretty much anyone else - he’s the underdog, but with a decent chance.

    Trump beats Harris.
    Biden beats Trump.
    Trump beats DeSantis.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314
    edited April 2023

    Andy_JS said:

    This is the editor of the left-of-centre New Statesman.

    "George Eaton
    @georgeeaton
    ·
    10h
    This is one of the worst political adverts in recent UK history and not the first time Labour has pandered to prejudice in the hope of electoral gain."

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1644006655724597249

    Keir will be pleased with that. He's played right into his hands.

    We all know SKS doesn't really believe this but getting attacked by luvvies from his own side will help credentialise his cynicism to his target audience.

    It's all a game really, isn't it?
    He’s inviting someone, not the Tories but a right-wing campaign group, to make references to Jimmy Savile in the election campaign. If Labour wants to be in government, they need to be projecting a positive message rather than being down in the gutter.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    Nigelb said:

    The current Republican Party simply doesn't believe in democracy.
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/06/tennessee-expulsion-future-democrats-00090911

    God forbid they win the presidency next year.

    Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones, one of the Dems that the GOP is trying to expel* from state legislature to protesting gun violence, calls out his colleagues on the floor

    ‘For years, one of your colleagues, an admitted child molester, sat in this chamber – no expulsion’

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1644057153928413184

    * Have now expelled (not suspended).

    Just for LOLs they didn't expel his white colleague.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jake Shields
    @jakeshieldsajj
    ·
    5 Apr
    I just found out my good friend was killed last night while walking him in San Francisco

    He was in the “good” part of the city and appeared to have been targeted in a random mugging/attack

    F**k San Francisco


    Elon Musk

    @elonmusk
    Replying to
    @jakeshieldsajj
    Very sorry to hear that. Many people I know have been severely assaulted.

    Violent crime in SF is horrific and even if attackers are caught, they are often released immediately.

    Is the city taking stronger action to incarcerate repeat violent offenders
    @BrookeJenkinsSF
    ?
    10:27 am · 5 Apr 2023
    ·
    6.5M Views"

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1643545966811975680

    It is worth noting that San Francisco had just 55 homicides last year, exactly the same number as 2021.

    I'm not saying it's some oasis of safety, but it isn't - in general - a dangerous place. There are very few large cities in the US that boast just one homicide a week.
    Yes, but most of the homicides are gang wars or domestic. This one is a rich guy, seemingly a victim of a random act of violence on the street. When wealthy entrepreneurs decide the streets aren’t safe *for themselves*, companies start moving out of town.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314
    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    This is the editor of the left-of-centre New Statesman.

    "George Eaton
    @georgeeaton
    ·
    10h
    This is one of the worst political adverts in recent UK history and not the first time Labour has pandered to prejudice in the hope of electoral gain."

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1644006655724597249

    Keir will be pleased with that. He's played right into his hands.

    We all know SKS doesn't really believe this but getting attacked by luvvies from his own side will help credentialise his cynicism to his target audience.

    It's all a game really, isn't it?
    He’s inviting someone, not the Tories but a right-wing campaign group, to make references to Jimmy Savile in the election campaign. If Labour wants to be in government, they need to be projecting a positive message rather than being down in the gutter.
    Also, their biggest shout for a load of seats at the moment, is in Scotland. They should absolutely be highlighting @DavidL’s case from the other day where, thanks to specific changes made by the incumbent government, a convicted child rapist just walked free from court.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,228
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jake Shields
    @jakeshieldsajj
    ·
    5 Apr
    I just found out my good friend was killed last night while walking him in San Francisco

    He was in the “good” part of the city and appeared to have been targeted in a random mugging/attack

    F**k San Francisco


    Elon Musk

    @elonmusk
    Replying to
    @jakeshieldsajj
    Very sorry to hear that. Many people I know have been severely assaulted.

    Violent crime in SF is horrific and even if attackers are caught, they are often released immediately.

    Is the city taking stronger action to incarcerate repeat violent offenders
    @BrookeJenkinsSF
    ?
    10:27 am · 5 Apr 2023
    ·
    6.5M Views"

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1643545966811975680

    It is worth noting that San Francisco had just 55 homicides last year, exactly the same number as 2021.

    I'm not saying it's some oasis of safety, but it isn't - in general - a dangerous place. There are very few large cities in the US that boast just one homicide a week.
    Yes, but most of the homicides are gang wars or domestic. This one is a rich guy, seemingly a victim of a random act of violence on the street. When wealthy entrepreneurs decide the streets aren’t safe *for themselves*, companies start moving out of town.
    It is a remarkable coincidence that this happens at exactly the time that Hindenburg Research posts a massive research report about how Cash App is a giant $40bn fraud.

    Could be random street violence. But it is also a remarkable coincidence.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,463
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jake Shields
    @jakeshieldsajj
    ·
    5 Apr
    I just found out my good friend was killed last night while walking him in San Francisco

    He was in the “good” part of the city and appeared to have been targeted in a random mugging/attack

    F**k San Francisco


    Elon Musk

    @elonmusk
    Replying to
    @jakeshieldsajj
    Very sorry to hear that. Many people I know have been severely assaulted.

    Violent crime in SF is horrific and even if attackers are caught, they are often released immediately.

    Is the city taking stronger action to incarcerate repeat violent offenders
    @BrookeJenkinsSF
    ?
    10:27 am · 5 Apr 2023
    ·
    6.5M Views"

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1643545966811975680

    It is worth noting that San Francisco had just 55 homicides last year, exactly the same number as 2021.

    I'm not saying it's some oasis of safety, but it isn't - in general - a dangerous place. There are very few large cities in the US that boast just one homicide a week.
    Yes, but most of the homicides are gang wars or domestic. This one is a rich guy, seemingly a victim of a random act of violence on the street. When wealthy entrepreneurs decide the streets aren’t safe *for themselves*, companies start moving out of town.
    Always take anything Musk says with a massive pinch of salt. He is a massive liar, and will say anything that will boost his companies. And sadly loads of fans just lick up his dribblings.

    (Having said that, I wish SpaceX well with their SH/SS launch)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,228
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jake Shields
    @jakeshieldsajj
    ·
    5 Apr
    I just found out my good friend was killed last night while walking him in San Francisco

    He was in the “good” part of the city and appeared to have been targeted in a random mugging/attack

    F**k San Francisco


    Elon Musk

    @elonmusk
    Replying to
    @jakeshieldsajj
    Very sorry to hear that. Many people I know have been severely assaulted.

    Violent crime in SF is horrific and even if attackers are caught, they are often released immediately.

    Is the city taking stronger action to incarcerate repeat violent offenders
    @BrookeJenkinsSF
    ?
    10:27 am · 5 Apr 2023
    ·
    6.5M Views"

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1643545966811975680

    It is worth noting that San Francisco had just 55 homicides last year, exactly the same number as 2021.

    I'm not saying it's some oasis of safety, but it isn't - in general - a dangerous place. There are very few large cities in the US that boast just one homicide a week.
    Yes, but most of the homicides are gang wars or domestic. This one is a rich guy, seemingly a victim of a random act of violence on the street. When wealthy entrepreneurs decide the streets aren’t safe *for themselves*, companies start moving out of town.
    It is a remarkable coincidence that this happens at exactly the time that Hindenburg Research posts a massive research report about how Cash App is a giant $40bn fraud.

    Could be random street violence. But it is also a remarkable coincidence.
    Here's the story: https://hindenburgresearch.com/block/

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Economist nails it’s colours to the mast on “affirmative care”:

    Leader

    Speaking on American radio last year, Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health and a paediatrician, was very clear: “There is no argument among medical professionals…about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.”

    Except that there is. And when medical staff raise concerns—that teenage girls may be caught up in a social contagion, say, or that some parents see transition as a way to have a straight daughter rather than a gay son—they have been vilified as transphobic and, in some cases, suffered personal and professional opprobrium…..

    What to do? To some, the uncertainties that surround medical interventions are grounds for an outright ban. In fact, the lack of evidence cuts both ways. Perhaps, when proper trials are complete, their proponents will be proved correct. The right policy is therefore the one Britain’s NHS and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden seem to be working towards. This would promote psychotherapy and reserve puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones for a system in which patients would almost always be enrolled in a well-run clinical trial.


    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/04/05/what-america-has-got-wrong-about-gender-medicine
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,759
    Nigelb said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    Even if that were so, there are very few parts of the world that are poorer now than they were prior to 1750. Industrialisation benefitted almost everybody who is alive in the world today.

    A reparations approach does nothing either to deal with bad government, widespread corruption, religious fanaticism, and the other ills that keep some places poor, relative to the rest of the world.
    Without industrialisation, the world’s population would not be meaningfully different from that in 1750.
    Quite so. And that population would, as in 1750, be divided into a very rich elite, a broader group whose standard of living was tolerable, and the masses whose living standards would be dire.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,759

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.

    The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway.

    It also doesn't explain why other countries couldn't follow the same path - to turn it on it's head, would Egypt, Trinidad or Bangladesh have been able to industrialise and become rapidly wealthy had they been permitted to enslave Britons? How come China has managed to do so in the last 30 years so effectively without it (their exploitation of the Uyghurs only really being present in the last 8-9 years) ? How about India doing so now?

    What we have here is a false causal link. Just because something was also happening elsewhere in the world at the time - which was rapidly abolished, and well before the industrial revolution really took off - doesn't mean it must have been its cause.

    The rest is hand-wringing and discomfort about how we feel today about ourselves and race relations, which is why we're trying to back fit the evidence.

    The USA in fact provided a controlled experiment in how rapidly a region will industrialise which does not have slavery v a region which does have slavery.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,516
    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,228

    The Economist nails it’s colours to the mast on “affirmative care”:

    Leader

    Speaking on American radio last year, Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health and a paediatrician, was very clear: “There is no argument among medical professionals…about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.”

    Except that there is. And when medical staff raise concerns—that teenage girls may be caught up in a social contagion, say, or that some parents see transition as a way to have a straight daughter rather than a gay son—they have been vilified as transphobic and, in some cases, suffered personal and professional opprobrium…..

    What to do? To some, the uncertainties that surround medical interventions are grounds for an outright ban. In fact, the lack of evidence cuts both ways. Perhaps, when proper trials are complete, their proponents will be proved correct. The right policy is therefore the one Britain’s NHS and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden seem to be working towards. This would promote psychotherapy and reserve puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones for a system in which patients would almost always be enrolled in a well-run clinical trial.


    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/04/05/what-america-has-got-wrong-about-gender-medicine

    Doesn't sound unreasonable
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,228

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.

    The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway.

    It also doesn't explain why other countries couldn't follow the same path - to turn it on it's head, would Egypt, Trinidad or Bangladesh have been able to industrialise and become rapidly wealthy had they been permitted to enslave Britons? How come China has managed to do so in the last 30 years so effectively without it (their exploitation of the Uyghurs only really being present in the last 8-9 years) ? How about India doing so now?

    What we have here is a false causal link. Just because something was also happening elsewhere in the world at the time - which was rapidly abolished, and well before the industrial revolution really took off - doesn't mean it must have been its cause.

    The rest is hand-wringing and discomfort about how we feel today about ourselves and race relations, which is why we're trying to back fit the evidence.

    This is one of the best best comments on PB in a long time.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,228
    Nigelb said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    Even if that were so, there are very few parts of the world that are poorer now than they were prior to 1750. Industrialisation benefitted almost everybody who is alive in the world today.

    A reparations approach does nothing either to deal with bad government, widespread corruption, religious fanaticism, and the other ills that keep some places poor, relative to the rest of the world.
    Without industrialisation, the world’s population would not be meaningfully different from that in 1750.
    I don't know how this got likes, because it's bullshit.

    The world's population would be completely different from 1750, with or without industrialization, because people have never lived for 250 years.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    rcs1000 said:

    The Economist nails it’s colours to the mast on “affirmative care”:

    Leader

    Speaking on American radio last year, Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health and a paediatrician, was very clear: “There is no argument among medical professionals…about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.”

    Except that there is. And when medical staff raise concerns—that teenage girls may be caught up in a social contagion, say, or that some parents see transition as a way to have a straight daughter rather than a gay son—they have been vilified as transphobic and, in some cases, suffered personal and professional opprobrium…..

    What to do? To some, the uncertainties that surround medical interventions are grounds for an outright ban. In fact, the lack of evidence cuts both ways. Perhaps, when proper trials are complete, their proponents will be proved correct. The right policy is therefore the one Britain’s NHS and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden seem to be working towards. This would promote psychotherapy and reserve puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones for a system in which patients would almost always be enrolled in a well-run clinical trial.


    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/04/05/what-america-has-got-wrong-about-gender-medicine

    Doesn't sound unreasonable
    See this recent article in Time:

    https://time.com/6265755/gender-affirm-care-bans-u-s/

    Number of mentions of the different approach in other countries?

    Zero.

    Truth is the daughter of time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,727
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jake Shields
    @jakeshieldsajj
    ·
    5 Apr
    I just found out my good friend was killed last night while walking him in San Francisco

    He was in the “good” part of the city and appeared to have been targeted in a random mugging/attack

    F**k San Francisco


    Elon Musk

    @elonmusk
    Replying to
    @jakeshieldsajj
    Very sorry to hear that. Many people I know have been severely assaulted.

    Violent crime in SF is horrific and even if attackers are caught, they are often released immediately.

    Is the city taking stronger action to incarcerate repeat violent offenders
    @BrookeJenkinsSF
    ?
    10:27 am · 5 Apr 2023
    ·
    6.5M Views"

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1643545966811975680

    It is worth noting that San Francisco had just 55 homicides last year, exactly the same number as 2021.

    I'm not saying it's some oasis of safety, but it isn't - in general - a dangerous place. There are very few large cities in the US that boast just one homicide a week.
    Yes, but most of the homicides are gang wars or domestic. This one is a rich guy, seemingly a victim of a random act of violence on the street. When wealthy entrepreneurs decide the streets aren’t safe *for themselves*, companies start moving out of town.
    It is a remarkable coincidence that this happens at exactly the time that Hindenburg Research posts a massive research report about how Cash App is a giant $40bn fraud.

    Could be random street violence. But it is also a remarkable coincidence.
    On the other hand, Hindenburg Research is a short seller investment firm. And their report led to a 15% fall in the share price. So that report - claimed by Block to be "factually innaccurate" - served its purpose.

    Who knows what the truth is.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,463
    And whilst I'm on the sh*t stuff Musk's companies do:

    "Tesla workers shared images from car cameras, including “scenes of intimacy”
    Ex-staffers tell Reuters about internal image sharing: "We could see their kids.""

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/tesla-workers-shared-images-from-car-cameras-including-scenes-of-intimacy/
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292
    edited April 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    These are my current rules on the US election in 2024 and it’ll take quite a bit to convince me otherwise.

    1. If Biden runs, he gets the nomination.
    2. If Biden faces Trump, Biden will win.
    3. If Biden faces pretty much anyone else - he’s the underdog, but with a decent chance.

    Trump beats Harris.
    Biden beats Trump.
    Trump beats DeSantis.
    Why are we even considering this political scenario when it comes to the next Democratic/Republican nominee selection process for the Presidential election, I am struggling to believe that Biden or Trump will be in a position to seek either nomination, far lest in a position to survive the intense and gruelling scrutiny of the next Presidential campaign? Is there absolutely no other candidate in either the Democratic or Republican party who might cause a surprise in the next Presidential race?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    Even if that were so, there are very few parts of the world that are poorer now than they were prior to 1750. Industrialisation benefitted almost everybody who is alive in the world today.

    A reparations approach does nothing either to deal with bad government, widespread corruption, religious fanaticism, and the other ills that keep some places poor, relative to the rest of the world.
    Without industrialisation, the world’s population would not be meaningfully different from that in 1750.
    I don't know how this got likes, because it's bullshit.

    The world's population would be completely different from 1750, with or without industrialization, because people have never lived for 250 years.
    Well, you say that, but I'm 40 years into my planned 400 and so far, so good.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    Even if that were so, there are very few parts of the world that are poorer now than they were prior to 1750. Industrialisation benefitted almost everybody who is alive in the world today.

    A reparations approach does nothing either to deal with bad government, widespread corruption, religious fanaticism, and the other ills that keep some places poor, relative to the rest of the world.
    Without industrialisation, the world’s population would not be meaningfully different from that in 1750.
    Quite so. And that population would, as in 1750, be divided into a very rich elite, a broader group whose standard of living was tolerable, and the masses whose living standards would be dire.
    And, that very rich elite would still be subject at times to terrible diseases, high infant mortality and sudden death from minor infections or ailments that are readily treatable today.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    Even if that were so, there are very few parts of the world that are poorer now than they were prior to 1750. Industrialisation benefitted almost everybody who is alive in the world today.

    A reparations approach does nothing either to deal with bad government, widespread corruption, religious fanaticism, and the other ills that keep some places poor, relative to the rest of the world.
    Without industrialisation, the world’s population would not be meaningfully different from that in 1750.
    I don't know how this got likes, because it's bullshit.

    The world's population would be completely different from 1750, with or without industrialization, because people have never lived for 250 years.
    This is the sort of pedantry that I come here for.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,139
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.

    The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway.

    It also doesn't explain why other countries couldn't follow the same path - to turn it on it's head, would Egypt, Trinidad or Bangladesh have been able to industrialise and become rapidly wealthy had they been permitted to enslave Britons? How come China has managed to do so in the last 30 years so effectively without it (their exploitation of the Uyghurs only really being present in the last 8-9 years) ? How about India doing so now?

    What we have here is a false causal link. Just because something was also happening elsewhere in the world at the time - which was rapidly abolished, and well before the industrial revolution really took off - doesn't mean it must have been its cause.

    The rest is hand-wringing and discomfort about how we feel today about ourselves and race relations, which is why we're trying to back fit the evidence.

    This is one of the best best comments on PB in a long time.
    Thanks.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,796
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.

    The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway.

    It also doesn't explain why other countries couldn't follow the same path - to turn it on it's head, would Egypt, Trinidad or Bangladesh have been able to industrialise and become rapidly wealthy had they been permitted to enslave Britons? How come China has managed to do so in the last 30 years so effectively without it (their exploitation of the Uyghurs only really being present in the last 8-9 years) ? How about India doing so now?

    What we have here is a false causal link. Just because something was also happening elsewhere in the world at the time - which was rapidly abolished, and well before the industrial revolution really took off - doesn't mean it must have been its cause.

    The rest is hand-wringing and discomfort about how we feel today about ourselves and race relations, which is why we're trying to back fit the evidence.

    This is one of the best best comments on PB in a long time.
    Really? You do the site an injustice.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292
    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,572
    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Yep. I'll be using the tunnel myself week after next, and look forward to another early morning detour around the back lanes of East Kent.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,368
    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,368
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
    🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,252
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
    🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
    Eu tambem.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
    🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
    So those people who say they've used electronic gates in Portugal and Italy are not telling the truth?

    I'm not asking to get at you, I just want to understand because I'm thinking of a continental trip myself this autumn.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292
    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,368
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
    🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
    So those people who say they've used electronic gates in Portugal and Italy are not telling the truth?

    I'm not asking to get at you, I just want to understand because I'm thinking of a continental trip myself this autumn.
    You need to get your passport stamped after an egate in Portugal. FCO website confirms
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,368
    edited April 2023
    https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/portugal/entry-requirements

    ”Passport stamping
    Check your passport is stamped by the border officer when you enter and exit Portugal as a visitor.

    You can use the staffed immigration booths or, if you are aged 18 and over, the e-gates designated for UK and some other non-EU nationals. Hand your passport for stamping to the border officer after you have passed through the e-gate.”


    What a farce.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,368
    edited April 2023
    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    Britain voted to end freedom of movement. Not the French.
  • Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet; Labour Party tweet now tagged with

    "Readers added context they thought people might want to know

    Tweet implies that the PM, Rishi Sunak, doesn't support prison sentences for sexual assaults against children.

    The current sentencing guidelines for this crime has a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.
    sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown…

    There is no conservative party policy that plans to remove this.
    conservatives.com/our-plan

    Do you find this helpful?"
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451
    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    .

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.

    The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway...

    That's half true.
    In reality early industrialisation - notably the invention of the cotton gin - drove a large increase in plantation slavery, and the brutality of the system.
    As you note, industrialised outputs rose massively - while it was not possible to mechanise cotton production.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,368

    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.

    Exactly. It’s weird how some Brexiteers thought ending freedom of movement only applied to other people.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.

    And we could do the same to EU citizens but have chosen not to. What does that say about each party?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
    🤷 I’ve got stamped in Lisbon also. Everywhere in Europe post Brexit.
    So those people who say they've used electronic gates in Portugal and Italy are not telling the truth?

    I'm not asking to get at you, I just want to understand because I'm thinking of a continental trip myself this autumn.
    There seems to be some confusion. FCO advice is to get your passport stamped on exit and entry. I suspect it’s not an issue if you enter and leave from the same country that allows eGate use. However, it becomes one if, say, you enter via Portugal but leave via Spain.

  • TazTaz Posts: 13,605
    Clearly crime is a big issue with focus groups currently. Even the Lib Dems, never known for being tough on the issue, had Ed Davey banging on about it on GMB this week.

    More from labour.

    https://twitter.com/uklabour/status/1644233550449856513?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,705

    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.

    It's the classic Tory blame game to cover up our sh*te performing economy for everyone but the Tory grifters.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.

    And we could do the same to EU citizens but have chosen not to. What does that say about each party?
    That one side was desperate to GBD and would agree to any old cock.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    .
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.

    The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway.

    It also doesn't explain why other countries couldn't follow the same path - to turn it on it's head, would Egypt, Trinidad or Bangladesh have been able to industrialise and become rapidly wealthy had they been permitted to enslave Britons? How come China has managed to do so in the last 30 years so effectively without it (their exploitation of the Uyghurs only really being present in the last 8-9 years) ? How about India doing so now?

    What we have here is a false causal link. Just because something was also happening elsewhere in the world at the time - which was rapidly abolished, and well before the industrial revolution really took off - doesn't mean it must have been its cause.

    The rest is hand-wringing and discomfort about how we feel today about ourselves and race relations, which is why we're trying to back fit the evidence.

    This is one of the best best comments on PB in a long time.
    That's a remarkably immodest piece of self praise.

    Or did you mean Casino's ?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292
    edited April 2023

    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.

    It really is a post Brexit punishment rule when a bunch of OAPs on an well organised and booked holiday from the UK on a coach tour have to go through this to go on their holiday to the EU, come on this is really petty. And I say this as someone who campaigned and voted to remain in the EU.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,727
    edited April 2023

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.

    The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway.

    It also doesn't explain why other countries couldn't follow the same path - to turn it on it's head, would Egypt, Trinidad or Bangladesh have been able to industrialise and become rapidly wealthy had they been permitted to enslave Britons? How come China has managed to do so in the last 30 years so effectively without it (their exploitation of the Uyghurs only really being present in the last 8-9 years) ? How about India doing so now?

    What we have here is a false causal link. Just because something was also happening elsewhere in the world at the time - which was rapidly abolished, and well before the industrial revolution really took off - doesn't mean it must have been its cause.

    The rest is hand-wringing and discomfort about how we feel today about ourselves and race relations, which is why we're trying to back fit the evidence.

    Another imponderable is what might Africa have looked like if they had taken to manufacturing goods. Instead, they took to manufacturing slaves, a product which the Europeans were (shamefully) happy to buy. Which in turn led to millions more of Africa's fittest young men especially being taken into slavery.

    (Although if Africa had gone down the road of implementing industrialisation, South Africa's 35 billion tons of coal would have made it the pre-eminent economic power on the continent, followed by Mozambique and Zimbabwe.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,455
    edited April 2023
    Nigelb said:

    .

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.

    The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway...

    That's half true.
    In reality early industrialisation - notably the invention of the cotton gin - drove a large increase in plantation slavery, and the brutality of the system.
    As you note, industrialised outputs rose massively - while it was not possible to mechanise cotton production.

    How [edit] could Shock City Manchester develop as it did without slavery-tainted cotton?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,368
    fitalass said:

    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.

    It really is a post Brexit punishment rule when a bunch of OAPs from the UK on a coach tour have to go through this to go on their holiday to the EU, come on this is really petty. And I say this as someone who campaigned and voted to remain in the EU.
    No, it really isn’t. You seem incredibly naive.

  • @breadandposes

    Checking the small print of this labour party attack ad and the "4,500 nonces walk free" figure seems to cover all the way back until 2010 when a) rishi sunak wasn't even an MP b) Keir Starmer was the director of public prosecutions

    And when I say it was starmers job Im not talking about cutting deals with defendants I mean he literally wrote the sentencing guidelines judges used for the majority of this time period

    Starmer literally writing sentencing guidelines for judges on why not all adults who commit sexual crimes against children under 16 should go to jail: hahaha yes yes!!

    Starmer when not all adults convicted of sexual crimes against children go to jail: what the fuck this sucks

    https://twitter.com/breadandposes/status/1644120258763018241
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,463
    Nigelb said:

    .

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Sean_F said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    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".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570

    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.
    If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.

    In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
    I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.

    Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
    That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.

    The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway...

    That's half true.
    In reality early industrialisation - notably the invention of the cotton gin - drove a large increase in plantation slavery, and the brutality of the system.
    As you note, industrialised outputs rose massively - while it was not possible to mechanise cotton production.

    It's not something I've ever looked into before, but why was cotton production so hard to mechanise, and therefore required large amounts of people to grow?

    A wuick google got me to this:
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3742606

    From that, it sounds like there were many tasks that needed doing: from weeding, and thinning, preparing the soil and spraying. Whilst some machines were developed, as long as they needed people around to pick the cotton, mechanisation of the earlier tasks was also less economic.

    And the guy who did do it:
    https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/john-daniel-rust-2272/
    "The Rust cotton picker threatened to wipe out the old plantation system and throw millions of people out of work, creating a social revolution."

    I do wonder if the lack of mechanisation was not down to technology, but to the fact the owners realised the effects mechanisation would have, as stated above? And if it works, why fix it?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,455

    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.

    And we could do the same to EU citizens but have chosen not to. What does that say about each party?
    That the UK is a failing state which can't maintain standards. Like with the legal systems.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,727
    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    This is the editor of the left-of-centre New Statesman.

    "George Eaton
    @georgeeaton
    ·
    10h
    This is one of the worst political adverts in recent UK history and not the first time Labour has pandered to prejudice in the hope of electoral gain."

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1644006655724597249

    Keir will be pleased with that. He's played right into his hands.

    We all know SKS doesn't really believe this but getting attacked by luvvies from his own side will help credentialise his cynicism to his target audience.

    It's all a game really, isn't it?
    He’s inviting someone, not the Tories but a right-wing campaign group, to make references to Jimmy Savile in the election campaign. If Labour wants to be in government, they need to be projecting a positive message rather than being down in the gutter.
    You can easily imagine that poster with Savile filling half of it, Starmer the other half:

    "Not prosecuted"

    "Not prosecuting"
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451

    fitalass said:



    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    So the French had no input when it came to making up this post Brexit rule, heaven forbid the EU might want to punish the UK for leaving...?
    It’s not a post-Brexit rule. It’s how third country citizens were always treated on entry to the EU. It’s just that we decided to become third country citizens.

    And we could do the same to EU citizens but have chosen not to. What does that say about each party?
    We have applied our existing rules to them. They have applied their existing rules to us. It seems to me that now antagonistic fools such as Johnson and Frost have now been consigned to history, there is scope for a deal to be done. The UK understands there is a difference between freedom of movement and freedom of settlement. If I were a Brexiteer I would make it a priority to convince the EU of the same. It would be a huge win and much more effective than denying reality.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,544
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    fitalass said:

    kjh said:

    Interesting that R4 Today programme is reporting that the French border control at the channel is fully staffed and the delays are entirely due to coaches passengers having to leave the coach and then reload to have their passports individually inspected and stamped rather than coaches being waved through. So the argument that passport inspection adds little time and it is the French being French appears nonsense.

    Why?
    Brexit rules require the stamps, not the French. No Brexit, no stamps.
    If it's Brexit rules, why do they apply in France but not Portugal?
    The difference is egates, but how much would they help with the get off the coach / get back on the coach issue described?

    I'm thinking of this in terms of flows (provincial occasional physics master and all that), but maybe a model that can be made to work for airports (where hanging around is expected, even encouraged) doesn't work for sea ports or rail stations (which rapidly turn to hell if people don't move on quickly).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,455

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    This is the editor of the left-of-centre New Statesman.

    "George Eaton
    @georgeeaton
    ·
    10h
    This is one of the worst political adverts in recent UK history and not the first time Labour has pandered to prejudice in the hope of electoral gain."

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1644006655724597249

    Keir will be pleased with that. He's played right into his hands.

    We all know SKS doesn't really believe this but getting attacked by luvvies from his own side will help credentialise his cynicism to his target audience.

    It's all a game really, isn't it?
    He’s inviting someone, not the Tories but a right-wing campaign group, to make references to Jimmy Savile in the election campaign. If Labour wants to be in government, they need to be projecting a positive message rather than being down in the gutter.
    You can easily imagine that poster with Savile filling half of it, Starmer the other half:

    "Not prosecuted"

    "Not prosecuting"
    You forgot the Tory who gave Mr Savile the keys to the hospital.
This discussion has been closed.