The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
Straw man. We are not talking about current activities but how we view those that occured in the past long after all the guilty parties (and the innocent) are dead. Too many people on all sides want to point the finger at one section of a dsisgusting trade and say - 'There! They were the people mostly responsible and ultimately it is their fault' rather than accepting that all those involved in the trade carry equal responsibility.
Giving the bronzes back to the descendents of the slavers (who ran the largest slave trading city in the world) may be legally and even morally right but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. All the more so when they are going into private hands rather than going to the state on behalf of all the people.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
Straw man. We are not talking about current activities but how we view those that occured in the past long after all the guilty parties (and the innocent) are dead. Too many people on all sides want to point the finger at one section of a dsisgusting trade and say - 'There! They were the people mostly responsible and ultimately it is their fault' rather than accepting that all those involved in the trade carry equal responsibility.
Giving the bronzes back to the descendents of the slavers (who ran the largest slave trading city in the world) may be legally and even morally right but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. All the more so when they are going into private hands rather than going to the state on behalf of all the people.
The English slavers were not moral primitives, so the argument that we must not apply current standards to them gets nowhere. Infuriatingly I saw the actual quote from Elizabeth I the other day but can't track it down, but
"Queen Elizabeth I of England was also sensitive to the social destruction caused by kidnapping in Africa, urging her subjects to procure slaves by “honest” means. Kidnapping, she said, was a moral offence, but slave trading was not."
Actually she said something to the effect of This is evil and wicked, and Hawkins said yebbut look at the profit margins. It was as obvious to her at the very beginning,as it is to you now, that this is unadulterated evil. Contextualising it doesn't help.
I'd like to see the wording of the quote. I strongly doubt that Elizabethan slavers kidnapped anyone - travelling to the interior was a death sentence for Europeans in the early Victorian era, let alone the Elizabethan era. Of course, I doubt they enquired too deeply about the history of the slaves.
Me too, and I am really cross with myself with not having copied it when I saw it.
But you miss the point. It's not about whether Elizabeth was hypocritical or not, or rather it is: she knew that what she ought to say and think was that slavery was appalling, because it is appalling, no matter what she actually did. So there is no get out for her on the basis that she lived under a different moral code from us under which it was just fine and dandy.
Benjamin Mandy’s career need not be over. Ched Evans, who actually served time before he had his conviction quashed and was acquitted at a retrial, has resumed his career with a reasonable degree of success.
Having bedded 10,000 women according to the report, I am surprised he has time for the beautiful game.
Wow, I’m 9,996 behind him !!!!
He must have some libido and staying power.
I am sure you have time to catch up. He's notched those up before his 30th birthday.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
Straw man. We are not talking about current activities but how we view those that occured in the past long after all the guilty parties (and the innocent) are dead. Too many people on all sides want to point the finger at one section of a dsisgusting trade and say - 'There! They were the people mostly responsible and ultimately it is their fault' rather than accepting that all those involved in the trade carry equal responsibility.
Giving the bronzes back to the descendents of the slavers (who ran the largest slave trading city in the world) may be legally and even morally right but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. All the more so when they are going into private hands rather than going to the state on behalf of all the people.
OTOH we are always assured on here that royal private property is somehow national property and at the same time that the world will collapse if e.g. they have to respect the same planning laws as everyoine else. E.g. if they have to permit the installation of district heating pipes through some open ground or under some roads near Balmoral.
I will take your word for it though I have not seen those claims. Whilst I am a monarchist I do not hold with the idea that anyone is above the law so it is not really a relevant response to my comments.
Sure, it isn't to you and me, but some on here certaainly think that royalty confers some sort of mana.
"Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the London suburb of Uxbridge was two teenage girls in school uniforms getting into a fistfight in the shopping mall outside the underground station."
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
I don't think that I have ever used the flag option but this tempted me. This is not a subject for humour, black or otherwise. The abuse of children is something I see professionally on an almost daily basis. There is nothing funny about it. Believe me.
WTF? WT actual actual F? Who said this was humour, black or otherwise? It certainly was never intended to be. Are you saying that I am, ridiculously, comparing the slave trade to an actual serious crime?
Well what are you saying? That because the families put them there that abusing children is "fine". That there is any kind of context that makes this ok? That because this sort of evil existed in the past it is ok now? Please explain.
Jesus. Have you had a bad day in court?
I have reread what I said and I cannot see how it could be misunderstood. But for the avoidance of doubt,
1. My hypothetical defence of myself for my hypothetical child abuse is obviously worthless and morally repulsive
2. it is on all fours with the defence of slavery to which I was replying, which also says it has existed throughout history, lots of other people (in this context, Arab slavers) did it too, and the African slaves were generally made available to Europeans by other Africans (analogous to the appalling truth that child prostitutes are often made to be that, by their own families).
3. therefore the defence of slavery is by analogy as worthless and repugnant as the defence outlined in para 1.
Are we clear now?
Except absolutely no one was defending slavery or excusing anyone. Indeed the comments from Kle4, Sean and myself were all crictical of the fact that people want to look at one section of the slave trade and say it was super bad and use that as an excuse to ignore the part of their own country/vested interest.
You have created a truly weird and irrelevant straw man to attack something that was not even being defended.
You are just wrong.
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
bib 1. is exactly my "Child brothels have existed throughout history", bib 2. is exactly my "you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place." I accept that the usual "the Arabs were at it too" does not crop up there, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad. So how can you say, straw man?
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
Straw man. We are not talking about current activities but how we view those that occured in the past long after all the guilty parties (and the innocent) are dead. Too many people on all sides want to point the finger at one section of a dsisgusting trade and say - 'There! They were the people mostly responsible and ultimately it is their fault' rather than accepting that all those involved in the trade carry equal responsibility.
Giving the bronzes back to the descendents of the slavers (who ran the largest slave trading city in the world) may be legally and even morally right but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. All the more so when they are going into private hands rather than going to the state on behalf of all the people.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
Straw man. We are not talking about current activities but how we view those that occured in the past long after all the guilty parties (and the innocent) are dead. Too many people on all sides want to point the finger at one section of a dsisgusting trade and say - 'There! They were the people mostly responsible and ultimately it is their fault' rather than accepting that all those involved in the trade carry equal responsibility.
Giving the bronzes back to the descendents of the slavers (who ran the largest slave trading city in the world) may be legally and even morally right but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. All the more so when they are going into private hands rather than going to the state on behalf of all the people.
The English slavers were not moral primitives, so the argument that we must not apply current standards to them gets nowhere. Infuriatingly I saw the actual quote from Elizabeth I the other day but can't track it down, but
"Queen Elizabeth I of England was also sensitive to the social destruction caused by kidnapping in Africa, urging her subjects to procure slaves by “honest” means. Kidnapping, she said, was a moral offence, but slave trading was not."
Actually she said something to the effect of This is evil and wicked, and Hawkins said yebbut look at the profit margins. It was as obvious to her at the very beginning,as it is to you now, that this is unadulterated evil. Contextualising it doesn't help.
I'd like to see the wording of the quote. I strongly doubt that Elizabethan slavers kidnapped anyone - travelling to the interior was a death sentence for Europeans in the early Victorian era, let alone the Elizabethan era. Of course, I doubt they enquired too deeply about the history of the slaves.
Me too, and I am really cross with myself with not having copied it when I saw it.
But you miss the point. It's not about whether Elizabeth was hypocritical or not, or rather it is: she knew that what she ought to say and think was that slavery was appalling, because it is appalling, no matter what she actually did. So there is no get out for her on the basis that she lived under a different moral code from us under which it was just fine and dandy.
Re LG's disbelief, it took me about two minutes to find examples of Elizabethans actually catching Black Africans. See pp. 6-7 here. Sure, one would want to look further, but there is at least an a priori case for it.
Did Modi miss the big rocket to the moon? You'd have thought that more significant for his country than a sightseeing tour of Paris.
Given the poverty still in much of India I think attending the launch of an Indian rocket to the Moon (which has already been done by the US, USSR and China) maybe not something he wanted to give huge publicity too.
I get that argument, but I think it's wrong. There is poverty in India because far too many people in power in India are unconcerned by that poverty - something not helped by the caste system.
The Indian space program is tiny, monetarily-wise, and it punches way above its weight - I think their space budget is between 500 and a billion pounds, which is tiny as these things go.
Governments can do more than one thing, and few things inspire like space.
And that very poverty makes the standard of living exceptionally good for the middle class. Many are able to afford live in servants in relatively modest jobs.
If India is like the (culturally quite varied and on three continents) parts of the third world that I'm familiar with, then the middle class is very small and also many of its members are willing for the sake of social appearances to accept fairly low disposable incomes in order to pay for the upkeep of neat houses in the right part of town as well as maids etc. that they could easily do without.
I think it's a safe assumption that ... (checks) 1.4 billion people are all alike.
That response has little connection with what I said.
The middle class is presumably small and I suggested that "many" in it might share a lot of their approach to life with many middle class people in other third world countries. Perhaps they don't. I have no vested interest either way. Absolutely nothing in there that suggests I think everyone in India is alike. Dunno know what your problem is. Reading too quickly and jumping to familiar conclusions maybe?
Certainly I know of middle class people, indeed know middle class people, in other third world countries whose main reason for employing "help" in the home is for the sake of appearances and who are left with little disposable income because of this.
The Indian middle class is, by now, surely larger than that of the UK.
OK, you're not serious. Fine. But you only demean yourself. You obviously have zero to say on the topic, but you manage to be sarcastic with it. Everyone knows the difference between a proportion and an absolute number. You're not clever to know it. Of course the middle class is proportionally smaller in the third world. Perhaps that's a new idea for you and therefore you find it difficult to cope with. If you bother to reply, see if you can do so without being sarcastic.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
Straw man. We are not talking about current activities but how we view those that occured in the past long after all the guilty parties (and the innocent) are dead. Too many people on all sides want to point the finger at one section of a dsisgusting trade and say - 'There! They were the people mostly responsible and ultimately it is their fault' rather than accepting that all those involved in the trade carry equal responsibility.
Giving the bronzes back to the descendents of the slavers (who ran the largest slave trading city in the world) may be legally and even morally right but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. All the more so when they are going into private hands rather than going to the state on behalf of all the people.
OTOH we are always assured on here that royal private property is somehow national property and at the same time that the world will collapse if e.g. they have to respect the same planning laws as everyoine else. E.g. if they have to permit the installation of district heating pipes through some open ground or under some roads near Balmoral.
I will take your word for it though I have not seen those claims. Whilst I am a monarchist I do not hold with the idea that anyone is above the law so it is not really a relevant response to my comments.
Further to this, there is at least a possibility that there is some misundersyanding or misrepresentation (can't think why, oh no) of the position and that the bronzes are in fact being held in the equivalent of trust for the public, whatever the strict legalities. Something like the Historic Royal Palaces or the Royal Peculiars or Crown Jewels.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Hmm. How many folk would that piss off? Not leastd those who have been paying it? Or those who have **** all to look forward to? Of course, they don't count, as we are always told on here. And it would be by definition targeted at the southern Home Counties etc.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
Royalty involved in the slave trade? Surely not!
Hmm, the words James, Charles, Company, Royal and African swim to the mind's surface for osme unaccountable reason. Perhaps even the chaps who liked to brand some slaves DoY for Duke of York?
It was DY but yes.
And of course New York should be renamed. There's no argument to the contrary. Slavery is a crime against humanity. Shouldn't be any argument about that.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
That'd be a wise move. F*** the consequences, but few Daily Mail readers would vote for Refuk or the Greens or Labour or whatever non-Tory party they might tell pollsters they'd vote for, if they thought a Tory govt would abolish IHT. That's another card the Tories can play as well as immigration to win votes that would otherwise go in the other direction than Refuk. Tories will be the largest party, probably with a majority, quite possibly an increased one. I've yet to see a conclusion to the contrary that's not based on "Polls so far, innit?" rather than on what can happen or is likely to happen between now and the election. The fight has hardly begun. Wouldn't want to predict the outcome without reference to what weapons the contenders have at their disposal or are likely to use. The idea that support will haemorrhage from the Tories seems ill-founded from where I'm standing.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Mind you, GE 2024 is concentrating my mind on intergenerational wealth transfers. I reckon giving my children a house each and myself 3 months sailing in the Pacific will get me under one of the possible commie wealth tax thresholds which SKSLab may have their eye on.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible. That it happened in Benin is something that should be known for its own sake, not because it excuses anything.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
The European traders were receivers of stolen goods. The African leaders were thieves. The latter stole people in order to sell them to the former. Both sets of actions were morally repulsive.
It's no defence for anyone of us to say, if *we* do something wrong, that other people are just as bad. But, when looking at events well past, it's hypocritical to argue that my slaver ancestors were good guys, whereas yours were rotten bastards.
In the case of kings and rulers, there's often *more* to them than just the fact that they were slavers. Mansa Musa, Nzinga, Mehmet II, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, were all hightly talented and significant people who left a big mark on the world - who also happened to be slavers.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
That'd be a wise move. F*** the consequences, but few Daily Mail readers would vote for Refuk or the Greens or Labour or whatever non-Tory party they might tell pollsters they'd vote for, if they thought a Tory govt would abolish IHT. That's another card the Tories can play as well as immigration to win votes that would otherwise go in the other direction than Refuk. Tories will be the largest party, probably with a majority, quite possibly an increased one. I've yet to see a conclusion to the contrary that's not based on "Polls so far, innit?" rather than on what can happen or is likely to happen between now and the election. The fight has hardly begun. Wouldn't want to predict the outcome without reference to what weapons the contenders have at their disposal or are likely to use. The idea that support will haemorrhage from the Tories seems ill-founded from where I'm standing.
I want more taxes on capital and less on income. IHT is not a particularly good example of a capital tax but it is one of the few we have. I would not agree with its abolition or restriction. But retaining it is only a part of the necessary solution if this country is going to regain its dynamism and become less of an inheritocracy.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I have found revolut fine for that. The problem that cropped up was it isn't protected by the FCSC scheme for deposits, so I wouldn't want to leave balances with them long term.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I’m flying home tomorrow. If you wire it to me in New Haven I’ll carry it home in my luggage for you
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I have found revolut fine for that. The problem that cropped up was it isn't protected by the FCSC scheme for deposits, so I wouldn't want to leave balances with them long term.
I have also found xe.com fine for transfers.
not advice, DYORYMMV
Someone here said Revolut “lost” someone’s transaction.
Is there a service which is both FSCS accredited and…competitive?
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I’m flying home tomorrow. If you wire it to me in New Haven I’ll carry it home in my luggage for you
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them.
You literally said
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
If the bits I put in bold aren't there to make the British slave trade look a bit less horrible, what are they for?
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
That'd be a wise move. F*** the consequences, but few Daily Mail readers would vote for Refuk or the Greens or Labour or whatever non-Tory party they might tell pollsters they'd vote for, if they thought a Tory govt would abolish IHT. That's another card the Tories can play as well as immigration to win votes that would otherwise go in the other direction than Refuk. Tories will be the largest party, probably with a majority, quite possibly an increased one. I've yet to see a conclusion to the contrary that's not based on "Polls so far, innit?" rather than on what can happen or is likely to happen between now and the election. The fight has hardly begun. Wouldn't want to predict the outcome without reference to what weapons the contenders have at their disposal or are likely to use. The idea that support will haemorrhage from the Tories seems ill-founded from where I'm standing.
I want more taxes on capital and less on income. IHT is not a particularly good example of a capital tax but it is one of the few we have. I would not agree with its abolition or restriction. But retaining it is only a part of the necessary solution if this country is going to regain its dynamism and become less of an inheritocracy.
A problem being that there are many who want the country to become even more of an inheritocracy than it already is.
And such people are especially concentrated among those who make the decisions.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
In the case of kings and rulers, there's often *more* to them than just the fact that they were slavers. Mansa Musa, Nzinga, Mehmet II, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, were all hightly talented and significant people who left a big mark on the world - who also happened to be slavers.
The Fall of Civilizations Podcast on the Songhai Empire, which followed the Malian Empire of Mansa Musa, was quite fascinating.
But I guess I shouldn't learn about either in case they did something bad which would make British crimes in the Americas look less bad or something.
Knowing things just mitigates awful stuff apparently.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I have found revolut fine for that. The problem that cropped up was it isn't protected by the FCSC scheme for deposits, so I wouldn't want to leave balances with them long term.
I have also found xe.com fine for transfers.
not advice, DYORYMMV
Someone here said Revolut “lost” someone’s transaction.
Is there a service which is both FSCS accredited and…competitive?
Yep as I posted after this post - Wise are FSCS accredited and competitive...
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I’m flying home tomorrow. If you wire it to me in New Haven I’ll carry it home in my luggage for you
OK there's a special brand of talcum powder my homie in NH sends me, you got room for a kilo in hold luggage?
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I have found revolut fine for that. The problem that cropped up was it isn't protected by the FCSC scheme for deposits, so I wouldn't want to leave balances with them long term.
I have also found xe.com fine for transfers.
not advice, DYORYMMV
Someone here said Revolut “lost” someone’s transaction.
Is there a service which is both FSCS accredited and…competitive?
Yep as I posted after this post - Wise are FSCS accredited and competitive...
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Do you have a UK bank account?
Then use that.
Avoid Revolut like the plague.
I do but HSBC have silly rates.
I used Wise to send a legacy to a relative recently. I forget the name they had before - changed quite recently. FCA regulation in the UK, though I don't know what that means so DYR.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
Given that slavery had been abolished in most of Europe since the 12th century, I don't doubt that most Europeans who participated in the trade *knew* that they were doing wrong, but the profits were simply far too tempting.
To African leaders, as in many parts of the world, it may have been simply a way of life. Yet, many were Muslims, and while Islam does not, strictly speaking, condemn slavery, the freeing of slaves is certainly considered a meritorious act. Saladdin and his brother freed their share of the Christian captives at the fall of Jerusalem, without seeking ransom.
I think that the argument for not juding people by current standards holds much better for acts of war, where it's simply the case that customary international law, and moral standards, have altered over time.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
There is so much wrong with IHT it's hard to know where to start. First off, a much lower rate applying from a level below £1m, (325k+175k x 2) with more or less no exemptions would at least be rational. The current tax is a scandal.
But from the Tory vote point of view, to recover the Tories need the votes of a lot of people outside London and the SE for whom (this will be news to some Tories) £1m is quite a fair old sum, and actually even such penury as £325k is out of sight. Easing the intellectual strain on the Duke of Devonshire's lawyers, tax planners and accountants won't keep Grimsby blue.
"Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the London suburb of Uxbridge was two teenage girls in school uniforms getting into a fistfight in the shopping mall outside the underground station."
We've always been a pugilistic nation. That's how we ended up running a third of the world. I think we should be enormously proud of these spirited young people.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I can fly over and you can give it in cash to me and I will take it back and deposit it for you. I'll even do it for free.
(Edit: Although I see DougSeal has made a similar offer so I'll just have to go back to the day job I guess)
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Do you have a UK bank account?
Then use that.
Avoid Revolut like the plague.
I do but HSBC have silly rates.
It's the price we have to pay for confidence.
Just what the bloke who comes round for the protection money every Friday says.
Mind you, you are learning, got a message from firstdirect saying they have scrapped foreign transaction fees.
I do think there is a better argument to view slavery as being at all times, and in all places, wrong, than there is in relation to atrocities committed in wartime.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them.
You literally said
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
If the bits I put in bold aren't there to make the British slave trade look a bit less horrible, what are they for?
The alternative view is that were good and bad forms of slavery and slave trading, which I would reject.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them.
You literally said
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
If the bits I put in bold aren't there to make the British slave trade look a bit less horrible, what are they for?
Well for starters you haven't even considered the sentence in context because you've ignored the ending of it which makes it clear it is not about making it look a bit less horrible. It takes some boldness to go all 'you literally said' and then ignore the bits that contradict your own point.
The bit in bold is there for the reason it stated - for context. To understand the world as it existed and exists, so we know more about what happened. Context does not mean equalisation. I bold that, since that is how you appear to have taken it. Did those things happen? Yes. Why do you appear to believe that should not be mentioned?
All may be sinners, but not all sins are equal.
I don't know how many ways I can reassure you that I don't consider the role of african kingdoms in the slave trade to be mitigation for European crimes. I also don't think that the Incans, and many others, conquered other peoples means that it was of no consequence when they were all but destroyed themselves. Or that the massacre of jews in York in 1190 means Nazi gas chambers were less awful.
Your position appears to be that knowing about other horrible things undermines how horrible a specific thing was, and so we shouldn't mention them as it would be inconvenient.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
There is so much wrong with IHT it's hard to know where to start. First off, a much lower rate applying from a level below £1m, (325k+175k x 2) with more or less no exemptions would at least be rational. The current tax is a scandal.
But from the Tory vote point of view, to recover the Tories need the votes of a lot of people outside London and the SE for whom (this will be news to some Tories) £1m is quite a fair old sum, and actually even such penury as £325k is out of sight. Easing the intellectual strain on the Duke of Devonshire's lawyers, tax planners and accountants won't keep Grimsby blue.
Including political party donations being exempt. Trying to influence politics from nbeyond the grave is outrageous. Especially as the heirs can also themselves exploit that by doing deeds of variation.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
I was being flippant.
If this is the best the Conservatives can muster to win back the Blue Wall, and let's face it, it could be a game changer, their sole aim is to retain power. To retain power for no particular purpose, just to sustain power and keep the gravy train on the track.
"Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the London suburb of Uxbridge was two teenage girls in school uniforms getting into a fistfight in the shopping mall outside the underground station."
We've always been a pugilistic nation. That's how we ended up running a third of the world. I think we should be enormously proud of these spirited young people.
And how does a sentence end which begins "Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the NYC suburb of East Harlem was..."?
Context, first definition on Google: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
Fully understanding and assessing the circumstances, how awful!
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
I do think there is a better argument to view slavery as being at all times, and in all places, wrong, than there is in relation to atrocities committed in wartime.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
In the case of kings and rulers, there's often *more* to them than just the fact that they were slavers. Mansa Musa, Nzinga, Mehmet II, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, were all hightly talented and significant people who left a big mark on the world - who also happened to be slavers.
The Fall of Civilizations Podcast on the Songhai Empire, which followed the Malian Empire of Mansa Musa, was quite fascinating.
But I guess I shouldn't learn about either in case they did something bad which would make British crimes in the Americas look less bad or something.
Knowing things just mitigates awful stuff apparently.
For sure, I was watching a history of Nigeria, which focused on how awful the British were, especially towards the Northern emirates in the early 1900's.
Glossed over was the fact that about 50% of the population in those Northern emirates were chattels. Trying to portray one's ancestors as victims, when in fact they were victimisers, is just dishonest.
"Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the London suburb of Uxbridge was two teenage girls in school uniforms getting into a fistfight in the shopping mall outside the underground station."
We've always been a pugilistic nation. That's how we ended up running a third of the world. I think we should be enormously proud of these spirited young people.
And not just any old station, they were fighting outside a Charles Holden designed station. It's an art form.
Good evening all. Just back in from an excellent family curry on the beach. Father in law voted Podemos (only ever vote) last time. Whilst he claims he is unlikely to vote a week on Sunday, I expect he will follow his (ex English expat) wife out and vote Vox.
Make of that what you will. Main complaint - laid on very thick - is that PSOE have sided with actual terrorists to stay in government,
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Based and regulated in London, have used them loads of times, including for car-purchase sized amounts. They will make you do proper KYC, but give the best rate against a bank-to-bank transfer.
Disclaimer: I have done contract work for them in the past.
"Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the London suburb of Uxbridge was two teenage girls in school uniforms getting into a fistfight in the shopping mall outside the underground station."
We've always been a pugilistic nation. That's how we ended up running a third of the world. I think we should be enormously proud of these spirited young people.
And how does a sentence end which begins "Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the NYC suburb of East Harlem was..."?
Uxbridge is quite different from East Harlem. Last time I looked.
For example, Bobby Womack never did a song called “Across the A4020”.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
I was being flippant.
If this is the best the Conservatives can muster to win back the Blue Wall, and let's face it, it could be a game changer, their sole aim is to retain power. To retain power for no particular purpose, just to sustain power and keep the gravy train on the track.
You're probably right.
I suspect, deep down, they know, or rather the current incarnation of Conservatives know, once they lose power they will never get it back. I'm NOT saying it's the end for the Conservative Party - far from it - but this manifestation of Conservative thinking is intellectually bankrupt and exhausted and we deserve the opportunity to put it out of our misery.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them.
You literally said
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
If the bits I put in bold aren't there to make the British slave trade look a bit less horrible, what are they for?
Well for starters you haven't even considered the sentence in context because you've ignored the ending of it which makes it clear it is not about making it look a bit less horrible. It takes some boldness to go all 'you literally said' and then ignore the bits that contradict your own point.
The bit in bold is there for the reason it stated - for context. To understand the world as it existed and exists, so we know more about what happened. Context does not mean equalisation. I bold that, since that is how you appear to have taken it. Did those things happen? Yes. Why do you appear to believe that should not be mentioned?
All may be sinners, but not all sins are equal.
I don't know how many ways I can reassure you that I don't consider the role of african kingdoms in the slave trade to be mitigation for European crimes. I also don't think that the Incans, and many others, conquered other peoples means that it was of no consequence when they were all but destroyed themselves. Or that the massacre of jews in York in 1190 means Nazi gas chambers were less awful.
Your position appears to be that knowing about other horrible things undermines how horrible a specific thing was, and so we shouldn't mention them as it would be inconvenient.
If it isn't mitigation, why mention it at all? This is like you saying, yebbut you have to realise that the railway tracks into Aushcwitz were on the standard gauge of 1,435 mm. If the historical background and the African involvement are not morally relevant, what are they doing in your post?
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
The discussion of a few billion here or there is not really on the point. We are borrowing £100bn a year and continuing to do so, having already borrowed £2 trillion. We are post banking crisis and Brexit and Covid. By now the current account should be balancing.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Spanish GE: when I realised my step-mother-in-law was full on Vox I did gently throw in that I understood why Germans in 1932/3 voted for Hitler. Both are convinced that whatever Vox will demand of PP is a Good Thing. Because otherwise would be to let in a load of stuff that my late father would also have been exorcised about.#
Despite this I still implored them both to vote, even if their vote is for Spanish Hitler. Unless you vote, your voice does not carry. As a democrat, I have to support people voting even if their choice offends me.
"Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the London suburb of Uxbridge was two teenage girls in school uniforms getting into a fistfight in the shopping mall outside the underground station."
We've always been a pugilistic nation. That's how we ended up running a third of the world. I think we should be enormously proud of these spirited young people.
And how does a sentence end which begins "Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the NYC suburb of East Harlem was..."?
Uxbridge is quite different from East Harlem. Last time I looked.
For example, Bobby Womack never did a song called “Across the A4020”.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
Given that slavery had been abolished in most of Europe since the 12th century, I don't doubt that most Europeans who participated in the trade *knew* that they were doing wrong, but the profits were simply far too tempting.
On the opposite side I do wonder how much of the abolitionist movement was not from a desire to help the slaves but rather to damage the slave owners.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
I was being flippant.
If this is the best the Conservatives can muster to win back the Blue Wall, and let's face it, it could be a game changer, their sole aim is to retain power. To retain power for no particular purpose, just to sustain power and keep the gravy train on the track.
I dunno whether this will be a game changer THB. I mean, implicit in your post is an assumption they’ve lost the Blue Wall, and if you’re making that sort of assumption we’re taking damage limitation at best.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
I was being flippant.
If this is the best the Conservatives can muster to win back the Blue Wall, and let's face it, it could be a game changer, their sole aim is to retain power. To retain power for no particular purpose, just to sustain power and keep the gravy train on the track.
You're probably right.
I suspect, deep down, they know, or rather the current incarnation of Conservatives know, once they lose power they will never get it back. I'm NOT saying it's the end for the Conservative Party - far from it - but this manifestation of Conservative thinking is intellectually bankrupt and exhausted and we deserve the opportunity to put it out of our misery.
IHT is one of those bizarre issues where people who already have no hope of exceeding the current threshold will still vote for it to be scrapped.
I can understand the irrationality, particularly as when IHT goes, something we all cherish will have to go too.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Suppose the Tories scrap IHT. And win a small majority as a result. What happens next? More cuts. More inequality both social and regionally. Folk are always piling in to say how Starmer will become unpopular very quickly. Will this result in more or less general happiness 2024-9?
Spanish GE: when I realised my step-mother-in-law was full on Vox I did gently throw in that I understood why Germans in 1932/3 voted for Hitler. Both are convinced that whatever Vox will demand of PP is a Good Thing. Because otherwise would be to let in a load of stuff that my late father would also have been exorcised about.#
Despite this I still implored them both to vote, even if their vote is for Spanish Hitler. Unless you vote, your voice does not carry. As a democrat, I have to support people voting even if their choice offends me.
When I try to imagine what might happen to a Spanish step-mother-in-law on pornhub, I have to lie down for a while.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
Given that slavery had been abolished in most of Europe since the 12th century, I don't doubt that most Europeans who participated in the trade *knew* that they were doing wrong, but the profits were simply far too tempting.
On the opposite side I do wonder how much of the abolitionist movement was not from a desire to help the slaves but rather to damage the slave owners.
Freeing the slaves *was* damaging the slave owners. Can't separate the two. Unless you paid compo out of taxation, like UK did.
BTW 'abolitionist' meant diffferent things in the UK and US.
Spanish GE: when I realised my step-mother-in-law was full on Vox I did gently throw in that I understood why Germans in 1932/3 voted for Hitler. Both are convinced that whatever Vox will demand of PP is a Good Thing. Because otherwise would be to let in a load of stuff that my late father would also have been exorcised about.#
Despite this I still implored them both to vote, even if their vote is for Spanish Hitler. Unless you vote, your voice does not carry. As a democrat, I have to support people voting even if their choice offends me.
When I try to imagine what might happen to a Spanish step-mother-in-law on pornhub, I have to lie down for a while.
Not this one I sent a picture of us all to my good mate and he said "who is the cat lady"?
"Almost the first thing I saw when I arrived in the London suburb of Uxbridge was two teenage girls in school uniforms getting into a fistfight in the shopping mall outside the underground station."
We've always been a pugilistic nation. That's how we ended up running a third of the world. I think we should be enormously proud of these spirited young people.
Just imagine where we'd be if Clive of India had listened to the milksops and collywobblers.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
Given that slavery had been abolished in most of Europe since the 12th century, I don't doubt that most Europeans who participated in the trade *knew* that they were doing wrong, but the profits were simply far too tempting.
On the opposite side I do wonder how much of the abolitionist movement was not from a desire to help the slaves but rather to damage the slave owners.
Freeing the slaves *was* damaging the slave owners. Can't separate the two. Unless you paid compo out of taxation, like UK did.
BTW 'abolitionist' meant diffferent things in the UK and US.
Certainly in the USA there was a lot of hostility to the 'slave power' with a belief it should be broken by ending slavery and then transporting the former slaves to Africa.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them.
You literally said
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
If the bits I put in bold aren't there to make the British slave trade look a bit less horrible, what are they for?
Well for starters you haven't even considered the sentence in context because you've ignored the ending of it which makes it clear it is not about making it look a bit less horrible. It takes some boldness to go all 'you literally said' and then ignore the bits that contradict your own point.
The bit in bold is there for the reason it stated - for context. To understand the world as it existed and exists, so we know more about what happened. Context does not mean equalisation. I bold that, since that is how you appear to have taken it. Did those things happen? Yes. Why do you appear to believe that should not be mentioned?
All may be sinners, but not all sins are equal.
I don't know how many ways I can reassure you that I don't consider the role of african kingdoms in the slave trade to be mitigation for European crimes. I also don't think that the Incans, and many others, conquered other peoples means that it was of no consequence when they were all but destroyed themselves. Or that the massacre of jews in York in 1190 means Nazi gas chambers were less awful.
Your position appears to be that knowing about other horrible things undermines how horrible a specific thing was, and so we shouldn't mention them as it would be inconvenient.
If it isn't mitigation, why mention it at all? This is like you saying, yebbut you have to realise that the railway tracks into Aushcwitz were on the standard gauge of 1,435 mm. If the historical background and the African involvement are not morally relevant, what are they doing in your post?
I was responding to a post which joked about there being bad slavers and good slavers, in the context (there's that word again) of the Benin slave trade. So 'why mention it all?' is a truly nonsensical thing to ask, as my comment was an on topic response to the preceding comment.
Your comment appears to demonstrate the very joke that I was responding to in the first place - even though the comment was about african slavery in the first place, you are now complaining I mentioned african slavery. And even though I have explained I in no way was mitigating European slavery, you appear to think I am lying.
You also still don't seem to have grasped my point, which is simply that we should always know more about things. The historical background was in there because shouldn't we all know more about historical background? If we didn't know the historical background to Britain's primary role in the whole dreadful affair, then we should be celebrated for ending it. But the context of our involvement rather undermines us trying to use that as mitigation, wouldn't you agree? People do, and they are wrong to do so, as I've already explained - it was the only moral thing to do at that point, but not mitigation for what went before.
As for your Aushcwitz comment, you don't appear to have read my whole post. I in fact provided a better example of how horrible crimes against jews have happened elsewhere, but that does not undermine or minimise how horrible the Nazi atrocities were. In fact, knowing the long and awful history of anti-semitism adds to our understanding of how it rose to such an extreme example.
I still have no idea why you think knowing other awful things happened is a bad thing. Are you a censor in real life or something?
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
Given that slavery had been abolished in most of Europe since the 12th century, I don't doubt that most Europeans who participated in the trade *knew* that they were doing wrong, but the profits were simply far too tempting.
To African leaders, as in many parts of the world, it may have been simply a way of life. Yet, many were Muslims, and while Islam does not, strictly speaking, condemn slavery, the freeing of slaves is certainly considered a meritorious act. Saladdin and his brother freed their share of the Christian captives at the fall of Jerusalem, without seeking ransom.
I think that the argument for not juding people by current standards holds much better for acts of war, where it's simply the case that customary international law, and moral standards, have altered over time.
Slavery has tended to persist where there are weaker tribes/groupings, such as weaker African tribes, or those in the Balkans, who can be preyed upon with no consequences. It tends to stop when the traditionally enslaved peoples form themselves into countries, with armies.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
A dumb decision that only affects the most well off. Which is probably why they’ll do it.
I assume at this point they will only engage in policies which they think will shore up the base, as much as they can manage. Never mind if it pisses of others, they're already angry and probably not coming back, so at least please the core so they turn out rather than stay home, and minimise the damage on election day.
Might need to rehash the Imperial measurements announcement again.
Suppose the Tories scrap IHT. And win a small majority as a result. What happens next? More cuts. More inequality both social and regionally. Folk are always piling in to say how Starmer will become unpopular very quickly. Will this result in more or less general happiness 2024-9?
I don't think Starmer will become unpopular very quickly. I think like most PMs he will become steadily more unpopular over time. I don't see how someone as cautious as him will do particularly radical things that risk unpopularity, and the general shittiness of the UK when he takes over he will be able to blame on the previous government for at least a term - whether that is enough to get him a second will depend on how big a win he can manage, as any win is not easy.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
It's a fantastic idea to stir the loins of HYUFD, and it might play very, very well in the South East of England in particular.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
If it's such a fantastic idea, why haven't the Conservatives done this at any point since 2010?
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
The discussion of a few billion here or there is not really on the point. We are borrowing £100bn a year and continuing to do so, having already borrowed £2 trillion. We are post banking crisis and Brexit and Covid. By now the current account should be balancing.
The interest on £2tn at 5% is £100bn a year - that's part of the problem, interest rates are higher so Government Borrowing is costing more..
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
Given that slavery had been abolished in most of Europe since the 12th century, I don't doubt that most Europeans who participated in the trade *knew* that they were doing wrong, but the profits were simply far too tempting.
On the opposite side I do wonder how much of the abolitionist movement was not from a desire to help the slaves but rather to damage the slave owners.
Freeing the slaves *was* damaging the slave owners. Can't separate the two. Unless you paid compo out of taxation, like UK did.
BTW 'abolitionist' meant diffferent things in the UK and US.
Certainly in the USA there was a lot of hostility to the 'slave power' with a belief it should be broken by ending slavery and then transporting the former slaves to Africa.
I'd like to know more about the founding of Liberia, as I recall from a news story about the country that the interrelations of those coming from america with the native peoples in that area of Africa was not exactly harmonious, and it's been an independent state for a very long time now, as compared to the rest of the continent (apart from Ethiopia perhaps).
But Miklosvar would probably just complain that wanting to know about that is just an excusing of European colonalism, so probably best not to delve into it. Knowledge is dangerous, it allows people to excuse things, dontchaknow.
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
A dumb decision that only affects the most well off. Which is probably why they’ll do it.
I assume at this point they will only engage in policies which they think will shore up the base, as much as they can manage. Never mind if it pisses of others, they're already angry and probably not coming back, so at least please the core so they turn out rather than stay home, and minimise the damage on election day.
Might need to rehash the Imperial measurements announcement again.
Throw in a referendum on leaving human rights rules for good measure.
Live reporting thread, on how not to behave just before you’re sentenced.
…Never seen anything like this … in any Jan 6 hearing. Southard is unleashing a list of grievances. She’s thrown away her written remarks, ignored her lawyer’s warning, is glaring periodically at prosecutors and has launched into something of a tirade .. https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1679939763757891584
She’d have got the ban hammer from Mike for language, too.
Suppose the Tories scrap IHT. And win a small majority as a result. What happens next? More cuts. More inequality both social and regionally. Folk are always piling in to say how Starmer will become unpopular very quickly. Will this result in more or less general happiness 2024-9?
So long as they don't drop the ball in 2025 something might turn up for January/February 2030.
Labour will be so shell shocked at losing the January 2025 election they will be in disarray. Starmer falls and they start fighting like rats in a sack.
So we will have a very open and exciting election prospect if they do drop IHT.
The road to private ownership of priceless artefacts is paved with good intentions.
Seems apt. After all he is the direct descendent of the slaver Kings who originally owned the bronzes - which were made from the manillas they were paid for selling slaves to the Europeans.
There are good slavers and bad slavers.
I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?
OK, if I get caught frequenting child brothels, I will just say you have to see these things in context. Child brothels have existed throughout history, people from all sorts of other cultures use them even more than I do, and you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place. So that's all fine.
What on earth gave you the impression my comment suggested the idea 'it's all fine'?
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible.
Nope. Unsustainable argument. "It has always happened" and "Africans colluded in it" are points of mitigation. Not seeing it in the round, not making it look worse. Making it look less bad.
Idiots use them as points of mitigation. Another one is people trying too hard about celebrating how Britain ended the slave trade and sought to stop it elsewhere - that's positive in the sense that ending slavery is good, but does not in any way make up for doing it in the first place.
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
Given that slavery had been abolished in most of Europe since the 12th century, I don't doubt that most Europeans who participated in the trade *knew* that they were doing wrong, but the profits were simply far too tempting.
On the opposite side I do wonder how much of the abolitionist movement was not from a desire to help the slaves but rather to damage the slave owners.
Freeing the slaves *was* damaging the slave owners. Can't separate the two. Unless you paid compo out of taxation, like UK did.
BTW 'abolitionist' meant diffferent things in the UK and US.
Certainly in the USA there was a lot of hostility to the 'slave power' with a belief it should be broken by ending slavery and then transporting the former slaves to Africa.
I'd like to know more about the founding of Liberia, as I recall from a news story about the country that the interrelations of those coming from america with the native peoples in that area of Africa was not exactly harmonious, and it's been an independent state for a very long time now, as compared to the rest of the continent (apart from Ethiopia perhaps).
But Miklosvar would probably just complain that wanting to know about that is just an excusing of European colonalism, so probably best not to delve into it. Knowledge is dangerous, it allows people to excuse things, dontchaknow.
Fail. Either your appeal to history is utterly irrelevant, which makes you irrational and not worth talking to, or it makes post 1500 European slave trading look worse (and I can't imagine how that would work), or,it makes it look better. Which is it?
Would explain his rather sulky complaint about a lack of gratitude the other day. Maybe regretting he did not go for the PM role when he had the chance - looks good on the CV, adds about £50k to your public speaking charges.
Benjamin Mandy’s career need not be over. Ched Evans, who actually served time before he had his conviction quashed and was acquitted at a retrial, has resumed his career with a reasonable degree of success.
Having bedded 10,000 women according to the report, I am surprised he has time for the beautiful game.
Wow, I’m 9,996 behind him !!!!
He must have some libido and staying power.
I am sure you have time to catch up. He's notched those up before his 30th birthday.
Assuming he started around 18, that’s roughly three *different* women nearly every day.
Similar claims were made by/about Warren Beatty iirc.
Beyond that, as others have pointed out, it shortens his waiting time before the inevitable defence industry gig. Should be fairly lucrative for him - and be honest, who’d want to listen to his after dinner speeches ?
Comments
But you miss the point. It's not about whether Elizabeth was hypocritical or not, or rather it is: she knew that what she ought to say and think was that slavery was appalling, because it is appalling, no matter what she actually did. So there is no get out for her on the basis that she lived under a different moral code from us under which it was just fine and dandy.
If we’re doing vintage music hall this bit from Ronald Frankau is eternally relevant.
The police is the latest profession
For which one must get a degree
They’re putting out feelers for gentlemen peelers
And soon you’ll have bobbies like me
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ynN22-Sp-w4&pp=ygUVUm9uYWxkIGZyYW5rYXUgcG9saWNl
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
bib 1. is exactly my "Child brothels have existed throughout history", bib 2. is exactly my "you'll often find that it's actually the childrens' close families who put them there in the first place." I accept that the usual "the Arabs were at it too" does not crop up there, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad. So how can you say, straw man?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2713432?seq=6
Inheritance tax could be axed in Tory bid for votes
Flagship policy aimed at saving seats in south
Downing Street is holding talks about scrapping inheritance tax as part of a “totemic” offering to voters before the general election.
The Times has been told that there is a “live” discussion among senior figures in No 10 about abolishing the levy as the Conservative Party’s headline tax offer next year.
It had been widely assumed that the Tories would opt to cut income tax by as much as 2p, which would cost about £13.7 billion a year. However, there are concerns that any savings would be dwarfed by the impact of mortgage rate rises and inflation.
Inheritance tax would be cheaper to cut, at a cost to the Treasury of about £7 billion a year, and supporters argue that it could be a “gamechanger” in blue wall seats in the south of England that the Tories are defending.
Rishi Sunak wants to cut taxes but is said to be pessimistic about the prospect of doing so given the level of inflation, which is running at 8.7 per cent. Nevertheless, senior Conservatives and many of those around the prime minister believe that their party needs a major concession on tax to win the next election.
Inheritance tax is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren. A couple can share their allowance, meaning most parents can in effect pass on £1 million to their children without any tax being paid.
Two senior government sources confirmed that there is a discussion at the highest level of government about scrapping inheritance tax, providing inflation falls significantly. They said it would be a manifesto pledge for the election rather than something to be implemented next year.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inheritance-tax-end-scrapped-government-plan-2024-29hhrpfdm
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
I don't think article has been shared on PB before.
And of course New York should be renamed. There's no argument to the contrary. Slavery is a crime against humanity. Shouldn't be any argument about that.
Mind you, GE 2024 is concentrating my mind on intergenerational wealth transfers. I reckon giving my children a house each and myself 3 months sailing in the Pacific will get me under one of the possible commie wealth tax thresholds which SKSLab may have their eye on.
The whole point of my comment was that to fully understand just how awful it is we need to know the whole awfulness, not just focus on particular bits of awfulness.
Anyone attempting to use awful thing X to excuse awful thing Y is an idiot, as is anyone who thought that was the point.
Indeed, it's your very reaction which was the point here - you clearly saw an attempt at deflection, or wanted to posture that way, even though I was crystal clear knowing about Benin did not in any way make European actions less reprehensible. That it happened in Benin is something that should be known for its own sake, not because it excuses anything.
It's no defence for anyone of us to say, if *we* do something wrong, that other people are just as bad. But, when looking at events well past, it's hypocritical to argue that my slaver ancestors were good guys, whereas yours were rotten bastards.
In the case of kings and rulers, there's often *more* to them than just the fact that they were slavers. Mansa Musa, Nzinga, Mehmet II, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, were all hightly talented and significant people who left a big mark on the world - who also happened to be slavers.
I need to move a decent amount of cash from the US to the UK, and I was going to use Revolut but there was some bad chatter about it on here a few weeks ago.
Is there a better and suitable accredited service?
Then use that.
Avoid Revolut like the plague.
Is there a flip side to all these exciting tax cut ideas? Or can we cut even more fat from the health and education budgets to fund them?
I would argue that truth is important - slavery has indeed happened in a lot of places, in a lot ways. with a lot of people involved in it. That's perfectly sustainable with a position that the triangular trade was a particularly horrible example of it. I don't think it makes it look better that slavery has happened elsewhere, that is a data point. And in any case we cannot just pretend it did not happen anywhere else because you think it would make people think the triangular traded less bad.
I don't understand your position here - it seems to be that even if someone is very clear they do not believe the wider context of slavery makes the triangular trade any less horrible, that you don't believe them. Or that people should not mention real examples of other slavery, and pretend it did not happen, because that is 'mitigation' - that cannot be what you mean, surely?
I have also found xe.com fine for transfers.
not advice, DYORYMMV
Is there a service which is both FSCS accredited and…competitive?
Wait, why is your IBAN Nigerian?
"I tihnk the general position is that focusing on such is a distraction from the triangle trade, which in scale and operation is considered particularly bad, but it seems fairly important to understand it all in context - slavery existing in a great many human societies throughout history, and the role of african kingdoms in it pre and during the triangle trade, seems pretty important without in any way making the actions of Europeans anything other than reprehensible. How could we understand the horrors of slave trades without looking at it all together?"
If the bits I put in bold aren't there to make the British slave trade look a bit less horrible, what are they for?
And such people are especially concentrated among those who make the decisions.
But I guess I shouldn't learn about either in case they did something bad which would make British crimes in the Americas look less bad or something.
Knowing things just mitigates awful stuff apparently.
IHT brings in £6 - £7 billion per year and I can see why it might make a politically useful alternative to 2p off tax but the question remaisn how is the shortfall to be made up? Spending cuts or stealth tax rises such as failing to increase thresholds in line with inflation?
https://wise.com
Edit: used to be Transferwise.
To African leaders, as in many parts of the world, it may have been simply a way of life. Yet, many were Muslims, and while Islam does not, strictly speaking, condemn slavery, the freeing of slaves is certainly considered a meritorious act. Saladdin and his brother freed their share of the Christian captives at the fall of Jerusalem, without seeking ransom.
I think that the argument for not juding people by current standards holds much better for acts of war, where it's simply the case that customary international law, and moral standards, have altered over time.
But from the Tory vote point of view, to recover the Tories need the votes of a lot of people outside London and the SE for whom (this will be news to some Tories) £1m is quite a fair old sum, and actually even such penury as £325k is out of sight. Easing the intellectual strain on the Duke of Devonshire's lawyers, tax planners and accountants won't keep Grimsby blue.
(Edit: Although I see DougSeal has made a similar offer so I'll just have to go back to the day job I guess)
Mind you, you are learning, got a message from firstdirect saying they have scrapped foreign transaction fees.
Jerusalem's forecast is steadily 36-40C for several days
https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-749550
That is HOT. Jerusalem is in the hills and traditonally cooler in the summer
We might get as low as 34 before sunrise.
The bit in bold is there for the reason it stated - for context. To understand the world as it existed and exists, so we know more about what happened. Context does not mean equalisation. I bold that, since that is how you appear to have taken it. Did those things happen? Yes. Why do you appear to believe that should not be mentioned?
All may be sinners, but not all sins are equal.
I don't know how many ways I can reassure you that I don't consider the role of african kingdoms in the slave trade to be mitigation for European crimes. I also don't think that the Incans, and many others, conquered other peoples means that it was of no consequence when they were all but destroyed themselves. Or that the massacre of jews in York in 1190 means Nazi gas chambers were less awful.
Your position appears to be that knowing about other horrible things undermines how horrible a specific thing was, and so we shouldn't mention them as it would be inconvenient.
If this is the best the Conservatives can muster to win back the Blue Wall, and let's face it, it could be a game changer, their sole aim is to retain power. To retain power for no particular purpose, just to sustain power and keep the gravy train on the track.
Fully understanding and assessing the circumstances, how awful!
Glossed over was the fact that about 50% of the population in those Northern emirates were chattels. Trying to portray one's ancestors as victims, when in fact they were victimisers, is just dishonest.
Make of that what you will. Main complaint - laid on very thick - is that PSOE have sided with actual terrorists to stay in government,
Based and regulated in London, have used them loads of times, including for car-purchase sized amounts. They will make you do proper KYC, but give the best rate against a bank-to-bank transfer.
Disclaimer: I have done contract work for them in the past.
For example, Bobby Womack never did a song called “Across the A4020”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UOg_8hCC4u4
I suspect, deep down, they know, or rather the current incarnation of Conservatives know, once they lose power they will never get it back. I'm NOT saying it's the end for the Conservative Party - far from it - but this manifestation of Conservative thinking is intellectually bankrupt and exhausted and we deserve the opportunity to put it out of our misery.
Despite this I still implored them both to vote, even if their vote is for Spanish Hitler. Unless you vote, your voice does not carry. As a democrat, I have to support people voting even if their choice offends me.
I'm just lookin' for a dear, dear friend of mine
I'm waiting for my man
The current allowances are fair compared to many other European countries .
Also, The Times is couching it as a “discussion”
I can understand the irrationality, particularly as when IHT goes, something we all cherish will have to go too.
What happens next?
More cuts. More inequality both social and regionally.
Folk are always piling in to say how Starmer will become unpopular very quickly.
Will this result in more or less general happiness 2024-9?
BTW 'abolitionist' meant diffferent things in the UK and US.
'Leave it Rob, they aint wurf it'
Your comment appears to demonstrate the very joke that I was responding to in the first place - even though the comment was about african slavery in the first place, you are now complaining I mentioned african slavery. And even though I have explained I in no way was mitigating European slavery, you appear to think I am lying.
You also still don't seem to have grasped my point, which is simply that we should always know more about things. The historical background was in there because shouldn't we all know more about historical background? If we didn't know the historical background to Britain's primary role in the whole dreadful affair, then we should be celebrated for ending it. But the context of our involvement rather undermines us trying to use that as mitigation, wouldn't you agree? People do, and they are wrong to do so, as I've already explained - it was the only moral thing to do at that point, but not mitigation for what went before.
As for your Aushcwitz comment, you don't appear to have read my whole post. I in fact provided a better example of how horrible crimes against jews have happened elsewhere, but that does not undermine or minimise how horrible the Nazi atrocities were. In fact, knowing the long and awful history of anti-semitism adds to our understanding of how it rose to such an extreme example.
I still have no idea why you think knowing other awful things happened is a bad thing. Are you a censor in real life or something?
Might need to rehash the Imperial measurements announcement again.
@Steven_Swinford
Big parting scoop from
@hzeffman
tonight:
Ben Wallace considering leaving Govt after four years as defence secretary in autumn reshuffle
He’s said to believe time as defence sec is coming to an end after leading response to succession of military crises
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1679962759889399809?s=20
But Miklosvar would probably just complain that wanting to know about that is just an excusing of European colonalism, so probably best not to delve into it. Knowledge is dangerous, it allows people to excuse things, dontchaknow.
Probably would just blow it on a new plane that doesn't work anyway.
…Never seen anything like this … in any Jan 6 hearing. Southard is unleashing a list of grievances. She’s thrown away her written remarks, ignored her lawyer’s warning, is glaring periodically at prosecutors and has launched into something of a tirade ..
https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1679939763757891584
She’d have got the ban hammer from Mike for language, too.
Labour will be so shell shocked at losing the January 2025 election they will be in disarray. Starmer falls and they start fighting like rats in a sack.
So we will have a very open and exciting election prospect if they do drop IHT.
Similar claims were made by/about Warren Beatty iirc.
@MattChorley
·
1h
Yeah. If there’s one thing that’s going to turn it around for the Tories it’s um… a £7billion tax cut for millionaires
Early bid for worst manifesto idea at a cost of only £7bn + what remains of the Conservative party’s dignity
Should be fairly lucrative for him - and be honest, who’d want to listen to his after dinner speeches ?