Loading Notifications...

Should we be apologising - part 2

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 thomasadixon 22 Jun 2020

I'd typed out a reply before the thread was archived and can't help myself so:

To Alyson30:

> And compensated financially the slave traders for their loss. We were actually still paying the debt that was taken to do that up until 2015 I believe.

That's part of how the UK got rid of slavery.  What's your point?  That it cost the UK lots of money?

> But somehow compensating the slave victims themselves is out of the question ?

The UK freed them.  Now the UK should pay to compensate those who were freed?  How does that make any sense?  They are, of course, all very long dead.

> Well, it seems there were less racial tensions in Britain at the time than there are now. That is my impression anyway.

You think that before he, and others like him, gave more and more oxygen to these ideas there was less tension.  That would just support my point...

> I think each claim should be evaluated under its own merits. We have a legal system that can be used for that, actually.

What are these claims to be based on?  What are they for?  Who gets to claim?  We certainly don't have existing law that gives the answer to those questions.

Report
 freeflyer 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

I was taught that history is not about the past. It's about the present; how can the past explain where we are now?

As a callow centre-right partially educated middle-class teenager, I naturally saw that the world out of that lens, and the professors needed to shake the tree, so they taught us communism, in a desperate effort to widen our perspectives.

Although they didn't turn us into party members, they had a lot of fun trying, and we learnt a great deal. Some students stuck rigidly to the centre right party line (lower second), some went far right (mostly getting firsts), and some followed like sheep into socially liberal wonderland (upper second).

And so to slavery. Your comments are interesting, and in the present, however what political (or social) rationale are you basing them one?

Rom / Alyson30 / whoever is suffering from the same fallacy. Your viewpoints are not arguable, unless you can put them in some socio-political context. You need to raise your flag, and announce your agenda.

It seems to me that you may be arguing for the status quo - do nothing. In the current social context, that's a dead duck - try telling that to a BLM activist.

If you're going to go with the might is right, imperialist viewpoint, at least say it out loud and argue the case.

Personally, for what it's worth, I feel that we should let BLM take control of the agenda, since I don't agree with PMP that they're all infiltrators from outer space.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I'd typed out a reply before the thread was archived and can't help myself so:

> To Alyson30:

> That's part of how the UK got rid of slavery.  What's your point?  That it cost the UK lots of money?

My point is that there is a precedent for compensating financially the families of slave traders, but somehow you find the idea of getting  some form of compensation , even symbolic for the slave trade unacceptable 

> The UK freed them.  Now the UK should pay to compensate those who were freed?  How does that make any sense?  They are, of course, all very long dead.

Sorry but that’s total cuckoo-land logic. If someone beats you with a stick for a hundred years, and then suddenly they stop, you should  immediately forgive them, and even thank them for having stopped ? That’s not very realistic is it ?

> What are these claims to be based on?  What are they for?  Who gets to claim?  We certainly don't have existing law that gives the answer to those questions.

Well plenty countries have managed quite well to deal with the claims for compensation and restitution from the heirs of Jewish families that suffered expropriation 90 years ago.

Despite the comments I hear that the idea reparations is completely nuts or extreme,  those private companies in the OP attempt to do exactly that:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/18/lloyds-of-london-and-greene-king-to-make-slave-trade-reparations

Post edited at 06:33
Report
 Ridge 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Well plenty countries have managed quite well to deal with the claims for compensation and restitution from the heirs of Jewish families that suffered expropriation 90 years ago.

You keep using that analogy. Detailed records exist from the 1930s; in your "murdered your Grandad and stole his Picasso" example there will be evidence available of Grandads ownership of the painting, its theft and his murder.

With corporate entities like Greene King, or the wealthy slave-owning families, there may well be evidence available to determine compensation payments, (but to whom?).

When we get to "Britain" it all gets very complex. How much did slavery contribute to the economy back then? Given the UK (as opposed to private companies) has been in rapid decline for most of the 20th century and was pretty much bankrupt at the end of WW2, is there anything much left from the slave trade.

Who takes the financial hit? The homeless bloke who has the priviledge of sleeping next to crumbling Victorian infrastructure or the middle class Barrister who has done very well out of the system, and what if the homeless bloke is white and the wealthy bloke is BAME? How many BLM protesters had ancestors who were slave owners, or do we award compensation on the reflective value of peoples skin? It all gets very messy and acrimonious.

An apology is probably the best way forward. But reparations? "Make Germany pay" didn't end well.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> You keep using that analogy.

 

Well yes, because it is completely relevant.

> Detailed records exist from the 1930s; in your "murdered your Grandad and stole his Picasso" example there will be evidence available of Grandads ownership of the painting, its theft and his murder.

I am quite sure that there are plenty of records if we want to find them, in fact there are many.

> When we get to "Britain" it all gets very complex. How much did slavery contribute to the economy back then? Given the UK (as opposed to private companies) has been in rapid decline for most of the 20th century and was pretty much bankrupt at the end of WW2, is there anything much left from the slave trade.

That’s a good point but we have to be careful to not assume that the economic benefit of slavery to UK family over time is symmetric to the negative impact of slavery on the populations.

So it may well be that slavery is responsible for a tiny fraction of our wealth today, but it could be responsible for a big chunk of the impoverishment of some people today.

It will be particularly visible in some US states where some descendants of slave owners sit on considerable land and assets they’ve inherited from that time, whilst many black families have been stuck in a never ending cycle of poverty for 300 years.

I can understand why, a young black kid living in suburb with no opportunity and no wealth, descending from a family of slaves, and who’s being discriminated for jobs, would find their own situation quite unfair.

What would you say to that kid ? 

> Who takes the financial hit? The homeless bloke who has the priviledge of sleeping next to crumbling Victorian infrastructure or the middle class Barrister who has done very well out of the system, and what if the homeless bloke is white and the wealthy bloke is BAME? How many BLM protesters had ancestors who were slave owners, or do we award compensation on the reflective value of peoples skin? It all gets very messy and acrimonious.

Just like we did with reparations for the holocaust: you take it case by case to see where things can be put right fairly. It would probably take decades, just as it did with the holocaust (and still ongoing).

When not possible I think symbolic reparations are an alternative.

> An apology is probably the best way forward. But reparations? "Make Germany pay" didn’t end well.

About 89bn dollars in total in various reparations have been paid by Germans to Jewish families in reparations.

I think that it worked rather well, so far. Rarely in history a country that had committed such evil has been forgiven so quickly. It’s almost a miracle in fact.

Post edited at 09:28
Report
 Cobra_Head 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> That's part of how the UK got rid of slavery.  What's your point?  That it cost the UK lots of money?

The point is, the money went to the slave owners not the slaves.
Report
 GrahamD 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> The point is, the money went to the slave owners not the slaves.

The point is, neither of these groups have existed for hundreds of years.  There is no clearly defined group to whom we could apologise or pay reparations.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> The point is, neither of these groups have existed for hundreds of years.  There is no clearly defined group to whom we could apologise or pay reparations.

Actually you can trace pretty easily who benefitted. David Cameron’s family received  some of these payments, and they are still enjoying a considerable estate today that’s been passed down the generations.

in the US, for example, it’s in fact quite common in some state for the direct descendants of slave masters and slaves to live in the same county !

So if you wanted to trace, you could. Obviously it would be difficult but all you need is legislation. Then the onus would be in the descendant of slave to prove their filiation and the extent of the damages they may be entitled to from the estate of slave masters’ descendants.

Basically just like with the Jewish  reparations, many of these were issued at the end of long drawn out court cases involving all sorts of very detailed historical investigation.

Basically, I don’t really understand the strong opposition to the idea. It worked before and still is working.

Post edited at 09:38
Report
 Monkeysee 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I guess you agree that the Romans owe the British money , could they not pay it instead? 

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Monkeysee:

> I guess you agree that the Romans owe the British money , could they not pay it instead? 

A bit too late for that one I think !

Report
 Monkeysee 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I'm pretty sure all the royal families got there wealth and power by getting others to bash everyone else on the head!

  This went on until the peasants were broken beat and scared !  Welcome to the modern world ;-)

Report
 Offwidth 23 Jun 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

I'd like to see money go to where it's it's currently going from these apologetic companies like Green King:, plus maybe a few other obvious areas. Some obvious examples:

current anti slavery work (mainly international but shamefully slavery exists in the UK for example  with illegal work gangs, prostitution, domestic worker visa abuses).

support for programmes improving diversity

support for disadvantaged communities, especially targeted to close education gaps (colour blind )

history and arts projects related to slavery

Post edited at 09:53
Report
 MonkeyPuzzle 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

Jewish suffering from the holocaust is recent, non-dispursed and easily defined. Black disadvantage from slavery is the opposite of that, if no less real. You simply couldn't implement direct reparations for slavery to the black community without massive resentment from and on the behalf of disadvantaged non-black people in society, or in any meaningful way due to generations of disbursement - what about a mixed race person with slave owners several generations back on one side and slaves several generations back on the other? Such a person would still suffer any systematic and cultural racism just as any other black person today, but their family would have materially benefited from slavery in the first place. Too messy, too difficult, too many judgement calls for anyone to have confidence in the fairness of the reparations for it to work.

I think what would more likely carry a lot of support would be: a) acknowledgement of the systemic and cultural racism still affecting black lives today; b) provision for those black (and while we're at it other minority) voices to be heard in our boardrooms, HR policies, history lessons, science history, police training/strategy/tactics (end of stop and search, improve confidence in death-in-custody investigations, etc.) and c) real investment targeted at youth groups/charities, community policing, child poverty, learning assistance for children in poverty *regardless of ethnic background* to help social mobility have a real chance and address the feelings of grievance that are currently bad and getting worse across the country.

I think these last weeks have shown that there's no way we can neatly snip out black people's experience and elevate it from the wider social fabric and certainly not without a huge amount (justified or not) of resentment.

Report
 MonkeyPuzzle 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Ooh, snap(ish)!

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Jewish suffering from the holocaust is recent, non-dispursed and easily defined. Black disadvantage from slavery is the opposite of that, if no less real. You simply couldn't implement direct reparations for slavery to the black community without massive resentment from and on the behalf of disadvantaged non-black people in society, or in any meaningful way due to generations of disbursement - what about a mixed race person with slave owners several generations back on one side and slaves several generations back on the other?

 

I hear your point but I don’t think this is generally an obstacle. I mean you have exactly the same issue with the Jewish community as some - if not the majority in fact - are not be able to prove and put up cases for reparations. You end up with conditions for entitlement to reparations in the legislation. Always a bit arbitrary to a degree but we are not shooting for perfection.

I haven’t heard of any massive issue though.

I think this is more about giving a signal that anything else. It’s a tangible action we can take thats going to mean more than apologies.

Interesting article in the NY times on what shapes it could take:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/business/economy/reparations-slavery.amp.html

Not only I think this is perfectly doable, but I also think it will eventually happen.
 

In fact, this is already happening all over:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/31/slavery-reparations-seem-impossible-many-places-theyre-already-happening/?arc404=true

Post edited at 10:46
Report
 Monkeysee 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

So there's a time limit on history and who did what too who ?? 

Also when was this time limit implemented as I've never heard of it ?? 

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Monkeysee:

> So there's a time limit on history and who did what too who ?? 

> Also when was this time limit implemented as I've never heard of it ?? 

It depends, case by case depending on the situation.
Then again the case of reparations for Jewish families will provide a guide as to how this can happen, how the legislator can define how long before claims can’t be filed etc etc,

These are merely implementation considerations that can be worked out.

I don’t think there is any general rule that I could give you.

Post edited at 11:22
Report
 GrahamD 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Well yes. Concentrate on the here and now. 

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> I'd like to see money go to where it's it's currently going from these apologetic companies like Green King:, plus maybe a few other obvious areas. Some obvious examples:

> current anti slavery work (mainly international but shamefully slavery exists in the UK for example  with illegal work gangs, prostitution, domestic worker visa abuses).

> support for programmes improving diversity

> support for disadvantaged communities, especially targeted to close education gaps (colour blind )

> history and arts projects related to slavery

It looks like this is more or less in the vein of what  they are doing.

Despite all the beef against reparations, and the claims that they are impossible, they are effectively happening anyway in various forms.

Post edited at 11:25
Report
 GrahamD 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I disagree that tracing beneficiaries is easy.  The money that some people made directly hundreds of years ago is not the money in existence now.  It's been invested, taxed, paid wages etc

And in any case, if you really could trace the money (good luck), who benefits ? Only blood lines that are 100% provable as having a slanted background ? Or are we allowing someone in the past 8 generations of ancestors to have had a fling ? And heaven forbid they've had a fling with an ex slave owners descendants. 

This is a distraction.  It's as far outside living memory as the Roman invasion, Viking invasions or Notman invasions.

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> My point is that there is a precedent for compensating financially the families of slave traders, but somehow you find the idea of getting  some form of compensation , even symbolic for the slave trade unacceptable 

We were trying to end the slave trade.  As part of the compromise to get it done the U.K. agreed to buy the slaves.  It’s a unique situation.  The alternative was not ending slavery.  I find the idea that the UK should apologise for this ridiculous.

> Sorry but that’s total cuckoo-land logic. If someone beats you with a stick for a hundred years, and then suddenly they stop, you should  immediately forgive them, and even thank them for having stopped ? That’s not very realistic is it ?

The UK did not take slaves.  U.K. owners of slaves bought them, legally, from Africans, just as people had for Millenia.  Those who owned slaves are all long dead.

> Well plenty countries have managed quite well to deal with the claims for compensation and restitution from the heirs of Jewish families that suffered expropriation 90 years ago.

Which is a daft comparison.

> Despite the comments I hear that the idea reparations is completely nuts or extreme,  those private companies in the OP attempt to do exactly that:

Can you answer any of my questions?  All that shows is companies kowtowing to spurious claims due to political pressure.

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

So?  We’re talking about the UK’s culpability here.  The U.K. didn’t buy them, the U.K. didn’t capture them or sell them.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> I disagree that tracing beneficiaries is easy.  The money that some people made directly hundreds of years ago is not the money in existence now.  It's been invested, taxed, paid wages etc

So what, you get an expert to do some estimation and the other party get their counter-expert, some negotiation happens, some judgement is made, and after some years some deal is found.
Nobody pretends it's quick and easy, but then thinking that there ids a quick and easy fix is probably naive.

90 years later Germany is still paying out compensation to Jewish victims and still has ongoing court cases.


It's not simple but we have systems, legal or otherwise,  to deal with that kind of complex stuff.

> And in any case, if you really could trace the money (good luck), who benefits ? Only blood lines that are 100% provable as having a slanted background ? Or are we allowing someone in the past 8 generations of ancestors to have had a fling ? And heaven forbid they've had a fling with an ex slave owners descendants. 

Well, it's not beyond the wit of man to set qualifying conditions.

In the NY article I posted :" William A. Darity Jr., an economist at Duke University and a leading scholar on reparations, suggests two qualifying conditions: having at least one ancestor who was enslaved in the United States, and having identified oneself as African-American on a legal document for at least a decade before the approval of any reparations. "

That is one possible high-level view of how it could work. And I am sure it won't be perfect but we can't expect it to be and that isn't the point.

> This is a distraction.  It's as far outside living memory as the Roman invasion, Viking invasions or Notman invasions.

That's evidently false given that the issue of slavery is still fairly present in public debate (look at the thread....) and still a point of tension. 

Do we keep milking those grievances for another 300 years, or do we properly make it right and put it under the carpet for good? I actually think it would be less expensive to do the former.

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to freeflyer:

I don’t think I really get what you’re saying, sorry.

The BLM agenda appears to be bullying people into giving them what they want, with what they want being vague, shifting, and never ending.  Them not being aliens doesn’t seem a good reason to let them take control.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> We were trying to end the slave trade.  As part of the compromise to get it done the U.K. agreed to buy the slaves.  It’s a unique situation.  The alternative was not ending slavery.  I find the idea that the UK should apologise for this ridiculous.

The fact that abolitionist finally won the debate in the UK despite centuries of opposition, doesn't absolve the state from a practice they condoned (and brought huge tax revenues to the coffers).

> The UK did not take slaves.  U.K. owners of slaves bought them, legally, from Africans, just as people had for Millenia.  Those who owned slaves are all long dead.

If the British state allowed modern slavery to take place, would you say the state has no responsibility because they are not the ones taking the salves directly? This is nonsense.

> Which is a daft comparison.

Why is the comparison not working? Be specific.

> Can you answer any of my questions?  All that shows is companies kowtowing to spurious claims due to political pressure.

Well, generally speaking, change often happens because of political pressure. I am not sure why this is a bad thing.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So?  We’re talking about the UK’s culpability here.  The U.K. didn’t buy them, the U.K. didn’t capture them or sell them.

That is ridiculous and you know it. If the UK failed to do anything stamp out modern slavery today, or effectively allowed it to happen, we would hold the state responsible and rightly so.

You act as if collective responsibility didn't exist.

Post edited at 12:36
Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> The fact that abolitionist finally won the debate in the UK despite centuries of opposition, doesn't absolve the state from a practice they condoned (and brought huge tax revenues to the coffers).

The world condoned, the whole world.  Until the UK banned it.

> If the British state allowed modern slavery to take place, would you say the state has no responsibility because they are not the ones taking the salves directly? This is nonsense.

I’d argue for the U.K. to ban it.

> Why is the comparison not working? Be specific.

I already have, you accepted the point on the other thread.

> Well, generally speaking, change often happens because of political pressure. I am not sure why this is a bad thing.

That’s not a response to the questions.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The world condoned, the whole world.  Until the UK banned it.

That is completely revisionist I’m afraid. The first account of slavery being banned was in France in the early 14th century... it was then banned and reinstated at several point in history in various places.

The gist is, by all accounts, people knew it was morally wrong pretty early on. There was just too much money in it.

The abolitionist movement then swept over the world. We can of course celebrate the abolitionist movement, but to frame it as somehow absolving all crimes is ridiculous.

> I already have, you accepted the point on the other thread.

Well you’ll have to remind me cause I don’t see it.

> That’s not a response to the questions.

What was the question ?

Post edited at 12:52
Report
 MonkeyPuzzle 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The world condoned, the whole world.  Until the UK banned it.

Actually Haiti banned it first, as the slaves who rebelled very much didn't condone it.

The French threatened to blockade Haiti unless it agreed to compensate France for its loss of "property". The loans Haiti had to take out (some from France itself) were finally paid off in 1947. Other nations boycotted Haiti, further impoverishing it, lest their own slaves get any ideas. Haiti has never recovered financially. 

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> That is completely revisionist I’m afraid. The first account of slavery being banned was in France in the early 14th century... it was then banned and reinstated at several point in history in various places.

The worldwide trade was not banned before the UK banned it.  It was a massive change to do so.

> The gist is, by all accounts, people knew it was morally wrong pretty early on. There was just too much money in it.

When was early on?  If you mean some people were against it I expect that was always the case.

> The abolitionist movement then swept over the world. We can of course celebrate the abolitionist movement, but to frame it as somehow absolving all crimes is ridiculous.

Why?  Remember we’re talking about U.K. liability here.

> Well you’ll have to remind me cause I don’t see it.

Germany didn’t lose the war voluntarily.  Other thread.

> What was the question ?

Look at the OP.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The worldwide trade was not banned before the UK banned it.  It was a massive change to do so.

It was. But the fact that one of the major sieve trading nation finally ended slave trade absolve it if any historical responsibility ? I don’t think so.

> When was early on?  If you mean some people were against it I expect that was always the case.

> Why?  Remember we’re talking about U.K. liability here.

No, actually, this was never specific to the UK, but really I dint see why it matters so much to you.

> Germany didn’t lose the war voluntarily.  Other thread.

To a large extent it paid out compensation voluntarily. They are still paying it and could stop it at any time.

> Look at the OP.

Ho i see now, sorry. Well basically the answer is I don’t know, as I’ve said, these are implementation details to be worked out, I’ve quoted a few suggestions from either precedent, or experts that seemed sensible.

Post edited at 13:08
Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Actually Haiti banned it first, as the slaves who rebelled very much didn't condone it.

It’s the worldwide bit that was a huge change.  Slavery had existed pre England in this country, and had ended here before too.

> The French threatened to blockade Haiti unless it agreed to compensate France for its loss of "property". The loans Haiti had to take out (some from France itself) were finally paid off in 1947. Other nations boycotted Haiti, further impoverishing it, lest their own slaves get any ideas. Haiti has never recovered financially. 

Which has what to do with the U.K.?  We’re responsible for the French?

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> It was. But the fact that one of the major sieve trading nation finally ended slave trade absolve it if any historical responsibility ? I don’t think so.

I do.  If the UK is liable for its past it must also get the credit for its past.

> No, actually, this was never specific to the UK, but really I dint see why it matters so much to you.

My comments were specific, the OP of the last thread was too.

> To a large extent it paid out compensation voluntarily. They are still paying it and could stop it at any time.

Maybe they could now, they certainly couldn’t after the war.  If they had the choice they wouldn’t have paid out a penny (they’d have won the war).

> Ho i see now, sorry. Well basically the answer is I don’t know, as I’ve said, these are implementation  details to be worked out, I’ve quoted a few suggestions from either precedent, or experts that seemed sensible.

Honest I guess!

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It’s the worldwide bit that was a huge change.  Slavery had existed pre England in this country, and had ended here before too.

Well QED, there was a worldwide abolitionist movement, of which Britain  was an important part.

It really is a red-herring.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I do.  If the UK is liable for its past it must also get the credit for its past.

I completely agree, but generally speaking, if someone was beating you with a stick every day for a 100 years, and then suddenly stopped, and then told you are not entitled to seek damages from them because, after all, they had the kindness to stop beating you after a 100 years, you would laugh at their face.

That’s really absurd.

> My comments were specific, the OP of the last thread was too.

> Maybe they could now, they certainly couldn’t after the war.  If they had the choice they wouldn’t have paid out a penny (they’d have won the war).

So basically it’s ok to force other countries to pay reparations for crimes committed, but us doing it voluntarily is not acceptable.

You’re really struggling with your argument here mate...

At the end if the day, it comes down to this: if the heirs of slave masters decided to spare a small % of their inherited fortune to pay some form or reparation the the descendant of their victims, or gave some money to community-led initiatives to root out discrimination or try to improve equality of opportunity, would that really be such a horrible, horrible thing ? Why would you want to stop it all cost for some ideological principle ?

I don’t get it.

Post edited at 13:43
Report
 Cobra_Head 23 Jun 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> The point is, neither of these groups have existed for hundreds of years.  There is no clearly defined group to whom we could apologise or pay reparations.


But the UK could make a general apology, it's not hard to do, "we were involved with the slave trade and we're sorry about that", job done!

If we want to give money, then there are plenty of general charities, or projects they could support. Youth clubs in deprived areas, off the top of my head.

We don't need to put obstacles in the way, if we wanted to do something, it's blatantly obvious we could, but we're not.

Report
 Cobra_Head 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So?  We’re talking about the UK’s culpability here.  The U.K. didn’t buy them, the U.K. didn’t capture them or sell them.


No the UK paid owners for having to get rid of them, don't you see the difference?

Report
 Timmd 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

Couldn't the best form of apology come in addressing what inequalities exist today in society? 

A friend posted on facebook that families like David Cameron's should be stripped of much of their wealth because it's come from slavery. I can see the moral argument in this, but I also wonder if children should have to 'pay for the sins of their fathers' as the Bible puts it. I can't resolve what I think about that. 

Post edited at 13:53
Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Couldn't the best form of apology come in addressing what inequalities exist today in society? 

 

I agree. And possibly transfer of wealth in the form of reparation are a small part in this.

> A friend posted on facebook abut families like David Cameron's should be stripped of much of their wealth because it's come from slavery. I can see the moral argument in this, but I also wonder children should have to 'pay for the sins of their fathers' as the Bible puts it. I can't resolve what I think about individual families being relieved of their wealth.

I think we need to be sensible, to a large extent I think these reparations ideally should be made on a voluntary basis , which is pretty much what’s happening increasingly.

If Lloyd’s decide to put money in some BAME charity as some form of reparations for their past role, I mean really, what is the harm done ? Why would we want to stop it ?

Post edited at 13:57
Report
 Timmd 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I think we need to be sensible, to a large extent I think these reparations ideally should be made on a voluntary basis , which is pretty much what’s happening increasingly.

> If Lloyd’s decide to put money in some BAME charity as some form of reparations for their past role, I mean really, what is the harm done ? Why would we want to stop it ?

 I agree, and there's no harm at all in any of that.  I edited my post because I realised it was obvious what it was I couldn't resolve what I thought about btw. ;-)

Post edited at 14:08
Report
 freeflyer 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I don’t think I really get what you’re saying, sorry.

> The BLM agenda appears to be bullying people into giving them what they want, with what they want being vague, shifting, and never ending.  Them not being aliens doesn’t seem a good reason to let them take control.

I don't really get what you're worried about. You talk about 'bullying' but then admit that the bullying is 'vague'. Sorry - I've never seen or heard of vague bullying. What I see is a woman on TV last night talking about her Windrush dad age 84 who's been told by the Home Office that he has to wait 5 years before he can have indefinite leave to remain. WTAF. Not even a passport, after half a century in the country, working, raising a family and paying his taxes.

I think fewer statues and a chance for folk to have a voice is a price worth paying for all the shite we've handed out. Don't you?

Report
 Timmd 23 Jun 2020
In reply to freeflyer:

> Rom / Alyson30 / whoever is suffering from the same fallacy. Your viewpoints are not arguable, unless you can put them in some socio-political context. You need to raise your flag, and announce your agenda.

What do you mean by a socio-political context? 

Edit: What do you have in mind, that is, relating to there being an agenda?

Post edited at 15:04
Report
In reply to Timmd:

I saw some money programme on TV this morning, and some rich guy called Dave, who made his millions from selling vans, said he'll be giving 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies - his kids will have to earn their own living.

Report
 Stichtplate 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I agree. And possibly transfer of wealth in the form of reparation are a small part in this.

> I think we need to be sensible, to a large extent I think these reparations ideally should be made on a voluntary basis , which is pretty much what’s happening increasingly.

> If Lloyd’s decide to put money in some BAME charity as some form of reparations for their past role, I mean really, what is the harm done ? Why would we want to stop it ?

To appropriate the 'house on fire' analogy you seem to be directing all the fire engines to the cold and charcoaled timbers of yesterday's news while ignoring what's actually happening now. The enlightened Islamic state of Mauritania only outlawed slavery in 1981 and still has considerable issues today, even provoking censure from the normally toothless African Union.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jan/29/african-union-mauritania-failing-to-tackle-pervasive-slavery

There are currently something like 46,000,000 slaves worldwide, 18 million in India alone. Seems rather obscene to be concentrating so ardently on the misdeeds and misfortunes of people that died 200 years ago while ignoring the misery of those suffering now.

https://www.inverse.com/article/31386-countries-with-the-most-slaves

And for those on here that continue to frame slavery as something that is purely about Europeans apologising to Africans, consider that Ethiopia is the only African country that managed to remain uncolonised. They outlawed slavery under much duress in 1942 after the Allies threatened to withdraw forces committed to preventing the Italians from overrunning the country.

Report
 freeflyer 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> What do you mean by a socio-political context? 

Their posts are couched in general language, as if we should all agree with them because their arguments have some over-arching truth. They do not, so if they want us to spend money on reparations (which I think is one of the poster's more daft pedestals, but moving on) or suppress calls for representation, being heard and addressing the fundamental issues of BLM, they should provide some reasons.

For example: "I think the British Empire was great, so we should keep the statues of the slavers". This seems to me to be basically the argument, but it hasn't been stated, so I was pointing that out, to see if my assumptions were wrong. I won't be addressing the issue of reparations, for the reasons above.

Report
 Timmd 23 Jun 2020
In reply to freeflyer:

One needs to explain one's argument rather than take it for granted it's understood to be the right one, that makes sense. 

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> To appropriate the 'house on fire' analogy you seem to be directing all the fire engines to the cold and charcoaled timbers of yesterday's news while ignoring what's actually happening now. The enlightened Islamic state of Mauritania only outlawed slavery in 1981 and still has considerable issues today, even provoking censure from the normally toothless African Union.

I would agree that the consequences of the slave trade on today's world is not the most important global issue, it doesn't mean it's not an interesting topic we shouldn't discuss nor that we shouldn't be doing anything about it.

I do agree that this culture war with extremes of both sides is a total waste of time, but I'd like to think that the level of debate on UKC rises a bit above that and that we can discuss things a bit more sensibly.

As for the fact that slavery wasn't practised exclusively by Europeans, I don't think this is an excuse for anything really.


If you were in court for theft, and your defence was "theft is a common occurrence, so stealing isn't that bad after all" I don't think you would have such a great time with the judge.

Post edited at 15:59
Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> One needs to explain one's argument rather than take it for granted it's understood to be the right one, that makes sense. 

I think that I have explained in great detail the case for reparations, discussed at length the ethical implications with several posters, compared it to other historical occurrences, given you quotes from experts, explaining how it could work references to articles.

And as matter of fact, it seems that some of biggest company in the country - that don't exactly have a reputation for being leftist fanatics - also have come to the conclusion that reparations can be a part of their corporate social responsibility.

What counter-argument has freeflier made to it ? Apart from qualifying the idea of " daft pedestals", not so much.

I agree that spouting banalities is not how you convince people, but so far, I'm not the one being the most guilty of it.

Report
 Stichtplate 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I think that I have explained in great detail the case for reparations, discussed at length the ethical implications with several posters, compared it to other historical occurrences, given you quotes from experts, explaining how it could work references to articles.

and it's been explained in detail to you that asking an entire country to apologise and pay reparations for the centuries old misdeeds of a tiny minority of it's citizens is ridiculous.

> And as matter of fact, it seems that some of biggest company in the country - that don't exactly have a reputation for being leftist fanatics - also have come to the conclusion that reparations can be a part of their corporate social responsibility.

Company is not country and the particular calculation actually going on in head office likely revolves around expenditure Vs positive free publicity.

Report
 Timmd 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30: I was more summing up what he'd said.

He could seem to be seeing things through a prism of his own, I've only been dipping in while doing painting outside, but other than talking about being right wing, he's not seemed to have said so much in response to counter it.

Have fun - as it were - it's a good day for painting. If I can fit a cycle, some walling and some painting in before dark I'll be doing well, but it's only going to be 2 of the 3 by the looks of it.

Post edited at 16:28
Report
 Stichtplate 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I would agree that the consequences of the slave trade on today's world is not the most important global issue, it doesn't mean it's not an interesting topic we shouldn't discuss nor that we shouldn't be doing anything about it.

Slavery and the systematic mistreatment of people is a current problem so massive that to continue to witter on about centuries old misdeeds in the face of ongoing atrocity seems the height of stupidity.

> I do agree that this culture war with extremes of both sides is a total waste of time, but I'd like to think that the level of debate on UKC rises a bit above that and that we can discuss things a bit more sensibly.

You provide ample evidence to the contrary. Unless your definition of sensible debate includes using multiple profiles to argue the same case on the same thread?

> As for the fact that slavery wasn't practised exclusively by Europeans, I don't think this is an excuse for anything really.

It's not an excuse, it's a historical fact much overlooked in this debate as currently conducted in the West and it's not that "slavery wasn't practised exclusively by Europeans" as you put it, it's the fact that slavery has been virtually expunged from Europe for 200 years while it remains endemic in many other parts of the world.

> If you were in court for theft, and your defence was "theft is a common occurrence, so stealing isn't that bad after all" I don't think you would have such a great time with the judge.

It'd be more accurate to characterise my defence as, "innocent my Lord on the grounds that the offence of which I'm accused happened 200 years before I was born"

Post edited at 16:23
Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> and it's been explained in detail to you that asking an entire country to apologise and pay reparations for the centuries old misdeeds of a tiny minority of it's citizens is ridiculous.

Just saying something is ridiculous isn't in itself an argument.


For something that is ridiculous, this is actually gaining pretty decent traction. Even Joe Biden, the possible next US president, publicly supported funding a study on how such reparations could be made.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/joe-biden-reparations-slavery-george-floyd-protests

> Company is not country and the particular calculation actually going on in head office likely revolves around expenditure Vs positive free publicity.

I've never said that reparations are exclusively a matter for the state.
I've stressed that this is a matter for different levels of society.
They could come from private citizens, companies, local governments, various organisation, and also, indeed, states where appropriate.

If some large UK financial institution decides to give out money to various BAME charities or organisation promoting inclusion as a way fo reparation for their historical role in slavery,  I don't really see what is so terribly awful about that,  even if, ultimately, that's a publicity stunt.

Post edited at 16:33
Report
 MonkeyPuzzle 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It’s the worldwide bit that was a huge change.  Slavery had existed pre England in this country, and had ended here before too.

You were offering up that we were the first in the world to outlaw it, but we were happy to enjoy the associated benefits of it for long afterwards, so tacitly condoned it. Haiti were the first to outright ban it, not allow any slave ships in the waters etc. 

> Which has what to do with the U.K.?  We’re responsible for the French?

Well, I'd already mentioned Haiti in pointing out we weren't the first to ban slavery (^^^just up there, look) so carried on with some interesting exposition to the whole reparations argument, as the Haiti example is pretty stark. Exposition dear, mere exposition.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Slavery and the systematic mistreatment of people is a current problem so massive that to continue to witter on about centuries old misdeeds in the face of ongoing atrocity seems the height of stupidity.

If we go down that way of thinking, why should we even bother studying history, because who cares, there are bigger issue in the present.

It may be stupid for you, but for some people, this is very important. 

> It's not an excuse, it's a historical fact much overlooked in this debate as currently conducted in the West and it's not that "slavery wasn't practised exclusively by Europeans" as you put it, it's the fact that slavery has been virtually expunged from Europe for 200 years while it remains endemic in many other parts of the world.

Very interesting historical fact, and of course we can celebrate that we have virtually expunged slavery from Europe, but I don't see how it fits in a logical argument against possible reparation.

> It'd be more accurate to characterise my defence as, "innocent my Lord on the grounds that the offence of which I'm accused happened 200 years before I was born"

Well that is a different argument to the one you just made.

We already discussed the ethical problem of the inheritance of collective responsibility. It can be quite a pickle I admit but we have precedents for it.

Post edited at 16:54
Report
 Stichtplate 23 Jun 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> You were offering up that we were the first in the world to outlaw it, but we were happy to enjoy the associated benefits of it for long afterwards, so tacitly condoned it. 

Who’s this “We” you keep mentoring? You mean people that have been dead a couple of centuries? And if you mean having distant ancestral involvement in the slave trade, well mine weren’t. If you reckon my ancestors have some sort of culpability because of U.K. government policy, again, not my ancestors as it was another century after the event that they finally got the vote.

If you’re determined to apologise to someone and cough up some cash, fill your boots, but leave me out of it.

As old great great granddaddy Stichtplate might have said: Not my pig. Not my farm.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> As old great great granddaddy Stichtplate might have said: Not my pig. Not my farm.

I've already addressed this with you before.

You benefit hugely simply from being born with the citizenship of an extraordinarily wealthy, industrialised and developed country. Many people in the world envy the privilege you inherited at birth.

In some part, large or small, slavery and colonialism contributed to building the great country you live in.
So, unless you are happy giving up your passport, or giving British citizenship to anybody who asks for it, it is a little bit of your pig, and a little bit of your farm. And that's fine, really.

Post edited at 17:08
Report
 Stichtplate 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> If we go down that way of thinking, why should we even bother studying history, because who cares, there are bigger issue in the present.

Mischaracterises what I said completely. 

> It may be stupid for you, but for some people, this is very important. 

Stupid people?

> Very interesting historical fact, and of course we can celebrate that we have virtually expunged slavery from Europe, but I don't see how it fits in a logical argument against possible reparation.

Because it’s obviously not part of that argument. It’s an attempt to introduce an element of historical context that your argument entirely ignores.

> Well that is a different argument to the one you just made.

It’s not. I’m just running out of ways to get a very simple concept into your head.

> We already discussed the ethical problem of the inheritance of collective responsibility. It can be quite a pickle I admit but we have precedents for it.

Interesting that you are so interested in getting the tax payers of a country you’re not resident in to pay for crimes they weren’t responsible for.

At the same time your own sense of collective responsibility and commitment to paying your dues doesn’t apparently stretch to coughing up for even one of your multiple profiles 😂

Report
 colinakmc 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

Like most of us I come from a long line of poor folk so it’s difficult to identify any definite benefit accruing to my ancestors from slavery - although there’s generally been enough for them to eat for the last 200 years. So large scale transfer of money (=income, I don’t have wealth) from folk like me wouldn’t make a lot of sense, reparation at this distance and on this scale would need to be in terms of improved social policy.
I don’t see a practical way to process individual claims but I think improving education & family support for BAME groups (ref countless research studies re correlation between poverty, ill health and family breakdown) would be a good start. Tackling racism and discrimination would be another way. And the ubiquitous nature of ancient slavery related wealth would suggest that a wealth tax would be a good way to pay for it all.

Report
 Stichtplate 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I've already addressed this with you before.

> You benefit hugely simply from being born with the citizenship of an extraordinarily wealthy, industrialised and developed country. Many people in the world envy the privilege you inherited at birth.

> In some part, large or small, slavery and colonialism contributed to building the great country you live in.

> So, unless you are happy giving up your passport, or giving British citizenship to anybody who asks for it, it is a little bit of your pig, and a little bit of your farm. And that's fine, really.

Ok then, by the same token, uniquely in World history, Britain bankrupted itself 3 times fighting tyranny in three world wars and leaving British dead buried on foreign battlefields too numerous to mention. Personally I think that tips the ‘World debt balance’ you seem to believe in, a fair bit in the U.K.s favour.

Personally I’m happy to call it quits.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Ok then, by the same token, uniquely in World history, Britain bankrupted itself 3 times fighting tyranny in three world wars and leaving British dead buried on foreign battlefields too numerous to mention. Personally I think that tips the ‘World debt balance’ you seem to believe in, a fair bit in the U.K.s favour.

Again, this isn’t about keeping tabs on which country did the most good or bad nor any world debt balance, that is absurd. It isn’t even about Britain more than any other country, it isn’t even about countries as such.
It’s about collective responsibility - at all levels.

You see everything through a nationalistic lens, that’s not helpful.
 

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to colinakmc:

> Like most of us I come from a long line of poor folk so it’s difficult to identify any definite benefit accruing to my ancestors from slavery - although there’s generally been enough for them to eat for the last 200 years. So large scale transfer of money (=income, I don’t have wealth) from folk like me wouldn’t make a lot of sense, reparation at this distance and on this scale would need to be in terms of improved social policy.

> I don’t see a practical way to process individual claims but I think improving education & family support for BAME groups (ref countless research studies re correlation between poverty, ill health and family breakdown) would be a good start. Tackling racism and discrimination would be another way. And the ubiquitous nature of ancient slavery related wealth would suggest that a wealth tax would be a good way to pay for it all.

That all seems very sensible.

Report
 Stichtplate 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Again, this isn’t about keeping tabs on which country did the most good or bad nor any world debt balance, that is absurd. It isn’t even about Britain more than any other country, it isn’t even about countries as such.

> It’s about collective responsibility - at all levels.

> You see everything through a nationalistic lens, that’s not helpful.

HaHa you do talk some crap. You’ve spoken exclusively and at some length about “Britain’s debt” and the need for restitution. As far as your latest statement “this isn’t about keeping tabs” just up thread you were quite insistent that it’d be a simple matter to trace who owed what to who!

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Mischaracterises what I said completely. 

> Stupid people?

Everybody who disagrees with you is stupid, of course...

> Because it’s obviously not part of that argument. It’s an attempt to introduce an element of historical context that your argument entirely ignores.

No, I don’t ignore it, I have already said that I welcome the context you added, it just so happens that it doesn’t fundamentally alter the thrust of my argument.

> Interesting that you are so interested in getting the tax payers of a country you’re not resident in to pay for crimes they weren’t responsible for.

Careful there, you’re starting to betray what really is your beef...

> At the same time your own sense of collective responsibility and commitment to paying your dues doesn’t apparently stretch to coughing up for even one of your multiple profiles 

More tu quoque. Your favourite weapon it seems.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> You’ve spoken exclusively and at some length about “Britain’s debt” and the need for restitution. As far as your latest statement “this isn’t about keeping tabs” just up thread you were quite insistent that it’d be a simple matter to trace who owed what to who!

Verifiably false.

I’ve also mentioned at length corporation, individuals, organisations, several other countries... but obviously all of that passed you by.

As for the “keeping tabs” thing, it’s just a fairly transparent false equivalence.

> HaHa you do talk some crap.

 

Rude.

Post edited at 18:04
Report
 Stichtplate 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Everybody who disagrees with you is stupid, of course...

Nope, more mischaracterising 

> No, I don’t ignore it, I have already said that I welcome the context you added, it just so happens that it doesn’t fundamentally alter the thrust of my argument.

You haven’t so much got an argument as a set of preconceived notions, a profound anti U.K. bias and the backing of a sock puppet army.

> Careful there, you’re starting to betray what really is your beef...

No Rom, I’m really very straight forward, no false flags, hidden agendas, multiple profiles, murky identities, habitual misquoting and mischaracterising of others and no sudden and unacknowledged backpedaling when I realise I’m wrong. 

> More tu quoque. Your favourite weapon it seems. 

 I just find it intensely irritating to be lectured on morality by someone who seems devoid of any moral values of their own.

If I’d really wanted to get all ‘tu quoquey’ with you (and I find I now do) it would be to point out my utter disgust at a post of yours from a few weeks ago where you stated that Covid was very sad but at least you’d make a tidy profit from it.

Crass enough if the poster was sitting in the epicentre of the disaster, in a country with the second highest per capita death toll and 40,000 plus already dead... but coming from someone sitting 2000 miles away, in a country with a death toll of 18, I found myself too angry to post a reply.

Report
In reply to Alyson30:

I'm still awaiting confirmation that the Scandinavian Viking apology is needed.

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

The difference between what and what?  I don’t think the U.K. compensated the slaves it freed, if that’s what you mean.  Nor did the slavers who captured them and made them into slaves, of course.  The U.K. did free them, and so freed their descendants, which I’d think should count for something.

Or do you think that our paying off those who legally owned slaves makes us culpable?  Can’t see the logic there.

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to freeflyer:

> I don't really get what you're worried about. You talk about 'bullying' but then admit that the bullying is 'vague'. Sorry - I've never seen or heard of vague bullying.

Try reading again.  It’s not the bullying that’s vague, it’s the specifics of what they want that’s vague.  What do bullies usually want?  Power over others.

> What I see is a woman on TV last night talking about her Windrush dad age 84 who's been told by the Home Office that he has to wait 5 years before he can have indefinite leave to remain. WTAF. Not even a passport, after half a century in the country, working, raising a family and paying his taxes.

What on earth has that got to do with slavery?

> I think fewer statues and a chance for folk to have a voice is a price worth paying for all the shite we've handed out. Don't you?

I think that’s waffle.

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to freeflyer:

I don’t think we should suppress  anyone.  I think that they shouldn’t control the agenda, as you put it.

We should keep old statues unless we, collectively, decide to replace them.  We should keep unique historical items because they cannot be replaced, that’s the whole point of listing.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Crass enough if the poster was sitting in the epicentre of the disaster, in a country with the second highest per capita death toll and 40,000 plus already dead... but coming from someone sitting 2000 miles away, in a country with a death toll of 18, I found myself too angry to post a reply


The point of those text debates is to challenge each other’s arguments so that we may learn something.

Your obsessive need to go on long rants about how much you despise me achieves nothing.

By the way, I don’t think that insuring oneself against adverse economic events to be self-reliant is crass. What is crass, in my view, is the exact opposite: enrich oneself when times are good, and ask for state support when times are bad.

Post edited at 20:21
Report
 Cobra_Head 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Or do you think that our paying off those who legally owned slaves makes us culpable?  Can’t see the logic there.

That doesn't surprise me.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I think that’s waffle.

We pay taxes to maintain public art. If we are going to have public art, it may as well be stuff we like? Don’t you think ?

A protest is not the ideal mean of getting rid of public art we don’t like, that is for sure.

But we can’t expect people to be to happy about paying taxes to maintain monuments of little special historic or artistic interest that glorify a violent past.

Post edited at 20:27
Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I'm still awaiting confirmation that the Scandinavian Viking apology is needed.

I’ve explained in details already why it is not needed, and why these comparisons do not hold.

It has to do with whether there is an outstanding legacy from the misdeed.

It would be really hard to make a compelling case that there is a group of people who are still suffering the consequences of Viking invasions.

With slave trade, I think that the case can still possibly be made, especially in the US.

Post edited at 20:35
Report
In reply to Alyson30:

> By the way, I don’t think that insuring oneself against adverse economic events to be self-reliant is crass. What is crass, in my view, is the exact opposite: enrich oneself when times are good, and ask for state support when times are bad.

Let's get this right.
Profiteering on the deaths of tens/hundreds of thousands in the 21st Century is OK, but profiteering on deaths a few centuries ago is so bad that you want those responsible to pay reparations?

Report
In reply to Alyson30:

> I’ve explained in details already why it is not needed, and why these comparisons do not hold.

> It has to do with whether there is an outstanding legacy from the misdeed.

> It would be really hard to make a compelling case that there is a group of people who are still suffering the consequences of Viking invasions.

> With slave trade, I think that the case can still possibly be made, especially in the US.

Ah, cool.

So. Seeing it's a time thing. During what time period should an apology have been given? 

Thanks.

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

In kind, it doesn't surprise me that you're incapable of saying why freeing slaves makes you responsible for what happened before you freed them.  It's not very thought through this stuff, which is kind of the point.

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> We pay taxes to maintain public art. If we are going to have public art, it may as well be stuff we like? Don’t you think ?

Old stuff doesn't really need maintaining, it's just there...  On your point, well that makes sense up to a point.  The listed 60's abominations are not stuff that most of us like.  I can see the point in protecting them in any case, they're interesting history.  Not all of them, of course.

> A protest is not the ideal mean of getting rid of public art we don’t like, that is for sure.

It's certainly not a good way of determining what "we" don't like, given that the vast majority of us won't be there.  In this case the vast majority of us were obeying the law and staying away from massive gatherings, since they were (and still are) illegal.

> But we can’t expect people to be to happy about paying taxes to maintain monuments of little special historic or artistic interest that glorify a violent past.

Which people?  I don't believe most people mind at all, and the statue in Bristol appears to be of great historical interest.  Certainly it was listed by those who judge these things.  I'd be quite happy to maintain other relics too, like the gravestones to a slave in North Bristol (also listed, and now sadly smashed and removed).

They don't glorify anything anymore, they're just historical relics (commonly with cones atop).  They do show the violence of our (as in humanity's) past, which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Ah, cool.

> So. Seeing it's a time thing. During what time period should an apology have been given? 

> Thanks.

It is not that much a time thing. IMO it is more about how much the past misdeed still impacts an identifiable group.
Of course, this will tend to decay strongly with time.

Report
 Stichtplate 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I don’t despise you at all Rom. I don’t even know you. I just wish you’d chill out on the constant Brit bashing and be a bit more honest and open in your manner of debate. This isn’t a competition on here, it’s at its best when it’s just a bit of fun.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Old stuff doesn't really need maintaining, it's just there...  On your point, well that makes sense up to a point.  The listed 60's abominations are not stuff that most of us like.  I can see the point in protecting them in any case, they're interesting history.  Not all of them, of course.


I can see the point in protecting stuff of historical or artistic value. I mentioned that before. There is also a point where you say we can't hoard every piece of crappy art that's around, especially if people don't want it or are uncomfortable with it whatever reason

> It's certainly not a good way of determining what "we" don't like, given that the vast majority of us won't be there.  In this case, the vast majority of us were obeying the law and staying away from massive gatherings, since they were (and still are) illegal.

I agree.

> Which people?  I don't believe most people mind at all, and the statue in Bristol appears to be of great historical interest.  Certainly, it was listed by those who judge these things.  I'd be quite happy to maintain other relics too, like the gravestones to a slave in North Bristol (also listed, and now sadly smashed and removed).

Actually I think the opinion in Bristol was pretty much 50/50 on whether the status should stay or go. It ends up in a museum which seems like a fine compromise everybody can live with.

> They don't glorify anything anymore, they're just historical relics (commonly with cones atop).  They do show the violence of our (as in humanity's) past, which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Well not everybody sees it that way. Pulling down statues is pretty common. Thousands of statue of Lenin have been taken down across Eastern Europe for example. Or American tanks pulling down Saddam Hussein statue.  
Or post-war, the allies went through the systematic and thorough destruction of every piece of nazi public art they could find.

Why were you not complaining about the destruction of history then?

I think the why, the how and the when do matter when it comes to getting rid of public art.

Report
 Siward 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

Why does this site allow multiple profiles? I think the time has come for users to have to verify their identities. There are too many essentially anonymous people talking crap all over this site recently.

Report
In reply to Siward:

> Why does this site allow multiple profiles? I think the time has come for users to have to verify their identities. There are too many essentially anonymous people talking crap all over this site recently.

UKC specifies that you can't have second profiles:
6. Second profiles - Don't create second profiles.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/guidelines.php

So, I suppose that Rom is staying within the rules by not having a second one, but rather a third, fourth, etc.
(There's actually a Alyson28, a Alyson29 and a Alyson30 all registered on the same day - genius).  Wonder how many he actually really has?

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I don’t despise you at all Rom.

Sure, so when you say I am  "crass", or "devoid of any moral values of my own." you are just trying to show your love, of course. Should have known.

> I don’t even know you. I just wish you’d chill out on the constant Brit bashing and be a bit more honest and open in your manner of debate.

The accusation of Brit-bashing is totally preposterous given that I am British... I would be self-bashing...

As for my manner of debate, I feel that I had a pretty productive debate with the majority of posters. I've learned a lot from what thomasdixon had to say, or again colinakmc, and others I forget. 

> This isn’t a competition on here, it’s at its best when it’s just a bit of fun.

You've brought a few interesting contextual elements to the table for which I am grateful, but for the rest, you mostly just multiplied the ad-hominem and rude comments.


We must have a very different idea of fun.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Let's get this right.

> Profiteering on the deaths of tens/hundreds of thousands in the 21st Century is OK,

Now I'm profiteering on deaths... almost the devil himself.
It's all getting a bit caricatural, don't you think?

Report
 Thrudge 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> And for those on here that continue to frame slavery as something that is purely about Europeans apologising to Africans...

They don't actually care about the slavery in Britain's or the USA's past, it's just a stick to beat people with and make them feel guilty and ashamed.  Why would they want people to feel guilty and ashamed?  Because people who feel that way are easily led into performing the actions you want them to perform, thinking the thoughts you tell them to think, and voting for the candidates you tell them to vote for. 

To be fair, it's proven highly effective with the weak-minded and the mainstream media.  It's also been effective in persuading a major US city, Minneapolis, to throw in the towel, disband the police, and hand the city over to a mob.  This is no mean achievement, in fact it's impressive.  Impressive in the same way that Hitler's tanks rolling brazenly into Poland was impressive, but impressive nevertheless.

It's a simple, cynical, power grab.  If you can't get elected democratically, you can subvert the system and seize power that way.

There are still people who will tell you that the 'woke', or the 'SJWs', or whatever it is they don't want to be called this week, are a trivial irrelevant phenomenon, confined to a few US campuses and the naive minds of students.  This argument is no longer sustainable, as evidenced by Minneapolis on a physical and governmental level, and on a conceptual level by significant (but by no means majority) acceptance of the idea that people alive now should feel race-based guilt.  

Report
 thomasadixon 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I can see the point in protecting stuff of historical or artistic value. I mentioned that before. There is also a point where you say we can't hoard every piece of crappy art that's around, especially if people don't want it or are uncomfortable with it whatever reason

That’s why we have listing.  Most things don’t get listed.

> Actually I think the opinion in Bristol was pretty much 50/50 on whether the status should stay or go. It ends up in a museum which seems like a fine compromise everybody can live with.

The petition for removing it got 11k signatures in a city of over 400k, it’s a tiny proportion of the city that asked for it not 50%.  11k isn’t even 50% of black people here.  It appears that it will end up as a monument to the BLM protesters, I see no compromise.

> Why were you not complaining about the destruction of history then?

I’ve no idea why you think comparing statues to a ruler that has just been got rid of are vaguely similar to historic statues here.

> I think the why, the how and the when do matter when it comes to getting rid of public art.

That we can agree on, but then that’s cause it’s vague as hell ;).

Report
In reply to Alyson30:

> The accusation of Brit-bashing is totally preposterous given that I am British... I would be self-bashing...

Not wishing to be called xenophobic, etc. by you for merely asking a simple question for clarification purposes, but I thought you were French?
As for the self bashing bit, why not?  It's free and everyone needs a bit of stress relief in these trying times...

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> It's a simple, cynical, power grab.  If you can't get elected democratically, you can subvert the system and seize power that way.

Can you point out to anything concrete these people have done that has changed the way you live in any significant way ?

Personally, I can't find any. Which, I think, is a pretty good indication that these radical groups have no power.

If anything, they are useful idiots you can point the finger at whilst the real authoritarians are taking power.

We've got an American president who's basically undermined every single aspect of the US constitution, here a Boris Johnson who illegally shut down Parliament, but somehow the threat to democracy is a bunch of twitter lunatic whose peak achievement was to take down statues of minor interest.

Report
In reply to Alyson30:

> Now I'm profiteering on deaths... almost the devil himself.
> It's all getting a bit caricatural, don't you think?

Hypocritical is probably a better word.
 

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Not wishing to be called xenophobic, etc. by you for merely asking a simple question for clarification purposes, but I thought you were French?

I am both, born French, naturalised British. I spent however most of my life in Britain.


You see, when you have spent considerable effort integrating in British society, learnt your language, gone through the drawn-out and expensive process of naturalisation,  paid considerable taxes and basically lived in Britain by choice (and even gone to the depth of appreciating the genius of culinary horrors such as the deep-fried haggis) to be told you're "Brit-bashing" is a bit ridiculous, and in fact quite deeply offensive to me.

Post edited at 22:44
Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Hypocritical is probably a better word.

Investing in safe havens that happen to do well in time crisis, instead of in the bullshit stock market, isn't exactly what I would call "profiteering from deaths". 

Post edited at 22:43
Report
 Thrudge 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

>  Joe Biden, the possible next US president

I know this is a side issue, but it's worth a brief comment, I think.  The 'woke' seem genuinely incapable of grasping this, but they, BLM, the Minneapolis fiasco, and demands for apologies and reparations, are going to guarantee Trump a landslide victory next time around.  Short of getting on a boat and leaving never to return, he's going to surf into the Whitehouse on a vast tide of popular support.  Existing Trump supporters will feel affirmed, fence-sitters will go with order over chaos and race-guilt, and an awful lot of Democrat voters will join them for the same reasons, or at least abstain.  Never underestimate the power of chaos to terrify, or the power of false allegations to anger.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd be arguing that the whole thing was a Trumpian plot...

In saying the woke don't get it, I'm not making an allegation of general stupidity (although some of them clearly are stupid).  If anyone has any ideas about why they think their strategy is a winner for them and not for Trump, I'd be interested to hear them.

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> >  Joe Biden, the possible next US president

> I know this is a side issue, but it's worth a brief comment, I think.  The 'woke' seem genuinely incapable of grasping this, but they, BLM, the Minneapolis fiasco, and demands for apologies and reparations, are going to guarantee Trump a landslide victory next time around. 

That's ok, interesting side point. I agree! Didn't I just say they are useful idiots?


However, I do think that it is wrong to dismiss outright a possible case for reparations, where is disagree with the radicals is that it isn't as simple as taking money from the white to give it to the blacks.

Post edited at 22:48
Report
In reply to Alyson30:

> I am both, I spent however most of my life in Britain.
> You see, when you have spent considerable effort integrating in British society, learnt your language, gone through the drawn-out and expensive process of naturalisation, as well as paying considerable and basically lived in Britain by choice (and even gone to the depth of appreciating the genius of culinary horrors such as the deep-fried haggis) to be told you're "Brit-bashing" is a bit ridiculous, and in fact quite deeply offensive to me.

Thanks for the answer.
I'm Welsh, but have spent the last twelve years living in England.
I've obviously haven't had to learn a new language and most of the behaviours and customs are essentially the same.
However, I still consider myself Welsh and will consider myself Welsh until the day I die.
So, I'm just curious why you consider yourself British, because unless you came here at a very early age I can't really see why you would want to identify as British.

Report
In reply to Alyson30:

> Investing in safe havens that happen to do well in time crisis, instead of in the bullshit stock market, isn't exactly what I would call "profiteering from deaths". 

It's fine ensuring that you're personally financially safe as anyone would be a fool to do otherwise.
It's the suggestion from more than one user on UKC that you were glibly stating that you would make a profit from the whole situation that is a bit hard to stomach.  

Report
In reply to Alyson30:

> I am both, born French, naturalised British. I spent however most of my life in Britain.

Further question if you don't mind me asking.
What age were you when you moved to the UK?

Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Thanks for the answer.

> I'm Welsh, but have spent the last twelve years living in England.

> I've obviously haven't had to learn a new language and most of the behaviours and customs are essentially the same.

> However, I still consider myself Welsh and will consider myself Welsh until the day I die.

And that's perfectly fine. Some people have more than one national identity though. That is fine too. very much an individual thing.

> So, I'm just curious why you consider yourself British, because unless you came here at a very early age I can't really see why you would want to identify as British.

And I can't see why you think I wouldn't want it. It's a place I Iove a feel a deep cultural connection with.

It's different for everybody. It doesn't have to be exclusive. 
I identify as French, British and Scottish, in ascending order, I think. But when I visit France it feels very much like visiting a foreign country, and when I go to Scotland it very much feels like my home. I think that probably says it all.

Post edited at 23:35
Report
 Alyson30 23 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Further question if you don't mind me asking.

> What age were you when you moved to the UK?

19 ( I don’t mind answering questions about myself but I am just not sure this is of interest to anybody else though !)

Post edited at 23:42
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> It's the suggestion from more than one user on UKC that you were glibly stating that you would make a profit from the whole situation that is a bit hard to stomach. 

You’ll find that those posters also let escape  pretty serious prejudice about the fact that I work in the financial services industry, which somehow makes me the scum of the earth.

The irony is that I worked in other industries before, and finance (post 2008) happened nned, to my surprise, to be the most ethical I’ve ever seen ! All they talk about is “corporate responsibility”, global warming and diversity. It’s an obsession.

Which provides a transition back to the OP, the first British companies to investigate reparation for slavery are all ... financial services !

Maybe they have some guilt to wash, you never know

Post edited at 00:11
Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

You seem very keen for some of us to say who we are, so who are you in real life (and if you can't say, why is that?)?

Report
 Siward 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

No need to know that. You're Offwidth, FactorXXX is him, I'm just me. Posting under a regularly changing assumed identity can fool people that there's a new voice perhaps with something to say, whereas I usually skip over Rom's posts completely given their standard content...

Report
 Sir Chasm 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> You seem very keen for some of us to say who we are, so who are you in real life (and if you can't say, why is that?)?

How many names do you post under?

Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Just this one username on all climbing platforms and easily identified through them. What about you?

Report
 Sir Chasm 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> Just this one username on all climbing platforms and easily identified through them. What about you?

Just the one, which is rather the point, Rom has 5 identities, that we know about.

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Siward:

> No need to know that. You're Offwidth, FactorXXX is him, I'm just me. Posting under a regularly changing assumed identity can fool people that there's a new voice perhaps with something to say, whereas I usually skip over Rom's posts completely given their standard content..

I’m sorry if using a new account was upsetting to you and I apologise.

Please consider that the harassment and stalking from another poster was upsetting to me.

Post edited at 08:42
Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Siward:

It's not that simple though is it. If most anonymous users were known I think they would be a lot more careful about what they say here. I used a fairly transparent identity mainly to keep away pestering, especially work related, but am happy to defend anything I say here in public.

Rom claims bullying and from what I see sometimes here the claim seems to have some truth but in the context of sometimes being guilty of the same behaviour. Multiple identities is not the solution and is against site rules and will get the user banned. Changing identity is not an issue as far as I can tell... no-one has any right to complain if someone does that. No one just is what their username currently is.

Report
 Sir Chasm 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I’m sorry if using a new account was upsetting to you and I apologise.

> Please consider that the harassment and stalking from another poster was upsetting to me.

Dissembling bollocks, you created your Alyson accounts 4 years ago.

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

You can verify easily that it had not been used anywhere. 

Post edited at 08:51
Report
 Sir Chasm 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> You can verify easily that it had not been used anywhere. 

What, your multiple 4 year old "new" accounts? 

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> I’m sorry if using a new account was upsetting to you and I apologise.

Not a new account. One of several old accounts. Accounts that pre-date me even knowing UKC existed.

> Please consider that the harassment and stalking from another poster was upsetting to me.

By "harassment" you mean calling you out on your bullshit, and by "stalking" you mean reading your posts, remembering those posts and correctly identifying your multiple profiles.

Sorry to spoil your creepy arsed fun but if you hadn't been such a massive bell end in so many of your responses to my posts, none of those details would have stuck in my head in the first place.

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

The point is that I am really not interested in posting under multiple profiles at the same time, I just want a couple of posters to stop stalking me around. 

Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

If you are not a playground bully and are acting to police UKC, who are you? Why do you insist on pushing this publicly when there is a report function for people breaking site rules. 

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

No, by stalking, I mean compiling a « dossier » of every single piece of personal information I may have let escape over the years, monitoring any post or change to my profile daily in the hope of uncovering my anonymity, posting multiple long winded rants about how awful I am, constantly mentioning my origin or where I live as a badge of shame.

Post edited at 09:04
Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> No, by stalking, I mean compiling a « dossier » of every single piece of personal information I may have let escape over the years, monitoring any post or change to my profile daily in the hope of uncovering my anonymity, posting multiple long winded rants about how awful I am, constantly mentioning my origin or where I live as a badge of shame.

Yeah, Rom. Care to produce evidence of any of those "multiple long winded rants" or evidence of me "constantly" mentioning your origins. And there is no "dossier", it's called a memory.

Report
 Siward 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Im not confident that yet another username won't pop up next week. Frequently changing an identity is practically indistinguishable from using multiple ones.

There is, as I see it, an issue recently with posters with no history popping up just to weigh in on controversial topics, only to disappear again later. I suppose there's no requirement that these people have any interest in this site at all but I imagine them joining numerous fora just to bang their drum on their pet issue. 

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> If you are not a playground bully and are acting to police UKC, who are you? Why do you insist on pushing this publicly when there is a report function for people breaking site rules. 

Really? After you being one of the two protagonists in UKCs longest running personal feud? Pot and kettle?

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Yeah, Rom. Care to produce evidence of any of those "multiple long winded rants" or evidence of me "constantly" mentioning your origins. And there is no "dossier", it's called a memory.

Anybody can refer to this thread or previous ones for that. I’ve already confronted you about this and explained to you why it was hurtful and toxic many times. 

If you are not going to stop, what’s even the point.

Post edited at 09:12
Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Anybody can refer to this thread or previous ones for that. I’ve already confronted you about this and explained to you why it was hurtful and toxic many times. 

The reality is that you believe you have the right to mischaracterise, misquote, misrepresent, slander and insult other posters as you wish. Any poster that responded in kind was then subjected to outraged claims that they were victimising you. You were then using multiple profiles to manipulate the like and dislike function to create the impression to the casual observer that you were perpetually the injured party.

> If you are not going to stop, what’s even the point.

As I've told you before, I'm quite happy to stop, just as soon as you quit all the above behaviour and post honestly and openly without being a bit of a tw*t about it

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> The reality is that you believe you have the right to mischaracterise, misquote, misrepresent, slander and insult other posters as you wish.

Anybody can read up the thread and see for themselves who’s been insulting.

I’m not interested in fighting with you, all I want is to be able to debate the topic, which I find most interesting,  peacefully with other posters. It was going fine.

Post edited at 09:39
Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Anybody can read up the thread and see for themselves who’s been insulting.

Yep, finally had enough of you. The "I'm profiting from covid" post was the final straw.

> I’m not interested in fighting with you, all I want is to be able to debate the topic, which I find most interesting,  peacefully with other posters.

Cool. But how about first swearing off all the underhand tricks and apologising for all the undeserved slander, then we can all crack on with a clean slate?

Report
 Sir Chasm 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> If you are not a playground bully and are acting to police UKC, who are you? Why do you insist on pushing this publicly when there is a report function for people breaking site rules. 

Who better to ask than Rom himself? Why are you pursuing this? You come across as a bit of a bully.

Report
In reply to Offwidth:

> You seem very keen for some of us to say who we are, so who are you in real life (and if you can't say, why is that?)?

You've complained to the Mods when Coel uses your real name on here and to the extent that they've given him a public ticking off for it.  This is despite the fact that your name is readilly available by clicking on your UKC personal website and that is why I occasionaly provide a Link to the relevant page of that Website.
Why do I do that?  As a reminder to you and other UKC users that your name is readily available to all and sundry and therefore complaining about someone using it on UKC is a bit strange.  Petty maybe, but your whole authorative attitude on UKC does get a bit boring at times, so why not have a dig at you occasionally?  

For Rom, it's because of his constant negative attitude about certain aspects of British life and if you read his comments he states that he is British.  A casual user would take that at face value and think that he was born and bred here.  However, the fact that he didn't come to the UK until he was 19 is pertinent as it adds context to the debate as he spent his formative years in France and that will undoubtedly have had an influence on him whether he thinks so or not.
He's also mysteriously moved to Cyprus, which adds an extra element to whether or not his views on the curent situation in the UK is entirely valid and up to date, etc.
Obviously, anyone with such a diverse experience of different countries and cultures, etc. can add a valuable viewpoint about the UK, but other UKC users should perhaps be aware of his true history and current situation, etc.

As for me.
Won't reveal my real name for various reasons. Primarily, it's an unusal name that would be instantly recognisable and I don't want that to be known as the company I work for has quite strict social media policies.
Used to have my initials as my User Name which would be my preference, but I was a naughty boy once too often and got banned... 😢
Summary though as you've asked:
Welsh, but have lived in the Bristol area for 12 years.
Early Fifties.
Work in manufacturing in a Design Lab.
Anything else?


  

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Yep, finally had enough of you. The "I'm profiting from covid" post was the final straw.

I put my money mostly in  very safe asset classes that tend to do well in times of crisis, but provide no growth most of the time.

I don’t see what is so offensive or immoral about doing that. In my view this is more moral that enriching oneself when times are good, and then ask for state support when times are bad.

If that makes you feel better, my customers budgets have pretty much cut in half across the board, so I’m expecting far less business in months and years to come.

> Cool. But how about first swearing off all the underhand tricks and apologising for all the undeserved slander, then we can all crack on with a clean slate

I apologise for posting under another account. And in hindsight this wasn’t the best way to escape your badgering. I don’t agree with the accusation of slander.

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> For Rom, it's because of his constant negative attitude about certain aspects of British life and if you read his comments he states that he is British.  A casual user would take that at face value and think that he was born and bred here.  However, the fact that he didn't come to the UK until he was 19 is pertinent as it adds context to the debate as he spent his formative years in France and that will undoubtedly have had an influence on him whether he thinks so or not.

That is exactly what is very upsetting to me, and particularly was in our previous thread. That you paint the fact that I wasn’t “born and bred” British as somehow a source of suspicion, something others “should be aware of”, in a nutshell, a reason to treat what I have to say differently.

I don’t go about framing everything you have to say as being the result of your welsh heritage. Can I have the same courtesy ?

I simply don’t see why it matters where I was I was born. What counts is the argument, may be good, may be bad, fair enough, but where I was born doesn’t matter.

I hope you understand why I felt strongly about this.

Post edited at 10:21
Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I see you continue to squirm away from how dishonestly you address your own position. For instance, I remember one post on your favourite subject, the dire state of Britain. You signed off with “I honestly fear for the future of our children”

Fair enough if written by a family man with a couple of kids who lives in Barnsley. Total misrepresentation if written by a man with no kids who lives 2000 miles away In the sunny climes of the Southern Med.

Report
 MonkeyPuzzle 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> >  Joe Biden, the possible next US president

> I know this is a side issue, but it's worth a brief comment, I think.  The 'woke' seem genuinely incapable of grasping this, but they, BLM, the Minneapolis fiasco, and demands for apologies and reparations, are going to guarantee Trump a landslide victory next time around.  Short of getting on a boat and leaving never to return, he's going to surf into the Whitehouse on a vast tide of popular support.  Existing Trump supporters will feel affirmed, fence-sitters will go with order over chaos and race-guilt, and an awful lot of Democrat voters will join them for the same reasons, or at least abstain.  Never underestimate the power of chaos to terrify, or the power of false allegations to anger.

> If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd be arguing that the whole thing was a Trumpian plot...

> In saying the woke don't get it, I'm not making an allegation of general stupidity (although some of them clearly are stupid).  If anyone has any ideas about why they think their strategy is a winner for them and not for Trump, I'd be interested to hear them.

Latest numbers have Biden ahead by 10-14 points and rising. Trump threatened to have the military invade states that didn't "crush" the protests. The military released open letters to their troops reminding them they serve the constitution and not the president. Some of the biggest supported PACs are Republican-funded anti-Trump campaigns. They are still having their first wave of COVID-19 and the Republican states are dying in their droves from opening up regardless. He's not winning a goddamn thing. The only question at this point is whether he goes peacefully or not. Sorry.

Post edited at 10:48
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I see you continue to squirm away from how dishonestly you address your own position. For instance, I remember one post on your favourite subject, the dire state of Britain.

 

I think that indeed, several western democracies are in a dire state, including Britain. A look around UKC, will tell you I’m not alone in thinking this.

A lot of the threads have to do with what’s wrong in society and that’s not particularly surprising, people are less interested in talking about what’s working well.

> Fair enough if written by a family man with a couple of kids who lives in Barnsley. Total misrepresentation if written by a man with no kids who lives 2000 miles away In the sunny climes of the Southern Med.

If you disagree you can always attack the argument. But saying that my opinion doesn’t count because I don’t have children, or where I currently reside, is not helpful, and I find it very unpleasant

Post edited at 11:09
Report
 Timmd 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> The reality is that you believe you have the right to mischaracterise, misquote, misrepresent, slander and insult other posters as you wish. Any poster that responded in kind was then subjected to outraged claims that they were victimising you. You were then using multiple profiles to manipulate the like and dislike function to create the impression to the casual observer that you were perpetually the injured party.

The like and dislike counts may have been misleading, aaargh, the horror. ;-) It's sunny here today.

Edit: I think that while there's racism which black people still encounter in the UK, there's going to be a lurking sense of the odds being stacked against them, which possibly means that acknowledging what has happened against black people 'at the hands' of the UK could mean that they feel like they have more of a place in society, which may be psychologically beneficial.

Edit 2: There could be economic and wider societal benefits to more people being psychologically healthier, but it's the individuals themselves I have in mind.

Post edited at 11:32
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Edit: I think that while there's racism which black people still encounter in the UK, there's going to be a lurking sense of the odds being stacked against them, which possibly means that acknowledging what has happened against black people 'at the hands' of the UK could mean that they feel like they have more of a place in society, which may be psychologically beneficial.

Exactly. I think it explains in part why there is very little beef left between the Jewish community and Germany. There has been unconditional apologies, many reparations, not as a one off but over decades. The Jews were also given Israel.

If you think about it it’s quite an amazing feat reconciliation.

The same can’t be said of the issues of colonisation or slavery, still haunting us and visibly causing grief today.

I think that never having really processed it or never really made proper amends is still haunting us.

After abolition in the US, Lincoln promised the slaves 40 acres of land and a mule each. The promise was never kept.

I am wondering what the US would look like today, if those people had started with this moderate amount of capital, instead of nothing. If we understand anything about how wealth compounds over time and is passed down, it may actually look very different.

Report
 Thrudge 24 Jun 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> He's not winning a goddamn thing. 

You may be right, we'll have to wait and see.  But I'd be wary of over optimism - last time the Democratic party, their supporters, and the mainstream media were utterly certain that they had it in the bag.  The shock when they lost was palpable.  

This time around, Democratic dignitaries kneeling to an extremist political movement and a Democratic local government handing a major city over to a mob is going to scare voters away from them far more powerfully than Clinton's shady email server did last time.

Report
In reply to Thrudge:

> >  Joe Biden, the possible next US president

> I know this is a side issue, but it's worth a brief comment, I think.  The 'woke' seem genuinely incapable of grasping this, but they, BLM, the Minneapolis fiasco, and demands for apologies and reparations, are going to guarantee Trump a landslide victory next time around. 

That was his plan - scare the white people into voting Republican so the cops would protect them from the blacks - but all the polling numbers say it isn't working and he can't even get decent numbers for a rally.  I think he's had it, that strategy might have worked against one of the other Democratic contenders but Biden is a known quantity.  People who lived through the Obama administration know what a Biden administration would be like.

Trump is also looking increasingly precarious in terms of physical and mental health.  It's hard to look like a strong man when you can't even hold a cup of water in one hand or walk down a ramp.

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Trump is also looking increasingly precarious in terms of physical and mental health.  It's hard to look like a strong man when you can't even hold a cup of water in one hand or walk down a ramp.That may be true that Tru

It may be that Trump will be kicked out soon (even if he cheats or refuses to leave the white house, as it is now widely predicted)
However, I don't think we should count on this changing things much in the US.

The Trump presidency was just the acceleration of the decline of America as a great democracy - and towards what looks increasingly like a failed state, plagued by social problems, racial tensions, economic problems, health problems.


And actually, that started well before Trump.

It's pretty scary, actually, who knows what some of these numerous white supremacist paramilitary groups armed to the teeth will do after a Biden victory. Increasingly looking like a powder keg.

Post edited at 13:22
Report
 Thrudge 24 Jun 2020

-In reply to Alyson30:

> Can you point out to anything concrete these people have done that has changed the way you live in any significant way ?

A sly try there, Rom    If I haven't been sacked or physically attacked, if something concrete hasn't happened to me personally, well just move along nothing to see here.  It's a very poor argument.  Let's have a look at what has changed recently in the West:

1)  In the UK, going to see your mum during a pandemic is illegal, but if 10,000 gather to shout about the death of a thug in another country and thereby massively increase the infection rate, that's absolutely fine.  Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

2)  In the UK, mobs are allowed to destroy statues while the police stand back and Cressida Dick, one of the countries most senior police officers, kneels in obeisance to the mob.

3)  There is growing acceptance of the demonstrable lie that Britain - one of the most tolerant and diverse nations on Earth, and the one that ended slavery in the West - is a racist hellhole of vile proportions.

4)  Twitter mobs are foolishly and lazily treated as the 'voice of the people' by mainstream media and many politicians, vastly magnifying their influence on the discourse, the formation of policy, and the behaviour of important dignitaries - I'm thinking of the appropriately named and epically feeble Ms Dick again.

5)  Virtual and physical mobs are on a mission to erase history and entertainment, I suspect as test cases to see how far they can push.  Given their successes, we can be sure their demands will only get bigger and bolder.

6)  Virtual mobs are on a mission to victimize individuals in a very real sense by seeking to get them sacked for comments, or even likes, on social media platforms. 

7)  The radicals claiming to be anti-authoritarian are in fact profoundly authoritarian, constantly seeking state sanction against speech with which they disagree.

8)  The idea of race guilt is gaining acceptance in the UK and the US, but only with a highly vocal and media-savvy minority.  They contrive to make it look like a fairly reasonable mainstream position because, as previously noted, the media and some politicians see them as the vox populi.

9)  The idea of monetary reparations for slavery is having similar success.

10)  In the US, a major city has been ceded to the mob.

That lot is just off the top of my head, but it will do for now.

> Personally, I can't find any. Which, I think, is a pretty good indication that these radical groups have no power.

Personally, if I was in Germany in 1939, as a gentile I'd be unaffected.  So everything would be hunky dory, right?  Regarding power, see points 1 to 10 above.

> If anything, they are useful idiots you can point the finger at whilst the real authoritarians are taking power.

With 'useful idiots' I think you're adopting what you perceive to be the language of your enemy in order to camouflage yourself and present your opinions as those of a middle of the road commentator.  Where you went wrong was to repeatedly declare yourself in the SJW camp - on race guilt, on apologies for slavery, on reparations, and on the destruction of history in the form of statues.

I'm willing to call it here - I think you are deliberately and knowingly dishonest in what you represent to be your opinions.  This allegation is buttressed by the existence of your sock puppet accounts.  I think you know that yours is an extremist position, and a minority one.  And your approach is typical of many on the SJW side: a rock solid belief that you are so much more intelligent than your opponents that they will not notice your dishonesty and allow your misrepresentation of the facts to pass unnoticed.  Why you would persist in the face of so much evidence to the contrary is anyone's guess.

Report
 Cobra_Head 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> 1)  In the UK, going to see your mum during a pandemic is illegal, but if 10,000 gather to shout about the death of a thug in another country and thereby massively increase the infection rate, that's absolutely fine.  Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

Bias much?
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> A sly try there, Rom    If I haven't been sacked or physically attacked, if something concrete hasn't happened to me personally, well just move along nothing to see here.  It's a very poor argument.  Let's have a look at what has changed recently in the West:

No, I actually think it's a very good argument, because - and we can show this very well with data - in matters of a political issues there is often a large disconnect between perception and reality.

My assessment is that when it comes to this cultural war, perception far exceeds the reality, on both sides.
BLM/Antifa and so see racism and fascists everywhere, whilst the new alt-right sees a far-left communist plot everywhere.

IMO perception far exceeds reality, there is probably a lot fewer fascists and racism than BLM thinks, and the far-left has probably a lot less power than the EDL thinks. You just need to look at elections results to realise that. Most people are actually somewhere along the spectrum.

And I think this suits very well the people who have the real power,, because whilst people are angry at each other for imaginary reasons, we're not angry at them.

Not quoting back all the reasons you quoted for space considerations, but actually all of them seem fairly anecdotal. You are always going to find something, somewhere, some wrong that has been done by some group of people you don't like. The question is whether they are actually having a significant impact.
 

> Personally, if I was in Germany in 1939, as a gentile I'd be unaffected.  So everything would be hunky dory, right?  Regarding power, see points 1 to 10 above.

That is actually a very good argument and I accept the challenge.
It is true that when an authoritarian power sweeps in, it is often the case that those not in the group persecuted by it don’t realise it.

The only problem with it is that I am bang on the type of person the SJW should hate: white, male, privileged, and - worst of all - work in finance.

And yet I can't think of any way I've been impacted negatively by their actions. There are two possible reasons, either I'm very lucky, or they don't have much reach.

> With 'useful idiots' I think you're adopting what you perceive to be the language of your enemy in order to camouflage yourself and present your opinions as those of a middle of the road commentator.  Where you went wrong was to repeatedly declare yourself in the SJW camp - on race guilt, on apologies for slavery, on reparations, and on the destruction of history in the form of statues.

And I think what this betrays is that you absolutely want to put me in your « social justice warrior » box of people you hate, because it’s a lot easier to do than actually picking at my argument.

It’s VERY easy to say that the case for slave trade reparation is just SJW bullshit.

To actually try to examine in detail the complex ethical pickle that it is and look at the proposal on its own merit, as I have tried to do, that would require some effort on your part.

Post edited at 15:29
Report
 Timmd 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> 1)  In the UK, going to see your mum during a pandemic is illegal, but if 10,000 gather to shout about the death of a thug in another country and thereby massively increase the infection rate, that's absolutely fine.  Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

Where were the calls of racist about those who didn't agree with people gathering to protest?

Edit: Genuine question. 

Post edited at 15:28
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> 1)  In the UK, going to see your mum during a pandemic is illegal, but if 10,000 gather to shout about the death of a thug in another country and thereby massively increase the infection rate, that's absolutely fine.  Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

I completely disagree with the idea of holding mass protests during the height of the pandemic. I find it completely irresponsible - lives are at stake.
Nobody told me I was racist.

Post edited at 15:35
Report
 Timmd 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30: I had the impression he was talking more about 'in the media', but I'm keen to know about who and where.

Post edited at 15:39
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> I had the impression he was talking more about 'in the media', but I'm keen to know about who and where.

Didn’t hear anything like that in the media (and I check out the guardian every day... you’d think it would be there !)

Post edited at 15:46
Report
In reply to Alyson30:

> Didn’t hear anything like that in the media (and I check out the guardian every day... you’d think it would be there !)

Think it might be a reference to the 'Silence is Violence' meme. 

Report
 1932 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> After abolition in the US, Lincoln promised the slaves 40 acres of land and a mule each. The promise was never kept.

To be fair to the poor fella he was shot in the head before the end of the war. 

Report
 Timmd 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

Who knows, if it's worth including in a post, it's probably relatively ready to hand for Thrudge to put a link to I'm thinking. 

Without casting aspersions....

Post edited at 15:56
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to 1932:

> To be fair to the poor fella he was shot in the head before the end of the war. 

True ! Well actually it was implemented and seemed to have a large positive effect for the brief period it lasted. It was the next president who basically quashed the order and returned the land to the planters who originally owned it - the very people who had declared war on the United States of America...

Post edited at 16:25
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Think it might be a reference to the 'Silence is Violence' meme. 

Never heard of it.

Report
 elsewhere 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> 1)  In the UK, going to see your mum during a pandemic is illegal, but if 10,000 gather to shout about the death of a thug in another country and thereby massively increase the infection rate, that's absolutely fine.  Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

The Telegraph,  cnn etc are reporting there has been no detectable surge in infection associated with protests.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/24/us/coronavirus-cases-protests-black-lives-matter-trnd/index.html

Report
 Thrudge 24 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Think it might be a reference to the 'Silence is Violence' meme. 

It was, and to the repeated characterisation of opposition to BLM and its aims as 'alt-right' (code for "racist/fascist and trying to hide it") or far right, i.e openly racist/fascist.

The Guardian had this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/far-right-protesters-plan-defence-of-statues-such-as-churchills

The article uncritically equates defence of national monuments as a far right activity, without a word about the idea that wishing to prevent mobs from committing politically motivated vandalism might be both a reasonable and a widely held view.  Standard for The Guardian, of course.

In the same vein, on this thread a few posts above, we have Rom with this sly little gem: "the far-left has probably a lot less power than the EDL thinks".  Think the far left has too much power?   Ah, you're EDL, then.  Or maybe just a sympathiser, eh?  

Report
 Ridge 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Exactly. I think it explains in part why there is very little beef left between the Jewish community and Germany. There has been unconditional apologies, many reparations, not as a one off but over decades. The Jews were also given Israel.

I don't think Germany had much to do with 'giving the Jews Israel’. Plus there are 'new' anti-semites around that are seen as a far more pressing issue than the events of 80 years ago and present day Germans.

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> I don't think Germany had much to do with 'giving the Jews Israel’.

That is true, wasn’t the best exemple.

> Plus there are 'new' anti-semites around that are seen as a far more pressing issue than the events of 80 years ago and present day Germans.

Also true but you’ll find it hard to deny they the reconciliation of the German people with the Jewish community has been fairly thorough and very quick by historical standards.

Report
 Timmd 24 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Think it might be a reference to the 'Silence is Violence' meme. 

Which probably has it's roots in whoever it was who said that those who look on while unjust things happen and don't act towards preventing them, are also complicit.

''1)  In the UK, going to see your mum during a pandemic is illegal, but if 10,000 gather to shout about the death of a thug in another country and thereby massively increase the infection rate, that's absolutely fine.  Anyone who disagrees is a racist.''

That's not the same as calling somebody racist who is critical of people gathering together to protest because of the risks of covid19, though, as would seem to be implied, I think it's rather important not to blur the reality of things.

It seems like nothing has been presented along the lines of somebody being called racist for disagreeing.

Post edited at 17:26
Report
 Timmd 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

''1)  In the UK, going to see your mum during a pandemic is illegal, but if 10,000 gather to shout about the death of a thug in another country and thereby massively increase the infection rate, that's absolutely fine.  Anyone who disagrees is a racist.''

What has him being 'a thug' got to do with the injustice of him being murdered by a police officer kneeling on his neck, keeping in mind that these are the charges being brought?

If he didn't have a criminal past that, that would make it more unjust - is that what you mean?

Post edited at 17:20
Report
 elsewhere 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

People on the streets to defend monuments were far right. The Nazi salute is a big clue.

https://www.indy100.com/article/london-protests-far-right-nazi-salutes-cenotaph-london-9564516

That's not to say all those who dislike desecration of a secular but sacred symbol are far right. Just that those on the streets to protect monuments were.

Post edited at 17:24
Report
 Timmd 24 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere: Yes, the Nazi salutes were a huge cracking clue. Is it the Guardian or some on here who are being economical with the truth?

Edit: I've no particular partiality to anybody on this thread as far as the debate goes - I've been out painting, it's just how things seem apparent to me.

Post edited at 17:31
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> It was, and to the repeated characterisation of opposition to BLM and its aims as 'alt-right' (code for "racist/fascist and trying to hide it") or far right, i.e openly racist/fascist.

That’s not what I mean at all by alt-right. Maybe my interpretation of the term is wrong.

I observe that numerous people whom I know to be decent, non-racist, people, have suddenly started using their social media profile to post a constant stream of hyperbolic outrage and memes about the far-left conspiracy taking over the world.

That’s what I would call the « alt-right ». They are not racist or fascist, they are just caught in a loop of constant outrage and poisoning their own mind with dubious stuff they find on social media, with no measure or nuance.

Their perception of reality seems increasingly disconnected from it.

> The Guardian had this:

> The article uncritically equates defence of national monuments as a far right activity.

Well sorry but I’m reading the article and it merely states that the police was worried about far right groups descending to protect monuments, which is actually what has happened.

> In the same vein, on this thread a few posts above, we have Rom with this sly little gem: "the far-left has probably a lot less power than the EDL thinks".  Think the far left has too much power?   Ah, you're EDL, then.  Or maybe just a sympathiser, eh? 


Nice try with your twisted interpretation. I’ve never said you were EDL, and anybody can check that. Please do not assume that everybody has your obsessive need to stick a that king label on everyone.

It was only an example to illustrate the polarisation between extremes.

Post edited at 17:36
Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

Thanks for the honesty about yourself. I've explained why I keep a veneer of anonymity and how it is a veneer; so find it amusing you link to our website, as only a moron wouldn't think to do that. It's not the only way I can be identified easily.

If I have the longest running 'feud' on UKC with Coel (only since 2016) it's because I can't stand his dog whistle politics blaming all religious muslims for the crimes of medieval versions of Islam. Also blaming the woke left for most of the current evils in the US... just ridiculous in a country currently dominated by right wing popularist politics. The fact he is a fellow academic scientist in a subject where we struggle with UK BAME participation and success, and a keen climber being negative towards muslims in an activity heavily underrepresented by such BAME participants, makes it worse. UKC is oddly one of the few places I know where his ideas get any public sympathy and support. I'd call it a mission to challenge such dinosaur attitudes, rather than a feud. I don't get why UKC changes racist route names yet tolerates someone blaming a whole religion; of in climbing the most underrepresented fraction of our society. I would strongly defend the right to call out actual evils of religion and give plenty of leeway on that but UK muslims are mostly good citizens.

On names, it's always been OK to be guarded about identity with an anonymous username. Arguing against this, to 'out' someone's real name is explicitly against site rules and you and Coel both know this. It's also against site rules to have multiple concurrent accounts. There is no need to have a tantrum on here about such subjects ... just report it. I have no worries about reporting such things myself but it is fabulously ironic that most times you and Coel have accused me of this I didn't do so.

I expect no better of Coel than to continue to call me a coward and a little shit and a puppet of Islamists, as a defender of ordinary good UK muslims and a supporter of work to improve diversity in science and climbing (the two things I've spent most time on in my life).

Report
 climbercool 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Timmd:

your right, it has nothing to do with the injustice of him being murdered by a police officer. However, the fact that he and five friends forced their way into a young mothers home and then struck her multiple times with a pistol whilst Floyd held a pistol to her tummy should have an impact on him being help up as a martyr to the black community.

Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Timmd:

Again a thoroughly dishonest label given his history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd. ... just like the distraction on UKC of bringing up shootings when a handcuffed man was killed on film by a policeman kneeling on his neck who had af record of multiple previous complaints. Just who was the real thug?

Report
 Ridge 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Also true but you’ll find it hard to deny they the reconciliation of the German people with the Jewish community has been fairly thorough and very quick by historical standards.

It's an interesting one. My first question would be how deep is this reconciliation? The UK is ostensibly reconciled with Japan after the war, but there's a huge amount of animosity towards the Japanese amongst though who fought them or were held prisoner of war by them. That hostility isn't present in the younger generations, who mostly think the war was that ancient thing that was in black and white that happened, like, hundreds of years ago.  Is the reconciliation between the Jewish and Germans (noting that a lot of Jews are also of German heritage) any different?

Also is there a religious aspect to forgiving your enemy? 

There's also the “Nazi” aspect. In pretty much any other conflict if you ask the combatants or descendants who they fought against/had their village burnt by it will be “the f***ing English / French / Turks / Serbs” etc. WW2 it was the “Nazis”. A specific ideology, rather than a country. To an extent it breaks the chain of blame. It's hard to blame the present generation if they're really sorry about that other bunch with the black uniforms and the swastikas and stuff.

It might be more illuminating to ask why people persist in hanging on to nationalist, racial or religious grudges for several generations when most people, (after the bad guys are pretty much all dead), generally move on.

Report
 elsewhere 24 Jun 2020
In reply to climbercool:

> your right, it has nothing to do with the injustice of him being murdered by a police officer. However, the fact that he and five friends forced their way into a young mothers home and then struck her multiple times with a pistol whilst Floyd held a pistol to her tummy should have an impact on him being help up as a martyr to the black community.

None of which was happening when held down by three police officers.

Even if it were Rose West she should not be suffocated to death under restraint.

Post edited at 18:21
Report
 climbercool 24 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

Did you read my post? I specifically mentioned it has nothing to do with the crime committed by the police officers.

Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to climbercool:

He was a reformed criminal and was involved in that armed robbery but the story has been heavily embellished in the right wing press: in particular there is no clear evidence he pointed his gun at the woman's stomach.

He is a martyr because he was slowly killed in front of a complaining public by a policeman and all on film. You don't deserved to be killed in a civilized society when arrested and cuffed for trying to pass a counterfeit $20 note.

Report
 climbercool 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

a reformed criminal, who told you that, his mum?  Their is evidence he pointed a gun at the woman's stomach.  https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Even if it were Rose West she should not be suffocated to death under restraint.

Maybe it makes me a bad person, but if West had suffocated whilst restrained by police, I doubt I'd be too worried about the injustice of it all. 

As far as pathologists could tell, many of the West's victims suffocated to death under restraint, after first undergoing days of rape and sexual torture. 

Report
 climbercool 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

 "You don't deserved to be killed in a civilized society when arrested and cuffed for trying to pass a counterfeit $20 note."

What is the point in this sentence? obviously everybody already knows this. 

It's funny that in a single post you claim he is a reformed criminal in your first sentence and than in your second sentence you mention that he had just used a counterfeit note.

Post edited at 18:40
Report
 thomasadixon 24 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

It was interesting that story - the only guy I can see clearly in the screenshot is “saluting” with both hands.  In the vid they’re doing “Nazi salutes” with one finger, and closed hands.  They’re not very good at them, if that’s what they were doing.

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> He was a reformed criminal and was involved in that armed robbery but the story has been heavily embellished in the right wing press: in particular there is no clear evidence he pointed his gun at the woman's stomach.

Reformed? Had he been prescribed the fentanyl and methamphetamine he was high on at the time? 

Report
 Timmd 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate: I'm hoping you acknowledge your own recreational enjoyment while casting judgement?

Post edited at 18:54
Report
In reply to Offwidth:

> If I have the longest running 'feud' on UKC with Coel (only since 2016) it's because I can't stand his dog whistle politics blaming all religious muslims for the crimes of medieval versions of Islam.

Offwidth is lying.  I do not blame "all religious muslims" (= people) for the crimes.  I blame the ideology for the crimes it inspires.  

And, of course the vast majority of "religious Muslims" do not commit such crimes.   

>  Also blaming the woke left for most of the current evils in the US... just ridiculous in a country currently dominated by right wing popularist politics.

But then I've not said it's to blame for "most" of the evils, only some of them.   Offwidth is not honest, he always twists things.

> ...  and a keen climber being negative towards muslims ...

Nope.  That should be "negative towards Islam" (the ideology), not towards people.

>  I don't get why UKC changes racist route names yet tolerates someone blaming a whole religion; ...

You'll not that he uttered not a peep about Jon's characterisation of the Catholic Church as "monstrously evil". 

> ... but UK muslims are mostly good citizens.

Of course they are.  Note how Offwidth, rather dishonestly, tries to give the impression that I would disagree.

> I expect no better of Coel than to continue to call me a coward ...

Well you are, refusing to put your name to your lies about me.

Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I thought you deal with the desperation and waste that is the life of addicts? I think decriminalisation would do everyone a favour.. help the victims get clean, add tax revenue, and stop the really nasty gangs that distribute and cause hell for many thousands around them with organised crime activity. Everyone in that vast number of nice middle class people with clean records who has purchased drugs or conterfeit goods that track back to such gangs is in my view just as morally guilty.

On him being reformed to an extent his pastor was happy with the work he had done in his church.

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

>> I see you continue to squirm away from how dishonestly you address your own position. For instance, I remember one post on your favourite subject, the dire state of Britain. You signed off with “I honestly fear for the future of our children”

> I think that indeed, several western democracies are in a dire state, including Britain. A look around UKC, will tell you I’m not alone in thinking this. A lot of the threads have to do with what’s wrong in society and that’s not particularly surprising, people are less interested in talking about what’s working well.

>> Fair enough if written by a family man with a couple of kids who lives in Barnsley. Total misrepresentation if written by a man with no kids who lives 2000 miles away In the sunny climes of the Southern Med.

>If you disagree you can always attack the argument. But saying that my opinion doesn’t count because I don’t have children, or where I currently reside, is not helpful, and I find it very unpleasant

What exactly is wrong with you? What is it now? 4, 5 times on this thread alone that I've stated that all I'd like to see from you is honest debate and an end to your continual slander and misrepresentation.... and you reply with this minus the redacted sentence I've restored in bold. Do you think people are too thick to notice that you constantly alter the meaning of the posts you respond to?

The source of much of the animosity you garner on here is your ingrained dishonesty combined with a belief that you're twice as clever as you actually are and everyone else is twice as stupid.

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> I thought you deal with the desperation and waste that is the life of addicts? I think decriminalisation would do everyone a favour.. help the victims get clean, add tax revenue, and stop the really nasty gangs that distribute and cause hell for many thousands around them with organised crime activity. Everyone in that vast number of nice middle class people with clean records who has purchased drugs or conterfeit goods that track back to such gangs is in my view just as morally guilty.

> On him being reformed to an extent his pastor was happy with the work he had done in his church.

I also support decriminalisation of drugs and more help for addicts. Just because that's my personal belief doesn't change the fact that it's stretching the truth to describe an illicit drug user passing counterfeit notes as "a reformed criminal".

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> I'm hoping you acknowledge your own recreational enjoyment while casting judgement?

I'm certainly reformed, the person I was a quarter of a century ago bears very little resemblance to the boring old fart I am today

Edit: Not completely wasted experience. Before covid stopped everything I volunteered through the local constabulary to help socially disadvantaged teenagers. There's nearly always the chance to put past mistakes to good use.

Post edited at 19:15
Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well I think most muslims who practice Islam would really struggle to discern that faint distinction. If you say Islam is evil you are calling their most important practice as evil. You could stick to just calling out the genuinely bad in religions like most moral humanists and atheists do. I'd challenge Jon just as strongly on Catholicism being monstrously evil, despite agreeing some monstrous evils continue to be committed in its name and much worse in the past. I'd ask as well why pick on Islam so much as the same arguments really apply to any major religion... comparing evils from your perspective is like comparing bigger infinities. If you say it's because Islam is the worst for religious abuses, then I'd agree and think you demonstrate maybe the whole thing being totally evil is an exaggeration. I'd also ask if you can compare religions that way why don't you complain more about the much larger evils of US popularism than those of the woke left. Your entire agenda looks like it's lifted from the distorted viewpoint of the US popularist right.

My name is as easily found as it ever was.

Report
 elsewhere 24 Jun 2020
In reply to climbercool:

> Did you read my post? I specifically mentioned it has nothing to do with the crime committed by the police officers.

Sorry. I don't understand. If the criminal record is not relevant to the death that makes his death no less or no more a martyrdom and as worth protesting either way.

Post edited at 19:24
Report
 elsewhere 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

Yeah, but we want the jury trial to sort that out and not the police.

Report
In reply to Offwidth and Coel:

No!
Please don't start another debate on this thread as it's like watching two bald men fighting over a comb...

Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

It's a label that fairly relates to his more recent contributions to society through his church as opposed to his actions around addictions. I'd describe any addict in the same way, in their wider context. A single conterfeit note as part of a group buying cigarettes is not part of an organised crime effort to defraud it is just a petty crime that addicts often fall into to fund their habit. I know some social conservatives feel different but it's notable how quickly that tends to change when they or their family end up in middle class crime problems.... upstanding members of society who just made a stupid mistake....

Post edited at 19:33
Report
 Thrudge 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> What has him being 'a thug' got to do with the injustice of him being murdered by a police officer kneeling on his neck, keeping in mind that these are the charges being brought?

If you'd like me to clarify my view of his murder, I'm happy to do so.  It was unjust.  State actors, including the police, should not be murdering citizens.

Where I diverge from the opinions of many is in two instances:

1)  I do not view Floyd as a martyr.  Partly because of his ugly history, and partly because I have yet to see or even hear of any evidence that his murder was racially motivated.

2)  Putting Floyd aside, I do not accept the narrative that US police officers go around shooting black people willy-nilly for no good reason.  Whilst there are undoubtedly (and inevitably) cases of bad judgement calls by police, time and again we see a rush to judgement and civil unrest, up to and including riots, on the grounds that 'he wuz murdered by the cops!'.  Only to find out later through video evidence that the poor innocent was an armed felon either attacking the police or attempting to.

A recent example of point 2 would be Rayshard Brooks.  Arrested for drunk driving (he actually fell asleep waiting for his food at Wendy's drive-through, and police had trouble waking him) Brooks didn't just resist arrest - he fought two police officers, stole one of their tasers, and fled.  When pursued, he fired the taser at them and was subsequently shot dead.  This suicidal behaviour prompted the burning down of the Wendy's branch.

> If he didn't have a criminal past that, that would make it more unjust - is that what you mean?

Yes.  It was unjust, full stop.  However, if it were not Floyd but some exemplary character that was murdered, that would make it worse.

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Yeah, but we want the jury trial to sort that out and not the police.

I’d agree. My only quibble is your assumption that he’s reformed when the scant information in the public domain doesn’t support such a definitive characterisation.

Report
 elsewhere 24 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

Open palms look clearer on this one 

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/13/far-right-thugs-nazi-salutes-london-cenotaph-war-memorial-black-lives-matter/

Otherwise a fine bunch of lads fighting the police and whatnot.

Post edited at 19:39
Report
In reply to Offwidth:

> Well I think most muslims who practice Islam would really struggle to discern that faint distinction.

And yet you make sure to "quote" me your twisted way, so I don't believe that you or anyone else is struggling with the distinction.  It is deliberate misrepresentation on your part.

> If you say Islam is evil you are calling their most important practice as evil.

The "ideology", not the "practice".  (I've explicitly said that many cultural practices that are part of a religion are benign.) Again, you twist.  And again it's deliberate.

> You could stick to just calling out the genuinely bad in religions like most moral humanists and atheists do.

Once you've called out the bad in Islamic ideology, what is left is no longer "Islam".

> I'd ask as well why pick on Islam so much as the same arguments really apply to any major religion...

My answer? Because no-one objects if you say such things about other religions!

> If you say it's because Islam is the worst for religious abuses,... 

It's the worst in its ideology because its ideology is the most totalitarian of the major religions.   It's not just about "abuses", the harmful aspects are central to its core.

> I'd also ask if you can compare religions that way why don't you complain more about the much larger evils of US popularism than those of the woke left.

There's no shortage of anti-Trump commentary in the mainstream media. Criticising Trump is like shooting fish in a barrel.  It's also pointless since everyone here would agree with me.   A conversation that went: "I agree", "me too", "thirded" ... would be rather pointless. 

Report
 elsewhere 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I am barely aware of his criminal history so my assumptions are minimal. However I don't see criminal record as relevant to the way a man (in handcuffs?) is suffocated to death rather than driven off in custody.

Update: just looked on wiki. No criminal offences since 2013 after about 9 or more previously. Either he became a far more proficient criminal or he reformed after 2013. The latter would seem to be a far more plausible assumption than suddenly acquiring criminal mastermind ability to dodge detection.

Post edited at 19:51
Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> I am barely aware of his criminal history so my assumptions are minimal. However I don't see criminal record as relevant to the way a man (in handcuffs?) is suffocated to death rather than driven off in custody.

and I've stated otherwise elsewhere, elsewhere? It's not the view I hold and I've never even hinted it might be.

Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You say it's fundamentally evil and gave apostasy as a key reason and I linked a source that clearly disproves that for some Islamic religious scholars and in law it never applies in any western secular state. Every point you ever make on the subject is an exaggeration or cherry picked nastiness and all disprovable for its application to the faith practised by some UK muslims. You regularly accuse me of being a puppet for Islamists when I despise them and yet they gain succour from the sort of arguments you espouse that increase the divisions in secular society they actively seek to ferment.

As for calling out the right being too common to be interesting, that's just lame. Again it's easy to sermonise (it's odd how you share so many characteristics with fundamentalist preachers) on the dangers in 'wokeness' without losing the context of bigger evils.

Post edited at 20:07
Report
 Thrudge 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> That’s not what I mean at all by alt-right. Maybe my interpretation of the term is wrong.

Perhaps your using a different definition to the widely accepted one.  Allow me to assist:

"The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States. A largely online phenomenon, the alt-right originated in the U.S. during the 2010s, although it has since established a presence in various other countries. The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics. Groups which have been identified as alt-right also espouse white supremacism, white separatism, tight immigration restrictions, racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, antifeminism, homophobia, and islamophobia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

> I observe that numerous people whom I know to be decent, non-racist, people, have suddenly started using their social media profile to post a constant stream of hyperbolic outrage and memes about the far-left conspiracy taking over the world.

And in part 1 of this thread you posited a conspiracy of governments to fuel protest in order to distract attention from their misdeeds.  So, it's conspiracy theory vs conspiracy theory.  OK....

> Well sorry but I’m reading the article and it merely states that the police was worried about far right groups descending to protect monuments, which is actually what has happened.

And here we go with Uncle Rom's Big Lie Train again... Perhaps you didn't read the headline.  It's the bit in big letters at the top which says, "Campaigners fear far-right 'defence' of statues such as Churchill's".  Last time I looked, 'campaigners' wasn't spelt p-o-l-i-c-e.  The 'campaigners' in this case are our old race-baiter friends and ever ready Guardian news sources, Hope Not Hate.

The article does not state "that the police [were] worried about far right groups descending to protect monuments".  It does not even imply that.  The total input from the police in that article is this:

“We’re aware of a number of protests due to take place.”

I suppose you're hoping readers of this thread will be too busy to read the article, so you can get away with misrepresenting it. 

> Nice try with your twisted interpretation. I’ve never said you were EDL, and anybody can check that. 

And I never said you did say I was EDL.  There you go misrepresenting again.  I said you insinuated that believing the far left to have too much power puts one in the same camp as the EDL.  Guilt by association is quite a powerful tool, isn't it?  

I've been musing on a couple of things.  Firstly, your repeated dishonesty, and secondly your complete nonchalance every time you get caught out, as if being exposed as dishonest were utterly trivial.  And I think that perhaps Stichtplate has been doing you a disservice in failing to recognise the sophistication of your method.  I think you're unconcerned about being exposed because your aim is not to persuade with reason but simply to keep pushing the agenda.  I think it was Hemingway who said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".  I suspect you're taking the spammers approach - get the message out there often enough and you'll snag at least some fish.  2,328 views and counting on this thread - you're bound to catch a few.

Report
In reply to Offwidth:

> You say it's fundamentally evil and gave apostasy as a key reason and I linked a source that clearly disproves that for some Islamic religious scholars ...

Point me at one major school of Islamic Jurisprudence that declares that apostasy is an individual's right, that it should not be punished, and that apostates should be able to continue to live peacefully in their community.

> ... and in law it never applies in any western secular state.

What the heck is that supposed to show?  Were Nazi laws not bad because they never applied in New Zealand?

Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Those major schools are mostly self appointed medievalists organisations  linked to undemocratic state power bases,  so you again exaggerate by setting up a subset of scholars where its almost almost impossible to counter your argument and one that I don't care to check if there are exceptions. The Islamic scholars in secular countries who wrote the books saying apostasy was wrong are just acting as normal independent academics. Apostasy used to be a crime in Christianity as well and some extreme christians think it still should be.

I should add, on your beloved false equivalence, that being a Nazi is a crime in many secular western countries where the right to worship as a muslim is protected in law, including the legal right to decide to stop being that.

Post edited at 20:45
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> Perhaps your using a different definition to the widely accepted one.  Allow me to assist:

> "The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States. A largely online phenomenon, the alt-right originated in the U.S. during the 2010s, although it has since established a presence in various other countries. The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics. Groups which have been identified as alt-right also espouse white supremacism, white separatism, tight immigration restrictions, racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, antifeminism, homophobia, and islamophobia."

Well my definition was quite different, apologies, not everybody is super familiar with the latest culture-war terminology.

As the article said it’s ill-defined. I’ve clarified my interpretation anyway so that should have settled the matter.

> And in part 1 of this thread you posited a conspiracy of governments to fuel protest in order to distract attention from their misdeeds.  So, it's conspiracy theory vs conspiracy theory.  OK....

I’ve not posited any conspiracy. Again a total overstretch.

> And here we go with Uncle Rom's Big Lie Train again... Perhaps you didn't read the headline.  It's the bit in big letters at the top which says, "Campaigners fear far-right 'defence' of statues such as Churchill's".  Last time I looked, 'campaigners' wasn't spelt p-o-l-i-c-e.  The 'campaigners' in this case are our old race-baiter friends and ever ready Guardian news sources, Hope Not Hate.

> The article does not state "that the police [were] worried about far right groups descending to protect monuments".  It does not even imply that.  The total input from the police in that article is this:

Ok, correction, police AND campaigners. That doesn’t really change anything at all, as it still doesn’t confirm your claim, but, OK.

> “We’re aware of a number of protests due to take place.”

> I suppose you're hoping readers of this thread will be too busy to read the article, so you can get away with misrepresenting it. 

> And I never said you did say I was EDL.  There you go misrepresenting again. 

 

Ok, very slight difference. I take the correction. Still a twist of what I have said.

> I said you insinuated that believing the far left to have too much power puts one in the same camp as the EDL. 

 

Wasn’t my intention in any way nor even the thrust of my argument, this is just your far fetched interpretation.
 

> I've been musing on a couple of things.  Firstly, your repeated dishonesty, and secondly your complete nonchalance every time you get caught out, as if being exposed as dishonest were utterly trivial.  And I think that perhaps Stichtplate has been doing you a disservice in f ailing to recognise the sophistication of your method.  I think you're unconcerned about being exposed because your aim is not to persuade with reason but simply to keep pushing the agenda.  I think it was Hemingway who said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".  I suspect you're taking the spammers approach - get the message out there often enough and you'll snag at least some fish.  2,328 views and counting on this thread - you're bound to catch a few.

Did you realise that, if you spent as much energy trying to make a sensible case as you do trying to find ways to cast me as an evil dishonest social justice warrior, you may actually teach us something ?

Report
In reply to Offwidth:

> Apostasy used to be a crime in Christianity as well and some extreme christians think it still should be.

Why yes, Christianity used to be bad also.  But Christianity has reformed for the better since the Reformation and Enlightenment. 

And a handful of independent academics arguing for reform of Islam does not refute my statements about mainstream Islam today.

Report
 Thrudge 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Ok, correction, police AND campaigners.

No, as you're aware, that is not a correction, it's another lie.  You really are a very naughty fellow.  It is not the police and campaigners, it is campaigners (highly biased political activist campaigners, BTW) and campaigners only.  Again, here is the the entire input from the police in that article: “We’re aware of a number of protests due to take place.”

> Did you realise that, if you spent as much energy trying to make a sensible case as you do trying to find ways to cast me as an evil dishonest social justice warrior, you may actually teach us something ?

Did you realise that I've made an extensive case, and that the best you can do to counter it is "nothing to see here".  Of course you do.  Gotta keep pretending to be reasonable and pushing those lies, though, eh? 

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> The source of much of the animosity you garner on here is your ingrained dishonesty combined with a belief that you're twice as clever as you actually are and everyone else is twice as stupid.

Yes, we know the refrain, I am an awful terrible person....

You are the principal source of animosity on here.

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> No, as you're aware, that is not a correction, it's another lie.  You really are a very naughty fellow.  It is not the police and campaigners, it is campaigners (highly biased political activist campaigners, BTW) and campaigners only.  Again, here is the the entire input from the police in that article: “We’re aware of a number of protests due to take place.”

Ok, but your claim (correct me if I am wrong) is that the article implied that if you wish to protect the statues from potential damage, you are a racist.

I have not seen that in the article you’ve posted.

> Did you realise that I've made an extensive case, and that the best you can do to counter it is "nothing to see here".  Of course you do.  Gotta keep pretending to be reasonable and pushing those lies, though, eh? 

Well I apologise but I don’t understand  the case you are making.

Post edited at 21:01
Report
 Offwidth 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Just how big is that handful Coel, have you checked?  How does that existance of Islamic scholars saying apostasy is wrong fit with your absolute position? It's there and the right for a muslim to convert is protected in law in western secular states.

Is the change in Christianity as much due to which countries went through the enlightenment and became modern democracies? For hundreds of years the Muslim world was more enlightened and parts of the muslim world were still just as enlightened as some parts of the western Christian world just 100 years ago? Plus we then need to think on the malign support from the western governments of modern Islamic dictatorships for our own convenience; especially Saudi Arabia with it's horendous well funded exports of Wahhabism left largely unchallenged by western states, so we can maintain the supply of oil? Why is democracy great for us but not those in Arab countries? Why do we not do more to ensure such dangerous theology is blocked and why are the governments of the right the worst offenders in this respect?

Since it's so easy to pick holes in how modern Islam is practised in evil ways across the world why not pick more interesting targets.

Post edited at 21:07
Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Yes, we know the refrain, I am an awful terrible person....

Nah, don't know what sort of a person you are. All I know is that as far as UKC goes you're a pathological liar.

> You are the principal source of animosity on here.

Ahh... I think what you meant to say is that I caught you out on your multiple profiles and attempts to subvert threads with dishonest editing and false likes/dislikes.

Report
 Pefa 24 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> People on the streets to defend monuments were far right. The Nazi salute is a big clue.

To Thrudge fascism is a normal ordinary middle of the road political position to have. 

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Nah, don't know what sort of a person you are.

 

Ha, ok, I thought I was « crass » and « devoid of any morals values » amongst other things.

> All I know is that as far as UKC goes you're a pathological liar. 

And you are a bit of a broken record. 

Post edited at 21:24
Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Ha, ok, I thought I was « crass » and « devoid of any morals values » amongst other things.

Perhaps I was allocating different characteristics to different profiles? Lets see, what have we got so far:

RomTheBear

RomTheBear2

KrisLukash (complete with fake profile picture)

Alyson28

Alyson29

Alyson30

I'm assuming there are others.

> And you are a bit of a broken record. 

And you're obviously just a bit broken.

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> And you're obviously just a bit broken.

Ho, I’m broken now. This is a new one to add to the list. Great.

Any more ?

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Ho, I’m broken now. This is a new one to add to the list. Great.

> Any more ?

Errr... Masochist?

Report
 Pefa 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

Och gee it up will ye ! You've said your piece over and over again at the same poster so why don't you knock it on the head already? 

When you make a few different accounts as I have done many times in the past for fun and because I got banned constantly it doesn't make you frigging dishonest or beyond trusting as all this is a game anyway. 

Look at you or me for example , hiding your real name. If you were honest you would be upfront and show your name. Who cares if you have 1 account 10 accounts or a real name or a fake one? No one. We are here as climbers, for a laugh, to learn, to debate out different positions to the death, to look at others excellent and thoughtful posts(including yours) and above all else to help, care and support each and every one of us. 

Let's win debates by the old fashioned way in which we debate the topic and not by attacking the person or ganging up on one person, because as soon as someone attacks the person (unless it is affectionate banter) they have lost the debate. 

BTW Alyson30 is quite right on reparations for our 300 years of racist slavery that created the biggest empire on earth. Built on the tears, blood and suffering of Black and Asian children, women and men. 

Ps. FactorXXX how many accounts do you have? Maybe we should judge ourselves before we judge others. 

Post edited at 21:44
Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Errr... Masochist?

Sure, any more ?

Report
 Stichtplate 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Sure, any more ?

I'm actually a bit worried that you're getting off on this now

Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I'm actually a bit worried that you're getting off on this now

No, not really.

Report
 Thrudge 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> Ok, but your claim (correct me if I am wrong) is that the article implied that if you wish to protect the statues from potential damage, you are a racist.

> I have not seen that in the article you’ve posted.

It's in the headline:

"Campaigners fear far-right 'defence' of statues such as Churchill's".

And the body of the article:

"Busloads of far-right demonstrators are feared to be planning to travel hundreds of miles to “defend” memorials at the weekend, campaigners have said."

"The far-right activist Tommy Robinson and political group Britain First are among those supporting a “defend our memorials” event which is being publicised with pictures of “Churchill is a racist” graffiti that was daubed on the statue last Sunday."

"One campaign group, Hope Not Hate, said that sometimes planned far-right protests fail to materialise"

and so on, again and again throughout the article.  And yet you claim not to have seen this.  I do hope you're not going to employ faux naivety and claim that 'far right' doesn't mean 'racist'...  They're actually known for it, you know.

Report
In reply to Pefa:

> Ps. FactorXXX how many accounts do you have? 

Just the one.  How about you?
For completeness and in the spirit of openness, etc. I've also had one that is banned. 
Have you had any?  If so, how many?

A quick and perhaps leading P.S. for you: What is your opinion on users with multiple profiles?
Bad in that it potentially biases opinion in what is supposed to be a honest debating environment?
Or, good in that it is the sort of thing a totalitarian regime such as a communist country would do to ensure maintaining power? 


 


Report
 Alyson30 24 Jun 2020
In reply to Thrudge:

> It's in the headline:

> "Campaigners fear far-right 'defence' of statues such as Churchill's".

> And the body of the article:

> "Busloads of far-right demonstrators are feared to be planning to travel hundreds of miles to “defend” memorials at the weekend, campaigners have said."

> "The far-right activist Tommy Robinson and political group Britain First are among those supporting a “defend our memorials” event which is being publicised with pictures of “Churchill is a racist” graffiti that was daubed on the statue last Sunday."

> "One campaign group, Hope Not Hate, said that sometimes planned far-right protests fail to materialise"

> and so on, again and again throughout the article.  And yet you claim not to have seen this.

Sorry, I've read it again now, and I still do not see how it corroborates your claim that the article "uncritically equates defence of national monuments as a far-right activity.".
From your quotes what we can tell is that far-right activists were feared to come to this event.

Post edited at 22:15
Report
 Pefa 24 Jun 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Just the one.  How about you?

One atm but I'm thinking of another 30 or so , just to give myself lots of likes all the time and show everyone how much I love myself. 

> For completeness and in the spirit of openness, etc. I've also had one that is banned. 

Hmm 🧐

> Have you had any?  If so, how many?

Eh I can think of 8 over the years but there may have been more. 😬

> A quick and perhaps leading P.S. for you: What is your opinion on users with multiple profiles?

It's only what is said that matters because in reality there is no seperate person saying it ☁️

> Bad in that it potentially biases opinion in what is supposed to be a honest debating environment?

For talking sake if i say all opinions are biased anyway from the outset due to the individual and cultural conditioning of each participant then maybe introducing some deliberate biasing might cancel some of the bias out making it less biased or more correct. For example if I see things differently-I'm not saying better than the majority but yes better - from a majority in a given place who see things wrongly then if my arguements alone can't show the majority how they are wrong but pretending there are more folk like me to sway the people who are wrong into the correct, true position then the means to get there was bias/dishonest but the result is for the greater good. 😎 I'm not saying that would work its just a hypothetical example. 

> Or, good in that it is the sort of thing a totalitarian regime such as a communist country would do to ensure maintaining power? 

Damn right! As Che said ' Is it my fault the truth is Marxist'. The greater good is what matters but it would be ideal if this was done above board although in a capitalist world of backstabbing and barbarism in which generations are raised to lie and cheat, a new Soviet government would have to play realpolitik and intelligence games with the worst to survive. 

I love UKC as I get to come out with all this spiritual stuff and what not whereas at home if I say this my man tells me to ' eff off with your hippy bullshit!' lol. 

Ps. There are so many fake quotes put about by capitalists and fascists about Stalin that it takes a bit of digging to find out the truth and 99 times out of 100 there isn't any. 

Post edited at 23:32
Report
 Cobra_Head 25 Jun 2020
In reply to climbercool:

>  "You don't deserved to be killed in a civilized society when arrested and cuffed for trying to pass a counterfeit $20 note."

> What is the point in this sentence? obviously everybody already knows this.

But not everyone seems to care.

> It's funny that in a single post you claim he is a reformed criminal in your first sentence and than in your second sentence you mention that he had just used a counterfeit note.

Do you know, he knew, it was a counterfeit note?

Even if he did, what would you do if you got passed a counterfeit note, but didn't realise until later, do you just suck it up or try and pass it on?

If you really can't afford to lose $20 would that make a difference.

Post edited at 01:28
Report
 Cobra_Head 25 Jun 2020
In reply to climbercool:

> a reformed criminal, who told you that, his mum?  Their is evidence he pointed a gun at the woman's stomach.  https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/


So his last crime was 13 years ago, how long do you need not to  commit a crime for you to be reformed, you make it sound like it's not possible.

Cop's aren't supposed to kill anyone, black or white, they are supposed to arrest people.

Like a great number of people you seem to be looking for reasons George was killed, not the glaring obvious one, that he shouldn't have been.

Sit and watch 8 minutes and 45 seconds pass by, it's a really long time, that's how long it took to kill George, watched of course by three other cops.

If it hand't been recorded George would just be another on the long list, that no one cared about.

Report
 ClimberEd 25 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

Don't know if it was worked out. 

But to Alysons idea, which is bonkers, you can't take money from multigenerational descendants and give it to someone else. The law doesn't work like that. And shouldn't. Where would it stop?

Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> Don't know if it was worked out. 

> But to Alysons idea, which is bonkers, you can't take money from multigenerational descendants and give it to someone else. The law doesn't work like that. And shouldn't. Where would it stop?

There are precedents though. Many Jewish families for example have managed to recover stolen assets from the descendants of those who stole them.

Or take, for example, the case of Native American reparations. Post war the Indian Claims Commission that paid compensation to federally recognised native American tribe for land that had been seized by the United States.
And as recently as 1971, Congress awarded $962 million worth of land in Alaska to Eskimos and Aleuts.

It doesn’t have to be payments to descendants either. Lloyd’s for example decided to give some money to diversity/ inclusion charities as a form of reparation. Stuff like that in a voluntary basis can work too

As you can see there are pragmatic ways in which it can be made to work. I don’t understand the objection against studying all these possibilities. It seems very ideological to me.

It is very annoying that any suggestion is automatically dismissed as « SJW » stuff by some posters, with little consideration given to the argument.

Post edited at 07:27
Report
 Glug 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> So his last crime was 13 years ago, how long do you need not to  commit a crime for you to be reformed, you make it sound like it's not possible.

I agree it sounds like he may have been reformed, and he definitely should have been treated much better than he was, if he's reformed after 13 years, why are so many voices on here still saying we should be feeling guilty for something from hundreds of years ago? 

Report
 elsewhere 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Glug:

> I agree it sounds like he may have been reformed, and he definitely should have been treated much better than he was, if he's reformed after 13 years, why are so many voices on here still saying we should be feeling guilty for something from hundreds of years ago? 

That is a good point.

A reformed person probably does feel guilt and shame for what they did. It's probably part of becoming reformed but you would have to ask them.

I don't think anyone should feel guilt, maybe a little shame. It's normal but makes no sense to have pride in the good bits of history without accepting the opposite for the bad bits.

Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

Are we guilty for crimes committed by others in the past ? No.

Are we responsible for their legacy ? I’d argue, yes.

Post edited at 09:09
Report
In reply to the thread:

"The Father of Capitalism and the Abolition of Slavery"

"Smith’s case against slavery is proven by history: The huge uptick in human prosperity came largely after the end of feudal relations and the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. We are many magnitudes richer than when lords held slaves, or even chattel slavery proliferated in the Americas. The setting free of humanity led to extraordinary innovation and entrepreneurialism. This is only possible, as Smith argued, when individuals can benefit from the fruits of their own labor (slaves cannot hold property in their own name, and hence cannot trade or choose to specialise).

"We didn’t become rich because a few hundred years ago people toiled on farms in awful conditions. In fact, the opposite. “It was precisely the replacement of human muscle power with that of steam and machines which did away with the vileness of chattel slavery and forced labor,” Tim Worstall has explained."

https://quillette.com/2020/06/22/the-father-of-capitalism-and-the-abolition-of-slavery/

Report
 Sir Chasm 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Romtheliar:

> Are we guilty for crimes committed by others in the past ? No.

> Are we responsible for their legacy ? I’d argue, yes.

Really? If your great great great grandfather committed a crime you'd feel responsible? Are you Catholic by any chance?

Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Really? If your great great great grandfather committed a crime you'd feel responsible? Are you Catholic by any chance?

Not for the crime itself, but I if had inherited a vast fortune from my great great grandfather constituted through crime, I’d indeed feel that I owe a little something to the descendant of the victims.

I’m not Catholic.

Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Quillette is an online magazine where disillusioned liberals express their despair at the excesses of the identitarian left. This is the framework in which their entire activity should be read. 

Maybe vary your information sources a bit. There are lot of competing views about the economic impact of slavery.

Post edited at 10:27
Report
 Cobra_Head 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Really? If your great great great grandfather committed a crime you'd feel responsible? Are you Catholic by any chance?


If in 40 years time if you suddenly inherit a valuable painting stolen from a Jewish family, and the house to go with it, you'd be OK with that?

You don't have to feel guilty, but you'd be a bit wired if you were fine with it, wouldn't you?

"tough shit, it's mine now", seem particularly callous. I know some people would take this attitude, but it's still a bit strange.

Report
 Cobra_Head 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Are you suggesting Capitalism, makes us better off?

It does for the people at the top, there's still plenty scraping a living at the bottom.

Better than freedom?

Report
 Offwidth 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

That argument hasn't exactly trickled down very well to the developing world has it... where  a billion still toil in effectively slave like conditions to survive?

Also it's irrelevant to the main point that countries like the UK found slavery highly profitable.

Report
 Sir Chasm 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> If in 40 years time if you suddenly inherit a valuable painting stolen from a Jewish family, and the house to go with it, you'd be OK with that?

Why make it 40 years? Let's say 200. And I've no idea where my 200 year old painting came from, it's always been there on the wall.

> You don't have to feel guilty, but you'd be a bit wired if you were fine with it, wouldn't you?

> "tough shit, it's mine now", seem particularly callous. I know some people would take this attitude, but it's still a bit strange.

It might seem strange because in your imaginary scenario you're starting from the point where you know what was stolen and from whom, and that's a fiction.

Report
In reply to Offwidth:

> That argument hasn't exactly trickled down very well to the developing world has it... where  a billion still toil in effectively slave like conditions to survive?

Which just reinforces the point that it is not large pools of cheap labour that makes countries rich.

> Also it's irrelevant to the main point that countries like the UK found slavery highly profitable.

It made some people rich at the time, yes.  It's pretty irrelevant to the wealth of the nation today.

Report
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Are you suggesting Capitalism, makes us better off?

Of course it does!

> It does for the people at the top, there's still plenty scraping a living at the bottom.

In historical terms, even relatively poor people in the UK today are vastly richer than most people in most places over history.

Report
 Pefa 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Of course it does!

At what cost? 

> In historical terms, even relatively poor people in the UK today are vastly richer than most people in most places over history.

Considering how we practically ruled the entire world and its wealth up until the 1940s and for more than 100 years prior to that is that any surprise? Then ever since we have been the sidekick of the new empire that owned over 50% of the world's wealth in 1945 and that figure grew and grew through imperialism. 

Edit - We also have more offshore tax havens where trillions are squirreled away by thieves and the City of London benefits massively from those trusts. 

The British empire was built on racist slavery but not just that alone in fact it was also done by attacking others land, killing them or making them 2nd class citizens in their own land by introducing a British dictatorship on them, robbing their resources and all the rest you don't need me to explain. 

BTW Britain continued slavery for 100 years after they banned it by substitutiing Indian slaves for blacks long after Adam Smith recognized the blatantly obvious. 

Post edited at 12:35
Report
 Timmd 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I'm certainly reformed, the person I was a quarter of a century ago bears very little resemblance to the boring old fart I am today

> Edit: Not completely wasted experience. Before covid stopped everything I volunteered through the local constabulary to help socially disadvantaged teenagers. There's nearly always the chance to put past mistakes to good use.

I'm glad you took that in good spirit (I had a broader point that's since escaped me). 

I stopped a childhood friend and neighbour from getting too heavily into dabbling in mind altering things, to avoid my own mistakes, and I was pleased about that too.

Post edited at 12:56
Report
 Mr Lopez 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The huge uptick in human prosperity came largely after the end of feudal relations and the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. We are many magnitudes richer than when lords held slaves, or even chattel slavery proliferated in the Americas. The setting free of humanity led to extraordinary innovation and entrepreneurialism. This is only possible, as Smith argued, when individuals can benefit from the fruits of their own labor (slaves cannot hold property in their own name, and hence cannot trade or choose to specialise).

Wow. Somebody 'discovered' that people getting paid for work makes them wealthier than being slaves, and even wrote an article about it. Somebody give that man a Nobel price Goddammit

Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Which just reinforces the point that it is not large pools of cheap labour that makes countries rich

It also reinforces the point that they have been prevented from moving away from cheap labour for our benefit.

> It made some people rich at the time, yes.  It's pretty irrelevant to the wealth of the nation today.

That isn’t so much the point, though.

It may well be that cheap labour doesn’t explain why some countries are very rich today, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t explain why some countries are very poor. It’s not symmetric.

So, for example, the benefits of colonisation may have been peanuts compared to the benefits of industrialisation, however being prevented from developing your industry by a mercantilist colonial power for a century is certainly going to have a massive negative  impact.

Post edited at 13:54
Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Why make it 40 years? Let's say 200. And I've no idea where my 200 year old painting came from, it's always been there on the wall.

> It might seem strange because in your imaginary scenario you're starting from the point where you know what was stolen and from whom, and that's a fiction

It isn’t so clear to me that it is a fiction in all cases.

Companies or estates can trace back profits from slavery from their archives if they need to. Some of these British financial institutions have done just that.

It is also a fallacy to presuppose we need a perfect accounting in all cases. We can take pragmatic rules of thumbs and use judgement.

Report
 wercat 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

I think the plight of the Palestinians abandoned by the US and the West generally is something to prioritise.   Present injustice, suffering and death.

Report
 Cobra_Head 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Why make it 40 years? Let's say 200. And I've no idea where my 200 year old painting came from, it's always been there on the wall.

Well I made 40 years because of this, "If your great great great grandfather committed a crime you'd feel responsible? Are you Catholic by any chance?"

My Great grandfather is still alive so I added two generations on.

> It might seem strange because in your imaginary scenario you're starting from the point where you know what was stolen and from whom, and that's a fiction.

And when someone points this out to you and can show proof it was stolen in Nazi Germany, what do you do then?

You seem to be saying as long as I don't know it's OK, but what about after you know.

Report
 Cobra_Head 25 Jun 2020
In reply to wercat:

> I think the plight of the Palestinians abandoned by the US and the West generally is something to prioritise.   Present injustice, suffering and death.


We can do both surely, or at least try. The problem for Palestinian's is not many people care, others are actively against them.

Report
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Somebody 'discovered' that people getting paid for work makes them wealthier than being slaves, and even wrote an article about it. Somebody give that man a Nobel price Goddammit

I think Adam Smith rather predates Alfred Nobel.

Report
 Sir Chasm 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Well I made 40 years because of this, "If your great great great grandfather committed a crime you'd feel responsible? Are you Catholic by any chance?"

> My Great grandfather is still alive so I added two generations on.

Your great great great grandfather was alive 40 years ago? I'm impressed. Or perhaps you're very young.

> And when someone points this out to you and can show proof it was stolen in Nazi Germany, what do you do then?

I can see why you're keen to discuss the Nazis and Jews, it brings it into living memory, just. But what about going back 200 years? Add a few "greats" to your family tree so that nobody who enslaved people is alive and nobody who was enslaved is alive.

> You seem to be saying as long as I don't know it's OK, but what about after you know.

Obviously I'm OK with it if I don't know. And in terms of slavery, I think it's old enough history to deal with the world as it is now and stop dredging up ancient grievances.

Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to wercat:

> I think the plight of the Palestinians abandoned by the US and the West generally is something to prioritise.   Present injustice, suffering and death.

That's a bit of a red-herring argument, in that case, I might as well say why worry about anything there is always something more important.

Report
 Sir Chasm 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Romtheliar:

> It isn’t so clear to me that it is a fiction in all cases.

I never thought it would be.

> Companies or estates can trace back profits from slavery from their archives if they need to.

Really? Say they looked at their profit one year after slavery ended and said 20% of it was from slavery, but the next year they made a loss. If they made a profit in year 3 how much is from slavery? And what about 200 years down the line?

Some of these British financial institutions have done just that.

Sure, sure.

> It is also a fallacy to presuppose we need a perfect accounting in all cases. We can take pragmatic rules of thumbs and use judgement.

If you're going to take money off people now you're going to need some good accounting. 

Report
 Cobra_Head 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Your great great great grandfather was alive 40 years ago? I'm impressed. Or perhaps you're very young.

Or perhaps you can't do sums I'm sure you can work it out, but here's a hint, my great grandfather is still alive, I have children, so their great great grandfather is still alive, when they have kids......

> I can see why you're keen to discuss the Nazis and Jews, it brings it into living memory, just. But what about going back 200 years? Add a few "greats" to your family tree so that nobody who enslaved people is alive and nobody who was enslaved is alive.

A generation is about 20 years or so so simply add a couple of generations on the that, no one in living memory is still alive.

> Obviously I'm OK with it if I don't know. And in terms of slavery, I think it's old enough history to deal with the world as it is now and stop dredging up ancient grievances.

that's more like it.

Report
 Cobra_Head 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I think Adam Smith rather predates Alfred Nobel.


Give him a posthumous one then

Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> I never thought it would be.

> Really? Say they looked at their profit one year after slavery ended and said 20% of it was from slavery, but the next year they made a loss. If they made a profit in year 3 how much is from slavery? And what about 200 years down the line?

Well I’m not sure why you are asking a question that you answered yourself.

> Some of these British financial institutions have done just that.

> Sure, sure.

Well, yes, sure !

> If you're going to take money off people now you're going to need some good accounting. 

Well I don’t see why that would be necessary.
In most historical cases where reparations have been made you generally won’t find accurate accounting. More like rule of thumbs, negotiations, judgement...


Plus nobody says we are going to take money off people. In most cases I expect reparations will happen voluntarily or locally from the bottom up, and that’s pretty much exactly what we are seeing.

Basically whether you agree or not it’s happening, it’s only going to accelerate, and nobody can stop it.

Post edited at 15:11
Report
 Mr Lopez 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I think Adam Smith rather predates Alfred Nobel.


It's a double Nobel prize then for also discovering time travelling! Just a waste he used it for writing an article in the Quillete. You'd have thought with a time travelling machine and 2 nobel prizes he could get published in a more respected medium, something like The Onion or News of the World.

Edit: Or maybe he didn't wrte the article, but it was a guy from the Adam Smith institute quoting another guy from the Adam Smith Institute to take the OG Adam Smith's writings out of context and make a point matching the needs of the very powerful lobby he represents, namely the Adam Smith Institute? That'd be something i can see being published in the Quillete.

Post edited at 15:39
Report
 Thrudge 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

>> It made some people rich at the time, yes.  It's pretty irrelevant to the wealth of the nation today.

> That isn’t so much the point, though.

Er.... you keep insisting that that is the point.  Do try to keep your story straight, there's a good chap 

Report
 ClimberEd 25 Jun 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

I would also like to point out that all empires were built on war, pillaging, slavery in one way or another etc etc.

In 'modern' times The Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and French were just as bad as Britain. Go read 'The Sugar Barons'

Then you have the Ottoman empire, the Roman empire. 

So everyone owes everyone really. We could all just shake hands and make signs of peace. 

Report
 wercat 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Alyson30:

> That's a bit of a red-herring argument, in that case, I might as well say why worry about anything there is always something more important.


I don't think so.  As an older child I saw what was going on in the USA on TV in the late 60s in suppressing the civil rights movement.  In then 70s we were set in Criminal Law radings from "The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Prevention" etc and I found how indigenous Amercan citizens were being treated in the late 60s.

At the same time the plight of Palestinians was highlighted by Black September and their atrocities (the cause was just but their methods no better than the IRA) and we also heard of the plight of Lebanon, of the exploits of the militias at Sabbra and Shatila sanctioned (to say the least by Israel) which took our breath away.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre)

Absolute Horror, and the plight of the Palestinians among all of those people has gone backwards with the full will of the US administration.  I look on that with utter horror as someone who looked to the future with hope in the 1970s as a young adult.

You - are you the "woke generation" who are the first to find something to abhor?  What goes on in the US at the hands of the police is just and abhorrent and needs to end now.   Also the present suffering helped by the US in the Middle East, you woke ones!

Perhaps you just don't care enough and can only fight for statues and apologies instead of taking on the hard problems that suck the life out of people NOW.  Token apologies and restitutions are irrelevant with what goes on elsewhere.

You are the only woke generation and we were never young like you

Red Effing Heron!

Post edited at 16:47
Report
 wercat 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Absolutely right but actual life ending harm has to be the priority whether it is racial discrimination leading to killings in the US or water deprivation of communities by Israeli settlers or shootings of their youth when they protest about their people's plight.

Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to wercat:

Well no it’s not that I don’t care about Palestine it’s just that it isn’t the topic being discussed.

As for being branded « woke », it made me feel young, but really, no

Post edited at 16:57
Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to wercat:

This is all a bit of a sophistry. Actual life ending harm in Palestine is more important than fixing the pothole in my street, doesn’t mean I’m not going to get the pothole fixed.

Post edited at 17:22
Report
 climbercool 25 Jun 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> So his last crime was 13 years ago, how long do you need not to  commit a crime for you to be reformed, you make it sound like it's not possible.

He wasn't paroled until 2013 and moments before his death it is highly highly likely that he had just committed another crime, but go on believing what you like.  Anyway I'm not that bothered if he was or wasn't reformed, imo his past crimes are so vile that no matter his current situation, he is not suitable to be the figurehead of the blm movement.   I have met many undesirable characters over the years, some who have been to prison, but I have never met anyone who has committed a crime anything like as horrific as what George Floyd did, it takes a real monster to do what he did.

> Cop's aren't supposed to kill anyone, black or white, they are supposed to arrest people.

Again, what is the point in this sentence, literally nobody anywhere thinks anything other than this, you are simply being emotive and inflammatory.

> Like a great number of people you seem to be looking for reasons George was killed, not the glaring obvious one, that he shouldn't have been.

no, no, no no, obviously  George's past has nothing to do with the way he was killed, Chauvin deserves to spend a long long time in jail and hopefully he will. This is not the issue, the issue is people now treating floyd as a martyr.  If you really don't think Floyds actual criminal past has any impact on how  black lives matter  are using his image, than how bad a crime would he need to have commited for you to agree that perhaps his character makes him unsuitable for his current position with blm, rape, murder, child abuse?

> Sit and watch 8 minutes and 45 seconds pass by, it's a really long time, that's how long it took to kill George, watched of course by three other cops.

Yes it's horrific, and sadly in the U.S incidents like this happen all to frequently to people of all races. 

> If it hand't been recorded George would just be another on the long list, that no one cared about.

Report
 Alyson30 25 Jun 2020
In reply to climbercool:

> Yes it's horrific, and sadly in the U.S incidents like this happen all to frequently to people of all races.

George Floyd's killing has become emblematic of the excessive use of disproportionate force by law enforcement against racial and ethnic minorities in countries across the globe, who he was or what he did, or whether it also happens to people of other races, doesn’t actually matter all that much.

Report
 Monkeysee 28 Jun 2020
In reply to Pefa:

People like you make me feel ill  , 

Can I ask ,, do you have a cushy job with a massive wage?  ? Born with a silver spoon up your arse ???  or do you struggle to pay the bills after working your fingers to the bone hoping there will become some skin left for that one day a month you get to go climbing ? 

Report
 Alyson30 28 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Interesting article in the FT about the financial legacy of slavery, it impacts on the economy, and the case for reparations.

https://www.ft.com/content/945c6136-0b92-41bf-bd80-a80d944bb0b8

I’m not too sure reading this that it’s economic impact was that insignificant.

Post edited at 21:56
Report
 Cobra_Head 08:10 Wed
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Your great great great grandfather was alive 40 years ago? I'm impressed. Or perhaps you're very young.

Here's a bit of a post from an American Woman on how historic slavery can impact peoples lives.

According to the rule of hypodescent (the social and legal practice of assigning a genetically mixed-race person to the race with less social power) I am the daughter of two black people, the granddaughter of four black people, the great-granddaughter of eight black people. Go back one more generation and it gets less straightforward, and more sinister. As far as family history has always told, and as modern DNA testing has allowed me to confirm, I am the descendant of black women who were domestic servants and white men who raped their help.

https://www.facebook.com/emtcolin/posts/10158138439831955

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.