Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "PoliticsJOE"
channel.
-
16
-
You have it. It's known as the Welfare State. There's no ongoing legacy from that which compares to the 12 million slaves transported in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 15% which were murdered on route for insurance, or quelling onboard uprisings. Then the cruelty - psychological, material, physical, familial and sexual abuse inherent in the trade and ownership of slaves has resulted in an intergenerational and economic legacy that still exists in the fact that the descendants largely cannot pull up their bootstraps today, because many of the states and the families are enjoying that wealth created by the suffering caused by slavery. And through their economic power that has lasted to this day, are still standing on the bootstraps of the descendants of the slaves they once owned. Poorhouses in contrast only used to control destitution, and if those people escaped destitution and debt, they could freely leave those places. Not so slaves. Even though a lucky few managed to were allowed to raise money to buy their freedom, that was only possible if their owner agreed to it. If they didnt, they and their children remained chattels of their owners. Poorhouse inhabitants weren't slaves. They were a social problem that the British state, with the agreement of its citizens, chose to solve by confinement in the poorhouses in each parish. There was no democratic mandate from slaves.
13
-
12
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Justice is complicated, because it's a man made thing. It doesn't exist in nature, and relies in people who have blindspots in their thinking to attempt to get it. For instance, do you remember that female lawyer who was found guilty of murdering her two baby sons? She was found guilty because the expert the prosecution chose to use misled the jury, and the public in order to support his belief that most cot deaths were infanticides. Moreover, the police, and the Home Office pathologist were of the same opinion. If the accused had not had money and a loving husband, we would have not discovered that the expert was biased, and that the pathologist had tailored his report to fit his prejudice too. It took years of fighting to release her, but she was exonerated. Unfortunately, the experience broke her. She died several years later of alcoholism.
And you say justice is easy?
What about the guy found guilty of rape, without any forensic trace evidence to link him to the crime? Spent years in prision, until they tested her underwear and found trace evidence of another man. He still hasn't received compensation.
And you say justice is easy?
Grenfell Tower?
Steven Lawrence?
Hugh Grant?
"Justice is easy" is absolute nonsense.
Human beings get things wrong, especially when they think with the back of the brain, with emotion, instead of the front, where the intellect is.
People who think like you are why we have the rights we do to try to stop injustice. Thank goodness they exist, because that's protecting us from people who think like this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No; activism is not about agreeing. It about participation in the democratic process. It's about actually committing time, enetgy, and cost to participating in democracy. I mean, how much time have you spent observing how your local council debates or cases within the magistrates and Crown courts? How much time have you spent communicating with your MP? How much reading or research into how Parliament actually works? How many local activist groups regarding local issues do you join? It's not just about joining a political party. It's about local knowledge and effort to improve things locally. So when Jess Phillips emphasises that the real question should be "What are we going to do about it?" That is what she meant. We need people to engage more with the democratic process, and we need MP who are willing to engage with us. I mean, my MP has always written to me, if I have contact them, but that isn't always the case. Just reading more books about British politics and Parliament specifically would make us better informed voters. The newspapers have lost that educational focus. So we are actually in the age of the Internet in danger of being worse informed. If anything, have a varied input of sources that aren't just peddling outrage or angst. Now, here's a pointer. Jihn Bercow the former Speaker wrote a book called "Unspeakable" about his time in Parliament, and there's Chapter 10 entitled "What Makes a Good MP". Start there. Love him loathe him, Bercow can write in detail about what makes an MP or a minister good at there job. Now it may be an insider POV, but it will inform about what MP do more than just the newspapers say. You don't have to love it or loathe it. You may approve, or you may be disappointed, but at least you'll know more of how that part works. It will help you decide what you want, and how you might get it by engaging with Parliament. Pull aside the curtain, and look. It's a world we are still not largely familiar with. You can watch channels like BritMonkey who did a 5-part series on the British Constitution, which was great at explaining how it works. So any MP writing about politics. Reading Private Eye and Byline News. There is so much more you can do to be one better informed and more empowered to make democracy work better. There is a bit of truth in the saying that "each nation gets the government it deserves" because the state of democratic government government reflects our willingness to engage with democracy. The more we know about it, the better we can work to make it work better for us.
1