Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "GBNews"
channel.
-
2000
-
765
-
519
-
396
-
364
-
356
-
320
-
293
-
240
-
233
-
224
-
222
-
161
-
160
-
156
-
144
-
135
-
135
-
127
-
110
-
100
-
100
-
91
-
91
-
85
-
82
-
78
-
77
-
76
-
73
-
72
-
71
-
69
-
69
-
67
-
67
-
64
-
60
-
58
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
But violent, threatening, behaviour is what gets results. Polite objections are simply ignored. Around 15 months ago, a teacher in Batley was victimised because he took an RE class about blasphemy, in which he showed the picture from the Charlie Hebdo magazine.
A mob descended on the school. The teacher is still in hiding. He was thrown under a bus, metaphorically, by the school head, and was abandoned by his union, the education authority, the local authority, his MP, the police, and the government.
The people who brought this about understand the lesson that authority buckles in the face of threats, and will continue to behave in this manner to achieve increasingly extreme demands.
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Not quite relevant to this issue, but last night (14 February) BBC North West news at 6.30 p.m., contained an article about a wondrous new supermegamosque being built in Broughton, near Preston. The mosque was authorised by Preston Council, but the local Council appealed to what is still called the Government.
Michael Gove's department rubber-stamped the plan, as everyone knew it would. The BBC item had a reporter talking about this mosque to several local people, oddly all Moslems despite there being few actually living in the area, and all enthusiastic about the mosque, followed by an interview with the architects who designed and promoted the scheme. Not one second was given over to the concerns of local people, not of whom was interviewed, followed by the main presenter summing up by lauding the design.
Isn't it grand to see that the BBC, even at local level, proudly maintains the level of impartiality we have come to expect of it?
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@johnkitching2248 Because, little chap, it contains allegations without supporting evidence. Specifically 1). That I am a troll. 2). That I am a racist.
Try this for an analogy. My day job is as a naval historian (I have a First in Modern History). If I came across an article claiming that, for example, the Imperial Japanese Navy won the Battle of Midway, and I immediately pointed out the absurdity of the claim, would the pointing out of that fact make me an anti-Japanese racist?
Olusoga's claims about Beachy Head Lady have been demonstrated, by DNA analysis carried out by the Crick Institute, to have been equally absurd. How does me pointing that out make me, in your imagination, a racist?
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
The BBC news programme which first covered the verdict went to some lengths to suggest that Vaughan had no so much been exonerated, as had escaped on a 'not proven' technicality. In other words, saying that, in effect, he must have been guilty aftert all. They even included an interview with Rafiq, who pronounced himself 'vindicated.'
For whatever reason, both the BBC & the ECB assumed from the outset that Rafiq's unsubstantiated should not be doubted, let alone challenged. The standard of the ECB Inquiry as exposed by Vaughan's defence team proved to be astonishingly inept.
The saddest thing, however, is that the other accused, choosing not to defend themselves against what they believed to be an ECB Kangaroo Court, were promptly hung out to dry on the basis of Rafiq's word alone. Doubtless, the imminent report on English cricket will, of course, 'prove' it to be a seething hotbed of racism.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
@philwilliams953 I would prefer an even-handed assessment of Britain's Imperial Past, rather than Olusoga's two dimensional approach.
What Olusoga is really about is “I only want to tell you the negative stories from your past,” he said, “ which necessarily means you cannot have an honest debate about it.'” Why else does he ignore the complicity of African Tribal Leaders, or Arab Slavers in the slave trade, and why did he make such openly false claims about, for example, Beachy Head Lady?'
Frankly, I don't care what you feel or don't feel about your country, as I suspect I know considerably about the actual history of the British Isles than you do.
Come to that, having read some of Olusoga's writings, I suspect I also know more honest history than he does.
9
-
@philwilliams953 In point of fact, Olusoga has a B.A. in History, His postgraduate qualification is in Broadcast Journalism.
Starkey is on a different level as an historian. Come to that, I probably am as well, unless Olusoga has a First in Modern History as well.
Be that as it may, Starkey does not claims that the Slave Trade was a minor part of British history. He does, correctly, argue that the way it is presented is both distorted and two dimensional, and the British are, by propagandists like Olusoga, habitually presented as villians. The African chieftains who were happy to sell off their surplus population, either to European slave traders or Arab slavers, always escape criticism.
This is particularly ironic as, without the enthusiastic co-operation of these chieftains, the trade could not have developed as it did.
9
-
@martynblackburn9632 Some did, although there were others in the SS, particularly in the 13th SS Mountain Division.
However, didn't much larger numbers of Hindus, Sikhs, and Gurkhas, among others, also fight on the allied side? Of course, like Mr. Hunt, one may disregard the Christians & Jews as of no importance.
The whole point of war memorials was 'Equality in Death.' Who gave this person the authority to overturn that judgement by, in effect, declaring that Muslims were/are of greater importance?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@taffy2126 Unfortunately, it seems that any monument to an old white man is fair game. In Scotland, at the moment, there is a 'demand' that a statue of David Livingstone (The explorer and missionary still widely admired and respected throughout Africa) be removed, because of his 'connection' with slavery.
The connection is that Livingstone, who came from a very poor family, worked for a time from the age of ten in a cotton mill in Glasgow, for 14 hours a day. As this was just before 1833, he may have handled and sorted cotton which had been picked by slaves, and thus benefitted from slavery.
Honestly, I am not making this up!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't accept any of this, as it doesn't suit your agenda.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@woobyca7709 The 'Gesta Romanorum,' a thirteenth-century Latin collection of stories for preachers to use in sermons, includes a story about a parishioner’s response to a corrupt priest. When that priest was scheduled to celebrate Mass, the parishioner would skip the service. One day while so skipping Mass and walking in a meadow, the parishioner became desperately thirsty. The parishioner found a tiny stream of pure water from which he drank. Seeking to better allay his thirst, he sought for the tiny stream’s source. A wise man pointed him to a fountain:
He {the parishioner} there beheld a putrid dog with its mouth wide open and its teeth black and decayed, through which the whole fountain amazingly gushed. The man regarded the stream with great terror and confusion, ardently desiring to quench his thirst, but apprehensive of poison from the fetid and loathsome dog carcass that apparently had infected the water.
The wise man explained that the parishioner had already drunk of that water and that it was indeed good. The wise man explained:
See now, as this water, gushing through the mouth of a putrid dog, is neither polluted nor loses any of its natural taste or colour, likewise celebration of Mass by a worthless minister. Therefore, although the vices of such men may displease and disgust, yet you should not forego the services that they are ordained to provide.
In short, God can work through corrupt priests, and through other corrupt persons, too.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Remember the old maxim that 'I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?' I suspect that the Preston councillor who has been so vocal on this issue has never heard it, or, at least, profoundly disagrees with it.
I believe he described Mr. Farage as a 'divisive' figure. So what? shouldn't a free society involve divisive figures and robust debate? The only nations I can recall in recent times where only one opinion was permitted are China, North Korea and, historically, the old Soviet Union and nazi Germany. Perhaps the Councillor ought to move to somewhere more appropriate to his beliefs?
As a Prestoner, who actually has been making monthly donations to that particular hospice for some years, I hope that this particular councillor will offer to make up the money of which he has deprived it out of his own pocket. I suppose that, at least, I have the right to hope!
I wonder, by the way, how many people actually objected?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
My old MD used to tell us at our regular Managers' Meetings that : 'It needs £10 of revenue to generate £1 of profit. It takes £1 of cost reduction to do the same.' Small businesses feeling the pinch will, inevitably, be obliged to react in a similar manner, and the largest individual cost to them is usually their workforce.
The probability is that, therefore, they will be obliged to cut staff numbers simply in order to survive.
As, I submit, Dear Rachel would probably have known had she any experience whatsoever of working in the private sector, but, alas, I fear she hasn't.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If you base your knowledge of history upon Olusoga's propaganda, then you might as well assume that Volkischer Beobachter represented a true reflection of the events of WW2.
The history of British slavery has never been buried, or brushed under any carpet. However, the false imposition of 21st century values, by people who seem far more concerned about events which ended almost 200 years ago than about present-day slavery, on the norms of the 17th and 18th century societies, has led to a bizarre and irrational over-reaction of the less well-informed.
Oddly, only British slavery is ever perceived by these people as 'bad' slavery. The more extensive slavery practised by other countries, particularly Portugal, the Ottoman Empire, Dahomey, or Ashanti, or indeed by the Arab slave traders who flourished, and continue to flourish, in Africa, seems to get much less critical comment. If, indeed, it is even mentioned at all.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You don't seem to know much about Starkey's upbringing. Allow me to educate you :- He is the only child of Robert Starkey and Elsie Lyon, Quakers who had married 10 years previously in Bolton, at a Friends meeting house. His father, the son of a cotton spinner, was a foreman in a washing-machine factory, while his mother followed in her father's footsteps and became a cotton weaver and later a cleaner.
They were both born in Oldham and moved to Kendal in the 1930's during the Great Depression. He was raised in an austere and frugal environment of near-poverty, with his parents often unemployed for long periods of time; an environment which, he later stated, taught him "the value of money."
I respectfully submit that he does have some knowledge of the 'working class' as you rather patronisingly describe them. He is, in fact, a working class man who has achieved much. Precisely the sort of person the Islington thinkers of the Labour party truly detest.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SpectreAtTheFeast-sx8gq Perhaps you are an example of the indocrination at work. Portugal, for example, was a much greater exporter of slaves, mainly to South America, than England/Britain ever was.
I observe that you omit from your comment any reference to the Ottoman Empire, Arab Slavers in Africa, or the role of Tribal Leaders in Africa in the provision of the raw materials. Just, of course, as you fail to refer to the role of Britain, and in particular the Royal Navy, in the subsequent abolition of the trade.
I wonder why that might be? Perhaps you might elucidate?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rolandedwards2923 Oh dear. It isn't good changing a post when you are exposed as in error, is it?
Actually Churchill proposed the use of gas, not against 'unarmed civilians' as your revised claim suggests, but against rebellious tribesmen on the North West Frontier or in what is now Iraq. What he actually wrote, should you be interested, was 'It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.'
Later, he wrote to Hugh Trenchard, head of the RAF, that 'Continued use of the Royal Air Force in Iraq, might require “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death.' A year later Churchill urged Trenchard to continue “experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them.”
Even the type of gas used in the 'M Devices' which so excited Giles Milton in the Guardian about 10 years ago, and seems to have a similar effect upon you, was actually called DM, short for Diphenylaminechloroarsine. To read some accounts in the Guardian, and later in the BBC, this comes across as a deadly creation almost on a par with Zyklon B, whereas in fact it was an unpleasant, but non-lethal, advance on tear gas. In point of fact, opposing British troops were advised that in the event of accidentally inhaling DM, “cigarette smoking would give relief."
Churchill was actually proposing a humane means of suppressing uprisings or riots, and of reducing the probable level of casualties.
In fact, something akin to the use of more sophisticated gases often used by police forces today.
Sorry to upset you with a few facts, which I assume you will probably ignore.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Timsvideochannel1 Indeed. John Hughes, the Bishop of Kensington, told him: "There is no place for you in the Church of England."
However, those who later appointed him presumably thought that a wealthy former oil company executive, who had been mainly involved in West African and North Sea oil projects, was a more suitable candidate than a mere clergyman.
Probably, when the emperor Nero sought to appoint his horse, Incitatus, as a Roman Consul, the thought process was a similar one, although the horse might well have been less of a hypocrite.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Perhaps the time will soon come to have a debate about the future of the monarchy. Charles and William spend much of their time wandering around telling anyone who cares to listen about how horrible the British are, and seem to have the perverse delusion that, in some strange manner, only British slavery was 'bad' slavery, the other versions being branches of social services. The positive manner in which the English/British abolished slavery at an early date, and the manner in which the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron systematically destroyed the slave trade, is, in their privileged eyes, seemingly not worth mentioning.
Perhaps when he gets back, he will tour the Midlands, the North, and Wales, apologising about the brutal treatment of the peasantry who lived there during the industrial revolution? I doubt it. As someone whose antecedents came from Ancoats, Manchester, I can state with total certainty that, several generations back, my family were certainly not benefitting from their slave plantations in the West Indies.
In short, I will never regard this poseur as my Monarch, however posh a frock his wife wears.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Modern Greece was created in 1832, ironically after British, French, & Russian forces had liberated it from Ottoman/Egyptian occupation. Battle of Navarino, anyone?
Prior to that, it had been a province of the Ottoman Empire for over 350 years, during which the Parthenon had been at various times an ammunition store, and a gunnery target. When Elgin visited Athens, he found that the Ottoman governor was permitting the marbles to be broken up for use as hard core. He purchased some of them from the only recognised authority in Greece at the time, that same Ottoman governor. It might perhaps have been simpler if he had not purchased them, as there would not then be discussion about them, largely because they would for the most part no longer exist.
Have a discussion, by all means, but on the basis of facts, and not on the basis of falsehoods and ludicrous analogies, to which Ms. Buxton was reduced.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Random_Blip 'You can add Indians to that list seeing as they hold him responsible for the Bengal famine of 1943 (millions of deaths).' Actually, only those who have been indoctrinated.
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. Seriously, when 2.5 million Indians were fighting for the Allied cause, would anyone really attempt to cause a famine?
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it would require you to try to break your programming.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, populations per square kilometre from 2021. India 464, England 434, Scotland 70, France 119, Albania 99, Germany 233, United States 36, Bengladesh 1265, Pakistan 287.
Don't stand too near the edge, as you might fall off in the crush.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robw1866 Perhaps that says more about the electorial system?
Mathematically, it required 23,622 votes to elect one Labour MP, 56,437 to elect one Tory, and 823,522 to elect one Reform MP.
First past the post is only a democtatic system when two parties only are involved, as in a Presidential election, or with the now gone two party system in the UK, when the parties were Tory/Liberal, or later Tory/Labour.
When there are, arguably, five parties, it is no longer fit for purpose. When a party can receive 500,000 less votes in an election, as Labour did in 2024 compared to 2019, yet, paradoxically, receive a huge majority, isn't it obvious that something no longer works?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stequality It is because of the First Past The Post electoral system. This worked when there were two major parties (Tory/Liberal, then Tory/Labour) but doesn't work when there are several. As proof, simply divide the number of votes cast by the number of seats won, and you will see what I mean :-
Labour. 9,706,716 411 seats 23,622 votes per MP
Tory. 6,828.925 121 seats 56,437 votes per MP
LibDem. 3,519,143 72 seats 48,877 votes per MP
Reform. 4,117,610 5 seats 823,522 votes per MP
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I do not believe that the Royal Family should respond in the face of this deliberate baiting. Showing indifference is by far the best way of demonstrating contempt.
Obviously, if specific allegations against specific people were to be made, that policy might require alteration, but after the manner in which the claims the Markles made in the Oprah train wreck were dismantled, I doubt their advisors would allow a repeat of such foolishness.
Their future revelations will, doubtless, remain of the vague, generalised, type that they have recently been. Unprovable, but, equally undisprovable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adamsmith4813 2,130,793 in 1949, but how is that relevant?
'I know an accountant he won't get the bus because it's sure to have working class people on it.' If that is the extent of your argument, then it is a facile one. I knew someone who worked for socialist heroine Barbara Castle. He told me that, when she travelled up to her Blackburn constituency, she used a chauffeur-driven Bentley from London, but just outside Blackburn she met her local agent, who drove her to the constituency office in a battered old mini. My mate was a committed Socialist, but didn't see anything amiss in Barbara's duplicity. This is irrelevant, also, by the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexedwards6509 I will ignore the insult at the end of your post, but will simply comment upon your own understanding, as you have incorrectly used the word 'governance.'
Governance is the system that provides a framework for managing organisations. It identifies who can make decisions, who has the authority to act on behalf of the organisation and who is accountable for how an organisation and its people behave and perform. I refer you to Harold Wilson's book, 'The Governance of Britain' which dealt with the actual management of government, not the preparation for government.
The word you should have used, of course, was 'government'. It therefore seems that I understand words rather better than you do, mon vieux.
I won't comment further, but will simply refer you to Abbott's error-ridden political career, which, thankfully, never resulted in high office, or anything approaching it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Met. have form in this regard. Didn't they say that the Notting Hill Carnival was peaceful? If, of course, you discount the violence, injuries, and arrests, that is.
Unfortunately, however, the antics of those cretins who claimed to be defending the Cenotaph by picking fights all round it have given the media, the Met., and probably the government an open goal to claim 'Muslims nice, White folk RAYCIST!!!!' and brand all of us with the same mark as Robinson's half-wits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terrifyingly, Sunak's limitless financial war chest might well enable him to buy the Premiership, and result in the Tory Party committing the greatest political Hara-Kiri act since old Adolf shut himself and his wife in a room with a pistol and two cyanide capsules.
Do none of these figures in the Tory Party grasp the fact that the ordinary, tory voting, members of we, the peasantry, will not accept a tax-dodging multi-millionaire with a non-domiciled wife, a US Green Card, and neither the interest in, nor the understanding of, what actually concerns us?
If they don't, then they deserve to be out of government for a generation, despite the carnage that the alternative will inflict on what remains of this country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@siddharthmathur8277 The Koh-i-noor diamone? The one which Sultan Alāʾ-ud-Dīn Khaljī took in 1304 from the raja of Malwa, India, whose family had owned it for many generations?
Or the one which was given to the son of Bābur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, by the raja of Gwalior after the battle of Panipat in 1526?
Or the one which formed part of the loot of Nāder Shāh of Iran when he sacked Delhi in 1739?
Or the one which the decendant of Aḥmad Shāh, founder of the Durrānī dynasty of Afghans, Shāh Shojāʿ, when a fugitive in India, was forced to surrender to Ranjit Singh, the Sikh ruler?
Ironically, the only power which did not acquire it by plunder was the British.
As to your imaginary atrocities. Please explain how a country with a population of 10.1 million, according to the 1801 census, managed to 'plunder' a subcontinent which at the same time had a population at the same time of around 139 million, whilst at the same time conducting a protracted war against the greatest military power in Europe? Incidentally, when the British left India, the population had risen to 360 million. 'What destruction?'
I assume you are unaware of how the British Raj evolved? Look at how much the leading elites in the various Indian princely states, usually perpetually at war with each other, welcomed the British and vied for their support.
I don't know where you received what apparently passes for education, but you have my deepest sympathy that you were not more fortunate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ViralDabro Population of India in 1857. Approximately 180 million.
Numbers of British administrators in India in 1857. Approximately 30,000.
One Administrator per 6,000 people. Colonisation?
You also need to look up the structure of the army in India, which was overwhelming made up of Indian troops. It was, by the way, only established in 1895.
The term Indian Army appears to have been first used informally, as a collective description of the Presidency armies, which collectively comprised the Bengal Army, the Madras Army and the Bombay Army, of the Presidencies of British India, particularly after the Indian Rebellion.
So, it appears these 'military armies' with 'totalitarian rule' were overwhelmingly Indian ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlanFagan-y5l Oh well. At least you confirmed that you are trying to shift the argument. Why shouldn't Farage, or Starmer, or anyone else, speak about US politics when in Britain or Europe, when the United States is still the most powerful nation in the world, and her politics affects Britain, as it does the rest of Western Europe?
The difference is that the impact Farage, Starmer, or any other British/European politician could have on US affairs is minimal. I doubt that the average American even knows who Starmer, Farage, Macron, or Von der Leyen is, and cares even less.
By contrast, almost all Britons knew & know who Obama is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eightblack8357 One of us needs to go back to school certainly. The Athenians were indeed ethnically Greek, but Greece as a state did not exist, except as a conglomeration of independent city states, more or less constantly at war with each other. Read Thucydides - there are plenty of excellent translations available, for further information.
Indeed, I know of the development of the Byzantine Empire. I also know that, for over 350 years, Greece was an Ottoman province, and the Parthenon was a ruin, used at various times as a munitions store, a gunnery practice target, and finally, as Elgin discovered, a source of hard core. Put simply, without Elgin, who appears to have negotiated the purchase of the Marbles with the only recognised authority in Greece at the time, the problem would have been solved long ago, as they would no linger exist.
'Greece became a Ottoman province until it recovered some of its land and became independent again.' Not quite, Greece became independent because of the intervention of Britain & France between 1827 & 1832.
In 1826, Egyptian forces had conquered almost all of Greece, including Athens, after a Greek rebellion collapsed into war between two different Greek factions. In 1827, Russia, Britain & France intervened, sending a fleet and troops. I wonder if you have even heard of the Battle of Navarino?
In 1828, the Egyptian army withdrew under pressure from a French expeditionary force. The Ottoman garrisons in the Peloponnese surrendered and the Greek revolutionaries proceeded to retake central Greece. The Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia allowing for the Russian army to move into the Balkans, near Constantinople. This forced the Ottomans to accept Greek autonomy in the Treaty of Adrianople and autonomy for Serbia and the Romanian principalities.
Would you like me to recommend a book or two, to educate you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jpaokx 'Re your first point, you'd need to consider the challenging circumstances of that time and it doesn't negate the principle that cultural heritage should be protected with the consent of the local population.' This would be the Greek population which had been subjected to Ottoman rule for 350 years, and had seen ancient structures being systematically degraded by their rulers without any objection, I assume?
'Re your other point, the Battle of Navarino and the subsequent liberation of Greece from Ottoman control are separate historical military events from the removal of the Elgin Marbles.' Except, of course, that Greece regained her independence, after a greek revolt had been defeated by 1826, by the involvement of British, French, & Russian forces. Indeed, Philhellenism ("the love of Greek culture") was an intellectual movement prominent mostly early in the 19th century, and items such as the Marbles, when seen for the first time by intellectuals in London & Paris, played no small part in the growth of this movement.
1
-
1
-
@jpaokx 'So, the Nazis could have sold half of Europe to America, yeah?' I don't recall writing that. The reality is, however, that when Elgin purchased the Marbles, Greece had been an Ottoman province for around 350 years.
Would you prefer that Elgin had left them alone, even though they were being steadily broken up for hard core, among other uses? Presumably, had they only existed as memories in sketchbooks, that would have been preferable? Is that what you really think?
The Marbles are greater than simple a part of Greek history. They are part of the origins of European civilisation. The same civilisation which freed Greece from occupation by the Ottoman Empire in 1827 -1832.
Sad that you feel the need to resort to obscenities, as they are never a credible alternatve to debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Royal Family should maintain their silence. After the catastrophe of the Oprah show, when specific claims were, one after the other, demonstrated to be false, the Markles have learned to stick to vague allegations of a general nature. These cannot, of course, be proven, but more importantly from Markleworld's point of view, they cannot be disproven.
If the Royal Family respond by saying that certain allegations are not true, this will simply result in a to and fro argument of 'Oh yes they are. Oh no they aren't.'
I appreciate that this is Pantomime season, but the Royal Family would be very ill-advised to become dragged down into such nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iggo45 'Museums are places where objects are exhibited, which are found or come from, the place that surrounds them.'
Really? Is that why the Metropolitan Museum in New York hs around 30,000 artifacts of Classical origin? Who would have thought that either Greece or Rome had such large colonies in the New World?
'Even the Islamists did not think to touch them.' Apart, of course, from using the ruin that was the Parthenon for, at various times, a munitions store and a gunnery target, and then breaking up some of the stones for road fill, you mean?
'when we got back our liberty from islamic law of occupation.' Actually, you didn't. After the Greek revolt had been largely crushed by Turkish & Egyptian forces by 1826, the British, French, & Russians sent warships & troops to expel them. Presumably, the Battle of Navarino passed you by?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamwilson8582 'Some airy fairy comment about Australia,' A simple statement od actual fact. At what level of development was Australia or, come to that, New Zealand, Africa, or America, when westerners arrived?
Your potted history seems to assume that only the British ever indulged in colonialism or in empire. Have you never heard of the phrase 'the flag followed trade?' Clearly not.
'you get the picture.' Indeed I do. I don't however usually bother with fiction. You appear to have convinced yourself the western exploration, trade, and settlement was entirely bad. I am sad for yo, that you are too disillusioned to see the wider picture, which was that colonialism and empire were complex issues, which brought good as well as bad things to the places colonised. In the British case, how many of the former colonies/ dominions would have had the rule of law, improved health, or democratic institutions, had the British not been there? Would the lattice of warring princely states that was the Indian sub-continent really have evolved into the world's largest democratic state?
Oh, and the life expectancy of Indigenous has been estimated at around 40 years. Now it is around 75 years. Do you suggest that the average Aborigine would have preferred to die 35 years earlier, as seems to have been the case, if you vile and brutal Brits. had not settled there? Oh well. .
'Of course many would say it was an act of brotherly benevolence probably yourself included . I say this as a veteran .' Bullshit. Where have I ever suggested that? I simply am wise enough to understand that the effects of many cultures spreading around the world have been complex and have brought benefits as well as negatives. Being 'free' to live in squalor and die young is not my idea of a positive.
You are a veteran? Why do you think that makes your opinion any more relevant than that of anyone else?
.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harrisr1018 I expected that you would refer to the Bengal Famine of 1943. Most revisionists, or most indoctrinated ones, do use that, or their claims about it, without of course checking any actual facts. Actually, of course, I was well aware of it, but chose to give you the opportunity to trot out the usual propaganda first, as you duly did.
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of the British government wat that it should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, it had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, even by people like you, is that once the British government did find out, it transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. Seriously, try to put your programming aside for a moment and think for yourself. There were 2.5 million Indians in the armed forces at the time. Why would the administration seek to engineer a famine and risk a mass mutiny?
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit your agenda.
There was no British 'invasion.' If you think that there was, please provide a list of the various assault landings and the series of major battles which resulted from it. Moreover, please explain how a nation of 10.1 million, already at war with France, managed successfully to invade and conquer a sub-continent with a population 20 times bigger. Sheer fantasy. Certainly, ther British eventually governed India, but as a resiult of the support and co-operation of the various Princely States.
Do you have any evidence to support your ludicrous 35 million deaths nonsense? You put forward the number like a demented parrot, but you haven't substantiated it. Presumably, you don't believe that India benefitted from western medicine, science, education, law, engineering, and transport systems? Incidentally, what language are you typing your deluded nonsense in?
Churchill's opinions might not meet current popular views, but is that surprising, given that he was born in 1874? Perhaps you are unaware that Gandhi, born in 1869, expressed the view, when a lawyer in South Africa, that Africans were an inferior form of humanity, not fit to be allowed the vote?
In short, you are an indoctrinated fool, blindly chanting falsehoods programmed into you by others, and I choose not to waste further time correcting your, no doubt genuinely held, errors. I suspect I would have more success trying to teach my cat to play chess.
1
-
@harrisr1018 In 1801, the population of Britain was 10.1 million according to the first official census. At the time the British were at war with the greatest military power in Europe. Tell me how the British managed to kill 35 million Indians, when at the height of the Raj there were around 20,000 British civil servants in India, where government was carried out almost entirely by the Indian Princely States, who viewed the presence of the British as highly profitable.
In 1810, the Indian population wasw 210 million. By 1921 it had risen to 318 million. In 1800 average life expectancy in India was 25.4 years. In 1948 it was 35.4 years. Odd, that, isn't it?
Dyer was a British officer who exceeded his authority and disregarded his orders. As a result, he was dismissed his command, sent back to Britain, and never held a military position again. Would you like me to list the massacres carried out by Indian states among themselves before the arrival of the British?
You say 'man made famines.' Which man made famines?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did this scientist actually say that Woolly Mammoths were not on the planet at the same time as humans? The woolly mammoth coexisted with early humans, who used its bones and tusks for making art, tools, and dwellings, and hunted the species for food.
The population of woolly mammoths declined at the end of the Late Pleistocene, with the last populations on mainland Siberia persisting until around 10,000 years ago, although isolated populations survived on St. Paul Island until 5,600 years ago, and on Wrangel Island until 4,000 years ago.
Modern Homo Sapiens seem first to have appeared 160,000 years or so ago.
In view of this level of knowledge, how much of his subsequent opinion can really be trusted?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@comealongcomealong4480 People need to be aware, by the way, that taking the UK as a whole gives a false figure, as most immigrants are settled in England. Based on England alone, the population density per square kilometre is 421, as of 2021.
In Scotland, it is 70.
in Wales, it is 150.
In India, it is 428.
In Pakistan, it is 291.
In Bengladesh, it is 1,157.
In Germany, it is 240.
In France, it is 119.
In the USA, it is 36.
Please don't tell our political betters, as they don't think that a problem even exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@83c91 Perhaps you are unaware that according to the most recent UN statistics, the population density per square kilometre in England is on a par with that of India.
The reality is that uncontrolled immigration is not sustainable, for simple practical, reasons. Services, such as the NHS, education, and housing, among others, are on the verge of collapse.
This, however, is not the point, which is that an out-of-touch multi-millionaire former soccer player chose to make comments comparing the language used by Braverman with that of nazi Germany. No one has yet been able to substantiate this allegation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unarmed? A car driven at other cars, or at pedestrians, is a weapon. The Firearms officer hardly got away with it. He was suspended from the time of the incident until the end of the court case, a judge chose to release his name and he and his family are apparently now in hiding. He was, by the way, found not guilty by a jury.
'If someone is 'guilty' of something it needs to go to court.' Rubbish. If someone is accused of a crime, then the accusation must be tested in court. As, in this case, ir was.
You may think that using the RAYCIST!!! allegation will shut down debate, but in these circumstances, no it will not.
There are also genuine, underlying reasons why people join gangs.' Are there also genuine reasons why people stab other people, or shoot them in a crowded club?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sharonscott6244 'slavery ended due to the amount of uprisings of the enslaved who started to meter out the same barbaric treatment they had to endure.' Whereever did you get that idea from? The Baptist War of January 1832 lasted precisely eleven days, and was subdued by British troops.
It was foolish in any case because Parliament had already determined to abolish slavery within the Empire in any case, the bill to that effect being passed in August, 1833.
Despite all what? The British government compensated slave owners in order to avoid them undertaking prolonged lobbying of Parliament, and significantly delaying the passage of the bill.
The Isreal analogy was both wrong and, frankly, idiotic. It seems that someone had not even heard of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Just as, presumably, you haven't.
I agree, however, that it was difficult to tell what Rees-Mogg was saying, because his words were constantly drowned out by someone screaming at him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You care, or you would not have commented. Oh, and by the way :-
'As of April 2024, GB News had 2.87 million monthly viewers, which was more than TalkTV's 2 million. However, GB News is still behind Sky News, which had 8.5 million viewers, and BBC News, which had 11.4 million viewers.
In the year ending May 2023, GB News's average monthly viewers increased by 17.8% from the previous year.
GB News Radio's weekly reach in Q2 2024 was 518,000, with a total of 3.3 million listening hours.'
Why does an alternative opinion scare you so much, out of interest?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Getonwithit204 ' I have already explained it, and because you don't have the capacity to understand you completely, side step it by a mistake that my phone has made. Of course, your phone or tablet never does that.'
One thing that clearly is your fault is that you do not take kindly to being ridiculed. Does your phone decide what to say, or do you?
'Of course, your phone or tablet never does that.' Actually, no, it doesn't. Largely because I check what I have written before I commit it. Unlike you, evidently. Even in your latest inane comment, you say that 'you don't have the capacity to understand you completely.' What in the name of sanity does that mean, and how do you justify your claim that I don't understand myself?
You might pursue a similar policy of checking, as it would enable you to avoid looking such a twerp.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1