BLM UK is an abomination.

Worldly and otherworldly topics
Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Re: BLM UK is an abomination.

Post by Julius_Van_Der_Beak » Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:00 am

djm wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:58 am
Julius_Van_Der_Beak wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:52 am
djm wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:49 am

On what planet is a scumbag career criminal with his history not a scumbag. The police were wrong to do what they did. Both are true.
Because racism doesn't exist there even though lots of British people feel a strange need to call George Floyd a scumbag?
George Floyd was a scumbag because of his actions. Hitler was a scumbag because of his actions. Not all American black people are scumbags. Not all White Germans are scumbags. The policeman that killed George Floyd was a scumbag his behaviour was not acceptable. This stuff is nit rocket science. Most normal working class folk of all shades can call out scumbags of all shades.
We have courts of law to decide what to do with people who commit crimes. I know this sounds like George Soros-funded talking points, but we probably shouldn't have folks running around executing people and committing cruel and unusual punishment just because they think they might be criminals. And yes, that applies even if they are criminals. Guilt or innocence is supposed to be determined by a court of law, and if we don't think that's important, we shouldn't even bother having a legal system.

djm
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:08 pm
Location: Woodplumpton
Formerly: djm

Re: BLM UK is an abomination.

Post by djm » Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:47 am

Julius_Van_Der_Beak wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:00 am
We have courts of law to decide what to do with people who commit crimes. I know this sounds like George Soros-funded talking points, but we probably shouldn't have folks running around executing people and committing cruel and unusual punishment just because they think they might be criminals. And yes, that applies even if they are criminals. Guilt or innocence is supposed to be determined by a court of law, and if we don't think that's important, we shouldn't even bother having a legal system.
Yes and isn't that exactly what is happening. The police officer was wrong to do what he did, and I would be astonished if he were not handed a hefty prison sentence. George Floyd did not deserve to die that way but people die in other countries all the time without having riots here.

However I do not live in America. The UK police are not even armed and rarely kill anyone. The UK police are not racist, and my country is ranked least racist nation on almost every metric you can measure. The UK does not need a bunch of anarchists smashing up shops because a career criminal was killed in a different country it has nothing to do with us.

Furthermore the demands of BLM UK are equal parts stupid and dangerous. Calling to get rid of the UK police for instance. Why? How on earth would that improve my country. Calling for white people to give their homes to a black person, preferably a poor one! (No i didn't make up the last bit). Calling for the end of capitalism. If you want these policies stand for election and see how many people vote for it, don't riot.

For weeks after the event in the US we had this rabble rioting, attacking police, damaging property, vandalising statues, defacing war memorials, burning our flag. All during a lockdown that was meant to be preventing the spread of a virus that was actually killing people.

User avatar
Roger Mexico
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:00 am

Re: BLM UK is an abomination.

Post by Roger Mexico » Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:41 pm

In the mid-17th century, sugarcane was introduced to the British West Indies by the Dutch,[33][34][35] from Brazil. Upon landing in Jamaica and other islands, they quickly urged local growers to change their main crops from cotton and tobacco to sugarcane. With depressed prices of cotton and tobacco, due mainly to stiff competition from the North American colonies, the farmers switched, leading to a boom in the Caribbean economies. Sugarcane was quickly snapped up by the British, who used it in cakes and to sweeten tea. In the 18th century, sugar replaced piracy as Jamaica's main source of income. The sugar industry was labour-intensive and the British brought hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans to Jamaica. By 1832, the median-size plantation in Jamaica had about 150 slaves, and nearly one of every four bondsmen lived on units that had at least 250 slaves.[36] In The Book of Night Women, author Marlon James indicates that the ratio of slave owners to enslaved Africans is 1:33.[citation needed] James also depicts atrocities that slave owners subjected slaves to along with violent resistance from the slaves as well as numerous slaves who died in pursuit of freedom. After slavery was abolished in 1834, sugarcane plantations used a variety of forms of labour including workers imported from India under contracts of indenture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... resistance

djm
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:08 pm
Location: Woodplumpton
Formerly: djm

Re: BLM UK is an abomination.

Post by djm » Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:56 pm

Roger Mexico wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:41 pm
In the mid-17th century, sugarcane was introduced to the British West Indies by the Dutch,[33][34][35] from Brazil. Upon landing in Jamaica and other islands, they quickly urged local growers to change their main crops from cotton and tobacco to sugarcane. With depressed prices of cotton and tobacco, due mainly to stiff competition from the North American colonies, the farmers switched, leading to a boom in the Caribbean economies. Sugarcane was quickly snapped up by the British, who used it in cakes and to sweeten tea. In the 18th century, sugar replaced piracy as Jamaica's main source of income. The sugar industry was labour-intensive and the British brought hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans to Jamaica. By 1832, the median-size plantation in Jamaica had about 150 slaves, and nearly one of every four bondsmen lived on units that had at least 250 slaves.[36] In The Book of Night Women, author Marlon James indicates that the ratio of slave owners to enslaved Africans is 1:33.[citation needed] James also depicts atrocities that slave owners subjected slaves to along with violent resistance from the slaves as well as numerous slaves who died in pursuit of freedom. After slavery was abolished in 1834, sugarcane plantations used a variety of forms of labour including workers imported from India under contracts of indenture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... resistance
Like I say, what it means by 'the British' is a few rich aristocrats. Most of us lived in abject poverty here. The slaves were purchased from African slave traders, there were as many non white people involved as white but I don't expect Africans taking collective responsibility and neither should all Brits. The majority of British people have nothing more to do with that foul industry than modern Italians do Roman slaving.

Indeed working class Brits in the period are more likely to have been enslaved by North African pirates than have profited in or been involved in the trade themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/em ... s_01.shtml

Britain was the first major power to abolish slavery, and our Navy did a great deal to stop other nations like Portugal continuing the practice.

avolkiteshvara
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:51 pm

Re: BLM UK is an abomination.

Post by avolkiteshvara » Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:34 pm


User avatar
Roger Mexico
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:00 am

Re: BLM UK is an abomination.

Post by Roger Mexico » Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:03 pm

djm wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:56 pm
Roger Mexico wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:41 pm
In the mid-17th century, sugarcane was introduced to the British West Indies by the Dutch,[33][34][35] from Brazil. Upon landing in Jamaica and other islands, they quickly urged local growers to change their main crops from cotton and tobacco to sugarcane. With depressed prices of cotton and tobacco, due mainly to stiff competition from the North American colonies, the farmers switched, leading to a boom in the Caribbean economies. Sugarcane was quickly snapped up by the British, who used it in cakes and to sweeten tea. In the 18th century, sugar replaced piracy as Jamaica's main source of income. The sugar industry was labour-intensive and the British brought hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans to Jamaica. By 1832, the median-size plantation in Jamaica had about 150 slaves, and nearly one of every four bondsmen lived on units that had at least 250 slaves.[36] In The Book of Night Women, author Marlon James indicates that the ratio of slave owners to enslaved Africans is 1:33.[citation needed] James also depicts atrocities that slave owners subjected slaves to along with violent resistance from the slaves as well as numerous slaves who died in pursuit of freedom. After slavery was abolished in 1834, sugarcane plantations used a variety of forms of labour including workers imported from India under contracts of indenture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... resistance
Like I say, what it means by 'the British' is a few rich aristocrats. Most of us lived in abject poverty here. The slaves were purchased from African slave traders, there were as many non white people involved as white but I don't expect Africans taking collective responsibility and neither should all Brits. The majority of British people have nothing more to do with that foul industry than modern Italians do Roman slaving.

Indeed working class Brits in the period are more likely to have been enslaved by North African pirates than have profited in or been involved in the trade themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/em ... s_01.shtml

Britain was the first major power to abolish slavery, and our Navy did a great deal to stop other nations like Portugal continuing the practice.

Working-class people didn't put sugar in anything they ate or drank?

djm
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:08 pm
Location: Woodplumpton
Formerly: djm

Re: BLM UK is an abomination.

Post by djm » Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:40 pm

Roger Mexico wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:03 pm
Working-class people didn't put sugar in anything they ate or drank?
No, it was expensive and the preserve of the better off. You are talking about an era where children got hung for stealing Handkerchiefs, and people that did not own a house were not allowed to vote.

You think people need to apologise for a great great great grandparent eating a cake 250 years ago? Really? That is reason enough for people to riot and smash up peoples shops?

When I was born it was only 30 years after WW2 and even then it was drummed into us that it was not fair to blame Germans for the war. Now we are blaming people for events more than 200 years ago that the majority of the then populace had not part in or agency in the politics of the time.

djm
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:08 pm
Location: Woodplumpton
Formerly: djm

Re: BLM UK is an abomination.

Post by djm » Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:22 pm

Roger Mexico wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:03 pm
Working-class people didn't put sugar in anything they ate or drank?
Taken from Ancestry.com for the specific period you quoted

"There were two very different lifestyles in 18th-century England: that of the rich and that of the poor. With the Industrial Revolution, which started in the middle of the century, came new machinery that saved time and made some people very wealthy. The rich were getting richer and the poor, poorer.
Many people were out of work because suddenly machines were doing their jobs.
The population was growing wildly. Cities were dirty, noisy, and overcrowded. London had about 600,000 people around 1700 and almost a million residents in 1800.
The rich, only a tiny minority of the population, lived luxuriously in lavish, elegant mansions and country houses, which they furnished with comfortable, upholstered furniture.
Their calendars included dinner parties, opera, and the theater. Many had inherited their great fortunes and never knew what it was to have to work, cook meals, or empty their own chamber pots.
Fashion was important in upper society: Upper-class women wore stays, which were bodices with strips of whalebone, and hooped petticoats under their dresses.
Men wore knee-length “breeches” with stockings, waistcoats, and frock coats over linen shirts, as well as buckled shoes. Three-cornered hats were popular, too—and wigs.
Schools were not compulsory, but many upper-class boys attended school, and some girls from well-off families did, too. Girls were educated more in “accomplishments” like embroidery and music than in academic subjects.
Some “charity schools” started to provide an education to lower-class children.
Tea drinking became popular in the 1700s among both the rich and the poor.
Poor people ate rather plain and monotonous diets made up primarily of bread and potatoes; meat was an uncommon luxury.
Poor craftsmen and laborers lived in just two or three rooms, and the poorest families lived in just one room with very simple and plain furniture.
It was a difficult life for poor people: There was no government assistance for the unemployed, and many had trouble finding their next meal or a warm place to sleep.
For every 1,000 children born in early-18th-century London, almost 500 died before they were 2, generally due to malnutrition, bad water, dirty food, and poor hygiene.
Orphans roamed the streets; because they didn’t attend school, they had little chance of improving their situation."

So no, most people didn't survive to two years old, didn't have a vote and lived on bread and potatoes.

Post Reply