Tory Lies, Corruption and Hypocrisy- Add Them Here

[Arch Stanton]

28 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

A belief of British Protestant Quakers to do God's will as laid out in the bible. 

Anyone who wears a hat containing a buckle is inherently untrustworthy,

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 hour ago, Arch Stanton said:

Anyone who wears a hat containing a buckle is inherently untrustworthy,

I didn't see any of the recent posts from the member you quoted (for obvious reasons) , but I'm happy to say that you make a sound comment in response. 

[Scott Steiner]

3 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Very fair.

Maybe Scott’s appeal for civility and true debate is having some effect?

I really hope so.  The trolls have held off a wee bit lately so let's hope it continues.  The EEIL is now sitting at 17, however I'm considering a new years amnesty.

I enjoy hearing YB's well articulated thoughts but suspect we are at different places on the political spectrum, although I do see overlaps.

 

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

I really hope so.  The trolls have held off a wee bit lately so let's hope it continues.  The EEIL is now sitting at 17, however I'm considering a new years amnesty.

I enjoy hearing YB's well articulated thoughts but suspect we are at different places on the political spectrum, although I do see overlaps.

 

Please don’t include me in this. I don’t want to be swept up when the net you cast out for attention widens.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Antlion

[Thane of Cawdor]

Not sure which of corruption, lies or hypocrisy is the primary vice in the story below. As far as I can see, Daniel doesn't have any school fees to pay; was an enthusiastic advocate of Brexit; and is the House of Commons' most fervent supporter of Saudi Arabia. His support for the last is extremely weird, given the Saudi attitude to homosexuality (Daniel is married to a Brazilian guy). Also seems utterly deluded in his aspirations to become future HM Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Only positive, albeit puzzling, note is the surprising inclusiveness of his constituency party, and electorate, who are happy to elect a Polish-born, gay 'foreigner' as their MP. Maybe the Tories are more 'woke' than they are given credit for.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/15/tory-mp-daniel-kawczynski-fixer-job-with-saudi-contacts-school-fees

 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

The Saudi's pay very well tbf.

They're slowly bribing and sportswashing their way into respectability anyway. Give it 10 years and it'll be accepted like Dubai is.

[Arabdownunder]

18 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:

Well, knock me down with a feather!  You have actually done it!  No conditions, time limits, strings, parameters or loaded nonsense.  To say I'm shocked would be a huge understatement, given the bad-faith way in which you've conducted yourself throughout this discussion.

Anyway, I'll happily oblige.

First example that springs to mind is the freeing of slaves.  Britishness led to us going against the grain of the whole world with huge amounts of Brits sailing the oceans to free slaves, knowing that so many of our guys would die in the process.

Above is a picture of British blacksmith removing the leg irons off a slave off the coast of Oman, 1907.  The slave and others escaped in a canoe from a slave-trading village on the coast on hearing that a Royal Navy Ship was in the area.

These African slaves had escaped from their Arab slave masters.  The Arab slavers were the first, and last to ship millions of Africa out of the continent as slaves.

The whole world was 'at it' at the time, and Britain went against the grain.

The Royal Navy, which then controlled the world's seas, established the West Africa Squadron in 1808 to patrol the coast of West Africa, and between 1808 and 1860 they seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.

17,000 Royal Navy sailors lost their lives in the fight against the slave trade, including many from disease.

That's right, Brits were literally sailing the oceans with the sole intention to give our our lives to free slaves.

No doubt you'll try to find some way to demean this in your usual twisting and turning fashion, but I'll leave it there.

While acknowledging that the abolition of slavery was an excellent thing, to ascribe it to "Britishness" is nonsense. The whole world was not "at it" at the time of the picture you posted, all of Europe and most of the Americas had abolished slavery in the 19th century. 

The abolitionists, led by Wilberforce were part of an international movement to get rid of the slave trade, driven by religious belief (baptists and Quakers), not any national characteristic. Abolition of the slave trade was stridently opposed by the Tories for many years and was only passed through linking it to the war with France, enabling the establishment of the West Africa Squadron to disrupt the supply of slaves to the French Caribbean colonies. Many of the slaves freed by the West Africa squadron ended up dead from disease or as "recruits" to the British navy or "apprentices" on British colonial plantations. Your figure of 17,000 Navy deaths is out by a factor of 10. 

The later abolition of slavery (as opposed to the abolition of the slave trade) was driven, not by any innate British morality, but by fear of slave rebellions. Abolition was only passed by offering huge sums in compensation to the slave owners for loss of their "property". 

[Scott Steiner]

5 hours ago, Arabdownunder said:

While acknowledging that the abolition of slavery was an excellent thing, to ascribe it to "Britishness" is nonsense. The whole world was not "at it" at the time of the picture you posted, all of Europe and most of the Americas had abolished slavery in the 19th century. 

The abolitionists, led by Wilberforce were part of an international movement to get rid of the slave trade, driven by religious belief (baptists and Quakers), not any national characteristic. Abolition of the slave trade was stridently opposed by the Tories for many years and was only passed through linking it to the war with France, enabling the establishment of the West Africa Squadron to disrupt the supply of slaves to the French Caribbean colonies. Many of the slaves freed by the West Africa squadron ended up dead from disease or as "recruits" to the British navy or "apprentices" on British colonial plantations. Your figure of 17,000 Navy deaths is out by a factor of 10. 

The later abolition of slavery (as opposed to the abolition of the slave trade) was driven, not by any innate British morality, but by fear of slave rebellions. Abolition was only passed by offering huge sums in compensation to the slave owners for loss of their "property". 

An interesting take, Arab, but unfortunately an incorrect one.

I'm not subscribing the whole of abolition of slavery to Britishness, but using it as an example of Britishness being a force for good in the world, which in this case is obvious for all to see.

I wasn't saying it was inherent in the national characteristic either, choosing my words carefully, hence my explanation of Britishness encompassing our culture and customs.  I also draw a distinction between our ruling classes and the people themselves.  It's because of the differences between these groups that it took so long for Wilberforce to get his way.  It's common knowledge that Wilberforce and other Brits had been trying to do this for over 20 years, and he'd been working alongside all sorts of different abolition activists as part of true grassroots British movement.

Linking abolition to the war with France was not the only reason it was passed either, but was one of several.  I'm afraid slavery was indeed a worldwide problem at the time of the British taking their stance, especially in the Arab world.  Islamic Africans actually captured between 1 and 1.25 million European slaves in the past, something you never hear about.. maybe because it doesn't make us us the baddies?

Wilberforce wasn't just part of an international movement, but started a British movement which then used the influence of the Empire to spread this just cause across the world.

The notion that a proportion of the freed slaves succumbing to disease is some sort of blight on the name of the brave deeds of our ancestors is nonsensical in the extreme.  As is the idea that it was sinister that a proportion of the freed slaves then worked in our Navy or on plantations as non-slaves.

'Compensation' payments to slave owners were indeed made, which we haven't long paid off, but to me this was a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.  We had to get these fucking chains off these human beings who were suffering unimaginable cruelty, and if it meant paying off the b*****ds then so be it.  Personally, I'd have had the slave owners in chains for the rest of their lives instead.

Thousands of Brits sacrificed their lives and generations after them sacrificed finances to release these persecuted people.  Let's just accept that this is a positive example of Britishness being a force for good in the world instead of arguing (unsuccessfully I may add) about the finer details eh?

Edited December 16, 2021 by Scott Steiner

[hearthammer]

2 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:

An interesting take, Arab, but unfortunately an incorrect one.

I'm not subscribing the whole of abolition of slavery to Britishness, but using it as an example of Britishness being a force for good in the world, which in this case is obvious for all to see.

I wasn't saying it was inherent in the national characteristic either, choosing my words carefully, hence my explanation of Britishness encompassing our culture and customs.  I also draw a distinction between our ruling classes and the people themselves.  It's because of the differences between these groups that it took so long for Wilberforce to get his way.  It's common knowledge that Wilberforce and other Brits had been trying to do this for over 20 years, and he'd been working alongside all sorts of different abolition activists as part of true grassroots British movement.

Linking abolition to the war with France was not the only reason it was passed either, but was one of several.  I'm afraid slavery was indeed a worldwide problem at the time of the British taking their stance, especially in the Arab world.  Islamic Africans actually captured between 1 and 1.25 million European slaves in the past, something you never hear about.. maybe because it doesn't make us us the baddies?

Wilberforce wasn't just part of an international movement, but started a British movement which then used the influence of the Empire to spread this just cause across the world.

The notion that a proportion of the freed slaves succumbing to disease is some sort of blight on the name of the brave deeds of our ancestors is nonsensical in the extreme.  As is the idea that it was sinister that a proportion of the freed slaves then worked in our Navy or on plantations as non-slaves.

'Compensation' payments to slave owners were indeed made, which we haven't long paid off, but to me this was a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.  We had to get these fucking chains off these human beings who were suffering unimaginable cruelty, and if it meant paying off the b*****ds then so be it.  Personally, I'd have had the slave owners in chains for the rest of their lives instead.

Thousands of Brits sacrificed their lives and generations after them sacrificed finances to release these persecuted people.  Let's just accept that this is a positive example of Britishness being a force for good in the world instead of arguing (unsuccessfully I may add) about the finer details eh?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

[Suspect Device]

The British are good at drawing lines on maps. That always goes well.

[Scott Steiner]

17 minutes ago, hearthammer said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html

I'm afraid I could only see the 1st point due to the article being behind a paywall.

The British public were against the brutality of the concentration camps and it was their pressure which changed things for the better.  Therefore, we cannot use this as a negative against Britishness at all.

[Scott Steiner]

A few uncomfortable truths for the Britishness-haters on here.

 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

That video is going to absolutely decimate my YouTube algorithm isn't it ?

[Scott Steiner]

1 minute ago, Kima Greggs said:

That video is going to absolutely decimate my YouTube algorithm isn't it ?

Only if you're against it becoming more wholesome.

[Suspect Device]

What is "Britishness"? | Ipsos MORI

This is from over 20 years ago but is an interesting read nonetheless.

Quote

These identifications were explored in a MORI poll for the Economist in September last year. [British Identity] Scots were most likely to identify primarily with Scotland (72%) and their region (62%), less with their local community (39%), and only rarely with Britain (18%). Even more overwhelmingly, the Welsh identify first with Wales (80%), then region (50%) and community (32%); 27% of the Welsh identify with Britain. But among the English, there is an almost even split between the importance of region (49%), Britain (43%), local community (42%) and England (41%).

Perhaps even more revealingly, the same poll asked which flags respondents identified with. In England, 88% identify with the Union Jack and only 38% with St George's Cross; but in Wales the dragon outscores the Union Jack by 85% to 55%, and while 75% of Scots identify with the Saltire only 49% do with the Union Jack. This "Britishness", if not exactly an English invention, is now primarily an English survival.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Suspect Device

[hearthammer]

1 hour ago, Scott Steiner said:

I'm afraid I could only see the 1st point due to the article being behind a paywall.

The British public were against the brutality of the concentration camps and it was their pressure which changed things for the better.  Therefore, we cannot use this as a negative against Britishness at all.

You seem to only see what you want to see and what suits your "britishness good - the world bad" agenda.  The british, like the Belgians and Portuguese who were expanding "their" territories during the centuries where the undiscovered and unclaimed lands were seen to be up for grabs, destroyed and enslaved populations for their own financial gain.  -  See India and its sub-continent for prime examples of how "britishness" were the good guys.  They were as brutal and destructive as any of those other countries looking and trying to dominate the world.  Indeed, the reparation payments continue in very large amounts annually to this day.

[Scott Steiner]

5 minutes ago, hearthammer said:

You seem to only see what you want to see and what suits your "britishness good - the world bad" agenda.  The british, like the Belgians and Portuguese who were expanding "their" territories during the centuries where the undiscovered and unclaimed lands were seen to be up for grabs, destroyed and enslaved populations for their own financial gain.  -  See India and its sub-continent for prime examples of how "britishness" were the good guys.  They were as brutal and destructive as any of those other countries looking and trying to dominate the world.  Indeed, the reparation payments continue in very large amounts annually to this day.

Not at all.  I accept there's both good and bad in every country, every race and every people.

I'd need to go back to see for sure, but I think the reason we got on to this discussion was because Speckled Tangerine was being negative about Britishness and I said that it can actually be a force for good in the world.  This resulted in the ensuing discussion.

I was asked to provide examples and I have provided one so far.  It's strange, because after all of Speckled Tangerine's bluff, bluster and downright rude behaviour, he hasn't even been back.  Only if he acknowledges this marvelous example will I provide more.

More than happy to chat about India if you'd like though.

[Theyellowbox]

It doesn't really matter greatly what Britain has or has not done historically, other than to serve as lessons on what to do and what not to do. What is key for Scotland, the rest of the UK and how the rest of the world perceives us is what we do now and what we do going forward.

Yes, there will be a generational in built view of the UK around the world, some good, some bad. But on a governmental level and in people's day to day lives, it will matter only as an afterthought. For countries like the USA, we can use historical links as an 'in' for trade etc, but it will be no more than an 'in' into negotiations. Likewise for other countries where historically, we are viewed with mistrust or generally not positively. Once we get past any lingering historical anger or negativity, trade and business of the day takes over.

I think maybe a sense of British cultural influence with the likes of say India, Pakistan, South Africa, Australia and New Zeeland will maybe be more obvious given a larger longer historical ties which show today through Cricket for all and Rugby for some. But for the rest of the world, bar the language, as much as it may pain some, I'm not sure your average joe could really tell the UK apart from the US, Canada or probably most of western Europe to be honest.

How 90%+ of the world views Britain is through the actions of now, which frankly for a whole host of reasons will not be exactly favourably in terms of how the government of the day do trade deals and conducts itself on the international stage. Offsetting that in a small way (which is often underplayed) is inderect British influence via things like EPL on TV around the world or UK based film and TV.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Theyellowbox

[Scott Steiner]

9 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

It doesn't really matter greatly what Britain has or has not done historically, other than to serve as lessons on what to do and what not to do. What is key for Scotland, the rest of the UK and how the rest of the world perceives us is what we do now and what we do going forward.

Yes, there will be a generational in built view of the UK around the world, some good, some bad. But on a governmental level and in people's day to day lives, it will matter only as an afterthought. For countries like the USA, we can use historical links as an 'in' for trade etc, but it will be no more than an 'in' into negotiations. Likewise for other countries where historically, we are viewed with mistrust or generally not positively. Once we get past any lingering historical anger or negativity, trade and business of the day takes over.

I think maybe a sense of British cultural influence with the likes of say India, Pakistan, South Africa, Australia and New Zeeland will maybe be more obvious given a larger longer historical ties which show today through Cricket for all and Rugby for some. But for the rest of the world, bar the language, as much as it may pain some, I'm not sure your average joe could really tell the UK apart from the US, Canada or probably most of western Europe to be honest.

How 90%+ of the world views Britain is through the actions of now, which frankly for a whole host of reasons will not be exactly favourably in terms of how the government of the day do trade deals and conducts itself on the international stage. Offsetting that in a small way (which is often underplayed) is inderect British influence via things like EPL on TV around the world or UK based film and TV.

You've just disrupted our childish argument with your reasonable post 

Good points though.

[Florentine_Pogen]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/16/dont-call-it-sleaze-call-it-corruption-why-scandal-haunts-boris-johnsons-government

"“Sleaze” is not the right label for the behaviour of Boris Johnson’s government, chiefly because that behaviour does not bear comparison with the scandals that felled the Major administration. Not because, as the Tory cheerleaders at the Telegraph or Express would have you believe, today’s misconduct is not as bad but, on the contrary, because it is much, much worse. Yes, the sexual revelations of the 1990s exposed a florid hypocrisy, while the Hamilton and Aitken affairs involved a serious betrayal of the public trust. But the charge sheet against Johnson is on a different scale. Hypocrisy is a theme once again, of course, typified by the Barnard Castle and Downing Street Christmas party rows – the government breaking the rules it had imposed on everyone else, in the latter case knocking back the booze and playing games while the rest of the country was locked down and, often, alone. But begin with the mildest accusations against the prime minister – which, paradoxically, are also the ones that have cut through most sharply to the public. What’s significant is that they relate not to no-mark backbenchers or previously unknown junior ministers, as most of the 90s stories did, but to the man at the top."