I'm getting pissed off...

by Tommy Monk Thu May 07, 2015 8:43 pm

...with the BBC keep banging on about these illegal migrants trying to cross the med and saying how they've been 'rescued' and portraying them as victims.

Todays one being the African (Nigerian) woman who had a baby... they also showed her husband who stayed in Libya where she left from, who's working there and saving money for the 'trip'!!!

They are illegal immigrants, economic migrants, nothing more And should be returned to their home countries immediately!

They left Nigeria for purely economic reasons too, she admitted it on The news piece that it was to look for work.

They were in Libya add he was working, all good, so stay the fuck there or go back to Nigeria!!!

If they want to go somewhere else then they need to apply k.ke everyone else...

They are illegal immigrants and not returning them will just encourage more.

by Guest Thu May 07, 2015 9:43 pm

I agree entirely, they know what they are getting in to when they climb in to those boats, lorries or what ever it takes

by Tommy Monk Thu May 07, 2015 10:09 pm

Apply like everyone else or it makes a mockery of The whole process and A free for all will ensue.

Return to sender!!!

by Guest Thu May 07, 2015 10:39 pm

by Tommy Monk Thu May 07, 2015 10:41 pm

Not even gonna bother watching that what ever it is dodge...

by Original Quill Fri May 08, 2015 6:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Not even gonna bother watching that what ever it is dodge...

Eh...you take yourself too seriously. You're just one opinion. Get in line.

by Original Quill Fri May 08, 2015 6:50 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I agree entirely, they know what they are getting in to when they climb in to those boats, lorries or what ever it takes

So much for Christian Charity.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 6:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I agree entirely, they know what they are getting in to when they climb in to those boats, lorries or what ever it takes

So much for Christian Charity.

Don't start ...

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 7:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I agree entirely, they know what they are getting in to when they climb in to those boats, lorries or what ever it takes

So much for Christian Charity.

Don't start ...

Why not? Christians are taught that whatever they do to the most destitute human beings, they also do to Jesus. I think it's apt to point out when someone who wears his Christianity on his sleeve makes a comment that is un-Christian.

Matthew 25:

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:10 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't start ...

Why not? Christians are taught that whatever they do to the most destitute human beings, they also do to Jesus. I think it's apt to point out when someone who wears his Christianity on his sleeve makes a comment that is un-Christian.

Matthew 25:

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

It's boring if you or Quill are going to turn every thread into a rant about Christians every time one says something you don't like.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 7:11 pm

Sorry if it bores you, but you don't think it's worth pointing out when a self-professed Christian preaches the opposite of what his religion teaches? In fact, I'd think you as a Christian would have more interest than I have in setting the record straight about what Christianity teaches and what it doesn't.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:12 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry if it bores you, but you don't think it's worth pointing out when a self-professed Christian preaches the opposite of what his religion teaches?

No I don't. You already have enough anti-Christian threads to rant in.

It's getting seriously tedious actually.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 7:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry if it bores you, but you don't think it's worth pointing out when a self-professed Christian preaches the opposite of what his religion teaches?

No I don't. You already have enough anti-Christian threads to rant in.

It's getting seriously tedious actually.

What is anti-Christian about this thread? Besides HF's comment, that is.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:16 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No I don't. You already have enough anti-Christian threads to rant in.

It's getting seriously tedious actually.

What is anti-Christian about this thread? Besides HF's comment, that is.

What happened to address the post, not the poster? If you and Quill are going to chase HF around the board making snidey comments about his religion, there will be no other subjects discussed.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 7:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No I don't. You already have enough anti-Christian threads to rant in.

It's getting seriously tedious actually.

What is anti-Christian about this thread? Besides HF's comment, that is.

What happened to address the post, not the poster? If you and Quill are going to chase HF around the board making snidey comments about his religion, there will be no other subjects discussed.

What about Quill's response was not directed toward what HF had written?

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:27 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What happened to address the post, not the poster? If you and Quill are going to chase HF around the board making snidey comments about his religion, there will be no other subjects discussed.

What about Quill's response was not directed toward what HF had written?

It was directed at HF because of his religion.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 7:28 pm

And you're really just sidetracking and deflecting from this point:

Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.

Jesus sends those who don't help the needy to hell. Says it right there.

by Original Quill Fri May 08, 2015 7:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

What is anti-Christian about this thread? Besides HF's comment, that is.

What happened to address the post, not the poster? If you and Quill are going to chase HF around the board making snidey comments about his religion, there will be no other subjects discussed.

You misperceive that rule. I was not relying upon HFA as a person, but his avvie...there is no rule about avoiding mention regarding one's name, avatar or signature. An avatar is speech, and it is fair to juxtapose what one represents with a statement in contradiction.

Besides, I think it's a fine platform for a discussion on Christian Charity. Even though I do not believe in the Pauline Church or any of it's doctrines, including the Bible, I do believe in Christ as a person, and his philosophy of humanism. Why shouldn't we discuss that?

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:29 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:And you're really just sidetracking and deflecting from this point:

Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.

Jesus sends those who don't help the needy to hell. Says it right there.

Oh bore off. It's been nice here today - discussing the election. Why do you always have to try to ruin your own forum by obsessing over and over about religion and picking on people just because they happen to have religious faith?

It's all just blah blah blah from you these days.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 7:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:And you're really just sidetracking and deflecting from this point:

Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.

Jesus sends those who don't help the needy to hell. Says it right there.

Oh bore off. It's been nice here today - discussing the election. Why do you always have to try to ruin your own forum by obsessing over and over about religion and picking on people just because they happen to have religious faith?

It's all just blah blah blah from you these days.

I'm not picking on anyone, just pointing out hypocrisy.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What happened to address the post, not the poster? If you and Quill are going to chase HF around the board making snidey comments about his religion, there will be no other subjects discussed.

You misperceive that rule. I was not relying upon HFA as a person, but his avvie...there is no rule about avoiding mention regarding one's name, avatar or signature.

Besides, I think it's a fine platform for a discussion on Christian Charity. Even though I do not believe in the Pauline Church or any of it's doctrines, including the Bible, I do believe in Christ as a person, and his philosophy of humanism. Why shouldn't we discuss that?

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:31 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh bore off. It's been nice here today - discussing the election. Why do you always have to try to ruin your own forum by obsessing over and over about religion and picking on people just because they happen to have religious faith?

It's all just blah blah blah from you these days.

I'm not picking on anyone, just pointing out hypocrisy.

You're picking on him, and you're making your own forum very tedious in the process.

by Original Quill Fri May 08, 2015 7:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

I'm not picking on anyone, just pointing out hypocrisy.

You're picking on him, and you're making your own forum very tedious in the process.

Don't be ridiculous. He's a big boy. You've lost quite a few debates here lately, and you are just responding by ducking.

Don't be afraid of exposing your views to scrutiny. You might be better for it.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're picking on him, and you're making your own forum very tedious in the process.

Don't be ridiculous. He's a big boy. You've lost quite a few debates here lately, and you are just responding by ducking.

Don't be afraid of exposing your views to scrutiny. You might be better for it.

Blah blah blah - on and on and on you go about religion over and over and over again.

Hey, every time you bleat on about someone being killed by the police in the US, maybe I should mention your and Ben's hypocrisy for living in a country which supports and carries out the death penalty - ie, state-sanctioned murder.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 7:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're picking on him, and you're making your own forum very tedious in the process.

Don't be ridiculous. He's a big boy. You've lost quite a few debates here lately, and you are just responding by ducking.

Don't be afraid of exposing your views to scrutiny. You might be better for it.

Blah blah blah - on and on and on you go about religion over and over and over again.

Hey, every time you bleat on about someone being killed by the police in the US, maybe I should mention your and Ben's hypocrisy for living in a country which supports and carries out the death penalty - ie, state-sanctioned murder.

What, so I should flee the country where I was born? What good would that do? I stay here and fight the death penalty.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:39 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Blah blah blah - on and on and on you go about religion over and over and over again.

Hey, every time you bleat on about someone being killed by the police in the US, maybe I should mention your and Ben's hypocrisy for living in a country which supports and carries out the death penalty - ie, state-sanctioned murder.

What, so I should flee the country where I was born? What good would that do? I stay here and fight the death penalty.

Sure you do ...

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 7:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Blah blah blah - on and on and on you go about religion over and over and over again.

Hey, every time you bleat on about someone being killed by the police in the US, maybe I should mention your and Ben's hypocrisy for living in a country which supports and carries out the death penalty - ie, state-sanctioned murder.

What, so I should flee the country where I was born? What good would that do? I stay here and fight the death penalty.

Sure you do ...

Tell me more about how well you know me Smile

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:43 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Sure you do ...

Tell me more about how well you know me

I know you're an anti-Christianity bigot who is pretending to run a news forum. Why not just rename it the Anti-Christianity forum and have done with it?

by Tommy Monk Fri May 08, 2015 7:43 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:And you're really just sidetracking and deflecting from this point:

Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.

Jesus sends those who don't help the needy to hell. Says it right there.

Yes and we should help them back to their own shores and then help them not to try it again by sinking their boats... then we should spend more time helping our own needy while their people help them...!!!

lol!

by Original Quill Fri May 08, 2015 7:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:ie, state-sanctioned murder.

Ahh...you do have a moral compass. Smile

by Raggamuffin Fri May 08, 2015 7:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:ie, state-sanctioned murder.

Ahh...you do have a moral compass.

It's no secret that I'm opposed to the death penalty.

by Original Quill Fri May 08, 2015 7:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:And you're really just sidetracking and deflecting from this point:

Jesus sends those who don't help the needy to hell. Says it right there.

Yes and we should help them back to their own shores and then help them not to try it again by sinking their boats... then we should spend more time helping our own needy while their people help them...!!!

Why do I have a hard time imagining that. Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Fri May 08, 2015 7:54 pm

It's a bit difficult when we are too busy with other peoples needy...

by Original Quill Fri May 08, 2015 10:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It's a bit difficult when we are too busy with other peoples needy...

Well you accumulated all that wealth from them. What did you do? Squander it all?

by Guest Fri May 08, 2015 10:38 pm

like you ruined the lands you stole from the native indians then?

people who live in glass houses......

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 10:43 pm

darknessss wrote:like you ruined the lands you stole from the native indians then?

people who live in glass houses......

Wait, who stole those lands again? Smile

What was the nationality of the authors of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

Which head of state was the original monarch over the 13 North American colonies that were seized from the natives?

Twisted Evil

by Guest Fri May 08, 2015 10:49 pm

yeah and????

YOU are the ones benefiting from it ..so.........

and I didnt say stole ...I said ruin...and that takes time...and who has "done the time"

I suggest you stop playing semantics...you aint as clever as veya at "anglo baiting"

he comes across as a harmless nutter

you just come across as crass...

I mean ...just who has turned california into a dessert??
youuuuuuu

by Ben Reilly Fri May 08, 2015 10:53 pm

You said "stole" and "ruined." I didn't do either. The British started the stealing, then a rebel faction broke off and continued it. I came along way after all that was done. As far as California goes, I spent a few days there in 2001, and I didn't use that much water.

I'm getting pissed off... 1069003512

by Guest Fri May 08, 2015 10:55 pm

yeah well much the same...i didnt steal anything from anywhere ...so why do I have to pay for these "refugees"?

by Tommy Monk Fri May 08, 2015 11:06 pm

It's useless arguing with this mentality of theirs darkness...

I have shown a current day example of blacks enslaving another black man, but to them, this is still somehow OUR fault.

They live in 'the land of The free' who they stole from the natives after years of brutality, and That is also OUR fault...

The blacks over there are treated badly by them, but this is still OUR fault...

Although we have never had anything to do with any of it all and for centuries have been ourselves subjugated as a people and only now enjoy the fruits of our parents, grand parents and their parents and grand parents labours, who fought against tyranny and for our freedoms and democracy...

Only for todays establishment bastards are intent on removing this from us and signing it away to The EU.

by Ben Reilly Sat May 09, 2015 12:06 am

Tommy Monk wrote:It's useless arguing with this mentality of theirs darkness...

I have shown a current day example of blacks enslaving another black man, but to them, this is still somehow OUR fault.

They live in 'the land of The free' who they stole from the natives after years of brutality, and That is also OUR fault...

The blacks over there are treated badly by them, but this is still OUR fault...

Although we have never had anything to do with any of it all and for centuries have been ourselves subjugated as a people and only now enjoy the fruits of our parents, grand parents and their parents and grand parents labours, who fought against tyranny and for our freedoms and democracy...

Only for todays establishment bastards are intent on removing this from us and signing it away to The EU.

I wouldn't blame anyone for enslaving anyone else except for the person who did it. But you can't get around the fact that the British brought slaves to the modern-day U.S., and that its legacy hasn't died.

You can't hand-wave away the past -- it doesn't mean you're personally held guilty for committing the crimes of your ancestors; it means the decent thing to do is help the children of the people your ancestors hurt.

by Guest Sat May 09, 2015 12:18 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:It's useless arguing with this mentality of theirs darkness...

I have shown a current day example of blacks enslaving another black man, but to them, this is still somehow OUR fault.

They live in 'the land of The free' who they stole from the natives after years of brutality, and That is also OUR fault...

The blacks over there are treated badly by them, but this is still OUR fault...

Although we have never had anything to do with any of it all and for centuries have been ourselves subjugated as a people and only now enjoy the fruits of our parents, grand parents and their parents and grand parents labours, who fought against tyranny and for our freedoms and democracy...

Only for todays establishment bastards are intent on removing this from us and signing it away to The EU.

I wouldn't blame anyone for enslaving anyone else except for the person who did it. But you can't get around the fact that the British brought slaves to the modern-day U.S., and that its legacy hasn't died.

and who's fault is that...sorry but if you (collectively) cant be civilised even to your own thats not my problem

You can't hand-wave away the past -- it doesn't mean you're personally held guilty for committing the crimes of your ancestors; it means the decent thing to do is help the children of the people your ancestors hurt.

even if this were true (which i dispute)that argument fall apart when we consider European migrants, nearly all of which are "economic migrants"

by Tommy Monk Sat May 09, 2015 1:32 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:It's useless arguing with this mentality of theirs darkness...

I have shown a current day example of blacks enslaving another black man, but to them, this is still somehow OUR fault.

They live in 'the land of The free' who they stole from the natives after years of brutality, and That is also OUR fault...

The blacks over there are treated badly by them, but this is still OUR fault...

Although we have never had anything to do with any of it all and for centuries have been ourselves subjugated as a people and only now enjoy the fruits of our parents, grand parents and their parents and grand parents labours, who fought against tyranny and for our freedoms and democracy...

Only for todays establishment bastards are intent on removing this from us and signing it away to The EU.

I wouldn't blame anyone for enslaving anyone else except for the person who did it. But you can't get around the fact that the British brought slaves to the modern-day U.S., and that its legacy hasn't died.

You can't hand-wave away the past -- it doesn't mean you're personally held guilty for committing the crimes of your ancestors; it means the decent thing to do is help the children of the people your ancestors hurt.

No, It was your ancestors who did all of it as you are there and A direct descendant of your ancestors who did it.

I am a descendant of my ancestors who were here in UK and who were themselves subjugated by the same sort of people who were were out in the world subjugating others, along with your ancestors, that resulted in you being the Americans of today.

You being where you are today and the current situation has absolutely everything to do with you and yours, and their treatment of others who are also there and their people and treatment.

I come from hard working common people who have never been in a position of any authority over anything that you so quickly and off handedly try to regularly blame me and my fellow working class people for.

Although I'm sure this is far easier for you to try to attribute blame on others than to actually accept responsibility for it all yourselves...

As it was your ancestors 'freedom' that allowed you to continue subjugating others long after our ancestors had stood up against it and worked together to create a nation based more on real freedoms for all and A democracy that enshrined and ensured that for us peasants here in UK.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 09, 2015 2:06 am

I wouldn't blame anyone for enslaving anyone else except for the person who did it.But you can't get around the fact that the British brought slaves to the modern-day U.S., and that its legacy hasn't died.

Slavery has a long and widespread history that predates the relatively small British involvement as slavemasters by thousands of years.

And again, the minority of 'British' people responsible for it were also responsible for the subjugation of The majority of The rest of The British people both at that time and for centuries before this. Including my ancestors who were also subjugated.

Many other nations controlling elite were also involved in That slave trade at that time in America and surrounding areas. Not just the British controllers.

The slaves themselves were traded from Muslim enslavers or from other black Africans who had captured, enslaved and sold their own people on for profit.

This had been going on for centuries before the British or others had been involved, and is still going on by the Muslims and blacks today against others!!!

Check out the op, Muslim ISIS trading Christian women across Syria and Iraq And elsewhere...

In the US you carried on with slavery long after it was outlawed by Britain and others and then continued with segregation for another 100 years up until around 50-60 years ago... that is why you have the current problems you Do and That is entirely the fault of You and your people and direct ancestors allowing this to continue!!!

You can't hand-wave away the past -- it doesn't mean you're personally held guilty for committing the crimes of your ancestors; it means the decent thing to do is help the children of the people your ancestors hurt.

by Guest Sat May 09, 2015 2:59 am

Sorry need to post some real history for Tommy as once again he scratches the service in regards to any knowledge of the transatlantic slave trade. In other words, he knows jack shit all about it.

For well over 300 years, European countries forced Africans onto slave ships and transported them across the Atlantic Ocean.

The first European nation to engage in the Transatlantic Slave Trade was Portugal in the mid to late 1400's. Captain John Hawkins made the first known English slaving voyage to Africa, in 1562, in the reign of Elizabeth 1. Hawkins made three such journeys over a period of six years. He captured over 1200 Africans and sold them as goods in the Spanish colonies in the Americas.

To start with, British traders supplied slaves for the Spanish and Portuguese colonists in America. However, as British settlements in the Caribbean and North America grew, often through wars with European countries such as Holland, Spain and France, British slave traders increasingly supplied British colonies

The exact number of British ships that took part in the Slave Trade will probably never be known but, in the 245 years between Hawkins first voyage and the abolition of the Slave Trade in 1807, merchants in Britain despatched about 10,000 voyages to Africa for slaves, with merchants in other parts of the British Empire perhaps fitting out a further 1,150 voyages.

Historian, Professor David Richardson, has calculated that British ships carried 3.4 million or more enslaved Africans to the Americas.

Only the Portuguese, who carried on the trade for almost 50 years after Britain had abolished its Slave Trade, carried more enslaved Africans to the Americas than the British (the most recent estimate suggests just over 5 million people).

Estimates, based on records of voyages in the archives of port customs and maritime insurance records, put the total number of African slaves transported by European traders, to at least 12 million people.

The first record of enslaved Africans being landed in the British colony of Virginia was in 1619. Barbados became the first British settlement in the Caribbean in 1625 and the British took control of Jamaica in 1655.

The establishment of the Royal African Company in 1672 formalised the Slave Trade under a royal charter and gave a monopoly to the port of London. The ports of Bristol and Liverpool, in particular, lobbied to have the charter changed and, in 1698, the monopoly was taken away.

British involvement expanded rapidly in response to the demand for labour to cultivate sugar in Barbados and other British West Indian islands. In the 1660s, the number of slaves taken from Africa in British ships averaged 6,700 per year. By the 1760s, Britain was the foremost European country engaged in the Slave Trade. Of the 80,000 Africans chained and shackled and transported across to the Americas each year, 42,000 were carried by British slave ships.

The profits gained from chattel slavery helped to finance the Industrial Revolution and the Caribbean islands became the hub of the British Empire. The sugar colonies were Britain's most valuable colonies. By the end of the eighteenth century, four million pounds came into Britain from its West Indian plantations, compared with one million from the rest of the world.

Who benefited from the Transatlantic Slave Trade?

In the Transatlantic Slave Trade, triangle ships never sailed empty and some people made enormous profits. This Slave Trade was the richest part of Britain's trade in the 18th century. James Houston, who worked for a firm of 18th-century slave merchants, wrote, "What a glorious and advantageous trade this is... It is the hinge on which all the trade of this globe moves."

Between 1750 and 1780, about 70% of the government's total income came from taxes on goods from its colonies. The money made on the Transatlantic Slave Trade triangle was vast and poured into Britain and other European countries involved in slavery, changing their landscapes forever. In Britain, those who had made much of their wealth from the trade built fine mansions, established banks such as the Bank of England and funded new industries.

Who profited?

British slave ship owners - some voyages made 20-50% profit. Large sums of money were made by ship owners who never left England.
British Slave Traders - who bought and sold enslaved Africans.
Plantation Owners - who used slave labour to grow their crops. Vast profits could be made by using unpaid workers. Planters often retired to Britain with the profits they made and had grand country houses built for them. Some planters used the money they had made to become MPs. Others invested their profits in new factories and inventions, helping to finance the Industrial Revolution.
The factory owners in Britain - who had a market for their goods. Textiles from Yorkshire and Lancashire were bought by slave-captains to barter with. One half of the textiles produced in Manchester were exported to Africa and half to the West Indies. In addition, industrial plants were built to refine the imported raw sugar. Glassware was needed to bottle the rum.
West African leaders involved in the trade - who captured people and sold them as slaves to Europeans.
The ports - Bristol and Liverpool became major ports through fitting out slave ships and handling the cargoes they brought back. Between 1700 and 1800, Liverpool's population rose from 5000 to 78,000.
Bankers - banks and finance houses grew rich from the fees and interest they earned from merchants who borrowed money for their long voyages.
Ordinary people - the Transatlantic Slave Trade provided many jobs for people back in Britain. Many people worked in factories which sold their goods to West Africa. These goods would then be traded for enslaved Africans. Birmingham had over 4000 gun-makers, with 100,000 guns a year going to slave-traders.
Others worked in factories that had been set up with money made from the Slave Trade. Many trades-people bought a share in a slave ship. Slave labour also made goods, such as sugar, more affordable for people living in Britain.

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_45.html

by Tommy Monk Sat May 09, 2015 3:05 am

Nothing i said isn't true...

by Guest Sat May 09, 2015 3:26 am

So you see Tommy the nation very much benefited from the Slave Trade, this country being only second to Portugal in how many slaves they transported. You really should never post points as ou do when you know very little how a nation greatly benefited off the slave trade, from the slave traders themselves, of which as seen many were British to the money made from this into the country. Our Bank of England was founded off barbarity. Going off the slave trade by the various groups involved where you do not class them as nations as you do here with the British, you class them all as Muslims, yet do not replicate such methodology and say instead of the British the Christians. You see how you like to try and twist history, of which in both religions it is endorsed and backed by the deity. You fail to understand slavery is as old as civilization itself, where even in ancient times slaves were kept in Britain. You then go on about the slave trade today, what you omit also fro your points is that the vast majority of the British Empire treated many nations within Africa for example or places like India. Where the people were subjugated and treated so appalling to the point of being slaves in every aspect but name only. So badly did the British plunder and exhort money from these nations, of which gain you now benefit today, but they set the nations back years though thier governorship. The vast majority of the popular of these nations were taken from their skilled jobs to work for the British , to make them money. This effected trades for the nation and the people who had learnt up skills over the years, to only then make the vast majority of the nation on a par with slaves, but they educated an elite and only built infrastructure in the main to benefit their needs, like with saving costs to transport goods they were exploiting in these nations.

So if you want to class people by groups, where you say around blacks slaving today. All of which they learn at first hand from white Christians and Muslim Arabs from the past, is that all slavery is wrong but you are only concerned when it is blacks or Muslims to make a racial or xenophobic statement. You have no care for the victims of modern slavery. You only want to use them to make a very poor racial argument against them.

So whites had been enslaving from the time of the Greeks through the Roans on wards. There is slavery issues today that need to be addressed from areas of the world. But stop deflecting on about Muslims or blacks in the slave trade today. Ben posed points that were bang on the money. You deflected from his point trying to make out little British involvement to then compare with Muslims. Neither I or Ben are Muslims, so why would you compare their numbers to nothing relevant to Bens point on British culpability and profits? So you then make your xenophobic argument.

The British involvement in the slave trade is something will forever stain our history.

by Guest Sat May 09, 2015 3:28 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Nothing i said isn't true...

You wrongly claimed the British involvement in the slave trade was very small or few people involved.
On both counts you are utterly wrong.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 09, 2015 3:30 am

In fact you have confirmed it for that period in history... now what about the centuries before and the 200 years up to present date and explain why Muslims and blacks are still continuing to enslave people today???

by Guest Sat May 09, 2015 3:35 am

Tommy Monk wrote:In fact you have confirmed it for that period in history... now what about the centuries before and the 200 years up to present date and explain why Muslims and blacks are still continuing to enslave people today???

What about them when we are talking about the British?

You see this is why you argument fails, you are basing a test off other who were involved in the slave trade as if to diminish the British involvement. We are not talking about Egypt here or Syria or Nigeria, but Ben's point on the British. You defense for the British is that some did it over more years then a the British making all who enslaved wrong.

Again you made two utterly daft claims
You wrongly claimed the British involvement in the slave trade was very small or few people involved.
On both counts you are utterly wrong.

You wanna move on to all slaves trades, am happy to do so, but it has nothing to do with what Ben started to you.

Good night Tommy, please do not attempt any more history you certainly do not understand.

Thanks

by Sponsored content