I'm getting pissed off...

First topic message reminder :







...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.

British involvement firstly being comparatively small in the wider history of it all, and also only being done by the same 'British' people that were also responsible for the subjugation of The overwhelming majority of The rest of us British people, My ancestors, who had nothing to do with it at all!!!



Where also you showed some of how many other nations were involved in it, as I said...


But you failed to show the centuries of others involvement of Muslims and other blacks enslavement of others And The hundreds of millions of slaves that went before...



Also failing to highlight that although Britain had a relatively small part in this abhorrent trade in comparison to them, and outlawed it 200 years ago, Americans still carried on with more of The same and even after they themselves passed laws against it around 1870, still carried on with it for many years after and had nearly another 100 years of enforced segregation (apartheid) which is their own direct cause of their racial problems to this day!!!

Wrong again, as who are you comparing it too?
Countries?
Religions?
You see this is why you are the worst form of apologist, when our involvement affected millions. Yes millions, that is not small, that is massive. Britain is one of many nations that enslaved people and you defense is comparison to these wrongs?
Seriously that is so poor, because you are seeking to downplay the barbarity of the British here. I could not give two rates arises about other nations involved when I am not debating that issue, when the only issue made here in reply to you, was your two utterly wrong points. Again you want to talk about the history of slavery, I am bang up for that to discuss, but you are not going to use poor excuses to try and diminish the British involvement off comparisons, of which you move the goal posts dependent on their religion or country or even colour of skin

As seen I showed you real history to show you that you are talking utter bollocks about claiming Britain played a small part, where again you make this claim when you have no methodology stated how you define this, let alone how you ignore and seem to believe millions of Africans enslaved by the British is some how small.


Here is some more history for you:






Britain followed in the footsteps of the Portuguese in voyaging to the west coast of Africa and enslaving Africans. The British participation in what has come to be called the 'nefarious trade' was begun by Sir John Hawkins with the support and investment of Elizabeth I in 1573. (15) By fair means and foul, Britain outwitted its European rivals and became the premier trader in the enslaved from the seventeenth century onwards, and retained this position till 1807. Britain supplied enslaved African women, men and children to all European colonies in the Americas.

The 'Slave Coast' came to be dotted with European forts, their massive guns facing out to sea to warn off rival European slave traders. Each 'castle' incorporated prisons or 'barracoons' in which the enslaved women, children and men were kept, awaiting purchase by the traders, who could initially only reach the coast at those times of the year when the winds blew in the right direction. The prisons – without sanitation, with little air – must have been hell-holes in the humid coastal climates. The death rates are not known.

The trade became a very lucrative business. Bristol grew rich on it, then Liverpool. London also dealt in slaves as did some of the smaller British ports. (16) The specialised vessels were built in many British shipyards, but most were constructed in Liverpool. Laden with trade goods (guns and ammunition, rum, metal goods and cloth) they sailed to the 'Slave Coast', exchanged the goods for human beings, packed them into the vessels like sardines and sailed them across the Atlantic. On arrival, those left alive were oiled to make them look healthy and put on the auction block. Again, death rates (during the voyage) are unknown: one estimate, for the 1840s, is 25 per cent.

Plantation and mine-owners bought the Africans – and more died in the process called 'seasoning'. In the British colonies the slaves were treated as non-human: they were 'chattels', to be worked to death as it was cheaper to purchase another slave than to keep one alive. Though seen as non-human, as many of the enslaved women were raped, clearly at one level they were recognised as at least rapeable human beings. There was no opprobrium attached to rape, torture, or to beating your slaves to death. The enslaved in the British colonies had no legal rights as they were not human – they were not permitted to marry and couples and their children were often sold off separately.

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels. (It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 – again, many believe the numbers were much greater.


http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/sherwood.html


Now stop trying to make poor claims you cannot back up.

Until tomorrow

Your own post dodge....



' Britain followed in the footsteps of the Portuguese in voyaging to the west coast of Africa and enslaving Africans...'




Which had also already been going on for centuries by Muslims and other black Africans.


The 'British' involvement was only relatively small and again only orchestrated by the controlling British establishment who were also responsible for the subjugation of The rest of The vast majority of other British people, like my ancestors, for more centuries!!!



And again you totally miss the point that todays American people and THEIR ancestors carried on with enslavement of others for decades after even the bastard British elite outlawed it, even carried on after their own laws outlawed it, and then had another 100 years of enforced segregation of blacks up until about 60 years ago which is a direct cause of The racial problems they face still today!!!



So for them twats to now try to claim that it was the British wot done it is complete bullshit!!!



It was them who done it and their direct ancestors who done it!!!

Matti proves my point again and shows why he tries to diminish British involvement. Now he goes off the Portuguese who I already mentioned to be the worst with Britain second.
It proves Matti has not read a single point on these threads and keeps repeating the same uneducated drivel because he knows bugger all about the slave trade.

Again you have not even set a measure as to what you are even comparing the slave trade on in regards to who is the worst. Nobody claims the Brits were the worst but that their involvement was massive. I have just showed you countless evidence that the involvement was huge to the point of the country growing economically off this with more jobs for people.

You then repeat the same claim, fail to back it up and fail to base even a measure, which as seen changes dependent on a time frame and what nationality, faith etc they are. The original people of the Americas were European settlers and many of them British that traded in this, the war of independence happened decades later after this started. So even on that point you are making an unfounded claim this is just all Americans once the slaves were there, when the US then was controlled by the British.

As I say you keep repeating yourself proving you have not read the evidence. Or followed the thread.

So you can post the same incorrect accusations again. It will not prove your point.

Now you need to respond to my points or stop wasting my time.
So far you have evaded answering countless


I shall look in later

It is you who is repeating the same shit again and again, failing to acknowledge the bigger picture and trying to back up the bullshit argument that Ben made that it was the British wot done it when even your own highly selective historical accounts contradict this.



And again you totally miss the point that todays American people and THEIR ancestors carried on with enslavement of others for decades after even the bastard British elite outlawed it, even carried on after their own laws outlawed it, and then had another 100 years of enforced segregation of blacks up until about 60 years ago which is a direct cause of The racial problems they face still today!!!



It was them wot done it... they are there and THEIR parents and grand parents and THEIR parents and grand parents were totally responsible for THEIR own actions in continued subjugation of The blacks in THEIR country that THEY took over!!!



I come from very working class stock who have been subjugated by the same type of people for centuries, so I take particular offence at these pricks trying to blame THEIR fuck ups and historical subjugation of others on ME And MY ancestors who were also suffering for generations!!!



So sugar was a little bit cheaper in Britain... So fucking what!?


My ancestors never got to see sugar, let alone taste it!!!


So fuck you and your bullshit deflection rubbish about how it was my fault or the fault of any other of us majority of subjugated working class peasants fault!!!

That is what is called an ultimate fail as a reply

It proves you did not even read Ben's reply either now as well after you latest inventions to things not claimed

You had your chance 3 times to counter the evidence and my points

Each time you acted like a complete ignorant numpty and proved you know nothing about the slave trade making the most embarrassing claims

You had your chance and as predictable you did your favorite thing to repeat and bullshit

I seriously have no time for idiots

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.

Just a reminder for dodge the denier...



He on one hand says he would blame those responsible but then tries to claim that it is somehow only a modern day problem and caused by all us British who have had fuck all to do with anything that THEY have been doing for the last few hundred years or so of THEIR enslavement and discrimination and subjugation of THEIR black people by THEM and THEIR direct parents and grandparents and THEIR parents and grandparents!!!




To try to subvert this culpable responsibility from themselves is just another example of The extent that lefties will go to deny the truth and save themselves from the reality of THEIR own evil!!!



It is pure denial complex at play here...



"...Denial functions to protect the ego from things that the individual cannot cope with. While this may save us from anxiety or pain, denial also requires a substantial investment of energy. Because of this, other defenses are also used to keep these unacceptable feelings from consciousness.
In many cases, there might be overwhelming evidence that something is true, yet the person will continue to deny its existence or truth because it is too uncomfortable to face.
Denial can involve a flat out rejection of the existence of a fact or reality. In other cases, it might involve admitting that something is true, but minimizing its importance. Sometimes people will accept reality and the seriousness of the fact, but they will deny their own responsibility and instead blame other people or other outside forces..."



http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_3.htm

And maybe you idiots forgot this other important detail in history...



http://www.usacitylink.com/usa/independence-day/


On July 4, 1776, we claimed our independence from Britain and Democracy was born. Every day thousands leave their homeland to come to the “land of the free and the home of the brave” so they can begin their American Dream.









Just don't mention the next 200 years of slavery and oppression of blacks by the American people that is apparently now all the fault of all the white British people of today even though most have never been outside the country, and most of the rest never being any further west than Torquay!!!


So how we are somehow responsible for the enslavement of huge numbers of black people in America in the 1800's, and it was us who were whipping them into working harder and picking more cotton back then is anyone's guess...!!!


Of course it was nothing to do with todays Americans and THEIR ancestors who were actually directly responsible for what actually happened...

No Tommy, everyone can see you are just a thick c u n t. America was indeed controlled originally by the British in the colonies, until the American revolution, hence why you are a thick racist turd. Seriously a runny turd has more value to it than anything you say.


You claimed to ben it was minimal, showing how seriously thick you are. So for all to see why you are thick again lol





Britain followed in the footsteps of the Portuguese in voyaging to the west coast of Africa and enslaving Africans. The British participation in what has come to be called the 'nefarious trade' was begun by Sir John Hawkins with the support and investment of Elizabeth I in 1573. (15) By fair means and foul, Britain outwitted its European rivals and became the premier trader in the enslaved from the seventeenth century onwards, and retained this position till 1807. Britain supplied enslaved African women, men and children to all European colonies in the Americas.

The 'Slave Coast' came to be dotted with European forts, their massive guns facing out to sea to warn off rival European slave traders. Each 'castle' incorporated prisons or 'barracoons' in which the enslaved women, children and men were kept, awaiting purchase by the traders, who could initially only reach the coast at those times of the year when the winds blew in the right direction. The prisons – without sanitation, with little air – must have been hell-holes in the humid coastal climates. The death rates are not known.

The trade became a very lucrative business. Bristol grew rich on it, then Liverpool. London also dealt in slaves as did some of the smaller British ports. (16) The specialised vessels were built in many British shipyards, but most were constructed in Liverpool. Laden with trade goods (guns and ammunition, rum, metal goods and cloth) they sailed to the 'Slave Coast', exchanged the goods for human beings, packed them into the vessels like sardines and sailed them across the Atlantic. On arrival, those left alive were oiled to make them look healthy and put on the auction block. Again, death rates (during the voyage) are unknown: one estimate, for the 1840s, is 25 per cent.

Plantation and mine-owners bought the Africans – and more died in the process called 'seasoning'. In the British colonies the slaves were treated as non-human: they were 'chattels', to be worked to death as it was cheaper to purchase another slave than to keep one alive. Though seen as non-human, as many of the enslaved women were raped, clearly at one level they were recognised as at least rapeable human beings. There was no opprobrium attached to rape, torture, or to beating your slaves to death. The enslaved in the British colonies had no legal rights as they were not human – they were not permitted to marry and couples and their children were often sold off separately.

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels. (It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 – again, many believe the numbers were much greater.


http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/sherwood.html

You claimed liked the complete idiot that you are that the British part in the slave trade was minimal. As seen that is nothing more than the views of a complete racist idiot who has never read history and sits in perpetual denial all the time.

Comparatively minimal involvement compared to The Muslim slavery and blacks enslavement of other blacks which went on for centuries before and still happens up to today!!!









And again you totally miss the point that todays American people and THEIR ancestors carried on with enslavement of others for decades after even the bastard British elite outlawed it, even carried on after their own laws outlawed it, and then had another 100 years of enforced segregation of blacks up until about 60 years ago which is a direct cause of The racial problems they face still today!!!



It was them wot done it... they are there and THEIR parents and grand parents and THEIR parents and grand parents were totally responsible for THEIR own actions in continued subjugation of The blacks in THEIR country that THEY took over!!!



I come from very working class stock who have been subjugated by the same type of people for centuries, so I take particular offence at these pricks trying to blame THEIR fuck ups and historical subjugation of others on ME And MY ancestors who were also suffering for generations!!!

Here is what Ben said:

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.


Twatti replied:

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

Worng:
Americans were made up mainly of colonists when they slave trade started, thus being European, many the majority being British. British  control did not end until independence
Even then many are of European descendeny and more immigrants coming from Europe, again many British.



Twatti then also said:

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.


Wrong again

British involvement was not minor at all:




Britain followed in the footsteps of the Portuguese in voyaging to the west coast of Africa and enslaving Africans. The British participation in what has come to be called the 'nefarious trade' was begun by Sir John Hawkins with the support and investment of Elizabeth I in 1573. (15) By fair means and foul, Britain outwitted its European rivals and became the premier trader in the enslaved from the seventeenth century onwards, and retained this position till 1807. Britain supplied enslaved African women, men and children to all European colonies in the Americas.

The 'Slave Coast' came to be dotted with European forts, their massive guns facing out to sea to warn off rival European slave traders. Each 'castle' incorporated prisons or 'barracoons' in which the enslaved women, children and men were kept, awaiting purchase by the traders, who could initially only reach the coast at those times of the year when the winds blew in the right direction. The prisons – without sanitation, with little air – must have been hell-holes in the humid coastal climates. The death rates are not known.

The trade became a very lucrative business. Bristol grew rich on it, then Liverpool. London also dealt in slaves as did some of the smaller British ports. (16) The specialised vessels were built in many British shipyards, but most were constructed in Liverpool. Laden with trade goods (guns and ammunition, rum, metal goods and cloth) they sailed to the 'Slave Coast', exchanged the goods for human beings, packed them into the vessels like sardines and sailed them across the Atlantic. On arrival, those left alive were oiled to make them look healthy and put on the auction block. Again, death rates (during the voyage) are unknown: one estimate, for the 1840s, is 25 per cent.

Plantation and mine-owners bought the Africans – and more died in the process called 'seasoning'. In the British colonies the slaves were treated as non-human: they were 'chattels', to be worked to death as it was cheaper to purchase another slave than to keep one alive. Though seen as non-human, as many of the enslaved women were raped, clearly at one level they were recognised as at least rapeable human beings. There was no opprobrium attached to rape, torture, or to beating your slaves to death. The enslaved in the British colonies had no legal rights as they were not human – they were not permitted to marry and couples and their children were often sold off separately.

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels. (It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 – again, many believe the numbers were much greater.


http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/sherwood.html


You want to debate about all other areas in history about the slave trade more than happy to educate you on this also, but what you responded to Ben was sheer and uitter bollocks as the British were very much involved in the slave trade. You then daftly try to compare to countless nationalities and their religion to the British is not even a comparrison, it would be Christians compared to Muslims. Hence again your ability to measure comparrisons is idiotic to say the least. That is a mere deflection tyo bring up other slavery when what is being discussed is the British involvment. It insults those who suffered under this slavery where you are poorly trying to diminsih how they suffered.

My ancestors have never been to America so was nothing to do with them... however those actually in America are direct descendants of their ancestors who carried out the slavery and then carried it on after it was outlawed by the British and then carried on segregating blacks and persecuting them for another 100 years up until the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s.

That is why they have the racial problems that they have now.

Tommy Monk wrote:My ancestors have never been to America so was nothing to do with them... however those actually in America are direct descendants of their ancestors who carried out the slavery and then carried it on after it was outlawed by the British and then carried on segregating blacks and persecuting them for another 100 years up until the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s.

That is why they have the racial problems that they have now.

This country not only was actively involved in the slave trade from building ships with trades etc to those employed with them, which was countless people, but the country benefited vastly off this wealth. The Bank of England was started off money from the Slave trade So every single one of us born here has been born into a society that became wealthy off the slave trade. Your privalidge position starts out on life with blood on its hands. You may not be directly involved in the slave trade, neither was I, but both of us have benefited from how it helped advance this country and make it far richer. This leads to better schooling sytems etc for society.
We have racial problems here with the likes of you. Where America differs to us on the issue of racism. We through democracy ended slavery. They went to war, this left resentment, wars always do. You then have to look at the indigenous that were enslaved in North and South America, those butchered and the millions that died from illnesses brought by the Europeans.
So at least you are not still desperately clinging to your poor claims, which clearly shows you then must agree your points were wrong.

Excellent and have a good day

You are conflating different arguments and twisting as usual dodge...

Those actually in America are direct descendants of their ancestors who carried out the slavery and then carried it on after it was outlawed by the British and then carried on segregating blacks and persecuting them for another 100 years up until the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s.

That is why they have the racial problems that they have now.

Tommy Monk wrote:You are conflating different arguments and twisting as usual dodge...

No, just correcting your countless errors you posted in exchange with Ben.

At least I recognise the wrongs from our past history, you try to dimish them. If someone was trying to dimish the Muslim slave trade you would pee your pants in over excitement anger, flipping a lid over it. So please spare me the crap, what you post was insulting to the victims of the slave trade.
Their ancestors enslaved them?
Sorry, what the fuck on your on about Twatti?
So there is no different ethnic groups or tribes in Arica now? When Africans capture other Africans they are the same ancestors? Yeah your ancestors were also African, how far do you wanna go back in time?
No many Africans were exploiting a lucrative trade offered to them by the Europeans and Muslims. Millions of Africans suffered and you go off some tribes that exploited this as if to now insult further the countless ethnic and tribal groups that suffered slavery?
Seriously you are one fucked up idiot.

you just made a very valid point....

how far back DO you want to go????


slavery finished 200 plus years ago

moreover we DID NOT strip these countries of their entire wealth...as is obvious from the gem and precious metal production in many parts of africa

yes we did some damage and hhell yes our ancestors were not very nice to the natives

BUT over the years we have more than repaid in terms of aid, trade and even in some countries we left them "good governance"

teh fact that in the years since independance most of them have regressed to mindless savagery, rather than building on what we left them (in terms of the KNOWLEGE of good governance) is not my problem

I wonder just how much in terms of not only aid from govt but money and physical aid from chrities has been poured into the bottomless pit that is half or more of africa??
It must run into billions over the last 20 years alone....

Not to mention the fact that half OR MORE of the places these "migrants" are comming from were not OUR colonies

others wer there too...france portugal.....

so they can bloody well have em instead.....

You are again missing my point...



Muslims and blacks themselves were responsible for the vast majority of slavery over the last 1000 years or so and are still at it.


Those non blacks actually in America today are in many cases direct descendants of those who carried out the slavery and then carried it on after it was outlawed by the British and then carried on segregating blacks and persecuting them for another 100 years up until the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s.

That is why the US has such racial trouble today.


I had a friend here in UK, black Muslim fella, African mother, father was a Arab Muslim and he told me his ancestors were involved in the slave trade as traders and that's how his family made their money.

None of my family ever had slaves or were involved in it, we were ourselved subjugated by the ruling classes who were involved.


And like I said, the British involvement was comparatively small compared to the Muslims history of slavery and blacks own slavery of other blacks... something that is still going on today.

That is why they have the racial problems that they have now.

darknessss wrote:
you just made a very valid point....
how far back DO you want to go????
slavery finished 200 plus years ago
moreover we DID NOT strip these countries of their entire wealth...as is obvious from the gem and precious metal production in many parts of africa
yes we did some damage and hhell yes our ancestors were not very nice to the natives
BUT over the years we have more than repaid in terms of aid, trade and even in some countries we left them "good governance"
teh fact that in the years since independance most of them have regressed to mindless savagery, rather than building on what we left them (in terms of the KNOWLEGE of good governance) is not my problem
I wonder just how much in terms of not only aid from govt but money and physical aid from chrities has been poured into the bottomless pit that is half or more of africa??

Poor history again. We completely effected the skills learnt by many within these countries, many of which were lost over time as people were made to works to the British economy of what they created in industries. They educated a small elite of society, creating a very bad system and culture for these people. They may have built some infrastructure, but it mainly only was built to make the trades more efficient and faster, where it benefited the British, the elites in these societies. We left these nations just like other Europeans in a state of mess. It had shown them a poor greedy way to rule, where the elite benefited and left many destitute. Many people are the countries came independent had to learn trades again from scratch, but again where we left a poor cultural political system that was based on the most powerful exploiting the weak, Africa has continued to suffer with corrupt regimes, all learn very much from the Europeans.
Again not only this our nation vastly benefited to the point of having such wealth allows for ingenuity and time to develop better infrastructure for a society. We benefit from this today, because it made us wealthy to the point we are now one of the most richest nations in the world.

So yeah it still matters greatly and it will take decades to correct the wrongs done left by the Europeans in Africa.



To Tommy, your points were shown to be incorrect, you can continue to waffle on all you like, have a far more interesting discussion going on with Victor who is intelligent, unlike yourself.

You just cannot take the truth dodge so you go into denial mode.

Tommy Monk wrote:You just cannot take the truth dodge so you go into denial mode.

Is that why I easily correct your errors again.

Stop wasting my time, you know next to nothing about history, you makes poor excuses and fabrications about history and you certainly never learn from history.

You have not proved anything I've said not to be true... in fact you have confirmed much of it with your own copy and paste links!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:You have not proved anything I've said not to be true... in fact you have confirmed much of it with your own copy and paste links!!!

Sigh, you keep telling yourself that Twatti, just like when you deluded yourself over UKIP would have 28% vote for them and countless seats.
As seen I easily showed up your errors, you have not been able to counter them, instead you again try to diminish British involvement and I know I have because out comes the poker tell you know you are wrong..

The famous  

Now it gets boring that you constant live in denial, so I have no more needed to be said or reply to you further here, as it is obvious you were wrong.

Never mind chap

yeah right didge, so what you are saying is, that given that these countries have had in some cases nigh on a century to sort themselves out, that thay are in fact incapable of doing so.

and as I have said what has been poured into these countries over the last 20 years alone is more that sufficient "reparations"

and that doesnt account for what was poured in there PRIOR to the last 20 years....

nor does it account for the billions that WILL be poured into there in the future

and YET we are still expected to do MORE

We have (and still continue to ) repay with interest.....

so taking in these migrants is NOT part of the whole "we were horrid" system

we DO NOT owe a "DOUBLE" debt of any kind....

AND...let these other countries ...who were ALSO responsible take em as well instead of sending em here....

and you are as bad as TOMMY didge....

you accusing him of trying to "diminish" british responsibility


all YOU do is "big it up"

I'm stating facts.


You cannot disprove the truth!



Instead you get angry trying... then you conflate other arguments... then you start deflecting with other irrelevant stuff like UKIP and elections or moon landings or some other bullshit...


Along with the constant claim to have countered all my points and shown how I was all wrong when in fact you have done nothing of the sort...






I have not denied that some British were involved in some of the slave trade for some time or that some of them took some of the slaves to America...


What I'm saying is that others were also involved in the slave trade and also took slaves to America...


But the racial problems that the US has today is because of their treatment of blacks for the last 200 years after the British abolished slavery...


The Americans themselvescarried on with the slave trade for another 50 years or so and then carried on treating blacks badly with segregation for another 100 years up to the 60's ...


That is why they have the problems they do.





But this thread is about the illegal immigrants who are no more than economic migrants who are trying to cross the med and bullshit their way into Europe.


And how they should be removed back to where they came from.

darknessss wrote:yeah right didge, so what you are saying is, that given that these countries have had in some cases nigh on a century to sort themselves out, that thay are in fact incapable of doing so.
and as I have said what has been poured into these countries over the last 20 years alone is more that sufficient "reparations"
and that doesnt account for what was poured in there PRIOR to the last 20 years....
nor does it account for the billions that WILL be poured into there in the future
and YET we are still expected to do MORE
We have (and still continue to ) repay with interest.....
so taking in these migrants is NOT part of the whole "we were horrid" system
we DO NOT owe a "DOUBLE" debt of any kind....
AND...let these other countries ...who were ALSO responsible take em as well instead of sending em here....

Will answer your first point before I go very easily.

Ho many years did it take the west to sort itself out when it had wealth?
Quite a few centuries by any chance Victor?
You neglect what impact we had on the system and culture in how we advantaged an elite in a system with education etc. You then have countless generations who are not so advantaged and lesser educated than the rest. So how long do you think that takes Victor to bring about a parity where there is schools for all and infrastructure there when are not even educated from the start?
So your way of understanding the problems is short sighted and two dimensional here. When Britain became very wealthy in the 17th and 18th centuries it took until the 20th century to bring a comparability with education and health system for all. We created these problems because we left these nations in such a mess, where it as a very racist and discriminating system by the British. When you have a nation with the majority poor where many need to work in order to just eat and survive it is difficult to bring people out of this, as more money is needed to support them while they are educated. This then leads to people with more skills and jobs. So your view to think this could all be sorted out within a few decades is poor to say the least and fails to even understand the difficulties in doing so.
So whilst it took Britain a few centuries to get to the point we are at today, even though we had vast wealth in the past all of which was plundered and exploited from its Empire, you expect results in far lest a time frame and for them to mainly sort it out themselves by just chucking money at them.
That is so short sighted again where it is skilled people they mostly need to help bring about the kind of infrastructure many of these countries need. Some African nations are though progressing well due to wealth in oil, but again it takes time.

Back later, have a good evening

the whole thing in a nut shell


MYTH 1: We can afford to spend a few billion pounds to help the world’s poor

Defenders of aid say we have a moral duty to help those less fortunate and we are a rich country that can afford it. This argument is put forward by ministers and supporters such as the heiress Jemima Khan, who claims Britain is wealthy enough to spend such trifling sums on aid.

Here are the facts. When Tony Blair established the Department for International Development (DFID) as the political wing of the charity movement in 1997, its budget was £2.6 billion — more than twice the Foreign Office allocation.

Today, we spend £8.1 billion, which will increase to £11.4 billion in 2014 — a 34 per cent rise, despite spending cuts elsewhere.

Unsurprisingly, MPs are getting a growing postbag over this. We are giving more than £300 per household to the world’s poor while public sector jobs are lost and vital services for the elderly and disabled are closed. The head of the Royal Navy has warned there may not be enough money to pursue the war in Libya.

Four out of five voters oppose the cross-party consensus of increasing aid spending, according to a new YouGov@Cam survey. I share the ideals behind foreign aid — and, if it worked, I would say spend more. Unfortunately, the policy is based on old-fashioned concepts, outdated figures and all too often makes life worse, not better, for people in poorer nations.

MYTH 2: We must hit the UN target to give away 0.7 per cent of our GNP in aid

Ah yes, the sacred target. For a government promising to sweep away targets, the Coalition is strangely wedded to this particular one.

We’re handing over 0.56 per cent of national income — far more than our economic rivals. Germany contributes 0.38 per cent of its income, while we donate twice as much as Japan and five times as much as Italy.

But this target is absurd, arbitrary and outdated. It was first calculated more than four decades ago based on theoretical data from the Forties, and was the result of back-of-the-envelope calculations of the needs of poor countries.

Since then, Western economies have soared while many poor nations have stagnated.

Five years ago, the United Nations itself said the amount of aid really needed was 0.44 per cent of national income.

Development economists applying the original calculations to today’s world yielded an aid goal of just 0.01 per cent of rich countries’ gross domestic product (GNP).


MYTH 3: Aid works

The economist Peter Bauer famously said aid transfers cash from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. His words have been underlined by scores of studies that found idealism tempered by harsh reality.

Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo revealed the West had given more than half a trillion pounds to Africa, but over the past three decades the most aid-dependent recipients saw negative annual growth rates.

Haiti is another example. It was given official aid of more than £6 billion — four times as much per person as Europe received under the Marshall plan for post-war reconstruction — in the 50 years before last year’s earthquake.

Private aid poured in as well, with more charities operating in Haiti per capita than any other place on the globe. Despite this, income fell by a third.

It has, of course, endured despotic leaders, dreadful corruption and political unrest.

The same goes for the Dominican Republic, with which it shares an island — but while receiving far less aid, this nation saw incomes and life expectancy soar over this period.


From... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012074/David-Camerons-foreign-aid-How-money-squandered.html

Effectively we have given from govt only source over half a trillion pounds

and this is increasing at an ever growing rate....11.4 billion last year added to it...
yet more this year etc etc etc

THEN on top there are the charities pouring in aid....

I think we have done and are continuing to "do our bit"....

No need to take in what are merely economic migrants

oh and £300 per person equals tax on £1500 at lowest rate......
so basically if you are a tax payer ...


YOU are having to work about 5 hrs a week on average extra to "keep" your brother.....(if like many you are earning just over min wage)

OI WHAT???

That shows you did not digest my counter.

What did I say about throwing money at the problem?

You just helped me prove my point.

Again most aid will get through, but there is corrupt governments which is not a reason to stop either as in doing so more suffer.
Again because the British left the most lasting legacy one of which was to create an elite within society that basically discriminates against the rest of society, it will take years to change this imbalance because it is the elite that hold power. All of which Britain created as they were the elite when they rules. Just think about how bad that legacy is. One that educated people based on racist lines thinking they were inferior. With more people educated and the facilities for education, they is then a real chance of change and an end to the power strangle hold the elite have in these societies. So there is plenty we can do and it is skilled people and infrastructure they need more than anything. Again this is going to take years to accomplish and why we must never give up on doing so as it was the British that was a major factor in creating the problems. That is why there is a problem with foreign aid, they would not be with elitist and corrupt government all learnt from the Europeans. Aid is still very much needed more than ever and we certainly owe it to them to continue due to the mess we left their societies in, even more so by creating a power house which is difficult to overcome of those elite in power

As I say I will be back later.

"aid transfers cash from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries"





Exactly!



Plus billions of tax payer funds are handed away by central govt and local councils every year to so called 'charities' here in UK.

so if they need skilled people over there ...why are we taking em here....

and why are they not upskilling the peole they need?


sorry....no matter how you liberalists spin it...it aint my problem


you can polish a turd as much as you like...but at the end its still a turd....

(and just incase you want to divert by using that...its a linguistic device known as metaphor (and aimed at an action not people)...so dont)

of course you realise that 11 odd billion would pay for the entire JSA and Income support bill dont you

but of course those on that are mainly white and british...so they dont count as they MUST all be idle bastards....

darknessss wrote:so if they need skilled people over there ...why are we taking em here....
and why are they not upskilling the peole they need?
sorry....no matter how you liberalists spin it...it aint my problem
you can polish a turd as much as you like...but at the end its still a turd....
(and just incase you want to divert by using that...its a linguistic device known as metaphor (and aimed at an action not people)...so dont)

Yes they do need many skilled people out there, which vastly exceeds the skilled shortages we need.
Again why do they not have people skilled? How many more times about how a power elite rules, countless uneducated, where it needs schools and teachers? All of which the British played a major factor in creating. That will take countless years to address this imbalance.
Sorry but saying it is not your problem just does not cut it or accept the fact your advantaged start in life being born here is down partially to the wealth we plundered and extorted from Africa etc.
So your chance to be educated and have all these schools to teach a nation of people only happened, because we became very wealthy off exploiting other nations. So as a nation, we have to correct a wrong done to them, which we still benefit from today.
So the problem is always your "me, me, me" attitude, neglecting the British system created from where we subjugated nations and became wealthy off this to where others worked made it what it is. So you were able to have best chances to succeed in life. Nothing you did made the system, you are just a part of that system, which you benefit from.

darknessss wrote:of course you realise that 11 odd billion would pay for the entire JSA and Income support  bill dont you

but of course those on that are mainly white and british...so they dont count as they MUST all be idle bastards....

Are you seriously making one of the poorest racist arguments I have heard you say?

You are comparing people on benefits to those found poorest in Africa, real poverty and that 11 odd billion which does help many in Africa would be better spent here, because the people here are mainly white and British. Thus also not including those Black and Asian British to benefit from this money?

The fact is they do count those on benefits because they actually receive benefits, which the Africans do not have, where they starve to death. Even worse you make a it racist point going of just the White British.
Do not attempt to deny it was not racist when you brought white and British compared to those in Africa you live in real poverty.

Seriously Victor that was pathetic of you

Blah Blah Blah Blah... same old waffle...



They are economic migrants chancing their luck and should be returned.



Allow some and more will come, then what!?


Allow more and even more will come!


Making a complete mockery of the processes of legal and manageable immigration.


Where do you draw the line!?

Sorry can someone pass Twati a tissue, a load of his verbal shit just dribbled onto the forum again.
You are one person Tommy who thinks you can decode the fate of all others and again from an advantaged position you have only from being born here. It shows you care little and mainly for yourself.
Anyway you are just repeating the same old verbal diarrhea as usual.

So you can't answer the simple question then dodge!?



I care about my people... maybe if they cared about each other a bit more then their countries would be a bit better...



The example in the op was of two Nigerians who have their own country to live in and as you say, has vast resources and oil... with majority living there quite happily so they can go there can't they!

Tommy Monk wrote:So you can't answer the simple question then dodge!?
I care about my people... maybe if they cared about each other a bit more then their countries would be a bit better...
The example in the op was of two Nigerians who have their own country to live in and as you say, has vast resources and oil... with majority living there quite happily so they can go there can't they!

Your people?
Humans are your people, we are one species and are thus proving how utterly racist you are.
Being British and English are just a man made conception to define a group of people from a nation, of which the vast majority of which you never interact with or even know. Again this country used to have a system where the money was not put into education, health etc, an elitist society where people suffered. Things changed but more so off exploiting other nations. Without this, would you have been able to go to school or if there was one to have the many teachers to teach all these subjects? All this you benefit from and think because there is an imaginary boundary around a nation to define a group of people that are so ethnically diverse now today, who you deny many to be classed as British or English, where you can be genetically closer to someone living in Africa to someone on your own street you is white and English, that you think this gives you the right to be selfish to other humans based on a racist view point.


Utterly and 100% absurd reasoning

Waffle... my people meaning my countries people and our govt looking after our people... they have their own countries and govts.


If they want to emigrate then they should apply like everyone else does through the correct channels... not just think they can break in illegally, which is effectively what they are doing.



SO how about answering my previous points and question!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle... my people meaning my countries people and our govt looking after our people... they have their own countries and govts.
If they want to emigrate then they should apply like everyone else does through the correct channels... not just think they can break in illegally, which is effectively what they are doing.
SO how about answering my previous points and question!?

The connection you are claiming is man made, it only exists in the mind, which means you are not counting all other humans as your people, when they most certainly are. Even to claim people as your people here and looking after them, well that is interesting Twatti, as to you this is based on the colour of skin and descend  from some ancient ethnic groups, neglecting we all descend back to Africa. You do not even know most of these people and know doubt turn your nose up to most of them when you walk down the street. So your claim to others living here being your people when you have very little if nothing to do with many of them, no doubt doing very little to help many everyday in society and claim with as seen a fallacy argument they are your people is utterly absurd. As to your question which has been answered so many times, proving again you never read the replies of people is that you draw the line when the age discrepancy has been balanced. I have explained this to you many times that the elderly will make up a quarter of the nation by 2050. Thus we will need either a baby boom for years or more immigration to help address the imbalance.

Again you fail to understand how the nations past deeds created the advantaged system you now live in. We played a major part in the problems of these other countries and your view is one of racism and selfishness. It proves beyond doubt this is all racial to you, because if you care about humans, as you claim to with people who are identified as British, you would care about all humans. If your reason is as seen based on a man made conception of race and their skin colour, then your view is not caring about humans at all. It Is selective and racial your claim to fellow people.

The points you never are able to counter my points and again and again repeat the same drivel and to be honest it gets boring educating your prejudiced views, ones born from ignorance.

Anyway as seen you never counter my points twatti and you will just repeat yourself going around in circles.

Victor made it interesting, you made it as usual very boring.
Unless you counter my views, then this is the end of the debate for you. Best you come up with comprehensive replies. If not your chance is over to make your point, which as seen has little to no validity.

Catch you later

Bullshit dodge... it was intelligence, innovation and invention that made us successful while others were quite happy sitting around under bushes picking dingleberries out of their arse holes!



And would still be doing the same if It wasn't for our intervention.



They have their own countries and vast resources so why don't they develop better infrastructures for themselves?


The two in the op are Nigerian and That is a perfectly good enough place for them to live So they need to go back there and apply for immigration like everyone else through the correct channels.






They are economic migrants chancing their luck and should be returned.



Allow some and more will come, then what!?


Allow more and even more will come!


Making a complete mockery of the processes of legal and manageable immigration.


Where do you draw the line!?

Nope, that just does not even cut it or there is next to nothing to counter my points as usual. Never mind as I say, when you are as prejudiced as you are, it is why your reasons fall apart and have little to no validity. They contradict as well.

Oh well, off out now, so it was fun point out your errors again, even if you fail to recognise or register them, hence why you have problems understanding.

Cheers

They are economic migrants chancing their luck and should be returned.



Allow some and more will come, then what!?


Allow more and even more will come!


Making a complete mockery of the processes of legal and manageable immigration.


Where do you draw the line!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

They are economic migrants chancing their luck and should be returned.

Allow some and more will come, then what!?

Allow more and even more will come!

Making a complete mockery of the processes of legal and manageable immigration.

Where do you draw the line!?

It sounds suspiciously like you have been dabbling in social theory, tommy.  You are speculating and predicting the behavior of people in social groups.

Are you a socialist?  

I am using common sense quim... something lefties, socialists and especially 'progressives' don't have much grasp of...