Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well I don't have any pride in a history stained by the proceeds of slavery, which incidentally paid for many of the grand buildings we so gleefully sell to tourists.


Not a great post DJKQ - kneejerk perhaps?: It is, of course, the same shared British history that lead the world in abolishing the established slave trade. The peak of Britain's involvement in the slave trade was probably the 17th & 18th centuries - and while Liverpool and Bristol undoubtedly spent on grand buildings - much of the tourist grabbing grand building took place outside this period. Tower of London, Hadrian's Wall, Stonehenge, Westminster Cathedral anyone?

I don't disagree that it applies everywhere, but just because it does, doesn't make it alright or forgiveable. Nor do I hold any value to the idea that after using the slave trade we were the ones to abolish it...oh well done us! Of course making people work long hours in factories and mines for peacemeal (and making barely enough to feed themselves and their families for a day) while the speculators got rich is not a form of slavery either is it? That went on until the early 20th century.


It is what it is - a stained past with many things to be proud of but equally many things to be ashamed of. The wealth of this country historically was made on the backs of ordinary people who were worked to death and not all of them came from the colonies as slaves.

The wealth of every country historically was made off the backs of ordinary people who were worked to death etc.


We're still wearing clothes and using smart phones built by slaves and indentured labour.


Its very ubiquity makes it an illogical choice as a stick with which to beat the British.


Incidentally, I don't really understand what this attack on Guardian readers is all about. Toynbee is just one of many columnists, and they don't always reflect the paper's politics. Monbiot is pro-nuclear for example, but the paper is not.


I read the Guardian, but thought the Royal Wedding was a terrific event.


Assuming the Guardian or it's readers all fit into a particular mould is a prejudice worthy of the Daily Mail? ;-)

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> .....what a load of cock from Polly Tonybee once

> more

>

> ...Hampstead and your lefty establishment mates

> are not the Voice of the People Polly



Boring.....apart from the notion the Blair held back the forces of conservatism, considering he was the best 'unelected' Conservative we have had in the post in years

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Take it with a pinch of salt.


It is not the Daily Hate, the only truly abhorrent daily. The Express would love to be but nobody reads it. Go out to Bromley and they will say "Oh I read it in the Mail so it must be true" I dunno anyone who says I read it in the Grauniad so it must be true. May get a - did you read that interesting/uninteresting article.


I am impresssed, I only found this thread by mistake but my fans are calling for me, thanks Frankito.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...