ALBIONSAINT Posted March 14, 2023 Report Share Posted March 14, 2023 7 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said: Where is your source for 40% from Albania? Certainly not from here if this is official breakdown: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/ Violla ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albanian Buddy Posted March 15, 2023 Report Share Posted March 15, 2023 7 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said: Violla ! If I’m reading that slide correctly it’s picking on certain periods for a specific race of people. It would be very interesting to see what the breakdown over the last 1/2/3/4/5…..10 year period? I believe the English spelling is “voila”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted March 15, 2023 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2023 (edited) 22 hours ago, Hunterian said: It only caused a stir because it was an opinion lots of woke people agree with. He’s entitled to that opinion, of course. Was this the same guy that reported, blow by blow, World Cup games in a country with a questionable human rights record? Is it the same guy who concerns himself with tax avoidance and is currently being investigated? Is it the same guy that is employing Alistair Campbell, a by proxy war criminal? The BBC has got itself in knots over this issue. So let’s get this straight because we are not perfect then we shouldn’t ever try to do anything good? f**k off you reactionary dickhead Edited March 15, 2023 by beyond our ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted March 15, 2023 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2023 20 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said: I am beginning to think That GL is being deliberately provocative to keep himself relative, stripping when Leicester won the league was the first stunt……. When did he strip a relative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted March 15, 2023 Report Share Posted March 15, 2023 On 3/14/2023 at 8:49 PM, Albanian Buddy said: Multiple reasons. Too many for me to list. Wars. Natural disasters. Climate crisis resulting in droughts and floods that are causing displacement of millions of people on a scale we have not witnessed before in our lifetime. The climate crisis is only going to get worse unfortunately. Not to mention the NHS, social security benefits, housing and free education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted March 15, 2023 Report Share Posted March 15, 2023 2 hours ago, beyond our ken said: So let’s get this straight because we are not perfect then we shouldn’t ever try to do anything good? f**k off you reactionary dickhead And with that, @beyond our ken has won the debate... Why some folk come on here and think it's okay to debate like that, I don't know. I suppose it's easy from behind a keyboard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted March 15, 2023 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2023 39 minutes ago, W6er said: And with that, @beyond our ken has won the debate... Why some folk come on here and think it's okay to debate like that, I don't know. I suppose it's easy from behind a keyboard. I never claimed to be perfect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted March 15, 2023 Report Share Posted March 15, 2023 32 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: I never claimed to be perfect I am imagine that if Lineker had said "we must stop the boats, and send back all the illegals", or something along those lines, there would have been a similar outcry. Ultimately he's a public servant, and when receiving public money is supposed to remain neutral on contentious political issues. Whilst the BBC is publicly funded, it must be seen to be politically neutral, and despite @antrin's claims to the contrary, it clearly isn't and will never likely to be - which is why it should no longer be financed by extorting money from the public with the threat of a fine, which itself is enforced by the threat of imprisonment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlet Posted March 16, 2023 Report Share Posted March 16, 2023 1 hour ago, W6er said: I am imagine that if Lineker had said "we must stop the boats, and send back all the illegals", or something along those lines, there would have been a similar outcry. Ultimately he's a public servant, and when receiving public money is supposed to remain neutral on contentious political issues. Whilst the BBC is publicly funded, it must be seen to be politically neutral, and despite @antrin's claims to the contrary, it clearly isn't and will never likely to be - which is why it should no longer be financed by extorting money from the public with the threat of a fine, which itself is enforced by the threat of imprisonment. Correction needed. You said on Monday that as BBC employee his opinions reflect on his employer. He is not employed by the BBC. He is self employed. Nor is he a public servant. The argument may be the same but his contract is not as an employee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted March 16, 2023 Report Share Posted March 16, 2023 11 minutes ago, hamlet said: Correction needed. You said on Monday that as BBC employee his opinions reflect on his employer. He is not employed by the BBC. He is self employed. Nor is he a public servant. The argument may be the same but his contract is not as an employee. Indeed, you're correct and I was wrong. However, he still had a contract with the BBC, which he appears to have breached, and also his profile is greater as a result of presenting MOTD, as many younger folk will not recall his playing days. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if he is self-employed for tax purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted March 16, 2023 Report Share Posted March 16, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, W6er said: I am imagine that if Lineker had said "we must stop the boats, and send back all the illegals", or something along those lines, there would have been a similar outcry. NO, THERE WOULDN’T. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EVEN BIGGER OUTCRY ABOUT HIM TRAVELLING DOWN A SIMILAR ROAD TO GERMANY IN THE 1930s. AND RIGHTLY SO. SIMILAR ENTERTAINERS HAVE BEEN PILLORIED FOR THEIR REACTIONARY VIEWS. A COUPLE OF ELECTIONS AGO, HE TWEETED SEVERAL DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT JEREMY CORBYN. YOUR RIGHT RAGS AND MEDIA APPLAUDED HIM. Ultimately he's a public servant, and when receiving public money is supposed to remain neutral on contentious political issues. NO, HE’S NOT. HE’S AN EX FOOTBALL STAR (A “GREAT” IN ENGLISH EYES. HE’S NOT A PUBLIC SERVANT. Whilst the BBC is publicly funded, it must be seen to be politically neutral, and despite @antrin's claims to the contrary, it clearly isn't WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CURRENT DEBATE! ARE YOU STILL IGNORING THAT POINT!? THE TORIES HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO DISRUPT THE POLITICAL NEUTRALITY OF THE BBC. ITS ENTERTAINERS (SUCH AS JIMMY SAVILLE WITH HIS TORY EMBLEM T-SHIRT AND LOVE IN-WIN WITH HER) HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TREATED AS INDEPENDENT, HIRED-IN WORKERS. and will never likely to be - which is why it should no longer be financed by extorting money from the public with the threat of a fine, which itself is enforced by the threat of imprisonment. I DISMISSED THIS (RUPERT-MURDOCH-BACKED PROPAGANDA)ABOVE. THE LICENCE FEE (A TRIVIAL CHARGE FOR AN INFORMED CIVILISED SOCIETY) WILL BE SUBSUMED INTO GENERAL TAXATION. YOU WILL PAY BUT WON’T REALISE. I hope this helps? Civilised, accurate debate - as you desired. Edited March 16, 2023 by antrin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albanian Buddy Posted March 16, 2023 Report Share Posted March 16, 2023 9 hours ago, W6er said: Not to mention the NHS, social security benefits, housing and free education. It’s been calculated that Great Britain throughout its history has invaded/military conflict/control of 90% of the UN countries. How much of our benefits system was built on the back of slavery and oppression? As one example Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. That is just one country out of many throughout the world where Britain through murder, rape, slavery and theft decimated hundreds of millions of lives primarily for financial gain. Go visit a number of museums in this country and see examples of theft that are publicly displayed. No doubt there are many more private collections that we won’t get to see. The world is far from perfect but possibly all of those benefits that you describe were originally built on a large percentage the wealth generated by other countries Great Britain “controlled”. Much of Paisley’s wealth was created on the back of slavery associated with not only the cotton trade but other areas. British ships carried around six million Africans across the Atlantic, mostly to the Caribbean. Scots were heavily involved in the profiting from the “benefits” of the slave industry including many wealthy landowners around Renfrewshire. These landowners received a great deal in compensation from the government when the trade was ceased but the slaves received nothing. https://rlhf.info/renfrewshires-slave-legacy-1/ Hong Kong ultimately became British due to the “work” of two Scot’s dealing in opium leading to wars between Britain and China. William Jardine and James Matheson set up a company that became hugely successful then and is still flourishing today. Two highly (sic) successful drug dealers who became MPs. They would both be wealthy beyond imagination. The novelist and politician Benjamin Disraeli would obliquely refer to Jardine in a book as ‘richer than Croesus, one Mr Druggy, fresh from Canton, with a million in opium in each pocket’. James Matheson would become so rich that he would buy his own island – the Isle of Lewis. At one point, he was the second-largest landowner in Britain and spent £500,000 building a literal castle on his island as a summer home. Today, Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited, the descendent of that original trading firm, is one of the most valuable publicly traded companies in the world. https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/scots-who-hooked-china-opium-1471413 Landowners even shipped off our own people in favour of sheep as part of the highland clearance’s. The world is far from perfect but I’d say that our country given its repugnant history should perhaps be more a little tolerant than many others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted March 16, 2023 Report Share Posted March 16, 2023 (edited) 6 hours ago, W6er said: Indeed, you're correct and I was wrong. THERE’S A SURPRISE! GOOD TO SEE YOU COME CLEAN! However, he still had a contract with the BBC, which he appears to have breached, NEITHER HE NOR THE BBC APPEAR TO BELIEVE THAT. WHICH IS WHY THE BBC HAVE REALISED THEY NEEDED TO BACK DOWN AND WHY HE HELD HIS GROUND. and also his profile is greater as a result of presenting MOTD, as many younger folk will not recall his playing days. SEE MY COMMENT ABOUT THE APPALLING SAVILLE ABOVE. AND THE POINT ABOUT EVERYONE IN ENGLAND REGARDING HIM -RIGHTLY - AS A FOOTBALLING LEGEND… WHOSE ANTI-CORBYN COMMENTS DURING A PREVIOUS ELECTION WERE NOT- APPARENTLY - BREAKING HIS “CONTRACT”. ALSO… WHAT SORT OF “YOUNGER FOLK” ARE YOU WANTING TO PROTECT FROM LINKER'S “NASTY” LIBERAL VALUES? THAT’S A WEIRD ONE… Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if he is self-employed for tax purposes. WOW. SUCH PERCEPTIVE, DEEP-THINKING! AS THE BBC IS ONLY ONE PART OF HIS INCOME STREAM AND IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS OWNER/PART-OWNER OF OTHER BUSINESSES, THEN I THINK WE ALL KNOW HE’S NOT A BBC EMPLOYEE - BUT A CONTRACTOR. I KNOW IT WAS A SLYLY WEAK ATTEMPT AT LINEKER DENIGRATION, BUT IT NEEDED TO BE CALLED OUT! Edited March 16, 2023 by antrin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted March 16, 2023 Report Share Posted March 16, 2023 13 hours ago, W6er said: I am imagine that if Lineker had said "we must stop the boats, and send back all the illegals", or something along those lines, there would have been a similar outcry. Ultimately he's a public servant, and when receiving public money is supposed to remain neutral on contentious political issues. Whilst the BBC is publicly funded, it must be seen to be politically neutral, and despite @antrin's claims to the contrary, it clearly isn't and will never likely to be - which is why it should no longer be financed by extorting money from the public with the threat of a fine, which itself is enforced by the threat of imprisonment. What a pile of tosh. He is NOT a public servant. He is a freelance sports presenter being paid by the broadcaster. Do you really believe that every person paid from the public purse should be classed as a public servant? Isn your eyes, are all workers involved in supplying the bread for the BBC canteen public servants? He has every right to publicly give his view. The very fact he's been reinstated tells you this. He gets his payment for fronting a sports show FFS. You could argue that he's not worth the money he's paid and I wouldn't disagree. As for the BBC itself. It needs reform to ensure it is not used as an extension to the government of the days propaganda machine. The idea of the BBC being publicly funded so it has no affiliation to any particular section of the population is an excellent concept. It is the abuse of this institution that needs to be stopped. Any decisions that may affect this impartiality has to be done either by, at the very least, a cross party committee. This committee should be made up of an even distribution of MPs and overseen by an independent source. It's never easy to ensure impartiality but taking the opportunity to have it is not a way forward. The vacuum would simply be filled with those with the finance to push their agenda and we have enough of them at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterian Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 On 3/15/2023 at 6:59 PM, beyond our ken said: So let’s get this straight because we are not perfect then we shouldn’t ever try to do anything good? f**k off you reactionary dickhead Sorry? If you can’t debate in an adult fashion then you can keep that kind of comment to yourself. You have absolutely no clue about manners or indeed how to be civilised on a forum and it’s this type of comment that brings the whole thing down. I’m sure you’re better than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 5 minutes ago, Hunterian said: I’m sure you’re better than this. He's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albanian Buddy Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 Hey @W6er Looks like the elite class are rearming the natives they stole from hundreds of years ago. Just as well the boat trip is beyond a small dinghy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64809725 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALBIONSAINT Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 On 3/16/2023 at 7:51 AM, Albanian Buddy said: It’s been calculated that Great Britain throughout its history has invaded/military conflict/control of 90% of the UN countries. How much of our benefits system was built on the back of slavery and oppression? As one example Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. That is just one country out of many throughout the world where Britain through murder, rape, slavery and theft decimated hundreds of millions of lives primarily for financial gain. Go visit a number of museums in this country and see examples of theft that are publicly displayed. No doubt there are many more private collections that we won’t get to see. The world is far from perfect but possibly all of those benefits that you describe were originally built on a large percentage the wealth generated by other countries Great Britain “controlled”. Much of Paisley’s wealth was created on the back of slavery associated with not only the cotton trade but other areas. British ships carried around six million Africans across the Atlantic, mostly to the Caribbean. Scots were heavily involved in the profiting from the “benefits” of the slave industry including many wealthy landowners around Renfrewshire. These landowners received a great deal in compensation from the government when the trade was ceased but the slaves received nothing. https://rlhf.info/renfrewshires-slave-legacy-1/ Hong Kong ultimately became British due to the “work” of two Scot’s dealing in opium leading to wars between Britain and China. William Jardine and James Matheson set up a company that became hugely successful then and is still flourishing today. Two highly (sic) successful drug dealers who became MPs. They would both be wealthy beyond imagination. The novelist and politician Benjamin Disraeli would obliquely refer to Jardine in a book as ‘richer than Croesus, one Mr Druggy, fresh from Canton, with a million in opium in each pocket’. James Matheson would become so rich that he would buy his own island – the Isle of Lewis. At one point, he was the second-largest landowner in Britain and spent £500,000 building a literal castle on his island as a summer home. Today, Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited, the descendent of that original trading firm, is one of the most valuable publicly traded companies in the world. https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/scots-who-hooked-china-opium-1471413 Landowners even shipped off our own people in favour of sheep as part of the highland clearance’s. The world is far from perfect but I’d say that our country given its repugnant history should perhaps be more a little tolerant than many others. Thanks for posting this Albanian Buddy, a lot of points in your post I would have to challenge, the first being the idea that the British looted India, this idea was put forward by Marxist economist Utsa Patniak, the fact that it’s author holds a Marxist worldview rings alarm bells with me about objectivity. It wasn’t hard to find a substantial amount of evidence to undermine this troupe (see below) I will come back to your post at a later date with some more counter arguments. A series of articles and interviews by the economist Utsa Patnaik has revived an old criticism of British colonial rule in India: the regime drained India of money and made the Indians poor.[1] In turn, the drained wealth funded British industrialization. Indian intellectuals like Dadabhai Naoroji first made a version of the claim at the turn of the twentieth century. Elements of the argument survived in political discourses until the 1970s, and then the idea died. It died because the claim was partly based on a wrong economic methodology and partly unverifiable. K.N. Chaudhuri, who did path-breaking work on trade history and wrote the chapter on “foreign trade and balance of payments” in the Cambridge Economic History of India (1982) did a careful assessment of the claim in 1968 and rejected it.[2] Patnaik has revived the debate. Historians should welcome the attempt if it brings new data or methods. Patnaik does neither. Her claim continues to be based on dreadfully bad economics and is still untestable. The three new things she represents are fierce rhetoric, a trusting publisher that did not do adequate refereeing, and an audience ready to believe horror stories about British colonialism without a fact check.[3] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albanian Buddy Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 (edited) Carry on. Be my guest. 😴 💤 Edited March 17, 2023 by Albanian Buddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 19 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said: Carry on. Be my guest. 😴 💤 Nice edit.................... Did you copy/paste that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albanian Buddy Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 13 minutes ago, faraway saint said: Nice edit.................... Did you copy/paste that? 😂 thought it was not worth the hassle. He clearly has a view that differs from mine. If he is arguing that Britain’s past is glorious and without any evidence of slavery, rape and murder then that’s up to him. I must go and get some sleep. I’m up at first light to go find evidence of the cotton fields in Paisley. Where should I try first? Cotton Street? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 On 3/15/2023 at 12:39 AM, Warrior Saint said: No rage here puddle drinker, feel sorry for u really.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W6er Posted March 17, 2023 Report Share Posted March 17, 2023 2 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said: Thanks for posting this Albanian Buddy, a lot of points in your post I would have to challenge, the first being the idea that the British looted India, this idea was put forward by Marxist economist Utsa Patniak, the fact that it’s author holds a Marxist worldview rings alarm bells with me about objectivity. It wasn’t hard to find a substantial amount of evidence to undermine this troupe (see below) I will come back to your post at a later date with some more counter arguments. A series of articles and interviews by the economist Utsa Patnaik has revived an old criticism of British colonial rule in India: the regime drained India of money and made the Indians poor.[1] In turn, the drained wealth funded British industrialization. Indian intellectuals like Dadabhai Naoroji first made a version of the claim at the turn of the twentieth century. Elements of the argument survived in political discourses until the 1970s, and then the idea died. It died because the claim was partly based on a wrong economic methodology and partly unverifiable. K.N. Chaudhuri, who did path-breaking work on trade history and wrote the chapter on “foreign trade and balance of payments” in the Cambridge Economic History of India (1982) did a careful assessment of the claim in 1968 and rejected it.[2] Patnaik has revived the debate. Historians should welcome the attempt if it brings new data or methods. Patnaik does neither. Her claim continues to be based on dreadfully bad economics and is still untestable. The three new things she represents are fierce rhetoric, a trusting publisher that did not do adequate refereeing, and an audience ready to believe horror stories about British colonialism without a fact check.[3] A good post. Some people do not seem to be aware that we were one of many empires - Macedonians, Persians, Romans, Arabs, Mongolians, Ottomans, Russians, to name but a few. We abolished slavery at the height of the Empire, in 1838. The Ottomans didn't ban slavery until 1924, whilst in Saudi Arabia slavery continued until 1962. Quote The Bengal Sati Regulation,[nb 1] or Regulation XVII, in India under East India Company rule, by the Governor-General Lord William Bentinck, which made the practice of sati or suttee illegal in all jurisdictions of India and subject to prosecution. The ban is credited with bringing an end to the practice of sati in India. It was first major social reform legislation enacted by the British in India and one part of the reforms enacted by Bentinck. (...) A regulation for declaring the practice of sati, or of burning or burying alive the widows of Hindus, illegal, and punishable by the criminal courts, passed by the governor-general in council on 4 December 1829... Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Sati_Regulation,_1829 Quote The Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870,[1] also Act VIII of 1870 was a legislative act passed in British India, to prevent murder of female infants. The Section 7 of this Act declared that it was initially applicable only to the territories of Oudh, North-Western Provinces and Punjab, but the Act authorized the Governor General to extend the law to any other district or province of the British Raj at his discretion.[2] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Infanticide_Prevention_Act,_1870 In 1800, India's population is estimated to have been 169 million people. How on earth does @Albanian Buddy imagine that the British managed to rule India without the cooperation of the Indian people? Bear in mind we're talking of a small island half way across the world, where the only means of travelling there was many weeks at sea. Of course, colonialism wasn't good, but we're talking of a time where children were forced to do dangerous work, men were press-ganged into the navy and people were publicly hanged. The wealth certainly wasn't shared with the vast majority of the British people, as the indicated by the fact that recruiting for the Boer War was extremely difficult due to the high percentage of malnourished men at the time. The likes of the Jarrow Hunger Marches occurred in the 1930s. So the idea that the British people lived high on the hog from looted wealth is absolute nonsense. The NHS was founded after Indian independence. The British did bring some positive things to India, however, as colonial powers often do. We brought with us inventions such as the steam engine, and built an extensive rail network and passed on much of our knowledge, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Railways_Institute_of_Mechanical_and_Electrical_Engineering Western medicine; democracy; the rule of law (see above legislation); university education; engineering, architecture and, of course, cricket. Most of the oldest universities in India were founded by the British, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Allahabad The very fact that 2.5 million volunteers enlisted to fight for the British in World War II implies the British were not quite as tyrannical as some believe. Quote Indian volunteers joined the British Indian Army. In September 1939 it had 250,000 men, but by the end of the war it had 2.5 million volunteer soldiers. Indian troops made a huge contribution to the war effort, winning 30 Victoria Cross medals for acts of bravery. 87,000 Indian soldiers were killed. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zk94jxs/articles/zgjff82 Sorry for the late reply, but I work full time and generally don't have the time to commit to debunking some of the claims made on here. I don't know where to start when it comes to @antrin's belief that the Germans were heartlessly turning away refugees arriving from France during the 1930s, for example. 😉 Have a good weekend, all. COYS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albanian Buddy Posted March 18, 2023 Report Share Posted March 18, 2023 7 hours ago, W6er said: Sorry for the late reply, but I work full time. A clear example of modern slavery in the UK. 😂 Perhaps like Lineker you should try being self employed. It’s not all about “avoiding” paying taxes. It would also give you time to help get your “debunking” facts right and less “whataboutery” regarding other “empires”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albanian Buddy Posted March 18, 2023 Report Share Posted March 18, 2023 Perhaps @W6er if you get some time have a read of this book. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inglorious-Empire-What-British-India/dp/0141987146/ or at the very least listen to what the author has to say on a subject that he has thoroughly researched. Once you listen to an alternative view than your own on history perhaps you might understand that your wiki-daily mail views are not a true source of historical factual information. Find out more about the the Indian soldiers “volunteers” and the broken promises of the British for both World Wars. Research the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and how the British General responsible was given a massive financial reward. Investigate the policies of Churchill and the direct impact of multiple famines and how many people starved to death. As one example during WW2 an estimated 3million Bengalis starved to death under British rule. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study Churchill blamed this on the natives because they were “breeding like rabbits”. Really find out why the British built rail roads. Research the destruction of the Indian economy - the punishment beatings and torture dished out to weavers was very unpleasant. Research how the British “Christians” raped women and children and set up 350 prostitution centres. https://www.myindiamyglory.com/2019/03/10/atrocities-on-indian-women-and-india-by-british-during-their-rule/ I could go on but it’s clear we have a different view on history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.