|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 7, 2024 11:07:11 GMT
Lord Ashcroft pledges £25k for memorial to Navy slave trade busters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2024 11:22:23 GMT
Why is this bad news for the lefties?
There is nothing wrong with pledging money to a memorial fund, why do you think there is?
As for cutting taxes and saving money by hitting the most vulnerable in society, we expect it, it is quite normal they have been doing the same sort of thing since they came to power.
It's electioneering, plain and simple, he can say what he wants he's not going to win.
If, though by some really odd planetary alignment, he did get in he would just use the same old excuse, "We can cut money for the poor but Labour are stopping us reducing taxes", haven't you worked out the Tories yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 7, 2024 18:11:37 GMT
In 1833, Great Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire - It was called the most expensive moral action in history. So well worth celebrating.  |
|
|
|
Post by buryfc63 on Jan 7, 2024 18:26:56 GMT
In 1833, Great Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire - It was called the most expensive moral action in history. So well worth celebrating. Armt we still paying that dept what was paid to the Slave trade. Or not long ago finished paying it. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 7, 2024 19:03:36 GMT
In 1833, Great Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire - It was called the most expensive moral action in history. So well worth celebrating. Armt we still paying that dept what was paid to the Slave trade. Or not long ago finished paying it. I presume you refer to this assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d78a6e5274a676d53243f/FOI2018-00186_-_Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833_-_pdf_for_disclosure_log__003_.pdfThe Government used £20 million to fund the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. In 1833, this was equivalent to approximately 40% of the Government’s total annual expenditure.
The Slavery Abolition Act (1835) Loan was rolled over into the Government’s gilt programme, ultimately into an undated gilt, the 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after).The term ‘undated’ refers to the fact that this gilt was issued with an earliest potential redemption date of 1957, but it was not compulsory for the gilt to be redeemed at this
date. The 4% Consolidated Loan was redeemed on 1 February 2015, as part of the Government’s decision to modernise the gilt portfolio by redeeming all remaining undated
gilts.
The government therefore decided that the £20million borrowed to fund its 1833 decision was to be retained as a loan against which UK Taxpayers have been paying the interest from 1833 until 1st Feb 2015. As the link above states, the decision to retain the debt over that prolonged period was a decision related to the manner in which the debt was to be structured for repayment, and not directly related to the size of the loan, although I suspect repayment in the 18th century would have caused a degree of penury to make the iron masters revolt and the chartist riots appear a bout of fisticuffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 7, 2024 19:09:29 GMT
Why is this bad news for the lefties? Simply put, it is useful to have a reminder that the next twat who comes along demanding we make "reparations" needs to be told had our great great (hang on, yes one more and that's for me aged 66) great grandfathers had not been robbed blind in 1833, every bloody one of them would still BE enslaved and that therefore they should take their demand and shove it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2024 19:29:08 GMT
In 1833, Great Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire - It was called the most expensive moral action in history. So well worth celebrating. Of course, most of that money was used to compensate the slaveholders, not the slaves. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Jan 7, 2024 19:59:45 GMT
In 1833, Great Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire - It was called the most expensive moral action in history. So well worth celebrating. Of course, most of that money was used to compensate the slaveholders, not the slaves. And rightly so . Whatever anyone thinks of the slave trade and I guess most of us agree with its abolition the fact remains the slaves were purchased under contract . Many slaves remained with their former owners as paid labourers ,without the compo there would have been no money to pay them , chaos and starvation would have been the order of the day . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2024 20:05:54 GMT
Of course, most of that money was used to compensate the slaveholders, not the slaves. And rightly so . Whatever anyone thinks of the slave trade and I guess most of us agree with its abolition the fact remains the slaves were purchased under contract . Many slaves remained with their former owners as paid labourers ,without the compo there would have been no money to pay them , chaos and starvation would have been the order of the day . You could have used the same arguments for compensating I G Farben for having to free it's concentration camp slaves when the Allies took over. Compensating the oppressor for releasing the oppressed whilst denying compensation to the victims of their oppression is morally indefensible. It might have seemed ok back then. Many slaveholders after all were influential in parliament. So it might even have been necessary. But we should never accept it as right in the judgement of history. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Jan 7, 2024 20:29:52 GMT
And rightly so . Whatever anyone thinks of the slave trade and I guess most of us agree with its abolition the fact remains the slaves were purchased under contract . Many slaves remained with their former owners as paid labourers ,without the compo there would have been no money to pay them , chaos and starvation would have been the order of the day . You could have used the same arguments for compensating I G Farben for having to free it's concentration camp slaves when the Allies took over. Compensating the oppressor for releasing the oppressed whilst denying compensation to the victims of their oppression is morally indefensible. It might have seemed ok back then. Many slaveholders after all were influential in parliament. So it might even have been necessary. But we should never accept it as right in the judgement of history. You might use the same argument with concentration camp detainees but I wouldn't . Completely different ,no concentration campers went and worked for the Nazis after the war did they . Not only was it OK to compensate owners back then it was necessary under the law at the time . English contract law was and still is seen internationally as a safe harbour for doing business .Had slaves been set free without redress that would have been brought into question ,confidence lost and the City of London would be unrecognisable from the financial centre it is today. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 7, 2024 21:41:32 GMT
In 1833, Great Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire - It was called the most expensive moral action in history. So well worth celebrating. Of course, most of that money was used to compensate the slaveholders, not the slaves. you mean the ‘indentured servants’ Dont forget the first man to go to an American court room to have the court declare he had the right to own an indentured servant was BLACK. The money was used to buy out the contracts of the indentured servants Just like Aneurin Bevan bought out the doctors to create the NHS. Did you read the text on that poster ? That meeting was raising a collection intended to go tonthe newly freed former slaves |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 7, 2024 21:49:53 GMT
Of course, most of that money was used to compensate the slaveholders, not the slaves. And rightly so . Whatever anyone thinks of the slave trade and I guess most of us agree with its abolition the fact remains the slaves were purchased under contract . Many slaves remained with their former owners as paid labourers ,without the compo there would have been no money to pay them , chaos and starvation would have been the order of the day . You mean they were property properly paid for, so the people who bought them as property in 'good faith' were entitled to be compensated? Are you capable of being property? Or is that a distinction that can only be enjoyed by others? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 7, 2024 21:51:22 GMT
In 1833, Great Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire - It was called the most expensive moral action in history. So well worth celebrating. If abolitionists should be celebrated, a fortiori slave traders shouldn't be celebrated. Well done Bristol! |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 7, 2024 22:30:00 GMT
In 1833, Great Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire - It was called the most expensive moral action in history. So well worth celebrating. If abolitionists should be celebrated, a fortiori slave traders shouldn't be celebrated. Well done Bristol! Except Edward Colston was not being celebrated for being a slave trader. You would have to be an imbecile to believe that. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 7, 2024 22:30:55 GMT
In 1833, Great Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire - It was called the most expensive moral action in history. So well worth celebrating. Of course, most of that money was used to compensate the slaveholders, not the slaves. And? - are you suggesting stopping slavery was not a good use of funds? |
|
