|
By:
mukdahan - I think you maybe right there.
Compared to Escobar now.... Jeez - you have even just said "a billionaire at death all through criminal activity". Can you not see where the comparisons fall down. What Colston done some 350 years ago was deemed acceptable at the time, it has nothing to do with what you, me, or anyone else think is morally acceptable now. |
|
By:
Slaves were treated a 100 times better in Liverpool, London and Bristol than they were in the plantations in America and the West Indies where they were imported from, many families can still trace their roots back to mid 17 th century.
|
|
By:
killing nearly 100,000 people has never been acceptable to the masses at any time only the elite few who stood to gain great personal wealth that found it acceptable, it is literally the weakest argument I've ever heard. Most people in Britain at that time were extremely poor and took what was offered to them because the welfare state did not exist then, accepting the benefits of slave trading is not the same as accepting what happened from a moral point of view. They could not afford to have morals.
|
|
By:
a slave is a slave is a slave, talking about levels of treatment is laughable.
|
|
By:
Jimmy Saville + Escobar = Colston
Right - I'm out. |
|
By:
Don't forget mandela
|
|
By:
So define what a slave is if we had lived just over 100 years ago the British government could have conscripted us sent us to war where we would have had a 40% chance of being killed or seriously injured were we slaves to our government and why did the masses allow millions to die we little or no complaint.
|
|
By:
You live in a fantasy world where you think the masses care about each other most people care about there own lives and families thats what important to them and thats why you will always have massive injustices in this world.
|
|
By:
Great thread, and up to now has been very civil given this is such an emotive subject.
![]() |
|
By:
they don't equal Colston, but the similarities/comparisons are quite obvious and simple. You're not comparing their acts, i.e. a sexual offender to a slave trader to a drug dealer, you are drawing parallels between the way in which they all tried justified their terrible crimes (either to themselves or the public), by giving to needy/less well off in society. Though I doubt any of them were trying to atone for their sins, as their primary aim was to serve themselves.
|
|
By:
modern day slavery in Bangladesh from where we get our clothing ..but almost encouraged today
|
|
By:
Bristol's very own Det Eddie Shoestring on the case of the missing Bristol slave trader
![]() |
|
By:
Sad to see people defending Jimmy Saville because he raised money for charity.
|
|
By:
Well I'm off to bed now, WD you're very selective in your recollections. here's an idea try being kinder to fellow forum posters, you might actually like it. A totally foreign concept I know. but give it a go, and stop projecting your anger on to others. HTH
|
|
By:
Statue or not, comparing Saville to Colston is obvious nonsense.
Saville was knowingly involved in criminal activity and used his charitable work to facilitate and cover up his crimes. Colston was committing no crimes, at that time, and his charitable work/giving came from a sense of civic pride and responsibility. To claim that both Seville and Colston did charitable work to hide their activities is rubbish, Colston had nothing to hide, uncomfortable as it today, back then it was considered trade. |
|
By:
Nazi soldiers were following orders. Where is the difference?
|
|
By:
Point?
|
|
By:
No point. You would not understand. Just saying is all.
|
|
By:
Khmer Rouge?
|
|
By:
Clue? It’s not a lipstick!
|
|
By:
Mac Donald’s?
|
|
By:
Ibiza?
|
|
By:
https://twitter.com/mat8iou/status/1269896135113674753
thread on the Merchant Venturers |
|
By:
https://twitter.com/KateWilliamsme/status/1269713381973516290
|
|
By:
British courts ruled against slavery many times
before the abolition of slavery, helping bring about It's demise. How anybody can ever argue slavery was not a crime is simply staggering. |
|
By:
of course slavery is a crime , noone is denying that, but should we dethrone the queen now as her ancesters of years gone by did terrible deeds
|
|
By:
actually, we should
|
|
By:
send them back, send them back!
To Germany that is! |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I mentioned James 2 and William 3 yesterday
2 men that still divide uk, There are many that argue Royal family has had its day and many who think they are for the good of this country. Many of us are related to em too... Even Danny dyer.. |
|
By:
No doubt, in a few Hundred years, those who follow us will consider some of what we allow today to be criminal/staggering, it wasn’t long ago we were jailing homosexuals, today such a proposal would be met with outrage in the UK.
Those pretending that some aren’t sickened by the history of slavery do so for their own ends, the reality remains, for much of its history slavery was not deemed criminal. |
|
By:
People will look back at our time and say this was the time that free speech and democracy died
|
|
By:
macarony
You are the Charles Barkley of the Forum, God bless you. |
|
By:
Thank you my love
|
|
By:
Thank you my love
|
|
By:
Today Millions suffer starvation whilst the World has a surplus of food, what will they make of that, looking back, in a few Hundred years, Criminal? staggering?
|
|
By:
Why is it the case that we still have a third world?
Most if not all the world's problems are caused by this imbalance, sort this problem out and we pretty much cracked it. But I can't work out why in the last century of technical change this is still the case |
|
By:
There are loads of things that need to be addressed.
Looking back at history and learning from mistakes is a good start. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Before the millennium you never heard of modern slavery an unwitting consequence of open boarders and cheap travel
|