Registered bored user

mikesex wrote:
The Cruel Sea; 

a bit dated but a decent portrayal of war without the Hollywood histrionics.

Book's better, though.
mikesex wrote:
normalfreak2 To underline that these demos are not anti-US, they're anti-Trump.
mikesex wrote:
There were plenty of Americans in the march.
mikesex wrote:
johncourage Paid? I'm going to get paid? Nobody told me I could get paid.

Please, details of who I contact to get paid!

I thought I was just going to turn up for an hour or two , but getting paid - I'm there for the day!
mikesex wrote:
Bugger! I wanted to see England beat Russia at home. Still, beat the team that beat Russia will do.

I'm not even English!
mikesex wrote:
It's an interesting version and largely factual, but it leaves out a ton of other information pertinent to his argument. EG no mention of the Treaty of Utrecht:

'The great period of the English slave trade had, however, not yet arrived. It was only in 1713 that it began to attain its full dimensions. One of the most important and most popular parts of the Treaty of Utrecht was the contract known as the Assiento, by which the British Government secured for its subjects during thirty years an absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish colonies. The traffic was regulated by a long and elaborate treaty, guarding among other things against any possible scandal to the Roman Catholic religion from the presence of heretical slave-traders, and it provided that in the thirty years from 1713 to 1743 the English should bring into the Spanish West Indies no less than 144,000 negroes, or 4,800 every year, that during the first twenty-five years of the contract they might import a still greater number on paying certain moderate duties, and that they might carry the slave trade into numerous Spanish ports from which it had hitherto been excluded. The monopoly of the trade was granted to the South Sea Company, and from this time its maintenance, and its extension both to the Spanish dominions and to her own colonies, became a central object of English policy ... A distinguished modern historian, after a careful comparison of the materials we possess, declares that in the century preceding the prohibition of the slave trade by the American Congress, in 1776, the number of negroes imported by the English alone, into the Spanish, French, and English colonies can, on the lowest computation, have been little less than three millions, and that we must add more than a quarter of a million, who perished on the voyage and whose bodies were thrown into the Atlantic.'

So, Yes the Preventive Squadron (of the second British Empire) worked hard for over fifty years to end the trade established by the first British Empire. Incidentally, the idea that only 1587 of this force died is fanciful in the extreme. The death toll for Europeans in West Africa in those days would have been MUCH higher. This could have been low for just one year.

"Beware you travellers of the Bight of Benin,
For few come out, tho' many go in"

( for a comprehensive history of the Preventive Squadron can I recommend ' Sweet Water and Bitter' by Sian Rees, published by Chatto and Windus, London).

As to the cost to the country, in those days captured ships were prizes, the booty shared among the crew. There would have been no lack of volunteers.

He also leaves out another important historical event that occurred in 1787 and which profoundly influenced the abolitionist movement in Britain. Americans might be able to guess! 

There is still an ongoing argument as to the virtue - or otherwise - of the British Empire. Some take the view that the British roamed the world, grabbing great tacts of land and the populations therein and pursuing policies that resulted in the deaths of millions of people. True.

Others, such as this chap, take the view that the British acquired great tracts of land and the populations therein to pursue polices that eradicated slavery, brought the security of the Pax Britannica, education, rule of law and medicine that saved the lives of millions of people. 

Also true; same empire! 

So it's really a bit of a curate's egg; good empire that did bad things or bad empire that did good things? Totally subjective and I'm sure the discussion will continue well into the future.

mikesex wrote:
Don't just say Fox, say RUPERT MURDOCH.

Trump is the consequence of two decades of his propaganda.
mikesex wrote:
semichisam01 Oh dear God, no! Not Drambuie!!

For the whisky sauce
  • 500ml/17fl oz double cream.
  • 2 tsp wholegrain mustard.
  • 1 tbsp Dijon mustard.
  • 2 tsp whisky.
  • sea salt and freshly ground white pepper.
  • 1 tbsp chopped fresh chives.
  • ½ lemon, juice only.
mikesex wrote:
thezigrat Most? Colour me intrigued.
mikesex wrote:
normalfreak2 He might get away with it if it wasn't for those damn kids!
mikesex wrote:
thezigrat The haggis (haggii?)
it's a Scottish thing.

I love this option to continue a discussion without anyone else involved.
mikesex wrote:
Every country has a right to protect its borders. But these Republicans clothe themselves in the Bible to justify what they are doing. Why aren't you guys and your churches screaming from the rooftops that these policies are in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words?

Simple fact is: America is not a Christian country. It's a country with a Christian minority.
And by Christian, I mean Jesus Christians, not the evangelical christian-ist cult!

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come;
but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
mikesex wrote:
layla_wilson In my part of the world they had evolved different leg lengths on either side to be able to navigate the hill side.

The trick was to scare them into running the other way so they would fall over and roll down the hill.
mikesex wrote:
bearbear01 I've nothing against Americans (or even Muricans), some of my best friends blah blah blah.

But taking one incident and extrapolating the way trimble did just grinds my gears (hope I got the vernacular right).

And just look at the comment thread!
mikesex wrote:
The really depressing thing I get from the comment thread is how a report on a nut case with a knife leads to comparisons with the right to own automatic weapons. 

mikesex wrote:
spanz Have you even lived in the UK? Fucks sake, it's one guy with a knife! 

REPEAT! UK population tells its government, " We want controls on gun ownership".

It's NOT leftists, it's common sense!!
mikesex wrote:
monsta420 There's no cure for stupid. We're both farting against thunder, I'm afraid.

As I write this ITV is reporting this. I'm guessing the attacker will be found in a few hours.
mikesex wrote:
dm2754 Bollocks. In the UK 'asians' means people from the subcontinent. That's Pakistan, Bangla Desh, India and Sri Lanka.

Then again, I live in the UK (just north of Croydon) and have travelled in Africa, Asia, Europe and North America.

Your sources?
mikesex wrote:
dm2754 I think that the picture above shows that he wasn't.
mikesex wrote:
Tell us again why citizens should not have the right to bear arms to defend themselves.
The great misapprehension among people not from Australia or UK is that our Governments forbid us to own guns. The truth is the exact opposite.

Following the massacres in Tasmania and Dunblane respectively, the CITIZENS of the two countries demanded that their Governments tighten the laws on gun ownership. It's CITIZEN led.

The UK has a current problem with gangs who use knives. Easier gun ownership laws would make it more likely that the gang members would be the ones who tooled up.

If just one of the individuals involved in this incident had been 'carrying', how many people would be dead now?