Found on the web:

" England has to be the most bastardized piece of
land on the face of the earth."

" The sources of dozens of cultural conquests, reconquests,
genocide, and subjugation over its documented 2500 history.
Might also be why its culture and society is one of the best
in the world - if not the best."

Is this factually true? Is England the most -

"bastardized piece of land on the face of the earth?"

Is it a "mongrel island?"

And today is it's culture "one of the best in the world,
if not the best?"

Is this statement - " Our diversity is our strength" true
when applied to today's England?

Foxy,

Finland, Poland, Corfu are all just about equal contenders for this title, being regularly invaded and occupied by a variety of countries.

England certainly isn't a "mongrel island" because it isn't an island. The Scots share it with "those English bastards!", and the Welsh.

If you ask Poms about a "mongrel island", many would point you to the Isle of Dogs (in London's Inner East.)

In terms of conquests, there have been some but not very many. Genocide has largely (though not entirely) been avoided, The conquests and reconquests changed who was in charge, but rarely who they were in charge of. And culture is something that's of the people rather than something imposed from above.

The real difference has been Britain's status as the world's premier seafaring nation. Lots of people left, and lots of people came and settled, and the rule of law made it relatively safe for them to do so. But they came from many more places a lot further away than those coming to other nations. Having a large empire and losing most of it (often in chaotic circumstances) resulted in a large amount of immigration, and the ubiquity of the english language is the main drawcard today.

So how good is British culture? Difficult to say as there's it's rather ill defined. Bt think it's fair to say that tolerance is an important aspect of it, and that's good.

And is diversity Britain's strength? Maybe. It's certainly not the weakness its opponents claim it to be.

Thank You both to Shadow Minister and Aidan
for your well reasoned responses.

I've always been fascinated by the British
growing up with a mum who was a staunch royalist.
I've wondered about the Angles, Saxons, Jutes,
Frisians, Danes, Normans et al, were they kindred
tribes of the same stock?

I'm hoping we can all learn more in this discussion.

As for England today? I found the following linK:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/10/diversity-uk-britain-culture-arts-sport

Just for a bit of history:

http://www.wearetheenglish.com/a-mongrel-race-54-w.asp

The quote Foxy supplies was from an anonymous comment to an article in an archaeology site. Its rubbish.

Another comment on it says...."One of the worst things about the Internet is the way in which some of these careless statements (about ‘mongrel England, for example) and outright lies can spread so quickly. So many unfounded assertions are thrown around in the average Internet discussion that they become accepted ‘knowledge’ by a great many people who don’t bother to question what they read, let alone consult valid sources to verify anything. I’ve often said that we live in the Age of the Lie, and the Internet acts as a source of infection in communicating false ‘facts’ to people."

Pretty much spot on.

To think that Britain suffered more conquests and/or invasions over the past 2500 years than anywhere else is to demonstrate a spectacular lack of historic knowledge. Russia, Iberia, Gaul, Austria, Turkey, Egypt. To name just a few.

Of course Britain is a mongrel nation. They proved it when their largest city elected a Muslim Mayor.

It is also a bastard of a place when they have orphanages run by pedophile gangs, & the cops don't do anything about it for fear of being called racist.

In fact they are almost as mongrel as our 2 biggest cities have become.

The "We are the English" site given earlier is
an interesting read . They're the largest on-line
retailer of England gifts, clothing, merchandise, and
accessories. However they are also devoted to the
celebration of English heritage, culture and tradition.
They're about promoting English pride and a positive sense
of their own identity.

Interesting read.

Hasbeen,

You might be interested in the following:

http://www.britishfuture.org/mongrel-nation/

How did Britain come to rule the waves?

The following link explains:

http://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/how-did-britain-come-to-rule-the-waves/

How did Britain come to rule the waves?
Foxy,
They suffered from the same symptom of undermining as Australia is suffering from right now, the enemy within !

Studies reveal that the first people to be called
English were the Anglo Saxons - a group of
closely related Germanic tribes that began migrating
to eastern and southern Great Britain from southern
Denmark and northern Germany in the 5th century AD,
after the Romans had withdrawn from Britain.

I used to think that the English were Celtic. However
the English it turns out are much more Anglo-Saxon
(Germanic) than Celtic. Approximately 55-65% of their
DNA is Germanic in origin especially the eastern central
and southern English.

Hi Foxy. You ask "Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Danes, Normans et al, were they kindred tribes of the same stock?"

The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians are early Germanic people. So yes they are basically tribes of the same stock and they had very similar cultures, eg: they had common/or closely related languages, same or similar gods/myths, etc. Although they did fight among each along these tribal lines. In the last stages of the Eastern Rome Empire, Rome cared less and less about the Romano-British and eventually the army abandoned what is now England. During this time and after, many from these germanic tribes raided/invaded/migrated* there. (The endings of place names can suggest that they were overrun/or/founded by some of these people. Eg: names that end in "-ham" like in Nottingham and "-wich" like in Norwich, are mostly anglo-saxon in origin.)

The term Danes covers those historic peoples who lived about where Denmark currently is and down through history to those who are nationals of the modern country of Denmark. So it starts with some of the early Germanic mentioned above and extends to include later peoples (eg: those who identified as Danish while within other political groupings such as The Kalmar Union or Denmark-Norway Union) to the current day. So when people use the term Danes you need context to know who they actually mean- eg. the early germanic danes or elsewise.

The Normans are a mix resulting from the raid/settling/invasion by Norse Vikings (as I understand it the name Norman actually comes from this - North Man) and the native Franks.

A few years ago I watched a series of videos on this channel: http://www.youtube.com/c/TenMinuteHistory that did a really good job of explaining British History and I recommend it if you want to know more about English history. They are short (approx 10min) videos that are fast paced but easily digestible.

*Actually, earlier on some from these tribes had been invited there by the Romano-British to fight as mercenaries against raiding Picts (from where Scotland is now) and the Gaels (where Ireland is now).

The winjin Pom!

I recall a British couple we become close friends with, they were our neighbours, she was a pommy snob, but he was a good bloke, having been an officer in the Royal Air Force. We had them over for dinner, roast beef. Talking about food, she said; "Australian beef is not like the good English beef, its a light colour, not the nice dark shade of good English beef, oh! no its not as good as ours". Her husband John quickly came back with; "Helen, that English beef, it was Australian beef, and its only a dark colour because it had been frozen for six months getting there, and you paid the earth for it". There children had migrated before them and they had only been here a couple of years. Helen rubbished Australia, but John loved the place, once saying to his wife in front of us; "You certainly give voice to the winging Pom, back home, when did you ever have a pineapple like you do here." John loved pineapple, had it in the Far East during his air force days, but it was too expensive, or not available back home, but plentiful in Australia.

Is Britain A Mongrel Nation?
Well, their demographic is now not what it was when it was great !
Australia's heading down the same track but thanks to COVID-19 there might still be a chance to reverse that trend !

Hi Thinkabit,

Thank You for the information and the videos.
I shall definitely look into all of it.
I'm learning so much from this discussion.
I'd forgotten so much that I'd learned in
the past. But it's all slowly coming back now.

Hi Paul,

Interesting to know where the term - "whinging
Poms" comes from? Then there's the "ten pound poms,"
as well.

individual,

We can only trust that with time we shall find our own
place in the world - and that it will be as special as
we are meant to be after all look at all the obstacles
that we've overcome to date - and we're still admired
all over the world and people want to come and settle
here.

While Australia is pissing itself and cowering under Covid-19, Britain is getting on with life, opening borders and businesses. Britain has also sailed an aircraft carrier into the South China Sea, right up to the 12 mile limit, showing the Communists its grit, while Australia just pisses itself and cowers over that as well, and is a laughing stock over its lack of expertise on Covid, defence, and its useless Prime Minister In-Hiding.

Back to the topic:

The modern day British are not a single race but
a hotchpotch of ethnic groups that have settled
within those shores down the centuries. However
their diversity is much more complex it seems:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/britains-diversity-much-more-complex-it-seems

The United Kingdom is a contradiction, for a 1,000 years the Poms have kicked the crap out of the Scots, Welsh and the Irish, what good neighbours. I don't think there has been a more hated mob in the World than the British, well not since Roman times.

Its about time the Poms realised they are a second rate power in decline, and have been ever since they suffered economic defeat in WWII. The gunboat mentality might have worked 100 years ago, but today the super power China could swat them like a fly. Cop their leader Bug Ridden Boris, what a CONSERVATIVE DORK! No wonder Australians gave ttbn and his lover boy Corny Banana short shift at the last election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz-wHo57hlo&ab_channel=CNN

Pauliar,

Once again you are posting complete bullsh1t. If you were competent you would find that in Europe everyone was kicking the crap out of everyone else and that today China is probably far more despised. In Africa and much of the developing world Chinese are known for selling crap and ripping off the poor.

Similarly, while the UK is not the superpower it was 100 years ago it is perfectly capable of giving China a very bloody nose.

Foxy we had our place in the world, well & truly established.

Then in the last 40 or so years we've let in so much trash that we are no longer that nation we were, & will never amount to more than the poor trash of the South Pacific ever again.

Hi Paul,

The British Empire may not have been perfect - there
were plenty of mistakes and injustices. But I don't
think it was the cruel, evil and inhumane force that
some today may think it was.

My father was a great admirer of Winston Churchill and
as I've said before my mother was a staunch royalist.

I find the British history fascinating. I also regularly
watch programs like "Escape to the Country"and love
the landscapes and villages, and homes. I also watch
"Bargain Hunt." Love the various settings.

The UK has exciting cities, there's historic sites at
every corner. From pre-historic and ancient Roman sites
to centuries-old castles and town centers dating back
to the Middle Ages.

I'd love to visit the Tower of London, the British
Museum and British Library. Canterbury Cathedral,
the National Gallery, St Paul's Cathedral, and many more.
No wonder tourists are drawn here. It would be an
unforgettable experience that's for sure.
Stonehenge would be another go to place.

Hi Hasbeen,

I've been watching the Olympics in Tokyo.
Australia's place in the world is definitely respected.

Shadow Minister,

The British today are known for their bullying
and thuggery. Not a good look - and may be due to
a variety of reasons - including the social
problems that the country is currently facing.

Foxy,
No, people don't reman in ethnic groups for centuries - they fade into the background.
The classic example is their PM Boris Johnson: few people would regard him as anything other than White British, yet he has Turkish ancestors.

Both my parents were 1/8 Irish, but you wouldn't know it. And my father is Scottish, but lost the accent long before I was born.

That New Statesman article wrongly conflates agglomeration with segregation. Recent immigrants (whether in Britain or Australia) tend to be drawn to where others of similar ethnicity already are, but it' not an exclusive process. Hence Koreans are more likely to settle in Motspur Park, even though they're still a vey small proportion of the population there.

a hotchpotch of ethnic groups
Foxy,
Does sound better than multiculturalism.

Perhaps Foxy is being deliberately offensive by calling British bastards- but there you go- anybody that identifies as British probably thinks that Foxy is an idiot- they might have to wait a while for her to make her real point.

Hi Aidan,

I chose the New Statesman link to which you referred -
because I thought it
explained Britain's diversity as being more complex.
However, of course people choose to live in areas
that they feel comfortable and mix with like
minded people. This is quite normal. As well as people
deciding on their own identity.

However, not everyone fits in to their
expected slots. The following link deals with just
one example. It's one dealing with mixed race people:

http://www.theconversation.com/biracial-britain-why-mixed-race-people-must-be-able-to-decide-their-own-identity-154771

Thank You for your comments.
They were appreciated.

individual,

A hotch potch does sound good.

Explanation:

A Mongrel Race?

I've given a link to this question earlier in this
discussion which tried to explain "the word mongrel
in recent years has often been applied to the
English by commentators and not a few English
people themselves."

Here's the link again:

http://www.wearetheenglish.com/is-mongrel-race-54-w.asp

Lets see what a visit to the UK may provide:

A fascinating history, exciting cities, rich
cultural traditions, historic sites at every town, from
pre-historic and ancient Roman sites, to centuries-old-castles,
and town centres dating back to the Middle Ages. Well
connected by trains and buses and motorways.

An unforgettable experience all round.

On my bucket list would be:

Tower of London. Stonehenge. Roman Baths and the Georgian
City of Bath. British Museum. Historic Yorkshire.
British Library. Canterbury Cathedral, The Cotswolds,
National Gallery, Westminster Abbey, Warwick Castle,
Windsor Castle, to name just a few

No, people don't reman in ethnic groups for centuries - they fade into the background. Aidan.

Bosnia & the middle east kind of prove you wrong as usual Aidan. How many more centuries will it take?

Hasbeen,
I was explaining what happens in Britain. Bosnia and the Middle East are not in Britain, and therefore don't prove me wrong at all.

________________________________________________________________________________

Foxy,

The British Library has moved away from the British Museum and there's not much to see there anyway (unless you're referring to the old building). Yorkshire's pretty big - what sort of history are you looking for?

The Stonehenge tunnel (a key component of upgrading the road that runs very close to Stonehenge) was blocked in the courts a few days ago.

FWIW I disagree with that theconversation article: I think having Mixed categories is quite a silly way of doing it. More sensible would be just to say: Tick all that apply.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Hi Foxy,

I don't dispute Britain has a wealth of history and is well stocked with old castles, moats and other interesting places for the sightseer and tourist. There's plenty to see from 1066 and before. 'Escape to the Country' great show although I can't understand why some people would want to live in a house where you bang your head on the ceiling every time you walk into the joint, or have a bedroom 4 foot square and calling it a "spacious master bedroom". BTW I enjoyed Tony Robinsons Time Team' and Hugh Christopher Edmund Fearnley-Whittingstall (now there's a Pommy name for you) with his 'River Cottage' program. No one can do those kind of shows like the Poms.

Back on topic, the question; "Is Britain A Mongrel Nation?" two ways to look at it, are they made up of a lot of cross breeds as in "mongrels", or were/are they "mongrels" towards other people as in "her comes those mongrels". I believe history has been kind regarding British expansionism/imperialism, that could be because the Poms wrote the history, a rather sanitized version it was. Its often said the British were "better" than the Spanish, well that hardly a recommendation. One could say the British Empire was more benevolent towards conquered people than the Mongol Empire, that also leaves me rather
nonplussed. Then if one is admiring the wonders of some musky old castle in Nottinghamshire one does not have to think about such things. That's not a criticism, history is made up of facts, but as someone once famously said, there are also alternate facts.

Is Britain a mongrel nation, not really but parts of it have been mongrelised.

Britons made the same mistake as all other nations that eventually felt compelled to feel remorse for their legacies in other places !
Unfortunately for the whole World this has led to exploitation & ultimately to objection to the hypocrisy that followed.

Good Morning everyone,

Thank you for all your responses to date.
I'm really loving this discussion and
appreciating the various opinions and
different perspectives.

Basically with this discussion I was on my
own search for why England was referred to
as a "mongrel" nation by some people (including
the English themselves). Why did they use the
nickname "mongrel"? I'm slowly finding out
that the term refers to a "mixed race" of people.

I'm not sure how accurate that is regarding the
English. To me Britain is still clearly English
but perhaps the reference refers to the immigration
into England that has happened since World War II.
But I'm not sure how large the percentages are
to make a difference to the overall population mix.

Has anyone seen the 1984 TV Mini Series - "The Jewel in
the Crown?" I was given it as a birthday present on
DVD some years back. It deals with the final days of
the British Raj in India during and after World War II.

Excellent series and worth getting to see it.

Again Thank You all for your thoughts on this subject.

Issy, another PORKY AWARD, yep is that your 500th for the year. You failed to back up your Gandhi claims with facts! Believe me, I argued most strongly in your defence before 'THE COMMITTEE' but to no avail. Despite my best efforts, and your abysmal track record in truth telling, 'THE COMMITTEE' had no alternative but to award you yet another PORKY First Class.

Keep up the good work old chap! BTW; How ya going with that book?

Hi Aidan,

When I mentioned historic Yorkshire I was referring to
York City. I would love to walk through the medieval
history in York's old city and step back in time to
the 14th century with its narrow cobbled streets and
historic houses.

Hi Paul,

I went to an all Girls' High School where the English
Mistress had a tremendous influence on me and instilled
a love of Shakespeare and English Literature. English
Lit. was another of my majors at univ.

I understand what you're saying about Imperial Britain.
And I appreciate your sentiments.

Paul,
You have, as always, my commiserations.

As I said at the outset, the thread is based on an anonymous comment from someone whose historic understanding is clearly defective. To suggest that the English were subject to any more conquests than many other nations is just to display a complete lack of history.

Turkey, for example has been conquered and reconquered more times than I care to count. Egypt too. And many more too.

But the real problem is the notion that conquest equals cultural change. Take for example, Norman conquests of Britain. The Normans (really North Men since they were Vikings via France) did conquer Britain. But it wasn't like a total displacement of the population or the culture. They merely replaced the aristocracy. Most of the population would not have had much, if anything to do with their lord before 1066 and they continued to have little to nothing to do with their lord post 1066. They continued to live just as they'd lived before and after the conquest. Celtic culture continued unimpaired.

But over the generation, the conquerors did have interactions with their subjects and were ultimately 'conquered' by them. It is said that after Rome conquered Athens, Athens then conquered Rome. That is, Athenian thinking came to dominate in Rome. The same thing happened to the Normans.

While the Norman's bought a new language it merely added to the old language rather than replace it. England and we are still utterly dependent on the original words that applied pre-1066. This piece from Johnson touches on this area of scholarship (watch the whole thing but I've teed it up at the relevant section..... http://youtu.be/FLak2IzIv7U?t=255).

England is no more (or less) an amalgam of cultures that have crossed it's path than any other culture on the planet. The whole thread is based on a misunderstanding of that.

The modern-day British are not a single race but
as stated earlier a hotchpotch of ethnic groups
that have settled within those shores down the
centuries.

The following link explains why mixed race people must
be able to decide their own identity:

http://www.theconversation.com/biracial-britain-why-mixed-race-people-must-be-able-to-decide-their-ownidentity-154771

Explained earlier - A mongrel race?

The word mongrel in recent years has often been applied to
the English by commentators and not a few English people
themselves.

http://www.wearetheenglish.com/a-mongrel-race-54-w.asp

Here's another reminder:

Studies reveal that 30% of white British DNA has Germanic
ancestry. The analysis shows that the Anglo-Saxons were
the only conquering force around 400 - 500 AD to
substantially alter the country's genetic make up with
most white British people now owing almost 30% of their
DNA to the ancestors of modern day Germans.

The first people to be called English were the Anglo-Saxons.
A group of closely related Germanic tribes that began
migrating to Eastern and Southern Great Britain from
Southern Denmark and Northern Germany in the 5th century AD,
after the Romans had withdrawn from Britaian.

Hi Foxy

The Queen is actually Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha, they changed their name to Windsor because of anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during World War I. Not a good look when cousins go to war and millions die because of it.

True England gave us Shakespeare something we can be thankful for. As a child I was thought about the "White Man's Burdon" and how the British had selflessly brought Christianity and civilisation to so many poor coloured folk of the world. Yes I learned about those terrible "Spanish" and their greedy murderous gold lusting ways. Not like the British of course who were filled with ultraism in their quest to bring happiness and joy and nothing more to so many. I even though the coloured people were often unreasonable in their response, how dare they! Gee, later I learned the reality was somewhat different, what a shock.

Dear Paul,

We have to allow that there are two sides to every
story and we have to be willing to listen to both.
There are no conflicts in which one side doesn't
feel morally justified in their actions, that's why
your terrorist can be my freedom fighter.

History can be
an important part of bridging this divide only if we are
willing to lift up all the rocks and shine our lights on
what's lurking underneath.

Hi Foxy,
There's quite a lo o see in York - and not just from the 14th century, so be sure to spend a few days there.

Hi Aidan,

I've asked the family to give me the 2 dvd set
put out by the BBC - "The Great British Countryside."
(Julia Bradbury and Hugh Denni9s). It covers
Cornwall and Devon, Yorkshire, South Down and the
Highlands. The way my and my and my husbands health
is at present - we may never leave Australia.
But at least we can enjoy the dvda.

As I said there's so much I'd like to see in the UK.
I have so much on my bucket list. Well, you never know.
We may make it yet.

cont'd ...

Sorry for all the typos. I've just come from my
eye specialist - and my vision is a bit blurred.

Gee, later I learned the reality was somewhat different, what a shock.
Paul1405,
We, blue collar jockeys in the North experience similar after a few weeks in a community ! The academic types of course see different !

Good Morning Everyone,

It looks like this discussion has run its course.
I would like to end with this small poem:

The river Thames runs through its city
It had a much-loved Princess who was pretty
Its ageing Queen lives in a castle
And a Prince called Harry's become a rascal.

Due to a wife who's not secure
Whose attitude is not demure
So sad Prince Philip now has gone
His son Prince Charles awaits forlorn

This sceptered isle, this land of kings
Has really had its share of slings
But due to its rich historic past
This earth of majesty will all outlast

Against infection and the hands of war
It will come out much stronger than before
A mongrel race some may contest
It may yet prove to be the best!

The answer has to be ‘No’, the vast majority of the ancestors of the modern British were all related and share a common ancestry via what is commonly called ‘Indo-European.
SeeAncestry.com for details

Hi Is Mise,

The following link provided some further information
on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

It's an interesting subject and well worth further
study. Unfortunately at present I don't have the
time. However, I intend to continue when
I do find the time.

Enjoy your day.
Stay safe.

Hi Foxy,

Found the BBC doco 'Empire' 5 episodes that run for about 4 hours on YouTube. Worth a watch during the lockdown, I'll play it on the TV later.

Was the British Empire a positive or a negative for mankind? It had its good side, but it also had a terrible side as well.

Dear Paul,

My husband has worked with people from many
cultures and countries and has formed the
opinion that people of English ancestry
are not easy to get on with until they
prove themselves, whereas he finds that people
of other cultures are easier to get on with
until they disappoint.

Why that is - I don't know.
In his opinion it's because of the English genetic mix
which unfortunately seems pre-determined towards
aggression and negativity. He's experienced from
early childhood - that bullying came pre-dominantly
from people of English ancestry. He simply does not
trust them.

I take people as I find them on an individual case-by-case
basis.
My inter-actions with English people has been positive.
Although I have to admit that I am leaning more and more
towards Australia becoming a Republic.

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

You asked was the British Empire good or bad for
mankind.

I don't think that there will ever be an answer to this
question that everyone will agree on because for many
people the British Empire meant a loss of lands,
discrimination, and prejudice. Others see it in a more
positive light - "We're British you know!" I've been
brought up to see the positive side.

I'm still waiting for the letter from Buck Palace containing the apology regarding my ancestors being shot & hunted off their Scots & Irish lands, with their children being forced into slavery, raped, impregnated and gene pools all diluted in the process...where's my "Sorry" Liz ?

Dear Albie,

You've got to realize a few things. Our national identity
has changed over time. There was a time when to be
Australian was to be English, only sunburnt.

Don't expect a letter from the Queen. Times have changed.
We should today be the celebration of great Australians
not only a reflection on our past so that we can become the
Australians we aspire to be, and more importantly, create the
Australia we aspire to live in.

And even while we do so, let's remember the words of a great
Australian whose identity remains a mystery to this day -
there's never been a more exciting time to be Australian ...
than right now.

Of course the Empire was positive; just look at India, people there no longer burn widows with their husband’s dead body.

That’s progress.

Is Mise,

You need to get hold of the dvd mini series -
"The Jewel in the Crown." It's quite revealing about
the British in India.

Foxy,
What you need to do is talk to the ordinary poor working women in India about what it was like under the Raj, 99 out of 100 will tell you that things were better for them when they were under British rule.
Of course they’re all getting old now and maybe their memories are not as sharp as of yore, but they seem rather emphatic.

Is Mise,

My previous GP was from India. And what she had
to say was not very flattering about the British.
I also studied with quite a few Indians at Univ.
They came from poor families - but made it on their
own here. Their anti-British feelings were made quite
clear. Even the Indian cleaner when I was in respite
and my Indian carer had strong anti-Brit. feelings.

I guess we can only go by our own experiences.
Your wife is Indian isn't she?

Foxy,
She’s from India but the family tree for 400 years is Portuguese.
She has no known Indian ancestors, but there’s bound to be some as the Portuguese often married locals.

Hi Issy and Foxy

I like the line from some Englishman in India to a local; "Your custom is to burn women, our custom is to hang men who burn women, you follow your custom, and we shall follow ours,"

Was the British Empire a positive or a negative, that was very much dependent on what side of the fence you were on at the time. Robert Clive and Cecil Rhodes were certainly on the right side of the fence. I can't say the same for some poor Chinese opium smoker, or African slave sent to the sugar plantations of the Caribbean. There were winners, but also many losers throughout the Empire.

The women not burned on funeral fires in India, a bit like saying "Hitler did build autobahns" now that was a positive.

For me the jury is still out as to wether the British or the Roman Empire was the more benign.

Is Mise,

Your wife's ancestry is Portugese?

You lucky man!

Hi Paul,

The British Empire was not even close to being perfect.
But it was not the cruel and evil and inhumane force
that some today may think it was.

As I stated earlier it does have a fascinating history
(as does the Roman Empire). It has exciting cities, rich
cultural traditions, historic sites at every turn, from
pre-historic and ancient Roman sites, to centuries old
castles and town centres dating back to the Middle Ages.
Well connected by trains, buses, and motorways.

I have family living in London - and I'm still hoping to
visit someday - once this pandemic and my health improves.
I want to travel all over Europe, including Germany,
\Lithuania and Russia. Whether I will - is of course
another matter. But hope keeps me going.

was not the cruel and evil and inhumane force
that some today may think it was.
Foxy,
Read "Nathaniel'S Nutmeg" if you want to know about cruelty !

individual,

Thanks for the book.

It sounds interesting and I shall look into it.
It could be just the thing I need being in
lockdown in Victoria.

Actually some interesting commentary here, and one could add for a great historical overview of U.K. immigration over the centuries is Robert Winder's 'Bloody Immigrants: The Story of Immigration to Britain' (from Good Reads):

'Immigration is one of the most important stories of modern British life, yet it has been happening since Caesar first landed in 53 BC. Ever since the first Roman, Saxon, Jute and Dane leaped off a boat we have been a mongrel nation. Our roots are a tangled web.

From Huguenot weavers fleeing French Catholic persecution in the 18th century to South African dentists to Indian shopkeepers; from Jews in York in the 12th century (who had to wear a yellow star to distinguish them and who were shamefully expelled by Edward I in 1272) to the Jamaican who came on board the Windrush in 1947.

The first Indian MP was elected in 1892, Walter Tull, the first black football player played (for Spurs and Northampton) before WW1 (and died heroically fighting for the allies in the last months of the war); in 1768 there were 20,000 black people in London (out of a population of 600,000 - a similar percentage to today).

The 19th century brought huge numbers of Italians, Irish, Jews (from Russia and Poland mainly), Germans and Poles. This book draws all their stories together in a compelling narrative.'

Hi Andras,

Thanks for the information.

My husband has been telling me for ages that the
British are a mongrel nation because of all their
"invasions". I personally don't think that's a
bad thing.

...don't think that's a bad thing.
Foxy,
Which, the invasion part or the feeling about the British ?

individual,

Both.

As I keep saying - the British Empire was not
close to perfect - there were plenty of mistakes
and injustices. But it was not the cruel and evil
and inhumane force that many today may think it was.

Foxy,
I'm of the same opinion. Too many people judge our forebears with the benefit of a lot of available hindsight thanks to those "bad' peoples" record keeping of good & bad incidents.
Many of the knockers of a past laden with ignorance, hardship & cultural differences being misinterpreted would not themselves nowadays record their own failures. One just has to look at the mobile phone "evidence" these days & how heavily footage is selectively edited to imply an opposite to fact & truth picture in order to further their own agenda at the expense of at times utterly innocent people.
Only today I heard of a female ABC journalist being fined $80,000 for posting an untruth on social media about a politician.
Many people with such mentality have been allowed to infiltrate our historical records & they are very selective in providing records to people interested in history. I will never condone cruelty just as I will never condone the invention of historical incidents.
I have been asked many times during debates whose side I was on & I always reply I'm on the side of decency & integrity & I support the side that displays the most of the two.
As for Britain, I can only say that as much as they were a colonial outfit they've also done more than any other nation to compensate for their wrongs. They have opened their doors to the descendants of the lands they colonised & for that they're now paying the price many times over. Germany is in the same boat !
Her's a link to Northern Australia http://anglicanhistory.org/aus/torres/white/

individual,

Thank You for sharing your thoughts on this subject.
Well said.

Foxy,
I meant to ask you how many of the Indians that you spoke to were adults under the Raj?
The old women that I spoke to, in their native tongue, were emphatic that the British governed far better than the then crop of politicians.

I have personally seen and heard a modern Minister driving at the highest speed possible in Mumbai with his outriders waving sub-machine guns and screaming at the top of their voices.
Any dings to the vehicles as they muscled their way through repaired at the taxpayers’ expense and any damage to anyone else at their own expense.

Is Mise,

If you're really interested in what the
British did to India I strongly recommend
the book by Shasi Tharoor, " Inglorious Empire."
It's a detailed read and I strongly recommend it.

Hi Issy,

Back on Gandhi, there were "two" Gandhi's, the South African Gandhi and the Indian Gandhi. I've been reading and watching about Gandhi, although before independence and partition there was much sectarian violence in India, Gandhi never encouraged it, or condoned it. Despite opposition from within the Congress Party Gandhi supported a united India without partition where both Hindu and Muslim could live in peace. Ultimately that ambition led to Gandhi's assignation at the hands of a Hindu nationalists. Still believe Gandhi was the greatest and most influential person for good in the 20th century. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela were great ones as well, but were seeking justice for far fewer people than Gandhi.

Foxy,
Just answer the question, how many of the Indians that you mentioned were old enough to remember British rule in India.
I am well aware of the evils of the Raj but I’m equally aware of all the good as well.

Paul,
I agree with you, I have always admired Gandhi but none the less he was well aware that many of his policies would arose the worst in the British and he used that to his advantage.

Is Mise,

All of them.

Foxy,
All of them?
My you are doing well for your age any one who was an adult in 1947 is now 94 years old.
Your student friends must really have been mature age students.

You should get equipt with a good calculator.

Is Mise,

You don't usually ask a person's age in polite
society. Certainly not of someone's parents,
grandparents, or independent researchers and
analysts of people in the field. Many of whom
have published and commented widely on the
subject.

I recommended a very worthwhile book for you to read
on the subject. "Inglorious Empire," by Shashi
Tharoor. It provided a detailed record of the
British in India.

Foxy,
No, one does not ask people their ages but one can take a guess and people that you knew as students would have been either a gleam in their father’s eye in 1947 or too young to have political awareness.

How did they learn the English that enabled them to study in Australia?
Must have been a carry over from the Brits.
That’s one important thing that the Raj did, gave India a unifying language, Hindi, the other most widely spoken language, is not as useful as English as it is not as widely spoken.
I know as I’ve had to switch to “Indglish” in villages where Hindi was not understood.

Is Mise,

I have explained things to you.
I can't help you any further.
It's been made quite clear to me that -
Britain's policy was not to unite but divide and rule.

Under the British - the Hindu caste system became more
rigid and communal lines particularly between Hindus and
Muslims deepened.

I am not interested in arguing with you. And I don't have
the time or the inclination to continue to explain things
to you. You think the Brits were great for India.
Hooray for you.
My friends think they weren't Hooray for them!
As I said earlier - there's both sides to everything.

Have a nice evening.

Foxy,
Just how old were your student friends and how old was your doctor?
No need to ask them, just make an educated guess, or perhaps they and you can remember what it was like?
By the way does the telegram from the Queen arrive just like an ordinary message or is there a special delivery?

Hi Foxy and Issy,

Foxy, Issy's not into book learn'n he said so himself with that 'Dark Emu' and 'Farmers etc' nonsense. Although he be an author of little renown in the literary world, his own mighty tomb 'Road Kill Recipes for the Unsuccessful Hunter' which about 10 years back he was promoting on the Forum, can now be found in the 5 cent bin at Vinnies. I must say despite the bout of ptomaine poisoning, for 3 days they didn't think I would pull through, I found Issy's recipe for 'Splattered Koala with a Dead Possum Sauce' rather tasty!

'Inglorious Empire' tells the real story of the British in India - from the arrival of the East India Company to the end of the Raj - revealing how Britain's rise was built upon its plunder of India. In the eighteenth century, India's share of the world economy was as large as Europe's. By 1947, after two centuries of British rule, it had decreased six-fold. Beyond conquest and deception, the Empire blew rebels from cannon, massacred unarmed protesters, entrenched institutionalised racism, and caused millions to die from starvation. British imperialism justified itself as enlightened despotism for the benefit of the governed, but Shashi Tharoor takes on and demolishes this position, demonstrating how every supposed imperial 'gift' - from the railways to the rule of law - was designed in Britain's interests alone. He goes on to show how Britain's Industrial Revolution was founded on India's deindustrialisation, and the destruction of its textile industry.
General Note: Inglorious empire : what the British did to India

Foxy, can't help myself I put it on hold, BCL has 27 copies 18 available.

Paul,
Everything that you say is true, Britain didn’t set out to improve India, improvements were by accident, just mainly unexpected spin offs, but remember there was no Indian nation before the Brits unified the place and, as I said, they brought in the unifying language, none of India’s 22 semi-official languages are spoken by all, far from it.
English is the most widely understood language and can be used and understood throughout India, that alone was a priceless benefit from the Brits.

Foxy unfortunately allowed herself to be painted into a corner, as usual.

Dear Paul,

I'm so glad that I could help and that you've
put the book "Inglorious Britain" on hold.
I've ordered my copy as well.

We're told that "In the entire 200 year rule
they made \up no more than 0.5% of the population.
And yet for most of that period no Indian was
allowed to join the Indian Civil Service, in part,
because the British could not bear to take orders
from a brown man."

There's also the DVD set - "The Jewel in The Crown,"
a British made TV mini series that's available at
JB Hi Fi. which is excellent and a real revelation
on the behaviour of the British in India. I gave
a set to a close friend - she found it very moving.
Well known actors star in the series

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

Here's what the UK Government Archives have to say
in an overview of the British Empire:

http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/intro/overview5.htm

http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/intro/overview6.htm

http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/intro/overview7.htm

Dear Paul,

I posted the links in the wrong order by mistake.

Here's the rest of them:

http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/intro/default.htm

http://nationalarchives.gov.au/education/empire/intro/overview2.htm

http://nationalarchives.gov.au/education/empire/intro/overview3.htm

http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/intro/overview4.htm

cont'd ...

Two more corrections:

http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/intro/overview2.htm

http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/intro/overview3.htm

That's it.

Foxy,
Most interesting but your friends, whom you say lived under the Raj must have been rather aged apart from being lucky to have had the opportunity to learn English and thus migrate to Australia.
And in those dim dark ages of yore, under the White Australia Policy, I suspect that they would have been light of hue, probably Anglo-Indians trading on their British ancestry

Thanks Foxy I'll have a read.

Issy I recall an Egyptian family who lived in a large house near us. He had been a merchant with the Suez Canal working for the British, Nazzah kicked them out, and froze much of their assets. When Mum ask her, how are you finding life in Australia, she said; "The house is small, and the housework is hard, I have no servants". I believe they came to Australia on British passports from Malta. Nice people.

p/s I think Mum offered her a couple of our servants to help out. Bloody hell, I wasn't cutting their lawn!

Is Mise,

You asked me:

"How many of the Indians were old enough to remember
British rule in India?"

To which I replied:

"All of them!"

No. I did not say that my friends LIVED under the Raj.
There are many ways to learn about history - including
from those who had lived it - such as family members.
And from doing research.

The assumptions you made and carried on about were
your own. And were wrong. And you're still harping on
about.

Move on. What any of us believe - history is clear on
the facts. And whether any of us choose to accept the
facts or not does not make one iota of difference.
You're entitled to your opinion - but not your facts.

Foxy,

To have remembered British rule they must have lived under it, one does not have memories of something unless one has experienced it.
What one has of what one was told or read are recollections.
Were your Indian acquaintances light skinned ?

In very racist India light skin is an asset and is usually referred to as ‘wheaten’ especially in marriage proposals.

Is Mise,

I'm sure that their families (parents and grand parents
and other relatives - uncles, aunts, et cetera) who
must have lived during those times and passed on the
information to their younger generations as my family
did with the Soviet regime.

You ask about their skin colours?
Actually, I'll get back to you on that one. I hadn't
noticed. I think they came here under the skilled
labour intake. Australia needed their expertise and
knowledge.

Now back to the topic:

Before I leave I'll finish with a few thoughts:

Lets be kind to the mixed modern Brits
It's not their fault that colonialism got the splits
Coming to an inglorious end
'Cause greed and poverty did not blend

People suffered under British rule
Denying them justice was simply not cool
But hey, there were some good things to be had
Not everything was really bad

There were the perks of Shepherd's Pie
And Toad In The Hole just made one sigh
Today we have people who belong
But "Rule Britannia" is not their song!

The English in Ireland,

During the 1840's under English rule, with a population of 8 million, 1 million died from starvation, 4 million disposed. Despite the potato famine, there was enough food produced in Ireland to feed 20 million people, most of which was exported to England. Murder and gendercide, at least they weren't racists, the Irish were white, but Catholic, the English hated the Irish peasantry in particular. Wig Politian's in Westminster believed the famine was a good way of reducing the Irish population.

Foxy
Just so,passed on information, not memories.so your Indian acquaintances had no direct knowledge of British rule whereas the people that I talked to had direct knowledge and they preferred that rule.
One among the good things was the abolition of Thugee, whose adherents murdered strangers as a religious offering to their god,

Is Mise,

You say you spoke to people who had direct knowledge
of India under the Raj. My friends and colleagues
also spoke to people who had direct knowledge. Their
experiences apparently differed from the ones you
spoke to.

Perhaps the people that you spoke to were just being
polite. Anything is possible. The people my friends
and colleagues spoke to were fellow Indians (family
members) and had no reason to be polite. They were
being honest.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Foxy
I was in direct contact and spoke to them in their own language whereas you are basing your objections to my observations on supposition and second hand knowledge.
Why don’t you, for once, admit that you were wrong?

Is Mise,

If I was wrong I would admit it.

However, virtually all of the information that my
friends and colleagues have given me comes from
reliable sources including the actual lived
experiences of their families and relatives.
Their information passes the test of academic
credibility.

Their views represent a very shameful period of
British history.

IOn the other hand I thin your friends are either
being polite to you or are suffering from
historical amnesia about the time of the Empire.

Why isn't the history of British colonialism
taught in British schools?

cont'd ...

Is Mise,

This one's for you:

Let's be kind to the mixed modern Brits
It's not their fault that colonialism became unfit
Coming to an inglorious end
'Cause greed and poverty did not blend.

People suffered under British rule
And denying them justice was simply not cool
But hey, there were some good things to be had
Not everything was really bad

There were the perks of Shepherd's Pie
And Toad In The Hole just made one sigh
Today we have people who want to belong
But "Rule Britannia" is not their song!

Foxy,

I have no desire to continue this discussion; backing you into a corner and watching you squirm has become, frankly, rather boring.

Hi Issy,

How about a comment on the English/Irish. If anyone got a bad deal from the English it was the Irish......or was it the Scots, Welsh, Native Americans, Native Africans, Native Australians, Native Anybody, Chinese, Indians, Zulu's, Maori, other Poms, etc etc. I was going to say at least the Eskimos were left alone, but then I found out in Canada even the Eskimos got a bad deal from the Poms. I actually can't find anyone who got a good deal from those bloody Poms!

Is Mise,

I'm not the one being backed into a corner
old chap. You're doing that to yourself
without any help. Why is it that in London,
a world capital of museums - don't they even
have a Museum of British colonialism?

Foxy,
Ho hum.

Paul,
The Irish experience, or as Patrick O’Farrel so delightfully put it in the title of his book ‘Ireland’s English Problem’ was typical but it had its positive aspects.
Once Irishmen got into the British Parliament Britain started seriously on the road to democracy and the Irish influence on the British is reflected in our own country.

The Brits were far from perfect but thiiey made improvements wherever they went, even in Australia where they introduced cloth to the locals and Indigenous Australian hunters have long preferred the British Le-Enfield .303 rifle to their traditional spears.

Is Mise,

Why be a HO HUM bloke
when you can be a HUMDINGER!

Foxy,
If you bought all the tickets in the Lotto you’d still lose.

Is Mise,

I don't need the lotto old chap.
We've just sold our house for a fantastic
price and bought a luxurious apartment - with
plenty left over.

Yay!

You might not need it but what I wrote is true.

Is Mise,

No it's not true - because I know my own worth.
You are comparing me to yourself and you're way
out of your league.

Foxy,
It’s true and there is no denying it.

Is Mise,

What's true and what's "no denying it?"

The fact that you're welcome to your opinion
but not your facts.

I agree.

The fact that I can't take you seriously
any more.

I agree.

I would like to take you seriously, but to do so
would insult your intelligence and I won't insult
your intelligence by suggesting that you really
believe what you say.

See you on another discussion old chap.

Foxy,
I really do believe what I say and if you bought all the tickets in Lotto, you’re the type of person that would lose.

Gave Aboriginal people cloth, you don't say, and small pox as well. Hitler gave the German people autobahns, the ungrateful bastards! Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 60 million, the British Empire was responsible for the deaths of over 100 million, the British Empire was worse than Hitler....not withstanding the fact they gave naked people cloth!

Is Mise,

Wrong again.

I'm not the type of person who needs to buy
lotto tickets. Therefore I'm already a winner.
Try again you poor loser!

Pauliar,

Once again you are spouting absolute rubbish. Hitler never killed 60m, the British never killed 100m, and the aboriginals were never given smallpox infected blankets.

Foxy,
That’s not the question, whether you choose to buy Lotto tickets or not, you are the sort of person who would still lose if you bought all the tickets, it’s just what you are not your intentions.

Is Mise,

I'm still young.

Being a true loser takes years of inaptitude.
But you can always improve. There's hope for you yet.

Foxy
Doesn’t take years at all, if you bought all the tickets in Lotto your layout would be more than the prize money, so like anyone else who bought all the tickets, you’d lose.

Is Mise,

The safe way to double your money -
is to fold it once
and put it in your pocket!

Foxy
But I was right.

Is Mise,

You know there's words for people who
think they are right when they're not.
Self righteous, sanctimonious, arrogant,
come to mind. As do - cocksure, dogmatic,
pedantic, and deluded.

Being right isn't nearly as important as
knowing when to shut up.

I don't think I'm always right, but I would
like to empower people to come to sound
conclusions using a systematic way of looking at
things.

Foxy,
Do you mean to say that I was not right?
That if one bought all the tickets, despite the mathematical certainty of losing then one would win?
Amazing!!

Is Mise,

No. stop trying to wriggle out of this.

You told me IF I was to buy all the lotto
tickets I would lose because that's the type
of person I am (whatever that means). And I
made it quite clear that I don't buy lotto
tickets so your presumption did not apply to me.
You insist that you are still right.

Of course in your own mind you are right.
Can't argue with that. But does that agree with
the facts as explained. We all have our own
levels of understanding. Lets agree on that.

Have a nice evening

Foxy
That’s right if you were the type of person…
Why bother, you’ll only paint yourself into another corner.

Paul,
You made no comment on the Brits bringing more efficient hunting implements to Indigenous Australians; the.22rf and shotguns are also popular Brit imports to the Indigenous.
Do you want to go into the many other good things that resulted from British rule?
Such as medicine, health care, surgery, the rule of law, equality for women, education, money, musical instruments, writing and an entre into the wealth of knowledge that is available in books?

Is Mise,

Of course you think you're right.
In your own mind you will always be
right.

I can't argue with that.

Hi Paul,

See you on another discussion.

BTW: Putting yourself in to corner is not
necessarily a bad thing. You then don't have any
other option but to continue forward!

Issy, this explains it all, just make the appropriate substitutions. I to like to provide links. Sorry Foxy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ&ab_channel=MontyPython

Good Morning Paul,

Thanks for that. "Life of Brian," is very appropriate
here.

Now I've got one that you might like - which is also
fitting:

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them
collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his
eyes are glazed.

The other guy whips out his cellphone and calls the
emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead!"
What can I do?"

The operator says, "Calm down, I can help.
First let's make sure he's dead."

There was a silence, then a shot is heard.

Back on the phone the guy says,

" OK, now what?"

Paul
Let’s not forget communications, no more message stick, today’s Indiigenous Australian uses a mobile ‘phone.
The Royal Flying Doctor Service has been another great asset that came because of the Brits, and last, but not least, the idea of nationhood.

Dear Paul,

Remember the lyrics of this song? :

I came from the dream-time
From the dusty red-soil plains
I am the ancient heart
The keeper of the flame
I stood upon the rocky shores
I watched the tall ships come
For forty thousand years I've been
The first Australian

I'm the daughter of a digger
Who sought the mother lode
The girl became a woman
On the long and dusty road
I'm a child of the Depression
I saw the good times come
I'm a bushie, I'm a battler
I am Australian

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We'll share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian

I'm a teller of stories
I'm a singer of songs
I am Albert Namatjira
And I paint the ghostly gums
I'm Clancy on his horse
I'm Ned Kelly on the run
I'm the one who waltzed Matilda
I am Australian

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We'll share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We'll share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian
I am, you are, we are Australian

Foxy
Have you got the music for that to be played on the didgeridoo?

Is Mise,

"I am Australian" by The Seekers.

The digital sheet music is available online
from:

musicnotes.com.

And probably can be ordered from any good music store.

The instrument you play it on is your choice.

The following might be of interest:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NrcUKgP_sks

http://vocal.media/beat/i-am-australian

Foxy,
Evading the question again, seems to.be habitual with you; must have caught the virus off Paul.

Is Mise,

Evading what question?

I'm sure that any good music store can help you
with the sheet music for a didgeridoo for the
Seekers song. All you have to do is ask. After
all the didgeridoo has been included in major
events as we can see.

I'm pointing you with all good faith - in a direction that
I feel can help you find what you are sincerely seeking.
Why the vitriol on your part.

I suspect that you don't want answers but simply to
attack and argue.

For that you shall have to go elsewhere. I'm not
interested in arguments.

Foxy,
The question was if you had the music for it on the didgeridoo.
Obviously the answer is “No”, so why not say so, or do you just want to argue?

I doubt that anyone could play it on an instrument with so few notes, but any of our Indigenous musicians should be capable of a good rendition on those other instruments that came to Australia because of the Poms.
The national dirge “Advance Australia Fair” could probably be played on such a basic instrument as the hollow tree/limb (without keys).

Is Mise,

Why would you ask me if I have the music for a
didgeridoo unless you were already preparing
to reply. Not interested in my answer at all.

Nah, I don't buy your pathetic attempt to shift
the blame for your behaviour onto me.

My father once told me to keep my distance
from people who will never admit they are wrong and
always try to make you feel like it's your fault.

Foxy,
Just like in that old Bing Crosby song, you must be strong to be able to hold yourself at arms length.

Hi Foxy and Issy,

Great song Foxy.

Issy, yes the people of the vast continent of Gondwana should have realised when the god Cook arrived that the bounty of the British nation was about to be bested upon them, in the form of Korean mobile phones and American fast food outlets. They should have cried with excitement as Cook planted that Pommy flag where ever he dith go. They should have yelled with gusto; "Hark, The joyest tidings of the promised land are upon us, Cook hast arrived!"

Issy, Do you not pay homage to the great Chinese god "Anko", for without "Anko" your very existence could not be sustained! Is it not at the temple of "Kmart" that the bounty of "Anko" is there for all to see. All that is good and wholesome in life, from the brightly coloured undies you wear, 6 pairs for $10, to the delightful "Anko" pop up toaster, on special at $29, that givest you hot crumpet in the mornings. Are you like the ungrateful ones in the times of Cook, are you now not giving thanks to another god "Anko", and the Chinese Communist Party, for all that you doth receive including that nifty little "Anko" veggie peeler on bulk display at only $1, how doth the great god "Anko" doith such miracles. Not since the days of the Indian one "Ramish" at the temple of the Dollar Dazzler, has such wonders beith beheld! AND with the new and improved "Neverpay" system of payment your prosperity is assured.

Damn it, my $7 "Anko" electric kettle wont boil water, back to Kmart for a REFUND.

Since Australia was colonised, the life span of aboriginals has nearly doubled.

Apparently, that isn't enough.

shadow minister,

Indigenous disadvantage in Australia is well known.

It includes shorter life expectancy.
Higher rates of infant mortality.
Poorer health.
Lower levels of education and employment.
Higher unemployment rates.
Alcoholism and drug abuse.
Community and family violence.
Lower wages when employed.

And the list goes on and on.

Yes, colonization did wonders for them.

Foxy,
Yes it did, among other things it allowed my old mate, Burnam Burnam, to fly to England and take possession of that country in the name of the Australian Aboriginal people.

Is Mise,

You should really make yourself familiar with at least
these 7 things about "invasion day," and actually
read what Burnum Burnum had to say in the speech he
made while standing on the White Cliffs of Dover near
Folkestone Harbour, England. It's quite famous and
known as "The Burnum Burnum Declaratio0n."
Will he still be your mate after you've read it,
I wonder.

It's quite a revelation!

http://indigenous.com.au/7-more-things-you-should-know-about-invasion-day/

cont'd ...

Sorry I left a letter out. Here's the link again:

http://indigenousx.com.au/7-more-things-you-should-know-about-invasion-day/

Foxy,
I’m more than familiar with the Declaration, I read the draft and he is still my mate even though he’s no longer with us, he died in 1997.

Foxy,

All those issues you mention are firstly relative to 1st world standards. Compared to their pre-colonial status it is unlikely that their life was expected to extend past 35yrs.

That aboriginals have such a gap is probably due to a number of factors such as alcoholism, domestic violence, and lack of access to medical care in remote areas.

Foxy,
The vast majority of Aboriginals don’t suffer from any of the points that you mention, the majority are getting along fine, locally we have the Aboriginal Health Service, Aboriginal Legal Service and the local Tribal Cultural Centers.
Racist groups all but set up with funds from the majority taxpayers.

Is Mise,

Going back to Burrum Burrum's Declaration.
He was a great warrior for Aboriginal causes.
His speech was a bit of showmanship and an
act of defiance. It was full of barbed allusions
to the treatment of Aboriginals by the English
settlers of Australia. In his speech he promised
no harm would come to England's "native people"
from his invasion. Nor would he poison their
water, lace their flour with strychnine, or
introduce them to alcohol and toxic drugs.

And you claimed that he thought colonisation
was great.

Yeah right.

cont'd ...

shadow minister and Is Mise,

so glad to hear that our Indigenous people
are so well looked after by the taxpayer and
that their problems are all self inflicted.
Good to know.

Foxy,
Burnam Burnam was a practical man and he made the most of what colonialism had to offer, that’s why he was a university graduate and drove a Mercedes Benz saloon car.

Is Mise,

And he also was a warrior all of his life for
Aboriginal causes!

"Since Australia was colonised, the life span of aboriginals has nearly doubled"

Based on what evidence? Got any stats for pre 1788, nothing but your racist opinion. BTW European life expectancy has increased from 35 in 1770 to 83.5 for white Australia in 2020, 10 year greater than that of Aboriginal people.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for that.

It's always useful to have the data.

Pauliar,

Once again you showed your racist idiocy. The average life expectancy everywhere in the world was about 35 in 1770 and even lower in primitive societies. Any assumption that aboriginals life expectancy was higher is wildly unlikely.

Secondly, as you mentioned there were no records kept before 1788 so the assumption that aboriginal culture remained the same for 40 000 yrs is also complete bollocks.

Hi Foxy,

The European observations of Indigenous peoples the world over in the 17th and 18th centuries was one of a fit and healthy race. Diet was extremely good, low carbs low fat. Living conditions were superior to that of most Europeans who were living in overcrowded unsanitary scaled conditions in cities and towns of Europe, or battling the "harshness" of colonies. European style diseases such as small pox and cholera were unknown to the indigenous.

My wife's Polynesian ancestors were a solidly built robust people, as can be attested to by Pre-European clothing housed in Bishop's Museum in Honolulu, 7 stories of amazing artefacts and history of the Polynesia including NZ. Men stood as much as 7 foot tall. Te took part some 20 years ago in an identification of forests plants in NZ used by Maori for food, medicines and workable materials. This was part of a Uni study at the time Thanks to "training" from her grandmother and mother, she can identify something like 200 plant species and their uses. Surprisingly there are many plants that have medicinal properties, others are eatable etc.

BTW; The healthy Indigenous people around Sydney Cove in 1788, were almost wiped out by European small pox by 1790.

Foxy,
So he was and that brought him into conflict with many so called activists who resented his attitude to what he contemptuously referred to as “sit down money” and to the harm that it was doing to his people

Is Mise,

Remove your blinckers, cut the crap, and

read the Burrnum Burrnum Declaration if full.

Nobody's buying what you're selling. And if
you can't do that -

Talk to the hand and if you have any
questions consult my middle-finger.

Hi Foxy,

I know what you mean, I tried to discuss Mahatma Gandhi with Issy, and he said "I know the bloke well, Goosey Goosey Gander, good mate of mine". I said "Nah Issy" two different blokes, in fact your mate is not a bloke at all. "Gee I thought he was a bit odd, wearing a duck suit and not saying anything but quack', he said, "could have fooled me". As for Burrnum Burrnum, Issy is probably confusing him with his old employer P.T. Barnum, you may have caught Issy's act, the bloke with a painted face, red nose, funny outfit, riding a unicycle around a ring, whilst balancing a ball on his nose. The following link explains;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YIPydVyQtA&ab_channel=Hollandalex2

cont'd ...

Here's a part of Burnum Burnum's legacy:

http://nytimes.com/1997/08/20/world/burnum-burnum-61-fighter-for-australia-s-aborigines.html

Foxy ,
Reached the end of your teather you?
Resorting to insults seems to indicate this.

I didn’t read the link as I hit a paywall.

Dear Paul,

Talking about PT Barnum. We went to see the
Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circus
when they came to Southern California.
A truly magical show. Many fond memories.

Is Mise,

Just living up to your expectations.
As you've stated - that's the kind of
person I am after all. And I hate disappointing
you so I've decided to speak your language and
come down to your level.
Glad you got the message.

No further comments.

Pauliar,

As you claim that there are no records prior to 1788, how do you know that aboriginals were fit and healthy and have a knowledge of their diet? A diet low in fat and carbs would have starved hunter-gatherers.

Once again you just make up crap as you go.

Foxy,

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that alcoholism, DV and remote living has nothing to do with the shorter life expectancy of aboriginals?

shadow minister,

And who introduced them to alcohol and took their
cultures, languages, self respect, their children,
et cetera, away from them?

I won't put my hand on my heart. Instead I'll put it
in prayer and kneel down.

shonkyminister,

Your comprehension is abysmal, just like your use of a comma when you want to defame a named person with a shocking slur. If you bother to read history, something you seem to be totally ignorant of, the descriptions of the appearance of indigenous people the world over by early European explorers, such people as Native Americans, Africans, Polynesians, Maori and others is in stark contrast to the emaciated condition of the average pox ridden European of the times. As for diet, the mass of undernourished Europeans survived on high amounts of saturated fats, and carbohydrates, often containing dangerous levels of salt, and little in the way of vitamins and minerals. When I say low fats, low cards its relative to later diets based on European foods. The rapid increase in life expectancy in Europe didn't begin until the mid 19th century. There is a theory that Europeans lived on average less in Cooks time, than they had pre IR times. Cities grew rapidly, but hygiene didn't improve, it got worse, disease was everywhere.

My wife's knowledge is from oral traditions of her ancestors, Maori people, not Australian Aboriginals. Her grandmother spoke of the "old people" who were in their 80's when she was a little girl circa 1870, and of those who died young from European introduced diseases. Hard pressed to find people in their 60's in the slums of 19th century England, old was 40.

Foxy,

I hardly see the settlers handing out free liquor.

Pauliar,

The reason the post was deleted was that it could be misinterpreted by buffoons as defamatory.

Secondly, your understanding of the term life expectancy is pitiful. People lived to 90 even back in Roman times, however, these were few and far between, so the anecdotal memories of your partner is not worth the paper it's printed on.

Ha, weasel words! So the moderator of this site is a buffoon misinterpreting! Two friends of mine who I showed your post to, one a school teacher and his wife in a professional job are also buffoons. The only buffoon is you the clown who posts slanderous comment. You are so pompous you think you are an expert on everything. 'Cry Baby' Porter is going to collect 10 million bucks, a grooving apology from the ABC, 100 employees sacked too pay for it all, so you said. Long before that it was your claim the an arrest is imminent in the 'Beat Up' Bolt case, another clanger from YPU! You can't seem to get anything wright. But I still love you.

On life expectancy, you can't dispute anything I say, because you don't know anything.

"Life expectancy at birth was a brief 25 years during the Roman Empire, it reached 33 years by the Middle Ages and raised up to 55 years in the early 1900s. In the Middle Ages, the average life span of males born in landholding families in England was 31.3 years

cont

All four of my grandparents who were living during the early 1900s, lived into their 80's, but 6 out of 15 uncles and aunties didn't reach the age of 5, those that did most lived fairly long lives. What impacted on life expectancy in earlier times was the very high infant mortality rate. If you reached the age of 5, you then had a reasonable chance of reaching the age of 40. In Roman times there was a difference in life expectancy based on class, Patricians, the upper class, had a much better diet, healthier living conditions than the Plebeians, the lower class, being the vast majority of Romans, so the Patricians had a longer life expectancy. this would/is the case where there is a marked class difference. For Indigenous there was no great class distinction, therefore diet and living conditions were much in the same. Just reading our 'Polynesian History' there is evidence that Polynesian women had better pelvic area development which was conducive to lesser complications during child birth. Also while Europeans were trying to breed like rabbits, indigenous were more select. In Australia Aboriginal women knew of certain berries that would bring on a miscarriage when things were not right.

A history of Sydney shows plague was common in The Rocks area in the late 19th century, rat catchers were employed.

Well, just one more comment, I can’t let Paul’s posts above go without acknowledging the excellence of their historical accuracy.
Well done.

shadow minister,

There's obviously a lot of things that you simply can't
acknowledge or see.

Pauliar,

Once again you are just lying through your teeth. From your grammar and spelling, you probably don't know any teachers.

Well done for looking up on google. But you still have sweet FA on aboriginal life expectancy prior to civilisation because there are no aboriginal records whatsoever from their 40 000 years or so. So crawl back under your rock.

shadow minister,

Longevity favours Indigenous Australians in
comparison to many poorer sectors of European
populations living in squalor, slum habitats.
There are also new DNA technologies, archival
records, studies of archaeologists, and other
sources that you can do to get a more
nuanced perspective of the past. Visits to
museums and state libraries also help.

Ever watch NITV?

Foxy,

I would love to see your sources of information. I think that is just what you want to believe.

Wow, it's cool!

shadow minister,

I use logic and research.
It's not complicated.
And it's fun.
Besides I've also worked in
institutions of learning and
in museums and National, State and Parliamentary,
and University libraries
which has helped. Plus done research for
MPs, Post Grads, and Community leaders.

Foxy,

The problem with your statement is that is so non-specific as to be bereft of any value.

For example, which indigenous and when? And where and which European demographic are you comparing them to?

Thus I can assume that you have no idea as to the life expectancy of indigenous at about the time of Cook's arrival.

Hi Foxy, I don't know why we engage with the pompous Wally, but he is of menial entertainment value, when he's not getting his rocks off with the use of the "P" word.

I've got to give it to shonkyminister. he charged that I, "From your grammar and spelling, you probably don't know any teachers." then in his last post this gem;

"The problem with your statement is that is so non-specific" Proper grammar would see IT before the second IS. Turkey, the only thing that is bereft is your brain. It obvious you never had any teachers.

shadow minister,

Logic dictates that our Indigenous people would
have been much healthier prior to colonialisation
which introduced them to disease, alcohol and
other evils. Also compare our Indigenous to the
slums and habitats of London, the sewerage floating
in the Thames, and you should realize that there
would be no comparison with the way people lived
her to the way they lived in the rat-infested cities
that the colonials came from.

A visit to libraries and museums and a study of
history might get you off your high-horse and in
touch with some facts - of which your statements have
thus far been bereft.
LOL.

Dear Paul,

I admire your patience and integrity.
It is getting tedious trying to have
conversations with some people who
simply refuse to see the bigger picture.

Foxy,

Now I know that you are just making this up.

Before colonisation, there was little to no indigenous sanitation and on top of it, there would have been frequent lethal clashes with other tribes which is typical of all tribally based systems.

So logic does not dictate the increased longevity of indigenous tribes.

shadow minister,

To me logic dictates. Being out in the open, living
off the land, and all that nature provides,
with crystal-clear waters, river, lakes, and streams,
as opposed to rows of houses in rat-infested cities,
where the sewerage flows freely - it makes sense
who's going to be healthier.

Still it's your choice. I know where I'd rather be and live.

Foxy,

As I thought, your logic is based purely on your feelings. The reality is that generally, people living in the country in the clean air with clean water etc. have lower life expectancies than those in the city.

Hunter gather's diet is usually far from optimal.

Pauliar,

You really are a poisonous individual. As for the paedophiles that the greens seem to engender at a rate far more frequent than any other party, I like them punished while your response was first to claim that they were no longer greens and then tried to claim that one individual hadn't been convicted when he had actually pleaded guilty. That your token Muslim councillor turned out to be violently homophobic and a thief that your party is covering up to the hilt shows that while you pontificate about justice etc the green party is rotten to the core.

shadow minister,

Lets get serious for a minute.

You claim that we don't know their life expectancy
prior to the arrival of the colonists. Ok Fair
enough. But we certainly know what happened to them
after the arrival of the colonists don't we.

I rest my case.

Hi Foxy,

SM tells me I don't know the life expectancy of Indigenous people, yet nummy makes the claim "Before colonisation, there was little to no indigenous sanitation and on top of it, there would have been frequent lethal clashes with other tribes which is typical of all tribally based systems."

In fact my evidence is from accounts of early colonial explores and their descriptions of the physical appearance of people, along with the known diets and lack of European style diseases. As for war, constant war served nobodies interest, and well defined tribal boundaries were the norm. In North America the Plains and Eastern Indians were confederations of tribes serving a common interest. Your best warriors are also you best hunters and not in the tribes interest to have lots of fit young men killed. In Aotearoa there were clearly defined tribal boundaries, which still exist today. The war between Maori broke out with the introduction of the European musket and the Europeans desire for land. "The Ngapuhi (my wife's tribe) chief Hongi Hika is usually seen as responsible for beginning the Musket Wars." Of course the English never went to war with the neighbouring tribes, Scots, Welsh, Irish, French, Spanish, Dutch, Germans and a whole bunch of others, nah a very peaceful lot were those English.

Foxy, this sick dude who likes to constantly talk about paedophiles, Steele remarked that there is obviously something mentally wrong with him, or worse, and I tend to agree. Its an obsession of his, maybe by talking about paedophilia on the forum it's his way of getting his rocks off. Strange dude, he brings it up regardless of what the topic is.

Also, just finished a book on Gandhi and now reading Shashi Tharoor 'Inglorious Empire'. Not sure if Issy will discuss it, it may not be on his approved reading, 'Dark Emu' wasn't. It could even be on ttbn's books for burning list.

Dear Paul,

You're simply amazing!

Finding the time to read must be very satisfying.
I'm trying to keep up but I'm starting to get a
bit depressed with what's going on around me at present.
So much bad news all around. And we can't go anywhere
or meet with people to get a change of scenery. Still,
I shouldn't complain, I know. There's people and places
far worse off.

Thanks for making me laugh on this forum. Believe me it
is appreciated. I look forward to your posts.

Pauliar,

As for talking about paedophiles in the greens, you couldn't shut up about these monsters while the royal commission was in progress, but when it is in your backyard suddenly we have radio silence and you doing your best to cover up.

Secondly, American Indians fought frequently as did the Maori, the Africans etc. Your claim that they were peaceful is wishful BS on your side.

"Aboriginals were not “warlike” because war typically requires organisation, planning and coordination of large groups of warriors - and war implies “profit” - what you get as a result of the war.

Aboriginals didn’t have a sense of ownership of territory, since they were hunter-gathers who travelled vast tracts of land, which were jointly used by people in the same linguistic group. In that sense, there was nothing to fight over.

However, Aboriginals certainly did have disputes that involved people getting killed. We still have examples of wooden shields used for protection against spears during these fights.

You would need to have great eyesight and a high level of skill to survive these fights - just like modern warfare, really.

There are also examples of cannibalism in the north of Australia - not talked about nowadays but no question about having occurred. Whether cannibalism was more widespread is unknown.

The idea of Aboriginals being “peaceful” and “noble” is a myth. They were just normal people eking a living from a harsh land in a difficult environment."

shonkyminister didn't you say you were in Christchurch NZ? What are you doing there, visiting the murderous far right white susprimists Brenton Tarrant in jail?

All I have said about indigenous people is based on factual reading, logic and experience. It easy to see what motives YOUR thinking, its certainly not education.

Paul,
When, in my youth, I spent an all too brief time with truly tribal Aboriginies , they were very healthy, nary even a sniffle amongst them,, they wore virtually no clothes and the eldest of them seemed to be quite old.
I wish I’d asked how old they were but one didn’t ask such questions.
Those of the group who had never seen a white person before were intrigued by the contrast between the suntanned bits and the white of the rest of my body when I stripped off.
Incidentally they didn’t understand sun burn as we do because of never being covered up.

Hi Issy,

You are observant. absolutely, deadly disease were unknown to indigenous people pre colonisation, that's why when such were introduced by Europeans, Aboriginals had no immune defence. By 1788 small pox was still a serious disease among the European colonists, but rarely fatal, for Aboriginals around Sydney Cove it proved to be 90% deadly in 1790. The notion that Aboriginals were desert dwellers just eking out a subsistence living is a long way from the truth. The majority of Aboriginals inhabited the coastal and fertile regions with decent rainfall and a plentiful food supply. My own reading and learning in Sydney and now Moreton Bay, I'm jealous of the amount and verity of foods available, and the abundant fresh water supply indigenous people enjoyed. Even today when we travel to Aotearoa for an event the kai presented at the obligatory feast is unbelievable, seafood, from lobsters and crayfish, shellfish of all kinds, paua, oysters etc, all obtained free from traditional Maori fishing grounds. Good to be an 'Old Fart' we get to sit at the "main table" where only the best is served. Last time over there I recall saying how I was partial to the fresh crayfish, a blink and a nod from cuzzy bro and next thing I knew there were another 2 lobsters and 6 large crayfish in front of us. The Maori people have always fed us well every time we've been there.

p/s Not big on rotten corn or kina.

Good Morning,

This discussion has gone on for far longer that
I ever expected. It's been interesting and
I am pleased that we're able to read various
views. I look forward to our next discussion.
May we continue to be respectful towards each
may we continue to talk to each other.

Wishing you all good health.
Stay safe.

Foxy,
Thanks for that and the same good wishes to you and your’s.

Paul,
My English ancestors came from Dorset and their village, Stoutpaine featured in the London Illustrated News of 5th Sept 1846 as an example of poverty, filth, immorality, rotten housing etc.
Labourers in the fields, both men and women, would work naked to save their only set of clothing and hide or lay down at the approach of a stranger.

They prospered in NSW.

Hi Issy,

We read about the Cook's and the Clive's of the Empire, the top 1%, but we hear little of the ordinary folk who lived in abject poverty. They may have not known it at the time, but for many convicts transportation to NSW was like winning the lottery in comparison to the conditions from where they came. One of the problems Phillip had was the lack of rudimentary skills among the convict class, the soldiers were no better, they almost starved to death, with an abundance of native food all around them. There are accounts that local Aboriginals played a big part in keeping the early colony going by suppling or trading fish etc with the Europeans. Given the choice, would you rather have been one of the poor of Stoutpaine or a native of Tahiti in those times.

One of the great myths of empire, is the terrible lot of the native savage pre colonisation. I don't believe that for a minute, nor do I believe the average native anywhere was overall advantaged by colonisation.

Issy, read that book on Gandhi, it reinforced my belief that Gandhi was the greatest individual for good during the 20th century. Gandhi was never awarded the Nobel Peace prize, says more about society than Gandhi. If you don't agree with me, can you throw up a name that you believe surpasses that of Gandhi. Please don't say Hitler, as I agree Hitler was the most influential person of the 20th century, but not for good. Christ in my view is the most influential person of all times.

Pauliar,

Have you been visiting the two convicted green paedophiles in prison? or does it bring back bad memories?

Secondly, none of your posts are logical and you usually confuse your opinion with facts or you cherry-pick BS from such as the Dank Emu.

PS your spelling is incompetent as usual.

shadow minister,

People have their own styles of posting and
they don't usually let anyone try to shame them with
their rules. Your example is that you put "liar" at the
end of names - so you can't really criticize others
for the way they post

Paul,
I agree with you on Gandhi, where we seem to differ is that I think that he used the potential for violence and the actual British violence for his own ends laudable as 9those ends were.
The Salt March is a good example; Gandhi would have known that such an act of defiance would be 99% likely to end in violence which he could use against the British.

Two things about life in Dorset for the ordinary person, lots of the men joined the navy, it was an easier life and during the Irish famine the unfortunates who made it from there to Britain would not go into Dorset as they were looking for a better life.

Hi Issy,

With the 'Salt March' it was a act of defiance, and Gandhi was not the instigator of violence, that was the choice of the British. Throughout his life Gandhi deplored violence. He attempted to unit both Hindu and Muslim, but unfortunately violence between the two groups broke out and Gandhi eventually paid with his own life.

I don't know if it was a great choice to join the British Navy, in Cooks time on board ship was often a death sentence, if several other things didn't get you scurvy was the big killer. Many sailors had no choice they were press ganged into service.

Hi Foxy,

This bloke has made 100 and more references on the forum to paedophiles. He is fixated with the subject, the bloke inferred I was a paedophile, (post deleted), he called the Greens MLC in NSW David Shoebridge a paedophile, (post deleted). Disappointingly the moderator took little action, other than deleting a couple of posts. He had assured me in the past he had "zero" tolerance for such behaviour, yet to be seen, but maybe that was for those of us of the left. Incidentally he gave me a month suspension for calling another poster an "Islamophobe", I expect that on here. I don't claim to be a goody two shoes when it comes to posting, far from it, I attack politicians, particularly conservative ones, and if I see racists comments posted I'll call the poster a racists or like, but I don't stoop to the level of this bloke with that kind of sick comment. Anyway I doubt I'd get away with it, like some.

Dear Paul,

The saying about "sticks and stones..." is not exactly
true. Names do hurt. Words do hurt. And we do retaliate
with kind and lose it at times. There's no excuse for
attacking people personally or giving them names and
labels. I guess this is easy to do for all of us
when the forum is anonymous - and people
can say things that hopefully they wouldn't say
face-to-face.

I was taught to believe that if anyone has to stoop to
personal attacks - they've lost the argument.

I love reading your posts. They often make me
laugh out loud

As for Shadow Minister? I'm trying to understand him and
what prompts him to go off at times. The same goes for
Canum Malum - and ttbn.

They are posters who can surprise me at times
by their well reasoned posts. I have learned a
great deal from each of them and hopefully will continue
to do so.

I believe that there should be room on this
forum for diverse political views and that we can learn
from each other if we keep an open mind.
But I do strongly object to personal
attacks. And I admit that I have been guilty of them
as well.

All we can do is try to rise about it - and try to go
with the "better angels" of our natures.

Stay healthy.
Stay safe.

PS: Today would have been my mum's 100th Birthday.
She passed away 4 years ago. I'm going to light a candle for
her and say a few prayers.

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

Mum so wanted to live to be 100 so she could get a
letter from the Queen. Mum was a staunch monarchist.

Pauliar,

Considering the careless way you happily lie and defame people you are hardly in any position to talk. The reason you have a bug up your arse is that the paedophiles to whom I refer are senior members of the greens.

shonkyminister,

Don't worry about the Greens, the Liberal murderers are killing people by the dozens, and infecting thousands more with the Gladys virus in New South Wales. Glad I fled to Queensland where there is a decent Labor government doing its best to protect people. You should be a real Proud Boy, Berejiklian is doing better than your folk hero Brenton Tarrant. BTW have they let you in to visit the turd yet? After all, he's one of yours!

Pauliar,

How's Jonathan Doig? I believe you two chat regularly do you keep notes?

How's Victoria going? After murdering over 800 of its citizens, it still can't keep them safe.

"A rising star in the Green Party did not clearly tell colleagues her father had been charged with serious sex crimes against a child before appointing him as her election agent.

David Challenor, 50, was charged with 22 offences in November 2016, including the rape and torture of a 10-year-old girl, but went on to work for his daughter Aimee Challenor during two elections while out on bail.

An independent investigation found Challenor posed a “major safeguarding risk” for two years while he was given roles of responsibility in the party, including as his daughter’s agent during the 2017 general election and 2018 local council elections.

The inquiry, by Verita, said Ms Challenor, a transgender activist who was in the running to become the Greens’ deputy leader, committed a “serious error of judgment”.

Challenor, of Charterhouse Road, Coventry, was jailed for 22 years in August 2018 after he was found guilty of 20 offences."

shonkyminster,

You must troll the internet in the wee small hours to find stories about paedophiles, the last one about a bloke in the UK was posted at 2:28:36 AM, and your not a sicko? Others can judge for themselves.

Hi Foxy,

My wife who occasionally reads my comments and others, on the Forum for a laugh. She refuses to post anything herself. She tells me to STOP responding to that nut case shadowminister, "the guys some kind of fruit cake, can't you see that". According to her if I keep responding to the nut job, then people will think I'm in the same club. The wife said; "its like as if you're pen pals with Dolly Dunn. No matter what the subject is all this guy talks about is paedophiles, don't it tell you anything" I think I see what she means, so no more responding to this rubbish for me.

Dear Paul,

Your wife is probably concerned about the stress
all this is causing you. My husband gives me the
same sort of advice when he sees that certain posters
are upsetting me. He tells me to just not respond to
them. Scroll past their posts when you see who's doing
the posting. Just ignore them.

But that's not always an easy thing to do.
I often think - Heck, I've tried to be polite all of my life.
I was raised not to rock the boat - to fit in, to keep my
mouth shut. Now I think - NO - on all of that - if I can't
say what I think at my age - when will I be able to do it?

I do still try not to respond - and I know the advice
given is good. So instead I try to see things from the
other's point of view - and what it is that's causing them
to behave that way. I try to understand their motives.

My husband tells me not to provoke people to start of with.
Which again sometimes the temptation is just too great.

None of us are perfect. And posting on this forum is a
learning experience. We often can't change the behaviour
of other people. But we can change our own. Or at
least try. Oh God - now I'm beginning to sound like
my dad.

Pauliar,

Firstly, time zones!!

Secondly, it took 10 seconds to google "green paedophile" and you instantly get a flood of greens around the world involved to some extent in paedophilia. A coincidence? I think not.

As for your wife, she married the nut job.

Hi Foxy,

Te made the point, you don't know this guy, what if the cops bust him for you know what and check his computer and see he's been talking with YOU. Next thing you know the cops are around here taking your laptop for a look see. Te said it would be like communicating with some guy who wants to talk about bomb making all the time. I was treating the bloke as a joke, but the wife has turned the light on.

Watch, he'll be back with the same nonsense at his next post.

Dear Paul,

Take your wife's advice.

Pauliar,

If you have been talking to Johnathan Doig, you should be worried about what is on your computer.

Foxy,

Pauliar's propensity to hurl insults then cry continuously when it is served back is the problem.