Rishi cash give away

[1nvest]

Always amusing to see how racists consider/define racism and are all too quick to show/shout the racist card

Interesting to see the UN claiming trillions from Britain for reparations of past slavery of blacks, whilst giving no regard to the massive degrees of historic slavery of whites. In the 17th century coastal dwellers of Britain lived in constant terror of being kidnapped and sold into slavery in North Africa.

A generation is around 25 years, three generations is around just 75 years of domicile history before being considered a citizen committed enough to be worthy of setting domestic laws or/and governance. If you want to seek out racism then look to Japan, African states ..etc. and their (lack of) diversity of MP's.

I would agree with you in respect of Japan. The rest of your post reads like a National Front leaflet. The industrial-scale enslavement which saw Africans taken to North America never happened to white people. Personally I find all this talk of reparations just silly. What’s done is done. But it doesn’t change the facts.

And if you don’t think that having a three-generation requirement for MPs isn’t racist then you’re delusional. 1930s Germany had similar laws.

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was a major institution and a significant part of the Ottoman Empire's economy and traditional society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... man_Empire

Personally I opine that slavery persists to the present day, but rather than clothing/sheltering/feeding the slaves directly, slaves are allocated a subsistence 'wage' instead - paid paper fiat currency that has no real tangible value, in some cases insufficient to feed/clothe/shelter themselves such that they have to rely upon charity such as food-banks.

[Charlottesquare]

Although not a prospective parliamentarian, amusingly King Charles would also fail this arbitrary and racist test.

Always amusing to see how racists consider/define racism and are all too quick to show/shout the racist card

Interesting to see the UN claiming trillions from Britain for reparations of past slavery of blacks, whilst giving no regard to the massive degrees of historic slavery of whites. In the 17th century coastal dwellers of Britain lived in constant terror of being kidnapped and sold into slavery in North Africa.

A generation is around 25 years, three generations is around just 75 years of domicile history before being considered a citizen committed enough to be worthy of setting domestic laws or/and governance. If you want to seek out racism then look to Japan, African states ..etc. and their (lack of) diversity of MP's.

Not sure with your 25 years, from my grandfather's birth in 1890 to my birth in 1960 was 70 years. I suspect these days 30-35 years per generation is needed, or maybe it depends on your socio economic group how fast generations occur in one's family, but certainly 25 is too short for the Middle Classes of the UK and if you design your rule by generation it will be those popping out kids from say age 16-18 onwards who will be first over your manufactured three generation line. (Not sure I am going to qualify, my father was born in 1927 in a hospital in Cairo)

[1nvest]

Always amusing to see how racists consider/define racism and are all too quick to show/shout the racist card

Interesting to see the UN claiming trillions from Britain for reparations of past slavery of blacks, whilst giving no regard to the massive degrees of historic slavery of whites. In the 17th century coastal dwellers of Britain lived in constant terror of being kidnapped and sold into slavery in North Africa.

A generation is around 25 years, three generations is around just 75 years of domicile history before being considered a citizen committed enough to be worthy of setting domestic laws or/and governance. If you want to seek out racism then look to Japan, African states ..etc. and their (lack of) diversity of MP's.

Not sure with your 25 years, from my grandfather's birth in 1890 to my birth in 1960 was 70 years. I suspect these days 30-35 years per generation is needed, or maybe it depends on your socio economic group how fast generations occur in one's family, but certainly 25 is too short for the Middle Classes of the UK and if you design your rule by generation it will be those popping out kids from say age 16-18 onwards who will be first over your manufactured three generation line. (Not sure I am going to qualify, my father was born in 1927 in a hospital in Cairo)

I just assumed a new born child is inclined to have their own child when they are in their mid 20's. But yes some will be popping out kids at 16 years or earlier, others maybe in their mid 30's or later.

[gryffron]

Although not a prospective parliamentarian, amusingly King Charles would also fail this arbitrary and racist test.

A number of monarchs would fail this test. Several Norman and Angevin monarchs - and even earlier probably Canute as well. Tudors? Georges, William.

Intermarriage between the various European royal houses has always been commonplace. In just the last century we’ve had Philip of Greece and Alexandra of Denmark. At a wild guess I’d reckon at least half of historic English monarchs would fail 1nvest’s test.

Interestingly, the 1701 Act of Succession explicitly states that any British monarch must be a blood descendant of Sophia of Hanover. She was married to a German. So the law says they must be German

Gryff

[Dod101]

The average length between generations has always worked out at around 30 years. I can go back five generations with certainty and it works for most of my great great great grandparents. You need to remember that at least until quite recent times the first child might be born while the mother was relatively young but often they would produce a child every year or eighteen months for at least the next ten years so that there could easily be five or six surviving children as well as one or two who died in infancy. The average between generations thus tends to work out at around 30 years.

I am not clear though what this has to do with the PM's cash give away.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

We give quite a lot of money to India, and India has a space programme, so indirectly we help fund their space programme.

Can't really blame Rishsi for this nonsense, it's been going on a long time, govts like to kid themselves that it helps us in some way.

V8

That's a bit of a round-about argument. In the same way we all contribute to things indirectly - pick your own favourite to moan about! Government money is generally not "ring fenced" and that's just the way it is, and the money you spend in daily life contributes to all sorts of things you may not approve of. Get over it and don't make misleading statements about it.

Arb

[mc2fool]

A generation is around 25 years, three generations is around just 75 years of domicile history before being considered a citizen committed enough to be worthy of setting domestic laws or/and governance.

I take it your 75 years was specifically chosen to encompass the 1948 British Nationality Act that gave people from the colonies the right to live and work in Britain and, of course, the 75th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush, that was celebrated earlier this year.

You are really saying that we should have a lot more of the descendants of those post war colonial immigrants in power, right.....?

[88V8]

We give quite a lot of money to India, and India has a space programme, so indirectly we help fund their space programme

That's a bit of a round-about argument. In the same way we all contribute to things indirectly - pick your own favourite to moan about! Government money is generally not "ring fenced" and that's just the way it is, and the money you spend in daily life contributes to all sorts of things you may not approve of. Get over it and don't make misleading statements about it.

Errrm, how's that misleading?
It's a simple statement of fact, unless our money is ring-fenced.

In the same way that the money I give to the Conservative party makes me responsible for... list of things of which you disapprove...

V8

[tjh290633]

The average length between generations has always worked out at around 30 years. I can go back five generations with certainty and it works for most of my great great great grandparents. You need to remember that at least until quite recent times the first child might be born while the mother was relatively young but often they would produce a child every year or eighteen months for at least the next ten years so that there could easily be five or six surviving children as well as one or two who died in infancy. The average between generations thus tends to work out at around 30 years.

I am not clear though what this has to do with the PM's cash give away.

Dod

My .mother was the eldest of 9 children, with 20 years between her and her youngest sister. There is about 60 years between me and my two grandfathers and 68 years between me and my oldest grandchild.

I agree that 30 years is much more realistic.

TJH

[Dod101]

The average length between generations has always worked out at around 30 years. I can go back five generations with certainty and it works for most of my great great great grandparents. You need to remember that at least until quite recent times the first child might be born while the mother was relatively young but often they would produce a child every year or eighteen months for at least the next ten years so that there could easily be five or six surviving children as well as one or two who died in infancy. The average between generations thus tends to work out at around 30 years.

I am not clear though what this has to do with the PM's cash give away.

Dod

My .mother was the eldest of 9 children, with 20 years between her and her youngest sister. There is about 60 years between me and my two grandfathers and 68 years between me and my oldest grandchild.

I agree that 30 years is much more realistic.

TJH

That's funny. I had not thought of looking the other way, at our own grandchildren. There are 58 years between me and my oldest grandchild.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

That's a bit of a round-about argument. In the same way we all contribute to things indirectly - pick your own favourite to moan about! Government money is generally not "ring fenced" and that's just the way it is, and the money you spend in daily life contributes to all sorts of things you may not approve of. Get over it and don't make misleading statements about it.

Errrm, how's that misleading?
It's a simple statement of fact, unless our money is ring-fenced.

In the same way that the money I give to the Conservative party makes me responsible for... list of things of which you disapprove...

V8

I think this comes under "the truth but not the whole truth" - we have to be careful about context and who might quote us. Someone picking up on you original statement might just remember that 88V8 said that we contribute to India's space program, which is not true. We contribute to India for other reasons, but it isn't a payment towards their space progam. That's how internet rumours start.

Arb.

[GoSeigen]

Always amusing to see how racists consider/define racism and are all too quick to show/shout the racist card

Interesting to see the UN claiming trillions from Britain for reparations of past slavery of blacks, whilst giving no regard to the massive degrees of historic slavery of whites. In the 17th century coastal dwellers of Britain lived in constant terror of being kidnapped and sold into slavery in North Africa.

Okay, I'll bite.

1. How do racists consider/define racism?
2. Why is it so amusing?

But please answer here.

GS

[1nvest]

Errrm, how's that misleading?
It's a simple statement of fact, unless our money is ring-fenced.

In the same way that the money I give to the Conservative party makes me responsible for... list of things of which you disapprove...

V8

I think this comes under "the truth but not the whole truth" - we have to be careful about context and who might quote us. Someone picking up on you original statement might just remember that 88V8 said that we contribute to India's space program, which is not true. We contribute to India for other reasons, but it isn't a payment towards their space progam. That's how internet rumours start.

Arb.

A contribution is a contribution, how it is actually spent is the recipients choice. It's for the contributor to decide whether contributions are warranted when they see how the receiver generally spends. If your contribution is for a specific purpose only, that enables the receiver to not have to cover that expense themselves, but instead spend it elsewhere, if that elsewhere is flamboyant spending the contributor rightfully should make adjustments.

[Nimrod103]

Errrm, how's that misleading?
It's a simple statement of fact, unless our money is ring-fenced.

In the same way that the money I give to the Conservative party makes me responsible for... list of things of which you disapprove...

V8

I think this comes under "the truth but not the whole truth" - we have to be careful about context and who might quote us. Someone picking up on you original statement might just remember that 88V8 said that we contribute to India's space program, which is not true. We contribute to India for other reasons, but it isn't a payment towards their space progam. That's how internet rumours start.

Arb.

Well, it depends. I am sure the UK benvolence towards India is ring fenced in the sense it has to be spent on certain projects which have either 1) value in alleviating poverty, deprivation, etc or 2) has to be spent with UK companies building stuff. In the case of 1), one has to ask "If we don't spend the money on the poor, would the Indian Govt do it instead? If the answer is "yes", then we are indeed subsidizing their space program. If the answer is "no" which I think is much more likely given Hinduism ambivalence towards poverty in general, then we are obviously fulfilling a (Christianity inspired) gap in social provision.

[88V8]

Well, it depends. I am sure the UK benvolence towards India is ring fenced in the sense it has to be spent on certain projects which have either 1) value in alleviating poverty, deprivation, etc or 2) has to be spent with UK companies building stuff. In the case of 1), one has to ask "If we don't spend the money on the poor, would the Indian Govt do it instead? If the answer is "yes", then we are indeed subsidizing their space program. If the answer is "no" which I think is much more likely given Hinduism ambivalence towards poverty in general, then we are obviously fulfilling a (Christianity inspired) gap in social provision.

You could well be right. The Indian caste system makes the average British racist look a rank amateur, and I can imagine that those at the bottom of the pile have a pretty thin time of it.

V8

[Nimrod103]

Well, it depends. I am sure the UK benvolence towards India is ring fenced in the sense it has to be spent on certain projects which have either 1) value in alleviating poverty, deprivation, etc or 2) has to be spent with UK companies building stuff. In the case of 1), one has to ask "If we don't spend the money on the poor, would the Indian Govt do it instead? If the answer is "yes", then we are indeed subsidizing their space program. If the answer is "no" which I think is much more likely given Hinduism ambivalence towards poverty in general, then we are obviously fulfilling a (Christianity inspired) gap in social provision.

You could well be right. The Indian caste system makes the average British racist look a rank amateur, and I can imagine that those at the bottom of the pile have a pretty thin time of it.

V8

Which is why those who are clever/well qualified, but lose out from the caste system, seek their futures in the UK and USA. But it goes deeper than that, Hinduism regards the lot of people as essentially predetermined. It is their Karma. One's focus should be on the beauty in life, not on the poor and ugly, as their lot is unchangeable.