italian dave

I’ve no problem with people who aren’t genuine refugees being sent away. But the point I was trying to make is that genuine refugees, and specifically genuine victims of modern slavery, will be sent packing without having any opportunity to make their case. We’ll be refusing genuine victims of slavery any protection. Is that right? ”These people” aren’t housed in luxury, and the reason we run up such massive bills is that the Home Office chooses (some would argue deliberately) to not assess their applications properly and promptly. And to keep them in abeyance for months or even years. Those costs are on our government, not asylum seekers. Once they’ve been assessed and are genuine then would I be prepared to have my tax bill adjusted to pay for them? Very definitely. There are various ways of calculating the net cost to the country so different studies come up with different conclusions. Some calculate a net benefit to the economy - so I’d be quids in there, my taxes would go down. But even the ones that calculate a net cost suggest a very small one - one that would work out to no more than a few ££s on my bill. Plus, at the end of the day, they’ll be the people providing my health and social care when I need it and they’ll be the people paying the taxes to pay for it.

Since this thread is evidently now being completely derailed by the usual suspect, I’m off. But just to say thanks @spudski for a good thread and discussion this morning.

That’s a good point. Put a rail in front of my seat in the Dolman and there wouldn’t be room to stand up even if you wanted to! And some of my larger neighbours would need to be prised out at the end of a game.

Shoulda Woulda Coulda……..Beverley (K)night

And that would achieve what? (surprised to hear you suggesting it though!)

It’s a tough one, isn’t it? I agree with @spudski on this, in principle, and in relation to the specific examples he gives. We do have a genuine choice about something things. And when it comes to things like car washes and nail bars, well known as the sort of places that abuse people in that way, then just using them without any regard is unforgivable. And if you’re looking at a pair of jeans that costs £5 then that has to beg some pretty significant questions about how it was produced. But it’s a lot tougher when it comes to mobile phones…… But yes, I do also agree that it can be used to shut down or deliberately detract from debate - it’s about like the inevitable ‘have you offered to share your house with an asylum seeker’ post that appears in any debate on that subject.

Exactly what the article is about, and a @Hxj has already mentioned, part of a series that focuses on precisely that. So, no, they didn’t ‘chuck a few quid to make it go away’. Complete nonsense.

Off subject slightly (maybe no bad thing) but we drive over that canal to and from so many away games (not to mention other journeys) and often comment on the fact that you never ever see anything on it nowadays. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single vessel. It’s hard to believe it was ever such a bustling waterway. - and also that it couldn’t serve a better purpose nowadays.

In that instance, I think we could all agree that a complete ban, the appropriation and sale of all assets, and the erasure of all records and results connected with the club would be the appropriate action.

Indeed. And, just to spread the net of controversy even further, and closer to home, the UK government is about to remove legal protection from modern slavery for people trafficked to the UK.

And Grimsby. Celebrating our destruction of the oceans by over fishing…..?

I found quite a lot interesting. It’s a long article, I don’t want to go through every bit, but the whole issue of an inland City with a ship on its coat of arms, the links between the cotton mills and slavery, why the bee is also such a symbol of Manchester, and a whole lot more. And this really isn’t intended as a go at your original post. I’m glad you posted it. I probably wouldn’t have found and read the article otherwise. All I’d question in that OP is whether the article really is “calling for….” - as I’ve said that’s not how I read it. It says that there are calls for…but also gives equal prominence to those who don’t share that view. Edit: PS The headline starts “does…..” and ends “?”. I agree though that the ‘this symbol of slavery’ is poorly worded.

Just trying to lighten the tone! I think I’ve done anything but try to avoid answering your questions! ??

And if you were related to Henry VIII the wouldn’t you be interested in reading something about that link? I’m not quite sure why you’re getting so cross about me saying that an article in a newspaper is something I found interesting. You didn’t. Fair enough. As I’ve said above, I just didn’t read it as the ‘attack piece’ it’s being portrayed as, but as a fairly well balanced article on the subject.

Crikey….statues!! Now there’s a word from the past and a memory of debates on here that got wildly out of hand!! Don’t you just love OTIB - mascots and statues all in one thread!

Well, I’d kind of hope that no-one would disagree with the sentiment of my second paragraph! Although I still don’t get the relevance of modern day slavery in Libya. Maybe we just have to disagree on the article then - which is fair enough. I just didn’t see it as the “attack piece” that some have taken it for. It makes a point of giving both sides of the argument, equally well and with equal prominence. I thought it was interesting about the history and symbolism of the ship. I don’t know that it was badly researched: it suggests that there is disagreement about the precise nature of the ship and I’ve yet to see any convincing evidence that makes the case for it being a specific type either way. I don’t claim to know - to me even the ships on the two club badges don’t look the same!! So I found it interesting to read the arguments for and against. Does it worry me if the clubs keep the badge? No. Would it worry me if they removed them? Probably not a lot either. But that didn’t stop me finding the article an interesting read.

Which bit?

And, again, the article itself makes exactly that point about ships generally. But the question - and it’s a question, not a statement or assumption - is whether this represents a very specific type of ship. And there are people who don’t think it does, and well as people who think it’s irrelevant even if it does - all of which is acknowledged in the article. Slavery is wrong. Doesn’t matter when, who, how, the colour of the slave or of the trader. I’m not sure why you think that anyone would think otherwise. And why you seem to feel that somehow the fact that it’s still goes on today, and is practiced by black slave traders, somehow makes what happened in the past any less awful. I can post links of - literally - dozens of Guardian articles about slavery in Libya if you really want me to. It just seems a bit of a waste of time just to prove the point - you can Google it as easily as me!

Where is anyone suggesting that anyone should be “punished”?

Well, interestingly, I was about to suggest that you read it because it makes and discusses just the points that you made in your longer post above. It’s slightly more nuanced than your post suggests. Much of Manchester’s wealth may have come after slavery was abolished in the UK, but it came from the wealth of merchants who’d made much of that wealth through the trade, and it came from cotton produced by those people who’d been traded by those merchants and who were still enslaved on the cotton plantations - slavery in the US wasn’t abolished until many years later than it was in the UK. And the article actually makes many of the points you’re making: it’s not clear cut, it’s not something on which everyone agrees - and even then when you talk about the opinions of the ‘silent majority’ - it’s b not clear what opinions you’re referring to - there are a huge number of issues in there. I doubt that the silent majority support the concept of slavery, or of anyone benefitting from it. And equally - as the article makes clear - there are other badges and ships that very evidently have no potential connections whatsoever, and there’s not even a minority suggesting those be removed. But there then a whole great area in between those extremes. So, yes, I’d say this one is well worth a read.

Any mention of Bristol City and penalties?!!

Before piling in with the usual cries of outrage, it’s actually worth reading what I think is an interesting article. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/abandon-ship-does-this-symbol-of-slavery-shame-manchester-and-its-football-clubs (and, @AshtonGreat, it’s also reported in the Mail - although promoting that outrage is more their thing I’d imagine!?) It’s not a “campaign”: it’s a question. Note the ? At the end of the article’s title. It’s very explicit that this is not about ships generally - and it explicitly mentions other club badges in that regard. And it’s about a question as to whether the ships on the club badges - and probably more significantly on the City’s coat of arms - is a specific type of ship that was associated with the trade on which Manchester was built. A trade which relied on slavery. And a trade which the Guardian itself acknowledges helped to make the wealth of its own founder. Worth a read I’d suggest.

The same bloke who was shouting "forward, forward, shoot, shoot"?!

We’re not ‘old boys’ Redoxo, we’re the VPY (Victims of the Passing Years) Community ?

I agree with you that the ‘singing section’ (for want of a better description) seems to have moved or been moved all over the place in recent years. I guess the redevelopment didn’t help. But I don’t think there’s any conspiracy about why they are in that corner now. It was in no small part about standing, and an area they could make standing without problems with neighbouring blocks. And where they could do so without upsetting long standing ‘residents’ like @Ska Junkie - because there are no long standing residents of the corners.