UK Politics Thread part II

[Moonlight]

Rishi Sunak's five promises: What progress has he made?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/65647308

Jeremy Hunt wages war on the work-shy: Chancellor to unveil crackdown on benefit 'shirkers' and raise minimum wage to £11 an hour - with plans to target 'deadbeat dads' too

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art....html#comments

You know there's a General Election around the corner when the Tories bring out these boogeyman stories about work shy benefit claimants, apparently, we have the lowest unemployment figures since time began so Mr Hunt's facts don't stand up to the real facts. These typical Tories ignore these real facts as usual, and, might I say that if it has recently become such a big deal, such a pressing issue, then why hasn't he sorted it out already?, a typical Tory bleeding idiot who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Here's a radical idea for you Mr Hunt, you can start saving money by sending back the illegal scroungers instead of putting then up in 5* hotels, that'll save upwards of £10 million a day, is that too radical you currant, well, stop the scroungers from claiming benefits and legal aid then, that'll be a big winner, and while you're at it you can cut the "House of Lords" scroungers by 50%, hundreds of millions to be saved there me thinks, I have lots of good ideas like those, so why doesn't he come up with some before spouting his out dated garbage.

"Why Are You Known As The Thickest Man To Ever Wear A Suit Mr Hunt?"
Just keep re-reading the two paragraphs above until you have a lightbulb moment.

I think I'll Send this off to Tory Central HQ.

Hmmm, thousands are protesting Mr Hunt, take your head out of Sunak's backside and start listening for once.

LIVE: Thousands of protesters take to Manchester city centre streets ahead of Conservative Party Conference with major police patrols - latest updates
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ester-27817464

[Jimbuna]

Next up is the pension triple-lock. The Tories need the pensioner vote for the upcoming election yet still dither when asked the million dollar question.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt took a lengthy pause when asked about whether the pensions triple lock will remain in place.

The top Tory was grilled on whether the Government plans to maintain the policy, which puts up the state pension each April in line with whichever measure is highest of inflation, average wage increases or 2.5%. Speculation has been mounting over whether Rishi Sunak will maintain the guarantee for millions of pensioners in its current form as he desperately casts around to save cash.

Asked if he was going to keep the triple lock on Sky News, Mr Hunt paused for a long moment then said: "You'll hear what we are going to do on that in the Autumn Statement. Look at our actions to date. We have always prioritised that group of people... You'll hear in the Autumn Statement."

The PM set hares running last month when he declined to say whether the key policy would be included in the Conservative Party’s manifesto. He told reporters: “We’re not going to speculate on the election manifesto now. I’ve got plenty to get on with between now and then. But the triple lock is the Government’s policy and has been for a long time. I’m not going to get into our manifesto now but the triple lock has been a long-standing policy for us.”

No10 denied last week that Mr Sunak was looking at scrapping the winter fuel allowance for pensioners to maintain the triple lock. “That is not something we are going to do,” a government spokesperson said.
Meanwhile, Mr Hunt resisted calls from Tory colleagues to go on a tax-cutting spree, saying the move would "compromise" the battle against inflation. During a series of interviews he kept his emphasis on "this year", leaving the door open to cutting taxes in the Spring Budget ahead of the next election.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cc5d786d&ei=23

[Jimbuna]

Millionaires in Jeremy Hunt's own area will save £157million from inheritance tax cut.

Millionaires in Jeremy Hunt’s own constituency will be amongst the biggest winners if he axes inheritance tax.

The Chancellor is considering giving the country’s most wealthy families a massive tax break by abolishing the levy. It is only paid by the richest 4% with couples able to hand up to £1million to their children without paying a penny.

Figures show that Kensington, Chelsea and Hammersmith would save three times as much as the whole of the North East of England if it is abolished. The HMRC data shows that households in the London neighbourhoods paid £201million in inheritance tax in the year to March 2020.

This area contains the constituencies of both Conservative Party chairman Greg Hands and Levelling Up Minister Felicity Buchan. The second most affected area is West Surrey, which includes Mr Hunt’s constituency, where £157million was paid. In comparison, across the whole of the North East the bill was just £61million.

The current cost of abolishing inheritance tax would be £7billion. Critics including Gordon Brown have argued that millionaires must not be given the massive tax cut when the NHS is facing such problems. In an interview on LBC last week, Mr Brown said: “I don't think abolishing inheritance tax [is right] at a time when we are facing such huge problems in the National Health Service, social care and right across the board. There's rising poverty in our country. You can't really justify helping a few millionaires by giving them a bonus… When we've got so many problems that we've got to deal with at home.”

Mr Sunak has been silent on whether he is plotting the giveaway for millionaires. "I never would comment on tax speculation, of which there is always plenty," the Prime Minister said last week. Labour has claimed that if Mr Sunak scraps it, he would save himself £300million.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if this does actually happen.

[Jimbuna]

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak tells the BBC he "won't be forced into a premature decision" on HS2 as he faces pressure to give clarity on its future
It comes after widespread reports that the PM is poised to axe the Birmingham to Manchester leg of the high-speed rail line
Conservative mayor for the West Midlands Andy Street has said ministers must not give up on HS2 but rather "radically" rethink it
Sunak said the government had "absolutely not" given up on HS2 but that "it's not the only thing we're doing"
Questions over the project, hit by delays and ballooning costs, have overshadowed the Conservative Party conference, now in its third day
Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Manchester - where the conference is taking place - said the reports were "profoundly depressing"

I am of the opinion that Sunak is a liar and the decision has already been taken but he wants to save himself the embarrassment of making the announcement during the Tory Party Conference which just so happens to being held in the very city (Manchester) it will effect the most.

[Jimbuna]

PM Rishi Sunak will announce later that the HS2 rail link between the West Midlands and Manchester will be scrapped.

The announcement will be made around noon, when Sunak addresses the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.

HS2 will still run to the city, but on existing tracks, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps confirms.

West Midlands Mayor Andy Street, a Tory, warns the PM is about to make “an incredible political gaffe"

Speculation over the future of HS2, beset by long delays and spiralling costs, has dominated the Tory conference.

Sunak is expected to announce smaller transport projects in the north of England and Wales instead.

The Labour Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham says the PM's decision will leave northerners as "second-class citizens"

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Moonlight]

^After the Labour Party won yesterdays by-election in Scotland they'll be sending these begging letters out all over the country, how much are you going to donate?, a Tenner isn't much but, when you add it all up it will be in the millions of £££££££s.

Where do all these donations end up?, who oversees it all?, who has access to that money?, can they be trusted with it?, questions, questions, questions, do you know?.

Donating money to a Labour Party leader who's worth millions of pounds is not my idea of equality for the masses.

[Moonlight]

Me thinks they should get in touch with those "Arabs" first, they were rounding slaves up long before any "White European" got involved with it and, let me also state that "Black African Chieftains" were heavily involved with slave trafficking as well.
If any government in Africa will put their hands up and say "MeMeMe" we'll take the blame for helping to round up the slaves and, state how much they're willing to pay, I'd support that.
No!.
I thought not, this is as usual another "Begging Bowl" "Gimme Gimme Gimme" opportunity and, they're world famous for that kind of thing, Number 1 on a long list of greedy bastard beggars who never take responsibility for anything is not a good starting point.

Was that clear enough for you?.......

[Jimbuna]

Boris Johnson's ex-wife Marina Wheeler KC has been appointed as Labour's adviser on protecting women against workplace harassment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67043606

[Rockstar]

Harvard International Law Journal

SAYING SORRY TO INDIA: REPARATIONS OR ATONEMENT?

SHASHI THAROOR

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/ilj...eparations.pdf

The policy of colonialism pursued by the imperial powers of the West destroyed nations and bankrupted civilizations. In their pursuit for wealth and power, the most inhumane acts and atrocities were committed by the colonialists. British rule in India is a stark example of the destructive impact of colonial greed. India was a thriving economy prior to its colonization by Britain, contributing 27% of global GDP in 1700. Post two centuries of exploitation by the British, India’s contribution to the global economy drastically reduced to 3%. 2 India was a great exporter of finished cloth, but with the advent of the British, its textile industry was crushed and it became an importer; India’s share in the global textile trade went from 25 percent to less than 2 percent.3

It is estimated that 35 million Indians died of starvation in British-created and mismanaged famines. 4 The most famous example was, of course, the great Bengal famine during the Second World War when 4 million people died because Winston Churchill deliberately, as a matter of written policy, proceeded to divert essential supplies from civilians in Bengal to Europe as reserve stockpiles to use in the event of a possible future invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia. 5 In the Orissa famine, over a million and a half people starved to death as the British exported 200 million pounds of rice to Britain. 6 William Digby pointed out that in the entire 107 years from 1793 to 1900, only an estimated 5 million people had died in all the wars around the world combined, whereas in just ten years, 1891–1900, 19 million had died in India in famines alone.7

In World War I, one-sixth of all the British forces that fought in the war were Indian. 54,000 of them lost their lives in that war, 65,000 were injured, and another 4,000 remained missing or were imprisoned. Indian taxpayers had to cough up 100 million pounds in that time’s money. India supplied 17 million rounds of ammunition, 600,000 rifles and machine guns, 42 million garments were stitched and sent out of India, and 1.3 million Indian personnel served in this war. India had to supply 173,000 animals, 370 million tons of supplies, and in the end the total value of everything that was taken out of India amounted in today's money to 8 billion pounds sterling. 8 During the same period, India was suffering from recession, rising poverty and hunger. In addition, 2.5 million Indians fought in World War II.

1

The author wishes to acknowledge the indispensable assistance of his Legislative Assistant, Arvind Kurian Abraham, in the preparation of this article.

2 SHASHI THAROOR, AN ERA OF DARKNESS 4 (ALEPH BOOK COMPANY, 2016). 3 Id at 8. 4 Id at 177. 5 MADHUSREE MUKERJEE, CHURCHILL’S SECRET WAR: THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THE RAVAGING

OF INDIA DURING WORLD WAR II 216 (Basic Books, 2010).

6

7

8

THAROOR, supra note 2, at 179. Id.

Id. at 87. 2

Harvard International Law Journal

Britain's total war debt to India at the time of Independence was a whopping 3 billion pounds.9

The trauma created by colonialists in Africa, especially through the transatlantic slave trade, is another illustration of the destructive impact of colonialism. Therefore, it is only natural that the former colonies, such as the Caribbean States in exercise of their sovereign powers, have called for reparations for the crimes committed against them. 10 Ironically, when slavery was abolished, the only compensation paid was to slave-owners for the “loss” of their “property,” rather than to the slaves themselves.

The concept of reparations gained relevance post World War II, especially after Germany agreed to provide reparations to the victims of the Holocaust. Reparations is an act of atonement for the atrocities committed, founded on moral as well as legal principles. The obligation to provide reparations arises when a violation of international law takes place and it continues till a substantial step is taken to atone for the violation. It is not an act of charity, rather a principle founded in international customary law, which was eventually codified in Article 75 of the Rome Statute. As early as in 1928, the Permanent Court of International Justice in the landmark The Factory at Chorzów case, held that “reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability have existed if that act had not been committed.” 11 The Permanent Court held that the obligation to provide reparations for an illegal act is a “general principle of international law.” 12 Principle 8 of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1989, passed by the UN General Assembly, states that offenders should make fair restitution to their victims. 13 It may be argued that the principle of reparations has its roots in the common law principles of restitution and unjust enrichment, even though in essence, reparations goes far beyond mere financial payments. Reparations, in its truest sense, involves the elimination of structures created by the colonial atrocities, as well as the acceptance of the moral responsibility for the crimes committed.

The legal basis of reparations has been reinforced through certain judicial proceedings in the recent past. In 1947, the Dutch massacred the majority of male members in Rawagede, Indonesia during the Indonesian War for Independence. In response to a case initiated by the family members of the victims, The Hague Court of First Instance held that the Government of Netherlands was responsible for the crime and ordered the Government to provide

9 Id. at 29. 10

Samiha Shafy, Caribbean States Call for Slavery Reparations, Spiegel Online (March 21, 2014), http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-960109.html (last visited April 2, 2018).

11 Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), P.C.I.J. Series A. No. 17, at 47 (1928). 12 Id. 13

Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, GA Res. 40/34, 29 November 1985, A/CONF.121/22/Rev.1 (1985 Basic Principles of Justice). 3

Harvard International Law Journal

reparations to the Indonesian victims. 14 The Court dismissed the argument that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, especially due to the gravity of the atrocities committed as well as due to the admission of the crime by the State. Similarly, in Ndiku Mutua & Ors v. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 15 a case seeking reparations was brought against the Government of UK for the British atrocities during the Mau Mau Uprising in the 1950s in Kenya. Justice McCombe ruled that there was ample evidence of systematic torture by the British forces, and therefore a substantial case for reparations. Similar to Rawagede case, the judge used his discretion to waive the limitation period, stating that the victims would not have been able to bring the case earlier owing to lack of prior historical scholarship. 16 The British Government eventually agreed to pay £19.9 million in damages.17

Many of the British crimes committed in India, from the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in which over 1,000 innocent people, including women and children, were shot dead by the forces of Col. Reginald Dyer, to the man-made Bengal famine of 1943, can be categorized as crimes against humanity, for which reparations are due. One of the probable arguments against the legal basis to seek reparations for colonial crimes is that the law cannot be applied ex-post facto to criminalize acts which were legal under the colonial regime. It is similar to the arguments of the Nazis during the Nuremburg trials who argued that the Holocaust at the time of its commission, under German law, was legal. However, the Nuremburg Tribunal upheld the position that the maxim nullum crimen sine lege allows for punishment of actions, even though they were not necessarily strictly prohibited under law at the time of commission, if it is shown that it would be unjust if those who committed such actions are allowed to go unscathed. 18 Even if the crimes were not perpetrated by the present Government of the UK, the liabilities of the British Raj very much rests with the UK, in line with the judgment of the ICJ in Bosnia v. Yugoslavia 19 wherein it was held that the democratic governments are responsible for the crimes committed by its undemocratic predecessors.

The very essence of a colonial economy rests on the exploitation of the colony, which is enforced through a greater or lesser degree of brutality, depending on the coloniser. Therefore, all colonial powers are ipso facto liable to provide reparations to the exploited former colonies. However, as a matter of practice to ensure that the ends of justice are met, a

14

Stichting Komite Utang Kehormatan Belanda v. Netherlands, trial judgment, LJN: BS8793, 14 September 2011.

15 Mutua and Others v. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2011] EWHC 1913 (QB). 16

Daniel Leader, The Mau Mau Litigation – Justice at Last, Oxford Human Rights Hub (Nov. 3, 2015), http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-mau-mau...stice-at-last/ (last visited April 2, 2018). 17 Id. 18

ANTONIO CASSESE & PAOLA GAETA, CASSESE’S INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 89 (4 th ed. 2013).

19

Application for revision of the judgment of 11 July 1996 in the case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro). 4

Harvard International Law Journal

strict positivist application of law should be avoided while adjudicating matters of mass crimes. Legal regimes which sanctioned such crimes lack the inner morality of law; as the maxim lex iniusta non-est lex states, an unjust law is no law at all. The absence of an express prohibition of certain acts also should not be mounted as a defence, as human actions are to be measured by certain universal standards expected of a civilized society, and not merely the text of statute books.

The resistance to the concept of reparations on the ground that it would open a Pandora’s box is belied by the experience in history. The claim for reparations is not a new concept. Germany provided reparations to the victims of the Nazi regime. 20 Reparations were also provided to Japanese Americans who were wrongfully arrested and detained during World War II by the US forces post the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, and Australia provided reparations to the aborigines for appropriating their land during the 18th century. 21 Italy and Libya also signed an agreement whereby Italy agreed to provide reparations to the tune of $5 billion for the crimes committed during the colonial Italian rule in Libya. 22 By practice, the most successful claims of reparations are ones enforced through mutual agreements, rather than traversing the long judicial line to seek justice. Countries which exploited their former colonies owe a moral responsibility to take the initiative to frame such agreements rather than be forced to do so through the demands of the former or through the writ of a Court.

There is, nonetheless, a different aspect to the question – the practical one. While I am convinced about the wrongs inflicted on colonial subjects by the British empire, I have argued that India should be content with a symbolic reparation of one pound a year, payable for 200 years to atone for 200 years of imperial rule. I have suggested that atonement was the point, rather than cash. Indeed, the attempt by one Indian commentator, Minhaz Merchant, to compute what a fair sum of reparations would amount to, came up with a figure so astronomical – three trillion pounds in today’s money23 — that no one could ever reasonably be expected to pay it. (The sum would be larger than Britain’s entire GDP.) I have gone on to say that atonement should take three forms: teaching unvarnished British colonial history in UK schools, setting up with British tax money a museum to colonialism in the Imperial capital, and above all, expressing an apology to the victims of colonialism. (A suitable opportunity looms on the centenary of the Amritsar Massacre on April 13, 2019).

20

Robert Westley, Many Billions Gone—Is It Time to Reconsider the Case for Black Reparations? 40 B.C. THIRD WORLD L. REV. 429, 453–4 (1998).

21

Lori Robinson, Righting a Wrong: Among Black Americans, The Debate is Escalating over Whether an Apology for Slavery is Enough, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, June 29, 1997, at E1.

22

Claudia Gazzini, Assessing Italy's Grande Gesto to Libya, Middle East Report Online (March 16, 2009), http://www.merip.org/mero/mero031609.

23

Minhaz Merchant, Why Shashi Tharoor is Right on Britain’s Colonial Debt to India, Daily O (Oct. 28, 2017), https://www.dailyo.in/variety/shashi...y/1/20283.html (last visited July 5, 2017). 5

Harvard International Law Journal

Reparations are not a substitute for the trauma and the horrors caused by colonialism, because the agony suffered can never truly be removed through damages, nor can the value of the human lives lost because of colonial indifference or brutality be accurately computed. It is rather a moral obligation which the West owes to its colonies as the wealth and the economic success of these former colonial powers were built on the broken backs of their colonies. The payment of reparations offers a semblance of justice as well as expiates a legal and moral obligation which cannot and should not be ignored.

[Rockstar]

Indians want King Charles III to return Kohinoor, a massive 105-carat diamond worth $591 million

By South Asia correspondent Avani Dias and Som Patidar in New Delhi

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-...e=abc_news_web

As news broke of Queen Elizabeth II's passing, one word started trending on Twitter in India: "Kohinoor".

It is the name of the most expensive diamond in the world and has a long history with the royal family, having been worn on crowns by generations of queens.

Most recently it was just one of 2,800 stones set in the crown made for King Charles III's grandmother, the Queen Mother.

But there is some debate over whether the 105-carat oval-shaped diamond belongs to the House of Windsor.

The precious diamond has been fought over for centuries, so much so that British royal legend says the diamond will bring bad luck to any man who wears it.

Indians believe it came from the south of their country, in what is now modern-day Andhra Pradesh.

Now, with the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, many in the country are ramping up the campaign for the $591 million jewel to be sent back to them.

"On behalf of Indians, we want our Kohinoor back," one Indian Twitter user posted just eight minutes after the official announcement the Queen had died.

As Indian YouTubers, Bollywood stars, the business community, filmmakers, and academics join the online push, it has brought back memories of how the diamond was acquired.

The complicated history of the jewel in the crown

The earliest record of the diamond is believed to date somewhere between the 12th and 14th centuries.

"Probably originating from the Golconda mines in central southern India, the diamond has had a turbulent history," the Historic Royal Palaces, which manages the Tower of London where the Kohinoor lives, says.

The Kohinoor was then claimed by Mughal Islamic emperors, Sikh maharajahs, and emirs of Afghanistan.

By the 1800s, it was in the hands of Sikh maharajah Duleep Singh.

At 11 years old, he was leading modern-day Punjab — one of the last parts of the subcontinent, which had not yet been colonised by the British.

Under Queen Victoria's reign, the British eventually colonised the region in 1849 after two bloody wars, leading to thousands of deaths in the subcontinent.

The Kohinoor was part of the peace deal signed between the infant emperor Singh and the British.

"The gem called the Kohinoor … shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England," the third clause of the peace treaty said.

The diamond was presented to Queen Victoria in 1850 and today sits on display as part of the crown jewels in the Tower of London.

The British say the diamond was surrendered, but Indians say it was stolen.

This is not the first time India has asked for the diamond back

In 2000, Indian parliamentarians signed a letter to Britain calling for the Kohinoor to be given back.

"Britain owes us," prominent Indian MP Shashi Tharoor has said.

"But, instead of returning the evidence of their rapacity to their rightful owners, the British are flaunting the Kohinoor on the Queen Mother's crown in the Tower of London.

"It is a stark reminder of what colonialism truly was: shameless subjugation, coercion, and misappropriation."

The campaign for the diamond's return increased again in 2013 when then UK prime minister David Cameron visited India.

"If you say yes to one [request], you suddenly find the British Museum would be empty. I am afraid to say, it is going to have to stay put," he said.

India is not the only country that lays claim to the diamond. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran all say the Kohinoor should be returned to them.

But the royal family claims it is its property, though it acknowledges the diamond "probably" originated in India.

Britain's colonial past has left 'wounds still in our hearts'

The British ruled India for 200 years, until 1947.

Last month, India celebrated 75 years of independence from British rule.

Jyoti Atwal, a historian at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, says campaigns like this are about reclaiming the country's identity.

"These become symbolic movements to assert that we have been a nation which has owned something," she says.

"And the other nation owes something to us."

Alongside the Kohinoor campaign, calls have also re-emerged for the royal family to apologise for a massacre of pro-independence protesters in Amritsar, on India's north in 1919.

British troops fired on the unarmed and peaceful protesters, in what became a major turning point in India's independence movement, solidifying major public sentiment against the royal family.

Queen Elizabeth II visited India three times during her life, including most recently in 1997 when she went to the massacre memorial.

Mahesh Behal, whose grandfather Lala Hari Ram Behal was killed at Jallianwala Bagh, held a protest during the Queen's visit along with the families of other victims who were calling for an apology.

"We protested when the Queen visited the Jallianwala Bagh memorial, we were holding black flags when she was about to enter the memorial, but police arrested us and then the Queen entered the memorial," he says.

"She did not say a single word to us, nothing at all. Our family members were martyred.

"The wounds are still in our hearts, the wounds remain.

"We wanted the Queen to apologise on the behalf of England."

The Queen's visit was just after Princess Diana's death in October 1997.

She was hoping to improve Britain's reputation in India, while marking the 50th anniversary of the country's independence.

During the visit, she made an unusual acknowledgement of Britain's dark and colonial history.

"It is no secret that there have been some difficult episodes in our past," she said in a banquet address.

"Jallianwala Bagh is a distressing example."

The Queen and Prince Philip also visited the massacre site and laid a wreath at the memorial, but that was not enough for the victim's families.

"It's sad that she died," Mr Behal says.

"Now we demand the new King complete the Queen's unfinished work and apologise to the entire country and the martyrs."

"They must apply ointment on our wounds … Now we hope her successor will understand our pain and apologise."

Will King Charles III address the wrongs of the past?

Queen Consort Camilla will be the next to wear the crown which was worn by Queen Elizabeth and features the Kohinoor diamond.

She will reportedly wear it at her husband's eventual coronation.

"That will again rake up a demand for bringing it back," Professor Atwal says.

"When we visit [the] Tower of London where it is kept, all South Asians who are visitors who come to England have to pay to see the Queen's jewellery, diamond possessions, especially the crown of Queen Elizabeth.

"It's an issue which will keep coming up again, and again."

Academics like Professor Atwal believe King Charles will have no choice but to adapt to the times, confront the past and apologise for Britain's role in historical events.

"I think [the 1997 visit] basically paved the way for another visit later on," she says.

"It has paved the way for something more.

"When King Charles returns to the place he will again have to address that moment which was incomplete at that point.

"King Charles will have to look at this new phase of anti-colonialism because anti-colonialism has changed its face now.

"It brings back new memories, there is a new knowledge that is being imparted to the people so this anti-colonialism will be very different for the British monarchy to face."

[Gorpet]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Indians want King Charles III to return Kohinoor, a massive 105-carat diamond worth $591 million

By South Asia correspondent Avani Dias and Som Patidar in New Delhi

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-...e=abc_news_web

Your an ass just like me,Right ? Who gives a **** about the English.They always sniff and follow the ass of the Americans.Their politician's gave their country up years ago.And every time Democracy needs foot soldiers,America can always count on the English.Who lost their ass years ago.To fulfill what is needed today.Ukraine? And we need more English Money. And**** the diamond !Who cares? The planet is in jeopardy, I don't know how a forest man,like you could let yourself be drawn into .Wilds of King Charles III And the Indians,They are colonizing Britain today.
When Hamas are rampaging killing, as we type.Look the U.K.will do what the elite families in America tells them to do. We bounce Woke from here to there and back again.And the Brits love it.And the Brits will always be the first to accept a mushroom cloud.They owe us from the day's when we were their slaves , Beaten down and screwed in the ass,Just like the Democrat party today, Screws the Planet, Save every country, give them a nuclear weapon., And see what happens with the New World Order, Yi Pi Ka Ya. Really every country should have a ICBM , just one to play with, oh the glory of the future.

Damn,
I have to be aware of how much medication i drink.No free Marijuana for me in America.Why?..I can recite the alphabet from A to Z ,That means i'm excluded... You have my apologies.To anyone who cares.You can contact me right here, Don't hold your breath. More than likely there will be a mushroom cloud over your city before i respond.

[Jimbuna]

[Rockstar]