Bought and sold was changed to 'hired' and 'fired' that way you had no responsibly to make sure the 'family' was included. The living standard was the same, only the 'owners' go any real benifits.
Company town - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chuck looking to start W.W.III?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Company town - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chuck was in my county yesterday was it, anyway the buildings on the main street of the county seat, Pictou were all redone with expensive plywood and new paint. There goes next winters snow removal budget. Him and the missus was in the area for the world famous lobster what is too expensive for us types to contemplate buying, we usually just get one and make soup for five fer six of us.
You'd argue black was white to prevent you being wrong (as you usually are) Have your debate with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Church and State, my friend ... Church and State
I agree, and it feels strange.
One can ask the same thing about just about anyone. Its irrelevant. People have a right to their views. Whether or not they are sound doesn't seem to matter when it comes to getting airtime and a following.
Blackleaf's probably gonna faint when he reads me saying this, but there's nothing wrong with Charles's mind. He's one of the half-dozen foremost scholars of British architecture, he was a competent if not distinguished officer, and he has had over half a century to closely study one of the most astute political and leadership minds of the 20th-21st century, his mother. Who is the greatest British monarch since her namesake. Being the heir put him in an untenable personal and emotional situation for a long time, but that's over. He probably won't be a great king, but he'll be at least a good one. The Prime Minister is required by law to consult the Crown on matters affecting the country, and when Charles is king, any PM with a lick of sense will listen very carefully to what he has to say.
So the Somersett Case didn't happen.
It isn't the case that slavery had never been authorised by statute in England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield's decision didn't find it also unsupported in common law.
It's all a myth.
Okay, then.
Hitler and Putin - Charles was right: Moving borders, stoking paranoia, and cutting backroom deals... We have seen this all before, writes EDWARD LUCAS
During the bleak years of the Thirties, Winston Churchill was a brave and lonely voice warning Britain of the dangers of Nazi aggression in Europe.
As the Putin regime in Russia sets about dismembering its neighbours, it has fallen to Prince Charles to speak the truth about the deadly threat of this modern dictator, writes EDWARD LUCAS.
Hitler and Putin - Charles was right: Moving borders, stoking paranoia, and cutting backroom deals... We have seen this all before, writes EDWARD LUCAS | Mail Online
****************************
Prince's remarks outrageous - Russia
Poking the bear: Prince Charles, pictured at Assiniboine Zoo in Canada, has enraged the Kremlin
Remarks attributed to the Prince of Wales likening Vladimir Putin's actions to some of those of the Nazis are "outrageous", the Russian embassy says.
Deputy ambassador Alexander Kramarenko is due to meet Foreign Office officials to ask for official clarification.
The alleged comments were made during a conversation with a former Polish war refugee during a royal tour to Canada.
BBC News - Prince Charles's Putin remarks outrageous - Russia
During the bleak years of the Thirties, Winston Churchill was a brave and lonely voice warning Britain of the dangers of Nazi aggression in Europe.
As the Putin regime in Russia sets about dismembering its neighbours, it has fallen to Prince Charles to speak the truth about the deadly threat of this modern dictator, writes EDWARD LUCAS.
Hitler and Putin - Charles was right: Moving borders, stoking paranoia, and cutting backroom deals... We have seen this all before, writes EDWARD LUCAS | Mail Online
****************************
Prince's remarks outrageous - Russia
Poking the bear: Prince Charles, pictured at Assiniboine Zoo in Canada, has enraged the Kremlin
Remarks attributed to the Prince of Wales likening Vladimir Putin's actions to some of those of the Nazis are "outrageous", the Russian embassy says.
Deputy ambassador Alexander Kramarenko is due to meet Foreign Office officials to ask for official clarification.
The alleged comments were made during a conversation with a former Polish war refugee during a royal tour to Canada.
BBC News - Prince Charles's Putin remarks outrageous - Russia
Last edited:
...and didn't become ILLEGAL until 1833. Church Decrees are not Law (except in Islam) Thanks for proving my point ;-)
Correct Encyclopedia Britannica - or are they like you and consider British Empire as British (like in every war we came to British assistance) until it's not to Britain's benefit?
Are you incapable of reading?
Slavery has been illegal in England itself for over 900 years.
This was highlighted during Somersett's Case of 1772. James Somerset was an enslaved African who was bought by Charles Stewart in Boston and brought with him to England in 1769.
Somerset escaped in 1771 but was recaptured in November of that year. Somerset's three godparents from his baptism as a Christian in England asked a court to determine whether or not Somerset's imprisonment was legal.
The court held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales, though the position elsewhere in the British Empire was left ambiguous (until 1833). Slavery had never been authorised by statute in England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield's decision found it also unsupported in common law. Lord Mansfield limited his judgment to the issue of whether a person, regardless of being a slave, could be removed from England against his will, but even this reading meant that certain property rights in chattel slaves were unsupported by common law.
It was this case which was one big factor in slaves in America fleeing to Britain, where they could live as free men.
Somerset v Stewart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hopefully, eventually, you will get the message.
If you post your post twice, it does not make it true. It just proves you detest being wrong and will go yo any lengths to appear as UNwrong.
Unsupported simply means unacknowledged (nudge-nudge-wink-wink) and certainly wasn't illegal if it "wasn't there". Turning a blind eye to one's own faults whilst pointing out those in others predates you....
Unsupported simply means unacknowledged (nudge-nudge-wink-wink) and certainly wasn't illegal if it "wasn't there". Turning a blind eye to one's own faults whilst pointing out those in others predates you....
Uh no, not exactly. What it means is that should someone attempt to make a legal claim as to the status of ownership of a person from that case onward it would have been un-supported by common law ergo; no registration of ownership would have been possible BECAUSE common law did not recognize it.
The term illegal has come to mean many things in this day and age but back then this would be one of those things deemed "illegal" through the fact of having no legal standing or recognition.
Whether or not the finding of slave ownership being an actively prosecuted crime at the time is not the debate.
A test case was tried and decision rendered making any further cases brought forward either for or against the issue either failing or surviving on that previous "recorded finding". With no subsequent finding recorded overturning or reversing that earlier one........It stands as law until a later one (1833) either modifies it by strengthening, weakening or abolishing.
IF there be one thing that we can all give thanks to Great Britain for, it is our inheriting their highly developed over many hundreds of years, practice of common laws.