Looking forward to this, House through Time , 3rd series. Loved the first two , so interesting , this time a house in Bristol. Next Tuesday 9pm BBC2, would recommend watching it.

Me too. I really enjoyed the last one and I think he (can't remember his name) is an excellent presenter. Thanks for heads up, Cools

Brilliant series .Watched the first two & looking forward to the next. The presenter is David Olusoga who jeeps the interest flowing.

I watched the first two as well, in Liverpool and Newcastle and they were brilliant.
David Olusoga is absolutely brilliant and his research makes for a great show.

I have just diarised this date so I don't miss the show next Tuesday. Thanks

Hi Longnails, This page may interest you. I am looking forward to seeing these programs.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hou...028j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Thanks snowshoes, I will have a good look through these sometime tomorrow.

BUMP.
On tonight, BBC2 9pm.

I'm going to get myself a nice glass of lager and settle down for this, lose myself in history...

He always manages to ruin every program he does, always going on about slavery, never heard him mention that GB was the first to abolish slavery.

It just so happens, that a lot of wealth was off the back of the slave trade back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Also, it just so happens that the first two occupants were ships captains dealing with the slave trade, and he did mention that Britain abolished slavery in the early 19th century.
History will always prove this fact, so can't hide away from it.

It was much more than that, Britain was one of the few countries that slavery never existed, any slave brought into Britain was instantly a free person.

I hate the way Liverpool is being portrayed as the bad guys in slavery with people even trying to say there are wall rings where slaves were tied up etc - it is simply not true. Whatever happens offshore would always be difficult to regulate, there weren't many international committees and agreements back then.

They may not have been used as slave labour but some were used as household slaves to the wealthy.
So saying Britain was one of the countries were it never existed is not true because we were one of the largest in the world utilising slaves. Britain traded slaves and used them for slave labour on the plantations making commodities brought back to Britain.

The National Archives:
'The development of the trade.
Portugal and Britain were the two most 'successful' slave-trading countries accounting for about 70% of all Africans transported to the Americas. Britain was the most dominant between 1640 and 1807 when the British slave trade was abolished.'

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/slavery/pdf/britain-and-the-trade.pdf

You are mixing up slavery and servitude, servitude still goes on in Britain legally to this day.

Nothing alters the fact that many countries had slavery legally inside their borders whereas British law has always been against slavery in Britain.

What money finances what can always be raised as an issue - I bet some of your money finances illegal activity.

Then there is the moral question as to what is wrong and what is right during any epoch, no doubt at some time in the future all forms of life will be sacrosanct and cruelty to plants will be an issue - laughable now but they will be looking back at us in disdain. Its not long ago you expected a copper to give kids a clip around the ear, look at us now, even the parents aren't allowed to do that!

Times change, what is wrong now doesn't mean it was wrong at the time - if you'd approached my cave a few thousand years ago I would have been perfectly right to kill you first and ask questions later.

Come on DD, you are just being pedantic here.
"Domestic servitude is the seemingly normal practice of live-in help that is used as cover for the exploitation and control of someone, usually from another country."


Because it was ok back then does not mean it should be forgotten about today and brushed under the carpet, just because it used to be acceptable a few centuries ago.
Britain was one of the most prolific in gaining wealth through the slave trade. Paint it how you want but it is well documented.
A lot of changes in history are for the better, realising the mistakes of the past.

I don't think someone that has been enslaved would agree with you, slavery is a completely different level to servitude. Slavery is servitude without debt, the outright involuntary ownership of a person. There is such a thing as penal-servitude but not penal-slavery - its all about debt (financial or otherwise) that makes the difference.


Because it was ok back then does not mean it should be forgotten about today and brushed under the carpet, just because it used to be acceptable a few centuries ago.
Britain was one of the most prolific in gaining wealth through the slave trade. Paint it how you want but it is well documented.
A lot of changes in history are for the better, realising the mistakes of the past.[/quote]

I agree with that, especially remembering the past. But to bring "blame" on 21st century Liverpool is not right, especially when the claims include or infer false allegations of the mistreatment of slaves IN Liverpool. Nobody in Liverpool are in any responsible for what happened in slave trade.

Do you also know the Government compensated slave traders when they outlawed slavery worldwide, it was right and wrong, they could never of outlawed it if they didn't bribe those involved. So not only did the traders make money out of slavery but all of the British public rewarded them as well.

You have misquoted me above DD.

I knew about the Government compensation which showed how much we relied on that trade when it had gone, even though it still went on after it was abolished.

Where are they bringing blame on 21st century Liverpool?

I'm still cooling down from a very hot day of walking, not helped by a mentally challenged wireless keyboard, sorry

I have no idea why the blame but that is how it is coming over, giving Liverpool the "European Capital of the Slave Trade" title belatedly doesn't help. At one time it was a statement but they are now using it as a contemporary title.

Portugal is way ahead of the statistics than than Britain so without nominating Portugal as "The European Nation of the Slave Trade" at the same time, definitely misleads. I also suspect Lisbon should have the "European Capital of the Slave Trade" but us British are often self-deprecating.

Liverpool only had roughly 50% of British involvement, Lisbon had more than 50% of Portuguese involvement and as said, Portugal had more involvement than Britain .... therefore it is impossible for Liverpool to have more involvement than Lisbon.

Don't forget second episode tonight 9pm BBC2..

Reminder set, thanks

Someone might be interested.

http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagaz...VrKyu4hvGHLo89sU9Cj7jbI_VjZQBxFDqOo18n4M