X Close

The Guardian’s links to the slave trade Its founding myth depends on moral contortionism

"A furnace of racial grievance." Credit: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty

"A furnace of racial grievance." Credit: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty


March 29, 2023   9 mins

This piece was originally published in February 2023.

The Guardian prides itself on being one of the most Left-leaning and anti-racist news outlets in the English-speaking world. So imagine its embarrassment when, last month, a number of black podcast producers researching the paper’s historic ties to slavery abruptly resigned, alleging they had been victims of “institutional racism”, “editorial whiteness”, “microaggressions, colourism, bullying, passive-aggressive and obstructive management styles”. All of this might smack of progressive excess, but, in reality, it merely reflects an institution incuriously at odds with itself.

Questions about The Guardian’s ties to slavery have been circulating since 2020, when, amid the media’s collective spasm of racial conscience following the murder of George Floyd, the Scott Trust announced it would launch an investigation into its history. “We in the UK need to begin a national debate on reparations for slavery, a crime which heralded the age of capitalism and provided the basis for racism that continues to endanger black life globally,” journalist Amandla Thomas-Johnson wrote in a June 2020 Guardian opinion piece about the toppling of a statue of 17th-century British slaver Edward Colston. A month later, the Scott Trust committed to determining whether the founder of the paper, John Edward Taylor, had profited from slavery. “We have seen no evidence that Taylor was a slave owner, nor involved in any direct way in the slave trade,” the chairman of the Scott Trust, Alex Graham, told Guardian staff by email at the time. “But were such evidence to exist, we would want to be open about it.” (Notably, Graham, in using the terms “slave owner” and “direct way,” set a very specific and very high bar for what would be considered information worthy of disclosure.)

The problem is that the results of the investigation, conducted by historian Sheryllynne Haggerty, an “expert in the history of the transatlantic slave trade”, have never been made public. When contacted with questions about what happened to the promised report, Haggerty referred all inquiries to The Guardian’s PR, which has remained silent on the matter. (The Guardian was asked for comment and we were given the stock PR response The Guardian gave following the podcaster’s letter.) But what we do know is this: according to Guardian lore, a business tycoon named John Edward Taylor was inspired to agitate for change after witnessing the 1819 Peterloo Massacre, when over a dozen people were killed in Manchester by government forces as they protested for parliamentary representation. Two years later, Taylor, a young cotton merchant, with the backing of a group of local reformers known at the Little Circle, founded the paper.

“Since 1821 the mission of The Guardian has been to use clarity and imagination to build hope,” The Guardian’s current editor, Katharine Viner, proudly proclaims on the “About us” page of the paper’s website. Part of this founding myth concerns one of the defining social and political issues of the day, slavery, which the Little Circle members, including Taylor, vigorously opposed as a moral affront. “The Guardian had always hated slavery,” Martin Kettle, an associate editor, wrote in a 2011 apologia on why during the Civil War the paper had vociferously condemned the North while equivocating on the South.

That may be true, but it also presents an incomplete picture. The Manchester Guardian, as the paper was then known, was founded by cotton merchants, including Taylor, who were able to pool the money needed to launch the paper by drawing on their respective fortunes. While none of these men, many of whom were Unitarian Christians, is likely to have engaged in slavery, they didn’t just benefit from but depended upon the global slave trade that provided virtually all of the cotton that filled their mills. As Sarah Parker Remond, an African American abolitionist, said upon visiting Manchester in 1859: “When I walk through the streets of Manchester and meet load after load of cotton, I think of those 80,000 cotton plantations on which was grown the $125 million worth of cotton which supply your market, and I remember that not one cent of that money ever reached the hands of the labourers.”

Remond had ample reason for saying this. The relationship between the northwest English cotton industry and the American South’s slave society was one of mutualism. Of all the cotton in Manchester, 75% of it was sourced from Southern slave plantations. On the eve of the Civil War, Lancashire was importing more than one billion pounds of cotton from the United States per year, about half of the two billion pounds of cotton picked by Southern slaves annually. By buying slave-picked cotton at extremely cheap prices, Manchester’s cotton industry could use advances in manufacturing to profitably spin the cotton into textiles that were then sold back to the Southern slavers. Instead of trading slaves — a morally messy and economically-risky affair — Manchester’s liberal elite learned how to trade slave-grown cotton.

The trade in Southern-sourced cotton enriched the city, giving rise to the wealthy middle class of which John Edward Taylor and other members of the Little Circle were a part. On the back of this cotton surge, men such as Taylor — the son of a tutor, who apprenticed with a local cotton merchant — rose from humble beginnings to achieve affluence and national influence within a matter of years.

So when the Civil War broke out in 1861, The Manchester Guardian found itself in a strange position. Its very existence was owed to the profits made on the backs of slaves, yet it could not morally support the South. But, because of its business interests, it also found itself unable to champion the North. To explain its at-times stridently anti-Union positions, the paper pointed to a smattering of statements by Abraham Lincoln indicating he would maintain slavery if it meant preserving the Union. The paper would go so far as to characterise Lincoln’s election “as an evil day both for America and the world”.

But there were other forces at work. For all their brotherly love, the Little Circle of Manchester elites believed that the power of democracy, and even of free expression, should be limited to a small elect who were educated and intelligent enough to be entrusted with such power. When it came to the masses, the Circle believed that “because most people had not yet reached the same moral and intellectual standards of the members of the Circle, it was suggested that the bulk of the population should be indefinitely denied access to the public sphere, or at least the right to vote
” To the founders of The Manchester Guardian, America was a lesson in the painful effects of too much democracy. According to its editorial spin, the Union had not gone to war in order to free a downtrodden class but to act upon its expansionist ambitions. This, in one view, was a way for the paper to advance its abolitionist position without putting its weight behind the idea that all people everywhere should be free and fully enfranchised — an idea the paper’s leadership considered dangerous.

The Guardian melded this political conservatism with its stance on free trade, and notably the Corn Laws, which the Manchester elite maintained was an unnecessary tax that hurt the poor. But they were doubtless also sharply aware that, if replicated in other industries (say, cotton production), such tariffs could threaten their businesses. What emerged from The Guardian’s moral contortionism was an argument claiming that the root problem in America was not that Africans were being enslaved by Southerners, but, incredibly, that the South had been enslaved by the North. The South, The Guardian held, could break its Northern bonds by establishing free trade with England’s industrial and commercial centres. As the paper wrote in May 1861:

“If the sentiments of the educated and higher classes of Southern society could find expression, we should be frankly told that in the emancipation of the South from dependence on the North, in the creation of diversity of employment for Southern capitalists and for the masses, and in the saving that would arise from direct Southern intercourse with Liverpool, Southampton and Havre, the day would not be distant when slavery itself would cease.”

What emerges from this picture of The Manchester Guardian in its formative days is a cultural institution that was able to pull off a kind of moral arbitrage, turning slave profits into an anti-slavery position; espousing high-minded ideals on freedom without supporting the equality that freedom affords; and cannily leveraging the horrors of the Civil War to advance its most pressing economic policy: free trade. Perhaps it should be no surprise, then, that in the two centuries since the paper’s founding, The Guardian has returned to the same issue that lies at the heart of slavery — race. For the past 20 years, The Guardian’s approach to the topic of race has been nothing short of total. Yet, like the current leadership’s 19th-century antecedents, it’s not clear that the paper sits on a foundation sturdy enough to support such an uncompromising approach.

Since the 2000s, The Guardian’s race coverage has left no element of existence, human or otherwise — as a piece on why driverless cars are racist attests — unbent by its racial prism. By The Guardian’s telling, post-Brexit Britain has been beset by a “frenzy of hatred”. British schools are racist. Twitter is racist. The Covid response was racist. Dog walkers are racist. Chicken is racist. Cricket is racist. And if you consider asking someone to explain why something is racist, don’t: it is, according to another Guardian piece, extremely racist.

But you need only look at the Executive Committee of the Guardian News and Media, the body that governs the paper, to see that, by the racial standards the paper has spent decades engendering, The Guardian has a serious problem: it is strikingly white. From the company’s CEO, Anna Bateson, to Viner, its chief editor, right down to its CFO, deputy editor, head of communications, and head of product are white. Now, the liberal democratic world in which The Guardian was fashioned would find nothing about this fact objectionable. These are simply individuals who seem to be doing their best to combat social ills. But that is not the standard The Guardian has held the world to. Social justice and racial equity, as expounded by The Guardian, hold that whiteness is inherently a form of racialised power, achieved through the subjugation of non-whites. And that’s where the charges levelled by the podcasters, who accused the paper of, among other things, “editorial whiteness”, gets thrown into stark relief.

For all its talk of corporate equity efforts, according to an internal report from 2019, only 12% of The Guardian’s editorial team come from BAME backgrounds — despite BAME people making up 18% of the British population. The paper’s median ethnic pay gap has hovered around 15% over the past three years, which means non-white Guardian employees are paid “only” 15p less on the pound than white Guardian employees. For your average British company, this might be a stellar result. But for a newspaper that for the past two decades has made race into a defining issue in all of our lives, is it quite as acceptable?

It’s not difficult to imagine, then, how a group of black producers would see an environment like this as hostile. Surely, if The Guardian stood behind the decision to throw the statue of Edward Colston into the Bristol harbour, despite everything he did with his wealth, then it stands to reason that a newspaper founded by white merchants who made their fortunes milling Southern cotton should be similarly heaved overboard.

But that has not been The Guardian’s position — and this is where the paper’s blind spot for its own racial misdeeds threatens to morph into something more dangerous. In response to the podcasters’ letter, the newspaper did not bend the proverbial knee. Its editor did not step down. Its CEO did not announce a series of sweeping reforms. The company did not even issue the obligatory company-wide mea culpa lined with pledges to “do better”. Instead, it pushed back.

“We are concerned that some former colleagues and contributors have not had a good experience working with us, but we are disappointed they have chosen to write a partial reflection of their time at The Guardian,” the paper wrote in a statement. From its perspective, the onus is on the podcasters, who have told a tale.

While that kind of corporate crisis control would probably succeed for most companies, The Guardian is no longer most companies. It is no longer even a Left-of-centre publication pushing for progressive policies. It has slowly become a furnace of racial grievance which now threatens to consume the paper itself. For all its commentary on power and race, The Guardian is a powerful publication, able to make a single uncomfortable episode like this simply go away. But the bigger concern is whether it can satisfy the demands of an ethos that seeks to overturn institutions precisely like The Guardian, when they fail to live up to the social justice ideals they preach.

When a Left-wing publisher released a collection of essays marking the paper’s  200th anniversary, what readers found was not a celebration but a critique of the institution. Capitalism’s Conscience, edited by a Guardian contributor, slammed the paper in one of its chapters as not just corrupt but a corrupting cultural institution that is guilty of white supremacy.

“[T]he Guardian has repeatedly given voice to racist and far-Right figures and ideas in interviews and articles,” claimed the authors of one chapter. “This platforming and the resulting amplification do not only fulfil the function of deflecting from liberal racism, but also allow the paper to represent its journalism as adhering to liberal principles of objectivity, balance and free speech.” On the face of it, the statement seems absurd. But looking at the political context the paper has engendered, it’s clear that, given the cultural conditions The Guardian has used its considerable influence to foster, it could not be any other way.

For its part, The Guardian has assured readers that the review is “largely complete and will not pull any punches in terms of transparency”. This may be cold comfort for the podcast producers charged with looking into slavery at the paper’s historical roots only to come away with allegations of racism in its present incarnation. Whether or not the review finds that Taylor had direct ties to slavery, the podcast affair shows that The Guardian has, wittingly or not, stumbled into a new and fraught chapter of its story, one even the most polished podcast productions will struggle to explain.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

81 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

China utterly dominates global solar panel production. Solar panels are made up of polysilicon, half of which comes from Xinjiang, where polysilicon is produced by Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities under conditions of forced labor. Solar is a rapidly increasing proportion of the UK’s electricity mix, with solar installed capacity forecast to increase from 14GW to 70GW in the next decade, heavily supported by the UK government. This obsession with slavery hundreds of years ago, which the UK actively campaigned against and dismantled, while ignoring slavery here and now from which western consumers benefit, is hypocritical and perverse.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stephen Walsh
Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

You may be right, but tbh I’ve never heard that claim before.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Read all about it on Bloomberg.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Just another inconvenient truth liberal news sources prefer to turn their eyes away from. Like the cotton traders of Victorian Manchester they prefer to avoid upsetting the apple cart when their interests might be adversely affected.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

No – liberal outlets are better at facing up to their past. Where’s the Daily Mail’s apology for supporting the Nazis? https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/mar/28/slavery-and-the-guardian-the-ties-that-bind-us

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

What has the Mail to apologise for?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago

‘There is also some indication that Rothermere gave actual financial support to Hitler through Putzi Hanfstaengl, the Nazis’ foreign press chief but the publicity he gave Hitler was worth more than money.’
https://spartacus-educational.com/ExamRHU17.htm

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

No doubt the favourable comment regarding the Confederate cause in the Manchester Guardian was “worth more than money”. An apology to the US and reparations perhaps from the Guardian?

Use every man after his ancestors desert, and who should ‘scape whipping? – to adapt Shakespeare’s wise words. Some seem to have forgotten the evil that followed the attempt to extract reparations from the Germans after WW1. Learn from history don’t use it to to try to impose collective punishment – particularly for deeds committed by remote ancestors of only some of us.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Yes well I’ve admitted that there’s a debate to be had about where the reparations could have been targetted or even whether they should be done at all, but by your own definition the guardian are not virtue signalling (at least no more than other newspapers and certainly this government). They are trying to atone for faults in the past in a way that *does* come at their expense and as far as I can tell much of the money is going into a ‘restorative justice program’ – don’t know how you can so quickly assume that is weightless virtue signalling?
As to Germany after WWI, they paid reparations imposed on them by other states, they weren’t freely given by an institution in the way of those of the guardian. Learn from history.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Yes well I’ve admitted that there’s a debate to be had about where the reparations could have been targetted or even whether they should be done at all, but by your own definition the guardian are not virtue signalling (at least no more than other newspapers and certainly this government). They are trying to atone for faults in the past in a way that *does* come at their expense and as far as I can tell much of the money is going into a ‘restorative justice program’ – don’t know how you can so quickly assume that is weightless virtue signalling?
As to Germany after WWI, they paid reparations imposed on them by other states, they weren’t freely given by an institution in the way of those of the guardian. Learn from history.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

No doubt the favourable comment regarding the Confederate cause in the Manchester Guardian was “worth more than money”. An apology to the US and reparations perhaps from the Guardian?

Use every man after his ancestors desert, and who should ‘scape whipping? – to adapt Shakespeare’s wise words. Some seem to have forgotten the evil that followed the attempt to extract reparations from the Germans after WW1. Learn from history don’t use it to to try to impose collective punishment – particularly for deeds committed by remote ancestors of only some of us.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago

‘There is also some indication that Rothermere gave actual financial support to Hitler through Putzi Hanfstaengl, the Nazis’ foreign press chief but the publicity he gave Hitler was worth more than money.’
https://spartacus-educational.com/ExamRHU17.htm

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

My comment was directed to the failure of liberal newspapers to highlight inconvenient truths regarding the present. Apologies for one’s ancestors is pointless virtue signalling when you turn your eyes away from the problems of the present.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

I don’t see the guardian as having turned its eyes away from the present for all the reasons I’ve listed below in my longer comment about how the politics of the last 12 years has damaged the lives of ordinary people in this country. It’s one of the few papers that seems to do proper investigative work in the public interest and which is more willing than most to stand up to financial elites given the greater independence of its editorship from its owners. Good luck finding such positions in the mail, telegraph, spectator, bbc, times – all different arms of the Tory party these last 12 years. I’d be genuinely heartened if you could prove me wrong.

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

I don’t see the guardian as having turned its eyes away from the present for all the reasons I’ve listed below in my longer comment about how the politics of the last 12 years has damaged the lives of ordinary people in this country. It’s one of the few papers that seems to do proper investigative work in the public interest and which is more willing than most to stand up to financial elites given the greater independence of its editorship from its owners. Good luck finding such positions in the mail, telegraph, spectator, bbc, times – all different arms of the Tory party these last 12 years. I’d be genuinely heartened if you could prove me wrong.

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

What has the Mail to apologise for?

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

My comment was directed to the failure of liberal newspapers to highlight inconvenient truths regarding the present. Apologies for one’s ancestors is pointless virtue signalling when you turn your eyes away from the problems of the present.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

No – liberal outlets are better at facing up to their past. Where’s the Daily Mail’s apology for supporting the Nazis? https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/mar/28/slavery-and-the-guardian-the-ties-that-bind-us

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Read all about it on Bloomberg.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Just another inconvenient truth liberal news sources prefer to turn their eyes away from. Like the cotton traders of Victorian Manchester they prefer to avoid upsetting the apple cart when their interests might be adversely affected.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

You may be right, but tbh I’ve never heard that claim before.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

China utterly dominates global solar panel production. Solar panels are made up of polysilicon, half of which comes from Xinjiang, where polysilicon is produced by Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities under conditions of forced labor. Solar is a rapidly increasing proportion of the UK’s electricity mix, with solar installed capacity forecast to increase from 14GW to 70GW in the next decade, heavily supported by the UK government. This obsession with slavery hundreds of years ago, which the UK actively campaigned against and dismantled, while ignoring slavery here and now from which western consumers benefit, is hypocritical and perverse.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stephen Walsh
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

Of course if the Guardian journalists and management really believed in the concept of giving reparations for past sins of slavery they would be diligently searching out the descendants of slaves and resigning in their favour.

Of course they might find that many potential candidates to receive such reparatory justice were excluded by their own racial admixture of white ancestry or involvement in slavery through their African ancestors when one looked in detail at their past.

History is complicated and talk of reparations relies on the childish simplification that white skin is bad and blackish skin is good. Somehow I don’t see Viner being eager to resign in favour of Thomas Sowell or some other descent of slaves who fails to hold to the woke position she favours, never mind any hypocracy.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

To add an additional comment I note that the Guardian instead intends to pay ÂŁ10,000,000 to people in the areas affected and support black journalists and black related news.

Most sensible people appalled by the behaviour of people they are connected to but now long dead who committed acts that were legal at the time but which we rightly disapprove of today would strive to combat modern slavery rather than distribute largesse on a racist basis. But not if you run the Guardian. A bit of virtue signalling is much preferred to actually combatting real slavery today. That might be much too controversial.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

You make a fair point that combatting modern slavery might have been the more pertinent purpose for their reparations, but to dismiss the giving of *ÂŁ10m* as yet *more* proof of their virtue-signalling really leaves me wondering what virtue-signalling is to you. Is it just any support of a cause you don’t particularly back?

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

I account any action that does not personally adversely affect the signaller to be virtue signalling. Distributing Trust largesse randomly on the basis of racial characteristics is in my view a form of undesirable virtue signalling. A more desirable form would be to actively combat the evils of modern day slavery rather than pretending to right the wrongs of the past in which the hypocrisies of a few cotton traders in Victorian Manchester figure as very minor players.

Petre Norton
Petre Norton
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

Is someone giving away ÂŁ10 million of their own money? No. When it’s their own money that’s actually virtuous. Someone else’s? Not so much.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Petre Norton

It’s the owners that principally profited and it’s the owners who are paying – yes they might be different owners but who else should pay besides the people who make most money from it? The journalists as well are also paying through the loss of face. If I wanted the Daily Mail to make reparations for supporting the Nazis I would also expect its owners, the Rothermere family, to do the same.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Petre Norton

It’s the owners that principally profited and it’s the owners who are paying – yes they might be different owners but who else should pay besides the people who make most money from it? The journalists as well are also paying through the loss of face. If I wanted the Daily Mail to make reparations for supporting the Nazis I would also expect its owners, the Rothermere family, to do the same.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

I account any action that does not personally adversely affect the signaller to be virtue signalling. Distributing Trust largesse randomly on the basis of racial characteristics is in my view a form of undesirable virtue signalling. A more desirable form would be to actively combat the evils of modern day slavery rather than pretending to right the wrongs of the past in which the hypocrisies of a few cotton traders in Victorian Manchester figure as very minor players.

Petre Norton
Petre Norton
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

Is someone giving away ÂŁ10 million of their own money? No. When it’s their own money that’s actually virtuous. Someone else’s? Not so much.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

You make a fair point that combatting modern slavery might have been the more pertinent purpose for their reparations, but to dismiss the giving of *ÂŁ10m* as yet *more* proof of their virtue-signalling really leaves me wondering what virtue-signalling is to you. Is it just any support of a cause you don’t particularly back?

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

To add an additional comment I note that the Guardian instead intends to pay ÂŁ10,000,000 to people in the areas affected and support black journalists and black related news.

Most sensible people appalled by the behaviour of people they are connected to but now long dead who committed acts that were legal at the time but which we rightly disapprove of today would strive to combat modern slavery rather than distribute largesse on a racist basis. But not if you run the Guardian. A bit of virtue signalling is much preferred to actually combatting real slavery today. That might be much too controversial.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

Of course if the Guardian journalists and management really believed in the concept of giving reparations for past sins of slavery they would be diligently searching out the descendants of slaves and resigning in their favour.

Of course they might find that many potential candidates to receive such reparatory justice were excluded by their own racial admixture of white ancestry or involvement in slavery through their African ancestors when one looked in detail at their past.

History is complicated and talk of reparations relies on the childish simplification that white skin is bad and blackish skin is good. Somehow I don’t see Viner being eager to resign in favour of Thomas Sowell or some other descent of slaves who fails to hold to the woke position she favours, never mind any hypocracy.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Bray
Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago

I hope it eventually runs out of Scott Trust money and goes bust. The Guardian deals in hatred alone; it’s claims to speak for all are nonsense; the poor and the NHS are merely props for their misanthropic quasi-religion and belief that all white people (*except white people like them) are wicked and evil and that all wealth (*except theirs) is stolen and that whatever you are doing is wrong (* except when they do it). Its love of hate speech and desire to define victim groups solely for the purpose of setting them ultimately against each other will eventually see people tire of its student-y sixth form politics and simplistic solutions which always ALWAYS depended on the sudden existence of an entirely different human race for them to actually work.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

It can’t be looking too good for them, that begging letter at the bottom of the page is now covering about 70% of the screen whenever I (usually mistakenly) visit an article on there.

Ralph Hanke
Ralph Hanke
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

To be fair, they don’t have a pay wall. And that letter is easy to x-out.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Ralph Hanke

I am surprised they haven’t yet put it behind a paywall yet.
I just find it amusing how the banner has grown over the years.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Ralph Hanke

I am surprised they haven’t yet put it behind a paywall yet.
I just find it amusing how the banner has grown over the years.

Ralph Hanke
Ralph Hanke
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

To be fair, they don’t have a pay wall. And that letter is easy to x-out.

William Edward Henry Appleby
William Edward Henry Appleby
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

I cancelled my online subscription when they started to remove my comments containing reasonable and balanced criticisms of gender ideology, including references to issues on the topic that The Guardian itself had covered. I dip in from time to time to read Andrew Rawnsley and Rafael Behr, and Marina Hyde for her sarcasm, but never again will I pay for a subscription. They are too cosseted in their right-on comfort zone to see other opinions.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

It can’t be looking too good for them, that begging letter at the bottom of the page is now covering about 70% of the screen whenever I (usually mistakenly) visit an article on there.

William Edward Henry Appleby
William Edward Henry Appleby
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

I cancelled my online subscription when they started to remove my comments containing reasonable and balanced criticisms of gender ideology, including references to issues on the topic that The Guardian itself had covered. I dip in from time to time to read Andrew Rawnsley and Rafael Behr, and Marina Hyde for her sarcasm, but never again will I pay for a subscription. They are too cosseted in their right-on comfort zone to see other opinions.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago

I hope it eventually runs out of Scott Trust money and goes bust. The Guardian deals in hatred alone; it’s claims to speak for all are nonsense; the poor and the NHS are merely props for their misanthropic quasi-religion and belief that all white people (*except white people like them) are wicked and evil and that all wealth (*except theirs) is stolen and that whatever you are doing is wrong (* except when they do it). Its love of hate speech and desire to define victim groups solely for the purpose of setting them ultimately against each other will eventually see people tire of its student-y sixth form politics and simplistic solutions which always ALWAYS depended on the sudden existence of an entirely different human race for them to actually work.

Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
1 year ago

Unfortunately my schoolboy Latin isn’t up to the task (Who am I trying to fool, I was never clever enough to be in the Latin class) or I’m sure I could come up with several apt and pithy phrases that sum up my thoughts, as to the Guardian’s present, self inflicted, ‘dilemma’. Fortunately a German word seems to sum up my pleasure at the Guardian’s discomfort perfectly, ‘schadenfreude’. I can think of a few French, or Anglo Saxon words as well, that I’m sure the educated, right on, intellectuals, at the Guardian, might also have uttered, when confronted with their own, up their own backsides, hypocrisy. Of course, the researchers for the project obviously hadn’t heard the phrase ‘ Bite the hand that feeds’ either, maybe they just hadn’t got the memo, more fool them !

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

May I suggest “NUNC EST BIBENDUM”*, or now let’s drink! To celebrate this long overdue exposure of The Guardian as the worthless, hypocritical rag it has been for the past thirty or more years?

(* Horace, “Carmina”, Book1:37.)

RM Parker
RM Parker
1 year ago

Or maybe ”Quem Iuppiter vult perdere, dementat prius.” The Grauniad has been disappearing up its own fundamental orifice for years and is now aiding and abetting its own dismemberment by careerist social justice warriors. Madness followed by destruction indeed.

Entertainingly, these cynical Eumenides cannot be propitiated, only resisted: but the Scott Trust doesn’t have the cultural wherewithal to do that, the more so since one of their ideĂ©s fixes turns out to be a skeleton in their own closet.

Really too funny. Do pass the popcorn


Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago

Careful Charles, some of us where forgetting your right-wing bias…

RM Parker
RM Parker
1 year ago

Or maybe ”Quem Iuppiter vult perdere, dementat prius.” The Grauniad has been disappearing up its own fundamental orifice for years and is now aiding and abetting its own dismemberment by careerist social justice warriors. Madness followed by destruction indeed.

Entertainingly, these cynical Eumenides cannot be propitiated, only resisted: but the Scott Trust doesn’t have the cultural wherewithal to do that, the more so since one of their ideĂ©s fixes turns out to be a skeleton in their own closet.

Really too funny. Do pass the popcorn


Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago

Careful Charles, some of us where forgetting your right-wing bias…

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

‘Etsi homines falles deum tamen fallere non poteris’

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

May I suggest “NUNC EST BIBENDUM”*, or now let’s drink! To celebrate this long overdue exposure of The Guardian as the worthless, hypocritical rag it has been for the past thirty or more years?

(* Horace, “Carmina”, Book1:37.)

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

‘Etsi homines falles deum tamen fallere non poteris’

Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
1 year ago

Unfortunately my schoolboy Latin isn’t up to the task (Who am I trying to fool, I was never clever enough to be in the Latin class) or I’m sure I could come up with several apt and pithy phrases that sum up my thoughts, as to the Guardian’s present, self inflicted, ‘dilemma’. Fortunately a German word seems to sum up my pleasure at the Guardian’s discomfort perfectly, ‘schadenfreude’. I can think of a few French, or Anglo Saxon words as well, that I’m sure the educated, right on, intellectuals, at the Guardian, might also have uttered, when confronted with their own, up their own backsides, hypocrisy. Of course, the researchers for the project obviously hadn’t heard the phrase ‘ Bite the hand that feeds’ either, maybe they just hadn’t got the memo, more fool them !

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

The Guardian is the voice of the British swamp – a class that becomes more parasitic with every passing year.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Unlike those trusty tabloids and the diligent public-interest journalism they offer us every day?

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

I have to say all these right wing comments are starting to make me feel sorry for the guardian… They at least provide some excellent investigative journalism unlike most tabloids sensationalist click bait i.e Daily Mail (sorry Charles ‘Google’ Stanhope) 🙂

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Whether you like the Guardian or the Daily Mail is a good indicator of whether you are less offended by narcissism or by greed. I think I prefer greed – at least it’s not lying.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Yes exactly – the position of most people on here seems to be that the left shouldn’t even exist. Although should we be surprised? As Jonathan Sumption says most people in the UK no longer believe in pluralism and democracy. I’m not saying the right shouldn’t exist, I’m just saying they are generously represented by the press and that without the guardian (and mirror) they would have a monopoly.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Whether you like the Guardian or the Daily Mail is a good indicator of whether you are less offended by narcissism or by greed. I think I prefer greed – at least it’s not lying.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Yes exactly – the position of most people on here seems to be that the left shouldn’t even exist. Although should we be surprised? As Jonathan Sumption says most people in the UK no longer believe in pluralism and democracy. I’m not saying the right shouldn’t exist, I’m just saying they are generously represented by the press and that without the guardian (and mirror) they would have a monopoly.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

There’s no difference.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

‘All as bad as each other’ – the attitude on which rogues thrive. Find me one study that doesn’t say the Dail Mail is one of the most mendacious newspapers in the UK https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-daily-mail-reliable/

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

‘All as bad as each other’ – the attitude on which rogues thrive. Find me one study that doesn’t say the Dail Mail is one of the most mendacious newspapers in the UK https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-the-daily-mail-reliable/

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

I have to say all these right wing comments are starting to make me feel sorry for the guardian… They at least provide some excellent investigative journalism unlike most tabloids sensationalist click bait i.e Daily Mail (sorry Charles ‘Google’ Stanhope) 🙂

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

There’s no difference.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Unlike those trusty tabloids and the diligent public-interest journalism they offer us every day?

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

The Guardian is the voice of the British swamp – a class that becomes more parasitic with every passing year.

David McKee
David McKee
1 year ago

Katharine Viner and the people who run the Scott Trust have apologised for something they could not possibly have been responsible for.

It would be nice if, for a change, they apologised for things they are responsible for. We could start with the hounding out of Suzanne Moore, and take it from there.

David McKee
David McKee
1 year ago

Katharine Viner and the people who run the Scott Trust have apologised for something they could not possibly have been responsible for.

It would be nice if, for a change, they apologised for things they are responsible for. We could start with the hounding out of Suzanne Moore, and take it from there.

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago

Has Owen Jones resigned or is he still profiting from slavery ?

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago

Has Owen Jones resigned or is he still profiting from slavery ?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

George Floyd wasn’t murdered. He was a walking pharmacy who died while resisting arrest.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Correct, well said.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago

Wow your’e really letting yourself down tonight Stanhope, give my regards to Adolph….

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Don’t be so tedious Valentine, it ill becomes you.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Don’t be so tedious Valentine, it ill becomes you.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
1 year ago

Wow your’e really letting yourself down tonight Stanhope, give my regards to Adolph….

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Desperately poor statements from the pair of you. The officer was convicted of murder and sentenced to 22yrs in prison. Fact.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Yes there’s a slight difference between dying while resisting arrest (arguable) and dying while his ‘upper airway was compressed’ (although I suppose we don’t trust doctors anymore)

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Nonsense, it was the most heinous miscarriage of justice since the Crucifixion.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

The most heinous miscarriage of justice since the crucifixion, I think you might be stretching it a bit with that statement Mr Stanhope?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Only slightly!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Only slightly!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

The most heinous miscarriage of justice since the crucifixion, I think you might be stretching it a bit with that statement Mr Stanhope?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Desperately poor statement from you, JW. Floyd was a 46-year-old life-long criminal with heart disease loaded to the gills with Fentanyl and other illicit drugs who was in the act of resisting yet another arrest. Derek Chauvin was convicted by a photograph of him and three other officers employing a restraint technique commonly used by police, and made an example of. When Floyd was in the back seat of the squad car, he was high, hysterical, and screaming “I can’t breathe”. He was seated, upright, and unconstrained beyond simple handcuffs. If he was having trouble breathing, it was certainly because he was f**ked up on drugs and his heart was giving out – something the officers could not have known.
In the meantime, there are five Memphis police officers who beat to death a young man – Tyre Nichols – for reasons unknown, but because the six men, including the victim, were black, the entire story has been memory-holed.
Facts.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Precisely. Had Mr Chauvin been killed in this fracas we wouldn’t have heard a word!

This miscarriage of justice and the failure to prosecute Lt Michael Byrd of the Capitol Police for the killing of Ms Ashli Babbitt, must rank as the absolute nadir of the US Justice system.

How did it fall so LOW and can it be saved?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Precisely. Had Mr Chauvin been killed in this fracas we wouldn’t have heard a word!

This miscarriage of justice and the failure to prosecute Lt Michael Byrd of the Capitol Police for the killing of Ms Ashli Babbitt, must rank as the absolute nadir of the US Justice system.

How did it fall so LOW and can it be saved?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Yes there’s a slight difference between dying while resisting arrest (arguable) and dying while his ‘upper airway was compressed’ (although I suppose we don’t trust doctors anymore)

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Nonsense, it was the most heinous miscarriage of justice since the Crucifixion.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Desperately poor statement from you, JW. Floyd was a 46-year-old life-long criminal with heart disease loaded to the gills with Fentanyl and other illicit drugs who was in the act of resisting yet another arrest. Derek Chauvin was convicted by a photograph of him and three other officers employing a restraint technique commonly used by police, and made an example of. When Floyd was in the back seat of the squad car, he was high, hysterical, and screaming “I can’t breathe”. He was seated, upright, and unconstrained beyond simple handcuffs. If he was having trouble breathing, it was certainly because he was f**ked up on drugs and his heart was giving out – something the officers could not have known.
In the meantime, there are five Memphis police officers who beat to death a young man – Tyre Nichols – for reasons unknown, but because the six men, including the victim, were black, the entire story has been memory-holed.
Facts.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Correct, well said.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Desperately poor statements from the pair of you. The officer was convicted of murder and sentenced to 22yrs in prison. Fact.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

George Floyd wasn’t murdered. He was a walking pharmacy who died while resisting arrest.

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago

Presumably reparations for slavery would involve free passage from the Caribbean/ USA to a West African beach.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

‘They’ve’ tried that!
It’s called Liberia, and NOT a resounding success, as I recall.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

I believe the returnees started oppressing the native Africans. All the fault of Europeans of course.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

I believe the returnees started oppressing the native Africans. All the fault of Europeans of course.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

‘They’ve’ tried that!
It’s called Liberia, and NOT a resounding success, as I recall.

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago

Presumably reparations for slavery would involve free passage from the Caribbean/ USA to a West African beach.

Mr. Swemb
Mr. Swemb
1 year ago

Whatever “reparations” this hypocritical rag announces won’t go to descendants of African slaves or their families in Africa (many of who would like to move to the UK), that’s for sure. It’ll go to “programmes” and “initiatives” that end up in the pockets of guess who.

Ralph Hanke
Ralph Hanke
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr. Swemb

As their report clearly indicates. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Ralph Hanke
Ralph Hanke
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr. Swemb

As their report clearly indicates. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Mr. Swemb
Mr. Swemb
1 year ago

Whatever “reparations” this hypocritical rag announces won’t go to descendants of African slaves or their families in Africa (many of who would like to move to the UK), that’s for sure. It’ll go to “programmes” and “initiatives” that end up in the pockets of guess who.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

“The ideology behind slavery was so embedded in 18th- and 19th-century Britain that even individuals and organisations who considered themselves liberal could be complicit in the most despicable crimes.” Quote from Guardian statement
Well I never. Just imagine. So imbedded in 18th and 19th century Britain (and pretty much everywhere else), who’d have thought it? Perhaps we shouldn’t condemn these people out of hand – what do you think?

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

“The ideology behind slavery was so embedded in 18th- and 19th-century Britain that even individuals and organisations who considered themselves liberal could be complicit in the most despicable crimes.” Quote from Guardian statement
Well I never. Just imagine. So imbedded in 18th and 19th century Britain (and pretty much everywhere else), who’d have thought it? Perhaps we shouldn’t condemn these people out of hand – what do you think?

Gordon Arta
Gordon Arta
1 year ago

‘slavery, a crime which heralded the age of capitalism and provided the basis for racism that continues to endanger black life globally,”
I think that Ibn Khaldun, the ‘father of social science’, writing in the 14th century, a few hundred years before ‘white capitalism’, might dispute that claim. ‘Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated’.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Gordon Arta

All I knew about Ibn Khaldun was his thesis that all civilisations rise and fall and die to be replaced by the next lot which rise and fall and die, so this quote is a bit of a revelation. I’m not sure that Europeans went as far as he did, some might have seen black Africans as “dumb animals” but most just arrogantly thought of them as “not as bright as we are”, but definitely human, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered to send missionaries.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Gordon Arta

All I knew about Ibn Khaldun was his thesis that all civilisations rise and fall and die to be replaced by the next lot which rise and fall and die, so this quote is a bit of a revelation. I’m not sure that Europeans went as far as he did, some might have seen black Africans as “dumb animals” but most just arrogantly thought of them as “not as bright as we are”, but definitely human, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered to send missionaries.

Gordon Arta
Gordon Arta
1 year ago

‘slavery, a crime which heralded the age of capitalism and provided the basis for racism that continues to endanger black life globally,”
I think that Ibn Khaldun, the ‘father of social science’, writing in the 14th century, a few hundred years before ‘white capitalism’, might dispute that claim. ‘Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated’.

MĂŽnica
MĂŽnica
1 year ago

The amount this outlet and its readers care about the Graun is astonishing. Hate reading is still reading, you know.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  MĂŽnica

Yes – why has this article got special status as one they can’t bring themselves to remove from the front page. The UK having one left of centre broadsheet is one too many for most readers here.

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

Left of Centre I would welcome . Slushy virtue signalling not so much.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago

Well they were quite happy attacking Corbyn as far-left despite having policies that would seem common sense to much of western Europe – is that not left of centre enough for you?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago

And how is it the left any guiltier of virtue signalling than the right?
Other outlets will praise Farage’s banging on about being patriotic and caring for ordinary people while backing lowering tax on the rich and eroding workers rights – is that not a form of virtue signalling of a more sickening kind given its hypocrisy? As is the current government’s posturing on ‘stopping the boats’ to score some points with voters in their heartlands while coming up with unworkable plans to deal with it (a problem, if it even is one, which is far less urgent than the attacks on the pay and rights of working people which the government has presided over). Virtue signalling from a newspaper seems fair enough (particulalry one like the guardian which has faced up to its past (would the Daily Mail say the same about its connections with the Nazis?)) because newspapers are publications, they deal in signals. But mere signals from a government, a body that is meant to *do* things – that is the unpardonable virtue signalling we should be calling out.

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

I am surprised that I have not read about these attacks on working people that the government has presided over. Have doctors been ordered not to report such attacks to news outlets or are the newspapers censored?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Of course I mean attacks on the *pay and rights of* – now amended.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

Thanks for that clarification. I was concerned there had been some massacre whose existence had been suppressed. However, perhaps you can tell me what attack has been organised by the government against the pay and rights of working people. Are you concerned at the freezing of tax allowances and other tax changes or has the government reduced the wages of their employees? What rights are being attacked?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Yes so off the top of my head I would say yes pay freezes, allowing the wages of most people to stagnate despite rising shareholder profits/CEO salaries, preferential treatment of landlords over tenants, failure to buid affordable housing (they’d rather our taxes went into the pockets of landlords through housing benefit), efforts to make it harder to strike and protest, paying shareholders of national rail our money while trains were not running, failure to create good skilled jobs (relying instead on growing precarious low-skilled work in the gig economy), cutting child allowance, legal aid etc. I can expand and refine this if you want me to say more, but if your question is how is this government not on the side of working people I feel spoilt for choice when it comes to looking for arguments. Elsewhere I have said they have done the odd good thing like raising personal allowance as well as some of the big society policies for the Cameron days but now all we have is ‘anti-woke’ bluster from a government that seems totally down on plans when it comes to reinvigorating this country, preferring instead to serve wealth over work, demand over need, profit over people etc
You might say the word ‘attack’ is too dramatic, sounds too intentional for what this lot are doing (maybe they even believe they’re helping us), but I can’t for the life of me see how they’ve done much to improve the lives of ordinary people. Sure, the guardian can sometimes be a bit annoying when it whines about representation in a morally superior tone but in this economic struggle as I see it, they are backing the right side. I won’t be cancelling my subscription any time soon.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Yes so off the top of my head I would say yes pay freezes, allowing the wages of most people to stagnate despite rising shareholder profits/CEO salaries, preferential treatment of landlords over tenants, failure to buid affordable housing (they’d rather our taxes went into the pockets of landlords through housing benefit), efforts to make it harder to strike and protest, paying shareholders of national rail our money while trains were not running, failure to create good skilled jobs (relying instead on growing precarious low-skilled work in the gig economy), cutting child allowance, legal aid etc. I can expand and refine this if you want me to say more, but if your question is how is this government not on the side of working people I feel spoilt for choice when it comes to looking for arguments. Elsewhere I have said they have done the odd good thing like raising personal allowance as well as some of the big society policies for the Cameron days but now all we have is ‘anti-woke’ bluster from a government that seems totally down on plans when it comes to reinvigorating this country, preferring instead to serve wealth over work, demand over need, profit over people etc
You might say the word ‘attack’ is too dramatic, sounds too intentional for what this lot are doing (maybe they even believe they’re helping us), but I can’t for the life of me see how they’ve done much to improve the lives of ordinary people. Sure, the guardian can sometimes be a bit annoying when it whines about representation in a morally superior tone but in this economic struggle as I see it, they are backing the right side. I won’t be cancelling my subscription any time soon.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

Thanks for that clarification. I was concerned there had been some massacre whose existence had been suppressed. However, perhaps you can tell me what attack has been organised by the government against the pay and rights of working people. Are you concerned at the freezing of tax allowances and other tax changes or has the government reduced the wages of their employees? What rights are being attacked?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Of course I mean attacks on the *pay and rights of* – now amended.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

The Guardian is a newspaper that is largely read by wealthy professionals who make money out of other people’s distress. You only have to read the lifestyle pages to see that: Oh look here’s a great shirt by Paul Smith, only ÂŁ325, decorating tips for your weekend home in the Cotswolds, where in the Caribbean to spend the cold months. It’s nauseating.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Is that how we now describe nurses and teachers and anyone else who actually works for their money? Blessed are the landlords and shareholders and the billionaire sociopaths running most of the press. *They’re* the ones ordinary people should put their faith into.
‘6.9m readers are classified as AB – higher and intermediate positions, and professional occupations. 5.9m of The Guardian readers have skilled manual and unskilled occupations or would be considered unemployed by the model.’
So plenty of poorer people read the Graun as well – but I suppose poorer people who are left wing are just suffering from class envy, while the rich ones are hypocrites?
https://media-studies.com/the-guardian-study-guide/

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Is that how we now describe nurses and teachers and anyone else who actually works for their money? Blessed are the landlords and shareholders and the billionaire sociopaths running most of the press. *They’re* the ones ordinary people should put their faith into.
‘6.9m readers are classified as AB – higher and intermediate positions, and professional occupations. 5.9m of The Guardian readers have skilled manual and unskilled occupations or would be considered unemployed by the model.’
So plenty of poorer people read the Graun as well – but I suppose poorer people who are left wing are just suffering from class envy, while the rich ones are hypocrites?
https://media-studies.com/the-guardian-study-guide/

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

I am surprised that I have not read about these attacks on working people that the government has presided over. Have doctors been ordered not to report such attacks to news outlets or are the newspapers censored?

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

The Guardian is a newspaper that is largely read by wealthy professionals who make money out of other people’s distress. You only have to read the lifestyle pages to see that: Oh look here’s a great shirt by Paul Smith, only ÂŁ325, decorating tips for your weekend home in the Cotswolds, where in the Caribbean to spend the cold months. It’s nauseating.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago

Well they were quite happy attacking Corbyn as far-left despite having policies that would seem common sense to much of western Europe – is that not left of centre enough for you?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago

And how is it the left any guiltier of virtue signalling than the right?
Other outlets will praise Farage’s banging on about being patriotic and caring for ordinary people while backing lowering tax on the rich and eroding workers rights – is that not a form of virtue signalling of a more sickening kind given its hypocrisy? As is the current government’s posturing on ‘stopping the boats’ to score some points with voters in their heartlands while coming up with unworkable plans to deal with it (a problem, if it even is one, which is far less urgent than the attacks on the pay and rights of working people which the government has presided over). Virtue signalling from a newspaper seems fair enough (particulalry one like the guardian which has faced up to its past (would the Daily Mail say the same about its connections with the Nazis?)) because newspapers are publications, they deal in signals. But mere signals from a government, a body that is meant to *do* things – that is the unpardonable virtue signalling we should be calling out.

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

Left of Centre I would welcome . Slushy virtue signalling not so much.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  MĂŽnica

Yes – why has this article got special status as one they can’t bring themselves to remove from the front page. The UK having one left of centre broadsheet is one too many for most readers here.

MĂŽnica
MĂŽnica
1 year ago

The amount this outlet and its readers care about the Graun is astonishing. Hate reading is still reading, you know.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
But where does a loss making rag like the Guardian find ÂŁ10m for reparations and if they are giving it away can I have some?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
But where does a loss making rag like the Guardian find ÂŁ10m for reparations and if they are giving it away can I have some?

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Every few weeks or so UnHerd feels the need to chuck a bit of red meat to it’s primary clientele. Keeps the subscriptions flowing and creates some feel-good Group-Think. And what better yaa-boo opportunity than something about the Guardian, that ‘bete-noire’ of the more Right leaning. Perfect.
A more rounded view and reappraisal of our History certainly uncomfortable for some. But it’s inevitable. Whether reparations have a role I have my doubts particularly on a practical level, but I don’t object to the reflection.
Finally a self confident nation should have no fears about such a discussion. In fact it demonstrates that self confidence and maturity that we can and that we recognise we stand on the shoulders of giants and some of those giants were incarcerated slaves.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Well not every few weeks in this case – the article has been up for more than a month and has just been reposted. But I agree that getting a load of mind-made-up middle Englanders to ‘think again’ is a tricky mission!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Washington, Jefferson, Madison and many other formidable Americans were also slavers, and these are the giants America stands on.
The slaves were, not surprisingly, mere onlookers.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

And yes CH, but whilst on the theme I suspect you were well tutored when reading History on Wilberforce and the Anti-Slavery campaign. Maybe even also the W African Squadron too. However much less tutored on reparations paid to slave owners or the Demerara Uprising, much less likes of Toussaint Louverture. And the curious should be asking ‘why was that’?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

“Self praise is no recommendation “ but I am aware of all that you say.
In fact I am ultimately a beneficiary of the generosity of HMG and its ‘compensation scheme’!

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

I’m not surprised you are aware, but you are unique I think, and I mean that in a nice way. Many will be clueless to the more rounded history

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

That more rounded history is exactly what I taught year 8 last week – plenty of racist attitudes among the consciously complicit, reparations paid to slave owners once it was no longer legal to own slaves, slave rebellions in Haiti, the trade becoming less profitable on the eve of abolition, but also Christian abolitionists and a wider public shocked by a slave trade which had hitherto been under publicised or sanitised. And this we we teach while seeing slavery as a universal problem not unique to the British Empire (yes we talk about the Ottoman trade in white slaves, Starkey) which indeed exists in many forms today. But I suppose this is the kind of one-sided libtard liberal-luvvy wokery we can expect from our teachers nowadays, poisoning our children’s minds with their nauseating virtue signalling platitudes.

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

Nice one DW. Faith in the future.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

Nice one DW. Faith in the future.

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

That more rounded history is exactly what I taught year 8 last week – plenty of racist attitudes among the consciously complicit, reparations paid to slave owners once it was no longer legal to own slaves, slave rebellions in Haiti, the trade becoming less profitable on the eve of abolition, but also Christian abolitionists and a wider public shocked by a slave trade which had hitherto been under publicised or sanitised. And this we we teach while seeing slavery as a universal problem not unique to the British Empire (yes we talk about the Ottoman trade in white slaves, Starkey) which indeed exists in many forms today. But I suppose this is the kind of one-sided libtard liberal-luvvy wokery we can expect from our teachers nowadays, poisoning our children’s minds with their nauseating virtue signalling platitudes.

Last edited 1 year ago by Desmond Wolf
j watson
j watson
1 year ago

I’m not surprised you are aware, but you are unique I think, and I mean that in a nice way. Many will be clueless to the more rounded history

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

“Self praise is no recommendation “ but I am aware of all that you say.
In fact I am ultimately a beneficiary of the generosity of HMG and its ‘compensation scheme’!

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

And yes CH, but whilst on the theme I suspect you were well tutored when reading History on Wilberforce and the Anti-Slavery campaign. Maybe even also the W African Squadron too. However much less tutored on reparations paid to slave owners or the Demerara Uprising, much less likes of Toussaint Louverture. And the curious should be asking ‘why was that’?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Well not every few weeks in this case – the article has been up for more than a month and has just been reposted. But I agree that getting a load of mind-made-up middle Englanders to ‘think again’ is a tricky mission!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Washington, Jefferson, Madison and many other formidable Americans were also slavers, and these are the giants America stands on.
The slaves were, not surprisingly, mere onlookers.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Every few weeks or so UnHerd feels the need to chuck a bit of red meat to it’s primary clientele. Keeps the subscriptions flowing and creates some feel-good Group-Think. And what better yaa-boo opportunity than something about the Guardian, that ‘bete-noire’ of the more Right leaning. Perfect.
A more rounded view and reappraisal of our History certainly uncomfortable for some. But it’s inevitable. Whether reparations have a role I have my doubts particularly on a practical level, but I don’t object to the reflection.
Finally a self confident nation should have no fears about such a discussion. In fact it demonstrates that self confidence and maturity that we can and that we recognise we stand on the shoulders of giants and some of those giants were incarcerated slaves.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

“…when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Tralal literally (it said “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists: instead of “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists”), they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening’s ultragolf…”

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

“…when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Tralal literally (it said “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists: instead of “Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists”), they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening’s ultragolf…”

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

ROTFLMAO!

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

ROTFLMAO!

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

I wonder how red Merseyside would recoil if they were reminded that the CSS Alabama was built at Birkenhead by Laird’s?
The contract was arranged through the Fraser Trenholm Company, a cotton broker in Liverpool with ties to the Confederacy.
The Alabama was the most successful of the confederacy’s warships

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

I wonder how red Merseyside would recoil if they were reminded that the CSS Alabama was built at Birkenhead by Laird’s?
The contract was arranged through the Fraser Trenholm Company, a cotton broker in Liverpool with ties to the Confederacy.
The Alabama was the most successful of the confederacy’s warships

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago

If all other articles do not survive more than a month on the front page of Unherd, why has this one been republished? Editorship worried they’re not giving enough red meat to the anti-wokies on here?

Tim Huckvale
Tim Huckvale
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

… and why is it being re-published the day after the Guardian comes clean on all this?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim Huckvale

Yes indeed – hadn’t spotted that. Here it is in case people don’t believe: https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/mar/28/slavery-and-the-guardian-the-ties-that-bind-us

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim Huckvale

Yes indeed – hadn’t spotted that. Here it is in case people don’t believe: https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/mar/28/slavery-and-the-guardian-the-ties-that-bind-us

Tim Huckvale
Tim Huckvale
1 year ago
Reply to  Desmond Wolf

… and why is it being re-published the day after the Guardian comes clean on all this?

Desmond Wolf
Desmond Wolf
1 year ago

If all other articles do not survive more than a month on the front page of Unherd, why has this one been republished? Editorship worried they’re not giving enough red meat to the anti-wokies on here?