We knew the idiot was going to say something

The question was always how bad his take was going to be. David Olusoga:

The merchant elite of late Victorian Bristol who erected the statue of Colston, many of them members of the Merchant Venturers, did so in the full knowledge that the man they sought to elevate to civic sainthood had been a trader in human flesh. The details of his grim career had been obscured but not obliterated.

I think it would be absolutely fascinating to have a detailed look at the Nigerian antecedents of a certain individual. For it’s possible that there are rather closer links to the slave trade than some might think there.

So, anyone know a good genealogist in Nigeria?

50 thoughts on “We knew the idiot was going to say something”

  1. No doubt, but if you think David Oogawooga or anyone else on the race baiting left is going to let such piffling trifles as facts and evidence of their own hypocrisy shame them, it’ll be a frostbit day in Gehenna before that happens.

    They just hate white men. That’s all it is. They don’t hate you for stuff that happened 500 years ago they only know about because they recently looked at Wikipedia either, that’s just an excuse. They just hate you.

  2. He uses – repeatedly – the phrase “the right side of history”, which appears to be the new standard by which juries should convict, and justice is to be done. That’s a phrase worth remembering. It’s obviously a bit of a professional power-grab on his part: aggrieved blacks who can repeat a particular narrative want more of a say in how we live and think.

    It would indeed be wonderful if a genealogist were to show that the line defining that “right side of history” wiggles a bit. But Nigeria is not exactly famous for producing accurate objective historical records. For example, they did seem to produce hundreds of fabulously wealthy generals who had been unjustly imprisoned and who needed our help, which does sound a bit unlikely.

  3. Author, journalist, professor, TV personality, expert witness, writing from his holiday hotel in Barbados. Just think what he could have achieved if evil whitey had just given him a goddamn break from the constant racist oppression.

  4. @SamVara: Nigeria also produces loads of philanthropic princes who just want to share their wealth as well. I’ve been contacted by quite a few over the years.

  5. Most unusual: brought up by his white mother but abandoned by his Nigerian father. Some sort of weird outlier.

  6. Not sure I get the point here. Tim clearly disagrees with Olusoga’s position and what he perceives to be a campaign against whitey. OK. (For what it’s worth, on the statue part, I’m in the ‘stick it in the museum with balanced context’ camp.)

    However, the implication – indeed, explicit accusation from Steve and others – seems to be that Olusoga is hypocritical to hold this position because he’s got Nigerian heritage and there was prolific Nigerian slaving. I can’t see where the hypocrisy is in that, though, unless he’s, for example, been arguing in favour of statues of known Nigerian slave traders.

    Also this.

    (The article he’s commenting on is … interesting. Haven’t been able to find an example but, if she’s said elsewhere that Colston et al should not be judged by the same standards, THAT would be hypocrisy!)

    Of course, Olusoga is much more vocal about European involvement in the trade than African, which I think is probably the main thing that leads to the accusations of hypocrisy and/or a campaign against white men. I’ve never really bought that argument, though: IF one feels that historical slavery is an issue worth campaigning on now (note that I don’t necessarily feel that way myself), it seems reasonable to mainly focus on the involvement of the society within which one is campaigning (and within which DO is an academic and media “personality”), as this is the society one can most feasibly influence. Also see Michael Jackson’s ‘Man in the Mirror’. I don’t think DO’s heritage is relevant to this particular point, though.

    So what is it I’m missing about the relevance of DO’s Nigerian heritage to the validity of his arguments?

  7. @Bloke on A720

    It’s his selectivity. If he said ‘all nations including that of my birth and my father have shady shit in their pasts’ that would be fair. He might even add ‘at least Britain abolished slavery and policed the world Rostov it at its own cost, and has a semi uncorrupt system (though tbf these days I’d prefer Nigeria’s open corruption – at least you have some idea of where you stand and who to pay to get shit done), but you’ll wait a long time for him to write that or the Guardian to publish any of it.

    Much more satisfying to attack the country Africans are drowning to get into.

    And more lucrative of course. He’s no more black than he is white, and indeed he has spent the vast majority of his life here, but there’s no newspaper columns and professorships in saying you love the UK and you’ve had a fairly decent life because you came here, are there?

  8. Bloke on A720.

    I don’t think the accusation is one of hypocrisy, it’s one of simply being a grifter. The constant demonisation and dehumanisation of White people is driven by claims that they are uniquely evil and are solely responsible for things like slavery, genocide, colonialism or imperialism. These are simply lies, and if Mr Olusoga was a serious historian he would say so.

    Of course, if Mr Olusoga was genuinely concerned about the institution of slavery, rather than making a living from the demonisation of White people in Britain, he could return to his own homeland of Nigeria and campaign against it there; but I doubt there’s any money in it.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-where-modern-day-slavery-is-the-most-prevalent-2014-11?r=US&IR=T

  9. If we think that commemoration or celebration of tyrants, murderers and such should be destroyed, where does that leave the Church? Destroy that too?

  10. . . . the man they sought to elevate to civic sainthood had been a trader in human flesh.

    Was Colston supplying the cannibal market?

  11. Was Colston supplying the cannibal market?

    Probably competing with it, so that’s another thing we can add in his favour.

  12. The point is that the UK is shifting from a state ruled by law to a state ruled by fashionable opinion. Regardless of your views on the statue and its relevance to the history of slavery, it was an illegal act to shove it into the harbour. To decriminalise such actions doesn’t seem to me to lead to anywhere desirable. Mob rule,anyone?

  13. The keepers of Colston’s legacy had rendered his historic crimes . . .

    You’d think a historian would be aware that Colston’s activities specifically were not historic crimes. They can fairly be regarded as criminal by modern standards, but they weren’t criminal then – which is a point a campaigner like Olusoga should also be vexed about. But then that might draw a bit too much attention to the who, where and when of how such activities did finally become defined as criminal, and we can’t have that.

  14. “You’d think a historian would be aware…”

    A historian would be. A grifter with a chip on his shoulder almost as big as his inferiority complex, that’s another matter.

  15. Re those statues of Marx and Engels, I think it interesting and good that there are so many still standing. They remind us of the power that misguided thinkers can hold over intelligent people. I like the approach of, I think Latvia, which has a museum of statues and memorabilia from the Warsaw Pact days, including one of Brezhnev’s limousines

  16. Being a Bristolian by birth and going back there frequently, I can say that everyone I speak to still calls it “The Colston Hall” despite it being renamed “The something or other I can’t be bothered to find out”.

    And The Colson Hall is still on Colston Street and opposite Colston Towers. So fuck off.

  17. Interested,

    If he said ‘all nations including that of my birth and my father have shady shit in their pasts’ that would be fair.

    Well, he essentially did in the tweet I linked to above.

    He might even add ‘at least Britain abolished slavery and policed the world to get rid of it at its own cost

    Hmm. Seehere

    and has a semi uncorrupt system … but you’ll wait a long time for him to write that or the Guardian to publish any of it.

    OK. You’ve got me. I can’t immediately find anything from DO praising the relative uncorruptness of the UK. (I’m pretty sure I could quickly find Guardian articles acknowledging it though.) Maybe he mentions it in the TV series or book he brags about in that last tweet. Dunno. I haven’t watched/read them, partly because I’ve found him generally quite annoying in the couple of things I’ve seen him in. (Actually, he did make generally positive noises about British/Western progress in them.)

    In the original blog post, however, his ancestry – and the possibility that it includes slavers – is what’s focused on. Is there an important relationship between this and his selectivity (which, notwithstanding everything I’ve said, I agree does exist)?

    Jonathan,

    don’t think the accusation is one of hypocrisy

    That accusation has been explicitly made in comments above, but…

    it’s one of simply being a grifter

    …OK. So again, what is the relevance of his ancestry – and whether it might include slavers – to this accusation?

    constant dehumanisation of White people

    Really? That would be troubling. Do you have examples of him seeking to dehumanise whites?

    claims that they are uniquely evil and are solely responsible for things like slavery, genocide, colonialism or imperialism

    Does he claim that white people uniquely bear such responsibility? He asserts otherwise in the first tweet I linked to above. Yes, he focusses on Britain’s role – I would suggest partly for the reasons in my first message – but I’ve not seen him claim this.

    if Mr Olusoga was genuinely concerned about the institution of slavery, rather than making a living from the demonisation of White people in Britain, he could return to his own homeland of Nigeria and campaign against it there

    Well yes, he could. What I think you’re actually implying though is that he should and that the fact he doesn’t is shows that he isn’t genuinely concerned. That seems to me to be a non-sequitor. What would you say if I tried to undermine a critic of Corbyn on the grounds that they had never travelled to North Korea to protest against the regime there?

  18. BoA720: “Really? That would be troubling. Do you have examples of him seeking to dehumanise whites?”

    Adding to the Guardian comment section in a featured article doing exactly that, maybe?
    That same Guardian which has a “decent” track record staying just clear of outright racism in its published opinions-presented-as-truth in its self-admitted quest to “build a Narrative”?

  19. I was going to ask whether you are getting paid by the post Tim had this been a commentary on Richard Murphy. As to the person in question, not much to add to Steve’s post – you are talking someone with a deep and abiding hatred of White people across the board, and the UK specifically.

  20. Grikath,

    Adding to the Guardian comment section in a featured article doing exactly that, maybe?

    Got a link? Genuinely interested.

  21. Andrew C, I must admit I’d be really pissed off if a mob of wankers tossed a statue in the Brisbane river and insisted that part of the city be renamed as they wish.

    My immediate instinct would be to tell them to fuck off. As you’ve done.

  22. ummmm…. This one?

    Incidentally the same as our host linked in the original post?
    The one where he defends the acquittal of a bunch of vandals destroying public property they happen to not like by stating they are on “the Right side of History”? Even heartily approving of it?
    While painting an image of the historical figure, on the Throne of Expertise as a “Historian”, as if the man was personally responsible for shackling, maltreating, and murderising every single african ever transported by the company he was but a cog in?

    Have you actually read the piece? Curious minds, etc….

  23. Diogenes,

    Shamelessly rearranging your comment for narrative purposes…

    Regardless of your views on the statue and its relevance to the history of slavery, it was an illegal act to shove it into the harbour. To decriminalise such actions doesn’t seem to me to lead to anywhere desirable. Mob rule,anyone?

    I totally agree with this bit. This was an astonishing decision (assuming, of course, that there weren’t other pertinent facts that weren’t reported on).

    The point is that the UK is shifting from a state ruled by law to a state ruled by fashionable opinion.

    Well … the rule of law said that the jury was to decide, and (absolutely crucially) not be required to justify its decision. Should we seek to keep fashionable opinion out of the jury room and, if so, how?

    Also, while of course the general feeling around here is that bad changes resulting from fashionable opinions is a left-wing problem (and I of course agree that sometimes it is), these things do of course go both ways. Take Harper’s Law: a current egregious example of right-wing populism in action.

  24. Grikath,

    Seriously? You’re citing this article (which, yes, I had read, thanks) as evidence of him dehumanising white people?

    The one where he defends the acquittal of a bunch of vandals destroying public property they happen to not like by stating they are on “the Right side of History”? Even heartily approving of it?

    Believe it or not, I don’t agree that this is valid reason for acquittal. I disagree with DO on this, but to say that defending them on these grounds, and/or to talk about “sides of History” is “dehumanising” anyone: you’re going to have to spell it out, I’m afraid, as my poor little mind clearly isn’t curious enough. 🙂

    painting an image of the historical figure, on the Throne of Expertise as a “Historian”, as if the man was personally responsible for shackling, maltreating, and murderising every single african ever transported by the company he was but a cog in

    He may or may not be right to paint Colston in this way, but if that is dehumanising him (let alone white people more generally) then it could surely be argued that to allege anything neative about someone is to dehumanise them. Seems to me that’s like me arguing that Tim and the commentators here are dehumaning DO.

    bunch of vandals

    How dare you dehumanise those innocent white men! (Sorry – couldn’t resist!)

  25. Of course, Colston isn’t given enough credit for the amount of rum, textiles and manufactured goods that were traded for the slaves in Africa. Those African chieftains must have had a fine old time dressing up, getting pissed and shooting at the brass pans they now had.

    The descendants of those Chieftains ought to put up a statue to Colston in Lagos city centre.

  26. I might not agree with the jury, but:
    “the rule of law said that the jury was to decide, and (absolutely crucially) not be required to justify its decision”

    I do think jury nullification is important.

    Anyway I came here with many of the same questions as Bloke on A720 so that was a useful discussion to follow. Olusoga’s relatives only seem important or relevant if he is bringing up other people’s relatives.

  27. . . . just think what statues will disappear once the Olusoga-ites get in power.

    The link was provided in jest, Diogenes. I generally don’t approve of law-breaking on ideological grounds in functional democracies. But I don’t make the rules. That it was a jury that set this precedent, rather than the usual wet establishment, shows how utterly fucked we are. We don’t have to think what statues will disappear now that the Olusoga-ites are in power, we only have to watch.

  28. “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” 1984

  29. Oh look, Violet Elizabeth Newmania is back under yet another guise.

    People who disagree are basically all the same person. Dehumanisation, I tells ya! 🙂

  30. A720
    “Well … the rule of law said that the jury was to decide, and (absolutely crucially) not be required to justify its decision”

    When I was a juror, the judge told us the law and asked us to judge the testimony we had heard against the law, as stated by him. You appear to have omitted this element in your account of how jury trials work

  31. Bloke on A720.

    Sorry it’s taken so long to reply.

    …That accusation has been explicitly made in comments above, but…

    Not by Tim…

    OK. So again, what is the relevance of his ancestry

    His African ancestry is the only reason he’s been give multiple national media platforms to espouse his ideas.

    Do you have examples of him seeking to dehumanise whites?

    He is, in the most charitable view, a poor Historian and in the least charitable view, he re-writes History to delegitimise the English in their own homeland – in part by his pedalling of the false claims made about ‘ Ivory Bangle Woman’, that black Africans have been here since before the creation of England.(https://www.waterstones.com/book/black-and-british-a-short-essential-history/david-olusoga/9781529063394)
    He also, (in this article:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/06/year-on-battered-graffitied-colston-finally-potent-memorial-to-our-past) calls Edward Colston a mass-murderer without producing a single piece of supporting evidence. As a professional Historian he should know better, but it serves to demonise Colston in particular and, by association, White people in general.

    Does he claim that white people uniquely bear such responsibility?

    I didn’t actually say that about him but nevertheless, he has aligned himself very clearly, partly by his support of violent BLM protests, with those who do claim that the Atlantic slave trade was uniquely evil and was perpetrated solely by White people.

    What would you say if I tried to undermine a critic of Corbyn on the grounds that they had never travelled to North Korea to protest against the regime there?

    What would you say if I tried to undermine a US-resident North Korean critic of the US system of government on the grounds that they had voluntarily sought residence in the US but had never said a peep against the regime in North Korea?

  32. When I was a juror, the judge told us the law and asked us to judge the testimony we had heard against the law, as stated by him. You appear to have omitted this element in your account of how jury trials work

    Yes. I appear to have, along with lots of other details. It’s almost like I wasn’t trying to give an “account of how jury trials work” at all, but make a narrow point about jury independence.

    With that in mind, it’s interesting that you’ve used the word “asked”; to the extent this reflects how the judge put it – i.e. as a request – it wouldn’t seem to change the fact that it’s up to the jury at all.

    I’m therefore not really sure why you’re highlighting my omission. I’ve already said that I agree that this jury’s decision – apparently in the face of the same judicial request as was made to you – is troubling.

    The question I think is interesting (and, for your part, you seem to have ommited it when quoting my comment) is what, if anything, should (indeed, can) be done about jury nullification (as Prof Paz helpfully pointed out it’s called) due to “fashionable opinion”?

  33. The jury made their decision, and that should not be overturned. Nor should they be required to give reasons for their decision. If we assume that the process of their selection was fair, then the problem is simply that we have a sufficient number of stupid arse-holes in the community to occasionally throw up a verdict like this. Essentially, that people wilfully destroying a statue they take exception to are committing no crime.

    That said, we need to address the problem of why there are so many stupid arse-holes at large in the community. My guess is that lots of people have been influenced by schools, universities, the BBC, and the media in general to focus on those aspects of UK history which tend towards a view of us being uniquely racist. The result is that increasing numbers of people actively dislike their own country and feel ill at ease here, and want to take part in some sort of symbolic acts of public disapproval. Add to that the increasing numbers of those who were not even born here and whose residence is a matter of mere economic expediency; plus the huge numbers who go along with all this out of fear of being “called out” and worse.

    Olusoga is one of those who has disproportionate influence here. He was an “expert witness” at the trial; he has made TV programmes; written books; produces articles. I’m not interested if a charge of hypocrisy has any bearing upon whether Olusoga has a consistent position regarding the toppling of statues. That’s just inconsequential quasi-legal quibbling. I would just welcome a finding that his ancestors were slavers because it would publicly discredit the cunt and perhaps shut him up for a bit.

  34. Of course, if Mr Olusoga was genuinely concerned about the institution of slavery, rather than making a living from the demonisation of White people in Britain, he could return to his own homeland of Nigeria and campaign against it there; but I doubt there’s any money in it.

    Yes, there’s something pathetic about all this continued wittering about slavery that was successfully ended over two centuries ago (by a people who also largely ended it for the entire world), while doing little or nothing about those under the yoke of slavery right this very fucking minute.

    Not only would tackling slavery in and around Nigeria not pay well, given the slavers in question it could also result in decapitation. Much easier to bang out some hysteria for the “daily mail” readers of the Guardian. Ooh, George Floyd!

    As a bit of inverse fun, perhaps statues to the slave trader/owner/abuser known as the Prophet of Islam could be put up.

  35. Jonathan,

    Now we get to the stage where online discussions become problematic, as we’re opening up lots of different side-points (many of which I think will be common ground). I’ll try to shut a few down, particularly where there’s common ground.

    Hypocrisy

    …That accusation has been explicitly made in comments above, but…

    Not by Tim…

    Agreed, as I said in my original 11.25 comment. I don’t think there’s any more mileage here.

    Relevance of ancestry, and whether this may incude slavers

    So again, what is the relevance of his ancestry – and whether it might include slavers – to this accusation?

    His African ancestry is the only reason he’s been give multiple national media platforms to espouse his ideas.

    This is an extraordinarily sweeping claim, but I’m not going to argue as, even if were true, it doesn’t answer the question I’m trying to pose, to which the “and whether it might include slavers” bit is crucial.

    Dehumanising whites

    black Africans have been here since before the creation of England

    I haven’t read the book (I might have to after all this), but what I don’t understand is why his claims about the presence of black people in these islands before the creation of an English state “delegitimise” the presence of “the English” here, much less “dehumanise” them.

    If there’s a review or something that you can post a link to that explains this (or even summarises DO’s argument on Ivory Bangle Lady), that would be helpful.

    calls Edward Colston a mass-murderer without producing a single piece of supporting evidence

    Hmm. I would have assumed it’s common ground that Colston was deputy governer of the Royal African Company during a time when it was transporting thousands of slaves, many of whom died. Certainly, I’ve not seen any serious challenge to this, nor serious suggestion that there were mitigations (as there are with, for example, the accusations levelled against Henry Dundas for purportedly delaying abolition). Clearly, this would be grounds for a murder charge now.

    …but of course the legal position back then was that it wasn’t murder. If this is what your claim that no evidence has been produced rests on (and it may of course be that I’ve misunderstood), then it doesn’t seem particularly outrageous for DO to refer to him as a mass murderer for rhetorical effect in the context in which he does.

    it serves to demonise Colston in particular…

    Well … if I’m wrong in my last paragraph, and there really is serious doubt around the evidence that I’m not aware of, and it’s about more than the changing legality, then I’d accept that it follows that this is demonisation of Colston.

    However, even if he is “demonising” Colston, the following is an absolutely huge leap:

    …and, by association, White people in general.

    I just don’t see how you can read this from that article. I cannot see anything in it whatsoever to suggest that he is trying to “deligitimise”, “demonise”, or “dehumanise” (the list of verbs will, I suspect, grow, if we don’t find anything better to do than continue this thread…) white people in general. The only thing I see him he say about any white people is:

    For [Brisol’s mayor], as for many black people, myself included, the “white working class” do not belong to a rival group but are family members, friends and members of the same communities.

    Perhaps he’s trying to demonise (etc.) white middle/upper class people, but even this seems a stretch.

    I do not believe that you are seeking to demonise black people in general by pointing to certain Nigerians’ involvement in the slave trade. What is different about DO’s condemnation of Colston and other whites involved in the trade that leads you to feel that this leap is warranted?

    Unique responsibility

    Does he claim that white people uniquely bear such responsibility?

    I didn’t actually say that about him

    Ah, so you mean that “the constant claims” … referred to claims made by BLM etc in general, rather than by DO in particular. I’d interpreted it as his constant claims. Apologies and thanks for clarifying.

    So BLM. The thing with BLM is that it’s such a broad church that I think it’s a bit disingenuous to attribute every assertion/claim/demand made by anyone who identifies with BLM to anyone else who identifies with BLM.

    I, for example, while in no way identifying myself part of any sort of BLM movement/organisation, agree with the statement that “black lives matter” as, I’m sure, do you. I of course disagree with the statement that “only black lives matter” as, I’m sure, do you. At the other end of the spectrum will be some pretty scary people who identify as part of the/a BLM movement who do believe that “only black lives matter”. Somewhere towards that end of the spectrum, no doubt, are individuals who hold white people uniquely responsible for this stuff, which is of course nonsense, but the existence of this spectrum indicates to me that support for BLM does not imply support for this view.

    Furthermore, the tweet I linked to earlier shows him specifically rejecting the assertion that they are.

    Our strained analogies

    What would you say if I tried to undermine a US-resident North Korean critic of the [historical] US system of government on the grounds that they had [been brought to the US at the age of five when their American parent] voluntarily sought residence in the US but[, despite having criticised the North Korean regime, don’t spend as much time doing so as criticising the historical US system of government]

    I changed a few words there to make it more analogous to DO.

    Anyway, I assume we can agree that it’s common ground that he doesn’t have to return to his own homeland of Nigeria and campaign against it there in order to prove his genuine concern about the institution of slavery?

  36. We don’t need to worry about Olusoga’s parentage to attack the witling.

    There are political acts, and there are acts of historians. A historian act is one rooted in the general mass of known history; in the case of slavery the relevant bits seem to be that slaves were captured by Africans and sold to all comers; that Colston’s company provided profitable shipping services to the buyers, and that GB closed down the vast majority of transoceanic slavery shipments at no small cost to itself; that GB has never had a culture of slave ownership.

    Thus there is no issue of or surrounding slavery in modern Britain. To claim there is is an untruth.

    Olusoga claims there is. That is the speech of a politician, not a historian.

    Thus we see that Olusoga is just a rabble rousing failed (so far, at least) fuckwit politician selling his BS under the pretense of being a historian.

    O my; perhaps the selling under false pretenses for which Nigeria is world renowned **is** genetic.

  37. Sam Vara,

    Re “stupid arse-holes”, yeah, we’re surrounded by them. The idea that this is uniquely the result of some kind of left-wing conspiracy is pretty easily dispelled from a short browse of any Daily Mail comments section, however. I’d say there’s at least as much unthinking, uncritical “patriotism” as there is “people actively dislik[ing] their own country”.

    I would just welcome a finding that his ancestors were slavers because it would publicly discredit the cunt and perhaps shut him up for a bit.

    Ah, so it’s just about silencing someone you disagree with. I appreciate the most honest answer so far.

  38. Bloke on A720,

    No, I’m not claiming that the increase in stupid arse-holes is the result of a conscious conspiracy. There is nobody coordinating or planning; it just happened, and there are some who applaud it happening. Nor is the undoubted existence of unthinking uncritical patriotism in any sense incompatible with the increase in the proportion of arse-holes. We just have enough arse-holes – as I said earlier – to occasionally throw up verdicts like this. My guess is that most of the time, the Daily Mailers, or those who are more rational, would be on the jury in sufficient numbers as to prevent it.

    Thanks for praising my honesty. Silencing Olusoga would indeed be welcome, and is largely (since Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, anyway) what politics is about. But not, of course, at any cost. And silencing him is far inferior to allowing him a voice, which is then rejected and reviled by the public at large. A genocidal slaver as a gran’pappy would do that nicely; but as Nigeria does not strike me as a country where meticulous record-keeping and truthfulness have much of a part to play, I don’t hold out much hope.

  39. “Silencing someone you disagree with”

    That is your own rationale which you have managed to twist other peoples comments to support.

    Absolutely do not silence this billionth rate, hate filled grifter. Just get him in front of a camera, stroke his galaxy sized ego a bit and then ask a few actual questions.

    Then watch his carefully crafted “academic sophistication” vapourise in a planck time.

    Just think Lammy on mastermind

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *