A Queen question for our British cousins. (actually everyone, but them, mostly)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Weren't more criminals transported to the American colonies (excluding Canada) than Australia?

I thought that the principal reason to colonise Australia was to find an alternative dumping ground.

In a mild defence of transportation: it was promoted by the judiciary as they were unhappy at being expected to condemn less serious criminals. A similar reason the judiciary promoting the idea of an age of criminal responsibility so that they didn't have to condemn or imprison children. It was the judges, not the MPs, who thought the existing law unjust and unreasonable.
 
Used to be a truckstop up in Conneticut named the Mayflower. Had a motel, resturaunt, bar close by, anyways Me and this other mover friend found ourselves without a challenge after killing off a case of beer and a bottle of who-hit-john, had to have a contest to see who could put the most stuff in a small space.
We got the entire contents of two motel rooms into one bathroom.
Couldn't get any of it back out the next morning.
Next time I went through there, a sign had been put up,
read, "No Dogs Or Movers Allowed".
Can't help but wonder if ....
 
".... It's a shame that the Mayflower steps never existed when the 'Pilgrim Fathers' (as the religious bigots are know known) set sail ..."

OK. Don't know where that comes from, but would you have preferred Huguenots ...?
 
Ah tea. When the american tea smugglers were **** off that the governor undercut their criminal activities by removing the tax on tea they boarded a legitimate importing vessel and threw their hard earned tea into the harbour to keep the local prices up. They should have been happy that they paid negligible taxes and didn't have to pay for their own defence. Still they are much better off now......?
 
Interesting take on the events in Boston, I suppose that the line between criminal and patriot can get blurred.
It is also easy to sit here today 200+ years later and think all the conspiricy revisionist things one wants.
Doesn't change my views on those brave, red-blooded, tax-hating, dress-up loving guys that made it possible for me to enjoy my second cup of coffee this fine morning!
 
Last edited:
Not tax hating. It was a refusal to pay an imposed tax to which the colonists had not consented. This is not the same thing. In a democracy an elected government may impose taxes that we may not like but to which,in electing that government,we have tacitly consented. If you don't like those taxes and can get enough others to agree with you,then you can vote that government out and elect one more to your taste! This was not an option for the colonists who were having taxes imposed on them from London.
This was one of the causes of the so called English civil war (actually far more complicated than that). Infact many of the English parliament's 17th century grievances against Charles I bear a striking resemblance to those of the American colonies against the crown a hundred and twenty odd years later.
Cheers
Steve
 

Neither criminal or patriots really ML..the whole 'Tea' issue was a cunning way of letting you new Americans 'win' so you lot thought that you had bettered blighty whereas in actual fact we let you go...
We tried a similar trick with the Canadians but, they insisted on staying Royal and with us.
John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

10.000 dollar... but rules..
Replies
2
Views
613
SaparotRob
For those who celebrate today --
Replies
0
Views
228
Thumpalumpacus
Googlemaps for the Roman Empire
Replies
12
Views
750
SaparotRob
Where is our Pirate? The master of Plastic
2 3
Replies
44
Views
7K
N4521U
23 Things veterans carry with them
Replies
8
Views
2K
Frog
F
Menu
Log in
Register