In this Special Episode of the Sceptic, Laurie speaks to Dr Mario Trabucco della Toretta, classical archaeologist and writer.
Laurie and Mario discuss the British Museum and why it’s the best in the world, its magnificent collection and where it came from, why the ‘decolonise’ lobby is so wrong to claim it’s all ‘looted’, the truth about the Elgin Marbles, why the arguments for repatriating them don’t stack up, what’s behind the anti-Westernism of the ‘decolonisers’ and how we can fight back.
NOTE: Premium subscribers will notice that this is an extract from the premium section of Episode 34. We’re sorry that there is no new episode today. This is due to circumstances beyond our control. The Sceptic will return next week as usual.
Donate to the Daily Sceptic to access our premium content. Follow Laurie on X. Follow Mario on X. Subscribe to the Daily Sceptic YouTube Channel. Produced by Richard Eldred. Filmed at the Westminster Podcast Studio.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Starmer=Turd. Too busy with Hizbut-Tahrir to attend to the Rotherham grooming gangs.
The grooming what???? Never heard of them mate ——–wink
Tories looked and still look the other way on grooming gangs. Both parties are disgusting turds.
Yes Smudger I don’t disagree, but Starmer was DPP from 2008.to 2013. Swerving prosecuting Savile along the way too.. Double turd!
Like most of the Westminster mob Kneel is a serious threat to this country.
Lawyer represents someone in court case doesn’t speak anything about anybody’s world view. It’s the job of lawyers to represent people in court and – that’s this pesky rule of law thing again some Tories apparently really cannot stand – even an organization some government official believes to be terrorist has a right to go to the courts over this.
Kneel is a politician. He had no business promoting a terrorist organisation.
2008 was seven years before Starmer was elected to parliament. And representing someone challenging a government decision in court doesn’t amount to promoting what the entity challenging the decision has been accused of. Otherwise, defense lawyers in homicide case could rightfully be accused of promoting murder.
I agree with you on the technicalities of this matter, RW.
But no-one is obliged to get involved with cases, let alone such a case. Starmer’s involvement here is a bit (!) of a red flag which deserves proper investigation, because, believe it or not, Starmer is a human and he can have agendas (!) – AND he may well soon be the UK’s Prime Minister – we need to understand the man and try to make his true character known. Not necessary for most of us here, but the majority of the population needs this insight so we should try to push for exposure (however in vain that effort likely is).
I think that’s clearly a case of Tories with a seriously dubious atttiude (cf rule of law) desparately trying to dig up Antisemism!-dirt about Starmer but being incapable of finding any. As lawyer, he’s absolutely entitled to work for anyone who wants the services of a lawyer. No story here.
British politicians should also have more important qualities than being suspected of a less-than-enthusiastic attitude towards Israeli right wingers. Israel a foreign country and said right winger don’t even have universal support among their own people (Corbyn used to have quite vocal support among certain Jewish factions).
Anyone paying attention has a very good understanding of Starmer’s character.
His father was a toolmaker, don’cha know. He certainly made one tool.
Correct.——–The “he was a lawyer defending his client” excuse is feeble.
Especially as he wasn’t even a lawyer defending a client. He was involved with submitting an application on behalf of someone to the ECHR, ie, involved with filing all the necessary paperwork. Ultimatively, this application got rejected which means there was never a court case about the issue.
The interesting question here is Why do certain Tories believe character assassination via pisspoor guilt by association offense archeology is their best move against Labour in the upcoming election? and the obvious answer is Because there are no contested political issues. Both wings of the uniparty are in broad agreement about future political directions for the country, net-EDI-zero-globalized-trans-pandemicity, and the only question is who gets to be in the driving seat for that.
Does this really matter?
Yep——–The political class of mostly parasites pandering to globalist agenda’s rather than to the people who vote for them. They are traitors imposing Liberal Progressive One World Government ideology on their own people because they long ago stopped working for and serving us. ——Or as Starmer admitted “I prefer Davos to Westminster”. —The general public are simply a nuisance to these people
You are factually correct but I would watch that piece of cake your eating. I think it may be bit tainted.———– But then again it’s all down to personal taste isn’t it?
?
I have absolutely no political or other sympathies for Starmer. That was, after all, the guy who enabled the Johnson government to pass some of its more extreme COVID policies, eg, vaccine passports, despite large parts of the Tories-in-parliament were opposed to that. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m thinking highly of the manouevres of his political opponents.
Very interesting insight into multicultural life in Britain, from the perspective of this British ex-Muslim;
”Multiculturalism, if it isn’t already obvious, is an unmitigated disaster. It is a failed experiment. The entire experiment is a treacherous crime against the native population of Britain (i.e. English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people) and from the looks of it, it will most likely just get worse. It would take a miracle for Britain to recover from this treachery and reverse the disastrous effects of it. The question is, will such a miracle actually happen, or is Britain doomed? Are all efforts to save it from its impending doom going to be in vain?
But what I find incredibly frustrating is when I see toxic, divisive race baiters like Sadiq Khan, Humza Yousaf, Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, Bushra Shaikh and Narinda Kaur. They’re all of a minority background and they constantly blame white people for society’s ills. The white man is the boogeyman in their twisted worldview. I am so sick and tired of having these clowns as my representatives because I don’t agree with them at all. They are the very racists that they falsely accuse native Brits of being. Bushra Shaikh is the most vile example that I named. I will grant that yes, they were probably on the receiving end of racism in school and whatnot, but that was decades ago. Things have changed tremendously since then. They need to grow up and accept that things have changed. At times, their grievances with being called the P word seem like an excuse to have some petty revenge against white people by being in favour of them being demographically replaced and erased. Sure, being called a racial slur is bad, but that’s nowhere near as bad as mass, uncontrolled, illegal migration and what it has done to Britain.
I find myself becoming increasingly worried about the ongoing Islamisation of Britain and the rise of anti-white racism. As a Pakistani ex-Muslim Christian, I wonder what my place is in all of this. What role am I going to play in all this? How am I, as a second generation migrant, going to help native Brits who have been so thoroughly abused by critical race theory, two tier policing and uncontrolled, illegal mass migration?”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/12/multiculturalism-is-a-form-of-colonization-and-occupation
We are not a NATION anymore. ———–Just a region of the “International Community” where the hordes from every corner of the globe are to be dispersed.
Interesting that such a group would entertain the help of pro-Israel, pro-LGBTQ+ Keir Starmer. Such alliances are probably necessary for those looking to destroy Western countries or to further the goals of the Islamic group as well.
I can’t stand the man and his politics seem designed to harm me and my family, but wasn’t this just him doing his job?
By all means attack him, but for his views and what he is doing now, not for doing his job in a former life – though I wonder if he would have been quite so keen to represent a “far right” Christian group, for example…..
I don’t think a lawyer in a chambers can ‘choose’ what cases they take, so hopefully eliminating any personal bias.
Good point- certainly I knew one personally who had to accept what he was given
Have the Tories banned them in the UK? My understanding is that they have not, therefore is it not hypocritical of them to complain about Starmer’s actions?
It seems next year this beadie eyed parasite is our next PM. ———If we thought things could not get any worse then wait to see the barbarian hordes that labour bring here in the next 5 years. —You ain’t seen nuthin yet.
I wonder if he recommended any double-glazing to them. He’s not a good enough salesman for much, so maybe they didn’t buy.
He’s a lawyer, and worse than that, a Human Rights Lawyer. He’ll represent anyone who pays him enough to do it.
So he represented a client, so doing what a lawyer is supposed to do, regardless of who they are, which is the very essence of British justice. I wouldn’t change that for a minute.