All of which has got what to do with when, what is now commonly referred to as, a "full English breakfast" was eaten?
As far as belonging to political parties goes, I'll leave that to ideologues such as yourselves. I have never been a member of a political party in my life and I do not believe I ever shall as I have never seen the need or advantage of being one. As for the recent crop of "professional politicians" I have scant respect for any of them, none of them have lived in the real world and they have never done an honest days work in their lives - they like you Shaw got paid attendance money totally divorced from actual effectiveness, or performance.
What Carroll seems to be permanently on the look out for is "pay-back" - in so doing he is onto a hiding to nothing - it does not exist and any attempt at it is doomed to failure as no "apology" for past deeds is ever accepted or deemed adequate. The following list:
" hanging drawing and quatering, burninbg at the stake, witch drowning , the branque, the thumbscrew..... and every barbaric practice of Britain's past neatly off the hook"
In what way let "off the hook"? Who is doing that? All I am saying is that they happened, at the time they occurred they were accepted as normal, legal punishments. None of them can be "undone" and I believe that these punishments were not restricted to Britain, "the branque", whatever that is, doesn't really sound all that British to me. Through the course of the history of the world I do not believe that barbaric practices were the sole domain of Britain - this I acknowledge, is a view far different from the ill-informed Anglophobe Carroll's.
"To defend these conditions because they were "of their time" is "absolutely idiotic and totally pointless."
Who is defending anything? Merely stating what was normal and accepted in times past. If you think I have "supported" anything, or "defended" anything on this thread then please provide a complete quotation of me doing so. If not, then please do not hold me accountable for things I have not done.
"You seek to present a rosy picture of rural life where everybody is fed and treated fairly"
Where? People obviously were fed, or they would have died out en-masse. You get no work out of starving people, therefore common sense and logic tell you that it would not be in the best self-interest of any farmer or land owner to starve those working for them. Would you care to tell me where and when I even mentioned "treatment" fair or otherwise? Tell me what was "fair treatment" in the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th & 20th centuries? Who gets to decide what "treatment" is fair and for whom? It clearly cannot be people from the future. So you look at the changes and what improvements and advances come with the passing of time, and I think we can all agree that in 2017 in any land you are far better off than you would have been living in 1317, 1417, etc, etc.
The practice of "enforced labour" is returning? Where? Are you saying that in the past those taken on a Hiring Fairs were subjected to "enforced labour"? They had a choice they either worked or they starved, that was the norm for the times they lived in. They went to the "Hiring Fair" actively seeking employment - nothing enforced about it. It provided the only opportunity open to those seeking a permanent position to get one.
"Burns, by the way, was a radical who spent his life opposing these conditions"
Don't know where you got that from. Burns commented on the events of his time and on the people he came across both good and bad. He applauded the aspirations of the French Revolution but abhorred the violence and hardship it inflicted on the French people.
"His own family were victims of land seizure when they were forced from their homes and their goods sold by 'roup'
Burns was a tenant farmer. What land of his, or his family was seized? The answer is of course none. Burns while he may have been a wonderful poet, a gifted and witty man, was also a very poor (As in incompetent) farmer. His attempts to make a living as a farmer consistently failed to the extent that in 18th century Scotland he could neither pay his rent to the landowner, or what he owed to his creditors. Burns and his family were not subject to land seizure they were subject to eviction. He was such a radical that he finally gained employment as a Customs Officer, who shortly after the outbreak of the French Revolutionary became a Officer in the Dumfries Militia (Great shame he did that, because it was through worry over a Taylor's bill for his uniform that he fell ill and died).
You didn't bother to read "Address to Beelzebub" did you?