You can dislike the British Empire. What you cannot seriously do is reduce centuries of world history to “looting, pillaging and stealing” and pretend you have made an historical argument. Of course the Empire involved conquest, coercion, exploitation and abuses. Nobody with any knowledge of the subject needs to deny that. But it also built enormous transport, communications and administrative networks, spread institutions and legal traditions across much of the world, helped make English a global language, and connected territories into an international commercial system whose consequences are still visible today. Britain was also heavily involved in the slave trade before becoming the state that abolished its own Atlantic trade in 1807 and subsequently committed considerable naval resources to suppressing that trade internationally. That is precisely why serious history is difficult: the same civilisation can contain exploitation and achievement, injustice and reform, conquest and institution-building. The modern world was not created by saints. It was created by complicated civilisations, and the British Empire was one of the most consequential of them. So no, Britain does not have “no history, only crimes.” That sentence tells me far more about the limitations of your understanding of history than it does about British history. If your entire understanding of the largest empire in modern history can be condensed into three words “looting, pillaging and stealing” you are not exposing the Empire. You are exposing the limits of your own historical knowledge.