After a quick skim, it's obvious that the first several historiographical points are badly misunderstood, misrepresented, or flat-out wrong. I'm afraid that I don't have time for a thorough rebuttle at the moment, but this book looks like a piece of crap.

Two quick examples: first is the slave trade. The author claims that Britain is "blamed" for it, but then pivots to say that other Europeans and especially those damned Muslims traded slaves too, and also The Royal Navy tried to end slavery. This is a matter of making political points about the legacies of slavery today, not a matter of the author actually engaging with evidence and interpretations. And, if we're dealing with legacies of slavery today, then it doesn't much matter if Muslims or Portuguese people also traded slaves, nor that the Royal Navy began attempting to supress the slave trade after 1807. The legacies of slavery and racism--well after 1807 or 1833--remain the results of actions taken by the British state and British people.

Second is the part where the author tries to rebut the "Engels-Thompson" interpretation. Let's note that it's always a bad sign when a historian sets up their opponents as a contemporary of the event under discussion and a now-dead historian whose main book on the subject is over fifty years old. The author then trots out a bunch of economic history arguments from the 1980s which have been basically demolished by anthropometric research. For example, the author basically wants to make the argument that industrialization wasn't so bad for the English working class. We know from the work of Floud et al. and more recently Komlos that the bodies of British people shrank in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, from the combined effects of exploitative labor, extreme poverty, filth and disease. He simply ignores this research, trotting out the consensus arrived at in the 1980s--before the generation of anthropometric studies showed it to be completely wrong.

I didn't get to the part about the Irish famine, but I'd bet money that it's the pop-history equivalent of clickbait. This book is trash.