What a truly massive surprise this is

So there\’s a new report on modern slavery:

The major study by the Centre for Social Justice, which will be published on Monday,

The first and major proposal of which is:

The post of anti-slavery commissioner should be established to develop independent monitoring and reporting on the UK\’s response to the issue.

And we all know who the first anti-slavery ommissioner will be, don\’t we? Yes, of course, one of the lovely people at the CSJ who are clearly the only people who know what to do about this problem. And all the other people staffing the office will be from the CSJ as well.

In which manner they get to move from NGO status, depending upon donors, into nice cushy bureaucratic sinecures with gongs and gold plated pensions at the end of it.

I\’d actually be a lot more amenable to this sort of activism if we had a rule that absolutely no one at all who proposes new bureaucracies is ever allowed to join any bureaucracy at all. You advocate that there should be some new civil service department or statutory body and you are not allowed, ever, to be part of the civil service or any statutory body. Nor your wives, children, mistresses nor toy boys, for ever and ever.

Yes, of course, grossly unfair and not actually possible: but I do think we\’d have rather fewer new sinecures being suggested if those proposing them could never benefit from them.

25 thoughts on “What a truly massive surprise this is”

  1. So Much for Subtlety

    We managed to abolish slavery itself without an Anti-Slavery Commission. Yet we need one now to prevent men from meeting girls from Eastern Europe and engage in mutually consentual sexual activities?

    Well yes, I suppose so, given how much harder the latter task is compared to the former. But perhaps we ought to be asking if this is a battle we want to fight at all?

  2. Well, I keep saying we’re in Victorian Era II. This is the old White Slavery Panic, rebranded, with the “nice country girls sold into city brothels” replaced with foreign girls.

    Like I said, doesn’t matter if the Jews really drink the blood of infants, so long as you can create a general impression in the populace that they do.

  3. Whenever I heard the words “social justice” I want to reach for a gun. And “Centre for Social Justice”? It’s like they’re not even trying to hide the Gramscianism anymore.

  4. Is this another of Cherie’s little pet projects on initiated on the sly?

    ‘Centre for social justice’ – if they want social justice then they should campaign to end all equality laws, and the race discrimination act.
    Slavery, just raid the houses – look in the Arab quarter in London, or in the homes of the Islington, Hampstead Heath, Notting Hill cognoscenti, or just about any domicile in Britain where arranged marriages are the rule.

  5. a quick shufty round their website reveals that this is amazingly not the usual left wing circle jerk that I was expecting – yes, the CSJ has Blunkett and Batmangelidj on the board but it’s run by a couple of former Tory advisers and has a wedge of Tories on the board. Gone native at the public teat, obviously

  6. “The major study by the Centre for Social Justice, which will be published on Monday, says that political indifference and ignorance alongside a leadership vacuum in Whitehall has meant that the country that led the way in abolishing slavery in the 19th century is now a “shameful shadow” of its former self as the practice makes a comeback in a contemporary guise.”

    The slave trade was a 100% legal trade. People were treated as property. You could rape or kill a slave, openly brag about it if you wanted, and there was nothing that the law would do about it.

    To try and connect that with the police perhaps not spotting slavery going on (much of which is impossible as they are illegal immigrants, and so invisible) is nuts.

    Of course, one answer that I doubt they’ll suggest is legalising brothels, which would make sex slavery much easier to spot.

  7. I doubt that a bien pensant sociologist is the right candidate.
    Comrades, we should be choosing between an Emir, a dictator, a Lithuanian prostitute and an African chambermaid.
    Cast your votes!

  8. I have to wonder if the slavery issue in Britain is as big as those with a stake in the issue say it is.

    You’d think it would be relatively easy to prosecute. You’d think there would be (indeed there are) occasional media stories about it. But is the iceberg that big?

    Don’t recall seeing actual factual (not estimated) figures that were very high. So far underground as to be undetectable? Or simply not the size of the problem those with the vested interest estimate it to be?

  9. It is quite possible that the alimony business is feeling the pinch. Men are getting logical.
    Renting a cow rather thn paying for it forever.
    And . maybe, getting no milk.

  10. John Malpas, you’re an unpleasant tool who I suspect has very little luck with the ladies. Very small cock, probably.

  11. So Much for Subtlety

    Tim Almond – “You could rape or kill a slave, openly brag about it if you wanted, and there was nothing that the law would do about it.”

    I am not sure that is true. It would depend on where you were. But in many Common Law jurisdictions, you could chastise a slave to death – as you could in Britain with your own apprentice – but you could not callously murder one without the law taking a view of it. Rape is even harder given there would be so little evidence. Coercion is harder still. Yet many places had laws against adultery and anyone who bragged about violating them would find, I would guess, themselves facing a whole range of sanctions from a small legal threat to a very large social threat indeed.

    11 Interested – “John Malpas, you

  12. I thought the Saxons had abolished slavery in England in *the last millennium but one*
    I don’t know which country Tim Almond lives in.

  13. So Much for Subtlety

    Interested – “John Malpas, you-re an unpleasant tool who I suspect has very little luck with the ladies. Very small cock, probably.”

    Second attempt.

    Look, the biggest social change since 1945 has been the collapse of marriage. Which is an on-going process with no signs of stopping. If someone wants to discuss why that is, I think they ought to be encouraged to do so. Even if their language is somewhat crass. And he is probably right as the main causes do seem to be laughably unjust divorce laws and the fact that you no longer have to be married to have sex. Why the judgemental language?

    13 john77 – “I thought the Saxons had abolished slavery in England in *the last millennium but one*”

    Strange that the British Courts had to revisit it with the Sommersett case then.

  14. SMFS>

    I’d argue that marriage has not ‘collapsed’, but rather has never been stronger. People are increasingly realising they don’t need government or church sanction for their relationship. For whatever particularly rigid definition of marriage you’d like to pick, perhaps your point is true. In reality-land, though, people are still shacking up together for life, just as they always have.

  15. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “I-d argue that marriage has not ‘collapsed’, but rather has never been stronger. People are increasingly realising they don-t need government or church sanction for their relationship. For whatever particularly rigid definition of marriage you’d like to pick, perhaps your point is true. In reality-land, though, people are still shacking up together for life, just as they always have.”

    I am always impressed by a willful refusal to look reality in the eye. But perhaps that is a little too rude. By all means Dave, tell us why you think people are still shacking up together for life? Given, you know, they aren-t. Roughly a quarter of British children now grow up with just one parent – almost always their mother. Are you saying that this was so in the 1950s? Half of all British married couples – and married couples are more likely to remain together than unmarried ones – divorce by the time their children hit 16. How does that possibly correlate with people still shacking up together for life? I am sure some people are still doing it. Just not most of them. Not even a majority by the looks of it.

    And they may not need Church or government sanction. But their children sure as hell do. We are headed for African-American levels of social deprivation. But keep whistling past the grave yard. Maybe if we all pretend it-s not happening, it won-t.

  16. @Dave “people are still shacking up together for life, just as they always have.”

    Completely and utterly at odds with reality, but otherwise correct.

  17. @ #14 SMFS
    The Somersett case involved someone who was legally a slave in America and the counsel quoted from a decision in Elizabethan times concerning someone who had purchased a slave in Russia “England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in.”
    In the Somersett case Lord Mansfield stated there was no provision in English Law that permitted slavery. Not that Magna Carta had abolished it but that it did not exist. Hence abolition pre-dated the unification of England in 927. Simples!

  18. So Much for Subtlety

    john77 – “In the Somersett case Lord Mansfield stated there was no provision in English Law that permitted slavery.”

    Creative law making at its most blatant. Although obviously not for a bad purpose. They had to state that slavery did not exist because up to that point everyone thought it existed. There was very little provision in American law that made some people slaves either. Just as there was very little provision that made the air free. Some things people just accepted as a fact of nature.

    The Somersett case does actually abolish slavery. People had been bringing their slaves in and out of Britain before this – and I bet law cases arose. A little creative legal fiction doesn’t change that.

  19. I wrote a beatiful, nuanced, witty argument, and the blog software deleted it. Can’t be arsed to write it again.

  20. It went – adumbrated – “fewer people are getting and staying married, but given how easy it is not to bother, or to get divorced, people stay together because they actually like each other and this is a good thing.”

  21. Pingback: is Theresa may dumb | Kevin Burctoolla's gaming world

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *