Stop modern slavery

I am surprised several contributors here have  complained at Mrs Mays determination  to end modern slavery. I think it is an important priority and one I support wholeheartedly.

We hear that too many people are brought into the UK illegally by people traffickers. Too many are employed for wages below the legal minimum. Too many are made to work in unsafe or demeaning activities. Too  many are locked into high rents for cramped or unsuitable accommodation. Indeed one in such conditions would be one too many.

Surely it is a central task of government to stop illegal entry into the UK? It is also important to stop or prosecute landlords who break rules over numbers of people in a property, fail to connect a property to proper utility services, who break planning laws or otherwise take rent off people without providing decent and legal accommodation.

It is important to stop or prosecute employers who violate health and safety standards deliberately, who employ illegal migrants knowingly, who fail to pay the minimum wage, or who coerce employees with penal service and rent contracts as a mandatory part of their employment.

All these practises are bad for the people trafficked, and bad for our society receiving them. We read that there  are too many people living in sheds or sleeping in shifts in small properties with far too many sharing, working in coercive work forces for very little, without legal papers to be here at all. It is the government’s job to find them if this is true and take action to prevent more  coming here in modern slavery.

This trade in people is a scourge of the modern world. I am glad the government wants to take a leading role in closing down these profiteers from misery. We don’t want them or their activities in the UK.


  1. Sean
    August 1, 2016

    I agree with you 100℅ but if politicians continue the soft approach this isn’t going to stop trafficking or people sneaking into the UK.

    We have to be tough, throw away the Liberal rule book. Stop wrapping criminals up in cotton wool, fight back hard and they will stop!

    Nothing will change, just more scratching heads and talk.

    1. Jerry
      August 1, 2016

      @Sean; “Stop wrapping criminals up in cotton wool, fight back hard and they will stop!”

      One would think so, but no criminal commits a crime thinking they are going to get caught, and the more remote these people are to the crime the less likely they are to even consider the possibility.

      Also a lot of this slavery, once discovered, is very much below the radar because those being enslaved are illegal migrants, whose last wish is to complain and thus highlight the fact that they are themselves committing a crime by being here in the UK illegally.

      1. Anonymous
        August 1, 2016

        “Also a lot of this slavery, once discovered, is very much below the radar because those being enslaved are illegal migrants, whose last wish is to complain and thus highlight the fact that they are themselves committing a crime by being here in the UK illegally.”

        Then they are not slaves but criminals.

        Such people can be liberated from ‘slavery’ (in fact they can liberate themselves, as you say) but then they must be deported afterwards. Otherwise we have no border control at all.

        A person who recieves pay and who can walk away from the arrangement is NOT a slave.

        Can we please stop using the word.

        1. Jerry
          August 2, 2016

          @Anonymous; “Then they [illegal migrants] are not slaves but criminals.”

          Only if they knew what they are doing was illegal, otherwise they are victims, first of being trafficked, perhaps defrauded and then of being enslaved.

          “A person who recieves pay and who can walk away from the arrangement is NOT a slave.”

          But do these people know they can ‘walk away’, if they have been brain-washed into thinking they can’t then they are enslaved.

        2. APL
          August 3, 2016

          Anon: “A person who recieves pay and who can walk away from the arrangement is NOT a slave.”

          Thank you.

          And no thanks, to JR for using such inflated terminology.

      2. zorro
        August 1, 2016

        ‘but no criminal commits a crime thinking they are going to get caught, and the more remote these people are to the crime the less likely they are to even consider the possibility..’

        Jerry, I can assure that the opposite is true, and particularly so in the case of people traffickers. In fact, they prepare very carefully to avoid being compromised or caught because they know what the penalties are. They take a calculated risk knowing the forces of detection are not strong….


        1. Jerry
          August 2, 2016

          @Zorro; “they prepare very carefully to avoid being compromised or caught because they know what the penalties are.”

          Exactly, if these criminals ever thought they would get caught they would (probably) not do the crime, which is what I said..!

          Knowing what the penalty is, for the crime, is not the same as thinking one might be caught. In those countries that still have the death sentence for murder and drugs crimes, and you can’t get any more of a hard sentencing regime than that, yet people still commit such crimes in those countries.

      3. Lifelogic
        August 1, 2016

        Clearly deterrents will not always deter all criminals, but the system we have with virtually no deterrents at all and a very poor rate of apprehending culprits just encourages more & more crime. The police do not even bother to investigate many quite serious crimes. They have certain fashionable crimes they like addressing and other they do little about at all. Violent criminals many of whom we know have a very high risk of re-offending are endlessly released to do exactly that, often while still on remand. Providing more victims and bodies for the police to “investigate”.

        A particular favourite of the police in my experience is to label things as a mental health issue and dump the issue on other arms of government, who very often do almost nothing (perhaps adjust the drugs that they may well not take anyway) until someone is stabbed or murdered. About two a week are killed.

  2. Nig l
    August 1, 2016

    I agree whole heartedly. It is a curse and should be eradicated. If Mrs May had done her job properly as Home Secretary presumably she wouldn’t be having to announce this initiative now? Isn’t politics wonderful? You can ‘fail’ at something, still get promoted then claim credit for putting that failing , right!

    Of more concern is how many potential terrorists have slipped through the net.

    1. Lifelogic
      August 1, 2016

      Or were here already.

  3. Mark B
    August 1, 2016

    The USA brought in Prohibition Laws against alcohol. This was designed to end alcoholic consumption and tackle other issues related and surrounding the production, transportation, ownership, sale and misuse. It was between 1920 – 1933 and it did nothing to solve those problems. In fact, it created a whole wrath of other problems, notably, gangsterism / organised crime.

    Why am I make this point in relation to today’s article ? Because no matter how well meaning a government wish to be, unless it actually tries to both understand and tackle to root cause of a problem it can, in many cases, cause more trouble.

    Do not get me wrong, people trafficking is evil but, these people would not be trafficked if there was no market in which their lives could be exploited.

    Our kind host made a very important admission. He mentioned the ‘minimum wage’. By what right does a government set the market price for labour that an employer has to pay ? Our elected representatives do not seem to understand supply and demand and, that one man’s wage increase is another man’s price increase. So naturally, as employers of all shapes and sizes have to factor in the costs of higher wages, they will seek to make savings elsewhere. As Lady Thatcher once famously said to Harold Wilson at PMQ exchange; “You cannot buck the market !”

    Allowing people to come here on temporary work permits from poorer countries, working in jobs which have historically been low pay and taking all their earnings back home with them would, in my belief, help to slow down one area of people trafficking and exploitation. There are are others of course and we could go on for pages and pages.

    Lastly. Can I commend our kind host on raising this topic for discussion, and kindly ask him to offer more opposites for us to comment and discuss this in the future ?

    1. Lifelogic
      August 1, 2016

      Indeed the national minimum wage is just a law preventing the low paid from working whether they want to or not. What does government know about the finances & conditions of companies they have never even visited? Most in government cannot even get their expenses right or run a whelk stall.

      As you say the road to hell is paved with good intent.

      1. graham1946
        August 1, 2016

        Its a question of decency. If a business cannot pay a minimum wage it has no business being in business, its a waste of time.

        Can anyone tell me the benefit of working full time and taking home less money than is needed to pay one’s bills and live decently? Any company making sustained losses in general (which is what such employees are doing) would be rightly wound up. Paying low wages mean the taxpayer picks up the bill and subsidises the unprofitable or the greedy. All fine and dandy to quote supply and demand when one is not in such a position.

        1. Lifelogic
          August 2, 2016

          The law prevents someone who wants to work from working by law unless he can command a high enough salary. If he or she want to work for a low salary what is the point of the state saying they cannot and then paying for them fully from taxes.

          The real protection for workers is not the law it is lots of good available jobs. Red tape kills jobs and exports them.

      2. Liz
        August 1, 2016

        If there was to be no minimum wage then there should be no controls on building houses – planning etc. either and go back to the time when people just built a house for themselves where and how they liked. Housing is getting so expensive in England now that not even people on the average wage can afford to house themselves – hence all these people living with parents until they are in the mid 30s and indirectly people living in sheds, coal holes and unenforced illegal multi occupation which has been going on for many years. If you abolish controls in one area then you distort it in others.

        1. Lifelogic
          August 2, 2016

          Planning and building controls should Indeed be relaxed.

    2. Antisthenes
      August 1, 2016

      I have no need to comment on this article because if I did I would only be mostly repeating what you have already written and probably done it more eloquently and articulated it far better that I can.

    3. Jerry
      August 1, 2016

      @Mark B; “By what right does a government set the market price for labour that an employer has to pay ?”

      The same right as they have to make any law!

      ” Our elected representatives do not seem to understand supply and demand and, that one man’s wage increase is another man’s price increase.”

      That doesn’t follow, after all (unless there is a cartel) the market will always decide what the factory gate price is, thus what the NMW does is reduce the profits – profits that have tended to be paid out in bonuses to the few rather than th4e many who are actually creating the wealth. Go on, call me a “Socialist” if you wish but the truth is the truth whether it pricks your balloon or not.

      1. Antisthenes
        August 1, 2016

        I suggest you read the book “Economics for idiots” before making such asinine comments.

        Governments have the right to make laws with the consent of the people. Laws that are designed to protect them against harm not the other way round that people like you; socialists, progressives, crony capitalists, vested interests and the intellectually challenged force them to enact.

        Markets do react to increased costs and min wages effects that. It increases costs puts up prices and therefore employers sells less goods and services so low paid workers are laid off. Knocking those who are wealthy and get paid better is just envy and serves no purpose. We need the rich to stay rich so that they can use their skills and expertise to make more wealth. It is they who have given us the standard of living that we enjoy today.

        Through globalisation and other countries employing capitalism that the poor outside of the West are seeing their living standards gradually rising and them being taken out of the subsistence level. Those who cling to socialist ideas are the ones who are not prospering. Just look at Cuba, Venezuela and the like. I think I need say no more.

        1. Jerry
          August 2, 2016

          @Antisthenes; “I suggest you read the book “Economics for idiots” before making such asinine comments.”

          Economic theory also said that the 2007-8 banking crash could not happen either! Also theories come and go.

          The real world said different though, I suggest that you start living in the real world rather one of academia…

          1. Edward2
            August 2, 2016

            Economic theory did not say that.
            A few economists correctly predicted the crash and perhaps you might find out who they are Jerry and listen to them more as I do.

          2. APL
            August 3, 2016

            Jerry: “Economic theory also said that the 2007-8 banking crash could not happen ”

            Taking you at your word, someone who couldn’t possibly tell that the ’07/’08 crash was going to happen, also said that it couldn’t happen. Of which I’m dubious.

            I’d correct you here; an economic theory, there is after all, more than one.

            And anyway, you can always predict that something is likely to happen, it’s a lot more tricky to say when that thing is likely to happen.

      2. libertarian
        August 1, 2016


        No not a socialist necessarily, ignorant yes, but not a socialist .

        Profits are what is left AFTER costs, wages, bonuses, owners dividends etc have been paid out. One of the biggest failures of NMW was that it set a bench mark against which jobs that would have demanded a slightly higher rate in an open market were reduced to the NMW, thats why the government had to significantly up it with a living wage. Of course none of this actually comes out of profits as with all taxes and overheads added by government it just ends up on price so no one is actually any better off.

        1. Jerry
          August 2, 2016

          @libertarian; Never hear the expressions “pre tax profit” and post “tax profit”, the word profit is a measure that can be made at any point in the cycle.

      3. Mark B
        August 1, 2016

        When you have a market of price controls, you end up with something like the Soviet Union. Sorry, ex-Soviet Union.

        1. Jerry
          August 2, 2016

          @Mark B; No, what we end up with is something called “Society”…

          1. Edward2
            August 2, 2016

            But not a successful and thriving society.

          2. Jerry
            August 3, 2016

            @Edward2; What utter nonsense on stilts!

    4. Anonymous
      August 1, 2016

      “Allowing people to come here on temporary work permits from poorer countries, working in jobs which have historically been low pay and taking all their earnings back home with them would, in my belief, help to slow down one area of people trafficking and exploitation. There are are others of course and we could go on for pages and pages.”

      Sorry. Not while we have 2m unemployed and many on sickness benefit. Get tough on welfare before we even go there.

      Otherwise you are skewing the market against British workers by artificial means and using taxpayer funded subsidies to do it.

      1. alan jutson
        August 1, 2016



        Sending all their wages back home is not helping our economy either.

        Money needs to circulate within the UK for all of us to benefit.

        If money does not circulate within the UK, less people are employed providing services and goods, and less tax is taken on those transactions.

      2. a-tracy
        August 1, 2016

        Why hasn’t it been stopped already if Mrs May knew it was going on, I saw Channel 4 documentaries about this years ago, just get on with it.

        If you can’t pay over £23,000 gross many of the unemployed can’t afford to come off benefits its as simple as that really. With housing benefit, council tax paid, uniforms paid for and a whole host of other ADHD benefits etc many people would be mad to work especially in areas where housing costs are so high.

        When we see tv programs slamming cuts I really wish the interviewer would ask the person how much they receive including rent/housing payments, council tax payment and all other receipts so that we can assess if benefits are so poor compared with the average full time workers net incomes after housing costs, council tax, car/mobility or anything else that is funded by the state.

      3. Ken Moore
        August 1, 2016

        Indeed I object to Mrs May’s priorities and her constant leaning towards the politically correct. She is trying o fix a problem caused by her own governments failed policies that discourage native Britains from working while subsiding the rest of the world to come here.

        She should be looking at why thousands of unemployed people receive ‘beer money’ to keep them quiet as their jobs are taken by unskilled economic migrants that are ripe for exploitation.

        Or Mrs May could have said she wished to review the benefit system to bring it more into line with the less generous systems offered by France and Germany.

      4. Tad Davison
        August 1, 2016


        The genuinely sick have mostly paid into the system and deserve the help they receive, but I take your point about the 2 million unemployed. Again, there are those who genuinely want to get a job and improve their lot in life, but we also see people out on the streets every day of the week who are able, yet have no intention of working and just keep on milking it because the system is inadequate and permits it.

        I saw a clip recently of a young unmarried woman in her thirties who had twelve children by different dads and wanted number thirteen because she was ‘addicted to having babies’. The fathers made absolutely no contribution to their child’s upbringing. The money she received in benefits allowed her to have a nice house, a nice car, cosmetic surgery, exotic foreign holidays, and countless other goodies paid for by the tax-payer.

        I wrote in another recent post about Britain needing a revolution. People like her would be top of my list, but to keep with the present topic, so would people traffickers.

        That these matters haven’t already been dealt with effectively leads me to the easy conclusion that the politicians have failed thus far, and we need radical reform.

        I am a great believer in deterrents, but they have to be significant and dreaded by wrong-doers for them to work. We simply cannot go along with this softy mentality any longer if we really want to eradicate criminality and exploitation of the state, and of vulnerable people.

        I really cannot be doing with gutless people who get paid a lot of money for failure.


      5. Mark B
        August 1, 2016

        Benefits do indeed need to be curtailed. But this must be a rolling process.

      6. forthurst
        August 1, 2016

        I see no particular reason why employers should be able to trade and make a profit contingent on cheap imported transient labour; I would suggest such employers set up in business where their cheap labour would have come from where, presumably, there is either no or a rudimentary system of welfare.

        Rules on supply and demand for labour are fine but they are incompatible with such concepts as in work benefits because there is no reason why taxpayers should subsidise labour costs for businesses.

    5. Anonymous
      August 1, 2016

      “Our kind host made a very important admission. He mentioned the ‘minimum wage’. By what right does a government set the market price for labour that an employer has to pay ?”

      Had they not done this our labour market would have gone into freefall by now.

      This country’s working class would look more like the third world workforce that it is being turned in to.

      Mass immigration of unskilled labour would have been seen to have taken full effect on the standard of living.

    6. acorn
      August 1, 2016

      There isn’t a market that can’t be bucked. Every market that has ever erupted, eventually has to be controlled and refereed by a government making laws to control the Spivs (subject to extensive lobbying of governments by the Spivs).

      The Bond markets, for instance, are price takers not price makers. The central bank for a sovereign currency, can always kill Bond vigilantes at will. FX markets can be killed stone dead by Treasury capital controls between currency areas. Neo-liberals don’t want the 99% and politicians, to know this, never mind understand it.

      The really useful bit of the minimum / living wage, is its ability to leach out low productivity firms / sectors, and basically kill them. This releases labour and capital to be more productively employed in firms that are not zombies, cluttering our numerous industrial estates that increasingly look like scrap metal yards.

  4. Lifelogic
    August 1, 2016

    Indeed but there are already laws in place and have been for a long time. She has also been the home secretary in charge of the police for several years. Now PM and having workers and customers on company board or dealing with “modern slavery” should certainly not be her main concerns. The police in general (after he long term in office) have the most absurd priorities in dealing with crimes. Mental health patients who have committed crimes and shown they are clearly a huge danger to the public are endlessly being returned to the community and go on to commit violent crimes. About two murders a week it seems.

    Mrs May needs to set a proper Conservative agenda. Lower simpler taxes, efficient but far smaller government, a bonfire of red tape, leadership on Brexit, a drive for cheaper electricity mainly from gas, far better nuclear projects than Hinkley C, new runways at Heathwick …….. Also the cancellation of HS2 and its replacement with general improvements to commuting capacity and simpler and quicker rail ticketing. Sorting out the appalling death causing mess that is the NHS, get more some houses built, making the UK more competitive so it does not run a huge trade deficit and a massive PSBR, getting some decent selective schools and better vocational training.

    Is she just another wet Libdem EUphile, in the Heath, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron mode or is she actually a conservative? She has done little to suggest the latter so far.

    A second class geography degree from St Hugh’s Oxford does not inspire confidence that she is logical or numerate. She has it seems never worked outside the state sector in a competitive environment either. We shall see I give her the benefit of the doubt but so far there is not sign she is really a proper Tory at all.

    Just saying meaningless things like “Brexit means Brexit” and comments about “modern slavery” will not wash.

    1. Lifelogic
      August 1, 2016

      Where for example does Mrs May stand on the bonkers climate change act, HS2, the new runways, grammar schools, Hinkley C, what Brexit means, the greencrap grants that litter the countryside with white elephant, bird exploding engineering and the absurd Osborne policy of centrally dictated wage levels that will prevent many people for working by law?

      Does she have any opinions on these issues or only opinions on “modern slavery”. Everyone is surely against modern slavery (other than perhaps a few slave users).

      Politicians have a habit of only saying thing that are so obviously true they are not really worth saying at all. Or the say things that are just plainly wrong or blatant lies. Such as when Osborne said he was “repaying the debt”, or Cameron said he was “a low tax conservative at heart” or remain people said “a treaty was not a treaty once ratified”.

      Where does Mrs May stand on the absurd levels of stamp duty and the new taxes effectively on tenants rents that Osborne introduced? We know nothing about where she stands other than on modern slavery and workers on boards. On the former we are all against modern or any other slavery and on the latter she is wrong it would be very damaging.

    2. fedupsoutherner
      August 1, 2016

      On a different topic but one that Lifelogic has mentioned above please read the latest offerings known as ‘Clexit’. Withdrawing from the climate change act in Europe. Worth a read if you fancy some common sense early in the morning!

      1. hefner
        August 3, 2016

        Yes, new sects keep springing up everywhere.

    3. Tad Davison
      August 1, 2016


      I’m inclined to agree. If however, Mrs. May has been quietly following the Cameron line (and we all know where he’s coming from and what his principles are) biding her time until she was in a position to take power and make the changes, and now seeks a firmer more decisive position on the points you make, she might yet win me over, but……………….

      We’ve been here before with the Tories. All words and bluster. They patriotically wave the Union Jack, then when the crunch comes, they sell us out. They talk tough on everything, then falter.

      They say they want to occupy the political middle ground, but I suggest they either don’t know where the middle ground is, or just use the suggestion for the sake of political expediency and popularity. But that could apply to most Westminster parties. They sure as hell don’t speak for me!

      The jury is presently out on Mrs. May. Let’s just hope this is a new broom, and isn’t just more of the same old tired political trash that people are largely fed up with.


    4. I_want_Brexit_now
      August 1, 2016

      I agree with your points but, like so many announcements, this is another initiative raised to distract us from more urgent issues. There are already laws to combat trafficking, exploitation and slavery.

      When will the PM get on with leaving the EU?

  5. Ex-expat Colin
    August 1, 2016

    Well, you only have to get a couple of kids and play the councils along as long as you like. Watch the TV prog Cant Pay? We’ll Take It Away… for full info. The High Court Bailiffs remind us constantly….Benefits!

    Watch the innocent tenants arrive and the rapid build up of old bangers (various) outside. The increase in noise and language changes…just cannot miss it.

  6. Jerry
    August 1, 2016

    Well said John, and those who companied said far more about themselves than they did Mrs May or her government.

    1. Anonymous
      August 1, 2016

      Jerry – I don’t recall anyone saying “we want slavery to continue” or “we don’t want to end slavery”

      Those who have expressed any negativity are those least likely to have wanted mass immigration in the first place – mass immigration under which these abuses were hidden.

      What we must brace ourselves for is a huge group of people who are thus far unaccounted and owed citizenship and full entitlements.

      It will turn into an amnesty for illegals who have been gifted a new loophole.

      There is a fine line between a ‘slave’ and a migrant who broke our laws to get here and who has been working for below minimum wage to keep themselves under the radar.

      We may call these slave wages but they are not compared to where they have come from. We need to be careful how to define a ‘slave’.

      What I fear above all else is that Mrs May will excuse herself for low deportation rates because she can now say “We’ve not been finding illegals but we’ve been liberating lots of slaves.”

      It is a mess brought by successive governments who ignored the public will for decade after decade and who warned them that this sort of free-for-all was going on. To the point that one can’t help believe it was anything other than deliberate.

  7. Lifelogic
    August 1, 2016

    Why has Mrs May promoted so much lefty, remainer, failed dross to her Cabinet when so many people of real ability like Owen Patterson, JR, Lilley, Rees Moog, Gove, Bill Cash and the likes are left on the back benches?

    Cameron claimed he was a “low tax conservative at heart” but he was clearly neither. Essentially he was essentially a tax borrow and waste, greencrap toting, EUphile, Libdem who just pretended not to be near elections.

    Someone who was even daft enough to think that the dire, tax borrow and waste, I will punish you with taxes if you get it wrong, Osborne was a suitable chancellor.

    Is she actually a “low tax conservative at heart” who wants UK democracy and a smaller state sector or just another Cameron type? Not many signs at yet she is the former?

  8. Cheshire Girl
    August 1, 2016

    I’m afraid I feel that the problem of ‘modern slavery’ would not have come about, if there had been more vigorous efforts to stem the flow of people coming into this country, and deport those who are here illegally. There are quite a few who are smuggled into the UK in backs of lorries, and so forth.

    Some of us remember when ‘modern slavery’ did not exist in this country. It is not a feature of the culture of the UK. Politicians of all parties have contributed to it, and only now do they seem to have woken up!

    1. miami.mode
      August 1, 2016

      Completely agree, CG, that most of this culture has been imported.

      With the current nostalgia for football success in 1966 it is very noticeable how things have changed dramatically in a relatively short 50 years.

      Notwithstanding world conditions, basically home-produced politicians create the vast majority of the conditions that we live in and as you suggest are only now waking up.

    2. Margaret
      August 1, 2016

      Cheshire girl , sometimes I think me and thee are the only ones who lived in the UK in previous decades.

  9. formula57
    August 1, 2016

    You ask, doubtless rhetorically, “Surely it is a central task of government to stop illegal entry into the UK?” and most sensible people would say “yes” of course.

    But let us remember that for the last six years we have had a truly excellent Home Secretary for whom that task was too much so it might be best to be suitably modest about prospects now.

    1. Jerry
      August 1, 2016

      @formula57; You seem to be mixing things up badly. If we know that we have stopped illegal migrants from entering or settling then surely the Home Secretary has been successful, it is when we stop detecting such illegal migrants that we know we have failed, or do we, how do we know that we have failed rather than having been successful and thus the flow has stopped?! By definition no one knows how many illegal migrants there are in the UK, they are truly the unknown-unknowns – which is why illegal gang-masters etc.

      On the other hand what the previous Home Secretary failed to limit was legal migration from the EU (some of whom also fall victim to actual or near slavery), but there was little she could do to stop such people whilst we remained in the EU.

      1. forthurst
        August 1, 2016

        A truly excellent Home Secretary would have ensured that there were sufficient resources in place to ensure a high probability of detection of illegal entry, that sufficient efforts were put into detecting illegals already present by targetting those business activities which were more likely to exploit them, to ensure that sufficiently draconian laws were in place to deter illegals and those that exploit them, that the methods of validating alleged asylum seekers was sufficiently robust to detect fraud and punish those detected in attempted fraud, and above all ensure that the Home Office itself was fit for purpose, even if that required extensive reorganisation and sackings of civil servants who were a law unto themselves; however, as we know border control is not a priority for the Home Office: their obsessions are such as ‘terrorism’ and prison breaks etc., in other words, those events that which excite the media. Who sets their priorities is not clear but they certainly are not in keeping with those of many of us who voted to leave the EU.

      2. stred
        August 1, 2016

        The previous Home Secretary failed to limit legal migration and also failed to limit illegal. The true number of migrants was estimated by interview samples and under half the 630k NI cards issued pa. Now they will provide an opportunity for illegals, who knowingly came for low wages but higher than at home,with no NI card to claim amnesty and be given one.

        While there is no sign of a start to Brexit and no sign of a cut of date to prevent a surge. But Mr Brokenshire thought that the larger number of NI cards didn’t matter because they went home every year. However, they have managed to be tough with a few Australians and Americans who cost us nothing and everyone else wants to stay.

        At least they have not signed the disastrous contract for Hinkley Point. We are told Mrs May was worried that the Chinese might be able to turn it off or harm our security. The Russians are using Rolls Royce to control their Nuke in Finland, but we may use Chinese controls? Well even if they can’t undertand that the deal is an economic and technical disaster, at least there may be time to get the message through that we have a choice of 3 other designs which would be less expensive and work, possibly using Rolls Royce to keep us safe.

  10. Mick
    August 1, 2016

    What with the government kicking its heels about leaving the eu and now the House of Lords talking about blocking us leaving, be very careful you lot down in Westminster the people spoke so you had better listen or there will be trouble in this country not seen since the civil war in the 17th century

  11. bluedog
    August 1, 2016

    Off topic, Dr JR, but one notes that the Times reports on a cross-bench conspiracy within the House of Lords to derail Brexit.

    The answer to that folly is simple, a second referendum taking aim at their Lordships. A result far more decisive that that of the Brexit referendum could be anticipated. Getting rid of 798 sitting troughers, together with 39 temporarily suspended (dare we ask why?), could only be a positive development.

    The silver lining in this cloud is that once the HoL is voted out of existence in its current form, the way is clear for an English parliament, within a federal British constitution that embodies an elected senate.

    1. Denis Cooper
      August 1, 2016

      The government could use that as a threat, but of course the Lords would know that to carry out that threat the government would need to get a Bill for the referendum through their House as well as the Commons, or alternatively get it through the Commons and then invoke the Parliament Acts to by-pass the Lords with a delay of about thirteenth months.

      When I say that the members of the Lords are “unelected legislators-for-life” that is not intended as a mere insult, it is a plain statement of the facts, and I cannot see them ever willingly relinquishing their privileged position. They deceive themselves that it is for the good of the country; they think they contribute vast wisdom and experience and have far better, more mature and considered, debates than the elected members in the other place.

      Or, the government might prefer to use the opposition in the Lords as an excuse for keeping us in the EU. Yes, of course when the Prime Minister said “Brexit means Brexit” she absolutely meant that, and she would very much like to keep that promise, but unfortunately the courts have ruled that she needs further authorisation from Parliament, both Houses, and the Lords are stopping her doing what she wants …

      I can see it coming, and those who say “Don’t trigger Article 50, just repeal ECA72” are rather missing the practical point that the referendum has not altered the composition of either of the Houses of Parliament, both of which still have large majorities in favour of staying in the EU, as well as the more theoretical point that repeal of ECA72 would not itself take us out the EU.

    2. Denis Cooper
      August 1, 2016

      If you read this article and especially the comments it seems that nothing will be done about the Lords because there is no agreement what should be done:

    3. Jerry
      August 1, 2016

      @bluedog; No need to mess with democracy, in the past the HoLs have served the interests of those of the political right just as much as it serves the centrist and left wings of politics, mess with it at our peril… All the government has to do if push comes to shove is use the Parliament Act, after all the EU referendum was a GE manifesto pledge and thus the result has also become part of that manifesto pledge.

  12. Ian Wragg
    August 1, 2016

    Another week another soundbite. Starting to get familiar. The media has been reporting on people living in sheds and 31 to a house for years. It has been deliberately ignored because it formed the basis of Gideons growth policy.
    Many if not most of the landlords and traffickers are foreign and to clamp down would be waycist
    Cultural innit.

  13. alan jutson
    August 1, 2016

    Agree totally on Mrs May’s so called “new policy idea”, but was all this “modern slavery” not illegal before last week under existing laws, when she was in control of her department.

    The simple fact is John, Illegal’s and legals have been living in sheds/garages and outhouses for decades, overcrowding in houses with illegal multiple occupation is rife all over the Country.

    Local Authorities seem to ignore this for the most part, simply because they do not have the Budget, manpower, or will, to do anything about it, because then they would be responsible for housing such people.

    Lack of joined up thinking with a so called “new policy” yet again.

    Just where would Mrs May put all of theses people (especially legals) if they were turfed out of sheds and the like ?

    Again the simple fact is we have many more people than we have suitable housing in our Country, which is why we need to control or halt immigration until we can resolve the issue properly.

    I simply cannot understand why so many Politicians cannot see it, but then I guess they do not live surrounded by it, so how would they really know !

    1. M Davis
      August 1, 2016
  14. Margaret
    August 1, 2016

    This was the attraction for those employed by the state John. There were public standards to uphold . There was a standard rate of pay and conditions for those workers. The objectivity gave dignity to all . The workers were not beholding to an employee who could push them down for the cheapest price possible.
    Things have spiralled downwards so that every single person has a price on their heads and to maintain a fair price they have to belong to a respected cooperation and play the game well.
    Down and down from there is the cheapest employee by the nastiest employer. I despair at the way these shed dwellers are treated . Can you imagine sleeping in worse conditions than a dog kennel and made to work for those morons who think they have control.

    To look at another side of it. There are also people living in poor conditions and somehow they manage to drive very large new expensive cars ?

    1. M Davis
      August 1, 2016

      … To look at another side of it. There are also people living in poor conditions and somehow they manage to drive very large new expensive cars ? …

      Such as some Eastern European ‘Big Issue’ sellers. The ones here get into a BMW every evening.

  15. Anthony Makara
    August 1, 2016

    While on the subject, the Conservative and Labour parties must now recognize that forced unpaid work, as part of a benefits sanction, so-called Workfare, must end. Labour during the New Deal era and Conservatives under the Work Programme were both guilty of sending the long term unemployed off to undertake workfare at companies that were donating to each respective parties coffers. This is not only unethical but also did nothing to help the unemployed. Instead there should have been a compulsary fully waged Public Works Programme built into the benefits system to guarantee waged work for a period of six months or longer. Such a scheme would be expensive but would have done more for the unemployed than an equally expensive and disreputable Workfare regime that provided free labour to companies that donated to the political warchest.

  16. JoeSoap
    August 1, 2016

    We need to stop all crime, but once passed into law it is the responsibility of law enforcement not government. Democracy gives rise to government gives rise to laws gives rise to enforcement, not the other way round. Occupy yourself with the first 3 areas where government interfaces, not the fourth.

    1. Denis Cooper
      August 1, 2016

      Have you already been stripped of your knighthood? 🙂

  17. Lifelogic
    August 1, 2016

    Desmond Swayne, who was previously Mr Cameron’s parliamentary private secretary, said an honours list was a “relatively light way” of paying off “debts of honour”.

    He misses the point completely, it discredits the whole system if someone who help Sam Cameron with her clothing is given on OBE along with say a top surgeon and research scientist who has dedicated his whole life to giving children the best possible treatments. Or someone who spent his life risking his life by defusing bombs.

    It is also a form of corruption what are these “debts of honour” after all. Reward for remainers for trying to kill UK democracy for good it seems – in many cases.

    1. alan jutson
      August 1, 2016


      I thought payment for services rendered was the reward for work.

      Millions of people do voluntary work, unpaid and at their own expense in this Country, primarily to help those more unfortunate than themselves who the State has either discarded or where stupid complicated rules and policies exclude them from State help, few ever get gongs or are even mentioned.

      Perhaps we could call the present system “Celebrity gongs, get me in there”

    2. zorro
      August 1, 2016

      Why can’t Cameron pay or honour them out of his own pocket rather than on expenses aka the public purse….


  18. oldtimer
    August 1, 2016

    Not entirely OT is this article on the change in the stance of the Catholic church towards the Conservative government:

    Among other things, as the author notes, Mrs May was an active supporter of the Catholic church in its efforts to end modern slavery.

  19. Lifelogic
    August 1, 2016

    The BBC do seem to love the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, I suppose it is right up the BBC think” street.

    Poverty costs UK £78bn a year the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says:-

    But what is one of the main causes of poverty, a lack of well paid available jobs and the main causes of this are bloated & incompetent government, expensive greencrap, the EU and the endless top down red tape agenda nearly always supported by the BBC think types.

    I particularly like “the poverty causes ill heath”. Which is more likely:- “Ill health causes poverty” or “poverty causes ill health”. Cause and effect confused as usual.

    Affluence causes ill health is surely rather more likely. Through obesity, too much alcohol, sloth, drugs, over indulgence and the likes.

    1. graham1946
      August 1, 2016

      Ever studied any history?

      Ill health through affluence is a lifestyle choice. Poverty obviously causes ill health with poor nutrition, living in cold, damp conditions (many a landlord at fault there) hard low paid work damaging health. You usually advocate low pay, and especially rail against any kind of control on those wishing to take advantage of those in the position of not being able to choose, especially the minimum wage. Its refreshing that you are now thinking people should be well paid. If employers played fair there would be no need for such a law.

      I think you were born 100 years too late.

  20. The PrangWizard
    August 1, 2016

    So where is the action to protect our borders? The government must act at home and in defence of our home. A few millions spent overseas won’t make a blind bit of difference but it’s a nice bit of virtue signalling and makes a good headline.

    Where are the boats to intercept the cross-Channel smugglers, why are those very few who are caught not taken back immediately? Would that not be a deterrent and benefit? We have only 3 coastal patrol craft (slow and useless) and a few ribs which are only suitable for inshore work.

    Your government could spend those £33m on building a large number of armed patrol craft to defend our coastlines and take the illegals straight back. After all we will need them for years. But that might be controversial and that must be avoided at all costs of course.

    It would help if you said that illegals who are brought here are not welcome but it’s only the smugglers who get your attention. Do you believe they are all victims and need our protection? It no doubt makes you feel all warm inside. I note no reference to action to deport the illegals who are found.

    It’s called neglect and incompetence – the same neglect and incompetence that sees all six of our big destroyers in port, and as I understand it, the same port. Targets for terrorism maybe? I guess no-one thought of that. Remember the USS Cole incident?

    I am against sin too Mr Redwood but what action are you in favour of? Action now, in the Channel? A few people with binoculars on cliff tops is not the answer.

    PS. How many illegals were deported in 2015?

  21. Anonymous
    August 1, 2016

    I agree that an end to modern slavery should be undertaken. But there are consequences:

    – It will become another means for illegals (non slaves) to declare a right to citizenship

    – Official figures for migration will go up as this will become an amnesty and the true numbers of people here are finally declared

    – Unemployment figures will go up as these people will be unable to find legitimate work

    – Some businesses (reliant on unscrupulous ones) will suddenly find their costs getting higher

    This situation is all a result of our authorities turning a blind eye.

  22. The PrangWizard
    August 1, 2016

    And as a further comment on Portsmouth how would we be placed if a ship were to be sunk at the entrance to the harbour – its very narrow for those who don’t know it. It could be accidental or deliberate.

    In connection with that how would we protect one of our overseas dependencies for example which might be the object of aggression, with all our destroyers holed up and trapped? And I hope no-one will say some other ship could help, that would assume we don’t ever need the trapped ones.

    Is it likely the Defence Secretary will resign or the Naval Chief be sacked?

    August 1, 2016

    On TV, I heard and saw the Australian family who have Scottish ancestry, Mr and Mrs Brain, with their Gaelic speaking son facing deportation at midnight from their home in Scotland. I hear Mr Brokenshire still the Immigration Minister, has written to them saying their seven year old son Lachlan would not be utterly disrupted being thrust back into Australia. The case is supported cross-party in Scotland and by their local MP.

    There are a number of things happening in the UK which appear unthinkable.

    1. That any Australian or New Zealander with British ancestry should be finding the least bit of difficulty in returning to their British Motherland. That Americans have problems , even when married to Brits, in living here. Even thrown out.

    2. That a National Park here like one in Yorkshire, where people have died and left their life-savings to the National Trust… that any British person should even imagine in their wildest dreams to grant intrusive industrial activity to companies to work in the Park. I speak of fracking companies. They were given the go-ahead. One can be fined £50-£100 for even dropping a piece of paper.

    “Stop modern slavery”. Yes,yes, yes, Mrs May should get right on it once she has dealt with the aforementioned and sorted Rotherham out properly.

  24. turboterrier
    August 1, 2016

    Sadly this is nothing new.

    Working in south London during the gas conversion programme you came across people living in sheds, in the old coal hole under the entrance stairs, literally anywhere they could get a bed in. In the morning the unmarked vans would be on the circuit picking them up to take them for a days work if they were lucky. They put up with it because they were “lucky” to be living in London.

    Only real hard laws totally enforced and no listening to the do gooders who think that everyone has a right to come here will start to address it. Traffickers have to understand that when you get caught the keys will be thrown away. Give them no mercy just as they show none for the people they traffic.

  25. Denis Cooper
    August 1, 2016

    In my view these four year sentences are too lenient and an insufficient deterrent:

  26. Iain Moore
    August 1, 2016

    We wouldn’t have slavery here if the Governments of recent years hadn’t been so incompetent about managing our borders. This is a problem that begins and ends at the Place of Westminster.

  27. Sir Joe Soap
    August 1, 2016

    Hereafter am awarding myself the title of Sir along with hairdressers, drivers, stylists and others. I’ve done my job, been paid for it and now deserve my title.

  28. Sir Joe Soap
    August 1, 2016

    Life logic, have a knighthood dear chap for services to thinking straight.

    1. zorro
      August 1, 2016

      Can I have an eardom please?


      1. zorro
        August 1, 2016

        earldom even!!

  29. acorn
    August 1, 2016

    Importing cheap labour to suppress wages is a primary factor of neo-liberal globalised commerce. As is controlling wage inflation with unemployment. Where the cheap labour came from or how it got here, is irrelevant in neo-liberal land. Hence, Mrs May should take note of Select Committee reports and tackle “modern slavery” (wherever it appears ed)
    It will be interesting how she uses the “modern slavery” angle, with getting rid of the ECHR and, further unwinding more parts of the Equality Act, that she has been quietly doing at the Home Office. She has done away with several non-EU Visa classes and jacked up the salary hurdle for permission to stay. She is probably more anti-immigrant than any of the Brexiteers!

    PS. Fancy being a “trolley dolly” on an airline near you. £12,000 basic plus £3 per hour while you are in the air.

    1. libertarian
      August 1, 2016


      Really ? Which UK industries is that in then? Whilst I’m sure there are a very very tiny number of as yet unautomated jobs that require the very basic level of skill in which that might work its generally not true for 98% of work . We have massive skills shortages which requires an educated, skilled, high quality workforce, one of the major problems of advanced countries like the UK is we have fewer and fewer jobs that can be done by uneducated, unskilled people as more and more of these types of roles are automated. Who exactly is controlling wage inflation with unemployment?

      PS Whilst you are right about the starting salaries for inexperienced cabin crew its strange that theres a waiting list for the jobs. Do you think maybe people see that there are other benefits to this work?

      1. acorn
        August 2, 2016

        My post has been edited to protect the guilty. Cheap imported labour is not necessary unskilled.

        “Do you think maybe people see that there are other benefits to this work?” There aren’t any. A larger UK based airline than the one I have quoted, has circa 50% turnover rate for new recruits.

        “Wages in rich countries are determined more by immigration control than anything else, including any minimum wage legislation. How is the immigration maximum determined? Not by the ‘free’ labour market, which, if left alone, will end up replacing 80–90 per cent of native workers with cheaper, and often more productive, immigrants.”

        “Immigration is largely settled by politics. So, if you have any residual doubt about the massive role that the government plays in the economy’s free market, then pause to reflect that all our wages are, at root, politically determined.”
        Chang, Ha-Joon. 2011. 23 Things they Don’t Tell you about Capitalism, Thing 1: There is no such thing as a free market. (HT: Neil Wilson)

    2. a-tracy
      August 2, 2016

      Acorn, Well if they work a 35 hour week that’s £17,460 for a new raw recruit, I know experienced flight attendants to give them their none sarcastic title, who love their job and earn good salaries buying their own homes and running nice cars so I don’t quite know what point you are making?

    August 1, 2016

    We shall have to find out who was Home Secretary at the time when immigration was at its height and make sure that person never holds any public office for the rest of his or her natural life.

  31. zorro
    August 1, 2016

    We all sincerely wish to clamp down on inhumane treatment of people, fine outrageous slum landlords and those who use in effect bonded labour. We also wish to clamp down on sexual slavery, but would not want to bring in a category which people could abuse in order to stay here as has happened in some domestic worker cases.

    In any case, I seem to recall that Mrs May has been Home Secretary for the last six years. What, exactly, did she do to try and deal with this during her tenure? I also seem to recall that she significantly cut enforcement resources in both the Police and Home Office, who, I assume, would be enforcing these laws?


    1. Lifelogic
      August 1, 2016


  32. fedupsoutherner
    August 1, 2016

    Too many people, (often here illegally) are living in homes all across the UK but especially in the South East. It is highlighted on the television often enough. What actually happens to these people though when the authorities catch up with them? If they are illegal as happens to be the case with the Albanians who were rescued from a dingy in the channel then are they deported or are they allowed to slip into the system either to end up taking advantage of others or are be exploited themselves? We are too soft on people here illegally. They should be sent home on the next available plane to wherever they come from. Instead we find tax payers money is being used for court cases often going on over several years in an attempt for these people to stay here. Unless we tackle the problem from this end it will go on as it has done for years now. Unfortunately overcrowded houses make the areas look like slums or something akin to what you would find in (a poor country ed)I feel for the neighbours who have to live alongside this problem unless of course they are turning a blind eye to what is going on.

  33. Bert Young
    August 1, 2016

    Theresa obviously wants to show the world that she has a good heart and cover the ground she missed as Home Secretary . She does deserve support in whatever methods are used to control migrants – after all it was one of the priorities in the Brexit campaign . The media now have another fillip to chase .

  34. petermartin2001
    August 1, 2016


    I’m too am surprised that anyone has complained about Mrs May’s determination to end modern day slavery. Surely this can be something on which we can all agree, regardless of our position on the political spectrum?

    You might have mentioned that many young people are entrapped into sexual slavery on a promise of different types of work. They often find they are given huge bills to pay for their passage to the UK and desperately try to pay these debts off in whatever way they can. They are threatened with deportation in they attempt to complain to the authorities.

    I rarely use such language, but the people behind this trade are the scum of the earth. A life sentence for such an offence is not excessive punishment IMO.

  35. rose
    August 1, 2016

    I wasn’t complaining about the government tackling slavery. You touch on the horrors of it and are quite right that it is time something was done about it. My criticism was of Mrs May not having got down to it before. The problems you describe are caused by mass immigration (since the sixties) and she has not done enough to tackle this root cause. She has failed to protect our borders, reducing our patrol boats right down to three. It is extraordinay how the Remainiacs, of which she was one, were so complacent about the numbers of people coming in, and the conditions in which they were living. They still want more of it and when one asks them where they will build the extra 25 cities needed to house the newcomers, they just look stupefied.

    Instead of curtailing mass immigration, she has concentrated on demoralising the police, pushing through homosexual marriage, and stepping up the concept of hate crime, which is a fundamentally unsound and unjust law. She has also spent time in promoting herself and keeping her head down when trouble was on the horizon. Now, after all this neglect, she suddenly says she wants to stamp out slavery across the world! All I ask is that she do it here, having failed to do it as Home Secretary.

    1. rose
      August 1, 2016

      PS I realize she couldn’t do anything about the Free Movement of People from the EU, which she supported, but she could do something about non EU immigration which has consistently outstripped EU immigration.

  36. graham1946
    August 1, 2016

    We read about people living in sheds and doing shifts for beds etc.

    Well if the journalists can find them and report on them, why can’t the Authorities? Seems like Nelson’s blind eye is being turned. If the government is serious about this, lets see some action, such as we have not seen up to now. I won’t be holding my breath. This is another good soundbite, but its been going on for years and I expect the next PM will make the same kind of comment.

  37. Elsey
    August 1, 2016

    Wasn’t Mrs May in charge of immigration policy for the last few years? So she has already failed to “fight modern slavery”. More evidence of her incompetence.

  38. turboterrier
    August 1, 2016

    Off Topic but I feel it needs to be highlighted. Well we have had Brexit now we have Clexit.

    Remember you heard it here first!!


    Well worth following the link:

    At last a realistic approach to the whole scam.

    1. hefner
      August 6, 2016

      Sorry, you were beaten to it by Fedupsoutherner at 09:14.

  39. Ginty
    August 1, 2016

    What’s ‘modern’ about slavery ?

    There are lots of medieval things we’ve imported into Britain.

    Get on with Brexit and we might end it.

  40. Ken Moore
    August 1, 2016

    While May or May not is trying to eradicate modern slavery perhaps she could tackle the rise of TB & HIV, honour killings and other problems imported from the third world. Since Britain last ran a current account surplus in 1983 perhaps we are turning into a third world country economically atleast..
    Perhaps if able bodied Britains weren’t paid ‘beer money’ to keep quiet so that Conservatives can parade their ‘compassionate’ credentials and import a third world workface from abroad that may not share our values….

  41. Denis Cooper
    August 1, 2016

    More off-topic:

    “Britain’s diplomatic quest for Brexit enters ‘phoney war’”

    “But Mrs May also has a dilemma over the political timetable. She has spoken of invoking the formal Article 50 divorce clause next year. Senior Whitehall figures say moving in January or February may be too soon for her to forge a political consensus on Brexit options.”

    Right, now it seems February 2017 would be too soon. So when? Well:

    “The senior EU diplomat agreed that “from a tactical perspective” it may be smart for Mrs May to wait until late 2017.”

    Let’s just recap on this. We have a referendum at the end of June 2016, during which the government promises in its official booklet that it will implement what we decide, and we decide to leave the EU, and maybe 16 months later the government is still havering about giving the EU formal notification that we intend to leave the EU, when no doubt there will be other excellent reasons for further delay.

  42. Adam
    August 1, 2016

    The entire poitical class is encouraging illegal migration. You are giving smugglers a new revenue source.

    Those who go to the consolate and apply for a VISA are never treated sympathetically, their cause is never promoted by the London establishment. You encourage criminality and provide new revenue streams for smuggling networks more used to heroin and cocaine and yet you demand that employers are prosecuted for giving the illegals a job once they get here.

    It appears to be an utter disgrace. Illegals are the reponsibility of the state.

    (Para removed for false allegations ed)

    What about criminal gangs who threaten someones life until they join and then can never leave or they are killed, cover their bodies with tattoos as a sign of their slavery. The world is full of people like this, i dont see any war on them.

  43. lojolondon
    August 1, 2016

    John, you are absolutely correct. I personally see the ‘legal’ importation of unskilled non-English speakers into our country as slavery – these people are not here to stack shelves or whatever the excuse is – they are here to reduce the rights and wages of people who do stack shelves. As long as Britain does not have full employment, every person who comes here is either going on the dole, or putting someone else on the dole. This was a system supported by the last three governments, and no good ever has or ever will come of this.

    1. Anonymous
      August 2, 2016

      lojolondon – I visit several areas of the UK not yet impacted by mass immigration and all the jobs are filled by happy and enthusiastic British people.

      That these are jobs ‘the British won’t do’ is an utter lie.

  44. ale bro
    August 1, 2016

    My impression is that the anti slavery agenda is designed to target the ultra rich. There has been several court cases recently involving wealthy UK residents who are allowed to import their own domestic staff into the country from abroad. These staff have been subject to abusive employment practices (e.g. not being paid minimum wage), were incarcerated in their place of work, and had their passports stolen by their employers.

    I am very supportive of any legislation to ban the importation domestic staff from abroad, as these jobs do not require specialist skills that are unavailable from the domestic labour pool.

  45. ian
    August 1, 2016

    Slavery has been going on in this country since the year dot, first by rich people in this country and now by legal immigrants, who own factory and restaurants and so on, usually 60 to a house working two shifts or living above shops in the storerooms or in the factory, back gardens sheds, garages, as they become so rich they move on to being pillars of the community, family member in the councils and in other high places, i have done eviction for mortgages companies back in the 70s in and a round london with houses full of them.

    Then you got the new ones, eastern europeans with women and children for sex.
    Take your pick, well over 1 million people, all working in different trades.

    The councils know all about them but do nothing, the police, everybody knows about it, who they are but they not going take them to court because they are high profile, they just get a few little fish hear and there.

    33 million pounds, what can you do with that, you would need over 500 million pounds, the con party is just looking for media headlines, look what we are doing, vote for us we are the good people, all BS.

    Are they going to deport them, i do not think so, are they going to rehouse them, are they going to fine them a job on min wages and still pay no tax but qualify for benefits and health care, will the big people behind it go prison, i do not think so, it all talk.

    These people live in big houses, pay little to no tax, give to charities and move around in high society and you have little ones who own a shop or a restaurant, most of the people in there own community know them.

  46. Roy Grainger
    August 1, 2016

    We already have laws to stop all the abuses you mention. It is not for politicians to implement those laws so beyond virtue signalling it is hard to see what Mrs May is achieving.

  47. Lindsay McDougall
    August 1, 2016

    It’s one thing stopping slavery and rigidly controlling immigration. It’s quite another telling British workers what their minimum wage must be and what the minimum standard – and therefore cost – of their accomodation must be.

    The national minimum wage (‘living wage’ according to George Osborne) is set to rise to £9 per hour. Were there to be zero inflation (in practice there will be some), that would render many people currently employed unemployable.

    What are the minimum standards for housing and the maximum occupancy rates allowed by law, and are they higher than what is necessary to prevent a public health hazard? To make informed decisions and comments, we need to know.

    The problem with middle class outrage and harrumphing is that it can lead to the poor being deprived of legitimate employment and having to sleep rough. Just control immigration ruthlessly and in time other problems will fade.

  48. ian
    August 1, 2016

    I see that ukip have got same problem as all the rest of parties have, the NEC and who is going to be the leader without the membership who pay subscription having a say and what the policy is going to be and four NEC members have put they names down to be leader but only they can vote, well each party is little bit different in the way it is set up with labour just changed with membership who pay subscription having the say but the politician in the party who voted for that now do not agree with that as we all know.

    The con party just elected a leader with just politician having a say but said before hand that would not happen but it did and nobody says anything.

    This is all a fraud on people that vote in this country, backroom deals and a like with policies the votes do not want.

    Like i tell you, voting for parties is bad for your health and once in they do as they like and cannot get rid of them, if you vote for a independent MPs you can always ask them to leave without having a country election, they have no party to run to, you are in control of them

    August 1, 2016

    Off Topic:
    Much chattering about Dave’s Honours. Journalists are objecting to Will, of the House of Straw, being nominated for a CBE in that he was in charge of the Remain Campaign and he failed. He did not fail.It was a very successful campaign. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, Grandees…ex this and ex that, film stars, rocks stars, writers, actors (those lucky enough to be in gainful employment and not resting ), entered the field of battle exactly on cue. They performed according to script. Fought a gallant battle. And were pounded,- smudged, into the detritus of British history. As with historical precedents these losers will probably head for France and grow and pluck grapes for the rest of their natural lives until there is more trouble afoot.

  50. Norman
    August 1, 2016

    I note from a video I saw of Mrs May addressing a Jewish gathering in London in May last year (I think), that she has had this problem in her sights for some time – indeed she attended meetings in Israel, the first country in the world to have modern anti-slavery legislation. There is no question, she should be commended for her efforts, and receive 100% unequivocal support. It’s so sad that all these years after Wilberforce, the need for action has again arisen. Whatever the difficulties, God bless her for this!

  51. Bill
    August 1, 2016

    Completely agree. Modern slavery needs to be stamped out. And while we are talking about moral crusades, the practice of female genital mutilation needs to be stopped; it should be treated like kidnapping and murder.

  52. anon
    August 1, 2016

    Walk the talk.

    Perhaps we should just GET ON WITH IT and exit the EU , take control of our borders and laws and start enforcing them.

  53. helen
    August 1, 2016

    Whilst i sympathise theres an awful lot more important things that Theresa needs to jump on that have been ignored for far too long .
    Especially if she truly means ” for everyone not just the priveledged few ” .

    Cameron and Bank of England show total contempt for the ordinary citizen

  54. a-tracy
    August 2, 2016

    (reference to a case of alleged overcrowding and poor housing conditions ed)

    You know John this is just absolutely disgusting, how much is this landlord being paid by the British taxpayer to house these refugees? Why are we housing them in such an expensive way in London, Scotland are frequently saying we should take in more and they would halve the cost. These slum landlords should be closed down immediately. How the hell can they get a licence to operate these slums in the first place? I would give them four weeks to sort this out, clean it up and make it hospitable or I would move the refugees into holiday park homes that will then be empty at the end of the school holiday season until decent accommodation can be found.

  55. agricola
    August 3, 2016

    Well that took a while to get published considering it’s time of posting and none controversial content , was it fear that someone might read it and heaven forbid agree with it.

Comments are closed.