I have not watched two programmes on Channel 4 this evening; the first one entitled “Britain’s Secret Slaves” and the second “I am Slave”. Strictly speaking neither of these programmes have anything to do with Britain, except that our country is the one painted on the scenery. I do object to this.
It is the familiar story of foreign families, often from Africa or the Middle East, “buying” servants who have frequently been kidnapped from their families and villages and bringing them to this country when the family comes to work in Britain. They take away the passports of these poor souls and keep them locked up in their houses. The servants are often mistreated, starved, beaten and terrified.
The only time Britain comes on the scene is as a rescuer. I think the government – though I know it’s got a lot to do clearing up the mess Brown and Labour left – should be expelling families who are found to have treated their servants in this way. Then the servants can be flown home to their own families. So the title of the first programme should have been “Britain rescues secret slaves”. I suspect this happens in many other European countries. Such foreign employers must be prevented from importing their disgusting traditions into Britain
Boadicea's Chariot 
Good post, Sheona. I object to this too. I don’t think this is confined to Europe either; it happens all over the world.
It is exploitation of the worst kind, and I suppose such programmes do have their uses, but you are quite right; it should not be tolerated by any civilised society.
Deport the lot of them with no right of re-entry.
The practice is rife around the Med. often employing Asian maids on subsistence wages. Pre-EU, the Cyprus gubmint capped the wages to ‘protect’ the employers! Worralaff!
My apologies for the lack of title. Just as I got almost to the end – the final full stop is also missing – we had a power cut. In a panic I clicked on “Publish” without stopping to think. I could see the screen but not the keyboard. After about 20 minutes, power returned but when the lights started to flicker again, we simply gave up and went to bed while we could see how to get there without a torch.
You’re right, Araminta, that such programmes do have their uses. I just object to the use of the word Britain in the title, as if we were actually involved in this.
The problem, of course, is that the title chosen by Channel 4 is far more ‘scandalous’ than the one you would prefer, Sheona, and, thus, more likely to attract viewers.
I agree that anyone involved in this sort of behaviour should be deported instantly – the problem is what do you do about those with British passports who are also involved? As I understand it, one of the children who died at the hands of a ‘so-called-aunt’ had been ‘bought’ to be a servant.
Boa,
“I agree that anyone involved in this sort of behaviour should be deported instantly – the problem is what do you do about those with British passports who are also involved?”
I would suggest some form of custodial sentence, I am fairly sure we outlawed slavery in the UK some time ago.
Ferret
We did – I’d also suggest loss of goods to compensate the victims.
There’s another Channel 4 programme this evening whose title is guaranteed once again to annoy me. It’s “The Hunt for Britain’s sex-traffickers”. Of course the traffickers are generally from Eastern Europe. But you’re right, Boadicea – a title to titillate. I suspect that those with British passports are not native Brits and could have their citizenship removed and travel papers issued back to the country of origin. I’m not sure about a custodial sentence, Ferret. It means the British taxpayers stumping up for their keep, unless their goods could be used not just for compensation but also for board and lodging.
I know many people think Sarkozy is being harsh in shipping thousands of Roma back to Romania, but they are responsible for a lot of crime in France, including sex-trafficking. It is worth remembering that Romania couldn’t wait to get rid of the Roma when it joined the EU and was issuing them passports at a rate of knots. We need to speed up deportations of all undesirables.
How has Sarkozy got away with deporting the Roma? I thought the whole point of the EU was to allow ‘free movement of people’?
Boadicea – Living as you do so far away, you probably didn’t realise that the whole development of EFTA, the Common Market, the EEC and subsequently the EU, was undertaken solely to protect French national interest and would be funded by other members who would also be expected to obey the rules at whatever cost to themselves. France, uniquely, reserves the right to ignore any rule that is perceived as being detrimental or costly to France.
Do not be dismayed at your omission. Nobody else in Europe saw through this cunning plan – until it was too late.
Fear not! The Roma, with pockets full of French bribes to leave France, will soon be back – in the UK and howling for houses and benefits, which they will receive, because France, as a good EU member, would publicly express ‘outrage’ were we to refuse the Pikeys their ‘uman rights. A ‘traveller’ demands (and receives immediately because of his unique ethnicity) a council house. Ironic, innit?
😉
OZ
Boadicea, there is I think an EU rule that allows free movement of people, but if nationals of another member state have not found a job or cannot support themselves at the end of three months, they can be shown the door. Now of course you’re not likely to declare that you’re supporting yourself pretty well on the proceeds of crime, so …
What OZ says is spot on. France only obeys those rules it chooses to. It was an error to allow Romania and Bulgaria into the EU. Roma are not welcome anywhere. That shooting in Bratislava at the weekend was of a Roma family by a Slovak.
A fundamental problem of the EU is that its mission is not (as it should be) to maximise the interests of its member states. It is to create a bureaucratic powerbase funded by as many states as possible, irrespective of suitability. Look now at Greece, Romania, Bulgaria; soon at Italy, Portugal – even Spain.
OZ – Unfortunately, I and a lot of other people were conned into believing that the that the Common Market was simply an economic entity. Had we known what was planned not one of us would have voted to stay in.
Sheona – It was an error for the UK to join in the first place, but even more of an error to allow all and sundry to join thereafter.
Boadicea – “Unfortunately, I and a lot of other people were conned into believing that the that the Common Market was simply an economic entity. Had we known what was planned not one of us would have voted to stay in.”
Amen to that. If it’s any consolation I too was deceived by Ted Heath and his acolytes into voting in favour of the Common Market. Little did we know.
OZ