"We believe that some of them had been living and working there in a state of virtual slavery, some for just a few weeks and others for up to 15 years.""Virtual" slavery? I share Ian B's suspicions as to DCI Sean O'Neil's use of the adjective there. If they were indeed "held against their will", why then did nine of the twenty four freed "slaves" refuse to assist police with their inquiries and labelled the arrests as "a load of rubbish"? Either they were enslaved or they were not: which is it?
That those people were living in appalling material conditions - lack of “proper” food, something about “haircuts” and being “covered in excrement” - was the primary focus of DCI O'Neil's comments in that Telegraph video. Yet appalling material conditions, do not, of themselves constitute slavery. What constitutes slavery is coercion. Coercion, i.e. the act of being compelled by force against your own will, while it may or may not have occured in this case, is the quintessential element of a government's modus operandi.
If they were not in actual fact slaves, then was this operation - involving "more than 200 officers" - simply a case of the police acting on misinformation, or of the police being directed by new legislation into committing an act of essentially Orwellian propaganda?
yoyo...its ashwin. interesting blog u have. reminds me of the fact that i should update my own asap. anyway, keep in touch. if u look at me at any point feel free to send me an email or so: ashwin.siqi@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteCheers Ash. You'll notice my email address in the top left below the header image - you don't need to leave your own email address in public.
ReplyDelete