Essays on Crime ( 7) Judges

“The magistrate had learned that I’d ‘displayed a lack of emotion on the day of my mother’s funeral’...then he asked me if he could say that I’d controlled my natural feelings that day. I said, ‘No’, because it’s not true...Do you want my life to be meaningless?’ he cried. As far as I was concerned, it had nothing to do with him so I told him so’..”You do believe and put your trust in him (God), won’t you?’ I obviously said no. He sat back in his chair”’.

So says the magistrate to Meursault in Albert Camus’ the Outsider. The judge is somebody who has something many do not; that is autocratic and despotic power and control. This is not just the judge or magistrate as represented in the Outsider, but of judges in every society. At times, they know they are sentencing people to years in prison, and worse, condemning them to death, even, at times, they are aware the defendant has done no wrong; they are simply innocent. They, in essence, have total control over the lives of others.

The power they have must not be underestimated. It must be made clear these judges, once in court, can send anyone to prison whom they wish whatever reason they choose to invent. Before, men have been sent to prison for yawning. The police officer trembles in front of the judge as they make statements and act as witnesses; the same is true of barristers and of course, the defendant. When this same defendant is sentenced to a period in prison the judge can decide on a number of things: they decide how long they spend in prison, how long they will spend on probation, whether to take the remand time of their sentence; what prison to send them to; what conditions, what long-term conditions they will be subject to once they leave prison. These are just some of the decisions a judge can make.

Nevertheless, as it should be known, their power is far greater than this. It is they who can decide whether a case can go to trial, whether the media are able to print and reveal names of the defendants, and to shield the alleged victims or not as the case may be. In fact, the judge must determine every aspect of the case, and all this, so we are told, exists in social democracies. This is what we may call absolute power. But the potent empathy in judges lies in the fact that they are perfectly content to see innocents locked up, as well as those committing the most minor misdemeanours, but often spend many years in prison and are therefore subject to psychological torture, and sometimes even worse. They are paid handsomely for these services, and during that time, as indeed after it, sleep serenely at night-time, or indeed, any time. Their victims’ voices silent, their suffering invisible.

Take two cases, which are identical, ending in the judge, in both cases, condemning the defendant to death; both cases took place in England. The first case concerns Timothy Evans. In the early 1950s, he was convicted for a murder he did not commit. Police officials described Evans, at the time at the time as “retarded”, if he were of sound mind he would never have found himself in this position. The judge knew this but still decided to send the poor man to his death by hanging. He received a pardon in 1966, and this means nothing to anybody.

In 1952, Derek Bentley, as a teenager had already spent time in prison. He had a certain amount of difficulties and a remarkably low intelligence, possibly even more so than Evans. Bentley, before being convicted for murder, spent a lot of time with the want-to-be gangster, Christopher Craig. On one evening Craig, who was only sixteen, lured Bentley onto a rooftop. Enraged by the imprisonment of his brother, Craig shot a police officer dead, before he pulled the trigger, Bentley shouted: “let him have it”, meaning, give the police officer the gun. In any case Bentley was convicted of the murder, and despite the jury’s recommendation of “mercy”, the judge, picked for his barbarity, sentenced him to death, because Craig was sixteen, three-years younger than Bentley, he was given a life sentence. Craig was released after ten years; Bentley was hanged.

These men and countless others are what Orwell would call “unpeople”. That is they do not really exist, they never will and therefore we need not worry about such things because they are just fragments of a people that bear no significance to the lives of these judges and people like them. Their lives bear the name of a rather unfortunate existence. As our final years of misery unfold, it may well be determined by the judge. Nevertheless, no matter because this is the suffering of others and people do not appear to be concerned about these things. They are only condemned, reproached, lambasted, lampooned, ridiculed, reviled, detested, abhorred, threatened, and despised. It is only the innocent who are spared an inch of our remorse. Oh, well, people say. At least they are given compensation. Soon after that, people forget about this and find other things to speak nonsense about.

We seldom hear the private lives of judges and of the crimes they have committed. However, we can be sure some of the people who commit crimes of various sorts receive a certain amount of protection from the powers that be. Whatever these judges do in their spare time, they are irrational and befuddled. It is not even clear many are even human, but just automated machines; what do they do at home? Do they beat their wives with iron bars? Assault their sleeping children? Commit high-level corruption when nobody is looking? Alternatively, do they take part in lude behaviour, like masturbating in children’s playgrounds? The truth is that we do not know about any of these things but we ought not to be too surprised if judges on a grand scale have committed some of these perversities. They are quite eager to condemn others, but they may be hiding their own depraved crimes.

There is a concerted effort like there is with the all areas of totalitarian power, to humanise judges on television and film but even this is rather difficult to do. It is uncertain whether judges have feelings, emotions, empathy and the like. There is little proof of this. If they did, one could argue they would not be in this lamentable job in the first place. For the history of judges and their actions is hardly anything to be proud about, despite this they seem perfectly content with practising these horrors in the past, and continue in the present, and will continue in the future.

The fact of the matter is that it appears the judge possesses no humanity at all. Neither do they possess human qualities we expect from good and decent people. Psychopaths, it is true, sleep peacefully during the night time and the reasons are entirely evident. Why on earth, people must ask themselves, would such a person become a judge in the first place. I believe this question is unable to be answered adequately. The reason, possibly, is this group of people, have numerous reasons... Some of the reasons are evident: power, control, debauched perversity, and a whole new manner of other things. If God, and life after death did exist, judges would be in the lowest depths of hell. Their screams would replicate their victims in this world.

George Orwell, before becoming a writer, was a police officer; Siegfried Sassoon was a soldier; John Steinbeck was a journalist; Franz Kafka an insurance broker; Anton Chekhov an insurance broker; Herman Melville a cabin boy on a cruise liner and so on. These people are remembered for having some humanity at least, but none of these writers were judges. Even artists have worked in government, Peter Tchaikovsky, for example. However, no judges to speak of. It is possible the judge is incapable of such things, and ever was. They choose not to write, compose, conduct, paint, because they do not have the capacity or humanity to do this, and that is the plain truth.

Instead they plummet themselves into something far darker and rather unpleasant. They have more in common with de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom, rather than David Copperfield because with the former they are able to revel in licentiousness and debauched suffering. Who is to say the judge does not masturbate while passing sentence? They are never reported so we can only surmise what some of these reprobates get up to. They put their wigs on and become psychopathic lunatics who enjoy seeing suffering, misery and eventual destruction of others. Yet the judge is seldom spoke of in this manner

Emma Goldman, the feminist-anarchist led a somewhat turbulent life. She was unfortunate to be imprisoned on a number of occasions for laughable practices. In one instance, she was addressing a judge in court; or rather, the judge was addressing her. The judge said, if you do not like this country referring to the United States-why not leave? She responded by saying because she is an anarchist it would make little difference where she lived. In any case, the judge, unconcerned with her woes, decided to send her to prison for a certain amount of time. Some things, so it appears, never seem to change.

Every now and again, there is a terrible war of sorts against a particular group of people. There have been wars against communists, Marxists, the ‘left’. Jews, blacks and so on. Another vicious was fought against anarchists of every kind and this was sadistically executed in Emma Goldman’s lifetime. In 1901 William McKinley, the U.S President at the time, was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz, a Polish immigrant. The young man, responsible for the murder, was in turn executed but only fifteen years prior to this, another major event occurred concerning anarchists: the Haymarket massacre. Four anarchists were hanged but it was clear they had done nothing wrong and this was well known, certainly by the judge sentencing them. The judge who condemned them to death said quite bluntly that it is not because you are criminals you are being executed but because you are anarchists. In addition, their lives came to an end.

In 1886, 1901, 1950, 2005 or whatever year we choose to select the morality of the judge never changes. There were times in so-called democratic states that police officers beat people to death quite habitually, that is hardly the case anymore; the prison officer beat and tortured the prisoner, in many societies that is now unheard of; soldiers today, are far less savage than they have been in the past. Unlike the rest of these groups, the judge is able to go beyond physical violence and torture. The judge is condemning these people to perpetual persecution and nightmares.

The judge, in many respects, resembles the tyrannical monarch in many ways. They do so on at least five points (1). They are seldom seen in public; (2). They dress in the most absurd and asinine uniform; (3). They care only for the perversities and riches and subject everybody else to a sort of misery; (4). Any criticism if these judges paint you as a pariah; (5). Tyrannise, subject and terrorise people until they no longer become people any more, they are only people we find in a Bulgakov novel, a short story by Gogol or a play by Moliere.

It would be a queer thing to read a dialogue of Plato’s with a conversation taking place not between philosophers and sophists but with judges. What would they say? What views would they air? The fact of the matter is that such questions will not be known, because everything concerning judges is furtive; we must not know how they live their lives; what views they have; their beliefs, if they have any, and so on. That is a twisted piece of irony that ought to concern us all. The infantile celebrity cultures are broadcast to us and learn of their puerile existence and are told rather stupid things that ought to interest nobody. Quite amazingly, such things are unheard of with the judge, because, after all, they only punish the miserable further, and people seem to applaud this.

The attitude of the public towards the political class is rather interesting. Crowds are seen in the streets protesting against police corruption, as they brutally take part in shooting dead people from time-to-time; others rage their anger against individual members of the social services, demanding their resignations; there is even scrutiny with private power; members of parliament seldom escape diatribes, and at times, inevitably, their careers are thrown in the garbage bin of history; journalists and newspaper editors have had a great amount of vitriol directed at them. Nevertheless, when it comes to judges of all kinds there is nothing.

The media, the capitalist press often report misinformation or at times, no information and help judges get away at giving monstrous sentences. They have given, in the U.K and U.S for example, indefinite sentences for almost anything, or nothing as the case might be. In a court case, at trial, it is often a clandestine affair. Is there some hidden law that stipulates that judges are unable to be criticised? This, to my knowledge, has never been adequately elucidated.

Of course it is not only through sentencing and criminal cases which judges preside over, they make very important decisions regarding moral and ethical issues. However, it is clear, like politicians, these judges have never been chosen at the ballot box, and for that, their power is tyrannical.

15th-19th May, 2013

 

This is the final essay 'on crime', for the other six essays, check my previous posts.

Essays on Crime (1) Members of Parliament

There is a common maxim, often quoted by a relatively large group of people: “crime does not pay”. This adage is an absolute absurdity because it is fundamentally false. Those who commit the most loathsome and grotesque crimes are seldom caught, because such individuals get state protection to some degree, but not totally. When a member of parliament sexually assaults another human being, it is nothing more than a “misdemeanour”, or an “unfortunate incident”, when they thieve money and defraud the public purse, they have made a “catastrophic miscalculation”, when they fund terror groups, they are “acting in the public interest”, when they support the wholesale destruction of towns, villages, cities, even countries, they are “acting with the utmost decency”. Therefore, the very idea that crime does not pay is an absolute lunacy. The opposite ought to be applied: crime pays very handsomely to this class of people.

When people from different cultural backgrounds, different classes and regions use the maxim quoted above it is not in reference to the criminal class of politicians but the general population. These are the people, most of which are subject to a kind of class warfare; but for the majority, they do not even know it. Therefore, crime only applies to them; nobody else commits crimes. Open up a newspaper, put on the radio, watch news programmes on the television and on the internet. The result is entirely predictable. There are images, as well as moving images of men, women, and sometimes-even children who have committed “wicked”, “nefarious”, “abominable”, “evil”, “premeditated” crimes. We know their names because we are forced to know their names; we know their crimes, and we know their prison sentences because we are tormented by the mass media. 

After these “news” items have withered away from our television screens, we are able to vent our anger at these “sociopaths”, “lunatics”, “perverts” and “vile criminals”. It is discussed in the market place, at home, in work, at our social gatherings; it is discussed everywhere, even in prisons, and the next day the same process begins anew. We see the days go by, the weeks soon disappear, the months dissipate and so on. All the while members of parliament are committing legal crimes but are seldom reported, and when it is there is a cover-up to a certain degree by a great number of authorities including the police, the politicians themselves, journalists, intellectuals, judges, the secret services. What are these legal crimes, one may ask.

Because Britain is such a secret state and a silent one, most of the crimes committed by members of parliament will forever be unknown to the public. However, of the ones we do know about there is an abundance of crimes. For example Mr. Muhammad gives copious amounts of donations to people who like to blow people’s arms and legs off. He is likely to spend much of his life behind bars, because, it is, so we are told, funding terrorists. But when the state does it different rules and principles are applied; when the wanderer, the man with nowhere to go and no bed to sleep in, steals because he is hungry, he, for his troubles, is given a criminal record, and receives some form of punishment, but when members of parliament use taxpayers money to fund their lavish and extravagant lifestyles, stealing, as the case may be, up to tens of thousands of pounds, they are applauded by their colleagues; when the brute beats his partner half to death, he is branded the greatest monster that ever existed, and is handed a life sentence. When the government beats the heads of the electorate with an ideological sledgehammer, conducting economic warfare on millions of people, they are urged to create only more barbaric crimes, translated as laws. 

What is most repugnant about these people is the constant portrayal of them as grand moralists, and that they have “values” that they care deeply for humanity and could not even bear to see even a rodent in pain. If the majority of the population decided it was perfectly acceptable to murder, rape, rob, defraud and act cruelly to their neighbours, these politicians would support these actions because, for them, crime overrides any act of decency, principles, and good moral conduct. There are exceptions of course, not every member of parliament commits terrible abuses and crimes, but there are few of them, their voices are echoed and their names remembered.

These same politicians have been, and continue to be responsible for millions of displaced people all over the world, they are also responsible for grave criminal acts, such as concentrated bombing, invasion, colonisation, imperialism, but their most persistent war is one against their own people. In Anthony Burgess’ iconic novella, A Clockwork Orange, Frank Alexander, and we presume, a great deal of others, are put in prison because they are “subversives”. These people have the temerity to criticise the state. It is these people in the real world, not in a dystopian nightmare, that they face the boot of oppression. There is little need to put these dissidents behind bars because Britain is an open-air prison anyway. Freedom of speech, of expression no longer exist, protesting is illegal, Britain is not a police state, as many people believe, but a prison one and a police one rolled into one.

Noam Chomsky, the U.S linguist said, “If the Nuremberg laws applied every post war American President would have been hanged.” He was quite right of course. Nevertheless, almost every government of the bloodiest century in history, the twentieth century, so we are told and beyond, are guilty of heinous and immoral crimes. It is also the case every administration covers up the crimes of the previous one. Members of parliament in Britain are not quite the simpatico’s they claim to be; instead they are prevaricating, feral, bellicose and vacuous. The popular figures in twentieth century politics, appear to be heroes, and people of good character. Well that fairy tale ought to be quashed because their actions contradict this quixotic fantasy.

Ken Loach, the film director, directed a documentary called the spirit of ‘45. In it there are generous words said in praise of the Attlee Government, and evils deeds about the Thatcher administration. Well, what Loach does not touch upon is the barbaric actions of this same Attlee Government. Palestine is not mentioned, nor are the hundreds of thousands that were forcibly removed from their native land. The Israeli Historian, Avi Shlaim, highlights Aneurin Bevan's role in this monstrous affair, who was Foreign Secretary in Atlee’s Government, yes, Bevan’s role was an abominable one. Nye Bevin summed him up perfectly. After Bevan supported British “intervention in Greece, Bevan said of his fellow MP: “Mr Bevin has described what is happening in Greece. I have no time to answer him. However, there is one complete answer. Only three bodies of public opinion in the world have gone on record in his support, namely Fascist Spain, Fascist Portugal and the majority of Tories in the House of Commons”. This same Government held kept prisoners of war until 1948 and even kept them in forced labour camps; not even the Americans managed this feat, they were starved, beaten, and all this, shall we say, was in the spirit of ‘45, and beyond. Incidentally, such agreements contravene the Geneva Convention of Human Rights.

Before the Attlee Government and its peccant practices was that decorated leader, worshipped for all eternity, Winston Churchill. Heathcote Williams, the English poet, highlights some of the Great War leader’s finest achievements:

Churchill had a school-friend called Aubrey Herbert who, in 1915, wrote in his diary, “Winston's name fills everyone with rage. Roman emperors killed slaves to make themselves popular, he is killing free men to make himself famous.” “A curse should rest on me,” Churchill said, “because I love this war. I know It's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment and yet I can't help it. I enjoy every second.” “I don’t understand this squeamishness about the use of gas”, Churchill would say. "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." "I do not admit,” Churchill said "that any great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race has come in and taken its place”. After Hitler came to power, Churchill proclaimed that' If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable [as Hitler] to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." And to Mussolini, whom he addressed In Rome on 20 January 1927, he declared: “I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini’s gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. 'I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.' 'After today we begin to burn villages. Every one. In addition, all who resist will be killed without quarter. The Mohamads need a lesson, and there is no doubt we are a very cruel people.” Such action was vital, Churchill argued, because the Pashtuns “recognise superiority of race”.

It was once said to me by a rather dilapidated person, but educated in some respects, Harold Wilson, he said, was one and only true leader of the working man, and a true socialist. This was no laughing matter because he was more serious than I thought possible. It is entirely possible this “mad anarchist”, as he liked to call himself, was aware of the effects on the indigenous people on Diego Garcia. These people, like the Palestinians two decades before them, were forcibly removed from their land (to make way for an American military base). According to journalist John Pilger: “During the 1960s, in high secrecy, the Labour government of Harold Wilson conspired with two American administrations to "sweep" and "sanitize" the islands”. He goes on:

"To get rid of the population, the Foreign Office invented the fiction that the islanders were merely transient contract workers who could be "returned" to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away. In fact, many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, as their cemeteries bore witness. The aim, wrote a Foreign Office official in January 1966, "is to convert all the existing residents ... into short-term, temporary residents."

This ethnic cleansing is not even part of history. For most, it never happened. As George Orwell says: “If a leader says such and such of an event, ‘it never happened’-well, it never happened. If he says that two and two make five-well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs”.

When an “offender”, as the probation service, police and prison officers like to call men and women who find themselves confined to prison for whatever reason, are released, and placed on “licence”, a probationary period, a list of their “conditions” are drawn up. One of these conditions is usually for the ex-prisoner to stay away and not associate with any known “offenders”. Nevertheless, as we have seen, different precepts apply to statesmen and their colleagues. The most cruellest and sadistic megalomaniacs in history have been faithful allies to British Prime Ministers past, present and no doubt for posterity. These “allies” are known and so are their crimes.

 One of Tony Blair’s closest allies was Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of Israel. It was Sharon, in 1982, as Defence Minister, who oversaw massacres in Shatila and Sabra but what is more obscurely known is his terrorist past. In 1953, the El-Bureig refugee camp in Gaza was subject to a bloody massacre by Sharon’s 101 units; two months later, he headed another massacring operation in the village of Qibya, Jordan. United Nations military observers described the they witnessed:

 Riddled bodies near the doorway and multiple bullet hits on the doors of the demolished houses indicated the inhabitants had been forced to remain until their homes were blown up over them...witnesses were uniform in describing their experiences as a night of horror, during which Israel soldiers moved about in their village blowing up buildings, firing into doorways and windows with automatic weapons and throwing hand grenades.

These were what Sharon called “reprisals”. In the 1970s, the same man forcibly removed thousands of farmers from their own land, their houses were bulldozed and their crops destroyed. I have deliberately left out Sharon’s biggest crimes, but an ally of Tony Blair nonetheless.

Thatcher can better her affiliations in the rogue gallery. There is Saddam Hussein, whom she supplied mustard gas to; she supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; the admiration of the Chilean fascist, Augusto Pinochet; the Indonesian mass murderer, General Suharto; the Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin; the Mujahedeen; the white supremacists in South Africa and so on. This is true of every Prime Minister in history. They, every single one of them, are reprobates; they are amoral and scrupulous thugs. The exception, so we are told, is John Major: that peaceful and amicable man. So amiable that he bears much responsibility for the starvation and liquidation of Iraqi children in the 1990s, in the form of sanctions. He was such a good man that he was content to witness the genocide in Rwanda. Such amicability.

However, there is an important point to be made here. These members of parliament past and present whose “hands are clean”, need not expect to be applauded at all. For they are part of a system that is criminal from the outset. It has a criminal structure as well as a criminal framework and they know as much. The people they claim to represent are subjected to a sort of permanent Kafkaesque nightmare of terror. Their lives are emptied of any sort of meaning, any individuality. For that is the great evil of capitalism, it soon enough, breaks the individual. These same individuals are robbed (in the form of taxes), have their freedoms reduced (in the form of work), and so on.

If an individual witnesses a crime, and is part of that clique or clan, they are as much criminals as the perpetrators, so we are told. It should be no different to members of parliament. If they wish to be part of a criminal system, they must be designated as criminals from the outset. The free market, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, NATO, and so on are all criminal enterprises, as well as the Monarchy. People who are part of the system are part of the problem. There are lone and moral voices in the Houses of Parliament but such voices are so distant and removed from public attention that their existence is nothing but a cruel joke.

27-29th March 2014

This is the first of 8 essays on 'crime'. The second instalment shall be posted soon.

 

 

 

Prostitution

It is commonly accepted today prostitutes living and breathing on the streets of Britain are in less than a harmonious state. They are still referred to as 'whores' by the intelligentsia and writers of all kinds. The statistics on prostitutes walking down the street in this cruel and imperial island are not only shocking to many, but also totally criminal. Statistics, of course, change from time to time, but to cite some from recent times will show its faithful enthusiasts often label the barbarity of the trade, as it is often labelled by its faithful enthusiasts. Up to 90% of 'working girls' are dependent of the lethal drug, heroine; the average age a woman, or rather a child, begins as a prostitute, is just fourteen; up to 40% of the girls have been raped at least once, and these are just cases reported to the police. The statistics speak for themselves, as does the Government’s policy towards these poor girls.

The government of its day in Britain, whatever government may be, is of little consequence and makes little difference what government is in power on legislation concerning this issue, and especially for the well-being of those girls.  What the beastly men in power are doing here is beyond grotesque: they are forcing young girls into the dangerous areas in cities across the country, making the event of terrible things happening to them more likely.  They are often beaten, raped, and even murdered because the Government would prefer them not to be round where all the 'respectable' people live, so they are moved on to more gruesome areas.

They are, as George Orwell would refer to them as, unpeople or an unperson; they do not matter; they are of no significance, they do not influence the Government class-war agenda so they are left alone to suffer, to suffer alone, no doubt.  This is one kind of prostitution, we could be perverse and call it voluntary prostitution; there is some choice for many of these girls working in these horrendous circumstances, but if this was not macabre enough, there is a far darker element to prostitution, which is what we call forced prostitution, or sex-slaves, being trafficked from place to place.  For these girls, there is a heavy price if they refuse sex: they are raped, beaten and even tortured to such inhumane levels, that a commentary on the torture would appal many.

In a study by Oxford University’s Centre for Migration, policy and  Society (COMPAS), say children, and this is just children, leaving aside adults, 120,000 of them, children that is, are trafficked into the country for exploitation; that is staggering 1 in 100 children. That is a rate far higher than in the North American countries such as the United States or Canada.  Sex trafficking is more prevalent in Eastern Europe amongst teenage girls and adults, in Southeast Asia, child sex tourism is much more common, it is not hidden either, and men all over the western countries, as elsewhere, go to these countries for that purpose alone.  There was a European-led initiative to help prevent or at least limit sex trafficking throughout the continent, but Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown refused to take part, the only country to decline, and such brutes did not hide the reason either: they were against these victims staying in the country as immigrants, no, they would prefer horrific abuse to continue once again.  That, in essence, is the state's policy towards vulnerable children and women in the country, and outside it.

The process of trafficking young girls for sexual exploitation is truly horrific and is purposely kept out of the capitalist press, for if people knew, such barbaric practices would have to be stopped almost immediately.  Of course, the Government like to downplay the figures and statistics on these issues.  Indeed, it is important for people to know.  There are times, albeit seldom, that such things do reach the mainstream press, but then the following day the newspaper moves onto more mundane aspects of the “news”, such as the daily, infantile affairs of parliamentary politics, government reshuffles and so forth.  They do not like to tell their leaders’; girls’ from Eastern Europe are promised luxurious jobs in London, Paris, Madrid and so on, with a high wage.  It is a dream come-true for many of these impoverished young girls. The dream, however, is short lived.  Their passports are stolen, which can only be described as mobs and gangs, they are then kidnapped and ultimately “trained”; that is raped by large groups of men, usually Balkan and other Eastern European lunatics that traffic the girls, so they train them to have “sex” with perhaps 40 men a day, that is  raped 40 times a day.  Many of the girls are never seen again.  The girls either take their own lives because the abuse is so unbearable, others are killed because they no longer exist as a financial commodity to these criminal gangs, or they are just caught up in a cycle of abuse, which is impossible to escape from.

The girls are sold to those wild beasts, and have to pay back the “debt”.  However, unknown to them, the debt can never be paid off because it keeps rising and rising.  They employ similar tactics as a loan shark.  A friend of the girl or perhaps the girl’s boyfriend may be heavily in debt and they repay these gangs by taking their girlfriends’ or whoever it maybe, and selling her into sexual slavery.  It is the stuff of nightmares.  The practice could be abolished tomorrow, but for reasons, which only they know, states and governments around the world, would prefer such horrors to take place.  For they do nothing to stop them, and more, they do not even pretend to do so.

Such a thing could never happen to a daughter of a politician, a Monarch, a tyrant or whoever; it only happens to other people’s children.  Just like terrorists belong to distant lands, never our own, that is why we are able, or rather, they are able to break laws of every kind and keep people locked up, abused and mistreated for years on end.  Likewise, the electorate know this would never happen to their own children but we do not know the response of the electorate because the media continue to act in a criminal fashion and decide not to inform people of the facts.  By not informing them they are preventing people from acting on their empathetic impulses, and in turn, bear heavy responsibility for the suffering of these young girls.

A lot of it has to do with fanatical racism.  It is dressed up as “nationalism”, “patriotism”, and other such things.  “Charity starts at home”, is one of the most perverse phrases in the English language but what does it tell us about our society when men go out to rape these girls?  A phone call is all it takes to free them, that is all it takes.  For these men morality is made of sterner stuff.  Men and women can walk down the streets of New York, London, Sydney, Paris and wherever else, pretending such suffering does not exist, such people can do this for all eternity, and there are a small minority of people who do know. The people who laugh and joke about it have less ethics than government itself.

 It is true, there is a third kind of prostitution. It is, like the first, voluntary, but does not take place in dark and seedy street corners.  It takes place in “brothels”, “massage parlours” and other places.  Many of the girls’ call themselves “escorts”.  They are often young and attractive young women, and come from all parts of the globe.  They are in safe and luxurious apartments, neither are they forced into this type of work and they even refuse clients if they wish because they often work alone, for themselves. This is a more preferable form of prostitution. However, once again in Britain, successive governments have undermined such practices.  The premises where the girls work are often the target of the police and ultimately the premise closes, due to draconian licence laws and harsh practices.  These women are then pushed into the streets, to live a life of misery and agony because the treasury would like to robs the pockets of all its citizens (apart from the richest ones, where opposite rules apply).  They do this, and still have an obnoxious smile on their faces.

If only these girls were left to their own devices and lead lives through self-determination, and without government interference.  Indeed, so what the Government should be doing is taking these girls from the streets and putting them in safe shelter to work in a safe environment where they can be looked after.  They should see that the girls get urgent help with drug addiction and other problems.  Many of the girls come from the most hopeless of backgrounds.  A certain amount of them have been in care, prison, been subject to child abuse; they really ought to be offered counselling.  These suggestions are not even debated, let alone implemented.  They are not made because the state, in all its recidivism sees the girls’ as unpeople.  It is the current fashion for governments to pretend to care about people’s lives.  If it was not such a serious matter, we should all die of laughter. 

So it is up to charities and volunteer groups to help these girls, and for Human Rights groups, such as Amnesty International, to document such abuses and highlighting the savagery of sexual slavery.  In fact Amnesty have been campaigning for some years on this issue but the media often ignore these organisations, when it suits their interests to do so.  The public ought to be forced to hear such horrific stories of abuse and their struggle; their experiences must be documented, until this happens nothing, absolutely nothing will progress.  The media will continue to be loyal servants to the state.  In the meantime, young girls in many parts of the world are screaming for their lives as they are raped night after night, in some dark, alien world somewhere. Such girls may never see freedom, humanity, affection, love or happiness again

16th November 2012