The 200th anniversary of its being outlawed in the British Empire — some 35 years after it was declared illegal in England (shortly thereafter in Scotland) by the unelected, unaccountable judiciary, who had the arrogance to declare
Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England
thus, doubtless, causing cries of ‘they just don’t get it‘ from outraged slave owners who’d brought their slaves to England with them — is prompting a predictable debate over calls for an apology from Britain for the country’s role in the slave trade (running it rather than suppressing it, that is; enforcing the ban apparently cost more than the profits earlier derived from the trade).
I suspect this is ultimately about money — many things are — and that, ultimately, various American lawyers and community organisations have more than half an eye on reparations paid by governments and companies for the German use of slave labour under the Nazis (not that anyone’s ever offered my Godmother a Euro’s worth of compensation for the murder of her parents and younger brother, left behind in Vienna after they sent her to safety on a Kinderstransport, though I don’t think she’s looking for any).
Consequently, I think it’s an opportune time to remind people of the outcome of the case Victims of Slavery versus Lloyd’s of London, heard in the Court of Appeal by Lord Justice Mussellbeet last May. It’s not available on Bailii as yet, so we are fortunate that Tim Worstall made a full transcript.