A Lingering Debt: The UK's Final Settlement of Slave Trade Compensation

In 1833, the British Empire abolished slavery, a landmark decision that marked the end of a cruel and inhumane practice. However, the legacy of this dark chapter in history continued to reverberate long after the chains were broken. One of the most enduring consequences was the issue of compensation for slave owners.To appease slave owners and ensure a smooth transition away from slavery, the British government offered substantial compensation. This amounted to £20 million, a significant sum at the time, representing approximately 40% of the government's annual expenditure. The money was intended to compensate owners for their "loss" of enslaved people.

A Lingering Debt

Despite this initial payment, the full financial burden of the slave trade persisted for centuries. The compensation was rolled into a government bond known as an "undated gilt," which didn't have a fixed repayment date. This, combined with the government's economic challenges and the complex nature of debt management, delayed the final settlement.

The Final Payment

It wasn't until 2015 that the UK government finally redeemed the remaining undated gilt, effectively paying off the last installment of the slave trade compensation. This marked the end of a debt that had spanned nearly two centuries.

A Controversial Legacy

The decision to compensate slave owners remains a controversial topic. Critics argue that it was morally wrong to reward those who had profited from the enslavement of human beings. Defenders of the compensation contend that it was necessary to prevent further unrest and ensure a peaceful transition away from slavery.

The Unseen Beneficiaries

While the final payment brought closure to this historical debt, the identities of the ultimate beneficiaries remain largely unknown. The passage of time, the complexity of family lineages, and privacy concerns have made it difficult to trace the descendants of the original slave owners who received compensation.

Conclusion

The UK's final settlement of slave trade compensation in 2015 marked the end of a long and complex chapter in the country's history. While the financial debt has been repaid, the moral and historical implications of the slave trade continue to be debated. As we look back on this dark period, it is essential to acknowledge the suffering endured by enslaved people and to work towards a more just and equitable future.

Job ad reveals private landlords targeted as POCA “income”

 

A London council job advertisement sparks concerns about the true motives of creating a private landlords’ register. Leading many to question whether planning enforcement is morphing into an out-of-control profit-driven abuse of process. TheBigRetort...

Understanding POCA

The Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002 allows authorities to recover funds obtained through illegal activity. The Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS) financially rewards authorities with a significant 37.5% of the value recovered under the POCA scheme. While POCA serves a valuable purpose in the fight against criminality, concerns arise when such a significant financial gain appears to be the driving force behind prosecutions, as evidenced by Lewisham Council's revealing job advertisement we unearthed for a new enforcement officer.

 

Red flags raised by enforcement job advertisement

The job advertisement for a "Private Sector Housing Fraud and Intelligence Officer" raises red flags. Remarkably, the ad explicitly states that the successful candidate should "...ensure prosecutions are successful and maximise income for the borough in respect of proceeds of crime." 

The focus on financial gain contradicts the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which demands prosecutions be based solely on public interest, not a council's income.

 The curious case of Kevin Bottomley: Unintended consequences?

 

In 2010, an Appeal Court ruling equated breaches of planning enforcement orders to criminal activities. This ruling may have had unintended consequences, as demonstrated in the case of Kevin Bottomley, a long-time shopkeeper and landlord running K J Building Supplies. Last year, Bottomley, based in Loampit Hill, Lewisham, faced closure due to a seemingly curious planning enforcement action. 

Despite years of openly trading sand and cement from the side of his shop, a practice previously tolerated by the council, Bottomley found himself targeted for planning enforcement, possibly - or now it may appear - for targeted income. Kevin is the landlord of the store's new owner.

Court case sets precedent

A Court of Appeal case, Wokingham Borough Council v. Scott and others[2019], established a strong precedent for ensuring ethical enforcement practices. The court ruled that a council's desire for financial gain through POCA should not influence its decision to prosecute. 

This case directly addresses Lewisham Council's questionable tactics in the Bottomley case. Notably, whilst the store eventually received planning permission, the prosecution still continues. Kevin Bottomley, though now retired,  is the "landlord" of the store's new owner..?

Call for investigation and ethical enforcement practices

A full, independent investigation into Lewisham Council's use of POCA and ARIS is necessary to ensure ethical enforcement practices. Mayor Brenda Dacres must address these concerns and prioritise the welfare of the people, as outlined in Lewisham's borough motto, "Salus Populi Suprema Lex." 

We urge Mayor Dacres to reject POCA profiteering and prioritise ethical enforcement practices within Lewisham Council in order to protect private landlords from POCA profiteering.

Continued Investigation

TheBigRetort is commited to investigating this story further and reporting any future developments.

THE BIG RETORT