Five countries including India, China and Russia account for 61% of all slavery

Modern slavery affects more than 35 million people, report finds

Five countries including India, China and Russia account for 61% of all slavery, says Australia-based Walk Free Foundation

• Larry Elliott, economics editor
• The Guardian, Monday 17 November 2014 13.02 GMT

The total number of people enslaved by region, see full image here. Photograph: Walk Free Foundation

More than 35 million people around the world are trapped in a modern form of slavery, according to a report highlighting the prevalence of forced labour, human trafficking, forced marriages, debt bondage and commerical sexual exploitation.

The Walk Free Foundation (WFF), an Australia-based NGO that publishes the annual global slavery index, said that as a result of better data and improved methodology it had increased its estimate 23% in the past year.

Five countries accounted for 61% of slavery, although it was found in all 167 countries covered by the report, including the UK.

India was top of the list with about 14.29 million enslaved people, followed by China with 3.24 million, Pakistan 2.06 million, Uzbekistan 1.2 million, and Russia 1.05 million.

Mauritania had the highest proportion of its population in modern slavery, at 4%, followed by Uzbekistan with 3.97%, Haiti 2.3%, Qatar 1.36% and India 1.14%.

Andrew Forrest, the chairman and founder of WFF – which is campaigning for the end of slavery within a generation – said: “There is an assumption that slavery is an issue from a bygone era. Or that it only exists in countries ravaged by war and poverty.

“These findings show that modern slavery exists in every country. We are all responsible for the most appalling situations where modern slavery exists and the desperate misery it brings upon our fellow human beings.

“The first step in eradicating slavery is to measure it. And with that critical information, we must all come together – governments, businesses and civil society – to finally bring an end to the most severe form of exploitation.”

Countries identified as leading the fight to end modern slavery include Australia, Austria, Georgia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US. Only Australia, Brazil and the US, however, were making efforts to address the issue in government procurement and the supply chains of businesses operating in there.

Modern slavery is a live political issue in the UK, with a bill on the issue moving through parliament and David Cameron highlighting it in his speech to the Conservative party conference this year.

“But there’s still more injustice when it comes to work, and it’s even more shocking. Criminal gangs trafficking people halfway around the world and making them work in the most disgusting conditions,” Cameron said.

“I’ve been to see these houses on terraced streets built for families of four, cramming in 15 people like animals. To those crime lords who think they can get away with it, I say ‘no, not in this country, not with this party’ … With our modern slavery bill we’re coming after you and we’re going to put a stop to it once and for all.”

Olly Buston, WFF’s movement director, said: “There is still a chance that the modern slavery bill will make Britain’s anti-slavery laws the best in the world. But the draft bill must be strengthened. Children and other victims of slavery need to be properly protected. And the bill must ensure that businesses take action to end slavery in their supply chains”.

The world is run by sociopaths – but we still demand honesty at the till

The worldview of Which? has a moral clarity that is missing from nearly every other sphere of life these days

• 
• • Zoe Williams
  • The Guardian, Sunday 16 November 2014 16.29 GMT

‘Somehow we’ve retained this elemental demand for fairness. “Buyer beware” doesn’t cut it: the seller also has a responsibility not to con people.’ Photograph: Larry Lilac / Alamy

As supermarket giants puzzle over their profit warnings and the nation readies itself to spend a household average of 800 quid it doesn’t have, here’s a quick rundown of festive scams. I don’t mean drunk people in reindeer horns pretending to have lost their wallet and asking for two pounds; that’s next month.

No, I mean the ways we are ripped off in shops. I quite like an old-fashioned swindle, it gives me a sense of continuity: the person who designed the chocolate finger packet so it contains more air than finger is descended on a direct moral line from the grocer of olden days who used to hide a clog in a bag of flour. It is reassuringly simple: most of gangster capitalism is only barely understood by the people perpetrating it, and makes the victim feel foolish, not only for having been the mark in the first place but also for the sudden spotlight on their ignorance. I personally would like to see someone go to prison every time one of us is required to learn a new acronym: if we’d instituted that after the Libor scandal, would there ever have been a Forex?

Clearly, retailers couldn’t stay competitive if they didn’t keep up with the modern world of the corporate predator. Not every consumer shakedown is a period piece: the great cheese swindle, in which wholesale prices have gone down while supermarkets – apparently by wild coincidence, and certainly not because anybody thinks they’re operating as a cartel – put their prices up, has a lot in common with today’s energy market. What we need is some kind of regulatory body to monitor the undulations of milk protein. We could call it Ofcheese. I will happily take charge of that, when the time comes.

But back to the shops, where a new Which? survey suggests there are three broad categories of swindle: making you buy a thing because you think it’s better quality than it is; because you think it’s better value than it is; or because you think it’s healthier than it is. The tricks are so craven, it’s a little embarrassing to name them. The own brand might be designed to be indistinguishable from the branded version. Goodfella’s pizzas print calorie counts based on a person eating only one quarter of a pizza, which nobody has ever done since pizzas were invented. Biscuits loaded with sugar are called “light” because they have reduced their proportion of fat (what with the scandal of the air-Fingers on one hand, and McVitie’s “lite” digestives on the other, I think we could also make a case for the creation of Ofbiscuit). Fruit juices that are mainly apple are adorned with two strawberries and called “strawberry smoothie”. This has solved two mysteries that have plagued me throughout my child-rearing years: how can anyone afford to produce 300ml of pure strawberry juice? (Because that’s not what it is.) And what is the point of the word “smoothie”? (Unlike “juice”, there is no widely understood definition of the word, separate from the product. So you don’t have to name it after what it’s actually made of; you can name it after something it reminds you of.)

Department stores hunt bigger game, packaging things as “gift sets” in order to stick an unwarranted 20% on their prices. We’ve known that for years. And they engage in affective propaganda, trying to manipulate your gift-giving mindset to include people like cousins. You can snort at this, confident you will never be so sheep-like as to buy a pepper grinder for someone whose name you have been known to get wrong. But consider: do you do Halloween? There is no such thing as the successful refusnik of marketing strategies, only variations of late adopter.

What I really love about Which? surveys – indeed, the existence of Which? as an institution – is the sense of moral clarity. There is very broad-based agreement, across the political spectrum, that people selling things ought to be open and honest about what they’re selling. There is total consensus in the shopping universe that markets are social spaces, and like any other social space will only function if people treat others as they themselves would want to be treated. This certainty has gone missing from conversations elsewhere: a banking scandal always comes garnished with people arguing that the financial sector is so wedged with talent that it should be unleashed from moral codes, the better to dazzle us with its heady ambitions. Business is increasingly presented as a quixotic, ungovernable process, upon which we all rely so heavily, and to which we should render such gratitude, that it is not for us to question it. Inevitably, this comes with the expectation that the successful entrepreneur or innovator will be sociopathic – indeed, that that’s what marks him or her out as so special: the ability to separate themselves from the muddled matters of trust and sympathy that beset the world of the non-entrepreneur. And yet, somehow, we’ve retained this elemental demand for fairness at the till. “Buyer beware” doesn’t cut it: the seller also has a responsibility not to con people. Granted, it’s not a responsibility they take very seriously, least of all at Christmas, but it’s heartening that we’re still bothering to articulate it.

Incidentally, the way to prevent overspending in supermarkets and department stores is to wear headphones piping extremely loud, motivational music; it doesn’t have to be anti-consumerist in content, just bouncy, the kind of thing joggers listen to. It does more than speed up your progress around the shop, it taps into a part of your psyche that doesn’t need unnecessary stuff because it already feels great. Complaining about shops and their moral deficiencies is necessary but insufficient. I would like to see shops treated a bit more like shoplifters – prosecuted for dishonesty even when it seems petty – and shoplifters treated a bit more like shops.

For now I just need an iPod, and my red-blooded resistance will commence.

Cricketing technique is a myth

David Hinchliffe in Cricinfo

  

Trying to hit a ball through the covers is totally different from being taught the proper way to cover-drive. One makes robots, the other makes runs © Getty Images

Technique is a myth.

For every technical perfectionist, there are many more who defy the copybook. Even Bradman, with his unusual backlift, was no stranger to the unorthodox. Yet you could argue that he is the greatest sportsman of all time; certainly the greatest batsman in the stats book. Bradman is far from alone. If I were to ask you to name the technical masters you could give me a list of grand heroes: Dravid, Boycott, Gavaskar and so on. Yet if I asked you to name some greats regardless of technique your list would likely be much longer.

You might argue that within this elite group, there are similarities. All great batsmen watch the ball with a still head. All great bowlers have exceptional balance. The variations are fine, but the core is essentially the same. There's a fair chance you were told these by a coach or heard it from a TV commentator with first-class experience. Reliable sources everyone, so why would you think otherwise?

Except, the more we look into technical elements scientifically, the more we see that even the core of skill has variation between individuals. Some people are moving at the point of delivery. Some people are not watching the ball closely. Some bowlers generate pace with horrible actions. These are tested and proven facts.

-----Also Read

Why are Asians under represented in English cricket?

Failing the Tebbit test - Difficulties in supporting the England cricket team

------

It makes sense when you think about it. Cricket is played by the imperfect mess that is a human being. Each one is genetically unique from height to physical strength to preferred hand and eye (yes, we all have a stronger eye). We all move differently and think differently. From that primal soup of genes, we are thrown into a culture that influences us further. To expect a boy growing up on the streets of Mumbai with a tennis ball to have the same method as a girl from Surrey with hours of formal coaching at a club is ridiculous. And, isn't that the joy of cricket anyway: It can accommodate every type of person from anywhere in the world? Not many sports can offer the same inclusiveness, even at the highest level.

I'm a coach for my day job and I was brought up on "proper technique". You play straight. You bowl side on. You iron out flaws in players who are doing it incorrectly. As the years passed I began to soften to what was correct. I started to realise that there is scope for variety, scope for what works for an individual. Then one day I realised that there was nothing left in the correct column any more. Everything was open to negotiation. Coaching was no longer about correcting technique, and all about helping the player find his or her best technique. Sometimes - most of the time - that means shutting up and letting the players work it out for themselves. That takes a heck of a lot of confidence because on the outside you look like someone who knows nothing and has nothing to say. In fact, you know that a player will understand himself far more that you will ever understand him. It's your job to help accelerate that process. That's why mystery spinners appear most often from cultures where there is little formal coaching. Players have to work it out for themselves and are never told they are doing it wrong. The ones who do that best end up playing Test cricket, often out of nowhere.

There is still a role for the coach at every level. Learning happens faster with someone to guide you. It's just that the modern coach has a different approach. Players are given challenges to complete and asked to work out the answer for themselves. For example, trying to hit a ball through a gap in the covers is totally different from being taught the proper way to cover drive. One makes robots, the other makes runs.

A world with flexible technique is a fun world to watch as well as coach. Bowlers and batsmen who are different are much more watchable. Imagine a team of technical grinding batsmen and right arm medium-fast bowlers. Now throw in someone like a Pietersen, who has a crazy uncoachable technique and approach to batting. Add a Narine with the ball and equally individual method. Now we are having a good time. For this reason I'm glad the idea of technical perfection is dying. Cricket is all the better for variety at every level. So, the next time your team's coach - or your son's coach - is quiet instead of prescriptive, or doesn't just run a net and bark instructions, give him a nod of silent recognition that you understand.

Ittefaq Nama

Najam Sethi in The Friday Times

My foreign trip has been ruined by happenings back home. Imran’s party wallah has gone to court to say agents of gormint are harassing him. “Haw?” judge is asking. “Every time I pick up my landline phone to dial out, a voice says: ‘your phone has been cut off due to non-payment of bill’”, he replied. Did I tell them to do civil disobedience and not pay bills of utilities, hain ji? Naw they are threatening massive dharna on November 30 to paralyze gormint.

I told Shbaz Saab worry not, if we are dethroned, we will set up new business. “Which one?” Shbaz Saab asked. “We’ll make windows, like Bill Gates. Look how much money he’s made. Only puzzle is that his name is Gates but he makes windows, hain ji?” But other people are worst off. I was in German recently. One unfartunate man, hailing from Lahore, was sattled in Frankfurt. His wife was nag and abusive. When his daughter applied for college, she brought farms to Abu to fill out. In section of Mother Tongue, Unfartunate advised his daughter, “Likh puttar, write my child ‘very long, black and be lagaam meaning out of control’”. Haw sad.

Unfartunate prevailed upon me to counsel his wife. When I met her I said, “Bhabi, why you are so mean to your husband?” She told me heart-wrenching story. “Mian Saab, he is so unromantic. Last week he went on trip. I was missing him so sent him a message: ‘If you are sleeping, send me your dreams. If you are laughing, send me your smile. If you are eating, send me a bite. If you are drinking, send me a sip. If you are crying, send me your tears’. Horrible man replied, ‘I am sitting on commode. Now tell?’” Then she bust into tears.

Needlass to say, I was leaving German with heavy heart so Her Majesty Angela Merkel asked me, “Prime Minister, what is the problem?” I sighed, “Your Highness, will I live to see democrat generals and a reasonable Imran Khan?” She replied, “just as I will not live to see unicorns, you will not live to see democratic generals and a reasonable Imran Khan. These are all fictional characters.”