Jim Carroll - 06 Oct 16 - 04:13 AM

Usual over emotive response and generalisations from the above poster.

I wonder does he actually mean to challenge the evidence put before the Crown Court in the case of the Chinese Cockle pickers?

Is he actually attempting to deny the existence of Agencies set up in Eastern European EU member states who engage workers on what are in their own countries perfectly legal contracts, then send those workers to Britain using the EU's free movement of labour as the vehicle by which those agencies then exploit those workers. In doing this no EU Law is being violated and EU Law supersedes UK Law.

My previous post on this doesn't cover the half of it. The legally binding contract signed back in the labourer's home country requires that:

Contracted labour has to stay in Agency provided accommodation and money is deducted from their wages to cover those costs.
Contracted labour have to surrender their Passports.

In other words they are trapped for the term of their contracts. Now so far in all of this not a single "Brit" has been involved.