|
"David Cameron's spokesman said on Wednesday it was up to consumers whether they choose to eat prawns that had been produced through the work of slaves."
Okay. That's bad policy, but it's not the spokesman's fault.
However.
"He could not say whether Cameron himself would be happy to eat prawns where slavery had been used in their production."
Seriously?
There is a correct answer to that question if you are a spokesman, and that answer is: "No, of course not." (Especially if you are a spokesman for someone whose family made a fortune out of being compensated for forfeiture of slaves when slavery was abolished.) Even if you haven't asked him, even if you don't actually know, even if you think, privately, that David Cameron would consider the knowledge that slavery was in the supply chain of his seafood to add a delicious piquancy to the flavour, the answer you give the press immediately is no.
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}