Selfsufficientish.com

Now we all would like to eat locally,and nobody in their right mind can justify food being flown in from round the world to line SM shelves with out of season stuff,but, like me,you may have justified your early morning PG and susequent endless Lavazzas,safe in the knowledge that they were delivered by ship,and you could sup up with a clear(ish) conscience.Well check out http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../Sea ... ailor.html .


Time for a rethink perhaps?.....

dud link !

Weird!.........but it works if you google 'Telegraph Life of a modern sailor'

Terrible.

As usual though I find the Smelligraph's reporting to be appalling.

The International Commission on Shipping estimates that thousands of seafarers, working on 10-15 per cent of the world’s ships, ‘work in slave conditions, with minimal safety, long hours for little or no pay, starvation diets, rape and beatings’. All to bring us our Fairtrade coffee and our ethically sourced clothes.

These, presumably, aren't the only users of sea transport. I find it hard to believe that FT companies like Clipper protect the rights of coffee growers and then use the cheapest, most expoitative (sp?) form of shipping.

So have they just slipped that bit in to take the opportunity to have a pop at FT or is the whole article equally badly researched. Or is it true that FT companies are bad uns just like everyone else - which should be a story in its own right.

The trouble is I just don't know which makes me a little cynical.

True I spose,but the international maritime union bloke hasn't got an axe to grind viz FT stuff has he? I never read any papers let alone this one(which I saw in the doctors waiting place),so I didn't realise the telegraph was especially crap.I just read that bit you highlighted as'' we try to take care of overseas producers,what about the people who deliver the stuff''.
And anyhow,doesn't it suggest that a significant reason we can import so much is because of 21st century slavery?

Probably, it just narks me that they slip things like that into an otherwise (hopefully) serious article.

For me, it devalues their main arguments by shoddy axe-grinding because I then can't tell which other bits are real.

If FT companies are the main culprits in using the worst side of shipping then we need to know - they were the only ones they mentioned - but I fear it's some pet campaign of this particular rag.

The Telegraph isn't crap.

I would take the "Torygraph" with a pinch of salt and do some real research..........

Am I missing something here ? Given that the Telegraph is by (almost) common consent right-wing drivel, why would they be running a story about the very worst of capitalist exploitation? Doesn't the fact that they're running the story make it even more significant? Or is it a bit too difficult to deal with if your diet depends upon foods shipped cheaply from the other side of the world?

Hate to say it, it being the Telegraph, but I think this is a very good and basically true article. I trained for the merchant navy but never really went to sea because of the conditions, conditions that have deteriorated a hundred fold since then, with 'flags of convenience' and seamen from the poorest countries becoming the complete norm. I'm not sure the Telegraph was having 'a pop' at Fairtrade on this occassion, merely contrasting our concern for land workers for the total neglect of seamen. Even the Fairtrade spokesperson had to admit there was little they could do about it.