It didn't take long after the British government caved in to international pressure and agreed to compensate the Mau Mau butchers of Kenya for the descendants of other so called 'victims' of the naughty British to jump on the easy money gravy train.
After the success of the Mau Mau terrorists using distorted history to drum up support amongst the professional international grievance industry, the leaders of twelve Caribbean countries were not slow to spot an opportunity to make some easy money. They have banded together and formed the Caribbean Community with a view to using the so called 'Mau Mau model' to extort a bit of loot of their own.
The Caribbean grievance mongers haven't got off to a very good start as the 'Mau Mau model' is based on allegations of torture and physical abuse as opposed to "the lingering legacy of slavery".
The allegations of abuse are a bit rich coming from the Mau Mau who were notorious for their brutality, not only against the British but against innocent civilians from their own people.
The British government, led by Foreign Secretary William Haig, either didn't do history at school or he is deliberately ignoring it in order to curry favour with the professional international grievance industry.
As with any uprising, the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya was a brutal affair with atrocities committed on both sides. The Mau Mau however are acknowledged to have surpassed brutality even by African standards. They paid particular attention to women, children and old people for rape, mutilations and torture before death. Burning victims alive was another favourite pastime.
It would appear that William Haig, better known as 'Little Willie Squit' in his hometown, has chosen to ignore the survivors of the Lari and Chuka massacres, to name but two, in an act of appeasement over justice.
As was predicted by everyone outside of the political bubble, agreeing to pay compensation for perceived historical wrongs would set a precedent and open the floodgates to anyone with a grievance, real or imagined, to take the opportunity to gouge the British taxpayers for some easy money.
If the principle is to give cash compensation to the victims of physical abuse then it would be in order for the British government to share the 20 million they plan to give to the Mau Mau killers with their victims. Surely the grievance industry would not object to that.
In keeping with the principle of paying compensation to the victims of physical abuse in Kenya, it has been suggested that not a penny is handed over until the Kenyan government pays cash compensation to the victims and survivors of its own atrocities.
There are plenty to choose from including the Gorrissa massacre of 1980 and the Wagalla massacre of 1984 where 3,000 and 5,000 ethnic Somali villagers were butchered by Kenyan government troops.
Now the precedent is set for paying compensation to victims of death and abuse, we can look forward to the professional grievance industry demanding that their approved terrorist organisations follow the same rules :
a) the Palestinians pay the victims of the Lod Airport massacre of 26 innocents in 1972
b) Palestinians pay for the Ma'alot massacre of 29 Arab Christian women in 1974
c) the Tamil Tigers pay for the Anuradhapura massacre of 146 Buddhist nuns and monks in 1985 who were at prayer in a sacred shrine at the time.
The list of grievance hypocrisy is endless.
The claim for compensation by the Caribbean Community should be seen for what it is. An attempt by venal politicians and the legal vultures to extort money from a craven, cowardly government, that is more concerned with its international 'progressive' reputation than justice for the British taxpayer.
There is no "lingering legacy of slavery" in the Caribbean. It is surprising that Little Willie Squit doesn't know the history of slavery despite being the author of a best selling biography of William Wilberforce, the man accredited with abolishing the slave trade.
If there is poverty in these Caribbean Island paradises then it's the incompetence, corruption and criminality among the people and their leaders that is responsible and nothing to do with the events of 200 years ago.
The proposal to abolish the slave trade was put forward first in 1787 and then again in 1807. It was passed into law in 1833. The Caribbean Islands the British left behind were already developed, if they are in under-developed state today then the blame lies squarely with the Caribbean people themselves.
It's a mystery to many how some of these beautifully situated, fertile paradise islands can end up as the crime infested cesspits that they are today. The consensus is that they wouldn't be in this state if the British were still there.
As with the Mau Mau precedence, if these money grabbers are successful then the world can look forward to the professional grievance industry pushing for the Romans to compensate for British slavery, the Arabs for enslaving Africans, Africans for enslaving other Africans, the Turks for enslaving the Greeks and above all, the most famous slavery case of all, the Babylonians for enslaving the Jews.
The assertion that the Caribbean slave trade generated the wealth which is the basis for Britain's prosperity today is utter nonsense. The Caribbean industries represented a mere five percent of the British economy and my ancestors didn't see a penny of it.
In conclusion it's worth noting some quotes from two African leaders who were against abolition of the slave trade.
"the slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and glory of their wealth"
King Geco of Dahomey
"we think this trade should go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself".
The King of Bony (now Nigeria) who was horrified at the Bill to abolish slavery in 1807.
It would appear that the people of Dahomey and Nigeria will be asked to cough up for their brothers and sisters suffering "the lingering legacy of slavery" among the palm trees on their sun drenched Caribbean Island prison.