<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/14058325?origin\x3dhttp://croydonian.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

O tempora, o mores!

Sunday, March 08, 2009
Courtesy of wonk group the NLGN (headed by a former Labour MP), I have discovered anew quite how many sick punishment freaks lurk among an unsuspecting British populace.

It asked this question:

Please indicate which of the following possible directed surveillance methods your local council would be justified in using as a means of dealing with the following issues?

Now have a look at the chart below. Go on, double click on it, it is worth it.



That the public thinks covert video surveillance is appropriate for dealing with terrorism is not entirely surprising, although given that most councils seem to struggle with gritting the roads, emptying bins and so on, the idea that they would be able to do anything especially useful with film footage, even if the suspects were strolling around with a black spheres marked 'bomb', stretches credulity. It gets worse, however, as Joe and Josie Public think that theft, drug dealing and dangerous driving are more worthy of video surveillance than keeping an eye on those pesky Methodist suicide bombers. This, I fear is only par for the course, as are the majorities who want to point hidden cameras at fly-tippers, and get this, folk who allow their canine charges to leave their calling cards in the street.

Unnerving though that is, folk were also offered the possibility of having their councils tap phones and read one's e-mail. Majorities support that for organised crime and terrorism, and - as God is my witness, I am *not* making this up - around 10% are in favour of the Man (and Woman) at the council offices tapping phones and reading e-mail to see if school catchment rules are being broken.

However, it gets madder yet. There are people in favour of those same powers to combat the Four Horsemen that are, ahem, dog fouling, fly-tipping, illegal street trading and illegal parking.

Imagine, if you will, the conversation they might be listening in on:

"''Ere, Dave, I'm taking Fang out for a walk later. Do you want to bring Rex along, so we can synchronise their dumps right outside Mrs Miggin's house at number 32?"

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Lefty thinktank in 'disliking the reformed upper house' shocker

Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Lefty think tank, the New Local Government Network - Director, former Labour MP, Deputy Director, former advisor to Hilary Armstrong - has had a look at the House of Lords, and shock, horreur, has found membership skewed towards London and the South East. And Scotland, although it is a bit embarrassed about that one and tries to push that under the carpet.

I could save myself the bother of writing and readers the effort of reading by noting that one has to be more than a little wary of an organisation that *repeatedly* uses 'it's' when it means 'its':

"The majority of Conservative Party Peers are taken from their traditional strongholds in the south with 24% of its (see - they can do it if they try) Peers from the South East, 20% of it’s (sic) Peers from London, 17% of it’s (sic) Peers from the East of England and 12% of it’s (sic) Peers from the South West".

Really professional, people. The authors have three degrees between them, by the way. One of them worked with Prescott, so I suppose he has learnt at the feet of a master.

However, onward.

As anyone sentient will have noticed, the 'reform' of the Lords is a complete dog's breakfast but it is rather amusing that our wonky subjects seem to want a return to a structure akin to the mediaeval Lords:

"The New Local Government Network is agnostic about the precise nature of a reformed House of Lords, as long as there is a more representative basis to its composition than at present, with a fair number of seats for each region of the country".

Had Blair left the Lords alone, extent of geographical representation - the NLGN's sine qua non of a 'good' reformed upper house - would be a good deal broader. A moment's reflection on the dreary placemen and women drafted in to replace some of the many splendid peers of the realm handed their P45s in '99 makes that abundantly clear.

And the NLGN's method?:

"Using information from the publically (sic) available House of Lords Register of Members’ Expenses , we have assessed the geographic make-up of members of the House of Lords by analysing the main residency of Peers. We accept that residing in an area might not mean that a Peer was born or has always resided in that area. However, given that Peers have identified and therefore self-defined the area as their ‘main residence’, we feel it is fair to categorise these areas as the primary locations in which the individual member of the House of Lords are based".

And issues of tax, expenses, getting as far away as humanly possible from one's relatives do not lend themselves to being crunched in the same way. Note that provincial MPs spend an awful lot more of the Parliamentary year in their London abodes than out in Barsetshire East or Clagthorpe New Town.

Further thoughts later. Probably.




Labels: , , ,

posted by Croydonian

Would you let these people run a lentil stall?

Monday, February 11, 2008
Some time back I registered on the New Economic Foundation's website, and accordingly get the occasional e-mail from them.

This one is a classic:

"When nef's new book...Do Good Lives Have to Cost the Earth? was launched just under a month ago a rush of purchases led to stocks running out at Amazon, and a number of disappointed people not being able to buy it".

So, they have A - grossly misjudged prospective demand, and then B - taken the thick end of a month to schedule a further print run and get the book back in stock. And C, they appeared to have scheduled it to come out just after Christmas. Only missing the busiest time of the year for the book trade.......

'Economics as if people and the planet mattered' is its website mission statement. I would have thought 'economics as if rank amateurs were allowed anywhere near the till' would be nearer the mark.

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Informed Choice....

Monday, January 07, 2008
For Immediate Release

Wonk Group marketing misleads recruits, warns new report

"Potential new recruits to wonkery are subjected to a misleading picture of life in the wonk sector, according to a new report backed by the Croydonian Foundation, launched today"

  • Brochures suggest that it will be non-stop lunches with ministers, not making tea for the head of research and manning the photocopier.
  • No warnings are given of the likelihood of having to stand around at party conferences handing out leaflets to bored delegates.
  • Breakfast meetings are common, and involve early starts and the prospect of fighting of freeloading bloggers.
  • Recruits are unlikely to become MPs or get book deals.

In wholly unrelated news, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust donated £ 3,673,719.80 to various branches of the Liberal Democrats between 2001 and 2007.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Site maintenance announcement of the year

Wednesday, November 14, 2007
To be found, for the time being, at the Adam Smith Institute:

"An invisible hand is currently updating the site".

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

'Nearly all children' have been victims of crime

Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Pretty arresting, as headlines go. So I investigated, and lo and indeed behold, it is my old mate Frances Crook and the Howard League engaging in shock tactics.

And what do they mean by crime? Erm, name calling, fighting, damage to property and the like. The press release does not give sourcing or data beyond headline figures, but notes "As part of the Citizenship and Crime project, an educational programme that ran in primary and secondary schools between 1997 and 2006, the Howard League for Penal Reform surveyed more than 3,000 children across the country over a period of seven years". So, no indication as to whether this is a socio-economic, ethnic, age, or geographically balanced set of 3000 children the HLPR quizzed, whether they were self-selecting etc etc, or whether in common with small people everywhere, they were giving the pursed-lipped clipboard holders the answers that they wanted. Leading questions too, maybe?

Anyway, the League is horrified by all of this youthful 'criminality', although perhaps its being appalled that children do not go the police to report that they have had their hair pulled, been called smelly or whatever should be tempered by this part of the law: The age of criminal responsibility in England is 10.

There is an element of recognition that it has set up the straw man to end all straw men:

"Although the incidents reported in the survey need to be taken seriously, they also need to be kept in context. Children are by very definition immature. Bullying or racist name-calling are to some extent simply children behaving as children and need to be dealt with proportionately and sensitively".

Well indeed. And what does the HLPR suggest?:

"The Howard League for Penal Reform believes that better solutions on dealing with child victimisation and crime can be found in expanding and developing conflict resolution and mediation-based techniques into educational programmes for schools".

I imagine they have a team of consultants ready to launch themselves on an unsuspecting populace, at very reasonable per diems, even as I type.


Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Wonks - what will they think of next?

Friday, October 05, 2007
Here is a corker from Demos:

"...using older people as the new public service workforce. Imagine some sort of voluntary national service at 65 that helped people become part time teachers, social workers, sure start workers. We could tap the well of creativity, care and energy that so many retirees still have".


Right. Retirees really will be queuing round the block to take up stressful, front line jobs in the public sector, and furthermore to do it for nothing. I do not doubt that a lifetime spent working in insurance, retail, farming or whatever will be the perfect training ground for being spat at, sworn at and dodging fists or worse. After all, you never get teachers, social workers etc jacking it all in after a few months because of the fun and games that come with the job.

Doubtless we can expect the Demos bods themselves to lead the way when they collect their gold laptops.



Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

The 'funky' Left stumbles upon fire and is amazed

Wednesday, September 19, 2007
In the form of a post at Demos.

Anyone who has travelled outside the English speaking world, or tuned into a TV or radio station from beyond these islands is well aware of the impact of our language on popular culture. Watching the Eurovision Song Contest would probably have got the idea over too.

However, this has prompted quite the 'gosh wow' reaction at Demos, which is agog that the English language version of the latest Harry Potter has sold more copies outside the UK than here. Mildly interesting at best, but hardly an earth shattering revelation.

However:

"Apart from wizard-fever, this shows how important popular culture is in relation to the globalisation of English, a theme we discussed in As You Like It'. It's also pretty revealing, it's difficult to imagine either a German-language or Mandarin book selling 1m pre-order copies in the UK".

Well yes. Obviously. The language of global popular culture is English, and has been for decades. 'Difficult to imagine'? Erm, impossible actually, as there are nothing like a million people with a sufficient command of German or Chinese in these parts.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Wonks for higher unemployment

Monday, September 03, 2007
In this case the ippr, which thinks that Londoners should have a higher minimum wage, mainly it would seem because:

"ippr’s (yup, they refuse to capitalise the 'i' even at the start of a sentence) research shows that a minimum wage worker in London earns just a third of the average wage of the capital. But the average UK worker on minimum wage earns more than half the national average pay".

Now why might average pay in London be higher than in the rest of the country? Let me count the ways... London weighting in the public sector and in large corporations, the City, the headquarters of most professional services organisations, the media etc etc. Comparatively little agricultural work, far fewer unskilled jobs outside the catering / hospitality sectors and so on. All remarkably obvious, frankly. A burger flipper in London is highly unlikely to be any more skilled than one in Skelmersdale, and the core economic message sent to that burger flipper is that he or she would be better off flipping burgers in Skem than Kensington because of wage relative to the cost of living, or perhaps he or she should seek to get better educated / trained and do something more remunerative.

The ippr manages a particularly good peppering of its foot with buckshot with this comment:

"ippr analysis shows that the ‘purchasing power’ of the minimum wage in London is weaker than anywhere else in the UK. ippr (see, they really hate capital lettters) argues that a higher minimum wage would also make work more attractive to London’s unemployed".

Folk on lower incomes are disproportionately likely to be spending at businesses that employ low skill / wage employees - retailers, fast food joints etc etc - and any increase in the cost of employing these people will be passed on to consumers. A director at Goldman Sachs is unlikely to wince at a rise in the price of basic foodstuffs, whereas a few pence here or there is rather more significant for the office cleaner. Note also the second sentence, this being a frank admission that the benefits system acts as an incentive not to work, a truism over which I thought the Left was still in denial.

And another cute aside:

"“If the Government is serious about tackling the gap between rich and poor but reluctant to tax higher earners, a higher minimum wage in London – where average wages and living costs are significantly higher than across the rest of the country - must be part of the solution.”

There we have it - 'social justice' is just as good if Procrustes cuts off the extremities of those too tall for his bed as if he stretches those too short. As I have noted before, 'social justice' is envy soft soaped into a higher virtue.

Lest anyone doesn't 'get' the headline, I cannot hope to do better than quote Milton & Rose Friedman:

"The minimum wage law requires employers to discriminate against persons with low skills. No one describes it that way, but that is in fact what it is. Take a poorly educated teenager with little skill whose services are worth, say, only $2.00 an hour. He or she might he eager to work for that wage in order to acquire greater skills that would permit a better job. The law says that such a person may be hired only if the employer is willing to pay him or her (in 1979) $2.90 an hour. Unless an employer is willing to add 90 cents in charity to the $2.00 that the person's services are worth, the teenager will not be employed. It has always been a mystery, to us why a young person is better off unemployed from a job that would pay $2.90 an hour than employed at a job that does pay $2.00 an hour". 'Free to Choose', Avon 1979, page 227

Labels: , , ,

posted by Croydonian

"What's best about Britain..."

Monday, August 27, 2007
Hands up anyone whose first reaction was 'the strength and cohesion provided by people getting involved in communities and voluntary groups, including unions'. Source.

Because that is the answer given by the deputy general secretary of the TUC . The idea of an October bank holiday has been floated again, as clearly no-one paid any heed in May when it was first mooted (and I mocked).

Rather amusingly, there looks to be a severe lack of communication between the various tentacles of the Left, as the ippr wants a bank holiday for essentially the same reason in November. I think the TUC shows a greater sense of taste, as unlike the ippr, it does not attempt to conflate military courage and sacrifice with helping old ladies across the road and the like:

"[The ippr] has called on Gordon Brown to create an extra bank holiday in November to help boost national identity and thank community 'heroes'. The Institute for Public Policy Research said that the new bank holiday - which should fall on the Monday after Remembrance Sunday - would serve as a national "thank you" and encourage people to give something back".

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

If this lot are shaping our future, I'd rather be living in the past.

Thursday, August 16, 2007
The World Economic Forum runs a dull if essentially worthy website, and it has just made this breathless announcement:

"More than 250 young leaders from 61 countries will participate in the third Annual Young Global Leaders summit in Dalian on 4-8 September. They will be looking to define the future of leadership during their three-day meeting, held prior to the Inaugural Annual Meeting of the New Champions. The Young Global Leaders will participate in an intense workshop where they will discuss what will be required to be a truly effective global leader in the face of emerging trends and new challenges and will then be tasked with creating a new leadership model for the future".

Who could these young leaders be? Well, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, who might be prepared to share a room and save us all some money. And Justin Forsyth, who "advises Prime Minister Tony Blair". Time to update the site chaps? Elsewhere, a slew of bankers, bean counters, asset managers - none of whom are household names bar Stelios 'easy' Haji-Ioannou - a Dutch Princess (not that her biog at the WEF 'fesses up that) and one Hilary Cottam. Her blog is a corker: "Welcome to my blog. Watch this space for more…" That was dated 4/10/6. And no list of 'the Great and the Good' could possibly be complete without Ellen 'whine, whine, whine' / "[there] are a lot of people in the professional sailing contingent who wouldn't sail across the Solent with her" MacArthur.

I have skimmed the rogues' gallery for France, Oz, Canada and the US, inter alia, and their young turks are equally depressing. And the three from Israel are an MK from a marginal left wing party, a singer / song writer and a professor.

"I've seen the future, and it smirks". (With apologies to Simon Hoggart fort stealing his line)

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Ask a silly question

Saturday, July 28, 2007
You just have to love wonks, don't you?

The IFS has just published a 32 page paper on, get this, "Why home-owners with large mortgage debt work longer hours than those without such debt".

I think Occam's Razor could do with a good stropping.

Labels:

posted by Croydonian

The ippr report on schools - the short version

Saturday, June 02, 2007
The ippr has just produced a paper on school admissions, called "School Admissions: Fair choices for parents and pupils", and takes some 23 pages to say this, "We don't like parental choice in school selection, and pupils should be allocated to schools on the basis of decisions made by local authority education commissars".

Not very 'new' Labour, is it? I think 'fair' is well on its way to being the number one weasel word used by wonks and the like, and social engineering would seem to be back in style. Among other things, the ippr suggests, "Local Admissions Forums should be required to produce a regular report on levels of segregation by income and ability in their local schools". Fancy telling an education commissar what your income is?

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

When was the last time a general election happened without you realising?

Wednesday, May 02, 2007
In my case, 1970. Then again, I was three at the time.

However, the ippr has given the bane of Newmania's life, Emily Thornberry, a platform to argue for fiddling with electoral dates and processes. The Pericles of Islington South (and, let us not forget, Finsbury) thinks that "A straightforward way to achieve this would be to move elections away from a regular workday. The most obvious option is to have elections on Saturdays – but we could also consider holding them on Wednesdays, and making election day a bank holiday".

Right. Saturdays - not good for people who keep shabbat, substantial overtime for council staff manning the polling booths, plus there are plenty of things that people choose to do on Saturdays - shop, go to football matches, gardening, lounge around reading the papers etc etc, whereas on school days there is less time for that part of life that is entertaining.

A Wednesday bank holiday. Here's Em's argument: "An unusual day off in the middle of the week would draw attention to the election, and it would give more people the time to vote, yet without encouraging them to take the day as part of a long weekend". The first clause is staggering - is it within the realm of possibility that anyone could be unaware of a general election until such time as he or she realises that he or she does not have to go work? Seems a tad unlikely, does it not? Time? The polling stations are open until 10, postal and proxy votes are easily obtainable (far too easily, frankly) . Furthermore, urban seats - as a rule - have weaker turnouts than more rural seats, despite there being many more polling stations per square mile

Back on Planet Reality, which is a long way from the lower numbered London 'N' postal districts, a public holiday for a general election would be hugely expensive, and the indolent and demotivated would be unlikely to be any more filled with zeal for democracy than on any normal day, and doubtless sickies would be pulled for the days leading up to the weekend. Should this come to pass, and I doubt that it will, stand by for the argument that the same status should apply to by-elections and council elections too....

If there is one absolute moral that can be drawn from the French election, it is that turnout increases when voters think that there are things at stake that are worth voting for. Thornberry's constituents managed a pitiful 53.6% turnout in 2005: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Labels:

posted by Croydonian

Here come the temperance fanatics

Sunday, April 15, 2007
In the form of my absolutely favourite wonk group, the ippr.

And here is the core of his idea: "Gerard argues that the UK has ‘lost the plot’ when it comes to regulating alcohol. He proposes raising the drinking age to 21 or requiring 18-year-olds to carry smart cards which record how much they have drunk each night and restrict under-21s to three units of alcohol".

Shall we investigate the flaws in this? If 16 year olds can easily pass as 18 year olds, then 18 year olds can easily pass as 21 year olds, can they not? Plus there would be the absurdity of adults who can vote, own shotguns, marry (Just imagine the wedding receptions for under 21s...) and do all sorts of other things suddenly being denied the right to choose their own damnation or otherwise. Doubtless the day such a law came into force, previous pub habitués would meekly acquiesce and instead stay at home boning up on antique tracts by the Fabians. Still, as the American experience shows, older people never ever buy alcohol for younger friends, so this will all work marvellously. As to smart cards, this is sinister beyond belief, quite apart from requiring all bars, off licences etc etc to have card readers.

Gerard warms to his theme:

"Increasing the number of prosecutions and the level of fines on retailers selling alcohol to minors".

Maybe 'we' could increase the number of prosecutions for cocaine smuggling, jaywalking and arson in naval dockyards, but for the small problem of the offences having to be committed before prosecutions can take place. Doubtless the tiresome efforts of councils to entrap retailers would be pursued with still more enthusiasm.

"Increasing taxes on drinks targeted at young people, such as alcopops; restricting advertising of drinks aimed at youngsters"

Jasper, old bean, the brewers, distillers and so forth are not allowed to target under 18s anyway, and there is an awfully large regulatory framework surrounding this. He also appears not to have noticed that alcopops are currently about as fashionable as spats with the youth of today. And what if the next big thing among younger drinkers is Madeira for example? Will there be an annual audit of the demographics of drinking by product?

"Allowing 16 and 17-year-olds limited amounts of alcohol in pubs, bars and restaurants when consumed with a full meal and accompanied by someone over 21".

Which was allowed prior to the 2003 Licensing Act.... Which, inter alia, makes it a criminal offence to sell liqueur chocolates to under 16s. I am *not* making this up.

Meanwhile, there is evidence that suggests Jasper likes a drop himself: "Waiters - always around but never oleaginous - are true enthusiasts, even able to answer a question about the sugar content of a demi-sec Taittinger Champagne". That comes from a restaurant review of the Fat Duck for the Telegraph earlier this year.


Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Wonks to Labour - go ahead, wash your hands of all responsibility for your actions

Friday, April 06, 2007
Our wonky 'friends' at the ippr have been engaging in a little light kite flying:

"The doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility, which holds that ministers alone are accountable for everything that happens in their departments, should be reformulated so that while ministers remain accountable for policy, resources and strategic decisions, civil servants become externally accountable for clearly defined operational matters and for ensuring that their departments are ‘fit for purpose". Source

Lest there be any doubt as to the agenda of this organisation, note that it was founded by a former adviser to Blunkett, and has trustees including Kinnock, Gavron, Hollick and Marquand. The Adam Smith Institute it is not.

I cannot help but imagine that this report will be seized on with immense enthusiasm by the Labour party, so what in practice would this mean? Firstly, everything - but everything - will be defined as operational, and whenever there is a disaster at the Home Office or elsewhere, a smirking Reid or whoever will eyeball his inquisitors and say 'it's a fair cop, but the civil servants are to blame'. So, having waved goodbye to the resignation on a point of honour (doffs hat to Lord Carrington, the last man to do such), resignations, sackings and the like would appear to be reserved for cases of ministers caught performing armed robberies or committing arson in naval dockyards. As to the mandarins - lucky them. Doubtless no salary hikes, and the chance to play the fall guy for whichever mouth-breathing placeman or woman who is dropped into a department because of successful greasing up to the party leader. I think it unlikely that mandarins will get any credit, public or private, if a ministry actually achieves something.

Compare this to commercial practice. Chairmen are responsible to the shareholders for the performance of the companies they lead, and as with Truman, 'The buck stops here'.

Shameful, just shameful.

Labels:

posted by Croydonian

Wonk 'humour'

Monday, April 02, 2007
Yes, it is an oxymoron, as this laboured April Fool chez Demos proves.

Just for a fraction of a second I was encouraged into thinking that this - "So we're open-sourcing our proposal-writing process" was going to facilitate some Miliband-style fun and games, but alas no, it is a dog related prank. And as you will see, it is a dog with fleas, hookworms and mange:

"1. Introduction: Paws for thought

Western dogma constructs dogs as passive recipients of mankind's generosity. But a bit of humility on our part might reveal huge opportunities for learning from Dogs. Dogs can be taken as "mood pioneers". They are loyal. They are great at fetching things. They are unembarrassed. And they are loyal.

....

6. Lapdogs and Poodles - Canine foreign policy

Is the tail wagging the dog? How can we get more dog representation in institutions like the United Nations? Do we need a 'United Alsatians'? Could this help avoid some undognified disputes between former allies?"


Etcetera, etcetera. I am prepared to alter my stance on the death penalty over the United Alsatians 'quip'. Hanging, drawing and quartering would be a start.

Labels:

posted by Croydonian

Swiss based NGO finds Switzerland the most attractive environment for tourism

Friday, March 02, 2007
Or more accurately for developing it, as the World Economic Forum boys andf girls in Davos have decided. It has measured 'the factors and policies that make it attractive to develop the T&T sector in different countries', and in wonk world environmental regulation and human capital go into the mix along with natural & cultural resources and national tourism perception.

Our yodelling chums top the list, followed by Austria, Germany, Icleand, the US and Honkers. We make #10, and are bettered by that dream destination Luxembourg, but outperform France, Spain and Oz inter alia. The quoted wonk pleads 'Our study is not a ‘beauty contest’, or a statement about the attractiveness of a country. On the contrary, we aim to measure the factors that make it attractive to develop the travel and tourism industry of individual countries', but must no full well that the report will not be treated thus, especially given that it includes indicators like natural & cultural resources and national tourism perception.

Elsewhere, Taiwan outguns Italy and Korea Thailand. If you want to avoid wonks, head to Angola, Burundi and Chad. Among places not ranked are Iran, Iraq and Somalia.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Has Stephen Twigg been drinking again?

Monday, February 05, 2007
Because in his role as head of the Foreign Policy Centre (In its words, 'a leading European think tank, apparently') , he is keeping some rather curious company, and making some rather odd statements. Lest anyone has forgotten, Twigg was fined £50 for being drunk and incapable in 2005.

Said wonk group seems to have taken up the Trotskyite, erm, war cry of 'Don't attack Iran'. Twigg's argument, such as it is, is that 'The consequences of military action against Iran are not only unpalatable, they are unthinkable'. Unthinkable? Hardly, I have managed to think about it just now, and doubtless my readers will experience the same success.

The 'argument' is suported by quite the laundry list of usual suspects. Amicus, Unison and the GMB clearly have won the battle in the workplace, so they have time to delve into foreign policy. I am sure that we all instinctively turn to the voices of organised labour when uncertain about issues of international relations. Add in a light dusting of Muslim alphabet soup organisations, a drizzle of sundry very minor Christian groups, garnish with the curiously named 'International Physicians against the Prevention of Nuclear War' (Sic. Yes, really. The 'leading European think tank' cannot be big on proof reading...), cook at gas mark five for 45 minutes, serve and prepare to be ignored by every media outlet bar the Guardian and the Socialist Worker.

Labels:

posted by Croydonian

Big trouble for leftie Australian wonks

Sunday, February 04, 2007
The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting one on an Oz childrens clothing retailer suing the Australia Institute, a left wing think tank over a less than wise choice of words in a release: "Corporate paedophilia - sexualising children by advertising and marketing". As the avenue of suing for corporate defamation is no longer open to the retailer, it is instead "suing under the Trade Practices Act, claiming the institute engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct".

The wonks went on to allege that the retailer '"jumped on the bandwagon" in eroticising children in the interests of the bottom line. It said: "When family department stores show no conscience on these issues, or are inured to the effects of their behaviour, the situation is very unhealthy".

Lest it be thought that the retailer concerned is unduly litigious, it should be noted that the AI refused its request to put a corrective release and to stop infringing the company's intellectual property. The initial press release got a lot of attention at the time, and I have immense sympathy for the company concerned. Imagine what unchallenged words like that could do to the reputation of Mothercare, for instance. The AI itself has gone little further than saying it will defend itself, but it has a defender in one Brian Walters: "Corporations are able to defend themselves in the court of public opinion. For the institute it will be hugely expensive to defend itself in the Federal Court and it will involve massive costs in time".

That argument strikes me as ridiculous, and while quite an enthusiast for free speech, I do not see that should mean that axe grinders can declare 'Megabank drowns kittens' or 'Megaoil bribes politicians' etc without fear of lawsuits.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian