the thought gang

an attempted place

That Cameron PR stunt thing..

There’s been a twitstorm.

In summary, DCam did a photo-op to show how brilliant ‘help to buy’ is, and a blogger thought it smelled a bit fishy, did a bit of digging through social media, and showed that the whole thing was a bit of a sham as the poor single mother that DCam was parading about with was a married high powered BMW-toting ‘we-are-the-1%’ company director. HA! GOT YOU, DAVE!

Except that nobody was fact-checking the fact-checker.. and it was a load of rubbish. The woman in the article, having already had to put up with David Fucking Cameron coming to her house, then had to deal with a mob abusing her on twitter, her personal details and relationship history going viral, and being called a liar.

It was a bad piece of detective work by the blogger, and even though this has been pointed out by lots of people, and even though some of those who were spreading the muck have issued the due mea culpa’s, the original blogger (who enjoys the anonymity that the target of his piece does not) has not backed down or apologised. The owner/admin of the site isn’t much interested in correcting matters either:

Image

I’ve been in the comments at the original piece, and those of us trying to get some admission of error are just being accused of sock puppetry, and the ‘owner’ is trying to say that the piece was never about the homebuyer anyway, it was about Cameron and ‘help to buy’. I’m not sure why a piece about the Prime Minister and a flagship government policy needs details of when a single mother from Southampton last tweeted about decorating.

It did not take a lot of brain engagement to realise that the blog might not have hit the mark. A huge assumption was made based on the job title of the woman, and anyone who understands how job titles work these days (or, even, read the linkedin profile that the blogger published, which clearly listed her duties, which were clearly not the duties of a ‘director’ in the traditional sense) would have known that she’s probably not the fat-cat that the blogger assumed. From that false foundation, the blogger just went looking for dirt and, crucially, never bothered to ask the woman for comment. Whilst I don’t have any evidence for it, it’s hard not to assume that the blogger would be aghast if the Murdoch media were so cavalier. I wonder how many of the people who retweeted the article actually read it? How many of those engaged any scepticism when doing so?

The blogger probably thinks that he is ‘better’ than those nasty right-wingers who knowingly spread lies and half-truths about single mothers in order to fit their agenda, and who never seem to admit their mistakes, or give due prominence to their corrections. He’s exactly the same.

It’s always nice…

.. when someone else articulates something, so you don’t have to…

The slaughter of tens of thousands for the gains of a few feet of no man’s land was not worth the sacrifice. It was an appalling waste of life and should be remembered as such.

From The Independent…

.. these are supposed to be the good guys, right?

I’ll just pop this story here so that I know where to find it next time one of my friends complains about how the right wing media makes a headline over isolated and extreme individual cases when the underlying problem isn’t something to be too worried about.

10-year-old girl weighs 22 stone as Birmingham faces obesity epidemic

But the overall  number of children classed as overweight or obese in the region has actually fallen by around four per cent from last year.

Are you being served?

So there’s been a teacup-based-storm about M&S letting someone refuse to sell something which might anger their chosen magic man in the sky. This isn’t a new thing.. remember Asda and the ‘morning after’ pill?

I’m a ‘their gaff, their rules’ guy, so I think that they can do what they want to accommodate people with particular preferences. Customers and staff alike can go elsewhere if they don’t like it.

The public position, therefore, interests me not.. but I am interested in how organisations themselves are supposed to deal with this. Misanthrope Girl shows how quickly things can get silly. The employer has three options in these cases..

1. Zero tolerance: You’re selling what we’re selling. The end.

Easy. The downside is that you might piss people off  by not providing a route to solve a problem which has a mutually beneficial solution. For this to work, it has to be rigorous – as soon as a single accommodation is made you’ve switched to option 3. In an organisation the size of M&S, with so many decision makers at so many levels, this is unworkable.

2. Draw a line: We’ll accommodate preferences on one side of it, but not the other.

This is what most companies tend to do. The intention is to accomodate people with genuine issues in a clear and non-discriminatory way, whilst making sure people can’t take the piss. It’s, pretty much, impossible. As soon as a rule is written down you will find people queueing up to abuse it, push the boundaries, or say why it’s unfair. Witness, if you will, any company where they have tried to implement a dress policy that’s somewhere between ‘strictly business attire’ and ‘free for all’. If you draw the line at ‘religious beliefs’ then how do you police that? Which religions count as religions.. how come the Christians don’t have to work on Sundays, but the Jedi’s (0.7% of the population – more than Judaism, Sikhism and Buddhism) aren’t allowed special leave on May 4th?

3. Case-by-case: If you have a preference then talk to us and we’ll see what we can do.

This should work. This should always be the answer. The best thing about this is that it leaves it to the employees to decide if their issue is important enough to raise. Democratise it. If you’ve got a big issue then you’ll find out in due course and then (and only then) should you have to write a rulebook. This is even an approach used in areas of employment law – such as ‘flexible working’ where you have a statutory right to ask for it, but your employer has the right to say no.

Unfortunately, this option is fraught with it’s own problems. What happens with it emerges that Milly Muslim was transferred from the food hall because she didn’t want to sell booze to infidels.. but Cathy Catholic was refused a move out of homeware where she had a problem selling duvets to gays? Ladies and gentlemen, we have a clear-cut case of religious discrimination even if Milly was granted her transfer because the food hall was overstaffed anyway, and Cathy didn’t get hers because her store only actually sold homeware. Claims of this nature can be expensive and disruptive. Careers can be ruined. Organisations like M&S fear giving too much discretion down the chain of command – not just because the senior people are managerialist control freaks, but because the implications of a decision can go far beyond what would be conceived by a supervisor or store manager.. and when lower level people make mistakes that hit the headlines the calls are for the guys at the top to fall on their swords.

If you’ve spent time working at the levels of a company where the wider implications of these decisions are felt, then you’ll understand why there isn’t actually a right answer. I’ll look at the decisions organisations take with interest, and I’ll decide whether I think they got one right or wrong.. but I won’t judge them either way because I know how hard it is.

As an aside.. as a trainee auditor I was informally offered the chance to decline assignments at companies in the meat business because I was vegetarian. I’m not *that kind of vegetarian*, and I never did decline a meat-based client, and the only person I knew who used that ‘exemption’ was lying about being a vegetarian to get out of going to an abattoir stocktake on a Saturday.

 

 

On reasons..

I’ve got a fair handle on what I’ve thought about ‘things’ throughout my life, but not, so much, on why. I remember being a Tory voter in 1997, the first election I was eligible to vote in. I was one of few, as Tony Blair swept New Labour into power. Nobody I knew as a friend at the time, nor anyone I’ve met and called a friend since, voted the same way. I wasn’t politically ‘engaged’ in those days – I just didn’t like Tony Blair. I think that the people I argued with at the time would, at least, now concede that point.

When the next general election came in 2001 I still wasn’t particularly interested. I still didn’t like Tony Blair, but I didn’t like any of the Tories either. I liked Paddy Ashdown and I voted Lib Dem. In 2005 we were in the post-Iraq protest mode, and I had started paying attention. Not a lot, however. I voted ‘Respect’.

By the last election, I’d definitely gotten engaged enough to know that I didn’t like any of them. I was a card-carrying member of the Green Party (don’t ask) but voted Lib Dem in the hope that a big enough popular vote for them would hasten electoral reform because, you see, the only thing that all my votes have had in common is that none of them mattered in the slightest.

And so now I sit here, holding on to my mid-30’s for dear life, realising that I don’t know what I believe or believe in.. except for an absolute certainty that it’s not the same as those who rule me.

So I shall try, for my own indulgence, to articulate what I think about things. Or, maybe, note down where other people have thought for me and written it in ways I cannot. Perhaps, then, in 15 years time I will have some idea of how I got to wherever I will be.

E-cig bans vs Free Speech

What a wonderful comment…

Cyto|12.25.13 @ 11:00PM|#

Their arguments in favor of this ban set up an interesting legal possibility. By arguing that e-cigarettes must be banned because they resemble smoking real cigarettes and therefore encourage smoking by making it seem “OK” to smoke they are saying that their ban is a ban on an expression of an idea, not a ban on a dangerous behavior.

That’s pretty interesting. A challenge to a regulation on free speech grounds – and on the grounds that the government intends to suppress speech that no one intends to make. Nobody intends to make a statement that smoking is acceptable by using an e-cigarette. They don’t intend to express any idea at all – they are just living their lives. And the state is saying that simply living your life as you see fit is an expression of an idea that must be suppressed. Interesting.

I cannot say whether this is really a ‘legal possibility’, but I love the line of thinking.