It appears that the powers that be have taken Leg-Iron's seminal post (Fear The Witch, For It Is You) to heart. This week's scare story:
Nearly half of the children surveyed said they were not bothered by adults drinking - but 30% said it made them feel scared. The survey was carried out for Newsround by Childwise, a charity that provides support for the children of problem drinkers.
So now you have to be scared of is being seen as somebody who is scaring somebody else (not actually harming in any other measurable way), and one of our favourite 'vulnerable groups' to boot. Should we refer to this as a 'secondary scare' or 'scared squared' or a 'meta-scare'?
NB Childwise is not a fakecharity, it is a fakeprivatecompany: "Established in 1991, CHILDWISE works for government agencies, charities, broadcasters, publishers and brands... CHILDWISE is a trading name of Incisive Insight, Registered in England, Company No. 04285610"
So that's this week's Fun Online Poll question: Did it make you feel scared when your parents drank alcohol?
Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
UPDATE: I'm getting sloppy in my old age. Aid Minister Umbongo in the comments picks up on two further glaring errors which I overlooked.
------------------------------------------------
Thanks to everybody who took part in last week's Fun Online Polls. The results were pretty conclusive:
Who should pay for 'the state'?
Those who benefit most from its existence - 89%
'Somebody else' - 11%
Which groups benefit most from the existence of 'the state'?
Land owners, home owners and pensioners* - 85%
Entrepreneurs, workers and investors - 15%
Make up your own mind whether this supports the theory that it is far better to tax land values rather than the productive economy. I fail to see how we can draw any other conclusion, but hey.
* About eighty per cent of pensioners are homeowners as well, so under the current system of negligible land value taxation and state pensions being funded by taxes on income and employment, they win out on both sides of the equation. I'm a big fan of the basic state pension - or even better a Citizen's Pension - but see no reason why this shouldn't at least be part funded out of Land Value Tax rather than just out of income tax.
Monday, 5 July 2010
Fun Online Polls: Climate of Fear & who should pay 'for the state'?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Secondary scare or scare squared - no, obviously, it should be "passive scaring".
MW
As a matter of interest, nothing on the Companies House file of Incisive Insight Limited indicates that it is limited by guarantee which would allow it, under certain conditions (eg being a genuine charity) to drop the word "Limited" in its name. Since it appears that the company is a normal private company limited by shares, by using its name without "Limited" as in your quoted "CHILDWISE is a trading name of Incisive Insight, Registered in England . ." the company appears to be in contravention of the Companies Act 2006. Not using the word "Limited" does admittedly convey a sense of non-commerciality: it also conveys, at the very least, an air of downright incompetence. As a further matter of interest, as you write, the company is not a charity: its file states that the nature of its business is "market research [and] opinion polling".
Unbelievable I know, but it seems the BBC is guilty (yet again) of crap journalism: excusable, I suppose, if you've got an annual budget of only £3.5 billion to spend on propaganda.
U, damn! The BBC did use the word 'charity' - force of habit on their part I guess, which is why I didn't highlight that.
As a separate issue, limited companies are very much allowed to use a trading name which does not include the word 'limited', provided their letterheads, website etc clearly state 'xxx Limited trading as yyy' or 'yyy is a trading name of xxx Limited', I'm not aware that CA 2006 changed this rule.
But it says the survey was carried out "for" Newsround which suggests it was paid for by the BBC which is even more a government funded propaganda vehicle than the government funded fakecharities.
MW
Yes, companies are allowed to use trading names but, as you write, in official notices, invoices, etc (including websites) they must use the word "Limited" unless they are exempted - and only companies limited by guarantee qualify for exemption. The legal wording in this case would be "CHILDWISE is a trading name of Incisive Insight Limited, Registered in England . ."
Actually I think we agree on this but, forgive me, hammering the BBC's completely undeserved reputation for journalistic excellence, impartiality and integrity is one of life's small pleasures. Highlighting, at the same time, the failings of one of the myriad of useless companies providing (probably and ultimately at the expense of taxpayers) useless polls whose only purpose appears to be to scare the electorate, only adds to that pleasure.
U, well spotted. I'm getting as sloppy as they are - I didn't even notice that they'd missed off "Limited" after "Incisive Insight", I just checked whether it said "Company number" or "Charity number" and assumed that it would say "Limited".
Post a Comment