17th May 2023
Concerns about the implications of [x] have led to calls for it to be regulated.
In a “nightmare scenario” one leading politician has said that “[x] could get out of control” with “unimaginable consequences”.
The politician added that they had read reports about [x] and that “something really should be done”.
“Why is the government not doing something about [x]? Doesn’t the government care?”
*
“Doesn’t the government care?”
*
An official spokesman rejected the allegation that the government does not care about [x] and commented that “all options remain open, including regulation and even prohibition”.
Surveys show that members of the public when asked if “x should be regulated?” generally say that it should be regulated, unless those members of the public are asked if “[x] should be banned?”, and then they say it should be banned instead.
“Whatever [x] is,” said one person in a vox pop, “it shouldn’t be allowed. And what about the children?”
*
“What about the children?”
*
Independent observers said that [x] is not capable of being defined, let alone regulated or prohibited, and dismissed concerns as “being responses to loaded questions” but they also admitted fearing that their observations would be relegated to a long paragraph towards the end of this article which few would actually read.
Supporters of [x] yesterday refused to be interviewed for this article, commenting instead by email that whatever they said would be relegated to the end of this article, coming after and before what they said would be “scaremongering”.
*
“Scaremongering”
*
The final word must go to the politician who called for regulation of [x] who also said “[x] should now be allowed,” when asked with a differently framed question, adding “there is too much red tape”.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Brilliant.
Thanks for bringing this issue out into the open as it has been ‘cancelled’ by the mainstream media.
What finer example could there be of a Brexit benefit than removing the dead hand of Brussels and finally taking action on this?
I think you missed the point of the article by a couple of galaxies there Kieran.
Somebody is missing the point, certainly!
There are reporters, I won’t call them journalists, across the country rapidly copying that down to use in future stories…
Hmm, was this produced by chat gpt or open AI? if not, then it will be.
They usually say [x] should be illegal and that their opponents have no ideas how to solve [x] when good solutions, which don’t fit the government agenda, have been proposed numerous times.
Making things illegal never solves a problem. The problem exists because there’s a need for [x] and the solution is to resolve that need.
X should not be allowed to be written about except by non-experts
Don’t you mean non- ‘x’perts?
Just give me the facts.
Feels like this should be reposted on a regular basis (it’s like the Ying to the Yang of the Onion’s “No way to prevent this” post)
One of the benefits of EU legislation – its formulation is methodical and deliberative. So it’s less prone to the panic response you describe.
Ok, but what about ‘y’?
What do you mean it doesn’t exist? Answer the question damn you.
[y] doesn’t exist? How one-dimensional of you.
Brilliance
A variant, on eponymous legislation as a memorial.
“Friends and relations of [X], who recently died as a result of [Y], demand legislation with stricter rules to prevent [Y] in all circumstances. They are lobbying their local MP to introduce so-called “[X]’s law”.”
Jennifer, Alison, Phillipa, Sue; Deborah, Annabel, too. I wrote this legislation for you.
I am actually going to write on “[Y]’s Law”.
Are you sure that’s wise?
Why not? I’m sure anything DAG writes on it will not come out of left field.
Just a comment appreciating the Y-puns here.
Brilliant summary, reminds me of a Martin Robbins article about BBC science reporting, which finally stopped me reading it to find better information elsewhere:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1
The question is, how do the experts get heard by the public, when they’re being all nuanced and expert-y? Or is it (gasp) up to politicians to listen to experts and be held accountable for this kind of rubbish? How can that work?
I definitely think X should be banned. Or not.
Nice.
Others may be of the opinion that you may be narrowing your future earnings options because the next step often seems to be a looooong enquiry at vast expense to the public which recommends whatever those who established the enquiry wish to propose regarding [x] …
Where “X” = our current crop of politicians?
All leading to Mornington Crescent.
As someone who works in the field of [x], I am always saddened to see it misrepresented by uninformed articles such as this.
It is clear to anyone with experience of [x] that regulation or prohibition is both undesirable and unworkable. Any attempt to do so carries an unacceptable risk of severe unintended consequences, such as a potential reduction in my income and/or pleasure.
Moreover, regulating [x] will simply mean that users of [x] will be forced to move instead to [z]. Given that [z] is something to be avoided, particularly because it offers no benefit to me, this is not a path we should be taking.
Rather than engage meaningfully with politicians and journalists about [x], I will instead post my comments on the website of a leading [x] writer where all of us below the line agree that both the government and the mainstream media are clueless about [x] and should just leave us alone to get on with it.
The controversy about X has raged throughout my life. Is has caused family break up, bankrupt industries and cause epidemics before further research indicated it was absolutely harmless and safe for pets and babies. The Mail and Express still run stories every year suggesting it could cause cancer, so it is largely absent in the cupboards of elderly Conservatives.
If the Government had only had the courage to bring forward the Something Must Be Done Bill proposed some years ago, these constant demands for new banning, regulating, restricting and unbanning, deregulating and deresrtricting legislation could have been dealt with quickly and efficiently
I wonder whether my draft Something Has Been Done Bill would not better suit this purpose, it provides for every eventuality that might conceivably be needed for every pettifogger imaginable .. it also serves to avoid the need for protracted and tedious debate. Please send me a stamped addressed envelope for your personalisable copy of the same ..