Interesting stuff from Accountancy Age this morning:
Protestors were justified in gate-crashing an event at New College, Oxford, at which former HM Revenue & Customs head Dave Hartnett was speaking, according to respondents to an Accountancy Age poll.
Of the 112 responses, some 92% said the action taken by the WeAreIntuders protesters was completely reasonable, compared to the 1% who felt it was fair to some extent. About 3% felt the action was unfair, while 4% said it was entirely unwarranted.
So even the professions own rag thinks the protests were justified.
Times, they are a'changing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] 92% of people voting on Accountancy Age can support UK Uncut on Hartnett stranger things have happened than me being nominated for this. […]
An open Internet poll of 112 people really doesn’t justify that ‘headline’, does it. How can you claim to occupy a moral high ground whilst employing such obvious tabloid tactics?
Accountancy Age did
1.Why would that make it ok?
2. In any case, they did not. Their headline was the the poll said that gatecrashing was fine. And that is what the poll said. You, on the other hand, said that ‘92% of accountants’ think the gatecrashing was just fine. That’s, quite clearly, an absurd conclusion to draw and, thus, an absurd headline to write.
So my question stands. You, clearly, consider yourself to be an ethical/moral man. What is ethical/moral about wilfully misrepresenting an entire profession based on a tiny poll, and with no evidence that even the small number of respondents are members of that profession?
The phrase “get a life” comes to mind for some reason
Classy, Richard, very classy.
Maybe the reason is that you can’t think of a justification for your spin, and think that a bit of the old ad hominem is your best option?
It’s not answering the question though, is it.
The answer to the question is that of course it was spin – wholly justifiable, entirely reasonable spin based on obvious extrapolation in a headline designed to get attention
So, let’s go back to it: get a life and “deal with it”
I’m not apologising for seeking to draw attention to a poll in Accountancy Age – most of whose readers are – you guessed it – accountants