I was amused to note two, I think identical, comments made on the blog this morning in response to my comments made yesterday on the need for improved annual reporting by UK based companies.
The comments might appear to be identical but they do purport to come from people with different names, and possibly genders. I can also see that they have different email addresses, although I have reason to think that they might come from the same source. It is possible that two people have shared an observation and both have shared it. I think it much more likely, given what I know of the behaviour of internet trolls, that these come from one person using multiple identities. That is quite funny when what they are protesting about is my complaint that corporate transparency has been reduced.
The chance that there has been organised trolling on this issue does seem to be very high. I am always amused by that. It is very often the surest indication that I have hit a nerve, and it seems I have on this one.
My complaint was pretty simple. I argued that the old annual return form that had to be submitted to Companies House required annual disclosure of shareholdings, unless there were no changes when the list was only required every three years.
Now the requirement is that only changes need be reported, plus major shareholdings. As a result, the chance that over time the composition of the membership of many companies might be easily determined from public records is very low indeed. And when that ability to determine ownership in this way is quite explicitly the objective of the exercise, that is, as I suggested, a decidedly retrograde step, basically negating the whole value and entire purpose for filing this data. When transparency was the supposed aim, over time increasing opacity will be the outcome.
Was that complaint hard to understand? I doubt it, very much.
So why the complaints, plus associated abuse? Let's assume that those making them have something to hide, shall we? In that case the new regime suits them very well.
And precisely because it might is precisely why I do want full, ideally annual, lists of members on public record.
The trolls do not want that.
I think it easy to work out the rights and wrongs of this in that case.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard
This comment is not to the point about your article, but is more about transparency in government. I enclose a link to a speech given in Australia by Kristina Keneally to the National Press Club on 9 Feb 2021. She is a former Premier of NSW (akin to First Minister) who is now in the Federal Parliament Senate (Upper House) representing NSW (More similar to US Senate as they are elected). Her current role is Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, as a Labor Party member.
In this speech she says a lot of things about transparency in government, making observations about how funding from government ministers to their mates and lobbyists actually undermines democracy. There are a large number of examples of this in the Australian context.
However, you can see the paralells with the UK on the themes. I just wonder when the Leader of the Opposition in Westminister will start this sort of thing as well?
https://www.kristinakeneally.com.au/news/speeches/address-to-the-national-press-club-2021-canberra/
Keep up the rattling of the chains, and fighting the good fight.
Thanks
It used to be said “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”….. in the 21st century perhaps it should become “trolling is the sincerest form of flattery”.
🙂
Interesting – I did read your article and didn’t think your complaint was controversial in any way so was a bit surprised by the number of arguments against it – but you don’t usually see the repeated comments in the same place! You just can’t get the staff these days.
Good confirmation that you are on the right path indeed!
This provides a beautiful case study of how organised trolling can be used to confuse, disrupt and mislead. There is no need to examine the arguments, the trail of deception tells you all you need to know about the value of the content, and the values of the trolls. Well done, Richard. I would suggest that you do this more in future, inconvenient as it is because it provides a public information service.
The degree of organisation of trolling on social media generally worries me even more, becuase I believe it is an existing or at least potential arrow in the political quiver of those who serve the dangerous interests of surveillance capitalism.