January 23, 2006
Public Subsidy of Charities.
An Englishman’s Castle has a decent question.
Just why is the Royal Mail subsidising the League Against Cruel Sports?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Public Subsidy of Charities.:
The obvious answer is 'they are not subsidising the League Against Cruel Sports' anymore than they would be subsidising the Adam Smith Institute if I sent that organisation a brick addressed to a freepost address and they weren't made to pay for it.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 23, 2006 1:10:43 PM
Because the alternative would be to establish the principle that any bunch of halfwits who were abel to get free publicity from the Tim Worstall website could drive anyone they liked into bankruptcy by spamming a Freepost address, which would probably have implications for the popularity of Freepost. This wasn't a "cock-up by the marketing department"; it was a malicious, silly and probably criminal campaign and it really was a long way from your finest hour when you decided to promote it. The cost to the Royal Mail was clearly incurred because of the people who decided to abuse the Freepost system, not their legitimate clients and I for one hope that they have a go at recovering some of this cost from the campaign's organisers. At which point I look forward to your post about how the PC fascists of the Royal Mail are trying to shut down pro-hunting campaigners.
Tim adds: the Tim Worstall website can offer 500k’s worth of publicity? Should raise my charges then.
Posted by: dsquared | Jan 23, 2006 1:17:51 PM
We've been through all this before Tim. If they didn't, then the entire freepost scheme would collapse as no organisation would dare using it. That would end up costing the Royal Mail a lot more than £500,000.
So, what you call a "subsidy" is what people on Planet Earth call "self preservation".
Posted by: James Graham | Jan 23, 2006 2:01:39 PM
The reason why many people are gloating over the situation in which the League Against Cruel Sports have found themselves in is because they are simply having their own tactics turned against them and they are calling foul.
After all, obstructing and interfering with people acting within the constrains of the law seems to be the modus operandi for the League Against Cruel Sports. They can hardly complain now others are doing the same.
Posted by: Tim Newman | Jan 24, 2006 7:57:19 AM