In praise of Liberal Conspiracy

Now don\’t let this go to anyone\’s head….I\’m still of the opinion that most over there are ill- or mal- informed twits but priase should be given where praise is due.

I have a feeling that this:

British companies have been banned from exporting defective bomb detectors to Iraq and Afghanistan over fears they have failed to prevent hundreds of deaths.

Was at least part inspired by this:

Back at the beginning of November we brought you this bizarre and staggering story of the part played by a British company in the sale of ‘bomb detectors’ to Iraqi security forces that turned out, in fact, to be nothing more than extortionately expensive dowsing rods:

(Whether we actually congratulate Unity or LibCon here is up to you).

Well done chaps (and chappesses). Secret Masonic handshakes, free backrubs and lashings of ginger beer all round.

Now, about this economics thing you seem to have such troubles with…..

5 thoughts on “In praise of Liberal Conspiracy”

  1. What’s that: politicians banning the sale of snake oil?

    I think caveat emptor is the thing that applies, as it always has!

    More than that will be as effective as blowing into the wind (oh, sorry: it’s a ‘doing-something’ plan by politicians).

    Best regards

  2. I remember reading about it in detail somewhere at the time, and I don’t read LibCon (doctor’s orders, don’t-you-know), but who picked it up from whom I couldn’t say. If it was them good luck to ’em.

    @Nigel Sedgwick

    Caveat emptor is an excellent principle. But here the buyer is some gullible office boy playing around with other people’s money (some of it ours, no doubt). If he’s not going to beware we must make him.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Hmmm. I wonder if the fact that the terrorists think they might work is not proof that they do work? Who is going to carry a bomb through a check point if they have some high-tech gizmo that might detected it? A sort of terrorist placebo effect. Now they have gone and ruined it.

    After all something doesn’t have to work to deter. It just has to be credible.

  4. It was on Foreign Policy first, as far as I am aware . I read it there and posted on it, during which time Unity was working up his much longer and more detailed expose.

    Without LC it probably would not have been noticed more widely.

  5. As I recall, I picked this up from an American Skeptics forum, which gave me the link to the NYT piece, then dug around a bit. That turned a couple of other forum posts, including the stuff at JREF, and a couple of blogs on Blogger that had been tracking the story and had some useful info.

    That gave me much of the material that I aggregated into the MoT piece, to which I added a few bits from digging around on Companies House and a couple of other databases.

    I do, however, distinctly recall Mr E’s post, which turned up on the feed as I was writing my own piece.

    After that, I used LC to try and draw a bit more attention to the story and get it an audience.

    If anything I’d chalk this one up to a collective win for online skepticism – its the vigilance and scrutiny that comes with have so many pairs of eye watching out for this kind of crap that ultimately deserves the credit.

    I was just the guy who tried to pull things together and put it where it would find an audience.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *