The Virtual Gigolo

I must put it on record that it interests me that a company’s attitude is archaic when it says a woman cannot wear short skirts and tops that “bear the midrift”, when one would have assumed that archaic (and relatedly sexist) would have been wanting women to wear these things and to not wear trousers? I have to wonder if in these situations the women in question are happy that men in the same workplace are asked to wear ties, or is that archaic too? Surely it is within a company’s rights to set a dress code for its staff anyway. We’re on slightly less tidy ground when they change the dress code for employee after they’ve signed contracts, admittedly, but the principle of setting a dress code, asking people to behave in a way that the company feels will improve its relationship with its customers is quite valid.

This ground becomes even shakier when religious requirements for dress conflict with a company’s wishes (though actually then I still feel the companies wishes should take priority within reason, it would be extreme discrimination to only allow members of a single religious group to break the dress code, afterall (but is that ok, because it’s discrimination in favour of a small group? dubious at best).

Right, to business, the reason that pushed me over the rishi-generated edge into the publication of my most shallow and conceited opinions onto the grand web-like creation that goes by the common name “the web”.

So, the Mail, what is it about the Mail that makes the categoryof this post a “moan” you wonder? Is it that it’s a generally extremely right wing and poorly written newspaper? Is it that Lynda Lee-Potter writes a column (although This may be of interest there? No, it’s neither directly, although possibly indirectly the first.

Poor Lord Birt, is all I can say. Ok, not all I can say, but it’s a start. My tired eyes (a late drive home after a party followed by getting up early for bowling is great for leaving tired eyes) were greeted this damp, dreary morning by the headline “Lord Birt”. So what? The slightly smaller text above the headline reads “Lord Birt, former BBC boss and key Blair adviser, made director of firm that processes payments for hardcore internet porn”.

Unfortunately this article is no more than a continuation of the Mail’s recent reader grabbing attempts to draw attention to the issue of internet pornography. Maybe that’s a noble cause, maybe it isn’t (though honestly I can’t see consensualhardcore porn as an issue worthy of such attention), but direct character assassination with no good reason is not worthy of respectable journalism, though clearly this is why the Mail sees fit to publish such nonsense.

The company in question I will mention, though if any of my (countless, I’ll have you note!) dear readers feel I should remove the name, then I shall do so. It is Pay Pal, Lord Birt is a director of Pay Pal, yes, that (open sarcasm) dreadfully evil supporter of all things evil (close sarcasm). Quite how Pay Pal is more evil than, say, Amex (who also help you pay for Internet pornography, oh no, Amex must be closed down!) the article doesn’t really make clear. Maybe if Lord Birt were a director of Amex the tentacles of targeted writing would extend to that particular company.

It must be noted as well that the article states, and I quote, “But an investigation by this newspaper has established that hardcore porn firms – offering a range of nauseating and depraved sexual material – are using PayPal to help peddle their wares”. Oh dear. Noone would ever dream of SELLING access to something through a payment company would they? Worse than implying that much investigative effort went into this (5 minutes on google would probably have sufficed) but they have the cheek to call it a “revelation”.

This brings numerous questions (why anyone buys the Mail is a good one to start with) around the theme of how much care must a company like PayPal take in deciding who can use their services? If they close it up too much and something slips through they risk being sued, what incentive is there in it for them?

Now, I’ll allow that PayPal may have allowed sites that were not strictly legal, or that went against their usage agreements, it’s bound to happen, with the number of porn sites that we have to assume set themselves up each month the chances are high that a few will slip through. Pornographic sites are against their rules and that is their perfectly respectable (though in the general case unnecessary it could be argued) decision, I have no reason to doubt they make every effort to keep that in line.

Manipulative “journalism” is not the solution to the problem of internet pornography, and neither is direct character assassination. Whatever Lord Birt or PayPal’s faults, in this situation they have my sympathy, I hope the biased writings of a widely sold comic do not harm their reputations greatly.