Ronnie Peters. The suburbs. Represents self.

My ideas are so good and wise that the anti-feminists and others (who disclose very little and often hide behind non-de-plumes) take to making up and imagining all sorts of irrational things. These things often betray their true prejudices, lack of temperance and hatreds. Who needs a bio?

Now where did I put my broom stick, zinc cream, copy of Mein Kampf, dolpin-shaped sex toy (who needs man)and my chardony? Have to rush my lattes are ready.

And yes of course my carton of Guiness for the one who I like to live vicarously through - what is my/his non-de-plume?

Happy New Year and keep working on those insults

Yeah, I was interested to see a number of posters launch a tirade against this piece on the basis of feminism.

The article isn't about feminism. Yes, Cannold is a feminist - and she's listed her affiliations at the bottom. What she's calling for is greater transparency. Are you arguing with that?

You can disagree about abortion - but this article isn't about abortion, so pick a more relevant thread.

It's about disclosure. Something I feel is important in a society that is placing more and more emphasis on spin.

So... who should be made to disclose their funding and affiliations?

And... who shouldn't be allowed to receive donations at all?

I think for a functional labour party, we need to have less funding from the unions, perhaps then they can get back to the issue of wage regulation which they seem to have confused with unionism.

Ditto for the liberal party and business.

I don't yet know what the alternative here is - perhaps some kind of system where promotional funds are distributed on a membership/seat basis. Better yet, a system where there is already a set media platform for this kind of activity outside of paid advertising.

I can hear the shrill fears of communism getting ready to rise, though I happen to think there are ways of increasing government involvement without these fears.

Back to disclosure - politicians should always have the highest standards of disclosure. When they nominate at the ballot, their entire lives should be open for scrutiny. There are more people I can add to this list, but I'm sure there are other posters who can continue in that vein.

TRTF

When you read the author's affiliations at the bottom of the article you possibly noted that she is a spokeswoman for a particular organisation.

If you look at the web site for that organisation you will find that she needed to go no further than that to find a good example of what she is complaining about. There is no disclosure of the individuals and entities supporting this organisation and the reader is left to wonder if it is only one individual with a fax machine or something more.

So what about the ethics of the pot calling the kettle black?