August 23, 2026 • Misanthrope Index: 8.1 — Approaching Walken
Folly of the Day
It Offered Britons a Free Alternative to a Funeral, With a Norwich Address and a .co.uk Email. The One Fact It Kept Off the Front Page Was That the Body Does Not Come Back.
Every business decides which of its facts belong on the front page and which belong in a document the customer must go and find, and the choice is always a confession. This one sells the disposal of your corpse and elected to foreground a Norwich postcode and a local-rate telephone number, while consigning to a downloadable booklet the small matter of which country your body ends up in and never leaves. The defence — that the British trappings were adopted for the convenience of British customers — has the perfect circular shape of all such defences: we misled you as a courtesy, and at our own expense. What is genuinely instructive is the ranking of anxieties it reveals. The company judged, presumably correctly, that a prospective donor would be more troubled by the cost of a phone call than by the destination of his remains, and built its homepage accordingly. It is not that the firm thought the truth would repel people. It is that the firm thought the truth was a detail.
Members of the Public Photographed His Men on a Roof With Nothing to Stop Them Falling and Sent the Pictures to the Regulator. He Had Already Been Warned by the Regulator, and by His Own Safety Advisers, More Than Once.
The assurances are the whole of the story. A man who did not know the rules would be merely negligent; this one knew them, had been told them by the regulator, had paid advisers to tell him again, and had said each time that he would comply — which means the compliance was never the plan, and the saying-so always was. There is a species of businessman for whom a promise to the authorities is not a commitment but a fee, paid in words, to make the authorities go away. What undid him was not an inspection but a pedestrian with a telephone. He had calculated the odds against the regulator turning up, which was shrewd, and forgot that the street was full of people who could see the stepladder.
He Was Employed to Work in Dublin. He Went to India and Kept Working. The Adjudicator Has Ruled That He Was the Author of His Own Predicament.
He worked for one of the largest audit and advisory firms on earth, an institution whose entire commercial proposition is that it can find out where the money went, and he appears to have believed that it could not find out where he was. The IP address and the access card did the work, as they always do. The interesting failure is not the geography but the theory of the employer: a policy existed, an approval process existed, and he skipped to the outcome he wanted on the assumption that permission was a formality standing between him and a decision already made. It is the modern professional's characteristic error — mistaking a rule for an inconvenience and an inconvenience for a suggestion.
Daily misanthropy by email — free. The day's worst decisions, curated every morning, in your inbox by breakfast.
No algorithms. No engagement bait. Just the view from the abyss.
The Wire
New Zealand's Five Biggest Councils Now Spend $1.3 Billion a Year on Staff, and Two of Every Five Council Employees Are Paid Over $100,000.
The figure that ought to detain a ratepayer is not the billion but the fraction: two in five of the people employed to run the rubbish collection and the drains are paid a sum that the country's own labour statistics treat as the top of the market. An organisation does not arrive at that distribution by accident. It arrives there because every restructure invents a tier, every tier requires a title, and every title must be benchmarked against the tier invented last year at the council next door — a spiral in which nobody is ever overpaid, because everyone is paid the going rate for a job that did not exist a decade ago. The art in storage is the same instinct in physical form. It was never bought to be looked at. It was bought to be owned.
The Council Is Choosing Between Three New Visual Identities. A Councillor Asked, at the Workshop, Whether This Was a Good Use of the Money.
There is a moment, in the life of every institution that cannot fix what is actually wrong with it, when someone proposes a new logo — and it is never the moment of confidence, it is always the moment of exhaustion. A body that is functioning does not need to be re-explained to the people who live inside it. What the three concepts on the easel really represent is a decision to spend money on the description of the work rather than on the work, taken by a committee that can commission a symbol far more easily than it can mend a road. The councillor's question was the correct one and will not be answered, because the honest answer is that the rebrand is not for the ratepayer. It is for the room.
The Tribunal Decided the Sacked Solicitor Was Not Credible on the Strength of a Third Party's Description of CCTV Footage. The Appeal Tribunal Has Pointed Out That This Is Not How Any of This Works.
A tribunal exists to decide whether the employer's process was fair, not to hold its own better one, and the temptation to do the second while claiming to do the first is the occupational disease of everybody ever given a file and a view. What makes this specimen instructive is the evidential thinness on which the confidence rested: not the footage, which nobody watched, but somebody's account of the footage — hearsay about a video — deployed to overturn the judgment of the person who had actually conducted the investigation. The certainty required to do that is not derived from the material. It arrives first, and then goes looking for something to stand on.
An Advertisement Was Banned for Showing a Salmon Pen That Was Not Representative of Salmon Pens. The Industry Appealed on the Basis That It Was, and Won.
An industry that films one of its pens and is told the pen is unrepresentative has been paid an unusual compliment, and it went to considerable expense to refuse it. The whole dispute turns on a question no advertiser ever wants asked aloud — whether the thing you were shown is the ordinary case or the best one — and the remarkable feature of the appeal is that winning it required arguing, in public and on the record, that this is as good as it gets everywhere. That is the position they chose. Somewhere there is a marketing department that regards this as a victory.
He Sat on Two Cases in Which His Own Stepson Was a Police Witness, Told Nobody, and Spent Part of the Trial Texting From the Bench About the Jurors.
Recusal is the least demanding obligation the office imposes: it costs a judge nothing but a sentence, and it exists precisely because the person best placed to notice the conflict is the one worst placed to be trusted about it. He declined to spend the sentence — twice — which tells you what he thought the rule was for. The texts from the bench complete the portrait. A man who mocks the jury while the jury is working has not merely broken a rule; he has arrived at the settled conviction that the proceedings are a performance staged for his private entertainment, and that he is the only person in the room who can see it. The robe was supposed to be a restraint. He wore it as an exemption.
He Wired $200,000 to a Woman on WhatsApp Who Promised to Turn $300,000 Into $7 Million. Seventeen Years Ago He Lost $120,000 the Same Way.
The seventeen-year gap is the entire point, because it means the lesson was administered once already, at a cost of $120,000, and did not take. A man can be forgiven for not knowing that a stranger promising a twenty-three-fold return is a thief; he cannot easily be forgiven for having been shown it, in his own bank statement, and concluding that the problem last time was the particular stranger. What sustains this is not loneliness and not stupidity but a specific and flattering theory of oneself: that the extraordinary offer was made because the recipient is extraordinary. The bank saw it in an afternoon. The police saw it from the doorstep. He had seventeen years.
The Regulator Wrote. The Company Did Not Answer. The Regulator Held a Public Inquiry About the Not Answering, and Took the Licence Away.
An operator's licence is one of the few valuable things in British commercial life that can be retained indefinitely by the simple expedient of replying to letters. The correspondence was not difficult, the questions were not hard, and the consequence of silence was set out in the letters themselves. What was lost here was not lost to misfortune or to a competitor; it was lost to the labour of opening an envelope, which was weighed against the ownership of a haulage business and found, over a period of months, to be the heavier of the two.
A Professor Set an Assignment. A Student Was Offended, the President Agreed, and She Was Fired. She Is Now Suing, and the Free-Speech Lawyers Have Taken the Case.
A college is an institution that exists to make people uncomfortable in a controlled and productive way, and this one has now committed itself, in writing and in court, to the opposite proposition: that a single complaint constitutes a finding. What is remarkable is not the student's offence, which is the ordinary weather of the age, but the speed with which the administration adopted it as its own — no interval, no inquiry, no apparent moment at which anyone in the building considered that a curriculum which can be dissolved by one objection is not a curriculum. They will now argue the point before a federal judge, at length and at public expense, which is one way of running a seminar.