Bob Crow

[Sour Mash]

Its done nothing other than help maintain ticket offices and jobs on the front line there for the public to see, again your opinion (a misinformed one and closed one at that) is not fact, far from it.

I stated it wasn't a fact. There can only be opinions on the impact. Your view is unfortunately short-term and temporary, like the general Trade Union outlook on such things.

[Barry Sanchez]

I stated it wasn't a fact. There can only be opinions on the impact. Your view is unfortunately short-term and temporary, like the general Trade Union outlook on such things.

 

No I am telling you facts, you need to learn about law, I suggest starting with disabled access and moving on to the railways act 1993,2005, your opinion is not only selfish it is also factually bull**** .

Trade Unions are usually ahead of the game concerning the business they are in, they have been there over a 100 years in many places and there for a reason, the shareholders (stakeholders, PPP)have not been there lot at all.

Bias does not make it so.

[Sour Mash]

No I am telling you facts, you need to learn about law, I suggest starting with disabled access and moving on to the railways act 1993,2005, your opinion is not only selfish it is also factually bull**** .

Trade Unions are usually ahead of the game concerning the business they are in, they have been there over a 100 years in many places and there for a reason, the shareholders (stakeholders, PPP)have not been there lot at all.

Bias does not make it so.

Which facts have you very kindly informed me of?

[Barry Sanchez]

Which facts have you very kindly informed me of?

 

You're saying there can be only opinions on impact, I am telling you there are laws in place that can not all of a sudden empty a station of staff, fact not opinion.

[Sour Mash]

You're saying there can be only opinions on impact, I am telling you there are laws in place that can not all of a sudden empty a station of staff, fact not opinion.

Where have I disputed that? I think you're missing the point.

[Barry Sanchez]

Where have I disputed that? I think you're missing the point.

 

I think you're talking crap.

[Sour Mash]

I think you're talking crap.

That's nice, thank you for your input.

[sebastian firefly]

Plenty of people work on Boxing Day, without the very healthy packaage that tube drivers get. Captialists believe in the free market on such things, I'm sure you understand that.

 

the very fact that you work on boxing day without a healthy package says you could of done with bob on your side

[Sour Mash]

the very fact that you work on boxing day without a healthy package says you could of done with bob on your side

I don't work on Boxing day, I go to watch football usually, but thank you for your concern nevertheless.

[Barry Sanchez]

I don't work on Boxing day, I go to watch football usually, but thank you for your concern nevertheless.

 

Maybe you should.

[Johnny Bognor]

As a mark of respect, I am going to walk to work tomorrow.

 

It's what he would have wanted

[Tokyo-Saint]

Someone who lives in Liverpool and has never relied on the tube to work loves Rio Bob. Someone who lives in London and has had his journey to work used as a weapon by Rio Bob is far less in favour of his tactics. Strange that.

[trousers]

I don't work on Boxing day, I go to watch football usually.

 

Even when Boxing Day doesn't fall on the 26th...?

 

(I haven't trotted that one out for a while)

[Barry Sanchez]

Someone who lives in Liverpool and has never relied on the tube to work loves Rio Bob. Someone who lives in London and has had his journey to work used as a weapon by Rio Bob is far less in favour of his tactics. Strange that.

 

You think I dont go to London? As I said maybe you should work on Boxing Day? I have always supported the right to strike action and always will, dont confuse that with me supporting every strike as I dont. Getting around a table and talking is always the best measure, owners of medium companies in the most part hate Unions and collective bargaining (see them as a threat to their gains larger companies actually value them) and people not in Unions (usually) getting shafted are simply jealous of the benefits they enjoy, strength through unity.

Edited 13 March, 2014 by Barry Sanchez

[Tokyo-Saint]

I used to work in Japan Barry, worked on Xmas day and boxing day. Have you ever relied on the tube on a daily basis?

[Barry Sanchez]

I used to work in Japan Barry, worked on Xmas day and boxing day. Have you ever relied on the tube on a daily basis?

 

I once held up a wall on Christmas day for a job, now I dont know what you having to work on Christmas day in Japan has anything to do with me or the discussion but hey ho, and yes I have worked in London and relied on it, I can only assume or I hope it is your selfish agenda at being inconvenienced as opposed to the right of the worker to withhold their labour as they are legally allowed to do.

Edited 13 March, 2014 by Barry Sanchez

[Tokyo-Saint]

It's not me Bob, it is people like my wife that Bob left high and dry in central London at night that grates Barrinda. You living in London is different from your previous 'story'. If Bob had shown any concern for others, he would have had more sympathy in his cause. For example, day time strikes but normal service after 7pm. That would have caused disruption but have ensured public safety at night.

 

By the way, you really are an obvious troll. You brought up me working boxing day (I haven't mentioned it once) and then when I replied I have worked, you say whats that got to do with anything. Must try harder Barrinda.

[Barry Sanchez]

It's not me Bob, it is people like my wife that Bob left high and dry in central London at night that grates Barrinda. You living in London is different from your previous 'story'. If Bob had shown any concern for others, he would have had more sympathy in his cause. For example, day time strikes but normal service after 7pm. That would have caused disruption but have ensured public safety at night.

 

By the way, you really are an obvious troll. You brought up me working boxing day (I haven't mentioned it once) and then when I replied I have worked, you say whats that got to do with anything. Must try harder Barrinda.

 

You obviously do not understand the concept of a strike, you calling me a troll is a desperate attempt to justify your position, I said why dont you work Boxing Day in reference to this discussion of services or lack of them here and you bring up working in Tokyo as an example, poor show from a weak position and no I am not a wum, simply someone hammering you in this debate.

Where is Beersy he is better at this than you.

Edited 13 March, 2014 by Barry Sanchez

[Tokyo-Saint]

I think you are confusing me and sour mash there Barry. Read the posts and troll on Barrinda.

[Barry Sanchez]

I think you are confusing me and sour mash there Barry. Read the posts and troll on Barrinda.

 

No Sour Mash has been dealt with, that beaut was for you.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Sour Mash has been dealt with.

 

[Sour Mash]

No Sour Mash has been dealt with, that beaut was for you.

You do crack me up Barry.

[pap]

You do crack me up Barry.

 

 

New avatar for your (ahem) "conqueror"?

[hutch]

You do crack me up Barry.

I would go out and check my hub caps if I was you mate.

[Tokyo-Saint]

I wouldn't do that mate. Not now you have been dealt with. Just put it down as a lesson and move on.

[saintbletch]

Did Toke just get owned by Brash en Crazy?

 

I'm sure it must be frustrating to live in our nation's capital and not be able to rely on low cost, reliable and safe transport.

 

What you could do with is something like an elected Mayor who could listen to your concerns and represent your interests in a negotiation with the unions.

 

This Mayor could then take your legitimate concerns into negotiations, make it clear how important this transport mechanism is to you and your fellow Londoners, and then immediately and unconditionally give in to the union's demands; thus ensuring you could always rely on the tube network.

 

What you don't need is a Mayor that would hang you out to dry, and bring the capital to a standstill in an effort to bring about negotiating pressure on the unions by turning people against them.

 

P.S. There is also no such thing as the bogeyman.

 

x

[Tokyo-Saint]

That's all well and good if the aim is a fair deal beltch. However, if the union rep is, by his own admission "always out for a better deal" then you just have a constant battle, followed by strikes. I would never vote for a mayor that just bends over every time a dick pops up asking for more. You might like to swallow that Bletch but not me.

[saintbletch]

That's all well and good if the aim is a fair deal beltch. However, if the union rep is, by his own admission "always out for a better deal" then you just have a constant battle, followed by strikes. I would never vote for a mayor that just bends over every time a dick pops up asking for more. You might like to swallow that Bletch but not me.

 

I'm only yanking your tail Toke. I don't live in London and so it doesn't impact me like it would you.

 

But I was struck at how, like Marc Almond, you were eager to guzzle down the mendacious mucus dribbled down your throat by those that want you to sleep ill at night.

 

Can I just ask you to reconsider your assertion that Bob Crow was "always out for a better deal". That may well have been his stated position, and an admirable "banner" it is for his members and passengers alike. But if that were really the case, if he were always militating against the regular running of the underground, it simply would never run, and he would always be at loggerheads with those that control the purse strings.

 

In reality, occasionally you are caught in the crossfire between a Mayor and a Union. The Mayor is interested in easing the financial burden on Londoners, the union is interested in making the underground a better and safer place to travel and work.

 

You've decided that your cash is more important than travelling on Boxing day.

 

Fair enough.

[Tokyo-Saint]

I think you may have been swayed by Barry's trolling that I am someone who thinks that unions are a bad thing or that I do not know why they are there and the good they have done in the past. I as you may or may not know am from the Clyde. Therefore I am not only very aware of how important the unions have been in the past to equal rights, employee conditions and fair pay, I am also immune to Barry's poor anti Japanese digs he has thankfully stopped embarrassing himself with.

 

The quote I posted was from the late great man himself. He was interviewed by David Mitchell (of all people) who was, let's just say, softer than Paxman with him. DM quoted a few huge salaries at him and asked if he was happy with them. He then asked if there was every a point he thought a worker got a fair wage - crow said no. DM reiterated he would strike for a payrise for someone who was already on 40K for a semi skilled job, crow said something along the lines of "it's my job to do it mate". He then ate a pie in one and did a cockney dance.*

 

 

 

*that last bit may not be 100% true.

Edited 13 March, 2014 by Tokyo-Saint

[Halo Stickman]

As I see it, the problem when discussing unions is that things are never clear cut; there are always two sides to the argument. Indeed, based on my own personal experiences with the unions, I can’t even make up my own mind where I stand on this subject. FWIW, I’ve outlined some on my experiences and thoughts below. Apologies for the rather lengthy nature of this post – I’m awaiting a delivery and have got rather too much time to kill today.

 

My father was a staunch left-winger and shop steward for the boilermakers union, so when I started my engineering apprenticeship in the 1970s I was more than happy to follow his lead and sign up for the union.

 

My first personal experience with the union occurred during a lunch-break when I was serving time in the company’s drawing office. I’d eaten my sandwiches and read the newspapers, when, for want of something better to do, I picked up my pencil and carried on with my drawing. Bloody hell, anyone would have thought I’d picked up my pencil and stabbed the chief draughtsman in the eye with it! The union rep came charging over, shouting and hollering like a banshee, and spent ten minutes lecturing me on how the unions had fought long and hard to gain better working conditions for their members, and that hour-long lunch breaks were one of those conditions, and that no one, but no one, should ever spend even one minute working outside of company time. Well, this dressing down certainly did the trick: never again did I give that company one minute of my own time!

 

A few years later, when I’d finished my apprenticeship, the same union rep asked me what grade I was on, and, after I told him, this time, went charging off to the works manager. Ten minutes later he returned to tell me he’d secured me not one grade rise but two! As this meant more pay, I was well chuffed, and thought: yep, the unions are a damn good thing. And, let’s face it, anyone who has ever read anything about the terrible working conditions prior to the unions will find it difficult to argue that the unions have been anything other than a force for good when it comes to improving working conditions.

 

But, as the years went by, I started to see another side to the unions that left me feeling a little more ambivalent towards them, especially their restrictive working and demarcation practices. For example, two colleagues and I sometimes worked nightshift at a remote test facility several miles from the company’s main premises. Even though all three of us were fully qualified and time-served test engineers, we were not allowed to change blown light-bulbs or fuses. Instead, we had to phone for the duty maintenance electricians; but, if they were otherwise engaged on another job, a card-school, or asleep in one of their hidey-holes – believe it or not, I’m not being facetious with those last remarks! – then we were supposed to spend the rest of the shift doing nothing. In truth, my colleagues and I weren’t too bothered about this – after all, we still got paid, whether we did anything or not – but most of the time we simply surreptitiously replaced the light-bulbs or fuses ourselves. That was, until the day when the security guard saw my mate changing a fuse, and grassed us up to the union. All hell broke loose: my mate was black-legged, the entire maintenance department threatened to walkout, and refused to have anything to do with us for several months. From that day on, something as ridiculously mundane as a blown light-bulb or fuse had the potential to write off an entire shift!

 

Of course, it’s important to say that restrictive working practices came about as a result of negotiations between the unions and the company, so it’s not fair to hold the former exclusively responsible for their introduction. However, I think it is fair to say that restrictive working practices such as these contributed to the company becoming uncompetitive. Eventually, the inevitable happened: large scale redundancies. And, for me, as a fully paid up member of the union, this bought a final irony. You see, the company wasn’t a closed shop: some of their workers were not in unions. But, because the unions insisted on ‘first in, last out’, union members like me were shown the door, whilst older non-union workers stayed on!

 

So, in summation, my experiences with the unions – albeit mainly from the distant days of the 1970s and early 1980s – were a mixture of good and bad.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Halo minutes after not putting his pencil down at lunch.

 

[Barry Sanchez]

I think you may have been swayed by Barry's trolling that I am someone who thinks that unions are a bad thing or that I do not know why they are there and the good they have done in the past. I as you may or may not know am from the Clyde. Therefore I am not only very aware of how important the unions have been in the past to equal rights, employee conditions and fair pay, I am also immune to Barry's poor anti Japanese digs he has thankfully stopped embarrassing himself with.

 

The quote I posted was from the late great man himself. He was interviewed by David Mitchell (of all people) who was, let's just say, softer than Paxman with him. DM quoted a few huge salaries at him and asked if he was happy with them. He then asked if there was every a point he thought a worker got a fair wage - crow said no. DM reiterated he would strike for a payrise for someone who was already on 40K for a semi skilled job, crow said something along the lines of "it's my job to do it mate". He then ate a pie in one and did a cockney dance.*

 

 

 

*that last bit may not be 100% true.

 

You are not aware and yet comment on what Unions do to you only and not their members, thats not very clever is it? If you believe in a free market then this is what comes with it. Quote me when and when Crow said there was never a time when a fair wage was struck? I also said above Unions 1st priority was and always will be terms and conditions, Tokyo give up, what has my mock wind up Japanese digs at their supreme being the Emperor is a living God and the massacres they still deny to this day have to do with anything, you are a belter. I suggest a move back to Tokyo where you can travel happily on Boxing Day, they travel on Boxing Day there as they dont have a clue what Boxing Day is.

Oh dear, must try harder Margaret.

[Barry Sanchez]

As I see it, the problem when discussing unions is that things are never clear cut; there are always two sides to the argument. Indeed, based on my own personal experiences with the unions, I can’t even make up my own mind where I stand on this subject. FWIW, I’ve outlined some on my experiences and thoughts below. Apologies for the rather lengthy nature of this post – I’m awaiting a delivery and have got rather too much time to kill today.

 

My father was a staunch left-winger and shop steward for the boilermakers union, so when I started my engineering apprenticeship in the 1970s I was more than happy to follow his lead and sign up for the union.

 

My first personal experience with the union occurred during a lunch-break when I was serving time in the company’s drawing office. I’d eaten my sandwiches and read the newspapers, when, for want of something better to do, I picked up my pencil and carried on with my drawing. Bloody hell, anyone would have thought I’d picked up my pencil and stabbed the chief draughtsman in the eye with it! The union rep came charging over, shouting and hollering like a banshee, and spent ten minutes lecturing me on how the unions had fought long and hard to gain better working conditions for their members, and that hour-long lunch breaks were one of those conditions, and that no one, but no one, should ever spend even one minute working outside of company time. Well, this dressing down certainly did the trick: never again did I give that company one minute of my own time!

 

A few years later, when I’d finished my apprenticeship, the same union rep asked me what grade I was on, and, after I told him, this time, went charging off to the works manager. Ten minutes later he returned to tell me he’d secured me not one grade rise but two! As this meant more pay, I was well chuffed, and thought: yep, the unions are a damn good thing. And, let’s face it, anyone who has ever read anything about the terrible working conditions prior to the unions will find it difficult to argue that the unions have been anything other than a force for good when it comes to improving working conditions.

 

But, as the years went by, I started to see another side to the unions that left me feeling a little more ambivalent towards them, especially their restrictive working and demarcation practices. For example, two colleagues and I sometimes worked nightshift at a remote test facility several miles from the company’s main premises. Even though all three of us were fully qualified and time-served test engineers, we were not allowed to change blown light-bulbs or fuses. Instead, we had to phone for the duty maintenance electricians; but, if they were otherwise engaged on another job, a card-school, or asleep in one of their hidey-holes – believe it or not, I’m not being facetious with those last remarks! – then we were supposed to spend the rest of the shift doing nothing. In truth, my colleagues and I weren’t too bothered about this – after all, we still got paid, whether we did anything or not – but most of the time we simply surreptitiously replaced the light-bulbs or fuses ourselves. That was, until the day when the security guard saw my mate changing a fuse, and grassed us up to the union. All hell broke loose: my mate was black-legged, the entire maintenance department threatened to walkout, and refused to have anything to do with us for several months. From that day on, something as ridiculously mundane as a blown light-bulb or fuse had the potential to write off an entire shift!

 

Of course, it’s important to say that restrictive working practices came about as a result of negotiations between the unions and the company, so it’s not fair to hold the former exclusively responsible for their introduction. However, I think it is fair to say that restrictive working practices such as these contributed to the company becoming uncompetitive. Eventually, the inevitable happened: large scale redundancies. And, for me, as a fully paid up member of the union, this bought a final irony. You see, the company wasn’t a closed shop: some of their workers were not in unions. But, because the unions insisted on ‘first in, last out’, union members like me were shown the door, whilst older non-union workers stayed on!

 

So, in summation, my experiences with the unions – albeit mainly from the distant days of the 1970s and early 1980s – were a mixture of good and bad.

 

I agree with this but the practices came out of principle to defend a job, no more silly than today's health and safety executive.

[Tokyo-Saint]

What do you do for a job Barry?

[Barry Sanchez]

What do you do for a job Barry?

 

Wrong question Tokyo, its what I believe and practice, I could tell you whatever on the internet and you could either believe me or not, its better to say what you believe in and go from there, I believe in the principle of the Union, you appear not to, that about right?

[Bearsy]

tokyos joined union in 80s cos he wanted to hang out with minors. It turned out wrong sort of minors tho, they only had coal digging men. Tokyos did still have sex with a bunch of them but he is sore about it. That is why tokyos is so angar bout unions.

[Barry Sanchez]

tokyos joined union in 80s cos he wanted to hang out with minors. It turned out wrong sort of minors tho, they only had coal digging men. Tokyos did still have sex with a bunch of them but he is sore about it. That is why tokyos is so angar bout unions.

Did Arthur put his miners lamp down a hole Tokyo did not want?

 

This sheds some light on it, pardon the pun.

[Tokyo-Saint]

No Barry, I believe in the unions to some extent. Like Halo says, they do some good things and some stupid needless things. So come on, what do you do?

[Barry Sanchez]

No Barry, I believe in the unions to some extent. Like Halo says, they do some good things and some stupid needless things. So come on, what do you do?

 

You have simply copied Halo, what do you believe in? I am an astronaut by the way. You appear to dislike the Unions because you can not get a train on a Boxing Day, you must be worth a bit more than that.

[Bearsy]

What do you do for a job Barry?

 

he holds walls up, apparently. dunno if he is robbing ice cream factory or physically stopping garden wall falling over tho, he wasn't v.clear bout that.

[Tokyo-Saint]

You appear to dislike the Unions because you can not get a train on a Boxing Day, you must be worth a bit more than that.

 

Are you really so dumb Barry that you cannot read? You are confusing my posts with Sour Mash's posts (again). I don't mention boxing day. Stop lying. I know what you do, why not tell?

[Barry Sanchez]

he holds walls up, apparently. dunno if he is robbing ice cream factory or physically stopping garden wall falling over tho, he wasn't v.clear bout that.

 

 

The wall was a security fence in Torquay, Victoria for a music event.

[Bearsy]

The wall was a security fence in Torquay, Victoria for a music event.

 

do they have unions in the human fencepost business where you work?

[Barry Sanchez]

do they have unions in the human fencepost business where you work?

 

Yes I am the leader of the fencepost Union.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Reading this thread, can't help but think of this quote

 

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

[Barry Sanchez]

Reading this thread, can't help but think of this quote

 

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

 

I know Kevin I know.

[um pahars]

Don't get the Rio Bob or Champagne Socialist jibes at all.

 

He was a rather successful Union boss overseeing an expanding organisation that had 80,000 members and a significant income (rather well managed as well!). In return for that he earned a salary that wasn't even 6 figures - I don't include pension contributions and expenses when I talk about my salary (and a salary very much dwarfed by the likes of Boris' chicken feed £250,000 for his relaxing Sunday morning writing session for the Telegraph).

 

I don't agree with his politics, but his pay packet looks commensurate with the gravitas of his job (and his success in it). And because he decides to spend some of that salary on holiday to Rio, that should be thrown back at him. Shock horror, man goes on a long distance holiday.

 

The council house jibe is also a bit below the belt, as historically I've not been aware of an earnings cap on a Council tenancy, and historically for many hard working folk a Council House was the norm. My parents were in employment all their lives, but preferred to rent from the Council rather than buy. With the reduction in council house building, pressure has grown on the existing stock, but I don't think existing tenants should be under any moral obligation to move out of what has been their family homes. He has been a council tenant all his life and moved in to his current home before he became the leader of the RMT.

 

You might argue his rent is below the current market and hence he is being subsidised, but as this article points out, it's not that simple as subsidies exist across the housing market. There are many thousands living in council houses whilst earning "big" salaries, so until we address all of them along with the other subsidies (hidden and overt), then I think it's a bit churlish to have a pop.

[pap]

Don't get the Rio Bob or Champagne Socialist jibes at all.

 

He was a rather successful Union boss overseeing an expanding organisation that had 80,000 members and a significant income (rather well managed as well!). In return for that he earned a salary that wasn't even 6 figures - I don't include pension contributions and expenses when I talk about my salary (and a salary very much dwarfed by the likes of Boris' chicken feed £250,000 for his relaxing Sunday morning writing session for the Telegraph).

 

I don't agree with his politics, but his pay packet looks commensurate with the gravitas of his job (and his success in it). And because he decides to spend some of that salary on holiday to Rio, that should be thrown back at him. Shock horror, man goes on a long distance holiday.

 

The council house jibe is also a bit below the belt, as historically I've not been aware of an earnings cap on a Council tenancy, and historically for many hard working folk a Council House was the norm. My parents were in employment all their lives, but preferred to rent from the Council rather than buy. With the reduction in council house building, pressure has grown on the existing stock, but I don't think existing tenants should be under any moral obligation to move out of what has been their family homes. He has been a council tenant all his life and moved in to his current home before he became the leader of the RMT.

 

You might argue his rent is below the current market and hence he is being subsidised, but as this article points out, it's not that simple as subsidies exist across the housing market. There are many thousands living in council houses whilst earning "big" salaries, so until we address all of them along with the other subsidies (hidden and overt), then I think it's a bit churlish to have a pop.

 

On the council house issue, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

 

People moaned about him living in a council house, as that kept someone on the waiting list. If he'd moved off to the burbs, he'd have been accused of champagne socialism and losing touch with his roots.

 

I wonder if the Rio Bob stuff would have been raised if he'd been on the east coast of America? Miami Bob has a certain charm to it.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Were the rio jibes not more to do with it being days away from the tube strikes?

 

I'm not so sure it would have been such a big deal otherwise.

[Sour Mash]

Don't get the Rio Bob or Champagne Socialist jibes at all.

 

He was a rather successful Union boss overseeing an expanding organisation that had 80,000 members and a significant income (rather well managed as well!). In return for that he earned a salary that wasn't even 6 figures - I don't include pension contributions and expenses when I talk about my salary (and a salary very much dwarfed by the likes of Boris' chicken feed £250,000 for his relaxing Sunday morning writing session for the Telegraph).

 

I don't agree with his politics, but his pay packet looks commensurate with the gravitas of his job (and his success in it). And because he decides to spend some of that salary on holiday to Rio, that should be thrown back at him. Shock horror, man goes on a long distance holiday.

 

The council house jibe is also a bit below the belt, as historically I've not been aware of an earnings cap on a Council tenancy, and historically for many hard working folk a Council House was the norm. My parents were in employment all their lives, but preferred to rent from the Council rather than buy. With the reduction in council house building, pressure has grown on the existing stock, but I don't think existing tenants should be under any moral obligation to move out of what has been their family homes. He has been a council tenant all his life and moved in to his current home before he became the leader of the RMT.

 

You might argue his rent is below the current market and hence he is being subsidised, but as this article points out, it's not that simple as subsidies exist across the housing market. There are many thousands living in council houses whilst earning "big" salaries, so until we address all of them along with the other subsidies (hidden and overt), then I think it's a bit churlish to have a pop.

You think it's 'churlish' to criticise someone for doing wrong, because others also do it? Right you are.