FW Opinion: Court of public opinion is tough place for PM and Oatly
© AdobeStock/JackF How much respect do you have for the laws of the land? This was a question that sprang to mind as I pondered Boris Johnson, red diesel and oat juice this week.
Some citizens are adamant that the spirit and the letter of each law must be upheld at all times, and take great care to do so.
Then, at the other end of the spectrum, there are those who have no respect for some or all laws, or for those tasked with upholding them.
See also: FW Opinion: Best legacy of Clarkson’s Farm? The copycats
About the author
Between these two groups is a third tribe. This includes people who think there should be laws, but not for them, those who think laws should be interpreted “with a grain of common sense” (somehow always in their favour) and those who think ignorance of the law is a defence.
The multi-part drama surrounding the 19 separate partying claims associated with the prime minister and Downing Street staff lurched into another phase this week when it emerged that the police are now formally investigating the events.
Metropolitan Police chief Dame Cressida Dick said it would “not normally be a proportionate use of time” for the force to investigate rule breaches as far back as two years.
However, police would look at allegations that “appeared to be the most serious and flagrant breach” of regulations.
This is a reminder that not all rules are equal. A government can make up whatever law it likes, providing it can gain support for it in parliament, but it is worthless unless it, and subsequent administrations, also provide enough resources to enforce it.
In a world of finite money and many other spending commitments, these are highly charged decisions that reach into many aspects of our lives.
Naturally, the most serious offences, such as murder and terrorism, are prioritised, leaving even less resource for other matters.
For example, this means relatively small amounts of funding for police to investigate rural crime, for the Environment Agency to investigate sources of water pollution, or for HMRC to hunt down fraudsters or tax evaders.
In a recent presentation to the Ulster Farmers Union, an HMRC official inadvertently provoked a storm of criticism after confirming that red diesel should not be used for charity tractor runs, as they fall outside the definition of agricultural use.
One crime that will get you punished in the court of public opinion, however, is hypocrisy, as the prime minister is learning
Less noticed was the fact he went on to say that despite this, HMRC would take a “pragmatic” approach to checking fuel.
It is to be assumed that this is code for them rightly taking the decision to use their finite resources to catch the most serious offenders – perhaps those running full-time road vehicles on red.
While it is not the business of Farmers Weekly to encourage rule breaking of any type, it is unlikely that Santa shaking a bucket for charity once a year from the seat of his old David Brown would fall within this definition.
Was Oatly hoping that the Advertising Standards Authority’s limited resources would mean it could get away with a slew of claims about the supposed environmental credentials of its products?
Sharp-eyed farmers were among those who raised the alarm about the oat drink manufacturer overstating the emissions generated by the meat and dairy industry.
One crime that will get you punished in the court of public opinion, however, is hypocrisy, as the prime minister is learning.
As advocates for animal agriculture bravely take a stand for the industry, they must focus on solid facts when discussing environmental matters and avoid the hyperbole of their rivals.