Mar 16, 2014

thebogword stands for tradition! Like droit du seigneur.

After the unfair parodical attacks by piratical parrots like Yours Truly, thebogword, in consultation with the MoJ, Capita and other agents of social reform and control, has taken necessary steps to silence unruly laughter at the expense of one of Crony Capital's shiniest knights in the service of language.

New clauses in thebogword'Z Online Contract ensure that freelancers will toe the line and show due deference or face painful bowel movements and other consequences as pins are inserted in voodoo dolls bearing their images:
7.14. For the duration of this Agreement and for a period of three years thereafter, you agree that you shall not publish or participate in any online or print media in which the content is abusive and/or defamatory and/or a parody of us and/or our officers and/or our employees and /or their families and/or in which you impersonate us and/or our officers and/or our employees and/or their families.
7.15: You acknowledge that a breach of the provisions in clause 7.14 would cause us irreparable injury for which we would not have an adequate remedy at law. In the event of a breach, you agree that we shall be entitled to injunctive relief in addition to any other remedies we may have at law or in equity.
Note carefully the words
"... you agree that you shall not ... participate in any online ... media in which the content is ... a parody of us and/or our officers and/or our employees ..."
You have been warned. If you are a current or future contractor of thebogword, alias thepigturd, cosa nostra or The Big Word, you must not participate in this medium or any other in which unsanctified content appears. Violators will face appropriate divine retribution. You must particularly refrain from posting any comments on this blog in agreement or dispute, even in the defense of porcine persons, natural or legal, and their right to leave their digestive end products in places of their choice in language professions. Nor are you permitted to participate in online venues such as Facebook,, Translators Café or elsewhere, which have been or shall be identified as containing content in violation of Section 7.14 of the Online Contract.

In so doing you also grant your implicit consent pursuant to the spirit of Section 7.14 OC i.c.w. the will of the Privy Council of thepigturd, to wit that you grant your full and voluntary consent in accordance with capital Principles of Capital and in acknowledgement of the social engineering contributions of theturd and its frustrated, underpaid Executive Excellency, and surrender cheerfully from this day forth your virgin person or a suitable substitute, male or female, not to exceed eleven years in age, to serve the Higher Corporate Power of theturd in ways necessary for consideration over and above the value added in HAMPsTr processes and other instruments of its profit and control.

These measures are the just and necessary sequelae of the continued unfairness of no remedy at law for a sense of humor not shared by those of the porcine persuasion. Further steps will also include another 15% reduction in your language service fees to fund the next executive bonus required to soothe a bruised ego.


  1. Don't they have laws protecting freedom of speech in England?

    Would a contract abridging freedom of speech of one party be enforceable in court?

    In any case, they are in trouble now. Once thousands of people start laughing at the interesting alternative spellings of their dumb name, which are so incredibly fitting, the laughter will resonate for as long as they keep using the dumb name.

    The fault is clearly with the person who came up with the name and with the consequent dirty practices of the greedy company.

  2. This one is always misunderstood.

    The proscription on abridging freedom of speech applies to the U.S. government and its constraint on speech. That's why it starts out with the words, "Congress shall make no law..."

    People, on the other hand, as well as "persons," which includes corporations, enter into contracts limiting speech all the time. That's why all those confidentiality clauses are legal, why out-of-court settlements prohibiting the discussion of terms are legal and why you can agree to never speak of certain subjects ever, for the rest of your natural life (divorce and security clearances). :)

    Now of course there are matters of contract law that apply, and usually those address issues of due consideration as well as other factors and that's the reason for that no available remedy clause. I'm not familiar with UK law on this topic, but it doesn't (appear) to be outside the boundaries of what's commonly encountered.

    But I do agree that the degree to which any entity attempts to control discussion about them through contract law is reflective of their inability to control or influence or direct those same unfavorable discussions. It's a sign of weakness. And just like the Streisand effect, the attempt to control bad news actually has the unintended effect of publicizing it -- like it is right here!

    1. Well, of course one can enter into a contract limiting speech, Kevin, and it often makes perfect sense to do so. But it's hard to imagine a greater absurdity in this particular sector or such a clear indication of weakness. But it would be quite interesting to test these provisions in a dispute given that asymmetry in the power relationship between contracting parties is in fact significant in some jurisdictions. Organizations like The Turd deserve to land on the scrap heap of business history, and I hope some day you and I can toast their insolvency with some good meat and conversation.

  3. I'm not not sure if this is just another scare tactic or if they have pursed legal advice to make sure that this ridiculous clause is enforceable in their jurisdiction, but even if it is I find it hard to believe that will invest time and resources in prosecuting individuals - especially outside of the UK - for such a breach. By doing so they stand to lose more then they could gain.
    Still, no self respecting person should ever sign such a clause if only because an organization that found appropriate to include such a clause in their (already abusive) contract actually tells one all that one has to know about the expected quality of that business relationship.

    This is not only a sign of weakness, but to me also a sign of an alleged panic. Those Pig Turds have initiated and promoted the race to the bottom, partly with their locust-like behavior. Now they should be left to deal with the consequences, one of which is the bad PR this clause miserably attempts to artificially mitigate (and will fail).

  4. A terrible company to work for in so many ways.


Notice to spammers: your locations are being traced and fed to the recreational target list for my new line of chemical weapon drones :-)