Womens
vegan shoes

Mens Womens
boots & shoes

Mens Womens
boots & shoes

belts slippers
jacket T shirts

vegan shoes: fashionable?

Bouncing vegan sandal
Mesh and strap sandals
1" canvas shoe 1" court
cheap strappy sandals
cheap aerobic shoe
Bouncing Boots/Shoes 
Mixed or Mainly Brown
Office Shoes or School
Camouflage Shoes
Camouflage Boots / Tall
Unswoosher boot
Thick Canvas boot 
Walsh vegan trainers
Safety Boot, Shoe
Wellington boots, Clogs 
Vegan belts
Slippers
Safety slippers
T shirts made in Britain
Vegan mens jackets
about us; delivery
search & site map
Ethics, Vegan Recipes
Shoe sizes EU UK US
News / Facebook / +1

Ethical Fashion Forum fib to promote goods from badly-run countries

 

Ethical Fashion Forum still have a page urging people not to buy from the UK on ethical grounds, even though the UK is a democratic welfare state.

With luck they'll change their idea of what "ethical fashion" means of "throw in the towel" as one quote said they might do. Meanwhile here are some ethical fashion definitions.

Here is something about an ethical fashion forum "made in Britain" page and my draft notes in progress are here.

There are some notes on Ethical Fashion Forum's affect on jobs & poverty, then a long list of their implausible statements & silences. If you want to jump to the juicy bit: Ethical Fashion Forum Fibs & Grand Distractions are what they use to divert attention from their implausible statements & silences. The section goes-on to a bit about courtiers and the strange similarity between the courts of god-kings who had their heads cut-off and the courtiers who commission Ethical Fashion Forum. There is a footnote about laws that apply to advertisers that I guess don't always apply to a pressure group. Greenwash & ethics wash are the usual terms; ethics wash applies here.


Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

  • Criticism of Ethical Fashion Forum is due.
    Ethical Fashion Forum was subsidised to promote goods sourced from badly run countries, taking market share from from companies with more specific ethical claims than "ethical", such as buying from well-run countries.

  • Poverty reduction costs money.
    Goods from well-run countries are more expensive than goods from badly run countries, because of the cost of a welfare state: secondary schools, health services, pensions, and more, free, even for those who don't work or work for the worst employer.


How To Reduce Poverty In Three Steps:

1
National insurance is needed, public or private, but compulsory so that everyone has the same costs when competing for work. That's why it's called "national".

2
A welfare state
is the same thing with a subsidy from taxes so that everyone in a country gets the benefits, whether or not they do enough formal work with paid contributions.

3
Sell the expensive goods & services made this way
, maybe because customers feel good seeking-out these products, or maybe because conditional tariffs make competition fair with some kind of social clause to say that goods from other welfare states get-in free. Ethical Fashion Forum put the opposite point of view to buyers and those who set tariffs, while omitting any mention of national insurance or a welfare state. (check for yourself). Their managing director has said this September 2014 that the subject is worth talking about; their influence is with corporate buyers rather than lawmakers.


Why the system is popular with taxpayers:

1
The birth rate
among the poorest families may fall as public services like secondary schools & pensions improve. That's a subject to search in itself for anyone who thinks that more trade always leads to more wages per available worker in the slums.

2
The administration cost
of the system may fall as everyone becomes eligible, more-or-less, so it becomes a cheap deal on social insurance for mainstream taxpayers. That's a subject in itself for anyone who thinks that universal benefits have to be more wasteful or bureaucratic than the american system. There's also a saving in taxpayer and charity donations to other health services: everyone can use the same hospital.



  • Ethical Ethics grants to groups like Ethical Fashion Forum could have done good if used properly
    The subsidy for Ethical Fashion Forum was partly taken from training & trade grants like Business Link, meant to reduce poverty and promote jobs in the UK. The firm's subsidy was also partly from the Department for International Development, intended to help people in places like Bangladesh. About £10,000 a year for three years came from this source after previous funding to the same person in another job - Fashioning an Ethical Industry managed by Labour Behind the Label. EU taxpayers paid this project to "support university, college and high school educators of fashion-related courses in incorporating social responsibility issues into their teaching", but, if the project was honest, it forgot to mention a welfare state or human rights as something worth encouraging. Staff members of Centre for Sustainable Fashion, now at London College of Fashion, overlap with previous staff of Ethical Fashion Forum; they shared buildings and funders with a large-scale project called "Creative Connexions" paying UK designers to find factories in China.

    A repeated point on this page is that help for people in Bangladesh is a good thing, specially in emergencies, but should usually be done at zero cost by changing the tariffs on Bangladeshi goods so that the government of Bangladesh does the work or risk tariffs on products they sell. At the moment they spend money on export subsidies, which is wrong. They save money on schools and hospitals because UK taxpayers sometimes pay the bill instead. That's wrong too.

    Ethical Fashion Forum's director claims to have raised over £300,000 altogether in a few years, with a high proportion of it in public funding. It would be good if she published a break-down. Her organisation came to exist in a world where payment depended on political backing rather than proven benefit of an insurance-like kind. For example her landlord - an arts centre called Rich Mix - has a web page suggesting that 14p per person per week is spent by government on the arts, or £2.38 from the possible weekly pension of everyone over 65. They don't mention cost to pensioners. They came to exist in a world of courtiers and ghosts. Like their tenants, Rich Mix are not easily embarrassed. Ethical Fashion Forum also had free publications or exhibitions with public relations support and publications in support from the Centre for Sustainable Fashion, the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Crafts Council, The British Fashion Council's London Fashion Week, the BBC, and more. Similar amounts could be properly spent.

    Ethical Fashion Forum repaid UK taxpayers' subsidy by making UK taxpayers' problems worse, diverting attention away from the benefits of buying goods that are vegan, or buying goods made by UK taxpayers themselves in a welfare state. I'm no expert but think they have made ordinary Bangladeshis worse-off too.

  • Criticism is rude. Debunking of ethics-wash or fibs & fake claims is rude.
    Criticising ethical fashion forum is a bit like criticising Mother Theresa; journalists restrain criticism of those who say they are trying to do good. Ethical ethics are a grandiose pair of words that sound a bit like "good". That's a trick. Next they substitute narrower safer terms like "sustainable" while distracting you with grandiose fibs speakers and writers are selected, then crucial points are omitted in Ethical Fashion Forum's stuff before the interview is finished or the presentation over and you wonder when they are going to get-around to mentioning bad government or a welfare state or clothing production in the UK, and why they're so keen to emphasise small differences between bits of clothing made in sweatshop countries instead. If you ask Ethical Fashion Forum about this, they'll say "It's not about [insert criticism here]", but their omissions and the things they state when pressed show that they are about [insert criticism here]. You have to debunk their distraction and their marketing technique as well as saying that they have left important things out of their public sector exhibitions and their subsidised seminars and their web site and their press interviews.

    Sometimes Ethical Fashion Forum offer free marketing advice: "sell the sizzle, not the steak", and for them, grandiosity is the sizzle that distracts from what they omit to say and how they narrow-down the subject. Sizzle is vacuous words that sound good, sizzle is made-up CVs that sound expert, sizzle is a carefully selected group of speakers and writers who are presented as representative, or a grand claim of followers that is just a number of subscribers to a web forum. In order to criticise Ethical Fashion Forum, you have to debunk the grandiosity in order to debunk the process.

    To repeat: their next dodge is to narrow debate to something safe, like "sustainable fashion". A third dodge is to omit important subjects and speakers who could talk about them, while slipping-in the odd implausible statement if pressed.

    The welfare state is excluded from their definitions of what contributes to better ethical fashion, as are reasons for buying from welfare states. They claim to be "focused on poverty reduction" but exclude mention of conditional tariffs with social clauses to do that. They exclude major criticisms of the animal industry, despite a UN report showing how it causes poverty.

    Debunking someone's CV is uncomfortably personal, but necessary. Grandiosity or fibs are a dodge that distracts from other tricks and omissions. The talk of ethical ethics, with their grand sound. The podium. The email splurge to journalists offering free expert interviews. The role of guest speaker or debating partner. The fibs. All to distract attention from the next dodge, which is to narrow debate and then the third dodge which is to exclude important points and maybe slip-in some implausible statements on a web site or if pressed. It's odd because someone doing this in Sri Lanka would get a bunch of people round at the office to smash it up, in government uniform or not.

    Apart from the personal grand claims, Ethical Fashion Forum claims to be a forum and an "industry body" without being responsible to an industry. There has never been one "ethical fashion" industry, and there is no way for web forum members to change their management. So that has to be debunked as well in order to un-ravel the three-dodge trick they call "Business Success in 3D".


Dodge 1
Say you will talk about everything to lull people in:
"nutritious food", "ethical ethics", "ethical fashion", "the industry body", "healthy living", "the source". It helps if you are in a country where manufacturers can't afford a big trade association and government doesn't even release data to get a complete trade directory, so people are looking for expertise.

Dodge 2
Distract the audience and substitute another word.
In a conjuring show, smoke and mirrors and a roll of drums may help.
Swanking & grand CVs and claims to be the industry body do the same job in a more serious setting.

While your audience is distracted, substitute a more preferred general word in mid-sentence : "convenience food", or "sustainable fashion". An alternative is to answer your own begged question, as in "Isn't all food nutritious? Well, let me answer that for you as an doctor. I am here to talk about convenience food", or "What do we mean by Ethical Fashion? Well, let me answer that for you as an expert. I am here to talk about sustainable fashion".

Stanley Green promoting his views in Oxford Street, 1977
Dodge 3
Distract from your implausible statements; omissions are better
. Control who speaks on the podium. Use contacts of the managing director, or neighbours with the same funny landlord, if these speakers believe the same implausible things, like believing that "Convenience food is burgers & fries.". Or that a site about poverty reduction is no place for words like NHS, welfare state, national insurance, or social insurance (check for yourself), that"It is only by raising standards and wages outside of the UK that the UK garment production sector will again be in a position to compete on equal terms with production in what are currently low wage economies", or "I don't think you can compare countries. You're just as likely to have a sweatshop down the road here in London in the east end as you are in China, India or Bangladesh. One of the best factories I've come across in the world was in China. One of the worst factories I've come across in the world was in China."

These are the kinds of implausible beliefs that are best omitted from first impressions. You don't have to stand-up in Oxford Street or spell them out at a training seminar. You might get funding from third world governments, but no audience. Instead, just control which nice, sane people appear on the podium with a lot to say, run a bit late, and your point is made by omission. It's hard to present these points in an advert under contract law and consumer protection law. The point about China looks risky. so you would do better to fund a pressure group. Present arguments about comparison of factories in, say, Bangladesh if that it where you are funded, so that nobody gets to mention better conditions in the UK. Talk vaguely about poverty reduction, but exclude talk of national insurance or a welfare state. Invite someone to talk about an employment scheme for amputees in Bangladesh rather than someone who wants free hospitals that reduce the need for amputations.

By this point, people are scratching their heads a bit but they've already paid and you've got their subscription or their ticket money; they've come in, had the pep talk, and are out of the door again before the three dodges have become clear. The process may vary a bit between shows and there may not be exactly three dodges, but the result is the same each time - everyone is lead to believe that everyone else in the room supports a world without an NHS or benefits.



Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty

| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

Why it matters what Ethical Fashion Forum say:
better government could help people in Bangladesh and in the UK

Bangladesh background: fashion events at Rana Plaza demonstrated...

  • no pressure from EU tariffs for a national insurance system;
    market pressure to stay cheap, so lack of a conditional tariff = pressure not to change
  • under-funded factory inspections,
  • un-solved accountability of who owns which factory,
  • un-accountable pressure on workers to work as cracks in the walls grew
  • un-paid volunteers treating survivors at a teaching hospital for lack of any NHS in Bangladesh.
  • no benefits for cripples widows & orphans.
  • badly run countries in the area are a source of misery and war.

If people in Bangladesh need lobbying, they need opposite lobbying to the sort that Ethical Fashion Forum can provide; Bangladeshi trade associations should stop funding it. People there don't need Bangladeshi taxes to go on export subsidies either. They need the same kind of services as people in the UK: accessible pensions hospitals and courts, unemployment pay & disability benefits.

A report on the latest Dfid scheme (Responsible and Accountable Garment Sector Challenge Fund - RAGS) to boost good textile importers draws a similar conclusion, quoting Bangladeshi textile wages as about 43 cents an hour in 2000 reducing to 22 cents in 2009, a fall of 43% at a time that exports rose 94%. In some countries, wages have risen, but more fast fashion isn't the only factor, and there is a limit to how much a buyer can do by trying to buy something vaguely "sustainable". For example, if child labour is not allowed, someone has to police this and take out court orders, and the local education system has to have places for children taken out of factories. That was the conclusion of the Dfid report.

Criticism of any organisation is a good thing. I think that criticism of Ethical Fashion Forum also helps people in the UK and people in countries like Bangladesh. There are much better ways to help people in cheap countries than to buy more fast fashion on a zero tariff, subsidised by Bangladeshi export subsidies. Better to have a more conditional tariff system around the EU, pressuring and allowing Bangladesh to have National Insurance system. Lastly, there is a bonus. Europeans buy subsidised clothes at the moment - subsidised by export promotions and unfairly bad services in China. If tariffs balanced-out these subsidies, and Europeans paid a higher price for clothing, maybe we'd sell less second-hand to countries like Ghana where second hand clothing as wiped-out local factories.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

UK background up to 2014: job losses and fast fashion

UK manufacturing is in a condition that hospitals would label "critical" after a few decades of monetary policy - 1979-2009 - and more to come. My trade of footwear doesn't have a trade directory any more. People assume that more of it has closed than is the case. The same course of events has taken place in South Europe much more recently. It is a course of factory closures so rapid that they have a special slot on the news before cricket & weather. The reasons for such rapid change are obviously not a shifting advantage of wages and automation around the world. Recent effects:

  • 25% youth unemployment & riots in South Europe.
  • governments borrowing money to pay dole.
  • large cuts in public services and benefits
  • questions about how ex-manufacturing areas like Northern Ireland can be subsidised by the rest of the UK.
  • badly run countries a source of misery that can effect the UK and cost wars, money, and more misery
  • imports so cheap that shops compete in how fast fashion changes can be made, rather than on price and quality.

These issues don't appear on ethical fashion blogs and definitions.

Ethical fashion jobs or any other jobs in the UK are rare because government has subsidised imports with its monetary policy, while countries like Bangladesh had subsidised exports with their export subsidies. Anybody doing internship or volunteer work or issuing student placement credits for work at Ethical Fashion Forum should remember that the organisation reduces UK employment.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

Bangladesh bad government.
Imagine you want work or public services in Bangladesh

If you work on an ordinary job in Bangladesh, like fishing or sewing or ship-scrapping, it's not likely that you pay for private medical insurance from the going wage for the job, nor a pension, nor school fees. You'd probably like a compulsory system by which everyone has to have social insurance, and better still to have cover for those who have not worked as well for those who have contributed.

No.

Bangladesh has no law requiring social insurance. The government there would be frightened to risk raising costs in that way without the help of some kind of conditional tariff from the European Union, taxing goods from other countries that don't change. Others in Bangladesh want to start now, with national insurance based in existing micro finance institutions. Does Ethical Fashion Forum have anything to say about the important issues? To ask is a bit like asking Queen Victoria about lesbians. Try it.

search ethicalfashionforum.com for "girls schools"
search ethicalfashionforum.com for
"secondary school"
search ethicalfashionforum.com for
"social insurance"
search ethicalfashionforum.com for
"national insurance"
search ethicalfashionforum.com for
"welfare state"
search ethicalfashionforum.com for
"NHS"

Click on any of these links and change the text that shows in quotes in a search box to find out what else Ethical Fashion Forum do or don't mention. For example a search for "hospitals" in August 2014 found two examples of hospitals for employees of certain companies - one a "mobile hospital" and the other an aspiration - and no examples of compulsory health insurance or more general provision as exists in the UK.

So, if you need a hospital in Bangladesh, nobody in the EU is helping to get health care funded in a long-term way, nor other services like pensions and education which together tend to reduce population growth and to reduce poverty.

So does the UK government do all it can to provide emergency funding?

No.

UK Aid from Dfid has gone in part on Ethical Fashion Forum, including a reference to a travel expense - London to Bangladesh return - for a non-existent dress importer called Juste.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

UK bad government.
This is what needs to be done to provide work, tax revenue, and so public services in the UK. It is not being done.

Maybe you are looking for ethical fashion jobs and find that Ethical Fashion Forum reduces the number of ethical fashion jobs rather than promotes jobs.

You would expect governments to be good a reducing unemployment, spotting ways to reduce market failures, and in doing so to help UK manufacturing when it can. Doing the sorts of things that European governments do, like making sure that there's

  • access to workshop space now empty so that people can provide jobs

  • access to machines by the hour or by the day - specially the ones too heavy to find at home or at a typical adult education college, so that people can create jobs

  • affordable training in how to use the machines and make things, providing jobs

  • full directories of all existing UK factories and suppliers based on government information, and embellished with details like minimum orders, whether the prices are up-market, equipment available, specialisations within a trade. Not an opt-in directory, like letsmakeithere.org, but an opt-out directory that shows every manufacturer in the UK unless they opt out. With a directory, people can find UK suppliers and create jobs whether or not the supplier advertises.

  • connection between public sector procurement requests sent directly to the factories that can make the order, as well as published online. That's a fifth way of creating jobs.


    These things are not much available in the UK. For example the careful trade directories which used to be in main reference libraries are no longer published. Government has piles of free information about what factory makes what product, but doesn't release it. That's why Ethical Fashion Forum is able to charge subscriptions in advance to readers of the "source network" by which you pay for Ethical Fashion Forum to edit your details and sell them to members, while avoiding public criticism from members who want to be given mentions and invited to be guest-speakers.



Grant proposal to the Department for International Development:
Ethical Print Forum @
University of the Arts' London College of Communication
Supported by multiple government departments

Imagine that a government department set-up an organisation to suggest that printing and publishing should move to Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka, on ethical grounds.

The organisation would avoid talk of UK publishing, claiming that people used to write newspapers with quill pens until the 1960s and that printing, publishing and broadcast media "reduced to almost nothing" a couple of decades later because of "global trends".

They would pretend not to realise that there is a welfare state in the UK that adds to the cost of UK print. "You can't compare countries" would be the quote. They would pretend not to realise that a welfare state or some kind of social insurance helps reduce poverty, and not just printing alone or a grant to some kind of development agency.

They would keep quiet about bad government in Sri Lanka, that sends soldiers to break-up newspaper printing presses, preferring to maintain relations with key stake holders.

They would argue that the only good printers are those in Sri Lanka who are slightly better than the ones next door in Sri Lanka, according to the forum's own expert and paid-for opinion. Whenever a disaster strikes like the Sri Lankan government smashing and burning printing presses, the organisation would claim that it proves their point: they are helping the better printers and paper-makers cope with difficult situations. Maybe they'd publish a picture of someone looking sad in a traditional modest building, no modern objects in-shot, and write an emotive line attributed by their first name only:

It's very difficult and times are hard.
-Ganesh, journalist, Sri Lanka
(photographed in a tourist-board way with no cars guns or modern-looking things in shot)

It's hard to imagine because journalists remember information about printing publishing & broadcasting, even though the trade works freelance at home or from nondescript office buildings just as the rag trade cobbling and online sellers do. Journalists have a nose for media work. When they travel, they catch remembered scents of publishers and broadcasters and the printers that publishers use, often with memories of freelance work or ex colleagues who have worked there. Journalists would spot a lobby to move journalism to Bangladesh & Sri Lanka on ethical grounds, obviously.

How about sugar beat? Some journalists set-up a trap to find out whether Patrick Mercer MP for a sugar-beat constituency would lobby for Fiji sugar & ignore bad government in Fiji, but if something called an "Ethical Sugar Forum" promoted Fiji sugar as a way of stabilising the country and reducing the poverty that leads to bad government, maybe the Fiji sugar forum would exist and get reported.

Nobody suggests that journalism should be moved to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh.

Could anyone lobby for print to be moved to Sri Lanka?
The politics pages of newspapers report human rights failures & bad government in Sri Lanka where newspaper presses broken-up by plain-clothes police or party activists. The fashion pages of the same newspapers report Ethical Fashion Forum's founding member "The Sari Dress Project" as though it existed for long or on any scale or was independent of lobby-group and taxpayer funding.

There are major un-met needs that newspaper could report, like care for the elderly, but they also report government spending on a group of courtiers using public money to display Chinese dresses at London Fashion Week or promote wrong facts about something they call "Ethical Fashion".


Newspapers have reported bad government at the London Development Agency, in which things like made-up CVs, ghost dress businesses called Juste, and crass statements were all possible. Interviews with London Development Agency staff, who also managed large projects like the Thames Barrier, note frustration at being asked to manage pet projects for politicians with their advisors allowed to sit in meetings. Many were employment schemes, but those which got most bad press were cultural schemes as well as employment schemes: "between 2001/2 and 2005/06 the LDA funded 61 separate cultural projects at a total cost of £70 million. Six of these projects were high profile and received a relatively large amount of funding from the LDA", according to the report, which doesn't make any mention of damage to other business caused by competition from taxpayer-funded "fashion" or "ethical fashion". The report doesn't detail previous funding from other organisations either: each of these groups approached anyone who might give a grant and some had already had millions.

  1. The Rich Mix Centre in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets - the LDA provided nearly £8 million towards the purchase and refurbishment of a building to create a cultural and arts centre;
  2. The Bernie Grant Centre in the London Borough of Haringey - the LDA provided around £4 million to help create a performing arts centre;
  3. The Laban Dance Centre in the London Borough of Lewisham - the LDA provided around £4 million to help redevelop a former waste depot into an arts dance centre;
  4. The Centre for Fashion Enterprise - the LDA provided around £2 million to help provide business support and advice for new fashion companies across London;
  5. The London Fashion Forum - the LDA provided around £500,000 towards the development of a website and forum to increase business awareness amongst fashion industry people across London
  6. The West End theatre audience development project - the LDA provided around £200,000 to make West End theatres more accessible to disabled visitors, families with young children and youth.
  7. Leonard Cheshire Disability was later found to have charged double-hours when accounting for a business advice service for disabled people, provided in an inflexible opaque way via certain nominated advisors, so it probably obtained half the benefit per hour than if run properly

The journalist Andrew Gilligan wrote a series of pieces, particularly about cultural projects that appeared without proper accounts after backing by mayoral advisors. Another good journalist from Centre for Investigative Journalism did too. Newspaper accounts were followed by Greater London Authority investigations into Centre for Fashion Enterprise, London Fashion Forum, and the Rich Mix building, all of them doing business with Ethical Fashion Forum. For some reason investigations stopped short of Ethical Fashion Forum, London Fashion Week, and Creative Connexions, a London College of Fashion project to export jobs to China. Maybe if you are a journalist and a lot of people claim to be expert about clothing and footwear, you take them at face value more than you would if they talked about printing and publishing.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

Robbing in a hospital: money to reduce unemployment used to increase unemployment

"impossible to judge why projects were funded and what the London Development Agency got for its money"
- all party report on London Development Agency's funding of cultural projects, November 2007

"The London Development Agency commenced operations in 2000 and since then has spent in excess of £3 billion of public funds. It currently has 649 established posts and last year its budget, including Olympic related expenditure, was approximately £740 million. Yet workless-ness remains a major problem in London with 30% of working age residents not in employment, more than elsewhere in the UK".
- forensic audit report, 2008

"Since 2011, we have had no external funding, we are entirely funded through membership fees."
- Ethical Fashion Forum managing director, 2014

By the time of the forensic report, voters had chosen another majority party and a different mayor. Deloitte accounts' report was repeated by Price Waterhouse report. It would have been good if the new lot had identified ways that public spending did more harm than good. But different accountants and politicians still believed that a new shopping centre would "create jobs" on no logic or evidence (why would a chain store branch with a high rent make more jobs than the rival shop that it puts out of business?). The London Development Agency was still knocking down factories and calling it job creation, particularly on the Olympic site. One of the politicians on the panel nearly knocked-down all fabric shops in a street that sells cheap fabric in order to build them up again at a higher rent to shopkeepers. The Greater London Assembly continued with the Olympic project and continues with London Fashion Week.

This was and is the culture in which Ethical Fashion Forum secured extra-ordinary access to favours like free publicity from exhibitions by public sector organisations, and funding for the Juste project that barely existed. The workshop where Juste samples were made was subsidised "to assist young designers with small production runs and to sample either individual garments or small collections, enabling designers to work with CMTs here in the UK instead of offshore", but the funding was used for the opposite purpose. It's a fair bet that every single one of the pieces of sponsorship and grant-funding that Ethical Fashion Forum and Juste received was intended to reduce poverty and boost employment. It's impossible to know without asking and pestering for a lot of information whether any of it was used for its intended purpose or whether most, like most funding from London Development Agency, did more harm than good. A great deal of related information, like records of the "New Entrepreneurs" scheme, has been thrown away.

Courtiers and God Kings are very polite and careful to maintain relations with key stake holders, a modern job descriptions put it; their colleagues and bosses down the funding chain. London Fashion Week was very polite about better training for dry cleaners, specially in the West Midlands, when a training quango for dry cleaning was merged with one for fashion. The same courtiers have zero embarrassment when they confront taxpayers with obvious waste. The joke was that Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake" when bread ran-out. King Lois was once confronted by an angry widow of someone killed at his dangerous vanity building project. He was puzzled. "Is she talking to me?", he asked an aid. Courtiers also share a certain taste. No synthetics. Exotic, but all natural.

So it is with the courtiers who awarded grants to Ethical Fashion Forum or London Fashion Week. They appear to have zero embarrassment, even though they are robbing in a hospital because they mis-treat an injured UK manufacturing industry, using money pinched from a welfare state.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 


Ethical Fashion Forum's implausible statements & silences:


ethical fashion facts & sources are quoted; definitions of plausibility are yours or the writers' own. Please get in touch if you think any statements need extra facts or quotes added, or links to replies

Implausible statement (hover over the underlined text for a full quote)
People made their own clothing in the UK until recently

Ethical Fashion Forum's director states that people in the UK made their own fashion clothing until the 1950s. before "the arrival of mass manufacture in the 1960s". This must have been short-lived because "In the UK the global production shift has reduced the garment and textiles sector to almost nothing. " I can provide further quotes from the same source if this short one is not enough.

I don't know if she'd state that UK printing, publishing, railways and engineering began in the 1960s. Or that something called the "global production shift" reduced UK publishing and printing, or railways and engineering to "almost nothing" in the 1980s.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

Implausible statement:
Global trade leads to development for people doing ordinary jobs in Bangladesh, even without schools & pensions & good government alongside.

"trade in garments and textiles has created a springboard for industrial development all over the world - with Britain and America being amongst the first to benefit followed by the “Asian Tiger” economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea, and more recently, China and India.

Producing garments or components of garments outside of the UK to sustainable standards can assist development in some of the poorest communities in the world, create sustainable livelihoods and reduce poverty for thousands of people."

That was written before the events of Rana Plaza showed that the springboard metaphor thing doesn't mean that wages have gone up. In Bangladesh, wages have fallen as trade increases.

Export subsidies are not mentioned as part of the system that keeps people poor in Bangladesh. These are the payments which divert Bangladeshi taxpayers' money away from public services like health care into manic clothing production. Nor free trade zones where no tax is paid back to the Bangladeshi government by producers, despite subsidy being received. So Bangladeshi taxpayers, like European taxpayers, subsidise T shirt production rather than wealth creation. This manic subsidy is more possible because UK taxpayers fund a few health services and such in Bangladesh, rather than set a tariff dependent on whether Bangladeshi government does its job.

Ethical Fashion Forum's web site makes no statement about the benefits of a welfare state, nor democracy, nor a good human rights record in a country like the UK nor the benefits of supporting them by buying UK-made products. You notice the gap -


"It is only by raising standards and wages outside of the UK that the UK garment production sector will again be in a position to compete on equal terms with production in what are currently low wage economies"


...they state in bold text, as though another muslin fabric order will raise wages where 230 years of orders without schools and hospitals and pensions alongside have not. For example the injured of Rana Plaza were treated by volunteer medical staff from a local teaching hospital; there is no Bangladesh NHS.

This is one of the very few times the author mentions UK fashion jobs so here is a quote for her favourite book about world trade: "the 1997 financial crisis .. which was rooted in the banking sector and exchange-rate policy. Yet financial ‘rescue’ came with trade-reform demands" That paragraph criticised the trade reform demands, but it was about Indonesia, where the book recognises how a bad monetary policy can wipe-out most of manufacturing before free trade kills-off what remains. The book doesn't apply the same standards to the UK as it does to Indonesia.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

Implausible ignorance:
"focused upon poverty reduction" but no mention of any social conditions in tariffs

Check for yourself:

search ethicalfashionforum.com for "tariff" or "conditional tariff"
search ethicalfashionforum.com for "social clause"

"NOT FOR PROFIT A membership organisation the EFF is focused upon poverty reduction, education & the environment .... Activities of the Ethical Fashion Forum include running training seminars ... and research and resource provision ...".

Ethical Fashion Forum has a page about tariffs. There is no mention on the page of a social clause in tariffs: linking them to some condition to make conditions better. That's the most controversial point because it's the only system that's ever going to work. Here's another quote from the World Bank:

"Whether trade policy could or should be linked – through incentives or sanctions – to labour standards has been the most controversial element of the debate. Such links are already made in some bilateral and regional trade agreements – for example by both the EU and the USA. The controversy has been mainly over the possibility of bringing them into the rules of multilateral trade agreements. A possible ‘social clause’ in the World Trade Organisation was discussed at its Ministerial Conference in Singapore in 1996, but was strongly opposed by many developing countries. The final declaration [...] 'We reject the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes and agree that the comparative advantage of countries, particularly low-wage developing countries, must in no way be put in question.' "

What this page says is that a free trade system without any kind of social clause is to be kept & kept secret. Click the link to search Ethicalfashionforum.com for "tariff" and you'll see it. The only thing that could help poor people in poor countries is hushed-up. Few of us study this stuff except academics and aid trade employees who are reported as expert. The World Bank quote above only cropped-up with a freedom of information request to a government department. They gave some background documents to suggest the UK government's position in reply. Now I know that "social clause" is the jargon - no thanks to the people who state that they work to improve social standards.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

Implausible statement: fashion jobs

We've just seen an implausible ignorance; a pretence that tariffs around a welfare state is just a job protection, rather than protection of a good system that makes the goods more expensive. This is a pretended misunderstanding, often repeated about the multi fibre agreement. Ethical Fashion Forum go further, stating that a development economist has measured a cost to protection.

“As production in developed countries is more capital intensive, some estimates assess the effect of protecting a single job in industrialised countries to be the loss of 35 jobs in developing countries” Appelbaum, R.P. (2005) ‘TNCs and the removal of textiles and clothing quotas’. UNCTAD 2005

Dig deeper and find that the source is not from the economist Mr Applebaum, but the Vietnamese minister for trade. Who misses the point about a need for tariffs around welfare states in order to reduce poverty, and the need to set-up similar systems in Vietnam. The quote is repeated in the Oxfam publication Rigged Rules and Double Standards authored by Kevin Watkins and Penny Fowler. Oxfam are allowed to provide welfare provision in Vietnam by people like the Vietnamese trade minister. Oxfam also provide a lot of students to the CENDEP development department of Brookes Uni, such as Tamsin Lejeune writing her Can Fashion be Fair? dissertation. She repeats the quote in her dissertation and then again on her web site paid for by UK taxpayers in 2008 out of money meant for Business Link and job creation in an area of 30% unemployment.

I don't know how the minister for trade in Vietnam came to the ratio of 30:1, but the fact that his name isn't quoted, no explanation is made, and an attempt is made to deceive the reader suggests that it's not worth finding-out.



Implausible ignorance:
"focusing upon social and environmental sustainability"

...but no mention of the "Livestock's Long Shadow" UN report on livestock's land waste, soil erosion, CO2 emissions and pollution of water.

Check for yourself:

search ethicalfashionforum.com for "livestock"

Ethical Fashion Forum have never spelt-out the reasons why animal-rearing
-wastes land,
-produces more CO2 than the aviation industry,
-causes cruelty with effects on the people alongside
people who get used to slitting the throats of cattle get closer to slitting the throats of other people in a civil war. At peace, people who commit crimes against humans often admit to previous crimes against animals. People who respect animals as in India have a pragmatic culture that has out-lasted others.

The book much quoted by Tamsin Lejeune called "Rigged Rules and Double Standards" says "Consumer boycotts can act as effective unofficial non-tariff barriers, with devastating effects on developing-country trade. For example, the US pressure group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaigns against the use of leather produced from Indian cowhides, on grounds of animal cruelty. The resulting ban on the use of Indian leather in products imported by major European and US companies, including Gap, Marks and Spencer, and Clarks, has resulted in a seven per cent reduction in Indian leather exports, with consequent negative effects on the livelihoods of the 2.5 million people employed in the sector". The UN report "Livestock's Long Shadow" shows how the "negative effects" are simply not true; they are positive effects.

As for the cruelty of the animal industry, a search in August 2014 revealed three uses of the word on their web site, two about silk worms and one that suggests a form of paper as better than microfibre.

Check for yourself:

search ethicalfashionforum.com for "cruelty"

Marie Antoinette would like these pages. All show more detail about avoiding plastic for some vague reason than avoiding cruelty. As ever, criticising Ethical Fashion Forum is criticising a deliberate void and has to become an exercise in criticising the people who write this stuff or take it seriously.

 

Implausible statement:
"the industry body for ethical fashion"

Check for yourself:

search ethicalfashionforum.com for "votes" or "ballot" or "vote" or "general meeting"
search ethicalfashionforum.com for "election" or "elections"
search ethicalfashionforum.com for "members"

Ethical Fashion Forum has not yet structured itself to represent members.

Obviously there has never been one single ethical fashion industry.

Ethical Fashion Forum has not structured itself to represent all the different and conflicting fashion industries - from womens' leather working co-ops in Ghana, to employment schemes like Remploy, to employment schemes like Kinky Knickers, to cruelty-free clothing that also saves land and pollution (that's vegan), to the various things that corporate PR departments write about and aren't worth reading, like whether a product is made with natural dye or whether you should put a shoe in a compost bin. There are different or conflicting interest groups on their web forum, but the director has "absolute freedom" to speak, write, and control:

"What are the main duties of your role?"
"Managing a core team of 12 and a wider team of 35, briefing and line management on a wide range of projects run by EFF"...
"What are the best aspects about your current role?"
"I have absolute freedom to implement the measures that need to be taken to achieve the goals of EFF" - Tamsin Lejeune, interviewed 24.11.1

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

Ethical Fashion Forum Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement:
"Fellowship 500: The Ethical Fashion Fellowship will unite 500 pioneering innovators in fashion and sustainability to take the movement to the next level. Fellows gain recognition."

Plain language usually defines fellowship as a paid job you are selected to do, and maybe you are allowed time-off the day job to do because it's an honour. That's what you'd find in a dictionary. Ethical Fashion Forum define words in their own ways. They continue "There is a Fellowship subscription fee, however we offer selected applicants major discounts off standard fees for access to the SOURCE and other benefits." So you subscribe to get publicity and the freebie is a cheap seat at an ethical fashion event like an "ethical fashion source summit" with people on a podium, a chance of an "ethical fashion innovation award" or maybe a mention in an interview or an "Ethical Fashion Source Network" email to other members.

 

Implausible statement:
"Made in Britain ... however ... only by... important to note... etc"

Ethical Fashion Forum still caution against buying British-made products for ethical reasons:
The full text of their page "The Issues | Made in Britain" and a response to each paragraph is here.
"It is only by raising standards and wages outside of the UK that the UK garment production sector will again be in a position to compete on equal terms with production in what are currently low wage economies." This text is in bold, concluding a column of mis-leading statements and half-truths about UK manufacturing, much in the style of the managing director's attempt at a thesis from 2004: "MADE IN BRITAIN labelling is more and more being associated with high sustainability standards by fashion designers and brands based in the UK. [a deliberate mis-understanding similar to this one] ... [then in bold] However it is important to note that MADE IN BRITAIN labelling alone does not equate to ethical practices...." and so the half-truths go-on. The "Made in Britain" column is headed with a logo from a UK shoe factory, since closed, and alongside other columns about "The Issues" such as one that mis-understands the need for a tariff around the higher costs of a welfare state and mis-leads about the reasons that Fair trade certification is only available in third world countries.

Another link on the site is to a "Well Dressed" report of 2006, commissioned from some Cambridge academics by M&S and small government grant. It dismisses the idea of re-shoring UK manufacturing of the kind that has since happened, "Economists traditionally view the significance of this effect differently in countries with full employment (UK and USA) and those with under-employment (China, India). The logic of the distinction is that in the UK, to a fair approximation, everyone who wants a job has one – so adding jobs in clothing production, as happens dramatically in the first scenario, is only possible by taking people away from other employment. It is likely that this will be harmful to the UK economy – as the free-market will already have led to the most profitable employment"

 

Implausible partners:
"Making it ethically in China"..."arguably more democratic"

Should you prove guilt by association? No.
Should you have a look? Yes.

Making it ethically in China

An event bearing the London Development Agency logo was staged in London and Manchester by a firm called Creative Connexions (formerly Creative Capital World City) which was set-up by co-operating public sector bodies in London to introduce UK designers and manufacturers to Chinese manufacturers. They used nearly all of a higher education funding grant to do this, in hope of making the organisation self-financing from consultancy fees in a few years' time. The project was granted an office in London College of Fashion's Holborn building, sharing with photography, languages, and the students' union.

Ethical Fashion Forum were quoted on the speaker list and duly turned-up on the podiums at both events, one of them only half a mile from a factory that closed that same weekend. After questions from more than one party at the Greater London Assembly, this organisation was wound-down and never achieved independence. It's director, an ex-Monsanto employee from the USA, was offered a job trying to find work for all the students who's prospects had been reduced by the firm she had run. She took it for a while.

"Arguably more democratic"

A founding member of Ethical Fashion Forum used the same ad agency as Defra, a new ministry at the time, as well as getting business help from part of South Bank University in London. The member was called Terra Plana and it sold Chinese shoes. Someone presented this information on its web site with a list of untrue but technical-sounding facts about how shoes could not be made in the UK, and then a personal anecdote as though from a Chinese member of staff to say that China is "arguably more democratic" than the UK.

 

Implausible statement:
"GRASS ROOTS Founded by fashion designers and businesses ... the Ethical Fashion Forum has been designed & developed by the industry, for the industry."

Check the office diary for yourself

2003.12.24 Tamsin Lejeune registers a domain at the Rich Mix address in London. The domain is for a dress import business that didn't import dresses but did "secure funding". At this point, money was still needed to convert the building so she had some kind of inside knowledge or hope that it would open and she'd afford £1,000 a month in rent.

2004.03.25 Rich Mix project planning permission approved by the council.

2004.03.27 Tamsin Lejeune registered the Ethicalfashionforum.com domain at the Rich Mix address 23 months before the building opened, so she was confident of getting an office in this taxpayer-funded arts centre before she could pay the £1000 a month rent. In the event, this was the organisation that paid rent.

2004.04.00 Rich Mix tell the world that "building work has started" between March 29 & May 18

2004.06.16 Tamsin Lejeune held the first known meeting of traders to set-up Ethical Fashion Forum, deciding what this industry organisation will be called and what it will do. She's minuted as coming from Juste, the grant-claiming exercise listed above. Traders talk about accountability, but it comes to nothing as we've just seen. Traders are uneasy with the name and suggest "Seed" instead, but it turns-out to be "Ethical Fashion Forum" anyway, and the secretary's noted subheadings for "ethical" turn-out in line with Tamsin Lejeune's interest in what the aid trade call "north and south", which is useful if this new organisation will help claim a grant.

The first known Ethical Fashion Forum meeting shows a pattern that hasn't changed since - the three dodge tick of starting with a universal aim - "Ethical (social, environmental)" it says in the minutes - then dodging to something inoffensive but much narrower: "Membership is open to companies and organisations which already incorporate ethical principles as a key part of their working structure, generally specialising in some or all of the following; organic textiles, natural dyes, fair trade sourcing and production, and recycling". The third dodge is to select who is there to nod; all the invited guests are from companies that fit this definition. Hence their slogan "business success in 3D".

2004.06.28 Tamsin Lejeune took minutes for a meeting of fashion college tutors brought together by Labour Behind the Label for its public-funded London Colleges Project. Claiming of grants is very much on her mind. "The organisations represented confirmed that they wish to take part in the proposed project to the European Commission. .... Simon reminded us of the need to show active partnerships with European and Southern partners. Chantal will send summary of requirements once funding round is open."

2004.08.10 Tamsin Lejeune has some notes about what the forum is going to be including "joining the public sector" - possibly co-written with Elizabeth Laskar at a meeting with a grant-funding organisation, the Skoll Foundation. By September 2004, rough notes of these meetings have been written and bound into a dissertation called "Can Fashion be Fair?" for a masters degree at there.

2005.01.08 London Development Agency's London Fashion Forum shop at Kingly Court closes "with immediate effect", according to David Jones, chair of London Fashion Forum and subsidised business consultant to Juste. London Fashion Forum was investigated for London Assembly members and again by the new administration at the Greater London Authority. The organisation claimed about £500,000 in grants for staff and web design.

graph of google searches for 'ethical fashion' that began in November 2005. This is a fuzzy screen-shot; the link above might be clearer2005.09.01 Co-ordinated exhibitions at several public sector organisations, interviews, and a stand at London Fashion Week. Searches for the term "ethical fashion" begin in November on Google Trends. They start in the UK, alongside searches for "ethical fashion show" and "ethical fashion forum".


2006.04.01
Design4life ghana project -funding acknowledgement to the Department for Education & EU

2006.05.01 Rich Mix Cultural Foundation opens the first third of its building.

2006.08.15 Ethical Fashion Consultancy limited company registered; Ethical Fashion Forum 10 days later.
Directors include the person who runs ITC Ethical Fashion Initiative, responsible to third world governments.

2008.00.00 Tamsin Lejeune interview stating how Ethical Fashion Forum started - full text below. Succeeds in claiming a three year development awareness grant from Department for International Development on the strength of their previous grant to her via Labour Behind the Label.

2009.01.20 An online forum with six members is published, alongside some government-subsidised lectures & training events held at Rich Mix in London which has now opened. There has just been a banking crisis in the rest of the UK economy, but Tamsin Lejeune is confident enough to caution readers against buying british products on ethical grounds, despite the welfare state that exists in the UK. A very similar web forum exists called FashionEnter, and Ethical Fashion Forum attracts the same kind of sign-ups. Half a million pounds of public money has been spent on a web project called London Fashion Forum, so the expertise is to hand. Within a year, Ethical Fashion Forum claims nearly 2500 members in over 70 countries, all approved by Tamsin Lejeune.

As in the dissertation Tamsin Lejeune finished in September 2004, there is no mention of a human rights against governments, nor economic benefits in a welfare state, nor conditional tariffs with a social clause to maintain one, nor cruelty and animal rights, nor the land waste and pollution caused by the animal industry that's listed in a UN Livestock's Long Shadow report.


Implausible statement:
"I don't think you can compare countries."

If UK production is nothing to seek-out on ethical grounds, then you might expect Chinese production to be something to boycott after Tiananmen Square, closure of state hospitals in Chinese states, and a near-bottom ranking on the democracy index. You might expect an ethical fashion lobbyist to guess where the problems are, and know that they are not always inside the factory door but in government. You might expect an expert based in the UK to know that there are free hospitals available to workers in the UK, alongside pensions and schools. Hospitals are the buildings with a red cross on the door, where ambulances go.

No.

"I don't think you can compare countries. You are just as likely to have a sweatshop down the road here in London as you are in China, India or Bangladesh. One of the best factories I've come across in the world was in China; one of the worst factories I've come across in the world was in China", says a consultant who has been on Ethical Fashion Forum's board of directors and spoken as an expert for them at public meetings. She also says that it wouldn't be "appropriate" to work in China herself. She did her factory audits from a UK desk.

Why Nike is good at public relations

If the journalist had approached this interviewee as a Nike consultant, he might have been ready with more critical questions ready to ask and more concerns to write. That didn't happen. The journalist approached this interviewee as an Ethical Fashion Forum founder member and neutral expert, who happened to have a public relations expert contacting journalists for her to offer interviews. The article seemed to puzzle the editor a bit. It was headed "Why Nike is good..."

New Internationalist magazine, which published the "Why Nike is good..." story was not the only publisher taken-in. The Department for Business sponsored Make Your Mark with EFF as advisers. The BBC hired Ethical Fashion Forum for training sessions to write educational information called "Ethical Fashion thematic unit", rather than make a critical program. Looking at the detail, it's not as bad as expected and vegan teachers or UK industrialists might write some lesson plans for it. The BBC Ethical Fashion site suggests schools invite "external agencies and charities that promote fair trade and ethical fashion" to answer pupils' questions. EFF helped with the BBC's "Ethical Threads" ideas and content 2008, the Slink modelling competition for teenage girls, and a fashion show called Blast which was supported by London Fashion Week and the Foreign Office's Fashion show in Paris. The Guardian newspaper group chooses an Ethical Fashion Forum loyalist to help judge the "Observer Ethical Fashion Awards".

Other agencies fund as well as Nike

This is a clear example of someone who works for Nike giving an interview. There have been other funders who keep quieter. One trade association in Bangladesh is acknowledged. The ITCB in Switzerland existed to "Inform public opinion and collaborate with organisations and associations of consumers, importers and retailers engaged in the fight against protectionism in the sector". If there is any register of who they funded and what similar organisations now exist, that would be good to know. There are clear reasons why groups like Nike and the ITCB should "collaborate with organisations ... of consumers" rather than pay for an advert to say "you can't compare countries". Firstly, the advert is expensive for the number of people who believe it. Secondly, there's contract law and all sorts of advertising regulations in different countries. It looks tricky to make this statement according to line six of the greenwash guide to advertising law below, and possibly the first few lines as well. The word "ethical" might cause trouble too. Far better to fund a pressure group for fibs and grand distractions.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

Implausible argument:
Industry Calls for Tax Breaks for Eco Fashion Businesses

"British Fashion Council is spearheading a campaign that will incentivise fashion businesses to work in a more sustainable way" by not paying taxes.

Monsoon has helped shareholders avoid tax by issuing bearer-shares, and avoids tax by producing in countries without public services where they don't have to pay tax towards anything like an NHS, causing poverty and over-population which also lowers local wages. If they produce in Bangladesh they might even get an export subsidy from Bangladeshi taxpayers. The press release suggests that these clothing importers might be excused tax on their UK operations as well, if they do

  • good work of a vaguely stated kind,
  • hard to verify,
  • probably in another country.

British Fashion Council's press office tried to summerise the argument. The work fob a vaguely-stated kind is called "sustainable" eight times and "ethical" six times It is compared to work that reduces CO2 emissions, but no such detail is spelt-out. A "campaign" is mentioned, but it seems to have been a campaign of familiar names and overlapping directorships issuing one press release. A reminder of the Ancien Regime in France were excused tax, and never quite got the hang. If you want to fund public services (I hope you are listening at the back) you have to increase taxes and boost the trades that are taxed; define what you don't like and add extra VAT.

My best guess is that their funders asked them to talk about tax breaks, but that the people in the room came to no conclusion about what to ask for.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

Implausible summery quoted as beyond any need for comment

Statements beginning "it's not about..." referring to thoughts in the speaker's head, and contradicted by what they write.




A taxpayer-funded British Fashion Council description of Ethical Fashion Forum:

A NETWORK of businesses, organisations, and individuals focusing upon social and environmental sustainability in the fashion industry.

INCLUSIVE Includes designers, retailers, buyers, fair trade producers, manufacturers, NGOs, fashion students, tutors & consumers. The EFF provides a platform for shared practices, pooling resources, communication & links across the industry.

PROGRESSIVE Complex global supply chains make it difficult for fashion companies to implement sustainable standards in a single step. The EFF encourages progressive, structured practices towards sustainability.

GRASS ROOTS Founded by fashion designers and businesses in response to challenges to sustainable practices, the EFF has been designed & developed by the industry, for the industry.

NOT FOR PROFIT A membership organisation the EFF is focused upon poverty reduction, education & the environment in relation to the fashion industry. Activities of the Ethical Fashion Forum include running training seminars and networking events, one-to-one advice to fashion designers and businesses, and research and resource provision around sustainable practices in fashion.



Elizabeth Laskar: I was first inspired to delve into the world of ethical fashion ten years ago when I attended the Skoll Forum for social entrepreneurship. I went along and was astounded to meet these incredible people from all around the world engaging their communities on a massive level whilst making a profit. It was also at this event that I was introduced to Tamsin Lejeune who was already thinking about starting the Ethical Fashion Forum and we began brainstorming and decided to collaborate on the UK’s first ethical fashion show [sic] as part of the international womens' festival... That’s when I came across Labour Behind the Label and found out that what I was buying on the high street was affecting many more lives than my own in a detrimental way. [the story goes-on to say that the Victoria and Albert Museum believed there had never been an ethical fashion show before and gave Elizabeth Laskar a big interview on a web page to go with an exhibition of products like Juste dresses, as did so many other public sector organisations at almost exactly the same time - even though there was no reference to British products.]

From the British Council web site... "Aside from consulting she regularly speaks, teaches and writes on ethical fashion issues. Clients have included University of Oxford, The Victoria and Albert museum, Clarence House, the Ecologist, Paris Ethical Fashion Show, British Bengali Chambers of Commerce, the BBC and a number of NGOs. In collaboration with the Sri Lankan Government, Apparel Industry and the Fashion Education sector, Elizabeth successfully developed links between exceptional Sri Lankan eco design talent and London Fashion Week's Estethica and PURE."


Can Fashion be Fair? illustration: muslin dress sample, designed for Tasmin Lejeune's Juste label,  London, 2004. 
Unit KS3 Ethical Fashion.
Tamsin Lejeune of the un-catalogued fashion label with no account of sales likes to quote
Rigged rules and double standards, by Kevin Watkins
ISBN 10: 0855985259 ISBN 13: 9780855985257.
Tamsin Lejeune: "I did a masters degree in fashion and fair-trade and set up a business sourcing textiles from Bangladesh. I produce high end womens’ wear using fair trade and naturally died fabrics. I came across lots of people facing the same barriers as me and many of us were doing the same research. It seemed sensible to set up one body to do the work for everyone." This slightly clashes with the shorter cover story in the government-funded e-book which says she gave-up Juste before starting the trade association at the time London Fashion Week noticed that the business wasn't just small - it didn't even look like a business.

Ethical Fashion Forum / Tamsin Lejeune claims linked to evidence which you can judge for yourself.

Back to the managing director's "published" document. There are some hundreds of words about the theory of development, quoting lobbying documents for the interests of rich people in poor countries.

If you can imagine buying lunch for a wealthy Zanu-PF member at his golf club, and taking careful note of his views on poverty in Zimbabwe while his Mercedes is polished outside, it is the sort of thing you would write down in your notebook.

Social services charities that operate in Vietnam or Africa have conversations with local government officials like the one above. After conversations like this, Zanu-PF excluded all social services charities from Zimbabwe, so it's easy to see why charities take careful note and even repeat the arguments. One charity even published them as a book called "Rigged Rules and Double Standards". That's the one that quotes the Vietnamese Trade Minister in a way that makes it look like a quote from a respected economist. I don't know if the title is meant to be sarcastic.

If the Ethical Fashion Forum director had picked-up a different book to try and re-hash as a thesis, then the course of her career might have been different but until it's clear what the real story is behind this cover story, then it has to be guessed that she believes this stuff. If another person had set-up a lobby group without this set of beliefs, there would have been nobody to fund them.


Ethical Fashion Forum's Fibs & grand distractions:

Ethical Fashion Forum's Tamsin Lejeune + linked to ethical fashion facts:

Tamsin Lejeune writes:
"I run the Ethical Fashion Forum, and you can find the evidence of all my academic achievements on the registers of those institutions, which are on my Linked In profile. I graduated in my maiden name of Tamsin Waterston."

She claims an architecture degree, award-winning architecture, second degree in development practice, "Can Fashion be Fair?" publication of 2004, a successful Juste muslin dress business justifying a return ticket to Bangladesh and "funding", followed by founding a trade association with further government grants and publicity.
If anyone knows a way to back this up or correct, please get in touch so I can alter this site & make it fair....

Click on links to decide whether sources of evidence clash:

  • Degree
    She writes that she is fully qualified as an architect with an architecture degree from Bath Spa University which did not award such degrees at the time, although she does have an architecture diploma with "RIBA part II exemption" from Brookes Uni and a taught masters degree in development.

  • Award-winning architect
    She claims to have won several architectural awards or architecture awards practising as an architect, which would be illegal unqualified. Architectural awards or architecture awards could be in a previous name of Tamsin Waterston, which does appear on a list of staff names at Hawkins Brown architects. She left that CV rest for long time while this site showed it un-true, but has simplified it recently under threat from the architects registration board. She has increased references to Bath Spa University and Brookes University.

  • Pioneering ethical fashion company called Juste, needing seed capital, an air fare, and whirlwind tour
    She is "founder and strategic director for fair trade fashion label Juste" with "pioneering supply chain model" after ""raising seed capital"", probably from Unltd which was publicly-funded, and gaining coaching services from a fashion consultant, also public-funded. A student competition called "Design for Juste" supplied some muslin dresses, probably from sample material provided by Amaya in London. Contacts at Futerra helped with some fashion events, and these samples were shown at one or two catwalk shows and then auctioned for whatever cause.

    An expert might guess whether any copied Rose Bertin's designs for Marie Antoinette, which seems plausible. Fashion students know this kind of thing.

    Lejeune is credited in a Centre for Sustainability in Fashion publication with claims of dress designs for four seasons, October 2003-September 2004. The publication mentions an expense of a return trip London to Bangladesh and tour. I suppose that's £1-2,000 depending on whether there was a claim for a "whirlwind tour". It quotes Dfid among funders of this project, of which the publication is another part. A second brand, "ju" quoted on the web site using a logo too large to fit on a clothing label. The one image on the site was hosted by a friend for the first few years; Tamsin Lejeune hosted it more directly on her own site later. There is the mobile number she used at the time, now linked to a voice mail box which has one other mention on google. There is no postal address for returns or bills. The text is part of the picture - like one of those CAPCHA puzzles that is meant to stop anyone finding the site online to buy anything. If you do discover the site by accident, you find no specific products, nor stock levels, nor prices, nor e-commerce, nor wholesale prices, nor stockists.

    I'd expect someone in this position to keep quiet about their business, but Lejeune writes in her dissertation of
    "Juste ... designs being showcased at The London Fashion Week exhibition September 2004".

    This is not a bogus project, and not designed as a cover to get funding, if the following things are true.
  1. If it is a mistake from someone who organised public-funded training seminars about e-commerce for fashion firms 2 years later, running a project called "new entrepreneurs".
  2. If it is a mistake by someone who had taxpayer-funded marketing advice, including help with a business plan.
  3. It is a mistake admitted in the business plan that said she didn't want to try selling online for two years, shortly before she made a decision to close the business.
  4. If it is a mistake by someone who sat in room with other e-commerce shopkeepers a month after the picture was taken, talking about government grants to promote shopkeepers, and so able to ask for informal advice.

At the same time, accountants' investigations from Deloitte and by Price Waterhouse for all parties have tended to show that business was done by courtier-ship. They simply ask the staff of London Development Agency in private, and that is what they were told. There were civil service requirements for outcomes to help economic development in London and help the unemployed. And there were London Development Agency bosses congratulating anyone who spent up to the maximum budget, political advisors who would ring-up hectoring for their pet projects, allowed to sit-in on meetings by the bosses, and funding outcomes that could be lost or not recorded if, as usual, a lot of the staff had changed jobs, leaving posts filled by temps, or whatever other reason. You could get away with signing a receipt for "youth related activities", if it helped your LDA contact spend up to budget and get approval from mayoral advisors, and you could get away with a receipt for nobody knows what in the areas of fashion that forensic auditors concentrated-on in 2008: London Fashion Forum, where Tamsin Lejeune was a member, Centre for Fashion Enterprise where Tamsin Lejeune got business coaching, and Rich Mix, Tamsin Lejeune's landlord who she thanks for lecture space.

  • Masters degree in International Development - this 28.10.2014 I discover that it is true, under the name "Waterston, Tasmin Dzuwe"
    She claims a masters degree in international development practice from Brookes University
  • Publication in 2004: "Can Fashion be Fair?"
    She claims a publication in 2004: "Can Fashion Be Fair?" (the link is a search for any book published in 2004 with the title "Can Fashion be Fair" ). Brookes Uni do record a dissertation with this title and thought it worth keeping in their department library. I can email a copy of the document to anyone who wants to see it. It was read by the examiner & seven library borrowers before me. There is no other published book of that title.

    Brookes Uni teaches architecture, and development of an aid-agency kind. Some students are connected to a local firm called Oxfam. Someone based at their Oxford head office wrote a long piece of propaganda in support of governments where Oxfam operates, such as the government of Vietnam, and in favour of free trade, such as the free trade that Westminster politicians promoted at a G8 summit about the same time. The UK chancellor at the time went-on to join the trustees of Oxfam. However these pieces of information fit together, Oxfam had briefly became a campaign organisation for its government clients in poor countries against its individual donor clients in rich countries, and I think against individual service users in countries where Oxfam operates like Vietnam as well. The book was called "Rigged Rules and Double Standards" and propaganda to the cause. Twaddle, manipulative, nasty, propaganda. Almost impossible to read because it darts around the world like a holiday travel program, alluding to injustices all the time. Or in Lejeune's words "probably the most comprehensive report to have emerged in recent years on the subject of the inequalities of international trade.". She doesn't quote the EU reply stating some of the mistakes and manipulations, which was online at the time. She seems to quote her teacher's warning, duly noted but ignored on the same page -"Language and statistics in this body of literature were frequently used in conjunction with evocative and persuasive way; and these sources of information were designed to persuade as well as to inform."

    The dissertation describes practical achievements at a dress company called Juste, as well as work on the beginnings of Ethical Fashion Forum while working for Labour Behind the Label on an EU grant.
  • Ethical defined the Ethical Fashion Forum Way
    The only context in which Tamsin Lejeune uses the word "ethical" is the context of creating jobs in the kinds of places where aid agencies work, which she calls "the south" in aid agency jargon, rather than calling them badly-run countries. Some of these goods are certified to fair trade standards. Others are not. She calls un-certified goods "ethical", to distinguish from fair trade certified.

    Other people have used the word "ethical" in different ways over the years. That's how language works; you share an idea of what a word means. Not Lejeune who sticks to her obscure and recent definition of the word, to the confusion of others around her. Later documents refer to her asking a committee what they mean by "ethical", or referring to a dictionary to try to clear this up without success. [new notes in progress about ethical fashion definitions from Ethical Fashion Forum are here]

    Lejeune writes "ethical" a lot but does not use the words "vegetarian", "animal", or "vegan" in her document sent as a thesis; she describes silk leather & wool as ethical. This is one of her implausible bits of ignorance.

    Lejeune writes "ethical" a lot but does not use the words "national insurance", "social insurance", or "welfare" in her document. "Benefits" is a word used a few times and "insurance" once but in not in the sense of national insurance or health insurance. Years later, at Ethical Fashion Source Summit, "uniting world leaders in sustainability", national insurance was still not mentioned. National insurance was introduced in Prussia in the 1860s but it's still an alien idea to the person who united world leaders in 2004. This is one of her implausible bits of ignorance.
  • Previous CV
    Accounts of life before subsidy from grant-making bodies around 2004 include birth in Zambia in 1973, growing-up in Zimbabwe, and Gosforth school in the UK. Volunteer CVs agree on Central America (Guatemala & Honduras) + USA. She had an american accent in an early video. Other accounts mention Cambodia & Mexico. Others Africa, India and Bangladesh as well as study abroad. And her surname shortened from Waterston Lejeune until late in life makes earlier references harder to find.
    "One of the frustrations, explains Lejeune, is that grant-making bodies generally demand to see a long & established track record and reputation before making awards to social entrepreneurs working with communities outside the UK".
  • The story is not all glum. Endless googling reveals that Tamsin Lejeune has a partner & a modest home. The cheek of her career is admirable too, like something out of The Italian Job or Joe Orton.

    The effects of Ethical Fashion Forum's work on part of the footwear and clothing market - the part bought for ethical reasons - are the reason for quoting here and glum because so much public subsidy has gone into the press stories and training and consensus that this person has prescribed, rather than towards causes like buying goods are made in democratic welfare states and don't harm animals, developing a good trade directory for UK manufacturers and employment, allowing people to learn manufacturing skills and have reasonable access to workshop space and heavy tools. She won't change the course of her campaigning either, even though there are more and more people trying to use her site to sell UK goods, she has refused to withdraw her pages that caution against buying british products.
  • The background remains glum. UK manufacturing is so run-down and neglected by government that there are no trade directories available in reference libraries, even though government has the kind of data that would make them possible. This lack of information has become a source of income for Ethical Fashion Forum: it can now charge subscriptions on the promise of training, and information - which it calls "source intelligence" - which in the past was free in reference libraries. EFF's database and initial research was set-up with taxpayers' and lottery help.

    I am available for punditry to government and media at a reasonable rates just as you, the reader, might be available too.

Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
| Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
| Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
| Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

 

ethical fashion definitions - how ethical fashion forum pundits define issues in the news:

  • There are some rough notes in progress about how "ethical fashion" was openly & deliberately chosen as a jargon term for something narrower.

    The people who did this were on UK public money to work in the far east - take Bangladesh as an example. You have probably met people like that. They are wilfully ignorant about the need for a welfare state in Bangladesh and about the effects of livestock on the planet. There have been national insurance schemes in Europe since a German one started in 1866. A UN report called "Livestock's Long Shadow" describes the effect of livestock on the planet, from poverty in poor countries to CO2 emissions everywhere. However obvious the issues, people like this will remain ignorant; their ears are sellotaped shut and their spectacles have special filters.

    So they openly and deliberately narrowed their definition of "ethical fashion", from choices that were constrained by wilful ignorance anyway.
  • There were some hard definitions available in the past, like fair trade, vegan, vegetarian, organic, or less well-defined ones like being made in a democratic welfare state and an attempt in Africa to promote womens' staff partnerships with private insurance, which was named "ethical fashion" for lack of a better term. The promoter had worked in the past to help Italian leather companies out-source production to Africa, so, to a buyer of upmarket leather goods, "ethical" would do to describe an alternative. This paragraph is about the PR effort by which Ethical Fashion Forum uses its assumed expertise to try to define news
  • grant claimant awarded grants from Defra's WRAP, The Commonwealth Foundation, Unltd etc
  • Department for International Development funding as part of the Labour Behind the Label Fashion Colleges Project, then under the EFF brand funding for the "Spotlight on Sourcing" service as part of Dfid's "Fashion+" project "to increase understanding of development issues amongst fashion professionals, and provide the tools and resources they need to make informed choices in their working roles." Work was charged at £160 a day for senior staff and £100 for junior staff plus costs including a £1,000 a month office.
  • Private sector payment from a Bangladeshi textile association, which in turn was subsidised and trained by a development project funded by the European Union.
  • editor of reference web sites and speaker lists
  • trainer and training event organiser, speaker at training seminars and masterclasses
  • subsidised teacher trainer at fashion colleges on the subject of ethics -
    particularly, whether to buy from democratic welfare states or not to buy. This funded by Dfid via another group, Labour Behind the Label.
  • subsidised business training for "new entrepreneurs".
  • marathon guest-speaker, interviewee and pundit, with three years' travel for this paid by Dfid.
  • award-er of grants on behalf of others such as the ethical fashion source award or innovation award.

    Consultancy roles for the organisation include
  • WRAP government consultancy board at Defra
  • BBC for their Ethical Fashion lesson plans for teachers of 11-14 year olds
  • Estethica at London Fashion Week including promotion of Chinese shoes by Terra Plana
  • Observer Ethical Fashion Awards
  • The V&A exhibition and web site along with multiple smaller exhibitions at
  • The Crafts Council
  • Business Link and sponsorship of the "New Entrepreneurs" business advice scheme at which people unable to type their own price for Juste give business advice in a building that has gone two million pounds over the £27m budget.

    Ethical Fashion Forum needs to be criticised as much as a political party or a rogue trader, or it will gather more and more followers & journalist quotes & ethical fashion bloggers & interns & shopkeepers writing "we are associated with.." & everyone else who is with the band. This is important because newspapers quote the organisation without balancing quotes: errors & omissions influence media ideas of what's good. Futerra Communications is an agency that tries to influence newspapers' ethical fashion definitions. They seem most interested in climate change but do work for Dfid and ethical fashion as a sideline. They often speak on the podium at Ethical Fashion Forum events and have shared Terra Plana shoes, their client, with Ethical Fashion Forum's founder member list. This is what they said in a pitch to their main customer Defra:
  • "Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice ... :
    We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can call upon to explain ... change to the UK public."

    With the force of so many government organisations behind Futerra, they may well create "trusted ... organisations ... that the media will call upon" if Ethical Fashion Forum is left un-doubted, free to "explain change" to the people who are not courtiers. It's silly because Futerra is staffed by people interested in a subject where Guardian readers like themselves are usually right, and do need to "explain ... change" to Mail readers. Manufacturing is different. It is a subject where Mail readers are right and need to "explain...change" to Guardian readers, so it's hard to think what sort of person would approach them to promote goods from third world countries and dress-up the work as "ethical" in their own new sense of the word? Well, there are people in the USA who think that national insurance is immoral, so someone from there. Or possibly a fantasist. That has been the pattern of recruitment for Ethical Fashion Forum staff and enthusiasts.

    Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
    | Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
    Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
    | Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
    Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
    | Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

     

    In their own words: Swanking

    Adjectives:

    "acknowledged", "artisan", "award-winning", "ethical", "foremost", "global", "ground breaking", "innovative", "inspirational", "it's not about", "trailblazing", "worlds first ever..."

    Verbs:

    "intern", "launched", "showcased", "spearheaded",

    Nouns:

    "acknowledged global leader", "ambassador", "BBC", "brand", "event", "Expo", "fashion", "fellowship 500", "innovation award", "leading fashion bodies and global institutions", "innovation award", "new entrepreneurs", "pioneer", "platform", "secretariat", "sector leaders", "source summit".

    Mottoes:

    "The industry body for sustainable fashion", "The Global Platform for Sustainable Fashion".

    Ethical fashion forum's words are those of a grant-claiming organisation, not an industry forum

    Similar language from grant artists:

    International Trade Organisation's Ethical Fashion Initiative uses similar words, which seem to be translated from Italian and designed to claim grant awards. Other organisations that use the same words without embarrassment, according to a very rough search, are not manufacturers but colleges & housing associations. Organisations that write grant-applications to government and get a bit carried-away with self-deception. "Grant-artists" and "swanking" are the technical terms.

    One ally of Ethical Fashion Forum is carried further and suggests something odd about the kinds of people who write this stuff and claim grants with a straight face.

    "Uniting Global Leaders in Fashion & Sustainability The Source Summit unites leaders in the fashion industry, and pioneers in ethical trade and sustainability from around the world to collaboratively discuss and debate key people and environment issues within the industry."

    Different language from clothing & footwear manufacturers:

    A guide to working with fashion factories prefers concise language:

    To achieve a good quality standard, you need to:
    Choose the right factory for the product.
    Be clear and concise about your expectations.
    Communicate regularly and constructively.
    Develop a good working relationship [...]

    Don't forget that, as far as a factory is concerned, time really is money!

    Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
    | Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
    Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
    | Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
    Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
    | Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

     

    Expertise conclusion:
    Ethical Fashion Forum, Can Fashion be Fair, Juste, funding & ethical fashion intern jobs

    1. Fibs

    2. Grants for reducing unemployment, claimed & paid to create employment

    3. Tamsin Lejeune is a marathon guest-speaker and interviewee.
      The Futerra quote: "Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice ... : We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can call upon to explain ... change to the UK public".

    4. It's hard to tell why other courtiers or organisations overlap or network with Ethical Fashion Forum.
      Very likely there's no need to justify this by saying there's funding from embarrassing agencies and Bond Villains. The ITCB existed to "Inform public opinion and collaborate with organisations and associations of consumers, importers and retailers engaged in the fight against protectionism in the sector". They were an international trade conspiracy of baddies, opposed to any social clause in tariffs, ready to lobby the ITC Ethical Fashion Initiative in the same town, which was governed by reps from third world governments and who's director sat on the Ethical Fashion Forum board for a while. ITCB may have been Bond Villains but their offices didn't look like a Bond Villain layer. They were not concealed in an extinct volcano. There were no monorails nor badly trained henchmen, and if anyone was fed to crocodiles it was by other agencies in member host countries. Like bond villains and a lot of UK manufacturers, they ceased trading and I don't know if there is successor group. Ethical Fashion Forum have certainly started to mention bad governments a little this decade, so there is probably no big funder that discourages them from talking about politics while events at Rana Plaza have shocked them into some small changes.

      The UK government is staffed by courtiers and easily duped by these kinds of project, just as it funded Creative Connexions (below) to send UK customers to Chinese factories.

      The Department for International Developments' UK Aid budget for this project was shared with the International Trade Centre, also funders of an "Ethical Fashion Initiative" based in Geneva. The Department for International Development usually does good emergency work, and good development work, as far as I can judge. But the development work is funded from a country with high living costs and low business margins because it is run as a welfare state; development is in sweatshop countries that compete unfairly against taxpayers in the UK. A change in tariff to force sweatshop countries to get better would help everyone, and cost UK taxpayers less. It might even make a profit in the way that propagandist stuff from Ethical Fashion Forum claims happens already: revenue from tariffs on sweatshop goods might be higher than money spent on international emergencies & development.

      UK government looked for public support for a position on European tariffs and the end of the multi fibre agreement, promoted at the Gleneagles Summit about the time that Ethical Fashion Forum got so much help from public sector agencies. At the same time aid agencies - Oxfam at least - turned into lobby groups for free trade.

      There's some overlapping interest with Centre for Sustainable Fashion, too, who employ someone first seen as "project manager"   for Ethical Fashion Forum after a career in film. His job is knowledge transfer partnership - that is, to help reduce UK unemployment by helping fashion and footwear businesses, although you wouldn't guess it from the way that taxpayer's money is allocated for this. His office provides a "secretariat"  for a House of Lords all party group on Ethical Fashion and one of his first jobs was to help Ethical Fashion Forum. So he did the opposite of his job, by the look of it.

      There was a small overlapping interest with something called Creative Connexions and their Making it Ethically in China seminars, part of a project that used the majority of the higher education funding council grant for all s for that year to promote Chinese factories to European producers. Like Ethical Fashion Forum, Creative Connexions and Centre for Sustainable Fashion were hatched in London College of Fashion buildings. There's also an overlap between Futerra Sustainability Communications, Ethical Fashion Forum, and a series of apparently neutral organisations that spring-up around Futerra like Anti Apathy, Re-Fashion Awards, Fashion Revolution Day, and probably more.

      Each time a new project is set-up, onlookers are drawn-in, hoping to reform the lobby or "Westminster Hall Debate" as I think it was, left down the stairs from the lobby. Someone in the House of Lords joined-in a discussion to suggest a chain of training workshops up and down the UK. There was no reply except a bit of heckling.

    5. Courtiers & ghosts: fashion students and civil servants might like this bit
      A god king commissions a good oil painting - click for a bigger picture
      There's some overlap with the long-dead court of God-King Louis 16th & Queen Marie Antoinette of 18th-century France, and Charles 1st in the UK. I've phrased these paragraphs as though overlapping jobs in ethical fashion quangos suggest common funding. These examples prove me wrong because the people involved have already had their heads cut off while funding continues. The similarities are similarities among views of in-bred systems of courtiers, swankers & suckers-up, which survive necks intact. For example Charles 1st was persuaded to join-in a war by another god-king, and successors in the 2000s commissioned a building much like Westminster Banqueting House.

      Fashion students at art colleges know that a God King commissions a big oil painting. You've probably seen one at an art gallery. Democrats have a private subscription for a painting, rather than steal public money, and ask for every member of the committee who subscribed to be shown. Their usual taste is for pictures of bowls of fruit, rather than grand people. They wear modest clothes. It's hard to get all the heads looking natural together. If one pays late, they have to be squeezed-in from a corner. God Kings just splurge public money on a Rubens of their dad flying around with fairies on the ceiling of a banqueting hall, dressed as for a sauna in colourful silk clothing. You can still see it now in the Banqueting House Whitehall if your hold your head at the right angle.

      Rich Mix, the building where Ethical Fashion Forum exchanges favours, is a lot like Westminster Banqueting House. It cost tens of millions to convert from a factory like building into a factory-like building. The trustees did not commission a painting on the ceiling. Just the walls. Directly onto the walls: the first mural of a black man pointing a gun at a white woman was judged a bad idea on second thoughts, but, like the painting at the Banqueting House ceiling, it couldn't be sold-on. Trustees had it painted-over and commissioned another painting painted over the top.

      Rich Mix begged tens of millions from public sector organisations & charities, asking for more each year which one funder wants back. The building was meant to create 30-60 jobs by reducing factory space available for employers to rent. On opening, it was found that there was nothing for these new staff to do and more millions of pounds had to be begged from the council to pay their wages. Like the God King Charles at Westminster Banqueting Hall before his execution there, Rich Mix trustees believe that "a King and his subjects are clean different things"; there is no need to prove benefit. Just explain slowly, as to a child. Ask your officials to fiddle the figures if there's a fuss. Two formal reports investigating the London Development Agency's strange ways of working concentrated on Rich Mix, Centre for Fashion Enterprise, and London Fashion Forum, as places to find out how so much money was spent for so little benefit.

      Another God King in france hired a banker called Mr Necker to do the accounts. He tried to introduce the concept of public money, making the royal accounts public except the Deficit, which he covered-up for his employers. One of the french projects was to build a very pretty by-pass around Paris, rather than fix the sewage problem in the town that made people want to avoid it. They probably hired an official to make-up some figures to justify that too. Queen Marie Antoinette became known as Madame Deficit for her daft spending and her supplier became known as Minster for Fashion. Speaking of which, The British Fashion Council hired Oxford Economics' "Value of Fashion" report to include PR expenditure and more passengers on the Piccadilly line as contributions to the economy. The Olympic project claimed to create jobs while demolishing factories and reducing hotel occupancy in London during the event. Do you believe that? Rich Mix does; it is not easily embarrassed. It has a page of various words to praise the Olympics and say how much the arts benefit the economy at a cost of only 14p per person per week. If that is public money, it helps pay for a pound off the price of visiting the Banqueting House Whitehall if your are over 65, but it's also £2.38 stolen from the weekly pension of every person over 65 in the UK.

      There are other ghosts from the period 1979-2009 when hiked-up exchange rates were used to close UK manufacturing. 25% of it went in the governments' first term of office. The policy was carried-out by both main political parties but seems un-known and invisible in the world of punditry and politics in the south of the UK. This is the biggest event that Ethical Fashion Forum calls "global trends", moving manufacturing jobs to sweatshops. Generations of retailers and customers have grown-up expecting advertised brands and smart shops - a system which current generations need to dis-mantle. Most people never quite wanted to believe that government policies caused this rapid change in the manufacturing base so soon after a change of economic policy; it's still an area people don't like to think about. So in a way that's a ghost that prevents proper discussion.

      There's a ghost of the British abroad over the years, who seem so different from the British at home, giving-up all interest in a welfare state as they pack baggage for Heathrow. They become much more like the people who run sweatshop countries. When the first National Insurance Act was passed in the UK in 1911, the Governor of Bengal passed no similar law. In the UK he had been a liberal MP; in Bengal, not. If anyone has the CD of Mrs Thatcher's speeches, please email the detail as she did something similar, praising the welfare state at home and praising exactly the lack of it on a visit to Indonesia. When governments (Norway and the USA) proposed new tariff systems with social clauses to allow the best cheap countries to sell goods and the despot sweatshop countries not, despots were very much against. This was at a meeting of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, just renamed World Trade Organisation. The British government voted with the despot sweatshop governments.

      There's a ghost in the mind of Ethical Fashion Forum's managing director, borne in 1973, who states that she grew-up in Zimbabwe, probably about the same time that UK government was wiping-out its own manufacturers. Her "Can Fashion be Fair" document suggests that she picked-up a different ghostly view. She doesn't state it clearly in what she writes but gives a whiff of it, which I think is that that historical wrongs moved production from India and Africa to Europe, from where it must move-back at the expense of any kind of welfare state in either part of the world and to the benefit of Mercedes drivers in Zimbabwe.

    6. Marie Antoinette's ghost lives-on at the Department for Culture Media & Sport
      - maybe doing a job at Creativeworkslondon.org.uk running their Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, or British Fashion Council, or whoever handles European Union grants these days, or the Olympics.maybe. School children studying 18th century France should be taken on a visit to the ministry to see similarities. Officials from then and now would recognise the fiddled figures showing financial success of the Olympics or London Fashion Week, which rely more on the rank of the person paying for them to make a case than on facts. The party line is that the creative economy needs a separate ministry to the industrial economy, so the joke of pre-revolutionary France about a "minister of fashion" might be reality her and now. There probably is an under-secretary of state with special responsibility for fashion. Modern courtiers are people who claim grants from Dfid or they might give a talk to school pupils for Unit KS3 - Ethical Fashion. People keen to seem in-with the current fashions of thought, rather than take an individual view from plain facts, which are that a muslin dress order does not prevent poverty in the UK or Rana Plaza; a welfare state does.

    Ethical Fashion Forum: jobs & poverty
    | Criticism due | Bangladesh bad government | UK bad government | Robbing in a hospital |
    Ethical Fashion Forum: Implausible statements & silences
    | Implausible statement Made their own clothes | Implausible statement Garments...reduce poverty | Implausible ignorance Tariffs with social clauses | Implausible statement Loss of 35 jobs in developing countries | Implausible silence Livestock and poverty | Implausible name Fellowship 500 | Implausible statement The Made in Britain page | Implausible statement Making it Ethically in China and Arguably more democratic | Implausible statement The Industry body for ethical fashion | Implausible Statement Founded by business for business | Implausible statement don't think you can compare countries ... China ... London | Implausible statement It's not about manufacturing in one country or another | Implausible argument Tax breaks for eco-fashion | And beyond comment |
    Ethical Fashion Forum: fibs & distractions
    | Fibs about expertise | Ethical Fashion Definitions | Swanking | Government by courtiers: fashion with Marie Antoinette or Charles 1st |

     

    Conclusion: it would be good if development grants & such could be used for intended purposes

    I first heard of Ethical Fashion Forum in an e-mailed volunteer job advert to the anti-apathy mailing list, around 2004.

    There was a recession. There could be no new orders for days at a time, and orders that came were from people who couldn't pay, usually ordering slippers for their elderly parents on maxed-out credit cards.

    I used time-off to research what government was doing, googled the then London Development Agency's schemes for European Regional Development Fund money, and worked through them including London Fashion Week's new Estethica room for "ethical fashion". I went and saw a the new stall for Ethical Fashion Forum. Had my founder membership been accepted, I asked? "No [...] you did not meet the criteria", said Elizabeth Laskar, sales person for Sri Lankan civil war goods who had no footwear or fashion business but had got an Ethical Fashion Forum stall subsidised by all taxpayers, including me and probably you too.

    Nearby was another subsidised stall from Futerra Communications client, Terra Plana, who's rep said "yes it is Chinese". I'd heard of them while doing the rounds of government help for business. Someone at South Bank Innovation Centre implied that they had helped a company like Terra Plana.

    A year or two later I got interested in Ethical Fashion Forum and one of their web pages, which cautions people against buying British goods on ethical grounds. I rang them and asked who wrote it. The person who answered the phone was Tamsin Lejeune who said that she wrote it; she would consult members about an unbiased statement to make, but the web page is still there and I don't know if the people who claim these government grants like Tamsin Lejeune even know how to log-on to their own web sites and make changes if they want to. She & Elizabeth Laskar have been guests on a rather sweet childrens' TV program though, urging people to buy second-hand and re-use.

    It would be good if parts of government like the regional development grant system could be used for their intended purposes, alongside government legislation, to make sure that manufacturers in the UK have access to exhaustive trade directories, cheap workshop space or tools by the hour, reasonably-priced training, and maybe a chance to share export promotion costs. Individuals too. The sort of thing that other European governments do with the same budget headings, for the sake of the unemployed. It's not expensive; workshops are vacant all over the UK because landlords don't want to let them cheaply. Data for making trade directories is piled-up in ministries where nobody is interested in it.

    It would be good if most grants to fashion organisations were ended for years before starting again, because at the moment the grants via the Humanities Research Council or Department of Trade and Greater London Authority for British Fashion Council can do more harm than good. As with the Opera budget, it would be good if the whole idea of subsidising something that should not be subsidised were ended for at least a year, before something new is put in its place. If London Fashion Week does continue I would like each subsidised stall holder to be nominated by a someone from a factory, who would sign to say that they are a good customer and likely to help UK taxpayers in future. I would like all clothing factories to be asked for nominations from among their customers, so there would have to be directory of clothing suppliers available.

    It would be good if Ethical Fashion Forum disappeared into a rag-bag and were never heard-of again, and other people found more precise words or chose ethical fashion brands and companies and ethical fashion definitions and facts to list, influencing the civil servants and ministers who make bad decisions in the background rather than parodying them and advising people not to buy British goods.

    If Ethical Fashion Forum continues, it needs to remove its general opinions and advice from the web, and concentrate on being an umbrella organisation for different enthusiasms which sometimes conflict.

     

    If you've had enough of reading about courtiers & implied Bond villains, you can have a look at why people by vegan shoes on the why-vegan page & see what's been done despite bad government & too few factories.


    [Footnote] It's easy to allude to a bit of knowledge and sound grand, specially as you get a bit older and follow a hobby.

    I really don't know if Bangladeshi governors want to introduce a national insurance system but guess not, because the rich in poor countries are like that. There are other systems of benefits I know even less about. In Pakistan the Edhi Foundation runs health services from donations. "We don't ask for money: people just give it", says the founder - a system that saves even more paperwork than universal systems like the NHS. Ethiopia has another system by which as many people as possible are allowed allotments on which to survive. And Indians have a universal ration of cheap rice for anyone willing to queue and provide the right ID. Kenya has another basic national insurance fund for regular formal employees, which is more separate from government than the UK fund but prone to corruption. Ghana has had one since the mid 1990s. I don't know what exists in other countries that Ethical Fashion Forum refer to except that Haiti has just one or two government hospitals. This kind of information came to light over the months from web searches - some of them noted on a PlanB4fashion.blogspot.co.uk, with newer posts on planB4fashion.

    Advertisers have to say less than pressure groups or risk a fine or a court case.
    This is a list of things risky for an advertiser to do, according to a 2008 guide from Futerra Communications, which calls them ethics-wash or greenwash. Exceptions are marked "LEGAL", so for example the Ethical Fashion Forum's claim that one fashion job in Europe costs 30 in Vietnam looks like an unsubstantiated claim and an attempt to deceive, both illegal to advertise to consumers in Australia, France, Norway, the USA, and the UK.

    Australia France Norway USA UK
     Mislead consumers          
     Deceive consumers          
     Use unsubstantiated claims          
     Use images capable of making a sweeping claim     LEGAL LEGAL  
     Be vague   LEGAL      
     Be technically or narrowly correct, without looking at the bigger picture       LEGAL  
     Present claims as universally accepted, if the science is disputed or inconclusive LEGAL        LEGAL
     Imply qualities that are not the case   LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL
     Overstate claims, expressly or by implication   LEGAL   LEGAL LEGAL
     Indicate benefits unlikely to happen in practice, but literally true         LEGAL
     Use exaggerated language LEGAL       LEGAL
     Make claims that cannot be verified LEGAL     LEGAL LEGAL
     fair-fashion.htm
    government & factories
    ethical fashion forum.htm
    why.htm
    vegan ethics:
    why vegan shoes?
    ethics.htm
    ethical footwear brands:
    other peoples' ethics
    ask.htm
    general contact and other information

    Womens
    vegan shoes

    Mens Womens
    boots & shoes

    Mens Womens
    boots & shoes

    belts slippers
    jacket T shirts

    vegan shoes: fashionable?

    Bouncing vegan sandal
    Mesh and strap sandals
    1" canvas shoe 1" court
    cheap strappy sandals
    cheap aerobic shoe
    Bouncing Boots/Shoes 
    Mixed or Mainly Brown
    Office Shoes or School
    Camouflage Shoes
    Camouflage Boots / Tall
    Unswoosher boot
    Thick Canvas boot 
    Walsh vegan trainers
    Safety Boot, Shoe
    Wellington boots, Clogs 
    Vegan belts
    Slippers
    Safety slippers
    T shirts made in Britain
    Vegan mens jackets
    about us; delivery
    search & site map
    Ethics, Vegan Recipes
    Shoe sizes EU UK US
    News / Facebook / +1
    Join our mailing list | @veganlinecom on twitter | facebook.com/Veganline | share site on facebook | share site on google+1 |
      International currency price estimates