The narrative around counterfeit goods usually ends with their seizure. We rarely get to hear or see what happens to them afterwards unless some token burning or breaking is laid on for the cameras' benefit. That makes the following story doubly noteworthy: we not only find out where fake designer clothes go after they have been seized in the UK, we discover that they are put to an excellent use:

Instead of handing counterfeit designer clothes to customs or trading standards to be destroyed, they are being donated to a charity for redistribution to the homeless and vulnerable.

That charity is called His Church, and in the last six years it has managed to convince 90% of British Trading Standards Authorities, which have the job of dealing with counterfeit goods, to pass on the clothes for patching – can't leave those labels visible – and then for redistribution. That's good for the homeless people that receive them, and it's good for the British government:

Every year customs and trading standards spend a fortune on storing fake clothes while waiting for a court decision, and then once the items have been proved to be fake the authorities have to fork out further for incineration or landfill costs.

His Church has removed all such costs and pass on the high quality goods to some 250 homeless centres and women's shelters across the country.

This is such an obviously sensible thing to do you have to ask why the same approach isn't more widely adopted. Presumably it's from some residual fear that allowing fake clothes to circulate will "confuse" customers.

But as Techdirt has noted before, it's likely that people know exactly what they are getting when they buy counterfeits, and that they are not confused in the slightest. Moreover, there's no evidence that the sales of genuine designer clothes in the UK have suffered over the last six years as a result of all these fakes being allowed on to the streets: were there any, the scheme would certainly have been halted by now. So is there any good reason why other homeless and vulnerable people around the world shouldn't benefit too?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

For years we've talked about how various lobbyist organizations in DC have "special interest" front groups. These are groups who get attention from politicians but really have no interest in the policy matters at hand. However, because large companies have donated to those front groups, the lobbyists get to write up letters pretending to be from those groups, so they can pressure politicians who don't want to "upset" a certain special interest group.

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

Sometimes they don't even bother getting permission, such as the time that a Burger King franchise wrote a letter complaining about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Except, when a reporter called the franchise execs, they had no idea what the CFTC was. There was some actual backlash earlier this year when AT&T got the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to come out in favor of its merger with T-Mobile, upsetting much of the membership, and leading a bunch of board members (including an AT&T lobbyist) to resign.

However, one small setback in such practices is no big deal when you have that big list of groups to go through. After "the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers" apparently there are the religious homeless shelters. The Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission, proud recipients of a $50,000 donation from AT&T, has come out in favor of the merger with impeccably inscrutable logic:

The faith-based service provider offered what it acknowledged was “an out-of-place endorsement” of the AT&T merger with T-Mobile, with Rev. R. Henry Martin explaining that “People often call on God to help the outcasts and downtrodden that walk among us, [but] [s]ometimes, however, it is our responsibility to take matters into our own hands. Please support this merger.”

I'm still trying to figure out what that means. First, it seems to be suggesting that homeless people need to step up their game to support the "outcasts and downtrodden" AT&T and T-Mobile that "walk among us." Because, um, otherwise, what does that refer to? The homeless people may be outcasts and downtrodden, but the shelter isn't asking for any help for them.. but rather for AT&T and T-Mobile. I guess it also implies that God supports the merger but apparently God alone can't convince the FCC, so apparently, if homeless folks could lobby and support one of the largest corporations around, that will be helpful.

Unless you've been under a rock the past week, you probably have heard about Ted Williams, the homeless guy in Columbus, Ohio, who panhandles off of a highway, but whose panhandling sign noted that he had an amazing radio voice. Someone from the Columbus Dispatch shot a short video of the guy showing off his voice, and after it went up on YouTube it went viral. Within days there were over a million views, and people were talking about how the guy really deserved a voice over job. The Cleveland Cavaliers offered him a job and apparently MSNBC has hired him to do some voiceover work. All that sounds good.

And then... despite the tons of views and positive attention... Mathew Ingram points us to the news that the Dispatch has issued a takedown on the video: It's difficult to understand what the Dispatch is thinking. It had such a great story here, all of which was credited to The Dispatch, and its response was to remove all of that goodwill by forcing the video offline.

Last week there was a big controversy over the fact that some stores in NY were caught destroying unsold garments rather than donating them to charities. After people got upset, the main store in question, H&M promised that this wouldn't happen again. This week we've got a related, but somewhat different story, as the NY Police have admitted to shredding and burning the counterfeit clothes they've confiscated, rather than giving them to the homeless, as had always been done in the past. When asked to explain why, the police claimed "no one asked" for the confiscated clothing -- but many charities insist they had, in fact, made many requests for the clothing. Apparently, the destruction is being felt at clothing banks, who say they have many fewer clothes on hand this year than in the past.

Not surprisingly, a lawyer representing various clothing designers was quite happy with the news, saying that they don't want those clothes "back on the street," which suggests that the designers may have pushed for the police to destroy the clothes rather than help the needy. Of course, it's worth pointing out -- yet again -- the recent study that showed most people are not fooled by counterfeits, and they rarely represent a "lost sale." In fact, many counterfeit purchases lead to real purchases later on. So the idea that they act as a "substitute" or somehow "harm" a brand is not actually borne out by the research. And, of course, some companies have learned that there are ways to embrace counterfeiting to their own advantage, as a form of price differentiation.

Google got a bunch of press earlier this week for giving out "free voicemail accounts" to the homeless. I tried to ignore the story, but it keeps getting written about, and it seemed like there were a few points worth making. First of all, this concept isn't new. Almost five years ago, we wrote about Cisco doing the same thing. There's a whole organization, called Community Voicemail, that has done this for years. But, an even more important point: Google's GrandCentral service is already free. For anyone. Whether you have a home or not. So, offering it for free to the homeless isn't anything special. In fact, it would really only seem newsworthy if, for some reason, the company were not offering accounts to the homeless. So, yes, basically, this is a story about how Google is offering its already free service to the homeless, even though the homeless have already had free voicemail offerings for years. Next thing you know, we're going to see a press release about how the homeless can now use search engines for free too... Plus, I hear that the homeless can get free Gmail accounts!