Not that the file name isn't questionable, but it isn't arbitrary. Here's the context for the file name from the text of the post:

"On the second question. Let's say FCUK went open source. We'd get a lot more T-shirts with FCUK slogans, produced by loyal, energetic consumers. But what if they went too far? Some people already find FCUK offensive. Wouldn't open source marketing be a dangerous step? Open source means giving up the right to censor. What if the BNP, say, produced 'FCUK Jews'? It could happen...

Me: I see what you mean about the chavs. Basically, they have taken over the brand. And you are saying would opening the 'brand source code' make it easier and more likely to happen. And that this could be a problem if extreme groups took control.

I think these are all fair points."

And then in the concluding paragraph:

"Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that there is nothing stopping people doing all this to brands anyway. The BNP could quite easily go and print FCUK Jews T-shirts. ...":

Perhaps I'm too trusting, but I don't see malice here (stealth or otherwise).

Hi Gerard, sorry for any offence caused. FCUK is a European brand name for a company called French Connection UK. They use the play on the name to appeal to an edgy teengae audience. In a conversation with a fellow UK blogger, we were discussing the possibility of brands
being hijacked for evil reasons. I initially gave the post that title but then changed it thinking it was a bit much. However, the file
name had been created. Once again apologies for any offence. (I am actually Jewish myself, thus my interest in my fellow bloggers
comments.)

Thanks for the correction Gerard.