If you like nerdy dissections of UK by-election results based on over-analysis of post-election opinion polling, combined with random abuse directed at almost everybody involved (but especially UKIP, because obviously), then you’ll probably like my latest piece at Liberal Conspiracy.
On the Church of England female bishops rejection, the saddest thing is that the C of E:
- was created by a woman (Henry VIII’s Church rejected the authority of the Pope, but remained Catholic in doctrine; it was Elizabeth I who turned it into a solidly Protestant church after Mary I’s attempt at Catholic, erm, revivalism);
- is headed by a woman (Liz’s namesake, defender of the faith);
- had a massive “yes” vote to the ordination of female priests from both the House of Bishops (0% female, 94% ‘yes’) and the mixed-sex House of Clergy (29% female, 77% ‘yes’);
- saw the vote defeated for failing to achieve a two-thirds majority in the mixed-sex, non-ordained House of Laity, made up of democratically elected representatives of C of E churchgoers (46% female, 64% ‘yes’).
The all-male boys-club dinosaurs voted almost solely for equality, the still-male dominated clergy were overwhelmingly for equality, and the mixed-sex representatives of the C of E congregation (which is itself about 65% female) were the most bigoted of the lot.In other words, if the C of E wasn’t so keen to give regular churchgoers a say, female bishops would totally be a thing already, and the massive blow to both PR and moral authority of voting for discredited Pauline nonsense wouldn’t have happened.
I was going to add, I don’t know why the female-dominated C of E congregation choose to elect representatives (both male and female) who hate women. But on reflection, I’m pretty sure it’s that, although many women whose views mirror those of Ann Widdecombe in rejecting the C of E’s modest levels of inclusivity and egalitarianism have opted to join the Roman Catholic Church (which, obviously, has none of either), some have stayed with what they know. Sadly, yesterday’s vote is likely to keep them on board for longer.
This is technically true (random quote from blog commenter, but one which reflects a lot of educated-people-who-know-about-stats opinion on the Silver model):
Silver’s analysis (which I happen to accept) won’t be contradicted (or proven) in any way by tomorrow’s outcome. Either result is accounted for in the model. People seem not to understand that.
However, it’s a silly thing to say. If you craft a model in such a way that you are publicly on record as saying that one candidate in a two-horse race has a 90% chance of winning, and he loses, then you will find it very hard to avoid looking like a tit, even if your stats were absolutely correct and the result is just a one-in-ten piece of bad luck for your model.
The only way in which you could plausibly avoid the tail-risk of looking like a tit would be to focus a sizeable part of your commentary on that tail-risk, why your model shouldn’t be taken as an out-and-out prediction, and why you might be wrong, rather than focusing on the reasons that you think are underlying the 90%-likely outcome.
Mr Silver has gone very strongly for the “focusing on the underlying reasons” option, presumably because he’d much take a 90% chance of being The Awesome Pollster Who Correctly Tipped The Election with a 10% chance of being That Tit, than a 100% chance of being That Boring Wonk Who Explained Why We Shouldn’t Pay Too Much Attention To His Numbers.
Which is entirely rational, given the risk/reward matrix he faces, but does mean that anyone who suggests we should refrain from calling him That Tit if the 10% scenario comes through is missing the point.
In the context of the neo-puritan trial of Simon Walsh (description of case NSFW although text-only) for possessing ‘extreme pornography’ – in UK law, the simple ownership of photos of consenting adults doing kinky things to each other that could cause physical damage – civil liberties defender David Allen Green made the point that “the trial is about how the State can use the criminal law to regulate images of acts which are perfectly legal to perform”. Political philosopher Chris Bertram countered by making the (fair) point that “that’s already the case re ppl over the age of consent but under 18. So nothing new in that respect”.
I suggested to Chris that this nonetheless wasn’t a strong argument in the extreme pornography laws’ favour, because the laws he cites are also indefensible. He strongly disagreed with my claim that the laws were indefensible. We agreed to disagree on Twitter, which is a terrible location for such an argument – but I thought I’d set out here why I think the laws that universally criminalise the possession of indecent images of people over the age of consent but under the age of 18 are a terrible idea [fn1].
As far as I can see, there are three reasons why society has an interest in minimising the existence of indecent images of 16-17 year olds, while accepting that it is completely legitimate for them to have sex [fn2]. These three reasons need to be balanced against the starting point that it’s both illogical and cruel to ban people who we accept should be allowed to see each other naked and have sex with each other from owning naked/sexual pictures of each other [fn3].
- To prevent people under the age of majority from being exploited by creepy pornographers who offer them money for acts and pictures they will subsequently regret and will never be able to take back, despite never having had the legal capability to enter into such a contract.
- To prevent third parties or partners from photographing people without their consent (whether or not they distribute the pictures in principle, although the latter is obviously worse).
- To prevent incidents where photographs taken by the person or their partner get into the public domain (generally vengeful exes or boastful idiots).
Reason one is hard to argue with. There’s no reason why the capacity to give sexual consent should be equal in law with the capacity to enter a binding contract; prostitution involving under-18s is forbidden in most jurisdictions with harsh punishments applied to clients and pimps for exactly the same reason [fn4]. But it’s already largely solved: if a pornographer pays someone under 18 to have a sexual encounter for money, then they are guilty of child prostitution offences and everyone involved in the process gets jailed for a long time. So we’re left here with the problem of pornographers enticing 16-18s to pose for indecent pictures that don’t come within the scope of the existing prostitution law. Given the legal definitions we already have for the purposes of both obscenity and prostitution law, this would not be at all difficult to draft, with punishments just as severe as currently apply. So that part of the problem can easily solved without any conflict.
For reason two, I’m struggling to see why this point is any different whether you’re 16 or 25, or 33, or 100. If some scumbag takes indecent photos of you without your consent, that’s vile, and if they publish them, they’re an appalling person and you’ve been violated. The fact that a 16-year-old can’t consent in the sense being discussed is irrelevant, since nobody’s consenting to anything anyway. So whatever the appropriate legal solution to this problem may be, it isn’t the one at hand.
Reason three is superficially more tempting. Anyone who actually distributes the pictures in this context would be caught by the same law as the people in reason two, but there is a judgement-related argument that can be raised.
Kids are, in general, both more trusting and more likely to do stupid things than adults, and teenagers mostly go out with each other. So someone aged 16-17 is more likely to treat someone who is in fact a reason-two scumbag as a trusted partner; they are also more likely to be going out with someone who is pathetic enough to publish their private photos if things go awry. At this point, protecting kids from increased greater risk to themselves surely overrides your general right to send your lover a photo for them to wank off to when you’re away, right?
Criminalising things has a deterrent effect, sure, and that deterrent effect varies depending on the rationality of both the crime and the criminal. Famously, the death penalty is generally accepted to have little-to-no impact on murder rates, because very few murders are based on a rational calculation of the penalty if caught.
Murders tend to involve people with poor impulse control (whether generally or due to temporary factors) in situations that involve an intense emotional response. In these cases, deterrence is largely irrelevant: people do not act based on rational calculations. On the other hand, when talking about cases such as deliberate corporate fraud, stringent detection and heavy penalties do indeed have a strong deterrent effect, because they involve rational people making rational decisions.
RHETORICAL QUESTION ALERT: do mid-teenage relationships tend to fall into the category of “rational people making rational decisions”, or “people with poor impulse control in situations that involve an intense emotional response”?
Quite. So rather than creating a situation where kids are prevented from doing stupid things, we end up with a situation where kids continue to do stupid things to pretty much the same extent, but end up being arrested and gaining criminal records for them [fn5]. It would be a bit of a struggle to suggest that this makes anyone better off.
 Yes, it’s because I want to defend nonces and WON’T THINK OF THE CHILDREN. Discussions of this kind of law tend to into that kind of territory; if that’s your bag, then this blog – along with any source of debate more sophisticated than the comments section of the Sun – is not for you. This is obviously and absolutely not aimed at Chris.
 Let’s take the second point as read for the purposes of this discussion; it’s the case both where I live and where I’m from. I know some Australian states and much of the USA set the age of consent at 18, which strikes me as daft for many of the same reasons discussed in this post, but at least consistent.
 The UK law in question has exemptions for people who are married or living together and de-facto married, but most people who are aged 16-17 and in fairly serious relationships do not fall within these exemptions.
 Prostitutes aged under 18 are also still arrested and charged in many jurisdictions, despite being the victims; the lawmakers, police and prosecutors responsible for this decision should be horsewhipped until they are dead.
 Or the law is never enforced, in which case what exactly is it supposed to be for again? If you want to send a message, use SMS not the courts.
The first jetliner was Boeing’s square-windowed 707; it was grounded after a few months following tragic incidents which wiped out a fair proportion of elite Americans. The money flowing to De Havilland to create a civilian airliner progamme to promote their non-murderous plane trumped nationalist concerns.
Despite the fact that the 707 is a finer airliner than the Comet, nobody trusts it, and even Pan-Am and TWA are acquiring Comets. The fact that nobody had really understood pressurisation before Boeing’s painful lesson ensures that De Havilland’s planes became the narrow-body airliner to beat all airliners.
Fantasy world: #2: the first supersonic jetliner is Boeing’s supersonic 7NN7. While it made a bit of noise, the need to beat the Comet – because, despite the technical superiority of the Comet, the sheer cash of the US government and the fact that we all need to make up for America’s humiliation has ensured that nonsense about ‘supersonic booms’ was defeated by the allegiances of the civilised world.
With its Rolls-Royce/Pratt & Whitney engines, it has been allowed to fly supersonic over all territories outside of the USSR. New York-London-Singapore-Sydney-Los Angeles-New York on Pan-Am was do-able in under a day. Fashionistas signed up, in the hope it would make them sexy and youthful. The conception that transatlantic flight takes more than 4 hours became ludicrous, like the concept of taking four days in a flying boat before WWII,
Everyone seems very upset about the fact that private security firm G4S has not delivered as many guards as contracted to police the white elephant that is Sports Day 2012, with many people suggesting it’s an example of why outsourced contracts are terrible . I’m not sure they should. Let’s rewind on what’s happened here…
G4S was contracted by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) to deliver 2,000 security guards, as part of total security staffing of 10,000 people. The requirement for private security was increased to 10,400 out of 23,700 in December 2011 for reasons that were left obscure at the time, but can be presumed to be down to some combination of fear of imaginary terrorists and the desperate need to prevent people bringing in off-brand merchandise.
The company agreed to the increase, having its existing GBP86m contract value increased to GBP284m. It then carried out 100,000 job interviews over the following six months for staff, but failed to find enough people available at the right time and willing to take the work. Eventually, it had to admit that it had massively screwed up by taking on a near-impossible task, was not able to meet the 10,400 requirement, and LOCOG (presumably with government help) has instead brought an unspecified number of police and 3,500 soldiers in to make up the shortfall.
While detailed contractual arrangements for the G4S deal haven’t been published, people familiar with LOCOG say that its Olympics contracts generally contain two separate contractual penalty elements: 1) payment by results, so if you don’t deliver, your pay is scaled back; 2) reimbursement for the costs of getting someone else to finish the job if you can’t.
So we can reasonably assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that G4S is getting its pay scaled back and paying for the police and soldiers to step in. There’s a standard rate of GBP55 per hour at which cops are billed out to festival organisers; while I’m not sure the Army makes itself available for hire on quite the same basis [*], the soldiers presumably should command something similar.
This double hit – less pay and much higher costs, offset by much smaller savings on wages for the staff that haven’t been hired – is reflected by G4S’s statement to the London Stock Exchange last Friday, in which the company said it expected to make an overall net loss of GBP35-50 million on the Olympics contract. According to FT Alphaville, the total profit for G4S if everything had gone according to plan would only have been in the region of GBP10m, or 4% of the revenue from the deal. In the best-case scenario for G4S, 96% of the GBP284 million paid by LOCOG to the company would have have been paid out in costs [**].
1) Sports Day will still be going ahead with a full security contingent;
2) the net cost to LOCOG of the deal will be lower than if G4S had delivered, because of the impact of the penalty clauses;
3) the police and the army will also get decent reimbursement from G4S, so the taxpayer will win out to an even greater degree;
4) G4S will make a significant outright loss on the LOCOG contract, which is at least four times the size of the profit it would have made had everything gone well.
Had security staffing been carried out directly by LOCOG, there’s little reason to assume it would have gone appreciably better. G4S is probably the organisation in the UK with the most experience in recruiting security people for events, and this is one hell of an event; if the task were easy, they wouldn’t have stuffed it up so badly. Unlike G4S, LOCOG has a million other tasks to focus on to the same deadline, and no direct experience of recruiting security people.
LOCOG perhaps could have made the cops and the army part of the original plan – but then the taxpayer would be paying the full billing rate, rather than having G4S picking up the tab. Or it could have massively raised wages for everyone (including the people already hired, not just the extra people at the margin – I’m fairly certain this is why LOCOG and G4S didn’t go down that route once problems arose) – but again, the taxpayer would then be paying the full rate for everything.
In other words, the risk of failing to deliver on the contract was successfully transferred from the taxpayer to the private sector, without being significantly elevated. For just 4% margin, G4S was willing to assume the entire financial responsibility for the staffing project. The consequences of the epic failure fell entirely on their shareholders, and not on the taxpayers.
The outsourcing model [***] has won the day, and the wicked private capitalists are the only ones to lose out. Hurrah!
[*] although I suppose this could be one way to offset the impact of military cuts in future.
[**] the only reason to take such a low margin on such a high-risk contract is as a loss-leader, with the whole world watching G4S’s performance as a contractor. Which has admittedly happened, although not quite as planned.
[***] when combined with tough contracts that have decent enforceable penalty clauses. Without them *cough*Metronet*cough*, it’s a terrible model and people who use it should be horsewhipped.
Inspired by the “send a letter to the Government of Ecuador” left-meme, here’s my letter to the Government of Ecuador:
Dear the Government of Ecuador. You’ve got a slightly disturbing Cuba-light personality cult going, and Julian Assange is an autistic pervert who I wouldn’t let within a hundred yards of any female friends or relations. Nonetheless, the Yanks are still probably mad enough to torture the hell out of the poor sod for the rest of his natural life for making them look silly, so saving him from that one is an excellent PR opportunity for yourselves. Best, John. PS, I love your song (*).
I’m sure this will address matters.
* this one, I mean.