Sophie's legacy

In a perfect world we wouldn't need "hate crime" legislation, if a crime is committed then people should be punished for the crime almost irrespective of motive or who they victim is, otherwise wouldn't you be treating people differently under the law?  'Hate crimes' are usually of a violent nature, but surely most violent crimes derive from some form of hatred for the victim and some underlying prejudice against that person and hence be considered a hate crime?  This labelling could also be self fulfilling, when attributed too commonly it could lead to groups feeling persecuted even if there isn't an underlying bias against them.

However, we don't live in a perfect world.  The argument is that a 'hate crime' causes greater personal and social harm.  By attacking a person for who they are (rather than say using something that they've done as a motive) you are effectively attacking their identity and if such crimes become common place it can really lead to a feeling of disempowerment by that group.  Often, just the recognition that crimes towards a group are caused by underlying prejudices is the first step to showing that the group are being discriminated against.

If I were legislators I wouldn't be putting boundaries on what can or can't be described as a 'hate crime', as long as the motive was just some underlying prejudice there then the legislation should apply.  However boundaries have been put in place, in the UK these are membership (or assumed membership of):

• A religious group,
• A racial group, or:
• Sexual orientation,
• Disability.

Sophie (R.I.P)

There is a reason I am writing this blog now, Greater Manchester Police have started recording attacks on 'subcultures' as hate crimes.  I can't put into words how happy I am to see this.  I briefly alluded to this in my HMV post, this is the one area where I have been the victim of discrimination and in fact, one area where I have received abuse for nothing other than the way I look/dress etc.  

For those of you who are unaware this has probably stemmed as a result of campaigning by the Sophie Lancaster Foundation. This is a charity that was set up after Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend Robert Maltby were attacked whilst walking through a park in 2007 because they were wearing goth clothing.  Unfortunately Sophie ended up in a coma from which she never woke up, basically she was kicked to death because she looked different.

This issue isn't something that gets much attention at all, but it is very real, below are a few of the instances I've personally experienced:

• When I was 16/17, walking home from college with a friend who had green hair (we were both probably dressed as moshers - baggy jeans and a band hoodie, that was our usual dress for college) a car slowed, wound down it's windows and threw an empty bottle in our direction whilst shouting abuse. 
• When I was 17 I'd been on a night out with a few friends, 2 of us got the bus back together (same person as above actually) and as we got off the bus 2 other guys started following us and ended up chasing us, I seem to remember he took a punch before we got away (he was always the unlucky one).  I can't say that this was just due to how we looked but it felt that way.
• When I was 18/19 and walking home from a night out (so the early hours of the morning) I was followed for about a mile by three guys about my own age (who stayed about 20 - 30 yards behind me) who kept shouting different derogatory comments about me being a goth.  (I was wearing a long leather coat and had long hair).  I assume they were trying to draw me into confrontation or just intimidate me.
• When I was 19 I was sat on a bus with a friend who also had long hair and the 3 guys behind us kept pulling on his hair (I think they knew him), talking about how they were going to shave it off and were being generally intimidating, fortunately though they got off before us and not at the same time.

I know these aren't the worst examples of discrimination/intimidation in the world but they are the ones that spring to mind that I personally experienced.  In general in school and college, once I started dressing differently (wearing band hoodies etc) I lost count of the number of times people used to use it as a basis for derogatory terms.  (The style wasn't common amongst people in my area, there were very few of us). Some were much more vocal than others, and I did escape the worst of it but a few of my friends were quite badly bullied because of it.

Without a change in legislation all the force can do is record this as an element of the crime, but I think it is a huge starting point.  Hopefully this will help to illustrate that it is something that exists and by acknowledging it it will make a difference, make people feel safer and be the starting point into making it socially unacceptable.

One day maybe we will live in a world where people treat others with respect irrespective of how they look or what they believe in.  I can't see this ever happening but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and shouldn't celebrate each improvement.  Hopefully Sophie's family's awesome work will have a lasting legacy.

Why I'm not sad about HMV...

I started this blog a while ago, but didn't finish it, I had the title of "Why I'll no longer be shopping at HMV" - so I've now rewritten it.

People who know me should be surprised by this, given just how much I'm an advocate of owning the physical version of things (i.e. CD's rather than downloading music).  I wrote a blog post on the issue back in 2011 when it was rumoured record companies would stop issuing CD's.  So the news that HMV has appointed an administrator should sadden me... however I haven't shopped there for a few months and had no plans to go back.

You see, as a white, heterosexual  middle class male, I don't face discrimination often... however I do in one issue, I admit it's no where near as extreme as other people face discrimination but it is discrimination none the less.  You see, I'm a metal head.  I like metal music and like many people who listen to metal music I like to fit with a particular image.  I'm not the most extreme, I can comfortably fit into most social scenarios and wear a suit to work, wear fairly trendy clothes when I'm out with certain people, but also baggy jeans and band shirts or even cyber goth attire for industrial nights out.  The main point though is, like many of my friends and social peers I have long hair.  Even though my job is a professional one I've had long hair for about 11 or 12 years and it's never been a problem - I just tie it back.  

How does this relate to HMV?  Well they banned it.  Very rock and roll.  The country's major music shop banning long hair and extreme tattoos and piercings.  In response to criticism a spokesperson said:

"It goes without saying that we want our work colleagues to feel valued as individuals who can express their personalities, but it's also important that we balance this against the needs and expectations of our customers, who, ultimately, have to be at the heart of everything we do."

Well, as a customer my expectation was that they would hire the best person for the job, which at HMV is the person who's most knowledgeable about their area (films, music, games etc) whilst being comfortable talking to the customer.  I don't know about anyone else, but if I see someone and it looks like they eats, sleeps and breathes music/a lifestyle similar to that then I'd be more likely to listen to their opinion on music in comparison with someone who was just a well turned out sales person.

To sell me music that I wasn't going to buy anyway you have to live music!

Anyway, I know it may sound petty and it's probably shooting myself in the foot but I wont be shedding a tear for HMV's problems, even if that means it'll be harder for me to buy music in person at least when I do see a shop selling music I wont be offended by the fact I'd know that they wouldn't employ me.

No matter how bad, nobody should be arrested for a joke.

I think it goes without saying that pretty much everyone agrees that what's happened to April is tragic, my thoughts are with her family.  I really hope she is found soon, although it is inconceivable that she'd still be with us.  How anyone could do that to her is completely beyond me, I hope that the truth comes out, the correct person is found and sentenced accordingly (I always believe in innocence before proven guilty but it sounds like the police are confident that it's Mark Bridger).   

However, I don't want this post to be about this horrible story, I instead want to talk about Matthew Woods, who has been jailed for 12 weeks for posts made on his Facebook account.  The link of course is that these posts were 'jokes' about both April and Madeleine McCann.   He pleaded to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive.

"Chairman of the bench, magistrate Bill Hudson, said his comments were so serious and "abhorrent" that he deserved the longest sentence they could pass, less a third to give credit for his early guilty plea."
 "The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive."

My main question is is this offence serious? As far as I'm concerned, nobody has the right not to be offended.  The charge itself - "grossly offensive" - is such a subjective opinion that I don't feel it has a place in a court of law.  From what I've read (I shan't repeat them) the jokes were definitely insensitive, in bad taste and crass, basically Matthew was stupid.  However I'm sure hundreds of other teenagers/young adults will have made similar 'sick' jokes over the past week - Matthew certainly wasn't the first, otherwise there wouldn't have been one on Sikipedia for him to basically copy.  If you don't think there are many out there just type Madeleine McCann into Google:

The third auto-fill suggestion is jokes regarding her.  This is sad but a true fact of society, when bad things happen, some people make jokes about it. I remember when Princess Diana died, a week or so later I started secondary school (in year 7) and I was already hearing jokes that would offend some people.  With the Twin Towers (9/11) it took a little longer, but it wasn't long before there were plenty of jokes doing the rounds.  Then with Madeleine McCann, I was doing pub quizzes where every week for a few months there'd be at least one team name that referred to her (in an attempt at comedy).  Some people even make money from it, the likes of Frankie Boyle have never shied away from this type of subject matter - in fact they are somewhat famous for offending certain people and sections of society.  

At the end of the day, people can usually chose to avoid such 'jokes', for instance, I could have not attended the same pub quiz where I knew the names might have included references to Madeleine, I could unfollow Frankie Boyle from Twitter, but I don't because I don't feel grossly offended by the 'jokes', even if they are not to my taste.  In the same vein, anyone of Matthew Woods' friends could have unfriended him of Facebook, or even just stopped his updates appearing on their news feed.  It's not like you don't have a choice.

I agree with Dan Falchikov on Living on Words Alone:

"In a liberal democracy the state is not there to bolster the will of the majority - it is there to protect the minority - however unpopular and however moronic."

Apparently Matthew Woods had 50 people going to his home about the posts that he made, this sounds like almost a lynch mob.  The state should not be there to enforce the will of the mob, but to provide rational calm in such circumstances.  At the end of the day, who has been actually hurt by Matthew Woods' specific posts?  Only himself and his own future chances in life because of these charges.  The family may have been upset to read them, but they are only words (which pale into insignificance in the scheme of their passed week or so), and would they have even seen them if these charges hadn't been brought?

Excellent interview with Amanda Feilding in the New Statesman

Amanda Feilding: "Tobacco kills 100,000 a year - cannabis a handful throughout history"

I'm really pleased to see another article/post that makes perfect sense when it comes to the illogical policies that are in place world wide when it comes to illicit drugs.  I know it's always easy to talk up people who agree with you but I really think she makes a lot of sense:

"What is your stance on legalisation?

[Drug laws] are often at variance with human rights: it is not clear why a person’s enjoyment of a recreational drug, so long as it causes no harm to anybody else, should be a criminal offence. The war on drugs is a war on drug users – because users are criminalised and must operate in the underworld, they are exposed to drugs of unknown purity and contaminated injecting equipment, and access to treatment is much more difficult.

How could the laws be fixed?

A first vital step would be to decriminalise the possession of drugs for personal use so long as no other crime is committed, as has happened in Portugal and the Czech Republic. A more radical policy, ruled out under the current UN conventions, would be to create a strictly regulated, legal and taxed market in a drug. The obvious starting point would be cannabis."

I have wrote about this subject often, I wish I could do so as well and coherently as she does (although I guess it is her job!) I hope she is very successful in persuading people and helping them to see her point of view.

In defence of Jimmy Carr...

I know I'm behind the times but I've only just watched last week's 8 out of 10 Cats...

If you go to someone for advice and they look at your situation and ask you if you want to pay less tax, what would you do?  Okay, yeah, that's all the defence I have as it is a massive error in judgement - particularly as he has spent the last few years really laying in to bankers and Government austerity.  


At the start of my accountancy career I worked in tax for over 2 years and I'd see it all the time, people just wouldn't have a clue about their own situation.  In those days most of my companies clients came through referrals from a company who had promised to reduce the tax bill of contractors by effectively making them self employed, the problem was they had just heard the bottom line figure they had been promised by a sales person and not taken in what they had signed up to.  


These people weren't exactly the same as Jimmy, they were taking advantage of government incentives for the self employed (or were supposed to) to save a little bit on their tax bill as opposed to just paying 1%, so I doubt he was as naive as some of the people that I came across.  At the same time his situation is apparently legal, so I defy anyone reading this to say that they intentionally pay more tax than they legally have to.


I personally don't blame Jimmy, or any of the other celebrities/people who have been operating in this way, from taking advantage of the "loophole", I blame the people who allow this sort of arrangement to be in place to begin with.  You can't just blame the Tories for this, even if many of them have benefited (I believe George Osborne is due to pay a lot less in inheritance tax in the future because of his trust fund's 15% stake in Osborne & Little), you have to also blame Labour, who in 13 years didn't close down all of these schemes, and the Tories that came before them, and Labour before that...  People will always find a way to minimise tax, it's the Government's job to make sure that everyone pays their fair share and to not allow these schemes to exist.  

Bad reporting and "research" can do more harm than good...

I've had quite a busy end of May/start of June so haven't had a chance to blog, or even keep up with most news stories (being out of the country/at a festival tends to cut you off).  However one story that caught my eye (well I couldn't miss it on the one day I bought a paper) "Young cannabis users 'do not realise the huge danger to their health'".  It particularly claims that smoking cannabis is 20 times worse than smoking cigarettes.

Now I welcome any attempt to improve the health of people and to educate people (particularly younger people) to the dangers of drug use - as I've often said, I would combat drug abuse through education rather than prohibition, however all this is doing is perpetuating a popular drug myth that has even been debunked on Wikipedia.  In fact most of the damage that is done comes from the fact it is commonly mixed with tobacco.  

I was pleased to see when I returned home a rebuttal in my inbox from the excellent Professor David Nutt:

"The BLF’s lack of care with the evidence, and the media’s lack of care in fact-checking, could have the opposite effect from their good intentions. Public confidence in science as a means of getting to the truth can only be harmed when the BBC reports “experts” mistakenly declaring that what 88% of us apparently think about cannabis is wrong. What’s more, if the BLF’s misguided information is believed, people could actually be put at greater risk of lung cancer, for example by cutting down on the cannabis in their joints and padding them out with more tobacco, or by making parents relatively more relaxed about finding out that their teenagers smoking cigarettes every day than finding out that they smoke the occasional joint."

That paragraph I think picks up on one of the most important aspects.  I've known plenty of people (the amount of festivals I go to it's hard not to be exposed to it) who smoke the occasional joint - not even that, it's more of a social thing where they might have a couple of tokes.  Yes people can get addicted to it and some people do abuse it but very few of the people I know who smoke cannabis would be classed as regular users whereas 100% of my cigarette smoking friends are addicts.

I'd recommend that everyone reads Professor Nutt's piece, he's not some liberal who wants to end prohibition like me, he is just an expert who was fired by the former Labour Government for pointing out that their drugs policy didn't make sense, alcohol and tobacco being much worse for people than numerous restricted drugs.

More graduates are in low paid work because... there are more graduates!

The BBC's website has the following headline:

"More graduates in low skilled jobs, figures show"

Pointing to the fact that around a third of graduates from 2011 were in low skilled jobs at the end of 2011, in comparison with around a quarter in 2001.  Quite an increase.  


This is ridiculously intuitive, yet at no point in their article/post do they mention that in 2001 there were 504,401 students who qualified from higher education of which 272,665 obtained "first degrees", whilst in 2011 there were 762,540 qualifiers with 369,010 obtained "first degrees". 

In other words people qualifying from higher education has risen by 51% with the amount of students obtaining their first degrees has increased by 35% over the 10 year period - this also isn't a surprise given Labour's goal of getting as many youngsters as possible to University.  Unless there is also a greater demand for the skills (or unless the correct skills are being learnt) then the number (and proportion) of graduates in low skilled jobs is bound to rise - it's not rocket science!


I have always thought that getting people to university shouldn't be the end goal, as far too many students chose a degree which wont have a use for them once they complete their course and as such they have basically just earned an expensive piece of paper.  Rather than the policy of encouraging everyone to go, we should make sure that the right people go (those who will benefit from it), on the right courses and that enough other options are available to those who chose not to.  


Typically the BBC balance their article with statistics that "prove" that it is still worth while going to University:

• The typical hourly wage for graduates between 21 and 64 is £15 in comparison with £9 for non-graduates.
  
• Proportion employed 86% for graduates and 72.3% for non-graduates.

However these statistics are meaningless - because there is a huge bias in the sample!  Those who go to University are likely to be more intelligent and more driven than those who do not so would tend to be better off irrespective of a degree.

I'm not saying that students shouldn't go to or aspire to going to university, but they have to do what is going to be best for them in the long run and for many an apprenticeship, a trainee programme or even setting out on their own would be more beneficial.

February 29th - that can only mean one thing...

In general I like leap years as it means one thing - it's an Olympics year.  As a sports fan it is something that gets me excited.  Not excited enough to buy tickets mind, I'm spending enough going to cricket matches and music festivals in the summer - but I always enjoy it being on TV.

There is something else 'special' about a leap year, on 29 February (today), custom dictates that it is the one day women are "allowed" to pop the question to their significant other.  This annoys me for two reasons:

• Women should never have to be "allowed" to do something that a man needs no permission to do.  Although I feel that marriage can be a wonderful thing for two people who love each other and want to commit to being together I think this day helps to illustrate just how unequal women still appear with regards the institution of marriage.
• The other thing is that this week every message board or letters page I've read has had requests from men wanting advice on how to avoid their girlfriend's proposal, with loads of suggestions on how to avoid them for an entire day/put them off.  Surely if they want to get married and you don't then you are in the wrong relationship or this is something you should talk about (it may just be timing) rather than avoiding the issue like a child.  These men make me angry, they should grow some balls and deal with issues in their relationships rather than looking at ways to avoid them - who's to say that their partner would even want to marry them if they act like that?  Seriously guys grow up!

Don't reduce speed limits to 20mph - get rid of them all together...

I don't know how this has come about, but over the last week or so there have been numerous occasions when  my Twitter feed has contained calls for 20 miles an hour speed limits in certain (sometimes all) residential places.

I see the point, speed kills, it is a fact that two identical accidents, one at 20mph one at 70mph the latter would be more likely to have fatalities.  Therefore surely by reducing the maximum speed a vehicle is legally allowed to go there will be fewer accidents and even lower fatality rates, right?

Well this is where I disagree, in fact I would go as far as to remove all speed limits, everywhere.  Now people might think this is the crazy liberal coming out in me (i.e. people should be allowed to drive as fast as they like) - far from it, this is me wanting to reduce accidents and deaths on roads.  I would also go as far as to remove all road signs that aren't directions or absolutely essential.  

There will always be reckless drivers out there - but these people tend to disregard the law anyway, a couple of digits sign wont make a difference here.  People in general though tend to drive at the speed where they feel comfortable, given the conditions, the volume of traffic, the time of day and the surrounding area.

When speed limits are in force people see them as a target, usually hovering just above (in the margin for error), often accelerating quicker to get up to this target speed when the chance arises.  However without speed limits people drive at what they feel is the most appropriate speed. 

My whole premise is that basically, by removing speed limits and traffic signs you shift the risk.  Currently the risk is with the Government, drivers have the signs and limits and think that as they are Government approved then these must be the correct actions to take.  Remove these and the driver has to fall back on their own judgement - and most people are risk averse.

Okay, you're still probably thinking this is just bull, wishy washy idea that wouldn't ever get put into place anywhere...

Except it has.

First off just think of your own experiences for a moment.  How many times have you seen traffic lights out of action?  In these junctions how many times have you seen an accident?  Also, crucially for congestion, how many times have you been held up at them?  Traffic lights are inefficient as they still hold the user on red even if no-one is using the green, roundabouts work a lot better.

Drachten's famous Shared Space Island

There is a town in The Neatherlands called Drachten, they have somewhere between 40 - 50 thousand people living there and had on average 8 serious road accidents per year, with a fatality once every three years or so.  The main junction in Drachten handles about 22,000 cars on a normal day.  In 2003 they adopted a scheme called "Shared Space", ripped out all of their traffic light systems bar 3 (which will soon also be removed) and almost all road signs.  Obviously chaos ensued... Oh no wait, it didn't... Accidents fell to an average of around 0 as has fatalities (there hasn't been one).  That's not all, this has even reduced congestion, speeded up average journey times and currently has the approval of all of the people living there.

Well this all works well and good in an urban area then (especially in a Dutch town - stereotypically lovely people one would assume), but obviously it wouldn't work on higher speed roads...

Except it does.

Typical Montana sign 1995-99

Montana.  USA.  Congress lifted all federal speed limit controls in the November 28, 1995.  Montana went non-numerical (during the day).  In this time average speeds FELL by around 7mph, and accidents fell by around 30%.  

Unfortunately this was reversed in 1999, mainly due to a court case after a driver successfully overturned a conviction for speeding having been driving at around 85mph.  There is now a maximum limit of 75mph in place.

We've also all heard about the German Autobarns, drivers are meant to use their own common sense with regard speed.  They have a better safety record than ANY American highway, and it is comparable to all other neighbouring European countries.  

Unintended Consequences

I have one final point to make, and this firmly belongs in an unintended consequences section.  You try to do things for the best, but it makes things drastically worse.  This is my most disliked traffic calming measure, as it effects every road user in every circumstance, there is no way for anyone to use their common sense and no way for people to avoid it in an emergency.  I am talking of course about speed bumps.  (Although apparently it applies to all traffic calming measures).

The problem of course is that they effect emergency vehicles too!  On average, apparently they extend response times by 14%.  In fact some studies claim that as many as EIGHTY FIVE lives are lost for every ONE live that is saved by them.



Oh, and before you go classifying me as just some young boy racer who wants to test out the top speed of his car - I haven't driven in nearly 6 years, I am more often than not, a pedestrian.  Anything that brings down needless deaths is a good thing, just make sure it's based on evidence and not a fallacy. 

A parent's job is to look after their child's best interests...

I have been very much dismayed to see the story of Zach Avery plastered all over the papers this week.  For those who don't know Zach is a five year old who has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, born as a boy Zach feels like a girl.


As such I have seen lots of comments, many supportive of letting the child live as they want, as they have been clearly diagnosed.  However lots have been critical, either due to their ignorance/prejudice of the condition in general or of the parenting claiming that it is their responsibility to raise the child in one way so they can make their own choices at later life.


I don't really want to get into either of these arguments, a parents job is to do what is best for their child.  Clearly Zach's parents felt that this was by allowing him to live as a her.  However I fail to see how having this as front page news, or even on any news paper could be in the best interests of a five year old.  I'm not saying he will, but I find it perfectly conceivable that this could be a phase (I would wager that 100% of children diagnosed don't then feel exactly the same once they go through puberty).  Making this "news" will only make it harder for the child once they hit their teens, irrespective of how they feel about themselves and lets face it, if Zach reaches his teens with GID then it will be hard enough as it is.  Shame on the parents for potentially putting their child through this and shame on the mass media for treating it as "news" - especially those who put it on their front page!

Should there be morality in pricing?

Last week saw the sad news of Whitney Houston's passing, it is always sad when anyone passes away at such a young age, not just because they are famous.  In the wake of this Sony made, what can best be described as a PR error, their crime was to follow the laws of economics and increased the price of her music to a new optimal level given an increase in demand.


I didn't actually hear about this at the time (to be honest, Whitney isn't exactly my thing so didn't follow any of the coverage) but it did appear as the weekend debate over on the Lib Dem Voice.  I was intrigued by some of the responses that followed.

First the simple economics - quite clearly it is a matter of fact that the optimum price for Sony to charge to maximise their profits (where Marginal Revenue meets Marginal Cost) had risen - there had been a shift in the demand curve to the right meaning that people were willing to pay more to obtain the produce, or were more willing to pay a higher price.  Whitney's career wasn't exactly at a high, so in order to encourage people to buy it (most dedicated fans would already have bought it) Sony had to sell it at a lower price than they'd have liked to optimise their profits.  Now they were faced with the situation of a growth in demand, so they can charge a higher price and make even more profit.  

The problem comes, as far as the fans are concerned, they feel that Sony could have kept their prices the same and sold an even greater amount (Q3) of her music.  In most industries this could be explained by the fact that the point for this lies to the right of the supply curve, i.e. the area where they aren't prepared to go, where it is is not cost effective to supply goods (the marginal cost is greater than the marginal revenue).  In general terms there are always surplus' for parties when the equilibrium is found, however if the Quantity/Price point obtained was at point (Q3,P1) on the above diagram then there would also be a producer deficit. 


So in general terms you would say that they are justified in raising their prices, otherwise they lose out.  The problem for Sony however, where downloads are concerned at least, the marginal cost is pretty low, so much so that you'd expect the supply curve to plateau, they'd reach a price that was equal to their marginal cost (or a fraction above it) and they'd be happy to accept as many downloads as possible as their fixed costs wouldn't change - particularly as most of their items are actually sold through third party websites such as iTunes.


Now I get to the morality of it all.  One poster said that another "know(s) the price of everything and the value of nothing" for pointing out the economic argument, however, surely by Whitney passing her music is now more valuable.  As I said, any true fan would already have owned her music, her death has for some reason made it more desirable to own, nobody is forced to pay the price that Sony wants to charge and as it's a free market they should be able to charge what they like.  I couldn't help but notice, when hunting for the first image I used in this post that the CD was out of stock on most websites.  If pressure hadn't forced prices down then those who would derive more utility and therefore pay a higher price for her music would have had a greater opportunity to buy it rather than those who are considering it a casual purchase - for them to be out of stock it was quite clearly under priced.


As Simon McGrath says:

"No-one was forced to buy her music they could have brought something else. Under this scenario everyone gains. People purchasing her music are willing to do so at a higher price and will buy up to the price where they would rather keep the money than but the music. Sony gains (and depending on the details of her contract) her family gains."

So assuming there is something in the contract where her estate receives a share of the proceeds then surely the moral thing is not to force a reduction in the price when those she left behind could have gained more from her talent. 


At the end of the day, being priced out of buying her music does not stop anyone listening to it, I'd imagine that a fair amount had been on the radio and anyone who wants to listen digitally but doesn't want to pay the price that the owners of the music want to charge, they can just use Spotify!

Richard Branson - a man who talks sense...

A few days ago (yet again I'm slow writing about something) I was really pleased to see a high profile figure voicing a very sensible opinion on drug use due to his work as part of the global drugs commission.  Below is an interview he had with Sky News:

The main message he is setting out is that drugs should be a health problem and not a criminal one.  I have argued this many times that the way our society acts is one of punishment - taking drugs is bad/immoral/whatever and as such you should be punished.  In reality surely it would be much better for society if these people were not handed ridiculous criminal records and instead were given the help that they need (if indeed they need help) to become a productive member of society.

Anyone with a criminal record will find it hard to find employment, or at least as good employment as they could have previously obtained, as such they are not fulfilling their potential and we all lose out.  This is a vicious circle as once you hinder someone's chances by giving them a criminal record they are less likely to 'get themselves clean' and more likely to stay on drugs.

A point I hadn't previously raised regarding decriminalisation (or perhaps more appropriate to legalisation) is that by doing so you remove the ability of certain people to get others 'hooked' on a drug and become dependent on that person and as a result a life of crime.  

I disagree that the overall aim should be to reduce the number of drugs users (as I don't think that this sort of moral decision should be imposed by anyone), however the aim should be to reduce the harm to each individual and society as a whole, the only way I see this as being possible is to bring people out of the shadows so they can receive any support that they need and for those who don't have a problem to not have their lives ruined by a silly criminal conviction.

Basically it can be summed up on one phrase mentioned below:

"The war on drugs is not working - there needs to be a rethink".

It always pleases me to hear another sensible voice adding their weight to the argument, unfortunately I don't see any changes happening soon!

A woman's place is in the kitchen...

...according to the Metro at least:

I wonder what percentage of men manage to cook a festive meal without a mishap, how many of them make decent gravy, remember to defrost the turkey and know how long it should be cooked for.  How much of the pressure is also applied by men doing it?


I find it interesting that an article like this is published at the same time as a discussion in the letters page regarding a previous article and the attitude lad's mags have to women.  I feel that stereotypes like the one above are just as bad at demeaning women.  


That said, I think I'll try and be a little more helpful this year when I get back from having a drink with the men whilst the women are in the kitchen... just because it's tradition doesn't make it fair.

Unison calling for a summarily sacking? #Clarkson

I really worry about people at times.  Unions do some great things protecting their workers and ensuring their rights are upheld, yet here they are coming out and demanding that a man is sacked for making a joke.  This isn't just a man making an inappropriate joke in the work place, this is someone who's paid to make jokes.  He was introduced as someone who makes controversial statements so surely if that is what the BBC are employing him for then if Jeremy Clarkson makes a controversial statement then they can't complain.  


I'd like to put the whole thing into context.  When asked his opinion on the strikes he initially said it was "fantastic" as it made getting around so much easier.  

"Everybody's stayed at home, you could wiz about, restaurants are empty..airports, people streaming through."

Then to follow this up he indicated that as this is the BBC he needed to be balanced and give the counter view (mocking the BBC's editorial guidelines here was probably his aim) and that is when he said: 

"I'd have them all shot.  I'd take them outside and execute them in front of their families."

The clip can be seen here:

Now I don't think anyone can say that these were sensible comments, personally I didn't find them particularly funny, but at the end of the day this was a joke that you can tell he was saying for effect.  In my mind there is a clear pause where he is sensing how the first part of the joke ("I'd have them all shot") went down with the studio audience (there was some laughter) before he decided it was good enough to expand on.


You can't go around summarily sacking people for doing exactly what you pay them to do just because one of their attempts to fulfil their job description isn't well received - even if it warranted it there is due process to be followed, something that Unions have spent years campaigning for.


David Allen Green has written an excellent post on his blog analysing the press release by Unison.  The key question he raises for me is that is it a good use of Unison's finite resources to be trying to get someone sacked - is this really in the best interests of their members?  


The other excellent post I've read on this issue was by Dave Gorman - "Jeremy Clarkson should be lined up and shot*" (Not really).  He is highlighting the hypocrisy of people, who would possibly have been defending the twitter joke trial where Paul Chambers was arrested for the following tweet:

 "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

Getting the police involved (as has been suggested as a possibility by Unison) would be as ridiculous as the twitter joke case.  I don't think it should be a universal right to not be offended.  If it were then we'd still be living in a Puritan society as almost everything is going to cause offence to someone.  He was not encouraging people to go out and shoot any striker he was just trying to make a controversial joke, and oh look it worked - As David Allen Green said, he's turned the whole story (and Unison have facilitated it) to be about him rather than the aims of those who went on strike.  It would have served them better to treat him  as an irrelevance and perhaps made a complaint to the PCC.  


At the end of the day, Clarkson has the right to say what he likes, that's the great thing about freedom of speech.  I for one would hate to see that right watered down further.

Getting my news from Fox... UK media ignoring the story?

In all fairness, apparently it is on the Times' website as well, but I can't get beyond the paywall!

Anyway the story I'm talking about is: 

UK Government's Official Drug Advisers Want to Decriminalize All Personal Drug Use

It is good to see that the advisory committee is waking up to the possibility that the current war on drugs may not be the best way of minimising harm to society.  I am not sure I agree with the following however:

"The council also suggests drug users could have their driving licenses and passports confiscated as part of a civil rather than criminal penalty."

Yes, a civil offence is an improvement, however restricting people's movement is very illiberal.  Just because a person takes drugs doesn't mean that they drug drive.  They could require their vehicle to get to work or complete their job.  Depriving them of this could be just as bad for them as a criminal charge.  At the same time, possession does not necessarily indicate a willingness to smuggle!  If these measures were put into force they could only possibly be justifiable for those carrying the largest quantities.

It is disappointing that so little of the British media has picked up on the story, perhaps this shows that the debate currently is being hindered by the media's reluctance to accept that there could be an alternative.  Although, in their defence, I can't find where either Fox or The Times got their information - I am hoping it'll become apparent later and that I have not been misquoting them!

Alcohol vs Cannabis

Professor David Nutt has written another excellent short article looking at the relative harms of alcohol and cannabis use and how the current legislation is illogical.  Unfortunately I'm not going to subscribe to read the full report but his article says all it needs to.

My common point when it comes to these factors is even if you strip away my moral reasons for drugs legalisation the current prohibition is illogical, as it doesn't look at the relative harms to society or the individual, merely keeping alcohol legal because it's currently legal.

"Estimating the true relative harms of alcohol and cannabis is not easy as there are no societies today where the two drugs are equally available. However where neither are legal – as in some Islamic states – alcohol appears to cause more dependence than cannabis, even in Morocco a traditional cannabis growing country."

Yes it is hard to completely compare legal and illegal drugs (that reminds me of the conversation Mr Nutt said he once had with Jacqui Smith as I mentioned before) but that doesn't mean that the comparatives shouldn't be looked at. We all see the damage that alcohol does to our society, I think the most underestimated thing about drugs legalisation would be the positive externality of reduced alcohol intake.  

The only bit of this post I don't like is the start:

"I am often asked the question “if cannabis was as freely available as alcohol how many would use it and would its harms increase?.  Of course the answer is yes to both." 

That answer doesn't appear to answer the question - I think it should have read would usage increase and would harms increase. 

I don't know how you can say harms would definitely increase, given that as stated in his post the Netherlands has one of the lowest cannabis usage rates amongst young people.

Lib Dem drugs policy motion...

Yet more sensible voices on drugs policy.  This time the Guardian reports 

"The UK Drugs Policy Commission  ... says it backs the broad thrust of the Lib Dem motion to be debated on Sunday."

The motion itself basically calls for:

• The removal of criminal penalties for possession
• A regulated market for cannabis
• Expanded heroin maintenance clinics. 

On a couple of occasions it makes reference to the brave Portuguese model that I have written about previously.  At the end of the day surely it just comes down to something similar to what I wrote in my last blog  (about the judicial system), is the aim to minimise use, minimise harm and minimise cost (to both the user, society and the Government)?  If so then it would seem that the current policy is not working and we should try something else.  However all to often it appears that the policy is set out to just penalise people and punish them for wanting to live in a different way than the tabloid media and the establishment think is right.

This is one of the major reasons I know the Liberal Democrats are the right party for me - summed up by Ewan Hoyle (of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform):

"Hoyle said he hoped the party would take pride that its internal democracy allowed the membership to select the motion for debate without being vetoed by concerns about "reactionary tabloid hysteria"

I am proud that the party I am a member of can have a grown up, reasoned, evidence based debate on this.  It is also pleasing that such knowledgeable people as the members of the UK Drugs Policy Commission also broadly support it.

"Consulting opinion pollsters is surely one of the worst imaginable methods of devising a criminal justice policy,"

"Consulting opinion pollsters is surely one of the worst imaginable methods of devising a criminal justice policy"

I think this is probably one of the most sensible comments I've heard in relation to criminal justice policy, so imagine my surprise when it turns out that the person who said it is Peter Oborne, Chief Political Commentator for the Daily Telegraph.  This is written in his Foreword to a report by the criminal justice think-tank 'Make Justice Work' and has been analysed by Mark Easton, who as usual appears to be spot on.

The other key sentence I picked out from the Foreword is:

"If our key goal is to reduce the number of victims of crime then we really need to take seriously the lessons emerging from rehabilitation programmes like these"

The key problem in my view with the criminal justice system, is that many people see it as primarily a method of retribution - an opportunity to punish.  I say that yes there needs to be an element of "you have done wrong and as such you will be sentenced to..." but at the same time, for me, the key element should be minimising the possibility of other people becoming victims of crime.  In my view, without seeing any figures, it is perfectly intuitive that non custodial rehabilitative sentences are probably more likely to reduce re-offending rates whilst also being cheaper and doing some good within communities.  Just because a sentence hasn't sent someone to jail doesn't mean that it isn't also seen as a punishment, however it can be a punishment aimed at reforming their lives not just increasing access to a criminal network.

I can't exactly see anyone arguing that committing armed robbery, rape, murder etc should be given a non custodial sentence, however according to the prison reform trust, 59% of adults serving sentences of less than 12 months are reconvicted within one year of being released.  These are exactly the sort of people who should be sentenced to community sentences instead.  Looking through the report they cite various positive results and as such they are whole heartedly supporting Kenneth Clarke's agenda.  It is a shame therefore, that despite this funding has been cut from certain initiatives - such as The Intensive Alternative to Custody (IAC) in Manchester, which appears to have just come to the end of it's pilot.  Surely the sensible option in times of budget cuts is to expand these programmes instead of our overflowing prison system which costs a lot more.

Two days in the Dam

I haven't written a blog for a while as I've had a week off visiting my family and also a couple of days in Amsterdam with one of my oldest friends.  As such I'm only up to Sunday 28 with the Lib Dem Voice and most other blogs that I read (although I have caught up on a couple of my favourites) so the only thing I can write about now is the Dam.  

One of the many canals

For those of you who haven't been I totally recommend it.  It is genuinely a beautiful place.  Out of all of the cities I have been to it is the only one where I think I would feel comfortable if I lived there.  When I say city, I only consider major cities as cities.  In that sense I've been to all of England's, Cardiff, Paris, Seville and Malaga (the latter a bit loose in my definition).  It felt as busy as most of the others, however as everyone was on a bike the whole place seemed to be at a much nicer place.  With all of the canals it felt so serene, and the limited amount of road vehicles meant the air quality was really good.  

In the two days I was there I didn't see all of the attractions but here are the ones I did see:

Annoyingly I didn't get
a photo of my own

Anne Frank's House

This really was a humbling experience.  At first it didn't seem too bad as you were walking through what was the factory.  But then once you walked up the staircase behind the bookcase it really was almost shocking just how small their living areas were.  I had been anticipating that it would be rather small but this was even more than I had imagined.  Rob (my friend) is a rather chatty person (in a good way) but even he was subdued and in a sombre mood when we were leaving.  It was incredible that they had lived in such a small place for so long and really put into perspective the suffering that people were put through.  I had never known that Anne actually died thinking she was the last one left, however her father had survived her, I found reading about this particularly heart breaking.

No photography inside but this was
outside - not as impressive as the real
thing!

Van Gogh Museum

After the emotional visit to Anne Frank's house we decided to do the thing we had both been looking forward to to pick up our spirits a little bit.  The Van Gogh Museum has over 200 pieces by the man himself and I have to say they were very impressive.  I am not exactly an art critic but I have always been a Van Gogh fan so it was really incredible to see it all close up.  My particular favourite has always been the wheatfield with crows so I was particularly pleased to see that there.

The Heineken Experience

As we were over in that part of town we wandered across to the Heineken Experience.  Now I'm not a lager, beer or ale drinker.  I drink pretty much anything else however my pallet has never developed a liking for these.  Even so the tour was particularly enjoyable, even the tasters of Heineken were not as bad as other lagers I'd tried over the years (I still didn't drink more than a half though).  Particularly good fun was the simulator where you 'become the bottle' and Rob was also really pleased that he was able to buy a bottle with his own name on!

The Amsterdam Dungeons

With lots of time to kill and money off vouchers on our final day we decided to give the Dungeons a try.  This was not what I was expecting at all, I had hoped to see real Dungeons (the gothic side of me coming through) however it was more of a haunted house sort of feel.  You went from room to room with various actors trying to scare/intimidate you.  I was disappointed by my misconception, however given what it was it was actually a good way to spend an hour or so, though the ride at the end could have been better.  I'd still do it again for the price we paid.

Liberal

Overall, it felt really great to be in such a liberal city.  One doesn't have to partake in activities just to believe that others should be able to.  Despite the fact people could smoke inside there wasn't an overall smokey smell in most pubs we went into - though the coffee we went in for there was a different smokey smell.  The red light district wasn't as bad as I was expecting either (when you're there curiosity makes you walk through).  I tried to keep an open mind, I may have worry about the women in the booths, however you have to think this is a lot safer for them than standing on street corners and being taken away by random strangers.  

I know it's dangerous to make sweeping generalisations based on two days and nights in a place but I found the whole atmosphere to be so much more welcoming (and now I'm not talking the girls in the booths) than in the UK and I really want to go back one day - which given I want to eventually see the world I wasn't planning on doing too many repeat journeys!

Seriously, (I'm not the only one) - is it illiberal to think community service may be a good thing?

Commenting on Richard Morris's excellent blog yesterday has really got me thinking about my position in relation to national service.  It feels weird that I am not straight away against it.  I think back 9 or 10 years ago to when I was studying for my GCSEs and the period after.  In that period you do a couple of weeks work experience which I think is good to help you adapt to the working world and I wonder would some community service be that much different?  


Looking back I think I would have benefited from a couple of weeks helping out my community straight after my GCSEs.  That period between school and sixth form was a long summer, I tried to get a job but unemployment in my region was high.  A new Tesco opened up offering 300 jobs, however over 2,000 people applied - as a kid straight from school (with excellent grades and therefore unlikely to hang around for a long time) I didn't feel that I stood much chance - and didn't even get an interview.  (I'd like to highlight here that it has always been hard for young people to get onto the employment ladder so to speak - not a recent phenomenon post coalition).  I think if I had spent 2 - 4 weeks of that summer helping my community then it would have benefited me as a person as well as my community.  That said, the only work I did whilst at University (and at home during the breaks) was charity work - I couldn't find paying jobs easily so wanted to help people while I had the free time.  I know not everyone would like that.


So, I think it would have been good for me, but compulsory?  Well, I think that if it were optional the first to opt out would be those the Government had aimed it at in the first place as such I feel it should be all or nothing.  This then feels very illiberal - but surely teenagers have been forced to stay in school for this period - many against their will, so why should this be different?  I get that the obvious personal benefit is less apparent then learning but still.  So what would it take for me to potentially support it fully?  

• Firstly, I could never support any forced military service.
• There would need to be choice.  Rather than forcing a particular activity on a person they should have a range to chose from that they would prefer.
• The time period to be fairly short - two weeks would be fine I think.
• The activities shouldn't be perceived as punishments - not just tasks that people don't want to do and as such the council want cheep labour, but tasks that can genuinely benefit the community.  
• If you paid them (even a token amount) it would probably boost their self esteem and rather than just doing it for the fuzzy warm feeling they would have another reason to think it may be worth it.

However, there would be numerous problems.  Firstly, I could see it being hellishly difficult to administer.  One would expect (for a programme as per my suggestions above) that schools would be the best place for it.  However that would be costly still.  Also my school was terrible at assisting with finding us work experience, so much so that I spent my second week in school.  Fortunately as a good pupil I was allowed to spend my time in the music room (where I spent my break and lunch periods normally), working on my coursework, helping the teacher's by marking younger student's work and since it was the week before Christmas watching Shrek and also rehearsing for the school performance (which took up the whole Monday).  The others who had to return to school didn't have such an enjoyable week by all accounts.  

I also feel it would be impossible to enforce.  Kids play truant from school, this would be easier if they didn't want to do it.  Keeping track of who has completed it would be a bureaucratic nightmare.  

Would it be worth the hassle?  Possibly.  Would it be cost effective and therefore could we afford it (given the current climate)? Probably not.  Do I support it?  In principle maybe, in reality, I probably wouldn't.  If it is introduced and then ends up being like national service I know I wouldn't.  I have the image of it being introduced and treated almost as a punishment for the child reaching a particular age rather than as a chance for them to develop in a mutually beneficial way.  If it does come in, I'll have a look at what they propose and make my mind up then - which maybe I should have just stuck to all along!