View from the office window
Lies, damn lies, and terrorism
The Research Development and Statistics section of the Home Office regularly publishes extremely interesting reports, even though its website is a dog (last time I tried the mailing list signup didn't work), and more substantively its independence is hard to gauge (I don't know if, and if so why, they carry out distinct work from the Office for National Statistics, which is supposedly on a more independent footing than it was before).
I found my own way to be told of updates to its "What's New" page. The latest report is the lithely titled "Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation: Arrests, outcomes and stops & searches. Quarterly update to September 2009. Great Britain", with an accompanying press release which I can't read, although that is almost certainly my fault.
The most eye-catching figure is that a smidgen (444, to be exact) over 200,000 "stops and searches were made in Great Britain under [Section] 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in the year ending 30 September 2009" (page 15 of the report and PDF). That is a lot of terrorists stopped! Although a few of them might have been, say, innocent photographers just trying to, erm, take photographs. Interestingly, the rate at which these stopsandsearches took place decreased markedly in just one year, as can be seen clearly in Figure 2 of the report, reproduced here. The South Wales force, for example, managed to reduce their number of stopsandsearches from 662 to, erm, 0, and the analogous figures from Hampshire went from 633 to, well well, 0! I guess all those terrorists ran away, or maybe the police started to realise they were taking the piss. Now that Section 44 has been declared illegal by the European Court of Human Rights, one would hope they will stop altogether elsewhere, but the Home Office has so far refused to countenance this.
Just to show how ridiculous the number of stopsandsearches is (the vast, vast majority of which --- always over 90% --- are carried out by the Metropolitan Police), consider how many arrests and convictions follow from these stopsandsearches. According to the report, "For the year ending 30 September 2009 there were 965 arrests resulted from s44 stops
and searches in Great Britain, an arrest rate of 0.5%". The number of terrorism-related charges, let alone convictions, is not given. I'm going to bet it's quite small.
Consider the only other figure in the report (how convenient!), Figure 1, also reproduced here. It shows the proportion of charges following a terrorism-related arrest that are actually, you know, terrorism-related. It goes from almost 80% in the second quarter of 2008 to under 20% by the third quarter of 2009.
And don't forget that's just the proportion of those charge! Table 1.2, "Outcome of terrorism arrests", shows that for the two years leading to the 30th of September 2009, there were 379 terrorism arrests [although I'm not sure how this squares with the figure for arrests following Section 44 stopsandsearches given above. I think maybe they are only counting Section 41 arrests and suchlike, looking at Table 1.1], of which 66 (about 17%) led to terrorism-related charges (including those determined to be terrorism-related as "assessed by the ACTCC", whatever the hell that is), 64 (ditto%) led to non-terrorism related charges, 193 (over 50%) were released without charge, and finally 56 (about 15%) were, ahem, served with "alternative action", which "includes cautions for non-terrorism offences, transfers to immigration authorities, transfers to the PSNI, summonses and those dealt with under mental health legislation".
In case you didn't see the bold bit above, let me repeat it here: over 50% of terrorism-related arrests led nowhere. And this doesn't include the Section 43 or 44 arrests.
Truly pathetic.
Comments [0]
Libel and medicine: 2010 and 1862
The unjustness of the libel laws and the way they are administered in England and Wales (I admit to not being sure if the issue extends to the rest of Britain or the UK) is such that a very popular petition is being starting to be taken seriously.
Unfortunately that doesn't stop the ongoing nonsense, including this famed ongoing case with a medical researcher which I am not going to go into here.
But it's worth recalling that libel involving doctors isn't something new... and can even include such libellous concepts as "Vesico-vaginal and recto-vaginal fistula". If I had the time and patience I might have read the multi-page description of the case, but I'd rather you did that and then told me about it. Surely the knowledge that a pamphlet called "Vesico-vaginal and recto-vaginal fistula" is mentioned in the first paragraph should be enough to tempt you?
Comments [0]
The things the Government does
The list of "Government departments and other public bodies" that the Parliamentary Ombudsman (who is, yes, a woman) can investigate complaints against inadvertently provides a scary view of the current size of Government in the UK.
Aren't you glad we fund such luminary institutions as the following?:
Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee
Advisory Board on the Registration of Homeopathic Products
Advisory Committee on Advertising
Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infections
Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances
Advisory Committee on Carbon Abatement
Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards
Advisory Committee on Consumer Engagement
Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens
Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection
Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances
Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites
Advisory Committee on Microbiological Safety of Food
Advisory Committee on National Historic Ships
Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes
Advisory Committee on Organic Standards
Advisory Committee on Pesticides
Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS)
Advisory Council on Historical Manuscripts
Advisory Council on Libraries
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (includes Advisory Council on Historical Manuscripts and Advisory Council on Public Records)
Advisory Council on Public Records
Advisory Group on Hepatitis
Advisory Group on Medical Countermeasures
Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils
Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information
Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate
Agricultural dwelling house advisory committees
Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales
Agricultural wages committees
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
Air Quality Expert Group
Alcohol Education and Research Council
Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
Animals Procedures Committee
Appeal Officer for Community Interest Companies
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Arts Council of England (Arts Council England)
Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board
And that's just under A! What's the whackiest organisation you can find? How about the least active? I'm off to find out the budget for a randomly-picked organisation from those above. Wish me luck!
Comments [0]
Building a fortress around British academia (from Spiked)
I barely heard any opposition on BBC Radio 4's news bulletins when the Government's pointless and self-serving student visa "restrictions" were announced a few days ago, so it's good to see that Spiked has come up with the goods, as usual [despite not being paid for by a licence fee!]. The student visa bureaucracy, and indeed most of the current UK immigration procedure, is incompetent at best and malicious at worst, and helping no-one. The story quoted below is totally plausible:
One US student who started a Finance Masters at the London School of Economics in October 2009 almost lost her chance to do so when, although she had submitted all the necessary documentation in June 2009, she was informed in July that proof of sufficient funds now needed to be held in a bank account under her own name (rather than her parents’ account, as before). She did this, but was told in August that they were still expecting the rest of her documentation. So she flew to the regional processing centre, and only managed to resolve an absurd situation because she talked her way into the building to find the required documentation lying on a desk. Had she not, she would have had to restart the whole process and repay the application fee.
Basically, the latest rule changes will only harm genuine students; "bogus" immigrants and criminals will always find another way to get into the country. But as long as the Government gets good headlines, why should they care about how they're ruining the lives of powerless young foreigners? Apparently this report from the Manifesto Club covers this stuff in greater detail, but I can already predict with high levels of certainty that it was all eminently preventable.
Update: By a happy coincidence I found out that the Parliamentary Ombudsman (who is a woman) has very recently published a report about the UK Border Agency, who she does not describe as a bunch of incompetent nincompoops, but rather "have consistently generated a large number of complaints to the Ombudsman". She includes in her report case studies like the following (which I quote from the accompanying press release):
In the case of Mr P, a Jamaican man who was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 1990, it took three and a half years for the Agency to provide` him with a No Time Limit (NTL) stamp confirming his right to stay in the UK for his new 2004 Jamaican passport.
During this time Mr P was threatened with deportation and missed the funerals of his father and sister and was unable to visit his ill mother as he was afraid he would not be allowed back into the country.
The Ombudsman upheld Mr P’s complaint. The Agency agreed to apologise unreservedly and he received fee refunds of £755 and £2,500 in compensation for the severe distress, inconvenience and embarrassment.
That is an extremely small amount of compensation for such a horrendous experience. Shouldn't this sort of behaviour be a criminal offence? The immigration system is indeed broken, but not in the way the politicians keep saying.
Comments [0]
Chinese character of the day
嘣
Definition (from MDBG.net): sound of an explosion / sound of sth throbbing or bursting
Mandarin pronunciation: bēng
Pleasure: Onomatopoeic goodness (cf. "bang" in English).
Comments [0]
Not news: Cambridge still full of Tabs
From the Jewish Chronicle:
Benny Morris talk cut by Cambridge Israel society
Cambridge University’s Israel Society has been slammed for bowing to pressure from Muslim students to cancel a speech by a top Israeli historian.
Benny Morris used to be an enfant terrible of the Israeli history establishment, and was considered a "revisionist" for questioning the mainstream historiography of that country, especially with regards to its war of independence in 1948 and the exact nature of what happened to the Arabs living in Israel at that time. At some point in the mid-1990s he even considered moving away from Israel because of the hostility he was facing for carrying out his research.
Which is why this story is so incredibly stupid. Why would Muslims want his talk to be cancelled, and not the right-wing Israelis who disagree with his view of history?
The article continues:
Prof Benny Morris had been due to speak on Thursday, but the event was cancelled after complaints from, among others, the university’s Islamic and Pakistan societies who claimed he was an “Islamophobic hate speaker”.
He must hate absolutely everybody then. No examples were given in the article of any Islamophobic comments he made.
[...] the JC understands the cancellation may have been part of a pre-emptive strategy ahead of a planned visit by Daud Abdullah, Muslim Council of Britain deputy secretary.
He is due to speak on February 18 as part of Islam Week. Last year he signed the Istanbul Declaration which threatened violence against supporters of Israel and British troops. Cambridge’s Jewish students now plan to ask for his invitation to also be withdrawn.
The level of Stupid here is now too high. In order to get a talk by someone advocating violence cancelled, the Israeli society needs to "balance" it with its own cancellation? What exactly is Morris accused of, which is equal to threatening violence against those exercising their right to free speech?
Mr Witzenfeld said: “While Prof Morris’ contribution to history is highly respectable, his personal views are, regrettably, offensive to many.
“Ultimately, we place respect for those who have been offended above the importance of hosting this speaker.” [emphasis added]
So Morris is simply accused of offending someone, somewhere. By that standard, no-one will ever give a talk at the Israel Society. How about intellectual curiosity and integrity being a priority instead, Mr Witzenfeld, and letting those who are offended by intelligent debate simmer in their self-righteousness while the adults get on with their lives?
Some questions that need to be answered, urgently: how did the society come to make this decision? Was it made purely by Mr Witzenfeld, by the committee, or by the membership? If Morris is an unacceptable speaker, why was he invited in the first place?
The final irony is that Morris is going to speak at Cambridge (his alma mater, for goodness sake!) anyway:
Prof Morris said: “Basically, it is foolishness. But the cancellation has generated an invitation for me to speak at Cambridge’s Department of Political and International Studies, which will have a bigger audience.”
If the leadership of the Israel Society of Cambridge is the cream of the crop of British Jews, I'm very worried for the future.
Update: It seems that Mr. Witzenfeld needs a girlfriend. Maybe showing some cajones occasionally will help?
Also, I found the source of the quotes from Mr. Witzenfeld in the JC: the society's blog. At least some people have commented on it in disgust. Still no answer as to what exactly the process was that led to this blatant act of stupidity.
A student newspaper at Cambridge and the Jerusalem Post have a little more on the matter, very little of which is reassuring.
Comments [0]
Cadbury's not owned by Cadbury's any more since, erm, a long time ago actually
The board of Cadbury's have agreed a takeover of their firm by Kraft. (You're not allowed to read it in Japan, apparently, so be very, very careful).
A woman who isn't sure if she even owns shares in Cadbury's complains on the radio about it. The woman happens to be a descendant of the founder of Cadbury's, as though that makes any difference.
Here's an idea for future family-owned firms: if you don't want your firm to be bought by naughty foreigners, don't sell shares in it on the open market, as Cadbury Schweppes PLC had been doing since 1969. Genius.
By the way: is this the same Cadbury's that has gobbled up lots of other previously-independent confectionary makers? That was part of the enormous multinational Cadbury Schweppes until 2008? That has had a scandal pretty much every single year for the last few years? So not really something to be overly proud of now, is it?
Please keep your pathetic self-righteousness to yourself, if you find yourself tempted to share it. If you wanted to keep Cadbury PLC "British" for whatever reason (where "British" can include being owned by shareholders all over the world, as long as they don't own all of it), you should have put your money where your mouth is and done something about it, like offering a higher counter-offer to Kraft's one. Otherwise, put up and shut up.
Comments [0]
A wise namechange
An amusing titbit I received today from the American Statistical Association as a new member:
Originally called the American Statistical Society, the organization's name was changed at its first meeting
I wonder why...
Comments [0]
Expenses claims revealed, to an ext--t
The latest MPs' expenses have been revealed. Much juicier findings will be available elsewhere, but I just wanted to draw attention to a minor but telling detail I came across which goes some way to explaining why Parliament is held in such contempt by the public these days.
James Plaskitt is "my" MP. I have little complaint with his Additional Costs Allowance claims, as far as they go. I can't countenance paying for politicians' mortgages, but that's the system currently in place and is not what I want to discuss here. Here is the PDF document containing the scans of all of his latest claims. Take your time reading through it if you like; it's only recently we gained this right, after all, and it should be savoured. At length you will reach the last page. There are many redactions throughout this document, but given that the items are redacted, it is quite impossible to know whether those redactions are justified or not. However, on this last page is a letter to Mr. Plaskitt from an (anonymous) Assistant Validation Officer of the Department of Resources of the House of Commons, informing him that his broadband won't be paid for (even though telephone calls will be, for some unfathomable reason). At the top of this letter are Mr Plaskitt's contact details -- or, rather, part of them. The last few digits of his phone and fax numbers are hidden, as is the first part of his email address. The second part of his email address, however, is shown, and it is: @parliament.ukSo it's his parliamentary email address being kept private! Why would it be kept private?!? This is an especially stupid state of affairs because his email address can easily be found (as it should be), at the BBC, along with those phone and fax numbers. Here they are again, along with other information available from that site: Constituency:Warwick & Leamington
Party:
Labour
Date of birth:
23 June 1954
Office address:
Department for Work & Pensions, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London , SW1A 2NS
Office phone:
020 7219 6207
Office fax:
020 7219 4993
Office e-mail:
plaskittj@parliament.uk
Constituency address:
First Floor, 2A Leam Terrace, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV31 1BB
[Mr. Plaskitt's picture is also at the BBC site, but I'll leave it there for your viewing pleasure].Argh. When will this ridiculous culture of secrecy finally disappear? I sincerely hope it's before there's a revolution.
Comments [0]
Comments [0]