Against targets for women speakers in tech conferences?

Just a quick and dirty flowchart on targets in tech conferences for speakers (it talks about women, it could be a lot of different groups)

Employment is falling, unemployment is rising

Just wanted to make a quick post about how our government, and the media, is absolutely misleading us on the "success" of our economic fight back in terms of the new jobs being created. You will hear each month how many more tens of thousands of people are in work, and that less people are unemployed...yet it never tallies with our country's economic growth. Indeed the reality is that while we can be cautiously, very cautiously, optimistic on employment, our unemployment levels have been rising for a decade, and aren't slowing.

Here is the data, all taken from the Labour Force Survey (the vertical axis is percentage of population age 16-64 that year, horizontal is the year), with 2012 compiled from average data from 2012 we have so far...

Trends for Employment, Unemployment and Economic Inactivity since 1971 for all aged 16-64


From this you should be able to see that employment has generally slightly increased since 1971, but so has unemployment. The economically inactive have moved in to those two "definitions". However that's just the trend, which may not be entirely appropriate for this range of dates, since it is completely clear that we are facing our biggest employment crisis since the last time the Tories were in power. However we are clearly not suffering to the level we were in the 80s.

This picture is a little too long, the best we can say is that we aren't doing well right now on employment, and out unemployment has been an ongoing problem for over a decade...

Trends for Employment, Unemployment and Economic Inactivity since 1997 for all aged 16-64


...as this graph shows. Starting with when Labour took power. Employment is obvious, it was rising under Labour, then the recession hit, and it's barely recovering now. This does not mean that employment trends are not now on the rise.

But the interesting thing is unemployment. That too is still on the rise, and has been since sometime in Labour's second term. The recession boosted unemployment levels, but they're still growing. Recent unemployment tallies mostly with the recession effect, but there is also a clear correlation between a drop in economic inactivity and unemployment.

Is this because Labour and the coalition have made it harder to exist outside of the working/not working dichotomy? Is it an effect of an aging population? Is it just more political tinkering with who is defined as what in an age where higher education and other programs have grown?

Trends for Employment, Unemployment and Economic Inactivity since 1997 for MALES aged 16-64


Looking at men, the general shape of rates of employment match closely to the data for both genders with two key differences. First, the drops and rises are much more pronounced. The recession hit men harder, but they are also recovering jobs and getting out of unemployment better than women (graph below).

Second, more and more men are moving in to economic inactivity. This is showing cautious signs of change in 2012, but it is interesting to see that men since Labour have taken power have moved generally out of unemployment and in to economic inactivity.

Trends for Employment, Unemployment and Economic Inactivity since 1997 for FEMALES aged 16-64


The effects of the recession had a more limited effect on women, and since Labour took power, and through the coalition, there has been a drop in economic activity levels. But when you hear that the coalition is hurting women the most it is this data that proves it. Unlike the men unemployment is still on the rise for women, consistently so. Meanwhile employment opportunities seem to be fairly stagnant.

Overall:

The fact is that our employment rates are nothing to be celebrating. We should be happy they aren't dropping but there are only slight signs of consistent recovery right now. Women are suffering under unemployment and we don't necessarily know how many people have moved from a relatively "good" position in economic inactivity to a bad one of unemployment. In general for every cheer you give for our unemployment, you should give a groan for unemployment rising too.

As for "records" that are talked of being broken, our employment rate now compared to 1971 is not favourable, and isn't anywhere near as good as it was under Labour. Unemployment, on the other hand, is growing dangerously close to being comparable to the early 90s, which should be concerning the coalition a whole lot more than it is as it cuts budgets and locks people in to cycles of poverty with their social security cutting policy, and draconian benefit workfare schemes.

*caveats apply, the way that these terms are defined will have been tweaked as time has gone on, for example people that are currently being forced to work for no pay, just to keep their meager benefits are not counted as unemployed, they will at worst be counted as economically inactive.

Conferences and quotas, pt2.

I feel that when it comes to "discussing" the issue of the representation of minorities in our profession of web creators, people get themselves in to paradoxical positions all too easily. After a little spat today it's clear that, once again, there are a group of people that don't realise they should either be supporting those of us that are saying diversity quotas are a good idea, or should accept that they are being discriminatory in their opinion.

"How are they being discriminatory?" you might ask, or as someone on twitter has lamented (paraphrasing) "Don't disagree with quotas, even if you agree with equality, you'll be labeled a misogynist!"

Well, yes, you might...and perhaps the fact you don't quite see the obvious link that makes that label apply to you is part of your problem.

You see people calling for quotas aren't saying that people who are bad speakers should be on the roster, they're saying that there are talented people of all colours and creeds and in order to help nurture future talent in a diverse way we should showcase our diversity.

Now, if you agree with this you shouldn't disagree with quotas. The implementation of a quota doesn't reduce the amount of quality on offer, it only changes the person that is standing on stage in front of you. Your experience doesn't change, no-one that doesn't deserve the spotlight has been given a platform. It's essentially exactly the same situation as if the conference organiser had willingly chosen to create a diverse line-up rather than being (for the want of a better term) "forced" to.

But if you view that those, especially women, are pushing quotas because they want "token" women for diversity reasons you are NOT accepting that women have just as much talent and ability to stand on that stage. You are, perhaps implicitly, letting your prejudices on show. Your first instinct is that women don't deserve to be there in the first place, and it shows in your language.

So if you are disagreeing with quotas have a long, hard think and ask yourself why you really oppose them, and don't complain that you're getting called on your prejudices while you do.

When is a Royal veto, not one's?

Alright, so a load of republicans have their arses in their hands right now in frustration about the "outrage" of the royal family members having a "veto" on laws of the land.

How terrible is this! The Queen and her offspring telling us what laws are adequate for one's country while a general conspiracy is afoot to subvert the population's awareness of this horrid and nefarious scheme!

Or, it's still as ceremonial as all functions have always been perhaps?

We know, for example, that the Queen has to swear in a new government (and that it is for parliament to decide on that government). It's all pomp and ceremony really since the Queen has no power.

Let me just repeat this again. The Queen has no power, at least no more than any other significant land owner in this country, the same goes for Charles.

So then, what are all these instances of veto's about?

Well the one cited prominently in the daring expose by the Guardian is that of the Queen vetoing any kind of move to take power from her to declare wars. The fiend!

Except the reality is that the bill that sparked such a thing was a backbench bill by some MPs that really didn't like the idea of going to war without having a say. The Prime Minister? Tony Blair, a man who would then go on to press on with an attack 4 years later based on dodgy evidence and shrouded in spin and dirty politics.

The Queen was not responsible for the veto of this bill, Tony Blair was.

Not convinced? Well how about the Palace of Westminster (Removal of Crown Immunity) Bill. I mean, look at that, removal of Crown Immunity! I guess the Queen must have vetoed that because, well, who would give up immunity?

Take a look at the debate...

Mr Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) said about the Bill. Are we to understand that the dilatory behaviour of the Palace is preventing the House from debating an important measure to protect the conditions of staff employed in this building and to give them the conditions that they would enjoy anywhere else?

Miss Betty Boothroyd (West Bromwich West)
Let me help the hon. Gentleman if I can. It is no reflection on the Palace, as the hon. Lady knows. An application is made to a Minister, and the hon. Lady is perfectly entitled and right to take the action that she now proposes to take.

Ah...so an administration error then, just one that happens to have "The Queen did not give consent" labelled on it as if she gave an active answer in such a (priority wise, lowly) private members bill.

Then there is the case of when she callously vetoed Lords Reform in 1990. I mean, if she isn't for giving up her own powers as the above examples so amply demonstrate, then why would she want loads of Lords to lose their jobs?

Oh, wait, no...just another administrative issue that was rectified later that year. The politicians on the other hand...well, just try and find a reference to Lords reform in 1990.

Of course it's not just the Queen, it's the Prince of Wales, Charles too. However there is no evidence of the Prince's consent ever having presented itself in a way to "veto" any bill.

Does this mean that bills haven't been altered in order to favour the royal family?

Well for a start this would have to happen before any bills even went to parliament, where they are recorded at every stage. For the bill to change there has to be approval by the person putting the bill forward, or a vote. The stage at which the Prince or Queen's consent is sought is almost always (as far as I can see) AFTER the bill has been published, it's just a matter of protocol.

Yet without fail the Queen and Prince give their consent on everything that they are asked. This is because, ultimately, this isn't a secretive consultation to get the approval from the most well known family in the country, but a simple administrative process that is only one of many quaint and out-dated...but ultimately harmless...rituals that tradition requires.

So, let's ask this question again. How exactly is what we have in front of us a case of the monarchy interfering in democracy, hmm?

What about the shadowy half-brother of "taking offence"?

It's been an interesting few days for those within certain circles on Twitter, and no doubt regular readers of either the New Statesman and Observer. Those who seem to dip in to professional trolling have had a big fight about being trolled...someone has "quit" Twitter because she was bullied only to have her friend bully without a hint of irony in one of the most vile ways I've ever read.

There are a couple of other blog postings that cover that particular issue and it's direct philosophical musings very well, I suggest you go read.

What I want to talk about is the rather overlooked issue of those who have taken justification. This shadowy half-brother of taking offence is overlooked, yet is actually the bigger problem that results from usually half-thought-out ramblings.

Take "James Delingpole". Charlie Brooker here is right, when you have professional trolls paid by the big publishers to get page views then what they are writing is not worth your time getting offended...or at least not pursuing after you've been offended.

But that doesn't solve the problem of those that have taken justification at his views. Those who will point to a prominent article written in a national paper (with it's own regulation!) and claim some kind of endorsement of their own prejudice.

Does James Delingpole or Jan Moir really hate as many people as they seem to? Maybe. Is that a problem? Only in so much as they normalise and legitimise what they're saying because of the (debatable) breadth of their reach and the reputation the brand they're writing under gives them.

To those sitting at the end of the Burchill Observer travesty and saying simply that people should not get offended so easily, or that they should just ignore it, are missing that, in this specific instance, that very charge against the victims of a heavily weighed attack on their way of life is an insult in itself. People that are forgotten about, or where they are not are ridiculed as somehow being "lesser", being told to just "live with it" is hardly a compassionate or reasonable thing to say.

But it is made even less reasonable because of that issue of those that take compliment. Those people that will look at the article and not see a horrible piece of hypocritical hate speech, but instead vindication of their own prejudices that they themselves cannot actually see as wrong.

We don't equally turn to these people and say they have no right to take someone's article and feel that sense of vindication, we for some reason only focus on those who get offended. Both sides are vocal, though admittedly those who are offended are usually more so, but those who decry (for example) twitter's downfall in to "twitterstorms" and "twittermobs" only focus on those people.

And of course the reason is that those who are offended are all too ready to say "I don't think this should be said" rather than their half-brothers and half-sisters who are massaging egos while shouting "No, I love hearing this, write more cheap trash!"

I'll never be happy in a world where those writing either their own blogs, or in the newspapers, feel that they need to self-censor hugely. If someone feels something they should feel free to write about that, as wrong or right as modern society believes that to be. There is a responsibility here, and not one that resides in writing up your piece and then deciding not to run with it, or with an editor saying "You're going to cause too much heat, let's not publish this one"...but with not engaging those you disagree with in such a manner that you provide ammunition against those that may not be too dissimilar to yourself to those who look for any bit of apologist rhetoric that they can use to justify their anti-equality agenda.

A little bit of compassion goes a long way, and by engaging with your detractors you not only help to stop the storms and mobs that you supposedly hate, but you also keep your views from becoming the property of those with agendas that you would rather not be aiding. If you say something stupid and can't stop yourself from saying it, fine...but please learn when you put your hands up and say "sorry" instead of shouting "shut up, troll"

Keeping things "fair"

A farmer has three fields, and keeps a set of horses in one, cows in another and pigs in the last one.

In the field with the horses there is a plentiful amount of grasses covering it's entirety, and is by some margin the largest field; there would have to be significant loses to the grass before the horses would be left wanting. The cows have the next largest field, though half of it's land is covered by hard standing and poor quality soil that yields little grass. The farmer supplements their natural grass growth with hay.

The pigs have the worse lot, they have a large shed and an outdoor area that is devoid of natural food. All the food they get is provided by the farmer in troughs.

One year the weather was particularly bad for the farm, and the horses found that a patch of their large field had not grown grass properly through a combination of early droughts and then late floods on the valley side.

Some of these horses were extremely frustrated, they were used to having any area of the field to graze from, and the complete freedom that afforded. However, when they looked over at the pigs they were incensed.

The pigs, you see, were still getting the same amount of food as before, the amount they needed, from the farmer while the horses had to suffer a reduced (though still surplus) supply of natural grass.

Naturally the horses complained. Worried that nothing would be able to pull the ploughs if the horses got too upset, the farmer scaled the amount of food he provided to the pig's troughs by a similar fraction as the horses had lost in their field.

Wanting to be fair, and avoid any further arguments, the farmer did the same with the hay supplied to the cows. The cows were too pre-occupied agreeing with the horses about the similar loss of the natural grass growth in their smaller field, and arguing about how much more valuable they are to the farmer than the pigs, to notice the implications straight away.

The horses were now happy, they had more food than they would need. The cows were happy for a while, until they realised that they barely had enough food between the natural grass and the hay to go around, and the pigs were miserable...unable to produce healthy young and were poor prospects for the farmer.

But at least everything was done "fairly", so who can complain?

How the Lib Dems have failed us.

Yesterday's vote on the benefit cap was, for me, the last straw. I've been more than supportive of various interactions that they have had in government, given their ideology and membership base. I still don't see the NHS changes as anything other than a win for the Lib Dems with the resulting compromise.

However the fact that the Lib Dems have consistently, at commons level, failed to protect the poor shows that they are simply not liberal enough for me. Waving through the scrapping of legal aid so that only the rich can afford to defend themselves was strike one. Strike two came with the "social cleansing" style rule to cap housing benefits and thus price poor families out of certain areas of the country regardless of their circumstance.

So yesterday, the active worsening of living conditions for all of the poorest people in society, standing shoulder to shoulder with the utter bullshit mantra that somehow the poorest don't deserve to get percentage terms higher rises in income than someone who doesn't receive benefits and probably, actually, is getting along just fine in the pay progression stakes, is my strike three.

Lib Dems will, and are, crowing about two things that further show how far they have fallen from what those like me hoped was a more pragmatic and principled party. The first is that Labour have some nerve, hypocrites that they are, in standing against this policy.

Yes. Labour are hypocrites. We know this. They are opportunistic, the sun also rises every day. This doesn't even remotely give you the right to play apologist for the worsening of living conditions of the poorest in our society, furthering inequality in this country rather than reducing it.

Second, the "fairer taxes" stuff. The only way that you bringing "million of people out of tax" all together is if you create an environment that allows their pay to rise, and that doesn't reduce their other income so that such a tax cut is irrelevant.

Since 2009 the tax allowance has risen by some £3k, and will save those on a full time minimum wage job £681 compared to that year. What does that matter when your changes to benefits mean that your income is rising below the cost of living? All that the tax changes have succeeded in doing now, thanks to the draconian standards of support that Lib Dems have been vital in supporting, is that middle income individuals are taking almost £700 extra into their pockets while the poor do not.

It's a shambles that the Lib Dems have turned what could have been a very progressive policy in to an utterly regressive system...rewarding those that happen to be in work on a comfortable wage while merely maintaining (at best) the situation for the poor.

The legacy of the Lib Dems in 2015 should have been that they stopped illiberal policy, rolled back the surveillance state, and protected the poor from even suffering equal (in percentage terms) losses in income compared to those much more well off. As time goes on it looks more and more like they're failing in all three, but it is the last one that is going to make it hard...no...impossible for me to support them at the ballot box.

Supporting IE7, that'll cost extra?

Netmag have highlighted some developer survey results that have a frankly shocking (to my eyes) statistic... 42% of devs surveyed charge extra to support IE7!

I have a real thing about this kind differentiation, I don't like it and don't think it's very professional. While I think it's a natural and practical step to say that it becomes cost-ineffective to support certain browsers, while they are still very much viable entities we should, as standard, support them.

Factoring how much work you will have to do in testing is naturally a good thing to do, as long as you're not charging money for your own lack of competence and the time that adds to the project. However charging a certain amount for a project and then up-scaling it by X% or by adding an amount of money on is...well...it's the kind of thing EasyJet do, and we all know how we feel about that kind of practice.

When we stand back and say things like "IE7 will cost extra" we sound more like dodgy plumbers (as opposed to the very nice and ethical ones) than professionals. What do we mean, IE7 will cost extra? Are we not in the customer satisfaction business? This doesn't mean our client, of course, it means their customer! By having bolt-ons for things like IE7 we are trying to dissect and modularise what should be the very standard level of service we provide.

When we cost work we have to be realistic; we deserve to be paid for our time but at the same time the client doesn't deserve to pay for you to learn your craft. They can happily go somewhere else where someone is already an expert and can do it better and quicker, if only they knew where to go. If it's going to cost a certain amount to deal with modern web complexities then be respectful to yourself and to the client. Explain the cost and why that cost is there.

The segmenting of our web has to stop, especially that driven by the partisan hatred of Internet Explorer. We are entering a world now where changes to what our web browsers are capable of are changing every month. In less than a year we are going to start seeing reports of website that are "not working" because someone has turned off their automatic updates and is only 12 months out of date on their browsers, but the tech being requested was only implemented in vendor-specific form after that.

What do we do then? Charge for testing in Chrome 23.0.1 or earlier? Anything over Firefox 17 is ok, but below has a surcharge?

In an ideal world the conversation about what the site will be capable of, and the difficulties that could present themselves, you should have around the planning stage of the project anyway. If the client starts to get horrified at the time or cost that a particular functionality will take to complete then that is the perfect time to refine the goals, and for you to be immediately on hand with all of your knowledge and skills to come up with a new, simpler, and more palatable solution for the them.

The reality is that we will have to accept our job will cost as much as the functional spec adds complexity, and regardless of the job we should be applying an architecture that allows the site to work (where it is possible) on the weakest browsers and enhancing itself as the customer's browser allows. Do this and you'll never have to worry about fiddling about with complex invoicing, and your work will stand the test of time too. Doesn't that sound more interesting, and a little less "douche" like?

Women, web developers, and conference quotas

As a pre-cursor to this post, it's probably a good idea to read This article on .net magazine's website about the issue of gender diversity in the web development profession.

Had a good read? I'll continue...

I don't subscribe to Andy Rutledge's view (as much as I can decipher it), that the industry will sort itself out regarding diversity. He seems to believe that if women want to get more involved with web development, that they will. It's clear he thinks that issues such as conferences being male dominated, perhaps even the actions at technology trade shows of severely objectifying women to sell tech, are non-issues.

If you are good at what you do, and want to do it, you'll get on board and ignore the culture. I can't really agree.

The trouble is that I do find slight common ground in the proposition that gerrymandering conference speaker quotas is the right answer, or even really an answer at all. I think if we're going to focus on breaking down barriers, conferences are so far past the barrier that trying to tinker with them is only internally symbolic.

Where there are party political conferences, or the public offerings of seats of parliament, it's very easy to send a message of diversity and equality by trying to implement quotas, and by fixing appearances so that your organisation can be reflective of society. The key thing here, though, is that they are public.

I would be interested to know how many budding web developers or designers know anything about web conferences. Maybe I'm wrong here but I don't think that conferences are something people get in to until they already get really in to web development. Once a person has gone past the "I can make this look pretty" and "I can create this cool thing", and they have gone past simply copy and pasting answers from Stack Exchange, it's only then that they say to themselves... "I want to really KNOW my profession".

From here they might get in to some articles, maybe some authors, and from there they might hear about a conference. It's here that perhaps I most closely, although hopefully fleetingly, align with Andy's view. By this point people that are keen to get involved are doing so because they want to see experts. By this point gender, race, dietary requirements all become secondary to skills and experience.

We can talk, if we like, about the image we portray...but the only image we're sending out (for now) is to those who want to go from simply being good web developers to being excellent ones. If we do things to represent better our diversity, although it would likely do us no harm at all, it would ultimately be to placate our own insular group.

Of course the key there is that it'll do us no harm at all. The idea from Andy that somehow it's a bad thing to get more women speaking in conferences because of some issue of stopping a "better" speaker from getting involved is inherently misogynistic, even if he can't see it. The web world is not like some kind of darts fraternity where there is always a world champion and a runners up in skill and capability. We have hundreds (more?!) of people that all reside in the same sphere, with maybe dozens that have been in that sphere for a bit longer and have a bit more experience on the circuit.

Replacing a good male developer with a good female one isn't going to make a shit of difference to the quality of the conference, it certainly isn't going to deprive the audience, and it may well help bring...albeit only slight...a different perspective.

But none of this, at this point in time, deals with the issue we're trying to actually help solve which is the involvement of women in the profession (and ethnic minorities, I know that is another strand of this same discussion). It might make us feel better about ourselves, and it may well make the experience for those that want to join the network of web developers that REALLY care about their profession feel more safe and wanted. For those reasons we should (and seemingly are given who is advocating such change) look at how these conferences are formed.

The primary focus we have to have though is much earlier, and we need to make it much clearer that this isn't a profession for white boys.

Andy Rutledge can sit there and pretend that socio-demographics don't matter, but to do so is entirely ignorant. Just as I wouldn't expect *anyone* to go and stand in the middle of a group of teenagers at a bus-stop, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't fit the socio-demographics of the area they're interested in to feel comfortable trying to access it.

If we don't have prominent, celebrated and respected people from a wide range of diversities in our profession, then we have no hope of allowing those that have the skills and desires to become part of our group the freedom to do so.

We can nurture at a younger age, we can break down any initial barriers in people's minds that this is something only for the boys. Those running the Girl Geek Nights are an excellent example of this, a "safe space" initiative that allows people to naturally build it up, but it doesn't have to stop there. But let's also seek out and find those bedroom coders that are probably representative of the majority of people currently in our profession. We need to find a way to create avenues for these people in to our profession, and to give good advice on how to walk them. Schools and universities are only one small way.

That's a first step. But then we need to back it up with visible evidence that it's the case. This means a level of positive discrimination is necessary, unfortunately. If we have a woman and a man that both appear to be equally acceptable for the job, we should be choosing the woman to join ranks. This isn't, as Andy may cry, something about valuing tokenism over abilities, it's about improving our profession.

In my field where I've nurtured through three university sandwich-year students, everyone that got the role was because they not only fit the requirements, but exceeded them more or equally to the next best candidate. Yet at this level there is not a lot that is needed from a candidate, it is ultimately a work experience role, not even graduate level; the number of applicants each year is also extremely high, so it is extremely easy to positively discriminate like this. Except that it would be a lot easier if in each of the years I've run the placement...despite dozens of applicants...I've only ever had one female apply each year.

Ultimately it is important to realise that positive discrimination isn't about putting someone less able in to a role over someone more able...it's about picking the under-represented person out of two or more equally "good" developers, if they aren't already the better one.

In the end this will result in the situation Andy wants, we'll have an environment where everyone is free to enter or exit the profession without prejudice and without reservation...but it's naive to think we can get there through conference meddling alone, or by just letting nature take it's course.

Feeling you're in the "Friend Zone" isn't about entitlement...

Feeling you're in the "Friend Zone" isn't about entitlement, it's about personal despair. At least, that's my feelings on the matter. There are, no doubt, those that hold views that if they act the "right way" that any girl/guy (Object Of Desire, or OOD, from now on) they want that they will naturally succumb to their charms.

However my experience of people that feel to be in this "limbo" isn't that they feel entitled in any way, shape or form to an outcome from those that they desire, only that they wish things would work in their favour...that they are ultimately jealous of the person that has what they want.

Now, big caveat here...shouldn't need to be said but you always have to be ultra-clear on these things...WANT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD GET, nor should it. You are free to desire what you want, and your OOD is free to not reciprocate that. You are free to express (in a legal and non-predatory manner) that horrible situation, but they are also free to do whatever they want and can to avoid that expression.

I find the parallels to be that with those who work, in the UK, believing that the government cares more about those who aren't working by "giving them stuff for free" and thus delivering a "better lifestyle for being lazy than someone gets by working hard".

I ask myself, do these people feel entitled to the money that the government is handing out? In some cases, sure, but in most cases they just feel jealous about what they perceive someone else's life situation is. And just like with that relationship between your OOD and their new partner, you probably don't really know as much about that relationship, and certainly not your OOD's partner, as you think.

I don't think it is at all helpful to paint those who complain about being "Friend Zoned" as misogynistic or patriarchal. The immature outbursts by those that feel that they have done everything they "need" to do, or "can" do, and haven't got what they want aren't necessarily linked at all to any innate feeling of entitlement or belief of superiority. As much as it may manifest itself to look this way, a person getting depressed and angry about not finding reciprocation is doing it because they know, deep down, that they are the ones that are not good enough...but their only emotional response is to try and create excuses for why it may appear that way.

It's sometimes too bitter a pill to swallow that you are simply not what your OOD wants.

So we can call this person a dick for being, well... a dick about it. Sure. But how does it help our culture if our answer to this is to label these people as some kind of sex fiend, prowling around assuming they have the formula to get instant sex and are angry it doesn't seem to work?

For a start it seems to me like this just exacerbates the situation. They already feel that they've not been understood properly, because they have either caught from popular culture, or a stark self-assessment of their own positive traits, a belief that "being nice" alone is something that gives you special points that should open your OOD's eyes to what a great life partner you'll be. Barking at them that they shouldn't just expect sex because they're acting nice doesn't do anything to those that actually need support and help with their emotions and relationships other than create a negative reinforcement that society doesn't "get" them.

I reject that guys who complain about being "friend zoned" feel entitled. But they do feel desire, desire that can persist long after rejection, and that in itself comes from the irrational. To try to pin the label entitlement to that irrational desire is lazy, to ignore the psychology of built-up hope that manifests in a reaction that can appear to be drawn from a sense of entitlement is lazy. To abandon these people to an emotional world that can actually make or break how much they respect women in the future...it's just lazy.

The outcome whether they still feel jilted desire, or indeed feel entitled to a "result", may be the same and shouldn't be accepted. Making anyone feel like shit simply for following their own hearts and desires isn't at all acceptable.

But if we want guys to be respectful to their other OOD's in the future, perhaps we shouldn't make step 1 the exile stage, to be marked and noted as an evil misogynist; instead help them to understand how to avoid the build up of emotion that causes such outbursts, and the ultimate negative atmosphere that causes it hard for even the "friend zone", that they would actually be very happy to reside in at any other time, to sustain itself.

If you know a guy that's complaining about being "friend zoned", by all means wake the idiot up, definitely do what you can to re-educate and stop them if they've fallen down the spiteful path of trying to humiliate their OOD. If they were happy enough to desire someone they know deep down that they're happy to be their friend also. If they are complaining without even having talked through their feelings with their OOD, then help to facilitate that process.

But then be sympathetic, not to calls that they did everything they could...the sooner they realise that relationships are built on the feelings of two parties and that feelings aren't readily manipulated the better...but to the reality that they aren't in an emotionally secure place if their happiness rides on acceptance by an OOD, that they need to find that security and to better understand what they really do have to offer in a relationship, and how that will be discovered organically, not by campaigning.

Labour's (not a) Job Guarantee

Labour have announced some policy! Unfortunately it is an all too familiar one, once again trying to be Tories with a twist, in this case it's forced labour if you have been on benefits too long.

Now, I want to get one thing out of the way... if the choice was between this "Job Guarantee" and the current system of "Workfare", where people are being forced to perform mostly menial jobs for short periods of time without getting a wage, just to retain their benefits, then I'll take the former over the latter. If the "Job Guarantee" was of a job that then did, actually, guarantee a job after it, I'd be even more supportive.

Unfortunately the whole thing smells rotten.

You see, I have an intrinsic problem with using threats in order to get people in to work. While I will happily accept there is a minority that will prefer to reside on benefits regardless of how profitable or readily available jobs may be, the research done by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation simply doesn't tally with this view being the main one. To sit here and constantly make these "threats" just demoralises those that are already the most vulnerable while perpetuating a myth that those out of work are only doing so because they're lazy and are there by choice.

Frankly, coming from Labour, this is unacceptable. Not surprising, since it's been their stall for years now, but unacceptable still.

Then there is the job. We have no idea what kind of jobs are going to be made...except that it makes sense it'll be an extension of the current workfare scheme. Similar time scales, similar lack of guarantee of a job going forward. The only difference is that you will be afforded the dignity of being paid a "wage", which is no doubt a notional "ethical" sum from the employer that they currently don't pay except in cases of expenses, the benefits they already receive, and a top up from the government to reach the minimum wage.

This is a fairly pathetic excuse for a job guarantee, and one that doesn't work. If these are the same jobs as we're currently forcing people to undertake (and let's remember that Labour aren't exactly saying that they'll be abolishing the current practice of workfare for those unemployed for less than 2 years), then the reality is that this style of trying to find people work is worse than doing nothing. The stats show that the amount of people finding further employment after taking part in these forced work schemes is LESS than if they had just been left on benefits.

Why is this? Well, aside from the further demoralisation that may lead them to be less enthusiastic to subject themselves to the same perceived lack of worth, a common sense view might be that their time is removed from the act of actually finding work and in to doing what is, in most cases, a pathetic excuse for building "skills" and "experience"

So, a temporary job, with minimum wage pay, with no guarantee of one going forward. What happens next to that person unemployed for over 2 years? Perhaps they go back to being unemployed for less than 2 years, reset to zero. This would certainly help keep the figures for long term unemployment at an all time low as we cycle year after year through everyone to bring them back to "1 month unemployed" and so on.

But with no jobs for people to actually do, what's the point? Isn't this just a cruel joke of a scheme. In a world where most people that are claiming benefits are doing so because there isn't the right job for them to go in to, what kind of games is Labour really playing by saying "We can create jobs, but only for a little bit". Isn't this just increasing a cycle of dependency on the state, rather than breaking it?

Now, if this was voluntary temporary work created for those that find themselves genuinely between jobs, the types of families where having to go down to benefits for months rather than have a low paid job to "tick-along" in while they try to get back on their feet quickly, I'd be celebrating it. As it is, there is no guarantee this work is going to be beneficial for those taking part because it is not in any form targeted.

Think about that possibility... a government that tries to keep people's dignity, to make active attempts to slow the kind of rapid descent in to poverty that can ruin families, and to make the road less bumpy, all without coercion! I know, a pipe dream at best!

If the government can create jobs, they should be using them more wisely. However, as with workfare, we have to be careful what we are "creating". One major criticism of current forced work schemes is that people are doing work that someone else could be employed to do, and there is evidence that people have lost out on over-time and holiday pay that they would usually rely on as companies have been able to spend no money on forcing benefit claimants to cover those most unsociable hours instead!

If the act of creating jobs is just depriving others of jobs, then we are not creating a solution, we are just massaging unemployment figures.

And if these jobs are only temporary, then the whole situation isn't sustainable. The very fact that we can't simply get jobs for those who are in long term unemployment who want to work (which is most of them, remember) shows exactly WHY THERE IS LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT! It's perverse that we should degrade those that are long term unemployed with a situation that simultaneously proves that they are justified in claiming benefits while vilifying them for being in that situation. Yet this is what Labour is going to choose to continue to do if they win power.

This is why, while I can support the idea of being at least civil in giving people a wage for doing work, I can support this "(not a) Job Guarantee" no more than I can Workfare.

Instagram U-Turn? Fool me once...

Insta-U-turn: blog.instagram.com/post/384212509…

— Timbo (@nefarioustim) December 21, 2012

Is it really that simple? Instagram have caved to community pressure, backed down, U-Turned, and given up on their nefarious plans to rob people of the riches that are to be found at the bottom of a sepia photograph of a half eaten donut?

Unlikely.

Let's take a look at what people were offended about:

Instagram selling their photographs without notice, without attribution and without payment ala a "stock photo library" business
Using their photos in adverts
Not displaying that their photos used in adverts were, indeed, adverts

So, by all accounts Instagram must have stopped all of this from happening, especially the first...right? I mean.. they "backed down"?

Let's see their revised terms as of this latest development...

1. Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy.
2. Some of the Service is supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Service or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you.
3. You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such.

So... "1" states that Instagram can take your content, transfer it to another party, license it to others, sell it...without needing to tell you (you agree to the terms by using the service, that is your "notification"), and with no guarantee of attribution.

"2" Says that your content will be able to be used with advertising, in a way that Instagram desires

and "3" says that people may never know if the content from their friends and others is being used as part of an advert.

What a monumental climb down from Instagram!

The reality is that practically the same situation is happening as was previously suggested. A multi-company approach to using your content requires new rights to allow that content to be shared without legal fallout for those involved. They were never going to do this in a way that abused your privacy choices as set out in the privacy policy (and now they are being more explicit in showing you where you can find out more about that), they were always going to use your content in ads (they were able to in the previous terms that have been in force already), and they haven't changed their stance on displaying content in a "paid for" manner without identifying that, a carbon copy of similar terms that Facebook has on it's service and has done for ages.

So, if you got all worried about Instagram in the first place...well, sorry if you were misinformed, be more vigilant about what legal terms mean if you were doing the misinforming. If you've fell for this bit of PR as something of a U-Turn for Instagram as well then...well...why haven't you learned from your previous mistake?

Fool me once...

Flickr: Terms of use

With respect to Content you elect to post for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups or that consists of photos or other graphics you elect to post to any other publicly accessible area of the Services, you grant Yahoo! a world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish such Content on the Services solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted, or, in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Services. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Services and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Services.

With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Yahoo! the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.

Yahoo's terms and conditions, relating to it's owned service Flickr

Looks like people jumping a ship on fire haven't checked for smoke on the new one.

(This is in response to the various claims by people that they should join Flickr based on the changes to Instagram's Terms of Use.)

Instagram: unacceptable terms and conditions?

Instagram has changed it's terms and conditions, now that it has been acquired by Facebook, and it has caused quite a stir! Unfortunately, every time these "OMG, has decided to sell my content without paying me!" claims come by, I view it with a huge pinch of salt.

More often than not the changes to the terms and conditions are made in such a way to ensure that in an increasingly distributed online world, the owners of these companies don't get sued simply for allowing the service to run as it was described. I would like to make it clear, I'm no lawyer, but I wanted to try and look at this from a less reactionary point of view.

With Instagram's new Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy changes, there are a few changes that have specifically been flagged up, all around the issue of the rights of users and the company with regards to photographs/content posted to the site.

Declan McCullagh makes the claim that "Facebook claims the perpetual right to license all public Instagram photos to companies or any other organization, including for advertising purposes, which would effectively transform the Web site into the world's largest stock photo agency."

He goes on to assert: "That means that a hotel in Hawaii, for instance, could write a check to Facebook to license photos taken at its resort and use them on its Web site, in TV ads, in glossy brochures, and so on -- without paying any money to the Instagram user who took the photo"

I, however, am not so convinced. Taking a look at the terms and conditions it appears that the changes are very limited.

For a start the changes to how the website can license your photos is no different from any other social network, those crying about Instagram on Twitter, and about how they'll now delete their Instagram account ought to do the same for their Twitter account...

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

- Twitter's Terms of Service

The reality is that this is a coverall to ensure that the services don't have to ask for your permission every time that your image is used somewhere as part of the service that you enjoy. If they had to pay you and ask for your permission every time that some 3rd party developer used their API to make a new web application or phone application to use their...your...data in a new way then the service would fail within weeks, days even.

Then there is the issue of selling your photos on. As Declan would put it...

'A second section allows Facebook to charge money. It says that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." That language does not exist in the current terms of use.'

It's handy that he's omitted some words, obviously lacking in importance. Well, let's see how important...

Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

The key here is, in my opinion, that the whole policy here is about what is displayed on Instagram. The fact they talk about delivering means that it is Instagram that will be publishing such advertising content.

What could this be? Well how about the Facebook equivalent of sticking a sponsored story on your feed and telling you which of your friends have read/liked the content?

The fact is that Instagram collects all of your data, and has to retain ownership of it. But that's not enough. To bring other developers and businesses on board it also needs to know that it doesn't have to ask them to also ask you for permission for your content to be used.

Facebook is the obvious example of this, where it specifically uses avatars of your friends to indicate who has also liked a product or brand in a paid ad for that organisation. This, I feel, is what these rights are for.

There is no indication, whatsoever, that Instagram is asking for rights to allow them to sell your photos for worldwide use, as if it's some kind of photo stock library service. Indeed the terms retain the language that states that you can make it clear what content you're happy for them to use. Take a look at their privacy policy that spells out how they will use your data...

We may share User Content and your information (including but not limited to, information from cookies, log files, device identifiers, location data, and usage data) with businesses that are legally part of the same group of companies that Instagram is part of, or that become part of that group ("Affiliates"). Affiliates may use this information to help provide, understand, and improve the Service (including by providing analytics) and Affiliates' own services (including by providing you with better and more relevant experiences). But these Affiliates will honor the choices you make about who can see your photos.

Notice that it is only this section that has any reference your your User Content (photos)? That sub-licensed, worldwide right to use your photography is purely to allow your photos to be shared between partners, and to be used on the kinds of widgets and apps that you no doubt think are part of the usefulness of the instagram service...

Next up is some scaremongering about your ability to bring charges against Instagram for making private photos public.

'The language stresses, twice in the same paragraph, that "we will not be liable for any use or disclosure of content" and "Instagram will not be liable for any use or disclosure of any content you provide."'

Except that also in that section it gives regard to it's own privacy policy, where it makes the assertion that private photos are not a part of such agreements. It no doubt has to have the right to disclose your content to partners, but it has also stated that those partners are under an obligation to honour your choices about who can see your photos.

Edit: Also, there is an criticism that Instagram will be able to keep using your content after you leave the service (if posted after the new terms come in to force). I am unsure about this, again it comes down to the Privacy Policy.

Following termination or deactivation of your account, Instagram, its Affiliates, or its Service Providers may retain information (including your profile information) and User Content for a commercially reasonable time for backup, archival, and/or audit purposes.

Yes, Instagram may keep some of your content. (elsewhere they state that content may be still be displayed in cache's or archives, or if saved by 3rd parties through their API). I imagine people will look at this and say "commercially reasonable, but that's as long as they make money from it!", I see it the other way. It's saying if you deactivate your account they will only keep your content for a period of time that doesn't cost them money to "keep in reserve" in case you reactivate the account.

Instagram's policy seems quite clear... we'll keep your content for YOUR benefit, in case you want to come back, but we're not going to keep hold of it for ever, costing us money to store but not do anything with. There is no denying, of course, that it's not explicitly saying that it won't continue to sub-license such content while it is still storing it.

"It's true, of course, that Facebook may not intend to monetize the photos taken by Instagram users, and that lawyers often draft overly broad language to permit future business opportunities that may never arise. But on the other hand, there's no obvious language that would prohibit Facebook from taking those steps, and the company's silence in the face of questions today hasn't helped."

Now I don't want to be misunderstood, I feel the terms are vague in places (as Declan states), and that as with all social media terms and conditions there are always risks that the terms could be extended beyond their original intention. It's not appropriate to look solely at the terms of service or terms and conditions, but ignore the context of a company's privacy policy. Misrepresenting what is actually written down, given how hard it is to get people to read actual terms and conditions in the first place, is an extremely unethical thing to be doing.

America, Gun Control, Liberties and Children's lives

The tragic events of today are still unfolding, it is believed a young man has taken legally owned firearms of his own mother's possession, killed her, and then murdered other adults and small children before killing himself at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut. It is another scenario that takes America to over 60 mass murders using guns since the tragic events at Columbine.

This subject is always going to be tough, the sheer senselessness of taking the lives of such young people, the lack of any way we can empathise with the decisions made by these shooters decisions...but perhaps unlike other situations similar to this, in high schools, colleges, and adult on adult altercations...the loss of what is currently being reported of 18 primary age children is surely going to provoke the age old debate about "gun control" in the US to reach new heights.

America, however, is complicated when it comes to it's relationship between liberty and gun ownership. It has been said today that one of the reasons this particular event is so shocking is that this isn't an area of the US that is even particular chest-beating when it comes to gun ownership, yet so pervasive is the "right to bear arms" that even in these more "sleepy America" towns and suburbs such horrific results can come about from what seems to stem frequently from mental illness or social segregation.

Some politicians, careful of how the gun lobby will react, will wheel out the same old lines. "This is not the time to act on our gun laws" they will say. They will also be right, no law changes that come so immediately out of grief are perfect. They aren't usually even good. People can claim loudly that this event, like the rest of the 60+ mass shootings since Columbine, is the straw that will break the politicians back to finally deliver gun ownership reform.

Now is the time to mourn, and not to demand that changes are made so soon, even if those demands are ultimately based in common sense.

You see, despite it not being the right time to get into the gritty details of gun ownership, that doesn't mean that we can't recongnise that without such accessible gun ownership laws, the likelihood of this tragedy happening on such a scale would have been near impossible. If it's not a crime that has been methodically planned, to the extent of trying to get hold of an illegal firearm, then you should be able to very clearly see the difference in the loss of life if the ability to just pick up a set of your mother's guns isn't an option.

If this was a knife attack it is likely we wouldn't need to even try to count the numbers of lives lost today on our fingers, let alone run out of fingers and toes to count with.

America, however, is complicated.

With it being interpreted by many that the founding constitution of the United States is that people have the right to own whatever weapons they wish, to defend their home (rather than other more, in my opinion, logical explanations about freedom to defend the land in a different time), the country and the world need to face up to the realities that actually changing the constitution through a separate amendment to clarify or repeal the second amendment is unlikely.

If Obama had the guts, now that he cannot be re-elected, to start the debate, it is clear the debate would get bogged down in the minutiae for years, perhaps decades. The pro-gun lobby is strong, and the country will always defend the idea of individual liberty. It's not unusual to see more conservative commentators claiming upon these sorts of incidents that it is not the ownership of guns that is the problem, it's that not enough others had guns on them to defend themselves with(!)

Personally, I think Chris Rock said it best...



"We don't need gun control, we need bullet control"
"If a bullet cost $5,000 there'd be no more innocent bystanders!"
"Man, I'd blow your fucking head off...if I could AFFORD IT"

What America needs is to accept that it's constitution is popular on the issue of gun control, those against the easy and legal ownership of firearms need to understand the political and social implications of changing the law in a land where gun ownership has been allowed to spiral out of control for the last century.

But it doesn't need to accept that the ownership, running and use of guns is so easy. Better regulation and checks of those that choose to own guns is a start, but isn't enough. I always despair when governments think checks and balances are enough to keep people safe. CRB checks here in the UK to keep children safe only find out if someone has PREVIOUSLY been a threat, and similarly in the US checks and balances will do very little to stop those people that function very normally until the moment they snap.

The only thing the government can control is ammo.

If the government was to work to put an extremely regressive tax rate on to ammo, it would do a large amount towards stopping senseless mass shootings. The idea of firing off a semi-automatic rifle into a crowd would be a fantasy (possibly quite literally) if the whole magazine would cost as much as to buy a house outright.

But in doing so they'd have to be sensitive to the needs (desires) of citizens for legitimate activities. Those who have guns should know how to use them, and so it makes sense that if people want to go to shooting ranges to practice, or even vent their frustrations, then buying ammo at these locations would make sense to be done at a "tax free" rate. Ammo could be signed out as it is purchased, and it would be a requirement to "buy back" the ammo that isn't used.

As for hunters, specially licensed outlets could sell rifle ammo for hunting purposes, in specific small quantities to registered firearms owners, and be hooked up to a state database of those registered owners at near real-time. The purchasing of "large" quantities of hunting ammo would red flag registered owners and prompt further investigation; indeed if the system is hooked up properly it can be a legal requirement for the store to refuse to sell ammo to someone who is flagged as having purchased excessive amounts.

If America can dissuade ammo ownership, and can utilise technology to have *real* checks and balances on what people seem to be planning on getting up to, it will go a long way to solving it's gun problem while not infringing on it's own constitutional rights.

It could even easily be worked around that someone who is defending their own home is provided, for free, replacement ammo by the government to encourage people to keep only small amounts of ammo with their registered firearms purely for the purposes of self-defense. Those who require larger quantities of ammo for their profession, as well as other selected groups, could easily be exempt from paying such taxes at the point of sale or through rebate.

At the end of the day I hope that the opportunity is seized in the next few months to move this discussion forward, and move it in to a realm of conversation that recognises that yes, we cannot predict and stop when someone loses their self-control...but we can make it extremely unlikely that such a "snap" in their usual judgement doesn't leave so much blood flowing as a result. The answers are within our reach, within their reach, and it'd be a scandalous insult to the memory of these young children if the best that happens in the next year is more checks and paperwork for gun ownership.

Equal Marriage, a distinction between rights and services

I for one am extremely happy with the suggested law changes to do with marriage in this country. By all accounts it would appear the route is to make same sex marriage completely legal in this country, recognised alongside "normal" marriage equally, and able to be performed in religious ceremonies if those religious bodies wish to allow it.

This isn't an affront to religion since there have been a number of religious groups, Jewish, Quakers, to name only a couple, that have been asking specifically to allow this in law. All we are looking here is giving religious people the freedom to act freely as their religion would wish in a positive manner.

However we unfortunately have to recognise that some religions, the Church of England as a focal point right now, don't want to progress.

Now, here is where we're all getting a little bit muddled up as to what human rights should mean. Firstly, no gay couple should be unable to achieve the same status as a straight couple simply because they are homosexual or similar. To disallow this is an affront to their rights, which is why we can all be so happy about this change in the law.

It is also their right to associate with those who wish to associate with them. If a gay couple wants to say their religious beliefs are Church of England beliefs, that is their choice they're free to make. Others may choose to not recognise this, or label them in some way, but that is the prerogative of the organisation that they are all associating with.

The Church of England performing gay marriages for you...is not a human right. Marriage, currently only heterosexual marriage, is a service offered by the church just as is Baptism, funerals, etc. As any other organisation would have the right, they can offer the services they wish.

"But wait", I hear someone at the back cry... "What about B&B's, they can't choose to not serve Gay people!"

True, but their service is one of accommodation, and it would indeed by illegal to offer a straight-only accommodation service. The church is a little different, by it's own terms of association it is not offering "marriage" which can be accessed by all, and it's own version of marriage is...while almost identical to other religions...actually a unique act that is specific to that religion.

Imagine for a second that you went to Starbucks, possibly because you're a libertarian sticking it to the hippies. You go there because you like the taste, the specific *mix of ingredients* that Starbucks uses to make their coffee. Every day though you go in and want them to do it slightly differently, you want them to add some apricot juice to your coffee (you crazy bastard). They always say "No, we're not adding apricot juice to your coffee, we don't do that".

Now this is an awkward situation. Your right to buy coffee isn't diminished, you can go to Costa, or Nero, or one of many independent chains that would value your custom much more...but you know that the ingredient mix at those places just won't be as soothing for the Monday morning soul.

Unfortunately for you, this is a problem between you and the provider, and one that is a personal issue that needs to be reconciled internally or as part of the wider group. In short, you can either suck it up and stay loyal to Starbucks because you like their recipe too much, or you can club together and get Starbucks to put a damn apricot juice coffee on the menu.

No-one would legally interject on Starbuck's right to offer the service or products in the way that they wish to offer it. If you don't want to move brands despite them not catering for you, who's the one that really has the problem that needs to be solved?

The Church of England (legally protected in order to ensure that they can't be forced to marry same sex couples despite not wishing to, when the law changes to make same sex marriage otherwise legal), for reasons that should be acceptable by anyone campaigning for same sex marriage, should not be forced to change their beliefs to accommodate a minority of their members (as it would appear to be the case currently).

We should respect the bigots' rights to believe what they wish, it's really not in anyone's interest to force the church to do something that they do not want to do, it'll foster resentment or worse. As long as this doesn't filter through, as it has for far too long, to stop the legal status of married gay couples being equal to that of straight couples in law, then what is the big deal?

Unless you're religious of course...in which case...why haven't you considered that you might be going to the wrong coffee shop yet?

The (very) liberal case for Leveson's proposals

Unfortunately the aftermath of yesterday's Leveson Report is not pretty for liberals, regardless of which way you see the debate. On one side you have those that seem to align with libertarianism, who see Cameron's instant (and solitary) statement that "statutory regulation" is not an option as the right call for our liberties, in turn putting the rights of a select few individuals ahead of the rest of the public for little reason other than a vague principle of "freedom of the press" that Leveson's proposals must surely break.

Then you have the side that perhaps are more socially liberal who feel that the rights of those people that have their lives or reputations destroyed because of the lack of ethics in the press need to have some balance versus the obviously vital need for an independent press to hold our government to account, and side more with Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband in their calls for swift implementation of the core proposals with regards to regulation of the press.

But what is the regulation that is being suggested? If you want a perhaps shorter version of what I'm about to write, check out this fine post, otherwise read on.

Leveson is trying to create robust suggestions for a self-regulatory system that must, to be effective, include all the main players in the press industry.

Right off the bat it's important to see here that Leveson is not suggesting that there is compulsion upon the industry to join a regulator. This is completely different from, say, the energy market where being a provider of energy means that you are under the scope of OFGEM, for example.

Leveson used a turn of phrase at the end of his press conference, that this is about "guarding the guardians", probably from themselves as much as anything else right now...and the comparison is apt. While OFGEM or OFCOM watch their respective industries, the system Leveson wants here will be one that comes from within.

So Leveson wants a body with an "independent board" that will oversee the industry. It needs to be mostly independent, the reason for this illustrated quite clearly by the failings of the PCC where, as the Leveson report highlights, editors weren't keen on punishing each other and a culture brewed of simply not investigating issues brought before them.

Without a mainly independent component, all we will have is a PCC that keeps getting beaten down and forces true state regulation to be required, with a clear battle-line drawn between a state body and a body that retains all of the vested interests and corrupt practices the PCC has shown.

Leveson says these independent people need to be appointed in a transparent and independent way. No press people, no press parachuting their buddies in, and certainly no appointing these people in a dark back room somewhere. This is primarily about trust, so that the public know that those looking after the industry are doing so without the inherent bias and vested interests we have come to know and loathe.

He also believes that initially the chair is selected by an independent body, a body that is free from influence by the press, by political parties.

This is where the libertarian leaning side of the debate find their "light" statutory regulation. Their concern is that as soon as you define the process for finding independent members of a board that the process can be abused. This is why, however, the light regulation is needed. Barring current editors and current politicians from the board ensures that the panel is, at it's start, free from direct influence on either side.

While careful scrutiny will have to be had at the legislation that dictates the need for this independent process, it is hard to argue that if a truly open and transparent process is put in to legislation that the press will simply roll over and not scrutinise the process as it is used!

Leveson even wants to make sure that "we can't afford it" isn't an argument for the press, and suggests that public money can go towards the formation of this body. It is, after all, for the public good.

It's here where "regulatory control" finishes. The body may be required to have a standards code, but the board...now independently selected with a broad mix of independent participants and those experienced in the industry...will have control on defining that, within some specific guidelines. These guidelines are regarding privacy, accuracy, public interest, freedom of speech and individual rights. It's important to recognise Leveson isn't stating that certain codes of conduct and standards must be accepted by being enshrined in law, only that the document must consider those elements.

The purpose of this is purely to ensure that there is public confidence in the body, in the press, and to have a clear definition...self-defined by the body...of what those various things mean to the industry.

Leveson welcomes that an advisory body, as suggested by the current PCC chair, is something that may be needed to ensure that those in control of the newspapers have proper input as to the standards they should adhere to. Of course all of this is also about public trust, so it is sensible to say that it's appropriate for this standards code to be open to consultation.

Leveson then moves on to what should be expected of the members of the regulatory body, the newspapers that will be self-regulated. For a start the organisations should have a clear governance framework that details how they will adhere to the standards code, and be required to be forthcoming about breaches in the code it discovers and how it is dealing with it.

This obviously reflects the issues with phone hacking, and how the culture at the papers, ignored by the PCC, was to simply wash over it with a "everyone does it" implicit acceptance. The intention is to make it harder for organisations to get away with gross breaches of their industrys own code of ethics.

Importantly Leveson sees the board as a "last stop" for complaints. While the PCC may have been the only (scant) resource for some to get serious complaints addressed from outside of a legal challenge, Leveson wants individual organisations to make a (speedy) complaints procedure transparent to people. He clearly feels that the importance is on newspapers individually being able to rectify their own mistakes and to treat issues at the appropriate level.

Then we move on to complaints to the regulatory body. Away from the current situation where a limited scope of people can apply to complain to the PCC, the idea is that the board can decide who they take complaints from and should consider all complaints. They can throw them out if they don't meet certain criteria, but they should be responsive to anyone with a legitimate complaint, and without cost to the complainant.

The suggestion here is that the board may not be adequately equipped to make a fully informed decision on such complaints, and Leveson (as he regularly does) says the body can set up it's structures as it wishes, but does say that any such structure must not have the conflict of interest currently built in to the PCC model, which is primarily that editors of papers have no place deciding on the credibility of complaints.

On top of this, where an investigation is needed, the regulator needs to be protected to conduct those investigations as they see fit, without such processes that allow editors to bog down complaints with appeal after appeal. This is, after all, a regulator proposal, and it'd be ridiculous to have a regulator who lacked the authority to conduct itself!

When dealing with the outcome of these complaints it's important to move away from the current situation also, one of people fighting an uphill battle to have their complaint recognised properly even if it is upheld. One of the main criticisms of papers making errors in their own standards is that no-one ever sees that they've done wrong.

Leveson starts out to rectify this by saying there should be a requirement for a register of sorts, to have a publicly accessible list of complaints and their outcomes maintained by the regulator. He stops short of going further, in deciding there should be legislation that dictates how apologies should be dealt out. While he wants to ensure scope is extended so that there doesn't have to be an identifiable person wronged for an apology to be required by the body, he leaves it to the body and the industry to work out what an appropriate standard of apology would be.

Obviously, we would all prefer that misleading errors in fact on migration figures, on the front page, were corrected with apology on the front page too. While I doubt we'd ever see a regulatory body getting that on the books, at least with an independent body there is more chance of such apologies being harder to miss than they are currently under a PCC that cares more for the paper than the wronged individual when it comes to printing apologies.

Also in legislation Leveson recommends capping the amount that a regulatory body can fine those who breach the standards code. 1% of turnover, or £1mil, whichever is lowest. This may mean more scope for putting fines on to papers that misbehave, but it also puts some form of protection in for the industry against unreasonable financial penalties that an independent body may, for whatever reason, try to impose.

Now...let's pay careful attention to this, as it's important to the "freedom of the press" issue. Leveson is stating that one of the key things that the regulatory body must NOT be able to do, is prevent publication. They may, as the PCC currently does, request on the behalf of individuals that the press not approach them, but they cannot say what they can or can't put to print.

In fact, through this body the stricter requirements on all involved to be open, transparent and have well defined standards means that, in Leveson's opinion, editors could actually go to the regulatory body to get advice on things they have published within the context of it's own standards. Leveson sees this as potentially very useful to courts in, amongst other things, protecting the freedom of the press by providing context that judges may find useful in, to name a specific example, cases of injunctions.

As with any other similar structure Leveson also wants it to follow standard practice...annual reports for transparency to the public are a must.

An area that Leveson talks about that I believe everyone agrees about, regardless of opinion on the issue of statutory regulation, is the suggestions of an arbitration body. Intended to cut out the need for the press to always go to court to defend itself, and to provide a quick, cheap and effective route for complainants to use.

There is also some recommendation that courts should take in to account the lack of a publisher's membership to a regulatory body when awarding costs to someone that goes to court to make their complaint, even if unsuccessful. Vice versa, if a paper has to pay to defend itself in court when the individual hasn't tried arbitration the court should have the freedom to take that in to account when awarding costs.

To give the whole structure legitimacy there must be some legal "rubber stamping". Where a regulator comes forward, who meets the criteria set out above to do this duty, then someone has to be responsible for reviewing that criteria and approving it. In this case the job is recommended to OFCOM.

While "bloated" as Cameron may like to say, OFCOM provides the best level of experience for assessing these bodies, with an internationally recognised level of independence in it's job. There is the worry that the chair of OFCOM is Government appointed, but this isn't a real issue. Leveson doesn't rule out the fact that if people don't agree with the OFCOM decision to appoint a regulatory body or not, there is always the court.

Indeed it appears the only reason to appoint the role of recognition body to OFCOM is to ensure that the courts don't get bogged down with administrative issues, in a format they're not equipped to deal with. The courts will always be ultimately responsible, but OFCOM can make the process smoother.

Then, here's the best bit.. if the papers think they're getting an unfair rub, that the "independent" regulator is no longer independent...they can go and organise to join a new regulatory body and get it recognised by OFCOM. There is no requirement for only one regulator (though this is obviously preferable) and it ensures that all involved have to work together for the system to work. If the press don't feel comfortable, then they can change how they are regulated. The government will have zero control over this.

Tinfoil hatters can argue that OFCOM would keep blocking new regulators from being formed, keeping the press locked in, but the press would be able to take the issue to court. The courts would look at the very transparent and clear criteria upon which a regulator can form, and the courts would rule against OFCOM (and therefore the government).

And just in case that wasn't enough, any legislation that passes on this, Leveson suggests should include a very explicit term that the government must uphold the freedom of the press. You can't say fairer than that, as without writing that piece of law out of the books, any part of the industry will be able to use the courts readily should there be even the slightest hint of governmental interference in what they can or cannot publish.

Now, where in all this is there a clear desire to have political influence over the papers, or legislation that cannot be clearly and properly written to shut out such influence? Where in this whole system to papers get locked in to a system that means they are not free to publish what they like, and operate on their own terms (as long as they pay respect to providing standards of conduct in explicit areas of concern)?

I argue that the stance by those seeing any legislation to underpin regulation as too much...as a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of the press are, in this case, paranoid and unfortunately not dealing with the content of the proposals so much as less relevant abstract ideas and beliefs.

Cameron wrong on PCC elections, this wasn't normal

Cameron has suggested that a <15% turnout nationally for the PCC elections is expected for a new position, saying that elections for a first time postion were "always going to be low" in turnout. Let's just look at how history relates to that remark...

In 1979 the first EU Parliament elections took place, with a turn out of 32% held soon after a general election with 76% turnout. This first time national election, for a body that wouldn't actually do anything internally to the UK, managed to attract almost a third of voters, and just under half of the normal voters in a general election.

In 2000 the London Mayor was elected, for the first time, and got a turnout of 34% while only a year later the general election turn out would be less than twice that at 59%.

And then we have another "first time position", the Bristol Mayor, who was elected at the same time as the PCCs were and yet got a 29% turnout, this two years after a general election with a turnout of 65%. Indeed PCC turnout appears to have been higher in Bristol than nationally solely because of the turnout for this other new position!

For the PCC elections to be at such a low turnout is far below being the norm for first time elections for new positions, to be around half the usual popularity for voting for such a new role (with a much greater amount of spoilt ballots) shows that this is not just a "slow start" or similar for a new role, it is a protest by the electorate, and a REJECTION by the people of the UK for a role that has no place in this country.

Avon and Somerset PCCs - Variety and choice!

I'm so glad that we have PCC elections coming up. The vast choice of different strategies and policies to choose from, against the array of wide demographics and local constituencies of candidates, will truly shake up the police service for the better.

Take for instance Sue Mounstevens, a woman...if you would believe such a thing, with only 20% of CANDIDATES for PCC roles being women, versus the 30% of women currently actually doing the job of helping to provide strategic direction to police forces!

She's an independent candidate, a magistrate from the Bristol area, and doesn't want politics to interfere with policing. She'll be making sure victims get more support, that offenders are cracked down on, that money is spent efficiently and that there are more police visible in your area! Ultimately she cares about anti-social behaviour, violent crime and burglary (especially against women).

Our next candidate couldn't be more different!

Ken Maddock is the conservative candidate from just outside Bristol. He wants to...and I think the other candidates have missed a trick by not being explicit in this... REDUCE CRIME. I know, right? Revolutionary thinking! He'll do this by having more police visible in your area. He also wants to make sure victims get more support, and that money is spent efficiently.

So we have two candidates there, already a real diversity of choice... one a man, one a woman. Who else? Can we be so lucky as to have even more choice?!

Actually, yes we are that lucky, reader. Meet Pete Levy, the Lib Dem candiate who is from...Bristol! Unlike the other candidates he is younger and has no hair. Also, in line with Lib Dem strategy he used to be a policeman!

Pete wants to reduce crime too, providing victims with more of a voice and more support, focusing on stopping re-offending, and ensuring that policing is visible in rural AND urban locations! He particularly singles out anti-social behaviour, violence against women..and in the "gold star for understandable jargon" award, wants to develop a "multi agency approach to effective integrated offender management"

Take that, Crime.

But wait, before you think our choices can't get any more diverse, there is another candidate! Dr (he's smart!) John Christopher Savage! He sounds like a super-villain, but he's not, he wants to fight crime too.

He's the Labour candidate, coming from the all together different location of Bristol, fighting for more efficient and fair use of funding, while listening to the victims of crime more. The aim from all of this is to reduce crime! Like the Tory candidate he doesn't feel that he needs to explain what his crime fighting priorities will be, probably because it will be ALL THE CRIME.

So there you have it, four candidates, each bringing a completely fresh and new angle to the PCC role. One is a woman, another is bald, one lives just outside of Bristol, and the other really stuck it out at university. Truly it should be easy to align ourselves with one of these people purely on their unique offering and how it aligns with our own priorities, and not to simply vote along party lines as we would in any other election!

Exciting times, I can't wait to see which of the huge variety of directions Avon and Somerset police will be taking.

Windows 8: Day two

OK, so I have slept on it... did Windows 8 really have all those niggles or was I just being apprehensive because of how I'm used to using things? In fact, was it as happy a move in strategy as I said it was yesterday?

Today's interaction with Windows 8 was basically getting it moulded to how I'm going to like to use it, as I did with Windows 7 only less than a month ago. I thought that I had been sensible in my planning. Oh not quite...

Files were installed on to a seperate partition thinking that if the two systems are so compatible, I should be able to run files installed under windows 7 on the windows 8 environment. For the most part, I was correct. Open Office, Filezilla, Winamp, Steam... all they needed was to have a profile set up on the Windows 8 drive.

Adobe on the other hand... ugh. Some programs (Muse, oh my) work fine, but others need a fresh install. The frustrating thing here is that it results in two versions of the same program duplicated on my system. But this is a minor niggle, and only something those with dual booting and a particular desire to save space will come across.

Meanwhile I've been playing more with the start screen. Having set up my messenger app to allow me to connect to facebook (an all around much more immerser and readily available way of keeping in touch with people through the day), I have now snapped it to the side of my second monitor. This has had a very welcome benefit.


(The right hand side is cut off, Photoshop is full screen in my primary right hand monitor)

While a fifth/sixth of the second monitor has this space reserved for messenger now, the rest doesn't revert to the most recent Modern UI app that I had open every time I click on a desktop app. Indeed, this means I can now have the desktop show in the larger portion of the second monitor!

This is almost perfect. If I want to get involved with any start screen apps it's a simple swipe/drag across the screen to make the small panel in to a large one, then by hovering in the top left of my screen I can cycle through all open apps by clicking.







Now. This isn't ideal; It'd be great if I could go back to the start screen but only within the portion of the screen reserved for the Modern UI, and there MUST be a better way to choose what app I want to switch to. For a start I don't see why hovering in the top left shouldn't make the small rectangle previews spread out along the left or top of the screen. Currently you can get the same effect, but it's a fiddly action of going to the top left and dragging your mouse downwards. Why make it two movements, Microsoft? Why the needless complexity?

But all this aside, suddenly the issue yesterday of having an almost redundant second deskop screen is solved! With there almost certainly being an app that people will happily have residing in the small column space, most "power users" must have very little to complain about now. At least that is my opinion as someone that has been using windows environments since Windows 3.1.

Sure, the start menu isn't there, but I still contest that such a change is very much pointless. If I hit the start button on my keyboard the startscreen pops up, I immediately start typing to find the application I want and... voila. If this is too much (tapping, and typing) then why not do what you would have done on Windows 7/Vista/XP anyway and put the application you want on your task bar, or as a shorcut on your desktop. You can do this here too, obviously, and so nothing is ever more than 3 clicks away, if you don't want it to be.



Of course, this is my view as a dual screen user. It's clearly a better experience with two monitors...but I'm not sure the "burden" of switching between contexts really exists when you get used to the concept even on one screen.

So if anything my opinion has improved over the last 24 hours...but it doesn't forgive the niggles that still exist. Being in the windows store and not having an easy and obvious option to go back to the home page of the store is frustrating. Even more frustrating is being able to search for apps by starting to type if you're on this home page, but not if you're in a search results page. Why the change in functionality, Microsoft?

As ever, it's going to be the small and needless poor choices that Microsoft have made that stop Windows 8 being even remotely accepted as a "Mac beater", if it ever had that chance in the first place. Here's hoping that some revisions and updates will be made soon!