The "lawful" killing of Mark Duggan

This is going to be an emotionally charged time, it seems the jury at the inquest into the shooting of Mark Duggan have decided that his killing was lawful, by 8 members to 2 (it's worth noting that the 2 others didn't believe it to necessarily be unlawful). Confusingly the jury also believed that Mr Duggan didn't have the gun in his possession at the time he was shot.

If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled

— Diane Abbott MP (@HackneyAbbott) January 8, 2014

Eight out of ten. Eight out of ten people decided that it is lawful to kill an unarmed man of colour if you're a cop.

— Zoltána (@funsponging) January 8, 2014

This verdict tells police all over Great Britain they will be safe if they shoot an unarmed black man

— Aniqah (@AniqahC) January 8, 2014

That jury must have a different definition of "lawful" from everyone else. #Duggan

— Nissemus (@Nissemus) January 8, 2014

So the police can lawfully kill anyone they think may have thrown a gun away before they even arrive?

— Alex Tomlinson (@alexillustrator) January 8, 2014

Unfortunately emotions are taking over here, and we need to remember that lawful doesn't mean "right".

The timeline as being reported from the inquest is this... intelligence found that Mark Duggan had gained ownership of a gun. Police moved to arrest, and Mark Duggan seemed to be aware this was happening. He is believed to have tossed the gun out of the cab he was in before contact with the police and was unfortunately shot dead.

It's important to understand that the police believed him to be armed, and so the question is not whether he had a gun in his possession, but whether the police believed he had and whether they believed him to be a threat enough to shoot.

It's always worth remembering that the police always shoot to kill, there is no "shoot to disarm" or "shoot to maim", because if they shoot on that basis and then kill a person they will have unlawfully killed them. The decision is centered around an immediate threat to the life of an officer or nearby person, and if that threat is determined in the heat of the moment to be credible and immediate, those police trained to operate firearms are lawfully able to take the shot.

It's clearly unfair that Mark Duggan was killed, it clearly isn't right...however that alone doesn't make it unlawful. For it to be unlawful the police would have had to have shot him despite knowing he was unarmed, that he wasn't an immediate threat to those in the area.

Did V53 (the police officer who shot Mr Duggan) honestly believe that the victim had a gun on him until the moment he was down? Without other witnesses, how can the operation be assessed?

Far from this sending a message out to police that it is ok to shoot an unarmed black man, as many a twitter comment like above will say, it shows that if you shoot someone there is every chance it will blow up local tensions, and have you as an officer scrutinised for years on the back of that momentary judgement. However it also does say that as long as you and your fellow officers stick together, and there are no witnesses, you may be able to come out of the end of that scrutiny without any kind of criminal conviction, even if there is a chance you could lose part of what your job is.

I don't think it's helpful at this time to descend into hyperbole, nor to assume the motives of the police any more than you believe police assume the motives of, in this case, young black men.

There may be things to learn here, about the quality of training given to officers (did the training fail V53, or fail to determine their ability to make rational and objective decisions in the heat of the moment?), and perhaps about the transparency of these operations. Should armed police be required to wear functioning AV equipment to document what they do? Perhaps independent individuals should be part of a scrambled armed response team to be able to provide an unbiased account of the operation if it turns sour? (let's leave talk of cost and that person's safety aside for now)

The way firearms operations are carried out needs to change somehow so that we are not relying on the evidence of an individual's "belief", but as the law stands even if there was a camera pointed, as well as a gun, at Mark Duggan in 2011 that showed irrefutably that he was unarmed... if Mr Duggan had moved in a way that could give that instinctive response to an officer *expecting* to see a firearm, you would probably have seen the same verdict found. The question we should ask ourselves is if this is the fairest way to deal with whether the officer is charged with a manslaughter or murder charge, or not?

UUK and that segregation guideline...

...bit of a storm, wasn't it? Whether it was in a teacup or not is still to be seen.

However I've been trying to discuss the issues on Twitter, and naturally it's the worst kind of forum to do it in (though people are being very respectful about it, so cheers!). While I understand that the UUK guidance itself given in the now removed "Case Study 2" may have been too woolly, that it inferred things that weren't based in legal fact, I'm not sure those celebrating have won the victory they think that they have.

Statement re: Bristol Central Library and Cathedral Primary School

The following letter has been sent to the council for consideration alongside many others from those concerned about the legitimacy of both the plans and the process that agreeing on them has taken. The decision is set to be made tomorrow (5th December).

Dear Members,

I have been following the discussion that has been going on in some areas of the public regarding the Bristol Cathedral Primary School (Cathedral Primary) and the Bristol Central Library (the Library) with interest. Since first learning about the plans I wondered why we'd see such a situation come to pass; the near-certain reduction in services or service efficiency of a city-wide asset seems like strange to trade off against primary school places, instead of finding a solution that would see both the library remain functioning as fully as it is today and the primary school a home.

Since the plans have come to light there have been numerous calls by supporters of the Library for Cathedral Primary to find a more suitable location that doesn't require the requisition of space from a city asset. There has in public discourse been mentioned various empty spaces that could provide capacity for our city's growing child population, none more interesting than St Mary's Hospital on Brandon Hill which is situated only a short walk away from the current proposed space.

Russell Brand and 2011

In 2011 a lush green pasture of possibility lay before us. Alongside local elections we were given the opportunity to change the way that our lawmakers were elected, ensuring that once and for all a well supported but otherwise net-unpopular MP could no longer "represent" us in our constituency. A positive result would have given more weight and momentum to the second part of the revolutionary change to our politics that would ensure no small voice would be left unheard, no doubt allowing Labour to jump properly on the bandwagon instead of stalking it; the change from our Lords as an unelected body to one that is elected in proportion to our political views.

Fast forward past the unsuccesful result, one that in my opinion actually did more harm than if we had never had the referendum in the first place, to the modern day where one Russell Brand is touting a democratic and constrained revolution of our interaction with the state. I don't disagree with him in general terms, but then I also voted in 2011 to say "Yes" to a new voting system.

There are those out there championing Brand right now, probably not as the instigator of these ideas...he says himself that is too false and lofty an accolade for him to claim...but as a figure that is focusing the issue of disenfranchisement in the UK political system. I'm glad, we need people to be actively thinking about how the state and the people form their contract, and how they continue their interaction; but at the same time I'm frustrated. Where were all these voices in 2011?

Questions remaining of Bristol Cathedral Primary and Bristol Council

It's coming up to 2 whole months now since I learned about the plans for Bristol Cathedral Primary to replace book and resource storage in the Bristol Central Library, a month and a half since I asked questions about the reasoning behind it, and 2 weeks since I asked further questions based on their somewhat ambiguous Q&A, strangely jointly issued with the City Council that has supposedly not made a decision on the plans.

The school asserts that it will, at some undefined point, respond to at least the latter "by other means", feeling a little hurt that I deleted their comment to my blog after they attempted to misconstrue that when I talk of a threat to the library, that I was attempting to mislead you, reader, that they were shutting the library down to replace it with a school. Whether they will ever respond I do not know, they may instead choose to continue their apparent campaign of either ignoring their critics, or to belittle and insult those that are campaigning not actually against additional primary school provision, but against the impact on library services while other options may be available for the school.

Pedantic Jumpers

Asked if the Prime Minister agrees that people can cut fuel bills by wrapping up warm, Mr Cameron's official spokesman said: 'He’s clearly not going to prescribe actions individuals should take but if people are giving that advice then that is something people may wish to consider.'

This statement has caused a gleeful flurry of action from Labour supporters to capitalise on this political faux-pas, and equally libertarian/conservative sympathisers to call people all kinds of names in retaliation for putting words in Cameron('s spokesman)'s mouth. Did Downing Street say stop complaining, just wrap up warm? No, of course not. Did it say that it's categorically not something they'd offer as advice to combat increasing fuel bills?

No.

Perhaps downing street thought they were being clever with this wet response to a challenging question. Once again they've only shown that they have the political nouse of your average Monster Raving Looney candidate.

Response to Cathedral Primary School's Central Library Q&A

The Council and Bristol's Cathedral Primary school have finally decided to answer some questions regarding their proposal to take over the lower two floors of the Central Library, only over a month after these questions and more started to get asked quite vocally and publicly!

Briefly, you can expect to see some figures for the associated costs of the plans, as well as some history to the development. Unfortunately you can also find some vague and cleverly worded non-answers in there too.

Let the anti-#Leveson propagana restart!

With the news out that it is likely that the Press' own version of the Royal Charter intended to implement the Leveson recommendations is being rejected, at least in the most part, the campaign by the "protectors of free speech" starts anew to misinform and mislead the public on what the proposals mean. Why they're trying to influence the public is entirely unclear to me, given both the conviction of those campaigning for a change in press regulation, and the wills of particular politicians involved in the process. Saying what they like, of course, is their right.

So, let's start looking again at this misinformation. Today, it's courtesy of the New Statesman...

Votes @ 16: If these are our experts...

... then boy are we screwed!

This article featuring a few 'democratic experts' lays out some responses to the positive words Ed Miliband has had towards the Votes @ 16 campaign. It makes for pretty sad reading from some of these talking heads, and I just wanted to pull out a few quotes here and respond to them.

First, young people are not generally passionate about their right to vote. Less than half of 18-24 year olds voted at the last three general elections. These figures are hardly surprising given that around 4 in 10 are not even registered.

So will giving people the vote at 16 encourage or discourage higher registration to vote, given that such registration would/could take place as part of the educational system?

Second, there is little evidence of widespread public support for votes at 16.

This guy has a weird concept of democracy, seemingly believing everything has to be about majorities rather than about actions being "right" or "justifiable". If the public supported, widely, the execution of all blue eyes people, would this expert be happy with that to occur?

Bristol Central Library needs you...

Sign the petition against the plans here

Bristol Central Library is under threat. Through the use of manipulative language and innuendo a local post-independent school has decided it would quite like the status of operating out of a grand old building like that the Central Library resides in. The Bristol Cathedral Primary School has significant investment that it can make, but instead of creating a satellite school with this money it has decided it wants a piece of Bristol's history instead.

Edit (clarified 29/09/13): At the request of the school I want to add this: The school is not *replacing* the Central Library. That is not the threat I talk about. The threat I talk about is to the functions of the library. As the first commentator says below this post, it's not enough to just say the public access part of the library is untouched, because the public part *needs* the private part to function at it's best, and because satellite libraries closer to communities that need them will also see their services suffer.

If we want to diminish the role the Central Library has in Bristol, then we should let this go ahead, and we need to hold our tongues if and when this means the library service becomes less relevant to people in Bristol.

And this, fellow Bristolians, is why you need to speak up.

81 Gromits...

After managing, somehow, to find a 15 minute queue gap to the exhibition after days of most needing to wait hours (peak of over 5 hours this weekend!) I got to whizz around and take photos during my lunch hour. 81 Gromits, three photos of each... I don't think I've ever averaged a photograph every 15 seconds for an hour before!

Here's a little teaser of the 81 Gromits on the Gromit Unleashed trail, I have something else coming up to help make sure Bristolians and non-Bristolians alike don't miss out completely on the spectacle!


(Follow this link for an animated gif of all 81! - 6 megabytes)

Please consider donating a few pounds to the Wallace and Gromit foundation.

Questions about Bristol's Cathedral Primary School...

A number of questions have arisen since I started to look into the problems with an assertion by the Mayor of Bristol that the Cathedral Primary School move in to the office and storage space of the Central Library was "needed" in the center of the city.

The following are things that I feel that the school, the Mayor and councillors, should be addressing to you in order to prove that this is indeed something that must happen.

Primary School Admissions: A school in a library?

I'm strong supporter of #library service, but not of campaign that puts book storage before #Bristol kids' education: http://t.co/9nXe9HJugy

— George Ferguson (@GeorgeFergusonx) September 9, 2013

This is the tweet yesterday from the Bristol Mayor that alerted me to a little storm brewing over the future of Primary School provision.

The plan in Bristol is to take one of our oldest public amenities, the Central Library, and gut two floors to allow a Secondary School to create a Primary School in the center of the city. But don't worry, all we're talking about here is losing office space and centuries of history in order to accommodate a school that was up until 5 years ago a private, fee-paying, school!

Evolution of a conference

If someone who has never been to a "tech" conference asked me why it is that they should consider going themselves, I'd say that the reasons have to be personal. You can only learn for yourself, and you will have a hard time infecting others with the same enthusiasm you gain from such events.

But specifically, people should consider going to a conference to really start to understand themselves in the world (there are loads, they differ in value, but there are plenty of a good quality out there). Before my first conference, @Media in 2009, I had received an average degree and entered a field of work based on skills that were largely self-taught up to that point. The prospect of having to work out how to do all of the things that I might have been expected to do, the thoughts of just how good or not I may be at my job...these were issues that the attendance to such a conference helped to alleviate.

Free speech tennis

I'm a liberal. I think people should be able to say what is on their mind, in person and online

I'm a liberal. I think that people deserve realistic opportunity to be able to easily avoid hearing things that will harm them, in a self-defining sense

Zimmerman vs Martin, prejudice and inequality

The Zimmerman verdict is in. Acquitted, or not guilty, however you look at it the man is walking free after he stalked his neighbourhood like a paranoid vigilante, and then against the advice of the police went to confront a 17 year old young man before shooting him dead.

Like all the worst cases, there's little that the case would ever have hinged off of other than the reliability and credibility of Zimmerman's own statements. In Florida you can kill someone as long as you can make a jury believe you felt you were in serious danger, you see?

This case was always going to be hard for the prosecution, especially one that took weeks before it even started action to find justice for a young man murdered on the street. But with a law that legalises murder "in self defense" perhaps those hoping for justice should have faced up to reality months ago. This was never going to be the ending we wanted.

MPs, salaries and the "right" people for the job

MP salaries are in the news, and perhaps a little unfairly the MPs themselves are getting flack over an idea that has been made by an independent body set up in the wake of the expenses scandal to stop MPs from being able to keep inflating their own pay and expenses. However the result of this is the idea that MPs should be paid £75k, up from the current £66k. Being around three times the amount of the average salary in the UK already, at a time when the public sector (tax payer funded, like MPs) is facing a freeze year after year, at a time when those on benefits are having their benefits cut even at the most essential level by allowing the cost of food to increase over the basic benefits given, it's understandable why there are those that would be angry at MPs that accepted such a rise at this time.

Badger Cull: Which Lib Dems voted for sanity?

As far as I can tell, at this stage, the Lib Dem MPs that voted for vaccination rather than cull...

Gordon Birtwistle,
Paul Burstow,
John Hemming,
Martin Horwood,
Stephen Lloyd,
John Pugh,
Bob Russell,
Adrian Sanders,
Stephen Williams

UX decision making the right way

I'm currently in a bit of a bad mood, unfortunately we've had feedback from client on some work and they want to make some changes. The changes aren't too major in scope, in fact they probably will only take about 10 minutes to implement due to the highly CSS-centric approach I've taken to build the Web App.

The problem isn't the complexity of the changes...it's why the changes are being made.

The web app (sorry, got to keep it vaguely abstract, no pics!) utilises a soft pastel colour scheme, to be complimentary to the brand's colour scheme, while also using some striking colours to help emphasise certain user actions. A stronger green colour is used when a section is complete, and a somewhat jarring orange is used when there is something that still needs attention.

These choices on their own are not good usability per se, but combined with clear and concise labelling that gives the user an indication of the intent of such a coloured object, and the use of icons to further emphasise such intent, the colours can form part of an ongoing subconscious indicator that will hopefully gravitate the user in to quicker choices for their navigation and an ease of finding their next task on the page.

To reinforce this colour scheme we also use the same colour scheme in the form validation that is done at login, and with strong visual cues on the homescreen of the web app.

The choice of how to use colour was very considered, and the relationships between colours too. The overall goal was to make the app pleasant to use throughout the day, but also to really highlight where there was an interaction or message that needed immediate attention.

The client has changed their mind from the initial advice of "This isn't customer facing, brand colours don't matter" (and I can't say whether this is just poor communication on behalf of the people I work with, or the client truly changing their stance) to "I want everything blue"

Now, I don't mind the idea that things should be blue. It's awkward if everything is a shade of blue, and we definitely lose some of that easy subconscious filtering of information that a striking colour affords. I wouldn't choose to do it, but if there was a good reason to do it I wouldn't stand in the way of it. Alas, it seems I dug too deep in requesting that someone requests information on why this change is desired, and now the elements that were orange, a clear contrast, have gone from being a lighter shade of blue than the other blues on the page, to actually grey.

GREY. The universal colour of inactive and disabled elements on the web. To add insult to injury we already use grey in specific use cases on the app...yeah...when the button or interactive element needs to be present but clearly defined as non-interactive!

I feel strongly that we have gone through the right process in deciding our colour scheme, unfortunately something has happened in our communication with the client that means a veto has come from upon high. Even more unfortunately there is no context or reason to that decision...and since they pay the money no-one is willing to challenge it.

I'm no expert, I try to make the best decisions I can with my colleagues...UX isn't a science. What it is, however, is testable. It's a shame that our relationship with the client appears to be such that we're going to miss out on the one opportunity to actually nail this particular disagreement to one side or the other...user testing!

We could easily give a sample of those that are intended to use the application, potentially even those that aren't, a set of tasks to do on one colour scheme, and a different sample the same tasks with a different colour scheme. We could record if there are any difficulties in the perception of the app, we could also measure the time taken to perform the tasks. Through then asking each sample to do the same again with the opposite colour scheme we can then also measure the change (if any) in productivity through the app compared to their first run. Productivity should improve as their experience with the app has grown, but we can check for differences in how usage speed changes, perhaps most importantly we can ask each group how it felt to move on to the second colour scheme.

If one is better we should have a clear indication through watching our users perform the tasks that the transition from one colour scheme to the second created greater comfort, while the other transition caused more confusion.

This kind of decision making should be standard when we make decisions that are challenged by a higher power for undisclosed reasons. If they are unwilling or unable to provide reasoning for their request then the only sane way to provide the best solution is to test both solutions and determine an optimal solution.

So why are we so afraid to do this? Is the client going to hate us for having proof that we're doing the most efficient thing with their app? It may seem stupid, but if a difference in colour scheme improves productivity by 5 seconds across a day, on a three day week, with 100 employees, that saves 21 hours worth of employee time through the year, or another three days of work. Not a significant saving perhaps in that example, but a saving none the less. Is the client going to be outraged at us providing this saving?

Be it fear of annoying the client, the want of an easy ride at work, misaligned loyalties from within your job description...how many bad decisions are being made in the process of capitulation that can and should be easily and amicably resolved to the best solution available, regardless of who came up with the best idea?

Online Safety Bill (take two)

There are a few bits of zombie legislation that just can't be put down to their eternal slumber, no matter how much we try to put them out of their misery. One is the idea of providing police with more powers to snoop on our activities online in a way we would never condone if done "in the flesh", and another is the idea of "protecting" us by forcing people to opt in to adult (pornographic) content. Last year Christian backed Tory MP Clare Perry put forward her unworkable idea for protecting the children and it seems that all this has led to is a revised version of the Online Safety Bill to be attempted this year.

What you're going to read below will be much easier to understand when you realise that the duty of monitoring all of this is being put on to OFCOM, and is using definitions that are intended for use in the broadcast mediums of TV and radio. Our MPs are seriously going to be looking at some potential law that treats the internet not as an interactive medium, but as a one way flow of information. Keep that in mind as you wonder how anyone can possibly think this is workable.

Is this version any better than the one that was actually laughably unable to be implemented before? Let's take a look.