Lefty Lawyers' Wank-Fest As Marshall Islands Sues Nuclear States In ICJ

The Republic of the Marshall Islands (pop 68,000) has decided to sue the nine nuclear weapons states in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Why?

Because Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) states that:

“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

The Marshall Islands’ claim is that the five nuclear states who have signed the NPT: USA, Russia, China, Britain and France have violated Article VI by “not pursuing nuclear disarmament negotiations in good faith” and “instead, taking actions to improve their nuclear weapons systems and to maintain them for the indefinite future”.

Despite not actually being signatories to the NPT, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel are also included in the suit.

The claim is that signing the NPT makes these states legally liable to attempt to enact all of its articles. They must therefore be bound by the ICJ to do so.

Hmm … could there possibly be a flaw in this line of reasoning?

Oh yes, that’s right … international law and the ICJ are largely a fantasy of international socialists and pompous, hubristic lawyers like Geoffrey Robertson.

Read about the structure and function of the ICJ, in particular, its jurisdictions and it is immediately obvious that any authority the ICJ has is derived from either:

1.      The UN Security Council being able and willing to enforce its judgements.

2.      The mutual consent of both parties in a dispute to be bound by the Court’s decision.

The Court has in the past been used to provide a layer of legal legitimacy to diplomatic actions, such as its first ever case, in which Britain sued Albania over two of its ships hitting mines in the Corfu Channel. The ICJ found in favour of Britain and awarded damages of £843,947. Of course, the Albanians refused to pay, which the British always knew they would. However, Britain was also holding 1,574 kg of Albanian gold, which they kept.

The Court can be useful if both parties intend to employ it in good faith, such as in the Gulf of Maine maritime border dispute between the USA and Canada.

However, one party may simply withdraw its consent after a verdict it doesn’t like. This would then require the UN Security Council to implement some enforcement action, such as diplomatic and economic sanctions, or even military action.

Of course, if the party which withdraws its consent, or otherwise chooses to ignore the ICJ’s decision is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council with veto powers (the five nuclear weapons states listed above), or one of their allies, or even one of the other four nuclear armed states, a contrary ICJ decision is effectively unenforceable.

A case in point is Nicaragua’s complaint against the USA resulting from the United States’ continuing support of the Contras. The Court found in favour of Nicaragua and awarded reparations against the USA, which predictably ignored the judgement.

An easier route is for states to withdraw or modify their declaration of consent to submit to ICJ arbitration. An example is Australia, who modified their declaration in 2002 to exclude disputes on maritime boundaries. Clearly, this was to prevent an impending challenge from East Timor, who gained their independence two months later.

Even in the case of the many international treaties which contain a compromissory clause providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ, if one party simply decides to ignore the Court and that party has sufficient military or economic strength, there is little in practice which can be done.

What do the Marshall Islands and their lawyers believe will be the outcome of their suit?

Have a look at the list of the 15 current ICJ judges. Although it’s not compulsory within the ICJ articles, there has always been one judge from each of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (there cannot be more). So, I suppose it’s diplomatically compulsory. India also has a judge on the current panel. I think we can guess which way these 6 judges will vote. The concept of judicial independence from their respective governments is laughably naïve, especially in the cases of Russia, China and India. The British, French and American judges may possibly vote against the policy of their current governments if they were appointed by the previous ones, but in this matter, I doubt it.

Even if all 9 of the remaining judges find in favour of the Marshall Islands’ claim, does anyone believe this action will achieve anything meaningful?

In reality, the USA, Russia, China, Britain and France have violated Article VI from the moment they signed it. This facile statement was never anything other than “do as I say, not as I do”; arch diplomatic hypocrisy. But did anyone bar the most naïve internationalist expect otherwise? India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel aren’t even signatories to the NPT, so what the Marshall Islands and their lawyers believe the ICJ will say in relation to them is beyond me.

Is their goal to use the Court as a vehicle for exhibiting the nuclear powers’ hypocrisy? This hardly requires the ICJ.

In reality, this whole charade is an exercise in legal and academic onanism. A bunch of international socialist lawyers, self importantly strutting about, debating or rather, preaching on the wrongs of nuclear weapons, all at taxpayers’ expense.

Because who is footing the bill for this pseudo-intellectual wank?

The taxpayers of the countries who fund the ICJ. Even if the Marshall Islands pays a significant amount of the cost of its suit, look at its economy. The majority of its GDP is US foreign aid, although much of that could be viewed as compensation for the nuclear tests. Any ICJ legal bill will be paid by the American taxpayers.

I’m not entirely convinced the Marshall Islands should even be an independent nation. Material steps toward independence began under that great and decisive American leader, Jimmy Carter. Why the Reagan administration allowed them to follow through to actual sovereignty, I’m not sure. Perhaps there was a more cynical reason. If the Marshall Islands were formally annexed by the United States, it may have opened the way for more law suits and even larger compensation over the environmental damage from the atomic tests on Bikini Atoll.

Of course, whatever the ICJ says, it will be ignored by any state with nuclear weapons. In the event the ICJ decides to hear the suit AND finds in favour of the Marshall Islands, some sanctimonious, delusional wanker will probably write an article for the Guardian, in which they will claim that Britain is now not only morally, but legally obliged to take meaningful steps to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. Some middle class twat might start a petition on change.org.

But nothing meaningful will happen as a result. Nor should it.

What would you think if your government abrogated its right to maintain a nuclear arsenal to a court which “as a whole must represent the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world”?

Thankfully, the majority of Western citizens still expect our governments to defend our own civilization against the vastly more corrupt and oppressive civilizations of Asia, Africa and the Middle East and their so called “legal systems”.

A ₤43,000 Fine For Fare Evasion - It's How He Was Caught That Should Worry You

I’m writing about what appears at first reading to be, in the grand scheme of things, a trivial matter, in part because I’m interested in the psychology of the offender, but primarily because of what it reveals as to what can be deduced about our behaviour from the data collected on us by governments and corporations.

A highly paid executive in a City of London fund manager has repaid ₤43,000 in assessed fares he is alleged to have evaded over a five year period. That’s $AUS 77,000.

Apparently, his modus operandi was to board the train at his no barrier, country home station of Stonegate in East Sussex, then tap off with his Oyster Card when he reached London, where he was charged the maximum city fare of ₤7.20. By some means, he then avoided tapping his card through the entry barrier in Cannon St, London for the return journey each evening, knowing there would be no problem at Stonegate.

I take this to be the allegation, because the one way fare from Stonegate to London is quoted in the article as ₤21.50. Twice that, minus the ₤7.20 he paid each morning gives an amount of ₤35.80, which he allegedly evaded each day. If you divide 43,000 by 35.80, you get 1,200 ie. 5 x 240 days = 5 x 48 working weeks over 5 years. The ₤43,000 is actually ₤42,550 in fares, plus ₤450 in legal costs.

After reading the above linked article, you might have thought (as I initially did): “The bloke must be mad. Why admit to something like this?”

But an article in his local paper explains the circumstances more clearly. Coming through the barrier in London, a ticket inspector noticed his fare flash up as ₤7.20, indicating he hadn’t tapped on at the commencement of his journey.

He was then identified by some means (we’re not told how, or indeed, why he allowed himself to be). Presumably, inspection of his Oyster Card account revealed the same maximum, default fare of ₤7.20 being paid every day, with nothing on the way home. It was subsequently found that the last record of his purchase of a season ticket from Stonegate (prior to being questioned) was November 2008. He then purchased another season ticket in November 2013, a few days after being questioned at Cannon St.

A Southeastern Trains spokesman told The Guardian that it was the recent purchase of another season ticket which aroused their suspicion. Hence the allegation of five years of fare evasion.

Southeastern then calculated the amount of ₤43,000 based on five years of ₤21.50 single fare journeys, twice a day.

Despite at no stage formally admitting the allegations and despite the actual amount being about half this had he been buying season tickets, the man eventually reached an out of court settlement in which he paid the full amount of the claim, thus effectively admitting the allegations. The fact that not only was the matter settled out of court, but was done so with a confidentiality agreement, implies the man was represented by an experienced (and presumably well paid) solicitor, as would only be sensible in such circumstances.

What should concern people most about this matter is not the fare evasion (which I actually find amusing), but rather how he was discovered. The ability of people, or more likely, automated algorithms to interrogate large amounts of behavioural data and draw conclusions which can result in accusations of wrongdoing is something we need to actively guard against.

That the conclusions were almost certainly correct in this case is not the point. If you allow your behavioural data to be collected, how can you control, or even know who (or what) has access to it and how it will be selectively analysed and interpreted? If you care about your liberty, either keep collection of your behavioural data toa minimum, or carefully manage which aspects of it are collected.

By this last phrase, I mean allow the information to be collected which tells the story you want people to read. Being totally “off the grid” requires a lot of unnecessary commitment and is suspicious in itself.

Many government departments and corporations eg. banks and utility companies know where you live. The tax department knows where you work as well. If you’re travelling to and from work, what’s the harm in using a card which tracks payments and journeys? If you use Paypass on your credit card to buy your lunch in the food court next to your office, so what? It’s not providing details about your behaviour which cannot be deduced from other information. In fact, it’s better to do it and look like a normal citizen.

Now, suppose you want to go somewhere and keep it private. Buy a paper ticket. Pay with cash. It’s pretty simple.

The man in this case was caught because he was foolish. He was prepared to do something wrong, but didn’t make the effort to inform himself as to how he could be discovered.

The default fare of ₤7.20 is clearly unique and thus a device to allow inspectors to spot people who haven’t tapped on. The person who thought it up is not dumb. That tells you that having a lot of ₤7.20s on your Oyster Card account is evidence you don’t tap on regularly. If you live outside London, the most reasonable conclusion is that you’re not buying a ticket at your home station. So, if you’re going to do this, use an unregistered card!

His registered card allowed the rail corporation to flag him in a database, possibly linked by his address. Then he probably used a credit card to buy a season ticket from Stonegate after a five year hiatus. An algorithm detected “abnormal activity” and sent a report to some cunt with nothing better to do. Next thing, he gets a demand for the contrived amount of ₤43,000: “Pay us double or go to court.”

It’s reasonable to infer that he gave in and settled Southeastern Trains’ claim in full due to being threatened with prosecution and / or a civil claim and the attendant public exposure.

Manuel Cortes, leader of the TSSA complained that:

"There seems to be one law for the rich and one law for the poor when it comes to criminal prosecution. The rich seem to be able to walk away and claim secrecy while the poor get hauled up in front of the local magistrates court and publicly ridiculed. This guy can buy silence, but that isn't offered to most people who are caught fare dodging."

Yes, he bought silence and avoided prosecution, at a heavy price. In fact, public transport companies seem to have turned this into a nice little earner, blackmailing all manner of people with inflated fines to avoid court, although the “middle class youth worker” in this linked article should also have been fined ₤43,000 just for being a complete prat.

So what are you saying, Manuel? That taxpayers’ money should be wasted prosecuting everyone caught, even though most will end up paying less than the offered “settlement”? Where will the money to pay your wage claims come from then?

The Stonegate man paid an amount which could never have been recovered in a civil claim, had it proceeded to court. There is simply nothing other than circumstantial evidence suggesting wrongdoing. A criminal prosecution could not have succeeded. There is no evidence of fare evasion on the London network, as he pays the maximum fare. It is impossible to prove that the man even travelled on a train outside of London on all those days during the period in question. In a criminal matter, with the burden of proof on the prosecution, he would not have even needed to make a statement.

However, this apparent practice of the public transport companies blackmailing offenders into paying exorbitant fines under the guise of “legal costs” to avoid prosecution needs to be stopped. It is genuinely mediaeval. Just issue a fine, record the offender’s details and be done with it. That would stop the blackmail. Serial offenders could be prosecuted.

Finally, two questions I asked myself about the psychology of the Stonegate fare evader:

Firstly, why did he allow himself to be identified in the first place? He’s in a high paying position at a fund manager, where a criminal prosecution could not just damage his reputation, but get him fired. But he decides to evade train fares, using an Oyster Card registered to his name and address as part of his scheme. Then, when eventually challenged, he had no plausible defence.

“Are you making an accusation? There has been no fare evasion. You just saw me pay. I don’t know what happened. The gate at the other end was open. I tapped my card. I didn’t notice it hadn’t registered. I was in a hurry.”

A little prior research on London stations with no barriers would have made his story plausible. An unregistered Oyster Card would have given the ticket inspector no chance to dispute the story.

Secondly, since he’d already shelled out for a lawyer, why pay the ₤43,000? Even had he been sufficiently fearful of a civil claim, why not have his solicitor earn his fee by at least trying to talk the amount down?

The civil claim is actually the dangerous one, since the burden of proof on Southeastern Trains is not as onerous. His Oyster Card account history is pretty damning if combined with any CCTV at Stonegate, or local residents embarrassingly called as witnesses to prove he lives there. Probably better to settle the matter quietly, given he’d already been foolish enough to provide his accusers with a trail of evidence.

Any halfway decent solicitor should have been able to prevent a criminal prosecution. Apart from the possibility of CCTV at Stonegate, there is no evidence he even caught a train from there. Even had he been on CCTV on previous occasions, where is the evidence he did not buy a ticket, or have a seasonal ticket, now expired and discarded? He does not need to prove he did: the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt he did not.

Bizarre behaviour all round. Definitely one for the Idiots section of RTBB. He repeatedly took a low probability risk many times, making no effort to hedge the severity of the consequences of being caught, despite the possible damage. And this bloke is managing large amounts of other people’s money. Need you ask where the GFC came from?

No Take Away Alcohol After 10pm? Bullshit!

I hadn’t paid much attention to NSW’s new liquor laws until I tried to buy a bottle of wine on the way home after having to work back late. I had left a shade before 10pm, catching the train home. I walked into a bottle shop attached to a still open pub, expecting to be able to buy a bottle of wine, so I could have a glass or two with my late dinner.

“I’m sorry, sir. We can’t serve you after 10pm. It’s now 10.10. We’re closing up.”

A (mostly) law abiding citizen cannot buy take away alcohol after 10pm, from any outlet in the entire state? Are you fucking kidding?

The government’s explanatory web page shows its new plan of 1.30am lockouts and 3am last drinks at “large CBD values”. Small bars and restaurants are exempt, as they should be.

I don’t really have a problem with the government enforcing stricter licencing regulations upon big hotels, beer barns and nightclubs. Those are the venues where trouble ie. violence tends to occur. That’s because the types of people who tend to be violent when intoxicated are (surprisingly) disproportionately the types of people who frequent big hotels, beer barns and nightclubs. Letting large groups of potentially violent morons drink into the early hours of the morning is certainly a recipe for trouble, particularly as drinking for that length of time often involves stimulants such as amphetamines.

I agree with the new, “risk based” licence fees, given that such high risk venues consume a disproportionate amount of police (and probably health) resources. If those extra licencing costs are passed onto consumers through higher drink prices after midnight, that’s a reasonable implementation of a user pays philosophy.

But where is the connection between these demonstrable concentrations of drunken violence and take away liquor sales after 10pm?

This is just thoughtless, knee-jerk policy, attempting to appear to be acting strongly and decisively to appease the bleating, middle class voters.

Policy which restricts the rights of citizens to freely engage in commercial, recreational or social activities must be based on clear evidence. This is part of the basis upon which citizens allow the state coercive power.

How does an adult buying take away alcohol from a suburban bottle shop between 10 and 11pm (the previous closing time) demonstrably increase the level of alcohol related violence?

I asked the guy at the bottle shop if they had noticed much effect.

“Working an hour less a night costs me about $100 a week. The owner’s not too happy about the $9,000 a week drop off in sales either.”

There you go. No decrease in violence … just a decrease in economic activity, employment and the reasonable amenity of citizens.

Good work, Mike Baird and Troy Grant (actually it was Barry O’Farrell and George Souris who brought this law in). You’ve certainly improved the wellbeing of your constituents ie. your employers with this policy.

If you’re as angry about this as I am, do what I did: write to Premier Mike Baird and responsible minister, Troy Grant. The law will only change if enough citizens make their opposition known.

Parents Who Intentionally Have Disabled Children: How Should A Liberal State React?

A person in a free society will naturally want to explore and understand their identity, to try to be the person they feel they really are, or can be.

Parents usually want to raise their children to share many elements of their cultural identity.

But what if the “person you want to be” is a result of delusions caused by a mental illness, even if the person doesn’t agree they are mentally ill? What if this “self-actualisation” would result in self  harm and becoming a burden on society?

What if the “elements of their cultural identity” the parents want to give their children are actually disabilities?

When should a Liberal society override people’s freedom and forcibly prevent such actions? How far should it go in this prevention? In which circumstances should it punish people?

There are cases where the answer is clear. If the parents have grown up in families exhibiting generations of incest, which they now believe is normal or part of their “culture”, we should still remove the children and deal with the adults through the legal system, although the upbringing of the adults may give reason for mitigation. Just because incest is a cultural norm in certain highland tribes of New Guinea, doesn’t mean relativist arguments re harm translate to modern societies.

Female circumcision is common in parts of East Africa. That doesn’t mean we should allow it here because it’s part of “religious” or “cultural identity” … and any adults involved in such an act should be vigorously prosecuted.

What if two deaf parents deliberately have a deaf child, or conceive a child knowing there is a 50% chance it will be born deaf? If it’s their own child, conceived through natural means, is this even immoral? Many would say “yes”. If so, should it warrant intervention from the state?

What if they are lesbians and must actively seek out a deaf sperm donor to achieve their goal? That’s not hypothetical: an American couple, Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough actually did this, twice. Disturbingly, they are both mental health professionals.

According to the article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Duchesneau and McCullough are part of a subculture in which deafness is the defining and unifying feature of their culture and does not view deafness as a disability.

The first part is quite reasonable. The second is delusional, to the point of causing actual harm.

Duchesneau stated that “she grew up feeling that she was flawed”. Clearly she is not the only one and clearly this type of experience during formative years has caused many deaf people to form and mutually reinforce the delusion that deafness is not a disability in order to avoid feeling negatively about themselves.

We should not pander to clearly absurd assertions in order to protect some people’s fragile self esteem.

Unfortunately, deafness IS a disability, caused in many cases by a genetic flaw. Hearing is a very important and highly successful evolutionary adaptation. Deaf people are not some alternative genetic line. There is something wrong with them: they can’t hear. That’s not something you should deliberately cause your children.

Loony, far left, identity political arguments along the lines of: “They are part of their own culture which understands them” are false. The children are part of the wider world, the overwhelming majority of whom can hear. Had they not been born deaf, they could have joined it, yet still had meaningful relationships with their parents. But Duchesneau and McCullough have deliberately prevented their children from ever being fully part of that world. They will never hear speech, music, or the 360 degree soundscape of normal life in the world around them. That, in my opinion, is at best insanity. At worst, it is criminal child abuse.

But now they have had the children, who are already deaf, what can, or should a Liberal state do?

This is not a case of ongoing abuse. The issue regarding either intervention or sanction is that the damage was done at conception and there is no evidence suggesting any further harm (other than whatever rubbish the children’s parents may fill their heads with – but they don’t need to be deaf to do that).

What sort of sanction, if any, would be of benefit to society?

Should the state remove the children from their crazy parents? What would that achieve? Where would they be placed? With another deaf couple? With a couple who can both hear, but know how to sign? What would be the point, other than a demonstration of state authority?

Should the parents be charged? With what? Child abuse? Intentional endangerment of a child? Maybe, but then what happens to the children?

What should the state’s attitude be toward parents deliberately or recklessly conceiving children with other genetic abnormalities, such as congenital blindness? What about cystic fibrosis?

Deliberately conceiving a disabled child places an extra burden on the state, as all disabilities require extra support services. That, coupled with the harm to the child should be sufficient for society to want to prevent these nutters from doing it again.

My natural feelings are that people like this are insane and need to be prevented from having more disabled children.

But how to stop them?

What if there is a court order, or law preventing people from deliberately conceiving children with disabilities? What if people such as Duchesneau and McCullough ignore it? Are they then to be prosecuted? Jailed? Should they at least be made to compensate society for the fiscal burden they have deliberately placed on the rest of us? Could you allow such children to sue their parents for maintenance and punitive damages for reckless or intentional infliction of distress and harm?

Given that it’s often not certain that a genetic mutation will be passed on, how to construct such a body of law? Would it only apply in cases where the probability is sufficiently high as to render the conception reckless? How would that probability be quantified in cases of complex, spectrum type disabilities?

The above assumes the parents are sane, but mental illness is a spectrum and culpability can sometimes be a grey area. Should people who deliberately conceive children with disabilities instead be scheduled under the Mental Health Act?

How could that ever work in practice? Would they have a court appointed medical guardian for the rest of their childbearing years? Would they necessarily be deemed insane for the entire period? What if they recanted?

How could such a guardian prevent a future pregnancy anyway? More importantly, what could be done once a pregnancy occurred? Would the guardian force an abortion? Why would this reasoning then not extend to people who discover they are carrying a severely disabled child, but want to carry it to term?

Now we’re so far from Liberalism that a few deliberately created, disabled children may be preferable to the totalitarian alternative.

This post is so far, mostly a series of questions because like me, you’re probably thinking that there’s something wrong about people deliberately conceiving disabled children, but can’t see any way to prevent them from doing so which does not descend into a draconian legal labyrinth.

I sort of like the principle of allowing deliberately conceived disabled children to sue their parents, but as soon as you start thinking how it would work in practice, it begins to lose its appeal.

Who would actually bring the lawsuit? What would be the test for material harm and suffering? How disabled do the children have to be? Could the right extend to children who are identified as disabled in utero? That would be an interesting test for litigious and religious America.

Certainly, children should be able to sue their parents for sexual abuse, if a criminal conviction has been recorded. But what about suing for neglect, or abandonment? Perhaps, again, only in the event of a criminal conviction.

So, lots of questions, but few practical answers. However, we need to be asking these questions outside of philosophy courses, because these aren’t hypothetical situations. As described above, people are doing these things now. Some problems are best solved by groups, rather than a few people reasoning from a set of premises. This is an example of such a set of problems.

Here’s one along the same lines which is more clear cut, since it involves intentional self harm:

Despite there being nothing physically wrong with her, 58 year old Chloe Jennings-White wants to have an operation to render her permanently disabled. Although no sane doctor in the UK, where she was born, or the USA, where she now lives with her wife, would perform such an operation, she claims to have found a foreign doctor who will sever her sciatic and femoral nerves.

Firstly, any doctor who would perform such an operation on a clearly mentally ill person should not only be permanently deregistered, but charged and jailed.

Chloe Jennings-White’s mental illness has been described as part of the wider class of body integrity identity disorders, in which sufferers feel for example, that they are in the wrong type of body, or that they do not need the use of their legs, or they should have a limb amputated. Some people proceed to self harm, some do not.

How should a Liberal state respond to assertions by Chloe Jennings-White that she has “tried to have accidents so she could lose the use of her legs” or that she intends to travel overseas to have the disabling operation?

Should she be scheduled on clear evidence of attempts to self harm and the intent to do so again?

Yes, she should.

In practice, that does not necessarily mean forcibly institutionalising her. It could mean appointing a court ordered guardian, who has the power to admit her into psychiatric care. This is typically what happens in cases of anorexia.

In Chloe Jennings-White’s case, she should also have her passport cancelled and be placed on a border watchlist.

Some readers are probably thinking that if she succeeds in rendering herself disabled, she should not receive disability support. But she’s probably already on it, on the grounds of mental illness.

Suppose someone ignores a sign and dives into shallow water, making themselves para or quadriplegic. It’s their own fault and recklessness is usually treated the same as a deliberate action in judging culpability. But they still get disability support services. Chloe Jennings-White is less culpable than the reckless diver, because her actions result from mental problems. So, it's difficult to say she does not deserve disability support.

Frankly, her wife is partly to blame for enabling this behaviour. How to manage this mental illness clearly requires specialist knowledge, however I suggest that behavioural therapy along the lines of: “I know you can walk, so get up, do your own shopping and cooking, or you’ll starve” might be an experiment worth trying.

How To Use Free Bets On Internet Betting

Almost all internet gambling sites will offer a free bet when you sign up. It’s usually in the form of a deposit match, up to a set amount. For example, if you deposit $200, the bookmaker will give you an additional $200 in free bets. The upper limit to the deposit match can be as much as $500. You can find a good list of offers here (see right hand frame).

Almost all sites offer extra free bets for referring friends who end up joining. If you haven’t bet with them for a while, you’ll receive an email or text offer of more matching bonus bets if you make another deposit and bet with them again. All pretty lucrative once you know how to use them properly.

Sometimes you are required to bet the initial deposit through before receiving the free or “bonus” bets. Some sites give you the bonus straight away. That does not alter the strategy.

How do you get the most out of your free bet?

Not by just betting on a 50 / 50 outcome and hoping for the best. Nor by betting on a short priced favourite. Even if the bookmaker let you use your free bet on short odds (which they usually don’t), this is a terrible strategy, as you only receive the profit as a payout. That means you’ll convert your free bet into 10, 20 or 30% of its face value (and possibly lose). It’s possible to do much better, with certainty.

I’m going to explain how to arbitrage a free bet. That means you lay off the other side on another site in such a way that the payout is the same, regardless of the result ie. a risk free position. Because one of the two legs uses the free bet, you will be able to lock in a certain, riskless profit. It’s usually in the range 65 – 70% of the free bet amount if you’re prepared to join several sites and look for the most favourable odds.

First, I'll explain how to arbitrage by backing both outcomes on two different bookmakers. Then I'll discuss laying the free bet outcome at Betfair, which in theory is better, but in practice gives about the same result.

The basic principle is to bet your free bet on a high paying result of a two outcome event, such as a tennis, basketball or football match (not soccer – it has too many draws). In general, you want a game in which a draw is either impossible, such as tennis or highly unlikely, such as basketball, AFL, rugby league or American football. In the latter, a draw is still possible, but so unlikely that the cost of covering it is negligible.

Method 1: Backing both sides on two different bookmakers.

First we have to know the mechanics of betting payouts.

A free bet will not pay the stake if it wins. For example, if you bet $100 on a team to win at 4.00, an ordinary bet will pay $400 ie. you’ll win $300. But the bonus / free bet will pay $300, since you never put up the stake. This is important in our calculation.

Secondly, if you choose to bet on binary outcomes in games in which a draw is possible, you need to understand the dead heat rule for payouts: the payout is halved. Suppose you bet $100 on Manly (1.20) v Parramatta (5.00) on a straight win bet. Choose Manly and the win payout is $120. But if you choose Manly and the game is drawn, you would only receive $60 ie. you’d make a $40 loss. If you choose Parramatta and the game is drawn, you would only receive $250 ie. you’d make a $150 profit instead of $400 in the case of a win.

How does that work with a free bet? Remember they don’t pay you the initial stake. If you bet a $100 free bet on Parramatta at 5.00 and the game is drawn, you’ll only receive the profit ie. $150.

So, let’s use the Manly (1.20) v Parramatta (5.00) example to see the entire free bet arbitrage. We’ll suppose we’re using a $100 free bet. I’ll discuss the general formula at the end of the post.

First, bet the $100 free bet on the high paying outcome: Parramatta at 5.00. If they win, the payout will be $400. If they lose, the payout will be 0.

Now you need to bet the right amount on Manly with another site to get a payout of $400 if they win. Remember this is not a free bet, so your payout includes the initial stake. The correct amount is $400 / 1.20 = $333.33.

Now all you need to do is cover the draw. In this event, the free bet will pay out $150 and the hedge bet on Manly will pay $200. That’s $350 in total, so you’ll be $50 short if you don’t cover this option. In the actual game example I’ve used, the draw paid $34, so betting $1.50 on a draw in the margin betting will cover it.

Thus, for a total wager of $333.33 + $1.50 (call it $335), we have a guaranteed $400, whatever the outcome. That’s a riskless profit of $65.

Now I said above that you should be able to get 65 – 70% of the free bet amount. That’s true if you’re prepared to look around for the right high odds on a game where another site is paying slightly more for the favourite. For example, maybe another bookmaker has Manly at 1.21 or 1.22. The latter would give a 70% overall profit.

Betting on tennis matches can be better because you don’t need to cover the draw. However, bookmakers’ spreads on these are usually larger than football or basketball, so if you find a match paying 5.00 on the site with your free bet, it may be harder to find the opponent paying more than 1.20 somewhere else. Then again, some of my highest percentage free bet returns have been on tennis matches.

In general, suppose we find a straight win / loss bet with A wins paying p and B wins paying q, with      p < q. If we bet a $1 free bet on q, we want to know the amount x to lay off on p.

Victory for A pays p*x. Victory for B pays q – 1 for the free bet (no stake return). These have to be equal if the bet is risk free. Thus, p*x = q – 1, so x = (q – 1) / p.

In our Manly v Parramatta example above, p = 1.20, q = 5.00, so x = (5 – 1) / 1.2 = 3.3333.

Exactly the same formula works in the slight variation where the bookmaker offers a refund if your bet loses. This is essentially a free bet. Betfair does this.

Mathematically inclined readers will see that in a fair wager, the probabilities implied by the odds add to 1. That is, 1 / p + 1 / q = 1, so that the percentage riskless return = (q – 1) / q, which increases toward 100% as q gets larger. Thus, in a fair wager, you should bet your free bet on the highest payout possible.

However, in a real bet, 1 / p + 1 / q = some K > 1. That’s how the bookmaker makes a profit. The percentage riskless return = (q – 1) (1 – (K – 1) q) / q, which has a maximum value at q = 1 / √ (K – 1) and a maximum return of K – 2 √ (K – 1). 

In most win / loss wagers, you should be able to find games with K < 1.05. You can even sometimes get as low as K = 1.02. If K = 1.04, we get q = 5.00 and a maximum return of 64% of the free bet. In the Manly v Parramatta example above, K = 1.033, with a maximum possible return of 66.8% of the free bet. Note that other bookmakers paying 1.21 or 1.22 on Manly would reduce the K for our wager to about 1.02. Each bookmaker's individual K would be about 1.04 or 1.05, because someone paying 1.22 on Manly would only be paying about 4.60 on Parramatta. It's the ability to shop around for better odds on the favourite for the other side of the hedge which reduces our K. That’s why we could get a payout of 70%.

If you’re lucky enough to find a game with a 10.00 payout on one team and a = 1.01 due to odds mismatching between bookmakers, you can get a return as high as 81% of your free bet. In practice, such wagers are very hard to find, due to the way bookmakers adjust the payouts of lop-sided contests. You also need a lot of money for the hedge bet on the favourite.

Method 2: Laying the other side.

Now I'll discuss the alternative option: laying the free bet outcome at Betfair (the only site which offers this).

A lay bet is where you bet on an outcome not to happen. In our case, that would be for the side we have backed with our free bet not to win. Note that this means more than losing: a draw pays out on our lay as well, so the draw option is automatically covered.

Suppose in our example, we had used our free bet of $100 on Parramatta at 5.00. We could try and lay Parramatta on Betfair. In practice, the odds would be more like 5.50. This is because Betfair is an exchange, which makes its money matching up bids and lays and taking a commission on winnings. The value of K = 1 / p + 1 / q for games on Betfair is usually more like 1.01 than the 1.05 on other sites. The catch is that Betfair take about 5% of any profit you make, so we need to factor this into our calculation.

So, suppose you make a lay bet of $100 on Parramatta at 5.50. There is no initial outlay, but you must have the funds in your account to cover any payout you might have to make if Parramatta win. If Manly wins or the game is a draw, you get the $100. If Parramatta wins, you pay out like a bookie: $100 * (5.50 - 1) = $450.

Suppose we bet $1 of free bet on team B to win with odds q. How much should we lay on this outcome, where the odds will be Q > q?

If we lay an amount x, a win on the free bet will pay q - 1 - (Q - 1) x. A loss for team B would pay 0 for the free bet and you would keep the lay amount x, less the commission percentage, which I'll call C.

We want the win and loss amounts to be equal, so that q - 1 - (Q - 1) x = (1 - C) x, giving x = (q - 1) / (Q - C). The proportion of your free bet which can be earned risk free by using the lay bet method is then (q - 1) (1 - C) / (Q - C).

In our example, where q = 5.00, Q = 5.50 and C = 0.05, x = 0.734, so you would need to lay $73.40 for each $100 of free bet. The percentage riskless return would be 69.7%.

That looks pretty good: it's at the upper end of what's usually possible by Method 1. Note that although no initial outlay was required, you still need to deposit sufficient funds in your account to cover a payout on the lay bet, so the practical impost is about the same.

I also haven't covered the case of a drawn game. That's because it's actually in your favour if you use a lay bet. The free bet will pay out half minus the stake ($150 in the case of $100 on Parramatta at 5.00). But you'll also win with the lay bet, since you're betting on the outsider not to win. Thus, the lay bet method gives a small chance of a substantial profit from the draw. It also lets you bet on sports like soccer, since the draw is now not a problem, but a benefit. In particular, the English Premier League becomes a good option due to its liquidity, as Betfair is housed in the UK.

The formulae above imply that if using the lay bet method, we should look for games with as high a value of q as possible and this is sort of true. Generally, the longer the odds for one team, the tighter the difference in the payouts between ordinary bookmakers and Betfair's exchange. That means the difference in odds for the outsider will increase, so that the ratio of q / Q will decrease. There is a practical limit to the return of about 80%, which is about the same as in Method 1. You'll also need significantly more money in your account to cover the possible payout on the lay.

The other difference between theory and practice is that lay bets of any reasonable size on outsiders  (say, those paying 10.00 or more) are generally not available because there aren't enough takers on the other side. Laying off $75 on a $100 free bet should be feasible though. Laying off a free bet of $250 or $500 where the bookmaker requires you to use it all in one go is much less likely. So, in reality, you're probably not going to do much better that 70% using the lay method. Having said that, when available, it's usually slightly superior to Method 1.

I am reminded of a quote by that great philosopher, baseballer and commentator Yogi Berra:

      "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

What does it all mean?

In summary, the above discussion implies that in practice, you’re typically looking for games with one team paying around 4.00 to 6.00. That means for each $100 free bet you use, you’ll need as much as $500 to bet on the favourite on another site, or alternatively, to cover the lay payout on Betfair.

Method 1 is more likely to give you an actual match up of bets. If you use it, find the lowest value of K = 1 / p + 1 / q  that you can, use the formula x = (q – 1) / p for the amount of your hedge bet on the favourite and you should be able to secure a return of 65 – 70% of your free bet - don't forget to cover a draw.

Method 2, the lay bet, usually gives a slightly better return, if you can get the lay on. Try to find a game where one side is paying about 7.00 to 8.00 and there is sufficient depth in the market. This may not always be possible. If not, look for games where one side is paying around 5.00 to 6.00. Use the formula x = (q – 1) / (Q - C) for the amount of your lay bet and you should be able to secure a return of at least 70% of your free bet.The additional advantage of using a lay bet is the small chance of making a large return from a drawn game, instead of the small, additional hedging cost in Method 1.

A Salient Example Of The Problems With English Cricket

I recently came across an article in which Ashley Giles bemoaned that English batsmen get very little exposure to unorthodox spin until they hit test cricket.

He suggested supporting English spinners who bowl unorthodox deliveries like the doosra, instead of quietly managing them out of county cricket. That’s a fair point: other countries’ spinners will not stop the practice just because the English Cricket Board thinks it’s dodgy. Foreigners do a lot of dodgy things. Always have and always will. But in the case of cricket, the option to exclude them from a “gentleman’s club” of people who bowl with a straight arm is long past.

The article made reference to an event which is symptomatic of a much deeper malaise in English cricket, one entirely of its own creation. It was that Hampshire were docked points in a County Championship match for preparing a wicket with excessive spin.

When I saw this statement, I imagined teams shot out for under 100 by journeymen off spinners. But no, have a look at the scorecards. All four innings reached around 200. South African test spinner Imran Tahir could only manage match figures of 4/110. An average county level off-spinner who took 6 in the first innings couldn’t take a single wicket in the second.

Hardly a sub-continental style minefield of the sort India prepared for Australia in 2004 in Mumbai or in 2013 in Chennai.

If the ECB seriously believes a pitch on which teams can score 200 spins “excessively”, it’s no wonder their batsmen struggle against anything other than gentle off spin. They clearly are not living in the real world. While people like this remain in charge of English cricket, their test team’s brief period of dominance over Australia will be just an aberration.

Also, have a look at Nottinghamshire’s 4th innings run chase on this apparently excessive turner. They fart arsed around to get to 4/149 in 66 overs, needing another 53 off the last 6. They then fell 4 runs short, still with 4 wickets in hand.

That tells me pretty much all I need to know about why England can’t beat Australia.

The West Needs To Stay Out Of Crimea

There are two main reasons Western governments should not involve themselves in the Crimean dispute. The first is practical: there is nothing they can or will do to prevent Crimea rejoining Russia. The second is moral: Crimea really is Russian territory and the overwhelming majority of the population want to rejoin Russia.

Although the political situation in Ukraine is complex, no complex or lengthy argument is required to understand Western countries’ only sensible course of action: unless Russian troops begin pouring into any region other than Crimea, stay out of it.

Crimea is only part of Ukraine by a recent historical accident. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine had not been independent for nearly 700 years. In 1654, the uprising which saw the region break away from Polish rule effectively made Ukraine a territory of Russia through the Treaty of Pereyaslav. In 1954, to celebrate the treaty’s 300th anniversary, Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, presumably believing that it would only ever be a symbolic gesture as both territories would continue to be controlled by the USSR. This move was said to have surprised many in Russia at the time and it certainly did not have unequivocal support.

So, from the time Russia reconquered the Crimean Khanate until Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev as a political act of a discredited, defunct system of government, it has been Russian territory. It is therefore absurd for Western countries, particularly the United States, to suggest that Crimea should remain part of Ukraine, despite the wishes of the majority of its population.

Crimea will almost certainly rejoin Russia, soon. There is nothing practical that the United States, Europe or anyone else can do about it. Even the new Ukrainian government openly admits there is nothing it can do.

Crimea is overwhelmingly ethnically Russian. The electorate and state parliament are dominated by Russian speakers who want to rejoin Russia. The Crimean parliament has an openly stated goal of unification and a referendum on the matter is due to be held on March 16. The boycott of the referendum by many ethnic Ukrainians and other minoroties such as Crimean Tartars will make no material difference to the result.

Nor will the fact that remaining part of Ukraine is not one of the referendum options (the only two are independence or joining Russia). Having this third choice would have been more sensible political strategy and lent more legitimacy to the referendum. So would have allowing a longer period for debate and free campaigning for all options. From a Liberal perspective, this demonstrates the lack of acumen of Crimea's pro-Russian politicians, since the "join Russia" option would have almost certainly won regardless. An alternative reading is that it demonstrates that Russia doesn't feel it needs to care about Western political values. Russian Crimeans are essentially stating that the result is a foregone conclusion and anyone wanting to waste time and money on Western political niceties can go fuck themselves.

The political situation has come to a head now due to the overthrow of the corrupt and repressive, but pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovich. Its replacement is largely ethnic Ukrainian and many of its members bear some hostile sentiment toward Russia. Despite the exaggerations and propaganda of the Russian media, the new Ukrainian political power blocs do contain some far right, nationalist elements. It's not wholly surprising that a Russian region which never consented to becoming part of an independent Ukraine now decides it's time to rejoin Russia.

If an overwhelming majority of the population of Crimea vote to rejoin Russia, as they almost certainly will, what can the West do? Warn Russia not to “annex Crimea”? It’s hardly an annexation if the majority of the population votes in favour of it. This is not a case of Russia using its military to impose a pro-Russian government on the unwilling populace of a neighbour, as they did in Eastern Europe after the Second World War.

Just as important is the question of why the West would support Crimea remaining part of Ukraine. Apart from opposing a genuine, democratic choice, the position is poor political strategy. It is the western part of Ukraine which is ethnically Ukrainian and pro-Europe. Crimea and the south eastern part around Donetsk are majority ethnically Russian and hence pro-Moscow. This has been a source of division in Ukrainian politics long before Ukraine gained independence in 1991.

Wouldn’t it be a better political strategy to not oppose Crimea reuniting with Russia, thereby removing a significant proportion of the pro-Russian population? The condition would be a Russian guarantee that it would not seek to further redraw the border. Instead of picking a fight with Russia which they can't win, the United States and Europe could then concentrate on bringing Ukraine (minus Crimea) into the European fold, which would be easier with an increased proportion of ethnic Ukrainians and almost certainly involve less violence.

Update: British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, a man every bit as insipid as he looks, has labellled the Crimean referendum "a mockery of proper democratic practice". Apparently the UK "does not recognise the referendum or its outcome" and Russia will now "face economic and political consequences" ... from a heavily indebted country which has lost most of its manufacturing base and struggles to assert its political and cultural values domestically, let alone globally.

The Crimean referendum was certainly not best diplomatic practice, but let's concentrate on matters where a) there is a genuinely unjust outcome and b) we can actually do something practical to reverse, or at least ameliorate it.

McDonalds Sued For $1.5M Over A Trivial Slight

The Webster Lucas Case: Lawyers Who Abet The Pursuit Of Speculative Litigation Must Be Punished

Americans tend to indulge in some absurdly speculative litigation, but this farcical case should be an embarrassment to the country’s entire legal system.

California man Webster Lucas is suing McDonalds for $1.5M, presumably for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Over what? He was only given one serviette with his burger and the store manager refused to give him any more.

"I should have went to eat at the Jack-in-the-Box because I didn't come here to argue over napkins I came here to eat", was the reported reply.

Being black, Mr Lucas has of course played the race card, despite the manager being a Mexican. Allegedly, the manager “was racist towards him and mumbled something that sounded like ‘you people’ ”.

Well yes, if a Mexican mumbled something to a black man that sounded like “you people”, that ought to be enough to prove aggravating circumstances of racism.

The lottery sized amount of $1.5M is due to Webster Lucas being allegedly unable to work as a result of emotional distress. Because, despite his obviously poor education, he earns a seven figure salary.

Webster Lucas has been “unable to work” because he is a lazy-ass motherfucker who believes he has found an excuse not to go to work. In a sensible industrial relations system, his employer should be able to sack him on the grounds of falsely claiming sick leave. No reasonable person becomes so stressed that they cannot work because they were refused an extra serviette. Even had the manager been white and called Mr Lucas a nigger, that could not possibly cause a grown man sufficient emotional distress to stay home from work. Just unwrap your burger, throw it in the manager’s face and go down the road to Jack-in-the-Box.

Some supernatural intervention has substantially raised Mr Lucas’ vocabulary in a just a few days. He has gone from expressing himself thus: “I should have went to eat at the Jack-in-the-Box” to sending an email to the McDonald’s manager saying he is “unable to work because of the intentional infliction of emotional distress”. Or could that have been his no win, no fee lawyers constructing the text of the email for him?

I don’t know who his lawyers are yet, but one might reasonably surmise that Mr Lucas is not funding this case himself, which brings me to my main point.

Americans are far more liberal in their interpretation of tort law than most, to the point where it is often clearly manipulated by lawyers who take on speculative cases on a no win, no fee basis, then seek to blackmail defendants into settling in order to avoid the much greater potential impost of a court case, particularly since a claim for recovery of costs against the plaintiff will be practically unenforceable, even if granted by the court.

Matters in which a plaintiff with little resources has a strong case make the no win, no fee model a valid element of the justice system. However, it only has a net benefit if balanced with the return of the tort of champerty and the ability to vigorously pursue it in relation to the conduct of lawyers.

In my opinion, the pursuit of the Lucas matter is a clear case of champerty and McDonalds should have a claim for all costs, plus reputational and punitive damages against Webster Lucas’ lawyers for this frivolous, clearly speculative action.

I said "should". I doubt if it actually will. That tells me the law is wrong.

I don't believe that third party funding of litigation is per se wrong in a free society, as long as the attendant moral hazard is rigorously contained.

Any third party funder of litigation, including lawyers prosecuting the matter substantially via their own funds, should be required to deposit a bond covering the defendant's expected costs. Moreover, in any case where the judgement is in favour of the defendant, costs should be jointly and severally awarded against the plaintiff and any funders. If the complaint was found to be vexatious or speculative, punitive damages should also be awarded. This would at least place the onus on any litigation funders to be confident in the righteousness of their case.

Philip Seymour Hoffman's Death: Some Things Can Be Both Tragic And Stupid

From high priests to peons, citizens of the People’s Republic of the Arts went to considerable effort to fashion suitably prosaic and sensitive statements (read Jim Carrey’s 6th down) in response to Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death from a heroin overdose, all ensuring the sentiments sat well within the liturgy.

But witness the high dudgeon from the arts luvvies, hangers on and wannabes in response to anyone who suggests Hoffman’s death was stupid or irresponsible.

“How insensitive! He was such a great actor! It’s a tragedy! Such a huge loss for the world.”

It was certainly a tragedy, especially for his family. It was a loss for the acting profession and his fans, though I don’t believe it’s delayed a cure for cancer or thrown the economy back into recession.

So yes, a tragedy it was. However, Hoffman’s death was also genuinely stupid. It was irresponsible, self absorbed and immature. He was a 46 year old man with a wife (actual or de facto) and three young children.

Most people reach a point in their lives when they are responsible for more than just themselves, whether they want to be or not. Even people who do not marry and have no children are still expected to become at least responsible for their own wellbeing. Understanding those responsibilities and what is required to meet them is a fundamental part of adulthood. It is also the quid pro quo for liberty.

A man with a wife and three young children shooting up heroin several times a day for months, eventually in such quantities that he killed himself is not even remotely adult behaviour.

Characterising addiction as an illness misses the point. Yes, some are far more susceptible to addiction than others, but no-one sleepwalks into an addiction; you have to work at it. Addiction is a gradual process. An intelligent person cannot possibly be unaware that the volume and frequency of their drug consumption is leading them from casual to habitual use to addiction. People recognise something is wrong when they begin to develop the physiological and psychological symptoms of addiction. Despite the awareness, many still find it very difficult to combat and many exhibit denial by for example, embracing the addict subculture. But all addicts know they have a problem, whether or not they put off dealing with it.

The differences between Hoffman and a poorly educated, unemployed street junkie are Hoffman’s intelligence, education, resources, social support network and responsibility to his young family. The latter should have provided the motivation not to use so much that he became addicted in the first place, or at least to clean up his act when he did. The rest should have provided the means to achieve it.

His wife asked him to move out of the family home due to his heroin use. I doubt that came out of the blue. Surely there had been multiple discussions prior to her asking him to leave. The first one should have been sufficient motivation to if not stop using, at least only do it sporadically and not around his kids.

Excuses along the line of: he had such a sensitive soul and that quality which made him such a great actor also made him vulnerable and unable to deal with the harshness of the world are bullshit.

Hoffman earned far in excess of the average income for dressing up and playing pretend. He had a wife and children who loved him. He had a good education, nice house, friends, fans, wealth, social connections and a plethora of opportunities to do interesting work. In other words, a life for which most would feel sincere gratitude.

“But what does it all mean? … I’m so depressed … I can’t deal with life.”

Grow up, you big, self indulgent baby.

I’ll tell you who should be depressed. A man with a poor education and a low paying, soul destroying job, who knows that at any time, he could be made redundant and one step away from his family being homeless. A man who comes home to a run down, rented house in a shitty neighbourhood, to a wife and three kids with whom he regularly argues and for whom a six pack of beer is a treat. That’s a man who I could understand using sedatives to ameliorate his existential pain.

Even if Hoffman’s depression was endogenous, he had the intelligence and education to know that continued, heavy heroin use was never going to help.

Like many addicts, Hoffman at times may well have felt self loathing when he was high, or had that inner voice telling him to clean himself up as he decided whether or not to hit up again. A lot of drunks have the same experience before they start drinking each day.

Even though getting clean / sober is hard work and an addict has a genuine and well founded apprehension about the emotions they will have to confront, to continue the addiction is stupid and weak. To get yourself into it in the first place is stupid and weak. To get yourself out of an addiction requires a great deal of strength and perseverance. Not everyone can summon it.

This is one element of the stupidity of Hoffman’s death. Something can be stupid yet still be tragic. The irresponsible element of his death was its effect on his wife and particularly his children.

Children need their parents to provide more than material and emotional support. They look to them for guidance on how to live. It’s not like Hoffman’s three children won’t find out the sordid details of how he shut himself off from his family and effectively acted out a long and tortuous suicide.

What are they going to grow up thinking? It’s hard enough for children in a divorce, wondering whether their parents actually love them. How will Hoffman’s children understand why a father who supposedly loved them would make a choice like that, moreover, make that same choice day after day?

A loyal RTBB follower reading this post prior to publication commented on its strong moralising, particularly around drug use.

But it’s not Hoffman’s drug use per se which is at issue: it’s the scale and its effect on his family, of which I have no doubt he was aware.

I don’t believe it’s wrong for adults with children to use drugs, any more than it is for them to get drunk sometimes. But you don’t do it in front of your kids.

Adults often have wine at the dinner table. If they have friends over for a BBQ, adults will be drinking alcohol. The message to children is that this is normal adult behaviour. What adults should not do in front of children is get obviously drunk. Nor should they line up a few rails on the kitchen bench. That is done discreetly in the bedroom.

Children expect stability, clarity and reliability from their parents. That’s not what Philip Seymour Hoffman’s children got and that’s why his death was stupid and irresponsible. For the arts luvvies to gloss over this obvious fact is moral relativism taken to extremes of hypocrisy, although they are still well within the bounds set by their refusal to condemn Roman Polanski (imagine their different reaction had a wealthy businessman done the same thing).

Perhaps arts wankers’ hypocritical reaction to Hoffman’s death may have been sufficient to warrant a post, however that’s not what prompted me.

The reason I did is because I’m sure conservatives across the Western world are just waiting to use Hoffman’s death in their campaign to roll back the decriminalisation of drug use. I’m surprised at the restraint of the US Republicans in particular: I had imagined it would be less than 24 hours before some conservative Christian senator issued a statement that drugs destroy families and thus we must redouble our efforts against this scourge.

I have little doubt we’ll see Hoffman’s death co-opted into the campaign to repeal Colorado and Washington’s legalisation of marijuana … because marijuana is not harmless; it “leads to other things” and we’ll have more broken families and fatherless children on our consciences.

Genuine Liberals who want the government out of their private lives have had our cause harmed by Hoffman’s death. It’s played right into the hands of conservatives who charge that all liberals want (conflating liberals and Liberals) is freedom without commensurate responsibility. It assists their characterisation of liberals as self absorbed, glorified children, hiding behind moral relativism and lacking the backbone to defend “values”.

Unfortunately, there is some truth in that description of many people denoted “liberals” in America. But those people aren’t Liberals. Most are middle class, dilettante socialists, believing in the benefits of government involvement in almost every facet of life. Just because liberals and Liberals agree on the treatment of drugs as a public health issue rather than a criminal one, doesn’t mean we should team up.

Liberals understand that personal responsibility is the price of having the government as much as possible out of our private lives. On that basis, a man of talents and resources, with a young family, who then kills himself with a heroin addiction deserves condemnation, as much because he will become a symbol for reactionary conservatives seeking to constrain our civil liberties as for his renunciation of the moral compact which binds personal rights and responsibilities.

This Clown Of A Bus Driver Deserves To Be Sacked And Publicly Shamed

People in low level positions abusing their very small amounts of power due to the chip on their shoulder is a phenomenon as old as history. The functionary who invokes policy or procedure as an excuse to be deliberately unhelpful, the petty official who insists on irrelevant rules being followed to the letter, the bus driver who won’t let someone off 20p … this type of behaviour is hardly novel.

A more recent development seems to be bunging on an act: fabricating some threat or offence in order to justify a hissy fit. Two years ago, a Gold Coast train driver caused twenty police to be called because he didn’t like the amount of noise the passengers were making. Now a Sydney bus driver has plumbed new depths of pathos. He decided a crying child was simply too much for him to cope with and told the mother to get off. When another passenger intervened in her support, the driver packed up his cash box, stormed off the bus and refused to continue driving.

This is the type of behaviour one would normally associate with a child; behaviour which would (should) result in a swift kick up the arse. It is not behaviour which can be accepted from any credible adult, let alone someone employed to provide a public service.

Nor can it be viewed in an isolated context. The driver (or his union) cannot be allowed to proffer the excuse of stress, pretend there were “faults on both sides”, have the driver “counselled” and then be back driving a bus.

Why not?

Because it is becoming increasingly common for people employed in service positions to dishonestly claim aggressive or threatening behaviour when a customer has a legitimate complaint about the service they have received or to de facto, unilaterally decide upon the terms and conditions of their employment by simply refusing to do contracted tasks. In short, the device of bunging on an act is attempting to establish a cultural foothold as low level employees form the delusion that they are somehow equal with customers.

The bus driver cannot be allowed to get away with this behaviour. What message does it send to every other public facing employee in a service position? That this new meme of fabricating offence in a pathetic attempt to justify not doing legitimate tasks of your job has currency? That you can get away with acting like a whiny little bitch, inconveniencing customers who unfortunately must depend upon you to do your job properly?

Consequently, the driver must be made an example of … and the public should witness it. Crucify this turd as a warning to any other who might get similar ideas.

In my opinion, as well as dismissal by his employer, this is the kind of behaviour that warranted a beating from the inconvenienced customers; one sufficiently severe to not only serve as a never forgotten lesson to this particular idiot, but also as an example to all other shitkickers who might be tempted to try it on instead of properly doing the job for which, given their low skill level, they are fortunate to have been employed.

Unfortunately, a spontaneous beating is not really practical in the modern age. Can you imagine the driver’s reaction had one of the passengers given him a clip over the ear or a boot up the arse and told him to get back on and drive the bus? He’d have been calling the police, followed by an ambulance, then using the “serious workplace assault” as an opportunity to ask for a lottery win’s worth of compensation.

Fortunately, the modern age does present a modern alternative: public exposure and humiliation.

This is exactly the kind of incident which should have been filmed and broadcast across the internet. The driver should have been named and so viciously lampooned that he dare not show his face for weeks. It is insufficient to merely sack the driver. Let some tabloid show like Current Affair know all about it, including leaking the footage and his name and address (easily done without being traced).

That may seem harsh, but trying it on is an insidious and destructive meme. It needs to be stamped out. Dishonesty and pretence in social transactions are not part of Liberalism. Nor is being soft with fuckwits.

Suppose this bus driver is sacked and hounded by the media and online. How likely is it other whiny shits will think twice before they try on their own brand of chip on the shoulder?