When Science And The Law Completely Fail To Understand Each Other

Contrary to many press reports, the Italian scientists were not prosecuted for failing to predict the L’Aquila earthquake. Effectively, they were charged with manslaughter by negligent or reckless omission, for failing to adequately warn people of the risk of an earthquake and for failing to correct the assertion by bureaucrat Bernardo De Bernardinis, deputy technical head of the Civil Protection Agency that there was no danger. Now a court has found them all guilty and sentenced them each to six years in jail.

Fucking insane? Science on trial yet again in the country which condemned Galileo as a heretic? What could we expect from the justice system of a country hardly synonymous with honesty and competence?

It’s not that simple.

Firstly, this is not a case of a bunch of ignorant lawyers and politicians putting science on trial. The citizens of L’Aquila brought the complaint. Under the Italian constitution, prosecutors are bound to act on it.

The lack of a demonstrably direct connection between the reckless advice and negligence in not correcting it and the subsequent deaths makes the verdict appear unsafe. Six years is very harsh considering the multiple contributory factors in the deaths. However, De Bernardinis and the scientists would clearly have some case to answer in most Western countries, even if only a civil suit (which would probably bankrupt them).

Here is a chronological summary of events surrounding the L’Aquila earthquake:

Giampaolo Giuliani, a lab technician and amateur earthquake predictor used measurements of radon gas to predict a major earthquake in the region on March 29, 2009. Groups of people went around advising residents to leave their homes and a panic ensued. The earthquake did not occur.

Giuliani is not a mere crank. He has a science background and is seriously attempting to study radon emissions as a predictor of earthquakes. The problem is that he relies too heavily on radon emissions and appears overly confident of their strength as a predictor of actual quakes, as distinct from predicting general changes in seismic activity.

Although radon gas emissions have potential in searching for minerals, oil and geothermal energy sites, as well as being possible predictors of seismic activity, the problem is that high or even changing radon levels can have multiple causes. Being a predictor of increases in seismic activity is not enough: one needs to be able to predict seismic activity above the dangerous threshold and with an epicentre sufficiently close to the surface that the tremors will damage property and pose a threat to life. Radon gas emissions are currently a poor predictor of the timing and location of actual earthquakes, as distinct from predicting an increase in low level seismic activity.

The University of Massachusetts has a good geology course with a lecture on earthquake prediction. There are many observables which have weak predictive power, but science currently just doesn’t know enough to make accurate forecasts.

The next day, March 30, a magnitude 4.0 quake was observed in the surrounding Abruzzo region. That’s classified as a minor to light quake. There are tens of thousands of this magnitude observed worldwide each year.

The Richter scale is logarithmic. It is the logarithm of the amplitude of seismic waves measured along a single dimension (by the readout on a seismograph). Thus, an increase of one point on the Richter scale represents a tenfold increase in amplitude in the direction of measurement and consequently a 10^3/2 = 31.6 fold increase in energy output. The 6.3 magnitude L’Aquila quake on April 6 therefore released around 3000 times the energy of the 4.0 tremor on March 30.

On March 31, a meeting of the Major Risks Committee was held in L’Aquila. The Committee is an expert group which advises the Italian Civil Protection Agency on the risks of natural disasters. It consists of Bernardo De Bernardinis and the six scientists charged.

The minutes of this meeting record the following comments:

"A major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out." - Enzo Boschi, president of the National Institute for Geophysics and Vulcanology.

"In recent times some recent earthquakes have been preceded by minor shocks days or weeks beforehand, but on the other hand many seismic swarms did not result in a major event." - Giulio Selvaggi, director of the National Earthquake Centre.

"Because L'Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake." - Claudio Eva, professor of earth physics at the University of Genoa.

"There is no reason to believe that a swarm of minor events is a sure predictor of a major shock." - Franco Barberi, a volcanologist at the University of Roma Tre.

All the participants agreed that buildings in the area should be monitored urgently, to assess their capacity to sustain a major shock.

So what happened next?

Bernardo De Bernardinis and Franco Barberi fronted a press conference later that day, where De Bernardinis stated that:

"The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable".

As a consequence, people did not evacuate, including some who had been considering doing so. There was insufficient effort to identify particularly vulnerable buildings. On April 6, L’Aquila was hit by a 6.3 magnitude quake, killing 308 people.

On June 3, De Bernardinis and the six scientists were indicted for manslaughter, for failing to properly assess and communicate the risks, because people relied on their advice and subsequently died in the earthquake.

De Bernardinis was certainly going to find himself in trouble after spouting the above crap. It is clearly a complete misrepresentation of the comments minuted during the Risks Committee meeting.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all the time when non-scientist bureaucrats, managers or “business analysts” attempt to produce an unholy fusion of communicating scientific findings and playing politics.

Many people had been panicked by Giampaolo Giuliani’s well meaning but incorrect prediction two days earlier. There was a political dimension to the press conference, since repeated scares with no ensuing quake would have resulted not just in public anger, but the possible ignoring of evacuation warnings when scientists had more data to support such a prediction.

De Bernardinis was clearly trying to juggle these demands with the inherent uncertainty of statistical analysis and particularly, earthquake prediction. The problem is that he is obviously a complete moron who does not understand scientific principles, as is usually the case when bureaucrats are attached to or worse, given oversight of scientific departments.

Clowns like De Bernardinis being placed in positions of (sometimes direct) authority over scientific departments or committees is a serious and common problem in both the corporate and public sectors. The bullshit they use to sell themselves is typically along the lines of: “My role is to interpret and implement the science in a way that’s practical for the business” or “that people can understand”.

The implication being made is that scientists are impractical, uncommercial boffins who can’t communicate with “ordinary people”. They might be good at hard sums, but it takes a special kind of professional (highly paid of course) who is comfortable in both camps and has the business acumen to implement the science in a practical way.

This self-marketing is a con job. In reality, subtleties which can materially affect decisions and outcomes are misunderstood and ignored as the science is misinterpreted and dumbed down for “the business” or government. When results are less than expected, including the occasional disaster, blame is of course sheeted onto the technical people, as it was in the GFC.

I have encountered many of these managerial types in the corporate sector. They abound in finance and IT. In my experience, the overwhelming majority are politically adept, but technically incompetent parasites whose survival strategy consists of a few simple tricks:

§        Cast yourself as “practical” and “business like” and the technical people as uncommercial and poor communicators.

§        Make regular lists of key statistics, brief task descriptions in project specs and topic headings in technical documents. Senior management or ministerial committee meetings rarely go into detail on individual topics. Asked for an update from your department? Easy, just read out the topic headings and your brief descriptions (all provided by someone else), then follow up with some stats and some general motherhood statements. You can even put them in a Power Point presentation (because everyone at the table is only capable of linear thought). Your technical people can create all the tables and graphs.

§        Learn buzz words. You only need a high level definition because you’ll only ever say them to “business” people or government ministers / staffers. Only drop buzz words sparingly and you’ll be seen as someone who can converse with the propeller heads, but is really “one of us”.

§        Take credit for others’ work. “My department delivers these results / products because I manage it for commercial outcomes.” Any overall project plans are of course your creation.

§        Take advantage of most people’s natural aversion to conflict. If any of the technical people show you up, paint them as “not a team player” and try to manage them out. Your superiors will help you. Corporate and government types want “team players” because committee decisions allow diffusion of responsibility. Someone who points out the Kool-Aid is actually poison is very threatening.

Apart from being a waste of time, space, money and oxygen, the more serious problem is that these idiots usually end up believing their own bullshit. Career success convinces them they CAN actually interpret and distil technical information and scientific results and communicate them, while at the same time balancing inconvenient uncertainties with political or business imperatives.

Of course, they can’t and so we end up with people like De Bernardinis telling everyone “there is no danger” or “risk officers” telling boards banks are sufficiently well capitalised.

The problem for the Italian scientists is that one of them, Franco Barberi, a volcanologist and then acting president of the Major Risks Committee, was present at the press conference and didn’t correct De Bernardinis. He was sitting right there while a man who is evidently a complete fool told everyone there was nothing to worry about. He knew this to be false, must have understood the possible consequences, yet failed to speak up and say: “No, hang on … that’s not true. There is a danger; we’re just not sure how much. Can I suggest …”

Unfortunately for scientists, engineers and technical people everywhere, by acting like a mushroom, Barberi has reinforced the unfair stereotype. Of course there exist technical people who are poor communicators and are hopelessly uncommercial. However, most are comfortable socially, capable of discussing their work and have a reasonable grasp of financial and political realities. That’s how they rose to senior academic or industry positions.

The other five scientists weren’t at the press conference, so there is some doubt as to whether they were aware of De Bernardinis’ statement. The prosecution’s position is that it was their duty to find out what was said and correct it if necessary. Since the reasoning behind judgements by Italian courts cannot be made public for three months after the verdict, we will have to wait to see what the judge thought of this argument, although the verdict and sentences give us a clue.

In many jurisdictions, inaction leading directly to death is viewed as tantamount to either murder or manslaughter where there is an undertaking to do something and to not do it would likely result in death. An example is if a heart surgeon walked out of a heart transplant in the middle of the operation and the patient died.

In New South Wales, Section 18 of the Crimes Act makes it clear that death as a result of the omission of action with “reckless indifference to human life” counts as murder or manslaughter.

This is what the prosecution is saying: You knew there was a risk, yet either said the opposite or effectively said it by failure to correct De Bernardinis' statement. As a result, people did not evacuate as they had planned. Some of them died. Your reckless statement or omission is taken to have caused their deaths.

I can’t see a problem with the element of recklessness. The problem is with cause.

By virtue of their positions, there was clearly an undertaking by the Risks Committee to provide advice as to the possibility of an earthquake strong enough to pose a threat to life. But that’s all they could have done: state that there was a risk, probability unknown.

Did neglecting to make this statement actually cause people to die?

The argument as to cause is: What would people have done differently had the scientists made the correct statement? How would have events differed? What is the likelihood the deaths and injuries would still have occurred?

The correct statement the Risks Committee should have made at the March 31 press conference is that there is some risk of a major quake, but we don’t know how much and for how long. They should then have given advice regarding identifying particularly at risk buildings and any mitigating actions which might be taken.

What would the people of L’Aquila have done had the correct statement been made and no earthquake occurred for five days? Would some have left town and then come back? Would people have avoided certain buildings? How long would they have waited?

What of the buildings which collapsed? Did they comply with building codes? Is that what really caused the deaths? Were some of the buildings which collapsed even known to not meet building standards? Would people have died had the buildings been properly constructed?

What of the older, heritage buildings which cannot be made to comply with modern standards? Would they have been evacuated? For how long?

Given the large number of uncertainties and unanswerable “ifs”, plus the very real contributory factor of building construction in at least some of the deaths, it is hard to see how a manslaughter charge based on reckless omission could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I doubt even De Bernardinis’ foolish statement could have been proven to have led directly to deaths.

Had the truth been that there was a material probability of a large quake in say, the next week, then clearly defined evacuation measures could have been taken. This is what would occur in the case of a tsunami warning, for example.

However, the truth in this case was that the probability of a large quake was unknown and even if one did occur, its likely timing was also unknown.

Given this advice, people would soon have returned to their homes and lives, probably after only a few days, if they even left at all. Then they would have died.

It is not fair to hang a manslaughter charge on the scientists because they did not deliver a necessarily vague warning. Even the misrepresentations in De Bernardinis’ statement would have mattered little.

Being in positions of public trust, the scientists should have had a far better understanding of the political and legal issues surrounding their statements. They have done all scientists a great disservice, because what will be remembered is: “Scientists failed to communicate risks”. That De Bernardinis was the chief culprit and is not a scientist is probably not even known to many people and will be largely forgotten.

If scientists are able be prosecuted for “failing to communicate risks”, then lawyers and politicians (many of whom are lawyers) need to understand scientific principles. In particular, they need to clearly grasp the inherent uncertainty in many scientific fields and what science can and cannot reasonably say.

Justice Done As Passengers Throw Bogan Scrag Off Train

Many people would have already seen the Youtube video of the drunken bogan woman swearing at, hitting and spitting at passengers on a Sydney suburban train. Eventually, as the train pulls into Hurstville station (in Sydney’s south), the young guys filming her grab her bags, then throw them and her out onto the platform. With the hypocrisy so common to grubs, she then yells to the station guard: “Officer, I’ve been assaulted!”. You can tell the station is Hurstville from the sign on the platform at 13:45 into the video. At 14:08, one of the passengers asks: “What station are we at?” His mate replies: “Hurstville.”

This is how idiots should be dealt with: quickly, summarily and without excessive force. She wasn’t a serious physical threat to anyone (even the middle aged man she hit for telling her to sit down and shut up); just a nuisance who had escalated to intolerable. None of the young guys punched or even slapped her. In fact, one of them can be heard telling her: “I don’t hit women” when she spat on him and challenged him to a fight. When the train finally stopped, they just picked up her bags and threw them out the door, then threw her out after them.

In a liberal society, people should have the right to use an appropriate level of force to defend themselves against not just direct physical attack, but against nuisances such as this bogan scrag.

No one flattened the woman in the video. She wasn’t punched and held down until she agreed to be quiet. That is what would have happened to a man behaving as she did. Despite her breaking the tacit taboo against women threatening men (the quid pro quo being that men don’t hit women), she still wasn’t hit. There was a small and appropriate level of violence used to throw her off the train. Of course the guys laughed at her afterward: by her behaviour, she deserved ridicule.

Women can’t have it doth ways. If you behave like a lady, you’ll be treated like one … and yes, men will have significant input to what behaviour constitutes “ladylike”, because that is what exempts women from male social rules concerning appropriate uses of violence. If some women break the taboo against threatening and physically attacking men (or other women important to them), they are likely to receive violence in return, because that’s how many men deal with physical threats. If violence wasn’t effective in immediately countering violence, the police wouldn’t need to be armed.

An open society doesn’t need police to solve minor problems such as this. Suppose the police had been called. Even had they made it to Hurstville prior to the train, everyone would still have been held up as the train was stopped while the woman was removed and (possibly) arrested. Some might say that this is the correct course of action: better that people on the train suffer the inconvenience of a time delay in order to have authorized security or police deal with the matter.

No it isn’t. Just chuck her off and let everyone get on with their journey. The passengers have been inconvenienced enough by her behaviour; no need to add to it by stopping the train.

“Oh, but if citizens take the law into their own hands, they or she might have been injured.”

So what? That’s a risk adult citizens should be entitled to decide for themselves. In a liberal democracy, citizens make the laws. They are already in OUR hands. If police are not around, citizens should and do have the right to enforce our laws. Ever heard of a citizen’s arrest?

In NSW, it’s Section 100 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. Section 231 says that only sufficient force required to make and maintain the arrest is allowed to be used.

The guys on the train effectively arrested the woman, then let her go. They actually used less force than would have been required to hold her until the police arrived (as would have been their duty after exercising their right to make an arrest). In any sensible society, police looking at this video would say: “Fair enough” and get on with some real police work.

Looking at the incident and its outcome, I reckon justice was done. The summary action of the passengers was a far better outcome than wasting the time of police and witnesses, not to mention the expense of a court hearing.

The reporting of this story in Britain is quite revealing. The Daily Mail, hardly a lefty flag bearer, ends its article with a quote from a Brit:

Michael Murphy added: 'Why can't passengers do this in my country? Everyone just stands around and pretends it's not happening.'

That’s what happens in a nanny state. Nobody will take any action in case they are accused themselves. Better to all just suffer in silence and wait for “the authorities”. Even if they do turn up before the person leaves, the police probably won’t do anything meaningful either, in case they are accused, particularly if the perpetrator (read “victim”) is not white.

Can you imagine if the spitting bogan thrown off the train was an Aboriginal woman? We’d have had lefty hand wringers crying racism and the press calling Anthony Mundine for a quote.

Had it occurred in America, the woman would probably have manufactured an injury, then sued the guys, with aggravated damages for the “humiliation” of putting the video on Youtube.

Let’s continue to deal with minor incidents in an informal, Australian way, rather than emulating the spineless nanny statism of the Brits or the ridiculous litigiousness of the Yanks.

The Macquarie Dictionary Of Newspeak

Misogyny means hating women as women. Someone who hates a particular woman or group of women as a result of their actions, political positions or some other reason is not necessarily a misogynist. The many facets of a person’s identity are not relevant to a misogynist: they hate women on an ontological level, purely on the basis of the qualities of their gender.

Misogyny is a pathology. It is visceral. It is not the same as paternalism (believing that women, among others, are not suitable for positions of responsibility), sexism (prejudice against women) or chauvinism (being a biased supporter of your own side ie. men). Misogyny is far stronger and its consequences are abnormal social interaction, often associated with violence.

Thus, the Macquarie Dictionary changing its definition of misogyny to include “an entrenched prejudice against women” is absurd. Entrenched prejudice is sexism, which does not require hatred.

Most people love their own children and are fond of children in general, but treat them with prejudice. We don’t allow them to drive, vote, drink alcohol, obtain credit or a host of other freedoms reserved for adults, because we believe they are incapable of handling the responsibility. Men did not hate women in the entrenched prejudice of 1950’s or Victorian era sexism; they simply believed women were not capable of a range of tasks and responsibilities reserved for men.

To suggest these types of “entrenched prejudice” derive from misogyny is absurd: they derive from feelings of paternalistic superiority.

Both sexism and misogyny are serious matters, however I suggest that instances of genuine misogyny are more serious than instances of sexism. Although sexism and misogyny are correlated, they usually have different psychological and social origins. Thus, we should use different words to talk about them and not confuse the two concepts.

People often misuse words. Sometimes that misuse can perpetuate itself and even become common. That does not make the usage correct. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard some ignoramus say “in agreeance”. Will the Macquarie Dictionary now include “agreeance” as an English word?

It is not sufficient for a significant proportion of the population to misuse a word for its meaning to actually change. These people have not deliberately used the word in an alternative context. Their variant usage is unintentional and is just plain wrong.

For a word to actually change its meaning, it must be persistently and deliberately used in such an alternative way. One possibility is via slang. For example, “sick” can now mean “good”.

Moreover, deliberately misusing a word for a political purpose does not count. To conflate misogyny and chauvinism or sexism in order to reduce your opponent’s standing in the eyes of female voters does not magically alter the meaning of the word misogyny. The speaker is simply being dishonest.

Of course, words do change their meanings over time. The word “egregious” used to mean remarkable or distinguished in the sense of great importance. Now it means remarkable or distinguished in the sense of outstandingly bad or wicked.

For example, Princess Mary, mother of George V’s wife Queen Mary, was widely reported to be rather large. In fact, she had the nickname “Fat Mary”. In its former usage, one might have said that Princess Mary had an egregious vagina, in the sense that it was both large and quite important. Nowadays, using those two concepts in a sentence would be more along the lines of: “You sir, are an egregious cunt!”

The purpose of a dictionary is not merely to reflect currently reported usage. It is to defend against malapropism by instructing the ignorant on what the words actually do mean. In particular, a dictionary should be an accurate record of a language. Its editors have a responsibility to distinguish genuine cultural changes in the usage of words from ignorant or deliberate misuse for political purposes.

The attempt by left wing feminists to paint anyone expressing sexist or chauvinist sentiments as misogynist appears to be a calculated campaign. Is its real purpose to make people believe that anyone thinking women are less able than men at certain tasks or that women should behave differently to men in social settings does so because they actually hate women and therefore have a behavioural disorder, the result being to equate sexism with mental problems?

I suggest that is their true purpose. These are typical tactics of the left: social engineering via the appropriation and control of language. Deliberately alter the meaning of a word reserved for a psychological disorder so that it will now be used to describe anyone accused of behaving in a patronising or exclusionary manner towards women. Now any criticism of a woman can be met with accusations of misogyny, therefore we can exclude the criticiser from debate on the grounds of lunacy.

Want to stifle legitimate debate over one of your ideologically derived positions? Just label your opponent a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophobe, or whatever category of thought criminal you decide.

“Women are statistically underrepresented in senior management. That proves discrimination. We must legislate to overturn this entrenched male privilege.”

“Of course they are underrepresented. They probably always will be. Most women in management take time out to have children. That puts their career back because their male peers increase their job specific knowledge and professional contacts more during that period. It's hard enough for men to climb the management ladder.”

“Well, that just shows that the whole system is rigged by the sexist patriarchy of which you are a part. Misogynist!”

A dictionary especially should not involve itself in politics and social engineering, which is what I suspect is the root of the Macquarie Dictionary’s attempt to alter the meaning of “misogyny”.

To quote editor Sue Butler:

“Misogyny was strict hatred of women and it probably does need a second definition to cover entrenched prejudices of women, as opposed to an out and out fundamental horror at women. We need to add a second definition, which is slightly stronger than sexist but heading in that direction towards entrenched prejudice rather than a visceral hatred.”

Why would a person with an apparently strong grasp of language say that we need to add a second definition, which conflates strongly sexist attitudes (which do not require hatred) with the pathology of a visceral, ontological hatred of women ... unless perhaps they are a fellow traveller, happy to play a part in the social engineering campaign.

As a custodian of linguistic record, the alternative course of action for the Macquarie Dictionary would have been to correct Julia Gillard et al’s misuse of the word, then point out the true meanings of all the words being bandied about.

We could have an evidence based discussion of sexism and genuine gender differences and roles. Perhaps we could even do it in such a way that men would be interested in participating.

For all the plaudits surrounding Julia Gillard’s “defining” speech, it was largely a rallying diatribe to the sisterhood. Do women actually think any men were won over? Because if you don’t care what men thought of the speech, or whether they even listened to it at all, all the sexism and “misogyny” you’re complaining about won’t go away.

If Julia Gillard and other feminists want men to actually listen, they’ll need a less shrill approach. Because if Julia gave that speech to a group of men, one would be blowing a vuvuzuela and another would have their hand cupped to their ear, saying: “What’s that? No, sorry … can’t hear a word you’re saying, love.”

There Are Some Ladies Here To Put Their Heads In Your Pants

In the field of comedic yobbery, that’s just gold: inane, but memorable and able to be adapted to a multitude of situations. It could be offensive, except it barely makes sense.

You could have a butler entering a drawing room, or a concierge entering an office:

“Excuse me, sir, there are some ladies here to put their heads in your pants.”

“Excellent. Please show them in.”

The behaviour of the Canterbury Bulldogs on their Mad Monday celebrations was certainly disappointing - disappointing that three offensive comments (see embedded video), called out from a window:

“There are some ladies here to put their heads in your pants.”

“Suck me off, you dumb dog.”

“I want to punch you in the face.”

were all that a club with a strong reputation for sexist yobbery could muster on its designated day for bad behaviour. The last one was even sung.

I would have at the very least expected a large barrage of barking noises to have accompanied “Suck me off, you dumb dog”, followed by a couple of players with bags over their heads dancing nude in the window.

Despite their absurd protestations to the contrary, Channel Nine went out of their way to provoke the players and then acted extremely preciously when they got exactly the result they were after.

Even though the Canterbury players were locked away inside Belmore Oval, Channel Nine flew over it in a helicopter, then sent reporter Jayne Azzopardi and crew down to hang around outside with a directional microphone, which they must have had to pick up what was being said through an open window 50m away.

What genuine news value is there in hanging around outside a locked gate, waiting for a bunch of drunken blokes to do something which can be construed as wrong (which they inevitably will), then broadcasting it, accompanied by finger pointing and confected outrage? If this is what passes for journalistic standards at Nine, it’s no wonder Seven is beating them in the ratings.

All the precious indignation from Jayne Azzopardi is disingenuous in the extreme. You’re not a sport reporter. You weren’t invited. You have no relationship with the players. They are at a private function. So what were you doing there? Why should they treat you with any respect when you were clearly there for an opportunistic and negative report? Why do you think you can antagonize people, but they shouldn’t say anything nasty in return?

“Oh, but the comments were demeaning and disrespectful to all women. I don’t think that any woman should have to put up with that and no man should think it’s OK to say those things.”

What? No man should ever belittle a woman sexually or make sexist comments part of an insult?

Because women never belittle men sexually, do they? Never make insinuations about penis size?

It’s not nice, but insults are meant to be offensive, you stupid bitch. We insult people when we’re angry. The more offensive, the better. If you’d made some effort to greet the players and hadn’t been so obviously looking to manufacture a negative story, you wouldn’t have been insulted in the first place.

How will respectful behaviour toward women be made more likely by an unwelcome female reporter antagonizing a bunch of yobby blokes who are drinking inside private premises? Do you think you can irritate whoever you like, then bung on an act of righteous indignation when those blokes say something rude to you?

Now they really do think you are a dumb bitch. So do most other men who say these types of things to women who annoy them. These are the people whose behaviour you are trying to change. Do you think they now have more respect for and less suspicion of women they don’t know?

Channel Nine hasn’t even reported either the text or the context of the comments accurately. It now appears that the first comment was in fact

“There are some ladies here to put their hands in your pants.”

and derives from Youtube footage of a previous event in England where an old lady put her hand down the back of player (and ear biter) James Graham’s pants.

It was probably literally directed at James Graham or another player, but really intended for Jayne Azzopardi. The “Suck me off, you dumb dog”, was almost certainly directed at her, despite the risible dissembling in the subsequent report by the Bulldogs’ management.

The alleged insult: “I want to punch you in the face” was sung to the tune of a Barney song to a guy dressed in a Barney costume, according to the Bulldogs report. Could be true. It was certainly sung, so couldn’t be construed as aggressively as Channel Nine have insinuated.

This whole episode has just been bullshit heaped upon bullshit heaped upon bullshit, all because the media want to make a headline out of any behaviour by footballers which is even mildly offensive or below par. They haven’t had any sex scandals or drunken violence lately, but can’t move on to another topic.

Channel Nine went looking for a negative story, then pretended they didn’t. They have inflated a minor incident with confected outrage, then pretended they haven’t. The Bulldogs’ management produced a “report” which is full of dissembling, but pretends that everyone should accept it or “agree to disagree”. They then paid a $30,000 “fine” to charity. What a load of crap that never needed to happen. What a waste of time and money.

The fact that teams have to be shut away in private premises for Mad Monday shows that the venerable institutional piss up is probably on its way out. But surely it could go out in a blaze of glory. If this is the best modern players can come up with, they may as well just call it Sane Monday.

The ARL could handle all these incidents far better. They don’t need to make hand wringing press statements after each one. The less they say, the better.

Players need to understand that their high salaries come from sponsorship. Gate takings will not be sufficient to pay them $200,000+ a year. Players bring in part of their own incomes by attracting sponsors. If sponsorship falls, their salaries will also fall, so if they behave in ways which will cause sponsors to leave, they get paid less. It’s pretty simple. This should be (and I believe usually is) written into contracts.

The ARL should have responded to this incident by simply saying: “We fined Canterbury under the behaviour clause in the ARL sponsorship agreement. It’s up to the club how they subsequently discipline the players. If they keep behaving badly, they’ll keep getting fined until they learn not to. No, we don’t think the behaviour is acceptable, that’s why we fined the club.”

Just leave it at that and it would all have blown over in a week.

Alternatively, why not have some clubs who don’t care if middle class women don’t support them? Let them decide on their own fan base and sponsorship. The Bulldogs manager could have held a press conference to “apologize” on behalf of the club. Halfway through, an aide could have come over, leaned in his ear and said, just loudly enough to be heard:

“Excuse me, sir, there are some ladies here to put their heads in your pants.”

As the audience turned to see a couple of tarts just behind the curtain, he could say: “I’m sorry, everyone, I’ll have to cut this short. Thank you for your time.”

No "Misunderstanding": All Your Fault

A French customer received a telephone bill from Bouygues Telecom for €11,721,000,000,000,000. That’s 11 quadrillion Euro, roughly 1,000 times the United States government debt.

OK, so computer errors happen and the company cannot know the error has occurred until the customer contacts them to have the problem fixed. The real issue here is that what happened next is symptomatic of the way large organizations, both corporate and government seem to deal with errors entirely of their own making.

The call centre operator told the customer, Solenne San Jose that they could not amend the bill or stop the amount being debited from her account. What a load of bullshit.

It smacks of the all too common try on when poorly trained staff do not know how to fix a problem and are too lazy to go and find out what to do, so they just lie to the customer and pretend they cannot solve the problem in the hope the customer will give up and go away. How many of us have experienced this crap?

Many readers might be thinking: Call centre … India or Philippines (or their Francophone equivalent for those who spotted that the customers would speak French) … what do you expect? But no: according to Bouygues Telecom, they have 6 call centres, all in France.

It took several calls to have the matter resolved. The company finally admitted the real amount was €117.21, then waived it in compensation for the inconvenience (and to try to ameliorate the PR damage), which was the least they should do.

Even then, Bouygues Telecom stated that the problem had been due to

“a printing error and a subsequent misunderstanding between the client and staff at their call centre”

Yes, certainly a printing error, but no “misunderstanding” BETWEEN the customer and your staff. The blame lies entirely at one end: with your idiot employees. Obviously the amount was wrong, so just apologise for the inconvenience and arrange to send a new bill with the correct amount. Even if you can’t work out the correct figure immediately, put a stop on the bill, then refer it. Simple, but still too hard for the staff at Bouygues Telecom.

Why don’t you just tell the truth and admit that your staff should have fixed what was obviously a billing error the first time the customer rang? Don’t pretend it was a “misunderstanding”. Your staff are clearly stupid and poorly trained. That is the fault of management. Rip the call centre manager a new arsehole and have him / her commit to ensuring improved staff training and quality, or be sacked.

Unfortunately, this episode is an example of the way large organizations too often deal with customer complaints, even when as in this case, it’s obviously a system error. First, they require the customer to do most of the work, usually exacerbated by their staff’s failure to promptly identify and solve the problem (even when it’s blindingly obvious). Staff often instinctively deny any responsibility for fixing the problem, or sometimes for the problem itself. Then if the matter does blow up, as in this example, some oily oxygen thief from Corporate Communications adds insult to injury by trying to pretend it was all a “misunderstanding”, the insinuation being that the customer is partly to blame.

It’s part of a modern, Western malaise: nothing is really ever anyone’s fault. No-one will take responsibility for anything and we can’t blame anyone because that would be unfair.

No it isn’t. If a customer tells you they have received a bill for 11 quadrillion Euro and you say you can’t fix it, you are a lazy idiot. Your manager is probably incompetent for inadequately training you or employing you in the first place. Both of you should be told to improve your performance or be sacked.

The correct approach is to take the customer’s details and only call back when the error has been fixed. But how many times have you experienced this? In my experience, it’s a minority of cases. If organizations did this properly at the first contact with the customer, they wouldn’t need bullshit statements from Corporate Communications.

The Price Of Taxi Licences Needs To Be Reduced SLOWLY

The inquiry into the Victorian taxi industry has submitted its report to the Victorian government. This report and its recommendations are in the process of being released publicly.

Various speculations are being made about plans to significantly reduce the cost of a taxi licence and the consequent effect on the financial position of owners who have borrowed large sums to buy existing ones.

Taxi licences are a scarce and closely held asset, particularly in Victoria. If the owner does not wish to drive the taxi themselves, the licence may either be sold or held and only the operating rights transferred ie. the licence is leased.

Page 5 of the inquiry’s fact sheet shows a graph of taxi licence sale prices from 1974 – 2011. They have increased from a value of $20,000 in 1974 to around $500,000 now. That’s an average annual capital gain of 12.7%. In fact, plate prices have only been rising since mid 1982. That’s an average annual increase of 18% since 1982. In comparison, average inflation has been 7.35% p.a. since Dec 1974 and 6.1% p.a. since June 1982. Even factoring in real economic growth, per capita GDP, a better estimator of the long term growth of asset values such as property or taxi plates, has only risen by an average of 9.6% p.a. and 9.25% p.a. over the respective periods.

The graph on page 2 of the inquiry’s fact sheet shows taxi licence “assignment fees” ie. yearly lease charges are now over $30,000 p.a., giving an effective rental yield varying between 6 and 7.5% since Jan 2004. With rental returns significantly greater than residential property, no wonder taxi plates have increased in price so much … and no wonder so many licence holders are keeping them and renting out their plates. The fact sheet says that approximately 80% of Melbourne taxi licences are leased out. Some people own several licences.

The price of taxi plates is clearly too high. The rate of increase over the past 30 years has been twice that of per capita GDP. That is unsustainable. It has reached the point where the yearly lease fees are so high that fares must increase beyond a point the public will tolerate just to allow the tenant drivers to make a normal wage.

Now, somewhat ironically, we have a new class of rentiers earning high rental yields and until recently, even higher capital gains from licences to drive a taxi which have been turned into classic cash flow assets. This situation has developed over the past 30 years as successive governments have ignored and thus exacerbated the problem by not continuously releasing enough new taxi licences into the market, while facilitating the creation of this asset class by allowing the licences to be leased.

Prices and lease rates of taxi licences need to fall in real terms ie. versus per capita GDP. However, to abruptly decrease the value of licences by immediately selling a large number of new ones at heavily discounted prices and / or removing the right of “assignment” would have disastrous consequences for particularly those owner drivers who have borrowed to buy their plates. Additionally, it would irresponsibly expose Australian banks to significant and unnecessary credit risk and have a knock on effect on bank share prices and superannuation accounts.

Banks will typically lend up to 50% against the value of a taxi licence. This means prospective purchasers must come up with $250,000 of their own. Some borrow a large proportion of this against their home. So, suppose the government decides to flood the market and sell an additional 1,000 licences for $250,000 each (there are currently around 5,250 Victorian taxi licences).

What would happen to all the people who have borrowed the money to buy a licence for $500,000? If banks decide to call in loans because of the decrease in collateral, they will lose their plates and / or their homes. In fact, banks probably won’t call in the loans as long as the repayments are being made. They don’t call in home loans when property values fall because they know they’d destroy the value of their collateral even further.

However, the banks will be exposed to much greater credit risk because of the decrease in collateral values. They will need to provision these loans and also take a higher capital charge. This will affect profits, dividends and thus their stock prices and the value of many Australians’ super.

Aside from the responsibility of government to minimize the human cost, it would be economic vandalism. Some might argue that most plate holders have owned them for a significant period of time and have had it too good for too long. Those who bought recently are like property owners who buy at the peak of the cycle and just have to suffer the consequences. However, there is a gentler and more economically stable solution. It is possible to manage taxi plate prices and lease rates down slowly in real terms over a long period.

Fortunately, taxi plates are an asset class in which prices can be slowly deflated. Extra taxi plates can gradually be released, at the prevailing market rate of $500,000, or a not excessive discount to it. If the population of Melbourne is growing at 2% p.a., ceteris paribus there will be demand for about 100 new plates per year. That’s $50M p.a. in revenue to the government. But that doesn’t solve the supply and overpricing problem.

Suppose the government released 500 new plates per year for the next 10 years at the static price of $400,000. It’s hard to release more than this amount because the increase in demand for taxi vehicles will be difficult to fill. Notice from the graph in the fact sheet that licence prices fell by this much over 2007 – 09 without a significant increase in supply. In fact, it was the tightening of bank credit during the GFC which was as much to blame as loss of consumer confidence due to the stock market falling.

As well as guaranteeing $200M p.a. in government revenue for the next decade, there would be twice the number of taxis on the road by 2022. That’s probably the upper limit of what is needed. Plate lease rates should fall to around $20 - 25,000 p.a. and stay there. Even with a modest average per capita nominal GDP increase of 6% p.a. over the next 10 years, this would effectively mean falls in licence prices and lease rates from their current values of 50% in real terms.

It’s not fair to make taxi licences “non-assignable” ie. not able to be leased. What if the owner becomes sick or injured, or even goes on a holiday? Why should they not be able to earn an income on their plates? They should not have to sell them just because they cannot work.

If the government wanted to place a firm ceiling on plate prices, they could regulate that a taxi licence could be assigned / leased for a maximum of 5 (or 10) years, after which it must be sold, or the owner return to operating the cab. If the owner then drove for only 6 months, they could only subsequently lease the plates for 6 months, to prevent rorting. This would be a sufficient time period to allow for recovery from any illness, to earn a living immediately post retirement in case the owner decided to later return to work and to transition from the current system.

The high prices of taxi licences and the ability to rent them out are major contributors to high fares for customers and low incomes for tenant drivers. There are ways to effectively deflate the prices of taxi plates without unnecessarily harming existing owners, chief among them slowly increasing supply by selling more licences at a constant price.