Category: Spectator

Posted on

Child Labour and its Consequences: George Brewster’s Story

The fire in the corner of the room sputtered, giving off a faint warmth. The smell of damp clothes drying on a makeshift rack mingled with the faint scent of soot, ever-present in their home. Mary Brewster’s hands trembled as she scrubbed at a stain on George’s work shirt. The fabric was so worn that one more wash will tear it apart, but the stains reminded her of where her boy went every day – places dark, dangerous, and suffocating.

“I can’t do this anymore,” Thomas said, pacing the room. He looked at his wife, his eyes burning with frustration. “We can’t keep sending him into those chimneys, Mary. He’s just a boy.”

Mary didn’t look up from her scrubbing. “And what should we do, Thomas? Tell me that. Sit here, watching him go hungry? Watching all of us go hungry? He’s proud to help us. You’ve seen it.”

Thomas slammed his fist on the table, the plates rattling with the force. “Pride? What pride is worth a broken body? You heard about the boy in Cambridge – stuck in the flue for hours until they dragged his lifeless body out. And what about the one in Norwich? Crushed when the chimney collapsed. Is that what you want for George?”

Mary’s hands froze mid-scrub. She closed her eyes and exhaled shakily. “Do you think I don’t know the risks? Do you think I don’t cry at night, wondering if this time will be the time he doesn’t come home?” Her voice cracked, and she stood abruptly, turning away from her husband.

Thomas softened, his anger melting into guilt. He walked over and placed a hand on her shoulder. “Mary, I know you worry. But we’re his parents. It’s our job to protect him.”

Mary turned to face him, tears brimming in her eyes. “And it’s our job to keep him fed. You’ve seen the look in his eyes when he hands me his wages. He’s so proud, Thomas. He knows we need it. And what choice do we have? Tell me that.”

Before Thomas answered, the door creaked open, and George stepped in. His face was streaked with soot, his shirt hanging loose on his small frame. Despite his appearance, he beamed with pride.

“What’s for dinner?” he asked cheerfully, wiping his hands on his trousers.

Thomas looked at his son, the words he wanted to say caught in his throat. Mary forced a smile, quickly brushing away her tears. “We were just talking about you,” she said, her voice steady despite the lump in her throat.

George grinned. “You shouldn’t worry so much, Mum. I’m the best climber Mr Wyer’s got. I can handle anything.”

Thomas stared at his son, his heart aching. “George,” he began, his voice faltering. “Do you ever think about… about how dangerous it is?”

George shrugged, his smile unwavering. “Course I do. But someone’s gotta do it, right? And it’s better me than someone who can’t fit in the flues. Besides, it’s not so bad. You get used to the dark.”

Thomas looked away, unwilling to meet his son’s eyes. Mary busied herself at the stove, her movements frantic. The room was thick with unspoken fears, each parent wondering how much longer their boy’s luck would hold out.

The marketplace was alive with the usual chatter, the air filled with the smells of fresh bread and damp earth. Thomas stood with a group of men near the blacksmith’s shop, their voices low and grim.

“Another boy got stuck in Cambridge last week,” said James, an older man with grey streaks in his hair. He puffed on his pipe, the smoke curling lazily around him. “Poor lad didn’t stand a chance.”

Thomas felt a lump form in his throat. He shifted uncomfortably, his hands shoved deep into his pockets. “And we still send our kids to do this,” he muttered. “It’s madness.”

“It’s survival,” James replied. “If we don’t send them, someone else will. And the masters aren’t about to pay grown men to climb those flues. Too big, too clumsy.”

A younger man, barely older than a boy himself, nodded. “The flues are getting narrower too. New houses, new chimneys – they’re built tight. Only the little ones can get in.”

Thomas clenched his fists, his jaw tightening. “And when they get stuck? When they don’t come home?”

James sighed heavily. “We bury them, same as always. And then we send the next one.”

Nearby, a group of women were engaged in their own hushed conversation. Mary stood among them, her face pale. “I try to keep him safe,” she said, her voice trembling. “I make him wear padding, tell him to take his time. But what can I do? He’s just a boy…”

One of the women, Sarah, placed a hand on Mary’s arm. “We’re all in the same boat, love. My Joe goes up the flues too. Every time he leaves, I say a prayer. It’s all we can do.”

“But it’s not enough,” Mary whispered. “It’s not enough…”

The workshop smelled of ash and damp wood, the air heavy with the residue of countless fires. George stood in front of William Wyer, his boss, a tall man with a thick beard and sharp eyes.

“Right, George,” Wyer said, holding a ledger in one hand. “You’re on the Asylum today. Narrow flues, lots of twists, but you’re small enough to manage.”

George nodded, his chest puffed out. “I can do it, Mr Wyer. I’m the best climber you’ve got.”

Wyer paused, his expression darkening. “You listen to me, boy. Those flues are tricky. You take your time. Don’t rush, you hear? One wrong move, and you’re done for.”

“I’ll be fine,” George said with a grin. “I always am.”

As he climbed into the first flue, the darkness closed in around him. The air was thick with soot, and every movement sent clouds of it swirling into his lungs. He coughed but pressed on, his small hands and knees navigating the narrow space with practiced ease.

At home, Mary was unusually quiet. She moved around the kitchen, wiping surfaces that were already clean, her hands trembling. Thomas sat by the fire, his eyes fixed on the clock.

“He should be back by now,” he muttered.

Mary didn’t reply, but her movements grew more frantic. She dropped a pot, the clang echoing through the room. “I’ll check the window,” she said, her voice tight.

When the knock came at the door, Thomas was the first to rise. A neighbour stood on the step, his face pale. “It’s George,” he said simply. “He… he didn’t make it out.”

Mary’s mouth opened in a silent scream, her knees buckling as she sank to the floor. Thomas stared at the man, his face contorted in disbelief. “No… no, not my boy…”

The room fell into a heavy silence, broken only by Mary’s sobs and the crackling of the fire. Outside, the village began to whisper, the news spreading like wildfire.

Legacy

Years later, in 2025, a crowd gathered at Fulbourn. A blue plaque was unveiled, commemorating George Brewster’s life and the impact of his death. Children from a local school read aloud the story of the boy who had helped end a cruel practice.

A young girl turned to her teacher. “He was brave,” she said. “But it’s sad he had to die.”

The teacher nodded. “It is. But because of him, no child will ever have to climb a chimney again.”

A Reflection on Injustice

In a modern-day solicitor’s office two lawyers discuss the legacy of protecting vulnerable children.

“George Brewster’s story changed the world for chimney sweeps,” said one. “But what about now? Look at the rape gangs in the North. The exploitation continues.”

The other lawyer sighed. “True. But just like George’s case, public outrage is building. Laws will change again.”

Epitaph

“To the memory of George Brewster (1864–1875), the last climbing boy to die in the line of duty. His sacrifice brought about the end of a barbaric practice and saved generations of children from similar fates. This plaque was erected to honour his life and the change he inspired. Located in Fulbourn, Cambridgeshire, near the County Pauper Lunatic Asylum where he worked his final climb.”

The story of George Brewster reminds us that progress often comes at a heartbreaking cost. But his legacy lives on, not only in the laws that protect children today but in the determination to end all forms of exploitation.

Posted on

The Sound of Silence: Disturbed’s Powerful Take on a Classic

Authors Note: I was surprised to learn that some people don’t like Disturbed’s version of The Sound of Silence. Paul Simon, however, called it “very much accomplished” and “one of the greatest covers ever,” which reassured me—it’s not just me!

Reflecting on why I love Disturbed’s version, I realised it comes down to tone and politics (hear me out). While Simon and Garfunkel’s original is brilliant, it carries a youthful, almost ‘college’ quality. Disturbed’s rendition, on the other hand, injects grown-up depth and soul (sorry, Paul—I love your work too). Their version feels more relevant to today, telling a story for the current era rather than the 1960s.

This inspired me to adapt the song for the current mess in which the UK wallows. And honestly, I’d love to hear Disturbed sing it! If you haven’t heard their version yet, I’ve included the YouTube version below—you’re in for a treat.
To be played at maximum volume.

Confounded Silence

Verse 1
Hello freedom, my old friend,
It seems you’ve come to meet your end.
Your voice once roared, but now it falters,
Bound by chains and broken altars.
And the vision of a nation free and brave,
It cannot be saved—
Drowned beneath the sound of silence.

Verse 2
In restless halls of power they scheme,
To dim the light of freedom’s gleam.
And leaders speak with voices hollow,
Demanding truths that we must follow.
And the words they spread are twisted, cold, and bare,
But none dare declare—
For fear of the sound of silence.

Verse 3
“Fools,” said I, “you do not see,
Freedom dies in apathy.”
Silenced cries and muted faces,
Fear entrenched in public spaces.
And the dreams of the people drift to ash,
As shadows amass—
And drown us in the sound of silence.

Bridge
The prophets wrote in ink and fire,
But now their voices conspire
To echo only what they’re told,
No dissent, no truths bold.
And the walls of democracy begin to crack,
As speech turns back—
To whispers in the sound of silence.

Outro
And the people bowed and prayed,
To the lies their leaders made.
And the truth was cast as treason,
Bound and gagged without a reason.
And the warnings flashed, “Freedom must be saved!”
But no one was brave—
Lost within the sound of silence.

Posted on

Granny Harmer’s Hilarious Misadventures in the Village

In a small, foggy village nestled between jagged hills and an ever-receding horizon, lived Granny Harmer, a character so notorious for her incompetence that even the crows avoided her roof, fearing her bungling touch. Yet, Granny Harmer was oblivious to her reputation. She considered herself the lynchpin of the village—a solver of problems, a doer of deeds, a fixer of what wasn’t broken.

One misty morning, Granny Harmer awoke with a start. She had dreamed of eagles soaring majestically over the village and resolved that she, too, would achieve greatness by teaching her ducks to fly like those regal birds. She bustled about her cluttered kitchen, rummaging through dusty cupboards for anything that might aid her grand endeavour: some old string, a jar of glue, and a half-eaten biscuit.

With her “training kit” in hand, she waddled out to the pond, where her ducks quacked happily, blissfully unaware of their impending adventure. Granny Harmer began tying wings together, fastening feathers to beaks, and attempting to throw the ducks into the air like kites. The scene quickly descended into chaos. Ducks flailed, feathers scattered, and Granny Harmer, drenched in pond water, declared the day a success despite no duck ever leaving the ground.

The villagers shook their heads in despair. One whispered to another, “Why does she keep trying?”

Granny Harmer, undeterred by failure, marched back home. Her mind buzzed with new schemes—grand ideas to fix problems that didn’t exist. She decided to install a mechanical weather vane on her roof to “calm the storms.” She ended up electrocuting herself when she wired it to the lightning rod. She attempted to build a new bridge over the stream but diverted the water straight into the village square.

Her failures piled up like the heaps of broken contraptions in her garden. The villagers, initially amused, grew weary of cleaning up her messes. One day, the mayor knocked on her door.

“Granny Harmer,” he said, trying to keep his tone polite, “perhaps you should take some time to think things through before acting.”

She squinted at him. “Think things through? Why, that’s the job of Mr Common Sense!”

“Who’s Mr Common Sense?” the mayor asked, perplexed.

“Oh, he used to be my closest companion,” she sighed dramatically, “always there to tell me what to do. But he disappeared years ago, and I lost touch with him!”

The mayor didn’t know how to respond, so he left her to her delusions.

That night, Granny Harmer sat by the hearth, her apron singed from an earlier mishap with the kettle. She clasped her hands and stared into the flickering flames. “Mr Common Sense,” she whispered, “wherever you are, I need you. Please come back! I cannot fix things without you!”

The fire crackled, and the shadows danced on the walls. For a brief moment, Granny Harmer thought she heard a faint chuckle, as if the missing Mr Common Sense was laughing at her from inside her garage.

Days turned into weeks, but Mr Common Sense did not return. Granny Harmer, however, refused to accept this. She decided that if he wouldn’t come to her, she would find him. She packed a bag filled with mismatched socks, a leaky flask, and a broken compass, and she marched out into the wild.

The villagers watched her go with a mixture of pity and relief. “She’ll be back,” one said.

“No, she won’t,” said another.

Granny Harmer wandered for days, calling out for Mr Common Sense as if he were a wayward sheep. She stumbled through forests, across rivers, and into a barren wasteland where the wind howled like an unanswered question.

There, in the desolation, she realised something profound. She sat on a rock and muttered, “Maybe Mr Common Sense isn’t coming back because he’s tired of cleaning up my messes.”

At that moment, a bedraggled duck waddled into view, quacking plaintively. Granny Harmer stared at it, and a glimmer of clarity—faint as moonlight on a cloudy night—passed over her.

“You’re a duck,” she said. “And ducks aren’t eagles.”

The duck tilted its head, as if to say, “Quack?”

Granny Harmer returned to her village, a little humbler and a little wiser. She dismantled her failed contraptions, and stopped meddling in things she didn’t understand. Though she never quite mastered common sense, she learned one important lesson:

You shouldn’t send your ducks to eagle school.

And from that day on, the village grew a little quieter, the crows returned to her roof, and her ducks relocated to Clacton-on-Sea.

Posted on

Professional Forensic Investigation: Challenging Digital Document Nonexistence

In a complex legal case involving employment litigation, I was engaged as an expert witness to address a critical forensic challenge: substantiating the potential nonexistence of a digital document. The defendant, currently detained in a Middle Eastern jurisdiction, faced substantial financial claims from a previous employer and was now confronting fraud allegations.

The case hinged on a nuanced digital forensics challenge: proving the nonexistence of an unsigned digital contract. The prosecuting lawyers asserted that the document never existed, while the defense sought to demonstrate the opposite.

During preliminary legal meetings, the opposing counsel presented their purported evidence with remarkable confidence. Their approach was strategic—they controlled the narrative, extensively explaining their perspective while notably avoiding direct questioning of my professional expertise. The singular query they posed was tellingly administrative: confirmation of my professional indemnity insurance.

Recognizing the fundamental impossibility of definitively proving a digital file’s nonexistence, I directly challenged their legal strategy. My response was succinct yet unequivocal: demonstrating absolute digital document nonexistence was fundamentally naive and legally unsound.

The subsequent interactions revealed the case’s complexity. I prepared a closing statement, which I recommended be shared with the prosecution, ultimately proved decisive. Upon reviewing the document, the opposing legal team elected to discontinue their prosecution.

This experience underscored the intricate challenges of digital forensic evidence and the critical importance of rigorous, logical analysis in legal proceedings involving digital documentation.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, I ask you to consider not only what is presented in this case, but also what is left out—the gaps, the blind spots, and the complexities glossed over by the sweeping assertions made by the opposing counsel. The claim that a digital document never existed because it cannot be found through their forensic investigation sounds definitive. But in reality, it is anything but.

Let me take you through why this notion, if accepted, becomes an oversimplification—a convenient but dangerous fallacy that disregards how digital evidence works in practice.

First, digital absence is not evidence of non-existence. Imagine walking into a library after a fire and failing to find a book. Would you confidently declare that the book never existed simply because it no longer sits on the charred shelves? Digital data is often more fragile than we care to admit, subject to deletions, overwrites, hardware failures, malicious tampering, and the ravages of time itself. A file can vanish, without a trace, under myriad circumstances—many of them beyond human control.

Second, we must discuss the limits of digital forensics itself. Forensic tools can be powerful, yes, but they are not infallible. There are countless ways data can evade recovery: encrypted files, corrupted drives, fragmented data clusters, obsolete storage formats, or even simple user error. A computer system is not a perfect archive; it is a dynamic, ever-changing entity shaped by software updates, file transfers, routine purges, and countless other interactions. No forensic team can guarantee recovery of every piece of data ever written and lost. The claim that “nothing was found, so nothing existed” disregards this reality entirely.

Third, let us reflect on human behaviour—an aspect inseparable from digital evidence. Files do not simply disappear without interaction. When documents are lost, altered, deleted, or concealed, there is often intent, or at the very least, human influence involved. The absence of a document does not exonerate or affirm innocence. Instead, it demands scrutiny of how it was handled, what procedures were undertaken, and what motives might be at play. To ignore these complexities is to risk overlooking the very essence of truth.

Moreover, consider this: digital footprints are complex trails, not straightforward paths. They can be altered, obscured, or even erased intentionally. The absence of a document in a forensic search could indicate deletion, tampering, or migration, none of which proves the document’s original existence or non-existence. Without more context, such claims hold no weight. Absence is not evidence. It is a shadow that requires light and context, not blind belief.

Lastly, let us remember what’s truly at stake. If we accept the claim that a file’s absence is definitive proof of its non-existence, we empower those who seek to manipulate data. We give cover to the destroyers of evidence and those who seek to shape narratives by erasing digital history. It sets a dangerous precedent that undermines justice, because the absence of evidence can be engineered. Letting such a claim stand risks turning justice into an arena for those most adept at making evidence disappear.

Ladies and gentlemen, justice is not a game of finding what is absent and calling it non-existent. It is a process of uncovering truths amidst complexity, human behaviour, and technical limitations. To rule in favour of this claim would not only be a mockery of truth—it would be an open door to future manipulations, erasures, and injustices that exploit what cannot be found.

I ask you to reject this facile and dangerous notion. Truth cannot and must not be found in what is absent alone, for it is a hollow foundation upon which no justice can stand.

Thank you.

Posted on

BBC Verify is a velvet hammer for smashing inconvenient truths

Listen to the deep dive podcast

What has happened to the BBC?

What happened to the state system that garnered cross-party political and general public support? Once heralded as a bastion of anti-bias news and public education and entertainment has turned into the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda run by a veritable army of Goebbels.

Baroness Stowell, the chairman of the Lords communications committee, told Ms Turness that “BBC Verify is not necessarily seen universally as something that is helping the BBC’s reputation or building trust and confidence”.

Sir Keir Starmer claims BBC has backed him over inheritance tax raid on farmers

“Die beste Propaganda ist jene, die sozusagen unsichtbar wirkt, das ganze öffentliche Leben durchdringt, ohne dass das öffentliche Leben irgendeine Kenntnis von der propagandistischen Initiative hat.” Joseph Goebbels

Goebbels would be proud of the BBC, his quote in English is a confirmation of BBC Verify’s aspirations “The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.”

The new BBC Verify department must be approaching it’s first anniversary and I confess I did not believe the former government would allow it to continue for more than a few weeks. It was, after all, offering it’s opinion as fact and opposing opinion’s as “misinformation” or “disinformation”.

I am thinking of writing a paper on BBC Verify but as I am in the middle of a real project have decided it will have to wait, nonetheless, for those fans of Michael Connolly’s “Lincoln Lawyer” Mickey Haller (my current alter-ego) here’s what I think he would think of Goebbels pride and joy, BBC Verify:

BBC Verify? That’s rich. More like a velvet hammer for smashing inconvenient truths. It’s not about finding facts; it’s about dressing up bias in a sharp suit and calling it gospel. If you can spin the lie well enough, package it with enough polish, folks will believe the sun rises in the west if you tell them it does. It’s like hiring a defence attorney not to prove your innocence but to convince the world that guilt is a virtue.

The real irony? They call it ‘Verify,’ but it’s got the credibility of a used-car salesman swearing that a lemon is a Ferrari. It’s not about truth—truth’s messy and inconvenient. It’s about control, about shaping the narrative so the big fish stay big, and the little ones keep swimming in circles. In my line of work, we call that a con. But when you’ve got the money and the power, you call it journalism.”

With my sincere apologies to used car salesman.

Posted on

“It’s your words, not your deeds, that condemn you.” Welcome to British Policing Policy

The role of the police in any society is one of fundamental importance: to prevent crime, to investigate crimes when they occur, and to ensure that those who commit criminal acts are brought before the courts to face justice. This fundamental mission has underpinned the fabric of British law enforcement for generations. However, in recent years, a troubling shift has emerged—a trend in policing which appears to prioritise the pursuit and investigation of “non-crime hate incidents” (NCHIs) over their core duty to protect citizens from genuine criminal acts.

The situation has reached a crescendo this week with the case of journalist Allison Pearson, who has reportedly been invited for a police interview over a comment made over a year ago. While the police dedicate countless hours to investigating “offensive” or “hurtful” speech, the streets are beset by more pressing issues: shoplifting, violent crime, and open lawlessness. This shift in focus not only undermines public confidence in the police force but also erodes trust in the broader judicial system. When police resources are squandered on chasing speech incidents and perceived insults rather than combatting real threats to public safety, the public inevitably suffers.

Recent months have seen a palpable increase in social disorder since Keir Starmer’s government took the reins, with issues ranging from unchecked protests to a surge in street crimes. Instances of shoplifting, often treated as mere nuisances if the value is below £1,500, are brushed aside without recording or investigation. This neglect is not isolated to petty thefts; cases of street violence, such as assaults, robberies, and even the sight of machete-wielding individuals roaming public spaces, are met with similar apathy. Instead of targeting these grave threats to society, police are, ironically, lambasting citizens who dare to raise concerns on social media about this apparent abdication of responsibility.

It is reasonable to conclude that the focus on NCHIs serves only to polarise discourse further, exacerbating tensions and resentment within society. These initiatives and investigations into non-criminal behaviours sap already stretched resources and embolden criminal behaviour in communities who witness an overstretched police force prioritising “words” over “deeds.” Law-abiding citizens are left unprotected, while those engaging in socially destructive behaviours learn that their crimes may go unpunished.

This two-tier system of policing, where serious crimes are neglected in favour of ideological policing, is unacceptable. It demands not only scrutiny but action. Those who serve as police spokespeople and leaders must know that their performance and priorities are being watched and recorded. There can be no place for policing policies that divide and alienate the very citizens who fund and rely upon them.

The police must be reminded of their primary duty: protecting the public from harm, ensuring justice is done, and maintaining public order. Anything less than this is a betrayal of public trust, and citizens will not stand idly by while this essential institution is steered off course. We demand accountability, transparency, and a rededication to core policing duties. Anything less threatens the very foundations of public safety and social cohesion that the police are sworn to uphold.

A Comprehensive Critique of Modern Policing Priorities: The Mismanagement of Public Safety

The case of Essex Police’s handling of an investigation into a social media post by journalist Allison Pearson exposes an alarming trend in policing priorities. This incident not only highlights a significant misuse of resources but also serves as a case study in the detrimental impact of this shift away from core policing duties. By establishing a “gold group,” typically reserved for critical incidents such as terror attacks, to investigate a year-old social media post, Essex Police have demonstrated an astonishing lack of focus on genuine criminal threats to public safety. This misplaced emphasis on non-crime hate incidents rather than actual criminal acts is both deeply troubling and indicative of a broader pattern of institutional failure.

Misguided Priorities and Institutional Dysfunction

The investigation into Pearson, for allegedly “stirring up racial hatred” through a social media post made in November last year, illustrates how resources can be squandered in pursuit of ideological policing goals. Police officers reportedly visited Pearson’s home without providing details of the post or the complainant, framing this matter as a potential breach of the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act. Despite the force’s insistence that they have acted properly, their creation of a “gold group” to manage the case starkly underscores the troubling direction in which law enforcement is headed.

The use of such a high-level command structure for a social media incident illustrates how far police priorities have drifted from their primary purpose: protecting citizens from harm and maintaining public order. Councillor Neil Gregory’s sharp characterisation of Essex Police’s actions as “institutional incompetence and dysfunction on an epic scale” is not without merit. When forces prioritise diversity training and speech policing over tackling violent crime, open drug dealing, and serious theft, it signals a profound failure of leadership and purpose.

The Erosion of Public Trust and Safety

The broader implications of this policing approach are far-reaching. Drug-related crime, for instance, remains a serious problem across Essex, with open drug dealing regularly witnessed by residents and yet routinely ignored by police. Documents obtained by The Telegraph reveal that the force often fails to respond to 999 calls reporting drug-related incidents. Instead of deploying resources to confront these pressing public safety concerns, police appear more intent on policing speech and engaging in performative displays of political correctness.

The response from Essex Police Assistant Chief Constable Andy Marriner and others in defence of their work is, at best, cold comfort to communities left to fend for themselves. Claims of robust action against drug dealers ring hollow when residents continue to witness open drug transactions and feel the weight of police inaction. These failures undermine trust in law enforcement and leave citizens vulnerable to increasingly bold criminal behaviour.

The Consequences of Two-Tier Policing

The disproportionate focus on NCHIs and the “hurtful” words of journalists like Pearson over violent crime and open lawlessness represents a dangerous descent into two-tier policing. While genuine threats are ignored, citizens are subjected to scrutiny for expressing their views. This imbalance not only leaves communities less safe but also fuels resentment and division, eroding the very social cohesion that police claim to protect.

Law enforcement must refocus its priorities. The public demands—and deserves—a police force that dedicates its resources to preventing crime, protecting communities, and bringing offenders to justice. Anything less constitutes a dereliction of duty.

Holding Policing Leadership Accountable

Those who lead and speak on behalf of the police must understand that their decisions and priorities are under constant scrutiny. The public’s patience is not infinite. Continued mismanagement, misplaced priorities, and failures to deliver on core policing responsibilities will not be tolerated. It is time for a rededication to genuine public safety, free from the distractions of ideological policing and performative gestures.

The public is watching. We demand accountability, transparency, and a commitment to the fundamentals of policing. It is time to restore trust and ensure that the police serve their primary duty: protecting all citizens and upholding the law impartially and effectively. If our policing institutions cannot meet these basic expectations, they risk irrelevance—and the communities they serve deserve far better.

Posted on

The Case Against the Vodafone-Three Merger: Why Consumers and Competition Will Suffer

The Telegraph reports on the likely success of the proposed Vodafone-Three merger which I believe threatens to create a telecom giant with a disproportionate share of the UK market, eroding the competition that drives innovation, keeps prices fair, and incentivises companies to invest in service quality. The reduction in competition that would result from this merger risks leading to a monopolistic or duopolistic environment, leaving consumers with fewer choices and, ultimately, higher costs.

Vodafone and Three £15bn merger on course for green light

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/05/vodafone-and-three-merger-could-get-green-light-after-starm/

The proposed merger between Vodafone and Three has sparked concern about creating a near-monopolistic situation in the UK telecom market, effectively consolidating two major players into one entity with disproportionate control over services and pricing. While proponents argue that the merger will help streamline operations and enhance coverage, a closer examination reveals why this consolidation would likely degrade service quality, stifle competition, and leave consumers with fewer choices and poorer support options. The issues surrounding this merger extend beyond economics to encompass questions of corporate culture, market fairness, and long-term impact on consumer welfare.

1. The Risk of a Monopolistic Landscape

Mergers in highly concentrated markets tend to limit competition, resulting in monopolistic practices that harm consumers. The telecom industry relies on multiple operators competing to offer better services and affordable rates, but the Vodafone-Three merger risks tipping this balance. By consolidating networks and resources, the merged company would have significant leverage to dictate terms to consumers, setting a concerning precedent. When competition dwindles, companies tend to favour profit-maximising strategies at the expense of service quality, leading to inflated prices, restrictive contracts, and reduced consumer choice. If Vodafone and Three gain a quasi-monopolistic market position, consumers will ultimately suffer from lack of alternatives and innovation.

2. Vodafone’s Troubling Management Practices

Vodafone’s corporate practices, as it stands today, already present challenges for consumers. Known for a degree of insularity and reluctance to prioritise customer service, Vodafone has earned a reputation for its often opaque policies and inconsistent support quality. The organisation appears to operate with an almost sovereign disregard for consumer complaints, favouring rules and policies that maximise profit rather than improve customer experiences. This attitude is symptomatic of an environment where management prioritises financial outcomes over customer satisfaction, leading to a disconnect between what customers need and what Vodafone provides. Allowing Vodafone’s corporate culture to further dominate the market through this merger raises the risk of Three adopting similar practices, ultimately lowering the overall standard of service and responsiveness.

3. The False Promise of Regulatory Oversight

Proponents of the merger suggest that regulatory bodies would enforce fair practices and curb anti-competitive behaviour. However, this argument disregards the limitations of regulatory oversight in ensuring fairness within such a consolidated industry. Regulators are often hampered by limited resources and the complexity of enforcement, making it difficult to police a large entity with a monopolistic lean effectively. Once the merger is approved, regulations might offer only a veneer of fairness, with Vodafone and Three able to evade or skirt requirements through legal manoeuvres, lobbying, or adjusting policies in ways that technically comply with the letter but not the spirit of the law. History shows that monopolistic or duopolistic companies often find ways to sidestep regulatory constraints, leaving consumers with little recourse.

4. Reduced Competition Will Erode Service Quality

One of the cornerstones of a healthy market is competition, which drives companies to innovate, improve service quality, and offer competitive pricing. With fewer players in the telecom market, the combined Vodafone-Three entity would face significantly less pressure to improve their offerings. In sectors where competition is limited, the focus often shifts from customer satisfaction to operational cost-cutting, as companies lack incentives to retain customers through superior service. The Vodafone-Three merger risks creating a market where the dominant player has no compelling reason to innovate or invest in customer experience improvements, resulting in reduced service quality over time.

5. Decline in Customer Support Accessibility

Vodafone is notorious for its labyrinthine customer support channels, which leave customers feeling frustrated and unsupported. By merging with Three, there is little reason to believe that customer support would improve; in fact, it is likely to become more inaccessible. In large organisations prioritising efficiency and profit, customer service is often one of the first areas to suffer as executives focus on metrics that boost revenue over those that increase customer satisfaction. With fewer competing providers, consumers may find themselves locked into contracts with a single dominant entity, unable to escape poor service or receive adequate support.

6. The Impact on Innovation and Network Development

The telecom industry is driven by rapid technological change, requiring constant investment in network infrastructure and innovative services. When market competition decreases, however, the motivation to drive such progress weakens. In a more monopolistic environment, Vodafone-Three may allocate resources primarily to profit-making ventures rather than improving network quality or expanding rural coverage. Instead of fostering an environment that champions innovation and consumer benefit, this merger could incentivise Vodafone-Three to maximise shareholder returns while providing the bare minimum in terms of network improvements and customer service enhancements.

7. Higher Barriers for Market Entry

The merger of two major telecom players will significantly raise barriers for new entrants, effectively closing the market to potential competitors who might otherwise bring fresh ideas and improved service standards. High entry costs and economies of scale favour large incumbents like the combined Vodafone-Three entity, making it nearly impossible for smaller firms to compete. This lack of competition ensures that Vodafone-Three can maintain its market dominance without the threat of disruption, ultimately entrenching its monopolistic position and further reducing consumer choice.

8. The Broader Economic Implications of Reduced Competition

A monopolistic telecom industry could also have broader economic consequences, particularly for businesses relying on reliable and cost-effective communication services. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) could find themselves facing higher prices for essential services, limiting their ability to compete or expand. As a knock-on effect, the lack of affordable, high-quality telecom services could dampen productivity and stifle innovation across various sectors of the economy, adding to the broader impact of reduced telecom competition.

Conclusion

The merger between Vodafone and Three poses a severe risk to consumer choice, service quality, and market fairness. By concentrating power in the hands of a single telecom entity, we risk creating an environment where customer welfare is sidelined in favour of profit margins, regulatory oversight fails to protect consumer interests, and competition becomes a distant memory. It is crucial for stakeholders, from consumers to regulators, to critically assess the implications of this merger and consider the long-term ramifications for the telecom market. Fostering a competitive environment should remain a priority, ensuring that telecom companies remain accountable and responsive to consumer needs. Allowing the Vodafone-Three merger to proceed unchecked risks undermining these principles, resulting in an industry that serves itself rather than its customers.

In summary, this merger should be met with serious objections, as its potential to harm both the telecom market and consumers outweighs any purported benefits.

Posted on

The Risks of Disconnection: When Government Investments Ignore Public Opinion

Deep Dive Podcast:

Listen to this article:

When a government prioritises large-scale investments that lack public support, the consequences can be profound, affecting everything from economic stability to the well-being of its citizens. This essay explores the broader implications of a government persisting with controversial projects that a majority of the public disapproves of, even if these initiatives are justified by officials as necessary for long-term national development. In this scenario, we imagine successive governments backing high-cost infrastructure or development schemes that the public sees as misaligned with their needs and priorities. As dissatisfaction grows, the government finds itself with a rising disapproval rating, eventually reaching a critical point where its decisions are perceived as both wasteful and emblematic of cronyism.

Public Trust and the Social Contract

At the heart of any democratic system lies the social contract, an implicit agreement between the government and its people. This contract is predicated on the understanding that elected officials will act in the public’s best interest and be good stewards of taxpayer resources. However, when a government continues to invest in projects that the majority of citizens see as unnecessary or even self-serving, it risks breaking this contract. The public may begin to view such investments as symbolic gestures, designed more to elevate the government’s prestige than to address real societal needs.

The erosion of trust in such cases can be significant. A government that fails to act in line with public sentiment fosters disillusionment among its citizens. People may become disengaged from political processes, believing that their voices no longer matter. This disconnect can lead to a dangerous decline in voter participation and civic involvement, further undermining the democratic system.

Economic Misallocation and its Consequences

A government’s investment choices have a direct impact on the nation’s economic well-being. When public funds are directed toward initiatives that lack popular support, this often represents a misallocation of resources. Imagine a government allocating billions to infrastructure projects designed to showcase technological prowess or national ambition, while basic services such as healthcare, education, and public transport systems languish.

Such misallocation of capital can have immediate and long-term economic consequences. In the short term, taxpayer money is tied up in projects that do not yield tangible benefits for the majority of the population. In the long term, these investments can result in higher taxation to fund ongoing or incomplete projects, leaving less financial flexibility for essential services. As the public witnesses continued spending on initiatives they see as irrelevant, their willingness to contribute to the tax base or engage with public initiatives diminishes, weakening the overall economy.

Moreover, when government projects are perceived as wasteful or corrupt, this reduces consumer and investor confidence. Businesses may hesitate to invest in an economy where public money is being funneled into vanity projects rather than addressing structural issues like productivity, innovation, or public welfare. This hesitancy stifles economic growth and further undermines the nation’s financial health.

Social and Mental Health Implications

Public discontent over government spending has a cascading effect on mental and social well-being. Large-scale, high-cost projects that the public views as unnecessary can contribute to societal alienation and chronic stress. When citizens perceive that their government is ignoring their needs, they can feel disenfranchised, powerless, and isolated from decision-making processes.

This discontent, if widespread, can translate into real health impacts. Chronic stress, fuelled by feelings of neglect and lack of agency, is linked to a range of physical and mental health problems, from anxiety and depression to heart disease. In a society where public investment is seen as serving elite interests rather than the common good, these stress-related health problems could become more prevalent, placing an additional burden on already strained healthcare systems.

Moreover, when governments persist in funding controversial projects at the expense of essential services, this can lead to increased social inequality. Marginalised communities are often the most reliant on public services, and if those services are deprioritised in favour of grandiose projects, these groups suffer disproportionately. This can lead to greater social unrest, further fuelling dissatisfaction and divisions within society.

National Happiness and Social Cohesion

Happiness is not solely a product of material wealth but also of how citizens perceive their place within society and their relationship with their government. When a government embarks on investments that the majority of the public deems unnecessary, it diminishes a collective sense of belonging and fairness. Citizens feel that the government is disconnected from their daily lives and concerns, and this disconnection erodes national well-being.

Research into happiness economics consistently shows that trust in institutions is a key determinant of a nation’s overall sense of happiness and satisfaction. When successive governments make decisions that disregard public opinion, this trust erodes, and with it, the nation’s collective happiness. People become less optimistic about the future, less willing to contribute to societal progress, and less engaged in their communities.

Political Instability and Long-Term Risks

Moreover, when public funds are directed toward controversial projects that do not directly improve citizens’ lives, people begin to perceive their government as inefficient and out of touch. This perception further drives societal fragmentation, as different groups feel they are being unfairly impacted by these decisions, whether through higher taxes, inadequate services, or environmental degradation.

When governments repeatedly ignore public opinion in their investment choices, it leads to political instability. In democratic systems, this often manifests as reactionary voting, where citizens cast their ballots not based on ideological alignment but as a protest against the status quo. This can lead to a rise in populist or fringe political movements that promise radical change, often at the expense of long-term stability and governance quality.

In extreme cases, prolonged public dissatisfaction with government investment decisions can result in large-scale civil unrest or the rise of anti-democratic movements. Citizens who feel that their concerns are systematically ignored may turn to more extreme means of expressing their discontent, from widespread protests to disruptive strikes or even violent demonstrations.

Additionally, the government’s reputation on the global stage may suffer. Other nations and international investors will be wary of engaging with a country where domestic politics are unstable, and the government is perceived as out of touch with its people. This can have lasting consequences for trade, investment, and international relations, further undermining economic prospects and global standing.

Conclusion

When governments pursue investments that the public overwhelmingly disapproves of, they risk far more than the financial cost of the projects themselves. The breakdown of trust between the government and its citizens can lead to widespread social and economic consequences, from political disengagement and economic decline to deteriorating public health and reduced national happiness. For governments to maintain the delicate balance of democratic governance, they must ensure that their investments reflect the needs, values, and aspirations of the majority, rather than indulging in projects that serve only a few or are seen as mere symbols of power. Otherwise, the long-term damage to the nation’s social fabric, political stability, and economic health could be profound and difficult to reverse.

References

The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis

OECD Public Governance Reviews

Trust in public institutions: Trends and implications for economic security

Posted on

Legacy of Ancient Cultures Compared to Nuclear Waste

A Comparison of Ancient Civilisation Legacies with Modern Nuclear Waste

Throughout history, civilisations have left behind artefacts that shape our understanding of their cultures, values, and technological prowess. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and other ancient societies are remembered for their monumental achievements, which have stood the test of time and continue to inspire modern architects, engineers, and artists. Their legacy is one of beauty, ingenuity, and a deep connection to both human creativity and the natural world.

In contrast, our modern industrial society seems poised to leave behind a far more contentious legacy: nuclear waste. Entombed in concrete and buried in the sea or deep underground, this material reflects the technological ambitions and energy consumption patterns of our age, as well as the hazardous by-products of our quest for power. This essay will compare the legacies of ancient civilisations—characterised by awe-inspiring art and architecture—with the nuclear waste legacy of modern times, exploring the cultural, technological, and philosophical differences that underpin these divergent imprints on history.

The Legacies of Ancient Civilisations

One of the most enduring qualities of ancient civilisations is their ability to blend utility with beauty. The Egyptians, for instance, constructed the pyramids—massive structures that not only served as tombs for their pharaohs but also symbolised their beliefs in the afterlife and their understanding of geometry and astronomy. The sheer scale and precision of these monuments, built with relatively primitive tools, continue to astound us. They reflect a civilisation that placed immense value on both religious meaning and architectural grandeur.

Similarly, the Romans left us aqueducts, roads, and public baths—pieces of infrastructure that were as functional as they were elegant. Roman architecture, with its use of arches, domes, and columns, served both practical needs and aesthetic ideals. Their innovation of central heating systems (hypocausts) in public buildings and private villas, alongside intricate mosaics and frescoes, demonstrated a balance between comfort, technology, and beauty.

These ancient works of art and engineering not only fulfilled immediate needs—whether religious, domestic, or infrastructural—but were also created with an eye to endurance. The intention was for them to outlast the builders and serve as a testament to the civilisation’s ingenuity. Today, these structures inspire admiration, reminding us of human creativity, ambition, and our capacity to live in harmony with our surroundings.

The Modern Legacy: Nuclear Waste

Fast-forward to the 20th and 21st centuries, and the legacy of modern civilisation seems far less inspiring. The advent of nuclear power, while promising an almost limitless source of energy, brought with it a burden that humanity is yet to fully comprehend: nuclear waste. According to the article from The Telegraph, the UK alone is expected to spend £132 billion over the next 120 years to manage its stockpile of radioactive material, much of which will be entombed in concrete or buried beneath the sea.

Unlike the pyramids or Roman aqueducts, nuclear waste is not a symbol of beauty or cultural achievement. It is, instead, a reminder of the darker side of modern technological progress—the side that prioritises short-term gains without fully accounting for the long-term consequences. While nuclear energy has brought cleaner air in terms of reduced carbon emissions, the toxic by-products will remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years. Unlike the monuments of ancient civilisations, these waste sites are not built to inspire future generations; they are built to be forgotten. The goal is containment, not celebration.

Cultural and Philosophical Differences

The contrast between the legacies of ancient civilisations and modern nuclear waste reveals profound differences in how each era viewed its relationship with the future and with the natural world. The ancients, while certainly not perfect custodians of their environment, saw their monumental projects as lasting contributions to human progress. The pyramids, temples, aqueducts, and amphitheatres were built to endure, with a sense of responsibility towards both the present and future generations.

In contrast, modern civilisation appears more focused on the present, often neglecting the long-term consequences of its actions. Nuclear waste, for example, represents the by-product of a technology that, while beneficial in terms of energy production, carries an enormous long-term cost. The decision to bury waste in concrete tombs or beneath the sea reflects a desire to remove the problem from immediate view rather than a commitment to safeguarding the planet for future generations.

Furthermore, the ancient civilisations built with materials and techniques that were, for the most part, in harmony with their environment. Stone, wood, and brick structures, while sometimes environmentally costly to build, do not pose the existential threat that radioactive material does. The Romans’ use of volcanic ash in concrete, for example, has proven remarkably durable and environmentally benign. In contrast, the radioactive material that modern society buries will outlast even the most durable materials, posing a hazard for millennia.

The Aesthetic and Symbolic Dimensions

Another striking difference lies in the aesthetic and symbolic dimensions of these legacies. The pyramids and the Colosseum are not only marvels of engineering but also symbols of human aspiration. They inspire awe and contemplation, prompting us to reflect on our place in history and the accomplishments of those who came before us.

Nuclear waste, by contrast, is hidden away, unmarked, and without symbolism. It is intentionally concealed, with the hope that future generations will not stumble upon it or that the dangers it poses will be mitigated. There is nothing inspiring about a nuclear waste repository; it is an invisible burden that speaks more to humanity’s hubris than to its creativity or foresight.

Conclusion

The comparison between the legacies of ancient civilisations and modern nuclear waste offers a sobering reflection on the values and priorities of different eras. While the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans built monuments that continue to captivate and inspire, modern civilisation is entombing its most dangerous creations in concrete, hoping that future generations will not have to deal with the consequences.

This contrast underscores the need for a shift in how we think about our impact on the future. Rather than leaving behind a legacy of pollution and hazardous materials, we should strive to create a world where future generations inherit structures, technologies, and systems that reflect the best of our human potential. Like the ancients, we should aim to build things that endure not only physically but also in terms of their positive contribution to the world. In doing so, we might one day leave behind something worthy of admiration, rather than a problem to be buried.

Posted on

Why LinkedIn Should Rethink Outsourced Identity Verification

Deep Dive Podcasts discuss this article:

LinkedIn and the Perils of Outsourcing Identity Verification: A Strategic Misstep

LinkedIn, a platform fundamentally designed for professional networking, has thrived by enabling users to build and present their identities in a business-oriented context. The foundation of its value proposition is the ability to verify one’s professional and personal identity through content such as a profile picture, education history, employment details, endorsements, and contributions to the platform. This user-generated content has long served as a form of self-authentication, allowing members to establish credibility within a community of peers.

However, LinkedIn’s recent move to outsource identity verification to a third-party service, Persona, represents a misalignment with its core mission. This decision not only risks undermining user trust but also threatens the essence of LinkedIn’s business model by relinquishing control over a crucial aspect of identity management. The choice to partner with an unfamiliar and unresponsive third-party provider is akin to LinkedIn “shooting itself in the foot,” as it jeopardises the very purpose for which people use the platform.

The Role of User-Generated Content in Establishing Identity

LinkedIn’s success has been built on the premise that professional identity is validated through the content users provide. A person’s photo, educational background, work history, and activity on the platform cumulatively establish their reputation and credibility. The more active a user is, the more established their identity becomes, as peers can endorse skills, comment on achievements, and interact with the user’s content. This organic form of validation is powerful because it relies on community recognition rather than bureaucratic checks.

The addition of a third-party verification layer appears redundant, as LinkedIn’s inherent features already serve to distinguish authentic profiles from fraudulent ones. Members have long relied on these features to discern the credibility of others, supported by LinkedIn’s existing measures to flag suspicious accounts. Introducing an external verification process that requires sensitive information, such as passport details and biometric data, diverges from this community-driven model, adding a layer of complexity and potential risk that is not aligned with the platform’s ethos.

Outsourcing Identity Verification: A Misaligned Strategy

By opting to use Persona, LinkedIn has effectively outsourced the core aspect of identity validation to a company that most users have never heard of and have no reason to trust. The outsourcing decision raises several issues:

  1. Loss of Control Over Identity Management: When LinkedIn allows a third-party company to handle the verification process, it cedes control over an essential component of its platform—user identity. Trust in LinkedIn is based on the platform’s own standards and processes, which users perceive as part of its service offering. Introducing an unknown entity as the gatekeeper of verification dilutes LinkedIn’s role and could weaken the trust that underpins its brand.
  2. Delegating to an Unresponsive Provider: Persona’s reported lack of responsiveness to user queries exacerbates concerns. In a case where sensitive personal information is at stake, users expect quick and clear communication. The fact that some users have received only generic responses to inquiries about data handling reflects poorly not just on Persona but also on LinkedIn, which chose this provider as a partner. By delegating such a critical aspect of user interaction to a company that fails to meet customer service expectations, LinkedIn risks harming its reputation.
  3. Increased Data Privacy Risks: Users are understandably wary of sharing sensitive documents like passports or biometric data with third parties. When LinkedIn asks users to provide such information to a service like Persona, it not only increases the potential attack surface for data breaches but also places the burden of privacy protection on a company outside LinkedIn’s direct control. This is problematic, as LinkedIn’s users are accustomed to trusting LinkedIn itself—not an external vendor—to keep their data safe.
  4. Undermining the Platform’s Core Value Proposition: LinkedIn’s main selling point is that it enables people to network professionally and establish their credibility. This is achieved through the profiles users build, the content they share, and the connections they cultivate. By turning to an external party for verification, LinkedIn is in effect communicating to users that the traditional means of establishing a credible identity on the platform are insufficient. This undermines the platform’s core value, as it diminishes the importance of the user’s own contributions to their profile.

The Irony of Outsourcing Identity Verification on a Platform Built for Identity

LinkedIn’s very nature as a professional network revolves around identity construction and verification through content. The essence of what makes LinkedIn valuable is the fact that identity is established organically by the user and then validated by the network itself. For a company whose value is largely derived from the user-generated content that forms these identities, the choice to outsource verification to Persona is not only ironic but counterproductive. It suggests that LinkedIn itself does not trust the organic processes that have underpinned its platform since its inception.

The timing is also concerning, given that we live in an era where data privacy and control over personal information are at the forefront of public discourse. With the introduction of this outsourced verification, LinkedIn is effectively asking its users to trust not one but two organisations with their personal data. Given Persona’s apparent lack of responsiveness and ambiguity regarding data sharing, users may rightfully question why LinkedIn would compromise on its own ability to manage identity verification directly.

A Strategic Reassessment Is Needed

LinkedIn’s decision to outsource identity verification reflects a shift towards a more bureaucratic model of identity assurance that contradicts the platform’s original purpose. To restore user trust and realign with its core mission, LinkedIn should consider several alternative strategies:

  • Enhance Existing Verification Features: Instead of relying on third-party vendors, LinkedIn could develop its own enhanced verification features. This could involve additional checks based on user activity, professional endorsements, or connections, all of which stay within the framework of LinkedIn’s ecosystem.
  • Improve User Education on Security Measures: Rather than introducing a third-party identity verification process, LinkedIn could focus on educating users about best practices for securing their accounts and avoiding scams. Providing resources to help users identify genuine profiles would empower the community to self-regulate.
  • Transparent Data Handling Practices: If LinkedIn insists on using third-party services, it should at least ensure that its partners have transparent data handling practices and are responsive to user concerns. Publicly clarifying the terms of data use, storage, and deletion can go a long way toward building trust.

By outsourcing a key aspect of identity management to an unresponsive and unknown entity, LinkedIn risks undermining the very foundations upon which its business is built. The platform’s strength lies in enabling users to establish their identities through the content they provide, and this user-driven model should stay at the heart of its identity verification processes.

Here’s a list of relevant documents and resources that pertain to LinkedIn’s identity verification process, Persona’s terms, and related privacy considerations:

References:

Debra Samuel, Linked In member and IT Professional, reports on Linked In verification. LinkedIn Verify Identity – to Use or Not to Use?

LinkedIn User Agreement (Terms of Service)

This document outlines the general terms and conditions of using LinkedIn.
LinkedIn User Agreement

LinkedIn Privacy Policy

Covers how LinkedIn collects, uses, and protects personal data.
LinkedIn Privacy Policy

LinkedIn Help Page: Identity Verification

Describes the identity verification process and the role of third-party partners like Persona.
LinkedIn Identity Verification Help Page

LinkedIn Cookie Policy

Provides information on how LinkedIn uses cookies, which is relevant for tracking data linked to verification processes.
LinkedIn Cookie Policy

Persona Resources:

Persona Privacy Policy

Details how Persona collects, uses, stores, and deletes personal data. It is crucial to understand the company’s data handling practices, especially for identity verification purposes.
Persona Privacy Policy

Persona Terms of Service

Outlines the terms under which Persona operates, including data usage and liability. Understanding these terms can shed light on Persona’s responsibilities in data handling.
Persona Terms of Service

Data Request Information: “Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information”

This page provides extra context about opting out of data selling or sharing, which is relevant to user concerns about data privacy.
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

General Data Protection and Privacy References:

UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR)

Since LinkedIn operates in the UK, it must follow UK GDPR requirements for data protection and user consent.
UK GDPR Overview

National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) Guidance on Identity Verification

Offers insights on best practices for identity verification in the UK, which are relevant when assessing LinkedIn’s approach.
NCSC Identity Verification Guidance