Category: Spectator

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

Posted on

A New Era of Lacedaemonian Guise

The Dangers of Pursuing a Controlled Speech in a Modern Democracy

Deep Dive Podcasts discuss WTAF is A New Era of Lacedaemonian Guise:

In the 17th century, John Milton penned Areopagitica, a powerful defence of free speech against the rigid licensing of the press imposed by the British government. Milton argued that the suppression of ideas and opinions, even those deemed dangerous or heretical, stifled the pursuit of truth and intellectual progress. Nearly four centuries later, the British government seems intent on reviving these antiquated and authoritarian practices by proposing measures to restrict freedom of speech on social media, ostensibly to combat misinformation. But as history has shown, such attempts to control the narrative are fraught with peril, not least because the government itself has, on multiple occasions, propagated misinformation. This irony, or rather, this danger, is akin to Milton’s experiences in his time, where the state sought to limit what could be thought, said, and published. Today, we must recognise the echoes of this “Lacedaemonian guise,” a stark return to a Spartan-like rigidity, where the free exchange of ideas is viewed not as a societal good but as a threat to be tightly regulated.

The Mirage of Misinformation

It is important to acknowledge that misinformation is a real issue in our digital age, with the rapid spread of falsehoods having tangible consequences. However, the government’s claim that the solution lies in reining in social media platforms neglects a crucial point: those in power are not infallible arbiters of truth. In recent memory, we have witnessed various official narratives later proven to be misleading or outright false. The COVID-19 pandemic, economic policies, and even national security issues have all seen governments backpedal or amend their stances as new information comes to light. To grant any government the authority to define “misinformation” is to empower it to suppress dissenting views, inconvenient facts, and alternative perspectives under the guise of public safety. The danger here is that such measures do not merely combat misinformation but silence criticism, foster conformity, and eliminate the essential friction that drives democratic discourse.

The Rebirth of Licensing: A Spartan Decree in Digital Form

Milton wrote with disdain about the idea of licensing speech, equating it to the practices of ancient Lacedaemon (Sparta), a society known for its uncompromising discipline and suppression of individualism. In modern terms, this equates to the state seeking to monitor and regulate the content shared on social media platforms—a digital licensing of the press, if you will. Under the proposed framework, social media companies would be obliged to police their users, removing content deemed “harmful” or face punitive measures. But who decides what is harmful? The government’s claim to be acting in the public interest must be critically examined, as the history of power reveals that today’s harm is often tomorrow’s truth.

The Lacedaemonians were staunchly opposed to intellectual diversity, favouring a rigid conformity that preserved their way of life. In the same vein, imposing restrictions on social media under the pretence of combating misinformation reflects a desire to control the boundaries of acceptable discourse, a desire that bears the hallmarks of the very tyranny Milton warned against. If we cede to the government the power to determine what may or may not be spoken, we do not safeguard the truth—we instead endanger it by making it susceptible to political whim.

The Necessity of Free Expression for a Vibrant Democracy

A democratic society thrives on the free flow of ideas. It is in the marketplace of ideas that the strongest arguments emerge, and errors or falsehoods are exposed through scrutiny and debate. In Milton’s view, the pursuit of truth is an active process requiring the engagement of many minds, not the fiat of a single authority. If we look to history, it is evident that truth is not static; it evolves as new evidence and interpretations come to light. Many ideas once dismissed as radical or dangerous later became widely accepted, not because they were mandated by the state, but because they withstood rigorous debate and empirical challenge.

The notion that social media platforms should act as the gatekeepers of acceptable speech, guided by government mandates, runs contrary to the principles of free expression. The digital sphere has allowed marginalised voices, dissenters, and reformers to challenge the status quo in ways that traditional media often could not. Any legislation that aims to curb this potential under the banner of fighting misinformation risks not only silencing these voices but also insulating the powerful from accountability.

The Perils of Authoritarian Drift

As we face a “new era of Lacedaemonian guise,” we must be wary of the steady creep toward authoritarianism under the pretext of public protection. The willingness to limit free speech, even if motivated by genuine concerns, sets a dangerous precedent. Today, it may be misinformation; tomorrow, it may be political dissent, scientific critique, or artistic expression that comes under scrutiny. History is replete with examples where laws intended for one purpose were later applied to stifle legitimate discourse.

The government’s pursuit to control speech reflects not the confidence of a state assured in its legitimacy, but rather, a nervous reaction to a more democratised information landscape where narratives can be questioned and authorities held to account. Milton argued that to reject free speech is to reject the potential for individual and collective growth. He recognised that, in pursuing truth, errors and falsehoods would arise, but the remedy was not to prevent people from speaking but to allow a fuller, richer debate. The role of the state should be to facilitate this open dialogue, not to dictate its parameters.

Conclusion: Towards a Truly Free Marketplace of Ideas

The government’s attempts to rein in social media and control the spread of information through legislation are reminiscent of the licensing ordinances that Milton so passionately opposed. By invoking the Lacedaemonian guise, we acknowledge the danger of such an endeavour: it seeks not to protect the public but to insulate the powerful from the scrutiny of the governed. It is an absurd and perilous pursuit for a modern government to play the role of truth’s gatekeeper, for truth is not born from decrees but from the clash of diverse ideas and experiences.

If we allow ourselves to be lulled into accepting such restrictions, we risk embracing a new form of censorship that, while dressed in the language of safety and public interest, will, in reality, erode the very freedoms upon which our democracy rests. The true defence against misinformation is not less speech, but more—a dynamic, open marketplace of ideas where individuals are free to engage with, challenge, and, ultimately, discover the truth. To adopt a Lacedaemonian approach would be to surrender this hard-won liberty, exchanging it for a dangerous comfort in state-sanctioned conformity.

Posted on

Why Cronyism Hurts Public Procurement Efficiency

Deep Dive Podcast:

Listen to this article:

Government procurement, both at the local and national levels, has long been a source of frustration for many. It has too often become a quagmire of unnecessary complexity. It should act as an efficient vehicle for the provision of essential services. A few large corporations dominate it. They have mastered the art of navigating the intricacies of an outdated system. This chapter explores the roots of this inefficiency. It discusses its consequences for taxpayers. The chapter also highlights the need for reform prioritising transparency, value, and local participation.

The Legacy of Labyrinthine Rules

At the heart of the problem is a procurement process mired in a dense web of regulations. Many of these rules are a lingering remnant of the United Kingdom’s former membership in the European Union. These regulations were designed to guarantee fair competition across the EU’s single market. Instead, they have had the effect of favouring large, multinational corporations with the resources to follow intricate legal requirements. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly local businesses, the cost of meeting these compliance standards is prohibitive. This effectively bars them from bidding on public contracts.

This imbalance has led to the creation of what some critics have labelled the “Serco State.” In this environment, a small group of preferred bidders enjoys an oligopolistic hold on public service contracts. These large corporations are often seen as the only entities capable of navigating the procurement rules. They regularly secure massive contracts. These contracts they then subcontract to the lowest bidder. The result is a downward spiral in service quality. The cheapest operators, often reliant on foreign labour, take over. This leads to a lack of oversight, accountability, and effective service delivery. Jobs that should be done well are often either poorly executed or, in extreme cases, not completed at all. Over time, this has been corrosive to public services and wasteful for the taxpayer.

Cronyism and Corruption in Public Procurement

The inefficiencies of the current procurement model go beyond mere bureaucratic hurdles. There is a long history of cronyism, corporatism, and outright corruption within government contracting. Companies with the right connections often win bids. This happens rather than those best suited to deliver value. Sometimes this occurs regardless of performance or ability. Publications like Private Eye have often shone a spotlight on these practices. They expose backroom deals and sweetheart contracts that help the few at the expense of the many.

The consolidation of public procurement into the hands of a few dominant players has bred a system. Competition is stifled. Innovation is stymied. Cost-effectiveness is sacrificed. Taxpayers are left footing the bill for contracts that rarely deliver on their promises. Instead of focusing on getting the best value for public money, the procurement process has, in many cases, devolved. It has become a cynical exercise of political favouritism and corporate profiteering.

The WTO Government Procurement Agreement and International Obligations

Another layer of complexity stems from the UK’s obligations under the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). This agreement is intended to promote open markets and competition across borders. It requires member nations to allow foreign companies to bid on public contracts. While in principle, such openness should foster competition and drive innovation. In practice, it has led to an overreliance on foreign firms. It has also led to outsourcing.

The involvement of overseas bidders has raised concerns about transparency and accountability. This is especially true in sectors like cleaning, maintenance, and basic public services. Contracts awarded to foreign firms often lack the necessary oversight. This leads to substandard outcomes. It also creates a disconnect between local authorities and the communities they serve. Furthermore, the urge to drive down costs often results in the exploitation of cheap labour. This again compromises the quality of services provided to the public.

Inward investment is a positive force. However, the procurement of essential public services should prioritise local needs and taxpayer value. This should take precedence over any international obligation. It is here that the tension between global economic commitments and local service delivery becomes most clear. For too long, government procurement policies have prioritised the former, to the detriment of the latter.

The Case for Localisation and Bringing Services In-House

As the limitations of the current system become increasingly clear, there is a growing argument. This argument is for bringing certain public services back in-house. These limitations have underscored the need for change. This is particularly true for services that are most essential to daily life. Local authorities would directly manage services like cleaning and maintenance. This way, they would keep greater control. They would also guarantee higher standards of service delivery. This shift would allow governments to hold themselves accountable for service quality. They wouldn’t outsource that responsibility to private contractors. These contractors’ primary concern is often profit.

Moreover, by engaging with local SMEs, governments can foster innovation, create jobs, and strengthen local economies. A decentralised approach to procurement would open up opportunities for smaller businesses to compete. It would reduce the stranglehold that large corporations now have on public contracts. Such an approach would also mitigate the risks linked to outsourcing. It ensures that services are delivered by those who have a vested interest in the community.

In rethinking procurement policies, government officials must prioritise transparency, accountability, and value for taxpayers. Contracts should be awarded based on merit, performance, and the ability to deliver quality services. They should not be awarded based on connections or corporate size. Similarly, localisation should be encouraged wherever possible. Understand that local businesses, if properly supported, can often deliver better outcomes at a lower cost than large multinational firms.

Conclusion

The current state of government procurement is a cautionary tale. It shows what happens when complex regulations take precedence over the public good. International obligations and entrenched corporate interests are also allowed to take precedence. The labyrinth of procurement rules has served only to enrich a few at the expense of many. It has also compromised service quality and wasted taxpayer money. Reform is long overdue.

Governments can break free from the wasteful patterns of the past. They can do this by embracing localisation, bringing key services back in-house, and prioritising transparency and competition. Public procurement should serve the interests of the public first. It should ensure that taxpayers get the best value for their money. Services must be delivered efficiently and effectively. The time for change is now, and future policy must show this urgent need.

Posted on

AI in Law Enforcement and Governance: Balancing Efficiency with Privacy Risks

Deep Dive Podcast:

The increasing integration of AI systems into law enforcement, governance, and justice presents a complex landscape with significant potential risks, especially when combined with Face Recognition technology. While AI has the capacity to enhance efficiency and precision in these areas, it also introduces a range of dangers that deserve careful consideration.

1. Erosion of Privacy and Civil Liberties

One of the most immediate and concerning dangers of AI in law enforcement is the erosion of privacy. The use of facial recognition technology, as mentioned, is a stark example. When deployed without clear, stringent regulations, these systems can lead to a surveillance state where citizens are constantly monitored. This not only infringes on the right to privacy but can also have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, as people will self-censor or avoid public gatherings due to fear of surveillance.

2. Bias and Discrimination

AI systems, particularly those used in policing and judicial contexts, are often trained on historical data. If this data reflects biases present in society—such as racial or socioeconomic biases—AI can perpetuate and even amplify these biases. For example, predictive policing algorithms will disproportionately target particular communities, leading to over-policing and further entrenchment of social inequalities. The Home Office’s use of AI to create profiles of “criminals” based on potentially flawed data exemplifies this danger. Bias in AI can lead to unjust outcomes, wrongful arrests, biased sentencing, and unequal treatment under the law.

3. Lack of Accountability

AI decision-making processes are often opaque, even to those who develop or deploy these systems. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to hold anyone accountable when AI systems produce erroneous or harmful outcomes. For instance, if an AI system wrongly identifies an innocent person as a criminal, determining responsibility—whether it’s the AI developer, the police force, or the government—becomes challenging. This can lead to a situation where victims of AI errors have little recourse for justice.

4. Pre-crime and the Presumption of Innocence

AI’s ability to predict behaviour based on data trends raises the troubling possibility of “pre-crime” scenarios, where individuals are targeted for actions they have not yet committed but are deemed likely to commit based on AI analysis. This fundamentally undermines the legal principle of the presumption of innocence, as individuals will be arrested or monitored based on predictions rather than actual actions. The Home Office’s recent boast about arresting 1,000 “violent criminals” who had not been tried yet suggests that this dystopian scenario is not far-fetched.

5. Concentration of Power and Loss of Human Oversight

The deployment of AI in law enforcement and governance will lead to a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of those who control these technologies. If decisions are increasingly made by AI systems with minimal human oversight, it will erode democratic accountability. Government agencies will rely on AI to make decisions that should involve human judgement by assessing the threat level of individuals or deciding who to monitor. This reliance on AI can result in dehumanisation, where people are reduced to mere data points and complex human circumstances are overlooked.

6. Potential for Abuse and Authoritarianism

The potential for abuse of AI systems by those in power is significant. In regimes where human rights are not respected, AI will be used as a tool for oppression, targeting dissidents, activists, and other marginalised groups. Even in democratic societies, there is a risk that AI will be used to suppress dissent or manipulate public opinion, particularly if used with mass surveillance and data analytics.

7. Undermining the Rule of Law

The use of AI in judicial contexts, in sentencing or parole decisions, can undermine the rule of law if these systems are not carefully designed and monitored. AI systems will lack the ability to fully comprehend the nuances of legal principles or the human context of a case, leading to unjust outcomes. Furthermore, if AI becomes seen as infallible, there is a risk that its decisions will be accepted without proper scrutiny, even when they are flawed.

8. Public Trust and Social Stability

The widespread use of AI in law enforcement and governance can erode public trust, particularly if the technology is seen as invasive, biased, or unaccountable. This distrust can lead to social instability, as communities resist or protest against the perceived overreach of AI-driven surveillance and policing. If citizens feel that they are being unfairly targeted or that their rights are being violated by AI systems, it will lead to significant social unrest and a breakdown in the relationship between the public and the state.

Conclusion

While AI has the potential to enhance law enforcement and governance, the risks it poses are large and must be carefully managed. The dangers of bias, lack of accountability, erosion of privacy, and the potential for authoritarian abuse underscore the need for strict regulations, transparent processes, and robust oversight. Without these safeguards, the integration of AI into these critical areas will lead to outcomes that are not only unjust but fundamentally corrosive to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.