Odanglesex Revisited: Some are more equal than others

After a break while I was holidaying up the East coast of England and (just) Scotland from Flamborough Head to St Abb's Head, here's another reposted Odanglesex adventure, this time on government pronouncements on equality law.


FROM: Edelbertha Spengler, Chief Executive
TO: Kenneth Spotlessnob, Director Of Transformational Excellence and Strategic Vision

Kenneth:

Could your people cast an eye over this excerpt from a speech by the Secretary of State and see if there's anything we need to do?

"...and another thing. It's about time we stopped poncing around burbling on about equality and human rights. People in the Isle of Brent aren't bothered about that highfaluting nonsense any more than they are in Heckmondwike. Get the streets cleaned. Get the milk put out. Put vandals in prison. Those are the things that count. If I find any local authority wasting money on political correctness like equality monitoring I'll bloody have them tarred and feathered, and if my colleague Ken Priestley hasn't announced that last bit yet, he will, or my name's not Fred Lardly".

FROM: Kenneth Spotlessnob
TO: Neil Balderson, Senior Transformational Excellence Manager

Neil: Please look into this asap for Ed.

FROM: Neil Balderson
TO: Kenneth Spotlessnob
cc: Hamish Carpenter, Transformational Excellence Manager

Kenneth:

Street cleaning is a district responsibility and milk transit pathways sit in the private sector. Imprisoning vandals is a matter for the police and the courts. So I think we're all right on this one. but I'll check with Hamish we're not doing anything the Secretary of State could judge to be politically correct.

FROM: Kenneth Spotlessnob
TO: Neil Balderson

Or politically incorrect.

FROM: Silesia Jones, Equality Consultant
TO: Neil Balderson; Hamish Carpenter

Neil/Hamish:

"Politically correct" is not a precise term. I certainly cannot reassure you that we aren't doing anything towards equality or human rights: for example, Councillor Wayneflete recently approved the reversal of a decision not to grant-aid the Isle of Brent Domestic Abuse Crisis Centre after lobbying by the Right Hon Fred Lardly, PC, MP, and also wrote a supportive foreword to our Equality Action Plan.

Fred Lardly's remarks should be put in the context of his speech four days earlier to a meeting of university vice chancellors:

"...now if you think that standing up for fair treatment for everyone irrespective of whether they're black, white, yellow or bloody purple with orange bits is a luxury that we can do without in hard times - think again. It's essential to the Big Society, civilisation and business efficiency, and that means knowing what's actually going on, so you'd better be able to tell me, or my friend Liz Fluffstone will be round, and let me tell you, she's pretty serious for a Lib Dem and a woman."

FROM: Kenneth Spotlessnob
TO: Edelbertha Spengler

Ed:

I've made exhaustive enquiries concerning your query about the implications of Fred Lardly's speech, and there does not appear to be anything we need to do, especially in the light of his remarks in the House last night about "letting local authorities get on with the job and not interfering, not like that other bloody lot".

Kenneth.

Above the law?

Twelve generations ago, civil wars were fought in England and Scotland over whether the king was above the law or governed by it. Military and political events combined to give the answer that monarchs were governed by the law.

Police and all the other officials of the legal and government systems are governed by the law too. British policing rests on two fundamentals - that it depends on consent; and that the police are citizens subject to the law as other citizens are. They have some special powers, but the exercise of those powers is subject to challenge through the law.

In April 2009, massive protests challenged the G20 summit in London. The police had the job of keeping order and making sure the summit was not disrupted. There were many criticisms of the tactics they used that day, but I don't want to get into that argument.

One person died - Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper seller who was caught up in the events. he was prevented from returning from his work to the hostel where he was living by the police tactic of "kettling" demonstrators and he pleaded to be let through. One officer pushed him hard in the back. He fell and suffered injuries which caused his immediate collapse and soon after death.

It might never have been established why he fell, had not an American banker who had gone to the demonstration out of curiosity filmed the action. Once it was established that a police action might have caused his death, junior police officers acted very responsibly. One reported to his superior that he might have seen the incident. The superior contacted all his team and asked them what they'd seen - and others reported they'd seen an officer they did not know push the man in the back as he was walking away. The superior passed on this information to his superiors. At the highest levels, though, police tried hard to suppress what had happened. They claimed that police medics while caring fore the dying man had been pelted with missiles by the demonstrators, which they later admitted was false. They tried to get the Guardian newspaper to stop investigating the matter, claiming entirely falsely that Tomlinson's family were anguished by the Guardian's actions (in fact they supported them).

Then an officer, PC Simon Harwood, said he had pushed a man who might have been Tomlinson. This may have been a resonsible act of conscience, or he may have judged he was likely to be indentified (he should have been showing his number but he'd obscured it). Harwood's statements thereafter were contradictory and he should not have been where he was, having been detailed to guard his team's police van some way distant. An inquest found Ian Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed. Harwood was prosecuted for manslaughter (a crime which applies when your actions kill someone, not intentionally, but when you might reasonably be expected to know that there was a risk of death resulting).

PC Harwood has just been acquitted, though there was no doubt he was the officer who pushed Tomlinson, there was medical evidence that Tomlinson's death resulted from his heavy fall and there was no doubt that Tomlinson was walking away and not presenting a threat to anyone.

So - here is a warning. Do not let your back come within pushing distance of a police officer's hand, because he's entitled to push you so you fall down and if you die as a result that's your own fault.

This is not for a moment to question that police officers do a very hard and necessary job, or that in Britain they're mostly polite and responsible (and far more prepared to be argued with than in America, as far as I can judge). The tragic event showed most of the officers near Tomlinson acting responsibly, as they did in reporting what they'd seen.

But after this verdict, I have to ask: are police officers REALLY under the law like you and I are?

The Odanglesex Chronicles: The Reorganisation (2)

ED'D JOB: THE BLOG OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE EDELBERTHA SPENGLER (draft)

Hi!

You know the feeling when some much-loved member of the team returns from a very special holiday - you all cluster around looking at her photos and admiring her tan.

Well, I've just come back from Egypt, eager to get back in harness and work with all the wonderful people in OCC again. I couldn't wait. Of course, I was very happy that Kenneth would be an inspired leader while I was away, but I do enjoy being Chief Executive here.

Anyway, in Egypt they have pyramids. You're not allowed to climb up them, but you can see that for some of them it would be a very long way and even quite dangerous because of the slope as you might slip. My other half tells me that in Central America they have stepped pyramids, which must be much easier to climb up.

We have pyramids here in Odanglesex too, though we don't get many tourists coming to see them. Our pyramids are organisational ones. Councillor Waynflete and I are at the top (blush) and I don't really like the idea that I'm standing on Kenneth Spotlesshead's nob but that's how it works, right down to the lowest levels, but of course, unlike with the Egyptian pyramids, the bits of rock at the bottom can make their way right up to the top or nearly.

The Egyptians and the Mayas made their pyramids very high to impress people. In Odanglesex we don't want to impress people. We want to give them a positive customer experience. If the pyramid's very high and steep, it's a long way to the top and there are lots of people monitoring or approving everything and as you move up each level they get paid more. We want a flatter pyramid. That's why we're going through a series of reorganisations, starting with a pilot in Transformational Excellence and Strategic Vision. There will be a bit of disruption, but at the end we'll have a flatter, more accessible, more customer-friendly pyramid.

Now here are some of my holiday photos...


FROM: Dorothea Biggs, PA to Chief Executive

TO: Edelbertha Spengler

Ed: I've made three changes if that's OK.

I've deleted the bit about admiring her tan. This is ethnically sensitive. Would "muscles" do instead?

I assume you meant to say you were standing on Kenneth Spotlessnob's head, not the other way around, though I wonder if you want to reconsider the phrase. I mean, your feet are quite big and his head is quite small. It just seems funny to me and not very safe.

I've taken out one of the holiday snaps because of what the fat man was doing in the background.

FROM: Councillor Bill Wayneflete, Leader of the Council

TO: Edelbertha Spengler

Ed: just read your blog. Fascinating as always. Why don't we have more tourists coming to see the pyramids in Odanglesex? Could I have a project plan draft to address this?

FROM: Kenneth Spotlessnob, Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Transformational Excellence and Strategic Vision

TO: Neil Balderson, Acting Assistant Director of Transformational Excellence and Strategic Vision

Neil: In reply to your query left on my answerphone - yes, your interpretation is correct. A flatter pyramid in TESV will be achieved through two transformational changes:

1: The seven DC2s will be assimilated to DC3. The alternative of assimilating to DC1 would be unviable because of the relational implications of the pay reduction involved.

2: The minimum number of employees managed to entitle a manager to line manager status will be increased from three to thirteen.

FROM: Silesia Jones, Equality Consultant

TO: Neil Balderson

Neil:

Is this for real? As an efficiency measure, I can no longer approve mileage claims or leave or carry out annual appraisal on the three colleagues I manage, despite Equality Excellence being a discrete unit, but must pass all these things to Neil Downing, who has no experience of them?

FROM: Neil Balderson

TO: Silesia Jones

Silesia:

Correct. This helps achieve a flatter organisational pyramid and less bureaucracy.

Concerning the three colleagues and indeed the Equality function: haven't you read page 111 of Kenneth's presentation?


FROM: Stanley Livingstone, President Emeritus, National Association of Micro Businesses, Odanglesex and Sarfebutt Branch

TO: Edelbertha Spengler

My dear Mrs Spengler:

Is it correct what I read in the newspapers, that seven of your extravagantly paid jobsworths have received an entirely unearned pay rise by being "assimilated" to a higher level?

Can they instead be taken out and shot?


FROM: Edelbertha Spengler

TO: Stanley Livingstone

Dear Mr Livingstone,

Thank you for your most helpful letter. I can confirm that the organisational change you refer to is being implemented as part of a package of measures to reduce expenditure and improve the customer experience.

I am grateful for your helpful suggestion, but unfortunately it would be ultra vires.

Equality of Outcome and of Opportunity

These two terms are much bandied about. The first demands some questions, particularly, "Equality of what outcome?". It often refers to wealth or income (which are not the same), but also to health and other measures of a good life. Absolute equality of outcome would require that if you and I were born on the same day, we would die on the same day with the same amount in our bank balances. That's a reductio ad absurdum: obviously if you aim at equality of outcome, you try to reduce income differentials and things like big differences in life expectancy between different parts of the country (or world?). You'll never eliminate the differences.

It would have surprised early American politicians like Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln that many Americans today assume that any move towards greater equality of outcome must be at the expense of freedom. To shift the burden of taxes away from low-income people towards high-income people, for example, does not diminish freedom. To give someone who would have died through poverty the chance to live through medical treatment is to increase freedom. Whether the measures needed to reduce inequality of outcome would damage the economy to the disbenefit of all, is a question of economic management and not of freedom.

Despite these questions, equality of outcome, once you've clarified what the outcome is, should be easy to measure, and we do it all the time. Go to a government statistics site and you can see how much average incomes in the South-east of England are higher than in the North-east, or how much longer people can expect to live in London than in Glasgow. In the UK, differentials of income and wealth have been increasing for some thirty years (the gap between rich and poor getting proportionately larger) while reducing health inequalities has proved hard and often unrewarding work. Of course, the simplest, quickest, most reliable way of reducing health inequalities between social classes or localities would be to go and make life really miserable for the rich people, but this has not yet been attempted.

Now to come clean. I've chosen not to be particularly up-front about either my religious or my political commitments on this blog, since the very subjects would turn some people off, and knowing the name of my commitment would turn others off, whereas we might otherwise have communicated. But here goes on one of those points: I'm a Liberal in terms of political philosophy and heart, and a Liberal Democrat member. WARNING: this does not mean what it means either in the US, or in Australia, or in most of continental Europe (not quite). "Liberal" in the US means what we would call "left-wing". In Australia it's the name of the main right-wing party. In much of continental Europe, it indicates support for unrestricted capitalism and individualism, plus civil rights. Here it indicates a commitment to individual freedom (but how that's understood is a big issue), to empowering individuals and communities, and to a concept of individual self-realisation through community and relationships. Of course, some people would disagree with that. Socialist, Conservative and Nationalist aren't easy to define, either.

Some people on the right of the UK Liberal Democrats state that Liberals believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. This is stated as if it was incontrovertible fact on the website of the right-Liberal think-tank "Reform".

Well, historically Liberals fought discrimination and barriers that debarred some people from some opportunities, for example Catholics from Oxford and Cambridge or low-income people from voting. They believed that if these barriers were removed, a more equal society would result. There were plenty of barriers and perks to fight, so the focus was not on inequality that survived removing discrimination. By the late 19th century, though, many Liberals were pointing out the dangers of widening inequality of outcome, and the Liberal government of 1905-14 introduced the first national measures of social insurance.

I pointed out some queries and difficulties around the concept of equality of outcome, but those around the concept of equality of opportunity are far, far, greater.

The concept works very well when applied to clearly defined and limited circumstances, for example in working out whether illegal discrimination has taken place. Ravinder, who is ethnic Indian, and Paul, who is ethnic white UK, have applied for the same job. Ravinder had better qualifications, wrote a clearer and more comprehensive application, and wasn't recorded as making any mistakes at interview. Some jotted notes from the interview show Paul slipped up on important points, and yet he got the job. An industrial tribunal would almost certainly find illegal discrimination had occurred on grounds of race (or maybe gender if Ravinder is female: the name is unisex). What we're doing here is taking the two applicants as they were at the start of the application process and comparing fate with demonstrable strengths.

But equality of opportunity as preached in politics wouldn't start there. If one of these people had gained an advantage from living in a prosperous area with good schools, and the other lived in a depressed area with poor schools, for example, that would be inequality of opportunity. But if you include that, why not the quality of parental care or even the advantages and disadvantages conferred by your genes? If we take measures to counteract the disadvantage Ravinder experiences through being blind or dyslexic, it is a disputable decision to leave aside less clearcut disadvantages experienced by Paul: perhaps he thinks rather slowly or struggles with abstract concepts. In practice we may resolve this by a practical test of whether the disadvantage could be overcome so the person could do a good job. If we want to take action to reduce the disadvantage Ravinder suffered through having poor parents and living in Salford, what about the disadvantage Paul suffered through having parents who were uncaring or locked in battle in Surrey? It's pretty obvious that such a start will have made it harder for him to take full advantage of opportunities offered.

In other words, it seems to me that equality of opportunity is a useful concept applied in a limited way, but as a political ideal, slips through your fingers. While equality of outcome as an ideal ignores the impact of free decisions (for example, some people are prepared to make big sacrifices to be rich and others aren't; I may freely choose to eat some unhealthy food because I enjoy it), ignoring it or abandoning it leads to widening inequalities which make equality of opportunity in any sense harder to achieve and lead to more divided, disorderly, unsafe societies.

Liberals (UK meaning) have historically been more concerned with inequalities of power than of wealth, while socialists have been the other way around; but great inequalities of wealth increase inequalities of power. Similarly, trying to reduce inequalities of wealth by planning and command without involving local communities increases inequalities of power and often thereby of wealth.

There is of course a third equality, of esteem (which I think is what "created equal" means). But if you appear to be poor, are you treated with the same esteem by most people as if you appear to be rich? Try it.

The Odanglesex Chronicles: Some are more equal than others

FROM: Edelbertha Spengler, Chief Executive
TO: Kenneth Spotlessnob, Director Of Transformational Excellence and Strategic Vision

Kenneth:

Could your people cast an eye over this excerpt from a speech by the Secretary of State and see if there's anything we need to do?

"...and another thing. It's about time we stopped poncing around burbling on about equality and human rights. People in the Isle of Brent aren't bothered about that highfaluting nonsense any more than they are in Heckmondwike. Get the streets cleaned. Get the milk put out. Put vandals in prison. Those are the things that count. If I find any local authority wasting money on political correctness like equality monitoring I'll bloody have them tarred and feathered, and if my colleague Ken Priestley hasn't announced that last bit yet, he will".

FROM: Kenneth Spotlessnob
TO: Neil Balderson, Senior Transformational Excellence Manager

Neil: Please look into this asap for Ed.

FROM: Neil Balderson
TO: Kenneth Spotlessnob
cc: Hamish Carpenter, Transformational Excellence Manager

Kenneth:

Street cleaning is a district responsibility and milk transit pathways sit in the private sector. Imprisoning vandals is a matter for the police and the courts. So I think we're all right on this one. but I'll check with Hamish we're not doing anything the Secretary of State could judge to be politically correct.

FROM: Kenneth Spotlessnob
TO: Neil Balderson

Or politically incorrect.

FROM: Silesia Jones, Equality Consultant
TO: Neil Balderson; Hamish Carpenter

Neil/Hamish:

"Politically correct" is not a precise term. I certainly cannot reassure you that we aren't doing anything towards equality or human rights: for example, Councillor Wayneflete recently approved the reversal of a decision not to grant-aid the Isle of Brent Domestic Abuse Crisis Centre after lobbying by the Right Hon Fred Lardly, PC, MP, and also wrote a supportive foreword to our Equality Action Plan.

Fred Lardly's remarks should be put in the context of his speech four days earlier to a meeting of university vice chancellors:

"...now if you think that standing up for fair treatment for everyone irrespective of whether they're black, white, yellow or bloody purple with orange bits is a luxury that we can do without in hard times - think again. It's essential to the Big Society, civilisation and business efficiency, and that means knowing what's actually going on, so you'd better be able to tell me, or my friend Liz Fluffstone will be round."

FROM: Kenneth Spotlessnob
TO: Edelbertha Spengler

Ed:

I've made exhaustive enquiries concerning your query about the implications of Fred Lardly's speech, and there does not appear to be anything we need to do, especially in the light of his remarks in the House last night about "letting local authorities get on with the job and not interfering, not like that other bloody lot".

Kenneth.