I have just read an article of how two people were killed by a lorry driver, Ethen Roberts, this took place on the M62 in West Yorkshire, in 2012. The sentence for killing two people with a lorry is apparently not much at all. Just a mere 5 years. It is called death-by-dangerous-driving when in fact it should be called homicide-by-motor-vehicle. Time and time again innocent people are killed by motorists and the sentence is pitiful. In this particular case Mr Robers was reading a text while at the wheel, he lost control and his lorry jackknifed, it somehow fell and crushed to death Mr and Mrs McHale. She was a primary school teacher and her husband the owner of a beauty salon. No child will ever be taught by her again.
In some countries death by vehicle beings with the charge of murder, as the circumstances are revealed the gradually this is changed and reduced to a lesser sentence. Maybe the British legal system has some misguided belief road traffic accidents are just another form of accident and these things happen. So it begins with the predicate "it's an accident." This is totally and completely wrong. When an individual gets behind the wheel of an vehicle they become liable not just for their life but those of fellow travellers and certainly pedestrians. Yes there may well be occasions where certain deaths could not be avoided. But I am without doubt for this particular offence, responsibility and liability should fall first on the driver's shoulders. If a driver is distracted their distraction can cause death, if they are incapable of driving by being on drugs or alcohol then they to should be considered as responsible and liable.
This is very, very wrong. However I am sure there will continue to be stories in the press in years to come where the same thing happens. Had Ethen Roberts been aware of a law meaning he would be liable for murder would he of acted differently? It's hard to say, but he would of had the choice to not read his text, or to stop and catch up with messages when on his break. How lucky you are, at least you'll be breathing for the next five years, unlike the McHales.
Thursday, 29 August 2013
Sunday, 18 August 2013
Computers and Accountants lie
An accountant is someone who reconciles finances, a computer is a
machine which runs programs, both have a beginning and an end in their
task, even if the task is iterative. Both have a trait which is
overlooked and denied. They both lie. A computer is only as good as the
information and variables put into it, it is only as good as the
programmers who input the code, a computer therefore is fallible. Either
to the extent of it's creators or it's users. In the end what is
churned out is then interpreted by a human (highly fallible).
Accountants are interested in the bottom line only, the figures they are
given and then the process of reconciling those figures. If you were to
think there was only one way to add things up and to subtract them
you'd be wrong. There are multiple ways depending on how they are to be
interpreted. Which may have been something arising from a term called
creative accounting. There is nothing artistic about it, rather it's
about defining variables.
The lie is in not knowing how the data was collected and the stories behind the data. Consequently the saying:
I
know a lot about statistics, or more accurately, I used to know a lot
about statistics. Their frequent use as a tool by politicians is like
the double edged sword of discovery. Every new thing in the world which
is made or discovered has at least two purposes of use. A use for good
or a use for bad. Nuclear energy for example. As a source of energy for
the population or as technology used in the deadliest of bombs. In this
same way politicians pick and use specific statistics to make arguments
which they generalise. They bolster their own image of themselves and
try to fool the populace into thinking things are going well. Sometimes
it may work, but a lot of time politicians are now being understood for
what they are, and it is not as saints. Yet when I pick up a newspaper
and read it the paper will have a biased view of the world and also
deliver articles leaning in the same direction. There is no neutral
ground. When I've wanted to read pure news with less bias, I'd purchase a
financial newspaper. Yes, it happens maybe once every couple of years.
You can tell it's a financial newspaper because of it's orange colour.
However, like accountants and computers financial papers fail to provide
the human element. The story behind the figures, the story which
motivates the figures.
Where there is human interaction fallibility exists and always will exist, but to believe there is such a thing as pure facts, such as those from a computer or an accountant is grossly ignorant. I used to read company reports. These were wonderful financial statements of loss and profit, the reports are always keyed to give the impression although the environment is tough the company is fairing well. There would always be a statement by the CEO to this effect. They can not give a pessimistic statement by their very nature, if they did then they would not be CEO for long, shares in the company would drop like a stone and it could then no longer exist. The reports are compiled by accountants, they are signed off as true and valid by qualified accountants. Yet there are companies who have given out glowing reports of their future and have become failures. A lot of story telling has taken place. It is only by knowing the human element a better Gestalt like view can be understood. The human element is always missing.
Politicians do not give speeches on how the unintended consequences of a law or action they took resulted in poverty of injustice. They will elaborate on all the good points. Even if those good points are insignificant. A policy statement comes out and the repercussions for the country are enormous, yet two or three years pass and the policy has been ineffective. This is proof it was a lie from the start. But they would not of know it at the time. They hoped it would work and have the effects they hoped. Unfortunately hope is not a variable used by computers and accountants. Hope is an emotion or desire a human being holds. Something can therefore only be measured by the end result, but again only providing the figures for the end result have used all of the relevant and even some of the irrelevant details. An interesting book called Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner gives examples where unplotted variables were plotted by an economist and how these unrelated items had huge end result effects. They were not things which politicians had done either. So it goes to say, you can not make sense of things unless you have all the facts. Accountants don't, therefore they should not be put on high stalls and kowtowed, or worshipped.
The lie is in not knowing how the data was collected and the stories behind the data. Consequently the saying:
"lies, damned lies and statistics"
Where there is human interaction fallibility exists and always will exist, but to believe there is such a thing as pure facts, such as those from a computer or an accountant is grossly ignorant. I used to read company reports. These were wonderful financial statements of loss and profit, the reports are always keyed to give the impression although the environment is tough the company is fairing well. There would always be a statement by the CEO to this effect. They can not give a pessimistic statement by their very nature, if they did then they would not be CEO for long, shares in the company would drop like a stone and it could then no longer exist. The reports are compiled by accountants, they are signed off as true and valid by qualified accountants. Yet there are companies who have given out glowing reports of their future and have become failures. A lot of story telling has taken place. It is only by knowing the human element a better Gestalt like view can be understood. The human element is always missing.
Politicians do not give speeches on how the unintended consequences of a law or action they took resulted in poverty of injustice. They will elaborate on all the good points. Even if those good points are insignificant. A policy statement comes out and the repercussions for the country are enormous, yet two or three years pass and the policy has been ineffective. This is proof it was a lie from the start. But they would not of know it at the time. They hoped it would work and have the effects they hoped. Unfortunately hope is not a variable used by computers and accountants. Hope is an emotion or desire a human being holds. Something can therefore only be measured by the end result, but again only providing the figures for the end result have used all of the relevant and even some of the irrelevant details. An interesting book called Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner gives examples where unplotted variables were plotted by an economist and how these unrelated items had huge end result effects. They were not things which politicians had done either. So it goes to say, you can not make sense of things unless you have all the facts. Accountants don't, therefore they should not be put on high stalls and kowtowed, or worshipped.
Sunday, 11 August 2013
The MPs committe enquiry on Universal Credits
It was interesting to watch Ian Duncan Smith and his side kick croany Lord Freud take questions before an MPs committee on the development of Universal Credits. The video is on a government web site which makes democracy more open and viewable. The fact of the matter is UC is still in it's infancy and the software can only cope with simple claims. Their cohort is the easiest set of claimants possible. Those on Job Seekers Allowance, just clean simple no hassle claims. The committee panel had a variety of MPs from different parties which was both good and bad. It's going to be predictable a fellow Tory MP will support another Tory under pressure and not ask too many probing questions. They of course want to look good. IDS reminded the panel how they had listened to the last panel and decided on the pathfinder trial first before bringing in the full UC program. It was as though he was looking for praise and recognition in what is actually just a simple basic and logical thing to do. The original plan for UC did not have pathfinders. It was in effect a Titanic which was going to be launched by the and immediately hit an iceberg. Fortunately for them they listened and fortunately for welfare claimants they did as well.
The answers from IDS's team were along the lines of software would be developed continuously over the next year or so. Agile development was in place. They would start simple and the numbers would increase, with an expected 1.5 million people predicted to be on UC by the end of 2014 or perhaps early 2015. Although I must say there wasn't a great deal of confidence in their answers. It was like they were even surprised by the questioning as the were surprised by the enormity of the task in front of them. Every single member was learning how playing with the Welfare benefits system is an incredibly complex and difficult thing to do. I noticed how Lord Freud used colloquialisms to try and describe the process, "niggling" and "clunky" were amongst the words. It was like they were grasping for a way to describe something which they didn't understand. Equally I thought the panel were not quite up to the job but possibly on the right tracks. The way IDS spoke was as if the numbers would suddenly accumulate in the transition process to UC at a massive rate. But as anyone will tell you the law of 80/20 states, 20 per cent of claims take up 80 per cent of the time to deal with. At the moment UC is trying it's best to cope with getting on board the 80 per cent and sod the difficult cases. One thing I thought they hadn't considered was the multiple changes of circumstances which can happen in a household. Claimant's are not just static and unchanging creatures, they are after all human beings and prone to change. The use of Real Time Information RTI is a feather in an IT cap, but it is not the be all and end all of claim assessment issues. The heavy manual labour comes in determining something which is complex and decision ladden to an extent a computer program is incapable of dealing with, especially the spirit and intention of law, which is rife in the Welfare claims system.
There was no explanation of how Local Authorities would be funded in order to provide local services for people who needed to see another human being. There is a great reliance on IT to do everything. IDS and colleagues stated the more vulnerable members of society would go onto UC last, they needed to get it right and when they did transfer to UC everything would be fine. Of course this is a story or fairy tale explanation they'd give. LA's are not expected to get funding to do what will be transferred to central government. It was as if the pathfinders were only just discovering what welfare benefits were about, they were excited and learning a lot, especially staff at Job Centre Plus JCP. However, why did they not use people who already knew the benefits systems, people who could tell them of what the pitfalls are, these people already exist in LAs in every borough. Well those which hadn't tendered out their services. Ultimately UC is about central government wrestling back the purse strings of funding and cutting it at the same time. It was Glenda Jackson who put IDS on the spot and asked him about the cohort and small sampling. IDS spoke over her, his tone was bullying, he was putting down her line of questioning. But it seemed clear to the viewer IDS and his acolytes have bitten off something way too big. I can certainly see Howard Shiplee (66 years old) lead for the delivery of UC holding a pretty big get-out-of-jail card. He'll simply retire when it all goes south, considering Lord Freud is also supposed to have retired (55) his role is also suspect.
It's a difficult job for sure, one which may lead to their entire downfall. God help the rest of the country with the fall out from it. Maybe next time they are asked a few questions they may even have some answers. Hey no, they are politicians after all.
The answers from IDS's team were along the lines of software would be developed continuously over the next year or so. Agile development was in place. They would start simple and the numbers would increase, with an expected 1.5 million people predicted to be on UC by the end of 2014 or perhaps early 2015. Although I must say there wasn't a great deal of confidence in their answers. It was like they were even surprised by the questioning as the were surprised by the enormity of the task in front of them. Every single member was learning how playing with the Welfare benefits system is an incredibly complex and difficult thing to do. I noticed how Lord Freud used colloquialisms to try and describe the process, "niggling" and "clunky" were amongst the words. It was like they were grasping for a way to describe something which they didn't understand. Equally I thought the panel were not quite up to the job but possibly on the right tracks. The way IDS spoke was as if the numbers would suddenly accumulate in the transition process to UC at a massive rate. But as anyone will tell you the law of 80/20 states, 20 per cent of claims take up 80 per cent of the time to deal with. At the moment UC is trying it's best to cope with getting on board the 80 per cent and sod the difficult cases. One thing I thought they hadn't considered was the multiple changes of circumstances which can happen in a household. Claimant's are not just static and unchanging creatures, they are after all human beings and prone to change. The use of Real Time Information RTI is a feather in an IT cap, but it is not the be all and end all of claim assessment issues. The heavy manual labour comes in determining something which is complex and decision ladden to an extent a computer program is incapable of dealing with, especially the spirit and intention of law, which is rife in the Welfare claims system.
There was no explanation of how Local Authorities would be funded in order to provide local services for people who needed to see another human being. There is a great reliance on IT to do everything. IDS and colleagues stated the more vulnerable members of society would go onto UC last, they needed to get it right and when they did transfer to UC everything would be fine. Of course this is a story or fairy tale explanation they'd give. LA's are not expected to get funding to do what will be transferred to central government. It was as if the pathfinders were only just discovering what welfare benefits were about, they were excited and learning a lot, especially staff at Job Centre Plus JCP. However, why did they not use people who already knew the benefits systems, people who could tell them of what the pitfalls are, these people already exist in LAs in every borough. Well those which hadn't tendered out their services. Ultimately UC is about central government wrestling back the purse strings of funding and cutting it at the same time. It was Glenda Jackson who put IDS on the spot and asked him about the cohort and small sampling. IDS spoke over her, his tone was bullying, he was putting down her line of questioning. But it seemed clear to the viewer IDS and his acolytes have bitten off something way too big. I can certainly see Howard Shiplee (66 years old) lead for the delivery of UC holding a pretty big get-out-of-jail card. He'll simply retire when it all goes south, considering Lord Freud is also supposed to have retired (55) his role is also suspect.
It's a difficult job for sure, one which may lead to their entire downfall. God help the rest of the country with the fall out from it. Maybe next time they are asked a few questions they may even have some answers. Hey no, they are politicians after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)