The Pin Factory Blog

As the trial of Stephen Griffiths, the “crossbow cannibal” accused of murdering three Bradford prostitutes unfolds, it is impossible not be appalled by the allegations. Like far too many similar incidents before it, this case shows all too clearly the failings of the UK’s sex industry.

While the act of prostitution is legal in the UK public solicitation is prohibited, making street prostitution and curb-crawling illegal. Third-party involvement in the act of prostitution is also prohibited, which makes it illegal to keep a brothel, ‘pimp’ prostitutes or control them through an agency. This current state of legality can make selling oneself in a safe manner rather tricky, especially for the vulnerable.

Setting aside the moral controversy surrounding the sex industry, it is essential that prostitution be completely lifted from the black market for the safety of those involved. In the USA, female street prostitutes are 18 times more likely to be murdered than other women of a similar age and race. As prostitution operates in a hazy legal field, sections of the market are tied up in further criminality, such as people trafficking and drug dealing. Those people who turn to prostitution face a stark choice: break the law by working in a brothel or through an agency, or ‘go it alone’ with next to no support or protection from the potential dangers of an unregulated profession. It is often those in severe financial straits or suffering with an addiction who find themselves exploited and abused, unable to seek help because of their position. A tough police stance on prostitution does little to help the welfare of sex workers, but much to put them at risk. A crackdown on activities like streetwalking simply encourages women to seek new locations from which to work, such as more obscure neighborhoods or those without CCTV.

Instead of the current system, prostitution should be treated like many other professions; legal and regulated, as is the case in countries such as the Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand. Allowing prostitutes the safety and security of a fixed workplace and network of co-workers would put them at much less risk. Evidence shows that the commercialization of prostitution would lead to better rights for workers, better working conditions and more established routes through which to seek help. A legal, competitive brothel or agency would have the incentive to make sure their workers are clean and well looked after - or risk losing business.

You cannot just legislate against a ‘problem’ to make it go away, and the age-old profession of prostitution is absolutely no exception. This case should act as a catalyst for reform. David Cameron has indicated that he will reconsider the UK’s current legislation, although there seemed no discernable conviction behind his statement. The legalization of prostitution in all its variants is needed to make Britain a freer and more importantly, a safer society.

I've just finished reading 'What Price Liberty? How freedom was won and is being lost' by historian Ben Wilson. And I must say, it was a fascinating read. Using Berlin's negative definition of liberty, Wilson chronologically charts the growth, decline and battle for individual liberty over the last four hundred years of British history.

While reporting and examining political events across the centuries, Wilson seeks to identify the factors that have extended freedom. It is not often large-scale demonstrations, benevolent governments or even constitutional checks and balances that nurture liberty, Wilson argues, but "the direct action of bloody-minded individuals". Liberty has been won, bit by bit, in "moments of storm and passion" by minority groups, opportunism, and, quite often, unintentionally. And when liberty has been protected without legal restraints on government, it has been because the concept and language of liberty flourished in public debate. Using examples from across ages and the political spectrum Wilson shows that when individual liberty is considered sacrosanct by all classes the political desire to meddle is beaten down: though not always without a fight.

However, Wilson gloomily claims "the liberal phase in our history seems to be coming to an end". From the emergency legislation of the World Wars that seized liberty in the name of national security and victory, subsequent declines in individual freedom are all too painfully noted. Again, Wilson's analysis is interesting: that over recent decades we have become more 'risk-averse', with the fear of social disorder, crime and terrorism encouraging people to incrementally hand over their liberties in return for increased security and peace of mind. The information age has seen state regulation and data hoarding increase, while the lines between public and private, protection and intrusion have become increasingly blurred. New Labour’s desire for a strong and efficient state was at ends with the principles of ‘cumbersome’ liberty, and so its importance was downplayed at every opportunity. Another blow to liberty has been struck, Wilson argues, by Britain’s uneasy response to multiculturalism. Our fear of offending minorities has lead us to attack everyone’s right to free speech, and created legislation that makes all of us less free and more fearful of those who are ‘different’.

How do we counteract this? The answer is to re-invigorate the language of individual liberty, and encourage it to be spoken by politicians and the public. This liberty is the foundation of social harmony, progress and economic growth. Britain’s relative freedom has been admired and mocked, but always recognized; it is up to groups such as the ASI to demonstrate how essential this freedom is and insist that liberty is at the forefront of policy decisions.
 

Though far from perfect, the Coalition manifesto contains a pleasingly consistent commitment to transfer power away from central government and towards individuals, communities and local levels of government. Pre-election rhetoric has transformed into solid policy commitments, forming the basis for a refreshingly ‘liberal’ government after years of statist Labour control.

One area of reform looks set to be policing, as Theresa May’s speech at the Police Federation annual conference confirmed. After insisting that “I’m not interested in running the police”, May vowed to cut down the health and safety laws and the level of paperwork that the police are currently constrained by, through measures such as abolishing the stop and search form. Another positive idea was to give the police the power to charge suspects for a wider range of minor crimes. At present, charging decisions are made by the Crown Prosecution Service, for whom the police must prepare detailed case files, even in the case of a guilty plea. Securing a go-ahead from the CPS can be a lengthy process, while their ‘conviction rate‘ targets mean they can be more interested in scoring easy convictions then pursuing serious, but more hazy cases. Returning some charging powers to the police would give them greater responsibility, while cutting costs and hugely freeing up police time.

May also signaled that under the Coalition government, there would be transfer of power from Whitehall to local communities in regards to police accountability. This would be done by cutting Key Performance Indicators, political gimmicks and the creation of directly-elected local police commissioners, who would hopefully replace the useless and toothless Local Police Authority quangos. Such a figure would bring better accountability to local forces, forge closer links between citizens and police and remove the need for central government micromanagement. Some people have criticized this move, believing it to be a politicization of the police that will result in hardline populist policies forced upon them. However, it is ridiculous to argue that crime and the ways to address it are not political issues. As it stands, the police are already subject to incessant political meddling from the Home Office- which a local police commissioner would remove. The government must stand strong to enforce this transformative policy, which would give communities a unique and tailored policing plan and the police true accountability to the public whilst retaining their operational independence.

As it currently stands, anyone entering full-time higher education can receive financial support from the government in the form of Tuition Fee funding and Maintenance Loans, as well as the option of a means-tested grant. Additionally, if you have any form of disability or learning disorder, you are eligible for Disabled Student’s Allowance, which is available regardless of family income, and doesn’t have to be paid back.

Being dyslexic, my friend was delighted to discover that he was eligible for up to £5,161 worth of ‘specialist equipment’, and so applied for DSA. His experience is a prime example of inefficient and wasteful government.

After a needs assessment in September and the promise of a shiny new laptop, processing the case took over eight months. Nevertheless, the ‘essential’ technological support eventually arrived- in the form of a MacBook Pro, a printer and voice-recognition software. However, the delivery also included (amongst much more) a scanner, USB hub, a backpack, an ink allowance, and, strangely enough, an AA battery charger. Call me insensitive, but I simply cannot understand the necessity of all these items for a dyslexic university student.

My expressions of disapproval led to accusations of bitterness and jealousy. In fact, I was shocked that such items should be provided by the government, regardless of income- and without even being asking for. The response I received from my friend was, “But I’ve done nothing wrong- they’re free”. However, the gadgets weren’t free. They had been paid for by other people’s money –confiscated through taxation. They were funded with money that would have been put to better use were it allowed to stay in the individuals’ pockets, rather than paying for backpacks for dyslexics.

The country is saddled with a huge government deficit, and spending pressures are beginning to emerge: The Russell Group has warned that current higher education funding is unsustainable. Meanwhile, the Coalition government is keen to make savings through ‘efficiencies’ and will be unwilling to touch frontline services. However, the DSA appears to be something that could be seriously revised, without seriously disadvantaging the disabled in University.

Thursday’s election produced a very curious result; unusually for the first-past-the-post system, it resulted in no obvious winners, and few distinct losers. What was particularly interesting however was the unexpectedness of several constituency results. Parties held onto wards they were expected to lose, and were subject to significant gains and losses in unexpected seats. It all came as rather a surprise. For a start, the media certainly called it wrong. Despite many newspapers’ endorsement of the Conservatives, they failed to gain an overall majority- while the media-fueled flurry of Cleggmania proved to be embarrassing when the Liberal Democrats actually lost seats. Polls swung wildly throughout the election period and failed to accurately predict the result of a great many seats. It was impossible to watch more than a few minutes of TV election coverage (let alone 8 hours of it) without coming to the conclusion that absolutely none of the presenters, politicians or ‘experts’ had a clue what was going on. Everybody simply had to sit back and watch the chaos unfold.

What became apparent is just how difficult it is to predict the actions of millions of different individuals - people with different circumstances, political views and choices of candidates. The political experts proved themselves incapable of fully understanding the complex network of factors that will influence group and individual's drives- and ultimately their decisions. It bears more than a resemblance to Hayek's work on the 'fatal conceit' of central planners, who believe they can organise society and outcomes according to their rational plans and limited information. Just as, when armed with their statistics, briefings and opinions commentators can't accurately figure out what the public will do at the ballot box, a state department would be unable to calculate the optimal decision to best satisfy society as a whole. There is no real harm done from polls and the media inaccurately portraying the nations 'mood'. However, it reaffirms the importance of resisting an overcentralised state. There is a lot more at stake when the government is spewing directives, not predictions- based on the same incomplete understanding of how society reacts, and what its individuals actually want.

For markets to work efficiently, product information needs to be transmitted between the producer and consumer: competition and regulations mean few businesses could survive while keeping consumers ignorant of their product.. However, prohibition creates black markets, where reliable information is hard to come by. In the market for illicit drugs this is a highly dangerous problem: lack of information about the quality and composition of substances is potentially lethal.

It was therefore interesting to read CUT, a publication by Liverpool John Moores University that looks at the adulterants and bulking agents found within street drugs. Contrary to public perception, dealers don’t cut their wares with copious amounts of rat poison and brick dust, as they have little incentive to bump off their clients. A large number of adulterants are in fact relatively harmless substances such as sugar, caffeine and paracetamol. Nevertheless, the report also found examples of some rather more dangerous contaminants, such as lead within heroin samples and cannabis laced with glass. It also found chemicals such as pesticide and vetinary medicine added to certain drugs to intensify or prolong their effect. However, the report is far from conclusive as it is unable to suggest the percentage of drugs that are adulterated, or even the concentration of contaminants found in existing samples.

The main problem is that street drugs are rarely analyzed for anything other than to assure criminal convictions. Supplied underground, illegal drugs are free from all quality assurances and proper scrutiny, so users are kept in the dark on the risks they are facing. This is just one of the many reasons why policymakers should recognize that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. The market for recreational drugs should be legalized and regulated, bringing £6 billion of activity into a system of proper control. With detailed information easily at hand and stringent quality controls, people would be able to take educated decisions with full responsibility for the consequences.

The protection of children is always a sensitive issue and a large responsibility, but the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre’s (CEOP) reaction to Facebook’s new safety measures shows to what extent self-righteous bureaucrats feel justified in spreading their remit. On top of a plethora of privacy settings, Facebook have decided to tackle internet predators with a £5m internet safety campaign, a 24 hour police hotline and the option to send information to CEOP when abuse is reported online. Nonetheless, the website has been attacked for refusing to install a ‘panic button’ on every user’s profile, which would give information to the quango directly. Facebook insists their research finds a single panic button would confuse and intimidate people, and be less effective in reporting abuse.

As a private company Facebook should not be coerced into fulfilling the egotistical aspirations of a quango, no matter how well intentioned; how they manage the threat of internet predators should be entirely up to them. The drive to remain popular and public concerns will no doubt mean that Facebook remains up to date when dealing with the ‘darker’ side of social networking such as grooming, bullying and exploitation. How they respond to this pressure should be their own choice. Also, many of my friends have had their birthdays changed, or obscene status updates posted as a result of prank. It seems obvious to me that a ‘this person is a pedophile’ button would be taken advantage of to cause mayhem, likely wasting police time.

Nevertheless, the CEOP have been supplementing their attack on Facebook with the ‘shocking’ fact that the website has never reported an alleged pedophile to the Police directly. This is because Facebook is compelled by US law to report cases to the American authorities, who then pass them on to the CEOP. This doesn’t stop the mighty child protectors targeting worried parents and schools. The issue at stake is not so much about Facebook’s safety controls, but the freedom of private organizations to develop, without being subject to the whims of government bodies.

The Institute for New Economic Thinking, George Soros’ new $50 million plaything, will be launched today at King’s College, Cambridge. The location is significant; a tribute to its famous alumnus, John Maynard Keynes. The Institute seeks a paradigm shift in economic thought, but if it is rooted in the thoughts of Keynes this is neither new nor welcome. The fact that Anatole Kaletsky defends its existence in the Times, suggests that it is likely not fit for purpose.

Kaletsky is swift to blame free markets and monetarism for what he calls ‘the near-death experience of the world economy’. He insists that free-market ideas have captured policy makers since the early 1970s, creating an academic hegemony out of touch with reality. So taken in by the efficiency of markets, politicians, he claims, have never dared to second guess market. However, he neglects to mention the cheap credit and the resultant housing boom, the moral hazard of bailouts and inept regulators, and the persistent political obsession to still avoid any contraction in the value of housing.

Kaletsky looks to the Institute for New Economic Thinking to revolutionize our understanding of economics, who will it seems, seek inspiration from Keynesianism. However, Larry Elliot’s article in the Guardian illustrates why Kaletsky and this 'new' economics is the wrong approach. Individuals will always offer the most efficient and risk free way of ordering the economy. Mervyn King, quoted in Elliot's article, seems to gets it: "Beliefs adapt over time in response to changes in the environment; and this in turn affects how economic systems behave…..there are probably few genuinely 'deep' parameters or relationships in economics.”

Given that there are indeed no perfectly rational beings with perfect information, an economy under Keynesian strictures is no way forward. A group of small, ideologically driven experts will not be better able to command the economy than simply letting people get on with their lives, spending and saving their money as they see fit. Kaletsky argues that economists frequently get things wrong. Quite right. The less they are able 'manage' the economy the better.

David Cameron’s ‘new era’ of conservatism has often come under criticism for its internal ideological contradictions and its lack of direction. However, from the outset Cameron has emphasized the importance of community. He has rallied against our ‘broken Britain’, encouraged us to ‘hug a hoodie’ and declared that ‘there is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same as the state’. The latest Conservative campaign for ‘Big Society not Big Government’ marries these ideas to foster a sense of community and responsibility, and a reversal of state centralization and power.

Cameron argues, quite rightly, that local groups, charities and communities are both capable of and prepared to deliver a range of public services better than central government currently does. If powers to run particular services are handed to local communities, the outcome will be services that are both tailored and accountable. The Conservatives also believe that harnessing the power of ‘Big Society’ will help tackle social breakdown, and with the right resources, it will almost certainly make a more efficient use of taxpayers’ money.

Cameron has said that the ideas of Big Society could transform Britain as profoundly as the establishment of the welfare state. However, it is hard to see how the policies announced will bring about such radical change. The use of £100 million in unclaimed bank deposits to fund a ‘big society bank’ and the training of community organizers to spur on community action are hardly dramatic measures to revolutionize the way we view the state. The announcement of a ‘Big Society Day’ is gimmicky and faintly embarrassing, while plans to ‘judge’ civil servants on their participation in community services undermines the separation of the state and community and the ethos of voluntarism.

This said the idea of a cohesive society is a powerful one and something that Cameron draws upon time and time again. His recent announcement that he is prepared to be as unpopular as Thatcher suggests that should he take power, he will be prepared for determined and decisive action. The ‘contracting out’ of public services to society may become a worthy idea if pursued vigorously and I for one would be delighted to see the remit of the state shrink, as people begin to take responsibility for themselves and others around them.
 

With a few weeks until the election, the Conservatives have begun to firm up their policies on taxation and spending, and have pledged to partially reverse next years’ National Insurance increase. Under current plans, those earning over £20,000 would be hit with an NIC rise of 1p in the pound. The Tory proposal is to raise the primary NI threshold by £24 and the Secondary threshold by £21 a week, so that the increase won’t affect anyone earning under £35,000. This would be funded this through £6 billion of savings, such as scrapping expensive and authoritarian IT schemes like ContactPoint & the ID card database, as well as leaving unnecessary bureaucratic posts unfilled.

When National insurance was introduced in 1919, it was designed to fund payouts such as unemployment benefits and sick pay. Today it is simply an extra income tax. Driving a wedge between an employee’s salary and their cost to their employer, it discourages the hiring of low-skilled workers with marginal economic benefit, and is a burden to small businesses. The planned rise in National Insurance is a tax on economic activity and would have a negative impact on growth in 2011. As such, any moves to reduce National Insurance and the tax burden on citizens and business on the whole should be welcomed, and it is heartening to see the Conservatives recognize the importance of this, and making it a key part of their election campaign.

However, today’s announcement should not pass without scrutiny. The Conservative Party website claims that “seven out of ten people will be better off under the Conservatives”. However, it must be remembered that this is in relative terms to the outcome under Labour. The Conservatives are not actually delivering a real tax cut, instead they are moving around National Insurance thresholds. For example, the Upper Earnings Limit would be raised by £29 a week to help fund the change. For 30% of people, the reforms makes no difference to what they will pay, while many will be paying more NICs in 2011 than they are now.

One other problem is the lack of detail regarding the cuts and efficiencies that will actually fund this policy. While they claim to have identified £12bn of savings in government, half of these fall within ring-fenced budgets. Therefore, any money ‘saved’ in these departments will simply be ‘reinvested’ and spent in a slightly different way, instead of being used to tackle the budget deficit or lower the tax burden.

Yesterday’s announcement will certainly appeal to many. It definitely puts a bit more ideological distance between the two main parties and, whatever its deficits, it is definitely preferable to Labour's plans.