?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Mirrored from ZPI

Ganked from El Reg:

Two years ago 73 per cent of company directors were in favour of ID cards but that figure has now fallen sharply despite the London bombings.

Only 45 per cent of company directors now believe the introduction of ID cards would make British cities safer from terrorist attack and just 26 per cent think they would benefit their business. The same number of directors believe the death sentence for terrorist killers would make us safer. The figures come from a quarterly survey from the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry.


Is that the death sentence for anyone who kills a terrorist? Or for a group that includes suicide bombers (for whom, the death sentence is rather pointless)? Bad grammar! No biscuit.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. What this shows is people finally waking up the fact that ID cards are at best a waste of perfectly good money (£20m already according to the same article) and at worst dangerous things that have no tangible benefit and treat the holders as criminals. Criminals — people who have false details in government databases — aren't going to be deterred by the ID card, only nominally law-abiding people.

I'm preaching to the converted, I know.

Reviewed the redlines. The chapter I liked more has more to do, but not by much. Doesn't look too hard. Personal turnaround deadline is for Sunday. Generally, I'm happy with them — clarifications on things I wasn't sure about, and suggestions for how to expand what I have, rather than "This is a bag of wank, rewrite it you fucking long-haired hippie."

Tagcloud:

Comments

( 12 informants — We want information! )
(Deleted comment)
nickys
Oct. 12th, 2005 01:51 pm (UTC)
... leaving aside for a moment the small question of how exactly a death sentence is supposed to deter a suicide bomber...
morland
Oct. 12th, 2005 02:02 pm (UTC)
Mostly it fucks with their mindset. Most of these arseholes are brain-washed into really believing they can get jiggy with virgins after they blow themselves to hell and back. If they die in some other way (i.e. not for Allah), it could throw a monkey wrench into things.
nickys
Oct. 12th, 2005 02:08 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately if they're executed by the infidel that still counts as martyrdom.
morland
Oct. 12th, 2005 03:04 pm (UTC)
Does it? Wow. I suppose it makes sense to the brainwashers. ~shrugs~
(Deleted comment)
nickys
Oct. 12th, 2005 03:22 pm (UTC)
Well indeed.

But it is a serious point.
If they're attempting to imply that tougher consequences will deter suicide bombers they're clearly insane... because after you're dead, exactly how much worse can it get?
spudtater
Oct. 12th, 2005 03:03 pm (UTC)
I think the article was more pointing out the relative popularities, not making any comment about particular directors.
(Deleted comment)
scattergather
Oct. 13th, 2005 01:12 am (UTC)
It's not entirely unrelated, they're both about answers to the same survey, and specifically about answers to questions on how respondents think various measures would affect the safety of British cities (amongst other things). Being stated in the same paragraph is not an invitation for you to infer correlation. The article (or at least the part quoted), is largely an edited down version of the press release given the lightest of rewritings (although in at least one place it does actually improve on the original press release), and the press releases about statistics are usually written just to state the statistics themselves in natural language rather than to offer any deeper analysis of them (this needs to be done because if they just published a table of the figures, journalists wouldn't pay any attention to them). Certainly subjective value judgements about which is the more reprehensible view are very unlikely to appear in such a press release, and would most likely reduce the credibility of the statistics if they were to.

Stew has added a bit of analysis to create this post, but since the analysis doesn't rely on the death penalty stat, there's no problem there.
scattergather
Oct. 13th, 2005 12:59 am (UTC)
A statistician writes... [0]
Inconclusive unless it can be shown that the same directors hold both views. Bad statistician. No biscuit.


That would depend entirely on what one is trying to conclude. I don't see that any claims have been made which require this. Indeed, is it really useful to know what proportion of company directors hold both views (bear in mind that proportion of population estimate would be rather less precise given the same sample size)?

I don't personally consider business directors to be particularly expert in counter-terrorism measures, so it makes sense to ignore relationships between answers given by those sampled, on these questions at least (all the more so given the small sample size). Answers to the two questions would probably exhibit some sort of dependence relationship, but the reasons for this are likely to be complex, and any sound analysis of this would require more effort (and resources) than it's worth in the end.

Biscuits are still withheld for not stating the sample details, though: a balanced sample of 165 companies in London and the South East according to the press release: http://www.londonchamber.co.uk/lcc_public/article.asp?aid=1289

Very annoying is the absence of the proportion of "don't know" responses, or the proportion who thought ID cards wouldn't make British cities safer, but since those figures aren't in the original story or the press release, there's not much to be done about that.

[0] You might consider it insufferably pretentious of me to write that, but I don't get to do it often, and frankly the perks of the job are few enough already for me not to care. Besides, it's classier than "IAAS".
morland
Oct. 12th, 2005 01:59 pm (UTC)
What this shows is people finally waking up the fact that ID cards are at best a waste of perfectly good money (£20m already according to the same article) and at worst dangerous things that have no tangible benefit and treat the holders as criminals. Criminals — people who have false details in government databases — aren't going to be deterred by the ID card, only nominally law-abiding people.

I hear ya. What makes me laugh is that some people from the EU can come over here with ID cards freely without the need for passports (England that is; I don’t what you long-haired freaks up in Edinburgh do with foreigners) ...not that passports really fucking matter, seeing as how they still get faked everyday. Which one would be harder to fake, a passport, or an ID card? Are they still thinking about retina prints on those cards? Makes you laugh sometimes.

Then you look at the social security system of my country.

:o)

( 12 informants — We want information! )

Links

Tagcloud

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner