Skip to content

Well, no, not really I think

The Archbishop’s mother, who married again and is now Lady Williams of Elvel, confirmed to her son that she had a liaison with Sir Anthony shortly before she married Welby, though neither she nor Welby had ever suspected there was a doubt about Justin’s paternity. In a statement last night, she said that the news had come as “an almost unbelievable shock”. Archbishop Welby, an only child, has also gained a half-sister, Jane, who is three years older than him.

The discovery gave Lambeth Palace cause to check canon law, as men born illegitimately were for centuries barred from becoming archbishops. A little-known change in the law dating to the Fifties removed that bar, leaving Archbishop Welby safe in his post.

Don’t we actually assume that a child born within marriage is legitimate as far as the law is concerned, whatever the actual story?

Stunning stuff!

When I’m at the beach, gazing at the ocean, I start thinking about the people I know on the other side of it. I imagine looking all the way across the Atlantic to my friends in Europe when I’m on the Jersey shore, or trying to see to Japan across the Pacific from California.

But it turns out this is impossible — not because my eyesight is weak, but because my geography is totally wrong. When I stand and face the Atlantic in New Jersey, it turns out I’m actually looking toward South America, or maybe Africa, but definitely not Europe.

Vox then goes on to explain that what you are looking at depends upon which direction you are looking in.

Stunning finding, isn’t it?

Tough question Ritchie, tough question

If an action doesn’t reduce inequality why is government doing it?

I dunno really. We don’t ask the government to protect the nation by defending it, don’t ask them to define the nation by determining who may enter it, never call for the promotion of innovation and invention through the construction of a patent and copyright system, don’t argue for the repression of criminality through the censures of a criminal justice system, have no wish to generally promote justice through a justice system.

We only ever institute government and governance to reduce inquality, you’re right.

To put it another way, whenever a situation is looked at, and whatever question is asked, the criteria for judgement is does the resulting action reduce inequality and provide more opportunity for those who are otherwise excluded? If the answer isn’t yes in both cases then there is something profoundly wrong.

It’s not rocket science, but it sure as heck works.

The existence, role and funding of the Royal Navy is purely dependent upon its ability to reduce inequality.

Getting the Kesha case wrong

To the non-legal mind, Kesha’s court case is eminently reasonable. She would like to be unshackled from a decade-old contract tying her to producer and collaborator Lukasz Gottwald (aka “Dr Luke”), a man she says has drugged, raped and psychologically abused her from the time she was 18. Specifically, she would like to be freed from working with his company Kemosabe, a subsidiary of Sony, explaining in a recent injunction request: “I know I cannot work with Dr Luke. I physically cannot. I don’t feel safe in any way.” (Gottwald has consistently denied all allegations.)

It doesn’t take a legal genius to determine that even if proving she was raped is an impossibility, she should be taken very seriously when she says she feels unsafe working with this man. But the legal mind presiding over her most recent case disagrees because, as it turns out, there are a million legal reasons why her personal story can’t be heard in any meaningful way.

Kesha can walk away from that contract, that work and that man, any time she likes. We do not have contracts of slavery and they would not be legal if we did.

She is entirely free to go and do whatever work she likes: except singing on pop records. Because she signed a contract which said she would only sing on pop records with that company and that man.

As has been pointed out

Maybe. If criminalisation drives prostitution back into the shadows, and leaves workers more exposed to harm than they were, then there might indeed be an argument to find a different battleground for the moral fight, and concentrate instead on minimising the harm suffered by the women who, for whatever reason, are offering sex for money.

The great difficulty, however, is that it leaves the sex industry intact. And in all paid-for sex there is, arguably, an inherently exploitative dimension. Even if there is nominally consent, in most cases, if not all, this will be a choice that women make out of desperation, rather than anything positive. The social and economic circumstances in which a woman sees sex work as the best available option represents, in itself, an environment of coercion. Criminalising not the women involved but their clients – particularly when, as in the French proposal, it is accompanied by a properly funded programme to help sex workers into more secure jobs – may be the least-bad answer, in both moral and practical terms.

We must not criminalise abortion because that would make it more dangerous by driving it into the shadows. We must criminalise prostitution because that won’t make it more dangerous by driving it into the shadows.

More people who can’t do numbers

Called a universal basic income by supporters, the idea has has attracted support throughout American history, from Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King Jr. But it has also faced unending criticism for one particular reason: the advocates of “austerity” say we simply can’t afford it – or any other dramatic spending on social security.

That argument dissolved this week with the release of the Panama Papers, which reveal the elaborate methods used by the wealthy to avoid paying back the societies that helped them to gain their wealth in the first place.

Sure, I support a universal basic income. But I am also able to do maths.

The Tax Justice Network estimates the global elite are sitting on $21–32tn of untaxed assets. Clearly, only a portion of that is owed to the US or any other nation in taxes – the highest tax bracket in the US is 39.6% of income. But consider that a small universal income of $2,000 a year to every adult in the US – enough to keep some people from missing a mortgage payment or skimping on food or medicine – would cost only around $563bn each year.

A larger income, to ensure that no American fell into absolute abject poverty – say, $12,000 a year – would cost around $3.6tn. That is a big number, but one that once again seems far more reasonable when considered through the lens of the Panama Papers and the scandal of global tax evasion.

The $20 trillion (rather an over estimate but still) is wealth, a stock. Let’s apply a 5% return to that, about right for capital these days. So, $1 trillion of income. A tax rate of 40%. $600 billion a year. The US is about 25% of global GDP, so allocate 25% to the US. $150 billion.

Lots of money, entirely true, but not going to pay for a ubi is it?

No, I don’t want to know the name

And please don’t cause libel problems by adding it to the comments.

The latest injunction involves a celebrity identified only as ‘PJS’ and his partner ‘YMA’, who took action to keep their “open relationship” including a ménage à trois under wraps.

But I would like to know how out of touch I am with modern society. Is this a celebrity I might have heard of, someone possibly important, or is it someone who once played third chair from the left on Westenders?

It’s a big claim isn’t it?

That’s not least because the challenge that the market for secrecy creates is to the credibility of markets as a whole. The simple fact is that secrecy undermines every single component of market theory and practice and the suggestion that they can provide a powerful contribution to human well-being.

Strong words. However, a casual look at the world around us will show that this isn’t true. Those places which have been largely market based for a few decades or centuries are rich as sin these days. Those places which have not been largely market based for a few decades or centuries are still stuck in peasant destitution. Secrecy seems to have very little to do with it.

With secrecy there is an unlevel playing field, which makes fair competition impossible. With secrecy free riding will always happen. With secrecy abuse is inevitable. With secrecy trust will always be eroded. With secrecy cheating will be the norm. With secrecy no market will have the information it needs to allocate resources efficiently to ensure that well-being is maximised. In fact, secrecy is a bigger threat to markets than communism ever was because it has the power to destroy markets from within. To describe secrecy as the cancer of the free market is to understate its significance.

The UK is about to become worse than the Soviet Union because you don’t know how much tax David Cameron’s Dad paid.

Hmm.

These Panama revelations are just so astonishing, aren’t they?

Simon Cowell
The music tycoon is the sole shareholder of two British Virgin Islands (BVI) companies called Southstreet Limited, set up in February 2007, and Eaststreet Limited, set up in October 2007. The companies were set up at a time when Cowell was planning to purchase two plots of land in Barbados, where he holidays most years.
…
Lord Glenconner
The close friend of Princess Margaret, who owned a swath of land on the Caribbean island of St Lucia, held his assets through an offshore company, Beau Estates.

Land in the Caribbean might be owned through a Caribbean company.

We’re shocked, shocked, right?

Blimey, who thought that it would be France?

France has outlawed buying sex after more than two years of heated debate, passing a law on Wednesday that slaps a €1,500 (£1,210) fine on those who pay for prostitutes while decriminalising the sex workers themselves.

Repeat offenders stand to pay €3,750 (£3,000) and face being sent on compulsory classes to learn of the perils of prostitution.

Ritchie recommends war

I ended by suggesting direct rule if the States of Jersey will not deliver the transparency that is now essential in that island.

Yep, really, he’s pushing the declaration of war on an independent state. Because MOAR TAXES.

Fun for a Quaker, no?

Can you help support The Blog? If you can spare a few pounds you can donate to our fundraising campaign below. All donations are greatly appreciated and go towards our server, security and software costs. 25,000 people per day read our sites and every penny goes towards our fight against for independent journalism. We don't take a wage and do what we do because we enjoy it and hope our readers enjoy it too.