Academic rigour

The researchers at the University of New South Wales have released a study suggesting the marsupial “lion” died out as a result of climate change, not because of competition with humans.

After analysing the chemical structure of fossil teeth, the researchers concluded thylacoleo carnifex was a highly specialised apex predator, hunting primarily in forests and unlikely to be capable of competing in more open geography.

Therefore, they conclude, the climate change that impacted the Australian landscape significantly during the “lion’s” nearly 2 million year reign on the continent was responsible for its extinction, not the humans who just happened to have arrived about 15,000 years before its demise.

We’re not in a position to challenge the chemical analysis of the teeth, this isn’t a scientific blog after all. But there are some significant questions that jump out at us;

1. How big was the sample size used and how geographically diverse were the locations they were discovered?

The newsdesk report doesn’t say and the actual study isn’t available to us yet but I have a memory of a previous report about the “lion” that suggests around 65 individuals have been found to date (if anyone can correct this, please do so below).

2. What’s the time line of the known existence of the “lion” against ice ages and human arrival?

The marsupial was around for about 2 million years, dying out 35 to 40 thousand years ago.

There have been many glacial and interglacial periods during the current ice age (yes, we are currently in an ice age), during which the flora of Australia was significantly impacted.

Humans first arrived around 60 thousand years ago.

Coincidentally, the Australian megafauna mainly died out 15 thousand years after the humans arrived.

Bill’s Opinion

Prima facie, this looks like some solid scientific research followed by blatant propaganda and over-reach.

The analysis of the fossils is probably solid; the animals likely did live and hunt in forests.

Claiming that as the reason for their extinction because the climate started changing 350,000 years ago seems an extremely long bow to draw.

For example, why then did it take 305,000 years of climate change to kill them off, along with all of the other major fauna and, coincidently, this was just 15,000 years after a new apex predator had arrived replete with mechanical hunting advantages and “fire stick” land clearance techniques?

Occam’s Razor works on the principle that the answer that relies on the fewest assumptions is likely to be the correct one.

An assumption that humans arrived and out-competed with the previous apex predator beats the dual assumptions that they co-existed but the animals failed to evolve to gradually-changing conditions over several thousand years.

There’s another point in favour of the “humans killed them off” theory; researchers try to find a “climate change” hook to all their research because that’s where the money flows.

What does “sorry” even mean

Another day, another national apology on behalf of someone else;

This month’s Prime Minister of Australia (c) apologised to victims of institutional sexual abuse.

As we’ve seen previously, Sorry is a very easy word to say when there are only positive consequences for the speaker.

These national vicarious apologies on behalf of perpetrators who are long dead or languishing in jail would be amusing if it weren’t for the seriousness of the situations they are describing.

Politicians who make these public statements seem to have missed the fact that “sorry” has two meanings;

The first is an expression of contrition and regret for an action you personally were responsible for undertaking. “I’m so sorry I ran over your cat on my driveway“.

The second is an expression of sympathy. “I’m so sorry you have been diagnosed with cancer, that must be devastating for you“.

These national apologies seem to fall into the second category whilst pretending to be the first.

Where might this all lead, do we think?

If we have a duty to apologise for historical crimes for which we have no responsibility but just have some vague connection to the criminal such as nationality, ethnicity or ancestry, what other crimes should we ask the jury to take into consideration?

Bill’s Opinion

Some time ago, I submitted my DNA to Ancestry.com to understand my ancestral heritage.

The summarised results are shown below;

it’s fairly clear to even the casual observer that, at a minimum, I should apologise for the following historic crimes;

– The Jallianwala Bagh massacre

– The Battle of Stamford Bridge

– The tyranny of the Danelaw

– The Reconquista

– The First World War

– The Second World War

– Child labour in the factories during the Industrial Revolution

– The reign of King John and the subsequent War of Independence

– Brexit

– James Corden

I’m so, so sorry*.

*not sorry

Embassies in Jerusalem? Sometimes it’s enough just to observe who it upsets

We aren’t a fan of fallacious arguments round here, we prefer to start with a hypothesis and then observe empirical evidence before refining our views. Sometimes though, a fallacy is a good enough touchstone for a more robust investigation.

What’s the correct name for the fallacy of dismissing an argument because a large number of people who are almost always wrong about most things are upset by a particular argument? It’s not quite ad hominem, perhaps poisoning the well?

Regardless, this is of interest;

This Month’s Australian Prime Minister (c) has announced he will be following Trump’s lead and relocating the Australian Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.

It’s a highly political move, not least because there is a critical election currently underway in a constituency with a large Jewish population.

Why this political move surprises anyone is perhaps the great mystery. After all, as Thomas Sowell said;

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems.  They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are No. 1 and No. 2.  Whatever is No. 3 is far behind.

The list of people apoplectic with rage about this announcement is instructive. The entire mainstream media, the government media, academia, celebrities and even bandana-wearing househusbands are united in their view that it is a bad thing.

The Sydney Morning Herald has no fewer than 5 different articles on the decision today. If nothing else, the decision has brought some positives to the lives of those journalists who are paid by the word;

Have you got that, readers; it’s a bad thing.

Out of curiosity, do we think there could be any room in a newspaper with the tagline, “Independent. Always” for just one article with a headline such as, “This was clumsy by the PM but of course the embassy should be in the country’s capital“?

Nah, didn’t think so.

Bill’s Opinion

Is Australia’s decision to relocate her embassy to Jerusalem a bad thing?

Let’s list the reasons offered by the critics;

1. It’s an obscenely politically move in an attempt to win an election.

Well yeah, duh. We refer you back to the Sowell quote; everything politicians do is political. Does that make it the wrong thing to do though?

2. It might upset Indonesia.

The correct response to this is to point out it is a decision by a sovereign nation with regards to its relationship to another sovereign nation. If a third sovereign nation feels it can offer an opinion on this, they should be prepared for similar advice and guidance to be offered on their domestic policies. Mind your own damn business, Indonesia, it’s not as if you are the moral beacon of the world.

3. We are not anti-Semitic, but we are against the state of Israel’s policies and actions with regards to the Palestinians.

Everything before the word “but” is always bullshit. The Palestinians keep electing groups who openly call for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. If you can draw moral equivalence between the Palestinians and the Israelis, you are simply not debating in good faith are you?

Scott Morrison is a politician, which means he is grubby, self-interested and venal. Sometimes, however, even the grubby, self-interested and venal will make a correct decision for incorrect reasons.

Bravo.

The madness of Queen Shebah

Mischievous readers in Australia could have some fun, if they were that way inclined.

Shebah is a ride share service like Uber and Ola. It differs in one significant way, however; the drivers and passengers are female.

Fine“, we might say, “it’s perfectly reasonable for female passengers and drivers to want this additional safety measure. Men can call an Uber“.

If that was the policy, there’d be no opportunity for fun and this blog post wouldn’t need to be written.

Of course, we are living on Planet Insanity so the Shebah folks have tied themselves into logical knots by trying to be more woke than you and I.

Sit back and enjoy our little ride into madness courtesy of the FAQ section of their website (additional questions in bold are ours);

Who can drive or ride with the service?

Ok, only women or children, including boys under 18.

So, the teenage Said Imasi would have been ok to ride on his own then? Here’s a picture of him when he was “fourteen” (he’s the fully grown man on the right);

What about trans people?

Great, so in your “intersectionally feminist” opinion, “Hannah” Mouncey is ok to drive and ride;

As is the serial rapist, “Karen” White.

Okaaaay.

Discrimination is definitely not a thing you condone?

When you say you don’t discriminate, are there any limits?

That’s quite a complex set of restrictions and exceptions. It feels like it could be better illustrated with a decision tree/flow chart diagram along the lines of, “do you have a penis but you are accompanied by a woman and very small child?

Speaking of discrimination, how do you prevent a man or a “woman” with a penis from registering as a driver? What checks are there?

You’ll need to upload photos of all of the following – legally, they must be current so make sure they’re always up to date!

 Your gorgeous face

 Your car: front, back and side view

 The front of your drivers licence

 The back of your drivers licence (with current home address if changed)

 Your car registration

 A roadworthy certificate that is less than 12 months old

 Current rideshare insurance for the car you’ll be driving*

 A Passenger Transport Licence Code from Services NSW (formerly the Department of Roads and Maritime Services)

 A Working With Children Check valid for paid work

Not much in that list to prevent someone like “Hannah” Mouncey from registering to drive then. “Karen” White might struggle with the Working With Children Check, of course.

Bill’s Opinion

Male Australians wishing to have some fun might register for the Shebah service, wear a wig and hail a cab.

They could then claim discrimination if their custom is refused on the grounds of their gender.

Why? Well, if you say you’re a woman, you’re a woman, according to Shebah. It’s right there in their policies and terms of service. If you took Shebah to the various state anti-discrimination ombudsperson, a strong case could be made that the logical inconsistencies of their policy negate any claim of a valid exception to the anti-discrimination laws.

For the sake of clarity, let’s list the inconsistencies;

1. We don’t discriminate. However…. no male drivers, no male passengers under 13, or over 18 unless accompanied by a woman and a baby.

2. We are a female service for females. However…. see (1) regarding male passengers. Also, if a man says he’s a woman we accept him/her at his/her word.

3. We take our drivers’ safety very seriously. However…. see (2), we aren’t going to perform a Crocodile Dundee genital cup to check whether the trans driver still has his/her boy’s bits or not.

Hands up who’s prepared to be the test case for Sanity vs. Shebah 2018?

Reefer madness

The Climate Council (no, not a shite Paul Weller band) quoted a UN official recently;

The inference being, of course, if you care about the Great Barrier Reef, you need to care about climate change because that’s the biggest cause of damage to said reef.

Obviously these scientists know what they’re talking and in no way are they obfuscating or trying to mislead.

Oh, this is awkward.

The overarching consensus is:
Key Great Barrier Reef ecosystems continue to be in poor condition. This is largely due to the collective impact of land run-off associated with past and ongoing catchment development, coastal development activities, extreme weather events and climate change impacts such as the 2016 and 2017 coral bleaching events.

Current initiatives will not meet the water quality targets. To accelerate the change in on-ground management, improvements to governance, program design, delivery and evaluation systems are urgently needed. This will require greater incorporation of social and economic factors, better targeting and prioritisation, exploration of alternative management options and increased support and resources.

The evidence base supporting this consensus is provided in a series of four supporting chapters. The main conclusions were:

1 The decline of marine water quality associated with land-based run-off from the adjacent catchments is a major cause of the current poor state of many of the coastal and marine ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef. Water quality improvement has an important role in ecosystem resilience.

2 The main source of the primary pollutants (nutrients, fine sediments and pesticides) from Great Barrier Reef catchments is diffuse source pollution from agriculture. These pollutants pose a risk to Great Barrier Reef coastal and marine ecosystems.

3 Progress towards the water quality targets has been slow and the present trajectory suggests these targets will not be met.

4 Greater effort to improve water quality is urgently required to progress substantial pollutant reductions using an expanded scope of tailored and innovative solutions. Climate change adaptation and mitigation, cumulative impact assessment for major projects and better policy coordination are also required to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

5 There is an urgent need for greater investment in voluntary practice change programs, the use of regulatory tools and other policy mechanisms to accelerate the adoption of practice change, and robust monitoring and evaluation programs to measure the rate and effectiveness of adoption.

6 Strengthened and more effective coordination of Australian and Queensland government policies and programs, further collaboration with farmers and other stakeholders, and strong evaluation systems are critical to the success of Great Barrier Reef water quality initiatives.

7 Priorities for reducing pollutant loads are now established at a catchment scale, based on the exposure of coastal and marine ecosystems to land-based pollutants, and should be used to guide investment.

8 A greater focus on experimentation, prioritisation and evaluation at different scales, coupled with the use of modelling and other approaches to understand future scenarios, could further improve water quality programs.

Hang on, the biggest problem is water quality, primarily due to agricultural run-off?

How curious.

Why then, would the Climate Council of Australia suggest climate change is the biggest enemy?

Bill’s Opinion

Follow the money (highlights mine);

The Climate Council is Australia’s leading climate change communications organisation. We provide authoritative, expert advice to the Australian public on climate change and solutions based on the most up-to-date science available.

We’re made up of some of the country’s leading climate scientists, health, renewable energy and policy experts, as well as a team of staff, and a huge community of volunteers and supporters who power our work. As an independent voice on climate change, we get climate stories into the media, produce hard-hitting reports, call out misinformation as we see it and promote climate solutions such as the transition to renewables.

The Climate Council was founded in 2013 by tens of thousands of Australians to create a new, an independent and 100% community-funded organisation in response to the abolition of the Australian Climate Commission.

Please keep donating money so that we can all keep our jobs“, in other words.

There is an uncomfortable axiom about charities and not for profit organisations; they have an ecosystem (no pun intended) around simply existing that keeps many people employed and feeling important.

That the initial facts justifying the creation of the charity/NFP may have changed, are no longer compelling or worse, are proven false, can be of little interest to the organisation when so many people rely on its existence for their day to day subsistence.

A recent example of this is the UK’s Kids Company. Similarly, there were cases of US polio eradication charities that struggled with the existential threat following the success of the vaccination programme and, in a few cases, resorted to changing their mission and committing fraud.

Obviously, one hesitates to accuse the Climate Council of fraud so there must be some other reason that they would have forgotten to mention the significant role of agricultural run off in the damage inflicted to the reef.

In other news, the head of the Climate Council is Tim Flannery, a man with a stellar track record of science-based predictions.

John McGrath’s investment advice – caveat emptor

There are just some people whose advice is best taken with an industrial-sized pinch of sodium chloride. Or, in other cases, not taken at all.

In fact, there are some investment “experts” who have a track record of giving great advice…. to themselves, but utterly disastrous advice to others.

Some examples spring to mind; Dick Fuld, Bernie Madoff, Fred Goodwin and, in Australia, John McGrath.

For those not obsessed with the Australian property market (i.e. the other 7.417bn people living in the rest of the world), you may not of heard of the financial disaster zone who is the self-styled “million dollar agent”, John McGrath, let’s quickly catch you up;

John is an estate agent (“realtor”, in North American speak) with a chain of 90+ franchise offices across the country. He started his business in 1988. There might be something significant about the year which we’ll come back to later.

In a recent opinion piece, John offers sage advice to people who might find themselves somewhat underwater with property that is worth less than they paid for it… that’ll describe anyone who bought property in most Australian cities in the last year, for example.

What is that advice then, is it nuanced for owner-occupiers, amateur investors, those nearing retirement, etc.?

Hold, don’t sell.

What, even someone close to retirement, hoping to maximise the capital available to buy an annuity and worried that they’re exposed to a falling asset?

Hold, don’t sell. I repeat; Hold, don’t sell.

Crikey (in the vernacular), that’s ballsy.

Ok, but he’s a seasoned veteran of 30 years in the industry, he knows what he’s talking about, doesn’t he? He’s seen the cycle multiple times.

What cycle?

Oh, he’s barely experience a recession or significant economic downturn in his adult life, let alone when he managed any material level of financial asset. He started work in 1988 and the last recession was 1992. He probably didn’t notice as he was still living with his parents.

Ok, so what if all he’s ever known is large percentage asset growth, he’s proven himself a canny advisor to assist others to make great investments.

Witness; the share price of his business, the imaginatively-titled McGrath Ltd. since the launch in 2015;

To paraphrase Sesame Street, “today’s chart was brought to you by the words ‘shareholder‘, ‘value‘ and ‘destruction‘”.

Perhaps the fairest thing one can say about John McGrath is that he gives very canny investing advice….. to people named John McGrath.

It’s a fool who says they know what will happen to a particular asset price. But, with a property market that seems to be desperately searching for any good news, and failing to find any, the greater fool is someone who thinks that John McGrath has a Scooby about what’s about to happen next and, if he does, he’s about to tell you the truth.

Bill’s Opinion

If you really want to become a millionaire, take 6 million dollars and invest it in whatever John McGrath tells you to.

A cynic might suggest John would like you all to not flood the market with your firesales until he’s finished the conveyancing on his.

Caveat emptor, indeed. Perhaps he ought to change his name to “the 900 thousand dollar agent, 899, 898, 897…….

Welcome to the Hotel Wagga Wagga

You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave“.

One wonders what the likelihood is of this idea being successfully implemented and being successful in its outcomes;

A Government proposal to mandate immigrants live in regional areas.

For some mysterious reason, known only to a select few people with massive intellects, new immigrants to Australia almost exclusively favour the largest cities as their first choice when selecting an area to move to.

To be more specific, the they favour the two largest cities; Melbourne and Sydney.

This causes significant headaches for politicians as they are required to ensure infrastructure and essential services are in place and planned commensurate to the likely population levels in each area.

There are other headaches to be had for those poor hard-working politicians too. Specifically, the problem that the economies of their regional constituencies are being “hollowed out” as young people increasingly vote with their feet as soon as they are able and leave their rural hometown for life in the busy metropolitan areas (no, we’re not talking about you Adelaide, sit down).

There’s a critical mass problem in regional Australia where there needs to be farmers and farm workers to grow the produce the city slickers want to eat but providing quality infrastructure services, ensuring there’s good medical and dental care, maintaining a public school system, etc. becomes increasingly expensive relative to the economies of scale that can be achieved in higher density areas.

To a certain extent, t’was always thus the world over. Australia has an additional nuance to this due to her physical size and lower density of population distributed outside the main conurbations.

Over the very long term, one can imagine the solution to Kim Stanley-Robinson’s Malthusian Fallacy will be found using technology and scientific breakthroughs to automate agricultural production reduce the reliance on humans performing traditional roles on farms.

Perhaps the problem is only a 10 to 20 year one then, after which everyone can live in in the megacity with hot and cold running soy decaf and kale smoothies on demand.

Nonetheless, there’s a bit of a problem to be solved here; the politicians don’t want to hamstring economic growth. One way to ensure the GDP figures keep rising is to increase the number of productive workers contributing to it. Put bluntly, they have to persuade the existing population to either throw away their birth control pills or accept a constant flow of immigration.

Note, the politicians aren’t offering a third or fourth option to have flat/contracting GDP growth, or economic growth built on a technological solution to productivity. The parameters of the debate are constrained within an Overton Window to “rising GDP is good, immigration is the solution to achieve this“.

Which is, of course, the the reason why the debate has turned to methods to encourage immigrants to live in places the existing population, especially the politicians, don’t want to. Our old friend expressed versus revealed preferences is at work again.

Back to our original question then, what’s the chances it’ll work?

Some categories of Australian immigration visas already mandate and enforce an element of rural living. There is a “working holiday visa” which rewards the holder to a longer duration of stay if they spend a period of their time performing seasonal work on remote farms. So there is precedent.

There’s some not insignificant differences between what is currently in place and what might be proposed however, not least of which is the demographics involved. The seasonal workers tend to be young people, often single and with no dependents. They are here for a good time not a long time.

The new immigrants who will be mandated to live in the regional areas are likely to be older, married and parents of dependent children. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, their prime concern is to going to be less focused on earning enough to spend the weekend partying on MDMA and browsing what’s on offer on Tinder but more about improving the quality of their housing, the education of their children and affording the airfare back to their country of origin every couple of years.

If the employment options, housing, schools, medical care and ability to save money are sub-optimal in Buttfucksville, Queen’sland, they are going to pack up their belongings and move to the city.

How might the government prevent this, do we think? Checkpoints on all the major roads? Random visa checks? Further requirements on employers to perform the role of Immigration Officer?

Perhaps there’s a clue in the incentives for the working holiday visa workers? Perhaps the initial visa granted is temporary and it can only be converted to permanent residence status after a defined and proven period living in the regional area? What might go wrong with that idea?

Bill’s Opinion

Mandating where immigrants live when they have made the huge personal decision to relocate countries feels like a reasonable idea but it relies on so many factors to be aligned to ensure success;

What if there are no job vacancies in the area, what if the available jobs aren’t suitable for the immigrants’ skills or don’t pay enough to make life sustainable to support their families?

What if the education options available can’t cope with the additional demands of children living in households where English isn’t spoken?

These people will, quite reasonably, claim special status and exemptions due to the government not holding up their end of the bargain.

Here’s a prediction worth noting; the Australian government’s proposals, whatever they are, will not result in a significant shift in the location immigrants live and work, ether due to gaming of the system or failure of an arm of government to plan effectively and exemptions being granted as a consequence.

But the most interesting aspect about this debate is what we are not talking about; what is the full range of solutions to the problem of falling productivity and why aren’t we being shown these, if only for the opportunity to agree that immigration is the only solution?

Open the Overton Window!

Independent. Always.

“Hedging” in gambling parlance is the mathematics around minimising the potential loss once the bookie has accepted a bet by placing a bet with a competitor for an opposite result.

It’s a useful strategy if the odds have changed against your position since accepting the bet.

The Sydney Morning Herald must be quite adept at it as it has been frontrunning a campaign against a recent State Government decision to project adverts for a horse race on the “sails” of the Sydney Opera House.

Which horse race?

The “Everest”, i.e. the very one they are showing an advert for on the front page of their website.

Bill’s Opinion

Well, we can’t accuse them of bias on this news item, which makes a nice change. Stopped clocks being correct twice a day, an’ all that.

Oh, in other news, hands up who knows how a significant portion of the funding to build the iconic concert hall was raised?

Awkward.

You sir, yes you! You are a murdering rapist!

Six women have been murdered in Australia in the last five days.

Apparently, the Australian men who aren’t currently held in custody on suspicion of committing these violent crimes are also responsible and need to engage with some uncomfortable truths.

Wait, what?

That’s right, you heard correctly; the men who don’t beat up their female partners and relatives, the ones who believe violence and murder is morally-reprehensible, share the blame.

Because…..

All these murders were reported against the backdrop of Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, following historic sexual assault allegations, as the most powerful men in the world men thunder about men’s lives being ruined by women speaking about the violence men have allegedly subjected them to.

For the purposes of journalistic integrity, something writers at the Sydney Morning Herald aren’t concerned with, we’ve added the word “allegedly” in the paragraph above.

When moral equivalence can be found across a violent murder in 2018 and a 36 year old uncorroborated, evidence-free allegation of attempted sexual assault, I suppose mere details such as relativity, assessments of credibility and objective reasoning are optional and, frankly, hindering the cause.

Imagine the pain and suffering Jane Gilmore must feel when she realised the following word salad can be described with the sexist noun, “strawman“;

Imagine this: Six women are murdered by men in five days. Men all over the nation are filled with rage. They organise rapidly on social media, amplified by mainstream media reporting of their activism. Protest marches spring up in every major city in the country. Tens of thousands of men rally. They stay up for hours the night before, painting signs and placards, calling all their male friends and family so they can meet and go to the rallies together. No man is left behind. Men uncomfortable in crowds are supported by gentle friends.

Men feeling triggered and shaky are held in loving male arms, told to cry and hold on to the men who feel their pain and carry their grief. Men with a long history of activism against male violence are chosen to speak at the rallies. They share their stories. They cry for the lost women. Rage against the cruelty of lives ripped apart. Comfort each other and vow to never stop fighting until women are safe.

As the rallies end and the crowds of men slowly disperse, they separate off into small groups. Men sit together in bars, cafes and parks because they cannot bear to be alone after collectively draining all that pain and knowing there’s still so much more under the surface. Men sit with each other unable to stop their tears because they’ve been to so many rallies before and know they will have to do it again.

It probably doesn’t occur to Jane that the 99.9995% of Australian men who don’t murder anyone each year likely have other more pressing things on their minds such as caring for and loving their wives, girlfriends, children, etc. than to waste time virtue signalling to the murderers.

By the way, that percentage quoted above is based on government published statistics showing the murder rate per 100,000 people is currently around 2.2 victims per year (which is a 9% fall over the previous 20 years).

Let’s face it, Jane’s rather passive aggressive suggestion that anyone with a penis should be organising community marches to prevent murders of women somewhat misses the point that, if someone is prepared to break the most serious societal taboo of taking another person’s life, a bunch of placard-waving beardy beta males singing out of tune John Lennon songs in the town centre is going to be about as an effective form of persuasion as holding a Linda McCartney quorn burger in front of a hungry Great White Shark.

Bill’s Opinion

This is the ultimate in identity politics. This is where it leads when we attempt to treat individuals as members of a group for the purpose of effecting meaningful change.

Let’s flip the argument around somewhat and see how it sounds for other versions of the idea; a study in Arizona found that “American Indians” (is that the correct term these days?) were statistically more likely to cause fatal car crashes. Is Jane Gilmore calling for the various indigenous tribes of rural Arizona to hold candlelit vigils urging their brothers and sisters to hand in their car keys and commit to taking public transport?

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Western civilisation works better than all previously-tried versions because it has a societal contract that group punishment based on immutable natural characteristics such as race, gender, sexuality, etc. is morally-bankrupt and, more importantly, not pragmatic or effective.

If Jane Gilmore finds this contemporary legal principle unacceptable, perhaps she might consider reverting to the more ancient “Code of Hammurabi“, where group punishments and varying levels of punishments relative to social status were mandated?

Lastly, Jane might be advised to read Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention before writing any more of this bollocks.