Westpac and O’Sullivan’s Law

If their social media profile is any measure of these things, one of the four main Australian banks, Westpac, is firmly in the vanguard of the Australian First Battalion of the Social Justice Warrior armed forces.

Their CEO, Brian Hartzer, is clearly one of the main drivers of this “progressive” attitude, witnessed by the following samples from his Creepbook for Business activity;

And this word salad that seems to be channeling Eric Morecombe’s line, “they’re all the right notes, just not in the right order“;

Some more virtue signalling that is surely guilty of cultural appropriation (or perhaps the drag queen beauty parade was ironically named after Islam’s holiest city?);

More here. No, really ladies, your promotion was entirely merit-based and not simply to hit Brian’s 50% diversity target;

We’re starting to run out of female leaders prepared to be touted as public examples so we’ll recycle a couple here;

And then we see something quite telling, hiding in plain sight, so to speak;

Actively and publicly supporting a political candidate (multiple times too) on the far left of the political spectrum. Well, that speaks volumes, doesn’t it? Obviously he’s allowed to have a personal political opinion but it seems mildly inappropriate to be expressing this in a work-related context.

However, he’s got form on this. Last year, during the same sex marriage referendum, Hartzer approved an SMS to be sent to all Westpac employees’ mobile phones encouraging to get out and vote “Yes”. Which, as measures of good shareholder value go, wouldn’t be top of the priority list, one imagines.

Similarly, Hartzer is happy to splash shareholders’ cash on rainbow lighting on the facade of the HQ during IDAHOBIT Day and have rainbow lapel pins handed out to his staff, none of whom feel at all intimidated or coerced into wearing them, I’m sure.

In a further example of Hartzer’s Olympic gold medal level of virtue signalling, the latest Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (h/t the Welsh Twinkie) with the staff include the following gems;

  • Time off for transgender transitioning, and
  • Time off for “Sorry Business”, i.e. Aboriginal staff can take leave because many non-Aboriginal Australians are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Bill’s Opinion

O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organisation or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time.

Westpac is the case study of this.

Let’s remind ourselves of the purpose of banks; they are to provide shareholder value by securely-holding deposits and prudently writing loans in as efficient a way as possible. Anything else is gravy.

How’s Westpac tracking against that mandate?

Here’s an example to consider; the New Payments Platform (aka Osko), a method to quickly transfer money using a short ID code, was widely launched last year in Australia.

How’s Westpac going with implementing it?

Oh. That’s awkward.

The danger of bad law

Paging James Damore…..

There isn’t currently a report of this that I can find that isn’t behind a paywall. Do your own search however, as it’s bound to be picked up by the news outlets with a broken business model shortly.

In summary, the University of Adelaide has sought dispensation from the legislation governing workplace equality to advertise half a dozen roles as only open to female applicants.

Hang on, what? Isn’t that, erm, discriminating against all the potential male job applicants in the Adelaide area, most of whom presumably have families to support with their income?

How did we get here?

Well, it would seem the university has consistently failed to hire female lecturers qualified to teach computer science and, wracked with guilt over this egregious example of patriarchal oppression, they have decided that the only course of action is to close the door to any lecturer who identifies as a bloke.

That’s bound to work, isn’t it?

Let’s hypothesise as to why they’ve not managed to hire lecturers in a 50:50 gender split. Possible reasons might include one or more of the following;

  • Qualified women feel overwhelmed by the prospect of applying, for some reason.
  • Qualified women are explicitly or subtlety dissuaded by the interviewers.
  • Qualified women fail to impress the interviewers because the interview process is skewed in favour of male candidates in some way.
  • There aren’t many (or even any) qualified female candidates in Adelaide or outside Adelaide who are prepared to relocate.
  • Some other reason related to duh patriarchy.

Putting the possible reasons why we arrived at this situation aside for a moment, let’s explore the legislation. How can it be that anti-discrimination laws can be ignored like this?

Because the legislation is terrible, that’s why. Section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 allows for “The Commission” (which refers to the loathsome Australian Human Rights Commission) to grant exceptions as it sees fit.

I’m sure the legislators back in 1984 thought this was a good idea, in between enjoying the Australian theme to Bowie’s Let’s Dance video and the national pride of having a Prime Minister who held the world record for the yard of ale.

Of course, what they couldn’t should have anticipated was the creeping takeover of the commission by the radical left, resulting in it becoming a mouthpiece for those who would hector and nag and worse, embark on vindictive and flawed prosecutions.

Bill’s Opinion

At its core, this is a problem created in 1984 by poor legislation. Subsequently, the unelected and unaccountable body with discretionary powers to waive legislation has become highly-politicised.

The second problem is that the University of Adelaide is in denial of reality. The two most likely reasons they have not managed to hire an equal number of female IT lecturers are;

  1. As Damore rightly pointed out, IT is less attractive to females than males because women generally prefer to work with people and men generally prefer to work with things.
  2. Adelaide is a very small city in a very small (population wise) country and is geographically remote from even Australia’s large population centres.

Why does the second point matter; because we always see fundamental problems manifest themselves at the margins. Presumably the reason we haven’t seen the University of Sydney requesting this legal waiver is because there is probably just about enough potential female candidates for it not to be a problem. One suspects there are unlikely to be any unemployed female IT lecturers in Sydney.

Of course, it raises the question, what does it say about the likely quality of the lecturers at a Sydney University if ownership of female genitals results in you being accepted for a role over a more qualified male?

Unicorn excreta

….and we’re back. Life rudely interrupted last week, apologies.

This news article presented itself on my Creepbook for Business feed this morning, proving yet again how LinkedIn has become a virtue signalling, leftwing propaganda echo chamber with a very mild utility as a job hunting resource attached.

One hopes that the Monash University staff were commensurately recompensed for a study with such stunning insights as this. After all, it must have taken huge amounts of effort and intellectual ability to log on to the Australian Statistics website, open a CSV file with workplace injury data, insert a pivot table and sort by profession.

What piqued our interest however, was LinkedIn’s choice of stock photo to accompany the headline;

A young female driver with dark skin.

This academic study (demographics page 21) suggests that, after taking the photo of our lady driver above, the photographer might have considered buying a lottery ticket as it was his/her lucky day – a young female driver is rarer than unicorn shit.

We can’t comment on skin colour of truck drivers because we haven’t found any demographic data linking melanin levels and heavy vehicle licences.

Bill’s Opinion

The most dangerous profession in Australia is almost exclusively undertaken by men. LinkedIn is quite correct in their sentiment: we should start a campaign for 50:50 gender equality in this profession.

Go on then, explain how this would work

A ban on gay conversion therapy is the most important thing on the Australian LBGTIQ people’s things to do next list, apparently.

Really?

Some unanswered questions leap to mind about the survey of 2,662 LBGTIQ folks;

  1. Did the interviewees confirm with which of the letters of the LBGTIQ alphabet they identify?
  2. If so, were the survey results adjusted in any way to reflect the ratio of those letters in the general population? The medical phenomenon known as Intersex (the “I”), for example, occurs in about 0.05% of the population whereas male homosexuals make up around 1.9%. Was the intersex person’s opinion weighted to be worth 38 times that of the gay man’s?
  3. Did the survey ask for or offer any suggestions of how such a ban might work?

It’s just that we’re a little sceptical about seeking a unified opinion from such a diverse set of individuals on anything other than matters that impact them universally.

Homosexuality, for example, might have both a genetic and an environmental cause. The reason someone is transgender might also have a genetic and an environmental cause but not necessarily the same ones as the gay man’s. In fact, if we really got into the subject we may find that no two gay men are gay for exactly the same combination of reasons either.

Statistical obfuscation aside, there’s a few outstanding issues with the survey’s conclusion; how would this be written into law and enforced?

Imagine a young man from Adelaide, let’s call him Christopher, a devout Christian with a firm belief in those Christian values. He saved his virginity until he married and is now the proud father of four lovely children.

The problem is, human sexuality is a complex thing and he’s troubled with erotic thoughts about other men. He doesn’t want to be unfaithful to his wife and his religious beliefs strongly inform him that these thoughts are unnatural.

Regardless of whether we believe there’s a moral position to be taken on homosexuality or not, it is his firm desire to overcome these urges.

If he confides in a friend and the friend tells him to focus on his wife, buy her sexy lingerie and increase the romance in their relationship, will this friend now be breaking the new law?

What about if he confides in the family doctor who then refers him to a mental health professional? Are these two doctors acting illegally?

Perhaps even Christopher is in breach of the new anti-gay conversion law by seeking help in the first place? Where is the line drawn?

And the current gay conversion therapists, do they physically force their clients to attend the sessions? Do they use blackmail? Coercion? Surely there are existing laws against that behaviour already?

Bill’s Opinion

This is where Identity Politics leads eventually…… and it should be completely encouraged!

Why? Because the statistical obfuscation required to lump together groups of individuals, survey them for an opinion and then present it back as a unanimously-agreed statement will backfire quickly.

The idea that a man who enjoys having sex with a man, a woman who enjoys having sex with a woman, a man who believes he’s a woman, a woman who believes she’s a man, a person who was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and whatever it is the other letters of LBGTIQ+ stand for all have the same opinions on anything simply doesn’t stand up to any level of real life scrutiny, as anyone who has met people from these letters can confirm.

Don’t believe me? Invite one of each to a café and ask them what their coffee order is.

The survey is guilty of the same statistical error the USA financial industry made with the blending of sub-prime loans with AAA debt and will end in the same mess.

Carry on please!

The (big) little people can’t be trusted

Obviously it’s pick on Aussie journalists week here at WoO. No, I don’t know why either but it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

The SMH’s “senior economics journalist”, Jessica Irvine was paid today to tell us she’s no longer as overweight as she used to be, she’s now a mother, oh, and to advertise her book about no longer being as overweight as she used to be. Nice work if you can get it.

No, seriously, she knocked out a few hundred words to tell us that the secret to her weight loss was eating less and exercising more but because she’s good at spreadsheets she used a spreadsheet to keep track of it.

Also, she wrote this without a hint of irony, which is quite some feat;

But first, let’s address the elephant in the room: why does a senior economics journalist for some of Australia’s most respected newspapers keep banging on about her butt?

There’s two chuckles to be had there, if one is inclined to look for them.

The headline is most interesting though, and it’s taken directly from the body of the article so it’s not one of those usual editorial decisions to put words into the author’s mouth.

Ponder that statement for a moment.

Just whose damn responsibility is it to shed excess kilograms then? I’ve checked Google Maps and they’ve completely failed to label the locations of the human foie gras farms out in the suburbs.

Smashing the personal responsibility framework means acknowledging that most people aren’t maths whizzes and won’t follow the diet I’ve just outlined, particularly not those in lower socio-economic groups among whom obesity is most prevalent.

Sure, it’s about educating individuals to make better food and exercise choices. But fundamentally it’s about redesigning the obesogenic environment we’ve created, by governments stepping in to improve the availability of cheap, nutritious food and opportunities for regular exercise and activity.

Ah, it’s the government’s job to make the stupid masses lose weight because they aren’t as clever as Jessica Smarty(large)pants.

No, really, she wrote that.

Bill’s Opinion

There is nothing quite as obscene as a desire to control other people disguised as altruism.

Jessica doesn’t give a damn about the size of the guts of the people living in the areas of Australia she only ever drives past on the way to the airport or flies over on the way to her foreign holidays.

What Jessica wants is “people like us” to be in charge of what those people can and can’t eat and how they exercise.

And this, by the way, is someone with some level of qualification in that most suspicious of disciplines, economics, a subject with such an inferiority complex it had to invent a fake Nobel Prize for itself in an attempt to gain missing gravitas.

One assumes Jessica played truant in the local McDonalds and Burger King when the lecturers explained the Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman parts of the syllabus.

Long form conversation is the new soundbite

That traditional media is dying a painful and not so slow death is hard to dispute. The body count is rising everywhere one looks, in the last couple of years we’ve seen various mastheads either close down or be reduced to a shadow of their former selves. Examples include the UK’s The Independent (just a website now), the UK’s The Guardian (asking for “charitable” donations at the bottom of every online article), the New York Daily News (half the staff were fired last month) and Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald (bought by a domestic TV station for a fraction of its previous valuation).

Perhaps for a real time illustration of what might be the problem we should have a look at today’s version of the Sydney Morning Herald’s website;

The main story of the day is a feel good piece by Julie Clun about a man who raises money for a cancer charity. Ok, lovely, but it’s not exactly the “news” topic one would expect is it, especially in these febrile days of North Korea, Iran, Brexit, deadly forest fires in Greece, domestic banking scandals, and difficult times for the domestic Federal government, etc.?

Second on the website is our old friend Clementine “the other gift that keeps on giving” Ford, whining on about men not doing enough domestic chores in relationships, especially in the first few years after the first child is born. This might be true and the researchers may well have been justified in spending their grant money on undertaking the study but perhaps the “problem” is multi-dimensional and those men have felt the pressure to work longer hours and harder (and let’s face it, more dangerous) jobs to cover their increased financial responsibilities? Clementine doesn’t seem to be curious about this, and more importantly, the sub-editor didn’t wonder whether her entire article wasn’t just some massive exercise in personal projection.

Third on the website is an astoundingly naive article about a man diagnosed with mental health issues (which the article admits includes the risk of self harm or even suicide) who found it difficult to buy travel insurance. Not “couldn’t buy travel insurance“, but he had to ring around a bit and pay more when he found a company that would cover him. News flash for Rachel Clun, THAT’S HOW INSURANCE WORKS; they asses the risk that you will make a claim and price the policy accordingly.

Next, article number four is probably the best example of “reporting of news” as we’ll get today; Deborah Snow and Nick O’Malley wrote about a breaking political scandal.

Fifth on the list is the story of an airline employee who got so drunk on a layover between flights that he had to spend a night in hospital at the airline’s expense and was unable to perform his scheduled duties on the return flight. The tone of Anna Perry’s piece on this presumably open and shut case of employee dismissal is that the airline is being somewhat harsh by firing him. Anna doesn’t find the space to ponder whether we would like to get on flights staffed by half-drunk staff or pay higher prices for tickets that include the $20,000 hospital bill for their big nights out in the Big Apple.

The sixth article is a fun look at some drug smugglers who were involved in a boat chase before being caught dumping 600kg of cocaine in the sea. Some actual reporting there by Tracey Ferrier, well done.

The last article is a formulaic hand-wringing climate change article by the SMH’s resident “weather is climate” writer, Peter Hannam, with great use of our old friend “could”, as in “if it doesn’t rain soon, we could have to finally switch on the desalination plant we built ages ago and that has cost half a million dollars a day to sit idle ever since“.

If you are a current or former employee of the media company formerly known as Fairfax (publisher of the SMH) here’s a direct message to you; Aristotle said, “the life unexamined is not worth living“. Perhaps you should have a good look at yourself and wonder why people didn’t want to pay money for your work.

It pains me to mention this but there is also a glaring statistic to be found looking at those 7 top articles; of the 8 writers, 6 are women.

I’m not suggesting that this is the reason the newspaper is making its final circle around the toilet bowl, I’m sure women can report on news and write just as articulately as men, but it might be a symptom not a cause of the greater problem; one struggles to believe that Clementine Ford, for example, is the main bread-winner in her household. Perhaps the job of opinion-writer on gender politics (or however it is she would describe her idiom) doesn’t command a particularly stellar salary because, well, people don’t want to read the bloody tosh she writes? Perhaps that’s the case with most of the remaining jobs at the Herald and many of the employees are bringing in the 2nd income in their house, supplementing a primary wage-earner?

The business model of companies such as the Sydney Morning Herald is broken and broken beyond repair. We won’t pay for their output any longer.

H. L. Mencken may (or may not, it’s hard to confirm) have said, “No one in this world, so far as I know … has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people“.

I like much of Mencken’s work but I hope he didn’t say that because I challenge its accuracy.

Why?

Podcasts.

It turns out that this relatively new method of sharing information is hugely popular. The podcasts insights website suggests that half of all US households listen to podcasts on a weekly basis. Comedy being the most popular category but closely followed by education and news.

Anyone who has listened to a podcast will have realised that it differs from the traditional media of newspapers, TV and radio in one significant factor; they are LONG.

How long? The Joe Rogan Experience is in the top 5 of downloaded podcasts and he rarely releases an episode shorter than 3 hours. His average listener numbers per episode? 3 million.

Dan Carlin regularly drops 2 to 3 hour conversations about history that get higher listener numbers than CNN gets viewers. Let me repeat that; Conversations about history.

People such as Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, etc. are having lengthy, detailed and nuanced discussions about, well, all sorts of subjects that wouldn’t get more than 600 words in the pages of the Wall Street Journal or the Sydney Morning Herald. In this format, highly-nuanced points can be made, clarified, challenged and refined in a way we’ve never been able to consume previously. This has also resulted in a move away from the problem with formats such as the CNN panel discussion where each participant is simply waiting to shout a pithy one-liner (or even a one-worder) over their “opponents” rather than listening and responding intelligently.

Now look at our soon to be unemployed SMH journalists; imagine if Clementine Ford was asked to produce a coherent discussion about her apparent area of expertise for three hours a week, how many people would choose to listen to it, do we think? How articulate would it be, how well-thought through and defendable would her arguments be?

Quite.

The lesson from podcasts is that huge numbers of people are crying out for long form discussions that take their knowledge of a subject, any subject, forward and don’t just leave them with the executive summary of the revision notes.

Of course, it hasn’t escaped me that you are reading this rather than listening to it but that’s mainly a function of the fact that I don’t have expertise in any subject that covers 3 hours of conversation and that I have the perfect voice for the written, not spoken, word.

Incentives matter

A Kurdish Iranian man on Manus Island has published a book about his “incarceration” which he wrote entirely over Whatsapp on his mobile phone.

It’s not clear from any of the copious words on the Guardian/Fairfax/ABC articles gushing over Boochani why he had to write it over his mobile phone, especially given that the centre has computer word processing facilities for the inhabitants (section 4 here).

That Boochani is a genuine refugee in fear of his life is not disputed; a Kurdish journalist in Iran must have a life expectancy best measured in hours.

What is worth investigating however is the use of language such as “prisoner” in all of the hand-wringing articles and also the route he took to arrive on Manus Island.

As we’ve discussed previously, the inhabitants could claim asylum and leave to remain from PNG. That they don’t, suggests that they are holding out for a bigger prize such as a policy change by a new Australian government, for example.

How did Boochani come to find himself on this little island in the Pacific, such a long way from his home?

This article suggests that he travelled by land and sea to Indonesia, where he paid a people smuggler for passage on a boat to Christmas Island (an Australian territory).

Have a look at the map below and ponder the possible route options;

Assuming he didn’t sail any other huge distances, at a minimum there must have been 7 countries he traversed to arrive on Christmas Island, several of which are considered so safe and pleasant that many people reading this will have fond holiday memories from them.

Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia, for example. Sure, it may be a challenge to learn the language but if you were fleeing Iran in fear of your life, asking Thailand to accept you as a refugee, settling down there and making a new life must surely be a pretty good option?

For the sake of balance, it must be stated that many of those countries are not signatories to the 1957 UN resolution on refugees, but then, places such as Iran, Afghanistan and a whole bunch of places you wouldn’t want to visit have signed it so quite what that means, is anyone’s guess.

Bill’s Opinion

The left are, as is often the case, guilty of overreach when championing the cases of genuine refugees (and even more so for purely economic migrants) who have crossed half a dozen borders and paid for an expensive sea passage in attempt to gain asylum in the “prestige” destinations such as Australia.

Why?

Because, if they were genuinely concerned with providing good outcomes for the majority of refugees, they would be far less interested in the (relatively) rich migrants who chose not to stop in the first safe country they arrived in but, instead, put themselves and others (such as the seamen sent to rescue them) at risk by attempting dangerous sea crossings to win the jackpot in a country with generous public housing, welfare benefits and healthcare.

The result of this is counter to their claimed desires; people are sceptical of the motivation of those hand-wringing and campaigning for man with enough resources to travel across 7+ countries and then pay between $2,000 and $10,000 for a boat journey, whilst Whatsapping on an iPhone. This scepticism naturally then contaminates their opinions when asked by the same organisations to agree to take in more refugees from camps by the borders of the countries they are fleeing.

Mr. Chesterton’s Fence

This popped up on my Creepbook for Business timeline today;

Firstly, if anyone can explain in the comments what a “Gender Economist” is and what tangible benefit they bring to the species, I’ll be very grateful.

I’m more curious to examine Mrs/Miss/Ms Moore’s idea in more detail, however.

G. K. Chesterton famously described an imaginary fence in the middle of a field and suggested that we shouldn’t allow someone to take it down unless they could describe precisely why it was originally built. His point being that there was presumably a very good reason it was there in the first place and, although that reason may not still be valid, we should not remove it until we’ve understood the consequences.

What then, might we be giving up if we were to remove all honorifics when addressing each other? Why have honorifics been in use for all these years of human history?

Here’s a few reasons I can think of immediately;

1. A sign of respect and deference when addressing someone.

2. To add further information to a person’s name, such as gender and, in the case of females, marital status (since the 1960s, this additional item of information can be opted out of by the request to use “Ms”).

3. To assist in efficiently providing context and clarification particularly in situations when there are two people with similar names, Joe Smith and Jo Smith, for example.

4. Professional information and status, such as Doctor, Reverend, Professor, Captain, Darth, etc.

5. To provide additional information about the age of the person, particularly for males (Master), but more ambiguously for females (Miss).

There’s probably other reasons but five seems a good enough number to justify not removing them without fully planning for the consequences.

Bill’s Opinion

Susanne Moore might want to consider legally changing her name as, simply by looking at her first name, we can tell she’s female regardless of whether or not it is prefaced with an honorific.

However, it’s still not clear to me why it is a problem that people receive additional information with a person’s name.

Dick by name….

Australia is home to a gentleman called Dick Smith. He owns an eponymous chain of electronics’ stores where one can purchase all manner of flat screen TVs, music systems, white goods and other devices.

To the best of our knowledge, practically none of these devices are manufactured domestically. Like most western economies, Australia used to manufacture TVs and radios but the availability of cheaper and better quality imports from its northern neighbours in Asia hastened the decline of the industry.

Dick Smith has personally benefited greatly from this destruction of the local industry.

Imagine our surprise therefore that he feels the need to berate an overseas supermarket chain from copying his successful model but in the grocery sector.

Apparently, the management of Aldi are morally reprehensible for providing good quality imported food products at a lower price than can be produced domestically.

Ponder that for a moment. Now look at the brand of phone, tablet or PC on which you are reading this. Where was it made? Korea?

Now look at the label in your shirt or dress. Was it tailored domestically? Unlikely.

What should be done about this?

Bill’s Opinion

Dick Smith is typical of most Australian “entrepreneurs” in as much that, once he has made his fortune, he sees no reason to feel shame about lobbying and making public statements to pull the ladder up and prevent others from following his example.

His competitor, Gerry Harvey, is another example of this syndrome, campaigning for the federal government to impose the 10% General Sales Tax on low value overseas internet purchases, despite the fact that this will incur a net cost to the taxpayer.

“Capitalism” is a much maligned noun these days but consider whether there really is that much of it about. Certainly the people who often are pointed at as being “capitalist” are no such thing. Dick and Gerry have more in common with the mercantilists of the 16th century than Adam Smith or Ayn Rand.

It’s definitely the rental agency’s fault

In Victoria, Australia, a place where corrupt unions and progressive politicians rule the roost, a young girl was murdered at a private party.

Of course, the political instinct in response to this is never to let the judicial process run its course; prosecuting the suspected murderer by a fair trial, sentencing them to prison if found guilty, letting them go free if found innocent.

Nope, in Victoria, the answer is to look to increase regulation.

Wait, what?

What new regulation is required in a murder case?

Regulation against AirBnB.

Seriously…… why? Because the apartment where she was murdered was a short term lease through the rentals website service, so, in the lefty logic, AirBnB must somehow be partially responsible.

Maybe the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, has a point. Let’s step through some counter arguments to our instinctive position that it was 100% the murderer’s fault that she died;

Devil’s Advocate Position 1

If AirBnB hadn’t let the apartment to a bunch of teenagers, they wouldn’t have thrown a party which got out of hand and a murderer wouldn’t have murdered her.

Let’s face it, who amongst us hasn’t had the urge to violently murder someone at a party in a short term rental apartment? None of us? Hmmm, maybe that’s not Daniel Andrews’ greatest argument then.

Devil’s Advocate Position 2

If AirBnB hadn’t rented the apartment, the party wouldn’t have happened and a violent murderer wouldn’t have murdered the girl.

Because teenage parties were only invented after AirBnB was established? Because murders never occurred before AirBnB was established?

Devil’s Advocate Position 3

AirBnB have a duty of care to all visitors of their rental properties. Therefore there should have been some protective measures in place to prevent a murderer from murdering in the property.

By this logic, your rental car company should prevent you from crashing the car or hitting pedestrians.

Bill’s Opinion

If you are a legislator in a country with Common Law, consider the possibility that, 803 years after Magna Carta, there may already be appropriate legislation to cover most major crimes. How likely is it, after all those years and hundreds of thousands of man days spent considering legislative responses to public policy questions, that you’ve just landed on the best solution to a pre-existing problem?

Murderers are responsible for their crimes, not the owner or letting company of the room in which the crime was committed.