Statistics Substituting for Logic

You see and hear a lot of statistics in the media. Maybe it's my nearly-middle-aged curmudgeonly nature, but it seems to me that statistics feature strongly in more news stories than ever before. No news items seems to be complete unless there's a statistic or two to underline the concept.

So what's wrong with that, you say? Statistics would appear to be an unbiased, objective analysis of data relating to the subject at hand. We've been brought up to trust statistics.

It's my view that too often, statistics are used as a substitute for a persuasive, well constructed argument. How can that be?

Firstly, the reader has to remember that the writer of the article has selected the statistics that they're giving you, specifically to support the main thrust of their argument. The author, unless it's an academic journal, probably did not include contrary statistics to lend balance, to let you make up your own mind. This does not mean that such adverse evidence does not exist! The source of the statistics is crucial. Are the statistics provided by, or funded by, someone with a vested interest? Is the data even statistically significant? My favourite example of this is advertisements of cosmetics or hair products. Next time you see one of those, along with the strapline of "87% of women agreed that it worked for them", look for the small print that says how many people it was tested on. More often than not you will find that the number of testers was under say, 200. It really beggars belief, doesn't it? Huge, multinational cosmetics companies with advertising budgets of millions, can only find a couple of hundred people, at most, to test their 'fabulous' new product one. Suddenly, when you consider that 87% of 78 people "agreed" or reviewed positively, it doesn't seem such a convincing figure, does it?

Next, it's crucial to read between the lines of the data that's presented, to try to see what the author didn't want you to see or think. Of course, it's often difficult and time consuming to do your own research on any given subject, but a good rule of thumb is that for every statistic pointing in one direction, there's often another statistic pointing equally strongly in the opposite direction.

However, my biggest bugbear is the use (or misuse) of the term "average". Think for a moment about what the word "average" means to you? One of the definitions offered by dictionary.com is "a typical amount, the norm". I'd suggest that what occurs to most of us when we see that term used. How accurate is that perception though?

Consider this graph:

Figure 1: Normal Distribution curve

This is what's called a "normal distribution" graph. It is typical, for example, of exam results, where most results are in the middle of the range, resulting in the peak you see in this graph, with fewer results at either end of the spectrum. You might hear it referred to as a "Bell curve", so named for its shape.

You'll also notice that there are three terms on the graph; mode, median and mean. I'll attempt to explain each of them briefly.

• Mean - this is what we typically think of as "average". You add all the results together, and divide by the number of samples.
• Mode - this is the result which occurs most frequently. If you are looking at exam results, then the Mode is the result which most students achieved. This will always be the peak of the graph, as there are more samples at that size (result) than any other.
• Median - this literally means 'middle'. If you arranged all of the samples (or results) in numerical order, the median is the middle value. For example, the 50th result out of 100, or the 10th result out of 20.

So what? By now you think I'm being overly technical and pedantic, don't you? You can see from the graph above that mean, mode and median are all roughly the same, right? What does it matter if someone refers to "average", or "mean" or "median". It makes no difference, surely? Sometimes it doesn't. Figure 1 is an example of an instance where there may not be much difference.

OK, now look at this graph, Figure 2.

Figure 2: Skewed distribution

Figure 2 shows a markedly different distribution of results. It's obviously skewed to one side, towards the lower end of the results scale. You can clearly see that in this case, mode, mean and median are all going to be drastically different numbers. Now the distinction in the term "average" is really important.

Consider the wage structure of a typical company or organisation. Which graph do you think most closely resembles the wage structure - Figure 1 or Figure 2? Obviously, there will be a bigger concentration of incomes at the lower end of the scale, where the number of people earning the big bucks decreases the higher up the organisation you go. This explains why the mode is the lowest figure, as it's the most common. The median wage will tend to be bang in the middle of the scale, and the mean will often be distorted by the small number of higher incomes at the top of the scale. Which term more closely reflects the wage people are likely to receive working in that organisation?

Now, the next time some politician (the dictionary definition of a person with an agenda or vested interest) tells you that the "average" wage in a given industry (that they happen to be in the process of reforming) is X, think for a moment. Listen carefully to the language used. Did they say "average"? Or did they say something else?

Earlier this week, I read a mostly misleading report written by Edward Boyd, a member of the think tank Policy Exchange defending the scandalous war being waged on police wages. The report claims that 40% of officers will be better off under the new proposals, yet at the same time attempted to portray police wages as unreasonably high by stating that the median police gross wage was £40 402 per year.

Notice the language. The median gross wage was £40 402. This figure includes overtime, which police officers are obliged and required to work if so directed. Overtime that last year would have included policing the riots that spread across the country. Being the median, this also means that it was in the middle of the scale, with no regard to how many officers actually earned that. Think back to Figure 2. If the gross median is £40k, what is the realistic wage earned by most officers? Is it £40k, or is it less than that?

Let's use another analogy. If someone said to you that the average wage for someone working in the banking industry was, say, £50 000, would you assume that this is what the clerk at your local branch is earning? Of course not. That would be a ridiculous assumption; clearly the figure is bolstered by the much higher wages earned in other areas of the industry.

There is one other possibility. The author of this particular report did not understand the term 'median' and misused it. If this is the case, then the report ought to be dismissed out of hand, for its author hasn't sufficient knowledge to write with authority about the subject in hand.

So the next time someone tries to persuade you of their argument by throwing statistics at you, the chances are that the numbers are hiding large holes in the actual logic of their case.

Think carefully. Think critically. Yesterday (29th March), Sky News announced that the surge in petrol buying (caused by the potential for a strike by tanker drivers) had led to an "extra £32m in fuel duty for the Government". Cue lots of outraged people claiming that this was convenient for a Government about to enter another recession. I'm no fan of Goverments, of any colour. On the other hand, let's give this some thought. It's said that petrol & diesel sales went up above normal by more than 80%, and this is where this figure of £32m has come from. Where is this huge extra volume of fuel going? It's going into the fuel tanks of the nation's car, van and truck drivers. Some people, if they've had a total lobotomy, will be storing it in their garages. When this strike issue has blown over, they'll eventually pour this stored fuel into their vehicles.

My point here is that the actual consumption and usage of fuel will remain the same. If anything, it might actually reduce as people drive less, to conserve precious fuel. So - this figure of £32m. Is it "extra" income as was claimed by the media? Or is it simply £32m of fuel duty income that's come in during March that would have come in April had this situation not occurred. I suppose in April, after the double-dip recession has been confirmed, the same media will be claiming that fuel buying had "suddenly plunged" as a result of the recession, when actually it's because the fuel was bought this month rather than next month.

Caveat emptor.

When Logic is Outsourced

Every so often, something gains a momentum that make it seem like it's everywhere. Everyone seems to be talking about it, it's on the news nearly every day, and it seems like every company is making use of it. "Investors in People" awards were an example a few years ago. Then it was companies taking to social media to promote their brands.

A relatively recent one is loved and historic sports grounds being renamed for some incongruous commercial sponsor. Exhibit 1:- The Sports Direct Arena. See if you can remember what that used to be called, and is probably still referred to as by its regular inhabitants. Answer at the end of the blog. Exhibit 2 - The Kia Oval, one of London's Test cricket venues. Obviously, for the tenants, there's a great deal of money involved. The downside is the associative element. For the first example, I imagine a stadium full of people cheaply made, ill-fitting tops and naff looking trainers. For the second, my mind is filled with pictures of crappy cars.

But there's another, more sinister craze which although it's been rumbling along quietly for years, has really picked up the pace recently. Outsourcing. However, unlike the previous examples, I can't really see the sense in outsourcing. I really can't. OK, there are a few strictly limited situations where I can see outsourcing being a sensible option:

1. You're a company who needs a product or service you've never experienced before. You effectively buy in the knowledge and experience necessary. No sense starting from the ground up, when someone else has already been there, done that.
2. You only need a product or service infrequently or irregularly. Again, no sense employing someone full time (or even part time) if the demand for their service doesn't justify it.
3. You're a small company and need the economies of scale enjoyed by a large scale provider of a given service or product.

There may be more. Please leave a comment if you can think of more options. It makes no difference whether you are talking about a private company outsourcing tasks, or public entities outsourcing tasks in the public sector to private companies.

But this isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about situations where a large company has been doing a particular task "in-house" for a protracted period of time. They then outsource the process. Result; contractors doing the same job that the employees had been doing, on a daily basis, and apparently for less than it was previously costing. Or so we're told.

Now here's the bit I really don't understand. How can an external company possibly supply exactly the same service that your (now ex-) employees did, make a profit doing so, and for it still to be cheaper than the original setup? I've seen several instances of outsourcing like this, and in most of them I'm left scratching my head. I just don't get how it works.

As I see it, there are the following possibilities;

• The new company is paying its people less, perhaps by outsourcing to an area with a cheaper labour rate, e.g. call centres. Maybe it's the same people on less favourable terms and conditions. See the recent arguments over privatised/contracted out court interpreters. Or maybe it's different people, less qualified for the role, but therefore cheaper. Again, see court interpreters. (1, 2)
• The new company is using cheaper products or materials than the original company was previously.
• They aren't doing the job as thoroughly as it was being done previously.
• The original company no longer has any interest in the task it's outsourced.
• The original company didn't know how to do the task properly in the first place.
• It actually costs more to provide the service like this, but in the twisted world of corporate accounts, it makes the business look better on paper to have fewer permanent employees.

Now, I have been called a cynic in the past, and I've even been called "negative". At the risk of reverting to stereotype, I'd hazard a guess that the real reason for most outsourcing options is one or all of the last three suggestions above. I haven't even considered the possibility of corruption, the possibility of being in a position to outsource/privatise something in order to make one's chums a large pile of cash. You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.

If you're thinking that I'm perhaps being a bit hard on accountants with that last suggestion, consider this: I once worked for a company that was privately owned by a handful of people who were principally engineers, practical people. They had a "no-debt" philosophy. If they needed a forklift truck, or a car, they bought it outright, keep it until it had depreciated to almost nothing, and then replaced it. If it was working well, they might even keep it beyond its "shelf life". The company was floated on the Stock Exchange, and soon accountants were all over the place. Within no time at all a lot of the wholly-owned items, like the cars and forklift trucks, were sold cheaply and replaced with leased items. In essence, paying a monthly fee but never owning the item in question, a situation intended to go on in perpetuity. Despite it being plainly obvious that this process was costing the company more money in every conceivably way, we were told gleefully that it was better. The explanation is that when you buy something, you hold it as an asset, and that adds to the amount of capital required to make a given profit. Apparently it's better to improve that ratio, as it's looked at by potential shareholders, than it is to reduce costs and increase profit.

I try to apply logic to most things I look at, but the world of accountants (and bankers) is, to me, unfathomable. I've tried. Really I have. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

Oh, by the way, you and I probably know the Sports Direct Arena as St. James Park, Newcastle.

"You're Coming With Me Lad" by Mike Pannett

This is the second book in the series by ex-Metropolitan Police officer Mike Pannett, writing about his time in the police in North Yorkshire. The first book was called "Now Then, Lad" and I reviewed it here.

"You're Coming With Me Lad" follows on directly from where Now Then Lad left off. In fact, had the two books been published as one volume the join would have been seamless. There was something comfortingly familiar about opening this book for the first time, I knew exactly what to expect in terms of characters and style, but I was still eager to read on and follow the latest escapades. Events are never dull, including an encounter with a sword, record breaking floods, wildlife, a runaway caravan, an unexploded WW2 bomb, and even more dangerous than that, a visit by John Prescott.

As I said in the first review, the beauty of the author's writing style is that the balance of content is perfect. Easy enough to follow without police experience, but at a level where past and present officers would enjoy it as well. There's even an ongoing romance through the series which is fondly told without ever becoming soppy or too sugary.

North Yorkshire is full of wonderful countryside and again the book does a great job of describing the scenery so that you really can picture the views and environment. Similarly, the author does a great job of bringing the characters to life. Most of them now have their own voices when I read their dialogue, I even have a mental picture of Alexander Armstrong playing the part of Algy!

Mike obviously tells the stories from his own point of view, but unusually in my opinion, will also try to see things from the viewpoint of the other characters, most notably the "customers" he deals with when on duty. It'd be easy to come across as very condescending, telling these events from a police officer's point of view, but that never happens.

In short, this book has more than lived up to the expectation created by the original edition, and I can convey no greater praise on the book and the author, than to tell you that I have already ordered the third book in the series, "Not On My Patch, Lad" which I intend to review here when I've completed it.

A wonderful, uplifting and absorbing read. Very much recommended.

The Death of the Police Service

The UK Police service, as we have known it since the 1800s, is dying. The process began with the administering of a lethal injection yesterday, with the announcement of the second part of Tom Winsor's recommendations into police pay and conditions. Some of you reading this will be old enough to remember the time, around 1987 or 1988, when then-Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke referred to paramedics in ambulances as "professional drivers". This moment, is right up there alongside Clarke in terms of bare faced cheek and outright ignorance. Is it no coincidence that Clarke is now the Justice Secretary?

Much of the media attention is, regrettably, currently focused on the issue of fitness tests and the BMI of police officers. I agree with the basic proposal that where possible, fitness should be assessed and maintained regularly. At present, there is a basic fitness test on application and it's never looked at again. However, there's a lot more to this issue that simply "fat coppers eating doughnuts". The sheer practical facts of a life spent working shift patterns, with the constant pressure to be publicly visible, means that a large number of officers will be eating from convenience stores, petrol stations, and kebab or burger vans. It's a proven fact that long-term shift work increases the likelihood of serious ailments.

In addition, there will be some officers who wish to continue working even after sustaining an injury in the line of duty. What about them? I can only imagine what would have happened to PC David Rathband if these proposals had been implemented during his working life. Presumably, he would have been sacked before the sound of gunfire had died away. In fact, its March 2012, so we are fast approaching the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. The crew of the Titanic, whether they died or not, had their wages stopped as soon as the ship sank. You really would think, 100 years later, that we were past that sort of thinking. Apparently, Tom Winsor isn't.

These issues are indeed serious, and merit examination in the press. The problem is that the mainstream media are fixated on it, and this is allowing Winsor and the Government to perpetrate a distraction burglary on the Police service. Whilst all the discussion about fitness takes place at the front door, the other more insidious proposals are sneaking in the back and making off with the TV.

Let's not forget that this stupid, naive, dishonest and disingenuous report also suggests direct entry to the rank of Inspector or even, God forbid, Superintendent. Police officers in supervisory ranks absolutely must have the bedrock of experience that starting as a probationary PC, and working your way through the system gives. It is the only way of gaining the necessary skills and knowledge of the tasks required. Cognitive knowledge is not sufficient. Otherwise, medical students would be able to qualify from University as surgeons.

Winsor complains that vacancies are currently too "over-subscribed" (meaning too many people apply) so his insightful solution is to reduce the starting wage for constables to a lower level than PCSOs. Yet at the same time, Winsor says that he wants the police service to attract "the brightest and the best". Really? Recently, within the last year or two, MPs said that the wages for an MP had to be set at £64k so as "to make sure we attract the right calibre of people into politics". Confused? Yes, me too.

You might wonder what my part in all of this is. I served in the Special Constabulary from 1998-2006, so I have a reasonable idea what goes on within the police service, yet I've also had a career in engineering which is now entering its 21st year. I like to think that my own viewpoint is a good one; I have the insights to know what the job is like, without being "institutionalised" into the current police way of life where sometimes people feel that the current way is the only way. I've had a life and career outside of the police too, making me arguably a more rounded person. I feel perfectly placed to see the sheer undiluted folly in Winsor's report.

Yet, despite my experience and qualifications, I would not be eligible for entry in Winsor's police service. I don't have any A levels, and Winsor says I ought to have three of them. Unfortunately for me, from school I did semi-vocational qualifications of National Diploma and Higher National Diploma.

I'm no longer actively involved in the police service, but I still feel very affectionately towards it. At the moment, I feel as though I'm watching the vet put down a favourite pet.

Peter, Dilbert and Institutional Incompetence

You've probably never heard of Dr. Laurence J. Peter, but his work goes a long way to explaining why almost every large organisation, including Governments, are totally useless and operate in spite of their upper management and "leaders".

I've been in and out of various hospitals over the last five or six years because of issues with my wife's health, in different areas and different counties, and they're all useless. Don't get me wrong - the people at the front line, so to speak, are nearly always brilliant. Polite, capable and willing, and really well qualified. The problem is the systems that they work in are not fit for purpose. On several occasions, we have arrived for appointments to discuss the results of the latest scan, only to find that the consultant doesn't have the images. If we're lucky, they'll have a written report of the scan, describing the results - but no actual image. A couple of months ago, we saw an endocrinologist who said he would like my wife to have an ultrasound scan, and then a visit to his clinic to discuss the scan.

A few weeks later, we received the two appointments through the post. The appointment for the specialist had been made before the scan. My wife realised that this was not right, so she rang the office and got the appointments rearranged. She had the scan, and we turned up for the consultant's appointment. The scan results had not been sent to the consultant's office. Nursing staff had to spend precious time phoning around and arranging for the results to be sent. We got there in the end, but not by design. We had a similar experience when my wife had an MRI. We arrived to see the neurologist only to find that no images had been sent. Again, some frantic searching bore fruit and we eventually had the images that we needed.

Virtually every other company has stories or experiences like this. The staff at the lowest levels in the organisation are busting a gut to do a useful day's work in the face of incompetence and ignorance in the levels above them. One explanation for this was provided by Dr Peter in 1969. It became known as "The Peter Principle".

This explanation holds that when someone is good (competent) at the job that they do, they get promoted to the next level up. If they do well there, they get promoted again. Eventually, they get to a position where their performance at that level does not warrant further promotion. Thus they are no longer competent. This is the general thrust of the Peter Principle - that people get promoted to the level of their incompetence. My own experience bears this out. In nearly every company I've worked for (some more than others!) most of the management positions are filled with people who are incompetent at management, leadership or both.

There is a variation on this hypothesis - "The Dilbert Principle". This was created by the author Scott Adams. His version is that people who are incompetent are promoted further up the organisation where they can do less damage. Adams' character Dogbert explained it as "nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow". I am personally aware of one such example, in a previous company, of someone who was so useless at the task at hand, that he was transferred to management where he could do less damage.

If either of these points are even half true - then most of the people in any given management position are there either because they aren't good enough to be promoted further, or they've been promoted to their current position to get them out of the way of the productive people. Not inspiring, is it?

The other reason that most large companies are institutionally useless, is that the people making decisions and policy are so far removed from reality, by which I mean the reality of what's actually happening, that they couldn't possibly do an effective job. If you've ever had the misfortune of being on one of those cringeworthy team building courses where someone has to drive a car blindfolded whilst being verbally directed by a colleague, you'll know exactly what I mean. The senior managers are so distant that by the time their latest policy is implemented, the circumstances that lead to it in the first place have shifted, and it's no longer relevant.

This is why politics is almost always a totally futile exercise from the public's point of view. It genuinely doesn't make any difference who you vote for. For a start, most politicians know next to nothing about the business of their area of responsibility. Some of them (I'm tempted to say most of them) have never done a real day's work in their lives and so can't relate to us to begin with. If, as happens rarely, you get a politician who for some inexplicable reason, does know something about their area of responsibility, all of the above applies; they're so far from the shop floor that they can't effectively manage any situation.

As I said earlier, some organisations work despite their political leads and senior management. The NHS and the Police are perfect examples. A lot of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have not been on patrol for so long that I'd be surprised if they could even remember the caution. The nature of policing has changed so much in that time, they wouldn't have a clue if they were forced to go on active duty again. It used to be the same in the military - the reasons that so many lives were lost in the First World War was that the generals were implementing strategies from their previous war experience, which were no longer effective and were actually counter productive.

The unfortunate thing for a lot of the public services is that all of these things overlap disastrously - managed by people with decades of experience, and little of it relevant, and led by politicians who know nothing about that service anyway. The current debacle over the cuts to the NHS and Police services illustrates this perfectly. The Government of the day thinks it knows all about these services, being given information and assurances by upper structures which are twenty years out of date. The result is the complete and utter shambles that we find ourselves in.

As I write this, it's Sunday evening. That means tomorrow is Monday morning. Enjoy your week at work everyone.

The Systematic De-skilling of the Police

The current coalition Government is receiving a lot of criticism at the moment for cuts and proposed changes to the Police service in the UK. Sitting Governments always get the most stick but, as with a lot of things, there is a bigger picture to this. In an earlier blog I described how my own politics have evolved as I've got older. I no longer believe that any of the political parties hold the keys to Utopia; they're all as flawed as each other. The truth is, that the political system is slowly but surely de-skilling the Police service, and it's been happening for some time.

I'm sure there are readers out there older and more experienced than me that remember other examples. The first one I'm aware of was the role of Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO). This was gradually removed from police officers and non-sworn police employees took on these tasks.

My own personal involvement with the Police service began with my attestation as a Special Constable in October 1998. The Special Constabulary is (or was) an important resource for most Constabularies. In case you are not familiar with the Special Constabulary, they are unpaid volunteers who are fully sworn and attested Police officers, with the same powers of arrest and by and large the same equipment. In most forces, the only way of distinguishing between a Special Constable and a PC is a small 'SC' insignia on the epaulettes, and sometimes a different cap badge.

Specials come from all parts of the community, and I would imagine that most of them volunteer for duties at evenings and weekends. This works well, as it allows forces to bolster their numbers at peak times such as Friday and Saturday nights, and for other special events such as Remembrance Sunday or concerts etc requiring additional police presence. The Police are thus able to meet peaks in demand without a large increase in overtime or without diverting officers away from routine and response duties. It's no exaggeration to say that some communities would not be patrolled regularly if it were not for volunteer Special Constables.

Specials receive out-of-pocket expenses for travelling and subsistence, but no payment. We as a group had long campaigned to be put of retainers in the same way that the Territorial Army (TA) and Retained Firefighters are. The Treasury refused to do this, claiming that it would be too expensive.

In the early part of the 2000s, the Labour Government took the decision to introduce Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). These are uniformed Police employees who undertake certain routine duties for the police such as statement taking, but do NOT have powers of arrest (other than Common Law "civilian arrest" powers that everyone has). However, and this is crucial, PCSOs also patrol areas. Sometimes with fully sworn Police Officers, but sometimes alone. PCSOs do an important job, but when it comes to patrol, it's basically Neighbourhood Watch with a police uniform and radio. They often don't carry handcuffs or other protective equipment. This was the cynical part of the process that ultimately lead to my departure from the Special Constabulary. The introduction of PCSOs to patrol duties was nothing but a trick, an illusion, to fool the general public into thinking that there were more uniformed police officers on duty that there really were.

The creation of the position of PCSOs must have cost the Home Office millions of pounds. I'd be interested to hear from anyone that has the exact figure. The legislation had to be drafted, training designed and delivered, not to mention the recruitment process. This money could have been spent properly rewarding existing an new Specials - for which there was no need to create additional legislation, training or administration. The basic premise of PCSOs might have been sound, but somewhere along the line, someone in the Home Office took the opportunity to trick the public and start the mass de-skilling of police duties. The thin end of the wedge was truly in progress.

So it comes as no surprise now that the latest wheeze out of such pinnacles of logical thinking as the Home Office, ACPO and Policy Exchange that we are now staring down the barrel of private patrol services. The fact that it's no surprise doesn't make it any less frightening though. We only have to look at most examples of Government procuring and outsourcing (not to mention privatisation of national services) to say that it's a racing certainty that it'll end in disaster. There's too many examples to mention. Railways, water and energy utilities, buses..... I could go on but I won't.

So what's behind it all? The most likely explanation (apart from some weird class thing going on) is cost. It costs a lot to employ a police officer. This is no surprise because most are vastly skilled and experienced at what they do. It's a difficult and stressful job. However, the likes of Blair Gibbs and Theresa May either don't understand this or don't want to. Their agenda is to dumb down the police service as much as possible to drive cost out of it, to lower the expectations of the public as to what they can expect from a police service, and reduce the skill sets "required". They are being aided and abetted in this by unscrupulous and dishonest elements of the media who are only too happy to get their revenge on the police who've recently dropped them right in it.

Would any of this be happening if Labour was in power? Probably, but maybe with certain subtle differences in execution. They wouldn't have the overall support of the press, that's for sure. But in the end, it makes no difference. Because Governments of all colours have been engaged in the systematic de-skilling of the police service for decades.