Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Edit: Also I suppose my view on the agent of change thing here is that by definition if you're moving into a glasswalled flat in a city centre, you can't expect privacy. You're in a city centre and your walls are made of glass. If you want privacy move to the countryside or one of the (many) homes available for multi-millionaires buying luxury flats that mainly face onto courtyards or gardens etc.

I'd say there's a balance.
Of course you can't block anything within your line of sight from which someone could feasibly look through your window. That would be mad.
But on the other hand a public space being built just metres away, 5 stories up, directly looking into your flat- I can have sympathy. That's not something to be reasonably expected (in a situation with no planning permission before hand).

I was interested in this :

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/feb/01/uk-benefit-changes-have-pushed-people-into-dead-end-low-paid-jobs-says-ifs

There are far too many low-paid jobs that are supported by benefits in the UK, probably a reason for the low rate of productivity growth. Bring back proper unemployment that ends once someone has found a decent job or has been retrained so they can get a decent job 

Sounds right.
We really need a move away from employed/unemployed being seen as a simple binary. It'd help in a lot of ways in the modern world.

[Sheilbh]

Relevant to earlier talk on political journalists having the lead and not necessarily understanding the issue, following complaints by economists the BBC ordered a "thematic review" into whether it impacted impartiality which has now been published - press release:

BBC publishes thematic review into taxation, public spending, government borrowing and debt output
The independent review spoke to over 100 people inside and outside the BBC and reviewed 11,000 pieces of relevant BBC online, TV and radio content, focussing closely on 1000
Published: 12:00 pm, 30 January 2023

The BBC has shared its first ever thematic review as part of the Corporation's 10-Point Impartiality Plan.

The review assesses whether due impartiality is being achieved across BBC taxation and public spending, government borrowing and debt output and considers if a breadth of voices and viewpoints are being reflected.

The BBC Board commissioned review finds that there is widespread appreciation for BBC coverage of tax, public spending, government borrowing and debt with plenty to applaud, but identifies a range of concerns that could put impartiality at risk. The Board has thanked the authors and responded in full.

The work was led by seasoned economics experts and broadcasters Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot, who created BBC Radio 4's More or Less programme.

The independent review spoke to over 100 people inside and outside the BBC and reviewed 11,000 pieces of relevant BBC online, TV and radio content, focussing closely on 1000. It considered social media posts and commissioned bespoke audience research.

The review does not find evidence of political bias in the BBC's public spending and taxation output, but finds significant interests and perspectives in these areas could be better served. It goes on to provide clear indications for how the BBC could improve editorial standards and audience impact as a result.

The review notes that many of its conclusions could apply at least equally to other UK media. However, the BBC must lead the way on impartiality and ensure the needs of all audiences are met, so the Board has asked the BBC Executive to address the challenges raised as our public spending and taxation output evolves.

BBC Press Office

Notes to editors

    The Board response can be seen here.
    The full review can be seen here.
    The Appendix can be seen here and the Appendix External Interviewees can be seen here.
    Terms of Reference can be seen here.
    The Audience Research Report can be seen here.
    The 10-Point Impartiality Plan can be found here.

Chair Biographies

Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot co-created BBC Radio 4's More or Less programme, and co-authored The Tiger That Isn't: Seeing Through A World Of Numbers, about numbers and how to interpret them.

Andrew is currently the Warden of Nuffield College Oxford and is the former Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. He was Chair of the UK Statistics Agency between 2012-17.

Michael is an independent freelance journalist and author. He co-wrote The Norm Chronicles about risk, with Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter. Michael is also a board member of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication.

From the bits I've seen online it's really interesting, especially in the context of how the issue has been framed since the global financial crisis. Some samples:
"We think too many journalists lack understanding of basic economics or lack confidence reporting it. This brings a high risk to impartiality [...] it particularly affected debt."
"Nor should the BBC feel it can subcontract judgement about what's reasonable or impartial to a few established names like the Bank of England, the OBR, the IFS or the Resolution Foundation, however respected."
"'The Westminster frame on things is the elephant in the room here,' said one senior journalist, who argued that the political angle of the day often determines coverage whether the specialist judges it significant or not."
"Some objected to language like 'tax burden' or, from the other side, that when it's said on the BBC that public money could be 'set aside' for some purpose - as it was - it's as if there's a pile of free cash itching to be allocated."
"Uncertainty is another argument for exploring alternative points of view. So if any BBC journalists are inclined to see it as a weakness to be avoided, we'd advise squashing that feeling as soon as possible [...] if the facts are uncertain, they should be reported as such."
"On fiscal policy, as with other policies, BBC journalists should beware saying or implying that a government 'must...' raise taxes, cut debt, cut spending, raise spending etc - in any area. These are choices."
"[...] fiscal rules are only rules because the government of the day chooses to call them that. They may be reasonable attempts at self-discipline or signals of intent, but they're not rules because some natural law dictates it."
"[...]" accepting the language of necessity about taxation, public spending, government borrowing or debt is a risk to impartiality."

All very good stuff that will hopefully see an end to "there is no alternative" framing. I believe the comment that provoked the thematic review was a line by a political reporter about the "nation's credit card" being maxed out after covid and the need to pay debt down - which is a vivid metaphor but also frames the subject in a politically specific way that is not impartial or accurate.

I think we maybe saw early signs of this review in how the BBC covered Kwarteng and Truss'. Given how anti-Tory they are - I was genuinely shocked to see FT journalists immediately slip back into 2008-10 language about the deficit ("a fiscal black hole", nation's credit card etc) and the debt (complete with a widget where you could choose what to cut and how much it would save), like the last 12 years haven't happened. By contrast, as James Meadway flags, the BBC was far better and covered economists questioning the phrasing way that was being positioned. While most are reporting the (dreadful) IMF forecast pretty straight the BBC have done that but also done a piece highlighting the uncertainty around forecasting which seems very helpful and is also relevant around budgets.

As I say the whole thing really annoyed me during covid when you had Robert Peston - who came to prominence as a business reporter with very good contacts in the civil service/BofE, so got a lot of scoops during the crash and is now a political journalist - asking questions about scotch eggs and pubs which were just useless. While the best questions were from health, science and local journalists - who aren't as prominent but know their beat.

So hopefully the BBC does other thematic reviews and applies the lessons to other areas - in particular letting specialists decide what's news and how to cover it, rather than often arts graduate political reporters because it's an issue in Westminster and allowing those perspectives to frame an issue.

[Gups]

Bus stop NIMBYism is a new one for me - they flag that their might be double deckers which means even upstairs isn't private

We've had NIMBYism about railway stations, rail infrastructure, solar farms, homes, wind farms etc - so it makes sense that we'd eventually get bus NIMBYism too.

I don't know how to feel about the Tate Modern thing. I imagine those people could have pre-purchased the flats without knowing there was a viewing platform straight into their flats was being built at the same time.

But there was planning permission in place for Tate at the time - which feels like something their lawyers should have flagged to them given that there's a very big, public building next door to their flat.

Although I also tend to be fairly cynical about people buying flats very quickly without seeing them. Which I know is increasingly common but I think there is a risk to that.

In a related note: why are Brits averse of curtains?

We're not? The Dutch are averse to curtains - they're very standard in the UK (though there's a class angle on nets, shutters etc).

If however there was already an overlook or planning permission in place for one then screw those moaners.

The overlook had planning permission before the flats.

Edit: Also I suppose my view on the agent of change thing here is that by definition if you're moving into a glasswalled flat in a city centre, you can't expect privacy. You're in a city centre and your walls are made of glass. If you want privacy move to the countryside or one of the (many) homes available for multi-millionaires buying luxury flats that mainly face onto courtyards or gardens etc.

Have you read the majority judgement? I suspect not, as they deal with all the points you make.

1. The Tate did not have planning permission before the residential flats had planning permission. Edit: Actually slightly more complicated than that. The Tate had permission for a viewing gallery but not details. As Lord Sales said (dissenting):

"The designs for the Blavatnik Building always included a viewing gallery in some form, although its precise extent varied through successive iterations of the design. Planning policy for the South Bank encourages the construction of viewing galleries in buildings of significant height. However, there is no planning document which indicates that overlooking by the viewing gallery in the direction of Block C was considered by the local planning authority at any stage. It is not likely that the planning authority considered the extent of overlooking. Further, while the Neo Bankside developer was aware of the plans for a viewing gallery, it did not foresee the level of intrusion which resulted. In broad terms, the design and construction of the Blavatnik Building with the viewing gallery in its final form took place in parallel with the design and construction of Neo Bankside, without the effects of the one on the other so far as visual intrusion was concerned being fully appreciated or addressed."

2. The flats were occupier before the viewing gallery was open

3. "Agent of change" is a planning policy principle. It is entirely irrelevant to the tort of interference with property rights. In any event, it was the gallery that was the agent of change not the residential occupiers

4. The somewhat analogous defence in tort  that the claimant "came to the nuisance" is counter-intuitively not in fact a defence - Lord Legatt deals with that while noting that it doesn't arise in any event.

5. The court distinguished between ordinary usage of neighbouring buildings in city centres - other residential buildings, offices etc with a specific viewing gallery in which the residents are subject - as the court put it:

"The trial judge, Mann J, found as facts that a very significant number of visitors to the Tate's viewing gallery display an interest in the interiors of the claimants' flats. Some look, some peer, some photograph, some wave. Occasionally binoculars are used. Many photographs showing the interiors of the flats have been posted on social
media."

"Neither of these forms of "overlooking", however, is the subject of this claim. The claimants' complaint is not that the top floor of the Blavatnik Building (or its southern walkway) overlooks their flats; nor is it that in the ordinary course people in that building look at the claimants' flats and can see inside. In fact, the claimants made
it expressly clear at the trial that they do not object to the fact that they are overlooked from the Blavatnik Building: see [2019] Ch 369, para 190. What they complain about is the particular use made by Tate of the top floor. They complain that the Tate actively invites members of the public to visit and look out from that location in every direction, including at the claimants' flats situated only 30 odd metres away; that the Tate permits and invites this activity to continue without interruption for the best part of the day every day of the week; and that this has the predictable consequence that a very significant number of the roughly half a million people who visit the Tate's viewing gallery each year peer into the claimants' flats and take photographs of them. To argue that this use of the defendant's land cannot be a nuisance because "overlooking" (in the Court of Appeal's sense) cannot be a nuisance is like arguing that, because ordinary household noise caused by neighbours does not constitute a nuisance, inviting a brass band to practise all day every day in my back garden cannot be an actionable nuisance; or that because the smell of your neighbour's cooking at mealtimes is something you have to put up with, noxious
odours from industrial production cannot be an actionable nuisance. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise."

[The Brain]

Some years ago I was at a fairly new art gallery building in Stockholm and there was a viewing gallery that looked straight into people's apartments. I remember thinking about this at the time. I don't recall if there was a sign on the theme "don't take photos of people's homes" or something but IIRC something suggested that the situation had been brought to some kind of attention.

[Tamas]

We also shouldn't forget that Tate Modern is a dreadfully boring place, an exhibition of clever hacks taking stupid snobs for a ride.

[Sheilbh]

Have you read the majority judgement? I suspect not, as they deal with all the points you make.

I did - but I think they're wrong. And not for the first time with this Supreme Court overturning a Court of Appeal judgement - don't necessarily totally agree with Court of Appeal, which I've not read in this case, but there's been a few where I think they got it right and the Supreme Court's overturned it. Not sure why.

But also I think it goes beyond the legal points of there's a balance of residents' rights, public rights, public space and private rights to use land, especially in urban areas. This is an example but more generally I'm not sure we have the balance right in this country.

5. The court distinguished between ordinary usage of neighbouring buildings in city centres - other residential buildings, offices etc with a specific viewing gallery in which the residents are subject - as the court put it:

"The trial judge, Mann J, found as facts that a very significant number of visitors to the Tate's viewing gallery display an interest in the interiors of the claimants' flats. Some look, some peer, some photograph, some wave. Occasionally binoculars are used. Many photographs showing the interiors of the flats have been posted on social
media."

"Neither of these forms of "overlooking", however, is the subject of this claim. The claimants' complaint is not that the top floor of the Blavatnik Building (or its southern walkway) overlooks their flats; nor is it that in the ordinary course people in that building look at the claimants' flats and can see inside. In fact, the claimants made
it expressly clear at the trial that they do not object to the fact that they are overlooked from the Blavatnik Building: see [2019] Ch 369, para 190. What they complain about is the particular use made by Tate of the top floor. They complain that the Tate actively invites members of the public to visit and look out from that location in every direction, including at the claimants' flats situated only 30 odd metres away; that the Tate permits and invites this activity to continue without interruption for the best part of the day every day of the week; and that this has the predictable consequence that a very significant number of the roughly half a million people who visit the Tate's viewing gallery each year peer into the claimants' flats and take photographs of them. To argue that this use of the defendant's land cannot be a nuisance because "overlooking" (in the Court of Appeal's sense) cannot be a nuisance is like arguing that, because ordinary household noise caused by neighbours does not constitute a nuisance, inviting a brass band to practise all day every day in my back garden cannot be an actionable nuisance; or that because the smell of your neighbour's cooking at mealtimes is something you have to put up with, noxious
odours from industrial production cannot be an actionable nuisance. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise."

But again on this Tate is the busiest gallery in the country and I believe it has been for a couple of decades. They had planning permission for a viewpoint - maybe it would be better if it was for private events or the like but it seems likely that they would always encourage the public there (and there'd be a lot of public in the busiest gallery in the third most visited city in the world).

The character of the South Bank is that it is that it is a very popular, centrally located public space with multiple cultural venues (many of which have viewpoints) and good views. That is what made it valuable as place for luxury flats. But I think that means the public should have priority over private rights who've moved into that space - I don't think you can expect to live in a glass-walled flat in that space or, say, Hyde Park without expecting people to be looking through the windows. It's more intrusive precisely because it's a set of flats in the middle of touristy and public London (which is different than if it was in, say, the Barbican) - but that's what the South Bank has been for years, not a commercial or residential area where you won't get members of the public gawping.

More generally I don't agree with those analogies - noise and smell (or light) are physical facts that affect neighbouring land. Someone's gaze doesn't. Ultimately they're all somewhat subjective in terms of how people feel about them but some are responding to physical changes in their environment; this isn't it's entirely about how an individual subjectively feels about/responds to a gaze/being seen. I think there's a good reason overlooking was not a nuisance.

And this is the proximity/view from the public platform:


I'm not sure the public actually really notice them or that the nuisance they're complaining of is being committed based on that picture. I get all the attempts to emphasis how this is a one off, very specific case on very particular facts - but I don't see how it won't have a big impact on how overlooking is viewed by planning departments etc. It seems problematic for big windows and glass walls heavy developments.

The original finding of fact on people looking in was a little more couched as well (although not keen on his repeated digs at the worth of having a panoramic view of South London ).

We also shouldn't forget that Tate Modern is a dreadfully boring place, an exhibition of clever hacks taking stupid snobs for a ride.

It's free

Some years ago I was at a fairly new art gallery building in Stockholm and there was a viewing gallery that looked straight into people's apartments. I remember thinking about this at the time. I don't recall if there was a sign on the theme "don't take photos of people's homes" or something but IIRC something suggested that the situation had been brought to some kind of attention.

My understanding is there were signs up about that sort of thing.

[Sheilbh]

Also as it is more my area directly - so not nuisance specifically.

There is a line of cases and this is another, I think, that is developing a really expansive view of rights to privacy in a way that's entirely emerged from the courts in privacy actions and now this. It's not from legislation and a lot of the issues haven't really been considered by parliament.

All of them involve some balancing of individual rights to privacy and public interests of different kinds and I think the cases have developed in a way that really gets the balance wrong in my view.

They all often include a line saying "of course there is no general right to privacy" but the decisions are generally at the point where we're not far off.

Edit: And obviously the balance is wrong because judges are developing this incrementally, stage by stage. How you balance it against other rights and interests, what the trade-offs are etc is the job of a legislature - and I think we need parliament at some point to look at reforming the law of privacy.

[Gups]

But the court didn't find a right of privacy save insofar as it interferes with the ordinary enjoyment of ones property. I agree with the majority that overlooking (if excessive as in this case) can interfere with enjoyment of ones property in principle just as noise, smells or fumes can.

I'm in the SC in April. They better not overturn the CoA in my case

 

[garbon]

I've been on that platform and despite how that photos looks, you can see pretty easily into those flats.

[HVC]

I've been on that platform and despite how that photos looks, you can see pretty easily into those flats.

Perv

[Sheilbh]

I'm in the SC in April. They better not overturn the CoA in my case

Good luck!

(But I don't trust them )

[Sheilbh]

Just saw an article and front page that Liz Truss is "plotttinng" a comeback. I'm not reading that nonsense.

But I just don't understand how it's humanly possible to have as little capacity for self-reflection as Liz Truss

PM for 44 days (10 of which were a period of national mourning when politics was suspended), caused a market panic, resigned in disgrace, had this type of polling () - and think you can, or should, stage a comeback

[HVC]

Only way us up from rock bottom!


It actually took me too long to find her. Wasn't expecting it to be that far bottom left 

[Sheilbh]

Only way us up from rock bottom!


It actually took me too long to find her. Wasn't expecting it to be that far left 

The x axis is time. She's lucky to be on the chart at all

[Admiral Yi]

I'm surprised by Sunak's poor showing.  Seems to me he has run a pretty much trouble free show.