tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/ombudsman-14804/articlesOmbudsman – The Conversation2017-02-08T15:37:03Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/724402017-02-08T15:37:03Z2017-02-08T15:37:03ZSouth Africa’s mental health watchdogs must be given voice and teeth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155831/original/image-20170207-30925-190u2ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Legally mandated oversight bodies should be integral to post-apartheid consultative and cooperative governance.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In February 2017 a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/338095858/Esidimeni-Report#from_embed">report</a> was released about the deaths of multiple mentally ill patients in Gauteng – South Africa’s richest province. We now know that at least 94 vulnerable mentally ill or disabled South Africans died after effectively being abandoned by those who, by law, had a duty to ensure their safety and well-being. The Health Ombudsman’s report was subtitled: “No Guns: 94+ Silent Deaths and Still Counting”.</p>
<p>The scale and depth of the human rights violations will only become clear in the months, perhaps even years, ahead. </p>
<p>What’s extremely worrying is that there are many other people across the country in equally precarious situations. This will remain the case for as long as South Africa doesn’t have effective oversight structures for the mentally and physically disabled, and the abandoned aged – especially those who are poor and dependent on others.</p>
<p>These deaths were the consequence of inappropriate accommodation and treatment, and neglect. If more deaths like these are to be avoided – and the continuing isolation of thousands of “silenced” people is to end – South Africa needs to examine its soul very deeply. </p>
<p>It must also put into practice the laudable intentions of its Constitution by implementing existing legal provisions. South Africa’s laws create oversight and advisory bodies that ought to be active, integral agents of the post-apartheid consultative and cooperative governance ethos. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.hpcsa.co.za/Uploads/editor/UserFiles/downloads/legislations/acts/mental_health_care_act_17_of_2002.pdf">Mental Health Care Act</a> contains many legal checks and balances which have clearly not functioned in practice. If they had, patients wouldn’t have been discharged and dispatched – sometimes in open trucks – to unlicensed, unsuitable and underfunded distant facilities. </p>
<p>By law, every mental health care patient should have an independent watchdog body safeguarding their interests. There’s legal provision for these structures – but they must be given a voice. And teeth. </p>
<h2>Systems should be in place</h2>
<p>The Mental Health Care Act of 2002, as amended in 2004, moved mental health care provision out of national government’s hands, into the hands of the provinces. This, as Professor Jonathan Burns <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0256-95742008000100023">wrote</a> in 2008, was driven by the principle that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>mental health care users have a right to be treated near to their homes and within their communities, as far as possible [and they] have a right to be provided with care, treatment and rehabilitation, with the least possible restriction of their freedom. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Under the act, Mental Health Review Boards were also created to be <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0256-95742008000100023">independent local ombudsmen</a>. </p>
<p>The act requires the provincial administration to establish at least one review board, or a number of district boards. It also states that these should be <a href="http://www.hpcsa.co.za/Uploads/editor/UserFiles/downloads/legislations/acts/mental_health_care_act_17_of_2002.pdf">provided</a> with the resources to enable them to perform their functions. </p>
<p>Each board must have a minimum of three members: a licensed health care practitioner; a magistrate, attorney, or advocate; and a “member of the community concerned”. What, precisely, “the community concerned” is, is open to interpretation.</p>
<p>The responsibilities of Mental Health Boards are that they must: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>consider appeals against decisions made by the head of a health establishment; </p></li>
<li><p>make decisions about assisted or involuntary mental health care, treatment and rehabilitation services; </p></li>
<li><p>consider reviews and make decisions on assisted or involuntary mental health care users;</p></li>
<li><p>make decisions regarding further care, treatment and rehabilitation after involuntary users undergo their initial 72 hour assessment after admission; </p></li>
<li><p>consider applications for transfer of mental health care users to maximum security facilities; and</p></li>
<li><p>consider periodic reports on the mental health status of mentally ill prisoners. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>The Review Board may also consult or get <a href="http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/a17-02.pdf">representations</a> from experts to perform its functions.</p>
<h2>Plagued by problems</h2>
<p>Some boards, notably in the Western Cape, are <a href="http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajpsy/article/view/83478%20the%20mental%20health%20care%20act%20no%2017%20%E2%80%93%20south%20africa.%20trials%20and%20triumphs:%202002%E2%80%932012">reportedly</a> functioning well and are “committed to championing mental health and taking initiatives to promote and advocate for mental health”. </p>
<p>But, early on it was clear that there were problems elsewhere. Most provinces struggled to find or fund the right personnel for these boards. A 2012 <a href="http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajpsy/article/view/83478%20the%20mental%20health%20care%20act%20no%2017%20%E2%80%93%20south%20africa.%20trials%20and%20triumphs:%202002%E2%80%932012">article</a>, outlined major obstacles to the effective functioning of existing Review Boards. These included poor administrative and political support, limited powers and authority, and even the refusal by some provincial health ministers to meet them.</p>
<p>Over more than a decade, numerous reports and articles in the South African Medical Journal, the South African Journal of Psychiatry, and many other platforms have pointed to a <a href="http://www.samj.org.za/index.php/samj/article/view/5569/3840%20%20http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Local/Hillcrest-Fever/kzn-mental-healthcare-in-serious-mess-20160620-2link?">sense of impending crisis</a> and of a disaster waiting to happen. </p>
<p>The Gauteng Department of Health’s decision in 2016 to transfer more than 1000 patients out of its established facilities was taken without consulting its Mental Health Review Board. The Health Ombud’s Report found that the board was “moribund, ineffective and without authority”. </p>
<h2>Substance over form</h2>
<p>The Ombudman’s report recommends that the board’s terms of reference must be clearly defined and strengthened and that its independence and authority should be re-established. </p>
<p>It’s almost become a platitude to state that it will take political commitment and budgetary resources to give such bodies the clout they need to carry out their responsibilities. </p>
<p>When finances are tight and responsibility deferred or misunderstood, it’s been too easy to evade sticking to the requirements of the law. </p>
<p>It’s time South Africans realised that form can’t substitute for substance. And when the voices of the vulnerable are unheard, more lives may be in danger.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72440/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Parle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The lives of South Africa’s most vulnerable remain in danger for as long as its mental health oversight bodies remain dysfunctional and disregarded.Julie Parle, Honorary Associate Professor in History, University of KwaZulu-NatalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/632092016-08-16T19:39:37Z2016-08-16T19:39:37ZStronger oversight may protect South Africans from misleading advertising<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134396/original/image-20160817-3608-gs3ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Self-regulation of advertisements in South Africa is facing a rethink.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa has an effective and functioning advertising self-regulator. But it doesn’t always work as it should. The self-regulatory regime in place cannot do enough to protect consumers because it is based on the willing cooperation of advertisers. </p>
<p>The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa’s (ASASA) <a href="http://www.asasa.org.za/codes/advertising-code-of-practice">Advertising Code of Practice</a> requires advertisements to be legal, decent, honest and truthful. It is based on an <a href="http://www.easa-alliance.org/">international code</a> and is similar to advertising codes in most developed and developing countries, such as the UK, Australia and Malaysia. But ASASA is not a statutory body and it does not have the teeth to enforce its rulings on non-members. It cannot impose penalties on advertisers and media owners who do not comply. </p>
<p>There are some reforms on the horizon that promise to change this by making ASASA an ombudsman with increased powers. South Africa currently has the only functioning self-regulatory advertising system on the continent and this may provide even more protection for consumers. </p>
<h2>How the self-regulatory system works</h2>
<p>The aim of ASASA is to protect consumers, ensure fair play between competitors and make sure that the advertising profession is not brought into disrepute.</p>
<p>There are an agreed set of rules and procedures to resolve disputes about advertising. ASASA does not initiate its own investigations. It only reacts to complaints from the public or from competing marketers. Its website makes it easy for a consumer to lodge an online complaint without costs.</p>
<p>It is an independent, nonprofit company that is funded by the marketing communications industry. </p>
<p>ASASA considers valid complaints, allows the relevant advertiser to respond and gets expert opinion if required. It then issues a ruling and publishes the result on its website. Decisions are based on its code and supporting appendices that cover specialist industries, such as <a href="http://www.asasa.org.za/codes/advertising-code-of-practice/appendix-a-alcohol-advertising-ara">alcohol</a>, <a href="http://www.asasa.org.za/codes/advertising-code-of-practice/appendix-d-advertising-for-slimming">slimming</a> and <a href="http://www.asasa.org.za/codes/advertising-code-of-practice/appendix-b-code-of-cosmetics">cosmetics</a>. </p>
<p>A complainant or the advertiser can appeal a ruling. </p>
<p>The success of South Africa’s advertising self-regulatory process depends on an active citizenry, and on the compliance of the advertiser. It is up to them to withdraw or amend an advertisement after an adverse ruling. The regulator has a range of sanctioning processes that even allow it to instruct media owners not to publish an advertisement from a repeat offender.</p>
<h2>Regulator on the defensive</h2>
<p>Two recent landmark court cases – one in <a href="http://www.camcheck.co.za/power-report-watchdog-in-chains-as-advertiser-fights-back/">2015</a> and another in <a href="http://www.camcheck.co.za/court-action-herbex-vs-asa/">2016</a> – set an important precedent for the future of advertising self-regulation in South Africa. </p>
<p>ASASA, before the court cases, ruled against the companies on the grounds that their advertisements were misleading and lacking substantiation. The companies then went on to challenge the authority of the regulator in <a href="http://www.camcheck.co.za/usn-herbex-antagolin-solal-and-vigro-nativa-go-to-court-to-block-asa/">court</a>.</p>
<p>The companies – <a href="http://www.herbexhealth.com/">Herbex</a>, a marketer of foodstuffs and complimentary medicines, and the <a href="http://mnilifestyle.co.za/">Medical Nutrition Institute</a>, a company that markets a <a href="http://mnilifestyle.co.za/products/antagolin/">product</a> to combat insulin resistance – argued that they were not bound by the regulator’s codes and processes because they were not members of the association. </p>
<p>The Medical Nutrition Institute also argued that its products and advertisements were regulated by the <a href="http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/hist_reg/marsa101o1965rangnr510723/marsa101o1965rangnr510a2m2003796.html">Medicines and Related Substances Control Act</a>, the <a href="http://www.mccza.com/">Medicines Control Council</a> and the <a href="http://www.gov.za/documents/consumer-protection-act">Consumer Protection Act</a>.</p>
<p>The problem is that neither the <a href="http://www.mccza.com/">Medicines Control Council</a> nor the <a href="http://www.thencc.gov.za/">National Consumer Commission</a> are equipped to assess whether an advertising claim is misleading, unsubstantiated or exaggerated. </p>
<p>Both companies won their cases. The court ruled that the regulator did not have jurisdiction over non-members, and that non-members did not have to participate in its processes. In the Medical Nutrition Institute case, the court even issued an interdict against the regulator for interfering with its advertising.</p>
<p>As it currently stands, an advertiser can sidestep the regulator by choosing not to be a member and therefore simply electing not to uphold the advertising code. </p>
<p>But this may be about to change.</p>
<h2>Teeth for the regulator</h2>
<p>The Department of Trade and Industry has released a <a href="http://www.gpwonline.co.za/Gazettes/Gazettes/40159_26-07_TradeIndustry.pdf">notice</a> that could strengthen the regulator’s hand. </p>
<p>The idea is to introduce an industry code and ombudsman scheme that has been proposed by the advertising and marketing industry. </p>
<p>The notice makes provision for the Minister of Trade and Industry to recognise the regulator as an ombudsman – someone appointed by the government to look after the interest of the public. The organisation will no longer be a not-for-profit company, but an entity that has the backing of a statutory body.</p>
<p>The code would apply to all marketing and advertising participants. This would mean that advertisers could no longer get around regulations by simply choosing not to subscribe to an advertising code, or by electing not to be a member of the association.</p>
<p>Advertisements that are illegal, that create serious offence, are dishonest and untrue, and that aim to deceive and exploit consumers deliberately, will have less manoeuvring space.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63209/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rudi de Lange does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The current system for regulating advertising in South Africa is dependent on the buy-in of the advertiser. But this may be about to change.Rudi de Lange, Associate Professor in Visual Communication, Tshwane University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/626542016-08-02T13:31:05Z2016-08-02T13:31:05ZConsumer justice in the dock as legal system juggles competing schemes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132756/original/image-20160802-17169-jwq74o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C153%2C6016%2C3728&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Blind to the problems?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/justice+blindfold/search.html?page=2&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=334086221">Gorosi/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>British justice remains an unequal beast. There is a big gap in access to justice if you are in a dispute over relatively low values. Imagine you have been let down by a seller on Amazon, or your used car has just collapsed on the motorway. The methods open to you to seek recompense are looking patchy at best.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/civil-courts-structure-review-final-report/">landmark report</a> by the Judiciary of England and Wales recently concluded that “the single most pervasive and indeed shocking weakness of our civil courts is that they fail to provide reasonable access to justice for the ordinary individuals”.</p>
<p>It is a painfully familiar tale. Over a century ago Sir James Matthews is said to <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21629527-cuts-take-effect-justice-system-struggling-adapt-justice-cold-climate">have observed that</a> that “in England, justice is open to all, like the Ritz Hotel”. Only those few who can afford it benefit from the full protection of the law. </p>
<p>There are a number of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes that tackle these smaller disputes outside the hugely expensive courts, such as mediation and ombudsman schemes. However, major gaps still remain, and two recent legal initiatives, as they are now, will struggle to fill them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132777/original/image-20160802-17187-m3ap73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132777/original/image-20160802-17187-m3ap73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132777/original/image-20160802-17187-m3ap73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132777/original/image-20160802-17187-m3ap73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132777/original/image-20160802-17187-m3ap73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132777/original/image-20160802-17187-m3ap73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132777/original/image-20160802-17187-m3ap73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132777/original/image-20160802-17187-m3ap73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clouding the issue.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=ih8Dl3gMoE_aJ3zGdcpSjQ&searchterm=car%20bonnet%20steam&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=18791980">Tobik/Flickr</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In February 2016, the EU launched an online <a href="https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/odr/main/index.cfm?event=main.home.chooseLanguage">dispute resolution website</a> that helps consumers to send complaints to businesses and to identify schemes they can use, but in most cases traders are not required to participate. More recently, in July 2016, the judiciary’s report recommended an online court accessible for litigants without legal representation. </p>
<h2>Resolution</h2>
<p>The EU system makes traders tell customers if they adhere to a certified ADR scheme before a transaction goes ahead. Even if they’re not signed up, they have to tell consumers with whom they are in a dispute about these schemes’ existence. So in theory, if you are stuck in a row over a delivery of vacuum cleaner parts or the fees on your current account, the trader will have to tell you which ADR schemes can resolve the dispute out of court – but in most cases they can also say that they will not use them. That leaves the consumer more confused and without an option to seek redress outside the courts.</p>
<p>The rationale behind the EU legislation is that good businesses are incentivised to engage with (and sometimes pay for) ADR schemes, which will have the effect of a trust-mark on the quality of their services. But this has simply not happened. Some sectors have forced it through for certain disputes, but it is by no means a benchmark. Indeed, most traders who are not signed up don’t inform customers about it. Those who do, bury it in the terms and conditions (T&Cs), such as <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=1040616&pop-up=1">paragraph 14 in Amazon T&Cs</a>, which rubs up against the law that requires them to provide this information in an <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:165:0001:0012:EN:PDF">easily accessible manner</a>. </p>
<p>There is a law that threatens <a href="https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/consumer-contracts/alternative-dispute-resolution">a penalty</a> of an unlimited fine and two years in prison, but this blunt tool does not assure compliance. It would be better to devote resources to awareness campaigns and enforcement.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132779/original/image-20160802-9761-kenioj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132779/original/image-20160802-9761-kenioj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132779/original/image-20160802-9761-kenioj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132779/original/image-20160802-9761-kenioj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132779/original/image-20160802-9761-kenioj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132779/original/image-20160802-9761-kenioj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132779/original/image-20160802-9761-kenioj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132779/original/image-20160802-9761-kenioj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Businesses have turned down a chance to boost trust.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/z_b_p/2854947005/in/photolist-5mhmhe-6CVkUQ-fS988V-abpomN-62sMwk-duTTvE-mhy6w5-fsuX17-5G2Cws-4XgyUr-5pdMFE-mWJ7Wa-abpp7N-qTB52M-oe5xUe-9mSVbB-dKiJ2U-ax12K2-cAdg29-4diXaC-ohaBKC-8foV8J-aqdJ3E-abpp1Y-6gKaM1-btjd6B-ptGdGd-abpoL9-e4F4cg-CA5Fx-abpoF3-e4F45z-DTQUi-abpoTu-nX35zb-8qoBUK-g3mM7N-9RK5ob-e4F3Wx-d86xQC-bXgaqj-5YkwG1-cdJ7ub-i67wYD-abmydV-it1aJ-abmxA8-57n21W-hkTr2q-ECocMs">Zach Putnam/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The online court</h2>
<p>There are systems that work better. The <a href="https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolving-travel-problems/How-the-CAA-can-help/How-the-CAA-can-help/">CAA scheme</a> for airline disputes and the <a href="http://www.arn.se/">Swedish ADR scheme</a> offer possible blueprints for full coverage, but neither is likely to be taken up more widely. </p>
<p>That’s why the proposal for an <a href="https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ccsr-interim-report-dec-15-final1.pdf">online court</a>, endorsed by the judiciary and the government and expected to be rolled out by the end of next year, could be so important. It <a href="https://theconversation.com/online-courts-must-not-compromise-fairness-37692">would be a departure</a> from the traditional adversarial process. The court would operate as a tiered procedure with three main stages for most claims under £25,000.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132782/original/image-20160802-5459-1qidxlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132782/original/image-20160802-5459-1qidxlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132782/original/image-20160802-5459-1qidxlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132782/original/image-20160802-5459-1qidxlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132782/original/image-20160802-5459-1qidxlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132782/original/image-20160802-5459-1qidxlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132782/original/image-20160802-5459-1qidxlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132782/original/image-20160802-5459-1qidxlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Binary decisions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=e5178fERcJYWsxkDD4M0Fg&searchterm=judge%20computer&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=424138243">enzozo/Flickr</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>You would get an automated “diagnosis” process where simple online advice was offered after you filled in a claim form. In the second stage, your complaint would be passed to a case officer from the court, who would offer a mix of conciliation services and case management. This may include another judge providing a recommendation (an early neutral evaluation). Ideally, the case officers will settle the majority of cases. But for the system to work well, parties will need strong incentives to settle before they resort to the next stage, where a trial judge would make a final determination.</p>
<h2>Combination therapy</h2>
<p>And so in effect, we may end up with a patchy and voluntary ADR system, working alongside but not quite in tandem with an online court that is more formal, slower and probably more expensive. Like the rest of the civil courts, the online court is expected to be <a href="http://www.cartercamerons.com/moj-proposed-reforms-to-civil-court-fees/">self-financed</a> by the users (especially consumer claimants) through court fees. And so it will not work well for many low-value consumer disputes in the hundreds of pounds or lower.</p>
<p>So how might we end up with a system which addresses this gap in our access to justice, using the tools we currently have at our disposal? In short, how can we integrate the two systems?</p>
<p>Let’s deal with the basics first. Regulators should ensure that traders comply with the information requirements and have incentives, such as a recognisable online label, to opt in to an ADR scheme. There should also be a residual ADR scheme for low value consumer disputes that issues recommendations and publishes their outcomes. Online court case officers should seek to move people towards early resolution through the ADR schemes or expert review. And there need to be cost incentives in the online court procedure that push people towards the ADR system at all points, escalating as the process reaches full trial. </p>
<p>It boils down to an acceptance in the online court process that the ADR system offers a simpler and cheaper alternative. An escape chute into that system should be on offer at all times accompanied by incentives that empower parties to settle their private disputes rather than have them determined by a judge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62654/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pablo Cortes consults for NetNeutrals EU and has previously advised the European Commission. He is a member of the ODR Advisory Group of the Civil Justice Council. His research has been generously supported by the Nuffield Foundation. The usual disclaimers apply.
</span></em></p>Access to justice is still deeply unequal when it comes to low level disputes over bad service or faulty goods.Pablo Cortes, Chair Professor, University of LeicesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/581622016-04-21T03:27:28Z2016-04-21T03:27:28ZStronger role for ombudsman is the key to protecting bank customers<p>The federal government responded to calls for a banking royal commission <a href="https://theconversation.com/morrison-warns-banks-not-to-pass-on-new-user-pays-impost-to-finance-asic-reform-58136">with a raft of changes</a> to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) but for consumers, <a href="https://theconversation.com/comminsure-case-shows-its-time-to-target-reckless-misconduct-in-banking-55748">who bore the brunt</a> of the recent financial scandals, it is further potential changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that may matter the most.</p>
<p>The media has focused on recommendation for change at ASIC, where the majority of recommendations announced yesterday were outcomes of the <a href="http://www.asic.gov.au/capability-review">ASIC Capability Review</a>. The review was itself was recommended by the <a href="http://fsi.gov.au/">2015 Financial System Inquiry</a>, which commenced began back in 2014. </p>
<p>It is good to see movement on these recommendations, though some of the fine points such as the user-pays funding model and ASIC’s new recommended internal governance structure may remain subject to debate.</p>
<p>Equally if not more important for consumers is the government’s new review - also announced yesterday - of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and other external dispute resolution schemes. This is where average Australians takes up cases of carelessness, wrongdoing, negligence and fraud every day. According to reports, the FOS alone received 30,000 complaints last year. It is the coal face. </p>
<p>The FOS, itself operating under ASIC’s regulatory guidance, is the natural place for consumers to find their voice. It is an independent body for dispute resolution, keeping cases away from the courts with the aim of enabling consumers to win remedial action at lower cost and in less time. There are reported issues around about the response time of staff at the FOS, and the overall resources available to support work volumes and complexity, but the need for a strong FOS appears to be undisputed.</p>
<p><a href="http://fsi.gov.au/consultation/submissions20140520/">Submissions to the original Financial System Inquiry</a> in early 2014 attest to the role of the FOS, and hint at its potential effectiveness. In one submission, the <a href="http://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/04/Consumer_Credit_Legal_Centre_NSW.pdf">Consumer Credit Legal Centre in NSW</a> provides case study after case study of consumers who went to the FOS seeking help for unpaid insurance claims, fraudulent mortgages and irresponsible lending practices. </p>
<p>In an ideal world, these circumstances would not arise – but no system is perfect, or immune from abuses. The submission of <a href="http://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/04/CHOICE.pdf">consumer group Choice</a> to the inquiry also recognised the role of external dispute resolution schemes for both consumers and the benefit of the overall system. </p>
<p>In light of ongoing issues and scandals in the financial sector, it might be reasonable to consider further beefing up the resources and powers of the FOS. Policing a system through high level surveillance is one way to detect problems; gathering intelligence from the grassroots is another. </p>
<p>But the system is messy. In addition to the FOS, the external dispute resolution landscape includes the Credit and Investment Ombudsman and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, each with their own guidelines of where and how they can get involved in a case. This is a confusing menu of options for the consumer, even after the 2008 consolidation that brought the number of schemes down from eight to three. </p>
<p>The role, powers and governance of these bodies will now be the subject of another independent review, with an expert panel to be convened and asked to report back by the end of this year. Among other items, this review might consider removing these bodies from ASIC. </p>
<p>Such a separation would leave ASIC free to concentrate on its core role: ensuring market integrity through surveillance and enforcement. It would relieve ASIC of the responsibility for consumer protection in financial services – the only industry where ASIC instead of the ACCC has a mandated role in relation to consumer protection. </p>
<p>A suggestion to relocate responsibility for consumer protection in financial services from ASIC to ACCC was <a href="http://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/08/Erskine_Alex.pdf">one of the suggestions made by Alex Erskine</a>, in a paper submitted to the Financial Services Inquiry and published by the Australian Centre for Financial Studies in 2014. In the paper, Erskine argues that ASIC suffers from being charged with six policy objectives and insufficient tools – thus failing the Tinbergen Principle that holds that every single policy objective needs to have at least one policy tool if it is to be realised. </p>
<p>This analysis merits careful consideration. In every other industrial sector in Australia, the ACCC is charged not only with consumer protection, but also competition. </p>
<p>The importance of competition in promoting efficiency and encouraging satisfactory consumer outcomes was a theme that carried through the findings and recommendations of the Financial Services Inquiry, and remains a subject of great public debate in relation to the financial services sector. </p>
<p>ACCC holds sufficient power to investigate any matter of unconscionable conduct, whether within a single firm or on an industry-wide level. It is also the competition regulator. These activities sit within its core mandate and institutional expertise. What is the role of this regulator in Australia’s financial system?</p>
<p>The opus magnum of the Financial System Inquiry continues to be written, as the industry now awaits the outcome of another highly significant review.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58162/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Auster does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Out of the many changes the federal government has made to ASIC, the review of the Financial Ombudsman will have the biggest impact on customers.Amy Auster, Executive Director, Australian Centre for Financial Studies Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/506622015-12-14T19:27:59Z2015-12-14T19:27:59ZWe all have a role in protecting democracy’s unwritten rules<p>Australians might well be taken aback to discover how feebly many of the processes that constitute a robust democratic system are formally protected in this country. What safeguards them are conventions or informal norms rather than constitutional provisions or laws. </p>
<p>This means we can’t rely on institutions coming in on our behalf and imposing sanctions when conventions are broken. We have to trust the robustness of our political culture; we must trust that citizens and people in office will insist democratic conventions are observed and that those who flaunt them pay a reputational, professional or electoral price. </p>
<p>One such basic democratic convention is respect for the separation of powers. This traditionally refers to the executive, the parliament and the judiciary. Another is respect for the independence of statutory officers, such as ombudsmen and human rights commissioners.</p>
<h2>In the beginning</h2>
<p>To appreciate why respecting the independent operation of these different arms of democratic government is so important, let’s take a look at one of the classic texts on modern democratic government, the <a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm">Federalist Papers</a>, written by the founders of the US political system. </p>
<p>Having an all-too-rare and precious opportunity to actually construct a political system embodying the principles they held dear, the federalists identified institutional designs to realise freedom and equality.</p>
<p>They decided to allocate different types of powers to different branches of government. This did this to ensure one part of government – or one small group – couldn’t gain a monopoly over political power. The move had the added advantage of creating parallel lines of review or appeal, so that no one office would hold the trump card. </p>
<p>Democratic political systems establish statutory authorities for a similar reason. It’s a way of ensuring that other parts of government administer laws and carry out their duties in a way that respects higher-order principles, such as freedom of information, non-corruption and fundamental human rights. </p>
<h2>Tethered camels</h2>
<p>Even though our political representatives are mandated to represent our interests and respect the law, we put these statutory officers in place because we understand there’s always a risk that expediency, bias or self-interest may prevent politicians observing their duties. Trust in Allah, as the Sufi saying goes, but tether your camel. </p>
<p>But unlike the judiciary, whose lines of authority are formally separated from those of the legislature, statutory officers are appointed by and ultimately answerable to the ministers under whose portfolio they sit. </p>
<p>The attorney-general, for instance, selects and appoints the human rights commissioners and is ultimately responsible for acting on, or ignoring, their recommendations. Respecting their independence, then, is a matter of political civility or conventional forbearance, rather than a legal requirement. </p>
<p>I say forbearance because, remember, those officers are there to point out where their political bosses have fallen short and to provide advice on how they might do better. It’s unsurprising that such advice isn’t always appreciated. </p>
<h2>Avoiding enfeeblement</h2>
<p>Nevertheless, we expect our political representatives to respect the advice they get from statutory officers. Not because they enjoy having their failures made public, but because we hope they’re committed to the integrity of our democratic political system, which can only operate when such checks are in place. </p>
<p>This is why the former <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-abbott-mishandled-the-attack-on-triggs-20150301-13rsy9.html">prime minister’s</a> and <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">attorney-general’s</a> attacks on the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission this year, over her <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/forgotten_children_2014.pdf">report</a> on children in immigration detention, were so troubling. </p>
<p>The substantive issues were alarming and provoked strongly held and deeply divergent views on how Australia ought to respond to asylum seekers. But the rhetorical attacks <a href="https://theconversation.com/brandis-and-dutton-play-some-dirty-pool-in-their-fight-with-gillian-triggs-42948">went beyond</a> political differences.</p>
<p>As the highest political officers in our country, it’s incumbent on the prime minister and ministers not only to respect the independence of statutory authorities, but to model such respect. Doing so demonstrates the importance of upholding the democratic political culture to everyone in the country. When their actions and words model an ethos where political differences are more important than democratic conventions, we’re all enfeebled. </p>
<h2>The heart of democracy</h2>
<p>Like virtually every other contemporary nation-state, Australia also holds itself to account by signing up to international human rights treaties. We thereby promise the other parties to those conventions that we’ll respect certain fundamental rights. </p>
<p>When we do so, we also agree that independent monitors will periodically check up on how well we’re observing our commitments. These monitors aren’t some sort of international government that lords it over national governments. Rather, they are expert authorities we collectively establish to strengthen the meaning of our commitments. </p>
<p>But when then-prime minister Tony Abbott responded to negative comments concerning our treatment of asylum seekers from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture by <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-australians-sick-of-being-lectured-to-by-united-nations-after-report-finds-antitorture-breach-20150309-13z3j0.html">saying that</a> Australians were “sick of being lectured to by the United Nations”, he acted as though some interloper had intruded into the inner sanctum of our national affairs.</p>
<p>Abbott wasn’t merely expressing a difference in political opinion; he demonstrated his disrespect for the convention of honouring our international agreements and respecting the people we put in place to ensure we do so. When countries that pride themselves on their democratic credentials flinch at being called to account, they signal to others how disposable such principles actually are.</p>
<p>However much we bootstrap our democracy with laws and constitutional provisions, its lifeblood will always be our respect for a democratic culture and the informal conventions that breathe life into it.</p>
<p>This might make the whole idea of democracy seem intolerably fragile and easy to topple. But perhaps democracy relies on active assent rather than fear of sanction because it’s the only form of security worthy of a system that claims the principle of freedom, and of citizens who claim the right to govern ourselves. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is part of a series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/breaking-political-conventions">breaking political conventions</a>. Look out for more articles exploring various political conventions in the coming days.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50662/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danielle Celermajer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Laws play their role in regulating our governments, but so does our own respect for political conventions. And the way these are upheld goes to the heart of our freedom as democratic people.Danielle Celermajer, Professor of Sociology and Social Policy, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/372962015-02-06T14:43:04Z2015-02-06T14:43:04ZWhy a US battle over corporate hijacking of science matters in Europe<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71316/original/image-20150206-28618-jrk26j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Corporate infiltration of expert advice is a battleground on both sides of the Atlantic</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=KE7knLdxnD3g2N7JAQF1-Q&searchterm=government%20lobbying&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=49492441">Igor Stevanovic</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On both sides of the Atlantic it would appear that evidence-based policy is in jeopardy. The scientific advice that government and regulators rely upon to inform their decision-making is under attack. In the US the assault comes from the usual suspects, as activist Republican representatives continue <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/28/the-gops-plan-to-stop-environmental-protections-attack-science/">their attempts</a> to restrict the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out its functions. </p>
<p>One proposal is the <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/the-gops-new-plot-to-eliminate-science-from-lawmaking.html">EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act</a>. Among its provisions are proposals to restrict experts from “advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work.”</p>
<p>While such a measure could in theory prevent the very remote possibility of a scientist simply self-certifying their own work, in practice this is likely to debar those with most recognised expertise on a subject from offering advice and public service. </p>
<p>Perverse as this may appear it pales in comparison to the suggestion that scientists with financial ties to industry should be allowed to advise the EPA – as long as they declare such funding. This seems to drive a coach and horses through what is conventionally understood as a conflict of interest. </p>
<p>Admittedly the act is <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/01/29/16672/republican-bills-take-aim-epa-science-rulemaking">likely to be</a> vetoed by the White House. Another which may not is the Secret Science Reform Act, which aims to increase transparency by making the EPA reveal all the data it cites in making recommendations. <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/the-gops-new-plot-to-eliminate-science-from-lawmaking.html">Critics fear</a> that in practice, it will give opponents to regulation a basis for making legal challenges to scientific studies that reach undesirable conclusions. </p>
<h2>Europe and experts</h2>
<p>While those who follow science policy may well be inured to this latest episode in the long-running campaign by the Republican right to dismantle public health and environmental protections in the US, they may not be so used to similar battles taking place in Europe. </p>
<p>Although the stakes are equally high, the politics at play in Europe are quite different from the US context. For a start the pressure in Brussels comes from the Left rather than the Right, and has been growing for a number of years. Second, this issue has crept onto the political agenda at a particularly sensitive moment, when the European institutions are keen to be seen to be responsive to public opinion. </p>
<p>With little fanfare the European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, <a href="https://euobserver.com/justice/127440">last week issued</a> a recommendation to the European Commission to make its expert groups more balanced and transparent, having launched an inquiry into the subject last May. Expert groups are little known outside the Brussels bubble, but play an important advisory role. </p>
<p>They partly fulfil the function that civil-service experts play at a national level – a key difference between the European Commission and national governments is that the Brussels bureaucracy which supports EU policy developers is much smaller than the myth-making of Eurosceptics would have you believe. </p>
<p>As a consequence, the European Commission is more reliant on outside advice, and expert groups are one means of accessing scientific and technical expertise. The row in Europe at present is not about the principle of scientific input, but the practice of how it is supplied and where it is sourced. The accountability of this system has been brought into serious question for the first time. </p>
<p>The ombudsman’s inquiry into the composition of the groups advising the commission revealed concerns about imbalance and transparency. This bore out the reservations of the European Parliament, which has previously blocked the budget for expert groups in order to force the commission to review this system. The parliament also wants the commission to address the almost total lack of transparency about its advisors and find ways of making it accountable. </p>
<p>The critique is <a href="http://www.alter-eu.org/documents/2011/12/expert-groups">shared by</a> various NGOs who have been concerned about the dominance of industry representatives on these expert bodies. Indeed, the ombudsman concludes that it is not possible to adequately and consistently review the composition of these bodies and there are no criteria for distinguishing between economic and non-economic interests represented in these groups. </p>
<h2>Spot the difference</h2>
<p>Although the terminology used in the current science spats in the EU and US is similar, their meanings are quite different. In the US when conservatives talk about balance, this is code for greater industry influence and more industry friendly experts. In Europe balance refers to better representation for civil society and non-economic interests. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71320/original/image-20150206-28618-1wgxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71320/original/image-20150206-28618-1wgxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71320/original/image-20150206-28618-1wgxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71320/original/image-20150206-28618-1wgxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71320/original/image-20150206-28618-1wgxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71320/original/image-20150206-28618-1wgxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71320/original/image-20150206-28618-1wgxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/71320/original/image-20150206-28618-1wgxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">TTIP makes Capitol Hill battle matter to Europe more than usual.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ucumari/2517968101/in/photolist-byB4Qr-pDz5Sj-osNRWj-osNRNd-nFtXas-dmxnNr-dfrV9C-bPPTmt-8gwwbK-eH9pHB-oX6yLX-4Qvfc8-oJxoNU-orVh3J-ofNs43-mGUmZ6-fgYKhK-dXfE9K-bDcvEh-pkMW2X-dMA5u1-d3WtE5-6Mza5u-oueJfg-jspXPH-j4B85T-hk7ArL-jPsEHP-pqZgDG-hSBXpc-pR9o9q-e3fwgV-pkMW3i-5DMDsk-pT5EYX-o2SSSs-kJ6SDz-krvd8m-kh1u9R-jsxsvj-e5R6G8-iswmKQ-ehzGdr-gbZXWF-ffdc2n-hG7XYP-nWnvaU-nzVedx-ot1d14-cyMZq">Valerie</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Why does all this matter? For one thing, concerns about the corporate capture of expert advisory groups in Europe are hardly allayed by the ombudsman’s findings that she can’t distinguish between the economic and non-economic interests represented in the groups. There is also the fact that previous commissions have had a habit of ignoring her office.</p>
<p>This issue is emerging just as the EU is <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html">seeking to negotiate</a> a new trade deal with the US – the most transparent trade deal ever if you choose to believe the commission hype – not that there is much competition for this particular accolade. </p>
<p>The shadow of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is significant. Should an agreement be concluded, it will in all likelihood require harmonisation of regulatory standards between the US and EU. This would mean that public protections on environmental and health issues may change significantly. What happens to regulation in the US is therefore particularly important to Europe at present – and vice versa.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37296/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will is a steering committee member of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation in Europe. </span></em></p>On both sides of the Atlantic it would appear that evidence-based policy is in jeopardy. The scientific advice that government and regulators rely upon to inform their decision-making is under attack…Will Dinan, Lecturer, Communications, Media and Culture, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.