Facing down trade union bullies

British Airways trolley dollies wanted to go on strike over the 12 days of Xmas. The Supreme Court decided the ballot had 'irregularities' and stopped it. So relief for passengers. I'm pleased for them, and delighted that the would-be strikers have been given a judicial caning. They think their pay isn’t good enough – even though they’re paid more than cabin crew on other airlines, by and large.

Well we’d all like job security and cushy numbers in this day and age, wouldn’t we? BA are fighting for their very survival, cutting costs wherever they can, just like the rest of the airline industry, and indeed like public and private companies all over the world. I work for a charity, and I’ve had a pay freeze (effectively a pay cut). Our pensions are about to be ‘reformed’, which no doubt means reduced. Do I go on strike? Do I hell. I get on with it because we’re in a worldwide recession and I’m lucky to have a job at all. Withholding my labour will have consequences for many disabled and vulnerable children that rely on our organisation. And there are also plenty of people who would do my job for a lot less money, and I well aware of it.

Watching the union UNITE doing their best to destroy their own industry would be hilarious for the irony if it wasn't for the fact that being unemployed is no better for society. Even people trying to commit suicide have the right to life. If you saw someone trying to jump off Beachy Head you'd try and stop them. Especially if they were going to leave their family destitute. But I suppose you can't stop some people.

Maybe UNITE think we’re still living in the 1970s when trade unions could shaft the public whenever they didn’t get what they wanted. So their plan was to inconvenience millions of people around the most important holiday of the year – when people want to see their children and families. Which would probably have been the death knell for BA as no-one would trust them again. The airline industry has never really recovered from 9/11; then we had a credit crunch and now we’re in a recession. The whole industry is on its knees. The arrogance of the unions is staggering.

I’m not against the right to strike. Everyone has the right to withhold their labour. Sometimes you may have to strike to protect yourself and your family. It’s enshrined in British law and (I think) international labour agreements. But this is not a health and safety issue or a protest against exploitation. It’s because cabin crew want better treatment. Don’t we all? I care more about the millions of passengers. Leaving them stranded to further the unions own pay is verging on the immoral.

For some unions, withholding labour has become a tool to brandish over any dispute of any kind, even when the consequences are totally self-defeating. It’s become the weapon of choice. The RMT in London Underground are a perfect example of this.

BA’s management quality seems to be poor. BA has been battered by the recession and by canny competitors like Virgin. It has a £3.7billion hole in its pensions. It is staring into oblivion, like many other famous carriers. We’re all finding it tough in a recession. When BA goes bust and the cabin crew are on the dole then just mayge they will have second thoughts.

BA still retains many of the characteristics of an old nationalised company, despite its private status. Its cabin staff are well paid compared to the industry average. They have nothing to complain about, they have it good. This could be the start of a return of union militancy, which does tend to rear its ugly head during hard economic times. The British economy is being kept afloat by cuts to the pay and benefits of private sector workers. Some public sector workers, by contrast, think they deserve some sort of special status. And of course they have their guaranteed pensions, which the rest of us have to fund. It’s high time to change that.

There are legions of unemployed who would jump at the chance to serve drinks on a plane and travel about the place getting drunk, or whatever. And they’d do it for less money. And they probably wouldn’t strike because they’d be glad they had a job in a recession. There are plenty of Polish girls who would join up I’m sure, and I’d prefer to fly with them anyway. They’re cuter.

Sports Personality : Oxymoron

I didn’t watch the absurd ‘Sports Personality of the Year’ award, but I heard that Ryan Giggs won it. Baffling. What did he win it for, exactly?

Not his personality, surely. Sports personality seems like an oxymoron to me. Giggs seems like a fairly nice bloke, without the arrogance of many footballers, but how this sets him apart from all other sportsmen and women I don’t know.

What’s the award for, exactly? It’s obviously not for ‘personality’. Is it for achievement? Improvement? Consistency? Comebacks? A combination of all the above? If so a far more worthy winner would have been Beth Tweddle, the gymnast; or maybe Jenson Button; or David Haye. World champions all. The award is basically a popularity contest. Giggs isn’t even the best footballer in the UK at the moment. He could win an award for longevity and consistency, but the ‘BBC Consistency and Longevity in Sport Award’ doesn’t have the same ring about it.

It does reveal the stranglehold that football has on sport in this country though. And that sport is now more about ‘personalities’ (whatever that means, exactly) than sporting prowess.

Sporting prowess in itself is completely overrated. So what if someone can swing a golf club better than me, or bounce a ball into a hoop more accurately? So what? Sports are arbitrary. There are many sports that don’t make it into the Olympics, that don’t have professional leagues, and yet are no less ‘sports’ in their own right. They roll a large cheese down a hill in the West Country somewhere, and when I was at school we played ‘penny up the wall’. I bet there are urchins in north London and West Country bumpbkins who perform these sports better than Tiger Woods or Ryan Giggs ever would. So what is there to admire about Ryan Giggs, exactly? Just a few hundred years ago football was basically a cheese-rolling contest between mobs of howling villagers. No different. It just got lucky. Why is curling an Olympic sport but cheese-rolling not?

We can admire sporting prowess only as escapism. Forget what really matters in life and admire the dribbling skills Ryan Giggs or the boxing artistry of Floyd Mayweather Jr. Yes, I agree that it is aesthetically pleasing to many and we can admire the skill, technique and dedication it requires. I like watching a great footballer or a boxer in full flow. I’m looking forward to Pacquiao vs Mayweather, and the World Cup next year. But…. if you remember that someone just made up these sports when they were bored, and then made up the rules of these sports off the top of their heads then it becomes a little less impressive.

In the last 30 years sportsmen have become transmogrified into commercial entities and ‘role models’. It inevitably ends in disappointment for all. Sponsors have cottoned on to the relentless human need to be entertained and diverted. The Romans understood this, providing ‘panem et circenses’ for the masses. .Even politicians get in on the act. The public play along and live their lives vicariously through their teams or players, getting swept up in the hysteria and often defining and dividing themselves into tribes based on loyalties to ‘their’ teams.

The BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is an absurdity that attempts to elevate what is objectively ridiculous to an artificial and arbitrary position of value. When I have watched these awards in the past it’s always struck me how the sportsmen all look faintly embarrassed as they sit there being told how good they are at swimming up and down or running round in circles or whatever. They know that although it might be important to them, for everyone else watching their endeavours are just escapism.

Brazilian police makes ours look like saints

I was down at Stockwell tube station last Sunday. Outside I noticed a memorial to Jean Charles de Menezes, the young Brazilian shot dead by SO19 in 2007 in a case of mistaken identity. The police thought he was the terrorist who lived in the same block as Charles. I also read in the London papers that London Underground have agreed to allow a permanent memorial to Charles.

I feel sorry for the poor guy, and his family. The Brazilian expats living in London had a lot to say about the British police in the aftermath. After all, they did screw up their operation and killed an innocent man.

But today I read that Brazilian police murder three people a day, according to a UN report. Kind of puts poor Charles's death into perspective. Our cops are saints compared to Brazil's. If I were a SO19 cop I would have liked to think I wouldn't have made such an error. But I probably would have. When I worked at Scotland Yard as a civilian worker I met some of them and guess what - they're human. I was on the tube when bombers targeted it on 7/7 and I wanted them hunted down and killed, or slung in jail. I still do.

Perhaps Brazilians should campaign against their own trigger-happy cops, many of whom moonlight as members of death squads, instead of worrying about our lot. The police that day thought they were saving lives, and they did their best. Those who got it wrong should be thoroughly investigated, but the imperfect information they had on the day, and the context in which that day's events occurred, are very important. It was a horrible decision, whereas people who blithely criticise it never have to make a harder decision than what to have for their breakfast.

Brazil's image of salsa and football hides a very ugly reality. I would have thought that 48,000 murders a year in Brazil would encourage a sense of perspective.

Socialism vs Capitalism

Socialism is based on the belief that one man knows better than one million. Capitalism rests on the principle that a million men know better than one.

In a pure socialist system the state makes decisions for everyone. For this reason it is slow to obtain adequate information on the best way to allocate resources. In a pure capitalist one the many make decisions for the many. It is much faster - and as history has shown, much more efficient - at allocating resources.

We don't, of course, live in a purely capitalist society. We have a 'mixed' economy. Ever developed nation, from China to Sweden, has a mixture of the free-market and state control. The recent credit crunch and banking crisis has swung the pendulum towards state control. The debate is now about what style of capitalism we want. The debate between socialism and capitalism ended with the fall of 'communism' (which really meant state control of economies).

State control failed. It was unable to recover. Capitalism, by contrast, has shown itself to be remarkably resilient; constantly reinventing itself, bouncing back and lifting people out of poverty through wealth creation. Its most severe crises - the Wall Street Crash, Stagflation in the 70s, the dotcom bubble, the credit crunch, the collapse of Lehmans - have not stopped its march. It was capitalism, in one form or another, that lifted millions in Asia out of poverty. It continues to do so in China and India. It is the best economic system for Man: now, and in the future.

I don't believe, however, in complete and total laissez-faire. In any competition, you need an umpire. You need rules. And you need punishment. Imagine a sport where there were no rules. It would still have a Darwinian element to it, but capitalism isn't just about survival of the fittest. It's about confidence. Capitalism needs a neutral umpire to enusre fair play. If all players see, and accept, that there is a level playing field, then they will join in the 'game'. If the system has no means of redress, no fair play, then they won't even participate. They will probably resort to bribery and corruption, as they do in so many parts of sub-saharan Africa. Or Afghanistan. The system is untrustworthy, so why bother participating in it?

I'm not sure Britain's version of capitalism is well run, with the result that the benefits aren't as great as they could be. Take supermarkets: the big players run a cartel, squeezing suppliers and shutting out competition. There's not as much competition as there should be, which is part of the reason we have higher prices than many countries.

In the banking sector, the big players were making so much money, and giving so much to the Exchequer, that the then Chancellor Gordon Brown got into bed with them and wouldn't get out. I remember watching him give speech after speech at the Guildhall, in his white bow tie, praising the City for it's invention and profit-making. He showed no regard whatever for their balance sheets, their liquidity, their debts. His 'tripartite' system of regulation was a sham. Because finance is now borderless, there was no overarching, respected authority to act as capitalism's neutral umpire and just lawgiver. There still isn't, although some world leaders are trying to more closely coordinate their regulation.

Capitalism survives by a process of 'creative destruction': the weak perish, the strong thrive. But we can only benefit from this if the strong are constantly exposed to stiff competition and kicked into line by the umpire, whose loyalties must always lie with the consumer. In the case of the banking crisis, the consumers were ordinary investors and their pensions. Gordon Brown and others forgot - no, disregarded - our interests, so seduced were they by the City's profits.

Capitalism's failures can't hide the fact that it is the only system that has the ability to react quickly enough to consumer needs, which is the foundation of a successful economic system. Socialism cannot, because it is centrally planned. The many make better overall decisions than the few.

Bank bonus tax - why it won't work

So the government wants to clobber the greedy bankers, the former 'masters of the universe' who did so much to lead us to the financial Armageddon we're currently facing. It sounds like plain old-fashioned fairness: why should the rest of us struggle to balance our family budgets and keep our jobs while these guys reward themselves for making such a mess?

I appreciate the 'justice' argument. Reward people for success, not failure. We shouldn't be cowed by bankers threats to emigrate to Zurich if they're stopped from gorging themselves on bonuses. After all we own the banks now. It's our money. If they want to emigrate, let them. At least it won't be our money that funds the bonuses. I believe that the City is big enough to steamroller on. I think the message, distorted though it is by political populism, is sound: that bankers have a social function. They're the keepers of our money and they'd better be responsible. If they're not, they're out on their ear, bonus or no bonus.

I think it sounds fair. Especially as Alistair Darling has announced that the 50% levy on bonuses over £25k will fund the extension of a scheme offering 18- to 24 year-olds out of work for six months a job, training or an internship. But the problem is the bonus tax won't work.

It's absurdly easy for banks to duck the tax. They can simply pay the rewards as a salary; or they can give out shares instead of cash bonuses; defer the bonuses until the windfall tax period ends; or make their big earners self-employed. It may even be illegal to tax just one group of workers, though this is yet to be tested.

The City contributes 12% to Britain's entire tax income. Kill the City and you kill the billions they pour into the coffers of UK plc. If the government was serious about imposing discipline on the City there have to be stronger ways of doing it than - let's face it - an envy tax. Yes, the banking sector has sinned and should be given a damn good caning. Regulation should consist of red lines that the banking sector must not cross. Encouraging long-term stability in place of short-term profit would be a start. Separate out the domestic, 'vanilla' banking from the more exotic overseas investments, as Northern Rock failed to do. Insist that banks hold a big chunk of their holdings in cash. In other words take measures that make it illogical, and unprofitable, for banks to reward short-termism with bonuses. That would be more effective than a windfall tax.

It's not even crystal clear what exactly even constitutes a bonus. It's easy for banks to wriggle out of it. Darling's idea relies heavily on the banks themselves co-operating.

Britain is buried beneath a debt mountain and it's so huge that the government is bereft of ideas as to how to solve it. We may never be able to clear it. There are only two ways for a government to raise money: tax and borrowing. As Hamish McRae said in today's Independent: "The place it [the Government] has to go to raise these billions is the City; there is nowhere else. Yet it bad-mouths anything and anyone connected with finance. How bright is that?"

Pre-Budget Report: move over, Darling

Catching up on the PBR this evening: via The Evening Standard, BBC News 24 and others. Alistair Darling has the haunted look of a man who doesn't even believe his own propaganda any more. The Commons fell about laughing when he said that Britain was approaching these garganutan problems from....'a position of strength'. You gotta hand it to the guy, he kept a straight face while he said it.

I couldn't help noticing that a lot of the nasty stuff won't take effect until 2011 - ie after the next election. By then either the Conservatives will be lumbered with the consequences of it, or Labour will have squeezed home and the voters won't be able to do much about it.



We are up to our eyeballs in debt. Up to our temples. The upper reaches of our craniums. The levels are astronomical, unseen since people were queueing at the grocers with their ration books in the 1940s. It's the highest level of debt in the OECD. It's not the only problem, of course; output is continuing to fall (by more than the Chancellor predicted, of course) consumer spending is falling and unemployment, which has the greatest time lag in recession, will probably continue to rise. Labour have presided over the kind of mess that only happens, historically, once a century. No amount of spin will let the pirouette out of that.



If Darling was a little more serious about Britain's problems, he could have imposed much tougher treatment, as Ireland has done. They have similar problems, but their solution has been far more draconian: slashing public sector spending across the board, with no 'ring-fencing' of certain budgets and serious tax increases that leave no-one in any doubt that it's serious and the medicine will be very bitter indeed.

The Rules of Work - Socrates' Test of Three

As you will probably have noticed from previous ‘Rules of Work’ posts I am not a fan of gossip. Have you noticed how gossip is always about something negative? I mean, how often do you hear people say “Oh my God, have you heard what a successful and happy marriage Brian from accounts has?! Yeah, he’s been totally faithful to his wife!”

Gossip demeans both the target and the perpetrators. If you get a reputation as a gossip you will only draw in people whose energy is as negative as your own, and you will become less trusted by people. For a more elegant dismantling of gossips everywhere, you should remember Socrates’ “Test of Three”.

The philosopher Socrates (469 – 399 BC) was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day the great man came upon an acquaintance who ran up to him, breathless and excited and said “Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students?”

“Wait a moment,” the great man replied. “Before you tell me, I’d like you to pass a little test. It’s called The Test of Three”.

'Test of Three?'
'That's correct,' Socrates continued. 'Before you talk to me about my student, let's take a moment to test what you're going to say.

The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?'
'No,' the man replied, 'actually I just heard about it.'
'All right,' said Socrates. 'So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second test, the test of Goodness.

Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?'
'No, to the contrary...'
'So,' Socrates continued, 'you want to tell me something bad about him even though you're not certain it's true?' The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.

Socrates continued, 'You may still pass though because there is a third test, the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?'
'No, not really.'
'Well,' concluded Socrates, 'if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?'

The man was defeated and ashamed, and said no more.

Socrates was a man of such principles he was prepared to die for them. You shouldn’t die for your job, but you can at least think about Socrates’ Test of Three before you go spreading gossip about your co-workers.

The Rules of Work - when you make a mistake...

When you make a mistake for God's sake don't try and cover it up. Ever.

I know everyone does it, but you shouldn't. Because:

(a) You will get found out. YOU WILL.

(b) You will find that you need to cover up your cover-up. And then you will need to cover for that cover-up. And again, and so on, until your story begins to fall apart.

(c) Your initial indiscretion will appear insignificant when set against the discovery by your peers or boss that....you tried to cover your tracks. Your original error will be all but forgotten when all people can think about is your apparent dishonesty.

My uncle, Gilbert, owns an accountancy business in Norway, which was bought by Ernst and Young. In his position as auditor it was his job to uncover coverups and errors that had been hidden. He was good at it. I remember him telling me how he would often come across documents that staff had simply hidden - physically hidden - in drawers, or under large piles of paper. If there was any kind of document that reflected badly on them or could have been used to expose a mistake, they just stashed it under a pile. And hoped it would go away.

So what should you do it you make a mistake? Well, try and correct it if you must. But if it's something that cannot be simply corrected then own up straight away. It's a funny thing: people who confess mistakes openly and apologise unconditionally and unequivocally are highly regarded - because they're seen as honest as trustworthy. More often than not, that outweighs their error.

When I worked at a publishing company in London, Taylor and Francis, there was a senior guy, the Group Operations Director, called Jeff. Once I remember he made what could only be described as a cockup. I can't remember exactly what it was, I think it was something to do with an upgrade of IT infrastructure. Anyway the next day an email from him went round to all staff, explaining what had happened, apologising and making clear that he was to blame and no-one else. Even though there were probably many in the IT department who were to blame.

Within a day everyone in the company was saying what a great guy Jeff was for 'fessing up like that, for taking responsibility, for not trying to hide the mistake or palm off the blame onto his underlings. He basically became admired. I remember thinking to myself at the time: Jeff got more kudos for admitting the mistake completely and unequivocally than he would ever have got if the system had actually been implemented smoothly and faultlessly. His admission of guilt seemed to have served him better than blowing his own trumpet at any success ever would have.

Senior managers are often practitioners of the hide-the-error tactic. Particularly when it comes to what is commonly known as 'cooking the books'. Remember Nick Leeson, the British, London-based trader who brought down Barings Bank? When he made a loss on his trades, instead of dealing with it transparently, or asking for help, he decided to hide the losses in a secret account he named '88888'. He believed he would make up the losses, so who needed to know? Sure, his bosses were at fault for not monitoring their traders, but he tried to hide his errors. He never made up the loss and became trapped in an ever-increasing vortex of losses and deception. Remember point (b) above: if you lie once, you will need to lie again to cover it.

Eventually his losses in account 88888 were so enormous that Barings collapsed and Leeson went to jail. He is now on the syllabus of every economics degree course in the world.

So remember Nick Leeson, Jeff and uncle Gilbert. If you make a mistake, just say so. Everyone makes mistakes. Even me.

The Rules of Work - get to your desk early

This is a crucial rule: get to work early. No matter what it takes, be early.


Why? Well it will be a less stressful start to your day for starters. There's nothing worse than realising you're running late, then trying to skid your way through traffic, or push past people on the train. I guarantee that once you're running late, everything will seem to go against you: the trains will go extra slowly, people will seem to deliberately get in your way, roadworks will appear miraculously in front of you. Isn't it great?

If you get to your desk at 8.45 when your day starts at 9.00 then you have a lesiurely 15 minutes to take off your coat, make a cup of coffee, log onto your PC. There's no rush. If you happen to have a heavy workload ahead of you then your morale will improve because you've started on a positive note.

You will get a reputation as someone who is hard-working and conscientious too, which won't do your career any harm. Hey, I'm sure you're a grafter anyway, but this extra brownie point won't hurt, will it? And, heaven forbid, if you like to chit-chat and gossip all day, then being the first (or one of the first) to the office each day gives you a little more leeway. If the worst comes to the worst and you find yourself in hot water with the powers that be at work, your hard-working reputation will stack some cards in your favour. It's an awful lot of pluses for doing very little really. Just get in early. It's not so hard!

But even if you don't want to sip coffee in the morning an early start will give you a chance to think and mentally prepare for the day. Your important meeting, your work relationships, any difficult or challenging task that requires you to focus but also relax.

The important thing is that getting in 10 minutes or so before your working day begins should be a habit. If it's a habit, it will become easy. A post coming soon will talk about how to achieve this.
Good luck. And don't be late!

The Rules of Work - keep your counsel

When at work, it's often wise to keep you counsel. Or to put it another way, keep your mouth shut.



I don't mean not speaking up when the situation demands it; keeping quiet when you're meant to be presenting to the Board is not the best idea.



What I mean is that making unguarded personal criticism of others, or 'letting off steam', can often backfire. If you think someone is rude, incompetent, lazy or awful in some other way: keep it to yourself. Be very careful what you say, and to whom. You might feel you are in trusted company - with a colleague you have known for years, and who has shared their negative impressions of people with you too. You might think your comments will go no further. But there's a problem.



First, your colleague will tell someone. When they in turn tell someone else, your name will come up. Maybe not maliciously, but suddenly you're linked to potentially harmfull rumours, or worse: it could be defamatory, offensive or even illegal. Ever heard of Chinese whispers?



There are a number of ways to deal with invitations to join in with general badmouthing, even if you think it is justified.



1. Use reported quotes. "Well, some people might think...." It sounds too obvious, but it works.



2. Be non-commital. "Hmmm". "Really?". "I see". "Ok, I didn't know that". You acknowledge what's being said but resolutely refuse to join in. This is the best strategy.





Gossip diminishes the perpetrators as well as the target. Think about it: if you have a reputation as a gossip, will anyone want to trust you? Of course not.











Nor do I mean refusing to converse with your colleagues - until recently I line-managed an Australian girl, Emma, who was so quiet it verged on the rude. When asked how her weekend was she would give a straight answer - but not reciprocate the question. When she left the team organised a leaving lunch for her; but even at her leaving 'do' she refused to engage verbally with any of the team! Everyone was left thinking she was just weird. I think, perhaps without realising it, she was just rude.

Scotland the Knave

I missed St. Andrew’s Day this year. As a St. Andrew’s Day present England could grant Scotland full independence from the United Kingdom. Not for the benefit of the Scots, but the English.

Scotland has sponged off the English for 302 years. When you do the maths, the benefit is almost entirely one-way: from the English, particularly those in the southern half of the country, to Scotland.

It all boils down to the pernicious Barnett Formula. This is the calculation that determines the amount that each region of the UK receives from Westminster. It was drawn up in 1978, under conditions of such secrecy that even MPs were not even told of its existence until it had been in operation for 2 years.

According to The Scotsman Newspaper, the formula dictates that for every pound the UK government distributes for spending around the country, 85 pence goes to England, 10 pence goes to Scotland and 5 percent to Wales. With five million people, Scotland now has 8.3 per cent of the UK population.

A 2008 report written by a former Treasury economist for the Taxpayers' Alliance (TPA) reveals that since 1985/86, public spending in Scotland has been £102 billion higher than if the country was funded at English levels. Government spending on public services in England was £7,535 per person in 2007-08. In Scotland it was £1,644 higher.

Scotland has free services not available in England, like NHS hospital parking, some personal care for the elderly and university courses without up-front fees. This is funded disporportionately by English taxpayers.

It wouldn’t be a problem if all UK taxpayers had the same political representation. After all, Scotland has historically had some greater needs than the rest of the UK, in particular in areas such as housing and healthcare. But Scottish MPs can vote on matters relating exclusively to England, at Westminster, whereas English MPs are excluded from voting on purely Scottish matters as they don’t sit in the Scottish parliament. This refers to ‘The West Lothian Question’ and it has never been satisfactorily answered.

So English taxpayers fund Scotland’s services. As Boris Johnson rightly said, “we give Scotland our money, they give us their Prime Ministers”. He could have added that English taxpayers have also funded the bailout of those Scottish banks, whose incompetence did so much damage to the whole British financial system.

The Scottish Nationalists, narrow-minded as always, claim Scotland would thrive as an independent country. Without England’s billions I doubt it. They point to Ireland’s success as a ‘Celtic Tiger’, ignoring the fact that Ireland’s growth was funded by….handouts and investment from the EU. In today’s climate that is unlikely to come Scotland’s way. In today’s economy, being a small fish is hazardous. Just ask Iceland.

Scottish Nationalists also maintain the fantasy that Scotland’s North Sea oil funds England. But the Taxpayer’s Alliance report exposes this nonsense. Even if Scotland were able to claim the majority of revenue from the North Sea, they calculated, Scotland would only have made a net contribution to the Treasury in five of the last 23 years. "Even taking account of oil, the underlying issue of English taxpayers funding premium public services in Scotland remains, and will become more serious in years to come," said the report’s author, John Denham.

It would be interesting if a study could be carried out to calculate, or at least estimate, the total financial flows from Scotland to England and vice versa since 1707 in total. A gargantuan task for sure, having to take into account tax revenues from all sorts of things, but a look at 18th and 19th century history makes it pretty obvious that Scotland was dragged into industrialisation and development by England.

Scottish nationalism is, of course, rooted in rabid xenophobia and prejudice. No nationalist movement can survive without the mythology of ‘oppression’. It needs ‘the other’ as an object of discontent, to justify its existence and foster a sense of grievance. In Alex Salmond’s case, it’s the English. The high ground of victimhood looks ridiculous though when all the facts point to the economic exploitation being the other way around.

Removed from its English host, an independent Scotland would act like any parasite that has been hacked off – it would wither. They would be reduced to selling haggis and whisky – putrid food and toxic drink. Some economy. It wouldn’t be England’s problem though. Scotland might even become a pool of cheap labour for England, as Mexico has been for the United States. They could forget about their free NHS parking as well, they wouldn’t have the English subsidy to fund it any more.

The Act of Union in 1707 was an act of political skulduggery, the result of economic and military pressure on Scotland by England. There was no referendum in 1707, but if there were to be a referendum now, all the signs are that Scots would vote to stay in the Union. I wonder why? Nothing to do with all the English money, is it? But there’s no reason to wait for them to make a decision. Just expel Scotland from the Union and watch them sink. Och aye.

Afghanistan and realpolitik

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your gawd like a soldier

Thus spoke Rudyard Kipling about Afghanistan. The British are having a tough time over there once again, and it’s not just because they don’t have enough choppers or the right kind of body armour. The Americans seem not have fared much better and the other NATO contingents stay out of harm’s way as much as possible. Maybe they’ve seen the writing on the wall.

Obama has announced a troop surge. In a way he didn’t have a choice. During his presidential campaign he said that Afghanistan was a war of necessity, whereas Iraq was a war of choice. He became trapped by his own words.

The voices calling for complete and immediate withdrawal of NATO forces (or at least British ones, regardless) are growing louder. The argument comprises many of the following: we cannot ‘win’; we have failed to subdue the Taliban; Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires; our very presence is the source of the conflict; we are seen as invaders/imperialists; the 2001 invasion was unjustified in the first place; the campaign is immoral; it’s not worth the price in lives and money; it’s a quagmire; he Afghan government we are propping up is corrupt; and that the best thing for everyone will be to get out.


Before commenting I should spell out the reality that I have never been to Afghanistan. Nor am I an expert on the country. Neither, I suspect, are 99% of all commentators. Being an armchair strategist (or general) always carries the risk of wishful thinking, naivety, ignorance and myopia. No matter how I try, I cannot see things from the point of view of an Afghan – because I’m not one! But unlike some commentators, I don’t have an agenda.


First, a statement of some principles. I am in favour of liberal interventionist policies, but only when the overall strategy into which they fit is logical, the outcomes defined and achievable and the strategy into which they fit is governed by old-fashioned realpolitik. This is for the simple reason that if these conditions aren’t met, the mission to save the starving or the downtrodden will fail.


The invasion of Afghanistan, although not authorised by the UN, seems to me to have been justified because there was no doubt at all that the government of Afghanistan – effectively the Taliban – had indeed harboured people who proclaimed themselves to be members of Al-Q’aida. Now


I think we should be in that country doing nation-building but only if we are prepared to stay for 30 years and see it through. . The problem with these 'failed' states is they never leave you alone, even if you leave them alone - they export their problems, failings, ideologies and violence. It all depends on America anyway - if they don't want to do it, it's academic. The real reason Britain is there is because we're embarrassed by our relationship with the US and feel we have to pull our weight to justify our relationship with them. It's sad really. But given that the US military is the only organisation capable of undertaking, or at least leading, this task, we should judge the case for intervention on is own merits.


I think there's a middle ground - we could keep an eye on the country and prop up a friendly government without being overly-ambitious and unrealistic and trying to turn it into a model democracy like Sweden, or even Turkey. The country is too backward and under-developed socially, politically, economically to achieve that. The population has loyalties to tribes and ethnic groupings, not central Government. The government itself is corrupt and trying to change that is like trying to turn round an oil tanker. So why try and change that in such a short timescale? No-one thinks Afghanistan is a 'training camp' (whatever that means) for terrorists now. So we've accomplished our immediate aims. Just let them get on with it in their own way, intervene when necessary, provide education and aid and focus on narrow security objectives and promoting good governance. Seems to me we're trying to do way too much with far too little. And other NATO countries don't want to get involved, which is making it harder. And the Afghan locals are reliant on money from opium to survive so they'll never play along with our strategy of destroying their crops.


A better strategy would be to decriminalise opium and heroin in this country and buy up Afghanistan's entire crop. Use it to produce cheap pharmaceuticals for us. In Afghanistan the Taliban would lose a large slab of their income. Their farmers would want to work with us. Over here the illegal heroin trade would collapse. Addicts wouldn't need to steal and rob, they could go to NHS centres for fixes and alternatives and treatment. We did that in this country prior to 1971 and it worked very well.





You can't persuade a country to go from burquas to miniskirts overnight. We need a bit of old-fashioned 'realpolitik' over there - making alliances of convenience, safeguarding our own interests and respecting other countries' traditions and customs. Not nation-building - that feels (to them) like old-fashioned imperialism. You can't just say: "we'll only deal with people who are nice". None of the power-brokers in Af'stan are nice. They're all either venal, corrupt, violent, barbaric or psychopathic. The best we can do is push support for those leaders in Afghanistan who are – by the standards of their own country – honest, transparent, respect human rights and don’t subscribe to extreme ideology.

Swiss to ban minarets

I have just heard on "Euronews" - one of Virgin cable tv's news channels - that the Swiss public have voted in a referendum to ban minarets. 57% were in favour of it apparently, which by referendum standards is pretty solid.

Come on, guys. Just what are you scared of? Minarets are hardly going to kill you, are they? After all, you have 4 languages and their practitioners seem to rub along fine. Say....it's not prejudice against muslims, is it? Hmm. Here's me thinking they were harmless, if slightly strange people who were into cheese and cuckoo clocks. And taking dead Jews' money. Sorry, didn't mean that last one. Maybe it's having gone 500 years without a war that's made them so jumpy. And the lack of battle experience has left them feeling vulnerable. Reminds me of that Seinfeld joke:

"Ever see that little Swiss Army knife they have to fight with? Not much of a weapon there. Corkscrews, Bottle openers. 'Come on, buddy, let's go. You get past me, the guy in back of me, he's got a spoon. Back off. I've got the toe clippers right here.'”

We don't need no (State in our) education

OFSTED reported last week that one in three British state schools is 'inadequate'. In terms of apsiration, this statement doesn't exactly reach for the stars. 'Inadequate'? They have fallen short, not of 'excellence' but of 'adequacy'. I often hear that children should not be made to feel inadequate. But there's really no need. According to OFSTED the state system is making a pretty good fist of it.

If it were 1 in 100, 1 in 50 or even 1 in 10, parents might be forgiven for thinking that state education was worth chancing their arm with. But if you have a 1 in 3 chance of condemning your child to claw their way through a system that was 'inadequate', well - you wouldn't be surprised if parents voted with their feet.

Problem is, they can't really. Opting out of state education is expensive. But need it be?

We would do better to look at Sweden, where the government has trialled 'vouchers' for education. Parents are given the cash, they decide what to do with it; they can go public, or they can try private. The Conservatives flirted with such an idea, but I'm not sure what their policy on it now is.

Howls of derision always arise from teaching unions, of course, who decry any attempt to 'privatise' education. Translation: they don't want parents to choose where to send their child. They (and the British left) want to keep children in their place - in the arms of the state. Great for the 2 out of 3 that, presumably, have education that is 'adequate' or better. Not so rosy for the 33.3% who are left. Opponents of parental choice seem to have co-opted the Jesuits' maxim: "Give me the child and I will show you the man". I went to a Jesuit (state) school, so I know a thing or two about that ;)

Labour have had 12 years to make good on their promise of "education, education and education". They have failed. Millions of school leavers will enter the job market with inadequate skills. Why? Government sets the policy, teachers implement it. At least 1 out of these is to blame. It's no pretty obvious that Government diktats have a lot to do with it: what should be taught, when, and to meet which politically-motivated target. Exam grades at GCSE and A Level keep going relentlessly upwards, while employers, universities and businesses keep complaining about illiterate and inumerate 18 year-olds. It's partly because grade inflation is the result of government targets. Much easier to give examinees an easy ride through coursework, resits and guided questions than to really raise standards.

Not that British teaching philosophy has helped. In many countries, like Slovakia you need a masters degree to teach languages or science; not here. In Japan being a physics teacher requires many years experience in industry; here just a bachelors degree and a teaching qualification will do it. Talk about poverty of aspiration.

The Rules of Work - comebacks to workplace bullies

Most people you meet at work are nice. But a minority aren't. They're bullies. They can fall into many categories, depending on the nature of their bullying.


I’m not talking about good-natured teasing from your colleagues. Nor about people who are simply rude.


The thing I’m talking about is those times when you might find yourself on the receiving end of childish, idiotic comments, or ridicule or mockery, not designed to be good humoured, but to belittle you. For example:

"You didn't do that very well, did you?"
"Do you always make such a mess?"
"Did you go to school?"
"Did you get changed in the dark this morning?"

Why do some people say these things? It stems from low self-esteem, which people compensate for by trying to lower the status of others or projecting an image as a dominant character who can shove others around. Anyway, here’s what you should do.


1. Don’t be submissive. Submission signifies weakness, and only those perceived as weak are ‘picked on’. True on David Attenborough’s nature programmes, true in the office. So don’t look down, instead keep steady eye contact. Don’t flinch, and it’s better if you don’t blink either. No nervous laughter. If you’re standing, stand up tall, straight, face-on. If you are close to the guy, suddenly come closer. It will unnerve them.

2. Don’t overreact, show anger or emotion. Bullies want a reaction, they are stumped when they don’t get one. Don’t be rude – no swearing etc. Be icy calm.

3. Some people advocate dignified silence. This may work in some contexts but I don’t generally agree. You can’t be a punchbag. Show you’re not to be messed with and that you don’t take crap lying down. The best reaction is to act unemotional and unimpressed. But say something back.

I think that a silent response can communicate disdain, but may also make you look like a ‘soft touch’. You should communicate disdain, mixed with pity, and laced with a dose of sarcasm.

Some comebacks:

You still here?
That’s…almost funny.
Nice try.
Don’t give up the day job.
Here we go….mastermind.
You used to be funny.
You should be a comedian. Just not yet.
Do you want a round of applause?

4. Just say one of these. Remember it’s how you say it that counts. Calm, slow, unwavering and authoritative. Don’t rush or let your voice become too high-pitched or breathless, as this communicates weakness. Have a slightly dismissive tone of voice, slightly sarcastic.

5. If you can’t think of anything to say, or the situation doesn’t really warrant a sharp verbal risposte, then you can remain silent – but it is your body language that will be your response. Be silent and just stare back with confidence. This is the position that says, "that comeback doesn't even deserve an acknowledgment."

The Rules of Work - avoiding embassassing faux pas

You know the scene. Man meets female colleague by the water cooler. Man notices larger-than-usual tummy on colleague. Man congratulations colleague on impending birth of her child and asks when the baby is due and what food cravings is she having. Compounding his blunders he asks if she’s thought of a name for her child and is having a home birth, perhaps?

Colleague tells man she is actually not pregnant. It turns out she has just been overdoing it on the chocolate digestives and is wearing a slightly more figure-hugging dress than usual. Man is now stuck in a pit of horrendous embarrassment, from which there is no easy escape-route. As an added bonus, on some occasions the man will desperately try and extricate himself from the cavernous hole into which he has dug himself by telling his colleague she looks 'healthy'. Which can only be interpreted as telling her she looks fat, Nice.


Making assumptions about your colleagues, even if done innocently and with the best of intentions, can often lead to embarrassing situations. Offering congratulations on phantom pregnancies are one such pitfall. Others include misjudging someone’s age, qualifications, marital status, or family arrangements.


In the communal kitchen at work I witnessed a collague of mine, a lady of about 50, being asked buntly if she was pregnant. Incredible but true. She said ‘no’ and the lady who asked her had to apologise profusely. Luckily no offence was taken! I have to admit I walked off because otherwise I would have burst out laughing.


A good way to avoid this, if for instance you think someone is pregnant, or has bought a new house, or has just been to their daughter’s graduation, is the gambit: “So what’s new with you then?”


It opens up the conversation without creating too much expectation or piling on too much pressure. If they are pregnant they may tell you. If they’re not they obviously won’t. Or if they are pregnant but don’t actually want to tell you, you have respected that right. Similarly their daughter, whom you knew 6 months ago was at university, may have dropped out of her course. Asking "what’s new?" gives your colleague the right to tell you or keep quiet about this, without being asked about a graduation that never happened.


If you want to find out something about someone’s life after work, judge first of all how well you know the person. What kind of relationship do you have with them? If you only know them in a professional capacity, try the “what’s new with you” or “how was your weekend?” opener. Wait and see how much they open up.


Warning: if they often talk about their family it doesn’t mean you can steam straight in there and ask whether their child is eating solids yet. A safer option is “how are the family?” If you know they are in a relationship and you’re dying to know whether they’re engaged yet, first consider whether they have spoken to you about it. If they have you can say “how’s it going with Jennifer?” or whatever his/her name is. But consider this: if they haven’t actually told you about their relationship, but you’ve heard it on the office grapevine, or from other colleagues, should you be asking at all?


Underlying all this is the pernicious effects of gossip and noseyness, which we all succumb to now and again but which we should all strive to avoid. Why? Because of the negative energy it generates. Gossiping reduces the value of people, both the target and the perpetrators. It reduces our value as human beings and leaves us as objects tossed around at the whim of others. Remember the law of karma: what goes around, comes around.

Thierry Henry’s handball and the degradation of sport

Thierry Henry was caught in slow-mo reply handling the ball (twice) in a crucial game against Ireland last week, leading directly to France’s winning goal and eliminating Ireland from the World Cup Finals in South Africa next year. A storm of invective has poured down on Henry’s head, but virtually all the actors in this saga have diminished themselves and international sport is – once again – exposed as a degrading spectacle that has less to do with heroic endeavour and more to do with gamesmanship, hypocrisy and chauvinism.


Henry first. He cheated, no two ways about it. His first touch may have been accidental, his second most certainly was not. His actions are fractionally mitigated by the fact it happened in the heat of the moment, rather than in the premeditated fashion of, say, taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs. But cheat he did.



His dishonesty was joined by a lack of moral courage when, realising that TV cameras had caught is malfeasance in every excruciating detail, he issued a highly qualified apology in which he appeared to blame…the referee. Maybe the referee was incompetent, but Henry acted to willingly deceive him. Still it continued: when the storm of controversy really exploded, he added disingenuousness to his list of qualities: by calling for a replay after FIFA had ruled one out. Brave? Mais non, mon ami.


For some reason Irish politicians got involved and ranted about injustices towards smaller countries. You can bet that Irish politicians care not one jot for the sport of football, or the fans, but politicians are adept at riding waves of national hysteria to further their own advancement, and so it was here.


For many Irish, this has been a chance to wallow in victim status, to dredge up past injustices throughout their history and to draw a parallel with a football match. It’s pathetic – but not entirely surprising. This is international sport, after all. If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then sport (or rather international sporting competitions) are the continuation of war by other means.



Of course, Ireland’s complaints reek of hypocrisy. Maybe the replay principle could be applied consistently, because if it were, it might be to Ireland’s disadvantage. Georgia were victims of a penalty injustice on the 11th February which Ireland gladly accepted; and Montenegro would probably like a replay for the 0-0 game on the 14th of October when Irish player Paul McShane handled the ball in the area and didn’t tell the ref it was a penalty. Fair play? Ireland are no saints.



Remember when England were eliminated from the 1986 World Cup by Maradona’s “Hand of God”? England were aggrieved but didn’t ask for a replay. No formal complaint was made, they just got on with it. At the time FIFA praised England for the manner in which they accepted their defeat. The score should have been 1-1 but England just accepted it. Ireland would do well to conduct themselves with dignity instead of wallowing in self-pity and demanding a replay. I’m sure most Irish people aren’t like that, but this is what happens when sport becomes a metaphor for national honour, or national victimhood. It’s a shame that some England fans still can’t let the 1986 handball go and still dredge it up, but that’s what happens when sport is so tightly woven with nationality. Most England fans I meet now, however, acknowledge that Maradona’s skill as a footballer outweighs the injustice of that incident. It will be interesting to see whether Ireland fans are still banging the ‘injustice’ drum 25 years later.


It's not just Henry, or the French (or the Argentinians). Cheating, gamesmanship and the absence of honour and integrity now seemed to be an ingrained part of just about every sporting event, across many cultures. Even the Irish players seemed to accept Henry’s cheating. Listen to what Damian Duff had to say: “If it was down the other end and it was going out of play, I’d have chanced my arm. You can’t blame him. He’s a clever player but you expect the ref to see it, it was so blatant.” There you have it. In a way you have to admire Duff’s honesty. He would gladly cheat, he’s says, so he politely declines to condemn Henry. Amazing.


In reality is a storm in a teacup. Who cares who won, and how, and whether it was by means fair or foul? But as I argued in my piece on ‘abolish international sport’, where ‘national’ teams are involved, chauvinism and grandstanding are never far behind.


If Henry had taken the unlikely (perhaps very unlikely) action and stopped play, admitting his foul, he would have been lauded as a true sporting great and a role model, even if his team had lost. His honour would have been salvaged. But here’s the thing about cheating: the inescapable law of karma. What goes around comes around. It always does. It has to. So now Henry will be forever vilified as a cheat, his reputation lies in tatters, his sponsorship deals on the line, his very name synonymous with duplicity. It won’t stop there. His children will read about their father’s dishonour. They too will have to live with it. What an awful fate, all for one lousy goal.


It’s horribly unfair to Henry, of course – because as Damian Duff so shamefacedly explained, they all do it; they just hope they get away with it. But Henry also has to accept that the higher the stakes, and the higher your profile, the greater the scrutiny.


Sport should be about the human spirit, endeavour, training, determination and achievement. But it has become a win-at-all costs gladiatorial battle, inflamed by international contests with their national anthems and flags, and egged on by huge salaries and corporate deals. In the grand scheme of life it is not as important as the many pressing international issues of the day. It can unite, and entertain, but the pressure to be ‘winners’ means that something far more important than winning has been lost: integrity. Without it, sportsmen (and women) are nothing.


From doping in the Tour de France, to fake blood injuries in rugby, from diving footballers to ball-tamperers in cricket, sport has become demeaned. Players are so desperate to win that they will seek unfair advantage by whatever means they can. In athletics I have heard the argument that all sprinters know the other guys take drugs, so they feel if they don’t do the same then they are being cheated. I never used to understand what teachers used to say about cheating: “You’re only cheating yourself”. But now I do: if you have a gold medal round your neck, but you broke the rules to get it, then you know in your heart that you are not really a champion. You have to lie to your children when they ask you how you won it. What a burden.


Some people say that why not just abolish testing and let athletes take whatever drugs they like. It would be the death of sport because the competition would be between rival laboratories and doctors, not athletes.


In the world of mixed martial arts contests, a fighter was recently disqualified for taking steroids. Bas Rutten, a veteran fighter, said that the individual concerned wasn’t really a mixed martial artist because he didn’t have enough confidence in himself, his abilities and his training – he was so unsure of himself that he felt the need to add a bit more to his engine by taking drugs. It’s true. You could say the same about cheating footballers. They are not real sportsmen.


Magnanimous in victory, generous in defeat. It marks a higher calibre of person. Some players are only gracious when they’re winning: take Serena Williams, for example, and her foul-mouthed outburst. Some players’ skills are nullified by their violence, like Roy Keane, who is a thug and a coward. Other cowards, like Sir Alex Ferguson, look for excuses to explain away defeats. We need sportsmanship, not gamesmanship. Money and international contests have helped demean sport.


Competitive sport should be encouraged. It is, after all, a form of entertainment. But ‘international’ events should be abolished and the strictest rules imaginable should be introduced to stamp out cheating and its close cousin, gamesmanship. But it needs to go deeper than that. Children across the world should be taught that honour and integrity are the hallmarks of a great human being, which is so much more important than being a winning sportsman. And that while one should strive to win, being a good loser is a lot harder than being a good winner.

The Rules of Work - how to stop procrastinating

Procrastination. It's the bane of many people's working lives. Some people procrastinate because they don't know where to start on a task, some because they lack the confidence to do it, some because they are perfectionists and some because they just can't face it. I thought I'd share some of the things I've found helpful in overcoming procrastination.

Make an immediate start – even a ‘microstart’ - to every job you are given. Especially the rotten ones. Don't wait - do it straight away. Before you have time to over-think what you're doing or to rationalise yourself out of it.

It actually doesn't really matter what this 'start' to the work is; it could be a sketch, a memo, a few bullet points, a garbled document that you keep for yourself. You can delete it later - it doesn't matter, just do something right away.

Making a tiny start to something immediately will have a good psychological effect on you – boosting your confidence and self-esteem, informing your subconscious that you can actually do this damn piece of work, that it’s not impossible and it is do-able.

On the other hand if you don’t touch your unpleasant piece of work for ages it will become more repellent and unconquerable in your mind, creating a vicious circle of procrastination.

Try that for starters!

Abolish international sport

It's a funny thing about sport, but when teams suddenly become countries: "Germany", "France", etc - the contest suddenly becomes less about sport and more about national pride. When England beat Australia to win the Ashes the entire country basked in the glory. Even though the baskers themselves couldn't throw a ball for toffee and have contributed exactly nothing to "their" team's success.



So here's my proposal. All 'international' sporting events should be abolished. Not sporting events themselves; just that athletes should compete as individuals at the Olympics and at every other sport, and that the England football, rugby etc teams be abolished and players play for any team they want to - clubs, associations etc.



The reasoning being firstly : that international sport divides rather than unites; that it promotes nationalism, even racism, cements differences and encourages jingoism and xenophobia. It is, as Orwell said, "war minus the shooting". Hardly what the world needs. Secondly: that in a sporting context 'nationality' is actually pretty meaningless. Andy Murray was born in Scotland but trained and learnt his skills in Spain. So he actually owes more to Spain than Scotland. So shouldn't he really represent Spain, if anyone? After all we have no control over where we were born. It just depends on where your mother went into labour. I could have been born in France is mum had delivered early. So can I play for France? Mum was born in Tanzania, so I can play for them too? It's meaningless. Most people have 'foreign' blood in them.



International sport equates sporting prowess with nationhood, even ethnicity. And if American athletes win say 10 golds, how does that mean 'America' has won 10 golds? It doesn't. It just means that those individuals have won them. Nothing at all to do with insurance salesmen in Texas or computer programmers in San Francisco. They haven't done anything. This false sense of 'belonging', of somehow partaking in the success of others, living your dreams and fantasies vicariously through the success of others who just happen to share your passport is simply nonsense. Do you know an olympic gold medallist? Have you ever met one? Have you personally helped him/her to perfect the techniques that enabled them to win gold? Of course not. So you can claim no credit for their success. The feelgood factor you get from their success in competing for the team of the country you live in is illusory.



A wiser man than me, Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, renowned linguist, author and campaigner said this about sporting loyalties during a live interview in front of an audience:



"You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."



Professor Chomsky's slant is that obsessing about sport distracts the masses from the important things in life, like politics. But extrapolate his point further to people's association of entire countries or races with sporting contests . It's not a big stretch.



Take English football. Many people like watching football. They like to see the skill of the players and the teams. But a curious thing: they think that a team is equivalent to themselves. They think that they are a team. So they say: "We won on Saturday"; "we beat you"; "we're better than you" etc. It makes me laugh. "We"? "We"? Since when do you play for Chelsea? Are you a goalkeeper or something? It used to be the case that teams were composed of players who were all local lads from the area. Those days are long gone - now football is in the hands of huge and powerful corporate giants, media companies and billionaires. I'm looking forward to laughing my socks off when the day comes that rival teams are owned by companies that are in partnership with each other, or even the same company. Just to see the bafflement of the 'fans' who believe that 'their' team is apart from, and distinct from, all the others.


On a local level sporting loyalties are laughable. Irrational. An imagined and entirely concocted 'rivalry' that sweeps people along into believing that they have 'enemies'. Two guys could pass each other in the street perfectly peaceably. But if the next day they are wearing colours from opposing teams they suddenly become rivals. Amazing.


On an international scale it is even more absurd. If sport is truly about aesthetics, admiring the strength, speed, technique, determination and willpower of the competitors, then grouping teams of individuals by country should be abolished. Individuals should compete as individuals, teams merely as colleagues. In many sports the players in the same teams don't even have the same nationality, they only qualify through ancestry, so it's meaningless anyway. International sport encourages the most ugly kind of jingoism and nationalism, often with a healthy dose of racism thrown in for good measure.

It could be too ambitious an aim. Perhaps the desperate urge to have a sense of belonging, the divisiveness of 'them' and 'us' is too strongly ingrained in human nature to achieve this. But we could make a start by abolishing the contemptible 'league table' of medals that 'countries' win at the Olympics. I don't care that the UK did so well, beating France, Australia etc. It wasn't our country anyway, just a miniscule proportion of people who hold the nationality and outperfomed another tiny number of individuals, none of whom have any affinity whatsoever with the watching viewers.


Even the 'positive' aspects of international competition - camaraderie, national hysteria, strangers kissing each other in the street - is all based on 'beating' someone, on being 'better' than someone and on being, in some way, superior. I'm not against competition, I think it's healthy. I'm against it being based on nationhood. The world would be a much better place without it.

Question Time - Nick Griffin

Who’s afraid of Nick Griffin? Lots of people, it seems. After Thursday night’s performance on Question Time, maybe they shouldn’t be. No-one comes out well from the BNP/Question Time debacle – not Nick Griffin, not the BBC, the audience, panellists or protestors.


I missed the show but caught it on BBC iPlayer later. Griffin’s mission was simple: appear respectable, be moderate, seem reasonable. Trouble is, when you’ve spent your adult life hobnobbing with the Ku Klux Klan and saying that Auschwitz is a fairy story, your mission is pretty much impossible. Sure enough, he squirmed like a maggot on a hook when his outrageous beliefs were quoted back at him. Griffin is also a coward – he stubbornly refused to admit what everyone in the studio, and sitting at home watching on the sofa, knew: that his agenda was driven by skin colour and race; nothing to do with culture.


Should he even have been on there?


Yes, he should. Yes, of course. You get 900,000 votes and you can’t be censored. If we don’t have freedom of speech, we have nothing. Otherwise who will decide who can and cannot speak? It won’t be you, that’s for sure. The BBC were right to say that as a public sector broadcaster they couldn’t censor a politician with votes.


Freedom of speech doesn’t open the door to murder and pillage – we quite rightly have laws in the UK that forbid inciting racial hatred, or incitement to murder, or advocating violence, threats to kill etc. So people like Nick Griffin have to be very careful what they say now. It wasn’t always like this: Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech was allowed to pass in 1968, whereas today I suspect he would get his collar felt by the long arm of the law. There’s no need to be terrified of someone whose views are so comical even people who hold them are embarrassed to express them.When intolerant people come into view, it always brings out the intolerance in others. It's instructive to watch.


For a start the adolescent loonies ‘protesting’ against his appearance seemed oblivious to the plank in their own eye. They complain about ‘fascism’ but by deciding for themselves who should and should not appear on television they are have a little sideline in fascism going themselves. It seems that plenty of violence is dished out by the anti-Nazi league/Socialist Workers party who spend their lives in pursuit of a cause or a bandwagon to jump on.


Of course we have plenty of ‘fascists’ in this country. Fascist has become one of those derogatory terms that is nowadays applied to absolutely anyone you disagree with. Like foxhunting? You’re a fascist. Want to ban foxhunting? Fascist. Want to cap immigration? Ban anything? Or do anything unpopular? Then you’re a fascist. Fascism is about the worship of the state, combined with a mercantilist economic policy that has little to do with free market policies and an aggressive, nationalistic foreign policy that is opposed to the free movement of peoples and other aspects of globalisation.


By most of these standards the BNP don’t score highly on the fascist scale. To call them ‘Nazi’ is just absurd, and denigrates the victims of Hitler. They have a policy on immigration that in some ways is very left-wing: to stop it, even reverse it. They don’t believe in the free market, free movement of people


We have racist, sectarian, violent groups in the UK but you never hear the anti-fascist protestors or the Socialist Workers Party or the anti-Nazi League complaining about them. Sinn Fein, an organisation that’s murdered thousands of people, now sits in Government; Islamic extremist movements that advocate violence and preach beliefs incompatible with Western values are never picketed by the Anti Nazi League when they appear at mosques or campuses or schools. Funny, that.


Jack Straw came across as a man of straw - refusing resolutely to concede that Labour's misguided immigration policy had fuelled the rise of the BNP when even his own supporters could see that was the case. He was so righteous in his indignation he refused to acknowledge what everyone could see. His refusal to budge or even admit there was room for improvement in immigration policy rebounded on him and he suddenly seemed evasive, shifty, myopic and even arrogant.


Bonnie Greer, no doubt a woman of considerable talents and qualities, ended up looking arrogant, petulant and foolish. It would have been quite easy to deconstruct Griffin’s absurdities around the topic of genetic purity, but Greer chose to try and appear superior and again refused to acknowledge anything. Perhaps that’s how panellists are coached before appearing on screen, or maybe that’s the done thing.


One minute she harked back to the Ice Age to demonstrate there were no such thing as 'indigenous' Britons, the next patronising Griffin by alluding to his "two two" and suggesting he do more reading. She was stumped, however, when Griffin craftily suggested that no-one would deny there was such a thing as an indigenous Maori or Aboriginal.


It was obvious Griffin had a point, even though it was used to mask a sinister and dangerous eugenics theme. There is no such thing as pure-bred British – we’re all hybrids after all, out of Africa. But it’s also true that the British have been a fairly insular bunch prior to mass immigration in the 1950s, and everyone knows that’s what Griffin was getting at.


Before 1066 of course it wasn’t anything like that – Angles, Saxons, Danes, Vikings, Celts, Romans with their black and Mediterranean heritage; they all settled here. The DNA in Great Britain is an indecipherable mix, a hotch-potch. But notwithstanding the Hugeunots, Jews, Irish, scattering of black slaves brought in through the seaports and a few others, white British people had indeed developed a settled culture they identified as ‘British’ prior to the 1950s. It’s undeniable.


The killer point though, the one that everyone in this country understands, is that Britishness is now defined by nationality, character, language and values – not by skin colour or ethnicity. It’s something I’m proud of. I like that about this country. One only has to look at the furore in insular China, where there is uproar over a half-black, half-Chinese girl appearing on a talent show. Many Chinese simply can’t accept that someone with black parentage can be ‘Chinese’ (or Han Chinese). Nationality is defined by ethnicity, which we know is a fallacy as all races are mixed. But in the UK nationality and ethnicity are separate. People who combine and try to pretend they are the same them look stupid and are actually embarrassed about their own views.


I also believe that people who settle in a country, at any point in history, have an obligation to respect the laws, traditions and customs of the society they find themselves in, and attempt to integrate as best they can. Not easy if you experience racism and discrimination, but you must try. Some groups seem to have managed this better than others.


Multiculturalism has not served the UK well. It’s lead to insular sub-societies cut off from the mainstream, sometimes embittered and feeling disenfranchised and searching for an outlet for their identity, sometimes in the most extreme ways, as in the suicide bombings of 2005. Having a society where everyone feels they have a stake is more constructive. Unfortunately the BNP want to promote a cultural apartheid in this country, which would only do harm.


No-one believes that people with dark skin should be ‘sent back’, as the NF used to say. Sent back to where? The British hospital they were born in? It’s a non-starter and everyone knows it. Britain has absorbed immigrants very well, by and large. So it wasn’t necessary for Bonnie Greer to talk about Ice Age Neanderthals.


The BBC themselves also emerged with little credibility. They wanted to have their cake and eat it; one moment saying that Griffin could not be denied a platform because of the BNP's electoral success, the next trying to rig the audience and panel against him with hostile questions and a partisan audience. Why stick a black woman next to Griffin? Bonnie Greer was chosen because she was black, make no mistake about it. It was the BBC’s attempt to embarrass Griffin. But the audience could see through it.


It wasn't necessary to ban Griffin, censor him or rig the audience and panel. He was given enough rope to hang himself, and by the end he had done so by attempting to defend the indefensible. Politics based on skin colour is so absurd even racists are embarrassed to admit to their views, and the audience sniggered when he was cornered about the Holocaust.


One of the few good points Bonnie Greer made was that without freedom of speech we have nothing. I enjoyed watching Griffin talking rubbish about indigenous race, he looked foolish. Not surprisingly, his own party is far from happy with his performance. I look forward to seeing more of him, and then watch his party implode, despite the opinion polls showing imaginary 'swings' and 'surges' for him.


What of the BNP themselves? Groups founded purely to attack others always end in schisms and fratricide - they cannot contain their desire to destroy and so always turn on themselves. That's why the BNP is an offshoot of the old National Front, why Irish Republican Groups splinter and why racists always fight civil wars with each other.


I don’t think there’s any need to fear the BNP. They have nothing to offer because the UK is ethnically mixed now, and it’s irreversible. Everyone knows that. Once we have a controlled immigration policy and the economic climate improves, they will fade away. Even by the standards of fringe parties they are small. It’s seems clear to me that a lot of people who vote for them do so as a protest because they’re scared, worried or angry about immigration and ‘foreigners’. Some are racist, I will bet most aren’t – they’re just ignorant and fearful. My guess is that prolonged media coverage will (a) expose the BNP to more ridicule and (b) force the Government to have a sensible immigration policy.


People who spread fear always do so because they are fearful themselves. Fear is what drives them: fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of ‘the other’. Nick Griffin and his supporters have lived, and will continue to live their whole lives in fear. That is their greatest punishment.

The Rules of Work

I'm starting a new section called "The Rules of Work". My ideas and advice on how to flourish in an office environment, accumulated over the last decade and a half (almost) of working in offices in the UK - in banking, insurance, the Metropolitan Police, local councils, charities and IT departments. I've been around a bit ;)

Here are some rules to get you started:


Look Busy. When you walk somewhere in the office – to another part of the building, to the photocopier, to have a chat with your friend about anything – always carry file conspicuously held in your hand or tucked under your arm. If not a file then a notepad or a bunch of papers. Take something with you on every trip you make. It makes you look professional, like you have a purpose and are a dedicated guy who is focussed on their work and not an idler who is loafing around. Of course, you are focussed on your work. I know that, and you know that. But even if you’re going for a chat about what your friend did over the weekend, always carry your file with you; you always want to look busy.

If you make a mistake, for goodness’ sake don’t try and cover it up. Ever.

If it’s your fault apologise. Don’t try and qualify your apology, deflect blame or justify yourself. If you do it will be easy to spot and your apology will be ignored; in fact people will regard you worse than they did if you hadn’t apologised at all.

· When you write an email, put together the text first; add in the name of the addressee afterwards.

· Never write anything personal about anyone in an email. Ever. No matter how much of a git they are. Anything you type on a keyboard remains in cyberspace FOREVER and can come back and haunt you. IT departments are rubbish at most things but strangely are very good at keeping things that can damn you.

· Never badmouth anyone, even in private. You think it’s safe by the water cooler, but it’s not. For a start you can (and probably will) be overheard; but even if you’re not, your co-conspirator only needs to tell one person they think they can trust and the dominoes will start falling – a chain reaction which will lead inexorably to someone who will hear that you have been badmouthing their best buddy. Oops. If you really have to, criticise their work, never them personally. That way you have something to back yourself up with.

· Try and keep your private life out of your work life. Especially relationships.

Extradite Gary McKinnon

Always be suspicious when has-been ‘celebrities’ join forces with politicians to campaign for something. Especially when the something in question has been reduced to a black-and-white, good versus-evil protest with political agendas thrown in. Enter Gary McKinnon.

GK has admitted hacking into Pentagon computers and the US authorities, not surprisingly, want to try him for it. He's been fighting extradition. Not because he didn't do it - he's admitted that he did - but because (a) he doesn't think he can handle a long stretch in the clink and (b) he says really didn't mean it - he was looking for aliens, you see.

Now I don't know the full facts of the case. And neither do you. But neither, more importantly, do Boris Johnson and all the other media whores who have jumped on the McKinnon bandwagon. None of them know the full facts. But they are quite happy to prefer not to hear them in a court of law because it means they can use this case as a political football.

Boris Johnson's argument is that McKinnon is a 'classic British nut-job' - and so should not be tried on that basis! I didn't know that being a nut-job determined the validity or otherwise of an extradition request. Don't judge people by your own standards, Boris. The Daily Mail wants another stick to beat the Government with and so has championed his case. Gary McKinnon's mother is deluded in the way that only the mother of a criminal could be - 'not my boy!' is her argument.

There is a familiar narrative of self-pity in this tale. Our culture's first priority is to look for victimisation - either find it, or perpetrate it ourselves. So this story of an alleged crime and possible trial has instead been transmogrified into a pantomime story of victimhood: one of our boys being bullied by the American military; a poor hacker faced with oblivion by a faceless prison-system. No-one actually claims he didn't do it. It's just that his supporters don't want him to be punished; or more specifically, they don't want the Americans to punish him.

If McKinnon had hacked into the American branch of Stop the War, Save the Burkha, or The Campaign Stop the American Military Whilst Spreading Love and Happiness these protestors would swivel 180 degrees and be releasing albums urging he be packed off onto the first jet to the US.

Anti-Americanism. Again. Don't these people ever get tired of it? It's so passé. You can bet your bottom dollar - or British Pound - that if the situation were reversed and an American geek had hacked into the Ministry of Defence's computers and potentially compromised or endangered 'our boys' in the military then the Daily Mail would be screaming for his extradition to Belmarsh.

And then there's a political point that people who don't really care about McKinnon have been pushing. That the extradition treaty between the UK and US, signed in haste after 9/11, is unfair and biased towards the US system, they claim. And maybe it is. But so what? Argue about the treaty, don't have a hissy fit and say "That's it, you're not having this hacker now". The terms of the treaty are clear. If you want to abrogate the treaty then do so - but do it for everyone.

The last argument is a relatively new one in this case. That Gary McKinnon 'suffers' from something called Asperger's Syndrome. Apparently it's a form of autism that, according to the National Autistic Society's website can cause difficulty with social interaction, social communication and social imagination.

Nothing about distinguishing right from wrong. Nothing about being compos mentis. Nothing about being fit or otherwise to stand trial. It's just not relevant.

McKinnon knew what he was doing. He knew that his excuse that he was looking for aliens was hogwash. He just dreamt that up when he got caught, and celebrities-without-a-cause bought his line and signed up to his defence without the slightest clue about what they were doing.

He's as guilty as sin. Think I'm jumping the gun? Fine, let a jury decide. The House of Lords and the European Court have all agreed to his extradition. None of their eminences have agreed with his mum that he faces an unfair trial, that he is unfit to stand trial, that the offence is not serious enough - in other words they have thrown out all the excuses Gary McKinnon has come out with.

So off you go to America, Gary. If you're clever enough to crash Pentagon computers then I'm sure you'll have no problems at all in a court of law. If a jury agrees that you're a harmless fantasist you'll be back home for tea and biscuits. If not, then I hope you like prison food. :)

A Little Wit

"Can I ask a stupid question?"

"Yes - better than anyone I've ever met".

(Golden Girls, TV Show).
Love this one. I gotta remember it!

The Great Financial Crisis

The following is a copy of a short essay I was required to write recently as part of a job application I made to a Business-to-Business media company as a trainee journalist.

The essay was required to be 500 words long and the only stated requirement was to "discuss the response of the British Government and regulatory authorities to the financial crisis". A pretty broad topic, and not many words to do it in. Here it is.

In late 2007 Northern Rock found itself struggling to raise money on capital markets. Defaults on sub-prime mortgages in the US had triggered a banking ‘credit crunch’ and banks which had specialised in mortgages found themselves unable to raise funds on capital markets. The government searched in vain for a private buyer before finally nationalised Northern Rock in February 2008. As credit tightened and liquidity decreased the Government moved to a Keynesian policy of active intervention to free up credit, consisting primarily of capital injection and asset guarantees.

The Government at first encouraged buy-outs, such as Lloyds TSB’s takeover of HBOS. The Bank of England, although its remit was supposedly limited to inflation targets, created a Special Liquidity Scheme to swap banks’ risky mortgage assets for billions of pounds of government debt. As banks refused to lend and share prices plummeted, private buyers stayed away and the Government was forced to nationalise banks such as Bradford and Bingley, taking on their debt. This process snowballed by October 2008 into the offer of unlimited guarantees to all British banks. The objective was to restore confidence, encourage lending and forestall a recession. Despite this the UK entered recession anyway.

In September 2007 the FSA imposed a belated ban on short-selling to relieve downward share price pressure. It also announced it would guarantee savings of up to £50,000 to try and reassure small savers. To boost lending the Bank of England made a succession of interest rate cuts until they reached the lowest rates ever seen in the UK. As the economy deteriorated the UK Government injected billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash to bail out major banks in exchange for equity stakes. Confidence and lending had fallen so low that it was felt that only the most direct form of state intervention and control could restart lending. The Government had to hope, rather than guarantee, that taxpayers would eventually get their money back.

A second bank bail-out was launched in January this year, taking the total to almost £400 billion. The government also tried to tackle the problem by cutting VAT to encourage consumer spending; but (as German politicians pointed out) when weighed against the public’s instinct to save and continuing high street sales, the small VAT reduction had little effect. The government also unveiled plans to guarantee up to £20 billion of loans to firms.

The response of the Government and regulatory authorities has been incremental, reactive and often too little too late. The Chancellor’s recent reforms to vet the pay deals of bank executives, force banks to hold more capital and stop lending ‘overstretch’ by banks have not fundamentally altered the ‘tripartite’ regulatory structure between the Treasury, FSA and Bank of England. Nevertheless, the government has avoided a total banking collapse and this should be praised. The real cost, however, aside from huge debts, has been a collapse in the public’s trust.

498 words

BBC Licence Fee - licenced robbery

I've just had my latest direct debit through the post for the BBC licence fee. £142.50. The Licence Fee seems to be one of those things, like rain in the summer, that people seem to think is inevitable unless you go abroad. Except that it isn't. The Licence Fee should be abolished and the BBC privatised.

The licence fee is an anachronism, as well as being unfair and an inefficient way of funding what remains an organisation that still produces a lot of good stuff. Anachronism because the BBC is no longer the only channel out there. Unfair because you are forced to pay - under pain of jail - whether you watch the BBC or not. And inefficient because it stifles innovation and distorts output.

There is simply no coherent reason why the entire TV-watching population should fund a media organisation, even if they never watch it. The counter-argument is that the BBC is a source of excellence and a national institution: "Auntie". Well, I like my aunties but I still think they should pay their way.

I've always thought that simply being around a long time and having a bit of history - or being old, in plain English - is not sufficient to isolate an instutution from changing times. A bit like the Royal Family.

There are lots of sources of excellence in TV (and other media) - the internet has opened the floodgates and the market is king. If people like it, it will pay it's way; it they don't, it dies. I do actually support the state stepping in and preserving and nurturing our cultural heritage if society becomes more Philistine and prefers Big Brother to quality documentaries.

But the irony is that the BBC cannot escape market forces; it actually has to join the mob and pay Jonathan Ross his millions, bid for cricket, Wimbledon, football and other sport, buy film rights to screen them. So in fact the BBC would be better off being freed from the grip of the Government and the Culture Secretary telling them how to spend our money (not 'their' money) and going it alone by selling its output, having adverts and making better use of the internet and newer technologies. If the BBC's supporters are so confident that its output is first-rate, world-beating and second to none, then why not put their money where their mouth is? Why do you need a subsidy?

This isn't the USSR. Why should the Government control the BBC? What's that you say? They don't control the output? Au contraire, the Govenment can raise or lower the licence fee and appoint the Director General and therefore has the BBC by the short and curlies. The irony is it's our money, not the Government's. Any yet the licence-fee payers have very little, if any, control over the BBC's output.

The licence fee has also distorted the political slant of the BBC. Ever wondered why the BBC advertises its jobs in the Guardian and not The Telegraph? Surprise, surprise. BBC, of course, has a left-wing slant, which unless you've been living on the dark side of the moon for the last 50 years you can't have failed to spot. Left-wing, by the way, means more state influence and control as opposed to free enterprise; it does not mean equality as opposed to racism, as some people seem to think. State influence - it's starting to make sense, isn't it?

It's said by some that privatising 'Auntie' would lead to a political slant anyway. Maybe. But so what? At least people would have a choice whether to fund it or not (by watching it). Right now there is no choice. A company that forces money out of you and then creates content that has a slant you may not agree with! Want to switch over? Fine, don't watch us, but guess what - we'll take your money anyway! We don't care if you think it's mad, it's the law.

Scrap the licence fee and privatise the BBC.

Michael Jackson and the curse of fame

Farewell Jacko. The Sun was right - you really were wacko, but the thing is, you probably couldn't have been anything else. If there is a lesson from his life it is that being famous is more of a curse than a blessing.

He had no childhood. Well, not a childhood that any of us would recognise. Being the object of a marketing campaign when you're twelve or whatever just ain't good for you. For a start you don't rub alongside the other kids because you've got a tour to do. As a kid you need to experience a few failures and find a way to deal with them. But if you're famous your manager and record company deal with that. You're just a money-making machine to them.

He had so much money he didn't seem to understand the value of it. He covered up his kids and himself in public because they didn't have a private life. What child deserves that? That's got to be the most devastating thing about being famous in that instantly-recognised, dumbly-adulated way: no privacy whatsoever. If that's not a living hell will somebody please tell me what is.

If people who go on X-Factor, Britain's Got 'Talent' (couldn't resist the quotation marks) and others can't learn from Michael Jackson, if they still think that it's a good career move to be human heroin for TV and tabloid junkies to inject themselveswith for an instant thrill or distraction, then more fool them.

NightJack vs The Times

A police officer and blogger who reported from inside the police has been revealed. He had battled in the courts to keep his identity secret, but the judge overruled him and he was unmasked. He called himself 'NightJack. In fact he is Richard Horton, a detective constable in the Lancashire constabulary.


The ruling is significant because it sets a precedent: My Justice Eady ruled that blogging is essentially a public activity and that bloggers therefore have no automatic right to privacy.


So it’s a bad day for us bloggers. If you are a whistleblower exposing corruption or incompetence, the law will not ride to your defence. Even if you have something interesting to say that gets you a following (NightJack had 500,000 apparently – if only I had that!) you have no legal right to privacy and so your employer can, and probably will, catch you. And sack you.


The Times is responsible for this. The reporter who sniffed out NightJack is Patrick Foster. Readers of my blog will see that I worked at The Times recently, doing work experience on their Home News section. I didn’t meet Patrick Foster, but as you will see in my previous post, I got a flavour of the ethos of The Times during my time there.


Was this a blow for, or against freedom? This judgment doesn’t restrict freedom to blog, just freedom to hide. And as we can see in Iran and China, anonymity is an essential tool in the arsenal against the power of the state. But there is a competing freedom: the freedom to report.


If The Times wants to report upon, and scrutinise, an anonymous blogger who may or may not be telling the truth 100% of the time, then why shouldn’t they? NightJack wasn’t asking the court to allow him to write; he was asking the court to censor someone else’s freedom to publish. So the onus in this case was on NightJack to explain why the media should be muzzled, not why he should be allowed to blog with complete anonymity. If you want to have freedom of the press – and I do – it has to be absolute, and cut both ways.


I am a blogger. If I want to publish something critical, mischievous, seditious, scurrilous or scandalous then I remain free to do so. That is freedom of expression. As long as I’m not doing anything criminal, that remains the case. What this judgement says, however, is that I cannot expect other journalists’ freedom of expression and reporting to be curtailed on my behalf, just because I will be left feeling uncomfortable when my employer (or anyone else) finds out who I am.


Now there’s a lot of cant being spouted by The Times right now. They weren’t acting as guardians of free expression in bringing this case, that’s for sure. They argued in court that it was in the public interest for NighJack to be exposed. Come off it. We love the sheer cheek of a guardian of the law savaging his superiors and gving us the inside picture on how the fuzz go about their business. The Times knew full well that if they won then anonymous blogs that challenged authority in any way shape or form would be doomed.


Legally The Times deserved to win, because their freedom of reporting trumps NightJack’s desire for court censorship. Yes the ruling will restrict his freedom to publish, and will worry all the other subversive bloggers out there. But NightJack’s discomfort when the Chief Inspector asks him into the office for ‘a little chat’ is part of the chain reaction of the ruling, and not strictly the issue the courts had to pass judgment on.


The Times doesn’t come out well from this. They brought this case out of self-interest, not to champion freedom of speech. When I worked at The Times in May 2009 I was told over and over again that the printed media is in a death spiral, unable to pull out of the destructive wake left by online media content. Why pay for a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch to tell you about the police when a real copper can give you the inside picture without having to pass through the filter of the Police’s own media department?


So The Times brought this case to kill off blogs as a viable alternative to mainstream media. Perhaps they didn’t set out with that aim in mind initially – no-one can really say, apart from the editor. But they are smart people; I know because I’ve met and worked with them. They knew that the blogosphere, at least in the UK, would never be the same if they won this case.


The Times’ defence, as articulated by Daniel Finkelstein, doesn’t pass muster. Sure, NightJack might have been a politician masquerading as a copper. So what? The whole point of the internet, of ‘citizen journalists’, is that there are so many of them. We don’t have to take anyone’s word for it.


So the end result is that blogging is really no different to standing up on Hyde Park corner and yelling something. You can say what you like, as long as you don’t break the law. If what you say upsets your company, they can sack you. You can challenge them in an industrial tribunal. If your contract has a clause of ‘gross misconduct’, the tribunal must interpret whether you have been in breach of this. It’s not an automatic ‘you’re fired’ judgment. Companies need protecting from anonymous employees who may lie about them. But the downside of this judgment is that one more avenue for whistleblowers has been firmly closed. It looks like they’ll just have to go to The Times now. Which is probably what they wanted. If anything good is to come out of this judgement it should be how to give whistleblowers more protection. The blogosphere is not the answer.


So I mourn the exposure of NightJack, and The Times' victory. But it was inevitable, and bloggers need to understand that the internet isn’t anonymous. It never was. Suppose The Times had lost the case. What if another blogger found out who NightJack was and wanted to expose him? Would the courts be right in silencing him too? You can’t pick and choose freedom of expression. Get over it guys. And keep blogging.