Tales from a crazy island

Good evening readers.

Well, another week negotiated and plenty of things have happened since we last convened. Protesters descended upon London to voice their dissent against the world leaders in these times of economic depression, some of whom had a clear agenda, others just looked like they fancied a day off work. Then, extraordinarily, peace broke out where it appeared that differences of opinion were going to be irreconcilable. Not even Sir Fred refusing to surrender his bonus could get in the way of the sudden rejoicement.

Meanwhile, April Fools' Day came and went with the newspapers as usual trying to catch their readers out with stories of fantasy that J.K. Rowling would have been proud of. Best of all was the story on the front page of the Metro saying that nightclub bosses planned to shine a special torch up people's nostrils to check for traces of cocaine. And that story turned out to be true!

In the sporting world, the highlight of the week was the Grand National, the one day of the year when grannies will have a bet and normally their non-scientific system of picking the horse that shares its name with their first pet is just as reliable as the tried and tested system of the formbook. Typically, I backed a horse at 20 to 1, but sadly it didn't finish until half past five! Well done to those of you who picked the winner at 100-1, there's a good night out to be had with those winnings.

Well, as ever, seeing as how there have been so many things to talk about in the worlds of politics, the media, local affairs, business and sport over these past few days, I'm going to try my very best to cram as much as I can into this blog. So, let's get the show on the road.

1. Maybe protests can work after all
There I was sitting on a train this week thinking about what I was going to write in my blog come the weekend. There were a few stories dominating the column inches in the broadsheets and scandal sheets during the week, but by far and away the biggest talking point was the political circus of G20 coming to London for their summit meeting.

Beforehand, there appeared to be a lot of apathy and criticism of the decision to stage such a grand event in London with people dubious of the motives and also wondering how appropriate it was to lay on such an extravagant event for world leaders and to no doubt commit so much to the policing bill throughout the capital whilst the summit was occurring, all the while the world remains in the grips of economic meltdown. Surely, there were too many factions, differences in cultures and individual agendas that would get in the way of there being any meaningful progress that would come out of the summit and these would only open up old wounds.

And then there were the protesters. Who was really going to take them seriously? From what I could see, there just appeared to be too many pressure groups with their own individual agendas queuing up to lay bare their grievances about the current social, political, economic and environmental concerns with a vocal minority who would be prepared to take direct action in order to get their point across.

So there I was with my reporters' notebook, jotting down a few notes and planning a spider diagram for what I would write about this weekend (I like to be meticulous, you know!), thinking that the best angle to go with would be that protesters were wasting their time. World leaders are too aloof to be listening to the opinions of some scruffy protesters and to take on board the anger and frustration felt by the average Joe, especially when the typical presence of Rent-A-Mob comes along and causes criminal damage to a bank. How could a collection of tax dodgers and sickie throwers who did not necessarily know what they were protesting about compare to previous generations of protesters who were actually prepared to be martyrs to their cause in order to achieve progress? If anything, people's contempt of politicians would only be transferred to protesters who were wasting their time and bringing the capital to a standstill.

And then something extraordinary happened. In the next two days the 20 most powerful leaders in the world gathered round a table in London's Docklands and where acrimony and blood spillage was predicted, a relatively straightforward peace broke out. OK, so no hard and fast solutions were found, but then the issues up for discussion are too complex for quick fixes or overnight success. However, matters of personal difference seemed to be cast aside as the assembled caped saviours of the world thrashed out a commitment to solving the key issues of economic, social and environmental concern with a nine point plan of action.

Now, it would obviously be naive to proclaim the developments that occurred in the London borough of Tower Hamlets a success just yet. A commitment to achieving a common goal is only the beginning and that ageless saying about actions speaking louder than words certainly applies here. But, looking back to the start of the week, who could honestly say that they expected any kind of resolution from this summit? The beginning of the week brought about policy cliques and the usual expectation of horse trading between different nations where national protectionism would be bound to take precedence over the need to establish unity to reach a common goal. Expecting the elected representatives of world super powers with disparate cultures and agendas and different levels of tolerance looked about as likely as encountering a flying pig at Heathrow airport.

This looked all the more unlikely on the eve of the summit when it transpired that Nikolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were at such odds over Gordon Brown's Keynesian model of Government spending in order to tackle the current recession that Sarkozy threatened to walk out on the summit and go home. Mind you, I think if I had Carla Bruni to go home to, I could understand his predicament! Sarkozy and Merkel had a point of course as it has been the heavy Government spending and subsequent cycle of borrowing from banks that has intensified the economic gloom in the United Kingdom. Fortunately though it would seem that a compromise was found with Sarkozy getting what he wanted and the G20 opting to abandon its laissez faire approach and agreeing to implement the imposition of far tougher global regulation on banks and other financial services.

There were several hot potatoes that the G20 leaders sought about addressing during the summit, including wiping out global debt, climate change and economic strategies. But perhaps the most significant of all was the commitment to cut out the flow of money into tax havens. You will be familiar with the tales of Formula One drivers and ageing rock stars who set up home in places like Monaco, Switzerland, Jersey, Iceland or the Isle Of Man where they will not be required to contribute any of their huge earnings to Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue Department. This is a good deal for those concerned, but it is a bum deal for everyone else as this creates an invisible economy, an economy where income is lost which could be contributed towards improving public services. So any attempts at eradicating these loopholes should certainly be welcomed.

So, having established a cautious optimism in terms of the outcomes that have emerged from G20, how much of what was achieved was as a result of the protests? I am not too sure on this, but I think that what the protests did do was reaffirm that the discontent and contempt for politicians as the decision makers who affect everyone's lives is at a current low and it is possible that politicians who saw footage of the protests and heard of some of the protesters' causes and agendas realised that people are in search of answers and actions to a global crisis that they perceive with some substance to be of the politicians' making.

What was noticeable about the footage of the protests was that whilst many of those who lined the streets just seemed to be there for a spot of the action and for a day away from a humdrum office or from having their head concealed behind a textbook, there were also those who lined the streets having been affected at first hand by the world's current troubles, such as people that had been made redundant by banks, people with savings in troubled banks and former postmasters at closed village Post Offices. These were not the kinds of people who attended protests and demonstrations surely? And yet, there they were with their placards and their whistles, waiting for a passing news reporter to ask them what their motives were.

I am still not entirely convinced that protesters can really make much of a difference to what a Government decides to do. The Government after all always retains the disclaimer that "you elected us" whenever rumblings of dissent are rife, although such is the level of political apathy among many that they abstain from voting, resulting in elections being won where only two-thirds of the population voted and so in real terms, far less than half the eligible voting population actually elected the winning party and leader.

Protesters can certainly generate awareness in their causes through their protests, but in my experience, I find that many are distrustful of protesters' motives and particularly get fed up wherever direct action takes place that causes disruption to their everyday lives. And yet, when we look back at the pages of history, some important freedoms and developments that we now take for granted have only been brought about as a result of powerful protest movements.

If it were not for Emily Davison sacrificing her life by throwing herself in front of the King's horse at Epsom in 1913 and were it not for Emmeline Pankhurst chaining herself to railings, women would not have been given the right to vote. Without that, the possibility of ever having a female Prime Minister would have been a pipe dream. Also, was it not for Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white person and was it not for the black civil rights movements of the 1960s, segregation due to one's skin colour would still be accepted and oppression of this nature would still be tolerated. And if that was still the case, the chances of the United States ever having a Kenyan born, mixed race President would be nil.

As I said at the top, I find it hard to draw parallels between martyrs of a previous protesting age and the current generation of protesters. However, given how the G20 summit panned out and the "peace in our time" that came about at the end of it, it would be wrong to dismiss out of hand the impact that the protests had. The television images will have illustrated to the watching world the groundswell of anger and discontent that pervades at the moment and with politicians keen to ensure they retain power when they next face the ballot box, they had to be seen to be in touch with their electorate. It is not inconceivable that seeing these images and being made aware of the protests will have played a part in bringing about what, on the surface, appeared to be a pain free resolution. The next test is putting the plan into practice.

2. BBC detractors continue to miss the point
Once again, the BBC have come under attack from their enemies in Fleet Street and on rival airwaves this week. First of all, they were criticised for the heavy handed wording of letters to people who had not paid their television licence. This of course angered the Daily Mail, to whom outrage is almost a reflex state of mind.

Then, just to compound their problems, the BBC were then hit with a £150,000 fine by OFCOM for the Sachsgate affair. This resulted in Z-list columnists and no-mark talk DJs getting on their high horses about how disgusting it was that this fine was being paid by the licence paying public when it should have been paid by the presenters who were responsible for the ill advised lewd answerphone message in the first place. If this was supposed to whip this particular licence paying member of the public into an angry frenzy, it succeeded, but only in as much as I cannot believe just how much some people unbelievably miss the point.

A few things about these points. First of all, some newspapers did not do their research properly. They reported that this fine was a record fine that had been imposed on the BBC. It was not, and I can only assume that there has been an outbreak of short-term memory loss among the scandal sheet scribes. The BBC was fined three times as much just last year for its part in the telephone competition rigging scandal. You remember the one, innocent children were encouraged to telephone the BBC at mummy and daddy's expense to come up with a suitable name for the new moggy on Blue Peter, when lo and behold, the Blue Peter Production Team had already decided on a name. I'm sure Blue Peter viewers have not been so upset since George the Tortoise popped his clogs, or maybe his shell.

Secondly, the moral brigade among our elected Members of Parliament suggested that Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross should cough up the £150,000 to OFCOM seeing as how they were responsible for getting the BBC in the mess in the first place. Notwithstanding the fact that the editorial team were certainly culpable too, you would like to think that an MP would know something about the laws which they presumably play a part in passing. It would seem not, however, because it is currently illegal for an individual person or people to pay such fines, they have to be levied against an organisation. Hazel Blears in her latest attempt to get herself noticed has only managed to score an own goal. Even if it was possible to ask individuals to contribute, given that Russell Brand is no longer employed by the BBC, it is difficult to see how it would be possible to hold him to any monetary account over this matter.

Maybe it is just me, but there is something blindingly obvious here that everybody has overlooked. The OFCOM fine was for £150,000. Jonathan Ross is reputedly paid £6 million a year for his various projects on the BBC. Whatever your opinion on him or that figure, at the time his last contract was up for negotiation that would have been the going rate for a top ranking light entertainment presenter and I imagine back in those heady days, he would have been paid far more by ITV. Anyway, the point is that Ross was suspended for three months for his ill chosen cameo on the Russell Brand Show on Radio 2 with his pay frozen during that time.

By my working out, this means that Ross is paid £500,000 a month and so during the time he would have been suspended by the BBC, he would have waived £1,500,000. The £150,000 works out at just ten per cent of what Ross would have earned from his salary during that time had he not been suspended. This is money that would have already been committed, so the BBC could surely just cover this fine from Ross's unpaid salary over the three months and would still have enough to commission a documentary on lollipop ladies or possibly a new sitcom starring Ardal O' Hanlon. Therefore, people getting themselves worked up into a larva is pointless because the BBC already has the money tucked away to pay this fine.

So that brings me back to the licence fee. I really have some difficulty in understanding the mentality of people that are opposed to the licence fee or refuse to pay it. Anyone would think it was expensive, whereas in reality it costs less than £12 a month, which is fantastic value when you consider the array of programmes the BBC offers. People say it is an antiquated model and that they dislike the principle of paying a licence fee if you do not watch the BBC. Well, firstly you would find it hard to prove to anyone that you watch a terrestrial television but refuse to ever use two channels. Even if you select the channel in error, you are still watching a channel that the licence fee covers.

My particular problem with these cynics with nothing positive to say is that the very same people who are opposed to the licence fee are also the ones that complain about there being too much advertising on television. Or, they will be people with a satellite dish fixed to the back roof of their house with a monthly subscription fee far greater than a television licence. This is pure hypocrisy, or maybe people just think that the BBC should not actually spend any money to make television programmes. The corporation needs to be funded somehow, and if a licence fee is not an option, then these are the only two realistic alternatives.

Strangely enough, given that the BBC bashers have been critical of some of their digital output, accusing BBC Three and BBC Four as being a waste of money because they do not get sufficient audiences, the people most vehemently opposed to the licence fee might be surprised to learn that its days could be numbered thanks to the digital revolution taking place right now.

As we all should know, the digital switchover will take place throughout the UK by 2012 and at that point, the analogue signal will be switched off. I say that we all should know because clearly some people are still in the dark given that just last year, sales of analogue only televisions with access to just terrestrial TV remained steady. I expect the same people cook their dinner in an Aga and are still playing Pac Man on the Commodore Vic 20. However, there was a significant development this week with digital channel E4 scoring higher audience figures on Thursday night for its comedy-drama The In-betweeners than the Graham Norton Show that was airing on BBC2 at the same time.

What the digital era will herald, I think, once everyone embraces its being is a move away from the traditional terrestrial television schedule. People subscribe to satellite television because of the choice available, they can choose what genre of programmes they would like to watch and give a wide berth to those programmes that they do not have any interest in. People's lifestyle choices are greater in general now with more people watching a movie on DVD on those wet Sunday afternoons or chilled out Friday nights rather than flicking between the five main channels.

And I think with this, you might see the BBC look at moving over to something more akin to a subscription model where people can choose which of their channels they would like to watch and which they would like to leave alone. And if people don't want to watch any of their channels, then that will be their personal choice, but it will just mean that they do not get a picture if they try to select the channel that their programming output is on, including BBC1 and BBC2.

What I think will become more noticeable in years to come is that the days of the "one size fits all" model of a terrestrial television channel will begin to die out. The problem that both the BBC and ITV have with their main channels are that they are trying to meet the needs of too many audiences and they are therefore doomed because you cannot please all the people all the time. If you look at the BBC and ITV's back-up digital channels, they tend to be more focused on a particular audience and are dominated by a particular genre of programmes. BBC Three is largely an entertainment and reality television channel, while BBC Four is devoted to documentaries, particularly related to history, as well as dramas and films of cultural interest. With ITV, ITV2 is largely a channel aimed at a younger audience with several celebrity orientated formats and reality TV programmes. ITV3 tends to focus its schedules on repeats of archive ITV drama and comedy series, while ITV4 shows more factual output and imported dramas.

The BBC already has a flagship 24 hour rolling news channel, a channel devoted to Parliamentary affairs and channels devoted to children and toddlers, but as the digital age starts to gather momentum, I would expect other specific genres to be catered for. For quite some time, people have spoken about the BBC introducing a dedicated sports channel and this could be a possible avenue, with coverage shared between it and the red button. It could decide to have other interactive channels aimed at a particular audience, perhaps a film channel or a music channel could be options.

It is very easy to knock the BBC because of the way it is funded and because of the sometimes archaic and bureaucractic nuances of the organisation and of the people holding power in Shepherds Bush. But, the organisation remains a unique entity and as relevant a market player as it ever was. The organisation has shown itself to be a wonderful innovator, with one of the best and most accessible websites in common use and the introduction of the excellent iPlayer facility, as well as demonstrating its foresight in preparing for the digital switchover.

The organisation remains a much revered one around the world where it is regarded as a standard bearer. Those that do not like the BBC's programming output should turn on their television the next time they find themselves in a hotel on mainland Europe and see just what passes as entertainment in other countries. But above all that, there are some programmes that the BBC makes which no other broadcaster in the world could make as well as they do, because of the attention to detail that goes into the production.

I particularly refer here to the BBC's long established excellence in producing natural history programmes. Sir David Attenborough has done more in educating people about all the species of living beings on this planet than any Guardian wallchart could ever aspire to. When your licence fee goes towards paying for such magnificent wildlife programmes as anything that Attenborough has been involved in, or the recently brilliant Orang Utan Diaries with close-ups of cute apes, the presenting from the equally cute Michaela Strachan and the heart rending stories associated with the programme, then you really cannot complain. The Natural History Unit and the travelogs of Michael Palin et al are the tip of the iceberg where the BBC's stamp of quality is concerned and that is why people should be proud of the BBC rather than always being so quick to castigate it.

3. No place for a court jester
I would not want you to think I always watch the BBC and sure enough, on Monday night I found myself watching the Despatches programme on Channel 4, which was an expose on the mayoral tenure of Boris Johnson to date. Although you have to take the findings of the programme with a significant pinch of sodium chloride given that the journalist fronting the programme clearly had an anti-Boris agenda, the programme certainly raised valid concerns about Johnson's suitability for such a crucial power position of power.

I must confess I used to be quite a fan of Boris Johnson's, although I tended to like him because I regarded him as a classic English eccentric, a bumbling and harmless buffoon who was worth listening to as he would quite often cut through some of the male cattle excrement that is sometimes all too common in political circles. Johnson is no intellectual lightweight in that he is well read and had a career as a political journalist and social commentator for almost two decades before he was elected to Parliament and then ran for London Mayor.

In saying that though, I always had misgivings about Johnson becoming Mayor of London. To me, Johnson is too woolly to be taken seriously in a position of power and is likely to be too easily influenced by other people with vested interests when it comes to making important decisions. Johnson's main vote winner when he was elected was simply that he was not Ken Livingstone, whom many Londoners grew to despise over his time as Mayor, not least because of the introduction of the congestion charge.

Johnson it would seem has done everything he can to distance himself from Livingstone's policies but in doing this, he is in danger of actually taking London backwards. Johnson is a keen cyclist and has promised to make London a more cycle friendly and environmentally friendly city and yet the Despatches programme implied that Johnson has, in fact, favoured the motorists more in the policies he has introduced so far, including removing one of the congestion charge areas. Anyone who has been to London will appreciate that there is too much traffic passing through the city, especially given the plethora of rail and tube links there are across the capital. It seems to me that Johnson has given the motorists what they want because they are in influential positions and because these policies are at odds with Livingstone's.

Johnson's major fixation with transport has been the abolition of "bendy buses" which clearly seem to be a bugbear of the unkempt Mayor. Yet, really and truly abolishing these buses is an empty policy, there is no significant benefit to anyone by removing them. It had been claimed that these buses would be replaced by London Routemaster buses, which seemingly appeals to the nostalgia freaks out there who yearn for a more innocent time. However, according to Despatches, there are no immediate plans to bring in Routemasters and in the short term, the bendy buses will be replaced by ordinary single and double decker buses. It seems to be a lot of upheaval at no small cost for no logical reason.

The other factor that would concern me if I was resident in London is Johnson's public relations, or rather, his distinct lack of skills in this area. Johnson loves to give a good quote, until someone has the audacity to challenge him and then he gets angry. This was demonstrated just this past week when a committee convened to discuss the disruption caused to the transport network in London by the snow storms of early February. Johnson was asked by the London Transport Committee's chair, Val Shawcross, if he had enquired about whether there might be problems that would affect London's transport network as a result of the heavy snowfall. Being the grown adult he is in a position of power, Johnson decided not to answer the question, stood up and walked out of the meeting. Johnson later said he could not do anything about the worst snowfall for twenty years.

As discussed on this blog in February, there is only so much that could be done about the snowfall that occurred because it is not a common occurrence in this country and so workers are not used to dealing with the aftermath of a snowstorm. It did not help either that the majority of the snowfall in South East England initially fell on Sunday evening, a time of week when the transport industry is running on particularly low resources. Nonetheless, Johnson was wrong to dismiss Ms Shawcross's query out of hand because it is quite valid for people affected by travel disruption to and from the capital on that day to question why London came to a standstill when other cities that also had significant snowfall were able to continue running transport.

All eyes will be on London in three years from now when the Olympics comes to London for the first time in sixty-four years. This should be once in a lifetime experience for people throughout the country and particularly in London and it should serve as a useful seedbed in bringing about much needed regeneration in some of the less affluent areas of London that are situated close to where the stadium is due to be built. Johnson's role as Mayor is going to be crucial in ensuring that London follows in the tradition of Barcelona, Sydney and Beijing by being an affable "mein host" that provides a memorable occasion for residents and visitors alike, albeit on a much smaller budget in comparison to Beijing.

Call me a cynic, but Johnson's central role in this piece does not fill me with confidence. His handover speech at the Beijing closing ceremony where he talked about Britain having "invented the rules of ping pong" was one part hilarious but for the most part embarrassingly cringeworthy. The eyes of the world will be watching the UK when the 2012 Olympics are declared open and more gaffes like this from Johnson leaves this country in danger of being a laughing stock at the exact moment that it is needing to portray a good image. It's time for Johnson to step up and show he is a man of substance and principle, rather than just a bumbling fool who has allowed power to go to his head.

4. National status could be a double edged sword
I read with interest this week that the South Downs have officially been granted National Park status after many years of canvassing by talkative country walkers. I suppose that qualifies them as ramblers.

The Downs cover a wide area of countryside within Hampshire, West Sussex and East Sussex, running from roughly near Southampton right along to the outskirts of Eastbourne. The area in question are certainly areas of outstanding beauty which look good in all weathers, but certainly are showcased at their best in the glorious summer sunshine, which is hopefully going to be plentiful over the coming months.

Whilst I am pleased to hear that the Downs have finally been elevated to the same level as the Lake District, Snowdonia and Yorkshire Dales, a status that is richly deserved, I do have one major reservation about the impact that national park status will bring. This concern is that the amount of people that come to visit the Downs will increase and with this, so too does the litter.

In times when the laconic, self-deprecating members of this crazy island buy a book called Britain's Crap Towns 2, it is worth reminding ourselves that there is some beautiful scenery within our fair isle. The South Downs is a classic example of that, but the Kent countryside with its proliferation of oasthouses and windmills on the landscape are also fine examples too. Yet, we have the capacity to spoil the very landscape that we go to enjoy by at times indulging in selfish, thoughtless actions either by dropping litter or by allowing dogs to foul public greenery.

So, I hope that the authorities take the appropriate measures to ensure that national park status on the South Downs is not abused by providing an adequate supply of waste bins and by clamping down on those who do drop litter, so that the Downs can be enjoyed by everyone that visits them.

5. Fine line between debauchery and stupidity
A couple of sporting stories have particularly stood out for me over the past week. In the world of football, I was interested to hear of Scotland's in-house curfew breakers with their captain Barry Ferguson and goalkeeper Allan McGregor both being dropped from Scotland's midweek World Cup qualifying group match against Iceland after both players had gone on a drinking bender after their team's 3-0 defeat in Holland the previous Saturday. From what I have read, it sounds like this was more than a case of having a couple of pints to wind down after a defeat, seeing as how both men supposedly stayed out drinking until 11:30 the following morning!

Having been suspended, you would think it wise to not get yourself into any further trouble, but Ferguson and McGregor then effectively signed their own resignation notes by making V-signs to the camera as they sat on the bench during the Iceland match. For these relatively empty but stupid gestures, Ferguson and McGregor did not so much have the book thrown at them, but the Encyclopaedia Britannica as the Scottish FA banned the pair from ever playing for Scotland again. To make matters worse for them, their club Glasgow Rangers have subsequently fined both players and suspended them from action for at least two weeks.

Now, I certainly think that it was right for the authorities to punish both players and it was also right to waste no time in making the punishment, rather than waiting for several weeks as sometimes happens when administering disciplinary actions in the world of sport. However, even though I would accept that what both players did was completely unprofessional, I would argue that a life ban is just a trifle draconian.

In Ferguson's case, he certainly let the team down as he was the captain and he therefore should have been setting an example to everyone else, not least to McGregor who was his partner in crime in this whole charade. He also has some previous where hard drinking is concerned and so in his case you could say that cutting short his international career is no great loss, not least because of his diminishing powers as a player.

Allan McGregor, however, is a few years younger than Ferguson and is 27 years old, which I would regard as relatively young by the standards of high level goalkeepers. The Rangers stopper had previously won four caps for his country and is regarded by many as a keeper who could become very good in the next two or three years if he just knuckles down and rids himself of some of the more unsavoury aspects of his character. At his age, you could argue that it is a bit late for that, but I think the problem is that he needs to step out of the clique he has found himself in. A change of scenery at a new club and with the right manager could be the making of him.

Now, this is where I have a problem with the life ban. I personally feel that team selection should always be at the manager's discretion unless there is good reason for a player not to be selected, such as them having committed a serious criminal offence or serving an extended ban for something they did playing for their club. It is fine all the while George Burley is manager for him not to select these players, but what happens when he is no longer manager? If the next manager comes in and rates these two, what will his reaction be if he is not allowed to reverse this ban?

The best thing both players can do is go and make a new start away from Scotland. Ferguson has already failed once in the Premier League, so perhaps he needs to head onto mainland Europe for his next challenge. This could be good for him in terms of adopting a more professional attitude to the game. In McGregor's case, a move south of the border to a lower level Premier League side could be his best option. In their position, I would just be wanting to play so well that their performances could not be ignored, so that it would force the officials into reviewing their stance some day down the line when both players are older and wiser. Neither player can change the past, but now is the time that they can start to shape their future. I suppose time will tell just what both players are made of or whether their international days truly have bitten the dust.

Changing sports, Kevin Pietersen was in the news again this week for announcing that he had found it hard to keep himself motivated during the extended tour of the West Indies owing to the fact that he had not seen his wife, Jessica of Liberty X and Dancing On Ice fame for over two months. As you might expect, Pietersen's comments triggered a cyncial response and KP did not help his cause with it being common knowledge that he will be flying off to his homeland in two weeks time in chase of the Indian Rupee for the rescheduled Indian Premier League.

However, tossing the merits of Pietersen's individual case to one side for a moment, it is worth bearing in mind that cricket has a history of mental illness and suicides among players and former players. There are several theories that have been opined as to why that is, particularly in relation to the mental deterioration that can consume a player who is haunted by a run of bad form. However, there is no doubt that the amount of time spent on the road for days on end away from family is a significant reason for this.

If you want a vivid example of how family difficulties can affect a player's mental health, I suggest you read the excellent Coming Back To Me by former England opening batsman Marcus Trescothick. Trescothick was forced to retire prematurely from playing for England after a battle with depression, which had been initially triggered by an accident his father-in-law had falling from a ladder while Trescothick was on tour in India. The guilt Trescothick felt because he was not at home to support his wife at a time of personal stress took over Trescothick and resulted in a breakdown which has meant he has not been able to travel out of the UK in a cricketing capacity ever since.

So while it is easy to dismiss Pietersen as being a prima-donna who has got too cocksure for his own good, it would be wrong to just think that being away from home for months is an acceptable part of the territory for an international cricketer. Everyone is different and some people handle being away from their family for an extended period better than others, but perhaps it would be advisable for the ICC to try and ensure that future international tours do not last for more than two months, so as to avoid any more players being lost to the international game as a result of a breakdown.