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.

School's out for silly season

Well hello again everyone. In the finest traditions of Mastermind, I intend to start what I finished the other night with some further discussion of some of the interesting and quirky things in the news these past few days.

Since I last posted some ramblings on these pages though, another story has come to the forefront of the media coverage and I feel it is only right I should talk about it. No, I'm not talking about Ashley Cole's ill advised midnight drinks and disputes with Paparazzi photographers and members of London's constabulary, but I am of course talking about Labour's King of Slime getting the custard treatment in an appropriately slimy colour.

4. Direct action could indirectly score an own goal
Well, like most people that watched the news I was amused in a juvenile schoolboy sort of way by Peter Mandelson receiving the green custard treatment. Mandelson is one of the most contemptible of all politicians swimming in the shark infested waters around Westminster, of that there is no doubt. However, whilst people will certainly remember the image of Mandelson being gunged much in the manner of a guest on Noel's House Party or Live & Kicking back in those halcyon televisual days of the 1990s, I do have my doubts over whether this type of action is the right way to get your point across.

I should point out at this point that I actually know who the phantom custard flinger was. Although I don't know Leila Deen in the sense of being a friend or acquaintance, I do recall her being at both my primary and secondary school and in fact her elder sister was in the same year as me. Apparently Leila is well renowned as a political activist with a keen interest in environmental matters, although I must confess, I had not previously heard of her involvement in this field until this story broke.

It would seem that Leila's particular bone of contention with Mr Mandelson was his support for a third runway at Heathrow Airport, which as a leading activist with the Plane Stupid pressure group, it will not surprise you to hear that Ms Deen was opposed to. Mr Mandelson was recently appointed Business Secretary by Gordon Brown, despite the fact that the King of Spin no longer sits in the House of Commons and in fact is now a member of the House of Lords. Within this role of Business Secretary, Mandelson's support of a third runway should not be surprising as he has no doubt been representing the views of many leading figures in business who I expect have lobbied him and his party. Although wannabe benefactors are supposed to not donate money to a political party in exchange for political influence, I think we all know that this does happen indirectly in certain situations.

The fact remains, however, that Lord Mandelson was not actually the person who gave the green light for the go-ahead to the fifth runway development at Heathrow. This person was in fact Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary. So in some respects, Mandelson represented a convenient scapegoat because he happens to attract a higher profile whereas for those with just a casual interest in or knowledge of the current Labour cabinet, picking Geoff Hoon out of an identity parade could prove to be a tough challenge.

Certain questions come to mind as a result of Leila Deen's "attack" on Mandelson. First of all, where on earth was the security? OK, so as it turned out, Ms Deen's weapon of choice happened to be green custard, but if security is as lax as that for Government ministers, who is to say that a top minister could not be exposed to a more dangerous weapon, such as a knife or a blade in another situation? Secondly, how on earth was Ms Deen allowed to just walk off unchallenged in the aftermath of her attack? Bearing in mind that just a couple of years ago, security at the Brighton Centre ejected an 80 year old man who was supposedly being seen to "heckle" a speaker at the Labour Party Conference, you would have expected there to be someone near to the incident who would have stopped Ms Deen in her tracks and arrested her. Ms Deen subsequently voluntarily attended a police station where she was placed under arrest. I wonder if she will get remanded in custody. Custody, custardy, geddit? Hmm, where's the cloak rooms?

Another wider question that should be asked though is do the public really take heed of pressure groups' messages after direct action has taken place? There are those who argue that it is only these kinds of actions that generate awareness in a particular cause and bring it to public consciousness. I tend to think this is a flawed argument though. Sure, people will remember the action and they might well know what the protest was about. However, for the action to be worthwhile, surely it is going to need people to motivated to go out and sign up to your campaign on the strength of the action they have witnessed. While I imagine some people's reaction to Mandelson's gunging was "couldn't happen to a nicer bloke", I doubt there were many who felt motivated to sign up to Plane Stupid or to find another means of campaigning against a third runway at Heathrow or get involved in any other form of environmental protest.

In the main I expect that most people's thoughts were something along the lines of "silly girl" or "you can't condone an assault". And this is what Plane Stupid need to wary of. If people find their protest methods old hat and over the top then it could in fact do serious damage to the credibility of their campaign. There is previous precedent in this respect in the form of Fathers For Justice.

This pressure group, you may recall, was a group formed to improve rights for fathers with regards to access and custody of their children and was at one stage championed by Sir Bob Geldof. However, the worthiness of this group's cause was seriously undermined by a series of publicity stunts by a small minority of activists. These stunts included someone throwing a purple "powder bomb" at Tony Blair whilst Parliament was sitting and some fathers dressed as superheroes scaling the exterior of the Houses of Parliament. The militant actions of a minority resulted in the group being dissolved for a period of time, before being recently reformed, although its reputation has now been permanently tarnished.

I have some sympathy with the opposition towards the third runway at Heathrow, although my sympathy is not so much with residents. I have always wondered about the mentality of people who complain about airport expansions when it was their choice to go and live near the airport, unless they really are so old that their residence pre-dates the airport. My particular concern with the expansion is less to do with the environment and more to do with safety. Heathrow is already Europe's busiest airport and adding another runway will add to the traffic flying over London. Given the sometimes inclement nature of our weather in this country, with more planes in the sky, surely this poses more danger of a crash in extreme weather conditions.

On the environmental point, I think there is a real conflict in people's attitudes. On the one hand, you have people who are more environmentally savvy and do care about the world they leave behind for their descendants. But the conflict is that people need to marry this with the ever increasing need to travel and take on a voyage of discovery. People are more hedonistic now than a generation or two ago, people want to sample different cultures and broaden their horizons and the main way they get to do this is by travelling, plus in some cases, travelling is an essential part of one's employment.

Whilst the green brigade would love everybody to stay at home more and reduce their carbon footprint, I dare say that many of the said activists have spent gap years going round India or Thailand and I doubt many chose to get to Asia on the Vladivostok Express or by going on the longest Tuk-Tuk ride in history. The bare facts are that flying enables people to get round the world far quicker than any other form of transport and given the nature of people's fast paced, live for today lifestyles, it is unrealistic to expect many to follow the Deen family's reported example of travelling to Morocco for a family holiday on a three day train ride.

Heathrow's latest runway is supposedly going to be open for business some time in 2019, although I expect like most building projects, it will eventually be opened late and well beyond the intended budget. So we are talking at least 10 years before the first commercial flights land on the new runway. In that time, I would not be remotely surprised to see significant advances in making aircraft a more environmentally friendly means of travelling. It would require work to be done on the fuel and quite possibly on the dynamics of the aircraft in order for these advances to work. After all, passengers would not want improvements to the environment to be at the cost of longer flight times.

Nonetheless, I do think it is quite feasible to see progress on this by the time Heathrow's next runway opens because normally where a designated need has been identified and it is seen that it needs attention, innovation tends to shine through in the end. People are not going to stop travelling and they are going to expect to get from A to B by aircraft at least as fast then as they do now. There simply are no realistic alternatives if people are travelling long haul to visit their Great Aunt Sheila in Australia or want to go on safari in Kenya. And people are not going to suddenly go back to spending their summers in Newquay or Bognor Regis because their conscience is pricking them.

So all in all, I don't think Leila Deen's chosen method of making a political stand will make any difference in the long run. Governments tend to make decisions affecting us all because they can with the disclaimer that "you elected us". So while I am sure in the short term, people will remember the images of Lord Mandelson's Incredible Hulk-esque face, I expect in the long run it will result in very few people being empowered to go and sign on the dotted line with Plane Stupid. You could argue that Ms Deen's actions were exactly what it says on the tin.

5. The rules are an ass
As something of a quiz fan, it probably won't surprise you to learn that I have been following the recent University Challenge controversy with some interest. In fact, I try and make sure I catch the show whenever I am at home on a Monday night. The show is appealing not just for giving you an ego boost if you unexpectedly answer the most obscure question correctly, but Jeremy Paxman is the perfect host for keeping the current generation of tax dodgers in place.

The controversy that has brewed in the last week or so has been in relation to the status of one member of the winning Corpus Christi College Team from Oxford University. The gentleman concerned supposedly broke the rules because he was no longer a student at the time when the final was filmed and had started a postgraduate job. This supposedly is at odds with the competition's rules which states that any member of the team has to still be at university by the time of the final.

While I appreciate that there are those out there who are sticklers for rules and no doubt will be saying "rules are rules" as their response to this, I personally feel that disqualifying Corpus Christi and handing victory to Manchester was a ludicrous decision and one that could have been avoided. Firstly, why on earth does the final need to be recorded several months after the earlier rounds? I was listening to Bamber Gascoigne the other day and he said that this scenario would not have happened in his time presenting the show because the series was played out continuously without gaps in the filming. If all of the rounds can be filmed within a short space of time, it completely removes the possibility of this scenario occurring.

Secondly, how did the producers of the programme not come to know about this potential problem much earlier? Surely as a pre-requisite for going on the show, the show's production team and researchers make a note of what courses the students are studying and presumably when they are scheduled to graduate. The student in question supposedly informed the production team that he was going to have graduated by the time the final came round but at the time, they did not see fit to take any further action.

This is a terrible way to decide a great series of University Challenge, especially as the final itself had been strongly contested. People out there no doubt feel that Corpus Christi gained an advantage by having an ineligible player but it is up to the BBC to make the rules clearer. In any event, the difference between the two teams was the Corpus Christi captain Gail Trimble, who scored over half the points that Corpus Christi amassed in the final.

Giving the prize to Manchester is awarding their team the most hollow of victories, much like when a Formula 1 driver gets awarded a race after the driver who took the chequered flag gets disqualified because of the most trivial technicality. If the powers-that-be really felt it necessary to challenge the result, why not just replay the final at a later date but with Corpus Christi using another player in place of the chap who had graduated. I have a strong inkling the result would be exactly the same.

I can't but think that this overreaction has been a result of the recent panic stations at the BBC where the popular press, led by the Daily Mail no less, have been jumping on any small scandal at Television Centre, however trivial or irrelevant it seems to the wider world. The BBC being the bureaucratic organisation it is has gone on the defensive and consequently it panics every time one of the papers sticks the knife in. This was an overreaction but now the BBC has created a rod for its own back with the news that in previous series, there were other teams that fielded postgraduates. A simple change of the rules and to the filming schedules needs to happen to avoid any further embarrassment.

One other thing about University Challenge. While I appreciate that the programme tries to represent the diverse range of students going to university, I would like to see more teams being represented by students doing Bachelors and Masters degrees rather than making up the numbers with students working towards PhDs. Getting to PhD is a fantastic achievement of course, especially given the time constraints associated with fitting it in to a career and sometimes a family life. However, I tend to think University Challenge should in the main test those working towards a future career and so PhD students with more worldly experience and knowledge could give their team an unfair advantage.

6. Facebook is not the root of all evil
Social networking seems to be all the rage at the moment. As well as Facebook and MySpace, we now have Twitter which seems to be the current play-thing of choice among celebrities. Some of whom have notoriety, some of whom are called Tim Lovejoy. Twitter's current popularity is something I find baffling given that essentially it is just like a Facebook status update except that you are restricted to 140 characters. Surely there needs to be more to it than that for people to migrate from Facebook to it?

Anyway, Facebook recently celebrated its fifth birthday and there have been plenty of discussions about its general usefulness recently, with some arguing it is an effective way to build networks, while the cynics are suggesting that it encourages laziness and that it results in more artificial relationships which lead to poorer social skills and communications, particularly among children and teenagers that use it.

The truth of the matter is that Facebook is not responsible for the world's ills, nor is it the cure to them either. First of all, Facebook is a fun website that people use to just kill time and to keep in contact with people. I am sure everyone on this fine planet has a mental list in the back of their head of people who they once knew, be it from school, college, university or previous employment who they would love to know what became of them. Or, they will have extended members of the family who they don't speak to often other than at weddings, Christenings, funerals or Bar Mitzvahs. Facebook provides a way of keeping in touch with people from all walks of life and it is up to you and them as to how much you choose to communicate with one another.

There are those that say that if people really wanted to stay in touch, they would have done anyway, but life is not always as straightforward as that. People go their separate ways, change jobs, meet spouses and move across the country, plus sometimes people also change their phone numbers or e-mail addresses and not everyone finds out. The great part of Facebook is tracking people down and comparing notes on how things have changed since you last hooked up.

Like all social networking sites, I think there does come a time when Facebook reaches saturation point. It was the same with Friends Reunited a few years ago, there was a period of time when membership levels snowballed but gradually everyone that you knew who was going to sign up had done so and the other people who were the subject of those "Whatever happened to..." moments were never going to sign up. Facebook has attracted more people than Friends Reunited, but that can be explained by the fact it is free and there is a much wider choice of applications that you can engage in. Nonetheless, my friend list has probably lost as many people as it has gained in the last 3 or 4 months, the result of some people having enough of Facebook's less favourable attributes.

Facebook is not perfect and I imagine that was Mark Zuckerberg's intention when he decided to throw Facebook out to the wider public domain back in 2006. The website is a commercial operation and it makes plenty of money from advertising, while further money is made from companies posting up their applications on the site. This provides the user with a diverse range of interactive options and experiences, but it also leaves the site prone to security lapses and potential viruses wherever applications are not sufficiently vetted.

The other problem with Facebook of course is the inability of some people to conform to the "site etiquette". You know the sort of thing I mean, people forever sending requests to participate in quizzes, posting pornographic images on your FunWall space, not to mention those requests to attack their zombie. People put up with this for so long, but when it gets to the stage where you have 400 requests to engage in various activities, you can understand why the less patient social networker decides to withdraw their Facebook presence.

In terms of the recent discussion about Facebook, I do not think social networking is to blame for poor communication or poor social skills, certainly not on its own anyway. There are other factors which are just as significant, such as text messaging. I would imagine a high percentage of teenagers now own a mobile phone but in general, how often is the phone used for speaking to people? I would hazard a guess that text messaging is predominantly used and text speak leads to sloppy English and less verbal communication. Also, where parents are leading hectic lives, how often do a family unit get to sit down together and engage in dialogue as a family? This surely has a bearing too.

That is not to say that there aren't certain trends with Facebook that are not disturbing, but often the worst culprits are adults. Some adults seem addicted to Facebook, to the degree that they have to update their status every hour or two, even if they updating via their mobile phone and if nothing of tremendous interest has occurred in that time. Some status updates such as learning that your Facebook friend is having a cup of tea and a biscuit or is doing the washing up is of such mind-numbing banality, that you wonder what possessed them to think anyone was interested in the first place.

Then there are those people who log into Facebook via their phone when out socialising with friends. Picture the scene. You are sitting in the pub having a pint with friends and everyone round the table is looking at their phones checking other people's status updates. Or substitute the pub for sitting down for a meal in a restaurant. Surely there has to be a cut-off point, a point where you say "let's leave the artificial communications until later". This is one of the reasons why I never use Facebook on my mobile phone. Well, that and the fact that my phone is ancient so it is not powerful enough to log into it anyway.

These are the types of people that give Facebook a bad name in some respects. You just want to sit them down and say "go for a walk, get some fresh air and turn your phone off when you do so". But some people have addictive natures, whether it is to nicotine, coffee, alcohol or the Internet. How long before the first meeting of Facebookers Anonymous is convened? I suppose it would at least give people the chance to network, and presumably send each other a friend request afterwards. They could consider staging future meetings via Facebook conferencing.

The truth is that Facebook can at times be annoying. If used wrongly it can be dangerous. You would be hard pressed to say that there are educational benefits from it unless you happen to play Lexulous on a regular basis. But, it is without doubt a guilty pleasure and I am sure that there are plenty of examples across the world of lost liaisons being retrieved and new friendships being formed and that surely is its purpose. Let's not try and pretend that it is rocket science, or anything more than a guilty pleasure, and a relatively inexpensive vice at that.