Sunday, January 30, 2011
MCCANNS: In search of Hacker...
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/01/mccanns-hunt-for-maddie-is-overthey-are.html
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
MURDOCH: Phone hacking
PM plays down Murdoch meeting
No 10 spokesman says Jeremy Hunt will decide 'alone' whether to refer News Corp bid, after PM met James Murdoch
It all started with a small- town newspaper...
He took a small-town newspaper and turned it into a billion dollar operation, gaining control of the information flow to nearly half the world in the process. He is loved by some, hated by many and even feared, but the power that Rupert Murdoch has in this world is undeniable. By thinking beyond national boundaries and embracing the opportunities presented in new technologies, Murdoch has created the first truly global media empire.
Born March 11, 1931 in Melbourne, Australia, Keith Rupert Murdoch II was the son of Dame Elisabeth Murdoch and Sir Keith Murdoch, a well-connected journalist and adviser to former Prime Minister of Australia Billy Hughes. Keith became Australia’s most prominent newspaper executive, owning The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, and was knighted for his services to the crown. He had always envisioned passing on his business to his young son, but was disappointed with the young Rupert’s slow progress. Because of this, Murdoch desired to be like his father, but often rebelled.
Murdoch attended Geelong Grammar School, the same elite boarding school in the outskirts of Australia attended by Prince Charles. He later enrolled in Worcester College at the University of Oxford. At the time, his father was experiencing severe heart problems and grew disappointed to learn that his son was developing a reputation for nothing more than partying at the expense of his studies. Worried about his son’s future, Keith called on a favour from a friend of his, Lord Beaverbrook, who was the publisher of the Daily Express in London. Beaverbrook gave Rupert a job working at the newspaper, where he quickly developed a talent for sensational headlines and snappy writing.
While attending university, Murdoch developed a penchant for socialism and began looking up to Lenin, who he admired as a great man. He was also an articulate and passionate debater and for this reason, he was elected president of Oxford’s Labour Club in 1950. At the same time, Murdoch was developing his business sense, working in the advertising department of the student newspaper Cherwell.
In 1952, Murdoch’s father passed away. After Australia’s hefty death taxes, Murdoch’s inheritance was much less than he had presumed. He completed his master’s degree at Oxford and then promptly returned to Australia to try and rekindle a small Adelaide newspaper that his father had owned, The News. With a reputation for being lazy and inexperienced, Murdoch found it difficult to gain the respect of fellow publishers. But, he dedicated himself to trying to learn the intricacies of newspaper production.
The News first began to gain significant attention in 1959, when it joined the Sydney Morning Herald in successfully campaigning against the capital punishment of Max Stuart. Stuart was an Australian Aborigine sentenced to death after a controversial murder trial. Although it was The News’ editor Rohan Rivett who led the charge, Murdoch took most of the credit.
With his newfound reputation, Murdoch began setting out to expand his realm of control. It wouldn’t be long before he had established himself as one of the most successful media owners in the country and later, the world.
Born March 11, 1931 in Melbourne, Australia, Keith Rupert Murdoch II was the son of Dame Elisabeth Murdoch and Sir Keith Murdoch, a well-connected journalist and adviser to former Prime Minister of Australia Billy Hughes. Keith became Australia’s most prominent newspaper executive, owning The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, and was knighted for his services to the crown. He had always envisioned passing on his business to his young son, but was disappointed with the young Rupert’s slow progress. Because of this, Murdoch desired to be like his father, but often rebelled.
Murdoch attended Geelong Grammar School, the same elite boarding school in the outskirts of Australia attended by Prince Charles. He later enrolled in Worcester College at the University of Oxford. At the time, his father was experiencing severe heart problems and grew disappointed to learn that his son was developing a reputation for nothing more than partying at the expense of his studies. Worried about his son’s future, Keith called on a favour from a friend of his, Lord Beaverbrook, who was the publisher of the Daily Express in London. Beaverbrook gave Rupert a job working at the newspaper, where he quickly developed a talent for sensational headlines and snappy writing.
While attending university, Murdoch developed a penchant for socialism and began looking up to Lenin, who he admired as a great man. He was also an articulate and passionate debater and for this reason, he was elected president of Oxford’s Labour Club in 1950. At the same time, Murdoch was developing his business sense, working in the advertising department of the student newspaper Cherwell.
In 1952, Murdoch’s father passed away. After Australia’s hefty death taxes, Murdoch’s inheritance was much less than he had presumed. He completed his master’s degree at Oxford and then promptly returned to Australia to try and rekindle a small Adelaide newspaper that his father had owned, The News. With a reputation for being lazy and inexperienced, Murdoch found it difficult to gain the respect of fellow publishers. But, he dedicated himself to trying to learn the intricacies of newspaper production.
The News first began to gain significant attention in 1959, when it joined the Sydney Morning Herald in successfully campaigning against the capital punishment of Max Stuart. Stuart was an Australian Aborigine sentenced to death after a controversial murder trial. Although it was The News’ editor Rohan Rivett who led the charge, Murdoch took most of the credit.
With his newfound reputation, Murdoch began setting out to expand his realm of control. It wouldn’t be long before he had established himself as one of the most successful media owners in the country and later, the world.
Russian editor charged with libel
Sergei Mikhailov, the editor of a Russian newspaper, Listok, has been charged with defamation after calling the administration of the Altai republic a "nest of vipers" and referring to its governor as an "alcoholic".
If convicted, he faces up to four years in prison and a large fine. Supporters of the journalist say the case is politically motivated because the offending statements appeared in articles published a year ago, and were ignored.
Since then however, Mikhailov has been elected as an independent deputy to Altai's legislature.
If convicted, he faces up to four years in prison and a large fine. Supporters of the journalist say the case is politically motivated because the offending statements appeared in articles published a year ago, and were ignored.
Since then however, Mikhailov has been elected as an independent deputy to Altai's legislature.
Sources: Moscow Times/Index on Censorship
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/sep/14/press-freedom-russia
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Dewani ‘may be faking it’
AP
Shrien Dewani.
Briton Shrien Dewani, who is suspected of orchestrating the hijack and murder of his bride of two weeks, Anni, in Cape Town in November last year, is probably faking a meltdown to stall his extradition, according to a local psychologist.
Last week celebrity spin doctor Max Clifford, who is on Dewani’s payroll, told the presiding judge at the start of extradition proceedings at the City of Westminster Magistrate’s Court that his client was medically unfit to attend court.
Chief magistrate Howard Riddle heard that Dewani was suffering from a “depressive adjustment disorder” and “acute stress disorder”. The name of the psychiatrist or psychologist who compiled the report submitted to court has not been released.
However, according to highly regarded Durban clinical psychologist Francois de Marigny, it is “highly unlikely” that either of the diagnoses would apply in Dewani’s case.
De Marigny, who is also experienced in forensic psychology, is frequently asked to present expert testimony in court regarding the mental state of prisoners.
“According to the most recent diagnostic criteria for mental disorders, neither diagnosis seems logical in this instance. While you can get adjustment disorder with a depressed mood, an exclusionary criterion is bereavement.
“Usually with adjustment disorder it needs to have occurred within three months of a significant stressor, and lasts no longer than six months.
“The criteria for a diagnosis of acute stress disorder are: a traumatic event involving confrontation during which the patient was threatened with death or serious injury, provoking feelings of helplessness or horror, numbing, detachment and depersonalisation. It lasts a minimum of two days, and a maximum of four weeks. It occurs within four weeks of the traumatic event, which clearly does not apply to Dewani.”
De Marigny said that it would make sense to screen Dewani to ascertain whether he was malingering.
“There are standardised psychological assessments which would accurately predict if he is feigning mental illness.”
A State advocate who can not be named for professional reasons said: “It is literally mind-boggling how many variants of bogus physical and mental disorders are presented to the court as reasons why accused parties cannot attend proceedings. It is then up to the court to sift out the charlatans.”
Independent advocate Pingla Hemraj said Dewani’s excuse was the basic “I’m too sick to put in an appearance” defence.
“It is not unusual to find an accused person claiming ill health. He is very clever to be starting a pattern of alleged ill health so early on. It is difficult to say at this juncture whether he will succeed in his bid” (to remain on extended bail). - Sunday Tribune
Anni Dewani : Please sign petition
Anni Dewani - What Really ... PETITION HAS REACHED OVER 2750 SIGNATURES Keep spreading the word please - twitter, facebook, email, text all your contacts, and get your contacts to pass ... - More » Shrien Dewani must Stand Trial in South Africa Petition - gopetition.com Facebook - 1 hour ago |
Saturday, January 22, 2011
| Man charged with the murder of Joanna Yeates |  |
|
UPDATED: Today 21:27
Is the BBC biased ?..LOLOLOLOL
For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?
In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the pervading culture.
The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.
By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent.
Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.
Veterans: Peter Sissons with Six O'Clock News' colleagues Moira Stuart (left) and Anna Ford soon after he joined the BBC
If you want to read one of the few copies of the Daily Mail that find their way into the BBC newsroom, they are difficult to track down, and you would be advised not to make too much of a show of reading them. Wrap them in brown paper or a copy of The Guardian, would be my advice.
I am in no doubt that the majority of BBC staff vote for political parties of the Left. But it’s impossible to do anything but guess at the numbers whose beliefs are on the Right or even Centre-Right. This is because the one thing guaranteed to damage your career prospects at the BBC is letting it be known that you are at odds with the prevailing and deep-rooted BBC attitude towards Life, the Universe, and Everything.
At any given time there is a BBC line on everything of importance, a line usually adopted in the light of which way its senior echelons believe the political wind is blowing.
This line is rarely spelled out explicitly, but percolates subtly throughout the organisation.
Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities. The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology.
All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both.
Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers.
Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically.
The Royal Family is a bore.
Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.
Queen Elizabeth II was not a favourite at the BBC
The increasing tendency for the BBC to interview its own reporters on air exacerbates this mindset.
Instead of concentrating on interviewing the leading players in a story or spreading the net wide for a range of views, these days the BBC frequently chooses to use the time getting the thoughts of its own correspondents.
It is a format intended to help clarify the facts, but which often invites the expression of opinion. When that happens, instead of hearing both sides of a story, the audience at home gets what is, in effect, the BBC’s view presented as fact.
And, inside the organisation, you challenge that collective view at your peril.
In today’s BBC only those whose antennae are fully attuned to the corporation’s cultural mindset — or keep quiet about their true feelings — are going to make progress.
Moreover, making progress these days doesn’t mean just achieving the influence and prestige of a senior job with the world’s greatest broadcaster, once considered reward enough. For those breaking through into the senior ranks, there’s now big, big money and a gold-plated pension to be had
Which is why, although there has been plenty of grumbling on the shop floor about the escalation of pay for top BBC managers in recent years, it’s muted. No one wants to wreck his or her chances of a well-paid place in the promised land. The newsroom has many talented journalists of middle rank, who know what’s wrong with the organisation, but who don’t rock the boat for fear of blowing their futures.
Not that talent alone is enough to get on at the BBC. The key to understanding its internal promotions system is that, for every person whose career is advanced on ability, two are promoted because it solves a problem for management.
If Human Resources — or Personnel, as it used to be known — advise that it’s time a woman or someone from an ethnic minority (or a combination of the two) was appointed to the job for which you, a white male, have applied, then that’s who gets it.
But whatever your talent, sex or ethnicity, there’s one sure-fire way at a BBC promotions board to ensure you don’t get the job, indeed to bring your career to a grinding halt. And that’s if, when asked which post-war politician you most admire, you reply: ‘Margaret Thatcher’.
What the BBC wants you, the public, to believe is that it has ‘independence’ woven into its fabric, running through its veins and concreted into its foundations.
The reality, I discovered, was that for the BBC, independence is not a banner it carries principally on behalf of the listener or viewer.
Rather, it is the name it gives to its ability to act at all times in its own best interests.
The BBC’s ability to position itself, to decide for itself on which side its bread is buttered, is what it calls its independence. It’s flexible, and acutely sensitive to which way the wind is blowing politically.
Complaints from viewers may invariably be met with the BBC’s stock response, ‘We don’t accept that, so get lost’.
But complaints from ministers, though they may be rejected publicly, usually cause consternation — particularly if there is a licence fee settlement in the offing. And not just ministers, if a change of Government is thought likely.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was a BBC favourite according to Sissons
Back in October 1995, the then leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair, made his big speech at the Labour Party Conference — but on the Six O’clock News, there was every chance it would be upstaged by the verdict in the sensational OJ Simpson trial in the U.S., which was expected at the same time. Even at the conference itself delegates crowded round TV sets for the news, and it wasn’t to see a rerun of Tony.
Alastair Campbell, Blair’s press secretary, was having none of it.
He faxed the BBC and ITN ‘not to lose sight of the importance to the country of Mr Blair’s speech’. He wanted it to lead the news. ITN ignored his letter. The BBC made sure the Six O’clock News complied.
That spoke volumes. Such a letter from a spin doctor would have been binned on principle by the great editors of ITN who I worked for before joining the BBC. At the BBC, the instinct, faced with such a plea from a party of the Left standing on the brink of power, was to do as requested.
All Governments work hard on influencing the news agenda, but what I found uncomfortable during my years presenting the Nine O’clock and Ten O’clock News was how blatant those attempts to pressurise the BBC became, particularly at General Election time.
The party machines all had the internal BBC telephone numbers of the editors of the major news programmes, whom they would try to bully in person, both before and after the programmes went out.
I remember a night when the editor’s phone rang after the Nine O’Clock News.
It was a direct call from No 10, questioning her judgment and complaining about our political coverage that night.
This wasn’t a call to the director-general, or the head of news, but to a harassed and tired editor who had been on duty for 14 hours.
‘Tell him to get stuffed,’ I advised her. She rolled her eyes, knowing better than I the row that would be caused by that.
One of the things that always puzzled me at the BBC was the lack of inspirational leadership. There were exceptions.
My favourite editor when I chaired Question Time was notable for his total loyalty to me and the rest of his team. If things went wrong, he saw it as his job to take the bullet. That was not the BBC way — the old saying ‘Deputy heads must roll’ still raises a smile, but only because of the truth it contains.
Most of the managers I had over me had status and rank, on paper. In reality, they had little talent except the dark art of surviving at the BBC and alienating those who were answerable to them. I was always struck by how few senior people there were to look up to and to learn from.
Colleagues: Michael Buerk and Peter Sissons at a polo match in 2002
It had been very different at ITN where I began my career as a television journalist.
It had a tremendous esprit de corps and bosses whom you would follow over the top when they blew the whistle. You were always aware that someone was in charge who would say the seven most important words in any newsroom: ‘Here’s what we are going to do.’
Working at ITN wasn’t always a bed of roses. I can remember fights and disagreements, strikes and setbacks. But I never felt the chronic lack of motivation that comes when you work for an organisation that is rudderless.
ITN, it must be said, had the advantage of being small. The BBC, by contrast, has become so big and complex that it is virtually unmanageable. Those at the top of one of the world’s greatest communications businesses seem to find it impossible to communicate on a personal level with those who work for them.
Many of them were once convivial colleagues, but the dead hand of the BBC knocks the stuffing out of them, and the climate of fear — fear usually of making a decision — finishes them off.
The BBC is one of our most important national institutions.
It is revered around the world, and many of its products, in entertainment and drama, are unsurpassed. But at its core is news, and BBC News is an unhappy place, under-performing and directionless.
Paradoxically, it’s never had more people involved in journalist training and laying down editorial guidelines.
What it lacks is a leader whose lodestone isn’t The Guardian; who will draw a line on political correctness; who’s not afraid to hire some people who don’t fit the BBC template; who will kick backsides when merited; who will promote solely on talent; who will remind all interest groups that they don’t have an entitlement to BBC airtime; and who will do the job for the prestige and not the money.
And pigs might fly . . .
On a day-to-day basis the people who ran BBC News were rarely seen on the shop floor.
If a visitor to the BBC’s huge newsroom at Television Centre were to ask who was in charge, you wouldn’t be able to point to any individual in the room.
Harassed programme editors would be summoned to editorial meetings on the management floors above, and the sentiment most often expressed when they returned was that they had wasted valuable time reading lists to each other and explaining the day’s news to the man or woman notionally at the helm.
Too many senior executives were just playing out their roles, oblivious to how irrelevant they had become to what was actually being done in the news factory below. Colleagues told me that they had not just lost respect for their highly-paid bosses, what they felt was now total contempt. What they were looking for was leadership, and all they got was management.
Developments like this increasingly disturbed and depressed me.
They came to a head just before the 2009 local and European elections, when time was starting to run out for the Brown Government.
I was at Television Centre preparing to anchor the 5pm-6pm news, the centre-piece of which was to be an extended interview that I would conduct with Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman.
I did what I have always done before thousands of interviews in my 45 years as a broadcast journalist. I drew up a list of the most important current issues that I felt she needed to be asked about, drafted a few core questions, and scoured the newswires and morning papers for anything I’d missed.
Honoured: Peter Sissons and football manager Gerard Houllier receive doctorates at Liverpool in 2002
Then it started — a steady stream of email messages from producers telling me what to ask.
Three or four of them all wanted to have their say, and they seemed particularly twitchy about Harman being interviewed by me, unsupervised. Most seemed to be fully paid-up members of her fan club.
BBC news producers have a perfect right to try to ensure that a news presenter sticks to their agenda — it is the BBC way. But too many of them are concerned not about what will be the best thing to do journalistically, but about what will best please the news executives on the floors above. The two are not necessarily the same thing.
I managed to bat away most of the stuff suggested to me, and the way the interview might go took shape in my mind.
Then, half an hour before transmission, a producer arrived with a list of questions for Harriet Harman emailed in by viewers.
This was news to me, but I had no choice in the matter because they had already been set up with captions, and it was my job simply to put them to her. After that, if there was time — and the interview was to run to no more than eight minutes — I could put some questions of my own.
I was asked what I had in mind, and I said that I was going to ask her about a row brewing in the morning papers about Gordon Brown not inviting the Queen to the 65th anniversary commemoration of D-Day. The response shocked me. I was told this was not a topic worth raising because it was ‘only a campaign being run by the Daily Mail’.
I have no doubt that if it had been the lead in The Guardian or The Independent, I would have been instructed to nail Ms Harman to the wall.
I did ask the question, and she, clearly uncomfortable, promised a statement when she had found out all the facts.
But as I drove home that evening, I asked myself if I wanted to go on working for the BBC.
By the time I arrived home, I’d decided to leave.
Extracted from When One Door Closes by Peter Sissons, published on February 2 by Biteback Publishing at £17.99. © Peter Sissons 2011. To order a copy at £14.99 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720..
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html#ixzz1BlKR9JQw
In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the pervading culture.
The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.
By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent.
Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.
Veterans: Peter Sissons with Six O'Clock News' colleagues Moira Stuart (left) and Anna Ford soon after he joined the BBC
If you want to read one of the few copies of the Daily Mail that find their way into the BBC newsroom, they are difficult to track down, and you would be advised not to make too much of a show of reading them. Wrap them in brown paper or a copy of The Guardian, would be my advice.
I am in no doubt that the majority of BBC staff vote for political parties of the Left. But it’s impossible to do anything but guess at the numbers whose beliefs are on the Right or even Centre-Right. This is because the one thing guaranteed to damage your career prospects at the BBC is letting it be known that you are at odds with the prevailing and deep-rooted BBC attitude towards Life, the Universe, and Everything.
At any given time there is a BBC line on everything of importance, a line usually adopted in the light of which way its senior echelons believe the political wind is blowing.
This line is rarely spelled out explicitly, but percolates subtly throughout the organisation.
Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities. The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology.
All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both.
Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers.
Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically.
The Royal Family is a bore.
Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.
Queen Elizabeth II was not a favourite at the BBC
The increasing tendency for the BBC to interview its own reporters on air exacerbates this mindset.
Instead of concentrating on interviewing the leading players in a story or spreading the net wide for a range of views, these days the BBC frequently chooses to use the time getting the thoughts of its own correspondents.
It is a format intended to help clarify the facts, but which often invites the expression of opinion. When that happens, instead of hearing both sides of a story, the audience at home gets what is, in effect, the BBC’s view presented as fact.
And, inside the organisation, you challenge that collective view at your peril.
In today’s BBC only those whose antennae are fully attuned to the corporation’s cultural mindset — or keep quiet about their true feelings — are going to make progress.
Moreover, making progress these days doesn’t mean just achieving the influence and prestige of a senior job with the world’s greatest broadcaster, once considered reward enough. For those breaking through into the senior ranks, there’s now big, big money and a gold-plated pension to be had
Which is why, although there has been plenty of grumbling on the shop floor about the escalation of pay for top BBC managers in recent years, it’s muted. No one wants to wreck his or her chances of a well-paid place in the promised land. The newsroom has many talented journalists of middle rank, who know what’s wrong with the organisation, but who don’t rock the boat for fear of blowing their futures.
Not that talent alone is enough to get on at the BBC. The key to understanding its internal promotions system is that, for every person whose career is advanced on ability, two are promoted because it solves a problem for management.
If Human Resources — or Personnel, as it used to be known — advise that it’s time a woman or someone from an ethnic minority (or a combination of the two) was appointed to the job for which you, a white male, have applied, then that’s who gets it.
But whatever your talent, sex or ethnicity, there’s one sure-fire way at a BBC promotions board to ensure you don’t get the job, indeed to bring your career to a grinding halt. And that’s if, when asked which post-war politician you most admire, you reply: ‘Margaret Thatcher’.
What the BBC wants you, the public, to believe is that it has ‘independence’ woven into its fabric, running through its veins and concreted into its foundations.
The reality, I discovered, was that for the BBC, independence is not a banner it carries principally on behalf of the listener or viewer.
Rather, it is the name it gives to its ability to act at all times in its own best interests.
The BBC’s ability to position itself, to decide for itself on which side its bread is buttered, is what it calls its independence. It’s flexible, and acutely sensitive to which way the wind is blowing politically.
Complaints from viewers may invariably be met with the BBC’s stock response, ‘We don’t accept that, so get lost’.
But complaints from ministers, though they may be rejected publicly, usually cause consternation — particularly if there is a licence fee settlement in the offing. And not just ministers, if a change of Government is thought likely.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was a BBC favourite according to Sissons
Back in October 1995, the then leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair, made his big speech at the Labour Party Conference — but on the Six O’clock News, there was every chance it would be upstaged by the verdict in the sensational OJ Simpson trial in the U.S., which was expected at the same time. Even at the conference itself delegates crowded round TV sets for the news, and it wasn’t to see a rerun of Tony.
Alastair Campbell, Blair’s press secretary, was having none of it.
He faxed the BBC and ITN ‘not to lose sight of the importance to the country of Mr Blair’s speech’. He wanted it to lead the news. ITN ignored his letter. The BBC made sure the Six O’clock News complied.
That spoke volumes. Such a letter from a spin doctor would have been binned on principle by the great editors of ITN who I worked for before joining the BBC. At the BBC, the instinct, faced with such a plea from a party of the Left standing on the brink of power, was to do as requested.
All Governments work hard on influencing the news agenda, but what I found uncomfortable during my years presenting the Nine O’clock and Ten O’clock News was how blatant those attempts to pressurise the BBC became, particularly at General Election time.
The party machines all had the internal BBC telephone numbers of the editors of the major news programmes, whom they would try to bully in person, both before and after the programmes went out.
I remember a night when the editor’s phone rang after the Nine O’Clock News.
It was a direct call from No 10, questioning her judgment and complaining about our political coverage that night.
This wasn’t a call to the director-general, or the head of news, but to a harassed and tired editor who had been on duty for 14 hours.
‘Tell him to get stuffed,’ I advised her. She rolled her eyes, knowing better than I the row that would be caused by that.
One of the things that always puzzled me at the BBC was the lack of inspirational leadership. There were exceptions.
My favourite editor when I chaired Question Time was notable for his total loyalty to me and the rest of his team. If things went wrong, he saw it as his job to take the bullet. That was not the BBC way — the old saying ‘Deputy heads must roll’ still raises a smile, but only because of the truth it contains.
Most of the managers I had over me had status and rank, on paper. In reality, they had little talent except the dark art of surviving at the BBC and alienating those who were answerable to them. I was always struck by how few senior people there were to look up to and to learn from.
Colleagues: Michael Buerk and Peter Sissons at a polo match in 2002
It had been very different at ITN where I began my career as a television journalist.
It had a tremendous esprit de corps and bosses whom you would follow over the top when they blew the whistle. You were always aware that someone was in charge who would say the seven most important words in any newsroom: ‘Here’s what we are going to do.’
Working at ITN wasn’t always a bed of roses. I can remember fights and disagreements, strikes and setbacks. But I never felt the chronic lack of motivation that comes when you work for an organisation that is rudderless.
ITN, it must be said, had the advantage of being small. The BBC, by contrast, has become so big and complex that it is virtually unmanageable. Those at the top of one of the world’s greatest communications businesses seem to find it impossible to communicate on a personal level with those who work for them.
Many of them were once convivial colleagues, but the dead hand of the BBC knocks the stuffing out of them, and the climate of fear — fear usually of making a decision — finishes them off.
The BBC is one of our most important national institutions.
It is revered around the world, and many of its products, in entertainment and drama, are unsurpassed. But at its core is news, and BBC News is an unhappy place, under-performing and directionless.
Paradoxically, it’s never had more people involved in journalist training and laying down editorial guidelines.
What it lacks is a leader whose lodestone isn’t The Guardian; who will draw a line on political correctness; who’s not afraid to hire some people who don’t fit the BBC template; who will kick backsides when merited; who will promote solely on talent; who will remind all interest groups that they don’t have an entitlement to BBC airtime; and who will do the job for the prestige and not the money.
And pigs might fly . . .
On a day-to-day basis the people who ran BBC News were rarely seen on the shop floor.
If a visitor to the BBC’s huge newsroom at Television Centre were to ask who was in charge, you wouldn’t be able to point to any individual in the room.
Harassed programme editors would be summoned to editorial meetings on the management floors above, and the sentiment most often expressed when they returned was that they had wasted valuable time reading lists to each other and explaining the day’s news to the man or woman notionally at the helm.
Too many senior executives were just playing out their roles, oblivious to how irrelevant they had become to what was actually being done in the news factory below. Colleagues told me that they had not just lost respect for their highly-paid bosses, what they felt was now total contempt. What they were looking for was leadership, and all they got was management.
Developments like this increasingly disturbed and depressed me.
They came to a head just before the 2009 local and European elections, when time was starting to run out for the Brown Government.
I was at Television Centre preparing to anchor the 5pm-6pm news, the centre-piece of which was to be an extended interview that I would conduct with Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman.
I did what I have always done before thousands of interviews in my 45 years as a broadcast journalist. I drew up a list of the most important current issues that I felt she needed to be asked about, drafted a few core questions, and scoured the newswires and morning papers for anything I’d missed.
Honoured: Peter Sissons and football manager Gerard Houllier receive doctorates at Liverpool in 2002
Then it started — a steady stream of email messages from producers telling me what to ask.
Three or four of them all wanted to have their say, and they seemed particularly twitchy about Harman being interviewed by me, unsupervised. Most seemed to be fully paid-up members of her fan club.
BBC news producers have a perfect right to try to ensure that a news presenter sticks to their agenda — it is the BBC way. But too many of them are concerned not about what will be the best thing to do journalistically, but about what will best please the news executives on the floors above. The two are not necessarily the same thing.
I managed to bat away most of the stuff suggested to me, and the way the interview might go took shape in my mind.
Then, half an hour before transmission, a producer arrived with a list of questions for Harriet Harman emailed in by viewers.
This was news to me, but I had no choice in the matter because they had already been set up with captions, and it was my job simply to put them to her. After that, if there was time — and the interview was to run to no more than eight minutes — I could put some questions of my own.
I was asked what I had in mind, and I said that I was going to ask her about a row brewing in the morning papers about Gordon Brown not inviting the Queen to the 65th anniversary commemoration of D-Day. The response shocked me. I was told this was not a topic worth raising because it was ‘only a campaign being run by the Daily Mail’.
I have no doubt that if it had been the lead in The Guardian or The Independent, I would have been instructed to nail Ms Harman to the wall.
I did ask the question, and she, clearly uncomfortable, promised a statement when she had found out all the facts.
But as I drove home that evening, I asked myself if I wanted to go on working for the BBC.
By the time I arrived home, I’d decided to leave.
Extracted from When One Door Closes by Peter Sissons, published on February 2 by Biteback Publishing at £17.99. © Peter Sissons 2011. To order a copy at £14.99 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720..
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html#ixzz1BlKR9JQw
| |||||||||||||
Coulson resigns over phone-hacking claims
No 10's press officer said waves of allegations made it impossible for him to continue
- Questions remain about media relations at No 10
- Right from the start he was too much of the story
- Alastair Campbell: PM's judgment in question
- Rupert Murdoch set to arrive in UK
- Video: Alan Rusbridger on Coulson's resignation
- The victims: Whose phones were hacked?
- Private eye's court claims sealed fate
- Interactive timeline: The phone-hack scandal
- Andy Coulson: in his own words
- Editorial: Coulson's resignation - hacked off
Friday, January 21, 2011
MEL GIBSON TAPES as he threatens to kill Oksana...some claim Oksana has set him up and the tapes have been tampered with...
December 31, 1969 (Less info)
http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/390uxl2q2/mel-gibson-s-second-audio-tape-released-scarier-than-the-first-he-threatens-to-kill-oksana/
http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/dy6d68q55/mel-gibson-s-sixth-audio-tape-oksana-accused-mel-gibson-of-hitting-her-and-their-infant-daughter/
Accuses Mel of hitting their daughter..
Mel Gibson, under investigation for domestic violence, admits to hitting Oksana Grigorieva and TWICE threatens to kill her in an explosive new audio tape obtained and released exclusively by RadarOnline.com. The enraged actor tells the mother of his eight-month old daughter Lucia "you deserved it" after she says that he hit her and broke her teeth. Mel's stunning admission could be a powerful piece of evidence against him in the criminal investigation that is headed for the district attorney's office and right now being conducted by the LA County Sherriff's Department. The new tape features a ranting, out-of-control, Mel who screams and is so enraged at times that all he can do is pant heavily, seemingly incapable of speaking. It is one of the most powerful, crazed and bizarre episodes ever caught on tape from a major Hollywood star. You can listen to the tape here exclusively on RadarOnline.com.
http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/390uxl2q2/mel-gibson-s-second-audio-tape-released-scarier-than-the-first-he-threatens-to-kill-oksana/
http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/dy6d68q55/mel-gibson-s-sixth-audio-tape-oksana-accused-mel-gibson-of-hitting-her-and-their-infant-daughter/
Accuses Mel of hitting their daughter..
WIKILEAKS/ UFO'S talking to a pilot....
Interview With a Pilot: What Will Wikileaks Really Unveil About UFO’s?
A few weeks ago we read about how Wikileaks might unleash the UFO war. Like many of you, I really want to believe in aliens and UFO’s, but every time I see an episode of UFO Hunters, I find myself believing a little less. How does a bunch of guys who think that streetlights = UFO, get picked up to do a TV show?
Cutting right to the chase: I really want to read about some cool sh*t going down. I want to see little green bodies. I want to know that we’re getting abducted. Hell, deep down, I wouldn’t mind a good probing. You know, just to say I was there, and got the free shirt. Sadly, I don’t think we’re going to see anything this cool.
Will we even see anything that we didn’t already know? I doubt it. Nevertheless, the last few weeks I have been doing some research. I even scored an interview with my friend Jared, who happens to be an airplane pilot.
I met Jared in some Myspace group like 6 years ago. Him, myself, and a few other bored guys would spend hours trolling each other by editing penises into profile pics, and re uploading them. 5 years later, Jared became a pilot and I’m still making dick jokes all day. Anyway, here is my interview.
RM: What kind of plane do they have you flying most?
Jared: I was flying the Airbus A319/320/321.
RM: What routes do you usually fly?
Jared: I was based out of Phoenix. I flew all over the US, Canada and Mexico. Never really had a “regular route”. It’s different all the time.
RM: Have you ever seen something in the sky that made you “wtf?”
Jared: I have seen a lot of meteorites/shooting stars, some weird reflections and lights mostly over the midwest where the ground is VERY dark and the sky is really visible.
Satellites are easier to see.
We fly near a lot of military ops space so sometimes its training maneuvers nearby. Nothing TOO freaky weird though. When the military launches flares its a hell of a sight though
There are a few interesting things on the ground.
When flying from El Paso to Last Vegas there is a HUGE field in the middle of nowhere in the desert of what has to be hundreds if not thousands of satellite dishes and antennas.
Its in a restricted area so we dont fly directly over it but can see it from far off. Its in an odd shape too and there are a lot of what look like concrete bunkers all around it. The area on the map is all one color and doesn’t show terrain or lat/long like the rest of the map.
RM: Not on the map? That’s weird.
Jared: Here’s another one that will blow your mind….
Our onboard computers/maps have an option to pull up every airport within a selected range, however near area 51, it wont pull up the airports identifier.
So i got nosey.
Its identifier is KXTA (all US airports start with a “K” to identify its a US Airport, like SAN is KSAN on maps.
LAX is KLAX etc. Mexico starts with M, Canada with a C.
Just helps us know what country its in). So XTA…. Extra terrestrial anyone!?
And thats the only restricted airspace we have to fly further away from and IS NEVER closed to fly over.
(Sometimes on weekends and late and night military airspace is “cold” so we can fly through. NEVER over area 51. Hell they let us fly over edwards air force base, but not area 51?)
http://regretfulmorning.com/2011/01/interview-with-a-pilot-what-will-wikileaks-really-unveil-about-ufos/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/area-51.htm
AREA 51 MILITARY restricted area...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51
AREA 51...
A few weeks ago we read about how Wikileaks might unleash the UFO war. Like many of you, I really want to believe in aliens and UFO’s, but every time I see an episode of UFO Hunters, I find myself believing a little less. How does a bunch of guys who think that streetlights = UFO, get picked up to do a TV show?
Will we even see anything that we didn’t already know? I doubt it. Nevertheless, the last few weeks I have been doing some research. I even scored an interview with my friend Jared, who happens to be an airplane pilot.
I met Jared in some Myspace group like 6 years ago. Him, myself, and a few other bored guys would spend hours trolling each other by editing penises into profile pics, and re uploading them. 5 years later, Jared became a pilot and I’m still making dick jokes all day. Anyway, here is my interview.
RM: What kind of plane do they have you flying most?
Jared: I was flying the Airbus A319/320/321.
Jared: I was based out of Phoenix. I flew all over the US, Canada and Mexico. Never really had a “regular route”. It’s different all the time.
RM: Have you ever seen something in the sky that made you “wtf?”
Jared: I have seen a lot of meteorites/shooting stars, some weird reflections and lights mostly over the midwest where the ground is VERY dark and the sky is really visible.
Satellites are easier to see.
We fly near a lot of military ops space so sometimes its training maneuvers nearby. Nothing TOO freaky weird though. When the military launches flares its a hell of a sight though
There are a few interesting things on the ground.
When flying from El Paso to Last Vegas there is a HUGE field in the middle of nowhere in the desert of what has to be hundreds if not thousands of satellite dishes and antennas.
Its in a restricted area so we dont fly directly over it but can see it from far off. Its in an odd shape too and there are a lot of what look like concrete bunkers all around it. The area on the map is all one color and doesn’t show terrain or lat/long like the rest of the map.
Jared: Here’s another one that will blow your mind….
Our onboard computers/maps have an option to pull up every airport within a selected range, however near area 51, it wont pull up the airports identifier.
So i got nosey.
Its identifier is KXTA (all US airports start with a “K” to identify its a US Airport, like SAN is KSAN on maps.
LAX is KLAX etc. Mexico starts with M, Canada with a C.
Just helps us know what country its in). So XTA…. Extra terrestrial anyone!?
And thats the only restricted airspace we have to fly further away from and IS NEVER closed to fly over.
(Sometimes on weekends and late and night military airspace is “cold” so we can fly through. NEVER over area 51. Hell they let us fly over edwards air force base, but not area 51?)
http://regretfulmorning.com/2011/01/interview-with-a-pilot-what-will-wikileaks-really-unveil-about-ufos/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/area-51.htm
AREA 51 MILITARY restricted area...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51
Remembering Commandore David White and the unforgivable actions taken by Second Sea Lord JAMES BURNELL-NUGENT
The Operation Ore fallout claimed victim No: 34
http://operationorethegambleconnection.blogspot.com/2011/01/operation-ore-nothing-to-do-with.html
1st October 2005..the date reported on the inquest of Commadore David White....
“Your Royal Highness, Chairman, Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. There is some risk of being condemned as being too closely allied with a clergyman or a management consultant by starting with a few quotations and a few statistics. It will not surprise you that many a study has been done into leadership and there is quite a convergence of results across the public and private sectors. Here are a few statistics.
30% of managers are poor at keeping their staff up to date. 35% of managers are poor at responding to suggestions. 37% of small and medium enterprises fail after three years and the top reason why they fail is poor leadership. 40% of staff do not respect the leadership of their boss, and 60% do not respect the leadership of their boss’s boss. There is probably an “anti-head office” factor in that final figure.
Let me give you a few other things that emerge from such studies. What are followers looking for in their leaders? Three things come up time and time again: vision, integrity and judgement. On integrity, you heard what the Chairman had to say about the importance of moral courage. Only 30% see those three characteristics in the leadership of their organisation. Vision, integrity and judgement.
Superficially within organisations in the public and private sectors, there is plenty of leadership froth. There is leadership activity but it is not reflected in day to day behaviours. It is not captured in appraisal systems and promotion criteria. Organisations with a weak leadership ethos miss opportunities for leadership development, miss opportunities to develop self-confidence in individuals and do not link reward and recognition to leadership. What else do these studies tell us? Which are the leadership skills in short supply. It is a variation on the same list: Vision in a fast changing environment, leading through change and innovation.
So we had better do something about this. The Windsor Leadership Trust is trying, and I’m very conscious that by the fact that you’re here this evening, you are aware that we do need to do something about leadership.
Going back to earlier in my career, I was lucky enough to be commanding a conventional submarine at the age of twenty eight. Of course, I thought I had the leadership thing completely worked out. My father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all been in the Navy, so commanding a ship at the age of twenty eight was in my genes, I was sure. I suspect everybody thinks that. Certainly in the military, in their first command. Even when a wiser and more senior officer came down for a “friendly chat” offering help with leadership, I completely missed the point as to what he was trying to tell me. It was several years later when I was introduced to the Windsor Leadership Trust that I realised perhaps some of the things I should have been thinking about a bit earlier in my career.
I have been to St George’s House with the Windsor Leadership Trust as a participant, a facilitator and a visiting speaker. Undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate, if that’s the right description. I’ve awarded myself those qualifications anyway! I have willingly given my time to do this, not just because I think it’s important and I hope to pass something on to others, but also because it does wonders for one’s own leadership development. There is nothing better for personal leadership development than having to facilitate a group of a dozen aspiring leaders or people already in key leadership positions. You have to think, talk, eat and breathe leadership for two or three days. It really concentrates your mind on the topic.
Let me return to the statistic I gave you, about 40% of people not valuing the leadership of their boss. This is a scary figure. Actually the 40% figure is at the lower end of the bracket; some studies give higher figures. There are 28 million people who go to work every day in this country. That means that 11 million people are getting out of bed in the morning, shaving, powdering their nose, whatever they do, getting on the bus, train or car and travelling to work. 11 million people, not wanting to work for their boss. Can you imagine it? Perhaps you can. Perhaps some of them are in this room.
In this great country of ours, we have had a number of revolutions over the years. We have had the agricultural revolution with the organisation of farming back in the middle ages. The scientific revolution, Isaac Newton and the great astronomers. The industrial revolution, well known to all of us. The social revolution. When was that? Between the wars maybe, but we certainly have been through it and we’re now maybe two thirds of the way through the computer revolution, or the information revolution.
What I suggest to you, is that we need in this country most desperately and most urgently is a leadership revolution. That 40% figure; those 11 million people; we will never get that figure down to zero; but just imagine if we could get the figure of the people who do not want to work for their boss down from 40% to 30%. That would seem to be a reasonable challenge. That would be an extra 2.8 million people getting up in the morning, wanting to go to work for their boss as opposed to not wanting to go to work for their boss. Just think what that would do for productivity, for delivery. Whether you are public or private sector, provider or consumer, just think what that would do for this country. We could have an extra 2.8 million people in our workforce just by investing in leadership as opposed to perhaps investing in other things.
To conclude - if you invite a naval officer to say a few words in 2005, as I am sure you have noticed, Nelson gets a mention! Would Nelson be able to help us today with these leadership issues? I can do no better than to read you the Trafalgar Memorandum, which Nelson sent to Collingwood and to his commanding officers on the 12th of October 1805, just nine days before his death at the Battle of Trafalgar. Notice how short it is, when compared to company reports or documents the size of doorstops coming out of Whitehall.
This is what Nelson wrote. “I send you my plan of attack as far as a man dare venture to guess at the very uncertain position you may be found in. But it is to place you perfectly at ease regarding my intentions and to give full scope to your judgement to carrying them to effect. We can have no jealousies. We have only one great object in view, that of annihilating our enemies and getting a glorious peace for our country. No man has more confidence in another than I have in you. The whole impression of the British fleet must be to overpower. Something must be left to chance; nothing is sure in a sea fight. Shot will carry away the masts and yards of friends as well as foes. Captains are to look to their lines as their rallying point, but in case signals can neither be seen nor perfectly understood no Captain can do very wrong if he places his ship close alongside that of the enemy.”
Separating out the war fighting elements, which are really the best bits, the leadership message in there is superb. To my mind it is the definitive leadership message. “ I wish to place you perfectly at ease regarding my intentions. I give full scope to your judgement. No man has more confidence in another than I have in you, and we have only one great object in view.” Isn’t that the definitive, strategic leadership model?
Here comes the trick question. Have any of your bosses ever said that to you? Has anybody ever said to you “I trust your judgement completely”? More tellingly, have you ever said that to anybody who works for you? I suspect not. Perhaps you have, in which case, well done! It seems to me that this style of leadership - we have only one strategic objective in view - I have the greatest confidence in you - I trust your judgement completely - I wish you to be perfectly at ease – is just what is needed. This kind of leadership technique, albeit two hundred years old, is just what is needed to reach out to those 2.8 million people who we want to enjoy working for their boss, as opposed to not wanting to work for their boss.
So my message is - let’s get cracking with the leadership revolution – and the Windsor Leadership Trust is an excellent place to start.
Thank you very much.”
The credibility of a major investigation into child pornography came under renewed scrutiny yesterday after an inquest into the death of a naval officer who was suspended by the Royal Navy despite a lack of evidence against him.
The Navy suspended Commodore David White, commander of British forces in Gibraltar, after police placed him under investigation over allegations that he bought pornographic images from a website in the US. Within 24 hours he was found dead at the bottom of the swimming pool at his home in Mount Barbary.
The inquest into his death heard that computer equipment and a camera memory chip belonging to Commodore White had yielded no evidence that he downloaded child pornography, and a letter was written by Ministry of Defence police to Naval Command on 5 January this year indicating that there were "no substantive criminal offences" to warrant pressing charges.
But the Second Sea Lord, Sir James Burnell-Nugent, feared that the media would report the case and on 7 January removed him from his post anyway.
Vice Admiral Burnell-Nugent went on to enjoy his life I would imagine without a thought for Commandore David White....
1st October 2005..the date reported on the inquest of Commadore David White....
10th Anniversary Dinner
14th September 2005, Banqueting House, Whitehall
14th September 2005, Banqueting House, Whitehall
Personal Insight Transcript : Sir James Burnell Nugent, Second Sea Lord, Royal Navy
“Your Royal Highness, Chairman, Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. There is some risk of being condemned as being too closely allied with a clergyman or a management consultant by starting with a few quotations and a few statistics. It will not surprise you that many a study has been done into leadership and there is quite a convergence of results across the public and private sectors. Here are a few statistics.
30% of managers are poor at keeping their staff up to date. 35% of managers are poor at responding to suggestions. 37% of small and medium enterprises fail after three years and the top reason why they fail is poor leadership. 40% of staff do not respect the leadership of their boss, and 60% do not respect the leadership of their boss’s boss. There is probably an “anti-head office” factor in that final figure.
Let me give you a few other things that emerge from such studies. What are followers looking for in their leaders? Three things come up time and time again: vision, integrity and judgement. On integrity, you heard what the Chairman had to say about the importance of moral courage. Only 30% see those three characteristics in the leadership of their organisation. Vision, integrity and judgement.
Superficially within organisations in the public and private sectors, there is plenty of leadership froth. There is leadership activity but it is not reflected in day to day behaviours. It is not captured in appraisal systems and promotion criteria. Organisations with a weak leadership ethos miss opportunities for leadership development, miss opportunities to develop self-confidence in individuals and do not link reward and recognition to leadership. What else do these studies tell us? Which are the leadership skills in short supply. It is a variation on the same list: Vision in a fast changing environment, leading through change and innovation.
So we had better do something about this. The Windsor Leadership Trust is trying, and I’m very conscious that by the fact that you’re here this evening, you are aware that we do need to do something about leadership.
Going back to earlier in my career, I was lucky enough to be commanding a conventional submarine at the age of twenty eight. Of course, I thought I had the leadership thing completely worked out. My father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all been in the Navy, so commanding a ship at the age of twenty eight was in my genes, I was sure. I suspect everybody thinks that. Certainly in the military, in their first command. Even when a wiser and more senior officer came down for a “friendly chat” offering help with leadership, I completely missed the point as to what he was trying to tell me. It was several years later when I was introduced to the Windsor Leadership Trust that I realised perhaps some of the things I should have been thinking about a bit earlier in my career.
I have been to St George’s House with the Windsor Leadership Trust as a participant, a facilitator and a visiting speaker. Undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate, if that’s the right description. I’ve awarded myself those qualifications anyway! I have willingly given my time to do this, not just because I think it’s important and I hope to pass something on to others, but also because it does wonders for one’s own leadership development. There is nothing better for personal leadership development than having to facilitate a group of a dozen aspiring leaders or people already in key leadership positions. You have to think, talk, eat and breathe leadership for two or three days. It really concentrates your mind on the topic.
Let me return to the statistic I gave you, about 40% of people not valuing the leadership of their boss. This is a scary figure. Actually the 40% figure is at the lower end of the bracket; some studies give higher figures. There are 28 million people who go to work every day in this country. That means that 11 million people are getting out of bed in the morning, shaving, powdering their nose, whatever they do, getting on the bus, train or car and travelling to work. 11 million people, not wanting to work for their boss. Can you imagine it? Perhaps you can. Perhaps some of them are in this room.
In this great country of ours, we have had a number of revolutions over the years. We have had the agricultural revolution with the organisation of farming back in the middle ages. The scientific revolution, Isaac Newton and the great astronomers. The industrial revolution, well known to all of us. The social revolution. When was that? Between the wars maybe, but we certainly have been through it and we’re now maybe two thirds of the way through the computer revolution, or the information revolution.
What I suggest to you, is that we need in this country most desperately and most urgently is a leadership revolution. That 40% figure; those 11 million people; we will never get that figure down to zero; but just imagine if we could get the figure of the people who do not want to work for their boss down from 40% to 30%. That would seem to be a reasonable challenge. That would be an extra 2.8 million people getting up in the morning, wanting to go to work for their boss as opposed to not wanting to go to work for their boss. Just think what that would do for productivity, for delivery. Whether you are public or private sector, provider or consumer, just think what that would do for this country. We could have an extra 2.8 million people in our workforce just by investing in leadership as opposed to perhaps investing in other things.
To conclude - if you invite a naval officer to say a few words in 2005, as I am sure you have noticed, Nelson gets a mention! Would Nelson be able to help us today with these leadership issues? I can do no better than to read you the Trafalgar Memorandum, which Nelson sent to Collingwood and to his commanding officers on the 12th of October 1805, just nine days before his death at the Battle of Trafalgar. Notice how short it is, when compared to company reports or documents the size of doorstops coming out of Whitehall.
This is what Nelson wrote. “I send you my plan of attack as far as a man dare venture to guess at the very uncertain position you may be found in. But it is to place you perfectly at ease regarding my intentions and to give full scope to your judgement to carrying them to effect. We can have no jealousies. We have only one great object in view, that of annihilating our enemies and getting a glorious peace for our country. No man has more confidence in another than I have in you. The whole impression of the British fleet must be to overpower. Something must be left to chance; nothing is sure in a sea fight. Shot will carry away the masts and yards of friends as well as foes. Captains are to look to their lines as their rallying point, but in case signals can neither be seen nor perfectly understood no Captain can do very wrong if he places his ship close alongside that of the enemy.”
Separating out the war fighting elements, which are really the best bits, the leadership message in there is superb. To my mind it is the definitive leadership message. “ I wish to place you perfectly at ease regarding my intentions. I give full scope to your judgement. No man has more confidence in another than I have in you, and we have only one great object in view.” Isn’t that the definitive, strategic leadership model?
Here comes the trick question. Have any of your bosses ever said that to you? Has anybody ever said to you “I trust your judgement completely”? More tellingly, have you ever said that to anybody who works for you? I suspect not. Perhaps you have, in which case, well done! It seems to me that this style of leadership - we have only one strategic objective in view - I have the greatest confidence in you - I trust your judgement completely - I wish you to be perfectly at ease – is just what is needed. This kind of leadership technique, albeit two hundred years old, is just what is needed to reach out to those 2.8 million people who we want to enjoy working for their boss, as opposed to not wanting to work for their boss.
So my message is - let’s get cracking with the leadership revolution – and the Windsor Leadership Trust is an excellent place to start.
Thank you very much.”
SATAN Blair defends partner SATAN BUSH..as the illegal war once again 'whitewashed'.
It's too late: 'Gung-ho' Blair heckled as he tells Chilcot inquiry he regrets loss of life during Iraq War
By Daily Mail ReporterLast updated at 3:17 PM on 21st January 2011
Tony Blair was barracked today as he expressed regret for the loss of life in the Iraq War.
The former prime minister told the official inquiry into the conflict that he regretted 'deeply and profoundly' the deaths of British troops and Iraqi civilians.
Members of the audience watching him give evidence jeered at his comments, with one person shouting: 'It's too late.'
Mr Blair sparked anger among the families of the 179 UK personnel killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 when he insisted he had no regrets about the war at the end of his first appearance before the inquiry last year.
Under pressure: Tony Blair was grilled for more than four hours when he returned to give evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry in London today
Questions: The former prime minister was quizzed over his decision to go to war in Iraq
http://watchingyouwatchingyme-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-americas-collateral-murder.html
American soldiers laughed as they murdered civilians...the children of satan....
'I took that as a question about the decision to go to war, and I answered that I took responsibility.
'That was taken as my meaning that I had no regrets about the loss of life and that was never my meaning or my intention.
'I wanted to make it clear that, of course, I regret deeply and profoundly the loss of life, whether from our own armed forces, those of other nations, the civilians who helped people in Iraq or the Iraqis themselves.'
LAW CHIEF'S ADVICE ON LEGALITY OF WAR? IT WAS PROVISIONAL, SAYS BLAIR
Mr Blair disregarded his top legal adviser's warning that attacking Iraq would be illegal without further United Nations backing because the guidance was 'provisional', the inquiry heard.
The former prime minister 'held to the position' that another UN Security Council resolution explicitly supporting military action was unnecessary despite being told the opposite by attorney general Lord Goldsmith.
Mr Blair said he believed Lord Goldsmith would come around to his interpretation of the legal position once he knew the full history of the negotiations behind UN Security Council Resolution 1441.
Panel: Chairman John Chilcot (centre) recalled Blair after he appeared to contradict some of his earlier statements to the inquiry
But Lord Goldsmith has told the inquiry he disagreed at the time, believing the resolution did not achieve the UK's objective of authorising military action on its own.
Mr Blair told the inquiry: 'In retrospect it would have been sensible to have him (Lord Goldsmith) absolutely in touch with the negotiation machinery all the way through.
'Because I think then we wouldn't probably have got into the situation where he thought, provisionally at least, that we needed another resolution.
'Because I think, had he known of the negotiating history "real time", as it were, going through it, we could have avoided some of the problems later.'
Lord Goldsmith told the ex-prime minister in a six-page draft legal opinion on January 14 2003 that Resolution 1441 was not enough on its own to justify the use of force against Iraq.
Mr Blair said in a statement to the inquiry: 'I had not yet got to the stage of a formal request for advice and neither had he got to the point of formally giving it.
'So I was continuing to hold to the position that another resolution was not necessary.'
FORMER PM WAS URGED TO TAKE 'GUNG-HO STANCE' ON SADDAM
Blair said today that he had always made clear to US president George Bush that he would be 'up for' regime change in Iraq if it was the only way of dealing with Saddam Hussein.
He acknowledged that he had discussed ousting Saddam with Mr Bush as early December 2001 - even though it was not then British policy.
The inquiry released a newly declassified document from March 2002 - a year before the invasion by Britain and the US - in which Mr Blair said the UK should be 'gung ho' about the prospect of getting rid of the Iraqi dictator.
In his evidence to the inquiry, Mr Blair said that, while he made clear that he would always stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the Americans, he had also succeeded in persuading the US leader to go down the 'UN route' first.
The former premier said regime change in Baghdad had always been 'on the agenda' for the Americans after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. He acknowledged that it had come up when he spoke to Mr Bush by telephone on December 3 that year.
'Regime change was their policy so regime change was part of the discussion,' he said. 'If it became the only way of dealing with this issue, we were going to be up for that.'
He added: 'The Americans, from September 11 onwards, this was on their agenda.'
The inquiry also released a note from Mr Blair to his chief of staff Jonathan Powell, shortly before his visit to Mr Bush at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, in which he argued that Labour should be "gung ho" about dealing with Saddam.
He said that, from "a centre-left perspective", the case for action against the Iraqi dictator should be "obvious".
"Saddam's regime is a brutal, oppressive military dictatorship. He kills his opponents, has wrecked his country's economy and is a source of instability and danger in the region," he wrote.
"I can understand a right-wing Tory opposed to 'nation-building' being opposed to it on grounds it hasn't any direct bearing on our national interest. But in fact a political philosophy that does care about other nations - e.g. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone - and is prepared to change regimes on the merits, should be gung-ho on Saddam."
In the early months of 2002, events were "evolving at quite a fast track", Mr Blair said, adding that by then "this thing was going down a track of regime change".
He said "it was clear from the outset" that Mr Bush "was going to change that regime if it didn't allow the inspectors back in".
By the autumn of 2002, after Iraq failed to co-operate properly with the United Nations Security Resolution which allowed for the return of UN weapons inspectors, Mr Blair said he was determined to stick with the Americans.
"Once it became clear that Saddam had not changed but was carrying on in the same way, I think it would have been profoundly wrong of us to have gone back to the Americans and said 'I know we said that we would be with you in handling this, but now we are not'."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349300/Its-late-Gung-ho-Blair-heckled-tells-Chilcot-inquiry-regrets-loss-life-Iraq-War.html#ixzz1BgR8cVG7
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Invincible great-grandmother survives cancer FIVE times to celebrate 100th birthday
By Daily Mail ReporterLast updated at 6:27 PM on 20th January 2011
- Ms McDonald had both her breasts and gall bladder removed
- 'I'm a fighter', she tells priest giving her Last Rites in 1963
100 years young: Mrs McDonald said she felt good for her age
Ellen McDonald is still going strong despite enduring several operations - including one in 1963 where a priest was called as doctors thought she wouldn't survive.
The feisty great-grandmother from Leeds was born in 1911, the same year as the coronation of King George V and when the first motor car was made in the UK.
Her health issues began when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in the early 1950s and she had to have a double mastectomy.
She was diagnosed with cancer of the gall bladder a few years later - but she beat the disease by having her gall bladder removed as well as a further operation after the cancer spread.
In 1963, Mrs McDonald was diagnosed with cancer of the bowel and after the operation to remove the tumour it was thought that she wouldn't survive.
Mrs McDonald said: 'I've had it tough with the old cancer, five times it has tried to take me in total but I've managed to fight it off.
'Ive had a double mastectomy, a hysterectomy from my fifth bout, I've had my gall bladder removed and I survived bowel cancer.
'After one operation I woke and the surgeon told me that the operation was over but wasn't sure if I would pull through because those procedures weren't as common back then.
'I can remember a priest was in the room standing over me and he was reading passages from the Bible and there was somebody else there who was crying.
'I scrubbed floors on my hands and knees for a shilling an hour for 26 years, hard work keeps you going I think.'
'Chemotherapy has obviously kept it at bay as well. But apart from those scares half-a-century ago I am in good health.'
The former war-time crane driver lives in sheltered accommodation now after losing her husband Jim 18 years ago.
She keeps active and regularly attends an over-55s club and says that it is plain old hard work that has kept her going plus the occasional glass of wine.
Enlarge 
She said: 'My advice for a longer life would be to work hard to keep your body active. I scrubbed floors on my hands and knees for a shilling an hour for 26 years, hard work keeps you going I think.
Memories: Mrs McDonald on her wedding day to her husband Jim on 2 September, 1933. Jim died 18 years ago weeks before their diamond anniversary
'I still do a bit of shopping and like to get out. I do the dusting, I look after my own meals and do the washing up at the sink. I have a bit of help with the heavy stuff though.
'It is nice to live this long but to be honest the spring in my step went a couple of years ago. I think when I was about 96 I felt different but I still feel good for my age.
'I don't think there is a secret to a long life its just fate, but I know more and more people are living to 100. My cousin is 107.'
The centenarian spent most of her working life working at Leeds infirmary where she worked as a supervisor.
She said: 'I was scrubbing floors and steps, no mops, no vacuum cleaners - just elbow grease.'
Mrs McDonald married husband Jim in 1933 and they spent a happy life together raising their five sons and became great-grandparents of six and grandparents of eight.
Sadly Jim died just three weeks before the couple could celebrate their diamond wedding anniversary.
She said: 'I only have three sons left, Gerard, Adrian and Laurie. Poor Laurie has diabetes and has had to have two of his legs removed.'
Her son Adrian, 54 added: 'My mum is great for her age and she is in good health apart from the cancer scares .'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1349026/Great-grandmother-Ellen-McDonald-survives-cancer-FIVE-times-celebrates-100th-birthday.html#ixzz1BcKNdCdu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)