The ex-Factor

So, as I walked past my local arena last week they had put up the big banner advertising the X-Factor arena tour.

People were already queuing outside for tickets which went on sale two days later. The show isn't actually for six months.

But will anyone remember them by then?

A lot of people rant about how X-Factor is evil, how it merely demonstrates the worst of the industry etc.

I don't think it is all that evil, but it isn't the proper environment to find a star. It certainly isn't conducive to fostering talent.

And that's because these people only have one talent: they can sing. There are session singers up and down the country who make a satisfactory living from being able to sing. Actually, that may be a little unfair: this year I'm sure one of them was shown holding a guitar so maybe he can play it.

But generally they do nothing else but sing and maybe dance. The big, sustainable acts write their own songs. Some of the best, biggest acts aren't even that good at singing.

The BBC had the very short-lived Fame Academy. This was different to X-Factor in that it did try to foster talent. The participants went to song-writing and other such classes. They were encouraged to write their own songs, play their own instruments. Yes, the live shows were mostly about singing cover versions, but the main focus was on the other programmes, showing their artistic development. And whilst only one original song was released: Ainsley's Keep Me a Secret, a number of the participants did contribute to the songs they released post-show (Alex Parks for one and winner David Sneddon's Stop Living a Lie issued as the culmination) and others now work behind the scenes in the industry (David Sneddon being quite a prolific song writer these days for people such as Hurts, Lana Del Rey and Nicole Scherzinger).

But the strategy around X-Factor is all wrong too, and that is epitomised by the arena tour. If they were really wanting to capitalise on the hype surrounding the live shows to maximise musical exposure they should have as many of them as possible releasing albums as soon as possible. But they don't. Instead, they cash in with this arena tour.

Is that really such a terrible thing?

For the 'artist', yes. Whilst the company behind the talent show is coining in the ticket receipts, the performers are under contractual obligations; and - moreover - first options and restrictions preventing them from contacting any other record company for the period of a year. This means if Syco records / Sony BMG doesn't want the performer, they can't go anywhere else for a year without a release from contract from Syco.

And this can be hugely damaging for the performer. In order to capitalise on their 'fame' they should be getting their first album out as a matter of urgency. Instead they do this nationwide tour which lasts for months, then they go off and record an album of cover versions with maybe one or two original songs which is ready for release just in time to get ignored because the X-Factor has started up again. Or maybe the timing is actually such as to ride the surf of the X-Factor publicity, that releasing exactly a year after first being propelled to fame actually benefits the sales of the album.

But that, of course, is if Syco decide to take the performer on. If not, then they are set back in this opportunity by a number of months, long enough to get lost in obscurity. As the following final approaches there maybe the occasional kind question from a commentator of “whatever happened to so-and-so who finished fifth in last year's competition?” whilst they are trying to put the finishing touches to an album of covers that they couldn't start until the current competition was well under way.

One of the victims who plummetted off the radar despite winning and being signed to Sony BMG was Steve Brookstein. His first album was covers. He released one single. And then he was dropped. He couldn't capitalise on the “winner” tag - his second album, released independently of Sony BMG, failed to chart. He has been hugely critical of the X-Factor formula.

But then perhaps factors are too complex to blame it all on one thing? After all, there are successful artists who come from X-Factor - One Direction, JLS, Leona Lewis and Olly Murs; with Girls Aloud coming from the predecessor - Pop Stars.

But of the winners of the eight previous series (it's still too early to comment on this year), in my judgement, there has been one proper star created - Leona Lewis - a few low-bubblers (people who remain in the industry performing to some degree) - Matt Cardle (who coincidentally has just released some new work) and Alexandra Burke - and then the 'where are they now also-rans' - Steve, Shane Ward, Leon Jackson and Joe McElderry. It's perhaps not fair to stick Joe in there as he has gone off to pursue more classical interests. But on any assessment it is not a great winners list.

But should it be? Am I comparing like-for-like? Afterall, with the 'grifting' bands that start local, writing their own stuff, working hard to build a fanbase, doing the free gigs in the sticky local pubs - there are many of those who fall by the wayside, and it is a rare thing indeed to have a successful second album let alone reach the epic heights of Muse, U2, the Beatles or any other such bands. Even for the manufactured pop bands, for every Westlife there is a Phixx, a D-Side or any of the other not-even-one-hit-wonders.|And, let's face it, if they didn't achieve what they did through X-Factor, they'd still be stacking the shelves at Asda.

If there wasn't the arena tour, there wouldn't need to be the one-year restriction in the contracts. It would also give the various acts the time to record their album so that there wasn't a need to put so many cover versions on.

That said, by undertaking the arena tour they are still in front of the public, they are giving the various management and production teams time to come up with a decision and a plan, and then they can turn around an album reasonably quickly, perfectly in time to ride the next X-Factor wave. Maybe the reason for the failures isn't the timing, maybe it is a genuine lack - either in the quality of the writing of the songs, of interest from the public, or in the talent of the artist. Perhaps, once the hype is over, people step back and make a proper critical assessment. After all, when you're paying for the music rather than using it to fill your Saturday night, your quality control generally increases.

Though not in every case.

(In/un)valuable insurance

My travel insurance is up for renewal.

Well, it isn't “up for renewal”. I was told that it was automatically being renewed, and that I could contact them to opt out of automatic renewal if I wished.

That annoyed me. There was no box to tick or untick to say whether you wanted automatic renewal - it is a part of the policy and you have to actively opt-out.

Now, I will say one thing for this particular insurer - they did at least email me before it was renewed. There are many complaints to BBC Radio Four's MoneyBox programme about money simply being taken from debit cards with no warning - people haven't been told at the time they took out the policy that it automatically renewed, and they haven't be advised of it afterwards either.

But anyhow, I cancelled and started to shop around. I am going on holiday - ironically the day after the insurance expires - so I thought I would have a look into what was around.

Nothing.

That can't be right, can it?

Oh, there were policies - thousands of policies - but for me the policies being offered were worthless.

Is that really the case?

Well, the problem is that I am a lawyer, so I go through the small-print with a fine-tooth comb. I also start out with a minimum set of specifications that I require.

For example, you have a number of initial options: do you want a single trip policy; or a one-year policy? Is it for Europe; the world excluding America; or the world including America (I'm still not sure why America is a special case).

But then there are the additionals.

Are you taking valuables? If so, how valuable? How much excess? Do you want airline insolvency cover? Volcano cover? (it is there now as an extra).

I made an assessment - I knew the airline and didn't need insolvency cover as it was highly unlikely to go under, so it was really just about the valuables and excess.

And this is where the policy was useless. But that may be because I'm not a woman or a rapper with considerable amounts of bling.

The reason I look at the excess is because I was considering travelling with my netbook and smartphone.

But smartphones - indeed mobile phones at all - are excluded from the list of valuables. I would need a separate smartphone policy for that.

So it's my netbook. The valuables section limits the value of valuables as a whole, but also to limit each individual item. Amongst the policies that I look at, all of them had an individual item limit of between £150 and £200.

My netbook isn't top of the range; but it is worth around £300. So I'm already £100 down.

One of the policies, very bizarrely, had a single item limit of £150. It then had an excess of £100. If my netbook had gone missing I would have gotten back £50. Brilliant. Especially when the policy itself cost £35, so essentially that's £15. So I'm not taking my netbook.

Now that's very simplistic and doesn't take into account multiple claims - where you claim because you got out on holiday and your airline went bust and in doing so they lost your luggage.

Also it doesn't take into account baggage loss - whilst individually my t-shirts may not be worth much, cumulatively there is probably quite a costly baggage whizzing around with me. Obviously if my luggage is lost on the way out, I have to buy clothes simply in the hope that the insurers will cover the loss. And that of itself can be a risk - as a solicitor by day I am more than aware that insurers will often do their utmost to get out of a claim. By - say - not calling in the loss within the first 48 hours, or by not reporting to loss of baggage to the airport policy it is possible to invalidate your claim. And where they do cover a claim it is for the second-hand value of the item, despite having to buy brand new.

But it just goes to show how very very carefully you have to look at the policy wording. Indeed, the comparison website that I used just simply had a tick for whether valuables were included in the policy or not - you then had to click through to the website and drag up the policy schedule to see exactly what the excess was; what the single item value limit was; what the total claim limit was; and what valuables were included or excluded.

Of course, I could obtain additional cover - the next level of cover had a single item limit of £500; and a cumulative valuables limit of £5000. But that policy also cost considerably more. Insurance is, afterall, a business - it makes the insurers a profit. It is not a private savings fund, which I would probably rather. I'm sure if I put as much away in an account as I spend on certain insurance policies I would have more money in return than if I ever needed to make a claim.

But it doesn't stop there.

What they do cover you for is a lot of things for which you are already covered.

So, the front page had big letters and stars around the headline which told you they would cover you if your flight was delayed! They would pay your hotel costs if you had to stay overnight, and give you an allowance.

Fantastic.

But that is useless.

The reason? Most airlines operating in the European Union are bound by EU regulations to offer such assistance anyway - and the insurance schedule makes clear that where the airline covers these costs, the insurance doesn't.

So really all it came down to was health insurance - the cost of repatriating me in the event that something happened to me.

I question the value of this particular element; however as it is, this particular holiday that I am going on is with my parents, so I can rely upon them should something happen to me. And whilst I am not throwing myself off mountains or diving with sharks, I am aware that nothing is without risk.

What I am not going to do, though, is pay through the nose to cover that risk on the basis of a lot of additional “benefits” which actually provide little or no benefit at all.

A bit of S&M abuse

So, last night I was the subject of S&M abuse. Social media, obviously. And no, not trolling or anything like that – that is for a different post.

No, I found my Twitter feed being exploited. One of the people that I follow posted links to his project six times within an hour.

Now, bearing in mind that I have already stopped following the Twitter feed for his project, because of the overuse of Twitter, this was all the more annoying.

The project feed spent hours, days, weeks even, silent; before bombarding my feed with up to two dozen posts within a hour.

So I stopped following.

But even if I hadn’t stopped following, what are the chances that I would have read the posts, let alone followed the links? Probably slim to nil. It’s information overload, bombardment. I may look at the first post, but after that I just scroll past. The news/fun aggregators like BuzzFeed and The Poke can be very similar – infodumping. Trickle-feeding is best, unless the info is specifically related to each other that
necessarily requires the fast-drip, linked postings.

And this is where businesses – well, organisations in general – are struggling to get to grips with social media. I’ve had similar problems on Facebook, where I had to ‘like’ a brand to enter a competition or such like, but they then bombarded me with posts. The worst was my local pub, who would post four or five times a day, telling me their drinks offers that night – the same drinks offers in each post, and the same drinks offers as in their post the previous week. And the one before that. It probably wouldn’t have been too bad if they hadn’t had such poor grammar and spelling.

So, how should a business be using social media? Or should they use it at all? It’s the fad of the moment, but does it actually show a business out of touch with technology, with a lack of understanding or naivety about promotion?

Waitrose may well have inadvertently pulled a double bluff on this recently. They asked their tweeters to complete the sentence “I shop at Waitrose because…” The problem is that they couldn’t moderate the response. Back in the old days of email entries or complaints they could publish what they choose. If you searched for the hashtag #waitrosereasons in the aftermath, there was some comedy gold in amongst
the legitimate reasons. But the fact that the strategy itself has made the comment pages of the business section of the newspapers may have given Waitrose a tickle from the same hand that slapped it – it certainly got a promotion of one form or another. Who knows, maybe the whole thing was designed and instigated by their PR, with a wag within Waitrose creating spoof accounts and witty one-liners? Such cannot be said about the McDonalds #fail where McDstories was simply subject to abuse.

But who follows Waitrose anyway? Or any of the businesses on Twitter? And why? A lot of businesses these days seem to have told their appropriate department “We need a Twitter account and a Facebook. Not sure why, but everyone is doing it”.

Now, if you are using your Facebook page as an alternative – or even an addition – to your website, to provide information about your product or service, then fine. I can see someday that Facebook may be the go-to page where once the Yellow pages was; and may even overstep the Google search on that. And, perhaps with Twitter they are simply trying to open up another line of communication which is slightly less formal than email.

Yesterday, for example, I tweeted @nationalrailenq to find out what the problem was with my train. They responded about a signal failure pretty quickly. Brilliant. The problem occurs when you consider that 90% of the reason people contact a business customer service department is to complain, and Twitter is showing that complaint very publically to the dozen or so people that follow either the complainant or the business.

But doesn’t that happen anyway? I was in the pub last night chatting to my friend and bemoaning the service I had recently had from a lost property department. Yes, I was sharing my gripe with considerably fewer than if I had done it on Twitter (I did that too, on Monday, and then apologised in the same manner and praised said lost property on Tuesday when they went beyond the pail to assist me), but I was still airing off. And when I did it on Monday, they were at least able to respond (not very usefully with a simple “Please contact our customer service department who will try to help” tweet).

Perhaps to that extent it allows them to limit any damage and respond quicker to any complaints. It could even go favourably, or at least balance out and give a more realistic view to the public. The risk, though is that you lose control. Whether simply as an open line of communication or as an active promotional channel, you may find a troll hijacks your hashtag and you end up with PR egg on your face.

But, that said, I don’t follow @nationalrailenq, nor do I follow the lost property department. Maybe they don’t want me to. I can’t imagine that with the latter certainly as they advertise their @address with “keep up to date with our latest developments”. @nationalrailenq do, however, follow me. I’m not too sure why, but
If they are expecting photos of food and cats they are going to be disappointed.

One of my friends regularly berates his train companies over Twitter for their failures. Every now and again he gets a polite response back, but most of the time there is nothing. Whether they use that internally for feedback is another matter; but I have seen other friends chip in to the conversation, collectively assailing the already-catastrophised service.

Basically what I am saying is that organisations need a very clear S&M strategy.

What are they using the account for – promotion, contact, information? Is the account going to be active, passive, one-way or feedback? Who to friend or follow? How, why and when to tweet, post or reply. Once upon a time it was the adage that all publicity is good publicity; but is it when it isn’t even your own publicity?

People are playing with fire because it is new, it is flash, it does something - though they're not entirely sure what it does that is useful to them at that moment in time. The problems only become apparent when that fire is used inappropriately; without a proper fire-handling policy or risk assessment in place; or when other people realise that they can use fire to arson your business.

But maybe that is stretching the metaphor a little too far.

Nearly most recent

I know - I haven't had a Facebook rant for, well, almost a year and even then it wasn't a proper 'rant'.

But Facebook have recently released a new update to their Android app.

Fortunately this solves for me one of my main bug-bears - the widget refresh rate. Previously the widget would be telling me things that happened hours ago... at best. Usually it was "Yesterday a 9:00am" or something daft. This made the widget realistically useless. Now it isn't - now it updates with your most recent.

Which brings me to the question:

When is your most recent not your Most Recent?

When it's Facebook's Most Recent.

Confused? I'm not surprised.

Back in September 2011 Facebook unleashed Top Stories upon us.

No-one really knew what a Top Story was.

You could tell Facebook who or what was likely to be a Top Story, but it took an absolute arse-load of effort at that stage to go through your hundreds of friends and select which of them were top friends. And if - like me - you check your Facebook every few hours anyway, this was the most unhelpful of features in a long while.

Annoyingly, all searches and your newsfeed defaulted to Top Stories, and each time you had to manually select Most Recent. That eventually changed on the website and your own choice became 'reasonably sticky' - that being that Facebook would forget your choice as and when it felt like it so you still had to check the tiny little writing at the top.

But with its app, you had no way of knowing whether you were viewing Most Recent or Top Stories. With the updated release there is a tick indicator. And again, it has - thankfully - become reasonably sticky. You do have to check it every time as it does occasionally forget your preference, which defeats the object of it being sticky in the first place, but at least it half-makes-the-effort.

The only problem is the different meanings of Most Recent.

You see, if you log in via the web platform, Most Recent means the most recently posted status.

On the app that isn't the case. Most Recent is the most recently posted, liked or commented upon status. So, if your friend posted his status (or photo or whatever) four months ago, but someone liked it two minutes ago; on the web it would be nicely buried into their Timeline, but on the app it shows up as more recent than your friend's much more recent status update from just three minutes ago.

Irritating?

Don't even start!

It almost seems to be part of Facebook's policy to disenfranchise its established users. Facebook is starting to become a perfect example of a "Bad Corporation" that establishes a client-base, and then simply exhausts that client-base, milking it for all it is worth until - eventually - they realise better and move on.

It did it with Top Stories - foisting it upon us without actually asking whether or not we wanted it, whether it was actually a benefit to anyone.

They did it with the Facebook.com email addresses - your visible email address on there automatically defaulted away from whatever you had registered and wanted people to see in case they needed to contact you urgently, to a Facebook email address. If you didn't know, you wouldn't know: they didn't email you to tell you, or highlight the change the next time you logged in. It was silent.

I'm not sure I have convinced myself by my own argument that they are doing this to actively exploit the client-base for a number of reasons.

Firstly, we are not the client-base. We are free users. We are the resource. We are the data, we are the audience, it is the advertisers who are the clients. If they institute policies which actually make people less likely to use Facebook, then it affects their ability to sell adverting and therefore their revenue stream.

Secondly, if they are actively going out there to exploit on the basis that their users are too 'stuck' to Facebook to move, don't count on it. Just ask Myspace or Digg what ignoring your users when undertaking fundamental redesigns or functional adjustments can do to your 'sitting' userbase.

Now, I am fully aware that there does need to be forced migration in some circumstances. People don't like change, and often cannot see the benefit of change. I discussed it in the previous post about Timelines. But does anyone see a benefit from these changes?

Let's face it, this is a massive, multi-national company. Decisions as fundamental as these can't be imposed without substantial focus group analysis and testing to see whether it would harm the business. They can't be imposed without there being a proper cost-risk analysis and a business case proposal.

Surely?

Claim culture?

So it was bonfire night just over a week ago. This is where we celebrate the authorities identifying and removing a threat to our system of governance some 400 years ago. The Americans may find it particularly amusing that it falls at the same time as the presidential elections. (when I started this blog it was actually before bonfire night)

But what it did cause is my colleague to bemoan health and safety legislation and our culture of caution. He used a phrase along the lines of “We used to have much more fun back in my day.” I like to think that the drudgery of the reality of a lifetime of work ahead of him, reflecting the few years he has worked, over and over and over again until he retires, is finally starting to wear down his youthful exuberance.

However, he did make almost half a valid point in his grumble.

His grumble stemmed from the fact that a firework display somewhere seemed to have come to a decision that people were not allowed to take their own sparklers. Quite where this report came from, or the authenticity of the report, I am very suspicious about. The media is all too quick to apply the 'health and safety' label when it is not true, and this is something which the Health and Safety Executive is trying to correct.

But, if it is a true story, then it falls into one or other camps of health and safety.

The first is that it is a legitimate and proportionate measure required to protect people. This may be because of the number of people that attend the event - there are certain displays where, simply because of the density of people, you simply do not have enough room to wave a blisteringly hot piece of metal around at arm's length. And that is understandable. Now, if they could take the same attitude with cigarettes, often held at the level of a toddler's eyes, I would be over the moon.

However, that may not be the case. In order to undertake any organised activity there is currently a responsibility on the organisation to perform a risk assessment. The government is currently looking to relax these rule; however they are only one influencing factor, and often risk assessments are required under the Public Liability or Employer Liability Insurance policies. If the government does relax the requirements, knowing how desperately insurers attempt to decline cover where possible, these risk assessments will still be required, else failing to undertake one will leave you at risk that the insurance refuses to have anything to do with a claim.

And this is where the jobsworth comes to the fore. They are not normally sent by the council to make an assessment, they are normally a very well intentioned - albeit over-zealous, over-cautious or poorly-trained - individual within the organisation arranging the event. And they go around and they look at every tiny little thing, from the pins of a plug lying on the floor to the massive tower-crane dangling a concrete block over the school playground. They are usually, seriously over-zealous. They can file a ten-page report on an inanimate ruler (which may have sharp edges, or may break, or may be grabbed by a passing lunatic and stabbed into someone's ribcage). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; particularly when the security of your own job involved identifying every dangerous thing and managing the risk associated with it: if there is nothing dangerous, suddenly you don't have a job.

And these are the roots of the stories about “Health and Safety means kids can't play conkers at school” or they may have to wear face protection. There is nothing in a single piece of health and safety legislation requiring face protection or outlawing a fun, if somewhat ridiculous, game (I only ever got up to a 23er at school, despite living next to a tree which produced the biggest conkers in the village. I blame dad's shoelaces). The reason that things get cancelled isn't usually because the Health and Safety Executive step in, it is because someone else considers there to be a risk. It is very, very subjective.

Over the summer, one of the concerts at Hyde Park got cut short at the end. You may have seen this one in the news. The organisers said that it was cut off because of health and safety. Not entirely sure where they got that one from, and neither was the Health and Safety Executive whose deputy chair was there watching it, and who rebuked this blame in an excellent press release. The organisers later said that the health and safety concern was due to road closures around the area which needed to be released as soon as the park closed. That is just pure nonsense:

1. the road closures would stay in place for as long as the police or council thought was necessary. They do not arbitrarily remove barriers allowing the free flow of traffic to plough down masses of people trying to get out.
2. even if there was a specified time for the removal of the barriers, it doesn't happen at once and could easily be managed to free-up the least chaotic routes first.
3. it was actually nothing to do with the road closures at all. The police and the council both confirmed that they would have kept roads closed “for as long as it takes”. It was purely a disingenuous statement from the organisers, because...
4. the real reason for the cut-off was that the gig licence expired at 10:30pm. This is pretty standard anywhere, and with good reason. Premises licences are not granted without some form of objection from local residents. They have concerns about the noise going on late into the night - and reasonably justifyably in some circumstances. Indeed at Hyde Park, complaints about the noise had doubled since 2008, and the council had therefore imposed restrictions on the number, duration and timing of gigs. It is this license condition that the organisers would have breached if they had allowed the gig to reach its natural conclusion. And what is the risk there? Purely commercial: they could have been fined for breaching the licence; or they could have found it difficult to tender for a new licence.

But let's be proportionate here - as ever, it is only the worst of these health and safety assessors that we ever hear about. In the vast majority of circumstances, there are a lot of practical and sensible assessors out there who will actually do what they can do to ensure that an event goes ahead

But why do these people exist in the first place?

Well blame is the main answer.

For some reason, the public seem to have come about an expectation that absolutely all risk can be managed-out. Not just minimised, but eliminated; and where it hasn't and there has been a failing, that there is blame. And where there is blame, there is a claim.

This attitude fails on so many levels.

It fails firstly because it assumes that all humans are - or should be - infallible, and that where they are not they should be punished for that mistake. We all make mistakes, and yet unidirectionally we expect to be forgiven them, have them overlooked, whilst dichotimously holding other people accountable for theirs.

It also assumes that there are no external influences. Sometimes, someone is unable to perform an obligation which is expected of them because they are stuck in traffic. Someone else, entirely outside the bubble of performance, has interfered with the expectations. Or maybe it isn't someone, but something. We've just seen tropical storm Sandy bear down on New York. Is there somebody personally responsible for that destruction? Of course not.

Thirdly it assumes that everything is possible. There are some things which simple are not (certainly yet) possible. There is always a risk that something freak occurs which shatters the windscreen of the car you are driving. Whilst everything has been done to ensure this does not happen - toughening the glass, laminating it, angling the screen to roll things over - it may still happen, and it may shower fragments everywhere. Unless or until we develop another material with the transparent properties of glass, but the strength of titanium, that risk will remain. And then, would the strength of titanium be enough?

And if we eliminate all risk, then we don't challenge ourselves. As a youngster I was allowed (or at least able, I'm not sure my mother actually knew we did it) to climb trees. There was considerable risk there. But, by sustaining those injuries, I knew the limits of my own strength, I understood the flexibility and fragility of the wood. Without taking risks, we wouldn't have the chemicals, materials, pharmaceuticals, innovation and entrepreneurship that we have today. So risk is, actually, a very good thing.

So where has this expectation of blame and claim come from? Well it has been learned. Once upon a time we used to accept that bad things happened, that there wasn't always someone to blame

But then, I am a solicitor and I do get a bit fed up with listening to people whine. I call them the “oh whoa is me” lot.

But does that not mean I am to blame? Is it not the lawyers cashing in on these?

Well, I'll start by making two points.

Firstly, no profession is without its bad-eggs. Just read the back pages of the Law Society Gazette and every week they list the solicitors brought before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for bringing the profession into disrepute. So there will be some who will abuse the system, or will work within the regulations but at the very extremes, pushing ethics and morals to the very limit.

But also, I'm not a personal injury solicitor. I deal with CoCo - corporate and commercial law. I specifically did not want to go down the PI route and being seen as an ambulance chaser. Not least, because I didn't want my friends berating me with their traumatic stories and exposing their scars to me and asking me who they should sue whilst I'm trying to enjoy a night out.

But lawyers have created this blame culture, haven't they?

There are good reasons for PI lawyers. People are injured through the faults of other people. Those injuries can be debilitating. They can require substantial, costly alterations to their accommodation, transport, lifestyle. So there is a particular justice which is obtained through PI claims.

So, are the lawyers harvesting these claims? Fostering weaker claims? Creating claims where perhaps there are none?

A little explanation here as to how personal injury claims work...

Once upon a time, personal injury followed the manner in which all other civil work does: that there is a contract between the solicitor and his client that the client will pay his fees. If a claim is successful, the solicitor would ask the court that his fees get awarded on top of any damages: that it is unfair that the claimant have to pay these legal costs which would not have been incurred if the wrongdoer had paid up at the earliest opportunity. Similarly, where the defender of any claim is held to have done nothing wrong, his legal team would ask that the claimant should pay there costs as clearly there was no claim to defend - it is wrong for the defendant to lose out and have to pay fees when he has done no wrong.

So, originally a claimant stood the risk not only of having to pay their own legal costs; but also - if they lost - the legal costs of the defendant on top. Double whammy.

Well, that's how it was seen. And it was considered that this meant that those that really needed the money, the damages, were prevented from access to justice. Because they couldn't stump up even the initial fees to their solicitors, let alone take the risk that they lose, people with some of the most horrendous of injuries, or subject to the most heinous of medical negligences, were left to foot their own bills.

Then, in 1995 the full relevant provisions (in the UK at least) allowed conditional fee arrangements - that the solicitor's fee was conditional upon the success of the case. Indeed, the solicitor would get a 'success fee' - an additional increase in fee to show the risk that had been accepted by the solicitor. This was coupled with 'ATE insurance' - insurance taken out After The Event that caused the incident, but that would cover legal costs related to it.

ATE meant that claimants no longer stood the risk of bearing the defendant's legal costs - they would be met by the insurer. All that was required was a sufficiently strong case to convince insurers to issue a policy, and the claimant bore absolutely no risk.

And that is the problem. Some solicitors over-stated the chances to insurers, who therefore issued more policies. Some insurers were eager to be seen as more accessible, and therefore issued policies more readily. In a perfect world solicitors with a poor success rate would have seen premiums rise, but it isn't a perfect world.

One of the results of this, was a slightly gung-ho attitude from some solicitors. A kind-of “the claim doesn't stand any chance of success, but we might as well give it a go, see what we can get” attitude.

And how successful was that attitude? Well, this is where perhaps the main problem lies.

Probably 90% of the time the defendants in a case would be insurers, or covered by insurance. When you are covered by insurance, there is an obligation to subrogate your claim to the insurers: you hand it over. They deal with it. They contact you when they need something from you; but as it is their money at risk, they handle the defence.

And this is where the calculators come in.

At the very outset of a claim, the insurers undertake a calculation. They look at the value of the claim and factor in the chances of success of the claim. Then they balance this out against their own cost: they look at the man-hours they will have to commit to any claim up to various points in the case.

So, we'll take a worked example.

Imagine they receive a claim amounting to £10,000. They calculate it has a chance of success of perhaps 10%. So the 'claim risk' is £1000.

Now, the insurers man hours cost, say, £50 per hour. This involves taking all statements, obtaining expert reports, counsel's opinion etc. So, at £50 an hour, if this claim takes up any more than 20 hours of the insurer's time, purely economically it would be better to offer the £1000 and settle.

And it happens. Regardless of the validity of the claim, purely because of the numbers. It happens with no report to the insured defendant - they have subrogated their claim, they do not have to give consent to any settlement.

And this is why, in my humble opinion, the system fails. Insurers. Or rather, economics.

Now, the system is changing. CDAs and ATE is going to be removed, meaning claimants will bear some risk.

It's actually not as bad as we make out. Research conducted for, I believe, the Law Society a year or so ago found that there wasn't a 'compensation culture', and that actually the number and value of claims issued had not changed appreciably since the introduction of no-win no-fee agreements. So where is the truth?

I think that whilst the value of claims may not have changed, the settlements may have.

But also, whilst the regulations may be being de-restricted, how many health and safety requirements come from those regulations; and how many come from insurance obligations? The same insurers who settle quickly apply stringent obligations upon an insured before they will cover a claim, they have created their own claim culture almost.

But I also think it is the reporting by the media which is most at fault. Unless you have a victim and a villain, you don't have a story. And the villain could be the over-zealous health and safety assessor, the insurance industry inflating premiums, or the evil motorist who hospitalised a child. The media portrays an uncomfortable contradiction: one of those dichotomies that keeps the press in press. On the one hand, health and safety inspectors are bumbling jobsworths, preventing “fun” from happening or the vexatious litigant suing for millions of pounds because of a broken fingernail; but when something does go wrong, they are all to quick to ask where the risk assessment was, who was in charge, how could this happen? They can't have it both ways.

BBC bashing

So, the BBC is in crisis, and I’m sure you are desperate to know what my views on it are. Go on, I know you are really.

So, colours on the mast from the outset – I love the BBC.

But I love the BBC. For an independent, yet public service to produce output of the breadth, depth and quality it does, simply for the cost of the licence fee – a considerably lower cost that either the fiscal cost of a subscription service; or the psychological cost of having to watch adverts – is brilliant. But then I have already said that.

So, the BBC is in crisis. Or, more accurately, two crises.

Firstly, it failed to show a report alleging that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile.

Then it showed a report which lead to the erroneous naming of a senior politician as a paedophile.

It almost couldn’t do any right.

But as a result of these two reports (or lack thereof) it has been pilloried. And unsurprisingly – but then I’ll come to that later

Now, the two incidents together have claimed the scalps of around half-a-dozen people within the organisation already, with more almost certain to follow. These include the Editor of Newsnight, the Head of News, Deputy of News and even the Director General – the chap in charge of the organisation. They have also, together, spawned no less than five inquiries within the BBC alone, irrespective of those instigated by MPs or the police.

So, what really are the allegations?

Well, allegation one is about the Savile Scandal. It is now widely acknowledged that Savile carried out a long lasting campaign of sexual assault against girls and young ladies. He did this within a number of different institutions, over a considerable number of years. Yes, he almost certainly carried out some of these attacks on BBC premises. But he also carried them out at children’s homes, in hospitals, even in prisons. He particularly targeted the most vulnerable of people who would not report it; either because they were too young to be believed, because they lacked the mental capacity, or because he could silence them with his celebrity.

There are many investigations into how this was allowed to happen. One of the most important things to remember is that these attacks happened in a different era. The sixties, seventies, eighties were another place to today. That doesn’t mean the attacks didn’t happen – they did. It doesn’t mean that they were any less vicious or that the victims suffered any less – they still were and did. But there were no such things as CRB checks, or risk assessments or things like that back then. Celebrities gained unfettered – and unsupervised – contact with fans simply to giddy to know what was happening, and too eager to be able to say no.

But the fact that these attacks occurred is not really the gripe of the papers.

It is that the BBC dropped the report on the attacks. The BBC had interviews with the victims – they were perfectly credible interviews. They had corroboration of the incidents from people other than the victims. They had a story.

But it was dropped.

Why? Because the editor of Newsnight at the time – Peter Rippon – was actually looking at pursuing a different story to the one the journalist – Liz MacKean – was following. Rippon was concentrating on the failure of various institutions – the police and social services particularly – to investigate at the time.

That may have been a story; but that was not THE story. Failing to run the Savile story itself was a failure.

Do I genuinely believe that Rippon thought there was just one story? I don’t know. He seems naïve enough to do so.

But he reported to Helen Boaden – Head of News – and held a discussion with her about whether to run the story. If she, Rippon and Entwhistle – who was Head of Vision, and therefore Boaden’s senior – are to be believed, Boaden briefly mentioned it to Entwhistle, and he barely batted an eyelid. This is despite a Christmas tribute to Savile planned.

Could the tribute have been dropped? Easily. Should it have been? Yes. The failing here is to identify that there were two stories and that one could very easily have been run without impact upon the second “failure to investigate” story. Or it could actually have ‘lead into’ the second story – asking the question how he was allowed to get away with it so long.

Where did this decision lie? Was it Rippon who decided there was one story? Was the discussion between Boaden and Entwhistle more involved? Was cold water poured on this from a much higher height, either in the hope it would disappear completely, or at least only come to light after the Christmas tribute? If the conversation at the top was not more involved, then why not? Afterall, Entwhistle was in charge of the programme schedule which would pit these two competing interests against each other. These matters are to come out in the wash.

But then the second incident. On Newsnight. Again.

Here, the BBC had been provided with information from a victim as to the perpetrator of the attacks upon him, that the paedophile that committed the attacks was a senior politician.

Let me be clear – the BBC did not name the individual. Indeed, in the run-up to the broadcast of the programme there was a lot of noise on Twitter from seasoned journalists actively criticising the BBC for NOT naming the individual.

In fact, the BBC relied upon the honestly held belief of the victim – Steve Messham. Messham had, in the past, been shown a photo of his attacker by the police, and had then been told the identity of the person. It is uncertain as to whether the photo was incorrectly titled; or whether the person in the photograph was similar looking. Again, remember, the photograph was taken in the seventies before the days of super megapixel cameras. So it was highly possible it could have been a photo of the senior politician, which – due to blurriness or passage of time – Messham did honestly believe was his attacker.

That doesn’t get them off the hook though. The BBC is one of the largest, most trusted and respected journalistic organisations in the world. Do they go to air with just one man’s say-so? Or should they actually have checked out the details – the times and places the attacks were supposed to have happened? Much as I love the BBC, this is a distinct failure. But, in light of the circumstances where they had just been criticised for not going to air to name a paedophile; it is perhaps somewhat slightly more understandable that they were a little quick-off-the-draw. Maybe, however, with journalistic standards already under review, they should have been more cautious. But was it journalistic standards, or simply editorial standards that were under review?

Needless to say, the BBC has received a good kicking from the press. In fact, it has received an undeserved kicking from the press. The reasons for this are two-fold.

Firstly, the press is in between earthquakes. The Leveson inquiry has been undertaken, looking at the failings of the press and the regulators in the phone hacking scandal. The BBC was one of the only journalistic bureaux to escape that entirely unscathed. And they are not happy. They don’t want to be the bad guys, they want someone else to carry some blame, deflect some of the attention. Particularly as the second earthquake – the publication of the findings from the inquiry – is imminent.

But also, the BBC holds a unique position which other media hate. The BBC is independently funded by the licence fee. This means it doesn’t have to generate a revenue by selling papers or advertising space. They see the BBC as in a commercial bubble, and whilst they are facing the ‘perfect storm’ of people turning to free internet pages to consume information; the BBC has perfectly positioned itself as just that…but at the cost of the licence fee payer rather than the advertisers or the shareholders.

Many see its protected position as a reason for it to have a higher integrity, more rigourous journalistic standards. In reality, any broadcast media has to have these higher standards, and it is perhaps for that reason that the broadcast medias were entirely excluded from the Leveson inquiry - they simply could do no wrong, it wasn't possible for them to have a "don't ask how we got it" policy. But there it where regulation by Ofcom differs from self-'regulation' (if it can be called that) by PCC differ wildly. The reason that the BBC actually goes - or aspires to go - even further, is reciprocal. It is expected of the Beeb that it will be the best, and so the Beeb expects to be regarded as the best, but knows that it only holds that position whilst it IS the best. It's the opposite of a vicious cycle. Yes, the principle may have been established by being the first such news bureau, by being independently funded and therefore able to take the time; but the comearound of it is that it needs to work doubley hard to maintain that reputation otherwise it has worse than nothing - it is a drain on the public.

But you can see how easily the BBC gets beaten - and, indeed, beats itself up - over these crises. Look at ITV. ITV pulled what can only be descibed as a pretty base and crass, oportunistic stunt. They ambushed the Prime Minister mid-interview and presented him with a card of suspected paedophiles. The Prime Minister, with tact and credit, ignored the list and instead raised concerns about ITV's attempt to turn this into a witchhunt. Worse still, in performing this cupid stunt, the presenter exposed a number of the names to camera. Has action been taken at ITV? Have people lost their job? Has the head of the organisation been forced to quit? No - no-one has lost their job. "Words of advice" have been given. Nothing more.

And again, the newspaper who actually named the subject - has anything been done there? No. That was handled slightly differently. They only named the person in the course of raising concerns as to whether the report was correct. But up until then, few people had put a name to the allegation.

In the meantime the BBC is having to work doubley hard again to restore its position. It has to be seen as beyond white, and that means taking more extreme steps than those other media organisations who are happy with being seen as grey at best.

Media organisations should never see themselves in a priviledged position. They should never see themselves as protected, or as mere filters and editors of the news. Sometimes they are the news, and when they are they should never be beyond inquiry. This is happening with the BBC now as it has with other outlets and will again in the course of the Leveson inquiry. But whilst they are all too happy to put the boot into the Beeb now, will the Beeb repay them in kind when the report is published? No. It is simply above that level. And rightly so.

Techno no-go

Last week there was another big technology fair, with various companies displaying their latest advances. And before, of course, there was Apple, with the new iPhone 5.

So what was delivered?

Well, with the iPhone, you got essentially a very similar phone to the iPhone 4GS: the operating systems are the same, the hardware actually very similar. Yes, it was longer and thinner and slightly faster; but that was pretty much all.

The big news at the tech fair? That'll be the firm that showed off its latest 86” television screen. How was this a massive development? Well, it was 2” bigger than their previous screen.

Now, I know that there are sometimes huge leaps forward: HDTV, 3D, 4G etc. - in fact anything with an acronym or abbreviation. Brand new technologies that allow us to do so much more. The phone in my pocket lets me take a photo and share it via the internet with millions of people, within seconds and with just the swipe of a touchscreen. Well, ok, a couple of hundred of people. But it's not that long ago when the idea of sharing photos so widely - other than passing them around a group at a party - was unheard of.

But then the phone in my pocket actually isn't that much different to the previous one. I have a Samsung Galaxy Note; and previously had a Dell Streak. They are both the same size; both had a similar camera; both had the same operating system on them and the same availability of apps. In fact, the reason I bought my new phone wasn't to 'upgrade' - to get some technology or function that I didn't have - it was because my other phone had broken.

And when you look at people who do 'upgrade', it isn't usually the 'draw' of any new functionality; but simply the availability. People bought HDTVs because they were buying a new tv anyway, and 'might as well' have HD. There were of course the first few evangelists who bought simply for the new; but they aren't really the drivers behind the technology and are probably 1% of the target market (albeit being 100% of the initial market).

The tech guys create the new technology either because they can (or to see if they can); or because they must. The ridiculously big tvs for example are created purely to show that it is possible to do it; whereas other technologies, like SuperHD are created because there is a need: if you are buying an 86” tv, then 1080HD is simply not good enough, a crisp enough resolution at that size where your pixel will be a massive 2mm tall. Then, once the technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes included as standard - almost a forced migration. One of my colleagues regularly bemoans the lack of absolutely basic mobile phones available these days.

And you have to wonder how necessary - or even beneficial - the progress is. Take cash machines. Is there any need for them to have colour screens? Aside from the pretty pictures advertising their low-rate loans, no - you need the screen to tell you what your balance is, and ask you how much of that dwindling resource you would like to withdraw from your 86” SuperHD tv fund. The reason they have them is because it has now become cheaper to manufacture colour screens, otherwise you need to have and maintain a separate plant for your old monochrome screens.

I saw a car the other day advertised as having a colour touchscreen display. I'm not sure why. I presume it includes an in-built satellite navigation system, but otherwise, why? Is the colour touchscreen going to make me a better driver? Also certainly it would, in fact, distract you from being a better driver. I have seen irons advertised as having LCDs for no apparent reason. I'm sure someone sits in the R&D departments of white goods departments trying to think of things to slap on their fridge, and when someone asks why anyone would want that, they simply reply “why not!”

Indeed as a moot consideration the BBC Click programme recently considered why you would want an IP connected washing machine - one of the reasons behind IPv6 was that we were going to have so many more 'connected appliances'. The most dominant reason was so that the washing machine could send a message to your smartphone telling you that your washing was done. There was, however, one genius idea - that it would only turn on if the weather was going to be fine for the amount of time it would take to dry it.

Within tech circles the running joke is the IP connected fridge that automatically orders milk for you when you run low (it's not very funny, but they don't have many jokes). Lovely. But what are the practicalities of this? Would you have to scan the barcode when you use any so it knew it was milk? And then give it an estimate of how much you use? Or would you have to put it in the same place in the fridge every time so that it could weigh it? What about if you bought something new or wanted to try something different? Perhaps you don't ever try any new food? And what about delivery? Do you have to maintain your Google calendar so very tightly so that it can automatically book a delivery slot in for you? Thereby stifling your spontaneity? After all, spontaneity, experimentation and entrepreneurship are the key drivers behind technological invention and development. If the new technology ends up being less convenient it just doesn't take off.

And there is suitability. Take 3D tv. Not only was timing poor for this – within a few years of the mass consumer base having just upgraded to digital HDTV and therefore unwilling to make a purchase for a while – but it has a number of problems with suitability and practicality.

It is perfect for the all-immersive movie experience; but that is less than 1% of what tvs are made for, and an aspect in which people are willing to compromise: if they want the full experience they go to the cinema.

TV is frequently dip-in dip-out. Getting your eyes used to a 3D screen is not compatible with that. Indeed in Japan a number of authorities are concerned about the effect and strain 3D tvs place upon peoples eyes. And you can't dip-in, dip-out when it involves putting glasses on and taking them off again: it is just plain inconvenient. And even when you are fully committed to a movie, the glasses are a discomfort. Yes, they are now making tvs which don't require glasses, but the 'sweet-spot' in which to sit to achieve 3D is limited and very much not suited to popping your head round the doorframe to catch the headlines inbetween cooking.

But that shows the development progress. It started out offering a feature – 3D – and then they worked to refine that feature, making it as comfortable as possible and removing the need for glasses. Without the initial development of what might have seemed like a gimmick, the ultimate aim would not have been achieved: without the novelty of a super thin screen, your mobile would not be in the same state as it is. And the need to make these novelties, gimmicks consumable is what drives future development; as soon as you can make HDTV a necessity - for the mainstream, as the basic starting point - then you can reap the rewards of developing that technology and investing it into the next big thing.

Of course the tiny, drip-feed, incremental developments are necessary. Yes, HD was a massive step-up for television, and it did convince people to spend more when an otherwise necessary upgrade was required, but it would only have been possible with the steps in between. Yes, the processor in the new iPhone may be only slightly faster, slightly more powerful than the last one; but it is considerably faster than in the first phone. Were it not for this snail-pace progression then my memory card would have been sitting around at the same size - both physically and digitally - as my old 16MB compact flash card, waiting for the next earthquake-sized radical development. There wouldn't have been the step smaller to SD, then to mini-SD, then to micro-SD. The digital increases would possibly have still occurred, but that is the law of digital; and even then they have only been required by other developments - my camera incrementally increased from 3megapixels to 5 and now to 10 megapixels. Without that, there is no need for a bigger memory card so that I can hold 2000 pictures instead of 1000 - 1000 would have continued to be perfectly sufficient.

But that brings me back to the usefulness of the developments. Digital cameras these days are being marketed with 20+ megapixels. How useful is that? Unless you are zooming in stratospherically, or printing the pictures out the size of a bedroom wall (I shall be doing that soon and I still suspect my 10mp pictures will be perfectly adequate) then all that the extra pixels are doing is using up data on your hard-drive. Worse still, it may actually be hindering the consumer experience because more pixels take longer to save, and therefore present a greater lag on refresh times, slowing down your ability to take the next shot. Yes, that degree of quality may be necessary for professional users, but for the general consumer it is bamboozling.

And that, I think, is really the point which I am trying to make. When it comes to technology I am reasonably well educated, and can understand the terms, the benefits and the compromises; but that isn't necessarily the case with consumers. They see each technological development as a concern, a further term or specification to confuse them. It makes them very wary of technology. Human nature being what it is, people are only too quick to come up with problems or failures, where technology (and not - so they believe - the user) has let them down. Unless the creep is so gentle so as to be unnoticeable, there will be a distinct wariness from the potential user. Ironically creep helping to prevent a shock. Unless, of course, like me, they are quite a geek about it. It's all very well putting a colour touchscreen in the car, but if your average driver can't use it to turn the heating on, then it's a step backward from what they want and are used to. It's all very well increasing the definition, but it's another number to remember, and the consumer wonders “is this the three-letter-acronym where a smaller number is better or the bigger? Is Panasonic's HCSD the same as Sony's CSF?”

To that extent there needs to be a happy medium. Just enough information for the consumer so that they understand the development without confusion; and with manufacturers themselves being sensible as to use or necessity of inclusion (or extension) of a technology or the information. If it is included as standard across the industry, consider dropping the information - a company was recently criticised as advertsing its paint as "lead free" dispite the fact that all paints - by law - have been lead-free since the 1990s. If customers are finding themselves forced - or at least encouraged - to adopt a technology that they don't want and can't see a benefit of, then they are going to be reluctant adopters, and certainly not evangelists about it. But then, I think I have probably discussed some of this already with regard to Facebook.

Insta...gem?

Not a day goes by when I look at my Facebook news feed and someone hasn't uploaded a very artistically shot Instagram photo of the sandwich they are about to eat.

Yesterday, for example, it was a shot of coffee by a friend. Not as in an espresso; but as in a photographic shot of a cup of coffee. A cup of coffee that he hadn't even made himself, and therefore had no particular right to be proud about. It was a pure boast: this is what I have and am about to enjoy; despite the fact that I did nothing much to make it worthwhile (excuse the rant!)

A couple of days ago it was someone uploading a photo of a beach - again, purely to inspire jealousy. The comment with it was “I'm going to miss being here when I'm back in the office like you guys next week”. I know the beach, it's nothing particularly spectacular. Catch it on a good day and it has its aspects; on a bad day and it is gloomy and unremitting.

But Instagram has proliferated widely, and why? Well it's the filters that make practically every photo look amazing. Ish.

You know, the filters that enhance all of the colours so that the blues are bluer than you've ever seen, the hazy soft-focus (or just plain blur) around the edges, the sepia wash or aged-grain effect that are supposed to be redolent of rose-tinted yesteryears. Take the beach - apply the 'vivid' filter and it makes a dull beach amazing; apply a different filter and it could make exactly the same picture look spooky, or grainy, a hundred years old or as though the sun is just setting.

The irony is that with the most recent update, the 'live filters' have been removed, and you can only apply them 'post-production'. The founder of instagram doesn't see the application as a photograph manipulation tool, he sees it as a social network. It isn't a program to take photos and apply filters, it is a facility to share photos with your network of friends.

But how much of the picture is yours?

You have taken the time to properly compose the picture, to stand in the correct place and frame it correctly, to time the click just right...

And then you use a processor to apply a filter, altering the focus, the colours, cropping out the bits that you don't want in there. Where is the skill, other than clicking on the correct filter?

It's a question that has bugged me for a while, and it isn't exclusively digital either.

Where do you go if you want a family portrait? A modern, crisp, minimalist family portrait? You go to Venture Photography, where all the photos look the same. Pure ethereal, white backgrounds, no shadows, vivid colours with some picked out to be more vibrant than others. (They do simple black and white photos as well, but still no shadows). And obviously a little airbrushing thrown in, just in case you had a spot that day.

But how reflective of truth is it? And how reflective of the truth should it be? And - of course, one of my favourite subjects - how much of it is 'art'?

As I said with the 'beach' photo and the thirteen or so different photographs that the same shot could be, to what degree is the choice of filter an artistic choice? If you had a great degree of control over exactly how 'vivid' each particular colour is, and essentially spend a lot of time repainting the image, then I can see that - despite the digital intervention - it is still user-generated art.

This is no new question though. Image manipulation has gone back hundreds of years. If we look at photography, colour was a manipulation. Originally it was black and white. Even then, the level of contract would vary depending upon the film and the development. With colour photos, part of the reason some of them have the washed-out tones is because the development process employed did not accurately reproduce the colours taken. This was not an artistic intervention, but usually because of the technology available at the time to produce the pigments. To what extent do unmanipulated photographs these days accurately capture the colours? Afterall, when I turn on my digital camera there are a couple of dozen settings depending on whether I need high-resolution, low-light, high-speed, dusky conditions or others. I software in the camera itself then enhances the required aspects.

But long before the software did it, we were manipulating the aspects. Flash was around to ensure that a picture could be taken at a time when pictures otherwise should not be taken - inside or otherwise too dark. Henry VIII often instructed his portraitists and artists to paint him taller, broader, more ruddy and more impressive.

These days we go further. Obviously there are the 'pure' artistic considerations: composition of the scene; positioning and pose; and framing to crop the image. Then there are the 'external', yet still 'pre-production' elements: the lighting or filters, make-up etc. There may be some post-production additional articles added that weren't there in the original shot, or a bit of airbrushing or filtering or contrast or colour manipulation.

Like I say, I see this entirely where a considerable degree of skill and effort has been undertake by the person. but where it is just a couple of clicks to apply a filter? Or to airbrush out a spot (we've all been there)? I have had a similar discussion on art generally.

Of course, there are occasions where such manipulation is an absolute no. There have been numerous occasions in recent years of photo-journalists being sacked or having their reputation torn to pieces because of how they have composed a piece, Photoshopped two separate aspects together, even simply cropping the photo too short to remove a key element. But these are where we have a particular expectation that the image will be pure, unadulterated and a fair representation of the truth. But then photo-journalists don't go around taking photos with Instagram. Or at least not for publication. The Wikipedia article contains various references, although it seems to focus on digital manipulation and not on 'mock-up' images such as those used by The Mirror) which purported to be of abuses carried out by the armed forces in Iraq.

It's going to be one of those questions that doesn't go away - a matter of fact and degree, the blur between fact and fiction. Where the distortion or manipulation exceeds the original input, then clearly the 'art' is owned by the computer rather than the user, but it is the grey spectrum in the middle where people will draw their own line, or may only encounter that line when something comes so close to crossing it.

And I'm sure, wherever they have drawn the line, I will probably perceive that as wrong.

A bad deal?

So there is outcry over the naming of St James' Park in Newcastle again.

Well, not quite.

This time it isn't the naming, it is the sponsorship.

The naming rights have been sold off alongside shirt sponsorship; and the new sponsor has elected not to use their own brand name on the arena but to revert back to St James' Park (it having been the Sports Direct Arenafor almost a year).

Bravo. They listened to the fans. They may even have listened to my rant

But, apparently, the fans didn't want to talk to the sponsor, really.

The new sponsor is Wonga. You know, the “pay-day loans company”. They lend small amounts on short terms, but at eye-watering levels of interest. Wonga's standard APR is 4124%.

Yes, FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR percent.

And this is what is concerning fans, players and even the general secretary of the Football Association has decided to wade in. There is even a suggestion that “star player” Demba Ba may not play in the shirt, because he is a muslim.

The Islamic faith prevents taking or paying interest on financial matters.

But Demba Ba had no problem wearing a Newcastle shirt sponsored by Virgin Money, who charge or pay interests on their loans and savings.

Curious.

The fact is that many financial service firms sponsor football clubs. In the 2011-2 Premiership alone there were:

Standard Chartered (Liverpool)

Aviva (Norwich)

Britannia (Stoke)

Aon - who whilst not directly involved with consumer financial products still supply reinsurance and other risk assurance products (Man United).

So there are financial services firms readily advertising on shirts.

Wonga themselves currently sponsor Blackpool who are playing in the Championship, having themselves previously played in the Premiership in a Wonga shirt. So that makes the comments by the general secretary of the Football Association - Alex Horne - all the more bizarre. He talks about inappropriate advertising: “If you consider it as in the category of things that are inappropriate for children like gambling and alcohol, it feels like it is in that category”.

So it should be in the same category as gambling and alcohol, despite being in a very tightly regulated consumer credit industry most definitely not aimed at children?

Well, fine.

After all, gambling firms sponsor the following 2011-2 Premiership teams:

Aston Villa (Genting Casinos)

Bolton Wanderers (118bet)

Sunderland (Tombola bingo)

Swansea (32Red)

Wigan (12bet.com)

Wolverhampton (Sportingbet)

And, of course, Budweiser is the official beer of the Premier League. So where is the inappropriate advertising?

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't like Wonga. I would never myself use Wonga, I do think their advertising strategy is poor, and they have been rapped by the OFT for their aggressive and misleading practices in debt collection.

And when you look at the interest rates, yes they are eye-watering.

But - and this is the same stance taken by the OFT and FSA - they are offering a credit facility to people who would not otherwise have that facility. The loans are low value and for a short period of time. They are not expected to be relied on regularly, and if Wonga was not around the people who use that facility would go to unregulated or illegal sources of money - loan sharks.

I see that.

I also see that if you borrow £300 over ten days the cost of that facility is around £36. That's barely an admin fee.

So no, whilst I don't endorse them, I understand why they are in existence. I don't understand the criticism levied because one club has gone with a sponsor who already sponsors football clubs.

Sex-free September

So, I didn't have sex in September.

Remarkable, isn't it?

Well, I don't know.

I have a tendency to average out at one a month. But I don't really keep track. I certainly don't get towards the end of the month and dash out to bonk the first bloke passing my house to get it in (so to speak) before midnight on the 30th.

And were I to keep track, it would rather demean the encounters that I do have. I can honestly say that I very, very rarely regret any of the shags that I have, and where I do it is usually do to 'logistical complexities' - it will make relations with that person or with some other person awkward for a while, or such like.

But, if I undertake a proper retrospective; yes - it has been an average of about one a month. That's one partner a month, rather than one bonk, and obviously when I am in a sustained relationship that partner will be the same partner for repeated months.

But, in terms of many of the people I know that doesn't make me promiscuous. There are many of my friends who consider it a bad week if they don't get any, but then again I've seen the levels to which they will stoop just get 'some'.

But that is really neither here nor there, it is the fact that I didn't have sex, in spite of the circumstances, that is more of a surprise.

For example, the students are back in town. Now, this may mean that I do get a quickie soon - I have one of them already texting me wanting to meet up - and for the first two or three weeks the freshers are still settling in and finding out about the city so it may take them a little while to get a bit more adventurous.

And I played away during September. With football. Our team went over to Liverpool and we booked a hotel and had a night out the night before the game (we really should get around to organising these things the other way round). In fact that lead to a rather bizarre encounter that was the closest that I did get to sex: somebody pinched my bottom in a bar. I never saw him again that night, and he had no association with either of the football teams, and yet by the time I got home on Sunday I had a friend request on Facebook. I presume he heard my name mentioned by someone in the club - it is quite distinctive - and found me that way. Anyhow, we started chatted and the next thing we were video-calling each other with our bits out.

And September is the end of summer. Summer is a good time for one-off sex. People are in a good mood, enjoying the long, languorous, lazy evenings, not wanting to get tied down into anything complicated. And people generally look their best in summer. It is widely noted that people generally look better wearing less: once the pasty-white flesh has acquired a good colour, and assuming you don't wear less than the minimum, generally skimpy or tight summer clothing flatters. It certainly does more for you than a chunky merry knit, balaclava and gloves. So it is good for Summer Fun, and in September people are starting to get very aware that it is the end of that for some months.

In October and November people go for a Winter Warmer - a sustained relationship, someone to cuddle on cold winter nights. No longer are you sunning yourself in a relaxed beer garden until late evening as in July; no: now you spend all your time in darkness, wanting to cuddle up to someone to get warm. You can't be bothered traipsing round all the bars in the wet and the snow, peeling off layer after layer in each establishment and then taking twenty minutes to reclothe before leaving. You want to go to meals where you can sit in a nice warm restaurant for hours without having to move; or cinemas where it is as dark as outside so you don't have to make an effort. Or, better still, having someone round and cooking them a meal. That way one of you doesn't have to leave the house or - potentially - the bed if you forgo dinner.

Generally in a year I will possibly have two relationships. It's not guaranteed, and indeed my last relationship was a year ago; however they tend to be in October/November, and in January/February.

For the few years prior to this year I have been dumped immediately before Valentines day for the "late Winter Warmer". That's a great feeling.

But then some of this could be because I can't sustain a relationship over summer. Exciting August - and the weeks in the run-up - are when I do the majority of my galavanting around. My winters tend to be very
quiet. It's odd that this should happen, but I suppose the reasons are pretty similar: it is too cold and dark in winter to do much galavanting. If you can manage to do the travel in the dark, you only have a few short hours to see the sights before it is too dark and you have to start drinking.

It's not that I'm averse to a relationship at any other time. I would quite gladly have a Christmas Cuddle, a Spring Snuggle, a June Spoon or a Week Twenty Six Fix, I just don't seem to be able to pull them off.

So, September marked the end of Fun Season, providing me with a slight holiday until I - hopefully - get the guy.