Hugh Salmon2013-05-19T22:50:07-04:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=hugh-salmonCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Hugh SalmonGood old fashioned elbow grease.Branding: Understanding The Importance of Trusttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31399462013-04-23T12:32:22-04:002013-04-24T07:49:04-04:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/Ogilvy & Mather, where my career was born, we had a guy - yes, one person in the whole agency - whose job was to explain this new concept to our clients.
Now, some people argue, everything is marketing.
In his wonderful, intelligent lecture on screenwriting, Charlie Kaufman said:
'They're selling you something. And the world is built on this now. Politics and government are built on this. Corporations are built on this. Interpersonal relationships are built on this.... it has all become marketing.'
In this sense, within the space of my career, marketing has gone from nothing to everything.
That's some journey.
Now, it seems, there is another word that is commonly used and little understood. It is the word brand, the application of which is called 'branding'.
What is branding?
There is no easy answer for, as David Ogilvy said, 'brand image is an amalgam of many things - name, packaging, price, style of advertising, and, above all, the nature of the product itself.'
'The nature of a product' can be defined in terms of 'rational' and 'emotional' benefits.
If your clients tell you the truth, rational benefits are easy to identify. The trouble is the rational benefits of a product are often the same as its competitors. Commercial success depends on the identification, and often creation, of emotional points of difference.
I love this part of my job because, to define the emotional values of a brand, you need understand how human beings think and behave.
And, as I hope you find in all my posts, people are interesting aren't they?
This is why the best way to understand a brand is to think of it as a person, a human being, replete with a complex blend of rational and emotional characteristics.
In life, the way we behave influences other people to like or dislike us on a sliding scale. If you are nice, people like you. If you are horrid, they don't. You may or may not care about this.
But brands do care whether or not you like them, particularly if they want you to buy them.
So what is the one thing brands must do to make you like them? Again, David Ogilvy has the answer. He called it a consumer promise:
'A promise ... is a benefit for the consumer. It pays to promise a benefit which is unique and competitive, and the product must deliver the benefit you promise.'
To deliver a promise, a brand must tell the truth.
And people must trust the brand to do so.
Sadly, it seems, trust is an evaporating characteristic in society today. As I pointed out in my last post, although you and I trust our doctors, politicians don't.
Who, in my life, have I trusted but trust no more?
I won't name individual brands, but here are some of the sectors they are in:
You?]]>NHS Reform: Can Your Doctor Be Trusted or Not?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30042862013-04-03T04:15:29-04:002013-04-03T07:50:37-04:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/DLA Disgrace, I discussed the shameful process that our Government inflicts on disabled benefit claimants in our community. It is outsourced to ATOS - 'an international information technology services company'.
Do you know what this means?
It means the Government does not trust your doctor.
How so?
Well, until the Government started paying ATOS to do the job, they trusted your doctor's evidence that your disability was as you were claiming it to be.
Not any more. The Government would rather trust ATOS.
Surely, if doctors provide false declarations on behalf of their patients, they should be named and shamed and punished just as severely as those 'disabled' people who fiddle the system? Wouldn't such an outcome deter rogue doctors from providing false evidence?
For some reason, we don't read about these doctors. Yet they must exist or we would not need this inhuman ATOS technology for the Government to rely on instead.
Given this, is it not strange that, this week, a new law has come into force whereby Primary Care Trusts (sic) and Strategic Health Authorities have been replaced by several hundred 'Clinical Commissioning Groups' run by - you've guessed it - your doctor?!]]>National Debt: Who Do We Owe?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29222192013-03-21T06:07:16-04:002013-03-21T10:22:32-04:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/
Please forgive me for not being an economist but, when you owe loads of money, you can't keep up with the repayments and you plunge deeper and deeper into the doo-doo, there comes a time when you go to your creditors and say:
'Hey guys, hard as I try, I can't pay you this money and, if we go on like this, I ain't never going to repay it. Let's work it out.'
Please forgive me for not being an economist but, back in the day, some Third World countries did this and, rightly, the banks who held the debt recognised the reality of the situation and wrote the money off. It was called 'unpayable debt'.
So who owns our national debt today? And at what point is it 'unpayable'?
The UK national debt is £1.1trillion (Dec. 2012). It is 'owned', it says here, by banks and building societies (9.3%), insurance (23.1%), Bank of England (25.7%) and 'overseas' (30.7%).
Sorry, did I read that right? The Bank of England? You what? Our Bank of England? The Bank of England that we, the people, 'own'? And what about the banks, building societies and insurance companies? Don't we own them too?
Please forgive me for not being an economist, but are you really telling me that we are being punished because we can't pay ourselves back money we already own? Huh?
Get this:
The American national debt, it says here, is $11trillion, of which the 'overseas' portion is 'owned' by China ($727bn), Japan ($629bn) UK ($157bn) Brazil $129bn) Russia ($116bn).
Did I read that right? America owes Britain $157billion. Great! Can we have it back please?
The only thing that seems clear about this whole situation is that it is confused, illogical and absurd - and, frankly, people who know better could do better.
It seems to be that the size of the global debt mountain is such that the human suffering around the world, from Cyprus to America, is so out of proportion to the size of the problem that a more innovative and creative solution is required.
So, for the last time, please forgive me for not being an economist, but can someone please stop and think about the lack of humanity in all this and, ideally, wipe the slate clean and start again with a zero balance?
At the very least, surely a worldwide financial readjustment could be achieved?
And, if nothing else, I believe we are owed an explanation of who we owe all this money to and why whoever it is will not take a more humane approach to overcoming this problem?
More transparency, more creative thinking and more leadership please.]]>When You Don't Know Thine Own Selftag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28620302013-03-12T14:50:33-04:002013-05-12T05:12:01-04:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/Jeffrey Archer promoting his latest book on the radio.
In the light of Chris Huhne's jail sentence for perverting the course of justice, the presenter insisted on asking Archer about his own experiences in prison. Monosyllabic were the answers. Not quite the PR His Lordship was after.
Isn't it odd how some people take for granted an outstanding talent they possess in sacrifice of a dream they are never going to achieve?
They just don't know, or won't accept, what they are good at.
It seems Jeffrey Archer is one of these. A convicted perjurer, and thus a proven liar, he may have thought a talent for the untrue ideal for political office - but, to his considerable cost and with plenty of time for reflection in jail, he may now accept that telling lies is more suitable for an author of fiction than a respectable public figure.
I went on a cricket tour to Australia with a person like this. Let's call him Ned.
Ned was completely deluded as to his cricketing talent and, however quickly he thought he could bowl, he wasn't slow in telling the rest of us, time after time and day after day, what a famous and successful international player he would become (not).
As so often, the more Ned talked the less we believed him - to the extent that, back home in England, he decided to become a professional golfer instead (not).
However, Ned did have one talent which we all admired. He was a wonderful magician. After every game, he would work his magic on the opposition (far more than he had on the pitch) and they would be spellbound by his talent - as were we, his teammates.
My favourite of Ned's tricks was when he would pretend he couldn't find the playing card his victim had picked from the pack, only to find it in someone's pocket. And then, to the surprise of all, in another pocket he would find the victim's watch, which none of us had seen him remove.
If you have never seen a magician close-up and in person, it is much more impressive than on stage or TV. This guy was good - and certainly not what you expect in a clubhouse bar in the middle of Australia after a long hot game of cricket, I can tell you.
Why couldn't Ned recognise, and realise, his own talents? Strange, isn't it?
When advising students on their career options, I ask them if, whatever academic qualifications they may have or whatever subjects they may have studied, they have a mind which can compete with other people with more relevant skills in their chosen career.
What does this mean?
Well, early in life, I discovered something about the way my own mind works.
Compared to some people, I am very weak at remembering lists of facts. This, I like to fool myself, leaves space in my brain for the unequalled brilliance of my human insights and creative thinking.
Over a beer in a pub, I would meet friends with jobs in the City who could remember accurately the closing price of every share on the London Stock Exchange. Would you put money on being able to do this?
Or I would dine with people who could not only recognise a wine varietal, which I can just about do, but also the vintner and vintage. 'Oh, that's a Chateau Plonk 1983' say they, leaving me feeling embarrassed and socially inadequate.
Even more annoyingly, I know people who can remember every racehorse in the country, where it has run before and its place in the race. This knowledge helps them win money off innocent punters like me who haven't a clue.
I know I would never have succeeded as a stockbroker, a wine merchant or a gambler.
But can such people communicate?
That's another story.]]>When You Need Someone to Do Something They Don't Want to Dotag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27808032013-02-28T08:28:49-05:002013-04-30T05:12:01-04:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/
One of the advantages of working in creative businesses is that, on the whole, decision-making is based on creative talent and strength of argument rather than rank or pay grade.
After all, you can't expect people to write what they don't think, draw what they can't see or film what they cannot imagine.
So, in the business sectors in which I have worked - music, publishing and advertising - people have the right to say no.
On the other hand, in the management of these businesses, there are times when you just have to persuade people to do things they might not want to do, however reluctant they might be, and for their own good as well as the business.
Once, I was managing the advertising for a large corporate conglomerate in whose portfolio was a relatively small French wine brand.
I knew the production budget would be unlikely to inspire any of the creative teams at my agency. But I did persuade the client that a visit to the vineyard in France might inspire better work than we might otherwise expect.
Our client, one of the best I have worked with, as you are about to discover, not only concurred but managed to borrow his company's private jet for what became a memorable and inspiring day - and advertising that was twice as effective as it might have been.
But I have never done anything, or had so much at stake as this:
Back in the day, Mike Oldfield was a jobbing musician hanging around the bars and clubs of London. He had sent early demos of Tubular Bells to every record company in town.
No one was interested.
But Richard Branson, intent on launching Virgin Records, was captivated by the tapes and paid for the studio time Oldfield needed to record an album that would sell 18 million copies, spend over 300 weeks in the charts and earn royalties then, today and forever.
Furthermore, this one piece of work kicked off all of Branson's later success and was the launch-pad of the multi-billion pound Virgin empire that we know today.
However, back then, and just as Mike Oldfield had finished recording his masterwork, Richard Branson had a problem.
Recognising the need to promote this new product (he has been good at this in his career), Branson knew he needed to do something to launch it. As is often the case in creative industries, what better way to promote a product than the product itself?
Branson arranged a live recital at the Queen Elizabeth Hall.
Mike Oldfield was not keen on this idea. He was not keen at all. In fact he said no.
Tubular Bells had been meticulously constructed. Oldfield had played every instrument himself. A multitude of complex production issues had been overcome, including over 1,800 overdubs. Oldfield had not begun to consider the implications of performing his work on stage. The last thing he wanted to hear was 'Do it again but live!'.
But Richard Branson did not cancel the concert. He smoothed Mike Oldfield into his car - an old Bentley which his parents had bought for £300 and given him for his birthday.
On his way to the gig, and right at the last minute, Oldfield - again - told Branson he would not do it. He did not like it. He did not want it. He did not need it. He was exhausted. He had nothing left in the tank. It was all too much. There was no way he could play the concert.
Branson pulled over to the side of the road and the conversation went like this:
Richard Branson: 'If you can overcome your psychological problems and play this gig, the keys to the Bentley are yours.'
Silence for all of five seconds.
Mike Oldfield: 'I think I'm feeling slightly better!'
Oldfield gave a breathtaking performance and brought the house down.
And the rest is history.
Brilliant.]]>Education: Career Politicians Fail the Test Againtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26844742013-02-14T05:53:00-05:002013-04-16T05:12:01-04:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/
It won't surprise you when I say for as long as our inadequate career politicians are in charge:
In the last few weeks, we have had education secretary Michael Gove in an embarrassing climbdown in abandoning his flagship plan to scrap GCSEs and replace them with a new English Baccalaureate.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has suggested that he and his wife may send their oldest son to a private school, yet in the past he has said: "Right now there is a great rift in our education system between our best schools, most of which are private, and the schools ordinary families rely on. That is corrosive for our society and damaging to our economy."
And this week, helpfully, John Prescott weighed in with: "Public schools are classed as charities and are therefore entitled to tax relief so every every single taxpayer pays about £3.30 a year to effectively sponsor a public school boy... let's scrap this Posh Boy Tax!"
Incompetent, hypocritical, chippy. That just about sums up the British career politician.
Our prime ministers aren't much better. Here's David Cameron last year: "I went to a great school and I want every child to have a great education. I'm not here to defend privilege, I'm here to spread it."
And Tony Blair, on 23 May 2001: "Our top priority was, is and always will be education, education, education. To overcome decades of neglect and make Britain a learning society, developing the talents and raising the ambitions of all our young people. At a good school children gain the basic tools for life and work. But they ought also to learn the joy of life: the exhilaration of music, the excitement of sport, the beauty of art, the magic of science."
All these people recognise the divisiveness of the British educational system.
What have they done to change it?
We know that, as career politicians, their job is to get their party into power and themselves up the greasy pole. It is depressing that none of them have vision. They don't dream.
Well, I have a dream.
I agree with Tony Blair that children "ought also to learn the joy of life: the exhilaration of music, the excitement of sport, the beauty of art, the magic of science."
And I would like to provide an insight which I believe could point to a new way forward.
What are my credentials for doing this?
As I have admitted in previous posts, I went to one of Britain's top public schools.
Yet, through my own children, I have witnessed the 'great rift' that Nick Clegg identified.
My children went to a local primary school in London. I was able to pay for them to graduate to private secondary schools where many of their contemporaries, their friends no less, were forced into a more uncertain, dangerous future.
When one of my children left the local state primary school, my family suffered at the hands of some local children who were not as privileged as mine. Wet paper bombs were thrown at our house. Drinks were poured over my children as they walked down the road. My car was scratched by a coin.
Aged twelve, the perpetrators had been condemned to the wrong side of the rift. My children went to one school. They went to another. Is their behaviour a surprise?
At the last General Election, I stood for parliament to help force the main parties to agree to the conversion of a disused local hospital into a school rather than 'executive flats'. The Bolingbroke Academy opened in September and, last week, one of the mothers told my wife how happy her child is to be there. Sadly, her older child, at another local school, is reported to have 'gone off the rails'.
How can we heal this great rift in our society for once and for all?
Well, here follows one belief and one insight for you that, I believe, should underpin every aspect of our educational system.
CORE BELIEF
Every child has a talent at something.
CORE INSIGHT
Children know the individual talent of every child at school better than parents or teachers do.
How does the educational system fail to recognise this?
The answer is because, at school, our children are ranked ('streamed') and judged solely by academic ability - especially since the brainless introduction of academic league tables.
But it is ridiculous to rank human beings, of any age, on an academic basis. We all know academic achievement is no guarantee of 'success'. A ex-headmaster of my school reckoned that, in his experience, the bottom 25% would provide employment for the top 25%.
Remember the mantra - every child has a talent at something.
How do the sports facilities in state schools compare with those of private schools?
The answer is that they don't. If you want your child to play sport at school, you have to pay. This has been recognised by Ofsted in a report published today. Chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw said: "Our report found that only a minority of schools play competitive sport to a very high level."
This is unfair.
But what, as a society, are we doing about it?
Surely we could do more?
I fully appreciate that there is no way every state school will ever match the 400 acres of land my old school enjoys, but is the answer to get all chippy and close it down? Of course not.
You can't throw away your dreams just because they are difficult to fulfil.
Did you know that, at the Great British Olympics last year, if the UK Independent Schools were a country, they would have come 12th in the Medal table? Hard to believe, but true.
Surely the answer is for state schools to compete with independent schools, not deny success?
As with so much of our state system, a more innovative solution is required.
It does not need money, tax or investment. It just needs vision, creativity and attitude.
How about this?
Within the education department, a minister of sport in school should be appointed.
Every borough in the country should have a sport in school department whose task will be, on behalf of every school, to pinpoint and reach out to every football, rugby, cricket, boxing, squash club and gym in every borough and force a relationship between schools and sports clubs.
Right now, do the people who run our schools engage with the owners of these facilities?
Do they know why they are there, when they are used, who uses them?
Do they engage with these people, many of whom might be unemployed or disabled?
Do they, as a matter of policy, inspire the schoolchildren in the borough to use these facilities - and to so with the same enthusiasm, commitment and fun these facilities can provide?
The hell they do.
Remember the mantra - every child has a talent at something.
What about the Arts?
Are local schools connected with local theatre groups and enthusiastic, often struggling, artists and musicians and dancers?
The hell they are.
I call for a minister of the arts in school to be appointed to match the brief of the minister of sport in school. And for each local council to have an arts in school department to reach out to local enthusiasts (by arts in the plural, I include all the arts, including drama and music).
These ministers will be set targets for engagement of the local community with local schools.
Why is our society so compartmentalised?
Here's more:
There are some kids who are not good at any of the above. They are academically average, clumsy at sport and disinterested in the arts.
And do you know what they do?
They observe the other kids and they become comedians and the funniest people on Earth - and they should be nurtured and embraced.
Or, like the Pistols, they should be encouraged to start a band and make a noise even though none of the can pluck a chord.
Or, best of all, they may be motivated, rewarded and respected by becoming part of the community and learning to help others.
This happened to a friend of mine's son after his father died.
Do you know what he did?
He started a club for other children who had lost a parent. He found a place where they could go and share their bereavement and help each other through the unfairness of their fate. For this he was universally admired throughout his school, not least by all the other kids.
How brilliant is that?
As well as ministers for sport in school and art in school, we need a minister for schools in the community too.
Remember the belief:
Every child has a talent at something.
Remember the insight:
Children know the individual talent of every child at school better than parents or teachers do.
It is our duty, as a society, to free our children to discover what they are good at, of all the rich options available to them, and fulfil their potential to the extent that they can all admire and respect each other for - and be brought together by - the rich diversity of their talents.
And do you know what?
If we had a minister for sport in school, a minister for art in school and a minister for schools in the community, they might just become the most important people in our country.
And, if they were career politicians, I might just forgive them.
That would be my dream.]]>Tuition Fees: Evidence of an Unkind Systemtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25829402013-01-30T13:40:37-05:002013-04-01T05:12:01-04:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/40% drop in admissions.
What a surprise.
You don't have to be the world's most sophisticated marketing or behavioural expert to know that if you start charging money for something you used to provide for free, you are going to lose a large percentage of your 'customers'.
After the anger of my last post, you may be expecting a tirade against another flawed UK Government initiative.
But no.
This is the story of just one humble British student at one not so humble English University, one of the so called Russell Group.
Here's what happened.
In her first year at University, this young lady failed to attend the required number of seminars and lectures.
A warning email was sent to her, which she acknowledged but, inexplicably, she continued to miss her lectures.
Why she behaved like this we do not know. It could have been slothfulness or sex and drugs and rock and roll or, a relatively new phenomenon, internet addiction.
No matter. She missed her lectures and she admits she missed her lectures. She will not be the first or last student in the world to do this.
But, in England, her punishment was harsh and unforgiving.
She was told she would have to re-sit her first year exams, setting her back a year and meaning, if she were to complete her course, that she would have to attend four, rather than three, years at University.
A confirmation letter was written both to the student and, separately, to her parents.
In response, her parents made the following points to the University:
1. If they were to be a party to the decision by the University to hold their daughter back a year, why was this only after the decision had been made and not when the final warning was given (at which time they could talk to their daughter and do something about it)?
2. Did the University not realise that their decision to hold a student back a year would cost that student approximately £15,000 in fees, accommodation and living expenses?
3. Did the University not realise that, in the big wide world, you have to commit a really very major criminal offence to be fined £15,000?
The University replied recognising the points made but regretting the decision was final.
This has left a young English student with a £15,000 'fine', a sum which is more than she has ever earned and which could take her a lifetime to repay - and all for a really rather harmless first offence.
How competent are the people who have introduced this tuition fee system?
How heartless are the Universities are implementing the system in this way?
When it comes to human understanding, it seems they have a lot to learn.]]>Benefit Cuts: A Call to Mobilise the Disabledtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24935672013-01-17T05:17:39-05:002013-03-19T05:12:01-04:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/
We have had:
06 January: 'Soldiers, nurses and teachers hit by benefit curbs' 07 January: 'Benefit cuts will see more children taken into care' 09 January: 'Pensioners could face universal benefit cuts after election' 13 January: 'Benefit cuts threaten women's refuge services' 14 January: 'Benefit cuts: reforms will leave disabled people ghettoised and excluded'
Happy New Year from the British Government!
You have to wonder, half way through their term office, quite why some of these people went into politics in the first place. They don't seem to care about human beings at all.
They continue to use the 'economic deficit we inherited from Labour' as their excuse for all this misery but, as I have posted before, surely there must be a time when cutting becomes the last resort, not the first as seems to be the case now. Or are they driven by some other political ideal?
In my last post, I discussed how Aristotle defined kindness as:
'helpfulness towards someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped'.
Do you get the impression that our Government, not in return for anything or for the advantage of themselves, have done everything they can to avoid the suffering they cause?
I don't.
Of the list of cuts identified above, let's take the disabled as an example.
Since my post 'Disability Living Allowance Disgrace', featuring a true story about a person living alongside you in society today, I have taken a greater interest in disabled people - and, kindly, some of them have shown their support of what I had to say.
So I have asked myself if there is anything I can do to find a less cruel solution.
In seeking an answer, there are two insights I think I can provide.
The first is to inform you that many disabled people are enslaved by their disability. Unless they attend to their disability on a daily basis, some simpy cannot function.
Their disability can dominate their lives.
If they are lucky, this could be a regime of medication to which they must adhere.
If they are unlucky, they suffer pain or depression or both and their ability to function will fluctuate on a day-to-day basis.
If they are very unlucky, like my paralysed friend Roger, they will need someone else to clean their teeth, wash them and wipe them which makes getting out of bed a two-hour process.
Believe me, although the extent of this varies, disabled people are slaves to their disability.
The other insight is that the 'normal', able-bodied world runs in strict order. We live more structured, less flexible, lives than we like to think.
For example, I know the Liberal Democrats are pushing for more 'flexitime', but flexitime remains the exception rather than the rule.
For small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), and for most trading companies, 'normal working hours' are still Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
Yet, if you are disabled, 'normal working hours' are difficult, if not impossible.
Furthermore, many disabled people are physically incapable of using public transport, or are capable of getting about easily at all, especially in the rush hour.
For the disabled, mobility is a major issue.
Can we liberate the disabled from these constraints by flipping these two insights - the enslavement of the disabled and the rigid structures of 'normal' working hours - to find a new way forward?
I think we can.
Despite the 'public sector job cull' announced in last year's budget (there they go again!), the total number of public sector employees in the UK sits at around 5.5million people, with the NHS, it says here, employing more than 1.7m people.
Yet when was the last time you saw a disabled person working in the NHS, let alone in any other of the public services?
Put simply, when did a person in a wheelchair last greet you in a hospital?
And how many Chief Executives of hospital trusts, or people holding other senior executive positions, are disabled?
However many it is, it is not enough.
The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 requires public bodies to have 'due regard' to the need to:
• promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons
• eliminate discrimination that is unlawful under the Act
• eliminate harassment of disabled persons that is related to their disabilities
• promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons
• encourage participation by disabled persons in public life; and
• take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons (e.g. the provision of an accessible parking bay near a building, where parking is not available for other visitors or employees.)
What a load of bureaucratic guff.
It doesn't exactly inspire you to take positive, imaginative, innovative action does it?
Why can't the 'public sector' develop positive methodologies where 'working norms' can be adapted to the needs of disabled people and the daily requirements that enslave them?
Why can't these public bodies, as a default option, be forced to fit the jobs to disabled people rather than fit the people to the jobs?
I am not normally one for positive discrimination, but that is what I am calling for now.
To be clear, in any and all public sector vacancies, priority must be given to disabled applicants - even if it requires two or three of them working for three or four hours a day.
It seems the disabled were more integrated into the London Olympics than they are to British society as a whole. There certainly seemed to be more of them whizzing round the Olympic stadium than I have seen working in the public services.
What we need is a new, bold, nation-changing approach.
I implore the Government to inject some creativity, humanity and leadership into this issue.]]>Kindnesstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23744412012-12-28T06:11:52-05:002013-02-27T05:12:02-05:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/rage against the inhumanity of the US gun laws.
Mind you, even at Sandy Hook, there was evidence of extraordinary human behaviour: 'What we forget, too often, is the kindness and resilience of this nation.' And, way beyond kindness, who will ever forget the heroic bravery of Victoria Soto and her colleagues?
On 18 November, the TV producer John Lloyd was on Desert Island Discs. He is behind such programmes as Spitting Image, Not The Nine o'Clock News, QI and, yippee, Blackadder. In a surprisingly introspective interview, this cultured and educated man said:
'Intelligence is something you're given. Kindness? That takes effort.'
It emerged that Lloyd has developed a personal philosophy based largely on what he felt to have been unfair and cruel treatment by people he thought were friends and on 'The Book: On the Taboo Against Being Who You Are', written by the mystical Alan Watts in 1966.
Through personal experience, I have seen there is a nice way to do something - or a nasty way. It is a choice. For example, dismissing someone from their job is always going to distress the person concerned, but how many companies and executives ask themselves 'We need to do this nasty thing, so how can we do it kindly?' It doesn't happen, does it?
As John Lloyd said: 'Kindness? That takes effort.'
Making the effort to be kind is nothing new. In 'Rhetoric', Aristotle defined kindness as: 'helpfulness towards someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped'.
As such, isn't kindness something we should have more of?
Mind you, as I have found to my cost (20p in fact), kindness can rebound.
You all know about Sachin, my wonderful local newsagent. One day, I was in his shop and, as I was chatting to him, a young boy came in and browsed the comics on display. He selected one and said to Sachin:
'How much is this, please?'
'99p'
'I've only got 80p' said the boy, lips quivering, eyes watering.
So crestfallen was the child that, kind-hearted and generous as ever, I took some loose change out of my pocket and gave him a 20p coin.
'There you are. You can buy that comic now' I said, saintly.
At this point, the boy grabbed the coin from my hand and comic-less, but 20p richer, ran out of the shop.
I looked up at Sachin as he shook his head and rolled his eyes:
'You're so naïve, Hugh' he said, wisely.
I think my interest in kindness came from my father. Many of my generation, whose fathers fought in the Second World War, are conscious of how kind their fathers were. Perhaps, by experiencing the horrors of war, they evolved a philosophy of kindness which, these days, many of us will not have thought of - let alone adopt as a conscious standard of behaviour.
For myself, I had my own experience of man's inhumanity to man on an early visit to the War Museum in Saigon which I described here and, more embarrassingly, spoke about here. How can one forget such horrors in one's day-to-day life, especially when experienced first hand? Perhaps we should find ways to pay for our underclasses to visit such places.
On 14 November, a few days before John Lloyd was on Desert Island Discs in England, was the story of Larry DePrimo, a police officer in New York who took pity on a homeless person and made the effort to go to a shoe shop and buy the vagrant some new boots.
This 'simple act of kindness (has) become a worldwide inspiration' and, as an example of the goodness of social media, went viral on Facebook.
In the face of the horror of Sandy Hook, perhaps now would be a good time to celebrate the kindness of the American people and hope that this basic human instinct will prevail.
And perhaps one might consider for what kind intention has a good guy a gun?
Happy New Year.]]>US Gun Laws: Could Twitter and Facebook be Forces For Good?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23372372012-12-20T08:25:52-05:002013-02-19T05:12:01-05:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/
Twenty-six children have been slaughtered.
To protect them, teachers have thrown their bodies into hails of gunfire.
"It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realise no matter how much you love these kids, you can't do it by yourself, that this job of keeping our children safe and teaching them well is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbours, the help of a community and the help of a nation.
And in that way we come to realise that we bear responsibility for every child, because we're counting on everybody else to help look after ours, that we're all parents, that they are all our children."
Why did President Obama stop at 'nation'? Surely, this is a world issue? As Obama said, our children "are all our children". If 'all', why not all of us? The world. He went on to say this:
"Can we truly say, as a nation, that we're meeting our obligations?
Can we honestly say that we're doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?
Can we claim, as a nation, that we're all together there, letting them know they are loved and teaching them to love in return?
Can we say that we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?"
I invite you to re-read these words and substitute 'nation' and 'country' with 'world'.
For, in my experience, the level of response to this horror has been unprecedented. "The day after the shooting... photographs of Victoria Soto began to go viral on Facebook" (International Business Times).
Many of my own friends and contacts on Facebook and Twitter were part of this movement. I have never known anything like it. Unanimously, they agreed with Obama:
"We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change."
Yes, America, it is you who must change. You must change your gun laws in line with the rest of the civilised world. You must collect up your murderous weapons, throw them onto the fire and destroy them.
The over-riding sentiment on social media has been revulsion and anger at the US gun laws. How can the US - the US of all places - have such uncivilised gun laws and not connect them with the barbaric behaviour of its people?
There is a very fine line between going viral and direct action. Could the following happen?
We, the world, will not let you, America, slaughter children in this way.
We will rise up against you.
We won't shoot you.
We won't kill you.
We will isolate you.
Smell the coffee, America, 'cos we ain't drinking it. Ask Starbucks.
We will spit out your hamburgers and your ice cream and your fizzy drinks.
We will stop buying your shampoos and your washing powder and your denim.
We will shred your credit cards and withdraw investment in your financial markets.
We will boycott your computers and your software and your e-commerce platforms.
Will we, use your social media channels to do this?
Can Twitter and Facebook be a force for good?
Could it happen?
You bet.
Will it happen?
Hope so.]]>When People Expect You to Behave as They Wouldtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22906872012-12-13T04:10:16-05:002013-02-11T05:12:01-05:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/
By the time had come to move on. I was keen to make a different career move. Once the sale was completed, and I had made sure the clients and the staff were happy and in place, I resigned.
A couple of days later, I was sitting in my office when the door smashed open and in charged two very large hit men. They shouted at me not to move, grabbed my arms, pinned them behind my back and slammed me up against a wall.
Behind them followed our new owner, the chairman of a publicly quoted company on the London Stock Exchange. He told me to shut up as he rifled through my briefcase, tipped up the drawers of my desk and, with increasing frustration, emptied two filing cabinets onto the floor.
Once he had done this, he told me I was to leave the office immediately. With my arms still pinned behind my back, his two thugs escorted me off the premises and threw me onto the pavement.
Later, after several weeks of expensive lawyers' letters and curt legal exchanges, I was paid off with more money than I had been entitled to by contract.
Why had the chairman behaved like this?
Well, it emerged that, once I had resigned, the new owners were convinced that I would try to walk off with the company's clients. The reason for their heavy-handed, strong-arm tactics was that they had been confident of finding evidence to this effect.
As it happened, they had failed to find any evidence of my behaving in this way.
This was no surprise to me as I had never had any intention of doing so.
Why didn't they ask me?]]>Could Twitter Be Deliberately Exploited to Promote Evil?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22078982012-11-28T20:26:21-05:002013-01-28T05:12:01-05:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/
On Twitter, as @richardpbacon, Bacon describes himself as a 'minor celebrity' (and we all know how much I admire celebrity) but, following his brave battle against internet trolls, Bacon needs to be taken seriously on this issue.
"Yes" said Bacon. "From people with only a small number of followers, (Lord McAlpine) is asking for an apology and a token £5 (to Children in Need) and ... it has turned it into a watershed moment. People's attitudes about tweeting and, more crucially, re-tweeting libellous comments will change as a result of this."
"In the Twittersphere, and social media in general, will we see a pulling back from the nastiness?" asked Neil.
"I hope so" replied Bacon "One of the solutions would be if providers of social media compelled users to see their real photo and their real name, a lot of that nastiness would dissipate because people are emboldened by anonymity."
AC Grayling made this point in 2007: "Let us get rid of anonymity of posts on (The Guardian blog) and agree or disagree, support or lock horns vigorously, in the open - with common courtesy as the only system of governance we need."
Having made the point about anonymity myself in two earlier posts Twitter Wars and Super-injunctions, I wonder if we don't face a greater danger from Twitter than we might think.
With my advertising and marketing hat on, I know that, from a commercial point of view, anonymous users are of no value whatsoever to Twitter. Free-to-use sites can only survive with advertising revenue. And advertisers need to know precisely who they are promoting to. 'If its free, you are the product' goes the mantra. If Twitter doesn't know who you are, and at least one of your contact details, how can they sell you to anyone else?
Yes, Twitter can be harmless fun. Who would want to gag @DrSamuelJohnson or Pippa Middleton's bottom? But to what extent is 'harmless fun' outweighed by the 'nastiness' of Twitter to which Richard Bacon referred?
Lord McAlpine lawyers reckon they can identify no less than 10,000 Twitter users (1,000 original tweets and 9,000 retweets) who made 'untrue pervert accusations' against him.
Now 10,000 is a heck of a lot of people to have been provoked into a physical act, even as simple as a retweet, to malign an innocent person. Talk about the Wisdom of Crowds (not).
But were these 10,000 tweeters nasty? They were wrong and they were malicious, but were they nasty? And, if deliberately plotted, how much nastiness could Twitter provoke from its gullible users?
On the same TV programme, the former Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo compared human behaviour on Twitter to road rage: "You see it even with people in a car (where) people make gestures and yell obscenities at people. Somehow that little bubble of a car protects them from normal human behaviour."
What does it take to turn people from normal to abnormal behaviour, from nastiness to evil?
After all, in road rage, stepping out of the bubble of a car can lead to physical assault and even murder - as a quick online search shows has happened in countries as far apart as Abu Dhabi, America, New Zealand and India. And, in the UK, the 1996 road rage murderer Tracie Andrews has been in the news again this week.
Is there an online equivalent of this behaviour?
Could we see, one day, the anonymity of Twitter being cold-heartedly exploited in a planned and calculated way by an evil person? Could Twitter be used to incite physical violence and murder?
I think it could. I believe there is a scenario where, say, religious or political zealots could plan and develop Twitter campaigns to provoke an instant, mass-market, evil response.
So, we need to be careful. And, as non-politicians, we should stop it happening before rather than after it happens.
In the McAlpine case, not only should Twitter be forced to publish the identities of its gullible users but made jointly liable with a fine, not of a fiver, but at least £5Million for enabling 10,000 human beings to falsely accuse an innocent man of being a paedophile.
That should do it.]]>President Obama's Olympic Moment Makes Martin Luther King Dream Come Truetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21025362012-11-09T13:49:06-05:002013-01-09T05:12:01-05:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/speech, he said:
"If you are willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or where you love*. It doesn't matter whether you are black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight you can make it here in America if you are willing to try."
Please read them carefully because these words represent a defining moment in the history of America - just as I felt the Olympics were for Great Britain:
"The London 2012 Olympics could mark the moment when the British people accepted, at last, what it means to be British and became comfortable with the cultural diversity we embrace - a diversity which is not defined by our place of birth or the colour of our skin but by the way we have behaved over the last two weeks." (Olympic success defines a new Britain for the 21st Century).
So significant is the juxtaposition of these two events, less than four months apart, that it takes time to consider just how momentous they are. I suspect the older you are, the more time you will need - particularly if you were alive on 28 August 1963.
For a new world order has been defined, in which the American people, and possibly all God's children, are free at last.
How so?
Because Americans voted for individual freedom over corporate finance. They recognised the economy was the most important issue facing their country - but however superior Mitt Romney's track record in financial management, when it came to issues like abortion and gay marriage, the American people simply did not want to live in his world.
Thus by his re-election, the US president is the living embodiment of his own message. He is his own mandate for the next four years.
In Barack Obama, Martin Luther King's dream has come true.
And the world, surely, is a better place.
At last.
*I think he meant to say 'who you love' or 'where you live', with the former most likely.]]>Property Values Divide the Nationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19476482012-10-08T07:42:36-04:002012-12-08T05:12:01-05:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/
I quite like the one nation thing building, as it does, on our Olympic success and burying, as it should, Labour's bigoted tribal heritage.
But isn't there a contradiction in Miliband's exposition of 'one nation' and, in the same speech, his need to remind us of his comprehensive schooling? If we are to be 'one nation' why drive an educational wedge between us?
And haven't these people read what I told them last week?!
It isn't where you went to school but how much money you will inherit from mummy and daddy that will drive us apart.
To that end, wasn't that an extraordinary story about the TV presenter Nick Owen selling the house he had bought for £950,000 in the 1990s for £35million a couple of weeks ago?
I wonder if the implications of this have been fully understood.
I have met people who are going to inherit millions of pounds worth of property when their parents die. An acquaintance of mine has elderly father who owns a house in Notting Hill Gate. He bought it in the 1960s for £20,000 and it is now worth £3million. Recently, the old man was heard to say: "I wish I had bought two!"
The life that people who are going to inherit these sums lead is very different to those who are not. They have very different priorities. They don't, for example, have to worry about a pension pot. They will inherit the pot.
As revealed last week when discussing Andrew Mitchell, they behave very differently when faced with a problem or a difficult issue. They don't discuss things or think things through. They are used to getting what they want - and, when they don't, very different people emerge. They throw all manner of childish hissy-fits and tantrums.
Another trait I have observed in these people is they cannot judge other people. They haven't had to which means that when they do have to, they can't. I discussed this in my earlier post 'The Curse of Cameron'.
I am all for 'one nation', from whichever Oxbridge career politician preaches it to me, but is it going to happen?
We live in a society where, potentially, a totally useless person who has achieved nothing at all in their life, not worked hard or succeeded in anything, has done not a jot for their fellow man, and may even have lived it on benefits gets £3million because daddy bought a house in the 1960s.
Isn't this more divisive than 5 per cent tax here or there that a millionaire has gone out and earned?
It certainly doesn't seem very 'one nation' to me.]]>What Makes a Snob?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19156202012-09-26T19:00:00-04:002012-11-26T05:12:02-05:00Hugh Salmonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-salmon/
Elsewhere it is "who on earth is Andrew Mitchell?" I suspect, at the time of the incident, the police did not know who he was either: which may be why they asked him to exit Downing Street by the little gate at the side rather than the big gate in the middle.
Andrew Mitchell is the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield. In the recent Cabinet reshuffle, he was appointed government Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. Not for long methinks.
"Mr Mitchell was speaking to PC ******** demanding exit through the main vehicle gate into Whitehall. PC ******** explained to Mr Mitchell that the policy was for pedal cycles to use the side pedestrian exit. Mr Mitchell refused, stating he was the chief whip and he always used the main gates....
After several refusals Mr Mitchell got off his bike and walked to the pedestrian gate with me after I again offered to open that for him.
There were several members of public present as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr Mitchell said: "Best you learn your f******* place... you don't run this f****** government... You're f****** plebs." ... "
Here is the media line: did Mitchell call the police plebs? As a public schoolboy, is he a snob? Are all public schoolboys snobs?
In a post last year 'The Curse of Cameron' I suggested that David Cameron is a snob which is why he simply does not understand people. Quite simply, he has never had to live in the real world.
Since that post, we have hosted the Olympics and witnessed the extraordinarily positive response given to Boris Johnson and the real affection in which he is held. Like Cameron, Boris went to Eton. How can two Etonians be perceived so differently?
Having been to public school myself, I have observed a behavioural difference in the behaviour of those of us who have to work for a living and those with a private income: who do not have to work for a living.
When faced with pressure or adversity, such as not being allowed to leave Downing Street through the important gate, the people of independent means - spoilt brats you might call them - are more prone to hissy fits like Mitchell.
I do not know their individual circumstances, but this might explain the contrasting ways in which David Cameron and Boris Johnson relate to the rest of us. Apart from his likeable personality, natural sense of humour and willingness to admit mistakes, is a reason why Boris has more 'common touch' than Cameron that Boris has to work for a living?
And what about disrespectful, self-important, jumped-up, cry-baby Mitchell?
Apparently he made a lot of money as a merchant banker.