Kieren McCarthy [dotcom] » Oxford

How to avoid learning perhaps a little too much about Kieren’s life

Kieren — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:31:05 +0000

I mentioned about a month ago how I was considering setting up a second blog so I could more easily separate my personal and professional life. And yesterday, twice, I was reminded that there is a bit of an unusual overlap when I spoke to two people: one, the spokesman for a company I regularly report on; and the second, the CEO of a company I also follow closely.

Both of them made mention of my paella (I note with sadness that only one was interested in the actual recipe however). Now this was a tremendous paella, there’s no doubt about that, but I suspect that there may be a few people out there that don’t want to know about my lunch and so I am going to highlight here an easy solution to the problem: separate RSS feeds.

I have the blog set up so that you can grab individual automated RSS feeds and so avoid having every post appear if you subscribe. I will stick the links below so at least people have an option. Of course, if you want to continue to know a little too much about my life, feel free to stick with the main RSS feed. I don’t mind in the slightest.

Main blog feed
Domain names feed

Internet feed

You can subscribe to as many or as few as you like.

Interviews with the Nominet Board candidates

Kieren — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:03:52 +0000

There are two Board positions going at UK registry Nominet that will be decided on Wednesday (27 September) at the company’s annual general meeting in London.

Last week, Nominet announced that there were six candidates and released a statement from each. Despite the extremely tight time period (for example postal votes have to be with Nominet tomorrow (Monday)), I thought it would be a good idea to do very brief interviews with each candidate asking what I hope are the questions that Nominet members would wish to ask and then post them on the Net to help people arrive at a decision.

So far I have done and edited four of the six, and I have just received an email from Lord Erroll so will hopefully talk to him this evening and post his tonight [Update 8.30pm: Done and now up]. I have yet to hear from Andrew Bennett which is a shame, but if he wants to get in contact and get his points across, there is still time [Another update 12pm: Andrew got in touch and his interview is now also up].

You can read each candidate’s statement here [pdf], but below are MP3s of the interviews. They are slightly different in length but average at around four minutes, and I don’t believe I have given anyone an advantage one way or another, although I may have been a little more aggressive with Fay Howard due to tiredness.

Also during Angus Hanton’s interview either myself or he was called by someone else so there is “call waiting” blip at various points (just in case you were wondering). And Fay Howard was on her mobile so the very beginning is slightly garbled.

In alphabetical order:

Andrew Bennett (mp3)

Gordon Dick (mp3)

Lord Erroll (mp3)

Peter Gradwell (mp3)

Angus Hanton (mp3)

Fay Howard (mp3)

If anyone has any problems getting or listening to these files, please leave a comment below or email me.

Update: Yes, the MP3 player has started playing at odd speeds again. It must be the recorded bitrate, or maybe the fact it’s a variable bitrate. Anyway the files themselves work fine, so click on the MP3 link to listen while I try to sort out the problem.

Second update: No, I’ve wasted 40 minutes on it, so I’ll kill the Flash player until I can get it working without mishap.

The St Ebbe’s Residents’ Association and its eerie parallels with Internet governance

Kieren — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:23:23 +0000

Last night, as I was scrabbling around by the front door in the dark with a torch and a piece of fuse wire, my letterbox started juttering away behind me. Even the postmen manage to deliver before 9pm, so I was intrigued. And sure enough it was the latest newsletter (number 6 this year) from the St Ebbe’s New Development Residents’ Association (SENDRA).

A two-page A4 printout covering what is happening locally for the 100 or so other people in my peaceful little corner of the world, hidden from central Oxford thanks to a hideous car park on the way over, but resting neatly and comfortably on the river.

Thanks to the electricity shutdown causing my modem to commit hari-kiri, and me having to do an early morning rush to PC World and rebuild my entire home network, I have only just now got around to reading SENDRA’s September 2006 newsletter.

I get the feeling that the St Ebbe’s resident’s association is rapidly running out of control.

Inasfar as a newsletter for 100 people can run out of control. There is a new sherriff in town, one that is no stranger to residents’ associations, and you suspect there is an agenda at work here, complete with some rigid thinking.

The halycon days

The warning signs were there. When I first moved into my house, the association started up soon after and was just £1 to join. I was happy to pay, and in return got a quarterly digest of what was happening in the area. When the path by the river collapsed and the council steadfastly failed to do anything about it, SENDRA was onto our councillor (also the Mayor), the problem was soon raised, and eventually an agreement to pay for it to be fixed this summer was agreed.

Those, in retrospect, were the glory days. There was one event – a picnic – and everyone was left pretty much alone to get on with their lives.

Somewhere along the line though, there was a coup. Who knows which pleasant, carefree retired lady still bears the scars, but the cost of the new regime became immediately apparent when the demand for the next year suddenly increased to £4. I left the letter on the table for a fortnight, and the next thing I knew there was a knock at the door. It was the enforcer. I should have realised then that the line of not actually bothering me had been crossed. I coughed up because it was only £4.

But this increased budget was suddenly spent on an intelligence operation and law enforcement. Suddenly I, and everyone else, was expected to provide details of my car registration because there had been reports of strangers parking their cars and then heading into town. I didn’t believe it, but you know, best not to question authority in these matters – there was a threat and we needed new legislation to combat it – provide our boys with the tools they needed.

Except for the fact I couldn’t really be bothered to write down my car registration on a piece of paper and then post it through someone’s door when it was my parking spot, my car, and it had been there for two years. That’s when the law turned up. Honestly.

Law enforcement

St Ebbe’s very own El Duce reported the car to the police and a young copper knocked on my door asking if my car was mine. He told me it had been reported as possibly abandoned. I told him who I was, he rang it through and seemed somewhat bemused by the whole thing.

The quarterly newsletters were now monthly, and each one came with an event that you were urged to join – a trip to this museum, a trip to this college. A litter-collecting day. I think there was even a dinner. I have studiously ignored all of this, because my measure of neighbourhood is whether people say hello to you when you stroll past them on the way to the shops.

The enforcement stage is now clearly over. People know who the boss is (except I don’t – the true authority of El Duce is cleverly concealed by other committees over whom El Duce has control). And now the boss has started talking for us all, without the tedious trouble of asking anyone.

Last month’s newsletter informed us that we were all annoyed about the noise that came from the annual Gay Pride event on the large patch of grass directly opposite the river, and about the parking, and that we had complained about it. You rather suspect it wasn’t so much the noise as the people making the noise there were being complained about. The fair appears to have been tolerated.

This month’s newsletter barely contains its fury over the fact that there has been no reply to the stern letter sent to, well, whoever it was sent to. The Secretary is going to ask the Town Hall to discuss the matter, apparently.

Security and stability

There is also the issue of security. There have been two break-ins “recently”, so we are told to keep all our doors and windows locked and to inform the Committee if anything suspicious is noticed. Apparently the first stop for these issues is now the Committee rather than the police – and if you’re in any doubt as to why, the newsletter points out that “the neighbourhood policing plan seems to be on hold and we are trying to contact PC Paul Phillips for the latest news”. You just can’t trust these police, you see? Have to do it yourself.

Third on the agenda is another sub-committee – this one is apparently the Planning Group. There are five members, one of course chosen by the Committee and the others revolving. If you want to become a member, you just have to apply to the Committee and they will help decide if you are suitable.

What is most peculiar about all this though is that the two matters that most concern everyone except the Committee are the river path – which has still not been fixed and which the council is trying to back away from paying for – and the sudden appearance of a small wooden fence at the bottom of the hill leading to the bridge. The sole reason for the fence’s existence is to prevent people from taking a shortcut up the little hill. Why does that matter? No one has any idea, but clearly it is something that is bothering someone who has the ear of the council.

The newsletter finishes off with an outline of future meetings – although it is unclear what exactly what is going to be discussed.

Analogy?

So what has any of this to do with the Internet? Because it is, in effect, the story of oversight of the Internet. I’ve counted eight clear parallels.

Of course, SENDRA can serve a useful purpose – at least it will when it represents the interests of the residents – because there is a much bigger issue coming up. And that is the fact that the council is planning to renovate the entire area, including tearing up the road, adding a whole load of new houses and introducing more shops.

They call it the West End Renovation and where I live people are both excited and wary about it. This part of Oxford is in dire need of transformation, but the plans and designs for that transformation need to be carefully worked on.

And that’s also exactly where we are with the Net at the moment.

Sniffy Oxford Internet Institute holds IGF meeting

Kieren — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:17:23 +0000

I’ve just been reminded, by one of the main speakers, that the Oxford Internet Institute is holding an evening discussion over the IGF tomorrow evening, followed by an all-day invite-only event on the Friday.

In fact, I wasn’t even reminded. I had a vague notion of there being an OII event on Net governance in my home town some time before the first IGF meeting in Athens in late October, but hadn’t picked up a word of it – which is extremely odd since I am only one of about four journalists in the whole world that regularly cover Internet Governance issues.

The reason I haven’t heard is the exact same reason I didn’t hear about it until the day before the last time the OII had exactly the same arrangement (that time for the upcoming Tunisia World Summit). It’s because the OII, for some reason – especially ironic considering the nature of what they cover – is incredibly sniffy.

Only in Oxford.

The OII is seen in Internet circles as a failed UK attempt to gain the kudos picked up by US academic institutions who have carried out intelligent study and review of this revolutionary new medium. Despite bringing in Jonathan Zittrain from Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society for a six-month split shift, and doing everything it can to bring in big speakers like Tim Berners-Lee, the Institute has had absolutely no perceivable impact on Net discussions. And that is despite Nominet being just up the road, Oxford University having some great Net people working for it, and Oxford being full of Internet companies.

The reason for this is the OII’s superior attitude, something that is the antithesis of Net culture. But it continues on, convinced that the Oxford name alone will bring the mountains to Mohammed. Which is a real shame because the potential on this side of the Atlantic for a really good academic body picking apart the Net is enormous.

As it is, despite living in Oxford, having followed Net governance issues for years, and having met several of the main people at the OII, I find out the day before the event that it is happening and am now waiting to see if I am allowed to attend Friday’s session (last year, I was told I wasn’t). If this is my experience, how on earth does the OII expect to get the interaction and credibility it craves when all those people that might attend and spread the word are effectively shuttered out?

Just to check, the middle word of Oxford Internet Institute is “Internet”. The public Thursday meeting will be webcast – that uses the Internet, maybe that’s what they mean.

Update 5pm: The OII has got back to my email requesting they stick me on the list for tomorrow and requesting an invite for the Friday session. I pointed out that I have been writing about Net governance for years for The Times, The Guardian and The Register, and I have been asked to play a formal role at the IGF (what the whole meeting is about) and they should contact Markus Kummer if they want confirmation. The response:

“Thank you for registering for this event, we look forward to welcoming you to the Said Business School. If, at any point, you decide that you will be unable to attend the event please let us know so that we can offer the place to someone else.

“I am unable to confirm your attendance at the Friday event at the minute as numbers are extremely tight. I will get back to you tomorrow.”

It’s not so much the snub (I have to news edit most of tomorrow anyway), but the extraordinary pomposity. There just aren’t that many people out there interested in Net governance. I know because I have been desperately trying to get more people involved (as have many others) for years.

When will the OII learn that elitism on the Internet means irrelevancy?

Update II 10pm: I have received an invite for the Friday session, thanks to one or two people with greater clout than I who read this blog post and interceded on my behalf. Thankyou very much, you know who you are. Although this process has caused me to reflect on what I post on this blog. I’ve always viewed it as a sort of quiet, non-official outlet that may be read but not really taken too seriously.

I had been planning to ask people to get me an invite tomorrow and would have done so in far more diplomatic language than what appears above. And then there was the fact that the New York Times pulled a quote off a blog post of mine last week and stuck it in their story (I subsequently found out this was because they had got the story wrong, and were advised by ICANN’s top PR man to read my blog to get an understanding before speaking to the organisation’s official spokesman. For some reason the NYT then decided to quote me rather than the spokesman).

Maybe I need to start writing two blogs: one professional and one personal.

Anyway, I will hopefully manage to blog about the OII meeting although it is under Chatham House rules, I am told. Which, to my mind, is more fun anyway because you can meld different views into threads without having to go through the formal structure of naming and quoting.

Another update:

The public Thursday debate is available on the OII’s website. As such, I have stuck it below, although you will need a Quicktime plug-in to watch it on this screen. Webcast link.

Pro-Test march strikes historic note

Kieren — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:37:18 +0000

It’s an extraordinary thing, this Pro-Test movement that started only a few months and yet has had an enormous nationwide impact on a very difficult subject – the use of animal testing.

On Saturday, the group – fronted as usual by 16-year-old Laurie Pycroft – had their second march through [tag]Oxford[/tag] and even though there were fewer people than the first march, despite it being a beautiful day, there was a real sense of something historic happening.

There was a similar feel at the first march on 26 February, but the sense that time was that this was the first time people had publicly stood up for animal testing. On 3 June, that change had come – wide media attention, GlaxoSmithKline publicly stating its support for animal testing, the prime minister himself signing a petition – and there was instead a collective sense of excitement that the movement had achieved so much in such a short period of time.

At the first march, there was real fear because of the violent tactics and intimidation meted out by animal rights extremists that was held off by collective strength in numbers. Yesterday, people were wandering around Oxford for hours afterwards with Pro-Test T-shirts on. Even Professor John Stein, who is normally extremely anxious having been personally threatened by animal rights extremists, was relaxed and smiling.

There were new speakers – scientists and MPs and an Oxford University representative – and government statements, and a new PA system on a pick-up truck where before there was a small trolley and a megaphone. There were words of condemnation for the animal rights protestors – who at that moment were standing outside the living quarters of the builders working on the animal lab at the centre of the controversy 30 miles away in Moreton-in-Marsh – but at the same time one of the biggest cheers of the day went to Evan Harris when he said it was no longer about the animal rights protestors, the issue had become bigger than that.

The fact that Colin Blakemore – the activists number one target and a man that, The Observer tells us, has “endured assaults by masked terrorists, bombs sent to his children, letters laced with razor blades, a suicide bid by his wife, and more than a decade of attacks and abuse by animal rights campaigners” – felt confident enough to stand on a truck with the animal housing lab behind him and give a speech is a great thing, whether you agree with what he does in his work or not.

Not for the first time – in fact for the fourth time – the Pro-Test speeches contained a good deal of serious thought, as opposed to the hate-filled ranting that Speak’s frontman Mel Broughton has settled into.

The march started around the corner from the usual Broad Street venue, which confused a few people trying to find it. Here’s a rundown of the speakers with pics and MP3s of their speeches. Please note that I was standing next to the truck which had its engine running to juice up the PA system, so that is why the quality isn’t crystal clear. I have cleaned the sound up to dampen down the engine noise, which occasionally lends a kind-of underwater tone to the speakers.

First up was Laurie Pycroft who gave his usual “I can’t believe what this has become” short speech. You have to hand it to this 16-year-old, really. He could so easily have gone off on a teenager angsty rant, and the Pro-Test movement would have died before it even began, but he has taken a very mature public tone and it has enabled everyone else from MPs, ministers, journalists and university representative to get behind the organisation.

Listen:

Then shadow trade secretary Alan Duncan stood up and gave a good address about how the march was about democracy and threw down some withering words at the animal rights protestors. Mr Duncan is the epitome of a MP but he slightly misjudged the public feeling because the crowd wasn’t there on an anti-Speak march.

Listen to his speech here.

Next up, local MP Evan Harris, who has been a public supporter of Pro-Test since almost its inception and is desperately trying to push the debate of animal testing into wider public debate. He has been closely following the whole movement so had a keener grasp of what the march was about, and went on about the bigger picture and pushed again his idea of having pill bottles show that they have been testing on animals in order to stick the realities of life out there. People are still unsure about that, but then he’s a campaigning MP, which is nice to see.

Listen to his speech here.

Then the MC Tom Holder read out messages sent by former home secretary Charles Clarke, and government health minister Andrew Burnham, lending their support to the march.

Listen to Clarke’s statement.
Listen to Burnham’s statement.

Then Professor Ken Fleming – who was at the Pro-Test Town Hall meeting a few weeks ago but came this time as an official representative of the university. He struck a fine line as well in thanking the people therefore – many of them Oxford students – for supporting the university, when alot of the people don’t so much support the university as the right for the university to build the lab without intimidation.

I think what people do need to recognise with the Pro-Test march is that no one really likes the fact that the lab is being built, or that animal experimentation will go on there, but what they did stand for is the fact that animal testing has taken on a negative connotation of such epic proportions thank to animal rights protestors that they are seeking to balance it up. Animal testing is an unpleasant reality and it goes on because there are good reasons for it to go on. But the support stems from the fact that others are misrepresenting the facts and threatening people.

You can hear Mr Fleming’s speech here.

Then Holder read an extract from an article written by Lord Robert Winston the week before in The Guardian. Winston couldn’t be there in person as it was the Sabbath, Holder said, which not a soul believed. There simply weren’t enough TV cameras for Winston to grant his presence.

Then Niki Shisler – who has also been supporting Pro-Test since almost day one – gave her usual speech about how the issue of animal testing concerns everyone. Listen to it
here.

And finally one of the Pro-Test committee and medical writer, Alison Eden, gave an interesting speech about how it was our duty to stand up for scientists. Sadly, since the MC slipped up and said Shisler was the last speaker, I was already away from the speakers with the mic turned off when she started speaking so I have no recording of it.

Then the march set off. Down Parks Road, Catte St, into Radcliffe Square, and then down the left-hand side of the High St, back along Longwall Street, Holywell Street, then Parks Road, South Parks road and then stop close to then unfinished lab for another set of speeches.

What was immediately noticeable was the far lower police presence than usual. There were also far fewer senior police officials. Presumably they were either have a weekend off or were at Moreton-in-March keeping an eye on [tag]Speak[/tag].

I also wore a wry smile when Tom Holder got carried away again when it came to the media. A line of Pro-Test marshalls walked in front of the procession – for what reason I’m not entirely sure – with linked hands. This annoyed the photographers (myself included) because it meant you couldn’t get any good shots of the MPs, Laurie and the banner at the head of the march. So the photographers simply reached over the line, but this caused some shoving, at which point the old hands threatened just to walk away.

Cue Alan Duncan – ever the politician and very keen on getting a photo in the papers for giving up his Saturday – immediately stopping and lining up for a photo in Radcliffe Square. But the photographers had wandered off. Then some brief panicking by all concerned before the photographers were “let in”. It was all a bit daft especially since the real photo opp was with the Radcliffe Camera in the background at the exit to the square. The celebs paused, everyone snapped off a dozen shots a-piece and it was all done.

I find people’s odd relationship with the media hilarious. Real love-hate. And everyone faces the same dilemma: they try to control the media, but at the same time are desperate for their attention. Of course, as a journalist, you are at the end of this all the time and grow comfortable with it, which is precisely where the abject disregard for rules and the peculiar confidence that worries people comes from.

Anyway, at the lab site, the speeches started up again with Colin Blakemore, who is the animal rights activists number one target and a man who has had to put up with the most appalling intimidation. He looked weary but his message was defiant, claiming Pro-Test had caused “the most remarkable change in public opinion ever in this country”.

Listen to the speech here.

Then Professor Peter McNaughton, from Cambridge University, who also gave a good speech about the realities of animal testing and marvelled at the number of young people there and how they were the future.

Listen to his speech.

And then Iain Simpson – one of Pro-Test’s main organisers – whose rhetoric is good but his delivery is a bit Arthur Scargill. He’s a nice bloke but he needs to calm down if he gives speeches.

Have a listen.

And then a roll-call of people to thank which was actually when the feeling of history in the making became almost palpable. The large number of people that had come together and defied the difficulty of the subject, and the very high risk of threats and intimidation from the animal rights protestors. A real sense of people having stood up for their rights and it having worked beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

I still have significant reservations about animal testing – and I suspect that the reason that Oxford University won’t allow the cameras into its animal testing labs is because the images simply will be shocking to the wider public – but I was very glad to have been there standing in the June sun as a small group of intelligent and dedicated people showed just what was possible with some hard work and courage.

Tony Blair in Oxford: Part II

kierenmccarthy — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:32:16 +0000

So it’s 6pm, pitch black, on a cold February night and I’m sat on a wall at the back of St Anthony’s College in Oxford waiting for the prime minister to appear having given a speech on Britain’s future role in Europe.

I’m not supposed to be here, I’m not even supposed to know this event is taking place – despite the fact that the meeting – and what Tony Blair is going to say at it – has been plastered all over the newspapers and on the radio this morning.

Downing Street had told me I wasn’t allowed to know the time or venue. And I wasn’t allowed to attend. Oxford University had told me Downing Street has told it to refer all requests back to Number 10. I had found out anyway and called the college but was told there were no spaces.

To make matters worse, the prime minister had eluded my efforts to photograph him as he arrived by taking a back entrance that I believe I am now sat on the wall facing.

All I really wanted was proof that Tony Blair was actually in the building. Since what he was going to say in his speech had already been given to lobby journalists, who had already written it up, and since lobby journalists were the only representatives of the public allowed into the college, it seemed all too plausible that Tony Blair needn’t turn up at all.

And, ironically, the full force of the state appears to have concentrated on making it impossible to judge whether he actually was in the building not 20 feet away from me.

What is strange is that the only two entrances that he could have entered without me seeing – and photographing him – are not only quite small but two huge media vans are parked right next to it. It seems strange with such an over-the-top security operation that the prime minister’s security detail would allow cars to be parked so close – effectively hemming in anyone that came out of the exit.

Nevertheless, I test my camera and flash for the likely distance I will take the photograph. Which brings the immediate attention of two bobbies sat, with six others, trying to keep warm in a police van 10 foot away from me.

To my surprise, they are both very friendly and simply want to know what I’m doing. I say I’m a freelance journalist and I was hoping to get some snaps of Tony Blair leaving. “Okay, fine, so long as we know who you are,” they chirpily say and walked back to the warmth of their van.

I was expecting grief from the police and already had a series of reasons as to why I was doing nothing wrong, was not breaking the law, and what I would do if I was hassled or threatened unnecessarily. No need.

In fact, I had already started to ponder why this level of security and secrecy had been felt necessary. Has there ever been any evidence, or in fact anything, to point to Tony Blair personally being targeted? The IRA threat is over. Al-Queda’s entire modus operanda is striking symbols and causing maximum levels of death and carnage. It simply isn’t equipped to carry out assassinations and if the violent Islamic fundamentalist organisations are anything, it is pragmatic.

Nevertheless, there is something reassuring in the police coming over to talk to me and then, without any hassle, heading back when it is clear I am not a threat.

My flash gun has also attracted another visitor – an old woman from a nearby house who told me she was outside putting out food for the animals when she saw the police van and the flash and decided to wander over. She offered to make me a cup of tea for the cold and asked who was inside.

“Tony Blair,” I said, “giving a speech on Britain’s role in Europe.”

“Oooh, I don’t like him,” she said straight away. “That business in Iraq. And you know what him and Bush are saying now? That they were mis-advised at the time. Rubbish. He should never have sent our troops out there.”

While chatting away to this woman, two female college students appear, walking home. “Who’s in there?” asks one. “Tony Blair.” “Oh really? I don’t like him.” “No, I don’t like him, either,” says the other. “It was the war in Iraq,” says the old woman to grunts of agreement by the other two.

Then one of them comes up with a plan. “We should get some eggs – chuck them at him when he comes out. Is he coming out here?,” she asks, “I hope so,” I reply. “I’d love to hit him with an egg,” she muses.

It’s so cold that everyone soon departs and I decide to check out what is happening around the other side – the best entry point to the college. The fact that three policemen are on each exit attracts occasional attention with the odd passer-by asking the coppers who’s inside. They don’t tell them so inevitably a good number head over my way to ask me – the bloke with a huge camera hanging round his neck.

I had the exact same conversation every time. “So who is it in there?” “Tony Blair.” “Tony Blair, huh. What’s he doing?” “Giving a speech on Europe.” “Aw right. I don’t like him you know. Do you like him? He should never have gone to war in Iraq…”

Everyone, complete strangers, seemed willing – not even willing, actually keen – to discuss politics and in particular why the Iraq war was shameful. And it wasn’t just students. Men and women from 30 to 60. One bloke strolled over the road to discuss Blair’s legacy and have a laugh at the LibDems’ predicament.

The police refused to get drawn into political conversation and were slightly disappointed that I wasn’t from a national, merely a freelancer. Nonetheless, they were very affable and clearly would much rather be at home with their families than standing in the freezing cold at 7 o’clock at night.

It dragged on. The BBC left, a group of first-year students arrived with their mobile-phone cameras waiting for a chance to snap Tony, wandered off again when it got too cold and came back again 30 minutes later.

The event was over and people started leaving. Cars started leaving the exit where I was standing but they definitely weren’t the prime minister. And then through the gate, a whole series of police motorbikes lined up.

Once they started their engines, I was certain it was the prime ministerial escort and readied the camera as no less than six motorcycles rode past me followed by… nothing at all.

Subsequently, the Italian and Spanish ambassadors came out in their cars (whose number plates are “Italy” and “Spain” in case you’re wondering how to recognise them). But the police had already started packing up so clearly the PM had already left. If indeed he was ever here.

As I walked around the back to try to figure out what possible route the prime minister had taken – I noticed a car pulling out of a space well beyond the back gates. In the dark I hadn’t recognised a gate leading down to an underground entrance to St Anthony’s – where the prime minister’s car has clearly emerged from 10 minutes earlier to join the motorcade.

So, beaten by the intensive security put around our country’s leader, I retired to the pub to thaw out, go to the toilet (having needed to for an hour) and consider the evening.

And it was then that it struck me: the leader of this country is living entirely within a bubble of his own making.

Tony Blair has no reason to doubt that his life is under constant threat. He was whisked in a car to an underground car park to deliver a speech that had been made public but had had a ring of steel put around it. He addressed a group of the assembled and he was then whisked off again, with a full escort until he was safe back in Downing Street.

But if this man, who so entranced the nation only 10 years ago, had allowed himself to move outside this paranoia, he would have found not crazed terrorists waiting for him outside but rather a motley crue of students excited to see their leader, a lonely old woman, a man with a limp, and a freelance journalist with a camera.

He would have found that the Britain that he has lost track of is still there. Quiet indignation, good humour and a dislike for people that get above their station. That is the world that he should have been standing in, at least for a while. That would have given him something bigger and wider to consider as he winged it back down the M40 to London.

And it is Tony Blair the man that is behind his removal from the real world. It is security’s job to protest the prime minister – and it will do that whatever he decides to do. It is obviously enormously flattering to one’s ego to be sped in and out of meetings. It will certainly aid parallels of importance with respect to the American president. But the fact remains that not only is Britain a small island but its citizens are not allowed to carry handguns.

Tony Blair was in no danger in Oxford. At worst he might have had an egg flug his direction. And that might have been no bad thing for a man who the public has turned against because he has lost his touch. Tony Blair is no longer the man who is on people’s side; he is the man who fears for his own position, who believes himself risen above the mundanities of everyday life.

It is suddenly not so bizarre that the man who served so long as a Labour MP would welcome the ID cards Bill, pointing to how it would aid the security services. Who would happily push for phoney information on Iraq. Who wants new anti-terrorism powers that diminish every citizen of the UK. Who brings and pushes new laws that give unseen faces more and more power and control over everyday people’s lives.

This is all perfectly logical to a man who lives a suffocating life of constant protection, who is kept from unfamiliar faces and situations. The very news that he is appearing somewhere has become classified information for a Downing Street office that has soaked up this paranoia. In the brain of the man we call Tony Blair, the only solution is authority. Authority providing protection. Outside there is only danger and risk.

There is no coming back for this man. The country will choose a new representative who hasn’t become crippled by the years of fear of attack. Who believes in the essential goodness of this nation because he has felt it only days ago while walking down the street.

Is that man Gordon Brown? I suspect not. The current chancellor has become imbued with the same philosophy, drank from the same cup for too long. The man is David Cameron. Whether you like it or not, the country is turning to the man who isn’t scared of his own people.

In 2009, the Tories will be back for the first time in 12 years.

The hunt for the prime minister – and our democracy: Tony Blair in Oxford

kierenmccarthy — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:48:50 +0000

I first heard about it at around 8.30am yesterday morning on the Today programme. “Tony Blair will be giving a speech on Britain's role in Europe in Oxford today where he will say…”

The speech-reported-before-it-is-said must be one of the most depressingly symbols of modern media politics. It goes right to the heart of what news is – and what it should be. Newspapers have always been broadly supportive of the definition that news is “what you don't know”. If you haven't heard it, it is therefore news.

But the printed media and television now spend more of their time breaking this definition that following it. The rise of the Internet and the endless cost-cutting means that rarely does anything appear on TV or in a newspaper that people haven't already heard.

The editor of the Independent recently outlined how newspapers have to change the modern Net era to become “viewspapers” – informed comment and analysis of events – in order to remain relevant.

It is perhaps not surprisingly then that the pre-speech is so beloved of old media – and of government. Not only does old media get exclusive “news” through their priviledged channels but government gets coverage of a speech which it may well not do if it made reporters actually go to an event and sit through it.

In fact, it may be a mere formality that the speech is given at all. And I am certain there have been times when, once the media coverage is achieved, the speech itself has been quietly shelved.

Nonetheless, I still remain resolutely of the view that a speech is not news until it is said by the person in question and the words that it is claimed will come out their mouth are heard in public.

As such I decided to go along to Mr Blair's speech to see if he turned up at all, and to see if what he actually said corresponded to the “what he will say” as reported in numerous newspapers.

[Telegraph: Europe 'offers new hope for Britain'
BBC: Blair 'optimistic' over EU future
Reuters: Blair urges Britons to embrace Europe
Scotsman: Blair hails future of Europe
And plenty more...]

Having trawled through all the stories though, there was no mention of where and when Blair would be giving this speech. In fact, only a few reports mentioned Oxford at all.

So I trawled the Internet – and found nothing. I went through all of Oxford University's news and events sites and found nothing. Which sounds a touch ludicrous as it had been announced all over the national media.

So I went to the Downing Street website. And found no mention of the speech at all. Surely it had to actually be happening? I decided to call the Number 10 press office – but there is no phone number anywhere on the site.

So I dig out my media directory, find the number, and call. After talking to the switchboard and being connected to a press officer, I am amazed when the press woman simply refuses to tell me where or when the speech will be happening.

I'm not allowed to attend because it is for lobby journalists only and the venue is already fuly booked. Even so, I ask, where will it be and when? She refuses to say because only lobby journalists are allowed to go and the venue is booked up. This is barmy.

So I call Oxford University's head of press. She tells me that there is a speech but that Downing Street has put out an operational note telling the university to send any requests to the Downing Street press office. I need to talk to them, she isn't allowed to tell me anything, she explains.

Democracy – or cabal?

At which point, I started wondering what exactly is going on with this country's democracy. Here we have a widely trailed speech by our leader about Britain's role in Europe and yet the only people that will ever hear it will be a select group. The people's representatives – the press – at this event comprise solely of the same individuals that follow every other niggle of Downing Street.

The potential for corruption in this system is enormous. The journalists that rely for their livelihood on close connections with Downing Street are the only people that are allowed to attend. These same people have already reported what is in the speech. Can we honestly expect an accurate reflection of what goes on and what is said?

These reporters – who are expected to cover every other business of Downing St – will sit and listen to the speech knowing full well how Downing St wants the speech to be relayed to the wider world. To divert from this remit will incur the displeasure of people that the reporter has to then go to every day for other stories. Is one small speech on the EU worth making their lives any harder?

This is a self-contained world.

And if your question is: so what? What is the great risk here? Well, you have to ask: why would Downing Street seek to protect this self-contained system by refusing outright to provide details unless it was in its own interests? The government is actively protecting this system of information control. While this may not matter some of the time, on this occasion it is doing so on an important speech that will given widespread public attention.

The answer, or rather excuse, given to this over-the-top secrecy is security. Tony Blair is undoubtedly a terrorist target thanks to the Iraq war. But the security argument is a convenient fallacy. I am a registered journalist and a UK citizen. I would have been perfectly willing to provide whatever details the authorities asked for in order to demonstrate my identity. But I wasn't asked, and I wasn't going to be asked. No one was welcome.

This isn't the only big question over security though – as the rest of the evening made clear. In fact I have come to the conclusion that this security has the direct effect of undermining our very democracy – but more of that later.

Touring Oxford

Being told you are not even allowed to know where an event is taking place or when, is pure anathema to someone like me. So I set off around Oxford.

Clearly Blair's arrival would be preceded by security. Plus, no doubt, the priviledged journalists in swish cars, and possibly European diplomats. So I noted down the most likely locations for a speech on Europe and embarked on a walk of Oxford. I figure if there was a heightened security presence on a building, or a series of Mercedes, Jaguars etc that I'd be on the right track.

The Oxford Union – the university's debating building – was very unlikely to be the location as news would have leaked by now that the prime minister was coming. But I strolled past it anyway. Nothing.

Equally, nothing on Broad St – where the Bodelian, Sheldonian and various colleges are – plus a vital car route into the centre of town. Nothing on Holywell Street. Longwall Street – which skirts town and connects up lots of colleges, including the Politics and International Affairs department – was more interesting.

There was certainly alot of middle-aged self-important men in flash cars zooming around. But then that is the Oxford University of the 2000s. Universities are now international “brands”and it's all about marketing and money. As such, under the new management at Oxford University, these flash wankers – for want of a more abusive description – have started sticking their nose in everywhere and riling the old Dons.

I checked out South Parks Road – where the university is building its controversial animal housing centre – and St Giles – the main street in and out of north Oxford. And the back of the high street – a cosy, quiet location leading to the back of more colleges. Nothing.

In the end, I realised that the speech must be at least after lunch and decided to head back home. But then I had a brainwave and called the local newspaper the Oxford Times. I was planning to get some shots of Tony Blair arriving today, I told the newsdesk – perfectly true – could it tell me where and when he'll be?

Fortunately Downing Street hadn't got to them and I finally found out the location – St Anthony's College on Woodstock Road at 5pm. St Anthony's has the European Studies centre, so I called up and asked if I could attend. I was told there were no spaces.

I've been to St Anthony's twice for student “bops” so I felt fairly confident that I could get a picture of him arriving, perhaps even yell a question.

As I cycled past The Randolph hotel at 4.20pm, I was immediately certain it was his car parked directly out front, with another car with security in. I thought of getting off and strolling into the hotel with my camera. But I wanted to get pics of him arriving at the venue – as evidence that he actually gave the speech – so I foolishly decided to cycle on to St Anthony's.

The place had a medium police presence. One police van on one side. About four police at the front. Another four on the side and about another six strolling around the neighbouring roads. There was no more than mild interest by passers-by.

Since everyone had been so up-tight about divulging details, I decided it best to stay out of sight. So I pitched myself behind a low wall that covered both the front and side entrances of the college where I could get some good snaps of him walking into the building. I moved to get a view of the road so I could see any cars arriving.

Around ten-to-five there was alot of bustle and men with earpieces strolling about so I prepared my camera – and nothing. Then at five o'clock I could hear the applause of the hall as Tony Blair's clearly entered.

It was freezing cold but annoyed that I've somehow missed him, I decided to go for a stroll around the college. At the very back are two fortified gates with four vans – two police, one BBC, and another which could have been media or police but had a satellite on top and loads of equipment inside.

This was the only place that I couldn't see from my vantage point so the prime minister must have entered here – which was odd as it was a small road and a small gate. So I went to the local pub, had a pint, and headed back to the back gate to sit and wait and this time make sure I get a picture as some kind of proof of this weird world.

More later…

Oxford animal rights protest

kierenmccarthy — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:50:55 +0000

There is an ongoing battle between animals rights groups and the University of Oxford over a new building being built in the heart of town. It’s been going on since the plans were announced in 2004 and has got increasingly ill-tempered.

The animal rights people managed to end construction a similar building in Cambridge and so, smelling victory, have gone all out to pressure Oxford into abandoning its plans as well.

It has led to some tough protests, court orders, dozens of claims, counter-claims and articles and some heavy duty intimidation and threatening of Oxford University staff and the contractors on the building. One of the consistent points has been regular protests and marches in town – of which there was another one on Saturday.

I actually guessed it while walking into town when I saw no less than 10 police officers on one stretch of road. Anyway, I had my camera with me and so decided to check it out.

Whose right?

I’ve given the animal rights question some thought – admittedly sparked by the protests that started in Oxford nearly two years ago – and have come to the conclusion that it’s pretty much a dead issue.

The fact is that, in a similar way to militant feminism, the battle has been won. There are now very strict laws and rules regulating animal experimentation in this country. The animal rights protests of the past did that, and it’s a good thing.

All the arguments, pros and cons have been delved into, torn apart and patched together again and it is still the case the animal experimentation is incredibly useful for certain types of scientific work. We don’t have smoking beagles any more. Instead we have serious and important research into debilitating disease.

Not that the situation is ideal. It is still dreadful that we need to experiment on animals, that we haven’t found better and cheaper methods that don’t require living creatures. But that’s life. There will always be people that feel much more strongly than most on the issue – and good, because they will be motivated enough to keep an eye on the situation and make sure it doesn’t give way to past problems.

Likewise, I’m a big fan of protests, even if they can be a royal pain if you’re disrupted (which I was – I was over an hour late for my brother’s birthday party in part thanks to the delay getting out of Oxford). Protests mean people learn how to organise, and they learn how intricate and bureaucratic systems of government work. And they educate people, bring issues to the forefront, and they show the general public that not everyone is being complacent, that you *can* stand up and be counted if something bothers you enough.

But what concerns me about the animal rights people at the moment is that for many, it isn’t animal rights at all that they are fighting for. It’s the fact that they enjoying breaking rules and creating tension. There simply is no justification for hounding and threatening people – and that is exactly what the militant edges do – and enjoy doing.

They have no right to make building workers fear for their own safety. They are only building concrete offices. There is a nasty streak running through the animal rights protest and their actions are drawing the sort of people that only want to create trouble.

It is this that is creating a vicious circle between protestors and police. Protestors are frustrated and seek to find someone to blame. The police are often at the end of it. The police are also invariably less than charming, which gets protestors backs up.

But those protestors complaining and fussing about police harassment are living in fairyland. They have been given the right by the courts to hold regular protests in an extremely busy city centre, and the police, while not exactly chatty, aren’t threatening them. They’d know about it if they were.

They want freedom of speech, they have freedom of speech. The police are obliged to make sure things don’t get out of hand, and if they fear they will, they are curt and sometimes aggressive. It’s crowd control and it works.

What struck me was how disorganised and relatively unintelligent the protestors were in making their protest. If they feel the police are being overly controlling, why not change tactics?

Why all gather in one spot where they can be shunted around? Why not post your plans and then change them at the last minute. Why not pick out three leader types and get them to lead three different marches – appearing behind the police where they thought they’d blocked off a road. And where are the inspiring speakers? Where are community leaders? Where’s the leaflet handing out the day before? Where are the media-savvy opportunities?

The fact that they weren’t there demonstrates to me at least that the fire is out on the animal rights issue and all that remain are well-meaning people that would probably achieve more by lobbying individuals in power; and pseudo-rebels who only want to live the fantasy of being on the run.

I think it should be pointed out as well that we *know* of human beings being arrested, jailed, tortured and abused in recent years – in this country and outside, our citizens and other countries’ citizens. Where are the human rights marches?

The issues

But that aside, what of the story and the facts?

On the front of the leaflet handed out by “Speak” at the protest is a cat with God-knows-what attached to its head. It grabs the attention, but what’s important is to find out how credible Speak is.

Protest groups will always complain bitterly that their perspective is misrepresented, especially in the media, and that whoever they are criticising is getting away with hiding things. The sad truth though is that the protestors are invariably more guilty of misrepresenting what people say and do to their own ends.

As such, it is very easy to check out a group’s credibility by investigating their claims and reviewing their materials.

Underneath the cat picture is a single quote. It comes from a pretty significant source: Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.

He is quoted as saying: “The animal testing regime… is utterly futile.”

NICE is an important organisation. It effectively decides on what people are allowed to do and not to do with drugs in the UK. That’s not to say it isn’t occasionally mired in controversy, with health professionals sometimesaccusing it of having got it all wrong and misunderstood the situation.

But what of the quote? It’s the ellipsis you have to be worried about. There can be a whole world of qualification removed with those three little dots. So I did a bit of research. This quote has become a stock one used by the animal rights movement. But where does it come from?

Well, from a meeting at Chatham House in September 2003. Chatham is famous for its “Chatham House rules” where the meeting can be reported but who said what cannot be. The philosophy is that it encourages free debate. Mr Rawlins was there to talk to the pharmaceutical industry, as well as regulators, patient groups and so on about the challenges of drug creation in the future.

His main point was that a rethink was needed as drug were becoming too expensive. And he did say the animal study regime was “utterly futile”. Unfortunately I have been able to find only one contemporary source though – The Daily Telegraph. And it leaves mention of this quote until the very last sentence. It is also not as equivocal as it sounds:

“Patients must be more involved in regulatory decisions, he said. ‘The population is going to have to realise there is a trade-off between absolute safety and the development of new drugs.’ The animal study regime, which could take up to six years, was ‘utterly futile’. The industry must do more research on how to conduct efficient clinical trials.”

There isn’t a full transcript on the Chatham House website unfortunately, so this is all we have to go on. It is weak.

Allegations

The Speak leaflet makes its allegations on the back of the leaflet. It claims that Oxford University “hides a nasty secret”. And that is: “Behind the beautiful architecture and dreaming spires lies suffering and death in the university labs. Countless thousands of animals are destined to be the latest victims of arrogance and scientific fraud inside the walls of this new facility.”

Emotive language aside – what is this “scientific fraud”? The leaflet has seven points.

That the university originally said there would be no experiments at the new lab being built
That it then contradicted this statement by saying it would
That in the labs, kittens had one eye sewn up and part of their brains removed, and that three monkeys with artificially produced brain damage were experimented on
That one professor said the monkeys led “the life of Riley” but in one experiment had required “intensive nursing” to keep them alive
That the university sought an injunction to prevent a “legal and peaceful campaign” against the new lab
That the university failed to attend a public meeting at the town hall, despite being invited
That a leading professor was investigated for cruelty for refusing to allow a monkey to be put down because it was an “asset”

Having read these seven points, I’m pretty sure they’re all true, albeit heavily angled. Dates are given for each point and in two cases, specific publications referred to.

And, having done some digging, I’ve discovered that strictly speaking they are all true. But they have been bent, and elements purposefully missed out. Point by point:

I can’t find the exact quote listed by Speak in which the university said “no experiments would be carried out”. But it is true that the original planning application (02/02371/FUL) said it was to be only an “animal holding centre”. You can see the bare bones of that application here – but unfortunately a pdf of the application itself has been removed.
Speak says on 16 March, the university said the facility would be used to experiment on animals. Again, I can’t find an official source. But it seems perfectly feasible. The university does continue to stress that the facility fundamental purpose is for housing animals, and not for tests on them.
I can’t find the article quoted in Nature, but the monkey experiments are true, and were written up in Brain Research Bulletin 61 (2003). You can read the abstract and buy it if you want. The point though is that Oxford University did not damage the monkeys themselves, merely did experiments on them. It should also be noted that the university pointed out that a major part of the protestors’ ads around this time were incorrect. They stated that two monkeys were being held, when in fact they had been put down years before.
The professor was John Stein, and an interview with him appeared in the Oxford Mail in August 2004. He said: “We can record from the brain absolutely painlessly. It causes them no pain or stress… They have a life of Riley compared to animals in the wild.” His counter-argument was: “For the sacrifice of a very small number of animals there’s a huge benefit to humanity. We all worry about the ethics, but as long as our experiments are done with no pain, they are justifiable.”As for his research, there is no indication which paper it was, and I’m not going to search all of Prof Stein’s papers to find it either. But presumably Speak has been through each one with a fine-toothed comb. I suspect the quote is true, but, again, angled and bent.
The “Draconia” injunction. This is perfectly true and you can read the whole thing at http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/order10-11-04.pdf [pdf]. Again though, the situation has been mispainted. The contractors building the facility had pulled out after being threatened personally and as a business. Oxford University sought a 100-yard ban on protestors. This was rejected. Instead, the size of the protests were limited to 50 people and any more would have to apply to the police. I think the court made a good decision, balancing the interests of both sides.
The university didn’t really fail to turn up to the Town Hall meeting. It never said it was going to go. It was set up by the protestors and the university declined. It said: “We will participate in any event if we receive a reasonable invitation.” That has yet to be put to the test.
You can read The Times story in question (Oxford inquiry on abuse of monkey). The case was dropped, the delay in the vet’s recommendation and the monkey being put down was 90 minutes, and the explanation was: “Staff had detected illness in an animal being used in biomedical research. Vets diagnosed an infection and the animal was treated with antibiotics but did not respond quickly, so euthanasia was recommended.”

If you want to know more, the BBC and Guardian both have sub-sites set up to cover the thorny question of animal experiments. There is also a publication called LabAnimal that should be reviewed.