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.

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…

Published on Discovery Channel health, 9 August 2002

Do you eat to live or live to eat? Do you turn to food when you’re depressed or anxious? If so, you could be jeopardising your mental and physical health, but there is a way out, and it’s all about breaking the cycle of dependence.

Comfort eating, or overeating, is an extremely easy habit to form and a difficult one to break. Experts readily compare it to smoking and many of the same techniques are used to helping people to give up.

But while smoking may not be exactly natural, eating to soothe the spirit is something we learn from an early age. Dr Linda Blair, clinical psychologist at the University of Bath and specialist in comfort eating, points out that feeding a baby when it cries is a normal response. As children, we are given sweets to cheer us up or as rewards – is it any wonder then that when in need of relaxation or reassurance many of us turn to food?

Pinpointing the problem

The problem, as Dr Lynn Dunwoody of Ulster University – another comfort eating expert – points out, is that most people don’t realise they are doing it.

“It’s only when you go through what they eat item by item that it becomes clear that a lot of it is in-between meals,” she says. “And it’s not out of hunger, it’s because they’re bored or it’s just a habit.”

People who are stressed also tend to overeat because it helps them relax. Dr Dunwoody says stress can arise out of boredom, and can affect a variety of people with too much time on their hands, such as mothers whose are left at home after their kids have gone to school.

What makes overeating a problem, however, is that the majority of food consumed is high-calorie – crisps, cakes, chocolate, sweet things – causing people to put on weight. If they combine this with constantly drinking alcohol throughout the day, even in small amounts, they could develop diabetes, Dr Dunwoody says.

Brain food

However, the main risks tend to be psychological. “When people get obese, they get teased,” Dr Blair explains. “This causes a loss of confidence, making them feel vulnerable and so they eat more. You have to break that circle.”

But how? Gillian Riley is a former overeater who used her experience to write two books – “Eating Less: Take Control of Overeating” and “Beating Overeating”.

In both, she spells out the mind traps that overeaters can get stuck in and how to break free of them. “Focus on cause rather than effect,” she advises. “Many people’s preoccupation with weight loss means they stay focused on the effect of their problem – being overweight – and not the cause – overeating.”

She also points out that viewing food in terms of what you can or can’t eat – diets, for example – is ultimately damaging because it creates rules and makes eating a negative activity. This, she argues, will ultimately result in rebellion and the collapse of the entire system. Instead, temptation should be recognised and embraced, making it easier to overcome.

“Any habit can be unlearnt,” says Dr Blair. “There are three ways to crack a habit: behaviour, logic or thought, and emotions. We leave the emotions alone. That leaves an outward approach – eliminating the opportunity – and an inward approach, such as building a negative association with certain types of food.”

Changing the rules

She tells of the story of a devoted mother who ate sweets all day but was unable to get rid of them because her family objected. Instead, whenever she baked a cake, she would cut it up into pieces and freeze them individually. “Of course, she could still have unfrozen them all, but by introducing a delay, it slows you down and lets your will power take over,” Dr Blair notes.

Another common approach is to link a certain food with a negative image, such as imagining chocolate turning into a flabby stomach. It won’t stop people eating it but will give them a chance to stop and think.

Dr Dunwoody encourages people to keep a diary of everything they eat and write down why, whether it is because they are fed up or stressed or just hungry. By forcing people to review their eating habits, it becomes much easier to change them.

Replacement therapy

People trying to break any habit also need to be patient. “Many people expect to notice an effect straight away,” Dr Blair continues. “But it takes a minimum of three weeks and more like six weeks before anything is noticeable.”

But perhaps the most positive way of all to break a comfort eating habit is to replace it with a different activity. “People overeat when they are anxious. But anxiety is just a negative form of energy. So instead of eating, why not go for a run, or call friends or do some housework?” says Dr Blair.

Whichever way you look at it, continual overeating is going to do more harm than good, and is unlikely to help people come to terms with their anxieties. By breaking that habit, the cause of other problems may also be recognised, leaving the way clear for them to be tackled too.

Further information:

• British Psychological Society