Who are you?

The issue of youngsters in Britain wanting to go and fight with jihadi groups in the Middle East raises an interesting point.
Are we defined by the country we live in, by our religion, or by some other criteria?
Do the Scots see themselves as Scottish, or as Britons with a Scottish accent? We may find out on September 19.
Ukraine is having big problems with people who see themselves as Russians. The Kurds in Iraq, Syria and Turkey seem to be Kurds first and want a country to fit in with them.
Politicians expect us to be defined by our country because politics is defined by country. They expect us to support our country whatever it does. But this idea is waning. 
In 2003, when Bush and Blair planned to invade Iraq, there were protest marches all over the world against the idea. Bush and Blair ignored them and invaded anyway.
In 2013, when David Cameron was wondering whether to send troops to Syria, the Commons refused to sanction it. That persuaded President Obama to reconsider military action, too. 'Not in my name' carries more clout today.
The more multi-cultural we become the less we seem to think 'my country right or wrong'. And the more politicians have to think: How will this look in Bradford or Leicester?
I grew up on Tyneside, so I like to think of myself as a Geordie, although I have lived in the south for 50 years. I have had opportunities and a civilised life in Britain, for which I am grateful. I don't believe in any of the gods which cause such trouble. 
But the picture of Britain painted by our politicians is a mean place which wants to pull up the drawbridge and deny others those opportunities and that civilised life; which doesn't want to work with the foreigners in Europe. I am not defined by that image of Britain.
Companies no longer tie themselves to one country. They can fit in with several. People no longer tie themselves to one country. If there is a better life elsewhere, they will try to find it. Or they will live a life which defines them in whichever country they happen to be in.
Which makes life very difficult for politicians. We used to be British first and Labour, Tory or Liberal second. Now we are just us, in 60 million flavours.
How on earth do they address us all?

Protecting citizens or spooks?

Britain is rushing through emergency legislation to force internet and phone service providers to keep customers' data for a year to allow police and security services to check what criminals and terrorists are planning.
The Government and the opposition parties say we must do this because the European Court of Justice ruled on 8 April that Europe's 2004 Data Retention Directive on keeping such data was invalid and if we don't pass this new legislation, Google, O2 and the rest will stop keeping the data and terrorists will run riot.
Here, our media has debated this with those who say we will all be blown up if we don't grab this data on one side and those who say our data is not to be spied upon on the other. Our media has not asked what other European countries are doing. 
Finland's Education Minister Krista Kiuru is all for the new Court of Justice ruling: 'Naturally, we must clean out the paragraphs enacted due to the Directive. We will gladly adhere to this decision. If we want Finland to be a model country when it comes to data protection, our legislation has be be in accordance with the fundamental citizen rights'.
Germany and the Czech Republic challenged the Directive when it was enacted and were threatened with fines if they did not comply with it. They will be delighted now that it has been ruled invalid. Sweden refused obey the Directive for many months and will also be delighted.
Why is our government frightening us with terror talk? Two possible reasons spring to mind:
1. Terrorists are more likely to attack the UK because of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. The Americans have told us to bring in new UK laws to ensure that the CIA has this data to use.
Ever since the Data Retention Directive was passed in 2004, countries in mainland Europe have been trying to protect their citizens by getting it repealed.
In that time, Britain has gone further than the Directive in keeping data and says it is protecting its citizens in the 'war on terror'.
Who do you want to be protected by?

Riders and racers

Last week in Bari, the riders in the Giro d'Italia refused to race at the end of the stage because it was raining too hard. They said it was dangerous.
In 2005 at Donington Park, it rained from start to finish of the Moto GP race. Many riders slid off. The remaining riders picked their way round carefully, trying to find where there were rivers and where they could go fast. Seven laps from the end, Valentino Rossi took off and went fast through all the rivers to win in style.
Yes, it was dangerous, but it was also a chance to show who was the maestro.
Some are racers. Some are just riders.
Jack Brabham keeled over this week. He was a racer, too.

Shoot the message, not the messenger

Europe appears to have missed the target in its dispute with Google over reputations which some people want to forget.
Google shows you everything there is on whatever you search for. Not everything except what Joe Bloggs wants you to see, or everything some government wants you to see. Everything.
If you are in the everything business, being told to change to become the everything but business is a big deal.
And if Joe Bloggs is upset because something embarrassing is out there, whose responsibility is to sort that out? The government's? Google's or Joe Bloggs'?
Google helps Joe Bloggs to sort out his problem. It shows him where the embarrassing item is. He can ask that website to remove it.
If you tell Google to remove it from its search results, it will still be visible to those who use Bing, or Yahoo or any of the other search engines. Will Europe tell them to show everything but, too?
The simplest solution is to remove the offending item. Then no search engines will find it.
The best person to ask for it to be removed is the person who is offended. 
Bashing big business is not always the best solution.

Promises, promises

UKIP and the Tories tell us immigrants and Europe are the cause of all our problems and they will get rid of them. It's nonsense.
Labour tell us they will bring in laws to stop our rents, energy bills and doctors' waiting lists going up. It's nonsense.
Is it any wonder people are losing faith in politics.

Me and W.H.Smith

W.H.Smith have been newspaper and magazine wholesalers for many years. Newspapers send their papers to Smith's, Smith's bundle them up with other papers and magazines and deliver them to all the newsagents in their area.
This week, they changed the name of their wholesale business to Connect because they believe newspapers and magazines will make up less than half of their business in the future.
When I left school as a callow 17-year-old in 1962 I started work at W.H.Smith's main office in Newcastle as a management trainee. My job was to copy the number of weekly magazines each shop received from this week's list on to next week's list: 27 Woman's Own, 30 Beano, 25 Hotspur, 15 Angling Times and so on. This was way before computers and photo-copiers.
If I had stayed there, I could have progressed to an alterations clerk, who took changes phoned through from the shops: Stop 3 Beano, add 2 Dandy. Next step was an accounts clerk, who added up the shops' bills, taking the changes into account. After that, who knows? Manager of the W.H.Smith shop in Whitley Bay station maybe.
But I didn't stay. After six months of copying, I was offered a place as a reporter and sub-editor on The Journal sports desk. £8 a week for covering football, speedway and snooker contests, instead of £4 a week for copying lists. 
Nonetheless, Smith's started me off and for that I am grateful.

War and peace

Scotland’s devolved parliament is having a referendum to let people decide whether they want to stay part of the UK, or become independent.

Crimea’s devolved parliament is having a referendum to let people decide whether they want to stay part of the Ukraine or join Russia.

Our government says the Scots’ vote is OK, but the Crimean vote is illegal. Why?

Russia has sent troops to Crimea because the Ukraine government has been overthrown by a mob. It is threatening more of the same. Russia doesn’t like the idea of a mob wanting to overthrow a corrupt government.

The West doesn’t like the idea of mobs in its own backyard, but approves of those who do their overthrowing in the Middle East or Ukraine. It says the mob in Kiev is actually a bunch of freedom fighters. The West is threatening sanctions and boycotts because sending troops is so last year.

And the BBC is running 37 days which shows how we went from balmy peace to world war in just over a month because the people in power kept threatening each other.