Social Mobility

Alan Milburn is our new “social mobility tsar”. It’s an interesting thought that we now have more tsars at one time than Russia did throughout its entire history, but I digress. His job, we are told, is to ensure that every member of the community has access to social mobility. Now, this does not mean, as some may think, that everyone gets a mobility scooter with “HELLO” written on it. It means that everyone should have access to careers regardless of social class… or education… or, in some cases, ability.

I’m not knocking this. I think it’s a good thing. Careers should not be closed to those who do not belong to the right class or did not attend the right schools. A state school background does not mean a lack of intelligence or suitability. Likewise, a public school background does not guarantee intelligence, as George Osborne has clearly illustrated. But I’m not too sure about the idea of a failed A level student doing my hip replacement when the time comes. However, I’m all for this… in principle.

However, social mobility is not always an upward path.

I got a phone call from a nice chap at the Department of Work and Pensions last Friday. He rang up just to see how I was feeling, which I thought was nice. I said: “Fine, thanks”

He said: “Oh dear!”

I said: “Is there a problem?”

He said: “Well, Mr. Tocknell, you’ve been retired for almost three years now and I was just wondering how much longer you’ll be needing your pension”

I said: “The rest of my life, I hope”

He said: “Yeah. Any idea how long that’ll be? Only we got a recession on”

I said: “Righto. I’ll just nip off and shoot myself, shall I?”

He said: “Really??” with a little more enthusiasm than I would have liked.

I said: “No. I was being sarcastic!”

He said: “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, Mr. Tocknell”

Well I had him there! It just so happens that I was reading an article in the Random Ramblers’ Monthly last week. Apparently the Department of Purposeless Research at Bath University has been conducting research into this very subject. It appears that sarcasm is actually three levels higher than previously thought. The new lowest form of wit is now practical jokes resulting in death… but I digress.

He said: “Well, if you’re not going to pop off anytime soon, how would you feel about returning to the job market?”

I said: “How would I feel?? What do you think?”

He said: “Yeah, that’s what I thought”

I said: “I thought so”

He said: “What are you good at?”

I said: “Writing letters of outrage to the press and forgetting why I’ve just come upstairs”

“Hmmmm! That does seem to narrow the field somewhat." He said: “We’ve had a memo from Alan Milburn. We have to encourage people to broaden their horizons”

I said: “Listen mate, I’m a bit long in the tooth to start embarking on some upwardly mobile career ambition”

He said: “Well, I wasn’t thinking of ‘upwardly’ exactly”

I said: “I’m RETIRED! What are you planning to demote me to??”

He said: “Have you ever though about becoming a pet?”

I said: “A PET??????”

He said: “Yeah. A lot of people are very fond of old folks and there are those who’d love to have one of their own. You’d have your own bed, meals provided and, to be honest, it wouldn’t half ease the burden on the treasury”

Well, I have to confess that being a pet is not a career I’d ever seriously considered but I guess my options are a bit limited. Anyway, the upshot is that I have to find myself an owner by 2013. I am house trained… although I do tend to fart a lot these days. I am prepared to hobble after sticks but it’s probably best not to throw them too far or you might have to wait a bit.

Sooo… if you’re going to be looking for a cute novel pressie for the kids around Christmas time….. But please remember: an old person is for life, not just for Christmas.

The Bribery Act 2010

I want to share something just in case (forgive my paranoia) of anything that may be regarded as repercussions. However, I do feel strongly that a point must be made here. This is not actually about trying to get someone punished so much as to convey a very clear message about what is and what is not acceptable in government. Now, I'm probably being overcautious here and I'm not suggesting that I pose any kind of a threat (or indeed that the police would take such action) but I would feel a lot safer if you could kindly share this as much as possible... just to appease me.

The Peter Cruddas incident remains unresolved and even unaddressed in any meaningful form. Cruddas, then Conservative party fund-raiser, was caught on video soliciting for bribes from undercover reporters posing as overseas businessmen by claiming that a 'donation' exceeding £200,000 could buy a degree of say in policy decisions and implying that Cameron and Osborne were familiar and cooperative with this arrangement.

I felt that someone should make an official allegation that a crime under the Bribery Act 2010 has been committed. That is to solicit bribes. Calling it inviting donations or whatever has no more credibility than calling burglary house-clearance. The fact remains that (a) he quoted a price (£200,000) and offered a service (that it would "open doors for you", that it would be "awesome for your business" and that "if there's anything you're not happy with, we can feed that back to the policies commission") and, in anybody's book, that is soliciting a bribe. A crime under the Bribery Act 2010 was committed on camera. No matter how many times Cruddas claims it weren't me, guv, he solicited bribes on camera. It carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and an unlimited fine. Clearly the minimum penalty is taking a slightly disapproving stance and this is the option the police have chosen judging by the action taken.

Now the incident has already been formally reported to the Met but the allegation was... er... allegedly made under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and has been passed on to the Electoral Commission to assess whether electoral rules have been breached. They appear to have overlooked the fact that a crime has been committed before their eyes.

So I wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Bernard Hogan-Howe to report a separate offense under the Bribery Act 2010. Although it refers to the same incident, it is a separate offense under a different Act. I wanted to stress specifically that this was the act under which I was making my allegation. OK, here's the letter:

"MPS Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

I am reporting a crime by mail because your online reporting system only seems to recognize certain categories of crime and does not cover fraud or bribery. Also, I want to ensure that I have hard copy evidence of making this report.

I understand that police are "assessing" the Peter Cruddas 'cash-for-access' case to establish whether electoral rules have been broken. This is an entirely different matter to the most obvious issue: that Peter Cruddas was effectively soliciting bribes to influence government policy-making. Calling it 'donations' is no more a defense than a burglar calling his activities 'house-clearance'.

Therefore, I wish to report the following apparent offenses:

1. Soliciting bribes by a public figure. Cruddas had clearly stated that the undercover reporters could state what they were unhappy about and that their suggestions are fed to the Policies Committee at No. 10

2. Failure to prevent bribery. Cruddas' statement: "We feed all feedback to the Policy Committee" strongly implies that this system is routine.

3. Accepting bribes. Cruddas’ statements strongly imply that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are amenable to suggestions by big donors and that big 'donations' will "open doors".

Of course, apart from the video evidence that Peter Cruddas solicited bribes, the evidence of Cameron's and Osborne's involvement is only implied by remarks made on the video. However, this must be investigated under the Bribery Act 2010.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

To which, Mr. Hogan-Howe replied:

So, with a heavy sigh, I replied:

"MPS Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

April 20 2012

Thank you for your reply dated April 10 2012, which I received on April 20.

I am perfectly aware that an allegation has been made under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and whether or not any offenses have been committed under that specific Act remains to be seen.

However, perhaps I should make myself perfectly clear on this: I am making an allegation under the Bribery Act 2010. Although it relates to the same incident, this is an entirely different allegation as it refers to alleged offenses under a different Act to the one that is currently being assessed and which may not be fully covered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The allegations that I am making are as follows:

(a)   That, according to evidence that is in the public domain, Peter Cruddas solicited bribes by claiming that payments in excess of £200,000 could “open doors” for businesses that pay this sum. He also stated: “Anything you’re not happy about will be fed back to the Policies Committee”, implying that the Policies Committee can be influenced by those who pay enough.

(b)  The assertions he made on the secretly filmed video strongly imply that both David Cameron and George Osborne are familiar and compliant with this procedure.

Whether or not Cruddas directly asked for a payment in return for an opportunity to influence policy decisions or whether or not a payment was actually received on this occasion is irrelevant in this instance. He was outlining the procedure and perceived rewards and, by stating that “It would be awesome for your business”, he was clearly soliciting a bribe on that occasion.

His account of similar occasions in the past and his assurances of  Cameron’s and Osborne’s cooperation strongly implies their complicity in this and that they are in the habit of drafting policies that are favourable to businesses in return for large donations.

Cruddas’ assertion that he was “blustering” on this particular occasion does not hold up against the evidence that Mark Adams, the whistleblower who alerted The Sunday Times had described the very process that Cruddas now claims was a one-off “bluster”. Adams’ allegation prior to the meeting that was secretly recorded strongly reinforces the implication that this was a regular occurrence.

There is, quite clearly sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation into alleged offenses specifically under the Bribery Act 2010. Regardless of any other investigations and/or assessments currently being carried out under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, my allegation is specifically under the Bribery Act 2010 and I do expect this allegation to be thoroughly investigated.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

That was on April 20 2012 and, at the time of posting, I have yet to receive a reply. OK, perhaps it didn't get through. I sent a copy... along with the following cover note:

"MPS Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

Your ref: 2012040000979

May 21, 2012

Dear Mr. Hogan-Howe,

I refer to my letter of April 20, 2012, to which I have yet to receive a reply. Perhaps, for some reason, it never reached you so I enclose a copy.

If, however, you have received it but have decided that no further action is required, perhaps you would be good enough to provide a reason for this.

Despite assurances to the contrary from both politicians and senior police figures, it is the generally held belief that senior politicians are ‘above the law’.

I know that, if video evidence of myself soliciting bribes contrary to the Bribery Act 2010 was brought to the attention of the police, I would be arrested under this Act, as would anyone else implicated in the video.

However, it was not a video of myself but of Peter Cruddas, then Conservative Party Fundraiser and those implicated were not simply members of the public but the Prime Minister himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This, it would appear, makes a considerable difference. This does rather confirm the public perception that senior politicians and those they wish to protect are most certainly treated as being ‘above the law’.

I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not merely expressing an opinion here. I am officially reporting what appears to be a crime under the Bribery Act 2010.

As you are fully aware, it is the duty of the police to investigate any alleged crime that is reported or to provide justification if no action is to be taken.

Although you have written to me to explain that “an allegation had been made to the Metropolitan Police Service under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000” and that the “correct procedure for complaints of this nature” is for the Electoral Commission to carry out an initial assessment, I have received no acknowledgement of my allegation specifically under the Bribery Act 2010. I am sure (although please correct me if I am wrong) that the correct procedure for complaints of this nature would be to launch a police investigation into alleged crimes under this specific act (the Bribery Act 2010), as this is a police matter rather than an issue for the Electoral Commission.

I would be reassured if you could give me some reason to believe that the politicians elected into office remain subject to the law. To simply bypass laws that apply to everyone else… particularly if there is reason to suspect corruption… is to be complicit should it later emerge that corruption has, indeed taken place.

There is direct video evidence that Peter Cruddas was soliciting bribes and circumstantial evidence (through implications from his remarks) that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were receiving bribes in return for favourable policies. This is an extremely serious allegation. I fail to see any reason why the police have not taken action to investigate this allegation. Are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor protected from investigation by the nature of the office they hold? If so, then the police would be complicit in any charges of corruption that may later transpire.

I would be grateful if you could reply and explain either what action the police will take regarding this allegation under the Bribery Act 2010 or the reason why no action is to be taken.

I await your reply with interest.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

I could be wrong but I believe the police are obliged to investigate every alleged crime that is reported and justify any action... or lack thereof... taken. I'll keep you posted.

Now I am not alleging that harassment of some form would result from this interchange. However, sharing this as widely as possible would offset any inclination for it to occur.

I thank you for your cooperation.




OK, I've had a reply this morning (24/5/12). Still not acknowledging my allegation under the Bribery Act 2010 or any reference to this act at all. Simply a cursory statement that an allegation regarding this matter has been made to the MPS and it is currently being "assessed".

I feel I'm being fobbed off here so I penned a reply to further press my point:

"SC&09 Specialist and Economic Crime Special Enquiry Team

590v

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Dear Chief Supt. Macleod,

Thank you for your reply of May 23, 2012, which I received today.

I am well aware that the MPS has received “other allegations” regarding this matter and I am well aware that the matter is being “assessed” by the Electoral Commission regarding an allegation under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. This is an entirely different matter even though it refers to the same event.

I am making an allegation under the Bribery Act 2010 and the allegation I am making is outlined perfectly clearly in my previous letters. However, I shall reiterate it yet again in the hope of getting my message home:

I allege that Peter Cruddas, then Conservative Party Fundraiser, actively solicited for bribes by (a) quoting a price (figures in excess of £200,000) and (b) stating the services rendered (“…it would be awesome for your business”, “…it will open doors for you…” and, most tellingly: “…anything you’re not happy about, tell us and we can feed it back to the policies Committee”). As this offense was committed on camera, there is sufficient evidence to act on this allegation.

I further allege that the remarks Cruddas made on the secretly filmed video strongly imply that the Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Chancellor, George Osborne were party to and compliant with the arrangements described by Cruddas. The implications are extremely serious. At best: the fact remains that Peter Cruddas did quote a price and did state that such a payment would purchase a say in policy-making. That is on camera and little is left open to interpretation. At worst: if the claims that Cruddas makes regarding Cameron’s and Osborne’s cooperation in this arrangement is proved to be true, we could be looking at corruption at the highest office.

I do appreciate the sensitive nature of this allegation and I do accept that, because of the positions held by those implicated, such an allegation must be handled differently than if it were simply against members of the public. However, that cannot mean that it goes uninvestigated.

Can you please acknowledge this complaint? If you feel the need to inform me that the matter is being assessed by the Electoral Committee under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, will you please also inform me what action, if any, is being taken under the Bribery Act 2010? If no action is being taken under the Bribery Act 2010, could you please let me know why?

Please reply and please address the matter I have raised regarding my specific allegation under the Bribery Act 2010.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

I'll keep you posted.


*********


The above was sent on May 24. Today is Thursday June 14 and, to date, the above letter has received no response. So today I am sending yet another letter to the Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe in a final attempt to get someone to acknowledge that I have reported an offense under the Bribery Act 2010... or even acknowledge that any mention of this Act has been made.


In the letter below, I refer to the Bribery Act 2010 a total of fifteen times so it would be hard to overlook any mention I have made of this specific Act. The letter is as follows:




"MPS Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Dear Mr. Hogan-Howe,

Perhaps, as Commissioner of police, you could explain to me why I have received no acknowledgment that I have lodged an allegation against Peter Cruddas specifically under the Bribery Act 2010 on four occasions. To date, I have received two replies: one from yourself to confirm that an allegation had been made under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and one from Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart MacLeod to confirm that the MPS has “received other allegations regarding these matters…”.

Is this matter being investigated under the Bribery Act 2010? I am not interested in what action is being taken under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 or indeed any other Act other than the Bribery Act 2010.

I note that neither of the two replies I have received to date make any reference to the Bribery Act 2010 so I must ask you: is there any reason why this issue should not be investigated under the Bribery Act 2010? If so, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain any reason for not pursuing the matter under this specific act?

The fact that the matter is being investigated under some other Act of Parliament does not justify any failure to pursue the matter under the Bribery Act 2010, which was created specifically to deal with matters of this nature. To suggest that current investigations under some other Act would prohibit any further investigations under the Bribery Act 2010 would be on a par with suggesting that a bank robbery could not be investigated under the Theft Act 1968 because it is currently being investigated under the Road Traffic Act 1998 as the getaway car may have been illegally parked.

Peter Cruddas committed an offense under the Bribery Act 2010 and there is no ambiguity about this. The offense was committed on camera and everyone who saw the secretly filmed video was effectively a witness to this offense. No suggestion has been put forward that this video evidence was tampered with or altered in any way to misrepresent the claims that Peter Cruddas made. Peter Cruddas has not denied that he made the statements that were recorded. His insistence that his claims regarding the influence on government policy that could be attained in return for a minimum of £200,000 was a one-off “bluster” is no defense… and even if it were, that would be a matter for the courts to decide, not the police. The fact remains that, by quoting a price (£200,000+) and stating that the Policies Committee would consider favourable policies in return for such a sum, he did solicit bribes and, in doing so, he breached regulations set out in the Bribery Act 2010. The police must act on this regardless of what any other rules may or may not have been breached in any other Acts of Parliament.

Obviously, I don’t now if any other member of the public may have contacted the police to report this incident as an offense under the Bribery Act 2010. If it has already been reported under the Bribery Act 2010 by another party, perhaps you would enlighten me to this effect and let me know if any action has been taken under this specific Act or the reasons if no action is being taken under this specific Act. If, however, no other person has reported the incident under the Bribery Act 2010, could you please ensure that the fact that I am reporting the incident as an offense under the Bribery Act 2010 is acknowledged and that I am furnished with an incident number?

It has been reported in the Independent that Scotland Yard has launched an investigation into this incident. However, there is no mention of whether or not any new investigations are looking into offenses specifically under the Bribery Act 2010. Perhaps you could clarify this.

I do expect a reply. I don’t mind if it is from yourself personally or from someone you have delegated to respond but I do expect all the matters I have raised to be addressed in any reply. Any failure to reply specifically stating what, if any action is being taken or to be taken under the Bribery Act 2010 will inevitably be interpreted as a deliberate evasion of the issue and taken further.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

In the not unlikely event that this letter does not receive a reply within the next 30 days, my current plan is to then refer it to the IPCC with the complaint that I have reported a crime and that my report has not been acknowledged and the complaint will be against the Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe. If anyone has any ideas of a more effective way of taking this forward, Please contact me at: ron@loneturtle.co.uk


I just hope I'm not biting off more than I can chew here.
**********


Friday, June 22 


OK well this response actually went as far as acknowledging that I have made an allegation of bribery. No doubt I shall get a further response in due course to inform me that the matter is being investigated under Itinerant Performers & Circuses Act 1743.

Well, they have at least acknowledged that I have made an allegation of bribery against Peter Cruddas. However, as the reply did not state that this matter is being investigated under the appropriate Act, I can only assume that it is not. This question was asked directly and ignored. So I shall try once more to get a straight answer to a straight question. I decided to write to Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley myself:

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley

Specialist Crime and Operations Directorate

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

Friday, June 22, 2012

Dear Mr. Rowley,

I understand that Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey has contacted you regarding my allegation that Peter Cruddas committed the offense (under the Bribery Act 2010) of soliciting bribes by stating that businesses could influence government policy making in return for sums of £200,000 and above.

Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe, Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Macleod and Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey all seem to share the same difficulty with answering a very straightforward question so please forgive me if I appear to be underestimating your intelligence. No offense is intended but I do want to make absolutely sure that this question is understood so that I may eventually receive an answer. So I am putting it as simply as I can. The questions I have are as follows:

1.     Is the incident in which Peter Cruddas was secretly filmed offering Sunday Times undercover reporters an opportunity to have their concerns “fed back” to the policies Committee in return for £200,000 being investigated specifically under the Bribery Act 2010?

Here is a clue: The answer is either “yes” or “no”

2.     If the answer to the above is “no”, could you please provide the reason for not investigating this incident under the Act (the Bribery Act 2010) that was specifically designed to deal with incidents of this nature?

I do hope that this letter is clear enough. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell

****************************

I think, if this letter either does not receive a reply or the reply evades this direct question, it is safe to conclude that the police are not prepared to fulfill a legal duty to arrest Cruddas.  

I can fully understand their reluctance. Investigating Cruddas under the Bribery Act could possibly reveal evidence that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are actively party to bribery. That would then require the unprecedented act of arresting, possibly charging and possibly prosecuting a serving Prime Minister and a serving Chancellor of the Exchequer. This would be the first event of its kind in British history. I fully accept that this would put the police in an unenviable position... but it would also be their duty.

Soldiers were sent to Iraq in order to secure oilfields for Shell, BP and Exxon. Soldiers are being sent to Afghanistan to safeguard an oil pipeline for the benefit of the above corporations. Any soldier who displays a reluctance to put his or her life on the line and is not prepared to die for this questionable cause is branded a coward and incarcerated in a military prison.

If soldiers are expected to be prepared to die in the course of their duty, then I expect the police to fucking well put up with whatever embarrassment that may be caused in the course of their duty!

War is obsolete

Every interaction with another has a desired outcome. There could be several desired outcomes depending on how many are engaged in the interaction or there could be one common one. The element that decides whether the interaction will be relaxed or heated is whether or not the desired outcomes conflict. Where desired outcomes (I’m gonna call ‘em DOs because I’m already sick of typing the phrase) conflict, the interaction can become heated and possibly violent, sometimes crossing the barrier between violent language and violent action.

Is there a way to avoid this? Of course… but our emotions often override reason. The only way to avoid this is for all parties to suspend their own individual DOs to find a common resolution that benefits all. Let’s take a common example: A newly divorced couple are negotiating what to do with the house they shared. He wants to sell the house and split the proceeds so they can both buy a smaller home each. She wants to stay in the house and carry on paying the mortgage while he, free of mortgage obligations, can buy or rent his own property. The first question we need to ask is are there any children and who has main custody?

Let’s assume there are two children and they live with their mother. She has this on her side of the argument because she has an identified need to remain in the house. It would be less disruptive for the children already traumatised by their parents’ split. She also needs a house big enough to accommodate them, which would be hard to find with her share of the proceeds. This implies that the Right outcome would be for her to keep the house.

But then let’s assume that, as she is able to continue paying the mortgage, she is not dependent on her ex partner for an income. Let’s assume she has a fairly good income from a home-based business but her partner has only a small income. The mortgage is based on her income as she is the main breadwinner. We could even assume that the mortgage was in her name.

This twist to the usual balance of position within the family puts him at a distinct disadvantage… one could even say an unfair disadvantage. He doesn’t earn enough to be able to buy or rent anything better than the cheapest and most bleak bedsit. Although she pays most if not all of the mortgage, what has been his contribution to the home? For example: is he on a small income because he has taken on only part-time work so he could take care of the house while she conducts her business? Now we seem to have a swing in his favour. It would now appear that the Right outcome would be to sell the house and each use the proceeds toward the best they could afford.

What is the best possible outcome? That she has a home that is big enough to accommodate her and the children and that he has a home that reflects not only his current income but also the contribution to the home that he must leave. Perhaps the trauma of moving house would be less of a problem for the children than having to live in a hovel would be for the father.

There could be other issues to consider that may swing the Right outcome the other way but all these things must be taken into consideration. As long as we can do this, there has been no need for violent language or emotional conflict. The interests of each party conflicts so the negotiation must be without conflict. 

What is a negotiation without conflict?

It is a negotiation in which each party, having declared their individual DOs, suspends their personal ideal outcomes and submits to what is commonly accepted as the Right outcome. The Right outcome just has to tick enough boxes in each person’s ideal to be a beneficial outcome for all.

A well-conducted conflict results in two winners.

So often in any conflict the declared DOs are brushed aside for a more demanding DO: to win. The desired outcome is now to be the one who can declare: “I was right and you were wrong!” and more often through clever twists of logic than because this is actually the case. Some people tend to be more competitive than others but we all have this streak of competitiveness in us. We are preoccupied with winning… or, at least, not being the loser. Why is this? It is reflected in our almost global interest in sports and declaring war on one another. Business, politics and even our entertainments are largely focused on triumph and failure.

We all have a war raging within us and, in some, this can reach a point at which the person becomes unbalanced. This is our natural precaution; our permanent Red Alert. There was a time early in our development when conflict between tribes and villages were inevitable. Each village needs enough territory around it to provide for the whole village. Anyone living too close encroaches on this territory and threatens survival. Today, this could be discussed rationally but then we didn’t have the language or the other communication skills we have today to achieve this so conflict was the inevitable result. This became so hardwired into our nature that, even today, when we have the means of global communication at our fingertips, the same conflicts exist. Israel and Palestine are a case in point. It has become less about land and territory and more about which side wins.

But we no longer need this wiring. It is obsolete. War is obsolete. The original objective of war between tribes was (a) territory and (b) the need to bring fresh genes into the tribe by abducting women and even children. Neither of these two issues need apply now. The old wiring needs to be stripped out because it is impacting on the New wiring. This is the responsibility of each of us. In every conflict, we must ask ourselves: What is my desired outcome? What are the conflicting desired outcomes and what would benefit each desired outcome? Most importantly, you must ask yourself (and answer honestly): Is my desired outcome simply to win?

To enter into any interaction with a desire simply to win is fruitless. The competitive party is committed to rejecting opposing views regardless of merit. Even if the argument is ‘won’, the Right outcome is lost by both parties.

We all have to enter into any kind of conflict with the willingness to give ground. If there is no willingness to give ground, there is no discussion. Total inflexibility always results in snapping. We must bend with the wind.

When the objective is simply to win, perceived points are gained by casting a negative light on the opposing party. The objective is to come out of it better than the opponent. A draw is not the desired outcome. But a rational argument must always seek to achieve a draw. When all parties submit to losing some ground in return for gaining some ground because the Right outcome is always for everyone involved to be better off to some degree than they were before negotiations began. This means that most if not all will not be quite so well off as they had initially hoped.

Conflict is not bad. It is vital in our development and it is a vital part of communication. Conflict enables us to consider far more options than would be possible if we were always all of a single mind. Conflicting interests and opinions, conflicting needs and conflicting ideologies are the necessary ingredients for growth. Without conflict, we would stagnate. But conflict does not have to be conducted violently. That is just part of our obsolete wiring. So, before you punch somebody’s lights out because they support a different political party or football team (and the pairing of these is deliberate), ask yourself what the likely outcome would be.

Big-Enders and Little-Enders

In Gulliver’s Travels, the Liliputians are split into two factions: The Big Enders and The Little Enders and have an ongoing conflict over which end of a boiled egg should be cracked open: the big end or the little end. This was a deliberately ridiculous conflict to illustrate the folly of war. The conflict was not really about which end of the egg should be opened but about which of the opposing ideologies was right. It was about being right. It was about being the winner. With such an objective, there can be no middle ground. The right outcome, of course, is that everyone should open whichever end of a boiled egg they wanted as this would not impact on anyone else. But this conflict demands victims. This conflict demands that opponents suffer.

Always, the outcome that would best suit all of our needs must be put aside if it conflicts with the interests of another. This is something that both or all parties must agree if negotiations are to be meaningful. We don’t have to abandon entirely our own objectives but we must always acknowledge where they conflict with other interests and the pros and cons must be measured objectively. We agree to lose a little ground in one area in return for gaining a little ground in another and we gradually tick-off objectives as they are met. The aim is to reach a point at which everyone has enough of their own objectives ticked-off to be able to agree on a conclusion.

Judgments, personal attacks and the imperative to win are all symptoms of the old wiring impacting on the new. Just as in a house that has dangerously faulty wiring, we must be rewired. We can only do this ourselves individually. Yes, we can remind others that they need to rewire too but we can’t do it for them. We are each responsible for our own wiring.

So communicating these ideas is important but, unless we actually take responsibility to adjust our own wiring, nothing will be achieved. The only path that will save humanity is the path away from violent conflict and toward creative conflict.

It is good to argue over which end of the egg to open. The narrow end gives a smaller opening that conserves the heat for those who like their boiled eggs hot. The wider end allows the egg to cool more rapidly for those who like them cooler. Discussion brings the various pros and cons into the equation and allows us to make more effective decisions. Where this becomes distorted is when a belief becomes a belief system. The belief that a cooler egg is more pleasant to eat could be changed by a pleasant experience eating a hot egg. But a belief system invests everything into the belief so that it must be protected. Opposing beliefs are vilified. Religion is the clearest example where it is considered sinful to hold a belief other than that established by the religion. But science has historically defended belief systems just as much as religion.

Opposing beliefs or views should be welcome. It is like having an infinite selection of gems with which to make a necklace. You won’t use all of them, of course, but the wider your selection, the better the necklace will be. The more points we have to consider, the better equipped we are of arriving at the right resolution.

Lions and gazelles

There are times when a conflict can only go one of two ways. The lion and the gazelle are a classic example. Here, there is neither a right nor a wrong outcome. Either the lion eats or the gazelle escapes. The gazelle has no desire to deprive the lion of its meal… it just doesn’t want to be its meal. The lion has no desire to cause the gazelle pain and suffering. It simply wants to eat. What is gained from conflict of this nature? If lions decided to be vegetarians, they would not get the nutrition that a lion needs and they would become extinct. If all gazelles were suicidal and wanted to die at the jaws of a hungry lion, they, too, would become extinct very quickly. The lion develops its strength and the gazelle develops its swiftness. Conflict forces improvement. This is conflict at its most primitive and savage. That is where we once were and it was then that this now obsolete wiring played its part. The wiring is still there and firing off at what are perceived as threats but in actual fact, are simply obstacles to winning as opposed to finding the best outcome. It simply isn’t playing a positive part anymore. It is presenting obstacles to growth and improvement… something that conflict is best suited to enhancing.

So it is not conflict that is the problem but the way we approach conflict. If we are committed to seeing opponents as the bad guy, we can never arrive at the best outcome. All we get is more conflict. Conflict should be seen as an opportunity to explore other options. We must learn to see conflict as something with which to make discoveries not as something we must win. There can only truly be one of two possible outcomes to any conflict: one in which all parties win or one in which all parties lose. Even if there is a perceived victor, it is a hollow victory because nothing has really been improved. Maybe the victor’s personal experience of life has improved at the loser’s expense but the world that the victor inhabits is still the same. The opportunity to improve life in general has been lost.

Think back. Imagine yourself living in a cave and having to constantly deal with the threats of starvation, lack of shelter, predators and warring neighbours. Can you imagine how awful that would be for us? But, for our ancestors, it was commonplace. It was the way things were. Happiness and joy are the moments found against this backdrop. Yet it is the very conflicts that presented such challenges that have brought us to a point at which we live in civilisations that provide the needs for the society. Most of us in the West are not faced daily with the threat of starvation or predation or conflict. The very pattern of nature is irreversibly set on a course of continual improvement. Things over time have to keep getting better. There is no finite point at which everything is as good as it can possibly get because the boundaries of possibilities are continually being expanded. There are no limits to possibilities but there are distinct boundaries to how we arrive at them. We are restricted by our level of understanding.

Our obsession with war and triumph is the most destructive and dangerous symptom of this restriction to our level of understanding. When you find yourself at an impasse, you probably think it’s because the other person won’t give way. It is not. It is because you won’t give way. An impasse is when neither party is prepared to give ground and both must accept full responsibility for the failure to reach a resolution.

Think of the interaction that takes place when bartering. The vendor wants the highest price you are prepared to pay and you want the lowest price the barter is prepared to accept. The vendor starts at the highest price he or she has the nerve to ask and you start at the lowest price you have the nerve to offer and the suggested figures come up and down respectively in increments until you arrive at a price you are both prepared to accept. You both arrive at the desired outcome. The vendor gets the highest price he or she could get and you get it at the lowest price you could get…. Not as low as you’d have liked and not as high as the vendor would have liked but acceptable to both. Neither resorts to violence. You have both achieved the best possible outcome. You have arrived at a price that is both the lowest that the vendor was prepared to accept and the highest you were prepared to pay. You both get the best you can get and this is the best possible outcome… but it takes non-violent, intelligent conflict to achieve that.

We are trained in violence from an early age. Most TV drama is about the good guy versus the bad guy. It is not enough to simply right the wrongs of the bad guy… we need to see him suffer. Our schools teach us to compete and, in so doing, teach enmity. Humans are in so many ways extraordinary creatures and it is perhaps understandable that we see ourselves as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. But we are animals and many of our most instinctive responses are very primitive. Among our most primitive instinctive responses are sex and violence. However, our progressive sophistication has ritualised these acts so deeply that the root is buried beneath protocol. However, not only has the sex act become ritualised (and long may it remain so) but so has our instinct for violence. We now live in a world in which a person can be beaten even to death for supporting a particular football team. Sports are a ritualisation of our fixation with violence… and so is war. There is no need for war and war has never achieved anything that cannot be achieved with negotiation. But we have an inbuilt concept of ‘us against them’. We see it in sport, we see it in politics and we see it in our foreign policies. The Sun is currently working hard to demonise Argentinians, describing them as ‘Argies’ and implying that simply being born in Argentina is enough to be identified as ‘enemy’.

We need to grow beyond this crap!

A rational society will not be achieved by politicians, it will not be achieved by government policy, it will not be achieved by Local Authority ‘initiatives’ and it will not be achieved by laws. The only power that can create a rational society is the power of the people within the society. That means you and me and everyone else. It is our responsibility… no one else’s

How? Simply by following Ghandi’s advice: Be the change you want to see in the world.

In every interaction, we must always strive for the best possible outcome… which is not the same as the best outcome for us, but the best outcome for all.

The objective of an argument is not to win but to arrive at the right conclusion.