While convalescing from minor surgery I had a day-long Netflix session (without the chill) watching the first series of ‘Narcos’. Based on true events, it chronicles – with a fair amount of dramatic licence – the story of Columbian drug lord Pablo Escobar, and the continuous attempts of the Drug Enforcement Agency to bring him to justice.

It’s very good; gritty and violent, but well narrated and not without humour or irony.

What struck me though, was the 15 rated certificate. The series contained a fair amount of bloody violence, drug abuse, torture, and scenes of a sexual nature. The BBFC guidelines read as follows:

Drug taking may be shown but the work as a whole
must not promote or encourage drug misuse
(for example, through instructional detail). The
misuse of easily accessible and highly dangerous
substances (for example, aerosols or solvents) is unlikely to be acceptable.
Sexual activity may be portrayed, but usually without
strong detail. There may be strong verbal references
to sexual behaviour, but the strongest references are
unlikely to be acceptable unless justified by context.
Works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or
stimulation are unlikely to be acceptable.
There may be strong threat and horror. A sustained
focus on sadistic or sexual threat is unlikely to
be acceptable.
Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the
infliction of pain or injury. The strongest gory images
are unlikely to be acceptable. Strong sadistic violence
is also unlikely to be acceptable.

I’m not suggesting that our precious 15-year-olds shouldn’t be exposed to these scenes – they are in general very familiar with the big bad world at that age, and are big enough and ugly enough to deal with it  – but the ‘Narcos’ series clearly contains sex, drug use and violence portrayed in a manner contravening the above.

My real question is, what’s the point of the 18 certificate?

If the only difference between the 15 and 18 certificates is to protect our youth from viewing risible ‘porn torture’ such as ‘The Human Centipede’, or cartoon video war games, I would suggest that maybe the BBFC’s priorities are wrong, and their certification process outdated and completely out of touch with 2017 society,






A few years ago I was asked who in the business world I most admired. My reply, to the slight surprise of my questioner, was Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary.

My reasoning was that he had a built a very successful brand with only one real benefit, that of perceived low cost. Yes, your £25 flight to Venice will cost you over £75 once you’ve added the extras. Yes, you won’t actually land anywhere near Venice, incurring additional costs to get you to your final destination. And yes, your walk to the Ryanair gate at Stansted takes 15 minutes and passes through 3 postcodes.

But still, we came. Most Ryanair flights I’ve experienced have been full, and that’s not counting the poor guys who have been ‘bumped’ due to overbooking. O’Leary has proved that you can treat customers like shit and still retain and attract customers, and that’s one hell of an achievement.

I seriously believe that after the current crisis, and despite all of the inconvenience and total disregard for their current customers and target market, that Ryanair will remain a successful airline.

However. Does anyone really believe the reason given for the substantial number of flight cancellations? Pilot shortage due to poor annual leave planning? Surely what’s really behind the disruption is the rationale behind all of Ryanair’s actions. Profit. Maybe their loss-leading routes are becoming too costly. Maybe the forecast for the next financial period was looking a bit low.

Or – and I’m not really qualified to comment on this but I will anyway – maybe there’s a more serious underlying issue.  The prospect of dangerously reduced profits? Cashflow problems? Time will tell.

Ask me again who in the business world I most admire and the answer will not be Michael O’Leary. Not with Sir Philip Green around……………………






‘NIMBY’ is an overused acronym.

I know that because I use it far too often myself; a knee-jerk reaction when I hear of protests against new housing developments or transport links.

We have a severe housing crisis in the UK and one of the only solutions is to develop land close to current amenities and infrastructure. Constructing new towns such as Northstowe helps, but it’s not enough.

I appreciate that some people are genuinely worried about jamming the local infrastructure and the pressure on local schools and healthcare facilities. No doubt some have a genuine fear around environmental issues.

But others see massive personal threats. House values falling pound by pound with every brick laid. An extra 2-minute wait in the queue at Spar. The risk of Johnny Foreigner infiltrating the bowls club. Here’s the response I received on Twitter to my accusation of NIMBYism on the topic of building a new busway linking Cambourne with Cambridge:

I am against because it will wreck what I and my family invested in. There are better options.

“Better options” somewhere else, I imagine.

Yes, developers may well be evil money-grabbing bastards, but we must make them bring facilities along with their cash-cow dwellings. That’s the role local councils should be taking, not automatically rejecting any plans put before them, safe in the knowledge that the village gentry will get behind them.

300,000 new houses are needed every year in the UK.

Everywhere is someone’s ‘backyard’.



Merriam-Webster (lovely lady, by the way), has produced a fascinating feature which determines when a word was first used in print. Surfing through the years, it’s somewhat surprising how long ago some commonly used marketing terms were first used.

‘Direct marketing’ was first used in 1961, and it follows that ‘database’ appears a year later. ‘Big data’ dates back to 1996.

‘Case study’ dates back to 1914 – usually referring to medical histories – the year of the start of WW1. If only there had been a cautionary case study showing what would happen if you asked thousands of young men to go ‘over the top’.

‘Email’ was, of course, first written in the early 1980s, and ‘e-commerce’ in 1993. 1999 gave us ‘blog’ (and ‘clickbait!), ‘vlog’ followed just three years later.

‘White paper’ was first used in 1884, but it’s not clear when marketing hijacked it and removed the necessity of governmental origin.

The first known use of ‘social media’ was in 2004, the year of Facebook’s launch, despite platforms such as Six Degrees and MySpace existing earlier.

And the word ‘marketing’ itself? 1561.  Which makes sense as it was the 1600s when posters were first used for promotion, and the first newspaper published leading to paid advertising becoming available.

Incidentally, the word ‘guru’ was first coined in 1613 – a year that most self-proclaimed marketing gurus seem to be stuck in.



As Storm Aileen hits the UK, it’s interesting to learn that the reason the Met Office started naming weather disturbances was to increase public engagement through social media. Apparently, we are more likely to relate to a christened danger than one without a moniker.

If that’s so, and social media stats seem to indicate that it is, surely they should go one step further and give the storm a name that reflects its status and nature.

I give you:

Storm Boris: Blustery, probably harmless but may cause accidental damage

Storm Nigel: Should have died out quickly, but is lingering annoyingly

Storm Freddie: Thunderbolt and lightning, very very frightening

Storm Brexit: Welcomed by the majority who just ‘wanted a little rain for the garden’, only realising later that it creates widespread havoc and destruction




I phone

The new iPhone X is launched next week, hailed by Apple as a large ‘leap forward’. This £999 contraption has an edge-to-edge screen, a face recognition system and no home button.

I believe that the now old fashioned method of accessing your phone – by using your finger print on a touchpad – is secure enough. I don’t think that my face is any more unique than my fingerprint. Apple disagree, saying that the odds of touch ID being unlocked by a stranger are 50,000-1, rising to 1,000,000-1 for facial ID. Whooppee.

It’s that sort of reasoning that makes me even more certain that iPhones are purchased as an accessory rather than a functioning gadget. They are probably one of the only companies in the world that don’t conduct user research. They can’t do, evidenced by the removal of the headphone jack on the iPhone 7.

Practicality is my main concern when purchasing a phone. Yes, I like to have the latest version, but it needs to be functional in a way that benefits me. Interestingly I’ve met two people recently who definitely will not be queuing to purchase Apple’s new baby.

The first told me that she never bought anything at launch. She let other people find out the faults, and would only buy a new gadget after it had been on the market a decent time. The other simply will not purchase a phone without a removable battery.  The more I think about this, and my almost psychotic obsession with ensuring my current mobile’s charge remains over 90%, I reckon I will follow his stance for my next purchase.

Which will definitely not be an iPhone X.

(Oh, and it’s referred to as the ‘iPhone 10’. But written as the ‘iPhone X’. Ha, clever eh.)


There’s a cyclist in Cambridge who travels around the city with a webcam on his helmet, verbally challenging motorists, bus drivers and pedestrians whenever they offend his 2-wheel sensibilities.

Whenever wronged, he catches up with the offender (easily done in Cambridge’s grid locked traffic) and confronts them with their offences, which range from walking on a cycle path to not giving him enough space when overtaking.

His party trick is to point to his helmet-cam and shout – “I’m recording you, you’ll be on YouTube tonight! Want to see yourself on YouTube tonight?!”

He usually has a point. Watching the video coverage (yes, he does actually post it on YouTube), it’s clear that in most cases that he is not receiving enough consideration as a cyclist, particularly by bus drivers and white van man.

However, there’s a strong sense that he’s actually waiting to have his cycling rights abused. He seems to crave the confrontation to avenge his righteous indignation. I imagine him circumnavigating the Cambridge ring road day after day, acting as bait for careless road users, offering himself as a sacrifice in the name of cyclists’ rights.

As for the YouTube threat, I haven’t once seen evidence of a cornered offender cowering with fright.  “Not YouTube, please not YouTube, I’ll do anything, mend your punctures, clean you saddle with my tongue, hand-wash your lycra…….”.