Why racism issues go beyond the football pitch

The last few months have been littered with controversy over alleged racism in football.

The England captain John Terry and Liverpool striker Luis Suarez were both accused of making racist comments which have provoked outrage, with Suarez enduring a long ban for his comments.

Fifa President Sepp Blatter may not have chosen his words wisely when suggesting that bad things happen in the heat of a football match and that a handshake alone should be enough to settle such disputes.

I remember when I was a boy, at a private school, where kids were continually throwing racist insults at me and teachers ignored them. When the point was raised, they tended to say "It's no different to you calling them 'whitey'" even though I never would.

I was in my gym changing rooms last week and the issue came up again. Grown West Indian men were commenting on the looks they got from potential employers when they turned up for jobs.

The insinuation was that with English names, they had a chance of an interview but once the employers saw the colour of their skin, they made their excuses and the candidate was on his way without being able to prove his worth.

I'm relieved that I have never noticed that sort of conduct from clients or employers in the past but I suspect it does happen to those with more noticeably darker skin than mine.

It's a sad fact that racism and prejudice does still exist in our society and to suggest otherwise is folly.

Prejudice can easily turn to hate and provoke clashes between communities, murders and wars. And yet football, along with other sports, has the opportunity to do something about it.

What Sepp Blatter needs to do - and indeed the whole of football needs to do - is to take a hard stance against racism.

England fans have seen how their players have been subjected to such abuse in Spain and Poland, ironically one of the countries where the UEFA Euro takes place next summer.

UEFA could do a great deal more to threaten clubs and national associations with points deductions and competition exclusions if racist chanting and abuse is allowed to continue.

I hope those who were pictured racially abusing players at Anfield during the heat of the FA Cup game between the two sides are banned from football for life - and that whoever sent QPR a bullet is dealt with even more severely.

Nelson Mandela, speaking at the launch of the Laureus World Sports Awards more than a decade ago, said that sport has the power to change the world.

Football is watched by billions of people and the way top professionals conduct themselves certainly influences young people and thus the communities in which they live.

Footballers must recognise that they must take an active stand against racism, homophobia and any other prejudice that blights our world.

How the Harley Medical Group should have handled implant crisis

The worst thing for any brand regardless of size is for the media to report protesters at your offices or your products being criticised on health grounds.

In recent weeks there has been justifiable alarm following revelations that the now-closed French company Poly Implant Prostheses (PIP) filled its implants with industrial rather than medical silicone, which was initially designed for matresses.

The NHS claim that these is no evidence that they were riskier than others but said the NHS would replace any it had implanted.

While many have jumped on the health risks as a punishment of the vanities, 40,000 implants have been fitted in the UK, many for women who have had to have mastectomies for medical reasons, who now feel their health is again at risk because of these questionable fillings.

But whatever the reasons, the fact that this past weekend protesters began a march at the headquarters of the Harley Medical Group, which installed nearly 14,000 PIP implants, is ajust about the worst publicity a health brand can endure.

While it was good to see Chairman Mel Braham fronting up to speak to the media, when some would misguidedly stay silent, his messaging needs a lot of work.

In terms of communication, a brand must not be seen to have put profits ahead of people.

Perrier did it a few years ago after contamination of a tiny fraction of its bottles and that's why you see San Pellegrino instead of Perrier in most restaurants and bars these days.

Braham does not accept or recognise that as a provider, his company have a part to play in this health crisis and that simply passing the buck to the NHS is doing increasing damage to his brand. 

It may well be the case that the NHS has a case to answer and despite a seven figure turnover, he may well be telling the truth when he says that the Harley Medical Group would go bust if it was to change the implants for all its patients pro bono.

While he may indeed feel it is the 'moral responsibility' of the NHS, the interveiws he has done for television give the impression that protecting his company and attacking the NHS are his priorities.

He even makes the point that he knew about the problem in March 2010, way before it became a big issue.

If he had suggested that Harley Medical Group would do all it can to help its patients and urge the NHS to meet to discuss a viable solution, he would not have compromised his brand nor be seen to be thinking of profits ahead of patients.

As it is, the breast implant crisis will forever now be linked to his company and potential patients will undoubtedly think twice before considering being treated at his once-prestigious clinic.

Can Blackberry restore their reputation after a series of disasters?

If, like me, you rely on your Blackberry phone for business communications, the last couple of days will have been troublesome to say the least.

Blackberry users across the world have experienced a failure of services that have prevented users from receiving emails or instant messages.

But the faceless manner in which RIM, the company who makes Blackberry, has communicated with its users underlines why the company is continuing to struggle where once it was ascendent.

Statements have been issued littered with words such as "failover" which means nothing to the man on the street, while no individual has been made available to the media to provide any reassurance to Blackberry users. 

There has been no real apology for the disruption caused, no continuing updates to reassure users that the problem is being dealt with.

Looking at the UK Blackberry website, there was not mention of the technical problems on their front page, a shocking lack of communication from a company that exists to communicate.

It all gives the impression of arrogance.

When Middle Eastern governments challenged RIM over the security of its BBM messaging service recently, it took a hit, but one it seemed to cope with despite the continuing anxiety over potential national security issues.

Politicians and media even blamed Blackberry for assisting the London rioters who trashed much of the city, thanks to the security in its BBM service.

There's an interview from one of the directors of RIM from a few months ago, where he says "It's an iconic product, used by millions of people around the world from businessmen to teenagers. We've been singled out because we're so successful around the world."

Sadly, that misses the point and suggests nothing but disdain for anyone who dares criticise the Blackberry brand, an absolute disaster from a communications point of view.

When it's working, you can make calls on a Blackberry, receive real-time emails and manage your business almost as easily as if you were in the office.

But RIM has suffered a further blow this year from which it will be difficult to recover.

The Playbook, seen as a direct, business-like competitor to the iPad, has struggled for sales and not impressed users, particularly with its lack of email services for which the Blackberry is so celebrated.

Colleagues of mine have been disappointed with it and while I have hoped that any teething troubles would be ironed out, the delays have simply continued to knock confidence in the product by even the sternest of supporters like me.

Last week Steve Jobs died and left behind a legacy at Apple which will see him revered as a poineer in the world of technology.

He may not have been perfect and his products are not without their challenges, but he fought passionately to make Apple products the iconic must-haves for consumers.

I've always been passionate about the virtues of the Blackberry and don't have time for the gimmicks on the iPhone, nor the problems it has making phone calls, which to me is part of the raison d'être of a phone.

But while Apple appears to strive to push the boundaries of technology and the user experience, RIM gives the impression that it has sat on its laurels and been caught out by the advances that threaten to see its products slip behind Apple and Android services.

How can RIM restore its reputation?

If I was advising them, I would suggest that they identify one individual to be the face of the brand, someone who people can warm to, identify with and have confidence in.

That person, not a spokesman per se but a senior figure in the mould of Jobs at Apple, would front up not only to launch new products (such as the Bold Touch which is entering the market) but also the challenges as and when they arrive.

Only by sympathising with its users and communicating with them openly rather than through anonymous, jargon-laden statements will RIM have a chance of battling back.

There have been many 'iconic products' throughout history.

Some stand the test of time while others get left behind.

RIM has some Bold choices to make if it is to regain the confidence and loyalty of even its greatest supporters. Such as me.

Will we lament the passing of the News of the World?

There's a commonly-held belief that Rupert Murdoch plays politics with his newspapers.

Certainly his reach from London to New York to Sydney gives him an incredible influence over the conduct of politicians and voters across the world.

It is said, for instance, that whoever he decides to back in a British general election tends to win it and there is no doubt that courting Murdoch's favour can be beneficial to political fortune.

But the influence of the media is nothing new.

Two hundred years ago, Napoleon said: "I fear four newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets."

I was at an international conference recently and the common thread coming from delegates who discussed the news and media with me, having learnt that I worked in PR, was that the international community fears the British media more than any other.

Why is that the case? Is it purely down to Murdoch?

I don't think so.

The News of the World was, in my opinion, an incredible breaker of stories which set the international agenda, and that cannot all be down to alleged phone hacking.

The 'Fake Sheikh' was able to infiltrate some of the highest echeolons of society and create embarrassment within the establishment, although many argued that his 'victims' were set up rather than genuinely misbehaving.

But there were a range of other stories that shook the world and made it the biggest selling paper on the planet by the middle of the 20th Century including the Profumo affair and a range of other vice scandals that shamed those in positions of influence or power, to the alleged corruption featuring Pakistani cricketers last summer.

Of course it could be argued that the News of the World relied of chequebook journalism. It could invest more time, more resources and more focus on the investigations that rocked the world than most other papers put together.

But there were a great number of hugely talented journalists who worked on the paper, who are now out of a job and hoping that their names and reputations will not be tarnished by the actions of a few.

No one yet knows what exactly went on regarding the phone hacking that destroyed the News of the World. Who authorised it, who instigated it and who was harmed by it will come out in the fullness of time.

Was the brand toxic as News International's Rebekah Brooks, who has found herself in the eye of the storm, suggested when she annouced that the paper was to close after 168 years?

Perhaps, but as The Sun showed with its misguided criticism of Liverpool fans during the Hillsborough disaster, papers can survive.

Will the public or rival media be satisfied until senior News International executives are relieved of their duties? I doubt it. But the challenge for them will be whether they have the appetite, the energy and the drive to do unto News International what News International has done to others for decades.

Have we seen the last of the News of the World? I sincerely hope not. The brand may have been harmed but it could survive and be revived and rumours of conglomerates looking to do so have already been mooted.

But one thing's for sure.

British journalists will always be fearless, tenacious and determined to expose the wrongs that blight society.

The News of the World may not have been everything that was great about British journalism, but great journalists were drawn to working for the newspaper.

Amongst all the controversy and the vitriol, we have to remember that a tenacious and scrutinising media is the cornerstone of democracy.

Without it, where would we be?

What PR consultants should have advised amid the superinjuction drama

The greatest damage to a reputation is not the crisis itself, but how you deal with it.

That’s one of the first lessons I teach my clients when we undertake messaging seminars, communications strategy and media training.

If something goes wrong, you can bet that someone will find out about it and you have to be prepared to answer the difficult questions.

Fronting up, accepting your mistake and trying to rectify it is the best way to limit damage.

'No comment' or hiding behind lawyers rarely works out in the end.

When a company has a problem with their services or products, or when a famous person is accused of having an extra-marital affair, of course they would prefer it not to come into the public domain.

In the latter case, there is an argument that it should be a private matter between the individuals involved.

However, if one of those parties decides to divulge the details for whatever reason, and the matter does not compromise health or national security, there is just as much of an argument for the media to report it.

If the footballer at the centre of the superinjunction recently had let the kiss-and-tell story come out, it would have made news for a day or two and a vast number of the population wouldn’t even have noticed it.

The fact is, though, that superinjunctions are seen as a way for the rich and famous to hide the truth when it suits them in a way not available to the average man on the street.

Of course, in the case of this particular footballer, the image of being a gentleman and a family man has been tarnished and that may or may not have an impact on his commercial standing during the rest of his career, however long left he has.

But beyond the superinjucntion, by taking the advice of his legal counsel to sue Twitter, even if it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts in the UK, the story went from a salacious piece of gossip to a global story.

Why else would the likes of global publication Forbes run the story on their front page when the player’s identity was made public yesterday?

The issue of freedom of speech, the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary has rarely been called into question so vigorously in recent years.

No wonder Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to look at the law, even if the judges have probably applied it accurately by deeming the story to have no genuine public interest.

A democracy relies on equality and the more ways the rich can exert more control and power than Joe Average, the more contempt there will be for laws that seem out of touch with public will.

As I said earlier, where health or security is concerned, there are very clearly cases for maintaining secrecy but in other cases, where reputation is the main driver for secrecy, there can be no defence.

Think about it.

Would you have more respect for someone who does something wrong and then denies it or someone who admits their error and vows to make amends?

Honesty is the best policy and the companies who have been perceived not to have been straight with the public in the past when crisis looms are the ones who have generally found their reputations sullied beyond complete repair.