Bank holiday moan

All bank holidays are nuisance to a freelance. People you want to get hold of aren't available.

The Easter break is a particular irritation to anyone working on weekly magazines. Two of the mags I write for have a cycle of Tuesday to Monday. That is, there are five working days to get the magazine together for press day, which is Monday. Then the cycle begins again the next day.

Easter takes out a Friday and a Monday. So to give staffers a holiday, which managements like to do because it is cheaper, everyone has to work harder. It is hard to cram a five day cycle into three days. So the usual trick is to have two short weeks. So next week, press day is Friday, a four-day week. Then the cycle can begin on Monday 10 April with another four-day production cycle, going to press on Maundy Thursday.

At one level this shouldn't matter much to me. The production editors want the copy early. No problem. It's all well scheduled in advance. All I have to do is switch days. I write on a Monday what I normally do on Tuesday. There is no more work. it just happens on different days.

But the break to the routine is surprisingly disruptive. I feel out of sync all day. The writing is somehow harder. And I dislike my inability to respond easily to a small change. Expect grumpiness for the next couple of weeks.

Les

Personal stuff about clothes

I can't make a phone call unless I'm wearing shoes.

Some so-called freelance journalists don't get dressed in the morning. They regard slobbing around in their nightwear as a sign of their freedom. I used to think that people who called themselves journalists who were still in their jim-jams mid-afternoon were physically ill, clinically depressed or just idle timewasters.

Actually, I still do think that, of most of them.

Though I was intrigued that the wonderful Barbara Ehrenreich, superb reporter and author of Nickel And Dimed, says in her recent book Bait And Switch - "Mainly, as a writer, I have no need to dress for work in anything other than gym clothes, or no clothes at all for that matter."

People are different. But I know that I couldn't possibly write, email or phone anyone dressed in gym clothes. And I have a weird thing about shoes.

My morning pattern is this. At the moment, it being spring, I get up at 6.45 and have a short yoga session. Salute to the sun. I make cup of tea and get to the computer to start work around 7.30. That means changing from yoga gear to standard clothes for someone of my age and education - Levi 501s and a shirt with a collar. On my feet are a pair of Birkenstock sandals, handy slip-ons for bedroom & bathroom.

Around 9am I have a relaxed breakfast with my partner. One of the simple pleasures of freelancing. Then I'm back to the desk, possibly to start hitting the phones as people get settled in their offices.

This is the odd thing. I have to put proper outdoor shoes on. They don't have to be formal. A funky pair of Camper, Firetrap or Fly. Or even a supportive pair of Merrells. (Like all blokes, I only ever buy anything on brandname). Doesn't matter. The point is, I can't call someone up on if I'm not shod & properly laced up. Strange.

Les

By the way, I'm thinking of getting sponsorship for this site. Shoe manufacturers will be considered.

Interrupting interviewees

I wrote last week about my tendency to stop interviewees mid flow. Spare a thought for the Australian television reporter who interrupted Tony Blair at the weekend. She spoke over him, just as he said that his declaration that he wasn't looking for a fourth term "may have been a mistake".

Could it have been her moment of international journalistic glory? Perhaps. Instead, other broadcasters paraphrased it. Or, presumably just as galling for her, replayed the crucial section of the interviewer, inviting listeners to pay attention to the "just about audible" admission.

Back in Britain, the media didn't even mention the reporter's name. Nor does a bit of desultory googling bring it up. Perhaps she prefers it that way

Les

A reporter compromises

Richard Littlejohn (Daily Mail) and Charles Moore (Spectator) have been trying to take shots at Lindsey Hilsum (C4 News). She wore a headscarf while reporting from Iran.

Her reposte in the New Statesman is excellent:

Wearing a headscarf is a wonderful thing because it alerts the audience to the compromises a reporter has to make; it's a symbol of the constraints under which we operate and the complex reality in which we work. Unless we are columnists living in London or the Home Counties, in which case our world-view is not tempered by reality at all.

This isn't just knockabout, putting down Littlejohn & Moore. That would be fun, but poor sport for someone like Hilsum. It's an important piece on the realities of reporting in the modern world.

Les

Contribs & casuals

Apparently there are two types of freelance journalist, says a student journalist. There are casuals and contributors.

She's blogging on the new NUJ students site. But so far no one has answered her request for someone to explain the difference.

So here's my response.

A contributor is most people's idea of what a freelance journalist does. A news reporter, feature writer or columnist, they work from their own premises - office or spare room. They generally file their copy electronically to whichever editor commissions it. They have no contract of employment. They are free to come and go, work for whoever they fancy, and just get paid for what they manage to sell. Hence the term freelance.

But journalists do many other jobs. They can be news editors, subeditors, production editors... people who process other people's copy, making the pages fit, and getting it all delivered to the printer. These are not roles that easily take place outside the publisher's premises. Normally, therefore, they are staff jobs.

However, employers have a tendency to want to cut costs, keep flexibility and employ as few people as necessary. So there is a regular demand for "freelance" staff to come in, on a shift basis, to cover for absences or to get through a crisis. These are the casuals. They work on the employers' premises. They may typically be booked for a week at a time, or longer. Or just called in for single shifts. It is a haphazard and uncertain way of earning a living. I've never done it, but it sounds appalling. The worst of all worlds - you sell your time, not your produce - and can be summoned or dropped without notice as management fancy. But it suits some people, who like the variety and the challenges.

A purist might argue that casuals are not freelances at all. They are just temporary workers with very short term contracts. And that is how some are being regarded now. Many do not invoice their client with a fee that they set. They are put on the company's payroll and have tax and national insurance deducted. They even, thanks to employment law, receive holiday pay and some entitlement to maternity and paternity leave. That's the stuff that full blown freelances sort out for themselves.

But the name freelance seems to have stuck. Labels matter to people. It is probably sounds better to think of yourself as a freelance, rather than as a casual temp.

For an insight into the working life of a casual freelance sub - see this blog of someone who has been doing it, more or less happily, for years.

Les

Show don't boast

The launch of Guardian technology's free data campaign drew a "huge response". So said the standfirst to the editor's piece on the section's front page last week. The campaign "brought an avalanche of responses," Charles Arthur and his co-writer Michael Cross claimed.

How many responses, exactly, is an avalanche? A letter in today's issue invited the paper to publish the number of responses actually received.

There were 41 responses out of 72 emails received that week - Technology ed.

It can seem cruel to hit someone when they are down. But Arthur is the author of his own humiliation. Serious journalists should report, not exaggerate. They should provide evidence for their claims. They should be precise and accurate. To do otherwise is an insult to readers and a disservice to the cause.

"Fair warning: I did statistics," said Arthur to me in one of his challenges on this blog. Maybe. Now do some honest reporting.

Les

Learning to listen

Recording interviews is a good idea for a journalist. Listening to the recordings is a bad one.

Two reasons. One, it is time-consuming. And it shouldn't be necessary. Your shorthand notes, reviewed & clarified quickly afterwards, should get what you need for the piece.

Secondly, you discover what a lousy interviewer you are. I often end up cursing my clodhopping stupidity. Why on earth didn't I let her finish then? What a crass time to change subjects. Most scary is when I hear something significant on the recording that I failed to register at all first time round.

In truth, it is not just my uselessness. Interviewing is a hard and multi-element job - keeping the questions coming, getting good notes, responding to new information, keeping the interviewee happy.

So I'm going back to college to improve. Just signed up for a course called "Lousy Listeners: How to Avoid Being One" at the News University run by the Poynter Institute. It's an extraordinary offer - lots of free modules offering on-line training for journalists. Loads of other topics - news sense, cleaning copy, typography and design. They reckon they have 10,000 registered users, so someone must rate it.

Les

Ten days that shocked this hack

There is an extraordinary piece of detail in the Brockes-Chomsky-Johnstone-Aaronovitch row that most commentators have missed.

First a summary. In italics, so you can skip it.

In October last year a Guardian writer, Emma Brockes, wrote a profile of Noam Chomsky. It wasn't a sympathetic piece. There were some mistakes in it. Some readers complained. So did Chomsky. The readers editor looked at the complaints, didn't like the journalism, issued corrections, asked for the article to be removed from the website and apologised.

The journalists yesterday resurrected the business, publishing their previously private letter on their blogs, doing a lot of arguing, provoking the Media Lens barmy army into retaliatory email strikes, and generally reigniting the whole row.

What's the extraordinary detail?

It is that the readers editor, Ian Mayes, picked up Chomsky's complaint when he got to his office on 7 November. Until the correction was published on 17 November he devoted his time almost exclusively to investigating Chomsky's complaint. That's ten days. Solid. On one correction.

I'm a journalist and I write for a living. I've never spent a solid week-and-a-half writing researching and writing anything. If I spend a single day working exclusively on one piece I feel I'm over-focusing. Respect.

Les

Monkey quotes hackles

At last, a response to the plagiarism of Sarah "Scoop" Womack...

Sadly, not from her paper, the Daily Telegraph. But it's some consolation to see the Guardian's Media Monkey pitching in to help spread the news of the double standards operating at the Telegraph.

Take note of the effort Monkey makes to find a few original phrases. See, too, the essential ingredient that distinguishes plagiarism from scholarship - a full and accurate name check and credit to Les Hack and this hackles site. A gentlemonkey and a scholar.

Les

New editor, better security

Someone, I blame the magazine's new editor, has locked me out of the Spectator website.

Many of the articles are behind a paywall. You get in with a subscription to the mag.

Last year I subscribed. Dirt cheap offer. Cancel any time. I let it run for a few weeks, but then tired of the offensive bile. I had a brief exchange with the editor, Boris Johnson, about some distorted reporting by Rod Liddle that irritated me. Then I cancelled.

But by then I was registered on the website. And for months and months had access to the online version. The fun-loving shambles that Boris ran wasn't geared up for such mundanities.

Now I've been rumbled - the locks have been changed, and I'm denied access without stumping fifty quid. Which I won't be. It's a moderate shame, because I did sometimes pick up odd leads from there. But not fifty quids' worth of shame.

Talking of Boris. He fell off his bicycle. Sprained the jolly old wrist. How do I know this? I read it in a national newspaper.

NS media columnist Peter Wilby reckons that the Daily Telegraph's acting editor, John Bryant, is "an amiable technician who produces a competent paper, but one that lacks distinction". If Boris tumbling off his bike is worth mentioning, the paper doesn't just lack distinction. It lacks news.

Les

Making ends meet

Most freelance journalists who make a decent living combine journalism with something else. Corporate work (selling your skills to companies for breathtakingly large daily fees) and teaching are popular among established hacks. Younger ones do bar work, call centres or anything they can get.

One young journalist has sworn off his sideline earner. Tom de Castella used to volunteer as a lab rat, doing clinical trials at the Parexel unit in the grounds of Northwick Park Hospital. Not any more.

I imagine he'll miss the money. Two grand a fortnight will take some replacing at the 250 pounds per thousand words that's typical for most jobbing freelances.

Les

Telegraph condemns copy cats. Ha ha.

Plagiarism was big in the Daily Telegraph yesterday.

It's "rife at Oxford" said John Clare, education editor. A current student said everybody's at it. And an opinion column had harsh words. Many students "don't even bother to read the work that they cut and paste from the net," it said.

And there was a cartoon from the consistently fresh & cheering Matt. (No, I'm not reproducing it here. Register on the site and look at it for yourself.)

Which makes the silence so far emanating from Sarah Womack, the paper's social affairs correspondent, rather puzzling. Or completely understandable, depending on how pious or generous you are feeling. A story appeared under her byline this week, apparently lifted entirely from an LGA press release.

I've emailed Sarah Womack twice this week for a comment. Today will be the third. Then I'll have to ask elsewhere in the paper for an explanation.

Les

A remedy for journalistic irritation

Stuff like this used to happen. Till I cured it.

I phone someone.

Sorry, not here.
When are you expecting them?
Should be around in twenty minutes.
Okay, I'll ring back then. Thanks.

I get doing something else. A couple of hours later - curses. Slipped my mind. When I do call, they've gone to another meeting & I'm looking for another slot. Rats.

I tried things to remind me. Post-it notes round the monitor. Electronic post-it notes that cluttered up the screen itself, then screwed themselves up and chucked themselves in the bin as required. Mildly entertaining but too clunky.

Then I solved it. I started using the alarm timer on my mobile phone. Quick, easy and never lets me down. Plus, if I happen to be on another call when it rings, that caller hears it, figures I am being called on another line, and doesn't mind if I choose to ring off.

A curious reader ponders: Why not leave a message asking them to ring you back?

Answer: Because, you curious person, I am a freelance journalist. People who sit around waiting for the phone to ring are moon-struck daters or job applicants or something equally horridly passive. I am a hack of action. In control and fearsomely efficient. Brrring, brrring.

Les

Persistence pays off

Excellently prompt response from technology Guardian freelance Michael Cross about his outside other earnings. [correction made at MC's request, see below]

He points out that, as a regular freelance, the Guardian requires him to declare possible conflicts of interest, including corporate work. But doesn't seem to publish them anywhere.

He contrasts this policy with the BMJ's, which requires him to publish competing interests dating back five years. And suggests it might be one for the readers' editor to look at.

Hard to argue with that. Meanwhile, the gist of his response:

For the record, my competing interests are:

1: I am retained by Civica Ltd to write items for a corporate blog, under my own name.

2: Over the past year, public speaking engagements paid for by Capgemini, Telephonetics, Northgate and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

3: Author of a New Local Government Network report, sponsored by O2.

Michael Cross

The crown jewels article argued for the free availability of tax-payer funded data. It held up the US as an example to be admired and copied.

If US journalistic standards were being admired and copied, Mike Cross would have a choice to make. Either he could take money from those corporate clients. Or write on topics relevant to them for a respected major newspaper. He couldn't do both.

Les

Persistence is good

No reply yet from Charles Arthur on whether he or Michael Cross have received money from companies likely to benefit from the Crown Jewels campaign they co-launched in the technology Guardian last week.

I've reminded them both this morning, with the following email:

Dear Charles and Michael,

I wonder if you have had a chance to think about the question I asked on my blog last week - have either of you received payments or earnings in recent years from companies likely to benefit from the success of the Crown Jewels campaign?

If you are unsure, perhaps it would be best if you just sent a list of your recent sources of corporate income.

If you do not think this is appropriate, I would be grateful if you could say why. Perhaps you could also direct me to someone else in the Guardian who might be able to supply the information I seek.

Best regards
Les Hack
freelance journalist

I'll keep you posted on responses.

Les

Rip-off shame

Newcomers to the industry might be mildly appalled at how prevalent ripping off press releases and sticking a staffer's byline on them is. Here's an example from today's Telegraph:

Town halls have opened a new front in the war on the mini-motorbike craze that they say is sweeping the country. Figures show that there has been a 20-fold increase in the number of mini-motorbikes since 2001, with 144,000 now in circulation.

That was by-lined "Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent". This on the other hand came straight from the Local Government Association press office:

Town halls have opened a new front in the war on the mini-motorbike menace that is sweeping the country.

New figures show that there has been a twenty-fold increase in the number of mini-motorbikes since 2001, with 144,000 now in circulation.

See the similarities? The subsequent paras go on in the same way.

Tireless Telegraph reporter Sarah "Scoop" Womack:

Although it is illegal to ride the bikes on public land, the law is frequently flouted. There have been four deaths attributed to the use of mini-bikes, which can reach speeds of nearly 40 mph.

The bikes are very noisy and often break acceptable levels.

Although it is illegal to ride these bikes on public land, the law is frequently flouted. There have already been four deaths attributed to the use of mini-bikes, which can reach speeds of nearly 40 mph. The bikes are also very noisy and in many cases break acceptable noise levels.

It's tedious to continue. But the entirety of Womack's 530 word article is lifted, for the most part verbatim, from the press release.

It gives me no pleasure to report this. Final score: PRs 530, hacks nil.

Les

A journos' lock-in

Not that kind of lock-in. Journalists are being invited to turn up at the Department for Culture, Media & Sport for a prepublication glimpse of the BBC Charter Review White Paper that's due out tomorrow.

It is officially released at 3.30pm. Hacks who care can turn up anytime from 2pm and get reading. The strict rules are that once you've entered, you can't leave till 3.30pm. All mobile phones and blackberries (they're a trendy lot at the DCMS) will be confiscated at the door.

Sounds dreadful. Or perhaps it's a good chance for an unusually quiet siesta, out of phone reach.

Les

Self-tapping screws

Pity Sir Ian Blair isn't a prison officer. Then that headline might make sense.

Anyway, the next few days - or even, given the seriousness, the next few hours - will show whether it is regarded as okay for the country's top police officer to make covert recordings of phone conversations with the attorney general. "Unconstitutional, unethical and quite possibly illegal", said an almost speechless Shami Chakrabarti on the Today prog this morning. (A state which, she quickly admitted, is not great for radio.) Ian Blair could be on his way out.

As that develops, freelance hacks' thoughts turn to the old question - can we record telephone conversations with interviewees, without letting them know we are doing it?

The short answer is - yes, it's okay. Though a lot of people don't know that.

Many journalists assert confidently that you must always get the interviewee's permission first. Wrong. They are generally quoting from an earlier law, no longer operative. Or thinking about the US, where in some states secret taping is a felony.

The key bit of law now is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). It says that it could be an offence to attach a recorder to the line to intercept a phone conversation. But only if you make some of the contents available to a third party. If it is for your own use, as a back-up to your notes, you don't have to inform the other person.

In any case, the offence is not criminal but a civil one. The aggrieved party would have to take a civil action against you.

And it is worth noting that the RIPA law covers only recordings made by a physical attachment to the telecommunication system. If you use a speakerphone and a ordinary mike, or an in-ear mike to make the recording, there is no offence.

Two further points:

* This is about recording calls that you are involved in. Recording calls between two other parties is definitely dodgy. That's spying or surveillance or something, not everyday journalism.

* Interception of a phone line for a recording is not prohibited if you have reasonable grounds for assuming the other party is outside the UK

Les

Whose fingers, which pies?

Time to institute an irregular series. Hasn't got a name yet, but its purpose is to promote transparency in British journalism.

If you know of an editor or senior journalist who uses their pages to promote their outside interests, which they neglect to tell readers about, email me. I'll use this blog to shine a light.

Proper journalistic standards apply. I don't do gossip or hearsay. I need evidence. Sources may remain anonymous. Their identity will be protected.

Awards will be made as we go. The newly instituted "Charles Arthur Award" will go to the hack who falls back most readily on the twin defence of "honest guv, I don't get paid much and the deadline was tight."

Now back to this story.

As Michael Kenward suggests, it would be helpful if Arthur could provide a declaration of where co-writer Mike Cross's vested interests lie. I believe Cross does corporate work. For whom? Are his clients always in industries entirely unconnected with what he wrote here, and in his regular column? Has he been recently paid by any company that might stand to benefit from the "crown jewels" campaign?

Les

Guardian technology editor, journalist of integrity

Charles Arthur edits one of the Guardian's weekly advertising supplements. He cleared the front page today for a long piece, pleading "Give us back our crown jewels". He presumably co-wrote it as he gives himself a joint by-line.

The piece argues that data collected by the government should be freely available. The writers say that would benefit ordinary businesses. They give two "real-world" examples. Here's one:

Many of Britain's best rock-climbing venues are on sea cliffs, and hence affected by the tides. For climbers planning a trip - and surely spending money in local shops - it helps to know if the tides will be favourable. But websites that try to offer British tide data have been told by the UK Hydrographic Office they must pay for it - a cost most are unwilling to endure. So sites have no tides, climbers make the safer choice, and shops miss out.

Imagine, if you can, local shopkeepers' gratitude to Arthur for his disinterested campaigning when their businesses are revitalised. Think how they will bless his name when the deep-pocketed & traditionally munificent climbing community unburdens its hard-earned dosh at their tills.

Disinterested? Sorry, scrub that.

Charles Arthur also happens to be editor of a website, UK Climbing. And that site would stand to benefit - from increased traffic and better advertising rates - if it could offer tide data free of charge.

Does Arthur mention this interest of his in his article? He does not. He uses all kinds of arguments in the 1,800 word article. But somehow forgets to tell readers that the particular illustration he shamelessly advocates has the potential to bring him direct benefits.

Les

Hoary catchphrases - Emma replies

Like a well-brought-up PR, Emma responds to my email:

Dear Les

The headline sums up the press release which is about our gifted and
talented programme for young people.

Best wishes

Also like a well-brought-up - and highly trained - PR, she fails to answer the questions. I make the point that you can't head a press release with "Young, gifted and..." and not build a certain expectation in readers' minds. And that having built our hopes, it isn't kind to dash them.

I've resigned myself to not expecting further enlightenment. But it was nice of her to reply anyway. I hope we'll be in touch again.

Les

Hoary catchphrases

The boss of journalism.co.uk, John Thompson, yesterday flagged up this blog on a freelance discussion list. His chosen subject line? "New kid on the blog".

That's not surprising. As Kim Fletcher pointed out in Monday's media Guardian, subs have a considerable propensity to offer the "most hoary catchphrases as if they were fresh-minted".

I googled "new kid on the blog" with quote marks. Just over 71,000 hits. Funnily enough, one of them was from two years ago heading a story by Jemima Kiss, also of journalism.co.uk, when they launched Guy Clapperton's blog. This is still going, quiet and strong.

Anyway, I got a press release yesterday with a variation of, yawn, "young, gifted and black", that was so terminally naff that it deserved to be put in a collection. So I have. I emailed the perpetrator, Emma at corporate communications from East Sussex council, as follows:

Hi Emma

I just saw your press release headed "Young, gifted and talented". I'm making a collection of media headlines based on hoary catchphrases and yours certainly deserves a place.

Can you just tell me a bit more about it. Was it consciously based on "young, gifted and black"? If so, why? And why did you change the last word to "talented". Isn't it a bit repetitious, following on from "gifted"? Did you consider having a shorter last word, one that perhaps sounded a bit like black?

Perhaps you can also let me know whether the headline was an individual inspiration or a team effort. If it was just stuck down at the last minute, that would be good to know too.

All thoughts and additional information gratefully received.

Kind regards
Les
freelance journalist

Will keep you posted on her reply.

Les

Through a Lens, comically

The good, clueless people from Media Lens reached new comic levels yesterday.

They are good, incidentally, because they doggedly question media distortion & half-truths, and pay refreshingly close attention to a lot of detail. They are clueless because they have no idea how journalism works, and don't see how they alienate people who might be on their side.

But yesterday's email alert was just funny.

It centres round a book, Guardians of Power: the myth of the liberal media, written by the motive force behind Media Lens, David Edwards and David Cromwell. (Published by Pluto Books, London, 2006, price £14.99 paperback).

It was reviewed in a couple of weeklies - NS and Speccy - but nowhere else. So Dave & Dave decided to have a go at the literary editor of the Independent for not reviewing it. Very amusing. Edwards and Cromwell get precisely nowhere. And Boyd Tonkin, the besieged editor, presumably has some quiet chuckles at the Pooterish pair.

But then, as Peter Wilby pointed out in his NS review, the Davids "don't do humour".

Les

Matthew has Libby under his skin

Journalism isn't all malice and mischief-making. It has its life-enhancing, even romantic, side too. Such as the heartwarming display of animal magnetism between Matthew Norman and Libby Purves.

"You are entitled to hate Midweek's tone, but you're not entitled to sneer at every poor bastard who comes on, nor the decent professionals who book them. So don't be so fucking pathetic, Matthew..."

Glimpse these two battling with the sexual chemistry that neither has power to resist. Norman's Indy media diary.

Les

Halt, cheque! Who goes there?

I just read a leaflet on copyright that arrived last week with the NUJ London Freelance branch newsletter.

Mostly helpful stuff. But what does it have to say about publishers who issue cheques with daft instructions to sign away all rights on the back? It calls the practice "nonsense". And says:

"The NUJ's Freelance Industrial Council advises you always to challenge such cheques."

Come again? Challenge a cheque? I think most freelances bank them. Fast. Does challenging them mean returning them with a note saying, please do this again properly. Hah! Fat chance. Can we have some more practical suggestions please?

Generally good, informed advice though, as is much else at the London freelance site. Credit to its editor Mike Holderness.

Les

Terror and a real threat to freedom of thought and expression

Yesterday I had to think about a challenge from journalist Charles Arthur. He wanted me to find a study showing that random stop and search can make an effective contribution to the security response to terror. While googling I came across references to the legal challenge to random searches by the New York Civil Liberties Union.

One anti-ACLU blog asserted that "city lawyers" have noted that "an al-Qaida training manual" advises terrorists to avoid police checkpoints. That would perhaps give the city some justification in its searches.

That might have been some evidence in an argument with Charles. Could well be true. But I didn't much like its phrasing or its provenance. Far too anecdotal to be used in a proper argument.

But I was intrigued by it.

What was that training manual? Was it perhaps the Encyclopaedia of Jihad that Observer chief reporter Jason Burke mentions in his superb and definitive paperback Al-Qaeda? It seems possible. Burke describes it as an "eleven-volume compilation of the tactics and techniques of modern irregular warfare and terrorism".

But it is not the kind of book you can just go and consult. It is illegal to possess it.

Abu Hamza al-Masri, the one-time preacher at Finsbury Park mosque was charged and convicted under various charges. One charge was brought under section 58 of the Terrorism Act - of being in possession of the Encyclopaedia of Afghani Jihad, which contained information "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Guilty as charged.

Jason Burke also has a copy of the Encyclopaedia. This is no secret. He mentions it in his book. It is referenced, "author's collection". That is a crime.

Two significant consequences flow from this.

One is that I cannot check that claim made by the ACLU opponents. I am unable to think about the appropriateness of the random search technique and whether it is or isn't justified by something in a terror manual. My freedom to know has been curtailed. So has everyone else's. Our public discourse is impoverished. We are at the mercy of rumour and unable to judge whatever information we are passed.

The second is that informed and skilled journalists - like Burke - are running a risk of at least an unpleasant encounter with security forces.

Perhaps you think this is silly talk. You can understand that it might be a crime for a crackpot preacher to have a book. But not a journalist. The Terrorism Act wouldn't be used against a respected journalist who was just doing his job of writing about terror. Would it?

Nah. That would be absurd and an abuse. It would be like detaining, humiliating and intimidating an actor because he had appeared in a film about innocent people held illegally at Guantanamo Boy. As Clive Stafford Smith, legal director of the charity Reprieve, says, "we cannot afford to be silent".

Les

Remittance advice with menaces

Here's the words on the back of a cheque that arrived this morning:

1. In consideration of the payment to me by Haymarket Publishing Services Limited of the sum made out overleaf, I the undersigned hereby assign all the copyrights and any rights of a similar nature which may now or hereafter subsist throughout the world in work created by me and identified on the remittance advice attached to this cheque for the full term (including any renewals or extensions) of copyright.

Then, after another "it is hereby certified" clause, there is a space where I am supposed to sign and date it before paying it into the bank.

To avoid uncertainty, there is a note in bold italic caps on the front of the remittance advice:

Note: the attached cheque must be endorsed on the back before presentation to your bank

The Haymarket group is a major player in what insiders call the trade press. It publishes more than 100 consumer, professional, business and customer publications. Its co-founder and chairman is former defence secretary Lord Hesletine. Very professional outfit.

Which makes it odd that they continue with this silly rights grab on the back of the cheque.

It has no legal force. Either you have agreed to assign all rights, in which case it is irrelevant & pointless. Or you haven't assigned them, in which case sticking a condition like that on the cheque is unfair & therefore meaningless.

I've had hundreds of them over the years. Sometimes I sign them. Sometimes I don't bother. Mostly I regard it as comical. But occasionally it angers me - a reminder of how companies use their power to bully freelances.

Les

Journos who should know better

They can be an arrogant lot, journalists. And blissfully unaware of it.

Here's an account by Andrew Brown, a BBC and broadsheet freelance, about being randomly stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

He pretends to think it is jolly amusing and wisecracks unpleasantly about balancing stop and search statistics. It is clear from his tone that he really thinks he is above being stopped at random. The officers, wisely as it turns out, don't ask him where he has come from. This irks him:

"I would have liked to have watched their faces when I said that I had come from the BBC studios in Millbank, where I was making a radio programme on the Government’s plans to deal with Islamic extremism, and that the next person I will interview is Assistant Chief Constable Robert Beckley, a member of the ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters team. But perhaps they will stop me again on Thursday, when I go in to see him."

This "don't these plods know who I am?" manner is nasty & elitist enough. While Brown makes a half-hearted show at accepting the search, he is clearly riled by it. Something an officer does, "proves he shouldn’t have been searching me in the first place", says the pompous ass.

Brown's chums - such as this clown Charles Arthur from the Guardian - duly laugh on cue at the preposterousness of putting one of their own sort through the kind of search that is a daily routine for millions of people around the world.

But as they scoff at the police, they only expose their massive ignorance. Random stop and search can make an effective contribution to an overall security response. It is not about expecting to find someone in the process of an act of terror. If Brown and Arthur stopped thinking about themselves for a minute and tried to recall what does happen when a suicide bomber is stopped by security, they'd realise that.

A little more humility is called for. And a little more support and appreciation for the police service in doing their job of keeping Londoners safe wouldn’t go amiss either.

Les

PR appreciation

You need some figures for a piece you are writing. But you can't find them. You are not even sure they exist. So after a bit of digging around, you call the press office of what you reckon is the relevant government department.

Chances are, you get an answer like this:

"Sorry, we don't keep statistics on that."

Any idea who might? Or who could help shed light on recent trends?

"Not really. Sorry."

And that's an end of it.

Last week it was different. A Whitehall press officer got kinda interested. She knew straight off that no statistics were collected, but offered to email round all the 40-odd regions and ask for impressions. Purely anecdotal, she stressed, but could be useful.

Since then, two or three emails have been arriving daily, with cogent, informed impressions from people in a position to know. Marvellous stuff. Saved me hours of phone work. Genuinely illuminating. And just because I chanced upon a helpful press officer.

Thank you. You won't catch me belly-aching about government press officers again. (Not till next time, anyway.)

Les

Essential cause, good night out

Index on Censorship's annual fundraising and awards do is coming up - 22 March at Bloomberg LP, City Gate House in Finsbury Square, London.

It's a vital organisation, now as much as ever. The evening will honour people from around the world and their battles to uphold freedom of expression. Tony Benn will supply the keynote speech & running jokes. Various great and good in attendance.

Tickets are 100 quid, with discount for a party of ten. Champagne reception and supper. Details on Index's site.

Les