My name's Paul Webley. I'm standing on this step that you've insisted on, Helena, so it's very odd. I'll step down. My name's Helena. My name's Paul Webley. I'm the director of SICE. It's a very real privilege to welcome you all tonight to this, which is our third president's lecture. It's a very special occasion because this is Helena's last president's lecture before she steps down as SICE president this summer. Tonight she's going to be speaking on ethics in a changing world. It's good to see such a mixed audience, staff, students, alumni, members of the SICE governing body, international advisory board members, people from out of the school. I'd also like to welcome these people watching this streaming in our JCR, so welcome to you too. That's a particular pleasure for me to introduce Helena Kennedy. She's been president of SICE since 2001. She's now in the last year of a second five-year term as office. Now, every year at graduation I introduce her with about three or four sentences. But this evening, I know you want to listen to her and not me, but I have just a little more time to introduce her. So I can just give a slightly fuller introduction and say a bit more about why we're so proud that she's our president. Now, Baroness Kennedy is a very active barrister. She's been involved in a large number of prominent cases, including things like the Brighton bombing, the Michael Betteney espionage trial, Guildfield 4 appeal, the bombing of the Israeli Embassy. But for me, it's not her work as a barrister, outstanding as that is, but the combination of her exceptional skills as an advocate with her desire to bring about change and her quite exceptional energy, she manages to do more in a day than most of us do in a week that makes her so special. A few years ago, there was a profile of her in the Guardian, and she was asked to describe a normal day. I'll ask you afterwards to place the year, Helena. This is what she said. First, I was at the Old Bailey making a closing speech to the jury in a murder trial. I spoke for an hour and a half, which is like doing several rounds with Muhammad Ali, but that's the bit I really enjoy. It's real advocacy. I then went to the House of Lords where I gave evidence before a select committee about the Human Genetics Commission, which I chair. Then I ran to Port Cullis House where I was taking part in a meeting for the British Council about how we can persuade the G8 to take Africa seriously. That took in things like how marginalisation and poverty can breed terrorism, so it was almost a perfect working day for me. All my current passions came together, and whilst it was tiring, it was also exhilarating. I've seen this also in so has been an occasion a couple of years ago when I was getting really worried that Helena was not turning up for graduation ceremony because she was giving a closing speech. She delivered that she'd given a very long closing speech in a trial turned up with ten minutes to spare, went on to the graduation, delivered her speech perfectly, engaged with everyone, that kind of energy I wish I had it. These passions, this desire to make a difference to change the world is something she shares with our students. They've taken her into many different fields of activity. So just a few examples from 1992 to 97, she was chair of Charter 88, the Constitutional Reform Group, which persuaded the new labour government to make devolution and human rights legislation key parts of the manifesto. 94, 2002, she was chair of the London International Festival of Theatre. For many years, she'd chaired the British Council actually through its most dynamic phase, I would say. She's also been extremely active in promoting greater participation in education. She was a commissioner on the Hamlin National Commissioner on Education from 91 to 93. She wrote the report Learning Works for the Further Education Funding Council, and a foundation to help disadvantaged students to get into higher education has been established in her name. That's the Helena Kennedy Foundation. On top of all of that, she's of course a very active member of the House of Lords, where she often contributes on issues concerned with human rights, civil liberties, social justice and culture. Every year, she gives up significant amounts of her time to sow us. What she says each year, when she's presiding over degree ceremonies, moves me on each occasion. Her honesty, her humanity, her concern for the world, and her desire for our students to make the most of the world shine through. And if all of that wasn't enough, she's also found time to write two books, both of which have had a major impact. Eve was framed, Women and British Justice, and Just Law, in the changing face of justice and why it matters to us. Eve was framed as an examination of how the British legal system ignores, downgrades, underrates and discriminates against women. It was described by one reviewer as brave, forceful and eloquent. And I've said to Helena before, brave, forceful and eloquent, those are the words that sum up our president. We're very fortunate to have you. Over to you Helena. I'm on this little step because last year, apparently, some people said that they couldn't see me behind this lectern, so they've found something to raise me up. It's wonderful to be here, and I want to thank Paul for saying those very nice things about me. I can only say that my time here at SOWAS has been truly wonderful. I love SOWAS, and I can think of no greater privilege than to have been the president here for 10 years. It's wonderful, and I really will cherish it as one of the great periods of my life. The students are truly exceptional, and the staff are just the best. So it's going to be a sad moment for me when I say for a while, but I will still think of myself as part of this family. Tonight I'm talking about ethics in a changing world. It's always dangerous to start talking about ethics, I think. It's a kind of high-risk subject. You'll remember poor Robin Cook when he took office as Foreign Secretary, said that he was going to introduce an ethical foreign policy. He was roundly attacked, accused of self-righteousness, and indeed insulting the honour of the Foreign Service going back so many years. So I'm going to make it very clear from the outset that I make no claim to righteousness, that I, like everyone, I am ethically compromised, we all are. None of us can lay claim to purity. Each and every one of us is at the mercy of our own human frailty. So let's get that right from the start. As soon as anybody speaks about global warming, I've noticed that their own flights to faraway places are immediately itemised by eager journalists. As soon as mention is made of the poor, your own self-indulgence is examined, your sins of property owning, the value of your house, your eating in fancy restaurants, the schooling of your children, the medical treatment that you've had for your varicose veins, all of it will be exposed to show that you've got no right to say a word about bankers' bonuses or the cuts to public services. Nobody, apparently, is allowed to criticise unless we too share impoverishment. Well, I'm going to break that embargo. When the news of the world hacking scandal first came to light, Metropolitan Police said it was just the work of one bad apple journalist and his wicked associate, a private detective. The two were quickly put on trial and given short, sharp, shock prison sentences. It turns out that this was not true. It wasn't just one bad apple stuff. The abuse of practice of hacking into cell phone messages of politicians and celebrities was widespread. A number of questions immediately arise. Why now that those chats who were given not very long sentences and are now out and about, why is it that they haven't blown the gaff and told their stories to the highest bidder about all that went on? Is it because they've been paid off? Is it that their silence has been secured? You would have thought that perhaps a journalist who had been the one amongst many journalists, as it now seems, who was using private detectives for this purpose, might have wanted to make that clear. The silence is interesting. Why did the police team of investigators, led by Andy Heyman, an assistant commissioner, decide it was a one bad apple case and not endemic inside News International? It's clear now that there was evidence available to them at the time that senior people inside the news of the world were indeed involved. And then isn't it interesting that Andy Heyman on making an early exit from the Met, having been found to have made extensive personal use of his expense account against the rules, went straight into a job with News International with a column in the Times. Of course he's joining a growing tradition of senior Met people taking jobs with the Murdoch Press. Lord Stevens, the former commissioner, also enjoys that benefit. Close relationships have oiled the wheels of many a good story. We have to accept that that's what happens. But I want to remind you that Rebecca Wade, now Rebecca Brooks, one-time editor of The Sun, admitted to a select committee of the House of Commons under cross-examination that a fund had existed to pay police for information. It was no surprise to me. All through my life in the law, I have known that the police get pay-offs for tip-offs and more for deeper intelligence. All through my life at the bar, I have encountered noble corruption, as the police would call it, where the police would gild the lily, they would say, adding perhaps things that were not quite right to the evidence to get a conviction on those that they believed were guilty. And in some ways, once that's allowed, it eats in to systems. So all I would say to you is that every time you see a celebrity like Mike Hutnall or Pete Townsend being escorted into a police station, just remember that someone's bank account has been enriched. When the hacking scandal grew, a former Member of Parliament who sat on the Department of Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee that looked into the hacking issue, separate from the police investigation, but they too looked into the hacking issue, and that Member of Parliament lost his seat at the last election and was more open to speak about that committee's working. And he said that in fact, when they were hearing evidence about the hacking scandal, those who were on the committee had discussed summoning senior murder press executives before them, but then decided not to do so. Why? Because they feared that their own private lives would come under intense scrutiny. It would be open season from the paparazzi. And so all I would say on that is that we're in a sorry place when the power of the Murdoch media is such that our own Parliament is unable to do its job properly. Why am I mentioning these issues? Because there has been over the last few weeks quite a bit of debate in some of the press about the ethics of journalism. Why is it that newspapers are feeling this pressure to get the story that their competitor won't have? Why are they prepared to bend the rules in this corrupt way? And the answer is the imperatives of business now cancel out many ethical standards. So you might ask me why has the issue of ethics become my preoccupation? And of course a number of things over the recent years have perhaps caused one to pause from time to time. The dodgy dossier. No one ever seemed really embarrassed or ashamed about having put together a dossier and to present it as if it were an official body of evidence. The MP's expenses. The bankers' bonuses. I don't pretend to you that there was a golden age when everyone behaved well, far from it. But the only way to maintain ethical standards is by constant scrutiny. Why have I chosen to give this lecture on the subject today? And I say it quite clearly because the world is changing. It's becoming much more complex and as a result unethical conduct today can have much more lethal consequences. And the cost to the fabric of our world is huge but the cost closer to home with smaller kinds of unethical behaviour is destroying the things of value in our society. The recent spate of I think heartwarming uprisings in the Middle East have shown a stark light on some of the most egregious hypocrisy of the West. That our Prime Minister should have made a grand tour of the region only a week ago to preach democracy with a posse of arms manufacturers in tow while tyrants are turning the sophisticated weaponry we sold them last year on their own people. It's a source of revulsion. I watched as Egypt's people took to Tario Square and I noticed that Hillary Clinton and Obama both people whom I have admired were slow to declare a view on events there. Perhaps they were worried about burning their boats with the regime in case it managed to survive. Of course Egypt's Mubarak had been a lauded ally in fact even while he was hanging on by the skin of his teeth he was described by Blair in positive terms and a revolt by his own people about his behaviour and cruelty and about their poverty was underway. Politicians nods sagely and say we have to do business even with tyrants and I think the terminology says it all. Egypt had provided the United States with an outsourced torture service. I know that because of the cases that I've done over the last few years. It was one of the rendition sites with Suleiman who's now the preferred US choice as a Mubarak replacement acting as a pointsman for the interrogations and the torture that was outsourced. No doubt the Americans were all too aware as they sat watching events on Fox Television all too aware that the £2 billion that is paid annually by them to Egypt by way of aid for defence purposes comes back to them on the international trade roundabout in huge orders from Lockheed Martin for £3.8 billion worth of arms and tanks over the previous five years up until now. Or to Boeing $1.7 billion worth of military helicopters and planes. It's a sort of corporate welfare. The US Republicans squeal about paying welfare checks to the poor in America but they happily line the pockets of the corporates. The lobbyists for these companies were probably on the phone to the White House when the solution was underway worried about their contracts. And of course those companies had probably contributed to election funds. And let us just for a moment consider the disgraceful role Britain has played with Gaddafi. Now sneeringly spoken of as mad by our senior politicians on all sides but not so mad that we did not clutch him to the prime ministerial bosom of the world trade and other financial benefits we saw in the offing despite the fact that we believed his regime was responsible for the exploding of the Pan Am flight 103 and the mass murder of 290 passengers. And indeed the slaying in cold blood of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. As Gareth Pierce, a solicitor for whom I do much work and who's a great human rights champion as she has put it not a mouse squeaked in Libya without Gaddafi knowing yet we were prepared to forget all of that if the price was right. It was claimed that engaging with Gaddafi was to bring in from the cold a dictator who was a threat to global security because he too had weapons of mass destruction another Saddam Hussein but he got luckier than Saddam Hussein. And what's interesting is that those weapons of mass destruction have failed also to materialise. Gaddafi had funded terrorism for years not just the IRA but also the popular front for the liberation of Palestine general command. Now that, let me make it clear is not any part of the PLO. It in fact was a maverick group which was prepared to hire itself out to regimes that were known to be state sponsors of terrorism. It's believed by many that the PFLP, that group was in fact responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. It's also felt by many that the deal to send El Magrahi home was also shaped by the fact that his appeal which was due at any time would not only have shown that he was framed as a convenient cover for mercure business but his appeal would have exposed the fact that other regimes regimes with whom we in the west did not want to inflame greater his hostility were probably involved. This is real politic they say. This is the way the world shakes out. Only the naive think it can be other. Really? The events currently taking place are showing that real politic backfires. People yearn for freedom and the new communications technology has expanded the power of the people. Social networking sites don't create revolutions but they create opportunities for connection. Paul Mason of Newsnight describes it brilliantly in a blog that he's produced if you want to have a look at it. It's really interesting where he describes the way in which the young of this part of the world connect to each other, share ideas and know as much about how the world is ticking on and the way in which they get so small a part of the cake that their rulers have taken from them. People in the old days in the times of previous revolutions communicated their ideas sometimes by travelling physically hanging on the underside of trains carrying subversive tracks tied inside their shirts. Well, the WikiLeaks phenomenon has also changed all that. Elits will not be able to keep things secret anymore. The leaks showed just what their rulers were doing and how they were thought of by Western governments. People have seen that whistleblowing gives power to the governed against their governors. There has been too much silence for too long and the thing that we're most silent about is money. We're fast creating a world where we know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Einstein said that while that which has real value cannot be measured usually that which can be measured has little value. But it's because money has become the supreme value that we're seeing so much corruption so much ethical failure within our societies. Unethical conduct doesn't just, of course, happen in the field of foreign affairs. Consider the lies about the economic crisis. It was caused by a runaway city by turbocharged capitalism which politicians felt powerless to control or in many ways supported. Indeed politicians bought into the greed and the hyperbole. The end of the Cold War brought the arrogant claim that we'd reached a history. Not only had communism been vanquished but liberal democracy and capitalism had triumphed throughout Europe and was bound to triumph throughout the world. 20 years on that swaggering arrogance seems pathetic because of the many horrors that followed. Western democracies had long years of illusory economic growth. An asset and credit bubble was created during which a negligent failure to regulate led to the inevitable bust. The market ruled. Doctrinair, laissez-faire capitalism, had turned Russia into a criminal sewer. Brutal and despairing. But we encouraged it. And of course, the West, so vocal about fundamentalism everywhere else was more committed than anyone to a fundamentalism of its own. Market fundamentalism. And it was market fundamentalism that was also captured the World Bank and the IMF. The trickle-down theory of economics was a complete fiction. And so, people at the bottom who were supposed to reap some benefit from what was happening at the top never did. We saw the privatising of water in the deserts of Africa. Privatisations in places that were still struggling for a mere existence. The extraction and exporting of oil and gas to the rich north. The beneficiaries being international corporations and kleptocratic rulers that we nurtured in the places that were being plundered. Was that ethical? And now China too has joined the global market and she too is spreading her economic power beyond the East, whole swathes of Africa in financial hawk, parts of Pakistan and South America. Exploitation is an ethical issue. And then closer to home we have been experiencing the fallout of a financial crisis that was undoubtedly caused by untamed capitalism. And in fact is likely to be repeated again if nothing is done about it. Public disaffection is extensive and the political class seem unaware of how deep that anger runs. There was anger against the bankers and arrogance and greed but there was also anger at the people who should have checked their conduct. The people on the boards of banks who are supposed to represent the interests of shareholders they had no notion as to how the huge profits were being generated but were happy to reap personal rewards without asking questions. The blue chip accountancy firms who were supposed to audit and ask difficult questions also filled the test. No shame there either. And the lawyers. We can't be soft on lawyers either who were turned to for legal advice and they were no better than any of the others. Signing off transactions is legally ethical and they barely fathomed what they were about. And indeed our politicians for the most part were happy to see what they saw as growth having not a clue as to what its source was. But most of those professionals took the fees and ran. And then of course there were the appointed light touch regulators who were often so close to those that they regulated that there was no independent scrutiny really taking place. There was no way the very big banks could be allowed to fail because of the effects on our society as a whole and in this knowledge they had taken huge risks for which government in the end had to pick up the tab. Government that means us. They privatised the profits but socialised the risks. And the people who are paying now, the general public had no part in creating the problem. The public are realising that it was they who are having to underwrite the consequent debt with higher taxes, cuts to public services, job losses and a whole shift in our quality of life. And then there's the understandable anger that that central institution in our country, Parliament had failed to curtail the excesses of the financial sector with effect of regulation. And that's why new labour was ousted because of their failure. They too drank the Kool-Aid buying into the neoliberal world view that you only survived if you embraced the market tightly. Central left parties in Europe have been eclipsed since the Cold War because they're unable to present a coherent response to globalisation. And the parties of the right, the natural inheritors of the Cold War legacy are also now fumbling in a fog of old politics. Our political elites are failing us. The coalition government came into being out of that political crisis. But it has been incapable of curbing the extraordinary bonuses of bankers. And it's been interesting to me to discover how little tax is paid on any of those bonuses. Because of course the masters of the universe who run the banks and the huge corporations float above the nation state. So they don't pay tax like the rest of us. Money is kept in offshore tax havens. Money like bonuses can be taken wherever you choose to take that bonus and you choose the place with the lowest tax regime. I'm told that many are taking their bonuses in the United States because bonuses are capital gains there and capital gains there have very, very low tax thresholds. Others will take them in other places. I'm told that Murdoch pays all of his business accounts and taxation in Israel at 3% because it's the lowest that he's managed anywhere in the world. Money in tax havens and yet governments are paralysed by the threat that these business people will take themselves off to more conducive countries if any steps are taken to rein them in. The boast of government has been no more boom or bust. It began to look as though they too had no idea of the unethical sources of the wealth generation that had taken place over the last 20 years. And unethical it was. Can it be right to press prime mortgages upon people who couldn't afford them? Encouraging less well off in our societies into serious debt and the risk of home foreclosures in default. Is it right for high-risk casino banking to be underwritten by retail high street banking? Your money and mine. How can off-balance sheet accounting ever be deemed ethical? On top of this, the political class has been exposed as abusing public trust themselves by making claims for allowances which could not in good heart be deemed necessary for the fulfilment of the roles as MPs. And those scandals around expense claims have still somehow not been responded to with I think the right level of shame, embarrassment. And what was much more egregious than the cost of cleaning moats or the purchase of porn was the acquisition of property whereby not only were the mortgage repayments met by the taxpayers but also the cost of upgrading kitchens and bathrooms and gardens enhancing the value of the property which they would then sell on and they would pocket the profit. As a result of exposure, of course, as you know, a whole number of MPs had lost their places at the election, they lost their seats and another small cohort had been put on trial and are facing imprisonment. But it really did fade away and still people feel unconstrained. In case it's thought that I'm drawing a veil over abuses in my own neck of the woods of the House of Lords similar practices operated there where people would claim that their country cottage was their main residence or where they claimed that their parents' home in the country or in some other city was the place where they really lived so that they could double up their allowances. And like MPs, this was dangled before new Lords who went into the House as being something that everybody did and that was to make it all right. Of course, as I said at the beginning, none of us is wholly virtuous but the fact that none of us is beyond reproach does not mean that we have to surrender to the inevitability of moral wrongdoing or deny the needs for ethical standards. Like many of you, I was left wondering why it was that essentially decent people, some of them people who were my friends and are my friends and who entered politics for good purposes somehow got caught up in behaving in this way. Very few of them were acting criminally but somehow or other they didn't feel what they were doing was terribly wrong. It was the culture of parliament created to somehow boost up salaries that they thought ought to have been higher. And it's not new because it went on in Tory years as well. You'll remember Neil Hamilton's saga of receiving cash in brown paper bags and free nights staying at the Ritz Hotel and the need to introduce Lord Nolan to create rules of what was acceptable in public life. Now we have an unwritten constitution in Britain. Ethics were supposed to be understood in a similar way without having to be written down in a codified form. We were supposed to have breathed in what was right. Some inner voice was supposed to tell us when our actions crossed an invisible line. Well unfortunately our inner voices seem to speak with many tongues or have been subdued into a whisper. So where do ethics come from? Are they to any extent innate? Is there such a thing as moral intuition? And in our individualistic world where narcissism rules are ethical standards as various as we are. Are all ethics becoming privatised? Do we get to decide like Tony Blair who would claim that he was doing what he believed was right when he made his decisions? As though that personal evaluation was enough justification even if others didn't share your idea of what was indeed right. From the early stages of our existence societies have created rules and proprieties to help people live together. Legal systems come out of these foundations and traditions. I always describe the universal declaration of human rights not as the creation of universal law but as a moral template developed out of universal values against which all law should be tested. Ethical rules are codes of conduct directed at the maintaining of behaviour which is respectful of others and conducive to the well-being of the group. However the atomisation of our society and the breakdown of community ties may mean that the community no longer exercises a restraint on the conduct of others. I believe that people are potentially good and potentially bad. They are socially conscious as well as selfishly assertive and antisocial. My own work around human rights has convinced me of the universal value of those capacities the universal nature of those capacities though I optimistically believe that the capacity of a goodness is the richer seam and that societies have to devise ways of appealing to our better selves. The golden rule that you treat others as you would wish to be treated by is a preset in all societies but I saw recently that sometimes we don't take account of the ways that societies might be different. Nepotism is something that we have sought to excise from British society although let me tell you now with all these gifted internships we've seen at return. Nepotism however doesn't have meaning when people were brought up to feel really strong responsibilities to their wider family members, their kinfolk and I saw this clash recently when I was reading it in an American journal about projects in Afghanistan and then it was discovered that jobs were readily being given to family members and so there was great objection taken to this but Klansmen explained that of course they were going to employ their cousin's son as a builder and it wasn't just to help family if he failed to turn up for work or was slacking the cousin would beat the living deal heights out of him and the construction work would be completed so they felt that they could basically ensure that the work was done. Ethically we have decided that the fair society requires jobs to go and merit but we should of course be conscious that the other side of that coin is that our overseas friends think our ethics are wanting in the way that we fail, fail to care for the elderly in the heart of our families. We can be grandly superior about ethical standards in developing countries and levels of corruption but the picture is not so plain here there can be elasticity about our own principles there is often a tension between our commitment to the common good and on the other hand our self-interest and desire to look after number one and it may be that this conflict of impulses is growing. The moral voices in our heads are very often those of our parents and our teachers if we are religious, our religious advisers or our mentors it's wrong to hurt others to cheat to take what should go to someone else it's wrong to spread malicious rumours there's a sort of set of commandments that may not be the big ten but they're about subtler harms that we can commit and which cause pain to others and which erode our sense of society and community those notions are usually entrenched in us as children and what we care about is the loss of adult approval as we get older the pool of influence that contains our ethical standards enlarges as we expand our community of peers who will we feel we're letting down if we behave in a certain way whose knowledge of our conduct would invoke shame whose view do we care about for me I always say is my Glasgow mother's voice still living there in my head one of my own friends recently left his wife after a long marriage and he admitted that he had felt unable to do it while parents were alive our moral universe will also be affected by the novels we read the stories we hear the conduct we observe what will determine how we act will often be the culture around us as many studies have shown we're socialised by the context in which we find ourselves and that will be true as professionals as businessmen, as politicians and so on a politician can be torn between his loyalty to his party or prime minister or against his personal ethics the pressure to remain with the party group especially when the whips are leaning on you but a different tune is painful ambition can also create moral equivocation a minister with his iron promotion may be more willing to review his deeply held opinions on for example the legality of war pleasing those you look to for protection or advancement can mean self-interest, trumps principle the whistleblower or the person who tenders her resignation is not always lauded and it's often a painful process Elizabeth Wilmshurst is the example that I always have in mind that woman lawyer in the foreign office who resigned over the war going against the momentum of the pact takes courage because the political spin machine can be set in motion to destroy you it happened of course you remember to Scott Ritter the weapons inspector who said there were no weapons of mass destruction and then suddenly was confronted with allegations involving child pornography the ostracisation of the person who expresses objection can be cruel our ethical conduct is also affected by the norms of behaviour we witness unethical conduct has a capacity to cascade down the ranks if we see others behaving badly up above and all around we too are more likely to fall from grace I think it actually did happen in Iraq where a certain tone was set by the United States forces in their handling of Iraqi detainees our own intelligence officers also lost their ethical position over the interrogation of detainees where torture and unacceptable practices were being carried out by others but in which they were prepared at times to turn a blind eye research on taxation found that people were content to pay tax if they felt it was set fairly and if everyone else was paying the tax too if everyone seems to be avoiding tax or taking home stationery or claiming for taxes that they don't take why should you be the patsy who doesn't if every other MP is claiming for a new kitchen why not you but there's an even wider scenario that concerns me if a national culture develops in which wealth and earnings become a superior measure of value than anything else those whose life's work has been about service to others start to feel undervalued in recent times the overwhelming sense has been that if you are any good at what you do you should be making a ton of money everyone else's money has become the measure of value anyone on a middle or modest income is deemed a loser people who have chosen jobs in the public sector have felt denigrated many of the ethical shortcomings and petty corruptions we have seen in recent times have reflected this obsession with money and an elevation of the private sector above all else and particularly above the public the complaint of low pay by MPs that are rushed from the cabinet or the ministry that they've worked in to boards and consultancies that revolving door where they're looking for the next opportunity or the willingness of peers to make interventions on behalf of paying corporate clients or lobbyists the corrupting sense of entitlement to freebies and benefits in kind that flowed from Downing Street in the Blair years the rush to riches once out of office how people behave affects cultural values and cultural values affect how people behave people don't people often adjust the rules to suit their own interests according to how they see the context we're all expected in Mandelson speak to be totally comfortable with people being filthy rich but should we be so comfortable if the gap between rich and poor grows to such an extent that we're not only seeing injustice but also the destabilising of our society in the 1960s chief executives of companies on average are nine times the annual earnings of their average worker they now earn 66 times in some places in the United States is far, far greater than that indeed I'm told that the heads of Walmart earn 900 times what their average worker earns the salaries of chief executives are often ludicrous to criticise is to be accused of engaging in the politics of envy rather than the politics of justice we now also have debate about the incredible levels of pay of senior civil servants of chief executives and local authorities of the senior executives in the BBC they've spiralled out of all imagining but this must be seen largely as a reflection of the wider problem that we've become as a society mad about money and seduced by the business model why shouldn't I be paid what I would receive doing a similar job in the private sector that's the claim we will not get anyone who's any good says the headhunter if we don't pay the going rate in the city the simple answer is that public enterprises are not profit making it's about the creation of common goods common goods that we no longer talk about if you want those commercial rewards you're in the wrong place that should be the answer the ethos that's serving the nation in certain capacities carries a steam and value unrelated to money is evaporating why? in reading ourselves of the class system the idle hope was that decency and values and talents may have become the measure of the man but no, somehow the new measure has been money that's what's replaced the old calibrations money and wealth instead of attaching real value to the contribution someone makes to the common wealth of our nation we see everyone in monetary terms we see everything in monetary terms perhaps in our shaking the ancient dust out of institutions we've done something disturbing to the institutional loyalties which operated as a preventative check on unbecoming behaviour we've abandoned the notion of honour we used to be so good at inventing ways of reinforcing ethical standards one of them for example in my profession is the QC system and I recently had the experience of working with a young lawyer and he was being encouraged by a solicitor and by somebody else to hold back on a report that we'd received from an expert and you're supposed to make those disclosed at an early stage to the other side and I said to him, you know, you've got to hand that over don't hold on to it and I said to him, you do realise that if at any stage in your life you want to become a Queen's Council you want that promotion you want that esteem within the profession you ain't going to get it if you get the reputation of being somebody who plays fast and loose and is considered to be of the highest ethical standards and so in fact those strange and bizarre things operate inside professions are often ways of disciplining human behaviour so as we have urgently sought to democratise our politics we've ended up it seems to me now with career politicians politicians who start off but the politics degree become a researcher for a member of parliament end up standing for parliament and volunteering themselves and so their whole life has and they decide that their job deserves the rewards that are commensurate with other high calibre jobs and so that was what led people to the behaviours that we saw which seemed so highly unethical I also think that some of the distortions as a result of introducing market values into places where they don't belong are really to the detriment of our society we've seen a blurring of the public-private divide and failed to take account of how the underlying principles in the two spheres are different efforts to make public services more efficient and cost effective have meant replacing heads of public institutions with executives from the world of business or introducing market methodology and competition to sharpen up performance the ethic of the market which is about profit is different from the ethic of the common good and I say that without dismissing the value of business or entrepreneurship and the importance of it in our world or to suggest that all business people are unethical that's not true but the ethos is different and the whole process of privatisation of public services presents serious challenges because it's trying to drive down costs and in trying to do that there's a tendency to drive down quality and the ethical consequences can be very serious we had it recently over the scandal of nursing care of the elderly what would possibly make people fail to wet the mouth of somebody who's dying to find a glass of water for people who are seriously ill and elderly and what you find is that the nurses are at the computer station and what they're trying to do is meet targets and that the imperatives of the business model are driving some of the decisions in health rather than care which has been absolutely fundamental to the professionals that I've ever known who work in it today's garden carried a newspaper carried two stories that were very interesting given the lecture I was giving tonight one was concerned being expressed by professional organisations about GP fund holding of huge sums of money and being able to use that money for patients but it become the GP who was expected to be there running basically enormous businesses and what the concern was that it would lead in the end to occasions where there would be corrupt practice concerns being expressed by doctors about how that would undermine their professionalism and their esteem within the community there was another story told by a very renowned journalist Hugh O'Shaughnessy whose wife just died in the last week describing the care that she'd been given by wonderful people in the National Health Service and saying that the only failings that he ever saw towards the end were about privatised care where it fell short of what one would expected because in driving down costs competing with others to do it cheaper you end up getting a service that's less and less good I firmly believe that the public sector has a lot to learn from business that means being business-like and efficient in working methods but there's a folly in seeking to run public services as businesses the introduction of markets creating huge layers of bureaucracy and often bringing a deep professionalising of the people who are at the heart of the service whether it's teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers the introduction of the market to services in my view is bringing about a shift in ethics the best description of different ethical approaches operating in different spheres comes from a man called Robert Hind the distinguished behavioural scientist and I met him recently over in fact the Iraq war about which he had great concerns and felt that there had been terrible ethical failures in the run up to that war but he sent me his book and in the book we had a discussion about ethics he really does present a very good argument about the ways in which the sort of imperative I will do the best which is the ethic of legitimate business and legitimate business practice and legitimate competition is I will do the best for myself because I know you're trying to do the best for yourself and the rules of the game are known to each party and each expects to get the best deal possible for himself the benefits to the consumer and the market economy is that by and large you get a better price but it's not like that when you're talking about services like education or health or social services in our communities and I make it very clear that I'm not suggesting that there aren't ethics within business there clearly are but of course we also know that there are also huge unethical practices environmental disasters wouldn't take place if everything was done to a high ethical level the exploitation of workers, child labour risk taken with the lives of the poor I'm currently chairing an inquiry into human trafficking and I'm seeing that here in our midst in Britain not just in terms of sex trafficking of women and children but also of human trafficking of migrant labour of domestic servitude of people being treated in the most horrifying ways in the workplace the point I'm seeking to make is that the world of business has its own precepts which citizens and developed market economies accept because the market model brings the benefit to the public of competition and lower prices but by being persuaded that that same system can work in public services we are being deluded and I'm afraid it's going to be at a cost so what do we do? the common good has figured large in the post-Second World War consensus and I believe it has been one of the reasons why we have a nation at ease with itself a good place to live but that consensus is now being unraveled especially with the massive programme of public service cuts in Britain we've had a high and independent high calibre civil service an exceptional justice system uncorrupt judges by and large very rare that you will ever come across corrupt judges we might not like some of the decisions but they don't receive money around the back we see committed medical professionals and public servants and scientists and they're admired throughout the world for the high level of their skills and integrity and I would suggest that the property of the British professional is unsurpassed but I think we're putting it at risk and so what do you need? we need better institutions we need better debate about the loss of ethical standards and the ways in which we are denuding our public realm of some of the things that have made it so wonderful we have to talk about capitalism and our unregulated markets we have to talk about living wages and about social and economic rights and we have to protest these cuts and we have to talk about creating a different kind of social contract the Robin Hood tax where every share transaction should carry a tax which could then pay for so many of the impoverished things that take place in our world we should be saying no to the Philip Greens of this world who arranged their affairs so they pay no tax in this country still get a knighthood and before I close I want to emphasise alongside some of the reductions in ethical standards and some of the huge ethical failures in foreign affairs that we've seen we've also seen, I think, some interesting and important advances the rising resistance in this nation to racism and sexism the concern for human rights and increased tolerance in our society of those who are different which is an awesome ethical shift and very different from how it was when I was young and what I love about being here for example at SOAS spending time with a new generation is that they care about the world that they live in and I feel that is true of many of our young and we certainly see as being true when we look at the pictures on our television screens of the young around the world exercised about war and poverty and about our failure to be good stewards of the environment they are hugely ethical and long may it continue to be so a famous American jurist it was often invoked when I was young and studying law and it was about ethics and what was explained to us was that there was a certain conduct that lawyers might be involved in which would be criminal and would lead to prosecution but ethical standards were somehow short of that but there were actions which involved the breaches of established standards which dishonoured the profession and could lead to disciplinary action when which dishonoured you but the real question that came at the end of it was the question that he said should be asked by all of us what kind of person do you want to be we too have to ask that question in a collective sense and we have to restore our sense of the collective what kind of society do we want to be a good society has to be ethical and so the lesson must be that at all times we must be alert to the ways in which we are selling the pass at all times we must remain conscious of how each of us in the small daily acts of living we set the standards and in the end we are all our society's ethicists thank you


So, mentality, you guys obviously have all watched college wrestling, right? We go and we watch guys on our feet and they're nasty, they got offense left and right.  They're going to be thinking already ahead, if I make a mistake this guy's going to capitalize on me if I go underneath and God forbid I screw up on this offensive shot that I take and this guy gets on top of me, I'm in trouble. So that's what we want to implement as a wrestler, you want a little fear, all right?  You know you've been there, so we want that as a competitor, we want our guy to think. So when I'm wrestling, what's your name, Landon?  So that's got to be the mentality. It's an offensive mindset on top, it's an offensive mindset, all right? I'm constantly working when I'm on top. Two things, I'm trying to turn this guy and I'm also trying to make him tired by wearing him out if he's trying to get out, all right? He makes a mistake, I'm going to capitalize, but real simple, all right? We're going to go step by step here on top, and I can tell you right now, this is probably the easiest thing to pick up if you don't have anything to go to on top, all right? So it comes off from a referee's position. The first thing I do is I always look to see what this guy gives me.  I'm looking right away when I come down right here. I know he's trying to do an explosive stand-up. That to me is where I'm going to put my weight on position on this guy, which means if I put my weight a little bit on the head and chest, it's going to slow him down just a tiny bit, right? Come on up on that, it slows him up a little bit. If I put my weight on the back right here, go ahead, come up, come up right away, all right? By the way, he positions his feet. If he talks them, go ahead, talk them. Obviously, hopefully we've been wrestling long enough to know that he's going to do some sort of sit-out, right? He's not going to explode out, would you? Because if he did, we'd be in trouble, all right? So good, so he's going to... If he's here, I'm going to position my weight up high right here, all right?  Go ahead, from this position, if you can tell, I'm kind of high on him. All right, go ahead, sit back like you're looking right here, all right? I'm covering up front because I want to attack the backside, but I want to make him carry my weight. And all I'm going to do on the whistle is I'm going to get to the outside ankle and come underneath and I'm going to block, all right? I got to beat this knee right here because something's trying to move on me and what I'm trying to do is cover so he can't come up, all right? And when I'm talking about whistle blows, I'm jumping here, I'm blocking the knee and I'm attacking ankles right here, all right?  I'm covering. So now I know the only positions he can go are almost to a sit-out. So I've stopped his movement. The rest of the guys that are real explosive on bottom, this could be a good blow point for you to stop, all right? And when I'm talking about on the whistle, I got to beat this knee and I know that. So whistle blows, all I'm doing is I'm coming up, covering and catching this outside ankle right here. I'm not dangling over top, get myself in trouble, but I'll have a little shallow ride, all right? And this is going to set up my offense from here, all right? And it's something we work on in our room and I'll explain it to you pretty simple right here, 15 seconds left in a match, I'm winning by a point, I want to win this match, I got to find a ride, all right? And this makes it real simple. I want to get to this inside ankle to wrestle this guy. And what I'm talking about is I want to get to this inside ankle right here. A lot of offense is going to come from here, all right? We're in a tight match. I'm winning by a point, 15 seconds left. Am I on top right now, right? Am I on top right now? Am I on top right now? Come up to your feet, am I still on top? In the referees, far sport goes, right? So now I'm going to win this match by being here, confidence knowing that I can ride this guy for 15 seconds if I can get it. You might get hit for stone depending on what you're doing, but at least you're giving yourself the opportunity to ride this guy out, all right? Whistle blows, I block outside ankle, I'm driving forward, I'm getting to this inside ankle. Once the weight shifts, I can attack here and now I can dangle over top. This allows me to cover his whole body. I can wrestle, all right? He's going to step up by what I do pressure-wise here.  It's a natural reaction for this guy to do that. That's when I know I can step my offense up, all right? This gets real simple, all right? I'm going to get a cross face on this guy. I'm going to take his strength away right now. Go ahead, how strong are you? Go ahead, all right? Turn your head sideways, all right? Turn your head, how strong are you? See that? That's what I'm looking to do here on top. I'm going to take his strength away from what I do to his head, all right? So a lot of things are working and you're going to get some time to drill this but I want you to understand the concepts of how this body works when we're on top, trying to turn this guy here, all right? So as I get this inside ankle, I'm either going to break him down and go to a different turn or he's stubborn, he wrestles and he's going to put that leg up so he doesn't fall, right? He's going to do that and that sets my cradle up right here, all right?   So I'm taking my elbow and I'm going to drive it to his head, here. Elbow goes to his head and I'm pulling this across, all right? This is what I just talked about, taking away his strength. If I don't do that right here and I'm here and he can move his head, this can be a hard cradle, all right? So I'm coming up across and I'm going to rip. When I say rip, I'm pulling this to me and I'm going with my elbow here, all right? I have the inside angle and all I'm going to do now is feed my knee to my elbow, to his knee. It's like a hammer and nail basically, here. Elbow and all I'm going to do now is take my knee to my elbow. Here, this is what makes the move. All I'm doing is running this, all right? The weight that I have going here, you can't pick that angle up because of what I'm doing. Here, go ahead. When I'm dangling over top, right here, go ahead and pick that foot up. You can't pick it up because of the weight I had on it, all right? So everything's in position. I'm attacking and I've basically mobilized this whole body from what I'm doing.  That's right, here. Punch, elbow comes across. My knee is going to my elbow and I'm going to run this right over, right here. And all I'm going to do from here is release this inside, give my lock. Pretty simple, I walk it over. Watch one more time. Cover the lock. I promise you guys a good time to drill this, all right? Go back down from the beginning. Whistle blows, I'm going to knee block outside angle. Get the weight shifting forward, then I'm going inside. I'm going to dangle over top. I'm going to drive in over his shoulder. He's going to step up. I'm going to punch, punch, pull. Here, that hurts, right? Now I'm going to take my elbow to my knee here and drive in here, okay? Move that foot. You can, all right? This hand is going to slide off and grab my wrist.  And now, once I get here, I'm going to jump south, all right? This lock, right here. See that? The mistake everybody's going to make, we're going to do this, right here. And it's hard to turn. Bring that arm out. You can wrestle, you know? That's why I make it real simple myself, right here, all right? I want you to get these concepts down and then we're going to fine-tune it because there's some critical things to take the guy over from here. But I've got to wake you guys up a little bit right now. Either that or get another run-up. All right, let's go, one, two.


So heat number eight, some marshals happy he moves away, green light is on, tapes are up, certainly a smashing start on the inside from Robert Lambert, he fires himself to the front, freaks round the inside, he comes to the middle, beauty coming through there just into traffic, had to come out of the throttle twice, Thompson's at the back with Robert Lambert, absolutely nailing that off the inside, smashing move from him, beauty back in third place. Beauty up the inside, Fabulous move from Dan Beauty once again, showing great speed and determination, super move from him. I tell you what, what a reaction that was from Dan Beauty, he made that cut back so so quickly, had to change direction on the six points, but he does it and he's now giving chase to a compatriot, Robert Lambert who's out front, I think Robert's going to have to beaten of him if he can just keep the back wheel in the dirt off the corners, I can't see Beauty getting past him, but I tell you what, Dan has got slightly more speed than Robert. Indeed he has, he's pushing on, here he comes now, chops back to the inside, trying to square the corner off, he was kind to him there, very much a lot of respect with two of the two riders into the final turn for the last time, as they come off the corner Robert Lambert's just going to hang on, smashing race out in front between the two Brits, big green light is on, tapes are up and we're underway, what a start from Nielsen there, that's smashing stuff from him, beauty there, what a start, what a doil, doil what a fabulous turn back there, fantastic stuff from him, Kim Nielsen now coming through in the second place, superb move there on the first turn from Jason Doyle, Beauty's vulnerable with Kim Nielsen now slamming the door shut, and Dan Beauty, wow he's gone to the back with Matsey Yanovsky coming through, Beauty now suddenly finding himself alongside, oh there's all sorts of action going on behind Jason Doyle, but that move in the first corner from Jason Doyle was out of the top draw, yeah Yanovsky just putting the brakes on behind Doyle as he roared into turn three, a little bit too hot maybe, but Dan Beauty hasn't given up, he's beginning to be able to generate a bit of speed, he's looking for the inside line now, he's shaking off Kim Nielsen so he's got a bit of freedom to do what he wants, meanwhile Yanovsky's hasn't given up with Jason Doyle either. No it's a battle down the back straight for the final time, Doyle just about hanging on, one last blast round the outside from Yanovsky but Jason Doyle, yes he does it, fine Vasiliy missed it completely, Leon Mattson and Anders Thompson neck and neck to the first corner, Mattson now firing himself to the front, here comes Vasiliy from nowhere, Yanovsky also from another country, down the inside firing himself into that customary second place which he's been hogging, he's been looking after that all night long, that's for sure, Thompson in third place but Leon Mattson out in front, Yanovsky's had speed, he looks competitive once again here, now winding it on, can he get the better of the Danish boy in front but Leon Mattson looking good, not good news for Vasiliy Kaldabak though. No, not good news for him at all and Yanovsky, he's really to be absolutely certain, he needs to hang on to that second place, we've had a track grade and there really isn't much of a dirt line around the outside, it's a cue around the curve but Leon Mattson, we've said it so many times he can make good speed with the tracks, it's thick and consistent, it looks comfortable up front. Yeah, he's set for another win here this evening, that'll be his third win and he'll comfortably go through to the semi-finals and he looks good there, well Yanovsky coming through for five second places on the evening. Nineteen, the angry lights on, tapes up, we're underway, Nielsen's made a smashing start and the inside clear into the first corner, here comes Holder around the outside, trying to get the better of his compatriot, oh it's tight there with Vasiliy coming up the inside of Max Frick, oh a bit of argy-bargy, Kim Nielsen out in front, here comes Holder, Holder now, super move from him, he needed the win, he's fired himself to the front, Kim Nielsen now relegated to second place, not what Max Frick needed at all back in third, but Jack Holder is back against the wall, needed a win, producing really when he needed to, he's been chased by Kim Nielsen, but Jack Holder, second in the championship chase, coming good when he really needed to. Yeah, Jack Holder coming from gate four, didn't make a bad start, just got across two other riders, Kim Nielsen led him, but he great cut back on the first lap, and now he's looking reasonably comfortable, I'm sure he'll be hearing all the noises, he knows he's got to win this race, he's just working the track now, you can see how hard he's riding, he's stretched his arms, his body weight's as far back as it can be down the straight, they're all suffering from wheelspin. Jack Holder then a crucial win for him in the context of the evening and the championship, wait and see, all right settling down then, start Marshall just about happy, yes he is, he moves away, green light is on, and we're underway, fast start from the inside from Smarsley, he holds the inside, Dolls following him through, round the outside, as Matse Janowski with the front two have got away here, freshly prepared track, no looking for the outside run this time, Smarsley out in front, Jason Doll chasing hard, I sense it's going to be awfully difficult now for Holder or Janowski to fire themselves into a qualifying spot, tell you what it's only going to take a very small mistake from Jason Doll for Jack Holder to be through, carrying 30th speed, he's right on his tail, he's going to want to rattle his cage and force him into an error, he's trying awfully hard now, Holder, Holder for looking for a way through on the inside, has to put the brakes on there with Dolls slamming the door shut, Smarsley's comfortable, a lap to go for the world champion, he's looking set for another final here this evening, Doll hanging on, Doll hanging on because Jack Holder's coming on strong, Holder with one last blast round the outside, we're looking at Smarsley, Holder's made a comeback, inside from Matse, but a better one from Leungwen, what a run to the first corner, here comes Woofendon, Woofendon has come through there, but Leung Matse, Lambert is coming through as well, but Leung Matse, like when either side of Woofendon down the back straight, but Freddie Leungwen, there's just no holding him back, disappointing in his last qualifying ride, but he fires himself to the front in semi-final number two. Leungwen has been pretty consistent this year and as you say disappointing last time out, he's making no mistake here, he's pulling clear of Matse, who in turn is pulling clear of Robert Lambert, he's had to battle with Tyre Woofendon, trying to defend, he needs every championship point that you can get, but this race settling down up front with Freddie Leungwen and Leung Matse is set to go through. Freddie Leungwen out in front, disappointment for the Brits, they're going to miss out on the final this evening, but for Leung Matse and making another final, he's looking good in second place, but for fast Freddie Leungwen after the disappointment in Tetra two weeks ago, where he failed to make the semi-finals, he's in another final. Just happy Greenlight's on, tapes are up and around the way and they charge into the first corner, oh it's Tyre in the first corner, Leungwen's hit the deck, Doyle's made a really good move from Jason Doyle. He actually makes a very good start from gate three, he's there level with Smileslick, then he decides right okay I've got to clamp it down and he does that, he has every right to do that, Leungwen then kind of avoid him and in trying to do so, then crashes, that to me is a very tight first turn and should be all full back. We'll wait and see which way the referee from Ukraine goes here, Latrasinski, but certainly no racing room there. Greenlight is on, tapes are up and we're underway, Smileslick once again. Again Doyle, Doyle comes charging across out of gate number three, what a stunning start, ready outside Matse, Matse comes from nowhere, comes to the front superb move there from the Daily Shrider, here comes Bartosz Smileslick up the inside of Jason Doyle, surging into second place, oh clash again, Freddie Leungwen just collecting Jason Doyle on the way through, red lights are on once again. But here we see it again Chris. Yeah his reaction from the start was so good, then he gets beat up, there he gets the dirt deflector on the wheel, he's gone off the bike, it's a tough one for the referee. That is a really difficult call because Freddie Leungwen certainly was doing everything he possibly could to hold the inside, but it comes in hard, comes in very hard, but it is the final. Either way this is going to be brutal on either rider, who's going to go? Rampana, then Gorzhov, tapes up for now, roaring to the first corner, Smileslick and Leungwen, Leungwen's got there, Leon Mattson, keep your eyes on Mattson, he's got the roar around the outside, Mattson fires himself to the front, Smileslick is relegated to third place, brilliant move from Leon Mattson, it's worked to treat for him with no rider on gate number three and Mattson now beginning to power and here comes Smileslick round the outside, what a move from the championship leader, winding it on Leon Mattson now coming under all sorts of pressure, Smileslick on the door slammed, he's looking for a way through. Well we said we beg the question, can Smileslick overtake? I've got a feeling it's coming here, he's not going to, oh he has given it up, gone straight to the outside, that was a very, very quick decision from Smileslick, it's going to be cutting back now, got to be. One last chance now for Bartos, Smileslick right out in the dirt, Leon Mattson has ridden a storm around in front, one last charge, on the inside, Smileslick and Mattson, his force is way to the front, back to back, Ropri wins the night tonight, what a fabulous victory for Bartos, Smileslick, desperate for the championship, but nonetheless, nonetheless. What does that mean to him, look at it, back here at Gorzhov, Leon Mattson actually rode up the safety fence in that last turn. Incredible scenes here in Gorzhov in the Edwardiancest stadium, a fabulous conclusion to a brawmpery here.


Ever been a little confused by someone? You've noticed them and maybe thought the eye contact was a little longer than usual But no, maybe they were spacing out They've been pretty nice to you lately But it could also be because you let them have the last donut in the lunchroom last week. Who knows You want to know? Maybe they are that into you or maybe you're making something out of nothing We don't want to jump the gun and freak someone out, right? Fortunately although people can have a poker face. They don't have poker body So to see if there's a good chance someone is into you look out for signs like Number one they open up to you Sure, you talk with them But when it happens, are you finding that they open up to you talking about real and personal things or maybe even asking for advice? If so, that's a sign of trust which is a pretty healthy part of the recipe to liking someone You'd never open up a vulnerability to someone you dislike after all Yes, we know that trust is also a part of being friends But remember that being a good friend is also one of the foundations of a strong healthy romantic relationship So you might simply have a good friend, but opening up to someone could also make you fall in love with the person Either way, it's pretty sweet to know you're trusted Number two they don't mention or converse about other people in their lives Do you find that when you're having a conversation with this person the only protagonist in the story is either themselves or you? Maybe you've even tried to ask them if they're seeing someone and they just veer right off the topic Although you could suspect that they have some sort of talk show level secret in their love lives a more likely reason is Their feelings for you this exclusion of others in conversation is keeping themselves in your focus and as available to you They might even throw in some mild self-depreciating comments like I guess it's a solo Valentine for me this year You could even gauge their reaction by responding with something like is that a hint or is that a good thing? If you're interested offer to fix the situation number three They clean up real nice around you if you know someone who's everyday Uniform is a gray or black hoodie and jeans, but when they meet up with you They're always wearing nice clothes. You've never seen before or they mentioned their achievements to you despite this not being part of their usual conversation type Basically, does it seem sometimes like they're showcasing their stuff have you look at them? It could very well be that they're doing it to prove their great partner material It could also just mean they have serious insecurity issues But then they'd be more likely to be boastful in general not presenting to you specifically like a peacock mating dance number four they often compliment you Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, don't get all worked out because someone said you had a nice shirt the other day This is a repeated and frequent behavior, but subtle the person is trying to hide their crush on you So it's not going to be as straightforward as your breathtaking and I want to be with you They'll sneak it in either consciously or unconsciously, but it'll happen fairly often and often from the side They might ask you new shirt and then follow it up with yeah looks good Then when your friends want a suggestion for eats, they'll pipe up to volunteer your expertise since you have such great taste Of course, this person could just be complimentary in general So observe if you're either the only one being complimented or if the niceties fall heavily in your favor Number five they participate in your social media Checking on social media alone is just everyday life now. It's not unusual to follow everyone on everything What is unusual and could well be a sign of something more is how much attention they paid to your social media And you can tell by their participation in it the likes and comments This is even more apparent if you know, they almost never comment anywhere else Or if they faithfully comment and react to everything you post and only giving a random thumbs up to other people This could mean they spend their free time scrolling through your feed wishing they were with you in whatever stories that feed tells If you get a notification saying they liked your pick from 36 weeks ago, you know, what's up And they're probably mortified because they think you now think they're creepy be nice. It happens and Number six others tell you they might like you Emotions serve their purpose, but boy, do they ever make things confusing This is where you use your lifeline also known as your friends Others because they aren't mired in the soup of feelings can usually see more clearly and objectively This is especially true if you and the person in question hang out together in a group Because then they can observe changes to how this person acts around you versus when you're absent Also, they have a better chance at hearing if they ask about you or talk about you They can then give you a verdict unclouded by personal goals Life is complex humans are too so even though the signs mentioned could indicate beyond platonic affection This list isn't a checklist for certainty They just have a higher probability towards maybe something more So you can know if you have a solid reason to investigate further Remember at the end of the day that affection bonding and love are all positives Regardless of whether this person likes you like that or simply likes you and wants to be a closer friend It's a good thing. You can always share the love with us Feel free to tell us how much you like us in the comments and confirm it with the like button. See you soon


Okay, welcome back in the Optiver room made possible by our Keystone sponsor. At this time of the summer, the whole world is looking into Japan, and so are we. So I'm really happy to introduce a new speaker that I've not met before. He's a staff for PythConJP and an application developer at CMS.com. Please welcome Yoshi Takai. Hello. Hello. Thank you for introducing me. You're coming in directly from Japan, so we must have a big leg. Yes, sure. Oh, it's perfect. So what's the time where are you? Where you are? It's now 17.30. Oh, okay. So it's like a late talk and an early talk for us. You want to talk about statically typed Python. So please share your slides and the stages yours. Sure. Okay. Hi. Thanks for introducing. Let's start my talk. My talk title is Getting Started with Statically Typed Programming in Python 3.10. I know that it's talk after Mac, but I really enjoy. Okay. Sorry. It's prologue. Let me introduce myself. Before the presentation, my presentation, please note that this slide is uploaded. You can see it via QR code or chat link. And chat room is conference one, optional bar. If you have a combined or a conference ticket, you can see or you can write it. And paper styles in sample codes are some you've not yet to space limitations. Sorry for how to see. Okay. My name is Yoji Takai, but please call me just Peacock. Okay. And Twitter and Facebook. GitHub link is here, here ID. And I'm attending from Japan. Now it's 1730 in Japan standard time. Thank you for considering our time zone. My favorite is music. Most is classical music and skiing gadgets. I'm working at CMS.com full time since 2020 June. We are the only company in Japan that uses pro. So we are pro company. And in addition to my work, I'm also involved at PiconJP association and from JP. A member of ProJP as it's from users group in Japan. We created a short video for introducing from six and just today published. You can see it before this year. I'm operating member of PiconJP association. I'm staff of PiconJP 2020 and 2021. I'm also director of PiconJP TV. It's a YouTube live about Picon's local events, health once a month. Okay. This is today's topic. Next, I will explain why I talk about typing. And second, interaction of typing, how to write basically. It's I want to most, I must want to say topic. And next, Jenix user defined types. It is included best practices. Okay. And first, I will talk about updates, overview and background compatibility for 3.9 or visual. And last is a bit difficult. It's overview of new features on 3.10. Okay. Thanks for YouTube channel comments about comments. Okay. First, I will talk, I will explain my motivation. It's for talking. This is to get a word or in art coherent way. It's been five years since Appear's Python 3.5 at 2015. Since Appear appeared. I think this several big peps were adapted and updated over the years. Even I think many people don't know where to start because there is little coherent information. Okay. These are topics I will not talk about. Such as developing library with typing. Confidence of MyPy. How to use typing in CI. For example, GitHub action, cycle CI and more. And history of typing, implementation of typing and MyPy. And also abstract syntax tree. Okay. Let's take a look how to actually start typing. First, let's look at what typing can you for do? Yes, I think there is three benefits. First, it knows, typing knows the types when you reference it in the editor. And second, typing gets angry when I or you try to give it the wrong one. Last, the computation will work when accessing the return value of function using dot. This is a minimal example. For typing hint, type hint, we don't know the type of return value. Yes. So it is any, if try to pass into the function, it will occur an error. But we don't know this like this. How about this case? It looks like str. Return value is also str. Yes. And the editor can tell the argument is wrong. Yes, like this. Without typing, the editor can't tell. But with typing, can't tell. And more, there are advantages to call review. With a type hint, a reviewer can't know the return value from reading the function definition. Like this, yes, it's brought. As a result, many people may have had these experiences. However, typing may take the review processes more seriously. Yes. We can know that the argument return value type takes three type of value, three type kind. Yes, let me fix it. Okay. Let's start typing with functions definitions. After the argument definitions, write colon and type. After the colon at the end of function definition, write an arrow with hyphens and write a type. That's all. Okay. Well, let's take a look at the types can be used in practices. Okay. There are five types built-ins. Well, bytes, float, int, and str. You don't need to do anything to use them. Yes. No need. No need to import. Also, none is used for functions that return nothing. Yes, that's also nothing import. And if you want to escape from complex type puzzles, you can use any. This is final result. Yes. It can hold instance of any type. Of course, it's better not to use it. Import. If you use it, using it, import is import and use from typing when it is necessary. There is standard collections in GenX. There is also five types standard collections. Dict, frozen set, list, set, and tuple. These collections can be written with square brackets for type inside. It can use 3.9 and later only. And if you use 3.7 or 3.8, please write this statement from the future import annotations. So, of course, I will explain after this. For using 3.6, import annotations starting with uppercase letters from typing module. Until 3.8, it was from typing. Now, it's deplicated. So, it may be recommended for small case, lower case. For standard built-ins, start with lower case without doing anything. Yes, there is no need import statement such as list, tuple. Start with, not start with small case, lower case. For collections, for example, q, default dict, import modules, start with collections. And interval, callable, and protocol-related items, import modules, start with collections.apc. And regular expressions is available from Ali. And collect context-related items are available in context live. Yes, it is important for it's deplicated since 3.9. But until 3.9, you have to write from typing import dict, such as dict, list. Yes, so since 3.9, no more need this import statement. It's a happy. There are many types in collections.abc. Although it's unlikely that you will use these in fine-graded way, it's better to choose a collection with few methods as possible to increase portability. The next figure shows the relationship between collections.abc sequence of built-in types defined by method inclusion rather than implementation inheritances. It is a good idea to look at the method used in your functions to choose the return types of the left side of the diagrams as much as possible. Okay, this is the diagram. The further or the left you go, the fewer methods it has. To the right side of this slide, the more methods it has. For example, if you want to rip over the sequence of augmenting function, you can use collections.abc.itable here. If you need random access, use sequence here. If you need change the value, use type, user type, start with mutable, such as this, this, and this. Or if you simply specify this as the augment type, you will not be able to pass, set, or add. In particular, it is better not to set concrete types, such as this table, just because you are familiar to use them. However, I think it is easier to understand using these concrete types, yes, because you are familiar. And after you confirm, sorry. So you may want to apply first these concrete types. After you confirm that you use fewer operators and methods, you may want to gradually move to the left side of the types. It's a great inheritance tree, method inheritance tree. And it is the difference between tuple and other sequences. I think many personists don't know about this. Tuples are fixed up the length information. Please specify the type of the number of elements. And you can use mixed type, mixed tuple, such as like this. There is three types in tuple. A sequence such as this has the same constraint, same constraint for all elements in the element, can be regardless of the length of length sequence by setting one element. Next, there are few advanced types. At first is union. It's module type. It can be represented by vertical bar since 3.10. Yes, it is 3.10 style. You've probably seen it has scale or types grid. And top half code is a function that accepts both integer or a float. And return types is also int or a float. And bottom code is union object can be tested for equality with other union object. Yes, these brackets are ignored, flattened, and redundant types are removed. This int ignored, removed. And the order is ignored, unless convertible with typing.union. 3.10 style is here. Before 3.9 style is here. As next is optional. It is a generic type for shorthand. It is shorthand equivalent to union with now. Yes, behaves just like union like this. If you use it in function return value or something, it will propagate. But it's big useful, but so be careful how to use it. This is the reason of this. Avoid using optional as much as possible. Optional is useful. Of course, useful. But cause is cause-blot. When you up the function, you might another guard return now. As a result, we need to write a guard to the previous or outside method. Which reduce reliability, but it is not good. In this case, in my opinion, it will be cleaner to raise the runtime error. Yes, because the cost of raising exception in Python is low. Relativity, the performance would be fine. And the lack of the safe method in Python is also a factor. But if there are such methods, they would be opposite. No safe means a method that does not raise exception when passed on that. Okay, the next is callable. It can be used when writing functions that take a function as argument, such as decorator functions. In first API or Flask, you can see it. You've probably seen it. Okay, it's a validation function to passing JSON. Yes, last genix is user defined types. It is typically declared by inheriting from installation. This example is defining genix mapping type. And this is use case. In definition, please note that the key type, this key type is same type. And value type is also same type. This value type. And this class that can be used like this. X is arguments. Type arguments. This, this, this X is also same type. And Y, Y, this Y, and this Y is different type, but Y is also same. Let me, let give me one more promotion about PyConJP 2021. Okay. PyConJP 2020 was held online. This photo, this picture is from the toast of the party. Yes, there are our websites and blogs, Twitter links. The date of conference is October 15 and 16. And we haven't decided what we will do for Spring and training yet. Now, now call for proposal is over. We are currently in the process of review and adoption for talk. These are about the venues. The venue could be both online or hybrid. Yes, if it is onsite venue, it has onsite venue. It is Versal Kanda in Tokyo. Onsite venue starts the afternoon of Friday, 15, 15th. The day one start, start in the afternoon. It, sorry for it may change depending on the COVID-19 situation. And Saturday, day two is all online day. Now, sponsor application and second time is open. For the latest information, please check out blog and Twitter. And please share this page with more Pythonista and you. Okay, thanks. Let's back to my talk. It's an update overview on how to use new features in older versions. Thank you for clapping. It is there recently Python updates in 2021. Yeah, this year, October 4, it will be released Python 3.10. About now, it's beta 4 status. It's a big new future pattern matching. And 3.9, 3.8, 3.7, and 3.6. And let's talk about Danda future, which has come up many times before. Modules and method is Danda underscore, double underscore, to either the pronounced Danda. It exists for backward compatibility. Using typing new features in older versions, right from Danda future import annotations. It describes when dispatcher changes are introduced and become mandatory. And in addition to typing, it was also used to call 3.x features. For example, print functions, unicorn leaders. And last topic is new features in Python 3.10. Yes. It will be released October this year. It is a difficult future. So I'm not sure I can explain it to you there. Okay. It is a come up many times before. It is a union type operator. Using vertical bar or pipe, you can use shorthand for typing.union. You can also, when asking, is instance. Yes. It's very useful. It increases leaderability. And this topic, this feature is very difficult. It's parameter specification variables. Motivation is here. Trying to write a generic decorator, it's difficult to write the type. It needed a way to represent the function that has the same arguments as the specified function. Yes, approach. Adding an argument type called parameter specification solve this problem. It can be used with callable behaves like a j called object. Yes, you can think of an argument version of type bar. It is an example. It is also a decorator function for other logging. Adding log log in log R. So please note that this, you can use p s dot args like this. Keyard args are also available. It is very difficult. Type areas. Motivation is here. We consider global variables without typing. So we type areas. This tends to cause problems with further references, scoping and more. So we are going to make it possible to express the defined type areas. You can still define type areas and impactivity. Approach an example. Adding new typing dot type areas. Write a variable of type areas, type like, like type, like this. Variables define the global level considering type areas. Yes, it works. Using further reference, you can write like this. Using double quote. Example is here. You can, please note that this, you can use user defined class using double quote. For example, such as at static method decorator, you can use it useful. And next is user defined type class. Motivation is here. It is similar to pattern matching. The type checker tools, such as my byte, use technique called type narrowing to determine, type narrowing to determine the type of information. This is an example. The if statement and is none are used to automatically narrow type, narrow down type, the type. Yes. Is none is type guard. Yes. If in this statement, the bar of narrowed to SDR or the S statement, the type of bar is narrowed to none. However, that will not work as in state or if user function is used. Yes. It will occur an error. And type guards allows you to define user defined type guards with new typing. By using user defined type guys, it is easier to get support for type narrowing. So it is example defining like this. Yes. Please note that the type guards. This is but also works like this. This is two element in tuple. Yes. It will box. It's very fine. Happy. The type checker assumes that the first argument matches the specified in type guards in if needs a functional returns to. Yes. Above every example, let that is a pass. Passes is SDR to list will be test related as SDR to SDR. Note that this function returns false type knowing not will be performed. In the next example. If is the two element tuple is this block, the type narrowing to the type narrow to SDR, SDR, SDR, SDR. So it is as a result of type narrowing. Why in the else called block is called block. The type remains unchanged. Yes. It is unchanged. And it is summary of my talk. First, I talked about intellect motivation. Let's starting building types. This is standard collection with that lower case. And the second, their collections and genics. They are union, optional, co-operable and user defined genics. And third topic is update overview and how to use new features in order versions. Last is Python 3.10 styles, new features type meeting. There is four new features. New type, union operator, parameter specification variables, type areas and user defined type cars. And this is thanks for the reference page. Okay. We look forward to seeing you again at our conference. Python JP 2021. Thanks. Thank you very much for the talk. You have seen the chat. You've got a lot of applause in the chat and people commented how well they liked your slides. And they were very interesting. So thank you very much. Yes. We have time for questions. And there is a question. Let me just quickly get that on screen. Sure. Thanks. Create a banner. There we go. The question is how do we use a type hinting of an undefined class? Type hinting, it is undefined class. I not recommend it to all of types defining. I recommend to start with the defining function, definition of function. Is it the answers? Correct. Okay. So we'll just leave this open. And there was one more question. Like if I use type hinting and return multiple values, should I explicitly wrap the returned values in the tuple? Yes. It is passing, not definition of function, definition statement. If in function definitions, you must use tuple. But using unpack variables, you not must do it. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much again. I really liked that you pointed out for which version of Python you can start using these new functions. And it really made sure that type hinting gets a big boost from 3.9. And it will be just great from 3.10. So thank you very much for giving all the detailed information. And let's give you another applause from here to you.