Just how common is common sense?

I read this posting in the FT with great interest, and a little depression ("If granny would disapprove, don't put it on the net" by Rhymer Rigby).

I don't doubt that it makes a great deal of sense, what concerns me is that it apparently needs to be stated. Surely this is the lowest level of common sense? Don't we all know that we no longer control information or images once posted on the internet? Just who needs to be told about this stuff?

I would be concerned in any case if this article had been published in a tabloid - but this was in the FT, for goodness sake! "Campaign" lists the FT as the choice of the "business high flyers", so surely this demograph can be relied upon to have the common sense required to know not to post stupid comments or pictures anywhere remotely public. Perhaps this is one further piece of evidence for the reduction in the number of people willing to take personal responsibility (I enjoyed this take on responsibility).

On Facebook and Twitter - as in emails, telephone calls, letters and even faxes (yes - some people still send faxes) - we must all take responsibility for what we write and post. The best lesson I was ever given in this regard was to "imagine that anything you write anywhere might end up being read out in court". Good advice for all, I think.

PS - isn't Rhymer Rigby a great name! I'm really pleased he appears to be a real person and not a pseudonym.

The blame game (again)

I know - I said I would stop blogging about blame. I'm starting to realise why the press enjoy filling their pages with these stories.

Nevertheless - I read Lucy Kellaway's column in the FT this morning and thought that she summed it up very well. As she points out there have been some very strange theories about the reasons for the recent decline - notwithstanding that most commentators thought that some kind of reaction was coming (even it they were incorrect, mostly, about the severity of the "market adjustment").

She quoted Richard Layard, which led me to read his piece about "...less selfish capitalism". I was very taken with his points about private interest versus what he calls "positive sum activities". I think it is true that we have been obsessed with the self  - and been able to wallow in this self interest to the detriment of consideration for Society as a whole. Sorry if this sounds very socialist. How about - reducing self interest in favour of the interest of the organisation as a whole. Perhaps commercial enterprises will be happy with that?

I have also been looking into another Lucy Kellaway recommendation - "The Ethical Executive" by Hoyt and Hersey. I think one of the tag lines sums it up well "Good intentions are not good enough".

Now there's a thought to live by.