Clearly I haven't quite got the hang of this negotiation lark.

Take the Bristol issue as an example. I've indicated that I'd be happy to forget about the whole thing. The only condition I would require is that using a indirect contact mechanism the state assures me that the situation is being run in line with the participants best interests. Failing that I would be prepared to settle for the state demonstrating it had obtained the participants informed consent.

The state responded to this concession with such a level of anger that you would thought I'd asked for a day trip to the lost city of Atlantis or something as equally impossible to achieve.

Next we have the Enterprise House thing. Despite the fact I think it would be in every bodies best interests to see a certain person to be crushed into the dirt I again offered a series of concessions. I would be happy for the young lady in question to be moved sideways into a job of equal pay and status regardless of how ill qualified she is. I've also made it clear that I would be perfectly happy to work in a different project anyway int he UK just as long as it provides the environment that E/H is no longer able to provide.

This was met with more aggression and a refusal to engage as if the government thought the lesson I had to learn to get ahead int he UK was how to tolerate incompetence.

As apparently one of the great crimes I've committed is to protest against foolish government policy I decided to concede and turn over a new leaf. I did this by urging people not to participate in anti-G8 protests in Croydon. Again the government responded with more aggression and a mobilisation of the trolls not seen since, well the Olympic flame protests.

The only way I can envisage the government being angry about me urging people not to protest was if rather then considering protest to be a crime they were trying to use as part of Croydon's re-generation strategy. If that was the case, having done a lot of work on the issue almost a decade ago way back in 2000/01, I have to assure them that Croydons problems are too vast and deeply ingrained to be solved by a few banner waving people on bikes.

So I am totally baffled by this "negotiation" thing but then I suppose I was brought up to believe that negotiation was a process based on integration whereby both sides make small concessions to reach an amicable agreement. Anything else is dictation based on subjugation which can only be attempted when one side is superior to the other.

In other news the situation in Zimbabwe appears to have finally ground to it's inevitable halt with the African Union refusing to bring sanctions against the nation and the MDC refusing to form a government of national unity. Although this is a far from ideal situation I think it is the best possible outcome possible following the catalogue of failures before, during and after the election.

Many in the west are now calling for a raft of tougher sanctions and a power sharing agreement with Mugabe with one British MP even calling for sanctions to be laid against South Africa. I cannot back any such calls because I am at a loss to see how power sharing with Mugabe will lead to anything other then a paralysis of the Zimbabwean government. Also I cannot see how international sanctions will do anything to weaken Mugabe's position. I can however see that they will make life worse for the people of Zimbabwe and I don't think that is a price they should be forced to pay just so British politicians get to avoid admitting their failures by pretending they're getting tough on Mugabe.

There has been some good news in sport because Andy Murray has been knocked out of Wimbledon. Now while I don't have a problem with Murray or indeed give much of a damn about tennis either way I am glad this is over because some people have been attempting to draw a comparison. I object to this for three simple reasons;

1. The rules of tennis are fixed and agreed in advance. This means that the rules cannot be changed just as soon as Murray looks like he could win. It's just a shame the Scottish guy wasn't good enough.
2. While I may be a bit English, Irish and Welsh I still have some self respect left so calling me Scottish is only going to be offensive.
3. Homosexuality was legalised in the UK in 1967 so I can see no reason to continue with much after that.

On a cryptic note I should just say; "Wow you've thought yourself all the way to 2012, there's a clever boy. Sadly when we talk about the future we're thinking in terms of 2020/30 but I'm sure by 2009 you'll have figured out what happened to you in 2007.