The Hidden Effects of being a Whistleblower

Posted on Updated on


I’m just having an interesting correspondence with a highly-respected clinical psychologist I worked with more than 30 years ago and haven’t had contact with since. We were both involved in whistleblowing an exposé of sustained physical abuse as part of the treatment system in a showcase children’s assessment centre. I’m speaking about aggressive power-games by staff on children, beatings-up, threatenings, subtle and outright cruelty of many kinds — even forcing children as young as five years old to eat their own vomit. I had worked closely undercover with an investigative journalist on The Guardian newspaper; and after a couple of months of evidence-gathering the story broke on the front page of the paper. As you can imagine, all hell broke loose as the local authority council and department of social work set about covering their asses. Shortly after, a Public Inquiry, presided over by a judge, was held during which potential witnesses were plainly bribed or threatened and mass betrayals took place by people who had promised to testify against the centre. My legal representative at the Inquiry (who was actually a lawyer for the National Council for Civil Liberties — what a joke!) behaved like an imbecile. (I later discovered he was in the same Freemason’s lodge as the Director of Social Services 😉 ). The police had also aggressively tried to threaten me to drop my witness-stance (they had been involved in the abuse too, beating kids up, covering up, etc.). Needless to say, the directors of the childen’s centre were eventually declared to be the innocent victims of a smear campaign. It was a total debacle.

Continue reading…

Commentary on “Storm Watch”

Posted on Updated on


Although I have never previously done so, I have been moved to write a commentary on a poem (sonnet) I wrote and placed here yesterday, entitled “Storm Watch”. The main reason for this is because my original conception was an article; but as I sat down to commence writing, it came out as a sonnet instead. This has never happened before. There must be a reason for it. The sonnet is, if you like, the esoteric version. But the distillation of information in it is so concentrated that it could probably only be grasped by a few cognoscenti. Thus, in order to make the message more accessible, here is a line-by-line commentary on the sonnet:

“A wind blows through this bedlam world today.”

Continue reading…

“Shooter” – A Didactic Film Review

Posted on Updated on


Last night (Sunday 20th January), The great film, “Shooter”, was shown on Sweden’s television channel TV4. Nearly five years ago I wrote a review of this film for an online blogzine. Here is what I wrote:







I had previously seen a number of mixed reviews of the film, “Shooter”, directed by Antoine Fuqua, with a screenplay by Jonathan Lemkin. The mainstream media were not enthusiastic. One viewer’s review said it was made by and for “pinko-liberal communists” to get people to despise their government; whereas another one said that it was one of the most unforgettable films he has ever seen with an intelligent screenplay and an important message for our time. I guess this is the great divide in America. One either “gets it” or one doesn’t… and most don’t.

The essential storyline of the film is as follows. (By the way, I make no apologies for “spoilers” as knowing what happens doesn’t make a jot of difference to appreciating the message or the direction of the film). It opens with a US marine expert sniper (Bob Lee Swagger, played by Mark Wahlberg) and Danny, his “spotter”, in Ethiopia watching over a “black ops” mission from a hillside. Things go wrong and they get hung out to dry by the CIA field advisor and, as a result, they come under attack and the spotter is killed. Cut to three years later and we see Swagger (Ruby Ridge style) in a cabin 9000 feet up in the mountains in Wyoming with his dog (who fetches his beers from the refrigerator) and the solitude. By now he has a ponytail, a beard and a book about 9/11 on his desk. As he turns to a news website on his computer, he mutters “Let’s see what lies they’ve got for us today”. Clearly, he had learned from his experience in Ethiopia!

Suddenly, we hear a car outside. It’s a large black SUV with blacked-out windows. No prizes for guessing who is inside! Three big guys emerge, the head of which is a Colonel Johnson (not, of course, his real name) – a big wheel in the kind of contracting company (like Blackwater) increasingly used by the Pentagon as a way of carrying out dirty operations which would not (officially) be publicly tolerated by congress. Swagger comes out of the cabin and tells them to turn tail and go back where they came from. But they have a proposition for him. They claim to have intercepted a plot to assassinate the President and Col. Johnson’s people have determined that it would probably have to happen in one of three places (Washington DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia), and would have to be done by a sniper shooting from over 1,500 yards away. Johnson says he wants Swagger to stake out the three areas, and determine the best way that the sniper would do it, so that they can try to prevent it. At first, he refuses; but after Johnson pushes some of Swagger’s patriotic buttons, the sniper agrees. Sample dialogue of Johnson’s argument here:

Bob Lee Swagger:  “I don’t really like the President much. Didn’t like the one before that, much, either”.

Colonel Isaac Johnson:  “You like the idea of the President, living in a free country. Do we allow America to be ruled by thugs?”

Bob Lee Swagger:  “Sure, some years we do”.

Huge laugh in the cinemas. But it’s not so much funny as true. And it’s not just some years but most! Of course, the irony here is that Colonel Johnson and his ilk are the total thugs, as the film reveals. It also reveals that America is ruled by such thugs, regardless of who is president.

Soon, we see Swagger sizing up the various potential assassination locations and he reports back that Philadelphia is the most likely. When the day comes for the President’s speech in front of Independence Hall in Philly, Swagger is there with his binoculars in a room overlooking the event with Colonel Johnson and sidekicks. Just as the hit is about to take place, a beat cop comes into the room by arrangement with Johnson and proceeds to shoot Swagger who is hit twice and falls out of the window through a glass roof. Still alive but badly hurt, Swagger limps off and forcibly takes an FBI vehicle from an agent (Nick Memphis) who he tells about the set-up. After a car chase he winds up in the river and disappears. The TV news declares that Swagger was the assassin and portrays him as a dangerous man on the run. (We can smell Lee Harvey Oswald here – in fact, Swagger’s name is not totally dissimilar – although the difference is that Swagger-the-patsy is much more adept at keeping himself alive than Oswald-the-patsy). Swagger then goes to the house of the girlfriend of his dead spotter buddy from Ethiopia who dresses his wounds and helps him to recover (as well as providing him with Danny’s old hunting rifle to get him started on his campaign of revenge).

The rest of the film is about how Swagger finds out what is going on, who is involved and why. (In fact, it wasn’t the President who was hit but an Ethiopian bishop standing next to him. There are good reasons for that, connected with the ‘black op’ at the beginning of the movie, as you will discover if you see it).

There are a few particular cameo scenes in the movie during which much is revealed. They are like set-pieces.

1) In the first cameo scene, the rookie FBI agent, Nick Memphis (3 months out of the academy) has been lured by Swagger as bait into a trap. (The agent already realises that Swagger was set-up and, as a result, he obviously has to be dealt with by the powers that be). We then see Memphis kidnapped by CIA hired thugs and beaten in a disused warehouse, after which he is rigged up in a suicide machine – a kind of brace which pulls your arm round to point at your head and a gun is put in your hand and fired. One of the agents tells him “Don’t worry, you’ve already written a touching suicide note”. What they didn’t reckon on was Swagger in a boat 200 yards away with the hunting rifle. Three shots later the agents are dead and Memphis is rescued by Swagger. One of the great moments in the film is in this scene when Memphis tells Swagger to get himself a good lawyer and he’ll file an FBI report to his superior telling the truth and then everything will be okay. Now here you’d expect Swagger to say something like “Don’t be so stupid, they’re all in on it”. But instead he simply says “I don’t think you understand. These people killed my dog”. Precisely. They’d stop at nothing. They have to be dealt with! From that point on, Memphis teams up with Swagger in trying to get to the bottom of the plot.

2) The second cameo scene involves a visit by Swagger and Memphis to a wise old gunsmith called Mr. Rate who is based in Tennessee (which Swagger amusingly calls “the patron state of killing stuff”!). The old gunsmith is played by actor Levon Helm (the original drummer and vocalist in Bob Dylan’s group, The Band). There is something totally real about this scene. Helm’s character rings true. This is a great role, wonderfully performed, as Mr. Rate sheds some important additional light on the plot. In response to the public notion that Swagger killed the Ethiopian bishop, Mr. Rate says mischievously: “They also said artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq, and Anna Nicole married for love!”  Right on, Mr. Rate. There must be many such wise old-timers tucked away in the backwoods of Tennessee!

3) The third cameo scene involves a confrontation between Swagger and another sniper who works as a contracted killer for the CIA (and who seems to spend most of the movie based in the Langley, Virginia, headquarters of that organisation). He’s the one who killed the archbishop from Ethiopia. This guy is played by Serbian actor, Rade Serbedzija, who brings a sinister touch to the movie. With nothing left to lose and minutes away from death (realising that he too is about to be “wasted” by his CIA handlers), he spills the beans about everything to Swagger. It’s a powerful few minutes of vital information about the plot, about the fact that nothing evil happens without the prior approval of the government, and also about the ‘black op’ which Swagger unwittingly protected as a sniper at the beginning of the film. Apparently, the Blackwater style contractors for which Swagger had been sniping were massacring an Ethiopian village of four hundred men, women and children to make way for a US oil pipeline, the station of which was built over the mass grave. (The Ethiopian archbishop was going to spill the beans about this event while he was alongside the US president so he was shot dead but it was made to look like a botched assassination attempt on the President – with Swagger as the fall guy).

4) The fourth cameo scene involves a powerful denouement on top of a glacier. Present are Col. Johnson, Senator Charles F. Meacham, a CIA hitman, Swagger, his girlfriend and Nick Memphis. Swagger has now got the upper hand, having thwarted every attempt on the part of Col. Johnson (run by Senator Charles F. Meacham) to kill him off. But, true to form, Meachum isn’t about to give up (these guys never do). Here’s part of the exchange:

Senator Charles F. Meachum:  “You got any plans after this? You have a rather unique skill set. I’d be interested in offering you a job”.

Bob Lee Swagger:  “Work? For you?”

Senator Charles F. Meachum:  “It’s not really as bad as it seems. It’s all gonna be done in any case. You might as well be on the side that gets you well paid for your efforts”.

Nick Memphis:  “And what side are you on?”

Senator Charles F. Meachum:  “There are no sides. There’s no Sunnis and Shiites. There’s no Democrats and Republicans. There’s only haves and have-nots… There’s always a confused soul that thinks that one man can make a difference. And you have to kill him to convince him otherwise. That’s the hassle with democracy… This is a country where the Secretary of Defense can go on T.V., and tell the American public that ‘This is about freedom! It’s not about oil!’ And nobody questions him, cuz they don’t wanna hear the answer, because it’s a lie! There are only so many places at the table, Gunnie. Now, are you on the INSIDE, or are you on the OUT?”

This scene represents the confrontation between the corrupt government/secret service nabobs and the patriots who have seen through them. It demonstrates the utter cynicism, complete self-centredness and total disregard for truth and human life of those who “run things”. (It also represents the naiveté of those who think that it is possible to do something about it, but that’s another story, as we’ll see).

5) The fifth cameo scene in the film takes place in the US Attorney-General’s office. This occurs near the end of the movie and is, in my opinion, where it begins to go slightly astray. I don’t mean in terms of the dialogue content but in terms of the fact that, in reality, by this time Swagger (and FBI agent Nick Memphis) would no longer be alive. No doubt about that. However, be that as it may, Swagger is brought in chains and wearing an orange prison suit into the Attorney-General’s office before a small committee. Col. Johnson is also present, as is FBI agent Nick Memphis. Swagger and Memphis reveal the truth to the AG about the assassination and about the Ethiopian massacre but, although he agrees that it is the truth, he confesses that he is unable to do anything about it—that he is powerless against these forces. The Attorney-General does say to Johnson: “Colonel, your moral compass is so fucked-up, I’ll be shocked if you manage to find your way back to the parking lot”. Nevertheless, Col. Johnson then walks from the room a free man, while saying to Swagger “I won”. The AG then sits informally on the table beside Swagger and says: “For the record, I don’t like how this has turned out any more then you do. But this is the world we live in. And justice does not always prevail. It’s not the wild west where you can clean up the streets with a gun. Even though sometimes it’s exactly what is needed… Bob Lee Swagger, you’re free to go”. The clear implication is an unspoken authorization by the powerless Attorney-General for Swagger to “clean up the streets with a gun”, which he duly does in the final scene of the film.

However, even though Swagger does mete out Wild West justice in the film, while this may be satisfying for audiences looking for a resolution to tell them that all is well with the world, it will not change anything at all; because for every Senator Meacham and Col. Johnson there are two more such scum waiting to step into their shoes. As the Serbian CIA sniper asset told Swagger “You don’t get it. There is no head to cut off. It’s a conglomerate. If one of them betrays the principles of accrual of money and power, the others betray him”. And this is the main theme of the film: That the entire thrust of government (in this case, especially the US government) is all about money and power and the fact that anything or anyone who stands in the way of that will be ruthlessly dispatched from this world.

Bob Lee Swagger is a kind of patriotic antihero, a hybrid consisting of John Wayne cleaning up the streets of the Wild West and Clint Eastwood cleaning up the streets of Los Angeles (some might even add Rambo cleaning up the jungle). As a sergeant gunner in the US marines, Swagger had awoken from the hypnotically-induced trance which makes soldiers and civilians alike naively think that the military is defending freedom and democracy.

Swagger’s own betrayal experience in the military and his subsequent researches have led him to understand how things work in the world of conspiracy-fact. As he says to the girl tending his wounds: “The first rule of conspiracy is to find some dumb-assed patsy, blame him and then kill him. The second rule of conspiracy is to clean up the loose ends. After Ruby took care of his end, somehow he dies of an embolism in jail before he can talk to anybody”. For those too young to remember, Jack Ruby was the unstable, nightclub-owning, mafia-connected “patsy” who was sent in to kill Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK’s alleged killer) to shut him up, not at the time realising that he himself was going to be taken out too.  [Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article about Ruby: “A year after his conviction, in March 1965, Ruby conducted a brief televised news conference in which he stated: ‘Everything pertaining to what’s happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I’m in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.’ When asked by a reporter: ‘Are these people in very high positions Jack?’ he responded ‘Yes’.] As Swagger said, the loose ends must be cleaned up. Thus Jack Ruby was also duly cleaned up (taken out, killed).

In fact, many people connected with the Kennedy assassination have been murdered or have died under mysterious circumstances, for which see Sylvia Meagher, “Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission and the Report”, Random House, 1976, 477 pages, sadly out of print but still available used and highly recommended. The Kennedy assassination is the most disgusting wart on the face of the United States of America. It is its pinnacle of corruption and a warning to all who would try to meddle with the plans of those who secretly run the country. The warning is: “Meddle and you will soon be removed from this world. If we can do it to a man like the President, then we can easily do it to you”. (Remember that Kennedy wanted to stand up to organised crime with his brother and he also said he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds”. As part of that, he removed the then director of the CIA, Allen F. Dulles, from office — though ironically Dulles later sat on the Warren Commission which produced the whitewash report on Kennedy’s assassination. A president cannot stand up to organised crime and the CIA and expect to live for long. As the Mafia and CIA have always been in each other’s pockets — and even carry out each other’s assassinations — it doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to work out how John F. Kennedy met his death).

There are a number of things which are underlined in this film:

1)     The first thing which is underlined in this film is that the US military is not a force for the defense of the country but it is a tool of the corporate empires of America in the global furtherance of their wealth and power. If people do not realise this after the debacles of Afghanistan and Iraq then they are blind beyond belief.

2)     The second thing which is underlined in this film is that most politicians are not working for the representation of the people but are the puppets of the corporate empires of America in the global furtherance of their wealth and power. This is what so-called “lobbyism” is all about. But it goes way beyond that. Way beyond it. The truth is that the Senate and House of Representatives and all their committees are merely there to rubber-stamp whatever the corporations want to do wherever it is in the world. Together with the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the big corporations ensure the direction which business and government will take hand-in-hand. It is all carefully mapped out. Those countries which deviate from what is desired or which refuse to cooperate will be overthrown by a CIA induced coup, or leadership assassination, or a full-blown invasion, or financial bleeding dry and isolation; while those individuals who try and stand up to this machine or expose it will be silenced at any cost.

3)     The third thing which is underlined in this film is that the public media (newspapers, magazines, television) is one big lying machine but that the majority of people are actually relieved that it is the way it is because the truth would be far too revealing, far too painful and would necessitate them ceasing to be the kind of couch potatoes which governments need them to be. (It was interesting that when Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, uttered a few home truths about America, the media went into apoplexy and Obama had to publicly denounce his pastor! There’s nothing like Truth for causing a furore!).

4)     The fourth thing which is underlined in this film is that, as the Serbian sniper reveals, “Nothing—no matter how horrible—ever really happens without the approval of the government, over there and here”. This is what people do not, cannot and will not accept, even if they do suspect it in their hearts. I know of many people who secretly suspect that the event known as 9/11 was an inside job; but they cannot allow themselves to fully admit it because it would mean having to rethink everything in their lives and that is too painful—too destabilising for them, even though it is the truth. (Even ugly truth is beautiful precisely because it is Truth!). As it has been said: “The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim” (Gustave Le Bon).

“Shooter” is a film which harks back to the darkly cynical, profoundly sceptical, utterly convincing political-conspiracy thrillers of the 1970s and 1980s, such as “The Parallax View” and “Three Days of the Condor”, etc. There must be countless Nick Memphis’s in the FBI—as yet uncorrupted younger guys who doggedly want to see law and order prevail and that’s why they signed up in the first place. Just as there must be countless ex-marine types like Swagger who have seen through the thin veneer of democracy in the USA to witness the real corruption and evil which lies behind it and behind the darkness of the massacring American War Machine which — in a demonic touch of hypocrisy — poses as a freedom-giving angel of light. As Senator Meachum said in the film about Swagger, such men do indeed have “a unique skill set”. But the gun is not the answer. Creating patriotic militias will not solve anything. Rampant vigilantism will ultimately prove destructive and nihilistic, attractive as it may seem at a certain level of justice. (I will be addressing this whole issue of vigilantism in a separate article). There is a telling moment near the end of the film as Swagger administers gun justice to the oily Senator from Montana. The exchange goes like this:

Senator Charles F. Meachum:  “Wait a minute. Hold it, just a minute. Hold it… are you out of your mind? Are you out of your damn mind? I am a United States senator…”

Bob Lee Swagger (as he blows out the Senator’s brains):  “Exactly…”

Exactly indeed! The senator was reaping what he had sown. The very fact that he had been entrusted with government which he had then used murderously and corruptly meant that he deserved what he had meted out to others. But his death doesn’t solve anything. As the Serbian sniper said in his last powerful moments of honest exposition: “You don’t get it. There is no head to cut off. It’s a conglomerate. If one of them betrays the principles of the accrual of money and power, the others betray him. What it is is human weakness… and you can’t kill that with a gun. Precisely. It is the natural corruption of this present age which seeps into the heart of the human soul and it cannot be eradicated with a gun. The clear implication here is that for every evil scumbag to whom one might administer peremptory justice with a gun, Wild West style, there will be another one in the wings ready to take his or her place. There would be no end to it. This is the world in which we live. This present age is fundamentally evil and it is rooted in corruption, selfishness, avarice, murder and cruelty. The US government is no exception to this, also being solidly rooted in corruption, selfishness, avarice, murder and cruelty, no matter how much one may pretty it up to the human eye with White House lawns, elaborately-built Capitol Hill buildings and oak-lined interiors decked in grand portraits, velvet curtains and thick pile carpets. To fill such grand buildings with politicians is like putting dung inside a silver Gucci slipper.

If you wonder why I should be such an affront to you by speaking in this vein and about these things, it is because the deception has been so deep that the majority of people in the USA have actually supported and avidly campaigned for the corruption, selfishness, avarice, murder and cruelty carried out by their government in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. This is something for which they should be deeply ashamed. People need to be shocked out of their sleepwalking mediocrity and enslavement.

There is no time like the present to stop being a supporter of evil—whether it has been deliberate or by default, whether it has been through corroboration or because of cowardice. All you college professors, lawyers, CEOs, political hacks, teachers, theologians, pastors, journalists, businessmen and other big-deal people out there—instead of berating me each time I send out what you call a “conspiracy theory rant”—need to realise that if I was to keep quiet about the corruption, selfishness, avarice, murder and cruelty carried out by yours or any other government, that would make me just as guilty of it as if I had done it myself. The fact that you don’t want it saying makes you, too, just as guilty of those things as if you had done them yourselves. Guilt for such things sticks to you like mud sticks to a jackboot.

Make no mistake about it. It IS a jackboot that we are speaking about here. It is the fascism of corporate America and its US military puppet, backed up by its foppish servant—the Senate and Congress of its government—and silently supported by the smug collaboration of the American people. That such blatant fascism can happen under the thin disguise of freedom and democracy is a testament not only to the strong delusion involved but also to the gullibility of the mass of people today.

“Shooter” is a well-directed and powerful action film, even if only taken on that level. However, its message about the sham of democracy, the dictatorship of business corporations and the apparent powerlessness of decency in this age of evil is even more compelling. This film should give us cause to question whether we ourselves are collaborators and traitors or seditionists and dissidents. To take the latter course is the noble and knightly one, regardless of the outcome for our own personal safety.


Alan Morrison

© Copyright 2008

How to Avoid Being Ripped-off in Sweden (or anywhere else for that matter)

Posted on Updated on

Here’s a little bit of helpful information for anyone planning on engaging the services of small businesses in Sweden. Although this information is plainly applicable anywhere in the world, I and other non-Swedish people with whom I have discussed this have discovered it to be especially applicable in Sweden. I’ve done quite a bit of business in my life (not as a business person but as a creative artist purchasing services for my work) and — being an idealist — I have often made the mistake of doing it like a hippie, thinking that I can trust people in the world of the arts and in those lines of work connected with the arts. I’m telling you these things so you don’t make the same mistakes as I have.

Firstly and foremost, always insist on a formal quotation for work in writing — preferably, get it as detailed as possible in a signed and dated contract. If they won’t give you the information you want in the way that you want it, then they’re bullshitting you. Just walk away.


If you’re dealing with greedy unprofessional people or scammers (they often behave in similar ways), the first “quote” you’ll receive for work will be a very bare one without any tax added or other extras. Do NOT settle for that.  Always ask the question: “Is this the final figure that I will have to pay? If not, what are the extras?” You see, such people will always quote you a figure without tax. I can guarantee this. They know exactly what they’re doing. They’re trying to make their quote seem as small as possible so you will accept it. They’re hoping you won’t even bring it up at all, until you get the bill, by which time it’s too late for you to get out. This means that what they’re quoting you is up to 25% less than the real figure that you will pay. That is one quarter of the bill! They will not give you the figure and then immediately say “plus tax” and then tell you how much that would be too (which would be the honest and professional thing to do). That will be concealed from you. You will actually have to ask them: “Does that figure include tax?” and only then will they be forced to admit that it doesn’t.

In any case, the whole tax thing is a bit of a joke as far as greedy unprofessional people or scammers are concerned for I can guarantee almost with certainty that they won’t be paying any tax themselves on your payment! Therefore, adding tax to their quoted figure is just a way of bumping up the price even more and making an extra 20-25% out of you which will never be paid as tax by them.

Make sure that you also ask what extra expenses are involved. Get it all formally in writing. Leave nothing to a mere verbal agreement or something in some casual email exchange or spoken about in an internet chat. Ask for a written statement or contract formally signed and dated with all fees, taxes and extras mentioned, otherwise you will get a terrible shock when their bill finally arrives. That I can guarantee.

If you are given a quote involving an hourly rate rather than a single figure for the whole job, then make sure they also tell you how many hours the work is going to take and get that in writing. This is crucial, for otherwise they can make the job take as long as they like (which is tantamount to giving them permission to print money for themselves at your expense), drain all your resources and you will have no comeback at them whatsoever. For a short job, lasting a day or two, an hourly rate is acceptable. But if the job is going to take much longer than that then they should really give you a single-figure quote rather than an hourly one. This is the professional way to do business; so if they don’t or won’t do business like that then they are unprofessional, to say the least, or greedy or planning to scam you.

If, when you ask them how many hours the job will involve, they say they can’t possibly answer that, just walk away. Immediately. Any genuine professional can estimate how long a job will take. It may take a bit of work but they can do it. They should really be able to give you a complete figure for the whole job. This is how professional business is done. If they start waffling about how every job is different so they can’t tell you how long it will take, then it’s either because they don’t want to (so they can keep their options open and get as much money out of you as possible) or they simply don’t have enough experience in their line of work to know what is involved in the job. Either way, you’re going to be scammed, so just say goodbye and walk away. It’s that easy. Walking away from greedy unprofessional people or scammers at that stage of the game will save you a vast amount of money. It could make the difference between your solvency and your bankruptcy.

You should be aware that if you try to question anything later down the line (for example, when you receive a bill from them which makes your hair stand on end!) they will not try to reassure you or receive your queries with a good customer service attitude. Instead, they will be angry and belligerent and try to put the blame back on you. I can absolutely guarantee this. They will claim that there were all sorts of hidden extras which they had not foreseen. Then they will try to make you feel guilty for not trusting them — for daring to question them. They will accuse you of being awkward – of being a difficult client (no matter how friendly, tentative or conciliatory you try to be with your queries). The very fact that you are questioning their business methods will trigger a surprisingly unpleasant response. This is a classic sociopathic kind of reaction and it will shock you. In fact, it’s designed to shock you because they are determined to get their own way (i.e. to get as much money out of you as possible) and they will accept no obstructions. If you thought you had a good relationship with the business person up to that point, that illusion will instantly crumble. You will see another side of them which is ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ in its nature.

It reminds me of an incident I experienced as a child. A schoolfriend went around bragging that he had found gold of great value buried in the grounds of his apartment block. Smelling a rat, I doubted his story and went to check. Finding a patch of earth which had been recently disturbed, I dug it up and there was a hoard of ordinary stones painted gold. (My motto has always been “Leave no stone unturned!” ;-). When I told him (in a friendly and not a sneering way) that I knew the truth about his “gold” he went completely mental and physically attacked me with fists flying, accusing me of trespass and theft and lies.

This is a sociopathic pattern I have seen repeated many times when those who behave dishonestly are questioned by others about their dishonesty. This applies also to business people whose methods are greedy, unprofessional and not upstanding. Even though they refused to have any kind of detailed written contract with you, they will accuse you of not sticking to your (albeit verbal or casual) arrangement with them, of withholding money from them. They will try to make you feel like a criminal who is not honouring his or her obligations. They are very adept at this. It is a vital part of their Modus Operandi to intimidate you into the passive acceptance of their dissembling business practice. They will even turn round to you and say things like “I knew I should have made a contract with you in the first place but I mistakenly trusted you”. Yes! Even though it was them who didn’t give you a contract and who deliberately concealed the true cost of the work (which they knew would be enormous). They are so good at twisting things. This is crazy stuff! You would almost think that they’d had psychological training specialising in how to turn the tables on anyone who questions their business methods. Remember, they will never under any circumstances admit to being in the wrong or behaving unacceptably. It will all be a case of you trying to avoid your obligations and refusing to pay for services rendered. So all you can do at that stage is comply with what they want, which of course is their aim. If, at that point, you decide to challenge them and refuse to pay their extortionate fees unless they negotiate a reasonable figure, claiming that they are guilty of malpractice, they will go ballistic and threaten you will all kinds of legal redress and how they will spread it around that you are a debtor and absconder. This is a pattern I have both personally experienced and been told about by others in a similar position many times.


The bottom line is this: A true professional in business will insist on making a written, signed and dated quotation/contract with you. You have every right to be naive and unwitting and the onus is definitely on them, as business professionals, to ensure that you cannot be exploited or deceived in any way by going ahead and putting everything formally in writing in a contract. That is how they should want it to be. The very fact that they don’t is a sign at the outset of their dishonesty. They shouldn’t wait to see if you don’t ask for a written quotation/contract and then go on to accept that without a murmur. Such behaviour is a form or professional misconduct and puts the client potentially at risk. In fact, it reminds me of the people who say that a woman who wears revealing clothing in the street deserves to be raped. “She asked for it!” as they say. So if a business person, after scamming you, says “Well it’s your own fault for not asking for a contract at the beginning or for agreeing to an agreed hourly rate”, they are behaving like the people who say that a woman who wears revealing clothing and is raped gets what she deserves. Your naivete should never be a good enough reason for them to scam you or milk you of your resources. So I say again that the onus is on them to ensure that all is done correctly. However, because so many business people are not real professionals and are not wholly honest and are out to get as much out of you as they can, then it behoves the client to ask for what is not being provided: a detailed, written, signed and dated quotation/contract which is binding.

I’m sharing all this so you are forewarned and forearmed. It isn’t only me who has experienced this but many that I know. Please do not assume that everyone is essentially good and honest, especially in the world of the arts. They are not. If people in business won’t provide you with the information you want and if they won’t give you a detailed, formal, written inventory of the costs as representing the final figure which you will have to pay, then just walk away or you will be in a mess financially and regret that you ever did business with them. Being able to say no or walk away from potentially draining or harmful experiences in life before they happen is one of the most important and empowering lessons we can learn.

One final note. When people in business behave like that, they are “cutting off their noses to spite their faces”; because by treating you in this manner they will not only lose your business but also the potential business of all those to whom you would have recommended them if they had behaved themselves. They are so short-sighted that they cannot see that they would have made far more money from their business transaction with you if they had gained your trust through the time-honoured business practice of “goodwill”. Goodwill in business means good sales service, good work practice and good after-sales service coupled with total transparency. Goodwill and helpful customer service are at the heart of a successful business. Very many small businesses flounder and fail because of greed and/or malpractice, when they could have been flourishing if they had thought in the long-term instead of the short-term. Myopia is not a useful quality in the world of business.

I hope you have found the caveats in this article helpful. I wish I had taken them onboard myself a long time ago! Thanks for reading. Feel free to share this with whoever you want.


© Alan Morrison, 2012

Interview with Alan Morrison by Johannes Flink (Director, Folkkulturcentrum, Stockholm)

Posted on Updated on

Interview with Alan Morrison – March 2011
by Johannes Flink – Director, Folkkulturcentrum, Stockholm


“For the release party of your new album “Ride my Heart”, Boulevardteatern described your music as: “British folk-rock with a tint of Northern sadness”. Do you agree to that description? And is there something special you would like to add”

Well, I’ve always found it difficult to classify my music style because it adapts itself according to the song. I don’t want to get stuck in one groove precisely because my songs don’t. Yes, there is Folk-Rock of both US and UK varieties in my music. There is also what can be called “Alternative Country” in there too and West Coast rock. But there are other things which I bring from my own heart which probably can’t be classified.

As for the “Northern sadness”, it is true that a number of my songs are drenched in melancholy. I prefer that word to “sadness” because melancholy has much beauty and longing in it, whereas mere sadness can be stultifyingly stuck in its own trip. I think this is why my music seems to have found a place in a number of hearts in Sweden in particular and Scandinavia in general. You know all about longing and yearning and wistfulness here – more so than in other countries. It seems to be built into your soul. That also must explain why I feel so at home here musically.

“In the so-far reviews for “Ride my Heart”, your references have been taken to be Dylan and Springsteen, whereas your singing style reminded one reviewer of Rod Stewart. Is this your opinion as well? Are these artists really your main inspirations? Or what other artists do you look to for inspiration?”

Actually, of those three artists I would say that only early Dylan has been anything like an inspiration to me. I remember being totally knocked-out as a young teenager by songs like “Masters of War”, “Desolation Row”, “She Belongs to me” and “It’s Alright, Ma, I’m only Bleeding”. They are masterpieces which showed me the importance of the text in a song. They were poetry set to music and that is what my own output is too. I think the references to those three artists in music reviews has come about when a reviewer heard some inflection in my voice which he has then expanded to become a major reference point – one that he or she understands. That’s what reviewers do; but it isn’t necessarily real.

My own musical development grew out of a passionate interest in 1960s groups like the Byrds, the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Buffalo Springfield, Poco, Neil Young and Crosby, Stills and Nash. They were all really pure folkies who added rock to the folk. Similar developments were happening at that time in the UK too, with pure folkies like John Renbourn and Bert Jansch forming the group, Pentangle, with the Scottish folk singer, Jacqui McShee. Another true folkie, Donovan, was also bringing a more rocked and jazzed-up folk influence before the British public. Then other UK folk-rock groups came along, such as Steeleye Span and Fairport Convention – both with a pure folk background. It was a tremendously creative and innovative era. All those artists and groups have been a huge influence on my musical landscape in one way or another, even if you can’t hear all of that directly in my songs.

Some contemporary songwriters, such as Lucy Kaplansky and Kim Richey, have also affected me deeply. Listening to them has honed my understanding of the art of songwriting.

However, in spite of all the above, in the final analysis I am me and my true inspiration is my own Muse. I stand alone with my experience and my songs, for what they are worth.

“In virtually all descriptions of your music that I have read, your text-work comes to the fore. It is said about your texts that they are poetic, ambitious and that they all thematize love in some form. How did text become so important to you? And are your texts really the prime motor of your music”

The truth is that I am really a poet who gives wings to my poems with music to create songs. The music is the vehicle to steer the poem into the listening heart. The harmony is the handmaiden for the words. I am first and foremost a wordsmith. Words are the essence of my music. They have work to be. It’s not just about entertainment. Words are tremendously powerful. They affect people at the deepest level, whether they realise it or not. And when they are accompanied by harmonious music then that process is even more profound.

All my songs thematize love in some form because love comes in many forms. In this sense, all my songs are love songs. On the one hand, they speak about what I call the “perils and privileges” of relationships. On the other hand, they address an issue of importance in the social context of the world. So you can have a song such as “Sparks” about a relationship breakdown and what lay behind it alongside a song like “Anthem for Someone’s Child” about the death of children in war. My songs are both born out of love and speak about love. I know it’s a cliché but love is all there is. In that sense, I suppose one could say that with my music you don’t just get words and tunes; you get a whole philosophy. My favourite classical composer, Gustav Mahler, famously said in a debate with Jean Sibelius that “the symphony should embrace the whole world”. That is what I want my music to do also, in my own small way; to reach inside hearts and change people. Nothing grandiose. Just an artist doing what any artist should do. It is like being a mirror of human experience, with all its ecstasies and empathies – all its flaws and foibles. Music – poetry, all art – should reflect the whole of human life. If enough people are changed by music then music could change the world.

On the other hand, your music is built up by complicated harmonies and often comprises a large number of instruments beside the normal rock set, such as violin, mandolin, etc. Please describe your musicianship. What are your musical references? How did you get interested in the particular kind of music that you are creating”

I could write a book about that! I believe that each song is like a painting. A painter wouldn’t use the same colours and tints for every painting. Likewise, I would feel too limited with just the usual drums, bass and guitar. I like to use extra colours for different songs, like cello, violin, pedal steel guitar, dobro guitar, mandolin, accordion, nyckelharpa, French horn, harmonica, etc. If I could afford it, I would have a little orchestra onstage, including a string section! I have a passionate interest in classical music so I have an orchestral feel for the song form. When I’m composing a song I picture the wash of colours in my mind and choose the right instrumental mix accordingly. It’s always been like that.

Interestingly, although I have made music all my life and written poetry all my life, I didn’t bring the two together until comparatively late. The poetry came first and then they started to become songs. I still principally write poems but many of them become songs too.

“Kenny Håkansson of Hellacopters used to tell me that one should always ask a real musician about his instrument and his relation to it, because it always provokes an interesting story. So now I do that: what guitar do you play and what does it mean to you?”

My main acoustic guitar is a Taylor 914. It is my lover and my best friend. Any woman in my life has to reckon with that. There will always be a rival! Many years ago, my first Taylor was a delicious cedar-topped 714 which I bought in the Netherlands. For some stupid reason I sold it after a few years just so I could have a change. Since that time I tried many other top brands but I always missed the unique sound and feel of a Taylor. It simply belongs in my hands. That’s the only way I can put it.

I write all my songs on the guitar and the Taylor is such an inspiration. I feel like a songwriter and true artist when I have it in my hands. I modified the electronics by putting in a B-Band Acoustic Soundboard Transducer for a wonderfully natural airy miced sound.

I also have a Gibson Songwriter Deluxe acoustic guitar which I use for alternative tunings onstage, a Taylor T5 electric guitar, a Godin 12-string acoustic and a Danelectro 12-string electric to bring other colours. But my Taylor acoustic will always be my top choice.


“Your album has been produced by Lasse Englund, and people like Ola Nyström from Weeping Willows and the skilled cellist Emili Jeremias have made guest appearances. How did you make these contacts within Swedish music”

In 2009 I went on a songwriters’ retreat in the UK, hosted by Donovan and Maria McKee. There I met three Swedish musicians and songwriters who became my friends. One of them, Maria Blom – who had a record label here in Stockholm – said she’d fallen in love with my music and she asked me to come here and make a CD. Then she introduced me to Lasse Englund. Maria McKee also said she thought I should find a place for my music in Sweden as she felt it would be appreciated here. That’s how it all started. One contact led to another and it seems that their intuition was right.


“Lastly, what are your plans for the nearest future and for your musical career as a whole? Will you go on working in the same genre and the same text themes? How do you feel that your music has developed and will develop in the future? What new collaborations have you planned? What are your hopes and ambitions”

That is certainly a set of leading questions! No doubt some things will stay the same and certain elements will change as time goes by – hopefully they will be improvements. I’ve found some very talented young musicians who I’m currently working with in Stockholm, which is so encouraging and inspiring. I like working with different forces for different kinds of songs. So I work solo, with trios and with a full band.  I have plans to make a new CD, on which I hope to include the more orchestral elements I spoke about above – for example, a string quartet in some songs as well as the usual forces. Although many of my songs fall within identifiable styles, I like to experiment. For example, I wrote a kind of rap song recently entitled “ToyBoy”. New genre: Folk-Rap!

One other thing I am working on at the moment is creating a book of 150 of my poems and lyrics coupled with some prose passages which examine, for example, the difference between prose, poetry and song. I’m hoping to complete that by the Summer. It will also have photographs as illustrations.

The bottom line is that I will just continue doing what I have always done: follow my heart. I believe there is a supernatural element to the creative process. I have no other way to explain the way that words and music come together. It is as if something outside of oneself has supplied the lubricant for that. If one is true to one’s art then the Muse continues to provide the oil. That is the least that I could ask for.

Above all, I want to continue to develop an audience of people who love poetry flying on musical wings. It is one thing to write songs; it is quite another for them to find a home in the hearts of others. Then the circle is complete. Then I will feel some satisfaction and fulfilment.


© 2011, Alan Morrison

To Ride my Songs is to Know my Heart

Posted on Updated on


(Alan’s essay for the enclosure in the CD “Ride my Heart”)

Continue reading…

My Valentine’s Day Vow to the Muse

Posted on Updated on

Valentine Renewal Vow

Before the Muse and all who love her, I hereby solemnly declare that I will never compromise my art in any way:

* I will never write according to someone else’s “formula” or another’s “recipe” for what constitutes “a great song”

* I will never write solely in order to gain popularity

* I will only sing from my heart what my heart cannot keep to itself

* I will never set out to write a “hit”, knowing well that mostpeople apparently cannot distinguish a song from the heart from a turd in the street

* I will never shorten my songs so they conform to a “soundbite” mentality and become less than what I have to say. I will trust in the Muse and her lovers to show me how not to be unnecessarily verbose and how to avoid gratuitousness in song

* I will never follow the direction of the prevailing wind but will go where the Muse directs me

* I will forever believe in the unshaken, unquenchable, unmitigated, unadulterated, bubbled-up, volcanic cry from the individual heart as the essence of the song

* I will willingly learn from others but I will never be a clone or a protégé

* I will only listen to the advice of those who themselves have vowed before the Muse never to compromise their art and never to be blown by the winds of popularity

I swear all this before the Muse on Saint Valentine’s Day today. May she desert me forever if I compromise one iota.