The Peter Kirk European Scholarship

I'm extremely pleased and excited to have been awarded a Peter Kirk European Travel Scholarship. The scholarships - which were set up to commemorate the work of the late Sir Peter Kirk MP - include a grant of £1,500 to enable young people from the UK and Europe to conduct a research project in a country other than their own. They're typically restricted to individuals between the ages of 18 and 26 but - fortunately for me - will occasionally consider oldies up to the age of 29 if they impress enough. I was even more fortunate in that I initially received a rejection but due to a cancellation from another candidate I got a last-minute interview slot and the rest, as the saying goes, is history.

My successful proposal is titled "20 Years Later: the Soviet Legacy in the Baltic States". I'll be spending around two months later this year in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania exploring both the physical and emotional remains of the Soviet period in these most Western of former Socialist Republics, and examining whether its impact still has ramifications today.

It should be an extremely interesting and enjoyable study, at least from a personal perspective, and one that I would simply not be able to do without the help of the Peter Kirk Scholarship trustees. I'm very grateful for their interest in this project and I look forward to producing an insightful report when I return. Now to arrange some interviews..!

24 hours in Transnistria - a summary

I've recently returned from a brief trip to Transnistria, the result of a competition run by Wanderlust magazine I won back in the Summer.

It's probably fair to say that a lot of people have never heard of Transnistria; indeed, it's difficult to even find a definitive spelling of the place, with Transdniestr or Transdniestria just some of the versions commonly found in print. Without a doubt it must rank as one of the most obscure countries in Europe - and even that description is up for debate...

Transnistria - or the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, as it's known locally - is an internationally unrecognised country forming a narrow strip of land between the Dniester River and Ukraine. Created in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse in the early 1990s, tensions between the mainly Russian-speaking Transnistrians and Moldova - of which the PMR is considered an integral part by most international observers - broke out into a bitter civil war that witnessed around a thousand killed. A de facto state of independence has been maintained ever since, with the presence of the Russian army all but guaranteeing the current status quo.

It's also a place that, to put it mildly, has suffered something of an image problem over the last two decades. Weapons smuggling and human trafficking as well as human rights abuses are all accusations regularly directed at the authorities in the capital Tiraspol. So it was obvious that I was going to have to check the place out.

To get to Transnistria on the cheap I would need to take advantage of cheap flights, and I duly did so by travelling to Bucharest with budget outfit Blue Air. From the Romanian capital it was then a matter of an overnight bus to Chişinău in neighbouring Moldova and then a shared 'maxitaxi' - what we'd call a minibus - to Tiraspol.

Aside from the self-evident attraction of visiting a place that sees few visitors, another of Transnistria's claims to fame is the retention of communist symbols and monuments that have long been consigned to the scrap heap in other areas of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries, a little like Belarus (a country I visited back in 2008).

During my time in Transnistria I met up with Mila Selezneva, a local student and trainee journalist with Dnestr TV; she had heard about my impending trip to the region and was keen to talk about the media and life in general back in the UK. After a chat over a coffee we travelled to the station's studio housed in an apartment block in the neighbouring city of Bendery, and there we had an impromptu talk (with Mila translating) to the rest of the team in front of the cameras - you can see a brief clip here.

Mila also introduced me to Aleksei Buchkov, current president of the Student Community of Transnistria and all-round political activist. Between the three of us we had some interesting chats about Transnistria's current political status, identity issues and what it means to be Transnistrian - and Russian at the same time. It was with some sadness when it came to saying goodbye the following day.

Mila and Aleksei were both very keen that I should return to Transnistria, and I'd very much like to take them up on their offer; 24 hours isn't nearly long enough to understand this place and why it stubbornly decides to go it alone. I also had the privilege of meeting two very mature and intelligent young people, and the opportunity to explore more of their country - as well as socialise with good friends - is one that's simply too good to pass up.

In the meantime I'll attempt to write this trip up in a more readable fashion, and also upload the bulk of the pictures that don't feature here already; I'll post an update when the time comes...!

Update 11/02/2012
I've finally uploaded some of the pictures from the trip here. In case you're unfamiliar with Panoramio, it's a website which features uploaded photographs on Google Earth, which is a nice way to guarantee that at least a few people should see them.

The Berghaus Adventure Challenge - vote for me!

Some great news - I've been shortlisted for this month's Berghaus Adventure Challenge! It now goes down to a public vote and it would be fantastic if you would consider lending me your support; the winner will walk away with a cool £1000 in cash and £1000 worth of gear to go towards the expedition so it'll really help me become the first person to cycle the circumference of South America.

In order to vote just click here; it only takes a moment and even if I'm not successful it still offers a great opportunity to promote the Cycling South America project...

Job application feedback from the BBC

I finally have some good news on the job hunt. The BBC have sent me some feedback on not just my most recent applications but on all those that I've made over to the organisation over the last couple of years, a dozen or so in total. On the downside it took an application under the 1998 Data Protection Act to secure it; a little excessive, perhaps, but endless rejections (over 130 since July 2010) have a tendency to bring the more militant out in people. To the BBC's credit they decided to waive the £10 fee, although I'm not entirely sure why.

The feedback itself isn't particularly detailed; it's essentially a list of the scores that were awarded to each of my answers. I was hoping for some annotated comments or some objective marking but it's entirely plausible that for an organisation which receives so many applications these scores are the only notes that are made for each candidate. This of course begs the question as to how we are to know that  the same criteria are being applied to each candidate and that each is being assessed fairly and equally, but I guess I - as well as every other person applying to Auntie - will never know.

On a personal level the results still make for interesting reading. On a scale from 1 to 5 (with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best) I rank a decidely lacklustre average of between 2 and 3 for each answer provided; likewise, I failed to secure a single 4 or 5. It still strikes me as strange that the only formal interview I ever secured with the Beeb was a couple of years before I completed a postgraduate journalism qualification, but I guess the competition is simply getting stronger and £5,000 courses are pretty much two-a-penny these days. Gosh, I'd love to get my hands on some of the successful application forms and see where I've been going wrong.

What I have learned, however, is that the world of recruitment is shrouded in secrecy and that this is true for both the private and public sectors. People who meet all the criteria listed in a job description are routinely and casually turned away without explanation; gurus talk of the need for 'networking' when in any other walk of life such activities would be rightly classed as nepotism; where the number of rejections is matched only by the number of employers that don't bother to acknowledge applications; and where the almost complete lack of feedback or any other form of transparency means that applicants can only guess where they went wrong and then proceed to make the same mistakes all over again.

Indeed, in a society where we're starting to question - nay demand - this very same transparency in government and in our politicians it's amazing that there is so little desire for change when it comes to our jobs. Perhaps we're all scared that by asking too many questions we'll scupper any chances of securing an interview. It's a really sad state of affairs and it's one that I believe needs addressing. Urgently.

As for the BBC, it's hard to understand quite why they were so reluctant to acquiesce with my original request when the data that they were obliged to provide me with by law contains absolutely nothing that could threaten to derail their recruitment process. Their Kafkaesque objections that this might provide an unfair advantage have proven entirely unfounded.

I'll still keep plugging away and who knows, perhaps one day I'll even score myself a 4 or even a 5 and prove that I really do have a reasonable grasp of 'content awareness' or 'knowledge of diverse communities'. I know that the BBC is by far the most desirable media organisation to work for in the UK today - despite the failings of the Delivering Quality First initiative that has done so much to retain the livelihoods of bureaucratic management on 6-figure salaries at the expense of those who actually make programmes - and that it's worthy of my professaional aspirations, as it has been for over a decade. The organisation is a bastion of quality impartial journalism and provides essential services for people not just here in the United Kingdom but acrosss the entire globe. Our lives would simply be all the poorer if it did not exist.

Now let's just hope I haven't annoyed them too much by asking too many questions...

I’m off to Transnistria..!

Back in August I bemoaned my distinct lack of success in securing any of the numerous travel bursaries I have a habit of applying for; indeed, in the last week alone I've received rejections from both the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust and the Peter Kirk European Travel Scholarships fund. Needless to say these awards are extremely competitive and I guess I shouldn't really be downhearted.

Yet things might finally be starting to turn around. I've just found out that I'm one of the lucky winners of Wanderlust's brilliant 25 Trips for Under £250, a competition which invites proposals for a budget adventure starting and ending in the UK. Those deemed the most imaginative will have their trip paid for and - perhaps even better - there'll be the opportunity for the journey to feature in an issue of the magazine next year.

My idea is to visit Transnistria, a small de facto but internationally unrecognised state on Moldova's eastern border with Ukraine. Transnistria is chiefly famous for existing as if the Soviet Union never disappeared, with Hammer and Sickle emblems and public monuments to communist heroes aplenty. It should make for a fascinating visit.

I'm not going until January - I'll be flying to Bucharest the day after attending The Outdoors Show - but I'm already really looking forward to it. No doubt you'll hear all about it when I get back..!

Cycling South America: an update

Things on here have been fairly quiet of late; most of my energies have been spent constructing the Cycling South America blog, Facebook fanpage and a booklet aimed at potential sponsors that you can see and/or download here. I've also put together a press release that's already been sent off to a few local newspapers and the like; with any luck it might elicit some interest. I'll be sure to post any developments as they happen here as well as on the Cycling website too.

Once things are a little more settled I'll aim to be back blogging here as per usual, but in the meantime if you're interested in the Cycling South America project just click on one of the aforementioned links to find out more...

Cycling South America

A little while ago I bemoaned my lack of success with applications for travel-related bursaries and scholarships; by their very nature they are extremely competitive and demand will always far outstrip supply. I've applied for quite a number over the last six years or so and never really got anywhere, figuratively and literally.

So I decided that - rather than just sit on my behind and whinge - I would instead do something about it and have my own adventure, a journey to distant lands where I could immerse myself in landscapes and cultures far removed from mine own.

Thus was borne Cycling South America. My aim is to circumnavigate the continent by bike, taking in almost a dozen countries and travelling somewhere in the region of 25,000 km. It'll be a mammoth task, and whether I'll actually go will depend on securing donations and sponsorship from interested parties.

To that end I've put together a blog full of news and updates and where people can have a look at the reasons behind trip, see lots of inspirational links and offer feedback. There's also the obligatory Facebook fanpage and I'll be using Twitter to promote the journey as well.

So if you'd like to take part in my South American odyssey please have a wander over to the Cycling South America website. It could just be the start of quite a voyage...

Should unsuccessful job applicants be given feedback?

In the past year or so I've applied for precisely 111 jobs. Thus far I've managed to secure interviews with three of these - the Navy, RAF and, er, Asda - and been offered a position with the former, albeit with an expected start in around three year's time. It's only slightly ironic that I secured my current soul-destroying 9 to 5 via a recruitment agency and not by direct application.

By far and away the biggest object of my professional affections is the BBC, with the organisation accounting for around 10% of those 111 attempts and many more before that. All - bar one back in around 2006 I think - have been completely unsuccessful, not even getting past the initial stage in the recruitment process.

Like so many employers the BBC is incredibly reluctant to offer any semblance of a reason as to why a particular applicant has been rejected. Below is a fairly typical response:

The key get-out clause being: "...we are unable to provide more detailed feedback on individual applications at this stage in the process".

Now I've never been one to challenge what is a fairly typical shirking of care by an organisation towards those with a desire to work for it; because recruitment at the BBC - like so many other places - is utterly opaque I've always been worried of any repercussions should I choose to challenge these blanket rulings. Being seen as a troublemaker is not a good way to convince a prospective employer to take you on at a future date.

But, 111 applications on, I'm starting to get fed up spending several painstaking hours filling out forms only to be rejected without being told why. General frustration aside, it strikes me as simply being bad manners not to include any sort of explanation. Even a single sentence along the lines of "You don't have the required amount of experience" or "You have an inability to form coherent phrases" would suffice.

So after receiving the latest round of rejections from the Beeb - this time for the excellent Aim High Scheme which I would have dearly loved to have been considered for - and despite being told that feedback would not be offered I decided to ask for some anyway. I figured that since I clearly wasn't offering anything that might interest the Corporation in any meaningful way I didn't really stand much to lose by asking.

To the BBC's credit I received a response fairly soon afterwards. No, they wouldn't be able to provide any feedback. Too many applicants, you see. OK, I said, given that this Scheme is run in conjunction with external stakeholders would they be able to make an exception in this case? No, came the reply. My suggestion of initiating a system of feedback on demand also fell on deaf ears. They categorically refused to say why I had not progressed to the next stage.

So I decided on a change of tack. I asked to see the criteria used in making their selections; it occurred to me that I could at least try and work out by a process of elimination where I had been found wanting. Again came the prompt reply, this time with the original job application attached. I was informed that this was the only criteria used in selecting candidates.

It didn't take much to realise that this was complete nonsense; if it were true all applicants that met those criteria would at the very least make it through to the next round of the process. And there was nothing on the attached form to say how individuals would be scored or compared to each other. In short I felt like I was being fobbed off.

So yesterday I emailed back with these concerns. The following is the reply that came back this morning:

Essentially it's stating that any and all criteria used to discriminate between candidates that does not feature on the job description is confidential - a surprising admission for an organisation that prides itself on transparency and accountability. It's not that I'm not aware that recruitment is a select and secretive world hidden from the eyes of those that seek employment and based on the discriminatory whims of HR, it's just that I expected more from what is by a long shot the foremost and most desirable employer in British media today. I genuinely can't understand why this information is being hidden unless there's something untoward to hide. Needless to say I'll be emailing back with some feedback of my own.

Of course the great irony in all this is that it would have been far quicker to simply tell me why my application was rejected rather than engage in a monotonous dialogue for nigh on a fortnight. As I pointed out in one of these emails even the smallest amount of feedback would mean that any future applications would be a lot stronger and that the BBC would receive a consistently higher grade of applicant - a genuine win-win situation. It would also make for a much more positive experience for those on the receiving end of rejections.

I also have to admit that I've never really bought the 'excessive number of applicants' excuse so beloved of the BBC et al and trotted out whenever they can't be bothered to tell an applicant that - in their opinion - they aren't good enough. By way of example I received a rejection letter from the British Transport Police only yesterday, in which they state that they had over 4,000 applications. They've also included a four page document detailing exactly what criteria were used to select successful candidates and how they were applied.

Now it seems fairly obvious to me that if an organisation wants fewer applications to sift through they should openly apply more restrictions at the point of advertising the role in question. In fact I would go further; there needs to be complete and utter transparency in all aspects of recruitment so that everyone knows that their applications are being considered equally and fairly. Anything else is just darn rude.

I'll still keep applying for jobs at the BBC; I've no idea how much this recent exchange will have damaged my future prospects but given that I've nothing to go on in terms of feedback I guess I'll never really know. I desperately want to work for the BBC and as such I want to be able to submit the best applications that I can. It's just difficult to know that I'm doing so without being told where I've failed previously by the very people I'm trying so hard to impress.

New blog poll: should we be more involved in Libya?

It's easy to draw parallels between Libya and the Iraq of a decade ago; both oil-rich Arab nations under the totalitarian rule of a despotic military dictator. And whilst Libya's current upheaval is largely driven by a populist domestic opposition that was largely absent under Saddam Hussein's regime the tentative nature of NATO's involvement in the crisis is owed in large part to the harrowing experience of insurgency in the Middle East post-2003.

So the current DEM poll is a simple one; should we - whether in the guise of NATO or the UN or as a national military force - be getting more involved in Libya and having more input into the conflict's outcome, which appears to be nearing endgame? Or are we right to keep our distance and allow events to take their course, whatever they may be?

Are there too many cars on the road?

At the moment I'm lucky enough to be able to walk to work; it takes just over half an hour and the majority of the route takes me along the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. At the moment it's teeming with fish and the journey makes for a surprisingly pleasant commute.

Walking along roads, however, it'd be tempting to guess that the same can't be said for others making a beeline to the office. Leeds, like any other urban conurbation, suffers from terrible traffic problems particularly at those peak times when everyone is rushing to or from work. Cars crawling along barely make it out of second gear, horns are honked, expletives are shouted and profanities are gestured. Generally speaking it's not an overly fun experience.

And yet I can't fail to notice that the vast majority of cars only have one occupant. It was a phenomenon I first became aware as I sped past stationary lines of traffic on my bicycle; vehicle after vehicle with only a solitary driver to keep it company. Anecdotal, perhaps, but I suspect the situation is readily replicated all over the country.

I've never really understood this addiction to the car. Granted, some people will be genuinely unable to get to the workplace using any other method, particularly in rural areas where distances are large and public transport provision patchy or unreliable. People can and do insist on living a long way from work, or - in today's world of restricted job opportunities - be unable to find employment closer to home. But does every car on the road at 8:30am or 5:30pm really need to be there? I mean, really?

Cars cause a lot of problems. Other than the aforementioned congestion they also cause thousands of deaths and serious injuries in the UK every year; they reduce air quality and can increase the rate of respiratory illnesses, particularly amongst the young; result in the destruction of countryside to make way for roads and motorways; decrease the propensity for exercise; and ensure that our oil-thirsty governments remain dependent on despotic and undemocratic regimes that constitute much of OPEC's membership. Given that the price of petrol is also a staple concern of our overwhelmingly right-wing press you'd think that those would be plenty of reasons to leave the car at home.

Yet those same people who bemoan the cost of driving seem to be the ones most reluctant to give it up. It's as if motorists have a god-given right to indulge their addiction, even as it impacts so negatively on everyone else's quality of life in a way that no other form of transport does.

It's true that our roads are in many ways essential, not just so people can get from A to B but also to boost our economy and maintain our general wellbeing. It can't be denied that the car is in many ways the most convenient and liberating to travel. What we need is a way to prise people out of their cars and encourage them to take alternatives whenever possible, particularly for journeys that are repeated on a regular basis. The commute is the most obvious of these.

Truth be told, cycling and walking aren't for everyone. At the moment the bicycle is collecting dust; my workplace is surrounded by an entrance to a motorway and simply isn't safe to get to on two wheels, another example of the prioritising of the car over all else. It's also fair to say that walking and cycling in bad weather can put most but the hardiest off even when there is adequate provision of pavement and cycleway.

Which all means that it is public transport that will have to do the most if we are ever to conquer the car - and that means making it affordable, accessible and comfortable. It'll be no easy task in this world of privatised public transport companies with their high fares, cherry picking of profitable routes, lack of cohesion between rival companies, addiction to subsidy and all the rest of it. Quantifying everything in monetary terms is not an accurate method of cost-benefit analysis.

Yet sorting out our public transport really must be a priority for any government. Our addiction to petrol simply cannot go on forever - it's a finite resource, after all - and the sooner we search for alternatives the better. If we could all just try to use our cars a little less we would all stand to benefit in so many ways...