[80/20Thinking]

Right. I don't have time to answer every one of the fifty or so questions just at the moment (we're lodging a legal appeal tomorrow on an issue close to all your hearts) but let me try to get through as many items as possible.

Let's deal wit the Burson Marsteller issue first. I do find it fascinating that so many people have been passing judgment on 80/20 for some weeks and this is the first time anyone has spotted the huge B-M logo on the "about us" page of the 80/20 site.

Do we have an ethical conflict with this relationship? No. I've been following the B-M saga for many years and I'm fully aware of that aspect of its history. Just about every major corp in the world has multiple dimensions, B-M included. The bigger you get, the more obvious that becomes. There are many aspects to B-M, including the (until recent) role advising Hilary Clinton.

80/20 is a company operating globally with global clients. Such companies need strategic partnerships. Yes, B-M is one, but the LSE is another. B-M helps us with advice and will host breakfast meetings and the such that we will organise. There is no B-M person on our board or our advisory group. And of course, it's nonsense to say they are our parent company. Check out Companies House and you'll see that.

Oh, and in answer to a related question, no 80/20 employee or director has any financial interest in Phorm or B-M.

As for the question about our ethics code and why we haven't resigned from the Phorm contract, we make it clear that there has to be some clear decision by an authority on this matter. A court, a regulator whatever.

Craig asked me to cease mentioning my work with PI. Excuse me, but I didn't start that controversy. I find it highly relevant that I, as director of PI, am constantly kicking the heads of potential clients. If you find that situation difficult to handle, welcome to the wacky world of unfunded advocacy.

Back to Phorm. Let me state unequivocally that Phorm did not "buy" a PIA. Here's a scoop for you. Phorm came to us before there was even the slightest controversy about its plans. At the executive meeting that preceded our work I gave a warning along the lines of "you realise that once you take this road there's no turning back". Kent Ertugrul, the CEO of Phorm, responded by saying that the chips should fall as they will, and that the company wanted an independent analysis. I reiterated, as I am bound professionally to do, that the company would have no control over this process and that 80/20 may find it a violation of privacy. His view was along the lines of "publish and be damned".

Phorm knew the risk it was taking, even before there was any controversy. They knew that they were getting into a potential minefield, but seemed hellbent on showing that they were engaging a process that no-one in government or elsewhere had asked them to undertake.

Just for the record.

Simon