• apologised for the misdemeanour and his apology seemed genuine and personal, without resorting to manipulative, emotional heart-string-pulling;
• recognised that he’s let down his family and friends;
• said he will seek treatment – the implication being that he wants to stop it happening again;
• apologised to Tesco;
• got his statement out – and up on his website – speedily, avoiding speculative stories that might have turned his drama into a full-blown, long-lasting crisis; and
• said he will try to make amends.

But has it done the trick – or is he in the soup?

It’s too early to say – as is always the case so soon after the emergence of any crisis. Will other retailers come forward and say he shoplifted from them? Will colleagues say he was light-fingered when visiting their restaurants (half-inching cutlery from the table, perhaps)? Will Tesco reveal that the cheese and wine he stole were the most expensive (good taste or greedy cheek) or the cheapest (bad taste or very sad)?

Which raises an interesting point. He has not said whether he has now paid the store for his stolen goods. In most crises involving money (fiddling expenses, fraud) repayment as reparation must be done to rebuild your reputation.

There is another aspect of his statement that misses the mark. He says he will seek the treatment “that is clearly needed”. Any therapist might pick at his wording: wanting to hear him say “that I need”, recognising that he owns the problem and its solution. Crisis management specialists might also nit-pick similarly: taking full responsibility is also a golden rule when dealing with a business crises. It seems, though, that we can forgive him – the majority of people seem to realise that his shoplifting was a symptom of a mental health issue.

So, has he saved his reputation?

Most news reports are factual – short summaries, without comments from others. Good news. BBC Radio 4′s PM programme interviewed a psychiatrist who said it could be driven by mental illness (causing low self-esteem or a need to feel in control). Good news. Twitter listed his name as trending – an exaggeration for 23 Tweets, most simply announcing the story; three or so making lighthearted jokes (Ready Steady Crook, he throws a hell of a wine and cheese party); and a couple linking to a jokey story about AWT setting up a cheese and wine business with Richard Madeley (wrongly accused three years ago of shoplifting champagne in, er, Tesco). Certainly not bad news. A few bloggers were swift to say that he’s a crook who has been treated differently because of his class – but the story didn’t have traction and fizzled out.  Not good news; lucky; it could have fuelled the story.  He has since given a candid interview to The Express which has treated him sympathetically. Good news.

Getting your response right from the start minimises the damage that could be done to your reputation – and that means being well-prepared, or prepared to act very fast indeed, to avoid speculation and unhelpful comments including on social media. If you are not prone to wearing your heart on your sleeve, making the leap from wanting to run and hide to full disclosure can be difficult to do – if you have not planned for a crisis.

On Wednesday this week (2nd November) The Independent published new evidence that confirmed what we all suspected. James Murdoch was significantly economical with the truth when he was cross-examined by members of the House of Commons culture, media and sport select committee in July. He had indeed been warned about phone hacking at the News of the World and its implications but, instead of taking the only course that works – admitting it, apologising for not acting earlier, pledging not to let it happen again, and keeping his promise – he fell back on what he, I suspect, thought was a clever dodge that would let him off the hook: a selective loss of memory. He claimed he did “not recall” being briefed. He is not the first person caught in a crisis who has tried this tactic as an excuse for not taking responsibility. And he is not the first person to find it doesn’t work.

It doesn’t work because it shows two things: that you can’t be trusted (which will inevitably imply that the business can’t be trusted) and that you are not up to the job (powers of recall are essential in business, particularly if you have been told that something is “fatal to our case” and that the business’s position is “very perilous”). More importantly, it simply is not convincing. It is a euphemism for lying.

As every crisis management expert will tell you, lies – blatant lies or lies dressed up as artful dodges – will always come back to haunt you. Someone somewhere will be digging away trying to expose the truth and it will be found.

Lying is a desperate measure. People lie in everyday life – usually without thinking through the consequences – to get themselves out of sticky situations (and find it doesn’t work). In a crisis there is no room for acting without thinking through the consequences. You need to be considered, dispassionate, objective, thoughtful – and take a long view. That view is what is best for the business’s reputation for the long term – what you must do to minimise damage to it and allow you to rebuild it. There will be costs along the way (though, if you follow the rules, they ought not to be at the catastrophic level faced by News International) and you must pay them as they arise. There is no scope for a hire purchase approach when protecting a reputation. Buy now, pay later might be appropriate if you need a sofa but in a crisis, as James Murdoch has found out, it’s lie now – and you will pay later.

It will be fascinating to see if he comes clean – or continues to dodge – when he appears in front of the select committee next Thursday.

When an employee, in whatever role, has a massive impact on the success of the business, having a succession plan is essential. Who will lead the organisation through the turbulence and beyond – keeping staff committed, customers confident, suppliers confirming orders? Who, in the case of a business that is a market leader known for its groundbreaking products, will be responsible for driving innovation?

Mitigating for those extreme circumstances takes courage. Talking about someone’s death, particularly in their presence and when the risk looms, is a tough task. But it must not be shirked out of sensitivity or fear.

In the case of Apple and Steve Jobs, who died last Wednesday (5th October), the succession planning task was exceptionally difficult. Someone so focussed, so committed, so fixed on a business is very hard to replace. Steve Jobs was a one-off. There will, of course, be other one-offs – but their one-offness will be different and it might take years to find him or her. Another option, then, is to innovate ahead. That is why Steve Jobs left four years’ of new products waiting to be developed and launched. Apple was his life – so much so that he sanctioned an official biography so his children could know him and understand why he worked so intensely. It was natural for him to want to ensure Apple’s future.

Looking ahead – in so many dimensions – was what Steve Jobs did all the time. He clearly wanted to buy time for Apple by leaving it able to continue rolling out new products during the succession gap, to ensure its future for as long as he could. Replacing him will not be easy.

In the right tone

There is another smaller (for Apple) but fundamental (for many businesses) aspect that Apple got right. Businesses which face events that have an impact on others’ lives (such as deaths), or their own success, should be prepared for an instant change to their website. Airlines are well ahead of most businesses – with ready-to-launch dark sites to replace their usual websites. After all, if a plane crash results in multiple deaths, it is not appropriate for the home page to advertise holidays or display photos of people laughing with joy as they run through sunkissed surf.

What that dark site should contain depends on the business. In Apple’s case after Steve Jobs’ death, there were several options. What it has chosen could not be more effective or more appropriate. In Apple’s typical sleek, clear, sharply-focussed trademark way its home page is a simple tribute: a photograph of Steve Jobs, his name and his life span. There is no need for a detailed obituary. This home page says it all.

Apple tribute to Steve Jobs - no words needed

Apple has, yet again, shown exemplary crisis management planning and response. All businesses should take note.

Written evidence, to the House of Commons select committee that is investigating the phone-hacking scandal, includes a letter from Clive Goodman, the News of the World royal reporter who was jailed for phone-hacking. Previous evidence has attempted to show that he was a rogue reporter; phone-hacking was not widespread; the editors (Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Colin Myler) did not know about it. Now his letters reveal that phone-hacking was widespread – and that it was discussed in the paper’s daily editorial conferences. Seeking to defend their reputation, the paper’s lawyers Harbottle & Lewis, have said they were not fully briefed and only advised on a very narrow aspect. That’s a triple-whammy of crisis management misdeeds.

Meanwhile, we all had our suspicions; we’ve all been waiting to be proved right; there was a conspiracy of silence – and we now have evidence of it.

If you believe you need to rely on a confidentiality agreement to protect your reputation, you are on dangerous, shifting sand. There is no such thing as confidentiality if others, or you, later have to defend your actions to preserve, or limit damage to, your reputation.

Similarly, if you have to redact (the current vernacular for block) information in evidence you can be sure that all you are doing is drawing attention to the fact that you are hiding something. Someone will dig deep to find out what you are keeping secret and why – and tell of their findings.

Seeking confidentiality is a desperate measure. Being open, honest and transparent is the only way to limit the damage to your reputation that your secrecy might cause.

When the game is up, and you are at risk of your attempted cover-up being exposed, it is time to wave a white flag – confess, reveal all, apologise, promise not to make the same mistake, and take actions to ensure you don’t.

We are still waiting for the Murdochs, Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and Colin Myler to see common sense. And I can’t be the only one waiting for more devastating revelations …

The police force and its leaders are, inevitably, feeling sensitive and demoralised. They have had to cope with two significant resignations over phone hacking at the News of the World; the pressure of responding to the recent riots; the IPCC’s initial findings during its review of their actions in relation to the death of Mark Duggan (which led to the riots); and being attacked verbally, physically and reputationally. No wonder they feel vulnerable.

But this is no time to let your emotions get the better of you, personally or corporately. Like any organisation in good times, the police force is not perfect. There is scope for improvement and retreating into a bunker of self-protection is not good enough. Like any organisation in crisis, it has a choice: fight or flight. Objecting to gaining information from another country’s experience is the equivalent of flight.

As for Sir Hugh Orde’s criticism that seeking advice from US police expert Bill Bratton can be discredited because the US still has 400 gangs, this not only sounds desperately defensive; it also illustrates the danger of playing the numbers game. What is the proportion of US gangs in relation to its size, compared with the number of gangs here in relation to our size?  And how do you count the number of gangs anyway – when they seem to merge, disband or reform in a somewhat fluid way depending on the charisma of their leaders, the opportunities, the reasons, the motives, the mood, the triggers. The US is bound to have more gangs than us but it doesn’t necessarily show that the US police is ineffective; it could just as easily show how much more experience the US police has of tackling gang culture.

In short, the police force should have invited advice from others in similar situations – not left it to the government to take action. It should now welcome that move.

In the immediate aftermath of a crisis, it is very easy for any organisation, business or individual to retreat from potential criticism, to hide from the spotlight and to look inwards for ideas and direction. Discussion must take place internally (about what went right, what went wrong and what could have been done better – against your crisis management plan and the options you considered as the crisis unfolded) but if you only consult internally, you will only gain a narrow, limited – and potentially over-cautious, self-interested, self-supporting and self-serving – perspective. You need to look broadly and consider numerous options – for urgent or immediate actions, for ways of minimising and mitigating risks, and for devising a longer-term strategy. You must look at it in relation to others’ crises – as experienced by those others.

Let’s remember that the benchmark-setting Chilean government consulted NASA not on how to get the miners out of a tight spot – but how to help them survive for a long time in one. NASA, which has been dealing with that challenge since the late 1950s, was bound to have some valuable insights and experiences. Consulting it was both inspired and expedient. Consulting Bratton is more obvious than inspired – but just as expedient.

A word of warning: it is just as important not to over-consult. It is tempting to ask everyone for a view but, in the early phase of a crisis, you need to make good decisions fast. Consult a small core group – those essential to running the crisis and protecting the organisation’s reputation plus involved specialists. Leave wider consultation, particularly internally, till later. Yes, someone must listen to the ground to gauge opinion – and report on it – but during the initial phase of a crisis leaders must assume a command and control approach. As the organisation moves into recovery – and reviewing its crisis plan – consulting more widely makes sense. At that point, if not earlier, it never makes sense to turn down the chance to benefit from others’ experiences and hindsight.

The riots also occurred a little under a year before London’s mayoral election – opening up disagreements, on cuts to the police budget, between the Conservative government (struggling to balance the books) and the Conservative mayor for London Boris Johnson (seeking re-election) – and giving the Labour party (seeking to oust Boris Johnson) the best opportunity to turn the police cuts into an even hotter political topic.

One contentious issue (long-standing shortcomings in policing) led to a crisis (the riots) which created another (the risk to the Olympics) and another (jeopardising the outcome of an election).

And then prime minister David Cameron committed a crisis management sin. He over-promised.

Speaking in the House of Commons today, having recalled Parliament which was in recess for the summer, he said the government would “do whatever it takes to restore law and order and to rebuild communities”. A tall order but fair enough. He hasn’t set a time limit; he hasn’t specified how – he has not boxed himself in.

His words to “the lawless minority, the criminals who’ve taken what they can get” have created a problem.  He said, “We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.”

How on earth is he going to ensure that? Yes, some rioters and looters were arrested immediately and have already appeared in court (in a process that has been described as chaotic and over-stretched … in short, that’s another crisis). But the others – the people who might have been caught on CCTV cameras or mobile phones but who skidaddled at speed, and those who escaped being captured on camera and in person – can he guarantee they will all be tracked down, found, charged and punished? Of course not.

While the public might not hold him to account on these promises (though it is a risk, particularly if there are more civil disruptions) you can be sure that many of those who are not tracked down, found, charged and punished will gloat about their ability to evade the law. They might become local heroes and they might incite others to take part in lawless behaviour. One over-promise; one almighty crisis waiting to happen.

Demonstrating control and saying what you will do to prevent the occurrence from happening again are essential aspects of crisis management. So is then making sure you do what you said you would do.

David Cameron cannot fulfill his promise – and has exposed himself, his party and the government to new risks that could lead to another crisis… as if he did not already have plenty to grapple with.

Yesterday, in response to the discovery that phone-hacker Glenn Mulcaire had Sara Payne’s mobile phone number on his hacking list, she said it was “abhorrent”, “unthinkable” and “beyond my comprehension”. Not once has she said anything to indicate she takes responsibility for wrongdoings while she was editor of the News of the World or while she was chief executive of News International.

The more we see and hear of her, the more we wonder how she hit such heights – and how she captivated Rupert Murdoch’s support so strongly that he wanted to make looking after her his priority when the crisis neared its peak.

When she appeared before the House of Commons culture, media and sport committee her answers were far from complete; many of them were oddly inarticulate for someone whose job it is to string words together to make a story. Like the Murdochs, she was over-rehearsed, under-briefed and unconvincing. She was behaving as if the whole thing were, er, beyond her comprehension.

It is beyond our comprehension that an editor would not want to set the tone and introduce policies of his or her own. It is unthinkable that the head of the paper’s parent company wouldn’t also want to set an overall tone and policy guidelines for the group. Yet, Rebecca Brooks says she didn’t know what her staff were up to when she was editor – and she didn’t know what her editors were up to when she was chief executive. And that’s exactly what Murdoch wanted: someone whose comprehension skills were so low that they would never question him.

Rupert Murdoch pushed Rebekah Brooks up his corporate ladder because she was, and still is, a yes-man. And now, when the public wants someone at the News of the World, and News International, to take responsibility, to take the blame and to express genuine contrition, she is incapable of it because she was not in charge – of either brief.

Crisis management is all about saving reputations. A golden rule is to take responsibility – and at the highest level appropriate to the crisis. In this case, it is for Rebekah Brooks to do.

Meanwhile, Tory MP Louise Mensch has been accused of taking drugs with violinist Nigel Kennedy while in her 20s and living it up as an EMI employee. We’ve been here before but the twist this time is not whether or not she inhaled; it is that she is on the Commons committee that interviewed the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks about their roles in the phone-hacking saga.

It’s another example (as with Andrew Marr’s super-injunction) of exposing others’ wrong doings while concealing your own. Except that instead of denying it (you’ll always be found out) or not saying anything (always a sign you have something to hide) Louise Mensch responded immediately and said that, while she couldn’t remember the precise occasion, it was “highly probable” that she did take drugs with Kennedy.

By taking responsibility, and telling the truth, Louise Mensch is far more likely to survive her crisis and regain her credibility than Rebekah Brooks who insists she is blame-free – but has already lost her job (though, as seems typical for News International, she might still be on the payroll) and seems unemployable outside the Murdoch empire.

If you are at the top, you must take responsibility. Your own, and your business’s, survival depend on it.

It was not only crisis management experts who were aghast at her brazen attitude by clinging on, not to mention their brazen attitude by holding a surreal walkabout in an attempt to show that they were all in this together. We knew they were all in this together – up to their necks in it together – but it was not the togetherness that mattered. It was the subject – and the public was aghast at their arrogant attempts at toughing it out.

When crisis management gets to the point where you think the right thing to do is to tough it out – it’s not. It’s time to bow out – because you have made the wrong thing (you) the focus. If the crisis affects the business, it is the business’s reputation, not yours, that matters.

So, when should Rebekah Brooks have resigned?

She was not editor of the News of the World when, in 2005, Clive Goodman, the News of the World’s royal editor, and Glenn Mulcaire, private investigator, were arrested for illegally phone hacking Prince William’s phone. Nor was she editor of the News of the World when, in 2007, Goodman and Mulcaire were jailed. She was editor of The Sun. She was promoted to chief executive of News International on 1st Sepember 2009 at which point she became responsible, overall, for all the newspapers in the News International group. Phone hacking must have been on her agenda as a topic of concern; she should immediately have ordered, and announced, a clean sweep through all News International’s policies and set new standards.

When, in February 2010, the House of Commons culture, media and sport committee said it thought it inconceivable that no-one other than Clive Goodman knew about phone hacking at the News of the World, Rebekah Brooks should have announced that she had taken action to find out what exactly was going on and act on her findings. You can’t be at the top and ignore what is going on – even if the allegations apply to a time when you were not associated with the News of the World. It is now, and the future, that matter.

New allegations emerged in September 2010; Scotland Yard reopened its inquiry and the story began to snowball. The spotlight fell on Andy Coulson more than on Rebekah Brooks – but what was she up to, as chief executive? Instigating changes? Apologising? Or just hanging on?

In April 2011 News International apologised to some of those whose phones were hacked – and set aside a £15m fund for compensation claims. Resigning now, allowing a new chief executive to clear things up, would have meant a short, sharp burst of publicity followed by recovery. But she hung on.

On 4th July, The Guardian alleged that the News of the World hacked into Milly Dowler’s phone when Rebekah Brooks was editor of the News of the World. And what was her reaction? To shift blame by saying that she was on holiday. Astonishing. It did not wash. If you are in charge, you take responsibility whether you are working at your desk or paddling in the sea. It is your policy and your approach which are being followed – wherever you are. And if it is going on behind your back, all the public can conclude is that you are a weak and ineffective leader. You must go.

Arguing that you need to stay to oversee the clean up operation – otherwise known as doing a Willie Walsh – is short-term desperation that has nothing to do with saving the business; it is about saving you. Rebekah Brooks’ stance was indefensible as chief executive; it did even more damage to her own reputation, News of the World’s reputation, and News International’s reputation. It was clear that she was not up to the job. But still she hung on.

Hanging on is almost always a sign of ego getting in the way of business sense. If you want to limit the damage of a crisis, the time to resign is the minute it begins to affect the reputation of the business (or your own, if it is a personal crisis). Hanging on only prolongs the agony by highlighting wrongdoings (more claims, more criticism from public figures including prime minister David Cameron, the FBI, a major shareholder); increasing risks to other aspects of the business (BSkyB, ownership of other News International titles, US titles, other titles around the world); and sends costs spiralling – and not just the cost of flying in from afar, time spent at meetings and advertisements to say sorry and we won’t do it again, it is the costs-to-come of repairing a now much more seriously damaged reputation: Rebekah Brooks’ reputation, News International’s reputation, News Corp’s reputation, Rupert Murdoch’s reputation, James Murdoch’s reputation and, inevitably, the reputation of the entire British press.

Ironically, we might end up thanking Rebekah Brooks for hanging on while doing nothing at News International and inadvertently tackling tabloid tactics.

Take control from the start. News International lost the chance to be in control – by not taking it from the start and that’s the first crucial and critical aspect of good crisis management, when a crisis blows. You can only do that if you anticipate the worst and mitigate against it. From News International’s point of view, the worst must be what is happening now – a problem with one publication in its stable has ended up shaking the worldwide reputation of the whole of News Corp. News International has been dodging the worst since the issue of phone hacking first arose. It hoped a couple of seemingly dramatic steps (Clive Goodman’s arrest and imprisonment; Glenn Mulcaire’s arrest and imprisonment) would convince us that it had got rid of the causes of their misdeeds. The problem is that the public suspected that they were acting on higher orders; someone sanctioned their behaviour, and that someone is still somewhere in News Corp. And that leads to lesson two:

Token gestures do not work. The sacking of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire didn’t go far enough – and didn’t we all suspect that? The announcement of an internal inquiry didn’t go far enough – and didn’t we all suspect that? Rebekah Brooks, it has just been announced, is now not going to lead that internal enquiry – and didn’t we know all along that she shouldn’t? Closing the News of the World ends its 168-year history – but aren’t we all questioning the integrity of all Murdoch titles, indeed all Murdoch media businesses? And that leads to lesson three:

Take swift, decisive action. If the sackings of the wrongdoers had been followed by significant shifts in policy which were then put into action, this crisis might have been avoided. It looks, though, as if the corruption was so endemic that it was impossible to stop it without closing the title. If that had been done then, when the issues first arose, the damage to News International would have been much less. Yes, there would have been a media frenzy. Yes, politicians would have spoken out. But some voices would have been supportive – and the impact much less as a result. And that leads to lesson four:

Consider those you might affect: A crisis in any organisation or business will have an impact on others. Some will be friends and some foes; your aim must be to win public support from friends and to keep foes quiet. Well, didn’t the News of the World do well. It’s hard to find any friends who have not turned into foes and those who have spoken out have had an enormous impact including big brand advertisers, charity partners and shareholders; we have yet to see what effect it has had on its readers. But it has had a much wider impact on organisations that were already in a weak position: threatening the future of the Press Complaints Commission (long due a wholesale overhaul); dragging the integrity of the Metropolitan Police into the open, yet again (long due a wholesale overhaul); raising serious questions about political friendships and contributions (long due a wholesale overhaul). It has thrown doubt on the prime minister’s judgement (not just about appointing Andy Coulson but also about forging links with editors). It will undoubtedly raise questions about other tabloids and whether they always tell the truth (we know they don’t). It is not inconceivable that others of its newspapers – wherever they are published – could be at risk. We know that it has affected News Corp’s bid for BSkyB. It will affect the public’s view of James Murdoch (who has stepped in to try to shift the image of the crisis but been unconvincing). And it will make people question the business ethics of Murdoch’s daughter, Elisabeth Murdoch, her husband Matthew Freud and his business Freud Communications (whose approach to crisis management has not always been the best). Which leads to lesson five:

Be wary of forging alliances: Having the support of big names – celebrities, brands, decision-makers – is inevitable; it adds credibility and draws attention. But it has a flip side; it’s the reverse of considering those you might affect: it’s about how your allies might affect your reputation if they do something wrong or inappropriate. That’s why Ford, the Royal British Legion and others have withdrawn their support; they cannot afford to be dragged down by News International’s dodgy reputation. And that leads to lesson six:

It takes years to build a reputation – and a second to destroy it. Of course, you could argue that the News of the World’s 168 year reputation was always as a distributor of sleaze – but millions read it (including, for several years many years ago, me) and millions loved it (including, for several years many years ago, me). It punctured puffery – but it failed when it failed to puncture its own. And that leads to lesson seven:

Don’t get too big for your boots. We see it over and over again. Success, or being surrounded by yes-men or being courted by the great and the good, makes people feel invincible. Peter Mandelson, Gordon Ramsay, Tony Hayward, Hosni Mubarak, Fergie, the Pope, HMRC, British Airways, Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell, Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks … they all faced crises because they behaved as if they were above it all. And that leads to lesson eight:

It’s all about trust. For decades, dinner party chat has been about Murdoch, his approach and his publications – and not in a good way. The public does not trust Rupert Murdoch. We see politicians toadying up to him and his editors, and we don’t like it. We see a man consumed and convinced by his own self-importance, and we don’t like it. We see a business empire getting ever larger, with fewer controls from outside, and we don’t like it. We see him protecting editors and others even when there is evidence that they were implicated, and we don’t like it. Because, just as we all believe in the freedom of the press and their role to tell us what others are trying to hide, we don’t like having the wool pulled over our eyes by people whose role it is to expose the truth, but who lie themselves. We knew there was worse to come and that it extended well beyond the News of the World; we had little trust. Which leads to lesson nine:

Face the music. The most striking image of all throughout this saga was the one of Rupert Murdoch – a media man who knows the rules – when he said “no comment” – the biggest sin in media management – when door-stepped by journalists. When you say nothing, the only inference people will make is that you have something to hide. We all know that there must be more to come. Much more. We’ve had fudge, denial, pretence, lies. We’ve even had Rebekah Brooks claiming to be on holiday every time a problem arose (as if that means she is not ultimately responsible). They have not worked. They never work. They do not build trust. They will always be exposed. Which leads to lesson 10 which is, in reality and always, lesson one:

Be honest, open and transparent: It’s the only mitigation factor that works – and it works every time.

The question is: will we ever get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from News International?

It’s been obvious to most of us ordinary people for at least a couple of days that President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt had only one option – to resign and let others take over. With so many people taking to the streets – and then with the army turning coats and supporting, rather than policing, them – how on earth did he and his government think they could carry on? At what point did they think Egyptian citizens were going to retreat, in an ok then sort of way, as if they weren’t serious about their demands?

Of course it is hard if leaders of other countries – and especially the president of the USA – issue statements about the importance of an orderly transition, recommending that you stay on to manage the handover. You are bound to feel flattered, to boost your own self-belief and then, puffed up with self-importance, to cling to power – because it isn’t just your yes-men who are saying what you want to hear, it’s, wow, it’s Obama! And it could have worked – or at least the uprising could have been less dramatic and less prolonged, if only …

Mubarak should have communicated – then acted. Contrition, acknowledgement, a promise of reform – followed by reform – and he might just have clinched it (though he would have been dogged by doubts about whether he had genuinely changed his political instincts).

Instead, today was the second time he has spoken since the uprising began. That’s twice in seven days. It doesn’t exactly indicate that he’s a leader in control – but taking control of the situation is exactly what leaders must do in a crisis and they must do it from the start and stay in it.

The only way to demonstrate control is to speak – as long as you talk of decisive actions – and then to do as you say. Instead Mubarak stayed silent until forced – by the increasing force of the people – to say something. Except it was the wrong thing.

What Egyptian people want is a new way of governing and that means Mubarak has to go. Now, after days of silence, that is the only thing left for him to say.

Sadly, it’s a case of here we go again. Again.