Hicks thows the dice, not the towel.

Even by the 'hard-ball' standards of corporate America, Tom Hicks' latest attempt to block the sale of Liverpool FC is breathtakingly audacious.

Despite being outvoted on the Board and defeated in the High Court, Hicks is not the kind of man to take 'no' for an answer. On Twitter yesterday, I expressed my suspicion that he would refuse to comply with the High Court's 8pm deadline for cooperation. I never suspected he would launch such a spectacular counter-attack.

But to a man like Tom Hicks, the High Court seems a mere irrelevance. And even as Liverpool's "English Directors" were gathering in London last night to receive Hicks' 8pm capitulation, the Texan was preparing a quite different response. Confronted by a legal ruling he didn't like, Tom Hicks had simply gone out and found a different judge who would agree with him.

That man was Judge Jim Jordan, sitting in the 160th District Court in Dallas yesterday, and the outcome was a restraining order, issued late last night. And just in case that wasn't enough of a bombshell, Hicks demanded 1.6 BILLION pounds in damages. His lawsuit claims he was sidelined by the other directors, who were intent on pushing through an under-valued deal. It further claims that RBS, whose loan Liverpool must repay by tomorrow, was exerting undue influence and pressure on the Board.

Well I sat through the whole High Court case and the conclusion of the judge couldn't have been clearer or - to my mind - more justified by the evidence. Far from being excluded from Board meetings, the judge concluded that Hicks had deliberately absented himself from the meetings in an attempt to thwart a deal which he disagreed with. His sacking of LFC directors Christian Purselow and Ian Ayre was, said the judge, an attempt "to renege on an agreement and issue a veto which the (Board's rules) were specifically aimed at preventing". The judge concluded that "the idea that RBS connived (with the Board) is not a realistic one".

But if there are few things more dangerous than a wounded tiger, and Hicks is not the kind of animal to skulk away licking his wounds. The truth is that he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by engaging in brinkmanship.

He is gambling that RBS will decide not to call in the £297m tomorrow, because to do so would mean the risk of administration, relegation from the Premier League, and the devaluing of an already damaged club.

Furthermore, he is betting that even if he loses, he will be able to avoid paying damages by pleading poverty. As the High Court judge concluded on Wednesday, "there is no evidence that the owners (Hicks) would be good for damages, indeed there is a little evidence they would not".

All that is scant consolation for Liverpool FC and its supporters, who have seen their beloved club undermined and weakened by the instability at the top.

Met Police caught out by The Firm.

Worrying news this past week, involving - on the face of it - deep embarrassment to the Met Police, but beneath that, an apparent deliberate flouting of the conventions governing police access to TV news footage.

The Met circulated 66 photos of supposed football hooligans from the recent trouble at the West Ham v Millwall match, only to realise belatedly and to their horror that the pictures included images from the recent Brit movie "The Firm".

Cue lots of jokes about hapless 'Knacker of the Yard', and a Yard spokesman putting it down to "a bad day at the office". But now the laughter has subsided, how exactly did this fiasco happen?

It seems that many of the 66 pictures had not come from CCTV or police camera operators. Instead, they had been taken - without permission or consultation - from a television news report which had made a comparison between the real and fictional images of violence. The Met was caught out because they had watched the news report with the sound turned off, so the person gleefully copying it was unable to hear the clear distinction made.

But what is most worrying is that the Met felt it acceptable to lift the news footage without asking for it through conventional routes. That deceit seems to deliberately flout a court ruling from 1999, where the City Of London Police were rebuffed in their attempt to get access to TV footage of anti-capitalist protests. The judge in that case refused the police demand, and agreed with the media that if the footage was handed over, the media might be seen as 'agents of the state' and attacked by demonstrators at other events in the future.

That ruling doesn't seem to have stopped the Met. Rather than risk a refusal, or another court case, the Met seems to have just bypassed the whole principle of legal access, and taken the footage regardless. The Met was caught out this time, but it begs the question: how many other times have police 'stolen' footage without permission or credit?

Citizen Journalism? Get A Life.

Skimming through the Daily Mail this morning, I spotted this photo of Steven Gerrard leaving court yesterday.

Look closely at it.

Now explain to me why at least seven - yes count them yourself - SEVEN of the teenagers are trying to 'photograph' Gerrard on their mobile phones!

What is that all about? I can understand the desire for an autograph. Perhaps the chance for a brief chat with their footballing idol.

But what possible souvenir value is there in a shaky video clip of his left ear? Or a blurred shot of the back of Gerrard's head? Do these kids all get together afterwards and compare the results? I would love to see them too, so I could point at them and laugh.

I've seen similar at movie premieres, when the stars "work the crowd", signing autographs. Tom Cruise is one of those who gets up close and seems to genuinely try to chat with the fans. Pity old Tom when the fans prefer instead to simply shove their mobile phone into his face and take snapshots.

I'd like to ask these teenagers, are the snaps intended to remember the moment by? Well WHAT moment?? You missed the moment because you were too busy trying to peer at the viewfinder on your stupid little phone! You wasted your chance for a real encounter with your idol, and a ridiculous 30-second clip will not recapture that.

Citizen journalism can be amazing. A video clip of a burning oil depot, filmed long before any TV crews could arrive? Excellent. Footage of the aftermath of a Tube train bombing? Brave and informative.

Blurry phone clips, probably of nothing more useful than the celebrity's feet? Get a life.

Try New Things. Daily.

Jazz saxophonist Ornette Coleman is coming to Britain to direct the Meltdown Festival at London's South Bank this month. In the Guardian newspaper today, a profile of the man features an inspirational anecdote from Eddie Vedder, the singer with Pearl Jam.

"I had this dinner with Ornette a few years ago. This beautiful, humble man told us remarkable stories about his remarkable life. After we'd eaten our main course, we ordered more wine and some sorbet. Ornette poured his wine into his dessert and said: "Ever had red wine and raspberry sorbet?" I said: "Er, no." And he said: "Neither have I!" I think that sums him up. He might be in his late 70s but that was probably the sixth or seventh new thing he tried that day."