No, I have not made this up. It was in the Daily Telegraph, so it must be true, mustn’t it?

Indian police are holding a pigeon under armed guard after it was caught on an alleged spying mission for arch rivals and neighbours Pakistan, according to reports in local media.

Published: 4:33PM BST 28 May 2010

The white-coloured bird was found by a local resident in India's Punjab state, which borders Pakistan, and taken to a police station 25 miles from the capital Amritsar.

The pigeon had a ring around its foot and a Pakistani telephone number and address stamped on its body in red ink.

Ramdas Jagjit Singh Chahal, a police officer, said he suspected that the pigeon had landed on Indian soil from Pakistan with a message, although no trace of a note has been found.

Officials have directed that no-one be allowed to visit the pigeon, which police say may have been on a “special mission of spying”.

The bird has been medically examined and was being kept in an air-conditioned room under police guard.

Senior officers have asked to be kept updated on the situation three times a day, according to a report from the Press Trust of India (PTI) news agency.

As a co-founder and director of a technology start-up, I’ve thought a lot about what motivates staff. And I’ve been puzzled for years by a contradication that I’ve continually encountered. I’ve known lots of successful people in my time, and yet I cannot think of a single one who’s been primarily motivated by financial incentives. That’s not to say that they don’t like earning a decent salary, just that they’re not driven by money. And yet in business — and, during the New Labour years at least — in the public services also, the conventional wisdom is that financial incentives are the way to get higher performance from staff.

So you can see why I was fascinated by this cleverly-illustrated version of Daniel Pink’s RSA lecture about motivation, which is based on his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. (Full lecture here.) The essence of it is that financial incentives and penalties work well for jobs/tasks that are dull and repetitive and impose a low cognitive load on those who do them. But the minute one’s dealing with roles which are intellectually challenging, then the carrots-and-sticks approach fails.

Interesting, don’t you think? It becomes even more interesting when one sees that Neil Davidson, the co-founder of Red Gate Software, one of the most interesting and admired companies in Cambridge, decided to abandon the complex commission structure the company had developed to motivate its salesforce and replace it with a system based on (increased) flat salaries. Guess what? It works just fine, and Red Gate is taking its market by storm.

Now, here’s the really interesting bit. You may remember that whenever the issue of paying obscene bonuses to investment bankers is raised, we are solemnly informed by the directors of publicly-rescued banks that it’s essential to continue to pay said bonuses because otherwise the aforementioned wizards will go elsewhere. The clear inference is that they are entirely motivated by financial incentives, viz bonuses. But if it’s really true that financial incentives are what motivates bankers, then doesn’t it follow that the work they do is repetitive, dull and imposes a low cognitive load? And if that is indeed the case, then why don’t we just replace them with software and have done with the whole grisly business?

Silly question, I know. All papers have political agendas. But it’s interesting to note that Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem MP who has stepped in as Chief Secretary to the Treasury as replacement for Mr Laws, has now also been fingered by the Daily Telegraph on the basis of what they’ve uncovered in their precious unexpurgated CD of the Commons Fees Office’s records.

Now of course one could argue that this was just a further example of the Fourth Estate fulfilling its constitutional duty. But, if one had a nasty suspicious mind, one might wonder if it were a symptom of the proprietors’ disapproval of the coalition idea.

The madness begins. Lovely piece by Emine Saner in today’s Guardian. It seems that England’s spoilsport manager Fabio Capello has limited the access his players will have to their wives and girlfriends to one day after each game, with further restrictions should the team progress.

“There is a historic element that has become a kind of mythology in sport,” says Greg Whyte, professor of applied sport and exercise science at Liverpool John Moores University. “The Ancient Greeks believed that sex was detrimental in the build up to the Olympics – that it sapped energy, lowered test-osterone and reduced aggression. But research runs counter to this. There have been a few studies on sex before sport and they have shown it has no effect on performance. However, sleep quality is crucial in terms of performance and sex can enhance sleep, so therefore it may enhance performance.” Unless it’s preventing them getting any sleep.

But it seems that not all teams are facing a sex ban. Argentina’s team doctor Donato Villani was reported in the Sun (where else?) last week as saying:

“Sex is a normal part of social life and is not a problem. The disadvantages are when it is with someone who is not a stable partner or when the player should be resting.” It is very important, he notes, that “the action should not reverberate in the legs of the players.”

Quite so. I’m depressed about this. One of the most entertaining aspects of the last World Cup was the spectacle of the England Wags wandering like a cloud through a host of upmarket shopping malls.