主播大秀

Where in large print is an area where I can comment on the female teacher illegally held by the Sudanese

Very good point Mary. I think the whole thing is so sensitive at the moment the beeb want to keep things quiet and understandable so.

Sudan would have had more prominence if it wasn't for the on-running donations story, but it does worry me that there's been no mention of the teddy bear. What happened to it? I hope it's safe.

After the 'Cool Britannia' party in Downing Street, one of the biggest cheers from the crowd of onlookers watching the celebrities stream out
was for Vivienne Westwood ... Given that most of that crowd were Oasis fans that struck me as interesting?

What I don't understand is why national politicians need external funding. What do they do with the money? If legislation prevented any donations from private sources to political parties, how would our democracy be the poorer?

After the 'Cool Britannia' party in Downing Street, one of the biggest cheers from the crowd of onlookers watching the celebrities stream out
was for Vivienne Westwood ... Given that most of that crowd were Oasis fans that struck me as interesting?

But they also thought Lenny Henry was Frank Bruno ......

Word is the party is now not going ahead

The Party's Over maybe ?

Interesting ! if true how things can crash like this..The food looked good too..

Difficult to post this but try again

Word is the party is now not going ahead
Shame when these things crash and things go wrong - if this rumour is true
Food looked good too

The Party may well be over then ?

The term 'Walter Mitty' is being applied by the government to David Abrahams. This is a reference to a rather obscure short-story by James Thurber published in 1939.

Is anyone else with me in remembering one other instance of this use recently... when the government described the weapons expert, the late Dr David Kelly?

I'm not suggesting a direct link at all, but the phrase certainly has an unhappy history.

Interesting report from Siberia. In the United States and elsewhere, revenues from oil translate into dividends and higher share prices for investors. At least there is some evidence that the oil boom is bringing benefits to citizens in the form of better hospitals. Just compare the typical NHS hospital and its waiting lists to that featured in the report.

That was an extremely interesting feature from Siberia by Tim Whewell. Have more reports about Russia on Newsnight please.

How revealing that the Shadow Tory Education Minister Michael Gove is
under the clear impression that Ed
Vaizey is the 'Conservative Shadow
Culture Minister' who will decide
on which bits of Vivienne Westwood's Manifesto will be taken on board by the Tories ... rather than his boss
the vacuuous Jeremy Hunt???!!!!!!!!

I say ditch the cardboard cutout monkey; and promote Ed the organ grinder .....

If Abrahams produces the thank you letters, its explosive. Where on earth can the Labour party go after that.

It would be good to know that some means might be found to fund our politics without being dependent on schmoozing rich people. Just as advertisers affect the media by their willingness or otherwise to buy expensive advertising space or time wealthy people can hold parties to ransome. That prevents having a party with concern for the poorer members of society. So far, as tax payers we seem to prefer to pay endlessly to deal with bad behaviour rather than recreate suitable work for those who have little or no stake in society. Victorian Britain was very rich but many subjects weren't and there were gangs and footpads and the things Dickens complained of. Less inequality in the years after the war appears to have contributed to a more peaceful culture. The vast amount of technolgy does not appear to be leading to better communication, hence the conflict which fills our screens and lives as entertainment. Then we all post vast numbers of blogs which few will have time to read let alone respond to.

There is a mystery no-one in the media, seems to be considering, unravelling or making explicit.

We are told that Gordon Brown's campaign team did not accept a donation from Janet Kidd, NOT because they realised who she was, (as they must have as a previous donor known to many officials) but contra-wise "because they did not know who she was", because they "did not know the donor".

Now I find that the strangest reason for Brown not accepting her donation. For there is nothing in the law which says that you have got to know the donor, only that he or she must be on the electoral role and such-like different restrictions on acceptance. Knowing the donor is not one os them.

I cannot believe a donation would be refused, because the donor was NOT known. It hardly makes sense and seems to be the converse of what happened. If, as someone unknown to the Labour Party, I were to offer them a substantial donation, would they refuse it on that unknown basis 鈥� or if they must 鈥渒now鈥� me, then would they not accept it and find out more about me?

Can Parties afford to refuse donations simply on account of not knowing the donor and how can they always "know" the donor?. What does knowing the donor even mean? And why should any refuse to accept a donation on such a basis? And if any Party were only to accept donations from known and/or existing donors then how will they ever bring in new funds.

The whole answer of refusing the money because of not knowing the donor, makes no sense in itself. However Janet Kidd was not unknown to the responsible officials within the Labour Party. Would Brown鈥檚 team have said, 鈥渨e will not accept this money because we personally do not know the donor鈥�, rather than asking the Party officials whether the donor was known, as those officials most certainly did know .

Sense suggests that the people concerned in that instance would, and did, more likely refuse a donation because they knew, rather than did not know, who the donor was. Janet Kidd鈥檚 donation was most certainly refused by Browns team because she was "known" to the Party officials, rather than that she was "unknown".

For we now know quite well, that top officials in the Labour Party did know who Janet Kidd was and is, and would hardly have told Brown鈥檚 team not to accept the money because she was unknown. Given that she was a past and generous donor to the Labour Party, then the whole idea and explanation that a donation from her was refused because she was unknown must be the biggest unbelievable nonsense yet - and indicates that Brown's team were not unknowledgeable innocents within those strange (as yet undisclosed) goings on.

I indeed suspect (because of so many undisclosed mysteries) that there is more to it, than simply matters of personal impersonalisation and non discloseue of the true source - but we shall (maybe) see.

But as in so many previous cases one finds ones鈥� own suspicions increasingly confirmed as more information gets dragged out; and you then find that what were previously issued statements are little more than deceptive spin 鈥� or hardly less than half-truths and untruths.

I watched Tim Whewell's report from Siberia and contained within it was an almost missable moment that I found most depressing.

Governor Alexander Filipenko's response to the question about the potential of the regional effects of global climate change, that could lead to thawing of the vast extent of the region's frozen swamps and the subsequent release of massive quantities of methane into the atmosphere. The governor鈥檚 blas茅 response is to proclaim that a milder climate would be desirable and that with that, they can better appreciate their lovely new, Norman Foster designed architecture, paid for with their oil money.

Attitudes such as this will ensure that we will continue on our 200 year mission to dump 300 million years worth of stored carbon into the atmosphere.

Sir, The Tories get hung up on sex scandals and Labour are always tainted by money scandals, t'was ever thus. When Blair and Brown distanced themselves from the trade unions and tried to become a Tory party this is a cosequence of that failed miserable policy, crawling to the CBI did them a lot of good as the heads of the CBI regard them as something that the cat brought in and just about suffer Brown's rambling monologues to the great God capatalism. It will all end in tears and, indeed, has.

Where do people spend their money? Tesco, M&S, Sainsbury, Waitrose/John Lewis? What's been booming in recent years? How large are their property portfolios? Where would people and the economy be without the benevolence of companies like Estates & Management etc?

the latest newsnight review with martha has not been uploaded yet? all the links give last weeks show?

come on newsnight update the player + put last nights review on...

Read/Red or Dead

Anyone out there?

Phantasmos

They are just as late putting up the "latest programme" of newsnight. When you go to it you find it is not the latest programme but the day before - and even long after the "latest programme" has past.

It's worth noting that section 54(6) of the 'Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act' (PPERA) effectively states that a 'principal donor' CAN make payments through a intermediary ('agent'/proxy) so long as the intermediary informs the receiving Party of the principal donor's true identity (see 54, 4-7 of the Act):

and:

First, it should be noted that it is legitimate for someone else to make
a donation on behalf of someone else. This means that Mr Abrahams himself has committed no offence as there is no obligation for a principal donor to identify himself if he makes a donation through an agent. That is the responsibility of the agent/proxy making the donation on his behalf. Nor are the proxies guilty of any offence if the Party officials receiving the donation registered the details as required in Schedule 6 Paragraph 2 of the Act (see above).

This has nothing to do with people 'knowing' (which is an equivocal, non-truth functional, intensional idiom of propositional attitude, i.e. a mental state), it's all about physically RECORDING (i.e. a determinate, physical behaviour) the name, address of the principal donor and date of the donation, by the responsible Party officials in their weekly/quarterly report.

So, what was registered in the Party reports and when was it registered?
This, surely, is what the public, or the police need to know.

To date, we haven't been told very much which sheds much light on whether anything illegal has been done at all, although several people in the Labour Party do appear to have been wrong-footed because of some people's unfamiliarity with the precise requirements of the PPERA and a desire to protect private information and not lose future donors?

Is this just dirty tricks/politics:?

"Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, used the issue of anonymous donations to try to damage the Tories last year when she was chair of the Labour party"

To Adrienne:

Dear Adrienne,

Having read others of your posts on the 主播大秀's site, I see you always dig information on a variety of subjects, including data which can be hard to find. I hope you will have one day your own blog or Web site awash with references enabling us to check facts the 主播大秀 and other good medias do not have the opportunity to share with us. We need more people like you.

Thank you!

ALEX Salmond could not resist a bit of a tease when he took the stand at the Glenfiddich Spirit of Scotland Awards, hosted by Kirsty Wark.

It is not that long since the 主播大秀 apologised for the "rude and dismissive" treatment of the First Minister in her Newsnight interview with him.

"Well it's fantastic to be here, ladies and gentlemen, with Kirsty; particularly great to be introduced by Kirsty and get a word in edgeways," Salmond joked, as the two stood at opposite ends of the stage.

Why was Paul Morley immediately shouted down when daring to criticise the monarchy? Is that not allowed or something? It is a "review" show after all...

Ed, irony is often crafted to lead the unwary/sheepish to astray at their peril.

Charles Murray's trilogy (see links in link one below) on NCLB (the USA's 'Every Child Matters') deserves to be read with respect. The apparently earnest Lysenkoism on both sides of the Atlantic is deeply worrying given those who benefit from the predatory free-market. Note how Wall-Street and your spoof link, vilifies Chavez and Ahmadinejad etc).

Considering the very high levels of immigration on both sides of the Atlantic, their relatively low native 'skills', and the booming businesses promising to house and educate these people and their progeny, all one can say for certain is that some unscrupulous/entrepreneurial people are getting very rich on the basis of well placed investments and empty promises?

Educationalists, are, in my experience, some of the worst offenders in prmulgating the equality myth (see Murray's review linked elsewhere). Saying he's discredited incidentally, doesn't make it so, as there's no evidence for 'enrichment' having any long term positive effect any more than psychotherapy does. Telling it how it is, is, however, bad for business.

If/when one reads Murray's articles and the criticism, please bear the following in mind:

1) 'The Bell Curve' (1994) was not about race and intelligence, it was about class and intelligence (race is just a class which features in this).

2) Contrary to what critics allege, the technical basis of 'The Bell Curve' was Richard Herrnstein's work. Herrnstein was Skinner's successor as Professor of Psychology at Harvard. He was also the author of what was known as 'the Matching Law' in Behaviour Analysis, perhaps the core principle in Behavioural Economics (one element of which is the 'hyperbolic discounting function' which describes behaviour we colloquially refer to as self-control/impulsivity). Behaviour Analysis is the most austere, descriptive, atheoretical domain of behavioural science, it is also, paradoxically, the most poorly understood and hardest to teach.

3) Herrnstein did not make statistical or logical errors in 'The Bell Curve'. One should regard allegations to the contrary with great suspicion. The basic facts reported in 'The Bell Curve' have been repeatedly corroborated by a large body of international research since, and paint a bleak picture for the future of the developed world if currnet trends continue. The nay-sayers are at best ignorant of this, and are generally well-meaning, but usually unwitting, far-left Marxists. In Lenin's terms they are 'useful idiots', and are rarely data-driven. This would not be such a problem if there were not now so many of them, and if they were not doing so much harm to pupils and society, whilst benefiting predatory property speculators and entrepreneurs selling snake-oil.

"In it she thanks him for his donation. Given that she addressed the letter to Jersey it casts doubt on her assertion that she thought the money had come via a Glasgow based firm connected with Mr Green.
If she knew the donation came from "offshore" then surely she knew it was an illegal donation?"

Are we to believe that senior people in the parties scrutinise the contents of this sort of thank-you letter? Don't they rely upon their staff to make sure that when this sort of letter crosses their desk that their juniors have done their jobs? That's the way it works in the Civil Service is it not?

As I said in #24, surely, what matters is whether the proper clerical/registration procedures have been followed by those whose job it is. This is usually a much lower level duty is it not?

Is what we are seeing more a case of not being able to get the staff these days (which now seems to be endemic for reasons outlined elsewhere)? Or has the general public and media really dumbed down so far that they are labouring under the illusion that these senior party people really do run their bits of the country all by themselves?

If there is indeed evidence of false accounting, please can this be highlighted in detail.

Please can you get hardeep singh kohli back on newsnight review, he has not presented for ages.

He adds something special to the programme and is hilariously funny