OTT...

Happy Birthday Eduardo da Silva...however I'm sure he won't want many happy returns to what he's suffered! Also, IMHO, there seems to be some sort of rank-closing going on re Saturday's bone-crunching tackle he received from Birmingham's Martin Taylor. HERE it tells how Eduardo himself thinks the challenge was 'with intent'. Looking at their photo I tend to agree; then look at the image (left), the caption on the BBC says "Eduardo (right) shows his agony as Taylor looks on in horror"
...doesn't look like horror to me, not even a grimace...more the glimpse of a smile...and a hand gesture.

Only minutes on the clock, not a cup-tie/final, no pressure, no stress, no dodgy decisions (ironically there were several later in the game)...more of a "let's show 'em what to expect". At least (see article) former Coventry defender David Busst looks on the bright side reassuring him and us that, barring complications, Eduardo will be back playing again.

Interestingly I couldn't post a tale-telling video from You-Tube or Blinkx - and presumably other video sites - it seems the Premier League don't want it doing the rounds; maybe they are still a few 'rebel' copies out there. You-Tube etc all display the following:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NetResult

OTT...

Happy Birthday Eduardo da Silva...however I'm sure he won't want many happy returns to what he's suffered! Also, IMHO, there seems to be some sort of rank-closing going on re Saturday's bone-crunching tackle he received from Birmingham's Martin Taylor. HERE it tells how Eduardo himself thinks the challenge was 'with intent'. Looking at their photo I tend to agree; then look at the image (left), the caption on the BBC says "Eduardo (right) shows his agony as Taylor looks on in horror"
...doesn't look like horror to me, not even a grimace...more the glimpse of a smile...and a hand gesture.

Only minutes on the clock, not a cup-tie/final, no pressure, no stress, no dodgy decisions (ironically there were several later in the game)...more of a "let's show 'em what to expect". At least (see article) former Coventry defender David Busst looks on the bright side reassuring him and us that, barring complications, Eduardo will be back playing again.

Interestingly I couldn't post a tale-telling video from You-Tube or Blinkx - and presumably other video sites - it seems the Premier League don't want it doing the rounds; maybe they are still a few 'rebel' copies out there. You-Tube etc all display the following:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NetResult

Oscars over...

Well my Oscar Overture had more hits than I thought! My "guesses" for screenplay, sound and of course Ratatouille all came in (no contest for the animated movie really). The rest was pretty well fore-told but I was surprised by Tilda Swinton's award, not that she wasn't really good as the 'white bitch' Karen Crowder opposite George Clooney's Michael Clayton; however she may need to be careful in selecting scripts to avoid being type-cast: hard, white bitch from cruel White Witch (Narnia) with the odd short drama in between - 'Julia' looks a good bet too: out this month (I think) French writer-director Erick Zonca makes his English-language debut, inspired by John Cassavetes' 1980 film 'Gloria'.

"Director Erick Zonca knew from the start that he wanted Swinton to play the eponymous anti-heroine in his new film "Julia,"... ... "She is a very special actress because she doesn't belong to the Hollywood system."

[Spiegel Online]

Oscars over...

Well my Oscar Overture had more hits than I thought! My "guesses" for screenplay, sound and of course Ratatouille all came in (no contest for the animated movie really). The rest was pretty well fore-told but I was surprised by Tilda Swinton's award, not that she wasn't really good as the 'white bitch' Karen Crowder opposite George Clooney's Michael Clayton; however she may need to be careful in selecting scripts to avoid being type-cast: hard, white bitch from cruel White Witch (Narnia) with the odd short drama in between - 'Julia' looks a good bet too: out this month (I think) French writer-director Erick Zonca makes his English-language debut, inspired by John Cassavetes' 1980 film 'Gloria'.

"Director Erick Zonca knew from the start that he wanted Swinton to play the eponymous anti-heroine in his new film "Julia,"... ... "She is a very special actress because she doesn't belong to the Hollywood system."

[Spiegel Online]

Oscar overture...

Right, first things first: Ratatouille had better win. Wonderful, the telling twist is probably that the baddy and the goody end up on the same side.

Now…nominations HERE and my not-predictions below…I say that because it’s not really who I think will end up winning, just more that they're my favs.

Best actor and supporting actor: Johnny Depp (Daniel Day Lewis probably deserves it!) and either Javier Bardem (nice hair Javi!) or - I changed my mind last night after seeming 'Charlie Wilson's War' - Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hilarious.

Best actress and best supporting actress: would be great if Cate Blanchett got both only for the fact that it would be for a both a female and a male role! However I go for Marion Cotillard and Amy Ryan in 'La Vie en Rose' and 'Gone, Baby Gone' respectively.

Best film…damn...this is hard and they're all SOOOOOOOOOOOOO different and all good in their own way…is it me or have they all been released in the last 2 months?...yes, that's me changing the subject to avoid making a decision: the odds are on the big guns: 'No Country For Old Men' and 'There Will Be Blood' although recently the sweet, 'isn't it cute and quirky',coming-up-fast-on-the-outside is 'Juno'…so I'll go for 'Atonement'.

Don’t really care about the rest except, as I said at the beginning, as long as Ratatouille wins. However…sound to the Bourne Ultimatum, mainly because I’ve just bought the trilogy on DVD, and screenplay to Cody Diablo’s enjoyable Juno. (More on Juno here from Baldinio)

Other films I've seen recently, in no particular order:

Atonement – lovely Keira…at least the dress [image] she wore won something. Enjoyable and beautifully 'put-together' film.
Juno – easy-going, enjoyable, good script.
Michael Clayton – good film, very good supporting actors
No Country for Old Men – fantastic, my sort of film.
There Will Be Blood – bit too long but very well shot.
Sweeney Todd – great, Johnny D and Helena BC mixing it up.
In the Valley of Elah – good film; Tommy Lee Jones' best in a long time.
Charlie Wilson's War – very funny - Philip Seymour Hoffman in particular.
American Gangster – fantastic film, superb cast.
Jumper – a let down, could have been better; thumbs up for Jamie Bell.
30 days of Night – Enjoyable vampire stuff.
Now or Never – good enjoyable film, classy acting (as you’d expect)
Rambo – does what you’d expect, critics slammed it public loved it (minced meat ending possibly a bit OTT)
Cloverfield – good except for the oh-so annoying first half hour of setting the scene/characters.

Films I've missed and want to see: 'Eastern Promises' and '3-10 to Yuma'; will make sure I see: Kite Runner, We Own The Night, Vantage Point, Mama Mia, 21, 10,000...lots of numbers! some more: possibilities for 55 films to see in 2008...

Oscar overture...

Right, first things first: Ratatouille had better win. Wonderful, the telling twist is probably that the baddy and the goody end up on the same side.

Now…nominations HERE and my not-predictions below…I say that because it’s not really who I think will end up winning, just more that they're my favs.

Best actor and supporting actor: Johnny Depp (Daniel Day Lewis probably deserves it!) and either Javier Bardem (nice hair Javi!) or - I changed my mind last night after seeming 'Charlie Wilson's War' - Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hilarious.

Best actress and best supporting actress: would be great if Cate Blanchett got both only for the fact that it would be for a both a female and a male role! However I go for Marion Cotillard and Amy Ryan in 'La Vie en Rose' and 'Gone, Baby Gone' respectively.

Best film…damn...this is hard and they're all SOOOOOOOOOOOOO different and all good in their own way…is it me or have they all been released in the last 2 months?...yes, that's me changing the subject to avoid making a decision: the odds are on the big guns: 'No Country For Old Men' and 'There Will Be Blood' although recently the sweet, 'isn't it cute and quirky',coming-up-fast-on-the-outside is 'Juno'…so I'll go for 'Atonement'.

Don’t really care about the rest except, as I said at the beginning, as long as Ratatouille wins. However…sound to the Bourne Ultimatum, mainly because I’ve just bought the trilogy on DVD, and screenplay to Cody Diablo’s enjoyable Juno. (More on Juno here from Baldinio)

Other films I've seen recently, in no particular order:

Atonement – lovely Keira…at least the dress [image] she wore won something. Enjoyable and beautifully 'put-together' film.
Juno – easy-going, enjoyable, good script.
Michael Clayton – good film, very good supporting actors
No Country for Old Men – fantastic, my sort of film.
There Will Be Blood – bit too long but very well shot.
Sweeney Todd – great, Johnny D and Helena BC mixing it up.
In the Valley of Elah – good film; Tommy Lee Jones' best in a long time.
Charlie Wilson's War – very funny - Philip Seymour Hoffman in particular.
American Gangster – fantastic film, superb cast.
Jumper – a let down, could have been better; thumbs up for Jamie Bell.
30 days of Night – Enjoyable vampire stuff.
Now or Never – good enjoyable film, classy acting (as you’d expect)
Rambo – does what you’d expect, critics slammed it public loved it (minced meat ending possibly a bit OTT)
Cloverfield – good except for the oh-so annoying first half hour of setting the scene/characters.

Films I've missed and want to see: 'Eastern Promises' and '3-10 to Yuma'; will make sure I see: Kite Runner, We Own The Night, Vantage Point, Mama Mia, 21, 10,000...lots of numbers! some more: possibilities for 55 films to see in 2008...

Outrageous...

The British government is overtly funding criminals - how is this legal/right? HM Revenue & Customs have paid £100,000 for data from a thief, who some are calling a whistleblower, who was suspected, accused and then sacked for stealing data from a Liechtenstein bank, the thief has been convicted of fraud. [Times] However...

"The British tax authorities have paid an informant for the bank details of scores of wealthy Britons. The records were stolen from one of the world’s most secretive tax havens."

Information from the same 'informant' has led to raids on various houses and offices seen in the growing tax scandal in Germany.

If the UK government is openly buying stolen data surely the multiple data loss scandals should be looked at in another light and investigated independently: as has been said on numerous occasions, such info in the hands of 'professional' criminals is worth a none-too-small fortune.

For info: Liechtenstein is one of three places in Europe that are classified as "uncooperative tax havens" by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); this is due to their refusal to allow tax authorities from other countries any access to their clients' bank details.

Outrageous...

The British government is overtly funding criminals - how is this legal/right? HM Revenue & Customs have paid £100,000 for data from a thief, who some are calling a whistleblower, who was suspected, accused and then sacked for stealing data from a Liechtenstein bank, the thief has been convicted of fraud. [Times] However...

"The British tax authorities have paid an informant for the bank details of scores of wealthy Britons. The records were stolen from one of the world’s most secretive tax havens."

Information from the same 'informant' has led to raids on various houses and offices seen in the growing tax scandal in Germany.

If the UK government is openly buying stolen data surely the multiple data loss scandals should be looked at in another light and investigated independently: as has been said on numerous occasions, such info in the hands of 'professional' criminals is worth a none-too-small fortune.

For info: Liechtenstein is one of three places in Europe that are classified as "uncooperative tax havens" by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); this is due to their refusal to allow tax authorities from other countries any access to their clients' bank details.

Omen of oneness...

The oneness of all the home nationalities, all ethnic 'colours', of all political 'colours', Christains, Jews, and even some Muslims, united in decrying you know what. Not wishing to add to the mountains of polemic (clearly not the one that, as the saying goes, should go to Mohammed!) but of all the miles of column inches written I really 'took' to Matthew d'Ancona's article in The Sunday Telegraph. It is worth a read even for those not of the same 'political persuasion' as me, and of course there's no need to tell you what it's about - the "rivers of blather" speech!

"Most citizens will have many allegiances (to family, church, football team, party, social group and so on). But, where the law is concerned, there can only be one, unambiguous allegiance."

I suppose it can be no coincidence that, in other news today, amid the uproar over the "Archbishop's craven fatalism", we get news of a proposed crackdown on honour crime: today's Independent reports that

"Ministers are stepping up the fight against so-called 'honour' crime and forced marriages."

...and adding to the tide of what are no doubt going to be construed as anti-Muslim stories the Times (as well as many other national papers) tells us no less than "Minister warns of 'inbred' Muslims: Phil Woolas, Labour MP and government minister, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the "elephant in the room" and has warned that inbreeding among immigrants is causing a surge in birth defects...all these stories (and others) are sure to upset the Muslims in the UK. So will this, which I quote because it is great, in Matthew d'Ancona's article he quotes Martin Amis whom observed re the Islamist ideology, that...

"in its most millennial form, conjures up an image of an abattoir within a madhouse".

Omen of oneness...

The oneness of all the home nationalities, all ethnic 'colours', of all political 'colours', Christains, Jews, and even some Muslims, united in decrying you know what. Not wishing to add to the mountains of polemic (clearly not the one that, as the saying goes, should go to Mohammed!) but of all the miles of column inches written I really 'took' to Matthew d'Ancona's article in The Sunday Telegraph. It is worth a read even for those not of the same 'political persuasion' as me, and of course there's no need to tell you what it's about - the "rivers of blather" speech!

"Most citizens will have many allegiances (to family, church, football team, party, social group and so on). But, where the law is concerned, there can only be one, unambiguous allegiance."

I suppose it can be no coincidence that, in other news today, amid the uproar over the "Archbishop's craven fatalism", we get news of a proposed crackdown on honour crime: today's Independent reports that

"Ministers are stepping up the fight against so-called 'honour' crime and forced marriages."

...and adding to the tide of what are no doubt going to be construed as anti-Muslim stories the Times (as well as many other national papers) tells us no less than "Minister warns of 'inbred' Muslims: Phil Woolas, Labour MP and government minister, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the "elephant in the room" and has warned that inbreeding among immigrants is causing a surge in birth defects...all these stories (and others) are sure to upset the Muslims in the UK. So will this, which I quote because it is great, in Matthew d'Ancona's article he quotes Martin Amis whom observed re the Islamist ideology, that...

"in its most millennial form, conjures up an image of an abattoir within a madhouse".

Over-ocellated ocean organism...

Buy a red wet suit. Stay by a red pole...strange advice but it could save your life from an ocean organism that despite being 'soft' is in fact a sophisticated and terrifying killer: 4 brains, 24 eyes, highly toxic and copious venom that remains deadly even after the organism has died, a complex polypeptide venom that hasn't revealed its secrets to scientists despite decades of research. Does that sound bad...oh, but it gets worse:

"...if comes under sustained attack it responds by sending its compatriots into a super-breeding frenzy in which millions of replacements are created." ... "The box jellyfish is so packed with venom that the briefest of touches can bring agonising death within 180 seconds."

It gets worse still!!! We used to thing they drifted around aimlessly at the mercy of the tides, floating where they were driven on the currents; this not so:

"On the other side of the world scientists who managed to place tracking devices on the jellyfish in the Pacific proved that they were not drifting on the ocean currents but heading determinedly - and at the speed of an Olympic swimmer - towards the coast."

Just in case you're wondering about my first comment, well jellyfish, at least the ones they've tried to keep out of swimming areas, have a "highly complex sensory capacity and the ability to distinguish colour" - they appear to be very sensitive to colour and the only deterrent found so far, according to reports (see first link) is the colour red. Obviously the really deadly creatures are far off from many of us - both the Irukandji and Box jellyfish (in fact both are Cubozoa, not jellyfish) are in the South Pacific but they're on the move - and don't think the occurance of incidents aren't getting more common in cooler water nearer to home; reports like this one are positively scary and of course it isn't the first time and although those links refer to fish farms the danger to swimmers, even in the UK is clear!

Over-ocellated ocean organism...

Buy a red wet suit. Stay by a red pole...strange advice but it could save your life from an ocean organism that despite being 'soft' is in fact a sophisticated and terrifying killer: 4 brains, 24 eyes, highly toxic and copious venom that remains deadly even after the organism has died, a complex polypeptide venom that hasn't revealed its secrets to scientists despite decades of research. Does that sound bad...oh, but it gets worse:

"...if comes under sustained attack it responds by sending its compatriots into a super-breeding frenzy in which millions of replacements are created." ... "The box jellyfish is so packed with venom that the briefest of touches can bring agonising death within 180 seconds."

It gets worse still!!! We used to thing they drifted around aimlessly at the mercy of the tides, floating where they were driven on the currents; this not so:

"On the other side of the world scientists who managed to place tracking devices on the jellyfish in the Pacific proved that they were not drifting on the ocean currents but heading determinedly - and at the speed of an Olympic swimmer - towards the coast."

Just in case you're wondering about my first comment, well jellyfish, at least the ones they've tried to keep out of swimming areas, have a "highly complex sensory capacity and the ability to distinguish colour" - they appear to be very sensitive to colour and the only deterrent found so far, according to reports (see first link) is the colour red. Obviously the really deadly creatures are far off from many of us - both the Irukandji and Box jellyfish (in fact both are Cubozoa, not jellyfish) are in the South Pacific but they're on the move - and don't think the occurance of incidents aren't getting more common in cooler water nearer to home; reports like this one are positively scary and of course it isn't the first time and although those links refer to fish farms the danger to swimmers, even in the UK is clear!

Origami out of orbit...

Burn up on entry? No chance...not even when it's made of paper. I must admit to being astounded at the news, reported last month on New Scientist, Space: Japanese origami experts have collaborated to make a paper plane - for space travel!!...that "could be launched from the International Space Station and survive a descent to Earth."

The spaceplane is about 20 cm long and is made of paper, but it has passed wind tunnel tests at Mach 7 and 200 °C

Now we can get to see the tests [BBC media player]; they're totally confident of success but the only problems seem to be radar can't track it and cameras probably won't see it!!! If found please return to...

Origami out of orbit...

Burn up on entry? No chance...not even when it's made of paper. I must admit to being astounded at the news, reported last month on New Scientist, Space: Japanese origami experts have collaborated to make a paper plane - for space travel!!...that "could be launched from the International Space Station and survive a descent to Earth."

The spaceplane is about 20 cm long and is made of paper, but it has passed wind tunnel tests at Mach 7 and 200 °C

Now we can get to see the tests [BBC media player]; they're totally confident of success but the only problems seem to be radar can't track it and cameras probably won't see it!!! If found please return to...

Organised online onslaught...

Seems we need to take more care...I'd say so! There are varying reports of numbers from 'a doubling' to a ten-fold increase: the BBC reports that Security software testing organisation AV Test (see image - click to view in new window) recorded nearly 5.5 million unique samples of malicious software in last year - five times more than in 2006. Although the steep rise in incidents satrted a few years ago the real explosion in in malicious software started about 9 to 10 months ago...obviously Tony Blair's been keeping busy since last May! ;-)

Simon Heron of Network Box said back in January, in response to a boom in cyber crime and "spear phising" (nice!) - compiling lots of bits of data to make the messages they send look much more convincing and targeting specific groups:

"...a few hundred people such as the senior managers in a large firm..."The bad guys are becoming more sophisticated and that means its becoming more difficult to stay safe"

Organised online onslaught...

Seems we need to take more care...I'd say so! There are varying reports of numbers from 'a doubling' to a ten-fold increase: the BBC reports that Security software testing organisation AV Test (see image - click to view in new window) recorded nearly 5.5 million unique samples of malicious software in last year - five times more than in 2006. Although the steep rise in incidents satrted a few years ago the real explosion in in malicious software started about 9 to 10 months ago...obviously Tony Blair's been keeping busy since last May! ;-)

Simon Heron of Network Box said back in January, in response to a boom in cyber crime and "spear phising" (nice!) - compiling lots of bits of data to make the messages they send look much more convincing and targeting specific groups:

"...a few hundred people such as the senior managers in a large firm..."The bad guys are becoming more sophisticated and that means its becoming more difficult to stay safe"

Overseas obvention...

Sounds good but not sure it would be a resounding success: all 20 clubs in the English Premier League have agreed the possibility of extending the normal season to 39 games. That would seem a bit odd except that the extra games would be played at venues around the world, with those cities interested bidding for the right to stage them; if it all gets the green light then it could happen by 2010.

"Cities in Asia, Middle East and North America are likely to show a strong interest in hosting the extra games"

...yep I can understand that: Arsenal, Manure, Liverfluke, Chelski...the bidding will be high;

"A number of top-flight clubs already play matches around the world as they seek to capitalise on the huge global interest in the English game."

Sure, however, how much thought have they given this?...and no offence meant, but just who and how much would be bid for Blackburn vs. Wigan or Middlesbrough vs. Bolton?

Overseas obvention...

Sounds good but not sure it would be a resounding success: all 20 clubs in the English Premier League have agreed the possibility of extending the normal season to 39 games. That would seem a bit odd except that the extra games would be played at venues around the world, with those cities interested bidding for the right to stage them; if it all gets the green light then it could happen by 2010.

"Cities in Asia, Middle East and North America are likely to show a strong interest in hosting the extra games"

...yep I can understand that: Arsenal, Manure, Liverfluke, Chelski...the bidding will be high;

"A number of top-flight clubs already play matches around the world as they seek to capitalise on the huge global interest in the English game."

Sure, however, how much thought have they given this?...and no offence meant, but just who and how much would be bid for Blackburn vs. Wigan or Middlesbrough vs. Bolton?

Observing one-offs...

I was interested to read [Yahoo!] that "the New York Giants thrilling win over the New England Patriots was the most-watched Super Bowl ever, with 97.5 million viewers, Nielsen Media Research said Monday", not including under 2 year-old of course (see key below the list)...I was more interested to read that it is the second most-watched TV broadcast ever; even the peak viewing in the 4th quarter didn't beat the previous record.

The audience peaked between 9:30 and 10 p.m. ET -the fourth quarter -with 105.7 million people watching, Nielsen said.

That record is held by...wait for it... the "M-A-S-H" finale in 1983; 106 million viewers and being 25 years ago only makes it more impressive there having been less channels and less TV's! Fancy a 'soap', albeit a bloody good one, getting so many viewers, that couldn't happen anywhere but the USA I thought...however, out of interest I wondered what would be the equivalent in the UK...and now, at long last I have discovered something that may make me want to change my nationality - I don't mean one-off events like the 1966 footy World Cup Final or the emotion-fest funeral of Princess Diana...no I mean TV shows...also nearly a quarter century ago...any guesses?...OH THE SHAME. I'm sure available choice would have had a lot to do with it, after all the UK only got Channel 4 in 1982 (note to US readers...no, that '4' isn't a typo!) however... they're still top now, albiet with less than half the number of viewers.

Observing one-offs...

I was interested to read [Yahoo!] that "the New York Giants thrilling win over the New England Patriots was the most-watched Super Bowl ever, with 97.5 million viewers, Nielsen Media Research said Monday", not including under 2 year-old of course (see key below the list)...I was more interested to read that it is the second most-watched TV broadcast ever; even the peak viewing in the 4th quarter didn't beat the previous record.

The audience peaked between 9:30 and 10 p.m. ET -the fourth quarter -with 105.7 million people watching, Nielsen said.

That record is held by...wait for it... the "M-A-S-H" finale in 1983; 106 million viewers and being 25 years ago only makes it more impressive there having been less channels and less TV's! Fancy a 'soap', albeit a bloody good one, getting so many viewers, that couldn't happen anywhere but the USA I thought...however, out of interest I wondered what would be the equivalent in the UK...and now, at long last I have discovered something that may make me want to change my nationality - I don't mean one-off events like the 1966 footy World Cup Final or the emotion-fest funeral of Princess Diana...no I mean TV shows...also nearly a quarter century ago...any guesses?...OH THE SHAME. I'm sure available choice would have had a lot to do with it, after all the UK only got Channel 4 in 1982 (note to US readers...no, that '4' isn't a typo!) however... they're still top now, albiet with less than half the number of viewers.

Orinoco outflow...

...and this time I don't mean the oil. In December last year Barcelona resident John Carlin reported on "the remarkable collusion between Colombia's rebels and its neighbour's armed forces" the article was published in the Spanish daily El País, 'revealing', with witness testimonies what many have known/suspected for a long while: the "Chávez role in cocaine trail to Europe"; today it was published in The Observer.

"The varied testimonies I have heard reveal that the co-operation between Venezuela and the guerrillas in transporting cocaine by land, air and sea is both extensive and systematic. Venezuela is also supplying arms to the guerrillas, offering them the protection of their armed forces in the field, and providing them with legal immunity de facto as they go about their giant illegal business."

It has taken seven weeks for the story to reach the UK press, presumably publication was delayed to allow the successful release of hostages [CNN] - negotiations assisted by you know who. The article pretty much lays it all out without much room for doubt unless of course some or all of the sources aren't telling the truth! Somehow it just all rings true.

"All the sources I reached agreed that powerful elements within the Venezuelan state apparatus have forged a strong working relationship with Farc. They told me that Farc and Venezuelan state officials operated actively together on the ground, where military and drug-trafficking activities coincide. But the relationship becomes more passive, they said, less actively involved, the higher up the Venezuelan government you go. No source I spoke to accused Chávez himself of having a direct role in Colombia's giant drug-trafficking business. Yet the same people I interviewed struggled to believe that Chávez was not aware of the collusion between his armed forces and the leadership of Farc, as they also found it difficult to imagine that he has no knowledge of the degree to which Farc is involved in the cocaine trade."

Perhaps now that this is getting more column inches in Europe it will shed light on the those that overtly support him, and I don't mean message-board extremists, I mean mayors of major capital cities..."As part of the original deal with Mr Livingstone, which has been in the works for at least a year, the mayor of London’s office had pledged to "actively and efficiently promote Venezuela’s image in the UK".

Orinoco outflow...

...and this time I don't mean the oil. In December last year Barcelona resident John Carlin reported on "the remarkable collusion between Colombia's rebels and its neighbour's armed forces" the article was published in the Spanish daily El País, 'revealing', with witness testimonies what many have known/suspected for a long while: the "Chávez role in cocaine trail to Europe"; today it was published in The Observer.

"The varied testimonies I have heard reveal that the co-operation between Venezuela and the guerrillas in transporting cocaine by land, air and sea is both extensive and systematic. Venezuela is also supplying arms to the guerrillas, offering them the protection of their armed forces in the field, and providing them with legal immunity de facto as they go about their giant illegal business."

It has taken seven weeks for the story to reach the UK press, presumably publication was delayed to allow the successful release of hostages [CNN] - negotiations assisted by you know who. The article pretty much lays it all out without much room for doubt unless of course some or all of the sources aren't telling the truth! Somehow it just all rings true.

"All the sources I reached agreed that powerful elements within the Venezuelan state apparatus have forged a strong working relationship with Farc. They told me that Farc and Venezuelan state officials operated actively together on the ground, where military and drug-trafficking activities coincide. But the relationship becomes more passive, they said, less actively involved, the higher up the Venezuelan government you go. No source I spoke to accused Chávez himself of having a direct role in Colombia's giant drug-trafficking business. Yet the same people I interviewed struggled to believe that Chávez was not aware of the collusion between his armed forces and the leadership of Farc, as they also found it difficult to imagine that he has no knowledge of the degree to which Farc is involved in the cocaine trade."

Perhaps now that this is getting more column inches in Europe it will shed light on the those that overtly support him, and I don't mean message-board extremists, I mean mayors of major capital cities..."As part of the original deal with Mr Livingstone, which has been in the works for at least a year, the mayor of London’s office had pledged to "actively and efficiently promote Venezuela’s image in the UK".

Objurgation of overspending...

Update Sunday February 3rd: The race for transparency begins: Ben Wallace, a Conservative Party MP, "has broken ranks" with the seemingly all-party 'let's hope it goes away and people will forget how much we claim': he is the first UK Member of Parliament to publish a complete breakdown of his annual Commons expenses. [Times]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this week's The Spectator Fraiser Nelson expounds on the nepotist shenanigans in the UK of ex-Conservative Party MP Derek Conway. Despite the news rumbling on all week, compared to other such circuses, the headlines and reaction could almost be described as a defeaning silence. Nobody is screaming; all parties speak in hushed tones of a need to perhaps introduce a ban on family members being employed by MP's. What it has also done is pretty much let New Labour and Gordon Brown 'off the hook'...they're not cleared by any means but they have been gifted the spiking a few opposition guns; as Nelson puts it:

"But the damage is nonetheless done. The word ‘Conway’ will now silence any Conservative seeking to chide Labour for financial impropriety. Mr Brown may well be struggling against the weight of five financial scandals (two now the subject of criminal investigations). But he can now say, as Jack Straw did on Wednesday morning, that all parties have trouble with finance. To the immense frustration of the shadow cabinet, they are in no position to argue."

To put it another way for an ex-tory boy like me: it's so bloody frustrating! That said I believe there should be a major cutting and capping of expenses: they've risen by over 50% in only 5 or 6 years (!!!) and of all MP's only 3 ...yes, THREE...have expenses below £90,000 (the average is almost £136 thousand!). Labour's Shahid Malik was highest at £185,421 and Conservative Philip Hollobone claimed the least - £44,551. Now....looking at that last figure, it's 75% of an MP's salary - surely that is enough? The second lowest is more than twenty thousand above Mr. Hollobone. Maybe you'd think he doesn't do a lot; you'd be wrong, he is well above average both in action/committees/voting etc. [They work for you] Check your MP's expenses claim HERE (opens Excel spreadsheet)

Back to Nelson Fraiser, "If Gordon wins next time, the Derek Conway case will be one of the reasons":

"The polite phrase used by the Standards and Privileges Committee was ‘diversion of public funds’. At a stroke, this gave Gordon Brown the words he needed for a narrative he has been trying to construct — to portray the controversies about Labour donations, which led to Mr Hain’s resignation, as a problem afflicting all parties. Meanwhile, the public simply conclude that all politicians are villains — and not just those with a red rosette."

Just to end on a counterdig...interesting point made on The Huntsman yesterday, 'The Porkers Gazette': "Cameron can steal a march here and respond swiftly to the public mood which is clearly and unambiguously in favour of complete openness on this topic. Labour will then be seen to be playing catch-up."

Objurgation of overspending...

Update Sunday February 3rd: The race for transparency begins: Ben Wallace, a Conservative Party MP, "has broken ranks" with the seemingly all-party 'let's hope it goes away and people will forget how much we claim': he is the first UK Member of Parliament to publish a complete breakdown of his annual Commons expenses. [Times]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this week's The Spectator Fraiser Nelson expounds on the nepotist shenanigans in the UK of ex-Conservative Party MP Derek Conway. Despite the news rumbling on all week, compared to other such circuses, the headlines and reaction could almost be described as a defeaning silence. Nobody is screaming; all parties speak in hushed tones of a need to perhaps introduce a ban on family members being employed by MP's. What it has also done is pretty much let New Labour and Gordon Brown 'off the hook'...they're not cleared by any means but they have been gifted the spiking a few opposition guns; as Nelson puts it:

"But the damage is nonetheless done. The word ‘Conway’ will now silence any Conservative seeking to chide Labour for financial impropriety. Mr Brown may well be struggling against the weight of five financial scandals (two now the subject of criminal investigations). But he can now say, as Jack Straw did on Wednesday morning, that all parties have trouble with finance. To the immense frustration of the shadow cabinet, they are in no position to argue."

To put it another way for an ex-tory boy like me: it's so bloody frustrating! That said I believe there should be a major cutting and capping of expenses: they've risen by over 50% in only 5 or 6 years (!!!) and of all MP's only 3 ...yes, THREE...have expenses below £90,000 (the average is almost £136 thousand!). Labour's Shahid Malik was highest at £185,421 and Conservative Philip Hollobone claimed the least - £44,551. Now....looking at that last figure, it's 75% of an MP's salary - surely that is enough? The second lowest is more than twenty thousand above Mr. Hollobone. Maybe you'd think he doesn't do a lot; you'd be wrong, he is well above average both in action/committees/voting etc. [They work for you] Check your MP's expenses claim HERE (opens Excel spreadsheet)

Back to Nelson Fraiser, "If Gordon wins next time, the Derek Conway case will be one of the reasons":

"The polite phrase used by the Standards and Privileges Committee was ‘diversion of public funds’. At a stroke, this gave Gordon Brown the words he needed for a narrative he has been trying to construct — to portray the controversies about Labour donations, which led to Mr Hain’s resignation, as a problem afflicting all parties. Meanwhile, the public simply conclude that all politicians are villains — and not just those with a red rosette."

Just to end on a counterdig...interesting point made on The Huntsman yesterday, 'The Porkers Gazette': "Cameron can steal a march here and respond swiftly to the public mood which is clearly and unambiguously in favour of complete openness on this topic. Labour will then be seen to be playing catch-up."