Verbal

I disagree. Actually I think almost everything you say is demonstrably wrong - not least because you want, implicitly to turn back the clock to the 1950s when Britain had a large working class, denied access to further and higher education, and a relatively tiny, rigidified middle class. Britain - and the industrialised west - is very different today. White-collar jobs predominate - and, led by trends set in the sixties in the US, these require the kinds of skills that good university graduates have. These skills are not by any means limited to the sciences and engineering - the highest earners, by degree type, are ex-arts and humanities students, not least because working as an ad copywriter, say, does not require a degree in physics.

?? The 'dilution' of the HE system - converting the old polytechnics into universities - was carried out almost entirely by the Tories under John Major. And blaming an older generation is a tired, tiresome and false cliche. Study British social history of the late 60s and 70s and you'll see why.

This year is going to be particularly distressing. It's the last year it'll be possible to enter university under the old fees regime. Over 170,000 students failed to find a university place last year. Applications this year are WAY up. But a numbers cap is still firmly in place. So the number of students unable to find a place will inevitably soar. The difference this time is that reapplying next year will suddenly be financially ruinous.

This is exactly why Panorama, The Sunday Times. The Observer, Channel 4 News and others were right to report on FIFA's hopeless corruption: the sight of Sepp Blatter obnoxiously gloating over the English 'bad losers' would have been SO much worse had they all waited until after the (inevitable) result. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/8189550/World-Cup-2018-Fifa-president-Sepp-Blatter-says-England-are-bad-losers.html

Of course. Legal systems are infinitely manipulable by political forces. Ask Assange, sitting in a detention cell.

Are you thinking of a present for Carlos Tevez?

Sheikh bin Tommac, by all accounts.

No they don't. The Iranians are Shia; al Qaeda are Sunni. They each hate each other more than they both hate the Americans.

Released documents so far: 931 out of 250,000. This might run for a while.

This story links two threads in a way I hadn't quite expected - this one and the Wikileaks thread. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-al-jazeera-qatari-foreign-policy

Qatar is apparently the only applicant ever to have essentially failed in all aspects of its technical review. Yet it wins - and there seems a broad consensus that it won overwhelmingly through widespread corruption. But the technical and climatic hurdles seem so enormous that 2022 could not possibly be staged in Qatar, even allowing for 12 years of technological advances. Qatar just won't happen. Which may mean only that the the grubby low-lifes on 'ExCo' have given themselves yet ANOTHER payday, by accepting 'offers' in the coming years for countries vying to be the replacement. This, I would think, is the real reason for the otherwise weird decision on Qatar.

I can certainly imagine the response at the FA when this little request comes through from FIFA.

I agree about Band Aid. It was very poor journalism and shouldn't have got past editorial checks, let alone legal ones. Unfortunately, this will happen from time to time, when someone either screws up the investigation through inexperience or overzealousness or simply being too credulous. But that's my point: the penalty for getting it wrong is a hefty legal settlement and the humbling requirement to give an on-screen apology. Is that the case here? I would bet my mortgage on that not being so - otherwise we'd have heard the squeals of complaint and legal threat long before now. I think with their reputation and record, not one of those money grubbing cronies on 'ExCo' at FIFA would dare step into a courtroom to face any kind of cross-examination. As for timing, well it's called a 'peg' in the business - you tend to publish or broadcast around related events for topicality. It's a long established tradition and I see no reason to change it. And no, I agree, FIFA doesn't have a monopoly in corrupt practices - unfortunately, it DOES have a monopoly on world football. Vast kick-backs, private numbered Swiss accounts, threats and ego-massaging all have a role, no doubt, in a decision which led to two rich autocratic states being awarded successive world cups. Depressing as this all is, I'm also willing to bet that this will all unravel before FIFA's eyes. Russia is gambling on building a national infrastructure on the back of the 2018 tournament - but that will be wrecked by the same mafia who bleed the country dry now; and Qatar is your typical deeply misogynistic Wahhabi state which has floated the ludicrous idea of building air-conditioned bubbles to play in and then ship them off to Africa. Pie in the Sky doesn't begin to describe it. Impending disaster does. Good.

Google Private Eye's Gnitty. That's exactly the form.

Ah, my apologies.

My post was in response the delldays' 'what's a fact' question, not whether we investigative journalists on here 'already knew' everything. Of course we did - this is a message board after all! I'm not defending the BBC here, more the right for some pretty professional journalists in the News and Current Affairs department to be able to do their jobs without fear or favour. As for the 'pseudo-commercial' timing, how is your position a moral advance on that - aren't you calling for a 'pseudo commercial' decision to suppress a report until any commercial disadvantage is null?

That FIFA is deeply and irretrievably corrupt. If there were nothing but unsubstantiated allegations in the film, you could go along and watch the BBC being roasted by FIFA lawyers at the Courts of Justice. I don't think you quite understand the process of making programmes like this. Nothing - but NOTHING - gets on the air without a lawyer asking for substantiating material that he/she can stand up in court and successfully defend. By the same token, where are the libel lawsuits from a bunch of EXTREMELY wealthy individuals defending their 'honour'? With our libel laws tilted so heavily in favour of plaintiffs, they'd have yet another easy payday if the BBC had, as someone bizarrely put it, 'made it all up'. And why all the attention on the BBC? Did no one see the Channel Four News story this week on how about 50% of games in the Russian leagues are fixed? Or the Sunday Times exposes, etc etc.

How is it on your planet?

Is this Boxing Day or YOUR Boxing Day?

As for another (would-be) US president, Sarah Palin likens Assange to Al Qaeda, and has criticised the Obama administration for failing to use 'all necessary means to respond to and defeat Wikileaks.' (Twitter) Doesn't quite have the Jeffersonian ring about it, does it?

Too right. And as a certain Thomas Jefferson (US president and main author of the Declaration of Independence) once said: All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

No, the limitations are the usual ones I think. Interesting this afternoon to watch a learner driver, with instructor sat next to him, glide effortlessly into a lamppost. I don't suppose they do that in Europe either - crowd the snow-covered roads with people who can't really drive in normal conditions.

Now a Canadian government adviser calls for Assange to be 'assassinated' - and it turns out (Special K - specially for you) that, according to ITN, Huckabee wants both Manning and Assange executed - 'anything less would be too kind'. We're currently witnessing one of the most sickening displays of rage against whistleblowers ever seen by the political classes, who, in recent years have grown comfortable and cynical in their manipulations, lies and ruthless profiteering. By rights, and law, anyone threatening someone's life is potentially committing a crime and should be arrested and charged. Don't hold your breath though.

Ah the 'people will die' clarion call again. Look at the leaks themselves. Names of informants were redacted. And you miss the point I was making about the OSA. The smug are those who hide behind it to conceal wrongdoing; and whistleblowers should be applauded. Blair fought tooth and nail to prevent Attorney General's findings being made public on the legality - or not, as it turned out - of British participation in the invasion of Iraq. Thankfully he lost - and has ever since borne an almighty grudge against the FOI Act. On your argument, Blair should have been able to get away with the downright lies he peddled to the public while the truth remained an 'official secret'. A presumption of openness, whatever the cost, is far healthier than a presumption of secrecy - unless you'd be happier living somewhere like N Korea.

Well yes, Assange is the most at risk, certainly. Too many people in powerful positions, who feel threatened by his organisation, want him rubbed out or silenced for a very long time, and have openly, and probably less openly, said so. As for others, who knows. I do know that the loud chorus of military and political figures yelling 'people will die as a result' is self-serving PR drivel. But can I be certain that Assange helped reveal grotesque illegal acts under the watch of these and other political and military figures, that led to murder? Yes - and I do believe it alters behaviour among those who otherwise think they can get away with it.