ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

How I wish the Olympic Torch had gone via terminal 5 and we would not have to suffer this pantomime...
For once we could have used Willie Walsh's terminal 5 to our advantage..

Doh !

Lord Lawson is just another in a long line of sensible people who are speaking out against the notion of climate change.

That we are having a cyclic change, as we have always had, is in no doubt.

That we are causing it, is a great con. That is making the instigators vast sums of money. From multi-nationals to government.

At last the tide of complaint is being listened to. But barely.

The owner of Harrods claims no one is above the law. How much did he know about the cover up that took place in the Ritz, Paris about how much alcohol was consumed by his staff on the night of the crash? Good tactic…...distracting attention away from the real cause by dreaming up conspiracies. Is it not time we started a campaign to have this man sent back to Egypt, as he appears to be so disgusted with British justice?

We are all guilty of the death of Diana and Jody. Our insatiable desire for tittle-tattle and the media's desire to satiate has had an ultimate effect! Discuss

You just have to take a look at the Have Your Say comments to gauge the strength of feeling on the subject of the tax change. But who can represent those feelings to this get-rich-quick-by-any- means government? Certainly not the Unions who are keeping very quiet. And from todays weak interviews not the media either. Patronising comments about achieving overall fairness from already rich Labour MPs who claim more in expenses than many low-paid workers get per year go unchallenged, while even those who qualify for tax credits are being told to undertake further humiliating bureaucracy. Someone please speak for the low wage earners rather than the rich and make this appalling govt accountable!

I took part in peaceful demonstrations in London, but not to disrupt it. Most others felt the same way.

China promised to improve Human Rights when the Olympic games were awared. However the events in the last few years demonstrate otherwise:

a) China has increased the crackdown on internal dissidents. For example the recent conviction by a Chinese court of long-time HIV/AIDS activist and rights defender Hu Jia.

b) Organ harvesting and related extrajudicial executions in Chinese labour camps. This is to supply transplants to foreign and wealthly Chinese clients as demonstrated in a ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ investigation. Infact executions at prisons were steeped up to meet excess demand in the nearby transplant hospital.

c) Ethic cleansing and cultural genocide of minorities, mainly Tibetans and Uyghurs in rural provinces in the west of China. This has taken place since the 1950s with the loss of 1.5m Tibetean lives.

d) Lack of general political freedom. The Communist party bosses have accumulated huge sums of money by using brute state power on the voiceless - land grabs, forced deportation are good example. These methods have also been used for developing the Olympic Village in Beijing.

e) International Relations: China exports its form of repression to other states. North Korea & Burma are immediate satellite states with gross human rights violations. Its role in Africa with support for Sudan despite its repression in Darfur and China's support for Zimababwe's Mugabe speak for themselves.

f) Curbs on journalists who are not free to report in China. The situation is worse for local reporters.

g) Lack of freedom of religion: Religion is still considered as poison by the communist party as it was in times of Chairman Mao. This has resulted to mass purges of Churches, Monastries and Mosque. Not to mention Falung Gong.

These are good reasons for the world to boycott the games, or at the minmum the opening ceremony.

Opponents of this view would say one should not mix sports and politics, while leading secure lives not the receiving end of Chinese repression. Yes they are right in ideal circumstances. However in this case, China has politicised the games by wanting to display to the world its 'harmonious' society. The repression leaves global citizens with no choice but to protest.

This is in no way a stance against the Chinese people, who are as much victims of the communist party propoganda. The recent whipping up of Han chauvinism towards his Holiness the Dalai Lama sounds right of a Communist playbook from the Cultural revolution.

I wish for all global citizens to rise up for Human Rights, common values and morals to stand up against Chinese communist repression.

I'm outraged about the abolition of the 10 per cent tax band.

5 million people earning beween Β£5,500 and Β£18,000 pa will be worse off.

How can this possibly be justified?

I heard Ed Miliband today - in a performance so bad, cynical, obsequious and patronising to be worthy of Tessa Jowell - dissembling to avoid answering this. Do they really think we're all so stupid?

In the unlikely event any minister will front up to Jeremy on this, I hope they won't be allowed to get away with this.

This is the question I have been asking since I saw these Chinese security people "guarding" the torch in the news. Are they the Chinese SAS? Secret police? What right do they have taking the place of our police? The Times has an explanation,but surely they are different from French security guards here last year for a sports event.Who allowed them in?

10p

I think you will find that a recent 'Entrant' (see published pay scales and do the maths) to the British Army will find himself worse off this week, than last, as a result of the tax changes which have come into effect....well I suppose someone has to fund our escalating defence costs (not to mention the tax reductions which better off members of our society will benefit from).

Tragic.

Not surprisingly they have not even got the guts to own up to it...but just add layer upon layer of lies & spin.

10p...The Labour Party....They're not even worth that.

I took part in peaceful demonstrations in London, but not to disrupt it. Most others felt the same way.

China promised to improve Human Rights when the Olympic games were awared. However the events in the last few years demonstrate otherwise:

a) China has increased the crackdown on internal dissidents. For example the recent conviction by a Chinese court of long-time HIV/AIDS activist and rights defender Hu Jia.

b) Organ harvesting and related extrajudicial executions in Chinese labour camps. This is to supply transplants to foreign and wealthly Chinese clients as demonstrated in a ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ investigation. Infact executions at prisons were steeped up to meet excess demand in the nearby transplant hospital.

c) Ethic cleansing and cultural genocide of minorities, mainly Tibetans and Uyghurs in rural provinces in the west of China. This has taken place since the 1950s with the loss of 1.5m Tibetean lives.

d) Lack of general political freedom. The Communist party bosses have accumulated huge sums of money by using brute state power on the voiceless - land grabs, forced deportation are good example. These methods have also been used for developing the Olympic Village in Beijing.

e) International Relations: China exports its form of repression to other states. North Korea & Burma are immediate satellite states with gross human rights violations. Its role in Africa with support for Sudan despite its repression in Darfur and China's support for Zimababwe's Mugabe speak for themselves.

f) Curbs on journalists who are not free to report in China. The situation is worse for local reporters.

g) Lack of freedom of religion: Religion is still considered as poison by the communist party as it was in times of Chairman Mao. This has resulted to mass purges of Churches, Monastries and Mosque. Not to mention Falung Gong.

These are good reasons for the world to boycott the games, or at the minmum the opening ceremony.

Opponents of this view would say one should not mix sports and politics, while leading secure lives not the receiving end of Chinese repression. Yes they are right in ideal circumstances. However in this case, China has politicised the games by wanting to display to the world its 'harmonious' society. The repression leaves global citizens with no choice but to protest.

This is in no way a stance against the Chinese people, who are as much victims of the communist party propoganda. The recent whipping up of Han chauvinism towards his Holiness the Dalai Lama sounds right of a Communist playbook from the Cultural revolution.

I wish for all global citizens to rise up for Human Rights, common values and morals to stand up against Chinese communist repression.

Gordon Brown the Conga Bonga. Well, how low can he go ? .....

Princess Diana's Inquest has served only to confirm what was obvious from the start. A speeding car, driven by a drunk carrying passengers unrestrained by seatbelts is an accident waiting to happen. What a pity common sense didn't prevail 10 years ago, and what a pity that common sense didn't prevail before this inquest started. The money spent on investigating this traffic accident is a shameful waste. I don't imagine for a moment that Diana would have approved.

on the tax subject. what Jeremy was missing in conversation with tax minister is that the problem is 5 million poor people are worse of for rich one to pay less tax.... so Labor can win next election with rich ones vote....

>Sadly science, like everything else today (news, politics, religion, etc) is now showbiz.

>Al Gore and Nigel Lawson are just a couple of β€œshape-shifters” strutting their stuff.

Sadly, I have read both of their views in detail. They both make mistakes. Unfortunately, Nigel Lawson makes a lot more than Al Gore - he clearly does not understand the science at all, and cherry-picks almost all of his views, blatantly ignoring anything that might contradict him.

It is good that he says "we need to think about dealing with the effects", but he still misses the crux of the problem - if we don't curb ourselves, the environment will do it for us, and wipe us out. It's all very well saying "if we try to reduce pollution, it will cost us and cause more poverty", but that still doesn't address the core problem - there are too many humans burning too much, and the environment will shift in a way that we simply can't deal with.

Talk to any real scientist (from Doctors through to Mathemeticians) and they will all tell you that prevention costs less than cure.

This was an incident caused by a drunken driver probably harassed by paparazzi. Princess Diana was unlawfully killed, there is nothing anyone can do about it. Is it not now time to leave it and let everyone rest in peace?

I have met Nigel Lawson in the flesh and he was unimpressive. He now seems to think he knows all about climate change. Don't give this man the oxygen of publicity.

Interesting line-up - unusual these days.

Who is it on the programme that that thinks Lawson is such an authority? He sells the old tory recipe for everything at every chance. Does he have financial interests in selling us short, or just political ones?

The Diana inquest was an expensive whitewash from the start, using length to create the impression of thoroughness, and playing with Fayed's crazed ideas. The main issue was always to be ignored: how the divorced wife to the heir to the throne, mother of those next in line, and perhaps the country's most prominent public figure, ended up made too scared to use the protection the country rightly pays to provide for such as her, whilst facing unprecedented paparazzi harassment. Who was it bugged her phone conversations and made at least one public? The inquest heard that those she was convinced were responsible were not, then left it at that. If it was not the police or security services it was people impersonating them, and they made what should have been a very well connected and protected woman feel virtually defenceless, violated to the extent of being made almost irrational, turning to the deeply flawed security offered by a neigbouring department store and hotel owner. That, and her death, were very convenient, in the long term, for her ex-husband, but that doesn't mean he had anything to do with it. But a group who felt there were above the law, and apparently are, certainly were. And the cover-up continues. The fact that this is allowed, even found amusing by so many prominent figures who identify with the values of the class she was considered to have spurned, means this is a very dangerous country for all "little people". That should concern Newsnight, but maybe those at the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ have forgotten they too are only one step from being "little people".

Isn't it odd how all commentators in the media were so "bored" by a budget that would obviously further impoverish the working poor? So many jokes about Darling sending them to sleep. We have a greater divide by wealth, and lack of it, in this country now that for decades, thanks to two successive "tory" governments, one waving the "Labour" banner, and other promoters of greed and selfishness. Yet those offended by it are fewer and more isolated than for probably two centuries. Thatcher's children.

Ah, so that's why Newsnight considers her chancellor so highly.

Nigel Lawson sounded like the voice of reason to me; that of the head of the Science Museum the Dictator. Lawson appeared to be saying: rising global temperatures are inevitable; they are partially but not wholly man-made, and as such we could arrest but not prevent them; that, given their inevitability, we would be best advised to accept the fact and find ways of adapting to live with the change. Sounds reasonable to me. By contrast the head of the Science Museum appeared to be saying that he and only those who thought like him were right: that the world should ignore them at its peril, and that if we persist without reducing CO2 emissions we'd all be doomed: the world would somehow implode and take mankind with it. Sounds like scaremongering to me. So, the new dogma from the New Establishment, and a new solution from a New Radical. Funny old world ain't it? Before we know it we'll see the Labour Party championing the middle classes and the Tories presenting themselves as the Guardians of the poor and the saviours of the NHS....

Wonderful to see that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is, at last, giving airtime to someone that opposes the scaremongers of global warming. Lord lawson's views were intelligent, well-informed and vitally important in that this publicity may eventually force a full and fair debate on this hugely important issue. The scaremongers get blanket, unchallenged coverage in all aspects of the media and this scandalous imbalance must be addressed. So, my congratulations to Newsnight for "daring" to have a go.

'You see, Jeremy......'
Have you noticed whenever an politician or other interviewee has the weakest possible argument for a lost cause they appeal for mercy from the interviewer by using his Christian name?
Always a sure sign they are talking rubbish!

Thank you Newsnight, for once again cutting through the shallow mob-mentality headlines to ask why Chinese thugs in blue shell suits are allowed to assault people on our streets and which cupboard were all the Labour MPs hiding in when they actually had the chance to vote against the tax rate changes last year?

What The Public Knows...

"Diana Inquest: The airbag initiated the event... the media created a costly conspiracy to trivialise the loss of women in general...like generations of divorcees..."

"Tackling Poverty is physical it means opportunistic police arrests of corporate personalities..to establish illegalities motivated people instead ... to prevent old testament people getting up society through productive participation... that outclasses the indebtment credibility system of new testament
obedients..."

Globe Risk Management: ice bergs have been chancellor chopped to spread cooler moister air into the atmosphere where it is needed... the chancellor chopper program has started to set a monthly ice budget ...to strategically position shore investments.. and loss risk opportunities...

Whose Tax??/ The public is not indebted to Β£MPs people... customers do not support illegalities reform campaigners...customers want Provision Taxes and Advantage Taxes scheduled through banks to discount their tax off Β£MPs people ...and direct it towards providers who have support their status and quality of life ..Β£MPs ID economists are fighting the laws of the bank account... actively discrediting banks to deny customers the power of accountable futures ..to strengthen the grip of obedience indebtment...

The Old Testament Club could be set to bankrupt The Reform club through cases for sports fans and years of schools old boys whose wonderful life became costly and lossful because of Reforms Economics....

I can't really see why the duke of Edinburgh would have acted so heartlessly as to murder his grandson and future king's mother in cold blood. It just does not seem plausible to me. Also if you do suspect a conspiracy theory and it was a staged accident, then how on earth would the MI6 would have had the time to PLAN what appears to have been a very intricate operation on a route that does not seem to have been officially planned even by Henri Paul becuase it was an alternative route taken to the one that had been officially planned. The only way that this would have been at all possible is if Paul had been paid by MI6 to carry out the operation, but he is unlikely to deliberately have given his own life for the cause. No the staged accident even with my limited knowledge of the facts seems very unlikely to me!

The ten pence tax abolition is a disgrace. Does this mean that becuase if we are in the lower income bracket we benefit more, so therefore we must be taxed more, to pay for our own benefit whilst the rich can earn vast amounts and be left to look after themselves. This is certainly NEW LABOUR, NEW DANGER, its enough to make Salvador Allende trun in his grave!

Who the hell are these officials. I quite agree. I think this Tibet issue is difficult becuase I sympathise profoundly with them but am a China fan also. I feel the Dali Lama realises that connections with China could bring enourmous economic and political benifits to tibet at a time when things are becoming increasingly global. I strongly defend the right of China to develop in its own way, and I welcome the introduction of a successful and considerably more humanitairian form of communism, becuase despite its problems I still believe in the leftest ideals. Chinas form of communism is considerably more humanitarian than some of the communist countires of the past and it shows that communism is still alive as an ideal and can adapt to change. No one appears to be getting hurt in China if they play by the rules. Every country has rules, our country has less and less which is probably why we have such anarchy amongst our young people. I think the Chinese government recognises that Communist ideals cannot be achieved fully by the Stalinist model, and recognises that in some respect western governments are more equal, but we shouldn't criticise them too much, they are going to be a different world power to America and they might, just might be a better one, eventually getting rid of the worst side of the greed in our society becuase they still believe in equality at the end of the day, they just want to interpret equality in their own way and we must allow them to do this (a) becuase we don't have any choice and (b) because we collapsed communism we synically forced right wing communist leaders into making mistakes which they may not have made, they may not have been so harsh in taking had it not been from the pressure of their cold war with us. Yes I still thing we should keep the RED flag flying and it deserves this one last chance!

Members of Parliament seem very financially astute when claiming expenses but slow to understand the effect on low earners of the abolition of the 10p rate.

However, the cost/benefit of the 10p rate was poor and it should go. Only a fool would have introduced it in the first place. No offence meant, Gordon.

When I joined HMIT on 06 February 1961 as a 16 year-old trainee tax officer, the basic rate was 4s 3d in the pound. That equates to 21p in today's money.

The real scandal is the low threshold at which tax is paid. This should be raised to Β£12,000 and increased by Β£240 every 06 April. Low earners would immediately benefit and the economy boosted without disturbing the 2% target rate of inflation.

Watching last night's interview with Jane Kennedy it struck me that government ministers are in competition to see how many times they can insert the words "child poverty" into a conversation.This is pure emotional blackmail designed to close down debate on the effects of the tax changes.

I actually though the minister Kennedy was quite good. Most labour woman seem to be very patronising. I thought she avoided this well and was actually trying to answer the question.

What is happening to the production standards on Newsnight these days?

David Grossman presented a five minute VT explaining that Brown has doubled income tax on the poor - but made it look like it was meant for inattentive school kids. The VT was padded out with long clips of spinning coins in slow-motion.

The VT on the Diana inquest showed two guys captioned Claude Roulet, ex-manager of the Ritz. One spoke with a French accent. The other with an English accent. Doesn't anyone check the VTs before they go on air?

And why do the organ grinders always send the monkey for interviews on Newsnight now? When was the last time a cabinet minister appeared on the show?

Enjoyed the questioning of Nigel Lawson and was interested in the things he did concede about global warming beforehand.

If he agrees that CO2 causes global warming and that humans are contributing to its increase in the atmosphere it seems rather irresponsible to advocate we do nothing about reducing those emissions.

As everyone seems to agree climate change is an extremely complex subject which we don't fully understand.

My own view is that a species that is capable of completely changing the face of the planet by cutting down half the trees on it could also be capable of having an effect on its climate. Even though we cannot be sure how much effect we are having surely we should do something about cutting down emissions anyway?

Jane Kennedy identified two groups of people who lose because of the abolition of the 10% tax band: young people under 25 and women between the ages of 60 and 64. She then brought forward an argument that the youngsters would soon get good jobs, higher salaries and catch up. OK. Probably. But why didn't Jeremy go for the jugular over the older women? She just left them out, and so did he.

Regarding the above:
'You see Jeremy......' by Richard Smythe

Well observed Richard. A couple of other ploys I have observed are listed below; does anyone else have any others?

'The real question is...'
to completely ignore the question posed and trot out some Party line or soundbite.

'I don't accept that.'
because it makes obvious that Party policy is cynical and/or its political ideology completely out of touch with the practicalities of normal life.

Incidentally, the top of the web page currently shows "Monday, 7 April, 2007" when we are in the year 2008.

6 out of ten, Mr Paxman, for tackling yet another appalling "Blair Babe", and extracting (hopefully politically fatal) admissions, this time on deliberately pushing 5.3 million poor further into poverty. More marks would have been gained by prising open the disgraceful misappropriation of the concept of eradication of "child poverty" by spinning that young people affected would be able to increase their incomes. What sort of "child poverty" eradication specifically depends on making those immediately older than children poorer? Or 60-65 year-old women, or the poor childless (a large group she pointedly ignored)?

Are Labour wanting to press the poor childless into having children to get the child allowances and family credits? Instead it will mean they will be less able to afford to become sufficiently established to have children. And consider too the infertile, hit both by that extreme misfortune and by being made many pounds a week poorer. Remember too that the childless poor have no access to social housing and (thanks to Labour funding its "expansion of the economy" by encouraging home prices to go through the stratosphere) will never now be able to buy a home. They are therefore forever condemned to either live with parents or share rented homes in the relentless cycle of six-monthly moves that private landlords now require.

This seems like either Blairite Roman Catholic sentimentality over children, or, as another comment here suggests, simply a mantra intended to silence criticism, rather than a wish to tackle grinding poverty, deprivation and hopelessness. I'm convinced these Blair leftovers do social reform or conscience (and their undefined "reform") as if "painting by numbers", with no real idea of the harm they do. which is what, in my eyes, makes them appalling.

What wonderful footage of the handling of protesters around the Olympic torch. Time and again excess force was used blatently. Not least against the now saintly Mr Tatchell (shouldn't he have a peerage?). I flinched time and again as vulnerable necks were put in strangleholds and bodies were slammed against steel barriers or the roadway.

Astounding to see our PM blocked from the view of the media in Downing Street by three Chinese strong-arm men. Perhaps you should ask the candidates for London Mayor how they propose to get a grip on London policing, it clearly being a total disgrace and no one being safe to make a protest on the streets of our capital anymore, and no one noticing protests anywhere else.

A nice studio confrontation engineered between Lawson and an expert. His insane arrogance always astounds. For him all that he needs to know in order to negate any climate expert is to say there are different opinions. As if it were a minor intellectual conceit he takes the game of deconstruction theory to the evidence of climate change. If only his insanity had been challenged when he was Chancellor. But then no reality ever gets through to him, or his powerful friends. Of course he was there to promote a book, which will make more money to promote their crazy, and dangerous ideas.

6 out of ten, Mr Paxman, for tackling yet another appalling "Blair Babe", and extracting (hopefully politically fatal) admissions, this time on deliberately pushing 5.3 million poor further into poverty. More marks would have been gained by challenging a manifesto-fullfilling eradication of "child poverty" that depends upon making the poor who have just emerged from childhood poorer, along with the childless poor of working age and 60-65 year-old women. Was that price stated in the manifesto?

Also disappointing was a failure to ensure the retention of the further impoverishment of those latter groups (probably the bulk of the millions) in the discussion as she asserted that young people affected would be able to increase their incomes.

Are Labour wanting to press the poor childless into having children to get the child allowances and family credits? Instead it will mean they will be less able to afford to become sufficiently established to have children. And consider too the infertile, hit both by that extreme misfortune and by being made many pounds a week poorer. Remember too that the childless poor have no access to social housing and (thanks to Labour funding its "expansion of the economy" by encouraging home prices to go through the stratosphere) will never now be able to buy a home. They are therefore forever condemned to either live with parents or share rented homes in the relentless cycle of six-monthly moves that private landlords now require.

This seems like either Blairite Roman Catholic sentimentality over children (and fertility encouragement), or, as another comment here suggests, simply a mantra intended to silence criticism, rather than a wish to tackle grinding poverty, deprivation and hopelessness. I'm convinced these Blair leftovers do social reform or conscience (and their undefined "reform") as if "painting by numbers", with no real idea of the harm they do. which is what, in my eyes, makes them appalling.

What wonderful footage of the handling of protesters around the Olympic torch. Time and again excess force was used blatently. Not least against the now saintly Mr Tatchell (shouldn't he have a peerage?). I flinched time and again as vulnerable necks were put in strangleholds and bodies were slammed against steel barriers or the roadway.

Astounding to see our PM blocked from the view of the media in Downing Street by three Chinese strong-arm men. Perhaps you should ask the candidates for London Mayor how they propose to get a grip on London policing, it clearly being a total disgrace and no one being safe to make a protest on the streets of our capital anymore, and no one noticing protests anywhere else.

A nice studio confrontation engineered between Lawson and an expert. His insane arrogance always astounds. For him all that he needs to know in order to negate any climate expert is to say there are different opinions. As if it were a minor intellectual conceit he takes the game of deconstruction theory to the evidence of climate change. If only his insanity had been challenged when he was Chancellor. But then no reality ever gets through to him, or his powerful friends. Of course he was there to promote a book, which will make more money to promote their crazy, and dangerous ideas.

6 out of ten, Mr Paxman, for tackling yet another appalling "Blair Babe", and extracting (hopefully politically fatal) admissions, this time on deliberately pushing 5.3 million poor further into poverty. More marks would have been gained by challenging a manifesto-fullfilling eradication of "child poverty" that depends upon making the poor who have just emerged from childhood poorer, along with the childless poor of working age and 60-65 year-old women. Was that price stated in the manifesto?

Also disappointing was a failure to ensure the retention of the further impoverishment of those latter groups (probably the bulk of the millions) in the discussion as she asserted that young people affected would be able to increase their incomes.

Are Labour wanting to press the poor childless into having children to get the child allowances and family credits? Instead it will mean they will be less able to afford to become sufficiently established to have children. And consider too the infertile, hit both by that extreme misfortune and by being made many pounds a week poorer. Remember too that the childless poor have no access to social housing and (thanks to Labour funding its "expansion of the economy" by encouraging home prices to go through the stratosphere) will never now be able to buy a home. They are therefore forever condemned to either live with parents or share rented homes in the relentless cycle of six-monthly moves that private landlords now require.

This seems like either Blairite Roman Catholic sentimentality over children (and fertility encouragement), or, as another comment here suggests, simply a mantra intended to silence criticism, rather than a wish to tackle grinding poverty, deprivation and hopelessness. I'm convinced these Blair leftovers do social reform or conscience (and their undefined "reform") as if "painting by numbers", with no real idea of the harm they do. which is what, in my eyes, makes them appalling.

What wonderful footage of the handling of protesters around the Olympic torch. Time and again excess force was used blatently. Not least against the now saintly Mr Tatchell (shouldn't he have a peerage?). I flinched time and again as vulnerable necks were put in strangleholds and bodies were slammed against steel barriers or the roadway.

Astounding to see our PM blocked from the view of the media in Downing Street by three Chinese strong-arm men. Perhaps you should ask the candidates for London Mayor how they propose to get a grip on London policing, it clearly being a total disgrace and no one being safe to make a protest on the streets of our capital anymore, and no one noticing protests anywhere else.

A nice studio confrontation engineered between Lawson and an expert. His insane arrogance always astounds. For him all that he needs to know in order to negate any climate expert is to say there are different opinions. As if it were a minor intellectual conceit he takes the game of deconstruction theory to the evidence of climate change. If only his insanity had been challenged when he was Chancellor. But then no reality ever gets through to him, or his powerful friends. Of course he was there to promote a book, which will make more money to promote their crazy, and dangerous ideas.

A Newsnight poll finds that 78% of the British public think that the Diana inquest was a waste of money.

Shame the poll didn't also ask how many people thought this Newsnight poll was a waste of licence payer money.