Harry Potter and The Long, Drawn Out Downward Spiral of Denial

Fairness is still our guide

And the sword of social justice strong in its sheath?

Who writes this guff?

I guess... journalists:

Harry Potter author JK Rowling gives £1 million to Labour

I know everyone is at it, but I would have liked my national broadcaster and its crack squad of blonde Whitehall building attendants to help me understand one small thing that immediately struck me from such as this:

'But a source indicated that Miss Rowling's money would not simply be swallowed up in debt repayments, but would allow the party to continue with its work.'

Oddly this echoes the 'story' in the BBC, too.

Reads more like a press release than a bit of Whitehall chat.

Other than just how many 'sources' there are these days to issue such speculative gems, how does this work?

If I have massive debts and get some money, no matter what happens isn't the effect just to defray the debt and its effects slightly?

So If I owe the Government for tax or the BBC for its licence fee because I am broke (ironically thanks to their best efforts on behalf of my family), they can't come after it if it arrives in my bank account because 'it is allowing me to carry on with my work'?

Seems like a multiplicity of standards to me, at best, but I am sure there good and legal, if not ethical accounting practices to justify it all.

BBC - Newsnight - Won't let me post, amazingly, again, for some reason (who knows why? Apologies for the rerun, but I did need to tweak it a tad):

One for Monday maybe...

"Fairness is still our guide"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/20/economy.labour?commentpage=3&commentposted=1

"And the sword of social justice strong, still, in its sheath!"

Who writes this guff?

I guess... journalists:

"Harry Potter author JK Rowling gives £1 million to Labour"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3021309/Harry-Potter-author-JK-Rowling-gives-1-million-to-Labour.html

I know everyone is at it, but I would have liked my national broadcaster and its crack squad of blonde and/or bald Whitehall building attendants to help understand one small thing that immediately struck me from such as this:

'But a source indicated that Miss Rowling's money would not simply be swallowed up in debt repayments, but would allow the party to continue with its work.'

Oddly this echoes the 'story' in the BBC, too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7626589.stm

Reads more like a press release than a bit of Whitehall chat.

Other than just how many 'sources' there are these days to issue such speculative gems, how does this work?

If I have massive debts and get some money, no matter what happens isn't the effect just to defray the debt and its effects slightly?

So If I owe the Government for tax or the BBC for its licence fee because I am broke (ironically thanks to their best efforts on behalf of my family), they can't come after it if it arrives in my bank account because 'it is allowing me to carry on with my work'?

Seems like a multiplicity of standards to me, at best, but I am sure there good and legal, if not ethical accounting practices to justify it all.

Telegraph - Labour rebels call a truce for the party conference

Telegraph - Harry Potter says: Vote Labour - I think I like my headline better, but great minds. But I still see some mileage here: 'He who's name must not be spoken... Gordemort'. Oh rats... now I've said it. Maybe no one will notice. There seem to be a few other versions that have been conjured up (sorry) already.

Telegraph - NEW - JK Rowling must expect criticism after £1 million Labour donation

For the donation? Not so sure. Her money, her reasons.

For the press release that went with it? For sure. Head... parapet. You want to play in other areas, be ready to catch the attention of snipers.