Permissible donors

Posted on by

Hmmm…. Strange how confused various people seem to have been about who is and is not a ‘permissible donor’ within the meaning of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41). Here’s what Section 54 says:

Permissible donors

(1) A donation received by a registered party must not be accepted by the party if—

(a) the person by whom the donation would be made is not, at the time of its receipt by the party, a permissible donor; or

(b) the party is (whether because the donation is given anonymously or by reason of any deception or concealment or otherwise) unable to ascertain the identity of that person.

(2) For the purposes of this Part the following are permissible donors—

(a) an individual registered in an electoral register;

(b) a company—

(i) registered under the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 or the [S.I. 1986/1032 (N.I. 6).] Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and

(ii) incorporated within the United Kingdom or another member State,

which carries on business in the United Kingdom;

(c) a registered party;

(d) a trade union entered in the list kept under the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or the [S.I. 1992/807 (N.I.5).] Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992;

(e) a building society (within the meaning of the [1986 c. 53.] Building Societies Act 1986);

(f) a limited liability partnership registered under the [2000 c. 12.] Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, or any corresponding enactment in force in Northern Ireland, which carries on business in the United Kingdom;

(g) a friendly society registered under the [1974 c. 46.] Friendly Societies Act 1974 or a society registered (or deemed to be registered) under the [1965 c. 12.] Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the [1969 c. 24.] Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; and

(h) any unincorporated association of two or more persons which does not fall within any of the preceding paragraphs but which carries on business or other activities wholly or mainly in the United Kingdom and whose main office is there.

Seems clear enough, doesn’t it? I suppose the Labour party could argue that, under 1(b), since they knew that Mr Abrahams was really the man behind all those donations, then it was all ok, because he is, after all, clearly a ‘permissible donor’. So it might all hinge on how feeble the ‘anonymising’ dodges were.

Blogging and journalism

Posted on by

Great post by Jeff Jarvis, refuting an assertion by the Editor of the New York Times in a recent lecture.

First, I have never said that the crowd of bloggers would replace mainstream media and professional journalism. That’s a red herring that is too often attributed presumptively to bloggers and their advocates. It’s never properly cited because it can’t be. Where’s the link to the quote with me saying that? It’s fiction. I don’t say that. I don’t believe that. Jay Rosen shot that fish in the barrel a year and a half ago when he responded to hearing it again from Keller’s deputy Jon Landman…

It goes on. Worth reading in full. The issue really is about turning symbiosis into synergy.

iNews

Posted on by

This morning’s Observer column…

The saga of the Apple iPhone continues. Last Thursday, AT&T’s chief executive, Randall Stephenson, was asked at an industry gathering about the prospects for a future iPhone with a faster net connection. ‘You’ll have it next year,’ quoth he. Those ‘familiar with the matter’ (as US newspapers quaintly put it) are amazed that Mr Stephenson still lives and breathes – or at any rate was doing so when this column went to press. For there are two things that Steve Jobs, Apple’s mercurial – not to say explosive – CEO, cannot abide. The first is anyone other than himself making product announcements. The second is announcing forthcoming upgrades while there’s plenty of old stock to be shifted over Christmas. After all, who in their right mind would buy a steam-powered iPhone now when they can have a 3G one in a few months? Answers, please, on the back of a death warrant, to Steve Jobs, 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014, USA.

Gordon Brown in a nutshell

Posted on by

The Bagehot column in the Economist gets it about right:

It is true, or seems to be, that Mr Brown is maniacally ambitious but politically timid. He is intellectually curious but cripplingly indecisive. Witness the barrage of procrastinating policy reviews that he unleashes in every speech; unsurprisingly, more were set up this week, after the tragicomic loss of two doomsday discs by the revenue and customs service (HMRC). It is true, as the uncharitable gave warning, that Mr Brown copes badly with criticism—so badly, it turns out, that he sometimes shakes with pain and rage. He appoints supposedly independent ministers, then bullies them into line-toeing submission. He shies from blame when it is due and sucks up credit when it is not.

Unfortunately, the gristle and the guts—the ugly secrets of the Brown abattoir—have been gruesomely displayed for all to see. During the non-election fiasco in October, the country witnessed the low political calculation and fake ecumenicism, the shallow bombast and obfuscation, the indecision and ultimately the cowardice. In the first days of the Northern Rock crisis, it saw—or rather didn’t see—Mr Brown hide behind the sofa that he kept in Number 10 when Tony Blair left, just as he kept the uncollegial approach to government associated with it. Those who thought he could shuffle off his old skin when he realised his prime-ministerial dream, or at least that his psychological tics would not warp his tenure, seem to have been wrong. For Mr Brown, perhaps personality is destiny after all.

Pollution 2.0

Posted on by

MapEcos is very interesting — an application that superimposes location and emission data on Google maps. Go to a location and see where the local polluters are. Click on one of them and up pops date from the EPA database.

It works only for the US at present, but it’s a really neat application of Web 2.0 tools.

The BBC iPlayer shambles

Posted on by

Cory Doctorow isn’t impressed…

In a recent podcast, Ashley Highfield, director of Future Media and Technology for the BBC, remarked on the difficulty of creating an “open source Digital Rights Management system”. This is a system of software locks that prevents unauthorised copying, while still being “open” in the sense of allowing users the freedom to take it apart, understand it and improve upon it.

Highfield is right: you can’t make a free and open DRM system. That’s because DRMs (which some like to call “Digital Restrictions Management”) treat their users as untrusted parties who have to be policed lest they transgress and make naughty copies. DRMs are designed to resist user modification and “tampering” because users might just open them up and remove the prohibitions they impose. For example, the BBC’s iPlayer DRM prevents you from watching a show more than 28 days after you downloaded it. By contrast, shows that you record on your VCR or PC can be watched forever…