He was permanent secretary at the Department of Transport when, on September 11 2001, Jo Moore, an aide to Stephen Byers, then secretary of state, told officials in an email that it would be "a very good day" to "get out anything we want to bury". A few months later, in February 2002, Ms Moore and Martin Sixsmith, the department's director of communications, allegedly discussed whether the day of Princess Margaret's funeral would be a good time to release potentially damaging figures about the state of the railways.

It was subsequently announced that both Ms Moore and Mr Sixsmith had resigned. Mr Sixsmith denied this, and Mr Byers, who did later resign, gave a confusing account in the Commons about what had gone on. Sir Richard put it more succinctly. He is said to have told a colleague: "We're all fucked. I'm fucked. You're fucked. The whole department's fucked. It's been the biggest cock-up ever and we're all completely fucked."

All the same, Sir Richard Mottram is now the top security and intelligence adviser.  This is democracy for you, because you need the best people working for you to influence public opinion.  Nothing else matters, really.

"Instead of marching I decided to try to get an accurate count of the parade participants last Saturday. I stationed myself at the corner of H and 15th Streets, facing north. Standing with the police line blocking off the right turn off H Street so that marchers would continue on to the east on H Street, the designated parade route. My vigil started at 1:00 PM, before any marchers had arrived. The first marchers passed my line of vision at 1:15 PM and continued passing my line of vision until 4:45 PM, when the last ones passed by.

"It was my first try at crowd estimation but with extensive early experience in construction estimating, I had adequate, common-sense approximating skills to bring to bare. Using several different approximation techniques Saturday evening, I came up early on with several different figures as follows: 255,000, 216,000, 205,000, 193,000. Back home after a day to let it settle, I went back over the numbers and the whole procedure, and established for myself the most likely set of approximations to make allowances for the fact that some times there were only 5-6 marchers per second crossing my view. At other times, including marchers on the sidewalks there were 24-26 marchers per second.

"Allowing for only 5-6 marchers per second passing my line of vision for 1/10th of the time, 22 marchers per second passing my line of vision for 4/10ths of the times, and 14 marchers per second passing my line of vision for the remaining 5/10ths of the time, I arrived at what for me feels most comfortable: 210,000 marchers. [Interestingly enough, as I read this over now, I've just averaged the four first preliminary approximations; the average of the four is 217,000+." 

"I heard that [on the campaign bus, Bush communications director] Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane.  I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness. They get carried away, consultants do, in the heat of the campaign, they're really invested in this. A lot of times they really like the candidate. That's all conventional. But on some level, you think, there's a hint of recognition that there is reality -- even if they don't recognize reality exists -- there is an objective truth. With Karen you didn't get that sense at all."

Readers's contribution: Perhaps George Orwell had the clearest explanation for both the need and the art of pathological lying: "To tell lies and simultaneously sincerely believe in them; to forget all that when conveniently you don’t want to remember and, soon, when it returns to be necessary, to remove it from the forgetfulness only by the time that is advisable; to deny the existence of the objective reality without even for a moment letting to know that refused reality exists… all this is indispensable."

Man: What are we having for dinner tonight?
Lady: What do you expect with such a small shopping budget?
Man: Come on, we've got such a wide variety of inexpensive foods in Hong Kong. You can buy these oranges, for example, at a lower price here than in most parts of the world.
Lady: Really?
Man: Yes, because the goods enter Hong Kong without tariffs. If they didn't, our shopping bill would be higher.
Lady: I didn't realize ... ...
Man: So now you know.

After listening/watching the video, I translated the last three sentences as follows.

Man: Yes, because the goods enter Hong Kong without tariffs. If they didn't, our shopping bill would be higher.  (pause)  Or else how are you able to save so much private funds?
Lady: I haven't!
Man: More like you are not saving just a wee bit!

So this is about gender relationships in Hong Kong.  Traditionally, the husband is the principal wage earner and he gives the wife some money each month for housekeeping expenses.  Very often, the wife would secretly save some of the money for herself.  Why?  The economic power is unbalanced.  If and when the husband leaves the wife, she will be financially distressed.  So a smart woman will build up her own nestegg.  This cuts right to the inequality in marriages.

This WTO MC6 website is intended for residents and visitors.  It would not do to give the English-only users any ideas about imperfect gender relationships in Hong Kong.  Solution: Hit the delete key and make up something innocuous.  Question: At what point did they realize that they had such a problem?  Why was this not rejected at the concept stage?

Taiwanese writer-turned-legislator Li Ao again failed to raise sensitive political topics yesterday as he chatted online on the sixth day of his mainland tour.  Asked about his toned-down address to Tsinghua University on Friday, Mr Li evaded the question with an off-colour joke.  "Someone said you went from hard to soft in your speeches at Peking University and Tsinghua University," a reporter noted.  "He must be describing one of my organs," Mr Li said.

You come away with no idea what Li Ao actually said.  That is a pity, because he said some interesting things.  So I'll translate his characterization of Internet culture during the online chat (via Phoenix TV):

When I was a reserve army officer, the army bathrooms were filthy because the partition doors and walls had plenty of complaints written on them.  You can't bring them up normally, so you can only write them in the bathroom.  These days, people don't write them on bathroom doors; they write on the Internet instead.

In Kansu province out in the western hinterlands, a farmer faced a dilemma.  This year, he has earned only 1,000 RMB.  He has two children, and their school fees will be 860 RMB each.  So he took two pieces of paper out, told his children that one had 'yes' and the other was blank, crumbled them and put them on the table for the children.  The daughter picked a blank paper, so her brother got to go to school.  Afterwards, the daughter made a meal for her brother, went out into the fields to work a bit and then she got up a cliff from which she jumped off.  Her words: "I won't be able to study anymore.  My only path out is closed.  I don't regret doing this."

The whole story was infinitely darker than that.  Everything above was accurate, but I have omitted something of critical importance.  Let me translate the details for you (Nanfang Metropolitan News via QQ):

At around noon on August 24, the family came back from work.  The father held two crumpled pieces of paper in his hands and told the children, "I don't have enough money.  One of you will go to school.  Whoever gets the one with the word will go.  The other one will have to wait until we harvest the potato crop."  But they all knew that "paying tuition later" means never.

The brother said that he refused to play.  If her sister has to drop out, so will he.  The sister told the father to pay the brother's tuition first and then hers will be owed to the school  She has seen several students in that situation.

But the parents had made up their minds to let the son go to school.  If both children refused to play, their plan would not succeed.  So the father told the children: "You go ahead and pick one anyway, just for fun."  He leaned over to the daughter, but he knew that both pieces of paper were blank.  At her father's insistence, the daughter picked one and found a blank.  She was stunned and her mind went blank.  The father picked up the paper, looked at it, said "There's nothing on it" and left the room with his wife.

The mother spoke to the reporter after the suicide attempt (note: the girl survived the fall).  "For rural villagers, boys are more important.  With better education, they can get out of the village.  But girls will always be married off to some other family."

I am at a loss for words.

Year %Satisfied %Not satisfied %Not sure
2002 21% 72% 7%
2003 24% 71% 5%
2004 39% 53% 8%
2005 65% 29% 6%
Issue Middle-class respondent score Total sample respondent score
No matter one's position or background, everyone can participate in policy development 24.7 52.1
The government is willing to listen to critical comments 29.9 54.9
The government policy development process is transparent 30.5 51.2
The ministers are willing to shoulder responsibilities for policy blunders 31.2 50.7
The government grasps the needs of society as a whole 36.3 53.0

But before you run away with the spinning, Sing Tao also published the technical details.  The 505 respondents in a general survey was obtained from a telephone sample.  This is not an unreasonable approach (assuming that it was executed properly).  The 225 middle-class professionals came from an Internet survey.  In other words, those results are virtually useless because this is a self-selected sample.  My conjecture: Only malcontents will show up in that web survey, and that is why the scores are so low.  This can be checked by comparing their scores within the middle-class professionals within the telephone sample.