³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

1. SWEET CHARITY?
Rich spotted in yesterday's Observer and the nub of it is this - a new report has found that up to 50 per cent of aid budgets in their case studies is wasted on corruption. And that's not just the big money donated by governments and corporations - that's the small donations made by all of us. Have a read and see what you think. They concentrated on Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Palestine, Lebanon, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Lebanon - but we want to look beyond that.

Here are some questions to think about - are there better ways oif helping people than donating through major chairities? Are charities, or governments and local agencies to blame for corruption? And what do you do - who do you donate to and what do you think your money is spent on?

2. GUILTY JOURNALIST RETURNS TO THE SHOW
Last Monday we spoke to Driss Ksitkes of the magazine Nichane. He had just started a trial where he, a colleague and his magazine were accused of defaming Islam and undermining public order by publishing a string of religious jokes. They've now been found guilty.

They've been banned from working for two months and have been given suspended jail sentences of three years.

So do they deserve it? You can talk the verdict through with Driss just after 1800GMT.

3. Do you need to be a mother to fully understand the horror of war?
In the US Senator Barbara Boxer has stirred up controversy by that Condi Rice, as a childless woman, could never fully understand war. Condoleeza is making light of it but what do you think? Is this just a bit of or does the Senator have a point?

Are there some matters only a parent can understand? And does that mean there are some jobs a childless man or women are not qualified to do? Would, for instance, Condi's lack of children affect her ability to be Commander-in-Chief (as she would be as President)?

4. WANT TO TALK ABOUT OJ?
was cooking up into a major talking point before Christmas when OJ Simpson had a book coming out which would see him imagine him commiting the murder of his wife (he was acquitted). Then Rupert Murdoch pulled the plug (it was one his publishers who were carrying the title) and the issue disappeared.

Well now a chapter has been linked and it's graphic reading. So should we talk about it now? It may not find room today, but if you're keen we can do it tomorrow. The question I want to debate is
though the text may never have been published but should it ever have been written or commissioned in the first place?

FOR THE STORIES THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT, CHECK OUT PAUL'S EARLIER POST FROM THE MEETING.