±«Óãtv

Having just watched the report on the unspent tsunami billions, I feel compelled to express my dismay at what seems to me was a wholly unbalanced piece of journalism.

You reported the fact that the money has not been spent, fine, but there are reasons for this. At only one point during the report were any reasons for this current state of affairs touched upon. Why were these reasons not fully examined? Not to do this left many questions unanswered.

I visited Sri Lanka five months after the tsunami and was appalled to see people still living in tents and shacks. I was told then by Sri Lankan locals reconstruction was being held up by beaurocracy, lack of legal papers and complications regarding landrights, as stated by Mr Schmale.

Your report implied the organisations and charities holding this money were purposefully dragging their feet in spending it. You gave only one of these charities the right to reply and then did not supply the full response. It was clear that the head of the Red Cross had touched upon the reasons why all the cash has not been spent but these had been edited out, only to be briefly mentioned by the studio interviewee.

You are right to uncover the scandal of unspent billions of donated money, doubtlessly gathering interest in bank accounts, but why are you not also taking to task the relevant government bodies who are so painfully slow and thereby tell the full story?

The Tsunami happened at an opportune time for the charity industry. Highly emotive advertising coupled with graphic news coverage prompted a huge response from donors, who will have been disappointed following this report. Whilst the authortites do seem effective at cracking down on fraudulent charities, less attention is paid to the sometimes tenous link between what donors believe they are funding and what the money is spent on. With all kinds of charitable appeals underway at this time of year, donors should take more time to hold charities to account. This can be done by studying the small print of charity newsletters and publications and sticking with those charities whose activities and planned spending closely matches donor aspirations.

Elizabeth - we can all hide behind someone else - the point is that 'Development' never gets anywhere precisely because it is so easy to say 'Oh well, WE tried'. It is time INGOs started making a real fuss like various musicians have done rather than becoming complacent in what, let's face it, is a 'profession' only a couple of steps away from working in the foreign office or DfID.

Mistress - you're an attorney? and is that really your picture? - wow, lucky you! Total posts 2987 (8/day) - are you working alone?

The dog is an allegory surely? :) :)

Best of all was Jeremy telling Francis Maude to turn his mobile phone off.

Last year as a Delegate with the British Red Cross, I had witnessed at first hand the inability of this very prestigious charity to deliver on the promises made to both the Donors and Beneficiaries. Having contacted Newsnight with this, they totally ignored my need to expose the shortcomings of charities like the Red Cross. Charities do not work, they are too big have loads of domestic expenses, large offices, large number of staffing, etc. Best to donate the money directly to the victims. Large scale charities are a total rip off.

Yes, the tsunami donations report was strange. Rebuilding takes time particularly in countries with high levels of corruption and little in the way of functional local administration in affected areas. Yet, Schmale's argument that the RC is/should be a mere facilitator and provider of funds is astonishing. The RC's medical arm does a lot of good around the world but, unfortunately, its administrative skills are much less highly rated. I would dearly like to hear more about the RC's out-sourcing of building contracts and its follow-up procedures, particularly in Indonesia.

Talking about questionable administration of large funds, odd to watch Hain and Maude challenging each other to a game of musical chairs knowing full well that neither of them would be willing to get up when the music starts. Each of them so keen to blame the other and demonstrate that the he would loose out more if there was a change in procedures... Qui bono?

The unspent tsunami piece was a pathetically partisan piece of journalism. Paxman took the most simplistic and narrow-minded angle and pushed it without any logic or sense. Disgraceful for the ±«Óãtv to lower itself to such tabloid levels.