The Times continues its single minded investigation into that donation...Lib Dems' £2.4m was donated by fraudulent firm.

Now, don't get me wrong - if it came to it I would pay my share, on the condition that all the "muppets" were fired first of course...but the Times says at one point:

If the Electoral Commission forces the party to surrender the gift, each member will become liable for a share of the debt.

Whaaat? Since when? I expect the remaining few members of the Labour and Tory parties to resign immediately then to avoid being severally liable for their parties' debts. I've read and reread the section of PPERA on donations since this story broke. It mentions none of this whatever. Can the Times back this up?

Still...the judge did say that "It is also clear that Michael Brown tried to hide the fact that there had been no legitimate trading with the funds supplied to him". Seems like a good defense to me - if the person making the donation was trying to hide the fact that he wasn't trading to the extent that a judge mentioned that is what he was doing, how on earth is anyone else meant to determine otherwise in 30 days, when it has taken the resources of HSBC and the legal system 18 months to do so.