As each successive disaster has washed over him during his short reign in power, Gordon Brown has invariably given the same response – let's have another review.

The idea is to throw this floundering administration a life line and allow it to keep its head above water – at least until the next fiasco breaks.

The result is that we now have more reviews on the go than the average MP has had expense account lunches.

To name but a few, Brown announced a review after thousands of illegal immigrants were cleared to work in the security industry; a separate review is underway after the personal details of half the population were lost in the post, and now we have another review after the Labour Party was caught red-handed pocketing illegal donations.

If the Prime Minister genuinely wanted to crack down on sleaze and punish the wrongdoers, he could give us a break
from the endless reviews and simply call in the police.

On the face of it the law has been broken – a law, let's not forget, that was introduced by a Labour government in a fit of self- righteous indignation.

But that's not the objective at all. The latest review, under the leadership of the impeccably Labour friendly figure of Richard Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, can be expected to hoof the dodgy donations scandal into the long grass.

Several months down the line it will deliver its conclusions – but I think we can all make a guess as to what it is going to say already. Some unfortunate junior clerk will probably take all the blame, everyone else will be cleared and it will recommend that the taxpayer should be forced to fund political parties to stop it happening again.

The argument goes that if political parties are funded by the state, they won't be forced to go cap in hand to dodgy businessmen to raise funds.

This is nothing short of blackmail. Politicians are effectively saying that we can't expect them to behave with any integrity unless we hand over yet more of our cash.

They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Instead, political parties should be required to raise funds through transparent and honest means – or else cut back their campaigning to match the funds they do have available.

Islam and the teddy

Muslims in the UK often complain that their religion is unfairly branded as intolerant, violent and misogynist.

They may have a point – but who is to blame for that? Rather than bleating about "Islamaphobia", Muslims would be better advised to examine the actions of the extremists in their midst.

Take, for example, the decision by Sudan to charge British teacher Gillian Gibbons simply for allowing her class to name a teddy bear Muhammed.

Mrs Gibbons, who clearly did not intend to offend anybody, now faces a 15-day prison sentence for supposedly insulting Islam and then deportation. I suppose we can't expect anything better from a government that has allowed the murder and rape of thousands of people in Darfur simply on the grounds of race.

If the British government had any guts, it would threaten to halt all aid to Sudan unless Mrs Gibbons is released immediately – but don't hold your breath.

And then there is the 19-year-old gang rape victim in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to 90 lashes because she was taking a lift in a car from an unrelated man when the attack happened. When she appealed against the sentence, the judges more than doubled her punishment to 200 lashes and six months in prison.

If Muslims really want to know who is responsible for tarnishing the image of their religion, they need look no further than the Islamist bigots running Saudi Arabia and Sudan.