08/11/2011 Newsnight

The News of the World employed private investigators to spy on

some of the best-known people in the land. It continued its

surveillance activities, right up to the point where it was shut down

last summer. This former policeman tells

Newsnight he numbered his targets by the dozen, the second in line to

the throne for one. Prince William came out with Kate, followed by the

royal protection vehicle, I followed the royal protection

vehicle knowing full well they were in front. The head of features at

the News of the World before it was closed and the publicist, Max

Clifford, are here with us. The head of the UK Border Agency comes

out from the shadows and quits, saying the Home Secretary has

dropped him in it. What happened to the idea that ministers carried the

can? The United Nations nuclear

invigilator says Iran has been working on developing atomic

weapons. This new report is being called a game changer by some, in

the long-running battle of wits between Iran and the inspectors, I

will have details. The technology industry's absurd

new battleground, where fortunes are made, not by developing

The targets include the Royal Family, the Attorney General, film

stars, footballers and politicians. The News of the World did not go

gentle into that good night, right up to the moment when the Murdoch

organisation pulled the plug on the paper, it was asking a right of

investigator to spy for it. In an exclusive interview, that man, a

former policeman, has told Newsnight he was given over 100

tarts bit paper. We have the story.

- targets by the paper. We have the story.

Winter 2007, private investigator, Derek Webb is on the trail of an

escort. She's being driven around central London in a taxi, visiting

clients. He watches as her cab pulls up outside one of the city's

most exclusive hotels. She was dressed immaculately, I think she

was wearing a fur coat as well, she walked through the hotel, past

reception into the lift. I followed her straight into the lift. I was

carrying my bag, I didn't know what I needed, I got into the lift with

her, she pressed the third floor, I pressed the fourth floor, she got

out of the third floor, when she got out, just before the lift

closed I put my foot around and saw what room she was going in, she

knocked on a door and gained access to that room. You saw her going

into that room? I saw her going into the room. Another success for

former police officer, Derek Webb, who passed his intelligence on to

News of the World, that were working on a sex scandal story. We

have gained this dossier of evidence that shows astonishing

insight into the workings of News of the World, it shows every job

that Derek Webb did from 200-2008. There are more than 100 names here,

actors, celebrities, politicians and the royals.

The list contains many of the most high-profile people in Britain,

including members of the Royal Family. Derek Webb needed all of

his 15 years of experience as a surveillance officer to evade the

attention of the Royal Protection Squad. They didn't rumble me, they

had no idea. That proves my expertise in relation to it, that

they were not aware that they were being followed. This happened on

quite a few occasions. And I was able to realise then which royal

protection officers were with which royal party. In March 2009, news

nuets asked Deripaska - News of the World asked Derek Webb to conduct

surveillance on the home of a girl who was, they thought, receiving

visits from Prince Harry. His former girlfriend was under

surveillance until 2007, Derek Webb said a News of the World made the

request. He would ask me to go to Heathrow Airport and follow Chelsea

Davey Prince Harry's girlfriend, and follow her where she was going,

on a number of occasions she would be picked up. They would go to

Clarence House or she would go to an address out in Oxfordshire. Then

I would be monitoring them to see whether there was anything further

developing from there. Many royal surveillance jobs were

referred by Clive Goodman, News of the World's royal correspondent,

convicted of phone hacking in 2007. Derek Webb said he was never told

the source of any leads. I have never hacked a phone myself. I

didn't know anything in relation to hacking. I realised that hacking

was now a big business in relation to what was going back, but I never

knew about it at the time. I had no knowledge of it. I was never told

by one journalist, not one of them told me they had obtained it by

phone hacking. Derek Webb says he was also dispatched to

Gloucestershire to trail Prince William. Prince William came out

with Kate, followed by the royal protection vehicle, I followed the

royal protection vehicle, knowing full well they were in front, they

ended up at Duchy Farm, the royal protection peeled off i followed

them around, knowing full well they would go back there, and watched

them go for lunch, et cetera. Pairt from the royal, there are

plenty of sports - apart from the Royals, there are plenty of sports

stars on the lists. This is Derek Webb's surveillance video of Gary

Lineker. The News of the World was investigating his private life,

although this surveillance didn't produce anything of interest for

the paper. Gary Lineker's job went over many weeks. Numerous other

newspapers were looking at Gary Lineker. And Gary Lineker is one of

these people that I think is more surveillance conscious. He looks

and I think he's aware of cars following him. Because I think he's

been done over a number of years and people have looked at him.

jobs, though, were more controversial than others. Derek

Webb says he was asked to carry out surveillance on the former

Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in January 2005. I followed him

around, mainly he was picked up by a chauffeur, and driven to his

office near Buckingham Palace, or other locations. I would monitor

his here, there and everywhere, to an extent, until the budget ran out,

or they decided they wouldn't pursue the job any further. Did it

ever surprise you that they wanted to effectively put Lord Goldsmith

under surveillance? No. Nothing surprised me in relation to the

amount of politicians and I was doing it as a business. I was

solely doing it as a business to earn a living. Even former Home

Secretary, Charles Clarke was a tart. At the time of the election

2005, News of the World was putting huge resources into surveillance

work on him. Derek Webb watched Mr Clarke for more than 20 days. He

often used this cafe just below his election campaign office in central

London as a base. On one occasion the police surrounded me, after I

had been there three days, and interrogated me, what I was doing.

Did Charles Clarke ever clock the fact you were watching him? I don't

think he did. Not at all. The police were aware, the police, when

they interrogated me, I showed them my private investigator's license,

because I had one, and I said I was doing a domestic matter following a

husband and wife, which they accepted and that was it. I didn't

tell them I was watching Charles Clarke. The list of tarbts of

surveillance is huge, Boris Johnson, Angelina Jolie, Simon Cowell koul,

Paul McCartney, Ed Milliband, Heather Mills, the list goes on and

on. Sometimes the families of targets were also watched. The News

of the World wanted Derek Webb to follow the parents of Harry Potter

star, Daniel Radcliffe, for unno inreasons. He trailed on foot the

new - unknown reasons. He trailed on foot the new partner of energy

secretary, Chris Huhne, as she walked around the capital. 95% of

the jobs I was never rumbled at all. Even following for weeks on end.

For Derek Webb, the commissions from News of the World kept rolling

in. Because I kept getting results for them, they employed my services

more and more. I was getting work from them and they were very

satisfied with the work. Derek Webb says after eight years with News of

the World, he was cut loose when the paper folded, with no

compensation. He's taking an employment case against them.

people were getting loyalty payments, and I was loyal to News

of the World. I was loyal to News of the World and they failed to

recognise this, and disregarding me as though a non-entity. But now

he's decided to go public in such a spectacular way, with his exclusive

Newsnight interview, it is the bigger ethical questions about the

scale of the surveillance that will prove tough for the paper's

publisher, which gives evidence to parliament on Thursday.

With us now is Jules Stenson, head of features at the News of the

World, before it closed its doors earlier this year, and the pub sis,

Max Clifford. This is outrageous isn't it - publicist, Max Clifford.

This is outrageous isn't it? we're getting it one side, Derek

Webb, I have never spoken to him,'s a man with a grudge, with the

company for not getting compensation. You are getting a

slanted story, you are not hearing any context to these investigations.

But these, clearly, according to his account, were fishing

expeditions? I didn't hear him use that word. He didn't use that word,

he was told to follow people and see what he could find, that is a

fishing expedition? You haven't heard from the people commissioning

them, clearly they are under police investigation, when I worked at the

News of the World, we put the great and the good under ferocious

scrutiny. We also put ourselves under ferocious scrutiny. One of

the examples in that piece was Prince William. I can think of

three big royal exclusives that the News of the World broke with huge

public interest, two on Prince Harry, Derek melgsed tailing Prince

William in Gloucestershire - mentioned tailing Prince William in

Gloucestershire, there was investigations done on Prince Harry

when he was smoking cannabis, that was a huge scandal at the time, and

the Prince apologised for his behaviour. There was the example of

Harry's racist language, there was the investigation into the Duchess

of York. So, look, you need to see the context in which the

information, the tips that the News of the World were trying to verify.

Clifford, there is a public interest defence in this, isn't

there. Nothing illegal is being done? I think it is really do the

ends justify the means, of course, you know, what's in the public

interest, generally speaking, comes down to us in the interest of the

circulation of the newspaper. You can't justify it, generally

speaking, on the ground of it being a real public interest. If this is

going on because of someone who is threatening national security, the

head of a paedophile ring, somebody like, that that is the only way to

justify the activities, to my mind. Someone is presenting a public

image in one way, a happy married man with children, and having

affairs, isn't it justified to expose them? If that person is

lecturing us about family values, the way certain politicians were,

fair game, if it is someone who tries to keep their private life

private, then I don't necessarily think we have the right to know all

the ins and outs of their private life. Every situation has to be

looked at in its own merits. say, this is all news to you, you

never employed a private detective, you were not unaware that this sort

of thing happened on the paper though? All media employ private

detectives, that includes the BBC, Mark Thomson is on record in March

saying the BBC has and currently employs private investigators. He

justified it in public interest investigations. Investigative

journalism is messy. The way that you, the first goal of a big

investigation is actually to find the people that you are chasing,

the crooks, theville lanes, they are not on the electoral -ville

lanes, they are not on the electoral role. Sometimes you need

to use a private investigator to find them using credit checks.

use the words "crooks" and "ville lins", the list of people there was

not any of those? I go back to the original point that we don't know,

we haven't heard from the people who commissioned Derek Webb, we

have just the slanted view of Derek Webb who has a clear grievance

against the paper. I think the only answer is the people who

commissioned them should be asked to explain and justify what you

were looking for and trying to get and see does the argument stand up

for scrutiny. As nothing illegal was done by your own admission,

what's the problem? Well I think that the problem is, when you look

at what happened to the Dowlers and that, you have to have a free press

in a democracy, but you have to find a medium. Phone hacking is

illegal, simply following someone around isn't? It depends on what

your intention is. It depends on what you are intending to do.

seem to be questioning the fact this is your lead story, Jeremy.

you are following children, as was suggested on the programme last

night, that the children of Charlotte Harris the lawyer, how

can you possibly justify that. do you justify it I don't think you

k Max is referring to Mark Lewis, the lawyer whose children and ex-

wife was targeted. Charlotte says the same thing, her children were

two and four. Jo that is deplorable, I'm not here to justify that.

was your paper? As I say, I wasn't involved in it and I didn't know

anything about it. Things changed at the paper, did they? After.

was apartheid of eight years, this man was employed. - this was a

period of eight years, this man was employed? He was employed on the

news desk, I worked on features. You are surprised by it?

extremely surprised by Derek Webb's actions. The journalism we did was

ferociously scrutinised at all times. I can give you examples of

surveillance we did on features, we went into the parliament in

Brussels and filmed the MPs, as they signed their expenses sheets.

We used an MEP fitted up an MEP to film them while they were in the

room signing the forms because we knew they would lie if we didn't.

There is another side to it, if you are going to print stories you

would do everything within your power to make them accurate?

have to prove them as well. those circumstances you need to

employ private detectives? Yes, it depends on the circumstances. That

is what I said, I think there are times when it can be justified, but

the list of people I have seen, I would find it incredibly difficult

to justify. What were they looking at Simon Cowell, one of my clients,

for. Other than stories that at this time vait the readers, where

is the national - titivate the readers, you have to say how does

it justify the actions. Every situation on its own merits. Peter

Crouch, the footballer, plays for England, we had a tip he was up to

no good in Madrid, seeing prostitutes. Has this already been

published? It has already been published and not disputed by

Crouch, we did follow him, to get the proof, we knew if we didn't he

would be straight on the line to the lawyers. We subsequently

exposed him for using a traffic prostitute.

The head of the UK borders agency said tonight he had been

constructively dismissed by comments from the Home Secretary,

which blamed him for the shambles at Britain's borders this summer.

Clearly furious he said she disregarded his right to reply, for

the sake of political convience. Yet the Prime Minister, who also

blamed him, says the Home Secretary has his complete confidence. Time

was when the idea of ministerial accountability, meant that when

something went wrong, the politician carried the can. The

fight between ministers and officials over just who authorised

a relaxation of border controls is getting angler by the hour. Tonight

an unpress - angrier by the hour. Tonight an unprecedented slapdown

for the Home Secretary by the man who has been handed the can but has

declined to carry it. Brodie Clark, on the left, was, until last week,

head of the UK Border Force, suspended, says the Home Secretary,

for overstepping her intructions. This is what she told the Home

Affairs Select Committee just this morning. I was not aware that the

extension of the relaxation of checks had taken place. I was not

aware, as I set out in my initial statement, a number of relaxations

were put in place by officials. Brodie Clark, as I understand it,

has admitted to the chief executive of UK BA, that he did go beyond

ministerial responsibility, I was not aware this had been done.

Prime Minister, too, told a Commons committee today that the man he

said was responsible for this unacceptable activity, had been

suspended. It is very clear to me that the Home Secretary did

undertake a pilot scheme, and a pilot scheme, in some ways that was

successful, in terms of the number of arrests up by 10%. It is also

clear that there was activity going on, by the UK BA, that is not

acceptable, that was uncovered by the inspector, it has been stopped,

the person responsible has been suspended, clearly this is not

acceptable and it is not acceptable it went on for so long. Tonight the

head of UK Border Force has quit, and what's more, he says he intend

to pursue a claim for constructive dismissal.

Mr Clarke goes on to completely contradict what the Home Secretary

and the Prime Minister have said about the relaxation of controls,

that it was without ministerial Immigration has always been a

contentious political issue. Charles Clarke had to resign as

Home Secretary after it was revealed that 1,000 foreign

prisoners weren't even considered for deportation. He says, though,

it is ministers who have to take responsibility. I have always

thought it was cowardly, really, just to say we will pick the

scapegoat of an official and deal with it like that. Maybe I made a

mistake, some of my colleagues said I should have sacked somebody and

saved my own skin on that basis. Well, I don't think that's a good

way to conduct politics. Some suggest that Theresa May has given

an inconsistent account of her role She claimed that this was purely an

operational decision. Which have why it wasn't reported to

parliament. The way in which agencies are set up, the ministers

are supposed to leave operational decisions to the management of the

agencies. Ministers are supposed to just set the strategic direction,

and allocate the resources to the agencies, and leave the agencies to

get on with the job. So she seems to be wanting to have her cake and

eat it, to claim it is an operational decision which she made,

which she probably shouldn't have made, that was the reason why she

didn't report it to parliament. Before any claim for unfair

dismissal could be heard, Brodie Clark will be giving evidence

before parliament. The more he is able to defend himself there, the

more it will make things difficult for the Home Secretary.

We did ask the Home Office for an interview, but they didn't want to

answer our questions, we are joined by Jonathan Baume, head of the

union for top civil servants, the First Division Association by Keith

Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee. How is he feeling

tonight? He's very bruised, battered, this is a gruelling

experience for someone to be in the public glaer, he's very robust. He

has issued a gaiplt this evening after advice from lawyers, he will

be - a statement this evening, after advice from lawyers, and will

issue a statement next week. He is angry about the fact that issues

were raised, he was willing to answer those internally, instead

was suspended, and the Home Secretary spent two days basically

damming him without ever giving a civil servant the opportunity to

present their case, and in the full knowledge as a civil servant he

wasn't able to speak out publicly to defend himself. She didn't speak

to him before saying he was carrying the can and it was his

responsibility? I don't go into detail on the process over the last

few days. He would be willing to give evidence before Mr Vaz's

committee next week. We are clear that whatever the fine print at the

end of last week, every civil servant has the right to proper

process, it is not the role of mains ter to publicly attack a

civil - a minister to publicly attack a civil servant. He accuses

the Theresa May of misrepresenting what happened. His own boss says

Brodie Clark admitted to me on the 2nd of November, that on a number

of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further

than ministerial instruction?M don't want to go into the fine

print. That is what the hoiblgt says he did? He's happen - Home

Secretary says he did?'S Happy to answer all these questions before

the Home Affairs Select Committee next week. Here is his own boss

agreeing with the Home Secretary? Next week we will get the full

facts, not partial pictures. Home Secretary testified to you

today, were you surprised when she, as it were, dobed in her officials?

I wasn't surprised. The point of ministers giving evidence to the

Home Affairs Select Committee is clear and transparent evidence. She

was very clear, she was responsible for the pilot, which she says was a

success, in her words, Mr Clarke took that pilot forward, in an

unauthorised way. She didn't know about it, she had not informed

cabinet, she had not informed parliament, and she saw that there

was no reason to do so. And you believed her? That's the evidence

that we had, of course. If the Home Secretary comes before a select

committee, and gives us a circumstance and set of facts we

have to accept it. What has happened since then, as you know,

is Mr Clarke has issued his statement, which is a direct

contradiction to what the Home Office, Home Secretary said to the

select committee. And that is why I'm very grateful to him for

agreeing to come in to give evidence to us, and if necessary,

if we need to clarify any of these points with her, we will ask her to

clarify them, she was very clear. You will call Brodie Clark to

testify before you? He has already agreed to come. During the middle

of the evidence session, I told the Home Secretary that the select

committee had decided to have Clark in, and he had agreed to come, he

will come before us on Tuesday, and we will put to him all these facts

and indeed, I will be writing to the Home Secretary tomorrow, with a

number of additional questions, which we wish to put to her. I

think, Jeremy, I know this is puzzling, it is puzzling for me as

well, that all this happens in the last six days, but we do need to

get to the bottom of the facts first, before we rush to judgment.

Can we just clarify Mr Clarke's position, has he resigned? He has

left the Home Office. We sent a letter of notice tonight to that

effect. He is now claiming unfair dismissal. In legal terms he has

not resigned, in popular patrol lance, he has. He's paid by the

taxpayer? No, he's not technical resigned, but generally he has.

is being paid? After tonight he's not being paid. Who is he working

for? Nobody. He has not resigned? In a legal sense he hasn't resigned

because he's claiming constructive dismissal. In popular language he

has resigned. He will then take the Home Secretary, or the Home Office,

or whoever, to an industrial tribunal? We - Yes, we's working

with the FDA lawyers and pursuing that through the courts. For a

political damage report I'm joined Byfleet treat's Andrew Porter of

the Telegraph, and Steve Richards from the Independent. How serious

is this, do you think? I think it has taken a very serious turn this

evening, for May. There is no doubt about that. This is now dragging on

for three or four days, I think next week, who would have thought

it, but James Murdoch before a select committee is probably going

to be upstaged when Brodie Clark appears. People will be homing in

on what he's going to saying, someone is wrong here, and someone

is probably going to have to pay a fairly big price. How serious do

you think it is? As Keith Vaz said, when May May came to the committee

- May came to the committee, she was very clear about her version of

events, they were directly contradicted by a senior civil

servant. I don't believe she's cupable absolutely, I don't believe

any longer it is fair to say all ministers are culpable for anything

that goes wrong. I have huge respect for Jonathan, who

represents senior civil servants. But when he says that it's not for

a minister to lay a finger on a senior civil servant. Why not? If

that person has committed operational errors. Has she handled

it as well as she could have handled it? She was pretty straight

and direct. If she's felling the truth, at this telling the truth,

we will have to wait and see. telling the truth, we will have to

wait and see? I don't think she has handled it well, over the weekend

we heard nothing. You could have aggressive briefing from Theresa

May's people, all the language, in the end it was desperately trying

to put it away from her. With the papers, the Mail and our paper

splashing on t it is a cheap shot, blaming your official. Steve is

right to a point, you can't be accountable for every official, but

if your first refuge is to blame your official, it looks chief.

is only chief if she's the one at error. - Cheap. It is only cheap if

she's the one at error. Operationally the pilot scheme was

extended without her knowing. If that is the case, I don't blame her

for saying she won't resign and others have to answer for this.

There is a wider issue here about the automatic assumption. Cabinet

ministers last on average six minutes in various jobs. Civil

servants have got much longer security of tenure, and are quite

powerful. It is good that he's coming next week to the select

committee and to be accountable and put his case. There should be much

more of it. I fear, that there can be complacency in the Civil Service

because of this assumption, that we always blame the ministers. I think

it is just the curse of the Home Office, isn't it. This is a

department that is even responsible for things like falling satellites

and things. Anything could happen? Everyone thought when Reid said it

wasn't fit for purpose, and they took justice away from it, all the

things like Charles Clarke with prisoners going missing, they

thought that would take the sting out of it, it has to some extent.

May for 18 months has been fairly risk-free, now you are right, it is

coming back. She is in a strong position. She, personally, is

important to Cameron? She is, this is why I think ultimately she will

survive. Cameron, for two reasons, I think he rates her. He does see

her, up until now a safe pair of hands. She's one of the few women

in the cabinet. We know the issues David Cameron has about women in

his Government. I think he cannot afford to lose another cabinet

minister so soon after Liam Fox. himself has endorsed her position.

He blamed Brodie Clark, saying the person responsible has been

suspended? Over the past few days David Cameron has a lot of question

marks, he didn't know. One of the problems with Theresa May, when you

speak to cabinet ministers and ministers, she keeps things too

close, if she allowed a few more people, even in her own department

what was going orpbgs she could have survived it better. She will

survive. What will emerge from this is the messy lines of

accountability between ministers, civil servants, agencies, those who

deliver. I bit the blur is over what strategic - I bet the blur is

over what strategic guidance means from ministers and operational

responsibility from people like Brodie Clark. Somewhere in there

the messy contra directions lie. The sooner - contradictions lie.

The sooner we get over it the better for Britain. This question

of the messy lines of accountability that Steve Richards

refers to there, in this new arrangement where you have agencies,

old fashioned civil servants, old fashioned ministers, is it

complicated? It is, I remember going back almost 20 years to the

Mark Lewis affair, which you will remember, Jeremy. Many of the same

issues were there being discussed. Steve, I'm not arguing that civil

servants are not accountable, nor am I arguing that the Home

Secretary hasn't got the right to suspend somebody. But having done

that, there has to be a proper process, what is unacceptable is

for the Home Secretary to act as judge and jury, and make lots of

public statements before a civil servant has had a chance to put

their side of the story, and to have their reputation completely

trashed. The Islamic Republic of Iran is trying to learn how to

develop nuclear weapons. They have denied it for years and will

continue to deny until they are blue in the face. But the judgment

of the International Atomic Agency, formally made public tomorrow,

moves the international confrontation to a new level.

Tonight, the international Atomic Energy Authority circulated its

latest report in Vienna, within minutes quotes were leaking out,

within hours the entire thing was on the Internet. According to the

report, the agency has serious concerns regarding possibly

military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme.

It says that some of Iran's research projects may indeed have

civil applications, but the IAEA's information shows.. It suggests

before 2003, when some intelligence reports suggests the programme was

stopped, there was evidence of a Much of tonight's report is the

revelation of detailed work that the agency has known about for

years, but kept to itself. Iran's ambassador to the IAEA tonight

called the report unbalanced and unprofessional and politically

motivated. Son-in-law of the sights it mentions have - sites it

mentions have already been looked at. And there are foreign nuclear

scientists helping Iran build a nuclear weapon. Russia's response

to the leak was it contained little knew. Many in the east believed

Israel Mason strike, while that country's recent statements believe

all options are under considerations. We strongly believe

that sanctions are effective, or could be effective, if they are

little and paralysing enough that diplomacy could work, if enough

unity could be synchronised between the major players. No option should

be removed from the table. And we keep saying it, for at least four

years. With the latest IAEA report, comes

a new demand for access and co- operation.

Something the UN says has been absent from Iran's side, on

suspected weapon design matters, for the past three years.

What is this nuclear programme amounting to? Well, the UN says

that what it has announced tonight is qualitatively different. We have

got used over the years to the rows about the facilities. Some of of

the names are familiar to people. The Iranians saying it is a civil

programme and get off our backs. Now what the UN body is doing is

being quite specific about a nuclear weapons design programme

which, it says was going on in Iran. This causes attention to go to

sites we are not so used to. Including this one, we can see it

in the satellite imagery. Here there is a large armments factory,

there is a testing area, attention has gone to this area down south

for the resting area. This was built up some time ago. If we zoom

in. We can see what attracted their interest.

These circular objects, surrounded by bunkers, are placed where the

inspectors believe the high explosive components of nuclear

warhead designs may have been tested. They are alleging in the

report that all sorts of activities have been going on, connected with

nuclear weapons design, the testing of special circuitry, and

detonators of reventry vehicles for ballistic missiles, all of which

designed to put a package of that material that they have been

talking about up-to-date, into a weaponised form. A key aspect of

what they are saying is that a lot of what they allege was going on

prior to the late 2003 decision to dismantle a large centrally

directed nuclear weapons programme. What does it say about what's

current? They say some aspects of the nuclear warhead's design may

continue. They update us on other aspects of the programme. For

example, the tunnel facility near the religious city, which was

announced a couple of years ago with great fanfare by western

leaders. They say where as that was empty when they looked at it, there

are centre refugees awaiting powering up. Going back to this

satellite image, this is the facility, which, over the years,

they have inspected most, and talked about most. They have

expressed concerns about them in the past. We know there there are

buried turbine halls with the cascades of centre refugees, in

this area, two - centre refugees in this area they have been buried to

safeguard them from air attack. They have been whirring away for

years. The main thing about the report is five tonnes of uranium

has been enriched through this process, not to weapons grade. But

the experts reckon if the process of enrichment was repeated to

brifpbg it to that grade, that would - bring it to that grade,

that would amount to two to three bombs worth. Does it increase the

danger of an Israeli attack? does, it gives a political signal

that this UN body creates that nuclear weapon design work has

going on in Iran. There have been so many differing signals from the

Israelis, it is not clear what their intentions are. The danger

now is that tensions will rise, due to misconception or

miscommunication. Fancy a slice of toast? Be careful,

if you heat the bread to a particular temperature, for between

three and 90 second, you may be impingeing on US patent 0860836,

ort bread refreshing method. That is how absurdly the American patent

company is being used, as companies big and small sue and counter sue

over international property rights. Some companies do nothing but own

patents, the man who invented the Internet doesn't like it at all.

London's Design Museum, home to lots of innovative products turning

into money spinners for their inventors, that is, unless they

make sure they are protected from imitateors.

Had a brilliant idea? Well you better get a patent so nobody else

can copy it before you have had a chance to make some money. Now

inventors of ideas, big and small, are beginning to worry that the

whole patent system is falling into disrepute. Their concern is it is

now hindering innovation than hoping it. How much? This is one

clever idea, a smart phone ap that teaches you Chinese. It is the a

product of David Heart's industry, a sideline in generating apps. It

is creating a bit of interest, but that could be dwarfed by a legal

bin. The problems began when a bulky but baffling document arrived

in the London office. A letter from a company saying we are infringing

one of their patents. It shows a telephone talking to a fax reason,

and it is dated December 7th 199. Any idea how this applies to you?

It is very, very hard to see. here is another bit a memory within

each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results with the

two-way location to the two commodities in the same location.

Each commodity capable of carrying results to each of the units of the

commodity to a central location, is that clear? I have absolutely no

idea what it means. It says you have done it here, storing results

of the two-way interaction to the central location? I'm none the

wiser, unfortunately. They are demapbgd licensing fees, and David

Hart is talking to lawyer before deciding how to respond, and

considering what means for his business. It is another risk to

consider. When you do anything of the R & D nature, the risk is it

won't work and nobody will want to buy it, it is another risk. This is

something we have to consider that we hadn't talked about.

Similar documents have been sent to all sorts of software develop e

including the makers of angry birds and the Sims. What this is? It is a

company based in Texas with a simple website, there is a quote

from Edison about his inventions coming not by accident but work.

All of this work seems to be about demanding fees from companies it

accuses of using its technologies. It is what some of its critics

would call a patent troll. I have e-mailed the chief executive,

Chris Smalling, a couple of times, - Mark Small, to discuss these

issues, he has respectfully declined, saying the company is

applying resources to licensing discussions. Here is man with a big

idea, Cerf is one of the founding fathers of the - Vint Cerf is one

of the founding fathers of the certificate net. He believes these

patents will show the system is going wrong. Patents were intended

to give a person to protect his interests and give him the right

that his idea has been infringed on other. What has happened is in

parts of the patent community is we see people acquiring the right to

patent, but without using them except for suing for infringement.

It seems the inventor you met has been confronted with that practice.

There is a business to be made, people will find a way to make a

dis. That is what has happened with patents. Is the system helping for

hindering innovation if used in that way? Particularly in the sense

of software patterns I see it as hinders in a very dramatic way.

is not just the small players who are affected, suddenly the

technology industry has become a battleground, where patents are

important, weapons and efrb seals to be suing everybody else. Apple

is suing Samsung, Samsung is suing apple. Htc is suing ap all, and all

sorts of other programmes. Google has been raising to acquire

its own patents, what is your reaction to that? It has been

forced on us by the realities of the patent market place, I regret

so much money has to be spent on that, that should have been spent

on inventing new ideas. It is all good business for the intellectual

property lawyers. But don't try to tell them that the patent system is

now a barrier to innovation. If you compare the phone in your pocket

with the mobile phone had you five years ago, the progress that has

been made in those years self- evident. And it cannot support a

suggestion that the patent system is stifleing innovation. But if

British software developers came to you with this underthreat from the

UK, it would be pretty extensive, I presume for them to deal with that?

Major mat tent litigation is expensive. We have systems over

here, we have a patent county court set up to handle small cases by

small to medium sized enterprises. It has a damage limit of �500,000.

Mass mum �500,000, a lot for a small company? We need a patent

system, I appreciate that sometimes it can hurt, but to say that you

are small is not a defence to a valid claim that you have infringed

the patent. Technology is indeed a passing -

advancing so rapidly that even recent inventions are now museum

pieces. But its ever more money and energy is spent on fighting the

patent wars, who will come up with the next big thing.

Tomorrow morning's front pages, the Mail leads with the Border Force's

spat with the Home Secretary, same story on the front page of the

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 47 seconds

Good evening. A cloudy, damp and misty nitrogen tonight. Temperature

- misty night again tonight. You can see a few glimmers of sunshine,

much of northern England will hold on to the cloud. Maybe the moderate

bursts across the Pennines, misty here. Across to the Midlands, East

Anglia and the south. There is a chance after the dismal start

things might cheer up leaving some breaks in the cloud. In the south

west you will hold on to generally cloudy conditions. Heavier pulses

of rain on and off true the day. Once it eases during the afternoon

at times urbg might see a bit of bright - you might see a bit of

brightness. Much of the day predominantly grey and damp. Damp

in eastern Scotland, the far north, even with a bit more cloud, should

stay reasonably bright. Into Thursday, the difference, well, it

is not hugely discernable, if anything, the rain across some

parts of Scotland, western England and Wales could be that little bit

heavier at times, and a bit more persistent, either side of it there

will be sunshine around. Western parts of Northern Ireland,