24/08/2012 Newsnight

Declared sane - Norway's mass murderer is made accountable for

his actions. Victims greets the verdict with relief - but so does

Breivik. How should a liberal society respond to killings that

came from within? I wish to apologise to all militant

nationalistness Norway and Europe, that I wasn't able to kill more

people. 850 complaints to the press

commission, after the Sun newspapers publishes nude photos of

Harry. Has the papers actions made Leveson's job easier. It did the

death nel for people who print on trees.

And Lance Armstrong is striped off his Tour de France title and banned

for life. What proof of doping did Hello, good evening, can a man who

killed 77 people in cold blood ever be deemed sane? Yes, came the

emphatic answer from a nor weepbl court today. Judging the raveings

of Anders Breivik to be world views, not psychotic delusions. The

hearings in Oslo put not just one man but entire country's legal

system on trial before the world. The court sentence, Breivik 21

years in prison, but he sees him as a political prisoner and vows to

continue his extremist cause under lock and key.

It is the victims we should be talking about today. There were 77

of them. Some blown up by a car bomb, most gunned down at a summer

camp. People whose names most of us still haven't learned. People

murdered by a former nobody whose name is known right around the

world. In the mind of brick brick brick, that alone is a victory -

Anders Breivik is a victory. So too using a courtroom as a platform for

his hate-filled views. Something the judge prevented him doing today.

TRANSLATION: I wish to apologise to all militant nationalists in Norway

and Europe, that I wasn't able to kill more people...

TRANSLATION: No wonder he left the courtroom pleased. As far as he's

concerned he is a political prisoner, he avoided being declared

insane, a fate he would be worse than death n jail, where he will

spend 21 years, he will have three cells to himself. One is for

exercise, another is to for reading and writing, and though his

computer won't be on-line, he can use it to write messages, his

followers can take away and distribute around the globe. So is

this trial a fiasco, a triumph for the man in the dock? Actually no.

I don't think it is a victory for him, no. If it is a victory for him,

it is not important. Primarily it is a victory for the system and

accepting that he is a political terrorist, and not a mad man. You

could say that's a victory for him but it is the truth. We can't deny

the truth just because he wants it. Some people athe system bent over

backwards, was it too generous, with standards for somebody who

hates those standards? You could say so. But it is proud we didn't

choing our laws, after this incident. Every democratic society

faces the same delema. How far to apply its own tolerant values, to

people who despise those values, and would destroy them. This case,

where unusually liberal country faced an enemy highlighted that

dilemma in an extreme form. Today's result has seen Norway reaffirm its

own values. Even the decision to declare Breivik sane, as he himself

wanted has been good, many believe, for society, forcing it to confront

his views, and not dismiss them. The demise of his views, doesn't

come from the court, but it comes from the blowings, the debates, the

public discourse, all over Europe these days, that claims many of the

ideas that Anders Breivik claims. It claims we are at war and Muslims

are taking over. Hopefully, this verdict will take Norwegian society

face up to the political aspects of his deeds. How Breivik became the

man responsible for this cold- blooded carnage. Was much analysed

in court. How he lost contact with his father,

frightened his own mother, spent years without a job, obsess civil

playing video Games. And claimed to be an member of a anti-Islamic

group, but something, his biographies irrelevant. We've

looked in his eyes and asked who are you. We should ask how did you

become a right-wing extremist terrorist, what is in our society

that made you become that. After the massacre, Norwegians came

together to denounce any intolerance in their midst. Their

reply, many said would be more openness, more multi-culturalism.

We survived Breivik, we did better at integrating more immigrants,

having more tolerance and democracy. Many say, hostility to immigrants

is on the rise again. With demands for refugees to be deported.

hasn't changed Norway at all. What's happened is these, this

debate has become more cemented, harder and also, strangely enough

the people who agree with Anders Breivik, like to blowing a few, in

the defence league, they have now become a part of mainstream media

in Norway. It is natural to want something good to come out of such

horror. But nor weeks will have to summon up all the virtues to keep

asking of themselves, and their society, and not remain, as we all

so often are fixated by the killer. Joining us from Oslo now is Asne

Seierstad award winning aur author and journalist, who is writing

about this case. Thanks for joining us. That same verdict then, broadly

welcomeed by victims and also, by Breivik himself. But, it allows

himself to treat himself as a political prisoner, a legitimacy?

Yes. But this was not a political trial. It was not a political

verdict. And I think it was the right verdict. It was actually a

sane verdict because this was a sane man. It didn't mean he did

good actions, the opposite, he executed this, planned this, and

knew what he was doing, he was not psychotic, and this was the right

verdict and this is a verdict that Norway can be at peace with.

Does it worry you, that he can still use a political platform from

inside prison, he can talk to those who calls his followers?

definitely worries me if that will be as it has been from tomorrow on.

We don't know that. Nobody has been able to answer us that, but the

fact is that until now, he has had his computer, personal printer, he

has been able to post, with stamps to communicate with bloggerers with

followers, around the world, to put his opinions on the web. But, I

hope, and most Norwegians with me, hope now, this computer will be

taken from him, because it is rare, a prisoner has a computer in his

cell. It is only at the end of the sentence, if he does education, or

if he is preparing to get back to ordinary life. But the reason why

he's had so many privileges in the cell S that he is a good

manipulator and negotiator, and the first thing he said, when he was

captured on the island, was a policeman sitting on on top of him,

he said as soon as we start talking we can negotiate. What he wanted

was a computer, a printer, and another, a certain other demands.

And he got that, until now. I think maybe now that was the right

decision to make him co-operate. But it is a new reality now. It's

very interesting, because what we've heard in the piece S a man

who has unfortunately as this may be, got his own way. You've given

an example. We heard about hostility, potentially on the rise

towards immigrants, that some of these slightly extremist bloggers,

are encourageed into the mainstream immediatea. Are these changes that,

Norway welcomes? Well, I I don't really agree with that report. I

don't think we have more hostility in Norway, than towards immigrants

than any other country. I think this man, Breivik, he could have

appeared in any European country. He did appear in our country so. We

have to deal with it. And we have to take it seriously. But, I don't

really say that, I wouldn't say there's hostility on the rise

against immigration, yes there is tension, there are different

opinions, in Norwegian society, but this is still, the most non-violent

society in Europe, with a less murders, and crime. So I don't

think we should exaggerate and think Norway has become any more

dangerous, because of this one person. Do you think Norway has

changed? It is a cliche to say, that it has emerged stronger

through this. But do you think there has been a fundamental shift

in the country and the way it cease itself? We have changed, because

this is a wound that struck us, and we will have to try and heal it. Of

course, a heart of a country doesn't really change so quickly.

But, definitely, we have, we now have to question ourselves, serious

questions about how we deal with the others, the immigrants, those

from the outside world. And definitely, this is one of the core

issues across Europe. I think that whether we emerge stronger, it's

too early to tell. We're in the middle of it. Let me ask you one

last thought, he said he wants to destroy the Labour Party, this has

been one of his goals. Do you think he is succeeding? Is there a sense

that the Labour Party is in trouble as a result of the actions it's

witnessed? Well, the Labour Party is definitely in trouble for the

moment. The Government is in trouble. For several reasons, it's

in office for eight years, but also the devastating inquiry, the

independent inquiry looking at how Norway, the nor week police forces

and Norwegian authorities and crisis committees, they did not

work. There was a total failure and collapse of the system.

Unfortunately, so many lives were lost, also, because of the failure

of the system. Of course, the Government is taking part of the

blame. And whether Breivik is sitting there rejoicing in his cell,

in the next election, which is in a year's time, seeing the Labour

Party going down to a right-wing Government, there's still a year to

go, to see that. It really depends, it is important what the Labour

Party is doing within the next year. Thank you very much. Riding to the

rescue of press freedom came the Sun. Its symbol sawed truth, trusty

shield of fair play was nude pictures of a Prince, most people

had seen on-line. 850 people complained to the Press Complaints

Commission for the decision to run them. While Boris Johnson said it

was deafings indifference, many people in the industry expressed

frustration, as it would give ammunition to the Leveson, with new

regulation. It was the Sun, what done it. Today, three days after

the pictures first appeared on-line, the best selling tabloid decide

today publish and be damned. But by that time, more tan 13 million

Brits had searched for Harry's nude pictures on the internet. Whether

or not this is in the public interest, there's no doubt the

prick are interested. Well, most of us, anyway. It is a kind of

deafening indifference, I don't know what my view, a kind of

spectacular... A scandal would be if you went to Las Vagas, and

didn't misbehave in some trivial way. Now the pictures have rld of a

an old-fashioned press, the debate of privacy has ratcheted up again.

The Sun said readers had a right to see the pictures, because they're

already on-line The pictures are a mouse click away from 77% of

households with internet access, it is absurd in the internet age

newspapers like the Sun could be stopped from publishing stories and

pictures, already seen by millions on the free-for-all that is the

web". Jiefplt this shows us from 2004:. Some digital gurus, agree.

Public interest is the public interest. And while we may say they

breached the laws or privacy concerns around this, when we see

the massive indication and people absorbing the news story from all

over the news, journalist integrity requires that they do this story

and they cover it appropriately, because the public declared their

interest, we have the tools to monitor that and track it. Now we

have those available, we should be using them in setting our news

agendas. There's a sense of editors the Sun has not only thumbed its

nose at the law, but the rest of the industry. None of the tabloid

editors I spoke to would go on the record but privately they were

furious. One editor said to me "we all decided together that none of

the papers were going to publish these pictures, now the Sun has

broken rank, for purely commercial reasons. At a time when we're

desperately trying to prove we can be trust today regulate ourselves".

Another one said "they've handed Leveson a loaded gun." 850 people

have tkphraind to the PCC but there are others who say somebody had to

break rank before the UK began to look like a dictatorship. As far as

the photographs are evidence to that story, on balance, it has to

be published. Imagine the Leveson Lion, the post-Leveson Lion, were

drawn here, in other words you couldn't publish privacy

infringeing material, even where there was an argueable case in the

public interest, even where there was an argueable interest, you

would leapfrog France and end up in abduer zie stand. There's a clear

law of privacy here, there was a case, jofg Jamie theeck son, and

that established the fact that newspapers, publishing images, is

far more intrusive than telling a story. As a result if you were

going to publish an intrusive image of somebody, you have to have a

very clear, public interest, which justifies not just the telling of

the story, but also, the publication of that image. In this

case, everybody has told thetor story but nobody has been able to

cast around and find a public interest which justifies the

publication of the actual image. That's a clear distinction in the

law and which one the Sun has chosen to ignore. While Harry

kavortd in red Bermudas, lit does he know, what happens in Vegas,

doesn't always stay in Vegas. Who needs the paparazzi, when you have

new best friend with camera phones. The regulators need to catch up

with the Facebook generation. They're looking at the issues to

find a new framework. And then instead of focusing on the

negatives around that, they should be looking at the positive aspects

what it could mean to open up this news agenda and allow media

organisation toss make those ethical choices. It is difficult in

the context of the Leveson Inquiry and phone hacking and all the

things that have come before, recently, but it is about time we

look at this. Back at the palace this afternoon it was keep calm and

carry on as they released a video of Harry, fully clothed, paying

tribute to Paralympians. Paralympics torve relay is a

curtain to the Games, :. It was a stark contrast the image on the

fropt page of the Sun. So was their decision to defy the PCC a bold

move to show the regulators there's life in the old tabloid dog yet? Or

have they, just handed Lord Leveson a loaded gun? John Prescott who

suffered privacy invasion, joining us from Hull. Here in the studio,

the former executive of News of the World, currently on police bail as

part of the phone hacking investigation, thus unable to

answer questions related to that this evening Neil Wallace do you

feel News International have done a whole British press a service

today? Yes. Of course I do. Yes. It is interesting to see that the BBC

take ago typical neutral stance? The way we're presenting this

discussion tonight. What I think is the truth of the matter is this is

Leveson's worse night mare. It is exactly the situation he wouldn't

have wanted, because the truth of the matter is these pictures were

published all over the world, and it is bonkers, and affront to

natural justice to suggest you can't print them on paper in this

country, when the rest of the world is looking at them. Lord Prescott?

Well, Neil Wallace was in the News of the World which got closed down

because of its activities of releasing information on to the

internet and using as a justification, in the Max Moseley

case to print. What is going on here? 8 70 people complained,

they're useless as we've been pointing out zsh the PCC but the

editors actually said, what they wanted to do was shorpen up the

editors code, they were going to act together, get a definite of

public interest. As soon as they meet one day, and agree this is a

breach of the editor's code, and wouldn't print, some agreed and

changed its mind. And now talks about public interest. Do you

concede Neil's point we end up looking ridiculous, when we make a

difference pictures circulating you will over the place on the internet,

and one newspaper, one bit of paper. Leveson is beginning to look at

these things. Don't lose sight, all the editors got together and agreed

this was a breach of the editors code. The industry still wants to

keep self-regulation and work the editors code. So obviously they

want to put the best face on. The Sun changes its minds, within a 24

hours, and Murdoch, who is upset how they're treated here. They've

changed and raised the question now, can the editors code work in self-

regulation? No it cannot Why would you break rank when the industry is

over trouble over an issue like this? Can I just say, that that is

the biggest load of garbage I have heard in a long time. You come from

the News of the World, God blimey. What you have is here, a news

reporter who says she's spoken to a number of editors. I spoken to

those editors over the last two days, and let me tell you, they

gave me a different version. You have a group of editors, who

haven't run the story. Most of them didn't run the story because they

were told note to. As indeed the sup was by the xeef executive.

These journalists all champing at the bit, and all in the bidding for

the pictures, but the decision came from on high, because of Leveson,

they should not do it. You're on high as well, Murdoch. Let's just

cut to the chase, our reporter talked to people, saying you have

done Leveson's job for them. I say you, News International, because

you made it easy for him This is leaf Leveson's night mare, because

how can you castigate newspapers, that are simply following the rest

of the world's media? It wasn't the Sun, the Mirror, the BBC the

Telegraph who discovered these pictures, they were published,

there will 200 million hits on the pictures around the world. Are you

trying to intelligently tell me, they shouldn't be print on bits of

paper in this country. It is farcical, and the idea you have an

elderly politician trying to say that young people of today should

not enjoy the privileges of, that he did of a free press is frankly

insulting and stupid. Lord Prescott you can come back on that one,

isn't it better to defend the big problems, than to worry about this

one. We have Leveson to look at it. Is Neil saying ignore the law and

whatever our law says privacy and public interest, as long as it is

on the internet and they push it in the internet sometimes ahead of the

story, it is our law cannot apply. It is hard, isn't it, to make an

argument about privacy, when he clearly invited a lot of people he

didn't know, into a public space? Well, I mean, that sounds silly to

me, but it happened. The editors code, which the editors agreed,

presumably, Neil should be aware of it, you cannot without consent

print a picture, without the private circumstances. That isn't

true. It is untrue, that's not what the code says. Tifplt does. Read

the code. I've read the code. not what it says. It is use useless

in controlling you guys, and everybody accepted we have to

change it. Because you people in the News of the World and Murdoch,

didn't care a damn about the law. If you were now waveed goodbye to

self-regulation over over a case like this, would it be a waste?

Please, let's be sensible. Around the world, the British press have

followed, a story that went around the world. This is what Leveson has

stood there and said. So everyone had seen it. What's the point of

coming in there so late? So the BBC are suggesting along with elderly

Labour politicians that we should now cens sore the press S that

where you're coming from? This is ageism. Why did the Sun change its

mind tell us that? Because Rupert Murdoch realised how Murdoch was

the one who gave instruction, the man before our courts and inquiries.

For God sake. Thank you very much. There are thierd American cyclist

has been striped of the seven titles, banned from competitive

cycling for life, the OCDA. The cyclist declares his innocence but

weary of fighting the allegations. Allegations he has been fighting

for years. Lance Armstrong's never failed an official drugs test we

know off, except when he was cleared in '99. The evidence

against him has yet to be published. But it may be the testimony of

other cyclists, and fresh examination of old samples. US

doping authorities of course say it is them who have the authority and

so does the sports governing body who have yet to comment and see the

evidence. The anti-doping boss, described that as the fox guarding

the hen house. It is not clear the US za, can clear, there's eight

year of statistics, only two of the titles fall within that window.

And will the runners up to Armstrong inherit his titles? Well,

probably not. Apart from anything else, some of the cyclists have

also been banned for doping, it looks like there are no winners

here. Well, Andy Parkinson, Chief Executive of UK anti-doping, is

here. Are you surprised he pulled out of the fight? I am somewhat

surprised. If I was a clean athlete, what I would want to do, is test

the evidence put against me. And obviously, as of today, that's not

going to happen. But he says, he's innocent and taken numerous tests,

nothing has actually been found, there's about no evidence against

him. If he says he's weary, you'd have sympathy wouldn't you? Yeah, I

can see that argument. I think the flip side of that, is gone are the

days when anti-doping authorities relied on positive tests. We rely

on a multitude of different evidence we package up. And the

United States authoritys have said they've got overwhelming evidence,

from eyewitness statements that, corob rate doping. It can't be

enough to take eyewitness statements when you have scientific

ways of proving or disapproving can it? It is a balance. What you

ideally have a positive test, because it is simple to prosecute.

But, in the criminal justice system, you rely on eyewitness statements

and test the evidence, and that was the purpose of the tribunal that

Lens has opted out tf. The US za, asked a question to hand over the

anti-doping case, they say it is like a fox guarding the hen house,

so essentially what the authorities, are part of the problem? What the

United States authorities said is we have the evidence, we've got

joust diction to prosecute, we don't need you the cycling

federation, and also, we have to bear in mind there's a wider

conspiracy case going on, and the cycling federation has an appeal of

any result of that. Do you think they're part of the problem?

don't know. And what we haven't seen is that evidence tested

because Mr Armstrong has withdrawn from the case. When you take, into

account the idea you can't even hand those titles, to the sort of

next in line, necessarily, because there are doping problems, all over

the place, I mean, what a murky period, potentially, for cycling,

that whole time was? Yeah it is probable matic, I have to say, the

redistribution of those titles. But, it was murky. The late 90s, was a

very difficult time for cycling. Can we not trust any of the tests

that are being done? What we can do is trust the, that at the time the

test was taken with the substances we were able to analyse this were

negative tests. What we cannot say is negative test means no doping.

We had the same example around the Olympic Games. The only people who

can tkpwrarn tee the performance sincere the athletes. If Lance

Armstrong is not willing to clear his name, and he backed out, what

happens, does that investigation go on without him, will you still

bother to pursue that now? United States authorities, remember

there's a conspiracy case of five other individuals, all based on the

same evidence, so that case will continue. And, in tirms of the

again public, we'll start to see the transparency once the hearings

have been held. Thank you very much for coming in. We're going to bring

you the front of the papers in a second. But I haven't got them. So

second. But I haven't got them. So this will be interesting. Telegraph

is first, minister signals Heathrow expansion, and the hen party

surprised by lack of security to the Prince, that's the Vegas story

there. The stiems, the Government sends in

the Scouts to right hot spots. Scouts guides and police, to go

into private hot spoots. The start of the countdown to the Paralympics

Independent, GCSE row, Michael Gove threatened with legal action over

the C/ D boundary, we had last night. And Charles summons Harry

for crisis talks. A heart to heart talk. The FT weekend, Greece has

not been written off as Merkel welcomes Samaras to Berlin. That's