22/05/2013 Newsnight

An atros $:/STARTFEED. An atrocity in broad daylight, leaves a man,

believed to be a British soldier, dead in London. We have had these

sorts of attacks in our country. We never buckle in the face of them.

At the heart of this story an apparent statement from a suspect

who sounds like one of us, trying to justify killing in Britain to a

cause thousands of miles away. Some of you might find the content of

these pictures both offensive and upsetting. I apologise that people

find this upsetting, in our land this happens every day. Remove your

movement, they don't care about you. What can we learn about what

happened today in Woolich? Also tonight ...A Kiss for the

bride please. We marry for love, so why is marriage or any other

romantic arrangement of our lives any business of politicians. It is

nothing to do with the Government at all. Why they want to poke their

noses in! I don't know! Few news events honestly merit the word

"shocking", but this afternoon's meat cleaver murder of what is

believed to be an off-duty soldier in East London does. The fact that

his killer then danced around his body shouting "good is great" and

inviting photographs, and add a further dimension. That one ranted

in a London street trying to justify the atrocity, aggravates

the eaves and the offence given. The Home Secretary tonight has

condemned what she said is probably an act of terrorism. The

Metropolitan Police commissioner says they have launched a murder

inquiry. Bizarrely just yesterday I was speaking to somebody in the

world of counter terrorism who told me that when they were looking at

the Olympics they had considered the possibility of a stabbing on a

train, as he put it, by a militant. He said it was our nightmare

scenario we could do nothing possibly to stop a thing like that.

Today it would seem that kind of scenario unfolded on the streets of

Woolich as you have said, some of the images that came out of it may

be disturbing to some people. must fight them as they fight us,

an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had

to witness this today, in our hand our women have to see the same.

This is the man who attempts to justify murder, while apologising

that women had to witness it. Shocking footage taken by a

passerby on their mobile phone. The attack was at 2.20, a man walking

up the street of knocked down by this blue car that had mounted the

pavement. The two occupants got out and started to stab and bludgeon

the victim with a variety of knives and a meat cleaver. Hours later

heavy blood stains on the pavement still marked the site of the

murderous assault. Once the victim was dead or dying his body was

dragged into the road. I was on the bus coming into Woolich and I saw a

man lying motion lesson the floor. And there was a car with this body,

so I thought it had been a road traffic collision. I got off the

bus and walked around to another viewpoint where the body was

covered up. There was a huge police presence, helicopters in the air.

The two men, alleged to have attacked him, made no attempt to

flee. Instead they started talking to shocked bystanders. Some people

tried to help the victim, while just feet away a man with blood

stained hands made political statements to those nearby of the

Remove your Government, they don't care about you, do you think David

Cameron will get caught in the street when we start bussing our

gun, do you think our politician also die, no it will be the average

guy like you. Local police were on the scene quickly, it is clear they

had to wait for armed officers to arrive, prolonging the bloody

theatre as the perpetrators harangued local people. Witnesses

suggest that once the armed police were there, the attackers rushed

them. Two men, who we believed from earlier reports to be carrying

weapons were shot by police. They have both been taken to separate

London hospitals and are receiving treatment for their injuries.

pictures show the attackers, who, moments earlier, had been shouting

Islamist slogans, lying wounded in the street. Get back, get back!

Move back! Tonight there were fears in community about tensions.

Nothing has ever happened like this in Woolich before. I think there

are lots of different communities that live in Woolich. I think some

people will use this as a reason to attack these, this community that

has done this to this man. Even as the assaliants were taken to

hospital, the cabinet, emergency committee, COBRA was being summoned

under the chairmanship of Theresa May, where it heard reports from

the police and Security Service. The Prime Minister, meanwhile, who

was on the continent for talks, made this statement in Paris.

Tonight our thoughts should be with the victim, with their family, with

their friends. People across Britain, people in every community,

I believe, will utterly condemn this attack. We have had these

sorts of attacks before in our country, and we never buckle in the

face of them. The scene in Woolich is the subject now of intense

investigation. But there will be other lines of inquiry being

pursued tonight. Did the attackers act alone? And had they, at some

point, been under official surveillance? Our correspondent

Richard Watson has for many years reported on terrorism and extremism

in the UK. He's here now. Do you know anything about this suspect?

Well none of this is confirmed at this stage. But about an hour-and-

a-half ago I received a very interesting phone call from a

source who knows the British Jihadi scene very well. This source said

that one of the attackers was Nigerian in origin, and has been

living in the UK for many year. He was radicalised by the Islamist

group Alma haj roon in 2003. Now most controversially he suggested

to me that just last year this young man was stopped or arrested,

we don't know which at the moment, on his way to join Al-Shabab in

Somalia. We can't confirm that at the moment, but that is what I have

been told tonight. If that was true he would be obviously known to the

police? That is the suggestion, yes. That is remaining unconfirmed. If

he is known to the police, of course, we open up the territory of

what did they know about Mohammed Sadique Khan back in 2005, it opens

up this territory. This attack, shocking, horrific, very different

in character to something like the 7/7 attack? Very different. It is

hard to say with certainty. If you look at 7/7, tribal areas and

Mohammed Khan went out there for training. This appears to be a much

more discreet attack from lone wolves, who seem to have taken it

upon themselves to carry out this attack radicalised, possibly, by

the Internet. We don't know. Let's speak to the former Home Secretary

Lord Reid, and Lord Carlyle, the independent reviewer of anti-

terrorism legislation from 2001- 2011, and Nawaz, a former member of

an Islamist organisation, who later founded a Quilliam Foundation, a

counter extremist think-tank. This was shocking but entirely

unexpected this sort of attack? know we are under a "substantial"

threat, we know that. We know that there have been a huge number of

plots in the fast, foiled successfully by the security forces

by and large. And we also know there has been a change from just

being centrally determined and controlled attacks throughout the

world, to more of what Richard Wilson called Lone Wolf attacks. It

makes it much more difficult for the Security Services. They tend to

require less time and planning. They are more ad hoc, more

opportunist, there is less communication data going back

across the world. There is less contact. And therefore, they are

more difficult to counter in a way. The sense that Mumbai in a sense

was that sort of attack. If this is one of these Lone Wolf attacks then

it is pretty difficult to counter. Although Mumbai actually did, if I

recall correctly, there was evidence of control from Pakistan?

There was. The big plot that, thankfully we foiled here in 2006,

which was the liquid bomb plot to bring down seven airliners with

2,500 potential deaths, there was certainly contact internationally.

That makes it easier to foil than a spontaneous attack without those

communication links. Your reaction? My reaction is first of all this is

a tragic event and our hearts must go out to the family of the man who

was killed. Secondly, I think this is the kind of attack which,

because of Mumbai, we have been predicting for quite a time in this

country. The control authorities, the police and Security Service,

have been working very hard to prevent it. I think we have to

learn proportionate lesson from what has occur, we mustn't rush to

judgment. We must ensure the police and the Security Service have for

the future the tools they need, which will enable them to prevent

it kind of attack taking place. I hope this will give the Government

pause for thought about their abandonment, for example, of the

communications data bill, and possibly pause for thought about

converting control orders into what are now called TPIMs, with a

diluted set of powers. You are not suggesting either of those things

had anything to do with today's attack? I'm not suggesting that,

but I'm suggesting that the powers that existed in the past make it

more likely that other attacks can be prevented in the future. Lone

wolves, even though they are always inevitably connected at least with

internet training, are very difficult to catch. So we must give

the authorities proportionate tools to catch them. Maajid Nawaz, what

really strikes you about this attack today? What strikes me about

this attack is in fact the way in which, so much of it was theatre.

So much was them standing around after speaking to members of the

public. To not only justify their actions but speaking to the cameras

with a view to knowing the police were on their way. Almost in a

fatalistic sense wanting to be caught so they could have a form of

a show trial. Orderly you would expect that something is thinking

in a strategic way would retreat or come back to attack again, as the

Boston bombers attempted to do. These individual wanted it to be

about show. What I would say here, because we have heard reports of

members of certain far right movements seeking to move to the

area, and seeking vengence, first thing, a lot has changed since 7/7.

One of the things that has changed is certain organisations we were

rather dissatisfied in the past, in the way that they almost didn't

condemn terrorist attacks, but instead started to focus in foreign

policy have in this instance come forward and condemned the terrorism

with no ifs and buts. The scene has changed among Muslim community

groups, that is very important. is striking when you hear this guy

speak, a guy speaking in a London accent about things happening in

"our" country, I don't know which country he's talking about? This is

very weird? This is the role we keep talking about that ideology

plays. Where we have failed abysmaly in this country, in

popularising counter narratives to this ideology that completely

disconnects people, someone clearly speaking in London accent, and

clearly killing one of his own citizens, and for a country he has

never visited, and he has more affinity to people in another

country than his own citizens. We need to popularising a counter

narrative, and stopping this narrative of making Islam unpopular

asism. I think the responsibility falls on Government to try to help

create the counter narrative. The Internet has become a very powerful

tool. One can learn how to make a bomb, unfor the that thely, on the

Internet, one -- unfortunately on the Internet, one can listen to

sermons on the interin the. We are not very good as a nation at

creating a counter narrative that the goodies maybe win sometimes.

What would that be like? There is a unit in Government, John Reid will

know about it, that is designated to examine the Internet and try to

help produce a counter narrative. It is the sort of thing that makes

young men who may want to be radicalised as keen to look at a

couldn'try view and counter picture as the terrorist narrative. First

of all, at heart this is an ideolgical battle, this is not

about Islam, it is about Islamism, the "ism" is the giveaway. It is

the political imposition of people's will, through violence,

through the use of a corruption of Islam. They have a narrative the

basically Al-Qaeda narrative that blames the west for everything, and

sees it as an anti-Muslim movement. We have not had an adequate

narrative that explains the virtues of the society and the values on

which they are based. Arising out of that narrative has to be action.

This is the point I would make about tonight's news that others

are arranging counter demonstrations. The purpose of this

action is not just to destroy life today, it is not even just to

propagandaise, it is to terrorise and disrupt the normal flow of life

in this country. Those who seek to attack other communities as a

result of this will be carrying out precisely the sort of division and

disruption of British way of life, away from our communal

collecttivity that the terrorists seek to enhance in the first place.

So those who might think that they are, you know, attacking the

terrorists by marching through a Muslim community or whatever, are

actually following the path of the strategy the terrorists would like

to see. I think it is very important we should hear senior

Muslim leaders decribing the kind of opinions that were expressed on

that clip as a heresy, and that it does not represent Muslim views in

this country. Which is right isn't it? It doesn't represent anybody,

they are a bizarre minority, but we must have this loadership?

One of my colleagues was speaking to somebody earlier who said he had

been speaking to some young Muslims this evening who were pleased at

what had happened? We are finding any young Muslim who is angry the

default, political expression that is currently out this there is --

there is this perversion of Islam, the challenge we have is to replace

that default. When you ask what the counter narrative looks like, there

are ideas, leaders and symbols, if I ask you to think about the ideas,

the narratives and leaders and symbols for Al-Qaeda-based

extremism you can ease low think of them. Think of the equivalent in

the Middle East for democratic active, who are the leaders, ideas

and symbols in the Middle East you are hard pressed to see them.

low because there is very little democracy there? And partly because

the civil society activism involved is stifled. People are not able to

express as much as they should be. We need to do more in that regard.

Increased drone strike, targeted assassinations, more Guantanamos,

the military option isn't the bee all and end you will solution. It

is a short-term stopgap. We need to start focusing on the ideas debate

and reclaiming and rebranding democratic culture among young

disenfranchised Muslims. Let as turn quickly to what's likely to be

happening now. You have sat in Theresa May's chair? Too often I

fear. There was a meeting of COBRA, the cabinet committee today. That

was going on for some time, at the end of which it was determined it

was a form of terrorist attack. We understand that. What happens next?

Well the first thing that happens is to establish the facts. The Home

Secretary will be surrounded by her specialists, because the Home

Secretary does not run these operations in a democracy. They are

run by the police and Intelligence Service and so on. But she is

accountable to the public and parliament. She has to ascertain

the facts. Secondly she will be asking the questions as to whether

anything else needs to be done, are there connections, are there other

suspects, is there another threat from a group linked to this.

Thirdly, about the Ministry of Defence, I'm sure Philip Hammond

was there. If it was a soldier who was tragically murdered today, our

thoughts would be with his family and, if it was, what is the

security like at specific areas targeted for soldiers and so on.

And then there is a question about whether you need to raise the

national threat level from "substantial "up to perhaps as high

as "critical". I don't think that is likely but that will be

considered. If that is then raised as a result of that there is all

sorts of operational ratchetting up of defence measures. All of that

will be done in the first instance. Then they will turn their mind to

some of the wider questions, hopefully, which is not only the

investigations that are being carried out, but the questions like

the nature of radicalisation of British people, the narrative that

we talked about, you know. That is an on going process. How alarming

are the unknowns? They are always alarming, I chaired this meeting,

COBRA meeting, not only through terrorism, but through Litvenenko,

and so on. There are always, to use one of the words of an American

secretary, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. In some of

the cases I was involved in we thought we had a pretty good grasp

for a while of the number and nature of the people involved, only

to discover late in the day there weren't six from this area there

was as many as 20 from another area. That is where some of the measures

which the Government has refused to implement, like data communications

that were mentioned earlier, is absolutely essential for effective

fighting of terrorism. I mean we, you will never find out whether you

are right on this one until there is some huge tragedy that might

have been averted if they had updated the communications

appraisals a that can be carried out from GCHQ. This is a very

important point. We must have proportionate laws, but there must

be laws that are sufficient to meet need. When they see an example,

this may be a small example of something much bigger that could

happen, we must ensure the laws are fit for purpose. But we don't know

whether that sort of interception of communications, monitoring of

communications would have made any difference at all? But we do know

it is extremely effective in catching organised criminals,

murders and others, we know it is works, it is working in court up

and down the country. Six or seven years ago had we not had that

method of connecting people through their "communications", 2,500

people would probably have been blown out of the sky over the UK.

It was a vital component. But now people have moved on from mobile

phones to internet, e-mail, text and Skype, we don't have the means

of doing what we did six years ago. Thank you all very much.

We will return to this story a little later in the programme.

Now from hate to love. In all the noise about gay marriage these past

few days, the bigger phenomenon, hell sexual marriage has been

rather overlooked. It is, we are told, the basic building block of

the state. Vital for the secure upbringing of children, and an

institution in trouble, which almost all political parties claim

to be keen to support. Should it be privileged over other types of

family life? Before we talk it over we have this report and we begin

with the question every couple get asked, "how did you two meet"?

The moment you met? Moment, that is a bit hard to say, I walked across

the floor and asked my wife for a dance. Asked me for a dance, and I

said "I don't think so", no I didn't, I did say I would! I I had

to warn her about her small dresses in the shop I used to run. He said

I was showing too much leg and I would give the customers a heart

attack! The tendency in those days was to grab the first female that

you could. I gave her a kiss on New Year's Eve. So I know exactly to

the second when that happened. we just kissed and that was it. We

just...Within A month I knew this was going to be the one.

# I remember how I thrilled at the sight of you

If you want to understand married life, you need to come to East

Dorset. Two thirds of adults here are married. The highest proportion

in all of England and Wales. Are you nervous? Not at the moment, I'm

OK at the moment. Kayleigh Wallis is surprisingly calm. Maybe that's

because, like many brides, she already lives with the groom, and

they have had a baby together. Do you think you now feel something

has fundamentally changed? Yes. What is that? It feels like you

have found the missing piece. Connected in a way. Another way of

connecting and feeling closer. bonds you together more. You are

standing up in front of all your friend and family to say I'm

committed to this relationship. kiss for the bride, please.

Marriage has been in decline for decades. Roughly half the number of

people get married today compared to 1970. 42% of marriages end in

divorce. But the number of people cohabiting has increased

dramatically since 1979. Today one in six people cohabit. In terms of

break-ups involving children, fewer than one in ten married couples

will split up by their first child's fifth birthday. For

cohabiting couple it is one in three. Do you think marriage is

important for society? Yes. Yes I do. For people like Mark and

Kayleigh and these two here, definitely to be together, and it

is good to be married. For your children, it is nice to have your

mum and dad together. Unlike me I grew up with just a mother. That is

probably why I wouldn't get married. But not everyone is convinced that

marriage benefits children. Without the pressure of marriage some

relationships work better. sound like you are talking from

experience? I was married for seven years. My husband left me a year

ago. We tried to stick it out for the children but it wasn't fair on

them. The UK has won of the highest rates of family breakdown in the

western world. Children in Britain are less likely to live with both

parents than children in Germany, France, and the US. Fewer than 70%

live with their mother and father. # I remember how I thrilled at the

sight of you # I remember

At this bowls club, more than 600 years worth of marriage is playing

out on the green. Almost all of the couples playing

have been married for more than 40 years. So how have they managed to

stay together for so long? Is there something special about the

institution of marriage that's kept them united. Or is it more about

them as people, their characteristics that we need to

understand? On that question experts don't agree.

Getting married is a different level all together. You have a very

public commitment in front of family, friends, the state, the

community. It is clear and it is much harder to get married and it

is much harder to get out of being married. There is a very public

commitment there. Couples that get matter yod have different

characteristics -- married have different characteristics to those

who cohabit. We can observe them easily. The couples who choose to

get matter yod have higher levels of education and higher

professional occupations, they are more likely to own their own home

and have higher incomes. Lots of these factors will contribute to

whether they separate or not in the long-term. Marriage amongst high

income groups is on the rise, 66% of people in the top social class,

such Assenor managers, are married. Whilst only 44 -- such as senior

managers are married, why only 44% in the other groups, such as manual

worker. Norman and Lorna have been married for 55 years, they think

young couples could do with help from the Government. Times are not

easy at the moment. If they are living in a flat you still have to

buy furniture, anything to help people get started. That's it. I

know these days people start off when they get married and want

everything. We started, we got married we had a bed a kitchen

table and two chairs. When we had visitors they sat on boxes and

things because we couldn't afford it. You brush up nice? You can see

why I fell for him. Let as face it, she was a smasher. Len and Diana

have been married for 62 years. Do you think that it is any business

of the Government whether people are married or not? No. No business

at all. Definitely not. No. It is a personal thing between a couple. It

is nothing to do with the Government at all. Why they want to

poke their noses in! Knowss -- noses! I really don't know.

Arguments may rage about what this certificate means. But perhaps it

is laughter that makes a marriage worth the paper it is written on.

My wife had a hip operation, right. Oh! And when she came home they had

given her mechanical fingers to put her knickers on. I said that's

bloody stupid what are you doing that for, I will put your knickers

up, I got them half way up and I thought bloody hell I must be old

because I was trying to get these off years ago! Don't put that on

television for good's sake! Well now here to discuss the ins and

outs of marriage are Harry Benson from The Marriage Foundation, a

group that campaigns in favour of marriage. Claire Paye a campaigner

for Mothers at Home Matter. Natlie Bennett from the left-leaning think

tank. And Fiona Millar, who lives in what used to be called "sin".

What business, can you answer that question that couple were perplexed

by, what business is it of the Government whether people are

married or not? It is a great question. You would think if all

relationships were the same it wouldn't make any difference. But

the Government is deeply involved in family life already. If I took

you into a secondary school and I introduced you to 100 teenagers

about to start their GCSE exam, of that 100 teenagers 45 are not

living with both their natural parents. That is where the cost of

family breakdown has spiralled out of control. 45% of kids are now

living without their natural parents, and the state spends an

absolute fortune, rightly, protecting and supporting lone

parent families. Fiona Millar? respond to that? I think if you are

talking about the reasons children don't achieve. They are complicate.

We know there is a correlation between married couples and

outcomes for children. We don't know there is a causal link. There

are a lot of other reasons why children don't achieve. The state

has a business looking into people's, having policy for

people's personal lives, and families lives. It should be to

support families in whatever form they come. Not simply families in a

married couple. So don't make a big deal of marriage? You are talking

about stability and commitment for children. There can be even with

parents who separate. Why wouldn't you just penalise people who get

divorced then. The Government could fine people for getting divorced?

Don't you think people are penalised enough when they get

divorced. Let's look at what works, of the 55 kids I have introduced

you to in year nine b to start their GCSEs, of those 55 kids whose

parents are still intact, 51 out of 55 are married. It is the model who

work, gorgeous fe Fiona who has made it work is an exception.

don't think I am an exception, there are lots of successful family

models that don't involve marriage. It is about the quality of

relationship rather than status. We know children do well in loving

warm environments, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be

married environments. It means that you need to support the quality of

that relationship and the stability in that household. Kid will do much

better in a household where it is loving and warm rather than in a

married household where the parents are in conflict and arguing all the

time. What is it specifically about marriage that makes it a better

environment to bring up children in? It is the commitment and

stability. I think Harry has mentioned the statistics behind it.

That you just are more likely to separate if you are cohabiting than

if you are married. To get married, at some point you have discussed

your long-term future, you have said I want to marry you, you

haven't just ended up living together and then carrying on

because nothing else has happened in the meantime. You have discussed

it, you have committed. And you are married. Sorry, but I do think, to

compare people who are cohabiting to those who are married is not a

like-for-like comparison, in a way. Most people cohabit before they

choose to get married, if that is what they choose to decide. It is

not really comparing like-for-like, it is kind of unfair to say that

those cohabiting have a different range, the data is more complicated

than that. Tell me to back off if I'm prying here, why did you make

the different decision, which was the decision not to get married?

Well I have always felt that marriage was a bit of a patriarchal

institution, I'm not religious, the ceremony doesn't appeal to me at

all. Since your researcher phoned me up to talk about this programme,

I thought about the reasons more than 33 years. I could never think

of a good reason to do it. It was not a reason to do it but not to do

it. We have a commitment to each other, we have three children, we

had our ups and downs, well chronicled in his diaries, I'm sure

everyone knows about them, we stuck together for 33 years and there is

a form of commitment and stability. Frankly I hear it offensive to hear

from politicians that our form of family life is any less valid than

those with a ring on the finger. Perhaps they are saying it is

slightly more vulnerable? If the commitment is there it doesn't

matter if you are cohabiting or married. You have to look at the

underlying reasons why people stick together. I'm not sure that

marriage ceremonies are the reason. There is a correlation, but is that

the cause. You are more or less assuming, are you not, that

children are better brought up by two parents than one? I'm not. It

is the choice we have made and a lot of people do make of it. I can

think of many successful families that don't have two parents and the

children achieve extremely well. You have to be very careful about

making judgments about the right type of family model and the wrong

type of family model. These judgments are made all the time. If

we were to take your argument seriously, what mechanism should be

imposed to try to get people to get married and stay married? I think

you can't get away from this basic fact that 51 out of 55 kids in this

case are living in intact married families. You have said that, come

on tell us how you think the Government could get people to get

married and stay married? OK, the first thing is that the current

Government policy actually penalises married couples, how it

does that is at the low end, if you are receiving tax credits if

somebody moves in with you their income comes into our household and

you lose your tax credits, that is called the couple penalty. It is

well known. I spoke to a mate of mine this report, happily married,

he said he already worked out if he and his wife split up they would be

so much better off than if they were living together. That is

utterly mad. A marriage tax break would be one of the ways of

righting that wrong. How much money do you think it would take to

persuade someone to get married and stay married? I don't think it is

the amount of money to persuade people to get married. You are the

people child benefit, it doesn't cause people to have children, we

pay pensions and it doesn't cause people to get old. Giving a

marriage tax break would be a good thing because it is a good thing,

because most people who actually make their relationships work are

married. And the state would then be recognising that. Is there any

way of measuring a feings inducement to get this what is

perceived to be a good thing in the Government's mind to work? I find

it very hard to believe and haven't seen any evidence to support that

people would get married or stay married because of a marriage tax

break. What we are seeing in Relate, the charity are seeing an increase

with people under financial pressure coming to them. I think it

is about supporting families at times of financial pressure.

Affordable childcare, shared parental leave. Those kinds of

policies I think would have a far greater impact than something like

a marriage tax break. David Cameron is talking about something between

�150, would you get married for that? Not because David Cameron

told me to. That is for sure. �50 probably not. But at my time of

life, coming through the other end, our children are grown up now,

there is a great advantage in being married because of the situation

with inheritance tax. I think we should be equalising the situation

so cohabiting hetrosexual couples can have civil partnerships as well.

I'm penalised now. Do you think that couples should stay together

for the sake of the children, because it is a better environment?

I think the ideal situation is where you have a couple who are

happily married, who love each other, where they can look after

their children the way they want to, so if the mother or father wants to

stay at home full-time they can. If one of them wants to work they can.

And that is a fantastic environment to bring children up in it is

stable and loving. It might exist, but most of us have to make

compromises in life? You can look at the ideal and say how close can

we get to that. It doesn't deny the fact it is an ideal, if you can

have a couple happily married, committed to the children, who

remain committed to the children throughout their lives. Do you

think a single parent is less capable of doing such a good job?

Not at all. Why worry about it? is great if you can have a father

and a mother. So you assert, where is the evidence? Because when you

have parents living together you develop attachments, you develop

bonding with the children. I have to say sometimes my husband works

away, it is much easier when he's around that the children get a

balanced approach to being brought up. They have the male version and

the female version. And that works really well. It is very hard when

I'm on my own. What is the evidence on this? Families are far more

diverse, I don't think that's, families thrive in different

environment, I think when people are able to make choices that work

for them, that is when kids do really well. That is when you get a

loving and supporting home that children and couples and people on

their own who make that decision thrive on. At the moment a lot of

families can't make the choices they want. If you are a single

parent family you are more penalised in the taxies it, single

income families are penalised in the tax system, rather than a

double income family, you pay �2,500 more than a dual income

family. A lot of people can't afford to stay at home and look

after the children or work part- time. A lot of people do have to

work. In some cohabiting couples people stay at home and look after

the children. There aren't hard and fast rules. If parents separate I

think it is partly the role of the state to help support that family

to maintain good relationships with both parents. What we are saying is

it is important for children to have a relationship with both

parents if they can in both situation. Sometimes it is not

right for people to stay together. When you look at the growth in

divorce and cohabiting couples and children born out of wedlock. The

fact there is no longer any stigma against either divorcees or bass

standards, there is no stiing -- bastards, there is no stigma

because children see all sorts of models in school. Is it a bad or

good thing? I want to pick you up on this idea of being more divorce.

There isn't. There is a lot more than in 1950? Compared to 1950, but

compared to 1980 it is not true. We had a one million lone parent

families in 1980 there are two million today. We have less divorce

than in 1980. You have to explain if it is all the background factors

that are supposedly the reason why families are spliting up, you have

to explain why family breakdown has doubled, it is the trend away from

marriage, that is the reason we have our 45 out of 100-kids who are

living without both natural parents. One of the fascinating thing is the

success of marriage, if you think there isn't any stigma attached to

be unmarried, there aren't the economic reasons for women to have

to get married and so many people are still getting married, you

should be celebrating the fact it is still so popular. It is the

grain of human behaviour. Don't judge those who don't make the

decision. I'm not. That is the way the arguments are presented.

Government policy should go with the grain of human behaviour, we

want to stay together as couples. Few people set out wanting to be

lone parents, we should support lone parents and marriage as well.

It is stigmatising for lone parents to be told the married couple model

is the best one. If you hear it that way. I hear it that way, I

have been living with the same person for 33 years and three grown

up children, I hear our model of family life and parenting and

relationship is not as good as somebody else's. Let me say on

behalf of myself and my family and The Marriage Foundation and anyone

who represents families, I love lone parent families. I'm not a

lone parent family. We should support them, but we should support

married families. And unmarried families? That is the, if I told

you my uncle had died aged 90 having smoked 60fags a day he is

the exception not the rule. You can't tell everyone not to smoke

because he has done OK. Fiona has done OK but she's the exceptional.

Lots of marriages fail too? Tiny numbers of unmarried couples make

it through. Not tiny numbers, a smaller proportion than married

couples. The numbers are different to begin with. You can't compare

married to cohabiting families. You have to accept and reflect that

society is different and there are far more, it is different family

types, and people are making choices that work for them and it

is dynamic. Not everyone will remain in the same relationship

status throughout. You know they will change and different

environments will work differently. One of the reasons Fiona is here,

other than her great contribution is we are slightly surprised that

someone has been cohabiting for 33 years stim together. I don't know

why our joorb is still together. I don't know why you are surprised,

he's a pussy cat. Knowing her partner, if you had a married

couple married for 33 years that would be less significant. We have

looked for someone who has been cohabiting for 33 years and made it

so obviously your model. All my married friends are now divorced,

seriously. Choose your friends wisely.

Let's return to our main story. That is the attack in broad

daylight this afternoon in Woolich where a man, believed to be a

British soldier was hacked to death, the Home Secretary says it was an

attack on everyone in the UK. After the attack the two men were shot by

police and are now under armed guard in hospital. Richard Watson

is here again. What are the options the Government will be looking at

now? I think they will be taking a very close look at the preventing

violent extreme policy, which has been in place for some years now.

Called PREVENT for short. This is to encourage people in the Muslim

community to come forward with community intelligence with

information about extremists in their midst. The question is who

did these men know, they have been around since 2003 and converted to

Islam then. Who knew what they were doing, did anyone know if they held

extreme views and did they report it to the police? There is one note

of caution from another source of mine tonight who said, look, we

have a serious problem in the UK at the moment. He was speaking to some

young British Muslims today after this attack and actually they

expressed a certain satisfaction to him about today's attack. Saying

this was a good thing. Very shocking if true. I think it shows

the depth of the problem that we do face. Although they, they are

totally unrepresented and a tiny minority? A tiny minority, even

though they are a tiny minority, if you have these views even amongst a

tiny number of people, it presents a serious problem to the police and

Security Service. Thank you very much indeed. Not surprisingly this

terrible attack is on the front page of many and all of the

That's all for tonight, until That's all for tonight, until

tomorrow, goodnight. Good evening, a cold wind flows across tonight

into tomorrow. Showers further south. Most across eing and Wales

start dry with sunshine. Cloudy in the north. Filtering down in the

strengthening wind. Even if you leave with house -- with sunshine

overhead it won't stay like that. The showers not as heavy as in the

morning. Wind and snow across the high grounds. Blizzard conditions

on the top of the Grampians. Strong and gusty wind making it feel cold.

Heavy showers late morning and early afternoon, central and

southern areas this is where the heavy showers with under thiser and

hail mixed in will be for the second half of the day.

Temperatures across the country 9- 16. The heavier showers could have

some snow mixed in on the tops of the hills. Particularly for