01/07/2013 Newsnight

gives the President a deadline to listen to the people calling on him

to go. The most powerful force in the country has chosen a side. How

long can the President last? We will hear from both sides of a

divided country. And welcome to Dudley in the

Midlands, the equivalent of every single television license from here

was spent on kiss-offs to unwanted managers.

Perhaps this man can explain it to us? Could massive on-line learning

make universities redundant? Giving stuff away from free, who can have

a problem with that? Except what if this is the big disruptive

technology that is about to rip through higher education in the way

that MP3s did through musics or Amazon did through book selling.

The NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, accused America of

illegally persecuting him. Is he about to claim asylum from that

nice Mr Putin. The two girls shot by the Taliban

for seeking an education, one of them came to the UK today where she

met the United Nations education envoy.

We are not and must not negotiate away the right of girls to have

education in the search for a settlement. This wasn't how the

Arab Spring was supposed to turn out. The protestors have given two

days to bend to the Government's will or what? President Morsi was

the popular vote of the people and that was last year, now they are

demanding all sorts of other things off him. It seems there there is

general agreement the stakes are very high ind deed. Once again

hundreds of thousands of protestors have taken to Egypt's streets, and

the country appears so divided some are predicting civil war. Another

uprising, to correct one they say didn't work. And now most likely

another intervention by Egypt's military in the country's politics.

Hundreds of thousands are on the streets of Cairo, as they were

during the Arab Spring two-and-a- half years ago and again they have

been backed by the Armed Forces, just as they were then.

Today Egypt's military chief described the current protests as

an unprecedented expression of the people's will. He gave the

Government 48 hours to respond. For the crowd that was already a

victory. I think people are very jubilant

about what the military had just stated about their support to the

people's demands. And people are celebrating already five minutes

after that statement. But there is one big difference between today's

events and those of February 2011. Then the crowd, and the army,

brought down a dictator, Hosni Mubarak, now the target is a

datdically elected leader, the first in -- democratically elected

leader, the first in Egypt's history, the Muslim Brotherhood's

Steven Morris. A year ago many of these protestors voted for him.

Today the Brotherhood's headquarters were ransacked and set

aloyalty. The people say President Morsi has failed to keep his

promises. First of all he had a programme of 100 days in which he

would restore security, change the scene economically, bring around

$200 billion in US involvement. We have seen none, we have only seen a

loans policy that would put my kids in debt for the next 20 years. The

other thing he did not take the measures we asked him to take to

cleanse and purge the judiciary and security that was always there

fighting behind the scenes. Brotherhood is accused of acting

only to advance its own people and its own Islamist agenda. It pushed

through a new constitution that many secular or liberal Egyptians

feel won't protect them. The Coptic Christian minority in particular

worries that the society is already becoming more Islamised.

Prosecutions for allegedly insulting Islam are on the rise.

Egypt's battered tourist industry was horrified recently when the

former member of a radical Islamist group, linked to a 1997 terrorist

attack on holiday makers was nominated governor of the resort of

Luxor. It is the demand for daily bread, one of the key drivers of

the 2011 protests, that is the problem on the poverty line. Living

standards have dropped massively, food costs more, petrol and cooking

gas are running short. Since 2011 foreign investment has fallen by

56%. Foreign exchanges reserves are down by more than 60%. Inflation

has climbed to more than 8% this year, while unemployment has

reached 13%. So what will the army do now? The

Brotherhood's new constitution aimed to safeguard military

interests, but that can't compensate for decades of Embley

anyoneity between the -- imknitity between the forces and the

Government. The military says if he doesn't respond in two days they

will come up with their own Road Map of the They will have to

compromise with the opposition, run for presidential elections or sit

with them and compromise on some sort of solution. If the President

refuses I think what will happen is the army will directly intervene

and take over for another transition period.

And if the Brotherhood resists what would in effect be a coup, they are

the most organised disciplined political force in Egypt, and they

believe they have got democratic legitimacy on their side.

safeguards for this process to be successful, some negotiations have

to happen or has to take place with the Muslim Brotherhood, some sort

of settlement for a safe exit and safe and peaceful transition. Now

that is very critical and important and I think the only party that is

capable of doing so is the military, if they are not really interested

in power. But the potential for violence is there. Some Morsi

supporters have already come armed with sticks to their own rival

demonstrations. You had Algeria in 1992, Sudan 1989,

many of these experiences suggest if you remove the elected President,

with his supporters on the ground or an elected institutions with the

supporters on the ground ready to fight with him, then you are

descending into a vie lent situation. -- Violent situation.

Whatever happens this crisis is setting two of the revolutionary

forces, liberals and Islamists against each other. Despite all the

hopes that accompanied their joint victory in the Arab Spring two

years ago, it is clear now neither of them have understood what

democracy involves. We are joined now from Cairo by the

Egyptian novelist, Adhaf Soueif, and here in the studio by Rabaa al-

Adawiya, a political activist and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

You can't really be pleased that the army has intervened in politics

again in your country can you? of course it would have been a lot

better if President Morsi had lived up to the expectations that were

placed on him. He made promises and he failed to keep them. He didn't

even look like he was trying to put the country on the path that the

country demanded. So really it was a continuation of Mubarak policies

added to it was a level of inefficiency that was incredibly

dangerous. Why what is happening is happening. I really wish it would

have been otherwise. Welcome to democracy, politicians promise

things they don't happen. That, I'm afraid is how democracy very often

works. Do you accept that President Morsi has failed to deliver on many

of his promises so far? I disagree with that. I think President Morsi

is the first democratically elected civilian leader for Egypt, ever

since the Pharaohs. We haven't had a democratically elected leader, we

don't know democracy as you mentioned. I think we need time.

Corruption has been rooted for decades, corruption has been in the

Government. It took so long, President Morsi people have been

wanting him out of office before he has even taken his place. There are

20 one-million marches called against him. The first one is less

than 40 days after he began in office. People wanted him to fail

before beginning. Some people went out and said "down with the coming

President", before the presidential elections. Some people wanted him

down. Together, as revolutionaries, we actually should be wanting to

build the country together. We need to come together, find a compromise

and build the country. It is a worrying precedent dent, isn't it,

when things -- precedent, isn't it, when things become difficult and

people are glad that the military intervenes? Well you know I would

like to make two points here, one is that President Morsi, yes, of

course he was elected through the ballot box. But we really need to

remember, as he didn't, that he came in on the back of a revolution.

So the country is still in a state of revolution. It has made its

wishes very clear that it wants to move towards human rights and it

wants to move towards social justice. The fact that a President

who comes on the back of a revolution and doesn't fulfil,

doesn't even move towards either of these two aims is very serious.

Let's also remember that there were five million who voted for

President Morsi in the first round, he added eight million to those, on

the basis of very, very clear promises. He knew that these eight

million were not really his constituency, but they voted for

him because of the promises and because of the very difficult

circumstances that the country was in, so out of a wish to move

forward. So basically to back out on those is really serious. The

other thing is, we have inherited a lot of baggage from the Mubarak era,

and the country can't afford four years of not moving forward at all.

And there is a flaw, I think, in the democratic process where if

things, I mean I think people need to think, legal minds need to think

about how you can break a contract when it is clearly not working.

Fine, so what do you want him to do, to step down? I think, I personally

think that the best thing for him now would be to show some open-

mindedness and inclusiveness which he has failed to show so far, I

would really like him to stay as President. I think that would be

better for the country and better for the unity of the country. But I

would like to see the association of the Muslim Brotherhood disbanded

it has served its function, it has no place in the political life of

the country. A lot of his problems have been because he's being

perceived to be listening to the supreme guide of the Muslim

Brotherhood rather than his constituency, which is the Egyptian

people. There is now the Freedom and Justice Party, born of the

Muslim Brotherhood, he can be a card-carrying member of that, but

the Muslim Brotherhood association should be disbanded. That is the

first thing. I will interrupt you because our guest here in the

studio is looking wry and distressed at your suggestion that

the Muslim Brotherhood be disbanded, don't you think it has served its

purpose? As a member of the Muslim Brotherhood personally, I think, I

need the right to actually be a part of the Muslim Brotherhood if I

wish so. I need to be what I think I want to be. This revolution, I

first met you when you came to visit Cambridge, I met you straight

after the revolution in 2011 and we were together wanting democracy and

positive change. We wanted as you said, human rights, we wanted civil

rights, we wanted everyone to do whatever they wanted to do within

the boundaries of law. So I don't think anyone should say what the

Muslim Brotherhood should or shouldn't do, as long as it should

be within the boundaries of law, that Egyptian people should pass

through the parliament. I think we need to go to the parliamentary

elections and instead of taking everything to the street. Because

what happened today, I got a phone call on the way to the studio today

and millions of Muslim Brotherhood supporters are gathering now,

initially they didn't want to gather yesterday because they

didn't want confrontation, but I think the BBC report before the

beginning of the show they failed to show the extent of the support

the mother brotherhood still has on the streets. Thank you very much

both of you. People who work at the BBC have

been aware for years that at a senior level there was a gravy

train running through the building, a board which most of the staff

would never be able to -- aboard which most of the staff would never

be be able to scramble. But the generosity of the license fee

payers' money only became clear today after a public investigation

into the pay-offs for senior figures. The BBC has been deep low

shocked by the disclosures. Hardly any of the beneficiaries have

lifted their snouts out of the trough to make any comment. We will

be talking to one in a while. Steven Smith reports. It is not a

BBC manager skipping all the way to the bank, I can see why you might

think that, in fact this was the first live show from TV centre in

west London. You may have shed a tear when the place closed earlier

this year. The National Audit Office was weeping tears of

incredulity today at the golden goodbyes the Beeb paid to some of

the men and women behind the scenes. It handed �25 million to 150

executives. Including �680,000 for Chief

Operating Officer Caroline Thompson who spent 17 years at the

corporation. �866,000 for a departmental director with 25 years

service. And almost �950,000 for BBC lifer Tanya Byron, former

deputy DG. The biggest ten payouts came to more than �5 million on

their own. I think the BBC is totally out-of-touch with its

viewers in terms of how it uses license fee payers' money. It has

been out-of-touch for some time. You have to look at the series of

scandals that have come about in the last couple of years. The

biggest of which is probably the Digital Media Initiative, where

over �100 million of license fee payers' money was simply wasted on

a project that was really never going to work, according to the

people who looked at it. This is an astonishing set of scandals that

seem to go on and on. The National Audit Office said the BBC breached

its on already generous severence terms. The Government said the

report exposed a culture of pay- offs that was out of control. Some

observers question the role of the BBC Trust. The problem is here on a

succession of cases that all find their way back to the BBC Trust,

who can say that the rules are constructed in such a way as to

prevent them intervening directly in some of these things. That is

true, but from the point of view of a license payer, if those rules

prevent the Trust from holding management to account effectively,

the argument for changing the rules becomes unavoidable. Whether you

like it or not, and they will not like it. The argument, a discussion,

another debate about BBC governance seems to me to be more or less

inevitable. We do not run the BBC, as you know, we are specifically

excluded on remuneration matters from handling anything other than

Director Generals, however we have asked the Director General to

report back to us and we want to make sure the new rules he has put

in place are implemented correctly. The DG Lord Hall said the BBC had

saved more by trimming its executive tiers than it spent on

severence. And pay-offs are now capped at �150,000. Manager Roly

Keating, who left last year for a job at the British Library

collected �376,000 on his way out. That payment was called "seriously

deficient", Mr Keating has returned the money. Those who specialise in

finding executives for media companies are baffled by the BBC's

generosity. We have been in a negotiation with a director leaving

one media business to go to another, the thought of him being paid a

goodbye exit to leave that company and go to another one is laughable

really. And that, I think, is massive open goal and where the BBC

and the BBC trustees really have shot themselves in the foot.

Poles show viewers love their favourite shows. But -- polls show

viewers love their favourite shows, but the clock is ticking on BBC

large guess. We have the director of strategy

and digital at the BBC with us, what has gone wrong? We lost our

way on payments. It is a humbling report, there is some extremely

embarrassing mistakes that were made. We need it learn lessons.

you give us a guarantee that there will be nobody else leaving the BBC

a pay-off of �150,000 or more? Hall said that on the first day in

the job. I'm told it hasn't come into effect. In the report it makes

clear there are up to 15 people who already had letters and we can't

unpick that. There will be people leaving with more than �150,000?

From the 1st of September people will be expected to leave with less

than �150,000. On his second day in the job Tony Hall said the payments

were too high and unacceptable and that is why he brought in a cap.

That was months ago? That was on the second day of the job. He

spotted it on his second day in the job. That was months ago, why not

implement it immediately? Because you have to negotiate to get it

brought in. So people can refuse can they? Some people had already

had letters sent to them saying these were the terms, and we will

not unpick them. Why not?Because it would be basically illegal to do

so. Why not try?It is actually a tough decision he has taken. It

would be easy to say it is for new joiners. He said it is for

everybody at the BBC, no-one will leave for more than �150,000, most

will get far less. Can you help us on the decision made that Roly

Keating should get �375,000. Money which he has honourably now repaid?

That decision was not taken by the Director General, it was apparently

not taken by the head of human resources, who did take it? They

got themselves into a muddle, people thought one thing was going

on, and another other people think it was something else. That is why

we have to apologise. Who took the decision? It was a collective

decision. You can have a witch-hunt or say learn from our mistakes,

that is what we will do. I thought we were in an era of transparency?

You say three months ago is too far away, but today we say that

everybody who leaves for the next few months it will be brought to a

senior remuneration committee. you disclose who will sign this

off? The NAO have all the information. There is no name?It

was clear it was signed off by a combination of HR, finance and they

got it wrong. The Director General didn't sign off on it and others

didn't know anybody about it? Did the person who signed off on it

still work at the BBC? It was a mess, but I can say this was about

saving far more money than the cost of license fees in Dudley. We are

saving just about �20 million every year going forward. Yes we could

have done it for less money, certainly we could have done it in

a much better way, but we are saving �20 million a year. We

reduce the number of senior managers at the BBC by over 200.

There was a very serious mistake made here, in the spirit of the new

transparency, aren't people entitled to know who made the

mistake and whether they still work for the about of BC? What happens

with trans-- BBC?What was about transparency is you need to find

out who makes the mistakes, and we don't need a witch-hunt but to

learn from mistakes and show the license payers we are moving

forward and the license fee has been frozep. Do you believe the BBC

Trust last shown itself to be a responsible custodian of license-

fee payers money? I think it is unfair to blame the Trust for this,

this is clearly not their job. It is our job as the executive to set

the pay for people, it is the non- executive's job as well. The Trust

asked for this report. It was clearly something that was a

collective responsibility of the managers and the BBC. In the spirit

of transparency where was your job advertised? Tony Hall brought in

people he thought were right for the job and others were advertised.

When you are putting a team together you make some appointments

that way. Is it fair?It was his decision. It is not transparent?

There is a balance between getting the right people and running the

process. Sometimes, in my case he went, it is always difficult to

defend your own circumstances, in my case he wanted me.

Is it a worthwhile responsible way to use public money? Obviously Tony

thought so. The thing we are focused on is delivering a much

better value BBC. That is what we will do. It is not transparent?The

report today is extremely transparent. Your appointment

isn't? We will make sure we learn the lessons of today and we have

banned the use of payments in lieu of notice, that was one of the

other things the report was worried about. We said no-one will get more

than �150,000. We have said all the deals over �75,000 will go to a

senior remuneration committee. were hand picked and not appointed

as a result of an open and fair competition? No-one argues that,

Tony made some appointments that he brought in and others were

advertised. Anybody in business. is exact ly the same sort of

culture that paid people vast amounts of money when they didn't

need to be paid vast amounts of money? It is the opposite of that

culture. In the second day he said there will be a cap and acted to

improve processes. We got some things badly wrong and we have

apologised for that and we have to move forward and learn the lessons.

Do you think other people should have had a chance to compete for

your job? It is Tony's decision. People in business do this all the

time they decide who they want to get, they bring in some by

approaching them in the way I was, and others go through the process.

I'm happy working at the Beeb and happy to come on your programme any

time. Supposing that instead of going to

live in some crummy bedsit in Pot Noodle land so you can have the

opportunity to listen to a burned out hack delivering the same

lecture that he has been doing for 20 years, instead you could stay at

home and hear some of the best lecturers in the world. The idea of

MOOCs on-line courses seems to promise a future of higher

education, an alternative to an expensive traditional one. We have

this report. Not to be confused with a Mog or a moog, it is MOOC.

It stands for massive on-line open course, and it shows signs of being

really big. Even bigger than that. I think MOOC has a huge potential.

The technology that enables one professor to teach not just 100

students but 100,000, that changes the economics of higher education.

What is a MOOC? It is parceled up bit of education, enrolment is

unlimited, massive. There are no entry requirements, it is open, on-

line and it is a course. At the moment the big players in the MOOC

world are in the United States, on the east coast there is Harvard and

MIT, on the west coast Stanford, this isn't about going fee. Anyone

anywhere in the world with a computer -- geography. Anyone

anywhere in the world with a computer can have access to the

best professors in the world. What about competitive strategy, Roman

architecture, or different relation equations in action. Not a bad

place to start is the machine learning MOOC from Stanford. The

man who teaches that is the Godfather? About two years ago I

put one of my classes on-line and it reached an audience of 100,000

students. To put that in context I used to teach 400 students a year

in Stanford. To reach a comparable audience I would have to teach at

Stanford for 250 years. I got together with one of my friends and

we started to take the technology that my team had developed and to

partner with top universities so anyone can learn from the best

professors and universities. MOOC isn't a one-way exercise,

there are assessments, assignments and quizs on-line. It is a short

step to go to real life qualifications gained entirely

through MOOCs. We are told some employers are showing favour to

shows who are "Mooked up". It is opening the door to more interviews.

When employer yes, sir see you have taken advanced glass -- when an

employer sees you have taken advanced classes from tan Ford or

wherever it is -- Stanford or other universities it brings more

interview. Given our glorious and proud tradition of distance

learning as exsemplified by the Open university, if you fell in

front of the TV in the 1970s, chances are you woke up at 2.00am

to see this. The way we calculate rate of thing we get an idea...The

People who brought you back are teeming up with 21 other

universities to launch future learn, a British MOOC initiative. They

plan to go live in August, this is not about increasing education but

widening access? This isn't a redistribution of education, this

is about trying to use a connected environment of the web to deliver

something different. To reinvent lenk in -- learning in some way.

Using the on-line social networking tools available to do something

different and fresh. Critically toe make sure that we're not just

pumping out information but people are actually learning through what

-- critically to make sure we are not just pumping out information

but people are learning. In the United States where they are most

advanced they are being led by the biggest names in higher education,

places like Harvard and Yale. In Britain some of our biggest names

are holding back. Here at Oxford they say MOOCs won't prompt them to

change anything they do. Is this clever brand management or could

they miss the boat? Oxford delivers degrees in way which really sets a

premium on the tutoral experience and the teaching on a one-to-one or

two-to-two basis. Other universities deliver a lot of their

courses primarily through lectures. MOOCs are a further extension of

that. You have to accept, I think, however exciting the concept of the

MOOC is, that there is necessarily some loss when you are not in a

person-to-person environment. The MOOC, from my perspective, can

never really substitute for that. People are giving this stuff away

for free, who could have a problem with that? Except what if this is

the big disruptive technology that is about to rip through higher

education in a way that MP3s did through music or the Amazon store

did through book selling. There are big thinkers who believe the cost

of higher education will have to come down and MOOCs are one way to

achieve that. Recently Bill Clinton said "I think the only sustainable

answer is to find a less expensive delivery system...we simply can't

continue to have the cost of a university education to go up at

twice the rate of inflation every decade". In the United States the

California state universities are experimenting using MOOCs to

replace some courses. San Jose University was to offer a MOOC on

Mikele Sandell's on social justice. But the faculty said no. They wrote

an open letter to Professor Sandell and said" professors who care about

public education should not produce products that will replace

professors and dismantle education". If MOOCs take hold there are plenty

of implications to consider. Will we need as many universities and

academics in the future. Can people do their university degrees without

ever leaving home? In Britain and other places, where the cost of

higher education is a huge political issue, this could be the

route to lower costs. If so at what cost? Generally when the Internet

hits an industry, it tends to find basic inefficiencies in it and

enable a better delivery of some of those aspects. I'm sure a

combination of on-line delivery and campus delivery can deliver some

aspects of education more cheaply than purely a campus-based

experience. But I think the primary opportunity of MOOCs really is to

just broaden access to a whole range of people who otherwise would

never have had had access to these courses. Talk to people who are

enthusiastic about MOOCs and they will say any institution not

getting involved right now is suicidally short-sighted. In fact

you don't have to talk to them for very long before various flightless

birds get referenced. There is a real danger if we are doing animal

metaphors there is a danger of a lemming-like rush, if I can do that,

we must do MOOCs because everybody else is. Well if you are confident

in the product you have, you don't rush to join everybody else. You

keep an eye on what is happening, if you want to develop your own

version you do so in your own time on your own terms. No-one can say

why MOOCs will lead or where the money will come from. Most MOOC

providers are commercial ventures, but what is the business plan. What

we can safely say is their prospects depend on whether they

improve the prospects of people who take MOOC, if you excuse me I will

get to my machine learning MOOC at Stanford. One advantage of the way

of learning, none of the restriks of the past apply. This is a

restrictions of the past apply. Are you eating? I hope you have enough

for everyone, because there is 100,000 of us here!

Universities and Science Minister is with me now. Can you see MOOCs

replacing traditional university? can't see them replacing them but

they are a significant change in education. So what they some how

augment the university experience or what? What we can see them doing

is first of all in developing countries, that do not yet have a

network of bricks and mortar universities, and have great

ambitions for rapid growth, this might be how they help toe deliver

an increased higher education. Second -- help to deliver an

increased higher education. Secondly I think they will change

how we learn. When you are on a MOOC, doing a maths MOOC, they will

identify 30% of our students made this mistake at this stage of the

maths course, they then had to retreat. The education an litics,

how we learn, where you make -- an litics, and how we learn and how we

make mistakes. You were at Christ Church at Oxford, one of the finest

universities in the world, some of the most beautiful buildings, you

wouldn't have rather been at home looking at a screen would you?

And one of the things MOOCs will do, in the language of the arrival of

the web into these services, they will disintermediate, Oxford and

other leading universities will be able to recruit down the world by

people who start by doing a MOOC. They will use the fact that someone

in Mongolia does well in the physics MOOC spot talent out there.

I think it is good news for our universities' recruitment. You are

not worried about the lemming-like leap on to the bandwagon? I think

MOOCs will be a very important part of the educational landscape. David

gave the analogy with music. We all have Spotify and listening to music

on-line. Last weekend hundreds of thousands of people went to

Glastonbury. They didn't listen to it on their iPhone but the physical

experience of listening to music. I think there will be a mixture of

on-line learning and people wanting the physical experience of being in

a seminar with fellow students. you think there is a danger that

less affluent students will see it as a more economic way to get an

education. In that sense you will have a divide between those who can

afford to go to university and those who prefer the cheaper option

on-line. It could be a cheaper low cost option. Students that go to

university they are not paying up front, it will be a choice of how

people wish to study. There may be mature stew dints. They may be able

to recruit more widely because of MOOCs, they may have mature

students who learn differently, it will be a mix. MOOCs, I think will

be a big and important part of the landscape. Are you confident that

British universities are wised up enough to the commercial importance

of this? Two years ago when I first came across these on the west coast

of the US, they were ahead of us. And I'm very pleased that Open

university is now trying to develop Fuerture -- Future Learn. If we

have got, as I believe we have, a British education product. Then the

arrival of the MOOCs an opportunity for people around the world to see

the quality of British higher education. I think we can, I think

British higher education will probably gain from this. We will

have more people around the world who decide, having done the MOOC

for the University of Edinburgh, I want to study that. Edward Snowden,

the man the National Security Agency would most like to talk to

is said to have applied for politic kal asylum in Russia. President

Putin says he's not welcome there unless he stops damaging American

interests. Tonight a letter has appeared from Snowden attacking

America for persecuting him as he It has to be said it is his appeal

in Ecuador, the news emerged and predates the developments we have

heard today now. Wikileaks saying stand by for a statement from

Edward Snowden but we haven't had that. There is an extraordinary

chain of events, what is Putin's gain? I think we can say it is

America's political discomfort. He wants to get the maximum political

mileage from it. At the same time the fascinating thing is he sees a

lot of res prosity with cases of people in the UK and the US who

Russia wants to get hold of, businessmen, opposition people who

he can't, therefore he wants to control, if indeed Edward Snowden

is about to get asylum in Russia what he can say. This is what he

said today. TRANSLATION: If he likes to stay here, there is one

condition, he should see his work aimed at damaging our American

partners. No matter how strange it will sound from me.

Do you think Snowden has lot of secrets on him that the Russians

would find useful? There are different versions of this, some

suggested that he had left the key material in safe hands before he

fled Hong Kong, and could, for example, through use of code words

or friendly intermediaries allow this information to get out to

third parties. Should he choose to do so. Others way he took

everything with him, we know that the German news manage zeen has

published a magazine since he has been -- magazine has published a

letter. Clearly what he has with him is encrypted. It is an open

question if he stays in Russia what becomes of that material. One thing

is clear from what President Putin said today, they don't want him

running a media service if they do give him asylum. Thank you very

much. Now before the end of the programme we will have tomorrow's

front pages. First, when 15-year-old Malala was

shot by the Taliban simply for wanting an education for herself

and other Pakistani girls, it sparked global outrage, Malala

survived being shot in the head. She's studying in the UK. Today one

of her friends injured in the attack also arrived here. Shazia

Ramzan, whose story we featured in April, travelled with the support

of Gordon Brown, who these days is Special Envoy for global education.

Newsround reported the story for us and spoke to her and the former

Prime Minister about what it is like for girls trying to study in

Pakistan's Swat Valley. 15-year-old Shazia loves going to school and

dreams of becoming a doctor. Last October as she sat on her school

bus a gunman climbed on board, his intention was to kill her friend

Malala. TRANSLATION: I can't tell you who they were, but my life

completely changed after the incident. Before it we could freely

go anywhere we liked on our own. Now we must be accompanied by

guards who will tell us not to go out. That incident was a planned

attack on Malala they planned to kill her for campaigning for girls'

education. She was left in a critical condition and scenes of

her bloodied body sent shockwaves around the world. She was taken to

Birmingham for treatment but Shazara spent a month in hospital.

Although not a target her life changed unimagineably after the

shooting. Both girls became heroines throughout the world

reveered for their bravery. Malala received a Nobel Peace Prize

nomination. Things are different back in the Swat Valley, some

friends and relatives feared being associated with him for fear of

becoming the next target for the Taliban. TRANSLATION: Some girls

are confident others are looking at how Malala sacrificed for her

education and they become scared and no longer study. Some mothers

tell their daughters what can happen to Malala can happen to them,

don't seek education and don't go to school any more. I met her and

she was excited and optimistic about living in the Swat Valley.

TRANSLATION: Our fight is for he hadcation, they say girls shouldn't

get education and we say they will because it is our right. Since then

life has taken its toll, she has come to the UK to continue her

studies without the fear of Taliban attack. TRANSLATION: Even my

parents will tell me my life is under threat. We want to go out and

have fun but we were stopped, and we couldn't go from school to a

friend's place because our guards would come looking for. So life has

changed a lot. Of course it is important we are educated, it is

really tough back there and now I have come here to be educated.

Although it is good to see her again, I know she has a chance to

become a school and maybe a doctor one day, the reason she fled

Pakistan remain, the Swat Valley has been a long standing stronghold

for the Taliban, it is only the Pakistani army enforcing the

fragile peace. TRANSLATION: army has done a lot to control the

situation. If the Taliban qum back nobody can stop them. If the army

is not there, nobody can stop them and they will rule over us and we

would have to do everything according to their wish. They

should think of the parents who send their daughters to school only

to know that the girls have been killed. Special education envoy to

the UN, Gordon Brown, has been working to bring Shazia over to the

UK. Does he think the west should be talking to the Taliban for

lasting peace in the region if girls like Shazia are attacked for

wanting to go to schools? I think we should make it clear human

rights are an eye seings part of the negotiation, if we are talking

to militants and extremists, they have to be prepared to say that

they accept the right of every girl and boy to have education,

particularly that girls should not be discriminated against in the

future. We can't have a situation where we move from building schools

and got lots of girls, particularly in Afghanistan to school and then

the schools closed down. We must make it a central part of the

negotiation that human rights are respected. She now has to make a

new life for herself while she studies in the UK. For every girls

like these girls there are millions of girls in Pakistan that go

without an education. You can watch more about that story

and the struggle for girls' education in Pakistan in Shot For

Going To School on BBC Three on Wednesday at 9.00. Mark Urban has

come back to join us. Edward Snowden has issued the promised

statement, what has he said? He has essentially attacked President

Obama. He said there would be no wheeling and dealing but he got

Vice President Biden to ring people up, countries that Edward Snowden

had asked to consider his asylum bid and asked them not to. He

describes himself as a stateless person and hints he's more or less

out of options. It doesn't say he's seeking asylum in Russia.

That's about it for tonight, we will be back again tomorrow, do

will be back again tomorrow, do join us then if you can.

A different weather day tomorrow, sunshine in eastern areas, giving

way to cloud. A lot of cloud across the country and grey southern skies

Feel cool in the rain as well, temperatures around 12-14. Eastern

Scotland, some breaks in the rain, afternoon damper than the morning.

Same can be said for northern England. Rain coming and going, the

odd heavier burst mixing amongst that. Damp through the east Midland.

The south-east, can't rule out the threat of one or two showers in the

afternoon. Close to Wimbledon, the main threat will be in the evening.

Wetter afternoon than morning across parts of south-west England

and Wales. There will be still some dry weather around, some of the

bursts of rain could be on the heavy side and accompanied by a

strong breeze, not the best start to a July day. Some slight changes

into Wednesday. The City forecasts you will notice Manchester, Belfast,

Inverness all looking dryer on Wednesday, brighter, warmer, same

into London, Cardiff, Birmingham and Bristol. After a grey and damp