29/10/2013 Newsnight

Are Labour about to come to the rescue of the HS2 train line, as new

figures cast fresh doubt on the plan's value for money. Our flash

new expensive high-speed railway line will it deliver more than a

boring plain old slow one. The Transport Secretary will make the

case and explain why it is not really a waste of money.

# As Mrs Pankhurst said # Enough is enough

# Chain today a railing... How can the femmeismism of the 1970s emerge

to deal with 20th century sexists. Our guests have some suggestions.

Should this British Army court martial of three marines show the

public a video of their alleged war crime. We will ask Colonel Tim

Collins, the best known face of the Iraq War for army. The publisher of

Hustler, a porn bar gone, to be executed next week, we will hear

from Larry Flynt himself. Hello, good evening, when the

Government started banging the drum for HS2 on the airwaves first thing

this morning, they may not have realised the project would get a

shot in the arm from an unlikely source. After a cooling enthusiasm

from the shadow charley, Ed Balls, Labour has pledged support to the

project. The in coming project must be allowed the power to bring down

the cost. Could it be back on the agenda? This does seem a change in

the mood music, talk us through what happens what has happened? It is a

change and the reports look correct. I don't think Ed Miliband acted

entirely unprompted. He has clarified his position because this

programme understands this evening there was a meeting of some 40

Labour MPs in parliament. They asked the shadow Transport Secretary, Mary

Creagh, newly in her job, to come to her and explain in public why the

party is soon to cool so rapidly on HS2. They were Nottingham MPs,

Nottingham MPs, they will gain rupture for their constituencies. A

lot of them said the economic benefits are strong and we can't

have this wavering that you have allowed, Ed Miliband. We have seen

him tomorrow I think strengthen his position, that is because he was

being told by his backbenchers, and indeed there was some front-benchers

present too, that this position was not tenable. We spoke to one of them

this evening. The feeling that Ed Balls, under the leadership of the

Labour Party, really the Labour Party in the whole of the country.

Rather than trying to undermine the project, they should be out there

campaigning strongly for it. Just explain then the political

significance of this. It seems like an Ed versus Ed battle possibly, and

more widely for the project? It is at some point Ed versus Ed, it was

party conference where Ed Balls said from the podium, when he gave his

speech, actually we won't sign a blank cheque for this. A completely

reasonable thing to say, but for many people in the party it was a

shock. They accept the economic tests need to be there, and indeed

that is probably going to be the nature of how Ed Miliband is beefing

up their position. They don't quite understand why he did it in the way

he did it. What I think has happened is that at every stage Ed Balls has

been pushing and pushing and pushing because it is so tantalising, if you

are the Shadow Chancellor to possibly shelf the project and at

every stage Ed Miliband has not been tough enough with him and he has had

to do that. Oh aye what's that then peers to be where Labour is sitting.

Will the public be convinced with the new set of figures for HS2.

First our chief train spotter got his hands on the latest figures.

What will be the next chapter in our railway history, will it include HS

2? As political support for the project has got shakier, it is more

important than ever for the Government to be able to point to

Australian shakably robust business cas Trying to work out the value for

money of an historic transport project, like this beauty they

London Transport Museum is comparatively easy, all the data is

in and can be known with a bit of research. Trying to peer forward

into the future is far harder. Today HS2 had their latest go at peering

into the future. Their fifth attempt at constructing a business model.

Presenting this latest version, the Transport Secretary said the new

line still represents excellent value for money. The business case,

including the cost benefit figures is strong for HS2. More than ?2

return for every ?1 invested. The calculation that the Transport

Secretary is hinting at there is one that gets a lot of attention in any

big project. It is the benefit cost ratio, or BCR. In today's figures

the Government ace that HS2 will give back ?2.30 in benefits for

every poop 1 spent. That is down from ?2. 50, it is what the

Department for Transport would call "high value for money. If you look

closely this figure includes what is known as wider economic impacts.

These are far less certain benefits from things like regeneration. And

the DFT's own guidance says these shouldn't actually be included to

calculate the cost benefit ratio for a project. If we strip these out the

ratio goes back to ?1. 80 back for every ?1, and moves from high value

to medium value for money. According to the leader of Manchester City

council, the project is more vital than ever. The business has always

stacked up, clearly the papers themselves say that you need to

update that on a regular basis. The proper published today not only

shows the robustness of the business case for high-speed rail, it does a

thorough analysis of the alternatives, and it is whether

through improvements to the road network or existing rail network,

nothing is anywhere near as effective as that brand new network,

which is what we really need. HS2 has been going through some

difficult days recently. Firstly the projected cost has gone up by nearly

a third, and secondly both the National Audit Office and the Public

Accounts Committee of the House of Commons have suggested the benefits

should be revised down markedly. You would perhaps think when this was

all factored in the business case would now look far less attractive

than the figures presented today. So what has happened here? Well, as the

costs have gone up, HS2 Ltd haven't been sitting back in their seats

twiddling their thumbs and staring they scenery, they have been

effective in identifying vast new areas of benefit that supposedly HS2

will unlock for us. Chief amongst these are benefits to business

travellers. When HS2 first calculated their

benefit to business travellers from the new line, in February 2011, they

put the figure at ?25. 2 billion. Although since then there has been a

change to the way the figures are presented, meaning to be comparable

we have to add a billion more. By August 2012 that figure had leapt to

?34. 3 billion, and in today's calculation it is put at ?40. 5 bill

juvenility or around ?15 billion more than the original estimate than

2011. If you look through the hundreds and hundreds of pages of

developments that HS2 Ltd have published today you can find out why

this big leap has happened in the supposed benefits to business

travellers, it is because they now assume a far higher proportion of

people on trains are business travellers. For example, if you look

at the previous model, the previous estimate, back in 2012 they thought

that around 30% of travellers on a train between London and Manchester

were travelling on business. Now they assume it is about 65%. In

other words more than double. And because of the way they value

business travellers' time above that of commuters or leisure travellers,

that means big, big benefits to HS2. This kind of change has led some to

accuse the Government of making the evidence fit the policy, rather than

the other way round. The very least when the evidence changes policy

doesn't appear to reflect that. Whether it is in the sort of

economic advantages the Government predict for the regions, which our

members are sceptical off, or the detail of who works on trains and

who doesn't. Or capacity atation, I think there is an element of dogma

to the Government as approach. I think the debate should still be

had. This is what the future of transport looked like 80 years ago

in 1933. The Airport would be elevated 120 feet above the ground,

clear of all obstructions. Perhaps the biggest problem with the

Government's business model for HS2 is it is trying to make redictions

at how we will be travelling up to 80 years in the future.

In 2093 will HS2 look like a good investment or as crazy as this 1933

motorbike wheel contraption looks to us today. Just before we came on air

a little earlier I put those points to the Transport Secretary and ask

if he was confident the cost of HS2 wouldn't rise again? We deliberately

built in large contingecy. We have set a target for phase I, at ?21

billion, but actually I have told HS2 I want phase I to be built for

?17 billion. It is right on big projects like this to have a

contingency that is part of the budget. I very much hope it will be

delivered for less than the budget we have set. And yet even with this

jump, another ?10 billion, the reduction in economic returns is

only slight. The figure out today goes from ?2. 50 to ?2.30, how can

that be credible? It is credible, there is other things that come into

the account, and come into the system. But I'm not so... Like what?

The use of the capacity argument, the amount of trains that are run,

and arguments like that. You say "like that", like what? When you

give people these figures and they know it is costing ?10 billion more,

they don't look believable? They are believable, everything we publish is

crawled over by various people, if we get it wrong we will be told. The

simple fact is, let me deal with VCR, it is an important people. If

you looked at the VCR for the Jubilee Line it was less than one.

Actually it would not have stood up to economic value. But it is in

London, it has led to the development of Canary Wharf. Over

00,000 jobs. At the moment in London we are building CrossRail, a ?15

billion project. Nobody complains about this with a similar VCR. This

is a chance for northern cities to get their part of transport

infrastructure spending. Just questioning how you arrived at the

figures you arrived at today. For example we are now looking at begin

to business leaping from ?25. 2 to ?40. 5. How did that work out? It

works out because what we're told and how the economic case is worked

out. That is a point. What do you mean the way we have been told and

the way the case is worked out. How does it leap from ?25. 2 to ?40. 5?

Because there is new information coming into being and that is

classed into the overall figures and case. What sort of new information,

they were wrong last time. You published figures today saying they

go from 25-40? They weren't wrong last time. They were figures that

were published. We have done more work on it, which is what we were

asked to do by the Public Accounts Committee. These are important

matters. What I have also got to do, as far as the Transport Secretary is

concerned, is actually look at what is the benefit for the north. So I

have just come from a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester,

they tell me how important the high-speed line is for them. This is

predicated on an incredibly optimistic forecast in growth on

this route. If we look back to what happened on HS1, the forecasts were

far too high, there was a 30% overestimation. Why don't you say

you don't know what will happen in terms of the route and numbers of

people travelling. Why would you make a forecast that ties you into

these kinds of numbers that people are not believing any more? You say

they are not believing, the CBI have welcomed the case we are publishing.

The Chamber of Commerce has too. The FTSE 100 business leaders poll says

49% of those who responded are against HS2. They don't see a

credible need for it any more? If you are saying 49% are against. 33

are in favour? Well. That has fallen, that is the point, that has

fallen over the last year? The truth is that big infrastructure projects

are always controversial until they are built. When they are built

people say that they were the right thing to do. The same arguments were

made about the M 40, about the M 25, people were opposed to those. They

are very important parts of the infrastructure of our country. I

have just come from a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and what

they were telling me, this is important for Manchester. The

problem people have with this, when they are listening and reading the

figures and crawling over the pages, they feel a lot of the figures are

being massaged and made to fit the picture your Government wants to

portray. If you take the KPMG report in the summer, it talked about a ?15

billion benefit to Britain, it didn't give the raw figures or the

places that wouldn't benefit that would have adverse effects? Hold on,

CrossRail is being built at the moment through London. I want to

talk about the KPMG figures that you put out which said a ?15 billion

benefit to Britain. It took Newsnight and an FOI to find out the

truth of the figure, why not come forward with them? Hold on,

CrossRail is being built, I don't think you would say the people in

Manchester are getting much benefit from CrossRail. I'm not talking

about CrossRail but the fact that you said there is a ?15 billion

benefit to Britain, that was what the report was about, you didn't

give the raw details and you didn't come forward, it to be a Freedom of

Information request to find out what the adverse effects of that were?

There are many bits of infrastructure that are taking place

at the moment that don't affect different parts of the country. It

is not they don't affect, Aberdeen will be worse off, Norfolk, do you

concede that now? No I don't, I believe the UK will be better off to

the tune of ?15 billion overall. Other areas will benefit as well.

The simple fact that Aberdeen doesn't benefit as you say, Aberdeen

doesn't benefit from CrossRail. It doesn't benefit from Thames link.

But it benefits from other bits of infrastructure we are putting in.

Why not give the raw figures and let people work it out for themselves

rather than mushing the message? -- pushing the message? I have

published all the documents for the background of this case. What do you

think of when you hear the word "feminism", women on the streets

marching for equal pay and talking about domestic violence. Academics

debating just exactly which wave of the moment we are now on or

something scarily ernest, a little humourless perhaps that is the

subject of Town Hall talks. It might be time to think again, a new

movement on-line is challenging the stereotype, fighting new ground.

Here is the digital feminists. Pause for reflection, in their tiny

mirror on the shoulder, it lets you know as a glance who is glancing, it

might safe a biff in the back from a burst. That man seems to be heard

and not seen. Oh how times have changed. Of course the modern woman

doesn't really need a wing mirror on her shoulder in order to report back

on the world around her, because she has one of these in her teeny W

eenie hand, she can blog, she can post, she c tell the world how she

feels. I noticed after perhaps a stop or two that he was getting

aroused. And then eventually he started stroking my leg, and I told

him to stop. It wasn't until I got to work that I found see men down

the back of my legs. The Everyday Sexism Project is a website launched

last year by Laura Bates, who wanted to create a place where individuals

could report their own experiences of sexism. Just to look at some

recent entries, man more than twice her age thought it appropriate to

tell her she was well developed for a 16-year-old in a good

What is important to say is a lot of people who write into us specify the

fact that they feel absolutely frozen, ashamed, embarrassed, those

are common reactions when that kind of harassment happens. I don't think

it is the case if they didn't write to Everyday Sexism Project they

would otherwise say something back, I think they had been silenced for a

long time. These stories haven't stayed in the digital world, some

were used by police in a campaign on London Transport resulting in

increased reporting of sexual offences and increased detection

rates too. These are still early days for assessing the impact of

that heady combo of individual power and its ability to shift entrenched

positions. One of those being the mainstream media's obsession with

breasts. Perhaps you saw this, curtesy of the

Daily Mail, when performance artistam Amanda Palmer appeared at

Glastonbury, she revealed one bossom to the crowd. Her song about how

that bossom became important not her art went viral.

# Dear Daily Mail # It has come to my recent attention

# That my recent appearance at Glastonbury festival

# Kindly received a mention The beautiful thing about new media,

YouTube and Twitter, you are sharing all of these experiences in

real-time you are relying on each other, by the time I got home that

night somebody had already uploaded the video to YouTube, I took a look

at it, shared it, and by the next morning it had gone viral. Do you

have a sense there is a friction between different generations of

feminism? This This generation is programmed to watch shows that

resonate with them and what makes them feel more human. In that, I

think you might see the seeds of a real change and a real evolution.

Because you know, even ten or 15 years ago if I wanted to make a

statement about something that was bothering me, I would be stuck

talking to my friends or calling up the old media. Now I can say it

directly, that will change the world, it already has.

Stub burp, hard to shift, inequalities remain. It is the same

old song isn't it. # As Mrs Pankhurst said

# Enough's enough # Change a railing she would do her

stuff # Nowadays a woman out for justice

# Starts a fight for freedom # Where her bust is Modern feminism

reflects modern society. If a criticism of previous waves of the

movement was that the voice of feminism was often white, well-off

and academic, that is not the case now. The visual exploitation of

women goes hand in hand with the digital age, more images, easier to

see, easier to share. It is one of the modern feminists' biggest

battles. # I can pay for everything

# Everything is on me # Little Blondie

So this video, Calvin hare ruchings featuring Tinie Tempah, in terms of

sexualisation of black women, they were not part of the plot of the

video, they are shaking it on the carpet, you don't see their face,

they are literally just bums. Ikamara Larasi is part of the

Rewind Project, a one Topshop website that will allow

users to send their comments direct to regulators and record labels. I

asked her how she felt when she sees how young black women are portrayed

in music videos? Bored and frustrated. The fact that this image

is the normal depiction of people like me is a problem. That is the

thing that people that don't know people like me are absorbing. Is

there a danger though that people feel too powerful with the digital

experience, you know you tweet something or you send an e-mail via

your website and you think I have really packed a punch there? I think

it is useful to feel like you have contributed to making a difference

on a particular issue, and it wasn't too strenuous, and you didn't have

to get wet in the rain. I think that is the good thing about digital

campaigns. Not everyone believes that the new digital world will

allow feminism to achieve its goals. Charlotte Raven is the editor of the

Feminist Times, she has launched it digitally, but wants it to be a

stimulus in meeting up and discussing ideas? When I read

Everyday Sexism Project, I'm usually on my own. Often when I put the kids

to bed I find myself drawn to it and there is a process of a kind of

feeling of it is such a depressing litany of horror. And yet you feel

impotent in relation to it. There is nothing you can do about it, the

only way that change can be affected is in three dimensions by meeting up

with real people who are going to change your mind and also change the

world. Digital feminism has an ability to throw a cause around the

world in seconds, and you can feel that you are creating a loud new

noise. But the question is, how many people are listening.

To try to answer that we are joined to discuss the F-word with the

actress Natasha McElhone, journalist Angela Epstein and historian class

cyst Mary Beard. Let's start with the real basic, Mary Beard would you

define yourself using the word "feminist". Of course I would. No

question. That's what I am, that's what I stand for. I think feminism

comes in various forms, I don't think you can't lump everything

together. And yet the bottom line is that I can't understand a woman in

this country that isn't. Natasha McElhone would you say anything

different to that? I guess what I would say is that I think feminism

is an easy word for people to reject. And the sorts of people that

I would probably like to tune in more to the issue. To be more

conscious of how they are around women and how women are towards

themselves. It is very, very easy for feminism to start to mean

something that sort of akin to a political class that's in opposition

to men. And so therefore people will feel defensive around that word. And

I want that not to happen. I want to work together with men and I'm

interested in equality rather than the idea that some people might have

of a superior. Are you comfortable with the term "feminist"? Absolutely

not, I wouldn't call myself a feminist. Part of the reason is all

the great battles upon which feminism and the sufficient fridge

movement have been established have long since been fought and

successful. Ly. More women go to university than men, girls routinely

outplay boys in the classroom, women have made an impact in all aspects

of professional life, look at the glorious selection we have on

Newsnight tonight. That stops you ever using the word feminist

yourself? What I was about to say is what soh what has evolved now is an

artificial engineering, a construct, because all those great battles have

been fought. What feminists are now often looking for, they are spoiling

for a fight, they seize upon petty grievances which offend the original

principles of feminism. Talking about digital activism and all the

hashtag sisters that come out crying in force. Yes there is a huge social

grievance, digital media is very efficient in doing that. Look at the

campaign to get women on bank notes. Does it really matter whether Jane

Austen is on bank note or not? Do you agree the battles have been won?

Clearly not because we are having this discussion. And I think what is

new compared to 30 years ago is that it is more insidious, we're not

talking about female genital mutilation, we are not talking about

eight-year-olds marrying 40-year-olds as they do in other

parts of the world. Today, here, in my life and in my circle of people

that I mix with, something that's become terribly common place is how

sort of internalised, I would even go as far to say a kind of misogyny

has become. I don't think was prevalent when I was growing up and

for my mother's generation. You were most recently the victim of

trolling, on-line digital misogyny and your response to that when I

read, I thought it was quite calm it was unemotional, almost like you

didn't want to sound hysterical about it? I'm not on a rant or

picking a fight. For me feminism isn't about picking a fight. I'm

much more with Natasha. But it seems to me that I had a lot of trouble

with on-line trolling. It was clear that, I'm 58, I'm quite tough, I

have been around and I don't feel very bulliable. Yet there were a lot

of women who were getting much what I was getting who were afraid to go

out of their houses because people were going through on to their

Twitter feeds saying we are you outside. What would be your response

to Angela, who has just told us that the battles have been won and the

battles are now minor ones? I think of course there has been enormous

changes, there is a legislative framework which wasn't true in my

mother's generation for equal pay, equal rights and so forth. In some

ways I think we have done extremely well and we should be patting

ourselves on the back. But it is also absolutely clear, you only have

to look at sex sex to see the kind of stuff that is said about women

day by day. I think it is very easy to say of those things, look they

are terribly trivial, haven't you got a sense of humour. Let's bring

them up, you mentioned them, we have had a tie in today, our hashtag for

those of you following on Twitter is Hashimoto nn sexism. -- hashtag nn

sexism. This is one. 14 doing a paper round

in school uniform when a car of older guys start cat calling,

Tooting and shouting at me. Should she wave it away? I would be

concerned at a 14-year-old taking on a car full of guy, if any woman

feels she is the victim of sexual objection, there are resources and

ways to deal with that. The problem with sites like Everyday Sexism

Project is you have on the one side some deeply unpleasant tweets as we

saw in the film about the woman that was approached in the nightclub.

That's harassment, that is an issue for the law enforcement authorities.

And then you have people going on saying they are complaining because

they were called "blossom" in the office work place, everything is

lumped together. You mentioned "blossom", there is one that

mentioned flower, bring Laura said being called "flower" by a BT

salesman coming in to work to flog the man in charge cheaper broadband.

How do you react to that, do you cast it aside or do you risk being

called humourless or do you take it to a tribunal? Not this one, but

these kinds of examples? I think the really important point is that women

aren't being represented for what they are actually doing and

contributing in society. That is my main bug bear, the objection, what

we see -- objectionation, what we see representations of women, they

are pornographic images on the front covers of magazines and billboards,

that is largely how women are physically represented. My interest

was in sort of doing a thought reversal of if that was men who were

being represented in that way how would they feel. And how would we as

women respond to to that. Some women get empowered by that, if we look at

the typical page 3 girl, that is sexual objectcation. As a society we

should balk at, that I don't want my kids to look at that eating

breakfast. By the same token you can get a woman who feels empowered and

professionally successful sunbathing topless, what is the difference

between that. She objectifies herself? What shall we do about

these kinds of tweets, that was Emily's question. The things coming

up through Everyday Sexism Project. There is lots of things to do, you

can ridicule them, complain about them, you can giggle at the Lily

blokes saying this. But I think individually there is all sorts of

responses. But I think what -- silly blokes saying this. There are all

sorts of responses. It is the aggregate of this, it is not just

somebody calling you "blossom". The people who look on this website are

not the blokes presumably that are being discussed? That's not the

point though. I think the issue is, one of the questions that we are

still asking ourselves is why are there relatively few women in public

life. Why are there relatively few women at the top of industry. Why is

women's success above the glass ceiling so limited. One of the

answers might be is because actually when we go out the kind of stuff we

get delivered to us is this kind of crap. So the question is on a

practical level, yes it is great that you have this aggregate of

voices and people going on to a site to post, but if it was something

more than that, if they took it to the outside world, would you like to

see more practical endeavours rather than just going on-line and getting

it off your chest, do you think there should be quotas, solutions?

You have to go out and rant sometimes. There is a lot of knee

jerk push-button reaction, the thing about digital media we can be brave

as cyber warriors and not stand outside Downing Street with a

petition. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy somebody

starts a petition on-line saying women shouldn't be called "flower",

it gathers moment it up all of its own. In terms of prescription, what

would you do in terms of practical change? I actually think it is much

simpler than we imagine. I think for example small things and again

people think this is very archaic and old fashioned and ridiculous,

things like children's toys. I think it starts when kids go to play

school and this notion that there are Princesses and there are Knights

that rescue the Princesses, and a school book day at my kids, a bunch

of four or five-year-old, I counted one girl who was not a Princess. Now

there just aren't. What is so terribl I have got boys and a girl,

my little girl will play with the boys stuff if she wants to, or she

will go through the Princess moment if she wants to. We are biologically

wired to be different. That is fine you are offering her choices. She is

offering herself choice, she is empowered by the existence of dolls

and footballs. Ge Why do so many girls and it is a tragedy, when

there was a survey done for schoolgirls under the age of nine

who asked what they wanted to be when adult, they wanted to be a WAG,

a footballers wife, that was the aspiration.

Maybe that's for another discussion. Thank you all very much. I'm so

sorry we have run out of time then. Tomorrow the court martial of the

three Royal Marines for murder continues. With testimony from the

man known as Marine A, all three deny murdering an Afghan insurgent

as he lay badly wounded in a field. All have been granted anonymity, and

yesterday a judge ruled the video coverage of the incident which led

to their arrest should not be shown publicly. We We report on the

footage, none of the pictures are from the video in question. The

footage we can't show you tonight was shot on a helmet-mounted camera,

it was shown to a jury and military court in Wiltshire last week. The

video showed several minutes of recording shot by Marine B in a

field in September 2011 in Helmand, footage they presumably hoped would

never come to light. The jury made up of Royal Marines and Royal Navy

personnel watched as marine A, a Sergeant, shot the already badly

wounded insurgent in the chest at close range with a 9mm pistol. The

voices of all three accused can be heard on the video. .

The media asked for the footage to be made public, but yesterday the

judge rejected the idea, citing the risk to other serving personnel. He

said: The court martial continues, with

the defence expected to start tomorrow. Joining me now is the

former British Army officer Colonel Tim Collins, and journalist and film

maker Cray. Should material like this be made available, even if it

is occasionally damaging or embarrassing? I guess you know we

could turn British justice into the X Factor, where we let the public

decide. That is not how it is. I think there is great power in the

image. We saw disgraceful behaviour over the Mail on Sunday who took a

photograph which is many years old and tried to portray it as a current

photograph in order to stir up hatred against the British Army at

the weekend coming up to Remembrance Sunday. That sort of behaviour needs

to be deplored, that is what could happen with this material. I think

the problem is that if you want to avoid the damage caused by the lease

of footage of executions and war crimes and we don't know what

happened in this particular cautious but in general terms. Then you don't

commit the executions. Now that's not a trite thing to say, because it

goes to the heart of what we are talking about, which is how you stop

this kind of thing happening. It does go to the heart but you are

talking about a small number affecting an entire army. First of

all of course this case is isolated, but it is not unknown. You just need

to think back to the Mussa case where a prisoner was beaten to

DAECHLT there is a big inquiry going on about allegations of ex-judicial

killings after battle in Iraq. These incidents do happen, the question is

how do you stop them happening. That is fundamentally down to training in

ethics and laws of war. But it is also, if those techniques fail, then

I cannot think of anything better than reminding a shoulder than

anything they do might be filled. So in that case we shouldn't be

covering up the things that are actually happening, we are asking

the wrong questions here, we should be looking at why that is happening?

I think there is not covering up. There is where I differ with Callum,

you are alleging things happened, and it is happening in the trial.

You may know more than the judge at this stage. My understanding is

there is a lot of lies being told in that case. The bottom line is we do

have a judicial system here. It has to be followed. If you want to... We

also have a system of openness and transparency as far as possible

don't we? Where does the line on voyeurism and pornography and

titillation start and the line where the public needs to know. If you

have a murder trial and say I was disappointed and I didn't see the

goryist photographs, the judge will say you saw what you needed to see.

For a film maker you have had the accusations of gore and pornography

levelled at you, a film maker always wants to see more? The point is that

if you cover up this kind of evidence, then the danger is you

create. But it hasn't been covered up? If you try to restrict it from

public access. Who should be the judge, the public or the judge?

Ultimately the public has to see justice done. It is pornography? It

restrict and try to control it. Give me an example of a murder trial with

all the blood and guts. We don't expect to see that do we? No, but if

there is absolutely central evidence and there is the perception. If I

can make the point. The photographs and the faces of MRDered people that

is a good step forward, I don't think we, I don't think we need to

see the gore. Death is an unhappy thing, it is a private thing, we

don't need to see the detail unless for titillation. We are talking

about the alleged abuses that have gone on and whether that should be

sheltieered? There is a trial going on. I have seen death too it is a

very, very horrible thing, I have seen it in reality and footage. The

point is if the perception is created that you are trying to

conceal the reality of this, then you create the perception that there

is a culture let me finis let me finish. I don't if that is being

created. You create the perception that there is a culture of impunity,

that is the real danger. When soldiers in the opposition think

there is a culture of impunity. Do you think it will be better if they

see it than not? If there is cover up that is what causes suspicion and

fear. The we who win the battle for -- the way you win the battle for

hearts and minds is adhering to the rules of law not covering up for

concealing that laws have been broken. Absolute nonsense, the fact

is this is open law. What you are advocating is exactly what Al-Qaeda

and the murders, that is why they murdered Drummer Lee Rigby in

public, that is why they wanted to be photographed covered in the gore.

They are denying the murder. Titillation has no place in a

courthouse, no place in society. If you call it "titillation". That is

all it is. Who is covering it up, it is being shown to the jurors, they

are seeing it, those judge the evidence are seeing it, who else

needs to see it. It is just you and me? If the public and more

importantly the people with whom you may be in a war perceive that there

is a culture of impunity, perceive that you are covering up evidence of

crimes that creates suspicion, that increases the danger that the

soldiers are in. Do you think for a second they have any regard for us

at all and care what we do? I think we are out of time. Thank you for

coming in. Politics is my hobby, smut is my

vocation, declared the porn publisher, founder of Hustler and

free speech campaigner, Larry Flynt. Yet today he has waded into one of

the most heavily political disputes of our time. The right to life for a

man on death row, who murdered many and left Flynt paralysed from a

gunshot wound. He has been convicted of eight racially motivated murders

across the US, and confessed to many more. I asked Larry Flynt what

happened that day in 1978. I was on trial for obscenity in Georgia, I

was shot on my way to the courthouse. I woke up three months

later. Actually I was a whole year recovering. I really almost died as

a result of a gunshot wound. But the man who shot me was never

apprehended for several years. He been prosecuted and convicted for

killing some more people, they were all racially motivated crimes. He

was an avowed racist himself. He supposedly had shot me over a black

and white photo feature that we had published in a magazine. That was

what instigated it. The fact that he got the death penalty and these

other shootings that he done, never really changed my mind about that

particular issue. I just never felt it was a deterrent, and I always

felt that we focussed more on revenge than justice. He scheduled

to die next month, what would you like to see happen to him? I'm

opposed to the death penalty, he should spend the rest of his life in

prison. If the death penalty was a deterrent I could support it. Most

of the civilised nations agree on that point. We happen to be one that

doesn't. And I think it is ridiculous. You have said you would

like to spend an hour in a room with him. What did you mean with that? I

would like to inflict the same kind of puppishment that he did on me. I

-- punishment that he did on me. I said give me a screwdriver and I

could have some fun with him. It is not that I don't want to see him

punished for what he has done. I don't think that the Government

should be in the business of killing people. Does it make any difference

if the families of the other men he has killed want to see him die on

death row? No. It doesn't make any differences. I can't help it because

these people are ill-informed. You know. They subscribe to the biblical

philosophy and an eye for an eye. And it just doesn't make sense. You

mentioned your trial for obscenity, you of course scannedised --

scandalised America ten years ago with your take on the porn industry.

What do you think of that industry now? Today you know what I was being

criticised for and accused of everything that was wrong in America

is now being common place on the Internet. And on great deal of

television. Hustler magazine is very tame compared to what you see out

there in the rest of the media. What do you think of the porn on the

Internet now, should the Internet be unfettered or should there be

controls? That's like being partially pregnant, you either got a

free press or you don't. The one thing that Americans still cherish

is the right to a free press. At the moment the British press is

consumed with questions of its own freedoms. Do you believe that

freedom of speech within the British media and press is under threat? I

think they have a right to be concerned. Because as you know in

Great Britain you don't have a constitutional right to a free

press. So there is reasons to have pause about this, but the new

technology is what's raising all of these questions. So I think it is

time that the Government's get together with the technology people

and come out with some rules for us to live by. So you think that the

Government should have some kind of regulation over the press? No, I

didn't say that, but I'm saying the Government should have a right to be

able to protect people from an invasion of privacy. Or from basic

actions. Thank you very much. Just before we go, let's take you

through a quick whizz through the front

That's all for tonight, Jeremy is back tomorrow. We will leave you

with a post script to storm St Jude. The Atlantic swirls across the

Portuguese coast were an attempt to break the biggest wave surfed, then

along came a surfer's dream, all 100 feet of it.