20/01/2014 Newsnight

He certainly is not a household name, but the Liberal Democrats

failure to deal effectively with allegations against the party's

former chief executive are making it a laughing stock.

Here is a quick reminder of how the party's organised. Is it any

surprise it is in such a mess? Better to have a party of democrats

than dictators the Lib Dems tell me. When your entire leadership

structure looks like spaghetti, perhaps it is time for change.

First Iran was invited to the UN peace talks, then it got disinvited.

If he's so crucial to peace in Syria, where the clumsy

backpeddling. And... Ladies and gentlemen it looks

like we have a signal, looks like Rosetta has indeed woken up.

So the 500 million miles wake-up call works. Will Rosetta's space

mission tell us anything useful? The presenter of the Sky At Night

believes so, at least. Well, unless you have the misfortune

to be a Liberal Democrat, the sorry saga of Lord Rennard, the party

inquiry and the unissued apology is the gift that goes on giving. Sleazy

behaviour in an organisation built on piety, inept procedures, confused

leadership, embarrassment and bad feeling within the party.

Shaweden fraud everywhere else, Lord Rennard issued a very long statement

saying among other things that he hadn't even been allowed to see the

report into accusations that he sexually harassed fellow party

members. Is it any way to run a party. When I meet people around the

country it is obvious that many of you have strong and mixed

reactions... . Nick Clegg did know how to say sorry, he did it in a

video which some kind soul set to music lest anyone forget the lyrics.

# I'm sorry # I'm sorry

This morning he called on the party's former chief executive, Lord

Rennard, to do the same, not for failing on promises, but of claims

several activists have made of unwanted sexual advances.

Today we looked everywhere for Lord Rennard, to no avail. As the day

progressed it appeared an apology was not forth coming. Earlier this

afternoon his suspension from the party was announced, spending a

further inquiry into his -- pending a further inquiry into his past

actions. He released a lengthy statement. He repeated his denial of

the distress for the women. And said he regretted any embarrassment or

hurt or upset he caused. But he did not want to apologise fearing future

civil action. Plus he said he didn't believe people should be forced to

say things they do not mean. Support from that from friends in

the Lords at the weekend. Comparing Nick Clegg of this. The North Korean

judicial system looking benign. Some have spotted a problem with the

analogy. The North Korean hierarchy looks like this and the structure of

the Lib Dems' hierarchy looks like this. Nick Clegg, curiously up here

in the left top corner has said it is unacceptable for Lord Rennard to

carry on in the Lords you without a fulsome apology. Lord Rennard who

sits on the Lords and place on the Federal Policy Committee, has made

it clear he won't. Under the Lib Dem party structure Nick Clegg can't

remove the whip, only the Lib Dem leader of the Lords can. Even then

he can be overturned by a vote from peers. Now Lord Rennard's suspension

today was at the hands of the regional parties commission which

doesn't seem to be on here. Everyone got that? Shaun Kemp, the Deputy

Prime Minister's former special adviser, tells me the slightly

arcane structure has served them well in the past, on coalition

negotiations for example. But... It strikes me there is another side to

the coin, that is the good thing of the level of accountability and

democracy. Where you have a situation where the

democratically-elected leader of the party can't even remove the whip

from a member of his own party in the House of Lords without

potentionally facing a vote in the House of Lords from the unelected

colleagues of that person, then I think we do have to ask some

questions about is that structure set up in the right way? Is it set

up in a way that is good practice or politics? Would the answer to that

question be, questionings definitely not"? I think there has to be a way

that a party can preserve what is good about the checks and balances

and democracy. But we have to let the party leader, elected by all

members, to owe cruellyly take quick decisions when in the best interests

of the party. Close friends of Lord Rennard say he sees himself as a

hero of the party, and feels persecuted by what he would call "an

unfair line of attack". He talks in his statement of a smear campaign

against him. Interestingly he thanks his friends in the Lords for their

support, he suggests they should let the matter rest. An indication that

their swords have not always been helpful to him? I'm not sure anyone

has done the process any favour over the weekend. We should have had a

period of calm reflection. The disciplinary procedure had been gone

through, recommendations had been made. And time should have been

taken to allow those recommendations to be implemented. Rather than trial

by media. There is, of course, a very human

face to this strategy, the man who brought the Liberal Democrats

victory after victory for decade, now says he's considering legal

action against his own party. In North Korea they faced down that

behaviour with wild dogs. The Liberal Democrats, well as you have

heard, they prefer another inquiry. With us now from Norwich is Bridget

hare risks one of the women who complained about Lord Rennard, also

here is Lord Greaves, a senior Lib Dem member of the House of Lords. We

asked for someone to speak on behalf of the Lib Dem leadership, but it

took them nine hours and at the end of that time they were unable to

offer us anyone Bridge Bridget Harris, Lord Rennard

says he can't issue an apology for fear of you and others might sue?

Obviously I can't answer that question, it clearly depends on all

the circumstances. Yes you can, if he said sorry would you sue? What I

could say is I'm happy to accept on a personal level his apology. If

he's willing to take responsibility for his actions. But the real

absent. He can't say sorry because it is admitting something for which

you, you say, or imply, clearly might sue him? Well of course, there

we are. That is the conundrum that we face. We have never had a proper

disciplinary procedure or investigation that has been able to

question or investigate or indeed even cross-examine the evidence that

both myself and the other women and also Lord Rennard has put forward.

All we have had is investigations to have found them to be credible, that

what myself and the other women have said is believable. Nobody over the

last 11 months has questioned anything we have said. The problem

is the Liberal Democrats manifestly failed over a period of ten years to

investigate these allegations and complaints, in the way that any

other normal organisation or work place discrimination procedure would

have done. Lord Greaves, how much damage is this doing to the party?

It is doing a lot of damage. It is getting worse by the day. It was bad

enough yesterday, it last got worse with everything that's happened

today. Quite frankly, the party has got to take action to stop it

getting worse and then start getting better. It has tried to do that by

telling Lord Rennard he should apologise? The problem is, I don't

want to go into the details of all of that, which have been analysed

hugely in the media. But the real problem, I think, is that the

leadership of the party, broadly defined, not just Nick Clegg, have

taken action which actually has rebounded and made matters worse.

That's incompetent leadership. I think the advice that they have been

getting, for example, when the report was first issued it was

obviously that there had to be a news management strategy by people

in the party. It was a difficult issue. That should have been a joint

strategy between the leadership and Lord Rennard. They failed hopelessly

to do that. Everything that has happened has created more stress in

the party, more uproar in different parts of the party. So what we have

now got is two different factions, if you like in the party, two groups

of people who are approaching this from completely different angles and

who increasingly are falling out with each other. They are simply

chucking missiles at each other and now we're being told that Lord

Rennard may be taking legal action, bridge get Harris says she may be

taking legal action. This is a nightmare. The decision today to

suspend Lord Rennard and have a new disciplinary procedure is likely

take several months. There is a whole series of timebombs being laid

for the future where legal action, legal action, a new inquiry that

will report perhaps a few weeks, or very soon before the next round of

elections. It is nonsense. What the party really has to do now is to get

a grip on this and set up a reconciliation and mediation system

to bring the two sides together, start them talking and work towards

whatever levels of agreement that can be reached. That is a very

Liberal Democrat solution? It is not, on a much grander scale it

happened in South Africa. It got Ian Paisley sitting down with people he

would never have. That is the process that now should take place.

Bridget do you worry about the damage this is doing to your party?

Yes, obviously in many ways. But I think that is one of the core

problems. The way that Lord Greaves described it, I think the colloquial

expression would be "we don't wash our dirty linen in public". As he

has rightly said it causes a lot of damage, it is horrible to see all

the infighting, why not all shut up and deal with it behind closed

doors. That is the very tactic they took over ten years to try to deal

with. If they tried to deal with the allegations the women were making

behind closed doors, through informal processes, trying to get

everyone to informally and quietly and privately say sorry and work it

all out between them and find some redress. The consequence of that was

nobody in the party actually in recent times were aware of the fact

that these galeses surrounded Lord Rennard. He was becoming --

allegations surrounded Lord Rennard, and he was becoming more and more

involved in the party and being invited to gender-balanced weekends

for the party. That was worrying the women. When you don't deal with the

process according to fair and straight forward rules. This is all

in the past, we can argue about the past over ten years and over the

past year, we can argue about the last few days. The problem is we are

where we are now, and the party is in a dreadful state. Therefore we

have to take it from where we are now and set up a process, which

would be inclusive, which would be completely inclusive, but where the

different people and the different sides of the party start to work

together again. We are all supposed to be liberal, Liberal Democrats. At

the moment increasingly we are all falling out with the people who are

supposed to be our colleagues and our comrades in arms. Just engage

with that Bridget Harris? I would like to, directly. We are not all

friends and colleagues when actually one of us is accused of sexual

harassment, that is something where myself and other women are perfectly

entitled to take forward a complaint. I don't see why party

loyalty should come into it. I'm perfectly loyal to Liberal Democrats

and the policies and the coalition and the Government. I'm perfectly

loyal to the liberal cause. Why what I don't see why I'm responsible for

or loyal to is when somebody absolutely inappropriately tries to

take advantage of their power position or nor do I believe it is

very fair for other people. We have heard you saying this over again and

we are where we are, we understand the arguments. I'm not talking about

Lord Rennard in particular, I'm talking about the fact that people I

have worked with and campaigned with thought well up the 50 years are

falling out in droves and are getting very angry with each other

in a way which unless it is solved and sorted out, which will take some

time, but unless it is sorted out it is going to produce fault lines and

schisms in the party which will last for years. Thank you both very much.

I will have to cut you off there. Thank you very much. Coming up:

Last night the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, invited Iran to talks

supposed to move Syria towards an end of its Civil War. When some of

the Syrian opposition discovered that he had failed to get Iran's

agreement to what's already been determined, they developed cold

feet. So the world's most senior public servant spent much of the day

ducking and diving to avoid explaining how he had managed to

make such a Horlicks of what is supposed to be such an important and

carefully thought-through peace conference. Tonight? Tonight a

little over an hour ago he withdrew the invitation to Iran.

This is a real shambles isn't it? It looks like diplomatic attempt to

bounce Iran into these talks, it has gone horribly wrong. When Ki-Moon

announced this unexpectedly on Sunday night, there was an immediate

reaction from the sane Syrian opposition group, and the Syrian

national opposition, who said hang on, this wasn't what we agreed. Iran

one of President Assad's Mainz backers. The same came out of the

state department the following morning. What followed, as you said,

was ducking and diving, and then this uninvited. At issue was the

Geneva communique of 2012, which was the basis for these talks on Friday.

Which essentially calls for a negotiated transition of power in

Sirria. To western powers, US and Britain included, means without

President Assad. It seems that Ban Ki-Moon thought he had an agreement

from the Iranians that they would recognise that basis. It seems he

was wrong. That led to this uninvite. The question is how many

people were on board? I have spoken tonight to a senior US official who

said the Americans were on board all the way until the Iranians did what

seems to be an about-face. The talk seemed to be saved, the Syrian

National Coalition which had to be strong armed into going say they are

going now and it is a huge who blah to the United Nations -- blow to the

United Nations. What next? The talks will happen but it is questionable

whether we are closer or better off this evening after this Iranian

invite and uninvite than we were before we happened. The man

conducting the negotiations will be sitting in a room with one group of

people who don't accept the premise of a negotiated transfer without

President Assad, that is the Syrian Government. The other group of

people who are the Syrian National Coalition who don't represent the

fighters doing the war on the ground. Diplomats have been playing

down expectations of what can come out of this. They are saying it is a

start, the beginning of a process, what we might see best case

scenario, some very small negotiated solutions to local ceasefires to get

aid in. In a war that has produced much horror, there was further

horror this evening? Yes, we saw a cachet of pictures. We can show you

one of them now that you will almost certainly find disturbing. It is one

of more than 50,000 images that have come out in a report tonight. The

authors of the report say show systematic abuse and killing of

detainees in Syria's jails. I should say the report was commissioned by

Qatar, which is participant in the war, it is supporting some of the

Syrian opposition groups. It has been put together by a London firm

of lawyers. But it has also been showed to some very eminent

international lawyers and some forensic experts. It shows mostly

pictures of young men, emaciated, apparently starved to death, many of

them, their bodies showing signs of torture, strangulation and the like.

The report says they were taken by a military policeman working for the

Syrian regime between March 2011, and right at the beginning of the

protest and last August. The report's author said they have made

them available to the United Nations and human rights groups and the

lawyers who examined them say this brings up the possibility of human

rights charges. But I think the emotional impact these pictures have

make it possible, they might become a totemic emotional rallying cry for

international opinion. Joining us from Washington is PJ Crawley,

former US Secretary of State, with us is the former Editor in Chief of

for Foreign Followcy Magazine. Let's talk a little bit about this

invitation and withdrawal of invitation. It does look

extraordinarily inept, doesn't it? I think what Ban Ki-Moon ultimately

faced was two unresolvable situations under the current set of

circumstances. I think it is any diplomatic process involving Syria,

Iran has to be part of the process other it will try to undermine the

process from outside. What he was forced to do today is avoid void the

total collapse of the process before it began. He probably faced the

Syrian opposition not showing up on Wednesday and not being prepared to

sit down with the Syrian Government on Friday. Is this what happens when

you try to incorporate a country like Iran in a process like this

Geneva business, of trying to get a settlement in Syria? It is that, but

more importantly it is another man festation of a trend where power is

fragments and diffused, everybody has a little power, but nobody has

the power to create a structure and the levers that makes things happen.

The UN, we just saw what happened, the United States doesn't have all

the power, not even the Saudi, Iran, no-one seems to have the power.

Everyone has a little bit of power, no-one has the power to create the

possibility of progress. Yet, presumably on the other hand, if you

don't involve players like Iran, which has a very complicated agenda.

A complicated role in that part of the world and elsewhere. If you

don't engage them, you can't make any progress, can you? It is hard to

imagine that you have a solution to the Syria situation without Iran

being part of the conversation. And agreeing to some of the some of the

terms. That is impossible. Statement the centre of these negotiations in

Geneva is the idea of creating a transitional Government. That it is

unacceptable to the Government and to the Iranians. Do you think it was

wise to involve the Iranians overtly in these talks? That has been a

source of disagreement for the United Nations, who wants Iran in at

the start, and the United States who wants Iran in but only in certain

circumstances. It just underscores as was said, the complex politics

behind this. Everyone has a negative card, no-one has a solid hand that

actually can make progress. Ultimately we don't have the

conditions. Getting the process started is useful. Ultimately there

has to be diplomatic solution, there can't be a military solution. It

reminds me of Bosnia, we may well see years before the conditions come

together that lead to diplomatic breakthrough. And getting this

process started and trying to deal with some interim steps. How can you

narrow the conflict? How can you create safe areas where you can

deliver humanitarian assistance, then work the politics and ultimate

diplomatic solution down the road, extraordinarily complex. In the end

there are an awful lot of unshowns in all of this, aren't there? Yes,

will the's not forget these negotiations and the role of Iran in

these negotiations is going on at the same time where there is a

larger negotiation concerning Iran's nuclear problem at this point for

Iran the Mainz point is to get the economy back on stack. You know it

has been devastated by sanctions, they are willing, they are making

concessions, the Iranians have promised that they are going to move

forward. As long as they get the sanctions lowered.

But that was a process, the negotiations with Iran about their

nuclear programme. It was conducted pretty quietly. From which suddenly

a conclusion is declared to the world. It is unlike participation in

a highly visited conference like the one in Geneva? We don't know if

something like that w going on in the case of Syria. The problem with

Syria is you have many more players. It is not just the two Mainz players

and Iran the nuclear problem, the United States senior officers

meeting with the Ukrainian. There is all sorts of players having a say

son the matter. The problem is the situation is so fragments, power is

so diffused and distressed it is hard to know who they are. Even who

you talk to, even the members of the opposition in Syria who have been

invited do not represent the whole spectrum of players in the

opposition. There are some fighters there that are significant, that

have power and fire power that are not part of the conversation. Is the

United Nations the appropriate vehicle to be conducted these sorts

of talks? I think it is the only vehicle that all the players can at

least pay some attention to, or not dismiss lightly. Following up on

what was said, I also think that the politics are not necessarily clear

in Iran. Foreign ministers may well have given Ban Ki-Moon some

assurance in private that it accepted the Geneva principle,

including at least the idea of a muttal acceptable Government of

transition. But reap today was unwilling to say that publicly, and

there are all kinds of hardliners, from a public standpoint if Iran is

unwilling to say it is at least open to an idea that Al-Assad has to step

aside. That became a bridge too far not just for the UN or the United

States. It puts it above the Syria issue in terms of importance, but a

bridge too far for Iran itself. The distressing aspect of the

diplomatic shenanigans, is upon them and a conclusion of a successful

arangment to end the war, hang the lives of thousands of men, women and

children. The Syrian Civil War has been a big test of President Obama's

ability to act as international policeman. He hasn't emerged from

that test covered in glory. We have been covering the Syrian Civil War

against it began, this is the assessment.

It is time for Al-Assad to get out of the way. The only way to bring

stability and peace to Syria is for Al-Assad to step down. We We condemn

this indiscriminate killing, it is further evidence that Al-Assad has

to go. We sat by and did relatively nothing, despite what the

administration may claim. The President for a perfectly

understandable reason, really has wanted to keep this problem at arm's

length. He really has wanted it to disappear.

I have been crossing over this border into Syria for two-and-a-half

years, and seen hundreds of refugee camps. What began as a largely

peaceful process, has descended into an appalling stifle war. Killing

more than 100,000 people and displacing millions. On the eve of

the latest attempt to strike a peace deal, diplomacy is giving it another

shot. There is little chance for optimisim. Despite their rhetoric,

the US and others have failed to dislodge President Assad.

August 2011, the uprising is five months old, under pressure to

respond to Syria's crackdown on protestors, it is said Bashar

Al-Assad must go. He draws a line on chemical weapons, June 201, the

White House says the red line has been breached but no major response.

Two months later a chemical attack in Damascus kills hundreds. Obama

calls for parliament to vote for military action? The following month

Syria agrees to decommissioning the weapons.

When Barack Obama took office he wanted to reset the US relationship

with the Islamic nations. He promised a new beginning, democratic

change to the east. Syria broke the mould, its ethnic and regional

aspects made things difficult. He had powerful allies and friends on

the UN Security Council. Critics described a divided administration,

led by a President whose focus was elsewhere. I don't think it was ever

his intention that Syria would be in a humanitarian cat it is a

troughity. -- catastrophe. It was never his intention that Al-Qaeda,

of all things, should arise in the eastern part of the country. It was

never his intention that Syria would be sliding inexorably into a

peculiar form of state failure. But all of these are cons sequence,

unintended as they may be of the policy that's been pursued for the

last 33 months. What began as a peaceful protest

movement was met with an iron fist. President Obama, Cameron and the

French and German leaders all said Al-Assad must step aside. Sanctions

were imposed, embassies closed, and limited aid for rebel fighters.

Efforts to support the opposition pressure the Syrian regime and hold

the violence, and produce few results on the ground. The rebels

have now moved up because the Government's (gunfire) has been

trying to push into this area. It is a very confused situation, we know

there are snipers all around here. Because it is an urban area the

sounds ring out, but you can't tell which direction they are actually

coming from. When some in the administration

wanted to give weapons to the rebels, President Obama was said to

be disengaged. Worried that Ameri would become embroilled in the

region again. The President, I do not believe

understands the importance of American exceptionalism. I don't

think he appreciates that if there is a vacuum, because of a withdrawal

of American troops, and lack of leadership, that vacuum can be

filled by very, very bad people who do not hold the standards and values

of international conduct that we do. In foreign affairs he is persuaded

that the United States needs to spend more sustained attention to

Asia and China. Syria has not figured in his sense

of priority, so he's really trying to keep the problem at arm's length

and hopefully it would solve itself. Opposition groups supported by the

west had little power on the ground, as the conflict intensified,

increasingly radical fighters filled the vacuum, and the bloodshed

escalated. This is a simply appalling situation, the doctors

have tried to revive this young man and failed. He has just been

pronounced dead. The situation inside here is one of unbelievable

chaos. When hundreds were killed in a chemical take last August,

President Obama blamed the Syrian Government and authorised military

force. We had a long meeting with the President in the Oval office,

and this was after the latest chemical and weapons attack by

Bashar Al-Assad. He said he wanted to do three things, one degrade

Bashar Al-Assad's chemical weapons capability. Increase support to the

opposition and reverse the moment um on the battlefield -- the momentum

on the battlefield against Bashar Al-Assad. We went and told the press

what the President said. Never again did he mention those latter two. Did

you detect the President was looking for a way out or alternative. Not

just in the words he was using but the way he presented the arguments

to you and senator Graham? I may not have thought he was looking for a

way out. But I certainly detected a lack of enthusiasm. The President

changed tack, asking a reluctant Congress to vote on military action.

When Syria agreed to decommission its chemical weapons, strikes were

put on hold and the vote called off. The President had to contend with a

war-weary public and the White House believed it successfully contained

President Assad and brought Damascus to the negotiating table. I spent

the last two years travelling inside northern Syria and witnessed its

dissent into chaos. What is in effect a failed state. Now critics

of the administration would say that is partly result of the The the lack

of engagment. We want to keep institutions intact and prevent a

vacuum that is filled by forces in their own way could be as bad Assad

Al-Assad. It is through negotiated transition. One interesting

development that has a good side and a very bad side. The bad side is

what you alluded to, which is the increasing prominence of extremist

groups inside Sirria. They pose a danger today and a greater one in

the future. Once What that has done is concentrate the minds outside of

Syria. If the talks happened and America

and Russia will have brought parts of the opposition and the Government

of Syria together for the first time. That will be an achievement.

For those fighting on the other side of the border, they won't be

represented, and unlikely to be persuade by any deal. In effect the

lack of a cohesive policy and the interference of outside powers has

allowed the war and extremism to flourish, some fear it has

diminished America's standing in the region. Crucially the bloodshed and

chaos inside Syria are unlikely to abate.

That was my guests, let's return to the pictures allegedly showing

porture in Syria. We now have via Skype the barrister Jeffrey Knight,

who prosecuted Slobodan Milosevic for the European war crimes tribal.

What do you -- tribunal. What do you make of the pictures? The same as

what I make of the evidence as a whole. The inquiry team presided

over by Sir Desmond was asked to reconsider. We were asked to look at

the reliability liability or owe reliability of -- the reliability of

the evidence as if in court. We were asked if it might be acceptable in a

court in support of certain kinds of allegations. The images which are a

small selection of some 23,000 images that have already been

reviewed by the scientists on the inquiry team and of themselves

partly we understand of a similar 20,000 images, show some what

systematic treatment of dead bodies that have about them recurring

features of apparent starvation. Of being beaten, of being subject to

ligatures, not hanging, but ligatures around the neck. Also some

evidence of elect cushion. Electrocution. The patterns of

markings on the body have been removed because of security and

sensitivity to the family of the person who has died, show the

particular Security Service that it has been said by the witness, who we

found no reason to disbelieve, showed the Security Service of the

concern that dealt with the execution of the person. Other

markings on the body had been obscured for the same security and

sensitivity reasons and might give the identity of the person. And of

the faces of course that have been blanked out for reasons of the

family sensitivity. Those features of bodies coming from

detention centres and photographed in hospitals and according to the

witness there after buried in some rural location. They are the sorts

of systematic behaviour that point to not any local criminality but

towards the systematic, and the widespread and systematic conduct of

the officers of the state that would constitute a jury or panel of

judges, to accept the evidence of crimes against humanity. Thank you

very much indeed. Anyone who has ever had a teenager is familiar with

the troublesome 11.00am wake-up call. It doesn't usually follow

two-and-a-half years of sleep. On the other hand the resipant of the

alarm call isn't usually 500 million miles away. More's the pity you

might say. Officials at the space station were not sure that it would

wake up after getting his alarm, but the shuttle, Rosetta, did wake up.

All it needs to do is meet an as significant nation named 67 P, later

this year. Earlier I spoke to Professor mark -- mark McCockrin.

What was the feeling when you saw Rosetta switched on again? It is

hard to describe the attention in the room at that time. There is not

enou cliches, I don't think. The signal came a bit late, later than

we anticipated. It was coming out, I was going to say a bolt out of the

blue, it was more like a bolt out of the black. It was no context, it

wasn't like we were handing somewhere or docking with a

spacecraft. We were waiting, when the signal started building up on

the screen. The sense of rebelief was astonishing. We are slightly

reserved European, we looked around, do we hug and shout. We thought,

yes, 20 years after the mission started we will have some release

here. I don't want to rain on your parade, it implies you don't have

confidence in your technology? We had actually tried it out before we

went into hibernation. Where he We tried it out 31 months ago and a bit

before that. We had a good idea how this was going to play out. But, it

is the first time we have ever taken a spacecraft like this and cold

soaked it out in the Solar System by Jupiter. There were some elements we

are uncertain about, it could have come an hour or two hours later. And

we wouldn't have been technically worried, but would have been biting

our nails. I think we were probably 95% certain. I can say that in the

full confidence of hindsight. Here now is Dr Chris Lintott, a

cosmologyist and presenter of Sky At Night. It would have been

embarrassing if it didn't wake up? It is, it is working, and it is good

it is accepting back data about how he's doing. Didn't that look like a

staged celebration? It is a very European celebration, this is how

you tell it is not a NASA mission. You know the feeling of setting an

alarm and waking up in the middle of the night and not certain it is

going to go off. That is what I felt earlier today. For those working on

the mission for 20 years that was a big moment. You mentioned 20 years,

when the project was authorised, 1993. At that time it seemed a

sensible mission, 20 years on is it still a sensible mission? It is rare

in space science to do something never done before. This probe will

ride alongside a comet, after it sling shots around and gives off

water, gas and dust. We have never seen it happen before. We have flown

past comments but never alongside one. The chance to see things that

one hasn't before is very exciting. Let me put a penny-pinching

question, of course you are very excited, how much money is spend on

this? About are a billion euros, about the same of the # 80s as an

information metaphor. Anyone will be glad to have that kind of money to

blow on an enthusiasm? The money doesn't go to the comet, it is spent

here on earth and goes to people and technology and industries throughout

Europe, this is money well spent and we will get a fabulous ride out of

it as a bonus. What is so exciting about going to a comet, we know it

has water on it, we already know that? We do, but not whoa what type

of water. There is a Serie that all the water of the earth, including

this cup, came from comets. It will have come, we think, from comets

just like the one Rosetta will chase. Rosetta will put a land on

the comet and take a fresh sample left over from the Solar System and

tell us whether earth's water did really come from space in this way.

Isn't that common sense? We know it was volatile and hot, it had water

in the early days, we think it evaporated. We are learning the

story of our own planet and learning a history lesson for years. The

Oxford Dictionary defines a cafe as a small restaurant selling light

meals and drinks. If a new chain of coffee shops takes off, that

definition will have to be big changes. There is no charge for

coffee tea and biscuits, just the time you spend there.

To a part of Shoreditch, where Greeks come after buying up other

parts of London. You have to pass a fashion exam to get past the

borders. Up two flights of stairs in East

London. This is the happening new "joint" for your daily hit of Joe.

First collect your carefully-coursed alarm clock. I'm no Fiona Bruce, but

it is late 20th century, if I'm not mistake. The idea is you pay for the

time you spend here, not what you eat or drink. This discreet visual

aid will monitor how much of your license fee we are ploughing into

the cap. In a moment we will get a review of Scott Bentley from the

coffee-lovers magazine. That is not amazing. But first, good

old Scott is making us coffee. Good action. It is not BYO here, but it

is DIY. WTF? When people come to cafe, they buy things and they feel

some how the pressure. They have to buy new cups, every half an hour or

wise the waiter won't be happy with you. You feel guilty because you sit

too long. Here the place is so cheap and you can drink as much coffee as

you want. Ivan is the young Russian entrepeneur behind the Black Cafe.

There is several in his homeland? The consumption system puts you in a

position of someone like a servant and someone as consumers. In fact we

are all equal, we would love to speak to each other like we are.

Like John and sellia or someone. Sylvia.

What is to stop one naveling all of s -- snaffleing it all. We read the

tea loaves. If I do something for you I want you to do it back to me.

In fairness, fairness trumping everything else, it trumps money. I

guess in this case the act of giving people an environment where they can

be free and help themselves, means there is an onus on those to respect

that, therefore they return the favour and it is fair. We have run

up a tab of 6p in the cafe that charges by the minute.

It is like you have gone round to yourian's for a cup of tea. It is

great, we don't have a lot, instead of renting a studio and something, I

would come here. It is a niche market, it is great to see creative

people around. It is for people like us, young and cool and yeah, that

has stunned you! What about the man from caffeine magazine, can he see

this pay per minute coffee shop being something that will catch off?

It is a place to meet, friends, family, business aGanttances, that

happens everywhere, I don't think there is too much of a problem. I

think the coolness of it is definitely working here. Here Here

in Shoreditch, but a lot is down to the deck cor as well. As the --

decor as well. As many say, been there done that.

Steve Smith living near the edge there. That is all we have time for