19/02/2014 Newsnight

streets of Kiev may be nearing an end, an hour and a bit ago the

President of Ukraine claimed to have agreed what he called a truce with

the leaders of the opposition for a realignment in the country. Will the

protesters pack up and go home? Our reporter is in Kiev watching the

scenes on the streets for us. And we will talk to one of the country's

deputy prime ministers. How Tony Blair offered Rebekah Brooks and

Rupert Murdoch a shoulder to cry on when the phone hacking scandal

broke. How campuses in America is place of sexual danger for women,

why some rape victims find college authorities the most unsympathetic

of protectors. He told me he would have to be in the room with me when

I testified, and he would get to ask me direct questions about what

happened. And Alan Alda, also known as Hawkeye from MASH joins us from

New York to explain why he's hunting for a scientist who can explain what

colour is in terms of which a child can understand. He had remained

adamant that there could be no compromise, but tonight President

Yanukovych of Ukraine talked to leaders of the protest which have

paralysed the capital of his country. Faced with promised

sanctions from the European Union, vague threats from Washington and

most of all by the possibility that a deteriorating situation could yet

get much worse, his spokesman announced tonight that a truce had

been agreed. Newsnight's in Kiev, we will talk after this.

Independence Square is not the place it was. Yesterday 's death have

shattered the status quo. Instead of singing songs, now they are smashing

up the payment. -- pavement. Men and women, young and old alike.

REPORTER: What are you doing? We are preparing weapons for the

revolution. This woman is a middle-class office worker? We now

have dozens of killed people so definitely a lot has changed. I have

heard people talk about Civil War is that even possible? We are on the

brink of that. We are quite close to that. Nearby another woman,

carefully pouring petrol into a plastic bottle. But these are now

ordinary Molotov cocktails, they are adding little crumbs of polystyrene,

when lit they will act like napalm, a shower of burning plastic that

clings to the skin. Not as sophisticated the weaponry the

protesters themselves are up against perhaps, but no less effective. The

west, they are trying to negotiate, to talk, but to talk with these

people is not the option. They only understand force. You say you are

not talking about violence and yet here people are preparing to use

violence against the state, isn't that just going to make it worse?

Well, you know, if someone punches you or is going to you know to shoot

you what are you going to do. How will you protect yourself? (Gunfire)

last night's violence was the worst in Ukraine's post-Soviet history.

The propertiors were taken by surprise when after months in --

protesters were taken by surprise when after months in control the

riot police attacked, setting their tents alight. By this afternoon

parts of Kiev looked like a warzone, the streets surrounding the

parliament building scarred and deserted. Each side has accused the

other of using live ammunition. The police have taken back some ground,

the protestors' citadel has shrunk, but they are still here. Tonight we

watched them reinforce their barricades, everyone knows this

isn't finished yet. Despite talk of a truce, everyone here expects

another onslaught. One protestor told me they were scared last night,

but the really scary thing is now they have accepted the idea of

violence. So the demonstrators have retreated,

moving part of their operation away from the frontline. They are

preparing for another busy night treating people here at the orthodox

Cathedral. This is St Michael's. Under communism the place was blown

up, Stalin had it dynamited. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it

was rebuilt as a symbol of Ukraine's independence. Now this magnificent

Cathedral has been turned into a makeshift hospital, giving treatment

and shelt to people whom the Government cas "terrorists", the

church is in open defiance of the state. TRANSLATION: It was like a

battlefield says Alexander, who in more peaceful times is a humble GP.

The police just smashed everything. Tonight we watched some riot

policemen pull back from their newly-gained position, others soon

replaced them. If this is a truce it is a very uneasy one indeed. Let's

talk to Gabriel Gatehouse in Kiev for us now. Gabriel, what is the

feeling there about whether this truce means anything? Around about

the time that the truce was announced we heard a few volleys of

firework, you can probably hear one just behind me there, that might

have been a stun grenade. We have heard these gangs going off

periodically throughout the evening, but no real fighting. So if this is

what a truce is, then it is holding. One of the opposition leaders said

apparently that Viktor Yanukovych, the President, has given an

undertaking not to storm the square. That apparently is the content of

this truce, they said they tried to find situation of stablising the

situation, but they haven't said how they are going to do that. What is

clear is Viktor Yanukovych is under huge international pressure today.

We understand that the state department has found 20 names of

people they want to restrict visas to, who they blame for the violence.

We understand that the foreign ministers of France, Germany and

Poland are already in Kiev and they are to have a meeting with Viktor

Yanukovych tomorrow, before flying to Brussels to discuss again

possible sanctions against those in the Government that they hold

responsible for this violence. On the ground, the feeling very much is

one of shock, how people are asking could things have turned so violent

so suddenly with those 26 deaths. People can't understand it and very

much on the square there is a feeling that this is not over yet.

We will be back to you in a moment or two. A little earlier I spoke to

one of Ukraine's most senior political figure, the vice Prime

Minister, Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, we spoke to him just before the truce

was announced. The Kremlin spokesman today

described what was happening on the streets of your capital as an

attempted coup. Is that how you see it? I see it as a very tense moment

in our development as a free, democratic nation. What we face is

the need for all the players to listen to each other, to understand

what is the dangers which loom on these particular countries at this

particular time and find a solution. , jointly. That is something we need

to do together. Meaning the Government, the leaders of the

opposition and the people whom the leaders of the opposition do not

control. Isn't the obvious way to make a start on a settlement for

President Yanukovych to put himself up for re-election and see what

happens? Well for re-election or elections, regular or nap selections

-- snap elections you need to have stability in society. You can't have

elections under the barrel of a gun. You cannot really make it democratic

and elections that will be accepted by the whole of the Ukraine. Do you

worry about these threatened European Union sanctions? The need

to listen to our international partners, be it in Europe or across

the ocean we take into account But nobody can do the work for us, that

is why we are making sure what we have to discuss among the political

spectrum inside the country is not being compromised by whatever

external factors either from the east or west. Gabriel Gatehouse is

still with us in Kiev. Looking ahead, is it possible to make any

prediction? It is interesting, you mentioned the sacking of the head of

the army there with the Deputy Prime Minister. The one unspoken mostly

fear on everyone's minds is the question of a Civil War here. Could

this develop into something much worse. Now the sacking of the head

of the army, they didn't give any reason for it, but it was preceded

by some very interesting events. Last night while events were going

on here in the square behind me, there was also reports that in some

prove VIPGS cities, especially west of here, certain institutions and

security installations had also come under pressure from protesters and

had been taken over by some protestors. Later on today we saw a

statement on the website of the Ministry of Defence. I think that's

fireworks incidentally you can hear behind me that the protesters have

been taken to firing at the police. A statement on the Ministry of

Defence saying that the army reserved the right to go into

antiterrorist operations. It seemed like a clear threat to get involved

in this stand-off here. Very shortly after that, we saw the sacking of

the army. Now whether that was to try to keep control of the military

on the part of the President or to try to give yet another concession

to the protesters, we don't really know. The feeling on the square is

that President Yanukovych has pretty much given every single concession

he could have given apart from the ultimate one which is to resign

himself. That hasn't happened. The Old Bailey trial of two former

editors of the News of the World heard an extraordinary e-mail read

out today, in it Brooks Brookes Brooks, one of the two editors --

Rebekah Brooks reported a conversation she had with Tony

Blair. In the talk the former Prime Minister, now embarked on his

post-abdication career of getting very rich, reassured her about how

to handle the phone hacking scandal and offered to act as an unofficial

adviser to Rupert Murdoch. We have the case now. First of all to give

this a little bit of context, this e-mail was written on the 11th July

to 2011. That is a week after the story of Milly Dowler's phone being

hacked. It is the day after the last ever News of the World issue was

published. This is right in the heart and heat of the crisis.

Rebekah Brooks writes an e-mail to her boss at the time, James Murdoch,

in which we recounts an hour-long conversation she had with Tony

Blair. On the face of it he is simply offering advice on how to

handle the crisis. He suggests setting up an independent inquiry

which would investigate what had gone on. And then, this is the

critical bit, according to Rebekah Brooks he says it would publish a

hutten-style report. That is a reference to the review of the David

Kelly case that got the BBC into hot water all that time ago. That could

be seen as a marker of thoroughness and transparency or depending on

which position you take, something quite different. He offered personal

advice, he said "keep strong and definitely sleeping pills, need to

have clear heads, remember no rash short-term solutions as they only

give you long-term headaches", I wonder what he was thinking of

there. He says it will pass and tough up. And rounding it off,

according to the Brooks he offers personal counsel. He says that he,

Tony Blair, is available for you, that is James Murdoch, KRM, Rupert

Murdoch, and Rebekah Brooks as an unofficial adviser but it needs to

remain between them. Four days later Rebekah Brooks resigns and four days

later is arrested. Anything from Blair's office? The fact there was a

conversation appears to be acknowledged. The fact I can see is

there is no dispute about the contents of what it is alleged was

said. Tony Blair, in fairness on his behalf, he had merely been given

informal advice on crisis management, he had no personal

reason to know the facts of the case. He was just giving advice. But

look, I think the bigger question is, it won't be about the details,

it will be about why he did it at all. We are just in the aftermath of

the Milly Dowler revelation, which remember how shocking that was. The

entire political establishment was convulsing, the police were in all

sorts of do-dos because they hadn't investigated. It was duff times.

Also on the same day the Labour leader at the end, Ed Miliband, is

making a speech and giving press conferences calling for Rebekah

Brooks to be sacked. Where are we in the case as a whole? Well, the

prosecution was due to finish at Christmas. It is finishing this

morning. It is all running quite late, and as a result the defence

proper will start tomorrow. We expect Rebekah Brooks to take the

stand at some point tomorrow morning. I should say both Rebekah

Brooks and all the others deny all the charges against them. It is

precisely one year two months and 16 days until we get the chance to

decide which variety of Westminster all sorts or combination there of,

we would like to have another crack at telling us what to do. The

general election in May next year will be the first in the history of

this country to come at the end of a fixed term parliament. The date has

been publicly known for years. The arrangement was another pious

promise from the Liberal Democrats about improving the way this country

is governed. Some political reporters can hardly cope with their

parliamentary recess withdrawal symptoms. Mathieu is one of them! --

Emily Maitlis is one of them. Imagine if everything came to a

stand still in Westminster? Imagine if the business of parliament just,

well, stopped? The idea is unthinkable, or used to be until

this. Measures will be brought forward to introduce fixed-term

parliaments of five years. The length of a parliament, in other

words, was passed into law, from that week in May 2010, we knew

exactly when the next general election would be, barring the

unforeseeable. A move some feel is now giving the whole political

system a slight air of paralysis. It is Parkinson's Law that says work

always expands to fill the time allotted to it. We have allotted

five years and so the work has expanded to fill that time. There

are week, months when parliament is not really doing much. It is not

debating primary legislation, it is treading water, I'm not sure this is

really good. I'm not sure, I think we have lost some of the tempo of

politics that we need. Of course this has been an unusual parliament

for other very different reasons, a two-party Government for one. It has

dried up because of the coalition, what happened was, and this is the

story influence, they went at it with a rush. Contrasting to thatch

whore did things gradually, she was grabbed dualist in practice however

revolutionary her rhetoric, or Tony Blair, who was gradualist in his two

terms. He subsequently admitted he didn't do as much as he wanted in

the first team. There is people like David Cameron and OK letter Letwin

who go for it. That sense of urgency may have something to do with the

coalition. Some Governments drag it on to the bitter end. A full

five-year term is not unusual, John Major, Gordon Brown in 2010. It is

more often the domain of unpopular or failing Government with no real

sense of optimisim of what a general election would eventually bring.

Remember Gordon Brown, and Jim Callaghan turning to song to explain

why he wouldn't go to the polls. # There was I waiting at the church!

! Jim Callaghan wasn't sure of the overall majority. But he made a

famous speech at the TUC. # All at once he sent me round a

note # Here's the very note

# This is what he wrote # Can't get away

# To marry you today # My wife won't let me

Everyone was startled, what was he on about, then he said there

wouldn't be an election this autumn. This was one of a select few MPs who

at the time voted against the fixed-term parliament bill. This is

a democratisation of our parliament. It weakens the power of parliament

to hold the Government to account, because the Prime Minister has got

tenure. There would never have been an election in 1974 when Ted Heath

was got rid of during that miners' strike. We would never got rid of

Harold Wilson in 1970. This system has grave disadvantages and it is,

you know, there is enough disillusionment with politics as it

is at the moment, it is always worse at the end of a five-year

parliament. Whilst a fixed-term parliament brings welcome stability,

critics say that comes at a price, making it much harder to hold the

political class to account when they only need to start listening to the

voters' voice a good four years in. Whitehall sources tell me less new

legislation is coming through, it is all about implementation. There is

also suggestion the next Queen's Speech may be delayed. Perhaps that

is the core question, if fewer laws are passed in this land, would

anyone really care? If we look across the channel at little old

Belgium, from 2007-2011 for a period of four years, their political class

couldn't agree on how to form a Government, so they didn't have one,

they had no new law, and do you know what, the Belgian economy grew,

while the European economy all around it was in turmoil. It was

actually one of the most successful post-war Belgium administrations.

Why? Because politicians stopped making new laws and introducing new

regulations, many of the old regulations became redundant.

Belgium prospered, perhaps a sign to be said not having politicians in

Westminster making new laws all the time. So what about those people who

thought fixed-term parliaments were a good idea? Earlier I spoke to Lord

O'Donnell, head of the Civil Service at the time when the coalition was

formed and fixed terms became law. Lord O'Donnell, who benefits from

fixed-term parliaments? I think democracy benefits. First of all it

is a fairer system. To me it is a ridiculous system that says actually

the Government in power, the incumbent gets to choose when it has

a general election as opposed to let's have one regularly on a fixed

date. Doesn't it mean you can forget the voter when the election is over

for five years? Quite the reverse. There has always been the case that

people have had to worry about their performance throughout the life of

the parliament, voters doesn't just react to what happened yesterday,

they look back on the record of a whole parliament. I think

Governments have got to do this. The difference is they are not allowed

to say, oh well we are ahead in the polls now we will go for it as

opposed to let's have a long-term plan, five-year plan to try to leave

the country in a better place. What are the things that are done, the

average length of parliament is four years. What are the great things

that are done in this last year before we're allowed to decide

whether we want to keep the Government? Precisely, it is a bit

like, you know, if you ask me have fixed term parliaments been a

success, I would say it is a bit like asking a six-month pregnant

woman how is the childbirth process. We haven't even had one fixed term

parliament yet. This one we didn't know it was going to be a fixed-term

parliament before they passed the legislation. If I said as far as the

average voter is concerned, you vote in 2010, no-one needs to pay me the

slightest attention now until early 2015? I think, I really don't think

voters are, nor are Governments that cynical. I think what voters will do

when they come to the ballot booth, I hope rather more will turn up than

we have seen in the past, that they will say they will assess the

Government on the five-year term what have they done over the whole

term. That is good. I will look to who they will elect over the four or

five year term. They can still elect them to a shorter term of

indeterminate duation? Of course, but the one thing I will say for

civil the service it would be for Governments to take a long-term view

of society that is not bad thing. When you look at this coalition and

on a fixed term and a Government like Tony Blair's, which was better

for the country? It is hard to assess that yet because remember the

economic circumstances were completely different. When Tony

Blair took over in 1997 the economy was doing well, the deficit was

relatively small. This time coalition come in 11% deficit-to-GDP

ratio, rising GDP. They took tough and unpopular decisions. They

decided to go for welfare reform, health reform, education reform. The

one thing you could say that I hadn't really anticipated was that

people thought coalition would be a lowest common denominator. It

certainly hasn't been that. This is a question that comes if you have

been a very long time at the heart of Government. Compare it with the

awful last years of Major and Brown? The final year of John Major, you

are right, he had real problems with getting a majority because the Tory

Party was split and it was hard to get legislation through. They didn't

have a fixed date for the election, they were hanging on to see, well,

can we, is something going to turn round. Simply with Gordon Brown you

will remember all of the damage, I think, was caused by that on-off

election issue. Well that's history. Thank you very much. What is time?

At this point in the day you might well think life's too short to

embark upon a question like that. Yet someone has do it some how and

do it in terms that are relatively easy to understand. The question was

last year's Flame Challenge, a competition initiated by the actor,

Alan Alda, in which scientists are asked to explain a piece of complex

science in a way that an 11-year-old can understand. This year's trying

to find someone who can explain what is colour? I will be asking him why

shortly. First we invited the BBC science presenter and an artist to

have a go. Chloryl colour is the differences in how your eye sees

light. For me I think the most important thing is that it adds a

different dimension or layer to everything that you see. For example

emotions can make you feel really happy or disturbed or very calm.

They can also remind you of things in way that smell would. Imagine you

are stood in a pitch black room, you can't see the colour of anything

around you, you need to turn on the light. That is how you are going to

be able to see the colours of things. So colour must be something

to do with light. It is, in fact it is everything to do with light,

because light comes in different colours. You know this from things

like traffic lights, traffic sleights can be red, they can be --

traffic lights can be red, green and amber, and light can be any colour

at the rainbow, when you are looking at your red bag, it is white light

shining on your bag and your bag is absorbing all that light and soaking

it up. All the different colours are getting soaked up, except for red.

The red light is bouncing off it and into your eyes. That is what makes

your bag red. The actor Alan Alda, who set the challenge, joins us now

from New York. We will come to the particular question of colour in a

second. But this general mission of seeking to explain science, how

important do you think it is? Oh I think it is crucial to us, it is

getting more and more important because our lives are surrounded by

science. We're like fish swimming in a sea of science. If we don't know

what it is that we're living in, it is not so good for us. It is a

little dangerous. We have to be able to ask good questions about it, and

we have to be able to decide who gets funding for what science? And

that needs knowledge to do that. Why do we need to understand how and why

it works just because it is around us? Well for two reasons. One is

that it affects us and sometimes we're afraid of the effect it is

having on us. Should we be afraid or more afraid. And the other reason,

maybe even more important, I think, is science is beautiful. It elevates

you in spirit the way music and literature does. Why should we be

denied that. We wouldn't say why museums with paintings in them, why

no signs. Why are some scientists so bad at communicating the beauty in

it then? Scientists are taught for a very good reason to keep emotion, to

keep stories out of their work when they are doing science. And they are

encouraged to use words with very special meanings. Because if you can

say something that takes five pages to say in plain language, but you

can say it in one word and your fellow scientist knows what you

mean, you ought to use that language. We can't understand that,

and we can only really keep up with what they are doing if they will

tell us in story or immammings of things -- images of things in a way

of talking that we are used to hearing. They have to learn, relearn

what it is like to talk to people and figure out what they are

thinking as they are talking to them. That is what I think any way.

Do you really think that almost any scientific concept can be explained

in terms Intelable succinctly -- intelligle and succinctly to

11-year-olds? I have seen videos of 11-year-olds around the world

judging this connest it. What is fun about this contest is the kids judge

the scientists, that is something they love. It is for an 11-year-old

kid to say that is a very good answer but it doesn't make it clear

enough! That is terrific. The thing that most common complaint they have

about the entries is there is not enough information in them. They are

very serious about this. They want to understand it and they want it in

terms that are familiar to them. But one kid said you can be funny when

you are talking to us, but don't be silly, we are 11 not seven. They

take it very seriously. The compo trois explanations we had

there of what colour is -- the two explanations we had of what colour

is, I hope you were able to see them. They were pretty clear, are

they anywhere near making the grade as far as your contest is concerned,

or is it not your concern but the 11-year-olds? It is 11-year-olds

around the world. 22,000 have joined up to be judges of the contest. It

sounded to me like they were very good the ones you played. If their

they are scientists giving us -- if they are scientists giving those

explanation, I hope they will go to the Flame Challenge website and

hopefully they will win. The guy who won the first year's contest, it is

so wonderful, he made a video that was about six or seven minutes long,

wrote it, he acted in it, he animated it, wrote a song, played

all the instruments and sang the song. He won the contest and was

asked to be a producer of a children's television show on

science, he offered me a job. This is great, I mean whoever did those

videos could have a giant career out of this! Thank you. Going off to

college or university is the start of independent life. Yet college

students in America are among the most vulnerable group when it comes

to rape or sexual assault, apparently. A White House report

claims that one in five American women is the victim of a sex attack

during their college days. Considering the millions in tertiary

education, the total is likely very big. Many survivors say the

universities themselves are failing to deal with the issue. The BBC's

North America correspondent reports on the scale of the issue and how

more victims a starting to speak up. We don't want to talk about it, but

we have to. It is happening so often. My life in college was

completely destroyed by something that was out of my control. And

that's just an injustice I feel obligated to help remedy. Six years

ago Julia Dixon was sexually assaulted on campus by a fellow

student. She's speaking out about her experience for the first time. I

thought that's never going to happen to me, I don't drink, I never drank,

don't do drugs, I didn't go places where this happens. I was doing it

right and being a good girl and it wasn't going to be me. Julia is one

of a growing number of students filing complaints against their

universities for the way they say their claims of sexual assault were

dealt with. According to Government figures one in five women are

sexually assaulted during their time in college or university. With a

large majority of attacks commitmented by someone they already

know. Survivors of rape on college campuses suffer from high levels of

post-traumatic stress disorder, depressure. The rates of conviction

are staggeringly low at 12%. Many say it is not coming forward that is

a big hurdle to overcome, it is the response they get from the

institutions they turn to for HECHLT Typically students who have been

sexually assaulted seek help through the university system itself. Going

to police on campus and college officials rather than taking their

complaints outside. Julia says she received some support from the

university in Ohio, in the immediate aftermath of the incident. Her taker

denied the assault, and while campus Police investigated she tried to

pursue him through the university's disciplinary process. This is where,

she says, the problems began. They also told me that he would have to

be in the room with me when I testified and he would get to ask me

direct questions about what happened. And three days after he

raped me I wasn't in any sort of emotional state to even be anywhere

in the vicinity of him, let alone have a conversation with him about

what he did. And their remedy to that was oh maybe he can have

somebody there and ask the questions through them but he still has to be

in the room. I said I'm sorry you can't expect me to go through with

that right now, it was Friday and I was raped Tuesday. At that point I

decided I will wait until my rape kit comes back because I know I'm

telling the truth and then I can get him expelled. Unfortunately what I

thought would take eight maybe ten weeks ended up taking over a

year-and-a-half. And in that time there was, my hands were tied. I

felt like there was nothing I could do. I felt completely helpless. What

changes do you think your university and others across America need to

really bring in to help survivors like yourself? I wish that the

university would have taken into consideration the stress that I was

very clearly suffering from. To me it felt like they didn't really know

how to handle it and didn't care to try. I received no sort of help that

semester, I had no assistance with my classes or excused absence, I was

treated the same way as everyone else in my class was treated, but I

was dealing with a very severe trauma. Last month President Obama

launched a task force to address the issue of campus assault. The stigma

around it means it is impossible to know the scale of the problem. The

one in five figure released by the White House is based on several stud

year, including research from 2007 in which seven thousand students at

two large public universities from interviewed. Protecting young women

and men from sexual violence and ensuring colleges do more to respond

is now a priority at the highest level. My hope and intention is

every college President who has not personally been thinking about this

is going to hear about this report and is going to go out and figure

out who is in charge on their campus of responding properly, what are the

best practices. Are we doing everything we should be doing? If

you are not doing that right now I want the students at the school to

ask the President what he's doing or she's doing. These images are part

of Project Unbreakable, and shows survivors of sexual assault

photographed with quotes from their attackers. It is a sign of growing

activism, more survivors are coming forward to share experiences and

taking part in a national conversation. Universities judge it

as an epidemic, they don't learn from each other, they treat it as a

PR problem. Now we are more comfortable sharing our stories and

organised and holding them account, now we are considered a force. This

woman says she was sexually assaulted during her first year at

university. In January 2013 she filed a FRARM could plaint against

-- filed a federal complaint against her college. She is now one of the

country's leading activists on the issue of college rape. Along with

other survivors she set up a national advice and support network.

In so many ways universities thinks they can contain it and deter it by

you know making them do book report, by making them take time off. By

making them just keep quiet. And they don't look at it as a holistic

problem. They don't treat that person like a criminal. They treat

that person like a student who made a mistake. And sexual assault is not

a mistake, it has to go back to that. The US Department of

education's office of civil rights, OCR, is currently investigating more

than 35 complaints nationwide. Including the University of North

Carolina Chapel Hill, awaiting the findings in its case. What we want

at the end of the day is this policy to be read from both reporting

party, responding party as being fair and balanced. In the past year

the college has revised its policies and hired a new team to improve its

response to sexual violence. Howard is Callum is the lead co-ordinator.

. What we have done here has not been because of the OCR

investigation, I think that the university recognised even before

the complaints were filed that we needed to do things better and

differently. We have taken a number of measures to provide increased

support to survivors to improve its complaint processing system. To ramp

up the education programmes. One of the biggest challenges is changing

attitudes over what is and isn't acceptable sexual behaviour on many

college campuses. This workshop is about giving students the confidence

to speak up if they witness inaproper rate behaviour --

inappropriate behaviour among their peers. If there is someone touching

someone on the dance floor in a way that makes someone feel

uncomfortable. Before you leave the house talking about behaviours and

talking to friend about how much they are going to be drinking. To

what extent do you think a macho culture means people don't want to

step in? It is hard, people grow up with it. This is what they are

taught from day one that men are, it is essentialism, men are a certain

way and women are a certain way, men and women are supposed to act a

certain way. That is one of the things we are indirectly trying tole

change. The fact that you are supposed to pursue or think about

sex in this way. Campaigners say conviction rates for

cases of sexual assault on college campuses are still too low. Julia's

one of the few survivors who did eventually get some justice through

the legal system. By then I was a junior in college and I had lost a

scholarship and I moved off campus and got a job to support the lack of

scholarship that I had. And he had already left campus. In a statement

to Newsnight the university in Ohio said.

Unfortunately for the victim the rape is not a single act that

happens one night. It is a long, enduring very depressing emotional

rollercoaster that goes on potentially for years. I don't think

the university understands that. My rape did not end the night that I

went to the hospital. It ended the night that I finally got justice. If

I wasn't granted that I think I would be still living in it. Now in

the past hour Facebook has announced that it's going to buy the mobile

instant messaging service What isapp, it is Facebook's biggest

purchase to date. The app which has 450 million users is another way to

send instant messages at no cost. But Facebook already has its own

means of doing it. Why bother? Matt Butcher is editor of a tech

magazine. Is this a big deal? We think this is the largest

acquisition of an internet start-up, less than five years old in history.

It looks, the way you see these prices going up, each time there is

an acquisition, it looks like a bubble, doesn't it? Well, the issue

here is that Facebook needs growth. Facebook has become, you know,

something that your grandparents are on, everybody is on it now. But the

kids and the young people are using messaging platforms like WhatsApp to

interact.ment not using Facebook as much -- to interact. They are not

using Facebook as much as before. It is much cheaper for people in Asia

and Africa to contact each other using the app than any other way.

450 million users huge. How will Facebook make money out of it?

Facebook has done a very good job so far of pulling in revenues based on

advertising, it is now doing things like commerce and e-commerce. The

app will be doing similar kinds of things and also in virtual goods.

People will pay a premium to message in particular ways or to use virtual

goods as part of their messaging. What is using a virtual good as part

of your messaging? Instead of using just text they might send picksures

or those kinds of hings. Why did Facebook's share price shop on this

news? Shareholders are worried that Facebook is buying growth rather

than having growth internalised in its own company core strengths. It

sends a signal to the market that perhaps Facebook doesn't have all

the magic touch it once had. It puts Twitter pretty inch the shade

doesn't it? Yes, it does. Of course Twitter did its own public market

floatation and it has had some issues on the way. Since it floated.

The jury is still out where be where Twitter goes from here and there was

a lot of scepticism about recent results. One of the founders of the

app is Ukrainian so interesting merging of stories. Tonight's Brit

Awards saw an unexpected intrusion into the debate on Scottish

independence by David Bowie who won the British Male Solo artist. He

wasn't at the ceremony but used the supermodel Kate Moss to deliver the

message. I'm completely delighted, I am, aren't I Kate? Yes. I think it

is a great way to end the day. Thank y very, very much, and Scotland stay

with us. And a quick look at some of tomorrow morning's front pages now.

The Guardian has news of the Tony Blair intervention in the Rebekah

Brooks court case. That's all from us tonight, I have

one more thing to say, bouncing goats, look at this, good night!

# High on a hill # Was a lonely goat herd

# Le-ol-le-e-hiho Good evening. Some wind and rain,

but that's going to happen overnight. I think tomorrow,

especially in the afternoon the weather should be actually not all

that bad, once the wind and rain clears out into the North Sea.