25/03/2014 Newsnight

Tonight Paul Flowers, the Methodist minister w left the Co-operative

Bank in disgrace, talks exclusively about his downfall and hits back at

tabloid tormenters. I find the Mail on Sunday and its sudden dough

fascist far right tendencies that make Vladimir Putin look like a

bleeding heart liberal, utterly abhorrent. And he reveals the way

Government ministers leaned on the bank to make decisions they judged

to be commercially unwise. And there was pressure, certainly from Mark

Hobon, and I know that originated with the Chancellor himself.

Also tonight is the right to pass on wealth the entitlement of everyone,

or the root of personal and social unhappiness?

The latest Al-Qaeda battlefield. There are probably some people in

Britain who have never heard of the Reverend Paul Flowers, the Methodist

minister who became the chairman of the Co-operative Bank, and exited

after an inept performance in front of the Parliamentary Committee who

were trying to find out how the bank went belly up. Then he was filmed

talking about his drug habit. He was nicknamed the Crystal Methodist and

the caravan moved on. But the supposedly ethical bank has been

left broken and demoralised. He hasn't spoken publicly about what

happened, until now. But before that we have this report. SGLA double

downfall, the minister who preached ethics, the bank meant to make

ethical decisions, both brought to their knees by a domination of

ambition and weakness. In the end leaving a bank that appeared out of

control. And a chairman whose understanding of the business was

just helplessly wrongy wrong. Give us an idea of the total asset value

of the bank? Just over ?3 billion. I'm talking about the assets. I'm

talking about the assets, on the balance sheet I was looking at the

balance sheets recently. You are offering me ?3 billion and I'm

telling you your annual accounts show it at ?47 billion. Indeed they

did, forgive me. Paul Flowers suggested that the assets were a

tenth of the size they were. But Flower, Labour supporter, was not

the only one out of his depth. The ethical bank had gone empire build

anything way it couldn't sustain. As well as building itself a smart new

headquarters, the Co-Op gobbled up Britannia Building Society, riddled

with property debt. Then with Flower as chair, made an audacious bid for

650 branches of Lloyd's. There was all scepticism in the City about

whether it could work, but with tacit approval from Westminster, the

Co-Op's ambition far outweighed its ability to cope. Underneath a

beautifully crafted image of the bank like no other, regulators

crawling through the undergrowth found a black hole in the books of

more than a billion. They became very big, very quickly, by buying

Britannia and then by being very ambitious to buy branches from

Lloyd's. That is a very short period of time for a small bank and

inexperienced bank like Co-Op. Any other business with lots of

experience in acquisitions would find it difficult to integrate those

businesses successfully. Although the Reverend had boasted Co-Op P had

staled -- had sailed through the financial crisis. It would be not

good for someone from the Co-Op bank to be smug, that is not my nature.

The loans went back and the Lloyd's deal collapsed, quickly the Reverend

was out. There was further to fall. The minister was caught newspaper a

drug and sex scandal. Caught unwares by the Mail on Sunday. Behaviour he

described as "stupid" and "wrong". Police searching his house

investigating his conduct. Reverend Flower, as is, s as well as a

collapsing bank hurt members. A bank founded in the 19th century,

with the intention of looking after our morals as well as our

hard-earned money. This bit of the co-operative movement is having its

own cataclysmic moment where it has to think about what it is about. It

might be something very different in terms of the public view of it. The

Co-Op was meant to be different? It was, and it was different. I do

think it was different. It made two or three errors all at the same

time. But this has been a terrible episode for a movement with a

history that's been worth preserving in stone. Neither its Victorian

founders nor many of the movement's current members would have approved

of the Reverend's exploits, how did he find himself at the top of a

rapid low expanding bank in the first place. Well this flimsy three

pages a record of his approval interview with the regulators. In it

he asks for the fullest, possible training, but promises to ask

forensic and tart questions. The regulators themselves though will

now surely wish they had asked for forensic questions of him. Reverend

Flowers has been followed out of Co-Op's door by the man brought in

to save the group. Euan Sutherland announced it was ungovernable.

Yesterday the bank had to write off another ?400 million to pay for

other mistakes of the past. Yet it is Reverend Flowers, more than

anyone else, whose faults came into focus. The bank and his error's

rewriting history of this proud ethical know. Movement few wanted to

write. Earlier today I went to man chest Tory meet Paul Flowers. What

has the last year been like? Interesting! TRANSMIT

I resigned from the bank, and it was a joy as it was on my birthday and

there were a few months that have been hellish. Because I knew I

particularly needed to find some professional support for the issues

that I was facing, I actually booked myself into a very well known

hospital for four weeks from the end of November until Christmas Eve. I

underwent what was called their addictions treatment programme for

the 28 days that I was there. I found that both cathartic and

traumatic. But it actually helped me to look at, not so much the

superficial issues of the addictions themselves, but the more deep-seated

reasons why people resort to any sort of addiction. And for me that

was I think life-changing and I continued to go there every week for

therapy. Can we go back then to the question of the chairmanship of the

bank. Yeah. What was it that made you think you were qualified to run

a bank? I didn't and it wasn't my job to make a judgment about whether

I was qualified, others made a judgment that I was the right and

appropriate person to be the chair at that particular time. There was

panel, which interviewed four of us, who were candidates for the job. I

was the unanimous choice of that panel. I was then the unanimous

choice of the bank board. I was then the unanimous choice of the group

board. And I then went again to the FSA for a further interview to see

whether they thought I was fit to be chair of that bank board. I was

prepared for this by a very hellish mock interview. A bit like you at

your worst really if I might be so bold. And they took me to hell and

back in terms of questions. But the FSA had a really wonderful

conversation about philosophy and ethics and issues that were around

and their panel approved me. It is not for me to make a judgment about

whether I was qualified, a range of other people at the time said I was.

You weren't a banker? No, but I wasn't put in as banker. I was put

in as operator, a representative of the Co-Op Group, and I had a job in

terms of governance Did you know the extent of the problem after the

merger with the Britannia Building Society? Nobody did, forgive me.

Hindsight is a wonderful science, if can I be so bold. We took over the

Britannia effectively in 2008. There was a merger. But effectively it was

takeover. I inherited that when I became the chair in 2010. At the

time of the takeover of Britannia I recall and still have the documents

at home, there were three separate pieces of due diligence, done by

accountany firms, KPMG for us and fancy merchant bankers who Mr Paid

paid vast amounts of money to do it. All said it was a good deal. All

pointed up dish use with the corporate lending book, but that

lending book could be addressed by what are called fair value

adjustments in the accounts. That is precisely what we did. And we did it

in thorough consultation with the FSA at the timecisely what we did.

And we did it in thorough consultation with the FSA at the

time. They didn't pick it up and neither

did the FSA at the time. How much pressure did you come under with the

Lloyd's issue? Specifically from the present Government, mainly from

Conservatives. They wanted a deal. Remember that the Government was,

still is, the major shareholder of that bank. Because of the structural

support that it had needed back in 2008. Clearly they wanted a deal

which would help them in terms of public finances. They actually said

that they were keen on this Co-Op becoming a much more significant

player with more scale. We would have had about seven or eight per

cent of the market if this had gone through. And there was pressure

certainly from mark Holbon and I know that originated higher up with

the Chancellor himself. What form did this pressure take? Regular

calls and regular checks to see whether or not they were progressing

well. And I mean two or three times a week calls from the junior

minister. They wanted a deal and they wanted us to do it. They might

say no now, but I know that's what they wanted. That was the pressure

they were applying. You are painting yourself as an

innocent abroad? I'm not innocent. I take full responsibility for the

decision that is we took. And indeed I resigned because I believe it was

right for the chair of the board to take responsibility, although all

the decisions taken were not by me personally but by the board as a

whole. But resignation was an admission of inadequacy wasn't it?

No, it was an admission that things had gone wrong. And as the person in

the chair, I should take responsibility for it. How is it

then, if you were cognisant of what was going on and you weren't an

innocent aBROSHGSD how could you possibly appear before -- abroad,

how could you possibly get the assets of the bank out by a margin

of ?40 40 billion. Ill-prepared and not ready for all the questions and

in particular put off a tad by the aggression of some of the members of

that committee and the clear attempts that some of them were

making, not to ask sensible or rational questions, but to try to

trip me up and in particular to engage in political points scoring.

Even so, to say the assets of the bank you say ?3 billion and they

were ?47 billion? Forgive me, I was wrong, badly wrong. Do you think

something has happened in the world of banking, which has made it a

different sort of business to the sort of business, you did once do a

banking exam years and years and years ago? 40 plus years ago. But

banking was a different kind of beast in those days wasn't it? I

think it was a good profession. I think it was largely led by people

of honour and decency. Is it no longer? There are people within it

who are people who are honourable and decent. Sadly there are also a

number of others who are not. And who I think are there for whole and

whole range of reasons, some of which are to do with their own avari

correction and their own green -- avarice and their own greed, that is

very sad. There is another story today about bonus payments in a

bank. Yet here you are, chairman of a bank belonging to a different set

of ideals? Sub-scale. Not big enough? Not big enough at all. So

lots of our efforts as well were designed to try to improve the

ability of the bank to be able to run an efficient organisation of

sufficient scale. So you are saying it is impossible in this country to

run a successful... You are being too dogmatic, you are looking at

either a white or black picture and not seeing the complexity of the

grey in the middle. It is not impossible. We confronted a whole

raft of problems, I believe it could still be possible. And you failed?

Yeah, we failed so far. But we are still there. And we didn't actually

have to take any Government money at any stage. Unlike some of the other

banks I have to remind you. Given your background, given the ideals of

the organisation, personally that must have had a tremendous impact on

you? With respect my role was not to worry about the personal impact upon

me, I'm there in a representative capacity to try to do a job with a

range of other people. You are the embodiment of the values of the bank

as chairman aren't you? I'm one of them, I hope I'm not the only one. I

hope the organisation as a whole, and I believe it had done, embodied

those values. And staff at the time before all this crisis occurred from

were extraordinarily happy to work with and for us. Have they been in

touch with you any of them? One or two but they have been politely told

by more senior people not to be in ch. One or two of the braver souls

have been in touch. You have been cast into the outer darkness I

suppose? I believe even in Dant, he's Inferno there is a chance of

release. You have fallen like Lucifer? Where do you find Lucifer

in the Bible Mr Paxman! Then comes of course all the horrible stuff for

you when you are outed for drugs and rent boys and all that stuff. Had

you been doing drugs while chairman of the bank? Forgive me saying so I

think you are aware that there are still some issues to be inquired

into by the police and that is a question that I think has to remain

at the moment unanswered. But will in due course be answered. But it is

subject to the police investigation. Let me put it another way, were you

involved in drugs, doing drugs, before you became chairman of the

bank? No. But that doesn't answer the earlier question. It doesn't.

And I cannot answer it for the moment. I understand re understand.

But -- I understand, it does tell us something. When you saw what the

Mail on Sunday printed about you, what did you think? The Mail on

Sunday, its sister paper have printed a lot of things about me. I

remember dear old Michael Foot once decribing the Mail Group as the

"forgers' gazette". I find the Mail on Sunday and its pseudofascist far

right tendencies which, make Vladimir Putin look like a bleeding

heart liberal utterly abhorrent. The reality is that a considerable

amount of what the Mail on Sunday has printed has been pure and utter

fiction. Why don't you sue them then? Forgive me, suing a newspaper

is a rich person's game. Even if I am right as I know I am, and I know

that they are wrong, I would much rather just treat the whole thing

with the utter contempt that it deserves for it. But there were

stories that were printed that were true? Indeed they were. They

concerned drugs? And with respect those are still the issues which the

police are investigating. Given your religious background, do you think

you have sinned? Forgive me it is always much more complex than that,

of course I have. And I am in company in every other human being

for having my frailties and some of my fragility exposed. Most people

get through life without that ever coming into the public domain. I am

no better and no worse, it seems to me, than any number of other people.

But of course I have sinned in that old fashioned term, which I would

rarely use, I have to say. But I'm like everybody else, I'm frail. You

know what people think, they think Flower flowers, -- Paul Flowers,

Methodist minister how does he end up with rent boys and drugs, a

Methodist minister? They have not had to live in my skin or bothered

to inquire about other pressures upon my life. I would not wish to

talk with them about them because they clearly hold me in complete

contempt. Do you want to talk about these other pressures in your life?

I can do so very briefly. Yeah sure? At the time when things were getting

pretty hairy at the bank I had been caring for my mother at home, who

was dying, with everything else that was going on and I was weary and

stressed. Not least at seeing somebody who I loved die in front of

me. And it took a long time. But I would not want to use that as an

excuse, it simply happens to be part of the reality that I was facing and

which is common to lots of people, most of us have to juggle with a

whole raft of different pressures and stresses. It just so happens

that I had two or three that all came at the same time. But most of

us don't resort to drugs and rent boys? How do you know? What do you

most regret about this whole experience? Not taking more advice

when I should have done at certain points during several years. And I

think in some ways and this probably will sound a tad bitter, but I think

in some ways I had been set up to fail in certain areas. Because of

the structures of the co-operative and the way in which they encourage

democrats within the organisation to move into particular roles. And then

to be, frank, they suck you dry and pit you out at the end of it. No-one

at the Co-Op has contacted me at all in any way since I left at the end

of May. Thank you. Thank you. Our chief correspondent is here. What

have we learned from this? I think in a sense we just witnessed the

human downfall that went alongside the story of the politician's

favourite, the Co-Op bank, the great hope of the banking zest sector

turning into a basket case. There are three salient points, one is

just how convinced he was now that the Treasury was pushing the deal

for the Co-Op to buy more than 600 branches of Lloyds Bank. He talks

about Treasury ministers phoning up two and three times a week to see

how it was getting on, and making it clear that the Chancellor was behind

that. Not much of a surprise, we learned how much he hates the Mail

on Sunday, and they have asked to speak to him and he has declined. It

is embarrassing for the Government. It is tricky for the Treasury, this

accusation that they were the hands trying to push this deal with

Lloyd's that was ultimately doomed forward has been made before, it is

worth saying that's a pretty different version of events to what

Paul Flowers has given in front of MPs before. For their part the

Treasury has always denied there was any kind of political interference

and of course Paul Flowers is somebody who is very much associated

with the Labour movement, it is worth rembering also that the

Lloyd's chief executive and chairman on the record have said it was a

commercial decision. That said, during that deal myself and many

other journalists were hearing time and again from people in the City

who were sceptical, not just about whether it was the right decision,

but also whether it was feasible. This does again remind people of the

awkwardness, that the Treasury was tacitly backing a horse that many

thought was a dodgy old nag. In the meantime the Co-Op remain as basket

case? Yesterday they had to write off another ?400 million. They have

had a turbulent few weeks and an active chief executive in charge of

the group. They are trying to plough on. It is worth saying they have

managed to stagger on without having to take a bail out from the

taxpayer. They found another way of doing that by getting investment

from the hedge funds. They are certainly not in a position now

where they are free and clear of all the mistakes of the past. They are

braced for a series of their own investigations into what went wrong.

And tonight they are pretty reluctant to getting into talking

about exactly what Flower has suggested. They are working very

hard to try to get this done. They are trying to make big changes to

the group to be able to survive into the future and they are going to

have more very difficult headlines, not just about Reverend Flower and

his exploits while he was there but perhaps about some people who are

still actually at the group themselves. They may prove difficult

to shrug off in the coming weeks. It is a long way from a commitment, but

the Prime Minister says he would really like to raise the point at

which the Government confiscates money people might otherwise have

passed on to their children when they die. Hang on, you might say, he

has promised that before, and indeed he has. But he says his plans to

raise the threshold for what used to be called death duties have been

wrecked by being in partnership with the Liberal Democrats. It points up

the fact that this is a more politically and morally charged tax

than most. Once upon a time there was a large happy family, a bit like

the Walton, they lived in a big house and always said good night to

each other. When the elderly couple died, the whole family wept, then

they had to sell the house to pay death duties and they wept a bit

more. Hardly what you might call a fairytale ending. A long, long time

ago, back in 2007, the man who would be Chancellor promised to change all

that. The next Conservative Government will raise the

inheritance tax threshold to ?1 million. LINEBREAK

It was electoral Viagra, a speech that sealed him as the ultimate

politician, a game-changer in many ways, forcing Gordon Brown to stop

in his tracks and his call fors an early -- for an early election and

forcing them to re-think their inheritance tax policy. They decided

to create a tax-free limit of estates up to ?650,000 in marriages.

Then disaster struck in the form of the financial crisis the Tory policy

flew out the window and the coalition agreement with the Lib

Dems ensured it never flew back in. The Lib Dems aren't the only ones

against it. Many see inheritance tax as fair way to ensure the wealth of

the nation doesn't just subside in a few dynasties. All civilisations

going back to Rome and through fuedal Europe have had some kind of

system where society shares in wealth being transferred from rich

fathers and mothers to their offspring. Why? Because the

offspring did nothing to deserve the wealth, so we should share in their

good luck. And if you don't do that societies OKsify. But there teams --

OKsify. There seems to be new life in it, with UKIP looking for their

grey votes they broach the same ground. Would I like to go further?

Yes I would. I believe people should able to pass money down through the

generations and pass things on to the children. The ambition is still.

There I would like to go further. It is better than it was, but it didn't

make it into the coalition agreement, it is something to

address in the manifesto. Something You wonder at the new figure, under

?1 million might not be so tempting. Tories are promising expensive

things without showing how they will pay for them. Those who came to

power on the stark shores of austerity, this upland is sending

out a very different message of how much cash there is to spend now.

What has happened since 2010 is there is no increase even in line

with inflation of the inheritance tax threshold to bring more people

in. Rather than increasing the threshold significantly, it has

actually been cut relative to price inflation. You might ask whether the

need to raise the flesh hold now is a signal of how badly the Government

has failed on its own housing policy. Last week the Office for

Budget Responsibility predicted that because of rising house prices one

in every ten people will become liable to pay inheritance tax over

the next five years if it stayed at the current rate. That number is

currently one in 20. This street in a posh part of London illustrates

the fiscal drag dilemma rather well. It is not just the mansions that are

liable for inheritance tax, no it is something far more modest house

boat, just short of ?800,000. And don't think this is just a London

bubble. House price rises have created a massive fiscal drag all

over the country. Areas around Manchester or Leeds where change

will be keenly felt. Look closely you will see many story archals

right there. So far it is all fantasy, no commitment, just

expressions of Tory hope. Do you see this as the perfect ending or a

rather grim fairytale. That will depend quite bluntly on whether you

think kids deserve their parents' wealth. Mone is an entrepeneur and

founder of the lingerie line Ultimo. Peter Buffett is a musician, fill

lentist and son of the -- philanthropist and son of Warren

Buffett. He joins us from his home in the states. When this happens you

will be dead, why do you care? Because Jeremy I work really hard

every single day. Like a lot of people for my children and for my

children's future. I want them to have that little nest there for

their future and for their children and I don't see why I, others,

should work extremely hard, pay your tax and then when you die it is a

double what happens OKKy and you have to pay it again, it should be

stopped completely. Even if passing money on perpetuates social

division, you don't worry about that? I should decide what to do

with my money and whether I want to give it to charity. The Government

shouldn't tax me again when I have already paid. It is unfair and I

think you know there is a lot more people that have to pay inheritance

tax now because house prices are rising. You pay on your whole

estate, so there is a lot more people that have to pay that tax and

I have heard some horror stories, where you know someone has lived in

the family home for 20, 25 years and they have to actually move out of

their family home to pay the tax. That is completely and utterly

unfair. They will be dead? They have had to pay it because they have

inherited the house and the estate. They need to pay the tax bill and

they have to sell the house to move out. Let me bring in Peter Buffett,

your father famously supports the inter-Hans tax? That's correct --

inheritance tax? That's correct. Do you share that view? I do, my only

question would be where the tax is going. That is my personal

frustration, if it is going to better public schools and

infrastructure that is great. So we might all agree that a Government

getting taxes that are doing good things with it is better than

shovelling it into a Bonn dog hole. -- boon dog hole. That is the

problem with Governments everywhere, this principle that everybody should

start off more or less equal is one you subscribe to? Absolutely. Part

of that comes down to the question of how much is enough. That is where

I definitely agree with my father and have experienced it myself. In

what way are you better for not having a great inheritance to look

forward to? I could sum it up in phrase, I believe self-respect comes

from earning its own reward. So I'm very proud of the life I built

myself. I think if I lived off my father's wealth or do in the future,

I'm going to frankly wonder if I could have done it myself. Michelle

Mone, do you worry about your children ever getting out of bed if

they inherit a vast amount of money from you? You know Jeremy I bring my

children up with that hard-working, want to succeed background. I just

think that you know there is people out there that work extremely hard

and it is up to them what they want to do with their money, once they

have paid the tax. If you want to give it to charity, if they want to

give it to their children. But for me, my will is my kids don't

suddenly get all the cash, my kids get it in stages in life. Hopefully

they won't get it until they are really old and I will live forever.

If they do not get it through any effort of their own? That's what I

want to do. I want to work hard in order to make my children's future a

bit easier, and in order that they have got that little nest there,

they are protected there. I think that's what most parents want to. Do

I have three children, I'm a single parent and I don't want my kids

struggling, but I don't want them being spoiled as well. I also want

to give to charity, but it should be the people's right to do what they

want to do with their money once they pay the tax on T I don't want

the Government dewhat to do -- deciding what to do with my money

once I'm dead. The same amount of money being taxed twice, you tern

you pay income tax on t and other taxes no doubt. Then you die and

your tax is again on it? To me and I am no tax export, trust me. I'm an

expert of being a child of a really rich guy. But you are taxed as you

are making it as it is you know flowing somewhere and then if you

have held on to it, and basically hoarded it, they are you are taxed

because essentially, and this would be my dad as view that you are

allowed to make all that money because the system, the structure,

the laws, all the rules of whatever world you were making that money in

allowed you to do it. There are places in the world where you can

make a lot of money and you don't see a dime for all sorts of reasons.

It makes sense essentially to say to the system that allowed you to amass

a fortune to say, OK, here is some of that back, thatch. It doesn't

mean my kids -- thank you very much. It doesn't mean my kids won't get

some. But some of it is a payback to the system that allowed you to get

it in the first place. A lot of people want to provide and make

their children's lives a lot better when they are not. There for example

getting them through university. The worst case scenario happens,

sometimes they pay the tax on the state they can't afford to go to

university, they can't afford to live the life that other people with

lots of money do. That has changed today because it has been raised

from ?325,000 to a million. Or possibly will be. House prices are

rising which means a lot more people will have to inheritance tax, it is

unfair and should be abolished. Isn't it the case, on your 19th

birthday you inherited a whole lot of stock to the tune of millions and

millions of dollars? It became that. When I got it it was actually

$90,000, $250,000 today. No and lot of money, no question. It was

$90,000 when I turned 1, it allowed me to invest in myself, build my

business and did what I did. You have invalidated your own argument?

Not at all, my first statement is how much is enough. I'm not saying

inheritance is entirely wrong. I'm saying huge amounts of inheritance

can be very damaging. I think a little inheritance can be valuable

what Michelle said in terms of doing it in stages is a great idea.

Where you do you think of when you hear the words "war on terror.

Afghanistan, if not Texas. The new front is in Africa, it is

underreported because the fight against the murderous bigots is done

by African Union troops. Around the town in Somalia they are wage ago

campaign against Islamist forces controlling more territory than any

other Al-Qaeda affiliate in the world. The BBC's international

development correspondent is the only foreign correspondent

accompanying the African troops. Soldiers from Uganda head for battle

against radical Islamist rebels in Somalia. Africa is the new frontline

in the war against Al-Qaeda. Bruted force is being used against Islamist

insurgents, not only here in Somalia but the west African nations too.

West African nations too. The soldiers going through the fight

face a fierce some opponent, Al-Shabab. Somali Government troops

are involved too. They are tough fighters but they sometimes lack

discipline and are always short of equipment. Without the Ugandans, the

Somali army wouldn't stand a chance. If so much

Map of the Somali troopsers don't look like they can stay and fight,

they can. They are part of a force in Somalia paid for by the west to

do a job western Governments won't. As the armoured column approaches

the town, Al-Shabab are ready. The soldiers I'm with know what's

coming. We are close to the town and there appears to be a firefight

happening about 100ms in front of us. Another African Union vehicle in

front of us and they appear to be engaging across the bank where the

town is. There is some fire coming back in this direction. Some of it

was coming in this direction. Shoot straight and kill the enemy! Bullets

rain on the Ugandans. Fighting vehicles are caught in the traffic

jam from hell. This is the main shopping street in the town. Look

what's happened to it now? An Al-Shabab side board, "the Koran is

the only path". I'm here under the mosque, OK. He's going to start

asking for ammunitions now, any vehicle moving between you and you

fast, shoot. Get your speed bigger. After fighting his way into town the

general took control. What I'm sure is I have adequate man power, 1500

soldiers on the ground and they won't do it to us they won't. The

battle has taken its toll. But civilians suffer more. This woman's

family was hit by a mortar round. She's the only surviving member. The

take on the town was only part of a -- the attack on the town was only

part of the offensive across the area where 3 million people live,

expect more civilian casualties and more refugees. Somalia has been at

war for decades, the human cost to that is incalculable. The governor

of the region thanked the Ugandans for coming. I put it to him that it

was Somalia's deep plan and private traditions was needed to shore it

up. You are saying that sides in Somalia have foreign support? More

than us. Al-Shabab, there are fighters who are going to teach you

know our youngest how to make suicide. How to make EID. This is

from these fighters here. That is the tragedy of Somalia,

foreign troops dig in, foreign Jihadists battle against them. The

Ugandans have made a significant advance by reaching Corleoli, but

they don't control the down. Very soon the annual rains will come and

the big MPs of war will be dogged down. Then Al-Shabab will retoot to

fight although in a distant and often what seems un-Govable country.

All the -- ungovernable country. All the men in the office have been

preparing, with the quote that Michael Gove is a not very secret

fan of our music of choice, fab-hop. In case it has passed you by, here

is live, uncut and wild, its leading exponent, Mr Bean the gentleman

rhymer. -- Mr B gentleman rhymer.

Hip, hop, hip, hop, you don't stop. # Walking to the bang jan rhythm

walking to the beat. # You wake up late for school and

you don't want to go You ask your ma please and she still

says no. You miss two classes and no homework

But your teacher thinks he's class You got a fight

On Newsnight to party. You got to fight, for your right to

party # That's p-a-r-t-y.

Cold winds coming in from the North Sea will be a big feature of the

weather over the next few days. A lot of cloud across the east during

Wednesday, with outbreaks of rain. In the west fair few showers in

Northern Ireland, at least there will be sunny spells developing.

Quite