27/03/2014 Newsnight

thanks to an invitation to a gay wedding. A poll says one in five of

us would refusing to. As the new comes into force on Saturday, choirs

and couples across England warm up for the big day. Being married by a

gay Irish registrar and Britain's longest serving female black

registrar, and that is happening in the heart of the country. That is

what makes Britain great for me. Why do some people not want to witness

the new kind of "I do". We know about global warming but are quash

Bonn emissions turning our oceans into acid. These bubbles seep out of

volcanic vents, this gives scientists a clue what oceans will

look like as man made O2 gets dissolved into sea water everywhere.

The trauma of Afghan war veterans as told by their children. He pulled me

under the table and said take cover because the door banged and it made

a loud noise like a bomb! . Good evening, witnesses to wedding

ceremonies have been asked for centuries to support the happy

couple with a rousing "we will". But for gay marriage, legal from

midnight tomorrow t appears a sizeable chunk of the population

would still say, "we will not". An exclusive poll said we would refuse

to attend a friend or relative's wedding if it was to the same-sex.

With the Archbishop's announcement that the church may be softening. Is

it stubborn prejudice that refuses to disappear of the or has the law

run ahead what some parts of society find difficult to accept. The music

might be traditional, and the lyrics from the Middle Ages, but the event

is very modern. This weekend the Fourth Choir, formed six months ago

by members of London's gay community will be performing live at a series

of events in the capital. 47 years after homosexuality was legalised,

nine years after the first civil partnerships, same-sex couples are

about to get the right to marry. One of the first couples to exchange

vows will be John and his Spanish fiance Barnardo. Their wedding just

past the stroke of midnight on Saturday is being filmed and

broadcast next week on BBC London. When we get married tomorrow night

it will be the first time in our history in the gay community you

have total equality. But there is a long way to go in hearts and minds,

there is homophobia there. We live a very boring, for us it is a

contented life here, and when you read homophobic sort of comments in

the newspaper, you listen to what people have to say about us, and the

recent floods apparently because of gay marriage, this is a monster out

there that doesn't exist. A poll for BBC five life -- BBC five live show

just how far things have come on It was especially true of young

voters. Eight out of ten supported gay marriage compared with 44% of

over 65s. Four out of ten still don't see same-sex marriage equal to

hetrosexual marriage. And 22% of British adults wouldn't

attend a ceremony. It is only 22%, that is a huge change to 40 years

ago when I was going to school and realised that I was gay. I think

that's quite encouraging it is only 22%. For those 22%, they are missing

great party. This change to the law still leaves some loose ends, it

won't be possible to convert a civil partnership into full marriage until

next year. As things stand same-sex couples will still struggle to get

married in most churches. In an interview with the Guardian

tomorrow, the Archbishop of Canterbury will signal he accepts

gay marriage will soon be law and says he will not resist the change,

but Anglican Clergy will still be banned from conducting same-sex

ceremonies. Sharon Ferguson is the Pastor of the metropolitan community

church a non-C of E congregation. It is sad for members of the lesbian

gay and Christian movement who are members of the Church of England. It

is sad for them, whilst they could go to other churches who are

registered, they are not going to be able to get married within the

church where they perhaps regularly worship. And that is a sad

situation. It is very sad for the priests within the Church of England

who would like to be able to marry members of their congregation as

well. This Saturday is then an important date for the gay rights

movement, a time of celebration for many. But the day when same-sex

marriage really means completely equal marriage may still be some way

off. With us to talk about this tonight are my guests. Melanie, this

poll suggests there is a sizeable minority of people who just wouldn't

go to a gay wedding. Why do you think that is the case? Speaking for

myself I'm very much in favour of going to a party, and never

knowingly turn down a wedding invitation, but if one is opposed to

the principle of gay marriage it would be a bit hypocritical to go to

the ceremony. You clearly would not attend a gay wedding, even if it was

from a close relative or a good friend? As I say I would be loathe

to turn down a fabulous party but I think it would be hypocritical if I

were to do so because I have an objection in principle to the notion

of gay marriage, though I would perfectly happily attend a civil

partnership ceremony. Is it the reality that politicians pushed

through this legislation for gay marriage specifically at such a

speed that some parts of society just haven't been willing yet to

accept that. And they have the right not to? They have the right not to,

they perfectly have the right not to go to celebrate the relationships,

the family bonds of even people they know very well. That's people's

liberty. Certainly politicians sometimes push something through

that they believe is right, even if they don't think that everybody is

with them. Even if they think that it's a minority this is going to

benefit. But in this case the politicians I believe took the view

this it wasn't going to affect every member of society, it was going to

affect a small minority, a relatively small minority about 10%

of the population, but for those people it is going to change their

lives, it really is. For the rest of the population who it is going to

affect them indirectly or it might not affect them at all. I think they

just did the right thing. Why do you think there are still a sizeable

chunk of society, a sizeable chunk like Melanie who wouldn't want to go

because they still object? I think it is unfamiliarity to be honest, in

most cases I think it is unfamiliarity. It would be

interesting to see if the 22%, if they had spent time or related to

gay person. But for Melanie it is not familiarity it is an objection

to the principle, there are still many people still object to the

principle? People are entitled to their own principles, people don't

have to go to parties. I really don't mind Melanie's freedom of

speech, she can protest against my wedding outside my wedding if she

wants, we will bring her out a Di Canio pay. Melanie sometimes -- A

canepe. Isn't it up to politicians to lead public opinion? I think also

they have to saying could go conthis sans of -- cognissance of the people

too, and he was out-of-touch with his own party and even his own

mother. Plenty of people opposed the idea of giving people the vote and

divorce law, minorities can't always get their way? I'm in entirely in

favour of politicians acting on principle, one could only hope they

did so more often. You are suggest ago principle when it is one you

agree with. Do you accept the status of gay relationship is the same in

status as that between a man and a woman? No, because it lacks the

potential fruitfulness of a hetrosexual relationship, which

isn't to say it isn't a good and valuable thing in itself, but it

lacks that element which is fundamental to matterage. --

Marriage. That is something I can't engage with, there are very happy

marriages of all sorts that have no prospect of fruitfulness. But how do

you feel tonight when this is the law that is changing tomorrow at

midnight when you still hear that? I'm very relaxed about difference of

opinion, so long as this difference of opinion doesn't then descend and

presume to tell me how I may live my life with my husband. Briefly who

has had an invite yet? I haven't, oddly enough. Maybe that is my

reckless and friends going on living in sin, I don't know. Melanie, even

the receptions not the first part of the ceremony? Tragically not even to

a civil partnership which I would like to attend very much. One can

wish people well in their relationships even if one stops at

celebrating and reworking the institution. Thank you for coming

in. It will be facinating to see how this all unfolds. 15 years of

privatisation and we still haven't got it right. It is not much

surprise to energy customers staggered by rises in their bills.

But should we be puzzled that the energy regulator seems to have just

cottoned on to the fact that the market doesn't work that well.

Politicians have been falling over themselves to welcome the idea of

investigating the big six energy companies. But Ofgem's review of the

sector doesn't really tell us that much we didn't know. Is our policy

editor asking why start another investigation now, could it just be

a political fix? More to the point perhaps is it a good idea? We like

competition, it is supposed to bring the best out of people. It is meant

to create fitter, faster and crucially leaner specimens. But in

the energy market it hasn't quite had the effects that some had hoped

for. Between 2009 and 2013 energy prices rose by 24%. Over the same

period, other prices only rose by 1%. Profit margin force the so

called "big six" energy companies rose too, from under 1% on sales of

gas and electricity up to 4. 3%, hardly scandalous numbers, but it is

a sustained rise. That's why, as you will know unless you have been

living without power for the last year, energy has become a major

political flash point. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has promised to

freeze prices for 20 months while he holds major reforms of the energy

market. But today, Ofgem, the independent energy regulator has

gone ahead of him. It has asked the competition authorities to hold an

investigation into the energy markets. What will they be looking

at? In an ideal world you will have some competition in the market and

some switching between pliers suppliers, that should drive down

prices for everyone. But energy companies use sophisticated analysis

to understand different behaviours for different groups of customers.

When they work out that a certain group of customers are unlikely to

switch under any circumstances, they charge them a high price. And for

the customers they think are likely to switch they offer them a very low

price, what actually happens is you have a competitive market that only

some get the benefit of. There are barriers for smaller independent

companies that want to enter the market. Not least that with almost

two thirds of people never having consciously switched suppliers they

struggle to grow. Some companies also find they can make more money

if they stay small. That all means there is a lack of new competitors

and that might be why Ofgem suspects so called "tacit co-ordination"

between the big six. That doesn't mean that Ofgem thinks the major

energy suppliers are running some sort of cartel, it is just that

without effective competition they tend to move a little bit more like

a pack than they ought to, and don't do enough jostling for new

customers. That is why, Ofgem suspect, they are quite fast to put

up prices when costs rise, and pretty slow to pass on savings when

the prices fall. This is nothing new, it helps the Government and

causes a problem for Labour, it makes it harder for them to campaign

on energy, some are suspicious. Unfortunately Ofgem have appeared to

have bowed to both political and media pressure to be seen to be

doing something. Which is understandable that they have done

that, but it does undermine both their credibility as an independent

regulate to and it does I'm afraid damage independent economic

regulation for the UK. Government insiders deny actively pushing

Ofgem, they say the regulator feels it should have held this review

years ago. But some energy companies say it is going to cause them

trouble. Centrica has told journalists today that plans to

invest in gas-pyred powertation -- gas-fired power stations have been

delayed. We wouldn't want to delay diversing in a few years time. Our

investors would naturally want us to wait and see the outcome of this

review. Of course Centrica is one of the regins energy market champions.

Unsurprisingly smaller companies who have much more to win from easier

competition are a lot keener on a review that might give them just

that. Earlier I went to speak to the new boss of the regulator, Ofgem,

Dermot Nolan. Given your report does not come up with new analysis and

talk about persistent problems, either job Geoff just hasn't --

Ofgem hasn't been doing its job and there should have been an inquiry

much, much earlier or this is a result of political pressure? This

is nothing to do with political pressure. I would like to stress

very clearly this is three independent organisation, three

independent boards, all looking at the evidence, all forming the view

and coming to a very clear and unambiguous answer that the market

is not working well. But a few months ago there were plenty of

insiders in the industry who believed your review wouldn't turn

up very much new. You haven't turned up very much new, what is new is

that last month the Secretary of State wrote a very public letter

saying that he wanted there to be a reference. If that isn't political

interference and pressure what is? What is the case is that the

evidence is persistent, I want to stress that, persistent, clear,

easily meets the test in our view for a market reference. Persistent

evidence over time that competition is not working effectively. The

Secretary of State wrote, the Secretary of State is perfectly

entitled to many reviews Today energy companies have said

they will move out of other projects. You will note most of the

companies will welcome the view. That is because they thought it was

inevitably going to happen? They offered it as an opportunity to

state their case and make sure the competition is effective. They will

have every opportunity to make their case. Investors like certainty and

will need to be reassured that consumer trust is still in the

market. That is very much the right thing. We are taking actions to make

sure the lights stay on in the short-term in any case. To make sure

the lights stay on in ten, 20, 50 years at affordable prices it will

what the review will help. Some politician, particularly Labour this

morning, are suggesting that the fact after years there should be a

reference, suggests that Ofgem has basically failed in its job, there

should be a replacement, Ofgem has wasted years, this review should

have taken place a long time ago? Ofgem has not wasted years at all.

It has put in place good recommendation that is will improve

consumer experience and engagment. Not if it is allowed this

anti-competitive behaviour to go on? It has seen a consistent pattern,

that is why the markets authority set up in legislation to look at the

very issues, was set up to say if a market isn't working well it should

be referred to the competitions and markets authority. What consumers

don't like is high prices. And high prices have been driven in the main

by the rise in wholesale gas prices and there is nothing that a

competition review can do about that. Two things on that I

absolutely accept that the main driver of electricity prices is

fossil fuel price, that is something we can't effect, it is something we

are stuck -- affect, that is something we are struck with. This

review won't affect prices in the main? It will, given the fact we

can't affect fossil fuel prices it is more incumbent on us to

concentrate the resources on the areas of price we can affect. All

the suggestions that effective competition can drive prices. A

final thought, given that prices are some of the lowest for UK consumers

in Europe. We pay some of the cheapest price, do consumers have to

wise up? No, as I said earlier, consumers I understand, we listened

to them, they are concerned about the scale of increases. They don't

trust the sector so they need that confidence restored. That confidence

can be restored best through an independent, thorough and exhaustive

process. But prices will go on going up any way, what is the point?

Prices may go up, it depends on fossil fuels. We need to bear down

on the areas of price West can affect. If we can drive those down

consumers will have more trust. Thank you very much indeed.

We're used to hearing politicians and bunked pundits talk about

climate change. But we have an alarm now about C O2 in the seas.

Scientists say the gas in the oceans are turning it to acid, at levels

not seen for 300 million years. As we discovered that means danger for

life under the water. These bubbles are poisoning the sea. They are

carbon dioxide, as they dissolve they make carbonic acid. This unique

site off the tip of Papua New Guinea is nature's warning as humans pump

out more and more C O2, because it is clear that many creatures won't

survive. These bubbles seep out of volcanic vents and they are making

the water here much more naturally acidic. This spot gives scientist as

clue as to what the world's oceans will look like. As emissions of man

made CO2 continues to get dissolved into sea water everywhere.

We have been invited to join a scientific research boat on a

journey to the volcanic vents. We're not the only ones curious. Sea water

is already about 30% more acidic since we started burning fossil

fuels. That could be five times worse by the end of the century. It

is bad news for this part of the ocean the coral triangle, the most

deverse ecosystem in the seas. The impact of rising emissions will fall

on countries like Papua New Guinea, which rely on the coral for a

living. With a dawning awareness of its own fragile environment. The

research team arrive at the island with its own volcano, right on what

is known as the Pacific ring of fire. But first they need permission

from the villagers for their research, they own the reef. The

bubbles here they are carbon dioxide, it is clean but a gas that

is also in the air, and especially if person countries burn so much

fuel and coal there is more of this gas in the air and it goes into the

ocean. Welcome. Katerina is the expedition leader, she's collecting

samples from the boulder corals, they are stuff enough to cope with

high CO2, she's also laying a tape, starting at the volcanic events and

stretch ago I way to the point where the effect of the bubbles has

disappeared. Here it is. You don't need a science degree to see the

difference. These spectacular corals provide shelter for juvenile fish.

They can't survive under conditions of high CO2. We are losing a lot of

biodiversity, coral reefs are really suffering, and they are built out of

calcium cabonate which is highly sensitive to more acidic waters.

Once we lose the structure in it we are losing the biodiversity. Another

experiment, dislodging boxes they fix today the seabed two years ago.

The boxes are designed to attract creatures looking for a home. This

site has the level of CO2 expected in all the oceans for the end of the

century. The experimental boxes come on shore for analysis. They will use

DNA testing to establish how many species have taken up residence. We

need to work very quickly here, because a lot of the creatures here

are releasing toxins out as we speak, and those toxins are killing

the creatures living in the sampling device and we are losing their DNA.

She can make a preliminary assessment just by looking. I'm

extremely surprised by how poor this is. Usually I'm used to seeing a lot

of groups, so a lot of different crabs and a lot of different

mollesc. Here I only see a few. A day later s examples the sample from

the unpolluted site. Today this tray is full of organism, lots of

different species. They are all different, it is very diverse this

tray. All the species are the building blocks of the diversity of

the reef and the base of the food chain. The tiny features will have

their DNA established back in the lab, so the work is not finished.

But it is a warning, a warning that's welcomed by the people in the

frontline. The rich world is slowly wake to go

what they call the other carbon problem. I have tracked the acid

oceans story for a decade now, it is still largely unknown to the public,

but some Governments are taking notice. In Townsville on the

north-east coast of Australia, a new centre researches the impact on the

seas of high CO2, this research facility uses industrial technology.

This is a brand-new build to go try to address the issue of ocean

acidcation. It helps her to further her experiments from the field. We

still know very little about what it does to the different life stages

and we can use the organisms we are keeping here, put them under

controlled conditions and then test what temperature and what ocean

carbon does to the organisms. We can manipulate the nutrients, the carbon

eye dock side in the -- dioxide in the water and in a fairly controlled

way. Many species will lose under the changes to come, but seaweed

will gain, and that is not all. Our hypothesis is as corals decline,

sponges may do better. This tiny animal here is a one-year-old

sponge, and this sponge is jam packed with tiny microscopic

bacteria that contribute to the nutrition of the animal. What we are

proposing is this bacteria may photo syntesise more under CO2 enabling

them to grow faster and do better in the CO2 world. It sounds like a good

thing for the ecosystem? It depends, they essentially filter the reef,

and if there is contaminants they can be sensitive to that, they are

filtering all the compounds out of the water. They can also

potentionally, if there is a huge biomass of sponges create what we

all feeding shadow, areas where they have removed all the nutrients out

of the water, which wouldn't provide sufficient nutrition for other

animal who is live on the reef. As the scientists are finding, once you

start shifting the brick that is build an ecosystem, it is immposible

to say exactly what will happen. On the boat they are working late to

try to wrap up today's experiments. Scientists have made enough progress

already in this new field of research to know that CO2 will bring

enormous changes on the oceans. What I know as a scientist is what we are

recording here is pure chemistry and physics. The carbon dioxide in the

air is going into the ocean and making the ocean more acidic,

because it is one chemical of carbon eye dock side and one of water it

forms carbonic acid. We know what we are doing, it is

time to wake up to the reality that we just can't continue as we do

today. For more than 10,000 troops at its peak to now just two bases

remaining in Helmand Province where much of the war's worst fighting has

taken place, British forces have been involved in Afghanistan for 13

years, 448 have died. Operations will finish by the end of this year.

But the experiences of those who fought will stay with them and with

their families and their children. The BBC's children's programme,

newsround, has been hearing some of their stories, here are Nathanal and

Ellie. My brother he was searching for IEDs and he was going along a

bridge and he stood on one and got blown up. We got to see him in

intensive care. I remember walking in and just thinking it was all a

bad dream that and I would wake up soon. It just kicked in and it was

really emotional. I couldn't believe that he was there, my brother,

laying in a coma. It is unbearable when you walk in there and see him.

He didn't look like he was going to make it at all. I don't understand

why we went into Afghanistan, because so many people have either

died or been injured out there. I don't understand why we had to go

over there in the first place. When he's by himself, when he thinks that

no-one can see he's pretty down. You can't really see any physical

injuries on my dad, but he suffers with mind injuries, because of what

he has been through in the war. When he came back from the army I found

it hard to cope because every time there was a loud noise or like the

wind or anything like that, he would shut the doors through the house, if

there was a window open he pulled me under the table one time and said

"take cover", because the door banged and it made a loud noise like

a bomb. He used to scream in his sleep and shout. I would wake up and

think "my dad's a freak". He found a way of coping with it and it was to

put a war film on or a loud film. He had to sleep with the film on to be

in that atmosphere again. The thing I struggled with is he wouldn't talk

to me about it. He doesn't really show emotions, he never cries. His

saying is "the weak only cry". With us now is retired Brigadier Mike

Griffiths, the former director of personnel for the British Army, who

lost his own son in the war on Afghanistan. And went on to train

visiting officers who break the news to friends and family. We have heard

how profoundly the families are affected. And you have seen this on

both sides. Yes I have. My son was wounded in Afghanistan in 2010. He

survived the IED and was flown home. Rather like you saw in the film

became back to the ICU in Birmingham where he lived for 12 days and sadly

succumbed to his injuries on the 5th of September 2010. I have seen that

side and I have also been on the knock when somebody has come to your

door to tell you that your son has been hurt. How did you find out? I

was actually on leave and my wife was about to go out the door to

work, she's a midwife. And there was a knock on the door and it was my

boss, he was stood there, and there was absolutely no reason for him to

be there. As soon as I saw him I knew it was going to be bad news. In

fact the bad news was bad, but actually he was alive, he was in

surgery and he had a fighting chance. So from immense low we

picked ourselves up, prepared to go to Birmingham because there was

still hope. And then once he was in hospital you were there obviously as

a military man, but as a father, a family member, presumably before

anything else? Oh definitely, and Andrew flew home with Darren who was

wounded the day before in the same company. The family were all there

too and many other families. But of course we were close because our

boys had been together and had been wounded almost on the same day. So,

yes you are, you are just a father, you are part of a machine that picks

you up and looks after you, amazingly well I have to say. They

took the load off us so we could concentrate on one thing, and one

thing only, which was Andrew. And then you spent your professional

time trying to train others to help families more effectively. But how

do you prepare people for that knock, how do you cope with that

doing the knock from the other side? The army has taken the view that we

do it by regimental systems, so that when the person comes to the house

they are from the same unit, the same organisation as the man or

woman who has been injured or indeed has died. And so what you have got

automatically is the regimental family helping to support people

through it. Which is hugely important. That's our decision. We

have also taken a very conscious view that the person who gives the

bad news is not the person who looks after you long-term. So we have a

notifying officer and then a visiting officer, so that actually

that awful news which really does hurt, immediately almost within

hours, somebody else is there who actually brings in all the welfare

support and other agency, they almost come as a sort of package to

look after you. A very professional system then,

perhaps. But still a human-to-human contact that must have a profound

impact? It does, and most of these people are volunteers, and we don't

train them separately, so this is in addition to their day job. And most

of them take a huge pride in doing it properly, because it is a fellow

soldier. And of course they are human and some things don't go as

well as they could do. Is it made harder when it is a conflict like

Afghanistan and there has been a lot of public misgiving about it for the

families, for your family. Was it worth it? That is the most difficult

question to answer. I take great comfort in the fact that Andrew was

doing a job he absolutely loved, he was a good soldier, he was a good

officer and he died in the service of his nation. And I hope that this

nation respect that and will respect all those others who died alongside

him. But as father that is a very difficult question to answer on

daily basis in a positive way. Do you think you will ever be able to

answer it? I'm very proud of my son, I'm also proud of having been in the

army for all those years, and I'm proud of a nation that sends its men

and women to international operations rather than just a nation

who looks its own borders. And I think being part of a nation like

that should make us all proud. So I'm enormously proud. Thank you so

much for coming in and sharing air memories of your son and your own

experiences thank you. Democracies are rarely born without pain, but

after just three years, post the revolution, has Egypt given up all

together. The head of the army, Abudl Al Sisi, has surrounded his

job, but not to retire quietly, but to stand as the country's President.

Despite violence against his opponent as swell of popular support

looks likely to put the strong man into power. Dignity, bread, liberty.

The battle cry of 2011. As Egypt's people ended six decades of military

rule. But three years on, after an attempt at democracy, a strongman

looks set to return. But it seems this is what many Egyptians actually

want. Field Marshal Abudl Al Sisi, the head of Egypt's army has

resigned so he can fight as President, a fight he's almost

certain to win. TRANSLATION: I stand before you in my military uniform

for the last time. For I have made up my mind to retire as the minister

of defence. He's something of a celebrity since he ousted the Muslim

Brotherhood last year. For many he has brought stability after three

years of chaos. The Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi had

treated his 2012 victory as winner takes all, stacking the state with

Islamists, giving himself extensive powers. But after clashes with the

Brotherhood, the army seized power, for many it felt simply like a

traditional coup. This week an Egyptian court sentenced 528 Morsi

supporters to death, the largest mass sentence in Egypt's history. It

is not yet clear what a return to strongman rule will mean for Egypt.

The early signs are not encouraging. But if Egyptians can't have all

three, dignity, bread and liberty, faced with chaos will most of the

population in the end choose bread? With us now is Abdullah Al-Haddad

from the Muslim Brotherhood party which won the democratic election in

2012 and Dr Mona Makram-Ebeid, form MP in the parliament of Egypt.

Firstly to Cairo, will there ever be democracy in Egypt? Why not? Why are

you so sceptical, we are all very hopeful we will have a civilian

democracy, in fact. But in the meantime, we will have a guided

democracy. And a progressive one, we won't have it overnight, it will be

a progressive civilian democracy at some time. You call it a guided

democracy. But you have what looks like a regime threatening to execute

more than 500 of its opponents? It is not threatening to execute

anybody. That was the court judgment yesterday. But it is unlikely that

the sentence will be carried out, and if it is not struck down on

appeal, it will likely be commuted either by the President or by the

grand mufti. You say a guided democracy, that is not a free

society where people are able to live as they choose, or object to

what is happening politically! They are absolutely free, they are all

expressing ourselves very freely, nobody is stopping us. With hundreds

of people being arrested? Some people are being arrested if they

are found not guilty they will be released as many of them have been

released. So If this is what people are happy with, a guided democracy,

if it is what people want it is what people should get isn't it? I

disagree with what was said. I think we will have a mass murderer like

Stalin and Pinochet who committed the worst state-led massacre against

the anti-coup protesters in their cities, and he's now using the

Egyptian judiciary as another oppression tool to continue his

violent crackdown against anyone who opposes him. You are comparing Al

Sisi to Stalin? Yes, of course, what we have seen two days ago the dead

sentence to more than -- death sentence to more than 500 people.

Stall Len who went on to be response -- Stalin who was responsible for

many millions of peoples death, you are comparison, you are happy with

the comparison? He will not hesitate in killing hundreds of thousands,

women, children, men or anyone who opposed him. The suggestion is Al

Sisi will be a new Stalin, convince add pattern of dictatorship is

already there? You can suggest to anybody, you can suggest Hitler, to

husband he is a hero, to us he as going to be a reformer. To us he

saved us from a Civil War. To us he is the one we called upon and he

didn't come on his own, certainly he came out of necessity and not out of

desire. This is one thing. One forgets all the attacks against the

police, all the attacks, the persistent murder of policemen, of

army people, and of ordinary civilians, who have been living with

that since the 30th of June. You are clearly never going to sign up to Al

Sisi. The wider point is an attempt at democracy in 2012 failed. The

Muslim Brotherhood grabbed extra powers for the President and people

do want some kind of stability? I totally disagree, there were

mistakes from the Muslim Brotherhood but within a democratic system, the

only tool to determine whether this is right or wrong was the ballot

box. What Abudl Al Sisi did on the 3rd July was a military coup. He

ousted the first democratically elected President ever in the

history of Egypt. Now there are more than 22,000 innocents in jail,

children, women, even journalist, now he is killing committed

atrocities. Mass killings against anyone who opposes him. In the day

that he announced his presidential bid, a 14-year-old boy was killed by

his forces. Where should people in Egypt accept that kind of crackdown

on their political opponents? First of all the former President was

removed not by military coup but popular impeach: Meaning the people

have asked that -- impeachment, mean the people asked that the President

who has violated his mandate to be removed. Other people are protesting

for the last nine months, don't they have the right? I am afraid we must

leave it there, it will be fascinating to see how it unfolds,

the two of are you very opposed to each other's views, we must leave it

there I'm afraid. That is all for tonight. But just in case you missed

it, the Education Secretary was taking questions from schoolchildren

as part of the BBC's School Report, he let slip as you well know his

well known love of Chap Hop. I was wondering could you give us a taster

of your favourite rap, as you have recently said you liked rap. I have

got so many, the first rap I liked was the What happens Rap, with

Andrew ridgely and George Mike KACHLT "take a look at me, I have

credibility, I have good time with the boys I meet on the line"

# What happens balm # I am the man

# You can't tell me that I'm not # Do you

# Enjoy what to do ?

Heavy showers in south wells, rain in Northern Ireland, but not all day

long. There will be sunny spells across