03/04/2014 Newsnight

sandstorm hitting the south-east of England to wake people up to the

fact that a pollution is a real and present danger in the UK. Newsnight

has found out there have been 60 similar incidents in the last five

years, none of them has received this level of media attention. We

ask the World Health Organisation how seriously we should be taking

this. Jimmy Carter, the 37th President of the United States tells

Newsnight how he would deal with intelligence whistle-blower, Edward

Snowden, if he were still in the White House. If he comes home and

tried and guilty and incarcerated and if I was President, a lot of if,

I would certainly consider giving him pardon. A remarkable story from

the Rwandan genocide. He said you can't kill these people, you can't

take them out at all. I refuse that. And he offered him arms and said if

you want to take them, you kill me. 20 years on we tell the incredible

story of the unsung UN peacekeeper who saved hundreds of lives. As the

Royal Shakespeare Company revive as trio of Jacobean play, unlike most

of the works of the barred gave women top billing, Fiona and show is

here to debate putting women in their place.

Good evening, the Saharan dust, which mixed with other pollutants

has been caution itchy eyes, noses and breathing difficulties in much

of the UK has raised alarm about increased levels of pollution. But

Newsnight's analysis suggests these levels are not at all unusual, just

we are normally unaware of them. None of this is new, of course, in

1903 when Monet set his easal next to the Thames, he said a London

without its fog would not be a beautiful city. 111 years later and

to the naked eye the picture is much clearer. But pollution readings over

the past week have alarmed scientists and medical doctors.

Today London and the south-east both hit the highest alert levels set by

the Government. The Prime Minister described the capital's atmosphere

as unpleasant. In the time that Monet painted that picture, most of

the pollution in London and most of the cities in the UK came from coal

burning, there was a period in the 1990s where we felt like we had

largely dealt with air pollution as an urban problem. We haven't, what

has happened since then is the amount of pollution from traffic and

industries has increased and as we are seeing this week pollution is

still a problem which affects many cities in Europe and the UK. How

often does this happen? The answer is far more often than maybe you

would think. This is the governments pollution map, London and east yang

are at the top level, meaning everyone with breathing difficulties

should avoid strenuous activities, warning was in place for four other

regions. Forget the media coverage and go back a week, similar

Government alerts at level ten were again in force, this time in the

East Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside and only picked up by

handful of local papers. In fact, Newsnight has found that over the

past five years there have been 422 incidents of high air pollution at

level seven or above. With 61 incidents at the top level of ten,

very few were publicised If pollution is common why all the

media attention from politicians and media. In big towns it is almost

impossible to see at street level. Modern air pollution comes from

vehicle emission, microscopic and impossible to see with the naked

eye. In this case southerly winds have been blowing up from North

Africa, when it rains sand from The Sahara has been dumped on cars and

windows so we can see and feel it. It is easy to see the dust, it is

there. The types of pollution that we are measuring in the monitoring

networks and the types of pollution that have an affect on people's

health are microscopic particle, particles about the size of a virus.

So small that when you breathe them in they can get deep into the lining

of your lungs and make it through into the bloodstream. That is the

main difference between how pollution used to be in London and

the types of pollution we have now. But there may be a second simple

reason for all this media attention. On Tuesday responsibility for

forecasting pollution levels switched from the aDomic energy

agency to the Met Office. While That means those alerts suddenly started

to show up regularly on the weather forecasts. The effect of all this on

health is hard to measure, at least in the short-term. Today the Prime

Minister gave up his normal morning jog because of the pollution scare,

though he then appeared to play it down, calling it a natural

phenomenon. But the Government's own advisers on this estimate air

pollution is factor in at least 29,000 early deaths a year in the

UK. More than twice as many as passive smoking.

Exposure to air pollution in the UK leads to an average shortening of

life for about six months. On high-pollution days those most at

risk are the elderly and those P with preexisting conditions. These

people are more likely to develop symptoms and leading to emergency

hospital admission or even death. The deaths that occur on

high-pollution days are thought to be people who will woo die within a

few weeks any way and the pollution is putting them over the edge. What

can pollutions and Government do this be this? Last month Paris

imposed emergency measures only allowing those with even or odd

number plates drive on alternate days in the city centre. The

Government had agreed to bring air pollution down to safe levels by

2015, they have said that won't happen until 2025, the delay means

the UK is facing legal action from the European Commission and a group

of environmental lawyers. I believe that we have a riot to breathe clean

air, I believe that -- a right to breathe clean air strikes and I

believe we shouldn't havor woey -- shouldn't have to worry about

children breathing clean air. It is a major problem and isn't being

taken seriously, I think we need to take legal action and force

Government to do something about it. Saharan sand will wash off soon

enough and the smog will left. It is the effect of regularly breaching

pollution controls in the long-term that could be the cost to the

environment and to our health. We asked to speak to someone from the

department for the environment and from the Department of Health, but

we were told no-one was available. So to discuss this I'm joined now by

an expert in air pollution from the World Health Organisation, and Roy

Harris a Professor of Environmental Health from the University of

Birmingham. First of all I suppose we should be thankful for the

Saharan sandstorm because it has alerted ordinary people to the

presence of quite often high levels of air pollution? I think you are

right. What it has done is to reinforce the high levels that we

would have been seeing any way because of the air coming over from

the near continent. But it is very obvious the way it is soiling the

cars and windows and so on. It has very much highlighted the issue,

which is very good news for us. 422 incidents in the last five years of

pollution levels between 7 and 10, 29,000 premature deaths what should

the Government do about it? Legislation operates at a number of

levels it is not purely in the hand of the UK Government. It is also the

European Union which has actually been very active in the past in

driving forward policies on air quality. The only answer in the long

run is to reduce emission, there are many ways of doing that. It is not

cheap do it and much has been achieved in the past. But if we want

to see air quality improve in future, reductions in emissions is

the only way to do it. You talk about the EU, and coming to you

doctor, at the moment let's deal with the UK first. The EU has

launched legal proceedings against the UK because it has failed to

reach the levels of chemicals requested. How bad is Britain's

record in this? The World Health Organisation has said in some norms

and standards, most of the European countries are following those

standards and they don't deviate much from that, except on

exceptional occasions. But it is true that we would like to see an

increase and improvement on the way we are dealing with air pollution in

the fact that we need to breathe clean air if we want to have a

better health. So we would like to see in the European countries, even

if they are among the best countries in the world, an increase and an

improvement in the situation. That will be resulting in a better health

for everyone. That is primarily by reducing C O2 emissions? We need to

do a kind of diagnosis. It will be depending very much on each city.

You need to do an assessment from where those sources of emissions are

coming. In most parts of the time the emissions are coming from

traffic, so taking decisions on a more sustainable public transport

system, energy efficiency for the buildings, and measure that is will

increase the possibility for cities to work and to bike -- citizens to

work and bike and have a better lifestyle, reducing the use of

private vehicles will be contributing to the reduction of the

emissions. As mentioned it is difficult but it is physical, it is

feasible and it is demonstrated as possible. There are many experiences

proving that. Clearly David Cameron took it seriously this morning, he

didn't go for his jog. But do we have to take measures like they have

done in par risks for example, in -- Paris, for example, in city centres

to limit traffic at any one time. Do we have to do radical things like

that? I don't think these kinds of panic measure, such as they took in

Paris are terribly effective. You need long-term action and more

widespread action. This pollution arises not only from emissions, very

locally, it is not only emissions in London that affect London, it is

emissions right over the European continent. For some pollutants even

further away than Europe. You need a bigger action than that. That is KWL

why I think the main driver should be an action at European level

because the commission has the power to take action on these things. It

made proposals in December of last year, forthure changes in air

quality policy, which quite frankly I regard as complacent. So would you

agree that more can be done at the European level, are you happy in

relation to what is happening for example in China that Europe overall

is performing reasonably well? I think it is quite clear that the

measures in Europe, but as well the cities can take certain measures, it

is difficult for the citizens for themselves. It is going beyond the

controls of individuals in many places, you can't decide the quality

of the air you breathe. But by raising awareness, the citizens can

put a lot of generating pressures on policy by measures of city, national

and international levels, that is extremely important. I would like to

remind that there was a report presented a couple of weeks ago, one

week ago saying that we have an estimate of seven million deaths

linked to air pollution globally, which makes air pollution one of the

most significant global risks for health. It is clear that most of

those deaths are occurring in low and middle income countries, but

still, we are very much concerned as citizens from all around the world.

We have measures that have proved to be effect yes . The former US

President, Jimmy Carter has told Newsnight that if he was still in

the White House he would consider pardoning Snowden. In a wide-ranging

interview, starting with a discussion about his new book, A

Call To Action, which decries the world's discrimination of violence

against women and girls, President Carter goes on to claim that US

influence in the world has been damaged in recent years by American

involvement in so many wars. He was the last US President to visit Iran

and was in the White House during the embassy hostage crisis in which

52 Americans were held for 444 days. First his book, I put it to him he

seemed very troubled by elements of organised religion that do great

damage to women. I'm deeply troubled, it is not just religion.

Quite often the secular world is the most guilty of persecuting women.

For instance in my country we pay women 23% less than we do men for

the same work. We have tremendous sexual assaults on our college

campuses and even our greatest universities, they have the same

thing that happens within the mill treatment and we have a -- military,

and we have a terrible degree of slave trade in America. The US State

Department is required by law to do this every year now, reported it

last year, 100,000 young girls were sold into sexual slavery in the

United States itself. In the book you look at different countries, and

you focus for a very short while on Saudi Arabia, and you talk about

Saudi Arabia's upping of oil production in the Iran-Iraq War

coming to America's aid. I wonder if you pull your punches in Saudi

Arabia, as you say 78% of female graduates are unemployed because of

religious and cultural opposition. That is dreadful figure that? It is,

at least under King Abdullah the women have been given a free chance

for higher education and college and even up to graduate level. When they

do finish college training they have a very difficult time within the

Saudi culture to actually get a productive job. And they are

obviously constrained still by the customs that a woman has to be

escorted by man on the street, can't drive an car or ride a bicycle. At

the moment the Iranians are trying to send a new ambassador to the UN

who was one of the hostage takers at the American Embassy in Tehran,

should America give him a visa or not? I hope so, I see no reason to

prevent this person of serving as the official representative of Iran.

You have to remember that those people who took my hostages back in

1979 were college student, they were young people, I don't think they

should be held culpable for that incident now 35 years later. On the

broader question of American foreign policy, President Obama has been

criticised for not taking a firmer stand on Crimea. Do you worry about

renewed Russian expansionism? Well I don't think there was any way to

prevent Putin from going in to Crimea, no matter what the European

Union did, no matter what the Americans did. That was still going

to happen. Because I have known this situation for 35 or 40 years and

there is no doubt that Russians all considered Crimea to be part of

Russia and about three-quarters of the Crimean people who speak Russian

wanted to be part of Russia. That was a foregone conclusion. I think

the Russian military advance has to be stopped there. I don't think we

can permit Russia to have military adventures in other parts of eastern

Ukraine. Is America in a way damaged by very different things, of

Afghanistan and Iraq, do you think it has reduced America's confidence

in itself and its confidence in pursuing an act of foreign policy of

prevention? I think it has been some what damaging. America is still the

most powerful nation in the world there is no doubt about that, our

military, economic power and cultural influence, all I think are

still the most powerful. We are the only superpower in the world. But I

think that our influence has been a damage to some degree by constantly

going into bilateral wars. I mentioned in my book that since the

Second World War, since the United Nations was founded, ostensibly to

put an to end this kind of thing that the United States has been

involved in about 30 countries, and armed conflict. I think that is one

of the things that has given our country bad reputation as far as

peace and human rights is concerned. One thing that you are, you have

been talking about recently is the fact that you use what is called

"snail mail", that you actually write everything down. I wonder the

whole US scandal over intelligence, do you think the intelligence

gathering in the United States is out of control? Yes I do. I think it

got out of control after 9/11. When I was in the White House I passed an

act called the FISA Act, that required before any single telephone

conversation was monitored, that a very balanced judge, panel of judges

had to approve it. That was completely eliminated after 9/11.

And I think the intelligence committees of the House and Senate

in the United States Congress, have passed legislation which other

members of Congress were not permitted because it was top secret.

I think the NSA went further than the legislation permitted. In your

view, what about Edward Snowden, should he be allowed to come home

without fear of being locked up for the rest of his life? Well, I'm not

advising him what to do, but if he comes home, it is obvious that

Edward Snowden has violated laws and he will have to be put on trial, if

he comes home and is tried and found guilty, if he was incarcerated and I

was President, a lot of "ifs" then I would certainly consider giving him

a pardon! But it would be based on the fact that the punishment, in my

own personal opinion, exceeded the harm that he did to our country.

Thank you very much indeed. It was the political scandal that put some

MPs in jail, but today the cabinet minister, Maria Miller got the

fulsome support of the Prime Minister, despite the fact she was

censured by the Standards Committee for hindering an inquiry into her

expenses claims. She was forced into a humiliating apology on the floor

of the House and has to repay overpaid accommodation expenses.

What happened to tough David Cameron on cleaning up expenses. What

exactly did she do? She is one of four women in the cabinet. That is

politically significant, she was accused of claiming ?90,000 worth of

tax-payers' money for a house where she lived with her parents. Now,

what the commission has decided in all their wisdom is that arrangement

in principle was OK, but she did overcharge a little bit and an

administrativer Yorks they called t as a result she's having to pay back

nearly ?6,000. Humiliating she became the first serving cabinet

minister to have to say sorry from the benches of the House of Commons.

After an investigation of nearly a year-and-a-half, it came down to

this 32-second apology. With permission With permission I wish to

make a personal statement after today's report. It resulted in an

allegation made by a member, the committee has dismissed the

allegation. The committee has recommended that I apologise to the

House for my attitude to the commissioner's inquiries, and I of

course unreservedly apologise. I fully accept the recommendations of

the committee, and thank them for bringing this matter to an end. Not

exactly contrite, and not just the fact that she gave such a short

apology, you might think she was in disGRASHGS but look at this, behind

her, not just your normal backbenchers, or Government whip,

but the cabinet minister Jeremy Hunt who moved from the front bench to

the backbench to give her visible support, and Sir George Young a very

senior Conservative indeed. That tells us that the tof the

Conservative Party is tonight fully behind her.

Did she sort of get off? The independent commissioner,

fascinatingly, the independent, overseen by a member of MPs said she

should have paid back ?40,000. What is also striking is the tone of her

letters to the commissioner, where she really, really dragged her feet

at every step of the way. And that is actually what landed her in

trouble. One MP said to me it was the bullying way that she tried to

get out of it that actually led to her having to say sorry. It is

extraordinary because at the height of the expenses scandal, when people

were guilty, I have to say, lots of people went to jail? They did, and

believe it or not it is five years since that all blew up in the first

place. What is interesting is that many MPs I have spoken to today have

said the rules are ING Chad, we have all moved on and nobody thinks that

she was fiddling things on purpose, she made mistakes. The public might

feel rather differently. Tonight a couple of the front pages. The Times

here, "fury grows as expenses row minister clings to job" and "MPs

compeer to save Miller". One of the problems was MPs were judging

themselves, that is part of what is happening in this case. This weekend

it will be exactly 20 years since the start of the genocide in Rwanda

when ethnic Hutus started to wipe out minority ethnic Tutsis and

moderate Hutus too. 00,000 people were killed in three short months

and thousand of women raped. Few of the perpetrators have ever been

brought to justice t amongst the horror were acts of goodness too. An

unarmed United Nations peacekeeper from Senegal personally saved

hundreds of lives. The BBC's international development

correspondent covered the genocide back in 1994. Now, with the passing

of time, Mark returned to Rwanda to explore his story, a story which has

never been told in full before. Mark's film contains some extremely

disturbing images. Automatic fire could be heard from

invite the city. In the midst of the horror of the genocide an

extraordinary man saved hundreds of lives. Cap Dane Diane was an unarmed

observer from the African state of Senegal. In 1994 there was a small

peacekeeping force in Rwanda. When violence engulfed the country the

force was totally overwhelmed, but the captain was not. Going well

beyond his official mandate he set out to rescue as many people as he

could. One of the first people to be targeted by the Government-sponsored

killers was the Prime Minister. She and her husband were murdered in

their residence. But they had managed to hide their children, who

were also in the sights of the killers in a neighbouring house,

where forreners lived. The daughter of the assassinated Prime Minister

has never spoken about these traumatic events before. Or about

the role the captain had in saving her life 20 years ago.

There was some debate about UN official about what to do with the

children. The UN mandate was to observe. It wasn't clear what it was

supposed to do when it came to saving Rwandans. But on humanitarian

ground the captain decided to act any way. He bundled the children

into his car, hid them under a tarpaulin and drove them to the

safety of the hotel. The commander of the UN peacekeeping

force in Rwanda in 1994 was Canadian general Romeo Dallaire. There is no

way to describe how gutsy he was, it was the Victoria Cross type of

action. Millions of people were displaced as the conflict escalate.

Most Rwandans and other Africans were left to their fate. This

horrified captain Mbaye was spurred on. There was no grand plan left,

the UN in fact three weeks into the genocide was still arguing whether

or not I was allowed to protect anybody. And so they are debating it

meanwhile we are in the field and guys like Mbaye are saving bodies

left right and centre, pulling them out and trying to get them to the

airport. It was a core of people who had a sense of humanity that went

well beyond their orders. The militia tried time after time to

break into the hotel where Marie Christine and hundreds of others

were hiding. Survivors say Captain Mbaye, who was stationed there, was

the key man in a thin blue line of UN peacekeepers who kept the militia

out. This doctor was among those hiding at the hotel. As the battle

for central Kigali raged and the militias were hammering at the door,

Captain Mbaye ordered a convoy of lorries to take some of them to

safety. But the militia attacked the convoy on this hill. They tried to

pull us out. They climbed on top of the lorry to pull you out? To pull

us out. What was the captain doing at that time? He said you can't pull

these people, you can't kill these people, you can't take them out at

all. I refuse that. And he offered these arms, if you want to take them

you first kill me. To find out more about what made this extraordinary

army captain tick, I drafted to his home country of Senegal to meet his

family. In the living room a citation of bravery from the state

department in Washington. It said Captain Mbaye personally saved as

many as 600 lives. Do you remember anything else about

that last conversation that you had? Captain Mbaye's luck ran out on May

31st 1994. There had been talk on the walkie talkies of a military

observer having been killed near the Kigali nightclub, and Captain Mbaye

had stopped at that checkpoint, it was quite clear that a mortar bomb

or rocket had landed just behind the driver's position, because there was

shrapnel that had gone through the passenger door and we know that some

of that shrapnel hit Captain Mbaye's head. There was blood on the seat

and that had gathered in the foot well as well. And that's how he

died. So one man saved hundreds of lives

in Rwanda. But the genocide claimed 800,000, there is no moral

equivalence. But we now know that one man with extraordinary courage

did simply what he thought was right. Desdemona, Opheila, Titania,

even the impossible shre wait, it is hard to think of any of them

triumphing in Shakespeare's plays, some of his less well known cop temp

radios wrote plays featuring bold female characters. Now the RSA is

attempting to make good the deficit and putting on three of them under

the titles of The Roaring Girl. Here is a clip of the play, spliced with

the views of the director, Joe Davies. I described it to someone

the other day as a Jacobean pussy ride, you get the sense of the

energy of the piece! She quip, s, she smokes she sings, and a force of

nature the moment she steps on the stage. Joining me are my guests.

Fiona. First of all, you know Shakespeare's plays intimately, do

you think it was his way of doing it, or was the stories that he was

telling that was it? To make the women... Secondary? : He doesn't

always make them secondary, some of them are very central. Rosalind is

very central, they are secondary in the universe, the world they are

unifying usually ends in marriage. Where as the man's world is some how

broader and more philosophical. You do feel that the women are just

heading towards marriage. That is probably the limitation of it. Did

Shakespeare had any limitations put on him, or were they

self-limitations. There was the limitation of the fact that the

female parts were played by male actors, essentially the theatrical

profession was like a guild or trade. So the apprentice, the young

men, teenage boys played the female parts. So inevitably the likelihood

is the dramatist will of give the most grown-up parts to the lead

actors and secondary parts to the younger actors. Not in the Jacobean

plays? Two are Jacobean and a little later. The one I'm most interested

in is Elizabethan, that is the earlier play and has the biggest

part of the Elizabethan era but played by a boy actor. It doesn't

end in marriage likes the Shakespeare ones, it begins in

marriage, she has an fair and she and her lover kill the husband. On

the basis of what the plays show about the male character, there is a

lot of anteriority about the men in Shakespeare, women don't get that? I

don't know if that is true. They mention some wonderful things about

themselves, you mentioned about the annoying shrew, when it is said

"good morrow Kate I hear that is your name", and she says, "they call

me Katherine", her protection of her own name is her desire to be taken

seriously. He was sympathetic in that way to them. He puts them

through some strange things, Viola getting thrown up on a shore and the

forests foreanother. They are bigger than they started out as. Do you

think they have a universality. The whole idea about Shakespeare is it

is the universality that we can relate to now? My frustration is

ultimately not with them, because Jonathan is right because the

company composition and the way in which only male characters played

female characters had a limitation. Just if their world ends in marriage

and nowadays many women's lives begin with marriage and maybe

another marriage the plays are not reflect, they are not a mirror up to

nature to our experience of our entire lives. It is interesting that

he has to have the Romeo Juliet and ant though and Cleopatra, he

could have had a wonderful play with Cleopatra centre stage without

Anthony. Cleopatra is an interesting cautious I have a feeling in the

earlier part of Shakespeare's career when Queen Elizabeth is on the

throne, and there is a court censor censoring the makes he would have

been wary of having a powerful female ruler on stage for fear of

offending Elizabeth. Once she is dead he can put the stronger women,

Cleopatra and Lady Macbeth, and now it is King James on the thrown and

can he explore women in tour -- on the throne and he can explore women

in power. You played Richard II back in the 199 #0S, what was it like

playing a male part? It was difficult, I missed that I hadn't a

male history in my childhood in the playing of it, but it is in such

high poetry that Richard II is hardly a man, he is a God-boy, I

could do that I felt. I could play into the sense of an overblown sense

of self and slowly he become as human being. In that way it was

fantastic pleasure to reach down into someone whose relationship was

to infinity rather than marriage. What about different ways of playing

Sheikhs peer, -- Shakespeare, we have had all-female shakes ferrics

and do -- Shakespeare, and do we have to keep doing it differently? I

think we do. I think Shakespeare is always fascinated by cross-dressing,

and in The Roaring Girl, it is a woman who cross dresses and so many

of the best plays of that time are breaking down the traditional gender

roles. It is really a time when the public theatre is taking off as a

space where questions about traditional hierarchies, whether

begined e respect for the young and -- gender, or respect for young and

old are being questioneded. Your mind expands in the playing of them.

Rosalind speaks in verse when she is tied up, when she gets to the forest

it is prose, Beatrice is witty because she speaks in prose. There

is literally a text that becomes like a musical notation, that makes

the form itself expand. First the upmarket supermarket Waitrose hired

Kate Middleton's sister to write for its monthly magazine, it's probably

delighted that David Cameron became its unofficial cheer leader,

offering his supermarket sociology that there is something about

Waitrose customer, they are talkative and engaged people. Now

one of the supermarket's most famous customer, he was called stuck up by

Labour and a world away from most families who have to shop around for

best prices. We went to do our own supermarket sweep. When you own

something you care a little more. This is an advert for a leading high

street grocer, I can only identify as Waitrose. And here is another

plug for Waitrose. Or at least their shoppers. I have got an interesting

supermarket piece of sociology for you, which is there is something

about Waitrose customers is they are the most talkative. I find if I shop

in Waitrose it takes me twice as long, because everybody wants to

stop you and have a chat. Where as other supermarkets I can dart around

quickly. That is something about your customers, they are talkative

and engaged people. You might be tempted to say "bog off" to that, as

in buy one get one free that is what gets me to the supermarket. Let's

see what a shopping watcher makes of the PM's remarks. Statistically he's

correct in that Waitrose shoppers are a class above everyone else, as

in the proportion of their shoppers who come from the AB socioeconomic

group, you and I might call middle council tax they have a far greater

number than any other supermarket. I don't think he. I don't think he

said they were nicer people, he said they were more edge gauged and

talkative -- engaged and talkative? Some people have interpreted it as

shorthand for a cut above. I'm not saying they are better people but

they are more middle-class than Morrisons or Asda shoppers. More

than half of all supermarket shoppers belong to the top

socioeconomic groups, Morrisons' figures correspond closely to the

average. At Waitrose stores more than three quarters of customers are

from a professional background. But at Iceland roughly the same

percentage are from the lower socioeconomic bands. No you haven't

flipped over to National Geographic. What do we have here, this looks

like something from a gym or a sauna rather than a supermarket? This is

Morrisons very purposefully trying to appeal to the middle-classes

with, it looks great, it is very theatrical, but this is going for

the foodies, with the mist. I'm assured it service a purpose but I

think it is mostly to look nice. Doesn't it keep everything fresh?

Well. So would a chiller cabinet. This is interesting because

Morrisons comes from, it is Bradford roots, it was a discount, value

retailer, started by the Morrisons family, and it wants to appeal to a

different type of people. How do you do it? Simply visually by making

things look like they have come straight out a very upmarket Delhi.

Deli. Some people it think it is what the hell? We offer a diversity

of produce that people expect to BIECHLT we are a supermarket that

represent people from all walks of life. You will see customers poor,

rich, people from different ethnic communities and we are proud to

serve them. Somebody compared the self-service store with a lending

library. Once we all got used to the shock of

the supermarket, pleasant or otherwise, it seemed as though there

was a store to suit every pocket. Or rather class. In the classic British

way. But new arrivals have helped to change that, say some. The biggest

change we have seen over the last five years a very rapid growth of

both Aldi and Lidl, and also Waitrose, which is putting pressure

on what really is the middle ground on the larger group of supermarkets.

And as those outlets have got bigger they have tended to move closer to

the average. So Aldi and Lidl tend to have social demographics that are

getting close to the national average, and the old stigma perhaps

of carrying a shopping basket from there is rapidly disappearing. Would

we find shoppers in Morrisons to live up to the PM's expectations of

in-store banter? Is there anything to I what Mr Cameron says that in

Waitrose you meet talkative people? Do you in here, I never use Waitrose

I wouldn't know about it. Would you describe yourself as a Morrisons

woman? No, I could be in Harrods one day and here the next. So was Mr

Cameron well advised to big up his experiences at the supermarket or

was it case of unexpected item in bragging area! We should also let

you know that you can watch a longer version of our Rwanda film as part

of the Our World strand this weekend on BBC News channel. Now one of the

great lost treasures of British film has been improbably recovered from a

Dutch archive. It is the silent movie Love Life and Laughter

starring Betty Balfour and it has been on theritish Film Institute's

most-wanted list for years. We have asked pianist Chris Rowe to play

along to one of the scenes, the heroine in the bar is singing along

to a tune well known from the 1920s, some of you may recognise it.

This should be the last day of high pollution levels a change in wind

direction tomorrow round to the south west will push that pollution

out over the North Sea. Pleasant sunny spells breaking through across

many parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, eventually central

and southern Scotland. Sea mist may affect the east coast of Northern

Ireland, but 14 degrees in land. The wind direction won't change across

the east coast of Scotland, here staying pretty dull, cold and

miserable, the north-east of England, offshore winds means a rise

in temperature, but the south westly winds the key to pushing our

pollution away across the rest of England and Wales. Still pretty mild