09/04/2014 Newsnight

It's nearly three decades since he died in dreadful circumstances and

today the latest attempt to convict someone for his murder failed. Is it

now possible that no-one will ever be convicted for the very public

atrocity of the killing of PC Keith Blakelock. The Culture Secretary

resigned, she said, so as not to get in the way of Government business,

but is there a much bigger problem with the way the public sees the

whole political class? Can I ask you a quick question, what's the first

thing you think of when you hear the word "politician"? Crook! I do not

fear for my safety, I know they will kill me. I'm a true Muslim, I

believe my life and death is in the hands of Allah. That was four months

ago, and now he's dead. Are the Kenyan anti-terrorist police out of

control? So yet again the prosecuting authorities have failed

to get anyone convicted for one of the most notorious murders of the

last half century. Nearly 30 years after the event and despite the

presence of numerous witness, no-one has been brought to justice for the

murder of PC Keith Blakelock. The only convictions in the case were

quashed years ago, so long after the night, when a middle-aged police

constable, originally from Sunderland, was sent without riot

training or stab vest to a disturbance in Tottenham, the case

remains open. And they

They were all cheering and shouting Gladiatorial. They misread the anger

of the community, and when it erupted they were incapable of

dealing with it. Keith Blakelock's injuries were just horrific. I was

trying to do mouth-to-mouth and heart massage and keeping doing.

There is nothing that the police can do now it is time to say it is over.

28 years, three inquiries, 200 arrests and still no reliable

conviction. It now looks certain there will be no justice for what

happened that night in 1985. Back then Broadwater Farm Estate in

Tottenham was ablaze. Years of tension between the police and the

young black community had boiled over. The trigger, the death from a

heart attack of Cynthia Jarrett, as her home was searched after her

son's arrest. The police have always denied shoving her to the floor,

many on the estate thought they were lying. It started with rocks, then

bottles, then petrol bomb, thrown from tower blocks to the north, fire

engines were called as cars were set ablaze. Then smoke was spotted,

coming from the first floor supermarket in Tangmere Block,

firemen were sent up, protected by PC Keith Blakelock and three other

police officers. It was like somebody had scored a goal at the

football match, from deathly silence to the huge roar you get in a

stadium when somebody has scored a goal. We started being bombarded by

bottles and bricks and debris, all of a sudden just showering around

us. There was a load of people just all running around with crash

helmets on, scaraves over their face -- scarves over their face, all

holding various weapons and the like. I thought it has come to us

now. This is all kicking off. As the team came out of this stairwell,

they were petted from behind by bottles and missiles. They ran

through the dark which 28 years ago would have been a trip of grass to

the police vans on the main road. It must have been about this spot that

Keith Blakelock fell, he was surrounded. The attack lasted in

second, before his colleagues could turn back and he could be dragged

away. I turned around and he was completely gone from sight, covered

with people. I managed to get hold of Keith Blakelock's police

overcalls and started to pull him out from the crowd. Another police

officer had joined us and was doing the same thing with the other side

of his collar. I kept working on Keith, doing heart missage and

mouth-to-mouth with him all the way into the nearest hospital. Which

sadly not long after we arrived we got told that he had not survived.

The day after the murder a huge investigation got under way, within

weeks arrests were made and suspects were charged. But in the rush to

convict serious mistakes were made, mistakes which would damage the

reputation of the Metropolitan Police. Convinced there could be a

second night of rioting an army of cleaners was sent in to scrub the

secrets. Vital forensic evidence was lost. Then police started rounding

up dozens then hundreds of local men, and holding them sometimes

without legal representation. I cannot blame the police for one

second, for one moment for wanting to do the honourable thing and to

find those who were kill a police officer in such circumstances. I

absolutely understand that. And the police will be hard on those people

is absolutely understandable. You cannot criminalise and stereotype a

whole entire community for what a few people did. Even at its maximum

the police said there was 30 people around Blakelock's body, yet some

how they were able to get over 200 and odd warrants in the name of

murder to come and arrest people. In 1987 all that pressure finally led

to a conviction, Winston Silcott was sentenced to life for t murder, but

released along with two others when there were suggestions forensic

scientists were tampered with. Then Keith Blakelock's widow gave a prime

time TV interview and there was a new push. One of those held was 16

at the time of the killing. Nicholas Jacob had already spent a decade in

prison due to the riots. The police said they had 30 wins who is said

they saw him attack Keith Blakelock with a blade. One was a drug dealer

and the other received thousands of pounds in living expenses for

helping the police. In court they were all allowed to use suit dough

-- pseudonyms and distorted voice to protect their identities. Nicholas

Jacob's supporters were outside every day to protest his innocence.

It was the use of anonymous witnesses on the stand that to some

was the single most concerning element of the trial. The use of

anonymity is an absolute disgrace. I can understand victims staying

anonymous from attackers, but in this case it is crazy, crazy because

two of the three witnesses gave evidence against Nicholas Jacob in

1985. We know their names, we know where they live and their families.

So why are these two character, who gave evidence back then, didn't who

didn't get troubled, why are they being given anonymity now, it is to

create an impression on the jury that there are dangerous people out

there who want justice not to be done. With no new forensics linking

Jacob to the murder, the only other evidence is a rap rap people in

which he boasted to chop the officer. It took the jury only six

hours to find him not guilty on all charges. The investigative

journalist David Rose has closely followed the murder investigation

from the start. There was really I think very little prospect that any

jury, properly instructed, could have brought in a guilty verdict,

given the quality, the poor quality of the evidence against Nicholas

Jacob. S. That evidence was fatally contaminated with mistakes not

committed in 2014 or 2013, or in 1999 after the appeal, they were

committed in 1985 within hours, the chain started, within hours of the

murder of PC Blakelock, it is a tragedy and one that could have been

avoided. Now the time has simply come to draw align under it and say

enough. The family of Keith Blakelock said this evening they

were disappointed by the verdict. The Metropolitan Police praised the

patience and determination of his widow Elizabeth and said work to

bring those responsible for the murder to justice will not stop

tonight. With us Tony Mysels, Nicholas

Jacobs' solicitor, and the vice chair of the Metropolitan Police

Federation. This was a terrible waste of public money wasn't it? I

don't think that is the case at all. At the end of the day we are

desperate to find out how one of our colleagues was killed. And I believe

that we should keep doing that until we find out. Because ultimately a

police officer lost his life on mainland Britain and we don't know

who did that. We want to know who did that. You would presumably

understand that urge to find the killers wouldn't you? Of course we

understand, obviously I understand that the police would want to find

the killers of PC Blakelock and justice be done for the family.

Justice should be done? Of course it should be, but this prosecution was

flawed from the outside. As you have heard from the report tonight from.

The outset in 1985, the investigation was used and these

days we would feel the investigation was ridiculous. If the police hadn't

made such a mess of the initial investigation, we wouldn't still be

30 years on having court cases about it, would we? It is very easy to sit

here and say. That we were aware of things that weren't correct and as

it panned out, ultimately we are still trying to seek entirely the

case and what happened. So therefore we are going to carry on trying to

get justice for what took place. How long could this go on? Well I think

it will go on until we have got everything that we need in relation

to sealing a conviction. I personally would never like to stop

trying to find out who killed PC Blakelock. What do you think? The

evidence at the outset as far as we were concerned was simply not there.

What about the question of how much longer these police investigations,

I mean there has been squad working on this for decades now hasn't

there? Yes. That's correct, as I understand it even in the middle of

this case back in January there was still 14 officers working full-time

on the case. 14 police officers? At the time, back in January this year.

The resources obviously they were devoting to the case were

extraordinary. This is because he was a policeman? Exactly, yes. But

this should be the same for anyone who is murdered, you know, in this

way. Precisely. I might suggest also this is probably the only unsolved

murder of a police officer that I'm aware of in this country. This is

perhaps why the police have pursued it with vigour. This was not a case

which should have reached a trial at the Old Bailey. David Rose said in

that piece of tape there that it was time just to draw a line under the

whole thing? I would agree with him in that respect. Would you? We

obviously know the first investigation resulted in the

conviction of three men who were innocent. They spent four years in

prison before being obviously having the convictions quashed by the Court

of Appeal. We know two officers, two senior officers in the investigation

were prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and that

undermined the credibility of any subsequent investigations. Even the

interviews that proconducted in the early 1990s during the inquiry by

the omission of the CPS in this investigation they actually said

that those interviews had been unorthodox by today's standards. You

think they should just go on indefinitely? Absolutely. He

represent the rank and file officers of the Metropolitan Police, I'm not

going to sit there and say let's draw a line under it and let's all

go home. I want us to continue endlessly until we find the person

who murdered PC Blakelock. Who will take that decision? Ultimately I

will consider it will be ACPO officers within the Metropolitan

Police, I don't know at this stage. Senior police officers will decide

whether this continues or not? I would think so. The interesting

point is when we were first given the case papers and summary it

appeared the decision to charge Mr Jacobs was authorised by Aston

Saunders who is now in charge of the CPS. Then we were told later on it

was not her that authorised the charge. Thank you very much, thank

you. Last night if you happened to be watching you might have seen the

undying protestations of loyalty and support for the Culture Secretary,

Maria Miller, from the leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley.

Well he could have saved himself the trouble, before breakfast this

morning she had resigned. Lots of warm words for her on a cold spit at

the media and the appointment of another loyalist, Sajid Javid, to

replace her. It's 8.00 on Wednesday the ninth April, the headlines this

morning, Maria Miller has resigned as Culture Secretary. Saying the row

about her expenses has become a distraction from the vital work of

Government. MPs' expenses, the scandal that has been running since

2009. I hoped that I could stay but it has become clear to me over the

last few days that this has become an enormous distraction and it is

not right that I'm distracting from the incredible achievements of this

Government. This afternoon Labour sought to press David Cameron on why

he hadn't fired her. He said six days ago she had done the right

thing and we should leave it at that, does he now recognise this was

a terrible error of judgment? This is a good and honest parliament with

good and hard working people in it. That is the assumption that I start

for and I make no apology for that. He just doesn't get it. That is what

he has shown today. This is just the latest chapter in the expenses'

saga. Since it started five years ago we have had an election, changed

Governments, changed the MPs' expenses rule, and sent some of the

worst offenders to prison. But it still rumbles on. The expenses'

scandal has been going on so long that whole careers have been built

on the back of it. Sajid Javid, the new Secretary of State for Culture

was obviously appointed today on the back of Miss McMillan's resignation,

but he got his seat as an MP in 2010 after his predecessor resigned over

a similar issue. Her housing allowances. Still, at least he knew

what he was letting himself in for. (No sound) And how the, the expenses

scandal seemed to clarify what everyone suspected, that politicians

are dismal creatures. Can I ask you a quick question, what is the first

thing you think of when you hear the word "politician"? Crook. Expenses.

Liar. When you heard the word "politician" what is the first word

that comes to mind? Insincere. That is why when a pollster asked whether

Miss McMillan should resign, a majority said yes, there was very

little sympathy for her. But in truth there is no sympathy for

anyone in politics. Voters always want them to resign, they are quite

liking a few other senior politicians to quit too. Is this

new? They are unpopular but to be honest they always are, we have only

about 18% of the British public who say they trust them to tell the

truth. The worst we have ever seen was a few years ago in two OK 009

when it was 13%, it has hardly bounced back. The highest ever

figure has been 22% believing they tell the truth. Over the last 30

years it hasn't changed much at all. If we go further back to the 1940s,

even then when a coalition Government, like now, was actually

at war against the Nazis, even then only 36% of the British public

believed the politicians were acting in the interests of the country and

not feathering their own nests etc. So is the kicking they get

warranted? The politicians don't help themselves. I have got a copy

of the members' dining room menu, bottle of white wine ?17, down the

road in Covent Garden ?30 pounds. Three course meal ?15, the reason it

is for a steak and chip starter, coffee and dessert, that is what

they can claim for a late night sitting, ?15 we pay. It costs ?15 if

they stay late they get ?15, so they get the dinner for free.

It is subsidised to the tune to make it ?15 so they can claim for. That

is not accidental. The MPs sit on the catering committee that

organises the pricing and the subsidy. The subsidy to the Members

of Parliament for food and booze is millions. The hatred is unhe

hadifying, but it is probably not going anywhere, and it is fuelling

the anti-establishment feeling that propels UKIP. One Tory MP told

Newsnight today that Maria Miller might have cost them their seat at

the next election. The timing of the scandal shortly before a European

election really won't help Conservatives. The Prime Minister's

loyalty to his cabinet ministers might prove expensive. Sorry about

the sound on the little bit of it. Ministers come and go, but in an

ever-changing world constant as Orion's Belt is the Newsnight

political panel, first convened to comment on the resignation of Dalton

in 1947. Danny Finklestein of the Times, who used to work for William

Hague, Olly Grender who worked for Nick Clegg, both of them members of

the House of Lords in Government, and John McTernan who advised Tony

Blair when he was Prime Minister. Striking, it is five years since the

expenses scandal. It has come back. In voters' minds it is only five

minutes? This case was all about the old expenses rules, so it was an

old, what she did was years ago. So has come back for that reason. This

sort of thing will come back because underlying is a dislike of

politicians. Your report was quite right. So the expenses was more an

effect than cause. People didn't like politicians, thought very lowly

of them, then the expenses row happened and it acted as a proof

point of what they had already thought. We and if anyone who is in

mainstream politics tells you that they don't want to, on a day like

today, frankly despair, because we all know politicians and we all know

politicians who work very hard and who are above board, but this just

does badly for politics across the board this kind of stuff. It is a

real shame as well, it is in part tied up with kind of the threat of

Leveson, which was used by her special adviser, in part the poor

apology, but if you read through the detail of the actual report, it is

really hard to get to the absolutely the nub of this. The Commons brought

this on themselves. Either they have an allowances scheme or expenses

scheme. And they have got a scheme called allowances, where they claim

an expense against it. In the end they get caught in the detail. It is

a deeper issue. Very profound disenchantment? I should say first

of all I don't share this public view about politics, I'm a son of

refugees, I know from my parents' experience there are a lot of worse

places in the world where politics is done in a much worse way than

here. But it is very, very important to understand it even if you don't

share it and it is very deep. Certainly it is an explanation of a

lot of the UKIP factor and an explanation why lots of people and

things in politics don't meet and reach people. Do you think there are

all sorts of mechanisms being put in place and are now being changed in

order to try to rehabilitate the reputation of the political class,

are they going to work? And here is the huge irony, I think it is right,

like Leveson, if you say you can't mark your own homework for the

media, you have to say the same for politicians. I think that is right.

Then when we have an independent body that says there should be a pay

rise, that's not sufficiently Israel real Politk during a recession so it

doesn't work. There should be way of regulating politicians in the

Commons and in the Lords that is above board, there is an element of

independence. How you bring that about I don't know, given that IPSA

doesn't seem to be working either. There was mention a moment ago about

UKIP, it is something he said David Cameron has taken a lot of damage

from this. Maybe he has taken some damage from it. But actually all the

mainstream parties have suffered from this. The people who are going

to gain from it are UKIP, aren't they? I think in the short-term this

really hurts the Tories. Because David Cameron saw how palatiry the

apology was on -- paltry the apology was on Thursday, and it was the

contempt for the Commons and the public that built this into a bigger

issue. Cameron didn't get a grip on it. UKIP are using it who will

mainly hurt the Tories. It is true this drags every politicians'

reputation down. Although the reputation has never been high. In a

sense for me the underlying thing is Government just isn't that good at

doing things. So some of the disenchantment is actually not a

comment on this or anything else, it is simply on thinking how poor

things were in the private sector in the 70, they have -- 70s, Government

haven't improved the way services have. The interesting thing for

Conservatives, an anti-politician and anti-Government feeling is

something the Conservatives can use. In the sense it allies with the

Conservative scepticism, one of the things, I don't think that in

top-line voting this will turn out to be that significant, but it is

significant in terms of the underlying sort of position of the

Conservative Party in the long run. If you think as I do that a sort of,

there is a long-term anti-establishment feeling which has

hit the banks, hit the police, you hit the newspaper industry, and is

hitting politicians, you have got to think how do you deal with that, and

Conservatives need to have a response to that. I think the UKIP

thing, they wrote the book on claiming expenses on the gravy train

on the way to Brussels, it is extraordinary they are managing to

capitalise on this. That is crazy. And it is ironic, five years ago

bumf in the polls, just after the parliamentary expenses thing? It is

not about expenses. I don't think a response to Nigel Farage that says

you have been in politics for 20 years and claimed lots of expenses,

effective debating points though those are and will really undermine

UKIP because it is a rebellion against something bigger. There is a

social class element, it is about the winners of globalisation versus

the losers. This disillusionment with politicians is bigger and

deeper and goes to more institutions than politics. Olly, you are trying

to get a word in edgeways. Thank you so much. If it is about depressing

people's belief in politics and politicians, every political party

needs to look at that. Things like open primaries are interesting and

that came from the Tories. I still believe that fundamentally the

voting system has to change because if a donkey can put on a colour Ross

set and stay in a safe seat things like that will never change. On

things like expense, total transparency, which I think MPs have

been learning post all the changes. So that you know... A lot of them

really resent it. You have the last word? Putting on the website people

go there and it is open and accessible. Let the poor chap have a

word? I think in the end people connect to politics when politicians

articulate their big concerns with big visions. We have a bunch of

quite small politicians who deal with very marginal differences

between all the political parties. There is no inspiration and very

little hope. In the end the big visions transcend. At the moment

personality is popular, like Farrage, Johnson or Salmond. You

need great causes, great political parties have great cause, at the

moment you search for the great cause. Thank you very much. Now

there is a massive security clamp-down going on in Kenya. Police

there say they pulled in nearly 4,000 people in the past week. The

arrest after the killing last week of a controversial Muslim preacher

in the coastal town of Mombasa. His supporters aduce -- accuse the

Government of being behind it, the ATPU or the anti-terrorist police

unit, funded by Britain. In December last year, Newsnight

travelled to Mombasa to meet a radical Islamist. He features on a

UN sanctions list, accused of recruiting terrorists, he said it

was a joke. We thought you could be the guide? Do you want a terrorist

for a guide? Sometimes! It depends on the occasion. This guy, he's a

nephew, he was one of the people executed by the ATPU police

officers. The one sitting there. MrAm membered is more commonly --

Ahmed is more commonly known by a nickname, meaning "graveyard in

Swahili, he said the Kenyan police were going to assassinate him. Do

you fear for your safety? I don't fear for my safety, I know they are

going to kill me. I believe my life and death is in the hands of Allah.

I will only die the day Allah has ordained for me to die, not a moment

before or after. That moment finally came last week, he was leaving this

courthouse on the outskirts of Mombasa with around eight

companions. Eye witnesses told us they saw a car approaching from out

of town, doing a U-turn outside a high-security prison attached to the

court. TRANSLATION: That is when I heard gunfire. There were many

shots. We pushed each other as we tried to get down so we wouldn't get

hit. We triumphed into a ditch and laid down. And then I heard two

final gun shots. And then everything went silent. It was several hours

before the authorities removed his body from the roadside and took it

to the nearest police station. During the time the survivors of the

shooting said they were forced to remain lying in the ditch.

TRANSLATION: We told them the people who shot at us had headed out of

town in black car and they should follow them. They told us to lie

down and not move. Several witnesses remarked that there was no armed

security officers at the scene, despite its proximity to the

high-security jail. He was the third high-profile terror suspect to be

shot and killed in the past two years. Now in private Kenyan

security officials have made no secret of their involvement in some

of these killings. Last year I spoke to one Mombasa-based security

officer who said the cleric's days were numbered. When I spoke to him

earlier this week he said his unit had not been directly involved, but

the hit was carried out by security officers from outside Mombasa. Mr

Ahmed and the other two murdered clerics were all associated with

this mosque in Mombasa's rundown Najenga neighbourhood. In February

police raided the mosque, saying it was a recruiting centre for

Jihadists. They arrested more than 100 worshippers, at least four

people lost their lives, including one policeman. Security officials

and human rights groups agree on one thing, the police are sending a

deliberate signal to those they see as terrorists. I have spoken to even

people within the security agencies who own up and even come out to say

you ain't seen nothing yet. We are going to do more, we kill, we shoot

them to kill. Not to detain them. That is what we are going to be

doing. This they will say to me within the ATPU premises. ATPU

stands for Antit-Terror Police Unit, it receives funding and training

from Britain and the United States, in a report released last November,

two human rights groups documented what they said were dozens of cases

of disappearences, and extra judicial killings carried out by the

ATPU in recent years. Mr Ahmed had made similar accusations. The

British Government is helping the ATPU in Kenya kill Muslims by

training them providek logistical support and giving them money. We

are supposed to be the terrorists. It is not clear whether the ATPU was

involved in the shooting of Mr Ahmed, but one ATPU officer late

last year told me that the police had lost faith in the courts and

preferred, instead, to eliminate in his words terror suspects.

But many fear this tactic, far from reducing radicalisation will have

the opposite affect. If Britain or any other western country fund this

unit and this unit violates the rights of Kenyans, it also goes to

the British tax-payers, the anger. Why is their money being used for

these killings, so the problem goes back to where it comes from. We are

coming for you, your days are numbered. There is no doubt that

Kenya has a problem with terrorism and radicalisation. Friday prayers

is just coming to an end at the Muslim mosque, the first Friday

prayers since the assassination of Mr Ahmed, and the sermon hasn't been

a peaceful one, the preachers says if they inflict violence on you, you

have to be violent back, don't throw stones, cut their heads off.

Inevitably stones were thrown, the police were expecting trouble and

they were there in force. When they are being killed they are there and

looking and not doing anything. We as a Muslim society, we know Islam

is peace, we want peace. Given the level of anger on the streets the

violence could have been a lot worse. In response to a recent

series of explosions, shootings and terror alerts, the security forces

have deployed extra officers across the country. Thousands of people,

many of them ethnic Somalis have been detained, some held in

Nairobi's main stadium, while they are screened and have their

identities checked. The authorities are sending out a clear message,

we're getting tough. But they deny shooting Mr Ahmed or any other extra

judicial killing. As the man in charge of the security in this

country I'm the authority to tell the true Government position, and

what I have given you is the Government position. Anything else

is an allegation, outright Lois or malice. Nobody believes it? It is

not our business to make you leave it or not. Even the security forces

don't believe it? I'm speaking on behalf of the security forces, that

is the position and the truth. You choose to take the truth, or you

take the rumours. The choice is yours. The Foreign Office told us in

statement that it regularly monitors the ATPU and challenges them on

allegations of human rights abuses. If there is credible evidence that

British support is being misused, they said, then immediate action

would be taken. The Times this morning disclosed that the Ministry

of Defence had been so irritated by the content of a book about the army

as involvement in Afghanistan that -- army's involvement in Afghanistan

it has tried to quash it. It is not the first time it has tried to do

that. But the unusual part of this equation is it was the MoD itself

that had commissioned the book from a Territorial Army officer, Dr

Martens mat, the -- Dr Martens -- doctor Mike Martins. It maintains it

is always ready to learn. But the lesson of history is that the

British military, frequently begin any bar expecting to fight the last

one. We were told that British troops would be perfectly happy to

leave Helmand Province without even drawing their weapons. It didn't end

that way. Over 400 British servicemen and women have died in

Afghanistan since 2001, the majority of them in Helmand. Last week

Britain handed over control of the province to US forces, but they too

will leave as American troops go home. But as Britain's presence in

Afghanistan comes to a close, what lessons can be learned from the

conflict? These are e-mails from the Ministry of Defence apparently

trying to prevent the publication of a book by an army captain critquing

the military's time in Afghanistan. The book is being published any way.

But is there an unwillingness to learn lessons from past military

conflicts. Armies are very good at learning the lessons of past wars,

they tend to overlearn lessons and prepare for the wrong wars in the

future. In the case of the British Army they are good at learning

lessons from Afghanistan, and avoiding the trap of overlearning

the lessons. When it comes to policy lessons their states can be not so

good as learning them. These can be politically embarrassing. An inquiry

into the other major war of the century, Iraq, is under way yet

still to report back. It is looking at the decisions to go to war. The

Chilcot Inquiry started taking evidence in 2009, but it has been

held up with arguments over whether sensitive documents can be made

public. The national interest is often interpreted as being the

Government's interest, as avoiding embarrassment. There is no scope for

an inquiry result in Chilcot to that effect. We need an inquiry that lays

bear, in every possible way consistent with the national

interest the way in which the decision to go to war against Saddam

Hussein was taken. This year marks the centinary of the outbreak of

World War I. But while we honour the dead and commemorate past --

tragedies, are we doing enough to help avoid them in the future. I'm

joined but by Dr Mike Martin, whose book has created this stir, with him

Sunday Times journalist and five-time winner of the foreign

correspondent of the year, Christina Lamb, who has returned this

afternoon from Afghanistan. What about this question of learning

lessons, is it important and is it happening? Of course it is important

to learn so we don't make the same mistakes. I know there is this

argument that you are always fighting the last war. But there is

a lot of things that we could have learned from what we have done wrong

in Afghanistan and I actually think that the US army seems to have done

that better than the British Army. What done a better learning

exercise? Yes, I do. Because at the beginning the British I think were

rather arrogant thinking that we had been used to the British Army was

used to doing peacekeeping and being in Northern Ireland and didn't, and

were used to working in populations in way that the US army wasn't. What

is your main conclusion about the lessons that ought to be learned

from the Afghanistan experience? The main conclusion of the book is that

there has been massive intelligence failure in Helmand, and we have

completely failed to understand the type of conflict that we have been

fighting. Very briefly it is a Civil War between different tribes and

families and it is fought over land and water and honour and poppy. By

that I mean the UK media, the MoD and many military officers and

development experts understand the war as an ideolgical conflict

between the Taliban and the Government. And it is not? It is

not, no. It is a very, very localised conflict driven by

pragmatic matters, fights that have gone on for the last 30 years over

land or... OK, you're talking about a profound misapprehension of what

the situation was and what these wars were. Incidentally do you

agree? I think it is a mixture of those things. I do agree that at the

beginning there was no appreciation of that, but there is also a group

called the Taliban, based in Pakistan that has an ideolgical

point to prove. Has the MoD learned that lesson? I think they have

recognised it, I think they have identified it, I don't think they

have learned it. What do you mean, how can you identify it and not take

any could go sans -- could go this sans of it? The broad idea

surrounding the war with the legitimate Afghanistan Government

and we were fighting the Taliban and we attribute bad things to the

Taliban. I think that... It is possible isn't it that you could be

learning lessons without learning them publicly? How much do you think

that this sort of disclosure of the kind that made the MoD so

apprehensive, shall we say, does it really need to be published. Surely

these are internal lessons that need to be learned by the army? There is

several different things here, the intelligence failure, absolutely.

When I was going there as a journalist I was going into villages

with soldiers and they clearly didn't have a clue what they were

going to find there. And so maybe that sort of thing is more internal.

But some of the other issues, for example the equipment, if those

things hadn't become public at the time I don't think it would have

changed. It was through people exposing that, our soldiers out

there were travelling in snatch vehicles that were being blown up

all the time and gave no protection, or there weren't enough helicopters.

Through all of that becoming public that things changed. I don't think

they would have been otherwise. And I actually find it very infuriating

the amount of times that I was lied to by senior officers out there

because they didn't want people to know things and subsequently said.

What do you mean? Things like that about the equipment, the reasons

people died. I think it does also apply to intelligence, it is about

what type of army do we want as a nation? At the moment the army is

going through a review process, they are rebalancing towards the reserves

and the army 2020 programme out, do we want an army able to fight these

types of wars or an army able to fight the type of war perhaps that

is discussed over the Crimea incident recently? Thank you very

much. Before we go tonight we are going to hear a bit of poetry, it

comes from an Anthology out tomorrow called Peoples To Make Grown Men

Cry. It is from Clive James who is suffering illness. He spoke from his

home. The reason why it appeals to me so much is personal. It is about

a man speaking to a woman in a canoe, she's about, they are about

to sail away up the river and he makes it clear that he might not be

coming back from the war and next time she might have to make the trip

alone. And when I first read it I couldn't help thinking my mother and

father, which means I suppose thinking of myself. It is a very

personal poem to me. What was it about your mother and father that it

made you think of? My father sailed off to the war and didn't come back.

My mother was left alone the way the woman is going to be in the poem.

She will have to travel alone next time she goes on the canoe trip.

That rang a bell with me I'm afraid. One of the key things in Keith

Douglas's work, and one of the first lines of the poem is a premonition

of death, and death, does that have personal resonance for you? Yes,

with a proviso, is there was a war on for Douglas, the chances are he

was going to get killed any way. For my generation there was no war. And

by some miracle of chance of luck we have lived out our lives. I'm sick

now, but it is at the end of a long life in which I have been allowed to

do pretty much as I wanted. So I will never forget my privilege as a

writer, as a man of letters, as a poet, as a reader, it is a lucky,

lucky thing to have. So the theme of my late poetry is luck, not death.

But the theme of his poetry was death because it was all around him.

It might happen to him and it did. "Well I'm thinking this may be my

last summer, but can't lose even a part of pleasure in the old

fashioned art of idleness, I can't stand aghast at whatever doom hovers

in the background, while grass and buildings and the river, who know

they are allowed to last forever exchange between them the whole

subdued sound of this hot time. What sudden fearful fate can deter my

shade wandering next year from a return. Whistle and I will hear and

come again another evening when this boat travels with you alone towards,

as you lie looking up for thunder again. This cool touch does not be

token rain, it is my spirit that kisses your