14/04/2014 Newsnight

Zero Bottleneck are the towns of eastern

Ukraine falling to the mobs or Special Forces. And town after town,

Following Nigel Evans's acquittal, a Tory MP rejects accusations that she

tried to get the complainants to call the police. I have offered to

step down as an MP if they felt I pressured them into making an

allegation. We will ask Nigel Evans's friend, what should happen

next? The story of a horse conscripted into battle has made a

global conflict real for many. We ask the author whether stories about

the First World War help or hinder or understanding of it.

The confrontation in Ukraine has worsened today. Much of the rest of

the world wrings its hands, but plainly doesn't have a clue what to

do about a far array country of which they know little. The European

Union is offering financial help, Washington says it is assessing the

situation, and the UN Security Council whitters. The Ukraine says

it has asked for UN peace keepers but Russia holds the veto on their

deployment. We're We saw another deadline for

protesters to vacate buildings come and go this morning. We saw a threat

from Kiev to conduct an anti-terrorist operation as they

called it, no action, the protesters are still there, by my account

occupying 12 public buildings across the region. Trading accusations

internationally, the US, the EU and the Ukrainians themselves have said

it is Russia stirring up trouble here, causing the protestors and

even accusing them of having their own forces on the grounds. The

Russians answering and saying it is the Ukrainians who are causing the

trouble by not listening to the demands of the protesters. We are at

a dangerous moment, we have 35,000-40,000 Russian troops just

the other side of the border here and the protesters holed up in the

building down the road for me and not appearing to back down. It is a

very difficult moment for Kiev. We have seen news that President Putin

has phoned Barack Obama and asked him to restrain the Kiev

authorities. There is a real threat of war here. Now the Russians have

flatly denied that they have got any troops here taking part, Special

Forces, taking part in the seizure of these buildings. And we haven't

seen widespread, what were call little green men that we saw in

Crimea, stoney-faced and well-disciplined troops, obviously

Russian soldiers, despite denials. We haven't seen those widely here.

But who are the people taking over all these public buildings over the

past weekend and today today, I have been travelling an the region and

watching events unfold. A provincial police station in eastern Ukraine.

On the streets outside there is battle for control. A shot rings

out, this was on Saturday morning were it all began. That man in the

blue jacket is a local journalist. The mob has decided's an enemy of

their cause. In towns across this region angry pro-Russian protesters

have been taking over Government buildings. We arrived here just

afterwards, our car was stopped by the same crowd. The protesters are

extremely aggressive, they just saw us with our camera, they threatened

us, they broke our memory chips, they told us to get back in the car

and get out of here immediately. What is by now familiar pattern we

got news that police stations were falling to protestors in other towns

as well. We went to find the journalist that fled in search of

safety. TRANSLATION: I will carry on, I'm used to this. I have had

death threats, I have had threatening notes and text messages.

Someone through a rock through the windscreen of my car. Russia has

explicitly denied sending Special Forces into eastern Ukraine. But who

were the men then who seized the police station? TRANSLATION: There

were about 100 of them, 10-15 guys were clearly soldiers. They arrived

in a mini- but I couldn't tell if they were Russian or -- a minibus, I

couldn't tell if they were Russian or Ukrainian, the rest were local

guys in military fatigues. We returned the next day, the

protesters had barricaded themselves inside the police compound. We got

permission to go in and film at what is becoming the centre of this

rebellion. The men at the gate referred to their commander by his

nickname "Slava", clearly these were local guys, not the Russian Special

Forces on open display in Crimea. But they were armed. We saw at least

a dozen men carrying Kalashnikov rifles and other firearms, weapons

they appeared to have taken from the armoury inside t police station

itself. These men said they were old friends from the local school. Some

were still neighbours. There was nothing organised about it this man

says, he's a carpenter and he heard what was happening on TV, jumped

straight in a taxi and came here. His friend, a car mechanic, admits

they did take some of the equipment out of the police station, just to

defend themselves. All of them refused to recognise the new

authorities in Kiev, they want a referendum on independence for the

region. He says doesn't need Russia, America or England, he wants to be

left in peace in his own country without someone telling him how to

live his life. Today Kiev indicated it might consider some sort of

referendum on autonomy. But it is also sending in military hardware,

and for these citizens that is a scary thought. They have put up

barricades on the roads into town in anticipation of an attack.

TRANSLATION: Vladimir Putin help us, please. It is clear who he sees as

the guarantor of his security. These local women are preparing Molotov

cocktails, they say they are ready for a fight, but they are not

Russian Special Forces. But who are these men? Seen here taking over the

police station in the nearby town. Could these with the Russian Special

Forces? They certainly look more disciplined and better armed than

the local activists. Might this be the pattern? The men with the big

guns go in first and then retreat leaving the locals to hold the

building. It is clear that there are overlinked between some of the

seperatists and Russian nationalist groups. This for example is

Alexander Dugan, pick at the end here in South Ossetia, weeks before

the Russians invaded Georgia. He's a Russian idealog, with links to the

Kremlin, who relishes greater empire. Here he is in late March,

giving advice over Skype to one of the leading rebels, in a

conversation littered with words like "traitors" and "enemies", he

tells the seperatists to organise local self-defence forces. Set up

checkpoints and take control of the eastern border he advises. There is

no suggestion that this particular activist or Dugan have been involved

in the seizure of Government buildings, but this conversation

closely mirrors the thinking here inside seperatist headquarters in

the centre. At this meeting seperatists discuss their plans,

include seizing control of airports, military installations and those

border posts. They were clear who they would turn to if Kiev attacked

in response. TRANSLATION: We will call on Russia for help, on Belarus,

or Kazakhstan, or Georgia, I know plenty of people who are sick and

tired of what happened after their revolution. Here the protesters

remain in control of the police station, the seperatist now occupy a

dozen buildings across the region. What happens now here inside this

police compound is absolutely crucial to the future of this

country. If this stand-off can some how be resolved peacefully, then

there is hope for a united Ukraine east and west together. If this

place is stormed, if these barricades are broken down and there

are mass casualties, the ramifications of that will be felt

hard and for a long time to come. Kiev is losing control. But any

crackdown could become the pretext for a Russian invasion. One false

move could lead to war. Our guest is a specialist in the

Ukraine at the foreign affairs think Stanning, Chatham House, we have the

a representative from the Russian radio station from here. What is the

hope here? To see Ukraine as a stable and neutral country, which it

has stayed for the last 23 years of its independence. That is difficult

when you haven't got a Government there? There is a Government and it

was elected by a legitimate parliament that has been in place,

taking into account the vacuum of power, when the fugutive President

left. It is case of ruling? If it is case of ruling over the security and

the externally ruled armed conflict. So you assert, it is just a claim?

The claim is the Ukrainian Government will take control in the

way of consolidating the power. It is clear now that some parts of

eastern Ukraine would like their own revolution. But it has never been a

home-grown seperatist movement. What does Russia want to see happen in

eastern Ukraine then? I guess. Russia does believe in the

territorial integrity of the country does it? That has been said, Crimea

was a very special case, but I guess what it does want to see is

stability in eastern Ukraine and respect for the rights of the people

who live there that are mostly ethically and linguistically, I'm

not sure about mostly, but significantly Russian. That is a

wish that should be respected isn't it? It is clearly we don't have any

evidence in the last months that any rights, any human rights of

political rights, or ethnic minority rights, of people who we see on the

screens have been violated. There is an OAC mission that said no rights

have been violated. The instinct of the new authorities, the Kiev

Government, right from the start, from the word go, were to limit the

use of the Russian language, and actually that concerned Hungarians

as well. And Hungary came out in protest against that and

Switzerland, strangely, although I'm not aware of any Swiss community in

the Ukraine. I don't think we can apply instincts towards a political

reality. The political reality is such that the language law passed by

the old President is in place. It was vetoed by the acted President.

So any of the linguistic rights granted before are in place. But you

would accept that there was an elected Government in your country,

that it was deposed, that it is clearly incapable of asserting its

will in the country. Would you accept all of that? You mean there

was a legitimate Government of President Yanakovic who violated

human rights. But there was a coup in your country? There was a coup in

parliament and it has they had acknowledged this Government and it

was voted in the parliament. The change to the, or the revert to the

2004 coalition was agreed to by Yaakovic, the change in the

constitution was adopted by Yushenko, the previous pro-western

President. The The mamenings we see are covert operations to destablise.

I wouldn't say it is a Russian plan to destable Ukraine. We have never

seen militants before, we have never seen such images in the eastern part

of Ukraine. And I mean these... You are seeing them now? These men could

have been deployed either from Crimea, under Russian control or

crossing the boarder from Russia. Or possibly they are local people?

There are local people later on used as a shield and some of these police

stations they are taken over by clearly paramilitary troops. Do we

know and have evidence of that. There has been talk from Washington

about 20 of those special ops Russian soldiers have been captured.

Let's see them. There has been evidence of the arms today using the

ammunition of the Russian military. AKM-74 has been produced since 1974,

it has been in circulation in the former Soviet Union. The British

Foreign Secretary, he's also not been there says that there is a

clear evidence of Russian intervention. But he has got

satellite surveillance, he has human intelligence. You know, these are

people who don't usually make things up aren't they? Don't they? Go back

to Iraq? Do we? Fair point! But there is another thing that the

satellite images are available on Google maps. I don't think this is

about satellite images and we are not saying that Russia is deploying

those militants that we see on the satellite images I think they are

infiltrating through the covert security operations, and throughout

the week we have been hearing Ukrainian services arresting Russian

intelligence officials on the territory of Ukraine being part of

the covert operation. Now it certainly doesn't seem fair that a

man judged by the courts to have done nothing wrong should end up

massively out of pocket and know when mud is thrown it is usual some

of it will stick. The former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons up

on charges of sexual assault says the trial cost him his life savings

and dignity. The Crown Prosecution Service is trying to recover from

another failed case. Nigel Evans believes those accused should be

entitled to the anonymity of those who make the complaints. The MP who

took the original allegations to the Commons authorities has told

Newsnight that she doesn't regret doing so, but has faced massive

hostility from colleagues. Cleared of all allegation, free to

take the breakfast TV sofa. Nigel Evans makes no secret of how

low his spirits fell, at one point he considered taking his lie. In the

early days, at the darkest most loaneeist moment -- loneliest

moment, you think there was only one thing worse and that is being

accused of murder. It was only because of the friends who had faith

and hope in me that kept me absolutely solid. People who you

would think would run away from you, because of the allegations that were

made actually ran towards me. Now he's won the fight to clear his

name, he will battle, so others accused of sexual offences can have

their identity protected. Number Ten said there are no plans to change

the rules. But Evans's friends in the Commons are making plans for a

party to celebrate his return. The MP who first heard the complainants

allegations is unlikely to be invited. So I asked what was her

motivation? The action I took was to pass the contact details for the

police to these individual, I did not report this case to the police,

in fact I did everything I could to try to see if there was an internal

disciplinary procedure. Because that was the clear preference of those

involved. The problem is within parliament, if people have a concern

about a member of parliament they are working for, that person is

their employer so they can take a complaint to them or they can take

it to the whip's office. The whip's office is hope lessly conflicted in

handling these kinds of allegations. Why was it up to you, even to take

it to the Speak e these young men could have at any point gone to the

police if they had seen fit? Of course they could have done, but the

point is they didn't wish to go to the police at that stage, they

wished to, this is what they have told me, they wished to have a

disciplinary process. Didn't wish to go to the police at that stage, they

wished to, this is Did you push them into that? No it

would be very serious if I did. Why did you say you would step down? If

I felt I had pressured them, or they felt I had pressured them, it is

such a serious allegation I would be prepared to step down. When did you

offer to step down? I phoned them yesterday, because I felt it was

very important to, you know, because this allegation had been made about

me and my professionalism, I wanted to know whether that is how they

felt? Not, of course it is how they felt about it that matters. And they

were both very clear with me that they hadn't felt that I had

pressured them. But if they had said to me they felt pressured or they

felt I should have stepped down I would have done so. Many of your

colleagues and Nigel Evans himself believe that some how you were

trying to push this. Nigel Evans has said today it was mentioned to you

as a throw away remark and yet you pursued it. He didn't know why but

he says you decided to have it in for him? That is ex-orderry, I would

turn that around, why is it that people in parliament don't take

forward concerns that are reported them. These issues are widely

discussed in parliament. This was the first time anyone had ever said

to me this has happened to me. Are you surprised that colleagues,

frankly, some of them are furious with what you did? Of course I'm

surprised. I would say the really serious questions that need to be

answered in parliament is where are the people who have been hearing

these kinds of allegations in the past and not taking them forward

SFUF. We need to have the same standards as other professionals.

What is the issue with culture in Westminster? There are issues of

professionalal boundaries, you are in a position of power, and that is

my point of view. People may think I'm were youedish, but there you

are, I think there is a professional responsibility and some MPs overstep

the mark. There are calls for the CPS to treat these cases differently

and calls for anonymity for defendants? I stress that Nigel

Evans has been found innocent of all charges, and this is entirely

separate. The point is what we must now do is not have a kneejerk

reaction to actually change the law. Nigel Evans and many of your

colleagues look at this case now, look at what happened to him and the

case fell apart, they believe now it is time for change, are they simply

wrong? I think that we have to be very wary to do anything that stops

women and men of course, because men are victims as well, from coming

forward. I would not support absolutely would not support a

removal of anonymity, nor for a change in the law that allows the

CPS to bring lesser charges to build a case. Because in some cases, and

I'm not referring at all to this case, but in some cases that can be

very important. Do you regret at all doing what you did? I think it is

very difficult. The thing I regret about it is the hostility that I

have faced in actually doing it. It has been very uncomfortable bringing

this forward. Certainly professionally for me it has been a

very difficult experience. And no doubt will continue to be a very

difficult experience in Westminster. Do I think that if somebody came to

me again and said I have been raped would I feel I would say to them in

future, nothing to do with me. I think that what we absolutely need

within Westminster is a process where people can go to. I never

sought to be judge and jury in this case, that is for others, somebody

needs to be there who can listen to all of the evidence and make a

judgment. And the fact is unfortunately within Westminster

there is no process for that to happen.

We invited Nigel Evans to speak with us this evening, but we were told he

wasn't available. The former Conservative MP Anne Widdicombe gave

a character reference at the trial. You thought he was kind, truthful,

considerate, when you heard about the drinking and the inappropriate

sexual conduct, or contact, what did you think? I think the fact that

somebody makes the odd drunken pass does not make them a rapist. And I

never believed the allegations that were made. But they have been

through a proper process of trial. And have been shown not to be

sustained. And I think there are now major questions to answered, not

least on the part of the CPS. Because this is just the latest in a

whole series of cases where high-profile people have faced not

one charge but multiple charges and have then been acquitted on all of

them. Just before we move on to that, was the sort of behaviour that

you heard about, you say everybody gets drunk occasionally and does

something inappropriate, but precisely where you draw the line is

the key thing. Is it appropriate in the Deputy Speaker of the House of

Commons? I don't know exactly what happened, I mean Nigel Evans denies

what was suggested. I was certainly never invited tho these events and

-- to these events and wouldn't have expected to have been. What we all

now know is he was innocent of every single charge from the most serious

one which was rape, down to sexual assault, where even the alleged

victim said they didn't want to press charges. The police had

insisted. I do think there are two big questions, in fact there are

three big questions coming out of this. The first is whether the CPS

is operating to a sensible standard of proof when it decides to bring

these charges. The second is whether there should be a level playing

field when it comes to anonymity. The third is whether there is now a

habit on the part of the CPS of bunkedling up a whole load of very

weak cases, none of which would stand up on their own in court and

suggesting that some how because there is a lot, therefore there must

be something in it because there is no smoke without fire. Let's take

the two points about the CPS, is it in that terrible phrase "fit for

purpose" as far as you can see? I'm not saying it is unfit for purpose,

but it has certainly got its approach wrong. It was wrong in the

case of Bill Roache and wrong out of 14 of the charges for Dave Lee

Travis, and wrong with the nine charges against Nigel Evans. If it

has any sense at all it will be saying we're not getting this right,

we need to look at our approach. Most people reading some of the

evidence, not just in Nigel's trial, but in some of the others' which I

have mentioned say hang on how could anyone bring a case based on this

evidence. Why do we have all the expense, and from the point of view

of the defendant also the agony of a public trial, tying up state

resources when actually most of the evidence is flimsy. Let's look at

the case of the public aspect to all of this. There are suggestions now,

not least from your friend, Nigel Evans, that in a case like this a

defendant should be entitled to the anonymity often given to those who

claim that they have been assaulted. What do you think about that? I

think that either you have anonymity for both, or you have anonymity for

neither, or you have the course which I would prefer, which is where

you do allow accusers to be anonymous, but at the end of the

trial, if the accused is acquitted, then it should be a matter for the

judge to decide whether or not the anonymity should be preserved. Or

whether they should be named at that point. If he thinks an allegation

was wholly unsubstantiated or frivolous or malicious or whatever

it might be, he might then decide that they could no longer have

anonymity and the press could name them, or he might decide that the

circumstances were such that the anonymity should continue. What I

don't think is fashion and I have said it for a long time, I have

written this in the past. What I don't think is fair is where you

have got anonymity f one side but not for the other. In the specific

circumstances of the House of Commons, the Houses of Parliament

generally. Doesn't the place need a different set of rules and

procedures that people can go through in order to have their

grievances properly explored without having to take it up with their

employer, effectively, the member of parliament who is also the

discipline channel. A member of staff can go to a tribunal in the

same way as anyone else. If there is a possible criminal element

involved, really they reported it to the Speaker, and they took action.

Nobody would suggest up internal disciplinary procedures over a rape

charge. For goodness sake. So I don't actually think that many of

the procedures need changing, but I think as a result of this case that

there are things that will be looked at, and probably quite rightly so.

Thank you. Now, it is one of the greatest nightmares, being convicted

of a crime you didn't commit and then being sentenced to death. In

the case of Glenn Ford almost everything about the trial Stanning.

No eyewitnesses -- stank, no eyewitnesses or any evidence, just a

couple of incompetent lawyers in front of an all-white jury. He was

sent to his death in 1984 in Louisia 30 years later he has been cleared.

The moment Glenn Ford finally walked out of prison. A free man after

three decades locked up for a murder he didn't commit. 30 years, 30 years

of my life, if not all of it. Because I can't go back and do

anything I should have been doing when I was 35, 38, 40, stuff like

that. Ford was a young man when he was convicted of shooting and

robbing a local watch maker. An all-white jury found him guilty, he

was sentenced to die in the electric chair. Locked up on death row in the

notorious Angola Prison in Louisiana, a long legal challenge

started. His supporters always said the evidence against him was weak.

There was no eyewitness, or murder weapon. But it took until March this

year for the Louisiana Supreme Court to overturn the conviction, an

informant went to the police saying another of the original suspects

pulled the trigger. I certainly feel bad for him and I'm sorry it

happened. But also when you look at the case everybody had good

intentions and it was a mistake. Ford is one of the longest-serving

death row inmates to be set free. Since executions were reinstated in

the mid-1970s another 143 prisoners have had their convictions

overturned. But public support for the death penalty has always been

high. Only once in 1966 have polls shown opponents in the majority. The

number who say they are in favour has been drifting down since a peak

in the 1990, but 60% of Americans still support it, just #3R5% are

against. -- 35% are against. It is high, but if you consider they have

had the death penalty a long time, so to conceive of not having it is a

bit of a leap. I think it is getting closer and closer to 50% will force

the Supreme Court to look at this issue. Gle Ford will get ?8,000 for

each of the years he spent inside his cell. Asked for a pent as he was

-- comment as he was driven away from the gates. He told the court

his sons were babies when he was convicted, now they are grown men

with children of their own. Joining us from New Orleans is Glenn

Ford. Mr Ford what's the best thing about being free? I wouldn't know, I

haven't felt free yet. It hasn't really sunk in yet? Everything is,

no, everything is just some what of a hassle. It feels some what

strange. What has been the most surprising thing about coming

outside after 30 years? Technology. Everybody with these cellphone,

computers, stuff, things of that nature. As I was saying, being

arrested for a crime you didn't commit, being found guilty, being

given the death penalty, the death sentence, it is one of the worst

things anyone can imagine, do you stay angry the whole time or what?

Yeah. Well, you get angry, you feel helpless, but I never felt hopeless,

just helpless. Angry. And don't know which way to go, I couldn't do

nothing but wait. Were you angry all the time? No. Trying to keep my mind

busy on other things. What did you keep your mind busy with? Read, do

art, draw. Reading, drawing, playing chess, playing sudoku, something

could keep my mind occupied. Doing things for somebody else. Whatever

to occupy my mind I did. There must have been low points I guess? It was

quite a few low points. Could you see, was there a pattern to them?

No, well they were causing me to withdraw into myself for months.

Months? I lose contact with people that I had known. Months, I wouldn't

write or call anyone What do you feel now about the whole thing? What

do you feel now about this way of administering justice? It's not

justice. It's not, I don't know what justice, how can you call justice

what happened to me. In Europe, we don't have capital punishment here,

has it made you feel differently about your country do you think? No,

I feel the same about it, it is a good country with some twisted laws

and views and understanding. And routines that need to change. But

the country is good, I like the country. What are you looking

forward to most now? To be reunited with my family. To see my son, my

grandson. Family I have never seen before. Thank you very much indeed.

Thank you for your time. Now it is still over three months to the

precise 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War, and

there is no consensus on how to mark the event. There has been some

bad-tempered debate about whether people are being invited to

commemorate an event or series of events, or an idea of what the war

was, which has been got up in the years since and used, this is the

Education Secretary's belief, to run down patriotism, honour and courage.

What passing bells for these who die as cattle? Only the monstrous anger

of the guns. Only the stuttering rifles rapid rattle can patter out

their hasty odisons. Even before the war had ended, its legacy was being

contested in print, music and on campus. Among the casualties of war

was an entire world view, and among the many things fractured was the

human imagination. But the strongest criticism and the deepest revulsion,

the sense that it had Raul been a pointless sacrifice of lions led by

donkeys came in the decades afterwards. In the 1960s came the

musical Oh What A Lovely War. It fitted the times, but it is this

idea that Michael Gove believes distorts a proper understanding of

war. This is not war, it is slaughter. God is with us, it is for

king and empire. We are sacrificing lives at the rate of five to

sometimes 50 thousand ,000 a day. The next generation's take was

shared in Blackadder, which shared many of the same convictions. Don't

forget your stick? What oh, wouldn't want to face a machine gun without

this! The First World War changed almost everything in Britain, but it

didn't turn out to be the war that ended all wars, that has made it

easier to consider it an exercise in futility. Michael Morpergo's story,

Warhorse, took a mute animal to show industrialised killing. These images

can bring an appreciation of an utterly foreign experience. 100

years on do they help or hinter our understanding of it. To understand

that is the author of Warhorse, what do you make of the Michael Gove

accusations that these fictional renditions of the war are some how

undermining patriotism, honour and courage? They don't, what they do is

to draw attention to one of the most dreadful conflicts that humanity has

been involved in, we lost ten million men. It is something this

country has tried to come to terms with now for 100 years. Oort can

play its part in -- art can play its part in that. Whether black cadder

or Warhorse, or Oh What A Lovely War, it tells the story in different

ways. We can tell the historical story, or we can tell it

fictionally, and when you for instance, Blackadder is an

interesting case in point. What we have in that story were beloved

characters, loved characters, they came into people's houses for years,

and they took the extraordinary courage, Richard Curtis and Ben

Elton, to wipe them out. What did that mean? It meant that we all in

an extraordinary way, because nobody knew about it. There was this huge

loss, immediately, and you thought well that's the end of something,

and it was the end of something, it was the end of a whole way of

thinking, I thought it was a very significant moment both in arts and

television and very brave thing to do. Didn't it make patriotism look

stupid? What is it said, patriotism isn't enough it has to be

thoughtful. Art can do that you know. Benjamin Britain brought

together will Fred Owens poems and brought them in a different way and

sang them. We need those emotions and feelings about the war tested

and examined and art can do that. It can shine new lights on it. It is a

limited picture, isn't it all the First World War "what passing bells

for those who die as cattle", that is the pervading wisdom about it? I

came to an interest in that war through those poem, read more

closely and I think it would pay Mr Gove to do that. If you read Edward

Thomas, and you read John McKray, these were patriotic people, they

were trying to toss up right from wrong and what their place was in

all of this. You know John McKray's In Flanders Field, "take up our

quarrel with the foe", this was not against patriotism, poetry had its

part to play and touches the deeper parts of us. Why is it that the

First World War has a unique capacity to engender such flights of

creativity? I just think it is unimaginable for me, and I have

thought about it a lot, and many of us have about being put in that

situation and live through what those men lived and died in and then

survived and were ill afterwards and mutilated afterwards. And then you

think about the grieving that went on and I suspect in my generation, I

grew up just after the Second World War, so I witnessed the grieving

after the Second World War, which I think does enable you to empathise

with what happened before. We did have the link back to the First

World War, and we do know there was this extraordinary catastrophe which

wiped out the flower of our youth. Which did change the country and

Europe. And 100 years later, to me any way, if we are marking this

moment, that it should be done in the arts, but with purpose, it

should be done with reconciliation and peace in mind, not with any

sense of that this was a victory. I know the Germans turned around and

marched back towards Berlin and we had more men standing at the end

than they did. But it is a very, very difficult thing to talk in

terms of victory when 20 years later there was another war which killed

another 20 million. They weren't to know that? No, but we know it now.

We can look back, those people themselves did what they did, many

of them out of a passion for their country. There is no question about

that. They went to war that way, and when it was over there was relief

and joy. We know now that dreadful, dreadful conflict didn't solve what

we hoped it might solve. They would want to know that at that time, it

is striking after Sasoon and will Fred Owen write their poems they go

back and fight? The sad thing is they did go back and fight, and they

did make their protest in 1917 Sasoon and Landsdown they wanted to

see if peace could be arrived at without utterly humiliating the

enemy. They realised the suffering had gone on too long, by that time

everyone's blood was up and they wanted to surrender. Doesn't the

fact of the allied victory some how get overlooked in a lot of these

first world war narratives? There is no doubt there was a victory of

sorts. But what I want to focus on in my head is, yes there was a

victory, but at what cost? At the cost of the lives of these people?

All across the board, whether they were Germans or Italians, the

Germans lost two million men. And when people go and I have been often

to France and Germany as you have, and you see the cemetaries, the

German cemetaries are empty, they were sons and fathers, it seems we

now, 100 years later respect the fact that they went and fought for

their country. They were not always Kaisers, they were fathers and

people like we are. Do you emerge a pacifist? The older I am the more I

want to be a pacifist. I had growing up two uncles in the Second World

War, my uncle Peter who went to fight in the RAF almost immediately

war was declared, and another uncle who became a pacifist. I had this

extraordinary thing in my family where it happened, when my uncle

Peter was killed my other uncle joined up and that solved it really.

That is almost all tonight, we leave you with 14-year-old Lottie whose

film maker father has recorded the same short video of her every week

since she was born. Apparently's already planning part two. Good

night.