23/04/2014 Newsnight

Tonight Vladimir Putin sends out a warning to the US that Russia will

respond if its interests in Ukraine are attacked. What kind of Russia is

this man trying to remake? We will be speaking to the Pulitzer

Prize-winning editor of the New Yorker who witnessed the fall of

communism close up and has been following Vladimir Putin's every

turn. What happened to this likely lad, we

learn that Boris could announce his decision on a return to Westminster

as early as June. I would love to play Juliet!

running the show in the Ukraine. There was a reference to the brief

war in Georgia over the region of South Ossetia, at the same time

Russia announced it is conducting a military drill in the region

bordering Ukraine. For Vladimir Putin the conflict with Ukraine has

become a defining moment of his PRESIDENCY. WHAT IS THE END GAME?

The Russian spring, from Crimea, eastern Ukraine and elsewhere. Each

new self-pro-claimed Republic has its flag, emblems and slogans. Part

of an ideology championed by the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin. I think

it is a very old doctrine coming back in a very surprising form.

Europeans in the 1870s or 18930 -- 1930s would have found it familiar

as an idea. It is extremely dangerous doctrine to say that a

state has so much responsibility for the people who just speak its own

language and share its culture, even if they are not its citizen that is

it can take chunks of territory. Russia's presidency is surrounded by

imperial pomp, enabled with far-reaches powers. In a culture

where manly Vertonghen yous are still prized in an unself-conscious

ways, the office has given Mr Putin the chance to act decisively and to

the delight of many of his people. His people can see that in Kiev

power is taken illegally which the criminal junta of ultra

nationalists, who served not the citizens of Ukraine but to

Washington. This illegal junta used force against Ukrainian citizens and

this illegal junta wants to ban the Russian language. The western hue

and cry about gay rights and the panned Pussy Riot, some pro-Russians

saw signs of a plot against them. With new exercises reported today,

Russia's army stands ready to enter Ukraine, Foreign Minister Lavrov

made clear this afternoon they could do in defence of the Russian

minority. Some Putin supporters say the army should go in to protect

most Ukrainians, anyone who speaks Russian. The Russian public opinion

would support the use of Russian troops on the Ukrainian territory or

not. It depends on circumstances of such a decision. If Vladimir Putin

will ask just troops to go, maybe it will be not supported. But if there

will be some bloodshed agonised by the illegal junta Russian public

opinion would support Russian troops saving lives of Russians. This new

assertiveness might leave western countries reeling. But it finds

admirers too. I think that narrative, which is also one about

standing up to the west and poking Uncle Sam in the eye has

considerable appeal beyond the Russian borders, beyond the Russian

world. I just spent two weeks in China and it was striking how much

resonance there actually was for Putin in China. I'm told even in

India. Many Russians, stranded in other countries by the collapse of

the Soviet Union, now look to President Putin. How far he can go

in eastern Ukraine and whether the model can be extended elsewhere are

questions now actively being considered in the Kremlin.

We have the Editor in Chief of the New Yorker magazine, and former

Moscow correspondent for the Washington Post, his book, lip

anyone's Tomb, won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. What do you think

is Putin's end game? It was right in the introduction when you said it

was a lot about obscuring the problems he has domestically. People

in Russia were becomes prosperous in ways they never had before, and

power was becoming more stable in Russia. And his popularity was firm.

Now he has a situation where the economy has slowed to zero, he has a

choice, can he go before his people and admit that the economic

situation is what it is, or can he gain popularity by whipping up

nationalist fervour in places like the Ukraine. He has chosen,

tragically this second category. And I think above all it is terrible for

Russia to say nothing of a sovereign state known as Ukraine. The idea

that the United States... I wonder what you made of the analysis there,

that there is a dangerous position for a state to be in, to say that it

is going to protect all Russian speakers and people of Russian

culture. That is a cimera, you can't possibly follow that through? This

is a problem born of the fall of the Soviet Union. There were the ethnic

mix created over decades, landed where it landed. And there certainly

are Russian speakers in the eastern Ukraine and northern Kazakhstan and

the Baltic states. And some of them feel a dual identity. But the idea

that some how the majority of people, anything close to it in

Ukraine are welcoming Russian military and political incursion and

invasion is a terrible error of analysis, and yet it is great banner

of propaganda in Russia on TV today. So various things are going on here,

the economy is crashing, another quarter the same as this one and it

will go into recession and yet there is huge capital flight. At the same

time wouldn't it be fair to say from what you have seen, and I know you

were there recently because of Sochi, that actually he's clamping

down again, there is a huge clamp down on the intelligence, a

clampdown on dissidents, a clampdown on the liberals? It is not just

liberals, it is anybody that is a free thinker or has any kind of

opposition to the Government. Look if you were to do what'sness radio

with the Russian economy, it would endanger a lot of the people around

Putin and Putin himself. He's not willing to do that. His cronies

aren't willing to do that, they are cornered and they have gone to an

old strategy of hypernationalism, culture conservatism, that is where

the gay issue comes into play. And I think it is right to call it

dangerous. Looking at it from the other side, do you think that

President Obama has mis-stepped over this. Did he not take seriously

enough Russia and its concerns. In a way has he a role to play in this

problem, and he may end up leaving the White House with relations

between Russia and America worse than at any time before Ronald

Regan. The United States mistakes recently and over decades are well

known and obvious. They range from Iraq to a triumphalism that occurred

in the 1990s, that was in hindsight a terrible strategic mistake. The

idea that the United States would go on and on in the post-Soviet era as

a power was a dedevolution, not only in the United States by the world.

Remember what Russia is, Russia has an economy the size of Italy. It

wants to assert itself as a superpower, and the only thing that

makes it a superpower, alas and unfortunately is its nuclear

weapons. I think Putin is playing a game of concealing for his on

short-term political game a tragic situation. Because to reform Russia

in ways that it needs to requires too much of him, and it threatens

him, it threatens his circle and that he's not willing to do. You

cannot underestimate the power of totalist propaganda that you see on

state television in Russia. Yes, his popularity is 80%, but that has a

lot to do with the way information is transmitted and even the Internet

is being cracked down on in Russia, which you hadn't seen before. Thank

you very much for joining us. Statistics suggest that the

incidence of violent crime has fallen inexorably over recent years,

halving in this country over the past decade without anyone truly

understanding why. Now a new study by Cardiff University, tracking

treatment for victims of violent crime at A departments in England

and Wales suggests the reason for the drop is a less macho culture,

and also because fewer young people are drinking because of cost and

because society is changing and across the western world. Preparing

to fight, with the rules of engagment made clear. At this

academy in East London, boxing is a key part of the curriculum. For

teenagers who faced exclusion at their mainstream schools. Instead

they do their GCSEs here, and learn that violence is never OK, and that

sparring in the ring can help them combat it. It is the discipline. In

what way? If you are out with your friends and they want to encourage

you to do something bad, you stop and think about what will happen if

you go home or the police get involved. You would think you were

more violent before you came here? Yeah. That is a big yeah. In what

way? I was more tempted to fightout side and do -- fight outside, but

being here I learn there is more things in life than fighting

outside. There is a decrease in violent incidences since 2013, the

fifth consecutive year figures have fallen. Most violent crime is

committed by people under 30. But it seems youngsters are getting better

behaved, and far less aggressive. In here boxing is used as a way to

channel aggression, but perhaps unsurprisingly it doesn't make it

into the list of explanations for why violence is down more generally.

It might sound counterintuitive, but a fall in disposable income is one

possible cause, linked as it is to the decline in "binge drinking" and

drug taking. Improved public health is another reason suggested, as is

better crime prevention. For the boxing academy, combatting violence

is about early intervention. It is no good just telling young people

not to be violent. You have to give them the tools to analyse the

background, work out their trigger points, confront the conflict, if

you like, and develop strategies to cope with it and therefore reduce

the likelihood of it happening. With more and more of that emotional

intelligence-style teaching going on, young people are definitely

responding positively. Youth-led violent crime used to lead the air

waves. This was the 1950s, when a gang was terrorising bank staff.

More recently British town centres became no-go zones at weekends when

fighting followed boozing as night followed day. But police and other

agencies working together has paid off. Plus there is a new attitude to

drink and drugs amongst many young people that might just surprise

their parents. These youngsters are ambassadors for the youth charity,

Just 4. 4 Kids. You need to realise your boundaries and people are

getting alcohol poisoning and people are reading newspapers and realising

they can't go too far. People are being young people but recognising

there are boundaries. Perhaps the fall in violence is also down to how

much family attention modern children get. In 1974 full-time

mothers with children under four and no job sent 77 minutes a day on

childcare, that rose to 202 minutes by 2005. Mothers working more than

four hours a day also increased childcare time from 25-97 minutes a

day, they are spending more time on childcare than full-time mothers

were 40 years ago. The most comfortable place in my area is my

house, my mum and my little brother. Does your mum work? She works. My

dad takes me football, that keeps me away from violence. Whatever the

reasons for the fall in violence and violent crime, here they say

attitudes to young people still haven't changed. How do you think

you are seen by society? As criminals. That is how it feels? It

feels. Hoodlums and hood-rats. But you are not? Yeah, you are! No

matter what others say, these young people are now focussed away from

violence. On the goals that will give them a better future. Joining

me now from Boston is the author of The Better Angels of our Nature. Why

Violence has Declined, and a writer for the Economist, and also the

Hackney heroine, after the riots in London in 2011, when a video of her

berating rioters in her native Hackney went violent. These figures

showing violent crime is on the decrease, does it look like that

where you live? Nowhere I live, I'm afraid. I have to sadly say it is

not happening in and around most of the areas I connect with. Just

recently we have had a young boy shooting a young girl in Hackney. We

have had a gentleman killing his partner and his child, again today

on the news there is a mother who has killed her three children. All

exceptional circumstances, but it is still a violent crime. Of course the

death of the three children today is still an allegation that it was the

mother that was involved in that crime. But Daniel, do you think that

what we're seeing here is a result of a changing society, although not

one that Pauline recognises locally, or is there something fundamentally

changing in our society? I think there is a changing society, but to

do with an awful lot of interventions at once. Your report

raised a view of them. Parenting, contrary to politicians, has

actually got a lot better. But there is myriad things like that. I mean

the way we approach crime, the way we tackle crime and prevent crime

has got better. If you look at things that were common 20 years

ago, bank robbery, that is harder. Because of CCTV? Yeah, but things

like car immobilisers. Don't you think they find other ways of

getting in there? I don't think they do. I dug up a statistic today,

107,000 kids entered the criminal justice system for violent offences,

there is a four fold drop now. Do you think there is amongst young

people a less propensity to commit crime. Is there a fundamental

societal change? There is a change, a long-running historical change,

going back to the Middle Ages the rate of violent crime in western

countries has just plummeted, then there was a little up-tick in the

1960s and this is a reversal of the up-tick. In general there has been

less tolerance of violence as a way of establishing one's manhood and

honour, and more emphasis on dignity and controlling your emotions and on

being more of a gentleman. Why is that happening? It probably is

triggered by a number of ways of trying to control violence. Most

probably Government and policing. That has been the trend that drove

most of the rate of violent crime down over the centuries, there was a

renewal of energy after the crime burst of the 1960s when after a

couple of decades, communities all over the west got sick of the rate

of crime and started to do various things about it. It is not

inherently that human nature is changing for the better? I don't

think human nature is changing, but I think human nature has many

components, there is a part of us that reacts angrily to insults and

frustrations as in the computer repair technique called precussive

maintenance, something goes wrong and you want to whack something. On

the other hand there is another part of human nature that can anticipate

the future, and can inhibit these impulses to lash out. I think when

you change social institutions, you can give self-control and long-term

planning the upper hand, so you are tilting one aspect of human nature

against another. This is precisely it, Stephen has explained well in

his book over 1,000 years why crime has increased in those decades from

the 60s, # 0s and 80s. What we have seen over the last 30 years across

the board in western countries, little ways we have found of making

things work better. Things that we have improved institutionally have

changed. Tell me where have you done this and where did you get the

statistics from, and where did you do your research to find it. I walk

out on the streets every day, every day I'm out there, with the people,

you know, on grassroots level, ghetto level, whatever way you want

to class it, but I'm out there and I'm seeing crime every day. Pauline

I'm wondering if part of the thing is actually it doesn't contribute to

the statistics, because a lot of the crime you are seeing goes

unreported? There you go. So how can they get a right balance, I don't

understand. We actually have a very good crime statistics, it was based

on the survey, essentially we ring up 60,000 people and say what crimes

have you been a victim of. The crime statistics are pretty good and we

have hospital admissions? Why is it only now that we are in the last

decade coming to understand, or see why this is changing? I think it is

only recently become so apparent in Britain because certain types of

crimes were still rising into the mid-noughties, things like knife

crime, even the crime has been fouling since 1995, it has been

quite easy to point to something getting worse. But now everything is

falling. Have you done research into the gun crime. I have. Can I finish

up. The number of shootings has fallen by 80%. That is not the

question I wanted to ask, I wanted to ask where are the guns coming

from and getting on the streets. They are in less and less numbers.

One area you will be in accord is over the idea is why we are not

seeing a commensurate reduction in domestic violence? We do, estimates

of domestic violence are also down. And maybe for some of the same

reasons, maybe we are becoming increasingly intolerant of violence,

it is considered a mark of absolute shame to beat up or threaten your

intimate partner. Where as that was a matter of comedy and jokes for

much of the 20th century. Also there are better social service agencies,

places that women who are terrorised by spouses or boyfriends can escape

or complain, and less tolerance on the police on domestic violence, and

less tolerance for other violent crime. Is this a prosession or

something that might kick it all off again, like the riots we had in

2011, is this a definite trajectory or could we see it reversed? We

could see it reversed. I think unlike the 1960s and 1970s, where

there was a deep pessimism, that we could ever take it back to cities.

How do you propose to reverse it? Could it be reversed ore become

worse again. Sorry, my misunderstanding. It could become

right again. But there has to be a lot more input into this than just

us sitting here on a TV, having a debate. We need to get out there,

the people need to get out there and work on this. Thank you all very

much indeed. There is only one man who could have said my chances of

being PM are about as good as finding he will visit on Mars or

being re-- Elvis on Mars! But he know Boris Johnson tries to put you

off. Newsnight understands he may soon announce his decision to return

to Westminster and not foot about on the backbenches, at least not for

more than five minutes. I'm getting on with my job. Being Mayor of

London is the most fantastic job. What I would rather do is get on

with my job of running the city. You heard the man, he's just getting on

with the job. Why then is it becoming increasingly difficult to

find anyone round here who still believes that. Perhaps that's

because beneath the distinctly uncool exterior, the handle bars,

the floppy fringe, and the quotations from Virgil, there lurks

the beating heart of a man still deeply ambitious for the very top

job in politics? I would be amazed if at the next general election

there is not in some corner of England a Boris Johnson standing for

election. He has not finished his political career. I think he's just

getting started. Put bluntly, the concept of Boris Johnson not

standing as an MP is pretty hard to imagine. Indeed Westminster's

favourite parlour game has been to guess which seat and when an

announcement would come. Colonel Mustard, there is an image to

conjure, think Cluedo without the lead piping. Officially no decision

has been made, once you take out the summer, conference season, and the

upcoming elections, time is getting short. I understand an announcement

could come as early as June, once the European and local elections are

safely out of the way. What he can't afford is anything that starts to

become what one source described to me as the Boris soap opera

distraction. So why are things hotting up now? Quite simply because

the PM, David Cameron, has extended the invitation. Last month in the

Sun the PM made clear he does want Boris to be part of the line-up,

telling James Cordon, more readily than he meant, he wanted his top

striker. Football analogies can be dubious, but it may fit well, the

Cameron plan is to present a top team to the electorate before May

2015. You take the likes of Hague, Osbourne, Cameron and Michael Gove,

and throw in Johnson for good measure, and you have a cabinet of

big beasts. He wants to put on show a proven squad, rather than the team

of nobodies he thinks Labour will offer up. One of the unknowns is

what George Osborne makes of any Boris return, there may be mixed

emotions, incentives even, as campaign strategist he will want to

cement a Tory majority whatever cost. He knows if Cameron fails he

fails too. When it comes to that leadership bid, potentially,

eventually, the two could be rivals and that could spell out a very

different story. Already there is huge tension between Team Boris and

Team George Osborne. It is even to hear even senior Tories talk with

each other about which side they are on. Imagining some 2018 run off. But

politicians are mental chess players, and Boris Johnson features

at a great big Queen in the chess board and George Osborne being the

rival Queen. Many Tories are wondering how this will play out and

beginning to take sides behind one of these two men. The big question

is which seats will be freed up and where would make geographic sense

for the man who will take the day job of the London mayor. George

Young could be one, he's standing down. Or the seat of Andrew

Lansley's in south Cambridgeshire if he was the new EU minister. Peter

Tapsal and Patrick Mercer are also standing down. Then there is London,

seats in Bromley and Beckenham, Uxbridge and Richmond, often

mentioned yet all four MPs there have told me today they are not

standing down. What are you left with? Kensington and Chelsea might

sound obvious, but no fine from Malcolm Rifkind he's willing to give

up that prize yet. Cameron is the insider, Boris is the outsider, he

doesn't have a great gang of people ready to take over or the key

installations. The bookies' odds on a Boris Johnson MP have never been

shorter, that perhaps is for others to say. As the classic scholar

himself might put it even if everyone else does he won't. What

happens if you lose everything? You go bankrupt. It is a question which

may face more of us if interest rates rise, what happens when

discharging the debt can cost you many times over. Sometimes debtors

have no choice but to allow professionals called insolvency

practitioners to manage their affairs, the Government is

increasingly concerned that the fees they charge can be very high. Even

over a small debt of just several thousand pounds, fees can bring the

total bill to tens of thousands. The consequences can be devastating, as

Richard Watson has been finding out in a report made by Fire Crest

Films. Debtor, bankrupt, terms which instill fear and shame, for friends

and family the stakes can be very high. When people can't pay,

professionals are brought in to handle their assets, but they charge

fees, often by the hour. The Government is reviewing the level of

fees across the insolvency business. We have also been investigating fees

charged by lawyers and accountants when things go wrong. And some of

what we found gives rise to serious cause for concern. Alan Town, 55,

used to live in his own home. After being made bankrupt he has moved

back in with his 92-year-old father. I'm very lucky I have had the

support of my family. A lot of people, however, do not have that

sort of support, so if their properties are lost they would be

out on the streets. Alan used to live in a flat he owned outright

here in South-East London. It was forcibly sold after he was made

bankrupt over unpaid council tax of ?7,000, other debts brought the

total amount owed to ?27,000. In bankruptcy the costs began to rise

steeply, ?13,000 of fees were payable to the Government, called

Secretary of State fees, and ?11,000 were legal fees, but the single

biggest cost came from fees charged by what is known as a trustee in

bankruptcy, appointed to sell assets so creditors can be paid, ?36,000

were from Alan's trustee, who worked for a big firm of accountants. The

total cost of bankruptcy including his initial debts came to just under

?100,000. His flat was sold to pay the bill. The trustee told the

family that the reason costs were so high was because Alan was

obstructive and didn't engage in the process. In Alan Town's case his

trustee in bankruptcy was from a company now owned by accountany

giant Baker Tilly, we asked him to explain the fees run up over three

years. They told us they didn't think it was appropriate to comment

on individual cases. So what are trustees' fees? They are usually

charged in bankruptcy by insolvency practitioners. Their job is to

realise assets of the bankrupt to pay creditors what they are owed.

Critics argue the way they are currently paid often by the hour,

can send bills sky high. There are a very, very high chargeout rates,

even ordinary is three figures plus, it is very, very lucrative, it is

virtually a license to print money. The minister responsible for

insolvency has been consulting with the industry. We are certainly

concerned in Government about the level of fees, we have just closed a

consultation looking at how we can change the way that fees are

charged, we're looking at flat rate fees and fees as a proportion of

asset that is are recovered and so on, we are looking at a variety of

different options. But the insolvency industry opposes the

ideas of fixed fees. The fixed fee idea has been put forward by

Government in its recent consultation. We actually don't

think that is the right way to go, and the reason we don't think that

is the case is we don't think there is any evidence to show that will

work. The report which lies behind the Government's plans for reform

raises particular concern about small personal bankruptcy where

there is a family home at stake. Often fees rise massively when

people fight to avoid paying debts. For 30 years Peter Williams lived

and worked in his house in Bedfordshire, but astonishingly a

?1350 debt he owed to his council spiralled into an ?80,000 bill. His

family says it cost Peter his home and his life. I was totally

appalled, absolutely appalled, and could not believe it. A debt of

?1350 and to actually pursue it in this way, to make somebody bankrupt

is beyond belief. Colleagues say Peter Williams was a brilliant

inventor, but his private life started falling apart after he fell

ill in the 1990s. Friends and family say he was vulnerable. Council tax

bills went unpaid for almost ten years. The council says he had

plenty of chances to settle. Eventually he was made bankrupt, he

paid some council tax, but with legal fees he still owed around

?1350. The accountany firm Grant Thornton was appointed at Peter's

trustee in bankruptcy, that meant they handled his assets, like his

house here, to make sure his debts with were paid. The fees for Peter

Williams' bankruptcy began to climb. In 2010 his friend asked the council

for breakdown of the bill. They wrote back to us and told us that

they will not tell us how the debt was broken down, because it will

further inflate the debt if they did. As in most insolvency Grant

Thornton was charging by the hour. A partner is charged out at ?450 an

hour. An administrator it is more than ?150 an hour, even for

assistants and support staff it is over ?140 an hour. Soon the bill was

in the tens of thousands. Peter Williams' house was to be sold to

pay this and other bills. Finally a date in February 2012 was set for

Peter's eviction, on that day a policeman called at his sister's

house. He told -- He told me that my brother had died. I just couldn't

believe it, because I didn't know anything about what had been going

on. I just could not believe it. Peter Williams had taken his own

life. After his death his family is told the costs of his bankruptcy,

nearly ?80,000. More than ?27,000 were fees charged by Grant Thornton

as trustee. I was horrified. Absolutely horrified, the minute

trustees in bankruptcy are brought in there is a huge charge. Grant

Thornton told Newsnight that the family have their deepest

sympathies, they said the prosession of the bankruptcy required numerous

court hearings all of which necessarily contributed to the time

and costs involved. They also said they agreed to repeated delves of

the possession order to -- deferral order to allow Mr Williams to

explore his options. Was it right to force him into bankruptcy over such

a small debt in the first place. Currently those owing ?750 can be

forced into bankruptcy by law. The level of ?750 in 1986 and times have

changed and what is appropriate is different now. I'm looking at it to

see if the threshold needs to be increased. Central Bedfordshire

council said they have always recognised the tragic nature of

Peter Williams' death, but for more than a decade he didn't pay the

council tax. They distanced themselves and said the debt that

ultimately led to action to repossess Mr Williams' home related

to the costs pursued by Grant Thornton, which were entirely

outside the council's control. The insolvency profession has currently

eight, yes eight regulators, who people can complain to if they feel

they have been treated unfairly. They cannot assess the level of fees

charged by trustees. You are put in the position where you have to

accept what they have said and what they are willing to give you at the

end of the process. And the regulator won't look at it? I don't

know what the regulator actually does. Insolvency cases are driven by

law and the moment the redress for someone who has concerns about the

fees is to go to the court. Someone has taken themselves to

court won't do so because it is a vastly expensive process? The court

is very ready to look at insolvency practicers' fees. The Government

wants to reform the bankruptcy business by strengthening regulation

and capping fees. The insolvency industry is resisting some of the

changes, but for families affected reform is long overdue. As birthdays

go, William shakes peers is -- William Shakespeare is some what

imprecise. Newsnight thought it would get in on the celebrations

going on in Stratford. Every night we will finish the programme with

big British stars performing their own favourites of Shakespeare. Here

is Helen Mirren on what Shakespeare means to her, ahead of her

performance on Friday. When I was young I didn't go to the cinema, we

didn't have television, but I did see an amateur production of Hamlet

was when I was 14, I was completely overwhelmed and it was so magical to

me, just the story alone, imagine seeing Hamlet when you don't know

that Opheila goes mad or that Hamlet dies, I didn't know any of that. You

are watching it like a thriller as much asking? Anything else. It was

such an electrifying experience for me that I immediately went back and

found a very musty old copy of Shakespeare that my parents had, and

started reading it, and that was the moment I think that I realised that

was really what I wanted to do. By favoured fountain or rushy brooks,

thy brawls though has disturbed our sport. Children should not be

allowed to read Shakespeare until her 15 years old, taken to see a

play at 13, 14, they would say you can't read it is much too grown up,

not allowed, not until you are 16. Then of course you are dying to

secretly reading Shakespeare in your bedroom. A play like Coreolanus, you

can do a play Ross thighesing for fuedalism or capitalism. That is the

extraordinary nature of his work is that it is just always multifaceted.

You can put it in an African, Aborigine society, an Asian society,

and it always has resonance to the people who watch it. I would love to

play Juliet! Too late! But I do practice Juliet from time to time.

You know. REPORTER: Did you ever have to turn

down Juliet? No, I was never asked, it broke my heart. Especially when I

realised I was in my 30s and 40s and it is not going to happen now. It is

not going to happen now. Gap hop apace you feeble feet, bring on

cloudy night immediately! Starting us off with our first performance

will be David Harewood in just a moment. Before that let's discuss

Shakespeare's power today with the director with us. We were talking

about the idea that you can do anything with shakes beer? We have

just done a production at the Donmar, set roughly in a Rome that

feels a bit like now. The amazing thing about it, it ran the NT lives,

which go out around the world. I have had people writing from Russia

movingly saying this is an incredible play about democracy. Do

you find it good, do you agree with Helen you shouldn't be allowed to

read Shakespeare at school? I would disagree. I think you should give

Shakespeare to kids all around the world and let them experience it. It

is only by experiencing it, it comes alive, by reading it, saying it,

experiencing it, that is when you get the full benefit of it for me.

It has so many ideas in the writing, so much beautiful language and so

many beautiful images in the language. It really comes alive when

kids get a hold of it and understand what it is about. Do you remember at

school, I remember it was Macbeth? The most brilliant thing happened, I

was in correspondence with my brother's niece who is six years old

and studying Shakespeare, she has been writing e-mails saying about

adding things with the witches' cauldron and stirring things with

someone's arm, it is making her brain pop. Have you seen firsthand

how it can change children's lives? We did the all-female workshops

around Shakespeare's plays, and there was a girl in the workshops

who never been heard to speak before, she was reading Julius

ceaser, it is so KOUFRL. The point is about not making it dry and the

performance. What we are mindful at the moment is it doesn't desiccate

into the curriculum as something academic, they were written to be

spoken and performed. Shakespeare never published his plays in his

lifetime, but after his death. He wanted them to be exciting and

crackling things, not dusty books? I have experienced Shakespeare in

prisons, and these prisoners have no experience of the language but when

they understand about it, you can feel their back straighten and these

huge characters come alive. And they start to understand this isn't some

kind of posh you know thing that belongs to the rich people or people

living in London, it belongs to all of us. And there is no right or

wrong in Shakespeare, you can do it anywhere, any time, and why

shouldn't Helen play Juliet, it would be fantastic to see it. There

is absolutely no right or wrong in Shakespeare, can you do it wherever

and whenever. Tonight you are going to do Iago, why? I have always been

interested in doing things, as I said, that you are not supposed to

do. Or flipping things on their head. And the idea of having, I did

Iago for my RADA audition, I can remember their faces going you are

doing this not Othello, and I thought why not. You can't do

anything wrong with Shakespeare, and it is about bringing it alive. If it

means casting a white actor in a black role, or whatever, or a woman

as a man, do it. You go off and prepare, one final question for joss

circumstance having done -- Josie, having done your all-female Julius

Caesar, has it whetted your appetite for another production with

all-women? We would love to bring that work back, it had such a great

force of change in the lives of the actors that did it. Listening to

David there, it is a great point about elitism, it is only elitist if

people don't get to go to the theatre and drama doesn't get caught

in school, when you don't allow admission to it, that is elitist, it

isn't at its heart. Here is David Harewood playing Iago from act I of

Othello. Oh Sir content you, I follow him to serve my turn upon

him. We cannot all be masters, nor all masters cannot be truly

followed. You shall mark many a duteous and knee crooking knave, who

doting on his obsequious bondage wearing out his time like his

master's ass, when he's old cash yeared, with me such honest knaves,

others, there are who trimmed in forms and visages of beauty, kept

yet their hearts intending on themselves, and throwing but shows

of service on their Lords, do well thrive by them. And when they have

lined their coats, do themselves homage. Those fellows have some

soul, and such a wonder I profess myself, for Sir, it is as sure as

you are Rodrigo, and I the moor, I would not be Iago, and following him

I follow but myself, not I for love and duty, but seeming so for my

peculiar end, and when my outward action demonstrate the native act

and figure of my heart in confident external, it is not long after, that

I will wait my heart upon my sleeve for daws to peck at. I am not

Rain continues to spread east overnight, heavy showers fading from

south-west England and Northern Ireland, a chilly start to the south

west of the UK, patchy fog too, Wales, Midland, southern England

slowly clearing and then a