10/06/2014 Newsnight

Islamist insurgents seize one of the biggest cities in Iraq, and

Washington declares they now represent a threat to the entire

region. Government forces simply fled. Can the administration for

which so many western soldiers died hold the line against Al-Qaeda's

allies. In the Congo the victims of rape by soldiers get their day in

court. We follow the efforts to bring the perpetrators of sexual

violence to justice. And remember this? You said to the

Secretary of State I want to make unannounced inspections? Yes I did.

And what did he say? The Chief Inspector of schools unspeaks what

he tried to say yesterday. And fish? This is my only first dinner

tonight. Is this a crime against animals, do you care whether or not

the fish on your plate felt pain as it died?

It the Iraq War, which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of

people was fought to overthrow a dictator and to make the country

safe for democracy. Today, 11 years after that war began, control of one

of the largest cities in the country fell to a group linked to Al-Qaeda.

Police and soldiers in moment sul, cap -- Mosul, simply ran away. The

rebels are said to have released a thousand or so people from prison.

Militants, Sunni rebels are in control of one of Iraq's biggest

cities. In many places the security fors just melted away, leaving

uniforms and abandoned vehicles behind. It is a body blow to the

Shia-led Baghdad Government. I think they are the most significant events

to have taken place in Iraq, certainly since the height of the

Civil War in 2007. I wouldn't imagine betting they are even more

significant than those difficult days as well. What has happened in

Mos sum In Mosul is unprecedented. Iraqi security forces melting away,

running away, and the political elite in Baghdad not knowing what to

do. For many months the western cities of Fallujah and Ramadi have

been in open revolt, half a million people reportedly fled as a result.

Then Isis and other Jihadist groups started moving into Nineva province,

freeing nearly 3,000 prisoners in jail. Air strikes followed but

Government forces started to collapse, today the Jew haddists

extended their control over the banks of the tigress taking the

major airport and other bases. Over 100,000 people fled, these scenes

were taken. Victory for Isis extends across to Syria. Imagine you are an

insurgent group and take over a whole city, the Central Bank of the

city, the weapons, the bases, everything there, that will, Isis

was really losing in Syria, they were limited to a tiny little place

on the northern edge of Syria and now taking over Mosul, that is a

huge boost for Isis. It isn't just that the Jihadists of Isis have

captured guns calm glory, they have taken an economic centre and

strengthened their position in Syria too. With much of Iraq slipping

under the control of Sunni Jihadists, and the Government's

inability to export oil and generate revenue now being called into

question, there is a real chance of Iraq being dismembered and the whole

issue becoming a major international security problem. So how did the

Prime Minister, re-elected just two months ago, get into this situation?

He has pursued rather aggressive politics of sectarianism, since 2006

and increasingly so since he became Prime Minister. He has marginalised

the Sunni-Arab community failed to make good on promises made to them

by the Americans during the surge and the awakening of the Sunnis that

saw the last Al-Qaeda insurgency end. And now what we see is a

marginalised, disenfranchised people, not wanting to engage with

the Government in Iraq, and into which the message of Isis seems to

be extremely strong. America has already said it will give more help

to Iraq's security forces, but the shortcomings exposed today show it

will take a lot more than a few Humvees or guns to turn this around.

Mr Malaki may have to make use of Shia militias as the battle

threatens to spread to Baghdad itself.

The Chief Inspector of schools wasn't quite made to eat the words

he made on Newsnight tonight, nothing so crude, but a bit of

clarification, after he seemed to say that the Education Secretary,

Michael Gove, rejected the idea of unannounced inspections of schools

when it was put to him two years ago. Today the minister's office

denied flat out that he had stopped the idea. Sir Michael Willshaw said

later on today it was he who decided not to go ahead with the plan. This

is what he said last night. We need do it. You saw it two years ago and

you didn't do it? That was something I discussed with the Secretary of

State and we pulled back. You said to the Secretary of State you want

to make unannounced inspections? Yes I did. Has the Secretary of State

changed his mind? I think he has. When you put it to him before, he

said what? He said we need to look at this and listen to what head

teachers are saying about needing to be in the school, prior to an

inspection, so they can have a preliminary dialogue with the

inspectors about how the inspection should be conducted. So we pulled

back on that, so they have now just a few hours. On his say so? Yes. He

told you no we're not going to do that? We had a robust discussion

about it, and I'm really pleased that minds have been changed. But he

has come to see your point of view? I hope so.

Now Emily has been speaking to the major players today and has tried to

untangle who really said what? This is the row that keeps on

giving. There was a furious outburst from the Department of Education

after last night, and they flatly denied that Michael Gove had been

the roadblock in this, and said that Sir Michael Willshaw had

misremembered. I was given a blow-by-blow account by two of

Michael Gove's advisers at the time of exactly what happened, it dates

back to 2007 when they said Mr Gove was in favour of this. A no-notice

inspection, a flash inspection with no notice of preamble to the school.

He was in favour in 2009 and 2011 in office, articles to support there.

Michael Willshaw came into Ofsted in 2012 and immediately appeared to

support the idea of the no-notice inspection, the two were singing

from the same hymn sheet. Three months into the job according to

Michael Gove's advisers, Sir Michael Willshaw lost his nerve. He had a

bad run in with the press, he had lots of interviews that hadn't

worked out for him, he didn't want to make an enemy of the head

teachers, he lost his bottle and said he didn't want to go ahead with

it, Michael Gove went and addressed the head teachers' conference and

broke this news, perhaps unfortunately, because it wasn't

really his place to be doing it, and he used very incendiary language,

talking about Ofsted as the "Spanish inquisition". He really slagged them

off, it got Sir Michael Willshaw furious, even though he confirmed a

few weeks later that he was dropping the no-notice policy. Briefly

Ofsted's response? This is what is so curious, this afternoon the

Department of Education put out a press release that put a lid on the

whole thing. They said the Chief Inspector has confirmed the

education secretary did not ask Ofsted to halt its plans. Seems very

clear. So I called Ofsted and said are you retracting those words? No,

they are not I was told. Were they apologising or stepping down, no

they are not. Why did they sign up to the press release? They said

there is no point pick a fight over tittle tattle on a policy on which

we broadly agree. They just thought it looked more grown up to let it

go. But they are not saying that Sir Michael Willshaw was wrong or

backing down, it is over to you and everyone else who is telling the

truth here. The Hollywood star, Angelina Jolie, made a passionate

speech today about the crime of sexual violence against women in

war. Speaking at the International Gathering, organised by the Foreign

Office here in London. She said we all had to recognise that there is

no shame in being a survivor, the shame attaches only to those who

perpetrate rape. It is not, she said, an inevitable part of war.

William Hague likened the campaign of sexual violence to the fight

against slavery. How to bring the rule of law to the conduct of war is

a challenge everywhere. It is very tough work, but not without the

occasional success. Fiona Lloyd Davies reports from the Democratic

Republic of Congo. This is not Afghanistan or Somalia,

it is eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. These women are testifying in

a landmark trial. They are veiled for their own projection, the

defendants are soldiers from the Congolese Army, accused of mass rape

and looting. 39 soldiers and officers up to the rank of

Lieutenant Colonel are on trial in a military court. Over 1,000 victims

of rape and looting have been recorded. Yet is justice being done?

An estimated one. Eight million women have been raped in their

lifetime in Congo. Despite the laws against sexual violence being

revised in 2006, justice has never been taken seriously as a deterrent

here, and a culture of impunity has prevailed, until now. Nadine is an

associate of a law firm in the regional capital, Goma. She is one

of the prosecuting lawyers in what could be an historic case.

Today Nadine is going with a psychologist to the town where the

Congolese Army raped at least 76 women and children in November 2012.

The area is still heavily militarised, and there are many

thousands of disbanded militia. Both the witnesses and lawyers have been

threatened and intimidated. This was an ordinary market town,

but the local people will never forget that night when several

thousand Congolese Army troops arrived. They had been ordered to

withdraw from Goma, leaving their own families vulnerable to the

invading M 23 rebels. Angry and frustrated the soldiers punished the

towns people. This woman was raped and sodomised by three soldiers that

night. She has already testified in court

and found the experience of being a witness a terrible ordeal.

They have arrived in the village. The women know how distressing it is

for the rape survivors to come to court and are here to prepare them.

The psychologist has been working with one woman who was dragged from

her hut and raped by a soldier. At the time her baby was only two

months old. The local population don't believe

the right soldiers are on trial and think they might even still be in

the area. Surrounding the village are more than 2,000 disbanded

militia men in limbo. This Colonel is one of them. His men took part in

the devastation of the village in November 2012.

Locally the suspicion is that the Colonel ordered his men to rape. He

denied the allegations. Yet he seemed heavily dependent on his

advisers sitting next to him. Below the camp, some people still

live in fear of him. Since then the Colonel has left the

transit centre, taking his men with him into the forest. No high ranking

member of the Congolese Army stood trial. I can mention two or three

generals, I would have liked to see them stand trial. But never

happened, it didn't fly well with the political regime. In Goma in the

regional capital, it is another day in court and Nadine is getting

ready. One of the most significant charges

against these soldiers is of officers failing to control their

men. It has been levelled because only one of the raped women was able

to identify her assaliant. This is the man she identified, the

reason she is so certain is because he's missing a finger which she

noticed the night she was raped. And the secretary Lieutenant says he

has a cast iron alibi. He doesn't feel he has seen much

justice. It is the day of the verdict. It is

just five months since this military trial for war crimes started. For

Nadine this will be one of the most important decisions of her career.

When the trial started 40 men were accused of war crimes, including

rape. Since then one man has died in prison and only 27 were detained.

Five of the senior officers accused of failing to control their troops

were never compelled to appear in court.

It is time for the men to hear their fate. None of the witnesses have

come, because it is thought to be too dangerous for them.

Second Lieutenant Sabwe is one of only two accused of rape as a war

crime who have been found guilty. He has been sentenced to life

imprisonment. 18 other soldiers were found guilty of looting, all of the

five senior officers were cleared. As those found guilty are

graphically striped of their rank, whatever the flaws of this trial,

the limited successes should also be acknowledged. It has been brought to

a conclusion, many witnesses did come to testify at great risk and

there were convictions for rape as a war crime, although just two. But if

Congo is ever going to rid itself of the title of "rape capital of the

world", there needs to be a much stronger form of justice. The cost

to society for impunity is still running very high.

With us now is Baroness Warsi, a Foreign Office minister and also

minister for faith and communities. Let's start by talking, we will come

to the question, the Michael Gove, Muslim schools row in a moment,

let's first of all talk about the rape initiative you have going. How

big is the operational squad of Foreign Office and kindred spirits

involved in it? The number of people attending this conference, this

summit will in the end run into thousands. The summit is happening

not just in London but across the world. We have over 115 countries

attending. But it is not just about the numbers, it is about building

momentum, real political momentum. But how many people has the British

Government committed to it? We have committed experts, which runs into

dozens, we are about 70 or 80 experts have already been chance.

What are they doing? They are in a variety of field, some of them are

experts on evidence-gathering, prosecution, some of them are

working on psychological trauma, Victim Support. Some of them are

assisting countries with their legal processes and making sure that the

right laws are put in place so we do get convictions. What that video

showed, more than anything else s that victims need justice, and they

need justice by getting successful prosecutions. One of the biggest

aims of the summit is to make sure we sign an international protocol

that has been agreed set of international standards, which means

that evidence is properly gathered and prosecutions are properly

brought to court and we do get convictions and finally some justice

for the survivors. It makes you wonder why these experts aren't

being sent to places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, in

order in order that women can get justice. We are working with

politicians to get the right political will and we send experts.

We have experts in the DRC working with local commune to ex-some of it

is about working with NGOs and faith organises working on the ground in

the DRC. These are small steps that we have to continue to take to start

to build this culture, trying to build this myth-busting approach to

the culture of impunity that exists for these victims. Given that this

is now a priority of this Government, are we going to take a

more generous attitude towards women who are coming here as victims of

sexual violence in war? I think we have always considered the legal

aspect of war and rape during war as part of people's asylum

applications. I know as a lawyer it was one of the things that would

always be put forward as part of an asylum claim. Taking one particular

case, a woman from Democratic Republic of Congo waiting two years

on to hear whether her application for asylum will be successful or

not. Who felt humiliated by the cross-examination she got when she

came here about her experience, understandably. Who spent the night

sleeping in a telephone box, this doesn't sound terribly sympathetic?

I know from the discussions I have had with Theresa May that she takes

these issues incredibly seriously the work she has done to champion

the lives of women and survivors of rape, domestically and

internationally, is a huge priority for her. I can't comment on

individual cases, but I do think, and I do agree with you that more

can be done in making sure that the rape aspect of a person's claim is

brought forward. I know that when I used to hear about claims, in my

experiences hearing from the women who left the Bosnian war, but the

rape element of the horrific experience would be the last thing

to come out. That is incredibly challenging sometimes to try to make

sure that the full case is put when you make an asylum claim. Can we

talk a little bit about the business of schools in Birmingham and indeed

elsewhere? We have heard people in Birmingham saying these schools were

singled out because they were Muslim schools, that the action taken

against them would not have been taken against them had they been

Jewish or Catholic schools, is that fair? I would like to think that is

not the case or believe that is not the case. These are incredibly

serious allegations which would have serious consequences, it is

therefore right that these inquiries that we have on going do complete

and we get to the bottom of what did and didn't happen and what was and

wasn't said. Are you with Michael Gove, you think that religious

conservatism can lead, step by step, to terrorism? I don't think Michael

is saying that religious conservatism can lead to terrorism.

What I fundamentally believe is you can be religiously observant and

incredibly observant, that doesn't make you a terrorist. It doesn't

mean you are on the pathway to becoming a terrorist. When he talks

about British values, and he cites tolerance and other examples of

British values, are these schools implicitly not teaching British

values? Most schools will in some form of their curriculum talk about

what it means to be British, talking about identity. But British values

are values held by British people, are they not? Yes. So if some

British parents do not wish to celebrate Christmas, do not wish

their children to have sex education in school, those are British values

aren't they? Sorry. If some British parents do not wish their children

to celebrate Christmas, do not wish them to have sex education in

schools, those are British values are they not? Fundamental British

value is tolerance and accepting people who are different to you,

part of that is looking at different religions, celebrating different

faith backgrounds and perspectives. Do you think gay marriage is a

British value? I think accepting people for being different is a

British value. That wasn't quite my question? If you accept somebody who

is different, then you accept somebody who practices a different

lifestyle to you, whether that is difference in race, religion and

sexuality. I don't want to be too persistent here, but you did oppose

the Section 28 legislation didn't you? And I have apologised what I

said back in 2005, we are nearly a decade on. If this interview is

going to be about something I said ten years ago for which I have

apologised and stepped away from then... I'm trying to get to this

very difficult question of how we define what British values are? I

would define British values as freedom, which includes the freedom

of religion and belief, I would define it as tolerance, which

includes tolerating difference. I would define it as fair play, which

means everybody being given the opportunity to succeed in life, and

in Yorkshire I define it as having a sense of humour and coming here to

do an interview with you probably means I have got a sense of humour.

Thank you very much. Officials from the White House, the state

department and the army spent an anxious time today trying to

persuade American politicians that the price the country paid for the

release of Bowe Bergdahl was worthwhile. The US has handed over

one member of the Taliban for every year that Bergdahl was held captive.

As more information has come to light about the deal, and more

rumours swirl about how Bergdahl came to be captured, joy of the

soldier's return has been replaced by anxiety at the price paid. We

have been to Bowe Bergdahl's home town.

Bowe Bergdahl's balloons are still flying in Idaho, even if people here

are feeling a bit deflated. The gloss has come off what they thought

would be a celebration. This cafe has been the headquarterses of a

five-year campaign to free Bowe, it is closed now. This is a book for

people to share their sentiments for Bowe. Saturday I changed it and it

is now freedom. Not everyone left positive comments, after being the

face of the campaign, before and after his release, Sue has been

threatened by letter, on-line and in person. They are angry, I think it

is a bigger picture than Bowe Bergdahl. I think we are seeing a

glimpse of our culture here in America. I think there is a lot of

angry people and they just need something to express it at, that

they feel is a viable channel of expression, I guess. The President

depends his deal to free Bowe Bergdahl... The case of Bowe

Bergdahl is still being picked over by the American news networks.

Backlash there are the right and left. It would have been offensive

and comprehensible to consciously leave an American behind... . But

the question is at what cost... . Sun Valley finds itself at the

centre of it all. The rich and famous come here for the winter sun

and windswept -- summer sun and winter snow, they like it because

people leave them alone. This has been a tough week, particularly in

Bowe Bergdahl's small town. A small and close community finding itself

at the centre of so much negative attention. The lad who used to work

in the cafe, when he was taken in Afghanistan people put yellow

ribbons around the trees, they helped the family campaign for the

release. The joy of him being freed has been replaced by surprise and

confusion about the amount of anger and vitriol aimed at people here. It

is remarkable. Our community is fatigued by being so excited about

Bowe's release and the next day it began to turn. It became vicious,

angry and hateful. We had not anticipated that kind of reaction.

Dale was planning a "Bring Bowe Home" event, they thought it could

be a welcome home party, it had to be cancelled? It is indicative of

how polarised we are in our country. That so quickly so many people could

be so angry and hateful and try to convict Bowe in the public arena,

without hearing his side of the story. Without any kind of

investigation. Bowe Bergdahl was 23 when he was captured by the Taliban

in eastern Afghanistan. There is uncertainty over why he left his

base. His upbringing has been closely scrutinised by the US media.

His home schooling, his unusual interests. He's very strong, he

likes to meditate, he has a very strong spirit, I'm hoping that

throughout this entire time he was able to find an inner place that was

nice. That he could go to. He had a very idea listic view that he wanted

to help and defend the country he believes in. That is what I got from

why he joined the military. He also liked the ballet and fencing and

martial arts as very regimented, you do the same warm-ups and the same

kind of thing and the army is similar, and that appealed to him.

The lease of five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay has had people

in the community asking if Bowe's freedom was worth it. I think on

balance it was a poor deal. Probably if I'm forced into one camp or

another, I'm forced into the camp to say I oppose it. But it is hard to

jump up and say I don't want a local boy to come home. President Obama

has been criticised for the way he announced the deal, alongside Bowe's

parents. I sincerely resent him taking the Bergdahl family and

pushing them out front, in the rose garden, and subjecting this family

to the firestorm of criticism that swept across this nation. Jenny and

Bob have kept out of the spotlight since then, and after threats are

being protected. Even his beard has been the focus of unsubstantiated

allegations that he's a Taliban sympathiser. In town some have taken

their signs down, but most still support Bowe and his family. This is

our home boy, this is our child, we are not involved in this in a

political but loving heart felt way. They hope when Bowe tells his own

story of what he endured t could swing the court of public opinion

back in his favour. Do you care about how happy a life was led by

the animal on your plate? Increasing numbers of us do, apparently. But do

you really care about the sort of death a fish on your plate has had.

An organisation committed to animal welfare is demanding that armed fish

be stunned before they are killed otherwise the whole experience is to

stressful for them. We love to look at our children's literature full of

characters from the animal world, horses, pigs, cows. Fish not so

much. For whatever reason we haven't taken fish to our bosoms in quite

the same way. Perhaps that explains why, when it comes to how we kill

them, they don't have the same legal protections as our meals on four

legs. In Britain, due to voluntary codes of practice from bodies like

the RSPCA, most fish are farmed and dispatched to high standards of

animal welfare. But it isn't like that across all of Europe. Much what

happens behind the scenes to produce your lunchtime tuna sandwich, for

instance, isn't particularly palatable. Now moves are afoot to

change that. A Government advisory body has recommended that inhumane

practices such as live chilling or asphyxiation, be outlawed at the

European level. But such principles have costs. Are we ready to bear the

cost for a creature we love to eat but don't necessarily love. One who

has done some exploring of the fish central nervous system is with us.

She is in Pennsylvania. Joining us from Scotland, the epicentre of

British agriculture, is the head of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation,

Bertie Armstrong. Why on earth are we worrying about this? As you have

just said, the information we have now and have been gathering over the

last decade is fish, just like birds and mammals, have very similar pain

processing pathways. It looks like they experience pain in the same way

that birds and mammals do. If that is the case and we extend birds and

mammals welfare, why not fish. This particular concern is with farmed

fish, by your argument we should extend it to all fish, fish caught

on the high seas as well? Absolutely. Although of course that

is an interesting and difficult area in its own right. From an ethical

perspective you could argue that unlike a farmed fish, fish in the

wild has lived a good life out. It is free to roam the seas as it

wants. Perhaps in from a utilitarian, the short amount of

suffering it goes through at the end, it is justified in terms of

harvesting fish in the sea. You may take the same approach as we have

for a farmed fish now and saying given we have Intertek neology and

we know how to more humanely kill fish on fish farms, perhaps we

should transfer that technology. What do you make of the argument?

I'm here with a slightly nervous curiosity. It does sound cranky, and

I'm a little nervous that it gets extended to wild capture. We are

part of a food chain, apart from the odd Safari accident, but killing

happens for food all the way along. There shouldn't be gratuitous

suffering, but on the other hand, wild capture fish accounts for 15%

of the world's protein. It has to be continued. I'm nervous that we apply

elements of crankiness to this. Wild capturing of fish is at the end of a

long and happy life and has been happening since biblical times and

not regarded as cruel. I'm not sure why we are having this argument. Do

you feel you are a crank? No, I don't think so, I'm a scientist, I

think we need to use science to inform the decisions that we make.

In the same way we want to make those careful informed decision,

good commercial decision making doesn't have to be mutually

exclusive to that. I think absolutely, we want sustainable

fishing, we want sustainable fishing practices and you know if that is

going to include humane killing, so be it. It is something that

confumers are increasingly interested in. They have this right

to, I think they are right to have a long-term view. Just because we have

done something traditionally for a long way or historically, doesn't

mean to say we can't use new information or technologies to

improve the way we do things. If it is the case, as suggested, that fish

do feel pain, surely we are entitled or should be expected to accord them

the same -- afford them the same consideration as farm animals? I

didn't wish to label your guest as a crank, I'm nervous about crankiness

being applied to the fish industry. The balance of evidence, of course

your guest's scientific credentials are apparent. But the balance of

scientific evidence is fish don't feel pain in the same way as humans

do. It is just plain different. My worry is about the volume capture.

We will catch in the Scottish fleet approaching a quarter of a million

tonnes of mackerel. It is caught in a volume way. They are not murdered

or badly treated, they are pumped into refrigerated sea water tanks.

They are not handled individually, and it is not possible to capture

that sort of volume of fish and handle them individually. The real

question is what can we afford to do and what is senseth sensible to do.

That is the crankiness element that I'm trying to be careful not to

insult anybody but to guard against. Do you accept there are certain

practical difficulties in the consideration that you are extending

to fish. For sure, I want to pick up on the fish feeling pain, that is a

given. But we don't feel farm animals feel pain in the same way

humans do but we afford them welfare rights and humane killing. So, yes,

things potentially become difficult, harvesting large amounts and large

catches of fish, absolutely. These are technically challenging, but

there are experimental fleets in Denmark and Norway that are

modifying trawler boats, that are expressly trying to devise better,

more effective ways of maintaining fish in the water. In the same way

we heard mackerel are pumped into sea water VATs, -- vats, bringing

them on to the surface of the deck and letting them suffocate may be

something to avoid if we can put them into vats on the boat. The head

of FIFA, Mr Sepp Blatter, had been looking forward to a feast of sport

over the next few weeks, instead today he had a bucket of cold water

thrown over him by some of the most powerful football organisations

amongst his members. He had just finished telling them he was

standing for a fifth tour, when representatives of great footballing

nations suggested it would be all together better to the game if he

stuck to his previous promise to stand down. So is time running out

for President Blatter. I'm joined now by the former chief executive of

the Football Association. What do you think, is the game up for him do

you think? I don't actually think the game is up for him. I have never

seen such an array of voices against him such as we see today, players,

associations, sponsors and Government agencies. I actually

think it is probably one of the most difficult challenges he has faced.

But he is quite a good politician in that regard. His comments today are

nothing more, or appear to be, if not dedevolutional, they are --

delusional, and show why he shouldn't stand as President. As a

President you would unite the organisation, not seek to harvest

the benefit of disunity that you have sown. How significant is it

footballing nations like England, Holland, opposed to him? You have to

recognise the fact, again it is Sepp Blatter very good at doing the

maths, with 209 organisations with one vote, UEFA is one of the

strongest confederations, it has about 53 votes hast always been

significant, because of the quality of the football and the financial

aspects of European football. But having said that, there has been

over quite a number of years a feeling within the FIFA body that in

fact the Europeans have had enough of a role in terms of running the

place. There is a bit of discord there generally. So the guys may

well rail against the moon. With 53 votes against 209 Sepp Blatter

appears confident. I don't think, whilst it is very discomforting for

him, I don't think he will be unduly concerned that he won't be able to

secure another term. Thank you very much indeed.

That's it for tonight. Hope we were clearer to you than the Disney

corporation's translation of its film Frozen in the Middle East. They

opted for modern standard Arabic instead of the usual Egyptian

Arabic, the use of that very formal and some what archaic way of

speaking has gone down rather badly with some six-year-olds. A professor

of literature has translated it back into English so you can see the

problem. # Conceal don't feel

# Don't let them know # Well now they know

# Let it go # Let it go

# Can't hold it back any more # Let it go

# Turn away and slam the door # I don't care

# What they're going to say # Let the storm rage on

Hello, if you have had enough of the heavy showers and thunderstorms we

have seen recently, relief is in sight. In fact it starts tomorrow.

Most will start the day dry and stay dry throughout the day. One or two

light showers dotted about the northern half of the UK. You will be

unlucky if you u catch one.