16/08/2016 Newsnight

For many he was the most annoying man in the country.

But he was also one of the most dangerous.

But alongside Choudary, another man was convicted.

Less flamboyant in the media, arguably more of a threat.

We have an interview with him, from earlier this year.

This term radicalising, you need to define it.

Is Jeremy Corbyn radicalising the Labour Party, for example?

By the time this airs, you might be in jail.

Yearn for the days of the old British Rail?

This is the Night Mail crossing the border, bringing the cheque

Letters for the rich, letters for the poor,

the shop at the corner and the girl next door.

Jeremy Corbyn wants the trains back in public ownership.

We'll ask his transport spokesman if that's a good idea.

And Ainsley Harriet clambers off our Throne of Games to get

For years, he enjoyed needling everyone with his silly

pronouncements, that Buckingham Palace will become

But Anjem Choudary was not just a harmless controversialist -

he spread hate for two decades, attempted to radicalise others

and for some of that period invited them to join so-called

Islamic State, an organisation proscribed under the

He could now be handed a maximum jail sentence of ten years.

But, while Choudary is very well known, alongside him was another

character, Mizanur Rahman, a character who had also done a lot

to attract vulnerable minds to jihad.

The police said that Rahman and Choudary had stayed just

within the law for many years, but when they pledged an oath

of allegiance to IS, they had stepped over a line

Talk a bit about Anjem Choudary and when he came from. He was not always

part of the Islamist scene, he grew up in London and when he went to

university he reportedly drank alcohol and had girlfriends. But

after qualifying as a solicitor he helped to found a radical group

outward jackaroo which was subsequently banned. It kept

changing its name all the time to evade the attention of the

authorities. And Anjem Choudary became a source of frustration to

the authorities who thought he was dangerous but not quite ever

breaking the law. Until now. Because today restrictions in court were

lifted allowing us to reveal that three weeks ago he was convicted of

having pledged support online to Isis and having encouraged in his

videos others to support and join the group. This is a significant

moment, the general of Anjem Choudary, he has linked -- been

linked to 100 British jihadis. The followers for example of his when

fourth in the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich. We know other

followers of his way involved in 2010 plot to blow up the London

stock exchange. Not as Tierney UK, a large number of people have gone to

Syria for example, some quite high profile like one who took his young

family to Syria. And another killed in a drone strike in Syria last

year. Others whose names have never come into the public domain. Once I

logged off, a follower from north London who went out to Syria. And

another one of his followers to the right of the screen, and I

understand that he is now dead. That is Anjem Choudary, and also was this

other guy and most people will not have heard of him I think.

Absolutely, there is a clique around Anjem Choudary, some of them have

higher profiles. His co-defendant Mizanur Rahman in my view was just

as significant and perhaps even more so than Anjem Choudary when it comes

to the Syrian conflict. How is the campaign to move Britain

over to sharia law coming along? Anjem Choudary attracted

headlines but amongst jihadi circles he gradually

became less significant. In recent years it was his

right-hand man, Mizanur Rahman, Rahman had spent four years in jail

already for soliciting murder For Islam to prevail,

for sharia to be implemented, to support the state, to help,

it is not just about financing. Just like Anjem Choudary,

Mizanur Rahman was someone that provided the theological basis

for people to go But what was different,

what sets him apart from someone like Anjem Choudary is the fact

that he was very willing and active in engaging directly

with people over social media, Giving direct advice,

theological advice. In January whilst he was still

on bail, I met Rahman. Like Anjem Choudary,

he has always been someone These terms, radicalising,

you need to define it. Is Jeremy Corbyn radicalising

the Labour Party for example? If you mean am I debating people

and convincing people that my ideas might be correct, well,

that's what you do in a debate. Even if those ideas at times

break the law? We have already established

that we stay within At times they break

the law. By the time this airs,

you might be in jail. Because there is a political system

in place which doesn't really Rahman tried to be careful

in his language. This was an exchange of text

messages between him Choudhury says to Rahman,

"open support for Isis or Jabhat Rahman replies, "maybe condemning

Shia and the Free Syria Army and a general call for

sharia in Syria without The declaration of a caliphate

by Isis pushed Rahman towards more explicit support,

but without a passport, One Twitter exchange he had

with a young American Muslim He is asked if preaching is more

important than helping He replies, preaching is important,

but it's also obligatory A few months later, the American

was arrested at an airport And the concept of a Khilafah

is 1400 years old. You know, someone does not have one

twitter conversation and they decide to change their whole

life based on one tweet. Rahman insisted in court

to that his talks were about general There is a network around these

people. What does the conviction of these paired mean for that network?

Well when they were arrested in September 2014, at the time the

authorities I think are desperate to crack this network, not just in the

UK but have franchises across Europe, Belgium, Holland and

Denmark. They were worried about the possibility of attacks here and

subsequently with this conviction, the network has been significantly

disrupted. We have seen large numbers of the network who have

already gone to Syria. And I can reveal that recently quite a large

number of the followers of Anjem Choudary have been placed on

terrorism prevention orders and they're under curfews and restricted

access. For headline writers,

the words rail and misery seem to flow on to the page together,

like fat and cat or rip and off. And today, there are those headlines

of rail misery again - regulated train fares

are going up, we learned this The usual understandable

anger erupted, what with And from the Labour leader,

a potential solution. He called it Transport Tuesday -

jumping on the Super Saturday bandwagon perhaps -

and the solution he promised was public ownership

of the railways. There is one specific pledge: I'll

quote it to you, from "The plans could see rail passengers

save 10 per cent off So the big question is,

complain as we might about our trains, would public

ownership be a solution or a distraction to the problems

of running a railway. We'll talk to Labour's transport

spokesman shortly but first, Chris Cook looks at what

nationalisation might mean. The idea of allowing companies

to run train services was simple - in return for making a profit,

private investors would take some risk off the taxpayer,

encourage innovation, and use their balance

sheet to invest. The misery of Southern Rail

is the latest chapter in a long Industrial action, cancelled

and overcrowded trains, and growing political

support for renationalisation. The best way is for the public

to run it, as the public ran the East Coast Mainline,

at a profit. This is not a sensible way

of running a public railway system which we have all paid

for through huge levels of public investment in the track

and signalling systems. Today we learned that

fares will rise by 1.9% in January in Great Britain,

while consumer price And research by trade unions

suggests rail fares have increased at double the speed

of wages since 2010. Many of the problems we have

with our dysfunctional privatised system as it stands at the moment

is precisely that the fragmentation and of course the cost of that,

which means that instead of our fares going to invest

in the rail system, instead they are going out into the hands

of private shareholders. The underlying problem

is that our railway Back in 2011, an official report

implied a journey that would cost around ?1.20 in fare and public

subsidy in other European countries So, our fares in 2011 were about 30%

higher than those of our peers. The most important reason

why our rail is so important The flip side of our very

beautiful Victorian stations is we have a lot of Victorian rail,

which is expensive We are also, as a country,

tending to run a lot more services with relatively

few passengers on them, and that, too, boosts our

underlying cost base. Those unusually high costs mainly

relate to Network Rail, which runs the track,

and that's already nationalised. The private train operating

companies, they made over ?200 million of profit last year,

but that money would only fund Advocates for franchising see that

as a price worth paying There is one big number

that matters most. Under British Rail, numbers using

the railways consistently fell. Since 1995 when it was privatised,

journeys have doubled in just 20 years, but I think that franchising

has a lot of problems. It's not necessarily a natural

way to run railways. All across the world,

including here, companies build their railways up,

track and train together. Separating them as we do,

forcing them to be separate, Southern's recent woes may be

another cause for pause. In this case, a private company

doesn't actually have that much They are just being paid a fee

to administer the railway Right now, it strikes me

that we are getting We have the privatised system

plus a government that What we would have I think

if the company were properly in public hands, and I don't just

mean the state, we could have more imaginative systems of mutuals,

local authorities getting more involved, but if it were in public

hands, for a start, the contract would be fully public

so we could see what the terms were, and it would be fully accountable

to the public as well. Would a nationalised

rail system necessarily Governments are always

struggling to contain the cost They are always under pressure

to spend more on education. And the experience of British Rail

suggests that in that context, it is very hard to politically make

the case for spending Britain certainly botched

the franchising of its rail services, and we have all paid

the price, but renationalisation Shortly before coming on air, I

spoke to Andy Mangan on from Labour. He is the Shadow Transport

Secretary, and asked how his party would cut 10% from rail fares. It

would come from the savings that are to be achieved by getting out of

this treble franchising system that leaks so much money out of the

system. If we can end that, we have a fund available to deliver those

sorts of cuts. It is something in the order of ?1.2 billion going out

of the system on an annual basis. You say that, but I am looking at

the profits made by those companies. It is not a particularly profitable

business. Total profit of ?220 million in 2014-15. Passenger

revenue is getting on for ?9 billion. One is diddly squat, one is

a large number. If those operating costs were removed by having so many

operators in the system, we have ridiculous multiplicity of providers

in our country. There are so many players in the railway system that

costs escalate. You're going to have a Western Railway, an East Coast, a

Southern, they will still be there. That's right, but at the moment we

have a subsidy system going straight into these companies, often to

Germany, to France, all across the European Union. We are subsidising

some of them, but we make money from some of them. The profits which leak

out are approximately 2.5% of passenger revenues. You cannot cut

rail fares by 10%. You still have 7.5% to find. Research that the TUC

have conducted shows that millions can be taken out of the system on an

annual basis by changing to directly operated railways. Look at what

happened with East Coast, ?1 billion was returned to the Treasury over

the duration of that franchise. The TUC report makes estimates of these

interface cost, one company having to deal with another and work out

whose fault it was that the train was rape. The McNulty report said

that much more can be gained by improving the performance of the

current system rather than embarking on a costly programme of

renationalisation of which is unlikely to lead to an overall

reduction in costs. So, McNulty doesn't think that there is a big

cost saving to be found. But it isn't an expensive process if you

are just allowing franchises to get to them natural termination point

and not be renewed. There are no acquisition costs involved in the

process if they follow one after the other. We would be saving ourselves

fortunate over the term. What might you would agree that this comprises

a top-down reorganisation of the railways, wouldn't you? You want to

describe it that way. Because you have franchises regularly coming up

renewal, it is gradual. It is a top-down reorganisation. Why can't

we have the confidence to do what has been done in Germany and France,

and in Holland? They are content to have their infrastructure and their

operators being under state control. They are extracting value in this

country and taking it back over there. They are taking out a tiny

proportion, 2.5%. But that is a lot of money. The 10% cut in rail fares

is reliant on making hundreds of millions of pounds of savings which

the guy who's estimate of the savings you are quoting does not

believe our there to be made. You have different commentators coming

up with different figures. You quoted the TUC, who are quoting

McNulty, and McNulty says you cannot make those savings. I respectfully

disagree. There are people like Southern who are getting millions of

pounds by way of salaries and bonuses for running the most

appalling service. We hand over ?1.1 billion to that company and it

doesn't matter what happens in terms of the service they provide, they

get paid, come rain or shine. It is unacceptable. In that respect, you

make an interesting point, because is the truth about not that this

railway system in our country is government-controlled already?

Network Rail is part of the public sector. Southern, the Government

gets all of the revenue from the passengers in the case of that

franchise. It instructs Southern on how to manage the service. It has

told Southern to stick to its rules on driverless trains. It is a public

ownership of the railway. Not at all. They are given that money

whether they perform well or indifferently. As we have just seen,

they have taken 341 trains off per day. At the Government's decision.

That is a Government decision, not a Southern one. They should be told to

get things back in order, then. It is a distraction, the discussion

about driverless trains. You want the Government have more say in the

well but clearly not the Conservative Government because you

say they do not run Southern very well. If your team runs the

railways, will you run it better than you run the Labour Party? It is

about having the freedom to do what was done by directly operated

railways between 2009 and 2014, and look at the success they made of the

East Coast service. The highest rate of customer satisfaction, good

industrial relations, a very successful service, so it is freeing

us up from this rigour of trying to produce dividends and profits to

third parties and foreign state-owned companies. Some will say

this is ideological. Do you believe that BT should be brought into

public ownership as well? That is not my view. Do you think it was

right to privatise it? In the fullness of time, I think all of

these services can be looked at. Why are we looking at six companies

providing energy when what people want is reliable energy as cheap as

possible? They don't want to be in competition and trying to switch

providers. They simply want to have a good service, reliable and

affordable. At the moment, those things don't exist. We have been a

big can of worms there. Andy McDonald, thank you very much.

On this programme, we first posed the question, what does

Brexit actually mean, back on October 28th last year.

We didn't manage to get an answer then, and even though a lot of water

has passed under the bridge since, it's fair to say we still don't

Last year, we took a first look at some of the popular options:

Norway and Switzerland for example, and these were much discussed

But we missed one then, and it hasn't had much pick up

OK, so it is not a very big country, but like Norway, it's

in the European Economic Area - unlike Norway, it has restrictions

Helen Thomas is in the principality to see if its status could possibly

This is Liechtenstein's idea of how to celebrate a national holiday.

A garden party, the Royal Family on display, a rather familiar tune.

And of course, a hefty dose of national pride.

Liechtenstein clearly has a lot to recommend it.

Glorious weather, beautiful scenery, and quite a catchy national anthem.

But from the UK's point of view, the country also has

Liechtenstein, like Norway, is part of the single market

through its membership of the European Economic Area.

But the country also has a tightly controlled quota

Now, that is a combination that some in Europe claim is impossible,

that the four freedoms of people, goods, capital and services

An example to point to as the UK starts the long and complicated

process of extricating itself from the EU?

There's an important thing I think is, it's not specifically

What they're doing is adopting what are known technically

as safeguard measures which then brought them a treaty change.

But it doesn't just apply to Liechtenstein.

This is not specifically a Liechtenstein solution.

And when the EEA was first set up there were actually four countries

which took advantage of these provisions.

There are some subtle differences between Liechtenstein and the UK.

The UK's population is about 1750 times larger.

And Liechtenstein is about half the size of the Isle of Wight.

So you see, it's really a small country, and for that,

Without control, we have a lot of people, a lot of aliens

in Liechtenstein and that would be a big problem for Liechtenstein.

So it's not clear that the UK will get an invitation

It's starting from a different position and that's one reason

to question whether the model would work for the UK.

It doesn't set a legal precedent given that the provisions under

which Liechtenstein has been able to negotiate their situation is one

under the EEA agreement of which the UK is not yet a member.

The Prime Minister doesn't think the same deal will be on offer.

Yeah, I think nowadays it would be almost impossible for Liechtenstein

But I think when we would today negotiate such a solution,

And you see the discussions in Switzerland, also in the UK,

free movement is one of the pillars of the EU.

And it's quite difficult to get that special situation.

The mechanics of how the UK could replicate Liechtenstein's

We would need to join both the European Free Trade

Other members could block that happening.

But some in Liechtenstein think the UK has scope to negotiate.

of the EEA or yet another concept, is open.

And I would think that with this Brexit and the pressure from other

EU countries, that this immigration issue has to be changed.

And it can only be solved with changes.

With that, I think that plays into the hands of Britain.

Embracing Liechtenstein's model wholesale may prove complicated.

But its unique situation could prove an illuminating example.

The UK will be looking for any chance to ensure negotiations

While some of you have been contemplating what the offspring of

Laura Trott and Jason Kenny could achieve in future Olympics, we have

been looking at matters closer to home.

I say sofa, it's more like a patchwork quilt of

I'm so glad the Olympics is only once every four

I've been watching you night after night,

and you're starting to look a little bit pasty.

Because you're not eating the right things.

A little coconut milk going in there.

If you can't get yak, go straight to coconut.

It's so much better when you've cooked it yourself.

In the old days, she'd have missed the tape.

Because his upper body is somewhere across the line.

Should this be track, or should this be in

There's a lot of diving going on here, isn't

He looks like he's just fallen out of a

Is this speeded up, or is this normal?

People say, oh you can get up and watch it in the morning.

If it was me, I'd have the old waistband up here.

Well, partly that, but you're not allowed to

Would you like your kids to box, though?

Mind you, you might have to spar with them.

Have you had any problems with the hips?

Well that's great, come on, I'll show you this wonderful...

You've been watching Stephen Smith's Throne of Games.

And you wonder why Julian Fellowes has taken

Don't worry, there will be another programme later today! Good morning!