08/12/2016 Newsnight

Dialogue and discretion: statecraft and savoir faire -

the art of diplomacy used to look like this:

What does that mean for the world in 2017?

We ask whether the traditional tools of the mandarin are being eclipsed

Boris piled into the Saudis and tonight the former

Are we ready for a more truthful conversation

# Never thought I'd ever feel this way again

# But here it is, so why try to explain

# When I hear your name all I want to do is break free

The evergreen songthrush, Petula Clark, tells us what happens

when she and another singer found themselves alone with Elvis Presley

And it was quite obvious that he was impressed at seeing us.

And we were with him because, I mean, he was gorgeous.

There is no shortage of committees trying to sort out

Nato this week in Brussels will be followed by

the General Affairs Council, EU leaders, then the Organization

Each time Syria and Ukraine are top of the agenda and each

will yield resolutions and statements, tough

But anyone who really wants to know what's happening in geopolitics

right now is probably better off reading Twitter, the preferred

form of communication of Mr Donald J Trump,

or listening to the off script remarks of Boris Johnson.

Tonight, we look at what power Nato and these other

global bodies still yield and whether the traditional tools

of diplomacy are being eclipsed by a new kind of state power.

Mark Urban starts us off with this report.

ARCHIVE: This business of building for peace is a very grim business

and it has to be worked for day in and day out.

The very foundation and purpose of the Atlantic Pact is to bring

this freedom-loving peoples together in such a way that they can

For nearly 70 years, Nato has ticked along nicely.

Everybody's understood the shape of the deal.

During his campaign, Donald Trump suggested the US

wouldn't come to the aid of its European allies

unless they paid more towards the cost of defence.

Behind the scenes, in the Alliance, that's caused a sense of crisis.

I want to keep Nato, but I want them to pay.

I don't want to be taken advantage of.

We don't want to be the stupid people any more, OK.

We don't want to be the stupid people any more.

Many in Nato feel Mr Trump has to make things crystal clear now.

It will only be put to bed by the strongest possible signal

from the new President, after the 20th January, that

America will, no ifs, no buts, no prevarication,

come to the aid of a Nato member if attacked.

If that doesn't happen, there will continue to be doubts

about America's willingness to do that under President Trump,

and that will strike right at the heart of Nato's founding

So, potentially, is this the end of Nato?

The foundation of the Alliance is Article 5.

If there is any doubt about that, then it could spell the beginning

Seeing trouble ahead, the British have been trying

to bridge the gap between Trump and their European allies.

Earlier this week, at the Nato meeting, Boris Johnson started

the business of cajoling those who spend too little

It is absolutely vital that everybody steps up to the plate

and puts their money where their mouth is.

From the European point of view, there's been a reluctance historical

to support certain presidents - Reagan, Bush or now Trump.

But look at it from the American perspective.

The Europeans have consistently under spent on defence

Taking it from a point where the US used to provide about half

of the Alliance's defence spending, to one where it's now 75% American.

This was a change election in the United States.

We have an administration with a very different

So there will be change, and I think the allies have to be

prepared to adapt but, hopefully, at the same time,

persuading the new US administration that Nato is a valuable asset

There are 28 countries in Nato and all are committed to a target

of spending 2% of their GDP on defence by 2024.

Five of them already do - USA, Greece, the UK,

Some are moving in the right direction.

But when you look at the bottom five, including some

of the Alliance's richest economies, they're spending under 1%

Less than half the target, with little chance of meeting it.

Add to the disagreements over resources, arguments about Russia

and you have a growing crisis in the Alliance.

President Trump wants a reset of relations with the Kremlin,

and if that means de facto recognition of Putin's

seizure of Crimea or indeed allowing him free rein

in the former Soviet Union, the divisions will get

Basically, ratifying the results of Russian aggression

in Ukraine I think would perhaps buy you some short-term tranquillity

but, in the end, it would create a much more unstable situation

in Europe, encourage the Russians to continue to press forward

for some kind of Yalta II with a new division of Europe

into spheres of influence which I think would bring back some

of the instability that we saw in previous decades.

Nato is now preparing forces to defend the Baltic Republics,

part of the Alliance, but once part of the USSR.

If Nato doesn't make a credible pledge to defend them,

There must be absolutely no doubt about the imperative of defending,

There can be no discussion or deals about 'zones of influence'

'new Yalta's', and that sort of thing, because that strikes

right at the heart of what Nato's about.

You always have to be prepared to walk.

It would be easy to blame Donald Trump for undermining Nato,

but European defence cuts have been going on for 25 years,

If there are tricky times ahead for the Alliance,

that's because many members now see things quite differently.

We need to know what Trump will do, what Putin will do,

what Brexit will look like - the cusp of change.

We can speak to our correspondents in Syria, Washington and London

about where the events of 2016 have left us.

I guess, so much uncertainty. Aleppo is the front-line and the human cost

of all this? Aleppo is at the top of the in-tray for leaders in many

capitals. It is the war of our time. It is in Syria a civil war, a

sectarian war, but it stopped being just about Syria a very long time

ago. It is also a proxy war with all of the regional big hitters,

including Saudi Arabia and Iran entangled in it. A new cold war with

Moscow and Washington as well. It's the humanitarian test of our time,

to use the United Nations phrase, and the world is failing Syria. On

its watch, almost every day here accusations of possible war crimes

by one side or the other. It is a terrible indictment of the

international community. Will it take a different turn come January

with a new United Nations Secretary General and a new President in the

White House? Everyone is watching certainly here. To Jon Sopel in

Washington. Listening to Lyse, you have to ask the question, Jon, how

much does the in-coming administration commend how much is

being suspended as we wait for Trump to begin? We wait for Trump to

appoint who will be his Secretary of State. We have had all the words

that Mark Urban played out. I was with with Rudy Giuliani hoping to be

Secretary of State, he said you have to look at Donald Trump's tweets in

the context of the start of a negotiation. This isn't what he

thinks. This is his starting point for a negotiation where you might

reach some centre ground. The other thing that Rudy Giuliani said is he

doesn't know much about foreign affairs and who gets appointed is

absolutely critical. I think the Secretary of State role will assume

much more importance than it did under Barack Obama because Donald

Trump is going to need to lean on whoever that Secretary of State is.

So the world is waiting for the US response. America is waiting to see

who the Secretary of State will be. Donald Trump, we know what his

instincts are. These are complex issues. We have no idea which way

he's going to jump on certain key policies. To Mark Urban now. If 2016

was the year of shocks, what do you think 2017 is shaping up to be? I

think another very bad year for the West and the Western idea of what is

right. Let's look at some of the things that have been happening

recently. China, in the summer, refusing to accept arbitration over

a dispute with the Philippines in the South China Sea. South Africa

and Russia pulling out of the International Criminal Court. Donald

Trump saying he won't ratified the trans Pacific trade deal. The ideas

have been around for some time about what is right in terms of human

rights, trade, dispute resolution now being actively ignored in Aleppo

or in that case in the south can South China Sea challenged. The core

institutions of the West next year, the EU and Nato I think will also

face serious challenge. Mark, thank you. Thank you all very much indeed.

Well, the day began with comments from Boris Johnson

hitting the airwaves - he had candidly admitted

the Middle East had no strong leadership willing to reach out

That's why, he said, "you have Saudis, Iran

moving in, puppeteering and playing proxy wars."

It was written up as a gaff and Number Ten were quick

to distance themselves from the Foreign

But they echo feelings that come right from within the region itself.

The former President of Yemen, Ali Saleef, gave an exclusive

interview to the BBC Arabic's Nawal al-Maghafi today for an Our World

documentary, in which he agreed the strikes by Saudi on his country

Yemen's former president speaking there.

So how should we interpret those comments from Boris Johnson?

Or has he broken the cardinal rule of British diplomacy?

Our political editor, Nick Watt, is here.

What did Downing Street make of the remarks? There was a certain feeling

in Whitehall today that Theresa May hit the roof when she learned about

the reports that were reported in this morning's Guardian. She had

just returned from a visit to the Gulf where she met the King of Saudi

Arabia and there was incredulity that Boris Johnson made these

remarks last week knowing the Prime Minister would meet the king a few

days later. There was a sense that perhaps he was behaving as a

newspaper columnist thinking of headlines rather than as Britain's

chief diplomat. This morning, you got the slap down from Downing

Street in public where they said that these were his views and not

the government's views and that was really knocking him down a peg or

two. Because if the Foreign Secretary speaks for himself and not

for Britain, he's really going to struggle to establish credibility on

the world stage. So any response from Boris Johnson today to that? I

think there's a feeling in Boris Johnson's circle that the use of the

word property was unwise but there's irritation that Downing Street gave

the story a new lease of life why publicly rebuking him in that way.

-- the word property. He is going to travel to the region in the next few

days and go to Saudi Arabia and my senses he's not going to be in

apology mode because essentially, what he's going to say that the

Saudis know what he thinks because this is he tells them in private,

significantly, an official advice. But what is really interesting is I

get the impression that Boris Johnson think that after the

election of Donald Trump, the downfall of Matteo Renzi after the

Italian referendum, we are in a new world and in that new world, it can

be refreshing if you can hear in public what is being said behind

closed doors and in this case, has been said behind closed doors for 15

years. Briefly, do you think there is a hint we might have more of

this? I think that Boris Johnson really does feel quite strongly that

there is a new world out there. He understands it, if, in a sense, he

was part of that new world because of course he was one of the leading

lights, and there is an argument we may not be talking about leaving the

European Union were it not for Boris Johnson's decision to endorse and

campaign to leave. Interesting. Thank you for joining us.

Joining us now, Sean O'Grady from the Independent and Jill Rutter

Lovely to have you here. Do you think it is right that we have now

entered a different era, a different age? We have to rewrite the rules a

bit of how diplomacy is done? I think there's a lot in that and I

think it is perfectly true that people, fairly obviously, over the

last year or more, have got very tired of politicians missing their

words, not saying what they think. There was a lack of authenticity in

political life and I think what has happened with the Brexit vote and

drum and what is happening on the continent of Europe in some cases,

for various reasons and sometimes it is the radical right and sometimes a

bit more the radical left to benefit from it, people are looking for

politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say. And I think

they have been lacking that and I think that if the politicians then

choose to make a populist appeal, so much the better for them and they

are benefiting from it. There's a huge sort of global peasants revolt

which is happening at the moment. There will be plenty of support for

that, would there? A politician who says it as it is and is admired for

doing so. I think you really need to differentiate a bit between

politicians and government. I think one of the things that is quite

interesting is I think you are right, people want politicians who

are prepared not just to spout lines to take and things like that but

it's a bit different when you are talking about government and

government positions which is quite interesting -- why it's quite

interesting number ten have had to clarify, have been spending the last

three or four months clarifying a lot of their ministers. Quite often,

a minister goes out and freelance is a bit and comes back and number ten

said it was their position, not the government position. It may be a

considered view that it is actually better to foment a bit of debate and

there's only one person who authentically speaks for the

government, which is Theresa May, and everyone else is doing their own

thing but it gets a bit awkward. We've had one area and Heathrow

where they have formally suspended collective responsibility --

collective responsibility. What does Boris Johnson do now? When he goes

to the Middle East, does he stick with his line or the government's?

If I was him, I would stick to the Boris Johnson line. So he set

himself at odds with the UK Government permanently? Orange

Mackreth I think they can live with it and I think we can as well. What

he has done is bring ethics into foreign policy, just like that.

Nobody has noticed but we now have a liberal Foreign Secretary, in

effect, operating in ethical foreign policy. There was this idea that we

can deal with a government that sends out different messages? Think

about being the receiving government, you have someone coming

and are they speaking for the country from which they come or not?

That is when it gets really complicated. In a sense, you almost

devalue the Foreign Secretary's visit because it's not the

government. Theresa May says those things in private to the Saudi

government anyway, we understand so he's just taking it out of the

shadows and putting it into the public sphere. What he's doing, the

point is for 50, 60, 70 years, diplomats, the Foreign Office, what

people are unkindly call the Camel Corps, those people have been doing

quiet diplomacy, behind-the-scenes diplomacy, talking and lobbying in

secret and then they go to the banquet and so forth and they are

very polite and at best you have a coded message. It is not doing any

good in Yemen. Boris Johnson is completely right. Everyone knows it,

there's a proxy war going on in Yemen between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

And other parts of the Middle East as well. If we don't call them out,

as Boris Johnson has done, then you go along with the spin and you just

get nowhere. People suffer as a result. Like the no collective

responsibility, maybe it's a small point in the great scale of things

but there is no point of which you hold the government to it count for

anything they have said? But there wasn't anything Boris Johnson said

that was actually rude. He was just telling them what they know already.

It is like telling the king he's got a beard. May but I think the

interesting thing is if there is an explicit strategy that you want to

maybe pincer attack, the Foreign Secretary saying one thing and the

Prime Minister saying another thing and that is agreed in advance and

they know and the Foreign Secretary knows the Prime Minister might

distance herself slightly from him, then I think that's fine. If

actually, what you are getting is two people shooting off in slightly

different directions, whatever they are saying privately behind closed

doors, I think that makes for policy incoherence and I don't think it is

terribly helpful and it does not help advance British interests. Do

you think he did it deliberately? That he was happy for it to be

picked up? That is the hint we are getting. I'm not a Boris reader, he

might live next door to the Institute by telepathy does not go

through the walls. It's interesting, he's relatively new to a senior

cabinet position and as mayor of London, it was OK to say things on

your own account, the same way that Donald Trump can still say things on

his own account. Once you are a senior government minister, you are

expected to be able to talk for the government. That's an interesting

point because on one level, it is not very collegiate, he's used to

being the Boris Johnson figure. Is there a bit of megalomania coming

into this? I wouldn't call it that. He's a top-ranked politician. They

are all megalomaniacs. So you would? It's not so unusual in that line of

work. But he is one of, like quite a few of them, those who is not

necessarily a very good team player which is not helped by the fact he's

a journalist because journalists like to tell the truth every so

often, as you know. He's not one of those people who is inclined to

follow his lead are always and everywhere. If we move this slightly

away from Boris, the bigger question is perhaps when you look at the

institutions, and I listed them at the beginning of the programme, you

look at what Nato is trying to do, not very successfully and what EU

leaders are trying to do, not very successfully, they can make the

minutes and these emissions and the summit and all the rest of it but

Barnsley, the world has failed in the Middle East, it's failed to so

-- solve the war and diplomacy does not work as we know. Does something

you need to happen even if it comes from a strong statement? I think

it's really interesting, I think there's a good case for saying that

actually, we need political leaders generally who are prepared much more

to level and expose the real choices that they face and have a much more

honest conversation, whether it is an foreign policy or domestic

policy, with the population. Whether actually, the events of this year

have shown there is a real public appetite for that or not, I'm not so

sure I would read it that way but I think there are lots of areas where

there is almost a sort of conspiracy of not asking difficult questions

between the political class which means that actually, there's a

divorced from reality. I think actually, a general move towards

having more debates in public and actually being prepared to admit you

don't know things, that some things are difficult, that sometimes you

will make the wrong choice, will actually improve the quality of

public debate enormously. I think that's different from shooting off

in different directions, though, because it seems like a good thing

to say at the time. I don't know if that is what he was doing a lot but

I don't think you can run government on that basis. Thank you for joining

us. Anyone who's devoted hours

of the last week watching the intricate and detailed legal

argument of the Supreme Court will perhaps have noticed one

extraordinary thing - The make up of the UK's highest

court, in other words, has been overwhelmingly old,

male and white. Chris Cooke's going to

have a go at explaining. One striking feature

of the Supreme Court is, for a public body, how pale,

male and old it is. All white, when 13% of the country

is from an ethnic minority. Only one woman of 11

Justices, all aged over 60. Supreme Court Justices need

decades of experience. Half the population are women,

but only one Justice is, Lady Hale. According to a study

of 34 Supreme Courts from around the world,

that low representation puts us Now, only 16% of judges in England

and Wales over 60 are women. So it's partly a reflection of legal

recruitment of 40 years 34% of 50-something judges are women

and 47% of 40 to 49-year-old judges. Yet there remains a lack

of women across the top In the Court of Appeal, only seven

of the 38 Justices are women. So there's a problem in the pipeline

for women to the senior judiciary. There's not just an absence

of ethnic minority judges in the Supreme Court,

there are no Court of Appeal minority judges either,

and only 5% of High Court judges There's also a basic

recruitment problem here, Only 9% of Justices in England

and Wales, under 40, The minority population share

of adults, aged 25 to 40 in Britain, Building a judiciary which better

reflects the country Karon Monaghan QC wrote a review

into judicial diversity in 2014 and Matthew Ryder QC is London's deputy

mayor for social integration, social mobility and community. Nice to have

you both here. I wonder if you think it actually matters? Does it matter

if they don't look like their country they represent necessarily?

Yes, I think it does. I think it matters for reasons of democratic

legitimacy. We saw this week the Supreme Court dealing with some of

the most important constitutional issues that are likely to be

confronted in law and looking at a court that bears no resemblance to

those who are likely to be affected by the decisions they will in due

course make really calls into question whether or not we can

really buy into that. Secondly, I think it's important because it

makes a difference. It makes a difference, certainly in some cases,

to the outcome. You actually think it changes the way... In a small

number of cases, I think, yes. And I say that based on experience of

being in the Supreme Court but also, I say it because senior judges say

it, senior women judges said. I find that fascinating, do you think your

own perspective has changed? Would you agree with that as well? -- has

changed an outcome? We bring different experiences and in a

collegiate cord, women and other minorities will bring other

experiences which will inform the ultimate decision. So it's not just

about the way law is read? Matthew, you feel, you had a very different

experience coming in to a predominantly all-white, mail...

Yeah, and I think I'm an adviser on the David Lammy review which is

looking at this termination the criminal justice system and the

interim findings have said 51% of British-born non-white people don't

have confidence in the criminal justice system. Now whether that is

well founded on the evidence or not is almost not the issue because the

concern is the confidence within the judiciary and the level to which it

has legitimacy to the public it is serving. So I agree, it is a really

important reason why the judiciary, we really need a judiciary that does

an important public service that looks like the community it serves.

The second point is that you say you find interesting I think is an

interesting phenomenon because when you get a diversity of experience at

a judge level, at the lower level of courts as well, particularly, you

know, when judges are dealing with facts and understanding communities

and understanding where people come from, a wealth of experience can be

really important. That doesn't mean you can't put yourself in someone

else's shoes but it means that the broader breadth of experience you

have do draw on from the judiciary, the more likely you are to get

people that understand the points in front of them. There are levers for

change, are there? On one hand, you could say these are the finest legal

minds and they have endless experience and they are at the end

of their career so they are naturally going to be older. So

there are levers. One, we have traditionally appointed from the

Court of Appeal, as you referred to, or the High Court for the Supreme

Court judges. And they are predominantly white and male. So if

we use that as the pool, inevitably we will have a cord which is

constituted by those who are represented in the scene Yu courts

below. Lord Sumption jumped straight up. He was the first person to do so

in about half a century and he was of course, a white man educated at

Eton and Oxford, unfortunately. So we can widen the pool, there's no

reason we have to recruit from that pool. We widen the pool by, for

example, advertising for academics, for those who are employed lawyers

and so on, a more diverse cohort and there is also a mechanism within the

law that exists now which allows for women to be preferred in cases where

they are of equal merit as compared to a man. And that can be a useful

tool if properly used. To ensure that there is greater diversity but

so far, there's been considerable reluctance both in extending the

pool and using that tool. Looking at the pipeline, as it were, the gender

problem seems to correct itself because there are many more women

coming through. When you look at the ethnic minorities, one thing that is

extraordinary is that throughout school, it tends to be ethnic

minority kids that outperform white kids. Why doesn't that follow

through then into such a strong part of the astonishment? You're talking

about a couple of things, firstly, a legacy. As you pointed out, judges

are of a certain age and a certain point in their careers. We change

the system of how we appointed judges about ten years ago and as a

result, we are looking at... Radically changed, a much more

transparent system, a way, a judicial appointments commission

which is not about a tap on the shoulder from people you know but is

a much more objective system. Ten years later, we are looking at what

has happened but it takes time for it to flush through. At the same

time, it is really important to emphasise, you asked about

experience, my experience of first sitting as a judge is that the

judges I sat with were enormously welcoming and very positive and that

was great but it's almost not the point. The point is, you need to

make sure there are more able people from ethnic minorities feeling they

can apply and there needs to be more rigour, trying to find them. The

important point to note, if I can make two quick points, firstly,

everybody in the debate pretty much agree is that you have to maintain

the very high standard of the Ingush judiciary. Everyone in the debate

also agreed that we can't continue with the same lack of diversity in

the judiciary we have now. -- English judiciary. It's a given

everyone understands that and we are just tried to find the best way to

get there quickly. Barristers are employed on a

case-by-case basis. You can't have a system that is corrected from within

the inside, as it were You looked to a broader cohort. You look outside

the self-employed Bar and look to academia. At the Supreme Court level

you don't need to have those who excel at the Bar. The judiciary as a

whole you will not look outside? At the senior levels, there is no

reason why not. We should be more progressive about the way we recruit

at first instance senior level by, for example, adopting the equal

merit provision identified. I'm less optimistic about Matthew who, I

think if I understood him correctly, is suggesting that things will

change. Can I just say. Of course. We have had 14 white men appointed

since Lady Hale was appointed. Cannot be each and every one of

those men is better than the best of the women who could have been

appointed. I think we need to do something more compelling there. I

do think it's important... In the context of the job I do for the

Mayor of London. He doesn't have anything to do with the judiciary,

when you talk about broader service. You cannot, when have you a problem

with diversity in the public service, you cannot be complacent.

You cannot be complacent. The opposite. What I'm saying is, the

worst thing you can do is take the view - it will be all right, time

will sort it out. It won't. Absolutely. Have you to be rigorous.

As long as you are engaged in that conversation with the profession,

with other people making sure you have the right kind of levers that

you are pulling, that is #2350i7b. Fine. You can't expect it will sort

it self out, because it won't. Thank you very much.

If you've made it this far into the programme,

it can only mean that you're as keen as I am to hear from our

crepuscular culture correspondent, Stephen Smith.

And tonight's effort should be pretty good for once,

as he's joined by one of our most garlanded and best-loved

At the height of Beatlemania in the '60s, Miss Clark

was the female face of the "British invasion" of America,

where she enjoyed 15 consecutive hit singles.

Now aged 84, she came into Newsnight's storied rehearsal

rooms to sing from her new album, From Now On, and to talk

about evading an amorous Elvis, taking career advice

from John Lennon and the transcendent therapy of...ironing.

Stephen's report includes a little colourful language and the usual

# Downtown, where all the lights are bright

# Downtown, waiting for us tonight...#.

When The Beatles weren't topping the American charts

But when she found herself having a hard time with

audiences in bilingual Canada, of all places, she turned

There they were, John and Yoko, sitting up in bed, you

John said, "Hey, what's the matter with you?"

And he was so sweet and wise and funny and he gave

me a piece of advice which I can't repeat.

Even in front of a grown-up like you.

"Well, thank you for that advice, John."

He said, "Go and have a drink in the living room".

They had a suite, so I went into the living room

and there were people humming along to this simple little

song that was coming over the loudspeaker.

They gave us a lyric and we all started singing it.

And little did I know that we were all being recorded.

Capping a long and distinguished career, Miss Clark joined us to

record a prestigious Newsnight session with a song from her new

# Never thought I'd ever feel this way again

# But here it is so why try to explain

I insist on having an iron and an ironing board in my dressing

room, because that's my, that's my therapy, before I go on.

Do you take like the week's wash in and do them or just...

..or just the blouse you are performing in?

No, my musicians did suggest perhaps I did their shirts

# I've heard it all a million times before #.

Like other female stars, Lulu, Cilla Black, Petula Clark had her

own TV series in the supposedly less-enlightened '60s.

# Don't sleep in the subway, darling

What does she make of today's younger singers?

A lot of them seem to be trying to sound like someone

I suppose that's understandable when you're starting

But, you know, the trick is to find your sound

Find a sound that other people will want to imitate.

# Well, I've lost my soul, what's wrong with me #.

At the height of her fame, Miss Clark found herself in Elvis

Presley's dressing room in Vegas, alone apart from the singer Karen

It was quite obvious that he was impressed at seeing us.

I mean, he was gorgeous, and let's face it,

Karen and I were the top two women singers in the world, you know.

And I said, "Elvis, that was so great.

Thank you for the drink, blah blah blah", and we scuttled out of

And as I left, I turned round and Elvis was standing at the door,

# But I love you the way you are

The papers. The Mail, a decision that MPs and military chiefs are

calling "disgraceful." It's by The Police Service of Northern Ireland

to re-examine every British Army killing during The Troubles.

In the Times. A story with a headline, aid blown on foreign

luxury. Hundreds of millions pounds of aid have been poured into hotels

and rest rants. This is a revelation about the Times about the

government's private equity decision. Claims it make as lasting

difference to people's lives. In the Guardian, photo that will shock you.

To talk you through that. In case you can't see the small pribt print.

This is by Alison Jackson, the artist famous for the satirical

photos posed by lookalikes. She was saying she was outraged by lawyers

warningings that a President might sue to restrict artistic freedom.

But just before we go, there was news this evening that

John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, has died.

We thought there would be no more fitting tribute than the footage

Coming down on a ten, circles are open.

Recondition at 10,800 feet and beautiful choux chute.

It it looks as though we will start off on a