28/02/2017 Newsnight

Are you going to answer any questions about the contacts of your

associate with the Russians during the campaign? Can you guarantee no

one in the campaign had any contact with the Russians?

Is the media now the official opposition?

We have an intimate inside look at a turbulent week of a complex

No direct questions about the biggest news story by far is insane.

And the issue does not, in a press conference? The audience is being

told not to trust us. Ahead of the President's big speech

to congress tonight, we'll discuss the fights he picks,

and the victories he can achieve. Also tonight. I have to balance our

resources against the whole of the risk.

Is there such a thing as a low risk paedophile?

We'll ask when - or if - rehabilitation is ever

Inventors have deep pockets, let's make sure we hold them responsible

for the dangers they are introducing into the world.

In three and a half hours President Trump stands before both

houses of the US Congress to make the biggest speech

It's not officially a State of the Union address -

you have to be a year in office for that, but it will be like one.

The theme - we are told - is "the renewal of the American

spirit" and it will be wide-ranging; lots of policy, including

healthcare, all infused with a good deal of Trump optimism.

It's a chance for the President to set out his stall,

It'll be interesting to see if he uses the speech to unify -

because his five plus weeks in office mark him as one

of the most divisive presidents anyone can remember.

Just today, he was on Fox and Friends blaming President Obama

I think President Obama's behind it, because his people are certainly

behind it, and some of the leaks possibly come from that group.

You know, some of the leaks which are very serious leaks,

because they're very bad in terms of national security.

But I also understand that's politics, and in terms of him

being behind things, that's politics, and it

Well, he is deeply polarising, the public are divided about him.

His approval rating at 42% remains lower than President Obama's

first Februrary for example, and lower than George W Bush's too.

But the same polls demonstrate the marmite factor when it

Approval among Democrats is at 10%, among Republicans, it runs at 88.

Trump supporters have stuck with the faith.

Ahead of that speech, our diplomatic editor Mark Urban is here.

What do you think the president is going to say to Congress? This is

where he has got to start the business of governing, laying out

some plans. A more positive vision as you said in the inaugural speech,

the big headline items, plans to slash US corporation tax to

stimulate the economy. To rethink the so-called Obamacare health

package and boost defence spending by $54 billion this year. Something

he intends to do by deep cuts in the State Department, foreign aid and

other things. 37% cuts as reported just before we came on air is the

plan he is working too. How's that going to go down with Congress,

which is probably been dominated. It is but the majority in the Senate is

Badger are just two seats and cannot be taken for granted on spending

matters in the house either. He has not even made the speech and the

Senate majority leader before we went on air said this is not going

to happen. These cuts to the State Department. So before he has even

laid out this agenda he has the Republican leader in the Senate

pulling apart bit by bit on certain key planks of what he's trying to

say. And always foreshadows a much bigger argument, if he makes those

cuts in corporation tax, a $2 trillion battle and the public

finances by 2020 and where on earth is the money going to come from.

Fiscal conservatives are nervous, they do not mind some aspects like

the stimulus spending especially if it is in their district, but how is

this going to be paid for. Prepare for the battle lines to be drawn.

It's all about whose side your on with President Trump,

but the most striking feature of the last few weeks is who he has

The peddlers of fake news as he would have it.

Some say it's a deliberate distraction from bigger issues,

but the stakes are high in that battle.

So before we assess where the White House sits

ahead of the speech, we'll take an inside look

Documentary maker Olly Lambert spent a week with his camera

in the White House, a quite turbulent week at that.

Every president in American history has disliked the press

What's unusual is none before this has declared war in the first week.

I call the fake news the enemy of the people, and they are.

We always have an adversarial relationship, and that in some cases

We are supposed to have a thick skin.

We are supposed to be dispassionate observers.

We are not bringing ourselves to the table as

We are being brought into the story and it's a

You've got to try to cut through the clutter

and try to focus on the

President Trump's embattled national security

adviser General Michael Flynn stepping down Monday night in a

firestorm of criticism after misleading vice president

Mike Pence and others about his conversations

with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

And the White House has been hit with its biggest

The President's national security adviser, Michael

Flynn, has had to resign amidst reports that he'd had secret contact

with Russia before Trump took office.

These have been very, you know, tumultuous weeks for a new

To have a national security adviser get forced out so early on,

to see something happen that quickly.

Right now, this briefing room is a place you have to be.

This is Jeff here in the briefing room.

Michael Flynn's shock resignation draws a

big crowd to Sean Spicer's daily press briefing.

The challenge for the White House is to make sure that

And that's why some of these briefings can be

The big media question is what did the president know,

When did the president find out that Flynn had not told the truth?

We've been reviewing and evaluating this issue with respect to General

Flynn on a daily basis for a few weeks.

The president was very concerned that General Flynn had misled

Why would the president, if he was notified 17 days ago,

that Flynn had misled the vice president and other officials here,

and that he was a potential threat to blackmail by the Russians,

why would he be kept on for almost three weeks?

Well that assumes a lot of things that are not true.

This was an act of trust, whether or not he actually misled

And that was ultimately what led to the president asking

for and accepting the resignation of General Flynn.

The briefing happens, but then there are still so many

other questions that develop in the intervening hours

and the press secretary's office is out that hallway,

Two hours after the briefing, a selected group of journalists

is invited to what's called a gaggle.

An off-camera meeting with Sean Spicer in his office.

So there's been an exodus out of Sean Spicer's office.

The gaggle has revealed another twist.

Trump had known for over two weeks that Flynn had discussed

But Trump didn't inform his vice president Mike Pence.

Pence had found out about it by reading the Washington Post.

When the White House counsel knew about it?

You cannot have your national security adviser running around

misleading senior administration officials, especially

Despite the best efforts of the press team, the Russia

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States

Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in Washington.

But after Flynn's resignation, the press corps are hungry

to question Trump on his relationship with Russia.

The protocol of a joint press conference is that four journalists

But it's the leaders to decide which journalist to call on.

David Brodie, Christian broadcasting.

For the second time this week, Trump ignores the major networks.

Instead, he selects questions from two small

Mother asked directly about his links with Russia. Are you going to

answer any questions about the contact your associate had with the

Russians during the campaign? Can you guarantee no one on your

campaign had any contact with the Russians?

The idea that four reporters, two domestic and two foreign,

in two events, eight total questioners and no direct questions

about the biggest news story by far, the biggest news story

We have a huge story going on now on the Russians, up blockbuster story

alleging contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,

Russian intelligence and the issue does not come up in a press

conference! Because he's calling on friendly news reporters, it is

amazing. You have to work hard to be able to call on to reporters who

would not ask that question. That takes some doing. Why did you fire

him? While the major networks feel ignored, this is a chance for

23-year-old trade, white House correspondent for the newly formed

conservative outlet, one America news. I asked the president what he

thought about that story that came out in the New York Times.

I asked the president about that phone call that...

It's such a unique opportunity for young journalist to have,

you know, I wouldn't trade it for the world.

It's something that I'm extremely excited about.

I think it gives other outlets and other viewers and other readers

an opportunity to feel like they're connected to this

Bringing new people in is great and helpful, they represent audiences

that have real readers and listeners and viewers. What we do not want is

for any administration to either hand-pick and get the question is

they think are best to help put out a message instead of going out and

defending their policies every day. I don't think people realise how

small this place is, This is essentially our home,

and it's been our home This used to be Franklin

Roosevelt's swimming pool. I mean, it's not very

comfortable here, there My cell phone doesn't

work at my desk. You're there at 4am,

you're not sleeping for a week. It's a vibrant, dynamic, a little

strange place to be right now. The Russian crisis is threatening to

engulf the White House and at the last minute Sean Spicer cancels

sisterly briefing and Trump announces his first solo press

conference as president of the United States. I got the call, he's

having a press conference, come to the White House. When I saw the note

is that it would happen in an hour, I raced over.

Just another example of never a dull moment!

I've never seen such short notice for a first conference.

I had a sense it was going to be a pretty contentious affair. Ladies

and gentlemen the president of the United States.

I want to get you to clarify, because it's a very important point.

Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any

When Trump has a story that he doesn't like,

This is fake news put out by the media.

Makes it much harder to make a deal with Russia.

It was an hour and 17 minutes whether President insulted reporters

to our faces and the public is being told not to trust us.

I've never seen more dishonest media then, frankly,

The public doesn't believe you people any more.

Now, maybe I had something to do with that, I don't know.

Story after story after story is bad. I won, I won. There is zero

chaos. This is a fine tuned machine and the press should be ashamed of

themselves. He's is resetting his presidency or trying, after four

tough weeks with leaks and problems and firing. He was just trying to

reset and that was his way of doing it. He goes in that press conference

and suddenly he's like that Trump that goes, come at me. I'll shut you

down, I'll insult you until you to sit down. Sit down, I understand the

rest of your question. Quite, quite, quite. Sit down. You don't have to

do that. I don't have to tell you what I'm going to do in North Korea

and eventually you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.

He's never been in a place where if he tells the lie it's going to get

reported as a lie. This is a different kind of press corps. I

guess he was -- it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald

Reagan. I was given that information. I was

given that information but it was a very substantial victory, do you

agree with that? OK, thank you, that's a good answer. You can push

back and say no, we're not fake news, wield real news. At some point

the President of the United States has to deal with reality, has to

deal with real news. I think the only thing that's worse than fake

news is the denial of real news. Aren't you concerned you are

undermining the people's faith and the first Amendment, freedom of the

press in this country when you call stories you don't like fake news?

Why don't you just say it's a story I don't like? We just keep doing our

job. Nobody ever got into becoming a reporter to be loved. If he wants to

go after us, that's his decision. I'm not sure that's a smart,

long-term decision for building support in the country. Four years

to go. Yeah, I mean, you don't like to be locked in with a group called

a bunch of liars, especially when the person doing it is the President

of the United States of America, and when your job is to cover the

President of the United States. It's hard to explain. After awhile it

just doesn't bother you any more. You just go for your story, ask your

questions. It is stressful and training, but I feel such pride that

we, in the face of all this, did our very best to present the most honest

account of what happened here in this building to our audience each

day. Because if they don't hear it from us, I'm not sure whether they

will know the truth. That was put together by Ollie

Lambert. Earlier I spoke to congressman

Tom Reed, a Republican known I asked him what he thought

of Mr Trump's more The President has his own style,

I have my style, but what he's bringing to the table

is a new vision for America, for Let's talk about his relationship

with the press, with the media. He obviously thinks

they're out to get him. Do you agree with the way

he's handled the press Well you know, again,

he has his own style and we all appreciate that,

in our different ways, but holding the press accountable

I think is a positive thing. But at the same time,

we need a strong, free press in America and I support free press

and holding people accountable in elected office is something

that we do traditionally and will continue to

do as we go forward. I tell you what, let me ask

you three yes/no questions I've got to see really

whether you agree with the President Do you factually agree

with the President when he says they make up sources in order

to make up stories, fake news? Do you think that the New York Times

makes up stories, yes or no? I think there's always

a kernel of truth in each But that's why holding

the press accountable, as well as the press holding

the President and us accountable as elected officials,

that's what the American tradition The next one, do you agree

that the press are the enemies of the people, would you use phrase

to describe the media? I think when you're talking

about an objective press that's doing the job of journalism,

that's made us proud That is a tradition that we support

and has made us stronger And I'll just give you a last

one on this very brief, this kind of quickfire round,

do you agree with excluding the New York Times and CNN

from the briefings, the way Did you think that

was good practice? I'll let the White House answer

for that, but in this day and age of 24/7 news coverage,

there's not a move that isn't covered immediately

by the press, and that's good. That's why I do the town halls,

that's why I answer to our folks back home, because standing in front

of people and being held accountable is what it is to be an elected

official and I respect that and I take that responsibility

very seriously. A lot of people are saying the kind

of battles he picks, particularly the one with the media,

is designed to distract everybody's attention away

from more substantive issues, notably the issue of his

relations or his staff's Do you buy that, that there

is a kind of distraction I don't think it's

a distraction strategy. I know that's new to a lot

of people and that can be disruptive in of itself,

but what he's doing, he's delivering There are so many politicians

who have not done that. Do you think Congress is going to be

a problem for him over Working with the President,

there's going to be Obviously there's going to be that

debate that Congress has always had with the presidents,

over the years, but that's the process we enjoy,

that's the process that's made us strong for generations and I only

see that the reinforced by this OK, let's take a specific

one on the relationship He is proposing to spend

50-something billion You guys in Congress don't

like borrowing more. He's not going to be able to find

the money just from cutting environmental protection

or the State Department And that's why we have a process,

that's why Congress is going to be part of that process,

just as the White House Going back and fourth

is what the legislative process Tom Reed, Congressman Reed,

thank you so much, thank you. Joining me now from New York

is Tina Brown, former editor of, Tatler, Vanity Fair,

the New Yorker to name but a few. Thank you for joining us. Do you

think the press, as a sort of community, if you can think of it

that way, do you think they gave Donald Trump a fair hearing when he

arrived in office and won the election? I think there has been a

huge amount of hyperventilation from the press, but I will say that I

think they were kind of gobsmacked when he just came right out of the

box and insulted them. The very first press conference at Sean

Spicer held, which is normally the here we are, welcome to the new

administration, was this sort of absolutely crazed bull running at

them, telling them that they had lied about the absolutely

demonstrable figures of the inauguration crowds, calling them

lies. I think they were almost winded by that, to be honest. It was

a staggering display of instant animosity from the other side. It's

really only got worse every day afterwards. Do you think the press

have, if you like, taken him seriously and taken his mission,

which I think he sees to shake things up a lot, do you think

they've given him enough of the benefit of the doubt on that

mission? I think one of the problems is that

he's so abusive and... The difficulty is everybody response to

every tweet as if it is something serious to respond which I think is

an enormous Tessmann mistake because they waste for freight. At the same

time, Trump, I think they are foolish and away to be as shocked as

they are that he's delivering on what he says he's going to do.

Ultimately we're so used to Presidents coming in after campaign

promises and saying they're going to do things and actually they don't,

that Trump coming out of the box like a raging bull saying he's going

ban Muslims and rescind transgender rights and all the things he's

doing, people are aghast because he said he was going to do those things

are now he's saying again he's going to do them. The difference now is he

can't do most of them. The danger now is he will be all hat and no

cattle, as they say, a guy that shoots his mouth off and says he's

riding out there to change everything and he can't because he

is sloppy, uninformed, poor legislative expertise and a kind of

very naive idea about how government works. What he said yesterday or the

other day, it turns out health care is very complicated, much more

complicated than we thought. You could hear the hollow laughter

echoing around Capitol Hill. Presidents have resident with health

care. Look what happened to Hillary Clinton when she tried on behalf of

Bill Clinton, it's a tough thing to do not easy. He thought he could

come raging in and fix it. He's going to go to Congress tonight and

make a speech. His next battle could be with Congress, they will go in

the normal Washington Way, compromising and looking at the

process as they call it an Trump will be Trump and not want to do it

that way. The public, they seem at the moment to be more behind Donald

Trump, his supporters have remained faithful. The public seem to prefer

the president to Congress. Where is this going to go over the next two

to three years? I personally think that within a few months Trump will

be against Congress. I don't think the press will be the enemy, it will

be people in Congress who don't pass the Mexican War bill... I think he's

going to go to war with Congress very quickly and then become a kind

of maverick folk hero to his base, who will feel here is the guy we

elected, we gave him a mandate to do all these things and Congress is

thwarting him. Then there's going to be a lot of rock and roll, because

then you're going to see people losing their seats. They're going to

be going to war with their own constituents. It will be very

interesting to see how that shapes up. No one will disagree with that.

Tina Brown, thank you. Also joining me from New York

now is Ann Coulter, conservative commentator,

Trump supporter, and author I wonder if I can ask you, do you

think he goes out of his way to make enemies? A lot of politicians think

their job is to make friends, even if they are being a bit phoney.

President Trump clearly doesn't believe that?

I think the positions he's taken are so opposed by both Conservative and

Liberal media, the Democrat and Republican party and certainly

corporate America that they will be sworn enemies no matter what he did.

If you're going to come out against illegal immigration and for building

a wall and protecting working-class Americans, all of the elites in

America will be opposed to you. It's pretty much Trump and 65 million

voters against all of the elites of Wall Street, Washington, DC,

certainly of Hollywood. They want their cheap mates, the Democrats

want the votes. It's his positions that made him their sworn enemy, not

anything, how he speaks or anything else. We haven't spoken since way

before the election. You framed it there as the elite against the

working people of the United States. We haven't had a chance to talk to

you. There are a lot of billionaires and Goldman Sachs blokes employed in

the Donald Trump administration. What's going on there? Well, a lot

of people have worked for Goldman Sachs. The ones I guess you're

talking about aren't working there now. Even before Trump... What are

you talking about, they are the elite, aren't they? That are some

elite who support Raw but by and large they are against them. There

are a few senators and good congressman but by and large out of

hundreds of members they are with the lobbyists, with Chamber of

Commerce and the prediction of the last guess, that Trump would go to

war with Republicans in Congress, she's a little late on that, he's

gone to war with them. Donald Trump famously refused to endorse the

Speaker of the house during the election, Tom Ryan. Paul Ryan,

sorry. Where is it going to go? We are denied they're not going to cut

the Department state aid budget as much as they can to fund military

spending, this is a movable object needs irresistible force, isn't it?

No, I think the people are with Trump. Part of the reason he got

elected was because we are sick of this do nothing Republicans in

Congress. Congress was elected as well. Congress was elected, too.

They've got their row mandate, their legitimate as well, aren't they? I'm

not saying they're not legitimate and saying they're not popular.

That's why someone who was so out of politics was just made president of

the United States. You have two choices, generally when someone is

running for Senate, Democrat or Republican. I spent the last few

election cycles haranguing Republican voters to vote for people

like Mitch McConnell, I don't particularly like him either but

he's better than a Democrat. OK, you take that choice but I think you

probably will see a lot more drama Republicans. It takes a while for

this turnover. It's like the House of Lords, Congress, it's very hard

to get rid of incumbents but they aren't very popular with the people.

Let me ask you about the press. You did not see art inside view of the

relationship between the White House and the press, do you think it is

legitimate for US newspapers with millions of readers to ask questions

about the relationship between the Trump team and the Russians? Or just

false narrative and getting in the way? Like so much else, the elements

of the media that are asking, the media is large, and a lot of that is

just pumping out fake blues at a mile a minute and this nonsense over

Russia, it is strange coming from someone like me who was on the side

of Reagan during the Cold War to have these modern day John Birch

types looking for a Russian underneath every bad. But I think it

is worth pointing out that Trump is not at war with the media but at war

with the fake news coming from the media. I believe everyone has always

accepted you cannot have a democracy if the media do not print the truth.

And this media at least a lot of it, do not. But the New York Times, CNN,

ABC, from the modern was a king Boz to the Russian news, to this crazy

thing about Sweden. They falsely accused him of claiming there was a

terrorist attack in Sweden. And knocking a disabled reporter. We

could talk all day about this. Thank you so much.

When it comes to criminal justice, there are two reasonable

sounding propositions, that are in conflict with each

other: One says all significant crimes should be properly

The other says resources should be focussed on the most serious crimes

The police have to weigh up these two every day -

but one chief constable made explicit the tensions between them

with respect to crimes of abuse of children -

suggesting that those who view indecent images but go no further

should not be jailed but rehabilitated.

This does not mean that the offender doesn't get arrested,

because I would recommend they absolutely do,

but there is, I believe, a space here for the effective

The fact that organisations like Lucy Faithfull Foundation,

with programmes they have, are able to demonstrate

they have a positive impact upon men who have unhealthy thoughts around

children, and this is around saying we need to target our resources

against those people who are intent in committing the most

Well, Chief Constable Bailey who you heard there is the head

of Operation Hydrant, which is investigating multiple

allegations of historic sexual abuse across the UK.

His comments have prompted quite a debate.

So is there such a thing as a low risk paedophile?

Jim Gamble is a senior police officer, and was

the founding Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation

He now serves on a number of local authority child safeguarding boards.

Dr Heather Wood is a Consultant Adult Psychotherapist -

at the Portman Clinic in London, which is part of the Tavistock

Thank you for joining us. Thinking about the numbers, to have any idea

what the numbers are in this category of people who look at

indecent images but go no further? I do not think anyone knows and that

is part of the problem. We from exercises carried out using software

in 2012, CEOP estimated 60, 70,000 people at any one time could be

downloading images. Last November it was estimated at up to 100000 and

that figure is extrapolated aboard spot much of it based on a guess.

The figures of 100,000 are based on software that monitors particular

image is being downloaded. I have heard much higher figures, like half

a million plus or something like that. There are figures were the

NSPCC for example in some combined studies extrapolate those figures

out to 750,000. But the bottom line is it is how we deter people. I just

want to know how many weird talking about because in terms of

practicality of sending people to Jane -- to jail. Heather, do you

have rates of paedophilia, prevalence rates, you know what the

numbers are? We do not know what the percentages are. If we went through

a policy of rehabilitation, how successful is that, I mean...?

Paedophilia essentially is a mental health diagnosis so we have to make

a distinction between people who offend against children, which is

the business of the criminal justice system, and people who have a

paedophilic sexual interest around children so some of the people who

offend against children are not actually consistently paedophilic in

their sexual orientation. There are some people who are paedophilic who

never enact with children. And I think we now know as a result of the

behaviour we have observed in relation to the intranet, there are

some people who have made adult to adult intimate relationships but

actually under the influence of immersion in internet sex, actually

break down to express a more explicitly paedophilic sexual

interest. So I think these are different groups of people. Would

you accept that there are these categories? I do not because when it

comes to managing risk, that has not been my experience. So we find

someone who goes online to view images of children, the hypothesis

is that those looking at low level images represent perhaps a lower

risk but that has not been my experience. I've seen individuals

looking at the lowest form of image who have committed the most

horrendous crimes. And I can give you examples of those individuals.

If we're going to base the risk management regime on that basis then

you are playing the lottery with the lives of children. Is that fair?

Yes, I agree on this point. You cannot tell the difference on the

basis of the nature of the images people are looking at. So we have

seen people who for example can get sexually aroused by looking at

Mothercare catalogue. It does not actually differentiate between high

and low-level offenders but there are criteria. Can you extinguish

between high and low risk offenders? I think both from research evidence

and from clinical experience, we're starting to develop an awareness of

what the criteria are. And is that good enough then for us to say you

are low risk, so we will treat you differently from someone who we

think is high risk. You think it is question mark yes, and I think

researchers are refining reliable tools like now. Have you any idea

what the kind of error rate is, and we probably have to accept there are

always some risks in every case, but you know what the error rate is if

you think this person is not likely to offend against a child, are you

wrong 91% of the time, how much? I do not know. In the study that

Heather took part in herself, looking at 20 offenders over a

10-year period of time, one who dropped out went on to reoffend but

that is just one who was caught reoffending so the issue, you're

talking about the best liars in the world. Simon is delivering the wrong

message to the wrong people at the wrong time. Parents and carers are

anxious enough about this and to talk about it in blather terms about

counselling is a mistake. The method should be to the government to say

there are too many offenders, so invest... You cannot put another

100,000 people in jail. We convicted 35,000 people in 2012 for drunk

driving. Convicted and that means we investigated a lot more so we are

being seduced into a position of saying that the numbers are too

large but they're not. If we were talking about terrorism we would be

investing resources, assets and money into getting better at this.

We need to identify this. And the child sex abuse enquiry is taking

evidence and those people currently going to bed demented tonight by the

legacy of what happened in the past could have been better protected if

we had taken the numbers more seriously in days gone by. And we

cannot have this. We need to leave it there, thank you.

And tonight, American philosopher Daniel Dennett offers us an opinion.

He is the author of among other works, Consciousness Explained;

he specialises in the philosophy of mind; his latest book

And he has views on artificial intelligence.

They're making smart tools, not colleagues.

Artificial intelligence is now harnessing algorithms that

mindlessly sift through gigantic datasets, yielding brilliant

After several dormant decades AI is blooming again and computers

They're already better than the experts in many

Various visionaries are predicting that super intelligent

agents are inevitable - balderdash!

While I agree that it's possible in principle to make a super

intelligent artificial agent smarter than any person, don't

IBM's duly famous Watson, the Jeopardy quiz show winner,

could in principle be enlarged into an agent worth befriending,

say, but the project would cost maybe a million times more

than making Watson in the first place, and who would pay for it?

What we need is smart tools, not artificial colleagues,

and that's all we're going to get in the foreseeable future.

The biggest and truly imminent danger is overestimating

the comprehension of these tools and ceding moral authority to them.

People tend to overestimate the comprehension of any AI that

We must break this congenial habit and train users

to treat the tool as a tool for which they are responsible.

First, banish cutesy human touches which are, to put it

Second, users should be licensed and bonded.

The insurance companies would then insist that manufacturers divulge

any known blindspots or weaknesses, the same way pharmaceutical

companies must now real off all the known side-effects

AI inventors have deep pockets, let's make sure we hold them

responsible for the dangers they're introducing into the world.

That's it for today, which is of course Pancake Day.

So courtesy of Pathe, we leave you at the Old Kent Road

pancake race, which was held in February 1963, just three

weeks before the Beatles kicked off the modern era.

Captain Courage, a name of note in thirsty London,

There's 350 yards to go, that's a furlong and a half with 20

Right from the beginning out in front is Grace Walsh,

hot favourite, mother of two, winner last year.

Nobody can catch Grace, she's going strong as she bursts the tape.

Champagne for the winner and a prize of ?10.

Now, one last toss of the pancakes, including one that got away.

Good evening. We're heading into the month of March