21/01/2016 Victoria Derbyshire

Hello it's Thursday, it's 9.15, I'm Victoria Derbyshire,

A "deferential culture" with "untouchable stars".

A leaked report into abuse by Jimmy Savile criticises the BBC.

Ten years after he was poisoned with a radioactive cup of tea

in a London hotel, we'll get the conclusions an inquiry

into the murder of former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko.

Was he killed on the orders of President Putin?

The news is due in about 15 minutes time, do stay tuned to hear it first

I need to respect and see what I can do for his memory.

We'll hear from a close friend of Mr Litvinenko -

who read this statement outside the hospital after he died.

It will reverberate Mr Putin in your ears for the rest of your life.

Hundreds of primary school children in need of deradicalisation.

A BBC investigation finds more than 400 have been referred

to a government programme in the past four years.

We are expecting the findings into the killing of Alexander Litvinenko.

He was poisoned with polonium in 20106 and the issue of whether the

Russian state carried out the killing is expected to form a

crucial part of the report released very shortly. We'll bring that to

you as soon as it happens. Get in touch throughout the programme.

Texts will be charged at the standard network rate. First, Jimmy

Savile abused young people for a period lasting over 60 years and a

lot took place at the BBC, particularly in the '60s and '70s.

Today a draft copy of a report asking how it went on for so long

undetected has been leaked. It's revealed 61 incidents of sexual

assault took place at the Corporation, including four rapes

and one attempted rape. It says abuse took place at virtually every

one of the BBC premises. Dame Janet Smith's report says it was largely

down to a deaf Rennestial culture at the corporation.

-- deferential. Dame Janet concludes that because no-one in a position of

authority, none of the bosses were told about the abuse, it could not

have been stopped. The leaked report also warns that a child predator

could go undiscovered at the broadcaster even today. Dame Janet

Smith's review was set up in October 2012 by the BBC to carry out an

impartial investigation of the BBC during the years it employed Savile.

The review team say they are disappointed with the leaked

extracts, they say they are out-of-date, shouldn't be relied

upon in any circumstances and the official report will be published in

a few weeks' time. In a moment we'll talk to the presenter of Radio

Four's Media Show who's looked at the report. Also we have a lawyer

representing 168 Savile victims. David Sillito, go through some of

the extracts that have been leaked? There are some caveats. Dame Janet

Smith's review says it's a draft report and changes have been made.

This final review will come out in the next six weeks. But I think we

can be pretty certain that this is a clear summary of a lot of the

evidence that's been presented to her and it goes through it. 61

incidents of sexual assaults, four rapes, one attempted rape. It says

the incidents took place in virtually every one of the BBC

premises that Savile worked over the years. That is the '60s through to

the '90s. Top of the Pops girls were exposed to moral danger she says and

she goes through essentially year-by-year what did people know

and do about it? We hear about incidents not connected to Savile

but allegations of sexual assault, that it appears, well, the

investigation she to that was wholly inadequate. It talks about the

moment Savile was interviewed by BBC bosses, two of them put to him

allegations about young girls, him taking them back to his flat and it

said, well, yes, they did ask these questions, they didn't go any

further. Because he would have said no of course I didn't do that. They

took the denials at face value. So the key thing is, what are the

criticisms? Remember, this is a draft report but what it says here

is it appears, I do not think the BBC can be criticised for failing to

uncover Savile's do haviancy. In essence, she's saying no-one got to

the truth of Savile while he was alive -- David Davis eviancy. She

does though say the BBC failed to examine Savile's personality

critically given the rumours. They talk about a dark side to Savile,

people feeling queasy, seeing him with a prelickion for hanging around

young teenage girls, why was he allowed to carry on working without

more questions being asked, especially given he was working with

children. What is the BBC saying today? There's been a statement

issued just in the last few minutes made on camera by the Director

General Tony Hall which I hope we can see now. Firstly my thoughts and

all of our thoughts must be and are with the victims of Jimmy Savile and

their families. What happened was a dark chapter in the history of the

BBC. Dame Janet's report will be invaluable in helping us to

understand what happened and to help ensure that we do everything

possible to ensure it doesn't happen again. The review has said that the

copy leaked to the media was an early draft which has changed

considerably, so while I'm impatient to learn those lessons, the

responsible thing must be to act on the final report which we've not yet

received. The review has said they expect the report to be published

within six weeks and we hope it will be published as swiftly as possible.

Thank you very much David. Let's talk to Steve Hewlett of the Media

Show and Liz from Slater Gordon solicitors, representing 168

victims. How do you react to the leaks then? I don't accept the lack

of accountability. Dame Janet talks about 107 witnesses giving evidence

of what they saw, rumours, suspicions, feeling queasy and

unwell at what they were witnessing and, for her not to find that

management didn't know what was going on, it just beggars belief.

For that not to have permeated up the chain, I just don't accept it.

OK that, is interesting. Steve, Dame Janet is pointing to Tullture in the

BBC at the time. Do you accept that? -- the culture in the BBC. Her view

could not be firmer. She says no evidence that anyone in a position

of authority at the BBC heard or knew of a complaint or concern about

Savile that refused to investigate it. She says, I don't think the BBC

can be criticised for failing to uncover Savile's sexual deviancy.

When Dame Janet sat down to do the inquiry she knew what Savile had

done, the witnesses knew, we, as readers of this, and members of the

economic, we all know roughly what he did as well. As a result, when

you know that, it's very, very hard to look at what happened and not

you know that, it's very, very hard literally incredulous that it didn't

produce a red flag. His autobiography in 1974 Blakes it

absolutely plain that he has a desire for sexual contact with women

and young girls that would be obviously a red flag. But at the

time, no, but this is hindsight speaking. She heard the evidence, I

didn't, I agree it seems utterly incredible, but she's heard the

witnesses and could not be clearer. And Liz, no-one in the NHS knew,

no-one in children's homes knew, so why is it so incredulous to believe

that no-one at the top of the BBC knew? Well, because the BBC was the

organisation that gave him this power, it was where he was

operating, where he was all the time, where there were so many

concerns about what he was up to, the whole culture she talks about

when you read the section on Top of the Pops, for that not to have

permeated upwards and toff caused concern, it's simply astonishing.

Dame Janet points out in the extracts that should not be relied

upon, she points out that the culture of the BBC was that people

did not go high up with those kinds of things and in fact still don't?

She describes a key executive, the person who ran Top of the Pops or

Jim's Fix It, their primary obsession was to keep the programme

running and, unless forced to confront issues about Savile, the

line of resistance was not to think that way. We can't put ourselves

back into these people's minds, but it's interesting where she says

"no-one at the BBC would want the Jim 'll Fix It ship to capsize"

which is an interesting way of saying, not only was he well-known,

his programmes were popular, so the entire organisation was predisposed

to look the other way, that is if anything that they could have seen

would have appeared to them at the time as it appears to us now as a

transparently obvious red flag, something's wrong. You might say of

course, his own autobiography in 1974 makes clear his appetite for

women and young girls, someone else might point this out but even though

it may not have been taken as a red flag to the sort of abuse, the

extraordinary levels of abuse we now know he was capable of, was it still

proper for him to be doing a show like Top of the Pops surrounded by

young girls when he's made it perfectly plain that they are the

object of his interest and attention? I think now of course

could paedophiles be hiding in the BBC, yes, perhaps they could. Well,

Dame Janet Smith says yes, a child predator could still exist in the

BBC. Some have suggested to her that aspects of the BBC culture are worse

now than they were then, people less likely to come forward and less job

security. She said people that spoke to her were deeply worried about

being exposed or even having known that they had spoken to her. So

there is clearly still a cultural issue. Whether attitudes towards

this sort of behaviour however, this overly sexualised behaviour remain

the same, I sort of doubt, I think they have kind of changed. How do

you react Liz to the fact that Dame Janet says a child predator could be

at the BBC today? That is what is most worrying. It's easy to write

off Savile as an episode in a by-gone era and where she says that

culture of fear still exists that someone could still get away with

it, we have to remember that abuse is still going on. That is why we

need a change of the law, that's why the Goddard inquiry is so important.

We cannot write this off as saying it will never happen again because

she's clearly saying it could. From the BBC and the executive's point of

view, they are really going to have to address this culture of fear

aren't they? They are, that Cesc right, and also, there are two bits

to this, she makes the points about the culture of fear and people being

unable to speak and whistle-blowing. She doesn't make that as part of her

afterthought as to whether it's possible it could happen again. She

says there are two factors at play which can't be discounted; it's

clear that the sex abusers can be highly manipulative, clever,

deceitful so never underestimate them. This is the other point,

celebrity power, the reason Savile's held in awe, becomes untouchable, if

you like, she thinks, her view is it's more significant now than it

was. I think in 1969 there is a case she refers to, an under-age girl

complains about being abused by Savile on Top of the Pops and the

reaction is, she's escorted from the premises. Now, honestly, I don't

think that would happen now, but that's not to say that, you know,

the elements that are necessary for this to happen again are there,

although I kind of think that attitudes towards this sort of

behaviour have changed. Thank you both very much.

The news and sport in a moment. We are awaiting the news to do with the

answering of the question of why former Russian spy Alexander

Litvinenko was killed in London. It happened ten years ago. He was

drinking green tea laced with the highly damaging radioactive

substance polonium-210. A decade on, we'll find out hopefully why and how

the 43-year-old died because of a public inquiry into his murder.

Alexander Litvinenko fled Russia from Britain -- fled Russia to

Britain. He worked for the British Intelligence Service MI6, so who

killed him and who ordered it. Mr Litvinenko himself blamed the

President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Everything about polonium 2010 is

regulated by the state, its usage is related by the state.

Putin and his personal cabal are directly integrated in organised

crime, that they are willing to murder those who stand in their way,

and that Mr Litvinenko was murdered for that reason.

We are expecting the report out in the next five, ten minutes or so,

and we are also expecting Alexander Litvinenko's widow to say something

on the steps of the Royal Court of Justice. What are you expecting?

Hubbub of the most important thing we could expect from today's

inquiries is too which extends the Russian state has been in fold in

the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. It is obvious this was a murder that

the Russian state has always denied, it is their involvement, and the

people who are the primary suspect, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun,

and there was proved they were involved, even they denied it, they

were given protection by the state, they were not extradited by the

Russian state, Andrei Lugovoi was even made a member of Parliament, so

there is an obvious protection of the suspects by the Russian state.

So the inquiries should tell as to which extent it believes that the

Russian state was involved. This is probably the most important thing

that we should expect from this. Thank you, for the moment, I know

you are going to stay with us. We are expecting to hear from the

public inquiry in the next few minutes. Let's look at what else is

making the news this morning. A leaked draft report

into sexual abuse committed by Jimmy Savile at the BBC says

the behaviour of star presenters went

unchallenged by managers. The inquiry team, led

by Dame Janet Smith, says the draft is an old version

that can't be relied upon. But there's been a swift response

from the top of the BBC. What happened was a dark chapter in

the history of the BBC. Dame Janet's report will be invaluable in helping

us to understand what happened, and to help ensure that we do everything

possible to ensure it doesn't happen again.

The inquiry into the killing of former Russian spy

Alexander Litvinenko will issue its report shortly.

The former intelligence officer, who claimed asylum in the UK,

was poisoned with radioactive polonium in London in 2006.

The issue of whether the Russian state carried out the killing

is expected to form a crucial part of the report,

something which is important to the Litvenenko family.

It is probably one of the most important thing is to establish, not

only for us personally, to see who the trail leads to.

A second woman has been charged with the murder of Sadie Hartley,

the businesswoman from Lancashire who was found dead at her home

A 55-year-old woman from Blackburn will appear in court

Hundreds of children under the age of 10 have been referred

to the Government's deradicalisation programme, according to figures

A total of 415 children in England and Wales have gone

through the Channel scheme, which aims to steer people

Star Wars fans will have to wait a bit longer than expected

Disney have announced that Episode 8 won't be in cinemas until the end

of 2017, around seven months later than planned.

No reason has been given, but there's speculation

Let's catch up with all the sport now and join Ore.

Good morning. The two British number one 's are making things look very

easy at the Australian open. You would expect Andy Murray, the world

number two, to breeze through the early rounds in any grand slam, but

against the man with the fastest serve in Kenneth Branagh Samuel

Groth, he made him look very small -- the fastest serve in tennis. As

well, Johanna Konta, playing in her first ever main draw at the

Australian open, is also through to the third round after beating her

opponent in straight sets. Two British players into the third

round, things looking good. We will talk about the FA Cup as well, we

finally have the fourth round set up, Liverpool in there after a 3-1

win over Exeter City, but also Tottenham are there as well, they

played Leicester City three times in the last ten days and after a draw

and a Leicester win, it is finally time for Tottenham to get the better

of Leicester as well. 20 more on those at 10am.

-- plenty more. Let's bring you this breaking news to do with the

conclusions of the year-long public inquiry into the killing of the

former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. The inquiry has found

that his murder was an operation of the Russian security service, the

FSB, and the inquiry goes on to say the killing was probably approved by

President Putin as well as the then director of the FSB. Let's just

repeat that, the independent inquiry into the killing of Alexander

Litvinenko in a London hotel in 2006 was an operation of the Russian

security service, the FSB, and probably approved by President Putin

of Russia as well as the then director of the FSB. That is the

conclusion from Sir Robert Owen, he is the independent judge who has

been looking into the killing of Mr Litvinenko. Let's hear from his

widow, Marina. Deliberately administrated polonium-210 to Mr

Litvinenko, intending it would kill him. He was quite sure that Mr

Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun did so under the direction of others. The judge

has found to a high degree of probability that the FSB directed Mr

Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun to murder him, and also found as a fact their boss

Vladimir Putin and the director of the FSB at the time personally

approved assassination. I am of course very pleased that the words

my husband spoke on his deathbed, when he accused Mr Putin of his

murder, have been proved true in an English court with a high standard

of independency and fairness. But now it is time for David Cameron,

I'm calling immediately for exclusion from the UK of all Russian

intelligence operatives, whether from the FSB or other Russian

agencies. I'm also calling for the position of targeted economic

sanctions against named individuals including Mr Putin. I received a

letter last night from the Home Secretary promising action. It is

unthinkable that the Prime Minister would do nothing in the face of

damaging findings of Sir Robert Owen. Thank you very much.

Alexander Litvinenko's widow clearly calling on David Cameron, the Prime

Minister, to expel all Russian intelligence officials from the UK,

and also calling for economic sanctions, presumably the freezing

of bank accounts, for various individuals.

So let's talk now to our correspondent Richard Galpin,

who was one of those journalists allowed to view the report before

It is worth going through the conclusions from Sir Robert Owen.

Yes, absolutely. This is the report we have been looking at over the

past 1.5 hours, it has taken ten years to get to this very, very

important point. Alexander Litvinenko was killed in November

2006, and only now do we have the results of the inquiry. The

absolutely key quote from Sir Robert Owen, the retired judge who chaired

the inquiry, is that he said, taking into account all the evidence and

analysis, and what he means by that is also the closed evidence, that is

from the British intelligence services, from MI6, presumably, in

which he says, I find the operation to kill Alexander Litvinenko was

probably approved by the head of Russia's main intelligence agency,

the FSB, and very close to that amid Putin, and by that may Putin

himself. So base is very, very significant, the fact that Mr Putin

has been named in this report as probably approving, the keyword

there is probably. He cannot be sure about it, but he says probably. What

he is sure about in his conclusions is that Mr Litvinenko was poisoned

in the bar of the hotel in Mayfair in central London in 2006, that he

was deliberately poisoned and it was carried out by Andrei Lugovoi and

Dmitry Kovtun, who, for many years, have been the two chief suspects,

and of course we know Andrei Lugovoi had been in the FSB, in the

intelligence agency of the Russians, and had also been in the federal

protection service, also within the kind of intelligence apparatus, and

had strong links with the FSB. He goes on to say that the killing, the

poisoning in London, was under the direction of the FSB, the

intelligence agency. So, some very, very significant statements from

this inquiry. Tell us more about what the motives would be for the

murder of Alexander Litvinenko? That is a very good question, and

there are multiple motives will stop one of the key moment for Alexander

Litvinenko was back in 1998 when he went to Mr Putin, at the time

himself at the FSB, and complained about what he alleged was corruption

in the FSB, and the fact, Mr Litvinenko, that is, and the fact he

had been ordered to assassinate a senior politician, Boris Berezovsky,

who of course came into X file here. According to Mr Leben Inc's account,

that went down very badly, Mr Putin did not react or do anything about

it -- Mr Litvinenko's account. Instead, Mr Litvinenko found himself

accused of various charges and put in prison, and after that he fled to

the UK. That was regarded by the FSB, we believe, as betrayal, for

which the punishment is very severe, including being killed. Also, the

fact that when Mr Litvinenko came to this country, fled here and became a

British citizen, he also started working with MI6. We know that, from

the inquiry, he received ?2000 a month from the MI6 for work

including investigating links between Russian organised crime in

Spain and officials back in Russia. Again, that would be regarded by the

FSB and top people in Russia as another betrayal. Then there were

very personal allegations made by Mr Litvinenko against President Putin.

He accused him of being, and the FSB, of being behind a series of

means in Moscow in 1999 which were blamed on Chechen separatists and

led to the second Chechen war, and the allegation made by Mr Litvinenko

is that this was done deliberately by Mr Putin said that he would have

an excuse for another war in Chechnya and cement his position in

power, and indeed he became president shortly after that.

Another serious personal allegation made against Mr Putin was that he

claimed Mr Putin was a paedophile. Of course, the Kremlin strongly

denied all of these allegations, but he made a series of very serious

claims which would have been regarded as absolute betrayal by the

authorities in Russia. Does Robert Owen make any

recommendations? His wife's called for the expulsion of all

intelligence officials and economic sanctions. What does Sir Robert Owen

say? I haven't seen that. I couldn't find any recommendations, I'm not

sure whether I just missed it, but I haven't seen any recommendations,

but we are expecting a statement from Sir Robert Owen in about 15-20

minutes, then we'll perhaps know more clearly what he's recommending

because that is part of his inquiry. This whole inquiry was set up to try

and reach some kind of conclusions as to whether there was

Russian-state responsibility for this murder but also what action

should be taken, what should be done now. Obvious they is going to be an

absolutely key question as to whether the British Government will

react to this in the form of taking some kind of sanctions because of

what he's managed to conclude. I think certainly the mood music, we

don't know of course, Theresa May is due to give a statement in

Parliament we think at some stage today because the report has now

been handed over to Parliament, but one of the kind of issues now is

that the whole relationship's swung back. The relationship with Russia

is very, very bad but there is the issue of cooperation with Russia

over the whole massive problem of Syria, not just the whole issue of

the civil war but also in dealing with so-called Islamic state. I

think some people have expressed concern that maybe Britain will not

be too much looking to actually impose more sanctions at now what is

a very delicate time in terms of diplomacy over Syria. Thank you very

much Richard for that detailed summary of the report out in the

last few minutes. We are due to hear shortly

from Sir Robert Owen, who has chaired the inquiry

since January 2015, at the Royal Courts of Justice

in Central London, we'll of course Let's talk now a close friend

of Alexnader Litvinenko, Alex Goldfarb, who was a close

friend of Alexander Litvinenko and who was interviewed

for the inquiry. How do you react to the year-long

investigation, it concludes that your friend's murder was "probably"

approved by Vladimir Putin? Yes. I think it's a proper and fair finding

because nobody in the Russian hierarchy would dare to order such

murder without Mr Putin's approval. This finding actually names an

ultimate justice. As you remember, on his death bed, Sascha Litvinenko

named Mr Putin as the probable person and now it's become a fact.

The two prime suspects, former Russian bodyguard, Andrei Lugovoi

and the Russian army veteran Dmitri cover tun. -- Kovtun. Is there any

possibility of them being extradited? The Russians refused to

extradite them, although they have been requested to do so seven, eight

years ago. So I think now, with the legal decision to that effect, the

British Government should go to the Security Council and demand that

Russia extradite the perpetrators, provide all the information and also

pay compensation to the victims. This is the approach which was taken

after the Lockerbie bombings with regard to Gaddafi and I think it's

absolutely appropriate in this case. Britain should go to the UN Security

Council to get a resolution to enable this extradition, is that

what you mean? That's right. OK. What chance of that happening? In

this situation, the only way to act for the West in general, the UK in

particular is to draw a line and make it absolutely clear to Russia

that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated. Everybody should be

used to that end, including the international pressure, such as the

Security Council and the unilateral action here.

You have heard S, Marina demand expulsion of all intelligence

officers from the UK and the introduction of targeted sanctions

of people who were responsible for this, including Mr Putin and

including the head of the FSB at the time. Can I put to you a couple of

comments being made by our audience as we report this right now. They

say Alexander Litvinenko was a former Russian spy, here as a

British citizen, he worked for MI6. He was a double agent, should he not

have expected something like this? No. Well, he was never a double

agent in the sense that MI6 started talking to him three years after he

arrived to the UK and got asylum here. That is a very fair point. But

the work that he was involved in, it was dangerous work in this country?

Oh, well, yes, it was very dangerous, particularly his work

against Russian Mafia in Spain. We believe that the motive for this

murder was the imminent appearance of Mr Litvinenko as a witness in the

Spanish investigation which linked to Russian Mafia figures in the

immediate circle of Mr Putin and him personally. It's to prevent him

being a witness in this investigation in Madrid that they

decided to take him out. Mr Litvinenko on his death bed

pinpointed the fact that the two prime suspects who've now been

confirmed, Lugovoi and Kuvton were the people who murdered him in that

London hotel on the orders, he said, on his death bed, of Vladimir Putin.

We have Sir Robert Owen saying probably approved by Vladimir Putin.

On a personal level for you, what is it like today to hear confirmation

of what Mr Litvinenko said himself ten years ago as he lay dying? Well,

I was the one who read his death bed statement in front of the hospital

almost ten years ago. At the time we didn't even know about polonium. So

it was tremendously important to have his death bed statement

confirmed now by the inquiry and for me it's a kind of, the debt I had to

pay to his tribute, to his memory. You see, he was one of the first

people who tried to alert the West to the real nature of Putin's regime

and now it's here for everyone to see that he was right. I'm receiving

this from Andrei Lugovoi, his first comment on the release of the

conclusions from Sir Robert Owen this morning, he calls the

accusations against him absurd, I'm sure you will not be surprised by

that, but your reaction? It's true that he should not come here and

face the charges and the answer the charges in the criminal court,

otherwise he's a murderer who is hiding behind the dictatorial regime

who sent him here and all of his statements discounted. Thank you

very much. Much more reaction to come. Alexander Kan is with us and

Professor Paddy Regan, an expert in the poison used to kill Alexander

Litvinenko. Alexander Kan, your reaction? This is a very strong

indication of what the supporters have been saying for years, along

with Alexander Litvinenko himself. It's been nearly ten years since

Alexander Litvinenko was assassinated here in London and now

it looks like the accusations have been vindicated by the High Court

and Sir Robert Owen, although with a little caveat "probably". So now of

course, the ball is in the British Government's court. How it would

react, whether it would listen to what Alexander Litvinenko has been

saying to appeal to all the Russian intelligence officers, that's very

likely an outcome. What is a delicate issue, is to extend the

fine balance of Russian British relations which have been strained

over the last years, how seriously the British Government will dare to

move forward in imposing the new sanctions on especially the Russian

President. Do you think it's possible to separate the Litvinenko

affair from wider relationing with Russia because, as Richard Galpin

said, Britain needs Russia's cooperation in trying to defeat

Islamic state? This is a very delicate point, a very fine line

that the British Government will have to tread. This is the huge

dilemma now for the British Government. It will be very, very

difficult. Some sort of actions will be absolutely necessary and I'm

certain it will come forward. What kind of action and how far will the

British Government go, we'll have to wait and see. Professor Paddy Regan,

thank you for coming on the programme. The substance used to

gradually poison Alexander Litvinenko is polonium-210, when

ingested what does it do to your organs, your tissue? Well, first of

all, all polonium, all types, are radioactive, so it's mentioned as...

There are about 25 poloniums aren't there? Yes, but it releases energy

by the emission of a sub atomic alpha particle and that dumps a huge

amount of energy into biological tissue over a short range. In a

nutshell, if the polonium is spread around the body through the blood

stream, it puts a layer of this material, if you like, and

effectively it's a little machine gunfiring high energy particles

which can kill a biological cell. They don't travel very far, but if

it hits the cell, it will kill it. OK, is it right that a microgram of

this stuff, so the size of a speck of dust would be certain to kill if

swallowed? Well, if it was diluted, probably. A microgram sounds tiny

but that has an enormous number of atoms of polonium in it, a really

big number, so one with about 15 zeros after it. So each one would

have had to have been made sin they wantically so there is an industrial

process that would be required to create that amount. If you took a

bucket of sand from the Copacabana beach in Brazil, you would have 200

million specks of it. It was discovered by Marie Curie. But you

need to a nuclear reactor and you need to bake it with sub atomic

particles called neutrons, then you need a separator. It's known as the

perfect poison because it's difficult to detect, not only in the

body but transporting it through airport scanners for example?

body but transporting it through difficult to detect but it's not

difficult to detect if you know what you are looking for. My colleagues

at the national physical laboratory in Teddington, we detect it

regularly, it's part of an environmental monitoring programme

that people do all the time. If you are looking for the right detector,

you can detect it, but it doesn't travel very far and in principle,

you could put it in an envelope, and the radiation wouldn't get out of

it. Thank you very much for coming on the programme. Much more reaction

to the outcome of Sir Robert Owen's inquiry into the killing of

Alexander Litvinenko in a London hotel back in 2006. Time to get the

latest weather with Alex. Thank you very much. It's cold

across the UK again today. It will be turning milder over the next

couple of days. A quick look back at 2015 first because a couple of

studies released yesterday from meteorologists from the UK and the

United States have assessed the temperatures across the globe from

last year and found that it was the warmest year on record. Records go

back well over 100 years. We didn't just beat the record, we smashed it,

0.75 degrees above the long-term average. It doesn't sound a lot, but

across the globe in a whole year is a big deal. A couple of reasons for

that, scientists think the ongoing influence in the atmosphere was

partly responsible and El Nino warmed the Pacific. That was strong

last year and also helped make last year the warmest on record. With

that ongoing, although potentially receding, 2016 is set to be another

warm year. Now, this graph shows how temperatures have been steadily

rising. The Y axis shows the tracker globe.

El Nino is not just a recent phenomenon. Recent years have seen

spikes but we have had coolly years, there was a volcano eruption in the

90s which reflected the heat so it was a cooler than average year. Some

freezing fog patches still around at the moment across parts of

Lincolnshire, clearing away as we start to see a change, wet weather

spilling from the Atlantic, still feeling cold out there today but

this wet weather is eventually going to turn things Miles, potentially

still I see as the wet weather comes into parts of Scotland. Eastern

areas staying dry. We start around freezing, and temperatures, with the

clouds Billington, will struggle, so it will feel cold across much of

central England and Scotland. It is turning down across the south-west,

the rain pushing into Wales and north-west England, Northern Ireland

and much of Scotland. Again, temperatures struggling here. But

the milder weather is on the way, temperatures will be much higher by

the weekend. Hello, it's Thursday, it's 10am,

I'm Victoria Derbyshire - welcome to the programme

if you've just joined us. President Putin of Russia probably

approved the murder of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko -

that's the finding of a massive inquiry that says the motive behind

the killing went to the heart Mr Litvinenko's widow

welcomed the conclusions. I am of course very pleased that the

words my husband spoke on his deathbed when he accused Mr Putin of

his murder have been proved true in the English court with a high

standard of independency and fairness.

We'll hear from the chair of the inquiry before 11am and bring you

much more reaction. Also: A "deferential culture"

with "untouchable stars" and some senior managers who felt

they were "above the law". But a leaked report into abuse

by Jimmy Savile says the BBC cannot be criticised for failing

to uncover his "sexual deviancy". A lawyer representing

more than 100 of his I just don't accept this lack of

accountability. Dame Janet talks about 100 and witnesses giving

evidence of what they saw, rumours, suspicions, feeling queasy and

unwell at what they were witnessing, and for her not to find that

management didn't know what was going on, it just beggars belief.

And hundreds of primary school children in need

A BBC investigation finds more than 400 have been referred

to a Government programme in the past four years.

The inquiry into the killing of Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko

has found that his murder was probably approved

by Vladimir Putin and the then-head of the Russian security

Mr Litvinenko, who fled to the UK and claimed asylum, was poisoned in

London in 2006. After the hearing, his wife gave this reaction.

The chairman found as a fact and to a high degree of probability that

the FSB directed Mr Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun to murder Sasha and also

found as a fact their boss Vladimir Putin and Nikolai Patrushev, the

director of FSB at the time, personally approved assassination.

Earlier we spoke to our correspondent Richard Galpin, who

saw an advance copy of the findings. This is very, very significant, the

fact that Mr Putin has been named in this report as probably approving,

the keyword there is probably, he cannot be sure about it but he says

probably. What he is sure about in his conclusions is that Mr

Litvinenko was poisoned in the bar of the Millennium Hotel in Mayfair

in central London in 2006, that he was deliberately poisoned, and it

was carried out by Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun, who, for many

years, have been the two chief suspects.

A leaked draft report into sexual abuse committed

by Jimmy Savile on BBC premises says the behaviour of star

presenters went unchallenged by managers.

The inquiry team, led by Dame Janet Smith,

says the draft is an old version that can't be relied upon.

But there's been a swift response from the top of the BBC.

What happened was a dark chapter in the history of the BBC.

Dame Janet's report will be invaluable in helping

us to understand what happened, and to help ensure that we do

everything possible to ensure it doesn't happen

A second woman has been charged with the murder of Sadie Hartley,

the businesswoman from Lancashire who was found dead at her home

A 55-year-old woman from Blackburn will appear in court

Hundreds of children under the age of 10 have been referred

to the Government's deradicalisation programme, according to figures

A total of 415 children in England and Wales have gone

through the Channel scheme, which aims to steer people

Star Wars fans will have to wait longer than expected

Disney have announced that Episode VIII won't be in cinemas

until the end of 2017, around seven

No reason has been given, but there's speculation

Let's catch up with all the sport now and join Ore.

So far so good for Andy Murray at the Australian open?

Yes, Victoria. Andy Murray marches into the next

round of the Australian Open, and against home

favourite Sam Groth. It took the British

number one just an hour an a half to dismantle the man

with the biggest serve in tennis, Murray having too much skill

and variety in his game to see off the Australian and booking

a third round meeting against

Portugal's Joao Sousa. Often when that happens

you expect your opponent to come back into it a little bit

and play a bit better, and that ended up being the case

in the second but thankfully I had built up a big enough lead for that

not really to make too much So Murray happy

with his performance. And it seems he was pretty impressed

with fellow Brit Johanna Konta earlier today too,

tweeting her to "take a bow" as she booked her

spot in round three. The 24-year old, born in Australia,

and playing in the main draw in Melbourne for the first time,

was too good for China's Zheng Next up for Konta is

the Czech Denisa Allertova ranked 19 places below her so she's a real

chance of going even further. There were some third round replays

to wrap up in the FA It meant a third meeting in 10 days

for Tottenham and Leicester. And after a draw and a Leicester

win, I guess it was Tottenham's turn South Korea's Son Heung-min

got the first goal, Nacer Chadli sealed the deal

in the second half for They'll play League One Colchester

in the fourth round. There was no giant killing

at Anfield, as Liverpool booked a fourth round tie against West Ham

with a comfortable, The pick of the goals

from youngster Shay Ojo - A new three year study hopes to find

out more about the long term effect of concussion on people

who play sport. Competitors from sports like rugby,

boxing and horse racing will be compared with members of the public

of a similar weight and age who have Testing has already started

on jockeys and will roll There was a lot of interest as to

what happens, whether you can continue to play or not. We are not

focusing on that, we are focusing on, if you have had a situation,

whether I'm at a later point in your life, you are more at risk of

depression, dementia, or feeling suicidal.

With the six Nations round the corner we may well be talking about

concussion in the coming months. Hello, thank you for

joining us this morning. Welcome to the programme

if you've just joined us. We're on BBC Two and the BBC

News Channel until 11 this morning. We're bringing you the latest

on this morning's breaking story, the public inquiry into the killing

of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko has concluded

that President Putin retired judge Sir Robert Owen,

in the next half hour. We'll bring that to

you when it happens. Do get in touch throughout

the programme, texts are charged The murder of former spy

Alexander Livinenko was planned at the heart of the Russian state,

with President Putin probably giving final approval for the killing,

the independent inquiry into his

death has concluded. Those findings have been published

in the last half hour, and they say the assassination

was 'signed off' after Mr Livinenko, who fled to the UK

in 2000, was killed six years later in London by drinking green tea

laced with radioactive polonium-210. The inquiry says two Russian agents,

Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun, carried out the killing,

probably under the direction of Moscow's FSB

intelligence service. Andrei Lugovoi himself has given his

immediate reaction, and says the report is a pathetic attempt to use

skeletons in the cupboard for its own political ambitions.

The trail of contamination left by the polonium matched

the movements of Kovtun and Lugovoi - both of whom deny any role

This is Andrei Lugovoi - he's now a Russian MP.

He's also a TV presenter and former KGB agent.

He vehemently denies any involvement in Litvinenko's death and claims

to be a victim of a complex conspiracy involving British

intelligence and opponents of Vladimir Putin.

In May 2007 the Crown Prosecution Service charged Lugovoi

with Litvinenko's murder, and sought his extradition from

But Russia refused, saying the constitution forbids extradition

And this is the other suspect - Dmitry Kovtun.

He's also a Russian businessman and a former military officer.

From 1991 until 2003, he lived in Hamburg, Germany.

After Litvineko's death police found traces of polonium

He sent the public inquiry into disarray by saying he wanted

to give evidence, only to change his mind

Retired judge Sir Robert Owen suggested it was an attempt

to 'manipulate the situation'.

Let's take a closer look at who Alexander Litvinenko was.

Everything about polonium-210 is regulated by the state, its

transportation is regulated by the state, and its use is regulated by

the state. Mr Litvinenko's widow Marina in the

last half an hour welcomed the report's conclusions.

This inquiry report into the murder of my husband Sasha Lipper Denko,

Sir Robert Owen found as a fact that Mr Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun

deliberately administered polonium-210 to Mr Litvinenko.

Intending it would kill him. He was quite sure that Mr Lugovoi and Mr

Kovtun did so under the direction of others. The chairman found as a fact

and to a high degree of probability that the FSB directed Mr Lugovoi and

Mr Kovtun to murder Sasha, and also found as a fact their boss Vladimir

Putin and Nikolai Patrushev, the director of FSB at the time,

personally approved assassination. I am of course very pleased that the

words my husband spoke on his deathbed, when he accused Mr Putin

of his murder, have been proved true in an English court with a high

standard of independency and fairness. But now it is time for

David Cameron, I'm calling immediately for expulsion from the

UK of all Russian intelligence operatives, whether from the FSB or

other Russian agencies, based in the London Embassy. I'm also calling for

the imposition of targeted economic sanctions against named individuals

including Nikolai Patrushev and Mr Putin. I received a letter last

night from the Home Secretary promising action. It is unthinkable

that the Prime Minister would do nothing in the face of damaging

findings of Sir Robert Owen. Alexander Litvinenko's widow

speaking in the last half hour. Now to Moscow to talk to our

correspondent, Sarah Rainsford. I wonder how much interest Russia has

in the outcome of this independent inquiry, Sarah?

We heard from the Kremlin ahead of this, saying they had no interest at

all, saying it was really not an issue on the Kremlin's agenda. Of

course, that might be changed by the fact that these strong words have

come out linking Mr Put Putin to what happened, the conclusion being

that he and the head of the FSB at the time probably approved the

killing of Alexander Litvinenko. I think what we won't see is the

extradition of the two key suspects. That's something Mr Putin himself

said wouldn't happen at the time when it was first asked by Britain

and I don't think it's going to happen now. Andrei Lugovoi, one of

the key suspects, is now a Member of Parliament, he runs a TV show here,

he's a very prominent figure and also was give an medal by Moscow

apparently for his services as a Member of Parliament, but certainly

the timing of that was very curious. He himself has again denied anything

to do with it. He said the claims were absurd, he said British justice

has blown up the myth of its objectivity and he says this is all

part of an anti--Russian wave of hysteria in London so he dismissed

it out of hand. I suspect that's something we'll see more of as the

day goes on here in Russia. The coauthor of Mr Litvinenko's

Blowing up Russia and a friend of Alexander Litvinenko and a former

MI5 intelligence officer who blew the whistle about alleged

criminality within the Intelligence Services. Still with us from the BBC

Russia service, Alexander Kan. Your reaction first that Vladimir Putin

"probably" ordered the approval? The key word here is "probably" and

probably is as long as you want to make it. I was of the opinion before

the report was published that the degree of

culpability that was identified. This is somewhere in the middle and

leaves a lot of flexibility in-between. We have heard Marina

saying there should be economic sanctions. What do you think the

British Government might do? Theresa May, Michael Fallon, Philip Hammond,

David Cameron, they get together in a room, what are they going to say

because they need Russia on side when it comes to defeating Islamic

state? Absolutely. I think part of the atmosphere was set yesterday

when Michael Fallon had very strong words about Russians targeting or

killing civilians in Russia. That was setting the atmosphere and I

think there's going to be a lot of very strong words. I think there may

be some targeted, may be some expulsions or on the quiet some

intelligence officers removed from London and there may be some resip

Rickle action from Moscow -- reciprocal action. I very much doubt

they'll go much further. It's important that Marina Litvinenko

didn't call for any more economic sanctions but sanctions against

individuals. Yes, you are absolutely right to point that out, which would

mean for example the freezing of individual's bank accounts? Yes.

Absolutely. That is a very good point Alexander. Yuri, how do you

respond to the inquiry? I think we expected something like this for

some time because we knew it from approximately 2007 that the order

was conducted by two people, Andrei Lugovoi and Dimitry Kovtoun, members

of the FSB, acting on behalf of the FSB,. . Taking into account that Mr

Putin was a very close friend to Nikolai Patrushev who in 2006 was in

charge of the FSB that Mr Putin himself was in charge of the FSB

prior to that. It was almost certain that you would not organise an order

in London of a British citizen without knowledge of Putin. Once

again, this is impossible to prove, we will probably never ever prove

it. I think what we've got is a good

sign that the British Government at least decided finally and openly to

explain to the population actually what was happening. OK. Annie, a

former MI5 intelligence officer formerly, do you think this is as

close to the truth as we are ever going to get? I think probably the

latter, it's as close as we'll ever get. I should imagine though that in

terms of foreign operations being conducted by intelligence agencies,

the FSB probably has similar sort of accountability to MI6 which is our

foreign intelligence-gathering agency. Under UK law, for example,

if an MI6 officer wants to commit an act deemed to be illegal, they can

get immunity from prosecution in the UK if they apply to the Foreign

Secretary for prior written permission to carry out an attack.

That's under section 8 of the Intelligence Services Act from 1994.

I should imagine the requests went up fairly high within the FSB. How

much further it went, we shall never know.

OK. Alexander Litvinenko worked for MI6 on a part-time basis it was

described to me. He was a British citizen, he came to Britain from

Russia and claimed asylum. Do you think Britain failed him? Yes, it

was a strong message to any future FSB whistleblowers that there's Mo

where to be safe, even in London as a British citizen, the British spies

are incapable of protecting you so don't blow the whistle. That was the

key, revenge and also to send out such a message. Mary, some people

watching us this morning, they are saying this happened years ago why

is it relevant now, what does it matter, they are spies, this is what

happens, it's a very dangerous world? I have a lot of sympathy with

that view! I think on the other hand you also have to have enormous

sympathy with Alexander's widow and it's largely thanks to her and very

little thanks to the UK authorities that this inquiry has been held and

that it's resulted in this report because she has campaigned

tirelessly over the best part of ten years against a British

establishment that was really very reluctant, even to hold an inquest.

One of the things that reflects appallingly actually on the UK

itself and the judicial system is that it's taken nine years for an

inquiry to be held. There was this huge fuss at the outset that a

British citizen was targeted in an act of nuclear terrorism on British

soil. What were we doing about it? Postponing and postponing and pest

poning, even an inquest, let alone and inquiry -- postponing. It was

only as a response to Ukraine and Russia's action in Ukraine that the

Home Secretary suddenly came out and announced that there would be an

inquiry. Now, you know, I have all sorts of hesitations and misgivings

about the way the inquiry was conducted. Because some of the

evidence was closed. That was always going to be the case because we were

going to hear from British intelligence officers? Absolutely

but I think the extent to which it was held, there was a large amount

of evidence heard solely by the judge, not just on camera, but

of evidence heard solely by the by the judge, not even by the other

parties, so to call it a public inquiry, it's a travesty of the

term. An independent inquiry then. In terms of what happens next,

whether the British Government will be able to separate this and these

conclusions from wider relations with Russia, something that we

touched upon earlier, is that inevitable, it's got to happen do

you think? I think there is enormous tragedy

attached to the relations. The mistiming, each time there is an

attempt to improve things, something happens to completely kibosh that

process and we are seeing it again because the British national

interest, as has been pointed out, is in cooperating with Russia with

Syria, the diplomacy internationally, and lo and behold,

wove now got this problem. I actually think that going back to

the word "probably", I think that is crucial and I think that leaves a

degree of flexibility and there'll be a lot of rhetoric, but action I

think Marina is probably right, there'll be targeting of

intelligence officers and people who were named, it won't go beyond that.

Yuri, are you not dissatisfied with the use of the word "probably" or,

if there's not the evidence to absolutely point to President Putin

giving the order then of course the retired judge has to use that word?

No. I would say that legally, they could not go further. There's no way

they would prove that Putin was behind it. But I think that we

became slightly more cynical by 2016 than we were in 2006 when Litvinenko

was killed. There was an invasion of Georgia, there was an invasion of

Crimea in 2000. The only common ground now is Syria, that's why

everyone is thinking that we need Russia. It's questionable whether

Russia is actually helping us in Syria. There is an opinion or two

that Russia actually is not. So I think we do not have to rely on

Russia to do whatever Russia wants simply because potentially we might

use Russian troops in Syria to fly to Assad when Russia actually is

helping him. So I think we went as far as we could legally. The

question is, I agree with Marina, the question is whether the British

Government would be strong and brave enough to in principle enough to

announce sanctions against individuals as well. But we have to

understand that Nikolai Patrushev is not going to London for vacation,

his family is, so you have to be realistic. You have to punish people

travelling to London, who have property in London. I want to ask

you before we leave this conversation, about Alexander

Litvinenko, Mary reminded us about the personal tragedy here, Marina,

their son, the fact that Marina fought tirelessly to get this

inquiry to even begin. You knew Alexander Litvinenko. What was he

like? First of all he worked there for 20

years, you have to understand that the way they select people for this

organisation is very, very special, and those people who were selected,

you can see Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi as members who behave

themselves now, but Litvinenko was brought into the system in 98, he

escaped to London in 2000, this was of course very unusual. He became a

defector, we had cases of several defectors from the Soviet Union

during those years, and I think he was very sincere with me as much as

the former officer of the FSB could be. But when I used the word friend

to him once, he kind of laughed and told me, never used the word friend

to a person who was working there. His wife was very different, we have

objects and operatives, we do not have friends, and this was the

difference of course. Thank you all for talking to us and for your time.

Alexander, you are staying with us, I think. Thank you.

The Government here has been giving its reaction to the findings of

today's independent inquiry. Let's talk to Norman Smith in Westminster.

What is the reaction? We haven't had official reaction but all of the

conversations I have been having with Bob in Government suggest to me

that Mrs Litvinenko is probably going to be disappointed in the sort

of response that she clearly wants because what folk in Government are

saying is, hang on, we have already taken measures against Russia, so

when Mr Litvinenko was murdered four Russian diplomats were booted out of

London, the Government suspended talks about easing visa requirements

between Russia and the UK, all cooperation with the Russian

security services, the FSB, that was halted, and of course the Russian

Government did, in time, demand the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi,

albeit the Russian Government pretty much put two fingers up to that. You

get the sense the Government is preparing to say, we have done

pretty much all we can and realistically there is not much more

you could expect us to do. The difficulty for them is they will

come under an enormous amount of pressure because this report pretty

much point the finger of blame at President Putin, and my

understanding is that Labour are going to argue that the Government

has to put the pursuit of justice ahead of diplomacy, and they will be

seeking things such as asking the Government to lead the calls Russia

to be stripped of the 2018 World Cup. That would be a very

high-profile move, I think they are also likely to demand a review of

relations between the British Parliament and the Russian

parliament, because Mr Lugovoi is a member of the Russian parliament,

and they will also make demands for looking at possible travel bans. The

Liberal Democrats, two, have also responded, this was their leader Tim

Farron last night. The diplomatic relationship with

Russia is very important, as is our ongoing effort to bring peace in

Syria and in other ways as well, but we mustn't allow that to get in the

way of standing up to people who murdered, brutally murdered, and

innocent British citizen on the streets of London nearly ten years

ago. Those people can be held to account, we have powers, for example

the freezing of their assets in this country, an EU wide travel ban, and

we should use those powers and use them straightaway.

My sense is, despite today's ruling, despite the political pressure,

there is no desire in Government to further sour relations with

President Putin particularly because of what is going on in Syria, so I

suspect we will get a lot of rhetoric, if you like, in terms of

additional measures are not sure we will get that much.

Thank you very much, interesting. Let's hear from the man who chaired

the inquiry, retired judge Sir Robert Owen, who has been setting

out his result in the last few minutes.

Alexander Litvinenko was born on the 4th of December 1962, a citizen of

the Soviet Union. He died aged 44 on the 23rd of November 2006 in

University College Hospital, London, by then a British citizen.

Postmortem examination revealed that his death had been caused by an

indigestion of a fatal dose of the radio isotope polonium-210. The

circumstances of his death attracted worldwide interest and concern. They

were referred to by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee as, I

quote, a miniature nuclear attack on the streets of London. In July 2007,

the then Foreign Secretary observed that, I quote, the manner of

Litvinenko's death put many hundreds of other people at risk. The motion

of the United States House of Representatives, dated April one

2008, noted that polonium-210, I quote, could be used to kill large

numbers of people or spread general panic and hysteria among the public.

In the course of the inquest hearings, it was admitted on behalf

of media organisations that the issues to which it gave rise, I

quote, include allegations of state-sponsored assassination by

radioactive poisoning of a British citizen in London, issues of the

greatest public concern. Over nine years have elapsed since

his death. And it is appropriate that I shall explain shortly why it

has taken so long for a full inquiry into his death to be completed. The

inquest into his death was opened by Her Majesty's coroner for inner

London, in the north London, on the 30th of November 2006, but was

adjourned pending the police investigation into his death and any

ensuing criminal proceedings. The police investigation led to the

conclusion that the fatal dose of polonium-210 was probably consumed

by Mr Litvinenko on the 1st of November, 2006, when in the company

of Mr Andrei Lugovoi and Mr Dmitry Kovtun. Both Russian nationals, at a

hotel in London. Warrants were, in due course, issued for their arrest,

and the Crown Prosecution Service sought, unsuccessfully, to extradite

them from the Russian Federation to stand trial for murder. On the 13th

of October, 2011, the inquest was resumed, as it had become clear by

then that there was no realistic prospect of the suspects facing a

criminal trial, and on the 7th of August, 2012, I was appointed to

conduct the inquest. Through the course of my preparation for the

inquest, I was given access to sensitive Government documents that,

in my judgment, were relevant to the investigation I was conducting. More

particularly, those documents raised a prima facie case of the Russian

state bearing responsibility for Mr Litvinenko's death. The law does not

permit evidence to be taken in what are known as secret or closed

sessions at an inquest. But the Government material was of such

sensitivity that it could not be produced in any form of public or

open hearing. The material was therefore necessarily excluded from

the inquest proceedings under the legal principle known as Public

interest immunity. It had always been my view that the question of

possible Russian state responsibility was one of the most

important issues arising from his death. It was an issue that I had

wanted to investigate at the inquest, but I considered that I

would be failing in my duty to conduct a full and independent

investigation if I did so in the knowledge that there was relevant

Government material that I could not take into account because the public

interest immunity. I therefore wrote to Her Majesty's Government asking

it to exercise the power to establish a public inquiry to

replace the inquest. I did so because, under section 11 of the

inquiries act 2005, that power may be exercised where it appears to a

minister that, I quote, particular events have caused or are capable of

causing public concern, or there is public concern that particular

events may have occurred. The advantage of a public inquiry over

an inquest was that the rules governing and inquiry allow for

sensitive evidence to be heard in closed session. However, the Home

Secretary declined my request. But her refusal to establish a public

inquiry was successfully challenged in the High Court by Mr Litvinenko's

widow, Marina Litvinenko. A judgment in which they divisional Court

upheld the challenge was handed down on the 11th of February, 2014. It

required the Home Secretary to make a further decision as to whether to

establish an inquiry. Thus, on the 22nd of July, 2014, almost two years

after I had been appointed to conduct the inquest, the Home

Secretary announced in a written statement laid before the House of

Commons that a public inquiry was to be held into the death of Alexander

Litvinenko under the inquiries act 2005, and, in consequence, the

inquest was suspended. I was appointed to chair the inquiry, I

was then a serving judge of the High Court, an office from which I

retired on the 19th of September, 2014, having reached the compulsory

retirement age. My retirement did not affect my position as chairman

of the inquiry. The terms of reference for the inquiry, terms

upon which I was consulted, are set out in full in my report and on the

inquiry website. Paragraph one provides as follows: Subject to

paragraphs two and three below, the chairman is to conduct an

investigation into the death of Alexander Litvinenko in order to

one, ascertain in accordance with section 51 of the coroners and

Justice act 2009 through the deceased was, how, when and where he

came by his death, and the particulars required by the births

and deaths registration act 1953 to be registered concerning his death.

And, two, to identify so far as is consistent with section two of the

inquiries act where responsibility for the death lies. Three, to make

such recommendations as may be appropriate.

By her letter of appointment, the Home Secretary invited me to

complete the inquiry by December 2000 and 15. -- December 20 15. I

opened the inquiry on the 31st of July 20 14. The final open hearing

took place one year to the day later on the 31st of July, 2015. On the

15th of December last, I announced that my report was complete, and

that, in accordance with the protocol agreed with the Secretary

of State, the report would be delivered to her 48 hours before

being tabled by her in the House of Commons at 9:35am today. It will

shortly be published on the inquiry website. The inquiry has been

completed well within the budget prepared by the inquiry secretariat

and adopted by the Home Secretary in setting the budget cap. I conducted

open hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice on 34 days in January,

February, March and July 2015. The open evidence is available to the

public in its entirety on the inquiry website. The oral evidence

in the form of full daily transcripts. The witness statements

and documents admitted into evidence are also

I also held closed hearings in the course of which I heard oral

evidence and considered the documentary material, the subject of

restriction notices. The findings of fact and the

conclusions that I have drawn from the facts are based upon the

entirety of the evidence that I have seen and heard, both open and

closed. They are mine and mine alone. I turn then shortly to

summarise the central findings of fact and my conclusions as to how,

when and where Alexander Litvinenko came by his death. And as to where

the responsibility for that death lies.

Alexander Litvinenko was born on the 4th December, 1962 in the Russian

city of Voronesch. He attended military college, graduating in

about 1985 as a lieutenant and served for approximately three years

in the forces of the Interior Ministry.

STUDIO: We are going to leave Sir Robert Owen for a moment because we

can talk now to Bill Browder who is going to give reaction to the

conclusions of Sir Robert Owen's inquiry and claims the Kremlin tried

to kill him and successfully killed his lawyer. Thank you for joining

us. Your reaction to the fact that Sir Robert Owen says that Vladimir

Putin "probably" approved the killing of Alexander Litvinenko in a

London hotel? Doesn't surprise me at all. This is what any reasonable

person would have thought based on the absolutely rare type of poison

they use, the fact the state had access to it and the fact that

Litvinenko was an extreme thorn in the side of Vladimir Putin. The real

question is, what next? We'll talk about this in a moment if

we may because in terms of you saying he was a real thorn in the

side of Vladimir Putin, he was definitely a critic, he'd obviously

fled Russia, to London, became a British citizen, worked on a

part-time basis for MI6, he was potentially about to expose links

with organised crime around the world. Would that be enough for

Vladimir Putin to order for him to be killed? Well, he did one thing

which was truly breaking the rules, he switch sidesment he went from

being a KGB or FSB as they call it now, to being a dissident and Putin

can't handle any type of dis-Royalty. If Alexander Litvinenko

was allowed to do that without consequence, Putin would have

problems with the other people who were privy to his secrets and all

the dirty business they do in Russia, so they couldn't allow that

to happen and Litvinenko was indeed going to come out with very, very

clear links between the Russian Government and organised crime and

that is something, combined with the disloyalty, earned him a death

certificate from the Kremlin. Tell our audience why you say the

Kremlin wanted you dead, failed to kill you, but successfully killed

your lawyer? I ran the largest investment fund in

Russia for ten years and exposed corruption at Gazprom, the biggest

gas company and other big companies and that really annoyed Putin and

people close to him. I was expelled from Russia in 2005, then my offices

were raided. Using the documents seized, they stole money. I had a

man working for me, he was put in jail, tortured for 358 days and

ultimately killed on 16th November 2009. Dmitry Medvedev, the former

President of Russia, when asked about the death said it was a shame

that he was dead and Bill Browder is still alive and running around. You

raised the question of what next. Briefly, the British Government says

it's already taken action in response to the murder of Alexander

Litvinenko by expelling various officials and Russian diplomats back

in 2006. Is that enough? Let's just look at this in very simple terms.

The Russian Government, probably coming from Vladimir Putin himself,

sent assassins to use a mini nuclear weapon polonium-210 in Mayfair in

London. 700 people were tested for radiation. That radiation went from

Arsenal stadium to Itsu restaurant to the millennium Hotel. It created

a huge public health hazard in addition to the murder of Alexander

Litvinenko and in response to that, the appropriate response they are

saying is to expel four diplomats. That's absurd. This is a major act

of terrorism, nuclear terrorism on UK soil. There needs to be a much,

much stronger reaction than expelling four diplomats. It's

absurd. Thank you very much for talking to

us. The BBC Director General, Tony Hall,

has described the decades of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile

as a "dark chapter" It comes after a draft

copy of a report - asking how it could have gone

undetected for so long It reveals 61 incidents of sexual

assault at the corporation - including four rapes

and one attempted rape - with abuse committed at virtually

every one of the BBC premises. Dame Janet Smith's report says it

waslargely down to a deferential ..Deference to "untouchable stars"

and to managers who acted and were treated as though

they were "above the law". Staff, it appears, were too afraid

to report their concerns. Her review was set up in October

2012 by the BBC to carry out an impartial investigation

of the corporation's culture and practices during the years it

employed Savile, thought to be from 1964 to 2007.The review team

by the way say they're very disappointed with the leaked

extracts, say they are out of date, should 'not be relied on in any

circumstances', and the official report will be published in a few

weeks time.This is what the BBC Liz Dux is a lawyer at Slater

Gordon. She said it was unacceptable that the manager didn't know about

the abuse. I don't accept this lack of accountability. Dame Janet talks

about 107 witnesses giving evidence of what they saw, rue fours,

suspicions, feeling queasy and unwell at what they were witnessing.

For her not to find that management didn't know what was going on, it

just beggars belief. For that not to have permeated up the chain, I just

don't accept it. Mark watts is from the organisation

which leaked the report. Dame Janet Smith says do not rely on it in any

circumstances. This is the draft from which criticisms were put to a

whole range of individuals at the BBC and to the BBC as an institution

as part of what is known as the Maxwellisation process, the final

opportunity to give any final responses to the criticisms and the

review team is actually on record, they put a statement out last

October, saying they have not changed their conclusions as a

consequence of the Maxwellisation process. OK. And the conclusions

being? It's a devastating document for the

BBC in so many ways. The scale of Savile's abuse at the BBC far larger

than previously realised. The number of people at the BBC who knew or had

some idea of it, more than 100 people, far more extensive than

people realised, and despite that says Smith, no-one at the top

realised, had a clue, about what was going on. Because people lower down,

she says, were too afraid to take it higher up? That's right. They were

too scared. There were instances of staff being attacked by him. One

attempted rape of a woman who worked for the BBC and managed to get away

from him and she discussed with colleagues whether to make a

complaint to the police or to someone within the BBC. She decided

it would be bad for her career at the BBC. That was the level of fear.

That is astonishing. Do you accept that society really has changed,

that the pendulum's swung in favour of victims of alleged abuse that it

couldn't happen again or not? She says in her after-words to the

report that actually, there could still be a Jimmy Savile lurking

within the BBC. The major reason is that the fear of whistleblowing is

even greater today because lots of people work in the BBC and they are

freelance and even less sure of their positions than in the past so

she says that the whistleblowing practises at the BBC are worse than

in Savile's time. And everybody talks about the

rumours that circulated about Savile. What does she say about

that, that people talked about it but it was never really anybody

pinning anything on him? There were varying degrees of knowledge. One

important thing about what Smith says, she points to things in the

public domain, for example, to articles that ran in the Sun in

April 1983, based on an interview with him. Although he didn't admit

to be a paedophile, they showed him in a really bad light and she says,

surely anybody could have seen this was not a suitable person to present

a programme aimed at children. She puts that question to all sorts of

senior people who say society wasn't kicking up a stink, why should we

have worried so much. That programme is Jim 'll Fix It. But Top of the

Pops, she talks about the number of young females invited to the

audience who were in moral danger was the phrase she uses I think? The

report is particularly devastating because it talks about abuse that

goes on beyond Savile, talks about people carrying out abuse that goes

beyond him and that is very disturbing. Thank you very much Mark

watts. A couple of messages from you, this is somebody describing

themselves as an angry licence fee payer. Why should we have to pay a

licence when the BBC employs perverts amongst its tainted rocks

of hypocrisy. Another viewer says, I'm incredulous that this leaked

draft report into Savile apparently the BBC's basically been exonerated

from blame regarding his inappropriate sexual behaviour. It

seems abundantly clear to me that the BBC showed/shows a deferential

attitude to people like him who were and are popular and powerful.

Actually on that point, she talks about untouchable stars doesn't she,

the power of celebrity? Yes, deferential attitude to stars and to

above the law managers. The BBC's given a kicking in this report.

No-one at the top knew says Smith but she blames the culture of the

BBC for allowing Savile to operate in the way that he did. Thank you

very much. The official report, by the way, published in the next few

weeks. Thank you very much for your company

today. Joanna is here tomorrow at 9. 15. Have a good day.

You saying you're not a tax haven? We're not a tax haven at all.

You've got to please turn off the camera.