14/02/2018 Beyond 100 Days

You're watching

Beyond One Hundred Days.

Jacob Zuma plays hard to oust

in South Africa but his hours

in power appear numbered.

In a rambling television interview

he says he's done nothing wrong

and is being victimised.

We're being plunged into crisis. But

I'm sure my comrades, my leaders,

would regret.

Two scandals engulf the White House

- one involves a porn star,

the other an alleged wife beater.

We'll cover both.

Boris Johnson says Brexit

is a reason for hope not fear -

calling it the liberal project

of the age.

This Valentine's day,

we get tips from the experts

on how to make love last.

Get in touch with us using the

hashtag 'Beyond-One-Hundred-Days'.

Hello and welcome -

I'm Katty Kay in Washington.

Hours after police raided his home

Jacob Zuma of South Africa gave

along television interview

protesting his innocence.

He's has come under increasing

pressure to step down amid numerous

allegations of corruption.

Our Africa Editor, Fergal Keane,

sent this report from Pretoria.

In Pretoria, seat of the presidency,

rumours rippled all morning.

The president might

be about to resign.

But when he did speak to the state

broadcaster it was a defiant,

defensive appearance.

Zuma, the victim.

What have I done?

I have explained many

times that this process,

there is nothing I have done wrong.

This is policy.

What people are suggesting

is the youth phenomenon.

What is the problem?

And there was some

unsettling language.

A warning to those

who were ousting him.

The leadership of the ANC,

if it is not careful,

they might actually cause a bigger

problem than we think.

At the same time in Cape Town,

ANC MPs were meeting to decide

whether they would support a motion

of no-confidence to

drive Jacob Zuma from power.

The decision came quickly

and was decisive.

We are now proceeding,

we have asked the Chief Whip

to proceed with a motion

of no-confidence tomorrow.

So that President Zuma is then

removed, so that we can proceed

to elect President Ramaphosa.

Pressure had been growing

on the President from early morning.

This was a police raid

on the compound of his friends,

the Gupta family, who are accused

of acquiring billions in state

assets through their connections

with the president and his family.

Seemingly untouchable until now,

criminal charges may be imminent.

If ever you wanted proof

of the changed political

temperature, this is it.

The police seem at last to have

found their courage.

So straight on, down here.

This neighbour giving

police the address of

another Gupta property.

People are angry.

This is the headquarters

of South Africa's executive branch,

the place from which Jacob Zuma has

ruled the country for

the last nine years.

But by tomorrow night,

in all likelihood, South Africa

will have a new president.

These are the dying hours

of the age of Zuma.

Fergal Keane, BBC News, Pretoria.

Let's speak to the BBC's

Pumza Fihlani in Pretoria.

Jacob Zuma saying he has done

nothing wrong and he is a victim.

The ANC saying by Freddie Woodward

could be swearing in a new

president. What will happen between

now and Friday?

-- the ANC saying by

Friday. Well the ANC seems to have

an ace up their sleeve, if the

president does not resign by end of

business today they are prepared to

table the motion of no-confidence

tomorrow in Parliament. And the ANC

has the majority of seats in

parliament and also opposition

parties have indicated their winning

to vote with the ANC on this. So

tomorrow we will be seeing a united

effort between the ANC and

opposition parties to get Jacob Zuma

out by Friday and bring in their new

guy.

So the interview today from

Jacob Zuma, was that a bid knowing

that he is going to try to restore

his legacy somehow?

That was a very

bizarre interview, many people

saying they do not understand why he

seems confused, he spent nearly an

hour explaining that he feels he has

done nothing wrong. He played the

victim, some people have said, he

insists he has been targeted. So

very much some people say it was an

opportunity to take the country into

his confidence but instead coming

across as defined in someone

completely out of touch with what

South Africans want to see happen

and people within his own party have

been demanding should happen.

Thank

you very much. We will be watching,

a big moment of transition there.

We couldn't decide where to start

on White House news today -

with the story about the porn star

of the latest on the

alleged wife beater.

So here's what's new on Rob Porter -

the House Oversight Committee

today announced it's

going to investigate how this

White House aide got

through the vetting process.

And now the lawyer for Mr Trump said

he paid a porn star a lot of money

before the election in 2016. He said

he used his own funds to facilitate

the payment to Mr Stephanie Clifford

who goes under the stage name of

Stormy Daniels. She claims to have

had an affair with Mr Trump, a

charge he denies. Mr Cohen says now

that the Trump administration or the

campaign know about the transaction

but the statement raises questions

not to mention the odd eyebrow. Here

to help us sort it out is Ron

Christie. You a lawyer, do you often

make payments of to somebody as if

you do, I would love to hear it!

Not

on Valentine's Day, I want my wife

to stay married to me! This is so

unusual and the language used by the

law is strategic and careful. Not

saying they're admitting guilt or

innocence but just the settlement

payment that has nothing to do with

the Trump organisation or Donald

Trump. Really? I think there is more

fired than smoke here. A 130,000

dollar payment before the election,

trouble.

I'm tempted to say just

another day in the White House! But

this is not normal by the standards

of most administrations here in the

US.

None of this. I think if you

deleted the name Donald Trump and

instead of the name of any other

president, of the previous 44, and

that there has been a pay-out to a

porn star of $130,000, a can of

scandal about someone alleged to

have beaten his two previous wives

and why the White House was not able

to clear this up properly and still

has not. This has been going on now

for a week. It is extraordinary. And

if this statement from Michael

Cohen, the long-standing law of

Donald Trump, was meant to clear up

any doubts about Stormy Daniels, why

was the payment made. Have other

payments being made of a similar

nature. Stormy Daniels previously

alleged relationship with Donald

Trump and said that is not true any

more, what she paid for a

non-disclosure agreement. There are

a pile of questions that are

relevant for people to say you are

focusing on the big issues of the

day, I'm sorry, payment to a former

porn star of $130,000, a month

before the election, were you not to

be covering that you would not be

doing your job.

I have a few

questions about that as well, what a

name, Stormy Daniels. And that is

what my friends the vice president

has said about the handling of the

other case, the issue of Rob Porter

accused of beating his wife and now

of course let go from the White

House.

This administration has no

tolerance for domestic violence. Nor

should any American. As I said and

as the White House has said, I think

the White House could have handled

it better.

So why has Mr Trump said

exactly those words?

You got me.

First of all the vice president, the

White House is building and is not a

person so when you said the White

House it is the president who has

not handled properly. -- handled it

properly. He should have said you

will be fired immediately if these

allegations are lodged against you

but this is what happens when you

have people in the White House who

are not political experts and trying

to manage a storm.

Why can the White

House not get its facts straight on

this?

Again to give you the same

answer, it is beyond me. You will

thought the key players would sit

down and think what is the timeline,

let's be straight forward and that

there be no further questions, full

disclosure and then we move on.

Instead of which you had varying

disclosures about what was known and

when it was known and that always

arouses suspicion of journalists.

You had the of staff John Kelly

telling Wall Street Journal we did

things right. You now have the vice

president saying no we did not. And

so you're still left with

contradictory accounts and the house

oversight committee saying we will

have to look into this. This is a

story, no one realistically outside

of a very small circle had heard of

Rob Porter, I doubt he was a

household name in his own household

and suddenly now what we have been

talking about for a week. And the

only distraction we have is Tech

three. -- is Stormy Daniels.

Take

your pick of scandals and as we have

said any other White House and this

would have been huge headline news

and yet as we said earlier when it

comes to Donald Trump it is like,

yes, of course.

Just another day in

the neighbourhood, just Donald Trump

being Donald Trump or stop the

reality TV star on the highest state

in the world. If this had been

Barack Obama or President Bush you

would have had people on either side

of the political divide saying

impeachment, investigation. But

Donald Trump it is like, what else

is new.

It's hard not to have sympathy

for lawmakers who are trying to get

things done on Capitol Hill

but instead have all

this to deal with.

A brief time ago I spoke with

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar.

You know, when chaos

goes on, it is always

harder to get a job done.

Because you want people really

focused on what we see something

incredibly important

with the mid-term elections

in America only 264 days away.

And that is that we need to not make

ourselves as vulnerable

to foreign interference,

specifically Russian

interference, in our election.

And all six intelligence chiefs

including the CIA and the FBI

from the Trump administration

testified under oath that in fact

they believe that Russia

is going to try this again

and that they actually

could be bolder.

And that is the words of

the National intelligence director.

And yet the president has not yet

held a Cabinet level

meeting on this issue.

To what extent does this actually

have to come from the President

on down rather than just relying

on the intelligence communities

to stop this from happening again?

Exactly, this involves

so many different agencies.

It involves Homeland

security for infrastructure,

it involves election assistance,

it involves the Justice Department.

And that is why when they admit it,

and I appreciate the honesty

that there really had not been any

inter-agency work,

that is really troubling.

And that is why Republican Senator

Langford and I have stepped

into this void along

with Senator Harris

and Senator Lindsey Graham and said

at least let's put some short-term

funding to help this state

to bolster their election equipment,

to get paper back-up audit so that

in fact if you have a paper ballot,

you're able to have a back-up

in case there is a hack.

And also that we designate people

in each state that can get

immediate information,

classified information,

from Homeland security

if they see hacks developing.

There are 21 different

states where the Russians

attempted to hack in.

So while you and your colleagues

are doing this important work

in the Senate, the house oversight

committee has now said

it is going to investigate

the security clearance process

for Rob Porter, the aide

who was accused by both his

wives of beating them.

How concerned are you that somebody

is working in the White House

in this way, close to the president,

who had not got security clearance

and perhaps for these reasons?

Well, of course I'm concerned.

This is a very important position

and the first story was heard,

that it was just taking too long

which made no sense to me

because yes, there is a backlog

and we need to work on that,

but for certain key positions

at the highest levels,

you can triage those

and do those faster.

We see it with US attorneys

all the time, we see it with federal

judges all the time,

three months, four months

or things like that.

And so then we heard the truth

yesterday from Christopher Wray,

the FBI director, who in fact

testified that this was done

basically last spring.

And so now they have another answer

to give us and that is how did this

happen because you do not have

all these people on temporary

clearance when you want to have them

have actual clearance.

Do you think the White House

didn't want to know?

I have no idea, I cannot

read their minds.

I just know again this

is contributing to the chaos

when we have the Dream Act right

in front of us, with a deadline,

or 800,000 kids are

going to be deported.

As well as dealing with

the immediacy of the budget

and what we just discussed,

the threats to our election.

Thank you very much for joining me.

Thank you, it's great to be on.

Boris Johnson has made

a characteristically counter

intuitive argument for Brexit,

calling it the liberal

project of our age.

Since the vote to leave

the EU is often seen

as part of the populist,

nationalist wave that brought

Donald Trump to power,

it was a noteworthy twist.

The foreign secretary said

he recognised the feelings of grief

and alienation amongst those

who wanted Britain to remain

in the EU, but he urged

people to stay positive.

I said to my Remainer friends,

actually quite numerous bunch of

them remaining, more people voted

for Brexit than have ever voted for

anything in the history of this

country. And I just say in all

candour if there were to be a second

vote I really think it would be

another year of turmoil and

wrangling and feuding in which the

whole country would be the loser.

In a press conference

following the speech,

European Commission President

Jen-Claude Juncker was asked

about a reference Boris Johnson had

made to the 'European Super-state'.

Some in the British political

society are against the truth,

pretending that I am

a stupid, stubborn Federalist.

That I am in favour

of a European superstate.

I'm strictly against

a European superstate.

We're not the United

States of America.

We are the European Union.

Which is a rich body because we have

these 27, 28 nations.

The European Union cannot be built

against European nations.

So this is total nonsense.

I'm joined now from Brussels

by the Economist's Europe

Correspondent Tom Nuttall

and from Westminster by our Chief

Political Correspondent Vicki Young.

Let me start with Westminster, the

UK position on Brexit, is it any

clearer after the landmark speech by

Boris Johnson?

He did speak about

the transitional implementation

period, the time after we leave at

the end of March next year when

subject to negotiation there will be

a period of time where nothing much

changes. And he clarified his

position on that saying although he

was making the broader argument for

divergence from the European Union,

during that particular time he would

be perfectly happy for the UK to

abide by EU law. So some

clarification on that but generally

this is what Downing Street

described as a rallying cry. It felt

at times like the speeches that

Boris Johnson made as he went around

the country on the famous Boris bus

as it became known. It was similar

to all of that. It was this note of

optimism saying there are great

opportunities out there and nothing

to be fearful about. But no detail.

Downing Street would say this is the

first in a series of speeches and we

will hear from Theresa May at the

weekend when she makes a big speech

in Munich on security. And the

number of other speeches as well or

more detail will be laid out. But

certainly some of the Conservative

Party are still frustrated because

the answers to some of the difficult

practical questions we still do not

have.

And what about the reaction

from Brussels? Will this speech have

any impact?

In a word, no. I think

the feeling here is they have seen

enough speech-making in London from

the various different factions in

the Conservative Party and what they

have been waiting for since the last

phase of negotiations in December is

a specific concrete negotiating

stance from the British Government

that they can get their teeth into

so they can begin to negotiate the

future relationship. In March, next

month, the European Council, the

heads of government of the EU will

produce guidelines for that next

phase of negotiations. And one

Eurocrat said to me if they do not

start hearing soon from the UK about

what the government wants in these

negotiations then they will simply

have their position written for them

by Europe.

Well it sounds as if they

will get a whole round of other

speeches. Did they see this speech

by Boris Johnson really about being

about the Brexit process or just

about Boris Johnson and his own

political ambitions?

Safety say I

think it is the latter. Boris

Johnson is a man who less than two

years ago compared the EU ambitions

to those of Napoleon or Hitler so

he's not blogged on a specially

kindly here. Reddish politics is

followed closely here as you would

imagine. The Brexit negotiators are

familiar with the position occupied

by Boris Johnson in the British

political firmament and also who is

likely to listen to him. They know

there's a big divide in the UK on

this issue and people on the

Redmayne side the debate are

unlikely to pay much attention to

Boris Johnson. So from that you draw

the conclusion that Boris Johnson is

talking about Boris Johnson.

That is

certainly how it is seen here.

Classic Boris, a lot of colourful

remarks about not going back to a

diet of spam and cabbage. A lot of

praise for two May, he kept

referring to his friend Theresa May

and yet if this is as Tom suggested

about his own political ambitions,

what is the subtext?

I think a lot

of this will be about Boris Johnson

simply because of the fact that he

was the face of the Leave campaign.

No doubt about that. He was the one

who went round the country on a bus

emblazoned with the promise to bring

back thousands of pounds for the

National Health Service, the Brexit

dividend as he called it. He now

acknowledges that money might have

to be split among some other things

as well such as housing. But I think

that he wants to get over this

optimistic vision, he did not say

they had not been enough of that but

he certainly feels that. That we got

so caught up in the process that

there is no one talking about the

bigger global vision that the UK

will not be inward looking but

outward looking. That is about

making our way in the whole world

and making the most of these

opportunities out there. That

certainly has been something that

has been missing at the partly

because Theresa May was perhaps on

the remain side. But I think what he

does is that he brings that sense of

confidence and optimism but of

course it is answers that people are

after and I think the crucial factor

here is just over a year away from

leaving. And if you're running a

business in the UK or in the EU you

will want to know some of the

answers to these difficult questions

about customs unions, about single

market and also EU citizens, about

nailing down exactly what happens.

So all of that still needs to be

decided. But the friends of Boris

Johnson would say that is not what

today was all about.

Thank you very

much. Some other stories making the

headlines around the world. An

important aid convoy has reached is

to near the Syrian capital Damascus.

Nine UN trucks have now delivered

enough food, health and supplies for

more than 7000 people. It is the

first aid convoy to enter the rebel

held enclave since last November.

The US secretary of state Rex

Tillerson has demanded that Iran and

bringing back forces pull out of

Syria where they have been

supporting President Assad. They

made the demand at a news conference

in Jordan in response, a senior

Iranian official said it is the US

but should withdraw its forces from

the country.

Some advice for all you couples

on this Valentine's Day -

give and take, talk to each other,

and say "I love you."

These are some of the keys to having

a long and happy relationship -

according to four couples who have

become experts on the matter.

It's give and take, isn't it?

Jean gives, and I take!

I love that. I think part of that is

humour. Ron Christie, what do you

think. They were all laughing

together. I think I drive my husband

mad and sometimes he drives me mad

but at least he makes me laugh a

lot.

No question, I think you're

lucky when you get to marry your

best friend. You're going to laugh

and cry together and have fun.

So

what did you give your wife for

Valentine's Day?

Since she is in

California today we're celebrating

on Friday but there are a lot of

flowers and a lot of romance coming

up this Friday.

I think you should

send some of that my direction! My

husband gave me a card and I will

buy him flowers on the way home, a

little bit remiss of me but I

promise there will be something.

Happy Valentine's Day to all of you.

This is Beyond 100

Days from the BBC.

Coming up for viewers on the BBC

News Channel and BBC World News.

Women should not go sleeveless

if they want to get on according

to a former Canadian PM - not a view

these women apparently share.

And British ski jump legend Eddie

"The Eagle" says Team GB

are complaining too much about

the cold weather at the Olympics -

we'll hear from the man himself.

That's still to come.

Good evening. It has been another

day of rain for some and snow for

others. The weather Watchers have

been capturing the scenes, this from

Aberdeenshire with quite a lot of

snow. Further south it was mainly

rain and fairly happy at that. In

Worcestershire for example. You can

see this area of cloud that has been

bringing snow to northern areas and

rain further south. All tied up with

this area of low pressure to the

North West. Going through the

evening we slowly pushed the wet

weather away from eastern parts of

England. Behind that some clearer

skies, wintry showers in Northern

Ireland and Scotland. Temperatures

close to freezing although not as

cold further south. And that theme

continues tomorrow. Low pressure up

to the North West, and North

westerly wind in northern areas so

still some cold air but a subtle

change in the wind direction down

towards the south bringing some

milder air across southern areas. As

well as the milder air we have quite

a lot of sunshine through the day.

Just the deflating Sharon possible.

More showers as you look further

north, one across parts of Wales.

These showers could be wintry. In

the West of Scotland once again some

significant snow over the higher

ground. And the wind pretty brisk

across north-western areas as well.

Chile in the north, five or 6

degrees for Glasgow and Aberdeen but

further south, nine, ten or 11. On

Friday high-pressure in the South

West will have an influence on

southern parts of the British Isles.

Across much of England and Wales

Friday looks like a dry day with

goods for the sunshine. But we

continue to seek showers across

Northern Ireland and Scotland and

hill snow as well. Becoming a bit

more persistent into the afternoon.

Still pretty mild in the South and

even further north temperatures

creeping up a little bit. The mild

weather spreads further north

heading into the weekend. A lot of

dry weather around but the chance of

some rain in places on Sunday.

This is Beyond 100 Days,

with me Katty Kay in Washington.

Our top stories: South Africa's

political crisis comes to a head -

President Zuma refuses to resign,

but parliament will

decide his fate tomorrow.

Fears that one of the worst flu

outbreaks to hit the United States

and Canada in a decade

hasn't peaked yet.

The Kremlin denies any knowledge

of the Russian mercenaries killed

in a US air strike in Syria.

Eddie the Eagle criticises

Winter Olympic athletes

for complaining about the cold -

we'll hear from the man himself.

Let us know your thoughts

by using the hashtag #beyond100days.

Right now, the United States

is in the grips of one of the worst

flu seasons in a decade,

and it's not over yet.

At least 63 children have died

from the illness and tens

of thousands have been hospitalized.

Across the border in Canada, 130

deaths are being blamed on the flu.

So what is making this

season so intense and what

precautions can be taken?

Joining me now is Anthony Fauci,

Director of the National Institute

of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Thank you for joining me. How bad is

this flu season?

It is very bad.

Looking at the time from when we

started recording these kinds of

numbers, it clearly is the worst

seasonal flu we have had so far.

There have been more

hospitalisations, there has been

more serious disease, more

widespread disease than we have

seen. At first it resembled the

2014-15 seasonal flu, but in the

last few weeks it has surpassed that

in intensity and seriousness.

And I

would assume it still has a few more

weeks to run?

We were hoping that

the last report would've shown her

plateau, but to our dismay the last

report that came out shows that it

is still escalating. Hopefully in

the next couple of weeks we will see

a turning around but it is still on

the way up.

What symptoms are people

suffering from, what should we watch

out for?

Influenza is a unique

infection. People get upper

respiratory infections and

incorrectly said they have the flu

when they have some sneezing is,

some coughing, some upper

respiratory problems. The flu is the

stomach disease. When you get

influenza you know you have that,

you have aches, pains, high fever

and you feel almost like you got hit

by a truck. You feel like you really

need to get to bed. You get

respiratory symptoms, but the real

component of influenza that

distinguishes it from a normal

respiratory infection is the

systemic nature, the fever, the

chills, the aches and pains.

Does

the vaccine, and a lot of people now

get the flu vaccine, has it not

helped with this particular strand?

It does help, but that isn't

optimal. It is always better to get

vaccinated than not get vaccinated

because some degree of protection is

better than none. If you look at

what we are starting to see, we

don't know until the end of the

year, but the vaccine efficacy does

not seem to be optimal, it is rather

low.

Why don't we know what kind of

vaccine to produce a particular

year's strand of flu this --?

We had

mishap something happened this year

that's... Most of the vaccine that

is distributed in the knighted

States and Canada is made by growing

the virus in eggs so that we can

make it into a vaccine. What

happened this year is that when the

virus was put into the eggs to make

it for a vaccine in order to adapt

itself to growing well in eggs the

virus mutated. That is not

unexpected, but this time it mutated

and that part of the virus that is

essential to induce protection with

the vaccine. It turned out to be an

accidental mismatch because the

virus for one reason or another

mutated in a way that made it not

very well matched to what you wanted

in the vaccine.

Thank you very much

for joining me. I'm so glad we could

it covered the story because there

have been really bad pictures,

hospitals overwhelmed. I didn't get

the flu shot but I wish I had.

The Kremlin has denied any

knowledge of Russian

mercenaries fighting in Syria,

after a number of its citizens

were among those killed in a US-led

airstrike in the east

of the country.

America says it killed more

than a hundred fighters

in the strikes last week.

The Russian mercenaries

are said to have been hired

by private military firms,

backing Syrian

pro-government troops.

Steve Rosenberg reports from Moscow.

Just two months ago,

Vladimir Putin flew to Syria

to declare mission accomplished.

He told his troops the motherland

was proud of them, and ordered

many of the soldiers home.

But Russians are still

fighting in Syria.

And it's not just their regular

forces who are suffering casualties.

These men are amongst

what is reported to be a large group

of Russian mercenaries

who were killed in the Syrian

Serbian province of Deir Ezzor one

week ago, the result of air

and artillery strikes

by the US-led coalition.

Among those killed

was Stanislav Matveyev.

He went to fight in eastern

Ukraine, and was then

hired to fight in Syria.

"They were sent into

battle like animals,

without any protection",

his widow says.

"The Russian government should seek

revenge for the sake of the wives

and their children".

And what's the Kremlin

saying about this?

Not much.

And the reason the Kremlin has made

little comment about this

is that the Russian authorities have

never spoken before publicly

about Russian mercenaries in Syria,

or about the private military

companies believed

to be recruiting them.

And that's why these

reports of casualties

are so embarrassing for Moscow.

Presidential candidate

Grigory Yavlinsky says

the mercenaries have no legal basis

for being in Syria,

and are a danger to Russia.

When you have in the country some

structures which are almost

military structures,

and you have no control on them,

it's dangerous for the country,

it's dangerous for the people,

it's even dangerous

for the president.

Up till now, this has been

the public face of Russia's

military operation in Syria.

The Kremlin would have preferred

to keep it that way.

Steve Rosenberg, BBC News, Moscow.

Other stories making

headlines around the world:

The Zimbabwean opposition leader

Morgan Tsvangirai has died

in South Africa at the age of 65.

Mr Tsvangirai was being

treated for cancer at

a hospital in Johannesburg.

Mr Tsvangirai spent many years

opposing the rule of Robert Mugabe.

The news was announced

by officials from his party,

the Movement for Democratic Change.

NATO defence ministers have gathered

for a two-day meeting in Brussels,

with national military budgets high

on the agenda.

The US and Turkish defence ministers

are also expected to meet,

as there've been tensions over

the two nations' differing

tactics in Syria.

The Israeli prime minister,

Benjamin Netanyahu has called

a corruption investigation

against him "biased"

and "full of holes".

The police say they have

evidence of bribery,

fraud and breach of trust.

Mr Netanyahu denies the allegations.

Key coalition partners say they're

standing by Mr Netanyahu for now.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Kim

Campbell has been criticised

for suggesting female broadcasters

lose credibility when they go

sleeveless on air.

She was tweeting in response

to an article discussing appropriate

attire for public speaking.

Ms Campbell says

studies show it's true.

But it hasn't stopped

some of the world's most

influential women from putting

their arms on display.

Well, for more, I'm joined now

from New York by Izzy Grinspan.

She's a Senior Editor

at New York Magazine's

fashion section The Cut.

What do you make of all of this?

It

seems to me that it is all a symptom

of the impossible standard that

women are held to. If they don't

look like they had dressed up to

present themselves, then they are

faulted, but if they had any sort

of... This article suggested that if

there was any skin on display than

that as a distraction and women

should be held accountable to bad.

It seems to me that there is no way

to win.

Because of woman don't dress

up when they appear in public they

get denigrated, if they do they told

they are lacking credibility.

Absolutely. Are being judged by

conflicting standards. I think the

best thing to do is just forget

about the standards.

I suppose the

argument would be if you put on her

suit and dressed in a way, then

people are paying more attention to

what you say and you have more

gravitas, but maybe that is just a

definition of gravitas that is more

male than female.

Yes, that is what

was happening in the 1980s when

women were joining the workforce in

droves. There was movement of

wearing shoulder pads, suits, trying

to dress like men. In the end is it

doesn't quite work the same way

because we have outdated standards

that dressing like a man is the

basic bottom line and anyway that

you deviate from that is considered

a deviation so there is no way for

women to win. He will still be

judged on a different standard to.

I

tried those shoulder pads in the

1980s it didn't work for me! If you

are are trying to mimic men's

standards of competence, leadership,

we will never get there, because we

are not men and we do have a

different standard. Right. What

about the history of this? I

remember there was a time in the

1990s in the United States when

women stop wearing stockings on

television than that was seen as

scandalous. It seems every time we

remove the stockings, remove the

gloves, perhaps, than credibility

gets questioned.

Yes, and then it

starts to seem normal, it stops

being an issue. There are still

places in Washington where women are

expected to wear stockings, so it

depends on the Millie Dowler toss-up

it used to a scandal if you didn't

wear gloves in public. Standards are

constantly changing.

Do you think we

will get to a stage when this will

no longer be an issue, what women

wear will be commented on?

I would

love to hope so. The generation

coming of age right now is

interested in self expression and

would not bat an eyelid at a

newscaster of wearing a giant very

green coat or something because they

like the idea of people expressing

themselves. Hopefully that will get

carried into society.

Thank you for

joining me. I have been wearing a

sleeveless dress to read this

programme, so I hope that hasn't

undermined my credibility!

And if you want to read more

of my thoughts about whether women

have the right to bear arms,

you can find my article

on the subject at bbc.com/news.

Just head to the US

& Canada section.

This is Beyond One Hundred Days.

Still to come: She was shown out

of the West Virginia legislature

but it's only opened the door

to a flood of donations.

We speak to the woman

at the center of controversy.

Emma Watson has been speaking at her

shock, describing there was no

system in place to help woman he had

been sexually harassed. BAFTA is

looking at changes that could tackle

the problem.

This Sunday, it's the Bafta Awards.

And ahead of British film's

biggest night of the year,

the industry has announced

a brand-new plan aimed at tackling

both sexual harassment and bullying.

It's a direct response

to the Harvey Weinstein allegations.

You can talk!

You can talk!

Well, of course he can talk!

Emma Watson was one of the many

actresses asked for her input.

These principles are important

because up until recently

there were no guidelines,

there was no protocol for someone

that had been sexually harassed

in the entertainment industry.

And I know this to be a fact

because I have asked for principles,

I've asked to see guidelines,

and no one could give them to me.

To change this more than 40

organisations including BAFTA

and the British Film Institute

worked on a set of eight principles

which they want to be

used across the film,

television and video

Games industries.

So what will actually change?

Every production must employ two

people trained to handle any

accusations of harassment.

A dedicated phone line

will open in April offering

free confidential help.

And BFI funding will only

be given to projects

committed to the changes.

This isn't about a set

of commandments, it's about a set

of principles which everybody has

willingly and with huge

enthusiasm signed up to.

At last month's Golden Globe Awards

almost all actresses wore black

to show solidarity for the Time's Up

campaign, calling for change.

The same is expected at the BAFTAs.

Those behind today's announcement

hope that such a stand will not

be needed next year.

Colin Paterson, BBC News.

You're watching Beyond

One Hundred Days...

A woman from West Virginia has found

herself at the centre of global

interest after being thrown out

of the state's legislature

for highlighting links

between politicians and big oil

and gas corporations

during a public hearing.

Lissa Lucas had prepared a testimony

on a bill that would allow gas

companies to drill on minority

mineral owners' land

without consent, but was stopped

from finishing and escorted out.

We'll hear from Lissa

just a moment - first,

here's a clip from the session.

People who were going to be speaking

in favour of this bill will be paid

for by the industry and the people

voting on this bill will also be

paid by the industry. I have to keep

this short because the public only

gets a minute and 45 were as

lobbyists can throw a gale at the

Marriott hotel. I haven't finished.

Drag me off them.

Lissa joins us now

from West Virginia.

Lissa, when you get that speech

specifically about deregulation of

the energy industry, did you think

you would be escorted out? No, that

was surprising! They allegedly came

along and shut down your microphone,

is that right?

Yeah. It came back on

briefly and then went back. They

even moved the microphone away. What

did they tell you, what was the

reason they gave?

No personal comments. So no comments

about deregulation of the energy

industry, why are they personal

comments?

That was my question, that

is why I continue despite the fact

that they didn't want to hear it. To

me those comments are not... Those

comments are not personal, they are

public information. They may not

necessarily be common knowledge, but

there wasn't some new information

that nobody had ever seen before.

Just go on the Internet. West

Virginia is a state that has a lot

of coal mining this White House

deregulated the coal-mining

industry. How many people are there

in your state who would sympathise

with your concerns about

deregulation?

I think everyone does.

If you are a coal miner you want a

job, but you also want your kids to

be able to play in the creek. I

think it is a false dichotomy to

suggest that you are either going to

have coal or gas would you will have

nothing.

Tell us what happened after

you give that speech and after that

video clip went viral I sat in the

boy a for a while.

I saw that there

were some reports suggesting I was

thrown out of the building, but they

were really nice, they just went and

sat in the Fourier. When I got my

purse and keys again out of the

Chambers I went down and had

breakfast, a drove home, I struggle

to get the video uploaded and that

was basically my evening. I remember

looking and seeing that I had gotten

a few hundred dollars and I thought,

wow, I have $300, hurray! That was

Friday night! Since then, that you

have raised $50,000.

The only I'd

may not have had the impact they

intended.

We have been reporting during this

programme that President Trump has

been under increased scrutiny due to

his silence on domestic violence.

That is after Rob Porter stepped

down, one of his aides due to

domestic abuse allegations. The

president has spoken now.

I am opposed to domestic violence

and everybody here knows that.

Totally opposed to domestic violence

of any kind it almost wouldn't have

to be said so now you hear it but

you all know it. Thank you all very

much.

So President Trump there are

pronouncing domestic violence. It is

something you wanted him to do. Does

this clear up this issue for the

White House?

No, this is something

that should have been said a week

ago. The president could have

entered this. The president nor has

unfortunately put himself in a

situation where he will have more

rather than less scrutiny.

He looked

frustrated to me there haven't and

to those questions.

No question.

When you have the press yelling at

you like that it is frustrating,

particularly when the president

doesn't want to answer something. He

does not want to talk about himself

and domestic violence, even though

this is something to do with his

staff, not him directly.

The weather has been among one

of the many talking points

of the Winter Olympics

in Pyeongchang - the extreme cold

and wind have led to some events

being postponed and complaints

from some athletes.

Earlier this week, Team GB's slope

snowboarder Aimee Fuller crashed out

on her final jump to finish 17th -

here she is speaking

about what she faced.

As I was in the air, disgust lifted

me, went under my feet. I am happy

to be in one piece. It was so

annoying because it was so, so

close, it it was within inches of

being a decent scoring run and the

wind took me.

But isn't it normal

for the Winter Olympics to be

like this?

Eddie the Eagle -

the British hero of

the Calgary Olympics in 1988 -

seems to think so.

I spoke to him a little earlier.

Eddie, the wind is super-strong, it

is really, really cold and

Pyeongchang, that you are saying

that all of these athletes should

stop complaining and just start

competing?

I think so, yes. I don't

know if it is the athletes

themselves complaining or just being

funny, but they are winter athletes,

it is winter, it is cold and they

are probably trained in worse

conditions than the Desert the --

than it is at the moment. They

should man up and get on with it,

really.

What if it is dangerous,

though?

As a former ski jumper, wind

is critical for ski jumping so I can

understand as a ski jumper that, but

for a lot of the other sports it is

not so important. Also, the wind can

be your best friend as well as your

worst enemy. If it is gusty the

athletes should be training in those

kind of conditions to get used it as

well, so I am surprised that the

aren't training in those kind of

conditions. The officials will ever

gets to dangerous will say no

competition, but that is up to the

officials, not the athletes.

30

years after you competed in Calgary,

there is a film that came out to

produce a couple of years to go.

This film shows that you were pretty

tough when you were a competitor.

In

Calgary we have lots of wind

problems. They cancelled a lot of

the training for the ski jump

because of the high winds. From one

point there were going to move the

ski jumping from Calgary to thunder

bay. Then all of a sudden we got one

clear day and they've jumped

straight into the competition and it

might be like that here in South

Korea. The film, they did a great

job with the film. I was a strong

character and just get on with that,

really. Whatever the conditions, get

out there and do it.

I hadn't lived

that you stayed in a mental hospital

at one point when you were

competing, because it was cheap!

Yes, I slept on the back of my car,

in cow sheds, prescription food out

of bins, slept in a mental hospital

in Finland. I stayed in the mental

hospital when I got the letter from

the British Olympic organisation to

say congratulations, you have been

picked to go to Calgary.

Did they

think you should have been one of

the inmates?

I managed to get out!

They probably did think I was an

inmate! I did manage to fly to

Calgary and compete, but it was a

very strange experience staying in

that mental hospital.

Your life has

been full of strange experiences!

Temp two, thank you for joining me.

How great is edit the evil? Arbil

Olympian, bearer. President Jacob

Zuma is due to address the nation

any time now. Here is the scene in

Pretoria. He will make some kind of

statement. We'll bring you that.

Coming up next on BBC

World News: Karin Giannone

is here with Outside Source

and for viewers in the UK,

we'll have the latest

headlines from Ben Brown.