:00:00. > :00:00.at the top of the hour. Now on BBC News, Dateline London with Gavin
:00:00. > :00:25.Esler. Hello, and welcome to Dateline
:00:26. > :00:29.London. In an unprecedented televised hearing, the bosses of
:00:30. > :00:32.British intelligence speak of the damage caused by Edward Snowden's
:00:33. > :00:38.leaks. Evidence that Yasser Arafat was poisoned. And, what the loss of
:00:39. > :00:41.British shipyard jobs tells us about the future of the Navy, and of
:00:42. > :00:44.Britain. My guests are Abdel Bari Atwan, who
:00:45. > :00:47.is a Palestinian writer and broadcaster, Nesrine Malik, a
:00:48. > :00:50.Sudanese journalist, Greg Katz from Associated Press, and David
:00:51. > :00:54.Aaronovitch of The Times. There are broadly two views of what
:00:55. > :00:58.the US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden has done. The first
:00:59. > :01:01.is that he has heroically lifted the veil on US and British
:01:02. > :01:04.intelligence's rather dodgy dealings, including bugging Angela
:01:05. > :01:07.Merkel's phone. The other view is that the information now made
:01:08. > :01:10.public, and more to come, has severely damaged American and
:01:11. > :01:13.British national interests. The heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, not
:01:14. > :01:17.surprisingly, take the latter view, and that is why they agreed to be
:01:18. > :01:21.questioned by a Parliamentary oversight group this week. But, do
:01:22. > :01:32.we trust their judgment as to what is in the public or national
:01:33. > :01:38.interest? It was pretty much what you would
:01:39. > :01:42.have expected this week. I think you are right to characterise in a sense
:01:43. > :01:48.the over polarisation of the argument, to the heroic Edward
:01:49. > :01:52.Snowden on the one hand as the archetypal whistle`blower who tells
:01:53. > :01:58.us all the terrible things our government have got up to, and on
:01:59. > :02:02.the other hand, the suggestion that he is some kind of villain, and the
:02:03. > :02:07.people who have published this material are some kind of quasi
:02:08. > :02:14.traitors, the modern equivalents of Burgess and Maclean. Neither of
:02:15. > :02:20.these things, I think, are true. What they point to other genuine
:02:21. > :02:26.dilemmas at the heart of how we conduct security. In a sense, it
:02:27. > :02:31.would have been nice if a little bit more of that had come out of the
:02:32. > :02:36.hearing with the heads of the security services. Of course, you
:02:37. > :02:41.are going to attempt to use the technology you have available to spy
:02:42. > :02:44.upon people who you consider maybe a threat to national security. I and
:02:45. > :02:47.large, in a democratic society, people will subscribe to that. But
:02:48. > :02:52.who is overseeing what happens that a mark we may want to set is not
:02:53. > :02:58.overstepped, and Duberry trust those oversight procedures? In the heart
:02:59. > :03:05.of that, is a real and serious debate. There is a third element,
:03:06. > :03:12.which I will talk about later if we have time, but for the moment, it is
:03:13. > :03:19.the dilemma that we have. How is this playing in the US? Some people
:03:20. > :03:28.are saying that they are looking at any stick with which to beat Barack
:03:29. > :03:34.Obama, that he seems to be out of touch. You would not expect him to
:03:35. > :03:38.know everything going on, or would you? I think most people think
:03:39. > :03:44.Barack Obama was aware of what was going on, and was not transparent
:03:45. > :03:48.about it. A lot of people are disappointed that he has not taken a
:03:49. > :03:54.more active stance on civil liberties and privity rights. I
:03:55. > :03:56.don't find it the least bit shocking that Angela Merkel's phone was
:03:57. > :04:00.tapped. Any intelligence agency would want to tap the private phone
:04:01. > :04:07.of a foreign leader, friendly or otherwise. But those Americans who
:04:08. > :04:11.care are truly shocked by the volume of e`mails and calls that were
:04:12. > :04:17.harvested by this alliance between the government and the big Internet
:04:18. > :04:21.companies. I think there is a sense of loss in America that the privacy
:04:22. > :04:26.that is so built into our constitution eroded bit by bit. What
:04:27. > :04:31.do you make of the argument made by the three intelligent chiefs in a
:04:32. > :04:35.newspaper war here that this is giving comfort to the enemy?
:04:36. > :04:42.Al`Qaeda and others are reading this and they will change whatever it is
:04:43. > :04:45.they are up to. It makes sense they would change their communications
:04:46. > :04:49.procedures. The terrorist groups would certainly have learned a lot
:04:50. > :04:54.from Edward Snowden and being able to glean some valuable intelligence
:04:55. > :04:59.and change some of their tactics. That made perfect sense. Whether it
:05:00. > :05:04.is a catastrophic loss, some people are saying this is the worst breach
:05:05. > :05:10.of intelligence ever, but who knows? It can't not help them. One point
:05:11. > :05:17.there, when they say it is the worst reach, I can't help thinking do they
:05:18. > :05:23.mean it is the worst breach because the bad guys get everything, or
:05:24. > :05:28.because it is really embarrassing? Or both. I completely agree that
:05:29. > :05:32.there is a fourth dichotomy being set up here. It is quite fashionable
:05:33. > :05:37.these days to say if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to
:05:38. > :05:42.fear. Let's be realistic about this, let's not be softies about this,
:05:43. > :05:48.these people are saving lives. But I think it is not a naive position to
:05:49. > :05:52.genuinely care about the right of privacy for the people. That is
:05:53. > :05:57.something that is regretful. There has not been more space for that
:05:58. > :06:01.argument, unfortunately, and it has become polarised. It has been
:06:02. > :06:06.exacerbated by the British media, by newspapers grinding axes with other
:06:07. > :06:11.newspapers. I don't think that has been helpful. That has not been a
:06:12. > :06:17.responsible space where people have had a good, healthy debate about
:06:18. > :06:21.this, and that is because, to be fair to the Guardian newspaper, when
:06:22. > :06:24.they did ask officials to sift through the information and do a
:06:25. > :06:27.filtering in cooperation with the government, they refused. The
:06:28. > :06:33.Guardian newspaper had to make most of those calls themselves. The other
:06:34. > :06:39.media outlets have taken either a pro`or anti stance. Has not been a
:06:40. > :06:44.good debate about. They should have been more space to discuss things
:06:45. > :06:51.without agendas. But there are those who say if we look at the judgement
:06:52. > :06:58.of the three men who were being questioned this week, and asked if
:06:59. > :07:03.they have got it right, we should also look at the editor of the
:07:04. > :07:11.Guardian, who will apparently appear before a Commons committee on the
:07:12. > :07:15.same thing, who is he to decide, is the other argument? Absolutely, but
:07:16. > :07:18.thinking like that is a dead`end because they you come up against
:07:19. > :07:21.characters, personalities, who do you trust more, the media or the
:07:22. > :07:26.government question not people trust neither, if we are honest. And that
:07:27. > :07:32.is the trouble, there has been no credible character or figure that
:07:33. > :07:37.has come out and appealed to public sentiments. Maybe we trust Judi
:07:38. > :07:43.Dench because she played a great head of MI5 in the James Bond
:07:44. > :07:46.movies. I have watched most of these discussions and investigations. I
:07:47. > :07:51.was shocked when they said terrorists are rubbing their hands
:07:52. > :07:56.with glee when they watched Edward Snowden and his dispatches and
:07:57. > :08:05.relations. I know Al`Qaeda people never used mobile phones or
:08:06. > :08:14.smartphones, so it is personal contacts, letters and old`fashioned
:08:15. > :08:18.clinic patients. Secondly `` old`fashioned communications. They
:08:19. > :08:23.did not name names. Nothing really new there. A lot of lies. For
:08:24. > :08:28.example, they said they do not torture. This is not true. And
:08:29. > :08:34.ex`member of Al`Qaeda is suing the British government, the intelligence
:08:35. > :08:40.agency in this country, of torturing him. Another point they said is that
:08:41. > :08:45.they don't torture, yes, maybe they don't, but they send those accused
:08:46. > :08:54.of terrorism to brutal regimes like Syria, Egyptian, Moroccan and they
:08:55. > :08:58.do the job for them. I believe Edward Snowden did a good job.
:08:59. > :09:02.Usually they cover themselves by saying they are doing this to
:09:03. > :09:05.protect the people, combat terrorism, and they aborted about 35
:09:06. > :09:14.attacks. But is Angela Merkel the head of Al`Qaeda? For her telephone
:09:15. > :09:21.to be bugged under that excuse of terrorism, is, for example, three
:09:22. > :09:30.out of 35 international leaders, it is amazing, it is pure lies.
:09:31. > :09:38.Interestingly, it is not the revelation that is so interesting,
:09:39. > :09:43.it is the timing. This `` if this had happened ten years ago, public
:09:44. > :09:49.acceptance would have been far more accepting in the wake of 9/11, when
:09:50. > :09:54.people made claims that there was not enough information sharing and
:09:55. > :10:00.perhaps this could have been avoided if some walls had come down. But I
:10:01. > :10:06.think a backlash has now developed. You are right. It was that decision
:10:07. > :10:10.to lead to greater sharing that led to the situation whereby people like
:10:11. > :10:14.Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden actually had the availability to the
:10:15. > :10:22.information they do, because they were wiring about `` worrying about
:10:23. > :10:28.this. The third problem I alluded to was that one of the problems about
:10:29. > :10:33.capturing meta data, and the way in which data is stored now by
:10:34. > :10:38.intelligence agencies, is that it is far more open to these incredible
:10:39. > :10:43.sizes of leaks. That is why this difficulty of describing Edward
:10:44. > :10:49.Snowden simply as a whistle`blower, the material he was sending out on
:10:50. > :10:55.he could not possibly have known what most of it was. This stuff has
:10:56. > :11:01.been travelling around in various places, and it seems to me naive to
:11:02. > :11:08.believe that the Chinese and Russians and so on have not had
:11:09. > :11:15.access to some of it in the course of Edward Snowden's stays in both
:11:16. > :11:19.Hong Kong and Russia. One of the big questions we must ask our security
:11:20. > :11:23.agencies is how open they are effectively to massive intelligence
:11:24. > :11:27.leaks as a consequence of the procedures, and of the consequence
:11:28. > :11:31.of collecting so much information as they do under the modern
:11:32. > :11:38.circumstances. It strikes me as being a real problem. It is after
:11:39. > :11:42.the fact, really. The point about Bradley Manning was that hundreds of
:11:43. > :11:47.thousands of people, literally, had access to the same information that
:11:48. > :11:52.he had. Right, and these are fairly low`level people. The other thing
:11:53. > :11:57.that this points out is how naive all of us were 25 years ago when
:11:58. > :12:01.e`mails started creeping in. If you can remember thinking that these
:12:02. > :12:04.things were private, even the big media corporations, everyone has
:12:05. > :12:10.been acting incredibly carelessly with their data. This has made that
:12:11. > :12:16.abundantly clear. Ask David Cameron. His private text messages have been
:12:17. > :12:20.read out. But there are also commercial advantages to be had. I
:12:21. > :12:25.had an e`mail this morning from a company saying if you use a certain
:12:26. > :12:33.search engine everything is tracked and they will direct advertisements
:12:34. > :12:41.to you, we won't do that. Where does the latest information on the
:12:42. > :12:47.Falkirk Labour Party come from? They came from e`mails sent on company
:12:48. > :12:51.time from a Labour Party official, which were intercepted by the
:12:52. > :12:55.company and then released by the company in Grangemouth for their own
:12:56. > :12:59.reasons. It is a fair assumption on the whole that if the state hasn't
:13:00. > :13:02.got it, then someone else has got it. You have to recognise that when
:13:03. > :13:04.you write it. Let's move on. For nine years,
:13:05. > :13:07.Palestinians, and others, have wondered whether Yasser Arafat was
:13:08. > :13:11.murdered in 2004. Now, news that very high traces of polonium have
:13:12. > :13:13.been found in his remains has led Palestinian officials to call his
:13:14. > :13:24.death an assassination, and point fingers at Israel. Israel denies any
:13:25. > :13:29.involvement in his death. I have been very vocal on this. Ariel
:13:30. > :13:36.Sharon threatened Yasser Arafat several times that he would actually
:13:37. > :13:40.execute him one way or another. I also heard from people around Yasser
:13:41. > :13:46.Arafat that he was scared. He put I'm bars on the top of his
:13:47. > :13:51.headquarters so that they could not sent a helicopter. Also, he used to
:13:52. > :13:58.carry a gas mask with him. Just in case a bomb was thrown to gas him.
:13:59. > :14:05.One argument made against that is that, by the time of his death, he
:14:06. > :14:11.was on his way out anyway. That is often said, that he was nowhere near
:14:12. > :14:16.as powerful as he was just a few years ago. He was very powerful.
:14:17. > :14:20.They imprisoned him in his headquarters for more than two
:14:21. > :14:36.years. No water, no food, no electricity. He was in a very bad
:14:37. > :14:44.condition. He was very powerful. So, Ariel Shomron decided to write him
:14:45. > :14:50.off completely. The question is, we know the fact he was poisoned by
:14:51. > :14:56.this polonium. We know there are only three countries in the world
:14:57. > :15:01.with this kind of poison. Russia, US and Israel. I don't believe Russia
:15:02. > :15:10.and US are interested in killing Yasser Arafat. It is very unlikely.
:15:11. > :15:15.What are we going to do? we are not going to listen to nonsense like
:15:16. > :15:17.this. You have no evidence that Israel assassinated him, and we do
:15:18. > :15:22.not even know that he was assassinated, because that is not in
:15:23. > :15:32.the report, either by the Swiss scientists who investigated it, who
:15:33. > :15:41.were paid for by... They were not... I know the facts! Well, you clearly
:15:42. > :15:45.don't, because... Even if it was... Let me finish, I am not saying it is
:15:46. > :15:48.necessarily wrong, but it is something that people should know.
:15:49. > :15:53.The second thing is that the Russian team who have looked that this have
:15:54. > :15:58.not come to such hard conclusions, although the Swiss conclusions are
:15:59. > :16:02.not hard either. Hold on, if you have a mind to a conspiracy, one
:16:03. > :16:09.possibility is that somebody has placed polonium in there. I do not
:16:10. > :16:13.believe that, but it is as likely as anything you have said. You then
:16:14. > :16:16.make the jump, given all that, to saying Israel must have done it on
:16:17. > :16:21.the assertion that only Israel, the active state or Russia, who says, as
:16:22. > :16:26.access to polonium, and it cannot have been the other states, despite
:16:27. > :16:31.the fact that Yasser Arafat was holed up in Ramallah, could do
:16:32. > :16:35.nothing and become less powerful for everything that you said. The reason
:16:36. > :16:44.why is you just seem to think that Israel is the arch villain in the
:16:45. > :16:49.world... It is, Israel is! Who uses Australian and British passports to
:16:50. > :16:58.kill people in Dubai? It was conclusive evidence that Israel
:16:59. > :17:05.assassinated this man. Now, OK, I agree with you that... Look, Arafat
:17:06. > :17:11.is killed, polonium... Did other Palestinians want to kill Arafat?
:17:12. > :17:15.No, why should they kill him? Let me put it that way, we had
:17:16. > :17:26.international investigation on the death of Rafi Kerry we, OK? `` Rafiq
:17:27. > :17:30.Hariri. Why can't we have the same international team to investigate
:17:31. > :17:35.the death of Arafat? Up just to roll back a little bit from where we have
:17:36. > :17:38.ended up, I think it is important to establish that none of these are
:17:39. > :17:42.established facts. There has been a Russian report that came out this
:17:43. > :17:48.morning that said that it was not confirmed that there was polonium in
:17:49. > :17:53.the remains... No, I read the report. I read the report as well,
:17:54. > :17:57.so we can talk like this until the cows come home, but if you let me
:17:58. > :18:01.finish, the report said it was conclusive but that there was a high
:18:02. > :18:04.level of radiation in his remains. The fact that he was poisoned in the
:18:05. > :18:09.first place has not been established, number one. It has not
:18:10. > :18:12.been established? The fact that he was assassinated through polonium
:18:13. > :18:17.has not been established unequivocally. This is an
:18:18. > :18:21.investigation... It is not helpful if you don't let me finish, because
:18:22. > :18:24.we are trying to get somewhere. To then leapt immediately and assume
:18:25. > :18:29.Israel assassinated him, even though it might be in your mind, and in the
:18:30. > :18:33.minds of millions of Arabs, a logical conclusion, it is also
:18:34. > :18:37.something we should take a step back from, and say that he had other
:18:38. > :18:41.enemies, enemies within Palestine. The third thing which I think is
:18:42. > :18:47.hugely problematic, because I was listening to Al Jazeera, an Arabic
:18:48. > :18:51.phone in yesterday, and Arabs do not need a reason to start a conspiracy
:18:52. > :18:55.theory. What has been happening over the past 48 hours is that ridiculous
:18:56. > :19:01.conjecture and theories have come out about what happened, let me
:19:02. > :19:05.finish, about what happened to Arafat, and it is a complete red
:19:06. > :19:10.herring, nobody is talking about the peace process, or Arafat's legacy,
:19:11. > :19:14.or what will happen, do answer your question, is this going to run and
:19:15. > :19:17.run and get more and more ridiculous? People will step further
:19:18. > :19:20.away from the facts. What I would urge is that they should be an
:19:21. > :19:26.investigation to quash these conspiracies. Back with me, just
:19:27. > :19:30.one. The Swiss laboratory, the Russian laboratory, they are not
:19:31. > :19:38.there decide who assassinated Arafat. They told us he was killed
:19:39. > :19:44.by poison. No, they didn't. The polonium is very high. Bari, they
:19:45. > :19:50.didn't. They did not say what you just said. No, they said that. They
:19:51. > :19:55.did not say he was poisoned by polonium. About the conspiracy
:19:56. > :20:00.theory, when they told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in
:20:01. > :20:05.Iraq, I was one of the people who used to say, yes, there is no weapon
:20:06. > :20:10.of mass destruction. They said, you believe a conspiracy theory, and
:20:11. > :20:13.they wrote a book about that. Was it a conspiracy theory when we were
:20:14. > :20:20.actually denying that there was no weapon of mass to structure in Iraq?
:20:21. > :20:31.Let me bring in Greg Katz... He is the wise man? A wise man and a wise
:20:32. > :20:36.woman, I have got that right! The reports are not conclusive. There is
:20:37. > :20:39.no direct physical conclusion of an assassination. You certainly could
:20:40. > :20:43.have an investigation, but you could not put anything before a court of
:20:44. > :20:48.law that would be convincing. When anybody says there is very high
:20:49. > :20:52.levels of polonium in these remains, with somebody with the profile of
:20:53. > :20:55.Yasser Arafat, you have to believe conspiracy theories to believe it is
:20:56. > :21:00.worth looking at, it is quite possibly the case. It raises
:21:01. > :21:04.questions, but it is completely insoluble in our lifetime. What are
:21:05. > :21:07.your matching that somebody from an intelligence agency, or somebody
:21:08. > :21:12.from the Palestine authority is going to come forward and say, yes,
:21:13. > :21:17.by the way I did this? There will be no scientific way to establish any
:21:18. > :21:21.chain of evidence, nothing of this can be proven, so by definition it
:21:22. > :21:26.is a conspiracy that will... If I can say one thing, if it was
:21:27. > :21:30.conclusively proved that he was poisoned and by Israel, still
:21:31. > :21:34.nothing will change, nothing will happen, nobody will be held
:21:35. > :21:39.accountable. Why? Because it is Israel? Because it is above the
:21:40. > :21:46.national community? Because it is above international law? You know
:21:47. > :21:51.that, Bari, in some respects it is, de facto it is, but to be fair to
:21:52. > :21:55.the conspiracy theorists back home, if it were established that Israel
:21:56. > :21:59.was responsible, I don't think anybody is expecting that. We have
:22:00. > :22:03.just a few minutes left, and we are not going to solve this problem.
:22:04. > :22:06.Perhaps we can solve the problem of British of yards closing, there will
:22:07. > :22:10.be no more in Portsmouth at the 500 years, but there will be
:22:11. > :22:14.shipbuilding on the Clyde. Do you see this as inevitably connected
:22:15. > :22:18.with Scottish independence? Do I? No, I think this is a decision that
:22:19. > :22:23.was taken because they had to choose one place and the Clyde is better.
:22:24. > :22:26.Knowing the Clyde was better, it would have been more political to
:22:27. > :22:29.situate it in Portsmouth on the argument that maybe in 2014 the
:22:30. > :22:39.Scots would vote for independence than it would have been the other
:22:40. > :22:41.way around. You do not want to build ships in a foreign country? This is
:22:42. > :22:44.a consequence of the fact that we have a smaller navy and we are not
:22:45. > :22:47.building the ships that we used to. The tragedy is, I was listening to
:22:48. > :22:51.summary from Portsmouth, who had built his plans on the basis of
:22:52. > :22:55.this, but we knew ship building was going to be significantly reduced in
:22:56. > :22:58.Portsmouth. Why are we so rubbish at planning the future of skilled
:22:59. > :23:04.workers who are going to have to move somewhere? Why is this such
:23:05. > :23:07.nonsense? That is a very good point, because the workers are extremely
:23:08. > :23:10.skilled, we have a shortage of engineers, it is one of the terrible
:23:11. > :23:14.things about Britain, and you would think that a bit of planning would
:23:15. > :23:18.ensure that these people do not have an uncertain future. I think I
:23:19. > :23:22.listened to the same interview that you did, which is that there is no
:23:23. > :23:28.plan to reabsorb these engineers back into any establishments or any
:23:29. > :23:32.other businesses, and he was saying that he had eight years before
:23:33. > :23:35.retirement age and he is going to have to dip into his retirement
:23:36. > :23:40.funds to survive. That was as bright, not the fact that it was
:23:41. > :23:43.shut down. People are completely understanding of commercial
:23:44. > :23:47.imperatives... Shipyard workers have lived with this for years, you
:23:48. > :23:51.finish and order, what do you do next? Yes, but give us some warning
:23:52. > :23:55.and try to facilitate an alternative. One thing I would like
:23:56. > :23:58.to say is that it started out as a nonpolitical decision, but it has
:23:59. > :24:04.been politicised by Scottish politicians, I find. I am shocked!
:24:05. > :24:08.Politicians politicising things?! But in a bizarre way, English
:24:09. > :24:16.politicians were attacked for playing political footballs with
:24:17. > :24:17.shipbuilding, but it was the Scottish politicians who said, if
:24:18. > :24:21.you do vote for independence, we will ensure that shipbuilding stays,
:24:22. > :24:25.and to be fair to the Labour unions, they said, hang on, nobody was
:24:26. > :24:32.talking about this in terms of secession, you brought it up. From a
:24:33. > :24:36.broader angle, I believe the political emphasis, the economic
:24:37. > :24:41.emphasis is changing. Now it is Britain, England, because anywhere
:24:42. > :24:44.in five is tame, it will not be Great Britain maybe, because after
:24:45. > :24:49.Scotland will gain independence, Wales, I don't know, I do not know
:24:50. > :24:55.if it is fair to say Great Britain, but the economic emphasis is
:24:56. > :25:00.changing. I think Britain is turning to a servicing country. The emphasis
:25:01. > :25:09.now is an Islamic banking, they want London to be the basis for banking,
:25:10. > :25:14.so they want Islamic money, so they are looking at tourism, other
:25:15. > :25:17.things... 30 seconds. The one thing that argues against this is that the
:25:18. > :25:21.British auto industry is going strong, which is fantastic. British
:25:22. > :25:25.cars have made a comeback, the Indians have made a turnaround at
:25:26. > :25:28.Jaguar Land Rover, lots of these companies are doing very well, and
:25:29. > :25:33.that industry looks to be in a lot of trouble ten or 15 years ago. It
:25:34. > :25:38.is not completely fading away. Thank you, Greg, I needed that! We all
:25:39. > :25:43.did, that is it for Dateline London for this week, you can of course
:25:44. > :26:09.comment on Twitter. Thank you for watching and goodbye.
:26:10. > :26:14.A full UK weather forecast in a few moments, but first I thought we
:26:15. > :26:18.would take a quick look at Typhoon Haiyan, which has been bringing
:26:19. > :26:21.devastation to parts of the Philippines, one of the most
:26:22. > :26:25.powerful typhoon is we have seen, this is it working out into the
:26:26. > :26:29.South China Sea, and it is forecast to make a second landfall in
:26:30. > :26:33.Vietnam. It will probably come onshore around Da Nang or to the
:26:34. > :26:37.north, bringing gusts of up to 140 mph with the eye of the storm
:26:38. > :26:40.grinding up along the coastline of the Nam, bringing very strong winds,
:26:41. > :26:44.further devastation here and huge falls of rain. `` Vietnam. Heavy
:26:45. > :26:45.showers here