:00:04. > :00:08.Tonight, inside the almost impenetrable world of the hackers
:00:08. > :00:12.who claim to have taken down the CIA, Sony and a string of other
:00:12. > :00:17.high-profile targets. We engage the self-styled pirate hacker group
:00:17. > :00:22.LulzSec in an exclusive online conversation. Is the idea mayhem or
:00:22. > :00:31.moral purpose? We discuss with the man who was America's top security
:00:31. > :00:34.chief, and a person who calls himself a hacker with ethics.
:00:34. > :00:37.Also, George and Michael go mad in Brussels.
:00:37. > :00:41.Also tonight, we reveal details of the threats made to Syrian
:00:41. > :00:45.activists here in Britain. And is it all over for Habitat, the
:00:45. > :00:48.brand that spread its magic in the Swinging Sixties?
:00:48. > :00:58.Tom Dixon, who was at the helm for ten years, and the editor of Elle
:00:58. > :01:01.
:01:01. > :01:05.Decoration are here, sitting Good evening. It's been a long time,
:01:05. > :01:08.if ever, since a group of hackers has got up the noses of so many
:01:08. > :01:11.people in authority. The CIA, the US Senate, Sony, the Serious
:01:11. > :01:16.Organised Crime Agency, and just today the Arizona police joined the
:01:16. > :01:19.list. All have enjoyed the unwelcome attentions of LulzSec, a
:01:19. > :01:24.hackers' collective who have been breaking into computer systems
:01:24. > :01:28.around the world just for the "lulz", internet slang for laughs.
:01:28. > :01:33.Across the online world, they are asking, who are they? And what do
:01:33. > :01:43.they really want? Susan Watts has managed to track them down online
:01:43. > :01:44.
:01:44. > :01:49.Until now, everything about the LulzSec hackers has seemed to be
:01:49. > :01:54.about taking the mickey, from their pirate ship the into their slogan.
:01:54. > :01:59.Laughing at your security since 2011. But recently, their targets
:01:59. > :02:04.have become more high profile, claiming the US Senate, Sony online
:02:04. > :02:08.accounts and an American TV station among their victims. Anonymous has
:02:08. > :02:14.joined corrective forces with LulzSec in our newest operation.
:02:14. > :02:18.first, they said all this was just for laughs, the "lulz" in LulzSec.
:02:18. > :02:22.But now they seem to have joined forces with other online groups,
:02:22. > :02:27.notably Anonymous, the group that launched revenge attacks in support
:02:27. > :02:32.of Wikileaks. There is a definite movement of people working together
:02:32. > :02:35.for a common cause. We have yet to see a published manifesto to the
:02:35. > :02:40.best of my knowledge, but it seems that their mission is to fight
:02:40. > :02:44.against what they perceive to be injustice, censorship and
:02:44. > :02:48.unnecessary restrictions on freedom, and using any tools at their
:02:48. > :02:52.disposal to do that. A LulzSec are remarkably open. They taunt their
:02:53. > :02:57.victims on their Twitter feed, but who are they? Whirlpool, their
:02:57. > :03:02.spokesman, describes himself as captain of the boat. We were not
:03:02. > :03:05.able to talk in person, but set up a Q&A in cyberspace in a private
:03:05. > :03:09.online chat room. It is almost impossible to be certain who we
:03:09. > :03:15.were speaking to, but we did verify that he had access to the LulzSec
:03:15. > :03:25.Twitter feed. First, we asked about Operation anti-sex, the movement to
:03:25. > :03:35.
:03:35. > :03:42.LulzSec has aligned themselves with. But with the FBI and CIA amongst
:03:42. > :03:45.their targets, is the outcome for LulzSec inevitable? If you were a
:03:45. > :03:49.law enforcement agency, it is inevitable that the law when
:03:50. > :03:53.Feldman agency will fight back through due process. Arrests will
:03:54. > :03:59.follow. Everyone knows that the police will look after their own.
:03:59. > :04:01.So there is no surprise that law- enforcement will keep up a gear the
:04:01. > :04:04.moment that law enforcement agencies are under attack,
:04:04. > :04:10.irrespective of the quality of information in those websites for
:04:10. > :04:20.the harm that might be suffered. LulzSec's targets are wide-ranging,
:04:20. > :04:38.
:04:38. > :04:44.Today the group released confidential documents from the
:04:44. > :04:48.Arizona police department. It is causing chaos, and it is meeting
:04:48. > :04:53.their agenda. When they are releasing the kind of information
:04:53. > :04:57.they have, they are putting individuals' safety and privacy at
:04:57. > :05:01.risk. So having released user names and passwords, they have moved on
:05:01. > :05:06.now to releasing things like names, addresses and family details of
:05:06. > :05:11.serving police officers. And people involved in undercover operations.
:05:11. > :05:15.That could endanger someone's life. It does not seem to be for laughs
:05:15. > :05:19.any more. The in the hacking world, white hats are out to expose
:05:19. > :05:23.security weaknesses and get them fixed. Black hats are more
:05:23. > :05:33.malicious and out to make money. Where does Whirlpool C LulzSec
:05:33. > :05:47.
:05:47. > :05:51.In our online chat, Whirlpool told us the group trades in online
:05:51. > :05:56.currency and claims that LulzSec has received over $80,000 worth of
:05:56. > :06:00.donations. With 270,000-odd followers on Twitter, someone is
:06:00. > :06:04.interested in what they are doing. We have had personal data loss
:06:04. > :06:08.events in government. We have had Wikileaks. We have even had the
:06:08. > :06:14.phone hacking scandal. This tells us that we have serious issues in
:06:14. > :06:18.this country about security and confidentiality of information in
:06:18. > :06:23.computer communication systems. If we do not see LulzSec in the proper
:06:23. > :06:27.context, we will not develop the right kind of policy framework and
:06:27. > :06:32.legal framework to derive the correct behaviours that society
:06:32. > :06:37.needs. If he is right and LulzSec seeks to be more than just funny,
:06:37. > :06:43.who has to change what as everyone comes to terms with the broader
:06:43. > :06:48.challenges of cybersecurity? With us now from Washington is
:06:48. > :06:53.Michael Chertoff, the US Homeland Security Secretary and George Bush.
:06:53. > :06:58.And in the studio, James Lyne, an ethical hacker and Director of
:06:59. > :07:02.Technology Strategy at the computer security firm Sophos. Michael, you
:07:02. > :07:09.are involved in cybersecurity. James, you could be called a white
:07:09. > :07:17.hat in computer terminology. Michael Chertoff, you heard the
:07:17. > :07:23.words spoken online from Whirlpool. "we want to bring in the higher ups
:07:23. > :07:29.down, the police, bank and governments." how dangerous is
:07:29. > :07:34.LulzSec? First of all, their stated rationale is nonsense, because if
:07:34. > :07:38.you are invading databases and publishing private data and
:07:38. > :07:42.invading people's privacy, putting out their addresses, in some cases
:07:42. > :07:46.taking personal identifiable information and putting innocent
:07:46. > :07:50.people's financial reputations at risk, that is not doing a white hat
:07:51. > :07:56.or ethical hacking. That is destructive and thuggish hacking
:07:57. > :08:04.and can also be a mask for criminal activity. So we have to take this
:08:04. > :08:07.seriously. As we heard from the lawyer in the report, is it
:08:08. > :08:12.something that agencies like the FBI will try and track these people
:08:12. > :08:16.down and they will be subject to criminal prosecution? We have seen
:08:17. > :08:21.cases recently where there have been charges brought against people
:08:21. > :08:26.around the world. I expect to see more of those. Ironically, the
:08:26. > :08:31.people who are pursuing this wave of hacker attacks are likely to
:08:31. > :08:34.spur greater cause for control over the internet and security. So they
:08:34. > :08:38.may well wind up triggering an increase in security, which is the
:08:38. > :08:43.opposite of what they profess to be looking for. But on the other hand,
:08:43. > :08:47.they are probably so skilled or they will increase their skills to
:08:47. > :08:54.get around that anyway. You might put a block up, but they will get
:08:54. > :08:59.around it some way? It is a dynamic process. As one group attacks using
:08:59. > :09:03.a particular set of tools, there is a response. When it becomes
:09:03. > :09:13.effective, that prompts a different attack. So it is an on going back
:09:13. > :09:17.and forth. But I think this will have the consequence of spurring
:09:17. > :09:22.more investment into the security dimension. James, is it about
:09:22. > :09:25.throwing money at it? I do not think it is all throwing money at
:09:25. > :09:35.it. Businesses have spent a lot of money on security. It is about
:09:35. > :09:35.
:09:35. > :09:40.building awareness and ownership of the internet. You started when you
:09:40. > :09:43.were 13, increasing your computer skills. You know how to hack. You
:09:43. > :09:48.are a white hat, so you are encouraging people to be aware of
:09:48. > :09:53.hacking. But you will never get one passed them. This will always be a
:09:53. > :09:58.battle. There is always a way around a system. I would encourage
:09:58. > :10:03.people to get onto the white hats. This is the most critical resource
:10:03. > :10:08.we will have in our lives. But how attractive is it to young teenagers,
:10:08. > :10:12.men in their early twenties sitting in rooms, getting up their skills
:10:12. > :10:16.and making them do something that makes them seem like rebels? This
:10:16. > :10:21.is the core of the issue. I was a teenager playing with technology,
:10:21. > :10:25.and I was lucky. I ended up being encouraged in a positive direction
:10:25. > :10:29.in cybersecurity and had a positive sentiment about wanted to help the
:10:29. > :10:33.world be secure. But imagine if someone had come along, a Russian
:10:33. > :10:38.criminal gang, and recruited me at that age when I was naive and tried
:10:38. > :10:44.to get me to do something bad for money. How many people are there
:10:44. > :10:51.being tempted down that path? tell me. I think many. We have seen
:10:51. > :10:58.95,000 pieces of malicious code every day. Michael Chertoff, can
:10:58. > :11:02.you see a way in which hacking is for the ethical good? If you are
:11:02. > :11:05.talking about corporations which are perhaps acting unethically in
:11:05. > :11:09.terms of the age of their employees and so forth, it hackers are the
:11:09. > :11:14.ones that can get to the heart of the story rather than others,
:11:14. > :11:17.shouldn't that be applauded? problem is that everybody is the
:11:17. > :11:24.judge of their own cause. What one person may consider unethical,
:11:24. > :11:27.another may not. We are getting personal information about people -
:11:27. > :11:31.home addresses, financial information. You are trying to
:11:31. > :11:35.damage them in their personal and financial lives. You cannot pass
:11:36. > :11:40.that off as simply making a political point or transparency.
:11:41. > :11:46.That becomes the online equivalent of attacking somebody physically
:11:46. > :11:52.and marking them. We have to not glamorise this idea of hacking for
:11:52. > :11:56.political ideological motivation as something good. LulzSec said they
:11:56. > :12:01.were just doing it for fun in the beginning. And now they have
:12:01. > :12:09.adopted a more purpose, as they call it. That is about power, isn't
:12:09. > :12:13.it? They feel they are gaining power and can exert it. I cannot
:12:13. > :12:17.claim to understand their motivations, because it is so far
:12:17. > :12:22.from a world of values. There is never an excuse to put people at
:12:22. > :12:26.risk and to compromise websites. We should all be tried to make the
:12:26. > :12:31.internet more secure. So I cannot claim to understand their values.
:12:31. > :12:36.But it is certainly drawn attention to the issue. We are seeing more
:12:36. > :12:41.cases now of these high-profile hackers who are drawing attention
:12:41. > :12:45.to this. They say there is more coming out on Monday. It is a daily
:12:45. > :12:53.occurrence at the moment. It is, and part of the plan here is to
:12:53. > :12:57.keep the story going by adding new dimensions. But this will
:12:58. > :13:01.underscore the need to be aware of security. I hope it does not chase
:13:01. > :13:04.people of the internet and undermine the trust that many rely
:13:04. > :13:07.upon when they go on their computers.
:13:07. > :13:11.In a moment, is Habitat on its last chair legs? We will move over to
:13:11. > :13:13.our lounge to talk to its former design director and the editor of
:13:13. > :13:15.Elle Decoration. David Cameron has been asserting
:13:15. > :13:20.himself at the EU summit in Brussels today, emphasising that
:13:20. > :13:23.the UK will not pay the bill for a second EU bail-out for Greece.
:13:23. > :13:26.European Union leaders have agreed in principle to the bail-out
:13:26. > :13:29.package if Greece imposes the necessary austerity measures. With
:13:29. > :13:34.Europe at a turning point, is it time for Britain itself to redefine
:13:34. > :13:43.its relationship with the EU? Our political editor has spent the day
:13:43. > :13:47.in Brussels. The European Council meeting here
:13:47. > :13:49.in Brussels broke up today, with Downing Street claiming victories
:13:49. > :13:55.for Britain in two areas, firstly over not having to contribute to
:13:55. > :14:00.the Greek bail-out. The second was over asylum rules. But the quick
:14:00. > :14:07.crisis has dominated this meeting, a crisis which has ramifications
:14:07. > :14:17.both political and economic. Indeed, a crisis that could mean that the
:14:17. > :14:21.For David Cameron, keeping Britain out of the Greek bear out was
:14:21. > :14:26.something to crow about this morning. I sought assurances that
:14:26. > :14:31.Britain would not be pulled into a eurozone package for Greece and I
:14:31. > :14:35.have received those assurances. many say the Prime Minister should
:14:35. > :14:39.exploit this crisis to be bolder. Aren't you missing a huge
:14:39. > :14:43.opportunity here as many in your party are saying, to reshape
:14:43. > :14:48.Britain's relationship with Europe and reshape the European Union?
:14:48. > :14:54.What about all the Euro-sceptic things he said in opposition?
:14:54. > :14:58.said in opposition that we would stay out of the euro, we have. I
:14:58. > :15:02.said as soon as I became Prime Minister I would examine the
:15:02. > :15:07.situation we had. We had to get out of the European financial stability
:15:07. > :15:13.mechanism for the future. We have achieved that. I think I can point
:15:13. > :15:17.to a good list of achievements in Europe. Or so I can point to the
:15:17. > :15:20.Budget or think we can make progress in terms of cutting back
:15:21. > :15:24.what the Commission and Parliament have been suggesting. Reporters
:15:24. > :15:28.heard the Greek Prime Minister saying this crisis is a chance to
:15:28. > :15:33.build a new Europe. But what of a new Greece?
:15:33. > :15:37.Wins it be better for Greece and the European Union if you were to
:15:37. > :15:42.leave the euro or be expelled from the year in an orderly fashion?
:15:42. > :15:46.Isn't it true that your economy was never strong enough to be a member
:15:46. > :15:50.of the euro in the first place? This has been a long-standing
:15:50. > :15:55.debate and their arguments pro and con but if you put down the
:15:55. > :16:00.arguments, there are many more negative than positive. I
:16:00. > :16:04.understand, for example, we do not have the tool of devaluation. That
:16:04. > :16:09.is something other countries do have when they are not in the
:16:09. > :16:15.common currency. There are so many negative affects also to leaving
:16:15. > :16:19.the euro which would create huge problems. For example, this would
:16:19. > :16:23.mean an immediate default. Are you confident of winning the vote next
:16:23. > :16:28.week? I answered that. Do you think what happened here would help you
:16:28. > :16:31.win the vote next week? He told me he had had a vote of
:16:32. > :16:36.confidence here from EU leaders. While the banker England Governor
:16:36. > :16:40.in London was saying this morning that the eurozone's debt crisis
:16:40. > :16:45.poses the biggest threat to Britain's financial stability, back
:16:45. > :16:53.here in Brussels, the UKIP leader was proclaiming the death of the
:16:53. > :16:55.Europe -- the euro. The euro will not survive in its current
:16:56. > :17:03.Configuration. It may become in a few years' time the greater
:17:03. > :17:06.Deutschmark zone. There is no prospect that Greece will stay part
:17:06. > :17:11.of this eurozone. The fault is inevitable. How big a crisis is
:17:11. > :17:15.this? We invited two leading Brussels watchers to a local Greek
:17:15. > :17:19.taverna. I have to say objectively, this is one occasion when you might
:17:19. > :17:23.say what the Euro-sceptics have been saying all along is true.
:17:24. > :17:28.Economically, one size fits all does not seem to match Europe. I
:17:28. > :17:31.think Euro-sceptics will make hay, even if the Greeks do not fall out
:17:31. > :17:35.of the euro. There will be a perception of a changing mood in
:17:35. > :17:39.Europe and the fact that these people do not necessarily know what
:17:39. > :17:42.they are talking about. They are as baffled as we are. This is the
:17:42. > :17:49.point when people say maybe they are not right when they say more
:17:49. > :17:53.and more integration, onwards and onwards. A but they are tied in
:17:53. > :17:58.together and they have discovered if one of them meltdown, they all
:17:58. > :18:05.meltdown. That is certainly the fear. The danger is, as they are
:18:05. > :18:12.compelled to integrate economically, they will disintegrate politically.
:18:12. > :18:16.You have southern Europe and Spain in Greece. You have the indignant
:18:16. > :18:20.in the north who do not want to pay more. Politically, it is getting
:18:20. > :18:25.harder and harder. And that is what makes this so
:18:25. > :18:30.distinctive, compared with previous European crisis. Economic problems
:18:30. > :18:33.and political problems feeding off each other.
:18:33. > :18:38.Activists in Syria set least 15 people were killed when security
:18:38. > :18:43.forces opened fire on demonstrators after Friday prayers. This week,
:18:43. > :18:46.Newsnight has reported a undercover from Syria and also on the
:18:46. > :18:56.allegations of threats being made on opposition supporters here in
:18:56. > :18:57.
:18:58. > :19:03.the UK. Tim Whewell has an update on that tonight. We have heard
:19:03. > :19:11.attempts to intimidate them. What we have now has further evidence
:19:11. > :19:17.that behind those intimidation is. There is one official, Mohammed Al-
:19:17. > :19:20.Samouri. We have heard he is the main representative of Syrian
:19:20. > :19:24.intelligence and he has tried to blackmail or threaten people into
:19:24. > :19:29.giving up their support for the opposition and working instead
:19:29. > :19:34.informally for the regime. One activist here, Mahmoud Hamad said
:19:34. > :19:38.he was called in by Mr Al-Samouri when he went to renew his passport
:19:39. > :19:43.at the embassy earlier this year. He was blackmailed on the basis,
:19:43. > :19:48.supposedly, that he had been working with the police here as an
:19:48. > :19:56.expert witness in counter-terrorism cases. I got a phone call asking me
:19:56. > :20:02.to go to the Office of Mr Mohamed Al-Samouri. Knowing what my work
:20:02. > :20:06.was, for the police and the defence on terrorism cases, I was under the
:20:06. > :20:11.impression that Mohammed Al-Samouri was trying to blackmail me. He
:20:11. > :20:15.asked me to write a letter and e- mail it to him saying I was
:20:15. > :20:19.prepared to collaborate with the Syrian intelligence. I think he
:20:19. > :20:24.meant to become an informer on my fellow Syrian residents here in the
:20:24. > :20:29.UK. What is the reaction from the embassy? We have tried repeatedly
:20:29. > :20:32.to talk to Mr Al-Samouri or the ambassador. They have never been
:20:32. > :20:37.available. The embassy denies all allegations and says they all force.
:20:37. > :20:41.They say all diplomats here work in accordance with diplomatic rules.
:20:41. > :20:45.So far, they have not been any formal complaints to the police
:20:45. > :20:49.here about possible intimidation. Nevertheless, what I understand
:20:49. > :20:54.tonight is the Foreign Office is investigating anyway and it may
:20:54. > :20:58.well speak to the embassy about this issue in due course. Thank you.
:20:58. > :21:03.If Mary Quant and Ossie Clark were the epitome of fashion in the
:21:03. > :21:07.Swinging 60s, Terence Conran's Habitat transformed the interiors
:21:07. > :21:12.of thousands of bedsits and flats during those heady days. Paper
:21:12. > :21:16.lanterns, chicken bricks, cork place mats, brightly coloured rugs
:21:16. > :21:20.and Robin Day furniture were the height of cool. But four decades
:21:20. > :21:25.later, the shop that spawned thousands of imitators has almost
:21:25. > :21:30.been engulfed by them. Habitat has been in serious financial trouble
:21:30. > :21:35.fall while and it has been bought. All but three of the country's jobs
:21:35. > :21:43.are set to close with the loss of 700 jobs. Bleak picture is rosier
:21:44. > :21:53.in other European countries. Is it the death of an brand? We look at
:21:54. > :22:23.
:22:23. > :22:27.I am joined now by the designer, Tom Dixon, who was creative
:22:27. > :22:31.director of Habitat for many years and by the editor in chief of Elle
:22:31. > :22:35.Decoration, Michelle Ogundehin. First of all, your first memories
:22:35. > :22:43.of Habitat? When I went for my first interview! I did not have any
:22:43. > :22:47.connection with it before. Were you aware that it was ground-breaking?
:22:47. > :22:52.No and I lived down the road from it in the late 60s. I did not know
:22:52. > :22:56.a great deal about it a tall but when I got there, I researched it
:22:56. > :23:00.and found the extraordinary history which you have just seen. Did you
:23:00. > :23:06.find things in the archives which you could pull out and revisit,
:23:06. > :23:10.even in 1998? The problem was, when it started in the 60s, there were
:23:10. > :23:16.so many things that people needed and had never seen before. By the
:23:16. > :23:21.time I arrived, they had seen it all before. It is getting harder to
:23:21. > :23:26.find original things which people do not have already. What are your
:23:26. > :23:30.earliest memories? One of my earliest memories is the store was
:23:30. > :23:35.fun. It was an experimental activity to go shopping there. It
:23:35. > :23:39.is something that Sir Terence was keen on. You were buying into the
:23:39. > :23:45.idea of sexy modern living, it was not just about furniture. A lot of
:23:45. > :23:50.that is around us now From Robin -- Robin Day chairs to velvet chairs.
:23:50. > :23:56.My favourite piece was a sofa divined by Robin Day which Habitat
:23:56. > :24:00.bought into production -- designed by Robin Day. They took a piece of
:24:00. > :24:06.classic design and offered it at an affordable price. This is your
:24:06. > :24:10.favourite piece you brought in with you? It is a quintessential Habitat
:24:11. > :24:15.piece because it is utterly functional. It is a teapot. It
:24:15. > :24:19.works well but it is given a twist by being coloured gold. It makes
:24:19. > :24:26.something every day a bit more luxuries. When you came in and you
:24:26. > :24:29.had a chance, even then you were brought into up the ante, what was
:24:29. > :24:34.the premise that you're going to produce stuff which was different
:24:35. > :24:41.that you could not get in any other store? Not really. I'm not sure why
:24:41. > :24:47.I was Broughton. It was not clear even at that time. I think Habitat
:24:47. > :24:51.wanted to improve its design credentials. I think it struggled a
:24:51. > :24:56.lot to really invest in design in the way that it needed all the way
:24:56. > :25:01.that it did write in the beginning. Terence Conran was a designer.
:25:01. > :25:07.the time Tom Dixon came in, the point was there were a lot of
:25:07. > :25:12.imitators already. Do you think Habitat got left behind or swamped?
:25:12. > :25:15.I think they forgot that creating a good design is more than just the
:25:16. > :25:20.product. Tom brought in a freshness and new vitality but other things
:25:21. > :25:24.got left behind. I would say the quality of service and the
:25:25. > :25:30.knowledge and experience of the staff. It was not driven purely by
:25:30. > :25:34.a passion for great design any more. And arguably, the prices became a
:25:34. > :25:39.little volatile. And were they not producing things which people
:25:39. > :25:43.wanted all things which people could get elsewhere more cheaply?
:25:43. > :25:47.would say they lost their unique standpoint. Other places of the
:25:47. > :25:52.things which seemed similar enough at different prices. There was also
:25:52. > :25:56.the launch of Ikea. At the time, the modern furniture industry was
:25:56. > :26:00.on its knees in gratitude but that was never meant to last. By the
:26:00. > :26:04.late 80s when Ikea came along, there is a more homogenised idea of
:26:04. > :26:08.what is fashionable and what you should be buying? No, there were
:26:08. > :26:13.excellent prices for much better design. I think the middle market
:26:13. > :26:18.became harder and harder to really occupy. Habitat never really
:26:18. > :26:22.decided whether it was going to go up and be innovative in design or
:26:22. > :26:26.go down in price. Without knowing that, it was always going to fail.
:26:26. > :26:30.What did you think it should be? think it should be real design at
:26:30. > :26:34.affordable prices. Is it that the problem that particularly in this
:26:34. > :26:38.time, when people have to think three or four times before they buy,
:26:38. > :26:43.they either want something incredibly cheap or totally
:26:43. > :26:47.fabulous? I think the consumer is much smarter today. They want cheap
:26:48. > :26:51.but they know that will not last. They might buy an heirloom peas.
:26:51. > :26:58.The middle market have got crushed. Now, if you can buy everything
:26:58. > :27:05.online, why would you going to a shop? Ironically what --, what is
:27:05. > :27:10.surviving is the Habitat website. I would like to suggest your pieces
:27:10. > :27:15.are expensive. What is affordable now and who is able to create
:27:15. > :27:19.fabulous design at cheap prices in this country? Very few people in
:27:19. > :27:24.this country because there are not so many manufacturers here. The
:27:24. > :27:29.shame is that Habitat had a fabulous distribution network and
:27:29. > :27:36.what they produced were things like that. Pass the pineapple. This must
:27:36. > :27:39.have been -- this must have been bought in Shepherd's Bush today by
:27:39. > :27:44.the BBC but I think this is a perfect example of where Habitat
:27:44. > :27:52.should not have gone. Because you could get this in any stock as you
:27:52. > :27:55.could get this in a 99 p store down the Uxbridge Road. I think it is
:27:55. > :28:00.possible to do good design at affordable prices. Particularly in
:28:00. > :28:05.a world where there is a global market. You have a folding chair in
:28:05. > :28:14.the Argos catalogue which is less than �15 and a chair that does not
:28:14. > :28:17.look so different in Habitat costs �90, that is the problem, isn't it?
:28:17. > :28:24.No one will make the decision on anything other than price, will
:28:24. > :28:27.they? I think on the consumer level there has been a misunderstanding
:28:27. > :28:32.about what designers. Quite often, good design, you cannot see it
:28:32. > :28:34.because it is the way it works. Maybe they look similar but I
:28:34. > :28:41.guarantee the �90.10 will work better but arguably, the question
:28:41. > :28:45.is, can you make a good looking workable chair for �50. Will we be
:28:45. > :28:50.a poorer place for not having a Habitat on the high street? I think
:28:50. > :28:55.it is a sad loss of a British icon. There are three stores left, how do
:28:55. > :28:59.you think they can get up off their knees again? Personally, I do not
:28:59. > :29:04.think they can. The new owners have not bought a brand, they have
:29:04. > :29:08.bought a logo. Without going back to the original concept that Sir
:29:08. > :29:12.Terence had, I cannot see a future for it. You will not go and have
:29:12. > :29:16.another go at rescuing them? not sure they will have me! Thank
:29:16. > :29:23.you. Just one more thing from Newsnight
:29:23. > :29:28.tonight. Peter Falk, best known for playing the detective Columbo, has
:29:28. > :29:33.died aged 83. He is known for his raincoat and that catchphrase.