11/07/2011 Newsnight

It's like an entire immune system going into violent reaction.

Suddenly the politicians who wanted him to smile upon them find Rupert

Murdoch repellant. If I was running that company right now, with all of

the problems and difficulties and the mess that there is, they should

be focusing on clearing those up rather than on the next corporate

move. The affliction spread, as other

News International papers are accused of invading the privacy of

Gordon Brown and his family. Newsnight has new details of how Mr

Brown reacted when Rebekah Brooks broke the story of his son's

illness. It has happened at the moment Mr

Murdoch was poised to take an even bigger role in British life. Can

his ambitions survive this deluge of opprobrium.

Rumours this afternoon is to save the Sky deal, Murdoch might dump

all of his UK newspapers. More accusation that is policemen

were corrupted in exchange for informationment

Also tonight, enough air conditioning to play football in

the desert, how did a country with a smaller population than West

Yorkshire persuade FIFA to let them stage the World Cup. The attack on

2022 is because it fits the prejudice that people have in their

mind, an Arab nation cannot have won.

No-one, it seems, was safe from the attention of corrupt journalists.

There were allegations today that they even tried to hack the phones

of members of the Royal Family, and that reporters from the Sun and

Sunday Times, blagged details of Gordon Brown's bank account and of

his son's medical reports. David Cameron, meanwhile, stood by his

decision to appoint the former editor of the News of the World,

Andy Coulson, as his communications director. There is no sign of this

scandal diminishing any time soon. First tonight, we have this

reportment Today, the hacking story moved on.

With new victim, Gordon Brown and his family. New charges, against

more Murdoch newspapers. Both broadsheet and tabloid. And the

exposure of more unethical methods by members of the press. The Brown

revelations came from investigations by the BBC and the

Guardian. The first relates to a flat Mr

Brown bought in this block in Westminster, in 1992. Eight years

later, the Sunday Times ran a story suggesting it was bought for a

knock-down sum. The BBC has received a tape of a call to a firm

of solicitors, which seems to suggest how the details were

The caller, beard beard beard, is known to have been working for the

Sunday Times at that time. Another charge is also from 2000,

that someone rang the Abbey National in Bradford six times, and

got details of Mr Brown's account. The Ab by-election y wrote to him

warning him somebody was pretending to be him, a letter was sent to the

Sunday Times too, the Abbey never got firm proof that the paper was

behind the calls. The worst charges are about Gordon Brown's son Fraser,

born in 2006, the Brown's think that the front page story that he

had cystic fibrosis, came from his medical records. These are serious

allegations, indeed many Members of Parliament and like many members of

the public I'm shocked and horrified that people could do this

to Gordon and his family, it is extremely serious and needs to be

looked at with urgency. Tonight Gordon Brown said his family were

shocked by the scale of law breaking and intrusion into their

private lives. He is expected to do an interview tomorrow.

It all seemed to happen today in one extraordinary mad rush around

4.00. Not long after those revelations about what may have

happened to Gordon Brown and his family started trickling out over

the Internet, came the extraordinary news from News

Corporation, that they are withdrawing their undertakings

about spinning off Sky News. That, only minutes before the Culture

Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, was due to address MPs about the future of the

News Corporation bid for Sky. Whilst at the same time, David

Cameron was six miles away in Canary Wharf, fielding questions

from journalists. The PM sent a clear warning to the

Murdochs, don't think of taking over Sky until you have cleaned up

your act. All I would say is this, if I was running that company right

now, with all of the problems and the difficulties, and the mess,

frankly, that there is, they should be focused on clearing those up

rather than on the next corporate move. That is the view I would take

if I was running that company. at the house it was Ed Miliband who

wanted to grill Cameron about Sky, but the PM passed the issue to

Jeremy Hunt. And now Hunt suddenly had to cope

with the dramatic news from the Murdochs. I understand that in the

last few minutes News Corporation have withdrawn their undertakings

in news. On January 25th, John January 25th I said I was minded to

refer News Corporation's proposed merging to buy BSkyB, to the

Competition Commission, in the absence of any specific

undertakings in lieu. As a result of News Corporation's announcement

this afternoon, I will refer this to the Competition Commission, with

immediate effect. And will be writing to them this afternoon.

wasn't Cameron there to answer questions himself, Labour wanted to

know? Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was wrong not to come to

the House of Commons today. As on every occasion during this crisis,

he has failed to show the necessary leadership the country expects. He

saw no need for a judicial inquiry, he saw no need to change course on

BSkyB, and he has failed to come clean on Andy Coulson. This is a

Prime Minister running scared. Some stories think Rupert Murdoch

shouldn't just wait for the Competition Commission, but ditch

the BSkyB all together. I know it is very unusual for people in the

position of Mr Murdoch to behave honourably and simply with decency,

but he ought to recognise what's gone on in his organisation, why

there is doubt about its integrity and he ought to withdraw the bid

for BSkyB, just leave it. Only three weeks ago both Cameron and

Miliband were happily drinking with Rupert Murdoch at his summer bash.

The mood has change today dramatically, you would be hard

pressed now to find any politician who would want to be seen there.

I gather you have new information tonight? Newsnight has been talking

to one of Gordon Brown's senior colleagues from his days in Downing

Street, who has told us how in 2006, in the autumn, the office received

a phone call, that somebody from, the political editor of the Sun

rang to say that the paper had a tip-off from Edinburgh infirmary,

from somebody inside, that Fraser had cystic fibrosis. This was right

in the middle of the Pre-Budget Report. Gordon Brown acted very

badly, how could they know, how could they report it, how was that

in the public interest, he wouldn't let them make a story out of his

son's illness. Mr Brown was concerned it would come out in a

positive way, not in a way that would be described as tragic or

heart-breaking. Mr Brown wanted to issue a pre-emptive statement to

stop the Sun coming out with an exclusive story on this. Whereupon

Rebekah Brooks phoned up Paul McBride, Gordon Brown's press

spokesman, and - Damien McBride and got heavy on it, saying there was

no justification of a pre-emptive story and this was not the way

things were done, she was frightened Gordon Brown would stop

the Sun exclusive, in the end the Sun managed to get the story out by

being interviewed on Sky News, and Gordon Brown did manage to issue

the positive statement about the situation a few minutes later.

With us now are the Labour MP, Tom Watson, who has unearthed many of

the allegations against News International, and the former press

secretary to David Cameron. You are a very good friend of Gordon Brown,

how significant is this story about his son? I didn't know about it

until I actually saw it today. But, I wouldn't want that kind of thing

about my children slapped all over the papers, and I would be very

upset if it came out. It is yet another tragic story in this saga

that isn't over. And yet, having had that done to him, he still went

to Rebekah Brooks's wedding? Yeah, isn't that the weird thing about

politics. You are on this tread mill, you have to do these things.

There is a sense he has a big responsibility, he has to win

elections and a lot of people behind him. He probably didn't want

to go to the wedding but felt he had to. You will have to ask him

why he went. This frankly twaudry relationship between politicians,

not just of your party but all parties and this particular empire

is being increatesingly exposed isn't it? Yeah, and the good that

is already coming out of this, we have to get the criminals in jail.

But the good coming out of it is those days are over. The

familiarity between these people is going to be reduced. If you ask for

the Prime Minister's diary, when Rupert Murdoch visits Number Ten,

if he goes downstairs it is published, but if he has a private

meeting in the flat it is considered a private meeting. Those

silly little arrangements have to stop. Do you think this is a

turning point? I do, I think we have a real problem, it has gone on

for decades, swaggering editors and newspaper proprietor, cutting

across newspaper editorials of their newspapers, it is counter-

productive and undermined journalism itself. If what comes

out of it is a proper regulatory framework, and the kind you have in

broadcasting and on the print press it would be a good outcome. There

is nothing new, Tom Baldwin, the prerogative of the harlot, this is

since newspapers began. Why did David Cameron hire Andy Coulson?

was going to explain. There was a very concerted attempt not to play

this game, to keep the media at arm's length to focus on an agenda.

By hiring a tabloid editor? What happened is in 2007 there was a

feeling that actually there would be an election immediately. Gordon

Brown would do everything to get headlines for the next day, there

was a modification in that approach. That may have been wrong. All I'm

saying now is. What you call a modification is an abandonment of

what you said would be a new policy? Not an abandonment, but not

putting them at arm's length. was a mistake? With hindsight it

was. To be fair, both parties on this have had a problem. Alastair

Campbell, for the best part of ten years was telling Tony Blair that

we needed to do something about the media, and he was right. There was

a period where actually there was a cross-party consensus on this, that

broke in 200. Now, from where we are, if something good comes out it

means proper regulation of the media. Once and for all we can put

the profession of journalism into a I hooer plain. Everyone is

incredibly pious at a time of embarrassment like this. Let's try

to engage with practical mechanisms, for how this relationship, which

has been the dominant feature of what has come out today. This

relationship between a particular media empire, but let's say all

media empires and politicians ought to be reconstructed? Yeah, get rid

of the PCC and rebuild it. No Press Complaints Commission? You need

independent representation on a new body. You need sanction that is

people would volunteer to so when an editor make as mistake and is

guilty of a wrongdoing they can oblige the paper to put it right.

You need far more transparency at the heart of Government. These

private sessions needing to. Do you think there should be a requirement

to make it public? The meetings between owners and editors. When a

proprietor meets someone in Downing Street. They will get around it by

sending a flunky? They may try to get round the world, now Rupert

Murdoch can go in the back passage and have a meeting in the Number

Ten flat and no-one knows about it, that is remarkable. You have to

separate proprietors from their editorial and decisions, you don't

have them dictating what to do. Because there is a proper code, if

you break the code you have to put it right. The other really

tarnished outfit to come out of this so far, and doubtless there

may be many more, is the police, who are both incompetent, and some

of them corrupt. What should happen to Assistant Commissioner Yates?

John Yates misled parliament, he was task today review this 2006

evidence, within that evidence was the signs that Milly Dowler's phone

had been hacked and the Soham families were in there, he came to

parliament and said there was no new evidence. I think his position

is untenable. He should be sacked? He should resign with dignity.

have certainly questions to answer the police, the fact that they had

access to this information, the only ones that did and they didn't

take it. Do you have confidence in John Yates? I don't, personally.

you think he should resign? position is not good, frankly, yeah.

Commercial confidence in Rupert Murdoch is leaking like a sieve,

shares in BSkyB dropped again today, as did the shares in the American

operation. In the long and inglorious history of newspaper

Barons there have occasionally been some who are sane and decent, they

are comfortably outnumbered by the Conrad Blacks and Rupert Murdoch

and others. Murdoch claimed to be something different, a newspaper

man who happened to become a multimedia tycoon. He never

surrendered his close, personal control of his empire. As we report,

that is increasingly seen as part of the problem.

Rupert Murdoch sits atop a complex British arm of his News Corp

operation. His son James oversees the company's European and Asian

interests, including News International, that is the company

that owns the Times, the Sunday Times and the Sun, and until

yesterday, the News of the World, James is also chairman of BSkyB, of

which, News Corporation owns 31%, they want to own it all. In an

effort to save the deal in which they would get it all they have

sacrificed the News of the World. As Rupert Murdoch left his London

home today, it was clear this wasn't going to go any where near

as swaujing the anger threatening to - assuageing the anger

threatening to overcome the deal. They were going to buy off BSkyB,

limiting the amount of British news media they were in charge of. This

afternoon they withdrew that undertaking, triggering the

Competition Commission investigation that they had been

working so hard to avoid. Why would they do that? The answer is given,

where they are now, given the position that they can see going

forward, getting a Competition Commission investigation is about

the best position they can hope to be in. I think they are giving it

time and letting things quieten down while the Competition

Commission does their job, hopefully that will deal with

questions about whether or not News Corp is a fit and proper

organisation to hold this license. Once that is all dying down the

Competition Commission will have progressed and hopefully find in

favour of the ablgquigs. Then it will go ahead, with nobody really

complaining that much. That question of whether News Corp

executives are fit and proper people to be involved in

broadcasting is another headache for the company. A question to be

judged by offcome. Up until 2010 Stuart Purves was in charge of

standards for Ofcom. If you were to decide today, that members of the

BSkyB, because of their connection say with News International, not

many have one, but some do, that they were not fit and proper people,

how can they hold the BSkyB license today. You have to say what will be

done about the present BSkyB license, put aside the acquisition.

The American side of the Murdoch empire may prove problematic. Now

running the Dow Jones in the wall treat journal, Les Hinton was in

charge there at the alleged time of bribes. Even if he wasn't in charge,

the company could full foul of the American law. In the US law you can

be found liable for an FTCA accusation. For anyone acted within

the scope of their employment makes payments intended to benefit at

least in part the business organisation. So there really are

potentially two pronging of this investigation from a US standpoint

if it doesn't sue, the kprot level, or perhaps, although we don't know

at this point as to culpable individuals. James Murdoch, some

believe, could be vulnerable too, he approved huge payments to the

victims of hacking. You embarked on a sustained and deliberate cover-up,

this is the ago saying, because you knew how terrible it was and you -

this is what people are saying, because you knew how terrible it

was. I acted on the advice of executives and lawyers. Within the

complete investigation, that is a regret for me. The investigation

buys the Murdoch's time, but to do what. The rumour swirling around

the Times newspaper this afternoon, is that title might be the subject

of the Murdoch's next drastic move. To the guys in New York, this

Wapping appears to be in a bit of a time warp, it is about the Murdoch

heritage, it is about how he first got into newspapers in Britain,

rather than the future of News Corp. It could go? I'm not suggesting it

happens today, or in five years time. Maybe if there is a post-

Rupert Murdoch moment, who knows when that will be, when the guys in

New York actually want to run it as a different kind of company.

Remember that the only ground that is the Competition Commission are

going to judge the Sky deal on is plurality, that is its impact on

the number of distinct voices in British news. If the Murdoch empire

gets rid of its British newspaper, well the plurality problem goes

away. Michael Wolf is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair,

and knows Rupert Murdoch better than most, after spending 50 hours

interviewing him and his family for a biography. This talk that we hear

over on this side of the Atlantic, that Murdoch might just get rid of

all his newspapers here, in order to concentrate on television, does

it make sense to you? We hear it on this side of the Atlantic too. What

we are hearing is the voice of panic. Nobody knows what to do. I

think every scenario is open for discussion. There are also, there

has always been a faction within News Corp here that says why do we

have these newspapers. Newspapers, British newspapers, makes no sense

to us. We own a lot of businesses which are growing, that business is

shrinking. So this becomes inside of News Corporation a political

moment to say let's get rid of them. In a more general way, it is

looking at this crisis, and saying we are really in trouble. It is

also looking and saying how do we continue to run the News

International. So many of its executives are now utterly

discredited. Are you referring to members of his family?

referring to Rebekah Brooks, I'm referring to James Murdoch, who

obviously has suffered an enormous loss of credibility. Is part of the

problem here the way in which Rupert Murdoch runs what is a

public company, as if it were a private thiefdom? That is a

question that is coming up in this country more and more, that this is

an issue of governance. That is a question that will have to go to

the board. We now have a situation of course where the Murdochs,

people named Murdoch, are not accountable in conventional ways,

we have a situation in had which people named Murdoch have and are

you suffering a heamorrhage of credibility. I think they are

reasonably at the point where this heamorrhage has been so great that

you have to ask are these people who caught to be running a great

public company. He's a pretty old man now, look 20 years down the

road s this going to be a company, do you think, controlled by a

Murdoch? You know, I would say, you know a matter of months down the

road, this may not be a company controlled by someone named Murdoch.

Do you think have any insight into why it is he's so protective of

Rebekah Brooks? Well, I do. I think it is a family issue, number one,

and remember, the Murdochs see this as a family company. The first

issue is what is good for the family. Rebekah is very close to

James and close to his daughter Elizabeth and her husband Matthew

Freund. I know Murdoch and Rebekah themselves are very close. Rebekah

told me the story once about she stopped smoking about - because

Murdoch challenged her in a swimming race. If she won she would

give up cigarettes. We are talking about a really family intimate

relationships. The other aspect of this is that traditionally when

someone in News Corp is attacked outside by someone outside the

company, they close ranks, they never fire anyone. In the New York

post they had to admit that the editor of page 6, Richard Johnson,

was taking bribes, being paid to write stories. Richard still works

for News Corporation. This is an entire newspaper should

down here? Absolutely. They shut down a newspaper so that, in part,

the executives could cope their jobs. Do you hear anything about

potential lawsuits there? There has been a shareholders lawsuit filed

in Delaware today. I expect there will be more suits, of course there

will be. What are they trying to claim?

are trying to claim that there is a level of unfitness here.

Thank you. No-one, neither the Murdoch empire,

nor the politicians who courted it, nor journalism, more broadly, is

emerging from this scandal smelling good. For the police the smell is

especially bad, the best they can get away with are accusations of

being feeble and incompetent, at worst our suspicions of corruption

and accusation that is individual officers were bought and sold.

Scotland Yard got testy today claiming people were trying to

wreck the current inquiry that the News of the World tried 0 get phone

numbers for the Royal Family by bribing police officers.

Once again, the ethics which should underminute the relationship

between police and journalists, is under scrutiny as never before.

When it works it is symbiotic, hacks need story, police need to

investigate. A shrew of allegations in recent days shows the darker

side. Any journalist worth his salt will try to persuade police

officers to share information, that is what good information is all

about. There is a line that can't be crossed. News today that a

member of the Royal Protection Squad, has passed on information in

return for cash has come as a shock. Personal protection officers travel

in the same car as the royals, close ones in back-up vehicles.

Others guard buildings. The BBC was told today that News of the World's

former royal editor asked his editor, at the time, Andy Coulson,

who went on to work for the PM, or �1,000 for a protection officer to

give information. There were phone number force the royals and others

in the household. It is unforgivable, for a protection

officer who is trusted and trusted by the principles themselves,

protection comes in variety of different falls. Protecting their

personalities and identity is something that all police should

sign up to. The story gets so much worse, the e-mail suggesting these

payments were made was discovered by the internal investigation in

2007. They didn't disclose until last month. The met police have

serious questions to answer about the failure of a previous

investigation to uncover the truth. John Yates carried out what the

home affairs committee referred to as a review in 2009, but decided no

further action was needed. He said this so-called review was not a

review at all. John Yates said today he suggests he informed the

committee he had thoroughly looked I think it is a matter of semantics.

When is a review not a review, and when is the checking of facts a

review. I think we will need to clarify these questions with John

Yates. John Yates is a very experienced police officer, who has

held some of the most important jobs in the Metropolitan Police. I

think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt until he

appears before the committee and plains the difference between the

two. He said there were very few victims. He said all the victims

had been contacted, he said that all the mobile phone companies had

been put on notice in relation to this. All of these things are lies.

Some have claimed that senior police officers were too scared at

being turned over themselves to tackle News of the World. Something

that has always been denied. Can we expect police officers to

follow a different moral code to the rest of the law-abiding

population. If not, from time to time there will be embarrassing

stories about alleged affairs. Are these purely personal matters, or

does it lead to the perception that some police officers are open to

influence. There is former Assistant

Commissioner Andy Hayman who headed the first inquiry in 2006 into

phone hacking. He found himself in the headlines over a relationship.

The solicitor behind it wrote to the home affairs committee last

Mr Hayman didn't respond to our questions. Newsnight has been told

that police officers from other units were leaking information too.

In connection with this diamond heist at the Dome for example,

though it remains unconfirmed. Even in terror investigations, we are

told the tabloids have deep pockets. The tabloids came and said open

check book, they were offering very, very big money. How much, roughly.

I can tell you it was six figures. �100,000 plus, with these sums

swirling around, it is easy to assume other revelations will come.

Bob Milton who headed up the Special Branch protection squad and

was in charge of security vetting. Let's deal with the royal security.

Are you surprised an officer was prepared toe enter into

negotiations to sell a brift royal telephone book? I'm devastated this

has been made. Royalty protection, VIP protection at the highest level

of integrity, this is a very bad day. This is presumably someone who

you vetted? I was responsible for the high standards of vetting in

the United States. This family would have had the same as everyone

else, if they had access to confidential information. What

should be done? A full and hope inquiry has to what why this person

was, was it a principal protection officer, someone who sits next to

the Queen, or someone who stood outside Buckingham Palace and got

hold of the book, we don't know. this, as far as you know, widely

available? Anyone working in the environment of the royal protection

may have had access to 0 it at some point. That would have had to have

had access on security grounds. The point I'm a making is the police

officers are vetted at different levels. It may well not be someone

at the highest level of vetting. The broader question of the

relationship between the tabloid% and the police, this is a murky

area? The police and press need to speak to each other, and they need

to get their message across. There need to be some strict rules about

passing of confidential information, it should not happen. It certainly

shouldn't happen for money. That is despicable and a betrayal of the

trust that people who have given that information, whether it is

police officers working in the community, and working with

families of victims, or in this case somebody working close to the

Royal Family. It is a criminal offence? Yes it is, they should be

have the full wait of the law applied to them. What about the

fear that some police have of being turned over in the tabloid press,

have you come across that, ever heard of it? The worry we have

always is are you vulnerable to an approach from an outside agency. We

carry significant responsibility, we have access to very, very secret

and confidential material. If you are not squeaking clean yourself,

you may well behind that you are vulnerable to an outside agency

trying to axe fire that knowledge. They are human - Access that

information. They are human beings, and someone will have an affair?

They need to be open and honest about that. They can't hide the

affairs and risk somebody using that information to try to put them

under pressure. They have to be open and honest, if they are having

an affair, they need to declare it? To whom? They have a vetting

officer. If they are cleared to that level of vetting they should

be speaking direct to the officer. If Peter Hain was - Andy Hainaut

was performing an investigation what should have happened?

can't put senior police officers in the hands and the way of delivering

information. If you have done something that makes you vulnerable,

then you need to do something about The other person who is under close

scrutiny at the moment, is John Yates, the assistant commissioner

at the yard, is his position tenable any longer? Somebody should

take responsibility. Whether a police officer, or somebody else, I

don't know, nobody seems to step up and take responsibility. John Yates

vm a very professional and competent police officer. He has

admitted he had a lack of judgment two years ago. He will have to make

his own decision on whether or not he feels his position is untenable.

I couldn't answer that. What do you think personally, would you resign?

It depends why he made the decision. If he made it on operational

grounds, then fair enough. For any other reason, if he was influenced

by any other way he should step down.

It was 45 degrees in the gulf state of Qatar today, FIFA, the governing

body of world football has ruled that sweltering heat to that is no

bar to run around a football pitch. The decision to hold the World Cup

there in 2022, is one of the most astonishing for an organisation

that seems to like defying belief. Qatar has not what you call a

world-boating reputation for soccer. How did it get the world's most

glittering football tournament. The head of the bid has spoken to us.

Doha's skyline is designed as a display of wealth. Gas and oil

reserves turn into steel and glass. In just 20 years this gleaming

Metropilis has risen out of the desert, and the rate of range for

the people who live here, some of the richest in the world, has been

breath-taking. The 2022 FIFA World Youth Cup

is...Qatar. And it has a new catalyst for

development, the 2022 World Cup. Awarded by FIFA last December, but

dogged ever since by murky allegation, that they won the prize

using corrupt means. Now for the first time the head of

the bid has hit back, strenuously denying the allegations and saying

they are being unfairly targeted. Attack on 2022 is because it fits

the prejudice that people have in their mind, an Arab nation could

not have won. That is what I'm trying to say.

Qatar says the real reason for its victory was its promise to spend

more than �60 billion. Not on bunging officials, but on 12

new stadium, new roads and new airports and a new Metro system,

all built for FIFA's month-long football party.

This is perhaps the best example of Qatar's bold vision for its future.

Ten years from now, they say, this will be a brand new megacity,

housing 190,000 people. Over there behind me will be the new 8 6,000

seater stadium, build for the 2022 world come final. As you can see,

there is a lot of work to be done. Representatives from other

countries, who bit against Qatar, still say FIFA got it wrong.

still think it is unusual to say the least to hold an event of such

extraordinary magnitude in such a city. You have to question whether

it makes sense to build the kind of infrastructure it takes to create

the World Cup. By far the biggest challenge will be combatting the

scourging summer sun. Temperatures can reach more than 50 degrees,

posing a serious risk to help. typical day we can see up to 40

heat presentations. Most are not life threatening, I remember some

days we had on a regular, at least once day we would see a life-

threatening heat stroke. This is what Qatar says is the

solution to its problem with the heat. 12 air conditioned stadiums

like this one, with jets puching cool air out across the pitch, and

with smaller ones in the stands. At the pitch side it is pleasant. Up

there in the stands it is stickier, and the problem for Qatar is, it

isn't air condition the whole country.

The other more mofgs answer would be to move the World Cup to -

controversial answer would be to move the World Cup to winter.

This man led the bid and has the task of delivering the project?

Would you be prepared to move the World Cup to winter. This is not a

question for us, it is for the entire football community. If they

said they would prefer it, would you do it? It is a question for

them, for the football family, for us we are ready to host it in the

winter in the summer, whenever it First impressions of a modern,

westernised city, with the usual freedoms are quickly disspelled.

Drinking alcohol is banned, except in some hotels and restaurants and

there are severe restrictions on sexual behaviour and on the freedom

of eggs presidential. There is a perception that Qatar is

a human rights compliant country, in fact, it isn't. When people go

to Qatar and find out the true situation, they are often shocked

at the level of restrictions that they could face. For example, if

they say anything in relation to Islam, or to the Amir, or being

seen drunk in public, for example, that could land them a sentence of

up to six months in prisement. Nearly all the places Newsnight

went, we were accompanied by media minders. This is not a country

where you can be completely open. The media is not completely free?

Can I ask you a question, why do you think the media is not

completely free. I understand if you insult the amount mir here you

could be liable to a jail sentence of seven years, that doesn't happen

in a country that is truly free? think the World Cup will accept

accelerate a lot of the initiatives Qatar is doing. Among them freedom

of speech, human rights, and so on. A lot of things Qatar is taking on

now. There is a level of freedom of speech, maybe not the same as in

some countries, like the US and England. Each country has its own

factors, culture and tradition. Certain things would be within

acceptable norms, certain things would not be. Can any sport, even

one as big as football, really deliver that source of social and

political change. This man has worked in sports

marketing for the gulf for over 20 years? What they have done is very

much identified sport as wait to put their country on the map. In

the Middle East other countries have tried to do other things,

Dubai is a commercial hub, Abu Dhabi is a cultural hub. It has

brought global recognition for this tiny country, not necessarily for

the reasons it might have imagined. Since the vote Qatar's bid has been

mired in corruption allegations. A whistle-blower claimed three FIFA

members were paid $1.5 million to vote for Qatar, claims she has

since retracted. Even if she is now tl telling the truth, the bid is

still under scrutiny, especially with the country's most powerful

football executive facing accusations he bribed officials,

during a bid for the FIFA presidency.

Qatar fears its reputation will also be tarnish.

Did you bribe FIFA members to get the World Cup? No. At no point you

bought any money or gifts or anything beyond the controls to win

the race? Had We never broke FIFA's rules. The problem is people will

look at FIFA's own Ethics Committee to say that he was bribing people

to get votes, and people will believe that they was doing that

for this vote too? His issues are separate from the bid. We ran our

campaign, we lobbied, out of all people we lobbied him the strongest,

because he from the very first day was not on board with the bid.

Football has grown so much in popularity and power over the last

few years, that for a country like this, hosting the World Cup is seen

as an opportunity to build a nation. But ever since it won the vote back