30/08/2011 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/08/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, would you take abortion advice from a group that thinks the


procedure is wickedness. As the Government plans to put counselling


into the hands of independent advisers, this programme reveals


that an advice group his training manual that believes that abortion


was a sin. The thing they said was that God had given me another


chance. We ask is it ever possible to offer unbiased advice on such an


emotive subject. Gunfire on the streets of Syria,


Ramadan is over tomorrow, instead of celebrations tomorrow, they will


bury the dead. Does Libya's revolution offer a blueprint for


Syria. Where does this leave western intervention, we ask


Douglas Hurd and Jonathan Powell. Do not go gentle, would you like


your mortal remains freeze-dried or lick quified, the environmental way


to say goodbye. If you find yourself pregnant and confused


about an abortion, the chances are you will be offered counselling, up


until now the majority of services were offered by the British


Pregnancy Advisory Services or Marie Stopes. Organisations that


carry out abortions themselves, is that fair? The Government has


decided not. It says it will change the rules so the clinic that is


offer termination services are not tasked with advising. But who will


fill the gap? Can abortion advice ever be impartial. We have


discovered the main umbrella group claiming to offer independent


advice, Care Confidential, is using a training manual that believes


abortion is wickedness. It is one of the most difficult decisions a


woman will ever have to make. Who helps her make that decision is


about to be put into the hands of politicians. A cross-party alliance,


backed by the Government, wants to see abortion providers striped of


their powers to advise pregnant women, and instead, they want to


choose the organisation that is they think are more independent.


The Government is in danger of opening up a very unethical


practice, and practice kpwipbs the best interests of vulnerable women.


The important thing is to take it away from abortion providers, so


the counselling can be truly independent. If a woman wants an


abortion, it has to be signed off by two doctors she can be offered


counselling if they think she needs further help. New proposals would


like all women offered free independent counselling before they


can have a termination. It is the question of who can provide


independent counselling that is proving to be so hugely


controversial. One of the groups that is supposed


to offer this kind of non-biased counselling is Care Confidential,


it is the biggest independently- funded crisis pregnancy charity in


the UK. They have more than 130 affiliated centres. They say they


don't moralise. But we have had access to their training manual,


which describe abortion as a We spoke to one woman who said her


Care Confidential counselling session was more like a sermon.


Bringing God into the counselling space is highly inappropriate. Non-


directive counselling, I have had non-directed counselling for


pregnancy related issues before, I know what it's like. It respects


the client. You don't bring religion into the counselling space.


So the moment they mentioned God, I knew something wasn't quite right.


I was told things like it wasn't, I was actually a mother now, even


though I was only six weeks pregnant. My baby, they didn't


refer to it as a pregnancy, it was baby, even at just six weeks, had


everything, DNA, absolutely everything, the whole blueprint,


and I was a mother now. Eventually this kind of expanded to the fact


that abortion just was not a solution, it was not the answer.


Just all sorts of very anti- abortion views were just being


thrown at me, really. Care Confidential say they acknowledge


the language they used is now outdated and will rewrite the


training manuals. The chief executive said they want to bring


100 centres up to a commissioning standard, to every advisor would


provided unbiased counselling support. There is already an


unbiased professional service, regulated and inspected by the


Department of Health itself. Which on its website warns against going


to the independent abortion providers, who have been showing


time and time again, through misery shopping centre visits from giving


controversial advice in seeking to tell women not to seek abortion


when they want one. Critics say change is needed


because Marie Stopes and other groups have a vested interest in


women having abortions. At the moment counselling seems to be the


first step on abortion conveyor- belt. Abortion providers give the


impression that abortion is no big deal. At Life, from the many women


we see at post-abortion counselling, we know it has serious consequences


for many, many women. Going to clinic that is are giving the


impression this is no big deal, it is perhaps too easy to get into a


process without fully thinking it through. Attempts to change the


abortion laws have failed in the past. The most recent example was


trying to lower the limit from 24- 22 weeks. This time it is slightly


different, because these changes can be made without a vote. Which


means the Government is open to criticism that it is trying to make


radical changes without political scrutiny. Abortion charities say


the changes would only delay thousands of terminations and put


women at greater risk. But pro-life groups say it could actually


prevent 60,000 terminations every year. With such polarised views,


are any of these groups really qualified to be truly independent.


We put our report to the Department of Health. They said no minister


was available, as they are still finalising their proposals. They


Meanwhile, let's discuss it further here. Joining me now is the


Conservative MP, Stewart Jackson, backer of Nadine Dorries's


amendment. And from Manchester, Labour MP. Welcome. Do you believe


that a group which believes that abortion is undoubtedly a


wickedness that grieves God's heart, can offer independent advice?


I think there will be a plethora of independent advisers and


counsellors coming in to give advice and counselling on abortion


if the amendment goes through. about this group, this is Care


Confidential, clearly the biggest advisor, that says it is a


wickedness that grieves God's heart? Clearly there will be a


range of views, and nuances. That is not range of view. As Care


Confidential themselves have said, they will be changing their manual,


and they will be presenting a different picture to women that


seek their advice and counselling. But this is primarily about choice,


it is about impartiality, it is breaking that fiscal link, that


conflict of interest between people, as we did in the pension industry,


20-odd years ago, between people who give advice and also people


then selling financial products. Just to clarify. Abortion is much


more important. Do you think those people are appropriate, this is a


company offering a service they call unbiased and their training


manual, the manuals their own advisers learn from, preach that it


is undoubtedly a wickedness that grieves God's heart. Is that a


suitable agency to go to? You will always be able to bring forward


anecdotes. It is not Anam he can tote, it is a report from a woman -


anecdote, it is a report from a woman you heard in the report?


have people going to Marie Stopes and BPAS who have told they have


wrong advice. �60 million a year the two organisations receive a


year to do 100,000 abortion as here. It ill behoves people who say they


are in favour of women's choice, to oppose an amendment that will open


up choice, and bring forward independence and transparency to


the whole situation. Which is a very traumatic situation for many


women. It is unrealistic to expect that these places that offer the


service of abortion will not be swayed by the business they are in,


isn't it? There is no empirical evidence to that effect, to show


that this is the case in point. I am afraid, I'm very concerned about


the proposed changes, behind it is an agenda, it is probably religious


and morally based agenda to reduce the number of abortions. In all


honesty, these people, Nadine Dorries and others, are not really


concerned about giving women independent advice, what their


agenda is to reduce the number of abortions, because they morally and


religiously it is the wrong thing to happen. This is just surely a


rebalancing of a system that is arguably already unfair, that as


one woman said, makes going to a clinic seem like it is no big deal,


when women are turning up for abortions? I think that's wrong as


well. Because when a woman falls pregnant, who doesn't want to be


pregnant, I'm sure she's probably getting a number of different bits


of advice, her friends, GPs and others, she probably knows what she


wants to do in the majority of cases. To suggest some how you will


reduce 100,000 down to 40,000, so 60,000 people won't have abortions


cleetly wrong. That is completely wrong, it shows the agenda behind


it. Do you want to reduce abortions? It is about righting an


anon-ly, which is women at the moment don't have an independent


right to seek advice. Why is that righting it? You have seen what the


agency said, they are the largest "independent" provider of that


counselling service now, who else is there? The fact of the matter is,


this is not a narrow agenda, it is backed by the majority of the


public, many people in the health care sector, the British


Association of Counsellors and psychotherapist, and right across


the House of Commons. I'm talking practicalities, who else is there?


There will be many other people that will come in to give that


support. If you are asking me as a legislator, as Yasmin, it is not


right that we see a social phenomenon, that has grown from 8


4,000 in 1991, to 18 1,000 abortions in 2010, that we have no


part in deciding that, I have to disagree. The argument and debate


we should be having as a society is about the number of preing cities


that are - pregnancies that are unwanted. To prevent those unwanted


pregnancies, to work out how to educate people, even talk about be


a nepbs, things of that nature - be a - be a stinnepbs, and things of


that nature, by that stage women know what they want to do. We will


set up quangos and charities, more money to be given for these so-


called independent advisers when actually our energies should be.


That isn't the case. This is neutral money, it is going from one


place to another. The real question in society is to address the number


of unwanted pregnancies, how do we prevent that from happening. There


is no point in changing the society and putting it back to 25 years ago.


Most medical practitioners have said that this particular proposal


is going to cause more problems, it will cause more delays and cause


more dilemma and more harm to women. And for the Government now, which


is preaching austerity, we haven't got the money for this. You


certainly don't want to push women's decisions further along the


line of their pregnancy? This is about putting women's choices,


choices that are right for them in very traumatic circumstance, front


and centre, the money has already been spent by the NHS. Urbaning


certain places from giving advice, BPAS and Marie Stopes who do it at


the moment, why is that more choice? We are challenging a vested


interest. I can't understand why people who are supportive of


women's choice, information, transparency and independence,


should be against this amendment. The reason people support it across


the House of Commons and the country, is because it is moderate


and sensible. It is not part of an agenda. Do you have any evidence


they encourage abortions among women who may have chosen not to?


I'm not making the direct link, there is certainly a case to answer


that there is a vested interest in elective abortions in BPAS and


Marie Stopes. You have no evidence to prove that and make aspersions


against people. There is a moral argument going on here, that is


what people should be honest about. This isn't about want to be give


women a choice, this is about the fact that increasing the social


Conservatism, coming from America, coming into this country, and all


they are trying to do is effect their agenda. You think this is a


move of a Government that is anti- abortion? Yes, I think that is the


move, I think that is intention of this movement. There is a 36%


increase in funding to the Stopes clinic.


As prayers mark the end of Ramadan in Syria, thousands of anti-


Government protestors poured on to the streets. The security forces


were ready for them. Seven activists are reported to have been


killed, three shot dead today. It is inevitable perhaps that some


sort of victory is reached by the rebels of Libya. Hope and a certain


amount of pressure will have passed over the Arab world to Damascus.


Western Governments will be relieved that things worked out as


they did so far in Libya. What lesson has this intervention taught


us. Where does it leave us for next time round? Does it offer any


Nobody's quite clear which root Libya's revolution will follow now.


But plenty of French and British pundits have been quick to declare


that this was a model way to get rid of a dictator.


So, if it can be done in Libya, why not Syria? Today's religious


festival of Eid, has given way to further protest and a bloody Syrian


response. Syria's a lynch pin of the Middle East, if Syria goes up


in smoke, then immediately you have problems in Lebanon, you have


problems at the border between Israel and Syria, which has been


quiet since 1973. One of the quietest borders around. So, all in


all, we have picked a big problem, which was Libya, but in the context


of the Middle East, it was not the fundamental problem. Gaddafi had


made himself pretty much a friendless dictator. The


intervention against him was preceded by an Arab League vote,


and followed by one in the UN Security Council. Neither body


would be ready to vote for similar action against Libya.


We have seen how a UN resolution was rushed to secure a military


intervention in Libya, and the Arab League, which initially supported


the UN resolution, was very quick to distance itself from the


decision, given the turn that the military action was in Libya.


It's true, the Turk, concerned about their border with Syria, have


changed their language towards the outside Government, and so have the


Russians. But many Arab countries are playing a waiting game, and the


Syrian regime still has fulsome support from Iran.


We have seen some of the Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, who


have withdrawn their diplomatic representatives from Syria, yet he


still has some very major all Lois that Libya did not. Assad and Syria


are not as diplomatically isolated as Gaddafi was in Libya. Syria has


very close relations with Iran, very involved in Lebanon, and also


with Hezbollah. So these are much stronger and direct allies than


Gaddafi had in Libya. The Syrian-Iranian alliance,


supporting groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Hamas in Gaza, raises


other problems for those who seek change of Government in Damascus.


President Assad has a doomsday option of triggering a regional war


with Israel, as a means of trying to divert dissent.


To large extent that is the ultimate and most desperate card of


Bashar al-Assad that he could play. Clearly he could play that card in


collapsing the regime in Lebanon, which is a very rickety coalition,


depending on Syria's good will. Clearly he could try to encourage


the Hamas movement in Gaza to restart its missile offensive on


Israel. There were some continuityive attempts to get


marches, suppose - tentative attempts to get marches, on the


border Iran Palestine and Israel to start conflict about the Golan


Heights. If the diplomatic obstacles could


be overcome, his security forces are a mightier foe than those of


Libya. The Syrians are better equipped and organised. Bashar al-


Assad remains the only successful republican dynast in the region,


having succeeded his father, in part, through careful cultivation


of the forces. There is no doubt that although Syria is run by


effectively a minority of all watts, its powerful structure and reliance


on the army is crucial, it has proved much more loyal to the


regime than in the case of Libya. The strength of Syrian defences


means that an air campaign would require a big American effort to


overwhelm them at its start. As it stands today, the idea of US air


strikes, enabling UN resolution, or even trade isolation, all seem


remote. And the Assad Government sits secure in power.


Mark is with me now. What do you think the outside world can do then


to change Assad's regime? It is not a complete counsel of sis pair, but


at the moment they are limited to - despair, but at the moment they are


limited to small turns on the screwdriver. We have seen a small


number of Syrian officials with their assets frozen and bank


accounts frozen, that take it is to 33. Some Arab countries withdrawing


ambassadors. That kind of thing. A real tipping point where a major


part of the country breaks free, or a majority part of the army breaks


free hasn't happened. We have seen the Syrian army, unlike the Libyan


forces back in Februaryia which fractured, the army seems prepared


to go out and kill its people week after week without major fractures.


The people come out to protest their outrage and points of view


week after week and it continues. We are trying to draw parallels


between the situation we have seen in Libya and that which could occur


in Syria. Is it possible to say if there was a key moment of


intervention from the west that actually made a difference?


you're looking at outside intervention, where you're not


prepared to put troops on the ground. Clearly that is one of the


things that people extol about the Libyan model, you have to be quite


modest in what it can achieve. I think you can narrow it down to the


afternoon of the 19th of March, when French jets bombed Colonel


Gaddafi's tanks as they moved into the outskirts of Benghazi. From


that point on, the outcome was not clear, in a sense it wasn't clear


that Colonel Gaddafi would be overthrown, what was clear is he


wasn't going to reconquer Benghazi and tib bruk, and the other areas -


toub bruk, and the other areas freed by the coalition. The best he


could hope for then was partition, even those with little faith in it,


was some de facto partition of the country that is what they hoped for.


It could possibly happen in the Turk irk border area that a safe


haven or humanitarian area could be secured with international help. We


don't see that fracturing of the country, either geographically,


ethically or along the lines of the forces.


Joining me now is Douglas Hurd, the former Conservative Foreign


Secretary, Jonathan Powell, Chief- of-Staff to Tony Blair, and Anne-


Marie Slaughter, the former adviser to Hillary Clinton in the US State


Department. Let's up on some of the points there, the regional


differences when you are looking at Syria rather than Libya. How


constrained, for example, are we by the fact that Iran is backing this


regime? That's part of the complex, of course it is. It is no good


thinking of Sir Libya as a blueprint, and everyone - of Libya


as a blueprint and everyone going on in that way. The two situations


are desperately different from each other. You have to make up your


mind in each case, separately, what is the best thing to do. The worst


thing to do is use, and send your soldiers to kill and be killed,


without any assurance that you are going to make the situation better.


Of course it can't be a blueprint, Jonathan Powell, but there will be


politicians looking at this now and saying well that did work, as far


as we were able, we got lucky in Libya, can't the same be done in


Syria? Intervention worked too in Kosovo, as you remember, and Sierra


Leone, as well as in Libya. Intervention can make a difference.


But you are leaving Iraq out of that? I would come on to Iraq.


Intervention made a difference, it got rid of Saddam, it was the


aftermath. Intervention would make a difference in Syria, undoubtedly.


When you see the picks tures of the young people protesting on the


streets and their extraordinary bravery in fighting the regime, and


the brutality in putting them down, it is hard not to want to intervene.


But can you do it practically. Tony Blair made the speech about Kosovo,


he said there were five conditions, one is practicality, can you do it,


clearly in Syria at the moment you can't do it. Anne-Marie Slaughter


do you agree there is no serious entry into Syria as there was into


Libya? I agree, we are not talking about military force in Syria,


unless things got far, far worse. I think I disagree that we only have


small diplomatic moves to make. There is a great deal more that we


can do diplomatically, in terms of helping to build much more unity


against Syria in the region. Working with turkey in particular,


turkey has much - Turkey in particular, Turkey has much more


lefrpbage, it has barely begun to use it. Working with - leverage, it


has barely begun to use it. Working with other Arab League countries.


What is important in Syria, Assad's days are numbered, it may take a


long time, he will not survive that. Once that starts to become an


inevitability, then the business community starts to think, wait a


minute, where do I need to be. Even countries right now that are


supporting the Syrian regime, like Russia, need to think, well wait a


minute, we still want to use the port, if there is another


Government in power, we better perhaps hedge our bets. And


foinally, the - finally, the EU has only begun to apply diplomatic


pressure, they haven't put important sanctions in place, those


should be coming. I think there is a lot we can do that will help the


protestors without actually using force. Do you think this requires


American leadership. Is there any will in the US to lead on this one


in Syria? Absolutely. Although I think the Europeans, and the Turk,


have a very important role to play, but the US has been extremely


active diplomatically, it was extremely active diplomatically in


Libya, secretary Clinton worked very hard to keep the various


coalitions together, not only in NATO, but with Cutter and UAE, and


simply here, we have been out front imposing sanctions and pushinging


the Europeans to impose sanctions and those on the Security Council.


We want this to be on the model much more on Tunisia and Egypt,


where ultimately the non-violent protests of these extraordinarily


brave people, ultimately creates a situation in which the Government


has to go. The point that was made was of


military might and the Syrian regime's capability and capacity to


kill its people week in and week out. Very different to that of


Libya? Very different. So it is not a blueprint exactly, what we have


just heard from the American side is, I think, sensible. You


gradually build up the pressures. You have to get agreement to


achieve anything in the way of pressures, that is why it is a slow


business. I think the significant phrase that you used was


"ultimately". This will take time. Assad is in quite a strong position,


he has himself in quite a strong position. But fundamentally he's in


a weak position, because fundamentally he cannot command the


loyalty of the majority of Syrians. But he has Iran behind him, and


nobody wants to anger Iran, what do you make of this idea of a


manufactured regional war with Israel to divert attention? I don't


think that's out all likely. He has a problem. He's not handling it


well. That problem may ultimately be his downfall. We should bring


that day closer if we can. And the diplomatic activity that we have


heard about, economic activity, we and the French and the Americans,


are in the lead in the UN trying to build up these pressures, how fast


we can go will defend on how much progress we make. This question of


foreign policy is a reaction and pendulum to what has gone before


really. In essence, what you did under Tony Blair, was a reaction to


what Douglas Hurd didn't do in the Balkans? I think that's right, we


tried non-intervention in Bosnia with disastrous consequences,


sometimes you have to be ready to intervene, as we did in Kosovo. It


was very successful. Bosnia was a different situation. Of course it


is, it was personally a mistake not to intervene in the case of Bosnia,


many people died as a result. In Kosovo we were criticised for


intervening but it did save many lives. There is always the pendulum


of interventionism. After Iraq we have heard said no more


interventionism but we have seen it in Libya, quite quickly after.


does that tell you people haven't lost their appetite for


intervention. When you see people dying on the streets, not losing


the fear of being killed still going out there, this regime will


fall, it is a question of when. talk about the pushes that came


from Hillary Clinton, certainly we saw a lot of reluctance of


President Obama to get involved, it was led by Cameron and Sarkozy?


z and indeed from the American point of view, and given we have


troops in Iraq and fighting actively in Afghanistan. President


Obama had no interest in getting involved in a third military


conflict, anywhere, much less in another Muslim country. On the


other hand, as Jonathan just said, when you saw the prospect of tanks


and plans overrunning a city of 750,000 people and Gaddafi saying


he's going door-to-door to eradicate opposition. All the


leaders involved, including President Obama, realised this was


going to be potentially, on his doorstep. This massacre was


something he could prevent and if he didn't act it was going to be


partly on his hands. That, plus the diplomatic pressure, allowed for


military force. If this was Tony Blair now, what would be his


response, I don't know if you talk to him regularly about Syria?


would be arguing with the American President for thinking about how


you put the maximum pressure on here. What does that mean? The sort


of measures Anne-Marie Slaughter was talking about, she didn't rule


out military pressure later on. If the neighbours take a different


attitude, if Syria's other neighbours become more intervention,


there may be scope. The prize is, if this regime fall, Iran is next.


I know you run a mile from this side of a blueprint, what impact do


you think Iraq in all of this has had on our intervention now? Iraq


was a blow to the concept of intervention. Jonathan is quite


right, the concept won't go away. Whenever people see horrible things


happening on the screen, they will say we must do something about it.


I'm very familiar with that in Bosnia. There we took the view,


after listening to a lot of advice, that we would not be able to impose


a solution by force. But each case is different, Kosovo, Sierra Leone,


we have heard about, successful, limited, but successful operations.


Thank you all very much indeed. This evening the Foreign Secretary,


William Hague, announced that the UN would be releasing $1.5 billion


Libyan Dinar being held in EU banks. This is a country starting from


scratch now. Few people in libabout will be old enough to remember


anyone other - Libya, will be old enough to remember anyone other


than Colonel Gaddafi ruling their country. Questions now focus on how


to rebuild a battered country and how to rule.


After the siege of the cities, the siege of the banks.


This is the new frontline for many Libyans, the fight for money, in a


country bereft of funds. As Ramadan ends, and the Eid holiday begins,


they are desperate for cash to buy something special for their


families. But Libya's earned nothing for months. Its assets,


held abroad, are still mainly frozen. TRANSLATION: For myself as


a man, I don't mind, even if I don't have enough money, but my


children, my children will suffer. The children will be very upset if


they did not receive Eid. My salary since February we haven't received


a salary, just the bank give us part of the money until we get the


problem over, we get our salary after. That we are still waiting


for the money because of the frozen money, you know.


Who would be a bank manager in Libya today. He can allow each


customer 150 Dinars as maximum, about �70, there are not enough


bank notes to pay in full. TRANSLATION: The companies and the


private companies and Government money have a delay. So that's why


it is very difficult to serve people. You have to release some of


the frozen money, hard currency, and local currency. Because we are


desperate. While there is no money here,


nearly a billion pounds worth of newly printed Libyan currency is


still impounded in Britain. Part of an estimated $12 billion of Libyan


assets in the UK, and �100 billion worldwide. $1 billion has been


released by the union countries so far.


What are your reserves of hard currency now? Let me say it this


way. We have plenty of money here, but most of the amount is within,


is in the safes of the merchants and businessmen, in their safes and


their houses. But, I think, we have a very big amount of money in


Britain. Printed money, you know, I expect it will come back very soon,


many in the very coming days. for the rest, all the rest of the


assets abroad, when realistically will you start to receive those?


When you look to the history of what happened in the other


countries similar to Libya, like Iraq and Iran, I think it will be,


it will take a long time. But I think it will maybe take not less


than six weeks. For now, the simple joy of


liberation is enough for most Libyans.


Late at night hundreds have dashed to the port in Benghazi, to catch a


glimpse of newly released political prisoners who just returned by boat


from Tripoli. For years they were incarcerated in Gaddafi's most


notorious jail. But soon thoughts will have to turn to building the


new Libya, after 42 years of decay. The euphoria here is intense, the


question is, can the victorious rebels build a new Libya that will


justify and fulfil these people's expectations.


Here's a question to make you choke on your cocoa, if you don't fancy


being buried or cremated after you shuffle off your mortal coil, how


about being freeze fried or liquefied. Scottish developers say


it is a more ecological alternative to the flaisms. Freeze-drying is


being mooted in - flames. Freeze- drying is being mooted in Sweden.


We look at the alternatives to cremation.


Welcome to The Andrew Marr Show McQueen Funeral Home in St


Petersburg Florida, it is a family run place that tries to celebrate


rather than mourn the dead. Inside a piano plays funeral favourites.


While screens display pictures of the dearly departed. After the


services the bodies are cremated in furnaces to the rear, where


employees have to wrestle with the combined heat of the fires and the


sweltering Florida summer. But there's now an inKong grus addition,


a shiny stainless steel machine in a bright room. This is the


Resomator, developed in Scotland but used in Scotland for the first


time. None of us like talking about death or what comes after,


something has to be done with our mortal remains. For the


environmentally conscious amongst us, this might offer a better


alternative. This is how the machine will work when it is up and


running in a few weeks time. The bodies goes in a silk coffin, it is


heated up and everything is dissolved, all that is left is bone,


that can be ground and made into a powder to be given to the family.


Critics say it is washing a loved one down the drain, not say the


designers. There is no DNA in the liquid, simply chemical, it will


eventually go to the river, out to the sea, up as clouds and down as a


rain, the hydrological cycle, similar to all other processes.


designers say it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a third


compared to cremation. It allows for tooth fillings, which means


tooth fillings won't be vapourised and released into the atmosphere.


The Florida funeral home owner is advertising it as green cremation.


It reduces the amount of things going into the at moss officer, the


- atmosphere, and the releasing of gases. We believe the families will


find that of benefit and believe families will want to par take.


believes there will be a market here and elsewhere. We will be very


excited and proud that we were the first ones to introduce it. We are


happy that our legislature in flour dafs the first one to approve this


type of cremation. I understand it is not accepted yet in the UK, we


are hopeful once they see how successful it is in Florida and


other parts of the country, the UK will embrace Resomation, and they


will accept it there, it will make us proud to be the first one to


start. This is not the only alternative to cremation that might


be coming our way. A rival process called Promession involves freeze-


drying our remains. So far it has only been tested on pigs. To get an


idea of how it works. I went down to the electron microskopy centre


at imperial clon London. Imagine this is a dead person. I will put


it into the liquid nitrogen and leave it there for a few minutes.


The rose is so fragile that this is enough to shatter it.


Promession is the brainchild of Swedish biologist, Susanne Wiigh-


Mosack, she lives on an island off the Swedish west coast, and came up


with the idea while composting in her garden. Her theory is what


works for potato skins and apple cores could work for the human body


too. This is what inspired me to really see if not only the kitchen


and garden waste, but also everything organic, including us,


could be treated this way to really become soil. She envisages a fully


automated process, in which coffins are fed into the machine which


takes care of the rest the exposing the body to liquid


nitrogen, we can usely vibrate the body down to a powder in this


seconds. That frozen powder is then going to the freeze-drying, where


it becomes dry, and in that stage we allow the powder to go down into


the coffin through a metal separation. So all the solid metals


as spare parts, tooth fillings and whatever, is separated. Susanne


Wiigh-Mosack is still to build a full commercial facility, but the


designs are in place, and the manufacturers are ready. A square,


biodegradable coffin has also been designed, into which the residue


from the process will be placed, ready for shallow burial.


fulfils the needs nature asks us to, it will become soil 6-12 months, it


will be a beautiful process. Thee believes Promession will help


us talk about death - she believes Promession will help us talk about


death? We believe it is taboo, and especially if you have the chance


to talk about this person-to-person. It seems to be very relieving. I


would say it is nine times out of ten the same word is coming back,


they find Promession very appealing. Death has never been appealing


before, this must be something new. The arrival of these new


technologies is going to give us options we could never have


imagined. To burial and cremation we may have to add more


possiblities. It is often said we now have more choices in our modern


lives. Soon, that may extend to what comes next.


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 41 seconds


Let's just take you through the That's all for tonight. We leave


you with a clip from the Sony Pictures and Martin score saysies


tribute to the last of the great Mississippi delta bluesmen, who


still toured the world into his 90s. He performs I'm A Gambling Man.


# Lord I'm glambling man. No matter where I go.


# I'm glambling man Hello there, there is only one more


day left of this poor summer. It looks like it is going to be


another cool one. There will be some sunshine in the morning, maybe


Scotland, Northern Ireland and towards the south west. Then the


cloud will tend to fill in a bit as we head into the afternoon. Still


bright for northern England, and a much better day for the North West


than today. At least it looks like it will be dry. Dry through the


Midlands through East Anglia and the south-east. Precious little


sunshine. South coast may not do too badly, particularly in Cornwall


and parts of Devon. Sunshine here. Temperatures no better than 18-19.


If you are underneath the cloud, as most of Wales will be during the


afternoon, then the temperatures will be a little lower. It will


feel once again in Northern Ireland. Light winds, if you do see some


sunshine it won't feel too bad. For most, if not all of the day, it


will be cloudy. We will start with sunshine, and increase the cloud in


Scotland. There may be one or two light showers dotted about, many


places dry. It is a cloudy theme. Temperature as degree or so up on


today. It warms up further on Thursday, with some brighter skies,


and probably a bit more sunshine, especially towards the south. Here


Download Subtitles