08/11/2011 Newsnight


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/11/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The News of the World employed private investigators to spy on


some of the best-known people in the land. It continued its


surveillance activities, right up to the point where it was shut down


last summer. This former policeman tells


Newsnight he numbered his targets by the dozen, the second in line to


the throne for one. Prince William came out with Kate, followed by the


royal protection vehicle, I followed the royal protection


vehicle knowing full well they were in front. The head of features at


the News of the World before it was closed and the publicist, Max


Clifford, are here with us. The head of the UK Border Agency comes


out from the shadows and quits, saying the Home Secretary has


dropped him in it. What happened to the idea that ministers carried the


can? The United Nations nuclear


invigilator says Iran has been working on developing atomic


weapons. This new report is being called a game changer by some, in


the long-running battle of wits between Iran and the inspectors, I


will have details. The technology industry's absurd


new battleground, where fortunes are made, not by developing


The targets include the Royal Family, the Attorney General, film


stars, footballers and politicians. The News of the World did not go


gentle into that good night, right up to the moment when the Murdoch


organisation pulled the plug on the paper, it was asking a right of


investigator to spy for it. In an exclusive interview, that man, a


former policeman, has told Newsnight he was given over 100


tarts bit paper. We have the story.


- targets by the paper. We have the story.


Winter 2007, private investigator, Derek Webb is on the trail of an


escort. She's being driven around central London in a taxi, visiting


clients. He watches as her cab pulls up outside one of the city's


most exclusive hotels. She was dressed immaculately, I think she


was wearing a fur coat as well, she walked through the hotel, past


reception into the lift. I followed her straight into the lift. I was


carrying my bag, I didn't know what I needed, I got into the lift with


her, she pressed the third floor, I pressed the fourth floor, she got


out of the third floor, when she got out, just before the lift


closed I put my foot around and saw what room she was going in, she


knocked on a door and gained access to that room. You saw her going


into that room? I saw her going into the room. Another success for


former police officer, Derek Webb, who passed his intelligence on to


News of the World, that were working on a sex scandal story. We


have gained this dossier of evidence that shows astonishing


insight into the workings of News of the World, it shows every job


that Derek Webb did from 200-2008. There are more than 100 names here,


actors, celebrities, politicians and the royals.


The list contains many of the most high-profile people in Britain,


including members of the Royal Family. Derek Webb needed all of


his 15 years of experience as a surveillance officer to evade the


attention of the Royal Protection Squad. They didn't rumble me, they


had no idea. That proves my expertise in relation to it, that


they were not aware that they were being followed. This happened on


quite a few occasions. And I was able to realise then which royal


protection officers were with which royal party. In March 2009, news


nuets asked Deripaska - News of the World asked Derek Webb to conduct


surveillance on the home of a girl who was, they thought, receiving


visits from Prince Harry. His former girlfriend was under


surveillance until 2007, Derek Webb said a News of the World made the


request. He would ask me to go to Heathrow Airport and follow Chelsea


Davey Prince Harry's girlfriend, and follow her where she was going,


on a number of occasions she would be picked up. They would go to


Clarence House or she would go to an address out in Oxfordshire. Then


I would be monitoring them to see whether there was anything further


developing from there. Many royal surveillance jobs were


referred by Clive Goodman, News of the World's royal correspondent,


convicted of phone hacking in 2007. Derek Webb said he was never told


the source of any leads. I have never hacked a phone myself. I


didn't know anything in relation to hacking. I realised that hacking


was now a big business in relation to what was going back, but I never


knew about it at the time. I had no knowledge of it. I was never told


by one journalist, not one of them told me they had obtained it by


phone hacking. Derek Webb says he was also dispatched to


Gloucestershire to trail Prince William. Prince William came out


with Kate, followed by the royal protection vehicle, I followed the


royal protection vehicle, knowing full well they were in front, they


ended up at Duchy Farm, the royal protection peeled off i followed


them around, knowing full well they would go back there, and watched


them go for lunch, et cetera. Pairt from the royal, there are


plenty of sports - apart from the Royals, there are plenty of sports


stars on the lists. This is Derek Webb's surveillance video of Gary


Lineker. The News of the World was investigating his private life,


although this surveillance didn't produce anything of interest for


the paper. Gary Lineker's job went over many weeks. Numerous other


newspapers were looking at Gary Lineker. And Gary Lineker is one of


these people that I think is more surveillance conscious. He looks


and I think he's aware of cars following him. Because I think he's


been done over a number of years and people have looked at him.


jobs, though, were more controversial than others. Derek


Webb says he was asked to carry out surveillance on the former


Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in January 2005. I followed him


around, mainly he was picked up by a chauffeur, and driven to his


office near Buckingham Palace, or other locations. I would monitor


his here, there and everywhere, to an extent, until the budget ran out,


or they decided they wouldn't pursue the job any further. Did it


ever surprise you that they wanted to effectively put Lord Goldsmith


under surveillance? No. Nothing surprised me in relation to the


amount of politicians and I was doing it as a business. I was


solely doing it as a business to earn a living. Even former Home


Secretary, Charles Clarke was a tart. At the time of the election


2005, News of the World was putting huge resources into surveillance


work on him. Derek Webb watched Mr Clarke for more than 20 days. He


often used this cafe just below his election campaign office in central


London as a base. On one occasion the police surrounded me, after I


had been there three days, and interrogated me, what I was doing.


Did Charles Clarke ever clock the fact you were watching him? I don't


think he did. Not at all. The police were aware, the police, when


they interrogated me, I showed them my private investigator's license,


because I had one, and I said I was doing a domestic matter following a


husband and wife, which they accepted and that was it. I didn't


tell them I was watching Charles Clarke. The list of tarbts of


surveillance is huge, Boris Johnson, Angelina Jolie, Simon Cowell koul,


Paul McCartney, Ed Milliband, Heather Mills, the list goes on and


on. Sometimes the families of targets were also watched. The News


of the World wanted Derek Webb to follow the parents of Harry Potter


star, Daniel Radcliffe, for unno inreasons. He trailed on foot the


new - unknown reasons. He trailed on foot the new partner of energy


secretary, Chris Huhne, as she walked around the capital. 95% of


the jobs I was never rumbled at all. Even following for weeks on end.


For Derek Webb, the commissions from News of the World kept rolling


in. Because I kept getting results for them, they employed my services


more and more. I was getting work from them and they were very


satisfied with the work. Derek Webb says after eight years with News of


the World, he was cut loose when the paper folded, with no


compensation. He's taking an employment case against them.


people were getting loyalty payments, and I was loyal to News


of the World. I was loyal to News of the World and they failed to


recognise this, and disregarding me as though a non-entity. But now


he's decided to go public in such a spectacular way, with his exclusive


Newsnight interview, it is the bigger ethical questions about the


scale of the surveillance that will prove tough for the paper's


publisher, which gives evidence to parliament on Thursday.


With us now is Jules Stenson, head of features at the News of the


World, before it closed its doors earlier this year, and the pub sis,


Max Clifford. This is outrageous isn't it - publicist, Max Clifford.


This is outrageous isn't it? we're getting it one side, Derek


Webb, I have never spoken to him,'s a man with a grudge, with the


company for not getting compensation. You are getting a


slanted story, you are not hearing any context to these investigations.


But these, clearly, according to his account, were fishing


expeditions? I didn't hear him use that word. He didn't use that word,


he was told to follow people and see what he could find, that is a


fishing expedition? You haven't heard from the people commissioning


them, clearly they are under police investigation, when I worked at the


News of the World, we put the great and the good under ferocious


scrutiny. We also put ourselves under ferocious scrutiny. One of


the examples in that piece was Prince William. I can think of


three big royal exclusives that the News of the World broke with huge


public interest, two on Prince Harry, Derek melgsed tailing Prince


William in Gloucestershire - mentioned tailing Prince William in


Gloucestershire, there was investigations done on Prince Harry


when he was smoking cannabis, that was a huge scandal at the time, and


the Prince apologised for his behaviour. There was the example of


Harry's racist language, there was the investigation into the Duchess


of York. So, look, you need to see the context in which the


information, the tips that the News of the World were trying to verify.


Clifford, there is a public interest defence in this, isn't


there. Nothing illegal is being done? I think it is really do the


ends justify the means, of course, you know, what's in the public


interest, generally speaking, comes down to us in the interest of the


circulation of the newspaper. You can't justify it, generally


speaking, on the ground of it being a real public interest. If this is


going on because of someone who is threatening national security, the


head of a paedophile ring, somebody like, that that is the only way to


justify the activities, to my mind. Someone is presenting a public


image in one way, a happy married man with children, and having


affairs, isn't it justified to expose them? If that person is


lecturing us about family values, the way certain politicians were,


fair game, if it is someone who tries to keep their private life


private, then I don't necessarily think we have the right to know all


the ins and outs of their private life. Every situation has to be


looked at in its own merits. say, this is all news to you, you


never employed a private detective, you were not unaware that this sort


of thing happened on the paper though? All media employ private


detectives, that includes the BBC, Mark Thomson is on record in March


saying the BBC has and currently employs private investigators. He


justified it in public interest investigations. Investigative


journalism is messy. The way that you, the first goal of a big


investigation is actually to find the people that you are chasing,


the crooks, theville lanes, they are not on the electoral -ville


lanes, they are not on the electoral role. Sometimes you need


to use a private investigator to find them using credit checks.


use the words "crooks" and "ville lins", the list of people there was


not any of those? I go back to the original point that we don't know,


we haven't heard from the people who commissioned Derek Webb, we


have just the slanted view of Derek Webb who has a clear grievance


against the paper. I think the only answer is the people who


commissioned them should be asked to explain and justify what you


were looking for and trying to get and see does the argument stand up


for scrutiny. As nothing illegal was done by your own admission,


what's the problem? Well I think that the problem is, when you look


at what happened to the Dowlers and that, you have to have a free press


in a democracy, but you have to find a medium. Phone hacking is


illegal, simply following someone around isn't? It depends on what


your intention is. It depends on what you are intending to do.


seem to be questioning the fact this is your lead story, Jeremy.


you are following children, as was suggested on the programme last


night, that the children of Charlotte Harris the lawyer, how


can you possibly justify that. do you justify it I don't think you


k Max is referring to Mark Lewis, the lawyer whose children and ex-


wife was targeted. Charlotte says the same thing, her children were


two and four. Jo that is deplorable, I'm not here to justify that.


was your paper? As I say, I wasn't involved in it and I didn't know


anything about it. Things changed at the paper, did they? After.


was apartheid of eight years, this man was employed. - this was a


period of eight years, this man was employed? He was employed on the


news desk, I worked on features. You are surprised by it?


extremely surprised by Derek Webb's actions. The journalism we did was


ferociously scrutinised at all times. I can give you examples of


surveillance we did on features, we went into the parliament in


Brussels and filmed the MPs, as they signed their expenses sheets.


We used an MEP fitted up an MEP to film them while they were in the


room signing the forms because we knew they would lie if we didn't.


There is another side to it, if you are going to print stories you


would do everything within your power to make them accurate?


have to prove them as well. those circumstances you need to


employ private detectives? Yes, it depends on the circumstances. That


is what I said, I think there are times when it can be justified, but


the list of people I have seen, I would find it incredibly difficult


to justify. What were they looking at Simon Cowell, one of my clients,


for. Other than stories that at this time vait the readers, where


is the national - titivate the readers, you have to say how does


it justify the actions. Every situation on its own merits. Peter


Crouch, the footballer, plays for England, we had a tip he was up to


no good in Madrid, seeing prostitutes. Has this already been


published? It has already been published and not disputed by


Crouch, we did follow him, to get the proof, we knew if we didn't he


would be straight on the line to the lawyers. We subsequently


exposed him for using a traffic prostitute.


The head of the UK borders agency said tonight he had been


constructively dismissed by comments from the Home Secretary,


which blamed him for the shambles at Britain's borders this summer.


Clearly furious he said she disregarded his right to reply, for


the sake of political convience. Yet the Prime Minister, who also


blamed him, says the Home Secretary has his complete confidence. Time


was when the idea of ministerial accountability, meant that when


something went wrong, the politician carried the can. The


fight between ministers and officials over just who authorised


a relaxation of border controls is getting angler by the hour. Tonight


an unpress - angrier by the hour. Tonight an unprecedented slapdown


for the Home Secretary by the man who has been handed the can but has


declined to carry it. Brodie Clark, on the left, was, until last week,


head of the UK Border Force, suspended, says the Home Secretary,


for overstepping her intructions. This is what she told the Home


Affairs Select Committee just this morning. I was not aware that the


extension of the relaxation of checks had taken place. I was not


aware, as I set out in my initial statement, a number of relaxations


were put in place by officials. Brodie Clark, as I understand it,


has admitted to the chief executive of UK BA, that he did go beyond


ministerial responsibility, I was not aware this had been done.


Prime Minister, too, told a Commons committee today that the man he


said was responsible for this unacceptable activity, had been


suspended. It is very clear to me that the Home Secretary did


undertake a pilot scheme, and a pilot scheme, in some ways that was


successful, in terms of the number of arrests up by 10%. It is also


clear that there was activity going on, by the UK BA, that is not


acceptable, that was uncovered by the inspector, it has been stopped,


the person responsible has been suspended, clearly this is not


acceptable and it is not acceptable it went on for so long. Tonight the


head of UK Border Force has quit, and what's more, he says he intend


to pursue a claim for constructive dismissal.


Mr Clarke goes on to completely contradict what the Home Secretary


and the Prime Minister have said about the relaxation of controls,


that it was without ministerial Immigration has always been a


contentious political issue. Charles Clarke had to resign as


Home Secretary after it was revealed that 1,000 foreign


prisoners weren't even considered for deportation. He says, though,


it is ministers who have to take responsibility. I have always


thought it was cowardly, really, just to say we will pick the


scapegoat of an official and deal with it like that. Maybe I made a


mistake, some of my colleagues said I should have sacked somebody and


saved my own skin on that basis. Well, I don't think that's a good


way to conduct politics. Some suggest that Theresa May has given


an inconsistent account of her role She claimed that this was purely an


operational decision. Which have why it wasn't reported to


parliament. The way in which agencies are set up, the ministers


are supposed to leave operational decisions to the management of the


agencies. Ministers are supposed to just set the strategic direction,


and allocate the resources to the agencies, and leave the agencies to


get on with the job. So she seems to be wanting to have her cake and


eat it, to claim it is an operational decision which she made,


which she probably shouldn't have made, that was the reason why she


didn't report it to parliament. Before any claim for unfair


dismissal could be heard, Brodie Clark will be giving evidence


before parliament. The more he is able to defend himself there, the


more it will make things difficult for the Home Secretary.


We did ask the Home Office for an interview, but they didn't want to


answer our questions, we are joined by Jonathan Baume, head of the


union for top civil servants, the First Division Association by Keith


Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee. How is he feeling


tonight? He's very bruised, battered, this is a gruelling


experience for someone to be in the public glaer, he's very robust. He


has issued a gaiplt this evening after advice from lawyers, he will


be - a statement this evening, after advice from lawyers, and will


issue a statement next week. He is angry about the fact that issues


were raised, he was willing to answer those internally, instead


was suspended, and the Home Secretary spent two days basically


damming him without ever giving a civil servant the opportunity to


present their case, and in the full knowledge as a civil servant he


wasn't able to speak out publicly to defend himself. She didn't speak


to him before saying he was carrying the can and it was his


responsibility? I don't go into detail on the process over the last


few days. He would be willing to give evidence before Mr Vaz's


committee next week. We are clear that whatever the fine print at the


end of last week, every civil servant has the right to proper


process, it is not the role of mains ter to publicly attack a


civil - a minister to publicly attack a civil servant. He accuses


the Theresa May of misrepresenting what happened. His own boss says


Brodie Clark admitted to me on the 2nd of November, that on a number


of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further


than ministerial instruction?M don't want to go into the fine


print. That is what the hoiblgt says he did? He's happen - Home


Secretary says he did?'S Happy to answer all these questions before


the Home Affairs Select Committee next week. Here is his own boss


agreeing with the Home Secretary? Next week we will get the full


facts, not partial pictures. Home Secretary testified to you


today, were you surprised when she, as it were, dobed in her officials?


I wasn't surprised. The point of ministers giving evidence to the


Home Affairs Select Committee is clear and transparent evidence. She


was very clear, she was responsible for the pilot, which she says was a


success, in her words, Mr Clarke took that pilot forward, in an


unauthorised way. She didn't know about it, she had not informed


cabinet, she had not informed parliament, and she saw that there


was no reason to do so. And you believed her? That's the evidence


that we had, of course. If the Home Secretary comes before a select


committee, and gives us a circumstance and set of facts we


have to accept it. What has happened since then, as you know,


is Mr Clarke has issued his statement, which is a direct


contradiction to what the Home Office, Home Secretary said to the


select committee. And that is why I'm very grateful to him for


agreeing to come in to give evidence to us, and if necessary,


if we need to clarify any of these points with her, we will ask her to


clarify them, she was very clear. You will call Brodie Clark to


testify before you? He has already agreed to come. During the middle


of the evidence session, I told the Home Secretary that the select


committee had decided to have Clark in, and he had agreed to come, he


will come before us on Tuesday, and we will put to him all these facts


and indeed, I will be writing to the Home Secretary tomorrow, with a


number of additional questions, which we wish to put to her. I


think, Jeremy, I know this is puzzling, it is puzzling for me as


well, that all this happens in the last six days, but we do need to


get to the bottom of the facts first, before we rush to judgment.


Can we just clarify Mr Clarke's position, has he resigned? He has


left the Home Office. We sent a letter of notice tonight to that


effect. He is now claiming unfair dismissal. In legal terms he has


not resigned, in popular patrol lance, he has. He's paid by the


taxpayer? No, he's not technical resigned, but generally he has.


is being paid? After tonight he's not being paid. Who is he working


for? Nobody. He has not resigned? In a legal sense he hasn't resigned


because he's claiming constructive dismissal. In popular language he


has resigned. He will then take the Home Secretary, or the Home Office,


or whoever, to an industrial tribunal? We - Yes, we's working


with the FDA lawyers and pursuing that through the courts. For a


political damage report I'm joined Byfleet treat's Andrew Porter of


the Telegraph, and Steve Richards from the Independent. How serious


is this, do you think? I think it has taken a very serious turn this


evening, for May. There is no doubt about that. This is now dragging on


for three or four days, I think next week, who would have thought


it, but James Murdoch before a select committee is probably going


to be upstaged when Brodie Clark appears. People will be homing in


on what he's going to saying, someone is wrong here, and someone


is probably going to have to pay a fairly big price. How serious do


you think it is? As Keith Vaz said, when May May came to the committee


- May came to the committee, she was very clear about her version of


events, they were directly contradicted by a senior civil


servant. I don't believe she's cupable absolutely, I don't believe


any longer it is fair to say all ministers are culpable for anything


that goes wrong. I have huge respect for Jonathan, who


represents senior civil servants. But when he says that it's not for


a minister to lay a finger on a senior civil servant. Why not? If


that person has committed operational errors. Has she handled


it as well as she could have handled it? She was pretty straight


and direct. If she's felling the truth, at this telling the truth,


we will have to wait and see. telling the truth, we will have to


wait and see? I don't think she has handled it well, over the weekend


we heard nothing. You could have aggressive briefing from Theresa


May's people, all the language, in the end it was desperately trying


to put it away from her. With the papers, the Mail and our paper


splashing on t it is a cheap shot, blaming your official. Steve is


right to a point, you can't be accountable for every official, but


if your first refuge is to blame your official, it looks chief.


is only chief if she's the one at error. - Cheap. It is only cheap if


she's the one at error. Operationally the pilot scheme was


extended without her knowing. If that is the case, I don't blame her


for saying she won't resign and others have to answer for this.


There is a wider issue here about the automatic assumption. Cabinet


ministers last on average six minutes in various jobs. Civil


servants have got much longer security of tenure, and are quite


powerful. It is good that he's coming next week to the select


committee and to be accountable and put his case. There should be much


more of it. I fear, that there can be complacency in the Civil Service


because of this assumption, that we always blame the ministers. I think


it is just the curse of the Home Office, isn't it. This is a


department that is even responsible for things like falling satellites


and things. Anything could happen? Everyone thought when Reid said it


wasn't fit for purpose, and they took justice away from it, all the


things like Charles Clarke with prisoners going missing, they


thought that would take the sting out of it, it has to some extent.


May for 18 months has been fairly risk-free, now you are right, it is


coming back. She is in a strong position. She, personally, is


important to Cameron? She is, this is why I think ultimately she will


survive. Cameron, for two reasons, I think he rates her. He does see


her, up until now a safe pair of hands. She's one of the few women


in the cabinet. We know the issues David Cameron has about women in


his Government. I think he cannot afford to lose another cabinet


minister so soon after Liam Fox. himself has endorsed her position.


He blamed Brodie Clark, saying the person responsible has been


suspended? Over the past few days David Cameron has a lot of question


marks, he didn't know. One of the problems with Theresa May, when you


speak to cabinet ministers and ministers, she keeps things too


close, if she allowed a few more people, even in her own department


what was going orpbgs she could have survived it better. She will


survive. What will emerge from this is the messy lines of


accountability between ministers, civil servants, agencies, those who


deliver. I bit the blur is over what strategic - I bet the blur is


over what strategic guidance means from ministers and operational


responsibility from people like Brodie Clark. Somewhere in there


the messy contra directions lie. The sooner - contradictions lie.


The sooner we get over it the better for Britain. This question


of the messy lines of accountability that Steve Richards


refers to there, in this new arrangement where you have agencies,


old fashioned civil servants, old fashioned ministers, is it


complicated? It is, I remember going back almost 20 years to the


Mark Lewis affair, which you will remember, Jeremy. Many of the same


issues were there being discussed. Steve, I'm not arguing that civil


servants are not accountable, nor am I arguing that the Home


Secretary hasn't got the right to suspend somebody. But having done


that, there has to be a proper process, what is unacceptable is


for the Home Secretary to act as judge and jury, and make lots of


public statements before a civil servant has had a chance to put


their side of the story, and to have their reputation completely


trashed. The Islamic Republic of Iran is trying to learn how to


develop nuclear weapons. They have denied it for years and will


continue to deny until they are blue in the face. But the judgment


of the International Atomic Agency, formally made public tomorrow,


moves the international confrontation to a new level.


Tonight, the international Atomic Energy Authority circulated its


latest report in Vienna, within minutes quotes were leaking out,


within hours the entire thing was on the Internet. According to the


report, the agency has serious concerns regarding possibly


military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme.


It says that some of Iran's research projects may indeed have


civil applications, but the IAEA's information shows.. It suggests


before 2003, when some intelligence reports suggests the programme was


stopped, there was evidence of a Much of tonight's report is the


revelation of detailed work that the agency has known about for


years, but kept to itself. Iran's ambassador to the IAEA tonight


called the report unbalanced and unprofessional and politically


motivated. Son-in-law of the sights it mentions have - sites it


mentions have already been looked at. And there are foreign nuclear


scientists helping Iran build a nuclear weapon. Russia's response


to the leak was it contained little knew. Many in the east believed


Israel Mason strike, while that country's recent statements believe


all options are under considerations. We strongly believe


that sanctions are effective, or could be effective, if they are


little and paralysing enough that diplomacy could work, if enough


unity could be synchronised between the major players. No option should


be removed from the table. And we keep saying it, for at least four


years. With the latest IAEA report, comes


a new demand for access and co- operation.


Something the UN says has been absent from Iran's side, on


suspected weapon design matters, for the past three years.


What is this nuclear programme amounting to? Well, the UN says


that what it has announced tonight is qualitatively different. We have


got used over the years to the rows about the facilities. Some of of


the names are familiar to people. The Iranians saying it is a civil


programme and get off our backs. Now what the UN body is doing is


being quite specific about a nuclear weapons design programme


which, it says was going on in Iran. This causes attention to go to


sites we are not so used to. Including this one, we can see it


in the satellite imagery. Here there is a large armments factory,


there is a testing area, attention has gone to this area down south


for the resting area. This was built up some time ago. If we zoom


in. We can see what attracted their interest.


These circular objects, surrounded by bunkers, are placed where the


inspectors believe the high explosive components of nuclear


warhead designs may have been tested. They are alleging in the


report that all sorts of activities have been going on, connected with


nuclear weapons design, the testing of special circuitry, and


detonators of reventry vehicles for ballistic missiles, all of which


designed to put a package of that material that they have been


talking about up-to-date, into a weaponised form. A key aspect of


what they are saying is that a lot of what they allege was going on


prior to the late 2003 decision to dismantle a large centrally


directed nuclear weapons programme. What does it say about what's


current? They say some aspects of the nuclear warhead's design may


continue. They update us on other aspects of the programme. For


example, the tunnel facility near the religious city, which was


announced a couple of years ago with great fanfare by western


leaders. They say where as that was empty when they looked at it, there


are centre refugees awaiting powering up. Going back to this


satellite image, this is the facility, which, over the years,


they have inspected most, and talked about most. They have


expressed concerns about them in the past. We know there there are


buried turbine halls with the cascades of centre refugees, in


this area, two - centre refugees in this area they have been buried to


safeguard them from air attack. They have been whirring away for


years. The main thing about the report is five tonnes of uranium


has been enriched through this process, not to weapons grade. But


the experts reckon if the process of enrichment was repeated to


brifpbg it to that grade, that would - bring it to that grade,


that would amount to two to three bombs worth. Does it increase the


danger of an Israeli attack? does, it gives a political signal


that this UN body creates that nuclear weapon design work has


going on in Iran. There have been so many differing signals from the


Israelis, it is not clear what their intentions are. The danger


now is that tensions will rise, due to misconception or


miscommunication. Fancy a slice of toast? Be careful,


if you heat the bread to a particular temperature, for between


three and 90 second, you may be impingeing on US patent 0860836,


ort bread refreshing method. That is how absurdly the American patent


company is being used, as companies big and small sue and counter sue


over international property rights. Some companies do nothing but own


patents, the man who invented the Internet doesn't like it at all.


London's Design Museum, home to lots of innovative products turning


into money spinners for their inventors, that is, unless they


make sure they are protected from imitateors.


Had a brilliant idea? Well you better get a patent so nobody else


can copy it before you have had a chance to make some money. Now


inventors of ideas, big and small, are beginning to worry that the


whole patent system is falling into disrepute. Their concern is it is


now hindering innovation than hoping it. How much? This is one


clever idea, a smart phone ap that teaches you Chinese. It is the a


product of David Heart's industry, a sideline in generating apps. It


is creating a bit of interest, but that could be dwarfed by a legal


bin. The problems began when a bulky but baffling document arrived


in the London office. A letter from a company saying we are infringing


one of their patents. It shows a telephone talking to a fax reason,


and it is dated December 7th 199. Any idea how this applies to you?


It is very, very hard to see. here is another bit a memory within


each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results with the


two-way location to the two commodities in the same location.


Each commodity capable of carrying results to each of the units of the


commodity to a central location, is that clear? I have absolutely no


idea what it means. It says you have done it here, storing results


of the two-way interaction to the central location? I'm none the


wiser, unfortunately. They are demapbgd licensing fees, and David


Hart is talking to lawyer before deciding how to respond, and


considering what means for his business. It is another risk to


consider. When you do anything of the R & D nature, the risk is it


won't work and nobody will want to buy it, it is another risk. This is


something we have to consider that we hadn't talked about.


Similar documents have been sent to all sorts of software develop e


including the makers of angry birds and the Sims. What this is? It is a


company based in Texas with a simple website, there is a quote


from Edison about his inventions coming not by accident but work.


All of this work seems to be about demanding fees from companies it


accuses of using its technologies. It is what some of its critics


would call a patent troll. I have e-mailed the chief executive,


Chris Smalling, a couple of times, - Mark Small, to discuss these


issues, he has respectfully declined, saying the company is


applying resources to licensing discussions. Here is man with a big


idea, Cerf is one of the founding fathers of the - Vint Cerf is one


of the founding fathers of the certificate net. He believes these


patents will show the system is going wrong. Patents were intended


to give a person to protect his interests and give him the right


that his idea has been infringed on other. What has happened is in


parts of the patent community is we see people acquiring the right to


patent, but without using them except for suing for infringement.


It seems the inventor you met has been confronted with that practice.


There is a business to be made, people will find a way to make a


dis. That is what has happened with patents. Is the system helping for


hindering innovation if used in that way? Particularly in the sense


of software patterns I see it as hinders in a very dramatic way.


is not just the small players who are affected, suddenly the


technology industry has become a battleground, where patents are


important, weapons and efrb seals to be suing everybody else. Apple


is suing Samsung, Samsung is suing apple. Htc is suing ap all, and all


sorts of other programmes. Google has been raising to acquire


its own patents, what is your reaction to that? It has been


forced on us by the realities of the patent market place, I regret


so much money has to be spent on that, that should have been spent


on inventing new ideas. It is all good business for the intellectual


property lawyers. But don't try to tell them that the patent system is


now a barrier to innovation. If you compare the phone in your pocket


with the mobile phone had you five years ago, the progress that has


been made in those years self- evident. And it cannot support a


suggestion that the patent system is stifleing innovation. But if


British software developers came to you with this underthreat from the


UK, it would be pretty extensive, I presume for them to deal with that?


Major mat tent litigation is expensive. We have systems over


here, we have a patent county court set up to handle small cases by


small to medium sized enterprises. It has a damage limit of �500,000.


Mass mum �500,000, a lot for a small company? We need a patent


system, I appreciate that sometimes it can hurt, but to say that you


are small is not a defence to a valid claim that you have infringed


the patent. Technology is indeed a passing -


advancing so rapidly that even recent inventions are now museum


pieces. But its ever more money and energy is spent on fighting the


patent wars, who will come up with the next big thing.


Tomorrow morning's front pages, the Mail leads with the Border Force's


spat with the Home Secretary, same story on the front page of the


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 47 seconds


Good evening. A cloudy, damp and misty nitrogen tonight. Temperature


- misty night again tonight. You can see a few glimmers of sunshine,


much of northern England will hold on to the cloud. Maybe the moderate


bursts across the Pennines, misty here. Across to the Midlands, East


Anglia and the south. There is a chance after the dismal start


things might cheer up leaving some breaks in the cloud. In the south


west you will hold on to generally cloudy conditions. Heavier pulses


of rain on and off true the day. Once it eases during the afternoon


at times urbg might see a bit of bright - you might see a bit of


brightness. Much of the day predominantly grey and damp. Damp


in eastern Scotland, the far north, even with a bit more cloud, should


stay reasonably bright. Into Thursday, the difference, well, it


is not hugely discernable, if anything, the rain across some


parts of Scotland, western England and Wales could be that little bit


heavier at times, and a bit more persistent, either side of it there


will be sunshine around. Western parts of Northern Ireland,


Download Subtitles