31/01/2012 Newsnight


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 31/01/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Yesterday the new boss of Royal Bank of Scotland fell on his sword


and refused his bonus, tonight his predecessor, the man who broke the


bank, had his Knighthood removed. Services to banking indeed. But in


truth, is Fred Goodwin any worse than many another beneficiary of


Britain's quaint honours' system. Are both he and Stephen Hester


victims of a new mood in the land, where the rich are loathed, and the


mob reaches for pitch forks. Russia says President Assad must be


allowed to try to assert his authority in Syria, because without


him, there will be civil war, could they be right?


Syria has always had a very diverse society, where religious and ethnic


minorities have felt comparatively safe, now many members of those


minorities are worried about what will happen to them if the regime


falls. Thousands of skills learned in


schools will no longer be counted as GCSEs, why this bias against


learning something useful. How can Facebook be worth tens of,


perhaps $100 billion. What exactly is for sale?


So farewell then Sir Fred Goodwin, it is not as if there will be many


people mourning the fact that the man who wrecked a bank and did so


much to bankrupt the country, has been striped of his Knighthood. The


hardly heard of honours forfeiture committee, came to an a decision


and shifted him into a much more exclusive group of people, Robert


Mugabe, Nicolae Ceausescu and Mussolini, to name but three, who


have had their knighthoods removed. Is being popular the same as being


right? He's probably always been plain old


Fred to his family, now he's plain old Fred to everyone else again too.


Those three little letters, and long been a cause of anger for the


public, and the politicians. We have a special case here of the


Royal Bank of Scotland symbolising everything that went wrong in the


British economy over the last decade. It is appropriate that Fred


Goodwin loses his Knighthood. The focus of the current Government is


to make sure we get back all the tax-payers' money that was put into


the RBS to save it. A statement The decision to give Fred Goodwin


his Knighthood in the first place was a source of some embarrassment


for Labour, the party even tried to spin the reasons they had given it


to him. I think that Sir Fred was nominated for a Knighthood, because


of his services for the Prince's Trust, I understand that it was not


in recognition of his services to banking.


That was not true. Fred Goodwin was knighted in June 2004 in the


Queen's birthday Honours List, for services to banking. No-one now, of


course, will own up to coming up with the idea, but it was


reportedly on the advice of Gordon Brown himself. And came just months


after Sir Fred led RBS to record annual profits of �6.2 billion.


Most people will welcome the fact that Sir Fred Goodwin lost his


Knighthood, isn't it embarrassing for you, as your side gave it to


him? It is right Fred Goodwin lost his Knighthood, but it is only the


start of what needs to happen in boardrooms, we need to change the


bonus culture and have responsibility across the board.


That is what the public want, and it is what Government, working with


the private sector, needs to deliver. Fred Goodwin sank RBS in


2007, with his disastrous takeover of the bank ABM, he played a


disastrous price where assets were worth less, less than a year later


they were begging for a bailout. The complete collapse of the entire


banking system could have occurred. Fred is a man of incredible


arrogance, who totally believes in his own power, merit and ambition.


He's somebody that put the fear of God into everybody around him,


somebody that would never be stopped in any ambition that he


pursued, and that, of course, was part of his success when he was


successful, and his total and utter collapse when he failed at the end


of his career. Is there something rather unsavoury in this rush to


de-gong Mr Goodwin on the left, he was a welcome visitor once. The


politicians only too happy to bask in the wealth and taxes they


thought he was bringing. The ABM Amro deal was waved through by all


the authorities. The Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, wrote to Mr


Goodwin, signing the letter, "your's for Scotland", saying he


would do anything to help the deal through. I don't turn my back on


friends, and Fred is a friend. The Financial Services Authority did


not object to the Amro deal being done. The then Prime Minister,


Gordon Brown, supported the deal. The Bank of England did not object


to the Amro deal going through. And the Treasury, that's Her Majesty's


Government did not object to the deal going through. Are they all


going to lose their honours and their positions of power? I just do


not see that this precedent is a good one to have made. Some


suggestion, then, this Knighthood is a proxy for the �700,000 pension


that Fred Goodwin refused to relinquish. His eventual decision


to hand back half of it did nothing to as sage public anger. Now, --


assuage public anger. Now there is one title he would like to be


striped of, but would probably have to his grave.


With us now to discuss this are the journalist Toby Young, and Will


Hutton. Toby Young, what does this decision tell us? It tells us that


the Government are willing to sacrifice someone like this in


order to secure short-term political gain. It looks as though


the tentacles of Number Ten have extended into the Forfeiture


Committee. Let there's just no question that he's being


scapegoated. Why him and why not the chairman, as the report stated,


the chairman of the Financial Services Authority who nodded


through the AMro deal, why him and not the chairman of RBS, both of


whom have Knighthoods. It is freighted with hypocrisy? I don't


think so, it has come late. He was endorsed by every single politician


in this country? Honours matter, and I think it is enormously


symbolic. I think that people at the top of banking and business


generally care about being honoured. And actually, it sends an


extraordinary signal. Four years after the event? It would have been


better, obviously, for it to have happened earlier, but to happen now


and not at all. How long will honours continue to matter if they


are politic sized to this extent? - - politicised to this extent?


Sometimes honours are given for political reasons, the honours


system has always been partly politicised. But this is overt. The


forfeiture committee is supposed to consider only those who have, to


strip people of their honours, if they have been convicted of a


criminal offence, or censureed by a regulatory or professional body.


Neither of those things have happened in this case. It is


blatantly political. It has cost the country �45 billion? We are


living through a once in 80 year event. The scale of which is only


becoming obvious to everybody. It is going to take years more more


balance sheets to return to normal in banks, and debt levels to return


to normal. Years of austerity. This bank would have been bust without


�45.5 billion of tax-payers' money going into it. It is in profound


trouble. What you are doing with this, and what happened with


Stephen Hester's bonus and not accepting T it is a landmark moment.


Within 48 hours the country, civil society, the business community,


and actually the Forfeiture Committee, are all signalling that


the parallel universe in which banking has lived, over the last


three years, since 2008, has to come to answered. You can argue it


should happen earlier, but thank God it has happened. He wasn't the


only chief executive of a bank to make a reckless decision, and to be


in some way responsible for the credit crunch. The reason we


gambled and were as reckless as they were, is because they needed


to be in order to compete. The reason they were able to do that,


the reason they were in this framework in which gambling and


recklessness was acceptable is the failure of financial regulation.


course you can't have capitalism without risk. As a matter of fact,


HSBC got through this without Government assistance, although all


the banks needed, in the end, part of that enormous cheque that was


written, that is true. But the epicentre of this was Edinburgh.


The epicentre of what was happening in Edinburgh was the Royal Bank of


Scotland. That is why Scottish politicians like Gordon Brown and


Alex Salmond, were so keen to advance the case of RBS, and to


honour the guy who ran it. When the whole thing went pear-shaped, and


it has brought the British economy down, you go for the epicentre.


There were other people at the crime, I admit that. Doesn't it


stink of hypocrisy, for Ed Milliband, the leader of the Labour


Party, to be celebrating the fact that this guy is publicly


humiliated, when it was the lack of public regulation that led to these


mistakes being made, which the last Government were responsible for?


Gordon Brown and the Labour Government, and the light-touch


regulation, and by the way, at the time, there weren't very many


critics on the right about that. also reflects a change in the


public mood, that is the other interesting thing. When you think


back to previous times, when you think of the era of the movie Wall


Street, for example, when there was a -- an awe at the way capitalism


operated at that sort of level, now there is loathing? That is true,


people think, rightly, that reward should be related to contribution.


Actually, you know, David Cameron has said it, Ed Milliband has said


it, and Nick Clegg has said it. used to think that? That was not


said in the years since 2008. It is now said. This is part of the story.


What is curious about it is, you would have expected the public mood


to change in response to the credit crunch. The current financial


crisis, while partly blowback from the credit crunch, is also caused


by the financial profligacy of various states, particularly states


within the eurozone. If anything, you would have thought that the


eurozone crisis would have brought about a shift to the right rather


than the left. It was the banking crisis, which politically seemed to


mean that various centre left Governments were kicked out to be


replaceed by centre right Governments. Now we have another


crisis with the opposite effect. There is a desire to inspire moral


capitalism, and it is welcomed. President Assad of Syria has to go


for the sake of the people of his country. That's the burden of the


resolution that western and Arab states are trying to get agreed by


the UN Security Council. Mr Assad's friends in Moscow, though, are


expected to try to knock the thing on the head when it comes to a vote,


perhaps the day after tomorrow. Mark Urban has been watching


proceedings at the United Nations in New York, which are still going


on right now. So where are we at the UN? They are


talking away, debating this Moroccan sponsored resolution, they


have done this on behalf of the Arab League. It is a cut and paste


of something the Arab League agreed nine days ago. As you mentioned in


the introduction, the key provisions of which are regime


change. Asking President Assad to step aside for his deputy, and


talking about a transfer to a different system. This is the first


serious attempt to grip this in the UN Security Council, when the


threat of veto before was enough to stop it. Many think the same could


happen again now. The Russians are batting away for Assad, aren't


they? The key thing here, I think, is both Russia and China have a


sense of deja vu about this. The resolution in 1973, that came


through last March, to enable the Libyan intervention started in a


similar way, with the Arab League as the point men. They say it then


turned into, despite all the evenhanded language, humanitarian


language, a vehicle for western military intervention to top a lead


they are didn't like. They say it is all very similar. Speaking


before they came on air, Hillary Clinton tackled that head-on.


know that some members here may be concerned that the Security Council


could be headed towards another Libya. That is a false analogy.


Syria is a unique situation that requires its own approach, tailored


to the specific circumstances occurring there. That is exactly


what the Arab League has proposed. A path for a political transition


that would preserve Syria's unity and institutions. Of course Russia


doesn't want Syrian intervention but intervention, but they are


worried that this resolution would leave no-one in charge, and the


opposition forces would get involved in a serious struggle. The


debate will go on for days, potentially, it is not through the


resolution will go through. -- it is not clear if the


resolution will go through. If the regime fall it is will


trigger civil war is the concern. But increasingly it looks like it


will happen. Syria has some of the smallest minute religious


minorities in the world. Some claim their future would be perilous.


We have this report. In the language Jesus spoke, in the


country where St Paul saw the light, Syrian Christians celebrate their


faith as they have for nearly two millennia.


The tightness of the aremaic liturgy, veils are a sudden sense


of danger. Among the worshippers, refugees from neighbouring Iraq.


Much of its ancient Christian minority has fled under Islamic


intolerance. Now, beyond the walls of this


monastery, a haven of calm on the road to Damascus, Syria too is


dissolving into civil strive. Syria's always had a very diverse


society, where religious and ethnic minorities have felt comparatively


safe. Now, many members of those minorities are worried about what


will happen to them if the regime falls.


In these uncertain times, in a country where Christians make up


nearly 10% of the population, the Archbishop of Damascus knows better


than to become a Government whose days may be numbered. But nor will


he back a revolution, morally encouraged by the west, whose


consequences could be perilous. hearing from the western countries


that they are pushing on revolution, and I'm hearing that some parties


are helping arm the group. This is not helping the stability, it is


not resolving any problems. In towns gripped by revolution, the


Islamic of a firmation of faith, "God is most great", is it, as


protestors say, just a traditional rallying call in a country which is


at least three quarters Sunni Muslims. The expression of


willingness to die for a cause, or is it, as the regime maintains, a


sign that Syria's secular system could be destroyed by religious


sectarianism. These are Government supporters,


chanting for Syrians to remain united. They are mainly Alawites,


members of a Shi'ite sect, that includes more than one in ten


Syrians. Downtrodden for centuries, Alawites have been more favoured


since the Assad family, also Alawites, came to power 40-odd


years ago. Most families probably have at least one member employed


by the security forces. In this district of the increasingly


segregated city of Homs, Syria's most fought over city, they


bitterly oppose the revolution that is raging just a few blocks away.


TRANSLATION: Our's is one of thousands of families who has had


to flee their homes. I used to live in a different area, now we all


have to move because of the armed gangs.


Government supporters often cite this anti-Alawite threat from a


popular rebel cleric, to try to prove the opposition's sectarianism.


"we won't hurt those Alawites who are neutral", he says, but adds, in


a line certainly not typical of the opposition, still talking about


Alawites, "those who fight against us, I swear by God almighty, we


will turn them into mincemeat, and feed them to the dogs."


You Fears of score d -- fears of score-settling are inevitably high


in places like this, in the hills above dam mass cushion where


Alawites were encouraged to settle, by Bashar al-Assad's father,


perhaps to control the less reliable Sunnis living below.


Almost all of the regime's trusted servants are Alawites. Among them


this man, the owner of an advertising agency, decharged with


designing a new logo for the leading party. He believes top-down


political reform is still possible and it is the best way to avoid the


sectarianism, which the regime says, are being stirred up by armed gangs.


TRANSLATION: I'm afraid of instability, of the armed gangs


that cause destruction, of the invasion of negative ideas into


society. I'm not afraid of sectarian attacks. I'm gambling on


the common sense of the Syrian people. They have a completely


different outlook to others in the region. All the sects here value


human life. They reject the violence you see in other places.


Our main enemy now is fear itself. We have to support the existing


system, because it is the foundation of our society. And


reforms that Government is proposing, will help us build a new


democracy. But some say it is the President


who is spreading the fear. I'm going it meet one of the Alawites,


who are active in the opposition, despite, what they say, are


Government scare tactics. TRANSLATION: In areas where I'm


from, people live in terror now, because of the propaganda about


hidden explosives and armed gangs. People believe those stories, the


people are being killed because they are Alawite, it is all lies.


But the regime knows how to play this game. The Alawites were a poor


sect, so many joined the army or police long ago. When the


President's father came to power, he convinced the Alawites that the


regime was protecting them. Now even people who don't like the


Government are afraid of the revolution, because they are frayed


of the Muslim Brotherhood, that they will force men to go to the


mosque, force women to wear hijab, and not let children go to school.


This young Christian opposition activist, also rejects the regime's


propaganda. She says the revolution isn't dividing people, it is


uniting them. We say we are from this area and they know we are


Christian, you can see how surprised and happy they are we are


with them and support them, that we are part of this revolution. That's


like we go in some houses that we will be the first Christian people


to enter this house, and they really welcome us in a very amazing


way. That gives the joy. So when the Government says these are


terrorists who are trying to stop and end the stability of Syria,


what do you think? This Government they are the one who is make this


division between people. When you go out and you shout you feel you


are free. In those moments, even if they are seconds, you feel you are


free. Nobody will go back home. Even if a lot of people get killed.


After decades of stability in Syria, wedged between war torn Lebanon and


Iraq. Who wouldn't be at least a little afraid of the future now.


The more the regime plays on those fears, and the longer the violence


goes on, the greater the risk that those warnings of civil war will


eventually become self-fulfiling provecy.


You think you or your children got a GCSE or two, they didn't,


necessarily, many vocational courses, subgts like nail


technology or fish husbandry, will no longer be counted. The education


department claims that every child with a good or disadvantaged


background leaves school with a good GCSE pass in English and maths.


These students are getting experience outside the formal


classroom. The qualifications they build up here will be equivalent to


up to four GCSEs. It helps the school in the league


tables. As far as these 14-year- olds are concerned, it will help


them to earn a living. With brick laying you can go get an


apprenticeship, or you can go do other things like you can do it at


college, or whatever. You get a good skill out of it. You are also


getting the four GCSEs, which is kind of important. They are not


happy that in future this course, whether at certificate or the


higher diploma level, will count as just one GCSE. I think it is a load


of rubbish, really. With the GCSEs you are doing more work, you are


getting a better qualification for it, if you are doing one you are


doing class work, not practical, like this. Building your wall,


taking an engine to pieces, that is the bit that buys them into their


education. That makes them enjoy coming to school. It buys them into


their English and maths. The principle of vocational


training is not in doubt. But the value of some of the courses is.


Horse care and nail technology are all well and good if you want to


qualify as a Barbie doll, but should they give a school a leg up


in the league stables. At the moment there are 3,175


equivalent courses. In future, just 125 of them will count towards


GCSEs. Among those erased by the Government, a nail technology skill,


worth two GCSEs, practical office skills, another two, and fish


husbandry, again, worth two GCSEs. The vocational courses of offered


at Feltham are seen as vital in an area of en trenched unemployment.


Students studying childcare spend at least day a week out on direct


work experience. The school will continue to prioritise the


practical element, but that means less time for academic GCSEs, and a


hit in the league tables. vocational courses to get the


practical issues take a lot of time. We may be judged as failing in that


we have some section, about 20% of our population, will not look like


they are taking a full range of eight GCSEs.


While these Feltham pupils tended to their vocational courses, the


Education Secretary defended the changes. Mr Gove, again, lambasted


some critics of academy schools, which he insisted are raising


standards. We have had a reprice of the all the enemies of promise, who


fought against what Andrew Adonais and Tony Blair were trying to do


reconstituting themselves. It is a great pity the Labour Party hasn't


spoken against this campaign. Gof told MPs he was not undermining


vocational training. If you say to a student, that we the state are


going to value this qualification as an equivalent, the colleges to


which they apply subsequently and the employers say no, that child


will understandably feel betrayed and let down. Praised and pillaried,


as Mr Gove's favourite teacher, Catherine Sing h, is setting up a


new school, favoured on his principle that every child can


receive good GCSE passes. They need a qualification even to be a


hairdresser. Which children are they we say are not academic, it is


often children who come from states, poorer and more disadvantaged, we


expect less of them, we are not doing favours. Michael Gove says


the most useful courses, like this one, will count towards league


table. In a time of rising youth unemployment, the UK figure stands


at more than a million out of work. The Government is being accused of


making things worse. What should our children be taught, Stephen


Twigg and Graham Stuart are both huer. There are hundreds of


thousands of these courses being followed in schools. Is the


Government really saying children doing them are wasting their time?


They are saying there is a huge increase over the years, driven by


the league stable, and schools have gained a system, in some cases,


putting children...There hundreds of thousands of children


out there, and parents supporting them in doing that. Are you saying


they are wasting their time? What Alison Wolf who did a review of the


Vocational Qualifications for the Government, saying many of the


courses don't lead anywhere, and there needs to be a review. A lot


are wasting their time? Alison skaf Wolf, the expert said a lot of


cases didn't lead to education or a job and needed to be reviewed. They


were given too much value in the league stables. Your hands are


pretty dirty on all of this, in effect, you have encouraged


children to waste their time at school? It was right to have the


review, but I'm worried it will be the baby out with the bath water.


Some of the GCSEs have buy in from employers and universities. You


recognise You recognise some are not? Recreated the diplomas, the


equivalent of four or five GCSEs. Employers have said the engineering


dip plom ma is a great qualification.


That needs to change. That is not me saying that, that is some of the


top engineering employers saying that.


Why has there been such a conspicuous failure to engage with


this question of what children, who are not going to follow the GCSE,


A-level, university route, do with their time at school? One of the


problems is the measures we have in schools, and there is one


overwhelming one, that is five good GCSEs. Today my select committee


and are were challenging the secretary, the last Government and


this Government putting too much on that one measure, it drives


performance in schools. It means the poorest performing bottom 20%


in good schools, don't score there. It is important to have courses


where they can achieve and go along. Why have the metrics been set


wrongly? Successive Governments have failed to find a more balanced


scorecard. Why? We privilege certain forms of learnings, there


is a notion of the academic. This idea there is academic here and


vocational there is nonsense. English and mathematics are


academic subjects but hugely practical as well. There has been a


big debate over the years. This announcement today does the mistake,


to privilege certain sorts of learning over others That is why I


have said it is baby out with the bath water. You are imprecise where


the baby is? It is important to looks a Alison Wolf did, the report


is a rigorous piece of work, some changes make sense, not all of them.


You think it is right to chuck some out, why ones might be and which


not want? The bonus system we developed had four or five GCSEs,


instructed with lawyers and universities. It is not safe to


reduce them from four GCSEs to one. The figure of 15, how many would


you say? -- 125, how many would you say? I wouldn't say. It doesn't


mean they are invalid. 500, a 1,000? I wouldn't put a figure on


it, you have to look at all of them, some have the equivalent of four


GCSEs and they should maybe only have two. You don't know about it


all? I don't know because I have to look at each individual


qualification. I do know there are vigorous qualifications downgraded


today that should not be, that is wrong. What the Government is doing


is rushing into a decision on this. When they should be consulting far


more wide low, building a cross- party consensus, getting support


from employers. They have a cross- party consensus, you agree with


them? I don't agree with what they are doing with the dip plom mas.


is a technical skill for the Labour Party to point in two directions at


the same time. On the issue of the dip plom ma, I was on the committee


when Ed Balls was pushing it through in a hurry. It was the most


complicated than any body had seen, we asked him to slow down and get


it right. We have failed to get the right structure in place for


Vocational Qualifications, it is tremenduously important. The last


Government made a mess of it. There are only a few bits of the


qualification that are good, like the engineering. It is going to get


worse, many more children at school until the age of 18, for whom some


vocational qualification is the way to go. Why -- Why didn't you think


it through when you looked at the school leaving age? The diplomas


were not perfect, but some of them including engineering, they were


good rigorous qualifications looked at in schools. We should look at


some positives. We have the university technical colleges from


the age of 14, we have allson Wolf saying more children at 14 should


go into FE colleges. We need action on that. This is an inishal stab at


reducing the number -- initial stab at reducing numbers. We can add to


the number but make sure we never again put children on courses that


don't lead anywhere, and does mean they are wasting their time.


Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door


they used to say. The inventor of social network on the Internet,


they may pay you up to $100 billion. Facebook offers itself for sale


tomorrow, it claims to have 800 million users, not bad considering


it didn't exist until a year ago. We will discuss the business model


in a short time. First we look at how it can become to be worth so


much so fast. If you are on Facebook, this is how


Mark Zuckerberg wants you to tell your story from now on. The new


timeline laying out your history for your friends. Zuckerberg's own


Facebook life begins in 2004, when he starts Facebook in his bedroom.


Now he's going to float on the stock market, after years of


refusing to sell up to all sorts of suitors. The hardest one was when


Yahoo offered $1 billion. That was the first big offer, I knew nothing


about business or what a company might be worth.


Until now, it has been hard to know exactly what Facebook is worth. But


private stakes in the firm, were trading recently at a qalation of


�80 billion. There is talk of -- Wall Street is very excited. One


man who got overexcited in the last dotcom bubble is trying to stay


calm? There is pandemonium in the United States over the deal. It is


shre overdone, this is a very mature company. Everyone is excited


to see the numbers, but the hype is completely absurd, relative loo


what the likely event will be. Facebook's whole business is a bet


on us. The 800 million users flowing down its mighty river.


Someone once said you are not paying to be here, you are not the


customer, you are the products. Our likes and dislikes are a vital


currency for Facebook, advertisers could target us with personalised


messages. Are we worth as much as investors seem to think.


What's happening here? We are starting to build a new campaign


for job sites. We will build some perzone nas, looking for people


looking for a new job, effectively. At this digital marketing agency,


they are finding clients being attracted to the targeting that


Facebook can offer. If one wanted to target me, it would be a 43-


year-old, living in Kilburn, liking beer. They could target me


precisely and show me whatever ad they would like. It is interwoven


with the platform itself. Something like sponsored stories, advertising


off the back of a recommendation, I think they will get great results


if they keep this. Facebook's timeline will intercept with a


larger and more powerful one, Google, the company owns the


lucrative search advertising market, with Google Plus, it would like to


boss social advertising too. Can Facebook ever be as big a beast.


This is going to be large and successful business. That said, I'm


not convinced it will be as great a business as some people think. This


is still a social media business there have been lots of social


media businesses on-line and elsewhere. It turns out they are


just not that spectacular at advertising medium. Google found it


miraculous product where you go to the search engine and say I'm


looking for a particular product, you get an ad for it, it is a


perfect advertising vehicle. If I'm a betting man, and I am, I would


bet on Google, fantastic business that works well. Facebook is a good


eachway bet at the moment. Not a certainty. The early signs are


encouraging. What do go wrong in terms of -- what could go wrong in


terms of Facebook? It is whether advertisers could get a good turn


on a scale big enough to support the evaluation. That is the big


risk. Whatever price a company gets for


its shares, Mark Zuckerberg's next step along his time again, will


confirm him as the world's richest 27-year-old, then comes the hard


bit, keeping Facebook users happy, while targeting with ever more


advertising. Can it possibly be worth up to $100 billion. The Brent


Hoberman, and Aleks Krotoski are here.


What is for sale here is effectively us, anyone who has ever


put anything on Facebook, isn't it? It is absolutely, 850 million users,


it is the lock in Facebook will have on the users. If I have


invested the time to pull my friends in there, it is hard to


switch over. What Facebook can do is influence my behaviour.


Does that appeal to you? I find it quite frightening. What Facebook


and things like Google do, is they help us make sense of the vast


information on-line. Google says a model if everybody says this is


good manufactures then it is relevant and value for me. What


Facebook does, slightly different, and is seemingly more value is it


says, if all of my friends think that this is valuable, then it is


valuable and relevant to me. That is what it is that they trade on.


Which is why they want more and more of our information.


It turns, does it not, Facebook's customer, from a user of an


apparent service into Koon sumeer - - consumer and target for


advertiser. Yes, and also an Evangelist, if you like a product


and you become an Evangelist, and the message is sent to your friends,


it is incredibly powerful marketing. The data you give and the ability


for those to target that data is the holely grail of advertising.


provides an intentionality that advertisers haven't had. First of


all, you have the content is in exactly the right place for the


right eyeballs to see T because of the all of the things we put on-


line, whether it is photographs of our kids, or whatever, put in front


of the Taj Mahal. We are saying to the technology, this is what we are


interested in, this is the kind of thing we want. What we're going to


do, this is what we're going to buy. That is phenomenally valuable. That


truly is the innovation. A lot of people will see this as rather


sinister? Oh yes. People do it willingly? I don't think that they


necessarily go through the fine print of 35 pages of terms and


conditions and say they will accept. Most people are haep happy to say


it is a free service, it is changing the way I'm communicating


with friends. I don't mind giving out the information. There was one


a survey, how much would you have to offer to teenagers to give way


their on-line information about their lives, the answer was �10.


What does that tell us about teenagers today. What it does is it


turns us from users into victims n a way. Or evangelist is the


positive way of looking at it. is more that we become commodities,


this is the realisation of a process that has been on going for


a time. This is the most effective and streamlined way the advertising


model. Let's look at the way investors will look at it. There is


Facebooks out there, shortly, there is Google out there, is there room


for the two of them? As I said before, they approached the same


problem in two different ways. What is interesting is how they are


trying to interact. There is this kind of dance they are doing


together. Google has its social networking service, Google Plus,


trying to do what Facebook has done, it is trying to fill the holes and


put a plaster on some of the problems that people have. Users


have with Facebook. This idea when you put something out there 2 goes


to all your friends, despite them being friends, work mates or family.


Google is trying to do this social searching. But it isth also


provides n some ways, an enpsyche immediateic approach --


encyclopaedic approach. Google is more like you are looking for


something and it provides a way. is good Facebook has come up here


and given a challenge to Google. Facebook says its content is not


searchable on their sites. I don't think the use will be the amount of


time people are putting into Facebook. Would you invest in it?


did get caught in last minute dot comb -- lastminute.com, I lost many


money there. They have product geniuss knowing what their


customers want and love. They may well be able to grow into the


valuation. If it is $100 million do they merit it today, neither did


Google when it went public, and people did well who invested in


that. Assuming you had the money, would you invest in it? What would


I do with that kind of money. There is the unique selling point, it is


the lock-in, that Brent reference before. This idea that it has this


way of attracting people and keeping people in because your


friends are there. The other thing is I don't think they have started


yet on how well they can monitor it. The public will make them do that a


lot more. Thank you very much, the daily --


Daily Express has unearthed an American medal report. Otherwise


they are all going with Fred Goodwin, the Mail, the FT, Andy's


on the front page of the Telegraph. That's it for tonight. We will be


That's it for tonight. We will be Payback time weather wise, after a


mild winter. Much colder this week, colder through the next few days.


By day and night. Cold and frosty start to the day. Lots of sunshine


out there, blight, crisping and sunny, very cold, particularly in


the south. A risk easterly wind developing. Significant wind shield


here. Lots and lots of sunshine. If you get well wrapped up in the


sunshine it will feel lovely. In the breeze cold. Any flurries


across Devon and Cornwall will fade away. Increasing amounts of


sunshine as we end the day. For Wales a beautiful day. Beautiful


but cold. Further north across the country, the winds are lighter, of


some benefit, cloud dripping on the east coast in Northern Ireland. For


Scotland too, sunny across many parts, but a bit more cloud


developing. I think I could just see the odd flurry of snow, but


basically dry. Not much changing on Thursday, the risk of one or two


wint free showers on the east coast of Scotland and England. London


could catch a snow shower too. Generally most places are try,


Download Subtitles