06/02/2012 Newsnight

We don't know precisely how many people have been killed by the

Syrian army, as President Assad tries to murder those who oppose

his dictatorship, but we do know they include children. All this

while China and Russia provide a form of diplomatic protection.

They bury their dead children at night in Homs, because to do

otherwise can be suicidal. If this is where relying on the UN Security

Council gets you, what else is possible?

The international diplomatic effort hit the buffers on Saturday, now

there is talk of a coalition of the willing. Calling itself, The

Friends of Syria. Bosses at Network Rail denounce

their bonus, will anyone dare risk the finger-pointing and accept one.

I will ask the Transport Secretary to name a single taxpayer-backed

enterprise where the bosses deserve a bonus.

A judge sets free an extremist cleric that cites mass murder, why

isn't the state free to protect itself.

Jackie Mason, the man who gave up Bat Mitzvas for performing speaks

to us. His supporters and toadies call him

Abu, father, some father, Bashar al-Assad's troops are shelling

Syrian civilians indiscriminatly, and the United Nations is not

embold ened enough to do anything. China, Russia -- Britain and the US

have turned to The Government in Syria has been

called a failed and murderous regime.

We have just returned from siria, we asked our reporter to find out

what he could. All day today, yesterday and the

day before, the city at the heart of Syria's uprising has been

shaking to the sound of a Government bombardment.

Allah hu Akbar. In reply, the rebels shout back their defiance,

"God is most great" they cry. hu Akbar.

TRANSLATION: Believe me, Homs is ablaze, you don't want to be here

now. Dead body in the streets, under the wreckage of destroyed

buildings, wounded people in their hundreds.

Film posted on the Internet apparently shows some of those

injured being treated in a makeshift hospital in Homs today.

This doctor is telling a victim he has Russia and China to thank for

his wounds. The countries that vetoed the UN Security Council

resolution at the workend, that would have called on the Syrian

Government to end the bloodshed. The UN gave the Syrian army, they

gave Assad's army the OK and green light to kill more. They have

bombed one of our hospitals, killed the doctors and the nurses and the

patients in there. We have only one hospital left. The injured people

are on the floor, dead people are on the floor. We don't have enough

doctors. We only have four doctors, in that field hospital, what can

they do. The uprising that started nearly a

year ago in Deraa, has now spread to towns across Syria, even to some

parts of the capital, Damascus. But it is Homs, Syria's third-largest

city, that has seen much of the worst violence. It is divided into

a patchwork of pro-Government and anti-Government districts. Thecy

centre is controlled by the authorities, along with loyalist

neighbourhoods, which include Al- Zahara and Akrama, around them a

ring of areas controlled by the rebt, by the Government is now

trying -- the rebels, which the Government is now trying to pound.

It is thought to be the worst bombardment here since the uprising

began, with heavier artillery, including multiple rocket launchers

being deployed by the state. We are living in the middle of

bombardments by rocket launchers, they have been hitting us with

rockets from 5.00am. This is the first time they have used rocket

launchers, and hit us with rockets. They usually hit us with mortar

bombs and tank shells. Among those killed, wrapped in this shroud, a

seven-year-old girl. Like other victims, she was buried,

hurriedly at night, without ceremony. Fear that those carrying

the body might themselves be hit. It is in the district of Baba Amr,

that the bombardment has been particularly heavy. This apartment

in Baba Amr had to be abandoned today, after being hit by a shell,

according to activists that filmed it. The beds had been used as a

field hospital to treat the wounded. When you try to cross the street

and move out of your neighbourhood, the sniebers shoot you. As -

snipers shoot you. They are bombing a civilian house, civilian

buildings. They are using tanks. The Russian tanks. They are using

mortars and shells. Today they are trying to use missile launchers.

But they didn't. But across the city, the district

of Zahara, is solidly behind the Government. Newsnight was taken

there recently on a tour organised by the authorities, past a series

of sandbagged military checkpoints and mortgage traits of Bashar al-

Assad. -- portraits of Bashar al- Assad. Unusually there is also a

poster that promotes his brother, who is thought to be more hardline.

In Zahara most of the people are Alawites, part of the same Shi'ite

sect that the President belongs to. Many have links to the security

forces. Some say they have been forced to flee from their homes in

Homs. Even here they say they are targeted by opposition snipers.

Those killed today in Homs, certainly include some rebel

fighters. This man was shot in an attack on a Government position.

But most victims are civilians. Who will protect them now? With no

diplomatic agreement on how to deal with the Syrian regime, many on the

opposition side, like these protestors in Damascus today, are

increasingly hoping they can obtain more weapons to defend themselves.

Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, is here in the studio. How have the

response supports of this UN resolution have reacted to the

blocking? With the strongest language one can remember on a

diplomatic matter for many years. France, UK, US, using words like

"scandal", "shame", it really has been a very strong reaction.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, continued in much the

same vein in the Commons today. Speaker, there is no need to mince

words about this, Russia and China have twice vetoed reasonable and

necessary action by the UN curt council. Such vetos are a betrayal

of the Syrian people n deploying them they have let down the Arab

League, they have increased the likelihood of what they wished to

avoid in Syria, civil war, and they have placed themselves on the wrong

side of Arab and international opinion.

What options are open to people like William Hague, or the American

a second, now? He and the French today were talking about this

coalition of the willing, the called Friends of Syria. This is

the Contact Group idea, the Arab League plus a few years, obviously

the UK and France among them. Their options are very, very limited,

supply arms, there is an EU arms embargo, most countries wouldn't

wish to go that far straight away. Any attempt to extend international

restrictive action, of course, would have to go back to the

Security Council, maybe their only option is to attempt to build

bridges with Russia and China again. We will explore this in a minute or

two. The intriguing question is why the Russians did it? There are

views it was a bit like Britain's veto in the EU, it was a failed

negotiating tactic. Some reports out of the UN suggested the UN

ambassador, and the Chinese were reassuring people on Friday that we

can do and deal and then it all went wrong, they say they were

moved too quickly to the vote. Some say they were directed, they took

political instruction, and Moscow took the lead, that Sergei Lavrov,

the Foreign Minister, was very important, and he decided they

should block this, because it looked too much like regime change,

Iraq, Libya, very different tactics, but the same result, he felt the

westerners wanted, today he was unrepentants.

-- Unrepentant. TRANSLATION: Some voices in the west giving their

opinion on the vote sound obscene, on the verge of hysteria, it brings

to mind the saying "he who gets angry, is rarely in the right".

Do the Russians regard the survival of Assad's regime as a vital

interest? There are echos of the old Cold War game today, and a

Turkish contingent accused them of this. We saw a few weeks ago the

Russian aircraft Admiral appearing off the Syrian coast. The Syrian

high command on board to be feted by Syrian military people and shown

the hardware on forward. Russia has a base in Syria for naval vessels,

it has a signals intelligence camp, it has been training the Syrians

for decades. Is that what it is about. No Russian Foreign Minister

say the survival of Bashar al-Assad himself is not part of the Russian

interest, they say it would have created civil war, because places

were being led to a civil war and massacre. Many think the objective

of thwarting US objectives still is very important in Moscow.

To discuss the next steps for Syria I'm joined by an opposition

activisted base in -- based in the UK. And a former Russian

intelligence adviser. Are you comfortable having the

blood of Syrians on your hands? think we again have a situation

where we tend to this, this is black and this is white. So there

is nothing inbetween. I: That is between a vote in favour and a veto

it is pretty black and white? of all the Russian Government asked

the United Nations to postpone the voting for a few days until Sergei

Lavrov goes to Syria and talks to Assad. That did not happen. That

was steam rolling very quick low. Secondly, the fact that two

permanent members of the Security Council, are voting against the

resolution is already an important development in itself. It just

shows that not everybody agrees with the situation. Thirdly, if you

look at the text of the resolution, it was not enforcible. The deadline

was 21 days, it was impossible to achieve all the measures that were

listed in that resolution, so the Russians thought that if that

doesn't work, the next stage would be military interference. And the

actual consequence, was, clearly, that the regime in Damascus, felt

it had some how got diplomatic cover for the killing of innocent

men, women and children? Let me ask you this, what would have happened

if everybody turned against Assad's regime, do you imagine the

desperation of these people in Damascus, you would have seen a

slaughter. You would have seen the supporters of Assad turning into

killing machines, because we already witnessed how desperate

dictators and what they do. This is not something decided forever, this

blockage of that resolution. The diplomatic process will continue,

Sergei Lavrov is going there to continue that process. How does it

look if you are a Syrian activist? Well, I think the Russian

Government is taking this as an excuse, civil war is happening

already in Syria. The supporters of the regime may blame the opposition

for that, because the Syrian National Council has not come with

a clear political programme to reassure the minorities, and that

is very, very, people have been critical of that. Civil war may

have happened already, because two armies are fighting against each

other. It looks like civil war? looks like civil war, two armies

fighting against each other, the soldiers are the ordinary Syrian

people, and the civilians have been killed, so the Russian Government

is making this an excuse for the arms market in Syria.

With about the arms, by the way, it has been made by many commentators

that Russia is providing the Syrian regime with weapons that are used

against civilians. Unfortunately it is not the case. The weapons that

are provided at the moment are anti-aircraft systems, anti-ship

systems, you can't use those things against the civilian population.

That is an important thing, to remember. But there are big

interest, big Russian interests in Syria, Mark mentioned one of them,

the naval base, the military base? Syria has been Russia's ally since

the Soviet times, so what's unusual about that? It is that particular

regime in Sir ia? It is the same, - - Syria? It is the same, I can say

that America is supporting Saudi Arabia because it has been its ally

for many years. And Saudi Arabia is not exactly a beacon of democracy.

There are certain national and international interests and allies

operating on different levels, but you can't just say that Russia has

done this because it has a military base there, and it wants to keep

Assad, whatever it takes. Russia wants diplomatic efforts to

continue. If it didn't, Sergei Lavrov would not be going to

Damascus. That is as simple as that. Any other solutions may lead to the

same consequences, killing more civilians, and civil war,

inflamming a civil war, any other options that we have at the moment,

the UN Security Council have been too late to take any decision, any

other options we have at the moment is inflamming civil war. So that

isn't an excuse to be honest. there a Russian end game? China and

Russia remember the end game of Libya, you may say it is a good

development that Gaddafi is removed, but what we are seeing in Libya now

is a revival of the civil war. The new powers are not exactly brimming

with desire to support human rights and democracy. So, we don't really

want a chain reaction like that going across the whole of the

Middle East. I think it is very wise decision to let diplomacy work.

You are on your own, aren't you? are, we have been left alone to

face the machine of killing, it has been around 11 months and no-one is

actually taking or acting in favour of the Syrian people. Russia is

always blocking any. It is not just Russia, it is also China? Of course,

but Russia is taking the lead. what sense? China has exactly the

same position, it wants diplomacy to work? Now that Sergei Lavrov is

going to Syria tomorrow, we will see what diplomatic solution he has

got, and will act on that. Thank you very much.

It is either a brilliant, decisive intervention, by one of the more

recent appointments to the cabinet, or a political stunt

significantfying nothing shrech. The bosses of -- significantfying

nothing much. The bosses of Network Rail have decided to forego bonuses

and spend the money on imgovernments to the rail. Which

means the meeting to vote against isn't necessary, but was it all a

got up drama. Before we ask the transport

secretary we report. The game has the nation gripped,

every contestant goes home empty handed, or lighter in the pocket.

First there was Sir Philip Hamilton, and Stephen Hester from RBS, the

Sun's headline a work of genius in itself.

This week it is another of those strange, not quite private, not

quite public operations, Network Rail. The a second has been trying

to put pressure on the executive directors to give up their bonuses,

and, well, plenty of people agree. I don't think it should be on the

table for them. The chief executive is paid �560,000 a year, which my

guess is he could probably about scrape by on. Last year Network

Rail was found to be in breach of its license by the rail regulation,

rail freight movements are suffering a 30% increase in delays,

passenger trains haven't met the industry's own targets for

pubgtality, there is no justification, at the moment,

certainly, for rewarding that kind of performance. If you have been

following the game at home, you will know what happens next is an

enormous split kal spat between Labour and the Government over

whether ministers have the power to veto the bonus.

Simply by reading the articles of negotiation, we can see Network

Rail can be pointed to the remuneration committee and give

prior consent to changes. It amounts to a veto if the a second

would choose to use it. According to the Department of Transfor the,

ministers don't have the power to veto individual bonuses, consent is

only needed if the overall incentive policy changes, which at

Network Rail hasn't for years. But do these executives need

bonuses at all to invent advise them? There is a real problem --

incentivise them? There is a problem because the bonuses are

around safety and the number of trains that are late. That all

comes from external factors, one bad accident could upset the

figures or snow, for example, that reduces their notional bonuses by a

bit. That is nonsensical. Basically the rail industry is a boring u--

utility, where people should do the same thing, day after day after day,

and do it efficient low and effectively, that is not the

culture where you need big bonuses to make people do the right thing.

Network Rail bosses, then, had less wriggle room than commuters on the

7.08, and not want to go replace RBS bosses in the public's

affection, they decided they could probably do without the cash.

Bosses at Network Rail have decided to go without their bonuses this

year. Does all this mean that the Network

Rail gravy train has come to a grinding halt? No, according toe

one former transport minister. think -- According to one former

transport minister? I think it is the end of bonuses, but there is a

five-year plan for directors of Network Rail, which if they go

through in the current form, will mean effectively a doubling of

directors' and the chief executive's salary every year for

five years. Every year for five years? It is a 100% increase for

five years. That is still on the stable. The a second understands

that is still on the table, she has asked them not to take it further

until she publishes a command paper on the structure in two weeks time,

it is still live. How does Network Rail justify their executive pay,

they base it on the middle point for FTSE 100 companies' executive

pay, why there? The company has an I don't think there is a great need

to pay these people enormous sums of money, to do basically what is a

fairly routine mundane job, on the whole.

Thanks for playing Network Rail, can we have our next competitor

please? The hot spot probably won't be empty for long.

Earlier this evening I spoke to the Transport Secretary, Andy Green.

Justine Greening, the people at Network Rail say the decision to

forego their bonuses was taken last week. Did you know that? No, I was

called by Matthew Higgins today, to be hold that -- David Higgins today

to be told that decision. I think it is a sensible decision and one I

welcome. If they did take the decision last week, all your

anxiety and plans to go to the members' meeting would be just a

stunt, wouldn't they? I don't think so, actually. That provision has

been there ever since Network Rail was set up by the last Government.

I think no Transport Secretary has ever tried to use it before. I

thought it was important to stand up, frankly, for tax-payers, and

their concerns about these bonuses, that is what I was quite prepared

to do. Do you think your intervention was crucial to this

decision which the Network Rail bosses say was taken last week?

was a Network Rail decision, and you have to ask them about how they

made the decision. Do you think your intervention made any

difference at all? There was no doubt it was my job to stick up for

tax-payers and fare payers, I have no doubt that Network Rail would

have looked across that at the weekend, but it was a decision for

them. And indeed a decision they say they took last week? You have

made that point, and as I say, I think in terms of how Network Rail

reach their decision, really you would be better off asking them. I

was quite right to be prepared to stand up for tax-payers and fare

payers. Do you think bonuses are ever legitimate in the public

sector? It is perfectly fine to have an element of pay that is

performance related, I think what people do want to see, though, is,

first of all, for it to be administered fairly, secondly, it

does have to relate to performance. The other thing they expect is a

little bit of transparency and accountability. That has been

lacking at Network Rail, and it is one of the things that I'm looking

at tackling in the rail strategy paper that I'm finishing now. That

is another reason why I felt the decision to go ahead with bonuses

and Network Rail have now gone back on that, that this was simply not

right time to do it. The policy apparently at Network Rail is

remuneration is, "benchmarked to the median FTSE 100 company", is

that appropriate? That is a question for Network Rail and their

members. I'm asking you your opinion? My opinion is Network Rail

ultimately need to take their own decision, alongside their members,

on the appropriate pay and incentives package. The point I

have been making over recent days, is I don't think that governance

structure is in place for that to happen appropriately. That is one

of the reasons why I was prepared to go to the general meeting that

was happening this week, which has now been postponed, it is also one

of the reasons why I was planning to strengthen Network Rail

governance in the command paper coming out on rail reform over the

next few weeks. You are more familiar than most with how Network

Rail operates. It isn't like a FTSE 100 company, is it? Network Rail is

a private company in the sense that it is there to run the track on

which our trains operate. Could it go bust? Network Rail, ultimately,

will run its organisation in a way that should deliver good taxpayer

value for money. You won't let it go bust, would you? This is key to

the comparison with the FTSE 100 companies correction it go bust?

Network Rail is an independent of Government institution. Subsidised

by the taxpayer? I don't think the question arises of it going bust, I

think the key point is to make sure it is set up in a way. What people

watching this will want to know, is it is not the finer detail of its

balance sheet, the key point is whether Network Rail is set up in a

way to enable it to deliver railway performance that I want to see,

passengers and the public want to see. What we have seen over recent

days is the fact in which bonuses and incentives were structured by

the last Government, in terms of how that framework gets agreed. It

is simply not strong enough to come out with the right sort of package

to make sure the incentives are really there and responsibly there.

That is precisely what I'm seeking to address. Can you tell us of one

business in wit taxpayer has a substantial stake, in -- in which

the taxpayer has a substantial stake, that you think bonuses would

be appropriate? I have always said bonuses are appropriate if they

relate to good performance. Can you give us an example of a good

performance? I think at the end of the day if you look at Network Rail

going forward, what we are trying to achieve with the rail strategy.

That is an example of a company where you believe bonuses are not

legitimate. I'm asking for an example where you think they are

legitimate? It is not appropriate for me to comment across the piece.

You think it is OK to comment on where they are not legitimate, when

are they legitimate? It is not up to me to comment on other

Government departments where I'm not in a position to say whether or

not the bonus structures in place are appropriate. As Transport

Secretary I can comment on Network Rail, that is what I have been

prepared to do over the weekend. Most people would I think I took

xablgtly the right stance, prepared to go -- exactly the right stance,

to be prepared to go to the Annual General Meeting, to represent fare

payers and tax-payers, and I'm pleased Network Rail have taken the

decision they would not take the bonuses they planned, if they are

due they will put them into improving level crossings. You set

a precedent here. Can you give me an example of a single company,

either within your department, or elsewhere, or getting tax-payers'

money through your department or elsewhere, where you think bonuses

are legitimate? I don't believe I have set a precedent, all I have

done is simply used the provisions within the Network Rail governance

structure, to make sure I stood up for tax-payers and fare payers,

that was the right thing to do. The governance structure was there, the

only difference is unlike the last Government who put it in place,

they were never prepared use it. I actually was, that was the right

thing to do. So you have set a precedent? I haven't set a

precedent. The only precedent there is the fact I'm willing to use the

mechanism already in place. What I'm saying is that mechanism was

not strong enough within Network Rail, that is what we need to

improve. Thank you.

He apparently hates Jews, anyone who if he effects from Islam and

Americans, he has been described as Osama Bin Laden's righthand man in

Europe. He doesn't hate the west so much that he wants to leave it and

return to the Middle East, instead, Abu Qatada has used European law to

stay in this country. Which he entered illegally, and not to be

sent to Jordan to stand trial. Despite the Home Office's view he's

a very dangerous man, an immigration judge ruled he should

be free from high-security prison. Talk us through what happened?

cases make bad law. This is a hard case. Videos of Abu Qatada, to

remind you, were found in the Hamburg apartment of some of the

9/11 attackers, some of his sermons. He has been called Osama Bin

Laden's righthand man in Europe, Al-Qaeda's spiritual leader in

Europe, a truly dangerous individual, and a the most

significant extremist preacher in the UK. Today it is decided he

should be released from prison, where he has spent six-and-a-half

years of the last ten years, because the judge said in the

absence of any charge or allegation against him he can't be held any

longer. The British Government want to extradite him back to Jordan,

because there he faces terrorist offences, but the European Court of

Human Rights last month ruled that couldn't happen, because the

evidence against him in Gordon Brown may well have been obtained

through torture, he has to stay. What have the British judges had to

say about it? Three years ago in a landmark judge, Lord Philips, said

the fact that the evidence against him in Jordan may have been

obtained against him in torture was irrelevant, if he was a danger to

national security he should be ejected. But today the immigration

jurpblg, Lord Justice Mitting, ruled in the judge, Lord Justice

Mitting ruled that, in favour of the European Court ruling, that he

had to be released from house arrest by the end of this week. He

also said that within three months f the Government hasn't settled

with the Jordanians some means by which Qatada should be sent back to

Jordan, he should be freed in the UK, without any strings attached.

What happens now? The British Government have said that they are

not happy about this. The Home Office say he will be bailed from

the prison where he has been, within a week. The Home Office say

they disagree with the decision, and say this is a dangerous man who

poses a threat to security, and hasn't changed his views to the UK.

They are considering their legal actions in response to the European

Court's ruling. We're joined by Roger Smith a

lawyer and director of justice, a campaign organisation involved with

Abu Qatada's case. And by Douglas Murray, an author and associate

director with the democracy Campaign Group, the Henry Jackson

Society. Are you pleased this dangerous man is walking the

street? I don't have a brief or act for Abu Qatada, but what should

happen to him is due process. Two points, if he's as dangerous as was

said and we have just been told, then he has committed offences in

this country, and should be charged in the normal way. He never has

been. Secondly, the real person should also be here is Jordan,

there is a real problem, because the justice system in Jordan is not

reliable. He has been convicted abroad, hasn't he? He has been

convicted twice in Jordan. On the basis of evidence by two people who

retracted it and said they had originally given their evidence

under the influence of torture. you think we should just take a

risk and let this bloke wander around this country? I think there

is a clash of seeing the world as national states who have entire

national control over what happens, and international norms of human

rights. I think he should be dealt with according to norms of human

rights. What do you think should happen to him? I think he should be

returned to Jordan tomorrow. Despite the fact he might face

trial, he could face risk himself, and face a trial where evidence

could be produced that was obtained under torture? He won't face risk

to himself. This country to considerable expense and amount of

time under the Labour Government, sought a memrand dumb of

understanding with Jordan, where he would not be mistreated in Jordan

if he was tried there. It was only last month, the European Court of

Human Rights for the first time cited article 6 on the right to a

fair trial issue. Claiming it was an issue of whether or not people

in the trial of Abu Qatada in Gordon Brown might themselves have

been mistreated, that is why we are in the mess. The European Court of

Human Rights kept on moving the goal posts, that is why we are here,

they kept on doing that. It is not unusual for European states to

simply significant nor the European Courts, it can't enforce the

judgments. There is no reason why we can't do what Italy and France

have done, ignore the courts. The day after the European Court would

say, in a strongly-worded statement that they condemned the British

Government for doing this. We could simply do what, as I say our allies

have done on the continent and ignore the court. Why can't we do

that? We believe in due process, and the Government does too. The

issue is torture, what position do we as the UK take about torture.

this is a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, why not just

ignore it? Because we signed up to the European convention. So have

all the other countries? We are only the country that so completely

runs by the letter of the law of the European Court. The European

Court has shown repeated low that in cases of national security, it

cannot have a -- repeatedly that in cases of national security, it

cannot have countries like this and France and others having their best

interests. In a case like this, making sure that Abu Qatada, who

came to Britain illegally in 1993, on a forged UAE passport, is given

every right that the European Court can invent, year after year,

changing the goal posts, it is very God at that. What it is not good at

doing, is securing, through its judgment, a genuinely fair process,

to apart from anything else, ensure, that people in Britain do not have

a known extremist, and a known hate monger, as somebody who has made a

career, as the judgment said in 2007, who has such reach in his

network that it is said it was incalculable. They said that in

2007, and now because of the European Court and 2012, the man

will walk the streets. You don't think we need to worry about due

process and collecting proper evidence? We do, and this country

has done everything it could to go through that due process. Thatth

has gone to appeal in the laws and every court in the land, everything.

The only thing is the European Court consistently has moved the

goal posts over recent years and only last month, for the first time,

used article 6, this new part. The issue was not whether he himself

was mistreated if he went back to Jordan to face trial, it was

whether any evidence used against him was obtained in that way.

you not slightlym uncomfortable with our courts going by the rouls

of a foreign court and judgment, to protect a man who advocates killing

people? It is not an easy case, and you can't make an easy judgment.

What the European Court has done, is consistently drawn a bright line

around torture, saying Article Three prevents it and complicity

with it. It has extended the meaning of that, so you cannot

throw somebody back to another country, where he will there is a

reasonable chance he will this be torture. I think that is right. It

isn't true to say, it isn't true that we are the only country that

complies with it. Sweden, the whole Scandinavian countries, the

countries of the Council of Europe comply. Do you think the countries

signing up to this court, that don't abide by the rulings?

repeat offenders are Russia and Turkey, I would like to be a

citizen of a country that is different from that and accepts the

due process. We signed up to the court, we should obey to it.

Neither France nor Italy are barbaric countries that don't

expect the rule of law. They respect the rule of law, but they

also respect the fact that Italian and French citizens have the right

not to have people like Abu Qatada walking in their midst. Why not

leave the court f it is such a problem? That is one of the problem,

if the coalition Government were to do what David Cameron said he would

like to do before the election, and remove ourselves from the

convention and the jurisdiction of the court. Another option is when

they come up with completely bonkers judgments, as they have

repeatedly with Qatada, is to ignore them. The other is to do

what we are currently doing, is to be very British about it, following

the complete letter of the law, to an extent no other country does,

and do what the main allies on the country don't do it. He says it is

not no other countries, the Scandinavian companies? No other

countries with a figure like Abu Qatada, has gone to this length to

protect him. No other country has gone that far. Italy and France are

not backward countries f they can disobey the European Court and get

an understand pleasant splap on the wrist, we could do that, and Abu

Qatada would be facing trial in Jordan, with a memoranda, meaning

he wouldn't face bad treatment. is madness to say leave the Council

of Europe, that wo mean the same as Belarus, only if you go to Belarus

do you leave the countries of the koum of Europe. It is madness --

countries -- Council of Europe. It is madness to say that. We go

around the world bringing human rights, sometimes at the point of a

gun, it is ridiculous to say also we shouldn't follow decisions of

the court. Mariana Mazzucato is in town, --

He has had a big influence on other stand-up comedians, he's now 75,

this is expected to be one of his very last tours unless there is

I have a date with comedy legend, Paul Mason, Jacky Mason, he says

this will be his farewell set of dates in the UK, he's 75. Unless I

want to buy something, that is a different problem, that is a joke.

I like it. In this country I have socialised medicine, in the United

States every doctor is a crook. I tell them to their faces and every

show I do on Broadway, I call them coox, they are not insults. --

crooks. They are not insults in the United States, you know why? They

know their crooks. Why do you think he wears a mask when he operates,

he don't want to see you what he's doing. The used to be full-time

rabbi has played to full houses throughout the UK, including the

London Palladium. What I'm most proud of is I keep

winning awards in the United States for getting the biggest amount of

laughs in a single show. I have gotten that award seven years in a

row from that society, that judges and counts laughs per show. What do

you put it down to? Desperately hard work, and an amazing amount of

talent. That must be the answer. And the fact that the other people

are not so hot, that also helps. Ahead of his latest and last run in

the West End, Mason gave me a comedy masterclass on the

storyboards of the wind ham theatre. If there is some kind of insult in

the joke, I make sure I don't tell it. Are you king of the world here,

are you wooing the audience, what is the idea? The idea is I'm the

boss because I'm here. I don't try to dominate an audience, but I try

to involve them as much as possible in what I'm saying. I'm creating a

sense of warmth, of intmcy. -- Intimacy. On the 60th

anniversary of the Queen's accession, he recounted his own

encounters with the royal box. came over and thanked me for the

show, I said I appreciate you thanking me so much, that is kind

of you. I noticed she started to talk like me. No, she started to

talk like you? As I'm thanking her, she says thank you very much, and

then she says, I tell you the truth, it wasn't that great, but an

exceptional show, to be honest with you. I started to talk like an

Englishman to be polite, I said thatch I appreciate it t she said,

that's OK, don't worry about it. I said to myself, thank God, I turned

the Queen into a Jewish lady. Jackie, I know it is unfair, you

have just got off the plane, you need to acclimatise. What can a

British audience look forward to, are you doing anything about us?

Everyone I came here tell me the same story, about this MP who got a

traffic ticket when he was riding with his woif, and she claimed that

she was the one driving, then they found out he was driving not her,

because he started to go out with another girl. Allegedly, it is all

spending in the courts? I know it is all allegeded. Thank you for

saying it? I'm not doing the show, a news programme has to say alleged.

I want to be the only one who shows respect to your Prime Minister, and

the only guy today that won't call him a liar, a fake a fraud and

phoney, as far as I'm concerned he's an honest man, and I thought

Clinton was honest. Why are you suggesting this might be your

foinal appearance over here, is this really true -- final

appearance over here? Is this really true? When I say it is the

final tour, I'm 100% true, that doesn't mean if you give me

�100,000 I won't tell you a joke. I will tell you a joke for the right

price. That's it, Jackie Mason appearing in London. The Financial