27/03/2012 Newsnight


The report into the Summer riots gets leaked. Should we build on the green belt? In search of Germany's new generation of the far right. With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/03/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It wasn't just as the Government asserted at the time, pure


criminality, according to the panel investigating them, last summer's


unpress departmented riots, were the product of bad schools, bad


parenting, insufficient jobs and being poor when capitalism dangles


luxury in your face. It felt like Christmas had come early, just


being able to take all the nice things that you want.


The diagnosis of the causes of the riots reads like some socialist's


check list. And you are wasting your -- sociolologists check list,


and you are wasting your time asking for solutions. Is the


diagnosis right, and is there a cure.


We would all like to live here, but does it exist, does the


Government's planning policy meet the fears of conservationists.


Pity the pieman, can George Osborne be persuaded not to levy VAT on


pies and pasties. In their propaganda, this group


call themselves The Immortals, and so they wear death masks, we go in


search of Germany's new generation of neo-Nazis.


TRANSLATION: We need people willing, ready, able and trained, in case it


comes to civil war. The scene is armed, it is military.


The riots last summer were the behaval product of too many young


people with nothing to lose. That is the less than earth-shatteringly


conclusion of the panel set up to find out what happened.


All of us want jobs, a sense of engagment, something to hope for.


The report's authors think much of this could be settled if schools


built character, or be fined if too few pupils learned to read or write


well. We will talk about their ideas and if they make sense


shortly, first Peter Marshall reports.


Five days which shook England's cities, shocking the nation, and


beyond. We know all too well what happened


last August, but why? Those involved insist there were


causes. Of course there was a reason behind


it, why would it all kick off. It wouldn't kick off for no reason.


Even the Prime Minister, whose initial response was to blame


commoner garden thieving and looting, was soon announcing


policies to tackle deeper roots. believe it is only by recognising a


problem that you can fix what has actually gone wrong. This summer,


we saw, beyond doubt, that something has gone profoundly wrong.


To get to grips with that profound wrong, Mr Cameron set up the


Troubled Families Programme, promising to turn around the lives


of 120,000 families identified as causing crime or anti-social


behaviour. Unfortunately, according to the riots report, these weren't


the families who had rioted. The report says of the Troubled


So this forgotten half million are the problem of the What we argue in


the report is the principles within the Troubled Families Programme


need to be expanded to focus on those forgotten families, as we


call them. Matt Cavanagh was an adviser for the Home Office in


Labour's time, he says the current Government's Troubled Families


Programme now looks wide of the mark. It looks like a classic


response of a politician reaching for a policy solution in the middle


of a crisis, reaching for something they had bubbling in the background


any way, and using them to get them through the few difficult weeks in


August. They should keep going with it, but shouldn't pretend it is a


solution to the riots. The rioters had two targets, the police and


expensive products. They were fuelled by resentment of the first,


and desire for the second. The It felt like Christmas had come


early, just being able to take all the nice things that you wanted.


When you get a chance to put your hands on things like that you feel


good. The report criticises the police,


particularly in London, saying, the Met can dramatically improve their


As for solutions, the report notes most of those who riots were under


24, and poorly educated. It says school should have policies to


build pupils' character, regularly assessing their strength of


character. It also says schools which fail to educate pupils


properly should be fined, and it addresses the scourge of youth


unemployment. Now, when you have unemployment at around a million,


it is interesting and helpful that the report recommends a guarantee


of a job for young people who have been unemployed for over a year. It


costs about �400 million to do that for all those who have been


unemployed for over a year. Is that a problem for the report, that


things aren't costed? In that case, it is a sensible policy. They would


have to say how it is paid for. It is fair criticism of the report


that it recommends a wide number of things we would all like to see


happen, for example, one-to-one support for kids falling behind in


school, the challenge is how to pay for it, what other things do we cut


to make that possible. The worst public disorder in a


generation was the result of multiple causes, with dreadful


consequences. The riots report makes no fewer than 63


recommendations, many will cost dear. Does the Government now turn


its attention to the newly- identified half a million forgotten


families, the young unemployed, commercialisation, the police,


schools building stronger characters, where to start? Let's


see if we have ideas now. The authors of the report are so cross


it has been leaked before its formal publication tomorrow, they


don't want to talk about it tonight. We have the Tottenham MP, David


Lammy, who recently wrote a book about the riots.


We have a former speechwriter for David Cameron and work he is with


young people. And Pauline Pearce, who confronted rioters in Hackney.


Have you learned anything new from this report? No, obviously a lot of


the issues, as the MP for Tottenham, are very real to me, and indeed, I


talked about after the summer. I think there are issues in relation


to worklessness, particularly, issues around materialism and


consumerism, fatherlessness, I think, is a real problem. Coming to


some of those in a few minutes, there is a lot of waffle in the


report, but there are specific injunctions, hard to see how it


could be realised, schools teaching moral character, is that doable?


one of the institutions responsible for looking after young people,


they should be thinking about that. I think it is a remarkable report,


because of that agenda. For the first time, in an official public,


political report, we have recommendations around character,


around the principle that young people make moral choices, and that


we should be bolstering the values and attitudes and habits which


encourage them to make the right choices, rather than automatically


assuming that the only answer is more money, or better system, all


of which are important, but this emphasis on character and


resilience they are making is key. I don't want to embarrass you, we


will remind our viewers of when we saw you last summer. You are in


this clip we are going to see now, you are actually confronting the


rioters and asking specifically that they behave in a morally


different kind of way. Let's have a quick look. She's working hard to


make her business work, and you lot want to go and burn it up, for what,


just to say you are badman? Now, the key thing here, is how you


encourage people to have a different sort of moral character,


do you have any ideas about that? We have to change the mind set. It


is going to be hard, but because these children have been brought up


with no, it is -- not no parental guidance, a lot of discipline has


been taken away from parents, and after the riots it was parents


bring your children in, how can you, when Littlejohny hasn't been


listening to you for ten years, because if you raise your hand he


will ring the police, and you have a court case on your hands for


disciplining your child. Is there enough about individual


responsibility in this analysis? there enough? I think each person's


responsible for themselves, when they get to a certain age, you know


right from wrong. Now, how do you inculcate that idea? The first


thing to say is most of the rioters were not school age. There is a lot


of attention on young people, these were adults. At 21 you were


responsible for your own actions, the chap who burnt down that


building in Croydon was 30. There are deep, cultural, social issues


here, and, of course, very poor policing at the beginning of this


riot, led to a vacuum in which people felt, I'll just take my


opportunity. But the question is, why did they feel no sense of shame,


no sense of guilt, no sense of stake in terms of taking that


responsibility. That's not, I think, about laying it at the door of


schools. I think teachers are hard- pressed as it is, they are doing


loads. I do think it is about Government and jobs, and those


sorts of things, I also think it is about parents, communities, and


actually addressing some of the economic problems in this country,


that have gone on under successive Governments, pulling away from


communities and families, not supporting them. What can be done


to encourage people to take more responsibility for their own


behaviour? I think we need to be clearer about what the consequences


of behaving badly are. We need to be very straight forward about


criminality, and what that institutes, and -- constitutes, and


not pretending that what was going on was a political protest. Making


it clear that the whole victim mentality, and the victim culture,


the cynicism. I work with ex- offenders and young people, many of


whom have had terrible upbringings and come through really difficult


circumstances, many of them have a really good attitude to their own


lives and responsibilities, there is also this huge culture of


cynicism. And this great sense that all the institutions in our country


is corrupt, everyone from the journalist, the politicians, and


the bankers are in it for themselves and out on the take, and


there is no sense in which they themselves can be expected to


behave better. I'm not blaming the people at the top, but there is a


general culture of encouraging people not to be responsibility.


You dismiss the idea of victimhood, the report mentions, look at


materialism, some extremely clever, very well resourced people, are


telling young people that the only way they can respect themselves and


be respected by others, is by acquiring bits of clothing, bits of


electronic junk, overpriced, which they cannot afford. It is social


acceptance, it is breeding that. It is making these children feel and


adults, let's face it, there are adults out there that feel the same,


you are not accepted in the community or society, lest you are


boping down the road in the latest name-brand clothes. It is all about


that out there, I don't care what anyone else says, I live there, I


see it every day. It is all about, I need a new pair of trainers, I


have to get this much and that much. We could get advertisers to be more


responsible, but the rest of us learn how to resist advertising and


defer gratification, advertising will always encourage us to buy and


consume. I have to say, this is the liberalism we have tole challenge.


It is the economic liberalism that says you are free to make money,


however you want, and there are consequences, and particular


consequences in societies like our's, America has a similar


problem, at the poorest end, and at the workless end. So it does mean


we have got to look again at banning advertising. At


particularly for young people. We have to challenge. It is


unacceptable for the chief executive of JD Sports to say fine,


this helps my brand. There is a problem there, and Government can


do and legislate to change that. There probably is a role for


Government there, there is a role for our culture, we need to object


that sort of brand promotion, it is not for Government to be insisting


on how different companies project themselves. What about the point


that is made about the 500,000 families, the report talks about


"bumping along on the bottom of society". That is a very, very


significant number of people, isn't it? For me, personally, I'm glad


they have accepted that this report has shown that. Because it is


nothing short of what I have been saying from day one on every


interview I have had, since the riots. It is about, there are very


poor class families out there, really scraping along to make ends


meet. And the cuts haven't made things any easier on them. I think


there is a group of working poor, parents who actually do care, but


are working really long hours, often in two jobs, security guard


and minicab driver, and then there are a group of workless poor, it is


not just worklessness for the children, it is the parents, it is


successive generations. That is what combines areas like Tottenham,


with areas like Salford, and other parts of the country, where we saw


riots. Successive generations. poverty doesn't he can cues moral


judgment? It doesn't, it is actual -- Excuse moral judgment?


doesn't, for every rioter there were hundreds who did not riot,


that is a success story. That is why I'm nervous about the


assumption that we can blame it all on schools. In Tottenham we got the


best GCSE and A-level results last summer, nobody chose to cover it.


Nevertheless, it does feel like these entrenched problems, in


England particularly, are getting worse, not better. Unless we are


serious in addressing it. This shouldn't just be another report


that festers and we do nothing about it, we will see further


unrest, I'm absolutely sure about that. On the families policy, the


report seems to make a distinction between the troubled families, that


the Government is targeted, and the 500,000 families that are bumping


along the bottom. I can't believe there is a huge distinction between


them. The Government's Troubled Families Programme, I think, is on


the right tracks, trying to consolidate all the services and


all the budgets, all the professional agencies, which tinker


about with the lives of very difficult circumstances for


families, and bringing it together. It might be a technocratic response,


I believe ultimately it is the you will culture we need to address,


but Government is deeply involved in the lives of these families,


they are on the right track. We will leave it there. Thank you


very much. The Government has either come up


with a brilliant way of liberating the economy from a lot of


unnecessary restrictions, or it has put all sorts of places in the land


at risk of bulldozers and concrete mixers. The headlines of the new


planning laws are simple enough to right, a bonfire of regulation, a


system of clear priorities, and all implemented at once. The problem,


as ever, is interpretation, what do words like "sustainable


development", which is what's supposed to be the underlying


principle, actually mean. Before we Sir Frederick Osborn was one of the


founders of welling garden city, in its time a pioneer town. It was


planned 50 years ago, to give a better life to people from the


crowded cities. Today urban planning is a


desiccated endurance test, but it was, a pleasurable past time. In


the 90 years since Sir Frederick was at it, the rate of house


building has not recovered. Not perfect, but popular, that is


how David Cameron described places like this, we willing garden city,


he wants more such -- -- he wants more such towns built. When the


planning laws were less strict in the 1950s, people could build nice


places to live. The new laws today won't just apply to existing towns


but new communities as well. People are fearful of that. A lot of it is


imprecise, and open to subjective judgment, you will have arguments


between local authorities and councils, it could be a problem.


What is our instinct for a Government wanting this to be a


pro-growth policy? I have no problem with pro-growth, it needs


to be tempered with consideration about what impact their policies


are having on a community in which it is applied. Today the Government


think they have come up with something their critics will buy,


the Chancellor was unrepentant, it is a pro-growth Government. When I


launched the growth strategy last year, I said planning reform was a


critical party of it, a central measure. A year later we have, with


all the challenges of making sure it is properly consulted on and so


on, implemented a policy that comes into effect today. No-one, to my


knowledge, has changed planning rules in this country in a


generation as quickly as we have. Before contemplating digs up green


field, there is now guidance that brownfield sites and town centres


must be built on first. There is also a statement that the


countryside has an intrinsic value, something not set out before. But


the presumption in favour of sustainable development remains.


The Treasury insists its critics have only really run expanded


definitions. Do these 50 pages do enough for the foot soldiers of


Osborne,. My concern is it will get mixed up with localism and a whole


range of other debates. I see no sign or indication that the level


of bureaucracy will be reduced. home of shredded wheat was in this


town, and there was a push to turn the old HQ into Tesco's, it was


blocked by locals, and its champions don't think today's


reforms would change that decision. Instead, one of the main critics,


the National Trust, declared, fairly quickly, they were happy


with the new reforms. The Campaign to Protect Rural England is too.


There was definitely proposals to build four or five thousand houses


on these fields there. You sound upbeat, but there is that phrase,


"the presumption of sustainable building". It was explained very


clearly. Even though the phrase is there? It is the golden thread


running through the planning policy, is the "presumption of sustainable


development", the first worry is there is not a serious definition


of sustainable, we we know what it means, but there is the presumption


in favour of development, it is a growth tool, it is all about the


economic growth. Our concern has always been that economic growth


becomes paramount over everything else, including looking after


beautiful countryside like this. Only years ahead of Welling Garden


City's centinary, the Government is trying to mimic the house building


frenzy of that era. The critics have their concerns but have got


enough to stay quiet. The romantic utopia's the of the


20s, to the not so pro-growth policy of the 2012.


We have our guests with us. The last time you were on, you said you


had a whole pile of stores you wanted to open, but planning was


holding you back, will this framework, which is now being


implemented, change that? Yes, it will. It will make a big difference.


What it will mean is people will have to have a good reason to say


no. There are lots of good reasons to say no, but in the past it has


been no is the answer, now you come and tell me why you should create


jobs and this new job. Are these changes to the policy announced


today sufficient to persuade you it is worth giving a whirl to? Yes,


frankly, we had a dreadful document before. It was really a cowboy's


charter, frankly, we had a huge campaign about it, the Government


listened. They have made substantive changes, real changes.


The difference of tone in the document, it reads differently t


has not been written by a lobbyist but a planner. It is a good


document. A lot of things we are worried about, we can talk about


those, basic clo we are supportive. What are you wore -- Basically we


are supportive. What are you worried about? The concept you were


talking about, sustainable development. I wonder if you both


understand the same thing by it? The document expands it drapbl


mattically, I still -- Dramatically. I think there will be litigation


galore about it, anyone who thinks it will shorten the planning policy,


it won't. What do you understand the sustainable development to


mean? I'm not sure about the word "sustainable". Why are you in


favour of the policy? I think development creates jobs and the


homes we need, that will be vital to get the economy going. If you


ask me what I think sustainable means and what the Government mean


by it, I think they mean something in 50 years time we will look at


and say I'm glad we built that. you share this view that


development is absolutely key to growth? There is no evidence at all,


there is no evidence that the planning system in Britain


constrained growth. I'm sure Simon could find cases where he was


infuriated by being turned down. I have been turned down in my time.


Sometimes for a perfectly good reason, that is not planning, it is


a bad original proposal. Broadly speaking, 90% of all applications


get approved. The system is not rotten. What was bad was the delay


and the pernickityness of some of the controls. There were detailed


controls imposed by planners on the form of the building. It was


clearly pro-growth to buy a development in favour of urban


renewal. The previous Government was against that. It actually --


previous development was against that. It removed the presumption


and has been reinstated. If the National Trust and various others


are in favour of the new policy, I wonder if it is as key to growth as


you seem to suggest? It is key to growth I think there was: It is


funny that you have come completely contradicty conclusions? This was


never the threat to the the countryside that people thought it


was. Planning is an enormous barrier to growth. You may say it


is not, I have 15 shops I would like to open on brownfield sites,


and would have 1,000 jobs for people, and I can't do it because


of planning. You are saying it is not holding back growth, but it is.


It is holding back your shops, one could say 12 shops are closing down


for all of your shops. Planning is not about profit, it is about the


best way to allocate land. I said growth and jobs, not profit. I hope


in your case it is profitable, but either way, the essence of this


thing is plan, the previous development was effectively a


building permit system, like in Ireland or Spain. It was a bad


document. You thought it was terrific, I thought it was dreadful.


It is gone. We now have a planning- based approach, which is what we


had before, which is the right way of approaching this. It is nothing


to do with growth. We are both in favour of growth, I think all


development is favour of growth, and conservation is in favour of


growth. Growth happens when the demand in the economy is right. Our


concern was to protect the countryside. I think this document


more protects the countryside than was the case before. More protects


the countryside, yet you believe it is critical to growth? Absolutely,


I don't believe that actually concreting over the countryside was


what growth is all about. There may be a small amount of unattractive


countryside that is required for growth. What do you think has


changed in this legislation? don't think a great deal has


changed. The protection for green belt was there, and areas of


outstanding natural beauty is there. Things like protected playing field


and the value to countryside in its own right has an added. It shifts


the burp, that is now on the planner d burden of proop, that is


on the planner to find a good reason to -- the burden of proof,


the onus is on the planner to find a good reason to say no. There was


always a presumption in favour of development, the question was did


it conform to the plan. The problem is planning was fragmented under


the last Government, they dissolved most of planning. We have a


situation where the new document says there has to be plan, get on


with it and do it in the next year. That is a major requirement for


everybody. Under the plan, which can be a pro-growth plan, there is


no problem there, the normal conflicts you have, in any


community, about the use of land, should be resolved in a certain way.


In my view, in favour of urban renewal, rather than countryside


building. It should be in favour of respecting the countryside, the


intrinsic value of the countryside, and it should be sustainable, in a


sense you are using existing infrastructure. All these things


have been done now there will be a hellish amount of lawyers, there


will be an awful lot of delay, it won't be much cheaper, but it is


better than it used to be. proof of the pudding will be in the


eating, or in the courts, or planning tribunals. Thank you very


much. When do you reckon the Chancellor


of the Exchequer, George Osborne, last had a pasty from the high


street baker Greggs, we will find now the a moment. This unearth


shattering revelation is of passing interest, because last year's


budget slapped money on warm meat pies and common delicacies, the


boss of Greggs went to the Treasury today to put them right, at the


same time Mr Osborne was answering this killer question at a select


committee hearing on the budget. When's the last time you bought a


pastie in Greggs. Look, I can't remember the last time I bought a


pastie in Greggs. That kind of sums it up. When was the last time?


you are putting up the price of hot pasties in Greggs, if I buy a


pastie from Greggs that is oaked hot, but by the time it gets in the


paper bag and I take it away it is cold, will it be VATable or not?


it is cold, when you buy it, it will not be. Ken McMeikan is the


boss of Greggs, the bakery, is here, he spent the afternoon in the


Treasury. What did you tell them was the reason why you shouldn't be


subject to VAT on your pasties? We're very clear, freshly baked


bakery food has not been subject to VAT. We currently pay VAT on hot


food, but bakery food, freshly baked in our shops, it is cooled


down and not kept hot, we don't believe, should be subject to VAT,


and was previously he can empted it from it -- he can cemented from it


before. Are you saying there is something uniquely privileged about


your pasties? We are saying the bakery industry will be


significantly impacted by a product, we believe, best made fresh, in our


shops, baked in an oven, and cooled down and served for our customer,


this tax will put 20% on the price of save rees that were previously


not subject to VAT and shouldn't be subject to VAT. If you buy a


McDonalds, that is subject to VAT, isn't it? It is, and in the same


way we have our hot sandwiches, which we keep hot. Your bacon rolls


are subject to VAT? They are, correct. Absolutely right,


McDonalds will keep their's hot and serve their product hot. We on our


savourys offer our customers a freshly-baked savoury that is not


guaranteed hot. What is so special about a sausage roll or pastie?


point about it is, the best way as a quality baker is to make them


fresh and cool them down and serve them to customers. That guarantees


for the customer the best and freshest project. We can only do


that by making the product in the shop and allowing it to cool down.


We don't keep it heated to serve it as a hot product, we can't


guarantee if it is hot. The subject around whether a customer should


pay VAT on it or not is irrelevant, they shouldn't. It is not designed


as a hot product. Do you think the Chancellor really understands the


Cornish pastie problem? No, I think they have, to a degree, lost touch


with the issue here. That for ordinary, hard working families,


putting 20% on a product that is freshly baked, will make a severe


dent in their pockets, at a time when they can ill-afford it. Not


only should this not have happened, the former Chancellor of the


Exchequer, Lawson, wrote to the Treasury back in 1984, said it


shouldn't be subject to VAT for freshly baked product. The other


issue you have here, which the Government haven't understood, they


are talking about trying to simplify something, they will make


huge complexties in the definition of what is ambient air temperature,


and are we expected now to almost temperature probe every single


product we sell. Clearly not, you have to make an estimate of how


many are hot and cold. The political point is why Nigel Lawson


had this instinctive understanding of the ordinary person's liking for


a meat pie or something, and George Osborne doesn't? Well, clearly, we


know that Nigel Lawson had a very different view, George Osborne, I


think, would benefit from coming and spending time with us and our


customers and actually seeing, operationally, why we believe, as


bakers, making a freshly baked product is different from trying to


sell a hot product, which we already pay VAT on. Do you think


the Treasury will change their minds on it? I hope for the bake of


the baking industry they do. you did they give you any


indication they would change their minds? We gave them plenty to think


about today. I have reassured them that I will categorically campaign


on behalf of the UK consumer and the bakery industry, I feel there


will be job losses and closure of businesses as a result of it.


on, you made �60 million profit last year? We made �53.1 million,


we are the largest bakery in the UK, with a great reputation for value.


We deliver profits because of great tasting, freshly baked products and


we do it well. We try to keep the price of food down low for cows


tomorrow mers. If you were watching this time last night, you will have


seen the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, jauntly slugging off the


name-calling that has haunted her country for decades. There are


still Nazi in Germany, the question for many is how many, the security


sources are scrambling to track down and arrest far right fugutives,


after discovering a neo-Nazi cell murdered nine people over as many


years. This report contains strong, racial low offensive language. --


The number of armed and violent neo-Nazis is on the rise. The far


right movement is diversifying, attracting growing numbers of


students and middle-class professionals.


Revelations of mass murder and hate crimes forced the German


authorities to admit they have done too little for too long.


Is Germany's Nazi past preventing it from fighting right-wing


extremism now? Last November, among the wreckage


of this burnt out flat, police uncovered one of the biggest


scandals of Germany's post-war history. The home had been to these


three known neo-Nazi activists, on the run for years. Remaining at


large, despite carrying out, by their own admission, at least nine


murders and a number of bombings. This woman turned herself into the


police, her acomplises were found dead in a van, in an apparent


double suicide. Police found a version of monopoly


that the woman had been selling. Germany's Intelligence Service


showed Newsnight the name. Concentration camps are the most


desirable properties on the board. This is what shocked the German


public most, the trio left this home made DVD, rather bizarrely


using the Pink Pan they are cartoon character, to publicise that they


had been a killing spree of racially motivated murders


nationwide. The trio said they acted to serve the German people


and their country. They sign off as a National


Socialist Underground, or NSU, echoing the National Associationism


of Hitler's Germany. Police say they had no idea.


They blamed those murders on the Turkish Mafia.


Newsnight has seen a secret internal report, revealing serious


blunders by law enforcement agencies.


They had the group under close surveillance for years, but never


took decisive action, allowing them to go into hiding, and remain


underground. Why weren't they stopped before


they began to kill? In this moment, in my eyes, it was


necessary to arrest those people, at once. In my eyes. Why not?


can't explain it, I can't explain it. We thought we had two or three


times, it was not possible to arrest them. I can't explain it,


don't ask me. We did keep asking him, but he had


no answers for us. Allegations have been made in Germany, not just of


incompetence, but right-wing sympathies inside the country's


Secret Services and police force. Something the institutions


vehemently deny. Here in Germany it is impossible to discuss far right,


even nationalist activity in isolation, outside the context of


this country's Nazi past. Germany's post-war constitution was very much


written in the vein of "never again", the story of the


nationalist socialist underground throws up disturbing questions.


Just how is it that a militant group of Neo-Nazis was allowed to


flourish, and just how popular and how powerful are the far right, and


nationalist extremists in Germany today?


Human rights groups say more than 180 people have been killed in


right-wing attacks in Germany over the last 20 years.


Neo-Nazis have murdered more people in post-war Germany, than any other


single group, including Islamists and the far left. This is not


reflected in official data. The German Government admits mistakes


have been made. Martin is a former Neo-Nazi leader, he has now left


the movement and asked us to hide his identity.


He says the Neo-Nazi trio's murderous exploits should have come


as no surprise. TRANSLATION: militant scene has always said we


need people who are willing and able and trained, in case it comes


to civil war. The scene is armed, it is military. This does lead to


people being killed. Weapons training is carried out in secret,


in the Arab world, for instance, with freedom movements there. The


right-wing scene sees itself as a freedom movement.


Martin was mart part of a growing movement of -- part of a growing


movement of secret jif far right groups in Germany, known as the


Free Forces. No longer rooted in the past, these groups tend not to


call themselves Nazi, or Neo-Nazi, but rather the Free Forces. They


are attracting a new crowd, students, middle-classes and


intellectuals. They are harnessing social media, and using new modern


forms and reasons for protest. When it comes to them one intelligence


agent told me that the Security Services here in Germany really are


This group, The Immortals, is part of the new crowd. Anti-


globalisation, anti-capitalist, and anti-democratic, they warn of the


impending extinction of the German Hard for the authorities to catch,


they use text messaging to organise spontaneous demos across the


country, like this one, in their propaganda video. After 15 minutes


on the street, they have gone. TRANSLATION: The leadership is


always trying to attract members of the called "upper-classs" students


who one day can act as lawyers or doctors for the scene, really do


something to help the movement. You would never imagine those sorts of


people supported the far right, and they may deny their affiliation in


public, but they are very much part of the movement. More so now than


ever before. What exactly do they want, far right supporters are


camera shy, they say they are looked for by police. We went to


the most famous Neo-Nazi pub to see if anyone would be tempted to talk.


After a few cocktails, the former head of a banned Neo-Nazi group sat


down with us. TRANSLATION: Who are we? We are nationalists, we care


deeply about the fatherland, we don't like the state that exists


here now, we want to rebuild the country, for our brothers and


sisters, the German people. We want to protect our culture, country and


religion. In Britain you too are proud of your country. Here in


Germany I am a second class citizen, we live with war guilt here in


Germany. Others get preferential treatment, outsiders. Those who say


this pub is full of Nazis, how do they know, they try to ban us.


British owner of the pub asked us to hide his identity to protect his


family. He was amongst many that who complained about strict German


laws used to persecute the far right? If the German Government


make laws that you can't express your freedom of speech, there will


be an uprising, it will happen. Just because it will be forbidden.


It will happen. If they let these laws go, then people will be a lot


more freer, they will say what they think, there will be more


discussion. They won't have as many political problems as they do today.


What many law makers say they don't like, is that the far right rejects


the German federal Republic, the nationalists want a new order in


Germany, non-democratic, non- multicultural.


In the meantime, some are establishing what they call


national liberated zones, dotted across the country.


We are on our way to Jamel, it is the only village that really has


been completely taken over by Neo- Nazis in Germany to date. They have


all the houses now except for one. They have pretty much forced out


all the other villagers. In the middle of the village is


this Nazi Germany-styled mural, proclaiming the area is free,


social and national. The German authorities recently forced the


villagers to take down a sign post pointing towards Hitler's birth


place. People here weren't particularly pleased to see us, or


talk to us. Prior to coming here I tried to organise an interview with


the leading family of the village. They weren't keen on our camera.


You find liberated zones in German towns and cities too. There have


been cases of riots, arson and murder, in the far right efforts to


cleanse those areas, a couple of streets, or a sprawling housing


estate, getting rid of all those they regard as political enemies,


immigrants, ethnic minorities, liberals or left-wingers. Far right


groups also run summer camps for children and families like this one


in north Germany, filmed a few years ago. This youth organisation


was later banned. The German Interior Ministry said


it was indoctrinating children in Nazi ideology, as well as giving


them military training. But the courtship of youngsters continues.


The nationalists run youth clubs and sports clubs. They are playing


the social card in the current economic Croy sis, offering welfare


advice, and family assist -- crisis, offering welfare advice and family


assistance, hoping to attract new supporters. The NPD is the legal


political will of the far right, it has elected representatives in two


out of Germany's 16 state parliaments.


Udo Pastoerss is the deputy leader of the MPD nationwide, and its


leader, in the regional parliament. TRANSLATION: German children need


the land. We want to keep the German people alive, with our own


biological vitality. So that tomorrow, and the day after,


Germany still earns the name Germany, because imagine a country


called Germany, that is filled only with Africans, with us importing


nice little sweet ligger children. The German Government says it is


looking to ban the N PD, because of the party's association with


extremists, its alleged links with the Neo-Nazi killer trio, and the


questioning of the Holocaust. I asked Udo Pastoerss what he thought


of Hitler? TRANSLATION: Look here, if one speaks about a historical


figure, it is impossible to do so during a short interview. REPORTER:


I could asking many people what they thought about Hitler and they


would answer in a few short words? TRANSLATION: Those are emotions,


not facts. REPORTER: But you are totally avoiding my question, what


do you think of Hitler and what of the six million Jews? TRANSLATION:


Let me point out to you that in Germany you are punishable by law


if you don't accept the authorities' version of what


happened at Auschwitz, I ask for your understanding, I do not wish


to talk about these issues, I do not live in a free country.


German nationalists say they represent the German people. Most


Germans insist they certainly do not.


But statistics indicate the eurocrisis, and wider economic woes,


means increasing numbers are sympathetic to the anti-immigrant,


"Germans-first" message, espoused by the right.


This was the state memorial service, last month, for the victims of the


National Socialist Underground. Just a few days before, more than


2,000 Neo-Nazis marched in Dresden. At the memorial there was a


profound sense of remorse. With political promises to crackdown on


the far right. But as the story fades from the national headlines,


human rights groups say they are concerned the Neo-Nazi issue will


be neglected again. It is a minority movement, but Germany's


nationalists, and the called Free Forces, are a force that needs to


be dealt with. The question is how? Tomorrow night we will discuss what


impact Germany's recent past has had on its ability to take a


leading role in Europe. That's it, the fat lady has sung, the well is


dry, the washing machine of news has reached its final spin cycle,


Hello, more warm sunshine to come on Wednesday. But first thing it is


going to be a bit chilly, temperatures are falling away


sharply, one or two mist and fog patches, they will clear, then


sunshine. Northern Scotland it will be clear. The sunshine will lift


the temperatures in England. Starting below freezing in rural


areas, by the afternoon above 20 degrees, 23 in some parts of


eastern England. Further west 21 likely to be the top temperature. A


little cooler around the coast, a beautiful spring day. Lots of


sunshine around south-west England, sunny skies across much of Wales


and North West England, it is a similar picture in Northern Ireland.


Chilly by the afternoon, 19 in Belfast, and in May it may exceed


the local records. A warm, sunny day across most of Scotland, cloud


across the far north, a spot or two of rain here. Increasing amounts of


cloud for the rest of the week, that will have an impact on the


temperatures, still well above average.


Still we could reach 20 degrees or more in parts of the thought.


Plenty of sunshine after a chilly start. Again it may be just a bit


of mist and fog on Thursday morning. Increasing cloud over Scotland,


The report into the Summer riots gets leaked. Should we build on the green belt? In search of Germany's new generation of the far right. With Jeremy Paxman.

Download Subtitles