28/06/2012 Newsnight


Analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Gavin Esler. How low can bankers go in the public esteem? Plus Joseph Stiglitz assesses the world economy.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/06/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



A sewer much systematically and amoral dishonesty, some of the


choice descriptions of some of our bankers. The shock waves from


Barclays continues as there are calls for a criminal investigation,


and civil lawsuits for fiddling a key lending rate. Bob Diamond says


the decision to manipulate the market was wrong, but who took it?


Have the people who have almost bankrupted the world economy proved


themselves morally bankrupt? Another last-chance saloon in


Brussels, with Angela Merkel refusing to budge a centimeter, we


will discuss the German Chancellor's stubbornness, or is it


admirable consistency, with one of her ministers and a noble prize


winner, who thinkss the policies are suicide. As Julian Assange goes


to Sweden tomorrow night e gives Newsnight his response. You have


been summoned to bell gravia police station tomorrow, are you going to


go? Our advice is internationally and domestically in the UK takes


precedent to extradition law, the answer is certainly not. Have the


scientists finally run the God particle to ground, and can we


explain what it does? Good evening, systematic greed, systemic failure,


like an epitaph to an age of irresponsibility, just a few of the


comments on the latest crass and potentially illegal activity in the


banking sector. With calls for banking boss, Bob Diamond to resign


were will it lead. While they promised a bottle of champagne for


their mates, how much more will the taxpayer tolerate. We begin with


our Economics Editor, and Bob Diamond's most public response to a


letter to the chairman's committee. What did Mr Diamond have to say?


Bob Diamond refers to two things that Barclays did in manipulating


this key interest rate, The Libertines. They did it for one


machine, to enrich themselves, boost their own trades. Diamond


says it was done by junior people, we have collaberated with the


inquiry, let's get on with it, the Serious Fraud Office can do what


they want, we're sorry, we have taken the fine. Then he refers to


the second reason. The second reason was that this interest rate


is a good barometer for the financial health of banks. And at


one point, between 2007-2009, Barclays were coming out of the


daily interest rate setting looking bad. It looked like they were a


bank in trouble. Therefore, they expressed, the senior management,


expressed their concerns. This is what the Financial Services


Authority had to say yesterday, they said senior management


concerns resulted in instructions being given by less senior managers


to reduce The Libertines submissions, that is fiddle the


rate, they say the origin of the instructions is unclear. In today's


letter Mr Diamond says he accepts the decision to lower submission


was wrong. He also intimate that is decision


was discussed with the Bank of England, and even with politicians,


for example the Brown -Darling administration at the time. Junior


bank managers do not have discussions with Gordon Brown and


Mervyn King and discuss whether or not they can legitimately mess


around with The Libertines, that decision had to be taken by


somebody senior. I asked them the question tonight, who was it? And


it is, as it is like for the last 48 hours, it is like asking


children in the playground who has done the naughty thing, nobody


wants to answer and we are waiting for an answer.


The markets, Barclays' shares closed down 15%, and the political


response has been absolutely vehement? The normal choreography


of this is outrage, and then you take a fine, you collaberate with


the SFA, somebody gets prosecuted down the line. Then politicians


stand up and say we mustn't let this damage the status of the City


of London, and Barclays is an important institution, blah blah.


Instead today, they said the absolute opposite, they went for


the jugular on Diamond and the Barclays senior management. We


heard David Cameron and Osborne go for him by name. The reason is


pretty clear, this is a systemic, reputational hit for the City. It


is making the City and done as a vein -- London as a venue for doing


business very shaky, there is worry throughout the industry about it.


That is why the politicians are so hard on them.


What exactly is going on at Barclays and how did traders fix


the InterBanking lending rate, LIBOR? Make no mistake about it,


this rate-fixing scandal will hit the banking sector, starting with


Barclays chief, Bob Diamond, like a nuclear bomb. It could prove as


destructive to the industry as the financial crisis of 2008. Even


though the collusion started in 2005, its origins can be traced


back to 1987, Big Bang, swept aside the bowler hatted brigade, and


opened up the City to a world where laissez faire ruled, and markets


would clarify and lickify. It started with Barclays, Barclays'


fair price was in free fall, as the extent of the problem dawned on the


market, which doesn't fancy the bank without Bob Diamond at the


helm. The next wave is imminent, Barclays got a smaller fine


yesterday, in return, no doubt, for squealing on other banks, watch out


RBS and Lloyd's. That makes the prospect of US-style lawsuits more


likely, benefiting lawyers mostly. One can see an outward mushrooming


effect on this, armed with these admissions from Barclays and the


evidence obtained from Barclays, e- mail, taped transcripts of


conversations between traders, that a powerful case could be built


against the others. That, in my view, would concentrate the find of


the others, and they will have a choice. Do we too come clean and


get the discount for an early admission, or do we tough it out


and try to say we weren't a party to this.


Then there is the long-term damage to the City of London's reputation.


It has already been hit by scandals at AIG, JP Morgan and UPS, will it


still account for 10% of British GDP in a decade. The wider economy


won't escape either, this scanned kal will almost certainly lead to


tighter regulation for banks, which means less profits and less lending


to customers. It is the bald eagle bank in the


firing line, when a UK Prime Minister, arriving at an EU summit,


subjects that a banking boss has serious guess -- suggests that a


banking boss has serious questions to answers, it is a message, go,


and go now. As I said today people have to take responsibility for the


actions and show how they will be accountable for those actions, it


is important it goes all the way to the top that have organisation.


Other Tory MPs weren't as polite, calling directly on Bob Diamond to


resign. The opposition said it was time white collar criminals went to


jail. I do want to see criminal prosecutions, and those who have


done the wrong thing, those who have committed what I think are


atrocious acts, brought to justice. Things stepped up a gear today, Bob


Diamond confirmed that he will appear before MPs on the Treasury


Select Committee, in the next fortnight. Just's did last year,


when he said banker bashing had to end. He will be joined, no doubt,


by his chairman, Marcus Agius, seen here on the left, who is running


the board at Barclays at the height of this scandal, his head may also


be on the chopping block. Today also saw the British Bankers'


Association, under whose auspices LIBOR rates have been set for three


decade, call on the Government to assume responsibility for them in


the future. Meanwhile the FSA is said to be in talks with big banks


for financial settlement for small firms, in particular, the City


watchdog is also set to announce tomorrow, a new mis-selling probe


into the banks, which would sully their reputation even further. At


the moment there is something of an omerta going on between the banks,


as they lift up stones in their banks to see what traders have or


have not been up to, and whether the regulator has any evidence of


it. Banks are looking nervously at each other to see which one breaks


rank first, and lead to a settlement that makes the PPI pay


outs look like pocket money. Tonight it is clear why the scandal


happened in the first place, investment bankers who gamble with


larger sum, are allowed to work in a set of lower expectations than in


the general public -- those who deal with the general public.


will take an integrity test in this sector, we help people understand


what is integrity and they can prove and demonstrate it, there is


no requirement in the wholesale market. We should be applying the


same principles now applied in the retail sector to the wholesale


sector. Make sure professional people belong to professional


bodies, abide by that Code of Conduct, and take integrity


properly and for what it is worth. This led to the kind of unethical


behaviour at the heart of this scandal, this is something I


prepared earlier. John and Simon work at separate parts of the bank


and shouldn't be in touch professional ever. John has made


bets on a derivative linked to The Libertines rate, needs the rate to


go down. John illegally contacts Simon, a colleague whose job it is


to set The Libertines rate. Simon is supposed to ignore all


communication from John, in this scandal doesn't. At the daily LIBOR


fixing session, Simon suggests a lower rate than it should be,


knowing it will help John and the bank. Even if it will only work for


a few days a month, tiny changes can be worth millions to John and


billions to the bank. We will never know how much loss was minimised as


a result of this be backle. But it the fall-out means things will


never be the same for the banking sector again.


The Treasury Minister, Mark Hoban is with me. Is Bob Diamond a fit


person to run a major bank? He has questions to answer, why did it


happen, why wasn't it identified by its own staff and what change has


happened since it happened, what change in procedures, has the


compliance operation been beefed up. All these questions need to be


answered by Bob Diamond. It is important he goes before the


Treasury Select Committee to hear from him what has changed. He can


run a major bank for the next couple of week, either somebody who


knew what was going on, which would be terrible, or he didn't know what


was going on, which would be incompetent? We need answers from


Bob Diamond. Barclays did identify this, and raise it with the FSA, we


need to get some answers about this. You are prepared to wait for the


Treasury Select Committee to have a chat with him in a few weeks time,


you presumably meet these people all the time, you have met Bob


Diamond? On the basis of what you know, would you be perfectly happy


to trust him with running a major British bank? It is very clear, as


the Prime Minister said today, that Bob Diamond has questions to answer,


we should get those answers from him. Also, there are other banks


involved in this. This is part of a long-running investigation, we need


to get to the bottom of this. What has happened. A number of


Conservative MPs, who I presume you respect highly, say this man should


just go? The chairman of the select committee has invited Diamond in


front of his committee to get some answers. There is clearly


identified a gap in regulation, the regulatory system that Ed Balls


designed made sure LIBOR was not regulated. We need to resolve this.


People rely on this. Is this a regulatory lapse or complete moral


lapse, that there is something absolutely rotten, somewhere in


Barclays Bank? I think there are two issues, what happened in the


individual banks and how do we get to the bottom of that, but also,


why is it this area of market activity was not properly regulated,


it was a gap in the regulatory regime we inherited from the


previous Government and we are seeking to close it. George Osborne


said today we will regulate LIBOR and lock at what needs to be done,


and look at criminal sanctions to be put in place. The chairman is in


charge of corporate governance, should Marcus Agius think of going,


clearly nobody was at the helm here? I think the answer is we need


to get to the bottom of this, there are questions Barclays needs to


answer, the FSA report takes us so far. Things clearly went astray in


Barclays, we need to know why that happened, why it wasn't picked up


sooner and what has changed. Would you like to see criminal


prosecutions, fraud is fraud, there may be no specific offence you can


put your finger on that was mentioned in this, but if people


had been cheating and fixing rates, that is presumably, potentially


fraud, isn't it? I think the hypocrisy of the Labour Party today


calling for criminal sanctions when their rules didn't actually allow


criminal sanctions to take place. You can score points if you like.


This is the worst abuse of trust in a British bank in living memory I'm


asking you as a Treasury Minister what you can do about it? With what


we need to do, is there is action going on in individual banks


looking at individual people, the FSA haven't completed their


investigation, not just of banks but individuals, but we also need


to look at every angle possible that we can take criminal action


where fraud has been committed. would support the potential for


criminal action, you think that would be a good idea if there was


found to be fraud committed. You were clear on that, yes? Yes.


bonuses should be clawed back from some of these people? The changes


we introduced ensure bonuses can be clawed back, previously bonuses


were paid in cash and couldn't be Claude back, we have introduced


rules -- clawed back, we have introduced rules for them to be


clawed back. The very reputation of the City of London is at stake


here? I agree, that is exactly why we have taken action, since we came


into office, to change the regulatory system in the UK, put


the Bank of England in charge of banks, give regulators more power


to intervene quickly and not allow problems to fester. We need to do


that for London to maintain its reputation. London is a big ployer,


two million people involved in financial services across the UK,


we need to sort this out to make sure the reputation stays strong.


Are you concerned that we ain't seen nothing yet, we have seen HSPC


and RBS are subject of inquiries? There are inquiries across a range


of banks, we need to get to the bottom of it, Barclays is the first


one where a fine needs to be announced. Do you think the people


in charge of banks in Britain act morally, or simply in their own


personal interest, is there a greed culture that needs to be addressed?


Alistair Darling mentioned it today in the House of Commons. He said in


the run up to the financial crisis there was a culture of anything


goes. We saw that in the way which LIBOR has been manipulated, we saw


some of the huge gambles that bankers took in the run up to the


financial crisis. We need to tackle it and reform regulation, and


tackling investment sides of banks as we did through the Vickers


report. Samuel Beckett's great play,


Waiting for Godot was described as a piece of theatre where nothing


happens twice. European Summits seem to be like, that nothing


happens more or less perpetually. We are in Brussels. Has anything


happened tonight? I think it has. I beg to differ on the Beckett


analogy, at least so far as the politics and diplomacy are


concerned. Six months ago we were here, Europe was rallying behind an


austerity pact, tight controls over Government spending under the


leadership of France and Germany. Today France has a different


President, Germany is isolated, the French have joined in the pressure


for measures to alleviate the economic crisis, the called growth


package. Germany has come here, intent on signing that off, about


�100 billion worth of stimulus for the European economy. Where they


have failed and the Beckett analogy is appropriate, is tackling the


underlying economic causes, and trying to get their own heads


straight about whether it is the short-term or long-term solutions


that are really the issue. Tonight they have been failing to agree on


all sorts of things, because of battle on precisely those grounds,


is it the short-term crisis that needs tackling now, or the long-


term package that needs to be passed through. That is a battle


between Germany and Italy. First the mighty Germans dealt with


Greece. To the delight of their leader. Tonight, it was Italy, and


then they hoped Spain. In the footy as in politics, Germany likes to


call the shots. But unlike the beautiful game, in Brussels, Angela


Merkel must take them all on at the same time. So she is now a minority


of one. It is basically the other big three, the French, the Spanish


and the Italians against her, and she doesn't have allies here they


European Commission, she doesn't have allies at the IMF. Every


international institution, she doesn't have allies outside in the


G8, the UK and the US are pressuring her now. Not even here


in Brussels, but in the world now she's incredibly isolated. She's


beginning to feel the pressure. My discussions with German officials,


they get very defensive. They really feel the pressure right now


that they are in a corner by themselves.


Arriving, the German leader delivered a positive message about


funding growth programmes. An olive branch to those countries that


think her vision of austerity stifles any growth. TRANSLATION:


Today we will talk about the pact for growth and jobs. We have


created a good programme here, in particular, with regard to


investment in the future. And moreover, what will create more job


opportunities, especially for young people. I hope that we will be able


to agree on this today, and with that, make an important signal.


Also for the fiscal pact that we need solid budgets on the one hand,


and on the other hand, growth and jobs.


Of course, everybody here wants Germany to take a bigger role in


underwriting the debts of weaker EU countries, but Angela Merkel has


come here today saying her position is essentially unchanged, she is


prepared to work towards fiscal union, but only in the very long-


term, and with a host of safeguards about the way other countries spend


European money. What we want first is tighter, stricter, long-term


rules so this never happens again. Once we get those rules, then we


can start talking about solidarity and sharing. In that sense, it is


not a question of backing up on something right now, we need


incentives for good public management of money. That is what


the Germans the Finns and the Dutch are calling for. That sounds like a


continuation of the argument we have heard for months now, which


comes first, the rigour or the solidarity, is it possible to


achieve agreement on that? Probably, that means the chicken has to come


out at the same time as the egg. this summit fixture, Germany's


opponents want to change the rules. There are several proposals, a


banking union including rules on savers and deposits, a joint


European Treasury Department, scrutinising spending plans and


enforcing bugetry discipline. For future national budgets to be


planned at the European level. But in this game, Germany controls any


movement of the goal posts. It is not ready to do so, leading to


growing anxiety in Spain and Italy. There does seem to be movement on


the Spanish, Italian issue, Mario Monti, uncharacteristically, for


the very boring economist as he is, has started pounding the table


saying he needs something, his tenure is almost up, he only has


six months left as Italian Prime Minister, you remember what Italy


is like before me, it will be like that after me, if we want Italy


solved we need to do it now, I needing to home to say all the hard


work was worth something. Could the meeting help the Italians while the


bigger debate is going on? There are a couple of proposals,


including this one from the Finns. What Finland has proposed is


something called the a covered bond, it is something done in the early


1990s, the state issues a bond that is covered, or guaranteed with


assets, or equity, or, for instance, earmarked taxes, once that has


happened, then the long-term crisis mechanism, which we call the ESM,


comes and backs it up. This could be something that brings the


interest rates down n that sense it is a compromise but not something


that Germany needs to back down on. That type of short-term measure


won't bother David Cameron. But in the bigger, long-term agenda of


financial integration, there is a fork in the road looming for


Britain. One that may well require a national vote. We're saying to


the eurozone countries they do need to do more things together, to


strengthen their currency and make sense of their currency, but


Britain will stay out of that. We want Europe to work for us as a


single market, as place where we trade, as place where we co-operate,


I'm going in there to make sure we get the safeguards to make sure


that can keep happening. Tonight the struggle to win through had


gripped the Council of Europe. But it was the football that had


mesmerised the waiting press and officials. In this game, outcomes


can still surprise. In the contest of European Summitry,


the difficulty of reaching atreatment, and the slowness of


change, are realities that are all too familiar.


With me is the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, who has


written a new book, The Price of Inequality, he argues an


increasingly divided society is endangering our future. We have


Peter Altmaier, the German Minister for the Environment. He joins us


from Berlin. Angela Merkel has been very


consistent over the years, but that consistency has brought us three


years of summits, with the euro repeatedly on collapse, what will


be different this time? We have accepted a number of proposals from


our European partners over the last two-and-a-half years. We have


created huge rescue operations and funds. German tax-payers' money is


involved at a scale of several hundred billion euros. We have now


been ready to accept a gross package, that is financed by


European tax-payers' money, but we have to insist at the same time


that something is also done in implementing on a national level in


these countries, in order to restore the confidence of


international financial markets. People will understand Angela


Merkel's political problems. How she has to convince German voters


and tax-payers. However, you are isolated. Debt mutualisation is


supported by the council President, the commission President, the


Spanish Prime Minister, the French President, the Italian Prime


Minister, they are all wrong, are they? No, they are not wrong. But


this is the normal kind of procedure in European Summits. I


can remember over the last two-and- a-half years, several summits where


it seemed to be the case that we would be isolated. But at the end


of the day, we were able to organise an enormous and large


consensus, that happened last year in November, when all countries


agreed on the German-French proposals, and just two countries


stayed away, the UK and the Czech Republic. I'm basically optimistic,


this summit can become a success story. We are on the first day and


we will have very, very tough talks and negotiations, but it can lead


us to a consensus. OK, but Frau Merkel is talk about others


offering eye wash and fake solution, but the German solution over the


two-and-a-half years you are talking about has got us to the


state where Greece is ruined, Italy and Spain find it difficult to


borrow, and democracy itself is under threat in some of those


countries? In Greece we have seen a national parliament election, where


reasonable, pro-European parties have made it. And extreme party


could have won? But they didn't win, they lost as a matter of fact. In


Italy and Spain we have Governments really interested in achieving


progress. I'm basically optimistic, and if we can manage tonight and


tomorrow to come to conclusions about the long-term reforms of the


European Union, I'm optimistic we can convince markets to restore


confidence and trust in countries like Spain, and we have made it


clear, if Spain would apply for money under the fund, we would be


prepared to consider that. OK, let me bring in Joseph Stiglitz here,


you have also been very consistent in what you have written about


austerity. You have said it is effectively suicidal. Wouldn't you


accept that Angela Merkel's position, if she were to say, let's


give a lot of money to southern European economies, we don't think


they have been run very well, that would be suicidal? Part of the


problem is the diagnosis of the underlying problem. Spain and


Ireland had a surplus before the crisis. They have a deficit because


Europe is in recession. It is the recession that caused the deficit,


not the other way around. If you begin with the wrong diagnosis you


will get the wrong prescription. Germany has been giving them the


wrong prescription. The German prescriptions over the last three


years have led to a depression in Spain. One out of two Spanish


people are out of work. They want to work, the young people. The


unemployment rate has gotten consistently higher. Its not


approach -- it is now approaching one out of a four. Those


prescriptions have not worked. The case of Greece. They say they are


having reform. Number one in the OECD in having reforms. You can't


do everything overnight in a democracy, but they have done a lot.


Number one in reform. Let me bring in Peter Altmaier on that,


austerity may be right for a healthy economy like Germany, but


it has been terrible for Spain and Greece? We have agreed on a gross


package. This is on the agenda today and tomorrow. First thing,


second thing, in Greece some reforms have been implemented, and


for the first time we see some signs of a growing economy again.


There is a decrease of self- percentage in Greece of growth?


depends on the month you are considering, and we have the


impression that the Greek economy is strarting to recould have. In


Spain we have -- starting to recover. In Spain we have to admit


it is just a couple of months since the new Prime Minister has taken


over, and he has then introduced a number of reforms, it is probably


much too early to see the real effect of these reforms. What we


have to provide is solidarity. We made clear we want to preserve the


euro as a common currency, for all 70 member states. What we made


clear is Germany is prepared to encourage growth by spending more.


What we have made clear is all countries have to undergo reforms.


Joseph Stiglitz, if you were talking to the German taxpayer


tonight who is funding all of this, what is in it for them? Why should


they do this without the austerity and the reforms? Because of the


cost of the break-up of the euro for Germany is very, very high.


Let's talk about the growth part. Everybody agrees that you need


growth. They agreed on that last July. A year ago. Nothing happened.


What about the agreement they are talking about right now. $150


billion or so. Most of that is old money repackaged. I know the


political ways. We are known in our country to repackage money?


estimation is $10 billion is really new money. Is part of your point


that Germany has benefited from being in the euro, you are writing


about inequality in all sorts of ways, does Germany have a moral


duty to end some of the inequality by spreading the money around?


think it is in their self-interest, if they could understand their


enlightened self-interest, rather than the short-term self-interest.


I think it is in their long-term self-interest in doing this. I do


think there is a sense of solidarity. By solidarity I don't


mean tying your legs together as you go over the cliff, a suicide


pact. I mean solidarity helping some countries who are having


difficulty, because of a global downturn caused by the United


States. Let me bring in Peter Altmaier, it would be in your own


interest to spread money around, not just an act of charity? Indeed,


I whole heartedly agree. We are interested in preserving the euro.


We are interested in providing solidarity to the other countries.


But if it is true that the crisis is the result of the fact that we


have spent too much money over too many years, then we cannot cure


that crisis by spending even more money that does not exist. That is


where you came in on the problem? That is the fundamental


misdiagnosis. You heard our discussion earlier about Barclays


Bank and the culture of greed that has infected the banks. What do you


make of that, are you at all surprised some people were fiddling


The Libertines rate? I knew about that earlier -- The LIBOR rate?


knew about that earlier, there was no surprise. It is a pattern of


behaviour we have seen in banks all over the world N my book I talk


about it as moral depravation. It wasn't as good as the word you used


"the sewer". Do you think they live in a different moral universe than


the rest of us? I think they do. It is partly a result of a culture and


set of incentives that have been provided for them. The incentives


to, a culture of greed, a framework that allow them to get away with it.


You will have heard this argument repeatedly in the United States, by


Conservative economists who say it is not a culture of greed but a


culture of aspiration. It is good people are unequal, because people


at the bottom aspire to get to the top. That is how the United States


economy has grown for two years, that is the argument? The problem


that this Barclays scandal brings out so clearly, is that a lot of


what was going on is what I call rent-seeking, in other words, it


wasn't creating more wealth, it was manipulating the rules of the game


to steal somebody else's money. It wasn't growing the pot. It was


getting a larger share of the back, and in doing that weakening the


economy. This is a really important point, the kind of thing they do


weakens the economy. That's why I have been arguing that we could


have a stronger economy, more growth, with more equality.


Just as we round up our conversation, Mr Altmaier, we have


17 countries in the eurozone right now, do you think in five years


time there is still going to be 17 countries in the eurozone? I would


say 17 countries or even more. think it will become so popular


that people will be clamouring to join the euro zone rather than get


out of it? There are many countries interested in joining the eurozone.


It is my view that the eurozone has been stablised over the last few


days not destablised. Greece is a now a reliable partner, in Spain


and Italy we have to cope with the spread in interest rates, but these


are sound economies and we can overcome the crisis. They would be


sound economies if the policies of austerity were not being imposed on


them. If there was real commitment to growth, which would require a


European solidarity fund for stablisation. If there were a


guaranteed fund for all the banks. Without that money will flow from


these countries to Germany, which has, in effect, because the German


Government is backing the Germany banks, there is an implicit subsidy


toe German banks and an unlevel playing field F you address the


fundamental problems, then the strengths of the European countries


are very strong. Do you think we see every day, politicians in


Europe and we will hear it again tomorrow, this is a political


project, we are committed to it, the answer is more Europe. We will


hear all of that, is that encouraging to you, given that the


economics are not quite going in the way you have described? I have


heard them saying that for now for a long time. Having heard,


particularly from Germany, the kind of solidarity, the kind of real


agreement on, and an understanding, of really the basic of what needs


to be done. It is not that complicated, from an economic point


of view. If you have a single market, if you have money that can


flow easily around that single market, you have to have a single


banking system, single guarantee, and a single regulator. I agree,


you need a framework that works. You need a solidarity fund for


growth, a single one. We will leave it there.


The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, is tucking up for his


ninth night at the Ecuadorian embassy in ens can heingen to


tonight. Earlier today the embassy had a visit from two Metropolitan


Police -- Metropolitan Police Officers. They want him to be


extradited to Sweden where he can face charges of sexual assault.


Holed up inside behind drawn curtains, and sleeping, apparently,


on an inflatible mattress, Julian Assange is under diplomatic


protection. Police can't arrest him unless he steps outside. The


pressure on him is building. At 9.00am, two police officers turned


up at the embassy, with a letter, ordering Julian Assange to appear


at bell gravia Police Station some morning from 11.30am, where from he


will be put on a plane, so, will he surrender. Mr Assange you have been


summited to appear at Belgravia Police Station tomorrow, will you


go? Our advice is that the answer is almost certainly no, because the


law takes precedence over extradition law. It was the release


of this shocking footage that first brought WikiLeaks to international


attention, and embarrassed the American Government. It shows the


killing of a group of Iraqis, including two journalists, by a US


helicopter gunship, after fight anything Baghdad in July 2007. A


flod of secret US documents on the wars -- flood of secret US document


ones the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq arrived, and classified cables.


Julian Assange said America convened a secret Grand Jury to


tart him and other members of the group. In the United States, since


at least the beginning of 2011, a US Grand Jury has been impanelled


in Washington, it has been pulling in witnesses, and false testimony


from these witnesses, and speened records from Twitter, and they have


been working with the FBI. Earlier this year, confidential e-mails


appeared from a defence intelligence company that does work


with the Pentagon. Julian Assange say they bolstered his fears. One


reads, "not for publication", they have a sealed indictment on Assange,


another says that he will make a nice bride in prison, screw the


terrorist, that he will be eating cat food forever. He's a criminal


and should be hunted down and grabbed and put on trial for what


he has done here. This guy is a traitor, a traessonist, and broken


every law in the United States, shoot the son of a BEEP. We have


criminal proceedings under way. Julian Assange sent us a selection


of television interviews which showed the depth of feeling against


him. He has still not been charged with anything. But the man who is


the source of the biggest leak of US state secrets in history has


been charged with aiding the enemy. Numerous individuals have said they


were compelled to testify before a Grand Jury. On top of that we have


had the Bradley Manning proceedings, I have been observing them on


behalf of WikiLeaks. Our concerns about the risk of extradition were


confirmed in those proceedings. Whatever the reality, Julian


Assange, a deeply devisive figure, is now he is centre of an exorder


knee -- extraordinary legal battle. He lost his battle in the High


Court, and then he walked into the Ecuadorian embassy. The last week


has confirmed a lot of what we know about Julian Assange and his


organisation, which is they think they are above the law, whether


laws about dealing and trafficking Government information, or whether


you should be accountable to the same laws as the rest of them.


women accused Julian Assange in Stockholm of sexual offences, that


is why the Swedish authorities want to question him. Their lawyers say


with his asylum appeals he has created a diversion. What do you


say to the women and their lawyers in Sweden that they should have a


right to charge you? I haven't been charged. You have nothing to say to


the two women? What has been said in public record is sufficient.


Julian Assange says he's safer in the UK than Sweden, because it is


hard for the US to extradite him from here, while he still faces


judicial proceedings in Stockholm. Can he really avoid being put on


that plane to Sweden? Exdor is still making up its behind --


Ecuador is still making up its mind on his asylum claim, even if it


does take him in, how does he get there, with the police poised to


arrest him. If you think a solution to the eurozone's problems is


elusive, how about the attempt to figure out whether a fundamental


particle, known as the his bos son, sed said to be the Kiev figuring


out the universe, even exists. What what have you been hearing? Towards


the end of last year we had the first tantalising glimpses of the


Higgs Boson, it is the missing piece in a jigsaw of the standard


model, where fist siss understand how the fundamental particles of


the universe interact. If they can't find it they are in trouble,


and they will have to re-think everything. We will have the


results soon from SERN, smashing together beams of protons, two


teams working separately looking in the debris to see can they find a


sign of the Higgs Boson. These two teams have been gathering data at a


high rate, more in the first few months n2012, than they did -- in


2012, than they did in 2011. Next week we will get a significant


update in the hunt for the Higgs. One respected scientist told me


that what we will see is what anybody with any sense will regard


as the real deal. I don't think they are going to announce a formal


discovery that they found the Higgs Boson. The reason for that is an


official discovery requires a level of certainty in their result,


called a five sigma level, a five- star rating, last year one had a


two-and-a-half-star rating, and the other three-stars, that is about


three-stars. This time I'm told both teams have done better. Last


year it was a two or three-star significant ma leak in each


experiment. Now I'm expecting four stars in each experiment. The


calibrations from the teams don't want to collaberate their date tax


they want to individually analyse the data until they individually


get to the five-star level. Of course, we who are not members of


the team, know we will get the computers out and do the


calculation, I'm pretty sure we will conclude that the hix has now


reached the level of -- Higgs has now reached the level of a five-


star level. Have they found this thing or haven't they? They are


holding back. The reason they are officially holding back, is to


announce a formal discovery of the Higgs Boson is a really important


moment in modern physics and they want to get it right. They are


withholding as much more international politics as science,


each team wants to claim discoverry, and neither wants to combine their


teams, several countries has money behind one team, the UK has money


in both teams and doesn't mind much if they have to combine data for


the discoverry some want to wait until both teams have enough to


claim the five-star rating. That won't come until later this year.


Before we look at the front pages, here is an extraordinary image that


has come too late for the papers, Nadal crashing out of Wimbledon in


the second round to Rosol. A relatively unknown player who is


ranked 100th. You don't see that very often. Now


the front pages. The Times has RBS facing a �150 million fine as the


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 56 seconds


That's all from Newsnight tonight, after almost 70 years, the


surviving scam bomber Boys, finally saw a memorial unveiled in their


honour today. We wanted to leave you with pictures of poppies being


dropped from a Lancaster to commemorate the event, and a report


on a real bombing raid in 1948. master bomber is calling again,


giving us, once again, our height, our bombs are going, the flack is


bursting under us, we are going over the top now, fire, I don't


know how we can stand this, we are sinking with the flack. How steady


and calm are the skipper and crew. Now the bombers are bursting there


now flash, flash, flash, crash. I'm sorry, I tried to be contained,


and steady on this commentry, it is more than I can do. It is a


staggering sight that we can see in the sky.


The storms have cleared away and tomorrow is cooler and fresher. For


the Midlands it is noticably cooler today, the band of cloud in the


south-east of England threatens to bring a little rain at Wimbledon


tomorrow. A lot of cloud for the south west and Wales and the North


West of eing lan. -- England. Northern Ireland, again a few


showers around, but again, not as heavy or thundery as we have seen


it today. In Scotland we will see quite a lot of cloud, showers


across the central belt, and across the south west. It could be a


little on the heavy side. Of course, it will be rather cool as well. We


Download Subtitles