:00:12. > :00:16.David Cameron, posh, and proud. They call us the party of the
:00:16. > :00:20.better off, no, we're the party of the want to be better off, those
:00:20. > :00:24.who strive to make a better life for themselves. We should never be
:00:24. > :00:27.ashamed of saying so. We will get the verdict on the speech from the
:00:27. > :00:34.Culture Secretary, Maria Miller. What did our political panel make
:00:34. > :00:36.of it. Defining. Conservative. Clever. Let's hope they are nor
:00:36. > :00:42.expansive for the ten-minute discussion.
:00:42. > :00:48.What is offensive and criminally offensive on Twitter. We try to
:00:48. > :00:53.offend the man who has to decide I was to say you made up your
:00:53. > :00:55.qualifications and do unspeakable things to farm animals. Abort, I
:00:55. > :01:00.bort, the creation of the world's biggest defence company is aborted
:01:00. > :01:10.at the last minute. Has Lance Armstrong run out of road finally,
:01:10. > :01:14.a 1,000-page doping dossier has just been made public tonight.
:01:14. > :01:18.It may not be what you want to hear as you prepare for bed, perhaps you
:01:18. > :01:22.are already half asleep, but the Prime Minister wants you to rise.
:01:22. > :01:28.He believes you can rise. Your friends and neighbours can rise,
:01:28. > :01:35.Britain can rise. At the end of the speech, conference rose, will his
:01:35. > :01:40.party's poll ratings do the same? Allegra watched it all, what are
:01:40. > :01:45.your thoughts? It was supposed to be an inconsequential conference
:01:45. > :01:49.season, in the doldrum, then we had two chunky good speeches, nothing
:01:49. > :01:53.short of the reinvigoration of the moment of the political speech.
:01:53. > :01:59.Before we journalists would go into a hall and have it all written out
:01:59. > :02:02.in front of us, and not having to listen. Both the Miliband and
:02:02. > :02:06.Cameron speeches were great in their own ways. The Miliband
:02:06. > :02:11.victory was a style and voice thing, comparing apples and pears to see
:02:11. > :02:15.the two side-by-side. The Cameron one is style too, the voice is good,
:02:15. > :02:20.but also an argument. Both very interesting political moments. And
:02:20. > :02:25.they have set, they are in response to each other as well. They are
:02:25. > :02:28.quite, it is dynamic political moments, I'm afraid poor old Nick
:02:28. > :02:32.Clegg not involved in it. Parliament comes back next week,
:02:32. > :02:34.and both have them have questions to answer, Ed Miliband has big
:02:34. > :02:37.questions to answer about the deficit, which he didn't mention in
:02:37. > :02:42.the speech. I don't think he needed to, I think the speech was meant to
:02:42. > :02:46.be about the voice. It wasn't meant to be a step-by-step, what I would
:02:46. > :02:52.do in Government. Now the real work begins. David Cameron has questions
:02:52. > :02:57.on lots of things, including Europe, it will be a terrible autumn for
:02:57. > :03:01.him. But today, he impressed too. 60 minutes is not a long time in
:03:01. > :03:04.parliament, especially when you have had years getting used to one
:03:04. > :03:09.man. This autumn two politicians used their hour to great effect.
:03:09. > :03:14.Last week, two years in, Ed Miliband introduced himself. This
:03:14. > :03:21.week, seven years from his debut, the Prime Minister reintroduced
:03:21. > :03:27.himself. White van man, Essex man, strivers not skivers, these are the
:03:27. > :03:30.targets. He is showing today that he has exactly the same ethics of
:03:30. > :03:33.these targets. Last week Ed Miliband claimed the idea of one-
:03:33. > :03:36.nation, the Prime Minister today will claim it back. He came
:03:37. > :03:40.straight out of the blocks with the reminder that he is the one in
:03:40. > :03:44.charge. As Prime Minister it has fallen to me to say some hard
:03:44. > :03:48.things, and help our country face some hard truths. All of my adult
:03:48. > :03:52.life, whatever the difficulties, the British people have at least
:03:52. > :03:57.been confident about one thing, we have thought we can pay our way.
:03:57. > :04:04.That we can earn our living as a major industrial country, and we
:04:04. > :04:09.will always remain one. It has fallen to us to say that we cannot
:04:09. > :04:13.assume that any longer. Unless we act, unless we take difficult,
:04:13. > :04:19.painful decisions, unless we show determination and imagination,
:04:19. > :04:23.Britain may not be, in the future, what it has been in the past.
:04:23. > :04:28.political, patriotic and personal were interwoven throughout. Do you
:04:28. > :04:34.know something, I'm so grateful for what those paralympians did. When I
:04:34. > :04:38.used to push my son, Ivan, around in his wheelchair, I used to think
:04:38. > :04:42.that too many people saw the wheelchair and not the boy. I think
:04:42. > :04:52.today more people would see the boy and not the wheelchair, that is
:04:52. > :04:56.because of what happened in Britain this summer.
:04:56. > :05:01.APPLAUSE But while Ed Miliband's speech
:05:01. > :05:06.could be described as him finding his feet. The Prime Minister's saw
:05:06. > :05:15.David Cameron getting up on his toes. He set out an agenda, many in
:05:15. > :05:20.his own cabinet, have craved him to set out before they came to
:05:20. > :05:24.Government. We have been set by a woman when women was sidelined, and
:05:24. > :05:31.a Jew when Jews were persecute, we don't look at the label on the tin,
:05:31. > :05:34.we look at what is in it. Let me put it another way, we don't preach
:05:34. > :05:38.about one-nation and get behind class law, we just get behind
:05:38. > :05:42.people who want to get on in life. APPLAUSE.
:05:42. > :05:46.While the other intellectuals of other parties might sneer at people
:05:46. > :05:52.who want to get on in life, we, here, salute you, they call us the
:05:52. > :05:56.party of the better-off, no, we are the party of the want-to-be-better-
:05:56. > :06:02.off, those who strive to make a better life for themselves, we
:06:02. > :06:06.should never be ashamed of saying The classic tenants of a ring-
:06:06. > :06:11.fenced NHS, gay marriage and other things was emphasised in the speech.
:06:11. > :06:16.But also crime, welfare, to the delight of many Conservatives who
:06:16. > :06:20.wondered why the party compromised by reaching out to the south, and
:06:20. > :06:23.forget the centre. The reason we want to reform schools, to cut
:06:23. > :06:26.welfare dependency and reduce spending, is not because we are the
:06:26. > :06:31.same old Tories who want to help the rich, it is because we are the
:06:31. > :06:37.Tories whose ideas help everyone, the poorest the most. A strong
:06:37. > :06:41.private sector, welfare that works, schools that teach, and, do you
:06:41. > :06:46.know what, Labour will fight each and every one of them, every step
:06:46. > :06:50.of the way. So these things, these three things are not just the
:06:50. > :06:54.battleground for Britain's future, they are also the battlelines for
:06:54. > :06:57.the next election. It is a fight we have got to win for our party, for
:06:57. > :07:04.our country, but, above all, for our nation's future.
:07:04. > :07:11.APPLAUSE. And the Prime Minister even dared
:07:11. > :07:15.to fire an Eton rifle. I want more free schools, more academies, more
:07:16. > :07:19.rigorous exams, more expect of every child in every school d more
:07:19. > :07:23.expected of every child in every school. For those who say he wants
:07:23. > :07:27.children to have the kind of education he had at his posh school.
:07:27. > :07:31.Do you know what I say, I say you're absolutely right, I went to
:07:31. > :07:35.great school, I want every child to have that sort of education. He did
:07:35. > :07:40.not deny his stories of privilege, but he deployed them instead.
:07:40. > :07:44.dad of the eternal optimist, to him the glass was always half full,
:07:44. > :07:49.usually with something fairly alcoholic in it. And he told me
:07:49. > :07:54.what he was most proud of. And it was simple, it was working hard
:07:54. > :07:58.from the moment he left school, and providing a God start in life for
:07:58. > :08:02.his family. -- a good start in life for his family. Not just all of us,
:08:02. > :08:06.but helping his mum too when his father ran off. Not a hard luck
:08:06. > :08:09.story, but a hard work story. For the first time this year David
:08:09. > :08:14.Cameron's speech was written by a woman, who in her spare time, is
:08:14. > :08:16.also a poet, you could tell. It was a good speech, well delivered and
:08:16. > :08:20.well written. The difference between the Ed Miliband speech and
:08:20. > :08:24.David Cameron's speech was quite stark, though, David Cameron stood
:08:24. > :08:27.firmly behind his lectern, he thumped it very many times, this is
:08:28. > :08:34.a man who is making the point that he's rooted in Government and the
:08:34. > :08:38.act of governing. Today saw the second half of what would hack
:08:38. > :08:42.2012's tale of two speeches. Ed Miliband raised had his game,
:08:42. > :08:48.nudging up David Cameron's. Politics has been in a lob-sided
:08:48. > :08:53.period, with one side more than another. Today politics got a bit
:08:53. > :08:57.more life in it. Maria Miller is the Secretary of
:08:57. > :09:00.State for Culture, Media and Sport, also the Minister for Women and
:09:01. > :09:04.Equalities. Was this the speech where David Cameron came out as
:09:04. > :09:08.posh? I think it was a powerful speech, because it powerfully set
:09:08. > :09:12.out the real problems our country faces. But it also set out the plan
:09:12. > :09:16.we are following to deal with those problems. The welfare reform,
:09:16. > :09:20.education, and importantly, tied that back to the main theme of the
:09:20. > :09:25.speech, which was all about how we can help the poorest in society to
:09:25. > :09:30.get that opportunity to get on. all that unashamed stuff about his
:09:30. > :09:34.own privileged background, hook to his message that he want to make
:09:34. > :09:37.more people privileged. It was quiteen ashamed? I think it was
:09:37. > :09:42.about how David Cameron the man is drawing on his expowerences, to say
:09:42. > :09:44.that we need to have that -- experiences, to say we need to have
:09:44. > :09:47.that opportunity available for more people in this country. Opportunity
:09:47. > :09:51.is the reason I became a Conservative. It is not a new
:09:51. > :09:55.principle, but today it was really clearly articulated, particularly
:09:55. > :09:58.in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill, and also the reform of
:09:58. > :10:03.education. He did talk about the Conservative Party being for all,
:10:03. > :10:06.north and south, black and white, gay or straight, but he didn't talk
:10:06. > :10:10.specifically, really, about gay marriage, and given the reception
:10:10. > :10:16.you got, you can't really blame him. Half the hall sat, according to the
:10:16. > :10:19.Press Association, older party members sat stoney-faced and arms
:10:19. > :10:24.crossed, what was that like? We are clear as party we are absolutely
:10:24. > :10:27.committed to the idea of equal civil marriage. What is it like
:10:27. > :10:30.looking out to your own party looking at the older members
:10:30. > :10:35.sitting there cross armed? Sometimes we have to take tough
:10:35. > :10:40.decisions, either on the economy or things like equal civil marriage.
:10:40. > :10:44.For me marriage is a bedrock to society, a way to create stability.
:10:44. > :10:47.Simply because you are gay, does not mean you shouldn't have access
:10:47. > :10:51.to getting married. It is an important concept and something
:10:51. > :10:54.that should be open to everybody. We really need to make sure we look
:10:54. > :10:58.outside to the country as a whole. That is what I'm asking you about,
:10:58. > :11:03.it is all very well for David Cameron to say, north or south, gay
:11:03. > :11:07.or straight, but what should outsiders make of the reception to
:11:07. > :11:10.your remarks in the hall. Which bit of the Conservative Party should
:11:11. > :11:15.they listen to, you? I heard a very positive reception in the hall.
:11:15. > :11:19.Some younger people cheered and whooped, don't get me wrong, there
:11:19. > :11:23.was a substantial rump who were very unhappy about it. Who should
:11:23. > :11:28.we listen to? What you should listen to are the very positive
:11:28. > :11:31.arguments around civil marriage. And ignore everyone else?
:11:31. > :11:36.importance of stability in society. I think that is something that
:11:36. > :11:43.unites people of all ages, and all opinions. What we have to do is
:11:43. > :11:47.make sure that people are really confident that they can embrace the
:11:47. > :11:50.idea of civil marriage and stay true to their beliefs. I find the
:11:50. > :11:54.main area of concern in civil marriage is the impact it will have
:11:54. > :12:01.on the church. The thing that I have been doing over conference,
:12:01. > :12:08.and over the last few weeks, is to make sure it is clear that it is
:12:08. > :12:12.not the Government's intention to impact the way any churches do
:12:13. > :12:16.marriage. David Cameron wants to attract women to the party and
:12:16. > :12:21.voters, has that been made more difficult by a Health Secretary who
:12:21. > :12:24.is male and has the private view that 12 weeks should be the
:12:24. > :12:27.abortion limit? I think what women voters in this country are looking
:12:27. > :12:32.at is a party that is going to tackle the really difficult
:12:32. > :12:34.position that many families find themselves. A party and Government
:12:34. > :12:38.that will be able to really understand the importance of the
:12:38. > :12:41.rising cost of living. Hold on, are you just not going to talk about
:12:41. > :12:45.abortion? What I'm answering is what women really in this country
:12:45. > :12:48.are interested in. They don't care about the abortion limit? First and
:12:48. > :12:52.foremost they are interested in making sure they have a Government
:12:52. > :12:55.in place that understands the economy, understands how we get the
:12:55. > :12:59.deficit down and keep cost of living under control. Those are the
:12:59. > :13:03.key issues that women in this country are looking for. I think as
:13:03. > :13:07.a Government lifting two million people, on the lowest wage, out of
:13:07. > :13:10.the tax bracket all together, many of them women, we're demonstrating
:13:10. > :13:15.that we really understand the importance of getting the country's
:13:15. > :13:19.finances in order. In your role as Culture Secretary, I want to ask
:13:19. > :13:25.you about Jimmy Savile, prior to all the allegations, we now know
:13:25. > :13:29.about, what was your view. You probably grew up with him as all of
:13:29. > :13:32.us did, what was your view before this of Jimmy Savile? I think he
:13:32. > :13:36.was a larger than life character that many of us in different
:13:36. > :13:40.television programmes throughout our lives. What do you think now?
:13:40. > :13:45.think we now should think of the people affected by what clearly has
:13:45. > :13:48.been an enormously difficult situation. Allegations around abuse.
:13:48. > :13:53.My heart goes out to all of those people affected and their families,
:13:53. > :13:57.and I'm really wanting to see and make sure there is a thorough and
:13:57. > :14:03.swift criminal investigation. That is what we should be focusing on.
:14:03. > :14:07.The chairman of the BBC Trust spoke out today, Lord Patten, what do you
:14:07. > :14:10.think about all of this? Lord Patten is right to say if there is
:14:10. > :14:14.a need to do more after the criminal investigation, then the
:14:14. > :14:18.BBC needs to ask the questions. There is serious allegations, not
:14:18. > :14:21.only about the behaviour of Jimmy Savile, but also about the
:14:21. > :14:25.institutional problems around the way women have been treated in the
:14:25. > :14:28.work place, those are serious issues for any organisation.
:14:28. > :14:32.Well, they have already given their one-word response to the Prime
:14:32. > :14:38.Minister's speech, right at the start of the programme, let's hear
:14:38. > :14:42.more from Danny Finkelstein, Sally Morgan, latterly righthand women to
:14:42. > :14:46.Tony Blair, and the journalist, Miranda Green, previously an
:14:46. > :14:54.adviser to Paddy Ashdown. You wrote in the Times today that in
:14:54. > :14:58.preparing for his speech, David Cameron should get a colon os copy.
:14:58. > :15:03.I don't want to go into too much about that, but the way they affect
:15:03. > :15:06.people about pain is the end, if the end is easier people don't mind
:15:06. > :15:08.the duration. I was suggesting that David Cameron has to think about
:15:08. > :15:12.how he want to fight the next general election, and think about
:15:12. > :15:16.how he wants to land in the last year, and not think so much about
:15:16. > :15:19.how he is fighting the election, how he's going to deal with the
:15:19. > :15:25.problems now. In other words, he has to have good, forward planning,
:15:25. > :15:29.that was the argument. On the basis of what you saw, did he take your
:15:29. > :15:34.advice? I used the word "defining", because what I felt about that
:15:34. > :15:37.speech is he set out what he regarded the key issues in power.
:15:37. > :15:44.If someone gets up for 45 minutes and says things you agree with, you
:15:44. > :15:48.will like t and if you don't agree with it you won't like it, it won't
:15:48. > :15:52.persuade you. Swing voters won't have seen it so it won't change
:15:52. > :15:56.public opinion. I think he made a good effort at defining what his
:15:56. > :16:00.Premiership is about. What the key priorities for the Government is.
:16:00. > :16:03.That is successful if you can do that in a speech. He hasn't always
:16:03. > :16:07.been successful in doing that in party conference speeches,
:16:07. > :16:10.sometimes they have been too long or defuse. This one was
:16:10. > :16:13.concentrated and hit the mark. Miranda Green, he managed to keep
:16:13. > :16:17.the duration down by not mentioning the Liberal Democrats at all?
:16:17. > :16:21.think that was probably quite a good thing. Because it was a very,
:16:21. > :16:27.very Tory speech for a Tory audience. I thought what was
:16:27. > :16:31.interesting about the whole conference season, is how navel
:16:31. > :16:35.gazing each party has been. Each leader, at bay, has had to defend
:16:35. > :16:39.himself from attack. David Cameron did do very well today, he was
:16:39. > :16:42.addressing Conservatives. And as Danny said, people in sympathy with
:16:42. > :16:45.that view of the world will have thought it was an excellent speech.
:16:45. > :16:50.I thought it was a very good speech, as a political speech. He did what
:16:50. > :16:53.he had to do. I have a feeling that his Liberal Democrat colleagues and
:16:53. > :16:57.their supporters will not be warming to those messages in the
:16:57. > :17:00.same way that Danny has. Sally Morgan, some useful sideswipes at
:17:00. > :17:04.Ed Miliband's one-nation, and all that talk of privilege and being
:17:04. > :17:09.proud of it, and wanting to spread that? I thought what was
:17:09. > :17:12.interesting is he did feel he had to react to Ed's speech last week.
:17:12. > :17:17.In a sense, that was speaking for itself. That Ed had been daring,
:17:17. > :17:20.and had grabbed the centre. So David Cameron had to push, or
:17:20. > :17:24.attempt to push Ed back to the left, which was what he was trying to do
:17:24. > :17:28.in the speech today. For me the stuff about privilege didn't work
:17:28. > :17:31.so well. The notion that some how you will spread privilege is a very
:17:31. > :17:36.odd concept. Privilege is always for the few. The idea that a few
:17:36. > :17:40.more will get a bit of privilege doesn't quite work. It not an
:17:40. > :17:44.argument for the many, it is still an argument for the few. I could
:17:44. > :17:47.see what he was trying to do, but for me it wasn't effective.
:17:47. > :17:50.wonder how different the speech would have been if Ed Miliband had
:17:50. > :17:54.done something different last week, how much of it was a response?
:17:54. > :17:58.don't think it was terribly a response to Ed Miliband. I think he
:17:58. > :18:02.obviously, each leader will respond to what happened before, but really,
:18:02. > :18:05.what David Cameron needed to do was, he did need to give a good
:18:05. > :18:11.performance, in that sense it was a response. It did put pressure on
:18:11. > :18:20.him to make it was -- make sure it was a good speech. I'm sure that
:18:20. > :18:23.made it better. He's a great emergency merchant, if he's under
:18:23. > :18:26.pressure he will do something much better than otherwise. This was
:18:26. > :18:29.that. That was a response to Ed Miliband. Politically I think he
:18:29. > :18:32.was trying to do something else. I think he was trying to resolve. One
:18:32. > :18:35.of the things that wasn't in the speech, for example, was a lot of
:18:35. > :18:40.the stuff about an invitation to join the Government, and to run
:18:40. > :18:44.your own school. It was much more about the quality of schools, and
:18:44. > :18:49.quality of health, and welfare reform, which lots of people in the
:18:49. > :18:53.centre do support. That, last year, both that message, and the
:18:53. > :18:56.invitation to form a Government, were both in the speech. I think
:18:56. > :19:02.he's resolved that strategic confusion. I think, correctly,
:19:02. > :19:06.because I think that is a very effective electoral message. I also
:19:06. > :19:10.thought it was a very good response to Ed Miliband, to use that list of
:19:10. > :19:13.Conservative prime ministers, who are outsiders. I actually thought
:19:13. > :19:17.that was very impressive as a moment, whatever your politics, you
:19:17. > :19:21.have to give the Conservative Party credit for the people that they
:19:21. > :19:25.have put in Number Ten, who are not of their own ilk. So I think, in
:19:25. > :19:30.that sort of theme of aspiration, we want everyone to get on, that
:19:30. > :19:35.was very clever as a response to Ed Miliband's cheeky Disraeli stuff
:19:35. > :19:39.last week. He was reclaiming that. He was reclaiming that
:19:39. > :19:41.compassionate Conservative. reason why it couldn't be much of a
:19:41. > :19:45.response for Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband was trying to say I'm
:19:45. > :19:49.better than you think I am, he succeed in doing that to the
:19:49. > :19:52.Westminster loby, outside people are less watching. And nothing
:19:52. > :19:58.David Cameron can do could take that away. He had been to be good
:19:58. > :20:04.himself. Which I think he was. about Sally Morgan, reaching out to
:20:04. > :20:09.the non-committed voter, will this speech and the reporting of it,
:20:09. > :20:13.will it endear him in way and bring back disenchanted Tories? I think
:20:13. > :20:16.really, above all, it was talking to the hall, but I think he was
:20:16. > :20:21.also trying to look a little bit to the Thatcherite voters. They were
:20:21. > :20:26.the people, it seemed to me, he was trying to aim towards. And I think,
:20:26. > :20:29.it will have an effect in the kind of M25 belt. That was the group he
:20:29. > :20:32.was after, I think. It would do if they heard it. The really important
:20:32. > :20:35.thing about party conference speeches is people aren't watching.
:20:35. > :20:38.I said this about Ed Miliband, it would be remisnot to repeat the
:20:38. > :20:41.point when it is David Cameron, people aren't watching, so they
:20:41. > :20:44.didn't see it. They will have watched one or two little clips. It
:20:44. > :20:47.might marginally effect what they think. They are not following it
:20:47. > :20:50.carefully. The key thing with the speeches, with one-nation and this
:20:50. > :20:54.speech, and the strategy for the Liberal Democrats, it is
:20:54. > :20:59.consistency. You see John Major, the opportunity for all in 1996,
:21:00. > :21:03.and never spoke about it again. Tony Blair did that battle, there
:21:03. > :21:07.are two kinds of or forces of Conservatism, and never talked
:21:07. > :21:12.about it again. The key thing is will Ed Miliband turn one-nation
:21:12. > :21:17.into a proper concept and idea, I dove my doubts, we will see. Can
:21:17. > :21:23.dam -- I do have my doubts, we will see. Can David Cameron turn his
:21:23. > :21:27.Britain can sink or swim into idea. What about the personal back
:21:27. > :21:32.stories politicians insist on telling us time and time again in
:21:32. > :21:36.speeches, do do you find it endearing or are you reaching for
:21:36. > :21:40.the sick bag? When David Cameron talks about his son, it is
:21:40. > :21:45.difficult not to be move. It was a difficult moment to hear his voice
:21:45. > :21:48.break. I agree with the implication of your question. It all gets a bit
:21:48. > :21:54.emotionally exhausting, and sometimes. It must work, they must
:21:54. > :21:59.do it because they think it works? I was grateful when he moved on to
:21:59. > :22:03.I'm the managing director and here is my agenda for the company. That
:22:03. > :22:08.was more comfortable to listen to. The bit about his dad was defensive
:22:08. > :22:12.as well, saying I did have a comfy background, but not as campy as you
:22:12. > :22:18.think. For me that didn't -- comfy as you think. For me that didn't
:22:18. > :22:22.work as well. Both have an atypical background, Ed Miliband knows the
:22:23. > :22:29.people from the primrose hill and Hampstead Heath, it is my
:22:29. > :22:37.background, so I'm not knocking it, he's the son of a professor, as I
:22:37. > :22:42.am, and David Cameron. Labour distinguish between Harriet
:22:42. > :22:46.Harman's St Paul's school for girls and a different school for boys is
:22:46. > :22:50.likely to disappoint much. There are a billion people on Facebook,
:22:50. > :22:55.there are more than a quarter of a billion tweets on Twitter every day,
:22:55. > :22:58.how do you police that. Should you even bother. People are being fined
:22:58. > :23:03.and jailed for comments they have made on-line. And now, the most
:23:03. > :23:06.senior prosecutor in England and Wales, is trying to draw up
:23:06. > :23:10.guidelines, he hopes, will work. You will hear from him, after we
:23:10. > :23:14.reveal a big rise in the number of complaints that police have been
:23:14. > :23:19.asked to investigate. Two court cases this week, two ways in which
:23:19. > :23:22.the Internet is now challenging the British legal system. Azhar Ahmed
:23:22. > :23:28.from Dewsbury was given a community sentence for posting angry comments
:23:28. > :23:33.about the death of British soldiers on Facebook. A day earlier Matthew
:23:33. > :23:37.Wood went to jail for off-colour jokes about the missing schoolgirl,
:23:37. > :23:42.April Jones. The comments, both made on-line, were unpleasant to
:23:42. > :23:46.most people, but should they also be illegal? Two years ago Paul
:23:46. > :23:49.Chambers, became one of the first people to be found guilty of send
:23:49. > :23:55.ago threatening message on another social network site, this time
:23:55. > :23:59.Twitter. He said he would blow his local airport sky high if it didn't
:23:59. > :24:04.reopen after heavy snowfall. His conviction was eventually
:24:04. > :24:07.overturned, when the judge agreed it was just a bad joke. Two cases
:24:07. > :24:11.this week show nothing has been learned at all. After my own
:24:11. > :24:17.verdict was given in the High Court after my appeal was juped held, and
:24:17. > :24:21.after the DPP said -- upheld, and after the DPP said guidance would
:24:21. > :24:25.be given to prosecutor, it looked as if steps would be taken and
:24:25. > :24:28.common sense applied. Now we have the Azhar Ahmed case, with guilty
:24:28. > :24:31.verdicts found and ridiculous sentences given, we are going
:24:31. > :24:36.backwards, if anything. Many of the high-profile cases, brought to
:24:36. > :24:41.trial so far, use a little known part of the law, Section 127 of the
:24:41. > :24:44.communications act, makes it an offence to post menacing or
:24:44. > :24:49.offensive material on-line of they want it to be properly
:24:49. > :24:53.American, they want a nerdy kid to come in with the rifle. While a
:24:53. > :24:57.comedian can make an offensive joke on the stage or in the pub, exactly
:24:57. > :25:00.the same material on-line, could, in theory, get somebody arrested.
:25:00. > :25:04.We think the reason that is happening, is the law that is being
:25:04. > :25:10.used, the scratch communications Act 2003, was not created for the
:25:10. > :25:16.purpose. Back in 2003 when the law was being drafted, nobody had any
:25:16. > :25:18.idea that YouTube, Facebook or Twitter would be such a part of
:25:18. > :25:22.people's lives. It seems we are really clamping down on free speech,
:25:22. > :25:27.just at a time when so many people have more access to communications
:25:27. > :25:30.and debates an arguments than ever before. This is not just about
:25:30. > :25:34.public figures, and it is not just about jokes, police are now seeing
:25:34. > :25:38.a real increase in the number of general cases they are asked to
:25:38. > :25:43.investigate, after threatening messages are posted on the Internet.
:25:43. > :25:53.Newsnight asked every force for harassment cases involving Facebook
:25:53. > :25:58.
:25:58. > :26:02.While some of those cases will be serious, police officers we have
:26:02. > :26:06.spoken to think they are now being dragged into too many petty rows.
:26:06. > :26:11.The Director of Public Prosecutions is now holding talks with lawyers,
:26:11. > :26:14.academics and the police to draw up new guidelines for the courts. It's
:26:14. > :26:18.likely websites themselves will be told to improve the way they take
:26:19. > :26:23.down offensive comments, and ban repeat offender. Though Facebook
:26:23. > :26:32.and Twitter may be reluctant to go too far and really start to
:26:32. > :26:36.moderate and sensor content them -- censor content themselves. This is
:26:36. > :26:42.Myjam, one of the founders says it is not practical for a small site
:26:42. > :26:46.to keep an eye on everything that is said on-line. We are not in a
:26:46. > :26:50.position where we want to survey our users, there is no way with a
:26:50. > :26:53.team of four people we could monitor the hundreds of thousand of
:26:53. > :26:58.post that is go up each week. Ultimately we wouldn't want. To it
:26:58. > :27:02.is not our job to police individual comment. What we are here to do is
:27:02. > :27:06.impose some, to suggest some community guidelines, and have the
:27:06. > :27:11.community discuss that between themselves. The worry for many in
:27:11. > :27:13.the Internet community is that any new guidelines, if they are too
:27:13. > :27:17.prescriptive, could put sites like this out of business. Get this
:27:17. > :27:23.wrong, they say, and it could be make it harder, not easier, to work
:27:23. > :27:25.out where the limits are in the on- line world.
:27:25. > :27:30.Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecution, he has been consulting
:27:30. > :27:33.with lawyers and police trying to find a sensible set of guidelines.
:27:33. > :27:37.When I spoke to him earlier, he said he was worried about the
:27:37. > :27:42.chilling effect on free speech. I asked him what he has learned so
:27:42. > :27:46.far on dealing with offensive messages. One of the difficulties
:27:46. > :27:52.here is the law prohibits grossly offensive messages, we have to work
:27:52. > :27:56.within the law as it is. It occurs to me that amongst the man million
:27:56. > :27:59.communications that go on -- the many million communecations that go
:27:59. > :28:04.on daily, quite a number would fall into that category. We have to see
:28:04. > :28:09.how the Crown Prosecution Service can act as some sort of filter or
:28:09. > :28:13.gate-keeper. The emerging thinking in the Round Table is it might be
:28:13. > :28:17.sensible to divide and separate cases where there is a campaign of
:28:17. > :28:22.harassment, and social media is being used as the means of
:28:22. > :28:26.harassment, and cases where the -- where there is a credible and
:28:26. > :28:31.genuine threat, put them on one side and prosecute in those sort of
:28:31. > :28:35.case. To put in another category, communications which are, as it
:28:35. > :28:39.were, merely offensive or grossly offensive, it doesn't mean the
:28:39. > :28:44.second category are ring-fenced from prosecution, it does enable us
:28:44. > :28:48.to look at that group in a slightly different way. How high on the
:28:48. > :28:53.second subset, how high must the bar be? We have heard of people
:28:53. > :28:56.going to jail for saying unpleasant thing about missing children, other
:28:56. > :29:00.people have been fined and given community service for saying
:29:00. > :29:04.unpleasant thing about dead British soldiers. In your view, in future,
:29:04. > :29:07.is that the sort of thing that should be criminally investigated?
:29:08. > :29:12.The threshold for prosecution has to be high. Higher than I have just
:29:12. > :29:15.described? We live in a democracy, if free speech to be protect, there
:29:15. > :29:20.has to be a high threshold, people have the right to be offensive,
:29:20. > :29:24.they have the right to be insulting, that has to be protected. That is
:29:24. > :29:28.pretty clear? Context is everything. I think the difficult cases so far
:29:28. > :29:33.have involved comments that have been made in a situation which is
:29:33. > :29:37.highly charged or emotional, and judgment calls have to be made
:29:37. > :29:41.about the particular context. But this is not easy. If this was easy
:29:41. > :29:46.we wouldn't be having this debate. These are particularly difficult
:29:46. > :29:49.judgment calls. What I want to achieve is consistency, and a fair
:29:49. > :29:55.balance in these cases. But in future, for example, Matthew Wood,
:29:55. > :29:59.who was jailed for making comments when he did, about the missing girl,
:29:59. > :30:03.April Jones, does that cross the bar? In that case, as you know,
:30:03. > :30:08.pleaded guilty. The court sentenced him in the way they did. There are
:30:08. > :30:12.clearly strong views on eithered side here. Some say that is an
:30:12. > :30:16.infringement of free speech. What do you say? On the other hand the
:30:16. > :30:19.courts have taken it seriously. If one looks at what was actually said,
:30:19. > :30:23.and asks the question was it grossly offensive, the answer is,
:30:23. > :30:29.yes, it was. There were some particularly offensive comments
:30:29. > :30:32.made. What I want to achieve in the guidelines is, a sense of which of
:30:32. > :30:36.even the grossly offensive case require a criminal prosecution.
:30:37. > :30:40.sounds like you would like to see far fewer prosecution? I think if
:30:40. > :30:45.there are a lot of prosecutions it will have a chilling effect on free
:30:45. > :30:50.speech. I think that is very important as a consideration.
:30:50. > :30:54.will police it? Facebook and Twitter, will they have to take on
:30:54. > :30:59.thousands of extra staff, or will it be left to users, as it is at
:30:59. > :31:03.the moment, to police? One the participants in the Round Table of
:31:03. > :31:06.the policy director of Facebook, I'm trying to set up meetings with
:31:06. > :31:09.the service providers, really to say to them, you have a
:31:09. > :31:13.responsibility here. In many of these cases the appropriate
:31:13. > :31:18.response may be for you to take this material down, swiftly, and
:31:18. > :31:22.that may reduce the requirements for a criminal prosduegs.
:31:22. > :31:26.Facebook and Twitter and social media going to be treated
:31:26. > :31:31.differently. Will it be easier to be offensive on them, still, than
:31:31. > :31:40.it is to be on television, radio and newspapers? No, I think the
:31:40. > :31:44.things about radio and television is there is a degree of testing. On
:31:44. > :31:50.media sites people can move swiftly from communicating to a few people
:31:50. > :31:53.to broadcasting to millions. They are all integrated aren't they?
:31:53. > :31:58.but the offence covers all those types of communications, that is
:31:58. > :32:01.where the problem lies. Yes, but if I were to lie about you on
:32:01. > :32:05.television, if I was to sit here and say you made up all your
:32:05. > :32:10.qualifications and you do unspeakable things to farm animals,
:32:10. > :32:14.the BBC, Ofcom, who knows, they will come down on me like a tonne
:32:14. > :32:19.of brick. If I stweeted that about you, from -- tweeted that, from
:32:19. > :32:25.what you are telling me, you would just have to accept that? I could
:32:25. > :32:28.appeal to the regulator, and there may absence of some sort of
:32:28. > :32:31.regulating in this area that is unregulated. At the moment we have
:32:31. > :32:37.an overarching criminal offence that applies to all those
:32:37. > :32:41.communications. That is part of the problem. If a criminal response is
:32:42. > :32:48.the only available response, then there might be the temptation to
:32:48. > :32:53.resort too quickly to that response. In other fields or other areas, the
:32:53. > :33:03.appropriate route might be by way of complaint or some other remedy.
:33:03. > :33:05.
:33:05. > :33:08.What do you get if you merge the letters BAe and EADS? SEBED or
:33:08. > :33:13.DEBASE. When it comes to trying to merge the companies of the same
:33:14. > :33:17.name, you get a big recrimination- filled mess. Why does it matter?
:33:17. > :33:21.Whatever your views on the subject, Britain is still pretty good at
:33:21. > :33:25.make weapons much they have a number of specialist industries.
:33:25. > :33:30.The jobs -- weapons. They have a number of specialist industries,
:33:30. > :33:33.the jobs are good and they export the stuff. BAe is, head and
:33:33. > :33:38.shoulders, the best weapons manufacturers in Britain and Europe.
:33:38. > :33:41.It employs 35,000 people, indirectly 120,000 people. Who it
:33:41. > :33:46.merges with actually matters, because the technology then can
:33:46. > :33:51.either be exported and won and lost. It was due to merge with EADS, that
:33:51. > :33:54.died, of course, today, EADS owns Airbus, they would have formed a
:33:54. > :34:02.giant civil and military aviation giant. But now it is not happening.
:34:02. > :34:05.What went wrong? Well, to misquote Harold Macmillan, "politics my dear
:34:05. > :34:09.boy, politics", the French the Germans and the Brits all had
:34:09. > :34:15.strong views about where the HQ was to be based and where it was not to
:34:15. > :34:19.be base. In the event of factories having to close in the future, they
:34:19. > :34:29.all adapted political nimbyism, the Germans said they wouldn't lose any
:34:29. > :34:33.factories, and so did the French. The Germans were worried the civil
:34:33. > :34:41.bit would be in Toulouse, and then the military bit in Farnborough,
:34:41. > :34:46.they wouldn't accept it. The shareholders were livid. The major
:34:46. > :34:51.shareholder from BAe said they wanted to launch a missile at the
:34:51. > :34:55.merger and they hit their target. What will happen to BAe? To quote
:34:55. > :34:59.the City they are "in play". If you look at the share price over the
:34:59. > :35:02.last few years you will see why. It is an amazing graph. It is a
:35:02. > :35:08.downward curve, the reason for that is they are dependant on defence
:35:08. > :35:13.spending, mostly in the US and the UK. 70% of the business is in the
:35:13. > :35:17.US and UK. The curve is going down because defence budgets are
:35:17. > :35:22.squeezed post financial crycy. They need to find way to -- crisis. They
:35:22. > :35:27.need to find a way to perk the curve up. I spoke to a senior
:35:27. > :35:32.person in the industry, he talked about a plan floated a year ago,
:35:32. > :35:36.poo pooed at the time, but may come back. BAe systems hives off its
:35:36. > :35:42.American business, with the �10 billion they get, they pay off
:35:42. > :35:45.their pensions deficit, which is �5 billion, they focus on emerging
:35:45. > :35:49.markets, Asia, and Africa. The final question is what happens to
:35:49. > :35:52.the boss, why did they press ahead with the deal, when they didn't
:35:52. > :35:58.have the support of the shareholder, lukewarm response from the
:35:58. > :36:01.Governments, and factory workers are more nervous than before. Tom
:36:01. > :36:07.Enders and Ian King may have their feet tailed to the fire in the next
:36:07. > :36:10.AGM. Let's hear now BR from the Liberal Democrat MP and former
:36:10. > :36:15.armed -- from the Liberal Democrat MP and the former Armed Forces
:36:15. > :36:18.Minister. What do you make of what has happened? I think it is a
:36:18. > :36:22.missed opportunity. I hope BAe workers and shareholders don't
:36:22. > :36:28.regret it in years to um K the commercial logic of putting
:36:28. > :36:32.together with EADS with the strong position in the civil aviation
:36:32. > :36:37.market, and BAe with its strong reputation and access to the US
:36:37. > :36:43.market, was, in my view, overwhelming. It is a real shame to
:36:43. > :36:47.see this go down. I think one of the problems is, in so far as one
:36:47. > :36:51.can ascertain, a leak caused it to come into the public domain before
:36:51. > :36:55.some of the political spade work had been done. Personally I hope
:36:55. > :36:59.they get another go at it in the future. I'm not holding my breath
:36:59. > :37:03.on that. Is it down to a leak, you get the idea from some reports that
:37:03. > :37:07.the Germans would never have bought this? That might be true, I'm not
:37:07. > :37:11.in a position to say. It would be unlikely they would have chosen to
:37:11. > :37:19.play this out publicly, immediately before an American election. My
:37:19. > :37:24.sense is they were probably aim to go make the merger effective early
:37:24. > :37:27.next year. Something blew and there are so many vested interests I
:37:27. > :37:32.wouldn't speculate who or what causeded it to blow. Do you share
:37:32. > :37:34.the concerns some people have, had it gone ahead the French and German
:37:34. > :37:39.Governments would have had significant control over areas of
:37:39. > :37:42.Britain's national security? think it is a legitimate concern,
:37:43. > :37:47.of course it is rather alien to as you as a market or economy to have
:37:47. > :37:53.situations where Governments have big shares in things. That having
:37:53. > :37:58.been said, we are using EDF, the French energy company, as our
:37:58. > :38:02.principal driver for the next generation of nuclear power station.
:38:02. > :38:06.That has a big French Government stake in it. It may not be the way
:38:06. > :38:10.we do things, but it is common in other countries. The stake that the
:38:10. > :38:14.French and the Germans were going to have, in my view, was reasonable.
:38:14. > :38:19.It was considerably less than the effective control they currently
:38:19. > :38:23.have of EADS. I wouldn't have been too keen on the suggestion that
:38:23. > :38:26.they would have some preferential rights to buy more shares in the
:38:26. > :38:32.future. But actually 9% each for the French and Germans wouldn't
:38:32. > :38:37.have struck me as entirely unreasonable. It is a bit alien to
:38:37. > :38:41.us, but if the Germans were wanting tob to have a great deal more than
:38:41. > :38:46.that, -- to have a great deal more than that, that is probably the
:38:46. > :38:50.explanation as to why it broke down. We see how the BAe share price is
:38:50. > :38:55.going, for the people who rely on BAe for employment, what is the
:38:55. > :39:00.future for them? I think that is grim now. Of course there are many
:39:00. > :39:04.thousands of employees in the UK, who are actually working on the
:39:04. > :39:09.Airbus project, not part of the defence sector at all. It would
:39:09. > :39:12.have strengthened their job certainty quite a lot if the UK had
:39:12. > :39:17.got an equity stake in Airbus again N that sense, with the benefit of
:39:17. > :39:22.hindsight rbgts we can see it was a mistake that BAe got out of Airbus
:39:22. > :39:26.when it did. I think it is an uncertain fate that perhaps awaits
:39:26. > :39:31.them. But also in terms of the defence business, as your last
:39:31. > :39:40.commentator said, there is now a sense that BAe is in play. And if
:39:40. > :39:44.American companies were to come in for BAe, there would be less
:39:44. > :39:49.complimentarity than in the base of EADS, who was bringing a different
:39:49. > :39:54.sort of business that would fit together with BAe's interests. If
:39:54. > :39:57.you get an American defence company buying BAe, they are probably after
:39:57. > :40:01.the order book that BAe has with the American Government. And what
:40:01. > :40:04.interest they will have with some of the work going on here, some of
:40:04. > :40:09.which is inherently unviable in commercial terms, I just don't know.
:40:09. > :40:14.We are awaiting decisions from BAe in the foreseeable future about the
:40:14. > :40:19.future of our shipyards, and that's the sort of business that I don't
:40:19. > :40:25.think an American buyer would have any interest in.
:40:25. > :40:30.For years people have pointed the finger at Lance Armstrong, and
:40:30. > :40:34.accused the world-beating cyclist of being a drugs cheat. He has
:40:34. > :40:38.always denied it and still does. Tonight the United States Anti-
:40:38. > :40:43.Doping Agency is publishing more than 1,000-pages of evidence, which
:40:43. > :40:46.it says, shows Lance Armstrong was at the centre of the most
:40:46. > :40:56.sophisticated and professional doping programme in recent sports
:40:56. > :41:02.
:41:02. > :41:07.history. My guests are with me.
:41:07. > :41:12.How damning is this report? In all my years as a sports correspondent
:41:12. > :41:18.I haven't seen anything as damning as this. Armstrong's lawyer has
:41:18. > :41:24.said it is a hatchet job, one-sided. 17 people have testified, 11 former
:41:24. > :41:28.team-mates of Armstrong. All with the same story. The only way to say
:41:28. > :41:31.he's exonerated is to say everyone else is lying. One quote over my
:41:31. > :41:33.shoulder, you will see how confident the US Anti-Doping Agency
:41:33. > :41:39.are with their evidence. They really believe that Lance Armstrong
:41:39. > :41:43.is abts luetly banged to rights -- absolutely banged to rights. We put
:41:43. > :41:47.in a call to Mr Armstrong's lawyer, you mentioned him, he said there is
:41:47. > :41:51.nothing in this report that is new or has come as a surprise to us. It
:41:51. > :41:56.is not a recent decision, it is a kangaroo court. That going to stand
:41:56. > :42:00.up? No, there is information in here which is new. For example,
:42:00. > :42:06.Armstrong's relationship with the doctor Michelle Ferrari, who was
:42:06. > :42:12.disgraced in 2004, found guilty of a drug charge. He has long been
:42:12. > :42:15.suspected to be at the heart of drug taking in cycling. In 2004,
:42:15. > :42:23.when he was found guilty, Armstrong said he would cut ties with emthis.
:42:23. > :42:27.It is shown in the two years after that, from 2004-2006, Armstrong
:42:27. > :42:31.paid him $2 10,000. He continued his relationship. We have
:42:31. > :42:35.information from the Anti-Doping Agency, to those who claimed before
:42:35. > :42:39.that Armstrong failed a drugs test in 2001 and it was covered in by
:42:39. > :42:41.the authorities. Another quote from the US Anti-
:42:41. > :42:45.Doping Agency. They believed Armstrong was at the heart of it.
:42:45. > :42:55.Not just a drug taker, but an enforcer, encouraging other people
:42:55. > :42:59.
:42:59. > :43:04.in the team to take drugs, and very Is the suggestion in the report
:43:04. > :43:07.that Armstrong was at the centre of this, was responsible for it?
:43:07. > :43:11.he really was very much the ringleader, people did as he told.
:43:11. > :43:15.He was the one who co-ordinated it. There are many questions for the
:43:15. > :43:19.authorities. In part, how did they all get away with it for so long.
:43:19. > :43:23.It was almost comical at times. In the report we hear during the tour
:43:23. > :43:27.of Luxembourg the police came to the location where some cyclists
:43:27. > :43:34.were staying. They went outside and hid their drugs in the wood. One of
:43:34. > :43:39.the cyclists joking there will be big trees there soon. We catch up
:43:39. > :43:45.with Daniel Coyle in Ohio. What do you think? It is a sledge-hammer
:43:45. > :43:49.blow. You can dip into the report at any moment, and uncover
:43:49. > :43:54.astonishingly detailed proof. Not one piece does it, but the entire
:43:54. > :43:59.totality of it is never been seen before. Some are calling it the
:43:59. > :44:03.biggest proof of American fraud in history. How did they get away with
:44:03. > :44:07.it? It is a game of hide and seek, the drug testing wasn't
:44:07. > :44:11.sophisticated. It is not a dope test, it is an IQ test, if you can
:44:11. > :44:15.read your watch, keep track of your dosage and figure out where you
:44:15. > :44:20.will be at any given time, it is difficult to evade the drug testing.
:44:20. > :44:26.It is not difficult, anyone could have done it in that age. It is
:44:26. > :44:30.gotten better, the biological stuff has gotten better. It was truly the
:44:30. > :44:33.Wild West and Armstrong of the best cowboy. Anti-doping people at the
:44:33. > :44:36.time would have told you that the doping tests were effective, and if
:44:36. > :44:42.people were passing the tests with flying colours, then there was
:44:42. > :44:46.nothing to worry about. There must be serious questions for them now?
:44:46. > :44:50.There are, very serious questions. It stems from a structural problem.
:44:50. > :44:53.The game governing body that was policing the sport, was also
:44:53. > :44:58.promoting the sport, putting them at odds. A lot of people are taking
:44:58. > :45:01.a hard look at the UCI, governing body, and their role. Among the
:45:01. > :45:09.material in this report are some accounts of phone calls connections
:45:09. > :45:12.that may have gotten Lance off a suspicious test in 2001. We have
:45:12. > :45:17.repeated Lance Armstrong's denials and the comments from his lawyer.
:45:17. > :45:20.Is there any way back from this for him. Can he explain it away. Would
:45:20. > :45:25.people believe him? I don't think at this point, with a certain
:45:25. > :45:29.number of his following it is not about logic or facts. They believe
:45:29. > :45:34.in Armstrong, he is a hero to them. To be fair, he has been an
:45:34. > :45:37.inspirational figure. The problem is, the core of his inspiration and
:45:37. > :45:41.his person is the fact he won so many times, not merely that he came
:45:41. > :45:49.back to the top of his sport, but that he won. No, I think he will be
:45:49. > :45:53.haunted by this in every way. It is a 1,000-page document. You can't
:45:53. > :45:57.imagine him going forward in this and simply ignoring it. Thank you