10/10/2012 Newsnight


10/10/2012

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


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

David Cameron, posh, and proud. They call us the party of the

:00:12.:00:16.

better off, no, we're the party of the want to be better off, those

:00:16.:00:20.

who strive to make a better life for themselves. We should never be

:00:20.:00:24.

ashamed of saying so. We will get the verdict on the speech from the

:00:24.:00:27.

Culture Secretary, Maria Miller. What did our political panel make

:00:27.:00:34.

of it. Defining. Conservative. Clever. Let's hope they are nor

:00:34.:00:36.

expansive for the ten-minute discussion.

:00:36.:00:42.

What is offensive and criminally offensive on Twitter. We try to

:00:42.:00:48.

offend the man who has to decide I was to say you made up your

:00:48.:00:53.

qualifications and do unspeakable things to farm animals. Abort, I

:00:53.:00:55.

bort, the creation of the world's biggest defence company is aborted

:00:55.:01:00.

at the last minute. Has Lance Armstrong run out of road finally,

:01:00.:01:10.

a 1,000-page doping dossier has just been made public tonight.

:01:10.:01:14.

It may not be what you want to hear as you prepare for bed, perhaps you

:01:14.:01:18.

are already half asleep, but the Prime Minister wants you to rise.

:01:18.:01:22.

He believes you can rise. Your friends and neighbours can rise,

:01:22.:01:28.

Britain can rise. At the end of the speech, conference rose, will his

:01:28.:01:35.

party's poll ratings do the same? Allegra watched it all, what are

:01:35.:01:40.

your thoughts? It was supposed to be an inconsequential conference

:01:40.:01:45.

season, in the doldrum, then we had two chunky good speeches, nothing

:01:45.:01:49.

short of the reinvigoration of the moment of the political speech.

:01:49.:01:53.

Before we journalists would go into a hall and have it all written out

:01:53.:01:59.

in front of us, and not having to listen. Both the Miliband and

:01:59.:02:02.

Cameron speeches were great in their own ways. The Miliband

:02:02.:02:06.

victory was a style and voice thing, comparing apples and pears to see

:02:06.:02:11.

the two side-by-side. The Cameron one is style too, the voice is good,

:02:11.:02:15.

but also an argument. Both very interesting political moments. And

:02:15.:02:20.

they have set, they are in response to each other as well. They are

:02:20.:02:25.

quite, it is dynamic political moments, I'm afraid poor old Nick

:02:25.:02:28.

Clegg not involved in it. Parliament comes back next week,

:02:28.:02:32.

and both have them have questions to answer, Ed Miliband has big

:02:32.:02:34.

questions to answer about the deficit, which he didn't mention in

:02:34.:02:37.

the speech. I don't think he needed to, I think the speech was meant to

:02:37.:02:42.

be about the voice. It wasn't meant to be a step-by-step, what I would

:02:42.:02:46.

do in Government. Now the real work begins. David Cameron has questions

:02:46.:02:52.

on lots of things, including Europe, it will be a terrible autumn for

:02:52.:02:57.

him. But today, he impressed too. 60 minutes is not a long time in

:02:57.:03:01.

parliament, especially when you have had years getting used to one

:03:01.:03:04.

man. This autumn two politicians used their hour to great effect.

:03:04.:03:09.

Last week, two years in, Ed Miliband introduced himself. This

:03:09.:03:14.

week, seven years from his debut, the Prime Minister reintroduced

:03:14.:03:21.

himself. White van man, Essex man, strivers not skivers, these are the

:03:21.:03:27.

targets. He is showing today that he has exactly the same ethics of

:03:27.:03:30.

these targets. Last week Ed Miliband claimed the idea of one-

:03:30.:03:33.

nation, the Prime Minister today will claim it back. He came

:03:33.:03:36.

straight out of the blocks with the reminder that he is the one in

:03:37.:03:40.

charge. As Prime Minister it has fallen to me to say some hard

:03:40.:03:44.

things, and help our country face some hard truths. All of my adult

:03:44.:03:48.

life, whatever the difficulties, the British people have at least

:03:48.:03:52.

been confident about one thing, we have thought we can pay our way.

:03:52.:03:57.

That we can earn our living as a major industrial country, and we

:03:57.:04:04.

will always remain one. It has fallen to us to say that we cannot

:04:04.:04:09.

assume that any longer. Unless we act, unless we take difficult,

:04:09.:04:13.

painful decisions, unless we show determination and imagination,

:04:13.:04:19.

Britain may not be, in the future, what it has been in the past.

:04:19.:04:23.

political, patriotic and personal were interwoven throughout. Do you

:04:23.:04:28.

know something, I'm so grateful for what those paralympians did. When I

:04:28.:04:34.

used to push my son, Ivan, around in his wheelchair, I used to think

:04:34.:04:38.

that too many people saw the wheelchair and not the boy. I think

:04:38.:04:42.

today more people would see the boy and not the wheelchair, that is

:04:42.:04:52.

because of what happened in Britain this summer.

:04:52.:04:56.

APPLAUSE But while Ed Miliband's speech

:04:56.:05:01.

could be described as him finding his feet. The Prime Minister's saw

:05:01.:05:06.

David Cameron getting up on his toes. He set out an agenda, many in

:05:06.:05:15.

his own cabinet, have craved him to set out before they came to

:05:15.:05:20.

Government. We have been set by a woman when women was sidelined, and

:05:20.:05:24.

a Jew when Jews were persecute, we don't look at the label on the tin,

:05:24.:05:31.

we look at what is in it. Let me put it another way, we don't preach

:05:31.:05:34.

about one-nation and get behind class law, we just get behind

:05:34.:05:38.

people who want to get on in life. APPLAUSE.

:05:38.:05:42.

While the other intellectuals of other parties might sneer at people

:05:42.:05:46.

who want to get on in life, we, here, salute you, they call us the

:05:46.:05:52.

party of the better-off, no, we are the party of the want-to-be-better-

:05:52.:05:56.

off, those who strive to make a better life for themselves, we

:05:56.:06:02.

should never be ashamed of saying The classic tenants of a ring-

:06:02.:06:06.

fenced NHS, gay marriage and other things was emphasised in the speech.

:06:06.:06:11.

But also crime, welfare, to the delight of many Conservatives who

:06:11.:06:16.

wondered why the party compromised by reaching out to the south, and

:06:16.:06:20.

forget the centre. The reason we want to reform schools, to cut

:06:20.:06:23.

welfare dependency and reduce spending, is not because we are the

:06:23.:06:26.

same old Tories who want to help the rich, it is because we are the

:06:26.:06:31.

Tories whose ideas help everyone, the poorest the most. A strong

:06:31.:06:37.

private sector, welfare that works, schools that teach, and, do you

:06:37.:06:41.

know what, Labour will fight each and every one of them, every step

:06:41.:06:46.

of the way. So these things, these three things are not just the

:06:46.:06:50.

battleground for Britain's future, they are also the battlelines for

:06:50.:06:54.

the next election. It is a fight we have got to win for our party, for

:06:54.:06:57.

our country, but, above all, for our nation's future.

:06:57.:07:04.

APPLAUSE. And the Prime Minister even dared

:07:04.:07:11.

to fire an Eton rifle. I want more free schools, more academies, more

:07:11.:07:15.

rigorous exams, more expect of every child in every school d more

:07:16.:07:19.

expected of every child in every school. For those who say he wants

:07:19.:07:23.

children to have the kind of education he had at his posh school.

:07:23.:07:27.

Do you know what I say, I say you're absolutely right, I went to

:07:27.:07:31.

great school, I want every child to have that sort of education. He did

:07:31.:07:35.

not deny his stories of privilege, but he deployed them instead.

:07:35.:07:40.

dad of the eternal optimist, to him the glass was always half full,

:07:40.:07:44.

usually with something fairly alcoholic in it. And he told me

:07:44.:07:49.

what he was most proud of. And it was simple, it was working hard

:07:49.:07:54.

from the moment he left school, and providing a God start in life for

:07:54.:07:58.

his family. -- a good start in life for his family. Not just all of us,

:07:58.:08:02.

but helping his mum too when his father ran off. Not a hard luck

:08:02.:08:06.

story, but a hard work story. For the first time this year David

:08:06.:08:09.

Cameron's speech was written by a woman, who in her spare time, is

:08:09.:08:14.

also a poet, you could tell. It was a good speech, well delivered and

:08:14.:08:16.

well written. The difference between the Ed Miliband speech and

:08:16.:08:20.

David Cameron's speech was quite stark, though, David Cameron stood

:08:20.:08:24.

firmly behind his lectern, he thumped it very many times, this is

:08:24.:08:27.

a man who is making the point that he's rooted in Government and the

:08:28.:08:34.

act of governing. Today saw the second half of what would hack

:08:34.:08:38.

2012's tale of two speeches. Ed Miliband raised had his game,

:08:38.:08:42.

nudging up David Cameron's. Politics has been in a lob-sided

:08:42.:08:48.

period, with one side more than another. Today politics got a bit

:08:48.:08:53.

more life in it. Maria Miller is the Secretary of

:08:53.:08:57.

State for Culture, Media and Sport, also the Minister for Women and

:08:57.:09:00.

Equalities. Was this the speech where David Cameron came out as

:09:01.:09:04.

posh? I think it was a powerful speech, because it powerfully set

:09:04.:09:08.

out the real problems our country faces. But it also set out the plan

:09:08.:09:12.

we are following to deal with those problems. The welfare reform,

:09:12.:09:16.

education, and importantly, tied that back to the main theme of the

:09:16.:09:20.

speech, which was all about how we can help the poorest in society to

:09:20.:09:25.

get that opportunity to get on. all that unashamed stuff about his

:09:25.:09:30.

own privileged background, hook to his message that he want to make

:09:30.:09:34.

more people privileged. It was quiteen ashamed? I think it was

:09:34.:09:37.

about how David Cameron the man is drawing on his expowerences, to say

:09:37.:09:42.

that we need to have that -- experiences, to say we need to have

:09:42.:09:44.

that opportunity available for more people in this country. Opportunity

:09:44.:09:47.

is the reason I became a Conservative. It is not a new

:09:47.:09:51.

principle, but today it was really clearly articulated, particularly

:09:51.:09:55.

in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill, and also the reform of

:09:55.:09:58.

education. He did talk about the Conservative Party being for all,

:09:58.:10:03.

north and south, black and white, gay or straight, but he didn't talk

:10:03.:10:06.

specifically, really, about gay marriage, and given the reception

:10:06.:10:10.

you got, you can't really blame him. Half the hall sat, according to the

:10:10.:10:16.

Press Association, older party members sat stoney-faced and arms

:10:16.:10:19.

crossed, what was that like? We are clear as party we are absolutely

:10:19.:10:24.

committed to the idea of equal civil marriage. What is it like

:10:24.:10:27.

looking out to your own party looking at the older members

:10:27.:10:30.

sitting there cross armed? Sometimes we have to take tough

:10:30.:10:35.

decisions, either on the economy or things like equal civil marriage.

:10:35.:10:40.

For me marriage is a bedrock to society, a way to create stability.

:10:40.:10:44.

Simply because you are gay, does not mean you shouldn't have access

:10:44.:10:47.

to getting married. It is an important concept and something

:10:47.:10:51.

that should be open to everybody. We really need to make sure we look

:10:51.:10:54.

outside to the country as a whole. That is what I'm asking you about,

:10:54.:10:58.

it is all very well for David Cameron to say, north or south, gay

:10:58.:11:03.

or straight, but what should outsiders make of the reception to

:11:03.:11:07.

your remarks in the hall. Which bit of the Conservative Party should

:11:07.:11:10.

they listen to, you? I heard a very positive reception in the hall.

:11:11.:11:15.

Some younger people cheered and whooped, don't get me wrong, there

:11:15.:11:19.

was a substantial rump who were very unhappy about it. Who should

:11:19.:11:23.

we listen to? What you should listen to are the very positive

:11:23.:11:28.

arguments around civil marriage. And ignore everyone else?

:11:28.:11:31.

importance of stability in society. I think that is something that

:11:31.:11:36.

unites people of all ages, and all opinions. What we have to do is

:11:36.:11:43.

make sure that people are really confident that they can embrace the

:11:43.:11:47.

idea of civil marriage and stay true to their beliefs. I find the

:11:47.:11:50.

main area of concern in civil marriage is the impact it will have

:11:50.:11:54.

on the church. The thing that I have been doing over conference,

:11:54.:12:01.

and over the last few weeks, is to make sure it is clear that it is

:12:01.:12:08.

not the Government's intention to impact the way any churches do

:12:08.:12:12.

marriage. David Cameron wants to attract women to the party and

:12:13.:12:16.

voters, has that been made more difficult by a Health Secretary who

:12:16.:12:21.

is male and has the private view that 12 weeks should be the

:12:21.:12:24.

abortion limit? I think what women voters in this country are looking

:12:24.:12:27.

at is a party that is going to tackle the really difficult

:12:27.:12:32.

position that many families find themselves. A party and Government

:12:32.:12:34.

that will be able to really understand the importance of the

:12:34.:12:38.

rising cost of living. Hold on, are you just not going to talk about

:12:38.:12:41.

abortion? What I'm answering is what women really in this country

:12:41.:12:45.

are interested in. They don't care about the abortion limit? First and

:12:45.:12:48.

foremost they are interested in making sure they have a Government

:12:48.:12:52.

in place that understands the economy, understands how we get the

:12:52.:12:55.

deficit down and keep cost of living under control. Those are the

:12:55.:12:59.

key issues that women in this country are looking for. I think as

:12:59.:13:03.

a Government lifting two million people, on the lowest wage, out of

:13:03.:13:07.

the tax bracket all together, many of them women, we're demonstrating

:13:07.:13:10.

that we really understand the importance of getting the country's

:13:10.:13:15.

finances in order. In your role as Culture Secretary, I want to ask

:13:15.:13:19.

you about Jimmy Savile, prior to all the allegations, we now know

:13:19.:13:25.

about, what was your view. You probably grew up with him as all of

:13:25.:13:29.

us did, what was your view before this of Jimmy Savile? I think he

:13:29.:13:32.

was a larger than life character that many of us in different

:13:32.:13:36.

television programmes throughout our lives. What do you think now?

:13:36.:13:40.

think we now should think of the people affected by what clearly has

:13:40.:13:45.

been an enormously difficult situation. Allegations around abuse.

:13:45.:13:48.

My heart goes out to all of those people affected and their families,

:13:48.:13:53.

and I'm really wanting to see and make sure there is a thorough and

:13:53.:13:57.

swift criminal investigation. That is what we should be focusing on.

:13:57.:14:03.

The chairman of the BBC Trust spoke out today, Lord Patten, what do you

:14:03.:14:07.

think about all of this? Lord Patten is right to say if there is

:14:07.:14:10.

a need to do more after the criminal investigation, then the

:14:10.:14:14.

BBC needs to ask the questions. There is serious allegations, not

:14:14.:14:18.

only about the behaviour of Jimmy Savile, but also about the

:14:18.:14:21.

institutional problems around the way women have been treated in the

:14:21.:14:25.

work place, those are serious issues for any organisation.

:14:25.:14:28.

Well, they have already given their one-word response to the Prime

:14:28.:14:32.

Minister's speech, right at the start of the programme, let's hear

:14:32.:14:38.

more from Danny Finkelstein, Sally Morgan, latterly righthand women to

:14:38.:14:42.

Tony Blair, and the journalist, Miranda Green, previously an

:14:42.:14:46.

adviser to Paddy Ashdown. You wrote in the Times today that in

:14:46.:14:54.

preparing for his speech, David Cameron should get a colon os copy.

:14:54.:14:58.

I don't want to go into too much about that, but the way they affect

:14:58.:15:03.

people about pain is the end, if the end is easier people don't mind

:15:03.:15:06.

the duration. I was suggesting that David Cameron has to think about

:15:06.:15:08.

how he want to fight the next general election, and think about

:15:08.:15:12.

how he wants to land in the last year, and not think so much about

:15:12.:15:16.

how he is fighting the election, how he's going to deal with the

:15:16.:15:19.

problems now. In other words, he has to have good, forward planning,

:15:19.:15:25.

that was the argument. On the basis of what you saw, did he take your

:15:25.:15:29.

advice? I used the word "defining", because what I felt about that

:15:29.:15:34.

speech is he set out what he regarded the key issues in power.

:15:34.:15:37.

If someone gets up for 45 minutes and says things you agree with, you

:15:37.:15:44.

will like t and if you don't agree with it you won't like it, it won't

:15:44.:15:48.

persuade you. Swing voters won't have seen it so it won't change

:15:48.:15:52.

public opinion. I think he made a good effort at defining what his

:15:52.:15:56.

Premiership is about. What the key priorities for the Government is.

:15:56.:16:00.

That is successful if you can do that in a speech. He hasn't always

:16:00.:16:03.

been successful in doing that in party conference speeches,

:16:03.:16:07.

sometimes they have been too long or defuse. This one was

:16:07.:16:10.

concentrated and hit the mark. Miranda Green, he managed to keep

:16:10.:16:13.

the duration down by not mentioning the Liberal Democrats at all?

:16:13.:16:17.

think that was probably quite a good thing. Because it was a very,

:16:17.:16:21.

very Tory speech for a Tory audience. I thought what was

:16:21.:16:27.

interesting about the whole conference season, is how navel

:16:27.:16:31.

gazing each party has been. Each leader, at bay, has had to defend

:16:31.:16:35.

himself from attack. David Cameron did do very well today, he was

:16:35.:16:39.

addressing Conservatives. And as Danny said, people in sympathy with

:16:39.:16:42.

that view of the world will have thought it was an excellent speech.

:16:42.:16:45.

I thought it was a very good speech, as a political speech. He did what

:16:45.:16:50.

he had to do. I have a feeling that his Liberal Democrat colleagues and

:16:50.:16:53.

their supporters will not be warming to those messages in the

:16:53.:16:57.

same way that Danny has. Sally Morgan, some useful sideswipes at

:16:57.:17:00.

Ed Miliband's one-nation, and all that talk of privilege and being

:17:00.:17:04.

proud of it, and wanting to spread that? I thought what was

:17:04.:17:09.

interesting is he did feel he had to react to Ed's speech last week.

:17:09.:17:12.

In a sense, that was speaking for itself. That Ed had been daring,

:17:12.:17:17.

and had grabbed the centre. So David Cameron had to push, or

:17:17.:17:20.

attempt to push Ed back to the left, which was what he was trying to do

:17:20.:17:24.

in the speech today. For me the stuff about privilege didn't work

:17:24.:17:28.

so well. The notion that some how you will spread privilege is a very

:17:28.:17:31.

odd concept. Privilege is always for the few. The idea that a few

:17:31.:17:36.

more will get a bit of privilege doesn't quite work. It not an

:17:36.:17:40.

argument for the many, it is still an argument for the few. I could

:17:40.:17:44.

see what he was trying to do, but for me it wasn't effective.

:17:44.:17:47.

wonder how different the speech would have been if Ed Miliband had

:17:47.:17:50.

done something different last week, how much of it was a response?

:17:50.:17:54.

don't think it was terribly a response to Ed Miliband. I think he

:17:54.:17:58.

obviously, each leader will respond to what happened before, but really,

:17:58.:18:02.

what David Cameron needed to do was, he did need to give a good

:18:02.:18:05.

performance, in that sense it was a response. It did put pressure on

:18:05.:18:11.

him to make it was -- make sure it was a good speech. I'm sure that

:18:11.:18:20.

made it better. He's a great emergency merchant, if he's under

:18:20.:18:23.

pressure he will do something much better than otherwise. This was

:18:23.:18:26.

that. That was a response to Ed Miliband. Politically I think he

:18:26.:18:29.

was trying to do something else. I think he was trying to resolve. One

:18:29.:18:32.

of the things that wasn't in the speech, for example, was a lot of

:18:32.:18:35.

the stuff about an invitation to join the Government, and to run

:18:35.:18:40.

your own school. It was much more about the quality of schools, and

:18:40.:18:44.

quality of health, and welfare reform, which lots of people in the

:18:44.:18:49.

centre do support. That, last year, both that message, and the

:18:49.:18:53.

invitation to form a Government, were both in the speech. I think

:18:53.:18:56.

he's resolved that strategic confusion. I think, correctly,

:18:56.:19:02.

because I think that is a very effective electoral message. I also

:19:02.:19:06.

thought it was a very good response to Ed Miliband, to use that list of

:19:06.:19:10.

Conservative prime ministers, who are outsiders. I actually thought

:19:10.:19:13.

that was very impressive as a moment, whatever your politics, you

:19:13.:19:17.

have to give the Conservative Party credit for the people that they

:19:17.:19:21.

have put in Number Ten, who are not of their own ilk. So I think, in

:19:21.:19:25.

that sort of theme of aspiration, we want everyone to get on, that

:19:25.:19:30.

was very clever as a response to Ed Miliband's cheeky Disraeli stuff

:19:30.:19:35.

last week. He was reclaiming that. He was reclaiming that

:19:35.:19:39.

compassionate Conservative. reason why it couldn't be much of a

:19:39.:19:41.

response for Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband was trying to say I'm

:19:41.:19:45.

better than you think I am, he succeed in doing that to the

:19:45.:19:49.

Westminster loby, outside people are less watching. And nothing

:19:49.:19:52.

David Cameron can do could take that away. He had been to be good

:19:52.:19:58.

himself. Which I think he was. about Sally Morgan, reaching out to

:19:58.:20:04.

the non-committed voter, will this speech and the reporting of it,

:20:04.:20:09.

will it endear him in way and bring back disenchanted Tories? I think

:20:09.:20:13.

really, above all, it was talking to the hall, but I think he was

:20:13.:20:16.

also trying to look a little bit to the Thatcherite voters. They were

:20:16.:20:21.

the people, it seemed to me, he was trying to aim towards. And I think,

:20:21.:20:26.

it will have an effect in the kind of M25 belt. That was the group he

:20:26.:20:29.

was after, I think. It would do if they heard it. The really important

:20:29.:20:32.

thing about party conference speeches is people aren't watching.

:20:32.:20:35.

I said this about Ed Miliband, it would be remisnot to repeat the

:20:35.:20:38.

point when it is David Cameron, people aren't watching, so they

:20:38.:20:41.

didn't see it. They will have watched one or two little clips. It

:20:41.:20:44.

might marginally effect what they think. They are not following it

:20:44.:20:47.

carefully. The key thing with the speeches, with one-nation and this

:20:47.:20:50.

speech, and the strategy for the Liberal Democrats, it is

:20:50.:20:54.

consistency. You see John Major, the opportunity for all in 1996,

:20:54.:20:59.

and never spoke about it again. Tony Blair did that battle, there

:21:00.:21:03.

are two kinds of or forces of Conservatism, and never talked

:21:03.:21:07.

about it again. The key thing is will Ed Miliband turn one-nation

:21:07.:21:12.

into a proper concept and idea, I dove my doubts, we will see. Can

:21:12.:21:17.

dam -- I do have my doubts, we will see. Can David Cameron turn his

:21:17.:21:23.

Britain can sink or swim into idea. What about the personal back

:21:23.:21:27.

stories politicians insist on telling us time and time again in

:21:27.:21:32.

speeches, do do you find it endearing or are you reaching for

:21:32.:21:36.

the sick bag? When David Cameron talks about his son, it is

:21:36.:21:40.

difficult not to be move. It was a difficult moment to hear his voice

:21:40.:21:45.

break. I agree with the implication of your question. It all gets a bit

:21:45.:21:48.

emotionally exhausting, and sometimes. It must work, they must

:21:48.:21:54.

do it because they think it works? I was grateful when he moved on to

:21:54.:21:59.

I'm the managing director and here is my agenda for the company. That

:21:59.:22:03.

was more comfortable to listen to. The bit about his dad was defensive

:22:03.:22:08.

as well, saying I did have a comfy background, but not as campy as you

:22:08.:22:12.

think. For me that didn't -- comfy as you think. For me that didn't

:22:12.:22:18.

work as well. Both have an atypical background, Ed Miliband knows the

:22:18.:22:22.

people from the primrose hill and Hampstead Heath, it is my

:22:23.:22:29.

background, so I'm not knocking it, he's the son of a professor, as I

:22:29.:22:37.

am, and David Cameron. Labour distinguish between Harriet

:22:37.:22:42.

Harman's St Paul's school for girls and a different school for boys is

:22:42.:22:46.

likely to disappoint much. There are a billion people on Facebook,

:22:46.:22:50.

there are more than a quarter of a billion tweets on Twitter every day,

:22:50.:22:55.

how do you police that. Should you even bother. People are being fined

:22:55.:22:58.

and jailed for comments they have made on-line. And now, the most

:22:58.:23:03.

senior prosecutor in England and Wales, is trying to draw up

:23:03.:23:06.

guidelines, he hopes, will work. You will hear from him, after we

:23:06.:23:10.

reveal a big rise in the number of complaints that police have been

:23:10.:23:14.

asked to investigate. Two court cases this week, two ways in which

:23:14.:23:19.

the Internet is now challenging the British legal system. Azhar Ahmed

:23:19.:23:22.

from Dewsbury was given a community sentence for posting angry comments

:23:22.:23:28.

about the death of British soldiers on Facebook. A day earlier Matthew

:23:28.:23:33.

Wood went to jail for off-colour jokes about the missing schoolgirl,

:23:33.:23:37.

April Jones. The comments, both made on-line, were unpleasant to

:23:37.:23:42.

most people, but should they also be illegal? Two years ago Paul

:23:42.:23:46.

Chambers, became one of the first people to be found guilty of send

:23:46.:23:49.

ago threatening message on another social network site, this time

:23:49.:23:55.

Twitter. He said he would blow his local airport sky high if it didn't

:23:55.:23:59.

reopen after heavy snowfall. His conviction was eventually

:23:59.:24:04.

overturned, when the judge agreed it was just a bad joke. Two cases

:24:04.:24:07.

this week show nothing has been learned at all. After my own

:24:07.:24:11.

verdict was given in the High Court after my appeal was juped held, and

:24:11.:24:17.

after the DPP said -- upheld, and after the DPP said guidance would

:24:17.:24:21.

be given to prosecutor, it looked as if steps would be taken and

:24:21.:24:25.

common sense applied. Now we have the Azhar Ahmed case, with guilty

:24:25.:24:28.

verdicts found and ridiculous sentences given, we are going

:24:28.:24:31.

backwards, if anything. Many of the high-profile cases, brought to

:24:31.:24:36.

trial so far, use a little known part of the law, Section 127 of the

:24:36.:24:41.

communications act, makes it an offence to post menacing or

:24:41.:24:44.

offensive material on-line of they want it to be properly

:24:44.:24:49.

American, they want a nerdy kid to come in with the rifle. While a

:24:49.:24:53.

comedian can make an offensive joke on the stage or in the pub, exactly

:24:53.:24:57.

the same material on-line, could, in theory, get somebody arrested.

:24:57.:25:00.

We think the reason that is happening, is the law that is being

:25:00.:25:04.

used, the scratch communications Act 2003, was not created for the

:25:04.:25:10.

purpose. Back in 2003 when the law was being drafted, nobody had any

:25:10.:25:16.

idea that YouTube, Facebook or Twitter would be such a part of

:25:16.:25:18.

people's lives. It seems we are really clamping down on free speech,

:25:18.:25:22.

just at a time when so many people have more access to communications

:25:22.:25:27.

and debates an arguments than ever before. This is not just about

:25:27.:25:30.

public figures, and it is not just about jokes, police are now seeing

:25:30.:25:34.

a real increase in the number of general cases they are asked to

:25:34.:25:38.

investigate, after threatening messages are posted on the Internet.

:25:38.:25:43.

Newsnight asked every force for harassment cases involving Facebook

:25:43.:25:53.
:25:53.:25:58.

While some of those cases will be serious, police officers we have

:25:58.:26:02.

spoken to think they are now being dragged into too many petty rows.

:26:02.:26:06.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is now holding talks with lawyers,

:26:06.:26:11.

academics and the police to draw up new guidelines for the courts. It's

:26:11.:26:14.

likely websites themselves will be told to improve the way they take

:26:14.:26:18.

down offensive comments, and ban repeat offender. Though Facebook

:26:19.:26:23.

and Twitter may be reluctant to go too far and really start to

:26:23.:26:32.

moderate and sensor content them -- censor content themselves. This is

:26:32.:26:36.

Myjam, one of the founders says it is not practical for a small site

:26:36.:26:42.

to keep an eye on everything that is said on-line. We are not in a

:26:42.:26:46.

position where we want to survey our users, there is no way with a

:26:46.:26:50.

team of four people we could monitor the hundreds of thousand of

:26:50.:26:53.

post that is go up each week. Ultimately we wouldn't want. To it

:26:53.:26:58.

is not our job to police individual comment. What we are here to do is

:26:58.:27:02.

impose some, to suggest some community guidelines, and have the

:27:02.:27:06.

community discuss that between themselves. The worry for many in

:27:06.:27:11.

the Internet community is that any new guidelines, if they are too

:27:11.:27:13.

prescriptive, could put sites like this out of business. Get this

:27:13.:27:17.

wrong, they say, and it could be make it harder, not easier, to work

:27:17.:27:23.

out where the limits are in the on- line world.

:27:23.:27:25.

Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecution, he has been consulting

:27:25.:27:30.

with lawyers and police trying to find a sensible set of guidelines.

:27:30.:27:33.

When I spoke to him earlier, he said he was worried about the

:27:33.:27:37.

chilling effect on free speech. I asked him what he has learned so

:27:37.:27:42.

far on dealing with offensive messages. One of the difficulties

:27:42.:27:46.

here is the law prohibits grossly offensive messages, we have to work

:27:46.:27:52.

within the law as it is. It occurs to me that amongst the man million

:27:52.:27:56.

communications that go on -- the many million communecations that go

:27:56.:27:59.

on daily, quite a number would fall into that category. We have to see

:27:59.:28:04.

how the Crown Prosecution Service can act as some sort of filter or

:28:04.:28:09.

gate-keeper. The emerging thinking in the Round Table is it might be

:28:09.:28:13.

sensible to divide and separate cases where there is a campaign of

:28:13.:28:17.

harassment, and social media is being used as the means of

:28:17.:28:22.

harassment, and cases where the -- where there is a credible and

:28:22.:28:26.

genuine threat, put them on one side and prosecute in those sort of

:28:26.:28:31.

case. To put in another category, communications which are, as it

:28:31.:28:35.

were, merely offensive or grossly offensive, it doesn't mean the

:28:35.:28:39.

second category are ring-fenced from prosecution, it does enable us

:28:39.:28:44.

to look at that group in a slightly different way. How high on the

:28:44.:28:48.

second subset, how high must the bar be? We have heard of people

:28:48.:28:53.

going to jail for saying unpleasant thing about missing children, other

:28:53.:28:56.

people have been fined and given community service for saying

:28:56.:29:00.

unpleasant thing about dead British soldiers. In your view, in future,

:29:00.:29:04.

is that the sort of thing that should be criminally investigated?

:29:04.:29:07.

The threshold for prosecution has to be high. Higher than I have just

:29:08.:29:12.

described? We live in a democracy, if free speech to be protect, there

:29:12.:29:15.

has to be a high threshold, people have the right to be offensive,

:29:15.:29:20.

they have the right to be insulting, that has to be protected. That is

:29:20.:29:24.

pretty clear? Context is everything. I think the difficult cases so far

:29:24.:29:28.

have involved comments that have been made in a situation which is

:29:28.:29:33.

highly charged or emotional, and judgment calls have to be made

:29:33.:29:37.

about the particular context. But this is not easy. If this was easy

:29:37.:29:41.

we wouldn't be having this debate. These are particularly difficult

:29:41.:29:46.

judgment calls. What I want to achieve is consistency, and a fair

:29:46.:29:49.

balance in these cases. But in future, for example, Matthew Wood,

:29:49.:29:55.

who was jailed for making comments when he did, about the missing girl,

:29:55.:29:59.

April Jones, does that cross the bar? In that case, as you know,

:29:59.:30:03.

pleaded guilty. The court sentenced him in the way they did. There are

:30:03.:30:08.

clearly strong views on eithered side here. Some say that is an

:30:08.:30:12.

infringement of free speech. What do you say? On the other hand the

:30:12.:30:16.

courts have taken it seriously. If one looks at what was actually said,

:30:16.:30:19.

and asks the question was it grossly offensive, the answer is,

:30:19.:30:23.

yes, it was. There were some particularly offensive comments

:30:23.:30:29.

made. What I want to achieve in the guidelines is, a sense of which of

:30:29.:30:32.

even the grossly offensive case require a criminal prosecution.

:30:32.:30:36.

sounds like you would like to see far fewer prosecution? I think if

:30:37.:30:40.

there are a lot of prosecutions it will have a chilling effect on free

:30:40.:30:45.

speech. I think that is very important as a consideration.

:30:45.:30:50.

will police it? Facebook and Twitter, will they have to take on

:30:50.:30:54.

thousands of extra staff, or will it be left to users, as it is at

:30:54.:30:59.

the moment, to police? One the participants in the Round Table of

:30:59.:31:03.

the policy director of Facebook, I'm trying to set up meetings with

:31:03.:31:06.

the service providers, really to say to them, you have a

:31:06.:31:09.

responsibility here. In many of these cases the appropriate

:31:09.:31:13.

response may be for you to take this material down, swiftly, and

:31:13.:31:18.

that may reduce the requirements for a criminal prosduegs.

:31:18.:31:22.

Facebook and Twitter and social media going to be treated

:31:22.:31:26.

differently. Will it be easier to be offensive on them, still, than

:31:26.:31:31.

it is to be on television, radio and newspapers? No, I think the

:31:31.:31:40.

things about radio and television is there is a degree of testing. On

:31:40.:31:44.

media sites people can move swiftly from communicating to a few people

:31:44.:31:50.

to broadcasting to millions. They are all integrated aren't they?

:31:50.:31:53.

but the offence covers all those types of communications, that is

:31:53.:31:58.

where the problem lies. Yes, but if I were to lie about you on

:31:58.:32:01.

television, if I was to sit here and say you made up all your

:32:01.:32:05.

qualifications and you do unspeakable things to farm animals,

:32:05.:32:10.

the BBC, Ofcom, who knows, they will come down on me like a tonne

:32:10.:32:14.

of brick. If I stweeted that about you, from -- tweeted that, from

:32:14.:32:19.

what you are telling me, you would just have to accept that? I could

:32:19.:32:25.

appeal to the regulator, and there may absence of some sort of

:32:25.:32:28.

regulating in this area that is unregulated. At the moment we have

:32:28.:32:31.

an overarching criminal offence that applies to all those

:32:31.:32:37.

communications. That is part of the problem. If a criminal response is

:32:37.:32:41.

the only available response, then there might be the temptation to

:32:42.:32:48.

resort too quickly to that response. In other fields or other areas, the

:32:48.:32:53.

appropriate route might be by way of complaint or some other remedy.

:32:53.:33:03.
:33:03.:33:05.

What do you get if you merge the letters BAe and EADS? SEBED or

:33:05.:33:08.

DEBASE. When it comes to trying to merge the companies of the same

:33:08.:33:13.

name, you get a big recrimination- filled mess. Why does it matter?

:33:14.:33:17.

Whatever your views on the subject, Britain is still pretty good at

:33:17.:33:21.

make weapons much they have a number of specialist industries.

:33:21.:33:25.

The jobs -- weapons. They have a number of specialist industries,

:33:25.:33:30.

the jobs are good and they export the stuff. BAe is, head and

:33:30.:33:33.

shoulders, the best weapons manufacturers in Britain and Europe.

:33:33.:33:38.

It employs 35,000 people, indirectly 120,000 people. Who it

:33:38.:33:41.

merges with actually matters, because the technology then can

:33:41.:33:46.

either be exported and won and lost. It was due to merge with EADS, that

:33:46.:33:51.

died, of course, today, EADS owns Airbus, they would have formed a

:33:51.:33:54.

giant civil and military aviation giant. But now it is not happening.

:33:54.:34:02.

What went wrong? Well, to misquote Harold Macmillan, "politics my dear

:34:02.:34:05.

boy, politics", the French the Germans and the Brits all had

:34:05.:34:09.

strong views about where the HQ was to be based and where it was not to

:34:09.:34:15.

be base. In the event of factories having to close in the future, they

:34:15.:34:19.

all adapted political nimbyism, the Germans said they wouldn't lose any

:34:19.:34:29.

factories, and so did the French. The Germans were worried the civil

:34:29.:34:33.

bit would be in Toulouse, and then the military bit in Farnborough,

:34:33.:34:41.

they wouldn't accept it. The shareholders were livid. The major

:34:41.:34:46.

shareholder from BAe said they wanted to launch a missile at the

:34:46.:34:51.

merger and they hit their target. What will happen to BAe? To quote

:34:51.:34:55.

the City they are "in play". If you look at the share price over the

:34:55.:34:59.

last few years you will see why. It is an amazing graph. It is a

:34:59.:35:02.

downward curve, the reason for that is they are dependant on defence

:35:02.:35:08.

spending, mostly in the US and the UK. 70% of the business is in the

:35:08.:35:13.

US and UK. The curve is going down because defence budgets are

:35:13.:35:17.

squeezed post financial crycy. They need to find way to -- crisis. They

:35:17.:35:22.

need to find a way to perk the curve up. I spoke to a senior

:35:22.:35:27.

person in the industry, he talked about a plan floated a year ago,

:35:27.:35:32.

poo pooed at the time, but may come back. BAe systems hives off its

:35:32.:35:36.

American business, with the �10 billion they get, they pay off

:35:36.:35:42.

their pensions deficit, which is �5 billion, they focus on emerging

:35:42.:35:45.

markets, Asia, and Africa. The final question is what happens to

:35:45.:35:49.

the boss, why did they press ahead with the deal, when they didn't

:35:49.:35:52.

have the support of the shareholder, lukewarm response from the

:35:52.:35:58.

Governments, and factory workers are more nervous than before. Tom

:35:58.:36:01.

Enders and Ian King may have their feet tailed to the fire in the next

:36:01.:36:07.

AGM. Let's hear now BR from the Liberal Democrat MP and former

:36:07.:36:10.

armed -- from the Liberal Democrat MP and the former Armed Forces

:36:10.:36:15.

Minister. What do you make of what has happened? I think it is a

:36:15.:36:18.

missed opportunity. I hope BAe workers and shareholders don't

:36:18.:36:22.

regret it in years to um K the commercial logic of putting

:36:22.:36:28.

together with EADS with the strong position in the civil aviation

:36:28.:36:32.

market, and BAe with its strong reputation and access to the US

:36:32.:36:37.

market, was, in my view, overwhelming. It is a real shame to

:36:37.:36:43.

see this go down. I think one of the problems is, in so far as one

:36:43.:36:47.

can ascertain, a leak caused it to come into the public domain before

:36:47.:36:51.

some of the political spade work had been done. Personally I hope

:36:51.:36:55.

they get another go at it in the future. I'm not holding my breath

:36:55.:36:59.

on that. Is it down to a leak, you get the idea from some reports that

:36:59.:37:03.

the Germans would never have bought this? That might be true, I'm not

:37:03.:37:07.

in a position to say. It would be unlikely they would have chosen to

:37:07.:37:11.

play this out publicly, immediately before an American election. My

:37:11.:37:19.

sense is they were probably aim to go make the merger effective early

:37:19.:37:24.

next year. Something blew and there are so many vested interests I

:37:24.:37:27.

wouldn't speculate who or what causeded it to blow. Do you share

:37:27.:37:32.

the concerns some people have, had it gone ahead the French and German

:37:32.:37:34.

Governments would have had significant control over areas of

:37:34.:37:39.

Britain's national security? think it is a legitimate concern,

:37:39.:37:42.

of course it is rather alien to as you as a market or economy to have

:37:43.:37:47.

situations where Governments have big shares in things. That having

:37:47.:37:53.

been said, we are using EDF, the French energy company, as our

:37:53.:37:58.

principal driver for the next generation of nuclear power station.

:37:58.:38:02.

That has a big French Government stake in it. It may not be the way

:38:02.:38:06.

we do things, but it is common in other countries. The stake that the

:38:06.:38:10.

French and the Germans were going to have, in my view, was reasonable.

:38:10.:38:14.

It was considerably less than the effective control they currently

:38:14.:38:19.

have of EADS. I wouldn't have been too keen on the suggestion that

:38:19.:38:23.

they would have some preferential rights to buy more shares in the

:38:23.:38:26.

future. But actually 9% each for the French and Germans wouldn't

:38:26.:38:32.

have struck me as entirely unreasonable. It is a bit alien to

:38:32.:38:37.

us, but if the Germans were wanting tob to have a great deal more than

:38:37.:38:41.

that, -- to have a great deal more than that, that is probably the

:38:41.:38:46.

explanation as to why it broke down. We see how the BAe share price is

:38:46.:38:50.

going, for the people who rely on BAe for employment, what is the

:38:50.:38:55.

future for them? I think that is grim now. Of course there are many

:38:55.:39:00.

thousands of employees in the UK, who are actually working on the

:39:00.:39:04.

Airbus project, not part of the defence sector at all. It would

:39:04.:39:09.

have strengthened their job certainty quite a lot if the UK had

:39:09.:39:12.

got an equity stake in Airbus again N that sense, with the benefit of

:39:12.:39:17.

hindsight rbgts we can see it was a mistake that BAe got out of Airbus

:39:17.:39:22.

when it did. I think it is an uncertain fate that perhaps awaits

:39:22.:39:26.

them. But also in terms of the defence business, as your last

:39:26.:39:31.

commentator said, there is now a sense that BAe is in play. And if

:39:31.:39:40.

American companies were to come in for BAe, there would be less

:39:40.:39:44.

complimentarity than in the base of EADS, who was bringing a different

:39:44.:39:49.

sort of business that would fit together with BAe's interests. If

:39:49.:39:54.

you get an American defence company buying BAe, they are probably after

:39:54.:39:57.

the order book that BAe has with the American Government. And what

:39:57.:40:01.

interest they will have with some of the work going on here, some of

:40:01.:40:04.

which is inherently unviable in commercial terms, I just don't know.

:40:04.:40:09.

We are awaiting decisions from BAe in the foreseeable future about the

:40:09.:40:14.

future of our shipyards, and that's the sort of business that I don't

:40:14.:40:19.

think an American buyer would have any interest in.

:40:19.:40:25.

For years people have pointed the finger at Lance Armstrong, and

:40:25.:40:30.

accused the world-beating cyclist of being a drugs cheat. He has

:40:30.:40:34.

always denied it and still does. Tonight the United States Anti-

:40:34.:40:38.

Doping Agency is publishing more than 1,000-pages of evidence, which

:40:38.:40:43.

it says, shows Lance Armstrong was at the centre of the most

:40:43.:40:46.

sophisticated and professional doping programme in recent sports

:40:46.:40:56.
:40:56.:41:02.

history. My guests are with me.

:41:02.:41:07.

How damning is this report? In all my years as a sports correspondent

:41:07.:41:12.

I haven't seen anything as damning as this. Armstrong's lawyer has

:41:12.:41:18.

said it is a hatchet job, one-sided. 17 people have testified, 11 former

:41:18.:41:24.

team-mates of Armstrong. All with the same story. The only way to say

:41:24.:41:28.

he's exonerated is to say everyone else is lying. One quote over my

:41:28.:41:31.

shoulder, you will see how confident the US Anti-Doping Agency

:41:31.:41:33.

are with their evidence. They really believe that Lance Armstrong

:41:33.:41:39.

is abts luetly banged to rights -- absolutely banged to rights. We put

:41:39.:41:43.

in a call to Mr Armstrong's lawyer, you mentioned him, he said there is

:41:43.:41:47.

nothing in this report that is new or has come as a surprise to us. It

:41:47.:41:51.

is not a recent decision, it is a kangaroo court. That going to stand

:41:51.:41:56.

up? No, there is information in here which is new. For example,

:41:56.:42:00.

Armstrong's relationship with the doctor Michelle Ferrari, who was

:42:00.:42:06.

disgraced in 2004, found guilty of a drug charge. He has long been

:42:06.:42:12.

suspected to be at the heart of drug taking in cycling. In 2004,

:42:12.:42:15.

when he was found guilty, Armstrong said he would cut ties with emthis.

:42:15.:42:23.

It is shown in the two years after that, from 2004-2006, Armstrong

:42:23.:42:27.

paid him $2 10,000. He continued his relationship. We have

:42:27.:42:31.

information from the Anti-Doping Agency, to those who claimed before

:42:31.:42:35.

that Armstrong failed a drugs test in 2001 and it was covered in by

:42:35.:42:39.

the authorities. Another quote from the US Anti-

:42:39.:42:41.

Doping Agency. They believed Armstrong was at the heart of it.

:42:41.:42:45.

Not just a drug taker, but an enforcer, encouraging other people

:42:45.:42:55.
:42:55.:42:59.

in the team to take drugs, and very Is the suggestion in the report

:42:59.:43:04.

that Armstrong was at the centre of this, was responsible for it?

:43:04.:43:07.

he really was very much the ringleader, people did as he told.

:43:07.:43:11.

He was the one who co-ordinated it. There are many questions for the

:43:11.:43:15.

authorities. In part, how did they all get away with it for so long.

:43:15.:43:19.

It was almost comical at times. In the report we hear during the tour

:43:19.:43:23.

of Luxembourg the police came to the location where some cyclists

:43:23.:43:27.

were staying. They went outside and hid their drugs in the wood. One of

:43:27.:43:34.

the cyclists joking there will be big trees there soon. We catch up

:43:34.:43:39.

with Daniel Coyle in Ohio. What do you think? It is a sledge-hammer

:43:39.:43:45.

blow. You can dip into the report at any moment, and uncover

:43:45.:43:49.

astonishingly detailed proof. Not one piece does it, but the entire

:43:49.:43:54.

totality of it is never been seen before. Some are calling it the

:43:54.:43:59.

biggest proof of American fraud in history. How did they get away with

:43:59.:44:03.

it? It is a game of hide and seek, the drug testing wasn't

:44:03.:44:07.

sophisticated. It is not a dope test, it is an IQ test, if you can

:44:07.:44:11.

read your watch, keep track of your dosage and figure out where you

:44:11.:44:15.

will be at any given time, it is difficult to evade the drug testing.

:44:15.:44:20.

It is not difficult, anyone could have done it in that age. It is

:44:20.:44:26.

gotten better, the biological stuff has gotten better. It was truly the

:44:26.:44:30.

Wild West and Armstrong of the best cowboy. Anti-doping people at the

:44:30.:44:33.

time would have told you that the doping tests were effective, and if

:44:33.:44:36.

people were passing the tests with flying colours, then there was

:44:36.:44:42.

nothing to worry about. There must be serious questions for them now?

:44:42.:44:46.

There are, very serious questions. It stems from a structural problem.

:44:46.:44:50.

The game governing body that was policing the sport, was also

:44:50.:44:53.

promoting the sport, putting them at odds. A lot of people are taking

:44:53.:44:58.

a hard look at the UCI, governing body, and their role. Among the

:44:58.:45:01.

material in this report are some accounts of phone calls connections

:45:01.:45:09.

that may have gotten Lance off a suspicious test in 2001. We have

:45:09.:45:12.

repeated Lance Armstrong's denials and the comments from his lawyer.

:45:12.:45:17.

Is there any way back from this for him. Can he explain it away. Would

:45:17.:45:20.

people believe him? I don't think at this point, with a certain

:45:20.:45:25.

number of his following it is not about logic or facts. They believe

:45:25.:45:29.

in Armstrong, he is a hero to them. To be fair, he has been an

:45:29.:45:34.

inspirational figure. The problem is, the core of his inspiration and

:45:34.:45:37.

his person is the fact he won so many times, not merely that he came

:45:37.:45:41.

back to the top of his sport, but that he won. No, I think he will be

:45:41.:45:49.

haunted by this in every way. It is a 1,000-page document. You can't

:45:49.:45:53.

imagine him going forward in this and simply ignoring it. Thank you

:45:53.:45:57.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS