10/10/2012 Newsnight


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!



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


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


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


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


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


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


expansive for the ten-minute discussion.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


your thoughts? It was supposed to be an inconsequential conference


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


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


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


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


Cameron speeches were great in their own ways. The Miliband


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


painful decisions, unless we show determination and imagination,


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


political, patriotic and personal were interwoven throughout. Do you


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


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


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


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


because of what happened in Britain this summer.


APPLAUSE But while Ed Miliband's speech


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


people who want to get on in life. APPLAUSE.


While the other intellectuals of other parties might sneer at people


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


APPLAUSE. And the Prime Minister even dared


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


well written. The difference between the Ed Miliband speech and


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


more life in it. Maria Miller is the Secretary of


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


that opportunity available for more people in this country. Opportunity


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


principle, but today it was really clearly articulated, particularly


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


looking out to your own party looking at the older members


sitting there cross armed? Sometimes we have to take tough


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


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


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


to getting married. It is an important concept and something


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


arguments around civil marriage. And ignore everyone else?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


position that many families find themselves. A party and Government


that will be able to really understand the importance of the


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


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


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


foremost they are interested in making sure they have a Government


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


been an enormously difficult situation. Allegations around abuse.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


institutional problems around the way women have been treated in the


work place, those are serious issues for any organisation.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


been successful in doing that in party conference speeches,


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


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


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


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


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


interesting about the whole conference season, is how navel


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


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


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


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


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


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


their supporters will not be warming to those messages in the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Conservative prime ministers, who are outsiders. I actually thought


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Westminster loby, outside people are less watching. And nothing


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


stories politicians insist on telling us time and time again in


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


am, and David Cameron. Labour distinguish between Harriet


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


from Dewsbury was given a community sentence for posting angry comments


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


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


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


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


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


ago threatening message on another social network site, this time


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


reopen after heavy snowfall. His conviction was eventually


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


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


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


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


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


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


verdicts found and ridiculous sentences given, we are going


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


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


communications act, makes it an offence to post menacing or


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


investigate, after threatening messages are posted on the Internet.


Newsnight asked every force for harassment cases involving Facebook


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


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


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


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


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


down offensive comments, and ban repeat offender. Though Facebook


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


community discuss that between themselves. The worry for many in


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


far on dealing with offensive messages. One of the difficulties


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


people have been fined and given community service for saying


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


yes, it was. There were some particularly offensive comments


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


even the grossly offensive case require a criminal prosecution.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


responsibility here. In many of these cases the appropriate


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


that may reduce the requirements for a criminal prosduegs.


Facebook and Twitter and social media going to be treated


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


qualifications and you do unspeakable things to farm animals,


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


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


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


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


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


an overarching criminal offence that applies to all those


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


make weapons much they have a number of specialist industries.


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


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


shoulders, the best weapons manufacturers in Britain and Europe.


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


merges with actually matters, because the technology then can


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


have the support of the shareholder, lukewarm response from the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


together with EADS with the strong position in the civil aviation


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Governments would have had significant control over areas of


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


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


situations where Governments have big shares in things. That having


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


principal driver for the next generation of nuclear power station.


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


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


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


It was considerably less than the effective control they currently


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


think an American buyer would have any interest in.


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


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


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


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


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


sophisticated and professional doping programme in recent sports


history. My guests are with me.


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


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


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


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


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


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


are with their evidence. They really believe that Lance Armstrong


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the authorities. Another quote from the US Anti-


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


of Luxembourg the police came to the location where some cyclists


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


material in this report are some accounts of phone calls connections


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Download Subtitles