23/10/2012 Newsnight


Analysing the BBC director-general's select committee appearance. Why did the government stop the planned badger cull? Plus, the man who sky-dived from space. With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It wasn't as if the BBC needed reminding, but tonight the Culture


Secretary did so any way. Can the public trust the nation's biggest


cultural institution? Thank you very much indeed.


The BBC Director-Generar didn't have an entirely easy time of it,


when he tried to reassure MPs on the subject. You don't have an


answer to that question. Have you an answer to that question, have


you any questions you would like to answer that you haven't thought of


answering yourself. Is trust easily recovered, should we change the law


to protect children a lot better. The Government is shocked to


discover it's October, and there is not enough time left to shoot


badgers, the cull is postponed. What chance this stay of execution


becoming permanent. The farmers' union President, gets to persuade


you of the merits of badger sied, while rock star, badgercide, while


Brian May talks the other side. Why would anyone jump off the side


of space. At one point I thought there is nole challenge left, I had


done all the highest buildings, and base jumps, I felt kind of lost.


The editor of this programme made a mistake in killing an investigation


into child abuse by Jimmy Savile, says the man at the very top of the


BBC. In the latest session of the BBC's proed torture, the Director-


Generar today confessed to MPs that this organisation's shame and


embarrassment at what happened Prom, promised action, and said, in so


many words, that the Newsnight investigation should have gone


ahead. There was much for more than appearance in which he volunteered


himself, and in which he was obliged to admit serious failings.


The urgent Tass is to regain trust. The only disagreement is whether


this is the worst crisis in the BBC's history, or simply one of


them. There is no doubt the Corporation is being tested.


Director-Generar for just a month, George Entwistle found himself in


the, at times, clearly uncomfortable position of being


grilled for over two hours by MPs, who wanted him to account for what


had gone on in the past and the present. The allegations, of course,


centre on Savile is a, and the mounting evidence that he was a


predatory paedophile. Mr Entwistle began his evidence expressing


regret. There is no question in my mind, that what we now know


happened was a very, very grave matter indeed. For somebody to have


worked for the BBC and at the BBC over a number of decade, and to


have been responsible, for what the police describe as an unprecedented


scale of child sexual exploitation, there is no question in my mind,


this is a very grave matter indeed. But there were clearly many


questions that Mr Entwistle couldn't answer. Who in the BBC


decided to bus in young, vulnerable girls from institutions to be in


the audience of programmes that were being presented by Jimmy


Savile? I genuinely don't know the answer to that yet. We are trying


to pull together all the documentation we can about, which


managers were in positions at the time Jimmy Savile's programmes were


being made. We are supplying that information to the police so, they


know how to take their investigations forward. But, the


Director-Generar insisted, that new child protection procedures in the


organisation, that such acts could not now happen. Since the story


broke, we heard today, the BBC has received allegations, not just


against Jimmy Savile, but nine other BBC or contributor, these


allege sexual harassment, assault, or inappropriate conduct. Some of


the cases, say the BBC, have been referred to the police. Then MPs


came to the decision by Newsnight not to run its investigation into


Savile. Last night's BBC Panorama aired interviews with Newsnight


staff, concerned with the decision by Newsnight's editor, Peter Rippon,


to end their investigation into Savile, despite their having


gathered, in their view, significant and compelling


testimony. Mr Entwistle, do you now accept, in


the light of last night's Panorama, that the decision to drop the


Newsnight investigation was a catastrophic mistake. I came away


from the Panorama, firmly of the view, that investigation, even if


in the judgment of the editor it was not ready for transmis mission


-- transmission, at the point he was looking at it, should have been


allowed to go ahead. Why do you think the description of events was


inaccurate and incomplete. When you want to find out why a programme


has not done an investigation, in my long experience of the BBC, you


go to the editor of that investigation, or the commissioning


editor of the investigation, because they are the people who


should know why they commissioned the piece. They should have the


most complete picture of why they commissioned the piece. What became


clear to us, after the blog was published, of that what had


happened to Newsnight, is there was a significant, it seemed,


difference of opinion between the people working on the investigation


and the editor, Peter Rippon, who commissioned the investigation.


This difference of opinion between the account Peter Rippon gave in


his blog, and what his staff were saying, led to a trawl of e-mails,


leading to the BBC issuing a correcting statement. I have asked


Peter Rippon to step aside, because of my disappointment in the nature


of the blog, and the inaccracy in the blog.


The final area of questioning was about what the director --


Director-Generar himself knew. Welcome to Jim'll Fix It.


One allegation is the Newsnight investigation was shelved because,


as the then head of BBC television, Mr Entwistle, was planning a big


Boxing Day tribute to Jimmy Savile. Mr Entwistle said he first was told


about the investigation by the BBC's director of news, Helen


Boaden. The substance of the conversation was Helen said to me,


I wanted to tell you, this is to the best of my recollection, this


is a conversation a long time ago. I wanted to tell you that Newsnight


are looking at Jimmy Savile, or investigating Jimmy Savile, and if


it comes off f it stands up, words to that effect, it may have an


impact on your Christmas schedule. And I said, well that is for


letting me know, and please update me, and what I meant by that, on


whether or not it will be going ahead. You are told that one of the


flagship investigative programmes on the BBC is looking into one of


the most iconic figures, who you are about to commission huge


tributes to, and you don't want to know what it is about? It wasn't


because I didn't want to know, what was in my mind was this


determination not to show undue interest. But, just saying, thanks,


Helen, you know, what are you looking at? Why did she tell you,


if you were determined not to ask what it was about. She presumably


thought you should know, and would have expected you to say, that is


interesting, what is it about? assumed she was prepare me, as


indeed she was, to the possibility that I would need to think about


changing the schedule. That was the information he took from the


conversation. The director general left the


committee with still many questions unanswered, two reviews already in


place may answer some, but the big question, what this affair will do


to public trust in the BBC, will, perhaps, take longer to become


clear. No-one from the BBC's senior


management wanted to join us tonight, instead we have three


people who do, or have worked for the BBC. Bruce Bradley, the former


Culture Secretary, and -- Ben Bradshaw, a former member of the


BBC and member of the Select Committee, the editor of the Today


Programme, and Liz Kershaw who presents for BBC 6. This question


of trust that is the key to the whole thing, and does the BBC have


confidence in the BBC. How much danger are we in? The basic scandal


of Jimmy Savile and child abuse, and also the way the BBC has


handled it. I don't think it is irreparable, but George Entwistle


needs to get a grip. Needs to assemble the facts and make himself


confident in those facts, he needs to act on them and quickly. Do you


feel, from what you saw today, that George Entwistle is the man to


restore confidence? It didn't appear so today. I mean, you have


to feel a little bit sorry for the bloke in that he has only been in


the job a short time, and he has to go before a bunch of well-trained,


these days, MPs, on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.


But, there are two problems, and I think one of them is, I think the


Director-Generar looks as if he's guilty of hanging the editor of


Newsnight out to dry. Much as indeed some members of your staff


are hanging the editor of their programme out to dry. Who says the


decision was his alone? The problem for Entwistle is he orders this


inquiry, which is to be unbiased and unpartisan, to look into what


happened, and then, before the MPs, he dobs Entwistle in. Rippon you


are talking about. Rippon, he says that Peter Rippon should have run


that programme. How does he know, he hasn't seen the programme.


said continue with it, he didn't say run it. He hasn't seen the


programme. I know you are a long way away in New York, do you think


public confidence is being eroded in the BBC? Well, definitely back


home, but I can say here, no. When I was entering through immigration


and custom, I was asked what I did for a job, and said I worked for


the BBC, and the guy said, oh I love Morse, and you're in. Those in


ITV got shoved to the back of the queue! I asked today a friend is


the Savile thing getting a lot of coverage. And I was told, no, it's


not like he's in Downton Abbey, that sort of thing. We are OK on a


global scale, but back home people are definitely suspicious. Peter


Rippon it has been accused that he was left out to dry. He gave an


account of his reasons for dropping the investigation, any Director-


Generar in that position would feel very let down as George Entwistle


does feel let down. He went further than, that and he said there is to


be an unbiased inquiry into what happened. The other two important


points, and this is where the trouble might lie in the future, I


find it very difficult to accept there was no pressure whatsoever on


Rippon, because of those two e-mail, which we now know about. One from


Liz MacKean to her friend, which said, which had Peter Rippon quoted


as saying there is a long political chain attached to this. And the


other statement to Meirion Jones, which is the bosses weren't very


happy. Why would he say that if there were not some form, possibly


entirely justifiable interpeerpbs, but. We hope whatever --


Interference. We hope whatever happens in the inquiry that would


be found out? It is thought to be prejudged that Rippon has been


stepped aside, I don't know what that means, you might know, he's


your boss. I don't know either, I assume it is voluntary, as an


alternative to being compulsory. I don't know, I don't understand. As


far as the general public are concerned, that is one small aspect


of the story, isn't it? Does this perpetual spectacle of day after


day, the BBC beating itself up, do anything to help matters? No, that


is why George Entwistle needs to get a grip, assemble the facts and


act on those facts, we can't wait on the independent Pollard Review.


The longer this is about the BBC's handling about this, the more it is


not about the victim, them getting their voice heard, and them getting


justice, about the real scandal, which is how Jimmy Savile, and


possibly others, managed to abuse them, with impunity, over decade.


That is the important thing in all of this, isn't it? Of course it is,


but the tail spin was caused by the bureaucrats not knowing how to


handle, what was actually quite a simple issue. There is nothing


wrong with an editor saying I don't like that piece it is not running,


nor with the senior manager saying are you running this piece on Jimmy


Savile, we have something coming up. That is perfectly reasonable, it is


the tail spin, it is the denial, it is the hiding away, it is the false


statements, that is what undermines trust. You are right, it it must


get so boring every night. It is only news too! George Entwistle


today broadened this, he apologised producely for stuff that didn't


happen on his watch, a long time ago, it was really in your end of


the business. In the pop end of things, and he then went on to say


that there was an on goings investigation, I think he said nine


people, for sexual harassment, and possible assault and that sort of


thing. Has the culture changed in your end of the business? To some


extent. I have to say that I was really impressed when I went to see


George Entwistle. Because he was very honest with me, and said, Liz,


I don't know anything about radio, I don't know anything about Radio 1


and its culture down the decades, he was very interested in what hi


to say. He was obvious -- I had to say. He was obviously keen to get


any help he could, this shocked me, with assembling a cast of


characters at the time. It amazed me that he was saying there was no


formal record within the BBC of who was managing Radio 1 at that time,


who the producers were, who the executives were, who the controller


was. I wrote down a list of names for him, and he asked me was this


guy still alive, and this guy's name has come up a lot, who's he.


He said he wanted today get to the bottom of the culture. Did he call


you? After I appeared on the Today Programme, I got calls from all


layers of the BBC managers, and I said, no, I'm not doing this, I


want to see George Entwistle. He saw me. This is how you revealed


that you had been groped on air by a DJ? That was one of the things I


said. I said there was endemic sexism, and if you were a woman,


the way they kept you in your place was to use your gender against you,


that's the point I was trying to make. But it has changed, hasn't it,


at least I hope it has changed? it's changed. But it is still a


problem, I think, that is a legacy of that. And George Entwistle is


aware of that. I was really inspired by his comments that he's


going to look into how women, in radio, particularly, are still


treated. Because, for example, I don't want to bother you with facts,


but only 17 perverse presenters on the BBC's big three music stations


are women. There hasn't been a woman on daytime Radio Two for 17


years. Only 26% of output by local radio is by female, and there isn't


one, can I just make this point, there isn't one BBC breakfast show


in the country, 54 of them, presented by a woman, that is


something he said he would look at. Perhaps if somebody had spoken to


Liz MacKean, as they spoke to this Liz, the BBC might not be in the


crisis it is in now. I want to say one other thing. In one of the


things Peter Rippon said, he said, when he decided, the editor of


Newsnight, when he decided to junk the investigation, he referred to


the evidence being weak, because we only had the women, only the women.


This is toxic. He didn't mean, come on Ben. This is, I'm afraid,


totally fatal for him. That is hypersensitive. How can you refer


to "only the women". Let me answer. He could have used only the


victims? He could have done, he said "only the women", there were


more women than he fesed up to. are going -- We are going to


explore the question of child protection in a moment, there is a


question whether people can believe BBC News any more? There are


questions about this, the outstanding questions from George


Entwistle's evidence today, is serious questions for BBC News


management. What were the people doing inbetween George Entwistle at


the top and Peter Rippon as editor of Newsnight. Lots of questions


about that, still not resolved. you believe it? Generally I believe


it. Two things will come out of this, you know what they are, I


know what they are. One, if editor's have any sense, never,


ever refer up in the BBC, it will be trouble. More than, that once


the inquiry is out of the way, what will happen at the end, is it will


be much, much more difficult to do the sort of journalism that you lot


were doing. Because people will be far more cautious as consequence.


The most sickening aspect of the whole deck backle is the attitude


that seems to have been taken by some -- debacle is the attitude


that seems to have been taken by some, is that the people shouldn't


have been taken seriously because they are victims. There is a


problem of identifying offenders before they attack again. Might it


be better to adopt the system in place in Australia, Ireland and the


US, and make it an offence not to report incidents of sexuality


exploitation. There were 200 potential victim,


dozens of witnesses, yet Jimmy Savile managed to live to 84


without being arrested. The abuse took place, not just at the BBC,


but in hospitals, and children's homes across the country. So why


didn't anyone report it? Why didn't those witnesses come forward?


finding a lot of schools and institutions, such as the BBC,


would much rather hide the abuse, and allow the abuser to continue,


rather than actually report it, because then it would damage their


reputation. We have no clearer evidence of that than the recent


trouble we have had with Jimmy Savile.


There are, of course, safeguards in place, meant to protect young


people. Any organisation that works with children, has to put in place


In Britain, there is no legal duty to report that abuse, either to the


police or to social services. The answer, some say, is to compel


witnesses to come forward, to make it a criminal offence not to pass


on those allegations to the authorities.


Last week, 32 child protection groups, barristers and church


leaders, wrote to the Times, calling for that change in the law.


They want to see mandatory reporting of child abuse


allegations, as is already the case in the US, Canada, Australia and


Ireland. If we had mandatory reporting we


would obviously, all abusers would be identified before they could


continue their abuse, and we know, we know that child abusers very


rarely only abuse once. Child abuse happens in institutions, nationwide,


and without mandatory reporting, we can't possibly know the scale of it.


Many victims and other campaigners say a similar system in the UK


would give people more confidence to come forward. We spoke to one


teacher, who said her complaints about a fellow member of staff were


not passed on by the school to the authorities.


I followed the correct procedure, which was to report this to the


designated person that every school has, over time I began to suspect


it hadn't been reported to the local authority. It is almost seen


as a bad thing to report something. There is a culture of just covering


things up, and burying your head in the sand, and hoping it will go


away. But, there are strong arguments


against any change in the law. Last year Eileen Monroe chaired a wide-


ranging Government review of child protection. We have a strong


culture within organisations that they should make report, and we


have statutory guidance that says they have a duty to make reports,


and that they should have a policy within any organisation that has


contact with children to help people talk through, is this


something to worry about, and then to know how to report it. Our


system is ending up with about the same rate of referrals as the


countries with mandatory reporting. So there is no statistical evidence


to suggest that we are missing more serious cases than in the countries


with mandatory reporting. Large children's charities are also


against any change in the law. The NSPCC claims there is no solid


evidence that mandatory reporting work, and it might just clutter up


the system with extra unproven allegations. Newsnight understands,


though, that the organisation may now conduct a review of that


position, in the light of the Savile scandal.


And the experience of mandatory reporting, in other countries, has


been mixed at best. In Australia critics of the law say it has led


to a huge increase in abuse case, overwhelming the child protection


system, and takinging resources away from other areas -- taking


resources away from other areas of social work like family support.


Child protection workers on both sides of the argument agree on one


thing, more does need to be done to change the culture of reporting


abuse. I think there is a certain amount of crowd mentality, there is


a sense, with the Savile case, it appears as if a large number of


people knew about it, so any one individual would have thought that


others know about it, and they haven't done anything, perhaps I


shouldn't. There is that research of somebody on the street, having


been injured, and people walk past, and other people then walk past. We


end up behaving with immense callousness, because we are


following the crowd behaviour. you think the culture of society


has changed against 1975? It is certainly certainly changing for


the better, we should not feel smug. There is a lot of progress that


needs to be made. The world may have changed since Savile ruled the


airwave, but today victims and witnesses say, they are still often


treated with suspicion, as accusers and troublemakers. Do we do enough


to protect the most vulnerable in our society my guests are here.


What do you think of this idea, mandatory reporting? I would think


it was quite a good idea, if I believed our systems could cope


with it. But right now, our child protection system is completely at


breaking point. You have to look at the fact that Birmingham has failed


as a child protection social services, and then there are others


who have failed. Then if you get this kind of mandatory reporting


happening as well, the whole system will completely collapse.


principle you are favour of it, it is just the mechanics? In general,


we have to look at the issue of vulnerable children in this country,


and our politicians need to stand up and have a vision in relation to


issues of child protection in this country. You don't think it is a


desirable thing? No, I think it is worth saying, that I don't think


that child sexual abuse is rife, and I do not think that it is on


the rise. Actually, I'm very nervous about the climate at the


moment that is ratchetting up the discussion, because of what has


happened around one very nasty, horrible case, the Jimmy Savile


case. Mandatory reporting, it would be in danger of, effectively,


having every rumour, every suspicion, go to the authorities.


And I think that will create a climate of finger-pointing. Every


adult interaction with a child could potentially be seen in a very


unhelpful way. You have a pattern of repeat behaviour by these people.


If you can get the first case on a file somewhere, doesn't it save


other children? I think there is a serious danger of taking this case,


and because of a variety of people ratchetting it up, and a kind of


blood lust in the air. There is a danger of a witch-hunt? Instead of


very serious case of protecting children, what we are going to do


is do children a great disservice, now, we have already heard it on


this programme this evening, we conflate a whole range of different


things, sexism in the BBC, the lack of female presenter. That has


really confused all of that, I agree. It was in the inquiry today.


I am a making the point. I do think that child abuse is a serious


problem in this country. The Children's Commissioner is about to


release a report decribing wide scale abuse of girls in street


gangs. We have to redefine our child abuse in this country, it is


no longer limited to families. It is quite endemic in certain areas


and it has to be addressed. We have already got to a situation in this


country, where parents are afraid to let their children out to play.


That is a different argument. You can't use that argument.


allowed to use the argument I use, you can't tell me what argument I


do. You go ahead and finish it, I think you are wrong. Teachers in


school are frightened to let parents to take photos in sports


days, we have criminal record checks that effectively meant you


had to have a license to work with children. Voluntary Organisations


frightened to work with children. This is not an atmosphere. This is


a flawed argument. It is an argument that you disagree with,


that doesn't make it flawed, there are two sides to this argument.


are talking about a normal situation, which is adults being


with children, you are saying, because there are allegations


around that, that the issue of child protection. I'm suggesting


unless we calm down. We agreed we were going to let me speak, next.


There is an issue here, which is, that there is a problem with child


protx in this country. It doesn't - - protection in this country. It


doesn't mean that adults being with children in a perfectly OK way,


should be addressed in an axe say thery manner. But nevertheless,


there is a problem in this country, and we're blind to it. When in


Rochdale the police and social services are decribing girls who


are being sexually abused as making a lifestyle choice, it is a problem.


I don't think society should be reorganised around child protection.


The question here is about how one protects children, and part of that


has to be, has it not, to do with the belief, the credibility that is


attached to accounts these children give. Time after time, and it has


happened in this latest BBC business, there is some question


mark placed over the testimony of the victims, precisely because they


are victims. How do you get around that? We have to be very careful,


as well, that we don't say people have the right to be listened to


and believed per se. You have to bear in mind that when people say


something happened, you have to then see whether you make a


decision about what weather you proceed with it. Because, for


example, just to use that example, children can say all sorts of


things, adults can say all sorts of things, there is a lot of rumours


on Twitter at the moment about all sorts of people, do you want to


live in a society where rumour and finger-pointing, where people who


say, I'm a victim, means that the police have to be reported to. That


everything has to be acted on. That we look at each other all the time


as though something terrible is occurring. You won't like that


world either? The very serious incidents, in the very mine


instances that they happen, of child abuse, will be drowned out by


an absolute clamming of people not knowing what we are meant to be


pointing our fingers at. One child being abused is one too many, you


cannot call it minor. It is a problem, because there is an


endemic power imbalance. Children cannot hold adults accountable for


their safety. Adults do have to take that responsibility. We are


not taking that responsibility robust low. We will leave it there


for the time being, thank you both very much.


Mr Brock breathes easely the platoons of gunmen to be let loose


on badgers in England, are being held off. This is not, the


Government assures us, a change of policy of how to control TB in cow,


ministers have been just caught out by unpredictable things, the


Olympics, the weather and the fact it is October. The excuse hasn't


been cancelled, merely postponed. It has been described by some as a


good day to bury badger news. Certainly for our team on the


ground in Gloucestershire, the badgers themselves chose to stay


buried. They are nocternal. Here are some the BBC filmed earlier.


For the farmer here, who had signed up to take part in one of the two


trial areas, it has not been a great day. We're hugely


disappointed, absolutely devastated. The farmers in the Gloucestershire


cull area were ready to go, the contractors were ready to go. But


farmers in the whole of the West Country will be disappointed, it


just delays the roll out of further work we have to do to bring this


disease and badgers under control. Even anti-cull campaigners were


breathing only a cautious sigh of relief. The cull had been due to


start within days. We last minute the plug has been pulled. But


obviously we're very relieved to find that. But there are


alternatives out there, and time is still against us. We're not


complacent. We are going to keep calm and carry on with this. Let's


get this sorted, let's get the vaccination out there. So, what's


really going on here? According to the scientist, for a cull to be


most effective, between 70-80% of animals must be killed T has been


clear in recent days how many badgers would be involved. And


farmers have to pay for each of those to be killed. As the numbers


have gone up, so too have the costs. The original estimate for the two


proposed cull areas was that they were dealing with a total of 4,500


animal, that was revised last week to close to 8,000.


In the House today, Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, said bad


weather and the Olympics were behind his announcement that the


cull was called off. And placed the focus firmly on farmers and the


contractors who would have actual low had to pull the trigger.


actually had to pull the trigger. Today I have received a letter on


behalf of the NFU, on behalf of the companies performing the culls,


explaining why they don't feel they can go ahead this year, and


requesting they be postponed until next summer. In these circumstances,


it is the right thing to do, and as the people who have to have to


deliver this policy on the ground. And work within the science, I


respect their decision. He was adamant this is not a change in


policy, just a delay. For Labour, Mary Creagh couldn't resist


gloating. Labour has warned the Government for two years that the


badger cull was bad for farmers, bad for tax tears, and bad for


wildlife. And in addition, the Government's handling of the cull


has been -- tax-payers, and bad for wildlife. And in addiction, the


Government's handling of the cull has been shambolic, it is right it


is delayed. The science of the cull has been much picked over, with


both sides of the debate claiming to have science on their side. In


the House today both Government and opposition quoted the same


scientists, how can that be? I have been told that, in fact, there is


little disagreement among the scientists who have looked at this.


A cull will have only a limited impact. A net reduction of herd


infections of some 12-16%, in nine years, in the 250km-square cull


trial areas. The scientists that led the key trials OJ badgers,


thought he now believes culling to be irrelevant and a distraction,


and vaccination and biosecurity will, instead, be at the heart of


any strategy to deal with TB in the UK. All the scientific experts that


I know, agree, that long-term, large scale killing of badgers, has


a relatively small effect on reducing TB in cattle. I very much


hope the Government uses the delay as an opportunity to reconsider the


policy. Because killing badgers is not really going to make an


effective contribution to TB eradication.


The Government says its goal is to protect cattle from what it


describes as a serious animal health problem that is devastating


for farmer, and its policy is science-led. The 30 or so


scientists who wrote to the Sunday papers last week, urging a re-think,


might not agree. They warned that licensed culling risks increasing


cattle TB, rather than reducing it. Neither side has yet won the battle


of the badger outright. How long will this delay be. Peter Kendall


is President of the National Farmers' Union, and Dr Brian May is


from the pressure group Team Badger? Team Badger. When exactly


did you decide now that the cull is a bad idea? It is not a bad idea.


Bad idea to do it now? It is the time of year. A week ago yesterday,


Monday last week, we learned that the Government agency had decided,


or through a survey, that there were twice as many badgers to need


to be controlled in a very short period of time. And, look, Jeremy.


The decision to have the cull of based on incomplete evidence,


clearly? We were given, and we have been working on one set of numbers,


and late in the day, we were given some new numbers. But this is not


like turning a tap on and off. This is the countryside. Farmers and


landowners were not prepared to have anybody turn up and shoot


badgers. We needed the right resource in the right place. I


believe it is the poncable thing to do is to say actual low, if the


conditions are wrong, you re-think. So, it is not a reprieve, it is


merely a postponed execution? not what we wanted, but it is


welcome, because these badgers are living instead of dying at the


moment. We have a lot of breathing space to make our case, our case is


that culling was never going to do much good any way. What we should


be doing is putting all our resources into vaccination, not


only badgers but cow, that is what I would love to work with you on in


the next few months. We are told that vaccination of cows is years


away, I don't believe that. What do you think? We would love to see a


vaccination programme. Presumably would you prefer vaccination to


execution? If we can have a vaccination, we would have it,


tomorrow. But look, wherever TB is in cattle or anywhere in the world,


they have had to control the reservoir of the disease in the


wildlife. I would dispute that. What about the scientists saying


there is no evidence of it? chief vet in DEFRA is adamant we


need to do this, the chief vet in Wales has advocated this sort of


policy. There are plenty of scientists. I'm not necessarily


expert in the control of disease in wildlife, the experts also.


would you think people want to go around shooting badgers? If I was a


farmer I would be frustrated and upset, this is going on for so long,


and it is we have to do something. That something is not killing


badgers. What's the matter? I'm asking you, do you think they are


mad or something? I don't think they areed mad, it is an emotional


response. You see a badger and you know the badger has the same


disease as your cows, it started in the cows, you think I will get rid


of the badger t will solve our problem. The research has been done.


This country spent �pun 50 million on the RBCT trial, and the result


was that culling of badgers doesn't affect controlling bovine TB in


cows. It is cheap Tory shoot them than vaccinate them? It is not a


viable option today. It could be. There could be lots of solutions in


the future. At the moment this disease is doubling every nine


years, and last year it took 34,000 cattle. We have to start. If you


look at the spread of TB, it fans out across the country, exact low


as populations of badgers increase. That is an assumption. I don't


believe badgers are the problem. Even the badger tru Trust.


could kill every badger and you would still have bovine TB in cow,


the best you can do by killing every badger is supposedly 15%


improvement, you could make it worse what cull. A cull is not a


solution, vaccination is a solution. I want to talk to you after this to


see if we can work together on this. This cull, in the meantime will


happen? It is not going to happen. Personally I think the Government


would be too embarrassed to go through this again, I would hate to


do this again. It is dead in the water. This was gefr never going to


work, it is impractical, it is not based on science, and against the


wishes of the British people, you can see by the petition. Are you


certain it is going to happen next year? All I can go on is the strong


words said by the Secretary of State today on the floor of the


House. He was clear and unequivocal about his commitment. Politics we


know can change massively in the next nine month. Don't you think he


has a different agenda than you. You guys are sincere and honest and


have a living to make. Don't you feel you are in bed with someone


who has a different motivation? always nervous how politicians


operate when they need re-election. Owen Paterson comes from an area


that is riddled with TB, he has one of the biggest dairy companies in


his constituency, and he knows we need a viable industry here. We


can't leave it. No-one is saying that, we are saying vaccinate.


is not available. I believe it can be available in months rather than


years. I want to talk to you about it. It is one of those rather you


than me things, stepping out of a balloon many miles in the air.


Felix Baumgartner said that was the one thing he definitely had to do


in his life, unusual to say the least. It was watched on


smartphones and iPhones by 1.8 billion people. But what was the


point. When George Mallory was asked why anyone would want to


climb Mount Everest, he said it was because it was there. I wonder if


Felix Baumgartner felt the same. The door is open, Felix. What


person in their right mind would find themselves alone, but for a


disembodied voice over 24 miles above the earth. Slide the seat


forward. The highest manned balloon flight, was just a preamble to be


the first human being to break the sound barrier without a vehicle.


Felix Baumgartner, Fearless Felix, has made a career out of pushing


the boundaries of human flight. We are told the entire event took


place in the name of science. Before the long assent, in a


specially-designed cap actual, Felix Baumgartner's body had been


fitted with a -- capsule, Felix Baumgartner's body had been fitted


with a number of measures to monitor how the human body copes


with sustained free fall and supersonic acceleration or


deceleration. To stop his blood boiling, his lungs exploding and


his body disintegrating, he wears a pressurised suit. And the whole


thing is funded by a soft drinks manufacturer.


Start the cameras. Our guardian angel will take care


of you. Felix Baumgartner, why did you want


to do this? Well, you know, I have been, I have always been a very


competitive person, since I was 16 years old I started skydiving, I


always wanted to push the limits. That is the reason why I was


working on this so hard. It is not like competing at tennis or at pool,


or a running race, is it. To put yourself on the edge of space,


miles and miles up, I mean, that's completely different? It is, but


this is what make it so unique and challenging. If you look at my


background as a base jumper, at a certain point I felt there was nole


challenge left. I had done all the highest -- there was no challenge


left. I had done all the highest buildings in the world. I felt lost


and no challenge any more, and working on this has been a total


low different ball game. I had to learn everything from scratch, I


was not a scientist or a properly trained astronaut. I started


everything from zero, that was the challenge. What is it like, when


you are up there, all alop, looking down on the earth -- alone, looking


down on the earth from a tremendous height. What is it like? When I was


standing outside, it was a very calm and quiet moment, very


peaceful. The view was totally outstanding and unique. At the same


time you realise everything around you is very hostile. I couldn't


stand there for a long time. As soon as I disconnected my oxygen


hose from the ship's system, I only breathe out of the oxygen bottles


on the back pack, they provided oxygen for ten minutes. I had to go


off as fast as I can. You could have got this view from


just looking at pictures, but you felt you some how had to see it


yourself? I have seen all the footage we created on that day, and


I have to say, it's really unique footage, but it is nothing in


comparison with what I saw. I saw it for real, you know. I think I'm


the only person who has that image in my mind. But when your body is


spinning in the way we have seen it spinning from the footage, you


could black out or something, anything could happen? You could


black out, or mostly you could ride out, if you have a flat spin, you


could have a red out, when the blood goes toe your brain we call


it a red out. We create safety equipment for that kind of fatality.


We had a G-force meeter, that is constantly measuring the G-force on


your body. If it goes over the certain limit it fires a chute and


that will pull you out of the spin. What did we learn out of it? Nobody


thought before it was possible as a human person to break the speed of


sound. We proved that to the whole world. Again, nobody really thought


a safe bail out from 130,000 feet and the re-entry is possible or


surviveable. We were also testing the next generation spacesuit.


do you want to do next, then? Breaking the speed of light!


would like to see that very much. Honestly, I think it is time to


move on. I want to inspire the next generation, and maybe in 40 years


another guy will call me up and say Mr Baumgartner I want to break your


record. I will support that guy. In the meantime I'm flying helicopter,


I'm also a commercial helicopter pilot. I will put my knowledge into


public service, and work as a firefighter or rescue people from


mountains, because, again, that means I'm in there, and this is


where I belong to. Thank you. Tomorrow morning's front pages now.


The Times, the head of news has been accused, according to the


Download Subtitles