22/05/2013 Newsnight


With Jeremy Paxman. What can we learn from the atrocity that left a soldier dead in Woolwich? And what has the government got to do with marriage?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/05/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



An atros $:/STARTFEED. An atrocity in broad daylight, leaves a man,


believed to be a British soldier, dead in London. We have had these


sorts of attacks in our country. We never buckle in the face of them.


At the heart of this story an apparent statement from a suspect


who sounds like one of us, trying to justify killing in Britain to a


cause thousands of miles away. Some of you might find the content of


these pictures both offensive and upsetting. I apologise that people


find this upsetting, in our land this happens every day. Remove your


movement, they don't care about you. What can we learn about what


happened today in Woolich? Also tonight ...A Kiss for the


bride please. We marry for love, so why is marriage or any other


romantic arrangement of our lives any business of politicians. It is


nothing to do with the Government at all. Why they want to poke their


noses in! I don't know! Few news events honestly merit the word


"shocking", but this afternoon's meat cleaver murder of what is


believed to be an off-duty soldier in East London does. The fact that


his killer then danced around his body shouting "good is great" and


inviting photographs, and add a further dimension. That one ranted


in a London street trying to justify the atrocity, aggravates


the eaves and the offence given. The Home Secretary tonight has


condemned what she said is probably an act of terrorism. The


Metropolitan Police commissioner says they have launched a murder


inquiry. Bizarrely just yesterday I was speaking to somebody in the


world of counter terrorism who told me that when they were looking at


the Olympics they had considered the possibility of a stabbing on a


train, as he put it, by a militant. He said it was our nightmare


scenario we could do nothing possibly to stop a thing like that.


Today it would seem that kind of scenario unfolded on the streets of


Woolich as you have said, some of the images that came out of it may


be disturbing to some people. must fight them as they fight us,


an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had


to witness this today, in our hand our women have to see the same.


This is the man who attempts to justify murder, while apologising


that women had to witness it. Shocking footage taken by a


passerby on their mobile phone. The attack was at 2.20, a man walking


up the street of knocked down by this blue car that had mounted the


pavement. The two occupants got out and started to stab and bludgeon


the victim with a variety of knives and a meat cleaver. Hours later


heavy blood stains on the pavement still marked the site of the


murderous assault. Once the victim was dead or dying his body was


dragged into the road. I was on the bus coming into Woolich and I saw a


man lying motion lesson the floor. And there was a car with this body,


so I thought it had been a road traffic collision. I got off the


bus and walked around to another viewpoint where the body was


covered up. There was a huge police presence, helicopters in the air.


The two men, alleged to have attacked him, made no attempt to


flee. Instead they started talking to shocked bystanders. Some people


tried to help the victim, while just feet away a man with blood


stained hands made political statements to those nearby of the


Remove your Government, they don't care about you, do you think David


Cameron will get caught in the street when we start bussing our


gun, do you think our politician also die, no it will be the average


guy like you. Local police were on the scene quickly, it is clear they


had to wait for armed officers to arrive, prolonging the bloody


theatre as the perpetrators harangued local people. Witnesses


suggest that once the armed police were there, the attackers rushed


them. Two men, who we believed from earlier reports to be carrying


weapons were shot by police. They have both been taken to separate


London hospitals and are receiving treatment for their injuries.


pictures show the attackers, who, moments earlier, had been shouting


Islamist slogans, lying wounded in the street. Get back, get back!


Move back! Tonight there were fears in community about tensions.


Nothing has ever happened like this in Woolich before. I think there


are lots of different communities that live in Woolich. I think some


people will use this as a reason to attack these, this community that


has done this to this man. Even as the assaliants were taken to


hospital, the cabinet, emergency committee, COBRA was being summoned


under the chairmanship of Theresa May, where it heard reports from


the police and Security Service. The Prime Minister, meanwhile, who


was on the continent for talks, made this statement in Paris.


Tonight our thoughts should be with the victim, with their family, with


their friends. People across Britain, people in every community,


I believe, will utterly condemn this attack. We have had these


sorts of attacks before in our country, and we never buckle in the


face of them. The scene in Woolich is the subject now of intense


investigation. But there will be other lines of inquiry being


pursued tonight. Did the attackers act alone? And had they, at some


point, been under official surveillance? Our correspondent


Richard Watson has for many years reported on terrorism and extremism


in the UK. He's here now. Do you know anything about this suspect?


Well none of this is confirmed at this stage. But about an hour-and-


a-half ago I received a very interesting phone call from a


source who knows the British Jihadi scene very well. This source said


that one of the attackers was Nigerian in origin, and has been


living in the UK for many year. He was radicalised by the Islamist


group Alma haj roon in 2003. Now most controversially he suggested


to me that just last year this young man was stopped or arrested,


we don't know which at the moment, on his way to join Al-Shabab in


Somalia. We can't confirm that at the moment, but that is what I have


been told tonight. If that was true he would be obviously known to the


police? That is the suggestion, yes. That is remaining unconfirmed. If


he is known to the police, of course, we open up the territory of


what did they know about Mohammed Sadique Khan back in 2005, it opens


up this territory. This attack, shocking, horrific, very different


in character to something like the 7/7 attack? Very different. It is


hard to say with certainty. If you look at 7/7, tribal areas and


Mohammed Khan went out there for training. This appears to be a much


more discreet attack from lone wolves, who seem to have taken it


upon themselves to carry out this attack radicalised, possibly, by


the Internet. We don't know. Let's speak to the former Home Secretary


Lord Reid, and Lord Carlyle, the independent reviewer of anti-


terrorism legislation from 2001- 2011, and Nawaz, a former member of


an Islamist organisation, who later founded a Quilliam Foundation, a


counter extremist think-tank. This was shocking but entirely


unexpected this sort of attack? know we are under a "substantial"


threat, we know that. We know that there have been a huge number of


plots in the fast, foiled successfully by the security forces


by and large. And we also know there has been a change from just


being centrally determined and controlled attacks throughout the


world, to more of what Richard Wilson called Lone Wolf attacks. It


makes it much more difficult for the Security Services. They tend to


require less time and planning. They are more ad hoc, more


opportunist, there is less communication data going back


across the world. There is less contact. And therefore, they are


more difficult to counter in a way. The sense that Mumbai in a sense


was that sort of attack. If this is one of these Lone Wolf attacks then


it is pretty difficult to counter. Although Mumbai actually did, if I


recall correctly, there was evidence of control from Pakistan?


There was. The big plot that, thankfully we foiled here in 2006,


which was the liquid bomb plot to bring down seven airliners with


2,500 potential deaths, there was certainly contact internationally.


That makes it easier to foil than a spontaneous attack without those


communication links. Your reaction? My reaction is first of all this is


a tragic event and our hearts must go out to the family of the man who


was killed. Secondly, I think this is the kind of attack which,


because of Mumbai, we have been predicting for quite a time in this


country. The control authorities, the police and Security Service,


have been working very hard to prevent it. I think we have to


learn proportionate lesson from what has occur, we mustn't rush to


judgment. We must ensure the police and the Security Service have for


the future the tools they need, which will enable them to prevent


it kind of attack taking place. I hope this will give the Government


pause for thought about their abandonment, for example, of the


communications data bill, and possibly pause for thought about


converting control orders into what are now called TPIMs, with a


diluted set of powers. You are not suggesting either of those things


had anything to do with today's attack? I'm not suggesting that,


but I'm suggesting that the powers that existed in the past make it


more likely that other attacks can be prevented in the future. Lone


wolves, even though they are always inevitably connected at least with


internet training, are very difficult to catch. So we must give


the authorities proportionate tools to catch them. Maajid Nawaz, what


really strikes you about this attack today? What strikes me about


this attack is in fact the way in which, so much of it was theatre.


So much was them standing around after speaking to members of the


public. To not only justify their actions but speaking to the cameras


with a view to knowing the police were on their way. Almost in a


fatalistic sense wanting to be caught so they could have a form of


a show trial. Orderly you would expect that something is thinking


in a strategic way would retreat or come back to attack again, as the


Boston bombers attempted to do. These individual wanted it to be


about show. What I would say here, because we have heard reports of


members of certain far right movements seeking to move to the


area, and seeking vengence, first thing, a lot has changed since 7/7.


One of the things that has changed is certain organisations we were


rather dissatisfied in the past, in the way that they almost didn't


condemn terrorist attacks, but instead started to focus in foreign


policy have in this instance come forward and condemned the terrorism


with no ifs and buts. The scene has changed among Muslim community


groups, that is very important. is striking when you hear this guy


speak, a guy speaking in a London accent about things happening in


"our" country, I don't know which country he's talking about? This is


very weird? This is the role we keep talking about that ideology


plays. Where we have failed abysmaly in this country, in


popularising counter narratives to this ideology that completely


disconnects people, someone clearly speaking in London accent, and


clearly killing one of his own citizens, and for a country he has


never visited, and he has more affinity to people in another


country than his own citizens. We need to popularising a counter


narrative, and stopping this narrative of making Islam unpopular


asism. I think the responsibility falls on Government to try to help


create the counter narrative. The Internet has become a very powerful


tool. One can learn how to make a bomb, unfor the that thely, on the


Internet, one -- unfortunately on the Internet, one can listen to


sermons on the interin the. We are not very good as a nation at


creating a counter narrative that the goodies maybe win sometimes.


What would that be like? There is a unit in Government, John Reid will


know about it, that is designated to examine the Internet and try to


help produce a counter narrative. It is the sort of thing that makes


young men who may want to be radicalised as keen to look at a


couldn'try view and counter picture as the terrorist narrative. First


of all, at heart this is an ideolgical battle, this is not


about Islam, it is about Islamism, the "ism" is the giveaway. It is


the political imposition of people's will, through violence,


through the use of a corruption of Islam. They have a narrative the


basically Al-Qaeda narrative that blames the west for everything, and


sees it as an anti-Muslim movement. We have not had an adequate


narrative that explains the virtues of the society and the values on


which they are based. Arising out of that narrative has to be action.


This is the point I would make about tonight's news that others


are arranging counter demonstrations. The purpose of this


action is not just to destroy life today, it is not even just to


propagandaise, it is to terrorise and disrupt the normal flow of life


in this country. Those who seek to attack other communities as a


result of this will be carrying out precisely the sort of division and


disruption of British way of life, away from our communal


collecttivity that the terrorists seek to enhance in the first place.


So those who might think that they are, you know, attacking the


terrorists by marching through a Muslim community or whatever, are


actually following the path of the strategy the terrorists would like


to see. I think it is very important we should hear senior


Muslim leaders decribing the kind of opinions that were expressed on


that clip as a heresy, and that it does not represent Muslim views in


this country. Which is right isn't it? It doesn't represent anybody,


they are a bizarre minority, but we must have this loadership?


One of my colleagues was speaking to somebody earlier who said he had


been speaking to some young Muslims this evening who were pleased at


what had happened? We are finding any young Muslim who is angry the


default, political expression that is currently out this there is --


there is this perversion of Islam, the challenge we have is to replace


that default. When you ask what the counter narrative looks like, there


are ideas, leaders and symbols, if I ask you to think about the ideas,


the narratives and leaders and symbols for Al-Qaeda-based


extremism you can ease low think of them. Think of the equivalent in


the Middle East for democratic active, who are the leaders, ideas


and symbols in the Middle East you are hard pressed to see them.


low because there is very little democracy there? And partly because


the civil society activism involved is stifled. People are not able to


express as much as they should be. We need to do more in that regard.


Increased drone strike, targeted assassinations, more Guantanamos,


the military option isn't the bee all and end you will solution. It


is a short-term stopgap. We need to start focusing on the ideas debate


and reclaiming and rebranding democratic culture among young


disenfranchised Muslims. Let as turn quickly to what's likely to be


happening now. You have sat in Theresa May's chair? Too often I


fear. There was a meeting of COBRA, the cabinet committee today. That


was going on for some time, at the end of which it was determined it


was a form of terrorist attack. We understand that. What happens next?


Well the first thing that happens is to establish the facts. The Home


Secretary will be surrounded by her specialists, because the Home


Secretary does not run these operations in a democracy. They are


run by the police and Intelligence Service and so on. But she is


accountable to the public and parliament. She has to ascertain


the facts. Secondly she will be asking the questions as to whether


anything else needs to be done, are there connections, are there other


suspects, is there another threat from a group linked to this.


Thirdly, about the Ministry of Defence, I'm sure Philip Hammond


was there. If it was a soldier who was tragically murdered today, our


thoughts would be with his family and, if it was, what is the


security like at specific areas targeted for soldiers and so on.


And then there is a question about whether you need to raise the


national threat level from "substantial "up to perhaps as high


as "critical". I don't think that is likely but that will be


considered. If that is then raised as a result of that there is all


sorts of operational ratchetting up of defence measures. All of that


will be done in the first instance. Then they will turn their mind to


some of the wider questions, hopefully, which is not only the


investigations that are being carried out, but the questions like


the nature of radicalisation of British people, the narrative that


we talked about, you know. That is an on going process. How alarming


are the unknowns? They are always alarming, I chaired this meeting,


COBRA meeting, not only through terrorism, but through Litvenenko,


and so on. There are always, to use one of the words of an American


secretary, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. In some of


the cases I was involved in we thought we had a pretty good grasp


for a while of the number and nature of the people involved, only


to discover late in the day there weren't six from this area there


was as many as 20 from another area. That is where some of the measures


which the Government has refused to implement, like data communications


that were mentioned earlier, is absolutely essential for effective


fighting of terrorism. I mean we, you will never find out whether you


are right on this one until there is some huge tragedy that might


have been averted if they had updated the communications


appraisals a that can be carried out from GCHQ. This is a very


important point. We must have proportionate laws, but there must


be laws that are sufficient to meet need. When they see an example,


this may be a small example of something much bigger that could


happen, we must ensure the laws are fit for purpose. But we don't know


whether that sort of interception of communications, monitoring of


communications would have made any difference at all? But we do know


it is extremely effective in catching organised criminals,


murders and others, we know it is works, it is working in court up


and down the country. Six or seven years ago had we not had that


method of connecting people through their "communications", 2,500


people would probably have been blown out of the sky over the UK.


It was a vital component. But now people have moved on from mobile


phones to internet, e-mail, text and Skype, we don't have the means


of doing what we did six years ago. Thank you all very much.


We will return to this story a little later in the programme.


Now from hate to love. In all the noise about gay marriage these past


few days, the bigger phenomenon, hell sexual marriage has been


rather overlooked. It is, we are told, the basic building block of


the state. Vital for the secure upbringing of children, and an


institution in trouble, which almost all political parties claim


to be keen to support. Should it be privileged over other types of


family life? Before we talk it over we have this report and we begin


with the question every couple get asked, "how did you two meet"?


The moment you met? Moment, that is a bit hard to say, I walked across


the floor and asked my wife for a dance. Asked me for a dance, and I


said "I don't think so", no I didn't, I did say I would! I I had


to warn her about her small dresses in the shop I used to run. He said


I was showing too much leg and I would give the customers a heart


attack! The tendency in those days was to grab the first female that


you could. I gave her a kiss on New Year's Eve. So I know exactly to


the second when that happened. we just kissed and that was it. We


just...Within A month I knew this was going to be the one.


# I remember how I thrilled at the sight of you


If you want to understand married life, you need to come to East


Dorset. Two thirds of adults here are married. The highest proportion


in all of England and Wales. Are you nervous? Not at the moment, I'm


OK at the moment. Kayleigh Wallis is surprisingly calm. Maybe that's


because, like many brides, she already lives with the groom, and


they have had a baby together. Do you think you now feel something


has fundamentally changed? Yes. What is that? It feels like you


have found the missing piece. Connected in a way. Another way of


connecting and feeling closer. bonds you together more. You are


standing up in front of all your friend and family to say I'm


committed to this relationship. kiss for the bride, please.


Marriage has been in decline for decades. Roughly half the number of


people get married today compared to 1970. 42% of marriages end in


divorce. But the number of people cohabiting has increased


dramatically since 1979. Today one in six people cohabit. In terms of


break-ups involving children, fewer than one in ten married couples


will split up by their first child's fifth birthday. For


cohabiting couple it is one in three. Do you think marriage is


important for society? Yes. Yes I do. For people like Mark and


Kayleigh and these two here, definitely to be together, and it


is good to be married. For your children, it is nice to have your


mum and dad together. Unlike me I grew up with just a mother. That is


probably why I wouldn't get married. But not everyone is convinced that


marriage benefits children. Without the pressure of marriage some


relationships work better. sound like you are talking from


experience? I was married for seven years. My husband left me a year


ago. We tried to stick it out for the children but it wasn't fair on


them. The UK has won of the highest rates of family breakdown in the


western world. Children in Britain are less likely to live with both


parents than children in Germany, France, and the US. Fewer than 70%


live with their mother and father. # I remember how I thrilled at the


sight of you # I remember


At this bowls club, more than 600 years worth of marriage is playing


out on the green. Almost all of the couples playing


have been married for more than 40 years. So how have they managed to


stay together for so long? Is there something special about the


institution of marriage that's kept them united. Or is it more about


them as people, their characteristics that we need to


understand? On that question experts don't agree.


Getting married is a different level all together. You have a very


public commitment in front of family, friends, the state, the


community. It is clear and it is much harder to get married and it


is much harder to get out of being married. There is a very public


commitment there. Couples that get matter yod have different


characteristics -- married have different characteristics to those


who cohabit. We can observe them easily. The couples who choose to


get matter yod have higher levels of education and higher


professional occupations, they are more likely to own their own home


and have higher incomes. Lots of these factors will contribute to


whether they separate or not in the long-term. Marriage amongst high


income groups is on the rise, 66% of people in the top social class,


such Assenor managers, are married. Whilst only 44 -- such as senior


managers are married, why only 44% in the other groups, such as manual


worker. Norman and Lorna have been married for 55 years, they think


young couples could do with help from the Government. Times are not


easy at the moment. If they are living in a flat you still have to


buy furniture, anything to help people get started. That's it. I


know these days people start off when they get married and want


everything. We started, we got married we had a bed a kitchen


table and two chairs. When we had visitors they sat on boxes and


things because we couldn't afford it. You brush up nice? You can see


why I fell for him. Let as face it, she was a smasher. Len and Diana


have been married for 62 years. Do you think that it is any business


of the Government whether people are married or not? No. No business


at all. Definitely not. No. It is a personal thing between a couple. It


is nothing to do with the Government at all. Why they want to


poke their noses in! Knowss -- noses! I really don't know.


Arguments may rage about what this certificate means. But perhaps it


is laughter that makes a marriage worth the paper it is written on.


My wife had a hip operation, right. Oh! And when she came home they had


given her mechanical fingers to put her knickers on. I said that's


bloody stupid what are you doing that for, I will put your knickers


up, I got them half way up and I thought bloody hell I must be old


because I was trying to get these off years ago! Don't put that on


television for good's sake! Well now here to discuss the ins and


outs of marriage are Harry Benson from The Marriage Foundation, a


group that campaigns in favour of marriage. Claire Paye a campaigner


for Mothers at Home Matter. Natlie Bennett from the left-leaning think


tank. And Fiona Millar, who lives in what used to be called "sin".


What business, can you answer that question that couple were perplexed


by, what business is it of the Government whether people are


married or not? It is a great question. You would think if all


relationships were the same it wouldn't make any difference. But


the Government is deeply involved in family life already. If I took


you into a secondary school and I introduced you to 100 teenagers


about to start their GCSE exam, of that 100 teenagers 45 are not


living with both their natural parents. That is where the cost of


family breakdown has spiralled out of control. 45% of kids are now


living without their natural parents, and the state spends an


absolute fortune, rightly, protecting and supporting lone


parent families. Fiona Millar? respond to that? I think if you are


talking about the reasons children don't achieve. They are complicate.


We know there is a correlation between married couples and


outcomes for children. We don't know there is a causal link. There


are a lot of other reasons why children don't achieve. The state


has a business looking into people's, having policy for


people's personal lives, and families lives. It should be to


support families in whatever form they come. Not simply families in a


married couple. So don't make a big deal of marriage? You are talking


about stability and commitment for children. There can be even with


parents who separate. Why wouldn't you just penalise people who get


divorced then. The Government could fine people for getting divorced?


Don't you think people are penalised enough when they get


divorced. Let's look at what works, of the 55 kids I have introduced


you to in year nine b to start their GCSEs, of those 55 kids whose


parents are still intact, 51 out of 55 are married. It is the model who


work, gorgeous fe Fiona who has made it work is an exception.


don't think I am an exception, there are lots of successful family


models that don't involve marriage. It is about the quality of


relationship rather than status. We know children do well in loving


warm environments, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be


married environments. It means that you need to support the quality of


that relationship and the stability in that household. Kid will do much


better in a household where it is loving and warm rather than in a


married household where the parents are in conflict and arguing all the


time. What is it specifically about marriage that makes it a better


environment to bring up children in? It is the commitment and


stability. I think Harry has mentioned the statistics behind it.


That you just are more likely to separate if you are cohabiting than


if you are married. To get married, at some point you have discussed


your long-term future, you have said I want to marry you, you


haven't just ended up living together and then carrying on


because nothing else has happened in the meantime. You have discussed


it, you have committed. And you are married. Sorry, but I do think, to


compare people who are cohabiting to those who are married is not a


like-for-like comparison, in a way. Most people cohabit before they


choose to get married, if that is what they choose to decide. It is


not really comparing like-for-like, it is kind of unfair to say that


those cohabiting have a different range, the data is more complicated


than that. Tell me to back off if I'm prying here, why did you make


the different decision, which was the decision not to get married?


Well I have always felt that marriage was a bit of a patriarchal


institution, I'm not religious, the ceremony doesn't appeal to me at


all. Since your researcher phoned me up to talk about this programme,


I thought about the reasons more than 33 years. I could never think


of a good reason to do it. It was not a reason to do it but not to do


it. We have a commitment to each other, we have three children, we


had our ups and downs, well chronicled in his diaries, I'm sure


everyone knows about them, we stuck together for 33 years and there is


a form of commitment and stability. Frankly I hear it offensive to hear


from politicians that our form of family life is any less valid than


those with a ring on the finger. Perhaps they are saying it is


slightly more vulnerable? If the commitment is there it doesn't


matter if you are cohabiting or married. You have to look at the


underlying reasons why people stick together. I'm not sure that


marriage ceremonies are the reason. There is a correlation, but is that


the cause. You are more or less assuming, are you not, that


children are better brought up by two parents than one? I'm not. It


is the choice we have made and a lot of people do make of it. I can


think of many successful families that don't have two parents and the


children achieve extremely well. You have to be very careful about


making judgments about the right type of family model and the wrong


type of family model. These judgments are made all the time. If


we were to take your argument seriously, what mechanism should be


imposed to try to get people to get married and stay married? I think


you can't get away from this basic fact that 51 out of 55 kids in this


case are living in intact married families. You have said that, come


on tell us how you think the Government could get people to get


married and stay married? OK, the first thing is that the current


Government policy actually penalises married couples, how it


does that is at the low end, if you are receiving tax credits if


somebody moves in with you their income comes into our household and


you lose your tax credits, that is called the couple penalty. It is


well known. I spoke to a mate of mine this report, happily married,


he said he already worked out if he and his wife split up they would be


so much better off than if they were living together. That is


utterly mad. A marriage tax break would be one of the ways of


righting that wrong. How much money do you think it would take to


persuade someone to get married and stay married? I don't think it is


the amount of money to persuade people to get married. You are the


people child benefit, it doesn't cause people to have children, we


pay pensions and it doesn't cause people to get old. Giving a


marriage tax break would be a good thing because it is a good thing,


because most people who actually make their relationships work are


married. And the state would then be recognising that. Is there any


way of measuring a feings inducement to get this what is


perceived to be a good thing in the Government's mind to work? I find


it very hard to believe and haven't seen any evidence to support that


people would get married or stay married because of a marriage tax


break. What we are seeing in Relate, the charity are seeing an increase


with people under financial pressure coming to them. I think it


is about supporting families at times of financial pressure.


Affordable childcare, shared parental leave. Those kinds of


policies I think would have a far greater impact than something like


a marriage tax break. David Cameron is talking about something between


�150, would you get married for that? Not because David Cameron


told me to. That is for sure. �50 probably not. But at my time of


life, coming through the other end, our children are grown up now,


there is a great advantage in being married because of the situation


with inheritance tax. I think we should be equalising the situation


so cohabiting hetrosexual couples can have civil partnerships as well.


I'm penalised now. Do you think that couples should stay together


for the sake of the children, because it is a better environment?


I think the ideal situation is where you have a couple who are


happily married, who love each other, where they can look after


their children the way they want to, so if the mother or father wants to


stay at home full-time they can. If one of them wants to work they can.


And that is a fantastic environment to bring children up in it is


stable and loving. It might exist, but most of us have to make


compromises in life? You can look at the ideal and say how close can


we get to that. It doesn't deny the fact it is an ideal, if you can


have a couple happily married, committed to the children, who


remain committed to the children throughout their lives. Do you


think a single parent is less capable of doing such a good job?


Not at all. Why worry about it? is great if you can have a father


and a mother. So you assert, where is the evidence? Because when you


have parents living together you develop attachments, you develop


bonding with the children. I have to say sometimes my husband works


away, it is much easier when he's around that the children get a


balanced approach to being brought up. They have the male version and


the female version. And that works really well. It is very hard when


I'm on my own. What is the evidence on this? Families are far more


diverse, I don't think that's, families thrive in different


environment, I think when people are able to make choices that work


for them, that is when kids do really well. That is when you get a


loving and supporting home that children and couples and people on


their own who make that decision thrive on. At the moment a lot of


families can't make the choices they want. If you are a single


parent family you are more penalised in the taxies it, single


income families are penalised in the tax system, rather than a


double income family, you pay �2,500 more than a dual income


family. A lot of people can't afford to stay at home and look


after the children or work part- time. A lot of people do have to


work. In some cohabiting couples people stay at home and look after


the children. There aren't hard and fast rules. If parents separate I


think it is partly the role of the state to help support that family


to maintain good relationships with both parents. What we are saying is


it is important for children to have a relationship with both


parents if they can in both situation. Sometimes it is not


right for people to stay together. When you look at the growth in


divorce and cohabiting couples and children born out of wedlock. The


fact there is no longer any stigma against either divorcees or bass


standards, there is no stiing -- bastards, there is no stigma


because children see all sorts of models in school. Is it a bad or


good thing? I want to pick you up on this idea of being more divorce.


There isn't. There is a lot more than in 1950? Compared to 1950, but


compared to 1980 it is not true. We had a one million lone parent


families in 1980 there are two million today. We have less divorce


than in 1980. You have to explain if it is all the background factors


that are supposedly the reason why families are spliting up, you have


to explain why family breakdown has doubled, it is the trend away from


marriage, that is the reason we have our 45 out of 100-kids who are


living without both natural parents. One of the fascinating thing is the


success of marriage, if you think there isn't any stigma attached to


be unmarried, there aren't the economic reasons for women to have


to get married and so many people are still getting married, you


should be celebrating the fact it is still so popular. It is the


grain of human behaviour. Don't judge those who don't make the


decision. I'm not. That is the way the arguments are presented.


Government policy should go with the grain of human behaviour, we


want to stay together as couples. Few people set out wanting to be


lone parents, we should support lone parents and marriage as well.


It is stigmatising for lone parents to be told the married couple model


is the best one. If you hear it that way. I hear it that way, I


have been living with the same person for 33 years and three grown


up children, I hear our model of family life and parenting and


relationship is not as good as somebody else's. Let me say on


behalf of myself and my family and The Marriage Foundation and anyone


who represents families, I love lone parent families. I'm not a


lone parent family. We should support them, but we should support


married families. And unmarried families? That is the, if I told


you my uncle had died aged 90 having smoked 60fags a day he is


the exception not the rule. You can't tell everyone not to smoke


because he has done OK. Fiona has done OK but she's the exceptional.


Lots of marriages fail too? Tiny numbers of unmarried couples make


it through. Not tiny numbers, a smaller proportion than married


couples. The numbers are different to begin with. You can't compare


married to cohabiting families. You have to accept and reflect that


society is different and there are far more, it is different family


types, and people are making choices that work for them and it


is dynamic. Not everyone will remain in the same relationship


status throughout. You know they will change and different


environments will work differently. One of the reasons Fiona is here,


other than her great contribution is we are slightly surprised that


someone has been cohabiting for 33 years stim together. I don't know


why our joorb is still together. I don't know why you are surprised,


he's a pussy cat. Knowing her partner, if you had a married


couple married for 33 years that would be less significant. We have


looked for someone who has been cohabiting for 33 years and made it


so obviously your model. All my married friends are now divorced,


seriously. Choose your friends wisely.


Let's return to our main story. That is the attack in broad


daylight this afternoon in Woolich where a man, believed to be a


British soldier was hacked to death, the Home Secretary says it was an


attack on everyone in the UK. After the attack the two men were shot by


police and are now under armed guard in hospital. Richard Watson


is here again. What are the options the Government will be looking at


now? I think they will be taking a very close look at the preventing


violent extreme policy, which has been in place for some years now.


Called PREVENT for short. This is to encourage people in the Muslim


community to come forward with community intelligence with


information about extremists in their midst. The question is who


did these men know, they have been around since 2003 and converted to


Islam then. Who knew what they were doing, did anyone know if they held


extreme views and did they report it to the police? There is one note


of caution from another source of mine tonight who said, look, we


have a serious problem in the UK at the moment. He was speaking to some


young British Muslims today after this attack and actually they


expressed a certain satisfaction to him about today's attack. Saying


this was a good thing. Very shocking if true. I think it shows


the depth of the problem that we do face. Although they, they are


totally unrepresented and a tiny minority? A tiny minority, even


though they are a tiny minority, if you have these views even amongst a


tiny number of people, it presents a serious problem to the police and


Security Service. Thank you very much indeed. Not surprisingly this


terrible attack is on the front page of many and all of the


That's all for tonight, until That's all for tonight, until


tomorrow, goodnight. Good evening, a cold wind flows across tonight


into tomorrow. Showers further south. Most across eing and Wales


start dry with sunshine. Cloudy in the north. Filtering down in the


strengthening wind. Even if you leave with house -- with sunshine


overhead it won't stay like that. The showers not as heavy as in the


morning. Wind and snow across the high grounds. Blizzard conditions


on the top of the Grampians. Strong and gusty wind making it feel cold.


Heavy showers late morning and early afternoon, central and


southern areas this is where the heavy showers with under thiser and


hail mixed in will be for the second half of the day.


Temperatures across the country 9- 16. The heavier showers could have


some snow mixed in on the tops of the hills. Particularly for


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman. What can we learn from the atrocity that left a soldier dead in Woolwich? And what has the government got to do with marriage?

Download Subtitles