04/06/2013 Newsnight


Analysis of stories behind the headlines. Including is Syria using sarin, should corrupt MPs be expelled from Parliament and why sexual disease is on the rise. With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/06/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, proof positive claims France, that the Assad Government


has used nerve agent against its own citizens.


TRANSLATION: The conclusion from the lab is clear, there is sarin


gas. Well the other question is can we trace who has been using it. In


one case there is no doubt it is the Syrian regime and its


acomplises. As the Civil War deepens and the human rights abuses


become ever clearer, is the west going to do more than express


horror? We explore whether it might be time


to re-think the whole basis of a state cobbled together during an


imperial handover before most of us were even born.


Also tonight, after the riots in Turkey, the Deputy Prime Minister


says sorry for some of the police behaviour.


There is no gas tonight but plenty of jubilation because the


protestors in Taksim Square feel they might have made a breakthrough.


And this...Sexually Transmitted infection spreading fast. It is not


as if we haven't been warned, why are sexually transmitted infections


on the rise again. We have one guest who writes about


sex and one who deals with the consequences of it.


Nerve gas has been used in Syria, the confirmation from the French


Government came a few hours ago. Who used it and where hasn't been


disclosed. But offences perpetrated against civilians and against


children marks a new low in a Civil War which has left much of the


world aghast, confused and frankly rather paralysed. Our diplomatic


editor is here now. First off the French evidence? Well the Foreign


Minister made this statement this evening that there had been several


occasions where they said chemical weapons had been used. One where he


said the evidence was strongly that the regime had done it. This is the


key point, the direct accusation of the regime. It has not been done by


the US and UK before, although they have hinted at it. This is he said


later on TV. TRANSLATION: conclusion from the lab is clear,


there is sarin gas, well the other question is can we trace who has


been using it. In one case there is no doubt it is the Syrian regime


and its acomplises. 7 He referred, as I say, to a few


incidents, there was some where some Le Monde journalist brought


back urine samples by people affected in Damascus. The evidence


wasn't so conclusive there. The key evidence seems to be in the north


in Idlib province. Interestingly this is an incident the BBC has


highlighted before, and has actually shown footage of what was


said to have happened there on that day. There was a helicopter passed


over and something, it could be a cannister or a rocket was seen to


be coming down and then people were badly affected, one died. They were


taken to the nearby hospital where blood samples were taken, which we


now know were then given to members of the French Intelligence Service


a little later. That seems to be the core of the French argument,


that this chain of evidence from the helicopter eyewitnesses, people,


blood sample its, is what gives them this confidence. But it has to


say it doesn't look like an air- tight case. They could not be the


same people evacuated as were where the cannister landed. On the face


of it, it looks like a big deal? clearly is a big deal if you feel


the case has been proven. We all know that President Obama made


these statements about red lines, warnings to the Syrian Government.


Then, of course, a few weeks back when these claims of nerve gas use


were first being made everybody said what are you going to do about


it. The Americans said they didn't feel there was proof positive. And


indeed tonight the White House spokesman said something similar,


despite the French claims, that they still don't feel there is


definitive proof of the regime doing so. Nobody, even the French


are claiming that it has been done on anything other than a very small


scale. All of the statements seem to be trying to set the terms for


diplomacy. The French tonight said they are not going to do anything


about this, despite their apparent certainty, because they want to


empower the called Geneva II peace conference meant to happen in the


coming few weeks, rather than scuppering it by taking some sort


of action against Syria. The Americans claim a reluctance to get


too heavily involved in this, and this is due to their desire to try


to empower the diplomacy. This is the Geneva conference about what to


do about Syria? It is a Geneva conference where they hope the


parties will get together and agree a way to end the war and hand power


to a transitional Government. UN also produced a report on Syria


today didn't it. Parts of it made horrible reading, I thought?


independent panel of investigators of human rights abuses on Syria


made one of its periodic reports, on the chemicals they say they


think both sides have used chemicals as weapons. Rather than


chemical weapons, if you follow the distinction. They had shocking


things about human rights abuses. They talked about a 12-year-old boy


being asked by the rebels to behead a captured soldier. They talked


about numerous instances of child soldiers on the rebel side. Overall


they think the greater number of abuses were perpetrated by the


regime. They are pushing for this Geneva II process.


With us now is Vali Nasr, a member of the foreign advisory board for


the state department, a Dean of the John Hopkins School of Advanced


studies. How serious do you think this French proof of chemical


weapons is? It is a way to raise the pressure on the Assad regime


and underscore the gravity of the conflict. It is also designed to


make sure that the United Nations report does not give a sense that


blame for use of the chemicals is equally divided on both sides. This


is largely a terrain that has been previously covered, in other words


accusations have been made against the Syrian regime. Whether the


United States or the international community is not ready or willing


to see this as definitive proof and act according to the red lines it


had laid down. What would your advice be to John Kerry, I know you


speak to him frequent on these matters, what would your advice to


him be? He has made a -- an of for the to push for a solution to the


conflict. There is the Geneva conference scheduled. But actually


the framework, the basis for it hasn't been done properly. We are


going to this conflict with Assad and his Russian backers, Hezbollah


and Iran, actually having the upper hand having scored a very clear


underground military Vicry in the past two weeks. -- victory in the


past two week. We don't have a clear co-ordinated position between


the United States, Europe and the Arab allies. Also there is nothing


on the table to hint to the Russians and the Assad regime that


consequences to failure at the conference and something would


happen if they were not to deliver at the conference. We are going


into diplomacy without giving it teeth or a big stick to make it


succeed. You seem to be suggesting it is very unlikely it will


succeed? It will not succeed, largely because there is no


incentive for the Russians or Assad to compromise at this point. They


are winning on the ground. The rebels have got a setback and there


is no consequences for not cutting a deal. I think we will go through


the Geneva II process, it will not be productive. I think that coming


out of that we have to basically sit down and think about where do


we go from there. I think the path has to be to stop Assad's March on


the ground by arming the rebels, giving greater capability to hold


their positions, also to come up with both incentives and


punishments for Russia and Syria if they don't engage in the diplomatic


process effectively. I think a certain amount of time has to be


invested to get the opposition in a position where it would be much


more credible. To create greater harmony between the policies of


Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Europe and the United States going forward.


Thank you very much we will get back to you in a moment or two. In


the meantime we are going to talk about something else.


Coming up : Why are diseases like chlamydia and


gonorrhoea proving so difficult to beat?


Let's continue exploring what is happening in Syria. Because the


uprising is often understood as being wholly sectarian. The ma


Sunni Muslim population throwing -- majority Sunni population throwing


off the Alawite Assad regime. There is a long and complex history, here


is Mark Urban's analysis. Syria has for centuries been a


country of complex relationships between sects, cities and tribes.


Often they co-existed peacefully. But at times collided with extreme


violence. The ottoman Turk ruled for centuries, offering -- the


ottoman Turk ruled for centuries, offering peace for taxes. Many


people ruled on behalf of the ottoman state. It worked well


giving the religious communities a say over the sensitive issues of


their personal status, how they got married, how they conducted their


own laws, but made sure the tax went to the central Government's


treasures. That deal between order and tax flow was the heart of the


ottoman structure. A traveller in the 19th century noted three tiers


of society, mainstream, Sunni Islamists uppermost, other groups,


Christians and Jews, and then at the bottom members of the Islamic


sects considered her particulars, including the Shia and Alawites.


Both persecuted they worshiped in The Ottoman say the was by


definition a Sunni state and did not recognise any of the other


sects as Muslim. They were either Muslim or not. The ones recognised


as non-Muslim were Christians and Jews. In a way the Christians and


the Jews were better off than the small minority sects.


The uglyist rivalries were often those within particular religions.


The same traveller found poisonous relations between rival Catholic


The Ottoman Turk took Syria in the early 16th century. But it had long


been a meeting point of different cultures. The Ottoman system of


rule of more recent centuries was geared to raising taxes and it was


tolerant, indeed non-Muslims paid higher taxes. It left people with


an intense sense of their own sect or ethnicity. That was to become a


problem as the Ottoman system frayed.


Under pressure from Christian countries in the late 1850s the


Ottomans introduced measures aimed at giving equality to citizens. But


this produced a backlash and terrible anti-Christian riots in


Damascus in 1860. They were setting in motion tensions and troubles in


the very balance of the social fabric of Damascus that burst into


the most horrific violence in the summer of 1860 when Sunni Muslim


crowds campaigned through the streets of the Christian quarters,


massacring, looting, burning down houses and churches and monastries.


The images, the photographs from the time show city quarters really


that looked much like Dresden after the bombing of the Second World War.


It was a moment of communal trauma that was to really mark Damascus in


the mid-19th century. By the early 20th century one


The empire of France covers many continents and many climates.


Ottoman rule ended in 1919 when the British conquered the area, they


handed to the French who faced challenges particularly from the


Sunni majority. So the French favoured minorities such as the


Alawites, Christians and Druzes in their security forces. The enemy


for the French was the Sunni majority population and the idea of


nationalism. And one of the first things the French tried to do was


to break up the greater Syria they inhabited to create a Christian


state in Lebanon. Within the mandate of Syria itself, their


firgs vision was to create a mini- state for the all -- first vision


was to create a mini-state for the Alawites and the Druzes, and


territory around Damascus and Aleppo, and through divided rule


they could create a a different Syria they could dominate.


early post-mandate Governments were sur planted in 1963, military rule


by members of the Ba'ath party. This group pan-Arab and secular


served as an escalator for the minorities. It already gained a toe


hold under the French. The loser of one power struggle among them


Ahmed Saad's father emerged triumphant from these power


struggles to become Syria's first Alawite President. The politic of


this time were complex. He faced down Alawite rivals within the


party and as well as having some Sunnis and others on his side.


Ba'ath party ideology is a very home mojising and strong


nationalist -- home mojising and strong nationalist ideology which


breaks down the barriers of difference and gives minorities


opportunities to get access to power. Some of these minorities


were also encouraged in the colonial period to enter the army.


That is how the Alawites in Syria were very prominent in the army.


How the Assad clan and network came to prevent in the Ba'ath Party.


But little by little the religious forces polarising across the Middle


East were making themselves felt. In 1982 Sunnis in the Syrian city


of Hama staged a rising that was brutally crushed. A kind of


stability was reimposed and it lasted until the outbreak of the


current revolution two years ago. With that game brutal repression,


inflammatory rhetoric from some cleric, and an influx of foreign


fighters on both sides. Memories of the Ba'athist hey day or


cosmopolitan city life under the Ottomans caused many Syrians to


insist it is not a sectarian society and this is not a sectarian


war. But feelings of identity, of Sunni, Shia, Alawite or Christian


are still important for much of the population. And are being played


upon in this conflict. To this day the President of Syria will invoke,


not his community, but his loyalty to the Syrian nation as what is


triefg him in fighting the -- driving him in fighting the


opposition. He is acting never in the interest of secretary and


community, but to preserve the Syrian state and the people from


the threat they face. They are still using that language and they


still refuse to accept that secretary has any basis in the


fighting going on in Syria today. As Syria's neighbours weigh in they


are feeding sectarianism. The saud des and Qatar backing the Sunnis,


Hezbollah on the side of Assad. On the ground, their slogan is


"find fertile soil". These Sunni fighters mock Hezbollah, party of


good, as the party of Satan. -- party of God as the party of Satan.


And the rhetoric of Jihad is being spoken of too. Millions have been


displaced and the country's delicate tapsity of settlements has


been ripped apart. We are ajoined by our guests, and one a cousin of


Ahmed Saad. His father was widely held responsible for the repression


of Hama where it was reported around 20,000 people died. Who do


you speak for tonight? For the organisation Democracy and Freedom


in Syria. How big is that?We have lots of supporters in Syria. I


started the organisation before the Arab Spring, I have been


campaigning for democracy for many years. How many members?We have


millions of supporters in Syria. Millions, all registered


supporters? Sorry.All register supporters? No, we know the


supporters have been there for years. Is it your conviction that


Syria can survive without collapsing into sectarianism?


course, if people, if the international community really


wants it and put their efforts together. Trying to you know find a


solution, a peaceful solution to the conflict it is possible. Isn't


that the problem that the thing was created by the international


community and is now being played with by the international community,


whether it is the west or Iran or whoever? Actually it is the will of


the Syrian people isn't it that's at stake here? Exactly, as we have


seen you know the uprise anything Syria has started peacefully. --


uprising has been started peacefully in Syria, and hijacked


by the Islamists and played by both sides. This is where we are today,


we have 100,000 dead people and 1.5 million refugees. We have to find a


solution right away. A peaceful solution is the only way out of


this conflict. If not we are going to find ourselves in a regional war,


all-out regional war. We have already seen what is going on in


Lebanon and Iraq. We have seen the latest attack by Israel on Syria.


This is very dangerous. Do you think that Syria is going to emerge


from this conflict as one country still? Yes, potentially it could.


It doesn't mean it will emerge as a happy country where everybody


agrees with the outcome. We saw that happen in Iraq as well. It was


a vicious sectarian Civil War but in the end it held together.


Unfortunately right now Syria is in a place where you have a very


serious division that puts one side of the population against the other.


There is a sense of Syrian nationalism on both sides, both


sides believe they represent Siria. Nobody is a seperatist and don't


want to break out of Syria. Those are positive things. But if the


fighting continues, more blood is shed and the divisions become


deeper. You might at some point have the tipping point where this


might become something different. Can you see any circumstances under


which Ahmed Saad, he's your uncle. -- Bashar Assad, he's your uncle?


My cousin. Do you think there are circumstances he could go without


shedding more blood? If he could go he would have gone at the beginning,


now it is very difficult. He will not go, he wouldn't be allowed to


leave even if he wanted to. What do you mean he wouldn't be allowed to?


Bashar al-Assad is not his father, he inherited that regime and didn't


build it. The ones him are the ones sustaining the Ba'ath party and the


Secret Services and the military, they are in control. A lot of


people think it is a one-man show. I have always said it Bashar will


always be held responsible because he's the head of the army and


President of the Republic and head of the bait party. Behind the


scenes the people -- Ba'ath Party, behind the scenes are the people in


the military and the others in the Ba'ath Party. When you look at the


troubled sectarian history of Syria, you do understand why the Assad


regime was so vigorously and violently secular, don't you?


Secularism is a facade under which you promote a sectarian regime.


Just because you have secularism put out there doesn't mean that


people practice it. Sectarianism is not about actually practising


religion, it is about when your identity becomes a marker and


decides your access to power and access to wealth. As we saw in Iraq,


we saw in Syria, there is a division of power in the country


that has very much become aligned with a sectarian identity. As the


protestors try to change the regime there will be winners and there


will be losers. A chunk of the population would see their share of


power diminish, and the other chunk of the population on the outside is


hopeful it will gain. That process in the Middle East has not been


peaceful. The sharing and transfer of power has been con inflicting,


that is what is happening in Syria. It is not about Assad. We saw in


Iraq that we arrested and executed Saddam, the Sunnis continued to


fight. They were not fighting for Saddam, they were fighting for


their own power and privilege and fear of retribution by the Shi'ites.


You have the same process here as well. You have already indicated


you think it Geneva peace conference isn't going to go


anywhere. In the meantime, you have got all these external actors like


Iran, the gulf state, all manipulating particular factions


within Syria, what will happen? is not just that they are


manipulating this out of sport. They have vital things at stake in


Syria. Depending on which side wins, it will depend on their only


internal position and their position in the area. They are


fight to go protect themselves. There is potential this will spread


beyond Syria before long into Lebanon and Iraq. It will affect


the balance of power in the Persian Gulf. As Syria becomes more violent,


bloody, chemical weapons could be used. It could lead to a very


different language of politics in the region which would not be


beneficial to its long running stability or to global security for


that matter. Thank you very much both of you


indeed. The usual perpetrators of nods and


winks in Downing Street were letting it be known today that the


Government is going to try to bring in law to make it easier for voters


to hold their MPs to account. It has been an urgent priority for


years now. That is urgent as in "one fine day" if some other member


of this august body gets caught with its trousers down or the hand


in the sweetie jar. We're a bit baffled.


It is one of those strange coincidences, in 1990 Arnold


Schwarzenegger starred in a film called Total Recall, and 13 years


later the Governor of California was recalled and Arnie was elected


in his place. Perhaps they were reacting to a subliminal link in


his words, that, sadly, must be a question for another day. The story


for today is the Government has announced it will bring forward its


recall legislation next year. The initial enthusiasm for the idea


came during the expenses scandal. Rekindled in recent days by the


lobbying scandal that has so gripped the head lions. Victory for


people power, for those -- Headlines. Victory for people power,


for those who believe they should have more control over their


representatives. Except it is not clear the Government's version of


recall will do any such things. Under the Government's plans as an


MP I could join the BNP tomorrow, go on holiday for two years or


decide not to turn up in parliament or say to hell with my


constituencies, and I wouldn't qualify for recall under the


Government's criteria. What people regard as underperformance by an MP


this committee would overlook. That is a big point to make. Let's look


at how recall works in other parts of the world, like California,


let's call it the Total Recall Model. It is initiated by the


electorate. There is a petition by them which if it reaches the


required total of signatures it triggers a yes or no referendum on


whether the politician should lose his or her job. That emphatically


is not what the Government is proposing in this country. Their


process would not be initiated by the electorate, nor would it


feature a "back me or sack me" recall or not straight yes or no


referendum. What are they proposing? Let's call this skup not


quit -- the not quite total recall agenda. Anyone going to prison more


than a year alreadyamically loses their seat, or it would be


triggered by a resolution of the House of Commons in practice that


would mean a resolution by the Standards Committee of MPs who


would be making a recommendation. That would striinger a petition in


the MP -- trigger a petition in the member's constituency. It would


trigger a straight by-election. Zac Goldsmith believes this version of


recall is not worthy of the name. If the Government mechanism goes


ahead we will see an enormous amount of power being handed to the


whips. These committees are made up of people put there by the whips.


Independent MPs, maverick MPs won't stand a chance under the Government


mechanism. It won't empower the voter but the political hierarchies,


the parties. What is the response to these criticisms? As luck would


have it, today the Deputy Prime Minister was explaining Zac


Goldsmith in the Commons, just why in his view, recall, as it is


understood in other countries, wouldn't be right for the UK.


we are trying to do and it will be reflected in the final proposals is


strike a balance. Is give voters, the public, a backstop reassurance


that if someone commits serious wrongdoing and they are not held to


account they can be held to account by the public. I equally think we


shouldn't introduce a prososal that won a kangaroo court and a


political free for all for people to take pot shots at each other.


The issue with Californian recall system would it would become the


weapon of all minorities. The scope is enormous, there are groups well


organised and well sorted they would constantly be trying to


remove the member of parliament elected by a large percentage of


the electorate within that constituency. Yet this minority of


people would be likely it say no, we want them out and our own


candidate in. If that is the case wouldn't it have been better for


the Government not to have prom my any sort of recall? Personally I


think it would, actually. Some believe by promising recall, but


actually not allowing voters to initiate the process, well the


Government could end up causing more of the disillusion and


disconnect with politics that the measure was supposed to address in


the first place. Well now we have the report into the trouble in


Turkey all wrong, the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister thinks much


of the news coverage of the riots there has been overblown and


distorted. But he conceded that the Istanbul police force had been out


of order and overreacted to early protests which is what set off the


unrest. He said the crackdown was wrong and unjust. The protests


continued in ernest tonight as the Government tried to get talks going.


We are ajoined from isstan pull by Paul Mason. Does it look like it is


moving towards compromise? There is fighting going on in two towns in


eastern Turkey, including Antakya where a 22-year-old demonstrator


was shot dead with a gas cannister to the had had. Here, well you


can't really see it behind me but there is jubilation in the park.


Probably 10-30,000 people an hour ago when I was down there. They


think they have made a breakthrough with the climb-down by the Deputy


Prime Minister and the acknowledgement that the initial


issue was just and the police overreacted. There is no doubt the


Deputy Prime Minister has done that, because he as up against, as you


can see in the pictures a large part of the urban middle-class in


the city. No Government can survive with its legitimacy intact if it


goes up against such a wide cross section of the population. Whether


this leads to anything bigger politically is a different question.


The people here are resigned to the fact that they are a minority


politically. You have spent much of the day with people who belong to


the majority in rural Turkey. Is that right? We drove about as far


as you can get in a single day from Istanbul and went to the village


where there were devout Muslims, a place where the man can't talk to a


woman in the street, they bear veils. The people there are strong


supporters are -- of the Government. They take their cue from the


popular media, they are outraged by those drink anything a mosque that


had been turned into a hospital. That has been rebutted by the Imam


of the mosque. They don't see that on social media. There were calls


for a massive breakdown, the mass base of the AK Party reflects what


the deputy PM has done, they know they have to live in the same


country as the largely secular urban educated people behind me.


What are the protests achieving do you think? They haven't achieved


victory yet. I spoke to people down there in the park. One said they


were at fault, we ignored politics for too long, we have spoken up now.


They said the half of society that is not Islamist is getting together


to put forward an agenda that isn't the old agenda of the military, the


old military crackdowns and the secular military state that used to


run Turkey. There is something new happening here. This is what we saw


in Tahrir Square, it is what we saw in the Occupy Movement, it is the


urban educated middle-class deciding their agenda. Whatever


kind of Government we see them up against in the world, they go on


the streets and get some of it achieved. All kicking off


everywhere, isn't it, thank you. Safe sex, everyone's at it, aren't


they? No, figures are expected to be relyed tomorrow showing


significant increases in all sorts of sexually transmitted diseases.


It seems whilst everyone has become increasingly aware of the dangers


of HIV and AIDS they have forgotten about other infections around for


much longer, and whose effects are, it seems, increase league virulant.


-- increasingly virulant. Numbers of sexual infections from


gonorrhoea to genital warts have been on the rise year on year. Some


of it is down to us getting better at testing and diagnosing. But for


public health experts the numbers show too many people are putting


themselves at risk. So what's going wrong? Last year in particular we


saw a 25% increase in gonorrhoea rates, and we think that gonorrhoea


will be well up again this year. We expect to see rises in most of the


other areas. The rises are particularly in young people of all


sexualities and in gay men of all ages. There are definitely some


groups more at risk of poor sexual health than others. Gonorrhoea is


the second most common sexually transmitted disease. New cases rose


to 21,000 jumping 2% in one year last year. Over a third of the


cases were men who had sex with men, up from around a quarter in 2010.


The big concern is untreatable gonorrhoea. Infections that resist


antibiotics. Doctors are having to think of new approaches for the


future. Possibly even using more than one antibiotic at a time. This


is controversial. At the moment every few years we are changing to


a stronger dose or a new type of antibiotic. In recent years we have


got to the end of that line in terms of the antibiotics we are


using. We are seeing reduced susceptibility when we test the


gonorrhoea we grow in the laboratory. We are not seeing main


treatment failures, but if the past is anything to go by we will see


treatment failures in the future. The message should be a familiar


one, that using condoms and going for regular check-ups helps bring


down infections and catches them early enough to to not go on to


threaten fertility. It is young people under the age of 25 who are


experiencing the highest rates of sexual infection. The message about


safer sex is not getting through. Many people think sexual infections


happen to somebody else. Experts fear an element of complacency,


they also say there needs to be a change in emphasis in sex education.


Young people aged 24 and under are having half the sex out there, and


half of the partner exchange. We need to do better and relationships


education with young people. They need to learn not how to put a


condom on the banana, but how to have better relationships and how


to say I'm not doing that unless you wear a condom and I'm not doing


it because I'm not ready yet. Government ads in the past have


been pretty full on. Campaigners say what is needed now is not so


much this broad brush approach, but local low- based community serves


that target clubs, pubs and football matches. This all costs


money at a time when local authority budgets are under


increasing pressure. Here with us now is my guests.


A health service provider and Helen Croydon who described her own


sexual escapades with older men and others in her book Sugar Daddy


Diaries. Does what was talked about in this report tally with your


experience in the clinics? Yes very much so. I think you know I haven't


seen the figures coming out tomorrow but I wouldn't be at all


surprised if they didn't show an increase. Some of that I would say


is down to real efforts to get people diagnosed and tested. So


that the national chlamydia screening programme, for example,


has been really pushing hard to diagnose all of those young people.


One in nine of have chlamydia. may not be that it is increasing


but many people are reporting it? It might be people are diagnosing


it. With something like clam mid-ia, it is a fairly new programme,


running for two or three years now. You have to test about a third of


the population that you are targeting to drive down underlying


prevalence. They are not there yet. You would see the numbers come up


before they start to come down. I'm not being complacent in saying


there is no unsafe sex happening. Clearly from that report,


anecdotally at least, Helen tell us about this, people's behaviour has


changed hasn't it? I don't think it has, actually. I certainly think we


are exposed to more sex in the media. The Internet and I certainly


think that people are being exposed to it younger. I don't think we're


doing it any more than we ever have. We are quite a promiscuous race,


you only have to look fill landering through history of


Monarchs through history, free love in the 1960s. Sexual behaviour, but


sexual hygiene and etiquette, the use of condoms or barrier methods


of contraception, protective methods of contraception seems to


be changing? I can't speak for more people are using more contra


sefptives now. Perhaps they are, if that is the case then definitely we


need to do more to get the message through. I don't think the problem


lies in the fact that people are having more sex or are more exposed


to sex, that has always been the case. It definitely appears the


message isn't getting through, we have to look at why. When I grew up,


I'm in my 30s now, I know that any sexual encounters I have ever had


with people my own age the he have idea that you wouldn't use a condom


with a new partner is pretty much unheard of. My age group really


have that message drummed in hard. It seems to me when you get to the


older generation, I know that from experiences of writing my book


about dating older men. There seems to be more people, more men that


try and dodge condoms. You said when you were with an older man he


didn't want to wear a condom? happened a couple of times. It


appears to be happening with younger people as well. You think


why is that safe message that got through to my generation and didn't


in older generations. What is your they arey from talking to people?


think, I hear a variety of things. The big missing piece in the jigsaw


is not making all young people have access to good relationships and


sex education. So that they are growing up and they understand


about having healthy relationships and respect for themselves and


their partners and everybody else. That is a big piece of the jigsaw


missing. I think also people don't realise that half a million STIs


diagnosed, the infections doiing nosed, you are far more likely to


bump -- diagnosed, you are far more likely to bump into an infection


now if you don't wear condoms that 20 years ago. People in your line


of work always talk about people learning to respect themselves and


the rest of it. The fact is one night stands are always going to


happen, you say there is a bigger pool of potential infection out


there than there was. If people are behaving differently and not using


condoms, as Helen said they used to take it as a matter of course you


would wear a condom, if they are not doing that now what is


happening. Why are they behaving like that? I think it is really


great. The campaign you were showing earlier, the Government


campaign that ran a few years ago it is really good to see those


campaigns. That one didn't mention HIV, which you could say is a


misopportunity. You have to keep it up. It is no good having the


Tombstone campaign, it was 20 years ago, there are a lot of parents out


there with teenage children with different perspectives. In those


days that campaign you talked about, everybody remembers it, the


tombstone falling over and there is a great menace out there, they


thought they would die if they got HIV/AIDS.


Now things are slightly different. But is it that they don't, because


they thought they could have died, they have forgotten about other


infections? It is interesting to looking at what happened to


infections after that campaign aired. The rates had been steadily


rising as they do. That campaign aired and they dropped off a cliff.


But they slowly but surely rose again because you can't keep people


scared for long periods of time and you shouldn't be. What do you


think? I would like men to be willing to wear condoms more full


stop. Condoms are the only ones that stops sexually transmitted


diseases. It is the only contraception that is detremental,


it is alleged, to men's pleasure. All other forms of contraception


involves the woman making a sacrifice. Lots of women have a


reaction to hormonal contraception. Even in long-term relationships


there seems to be a reluctance for men to use condoms full stop.


Because they say it affects their pleasure. That is why I think it is


really important that we get the message across to women to put


their foot down. You talk about sleeping with older men and they


were the ones reluctant to use a condom. Maybe they were older men


who spent a long married life that started perhaps before the whole


AIDS scare and they never got into the habit of it? The last time they


used a condom was before they were improved and they were probably


right in thinking that it did disrupt their sexual pleasure. But


condoms are a lot more than that. I do think as well as educating women


and men to use condom, we also need to educate women particularly to be


a bit more assertive, particularly because a lot of younger women do


sleep with slightly older, even older boyfriends. And they may get


a little bit easily led. We just have to let them know it is OK to


say no and say go to the sexual health clinic, I'm not sleeping


with you until you do. I think a lot of women are scared of doing


that. Given how rigorous you are about


other things you put in your body it is rather extraordinary, lack of


as if todayousness? I think -- as if todayousness I think what we


have to do is go to the clinic, if you are going for contraceptives


let's offer a range of STI tests as well, so people aren't expected to


make two or three different appointments to get different


appointments, pull it all together. That is all we have time for


That is all we have time for tonight. See you tomorrow.


Hello again, cloud from the North Sea now. For many central and


eastern areas tomorrow starts off grey but the low cloud will thin


and lift and get burned back towards the coastal areas. Sunny


spells developing widely. One or two showers for Northern Ireland.


Belfast dry because of an easterly breeze, the showers to the western


side of Northern Ireland. A few more showers in Scotland. Most over


the hills and mountains, it may stay dry through the central


lowlands. Across England and Wales it will be cooler where the cloud


persists around the North Sea coasts from Norfolk northwards. The


wind won't be as strong today. While many places will enjoy a good


Is Syria using Sarin? Should corrupt MPs be kicked out of Parliament? The latest from Turkey. Why are sexual diseases on the rise? With Jeremy Paxman.

Download Subtitles