:00:13. > :00:16.No-one has broken the law, says the Foreign Secretary, and in America
:00:16. > :00:21.they say no laws have been broken too.
:00:21. > :00:25.Yet a massive eaves dropping operation has been laid bare. What
:00:25. > :00:30.kind of legal structure requires a whistleblower before the worlds
:00:30. > :00:35.knows what's happening. And we ask, "Do you know how much
:00:35. > :00:39.you are disclosing each time you go into cyberspace"?
:00:39. > :00:43.As more and more children grow up in a house with no man in it, are
:00:43. > :00:49.fathers really necessary? As long as we keep saying it doesn't really
:00:49. > :00:52.matter what kind of family you are in, and ignore the outcomes we are
:00:52. > :00:58.doing children and lone parents themselves a disservice.
:00:58. > :01:03.And in Syria, as Government forces take the offensive, what chance for
:01:03. > :01:07.the people on the sidelines trying to influence the task of rebuilding
:01:07. > :01:12.when the civil war is finally over. Many now would say the conflict can
:01:12. > :01:17.only end either with a victory on the battlefield, or a settlement
:01:17. > :01:27.imposed by outer powers, and activists like these are just
:01:27. > :01:28.
:01:28. > :01:32.irrelevant. The Foreign Secretary was
:01:32. > :01:35."unambiguous", British intelligence has not tried to get around the law
:01:36. > :01:38.by taking manufactures from United States' surveillance programmes
:01:38. > :01:43.that it would not have been able to get authorisation for in this
:01:43. > :01:46.country. He didn't give any details though, but how could he, we shall
:01:46. > :01:54.have to take his word for it. What has been revealed about the extent
:01:54. > :01:58.of American Government snooping has astonished some people millions and
:01:58. > :02:03.millions of phone call and internet records have been looked at,
:02:03. > :02:06.according to a young man who has gone public.
:02:07. > :02:11.The legal and policy framework for surveillance is about as complex a
:02:11. > :02:16.suggest as you could imagine. But Edward Snowden came to the view
:02:16. > :02:20.that mass harvesting of communications constitutes an
:02:20. > :02:23.unacceptable invasion of people's privacy. The NSA specifically
:02:23. > :02:26.targets the communications of everyone, it digests them by
:02:26. > :02:30.default. It collects it in its system and filters them and
:02:30. > :02:34.analyses and it stores them for periods of time. Simply because
:02:34. > :02:39.that is the easiest most efficient and most valuable way to achieve
:02:39. > :02:44.these ends. But the passage of a few days since
:02:44. > :02:48.the first revelations has also given us a clearer idea of the
:02:48. > :02:53.official justification for the National Security Agency's
:02:53. > :02:57.operations. That's especially true of gathering met at that data. The
:02:57. > :03:01.who contacted whom for how long and where they were. Intelligence
:03:01. > :03:04.professionals defend this as a vital tool. This kind of trawling
:03:04. > :03:08.of massive data has to go on all the time any way, because that's
:03:08. > :03:15.where the intelligence is. It is concealed within the data. But the
:03:15. > :03:18.point about this is that, or they are looking for needles in
:03:18. > :03:21.haystacks, in order to find that they have to be alooked to look at
:03:22. > :03:27.the haystack. For decades phone companies and other service
:03:27. > :03:37.providers have been required by law to keep what used to be called
:03:37. > :03:40."billing information". Met at that data, and to make that a-- metadata
:03:40. > :03:45.and make it available to the Government. That is not the same
:03:45. > :03:51.under other countries' laws. To intercept communications, the
:03:51. > :03:56.content of a phone call, e-mail or an old fashioned letter requires a
:03:56. > :04:05.specific warrant. It just just that the law makes met -- just that the
:04:05. > :04:11.law makes metadata easier to record, looking at the content needs an
:04:11. > :04:16.exponeings power. And storing all of this would be a mind-boggling
:04:16. > :04:24.challenge. Even storing the metadata is a costly and complex
:04:24. > :04:30.operation for the NSA. It has opened $2 billion centre in Utahh
:04:30. > :04:40.to do that. Doing it on this scale poses many questions. The metadata
:04:40. > :04:44.collection programme seems to be problematic. And the the
:04:44. > :04:48.Governments and courts will have to look at this with a fresh pair of
:04:48. > :04:51.eyes to see in the National Security Agency has been following
:04:51. > :04:56.the rules. The UK doesn't do intelligence on anything like the
:04:56. > :05:01.same level. It can rely on the NSA, of course, but even leaked figures
:05:01. > :05:06.of 197 reports sent to GCHQ by that organisation suggest Britain is
:05:06. > :05:09.doing things on a much smaller scale. That makes it easier to
:05:09. > :05:14.regulate and for ministers to insist they are acting legally.
:05:14. > :05:18.has been suggested that GCHQ uses our partnership with the United
:05:18. > :05:23.States to get around UK law, obtaining information that they
:05:23. > :05:28.cannot legally obtain in the United Kingdom. I wish to be absolutely
:05:28. > :05:33.clear that this accusation is baseless. Any data obtained by us
:05:33. > :05:39.from the United States involving UK nationals is subject to proper UK
:05:39. > :05:45.statutory controls and safeguards. The US Government says also that
:05:45. > :05:50.its requests for content from going google or AOL, under the project
:05:50. > :05:55.code named Prism, are subject to legal warrants. For many in the US
:05:55. > :05:59.Congress the key question is whether these operations involved
:05:59. > :06:02.routine large-scale surveillance of US citizens. As for the rest of the
:06:02. > :06:07.world well they are not quite so bothered about that. So if there
:06:07. > :06:12.are to be changes to the law as a result of these disclosures it is
:06:12. > :06:15.most likely to be in tightening up the rules for surveillance of US
:06:15. > :06:19.citizens much but surveillance of the rest of the world is likely to
:06:19. > :06:24.be carried on by the NSA on a massive scale.
:06:24. > :06:29.We have we haven't had a leak about surveillance programmes of this
:06:29. > :06:34.magnitude in some time. The story seems to have lags and the leaks
:06:34. > :06:38.just keep coming. So it is my hope that Congress does take a look at
:06:38. > :06:42.this, that they hold hearings and if the law has been broken that
:06:42. > :06:47.people are held accountable for breaking the law.
:06:47. > :06:51.As for the man who made this public, he said that he expects the data
:06:51. > :06:55.empires and intelligence organisations that he has betrayed
:06:55. > :06:58.will not forgive him and that he accepts that life as he knew it is
:06:58. > :07:03.effectively over. This is something that's not our
:07:03. > :07:07.place to decide. The public needs to decide whether these programmes
:07:07. > :07:10.and policies are right or wrong. I'm willing to go on the record to
:07:10. > :07:14.defend the authenticity of them and say I didn't change these, I didn't
:07:14. > :07:17.modify the story, this is the truth, this is what's happening, you
:07:17. > :07:24.should decide whether we need to be doing this.
:07:24. > :07:28.Well now to discuss this we have Major General Jonathan Shaw, a
:07:28. > :07:31.retired army general, until last year in charge of the Ministry of
:07:31. > :07:36.Defence cyber security programme. And Richard Aldridge, who has
:07:36. > :07:38.written a book on the US intelligence agency, GCHQ, he's
:07:39. > :07:44.currently leading a research project into what the public knows
:07:45. > :07:49.about the CIA. Were you surprised about the scale
:07:49. > :07:52.of disclosures in the revelations? I wasn't surprised it happened, but
:07:52. > :07:55.the sheer scale of it when I think about it doesn't surprise me. The
:07:55. > :07:59.whole area is one of big data. Every corporation in the world is
:07:59. > :08:03.struggling to cope with this massive data. And you need to take
:08:03. > :08:07.a lot of data in if you are going to analyse it. Thinking about it,
:08:07. > :08:10.it shouldn't have taken us by surprise at all. What do you think?
:08:10. > :08:14.It shows us the intelligence agencies no longer own intelligence,
:08:15. > :08:18.the people who own intelligence now are the supermarket, the banks and
:08:18. > :08:21.the airlines. That is a problem because Government needs access to
:08:21. > :08:26.that information. It is interesting that people are prepared to share
:08:26. > :08:29.all sorts of bits of information about themselves with these
:08:29. > :08:35.companies, but they are some how alarmed if the Government's keeping
:08:35. > :08:38.track of them? A former senior GCHQ officer said there is something
:08:38. > :08:41.strange about a keyboard, if you put a human being in front of a
:08:41. > :08:45.keyboard and a screen they will do all sorts of weird things which
:08:46. > :08:50.they won't normally do in ordinary life. There is a whole research
:08:50. > :08:54.project there. We didn't know this programme existed, do you think we
:08:54. > :08:58.should have known, General? Or the Americans perhaps? What should be
:08:58. > :09:01.in the public dough nain and what shouldn't is the question. I'm
:09:01. > :09:07.quite comfortable, but I suppose you could say I should be, that we
:09:07. > :09:11.didn't know about it. I think we should be comfortable that it
:09:11. > :09:14.exists. The real surprise would have been if there wasn't co-
:09:15. > :09:18.operation between the QCHQ and the NSA. That would have been a
:09:18. > :09:21.surprise. When you have a programme of this scale, much bigger even
:09:21. > :09:25.than you knew, you say if you thought about it you would have
:09:25. > :09:29.recognised it, but you can't possibly be regularly scrutinised
:09:29. > :09:33.by due legal oversight, can it? Well you will have to wait for the
:09:34. > :09:37.inquiry on that, I'm not quite sure how that was done. You will have to
:09:38. > :09:43.wait to see on that. I don't know what the task mechanism is, I don't
:09:43. > :09:48.know the detail, we will have to wait for that. That scale, millions
:09:48. > :09:54.of phone records alone, vast numbers of internet pieces of
:09:54. > :09:58.information, you would have to have somebody in a court just stamping,
:09:58. > :10:03.stamping all day long in order to look at it? The record we were
:10:03. > :10:07.hearing was the 190 reports. Those are the requests from this country?
:10:07. > :10:13.So the American system, I'm not capable of talking about that at
:10:13. > :10:17.all. Do you worry about the implications at the British end of
:10:17. > :10:22.things? I worry about the connections between Britain and the
:10:22. > :10:26.United States. The British system as shown is smaller and therefore
:10:26. > :10:31.easier to regulate. The American system is much, much larger. They
:10:31. > :10:35.not only harvest a lot of data but they keep a lot of that data.
:10:35. > :10:38.Exactly as you have said, much more difficult to oversee all that stuff.
:10:38. > :10:43.I strongly suspect that British politicians don't know everything
:10:43. > :10:49.that the United States is doing. Does that matter? Yes, I think it
:10:49. > :10:54.does. So many intelligence agencies around the world share intelligence
:10:54. > :10:59.now. But the relationship between GCHQ and NSA is special. They
:10:59. > :11:03.effectively work in certainly in some areas as effectively one
:11:03. > :11:08.organisation. Do you believe the Foreign Secretary? Yes I do. I
:11:08. > :11:14.think when he says that nothing has been done that's unlawful, that's
:11:14. > :11:17.correct. The problem is the law is not very transparent in the UK, and
:11:17. > :11:23.in the United States it is put into operation by secret courts. We
:11:23. > :11:27.can't even read their judgments. So we're told it is lawful but we know
:11:27. > :11:31.very little more than that. Let's talk about what should happen to
:11:31. > :11:34.this whistleblower, Mr Snowden. What do you think should happen to
:11:34. > :11:38.him General? I think if you serve your country, if you sign up and
:11:38. > :11:42.work for people who you must have known who you are working for and
:11:42. > :11:46.the sort of business you are in. He knew what the rules were and he
:11:46. > :11:51.broke them, he should have the book thrown at him absolutely. He has
:11:51. > :11:54.committed a legal crime. Whether he has committed a moral crime is an
:11:54. > :11:57.entirely separate question. My own view is he should be pursued by the
:11:57. > :12:04.Americans. He certainly thinks he should be. What do you think should
:12:04. > :12:09.happen to him? I think it shows the way that privacy isies appearing
:12:09. > :12:11.for everybody. Part of this issue - - privacy is disappearing for
:12:11. > :12:14.everything. Privacy is also disappearing for corporations and
:12:15. > :12:19.Government. It is difficult to do secret stuff because people will
:12:19. > :12:23.blow the whistle. I don't think you are answering the question. What
:12:23. > :12:27.penalty, what should befall this young man, has he done us all a
:12:27. > :12:30.service for disclosing what has gone on, or should he be punished?
:12:30. > :12:34.He says ethically I have done the right thing, but I have broken the
:12:34. > :12:38.law and I expect to be punished. Thank you very much. The usual
:12:38. > :12:42.argument used about why we don't need to worry about the state
:12:42. > :12:44.snooping upon what we are up to on lon is if we have done nothing
:12:44. > :12:48.questionable we have nothing to worry about.
:12:48. > :12:52.Yet it is surprising how even the most innocent of forays into
:12:52. > :12:56.cyberspace can disclose all sorts of things about you that you
:12:56. > :13:01.weren't necessarily aware you were revealing. Tom Chatfield is a
:13:01. > :13:05.digital and technology writer, we asked him to explain.
:13:05. > :13:09.In the few decades since the birth of the web, we have moved from e-
:13:09. > :13:15.mail to social networking to a gamit of on-line services. Scoring
:13:15. > :13:19.more and more of our lives in the called "cloud". The amount of data
:13:19. > :13:24.out there is growing at an exponential rate.
:13:24. > :13:31.In a typical day last year people sent more than 144 billion e-mails.
:13:31. > :13:37.Shared more than 684,000 items of content on Facebook alone. And
:13:37. > :13:42.uploaded 72 hours of video to YouTube every single minute. 90% of
:13:42. > :13:48.the world's data has been created in the last two years.
:13:48. > :13:52.With so much data out there, and so much more coming every day, is it
:13:52. > :13:56.realistic to expect to keep it under our own control.
:13:56. > :14:01.The word "cloud" is deceptive when it comes to technology. It sounds
:14:02. > :14:07.fluffy and weightless, but what it really describes is a bunker-like
:14:07. > :14:11.room full of computers running physically the data owned by a
:14:11. > :14:15.company and located in a particular country and subject to its
:14:15. > :14:19.Government's laws and requests for data. Search centres can also be
:14:19. > :14:24.the subject of digital assaults, although companies will try to keep
:14:24. > :14:29.them safe. On top of this there is the fact that all the seemingly
:14:29. > :14:33.trivial details we reveal about ourselves on-line every day can be
:14:33. > :14:37.cross-referenced and co-related often to startling effect. A
:14:37. > :14:44.database of trivial details is not a trivial database. I will go now
:14:44. > :14:52.and do a little bit of self- googleing on-line and see what I
:14:52. > :14:57.can snoop out. If I have a look on my Twitter profile, I can see I'm
:14:57. > :15:03.here filming now. If I scroll down I can see a few days ago I was out
:15:03. > :15:08.having a coffee near my house. I'm just going to pop in the details of
:15:08. > :15:12.that common near my house and I can find the postcode for that. Armed
:15:12. > :15:17.with that postcode I'm going to cross-reference the first half of
:15:17. > :15:22.that with my own name and rather disturbingly it very quickly brings
:15:22. > :15:25.up the registration details that have been scraped off my website
:15:25. > :15:30.registration that will tell you my home address and my personal mobile
:15:30. > :15:34.phone number as well as my e-mail. A quick glance on Facebook will
:15:34. > :15:37.give you some details about who I'm married to. You can look at some
:15:37. > :15:43.photos, you can find out something about my cats, if you are
:15:43. > :15:46.interested in things like that. And glancing now at my public profile
:15:46. > :15:51.in linkedin, that fills in all the university and education details
:15:51. > :15:54.and most of the other stuff, as well as the feed pulling off all my
:15:54. > :15:58.Twitter information. Now you are pretty much well on your way to
:15:58. > :16:02.knowing far more about me than frankly I feel comfortable about
:16:03. > :16:09.you getting in five minutes of tapping on a keyboard. According to
:16:09. > :16:14.research published earlier this year, even details as trivial as
:16:14. > :16:17.Facebook "likes" can be analysed to predict 80% accurately very private
:16:17. > :16:23.details like ethnicity, political preference, religious beliefs and
:16:23. > :16:29.sexuality. So with all the risks, why are people still so willing to
:16:29. > :16:38.upload so much of their lives. Perhaps we have been niave, perhaps
:16:38. > :16:44.web historians of the future will laugh at us and our reDell Lynx for
:16:44. > :16:49.cease lesson line attention. It is not too late to change our ways. If
:16:49. > :16:54.you want to protect yourself on- line, one of the joys of technology
:16:54. > :16:58.is find out all the things you can do, using anonymous browsers or
:16:58. > :17:00.virtual private networks or incrypting your files. Or you can
:17:01. > :17:08.stop telling everywhere you are going, who you are seeing and what
:17:08. > :17:16.you are doing, and shut up instead! Professor Richard Aldridge is still
:17:16. > :17:23.with us, we are joined from San Francisco by the technology writer.
:17:23. > :17:27.Do you think loss of privacy is the price we pay inevitably for using
:17:27. > :17:30.technology? I think that is something that has been said by
:17:30. > :17:34.President Obama as well. You have to weigh up the balance of whether
:17:34. > :17:37.you want security and privacy. I would say that the whole idea of
:17:37. > :17:44.the loss of privacy is something people have been talking about for
:17:44. > :17:51.a very long time. I noticed back in 1970 Newsweek Magazine had a cover
:17:51. > :17:56.core that said "The End of Privacy". Governments around the world are
:17:56. > :17:59.struggling to keep up with the amount of data put out there. It is
:17:59. > :18:04.difficult to reconcile whether there is an increase in the amount
:18:04. > :18:11.of surveillance as compared to what there was 30 or 40 years ago.
:18:11. > :18:14.you think that the, that our standards are changing, that older
:18:14. > :18:17.people are obviously much less willing to share things than young
:18:17. > :18:21.people who very often have disclosed everything that's
:18:21. > :18:25.happened in their lives since they were early teenagers? Very much so.
:18:25. > :18:28.I think much of the debate is about the trade-off between liberty and
:18:28. > :18:33.security. But actually I would argue we have traded both liberty
:18:33. > :18:38.and security for something which we might call convience, even shopping.
:18:38. > :18:41.That's a cultural trend that we notice very much amongst the
:18:41. > :18:45.younger demographic. You suggest it is notness low really an issue
:18:45. > :18:48.then? I don't think it is quite so much an issue for the younger
:18:48. > :18:54.generation. I think to some extent they have been out for a good night
:18:54. > :18:59.out. It hasn't actually happened unless someone has instantly put
:18:59. > :19:02.167 photographs on Facebook. your notions of privacy the same of
:19:02. > :19:06.that of your parents' generation say? I think you are absolutely
:19:06. > :19:09.right what you were discussing earlier, there is a very big
:19:10. > :19:13.generational shift in attitudes towards privacy. I think there is a
:19:13. > :19:17.bit of a myth around this idea that young people don't value privacy. I
:19:17. > :19:24.think they do. I think they just view the Internet in a very
:19:24. > :19:26.different way to older generations, with less paranoia and less of a
:19:26. > :19:32.deferential view towards the Internet. With more of a sense of
:19:32. > :19:35.control of the way they share information. Where as perhaps older
:19:35. > :19:38.generations may primarily rely on Facebook as a social networking
:19:38. > :19:48.tool, more and more young people are actually veering towards many
:19:48. > :19:51.
:19:51. > :19:59.different types of social networks like Instagramfor mobile, Snapchat,
:19:59. > :20:04.and Whasup. Snapshot is sharing photographs, the person sees it and
:20:04. > :20:07.it is deleted after ten seconds. There is a different aim for
:20:07. > :20:13.content that the younger generation has.
:20:13. > :20:16.Do you think consumer behaviour will change after this consumer
:20:16. > :20:20.revelationry episode? I don't think so, people generally want convience,
:20:20. > :20:24.there is this saying that if the service is free you become the
:20:24. > :20:30.product. This is what we have seen with Facebook, what we have seen
:20:30. > :20:35.with very popular mobile services like Waves, the navigation map. If
:20:35. > :20:40.we have free services we will have ads targeted to us. There are big
:20:40. > :20:45.companies in Silicon Valley who are very good at targeting the data out
:20:45. > :20:49.there and targeting us with advertising. That is part and
:20:49. > :20:54.parcel technology and using services that are convenient for us.
:20:54. > :20:59.The word "paranoia" was used earlier, an unfounded fear, this
:20:59. > :21:04.isn't an unfounded fear is it? it isn't. The future is coming fast,
:21:04. > :21:10.in ten years time anything we buy in a shop that costs more than �20
:21:10. > :21:13.will have an IP address, a kettle, a toaster, a handbag. Those things
:21:13. > :21:17.will gather data all the time. We will have almost continuous
:21:17. > :21:21.surveillance. Certainly in urban areas. Yes everything that happens
:21:21. > :21:25.will be recorded all the time. That will be convenient and people will
:21:25. > :21:28.sign up to it. And maybe people won't worry too much about it?
:21:28. > :21:32.Absolutely. It will be a very different world. Is there any way
:21:32. > :21:40.to avoid it? You could throw away your mobile phone and your laptop
:21:40. > :21:43.and your credit cards, but life would be very inconvenient. If you
:21:43. > :21:48.are on-line is there any way to avoid people snooping and knowing
:21:48. > :21:56.about you? You can certainly just avoid all these different social
:21:56. > :21:59.networks that are out there. I would a add, with the proliferation
:21:59. > :22:04.of so many different types of networks that new generations are
:22:04. > :22:08.using. It is not even just Facebook or the carrier companies any more,
:22:08. > :22:12.AT&T or Vodaphone, people are now calling through Skype. I know Skype
:22:12. > :22:18.was one of the programmes that was part of the Prism project, but
:22:18. > :22:22.there are many, many more adviceover Internet Protocol
:22:22. > :22:26.services people use for free calls and messages. How is any one agency
:22:26. > :22:30.going to keep track of that huge proliferation of information with
:22:30. > :22:38.only more services coming on board and offering those same kinds of
:22:38. > :22:42.communication tools. So widespread publicity or disclosure will mean
:22:42. > :22:46.that it is impossible for people to be snooping on you, you think?
:22:46. > :22:50.just think it will become you know, as the channels of communication
:22:50. > :22:56.increase it becomes ever more difficult for any one agency to
:22:56. > :23:01.track and make sense of all that data. So they outsource to these
:23:01. > :23:05.intelligence companies like Palenteer, and the company that the
:23:05. > :23:10.whistleblower came from, who have very smart code-crackers and people
:23:11. > :23:17.who create all georhythms to sieve through the data. It is the
:23:17. > :23:23.constant sifting through the data and making sense of it. It is no
:23:23. > :23:27.easy task for any Government to do that. Have we passed the high water
:23:27. > :23:31.mark of this type of disclosure? think it is just beginning. That is
:23:31. > :23:40.partly because of the technology itself. If we look at wicky leeks,
:23:40. > :23:43.it is easier -- Wikileaks, it is easier to bring out this
:23:43. > :23:47.information. They are not doing this to disclose to tech companies
:23:47. > :23:51.and the like? It has only just begun, it is the merchants of
:23:51. > :23:55.shopping and people like shopping. Great numbers of children are
:23:55. > :23:58.growing up without an adult male in their lives. A report by a right-
:23:58. > :24:03.leaning think-tank claimed today that some parts of England and
:24:03. > :24:06.Wales have become man-deserts, there isn't even a single male
:24:06. > :24:10.teacher in a quarter of primary schools, for example. Does it
:24:10. > :24:16.matter though? Is it anyone else's business outside the families
:24:16. > :24:21.concerned? The group behind the report claims it is and costs the
:24:21. > :24:26.country billions a year. How come? Why does it matter if these
:24:26. > :24:31.children have a male role model in their lives? What does it mean for
:24:31. > :24:35.their development? For society at large? According to the Centre for
:24:35. > :24:39.Social Justice report one million children have no meaningful contact
:24:39. > :24:44.with their father. They say that family breakdown can cause
:24:44. > :24:50.everything from educational failure to worklessness, crime, debt and
:24:50. > :24:55.poverty. Fixing that, they claim, costs the taxpayer �46 billion a
:24:55. > :24:59.year. The sense that fathers don't matter, that family structure
:24:59. > :25:03.doesn't matter and that just being on your own with children you can
:25:03. > :25:07.do just as well. If only it were true. It takes two people to bring
:25:07. > :25:12.a child into the world, and unsurprisingly if at all possible
:25:12. > :25:14.children tend to do best when there are two parents throughout their
:25:15. > :25:17.childhood. In this North London neighbourhood, they have the
:25:17. > :25:21.fourth-highest number of single mother households in all of England
:25:21. > :25:25.and Wales. Yet parents we spoke to at this local primary school were
:25:25. > :25:29.convinced that children need a father figure. I just think it is a
:25:29. > :25:35.good balance to have both parents. Some people are fortunate, some
:25:35. > :25:39.unfortunate, that is my personal opinion. I just think it helps the
:25:39. > :25:44.child's upbringing and development. Many of those we spoke to struggled
:25:44. > :25:48.to explain why a father's role is different from that of a mother's.
:25:48. > :25:55.The fact that there is two around is more important than the fact I'm
:25:55. > :26:01.male. I think that's the thing. It is probably not my sex but the fact
:26:01. > :26:04.that there is two of us. This part of London could well be what the
:26:04. > :26:09.Centre for Social Justice calls a "man desert". Not just because of
:26:10. > :26:14.the high number of single mother households, but because so few of
:26:14. > :26:18.the teachers at this school are men. The staff wish there were more.
:26:18. > :26:22.They bring in different social skills to women, that plays a huge
:26:22. > :26:28.role in having male teachers in schools. What do you mean by social
:26:28. > :26:32.skills, what do they bring to the equation? Etiquette and how they
:26:32. > :26:38.treat girls, for example. How they have manners and respect towards
:26:38. > :26:41.each other. They see a staff, men and women liaising with each other,
:26:41. > :26:47.working together, they might not necessarily see that at home.
:26:47. > :26:51.wards with the highest percentages of single mother households are
:26:51. > :26:55.found in Birmingham, Liverpool, the whirl, and King's Cross in London.
:26:55. > :26:59.Jordan's father was not involved in his upbringing, he was raised by
:26:59. > :27:03.his mother, grandmother and an uncle. I think yes there is no
:27:03. > :27:09.doubt about it having a father there it completes the package
:27:09. > :27:13.really. If a father was there it wouldn't necessarily add anything
:27:13. > :27:17.to it significantly, it wouldn't give really an advantage, maybe a
:27:17. > :27:23.financial advantage you have two parents you can go dad get me this,
:27:23. > :27:27.and mum would disagree. But in terms of that I think yes there is
:27:27. > :27:34.an advantage but not a major one. It is not really a game-changer.
:27:34. > :27:38.Jordan isn't alone in any thinking there are many -- in thinking there
:27:38. > :27:42.are many factors that determine a child's upbringing and the presence
:27:42. > :27:46.of a father isn't the most important. All the demographics
:27:46. > :27:50.show what matters for children's life chances is poverty first and
:27:50. > :27:55.foremost and the level of conflict in a family. Looking at what is
:27:55. > :27:59.going on within the family rather than a family structure. We know
:28:00. > :28:05.poverty is rising. The Institute for Fiscal studios is predicting
:28:05. > :28:10.child poverty will rise to a million children between 2010-2020.
:28:10. > :28:14.We need to focus there. The Centre for Social Justice says that
:28:14. > :28:16.politicians have responded feeblely to what it call Britain's family
:28:16. > :28:20.breakdown emergency. It is the Government's business to meddle
:28:20. > :28:27.into family life, they say, because the country can't afford for them
:28:27. > :28:31.not to. Shaun Bailey is here, the
:28:31. > :28:36.Government community and social engagment representative who was
:28:36. > :28:41.brought up in a single parent home. And we have our other guest who
:28:41. > :28:44.writes about her experiences as a single parent, raising her daughter
:28:44. > :28:49.herself. What was the experience of having
:28:49. > :28:53.an absence of a father and male figure? Male figures are very
:28:53. > :28:56.important for boys and their behaviour, there is issues around
:28:56. > :28:59.violence and how you conduct yourself. It is hard to take those
:28:59. > :29:03.lessons from your mother because she doesn't have that experience.
:29:03. > :29:06.We have a proliferation of gang and anti-social behaviour, a male
:29:06. > :29:09.figure has a different response mechanism and different emotional
:29:09. > :29:16.development path that you lead a child down when talking about those
:29:16. > :29:19.issues. For me in particular I was lucky in the army cadets I had male
:29:19. > :29:23.role models different to the boys on my street that helped me
:29:23. > :29:25.regulate my own behaviour. Why that regulation is important is it
:29:25. > :29:31.determines how well you do at school and learning the social
:29:31. > :29:34.skills that enable you to be successful. Without that you are
:29:34. > :29:38.sunk before the start. You have a daughter. Do you think she's
:29:38. > :29:41.deprived by not having a father figure around? Absolutely not. I
:29:41. > :29:44.think there are two issues there. The idea that a family structure
:29:45. > :29:47.has to include two parents of a different gender. I think family
:29:47. > :29:51.structure is very important to children but there is no kind of
:29:51. > :29:54.rule as to what genders should be involved. I don't think the
:29:54. > :29:56.addition of a male gender role model would have made any
:29:56. > :30:01.significant difference to the way my daughter is being brought up. I
:30:01. > :30:06.think also there is the idea that a male role model for a child has to
:30:06. > :30:09.be their father. As a society and family and as a community we can
:30:09. > :30:13.introduce lots of male role models into children's lives. It doesn't
:30:13. > :30:17.necessarily have to be their father and it won't be available to all
:30:17. > :30:21.children. Would you like to explain to Sally what it is that
:30:21. > :30:26.specifically a male figure in these sorts of situations brings that
:30:26. > :30:29.isn't going to be brought by a woman? Most girls, ladies have
:30:29. > :30:32.never had a fight, excuse me, they have never been threatened in the
:30:32. > :30:37.same way that boys threaten each other. There is no doubt that there
:30:37. > :30:39.is a gender difference between how boys and girls communicate. It is
:30:39. > :30:42.nice to have someone lead you through that. More importantly this
:30:42. > :30:47.isn't so much a discussion only about family structure, you are
:30:47. > :30:50.right one of the major role models in my life are uncles, I had two
:30:50. > :30:53.uncles who led me through life. That is great. There is a point
:30:53. > :30:58.where there is a wider implication, this will definitely touch on
:30:58. > :31:00.poverty, et cetera. My two uncles have children of their own, they
:31:00. > :31:04.couldn't support my mother once they started their own families. If
:31:04. > :31:08.you want to talk about family structure male role model, one of
:31:08. > :31:13.the most important thing is the direct correlation with poverty. If
:31:13. > :31:19.you want to bring children out of poverty, which is the single
:31:19. > :31:22.biggest determinate of your future, to add a second parent and male
:31:22. > :31:25.role model is vitally important. You are nodding? There is a
:31:26. > :31:29.distinction between correlation and causation. I think certainly
:31:29. > :31:35.bringing working mums out of poverty is really important. And as
:31:35. > :31:38.a working mum it can be incredibly hard to find high-quality, flexible
:31:38. > :31:41.childcare, to find flexible work opportunities and access education
:31:41. > :31:46.and training when you are solely responsible for a child. Arguing
:31:46. > :31:50.that the solution to poverty is for women to be in relationships with a
:31:50. > :31:53.husband or partner of the opposite gender slightly misses the point.
:31:53. > :31:55.We need to look at offering women greater opportunities to support
:31:55. > :31:59.their families if they do find themselves in a single parent
:31:59. > :32:03.situation. The thing I would add to that though, no Government is in
:32:03. > :32:06.the business or can be in the business of keeping people together.
:32:06. > :32:11.That's just simply not going to happen. What you could do, the
:32:11. > :32:13.policy instrument here is you could make it a lot harder for you to
:32:13. > :32:16.financially separate yourself from your children. If I ran the
:32:16. > :32:19.universe any children you brought into the world, the first port of
:32:19. > :32:24.call for resources for those children would be you, not the
:32:24. > :32:29.Government. What we are building here, and what the CSJ are talking
:32:29. > :32:34.about is how we are trying to wedge our whole society inbetween into
:32:34. > :32:37.that role. What we should be really saying to fathers is you stay at
:32:37. > :32:42.least financially, that is beyond discussion and there is no doubt in
:32:42. > :32:46.my mind that a male role model has a significant role to play. Why I
:32:46. > :32:50.concentrate on fathers is because they have a vested interest and a
:32:50. > :32:54.moral duty to stay involved with any children they father. I think
:32:54. > :32:57.you are confusing the father's duty to provide for their children, you
:32:57. > :33:01.can talk about a moral duty, in practice and I can tell you as a
:33:01. > :33:05.single mother who has been through the system, if a father doesn't
:33:05. > :33:08.want to contribute to their child financially that will not happen.
:33:08. > :33:12.There are no current policies in place to make that happen if there
:33:12. > :33:15.is an unwilling parent. You are talking about role models. What the
:33:15. > :33:18.report from the Centre for Social Justice is talking about is if you
:33:18. > :33:21.are a single mother then the outcome for your child is
:33:21. > :33:26.necessarily worse because you are a single mother. I think actually we
:33:26. > :33:29.need to be looking at completely different issues. This isn't a
:33:29. > :33:35.debate about two-parent families versus single-parent families. It
:33:35. > :33:39.is a fact if you are a single parent, woman or man the outcomes
:33:39. > :33:45.for your children are sttically worse, it will be tougher for you.
:33:45. > :33:48.-- Statistic ically worse for you. Let's look at what causes the
:33:48. > :33:52.problems. Children from two-parent families statistically work out
:33:52. > :33:56.better. We are not just talking about that. We are talking about
:33:56. > :33:59.where does the burden lie and where do you ask people to step up. The
:33:59. > :34:04.emotional development of your children is definitely supported by
:34:04. > :34:07.having a role model and a man. my perspective as a single mum and
:34:07. > :34:11.talking to other mums I know. It is great if you have male role models
:34:11. > :34:15.within the family. I'm lucky my daughter has a good relationship
:34:15. > :34:19.with her dad, she has uncles, cousins, lots of men in her life.
:34:19. > :34:23.But I think that broader, as a society, we need to look at getting
:34:23. > :34:28.more men involved. Not every single mum has that opportunity, not every
:34:28. > :34:31.single mum has brothers or a good relationship with her ex. It may
:34:31. > :34:35.not be helpful to have that involvement. It is policy in its
:34:35. > :34:40.very nature is general. You have to try to make things as good as you
:34:40. > :34:47.can generally. Part of that is about the message you send. If you
:34:47. > :34:52.complain about deathbeat dads they will talk about their deadbeat dad,
:34:52. > :34:55.if you break that cycle you need to say to people through policy. There
:34:55. > :34:58.is no policy to make people to pay up. If I ran the universe, believe
:34:58. > :35:02.me there would be. I would take the money, it wouldn't be a debate. I
:35:02. > :35:06.would take the money and give it to the chiel. I think that send a
:35:06. > :35:10.message. -- the child. I think that send a message. If you were running
:35:10. > :35:12.the universe would you have more men in primary schools for example?
:35:12. > :35:16.Those things become more complicated. Yes it would be nice
:35:16. > :35:20.to do that, but we have a legal thing that you can't discriminate.
:35:20. > :35:24.Talking to the teaching profession. That discrimination happens all the
:35:24. > :35:29.time. I know talking to dad bloggers, in our community, that
:35:29. > :35:33.they are not welcome. We certainly had a dad blogger that I spoke to
:35:33. > :35:36.this week on Twitter, who said he had volunteered to help with an
:35:36. > :35:40.activity at his daughter's school and was told that it wasn't
:35:40. > :35:43.appropriate because he's a man. And the parents wouldn't feel
:35:43. > :35:46.comfortable. There is broader issues about welcoming more men
:35:46. > :35:49.into becoming involved with children. And let's not have the
:35:49. > :35:52.suspicious viewpoint of why does a man want to work with children and
:35:52. > :35:56.support children. I think actually that may show that this issue of
:35:56. > :36:01.the outcomes of children of single mothers being worse is not to do
:36:01. > :36:04.with the lack of male role models, it is to do with the lack of
:36:04. > :36:09.support for single women raising children. There is some truth in
:36:09. > :36:12.that but I add to it. You say it is a correlation between being a
:36:12. > :36:14.single parent and poor financial outcomes and poverty, it is a
:36:14. > :36:17.direct result of that. I don't think there is sufficient evidence
:36:17. > :36:21.to say that. One of the ways of getting around that would be to
:36:21. > :36:25.make sure that the father involved was financially connected to that
:36:25. > :36:28.child forever. I would take that stance. I will cut you off there,
:36:28. > :36:33.thank you both very much. There are reports tonight that the Syrian
:36:33. > :36:37.Government is readying itself for an attack on rebel held parts of
:36:37. > :36:41.Aleppo in the north of the country. The regime's resurgence is said to
:36:41. > :36:45.have much to do with support from Iran and Russia, while the rebels
:36:45. > :36:49.are funded by states in the gulf. What began as an internal uprising
:36:49. > :36:52.is turning into a proxy war between outside powers. Are the views of
:36:52. > :36:57.ordinary Syrians being forgotten in the process. Some within the
:36:57. > :37:02.country reject both the ray genome and the armed rebels and fear the
:37:02. > :37:12.intensification of the war will destroy any future hope of
:37:12. > :37:18.democracy in the country whoever wins.
:37:18. > :37:23.It is a short but misty road that winds down through Lebanon through
:37:23. > :37:27.Syria. An hour away across the border a civil war is raging. But
:37:27. > :37:31.here on Mount Lebanon, an old hill resort, offers security and calm
:37:31. > :37:37.for a group of Syrians from many backgrounds, who have gathered to
:37:37. > :37:44.talk about ending the conflict. We can only show a few of them,
:37:44. > :37:50.some think their discussions are too sensitive to be filmed. There
:37:50. > :37:53.are activists from Government and rebel-held areas and many religious
:37:53. > :37:55.sects, opposition supporters and Government loyalists. They haven't
:37:55. > :38:00.been brought together by outside powers, as diplomats are trying to
:38:00. > :38:06.do at Geneva. They have organised this meeting themselves. Above all,
:38:06. > :38:15.what they want is a Syrian solution to a Syrian crisis. We don't need
:38:15. > :38:21.any help. We go in this revolution, at 15th of March 2011 alone. We
:38:21. > :38:25.will continue alone. We will get our freedom and build our
:38:25. > :38:32.democratic state alone. We don't need any help from anybody. Just we
:38:32. > :38:37.have to stop the war now and to build a new state.
:38:37. > :38:43.They are discussing many scenarios, but they are agreed that Syrians
:38:43. > :38:47.shouldn't become pawns in other countries' games.
:38:47. > :38:52.Extraordinarily when Syria appears to have descended into a vortex of
:38:52. > :38:55.death and destruction, with outside powers competing to arm opposite
:38:55. > :39:01.sides, activists like this believe there is still enough political
:39:01. > :39:06.space, within their country, for a home-grown solution. The Syrians to
:39:06. > :39:09.persuade one another to stop fighting. This man was a law
:39:09. > :39:12.student until the law forced him to abandon his studies. He was
:39:12. > :39:17.somewhere in the crowd in this anti-Government demonstration in
:39:17. > :39:21.the spring of 2011 when Syrians like him still hoped for a peaceful
:39:21. > :39:26.revolution. But later instead of taking up arms as some of his
:39:26. > :39:33.friends did, he began organising workshops to bring citizens
:39:33. > :39:38.together. One a month ago included a fighter from the Shabiha, the
:39:38. > :39:46.pro-Assad militia, blamed for many atrocities. He came to the workshop,
:39:46. > :39:52.he just listened and he was active in the workshop. The second day he
:39:52. > :40:01.changed his mind and there is many, many exercises in this workshop. He
:40:01. > :40:05.has changed in it completely. After the workshop he just said that he
:40:05. > :40:09.will, through his weapon, he don't want -- I want to throw my weapon,
:40:09. > :40:13.I don't want my weapon any more. The war won't be stopped by a few
:40:14. > :40:16.individual changes of heart. But grass roots activists have brokered
:40:16. > :40:22.local ceasefires. Above all they are trying to keep institutions
:40:22. > :40:25.running amid the chaos and to prevent society breaking up.
:40:25. > :40:31.They are mixed schools, boys and girls together?
:40:31. > :40:36.But social activists run big risks. This young graduate from Aleppo
:40:36. > :40:42.dare not show her face on television. She moves back and
:40:42. > :40:46.forth from her home in a Government-held area. Braving a
:40:46. > :40:49.sniper's alley where people are shot every day. She has helped open
:40:49. > :40:53.schools for children who have had no education since the fighting
:40:53. > :40:55.began on the other side, schools that have to be protected from
:40:55. > :40:59.Government bombardment. TRANSLATION: We choose buildings
:40:59. > :41:03.away from the frontline, surrounded by higher buildings that shells
:41:03. > :41:08.can't reach. We don't use existing school buildings, we find other
:41:08. > :41:12.buildings and put desks in the basements. We block the roads
:41:12. > :41:17.leading to them and sandbag them. 1,000 children study at the new
:41:17. > :41:20.schools, some as young as these and some old enough to join the
:41:20. > :41:25.militias. TRANSLATION: Some children are whipped up with
:41:25. > :41:30.violent ideas and give up lessons. Our schools attract some children
:41:30. > :41:34.who would otherwise lose some of their chood childhood. This
:41:34. > :41:39.activist from the Turkish border is describing how she and other
:41:39. > :41:42.volunteers successfully took over the administration of her mixed
:41:42. > :41:48.Arab-Kurdish-Christian-Muslim town after Government forces withdrew.
:41:48. > :41:53.But things went wrong when rebel militias arrived. TRANSLATION:
:41:53. > :41:57.the revolution started women played a big role. For example we found
:41:57. > :42:01.food and shelter for internal refugees, we helped protect
:42:01. > :42:11.people's rights and freedoms. When armed groups arrived it led to
:42:11. > :42:12.
:42:12. > :42:17.divisions in society. And everything collapsed. This
:42:17. > :42:21.participant has heard that Islamist militia wanted to stone women for
:42:21. > :42:27.adultery. She wants to know how civil society responded? But what
:42:27. > :42:31.can civil society do against guns? The aim here is to try to keep
:42:31. > :42:36.alive the spirit of the early days of the Syrian revolution. But
:42:36. > :42:42.perhaps that is just too idealistic. Many would say now the conflict can
:42:42. > :42:45.only end with a victory on the battlefield, or with a settlement
:42:45. > :42:49.imposed by outside powers. And that activists like these are just
:42:49. > :42:53.irrelevant. We are relevant, we are the Syrians. This is Syria, it is
:42:53. > :42:58.all about Syria. It is our will, afterall. But no-one is listening
:42:58. > :43:03.to you, you have no power or leverage? The fight be will stop.
:43:03. > :43:08.The fighting appears to be intensifying? Yes, but every war
:43:08. > :43:13.ends eventually. When it ends then the real players will appear. The
:43:13. > :43:17.players who are able to act in the society and to lead the society.
:43:17. > :43:19.They are not going to be necessarily the warlords.
:43:20. > :43:24.Today is the activists press conference. There were signs from
:43:24. > :43:29.the UN that one of their representatives may get invited to
:43:29. > :43:32.Geneva, if the peace talks go ahead. But the west's dealing mainly with
:43:32. > :43:38.the exiled politicians of the Syrian National Congress. And
:43:38. > :43:42.Britain and France are considering arming the rebels if talks fail.
:43:42. > :43:47.If they want to arm the Syrian rebels, did they ask the Syrian
:43:47. > :43:51.people? I don't think the people who have access to Mr Cameron are
:43:51. > :43:56.necessarily the people like you met here in this meeting. Most of the
:43:56. > :44:01.Syrians I know, they don't want their children to be killed in the
:44:01. > :44:05.civil war. Mohammed, like others who reject
:44:05. > :44:09.both the regime and the armed rebels has been intimidated by both
:44:09. > :44:15.sides. But he thinks only a third way will produce a country he can
:44:15. > :44:20.live in afterwards. Everyone will be living in a ghetto
:44:20. > :44:26.or a small camp, we want to have a modern society now. We want to
:44:26. > :44:32.build a stable society but we can't on the basis of such a split
:44:32. > :44:37.society. We are trying to preserve the society from collapsing.
:44:37. > :44:41.The activists relaxing after the workshops in their Lebanese
:44:41. > :44:44.hideaway have seen death all around them. They may be idealists, but
:44:44. > :44:49.they are not niave. They are thinking further ahead than the end
:44:49. > :44:56.of the war. They know a victory over a broken society is no victory
:44:56. > :45:02.at all. Workshops and democracy may seem a
:45:02. > :45:12.luxury now, but no-one will think that afterwards.
:45:12. > :45:12.
:45:12. > :46:37.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 85 seconds
:46:37. > :46:41.Hello there. Most parts of the UK have seen very little rain over the
:46:41. > :46:45.past week. But the dry spell is coming to an end. Rain arriving in
:46:45. > :46:48.the west overnight. Spreading slowly eastwards during the course
:46:48. > :46:52.of Tuesday, a very different day across Northern Ireland after some
:46:52. > :46:56.very warm sunshine of late. A wet morning, maybe a touch brighter in
:46:56. > :47:00.the afternoon. The rain also spreading its way across most of
:47:00. > :47:03.Scotland. Perhaps not reaching the far north-east. Here we should hang
:47:03. > :47:09.on to some sunshine. The bulk of Scotland and northern England a
:47:09. > :47:13.grey and damp day. The rain not particularly heavy. Iran many parts
:47:13. > :47:18.of eastern England will get away with a spit of drizzley rain.
:47:18. > :47:22.Brighter skies in the east until later on. A dull and damp start in
:47:22. > :47:25.the west Midland, good parts of Wales will brighten up nice low. A
:47:25. > :47:35.wet morning but the afternoon bringing sunshine. Also a bit of
:47:35. > :47:44.
:47:44. > :47:46.warmth. Temperatures climbing to 18, Quite a bit of uncertainty about
:47:46. > :47:49.Wednesday's forecast. We are reasonably confident there will be
:47:49. > :47:52.a weather system across parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland,