01/07/2013 Newsnight


Jeremy Paxman with the latest on the unrest in Egypt. Plus, payoffs to BBC staff, Gordon Brown on talking to the Taliban, the march of online courses and finding Edward Snowden.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/07/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



gives the President a deadline to listen to the people calling on him


to go. The most powerful force in the country has chosen a side. How


long can the President last? We will hear from both sides of a


divided country. And welcome to Dudley in the


Midlands, the equivalent of every single television license from here


was spent on kiss-offs to unwanted managers.


Perhaps this man can explain it to us? Could massive on-line learning


make universities redundant? Giving stuff away from free, who can have


a problem with that? Except what if this is the big disruptive


technology that is about to rip through higher education in the way


that MP3s did through musics or Amazon did through book selling.


The NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, accused America of


illegally persecuting him. Is he about to claim asylum from that


nice Mr Putin. The two girls shot by the Taliban


for seeking an education, one of them came to the UK today where she


met the United Nations education envoy.


We are not and must not negotiate away the right of girls to have


education in the search for a settlement. This wasn't how the


Arab Spring was supposed to turn out. The protestors have given two


days to bend to the Government's will or what? President Morsi was


the popular vote of the people and that was last year, now they are


demanding all sorts of other things off him. It seems there there is


general agreement the stakes are very high ind deed. Once again


hundreds of thousands of protestors have taken to Egypt's streets, and


the country appears so divided some are predicting civil war. Another


uprising, to correct one they say didn't work. And now most likely


another intervention by Egypt's military in the country's politics.


Hundreds of thousands are on the streets of Cairo, as they were


during the Arab Spring two-and-a- half years ago and again they have


been backed by the Armed Forces, just as they were then.


Today Egypt's military chief described the current protests as


an unprecedented expression of the people's will. He gave the


Government 48 hours to respond. For the crowd that was already a


victory. I think people are very jubilant


about what the military had just stated about their support to the


people's demands. And people are celebrating already five minutes


after that statement. But there is one big difference between today's


events and those of February 2011. Then the crowd, and the army,


brought down a dictator, Hosni Mubarak, now the target is a


datdically elected leader, the first in -- democratically elected


leader, the first in Egypt's history, the Muslim Brotherhood's


Steven Morris. A year ago many of these protestors voted for him.


Today the Brotherhood's headquarters were ransacked and set


aloyalty. The people say President Morsi has failed to keep his


promises. First of all he had a programme of 100 days in which he


would restore security, change the scene economically, bring around


$200 billion in US involvement. We have seen none, we have only seen a


loans policy that would put my kids in debt for the next 20 years. The


other thing he did not take the measures we asked him to take to


cleanse and purge the judiciary and security that was always there


fighting behind the scenes. Brotherhood is accused of acting


only to advance its own people and its own Islamist agenda. It pushed


through a new constitution that many secular or liberal Egyptians


feel won't protect them. The Coptic Christian minority in particular


worries that the society is already becoming more Islamised.


Prosecutions for allegedly insulting Islam are on the rise.


Egypt's battered tourist industry was horrified recently when the


former member of a radical Islamist group, linked to a 1997 terrorist


attack on holiday makers was nominated governor of the resort of


Luxor. It is the demand for daily bread, one of the key drivers of


the 2011 protests, that is the problem on the poverty line. Living


standards have dropped massively, food costs more, petrol and cooking


gas are running short. Since 2011 foreign investment has fallen by


56%. Foreign exchanges reserves are down by more than 60%. Inflation


has climbed to more than 8% this year, while unemployment has


reached 13%. So what will the army do now? The


Brotherhood's new constitution aimed to safeguard military


interests, but that can't compensate for decades of Embley


anyoneity between the -- imknitity between the forces and the


Government. The military says if he doesn't respond in two days they


will come up with their own Road Map of the They will have to


compromise with the opposition, run for presidential elections or sit


with them and compromise on some sort of solution. If the President


refuses I think what will happen is the army will directly intervene


and take over for another transition period.


And if the Brotherhood resists what would in effect be a coup, they are


the most organised disciplined political force in Egypt, and they


believe they have got democratic legitimacy on their side.


safeguards for this process to be successful, some negotiations have


to happen or has to take place with the Muslim Brotherhood, some sort


of settlement for a safe exit and safe and peaceful transition. Now


that is very critical and important and I think the only party that is


capable of doing so is the military, if they are not really interested


in power. But the potential for violence is there. Some Morsi


supporters have already come armed with sticks to their own rival


demonstrations. You had Algeria in 1992, Sudan 1989,


many of these experiences suggest if you remove the elected President,


with his supporters on the ground or an elected institutions with the


supporters on the ground ready to fight with him, then you are


descending into a vie lent situation. -- Violent situation.


Whatever happens this crisis is setting two of the revolutionary


forces, liberals and Islamists against each other. Despite all the


hopes that accompanied their joint victory in the Arab Spring two


years ago, it is clear now neither of them have understood what


democracy involves. We are joined now from Cairo by the


Egyptian novelist, Adhaf Soueif, and here in the studio by Rabaa al-


Adawiya, a political activist and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.


You can't really be pleased that the army has intervened in politics


again in your country can you? of course it would have been a lot


better if President Morsi had lived up to the expectations that were


placed on him. He made promises and he failed to keep them. He didn't


even look like he was trying to put the country on the path that the


country demanded. So really it was a continuation of Mubarak policies


added to it was a level of inefficiency that was incredibly


dangerous. Why what is happening is happening. I really wish it would


have been otherwise. Welcome to democracy, politicians promise


things they don't happen. That, I'm afraid is how democracy very often


works. Do you accept that President Morsi has failed to deliver on many


of his promises so far? I disagree with that. I think President Morsi


is the first democratically elected civilian leader for Egypt, ever


since the Pharaohs. We haven't had a democratically elected leader, we


don't know democracy as you mentioned. I think we need time.


Corruption has been rooted for decades, corruption has been in the


Government. It took so long, President Morsi people have been


wanting him out of office before he has even taken his place. There are


20 one-million marches called against him. The first one is less


than 40 days after he began in office. People wanted him to fail


before beginning. Some people went out and said "down with the coming


President", before the presidential elections. Some people wanted him


down. Together, as revolutionaries, we actually should be wanting to


build the country together. We need to come together, find a compromise


and build the country. It is a worrying precedent dent, isn't it,


when things -- precedent, isn't it, when things become difficult and


people are glad that the military intervenes? Well you know I would


like to make two points here, one is that President Morsi, yes, of


course he was elected through the ballot box. But we really need to


remember, as he didn't, that he came in on the back of a revolution.


So the country is still in a state of revolution. It has made its


wishes very clear that it wants to move towards human rights and it


wants to move towards social justice. The fact that a President


who comes on the back of a revolution and doesn't fulfil,


doesn't even move towards either of these two aims is very serious.


Let's also remember that there were five million who voted for


President Morsi in the first round, he added eight million to those, on


the basis of very, very clear promises. He knew that these eight


million were not really his constituency, but they voted for


him because of the promises and because of the very difficult


circumstances that the country was in, so out of a wish to move


forward. So basically to back out on those is really serious. The


other thing is, we have inherited a lot of baggage from the Mubarak era,


and the country can't afford four years of not moving forward at all.


And there is a flaw, I think, in the democratic process where if


things, I mean I think people need to think, legal minds need to think


about how you can break a contract when it is clearly not working.


Fine, so what do you want him to do, to step down? I think, I personally


think that the best thing for him now would be to show some open-


mindedness and inclusiveness which he has failed to show so far, I


would really like him to stay as President. I think that would be


better for the country and better for the unity of the country. But I


would like to see the association of the Muslim Brotherhood disbanded


it has served its function, it has no place in the political life of


the country. A lot of his problems have been because he's being


perceived to be listening to the supreme guide of the Muslim


Brotherhood rather than his constituency, which is the Egyptian


people. There is now the Freedom and Justice Party, born of the


Muslim Brotherhood, he can be a card-carrying member of that, but


the Muslim Brotherhood association should be disbanded. That is the


first thing. I will interrupt you because our guest here in the


studio is looking wry and distressed at your suggestion that


the Muslim Brotherhood be disbanded, don't you think it has served its


purpose? As a member of the Muslim Brotherhood personally, I think, I


need the right to actually be a part of the Muslim Brotherhood if I


wish so. I need to be what I think I want to be. This revolution, I


first met you when you came to visit Cambridge, I met you straight


after the revolution in 2011 and we were together wanting democracy and


positive change. We wanted as you said, human rights, we wanted civil


rights, we wanted everyone to do whatever they wanted to do within


the boundaries of law. So I don't think anyone should say what the


Muslim Brotherhood should or shouldn't do, as long as it should


be within the boundaries of law, that Egyptian people should pass


through the parliament. I think we need to go to the parliamentary


elections and instead of taking everything to the street. Because


what happened today, I got a phone call on the way to the studio today


and millions of Muslim Brotherhood supporters are gathering now,


initially they didn't want to gather yesterday because they


didn't want confrontation, but I think the BBC report before the


beginning of the show they failed to show the extent of the support


the mother brotherhood still has on the streets. Thank you very much


both of you. People who work at the BBC have


been aware for years that at a senior level there was a gravy


train running through the building, a board which most of the staff


would never be able to -- aboard which most of the staff would never


be be able to scramble. But the generosity of the license fee


payers' money only became clear today after a public investigation


into the pay-offs for senior figures. The BBC has been deep low


shocked by the disclosures. Hardly any of the beneficiaries have


lifted their snouts out of the trough to make any comment. We will


be talking to one in a while. Steven Smith reports. It is not a


BBC manager skipping all the way to the bank, I can see why you might


think that, in fact this was the first live show from TV centre in


west London. You may have shed a tear when the place closed earlier


this year. The National Audit Office was weeping tears of


incredulity today at the golden goodbyes the Beeb paid to some of


the men and women behind the scenes. It handed �25 million to 150


executives. Including �680,000 for Chief


Operating Officer Caroline Thompson who spent 17 years at the


corporation. �866,000 for a departmental director with 25 years


service. And almost �950,000 for BBC lifer Tanya Byron, former


deputy DG. The biggest ten payouts came to more than �5 million on


their own. I think the BBC is totally out-of-touch with its


viewers in terms of how it uses license fee payers' money. It has


been out-of-touch for some time. You have to look at the series of


scandals that have come about in the last couple of years. The


biggest of which is probably the Digital Media Initiative, where


over �100 million of license fee payers' money was simply wasted on


a project that was really never going to work, according to the


people who looked at it. This is an astonishing set of scandals that


seem to go on and on. The National Audit Office said the BBC breached


its on already generous severence terms. The Government said the


report exposed a culture of pay- offs that was out of control. Some


observers question the role of the BBC Trust. The problem is here on a


succession of cases that all find their way back to the BBC Trust,


who can say that the rules are constructed in such a way as to


prevent them intervening directly in some of these things. That is


true, but from the point of view of a license payer, if those rules


prevent the Trust from holding management to account effectively,


the argument for changing the rules becomes unavoidable. Whether you


like it or not, and they will not like it. The argument, a discussion,


another debate about BBC governance seems to me to be more or less


inevitable. We do not run the BBC, as you know, we are specifically


excluded on remuneration matters from handling anything other than


Director Generals, however we have asked the Director General to


report back to us and we want to make sure the new rules he has put


in place are implemented correctly. The DG Lord Hall said the BBC had


saved more by trimming its executive tiers than it spent on


severence. And pay-offs are now capped at �150,000. Manager Roly


Keating, who left last year for a job at the British Library


collected �376,000 on his way out. That payment was called "seriously


deficient", Mr Keating has returned the money. Those who specialise in


finding executives for media companies are baffled by the BBC's


generosity. We have been in a negotiation with a director leaving


one media business to go to another, the thought of him being paid a


goodbye exit to leave that company and go to another one is laughable


really. And that, I think, is massive open goal and where the BBC


and the BBC trustees really have shot themselves in the foot.


Poles show viewers love their favourite shows. But -- polls show


viewers love their favourite shows, but the clock is ticking on BBC


large guess. We have the director of strategy


and digital at the BBC with us, what has gone wrong? We lost our


way on payments. It is a humbling report, there is some extremely


embarrassing mistakes that were made. We need it learn lessons.


you give us a guarantee that there will be nobody else leaving the BBC


a pay-off of �150,000 or more? Hall said that on the first day in


the job. I'm told it hasn't come into effect. In the report it makes


clear there are up to 15 people who already had letters and we can't


unpick that. There will be people leaving with more than �150,000?


From the 1st of September people will be expected to leave with less


than �150,000. On his second day in the job Tony Hall said the payments


were too high and unacceptable and that is why he brought in a cap.


That was months ago? That was on the second day of the job. He


spotted it on his second day in the job. That was months ago, why not


implement it immediately? Because you have to negotiate to get it


brought in. So people can refuse can they? Some people had already


had letters sent to them saying these were the terms, and we will


not unpick them. Why not?Because it would be basically illegal to do


so. Why not try?It is actually a tough decision he has taken. It


would be easy to say it is for new joiners. He said it is for


everybody at the BBC, no-one will leave for more than �150,000, most


will get far less. Can you help us on the decision made that Roly


Keating should get �375,000. Money which he has honourably now repaid?


That decision was not taken by the Director General, it was apparently


not taken by the head of human resources, who did take it? They


got themselves into a muddle, people thought one thing was going


on, and another other people think it was something else. That is why


we have to apologise. Who took the decision? It was a collective


decision. You can have a witch-hunt or say learn from our mistakes,


that is what we will do. I thought we were in an era of transparency?


You say three months ago is too far away, but today we say that


everybody who leaves for the next few months it will be brought to a


senior remuneration committee. you disclose who will sign this


off? The NAO have all the information. There is no name?It


was clear it was signed off by a combination of HR, finance and they


got it wrong. The Director General didn't sign off on it and others


didn't know anybody about it? Did the person who signed off on it


still work at the BBC? It was a mess, but I can say this was about


saving far more money than the cost of license fees in Dudley. We are


saving just about �20 million every year going forward. Yes we could


have done it for less money, certainly we could have done it in


a much better way, but we are saving �20 million a year. We


reduce the number of senior managers at the BBC by over 200.


There was a very serious mistake made here, in the spirit of the new


transparency, aren't people entitled to know who made the


mistake and whether they still work for the about of BC? What happens


with trans-- BBC?What was about transparency is you need to find


out who makes the mistakes, and we don't need a witch-hunt but to


learn from mistakes and show the license payers we are moving


forward and the license fee has been frozep. Do you believe the BBC


Trust last shown itself to be a responsible custodian of license-


fee payers money? I think it is unfair to blame the Trust for this,


this is clearly not their job. It is our job as the executive to set


the pay for people, it is the non- executive's job as well. The Trust


asked for this report. It was clearly something that was a


collective responsibility of the managers and the BBC. In the spirit


of transparency where was your job advertised? Tony Hall brought in


people he thought were right for the job and others were advertised.


When you are putting a team together you make some appointments


that way. Is it fair?It was his decision. It is not transparent?


There is a balance between getting the right people and running the


process. Sometimes, in my case he went, it is always difficult to


defend your own circumstances, in my case he wanted me.


Is it a worthwhile responsible way to use public money? Obviously Tony


thought so. The thing we are focused on is delivering a much


better value BBC. That is what we will do. It is not transparent?The


report today is extremely transparent. Your appointment


isn't? We will make sure we learn the lessons of today and we have


banned the use of payments in lieu of notice, that was one of the


other things the report was worried about. We said no-one will get more


than �150,000. We have said all the deals over �75,000 will go to a


senior remuneration committee. were hand picked and not appointed


as a result of an open and fair competition? No-one argues that,


Tony made some appointments that he brought in and others were


advertised. Anybody in business. is exact ly the same sort of


culture that paid people vast amounts of money when they didn't


need to be paid vast amounts of money? It is the opposite of that


culture. In the second day he said there will be a cap and acted to


improve processes. We got some things badly wrong and we have


apologised for that and we have to move forward and learn the lessons.


Do you think other people should have had a chance to compete for


your job? It is Tony's decision. People in business do this all the


time they decide who they want to get, they bring in some by


approaching them in the way I was, and others go through the process.


I'm happy working at the Beeb and happy to come on your programme any


time. Supposing that instead of going to


live in some crummy bedsit in Pot Noodle land so you can have the


opportunity to listen to a burned out hack delivering the same


lecture that he has been doing for 20 years, instead you could stay at


home and hear some of the best lecturers in the world. The idea of


MOOCs on-line courses seems to promise a future of higher


education, an alternative to an expensive traditional one. We have


this report. Not to be confused with a Mog or a moog, it is MOOC.


It stands for massive on-line open course, and it shows signs of being


really big. Even bigger than that. I think MOOC has a huge potential.


The technology that enables one professor to teach not just 100


students but 100,000, that changes the economics of higher education.


What is a MOOC? It is parceled up bit of education, enrolment is


unlimited, massive. There are no entry requirements, it is open, on-


line and it is a course. At the moment the big players in the MOOC


world are in the United States, on the east coast there is Harvard and


MIT, on the west coast Stanford, this isn't about going fee. Anyone


anywhere in the world with a computer -- geography. Anyone


anywhere in the world with a computer can have access to the


best professors in the world. What about competitive strategy, Roman


architecture, or different relation equations in action. Not a bad


place to start is the machine learning MOOC from Stanford. The


man who teaches that is the Godfather? About two years ago I


put one of my classes on-line and it reached an audience of 100,000


students. To put that in context I used to teach 400 students a year


in Stanford. To reach a comparable audience I would have to teach at


Stanford for 250 years. I got together with one of my friends and


we started to take the technology that my team had developed and to


partner with top universities so anyone can learn from the best


professors and universities. MOOC isn't a one-way exercise,


there are assessments, assignments and quizs on-line. It is a short


step to go to real life qualifications gained entirely


through MOOCs. We are told some employers are showing favour to


shows who are "Mooked up". It is opening the door to more interviews.


When employer yes, sir see you have taken advanced glass -- when an


employer sees you have taken advanced classes from tan Ford or


wherever it is -- Stanford or other universities it brings more


interview. Given our glorious and proud tradition of distance


learning as exsemplified by the Open university, if you fell in


front of the TV in the 1970s, chances are you woke up at 2.00am


to see this. The way we calculate rate of thing we get an idea...The


People who brought you back are teeming up with 21 other


universities to launch future learn, a British MOOC initiative. They


plan to go live in August, this is not about increasing education but


widening access? This isn't a redistribution of education, this


is about trying to use a connected environment of the web to deliver


something different. To reinvent lenk in -- learning in some way.


Using the on-line social networking tools available to do something


different and fresh. Critically toe make sure that we're not just


pumping out information but people are actually learning through what


-- critically to make sure we are not just pumping out information


but people are learning. In the United States where they are most


advanced they are being led by the biggest names in higher education,


places like Harvard and Yale. In Britain some of our biggest names


are holding back. Here at Oxford they say MOOCs won't prompt them to


change anything they do. Is this clever brand management or could


they miss the boat? Oxford delivers degrees in way which really sets a


premium on the tutoral experience and the teaching on a one-to-one or


two-to-two basis. Other universities deliver a lot of their


courses primarily through lectures. MOOCs are a further extension of


that. You have to accept, I think, however exciting the concept of the


MOOC is, that there is necessarily some loss when you are not in a


person-to-person environment. The MOOC, from my perspective, can


never really substitute for that. People are giving this stuff away


for free, who could have a problem with that? Except what if this is


the big disruptive technology that is about to rip through higher


education in a way that MP3s did through music or the Amazon store


did through book selling. There are big thinkers who believe the cost


of higher education will have to come down and MOOCs are one way to


achieve that. Recently Bill Clinton said "I think the only sustainable


answer is to find a less expensive delivery system...we simply can't


continue to have the cost of a university education to go up at


twice the rate of inflation every decade". In the United States the


California state universities are experimenting using MOOCs to


replace some courses. San Jose University was to offer a MOOC on


Mikele Sandell's on social justice. But the faculty said no. They wrote


an open letter to Professor Sandell and said" professors who care about


public education should not produce products that will replace


professors and dismantle education". If MOOCs take hold there are plenty


of implications to consider. Will we need as many universities and


academics in the future. Can people do their university degrees without


ever leaving home? In Britain and other places, where the cost of


higher education is a huge political issue, this could be the


route to lower costs. If so at what cost? Generally when the Internet


hits an industry, it tends to find basic inefficiencies in it and


enable a better delivery of some of those aspects. I'm sure a


combination of on-line delivery and campus delivery can deliver some


aspects of education more cheaply than purely a campus-based


experience. But I think the primary opportunity of MOOCs really is to


just broaden access to a whole range of people who otherwise would


never have had had access to these courses. Talk to people who are


enthusiastic about MOOCs and they will say any institution not


getting involved right now is suicidally short-sighted. In fact


you don't have to talk to them for very long before various flightless


birds get referenced. There is a real danger if we are doing animal


metaphors there is a danger of a lemming-like rush, if I can do that,


we must do MOOCs because everybody else is. Well if you are confident


in the product you have, you don't rush to join everybody else. You


keep an eye on what is happening, if you want to develop your own


version you do so in your own time on your own terms. No-one can say


why MOOCs will lead or where the money will come from. Most MOOC


providers are commercial ventures, but what is the business plan. What


we can safely say is their prospects depend on whether they


improve the prospects of people who take MOOC, if you excuse me I will


get to my machine learning MOOC at Stanford. One advantage of the way


of learning, none of the restriks of the past apply. This is a


restrictions of the past apply. Are you eating? I hope you have enough


for everyone, because there is 100,000 of us here!


Universities and Science Minister is with me now. Can you see MOOCs


replacing traditional university? can't see them replacing them but


they are a significant change in education. So what they some how


augment the university experience or what? What we can see them doing


is first of all in developing countries, that do not yet have a


network of bricks and mortar universities, and have great


ambitions for rapid growth, this might be how they help toe deliver


an increased higher education. Second -- help to deliver an


increased higher education. Secondly I think they will change


how we learn. When you are on a MOOC, doing a maths MOOC, they will


identify 30% of our students made this mistake at this stage of the


maths course, they then had to retreat. The education an litics,


how we learn, where you make -- an litics, and how we learn and how we


make mistakes. You were at Christ Church at Oxford, one of the finest


universities in the world, some of the most beautiful buildings, you


wouldn't have rather been at home looking at a screen would you?


And one of the things MOOCs will do, in the language of the arrival of


the web into these services, they will disintermediate, Oxford and


other leading universities will be able to recruit down the world by


people who start by doing a MOOC. They will use the fact that someone


in Mongolia does well in the physics MOOC spot talent out there.


I think it is good news for our universities' recruitment. You are


not worried about the lemming-like leap on to the bandwagon? I think


MOOCs will be a very important part of the educational landscape. David


gave the analogy with music. We all have Spotify and listening to music


on-line. Last weekend hundreds of thousands of people went to


Glastonbury. They didn't listen to it on their iPhone but the physical


experience of listening to music. I think there will be a mixture of


on-line learning and people wanting the physical experience of being in


a seminar with fellow students. you think there is a danger that


less affluent students will see it as a more economic way to get an


education. In that sense you will have a divide between those who can


afford to go to university and those who prefer the cheaper option


on-line. It could be a cheaper low cost option. Students that go to


university they are not paying up front, it will be a choice of how


people wish to study. There may be mature stew dints. They may be able


to recruit more widely because of MOOCs, they may have mature


students who learn differently, it will be a mix. MOOCs, I think will


be a big and important part of the landscape. Are you confident that


British universities are wised up enough to the commercial importance


of this? Two years ago when I first came across these on the west coast


of the US, they were ahead of us. And I'm very pleased that Open


university is now trying to develop Fuerture -- Future Learn. If we


have got, as I believe we have, a British education product. Then the


arrival of the MOOCs an opportunity for people around the world to see


the quality of British higher education. I think we can, I think


British higher education will probably gain from this. We will


have more people around the world who decide, having done the MOOC


for the University of Edinburgh, I want to study that. Edward Snowden,


the man the National Security Agency would most like to talk to


is said to have applied for politic kal asylum in Russia. President


Putin says he's not welcome there unless he stops damaging American


interests. Tonight a letter has appeared from Snowden attacking


America for persecuting him as he It has to be said it is his appeal


in Ecuador, the news emerged and predates the developments we have


heard today now. Wikileaks saying stand by for a statement from


Edward Snowden but we haven't had that. There is an extraordinary


chain of events, what is Putin's gain? I think we can say it is


America's political discomfort. He wants to get the maximum political


mileage from it. At the same time the fascinating thing is he sees a


lot of res prosity with cases of people in the UK and the US who


Russia wants to get hold of, businessmen, opposition people who


he can't, therefore he wants to control, if indeed Edward Snowden


is about to get asylum in Russia what he can say. This is what he


said today. TRANSLATION: If he likes to stay here, there is one


condition, he should see his work aimed at damaging our American


partners. No matter how strange it will sound from me.


Do you think Snowden has lot of secrets on him that the Russians


would find useful? There are different versions of this, some


suggested that he had left the key material in safe hands before he


fled Hong Kong, and could, for example, through use of code words


or friendly intermediaries allow this information to get out to


third parties. Should he choose to do so. Others way he took


everything with him, we know that the German news manage zeen has


published a magazine since he has been -- magazine has published a


letter. Clearly what he has with him is encrypted. It is an open


question if he stays in Russia what becomes of that material. One thing


is clear from what President Putin said today, they don't want him


running a media service if they do give him asylum. Thank you very


much. Now before the end of the programme we will have tomorrow's


front pages. First, when 15-year-old Malala was


shot by the Taliban simply for wanting an education for herself


and other Pakistani girls, it sparked global outrage, Malala


survived being shot in the head. She's studying in the UK. Today one


of her friends injured in the attack also arrived here. Shazia


Ramzan, whose story we featured in April, travelled with the support


of Gordon Brown, who these days is Special Envoy for global education.


Newsround reported the story for us and spoke to her and the former


Prime Minister about what it is like for girls trying to study in


Pakistan's Swat Valley. 15-year-old Shazia loves going to school and


dreams of becoming a doctor. Last October as she sat on her school


bus a gunman climbed on board, his intention was to kill her friend


Malala. TRANSLATION: I can't tell you who they were, but my life


completely changed after the incident. Before it we could freely


go anywhere we liked on our own. Now we must be accompanied by


guards who will tell us not to go out. That incident was a planned


attack on Malala they planned to kill her for campaigning for girls'


education. She was left in a critical condition and scenes of


her bloodied body sent shockwaves around the world. She was taken to


Birmingham for treatment but Shazara spent a month in hospital.


Although not a target her life changed unimagineably after the


shooting. Both girls became heroines throughout the world


reveered for their bravery. Malala received a Nobel Peace Prize


nomination. Things are different back in the Swat Valley, some


friends and relatives feared being associated with him for fear of


becoming the next target for the Taliban. TRANSLATION: Some girls


are confident others are looking at how Malala sacrificed for her


education and they become scared and no longer study. Some mothers


tell their daughters what can happen to Malala can happen to them,


don't seek education and don't go to school any more. I met her and


she was excited and optimistic about living in the Swat Valley.


TRANSLATION: Our fight is for he hadcation, they say girls shouldn't


get education and we say they will because it is our right. Since then


life has taken its toll, she has come to the UK to continue her


studies without the fear of Taliban attack. TRANSLATION: Even my


parents will tell me my life is under threat. We want to go out and


have fun but we were stopped, and we couldn't go from school to a


friend's place because our guards would come looking for. So life has


changed a lot. Of course it is important we are educated, it is


really tough back there and now I have come here to be educated.


Although it is good to see her again, I know she has a chance to


become a school and maybe a doctor one day, the reason she fled


Pakistan remain, the Swat Valley has been a long standing stronghold


for the Taliban, it is only the Pakistani army enforcing the


fragile peace. TRANSLATION: army has done a lot to control the


situation. If the Taliban qum back nobody can stop them. If the army


is not there, nobody can stop them and they will rule over us and we


would have to do everything according to their wish. They


should think of the parents who send their daughters to school only


to know that the girls have been killed. Special education envoy to


the UN, Gordon Brown, has been working to bring Shazia over to the


UK. Does he think the west should be talking to the Taliban for


lasting peace in the region if girls like Shazia are attacked for


wanting to go to schools? I think we should make it clear human


rights are an eye seings part of the negotiation, if we are talking


to militants and extremists, they have to be prepared to say that


they accept the right of every girl and boy to have education,


particularly that girls should not be discriminated against in the


future. We can't have a situation where we move from building schools


and got lots of girls, particularly in Afghanistan to school and then


the schools closed down. We must make it a central part of the


negotiation that human rights are respected. She now has to make a


new life for herself while she studies in the UK. For every girls


like these girls there are millions of girls in Pakistan that go


without an education. You can watch more about that story


and the struggle for girls' education in Pakistan in Shot For


Going To School on BBC Three on Wednesday at 9.00. Mark Urban has


come back to join us. Edward Snowden has issued the promised


statement, what has he said? He has essentially attacked President


Obama. He said there would be no wheeling and dealing but he got


Vice President Biden to ring people up, countries that Edward Snowden


had asked to consider his asylum bid and asked them not to. He


describes himself as a stateless person and hints he's more or less


out of options. It doesn't say he's seeking asylum in Russia.


That's about it for tonight, we will be back again tomorrow, do


will be back again tomorrow, do join us then if you can.


A different weather day tomorrow, sunshine in eastern areas, giving


way to cloud. A lot of cloud across the country and grey southern skies


Feel cool in the rain as well, temperatures around 12-14. Eastern


Scotland, some breaks in the rain, afternoon damper than the morning.


Same can be said for northern England. Rain coming and going, the


odd heavier burst mixing amongst that. Damp through the east Midland.


The south-east, can't rule out the threat of one or two showers in the


afternoon. Close to Wimbledon, the main threat will be in the evening.


Wetter afternoon than morning across parts of south-west England


and Wales. There will be still some dry weather around, some of the


bursts of rain could be on the heavy side and accompanied by a


strong breeze, not the best start to a July day. Some slight changes


into Wednesday. The City forecasts you will notice Manchester, Belfast,


Inverness all looking dryer on Wednesday, brighter, warmer, same


into London, Cardiff, Birmingham and Bristol. After a grey and damp


Jeremy Paxman with the latest on the unrest in Egypt and the payoffs to BBC staff. Plus, Gordon Brown on talking to the Taliban, the march of online courses and tracking down Edward Snowden.

Download Subtitles