:00:00. > :00:08.A Home Secretary calling for disciplinary action against
:00:09. > :00:16.policemen and a Chief Constable summoned to appear before MPs.
:00:17. > :00:19.Suddenly a lot more is at stake in the so-called Plebgate incident than
:00:20. > :00:24.one minister's frustration and bad manners. What happened at the gates
:00:25. > :00:32.of Downing Street cost a man his job. Should policemen be considering
:00:33. > :00:37.their positions too? The panel should determine whether the three
:00:38. > :00:41.officers gave a false account of the meeting in a deliberate attempt to
:00:42. > :00:44.support their Metropolitan Police colleague and discredit Mr Mitchell.
:00:45. > :00:48.After that we talk to the most powerful woman in world media, the
:00:49. > :00:54.editor of the New York Times, on the future of newspapers - if there is
:00:55. > :00:58.one. Right now I'm putting this on. In China, Emily learns why we'd
:00:59. > :01:05.better disabuse ourselves of ideas that the nation can make things, but
:01:06. > :01:13.can't invent them. Wow! That was you, doing that to the strawberry.
:01:14. > :01:17.Using my brain. A sensational night at the Guildhall in London, and I
:01:18. > :01:19.will have an interview with the youngest ever winner of the man
:01:20. > :01:31.Booker prize, Eleanor Catton. We're all familiar with the
:01:32. > :01:37.accusation from villains that they've been fitted up by the
:01:38. > :01:39.police. It's something else to hear the Independent Police Complaints
:01:40. > :01:46.Commission question the honesty and integrity of police officers. The
:01:47. > :01:48.commission has decided that three of them should have faced disciplinary
:01:49. > :01:50.proceedings for their misrepresentation of what Andrew
:01:51. > :01:54.Mitchell said had occurred during his spat with police at the gates of
:01:55. > :02:05.Downing Street. That confrontation cost him his cabinet post. David
:02:06. > :02:12.Grossman reports. Two incidents of hundred and 20 miles apart. Incident
:02:13. > :02:16.one was at the gates of Downing Street on the 19th of September when
:02:17. > :02:26.Andrew Mitchell was exiting on his bicycle. Did he use the word pleb,
:02:27. > :02:30.he denies it. At the moment it is disguise -- deciding whether to
:02:31. > :02:34.prosecute. The other incident happened three weeks later in the
:02:35. > :02:39.constituency of Sutton Coldfield. What Mr Mitchell said at the
:02:40. > :02:40.interview was disputed. Today the Independent complaints commission
:02:41. > :02:48.came down emphatically in his favour. In my opinion, the issue of
:02:49. > :02:52.in mystery and integrity, not just naive or poor protect --
:02:53. > :02:55.professional judgement. The background to the meeting is
:02:56. > :02:59.important. His denial of using the word behind the gates of Downing
:03:00. > :03:05.Street were not believed. He was not cutting three. As a last rolled the
:03:06. > :03:07.dice he agreed with a meeting with local Police Federation
:03:08. > :03:10.representatives at his constituency headquarters. The Police Federation
:03:11. > :03:14.said it would be to clear the air and draw a line under the matter and
:03:15. > :03:20.it would be a private meeting. It turned out be anything but.
:03:21. > :03:23.Unbeknownst to Mr Mitchell, the Police Federation not only alerted
:03:24. > :03:27.the media to what was arranged as a private meeting but then completely
:03:28. > :03:32.misrepresented what Mr Mitchell had said, and called on him to resign.
:03:33. > :03:37.The three officers in the meeting with Mr Mitchell were Inspector Ken
:03:38. > :03:40.McHale of West Murcia police, Stuart Hinton of Warwickshire Police, and
:03:41. > :03:44.Sergeant Chris Jones of West Midlands Police. Here is what they
:03:45. > :03:50.said after the meeting. I think Mr Mitchell has no option but resign.
:03:51. > :03:56.He is refusing to elaborate on what happened. I think his position is
:03:57. > :03:59.untenable. We know from a secret recording that Mr Mitchell made that
:04:00. > :04:05.he clearly explained what he had said in the original incident. I did
:04:06. > :04:11.not say, I give you my word, that I did not call an officer a pleb. I
:04:12. > :04:16.did say under my breath, but audibly, in frustration, that I
:04:17. > :04:21.thought you lot were supposed to supporters. I did say that. And
:04:22. > :04:26.there that I apologise. In other words, the Police Federation version
:04:27. > :04:30.is at odds with the recording and the transcript. Mr Mitchell had not
:04:31. > :04:36.refused to elaborate and had not refused to say what he said behind
:04:37. > :04:38.closed gates. Despite that, all three representatives of the Police
:04:39. > :04:43.Federation at the meeting said as much in media interviews after the
:04:44. > :04:50.meeting. As police officers, they had a responsibility to present a
:04:51. > :04:55.fair and accurate picture. The motive seems plain. They were
:04:56. > :04:58.running a successful, high-profile anti-cuts campaign and the account
:04:59. > :05:03.he provided did not fit their agenda. The Police Federation
:05:04. > :05:07.represents all police officers up to and including chief inspectors will
:05:08. > :05:11.stop they were and they are engaged in a bitter political battle with
:05:12. > :05:15.the government over pub -- cuts to the budget and defence of pay and
:05:16. > :05:18.conditions, which the government is were determined to reform. The
:05:19. > :05:20.Police Federation therefore enthusiastically leapt on the
:05:21. > :05:25.incident in furtherance of their campaign. The commission only
:05:26. > :05:30.published a report today because there were so dissatisfied with the
:05:31. > :05:33.internal investigation in what was said at the meeting. That
:05:34. > :05:41.investigation concluded that the officers had done nothing wrong and
:05:42. > :05:44.had no case to answer. Today West Murcia police stood by the
:05:45. > :05:47.investigation and officers concerned. Despite the thorough
:05:48. > :05:51.investigation under the supervision of the Commissioner is not
:05:52. > :05:56.sufficient evidence to support the view that the officers concerned
:05:57. > :06:01.should face misconduct proceedings. The Home Secretary says she is
:06:02. > :06:04.concerned but powerless to act. I defend the operation of the police,
:06:05. > :06:09.but I have to say that in my personal view, in view of the
:06:10. > :06:12.statement made by the independent commission today, I think it is
:06:13. > :06:18.wrong to them not to take disciplinary proceedings against the
:06:19. > :06:22.officers. What was or not said in just 45 seconds in Downing Street
:06:23. > :06:26.over a year ago has cost over ?140,000 to the police to
:06:27. > :06:30.investigate, but something else has been squandered say the supporters
:06:31. > :06:34.of Mr Mitchell, a bit more than the public faith in the police. The
:06:35. > :06:38.former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis is here to discuss the latest
:06:39. > :06:43.twist in the Andrew Mitchell affair. Can you trust the police? We can
:06:44. > :06:46.trust most of them. The vast majority of coppers join up to
:06:47. > :06:51.protect the public, feel the collar of a villain and do a job. But some
:06:52. > :06:59.of them, that is not the case. We had Hillsborough, the G20 affair
:07:00. > :07:04.with Ian Tomlinson, and the public are getting a pattern here. It's not
:07:05. > :07:07.representative of everyone but it is systemic in some way. When it can
:07:08. > :07:10.happen to one of the most powerful men in the land, Cabinet Minister,
:07:11. > :07:16.you wonder what it must be like those people at the other end of the
:07:17. > :07:19.social scale. When it first happened and Andrew Mitchell was at the new
:07:20. > :07:26.Deer of his representation, his wife was a GP and suddenly found that the
:07:27. > :07:30.minority nurses came up to her who worked with, said that they
:07:31. > :07:36.understood Doctor Mitchell, because our sons have had this. In Brixton,
:07:37. > :07:41.and so on. There is a real issue here. People who are powerless in
:07:42. > :07:45.society or have not got the resources to be able to get the
:07:46. > :07:50.former Shadow Home Secretary to help out or have not got the contact with
:07:51. > :07:53.the press, or don't have the time and commitment, if they are in that
:07:54. > :07:57.the position, they would still be there today, unlike Andrew. You
:07:58. > :08:05.thought about this. When did the rot set in? It's very hard to know.
:08:06. > :08:10.Write down the decades there have been problems, like the Guildford
:08:11. > :08:14.four and the Birmingham six. All through that time, broadly
:08:15. > :08:17.speaking, the service we got from the ordinary police officer had been
:08:18. > :08:21.really good. Our coppers are better than most in the world, but the
:08:22. > :08:25.simple truth is there have been systemic problems arising from all
:08:26. > :08:29.sorts of things, like the way the logs are filled in. Policemen are
:08:30. > :08:32.allowed to confer about it after an incident. If you and I were there,
:08:33. > :08:38.we have to give evidence straightaway. Lots of things wrong.
:08:39. > :08:41.The other problem, which I think is being highlighted here, is the
:08:42. > :08:44.question of whether the police should be allowed to investigate
:08:45. > :08:52.themselves. Should they actually be allowed to say that the officers did
:08:53. > :08:58.not mean to live? This was not a malicious lie. That was in defiance
:08:59. > :09:02.of the fact is, frankly. Very interesting that that used to be a
:09:03. > :09:06.left-wing complaint, but here we have right across the spectrum of
:09:07. > :09:16.politics, whether it is you or Jack Straw, Simon Hughes, raising against
:09:17. > :09:19.the massed forces of the police. Or their representatives. Bearing mind
:09:20. > :09:24.there are two things in play. There are the Police Federation that are
:09:25. > :09:29.trying to defeat a government who are attacking their terms and
:09:30. > :09:34.conditions, as if -- as they saw it. That is compounding the problem. But
:09:35. > :09:39.it is a thing across the political spectrum, because we rely on the
:09:40. > :09:41.police. This country, historically, has had fabulous policing in
:09:42. > :09:46.comparison with most other countries. In other countries of the
:09:47. > :09:50.world police have been part of a state apparatus or a problem. In the
:09:51. > :09:54.United States, the normal warnings you have to give, they arose from
:09:55. > :10:00.the Supreme Court stepping in because some state police were doing
:10:01. > :10:04.things wrong. We have had a pretty good service, but nevertheless,
:10:05. > :10:09.there is a real systemic problem, I think. We did invite the Police
:10:10. > :10:17.Federation on and they did not want to talk to us. I'm not some --
:10:18. > :10:21.remotely surprised. There's a new newspaper on sale in Europe today.
:10:22. > :10:24.Well, not new exactly. But new to us. The International Herald Tribune
:10:25. > :10:27.is no more. In its place is an international edition of the New
:10:28. > :10:30.York Times. There is perhaps no newspaper on earth which takes
:10:31. > :10:34.itself more seriously. But that has turned out to be no protection from
:10:35. > :10:37.commercial reality. It is the job of journalists to record what's
:10:38. > :10:40.happened, predicting the future is a job for clairvoyants. The truth is
:10:41. > :10:41.that while there are plenty of ideas, no-one knows what the future
:10:42. > :10:52.of almost any part of the media is. The New York Times, the Grey Lady,
:10:53. > :10:56.has never been overburdened with modesty and claims to be the finest
:10:57. > :11:02.newspaper in the world. Mind you, it does have over 100 Pulitzer prizes
:11:03. > :11:06.to prove it. It's the product of a monopoly. There is no other
:11:07. > :11:09.newspaper in town in New York. They have seen off the national
:11:10. > :11:14.competition, the Washington Post which is a shadow of itself, and so
:11:15. > :11:19.is the LA Times. The New York Times can do what it wants. Historically
:11:20. > :11:23.it has been slow to change, but a third of the paper's online
:11:24. > :11:27.customers are from abroad, so perhaps an international edition was
:11:28. > :11:31.inevitable. It will not be easy though. All newspapers are
:11:32. > :11:37.struggling, even the New York Times. But if you have a global brand, and
:11:38. > :11:41.the New York Times has it, it makes sense to go global. All I would say
:11:42. > :11:49.is that whereas the British are good at going global, like we have with
:11:50. > :11:52.the the Economist, the Daily Mail, and the Financial Times, the
:11:53. > :11:58.Americans have not really gone global with their papers. They don't
:11:59. > :12:01.quite know how to do it. The editor charged with overcoming these
:12:02. > :12:06.challenges is Jill Abramson, the first woman in the job. She has all
:12:07. > :12:09.ready had to make controversial editorial decisions, not less
:12:10. > :12:15.contentious than the papers reporting with the Guardian about
:12:16. > :12:18.the secret files from British and American electronic surveillance
:12:19. > :12:21.agencies. She has the pleasure of working with the chief executive,
:12:22. > :12:26.Mark Thompson, who used to run the BBC. Well, joining me now is the
:12:27. > :12:33.editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson. You are printing this new
:12:34. > :12:39.international edition of the New York Times. Why are you doing it? We
:12:40. > :12:43.are still printing the international edition and the New York Times
:12:44. > :12:51.itself, because we have a healthy audience of people who love reading
:12:52. > :12:54.a physical newspaper. It's a wonderful way to deliver it. But
:12:55. > :13:00.does that not prove you are not with the beat? Well, I think the
:13:01. > :13:05.important point is that we are a global news organisation now. We
:13:06. > :13:12.have printed editions of the New York Times and a very vibrant
:13:13. > :13:18.digital presence. Both the global home page and the home page of the
:13:19. > :13:23.New York Times, they are full of the best quality information, and there
:13:24. > :13:30.is a tremendous hunger amongst readers all over the world for the
:13:31. > :13:35.highest quality kind of journalism. That is what we do. But you are
:13:36. > :13:38.working on the premise that journalism that you pay for is
:13:39. > :13:44.somehow journalism that you do not pay for, is that correct? That is
:13:45. > :13:47.not necessarily my premise. But the New York Times, within our business
:13:48. > :13:55.model, it involves a paid subscription plan, but for readers
:13:56. > :13:59.who are not using our website constantly we allow some free
:14:00. > :14:07.content so that we remain part of the world. But why pay for it? Get
:14:08. > :14:10.it off a free website like the BBC? There is a quality in the
:14:11. > :14:15.information and news that we provide that is worth paying for. Give me a
:14:16. > :14:19.hint as to how long you are planning on carrying on printing for? You
:14:20. > :14:25.said yourself that nobody knows what the future is going to hold, but I
:14:26. > :14:29.feel that we have a healthy audience of readers who love getting the
:14:30. > :14:33.print paper and are willing to pay dearly for it. And as long as that
:14:34. > :14:43.is the case, which I expect to be for a good long time. Five years?
:14:44. > :14:48.Ten years? 15 years? I'm not a clairvoyant. You must have a
:14:49. > :14:51.business plan. We have a business plan to continue printing the print
:14:52. > :14:59.newspaper and meeting the demands of our audience. More than 800,000
:15:00. > :15:06.people in the US, about 250,000 people in Europe, and they all love
:15:07. > :15:12.the print paper. And they want to keep getting it. Let us talk about
:15:13. > :15:17.Edward Snowden and the revelations you and the Guardian have published.
:15:18. > :15:22.Sure. Have you actually met Snowden? I have not met Mr Snowden, no. Have
:15:23. > :15:26.you had direct dealings your newspaper with Snowden? We have not
:15:27. > :15:33.had direct dealings, no. Who are you dealing with? Mainly, we have been
:15:34. > :15:38.analysing the documents that he provided first to the Guardian,
:15:39. > :15:43.which shared some of its documents with us and doing our own
:15:44. > :15:48.independent reporting, based on what we've learnt from the documents, it
:15:49. > :15:52.hasn't really - Does it strike you as odd you have had no dealings with
:15:53. > :15:58.the source? Not terribly odd. I mean, it's unusual. Usually, we do
:15:59. > :16:05.deal directly with our source, but in other stories in the Wikileaks
:16:06. > :16:10.stories, frints -- for instance, we were reporting again mostly off of
:16:11. > :16:17.documents and not talking directly to the Wikileaks. You were dealing
:16:18. > :16:22.with Glenn Greenwald? Well, no, we weren't. Although, obviously, in the
:16:23. > :16:32.case of the Snowden documents he, you know, was the person, you know,
:16:33. > :16:37.along with Laura Poitras... You have not spoken to Greenwald either? No.
:16:38. > :16:41.I haven't spoken to Mr Greenwald. Anybody on the newspaper who have
:16:42. > :16:46.spoken to him? There are reports at the Times who have spoken to him in
:16:47. > :16:50.their course of reporting in the story. Your predecessor said he
:16:51. > :16:54.would never see his name as a byline in the newspaper, would you? No, I
:16:55. > :16:59.would never said say never. You might? I might. I just... I haven't
:17:00. > :17:03.faced that decision yet. I will make it when I have to make the decision.
:17:04. > :17:07.I take it the reason he didn't want to see his name as a byline is that
:17:08. > :17:13.he is a commentator rather than a reporter, is that correct? I think
:17:14. > :17:18.he has expressed opinion would be the reason. You don't see that as
:17:19. > :17:21.crossing a line? I see it as a consideration in whether, when I
:17:22. > :17:26.make that decision, I will decide that his name should appear on the
:17:27. > :17:32.news pages of the New York Times. How many... How much of what you've
:17:33. > :17:38.got of this stuff has not been published? Quite a bit has not yet
:17:39. > :17:43.been published. You know, it's quite a considerable amount of documents,
:17:44. > :17:49.but I don't really think that is the important issue. I think the issue
:17:50. > :17:54.is that, what the Guardian has published. They have published far
:17:55. > :18:00.more aerials than we have. That that... Those aerials are very much
:18:01. > :18:06.in the public interest. Inform the public. It distresses me to see
:18:07. > :18:11.other people in the media being critical of journalists doing their
:18:12. > :18:15.job, which is to inform the public. I think these articles have been in
:18:16. > :18:21.service of that. Some things have not been disclosed, despite us being
:18:22. > :18:26.in the (inaudible) business, they have not been disclosed for what
:18:27. > :18:31.reason? Because responsible journalists actually do care as
:18:32. > :18:36.citizens do about national security and the safety of citizens. So some
:18:37. > :18:40.things have not been published for reasons of national security? Some
:18:41. > :18:44.things have not been published because to publish them would
:18:45. > :18:48.possibly harm the safety of the public. Do you mind me asking how it
:18:49. > :18:53.is that you know that as owe supposed to the security agencies? I
:18:54. > :19:00.would say without at all wanting to come across as arrogant, that I have
:19:01. > :19:05.years and years of experience as do many of the reporters who work for
:19:06. > :19:10.me in Washington, where the intelligence agencies are located,
:19:11. > :19:14.in dealing with these stories and making very difficult decisions
:19:15. > :19:19.where we weigh, you know we balance the need to inform the public
:19:20. > :19:26.against possible harm to national security. We do that very seriously
:19:27. > :19:31.and soberly. I just think that experienced journalists can make
:19:32. > :19:33.that decision. The head of MI5 say this is does serious damage to
:19:34. > :19:39.national security, you know better... No, I'd like to see the
:19:40. > :19:44.examples that prove that there has been an actual harm to national
:19:45. > :19:48.security. When the New York Times published the Pentagon papers, back
:19:49. > :19:54.in the 1970s, the same claims were made that publishing did grave harm
:19:55. > :19:59.to national security and yet a couple of years after we published
:20:00. > :20:04.them the same officials who said that admitted that actually there
:20:05. > :20:08.hadn't been any real harm to national security. So... If a single
:20:09. > :20:13.person should die as a result of information disclosed to terrorists
:20:14. > :20:19.because... No person has died. Yet? Well, you say yet. At thes's an
:20:20. > :20:24.awesome responsibility? It is a huge responsibility. Do you think other
:20:25. > :20:28.people are better qualified to make that judgment? I don't know if there
:20:29. > :20:32.are better qualified people. I'm not saying that journalists are all
:20:33. > :20:43.knowing or we obviously haven't been elected by anyone, but I think that
:20:44. > :20:48.we actually do seriously balance the public interest. In as much as you
:20:49. > :20:55.know it? No. In each case we make very difficult decisions after
:20:56. > :20:57.weighing the information. When you saw, for example, public authorities
:20:58. > :21:02.coming to the Guardian in this country and the Guardian destroying
:21:03. > :21:08.computers, what did you think? Well, I thought it's unfortunate that they
:21:09. > :21:14.had to destroy some of their own computers, but they certainly took
:21:15. > :21:24.steps to ensure that good journalism continued. The that's partly why
:21:25. > :21:27.Alan Russbridger, who I think it a superb journalist, reached out to me
:21:28. > :21:32.to share some of these documents. When you look at the press do you
:21:33. > :21:37.think we are free here, the press here? I think the press in Britain
:21:38. > :21:46.has more restrictions on it than we do. The framers of our country, in
:21:47. > :21:53.the US, had big fear of too much power put in the central government.
:21:54. > :21:58.As a bulwark against any excesses on the part of the government they
:21:59. > :22:03.believe passionately in the need for a free press. I think that is a
:22:04. > :22:08.stronger tradition in the US than it is here. I take it if you were
:22:09. > :22:12.editing your paper in this country you wouldn't be signing up to the
:22:13. > :22:17.proposed charter? Probably not. Thank you very much. Thanks. A
:22:18. > :22:21.senior official of the Iranian government gave the sort of summing
:22:22. > :22:25.up that reporters dread today. Asked about what happened in between his
:22:26. > :22:34.country and six of the world's most powerful nation abouts Iran's
:22:35. > :22:37.nuclear programme he gave the spectacularly unilluminating comment
:22:38. > :22:40.that it was too early to say whether they had made any progress. The
:22:41. > :22:54.White House too is saying that it will be a long-haul. The meeting was
:22:55. > :22:58.in gooe and we spent the day with Mark Urban with his ear to whatever
:22:59. > :23:03.keyhole he could find. All the feel good created by the election of a
:23:04. > :23:09.new Iranian government, it had yet to answer the demands of the outside
:23:10. > :23:14.world or make a proposal of substance. We have come here with a
:23:15. > :23:20.sense ever cautious optimism and a great sense of determination because
:23:21. > :23:25.we believe it is really time now for tangible results. As the Iranians
:23:26. > :23:33.began to unveil their road map in the Palace of Palace of Le, Geneva's
:23:34. > :23:39.monument to previous failed statesmen, there was a sense the
:23:40. > :23:43.meeting had to produce results. Both sides need rapid process. The
:23:44. > :23:47.Iranians want an easing of international sanctions. The
:23:48. > :23:52.Westerners want to be sure as what they saw as the time wasting tactics
:23:53. > :23:55.of previous Iranian governments are now well and truly over. The longer
:23:56. > :24:02.they go on without a solution of course, the more developed Iran's
:24:03. > :24:06.nuclear programmes get. The first, lasting six months, or up to April
:24:07. > :24:11.next year, would involve inspections and a lifting of sanctions. Phase
:24:12. > :24:18.two, which would extend through next summer, would be the period where
:24:19. > :24:24.confidence building measures would take place. Leading in one year's
:24:25. > :24:28.time to phase three, an end state where the international community
:24:29. > :24:33.would recognise the peaceful nature of Iran's remaining programmed and
:24:34. > :24:38.its future would be guaranteed. What would Iran concede? That's another
:24:39. > :24:41.question. I'm sure the details of negotiations will, at some point,
:24:42. > :24:46.come out. The the question is, should they come out while the
:24:47. > :24:52.negotiations are ongoing to open up space for criticism and backlash
:24:53. > :24:57.given the domestic sensitivities in both Tehran or Washington, or should
:24:58. > :25:01.they wait until they reach a final agreement and at that time announce
:25:02. > :25:05.it to the world? The Iranians would prefer the second option. My
:25:06. > :25:10.understanding is that is attractive and acceptable for the P5 plus 1.
:25:11. > :25:20.Indeed, once the morning's presentation was finished, the
:25:21. > :25:25.deputy -- Mr Zarif's deputy came over to brief the press. The meeting
:25:26. > :25:29.was very positive, but we are going to discuss about the details of
:25:30. > :25:33.Iranian plan in the afternoon. This afternoon, when the fuller
:25:34. > :25:37.discussions began, the western countries changed their tune. In
:25:38. > :25:44.fact they stopped briefing anxious to digest what they were hearing and
:25:45. > :25:49.aware that the old, we await Iran's proposal with interest line had been
:25:50. > :25:52.overtaken by people in a hurry. Obviously time is of the essence.
:25:53. > :25:57.The Iranians want to move fast. They want to get to age stant agreement
:25:58. > :26:01.in a matter of a year. They want to have interim measures that are not
:26:02. > :26:06.separated by more than three months. The reason is that they want to make
:26:07. > :26:09.sure that, first of all, there is positive momentum and diplomacy so
:26:10. > :26:14.that talks will move forward. Second, they want to make sure there
:26:15. > :26:17.is not enough space for the spoilers to derail diplomacy. Tonight, there
:26:18. > :26:23.was a further meeting between Baroness Ashton and Mr Zarif. The
:26:24. > :26:28.atmosphere of tense expectation has gone to be replaced by the search
:26:29. > :26:36.for a deal both sides can live with and sell to their own sceptics.
:26:37. > :26:41.There will soon be one fewer among the female bosses in big British
:26:42. > :26:45.firms. The Chief Executive of the fashion firm, Burberry, is quitting
:26:46. > :26:51.to join Apple. Angela Ahrendts has been given the credit for the
:26:52. > :26:55.dechaving the company and finding ever more ingenious ways of getting
:26:56. > :27:00.rich people around the worlded to pay increasing amounts of money for
:27:01. > :27:05.clothing and accessories marked with the distinctive check. The stock
:27:06. > :27:09.market greeted news of her departure by dumping shares in the company,
:27:10. > :27:14.which can't have made for a very happy teatime for her successor. We
:27:15. > :27:22.report now on the transfer market in Chief Executives. The shareholders
:27:23. > :27:27.at Burberry couldn't pay their Chief Executive a higher compliment. She
:27:28. > :27:31.leaves and the share price drops. The city equivalent of Alex
:27:32. > :27:36.Fergusson leaving Manchester United. That is what happened to Angela
:27:37. > :27:44.Ahrendts when she announced she was leaving to run the stores of a
:27:45. > :27:51.company struggling to maintain its Success. Apple will have to pay her
:27:52. > :27:56.well. She made the brand cool. She branched out into other lines. She
:27:57. > :28:02.made her presence felt in emerging economies. Where the emerging
:28:03. > :28:06.economy tourn tourists are coming to Europe Burberry is one of the first
:28:07. > :28:09.places they want to visit. The company had been broadening its
:28:10. > :28:31.appeal and die lighting. Since she took it over in 2006 its
:28:32. > :28:41.valued has trebled. She appeals in a modern way to the middle-classes of
:28:42. > :28:43.China and Japan. That is exactly what Apple needs. If you are the
:28:44. > :28:48.world's number one most fashionable tech company you have an anxiety,
:28:49. > :28:52.staying fashionable. You have to win in those far east markets or you
:28:53. > :28:57.won't be number one any more. Right now Apple is losing. They may be the
:28:58. > :29:01.world's best-known tech company, the cult of Apple was the cult of Steve
:29:02. > :29:07.Jobs. There is doubt that without him it can keep up the growth. With
:29:08. > :29:12.Nokia and BlackBerry in decline, tech companies are desperate for
:29:13. > :29:17.executives who not only run them, but change them, not for the money.
:29:18. > :29:21.I don't think it's about the money. I have worked for many individuals
:29:22. > :29:25.who have moved for less money than they are earning because the
:29:26. > :29:30.challenge, the brand the technology was a motivator that made them move.
:29:31. > :29:35.The money is secondary when we look throughthrough individuals. Who can
:29:36. > :29:40.turn companies round switch companies like Premiership players
:29:41. > :29:53.switching clubs. The top transfers are are:
:29:54. > :30:01.What is it for strongholders that make the right Chief Executive worth
:30:02. > :30:04.so much? Their ability to score goals. If you imagine the plates
:30:05. > :30:09.they need to spin at any one time. They have to consider strategy, they
:30:10. > :30:13.have to consider staff, shareholders and lists. They have to make sure
:30:14. > :30:18.that the brand keeps delivering all of these things have to happen at
:30:19. > :30:24.once. How much of those glittering reputations are down to skill and
:30:25. > :30:30.how much to luck? Before Mark Bowland joined Morrisons had had
:30:31. > :30:37.warned that its profits would disappoint. He joined and in two
:30:38. > :30:44.years the company grew bye-bye a quarter. Marks Spencer hired
:30:45. > :30:50.Bowland and their shares have slumped. He is a retail man, that is
:30:51. > :30:55.what these things are, whether it is beer or food. Fashion is different.
:30:56. > :31:00.What surprised me when Mark Bowland joined is that he didn't change the
:31:01. > :31:09.key people responsible for the fashion. The fashion is middle-aged
:31:10. > :31:14.and dowdy. John Browit would have collected ?36 million for running
:31:15. > :31:17.Apple's stores, he left after six months. Company hiring Chief
:31:18. > :31:22.Executives may believe they are paying for skill, how their latest
:31:23. > :31:26.signing works out also has an element of luck.
:31:27. > :31:35.With nurses Louise Cooper, who is a city analyst -- with us now. And we
:31:36. > :31:39.are joined by Professor Bill George. Professor George, how easy
:31:40. > :31:44.is it for a chief executive to change companies like this? It's
:31:45. > :31:50.very unusual to change from being a CEO and then heading up a part of
:31:51. > :31:53.the company. I think this is a real coup for Apple. A brilliant move to
:31:54. > :31:58.bring in someone with such creative skill. Angela has done an amazing
:31:59. > :32:02.job at Burberry, turning round what could have been a dowdy fashion
:32:03. > :32:08.brand and bringing it round the world. They are the great benefactor
:32:09. > :32:10.here. A wonderful talent who will bring in more creativity in
:32:11. > :32:18.combining the online and retail staff. Ron Johnson set up the Apple
:32:19. > :32:22.Store is very well. They have not had anyone in charge than two years,
:32:23. > :32:27.and I think it is the loss for Burberry. How easy is it for a chief
:32:28. > :32:34.executive to move from one company to another? I think it is
:32:35. > :32:39.interesting what she has done, because Burberry might be a FTSE 100
:32:40. > :32:44.company but it is tiny compared to Apple. Apple is 100 times larger
:32:45. > :32:53.than Burberry. She has gone from being a very big fish in a small
:32:54. > :32:58.pond to a small fish in a massive, massive pond. Everybody talks about
:32:59. > :33:03.her skills and they say she is brilliant at Digital, because she
:33:04. > :33:08.put the fashion show on line and put the fashion things on twitter.
:33:09. > :33:12.Brilliant, digital, but that's a different level of digital expertise
:33:13. > :33:18.than the iPhone and the iPad. This is quite an unusual move for both
:33:19. > :33:22.sides. Professor, are their common characteristics amongst these people
:33:23. > :33:32.who are handed out by companies to revive their fortunes? Today's CEO
:33:33. > :33:36.'s have to address all of the stakeholders and constituencies, so
:33:37. > :33:39.they are public figures. Not just someone who sits in and runs a
:33:40. > :33:42.business and meets the needs of the shareholders and boards. They have
:33:43. > :33:47.to meet the needs of the general public, particularly in a retail
:33:48. > :33:51.business like Apple or Burberry. You have to be out there with the people
:33:52. > :33:55.and have a sense of fashion and where people are going. Steve jobs
:33:56. > :34:03.had that. I think she will bring that to Apple. Do they have common
:34:04. > :34:08.character traits? Warney is being who you are and authentic. Another
:34:09. > :34:11.-- one is being. Another is a willingness to keep balls in the air
:34:12. > :34:15.and the other is being very self-determined. She has proven she
:34:16. > :34:22.has all of those qualities. Frankly, she will be a CEO again, mark my
:34:23. > :34:28.words. I think what she did at Burberry show is one of the most
:34:29. > :34:32.important is to have had to have a vision for the future. What business
:34:33. > :34:39.am I in? Where do I wanted to be? I want to be the best. If you do not
:34:40. > :34:44.have the vision she had at Burberry, but you need it, even if
:34:45. > :34:48.she can't have it Apple. The other thing you need to do is take your
:34:49. > :34:53.staff with you. You are only one person. You need to create leaders
:34:54. > :34:57.and nurture talent. Numbers are easy, people are difficult. You have
:34:58. > :35:04.to be really good people. Take a chord with you? Yes, when you are
:35:05. > :35:08.CEO, you are top of the pile. You have to create people that share the
:35:09. > :35:14.strong vision. There is a great expression which says you cannot
:35:15. > :35:17.blow an uncertain trumpet. You need to know where you are going to go
:35:18. > :35:25.and then take everyone else with you. The mark of a good CEO is that
:35:26. > :35:29.people focus on you. The mark of a bad CEO is the focus on numbers.
:35:30. > :35:35.Numbers are easy, people are difficult. I will have to cut you
:35:36. > :35:38.both off, but thank you very much indeed. George Osborne continued
:35:39. > :35:42.trundling around China today, trying to promote trade between the two
:35:43. > :35:45.countries. As the Chinese economy powers ahead, much of the rest of
:35:46. > :35:49.the world has consoled itself with the vanity that while it may be
:35:50. > :35:52.capable of bashing metal or dying jeans, the real creative work - the
:35:53. > :35:54.most added value - is the property of the West. But is this comforting
:35:55. > :36:10.vanity true? Emily's in Shenzhen. If success is measured by the height
:36:11. > :36:14.of your buildings, the speed of your trains, or the waving of your
:36:15. > :36:21.national flag in space, China's revolution is complete. But the
:36:22. > :36:25.Middle Kingdom is still resolutely middle income. When it comes to
:36:26. > :36:31.high-tech innovation, China still cannot compete with the world 's
:36:32. > :36:35.most profitable companies. That ubiquitous phrase, made in China,
:36:36. > :36:40.has yielded this. But those three words you find on your phone,
:36:41. > :36:45.laptop, tablet, distorts the real story. Yes, they were made here, but
:36:46. > :36:49.the design, the idea behind it, has come from elsewhere. That is where
:36:50. > :37:02.the profits go, and that is what China wants a share now. -- a share
:37:03. > :37:06.of now. At the vanguard of the mission is Huawei, which has become
:37:07. > :37:11.the second largest company in technology on earth. It has global
:37:12. > :37:18.aspirations, and a silicon voice to match. We do intellectual property
:37:19. > :37:24.development and have half of the workforce, 70,000 of the 150,000
:37:25. > :37:28.they do reach and development. George Osborne arrives here tomorrow
:37:29. > :37:31.to tell Huawei he wants them to invest in Britain. Many companies do
:37:32. > :37:35.not want that investment. A big problem for the high-tech industry
:37:36. > :37:40.in China is that it greeted with suspicion wherever it goes. Huawei
:37:41. > :37:42.has even had claims of spying. The American government accused Huawei
:37:43. > :37:47.being a surveillance company described as a telecoms company.
:37:48. > :37:52.What is your response? Hypothetically, the accusation put
:37:53. > :37:55.to us is that we are being used to do espionage that the Chinese
:37:56. > :38:00.government. We have said we would never do that. If we got a call from
:38:01. > :38:05.Beijing, we would not do that. Why? Because it would be commercial
:38:06. > :38:13.suicide. Another accusation is that China stop companies from companies
:38:14. > :38:20.operating here, and copies their ideas, calling it block and Cologne.
:38:21. > :38:26.First we allow Chinese companies to copycat every international
:38:27. > :38:31.successes. You have Google, we have our own online search. The reason is
:38:32. > :38:36.to draw the Chinese users to the server which they can 100% control.
:38:37. > :38:40.A business model based not on risk and thought but on cut and paste.
:38:41. > :38:44.It's very difficult to create a culture of innovation in a world
:38:45. > :38:49.where communication is censored. If you have a place to innovate, you
:38:50. > :38:58.need at least the Freedom of information or the freedom of
:38:59. > :39:02.speech. Huawei's engineers have headed for lunch. China has invested
:39:03. > :39:06.billions, five times more on research and development, but the
:39:07. > :39:10.trouble is that money cannot deliver a household brand name, top ten
:39:11. > :39:19.university or a Nobel Prize in science. Every day, at 12pm, 10,000
:39:20. > :39:24.workers descend on the cafeteria for 50 minutes and then they are. This
:39:25. > :39:28.is how China has worked so off -- far, a model of order and
:39:29. > :39:31.efficiency. What it has not been about is a disruption, a questioning
:39:32. > :39:38.of the normal, something that diversifies away from that. Right
:39:39. > :39:42.now, we are putting this on. David is breaking the mould. He studied in
:39:43. > :39:47.Canada and runs one of the most exciting start-ups here. His device
:39:48. > :39:50.allows you to move objects on-screen with the power of thought. So I am
:39:51. > :40:01.trying to make the strawberry explode? Wow! So that was you, you
:40:02. > :40:07.doing that to the strawberry. From your brain. In a culture where
:40:08. > :40:12.deference to authority is paramount, he says that the key is learning to
:40:13. > :40:17.think differently, and that is where China may struggle. One problem is
:40:18. > :40:24.that the education system in China tries to order all of the students
:40:25. > :40:32.to become one ideal model. It is not celebrating the individual
:40:33. > :40:35.characteristics. That is something recognising the root of kindergarten
:40:36. > :40:39.down the road. You won't have seen this before. Here they encourage
:40:40. > :40:45.happy chaos. No uniform, no water, little discipline. Mrs Lee has been
:40:46. > :40:56.a teacher for 22 years and she says things are changing. Everyone has a
:40:57. > :41:00.different personality. We are used to focusing on control, but now we
:41:01. > :41:08.let them have freedom. We want them to explore, be more creative.
:41:09. > :41:11.Unleashing the forces of innovation could take the country to the next
:41:12. > :41:15.level of development, but can China's leaders really afford to let
:41:16. > :41:21.people think differently? Letting go could, at a cost. -- could come at a
:41:22. > :41:25.cost. The result of the literary world's
:41:26. > :41:28.most commercially important book prize was announced tonight at the
:41:29. > :41:31.Guildhall. This year's Man Booker award is the last from which, for
:41:32. > :41:37.good or ill, American authors are excluded. The winner, Eleanor Catton
:41:38. > :41:41.spoke to Kirsty a few minutes ago. There has been great excitement here
:41:42. > :41:46.at the Guildhall in London. The 45th Man Booker Prize has been won by the
:41:47. > :41:50.New Zealander Eleanor Catton for The Luminaries. She is the longest ever
:41:51. > :41:55.-- youngest ever winner with the longest ever book. At first a little
:41:56. > :41:59.ball about The Luminaries. Standing at a colossal 832 pages, the story
:42:00. > :42:04.recounts a series of unsolved crimes, involving a missing wealthy
:42:05. > :42:08.man, a near dead prostitute, and an enormous amount of money found in
:42:09. > :42:12.the home of a luckless recruits. However, as the worker -- reader
:42:13. > :42:22.work through each layer of the story, the layout of the novel takes
:42:23. > :42:26.status -- centrestage. -- the winter -- widow said I am not mistaken. I
:42:27. > :42:31.am very skilled at reading this. The moon is waxing above the cloud and
:42:32. > :42:35.it will be full by Monday night and on Tuesday it will begin to wane.
:42:36. > :42:41.Next month will be a month without a moon. Eleanor Catton is with me.
:42:42. > :42:45.Many congratulations. Robert McFarlane, the chair of the judge
:42:46. > :42:50.panel, said it was an awesome achievement. You are the youngest
:42:51. > :42:54.ever winner, the second New Zealander and it is the longest ever
:42:55. > :43:04.book. What was it like up there tonight? It was overwhelming,
:43:05. > :43:08.actually. I almost can't remember the few minutes after the prize was
:43:09. > :43:12.announced. You essentially wrote a murder mystery, but you can strange
:43:13. > :43:16.yourself in the structure, set around the zodiac. But it was also
:43:17. > :43:19.revealing, because not so many people know about the second gold
:43:20. > :43:24.rush in New Zealand, and it was clearly something you wanted to
:43:25. > :43:31.explore, 19th-century New Zealand. I grew up in Christchurch on the East
:43:32. > :43:34.side of New Zealand. I made a lot of trips to the West Coast with my
:43:35. > :43:38.family to go camping and spend time in the outdoors. It was always a
:43:39. > :43:49.part of New Zealand that captured my mind and heart in a way. Somewhere
:43:50. > :43:55.along the way it had taken root as a possible site for a story. You said
:43:56. > :43:59.you started with the idea of a man going into the bar. Was that the
:44:00. > :44:08.start of a joke? It is like the start of a joke. I was seduced by
:44:09. > :44:14.the idea of a 12th man, a man being not convicted of a crime, but
:44:15. > :44:18.implicated. I had the idea that a 13th man could walk into a gathering
:44:19. > :44:24.where they were discussing this crime that they were implicated by
:44:25. > :44:31.and disrupt their machinations. That is where the book get -- began. You
:44:32. > :44:34.are clearly wanted to make it a 19th-century novel. You have the
:44:35. > :44:39.motifs at the beginning and the moralising. Was that an influence?
:44:40. > :44:42.Was it 19th-century literature? I read a lot of 19th-century
:44:43. > :44:47.literature when I was researching the book, chiefly because I think
:44:48. > :44:54.there are so many thought -- things that. There are so many cultural
:44:55. > :45:05.behaviours or languages that maybe we won't necessarily see. There is
:45:06. > :45:12.so much about Victorian values and beliefs, and I needed to immerse
:45:13. > :45:18.myself. You said at the same time, in a weird way, you up influenced by
:45:19. > :45:26.the idea of a box set, a late 20th-century phenomenon. I am
:45:27. > :45:30.slightly addicted to boxed sets. I'm surprised you get the time. The
:45:31. > :45:34.amount of time it must have taken you to write this! The normal
:45:35. > :45:41.routine is writing in the day, TV at night. You also decided yourself
:45:42. > :45:47.that you would have a containing structure which would end with a
:45:48. > :45:51.tiny sentence at the end. Was that hard to construct? I was obsessed
:45:52. > :45:57.with the idea of the golden ratio when I read the book. That something
:45:58. > :46:00.could have a skeletal shape that would be beautiful in its own right.
:46:01. > :46:06.I tried to put that into the shape of the book as much as I could.
:46:07. > :46:09.Congratulations, you are ?50,000 the richer, doesn't matter so much, but
:46:10. > :46:11.a wonderful achievement. Back to the studio.
:46:12. > :46:22.That's it for tonight. The BBC announced today that they're digging
:46:23. > :46:25.up yet another bunch of long-dead children's TV characters. The
:46:26. > :46:27.Clangers are coming back. To mark this important occasion, we've
:46:28. > :46:33.unearthed a rarity from 39 years ago, believed by some to have been
:46:34. > :46:36.lost forever. In October 1974, the BBC broadcast a special Clangers
:46:37. > :46:39.episode on election day, inspired by creator Oliver Postgate's anger over
:46:40. > :46:48.the miners strike and the three day week. Who knows how it changed the
:46:49. > :46:55.course of history. I make no bones about the excesses... Our planet
:46:56. > :47:01.seems noisy, and it must seem onto other planets. Look, suppose you
:47:02. > :47:08.wanted to have a government, you could choose the government of the
:47:09. > :47:20.soup Dragon, for instance? Free soup for all! That should capture the
:47:21. > :47:26.votes. No soup for the froglets, you do learn fast. Whatever the soup
:47:27. > :47:30.Dragon once, you will give it him. Wait a minute! Wait a minute
:47:31. > :47:34.exhibition mark I was only trying to show how we do things on our planet.