23/10/2013 Newsnight


With Jeremy Paxman. What future for Grangemouth? Why won't the police apologise for plebgate? Russell Brand talks about his revolution.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/10/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



One of the biggest industrial areas in Scotland will be closed down.


Might someone be found who could make it pay? I have been talking to


Scotland's for instance as he tries to broker last-ditch deal. As part


of the apology that we have already given there should be included in


that apology, if we are going to give that apology we should give it


personally and not in this forum. You are planning to see Mr Mitchell


and give him an apology. If there is one due with regard to... (laughter)


Mr Hinton this is not a television game show. Why did the police who


met Andrew Mitchell in this room give such misleading accounts of


what happened. Why won't they give a proper apology. Totally there will


be a revolution, it is totally going to happen. I haven't a flicker of


doubt, this is the end. A highbrow interview with Russell Brand. This


is the green grass where I take my dogs and I just let them do what


they want. This little bit of green here? Because it is quite a small I


can't remember, there is a lot of dog mess. And has childhood finally


been divorced from nature? And does it matter? There are elements of the


industrial dispute at the petro-chemical plant at Grangemouth


which promise a trip straight back to the 1970s. A loss-making factory,


a work force that believes it has cast iron agreements about pay,


conditions and pensions which the management are now going back on. A


Government says it cannot and will not be a mere speck taker. It ought


-- spectator. It thought to be washed out in colour, it is real and


worrying enough if you are one of the thousands likely to be badly


affected. Today the owners of EOS announced they were shutting the


gates. After hearing the announcement workers began to leave


the site which employs 800 people directly with a further 2,000 jobs


reliant on the site. I'm sorry, no. It is going to be HOR rendous trying


to live -- HOR rendous trying to live after this. The owner, InEos


said they were willing to invest ?300 million, but only if the unions


agreed to their survival plan, which included accepting a pay freeze,


cuts to pensions and a no-strike guarantee. Blackmail. The workers


narrowly rejected the proposals in a ballot. The company said it could no


longer continue to fund the site and the business had no option but to go


ahead with liquidation. The trade union Unite, described it as an act


of industrial vandalism. Make no mistake, one man is holding this


work force and country to Rand some, that is Jim Ratcliffe, the owner.


Unite can do no more, and the ball is now the court of Jim Ratcliffe


and the respective Governments of Westminster and Edinburgh. The


Scottish Executive says if an agreement between the company and


Unite isn't achievable, it will pursue options to find a potential


buyer for the site. Just before we came on air I spoke to the First


Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, about the stand-off. Alex Salmond do


you accept it is now inevitable that Grangemouth is going to close? No I


don't. The reason for that is I know how close both management and unions


were to agreement last week, twice actually, once to an underlying


agreement and then secondly to reignite the plant. We were within a


hair's breath of that on Friday morning. Given that both sides were


very close to agreement last week, both sides agreed there was, in


their words, an outstanding further for this facility. I don't see why a


week later the game should be up. I'm determined not to give up on


Grangemouth. It is clearly uneconomic isn't it? No, there were


challenges certainly in the chemical side and its competitive position.


The petro-chemical side is losing ?10 million a month, that can't go


on indefinitely? That depends where you put the figures. Let's have some


common sense here. In the refinery there is no proposal to close it,


the refinery is pretty well placed compared to other UK refineries. In


the chemical side which has competitive pressure for particular


reasons, the company had an investment plan to secure the future


of that facility for the next 15-25 years. Both sides agreed that was an


investment plan that they wanted. Unfortunately the negotiations


brought down over other matters. Given we are a week on, given we


were so close last week, I don't see why we can't have a renewed effort


to find that common ground and secure a future for this facility.


So should the workers have accepted the cuts to pay and pensions? I


think the work force, certainly the unions were prepared to address


that, a significant development this afternoon is new proposals have been


made by Unite to the company. Now I hope the company is consider these,


I spoke to both Unite and Jim Ratcliffe this afternoon, I hope


these can be favourically considered. They do seem to me, as


least at first sight tie dress the cost issues the company brought


forward. Perhaps over the next few days we can get to a more positive


place and see this crucial facility. Above all the livelihoods of


thousands of people in Scotland protected. Would you like to see it


sold to somebody else if there cannot be an agreement reached? We


are going to concentrate, let's make one last effort to get that


agreement, given the new proposals that Unite have made. It is bait


late is it? -- it is a bit late? It might be five minutes to midnight


but not past the witching hour as yet. The petro-chemical company has


not been liquid dated yet, it won't -- liquidated yet, it won't be for


several days. I will work as hard as I can as First Minister of Scotland,


because of the facility and livelihoods at stake, let's make the


one last effort to get the agreement that secures the future of what is a


very, very important plant. When you spoke to the chairman, was he up for


a new set of talks? Well he certainly did not say that he


wouldn't consider the things coming forward. They have to come forward,


as he put it, from the local management. The sequence of events


that unite have made proposals to the local management. They have to


reflect that and put it forward to the shareholders of the company who


decide on the investment. But I hope that process can now happen because


Grangemouth is worth it happening and the leavelihoods of these people


are worth -- livelihoods of these people are worth it. We are prepared


to encourage and if sillity where agreement could be -- facilitate


where agreement could be reached. Where was he when you spoke to him


on the phone? He was in London and I was speaking from Aberdeen. So it's


not true, as has been alleged in the house of Lord this evening, that


he's swanking around on yacht in the Mediterranean? No and I could say


that Mr Rathbone was in DLON when I spoke from Aberdeen. Can I say from


all this stuff, I'm prepared from past exchanges as you know, to


engage in all sorts of stuff with other politicians and you know for


debate and all the rest of it. Right now when there are thousands of folk


who are waiting to see if they have a job and livelihood, whether people


are in the House of Lords and Commons or Scottish Parliament, we


should address the issue, our role right now is to try to get people to


agree, to try to get common ground to secure the future of the


facility. The rhetoric and inSULTs and all that nonsense should wait


for another day. Have you heard anything about the proposal from


Unite? I haven't as yet. We will wait and see if that comes through


tomorrow. What I'm hearing is that if what they are saying through it


is diametrically opposed to what they were saying only two days ago,


which was they totally rejected our survival plan and that is what


caused most of the Unite represent people on site to vote against it.


So there is a possibility of, Alex Salmond there was talking about


something five minutes to midnight. It is five minutes to midnight as


far as you are concerned, because the negotiations are not over? The


problem is the negotiations are over, which is why we announced


today we have to close the site. The difficulty we have been put into is


we made a clear statement to our employees because we couldn't talk


to Unite, they refused to talk about on the issue, they wanted to talk


about the treatment of the union convener. We have addressed it


directly to the work force, and encouraged by Unite they rejected


it, or half of them rejected it. Are you willing to reopen negotiations?


The reality is, and I think you heard Alex Salmond say it, that in


his discussions with Jim Ratcliffe and the shareholders, the management


team on the site will obviously take back to the shareholders something


if it changes significantly. I don't know whether that's the case or not


at this stage. So you are in principle prepared to reopen


negotiations, or you, I mean if people were willing on-site you


would? The reality of the situation is that we have been forced by t


rejection of the proposals we made to start a process that sees the


site close, that is the reality, I can't say what will happen tomorrow,


I have no idea what else is being offered. We have no idea what is on


the table. It is clearly not over. You are not talking like man who is


saying it is over, it is finished, it is done? The reality is we have


had to announce today the petro-chemical site will close.


There is a huge discussion to be had about restarting the refinery, that


has to start to continue. Whether that impacts on the petro-chemical


site I have no idea. As far as you are concerned the refinery can


continue to operate? Absolutely. Fine, can you help us with the


petro-chemical figures, this figure of your company losing ?10 million a


month, Alex Salmond disputes that, you heard him say that there that he


can't accept that was necessary the right figure, is it the right


figure? The overall site is losing ?10 million a month. That is the


whole site, both refining and petro-chemicals. Petro-chemicals is


a big piece of that. The reality is we have had to invest so far about a


billion pounds into the site. We have now to invest, if we want to


continue petro-chemical, they have to a further ?300 million, that was


put to the work force, are you willing to support us, if we are


going to put the ?300 million is, the answer was a resounding no. To


muck about with people's pension expectations is pretty tough? If it


were mucking about, I would agree with you. All we have asked to do is


for the pensions to go for a normal situation. Something most people


would consider very generous. The current pension scheme is costing us


65% of salary, for everyone we employ we have to add another 65% on


top of their salary which currently is about ?55,000, add the # the 65%


on it is costing over ?100,000 for every person on the site. Can you


imagine anyone else in your line of work to take on the commitments? It


is difficult to see who would do it. Everyone would face the same issue


we have, not enough gas from the North Sea, we can't run the site


full because of that. We have to invest in new facility to bring more


gas in. That is a big bill, on top of that big bill you have to keep


shelling out for the losseses on site until you have sort -- losses


on site until you have sorted that out. That will take two or three


years. What about workers who think they have no jobs? My message is one


of huge and deep regret. My major deep regret is their union has not


represented its interests, it has represented its own iterim political


interests and advised them extremely badly.


Thank you very much. Not since medieval philosophers debated how


many angels can dance on the head of a pin has Westminster seen a display


to compare with the appearance of three very experienced police


officers spending much of the afternoon trying to explain how they


came to describe a conversation which did not take place. In the


end, though, they couldn't bring themselves to apologise to the then


cabinet minister, Andrew Mitchell, but the senior officer who


investigated whether they ought to place disciplinary proceedings still


believes they should. The scene of wrongdoing? Or as the


police contend nothing to see here, move along please! Just over a year


ago the MP for Sutton Coldfield, Andrew Mitchell turned up here at


his constituency Association for A crucial meeting. If he could


convince three local representatives of the Police Federation that he had


done nothing wrong, well he just might be able to save his career.


What happened in this room around this table has already been the


subject of an internal police investigation that concluded the


officers had no case to answer. And a statement by the Independent


Police Complaints Commisssion that concluded, well there were issues of


honesty and integrity that needed to be examined. Today it was the turn


of MPs to look at the issue and pick up the detective's magnifying glass.


Over more than four hours we heard from three Chief Constables, the


police officer who carried out the initial internal investigation, two


senior figures from the independent police watchdog, and of course the


three police officers themselves, and, well, we ended up more or less


as baffled as we were at the start. Let's remind ourselves what the


officers said after the meeting a year ago. I think Mr Mitchell now


has no option but to resign. He is continuing to refuse to elaborate on


what happened. I think his position sun tenable. That statement piled


the pressure on Mr Mitchell and he ended up resigning. Despite the fact


that he had an audio recording of the meeting that clearly showed that


the officers' version of events was, well, wrong.


I did say, you know, under my breath, but audibly, in frustration,


"I thought you lot were supposed to BEEP help us," I did say that, for


that I apologise. That was the assessment of the independent Police


Complaints Commisssion, and the man who investigated on behalf of the


police. Did you end the draft report with the words "by giving a


misloading account of what took place at the meeting I believe the


officers have a case to answer for misconduct and bringing discredit on


the Police Service". Yes I did. Do you still consider the three


officers concerned and we will hear from them later, have a case to


answer in respect of misconduct have a case to answer. Yes I do. It took


several minutes of close questioning to work out what apology was for and


for whom? Is it an aa polling to Mr Mitchell or everyone in the public.


That you didn't pause and think before you went to the press? It is


an apology for the choreography not being properly dealt with. Not an


apology for anything you have done. You don't think you have done


anything wrong? At the moment no, I'm not convinced that we have done


anything wrong. You would know now after a year, wouldn't you, after a


year? I'm not convinced we have done nothing wrong. You have nothing to


apologise that is your view? Yes. I I gave what I believed to be an


accurate account of the meeting. At one point the third officer came


been a truncheon's-length of an apology to Mr Mitchell before


eventually drawing back. As part of the apology we have already given,


it should be included in that apology, but that is an apology if


we are going to give we should give to Mr Mitchell personally not in


this forum. You are planning to see Mr Mitchell to give him an apology.


If there is one due, and if there is one due with regard to... (laughter)


Mr Hinton this is not a television game show! The MPs were clearly not


satisfied with this. Because this is just NON not the nature of what was


said. I just understand why even if you didn't mean it you wouldn't


apologise to Mr Mitchell? Mr Jones? I can you say that again I'm not


sure I fully understand? But all agree that perhaps it would be


better in the future if serving police officers didn't go around


during working hours taking part in highly political campaigns and


calling for cabinet ministers to resign.


As you would imagine our producer spent much of the day trying to get


someone in a police uniform to appear tonight. Despite our best


efforts, the Independent Police Complaints Commisssion, the police


fed rail strikes the association -- the Police Federation, West Mercia


police weren't able to find anyone to come on. We did have a yes from


the Chief Constable of Warwickshire, but 25 minutes before he was due to


appear we were called by his assistant to explain he had a long


day and could no longer make it. Let's hope he's having a long lie


down. Guess who wrote this, "when people talk about politics within


the existing Westminster framework I feel a dull thud in my stomach and


my eyes, involuntarily glazed like when I'm conversing and the subject


changes from me and moves on to another topic." The combination of


distaste for mainstream politics and vanity defines it as Russell Brand,


actor, comedian and now it seems political they arist. For is there


no -- theorist. He's now the guest editor of the New Statesman. He


wants a revolution, he says. Who are you to edit a political magazine? I


suppose like a person who has been politely asked by an attractive


woman. I don't know the criteria, I don't know many people who edit


political manage SDEENs, Boris, I'm a person with crazy hair, a good


sense of humour, know nothing about politics. Is it true you don't vote?


No I don't. How do you have authority to talk about politics? I


don't get my authority from the preexisting paradigm that is narrow


and only service a few people. I look elsewhere for alternatives that


might be of service to humanity. Alternate means all TRNate political


systems. They being? I haven't invented it yet, I had to do the


magazine last week and I had a lot on my plate. This is the thing it


shouldn't do, it shouldn't destroy the planet, shouldn't create massive


economic disparity and ignore the needs of the people. The burp is on


The burden of proof is on the people in power. How do you imagine people


get power? There are hierarchical systems that get them elected. There


is democratic system, you can't be arsed to vote? It is something that


changes. In a democracy it works? I don't think it is working very well


given that the planet is being destroyed and economic disparity of


a huge degree, you are saying there is no alternative, just this system.


I'm not saying that, if you can'ting arsed to vote why should we be cars


today listen to your political point of view? You don't have to. I'm not


voting out of apathy, but out of absolute indifference and weariness


over the distortion and lies and political deceit of the political


class going on for generations now, and reaching fever pitch where we


have a disenfranchised and disillusioned despondent underclass


not being represented by that system. There is tacit complicity


with the system. Why not change it? I'm trying to. Start by voting? I


don't think it work, people have voted already and that is what


created the current paradigm. When did you last vote? Never. You have


never voted? Do you think that is bad. You struck an attitude before


the age of 18? I was busy being a drug addict, because I come from the


social systems that are exacerbated by the system, that administers to


lar corporations. You are blaming the political class for your drug


problem? I'm saying I was part of a social and economic class that is


underserved by the current political system and drug addiction is one of


the problems it creates when you have huge underserved impoverished


population, people get drug problems and don't feel that they want to


engage with the current political system because they see it doesn't


work for them. They see it makes no difference. They see they are not


served. I say that the apathy. It don't work if they don't vote? The


apathy doesn't come from us the people, it is from the politicians


apathetic to our needs. They are only interested in servicing the


needs of the population. The Tories taking the EU to court because they


are trying to cartel bank bonuses, is that what is happening in our


country. Why should I tune into that. You don't believe in


democracy, you want a revolution? The planet is being destroyed,


creating an underclass and exploiting poor people all over the


world. The genuine problems of the people are not being addressed by


the political class. All of things may be true?. They are true. I


wouldn't argue with you about many of them? How come I feel so cross


with you, it can't be because of the beard, it is gorgeous, if the Daily


Mail don't want it, I do, I'm begins them, grow it longer and tangle it


into our armpit air. You are a very trivial man? I'm trivial, a minute


ago I want a revolution and I'm trivial, I'm bouncing all over the


place. Many people want a revolution, I'm asking what it will


be like? What it won't be like is a huge disparity between rich and


poor, where 300 Americans have the same amount of wealth as the 85


million poorest Americans. Where there is an exploited and


underserved underclass that being continually ignored, while welfare


is slashed while Cameron and George Osborne go to court to defend the


rights of bankers to continue receiving their bonuses, that is all


I'm saying. What is the scheme, you talk vaguely about revolution, what


is it? I think a socialist equaltarian system en massive


redistribution of wealth, and massive -- I think the very concept


of profit should be hugely reduced, David Cameron says profit isn't a


dirty word, I say profit is a filthy word, wherever there is profit there


is deficit. This system currently doesn't address these ideas. Why


would anyone vote for it. Why would anyone be interested in it. Who


would heavy the taxes? There needs to be a centralised administrative


system. There needs to be a Government? Maybe call them


something else, call them the admin BODs so they don't get ahead of


themselves. How would they be chosen? Don't ask me to sit with you


in an interview in a hotel room and devise a global utopian system. You


are calling for revolution? Absolutely, I'm calling for change


and genuine alternatives, when there is one and option vote for that.


Until then, don't bother, why pretend and be complicit in this


ridiculous illusion. By the time somebody Kims along you might think


worth voting for it might be too late? The time is now, the movement


is occurring, we are at a time where communication is instainous, and


there are communities all over the world. Occupy introduced to the


popular public lexicon the idea of the 99% against the 1%. People for


the first time in generation are aware of massive corporate and


economic exploitation, these are not nonsense and they are not being


addressed. Nobody is doing anything about tax havens or their political


affiliations and financial affiliations of the Conservative


Party. So until people start addressing things that are actually


real, why wouldn't I be factitious, why would I take it seriously and


encourage a constituency of young people indifferent to vote. Why


wouldn't woo we. Aren't you more bored than anyone, you have been


talking to them year after year, listening to their lies and


nonsense, this one getting in, that one. The problem continues. Why are


we going to continue to contribute to this facade. I'm surprised you


can be factitious when you are that angry about it? I am angry, for me


it is real. For me it is not just some peripheral thing that you turn


up to the church fete from, this is what I come from and what I care


about. Do you see any hope? Yeah, totally, there will be a revolution,


it is totally going to happen. I ain't got a flicker of doubt. This


is the end. This is time to wake up. I remember I see you in that


programme, where you look at your ancestor, you saw your grandmother


had to brass herself or got locked over by the aChris crates that ran


the house, that was unfair and you cried, because it is a century ago.


I have been talking to a woman today being treated like that. If we can


engage that feeling, instead of some moment of sentimentality set out on


the TV for people to pour over emotional porn, if we can engage


that feeling and change things. Why wouldn't we, why is that niave, why


is that not my right because I'm an actor. I have taken the right, I


don't need the right from you or anybody, I'm taking it. Russell


Brand. It has been the despairing LAment of one parent after another


for years, "can't you get off that screen and get some fresh air for a


change"? They are showing their age and day after day they are reminded


of how aling, DHOUL, how muddy, had you damp, how remote the natural


world is by comparison with the easily accessible delights of cyber


reality. A film maker called Bondarenko was so depressed by what


seems to be becoming -- David Bond, was to depressed about this that he


did what film makers do and made a film about it. I'm David Bond, I'm a


father, I'm the marketing director of nature. This is Ivy, she's five,


she loves the television. How much do you love the television? One


hundred billion, I love sitting in front of it all day long. Why? It is


so relaxing. Like all parents, I want my children to be happy. As a


child I was happiest playing outdoors. When I got back from


school I would throw down my books and go straight out to play. My


children don't do that. Across the western world children spend less


and less time outdoors. The generational shift to an indoor


existence has been strongly linked to a sharp decline in children's


well being. Cases of childhood obesity, depression and behavioral


difficulty are at a record high. I can't persuade my children to go


outside. Modern marketing is a mighty persuader. I want to use it


to sell the ultimate free wonder product. The outdoors. I'm going to


attach a camera to Ivy to see how things have changed. This is how she


spends her time. 32% in school, 15% watching TV, 15% playing indoors,


12% on the computer, 10% eating, 5% in the car, 4% in the bathroom, and


4% playing out doors. Is this a problem? There is no hard


evidence that technology is bad for children. But it definitely


displaces nature from their lives. As the marketing director of nature,


new technology is my competitor. Can children escape the screens. The


first step is to find out what my target audience currently thinks


about my product. I have got nature in my box here. What do you think of


when you think of nature? Dull, boring. I like it when it is sunny,


but I just like staying at home. The reason I don't really go out is


because I live on Plumstead common and a lot of people have their dogs


there and people get mauled to death. Yeah, that's interesting. The


reason a lot of people I know and myself don't go to the woods and


nature, you don't want to mess up your clothes that you are wearing.


And the clothes I want to get messy I wouldn't want to wear outside in


public. Look at your model, outdoors doesn't look like that, it looks


completely different. If it looked like that I would want to go


outside, but it really doesn't. Oh no. These girls hate my product.


I will show you where we play. We play up in this square. There is the


sign that pays "no ball games" but we don't listen. Who put up the


sign? The housing office, that owns all the houses. People moan at us


for playing ball games but we don't listen so. I am GLAED to hear it.


What What would happen if they caught you playing ball games? I


think we will just get an ASBO. You get an ASBO? Yeah. This is the green


grass where I take my dogs and I just let them do what they want.


This little bit of green here? Because it is quite a small I can't


remember, there is a lot of dog mess in this little area? But East End


homes do come and trim it and just try to grow the patches that have


not come up and all that. It is not a very big space is it? My dog comes


on here a lot, she likes it. Are these children really missing


out? What's the scientific evidence for the benefits of nature? Never in


human history have we spent so little time in physical contact with


animals and plants. YUFR University students with natural views score


better on tests. Workers who see trees and flowers are less stressed


and report fewer illnesses. And that's just a view of nature. If you


actually go into it, the results are amazing. Being among plants produce


lower concentrations of stress HOER moans, lower blood pressure and


boosts the immune system. The more nature we get during childhood the


more we want as adults. Unless children really notice nature around


them, they will never care about it. I worry that children spent more and


more time staring down at screens. If we fail to market nature to them,


they are bound to choose the alternatives. The competitors may


have got the budget, but I think we have got the best product.


Well David Bond joins us now as does the journalist, and Sorayah July,


with a four-year-old child, also with us is Eve King doing what


11-year-olds are actually doing things now.


Sir Tom Arnold you are -- David you are instinctively an urban person


what is wrong with the countryside? It is lovely, but what is wrong is


the notion you will be ill if you don't go there. The whole thing is


predicated on the idea that there is something called Nature Deficit


Disorder, in which you make yourself ill if you are not taken back to


your natural state which is thought to be evolutionary us hunting


antelopes across the vale and eating their livers. The closer you get


back to that idea the closer you are to your real self. It is a romantic


idea without evidence behind it. There is plenty of evidence and it


is growing all the time. The evidence is children need nature,


they develop better, it is good for their brains, it is fun for them.


The evidence is pretty clear that without it they tend to spend their


time inside on screens, if they are watching screens a lot then obesity


levels are higher. There is a lot of evidence that attention deficit and


depression in children is raised significantly if they spend too long


indoors. There are links between the indoors and problems, there is a


clear evidence that the indoors is pushing nature away. Maybe not a


precise causal link but it is pretty clear it is there. It is clear the


more time you spend indoors the less cases of RIKTs there are -- rickets


there are for example? That may be the case, what we wanted to show


was, go on. You are just saying that life has changed, we live in


different circumstances? We do. And those circumstances are harming


children. It is pretty clear without time and nature, children are less


well off. And that's a serious problem. You have a how old is your


daughter? She's four. And as lovely as it would be to be able to get out


in nature, and see the lovely birds in the trees, thele reality -- the


reality is we don't live near somewhere. When we can get out we


do, but it has to be day out that is planned and a lot of thought put


into it. Do you feel deprived because you are not exposed to


nature? It is not something I really put much thought in to. Do you think


your daughter is worse off because she is less exposed to nature? She


has everything she needs at home. She is not sitting at home in front


of the television, she is doing things at home, we do get out of the


house, just not necessarily running through fields. It does make a


certain amount of instinctive sense? If what David is saying is parks are


nice, we didn't need a whole film to tell us that, we have a great urban


movement for parks. It was interesting seeing the little boy.


His circumstances in there were pretty much exactly the same as my


father's were in the East End in the 1920s and 30s, that hasn't changed


much. So if the proposition is let as give people a range of possible


opportunities to enjoy different things, I'm in favour of it. What I


can't stand is the notion that some how we are deficient parents. At one


point in the trail of the film David says his children's generation will


be the first generation to die earlier than their parents. They are


not David, that is completely nonsense. That will not happen.


Unfortunately I won't be around to be able to bet on it with you. But


if I were I would take a substantial bet. There is no evidence of that. I


have seen actual assessments suggesting that may well be the


case, it is not necessarily affected that they are doing with what Eve is


doing there and playing on a screen. She looks a healthy child? She


clearly is, but probably has a good balance of what she is doing. What


we are trying to say is there ought to be some sort of balance between


screen time and wild time. If you can change a bit of the time you


spend on screens and switch it out for a little bit more wild time, it


is likely to do you good and make you healthier. This idea that some


how the urban child is at a disadvantage, that doesn't seem to


be the case, some of the kids we met making the film, some of the best


kids connected to nature were urban children. The RSPV report suggests


that some rural children are less connected, they are faredied in cars


and social media all the time because they can't connect. Do you


think this is a bit boring? Sometimes. This conversation, this


issue, do you think it is boring? I think you meant the iPad. Sometimes


I get bored of the iPad eventually. Do you? ? Do you go outside then?


Yes. There we are. Can I ask do you have a guarden? Yeah. That is


another issue we don't have the garden and don't have the


opportunity to go out and see the worms and bugs and things like that.


We go to the park and when we do it is the playground that the time is


spent in not the grass and trees. So the urban child doesn't get as much


opportunity to get out. Also we are being sold something here, let's


face it. There is a complete conflation between outdoors, nature,


the two things are not the same and then the wild. There is nothing wild


about what you are suggesting. Urban kids see squirrels all the time, in


a sense that they are wild, but we are not in the wilderness and not


wild in that way. If what you mean is that a bit of greenery cheers you


up a bit, I completely understand that. But in so far as the


proposition is a kind of guilt proposition on parents. In your film


at one stage you go past the Apple store, shouting at people on a


loud-hailer saying stop buying your kids iPads and take them outdoors.


We could really do without that hectoring. I had run out of money


for campaign so I moved to guerrilla tactic, including. There is a huge


amount of natural symbols encouraging us to trust things, and


very little is done to sell us nature. Is it wrong that apple have


an apple? He very much appreciates that we are sitting on the wooden


chair, hand crafted earlier this week by the editor of news night. He


has to have some main talent, obviously. Do you feel that there is


anything real about this issue? You feel obviously the absence of the


opportunity is this a real issue? You are a student teacher? I am a


student teacher, I believe there is some element of truth in it. If you


do, sorry, if you do spend your whole day in the house you start to


feel depressed, it is nice to get out to the countryside, you feel


better. I don't think, as David said, it is going to make us


deficient if we don't get out into the wild every single day. It is


nice to get out sometimes. I don't know if it is unwealthy to not do it


all the time. Do you think this campaign will have any effect at


all? There is about 300 organisations who joined up to


encourage children to get out doors more. Including the National Health


Service and various mental health charities. All of whom see benefits


for various reasons, health benefits, mental health benefits.


Lots of schools now have got forests systems going on. That seems to


really encourage children to learn in a more effective way. Why don't


we consentrate on that, these things like lots of other things we do Co


Do, music and so on are fun and good things to do, why couch it in terms


of spurious statistics about people's mental health and strange


disorders we created, especially for the moment that create a sense of


guilt amongst people who are quite often doing their best and don't


really relate. I would query loot of the things that you were -- query


quite a lot of things you were saying about the evidence.


Briefly respond to that? The evidence is clear, I really strongly


disagree. Have you won yet? No, I wasn't playing a winning game!


Thanks any way. As we all know, because the


newspapers tell us every day, alcohol will kill you, as will salt,


coffee, red meat, buns and more or less anything or possibly they can


all be good for you in the right doses. Just about everything gives


you cancer or heart attack, if one could only live without eating and


drinking at all, how wonderful it would be, possibly without reading


at all. We asked Michael Mosley, one of the few qualified doctors in this


tatty trade to give us a guide. There is a lot of confusion about


which foods are good for you and which are bad for you. Part of the


reason for that is there is a lot of studies that are really quite


flawed. A decent study is one called a Prospective Cohort Studio. You


take a group of people who don't have a disease, you test them and


follow them for a long period of time and you see what happens. When


you do that sort of a study then you get some big surprises.


Now for 40 years we have been told that saturated fats like butter are


bad for us, when they did a prospective cohort study they found


there is very little evidence that saturated fats lead to heart


disease. Margarine on the other hand, which


starts out as a liquid sunflower oil and has to be turned into a solid,


that processing leads to something called transfats, it turns out that


they are the villain. So given a choice between butter and margarine,


I personally opt for butter. I like the taste of smoothies, and that's


because they are incredibly sweet. In a survey done of 52 commercial


smoothies they discovered that 41 of them had more calories and more


sugar in them than you would find in a Coca-Cola. The other problem with


smoothies is once you take the fruit, you remove the peel and fibre


by mashing it up, well you have got rid of most the benefits. You would


be far better off eating fruit. Without a doubt this has been one of


the Government's most successful campaigns. The problem is fruit and


vegtables good food, yes, but lots of other things didn't get included


in the five-a-day. For example when you get a processed food where it


says one of five-a-day. Yet that contains huge amount of sugar and


salt. There have been conflicting studies


but I think the evidence is quite strong that if you reduce the amount


of salt in your diet that will reduce blood pressure and therefore


your risk of having a stroke. The problem is just getting rid of the


salt dispenser is not going to be enough. Because there is lots of


added salt all around. Even things that don't taste salty like bread


and muffins. There is, however, one piece of good news.


Coffee has something of a bad boy image, because down the years it has


been blamed from everything from heart disease to cancer. When they


did a prospective cohort study, they found that coffee seems to be good


for you in all sorts of ways, not least of cutting your risk of


suicide. It seems something like caffeine acts as an antidepressant


and boosts neurotransmitters in your brain that give you a "feel-good


factor". That was rather useful, Dr Michael Mosley, back tomorrow night


on BBC Two in his series on health matters, , Trust Me I'm A Doctor.


Now the That's all from us tonight, before


we go we were treated today to the results of David Cameron's latest


happiness survey, it reveals that Londoners, surprise, surprise, are


the most miserable and anxious people in the country. One of our


producers wondered if Beano, the Newsnight clown, might be able to


help? The mobile phone is more interesting


than me. Londoners must be happy.


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman.

What future for Grangemouth? Why won't the police apologise for plebgate? Russell Brand talks about his revolution, and how children have ditched the great outdoors.

Download Subtitles