:00:09. > :00:15.Are Labour about to come to the rescue of the HS2 train line, as new
:00:16. > :00:20.figures cast fresh doubt on the plan's value for money. Our flash
:00:21. > :00:25.new expensive high-speed railway line will it deliver more than a
:00:26. > :00:27.boring plain old slow one. The Transport Secretary will make the
:00:28. > :00:36.case and explain why it is not really a waste of money.
:00:37. > :00:44.# As Mrs Pankhurst said # Enough is enough
:00:45. > :00:50.# Chain today a railing... How can the femmeismism of the 1970s emerge
:00:51. > :00:56.to deal with 20th century sexists. Our guests have some suggestions.
:00:57. > :01:00.Should this British Army court martial of three marines show the
:01:01. > :01:06.public a video of their alleged war crime. We will ask Colonel Tim
:01:07. > :01:15.Collins, the best known face of the Iraq War for army. The publisher of
:01:16. > :01:25.Hustler, a porn bar gone, to be executed next week, we will hear
:01:26. > :01:28.from Larry Flynt himself. Hello, good evening, when the
:01:29. > :01:36.Government started banging the drum for HS2 on the airwaves first thing
:01:37. > :01:39.this morning, they may not have realised the project would get a
:01:40. > :01:45.shot in the arm from an unlikely source. After a cooling enthusiasm
:01:46. > :01:53.from the shadow charley, Ed Balls, Labour has pledged support to the
:01:54. > :01:59.project. The in coming project must be allowed the power to bring down
:02:00. > :02:03.the cost. Could it be back on the agenda? This does seem a change in
:02:04. > :02:07.the mood music, talk us through what happens what has happened? It is a
:02:08. > :02:11.change and the reports look correct. I don't think Ed Miliband acted
:02:12. > :02:14.entirely unprompted. He has clarified his position because this
:02:15. > :02:18.programme understands this evening there was a meeting of some 40
:02:19. > :02:24.Labour MPs in parliament. They asked the shadow Transport Secretary, Mary
:02:25. > :02:34.Creagh, newly in her job, to come to her and explain in public why the
:02:35. > :02:42.party is soon to cool so rapidly on HS2. They were Nottingham MPs,
:02:43. > :02:46.Nottingham MPs, they will gain rupture for their constituencies. A
:02:47. > :02:52.lot of them said the economic benefits are strong and we can't
:02:53. > :02:55.have this wavering that you have allowed, Ed Miliband. We have seen
:02:56. > :02:58.him tomorrow I think strengthen his position, that is because he was
:02:59. > :03:02.being told by his backbenchers, and indeed there was some front-benchers
:03:03. > :03:09.present too, that this position was not tenable. We spoke to one of them
:03:10. > :03:15.this evening. The feeling that Ed Balls, under the leadership of the
:03:16. > :03:18.Labour Party, really the Labour Party in the whole of the country.
:03:19. > :03:22.Rather than trying to undermine the project, they should be out there
:03:23. > :03:26.campaigning strongly for it. Just explain then the political
:03:27. > :03:31.significance of this. It seems like an Ed versus Ed battle possibly, and
:03:32. > :03:36.more widely for the project? It is at some point Ed versus Ed, it was
:03:37. > :03:39.party conference where Ed Balls said from the podium, when he gave his
:03:40. > :03:42.speech, actually we won't sign a blank cheque for this. A completely
:03:43. > :03:46.reasonable thing to say, but for many people in the party it was a
:03:47. > :03:50.shock. They accept the economic tests need to be there, and indeed
:03:51. > :03:53.that is probably going to be the nature of how Ed Miliband is beefing
:03:54. > :03:57.up their position. They don't quite understand why he did it in the way
:03:58. > :04:02.he did it. What I think has happened is that at every stage Ed Balls has
:04:03. > :04:06.been pushing and pushing and pushing because it is so tantalising, if you
:04:07. > :04:12.are the Shadow Chancellor to possibly shelf the project and at
:04:13. > :04:18.every stage Ed Miliband has not been tough enough with him and he has had
:04:19. > :04:20.to do that. Oh aye what's that then peers to be where Labour is sitting.
:04:21. > :04:27.Will the public be convinced with the new set of figures for HS2.
:04:28. > :04:34.First our chief train spotter got his hands on the latest figures.
:04:35. > :04:39.What will be the next chapter in our railway history, will it include HS
:04:40. > :04:43.2? As political support for the project has got shakier, it is more
:04:44. > :04:47.important than ever for the Government to be able to point to
:04:48. > :04:52.Australian shakably robust business cas Trying to work out the value for
:04:53. > :04:56.money of an historic transport project, like this beauty they
:04:57. > :05:00.London Transport Museum is comparatively easy, all the data is
:05:01. > :05:05.in and can be known with a bit of research. Trying to peer forward
:05:06. > :05:09.into the future is far harder. Today HS2 had their latest go at peering
:05:10. > :05:15.into the future. Their fifth attempt at constructing a business model.
:05:16. > :05:18.Presenting this latest version, the Transport Secretary said the new
:05:19. > :05:23.line still represents excellent value for money. The business case,
:05:24. > :05:30.including the cost benefit figures is strong for HS2. More than ?2
:05:31. > :05:33.return for every ?1 invested. The calculation that the Transport
:05:34. > :05:38.Secretary is hinting at there is one that gets a lot of attention in any
:05:39. > :05:45.big project. It is the benefit cost ratio, or BCR. In today's figures
:05:46. > :05:49.the Government ace that HS2 will give back ?2.30 in benefits for
:05:50. > :05:54.every poop 1 spent. That is down from ?2. 50, it is what the
:05:55. > :05:59.Department for Transport would call "high value for money. If you look
:06:00. > :06:02.closely this figure includes what is known as wider economic impacts.
:06:03. > :06:08.These are far less certain benefits from things like regeneration. And
:06:09. > :06:12.the DFT's own guidance says these shouldn't actually be included to
:06:13. > :06:19.calculate the cost benefit ratio for a project. If we strip these out the
:06:20. > :06:24.ratio goes back to ?1. 80 back for every ?1, and moves from high value
:06:25. > :06:29.to medium value for money. According to the leader of Manchester City
:06:30. > :06:34.council, the project is more vital than ever. The business has always
:06:35. > :06:39.stacked up, clearly the papers themselves say that you need to
:06:40. > :06:44.update that on a regular basis. The proper published today not only
:06:45. > :06:49.shows the robustness of the business case for high-speed rail, it does a
:06:50. > :06:52.thorough analysis of the alternatives, and it is whether
:06:53. > :06:56.through improvements to the road network or existing rail network,
:06:57. > :07:00.nothing is anywhere near as effective as that brand new network,
:07:01. > :07:05.which is what we really need. HS2 has been going through some
:07:06. > :07:08.difficult days recently. Firstly the projected cost has gone up by nearly
:07:09. > :07:12.a third, and secondly both the National Audit Office and the Public
:07:13. > :07:16.Accounts Committee of the House of Commons have suggested the benefits
:07:17. > :07:20.should be revised down markedly. You would perhaps think when this was
:07:21. > :07:24.all factored in the business case would now look far less attractive
:07:25. > :07:31.than the figures presented today. So what has happened here? Well, as the
:07:32. > :07:37.costs have gone up, HS2 Ltd haven't been sitting back in their seats
:07:38. > :07:40.twiddling their thumbs and staring they scenery, they have been
:07:41. > :07:44.effective in identifying vast new areas of benefit that supposedly HS2
:07:45. > :07:48.will unlock for us. Chief amongst these are benefits to business
:07:49. > :07:52.travellers. When HS2 first calculated their
:07:53. > :07:58.benefit to business travellers from the new line, in February 2011, they
:07:59. > :08:02.put the figure at ?25. 2 billion. Although since then there has been a
:08:03. > :08:07.change to the way the figures are presented, meaning to be comparable
:08:08. > :08:13.we have to add a billion more. By August 2012 that figure had leapt to
:08:14. > :08:17.?34. 3 billion, and in today's calculation it is put at ?40. 5 bill
:08:18. > :08:21.juvenility or around ?15 billion more than the original estimate than
:08:22. > :08:27.2011. If you look through the hundreds and hundreds of pages of
:08:28. > :08:30.developments that HS2 Ltd have published today you can find out why
:08:31. > :08:33.this big leap has happened in the supposed benefits to business
:08:34. > :08:36.travellers, it is because they now assume a far higher proportion of
:08:37. > :08:41.people on trains are business travellers. For example, if you look
:08:42. > :08:46.at the previous model, the previous estimate, back in 2012 they thought
:08:47. > :08:50.that around 30% of travellers on a train between London and Manchester
:08:51. > :08:55.were travelling on business. Now they assume it is about 65%. In
:08:56. > :08:59.other words more than double. And because of the way they value
:09:00. > :09:05.business travellers' time above that of commuters or leisure travellers,
:09:06. > :09:09.that means big, big benefits to HS2. This kind of change has led some to
:09:10. > :09:12.accuse the Government of making the evidence fit the policy, rather than
:09:13. > :09:15.the other way round. The very least when the evidence changes policy
:09:16. > :09:18.doesn't appear to reflect that. Whether it is in the sort of
:09:19. > :09:22.economic advantages the Government predict for the regions, which our
:09:23. > :09:26.members are sceptical off, or the detail of who works on trains and
:09:27. > :09:29.who doesn't. Or capacity atation, I think there is an element of dogma
:09:30. > :09:34.to the Government as approach. I think the debate should still be
:09:35. > :09:40.had. This is what the future of transport looked like 80 years ago
:09:41. > :09:45.in 1933. The Airport would be elevated 120 feet above the ground,
:09:46. > :09:48.clear of all obstructions. Perhaps the biggest problem with the
:09:49. > :09:53.Government's business model for HS2 is it is trying to make redictions
:09:54. > :10:01.at how we will be travelling up to 80 years in the future.
:10:02. > :10:06.In 2093 will HS2 look like a good investment or as crazy as this 1933
:10:07. > :10:15.motorbike wheel contraption looks to us today. Just before we came on air
:10:16. > :10:20.a little earlier I put those points to the Transport Secretary and ask
:10:21. > :10:24.if he was confident the cost of HS2 wouldn't rise again? We deliberately
:10:25. > :10:31.built in large contingecy. We have set a target for phase I, at ?21
:10:32. > :10:37.billion, but actually I have told HS2 I want phase I to be built for
:10:38. > :10:40.?17 billion. It is right on big projects like this to have a
:10:41. > :10:43.contingency that is part of the budget. I very much hope it will be
:10:44. > :10:48.delivered for less than the budget we have set. And yet even with this
:10:49. > :10:52.jump, another ?10 billion, the reduction in economic returns is
:10:53. > :10:58.only slight. The figure out today goes from ?2. 50 to ?2.30, how can
:10:59. > :11:02.that be credible? It is credible, there is other things that come into
:11:03. > :11:08.the account, and come into the system. But I'm not so... Like what?
:11:09. > :11:16.The use of the capacity argument, the amount of trains that are run,
:11:17. > :11:19.and arguments like that. You say "like that", like what? When you
:11:20. > :11:25.give people these figures and they know it is costing ?10 billion more,
:11:26. > :11:29.they don't look believable? They are believable, everything we publish is
:11:30. > :11:33.crawled over by various people, if we get it wrong we will be told. The
:11:34. > :11:38.simple fact is, let me deal with VCR, it is an important people. If
:11:39. > :11:41.you looked at the VCR for the Jubilee Line it was less than one.
:11:42. > :11:45.Actually it would not have stood up to economic value. But it is in
:11:46. > :11:51.London, it has led to the development of Canary Wharf. Over
:11:52. > :11:56.00,000 jobs. At the moment in London we are building CrossRail, a ?15
:11:57. > :12:00.billion project. Nobody complains about this with a similar VCR. This
:12:01. > :12:03.is a chance for northern cities to get their part of transport
:12:04. > :12:07.infrastructure spending. Just questioning how you arrived at the
:12:08. > :12:12.figures you arrived at today. For example we are now looking at begin
:12:13. > :12:19.to business leaping from ?25. 2 to ?40. 5. How did that work out? It
:12:20. > :12:23.works out because what we're told and how the economic case is worked
:12:24. > :12:27.out. That is a point. What do you mean the way we have been told and
:12:28. > :12:34.the way the case is worked out. How does it leap from ?25. 2 to ?40. 5?
:12:35. > :12:36.Because there is new information coming into being and that is
:12:37. > :12:40.classed into the overall figures and case. What sort of new information,
:12:41. > :12:44.they were wrong last time. You published figures today saying they
:12:45. > :12:47.go from 25-40? They weren't wrong last time. They were figures that
:12:48. > :12:51.were published. We have done more work on it, which is what we were
:12:52. > :12:54.asked to do by the Public Accounts Committee. These are important
:12:55. > :12:57.matters. What I have also got to do, as far as the Transport Secretary is
:12:58. > :13:01.concerned, is actually look at what is the benefit for the north. So I
:13:02. > :13:05.have just come from a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester,
:13:06. > :13:11.they tell me how important the high-speed line is for them. This is
:13:12. > :13:15.predicated on an incredibly optimistic forecast in growth on
:13:16. > :13:21.this route. If we look back to what happened on HS1, the forecasts were
:13:22. > :13:24.far too high, there was a 30% overestimation. Why don't you say
:13:25. > :13:27.you don't know what will happen in terms of the route and numbers of
:13:28. > :13:31.people travelling. Why would you make a forecast that ties you into
:13:32. > :13:36.these kinds of numbers that people are not believing any more? You say
:13:37. > :13:41.they are not believing, the CBI have welcomed the case we are publishing.
:13:42. > :13:44.The Chamber of Commerce has too. The FTSE 100 business leaders poll says
:13:45. > :13:48.49% of those who responded are against HS2. They don't see a
:13:49. > :13:55.credible need for it any more? If you are saying 49% are against. 33
:13:56. > :13:58.are in favour? Well. That has fallen, that is the point, that has
:13:59. > :14:02.fallen over the last year? The truth is that big infrastructure projects
:14:03. > :14:06.are always controversial until they are built. When they are built
:14:07. > :14:11.people say that they were the right thing to do. The same arguments were
:14:12. > :14:14.made about the M 40, about the M 25, people were opposed to those. They
:14:15. > :14:18.are very important parts of the infrastructure of our country. I
:14:19. > :14:21.have just come from a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and what
:14:22. > :14:25.they were telling me, this is important for Manchester. The
:14:26. > :14:29.problem people have with this, when they are listening and reading the
:14:30. > :14:32.figures and crawling over the pages, they feel a lot of the figures are
:14:33. > :14:36.being massaged and made to fit the picture your Government wants to
:14:37. > :14:41.portray. If you take the KPMG report in the summer, it talked about a ?15
:14:42. > :14:44.billion benefit to Britain, it didn't give the raw figures or the
:14:45. > :14:48.places that wouldn't benefit that would have adverse effects? Hold on,
:14:49. > :14:52.CrossRail is being built at the moment through London. I want to
:14:53. > :14:56.talk about the KPMG figures that you put out which said a ?15 billion
:14:57. > :15:00.benefit to Britain. It took Newsnight and an FOI to find out the
:15:01. > :15:03.truth of the figure, why not come forward with them? Hold on,
:15:04. > :15:06.CrossRail is being built, I don't think you would say the people in
:15:07. > :15:11.Manchester are getting much benefit from CrossRail. I'm not talking
:15:12. > :15:16.about CrossRail but the fact that you said there is a ?15 billion
:15:17. > :15:19.benefit to Britain, that was what the report was about, you didn't
:15:20. > :15:23.give the raw details and you didn't come forward, it to be a Freedom of
:15:24. > :15:26.Information request to find out what the adverse effects of that were?
:15:27. > :15:29.There are many bits of infrastructure that are taking place
:15:30. > :15:32.at the moment that don't affect different parts of the country. It
:15:33. > :15:37.is not they don't affect, Aberdeen will be worse off, Norfolk, do you
:15:38. > :15:41.concede that now? No I don't, I believe the UK will be better off to
:15:42. > :15:45.the tune of ?15 billion overall. Other areas will benefit as well.
:15:46. > :15:49.The simple fact that Aberdeen doesn't benefit as you say, Aberdeen
:15:50. > :15:54.doesn't benefit from CrossRail. It doesn't benefit from Thames link.
:15:55. > :15:56.But it benefits from other bits of infrastructure we are putting in.
:15:57. > :16:01.Why not give the raw figures and let people work it out for themselves
:16:02. > :16:06.rather than mushing the message? -- pushing the message? I have
:16:07. > :16:11.published all the documents for the background of this case. What do you
:16:12. > :16:15.think of when you hear the word "feminism", women on the streets
:16:16. > :16:19.marching for equal pay and talking about domestic violence. Academics
:16:20. > :16:23.debating just exactly which wave of the moment we are now on or
:16:24. > :16:26.something scarily ernest, a little humourless perhaps that is the
:16:27. > :16:30.subject of Town Hall talks. It might be time to think again, a new
:16:31. > :16:35.movement on-line is challenging the stereotype, fighting new ground.
:16:36. > :16:41.Here is the digital feminists. Pause for reflection, in their tiny
:16:42. > :16:47.mirror on the shoulder, it lets you know as a glance who is glancing, it
:16:48. > :16:51.might safe a biff in the back from a burst. That man seems to be heard
:16:52. > :16:55.and not seen. Oh how times have changed. Of course the modern woman
:16:56. > :16:58.doesn't really need a wing mirror on her shoulder in order to report back
:16:59. > :17:08.on the world around her, because she has one of these in her teeny W
:17:09. > :17:16.eenie hand, she can blog, she can post, she c tell the world how she
:17:17. > :17:21.feels. I noticed after perhaps a stop or two that he was getting
:17:22. > :17:25.aroused. And then eventually he started stroking my leg, and I told
:17:26. > :17:33.him to stop. It wasn't until I got to work that I found see men down
:17:34. > :17:37.the back of my legs. The Everyday Sexism Project is a website launched
:17:38. > :17:40.last year by Laura Bates, who wanted to create a place where individuals
:17:41. > :17:46.could report their own experiences of sexism. Just to look at some
:17:47. > :17:49.recent entries, man more than twice her age thought it appropriate to
:17:50. > :18:08.tell her she was well developed for a 16-year-old in a good
:18:09. > :18:13.What is important to say is a lot of people who write into us specify the
:18:14. > :18:17.fact that they feel absolutely frozen, ashamed, embarrassed, those
:18:18. > :18:21.are common reactions when that kind of harassment happens. I don't think
:18:22. > :18:23.it is the case if they didn't write to Everyday Sexism Project they
:18:24. > :18:27.would otherwise say something back, I think they had been silenced for a
:18:28. > :18:32.long time. These stories haven't stayed in the digital world, some
:18:33. > :18:35.were used by police in a campaign on London Transport resulting in
:18:36. > :18:40.increased reporting of sexual offences and increased detection
:18:41. > :18:44.rates too. These are still early days for assessing the impact of
:18:45. > :18:50.that heady combo of individual power and its ability to shift entrenched
:18:51. > :18:54.positions. One of those being the mainstream media's obsession with
:18:55. > :19:03.breasts. Perhaps you saw this, curtesy of the
:19:04. > :19:06.Daily Mail, when performance artistam Amanda Palmer appeared at
:19:07. > :19:14.Glastonbury, she revealed one bossom to the crowd. Her song about how
:19:15. > :19:18.that bossom became important not her art went viral.
:19:19. > :19:23.# Dear Daily Mail # It has come to my recent attention
:19:24. > :19:30.# That my recent appearance at Glastonbury festival
:19:31. > :19:35.# Kindly received a mention The beautiful thing about new media,
:19:36. > :19:39.YouTube and Twitter, you are sharing all of these experiences in
:19:40. > :19:43.real-time you are relying on each other, by the time I got home that
:19:44. > :19:47.night somebody had already uploaded the video to YouTube, I took a look
:19:48. > :19:52.at it, shared it, and by the next morning it had gone viral. Do you
:19:53. > :19:59.have a sense there is a friction between different generations of
:20:00. > :20:02.feminism? This This generation is programmed to watch shows that
:20:03. > :20:10.resonate with them and what makes them feel more human. In that, I
:20:11. > :20:17.think you might see the seeds of a real change and a real evolution.
:20:18. > :20:21.Because you know, even ten or 15 years ago if I wanted to make a
:20:22. > :20:26.statement about something that was bothering me, I would be stuck
:20:27. > :20:29.talking to my friends or calling up the old media. Now I can say it
:20:30. > :20:35.directly, that will change the world, it already has.
:20:36. > :20:41.Stub burp, hard to shift, inequalities remain. It is the same
:20:42. > :20:45.old song isn't it. # As Mrs Pankhurst said
:20:46. > :20:49.# Enough's enough # Change a railing she would do her
:20:50. > :20:55.stuff # Nowadays a woman out for justice
:20:56. > :21:01.# Starts a fight for freedom # Where her bust is Modern feminism
:21:02. > :21:05.reflects modern society. If a criticism of previous waves of the
:21:06. > :21:09.movement was that the voice of feminism was often white, well-off
:21:10. > :21:14.and academic, that is not the case now. The visual exploitation of
:21:15. > :21:19.women goes hand in hand with the digital age, more images, easier to
:21:20. > :21:27.see, easier to share. It is one of the modern feminists' biggest
:21:28. > :21:30.battles. # I can pay for everything
:21:31. > :21:38.# Everything is on me # Little Blondie
:21:39. > :21:44.So this video, Calvin hare ruchings featuring Tinie Tempah, in terms of
:21:45. > :21:48.sexualisation of black women, they were not part of the plot of the
:21:49. > :21:52.video, they are shaking it on the carpet, you don't see their face,
:21:53. > :21:58.they are literally just bums. Ikamara Larasi is part of the
:21:59. > :22:03.Rewind Project, a one Topshop website that will allow
:22:04. > :22:07.users to send their comments direct to regulators and record labels. I
:22:08. > :22:14.asked her how she felt when she sees how young black women are portrayed
:22:15. > :22:18.in music videos? Bored and frustrated. The fact that this image
:22:19. > :22:23.is the normal depiction of people like me is a problem. That is the
:22:24. > :22:31.thing that people that don't know people like me are absorbing. Is
:22:32. > :22:35.there a danger though that people feel too powerful with the digital
:22:36. > :22:39.experience, you know you tweet something or you send an e-mail via
:22:40. > :22:44.your website and you think I have really packed a punch there? I think
:22:45. > :22:48.it is useful to feel like you have contributed to making a difference
:22:49. > :22:52.on a particular issue, and it wasn't too strenuous, and you didn't have
:22:53. > :22:57.to get wet in the rain. I think that is the good thing about digital
:22:58. > :23:02.campaigns. Not everyone believes that the new digital world will
:23:03. > :23:08.allow feminism to achieve its goals. Charlotte Raven is the editor of the
:23:09. > :23:12.Feminist Times, she has launched it digitally, but wants it to be a
:23:13. > :23:15.stimulus in meeting up and discussing ideas? When I read
:23:16. > :23:22.Everyday Sexism Project, I'm usually on my own. Often when I put the kids
:23:23. > :23:28.to bed I find myself drawn to it and there is a process of a kind of
:23:29. > :23:35.feeling of it is such a depressing litany of horror. And yet you feel
:23:36. > :23:43.impotent in relation to it. There is nothing you can do about it, the
:23:44. > :23:49.only way that change can be affected is in three dimensions by meeting up
:23:50. > :23:55.with real people who are going to change your mind and also change the
:23:56. > :23:59.world. Digital feminism has an ability to throw a cause around the
:24:00. > :24:04.world in seconds, and you can feel that you are creating a loud new
:24:05. > :24:10.noise. But the question is, how many people are listening.
:24:11. > :24:17.To try to answer that we are joined to discuss the F-word with the
:24:18. > :24:22.actress Natasha McElhone, journalist Angela Epstein and historian class
:24:23. > :24:29.cyst Mary Beard. Let's start with the real basic, Mary Beard would you
:24:30. > :24:34.define yourself using the word "feminist". Of course I would. No
:24:35. > :24:40.question. That's what I am, that's what I stand for. I think feminism
:24:41. > :24:46.comes in various forms, I don't think you can't lump everything
:24:47. > :24:52.together. And yet the bottom line is that I can't understand a woman in
:24:53. > :24:55.this country that isn't. Natasha McElhone would you say anything
:24:56. > :24:59.different to that? I guess what I would say is that I think feminism
:25:00. > :25:04.is an easy word for people to reject. And the sorts of people that
:25:05. > :25:09.I would probably like to tune in more to the issue. To be more
:25:10. > :25:13.conscious of how they are around women and how women are towards
:25:14. > :25:18.themselves. It is very, very easy for feminism to start to mean
:25:19. > :25:22.something that sort of akin to a political class that's in opposition
:25:23. > :25:28.to men. And so therefore people will feel defensive around that word. And
:25:29. > :25:33.I want that not to happen. I want to work together with men and I'm
:25:34. > :25:40.interested in equality rather than the idea that some people might have
:25:41. > :25:46.of a superior. Are you comfortable with the term "feminist"? Absolutely
:25:47. > :25:49.not, I wouldn't call myself a feminist. Part of the reason is all
:25:50. > :25:53.the great battles upon which feminism and the sufficient fridge
:25:54. > :25:56.movement have been established have long since been fought and
:25:57. > :26:00.successful. Ly. More women go to university than men, girls routinely
:26:01. > :26:05.outplay boys in the classroom, women have made an impact in all aspects
:26:06. > :26:07.of professional life, look at the glorious selection we have on
:26:08. > :26:12.Newsnight tonight. That stops you ever using the word feminist
:26:13. > :26:17.yourself? What I was about to say is what soh what has evolved now is an
:26:18. > :26:21.artificial engineering, a construct, because all those great battles have
:26:22. > :26:28.been fought. What feminists are now often looking for, they are spoiling
:26:29. > :26:32.for a fight, they seize upon petty grievances which offend the original
:26:33. > :26:36.principles of feminism. Talking about digital activism and all the
:26:37. > :26:41.hashtag sisters that come out crying in force. Yes there is a huge social
:26:42. > :26:44.grievance, digital media is very efficient in doing that. Look at the
:26:45. > :26:51.campaign to get women on bank notes. Does it really matter whether Jane
:26:52. > :26:54.Austen is on bank note or not? Do you agree the battles have been won?
:26:55. > :27:01.Clearly not because we are having this discussion. And I think what is
:27:02. > :27:07.new compared to 30 years ago is that it is more insidious, we're not
:27:08. > :27:11.talking about female genital mutilation, we are not talking about
:27:12. > :27:15.eight-year-olds marrying 40-year-olds as they do in other
:27:16. > :27:21.parts of the world. Today, here, in my life and in my circle of people
:27:22. > :27:26.that I mix with, something that's become terribly common place is how
:27:27. > :27:31.sort of internalised, I would even go as far to say a kind of misogyny
:27:32. > :27:36.has become. I don't think was prevalent when I was growing up and
:27:37. > :27:41.for my mother's generation. You were most recently the victim of
:27:42. > :27:46.trolling, on-line digital misogyny and your response to that when I
:27:47. > :27:50.read, I thought it was quite calm it was unemotional, almost like you
:27:51. > :27:54.didn't want to sound hysterical about it? I'm not on a rant or
:27:55. > :28:01.picking a fight. For me feminism isn't about picking a fight. I'm
:28:02. > :28:08.much more with Natasha. But it seems to me that I had a lot of trouble
:28:09. > :28:14.with on-line trolling. It was clear that, I'm 58, I'm quite tough, I
:28:15. > :28:19.have been around and I don't feel very bulliable. Yet there were a lot
:28:20. > :28:24.of women who were getting much what I was getting who were afraid to go
:28:25. > :28:28.out of their houses because people were going through on to their
:28:29. > :28:32.Twitter feeds saying we are you outside. What would be your response
:28:33. > :28:36.to Angela, who has just told us that the battles have been won and the
:28:37. > :28:43.battles are now minor ones? I think of course there has been enormous
:28:44. > :28:47.changes, there is a legislative framework which wasn't true in my
:28:48. > :28:52.mother's generation for equal pay, equal rights and so forth. In some
:28:53. > :28:57.ways I think we have done extremely well and we should be patting
:28:58. > :29:02.ourselves on the back. But it is also absolutely clear, you only have
:29:03. > :29:06.to look at sex sex to see the kind of stuff that is said about women
:29:07. > :29:10.day by day. I think it is very easy to say of those things, look they
:29:11. > :29:15.are terribly trivial, haven't you got a sense of humour. Let's bring
:29:16. > :29:24.them up, you mentioned them, we have had a tie in today, our hashtag for
:29:25. > :29:33.those of you following on Twitter is Hashimoto nn sexism. -- hashtag nn
:29:34. > :29:39.sexism. This is one. 14 doing a paper round
:29:40. > :29:44.in school uniform when a car of older guys start cat calling,
:29:45. > :29:50.Tooting and shouting at me. Should she wave it away? I would be
:29:51. > :29:56.concerned at a 14-year-old taking on a car full of guy, if any woman
:29:57. > :29:59.feels she is the victim of sexual objection, there are resources and
:30:00. > :30:02.ways to deal with that. The problem with sites like Everyday Sexism
:30:03. > :30:06.Project is you have on the one side some deeply unpleasant tweets as we
:30:07. > :30:10.saw in the film about the woman that was approached in the nightclub.
:30:11. > :30:13.That's harassment, that is an issue for the law enforcement authorities.
:30:14. > :30:18.And then you have people going on saying they are complaining because
:30:19. > :30:24.they were called "blossom" in the office work place, everything is
:30:25. > :30:31.lumped together. You mentioned "blossom", there is one that
:30:32. > :30:36.mentioned flower, bring Laura said being called "flower" by a BT
:30:37. > :30:41.salesman coming in to work to flog the man in charge cheaper broadband.
:30:42. > :30:46.How do you react to that, do you cast it aside or do you risk being
:30:47. > :30:50.called humourless or do you take it to a tribunal? Not this one, but
:30:51. > :30:55.these kinds of examples? I think the really important point is that women
:30:56. > :31:00.aren't being represented for what they are actually doing and
:31:01. > :31:06.contributing in society. That is my main bug bear, the objection, what
:31:07. > :31:11.we see -- objectionation, what we see representations of women, they
:31:12. > :31:17.are pornographic images on the front covers of magazines and billboards,
:31:18. > :31:21.that is largely how women are physically represented. My interest
:31:22. > :31:25.was in sort of doing a thought reversal of if that was men who were
:31:26. > :31:31.being represented in that way how would they feel. And how would we as
:31:32. > :31:35.women respond to to that. Some women get empowered by that, if we look at
:31:36. > :31:41.the typical page 3 girl, that is sexual objectcation. As a society we
:31:42. > :31:45.should balk at, that I don't want my kids to look at that eating
:31:46. > :31:52.breakfast. By the same token you can get a woman who feels empowered and
:31:53. > :31:55.professionally successful sunbathing topless, what is the difference
:31:56. > :31:59.between that. She objectifies herself? What shall we do about
:32:00. > :32:02.these kinds of tweets, that was Emily's question. The things coming
:32:03. > :32:05.up through Everyday Sexism Project. There is lots of things to do, you
:32:06. > :32:11.can ridicule them, complain about them, you can giggle at the Lily
:32:12. > :32:16.blokes saying this. But I think individually there is all sorts of
:32:17. > :32:21.responses. But I think what -- silly blokes saying this. There are all
:32:22. > :32:25.sorts of responses. It is the aggregate of this, it is not just
:32:26. > :32:29.somebody calling you "blossom". The people who look on this website are
:32:30. > :32:34.not the blokes presumably that are being discussed? That's not the
:32:35. > :32:39.point though. I think the issue is, one of the questions that we are
:32:40. > :32:42.still asking ourselves is why are there relatively few women in public
:32:43. > :32:47.life. Why are there relatively few women at the top of industry. Why is
:32:48. > :32:52.women's success above the glass ceiling so limited. One of the
:32:53. > :32:57.answers might be is because actually when we go out the kind of stuff we
:32:58. > :33:01.get delivered to us is this kind of crap. So the question is on a
:33:02. > :33:04.practical level, yes it is great that you have this aggregate of
:33:05. > :33:08.voices and people going on to a site to post, but if it was something
:33:09. > :33:13.more than that, if they took it to the outside world, would you like to
:33:14. > :33:18.see more practical endeavours rather than just going on-line and getting
:33:19. > :33:22.it off your chest, do you think there should be quotas, solutions?
:33:23. > :33:27.You have to go out and rant sometimes. There is a lot of knee
:33:28. > :33:31.jerk push-button reaction, the thing about digital media we can be brave
:33:32. > :33:35.as cyber warriors and not stand outside Downing Street with a
:33:36. > :33:38.petition. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy somebody
:33:39. > :33:43.starts a petition on-line saying women shouldn't be called "flower",
:33:44. > :33:48.it gathers moment it up all of its own. In terms of prescription, what
:33:49. > :33:57.would you do in terms of practical change? I actually think it is much
:33:58. > :34:00.simpler than we imagine. I think for example small things and again
:34:01. > :34:05.people think this is very archaic and old fashioned and ridiculous,
:34:06. > :34:08.things like children's toys. I think it starts when kids go to play
:34:09. > :34:14.school and this notion that there are Princesses and there are Knights
:34:15. > :34:18.that rescue the Princesses, and a school book day at my kids, a bunch
:34:19. > :34:24.of four or five-year-old, I counted one girl who was not a Princess. Now
:34:25. > :34:27.there just aren't. What is so terribl I have got boys and a girl,
:34:28. > :34:31.my little girl will play with the boys stuff if she wants to, or she
:34:32. > :34:36.will go through the Princess moment if she wants to. We are biologically
:34:37. > :34:40.wired to be different. That is fine you are offering her choices. She is
:34:41. > :34:47.offering herself choice, she is empowered by the existence of dolls
:34:48. > :34:50.and footballs. Ge Why do so many girls and it is a tragedy, when
:34:51. > :34:53.there was a survey done for schoolgirls under the age of nine
:34:54. > :34:58.who asked what they wanted to be when adult, they wanted to be a WAG,
:34:59. > :35:02.a footballers wife, that was the aspiration.
:35:03. > :35:07.Maybe that's for another discussion. Thank you all very much. I'm so
:35:08. > :35:11.sorry we have run out of time then. Tomorrow the court martial of the
:35:12. > :35:17.three Royal Marines for murder continues. With testimony from the
:35:18. > :35:21.man known as Marine A, all three deny murdering an Afghan insurgent
:35:22. > :35:27.as he lay badly wounded in a field. All have been granted anonymity, and
:35:28. > :35:30.yesterday a judge ruled the video coverage of the incident which led
:35:31. > :35:40.to their arrest should not be shown publicly. We We report on the
:35:41. > :35:44.footage, none of the pictures are from the video in question. The
:35:45. > :35:49.footage we can't show you tonight was shot on a helmet-mounted camera,
:35:50. > :35:55.it was shown to a jury and military court in Wiltshire last week. The
:35:56. > :36:02.video showed several minutes of recording shot by Marine B in a
:36:03. > :36:05.field in September 2011 in Helmand, footage they presumably hoped would
:36:06. > :36:12.never come to light. The jury made up of Royal Marines and Royal Navy
:36:13. > :36:16.personnel watched as marine A, a Sergeant, shot the already badly
:36:17. > :36:21.wounded insurgent in the chest at close range with a 9mm pistol. The
:36:22. > :36:30.voices of all three accused can be heard on the video. .
:36:31. > :36:36.The media asked for the footage to be made public, but yesterday the
:36:37. > :36:38.judge rejected the idea, citing the risk to other serving personnel. He
:36:39. > :36:50.said: The court martial continues, with
:36:51. > :36:58.the defence expected to start tomorrow. Joining me now is the
:36:59. > :37:02.former British Army officer Colonel Tim Collins, and journalist and film
:37:03. > :37:07.maker Cray. Should material like this be made available, even if it
:37:08. > :37:12.is occasionally damaging or embarrassing? I guess you know we
:37:13. > :37:16.could turn British justice into the X Factor, where we let the public
:37:17. > :37:20.decide. That is not how it is. I think there is great power in the
:37:21. > :37:25.image. We saw disgraceful behaviour over the Mail on Sunday who took a
:37:26. > :37:31.photograph which is many years old and tried to portray it as a current
:37:32. > :37:34.photograph in order to stir up hatred against the British Army at
:37:35. > :37:38.the weekend coming up to Remembrance Sunday. That sort of behaviour needs
:37:39. > :37:44.to be deplored, that is what could happen with this material. I think
:37:45. > :37:49.the problem is that if you want to avoid the damage caused by the lease
:37:50. > :37:51.of footage of executions and war crimes and we don't know what
:37:52. > :37:55.happened in this particular cautious but in general terms. Then you don't
:37:56. > :37:59.commit the executions. Now that's not a trite thing to say, because it
:38:00. > :38:04.goes to the heart of what we are talking about, which is how you stop
:38:05. > :38:08.this kind of thing happening. It does go to the heart but you are
:38:09. > :38:12.talking about a small number affecting an entire army. First of
:38:13. > :38:16.all of course this case is isolated, but it is not unknown. You just need
:38:17. > :38:20.to think back to the Mussa case where a prisoner was beaten to
:38:21. > :38:27.DAECHLT there is a big inquiry going on about allegations of ex-judicial
:38:28. > :38:30.killings after battle in Iraq. These incidents do happen, the question is
:38:31. > :38:35.how do you stop them happening. That is fundamentally down to training in
:38:36. > :38:41.ethics and laws of war. But it is also, if those techniques fail, then
:38:42. > :38:45.I cannot think of anything better than reminding a shoulder than
:38:46. > :38:48.anything they do might be filled. So in that case we shouldn't be
:38:49. > :38:51.covering up the things that are actually happening, we are asking
:38:52. > :38:56.the wrong questions here, we should be looking at why that is happening?
:38:57. > :39:02.I think there is not covering up. There is where I differ with Callum,
:39:03. > :39:06.you are alleging things happened, and it is happening in the trial.
:39:07. > :39:08.You may know more than the judge at this stage. My understanding is
:39:09. > :39:12.there is a lot of lies being told in that case. The bottom line is we do
:39:13. > :39:18.have a judicial system here. It has to be followed. If you want to... We
:39:19. > :39:23.also have a system of openness and transparency as far as possible
:39:24. > :39:26.don't we? Where does the line on voyeurism and pornography and
:39:27. > :39:30.titillation start and the line where the public needs to know. If you
:39:31. > :39:34.have a murder trial and say I was disappointed and I didn't see the
:39:35. > :39:39.goryist photographs, the judge will say you saw what you needed to see.
:39:40. > :39:42.For a film maker you have had the accusations of gore and pornography
:39:43. > :39:47.levelled at you, a film maker always wants to see more? The point is that
:39:48. > :39:52.if you cover up this kind of evidence, then the danger is you
:39:53. > :39:55.create. But it hasn't been covered up? If you try to restrict it from
:39:56. > :40:00.public access. Who should be the judge, the public or the judge?
:40:01. > :40:05.Ultimately the public has to see justice done. It is pornography? It
:40:06. > :40:09.restrict and try to control it. Give me an example of a murder trial with
:40:10. > :40:12.all the blood and guts. We don't expect to see that do we? No, but if
:40:13. > :40:16.there is absolutely central evidence and there is the perception. If I
:40:17. > :40:23.can make the point. The photographs and the faces of MRDered people that
:40:24. > :40:28.is a good step forward, I don't think we, I don't think we need to
:40:29. > :40:32.see the gore. Death is an unhappy thing, it is a private thing, we
:40:33. > :40:35.don't need to see the detail unless for titillation. We are talking
:40:36. > :40:41.about the alleged abuses that have gone on and whether that should be
:40:42. > :40:45.sheltieered? There is a trial going on. I have seen death too it is a
:40:46. > :40:48.very, very horrible thing, I have seen it in reality and footage. The
:40:49. > :40:53.point is if the perception is created that you are trying to
:40:54. > :40:57.conceal the reality of this, then you create the perception that there
:40:58. > :41:01.is a culture let me finis let me finish. I don't if that is being
:41:02. > :41:10.created. You create the perception that there is a culture of impunity,
:41:11. > :41:14.that is the real danger. When soldiers in the opposition think
:41:15. > :41:18.there is a culture of impunity. Do you think it will be better if they
:41:19. > :41:24.see it than not? If there is cover up that is what causes suspicion and
:41:25. > :41:27.fear. The we who win the battle for -- the way you win the battle for
:41:28. > :41:31.hearts and minds is adhering to the rules of law not covering up for
:41:32. > :41:36.concealing that laws have been broken. Absolute nonsense, the fact
:41:37. > :41:42.is this is open law. What you are advocating is exactly what Al-Qaeda
:41:43. > :41:47.and the murders, that is why they murdered Drummer Lee Rigby in
:41:48. > :41:50.public, that is why they wanted to be photographed covered in the gore.
:41:51. > :41:54.They are denying the murder. Titillation has no place in a
:41:55. > :41:59.courthouse, no place in society. If you call it "titillation". That is
:42:00. > :42:05.all it is. Who is covering it up, it is being shown to the jurors, they
:42:06. > :42:08.are seeing it, those judge the evidence are seeing it, who else
:42:09. > :42:12.needs to see it. It is just you and me? If the public and more
:42:13. > :42:18.importantly the people with whom you may be in a war perceive that there
:42:19. > :42:21.is a culture of impunity, perceive that you are covering up evidence of
:42:22. > :42:25.crimes that creates suspicion, that increases the danger that the
:42:26. > :42:28.soldiers are in. Do you think for a second they have any regard for us
:42:29. > :42:31.at all and care what we do? I think we are out of time. Thank you for
:42:32. > :42:36.coming in. Politics is my hobby, smut is my
:42:37. > :42:39.vocation, declared the porn publisher, founder of Hustler and
:42:40. > :42:44.free speech campaigner, Larry Flynt. Yet today he has waded into one of
:42:45. > :42:49.the most heavily political disputes of our time. The right to life for a
:42:50. > :42:54.man on death row, who murdered many and left Flynt paralysed from a
:42:55. > :42:58.gunshot wound. He has been convicted of eight racially motivated murders
:42:59. > :43:04.across the US, and confessed to many more. I asked Larry Flynt what
:43:05. > :43:08.happened that day in 1978. I was on trial for obscenity in Georgia, I
:43:09. > :43:14.was shot on my way to the courthouse. I woke up three months
:43:15. > :43:19.later. Actually I was a whole year recovering. I really almost died as
:43:20. > :43:28.a result of a gunshot wound. But the man who shot me was never
:43:29. > :43:33.apprehended for several years. He been prosecuted and convicted for
:43:34. > :43:41.killing some more people, they were all racially motivated crimes. He
:43:42. > :43:46.was an avowed racist himself. He supposedly had shot me over a black
:43:47. > :43:55.and white photo feature that we had published in a magazine. That was
:43:56. > :44:00.what instigated it. The fact that he got the death penalty and these
:44:01. > :44:05.other shootings that he done, never really changed my mind about that
:44:06. > :44:12.particular issue. I just never felt it was a deterrent, and I always
:44:13. > :44:19.felt that we focussed more on revenge than justice. He scheduled
:44:20. > :44:24.to die next month, what would you like to see happen to him? I'm
:44:25. > :44:28.opposed to the death penalty, he should spend the rest of his life in
:44:29. > :44:32.prison. If the death penalty was a deterrent I could support it. Most
:44:33. > :44:37.of the civilised nations agree on that point. We happen to be one that
:44:38. > :44:41.doesn't. And I think it is ridiculous. You have said you would
:44:42. > :44:45.like to spend an hour in a room with him. What did you mean with that? I
:44:46. > :44:52.would like to inflict the same kind of puppishment that he did on me. I
:44:53. > :44:56.-- punishment that he did on me. I said give me a screwdriver and I
:44:57. > :45:00.could have some fun with him. It is not that I don't want to see him
:45:01. > :45:03.punished for what he has done. I don't think that the Government
:45:04. > :45:07.should be in the business of killing people. Does it make any difference
:45:08. > :45:13.if the families of the other men he has killed want to see him die on
:45:14. > :45:17.death row? No. It doesn't make any differences. I can't help it because
:45:18. > :45:25.these people are ill-informed. You know. They subscribe to the biblical
:45:26. > :45:30.philosophy and an eye for an eye. And it just doesn't make sense. You
:45:31. > :45:35.mentioned your trial for obscenity, you of course scannedised --
:45:36. > :45:39.scandalised America ten years ago with your take on the porn industry.
:45:40. > :45:53.What do you think of that industry now? Today you know what I was being
:45:54. > :45:59.criticised for and accused of everything that was wrong in America
:46:00. > :46:05.is now being common place on the Internet. And on great deal of
:46:06. > :46:09.television. Hustler magazine is very tame compared to what you see out
:46:10. > :46:13.there in the rest of the media. What do you think of the porn on the
:46:14. > :46:20.Internet now, should the Internet be unfettered or should there be
:46:21. > :46:25.controls? That's like being partially pregnant, you either got a
:46:26. > :46:28.free press or you don't. The one thing that Americans still cherish
:46:29. > :46:33.is the right to a free press. At the moment the British press is
:46:34. > :46:37.consumed with questions of its own freedoms. Do you believe that
:46:38. > :46:43.freedom of speech within the British media and press is under threat? I
:46:44. > :46:49.think they have a right to be concerned. Because as you know in
:46:50. > :46:53.Great Britain you don't have a constitutional right to a free
:46:54. > :46:58.press. So there is reasons to have pause about this, but the new
:46:59. > :47:03.technology is what's raising all of these questions. So I think it is
:47:04. > :47:08.time that the Government's get together with the technology people
:47:09. > :47:13.and come out with some rules for us to live by. So you think that the
:47:14. > :47:20.Government should have some kind of regulation over the press? No, I
:47:21. > :47:30.didn't say that, but I'm saying the Government should have a right to be
:47:31. > :47:38.able to protect people from an invasion of privacy. Or from basic
:47:39. > :47:46.actions. Thank you very much. Just before we go, let's take you
:47:47. > :48:41.through a quick whizz through the front
:48:42. > :48:52.That's all for tonight, Jeremy is back tomorrow. We will leave you
:48:53. > :49:02.with a post script to storm St Jude. The Atlantic swirls across the
:49:03. > :49:09.Portuguese coast were an attempt to break the biggest wave surfed, then
:49:10. > :49:23.along came a surfer's dream, all 100 feet of it.