29/10/2013 Newsnight


Is HS2 rail worth it? Natascha McElhone on feminism, the Marines and the war crimes trial, Larry Flynt on the fate of his would-be assassin, and the energy bosses.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/10/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Are Labour about to come to the rescue of the HS2 train line, as new


figures cast fresh doubt on the plan's value for money. Our flash


new expensive high-speed railway line will it deliver more than a


boring plain old slow one. The Transport Secretary will make the


case and explain why it is not really a waste of money.


# As Mrs Pankhurst said # Enough is enough


# Chain today a railing... How can the femmeismism of the 1970s emerge


to deal with 20th century sexists. Our guests have some suggestions.


Should this British Army court martial of three marines show the


public a video of their alleged war crime. We will ask Colonel Tim


Collins, the best known face of the Iraq War for army. The publisher of


Hustler, a porn bar gone, to be executed next week, we will hear


from Larry Flynt himself. Hello, good evening, when the


Government started banging the drum for HS2 on the airwaves first thing


this morning, they may not have realised the project would get a


shot in the arm from an unlikely source. After a cooling enthusiasm


from the shadow charley, Ed Balls, Labour has pledged support to the


project. The in coming project must be allowed the power to bring down


the cost. Could it be back on the agenda? This does seem a change in


the mood music, talk us through what happens what has happened? It is a


change and the reports look correct. I don't think Ed Miliband acted


entirely unprompted. He has clarified his position because this


programme understands this evening there was a meeting of some 40


Labour MPs in parliament. They asked the shadow Transport Secretary, Mary


Creagh, newly in her job, to come to her and explain in public why the


party is soon to cool so rapidly on HS2. They were Nottingham MPs,


Nottingham MPs, they will gain rupture for their constituencies. A


lot of them said the economic benefits are strong and we can't


have this wavering that you have allowed, Ed Miliband. We have seen


him tomorrow I think strengthen his position, that is because he was


being told by his backbenchers, and indeed there was some front-benchers


present too, that this position was not tenable. We spoke to one of them


this evening. The feeling that Ed Balls, under the leadership of the


Labour Party, really the Labour Party in the whole of the country.


Rather than trying to undermine the project, they should be out there


campaigning strongly for it. Just explain then the political


significance of this. It seems like an Ed versus Ed battle possibly, and


more widely for the project? It is at some point Ed versus Ed, it was


party conference where Ed Balls said from the podium, when he gave his


speech, actually we won't sign a blank cheque for this. A completely


reasonable thing to say, but for many people in the party it was a


shock. They accept the economic tests need to be there, and indeed


that is probably going to be the nature of how Ed Miliband is beefing


up their position. They don't quite understand why he did it in the way


he did it. What I think has happened is that at every stage Ed Balls has


been pushing and pushing and pushing because it is so tantalising, if you


are the Shadow Chancellor to possibly shelf the project and at


every stage Ed Miliband has not been tough enough with him and he has had


to do that. Oh aye what's that then peers to be where Labour is sitting.


Will the public be convinced with the new set of figures for HS2.


First our chief train spotter got his hands on the latest figures.


What will be the next chapter in our railway history, will it include HS


2? As political support for the project has got shakier, it is more


important than ever for the Government to be able to point to


Australian shakably robust business cas Trying to work out the value for


money of an historic transport project, like this beauty they


London Transport Museum is comparatively easy, all the data is


in and can be known with a bit of research. Trying to peer forward


into the future is far harder. Today HS2 had their latest go at peering


into the future. Their fifth attempt at constructing a business model.


Presenting this latest version, the Transport Secretary said the new


line still represents excellent value for money. The business case,


including the cost benefit figures is strong for HS2. More than ?2


return for every ?1 invested. The calculation that the Transport


Secretary is hinting at there is one that gets a lot of attention in any


big project. It is the benefit cost ratio, or BCR. In today's figures


the Government ace that HS2 will give back ?2.30 in benefits for


every poop 1 spent. That is down from ?2. 50, it is what the


Department for Transport would call "high value for money. If you look


closely this figure includes what is known as wider economic impacts.


These are far less certain benefits from things like regeneration. And


the DFT's own guidance says these shouldn't actually be included to


calculate the cost benefit ratio for a project. If we strip these out the


ratio goes back to ?1. 80 back for every ?1, and moves from high value


to medium value for money. According to the leader of Manchester City


council, the project is more vital than ever. The business has always


stacked up, clearly the papers themselves say that you need to


update that on a regular basis. The proper published today not only


shows the robustness of the business case for high-speed rail, it does a


thorough analysis of the alternatives, and it is whether


through improvements to the road network or existing rail network,


nothing is anywhere near as effective as that brand new network,


which is what we really need. HS2 has been going through some


difficult days recently. Firstly the projected cost has gone up by nearly


a third, and secondly both the National Audit Office and the Public


Accounts Committee of the House of Commons have suggested the benefits


should be revised down markedly. You would perhaps think when this was


all factored in the business case would now look far less attractive


than the figures presented today. So what has happened here? Well, as the


costs have gone up, HS2 Ltd haven't been sitting back in their seats


twiddling their thumbs and staring they scenery, they have been


effective in identifying vast new areas of benefit that supposedly HS2


will unlock for us. Chief amongst these are benefits to business


travellers. When HS2 first calculated their


benefit to business travellers from the new line, in February 2011, they


put the figure at ?25. 2 billion. Although since then there has been a


change to the way the figures are presented, meaning to be comparable


we have to add a billion more. By August 2012 that figure had leapt to


?34. 3 billion, and in today's calculation it is put at ?40. 5 bill


juvenility or around ?15 billion more than the original estimate than


2011. If you look through the hundreds and hundreds of pages of


developments that HS2 Ltd have published today you can find out why


this big leap has happened in the supposed benefits to business


travellers, it is because they now assume a far higher proportion of


people on trains are business travellers. For example, if you look


at the previous model, the previous estimate, back in 2012 they thought


that around 30% of travellers on a train between London and Manchester


were travelling on business. Now they assume it is about 65%. In


other words more than double. And because of the way they value


business travellers' time above that of commuters or leisure travellers,


that means big, big benefits to HS2. This kind of change has led some to


accuse the Government of making the evidence fit the policy, rather than


the other way round. The very least when the evidence changes policy


doesn't appear to reflect that. Whether it is in the sort of


economic advantages the Government predict for the regions, which our


members are sceptical off, or the detail of who works on trains and


who doesn't. Or capacity atation, I think there is an element of dogma


to the Government as approach. I think the debate should still be


had. This is what the future of transport looked like 80 years ago


in 1933. The Airport would be elevated 120 feet above the ground,


clear of all obstructions. Perhaps the biggest problem with the


Government's business model for HS2 is it is trying to make redictions


at how we will be travelling up to 80 years in the future.


In 2093 will HS2 look like a good investment or as crazy as this 1933


motorbike wheel contraption looks to us today. Just before we came on air


a little earlier I put those points to the Transport Secretary and ask


if he was confident the cost of HS2 wouldn't rise again? We deliberately


built in large contingecy. We have set a target for phase I, at ?21


billion, but actually I have told HS2 I want phase I to be built for


?17 billion. It is right on big projects like this to have a


contingency that is part of the budget. I very much hope it will be


delivered for less than the budget we have set. And yet even with this


jump, another ?10 billion, the reduction in economic returns is


only slight. The figure out today goes from ?2. 50 to ?2.30, how can


that be credible? It is credible, there is other things that come into


the account, and come into the system. But I'm not so... Like what?


The use of the capacity argument, the amount of trains that are run,


and arguments like that. You say "like that", like what? When you


give people these figures and they know it is costing ?10 billion more,


they don't look believable? They are believable, everything we publish is


crawled over by various people, if we get it wrong we will be told. The


simple fact is, let me deal with VCR, it is an important people. If


you looked at the VCR for the Jubilee Line it was less than one.


Actually it would not have stood up to economic value. But it is in


London, it has led to the development of Canary Wharf. Over


00,000 jobs. At the moment in London we are building CrossRail, a ?15


billion project. Nobody complains about this with a similar VCR. This


is a chance for northern cities to get their part of transport


infrastructure spending. Just questioning how you arrived at the


figures you arrived at today. For example we are now looking at begin


to business leaping from ?25. 2 to ?40. 5. How did that work out? It


works out because what we're told and how the economic case is worked


out. That is a point. What do you mean the way we have been told and


the way the case is worked out. How does it leap from ?25. 2 to ?40. 5?


Because there is new information coming into being and that is


classed into the overall figures and case. What sort of new information,


they were wrong last time. You published figures today saying they


go from 25-40? They weren't wrong last time. They were figures that


were published. We have done more work on it, which is what we were


asked to do by the Public Accounts Committee. These are important


matters. What I have also got to do, as far as the Transport Secretary is


concerned, is actually look at what is the benefit for the north. So I


have just come from a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester,


they tell me how important the high-speed line is for them. This is


predicated on an incredibly optimistic forecast in growth on


this route. If we look back to what happened on HS1, the forecasts were


far too high, there was a 30% overestimation. Why don't you say


you don't know what will happen in terms of the route and numbers of


people travelling. Why would you make a forecast that ties you into


these kinds of numbers that people are not believing any more? You say


they are not believing, the CBI have welcomed the case we are publishing.


The Chamber of Commerce has too. The FTSE 100 business leaders poll says


49% of those who responded are against HS2. They don't see a


credible need for it any more? If you are saying 49% are against. 33


are in favour? Well. That has fallen, that is the point, that has


fallen over the last year? The truth is that big infrastructure projects


are always controversial until they are built. When they are built


people say that they were the right thing to do. The same arguments were


made about the M 40, about the M 25, people were opposed to those. They


are very important parts of the infrastructure of our country. I


have just come from a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and what


they were telling me, this is important for Manchester. The


problem people have with this, when they are listening and reading the


figures and crawling over the pages, they feel a lot of the figures are


being massaged and made to fit the picture your Government wants to


portray. If you take the KPMG report in the summer, it talked about a ?15


billion benefit to Britain, it didn't give the raw figures or the


places that wouldn't benefit that would have adverse effects? Hold on,


CrossRail is being built at the moment through London. I want to


talk about the KPMG figures that you put out which said a ?15 billion


benefit to Britain. It took Newsnight and an FOI to find out the


truth of the figure, why not come forward with them? Hold on,


CrossRail is being built, I don't think you would say the people in


Manchester are getting much benefit from CrossRail. I'm not talking


about CrossRail but the fact that you said there is a ?15 billion


benefit to Britain, that was what the report was about, you didn't


give the raw details and you didn't come forward, it to be a Freedom of


Information request to find out what the adverse effects of that were?


There are many bits of infrastructure that are taking place


at the moment that don't affect different parts of the country. It


is not they don't affect, Aberdeen will be worse off, Norfolk, do you


concede that now? No I don't, I believe the UK will be better off to


the tune of ?15 billion overall. Other areas will benefit as well.


The simple fact that Aberdeen doesn't benefit as you say, Aberdeen


doesn't benefit from CrossRail. It doesn't benefit from Thames link.


But it benefits from other bits of infrastructure we are putting in.


Why not give the raw figures and let people work it out for themselves


rather than mushing the message? -- pushing the message? I have


published all the documents for the background of this case. What do you


think of when you hear the word "feminism", women on the streets


marching for equal pay and talking about domestic violence. Academics


debating just exactly which wave of the moment we are now on or


something scarily ernest, a little humourless perhaps that is the


subject of Town Hall talks. It might be time to think again, a new


movement on-line is challenging the stereotype, fighting new ground.


Here is the digital feminists. Pause for reflection, in their tiny


mirror on the shoulder, it lets you know as a glance who is glancing, it


might safe a biff in the back from a burst. That man seems to be heard


and not seen. Oh how times have changed. Of course the modern woman


doesn't really need a wing mirror on her shoulder in order to report back


on the world around her, because she has one of these in her teeny W


eenie hand, she can blog, she can post, she c tell the world how she


feels. I noticed after perhaps a stop or two that he was getting


aroused. And then eventually he started stroking my leg, and I told


him to stop. It wasn't until I got to work that I found see men down


the back of my legs. The Everyday Sexism Project is a website launched


last year by Laura Bates, who wanted to create a place where individuals


could report their own experiences of sexism. Just to look at some


recent entries, man more than twice her age thought it appropriate to


tell her she was well developed for a 16-year-old in a good


What is important to say is a lot of people who write into us specify the


fact that they feel absolutely frozen, ashamed, embarrassed, those


are common reactions when that kind of harassment happens. I don't think


it is the case if they didn't write to Everyday Sexism Project they


would otherwise say something back, I think they had been silenced for a


long time. These stories haven't stayed in the digital world, some


were used by police in a campaign on London Transport resulting in


increased reporting of sexual offences and increased detection


rates too. These are still early days for assessing the impact of


that heady combo of individual power and its ability to shift entrenched


positions. One of those being the mainstream media's obsession with


breasts. Perhaps you saw this, curtesy of the


Daily Mail, when performance artistam Amanda Palmer appeared at


Glastonbury, she revealed one bossom to the crowd. Her song about how


that bossom became important not her art went viral.


# Dear Daily Mail # It has come to my recent attention


# That my recent appearance at Glastonbury festival


# Kindly received a mention The beautiful thing about new media,


YouTube and Twitter, you are sharing all of these experiences in


real-time you are relying on each other, by the time I got home that


night somebody had already uploaded the video to YouTube, I took a look


at it, shared it, and by the next morning it had gone viral. Do you


have a sense there is a friction between different generations of


feminism? This This generation is programmed to watch shows that


resonate with them and what makes them feel more human. In that, I


think you might see the seeds of a real change and a real evolution.


Because you know, even ten or 15 years ago if I wanted to make a


statement about something that was bothering me, I would be stuck


talking to my friends or calling up the old media. Now I can say it


directly, that will change the world, it already has.


Stub burp, hard to shift, inequalities remain. It is the same


old song isn't it. # As Mrs Pankhurst said


# Enough's enough # Change a railing she would do her


stuff # Nowadays a woman out for justice


# Starts a fight for freedom # Where her bust is Modern feminism


reflects modern society. If a criticism of previous waves of the


movement was that the voice of feminism was often white, well-off


and academic, that is not the case now. The visual exploitation of


women goes hand in hand with the digital age, more images, easier to


see, easier to share. It is one of the modern feminists' biggest


battles. # I can pay for everything


# Everything is on me # Little Blondie


So this video, Calvin hare ruchings featuring Tinie Tempah, in terms of


sexualisation of black women, they were not part of the plot of the


video, they are shaking it on the carpet, you don't see their face,


they are literally just bums. Ikamara Larasi is part of the


Rewind Project, a one Topshop website that will allow


users to send their comments direct to regulators and record labels. I


asked her how she felt when she sees how young black women are portrayed


in music videos? Bored and frustrated. The fact that this image


is the normal depiction of people like me is a problem. That is the


thing that people that don't know people like me are absorbing. Is


there a danger though that people feel too powerful with the digital


experience, you know you tweet something or you send an e-mail via


your website and you think I have really packed a punch there? I think


it is useful to feel like you have contributed to making a difference


on a particular issue, and it wasn't too strenuous, and you didn't have


to get wet in the rain. I think that is the good thing about digital


campaigns. Not everyone believes that the new digital world will


allow feminism to achieve its goals. Charlotte Raven is the editor of the


Feminist Times, she has launched it digitally, but wants it to be a


stimulus in meeting up and discussing ideas? When I read


Everyday Sexism Project, I'm usually on my own. Often when I put the kids


to bed I find myself drawn to it and there is a process of a kind of


feeling of it is such a depressing litany of horror. And yet you feel


impotent in relation to it. There is nothing you can do about it, the


only way that change can be affected is in three dimensions by meeting up


with real people who are going to change your mind and also change the


world. Digital feminism has an ability to throw a cause around the


world in seconds, and you can feel that you are creating a loud new


noise. But the question is, how many people are listening.


To try to answer that we are joined to discuss the F-word with the


actress Natasha McElhone, journalist Angela Epstein and historian class


cyst Mary Beard. Let's start with the real basic, Mary Beard would you


define yourself using the word "feminist". Of course I would. No


question. That's what I am, that's what I stand for. I think feminism


comes in various forms, I don't think you can't lump everything


together. And yet the bottom line is that I can't understand a woman in


this country that isn't. Natasha McElhone would you say anything


different to that? I guess what I would say is that I think feminism


is an easy word for people to reject. And the sorts of people that


I would probably like to tune in more to the issue. To be more


conscious of how they are around women and how women are towards


themselves. It is very, very easy for feminism to start to mean


something that sort of akin to a political class that's in opposition


to men. And so therefore people will feel defensive around that word. And


I want that not to happen. I want to work together with men and I'm


interested in equality rather than the idea that some people might have


of a superior. Are you comfortable with the term "feminist"? Absolutely


not, I wouldn't call myself a feminist. Part of the reason is all


the great battles upon which feminism and the sufficient fridge


movement have been established have long since been fought and


successful. Ly. More women go to university than men, girls routinely


outplay boys in the classroom, women have made an impact in all aspects


of professional life, look at the glorious selection we have on


Newsnight tonight. That stops you ever using the word feminist


yourself? What I was about to say is what soh what has evolved now is an


artificial engineering, a construct, because all those great battles have


been fought. What feminists are now often looking for, they are spoiling


for a fight, they seize upon petty grievances which offend the original


principles of feminism. Talking about digital activism and all the


hashtag sisters that come out crying in force. Yes there is a huge social


grievance, digital media is very efficient in doing that. Look at the


campaign to get women on bank notes. Does it really matter whether Jane


Austen is on bank note or not? Do you agree the battles have been won?


Clearly not because we are having this discussion. And I think what is


new compared to 30 years ago is that it is more insidious, we're not


talking about female genital mutilation, we are not talking about


eight-year-olds marrying 40-year-olds as they do in other


parts of the world. Today, here, in my life and in my circle of people


that I mix with, something that's become terribly common place is how


sort of internalised, I would even go as far to say a kind of misogyny


has become. I don't think was prevalent when I was growing up and


for my mother's generation. You were most recently the victim of


trolling, on-line digital misogyny and your response to that when I


read, I thought it was quite calm it was unemotional, almost like you


didn't want to sound hysterical about it? I'm not on a rant or


picking a fight. For me feminism isn't about picking a fight. I'm


much more with Natasha. But it seems to me that I had a lot of trouble


with on-line trolling. It was clear that, I'm 58, I'm quite tough, I


have been around and I don't feel very bulliable. Yet there were a lot


of women who were getting much what I was getting who were afraid to go


out of their houses because people were going through on to their


Twitter feeds saying we are you outside. What would be your response


to Angela, who has just told us that the battles have been won and the


battles are now minor ones? I think of course there has been enormous


changes, there is a legislative framework which wasn't true in my


mother's generation for equal pay, equal rights and so forth. In some


ways I think we have done extremely well and we should be patting


ourselves on the back. But it is also absolutely clear, you only have


to look at sex sex to see the kind of stuff that is said about women


day by day. I think it is very easy to say of those things, look they


are terribly trivial, haven't you got a sense of humour. Let's bring


them up, you mentioned them, we have had a tie in today, our hashtag for


those of you following on Twitter is Hashimoto nn sexism. -- hashtag nn


sexism. This is one. 14 doing a paper round


in school uniform when a car of older guys start cat calling,


Tooting and shouting at me. Should she wave it away? I would be


concerned at a 14-year-old taking on a car full of guy, if any woman


feels she is the victim of sexual objection, there are resources and


ways to deal with that. The problem with sites like Everyday Sexism


Project is you have on the one side some deeply unpleasant tweets as we


saw in the film about the woman that was approached in the nightclub.


That's harassment, that is an issue for the law enforcement authorities.


And then you have people going on saying they are complaining because


they were called "blossom" in the office work place, everything is


lumped together. You mentioned "blossom", there is one that


mentioned flower, bring Laura said being called "flower" by a BT


salesman coming in to work to flog the man in charge cheaper broadband.


How do you react to that, do you cast it aside or do you risk being


called humourless or do you take it to a tribunal? Not this one, but


these kinds of examples? I think the really important point is that women


aren't being represented for what they are actually doing and


contributing in society. That is my main bug bear, the objection, what


we see -- objectionation, what we see representations of women, they


are pornographic images on the front covers of magazines and billboards,


that is largely how women are physically represented. My interest


was in sort of doing a thought reversal of if that was men who were


being represented in that way how would they feel. And how would we as


women respond to to that. Some women get empowered by that, if we look at


the typical page 3 girl, that is sexual objectcation. As a society we


should balk at, that I don't want my kids to look at that eating


breakfast. By the same token you can get a woman who feels empowered and


professionally successful sunbathing topless, what is the difference


between that. She objectifies herself? What shall we do about


these kinds of tweets, that was Emily's question. The things coming


up through Everyday Sexism Project. There is lots of things to do, you


can ridicule them, complain about them, you can giggle at the Lily


blokes saying this. But I think individually there is all sorts of


responses. But I think what -- silly blokes saying this. There are all


sorts of responses. It is the aggregate of this, it is not just


somebody calling you "blossom". The people who look on this website are


not the blokes presumably that are being discussed? That's not the


point though. I think the issue is, one of the questions that we are


still asking ourselves is why are there relatively few women in public


life. Why are there relatively few women at the top of industry. Why is


women's success above the glass ceiling so limited. One of the


answers might be is because actually when we go out the kind of stuff we


get delivered to us is this kind of crap. So the question is on a


practical level, yes it is great that you have this aggregate of


voices and people going on to a site to post, but if it was something


more than that, if they took it to the outside world, would you like to


see more practical endeavours rather than just going on-line and getting


it off your chest, do you think there should be quotas, solutions?


You have to go out and rant sometimes. There is a lot of knee


jerk push-button reaction, the thing about digital media we can be brave


as cyber warriors and not stand outside Downing Street with a


petition. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy somebody


starts a petition on-line saying women shouldn't be called "flower",


it gathers moment it up all of its own. In terms of prescription, what


would you do in terms of practical change? I actually think it is much


simpler than we imagine. I think for example small things and again


people think this is very archaic and old fashioned and ridiculous,


things like children's toys. I think it starts when kids go to play


school and this notion that there are Princesses and there are Knights


that rescue the Princesses, and a school book day at my kids, a bunch


of four or five-year-old, I counted one girl who was not a Princess. Now


there just aren't. What is so terribl I have got boys and a girl,


my little girl will play with the boys stuff if she wants to, or she


will go through the Princess moment if she wants to. We are biologically


wired to be different. That is fine you are offering her choices. She is


offering herself choice, she is empowered by the existence of dolls


and footballs. Ge Why do so many girls and it is a tragedy, when


there was a survey done for schoolgirls under the age of nine


who asked what they wanted to be when adult, they wanted to be a WAG,


a footballers wife, that was the aspiration.


Maybe that's for another discussion. Thank you all very much. I'm so


sorry we have run out of time then. Tomorrow the court martial of the


three Royal Marines for murder continues. With testimony from the


man known as Marine A, all three deny murdering an Afghan insurgent


as he lay badly wounded in a field. All have been granted anonymity, and


yesterday a judge ruled the video coverage of the incident which led


to their arrest should not be shown publicly. We We report on the


footage, none of the pictures are from the video in question. The


footage we can't show you tonight was shot on a helmet-mounted camera,


it was shown to a jury and military court in Wiltshire last week. The


video showed several minutes of recording shot by Marine B in a


field in September 2011 in Helmand, footage they presumably hoped would


never come to light. The jury made up of Royal Marines and Royal Navy


personnel watched as marine A, a Sergeant, shot the already badly


wounded insurgent in the chest at close range with a 9mm pistol. The


voices of all three accused can be heard on the video. .


The media asked for the footage to be made public, but yesterday the


judge rejected the idea, citing the risk to other serving personnel. He


said: The court martial continues, with


the defence expected to start tomorrow. Joining me now is the


former British Army officer Colonel Tim Collins, and journalist and film


maker Cray. Should material like this be made available, even if it


is occasionally damaging or embarrassing? I guess you know we


could turn British justice into the X Factor, where we let the public


decide. That is not how it is. I think there is great power in the


image. We saw disgraceful behaviour over the Mail on Sunday who took a


photograph which is many years old and tried to portray it as a current


photograph in order to stir up hatred against the British Army at


the weekend coming up to Remembrance Sunday. That sort of behaviour needs


to be deplored, that is what could happen with this material. I think


the problem is that if you want to avoid the damage caused by the lease


of footage of executions and war crimes and we don't know what


happened in this particular cautious but in general terms. Then you don't


commit the executions. Now that's not a trite thing to say, because it


goes to the heart of what we are talking about, which is how you stop


this kind of thing happening. It does go to the heart but you are


talking about a small number affecting an entire army. First of


all of course this case is isolated, but it is not unknown. You just need


to think back to the Mussa case where a prisoner was beaten to


DAECHLT there is a big inquiry going on about allegations of ex-judicial


killings after battle in Iraq. These incidents do happen, the question is


how do you stop them happening. That is fundamentally down to training in


ethics and laws of war. But it is also, if those techniques fail, then


I cannot think of anything better than reminding a shoulder than


anything they do might be filled. So in that case we shouldn't be


covering up the things that are actually happening, we are asking


the wrong questions here, we should be looking at why that is happening?


I think there is not covering up. There is where I differ with Callum,


you are alleging things happened, and it is happening in the trial.


You may know more than the judge at this stage. My understanding is


there is a lot of lies being told in that case. The bottom line is we do


have a judicial system here. It has to be followed. If you want to... We


also have a system of openness and transparency as far as possible


don't we? Where does the line on voyeurism and pornography and


titillation start and the line where the public needs to know. If you


have a murder trial and say I was disappointed and I didn't see the


goryist photographs, the judge will say you saw what you needed to see.


For a film maker you have had the accusations of gore and pornography


levelled at you, a film maker always wants to see more? The point is that


if you cover up this kind of evidence, then the danger is you


create. But it hasn't been covered up? If you try to restrict it from


public access. Who should be the judge, the public or the judge?


Ultimately the public has to see justice done. It is pornography? It


restrict and try to control it. Give me an example of a murder trial with


all the blood and guts. We don't expect to see that do we? No, but if


there is absolutely central evidence and there is the perception. If I


can make the point. The photographs and the faces of MRDered people that


is a good step forward, I don't think we, I don't think we need to


see the gore. Death is an unhappy thing, it is a private thing, we


don't need to see the detail unless for titillation. We are talking


about the alleged abuses that have gone on and whether that should be


sheltieered? There is a trial going on. I have seen death too it is a


very, very horrible thing, I have seen it in reality and footage. The


point is if the perception is created that you are trying to


conceal the reality of this, then you create the perception that there


is a culture let me finis let me finish. I don't if that is being


created. You create the perception that there is a culture of impunity,


that is the real danger. When soldiers in the opposition think


there is a culture of impunity. Do you think it will be better if they


see it than not? If there is cover up that is what causes suspicion and


fear. The we who win the battle for -- the way you win the battle for


hearts and minds is adhering to the rules of law not covering up for


concealing that laws have been broken. Absolute nonsense, the fact


is this is open law. What you are advocating is exactly what Al-Qaeda


and the murders, that is why they murdered Drummer Lee Rigby in


public, that is why they wanted to be photographed covered in the gore.


They are denying the murder. Titillation has no place in a


courthouse, no place in society. If you call it "titillation". That is


all it is. Who is covering it up, it is being shown to the jurors, they


are seeing it, those judge the evidence are seeing it, who else


needs to see it. It is just you and me? If the public and more


importantly the people with whom you may be in a war perceive that there


is a culture of impunity, perceive that you are covering up evidence of


crimes that creates suspicion, that increases the danger that the


soldiers are in. Do you think for a second they have any regard for us


at all and care what we do? I think we are out of time. Thank you for


coming in. Politics is my hobby, smut is my


vocation, declared the porn publisher, founder of Hustler and


free speech campaigner, Larry Flynt. Yet today he has waded into one of


the most heavily political disputes of our time. The right to life for a


man on death row, who murdered many and left Flynt paralysed from a


gunshot wound. He has been convicted of eight racially motivated murders


across the US, and confessed to many more. I asked Larry Flynt what


happened that day in 1978. I was on trial for obscenity in Georgia, I


was shot on my way to the courthouse. I woke up three months


later. Actually I was a whole year recovering. I really almost died as


a result of a gunshot wound. But the man who shot me was never


apprehended for several years. He been prosecuted and convicted for


killing some more people, they were all racially motivated crimes. He


was an avowed racist himself. He supposedly had shot me over a black


and white photo feature that we had published in a magazine. That was


what instigated it. The fact that he got the death penalty and these


other shootings that he done, never really changed my mind about that


particular issue. I just never felt it was a deterrent, and I always


felt that we focussed more on revenge than justice. He scheduled


to die next month, what would you like to see happen to him? I'm


opposed to the death penalty, he should spend the rest of his life in


prison. If the death penalty was a deterrent I could support it. Most


of the civilised nations agree on that point. We happen to be one that


doesn't. And I think it is ridiculous. You have said you would


like to spend an hour in a room with him. What did you mean with that? I


would like to inflict the same kind of puppishment that he did on me. I


-- punishment that he did on me. I said give me a screwdriver and I


could have some fun with him. It is not that I don't want to see him


punished for what he has done. I don't think that the Government


should be in the business of killing people. Does it make any difference


if the families of the other men he has killed want to see him die on


death row? No. It doesn't make any differences. I can't help it because


these people are ill-informed. You know. They subscribe to the biblical


philosophy and an eye for an eye. And it just doesn't make sense. You


mentioned your trial for obscenity, you of course scannedised --


scandalised America ten years ago with your take on the porn industry.


What do you think of that industry now? Today you know what I was being


criticised for and accused of everything that was wrong in America


is now being common place on the Internet. And on great deal of


television. Hustler magazine is very tame compared to what you see out


there in the rest of the media. What do you think of the porn on the


Internet now, should the Internet be unfettered or should there be


controls? That's like being partially pregnant, you either got a


free press or you don't. The one thing that Americans still cherish


is the right to a free press. At the moment the British press is


consumed with questions of its own freedoms. Do you believe that


freedom of speech within the British media and press is under threat? I


think they have a right to be concerned. Because as you know in


Great Britain you don't have a constitutional right to a free


press. So there is reasons to have pause about this, but the new


technology is what's raising all of these questions. So I think it is


time that the Government's get together with the technology people


and come out with some rules for us to live by. So you think that the


Government should have some kind of regulation over the press? No, I


didn't say that, but I'm saying the Government should have a right to be


able to protect people from an invasion of privacy. Or from basic


actions. Thank you very much. Just before we go, let's take you


through a quick whizz through the front


That's all for tonight, Jeremy is back tomorrow. We will leave you


with a post script to storm St Jude. The Atlantic swirls across the


Portuguese coast were an attempt to break the biggest wave surfed, then


along came a surfer's dream, all 100 feet of it.


Is HS2 rail worth it? Natascha McElhone on feminism, the Marines and the war crimes trial, Larry Flynt on the fate of his would-be assassin, and the energy bosses.