30/10/2013 Newsnight

This programme contains flash photography from the start. It was

inconceivable that the Prime Minister's friends at the News of

the World didn't know that their staff were hacking people's phones,

said a prosecutor today. On day three of the trial of Rebekah

Brooks, Coulson and others, it is also revealed that four people have

already pleaded guilty. She can make chemistry fun, so does this teacher

really need a piece of paper from a teacher training college? Labour's

new shadow Education Secretary thinks she does. Why? James Blake

has just won the Mercury Music Prize, Steve Smith will be catching

his atoppings. Imagine being this surfer, we will talk to the man from

Devon who may just have ridden the world's biggest wave.

There was phone hacking, who knew? Was the way the prosecution put it

to jurors at the Old Bailey, resolving that question is the task

of the court trying eight men and women, including two former editors

of the News of the World. One pal of the Prime Minister, the other his

one-time official spokesman. It is the most eager low- watched case in

Britain, with potentionally very strong implication for some very

powerful people. This report contains flash

photograp. The News of the World is a Sunday newspaper, it wasn't War

and Peace, it was not an enormous document TFSHGS the size of

something that, if you were editor, you could taken a interest in what

was going into it. It was with those words that Andrew Edis QC

prosecuting left the jury at the end of this day 1 of this toysoric

child. In a nod to the charges facing the eight defendants, he

earlier told the jury although it was the phone hacking trial, it

wasn't just the phone hacking trial. On conspiracy to commit misconduct

in office which constitutes four of the eight counts he

On conspiracy to pervert the course of justic There are two counts,

which he described as: Hiding stuff so the police couldn't

get it. He went into some detail, accusing

Rebekah Brooks and her PA of removing notebooks from the News of

the World archive. And her husband Charley and others of moving

material from their various homes, in order to stop the police from

finding it. It was said Andrew Edis, quite a complex little operation,

discovered by accident. Something he said he thought the jury would find

quite memorable. But today did focus on phone hacking, and the key point

Andrew Edis put to the jury, is even though an individual may not

themselves have hacked phones, they could still be guilty of a prime if

they had conspired to see it done, or knew about it and did nothing to

stop it. The two people he had in mind when he said that were this

case's most high-profile defendants. Brooks and Andy Coulson. The

question is, is the case of each of those who didn't do it themselves,

were they part of the conspiracy? But today's main revelation came in

the form of the guilty plays, previously entered by three former

News of the World journalists. Neville Thurlbeck, and James

Weatherup a have all pleaded guilty to phone hacking, has private

investigator Glenn Mulcaire, in his case of the murdered teenager Milly

Dowler's mobile phone messages. The prosecution said they can prove the

guilt of Ian Edmondson. There were references to Jude Law, Paul

McCartney, John Prescott, and even David Blunkett. In truth this was

not a day of dramatic revelation, rather the prosecution laying out as

carefully as it could a case which in time is sure to prove hugely

detailed. It was in his final flourish that Andrew Edis was at his

most succinct. He told the jury: What you have to decide is

ultimately how much did the management know about what was going

on at their newspaper. How much did they know about what was being

published and where it came from. How much did they know about why it

was right to publish a particular story, why they knew it was true. It

was their responsibility as editors, under their contract, to take

reasonable steps to make sure that what goes in the paper is true,

otherwise they get sued. The case continues tomorrow, when we will get

to hear most of the rest of the prosecution's opening statement.

Their case proper which follows is reckoned by some to be quite likely

to last until Christmas. They all deny the charges of course.

Steve is with us with news on the future of press regulation. This was

the last ditch attempt by the newspaper, the last judicial

attempt? It is quite a big day. The press attempted to get an injunction

to prevent the cross-party royal charter from being sealed today.

That failed this morning. Or by lunchtime. Unexpectedly those judges

also ruled that the press was not entitled to bring a judicial review

claim about the Privy Council decision to dismiss their own

proposed charter and then towards the end of the day the Privy Council

sealed the cross-party charter. We are now headed for what I think

might politely be described as impasse.

Meaning? Meaning that the charter doesn't sipped a regulator, it only

sets up a recognition body. A recognition body I dare say at some

point will be established, meanwhile the press are setting up their own

self-regulator, IPSO, Independent Press Standards Organisation. Which

will come in January and will continue to function and steadfastly

and deliberately not seek recognition from the charter

recognition body. Which will produce pressure on politicians to act. The

Leveson system which puts in place a backstop to prevent the press from

backsliding, doesn't exist without a recognition body to which the press

submit themselves. Currently they are not willing to submit

themselves? No they are not. None of the national press, as far as I can

see are willing to submit themselves to, that they are not firmly in with

IPSO yet. My impression talking to various people is attitudes are

hardening. There is a Mail editorial, and you would say they

would say this, it says a judicial farce and a dark day for freedom.

Foreigners to Britain were offered a fascinating insight into the called

modern democracy. The judicial farce which many will be left thinking is

an establishment stitch-up has deep implications for free press and

democracy. You would think they would say that wouldn't you. I spoke

to the editor of a reputable newspaper who said there is a huge

philosophical difference. They say sign up or else, nobody will. They

are clearly on what might be described as a collision course.

This may take many, many months, if not years, actually to come to a

head. Coming up... # This is the darkness of the dawn

# And friends are gone You need more qualifications to flip burgers in

Britain than you do to teach children here. With what relish, if

you will forgive a bad pun, the newbie shadow Education Secretary,

Tristram Hunt, denounced Government's stance on letting

unqualified adults loose in the platform. The Government hit back

and said he was not to be listened to. The question of who is allowed

into our children's classrooms is much, much bigger.

It is the drama that has everyone talking. Only this one is being

played out not on your TV. But from the classroom to the Commons. The

surprising truth, Mr Speaker, is under this Government you need more

qualifications to get a job in a burger bar than you do to teach in

an English school. If the Labour policy is enacted, that will mean

there are people currently teaching in the state sector, academies and

free schools, who will lose their jobs. This is Antia Zarska.

Six weeks into her new job at this state-funded free school in East

London, now on its half-term break. If you have a passion for a subject,

if you are always constantly improving and engaging yourself not

just your students in the subject, I feel the students will enter that

dialogue with you and they will ocate what you are giving them as

well. Last year Michael Goof relaxed the rules, letting state schools do

what the private sector has done for years and take on teachers like

this. Antia has a science PhD and taught in California, but no formal

teaching qualification. Antia, our chemistry teacher, when we did the

advert for the post we didn't just look at unqualified teachers but

everybody who applied to it. There is no-one out there. But the reason

we chose who we chose is because they are best-fitted to the post.

That is it, there is no huge theoretical thing behind it. It is

the best person for the job. For Nick Clegg this is becoming an

election issue, not hiding his opposition to official Government

policy. We should have qualified teachers in all of our schools. That

means free schools and academies too. If you say I have a seating

plan here and I will tell you where to sit, they are immediately like I

won't like what she has done. A few miles away in central London, that

next generation of state school teachers, here they are learning the

traditional way. A year's formal training in subjects like lesson

plans and classroom control. We are just trying to get vocational

training and theoretical training, you wouldn't ask the same question

to lawyer or doctor. I find it the opposite of sensible that you would

ask the question do teachers need to learn how to think. The problem is

Mr Gove has an incorrect assumption that all we do is sit around in a

classroom. We are all in school placements, we are spending real

time in school. I think it is much more a combination of the two.

This is the kind of basic standard, the Labour Party would like to see

mandatory again across all state cools. -- schools. I don't think any

headteacher should take on any teachers without qualified teacher

status. All children deserve well trained teachers. You will need to

go and get changed, you can't be here in a T-shirt. At one of the

country's top private schools. You have lost your trouser, go and

borrow some, or jape us at period three, you can't be in a tracksuit.

A third of the staff here, like this politics teacher, were recruited

straight from university or the private sector without a teaching

certificate. That's the most important thing said in this lesson

so fa If someone asked you to do a formal teaching qualification for a

year, would it have put you off the profession? At that point it would

have done. I had funding to do my fast masters, I wanted do it, I

don't think on the back of that I would have wanted to spend another

year at university. I don't think. Here though fees cost ?20,000 a

year. Teaching at an inner City comprehensive might need different

skills and talents. It is even more important in the state sector than

it is in the private sector. Because you need passionate teachers. If you

have got a group of disaffected youngsters, it is even more

important that the headteacher has the flexibility to appoint someone

that they think is really passionate about their subject and can connect

with chirp. What did Aristotle say? Of the Ices system would like money

shifted from teacher training colleges to schools. So new staff

can learn on the job, in the classroom. What worries me is that

they are focussing on the wrong definition of "unqualified", 250% of

maths -- 50% of math teachers don't have a maths degree, and 50 pest of

physics teachers don't have a physics degree, they are unqualified

for me. And the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have no comment to

make on that. For Labour this is a dangerous experiment, for the Tories

a chance to show how committed they are to reform A volatile mix we are

going to hear more of as we head towards the next election.

Tristram Hunt, the shadow Education Secretary is here now. Ever been

taught by an alified teacher? I don't know I have been taught by

wonderful teachers, Mr Ellis who caught me lateral thinking, Mrs

Newton my form teacher. None at your private secondary school were

unqualified as far as you know? I don't think most people ask about

the qualification capacity of their teachers. This is about public

policy. It hasn't held you back? It is about making sure when it comes

to the expenditure of tax-payers' money in the state school system

that we have a minimum baseline qualification because the evidence

surround the world, Jeremy, is where you have the best qualified teachers

in Finland, Singapore, elsewhere, you have the best results. That

doesn't seem to be an unreasonable aspiration. You are defining

qualifications very narrowly? That is why the head of Brighton College

was wrong. Why do most physics teachers not have a physics degree,

is that acceptable? We want subject knowledge. That is absolutely vital.

What we're saying is that subject knowledge is not enough. You can be

a world expert in your field, but can you hold the attention of a year

7? Can you actually deliver the learning outcomes, can you allow

them to achieve the best for their GCSE. Being a teacher is not seism

profession. -- A simple profession. Someone who has taught for 20 years,

and they don't have this piece of paper? It is more than a piece of

paper. If you looked at what was said there about how children learn

and structure a class. These are important so children can achieve

the best. Clearly they learn something on this course, but if

someone has taught for 20 years, effectively, and doesn't have this

cal cautious you would stop them -- qualification, you would stop them

teaching would you? I think most teachers you talk to. Would you stop

them teaching? There is always room for improvement, under a Labour

Government we will move to a position where those teaching in the

state sector will have qualified teacher status. A very engage young

woman who teaches chemistry, great, no qualification by your book? We

already have a system where if you have a teaching qualification from

America or Australia or abroad, you can transfer that. She doesn't have

a teaching Kimballcation? Under -- qualification. Under Labour we would

move to qualified status. She has the subject knowledge but she needs

to learn about managing classes. Have you got a teaching

qualification? I couldn't teach GCSEs. You have taught at

universities without a teaching qualification, is that correct? I

have a PhD. Not a teaching qualification? Teaching in classes

is a different matter, injure me. We are dealing with a child's

development. These are complex areas. What we are saying in the

Labour Government is we want the best teachers in English schools in

the world. Let me return to the issue, the countries who do best,

Finland, Singapore, they are not having an argument about

deregulation and deskilling the teaching profession. They are having

the most skilled teachers they can find. Why is this controversial.

Thank you for reminding us of that. Tell us how many people in Barker

Pond have teaching qualification and fail the course and don't make it?

No I don't. The fact you don't know, it is something you oath ought to

know. Secondly, since most people who started get the qualification,

perhaps it suggests it is not as difficult to achieve as you may

think? First of all you were saying it is a silly piece of paper. I

didn't say silly. Where do we want to be as a nation. We have recently

had some OECD figures about our levels on literacy and numeracy

which shows we are in danger of slipping behind from where we need

to be. How do you achieve results. You have the best possible teacher

cohort possible. Would you send a child of yours to a school where

there were unqualified teachers? This isn't about my children. It is

about all of our children? This is about reducing risk. Would you or

not? My children are educated and I'm proud they are educated in the

state system, where there are qualified teachers. And there may be

unqualified teachers at the schools they go to, and you don't care about

that? This is why we have the policy for crying out loud. We want all

teachers in the state education sector to have qualified teacher

status, so they can run the classrooms to the best of their

ability. Let me ask you the question again, I have obviously not been

clear. Would you ever send your children to a school which employed

unqualified teachers? I would send my children to schools with

qualified teachers because the schools my kids go to are those with

qualified teachers. Why are we having an argument about

deregulating a profession when we know the best results are achieved

from the most professional elements of it. Let me ask you the question

again, yes or no, would you send your children to a school which

employed unqualified teacherers? I will send my -- teachers. I will

tend my children, and they go to school already and their teachers

are brilliantly qualified. They have a long lifetime ahead of them? I

want my children, as every parent warrants their children, to be

taught by the best qualified, the most motivated teachers possible.

And it is the case... I note you haven't answered the question to

which you could have given a yes or no. In the Labour Party we want

qualified teachers in the classroom. Most people watching the programme

will want qualified teachers. You can't answer about sending your own

children to a school with unqualified National Union of

Teachersers? My kids, I will give you the answer, go to their local

school and they will always... Would you consider ever sending your

children, I said I wouldn't ask it one more time I have do. Sending

your children to a school that employs unqualified teachers? I

would always want to send my children to the schools where the

teachers are as qualified as possible. You haven't answered, it

is yes or no? That is every parent watching the programme tonight wants

their children to be taught by teachers who are qualified. To have

the wonder of learning. You want them to be talked by good teachers,

which may not be the same thing? Our case is if you don't have this

structure you end up with the unqualified teachers we saw at the

school in Derby. If the state won't protect those children what will the

Secretary of State be doing. Are you worried about standards in the

independent sector? I'm more wore cleat about achieving results in

Wolverhampton and Stoke-on-Trent. The independent sector employs lots

of unqualified teachers, but you are not worried about them. As a

Secretary of State for the Labour Government I'm concerned about

taxpayer money being spent correctly. With the free school in

Bradford we are seeing the misallocation of funds and

unqualified teachers. We want great standards in great state schools.

Thank you very much, thank you. Now the highest court in Britain

decided today that a hospital had been right to withhold treatment

from a very sick man, despite the wishes of his family. This important

judgment in the complicated area which many of us may visit, where

ethic, humanity and institutions and families collide is expected to cast

a long shadow. The dying man's family had wanted doctors to

continue treatment. The Supreme Court decided they were within their

rights to press for that. Lower courts had been entitled to rule in

favour of the hospital too. Mr James, a grandfather and

professional musician was admitted to impotencive care after

contracting an infection in hospital. His condition deteriorated

leaving him unable to speak or breathe unaided. The hospital asked

the High Court for permission to withhold some treatments if his

condition got any worse. The court refused, forcing them to continue

treatment. The hospital then appealed, and as Mr James became

increasingly ill they won the right to withhold treatment. Just ten days

after that verdict Mr James died. Despite his death his family brought

the case to the Supreme Court, hoping to have the verdict

overruled. This afternoon, in a complex ruling, the Supreme Court

decided that on the evidence available, both of the decisions of

the lower courts were correct. We are joined now from our studio in

Liverpool by David's widow, May James.

Even after your husband showed no prospect of recovery, you continued

this legal fight, why? Because he still was showing life, a life

worthwhile living. You continued the legal fight after he died? Yes to

the Supreme Court. In the Appeal Court there was a precedent set that

doctors if they felt that treatment was futile, invasive treatment was

futile, well they didn't really have to give it to the patient. Now that

meant any hospital in the country which you know, I carried this on

because I wanted to help other people with family, loved ones, that

may end up in a position like my husband ended up. It was whore

rendous, I just would not like anybody to go through what I went

through. I went through it for the love of my husband. When he died I

felt no, well it has to go on to help other people. That's why. It

must take a real depth of conviction to reject doctors' advice doesn't

it? When the doctors started saying about withdrawing treatment it was

quite a few months down the line. It was round about July last year that

they first said to me they said if he should have a cardiac arrest they

didn't want to resusitate, would I agree. They said to me we don't

expect him to have a cardiac arrest. So I said if you don't expect why

are you asking me this? Just in case he does? So I said no well I can't

agree with that. Because you can't tell me what is wrong with my

husband. You can't diagnose what is wrong with my husband. Tell me that

he has cancer? Tell me that he has TB and I then may go along with your

wishes. But until you can diagnose what is wrong with him you should

not be asking me this. What do you make of the Supreme Court judgment

today which seems extremely complicated and seems to come down

on both sides, both the hospital and you were right? Yes, yes. What they

said was at the particular time. When we were at the court of

rotection, judge Jackson would not grant the hospital what they wanted.

But then by the time it got into the Appeal Court Dave had deteriorated

again. At that particular time the Supreme Court said today that it was

right, they felt that the Appeal Court was right in passing for the

hospital. For the hospital not to give the treatment. But then well

they didn't give the treatment and he died. What do you feel ought to

be the guiding principle in cases like this? Like what was passed

today. I mean what happened at the Appeal Court, because they granted,

there was the, there was a precedent set, which went against what judge

Jackson said, so therefore the law had changed. What I wanted was the

law changing back. What has happened today is the hospital were told that

they did the right thing. The Appeal Court was right at that particular

time. I was told that the appeal judges erred, they did not follow

the mental capacity rules right. That what was passed on that day, at

t Appeal Court was not to carry on. They have more or less gone back to

what it was. The laws were changed back, I wanted it t Doctors now have

got to take a different approach towards patience and stop and think

a bit more about the mental capacity act. Thank you very much for joining

us. You feel unwell, you go to the doctor, she prescribes you a

medicine. How do you know it works? You take her judgment. How does she

know it works? She takes the judgment of the regulator and the

regulator examples the evidence of the people who make the drugs who

stand to make a lot of money if the drug is deemed safe and effective.

If what if the struck company hadn't isclosed all its evidence, only that

which was commercially useful. There is nothing new about clinical

trials, in medicine we use the simple but vital experiments to find

out which treatment works best. A few hundred patients are recruited,

half get one treatment and the other half the other, and we measure how

they are doing. There is a problem, I'm standing in the laboratories of

the Royal Institution, an organisation that stands for the

fusion of knowledge, that is the issue. We know after trials are

conducted and completed the results are routinely being withheld from

doctors, researchers and patients. The very people who need the vital

information to Inform decisions made about them. Paper in the British

Medical Journal follows up one of the largest information

Many an industry have claimed this is all in the past, is this true?

No, I feel the biased underreporting of clinical trials hasn't been fixed

yet. I have been concerned about it for 25 years now. I first met a

delegation from the association of the British pharmaceutical industry

about 20 years ago, there were some very encouraging progressions soon

after that, it all went pear-shaped a few years after that. We are back

to a situation now where we have promises as we had in the 1990,

which haven't been followed through. This delay carries a real human

cost, because while industry, researchers and regulators have

failed to fix this problem over the past few decades, information is

going missing every year. It is common to be told today that trial

results from even ten years ago are impossible to find. From dry

document storage archives like these. It is not just about doctors

being misled. I'm also really concerned about patients who take

part in clinical trials. They are volunteering to take part in medical

research, on the assumption of further knowledge. Those trials have

been suppressed in effect those patients' trust has been abused.

While many an industry and research are dragging their feet, some at

least are beginning to take action. We can't change things across the

board but we think it is the right thing to do with the company. We

recognise the issue around transparency. We beef it is right to

make this data available. It recognises what is needed in

science. It also recognises the great contib Bruges for clinical

trials -- contributions for clinical trials. We like to think this is a

highly scientific affair with laboratories and test-tubes, that is

true when it comes to making a real molecule. The real proof of which

treatment works best comes from trials in the real world on real

patients like you and me. When a water to half of all the clinical

trials are withheld from doctors, researchers and patients. People

like me are practising medicine with one arm tied behind our backs.

My guest is with me, set up the old trials campaign. And the chief

executive of the British pharmaceutical industry.

-- the Association for The British pharmaceutical industry.

Maybe some of our viewers are being prescribed drugs, and the testing

results of those drugs haven't been published? It is possible but

unlikely. The regulator sees all the data. The regulator will look at

quality, safety and efficacy. It is not acceptable that it is possible

that there are people taking drugs, the results of which we may not all

know? The regulator will know that information. The debate is focussing

on how to make that information more broadly available. That is what the

campaign that Ben has been running has been about. You are happy that

the regulator has the capacity to example all the say veilable data?

They axe -- the available data? They take the available data and look at

it. I think it is false reassurance, if we look at medicines spotted over

the course of the years. Problems with Viox, and the diabetes drug,

and Tamiflu. Th weren't spotted by regulator, not because they are

stupid and poorly motivated. They are highly trained and educated.

Like all problems in science we need to make as many people as possible

looks at the evidence. We have to let them all see all of the

evidence. Regulators have a low bar, they decide if a drug works or

doesn't. Doctors and researchers have to make a decision about which

is the best treatments. So the argument is don't just rely on the

regulator but make it available to the scientific community for

assessment ctive. What is wrong with making everything available to

everybody? Absolutely nothing wrong. We support greater clarify. Why not

doing it? Since 2005 the industry made a global commitment to release

data. In the UK the governing body for the industry in the UK, amended

its Code of Practise, backed by law and the MRRA, to release all details

on criminal trials. The nature of the data will be disclosed and we

will work with people to make sure it is what we need. It STICHLly

isn't happening, we have been hearing these promises for 20 years.

It is extraordinarily dangerous to allow a situation to persist where

doctors, patience and researchers are mislead about the risks and

benefits of treatments. We have set up a campaign supported by the great

and good of medicine. GSK, one of the biggest drug companies in the

world -- companies in the world have signed up. And companies have said

we will not engage with campaigns like the old trials campaigns. We

have 200 patient groups representing 30 million patients, you say won't

even engage with our concerns. That is not completely true, we have

engaged and will continue to do so. Our medical and research departments

have meetings scheduled to discuss this very issue. We will and do

engage. We are committed to greater transparency. We support a lot of

the objectives that you are working on. Since 2005 we have had the

global commitment. We have research coming out next week that has been

peer reviewed and published that will show 90% of data is now

publicly available the year after license. That is the second time you

have used the terms "after license". There must be drugs that aren't

licensed? We have scientists, patients, the healthcare system and

advocates and people like beep have a legitimate claim to say if a trial

doesn't produce a result or license that information is just as valid.

It is. There is commercial self-interest, western drug

companies have done a pretty good job in tackling many very serious

human conditions. I'm no crazed campaigner, I have stood up to for

medicine for many years. We can't say it is OK for drug companies to

make money while withholding the benefits of anything else. There is

no legislation to prevent them from do. That the pharmaceutical industry

have been campaigning hard against us. In Europe the new legislation

around clinical trials in Europe is being blocked by industry lobbyists

who are trying to stop a clause being put in and results posted

within a year. Clinical study notes were made available by the European

group. They have some. That has stopped because two drug companies,

have been able to get an interim ruling from the central court of the

European Union, they have done that with the full support of the

European pharmaceutical's association and members of API.

These companies operated individually and will operate that

way to protect interests. You were opposed to that? We need to look at

what happened with the two companies. It was about commercial

requests for information, not scientific quests for information. A

lot of the information that comes into the regulator is competitive.

We have been prevented from getting access to information. We are

committed to greater transparency. Same thing for 20 years. Just before

we got on air the electronic musician and singer songwriter,

James Blake, was announced the winner of the Mercury Music Prize.

Stef Smith has not seen a bow business party where he couldn't

refuse a drink. Congratulations, you have seen off David Bowie and the

Artic Monkeys, how does that feel? It is not the words I would use.

Bested? Within pleased to share the stage with. Not Bowie, he was on

stage in a video. He was there in spirit. Sadly not all of our

Newsnight viewers will have downloaded Overgrown yet. What can

they expect? Don't let this bauble sway you. Just I hope that it takes

you to a place that is positive for you. I don't know? What is your

record like, is it a howl of pain about England and the planet today

or is it more ambient chillax, give us a flavour? That is progressive

for Newsnight "chillax. That is very progressive,ing? Anything beyond

skiffle is. What sort of things can we expect here? It is a singular

thought that runs through the album. I think I'm a common denominator

there, all the way through, it is my voice and my productions and I, for

the most part did it all myself. There is a couple of featured

things. I did it all in my room. How important is this for you. We keep

hearing that the music industry is in trouble. This is your second

album. Tell us about that? I don't think the music industry is in

trouble. People have found a new way to consume music, it is still my

responsibility to make good music. Regardless of how you consume T OK,

will you consider coming on and playing some of it for us, maybe one

of the catchier numbers? numbers? Ly very experimental for your

chillaxing audience. We will clear 20 minutes. Thank you very much.

That's the way to deal with Steve Smith, a man from North Devon is

waiting to hear officially whether he has just surfed the world's

biggest wave. It wasn't by chance, it wouldn't be if you wanted to live

to tell the tale. Andrew Cotton was in Portugal with various other

surfers waiting to see if the storm that hit Europe this week would blow

him any good. Waves that were 80 feet high that would drive the rest

of us out of the water drew them. He's in Lisbon now. What was it like

riding an enormous wave like that? Well it was one of those sort of, I

have been or training for this day you know since I can remember well

really. It was a long, long bumpy drop, going really fast. But at the

same time everything was sort of in slow motion really. Just

concentrating of where I wanted to be on the wave. Obviously not

falling off! And sort of completing the ride. How fast are you going

when you are riding a wave like that? That is a good question. I

don't actually know. For me that was the fastest I have been on a surf

board. We use really short really heavy surf board, which isn't like

the standard surf board that you would ride at home in Devon. But you

know, at a guess 20 miles an hour, but that is throwing numbers out

there really. Are you scared when you are riding a wave like that?

Obviously yeah, fear definitely comes into. But the second, you have

to put the fear Include File Not Found -- you have to put the fear in

its place. You can't be scared, you have to be focussed on the job in

hand. So I am scared, but not when I'm actually surfing, it is a before

and after thing. And when I'm actually surfing I put the fear in

its place. On one of your rides you fell off. Yeah. I had a fall. That

is nothing new, you knew what was going to happen. I'm lucky to work

with experienced water guys and we have a really good safety team in

practice. It is not like we just go and surf at a local beach. It is a

big team that surround us doing these sort of surfing of these

waves. If you come off in a wave like that, it must be like falling

into an enormous washing machine or something, do you know which way up

you are. You could be down for ages couldn't you? Yeah, yeah, there is a

massive impact. You get shaken and yeah, I suppose you don't know which

way is up or down. On this particular wave I got taken really

deep, my eardrums burst a little bit. It is years and years of

training and sort of commitment to what I do. It is not like it is the

first big wave I have ever surfed. I know how to deal with those

situations you relax and go with the flow. And you come up. You are a

plumber by trade aren't you? Yeah I am. What will it be like to

returning to unblocking drains? I can't wait! Thank yous very much and

many congratulations, cheers. That is that. If you have ever suffered

one of those dreams in which you walk into a crowded office and

discover your naked, what you are about to see may strike a chored, it

is not new but bears watching again. The moment when the brilliant

pianist sat down to play a Mozart piano concerto the orchestra was

starting up on something completely different.

She made a startling recovery. You do it so well. Make sure you do

it.