30/10/2013 Newsnight


News stories with Jeremy Paxman. Including the phone hacking trial, whether teachers at free schools should be qualified, and the surfer who rode possibly the world's biggest wave.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/10/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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




The phone hacking trial, whether teachers at free schools should be qualified, plus, the Mercury Music Prize winner and the surfer who rode possibly the world's biggest wave.

Download Subtitles