11/12/2013 Newsnight

There are too many schools in England where behaviour is bad and

disruptive. Learning is hampered by teachers who can't keep control, the

Chief Inspector thinks it is time to act. If they are persistently

incompetent, and from school to school to school, yes they should

and be deregistered. How the cost of energy is affecting almost the way

everyone lives. The heating is on for a very short amount of time, we

have extra bedding, we go to bed wearing quite a lot of cloths,

almost as if you are going out for the evening. We talk to the couple

who have Scientology declared a religion. There is Diane from Carson

City. She's my aunt! And the Anchorman's weatherman. Tonight on

Newsnight there will be an awful lot of me, probably too much! First the

good news, schooling in England is getting better. Now the bad, there

are too many children of poorer white families failing to reach

their potential, and there are still far too many classrooms which are

disrupted by low-level bad behaviour. Sir Michael Wilshaw,

Ofsted's Chief Inspector of Schools is planning to launch unannounced

inspections where it seems to be a real problem. He also wants the

Government to reinstate national tests for 7-14-year-olds, cue

predictable outrage from teaching trade unions. For years this school

was failing, now a new headteacher is starting to turn it round. Tag

rugby is just one of the ways children at Dover road Primary

School in Gravesend learn team work and self-discipline. Key to better

behaviour in the class and around the school. The school council were

keen to tell me how buggying used -- bullying used to be rife, how

classes were often disrupted and how it has changed now. I used to get

bullied in class and they used to call me names. Now we have new

teachers they have separated me from the people who call me names. The

teachers understand you if you are upset, you get work done quicker

because they make you happier. In the past when the teachers explained

we still didn't understand and then we never would understand. The new

teachers make it clear. I would wake up and tell my mum an excuse I'm

feeling ill, I don't want to go to school, but now I'm up early and do

all my work and really enjoy it. I'm smarter because of the teachers. And

sometimes like, when I have been doing literacy I have made lots of

mistakes on my handwriting and words, now I'm on to pen and I know

most of the words. It was the local authority, Kent, who sent Catherine

Ward to this school to assess it in January. She ended up staying as the

school's head when Dover road became a sponsored academy last month. .

The number one thing that made the difference for me is, it was an is

the children. The children are delightful, they want to learn, they

are eager to come to school and they were desperate for good learning.

And so that was the fundamental thing and I thought right, that's

what gets me out of bed every day. Ready and enrol, show me your

character again, stop. Most of these pupils are from white British

backgrounds, a high proportion are eligible for free school meals, the

very group Ofsted said today are underachieving in English schools.

The new head has brought in many new teachers and a new culture. For my

first few weeks around the school I noticed there was a lack of respect

for children with each other, a lack of respect for children with some

adults. Different groups of adults as well. And that the manners, the

fundamental manners weren't there for the children. I started

basically saying we are not going to do this more, and we took it back to

the basic manners of how we behave, to 0 please, thank you, opening

doors for each other, taking turns, not jumping the queue, being

responsible for each other, just a fundamental basic good manners. We

only spoke to handful of parents, one was happy with the new

discipline? Just this morning, tucking his shirt into his trousers,

two or three weeks ago he wouldn't have been doing that, he wouldn't

have cared. Now he's coming into school making sure he as smart and

tidy and saying please and thank you. It's just brilliant. Others

said their children were learning more and the school's reputation is

improving? He's gone up a whole level in the last six months. And he

was working at the same level for three years. I think positivity has

really grown within the school and the school's name is changing. The

changes here at Dover Road are what Sir Michael Wilshaw said today he

would like to see across the country, the teaching has improved,

the children's behaviour is much better and they are learning much,

much more. This has to happen everywhere, according to Ofsted, if

we are to compete with the rest of the world. The school is sponsored

by an academy group set up by heads. In the last 12 months, thanks to the

Department of Education, they have quietly taken over more than 20

schools right across the country. We are about cautious growth. The

question is can we help the school, do we understand the challenges it

face, do we have the expertise and capacity in order for us to do. That

the answer for us is we will grow as long as we keep doing the good work

we keep doing it. On a brief visit to this school we found no

opposition to the change in status. Elsewhere parents have fought and

are fighting campaigns to stop their schools becoming sponsored

academies. They worry the schools won't be accountable to the local

community and they want to know more about the groups who are now running

them. Earlier I went to the Ofsted offices in central London to meet

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw. I

asked him why low standards had been tolerated so long? We need to step

up several gears, if we are going to match the best in the world,

certainly if we are going to match the Asian countries that came top of

the league. We need to accelerate and put our foot down on the

achievement pedal much harder than we have done. That is why in my

report I said a few uncomfortable things. Like we have to stop this

low-level disruption which irritates teachers and makes them think hard

about their jobs. We have something like 1500 teachers from the state

system leaving for the independent sector every year. I suspect if you

talk to them they would say we have gone into the independent sector

because we had enough of this low-level disruption we see in

schools. I have heard teachers and you must have heard teachers say

precisely that, that I just want to work somewhere when you call a class

to order it is quiet. And everyone can get on with their work. I have

heard them say, that you must have heard lots of them say that, why is

it had being tolerated? It is tolerated by poor leadership. I was

a headteacher before joining Ofsted and worked in tough inner city

schools in London. I cracked down hard on poor behaviour. Children go

to school wanting to succeed. It is the environment they go into that

makes the difference. It is the quality of leadership that makes the

difference, it is the quality of teaching they receive and the

culture in the school. And the most important thing in a school is that

leadership. A lot of people don't want to become head teachers aren't

there? We should be optimistic, we have better people coming into the

profession. A lot of them will want to stay there and become head

teachers. It is now a well-paid job in way it wasn't years ago. The

status has gone up. Presumably a lot more should have got rid of? Head

teachers. There are 400,000 teachers in this country, and they are

dismissed from the profession at the rate of 20 a year? I think there is

a story behind that. I think what tends to happen is that head

teachers write nice references for people they want to get rid of,

rather than going through complex difficult Compat Tennessee and dis--

componency and difficult disciplinary procedures, rather than

saying you are not doing well here, I will write you a decent enough

reference and off you go to another school. You have these poor

low-performing teachers, circulating through the system and the old

General Teaching Council did very little about it. So you think they

should be got rid of from the profession all together, rather than

another school to inflict their incompetence? Some of them if they

are persistently incompetent and from school to school to school, yes

they should and they should be deregistered. Do you know how many

there are, roughly? No, when we go into schools and we see a poor or

inadequate lesson and we would mention it to the headteacher. It is

only the headteacher who knows if that teach certificate behaving

poory day after day and month after month and then it is up to the head

teachers to make decisions. Should that system be changed so that

something could be done to weed out bad teachers? Again this is a policy

issue, I know what I would do if I was the Secretary of State. What

would you do? First of all I think it is right to raise the bar and get

good people into the profession, whether they have qualified teacher

status or not. Good people, we need to keep them in there and extend the

probationary period. I think a probationary period of one year is

too short. I think we should have a probationary period of three, four,

five years, and then make a decision whether somebody really is, should

be given qualified teacher status. There are great swathes of this

country where people have very low expectations and there is a culture

of low expectation, households where people don't expect ever to regain

the sort of traditional patterns of work that exists in their

grandparents' days. You really do believe a school can break that

culture of expectation? You can break it I have seen it been broken,

and this pupil premium giving children extra money will give the

money for extension classes in the evening. I made it clear to the

staff in my school that they were surrogate parents for a significant

number of children, and if they wanted to be employed they would

have to work in the evenings and weekends to compensate for the

deficits at home. And that, and they would be paid well for doing that.

And I used the additional funding to enhance their salaries. Melanie

Phillips is a commentator with a long standing interest in education,

Tom Bennett is a secondary school teacher and blogger for the Times

Educational Supplement. Let's take the idea that some how there needs

to be a thinning out of the teaching profession. What do you think about

that? I think as with most professions there is always some bad

eggs because any profession you work in you will find that. What the

problem is I will de-Virgin slightly, it is not that there is so

many bad teachers, it is there is a failure to deal with the issue.

There has been failure for the school system and teacher training

providers to face up to the fact that behaviour was bad. You were

taught how to control a difficult class? No, I was taught very badly,

I'm a prime example, I spent two years at being terrible at

controlling behaviour, I kept my mouth shut to get through my

probation and not get sacked. What do you think? I think in order to

attend to achievement you have to attend to behaviour and it is a

package. It is a problem in the teaching profession, there are

cultural problems in the teaching profession, it is called the soft

bigotry of low expectation. Where white working-class children these

days, it used to be black working-class children written off,

there is a more general problem with the adult world, the adult world has

been terrified of children for many years now. It has decided it has to

make friends of children, and it has to be very casual and informal, we

call them kids. And teachers, I'm sure Tom is an exception, but

teachers very often have trees Deed down, they have been very -- dressed

down, and they have been casual and become like parents, the children's

friends, children don't like that, they want respect. Do you think it

makes a difference what they wear, he should be wearing a tie? It is

the BBC afterall. He has dressed down for the BBC. Children need

respect. One of the things I have often noticed that children who have

come from terrible backgrounds where they have been excluded from school,

they burned down the school and you asked them what was wrong with your

school and they say immediately the teachers didn't treat me with

respect. They didn't expect me to do hard things. They didn't tell me the

rules, they want to be given that kind of set of bound lease, that

makes -- boundaries, that makes them feel accepted. Does that chime with

your experience? I would agree with what you were saying, it was said

that there was a crisis of adult authority in mainly western

authorities. There is definitely a problem there. That has infected the

way in which we have raised our teachers and we have made our

expectations in school sometimes a little bit too low. There are for

instance two schools in every school, there is the school of the

high status professional there for a long time with low timetable, and

there is the supply teacher and occasional teacher and they are two

different schools. You mean the supply teacher and less experienced

teacher finds it hard to control a class? Enormously so. I remember

when there was a report from Dispatches who went in and filmed a

supply teacher and it was appalling. What about what was proposed in the

interview that the probationary period be extended, up to five years

before you can get a permanent job? I do think we need to be a little

bit more stringent with how we pass teachers. Because by the time they

get accepted on to courses there is an enormous pressure on teacher

training providers to pass and certified -- certify them. I don't

think one is ignore the impact of the last few decades, teachers led

up the garden path where teacher training colleges have taught them

unteaching. This small example this idea that a child's self-esteem is

very important, I would personally agree, the idea that in order to

protect the child's self-esteem heaven forbid you give them a

problem they might fail, and you lower the bar all the time. Children

are not stupid and they understand they are treated as more rans and

they -- morans and they behave like that. If you expect they can achieve

more and more they do achieve more and more, it is not rocket science.

The other thing very striking is the way in which we have all seemed to

accept that there will be always a low level of disruption in schools

at some point. You say it is different experience for different

teachers, but it is accepted as a precedent in many schools. Look at

that fantastic school in Gravesend we saw in the report there, that was

really impressive wasn't it. The strategy of it is that just about

any school and any teacher can have great behaviour in in their lessons.

One of the things is many teachers don't know what to do. Often in many

schools there aren't the structures to support teachers who do know what

they are doing. A lot comes down to leadership? Head teachers. It has to

come from them. They need to have leadership from the political class,

the Ofsteds and from the whole sort of culture that supports them in

being proper leaders. I know a lot of teachers who go through teacher

training and have one hour's worth of behaviour management training and

it is so central to great learning. The fact we have learned to ignore

this is absurd. I must say I thought talking to Michael Wilshaw he had

actually had a pretty upbeat picture of many areas of school anything

this country. That it is not all a disaster? According to Ofsted eight

out of ten schools is good or fairly better. It was only recently Ofsted

told us their satisfactory category was unstreet. Frankly --

unsatisfactory, Ofsted have led us up the garden path saying lots of

schools are fine when they are rubbish so I take it with a pinch of

salt. I think Michael Wilshaw talks sense but Ofsted has had a problem

with the framework and the inspectors, it is a political

institution and has to deliver to ministers improvement. It doesn't

necessarily accord with reality. I would rarely qualify any school as

rubbish. There is always variation within every school, pockets of

excellence even with the schools in the most dire circumstances and

situations. I think what Michael Wilshaw is very interesting and

pointing out is that he's going beyond the very averaged out data

that we see from places like Ofsted. Because he as a practitioner

himself, he's wise enough to see that there is a big, big problem,

not necessarily with schools and entire boroughs collapsing, but

certainly there is pockets of problems in just about every school

I would say. Do you find our industry slightly

ludicrous? I think, yes. And I will say that to your face! Now to what

has turned out to be the biggest story in politics this autumn. Every

serious party has had to re-think what it plans to do about the cost

of energy. According to the retiring boss of British Gas it's all a Punch

and Judy show, damaging the poor energy companies. But the reason it

has become such a hot political topic is the cost of keeping warm

has become a matter of anxiety, right across the land, north and

south, poor and those who wouldn't dream of calling themselves rich.

I switched energy companies, cut down my payments on the promise that

the fuel would be cheaper and some how have built up a debt. I'm now

not only paying for what I'm using, but I'm paying for a debt I ran up

last winter. The payments I'm paying now are double. They want them to be

triple. I will be honest with you I'm frightened of putting the

heating on. The amount of heating I would like to keep this house warm

I'm just frightened. My income is ?7200 a year. I spent ?110 a month

on gas and electricity, that nowhere near covers the cost of what I need

to keep warm. The heating is on for a short amount of time every day, we

have extra bedding, we go to bed wearing quite a lot of clothes,

almost as if you are going out for the evening. We haven't really hit

the main winter yet. If it gets much colder I don't know how we go

forward. If you think about you go to a clinic and you have some tests

and they say to you, it's possibly it is cancer, you go, you wait in

fear. And eventually you are diagnosed it is a fairly rare

cancer, cancer of the bone marrow basically. Chemotherapy means that

you are going to change and you will feel the cold like you have never

felt the cold before. And particularly extremities. You can't

quite believe to what extent you need to keep warm. I try to keep

busy because when you are busy you keep warm. But if you sit down in a

cold room after about five or ten minutes you will start to feel very,

very cold. And when it's freezing out there and last winter was

dreadful, if we get the same this winter then I will be cold and cold

a lot. I will deal with it. It is hard to get my head around I will

feel ill, cold and isolated. It is scary time and a sad time for all

the family. I feel for them more than I feel for myself. We are

cutting back on everything, there is no basic activities back on the

running costs. After the children go to bed I don't have the heating on

any more. You get cold? Yes. Do you wish mum would put the heating on a

bit more? Yes. But normally we would have to put a blanket round

ourselves. Do you understand why you can't have the heating on? We just

can't because it is too much money to pay. I do understand they have to

make some profit, because they have to keep our lights and our gas, they

have got to do that we have to have the lights and everything on. I

understand that, but do they need all these vast profits? We all need

fuel. So we don't really have a choice. We can cut it down and

cutback and wear more clothes and we can try whatever tricks we want to

keep warm, but we all essentially need it. Basically they are screwing

us for something we need Cancer comes with a lot of fear, to sit at

home feeling in pain and fear will you butt also freezing cold. I

almost feel guilty I can afford the heat, I have never known a time like

this, I'm 73 years old, I have never known a time when it is so in your

face that how this poverty that how this fuel poverty is affecting

everyone. What is it like to sit there with no food in the house or

heating, and decide whether or not to heat. It must be dreadful. If

they are saying that 31,000 people in this country will die of cold in

the winter, is it right that should happen. We're supposed to be a

wealthy country aren't we? The BBC's latest attempt to restore public

confidence was to announce today that it's reforming its management

structure. The corporation's chairman said that faith in the

nation's biggest cultural institution had been rattled, more

rattlement in the release on-line of a recording of the man who conducted

the investigation into who knew what when in the Jimmy Savile scandal.

The corporation welcomes this as much as you would welcome you

stepped in dog Poe on the way to be made a member of the Order of Merit.

It is a complicated story and one of the few men in England who can

unravel it is with me here. The Pollard inquiry was called to look

into the widespread belief, or suspicion that the Newsnight Savile

investigation, which was canned, might have been stopped because of

overriding corporate interests in the Christmas schedule, the tribute

programmes to Savile, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In fairness

Pollard concluded very clearly that there was no such conspiracy, and I

should say at the outset. Nothing in what I'm going to say should be

taken to mean that conclusion was drawn into question, it hasn't been.

Interestingly there was an awful lot of stuff in the Pollard report about

who knew what when. Mark Thompson, the Director General at the time,

maintained throughout although he was told, there had been an

investigation to Jimmy Savile by Newsnight which was stopped, he was

never told he, he maintained of the nature of it. He was never told it

was about sexual abuse. You are about to hear a tape where Poland,

who did the report, confirms to a journalist last February that he had

received a letter there are Helen Boden, the director of news at the

time, that is her picture there, a letter from her saying that she had

in fact had a conversation with Thomson where she had told him that

the investigation was about sexual abuse. So you will hear him

decribing this to the journalist. Also interesting to listen, it is

clear Pollard, the author of a ?3 million report, a public interest

inquiry is choosing to try to correct the record by speaking to a

journalist off the record. It puts you in a position where Helen Boden

did tell the Pollard inquiry that she told Mark Thompson the nature of

the allegations. I think it puts you in the position where you can't say

in print how you know this, but you are watertight on the fact that is

the case. There is Pollard confirming to the journalist there

was this note from Helen Boden's lawyers, and he goes on to say he

personally greats not having included any reference to this

letter from the lawyers in the final report. It is a slightly awkward

position for me it is something if I had thought about it immediately

before publication and picked up on the significance of it, I think I

would probably have put it in the report. That is slightly

embarrassing, what are the BBC saying? Four trustees today listened

to the tape recordings about five minutes long they listened to. They

conclude and said while the trustee...

They might have thought it would be preferable if Pollard told them the

report was wrong before a journalist. What are the questions

raised for this? For Poland why didn't he include it in the first

place. It doesn't go to the principal underlying conclusion,

nothing suggests a conspiracy. All the events, the conversation between

Boden and Thomson, if such there was, and if what was said what Boden

claims, by Thomson denies, or denies having recollection of it, this all

happened after the Newsnight programme had already been canned.

None of it predated it all happened afterwards, and it doesn't relate to

the underlying thing. There are questions for Pollard, why didn't he

include it. Secondly he still maintains and the BBC still maintain

that Pollard's report is essentially correct, when he said he had no

reason to question Thomson's version of events. Whether Boden is correct

or not, the mere fact of the letter to the lawyers was she told him it

was about sexual abuse, which Thomson still denies, must raise a

doubt about Thomson's version of events. The other question for him

is what is he doing talking to a journalist about it, for the BBC,

this goes on forever. The first article based on the conversation

was published last February, nobody appears to have noticed. The MPs'

letters from rod Wilson Tory MP certainly since August, transcript

sent to the Trust in September, a recording in November. Here we are

mid-December, finally they get round to sorting it out. A another

question that sits there both Thomson and Boden can't be both

right. It is not the main conclusion but it is a question. Has the

journalist to whom Pollard spoke to said anything? We spoke to him

today, and I put it to him that nothing in what he had discovered

whatever else he said, he maintains there are important questions to be

asked still, but he did accept this does not upset Pollard's fundamental

conclusion that there was no corporate conspiracy. That is true

but he still had the ability to ask questions about what the

investigation entailed and who they had spoken to, and he could have

prevented in theory the tribute programmes to stop them going out.

As traditionally the case, bad luck follows bad luck, today is when the

BBC announced the result of its governance review, clarity,

accountability and transparency. If this story shows one thing, it may

just be bad luck or it may be that the leopard has yet to change its

spot It doesn't show transparency, that's for sure. It is three decades

since an English judge ruled that Scientology is not a religion but

dangerous cult. Yet today the highest court in the land ruled it

is a religion and therefore a couple can marry in its called chapel. The

organisation founded by a science fiction writer who is said to have

decided that the way to get seriously rich is to start a

religion and is delighted, as doubtless are his disciples, with

the likes of Tom Cruise and others. For a very new fate, Scientology has

traditional ideas about a relationship. But, at its new London

headquarters the church might have its own chapel, its own ministers,

but it has no wedding license. Scientologists have been fighting to

use this place for marriages for some time. Back in 1970 the Court of

Appeal ruled that Scientology services were not an official act of

worship, because they don't involve a recognised God. That clause has

been used by officials to stop this place, or church, as the

Scientologists would describe it to be used for official wedding

ceremonies. Today that changed, the Supreme Court ruled that Louis

Hodkin can matter year her Scientologist boyfriend in that

chapel. Bringing the law in England and Wales in line with the law in

Scotland. The couple plan to tie the knot in spring after an extended

engagment. It is similar to most western marriage ceremonies, we have

a congregation, there is an aisle, she will stand in a white dress, and

we just have our own religious service. But again it is quite

normal, you might say, there is still "I dos" and that sort of thing

in it. In terms of walking up the aisle? Absolutely, bridesmaids

everything. Beginning with the question of whether... Giving his

judgment Lord Toulson said the definition of worship as veneration

of a supreme being was out of date and any attempts to stop

Scientologists marrying in a chapel would amount to religious

discrimination. That is good news for the church after a year of bad

publicity, linked to the split of poster boy Tom Cruise and his wife

Katie Holmes. Critics of Scientology have long argued the religion is

nothing more than a cult based on the work of a science fiction

writer. There will be plenty of people, and you know there will be,

look these two people have been completely brainwashed, that anyone

who believes the human race started 75 million years ago when a

spaceship came to earth, these people cannot be treated seriously

and the fact they are allowed to be married undermines the whole idea of

marriage. What is your reaction to those people? I personally don't

believe that the human race was started when a spaceship came 75

million years ago. That is not Scientologiy teaching? It is not, we

believe man is spirit, that is the simplicity, the soul in most

religions we consider that to be you. I believe I am myself as

spirit, that is actually the essence of Scientology. The church says it

now has 8,600 missions in 165 different countries, with 13 centres

in the UK, including its headquarters in East Grinstead. The

last census shows only 2,418 people identified themselves as

Scientologists in England and Wales. Scientologists are treated

differently in different countries, in America fairly recently it got

tax exempt status, so it is treated as a religion and doesn't pay taxes.

In France and Germany it is different. In German if you are a

Scientologist you can't work for either the state Government or local

Government. You can't even about be a school teacher. In Britain the

Supreme Court's decision today, I think it is still up in the air what

the reprecussions of this will be. How will it affect tax, rates and

all sorts of things, will the Charity Commission make a different

decision about how Scientologists will be treated. I mean this case

was about us getting married, hi to get the church's support, they have

helped us, by west is fantastic, but it is always about the fact we

wanted to get married in our church. You have been backed by the church

through the whole process? How much have they been telling you what to

do how to proceed? It hasn't been the church. Our lawyers, they have

been the ones proceeding with all the legal stuff. You have got some

high-powered lawyers, how are they being paid for? Well, the church is

supporting us in our case. Financially? By paying for your

lawyers? Yeah. And by paying for quite expensive PR people to bring

you in here today? We wanted help because obviously when we got the PR

man came out of the High Court we didn't know what to do, we are just

normal people. Ministers are now worried the ruling will open the

door to greater recognition of Scientology, with talk of the

organisation being able to clawback millions in tax breaks, this might

just be one wedding, but the significance could be far greater

than that. We asked the representative of the Church of

Scientology to join us to discuss today's court ruling but nobody was

available. I am joined from Denver by Mark Headily, who came involved

in the Church of Scientology when he was seven years old. He spent 15

years working at the headquarters in California before turning away from

the organisation and campaigning publicly against it. When you were

in the Scientologists, did you consider it a religion? It is funny

you ask that. In 1953 L Ron Hubbard wrote in a book he did he wrote that

Scientology is not a psychotherapy nor a religion. Throughout the years

that I worked there, I worked there for 15 years at the international

headquarters, it was always a public relations campaign to represent

Scientology as a religion, so that there would be, they could play the

persecution card or they could get a break on the taxes and even L Ron

Hubbard himself in 1962, he wrote "it is entirely a matter for

accountants and solicitors" with regards to them being called a

religion as opposed to a business or clinic. When you were a

Scientologist did you consider it to be a religious experience or a way

of belief? No, for my experience in not only being a member of

Scientology when I was a child to then becoming a member of the elite

organisation called the Corg, which ran Scientology nationally, it

really comes off as a business, it is a money-making business. Even the

headquarters they are referred to as organisations, we never referred to

them as churches I think you have alluded to this already, why is it

that the Scientologists themselves want to have their, whatever it is,

beliefs system, their organisation considered as a religion I think it

is so they can get around the laws or taxes that a normal business has

to adhere to. As soon as you play the religion card you are not paying

taxes or following the same rules as other organisations, you are

basically getting privileges and getting benefits that any other

money-making operation would not get. What's the money for? Well

that's a really good question, I know when I was there in the early

2000s, they built a multimillion dollar mansion for L Ron Hubbard for

him to live in when he returned from wherever he went to have in 1986

when he passed away. They spent tens of millions of dollars on a new

building and new living quarters for the leader, the current leader of

the Scientology movement. He does spent a lot of money on motorcycles

and motor homes and luxury limousines for himself. I'm not sure

besides lavish new buildings that are sitting empty around the world.

I'm not sure what they would be spending the money on besides you

know personal things. Can I ask you very briefly one question, what did

you think when you were a Scientologist, what did you think

would happen to you when you died? Well, they tell you that when you

die you come back again and even for the C-organisation members, we had

to sign one billion-year contracts so that when we died in this

lifetime we would still be on the hook to come back and work for them

the nice lifetime, so that's actually what they commonly believe,

that they will come back again. Thank you. Do you believe what you

see on the news? In Britain television news presenters rightly

take their place at tables somewhere well below the salt. In the United

States they are somewhere between George Washington and Francis of

Assisi, the anchorman's world of hair spray and platitude is ripe for

parody, and few have done it better than Ron Burgandy and his team of

anchormen, among them Steve Carrell. They have been talking to him.

Linda, I want to introduce you to Ron Burgandy. Hello Mr Burgandy. Oh,

black, you're black. I'm terribly sorry I don't know why I can't stop

saying... Black. Is this for real Freddie. Linda I'm sorry. So you

have a black boss, and is it freaking you out. Are you freaked

out? A little bit, to be honest. She has a knife. I think you scared him,

you can't shout at him. Anchormen have provided a rich seam of work

for you, why is that? I don't know why, the first news-related thing

was a show I did in the states called The Daily Show, a mock news

show, and I played a mock reporter, it was essentially a die, a roving

reporter that would go out and do these stories that were found by our

research department. And I had no experience as a journalist and

certainly no right to be doing what I was doing. And none of us did. We

were actors and impro-advisers, we were completely -- improvisers, we

were completely out of our debt, and we would go out and pretend to be

legitimate news people and pull the wool over people's eyes. Do you find

our industry slightly ludicrous? I think, yes, and I will say that to

your face. I think there is a lot of fodder for comedy, I will put it

that way. I think that it can be absurd at times. It is a necessity,

and it is something that people, news is something that people need.

But I think what, specifically in Anchorman 2, the way the news is

depicted it is the advent of 24-hour news, there is a lot of time to

fill, and there is a lot of inconsequential news. There is a lot

of news that is there only to gain ratings. It sort of pokes fun at

that aspect of the news. That it is more corporate controlled. And less

about actual newsgathering and more about earning the, you know, the

ratings priz You are saying corporate-controlled, we are

avoiding the word "Murdoch" I didn't say anything! A stab in the dark

here, does it feel like a Fox satire? You know I think the, I

can't speak for Adam and Will who wrote the script and the template

for certain people in the movie are. I'm sure he was one of the

inspirations for the corporate head of this conglomerate that runs this

new 24-hour news station. With an Australian sound? It is an homage,

nothing more. It is certainly not to take anybody down. Does anybody else

speak Australian. Can you I get you to say with me "how bloody are you"!

The movie isn't a really harsh indictment of news, but but I think

it makes some valid and intelligent points about how news has changed

over the years. I want to talk about your character, Brick a -- brick, a

bit. He's not quite there. Did you feel uncomfortable at all about

getting laughs there are someone who is, the old fashioned word is

"retarreded"? I never thought of him that way I thought of him as ernest

and childlike. One of the things I like about the group and the four

characters together is there is a real affection between them. There

is a real support and there is, you know, they look at Brick as a

brother and they are there to help and support him as opposed to say

anything or make him feel awkward. Brick is liability when it comes to

going on air? They are all liabilities, they are all buffoons,

that is the other thing. They are all idiots. And so Brick is just

sort of the most niave of the bunch. Thank you so much. Time for us to go

now, it emerged today that parts of yesterday's memorial event for

Nelson Mandela weren't quite what they seemed. Baffled deaf people

there are Canada to China are still trying to work out what the supposed

sign language interpreter was saying, the organisers are trying to

work out who on earth he was. Because whatever he was doing with

his arms, according to people who know it, it wasn't sign language. We

had no idea either, so we guessed. Good night.