:00:07. > :00:10.Good evening. The most-high-profile case in which
:00:11. > :00:15.so-called Twitter trolls are brought to justice results in two guilty
:00:16. > :00:18.pleas and the prospect of prison. One of them, tracked down by this
:00:19. > :00:22.programme, threatened to rape his victim merely because she tried to
:00:23. > :00:27.get a banknote redesigned. She's here to tell us about her
:00:28. > :00:31.experience. Can the government get business to
:00:32. > :00:38.swallow an increase in the minimum wage? It may look like they are
:00:39. > :00:44.making crystal meth here but I promise you it is beer. They paid a
:00:45. > :00:50.living wage. Why would you if you did not have to? I was very scared
:00:51. > :00:53.that one day I would wake up from being strangled.
:00:54. > :01:01.Is there any knowing why domestic violence occurs? I put my hands
:01:02. > :01:09.around my partner's throat, trying to get answers out of her. That she
:01:10. > :01:17.was cheating on you? Yes. I squeezed and I squeezed.
:01:18. > :01:23.Jane Austen meets vicious Twitter Troll. As combinations go they don't
:01:24. > :01:26.come much more unexpected. But when two young people pleaded guilty
:01:27. > :01:30.today to sending offensive messages to a woman whose only offence was to
:01:31. > :01:34.seek to have a woman's face on a British banknote, it lifted the lid
:01:35. > :01:40.on a poisonous world of anonymous cyber-bullying which causes real
:01:41. > :01:44.distress. The victim of that abuse is here and we'll be talking
:01:45. > :01:51.together shortly. But first Zoe Conway reports. Her report contains
:01:52. > :01:57.strong language. For more than a week last summer,
:01:58. > :02:02.Twitter was engulfed in hate. Threats of death, rape and graphic
:02:03. > :02:07.abuse was sent from more than 80 Twitter accounts to the campaign
:02:08. > :02:10.Caroline Criado-Perez and the Labour MP Stella Creasy. It began when the
:02:11. > :02:15.two women successfully campaigned for a woman to be represented on a
:02:16. > :02:19.banknote. Caroline Criado-Perez said the tweets had a lasting
:02:20. > :02:25.psychological effect on her. Stella Creasy has said she was left fearing
:02:26. > :02:28.for her safety. This is 23-year-old Isabella Sorley from Newcastle. She
:02:29. > :02:35.is responsible for sending some of those tweets. Today, she pleaded
:02:36. > :02:38.guilty to the charge of sending menacing messages. The court was
:02:39. > :02:42.told about tweets she sent using several accounts on the 30th of
:02:43. > :03:10.July. The most abusive were sent in the early hours of the morning.
:03:11. > :03:17.Hiding under his food is 25-year-old John Nimmo from South Shields, who
:03:18. > :03:25.also pleaded guilty to the same charge of sending menacing messages.
:03:26. > :03:27.John Nimmo's tweets were directed at Caroline Criado-Perez and Stella
:03:28. > :03:41.Creasy over the course of three days last July. He said:
:03:42. > :03:47.it was an investigation by Newsnight which led to the arrest of John
:03:48. > :03:53.Nimmo who was using a number of Twitter accounts to hide his
:03:54. > :03:57.identity. He was tracked down by a journalist. I found all of these
:03:58. > :04:01.various Twitter account and linked all of them to one individual who
:04:02. > :04:05.was sending abusive tweets using six different accounts. He confirmed to
:04:06. > :04:09.me that he was using these different accounts when I spoke to him
:04:10. > :04:13.privately. He eventually let slip that he had a PlayStation user
:04:14. > :04:17.name. I used that to link to his Facebook account and then we were
:04:18. > :04:23.able to find his real name, John Nimmo of South Shields. The court
:04:24. > :04:27.was given an insight into the character of the two defendants. The
:04:28. > :04:31.prosecution said Isabella Sorley has several previous convictions for
:04:32. > :04:37.being drunk and disorderly. She said she was off her face on Trent at the
:04:38. > :04:41.time of sending the tweets and does not remember sending the offensive
:04:42. > :04:45.messages. John Nimmo's solicitor said he rarely leaves the house,
:04:46. > :04:49.here's a somewhat sad individual, because he has no friends he strives
:04:50. > :04:53.for popularity online and he measures his popularity on the
:04:54. > :05:00.number of really tweets. One of the elements we see with individuals who
:05:01. > :05:05.is engaged with this type of behaviour is they are trying to out
:05:06. > :05:09.do each other and entertain each other in the group. They will go on
:05:10. > :05:13.to other sites and say, this is what I posted, how funny is this? They
:05:14. > :05:17.will build up and compete with each other and be more and more
:05:18. > :05:21.aggressive. With John Nimmo we have the image of a person who was
:05:22. > :05:29.looking for validation and looking for attention. Why did you send
:05:30. > :05:36.those messages? I cannot say anything else. They will be
:05:37. > :05:40.sentenced in a few weeks time. They are already being punished with a
:05:41. > :05:46.series of mocking tweets. And Caroline Criado-Perez joins me
:05:47. > :05:52.now. I understand your lawyer has told you not to discuss some of
:05:53. > :05:58.this. What is it like to receive some of this correspondence? As you
:05:59. > :06:03.said, it is quite difficult because there are still investigation is
:06:04. > :06:07.ongoing. But there are many others which are not being investigated.
:06:08. > :06:12.That is a concern for me. It is a relief that these two have pleaded
:06:13. > :06:16.guilty but it is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many really
:06:17. > :06:20.graphic and violent tweets which were sent to me which are not being
:06:21. > :06:25.investigated. Not just that were sent to me but were sent to other
:06:26. > :06:28.women. They have not seen any justice whatsoever. They have been
:06:29. > :06:32.to the police and have been told to close down their Twitter accounts
:06:33. > :06:35.and not treat things which should insight this type of violence. But I
:06:36. > :06:42.am really glad that we seem to be seeing some type of justice and
:06:43. > :06:47.there is an attempt to take this seriously. Does it surprise you that
:06:48. > :06:53.of the two today that one of them was a woman? Probably sad. There is
:06:54. > :06:58.no secret that some women can be sexist and misogynistic. We are all
:06:59. > :07:02.brought up in the same type of society which has misogyny and sex
:07:03. > :07:06.is running through it would be naive that some women do not pick up on
:07:07. > :07:12.that. It demonstrates that somewhere in interna lies it so much that they
:07:13. > :07:15.are spreading it themselves. What you make of the fact that it was a
:07:16. > :07:21.journalist who discovered the identity of one of these are not the
:07:22. > :07:25.police? I found it incredibly frustrating. It did feel at the time
:07:26. > :07:31.that I was having to do all the investigative work myself, taking
:07:32. > :07:36.screen caps, journalists were getting there before the police. The
:07:37. > :07:40.next person who was found was found so much longer after Newsnight had
:07:41. > :07:44.tracked down someone. Journalists do not have the same recourse of
:07:45. > :07:49.information than the police do, it felt like the police were not
:07:50. > :07:55.trying. What is the lesson that ought to be learned from this
:07:56. > :07:59.experience? Well, quite a few lessons. I think social media
:08:00. > :08:04.companies need to be much more aware of the extent to which their
:08:05. > :08:10.platforms can be used, not just for positive. They really like to sell
:08:11. > :08:15.the positives. What you were using it for was positive? Exactly. It
:08:16. > :08:19.enabled me to change something about society. It enables a lot of women
:08:20. > :08:23.to engage in the political discourse which is why it is so important that
:08:24. > :08:26.we do not allow this to continue. A lot of people are being silenced by
:08:27. > :08:32.this, not daring to speak their mind. Are you suggesting that social
:08:33. > :08:39.media companies censor what people say? No, but they can take it more
:08:40. > :08:42.seriously. They can shut down accounts when they are reported.
:08:43. > :08:53.They can make it easier to report. Also they -- the blocking system on
:08:54. > :08:58.Twitter is completely inadequate. It is not understood how much Twitter
:08:59. > :09:03.can be used to stalk women. They made it easier for women or victims
:09:04. > :09:08.to be stalked online. Have you heard of other cases of women being
:09:09. > :09:12.stalked online? Absolutely. I am not sure I would go as far as calling it
:09:13. > :09:16.an epidemic but it is something which is quite usual. It happens to
:09:17. > :09:21.a lot of women and the worst thing is although I feel my case was not
:09:22. > :09:25.handled well and I feel angry and frustrated about it, I'm incredibly
:09:26. > :09:29.lucky compared to a lot of women who do not see any justice whatsoever.
:09:30. > :09:33.They do not get any media attention so they do not get the police
:09:34. > :09:38.looking into their case. I do not want to sound callous, but when you
:09:39. > :09:43.see that one of the perpetrators of the threats you received is some
:09:44. > :09:49.weird individual who does not go out at all, described by his own counsel
:09:50. > :09:54.as a sad individual who only ever leave the house to empty the bins,
:09:55. > :10:00.you were not actually in any real danger from such a person. But you
:10:01. > :10:02.cannot know that online. All you see are these threatening menacing
:10:03. > :10:09.messages which are telling you in incredible detail what will happen
:10:10. > :10:13.to what part of your body, which will be penetrated, which will be
:10:14. > :10:17.mutilated, when you will be pistol whipped, raped or killed and you
:10:18. > :10:21.just do not know who these people are. One of the tweets I was sent
:10:22. > :10:24.said it could be someone you know and I did not know if it was someone
:10:25. > :10:32.I knew or not. How could I possibly know? So what is to be done? I think
:10:33. > :10:37.we need to look why this is happening. I think it is incredibly
:10:38. > :10:40.important that the police take it more seriously and social media
:10:41. > :10:46.companies are seen some responsibility but we need to look
:10:47. > :10:50.at not just symptoms but causes. It is about priorities. It is about
:10:51. > :10:55.deciding, does this matter? Of course I think it matters because I
:10:56. > :11:01.see it as a freedom of speech issue, freedom of speech for women who are
:11:02. > :11:04.routinely being shutdown and silenced. Mary Beard was only
:11:05. > :11:09.talking about politics and as a result of that she got a similar
:11:10. > :11:12.wave of violent, misogynistic abuse and that is people trying to shut
:11:13. > :11:17.women down and it is not something we should be allowing to happen.
:11:18. > :11:21.Caroline, thank you. Yesterday, they were talking about
:11:22. > :11:25.the need for yet more cuts to public spending. Today, it seems the
:11:26. > :11:28.Conservatives may be planning to raise the minimum wage above the
:11:29. > :11:32.rate of inflation. This, senior figures in the party believe, would
:11:33. > :11:36.be the sort of idea which would transfigure the way the public see
:11:37. > :11:39.the party. It would certainly be unexpected, especially since the
:11:40. > :11:47.party fought to prevent the things be introduced, claiming it would
:11:48. > :11:54.cost jobs. Emily Maitlis has more. I know, I know, it looks like a
:11:55. > :11:58.scene from Breaking Bad, but it is good old-fashioned beer they brew
:11:59. > :12:03.here and they do so happily. Not just because it is beer but because
:12:04. > :12:11.their bosses are recently and in credited living wage employer. --
:12:12. > :12:16.their boss is a recently accredited living wage employer. Fred Mason,
:12:17. > :12:23.who set up this brewery just under a year ago, for him, it was a
:12:24. > :12:28.no-brainer. We hope it will lead to high rates of staff retention, high
:12:29. > :12:33.rates of motivation and for people to be proud of working for our
:12:34. > :12:36.company. Tax breaks for employers offering the living wage is
:12:37. > :12:40.something Labour said it would pledge but the whole question of
:12:41. > :12:44.wage increases seems to be on a roll right now. The CBI suggested over
:12:45. > :12:48.Christmas that companies feeling the benefits of growth should put up
:12:49. > :12:59.their staff's wages and there is a growing sense among some Tories that
:13:00. > :13:04.would not be a bad horse to back. We want to signal the direction of
:13:05. > :13:09.travel. The Prime Minister talks about focusing on the lowest paid.
:13:10. > :13:14.Ironic when you think how hard they used to resist it. The only debate
:13:15. > :13:19.about the national minimum wage is not whether it would put people out
:13:20. > :13:23.of work but how many hundreds of thousands more people would be
:13:24. > :13:27.unemployed wholly unnecessary as a result of this. One image the
:13:28. > :13:34.Conservatives cannot afford is that theirs is a party of the rich, the
:13:35. > :13:37.elite. Recent pushes on welfare reform, immigration, the big
:13:38. > :13:43.questions in Europe have pleased those on the right of the party. A
:13:44. > :13:46.substantial increase to the national minimum wage would send out a
:13:47. > :13:51.totally different message, that people are suffering and they get
:13:52. > :13:57.it. Politically, it is very powerful. Well, yes, OK politically
:13:58. > :14:03.but economically it is highly conjugated to calibrate. It is
:14:04. > :14:07.decided by an independent body. But the Government has the last word.
:14:08. > :14:17.Last August, it advised the Government to increase the minimum
:14:18. > :14:22.wage by 1.9%. The Government took on the recommendation. Some campaigners
:14:23. > :14:29.want to see it at living wage standard. Nationally that would put
:14:30. > :14:34.it at ?7 65. Last autumn it was Vince Cable butt kicked things off.
:14:35. > :14:39.Remember that. The Lib Dems want you to remember they were first on this
:14:40. > :14:43.one. The Conservatives have shamelessly been pinching Lib Dem
:14:44. > :14:48.policies. They are desperate not to look so nasty, the Tories. It does
:14:49. > :14:56.look now as if they are coming on board to increase the minimum wage.
:14:57. > :15:01.Better late than never. Our concern is that if the national minimum wage
:15:02. > :15:05.increases excessively, by more than the market will bear, employers will
:15:06. > :15:11.take on new workers at a lower pace than they would otherwise have done
:15:12. > :15:15.so or may even shed workers. Government sources have told me
:15:16. > :15:19.George Osborne invited leaders in to discuss the issue ahead of the
:15:20. > :15:23.Autumn Statement. They left him unconvinced a rise would work. The
:15:24. > :15:26.Government has not submitted its final evidence but it does no harm
:15:27. > :15:34.to look like they are thinking hard. No risky business but a sense,
:15:35. > :15:38.can I get away with this one? They have not bottled it for ever. With
:15:39. > :15:41.me here to discuss this are the Conservative backbenchers, Robert
:15:42. > :15:47.Halfon and Mark Reckless. What do you reckon? I think you made a huge
:15:48. > :15:54.mistake as a party to oppose the minimum wage. We are supposed to be
:15:55. > :15:57.the party of a hard-working people. Something really symbolic like
:15:58. > :16:02.minimum wage, we need to show we supported and we should increase it
:16:03. > :16:07.as long as it does not hit jobs. It is consistent with the promise you
:16:08. > :16:13.make all the offer you make. If we are to be the party for hard-working
:16:14. > :16:18.people, the workers party, we have to show people we support the
:16:19. > :16:26.minimum wage. It gets people back into work. Would you like to see it
:16:27. > :16:30.introduced? I oppose the introduction. You oppose the
:16:31. > :16:36.introduction of the minimum wage but what about an increase? Ten years
:16:37. > :16:45.ago I would have said no but I am concerned it will cost jobs.
:16:46. > :16:50.Evidence has not born that out. -- because I was concerned it would
:16:51. > :16:56.cost jobs. It will save the taxpayer money. The taxpayer is topping up
:16:57. > :17:00.low wages through tax credits. In the last really difficult economic
:17:01. > :17:05.period, employment has done really well. Over 30 million people in
:17:06. > :17:11.work. Wages have been terribly slow. They have fallen really a lot
:17:12. > :17:14.in real terms. I just wonder if an above inflation increase in minimum
:17:15. > :17:20.wage might actually give the right signal for wages and would be
:17:21. > :17:24.affordable for most employers and would not cost jobs. You are not
:17:25. > :17:30.converted but can see the merit of the argument. Roberts, like me,
:17:31. > :17:37.fought his seat three times before he won. Quite a lot of my
:17:38. > :17:42.constituents would benefit from an above inflation rise. I do not wink
:17:43. > :17:49.there would be a significant worry on employment. George Osborne was
:17:50. > :17:53.saying yesterday there has to be another 25 billion cut from public
:17:54. > :17:57.spending. The minimum wage will encourage people back into work. We
:17:58. > :18:01.must be careful to raise it to a level that does not hit jobs. You
:18:02. > :18:06.actually can raise it through other means, through raising the threshold
:18:07. > :18:10.in which people pay national insurance tax, for example,
:18:11. > :18:16.continuing to raise the threshold at which people pay income tax. You can
:18:17. > :18:21.reach a minimum wage and a living wage by reforming the tax system. It
:18:22. > :18:26.will get people off benefits. Above all, it will show the public that we
:18:27. > :18:30.really are on the side of hard-working people. If we are to
:18:31. > :18:35.say that and have that as our slogan, we have to really mean it.
:18:36. > :18:41.You have to find something that will slightly and EU to the public by
:18:42. > :18:45.comparison with your present stance. It is not so much the political
:18:46. > :18:50.positioning. I worked as an economist and have thought about it
:18:51. > :18:58.a lot. Evidence has changed. Companies have quite a lot of money
:18:59. > :19:03.stacked away. Wages have fallen, perhaps 10%, compared with where
:19:04. > :19:08.they were in real terms. Above inflation increases in the minimum
:19:09. > :19:11.wage would not cause the rise in unemployment that was feared. It may
:19:12. > :19:16.give the right sort of signal, both in terms of what we want to seek in
:19:17. > :19:19.helping people at the bottom end but also in the economy, in terms of
:19:20. > :19:24.getting money into consumers pockets and getting the economy moving
:19:25. > :19:32.further. You sound as if you are just about persuaded. I spoke about
:19:33. > :19:34.this a few months ago with the Chancellor. I left that meeting
:19:35. > :19:40.telling him I thought he should go for it. I think he has been quite
:19:41. > :19:44.surprised at the extent to which there is not opposition. I think
:19:45. > :19:48.opinion has shifted within the Conservative party. We followed the
:19:49. > :19:52.evidence. We have been helping people at the lower end of the
:19:53. > :19:57.labour market. This would be another way of doing it. I no longer have
:19:58. > :20:03.the fears in terms of employment that I used to. That is why the
:20:04. > :20:07.Conservatives were worried about it in the past. I have anxieties. On
:20:08. > :20:12.balance I think it is the right thing to do. I think politicians
:20:13. > :20:17.should decide. You should not send it to quangos like the low pay
:20:18. > :20:23.commission. You need to think, is it economic lead and politically the
:20:24. > :20:28.right thing to do? The low pay commission, when the minimum wage
:20:29. > :20:34.was operated, said it could not be operated any more because of the
:20:35. > :20:37.fragility of the economy. I think the time has come to increase the
:20:38. > :20:41.minimum wage in terms of inflation to reflect the changes that have
:20:42. > :20:45.happened in the past few years. The minimum wage has risen at very tiny
:20:46. > :20:50.levels in the past couple of years or so. It is not just about the
:20:51. > :20:55.minimum wage. I want to achieve a living wage. Achieve that by
:20:56. > :21:00.reforming the tax system. We need to get more people out of tax. There
:21:01. > :21:06.are still 5 million people in our country who will earn less than
:21:07. > :21:10.?10,000 a year who work part-time. They are not affected by income tax
:21:11. > :21:16.changes which have been very beneficial. We need to reform
:21:17. > :21:22.national insurance. We need to get people out of tax. At that time, we
:21:23. > :21:27.will get people towards a living wage. You are more or less
:21:28. > :21:31.converted, aren't you? I do not think it is an idea to be pressuring
:21:32. > :21:38.companies or public sector employees. A lot of people cannot
:21:39. > :21:44.afford it. We do not pay the living wage will stop some other councils
:21:45. > :21:47.do. The job of the council is to deliver services as efficiently and
:21:48. > :21:52.effectively as it can and not pay public workers more than it needs to
:21:53. > :21:55.get them to do the job. If you are doing it across the board at a
:21:56. > :22:00.national level and you have a national minimum wage which is not
:22:01. > :22:08.causing problems, I do think it is an issue we should look at. Robin
:22:09. > :22:11.has made a very strong case. If we said we opposed the minimum wage and
:22:12. > :22:21.now we support it, we do not want to be on the wrong side of the
:22:22. > :22:25.argument. Twelfth Night is gone, and with it the season of goodwill. It's
:22:26. > :22:28.a melancholy fact that Christmas and New Year is also the high point for
:22:29. > :22:32.domestic disharmony and, in an alarming number of cases, domestic
:22:33. > :22:35.violence. The full extent of this horror isn't known, although a
:22:36. > :22:38.figure of over a million women is often given as an indication of the
:22:39. > :22:41.scale. Many women have difficulty persuading the police to take them
:22:42. > :22:51.seriously but sometimes the abusers do opt for treatment. I am quite a
:22:52. > :22:56.bit bigger than my wife so it was very easy to intimidate her with my
:22:57. > :23:11.size. I would start using that as a controlling measure.
:23:12. > :23:19.It turned physical one afternoon. My wife was not listening to what I was
:23:20. > :23:25.saying, or I did not believe she was understanding what I was saying. In
:23:26. > :23:31.my mind, she was not being very clever or very alert to what I
:23:32. > :23:41.wanted to do. So, I lashed out. I punched her in the stomach will stop
:23:42. > :23:43.this was about eight weeks after the birth of my son said this was very
:23:44. > :24:01.painful. He was lovely. We went to the beach
:24:02. > :24:08.and did normal couple things like hung out. Just had tea together,
:24:09. > :24:15.watched TV, had a laugh, and sort of just a normal relationship to begin
:24:16. > :24:18.with really. Things went from an argumentative situation to
:24:19. > :24:28.physically abusive within the space of weeks. I cannot think of a form
:24:29. > :24:33.of violence I did not display. Nearly every part of my body he
:24:34. > :24:39.would hit. After a while, he would do it where people could not see. It
:24:40. > :24:49.got to the point where I'd put my hands and ran my partner 's throat,
:24:50. > :24:55.trying to get answers out of her... That she was cheating on you? And I
:24:56. > :25:04.squeezed and squeezed and just could not let go. My partner lost all
:25:05. > :25:10.consciousness. She felt out of my hands, onto the floor. Were you
:25:11. > :25:17.worried that he was going to kill you? Yes. I was very scared that one
:25:18. > :25:28.day I would not wake up from being strangled, I would not be there no
:25:29. > :25:32.more. It was very... Sorry. My wife made it clear that if I did not go
:25:33. > :25:36.on the course, it would be all over. That is where I learned that
:25:37. > :25:41.some of my passive aggressive behaviours were abused. Before I
:25:42. > :25:44.started the course, just physical violence was abused and not the
:25:45. > :25:52.control that I had been carrying out for the past number of years. My
:25:53. > :25:57.wife recently left the phone on the side and it got damaged. Whereas a
:25:58. > :26:02.number of years ago, that would have been an exact opportunity for me to
:26:03. > :26:10.be passive aggressive and bully her and belittle her, I could basically
:26:11. > :26:15.just shrug my shoulders and go, oh well, we will get a new one. I quite
:26:16. > :26:21.enjoyed watching Hollyoaks when the children had gone to bed. They were
:26:22. > :26:26.doing a storyline on domestic abuse and I was watching it. I was like,
:26:27. > :26:31.that is me. I need to sort of get out of this. It was getting worse
:26:32. > :26:37.and worse to the point where she was going to get seriously hurt. I
:26:38. > :26:44.thought, no, I have had enough. I am not doing it any more. I went
:26:45. > :26:50.upstairs and called the police. I admitted to arguing with my partner
:26:51. > :26:57.but any physical damage to herself, to the property, I flipped. I made
:26:58. > :27:06.it her fault. I accused her of hitting herself. They phoned up and
:27:07. > :27:13.said we had dropped the case again. I was like, OK. Did you want that
:27:14. > :27:17.case to be dropped? No. I did not want it to be dropped. I wanted him
:27:18. > :27:26.to be punished for what he had done to me. I had given up on everything.
:27:27. > :27:31.I very rapidly went downhill. I got suicidal. I took an overdose. I did
:27:32. > :27:41.not know where to go will stop I engaged myself on the course. I
:27:42. > :27:45.asked for a self referral. He is completely changed. He can actually
:27:46. > :27:50.hold his temper for an awful lot longer and he is able to recognise
:27:51. > :27:56.when he gets to the point where he will explode. He will lead and take
:27:57. > :28:09.a time out. Do you think you are killed? No. My belief is, I am still
:28:10. > :28:15.exactly the same person. I still have the ability to get that angry,
:28:16. > :28:22.be that aggressive, but I have the tools and I have the management
:28:23. > :28:28.techniques to control my anger and do something more positive with it.
:28:29. > :28:32.I would not say he will never do it again but as long as we recognise it
:28:33. > :28:37.and work at it and put the things in place and recognise the signs, we
:28:38. > :28:46.can get through it without it getting to that point. Why should
:28:47. > :28:54.she believe you now? It is a question of trust. I do not expect
:28:55. > :29:01.anyone to believe me, ever. I have diminished the trust that level. It
:29:02. > :29:07.is people 's own decisions whether they will trust me or not.
:29:08. > :29:15.The names were changed in that report to keep the contributors
:29:16. > :29:24.anonymous. Are these programmes the way forward? We are joined by Colin
:29:25. > :29:29.Fitzgerald, of Respect, the organisation which runs these
:29:30. > :29:34.courses and by Polly Neate from Women's Aid. What happens on these
:29:35. > :29:39.courses? The men come on the programme. They have to provide
:29:40. > :29:43.their partner's details so they get support at the same time. They are
:29:44. > :29:47.asked to look at their behaviour and are held accountable for their
:29:48. > :29:52.behaviour and asked to take responsibility for it. Can you clear
:29:53. > :30:01.anyone who comes on to the cause? I think you are is too strong a word.
:30:02. > :30:06.The course is about increasing the safety of victims and children. You
:30:07. > :30:14.are presumably pleased these courses exist? Definitely. What is important
:30:15. > :30:18.is they are part of a response to domestic violence. We need to
:30:19. > :30:22.remember that at this time in the UK, we have a lot of in adequacy is
:30:23. > :30:25.in the police and the criminal justice response to domestic
:30:26. > :30:30.violence and we have situations where services across the country
:30:31. > :30:34.for victims and affected children are being decimated. Additionally
:30:35. > :30:38.important to point out that these programmes rely on the rest of that
:30:39. > :30:44.response from society in order to be effective. It is really important.
:30:45. > :30:47.These programmes on their own do not keep victims say. There is a hole in
:30:48. > :30:56.the structure and a response to domestic violence that does that.
:30:57. > :31:03.Who regulates you? With our member programmes we regulate them. You
:31:04. > :31:07.ourselves regulated? We regulate these programmes. Asked as an
:31:08. > :31:08.organisation is endorsed by a number of organisations, for example the
:31:09. > :31:49.Home Office and the saying that we need a much earlier
:31:50. > :31:52.intervention. We need victims to feel confident in coming forward to
:31:53. > :31:56.the police and being supported to make those choices. The other
:31:57. > :32:01.important thing to relearn their is that we are seeing a trend for
:32:02. > :32:05.commissioning very short-term perpetrator programmes, not
:32:06. > :32:09.necessarily effective, and we are in an environment where everyone is
:32:10. > :32:14.trying to save money and there are some real risks created by that.
:32:15. > :32:18.Where these programmes are of good quality, that is one thing but we
:32:19. > :32:21.need to learn the that couples counselling, mediation, short-term
:32:22. > :32:26.behavioural programmes for perpetrators are not valid
:32:27. > :32:33.perpetrator treatment programmes. Do you agree with that? Absolutely.
:32:34. > :32:39.Isn't there a danger that if you teach a man somehow to manage his
:32:40. > :32:43.behaviour so he is not overtly violent, that there is a danger he
:32:44. > :32:49.may start to find more subtle ways of being abusive? Is there a worry
:32:50. > :32:53.about that? There is absolutely a concern. That is why the primary aim
:32:54. > :32:59.of the programmes we endorse and regulate, we ask that the primary
:33:00. > :33:01.aim is to increase safety first and foremost. That can only happen if
:33:02. > :33:08.there are linked partner support services. That is if a guy comes on
:33:09. > :33:11.the programme he signed up to limited confidentiality. We no one
:33:12. > :33:16.of the reasons why women stay in relationships with men who are
:33:17. > :33:24.abusive is if the partner is getting some support. The support is vital.
:33:25. > :33:28.I really agree with that. You cannot emphasise enough the importance for
:33:29. > :33:32.services that actually protect victims and give them choices in the
:33:33. > :33:36.situation. The other thing to say if this is not just about anger
:33:37. > :33:40.management. It is not just about a guy learning to control his temper
:33:41. > :33:44.because domestic violence is about coercion and control. It is quite
:33:45. > :33:49.calculated. It is not just under the who cannot keep their temper. It is
:33:50. > :33:52.a much more complicated set of behaviours than that and it is
:33:53. > :33:57.really important that those are addressed. It is not just about a
:33:58. > :34:00.six-week anger management course and calling that a perpetrator
:34:01. > :34:10.programme. Thank you. Now, If you've noticed what seems to
:34:11. > :34:12.be an unnatural scarcity of pasty-faced, tired-eyed geeks in
:34:13. > :34:18.your locality, here's the explanation.
:34:19. > :34:22.They're in Las Vegas. Like the members of an occult sect they
:34:23. > :34:24.gather at this time of year at the Consumer Electronics Show there to
:34:25. > :34:27.worship the latest glittering gewgaws offered up by international
:34:28. > :34:33.capitalism. David Grossman is among them.
:34:34. > :34:41.The old saying is what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Why would the
:34:42. > :34:44.political correspondents be at the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas?
:34:45. > :34:50.I have got a new job now. This is supposed to be the year of smart TV.
:34:51. > :34:55.The problem is, where to start in this enormous show. There is only
:34:56. > :34:59.one thing you need to see for bragging rights. You have to go to
:35:00. > :35:07.some sun and see their bendable television. It will make you smile.
:35:08. > :35:20.So it is over two Samsung then. Does this one bend? No. That one bend?
:35:21. > :35:40.Thank you. Does this one bend? Does it bend? Yes, it is Ben D. Will it
:35:41. > :35:52.bend now? It is going to bend. It is bending. That is a bend TV. One of
:35:53. > :35:59.the things we see here is new technologies which do not have their
:36:00. > :36:04.end application yet. This is detecting the movement of my hands
:36:05. > :36:08.and my fingertips. It is adapting music. That is not the end product.
:36:09. > :36:12.It is up to Manufacturer is to incorporate this technology and do
:36:13. > :36:18.something extraordinary with it. What will they do? We do not know
:36:19. > :36:25.yet. Everywhere you look there are cool gadgets. Like these. They are
:36:26. > :36:31.all controlled from your smartphone. It is not just fun. You can use this
:36:32. > :36:36.to teach children how to programme. And I suppose it could make Mr
:36:37. > :36:54.Paxman's next croquet party more interesting. You are a robot are
:36:55. > :37:06.you? I am in California controlling this device. Nice to meet you,
:37:07. > :37:11.shaking hands. Perfect, yes. Bye-bye. Although this stuff looks
:37:12. > :37:16.super slick, the technology does not always work. Yesterday, when
:37:17. > :37:22.Saint-Saens work unveiling their new TVs, they had a film director to
:37:23. > :37:30.help them but his autocue did not work. It turned into a disaster
:37:31. > :37:37.movie. The curve, it will impact how we experience movies. Excuse me, I
:37:38. > :37:45.am sorry. I am sorry. OK. Thank you for joining us. That is all from the
:37:46. > :37:49.Consumer Electronics Show. Tomorrow we will be look at health and
:37:50. > :37:54.fitness technology, of which, there is a massive amount here. Strange as
:37:55. > :37:59.it may seem, Las Vegas which gave the world the all buffets, is
:38:00. > :38:11.serving up some things which can help you live. I cannot do this, my
:38:12. > :38:19.head is not in the right space. Now, French comedian has
:38:20. > :38:28.short-circuited his country's right to free speech. President Francois
:38:29. > :38:34.Hollande has urged people to ban performances by Dieudonne Mbala
:38:35. > :38:38.Mbala, usually known as Diuedonne, because of his anti-Semitism. It has
:38:39. > :38:48.tested Voltaire's believe that I defend what you have to say but not
:38:49. > :38:56.the right to hear it. The artist called Diuedonne in one
:38:57. > :38:59.of his recent shows. This number is called the victimisation
:39:00. > :39:02.Championships in where he plays various characters which are
:39:03. > :39:06.pleading because of suffering races in history. The subtext is
:39:07. > :39:14.understood by the audience, it is Jews who have grasped the suffering
:39:15. > :39:19.limelight. It is provocation is like this which have led President
:39:20. > :39:22.Hollande to act. A circular is being sent to local authorities reminding
:39:23. > :39:28.them they have the power to ban Diuedonne's shows on the grounds of
:39:29. > :39:34.a danger to public order. TRANSLATION: In the threat to racism
:39:35. > :39:37.and anti-Semitism, of the human lesions caused by discrimination, I
:39:38. > :39:44.ask the public authorities to be vigilant and flexible. A total
:39:45. > :39:47.overreaction say Diuedonne's supporters for whom this is all
:39:48. > :39:51.about free speech. If there are no disturbances at his shows, says his
:39:52. > :39:57.lawyer, and there has not been, then what the government is doing is pure
:39:58. > :40:05.censorship. Diuedonne has been based at this small Theatre in Paris which
:40:06. > :40:08.is now daubed with graffiti. When he started his career, he was in a
:40:09. > :40:14.double act with another comedian who was Jewish. Back then, everyone
:40:15. > :40:20.agrees that he was genuinely very funny and very clever. But over the
:40:21. > :40:25.years, the act has changed. The Diuedonne of today's overtly
:40:26. > :40:27.political. Such humour as there is is deliberate, provocative, targeted
:40:28. > :40:33.and some would say downright vicious. Over the years, there have
:40:34. > :40:36.been several convictions and fines for anti-Jewish remarks, but
:40:37. > :40:43.recently, according to Jewish leaders, the climate has turned
:40:44. > :40:46.particularly nasty. This man, whose grandfathers both died in the
:40:47. > :40:53.Holocaust, says the atmosphere reminds him of early 1930s Germany.
:40:54. > :41:02.He spoke of a journalist called Patrick Kavanagh. With a name: You
:41:03. > :41:08.only be a Jew. -- Patrick Coen. He said he wished he had been there at
:41:09. > :41:12.the time of the Holocaust. We cannot accept that, it is really too much.
:41:13. > :41:23.He said the Holocaust never happened, it is an invention of the
:41:24. > :41:29.Jews. For many, not familiar with Diuedonne, the first introduction
:41:30. > :41:33.with his world has been via the strange arm movement known as the
:41:34. > :41:39.quenelle. The footballer Nicholas and elk did it in Britain. It has
:41:40. > :41:46.been popularised on the Internet. It is an overt anti-Jewish gesture. For
:41:47. > :41:54.others, it is perhaps more innocent, it is a way of putting up two
:41:55. > :41:59.fingers to the system. Either way, the popularity shows how Diuedonne
:42:00. > :42:10.has forged an alliance of unlikely types. For his biographer, it is all
:42:11. > :42:15.part of the new face of the populist far right in Europe. TRANSLATION:
:42:16. > :42:20.The people who follow him are mainly young, working class. They are not
:42:21. > :42:24.culturally high level, but they are people who like him taking risks in
:42:25. > :42:30.his provocation. They like him taking on the system. It is a way of
:42:31. > :42:35.dealing with their own suffering in society. Several cities in France
:42:36. > :42:39.have now said they will not allow Diuedonne to perform but what
:42:40. > :42:44.difference that will make is far from clear. It is the Internet which
:42:45. > :42:48.counts and Diuedonne's videos on YouTube can draw up to 2 million
:42:49. > :42:57.hits. His audience are out there and they like what they hear. Well, a
:42:58. > :43:00.little earlier I spoke to the French writer and film maker Alain Soral,
:43:01. > :43:03.who is a close friend of Mr Dieudonne, and helped him popularise
:43:04. > :43:05.the infamous quenelle gesture. I began by asking him what on earth it
:43:06. > :43:17.meant. It is a gesture against the system,
:43:18. > :43:26.the powers that be in France. It has only recently become the most
:43:27. > :43:31.powerful Jewish organisation in France, they decreed it was an
:43:32. > :43:37.anti-Semitic gesture. Their idea is that an anti-system gesture is an
:43:38. > :43:53.anti-Semitic ones. Is that an improper accusation? That is the
:43:54. > :44:00.question. You do not denied that Mr Dieudonne is an anti-Semite, do you?
:44:01. > :44:06.The problem now is that this word has become used to scare people. A
:44:07. > :44:12.long time ago, Dieudonne had a partner. All of these accusations
:44:13. > :44:16.started arriving the day he did a sketch on Israeli settlers. Today we
:44:17. > :44:19.have a very powerful Zionist lobby in France which treats anyone who
:44:20. > :44:28.does not subscribe to its vision in the world as anti-Semitic. When he
:44:29. > :44:36.says he is neutral, between the Nazis and the Jews, he is obviously
:44:37. > :44:42.saying he is anti-Semitic. I do not think you have quite understood that
:44:43. > :44:47.Dieudonne is a comedian. He performs comedy and does sketches. If you
:44:48. > :44:51.take a phrase in isolation, you will not understand. You need to ask the
:44:52. > :44:55.people who have seen his entire show and then you will see that his very
:44:56. > :45:03.diverse audience, which reflects the whole of French public opinion, have
:45:04. > :45:08.never thought he is anti-Semitic. If that is the case, why is it that the
:45:09. > :45:16.Government that takes such a strong line against him? Because the French
:45:17. > :45:22.government, as we can see from its foreign policy and the annual
:45:23. > :45:28.dinner, is entirely under the influence of the Zionist lobby. What
:45:29. > :45:34.do you imagine Mr Dieudonne will do now that he is finding himself
:45:35. > :45:38.banned in so many cities? The truth is that the measures taken by the
:45:39. > :45:45.Socialist government are completely illegal in France. Since France is
:45:46. > :45:49.still under the rule of law, I would say Dieudonne will win and his case
:45:50. > :45:53.will be supported by the facts. What is illegal today is not Dieudonne,
:45:54. > :45:58.it is the measures the socialist government and the interior minister
:45:59. > :46:09.have taken. Dieudonne will win his battle. Thank you very much indeed.
:46:10. > :46:12.That's it. We leave you with the work of Professor Trevor Cox, who
:46:13. > :46:15.has scoured the world for his favourite sounds, and then,
:46:16. > :46:18.challengingly, put them in a book called Sonic Wonderland. Here are
:46:19. > :46:26.four of the ones we liked best. Goodnight.