08/01/2014 Newsnight


Jeremy Paxman looks at reaction to the Mark Duggan verdict, interest rates, China and Japan dispute, Men's Fashion Week, and Egypt's answer to Jon Stewart.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/01/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



the well What the well dressed man should be wearing about town. Don't


worry what they say, ignore them. When a man from Tottenham was shot


dead by the police in August 2011, it set off serious rioting which


caused the whole nation to ask serious questions about itself. The


conclusion of the jury at his infest today that he was lawfully killed


has infuriated his family. The jury's finding wasn't unanimous, but


its decision that the police acted lawfully, despite the fact that


Duggan had thrown away a gun he was carrying before the police opened


fire set off fury in court, which has also been vented on the streets


of Tottenham. What's the mood there? There is certainly anger and real


shock in Tottenham, but actually things are quite calm, that is


partly to do with the weather, the terrible rain here has driven people


inside. But also that Mark Duggan's family want things to stay calm.


There was a scuffle a couple of hours ago between a journalist and


one of the supporters of Mark Duggan's family. I overheard Mark


Duggan's mother this really aren't isn't helping, making clear she


wanted things to stay calm. Signs that the anger is not yet going to


boil over. There is a lot of anger is there? In terms of what people


have been saying, in terms of young people they have been expressing a


lot of anger. But you don't get the sense that they really know what to


do with that anger. Parents of children that live locally have also


been expressing their fear because of the conclusion of the jury. One


of the mothers of one of the children here said to me, what does


this mean for our children's rights now. They already feel, many of


these parents, that their children are already being victimised by the


police through stop and search. There is a fear here that this could


further undermine their children's rights here locally. That was


expressed. In terms of what the family want to do now, they have


been talking about how they want to meet with the Independent Police


Complaints Commisssion. They are calling for a vigorous review of the


case and they want to meet with MPs. But they have rejected an invitation


by the Police to meet. You get the sense that the family are exhausted


and they want to regroup and work out what to do next. Jim Reid has


been following today's developments, his report contains flash


photography. A police assassination, or a tragic but justified shooting.


Today by a majority of 8-2 a jury delivered its verdict. Mark Duggan


was lawfully killed by armed officers in the summer of 2011.


Crucially they decided the 29-year-old was carrying a gun, but


threw it away before he was shot. The reaction was furious. His mother


was led out of court in tears. On the streets her supporters shouted


"murderers" drowning out a police statemen


Mark Duggan has travelling through Tottenham in a minicab on August 4th


2011. Police were convinced he had picked up a gun and was planning to


use it. They performed a hard stop, pulling alongside and drawing their


weapons. The jury they inquest had to decide what happened next. They


were asked a series of questions. Well the jury would have been


looking at whether the use of force by the officer was reasonable and


proportionate to the threat posed by Duggan. To decide that they had to


look at whether at the time the police officer shot Duggan he had an


honestly held belief that Duggan was armed. Now the question of whether


he was in fact armed relevant but separate to that question. That is


really what the jury was looking at. That is why we get the slightly


unusual version of lawful killing when the jury still found that he,


on the balance of probeabilities was not armed at the time he was shot.


The family have always breastled -- bristled at the suggestion that Mark


Duggan was a known gangster or a direct threat to officers that day.


Speaking outside court they said the family would continue to fight for


justice. The majority of people in this country know Mark was executed,


he was executed, we will fight until we have no breath in our body for


justice for Mark, his children and all of those other deaths in custody


that have nothing for. We are not giving up, no justice, no peace. But


despite today's verdict the inquest itself still raised some tough


questions for the authorities, in particular, in the days after the


shooting, how did the story come out that Duggan was killed in a


firefight with police when it is now clear he never fired a weapon? That


accusation helps trigger a protest march to Tottenham Police Station,


which later led to violence. Evidence given in court suggest the


police watchdog, the IPCC wrongly briefed journalists, and let the


story run uncorrected for days. To put out all this misinformation, to


put out the idea that there was a shootout, when they absolutely knew


there wasn't a shootout. To refusing to to the family home to inform


them, these are the only reasons, the sole reasons we went to


Tottenham Police Station. Had they done the things they were supposed


to have done we wouldn't have gone to Tottenham Police Station.


Tottenham, there wouldn't have been a riot there. I would imagine there


wouldn't have been riots in all those other areas of London where


there were riots. Mark Duggan's aunt arrived at Tottenham Police Station


this evening to speak to the media gathered there. It is 888 days since


a shooting which triggered the worst riots in a generation, 115 days


since the start of the inquest, it will take many more until some of


the residents of this part of London will accept today's verdict.


Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley of the Metropolitan Police is here,


you saw him in that report. A police officer has to make a spur of the


moment judgment. Do you think it is fair that he subsequently, or she


subsequently has to go through a judicial process of the kind we saw


today? It has to be fair doesn't it. Police use force, that has to be


scrutinised, if it is lethal process a judicial process has to be right.


Now that process has determined that at the time he was shot he wasn't


holding a gun? That process was assessing those split second


decisions you have mentioned. So in a few moments, split seconds, Mark


Duggan leaves the car, the jury have concluded, threw the weapon and was


shot. They haven't given the detailed gaps in that sequence. They


have concluded the speed of those events that the officer's judgment


was reasonable. When people look at the Woolich incident, through the


CCTV, the speed of the events is very clear, and ten ordinary women


and men from London have come to the conclusion it was reasonable. The


police shot an unarmed man? The jury concluded he PCed up a firearm, got


out of the car with the firearm, and the officer reasonably concluded he


needed to fire. But they did shoot, they shot an unarmed man? Unarmed


man suggest he never had a weapon or any suggestion of it, he was getting


out of the car with a weapon. He didn't have a weapon at the time he


was shot? He had thrown it just before, clearly. The jury concluded


that the police did not make the best use of the intelligence


veilable to them, that was an overwhelming thing? That wasn't


exactly what they said. One of the things here we should respect the


decision of the ten men and women on the jury, they said they wished


there was more intelligence work done in advance that might have


changed the course of the events. They had no suggestions what that


could be. I wish we could have had more intelligence to change that


picture. I'm not sure what that would have been. You say you want to


talk to the family? Yes. What do you want to say to them? I want to meet


with them, they are very upset with the police and very angry, there is


a whole range of obvious reasons for that. If it would help I would like


to meet with them, they don't want to meet with us and I understand


that. You must have some message the rest of us can share that you want


to convey to them? It is all very well expressing condolences on


television, but if they want to meet face-to-face I will meet with them.


When you read the statement today and you were spat at and shouted


down, there is a lot of anger out there? It is a massively symbolic


event, when we look back at 2011, that is not surprising. Your report


overstates that. Over the last two years the confidence of Londoners in


the Metropolitan Police has grown. The proportion is not as bad as you


present it in your picture. Of course there are communities where


there are tensions and difficulties, we are keen to improve, that we have


done a lot of work on stop and search in recent years. One of the


messages for me is about confidence in how we take on gang and gun


crime. We run thousands of firearm operations a year and very few shots


are fired, our officers are cautious. That chant you heard "no


justice no peace" that is rather chilling isn't it? It is impossible


not to have imthough with a family who have lost a loved one. That is


completely understandable. That is why I want to meet with them. A jury


have looked at the facts and concluded this was lawful killing


and the police firearms operation was professional. My guests are with


me, Diane abbot and a family friend of the Duggans. How worried are you


tonight? I'm not worried, I don't think we will see disorder. First of


all, our sympathy to the Duggan family who have lost a loved one, we


can't forget that. We have to remember one of the reasons why the


Duggan shooting was like a blue touch paper was because of the


underlying tensions between police and members of the community. You


have to address those issues. Do you share the Assistant Commissioner's


view that relations actually have got bette On a very low base they


have got better. I do not share. Even though they have done work


around stop and search as they have said they might have reduced the


number of stop and search they are doing. They are still targeting


young black men aged between 15-40 based on nothing other than their


colour. I got stopped today going to the Sky studio, I was held up for 45


minutes, I was stopped and searched and they took my car away. I was


there with my nephew who got angry. As a consequence they then gave me


back my key and allowed me to go on my way, 45 minutes it took. Things


may have got better, it is a low base, there is still a huge amount


of tension around issues like stop and search, deaths in custody and


the way the police talk to people. Unless we address these issues we


can't say we have learned the lesson of Mark Duggan's shooting. Going


back to scentia Jared, Joy Gardener, and the latest one in Brixton, these


are cases of black men, and black men and women dying at the hands of


the police. Unfortunate circumstances, but we still don't


see justice coming, and now Mark is in a long line of this. We must be


straight here. The people weren't rioting because of what happened to


mark, but because it was a systematic thing they were seeing


happening, here we go, another one happening, what will happen here?


People will be saying I told you so. I'm calling for people to stay calm,


and say to people you may still rightly have an angry head, and I


have one. Ten ordinary Londoners came to a conclusion today that he


was lawfully killed? I don't think that politicians should second-guess


juries, I'm not doing that. I say the underlying issues remain and the


police have to deal with them. There is progress, my borough commander in


Hackney has brought down stop and search. But there is a long way to


go for black and Muslim kids on the street. How do you go about


improving relations? Give him a word claim --! The commander in Haringey


is a very good policeman, and I believe with people like him in


charge, he's going to make, he will make a difference. Unfortunately's


not going to reap the reward of his success because 40, 50 years of


being the victims of stop and search will take many more years for us to


gain any sort of confidence in any police, no matter how good they are.


As good as Victor is, he will not reap the benefit until he's some way


away. Stop him being promoted? There has been improvements, in order to


mend the relationship people have to see the police behaving more fairly,


currently they don't believe the police behave fairly to all


communities. A charm offensive, they have to be out there meeting the


community, in the community, not for us to come into your ivory tower at


our choosing and our own expense, we need to turn things around and see


our police in our communities, not being afraid to walk the streets and


engage and interact with local people. You heard that chant today


"no justice no peace" is that a widespread feeling? It is a


widespread feeling. This isn't going to turn to any violence, we will


leave no stone unturned, that is what it means. It means we will not


sit back here and accept something, we will see what, taking all the


intelligence and information and see what we can do from here legally. I


do not foresee another 2011 tension happening here. People have now


moved on from that even though this is still a backlash from those


times. I still believe that we have got good intentioned people, good


senior officers in Haringey, at least I can speak for Haringey that


could possibly make a difference. No justice no peace is not a new chant.


It is a chant of 20 years old and more. Because these are not new


issues, and they still need to be resolved. Do you want to give your


response to those? I would like to make a couple of quick points. The


positive things about the local borough commander is a very good


man, he's inviting young people to set his diary for a day and see the


world from their perspective. There is a real commitment to working and


seeing communities in their way. The second thing is confronting gun


crime in London, 50 people have been shot dead in three-and-a-half years


requires us to confront armed criminal, we do, that we try to put


them in prison for long periods and take the weapons off the streets. We


are running 3,000 firearms operations a year, my officers,


professional and careful fire shots once or twice, that sort of


information needs to be more public so people can have confidence. Let


me finish. In the end... So people can have confidence in what we. Do


the last point about stop and search, we are doing 25% less stop


and search than a couple of years ago. It is more targeted against


criminal, and more effective because we are arresting for people. People


like Ken are involved in stop and search who vet the forms we were


doing. I think the incident earlier was about a person being prosecuted


over lack of insurance. You can only confront gang crime and gun crime


with the consent of the community, that is why you have to learn the


lessons of Mark Duggan, it is community consent.


It is a nice sexy outfit for Men's Fashion Week. I love T I -- it, I


would like tips on it myself. The people at the Bank of England who


decide how much it is to borrow money and how much we can earn on


savings we have will announce tomorrow on altering interest rates.


Recent history has been a story of "steady as you go". The Governor of


the Bank of England has already said that interest rates shouldn't go up


from their current low levels until unemployment is below 7%. The gossip


is now he will drop the target to 6. 5% so money stays cheap. But is he


right? For more than five years now we have been living with the fear.


The fear is that the economy's totering on the brink -- teetering


on the brink, one false move and we could plunge into the abyss. When


the Bank of England first cut official rates they weren't meant to


stay there for long. I want to get back to a situation where interest


rates return to levels where savers can earn healthy returns on their


savings' accounts. Now, amid a surge in business orders, house prices and


investment, no rate rise in sight. For the first time in a long time


you don't have to be an optimist to see the glass is half full. The


recovery has finally taken hold. The bank's been anxious to reassure City


investors it won't raise rates as long as unemployment is above 7%.


But unemployment has fallen so fast it is now expected to cut that


threshold to 6. 5. Here is why the City fears a rise in interest rates,


institutions there hold Government bonds worth hundreds of billions of


pounds, who wants a Government bond paying a tiny fixed rate of interest


when rates are about to go up, not as many as before. With fewer buyers


that can pull prices down, costing city institutions that hold the


bonds billions. Should the rest of us share the City's fear, or could


the rise help more people than it harms? If official rates rise by 2.


5% then the number of mortgage borrowers spending over a third of


their income on the mortgage would double to 16%. To cover the higher


repayments half of all mortgage holders would have to earn more or


cut their spending. But hang on, if you are a glass half full person


that means half of all mortgage holders could withstand a 2. 5% rise


in interest rates without even cutting their spending. It ignores


the many on fixed rate mortgages who would be protected from rising rates


and assumes no rise in incomes. If incomes do rise it will look a lot


less scary down there. The Bank of England, the politicians are all


focussing on the minority of the population who have got massive


mortgages. That is undoubted, the amount of mortgages in the system is


huge. However, three-quarters of the population either have no mortgage


or a very small one. What's often forgotten is fewer than a third of


households actually have a mortgage. Most of us don't worry about rate


rises. A poll last month showed nearly a third believe an interest


rate hike would leave them better off. Another third say the change


will make little differences to their finances. Everyone in the


country will benefit directly because higher interest rates will


raise the value of our currency, it will reduce the cost of imports,


therefore the cost of living will plummet, everyone will benefit from


that and over half the population who have very little debt or no debt


at all will actually directly benefit as well because they will


get more bangs for their buck from their deposit accounts. Right now


the markets are betting the Bank of England won't plunge and raise


interest rates any time this year, but with every bit of positive


economic data, the case for raising them gets stronger and the case for


lowering gets weaker. Maybe the Bank of England will realise that the


fear of economic doom is just an illusion. Ever since Otto von


Bismarck predicted over 30 years before the First World War began


that the next war in Europe would be set off by some damn fool dispute in


the Balkan, statesmen have been careful not to consider any


territorial dispute insignificant. Right now Japan and China are in


fierce conflict over a group of un inhabited islands in the Pacific.


Tension is rising with much name-calling and the like. Is it


really possible that hostilities could break out over such an


apparently pifling disPUCHLT we have ambassadors from both countries and


they have agreed to talk to us separately. Firstly we look at the


score. The private act of a Chinese citizen


or blatant act of military. When the shrine was visited last month, where


a handful of war criminals is commemorated among hundreds of other


veteran, China was furious. If halfy potter was good enough for


him, it was good enough for the Japanese counterpart!


If the Horcrux is a powerful dangerous object, then the shrine is


hardly the only one in the battle of alleged good and evil. Far from


Japan's southern tip, a scattering of uninhabited rocks juts out of the


east China sea. Japan calls them Senkaku, in China they are known as


Diaoyu, they are a few square miles in total but loaded with strategic


significance, close to shipping lanes and shipping grounds, and


offering the tantalising promise of oil and gas. Japan controls them,


both sides claim them, they shadow each other with evident mistrust. In


November China added a new potentionally dimension, an air


identification zone over most of the east China sea, overlapping Japan's


own similar zone. Chinese and Japanese jets have been flying in


and out ever since. Japan is sweeping forward, with more and more


troops landing at Sianing coy pushing into the interior. There is


nothing particularly new about this naked hostility, Japan's invasion in


the 1930s left deep scars in the Chinese psyche. The Prime Minister


says he wants dialogue not confrontation. But he wants to amend


Japan's post-war pacification. He's sure they can gain understanding if


they explain the administration's proactive passism. -- pacifism. It


is the kind of talk guaranteed to fuel Beijing's fears. China, of


course, has its own naval ambition, its first aircraft carrier has


completed its first maiden voyage. TRANSLATION: If Japan doesn't take


it as a guide and stick to peaceful development, they will lead Japan in


a dangerous and wrong way. This is a disaster rather than blessing to


regional peace. The irony is that all this takes place against a


backdrop of growing economic interdependence. Quite simply the


two countries need each other. But in 2012 Japanese businesses were


attacked across China after the Japanese Government bought three of


the disputed islands from their private owner. For all their ties,


it seems history and geography keep getting in the way. We will talk to


the Chinese Ambassador in a moment. First his Japanese counterpart,


Keiichi Hayashi. These islands aren't inhabited, why not give them


to the Chinese? It is a matter of principle. It is a matter of


sovereignty. I know the British also have the sovereignty issue we


acquired these islands peacefully and lawfully. In the late 19th


century. Since then we have held the sovereignty for 120 years. China


never challenged it until 1970. But is it really worth jeopardising the


security of the whole of that part of the world, and possibly the world


itself. I think the question should be directed to the Chinese. We have


held the effective control over the islands very peacefully and in


accordance with the international law. They are challenging the status


quo by force and coercion. It is completely against the international


order. Isn't what's really happening here that Japan is seeking to


re-establish a military identity? No, that's not quite true. It is


true you are seeking constitutional reform in your country? The track


record of the Japanese commitment to peace has been very strong and the


Prime Minister himself has made is it very clear that he has no


intention of changing the core tenets of pacifism. Why change the


constitution by changing it in the use of force and changing arms? We


are not looking at using force. He wants to change the constitution? As


I said, there could be some debate over the constitution, but the Prime


Minister, as I said, made it very clear that he has no intention of


changing the core tenets of pacifism. Over the islands what has


been happening is the utmost self-restraint on the part of the


Japanese, while the Chinese have continuously been trying to change


the status quo by force and coercion, they are very much


concerned about it, it is a dangerous provocation, but as has


been mentioned, I think they have to abide by the rule of law, rather


than resorting to the use of force and coercion. Do you think it helps


things to use childish abuse, comparing people to to Voldemort for


example? I don't want to refer to "he who must not be named"! I only


responded to the Chinese groundless and baseless accusation. The major


thrust of my message earlier is so call for dialogue at the top level.


Simply because we have some differences in our views. You say


there is nothing to talk about? How can there be dialogue if you think


there is nothing to discuss? There is a difference of view, so we ought


to sit down and talk and the problem is not our sovereignty. But the


problem is more to do with the continuous Chinese provocation. We


need to sit down and talk. To sort it out. Thank you very much. We can


pick up on some of those points with the Chinese Ambassador, Liu Xiao


Ming. How are you? Fine Jeremy. Thank you very much for coming in.


So good to see you again. Sorry! Now how serious do you think this is?


Very serious. This is a very serious issue. The Japanese Prime Minister's


visit to the shrine in our view is not a small matter. It concerns how


the Japanese face up to their history of aggression. But we care


more about how, I would quote Winston Churchill's words, those who


fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So we're


concerned that they do not face up to their disgraceful record of


aggression. What will happen for the future? You raised this question of


the visit to the shrine. There have been over prime ministerial visits


to that since the war, and to 20-something of them the Chinese


raised no question at all? That is not right, it was not until 1978


when 14 A-class war criminals moved in, and in 1985 the Japanese Prime


Minister you know together with the whole cabinet, with the shrine,


launched a protest. Since then we have launched countless protests to


it. Let's look at the islands, why have you suddenly asserted control


of the air for example above them. Why have you suddenly done that?


That was a good question. Why this matter crops up so suddenly, it has


been very peaceful for the past 40 years. First of all I would say this


island has been, to China, has been part of Chinese territory since


ancient times. It was not until 1895 when China lost a war with Japan.


They seized illegally, but according to Cairo Declaration, the


proclaimation, it was ordered territory seized illegally by Japan


should be returned to China. That was agreed by British leaders,


American leaders and other leaders. When was the Cairo Declaration?


1945. It is nothing to do, you say, with natural resources which may be


connected to these islands, or may be available from these islands? It


was about sovereignty. It is about, you know, territory. Let me finish


about why it has come up. When we normalised relations in 1972 both


leaders agreed you know there is a dispute over the islands. We should


shelf the difference, in 1978 when there was a visit to Japan and asked


the question about the islands, the Prime Minister said there was a


dispute with Japan, but I think we can shelf it for the time being. The


future generations will be wiser than us. We agreed to put it on the


shelf. But the Japanese want to change the status quo. In the past


few years what did they do? They tried to nationalise this island,


they want to you know purchase this island by their Government. How far


are you prepared to take this dispute? How First of all we asked


them, they have to face facts that we have a dispute over this island.


They even refuse to recognise there is a dispute between the two


countries. Implicitly the ambassador over there a second or two ago was


talking about the need for dialogue, that is an implicit recognition that


there is a disagreement over it? In fact it was the Japanese Prime


Minister who shut the door of dialogue between China and Japan. He


overturned the fundamental foundations of our two countries.


How would you expect China to agree to talk to him when he refused to


repent on the war crimes that the Japanese did to Chinese people. This


is not only the case for China. Korean President has also refused to


meet the Japanese Prime Minister because of his behaviour on history


issues. Thank you very much indeed. Now, doubtless it won't have escaped


your notice that this is Men's Fashion Week in London. All sorts of


figures and various degrees of beliefs are tossed around to


demonstrate how important the fashion business is to the British


economy. For the rest it is an opportunity to ask in tones of "who


on earth would wear this stuff"! Someone who would is Nimrod Kamer,


we asked him to tell us what he found interesting this year.


I'm a fashionable man because my socks are yellow, my socks are


knitted and my tie is pink. This is Men's Fashion Week, my guide! When


you meet a fashionista always compliment them and say you look


ridiculously fab and "fabosh. You look ridiculously fab, any


interesting socks, all black? All black, my underwear is white. Got to


keep it a little spicy. Live long and proper. FOMO Fear of missing


out. YOLT You only live twist, James Bond. In this magazine, Zachary


Ching. Selfridges. The only way to get on in life is come early and sit


next to the celebrities you know will be sitting right here! Do you


mind if I just pick a card out and sit instead of them to sit next to


celebrity friends. During the show? Yeah Not exactly. Are you going on


the catwalk in a few minutes? Is this like a nice sexy outfit for


Men's Fashion Week? Love it! That's lovely Thank you. It is the same as


the thing, the theme, this is the theme. Yes it is. #mensfashionweek.


I'm going to get inside. After the show ended I went down to see the


next collection, when disaster struck. There is an accident, an


accident. What happened is during Oliver Spencer show a pipe broke


lose so all the water. The delay gave me a chance to accidentally


bump into fashion heavyweights. What do you do day-to-day? I model and


I'm an ambassador for LCM. Oh yeah, I think they mentioned you as one of


the top models, you are not Gandhi. I am David Gandy, yes! . The show


got back on track, and garish socks were on display, "ridic". Can I see


your socks? A Christmas present from my wife, all I wanted was socks and


a wallet, nice clothes that fit, that is all you want. Shall we do a


quick selfie and a humble selfie! Any tips for myself, I'm not


sexually defined, a-sexual. Tidy this bit, I like that you have tried


to accessorise, if I was you, I would get the bottom half, change


the tie, this is nice but I would probably change that. The jacket is


nice as well. You look great, man. My final piece of advice f you see


designer gloats unattended YOLT! The man has great future on this


programme. A court in Cairo adjourned the trial of the ousted


President Mohammed Morsi until February. He's facing murder


charges. The event that people hoped would change a huge country in the


in the rob world to democracy has not brought. A heart surgeon saw the


need and opportunity for satire, he began broadcasting a show from his


back room on YouTube, it soon had an enormous audience and broadcast on


mainstream TV. He has won awards and been on shows like the Daily Show


with Jon Stewart. I spoke to him from Cairo, I asked him if he


thought it was harder to do satire? It is harder to do satire for the


sole reason that it is a little bit sentence out there. There have been


families that have, there have been family feuds and people, and


divorces and even families disowning their own children because of


political differences. So it is no wonder that maybe comedy will not be


welcomed right now. I think it is more social than anything else.


There are people who say sometimes things get too serious for satire.


Well yes, it is very difficult to carry on your show and make people


smile when there is too much tension, too much violence and too


much panic in the air. I think people, to accept satire they need


to be relaxed. If there is a mood of panic and anger it makes you


accepting logically, let alone satire, a very difficult task. Was


it easier to do satire when you had President Morsi in power, would it


have been easier under Mubarak or someone? I think under Mubarak that


door was not even there. Under the Military Council and after it with


Morsi that door was open and ajar, it was still difficult under the


Muslim Brotherhood with different kind of difficulties, or different


levels of difficulties. Now, you know, there is a lot of powers at


hand, and I think people are going more and more restless and tense


about what is happening. That is the main difficulty, the main challenge


we are facing is how to make people laugh and smile. What do you think


your job is? My job is to make people accept criticism with a more


relaxed mood. To hopefully tell people that it is OK to make fun of


ourselves, it is not a bad thing to make fun of the Government even if


we are on the same side, because it is a much nicer way for freedom of


expression than throwing Molotov cocktails at each other. It could,


couldn't it, encourage a very bleak view of what is happening


politically in your country or any other country where a satirist is at


work. You know, first of all, I have to say that things in Cairo is not


that bad. You know in the news they bring only the clashes, people still


go to work, we still go to cafes and restaurants and cinemas. Of course


there is some turmoil in the streets, but you know life goes on


and again I think the challenge that we have is bringing the smile to


people. Because it is very difficult to tell people to smile and laugh


about yourself and make money of yourself when they just want -- make


fun of yourself when they just want you to be on their side


unconditionally. Is it a smile based on base pair or jaundice or


optimisim about the future? Well, it is a little bit of both, because if


you can make people laugh about what they go through, that in itself is


optimisim. It is reason enough to be an optimist, you know. But if there


are certain people in the media, or certain people in the political


scene that don't even want that to happen, that doesn't give a good


outlook. So I think you need to continue to pound and press on that


point that we need to make fun of everything. Even the things that we


are worried about, that is a step forward. You are an optimist are


you? Ha ha, I have to be an optimist, and you know, or else I


couldn't, I would be a very sad soul in front of TV when the cameras


roll. So I have to. Politically what do you think will happen in your


country? This is a question for the ages, because for the last three


years anything I have learned in my country is Egypt is quite


unpredictable. I always say that we have been the soap opera of the


world. There is always something dramatic happening in this country,


you have a President, now you don't have a President, you have a


political power, now it is gone. I mean we are very impressive. So I


think we are going to continue to surprise the world and provide


really good material for the news bulletins all over the world. Thank


you very much. Thank you. Tomorrow morning's front pages now, the Times


goes with the verdict in the Duggan case.


That's all for tonight, Kirsty is here tomorrow, until then good


night. Hello there, pretty wet end to


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman. Looking at reaction to the Mark Duggan verdict, interest rates, China and Japan dispute, Men's Fashion Week, and Egypt's answer to Jon Stewart.

Download Subtitles