08/01/2014 Newsnight

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