05/02/2014 Newsnight


With Jeremy Paxman. A UN report into child abuse and the Vatican, coding being taught in schools, banning strikes and Michael Vaughan on Kevin Pieterson.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The Vatican systematically turned a blind eye to the abuse of thousands


of children by priests. The claim comes not from some fringe


organisation or even victims of abuse. It comes from the United


Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. New era or no new era,


this unprecedented attack has left the church aggrieved and angry. Does


the UN speak for natural justice and is the Channel Tunnel capable of


reform? Can you read the new Latin or is the


plan to teach computer code about as practicable as compulsory ancient


Greek. As strike action allows London's buses to offer the kind of


claustrophobic experience normally only reserved for tube passengers,


can there really be Conservative plans to ban strikes. So today's


strike would have been unlawful. And there would have been a judge


deciding between TFL and London over the job cuts. That's right, there


would not be a strike. We will ask the former England cricket captain,


Michael Vaughan, why on earth the game's bosses have sacked our best


batsman. There has never been a report like it. There is the target,


for one thing, the Vatican, vet seat of power in the Catholic Church.


There is the accuser for another, an arm of the United Nations and the


language for one more. It is blistering. The UN committee for the


rights of the child, accuses of Catholic Church of adopting policies


which allowed priests to abuse thousands of children. It is


scathing about the church's behaviour. In a moment I will be


talking to a press spokesman for the Vatican and an abuse survivor.


First we have this report. Pope Francis may be an energetic and


reforming new presence, but he henner incompetents -- inherits an


old problem. Today the scandal that so tarnished Pope Benedict has not


gone away. The report expressed "deepest concern" of the involvement


of Catholic clerics in the abuse of tens and thousands of children


worldwide. It called for the removal of Clergy that are known child


abusers. It wants the Vaticans to open their files on Clergy that


concealed their crimes. It condemned the transfer of child abusers to


other parishes. The report's author said the church remained in breach


of the UN Convention on Child protection. They are in breach of


the convention, because they haven't done all the things they should have


done. These are not only recommendations of best practice,


some of them are real violations of the convention when you don't follow


up and protect children when you have the possibility to do so. We


would consider it a violation for future if they don't follow up on


our recommendations. The scandal has had a devastating effect on the


reputation of the church and much of the developed world. Even in Italy,


congregations of ageing, and the church recruits priests from the


developing world, where the faith is growing. Critics say the church has


been more concerned with protecting its own reputation than with


protecting the children in its care. I think the Catholic Church in the


UK, certainly in England and Wales, has taken huge steps forward, and it


is held up as a good example of child protection procedures and


policies. But worldwide, the United Nations has said that children,


thousands of children have been abused and many are still at risk, I


think that is very significant. Having said that I do place some


faith in Pope Francis, because he has said that child protection is


the most important thing. The church is growing fast in Africa and south


and central America, where local Clergy are held in high public


veneration. Compared to Europe and North America, clerical child abuse


is seldom even acknowledged here. That doesn't mean it is not


happening. One abuse survivor told Newsnight last year that he had been


abused in the very place he thought he was safest. TRANSLATION: In the


house of God, in a church, in a church that didn't pay attention to


what was being done to me. What other priests were doing to other


children. It is complicated really. As a child well you think the church


is there to look after children, not in my case. No-one stopped what was


going on. The UN report has no legal standing, no power to effect change


within these impervious walls. Pope Francis has promised to overhaul the


notoriously secretive, defensive, Catholic hierarchy. Today's report


is a reminder that there is much yet to be done. Well with us now here in


the studio is one of the victims of that abuse. An abuse survivor a


member of Snap, a network of those abused by priests. You were in


Geneva today, what were your feelings about the report when it


was published? It was very validating because we were very


surprised that there was such a strong report. Because basically the


United Nations has ratified what we the victims have been saying for


decades, that there is a need for more transparency and the end of


impunity, that child abuse is prosecuted, even if it is committed


by priests. And also that there is a need for a culture of


accountability. The bishops who protect child abusers have to be


fired. I don't want to go into the details of your space, it happened


in Spain. This pattern that the report refers to, where priests are


moved from parish to parish and even country to country sometimes, rather


than being brought to justice, is that something observably true in


your experience? It was very interesting because there was a


diverse group of survivors in Geneva. We were from different


countries, different ages and the common experience was that when the


Vatican have said they were changed and doing things in a different way,


the feeling that we all had was that didn't happen in my case, they


weren't transparent, they protected the abuser and they didn't punish


him. There was a disconnect between the propaganda the Vatican was


saying and our reality. The Vatican says it is going to "take note" of


this report, which is a polite way of saying, I suspect, we will


register that it has happened and that is about it, were you impressed


by their reaction? No, but I wasn't surprised either. They will be doing


and saying the same thing for the last 30 years. I guess they believe


that they are going fast, taking into account how slowly the Channel


Tunnel changes. But in child protection, a few decades is a


really huge amount of time. They should have changed by now. But on


the other happened the Catholic Church does have a legitimate


complaint against the UN, this UN report has been attacked for its


position on gay marriage and abortion, neither of which are the


issues of the UN committee? I have read the report, from my


understanding it doesn't exactly say what you are implying, they mention


abortion in a very specific case, in which a child was raped and was


pregnant and the bishop, instead of excommunicating the rapist,


excommunicated the parent and the little child had an abortion. What


the United Nations was saying that perhaps in the case of child rape


the church could decide to take a more benevolent approach. I'm going


to interrupt you there, we are joined from Toronto by the English


language assistant to the holy see press office. Father Thomas, what's


your reaction to this report? First of all the central purpose of the


report was to address the question of child abuse by the Clergy. And I


stand firmly with that report in that we have a problem and we have


tried to address that problem as best as possible, especially since


the year 2001. As the Holy See said formally and diplomatically, we have


taken note of this and will respond in a detailed form to the issues


raised. That is a diplomatic response to the report. However I


have certain questions about how this report was generated, and also


some very serious Lacuna or absence in this report of key issues. For


example there is a complete obvious ignorance of the history of the


Catholic Church in addressing the situation, especially since 2001.


Secondly, there is a very clear attempt in this report to have a new


reading of history. The report and those who wrote it do not understand


the structure of the Catholic Church. And the third area of the


report is what other religious group would endure a religious


intervention by the United Nations into doctrinal practice and the


living out of one's faith. This would never be done with other


religious groups. I think the group went over the top in inserting


themselves, or asserting themselves in areas over which they have no


competence whatsoever. The basic thrust of the report on this


question of child abuse, you agree with, that the Catholic Church has


shown itself more concerned with moving priests around and protecting


the reputation of your institution than it has with the welfare of the


child, you accept that do you? We have said very clearly, as the


church, from the highest level, all the way down to the diocese level


that there have been crimes committed and sins committed. Let me


ask you one simple question then. Let me finish the sentence please.


You are saying what you have done in the past, I'm asking you in the


light of the report whether you will now make it an instruction to


diocese that when an allegation of child abuse is reported, the


relevant prosecuting authorities or the police are informed immediately.


That is under way now. It has been under way. So the report shows it is


not ware of the policies and procedures that have been


implemented. Now let me say this too, the report presumes that Rome,


the Vatican, the Holy See sits perched on the hill issuing dictates


to all the branch offices. That is not the reality of the church. The


power of the church in this area resides with the local bishop. It


resides in local situations. We know in some situations more than others


the serious crimes are known to everyone and we have addressed them.


In the numerous diocese in the United States, Canada and Great


Britain where you are, that the bishops have been extremely


courageous in addressing this issue. We know that other people have not


been so assiduous and courageous to do that. We have a victim of abuse


by a Catholic priest in the studio, would you like to react to what


Father Thomas has just said? I would want to ask him two questions. The


first question is the first time there was a report regarding the


problem with child abuse was in 1995 and it was done by Father Thomas


Doyle, I was three years old, they had 13 years to sort it out and


perhaps if they had done something I wouldn't have been abused when I was


16. They only decided to report crimes to the authorities in 2011,


25 years after the first warning sign was shown. To put those two


things together, you are saying that the problem has been one that they


have not seen this as urgent? 25 years. Please let me just say this,


is your name Miguel? Yes. First of all I want to apologise to you for


what you have endured. On behalf of the church and on behalf of me as a


priest, it is disgusting, it is criminal, sinful it is evil, and you


have bourne this and you have suffered from it and I am very, very


sorry, that being said, we are doing our absolute best to make sure that


no more young people will endure what you, Miguel have endured.


Gentlemen thank you very much indeed. I'm sorry about the


technical problems we have had with all of this thank you very much both


of you. Every politician knows the National


Health Service is a sacred cow when it comes to talk of the need for


cuts in public spending. If politics is about choices it is one choice


no-one wants to argue for. But if there is a surge in demand for


health care because of growing population, what does it mean to say


the budget is ring-fenced, not much according to the Institute for


Fiscal Studies which warned today that by the end of this decade we


will have gone through a cut in health spending per person of nine.


11%. -- nine. 1%. What want to think


about -- who wants to think about money when this is happening. You


are carrying life in you and billions of other women have done


the same thing. It is knowing how fundamental wishes like that are,


from giving birth and staying alive into old age that led politicians to


ring-fence the NHS budget. With each of the issues fulfilled there is a


new human being with needs, and they will need healthcare for longer than


before. From the roof of the Royal London Hospital, you can get an idea


of how many extra people trusts like these have to serve. It is because


of the surge in population, not budget cuts, that NHS budgets are


getting squeezed. The population growth is down to two factor,


immigration and people living longer. That means that even though


budgets are ring-fenced they are spread across more people, and there


is less money to spend per person. Today the Institute for Fiscal


studios made it clear how flimsy thes fence of the NHS has become.


Between 2010 and 2019 the population will have grown by 3. 5 million. We


are in this tough position where NHS spending is protected, but


everywhere else will see big cuts, but even the NHS will feel tight.


There is 9% less to spend on each individual given what has happened


to the structure of the population. Bart's Health said you can find ways


to care for more patients by the same budget like avoiding


appointments. Missing appointments costs money, instead of women going


to three different appointments for three different sites they come here


and have all three appointments in the same day. So on the same day we


do the bloods, we do the booking history and the scan. In another


example of cuts that can help patients, London's stroke wards were


cut, that cost howls of protest, but health patients avoid the most


expensive part of healthcare. Now you get taken, if you have a stroke,


to one of eight hyperacute stroke centres in London. This is one at


the Royal London Hospital right now. What has happened is the length of


stay across London for stroke has gone down from an average of 19 days


to ten days. That is a significant benefit to patients, and significant


saving for the healthcare economy. If you could well enough keeping


people out of hospital it becomes logical to cut back on hospital


beds. The problem is this isn't a national hospital service, it is a


National Health Service, we tend to focus on hospitals as if they are


the only way that care can be delivered. And one of the problems


is that we find it difficult to demonstrate to the public and to


some politicians the benefits of delivering care closer to home, more


personalised and involving and engaging patients and carers. But as


the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt recent leap found when he proposed


downgrading Accident and Emergency services at Lewisham, what is


clinically logical may not be politically palatable. The


efficiencies can mean innovation, but it can also mean subtley


restricting access to some treatments, otherwise known as


rationing. At what point do you need an operation? What is the threshold


you have to cross over until you need a cataract. How ill do you have


to be before you need a hip operation and so on. These are


clinical judgments and they are judgments, it is not a fixed line in


the sand. But the NHS has looked at those. How in a sense how behind do


you have to be before you have a cataract. However the NHS innovates,


it will be hard to convince the public that a cut of 9% per person


won't hurt a bit. For couples making their on contribution to the


population, every pound spent on healthcare is precious.


How good are you at writing computer code. Once upon a time ambitious


parents discouraged their children from learning keyboard skills


because they might determine their job prospects. Today without


keyboard skills your job prospects are definitely affected for the


worst. There is now a serious effort to encourage teachers to pass on


coding skills, once they have been taught how to do it properly for


themselves, of course. Learning to use code is seen by some as the


three Rs once were. Don't forget to put a semicolon at the end of any of


these lines here, just to tell the browsers you have ended the line. A


group of high-powered women in London's Tech City are learning


though code. They are presented with a series of baffling computer


commands. We are hiding the form in case they are not yet at the


location. This Gobbledegook will help them build apps. Lily Cole, the


actress and model is in the process of launching her own app and


website. I have heard learning code is like learning a foreign language?


It is like several foreign languages at a time. It is cool to see how


quickly we can pick it up. We have all built a website in one day which


is cool. Starting to play with design and seeing immediately how


the affects of the text creates visual imagery, it is an amazing


thing to see. What do you make of kids learning about it in school? I


love the idea of kids learning about it in school. I was looking for


coders over the last few years and quite shocked by what a limited


supply there was to meet the growing demand. I taught myself to code when


I was eight. The Government has announced, through this ad that 2014


is the year of code. It wants to tackle the skills shortage by making


coding part of the national curriculum. It will be taught to


5-16-year-olds. I want to make sure that kids in our schools are not


just consumers of technology and computer programmes, they don't just


know how to open up Word and Power point, they also understand how the


computer programmes are put together, they understand coding. It


comes after years of criticism from within the tech industry that


Britain, the country that invented the first electronic computer, is in


danger of throwing that computer heritage away. Great Britain has


something like 10% of our industry is based around IT and computer


science and computer software. We have a great heritage and place to


build on. What hasn't been happening is teaching kids about computer


programming at a young age. So we have lost that background of people


coming up through the schooling system with that experience. Does


anybody know what coding is? You use words and numbers to give the


computer instructions? These 10-11-year-olds have just started


learning about coding. It is a pilot for the lessons the Government is


producing in England and Wales from September. Why can't you just play


and work on a computer, why do you need to know all that stuff? Because


when you are older you might need coding for your work, say if you


were a banker you need coding to do the banks. Do you think you might


need it? Yeah. To do what? To work and to make your own website if you


wanted to. Half a million pounds has been pledged by the Government to


train up more than 170,000 primary and secondary teachers in coding


over the next six months. There is a lot of different apps and softwares


available now that weren't available before. And even adults, we're new


to it as well. We will need to learn things we haven't covered in initial


teacher training. Are you a tiny bit daunted? A little bit. Here in Tech


City they are trying out for people who know how to code. One local tech


entrepeneur have to go abroad to find people to do it. It is war of


who can get the people first. As far as the industry is concerned the


coding lessons can't start soon enough. There is a bit of concern


about how the subject is taught. In terms of your fears what do you


think it could be like if they are not careful? I didn't like learning


French and the reason I didn't like it is because I thought it is


completely irrelevant, I thought I'm learning to pass an example, why


should I care. Where as if it was sold to me that you can go to France


and experience a whole new culture, I would have gone I will go, try it


and experience it. Coding could be taught in a way where you sit down


and it is like let's learn the grammar of html, it is so abstract


and boring. If you ground it in a serious problem in my life or issue


or something really cool I want to do. It is about making it relevant


ultimately. Coursed say where the English language was once an


essential business commodity, now in a digital era, code is the new king


of global communication. The Government helped to launch the


Year of Code campaign, and Lottie Dexter is the director, how easy is


it to learn how to code? I can't code. I have committed this year to


learning to code. A year? You can do a lot in a short space of time. You


can build a website in an hour. From scratch, not knowing how to do it?


Completely from scratch. Over this year I will see what I can achieve.


Who knows I might be the next Zuckerberg in 12 months time. It is


possible, one can always dream. How long does it take to learn to teach


to code? Well I think you can pick it up in day. The teacher can pick


it up in a day? I think if we start teachers thinking about it now, in


March we're taking coding into the classrooms for the first time and


encouraging all teachers to teach an hour to their pupils. If we start


thinking about it now in time for September when it goes on to the


schools curriculum teachers should feel excited and people should be


about learning code. Isn't it all based on falsehood, the idea that it


is essential to know how to code. It is not essential to know how to code


or how a lightbulb works, is it? In the modern day economy code is


really a vital skill. Technology has completely changed our economy, our


Labour market, our society. To know how to do it? Unless we understand


technology we don't really understand how the world works. When


I was at school I was taught you know so much about the human body,


in physics I was told to wire up a lightbulb, it is important to know


how it works. Knowing how to code is crucial for so many people for


getting jobs in the new economy. We need a work force for the new


economy. But also to increase your earnings potential and to start your


own business. In this new economy wouldn't it be more useful to


learning something like mandarin? I think the code is an international


language. I think that if you can learn to code you can interact


across boundaries and you can, I think the important thing is that


you can get yourself started, it is a great leveller. Having code in


schools and giving every pupil the ability to code, they can, you know,


start their own business, it is not something that is just marginalised


for middle-class parents. It can be whatever you want it to be, the


schools on the Internet are so cheap and easily available now. You can


set up your on-line profile and start a website. I started a


campaign last year. If I would have learned code at school I could have


done my own website. I could have done my own app and graphics, I


would have saved a hell of a lot of time and money. I think I could have


done it a lot better. For the sake of old duffers like Mark You are --


Urban, what is code? It is the language of instructing computers.


It is how you make computers do things. So it is different symbols?


But it doesn't mean anything? It doesn't mean anything to you or


indeed to me yet, because I don't know how to code. It is a set of


instructions you type into a computer to get an output. When this


goes on to the schools curriculum, every pupil from the age of five


will learn how to code. They will pop into a box a set of instructions


and they will see what you put in you get it out. It is how you make


computers do something. What is an e-card. It is a virtual card. There


is a national initiative to teach people how to make cards? And


websites and apps, they are fun ways of learning a very important skill


that you really need. It is the future. You really need it for the


21st job market. Three Rs and a C. Thank you very much. An Australian


reporter, a Canadian-Egyptian producer and Egyptian cameraman are


spending their 39th night in custody in Cairo. All three work for


Al-Jazeera, they are accused of links to terrorism and broadcasting


false news. Where would we be if that was an offence in this country.


Footage of their arrest was put on a Cairo TV channel set to music. Our


diplomatic editor is here. This all seems to have ratcheted up recently?


Absolutely, in the past couple of days. These journalists were


arrested at the end of December. It is a cause for concern they are


still there. Things start to change, the Tahir TV station airs this


footage designed to make them look like people involved in some kind of


conspiracy. On the right is a former BBC man, I worked beside him in


Baghdad morning places. The other man has a Canadian passport. They


are making these serious-sounding charges. They have also announced


they want to talk to another 20 people son similar-sounding charges,


like aiding the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Jazeera says only nine worked for


them. Another fled Egypt having been in hiding. The situation escalated


last night and the White House expressed its grave concern. Sorry I


thought we were about to hear the White House expressing grave concern


there. Tell me, journalists generally, it seems to me, are now


finding it extremely difficult to work there, aren't they? It has


before difficult. There are different levels of aggro, people


right from the fall of Mubarak are angry, they blame us and other news


organisations. There is aggro on the streets. Sometimes sexual aggro


towards female reporters. Then at intermediate -- interimmediate level


you have bureaucracy thrown at reporters about them being


registered. At this top of the tree this type of thing, arrest and


serious charges. What is paying out here goes beyond an irritation that


the people have with foreign media and what part they played. There is


a battle of influence between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Al-Jazeera is


based in Qatar, the Egyptian Government claim it acts as an arm


of the Government there. They were supporting Mohammed Morsi, the


ousted President, the Egyptian military regards clamping down on


them and favouring the rivals. One Egyptian journalist said to me


frankly this will go on until the Emir of Qatar changes his mind.


We're joined now from Doha by our guest, director of news at


Al-Jazeera English Channel. What have you heard about your three or


four hostages in Egypt? There are three from the English Channel and


one from the Arabic channel in detention. The one from the Arabic


channel is in detention for six months now, and he is on a hunger


strike. The three Al-Jazeera men are in one cell in a high-security


prison in Cairo. They were served charges. Conveniently the charges


were split between the Egyptian journalists and non-Egyptian


journalists. The Egyptians were accused of being members of


terrorist organisations and non-Egyptians of aiding them. It is


actually fabrication and nonsense and intimidation and irritation of


journalists in order to get one side of the story coming from Egypt only.


Is it true that some of your people there are or were there without


being properly accredited. Let's set a few things clear from the


beginning. The accreditation is part of the charges. As I read in the


charges here they are always mentioned that they are


nonaccredited with the intention of harming security. It is a simple


charge and doesn't refer journalists to criminal courts. Were they


properly accredited there or not? Al-Jazeera media network is


officially accredited to work in Egypt. It has been working for all


the time. Were those officials accredited there? Some of the


journalists are accredited, and some applied for accreditation. It


happens with all media organisations, this is not the


charge, they are being charged with. It is a nonaccredited


journallingists with the intent of harming national security. If they


were only not accredited that is a very simple administrative offence.


So you say, it is the case, is it not that Qatar has been playing a


role in recent events in Egypt. That it is at odds with the military


Government there and Al-Jazeera is largely run by the Government of


Qatar, is that not correct? I'm not a spokesman for the Government of


Qatar, and Al-Jazeera is not run by the Government of Qatar. Actually


the BBC is like Al-Jazeera, BBC World Service is funded by the


Foreign Ministry. It is not owned by a member of the Royal Family? No,


but the British Government has the support of governors. It is not


owned by them either? By the Foreign Ministry, BBC World Service. I was


an editor on there and I know that. It has a board of governors and


editorial guidelines and it answers for this. The same thing here we are


an independent organisation, funded by the Qatar Government and we have


our own board of governors and code of ethics and conduct that we answer


for. All our products and our reports are on-line and they are, we


are of high quality and objectivity. You can see how the Egyptian


Government, which is at odds with the Qatary Government might feel


that an organisation funded by the Qatar Government was about some


other business than nearly as you put it, objectily reporting the


news. I know the accusations and the same accusations were put to the BBC


by Zimbabwe when you weren't able to report from there and other places.


Governments were at odds together but we are free journalists. We are


independent and we cherish our quality of work and integrity. And


our mission to get to the viewer the story from all sides regardless of


the price for them. Thank you very much for joining us thank you. It is


surely no surprise when an England sporting team and fails


spectacularly, heads sooner or later will role. It is usually preceded by


the sports pages clicking their knitting needles together. Today it


is the other way round, for reasons they didn't bother to explain the


England Cricket Board dumped Kevin Pietersen, because the national


cricket team put up such a pathetic performance this winter. Now the


journalists are up in arms at the dismissal of the captain Michael


Vaughan? What do you think of the way Kevin Pietersen's case has been


handled. It needs clarity, reasoning from the ECB for the fans to


understand what has Kevin Pietersen been doing behind the scenes to


bring the sacking of the player that has scored more runs than anybody


else. I have captained him and at times he's difficult and a Payne in


the back side, but a maverick that can win you games of cricket. You


know him and you have captained him, if anybody who can divine why he was


going it has to be you? There is times when Kevin Pietersen and that


character is difficult around the team. He has played 100 test matches


and has an opinion. You as a leader you have to take on opinion. At


times when you are leading and the team aren't doing well, the opinion


from senior players and outside world will not always be the opinion


you want to hear. But you have to deal with it. Management of players


is like management. If you can't manage a maverick like Pietersen you


need to think bin again. England have a lots of matches coming up, I


just think it is sad for the game that we don't have a group of people


that can manage one player through that period of play in three big


series, big tournaments for England. They feel the only way to move


forward is getting rid of Pietersen without explaining what he has done


wrong. Did he have any friend in the dressing room? There is always


devisive moments and cliques of people getting on with a certain


penalty more than another. What I hear from the tour is Pietersen is


fight. It was only last week that Swanson who retired came out and


said Pietersen, his attitude was spot on, since he has been


reintegrated into the side. He felt Kevin had plenty more runs to score


for England. That is somebody in the dressing room. I don't think it is a


be proem. He has stood up to the coach, Andy Flower, on the tour of


Australia, he didn't like it, but they have listen to Flores and Cook,


I don't think Ashley Giles could have said too much. Pietersen wasn't


in Australia on the one day series, but English cricket feel the only


way to move forward without Pietersen. I would have taken a


tougher call and said somebody needs to manage him better. How difficult


is it to manage a brilliant and you have used the word wise now about


Pietersen, a "brilliant maverick". Well it is training -- draining and


hard. It is very rewarding, if you look at English cricket over the


last ten years, Flintoff had the same quality. You manage him and


2005 he delivered, as did Pietersen in the last over. Go through the


last six or seven years, he was man of the tournament in Barbados, the


T20, he averaged 106 against independent. We got a double century


in the Test Match. England would have drawn going down 1-0 at Perth.


You look at a year-and-a-half ago when he produced problem the best


England hundred I have seen for many years. England win that series with


Kevin Pietersen. 100 hold Trafford last year, it would have been 2-1,


with two to play for Australia. You have to accept with people like


Pietersen and Flintoff they train you a bit but they reward you with


the performance levels, not just the mediocrity. The best teams and best


attacks in the world. That is what Petersen has done, he can be --


Pietersen has done, he can be a Payne and difficult, but also the


person who makes you win games of cricket. You have to be careful you


shouldn't bin someone like that and don't reward him in a way and say


thanks for your time with us, thanks for winning us all those gapes. And


don't know him out like they have, and they could have moved the team


on. Aclots -- across the south of England men and women have been


drying off their shoes ready for a walk to work tomorrow. Trains and


depots and commuters were left in fury, which is probably more


accurately designed as sullen, resentment. Much dark talk in


political circles of plans for the MPs to change the law and half


people having to vote yes to industrial action. Once upon a time


the BBC had an industrial correspondent. Strike reporters.


Time to resurrect the last of them. It was tough getting to work, the


two unions that represent the tube station staff are not the drivers


who are out on strike. They are in a dispute over the loss of 750 jobs


from closing the direct offices. Lots of people are faced disruption


today, more London Underground lines and stations have been closed in


this strike than any tube business pute for the last ten years. It is


said to be costing London ?50 million a year. And with another


two-day stoppage plan for next week, the Conservatives are determined to


stop them happening again. Boris Johnson says:


The Prime Minister want to go further, imposing a minimum service


level agreed so they provide a little service. The Conservatives on


a Greater London Authority wants an all-out ban on strikes. They should


be replaced by binding arbitration. We want to replace strikes, so


damaging to the economy and London. The idea if the Government were to


accept that it is binding arbitration in the case of an


argument going on between Transport for London and the union. A judge


would look at it and decide which was the case that he was going to


support. Today's strike would have been unlawful. There would have to


be a judge deciding in favour of TFL or the unions in the job cut. That's


right, there would not be a strike. In the 1970s and 80, I was always


coming to the then headquarters of the Conservative Party, to hear of


their latest plans for curbing the trade unions. And it became an


all-out war against the British trade union movement. The 1984


miners' strike was a turning point in Britain's troubled industrial


relations. In a war of attrition Margaret Thatcher said she was


taking on the enemy within. And her defeat of the shocked troops of the


union movement ended the all out strikes in the past. Successive


Conservative Government have curbed union power imposing secret ballots


before strike. Ending pass picketing but trying to stop essential


services and striking is unfinished business. With the coalition


Government, Liberal Democrats are a break on the Conservatives. Vincent


Cable won't be rushed into changing the law. If we legislate on


industrial relations we have to look carefully at the evidence, not


rushing into strike laws on the back of a bad dispute in London it is a


bad way to proceed. The tube train drivers have previously staged their


own strikes and like the station staff they would fight back against


any new laws. Its It is time for trade unions to stand up for


themselves with the general public. -- I think you will see massive


backlash against this from civil society. The reality is trade union


numbers are growing. We believe that is a direct reaction to the policies


that are currently in place. People now see a greater need for trade


unions and they will become more powerful as we go forward, I think.


While the unions claim they have the backing of two thirds of passengers,


the Conservatives are convinced the strikes are unpopular and present a


fresh opportunity to introduce legislation they have been working


on for years, to curb stoppages in the essential services, a policy


that is more likely to be in the Conservatives' next election


manifesto. Now the front pages: That's it at the close of another


day of rain and general glum wintriness. The railway line was


washed away in Dawlish in Devon. And in Torquay the seafront took a


pasting. Nice to think not all Februarys are quite like this.


The glorious Devon coast bathed in winter sunshine, equalising any


Mediterranean beauty spot. Don't you think. How is this for climate. Why


even from the screen you can imagine yourself in the sub-topics.


Sub-topics. Bathing too all the year round. The gulfstream is as warm as


the Mediterranean, not August, remember. This is February.


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman.

A UN report demands the Vatican removes all clergy who are known or suspected child abusers. Plus, coding being taught in schools, banning strikes and Michael Vaughan on Kevin Pieterson.