24/02/2014 Newsnight


Analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman. Including Harriet Harman on the tabloid paedophile row, Ukraine, and the NHS chief on his diabetes.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



she's the victim of a politically motivate the smear campaign. It is


not the case that my work, when I was at NCCL was influenced or


colluding or apologising for paedophilia, it is an unfair


inference and a smear. And this: A year I was diagnosed with diabetes,


linked to poor diet and being overweight. He's the head of the


NHS, what hope is there for the rest of us. David Nicolson is here to


talk to us about whether the service can cope with an explosion of


long-term conditions. What is wrong with a butcher advertising where


meat comes from? This foot critic quite likes it. -- this food critic


quite likes it. The accusations are explosive that


in the 1970s and 1980s senior Labour Party figures were involved with an


organisation that supported paedophilia. The Daily Mail's


campaign has been noisy and aggressive, and until tonight


unanswered. The question is, how could the deputy leader of the


Labour Party, her husband and another senior Labour Party official


have any dealings with an organisation involved in the sexual


exploitation of children. How did the pressure OK group they worked


with at the time ally with a campaign to reduce the age of


consent to ten. Over recent days the Daily Mail has splashed its front


pages with allegations about the Labour Deputy Leader, her husband,


and the former Labour Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt. All


three worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties in the


1970s and 1980s. The human council now known as Liberty, was closely


linked to the peeped yale Information Exchange -- paedophiles


Information Exchange. It is argued it tried to lower the age of consent


to ten. Mrs Harman was a leader there in 1978. Her name appears on


papers to the Home Office, that pictures of naked children should


not be disproved only if it was proved that the children had been


harmed. Harriet Harman is a person of huge dignity and integrity, I


have known her for 20 years, I don't listen to these allegations, I know


she is on the right side of all these issues, that is clear. After


days of demands from the Daily Mail and other newspapers for Hewitt,


Dromy and Harman to provide answers, the Labour Deputy Leader has decided


to break her silence. We spoke exclusively to Harriet Harman


earlier this evening. Harriet Harman, are you speaking out now


because the Daily Mail has made it impossible for you to keep quiet?


Yes, that is the case. I mean they have made these allegations before


and they are so outlandish and so far from the truth that in the past


I have thought, don't dignify them with a response. People won't


believe them, they will just go away. I thought the same this time.


They have put it on their front page three times, they are whipping up


such an ugly insinuation that I felt it was really important to respond


to them. But you were the legal officer for several years at the


national Aum for civil liberties, which was affiliated to the


Paedophile Information Exchange, were you aware of the affiliation?


It was an organisation that had something like 6,000 members and


1,000 affiliates, and anybody could join by paying a fee. When I was


there as legal officer there was nothing, far from it, that I put


forward that supported sexual abuse of children. But why was it


acceptable, even to have an affiliation, they didn't try to hide


what they were, the heightle of the group was The Paedophile Information


Exchange, why was it OK for them to have any link with the group you


worked with? NCCL was an organisation where any organisation


could pay their affiliation and join it. And that's the way it was. It


didn't have an expulsions policy. Any individual who wanted to pay


their money to join NCCL could, and any organisation could join and


affiliate to it. And affiliation is an official link, and when you were


the legal officer at the National Council for Civil Liberties, did you


do anything to suggest that link should be broken, did you do


anything to try to push them away from your organisation? They had


already been pushed away. They will still members until 1983? They had


been pushed away in 1976, the policy was set by the broad membership of


NCCL at their annual general meetings. In terms of that


affiliation, did you have anxiety about that at the time? Well the


anxiety and controversy had happened before I was there. But did you not


have anxiety about the continuing affiliation while you were there,


you were there for four years, you were there with one of your close


friends and husband. Did you none of you discuss anxieties about having


them as a group linked, however distantly to the work that you were


trying to do? But they were not linked to the work that we were


doing. You see at the time when you were the legal officer there, you


wrote in a briefing paper to MPs, and we have it here, prosecutions in


relation to child protection and photography should only proceed if


you can prove that children were actually harmed, now making that


argument while the National Council was linked to the Paedophile


Information Exchange, can you see why people might raise an eyebrow


about that argument being made while there was an official link to an


overt group of paedophiles. If you look at the briefing paper it


welcomes the Protection of Children Bill, which for the first time would


introduce a criminal law that said photography of children which would


be used for pornography, which was sexually Ayew Bewsive of -- sexually


abusive of children was for the first time be a criminal offence. We


also argued that we wanted it to have clear definitions. Was the


affiliation between the two groups a mistake? There wasn't an affiliation


between the two groups. You are making it sound like there was a


mutuality. There wasn't. Technically there was an affiliation, they paid


their membership to the NCCL, they were part of the wider group, was


that a mistake? They paid their money to NCCL and at the time, NCCL


takes money from any organisation which was a lawful organisation and


any individual. Was it a mistake to have that affiliation? I think what


was right was to actually dispel them from the conference and make


sure that their views were never taken forward by NCCL, that is what


the big clash was. It is a very simple question, yes or no, was it a


mistake to allow an overt group, publicly campaigning for paedophiles


to be affiliated, which is the term they used, to the National Council


for Civil Liberties, when you were legal officer? On the basis that it


has created some how a sense that NCCL's work was therefore tainted by


them, yes, obviously, that is a very unfortunate inference to have. But


it is not the case that my work when I was at NCCL was influenced by PI,


or was colluding or involved in paedophilia and it is a smear. Why


won't you say whether or not it was a mistake, to have affiliation, you


could have sent back the membership fees or thrown them out? It was not


the sort of organisation which actually people applied to. And were


then vetted, you know, are you able to give your donation? More than


1,000 organisations, you know had all sorts of different things. This


was a group you were well aware with, why won't you with the benefit


of decades of hindsight just say yes it was a mistake for there to be any


affiliation? They were challenged and pushed aside from their views


having influence. Your implication is that some how by giving money


NCCL was influenced, it wasn't. I don't know what they gave, ?10 a


year, I don't know. But the policy was set by NCCL Annual General


Meeting. You were happy your employer for four years took


membership money from a group that was overtly campaigning for the


rights of paedophiles, that wasn't a mistake, that is what you were


saying? I was content with the fact in the knowledge that nothing that I


did supported paedophilia in any way, shape or form. But you are


happy for the National Council of civil liberties to have taken money


from a paedophile group. I wasn't happy that the group existed. They


shouldn't have existed. They were obviously you know a front for very


bad people who I think many of them were then prosecuted. Is this the


beginning of another big battle between the Labour Party and the


Daily Mail, your party leader already has had a huge battle with


them? This is not battle I'm seeking, this is the Daily Mail


aggressively trying to completely reshape the facts of a situation 30


years ago. It is ironic that they are accusing me of supporting


indecency in relation to children, when they themselves are not above


producing photographs of very young girls, titivating photographs in


bikinis, I stand by what I was doing at NCCL, and I stand by what I have


done all the way through. Are you accusing the Daily Mail of printing


indecent images, it sounds very much like you are making that accusation?


If there is anybody who has over the years supported indecency, it is


much more the Daily Mail than it is me. That is the frank truth of it.


Laura joins us now, has this explanation made things better or


worse? Well, I think it is certainly not made the problem go away, not


least because as you heard time and again we asked Harriet Harman


whether it was a mistake to have this affiliation, however close or


distant with the Paedophile Information Exchange, she refused to


say it. Those people who have been following this story closely, not


least the Daily Mail, frankly, will be really wound up by that. At the


end of the interslew she hit back -- interview, she hit back at the


newspaper accusing them of printing the things that they themselves


might consider indecent. That will be frankly like a red rag to a bull.


You have the front page? Still the Daily Mail have "still they won't


say sorry". Given the vociferousness of the campaigned why the it might


be wrapped up is not likely. What sort of state was she in? She had


clearly thought about how she was going to present her case. You see


they have gone back over the evidence, the document, some of them


the Mail has published. She's clearly very familiar with them, but


the Daily Mail has told us tonight as far as they are concerned today's


statements from Miss Harman they have described it have been full of


peasantry and obfuscation, they say it is the paper's job to ask


controversial questions. There is a sense of exasperation, some of the


allegations have been made before. Miss Harman has never spoken out


publicly like this, in a sense she's at the end of her tether. I don't


think this is the end of the row. The new Government in Ukraine is,


according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, nothing more than an armed


mutiny, hell hath no fury than a superpower scorned, and Moscow is


warning of the dangers it sees to the many ethnic Russians living in


the Ukraine. It is the sort of language used to justify military


intervention in other parts of the Soviet Union. Russia was using words


like "terrorist" and "dictator" to describe the new Government in


Ukraine. Our reporter Gabriel Gatehouse is still in Kiev and sent


this dispatch. The streets still wear the scars of


last week's violence. Many are still trying to digest the sheer enormity


of it. But the new authorities are now trying to understand exactly


what happened, who the shooters were, and who gave the orders? On


Thursday morning, this street turned into a deadly firing range. Some of


the shooting was coming from the protestors, who had suddenly charged


on police lines. But most of the gunfire came from the police


themselves. And they were using snipers. So these originated from


the top of the bank and then the second high advantage point was


here? The round one, yeah. In Kiev today British forensic experts were


collecting evidence. And this was high velocity round. Would that mean


a sniper rifle or an AK? I think this is sniper because the position


over there, near the metal lampost, the bullet holes are very, very


close together. They asked us to conceal their identities, their


work, they said, was politically sensitive. There is one particular


clean shot up here which lines up with the balcony over here. Using


the bullet scars as their guide, they are trying to work out exactly


where the snipers' were positioned. If you look through here and you


just see a direct line of sight with the balcony of the bank building


over there. That is amazing how you can work that all out. It was a


bloodbath really, wasn't it. Today the new Ukrainian Interior Minister


issued a warrant for arrest of Viktor Yanukovych, the former


President, on charges of mass murder. Whatever the British


investigators find here could be used in a future prosecution. We are


looking at the sniper positions and who would be responsible for the


deaths of the people in that area. The investigators say there were at


least four sniper position, one at ground level, here at this


barricade. And then another three in the tall buildings behind it over


there. And the snipers were shooting directly down this road, in the


direction of the hotel where they were staying and the square beyond.


In the past 24 hours new footage has emerged showing police marksmen at


that barricade on Thursday. Most are armed with Kalashnikov Assault


Rifles. But some are clearly carrying sniper rifles. A Ukrainian


MP today said he had uncovered documents that proved that the


security operation that ended in so many deaths last week had been


authorised at the very highest levels. TRANSLATION: There are


documents with details of the whole security operation, I have made some


of these papers public today. They contain the exact names and


locations of the snipers and the names of those in charge. Kiev is


now a city where law and order rests in the hands of loosely organised


vigilante groups, calling themselves Self- Defence of Midan, they do more


than man barricades, they guard Government buildings saying they


want to ensure an orderly handover of the state. We are closely


co-operating with the state guards. For instance in the presidential


administration it is state guards who control the building from


inside. We are controlling the whole perameter, nobody is capable of


entering the building without our permission. If you control the


buildings, who controls you? I think it is a good question. No-one? There


is a Council of People who are with us. That's one thing. Who are those


people? Those people are heads of units. At night these heads of units


roam the streets of the city, groups of menacing-looking men with body


armour brandishing clubs. Last night we saw a man being dragged off by


one of these groups, destination unknown. The police have virtually


disappeared. The hunt is now on for Viktor Yanukovych. At his oppulent


compound on the edge of Kiev, the only sign of him was on his


personalised liquor bottles. Ordinary Ukrainians flock there in


their thousands, an eye-popping weekend outing. This was his


floating bang the questioning hall. There was also a zoo, complete with


Ostrich and other possibly edible birds. The duck house, that ultimate


symbol of corruption, was much in evidence. Where does the money come


from? Of course from our money, from our taxes. And my relatives and


friends said that they like to joke th every teacher who wants such a


building in Ukraine. They say it is one of the world's wonders.


TRANSLATION: Ukraine's leaders face an


argumentative electorate. Politicians are called to explain


themselves directly to the people. It is a very difficult task but I'm


more than sure we want very much and we have control of the people. You


don't control them? The people control us, because they move the


Government away and the new Government will be bad they will


move us. But much more badly, because the people died for that.


This time people say they can't just go back to business as usual. We


have already paid too high a price. Gabriel Gatehouse joins us now from


Kiev. What's the feeling there about these noises being made. Menacing


noises being made in Moscow. Ukrainians are strangers to menacing


noises in Moscow, they have heard them over gas wars and other


incidences, for those who fear a Russian invasion is now, they hear


Mr Medeyev talking about armed mutineers and passport issuing, they


are worried. For those who say it will be all right, they look at the


fact that statement was made by Mr Medeyev and not Putin. Having backed


from Yanukovych so heavily and Putin was heavily involved in the


negotiations, that led to that abortive deal that saw Yanukovych


almost save his skin by offering fresh elections by December. They


have to speak out. It is a matter of pride. But I think also they will be


looking at the same picture that you are seeing behind you there, Jeremy.


That is an almost empty square. There is almost zero chance that


Viktor Yanukovych can come back from this. So they will look forward and


think how do we work with whoever it is to come. They will probably hope


it will involve Eugenia Tymoshenko in some form or another. Now to


National Health Service. In public opinion terms the NHS has come to


occupy a status that the Church of England could only dream of even in


its hey day. The chief executive of the National Health Service in


England, Sir David Nicolson, is retiring next month. He leaves


behind an organisation that has just been through yet another


reorganisation, yet that is still on track for a predicted shortage of


tens of billions of pounds a year in the future. With more and more


people in need of long-term treatment. We invited him to


reflect. I have been the chief executive of the NHS for eight


years, I think it is the best job in the world. REPORTER: Can we ask some


questions? But like many jobs you can pay a price in relation to your


lifestyle. A year ago I was diagnosed with diabetes, linked to a


poor diet and being overweight. In the next few weeks I will stop being


the chief executive of NHS England and will be just a patient. One of


the 15 million people in this country who suffer from long-term


conditions. The NHS has come a long way. We have cut waiting times to


some of the shortest in the world, stack -- tackled the scourge of


hospital infections and saved thousands of lives by improving


heart and cancer services. As a direct result of that success, we


now have more and more people living to an old age, which at least one


long-term condition. The NHS spends a staggering ?1. Five million an


hour for services on diabetes, for people like me. Is that money spent


in the best possible way? No it isn't. We spend far too much of it


on the complication of diabetes, the amputation, the heart failure, the


strokes, We need to spend more on prevention. Andrea has diabetes and


has been in and out of hospital for years. Daily living, you are rushing


about, I have children, dropping them here, there and everywhere, I


don't always eat when I should eat. So obviously that has an affect on


my diabetes. I would like to be helped at home more so, that I don't


have to come into hospital as much. If there was, I did have a community


nurse, but it brokedown. So I ended up coming back to hospital. But


something like that would be great for people with diabetes. It is not


just Andrea who thinks this, future of the NHS must be about the shift


of services, out of hospital and closer to people's homes. So in this


part of Birmingham we have already been able to reduce the number of


hospital beds by 300 and make sure the money we were using for that


care is delivered in the community nearer to where the patients are.


These ideas aren't radical. But implementing them across the NHS is.


As part of this, the NHS needs to continue to embrace technology, to


give patients control over their treatment. One of the ways in which


I can take control of my own health and healthcare is by the use of


simple technology. I can text my GP information about myself, he can


analyse it and send me back useful and helpful advice. This saves me


time, and takes pressure off my GP. If we want an NHS that works in the


future, we need to give patients more control, we need to give


communities like these more control over the NHS. We also need to have


the ambition to make radical change, to make the kinds of changes that


will improve services for our patients and their outcomes.


Sir David Nicolson is here now. In your judgment, with your long


experience coming up to retirement, do you think the NHS can continue


like this, funded by taxation and free at the point of need? I think


this is a really important point. If you look at my colleagues across


Europe and the developed world, all healthcare systems are having the


kind of challenges that I described in the film. And there are different


ways of dealing with them. Some countries are going down the road of


significantly reducing the amount, the pay for their staff. So 15-20%


reductions in pay for doctors and nurse, places like Ireland. There


are some other places like Greece, Portugal and Spain, who are looking


at reducing the offer patients. That is not the way we want to do it at


the NHS, we are completely committed to the universally free at the point


of use point. It is difficult to do that. You think it can continue as


it is? It absolutely can. Despite the looming ?30 billion deficit? If


we tackle the issues. That is around giving patients more control, but


also being radical about the way we reorganise our health service as


providing much more services in the community and reducing the size of


our hospitals. So fewer hospitals? They have to be reduced in size.


Whether or not they are fewer. Individual hospitals reduced in


size? Absolutely. But nobody likes to have their hospital shut down or


reduced in size do they? That is why it is often very difficult for


people to do that. That is why it is controversial. But it is absolutely


vital. Doesn't it follow from that then that politicians are quite the


worst people to make these sort of judgments? Well it is one of the


reasons we have been through the whole range of reforms we have had.


To give an organisation a responsibility for looking beyond


the electoral cycle. That is NHS England. Is the Secretary of State


responsible in that process? All the politicians I have worked with over


the years, and no political party has a monopoly on good ideas about


the NHS. Working with the current Secretary of State, when faced with


a difficult decision he's prepared to take it. And take it beyond the


political cycle? That I think is the issue for us going forward. There is


no doubt, if you want to make change in the NHS you need to think three,


five, seven years out, and the tyranny of the electoral cycle


stands. And the Secretary of State is prepared to do that? To make the


difficult decisions and has done on every occasion. But the system works


against you. If you think about it the ical cycle goes it is 18 months


before a general election, therefore we cannot make change. Then around


the Hustings, politicians go around and promise things to their local


populations that things will not change. And then you have a period


afterwards where people say, we made these promises, we can't make change


happen. Then you have a year inbetween those two things where you


can make change. That is no way to run a health service. That is why, I


think, we need NHS England. It is also not what happened, of course.


After the last election, this coalition came in and made all sorts


of changes that they hadn't talked about? Not about the delivery of


healthcare. It was about the reform to the NHS system as a whole. Be


honest now, after all the changes you have been through in the NHS,


when this Government came in and suddenly announced a lot more


changes, what did you think? My immediate response was I have been


through a lot of these structural changes before. They seldom deliver


what people expect and they create a lot of issues around people taking


their eye off the ball. So what I had to do, and part of my


responsibility is to help the Government come to a sensible set of


conclusions that were implementable. Were you dismayed? I did say that it


was a very large set of changes. I did think that we would spend more


time than we needed to looking at ourselves rather than thinking about


services and the way we need to change. It was unhelpful really? It


has done a whole series I think of very helpful things. It has brought


in general practitioners and clinicians into planning and


organising services in a way we never would have done before. It


saved us for this parliament ?5. 5 billion to invest in frontline


services, and it has created an organisation, NHS England, capable


of looking beyond the cycle. But hard choices are going to have to be


made? You raised the question there of long-term conditions, and you


mentioned your own case of diabetes, you say it was a consequence of bad


eating and stress and other things. If people choose to eat badly, if


they choose to smoke, if they choose not to exercise, there is going to


come a point, isn't there, when people are going to say it is not


the tax-payers' responsibility, you have personal freedom but you must


live with the consequences? There are millions of people who want to


change and do something about it. We as an NHS need to help and support


them. You presumably didn't realise what the consequences of your


lifestyle were? I did realise the consequences of diabetes, but like


plane people there were a whole set of reasons why I decided I would


carry on the way I did. What I learned through patient education,


through the technology available, to the support of GPs, that it is


possible to change your lifestyle and that is what I have done. It is


too late? It is not too late for me. I can already, in the year that I


have been diagnosed I have stablised by blood sugar. Most of my signs now


are in the right place and so I can continue to work on it, and I won't


develop those complication described in the film. Was that stress linked


to the Mid Staffordshire problems? Clearly the issues around Mid


Staffordshire were traumatic for the NHS as a whole. And still are. And


you? Of course, I was chief executive of the NHS from 2006, I


worked in the West Midlands for a while. I saw some of the


consequences of that up front. It is what will be written on your


tombstone, of course, isn't it? In the circumstances we find ourselves


in, I think people make their own judgments about people's


contributions, but if you think about what the NHS has delivered


over the last seven or eight years it is absolutely remarkable the


improvements in access, the attack on healthcare associated infection,


you know, tens of thousands of lives that we have saved through cancer


and coronary heart disease. Undoubted lie there are issues --


undoubtedly there are issues, and we need to learn from them. One of the


great thing about the Francis Report is it gives us the opportunity to


learn. One of the things I learned is that openness and transparency


and not being defensive, all of those things, being open to people


who want to raise issueses is a really important part of renewing


the NHS. And you obviously thought about resigning at one point?


Clearly. When I... Do you think it would have been better if you had?


When I think about it, there were two reasons I decided not to resign.


The first one was I started on the road of trying to improve the


quality of care, making quality much more the organising principle of the


NHS and I want to see that through. When the Francis Report came out we


were right in the middle of the biggest set of reforms the NHS had


ever seen. I said at the time there were so large you could see them


from space. I thought it would be irresponsible to walk away at that


particular time. You have been in the NHS how many years? 36 years. 36


years in the NHS, if you come back in 36 years time, or anyone looks at


the NHS in 36 years time. Will it be an organisation we can recognise


from today's template? I think the basic principle of being universally


available free he it point of use will be the way we will see it. It


is the way of the future, with genetics and the knowledge we will


have about risk factors for the future. Having a system which shares


risk across a whole population is much more likely to be successful


than one based on private health insurance. Thank you very much


ir-David. -- Sir David. Aberdonians were


treated to not one but two cabinet meetings in their area. What joy


joy! In their public appearances the Prime Minister argued that the oil


industry was better governed by a big country rather than a small one


and the Scottish First Minister said the opposite. It reflects their


claims on Scottish independence. David Cameron's visit to the land of


some of his ancestors was a publicity stunt. Emily Maitlis


watched it. # On the road again


# Just can't get to get on the road again


I'm in the car park and the First Minister hasn't arrived.


They blamed the traffic for the embarrassingly late arrival of


Scotland's First Minister for his interview. Who can say they weren't


right, the Aberdeen traffic can be terrible on any day of the week and


today was no ordinary day. Rush hour happens on the road and out at sea,


the pilot ships earlier this morning were ferrying supplies to the oil


rig, oblivious to the efforts politicians of all persuasions were


putting into deciding their industry's future back on dry line.


This morning Aberdeen is bracing itself for not one cabinet meeting


but two. Lucky old it! This truly unremarkable spot marks the halfway


point of a curious convergence, three miles to my left Alex


Salmond's cabinet meeting, three miles to my right David Cameron's


cabinet is meeting. The two will never meet though one road joins the


two. You might call it coincidence were it not for the publication


today of an independent report into future of oil and gas in Scotland. A


future each side claim will be rowsier with them. Alex Salmond has


claimed North Sea oil could be worth ?300,000 a person if Scotland were


independent. It accuses the Westminster Government of bluff,


bluster and bullying in coming here and telling the Scots what to think.


There is a difference between delivering message on high or


sending his Chancellor or Foreign Secretary up to Scotland to tell us


what to do. There is a difference between jetting into Scotland and


jetting out than having a real democratic debate about the future


of the country. But Westminster says that's too optimistic and an


undeterred David Cameron began his day aboard an oil rig, supporting


the British Government's commitment to extraction of oil. We have got


behind this industry and will continue to stay behind this


industry to get the maximum benefit out of it. The maximum benefit for


all the UK, including Scotland. So we went off in search of more broad


shoulders and found them on Danny Alexander, possibly the only member


of the cabinet to have come south from his constituency in Inverness.


He was visiting Trans Ocean, it trains people all over the world who


what to expect deep below the sea. Your cabinet has been accused of


bluff, bluster and bullying, of flying in here on "Scare Force One".


If you go west you can hear from the master of bluff, Mr Salihamidzic.


David Cameron has put himself centre stage in the debate, it delights


Alex Salmond. Could he be doing more harm than good? Isn't the problem


that David Cameron is a southern softie and Englishman and an


Eatonian and not helping your cause at all? He may be all of those


things, the most important thing is he doesn't have a vote. He's not


someone who will cast a vote on the 18th of December, for independence.


Is he better out of this argument? As Prime Minister of the UK he's the


right to have a view and set it out to people. Then it was time to leave


the politicians and the simulators and head down to the beach. This is


Sunset Boulevard, OK in Aberdeen. And even here I seem to see warnings


of the political log-jam that has opened up over this city. Alex


Salmond is a formidable politician, even his enemies recognise his


force, but a pattern has been emerging over recent weeks from the


London end, a change in tempo and willingness to play the game. It is


supposed to put Westminster back into the driving seat over the


referendum debate. You can't help thinking that they are having fun


with this with Alex Salmond, with the currency ruled out and the


difficulty of joining a euro that brought a smile to their face probe


Blairex and now the whole future of oil and gas they are suggesting


could be under threat in an independent Scotland that went off


on its own. The interesting thing will be to see how Scotland's First


Minister reacts, he has hit back at the no-currency union and saying


Scotland can go it along, calling it sterlingisation. Westminster has


started to call him "the man without a plan", but underestimate him at


your peril. Alex Salmond is never without a plan for very long. John


Cleese once wondered if God didn't want us to eat animals then why did


he make them out of meat? Very funny say vegetarians who consider meat


akin to murder. Now a number of sensitive souls in the market town


of Sudbury, on the borders of Essex, have apparently forced a butcher to


take down displays that remind them precisely what meat is. They are not


necessarily vegetarians but they provide an indication of how very


far, even people in mainly rural areas are from what were once


organic businesses of every day life. We report, I should warn you,


if you are a fan of Bambi you better look away now. Some wherein a quiet


market town in Suffolk what to some people is a scene of horror. JBS


Butchers has been selling game here for years, from entire carcasses of


venison, to partridges, to furry rabbits shot in the local fields. It


is this fancy window display that seriously roughlies feathers. It


takes the staff here an hour to create this every morning, just not


this morning. A fiery local campaign has forced the dead animals out of


the shop window and into the fridge in the back room. "I too have been


disgusted at the multiple display of multi lated carcasses" wrote one man


to the local paper. The assistant manager says he has been fielding


calls of support from across Europe. We had a phone call from a couple


who live in France and they read it on their website and they were fully


behind us. So that was night. We had a gentleman in Lancashire ring us


asking us to send a hare to him. It is a bit of an eye-opener, tiring


but nice. These are wild rabbits? Yeah. These were all running around


in one of your fields somewhere. Like Watership Down? That is what I


should put on it! There are plenty in the trade who say this is not a


one-off, and in today's world he of shrink-wrapped ready meals we have


gone soft. At the local pub our rabbits are skinned, diced and


fried, the owner said every chef on his books used to be able to do


this, now it is a specialist skill. A lot of customers will want you to


take any semblance of the meat having ever been alive away from it


before it goes on to their plate. For you is that something that has


changed over time, have we become more squeamish as a nation?


Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. We don't have to know where


anything comes from. It is just there for us in the supermarket.


Excuse me, have you got a second? From the BBC, we want someone to try


our rabbit. After an hour this afternoon though, we couldn't find a


single person who would speak out against the butchers. It is part of


life. They have to learn that is where rabbit stew comes from,


rabbit, Peter Rabbit, who gets shot if he eats mummy's cabbages in the


garden. Yeah. I don't have a problem, it is important people know


where the food comes from, rather than thinking it appears vacuum


packed in supermarkets. It might not be to everyone's taste, but in this


market square the idea of knowing and seeing exactly what you eat


isn't putting anyone off. I would eat that every day. Superb. Now to


discuss this rapidly vanishing story I'm joined by the Sunday Telegraph


food critic Zoe Williams and Jay Rayner, who has written a book all


about food security. What will we make of what was the initial premise


of going there the butchers who had to remove their display? I'm


surprised that men making their living wielding sharp knives put up


with it. I'm surprised they took them down. Meat comes from animal,


I'm looking at this and thinking pork scratchings, that is the kind


of chap I am. We need to know meat comes from animals and that is it.


What do you make of it? By sheer coincidence I interviewed these guys


a few months ago they are in Tim Yeo's constituency, and I asked them


what they think, and they were only interested in rabbit. They said


there was a weird divide, you get people from Molford buying game that


cost a lot of money, and people from Sudbury buying anything to chuck in


a soup, they never see or refer to each other. There is a complete


class divide in the butcher. And that is what's going on. If most of


the animal is to be eaten, hasn't that always been the case? Sure, but


what you find is there is an offence taken which is just then privilege.


The act of taking offence gives you a stronger voice than the act of not


taking offence. If you are not taking offence you are not saying


anything at all. There is an argument that we have sanatised meat


because we buy it in supermarkets under cellophane. There is a lot to


be said for buying your meat from local butchers, particularly if they


show you the whole animal first and you can point to it and say you want


that pig cheek. I think there is so much class cross-current going on.


We talk about going to the proper butcher and supporting your local


shop, you are really talking about people with money and time. The


reason meat has been sanatised, you know life has been. If you had this


in a supermarket, it feels funny doesn't it? It really smells! It is


the. The rabbits smell! It had a long journey from Suffolk. If you


had it in a supermarket it wouldn't sell. Where as a packet of sasauges


that could be the same stuff but different shape would sell? What you


are talking about then is expertise and time. I wouldn't have time to


turn that into a sausage. I don't know about you. If people who have a


relatively you know, if people who do cook from scratch wouldn't have


time, nobody would. That is not the point about the story, the issue is


people not seeing animals as animals. So it is going to take very


skilled butchers to turn it into pig cheeks and crispy pigs ears, which


are lovely. The point is looking your dinner in the face. I went to


work in an abattoir to see what it is about and see the animals killed.


I felt as a meat eater it was what we have to do. We have to face up to


the realities. It is an ugly business. The thing about


squeamishness, there is a purpose, if you look at it and it makes you


feel circumstance you are identifying with the pig. There is a


human purpose and beauty in thinking yourself in the position of the dead


animal. Did you feel sick in the abattoir? No I didn't. I'm not a


sentimental man. But I suppose I knew what to expect. It was


startling, particularly when a pig is not the same as a sheep or the


same as a beef animal. Species changes everything, scale changes


everything. Not in taste either. I know that bit, that is why I have a


job. It was quite striking, and it is startling when they are removing


them and putting them on spikes and that, I'm not sure everybody could


do it. I think people need to engage in the process. If they can't engage


in that, and on this I have a lot in common with the vegan movement. If


you can't accept what it is you are doing you have to think about why


you are doing it, whether you are prepared to eat it? That is fair


enough. The whole process of eating meat, if you were actually to be


confronted with the reality of it, that you are breeding things for


your own pleasure, which you then cause enormous Payne, you can't


confront the truth of it. Everybody looks away at some level. I don't


know if it is about pleasure than need? Of course it is not, come off


it. What would you not eat? There is nothing I won't eat. Nothing? To be


honest I'm not fan of rabbit, only because I don't like the taste of


it. You would eat anything else? I wouldn't eat a dog! That's the


thing. Zoe has a line in the sand. It is the same thing we are subject


to cultural issues. Would you eat a dog? No because I live in Britain


and it doesn't culturally eat dogs. Would you eat any kind of carnivore?


A pig is a carnivore and eat lots of them, it is your cultural


relationship with lots of animals. Would you eat a horse? I have, not a


whole one. That is disappointing? It is a bit. You probably have this


week, have you had a burger? Yes! Sorry! Where is this going? Same


place the story in Sudbury. There are interesting arguments about how


we get our meat and how we engage with that process and our


willingness to go to the high street butcher even if you are short on


time. Thank you both very much. That as all tonight, they say all


political careers end in fail arcs some start that way too. Footage


unearthed from the BBC archives shows the House of Commons speaker,


John Bercow, in 1975, competing less than successfully in the BBC


children's programme, Crackerjack. Crackerjack. Crackerjack! Let's meet


the lads, they have broomstick handles, they have to get the rings


on to the handle, as many as possible at one time and put them on


the posts at the end here. Let's meet the lads, John, Philip,


Nicholas and Kishok. Not using your hands wry to get as many on as


possible. Look at this. You must work in a curtain shop. Your prize


is a Crackerjack Tuesday promises to be a day of


sunshine and showers across the British Isles, breezy throughout, as


a rough rule of thumb, the


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman. Including Harriet Harman on the tabloid paedophile row, Ukraine, the NHS chief on his diabetes, Cameron in Scotland, and should meat look like dead animals?

Download Subtitles