05/03/2014 Newsnight

inception, BBC Three is going off air. Will it be missed from our

televisions? And what happens to home-grown comedy now? They're

mouthing worse things than that in some places. We speak to presenters

and writers, critics and defenders of the channel.

Newsnight learns exclusive details of Theresa May's letter to her

cabinet colleagues. She asked for stop and search reforms back in

December. What's taking so long? The Met says stop and search is

changing, and wants the rest of the country to catch up. But there's

still mistrust on the streets. We're out on the beat.

And trying to connect the world by drone? The next step of global

domination for the internet giants. Good evening. Either your office has

been reverberating tonight with quotes from Gavin and Stacey, Don't

Tell The Bride, The Mighty Boosh and The Call Centre, or else you don't

have a clue what I'm on about - which could hold the key to the

problem. The BBC has decided to axe the digital tv channel BBC Three and

put it solely on iPlayer. The channel, which has promoted

home-grown comedy and attracted a much younger average audience, may

be the first victim of a push by the Director-General for the corporation

to focus on what it does best. Comedians who've made their names on

BBC Three have launched a campaign to try and save it. Tonight we ask

whether the move is inevitable, and how much money it would really save.

Here's Steve Hewlett. No but, yeah, this what happened... Can we go to

euro Disney. What's this? Your dad. What's occurring. What's occurring

indeed. Having spent ten years getting its started and fighting off

legion call, not least from its own former senior executives for it to

be closed, the BBC is about to announce that BBC Three, hope of

Little Britain, Gavin and Stacey and the rest is for the chap. It will

seize to be a broadcast TV channel but will live on, online.

For the BBC this is a big statement. Director-General Tony Hall said it

was time for tough choices, and here is the first of them. The message to

the Government is clear. One senior executive told me it was meant as a

wake upical call. Keep cutting the licence fee in real terms and

license payers, your voters really won't like it, and this is just the

start. We have had news here at the

station. Remember the public reaction to BBC 6 Music, a station

never more popular than when the BBC threatened to shut it. Plans

ultimately abandoned in the face of a licence payer revolt. In a

nutshell, and the BBC knows this, there is little public appetite for

cuts to be BBC services. So, why BBC Three? Why not BBC Four?

If you are to choose between three and four, you clearly choose BBC

Three because that is where the audience is going, it is moving

online and iPlayer. When BBC Three has done advance screenings of

programmes through the iPlayer they have good audiences on the back of

it. So BBC Three did attract the younger audiences that auntie

craved, albeit with the help of Eastenders repeat and maybe it is

well placed to take them with it on line. But how will it be remembered

by the crickets and those of us not in the tar debt demographic. Me and

my big breasts, I am ginning jer, snog, marry and avoid which ran for

five year, these are the programmes that gave the channel the bad name

and made it a convenient whipping boy today. As any channel controller

knows you have to sandwich the public service stuff, even on the

BBC, between programmes that are going to attract mainly because of

stupid titles. But back to the sharp end. The BBC

still needs to find another ?450 million of cuts, or savings,

annually by 2017. So how much money might the BBC save by moving BBC

Three online only? Well, there is the rub. Stacy... My God. The big

money, some ?90 million, is in BBC Three's content budget.

But if you cut much of that, which is after all spent on things that

lie since payers appreciate, like programme, while at the same time

admitting, that the BBC is spending shed loads on corporate

inefficiency, too many manager, too many people, and all of that, which

license payers definitely do not appreciate, you can quite easily end

up in a bad place. Do you know your flies are open?

Even people who were never especially keen on BBC Three... Let

me give you a list of distinctive programmes. Help me, I am infested

Not to mention Government and politicians for whom the original

message was meant might start to wonder what indeed is occurring.

Steve Hewlett there, we me Ash Attala, producer of The Office,

probably best known for that. Tessa Jowell the cormer Culture Secretary

and David Elstein who launched who launched Channel 5ful we saw some of

the programmes there and the titles, are the grabbiest bit of what BBC

Three did. Give us a sense of what made it so vital? I think today the

BBC, who I am a friend of have had a bad day at the office, today they

have cut their link to the future, so BBC Three is the main plank at

which the BBC connect with their on television with the youth audiences

and today, it feels like a 60-year-old man in a golf jumper who

has walked into a good night club and turned the music off so he can

hear classical music. I am embarrassed. Surprised. It has been

fast. They would say he hasn't turned the music off, he has put it

on iPlayer. Will the next generation go to iPlayer? . It sends out a

message that the youth message should be shoved on line. We are all

online, the statistic, they don't even bear it out, a BBC Three

audiences watches linear television. It is a slightly middle-aged older

man's perception that kids are similarly on line. They like to

watch TV in in the way we do. You had doubts about it from the start,

but this seems to sort of throw it into a rather stark light, that you

know, we have given up on it. Well, I think you know, I take very

seriously what Ash has said, and when I was Secretary of State, and I

was asked to approve two new channels in 2002, BBC Four, which

has been very successful, BBC Three, I turned back the first submission

for BBC Three, because I thought it was insubstantial, implausible and

wouldn't add anything to the BBC. However, the then Director General,

and chairman of the Governors were passionate for all the reasons that

Ash is giving about the importance of there being a BBC channel, that

appealed to 16-34-year-olds. It is a wide demographic. And it got there?

They took it away, they reworked it, it came back it was a better

proposal, and on that basis, I approved it. And I think the

important question is the one which Ash has put, which is does this mean

that the BBC is giving up on mainstream connection, with

16-34-year-olds. David, I imagine that image of the middle aged man in

the golf jumper will have BBC executives reaching for the sink at

this point. The irony is stronger, because all the savings that might

be made out of BBC Three will have to be applied to filling the hole in

the BBC pension fund so it is BBC pensioners who will benefit from

these cuts more than anybody else. But look, the truth of the matter is

this, the BBC is in financial fix. The coalition cut 16% of its

spending power in October 2010, and the pigeons are coming home to

roost. Something has to go. They tried slicing, everything gets worse

and Tony Hall announced last week I am going to make a big cut, we

assumed it was morning BBC Two and four, it is... Why do you think it

wasn't two and four? The simple reason is economics. It is just that

of the BBC channels, this is the least effective in converting cash

into viewer ship. It is basic as that. You have said it is

patronising to think a whole youth audience will go to iPlayer, do you

think this is a temporary grave then before it gets axed completely or do

you think iPlayer could come into its own? Look, iPlayer is brilliant

but it is inexplicable they have chosen to act BBC Three as oppose to

Four. A service like the BBC has to look, they need to serve everyone. I

know they need to make cuts. A BBC Four audience can migrate to BBC

Two. A BBC One audience serves the whole family. A BBC Three have

nowhere else to go on BBC television, they have been today

marriage prized and something that is worse, BBC has got whiter, older,

and more middle class, because it is the BBC Three audience that is the

most diverse of all the BBC channels. I guess the problem always

was that it felt like it was on commercial territory, there were all

the Fours that could do that. The MTVs. Exactly, this is I suppose one

of the ways in which the decision is made easier, but we knew that, I

knew that when I gave approval to the channel. It was a crowded market

place, there are other channels, but the important thing about this, was

that this is the BBC serving this population of young people. I am

trying to get a sense from you, when you signed it off and you were clear

you didn't like the first proposal, did you sign it off thinking "This

is doomed"? No, I didn't, because I was persuaded by the by Greg Dyke

and it is a compelling case, that the BBC are a great institution,

national institution, has got to keep on kind of replacing, you know,

the people, the license fee payers who die, and extend its reach to

much younger people. I do accuse -- actually, and this is a slightly

off-piste point on this, I think the BBC has sometimes got to say to the

Government, this is the license fee payer's money, it is not part of

your spending round, it comes from a different source. They pay ?145...

What should they have done with things now? Are you saying there

shouldn't have been a decision taken today is? You say it is a compelling

argument -- argument. I think wait and see, whether the audiences do

migrate, these young people do migrate, to iPlayer. It is too late,

if they don't. I am not saying defend BBC Three at all costs, what

I am saying is that you have to find another way, if the BBC wants to

continue to appeal to younger people, of doing that, or give up on

that cause all together and that would be a Piti. What a strange

thing to give up on young people, what a strange thing to marginalise

young people, of all the channel, what a weird message to say to the

license fee payers of tomorrow there is no television channel aimed at

you. There is plenty aimed at them. E 4 is much more efficient and it is

publicly owned. We we are going to spend public money on reaching 16-34

we would be better off spending it there. Can you save this money by

putting it on iPlayer? Of course not. Putting any of the 8 85 million

budget is going to be more ineeffective than the current

situation. The correct answer is, inject more of this investment in

programmes that appeal to young people in BBC One. It's a general

list channel. Long before BBC Three and four were thought of the BBC was

brilliant at delivering comedies that appealed to all ages. Do you

think it will go? What is important is candour about responsibility for

that group of license fee payer, and I mean, as far as I am concerned, I

don't feel wedded to the continued existence of BBC Three, I do feel

wedded to the BBC believing it has a responsibility for those younger

people, and not simply saying welling, we will close down BBC

Three and whether or not you know, young people go to iPlayer is not a

matter of concern to us. You have to have another plan. The BBC trust

will adjudicate on this. But I do not see that they can veto it unless

they have a better way of saving the money. That is their problem,

shortage of cash. Downing Street has denied

suppressing a report suggesting that immigration has had less of an

effect on British jobs than first thought. Number ten say it isn't

finished yet, but hinted it would be published imminently. Labour and the

Liberal Democrats are calling for it to be released now and senior

members of the Government have given their reaction. Let's hear what the

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said today. On the immigration

report, this is not a report that has percolated its way up to my

desk. The Prime Minister and I haven't even read it yet. It hasn't

been submitted to us yet. But when it's ready, of course it will be

published, of course it will be published. It's really important

that the debate on immigration is based on facts. Our policy editor,

Chris Cook, who broke the story, is here. So what do you make of that?

That clip shows how things have moved on in the past 24 hours. Last

night we revealed this piece of research showing that immigration

had less of an impact on jobs than had previously been claimed. That

report had been buried by Downing Street who would not release it. And

then this morning we heard... Last night we were told that it was just

an internal report. This morning we were told it was not finished. This

afternoon we were told we would get it within the next week. That clip

of Nick Clegg shows that complete turnaround. Reading between the

lines, how big a deal is this for the government? It is quite bad for

Theresa May. She has liked to use the impact on unemployment as a

justification for reducing the amount. It is quite bad for Downing

Street who are now forced to release it. But it is quite good for the Lib

Dems. There are pretty relaxed about immigration was the Conservatives

are generally not. This is a bit of ammunition inside the Coalition and

pretty helpful for Nick Clegg himself. He has the debate coming up

with Nigel Farage. So it will give him some ammunition. Newsnight has

learned that Theresa May wrote to Cabinet colleagues three months ago

seeking approval for her reforms to stop and search. She outlined the

desired to change the laws around these controversial police powers

and had the backing of the Lib Dems. Downing Street has said the PM

accepts reforms need to take place, but some senior Conservatives

believe that changes are being held up by regressive attitudes in number

ten. Here's Laura Kuennssburg. This happened more than a million times

on our streets last year, often to people doing nothing wrong, all too

often to young black men. Stopped... Search... Pockets turned

out, questions asked. Were you hear the other day? Even socks and shoes

checked for weapons. How many times have you been stopped in total,

ever? Over 100. At least. Why do you keep getting stopped? I do not know.

It is a black neighbourhood. Do you think it is as simple as that? They

think everyone is a drug dealer. Do they ever have good reason to stop

you? Sometimes. But stop and search does not work very well. A majority

of forces do not know how to use the powers properly. Fewer than one in

ten league two arrests. Many more lead to resentment. There he is, he

is going to stop us. It becomes mutual, it is like Tom and Jerry.

Police always chasing people? Always trying to chase people. No surprise

there is a strong argument for change. The Met is already doing it

on their own. Your searches but raced on more information. More

arrests and crucially, fewer complaints. The Home Secretary has

made no secret of her desire to redraft the rules. She promised

change months ago will stop now we have learned just how far her plans

have progressed. She asked a Cabinet colleague to rubber-stamp the

proposals in December. It is clear the Home Secretary is ready to

reform. On the 4th of December she wrote, this letter home affairs

committee clearance for a package of measures which I intend to announce.

I would be grateful for responses by the 12th of December. She argued for

changing section 60 powers were police can stop and search without

permission. She said I intend to amend section 60 so the test for the

powers used is necessary rather than expedient to prevent incidents

involving serious violence and to raise the level of authorisation to

a senior officer who must reasonably believe that violence will take

based as opposed to May. Expect this to reduce significantly the number

of stop and search is under section 60. The Met is changing its methods.

We are in this alley because there were reports of crack being sold and

burglaries. To have trust needs to be changed. The Met knows it, the

Home Office believes that, the Lib Dems and Labour agree. One minister

told me we have to get on with this. So what is the problem? One senior

Conservative described to me of aggressive attitude in number ten.

Officials tell us the prime Minister accepts the need for change. The

important thing is to get a policy right, they believe, rather than

rush. But sources believe there is a lack of will. But if David Cameron

or listening to his own former adviser on youth crime, he would

hear that it has to happen. In urban communities it will be dangerous

because I think it breeds criminals. They will be rewarded for stopping

stop and search. People feel the forces that be do not represent them

and this would be a message in the right direction. By the The Home

Office would the police argued for anything like scrapping the powers

altogether. In parts of our cities stop and search, use well, can get

weapons and drugs off the street. The powers that help keep people

safe. But in the same urban areas like Brixton in south London, who is

not just historical anger at Radley focused stop and search but fresh

mistrust among teenagers today. It is just another day. This is what

the police do, go around harassing, stop and searching. It is about

being street smart. I was stopped when I was 11 years old. I have not

been stopped since but it was not a pleasant experience. Since then I

have despised them more and more. For me they are like criminals in

fancy dress. They have got a mob mentality. There were seven officers

who stopped me. When they are by themselves they look a bit nervous

but when there are a lot of them they are comfortable. These two

chaps... The Shadow Home Secretary has had cross-party talks to push

the matter forward. The Home Secretary has made up her mind in

favour of reform that has not yet got her way. But more important

perhaps, the hold-up seems to hurt on the streets. Often in places

where relationships between the police and the public need the most

to heal. Last night my colleague Kirsty Wark recorded this interview

with the Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe. Stop and search are

worried that do not have a good connotation for the police. If you

look over the years at what has happened, you had section 44 of the

terrorism act after 9/11. And more recently section 60. And they lead

to random stop and search. For many black people in London that has been

their experience with the police. And that has created distrust

between communities and the police. Yes because there has been some

disproportionality with the number of people stopped. I arrived in

2011. We had a public enquiry into what had happened with the riots.

But I thought it was important to understand the genetic factors. Many

people I talk to referred back to stop and search. If you look at

statistics, there is something there I thought we needed to look at. So

you took unilateral action? The public were asking me to do

something. The Met knew something needed to change and I thought it

was possible to do less stop and search and be more effective. We had

to maintain community support. search and be more effective. We had

the arrest rate is still too low search and be more effective. We had

the arrest rate is still too low for comfort throughout the country

according to Theresa May. It could be better. Over the past two years

we reduced stop and search by one third and doubles the number of

arrests to almost 20%. We were just the number of complaints now by

almost half and reduced the disproportionality. In black and

nonblack? Yes, but at the same time we would just stop and search and

also reduced violent. You have reduced under section 16 way you can

target a particular area without necessarily much suspicion. Could

you were just that by 100%? We reduced it around 92% under section

60. What was happening was that borough commanders were under

pressure. The automatic response was to put in a section 60 stop and

search. But the more the where are the less affected the police where.

So we took it down to around one. You still have situations where

there is evidence of a young boy, he was 11 and was stopped and searched.

Because he had an expensive rail ticket. That can circulate through

the community and leave your problems. It is not perfect. When we

make a mistake, then we do leave a bad imprint on that child, that

family. So it is important to get it right. But I think it is an

important power that is really effective when used wisely.

Effectively a generation has been lost to you in terms of trust. It is

always important to keep trying. It has not always been used wisely in

the past. It is impossible that it is possible to keep it and use it

wisely. I was entirely open-minded. All the public we spoke to have said

keep it, but target the right people and when you do it, do it with

respect. But for that message of trust, it is not just about what

happens in London at the general atmosphere. Do you want to see new

legislation for England and Wales? One thing I would do if I have the

power, around those section 60 stop searches, limited by time and

geography. I would advertise the more in the areas where the operate.

People who live in that area might think their property value would be

effective. But I would advertise them better. It is something that is

being considered. There has been a big consultation exercise. The Home

Office has plans, we understand. Why are they not been implemented? We're

waiting to hear what those plans will be. And of course if there is

something to learn we will learn from it. The biggest thing is this

is the first time the Metropolitan police have listened to concerns and

done something about it. That is a big allegation about previous

incumbents in your job. I'm not trying to have a go at my bid

assessors. Genuinely. But it is time to make a change. It is fair to say

that in the past there have been arguments about stop and search. I

have said I want to do something about it. What are relations like

with the critical establishment? I think they're pretty good. We always

have issues that we can debate and argue about. But on the whole it is

a good relationship. Would Downing Street do well to listen to the Home

Office wants top and search? I will leave it to them to have their

debate. I will not get involved. We found a way we believe to improve

what we are doing. They will have two decide what they want to do

next. It is possible to do less and to get better.

Mark Carney will face questions next week about what the Bank of England

knew about alleged wrongdoing in foreign exchange markets. The bank

has suspended one member of staff, and stepped up an investigation into

whether or not its offficials knew about market manipulation long

before they acted to stop it. As Andy Verity has discovered, the Bank

was discussing the potential for market manupiation with foreign

exchange traders as early as 2006. Regulators have said allegation of

foreign exchange manipulation are every bit as bad as the LIBOR rate

fixing scandal that cost banks billions in fines but now the Bank

of England is at the heart of it. At the centre of the allegations a

chatrooms, you might use them for gossip but in the city they were

allegedly used by traders to swap information on what their clients

were buying and selling, ahead of a crucial 4pm deadline when prices

were set. If one trader revealed their client

was about to buy a large amount of dollars at four, other trader es

could be buy them before then. That could drive the prices up. The Bank

of England's been investigating whether its First Ladies were told

trade es were sharing client information like that, and even

whether it condoned it. Today it suspended an official and stepped us

investigations into what officials knew.

The allegation is that the Bank of England itself was engaged in

conversations with leading traders, about the possibility of

manipulation of foreign exchange markets, which go back for some

year, that is tremendously serious, if there was any knowledge or

tolerance of something like this happening, and action wasn't taken.

How embarrassing this is for the Bank of England will depend on what

happened in a 15 minute converisation here, at BNP par bar,

where Bank of England officials met leading foreign currency traders to

discuss what was and wasn't proper on the foreign exchange markets.

We have seen the official Benjamins of that meeting on the 23rd April

2012. Under item six it says: -- minutes. One of the currency traders

reportedly took notes, saying at that point the bank was told trader

were sharing client information. The bank told the traders it wasn't

improper. . You investigating this, what is going on? Yes, the Bank of

England does not condone any form of market manipulation in any any

contact whatsoever. Today, further Benjamins showed traders raiseded

evidence of wefd the Bank of England way back in 2006, yes it was only

last October, seven years later that the bank's sister regulator started

investigating foreign exchange manipulation. If the bank of England

is subsequently found at the end of the review to have known about the

activities, which the FSA is investigating it may lead to legal

actions, it will be very embarrassing for the bank to have

been made wear of those issues some time ago and not to have raised the

issues with those banks and other regulators and taken it further.

Swapping information on include orders in internet chatrooms is

clearly against the rules, and 20 traders have been suspend or fired.

But it won't be so easy for regulators to levy fines on the

banks if it turns out the bank of England knew all about it. Well, let

us talk more about this with Dr Pippa Malmgren, a former economic

adviser to George Bush who works in asset management. Thank you for

coming in. Clarify for us this whole question of whether something is

proper or improper, it sound like the rules have been changed. They

are very fluid in the sense that practises that were considered

perfectly normal, five or six years ago, now in retrospect don't look so

good, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and I think part

of the reason, the regulators like the bank of England were having

conversations with people in the market, was to understand how the

markets were operating, which is not to say they thought it was

inappropriate, or improper, and I think it is still unclear what was

improper and what was just normal business practise. Because this has

been below the radar, why is -- has it been kept so quiet for so long? I

look at it a different way, I think what with are seeing is a systematic

effort by policy maker, politicians, to squeeze financial services to

find examples of crossing the line and wrongdoing, it started with the

LIBOR investigation, that was a success. When you say they are

squeezing, you don't think this is inappropriate to go and... I think

it is a normal response to a financial crisis that was so severe,

it required public funds to bail the institutions out. So in the

aftermath of that they are now looking at each business line and

trying to discern what practises are occurring and are they appropriate,

so as I went through LIBOR, achieved some really substantial fine, then

they turned into new areas and now we are talking about foreign

exchange and options. We are talking about the bank of England. We have

seen it with LIBOR and the commercial banks and the bank of

England has said it is auditing staff, and all the rest of it, but

if this goes back as Andy suggested, to 2006, and it didn't act as

quickly as it could, that is highly embarrassing,isn't it? It is an

issue. This question of what was the appropriate stance for the

regulator, today their actions in 2006 look different than in 2006.

But they are also taking on more regulatory powers. Indeed.

Absolutely. So I think, look, let us understand the issue at hand. Every

day at 4.00, all of the clients in the foreign exchange market, which

every day is roughly four to five trillion dollars a day, there was

one moment in time where there was a clear fixed price. That is when most

of the clients wanted to trap act, so they would have certainty --

transact. They wanted the fixing, so the allegation is not that the

fixing shouldn't happen, it is what information was exchanged about

clients in the process of arriving at the fixed price, and how much

involvement was there by regulators in that process. It is very similar

to LIBOR, in that way, then, is there a direct comparison to be made

between the scandal? I do think there is, but in the same way that

LIBOR systemically pushed the interest rate lower, I with was

beneficial to the public and the customer, this maybe true in this

case as well, that is not the point. The point is that regulators are

looking for examples of transgression, and finding ways of

stop the financial markets from engaging in business practises that

today make us uncomfortable. Instead of writing a new rule it happens in

the course of investigation. When you start looking you find all kinds

of other things you weren't looking for. If we are are at the beginning

of this investigation, how far do you think this could spread? I think

it is going to be quite widespread. Again, because it is not just

foreign exchange it is option, which is the business of taking bets on

possible future outcomes -- options. Eif I were a poll -- if I were a

politician and I was a regulator looking to fine, I would say this is

richer territory for success and scoring points. You think it is

about trying to find fines? I think there is a strand of that, for sure,

but I also think that we could find there were examples of crossing a

line, but I also think that what was normal business practise at the time

definitely is not acceptable today, and there will be -- they will be

judged in retrospect. Very interesting to hear. Thank you.

Mark Zuckerberg once told me he wanted to turn Facebook into a

global utility, to connect parts of the world that other providers

couldn't reach. Now we have a hint at how Facebook

might do this - through high altitude pilotless drones that can

stay aloft for five years at a time. They're not the only ones. Google

have been working on a similar venture, Project Loon, using high

altitude weather balloons. Here's our technology editor, David

Grossman. While we may have become blase about

our online lives, this animation shows that for most of humanity the

internet has yet to arrive. Like modern missionaries, the text

emperors are looking to spread the wonders of their work to

unconnected. When I was getting started with

Facebook I could build it because I had access to the internet and a few

basic tool, that gave me what I needed to build this for the world.

While broadband internet penetration in developed countries is

three-quarters of the population in India is it 13%, Africa, 20%, south

and east Asia 21% and 45% in Latin America.

What is more, the method by which Europe and North America managed to

role out broadband simply isn't open to much of the world. -- roll When

you are looking at companies like BT they are able to rely on the

existing infrastructure that was developed for telephony. In Africa

these networks were nerve built, so we have seen very low fixed

broadband. Last summer, Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder of

Facebook launched internet.org.uk. What we didn't know, was how he was

planning to do it. Now, however, credible press reports suggest

Facebook is planning to spend $60 million on a company that makes high

altitude pilotless drones that would act like low level satellites. They

would fly at over 65,000 feet, above regulated airspace and with solar

rechargeable batteries say aloft forify years at a time. I would need

thousands though. I can only applaud the initiative, however, I don't

think it is going to solve all the problems of Africa, or any other

region the world. I believe that there are other solutions that we

are currently working on, that are bearing fruit, and that I believe

will have bigger impact. Facebook's not the only text joint working on

this problem. One, two, three.

Google has Project Loon, instead of pilotless drones it would use high

altitude weather balloons, when I was there in January I spoke to the

architect of Project Loon. I propose something and I can't tell you what

this is because we might do it. I proposed an idea I was passionate

ant. I thought I have it. They say you know what, this is a good idea

but the problem is, most of people who can benefit from this won't

because they don't have connectivity. I was like, you are

right, I don't know how I could have overlooked that. It is a hard

problem. How do I solve that? And many years prior to this I had this

crazy idea about you know, using balloons for connectivity, and I

thought, well, you know, I don't know why this won't work. Let me go

back to that idea. So how big a bump would connecting

up the unconnected give? According to a study increasing internet

penetration to European levels would be worth $450 per person to Africa

as well as 44 million extra jobs. According to the same study it could

save one million live, including 130,000 children, but it also makes

good business sense for the text companies. Ultimately both companies

make money from internet ewe San, whether that is social media or

search and advertising or video advertising, so they are both

interested in building the scale of internet users in the future so they

can basically sell advertising, and generate revenues from the consumers

in these market, you are currently untapped. So, the scramble for

Africa and other parts of the globe is on once more, this time not under

the flags of the European power, but under the logos of the text giants.

If this works it could represent the biggest single economic advance ever

for the developing world. Let us take you through the

front-pages before we go. The independent has Chris Cook's story

on front. The impact of immigrants of British workers negligible. Very

little evidence of overseas workers taking jobs from Britons.

The Financial Times has the foreign exchange scandal. Scandal hits the

bank of England. It has on its fifth birthday quantitative easing looks

to future. The most extraordinary experiment in the bank's history.

Middle class is blamed for migration in the Daily Telegraph, and halve

your sugar intake say health experts. While British women have

been crowned the Queens of leisure, and the Guardian has BBC Three Gavin

and Stacey with Tony Hall's plans to move it on to iPlayer. There was

major England football team news today. No, not a World Cup warm-up

win over Denmark, but the recording of the official song for this

summer's tournament in Brazil. A cover of the Take That hit, Greatest

Day. Tthe recording features former England players including Gary

Lineker, Peter Shilton and Michael Owen. In the absence of a sneak

preview, we're left with no alternative but to dig up the 1990

version instead. Oh well. Goodnight. # You can be slow or fast. # There's

only one way to beat them. # What you are looking at is the master

plan. # Playing for England! We