05/03/2014 Newsnight


The stories behind the day's headlines, including BBC Three going online, stop and search reforms, foreign exchange market manipulation and drones that get people online.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles