25/03/2014 Newsnight


Jeremy Paxman's exclusive interview with disgraced Co-op boss Paul Flowers. The rights and wrongs of inheritance tax. And a report on al-Qaeda in Somalia.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight Paul Flowers, the Methodist minister w left the Co-operative


Bank in disgrace, talks exclusively about his downfall and hits back at


tabloid tormenters. I find the Mail on Sunday and its sudden dough


fascist far right tendencies that make Vladimir Putin look like a


bleeding heart liberal, utterly abhorrent. And he reveals the way


Government ministers leaned on the bank to make decisions they judged


to be commercially unwise. And there was pressure, certainly from Mark


Hobon, and I know that originated with the Chancellor himself.


Also tonight is the right to pass on wealth the entitlement of everyone,


or the root of personal and social unhappiness?


The latest Al-Qaeda battlefield. There are probably some people in


Britain who have never heard of the Reverend Paul Flowers, the Methodist


minister who became the chairman of the Co-operative Bank, and exited


after an inept performance in front of the Parliamentary Committee who


were trying to find out how the bank went belly up. Then he was filmed


talking about his drug habit. He was nicknamed the Crystal Methodist and


the caravan moved on. But the supposedly ethical bank has been


left broken and demoralised. He hasn't spoken publicly about what


happened, until now. But before that we have this report. SGLA double


downfall, the minister who preached ethics, the bank meant to make


ethical decisions, both brought to their knees by a domination of


ambition and weakness. In the end leaving a bank that appeared out of


control. And a chairman whose understanding of the business was


just helplessly wrongy wrong. Give us an idea of the total asset value


of the bank? Just over ?3 billion. I'm talking about the assets. I'm


talking about the assets, on the balance sheet I was looking at the


balance sheets recently. You are offering me ?3 billion and I'm


telling you your annual accounts show it at ?47 billion. Indeed they


did, forgive me. Paul Flowers suggested that the assets were a


tenth of the size they were. But Flower, Labour supporter, was not


the only one out of his depth. The ethical bank had gone empire build


anything way it couldn't sustain. As well as building itself a smart new


headquarters, the Co-Op gobbled up Britannia Building Society, riddled


with property debt. Then with Flower as chair, made an audacious bid for


650 branches of Lloyd's. There was all scepticism in the City about


whether it could work, but with tacit approval from Westminster, the


Co-Op's ambition far outweighed its ability to cope. Underneath a


beautifully crafted image of the bank like no other, regulators


crawling through the undergrowth found a black hole in the books of


more than a billion. They became very big, very quickly, by buying


Britannia and then by being very ambitious to buy branches from


Lloyd's. That is a very short period of time for a small bank and


inexperienced bank like Co-Op. Any other business with lots of


experience in acquisitions would find it difficult to integrate those


businesses successfully. Although the Reverend had boasted Co-Op P had


staled -- had sailed through the financial crisis. It would be not


good for someone from the Co-Op bank to be smug, that is not my nature.


The loans went back and the Lloyd's deal collapsed, quickly the Reverend


was out. There was further to fall. The minister was caught newspaper a


drug and sex scandal. Caught unwares by the Mail on Sunday. Behaviour he


described as "stupid" and "wrong". Police searching his house


investigating his conduct. Reverend Flower, as is, s as well as a


collapsing bank hurt members. A bank founded in the 19th century,


with the intention of looking after our morals as well as our


hard-earned money. This bit of the co-operative movement is having its


own cataclysmic moment where it has to think about what it is about. It


might be something very different in terms of the public view of it. The


Co-Op was meant to be different? It was, and it was different. I do


think it was different. It made two or three errors all at the same


time. But this has been a terrible episode for a movement with a


history that's been worth preserving in stone. Neither its Victorian


founders nor many of the movement's current members would have approved


of the Reverend's exploits, how did he find himself at the top of a


rapid low expanding bank in the first place. Well this flimsy three


pages a record of his approval interview with the regulators. In it


he asks for the fullest, possible training, but promises to ask


forensic and tart questions. The regulators themselves though will


now surely wish they had asked for forensic questions of him. Reverend


Flowers has been followed out of Co-Op's door by the man brought in


to save the group. Euan Sutherland announced it was ungovernable.


Yesterday the bank had to write off another ?400 million to pay for


other mistakes of the past. Yet it is Reverend Flowers, more than


anyone else, whose faults came into focus. The bank and his error's


rewriting history of this proud ethical know. Movement few wanted to


write. Earlier today I went to man chest Tory meet Paul Flowers. What


has the last year been like? Interesting! TRANSMIT


I resigned from the bank, and it was a joy as it was on my birthday and


there were a few months that have been hellish. Because I knew I


particularly needed to find some professional support for the issues


that I was facing, I actually booked myself into a very well known


hospital for four weeks from the end of November until Christmas Eve. I


underwent what was called their addictions treatment programme for


the 28 days that I was there. I found that both cathartic and


traumatic. But it actually helped me to look at, not so much the


superficial issues of the addictions themselves, but the more deep-seated


reasons why people resort to any sort of addiction. And for me that


was I think life-changing and I continued to go there every week for


therapy. Can we go back then to the question of the chairmanship of the


bank. Yeah. What was it that made you think you were qualified to run


a bank? I didn't and it wasn't my job to make a judgment about whether


I was qualified, others made a judgment that I was the right and


appropriate person to be the chair at that particular time. There was


panel, which interviewed four of us, who were candidates for the job. I


was the unanimous choice of that panel. I was then the unanimous


choice of the bank board. I was then the unanimous choice of the group


board. And I then went again to the FSA for a further interview to see


whether they thought I was fit to be chair of that bank board. I was


prepared for this by a very hellish mock interview. A bit like you at


your worst really if I might be so bold. And they took me to hell and


back in terms of questions. But the FSA had a really wonderful


conversation about philosophy and ethics and issues that were around


and their panel approved me. It is not for me to make a judgment about


whether I was qualified, a range of other people at the time said I was.


You weren't a banker? No, but I wasn't put in as banker. I was put


in as operator, a representative of the Co-Op Group, and I had a job in


terms of governance Did you know the extent of the problem after the


merger with the Britannia Building Society? Nobody did, forgive me.


Hindsight is a wonderful science, if can I be so bold. We took over the


Britannia effectively in 2008. There was a merger. But effectively it was


takeover. I inherited that when I became the chair in 2010. At the


time of the takeover of Britannia I recall and still have the documents


at home, there were three separate pieces of due diligence, done by


accountany firms, KPMG for us and fancy merchant bankers who Mr Paid


paid vast amounts of money to do it. All said it was a good deal. All


pointed up dish use with the corporate lending book, but that


lending book could be addressed by what are called fair value


adjustments in the accounts. That is precisely what we did. And we did it


in thorough consultation with the FSA at the timecisely what we did.


And we did it in thorough consultation with the FSA at the


time. They didn't pick it up and neither


did the FSA at the time. How much pressure did you come under with the


Lloyd's issue? Specifically from the present Government, mainly from


Conservatives. They wanted a deal. Remember that the Government was,


still is, the major shareholder of that bank. Because of the structural


support that it had needed back in 2008. Clearly they wanted a deal


which would help them in terms of public finances. They actually said


that they were keen on this Co-Op becoming a much more significant


player with more scale. We would have had about seven or eight per


cent of the market if this had gone through. And there was pressure


certainly from mark Holbon and I know that originated higher up with


the Chancellor himself. What form did this pressure take? Regular


calls and regular checks to see whether or not they were progressing


well. And I mean two or three times a week calls from the junior


minister. They wanted a deal and they wanted us to do it. They might


say no now, but I know that's what they wanted. That was the pressure


they were applying. You are painting yourself as an


innocent abroad? I'm not innocent. I take full responsibility for the


decision that is we took. And indeed I resigned because I believe it was


right for the chair of the board to take responsibility, although all


the decisions taken were not by me personally but by the board as a


whole. But resignation was an admission of inadequacy wasn't it?


No, it was an admission that things had gone wrong. And as the person in


the chair, I should take responsibility for it. How is it


then, if you were cognisant of what was going on and you weren't an


innocent aBROSHGSD how could you possibly appear before -- abroad,


how could you possibly get the assets of the bank out by a margin


of ?40 40 billion. Ill-prepared and not ready for all the questions and


in particular put off a tad by the aggression of some of the members of


that committee and the clear attempts that some of them were


making, not to ask sensible or rational questions, but to try to


trip me up and in particular to engage in political points scoring.


Even so, to say the assets of the bank you say ?3 billion and they


were ?47 billion? Forgive me, I was wrong, badly wrong. Do you think


something has happened in the world of banking, which has made it a


different sort of business to the sort of business, you did once do a


banking exam years and years and years ago? 40 plus years ago. But


banking was a different kind of beast in those days wasn't it? I


think it was a good profession. I think it was largely led by people


of honour and decency. Is it no longer? There are people within it


who are people who are honourable and decent. Sadly there are also a


number of others who are not. And who I think are there for whole and


whole range of reasons, some of which are to do with their own avari


correction and their own green -- avarice and their own greed, that is


very sad. There is another story today about bonus payments in a


bank. Yet here you are, chairman of a bank belonging to a different set


of ideals? Sub-scale. Not big enough? Not big enough at all. So


lots of our efforts as well were designed to try to improve the


ability of the bank to be able to run an efficient organisation of


sufficient scale. So you are saying it is impossible in this country to


run a successful... You are being too dogmatic, you are looking at


either a white or black picture and not seeing the complexity of the


grey in the middle. It is not impossible. We confronted a whole


raft of problems, I believe it could still be possible. And you failed?


Yeah, we failed so far. But we are still there. And we didn't actually


have to take any Government money at any stage. Unlike some of the other


banks I have to remind you. Given your background, given the ideals of


the organisation, personally that must have had a tremendous impact on


you? With respect my role was not to worry about the personal impact upon


me, I'm there in a representative capacity to try to do a job with a


range of other people. You are the embodiment of the values of the bank


as chairman aren't you? I'm one of them, I hope I'm not the only one. I


hope the organisation as a whole, and I believe it had done, embodied


those values. And staff at the time before all this crisis occurred from


were extraordinarily happy to work with and for us. Have they been in


touch with you any of them? One or two but they have been politely told


by more senior people not to be in ch. One or two of the braver souls


have been in touch. You have been cast into the outer darkness I


suppose? I believe even in Dant, he's Inferno there is a chance of


release. You have fallen like Lucifer? Where do you find Lucifer


in the Bible Mr Paxman! Then comes of course all the horrible stuff for


you when you are outed for drugs and rent boys and all that stuff. Had


you been doing drugs while chairman of the bank? Forgive me saying so I


think you are aware that there are still some issues to be inquired


into by the police and that is a question that I think has to remain


at the moment unanswered. But will in due course be answered. But it is


subject to the police investigation. Let me put it another way, were you


involved in drugs, doing drugs, before you became chairman of the


bank? No. But that doesn't answer the earlier question. It doesn't.


And I cannot answer it for the moment. I understand re understand.


But -- I understand, it does tell us something. When you saw what the


Mail on Sunday printed about you, what did you think? The Mail on


Sunday, its sister paper have printed a lot of things about me. I


remember dear old Michael Foot once decribing the Mail Group as the


"forgers' gazette". I find the Mail on Sunday and its pseudofascist far


right tendencies which, make Vladimir Putin look like a bleeding


heart liberal utterly abhorrent. The reality is that a considerable


amount of what the Mail on Sunday has printed has been pure and utter


fiction. Why don't you sue them then? Forgive me, suing a newspaper


is a rich person's game. Even if I am right as I know I am, and I know


that they are wrong, I would much rather just treat the whole thing


with the utter contempt that it deserves for it. But there were


stories that were printed that were true? Indeed they were. They


concerned drugs? And with respect those are still the issues which the


police are investigating. Given your religious background, do you think


you have sinned? Forgive me it is always much more complex than that,


of course I have. And I am in company in every other human being


for having my frailties and some of my fragility exposed. Most people


get through life without that ever coming into the public domain. I am


no better and no worse, it seems to me, than any number of other people.


But of course I have sinned in that old fashioned term, which I would


rarely use, I have to say. But I'm like everybody else, I'm frail. You


know what people think, they think Flower flowers, -- Paul Flowers,


Methodist minister how does he end up with rent boys and drugs, a


Methodist minister? They have not had to live in my skin or bothered


to inquire about other pressures upon my life. I would not wish to


talk with them about them because they clearly hold me in complete


contempt. Do you want to talk about these other pressures in your life?


I can do so very briefly. Yeah sure? At the time when things were getting


pretty hairy at the bank I had been caring for my mother at home, who


was dying, with everything else that was going on and I was weary and


stressed. Not least at seeing somebody who I loved die in front of


me. And it took a long time. But I would not want to use that as an


excuse, it simply happens to be part of the reality that I was facing and


which is common to lots of people, most of us have to juggle with a


whole raft of different pressures and stresses. It just so happens


that I had two or three that all came at the same time. But most of


us don't resort to drugs and rent boys? How do you know? What do you


most regret about this whole experience? Not taking more advice


when I should have done at certain points during several years. And I


think in some ways and this probably will sound a tad bitter, but I think


in some ways I had been set up to fail in certain areas. Because of


the structures of the co-operative and the way in which they encourage


democrats within the organisation to move into particular roles. And then


to be, frank, they suck you dry and pit you out at the end of it. No-one


at the Co-Op has contacted me at all in any way since I left at the end


of May. Thank you. Thank you. Our chief correspondent is here. What


have we learned from this? I think in a sense we just witnessed the


human downfall that went alongside the story of the politician's


favourite, the Co-Op bank, the great hope of the banking zest sector


turning into a basket case. There are three salient points, one is


just how convinced he was now that the Treasury was pushing the deal


for the Co-Op to buy more than 600 branches of Lloyds Bank. He talks


about Treasury ministers phoning up two and three times a week to see


how it was getting on, and making it clear that the Chancellor was behind


that. Not much of a surprise, we learned how much he hates the Mail


on Sunday, and they have asked to speak to him and he has declined. It


is embarrassing for the Government. It is tricky for the Treasury, this


accusation that they were the hands trying to push this deal with


Lloyd's that was ultimately doomed forward has been made before, it is


worth saying that's a pretty different version of events to what


Paul Flowers has given in front of MPs before. For their part the


Treasury has always denied there was any kind of political interference


and of course Paul Flowers is somebody who is very much associated


with the Labour movement, it is worth rembering also that the


Lloyd's chief executive and chairman on the record have said it was a


commercial decision. That said, during that deal myself and many


other journalists were hearing time and again from people in the City


who were sceptical, not just about whether it was the right decision,


but also whether it was feasible. This does again remind people of the


awkwardness, that the Treasury was tacitly backing a horse that many


thought was a dodgy old nag. In the meantime the Co-Op remain as basket


case? Yesterday they had to write off another ?400 million. They have


had a turbulent few weeks and an active chief executive in charge of


the group. They are trying to plough on. It is worth saying they have


managed to stagger on without having to take a bail out from the


taxpayer. They found another way of doing that by getting investment


from the hedge funds. They are certainly not in a position now


where they are free and clear of all the mistakes of the past. They are


braced for a series of their own investigations into what went wrong.


And tonight they are pretty reluctant to getting into talking


about exactly what Flower has suggested. They are working very


hard to try to get this done. They are trying to make big changes to


the group to be able to survive into the future and they are going to


have more very difficult headlines, not just about Reverend Flower and


his exploits while he was there but perhaps about some people who are


still actually at the group themselves. They may prove difficult


to shrug off in the coming weeks. It is a long way from a commitment, but


the Prime Minister says he would really like to raise the point at


which the Government confiscates money people might otherwise have


passed on to their children when they die. Hang on, you might say, he


has promised that before, and indeed he has. But he says his plans to


raise the threshold for what used to be called death duties have been


wrecked by being in partnership with the Liberal Democrats. It points up


the fact that this is a more politically and morally charged tax


than most. Once upon a time there was a large happy family, a bit like


the Walton, they lived in a big house and always said good night to


each other. When the elderly couple died, the whole family wept, then


they had to sell the house to pay death duties and they wept a bit


more. Hardly what you might call a fairytale ending. A long, long time


ago, back in 2007, the man who would be Chancellor promised to change all


that. The next Conservative Government will raise the


inheritance tax threshold to ?1 million. LINEBREAK


It was electoral Viagra, a speech that sealed him as the ultimate


politician, a game-changer in many ways, forcing Gordon Brown to stop


in his tracks and his call fors an early -- for an early election and


forcing them to re-think their inheritance tax policy. They decided


to create a tax-free limit of estates up to ?650,000 in marriages.


Then disaster struck in the form of the financial crisis the Tory policy


flew out the window and the coalition agreement with the Lib


Dems ensured it never flew back in. The Lib Dems aren't the only ones


against it. Many see inheritance tax as fair way to ensure the wealth of


the nation doesn't just subside in a few dynasties. All civilisations


going back to Rome and through fuedal Europe have had some kind of


system where society shares in wealth being transferred from rich


fathers and mothers to their offspring. Why? Because the


offspring did nothing to deserve the wealth, so we should share in their


good luck. And if you don't do that societies OKsify. But there teams --


OKsify. There seems to be new life in it, with UKIP looking for their


grey votes they broach the same ground. Would I like to go further?


Yes I would. I believe people should able to pass money down through the


generations and pass things on to the children. The ambition is still.


There I would like to go further. It is better than it was, but it didn't


make it into the coalition agreement, it is something to


address in the manifesto. Something You wonder at the new figure, under


?1 million might not be so tempting. Tories are promising expensive


things without showing how they will pay for them. Those who came to


power on the stark shores of austerity, this upland is sending


out a very different message of how much cash there is to spend now.


What has happened since 2010 is there is no increase even in line


with inflation of the inheritance tax threshold to bring more people


in. Rather than increasing the threshold significantly, it has


actually been cut relative to price inflation. You might ask whether the


need to raise the flesh hold now is a signal of how badly the Government


has failed on its own housing policy. Last week the Office for


Budget Responsibility predicted that because of rising house prices one


in every ten people will become liable to pay inheritance tax over


the next five years if it stayed at the current rate. That number is


currently one in 20. This street in a posh part of London illustrates


the fiscal drag dilemma rather well. It is not just the mansions that are


liable for inheritance tax, no it is something far more modest house


boat, just short of ?800,000. And don't think this is just a London


bubble. House price rises have created a massive fiscal drag all


over the country. Areas around Manchester or Leeds where change


will be keenly felt. Look closely you will see many story archals


right there. So far it is all fantasy, no commitment, just


expressions of Tory hope. Do you see this as the perfect ending or a


rather grim fairytale. That will depend quite bluntly on whether you


think kids deserve their parents' wealth. Mone is an entrepeneur and


founder of the lingerie line Ultimo. Peter Buffett is a musician, fill


lentist and son of the -- philanthropist and son of Warren


Buffett. He joins us from his home in the states. When this happens you


will be dead, why do you care? Because Jeremy I work really hard


every single day. Like a lot of people for my children and for my


children's future. I want them to have that little nest there for


their future and for their children and I don't see why I, others,


should work extremely hard, pay your tax and then when you die it is a


double what happens OKKy and you have to pay it again, it should be


stopped completely. Even if passing money on perpetuates social


division, you don't worry about that? I should decide what to do


with my money and whether I want to give it to charity. The Government


shouldn't tax me again when I have already paid. It is unfair and I


think you know there is a lot more people that have to pay inheritance


tax now because house prices are rising. You pay on your whole


estate, so there is a lot more people that have to pay that tax and


I have heard some horror stories, where you know someone has lived in


the family home for 20, 25 years and they have to actually move out of


their family home to pay the tax. That is completely and utterly


unfair. They will be dead? They have had to pay it because they have


inherited the house and the estate. They need to pay the tax bill and


they have to sell the house to move out. Let me bring in Peter Buffett,


your father famously supports the inter-Hans tax? That's correct --


inheritance tax? That's correct. Do you share that view? I do, my only


question would be where the tax is going. That is my personal


frustration, if it is going to better public schools and


infrastructure that is great. So we might all agree that a Government


getting taxes that are doing good things with it is better than


shovelling it into a Bonn dog hole. -- boon dog hole. That is the


problem with Governments everywhere, this principle that everybody should


start off more or less equal is one you subscribe to? Absolutely. Part


of that comes down to the question of how much is enough. That is where


I definitely agree with my father and have experienced it myself. In


what way are you better for not having a great inheritance to look


forward to? I could sum it up in phrase, I believe self-respect comes


from earning its own reward. So I'm very proud of the life I built


myself. I think if I lived off my father's wealth or do in the future,


I'm going to frankly wonder if I could have done it myself. Michelle


Mone, do you worry about your children ever getting out of bed if


they inherit a vast amount of money from you? You know Jeremy I bring my


children up with that hard-working, want to succeed background. I just


think that you know there is people out there that work extremely hard


and it is up to them what they want to do with their money, once they


have paid the tax. If you want to give it to charity, if they want to


give it to their children. But for me, my will is my kids don't


suddenly get all the cash, my kids get it in stages in life. Hopefully


they won't get it until they are really old and I will live forever.


If they do not get it through any effort of their own? That's what I


want to do. I want to work hard in order to make my children's future a


bit easier, and in order that they have got that little nest there,


they are protected there. I think that's what most parents want to. Do


I have three children, I'm a single parent and I don't want my kids


struggling, but I don't want them being spoiled as well. I also want


to give to charity, but it should be the people's right to do what they


want to do with their money once they pay the tax on T I don't want


the Government dewhat to do -- deciding what to do with my money


once I'm dead. The same amount of money being taxed twice, you tern


you pay income tax on t and other taxes no doubt. Then you die and


your tax is again on it? To me and I am no tax export, trust me. I'm an


expert of being a child of a really rich guy. But you are taxed as you


are making it as it is you know flowing somewhere and then if you


have held on to it, and basically hoarded it, they are you are taxed


because essentially, and this would be my dad as view that you are


allowed to make all that money because the system, the structure,


the laws, all the rules of whatever world you were making that money in


allowed you to do it. There are places in the world where you can


make a lot of money and you don't see a dime for all sorts of reasons.


It makes sense essentially to say to the system that allowed you to amass


a fortune to say, OK, here is some of that back, thatch. It doesn't


mean my kids -- thank you very much. It doesn't mean my kids won't get


some. But some of it is a payback to the system that allowed you to get


it in the first place. A lot of people want to provide and make


their children's lives a lot better when they are not. There for example


getting them through university. The worst case scenario happens,


sometimes they pay the tax on the state they can't afford to go to


university, they can't afford to live the life that other people with


lots of money do. That has changed today because it has been raised


from ?325,000 to a million. Or possibly will be. House prices are


rising which means a lot more people will have to inheritance tax, it is


unfair and should be abolished. Isn't it the case, on your 19th


birthday you inherited a whole lot of stock to the tune of millions and


millions of dollars? It became that. When I got it it was actually


$90,000, $250,000 today. No and lot of money, no question. It was


$90,000 when I turned 1, it allowed me to invest in myself, build my


business and did what I did. You have invalidated your own argument?


Not at all, my first statement is how much is enough. I'm not saying


inheritance is entirely wrong. I'm saying huge amounts of inheritance


can be very damaging. I think a little inheritance can be valuable


what Michelle said in terms of doing it in stages is a great idea.


Where you do you think of when you hear the words "war on terror.


Afghanistan, if not Texas. The new front is in Africa, it is


underreported because the fight against the murderous bigots is done


by African Union troops. Around the town in Somalia they are wage ago


campaign against Islamist forces controlling more territory than any


other Al-Qaeda affiliate in the world. The BBC's international


development correspondent is the only foreign correspondent


accompanying the African troops. Soldiers from Uganda head for battle


against radical Islamist rebels in Somalia. Africa is the new frontline


in the war against Al-Qaeda. Bruted force is being used against Islamist


insurgents, not only here in Somalia but the west African nations too.


West African nations too. The soldiers going through the fight


face a fierce some opponent, Al-Shabab. Somali Government troops


are involved too. They are tough fighters but they sometimes lack


discipline and are always short of equipment. Without the Ugandans, the


Somali army wouldn't stand a chance. If so much


Map of the Somali troopsers don't look like they can stay and fight,


they can. They are part of a force in Somalia paid for by the west to


do a job western Governments won't. As the armoured column approaches


the town, Al-Shabab are ready. The soldiers I'm with know what's


coming. We are close to the town and there appears to be a firefight


happening about 100ms in front of us. Another African Union vehicle in


front of us and they appear to be engaging across the bank where the


town is. There is some fire coming back in this direction. Some of it


was coming in this direction. Shoot straight and kill the enemy! Bullets


rain on the Ugandans. Fighting vehicles are caught in the traffic


jam from hell. This is the main shopping street in the town. Look


what's happened to it now? An Al-Shabab side board, "the Koran is


the only path". I'm here under the mosque, OK. He's going to start


asking for ammunitions now, any vehicle moving between you and you


fast, shoot. Get your speed bigger. After fighting his way into town the


general took control. What I'm sure is I have adequate man power, 1500


soldiers on the ground and they won't do it to us they won't. The


battle has taken its toll. But civilians suffer more. This woman's


family was hit by a mortar round. She's the only surviving member. The


take on the town was only part of a -- the attack on the town was only


part of the offensive across the area where 3 million people live,


expect more civilian casualties and more refugees. Somalia has been at


war for decades, the human cost to that is incalculable. The governor


of the region thanked the Ugandans for coming. I put it to him that it


was Somalia's deep plan and private traditions was needed to shore it


up. You are saying that sides in Somalia have foreign support? More


than us. Al-Shabab, there are fighters who are going to teach you


know our youngest how to make suicide. How to make EID. This is


from these fighters here. That is the tragedy of Somalia,


foreign troops dig in, foreign Jihadists battle against them. The


Ugandans have made a significant advance by reaching Corleoli, but


they don't control the down. Very soon the annual rains will come and


the big MPs of war will be dogged down. Then Al-Shabab will retoot to


fight although in a distant and often what seems un-Govable country.


All the -- ungovernable country. All the men in the office have been


preparing, with the quote that Michael Gove is a not very secret


fan of our music of choice, fab-hop. In case it has passed you by, here


is live, uncut and wild, its leading exponent, Mr Bean the gentleman


rhymer. -- Mr B gentleman rhymer.


Hip, hop, hip, hop, you don't stop. # Walking to the bang jan rhythm


walking to the beat. # You wake up late for school and


you don't want to go You ask your ma please and she still


says no. You miss two classes and no homework


But your teacher thinks he's class You got a fight


On Newsnight to party. You got to fight, for your right to


party # That's p-a-r-t-y.


Cold winds coming in from the North Sea will be a big feature of the


weather over the next few days. A lot of cloud across the east during


Wednesday, with outbreaks of rain. In the west fair few showers in


Northern Ireland, at least there will be sunny spells developing.




Download Subtitles