26/03/2014 Newsnight


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Ist keeping David Cameron in Downing


Street versus the man they say is most likely to get him kicked out.


The Liberal Democrat leader faces off against the UKIP leader. People


like Nick think we are not good enough, we have to give away control


to all of these things to somebody else who will do it for us, we are


too small to survive. I'm not prepared to see anyone lose their


job on the altar of Nigel Farage's anti-European dogma. Whilst the


sophologists scratch their head as to what it all means, we are heading


down the pub. Farrage goes for the twinkly smile that we have seen a


lot of, is this good or bad. Is this man, the President of Rwanda, having


his political enemies assassinated. What happened to the Britain which


had a horror of getting into debt. A long time ago it was stigmatised and


now it is normalised for every level of debt. Is it OK? It is not


something you can say is OK or not. It is a fact of life now. It


featured two men in grey suits and manage magenta ties, neither with a


bit of doubt. Tonight's debate with thor of the Liberal Democrats and


the leader of the UKIP party was supposed to be with the European


Union. Yet the repeated refrain from each man was that's simply not true.


Each preferred to pose a question and then to answer it himself. Who


had the best night. Nigel Farage admitted the invitation to debate


Nick Clegg had initially made him choke on his bacon sarnie, tonight


he was finding it a little easier to swallow. I have just been for a bit


of a dress rehearsal in the Westminster Arms and I'm fine. Nick


Clegg was the insurgent three years ago, the TV debates in 2010 served


him so well he came back for more. Now he's the incumbent, the deputy


PM, arguably the old hand. I'm looking forward to it. I'm Nick


Ferrari and welcome to the debate. Such an old hand that he opened


tonight's debate with rather familiar words. This debate is about


you, it is simple, it is about your job. Let's remind to 2010 to remind


you. Tonight's debate it about you. About your job... For a radio


broadcast it was all rather glam, high-definition TV and swanky set,


in a less swanky pub a few miles away, we caught the reaction of our


apt viewers. Now both Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg know the intricacies


of EU legislation well, they knew tonight was not the night for it.


This would be an evening of polarisation, in or out on Europe


and no no nonsense questions on Europe. Why don't the British


politicians trust the British public and give us a referendum on the


membership of the EU now. From time to time they offer a referendum,


they do it cynically, funnily enough at election time. And they say vote


for us we will give you a referendum and then do their absolute best not


to. It will never again happen over the heads of the British people.


Then the consent of the British people should be asked by way of a


referendum, that is what I have always believed, that has always


been my position, I have never wavered in that position. That is


why the last time the rules changed, something called the Lisbon Treaty I


said there would be a referendum. What did they make of those answers?


A trained politician who has spent years learning how to present how to


marshall facts, Nigel is more of an outsider. Then it was the turn of


John Connelly in the audience, why were our borders wide open he asked


to eastern Europeans who came to take jobs? It says here that 29


million Bulgarians may come to this country. There aren't even 29


million of Romanians and Bulgarians living in their countries it is


simply not true. You didn't answer the question. You tried to do


trickery with the 29 million, saying there aren't 29 million, you know


because two million have left around and they have gone to Italy and to


Spain. Nick you didn't answer the basic question, I'm not claiming 29


million people have the right to come to Britain. Yes you did. I'm


claiming 485 million people have the total unconditional right to come to


this country if they want to. And I think you are quite right. Let's


listen to the facts, let me have it. We are members of the European Union


we have the free flow of people, are you denying that? Yes it is not


unqualified. Would you deny that. It is not the case that anyone can move


to this country and simply claim benefits or live. I didn't mention


benefit, you keep doing benefits. And what of the economy without the


EU. Nick Clegg wheeled out his well-rehearsed figure. Who says we


are sacrificing any jobs. I hope he brings out the three million jobs


line. How many jobs are they prepared to lose, rely plea


estimated that three million jobs are linked to our position. When you


answer a question like that by saying three million jobs are at


risk, you show that like virtually everybody at Westminster you have


never run your own company, you have never had a proper job in the real


world, you are part of this political bubble that picked up a


piece of research that was produced ten years ago by a guy who himself


now said all he said was the jobs are linked to trade in Europe. The


issue of criminal justice took a curious turn as Nick Clegg accused


Nick Clegg of letting the British people down by failing to vote. You


may be left up to 18 months in prison without facing a charge. We


have a system of common law in this country, we have had for 800 years,


but it is based on the presumption of innocence before guilt, it is


based on habeas corpus and common law and we must defend it. Why did


you vote against. We must defend the principles of liberty, freedom and


justice. You should defend, we should all defend the rights of


British citizens. Why did you not do that. Taking over each other, they


all do it. Coming to a close the biggest question of all fro LBC


listener Beth. The one about lies. How can I believe your integrity,


Nigel you put your wife on your payroll and Nick you lied about


tuition fees. Trust is a rare commodity in politics these day,


because in the issues of referendum it has been taken out of the hands


of politicians like Nigel and mine. You are paying your wife? I have a


group in the European Parliament and political in this country. I never


said I wouldn't. I very much doubt that anybody else in British


politics has worked the hours and had so little fun as me over the


course of the last few years. I'm very sorry to hear that, I don't see


how paying your wife makes up for it? Because when you get home at


midnight, if you are lucky, you need someone there to say I have done


this I have done, that here are the documents for tomorrow, and without


having unpaid assistance from my wife for seven years, and paid in a


very modest way for five years I couldn't have done it. He still


can't answer the question can he. I thought he did answer it. No, he


didn't. From the moment the debate began the Twitterer war was on. Lib


Dems hammering home a phrase made famous by Gordon Brown. Nick Clegg


and Nigel Farage thank you for taking part. Even the Conservatives


were keen to home bomb Nick Clegg, the man who could slaughter the UKIP


beast for them. Who won? Nigel Farage spoke with clearer language


but looked uncomfortable. Nick Clegg less prone to exasperation, both the


PM and the Labour leader insisted they weren't watching, but there


will be lessons for them to learn from tonight's fight, thank God for


catch-up TV. George Parker is the political editor of the Financial


Times, Melanie Philips a journalist and social commentator, and Phil


Collins writes for the Times. Let as not try to call it one way or


another, nobody knows really. Was Nick Clegg wise to issue this


challenge first off do you think? I think absolutely, I think it is a


no-brainer for Nick Clegg, this is a party at the moment which is polling


around 10%, Nigel Farage's party is polling around ten pest as well.


They are two minority parties discussion an issue that people


don't care very much about and they are getting wall-to-wall publicity,


including on this programme, of course it is a no-brainer, he was


right to issue the challenge. The Liberal Democrats have set the bar


very low, they want to get the 8-9% up to 11-12% a level to which they


think they can save the 12 MEPs they have at the moment. At least Nigel


Farage didn't look completely nuts did he? I would imagine that anyone,


nobody would even possibly think he would look completely nuts. He did


get the edge on Nick Clegg, I thought some of the things he said


to Nick Clegg, some of the challenges he laid down Clegg did


not actually answer properly. The three million piece of research, the


three million jobs at risk you know, it is a pretty dodgy one. And Mr


Clegg did not come back on open borders, he didn't really answer


that question, going on and on about, I always wanted a referendum


with new rules, and everyone wants the referendum on the old rules,


that is the point. Mr Farrage fell down on the ECHR, he did not make


the point which Mr Clegg did make, that the European Court of Human


Rights, human rights law has nothing to do with the EU. I thought he


looked very shifty over "the wife" and the employment of the "the


wife". Overall I was looking at the overall messages that both men were


conveying and you see Nick Clegg was actually for a Lib Dem this is


really quite ironic, I thought that Nick Clegg was giving a kind of fear


message, you know, if we come out it will be terrible and was trying to


sort of scare monger over jobs and was basically saying Britain can't


go it alone. Where as Nigel Farage, curiously was the much more


optimistic of the two, much more attractive of the two. He was saying


Britain can do it again and we have to have faith in ourselves and we


have to take back control of our own Government. What did you make of


this? That is not entirely true on immigration for example, I thought


Nick Clegg gave a very clear liberal defence of immigration, which is for


all the apparent liberal elite that run the country you don't hear that


case made very often, he made it in a very full-throated way. He made a


clear liberal case on trade, I thought he was quite coherent. I


thought he won it may be because he represents views I hold. In this


sense Clegg won it, even if you take the YouGov figures for a Liberal


Democrat to win 36% in any poll is joy unconfined for them, that is the


point of this. It is nothing to do with the EU, on which nobody's view


would have changed, it is everything to do with changing your mind about


Nick Clegg, that was the point of him turning up tonight. In that


context was it wise for Cameron and Miliband not to be represent there


had? I think it probably was, they don't have quite the same imperative


as Clegg has, as George said before, to creep from nine to 12 might team


like a fairly small journey but it could be crucial electorally for


them. If UKIP can hold 12% they will do damage to the Conservatives.


Neither of the other two want to talk about Europe, if Labour talk


about Europe it is a danger their supporters go to UKIP, and Tory


splits again in if they talk about it. They are the losers. Who? David


Cameron and Ed Miliband, because they conspicuously did not take part


in this debate. This was a debate of surrogates, and you know, their


voices weren't heard and I think people will take away you know quite


a poor impression of them from that. Interesting too how Clegg embraced


the legislation to lock in a referendum if there is transfer of


power, which is not a Liberal Democrat idea. He has come pretty


late to that party. All of a sudden it was very useful for him to


describe that. And Clegg has gone on the journey from the outsider to the


insider and I thought he wore that quite well tonight. Farrage has come


from nowhere to be the outsider, it was a peculiar moment. A very


strange hour for us all to spend. Very strange. What are your


feelings, two of you have mentioned this is an issue people don't really


care about? Yes, well if you look at the opinion pollsters they say


typically Europe doesn't come within the top ten issues that people care


about in their day-to-day lives. And I think that's true, it is one of


the reasons why normally in European elections politicians talk about


hospitals and schools and potholes in the roads and don't talk about


Europe. But I thought the interesting thing this time was the


Liberal Democrats who are pro-European are actually saying we


have nothing to lose, we are going to say we are pro-European and send


out a message and their view is basically there is 35% of the


population who are pro-European and want Britain to stay in the EU, that


is the pool of voters that they are fishing in really. I don't think


people don't care about it, it is just not on the forefront of


people's minds, people are more concerned about the day-to-day


issues, as soon as you start talking about it then I think people do care


quite considerably. On one side or the other and they want to hear the


arguments. People certainly care about immigration? They do, that was


probably the most interesting part of the whole thing, where the


divergence was very clear. Farrage lapsed into some very peculiar


language at that point, I don't know if I live in the anglo--sphere, I


have never been there but Nigel Farage seems to inhabit it. Nick


Clegg was clearer, he didn't have a populist message, but for Clegg he


wants to show leadership and to be there for an hour on the television


being the leader on a big subject. That in itself is quite an important


politics calm currency for him. I thought Farrage had immigration and


Clegg had jobs. And I thought immigration worked about for Farrage


than the jobs -- better for Farrage than the jobs for Clegg. It happens


to be people's number two on the list of concerns after the economy.


Nigel Farage channelled that better than Nick Clegg did. He has the


easier gig in a sense. He has the more popular line, I thought Clegg


made a good fist of his line, it is not a particularly popular one. I


agree with Melanie about the jobs, that well-worn figure of three


million is plucked out of the air, as soon as that was interrogated it


is very flimsy indeed, that argument which Clegg began with, but this is


essentially by our economic future, I think there is some truth in that


argument, but I think he lost that part of the argument. This is also a


contest for plucky outsider, underdog, to the political process.


In the general election Nick Clegg scored so well because he was the


plucky outsider to the political process. Now Farrage is the new guy


on the block. And I think Farrage still has the edge. I think he is


still the chippy outsider and saying the things that politicians won't


say, you know, there were too many occasions where Nick Clegg was sort


of not caught out, but was clearly looking a bit sort of uncomfortable,


he didn't really answer the question. Ultimately after an hour


of Farrage he began to fade, diminishing returns set in for me


early, in the end he's not good enough, he's too small to survive.


Thank you very much all of you. It was a bit like the good old days


of the Cold War in Washington today with the British and American


defence secretaries worrying over what to do about Russia. After years


of improving relations the invasion of Crimea has reset the clock. It


has done so when almost everyone in NATO has less money to spend on


defence. Barack Obama on his first presidential visit to Brussels said


he had concerns about the diminished level of defence spending among


America as allies. He also found time for a pointed reminder of how


the last stand-off between east and west came to an end. For decades a


contest was waged, and ultimately that contest was won, not by tanks


or missiles, but because our ideals stirred the hearts of Hungarians who


sparked a revolution. Polls in and shipyards who stood in solidarity.


Waging a revolution without firing a shot. Eastern Berliners who marched


past the guards and finally tore down that wall. The Defence


Secretary Philip Hammond met his US counterpart in Washington today from


he joins me now. In your assessment of this stand-off between Russia and


the west what would it take to move from economic sanctions to something


more serious that might involve NATO? NATO is involved already.


We're very clear that the preferred way of dealing with this situation


over the Ukraine and Crimea is through economic diplomatic and


political pressure on Russia. And President Obama has emphasised in


that speech you were carrying there today in Brussels that these are the


tools we will use in dealing with the crisis over the Ukraine. He was


very clear that there is not a military option around resolving the


crisis in the Ukraine. There is no military option? That's what the


President said in the speech and of course that will carry a great deal


of weight. But he also made the point that we have weapons of


economic, political and diplomatic sanction that will exact a very


significant price from Russia and if the crisis were to endure over time


it would make life very difficult indeed for Russia and the Russian


people. I read the text of a lecture you gave today in which you said you


became accustomed to hearing a certain amount of sniping in North


America about what the capabilities were of the European NATO allies.


What sort of things are they sniping about? Well I think Secretary Gates


when he was the Defence Secretary first set the perfectly legitimate


question, why would the US taxpayer want to spend their dollars


defending European countries that are unwilling to pay for their own


defence. That is a legitimate question and one which we in


European NATO have to answer. The sniping that I referred to was a


more specific sniping around the relationship between the UK and the


US in defence matters. Where there have been a number of commentators


on both sides of the Atlantic questioning whether Britain is able


to be a credible partner of the United States. And I was very


pleased this morning here to hear the Secretary of State of defence


Hagel saying clearly that Britain is a credible reliable and valued


partner. The United States has made clear that it's its future defence


plans will involve closer working with allies and I'm clear that


Britain is first in line to be the ally of preference for closer


working in the future and one of the things we have done today is to talk


about areas where we can do more together in the future, collaberate


more closely in the interests of both countries and of NATO and of


the free world more generally. Niece these snipers are right, we have no


operational aircraft carriers, the size of the army has been cut by a


fifth, the former chief of the general staff Lord Dannett thinks


that it has been cut far too far. They are right? Frankly I'm less


interested in what former chiefs and former generals think than the


advice time' getting from my current military chiefs and the current


military chiefs are telling me that we must invest in the frontiers of


defence, we must invest in cyber, we must invest in intelligence


acquisitions, surveillance, reconnaissance capabilities. These


are the things that we need to invest in. And with limited budgets


investing more in the new technologies to deal with the


threats that we will face in the future inevitably means spending


less on the old and familiar capabilities. On carrier strike, yes


we have accepted a gap in our carrier strike capability, but on


the 4th of July this year, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be launched at


Rosyth, a 65,000-tonne carrier, the largest ship the Royal Navy has had.


We are in the process of regenerating our carrier strike


capability with these new ships and the F-35 strike aircraft, one of the


world's most capable fighters. We will be back in that game with


avengence. Can I ask you a question about Ukraine, are there any


contingency plans for military action of any kind? Ass I have said


already we do not believe there will be an appropriate military response


to the crisis in the Ukraine. This has to be resolved by diplomatic


means and in the end there has to be negotiations between the Ukrainians


and the Russians. Ukraine is not a NATO member, it is outside the


alliance, we're very clear and President Obama has made clear today


that those countries that are inside NATO, including the Baltic states,


benefit from a very strong and clear military guarantee by NATO. We can't


extend that to countries outside the NATO alliance. Thank you very much.


Tony Blair thinks he's a visionary, Britain has given his country


millions upon millions in aid, Rwanda's President, Paul Kagami has


been a poster boy in these measures. 20 years since the genocide there


Rwanda's economy is growing at 8% a year, it comes at a price, Kagami's


opponents get locked up or worse, killed. So many opponents have fled


abroad. But even there they are not safe. The South African Government


has just expelled four Rwandan diplomats who they said were


involved in the murder and attempted murder of Rwandans in South Africa.


We investigated. New Year's Eve, Johannesburg.


Rwanda's former intelligence chief is on his way to an expensive hotel.


He's going to see an old informant. It was his friend, he used to come


and stay in his house many times. Patrick Karaga left his car in the


car park in Michelangelo Towers, and made his way up to suite 105, his


family would never hear from him again. His phones and everything


started going off from 8.00, 9.00, that is when they murdered him. The


friend, a man by the name of Apollo, was used as bait. The killers


themselves are thought to have rented a suite across the cor


templet we don't know how many of them there were. We do know that


Patrick Karaga seems to have put up a fight. The room was a mess, you


could see everything was a nightmare, we found the towel and


the towel was full of blood and the rope. He had marks all over. So


later they used the rope to hang him tight. His face had turned charcoal


black. Patrick was once one of the most powerful figures in Rwanda.


Paul Kagami's chief of external intelligence. He fled to South


Africa in 2008 after falling out with the regime. There he helped set


up an opposition movement called the Rwandan National Congress. His


friends family are in no doubt that he was murdered on the orders of the


Rwandan President. What I know is yes given his position, the way he


was and the way he did his job for all those years when he was part of


the Kagami regime, he may have known things and may have been in


opposition to those things. Almost certainly he would have known some


dark secrets, but his murder may have had more to do with whom rather


than what he knew. Patrick may have been an exile but he still had


friends inside Rwandan intelligence. To Paul Kagami those contacts could


possibly have constituted a threat. But to others they were an asset.


Newsnight has learned that from around the middle of last year Mr


Karagaya held a series of meetings with South Africa and Tanzania


military intelligence. The meetings happened at night and in secret.


They took place just as South Africa and Tanzania were sending their


troops to Congo to fight a Rwandan-backed rebel group. The


group was formed in early 2012, it called itself M 23. Within months


they had the much more powerful Congalese military on the run. The


United Nations said the rebels were receiving support from Rwanda. But


in mid-2013 a new UN brigade, made up of principally South African and


Tanzania soldiers began taking the fight to the rebels. And by November


M 23 were defeated. Their demise was swifter than their rise. Could


Patrick's late night meetings have contributed to the defeat of a


Rwandan proxy army, and could that in part at least explain his death.


Shortly after the murder Rwanda's President did little to distance


himself from the killing, while officially denying any involvement.


Patrick Karagaya's death served as a stark warning for exiles in South


Africa. Another high ranking official in Paul Kagami's entourage


was one. The general is understandably perhaps very cautious


about his security, about who he meets, about giving out contact


details. We have managed to get in touch with an intermediary and have


managed to range to meet them in a hotel outside Johannesburg. We will


follow you, we are in the grey Toyota. Wait for me. Thanks. Six


men, three of them Rwandan are currently on trial in Johannesburg


accuse of the attempted murder of a man in 2010. Since then he has


survived two more sassination attempts, the most recent earlier


this month. So the general is in hiding, living under South African


state protection. They ran away from danger, I ran away from somebody I


thought wanted my life, and that was the President of Rwanda. He said


that Patrick and I are like flies and if it requires him to use a ham


Tory kill a fly he will do it. You knew President Kagami well, would


you have called him a friend at one point? No, never. First of all he's


a very violent person. Have you seen that? Oh yes, many times, beating


people, very many times in my life. I have seen him doing that. In the


aftermath of the genocide in which 800,000 mostly Tutsi Rwandans tide,


Paul Kagami's army was accused of killing out mass killings of Hutu


citizens. He has always rejected that. But the General, Chief of


Staff of the Rwandan Armed Forces admits that what he calls "excesses"


did occur. There was no deliberate intention against the Hutu, but


talking about people dying in war and undoubtedly they did. These


exercises of war are not just confined to Rwanda. Do you think


Paul Kagami could fear what you have to say about the killings or


excesses? You know what it is as you said nobody died, and yet a parent,


a wife or child died. The circumstances under which people


died should be explained. And if they explain them then they can have


consideration. In Rwanda we don't have angels and devils, what we have


is a situation inbetween. You are not an angel? Not at all. The South


African Government this month expelled four Rwandan diplomats,


linking them to the murder of Patrick Karagaya and the attempted


murder of the General. We were invited here to Pretoria to


interview the Rwandan High Commisioner, I have been inside and


the man seems to have changed his mind. He refused to comment on any


allegations of assassinations or attempted assassinations, and as to


my questions of whether somebody in this diplomatic mission had been


intimidating Rwandan exiles, he refused to confirm it or deny.


Almost every member of the Rwandan opposition we met spoke of being


threatened. One name came up again and again. That of one of the


expelled diplomats, first councillor Didi. I have told them they would be


eliminated. Didier doesn't hide his words when he's talking to Rwandans,


he's straight forward. When he says eliminate or wipe or silence he


means it. Other exiles have played this audio tapes in which they say


everything members of Rwanda's Armed Forces have been heard plotting to


kill Mr Karagaya. We can't verify the recordings but it is clear the


South African Government believes Rwanda was involved. It is not just


South Africa, over the years Paul Kagami's opponents have been


targeted in countries as diverse as Mozambique, Uganda, Kenya, even


Europe. Belgium, Sweden and indeed the United Kingdom. In 2011, three


Rwandan exiles were warned by British police that their lives were


in imminent danger from the Rwandan Government. We have spoken to one of


those exiles for this investigation who says he still remains in regular


contact with the Metropolitan Police. If Rwanda is trying to


silence crickets abroad, then the situation inside the country is


tougher still for those who oppose the Government. You know there have


been disappearance, executions, and nobody is talking. The police, the


intelligence is all over the place. That is terror. If nobody is talking


and people are terrorised, that is not peace. You have a brewing


conflict in Rwanda that is likely to develop into another conflict.


Rwanda has accused South African of harbouring terrorists, amongst them


the General and has asked for his extradition, that is unlikely to


happen. Despite the denials of official involvement, the message


from Kagami seems clear, oppose us and you are likely to end up dead.


Neither a borrower or lender be, the advice to the son in Shakespeare's


hamlet was once an -- Hamlet was once an item of faith in the UK. As


nation we currently owe ?1. 43 trillion. And a report by the


think-tank Demos, out tomorrow and seen in advance by this programme


identifies a further hidden debt. It often seems in the lives of many


British people the person who isn't a borrower is a mug! This is a huge


change in MRILT public attitudes which has rather intrigued us.


Sliding in and out of the red isn't unusual, but your bets of hanging on


in the black seem slimmer than ever. Our personal debts stack up to ?1. 4


trillion. More than twice what the Government spends in a year. And new


research seen by Newsnight suggests even more is hidden, nearly ?5


billion of arrears the official figures ignore. That is how Trevor


fell behind, he had to take time off work when he was ill. Housing and


utility bills he couldn't pay built up. So he went to different lenders


to cope. It is very easy to borrow, and I mean they are quick enough to


come to you and say, yeah, it is here if you want, ?1500, how much do


you want. It is easy to pile it on to you. But you wait until they


start asking for it back. It's like an addiction innit really. But it is


not just those in vulnerable situations taking their chances. The


research suggests 88% of us in Rwanda's in the red in some form,


mortgages, credit cards or something more risky. A quarter of households


rely on debt to get through the week. If you are under 30 you are


three-times more likely to have debts that are racking up and up.


The first year I would have eight hours contact. Around this table


just four students will rack ?150,000 of debt between them before


they earn a full-time penny. For all of you being in debt is perfectly


normal? Yeah. But unlike any of our previous generations, that is their


reality. A long time ago it was stigmatised now it is part of daily


life, every level of debt. Do you think that's OK? I don't think it is


something whether you can say is OK or not, because it just is, it is a


fact of life now. It is daunting thinking about it like that and


talking about it, but now that we are living here and we don't have to


pay it back at the moment, I'm putting it at the back of my mind.


If I can come to university I can take steps to get a well paid job to


pay off that when I leave university and just try not to think about for


the time being. There is not much sign of current or future


generations ever being able to escape. In fact, the Government's


official number crunchers predicted that we would be more and more in


hock. Approaching again the dangerous way in which we were


overextended when the financial system went pop.


And from controversial new pay day lenders who give decisions in


minutes, to doorstep debt collectors, it is big business.


Frank has been around the streets and knocking on doors for 40 years,


chasing up unpaid rent and bills. What kind of people get into debt?


Everybody. Have you got a mortgage? It could be you, it doesn't matter


whether it is credit cards or you can see from the figures, it is


enormous isn't T you know, it includes mortgages and everything


else. But yeah, debt is debt and it is still growing isn't it. We as a


country borrow God knows how much every day just to survive. So you


know. For us not to recognise it would be stupid wouldn't it. That


means that people in your position can make more and more money doesn't


it? I don't make a lot of money out of it. Let's face it, I do make a


few shillings and I employ a few people, which is basically what it


is all about, in this day of everything wanting everything. You


know children getting all the latest Playstations and everything else,


you know, it is not just people at the bottom of the food chain who are


suffering. It is people as you move into the middle market et cetera.


They are also caught up in it. Although the stigma of debt has more


or less gone, the potential to cause harm has grown. Think-tank, Demos,


who conducted this major new poll, believes lenders who do most damage


should be penalised. When it does go wrong, when debt does spiral out of


control, it can cause harm very quickly, that harm is what we are


interested in, that harmful section of the debt market. That is where we


think the Government and regulator should be tackling. A gentle


long-term mortgage shouldn't do much harm, but being in the red can ruin


lives. But with the recovery based on largely our own spending, debt


may land us in trouble but we would be in trouble without it too. Now


there is a minor moral panic taking off at the news of official advice


that teenagers in England and Wales, including those under the age of


consent, should be able to get hold of the morning-after-pill. The


National Institute for Health and care excellence is recommending they


be able to keep emergency contraception at home just in case


they need it. The justification is an attempt to shed this country's


reputation for having the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and


abortion in Europe. But when won't the possession of


morning-after-pills encourage promiscuity, and sexually


transmitted diseases. Our guests are both here. Is this a good thing do


you think? I think it could be a good thing, definitely. I mean, I


just don't think that it is going to change people's minds that much in


terms of people aren't thinking, if something's down the road instead of


in their house it is going to make them more or less likely to have


sex. What do you think? I don't think that they are emotionally


mature enough to handle the aftereffects of having sex. I think


that having the morning-after-pill so readily available will actually


not actually make a difference to pregnancy rates and things like


that, teenage pregnancy rates. Why not? I would say this because they


are not mature enough, they don't know the aftereffects, the pill


actually doesn't stop you from getting sexually transmitted


diseases and things like that. That's another argument, we will


come to that in a moment or two if we may. But on the pregnancy


question you really don't think it will make much difference? I don't


feel it will make any difference at all. It will be an excuse for young


people to have sex and then think OK tomorrow I will have the


morning-after-pill. What's wrong with that? I don't think that we


should be encouraging that, the Government should not be encouraging


young people to be having sex. It is not encouraging young people to have


sex, it is encouraging them not to get pregnant? Isn't it? Well I


wouldn't say so we already have things like free condoms and in


schools and universities being given out F they didn't want to fall


pregnant there are loads of means available of different types of


contraception to help them. Specifically the thing that is given


concern is the question of the morning-after-pill which, is


supposedly emergecy contraception after the event. Although if you


have a stockpile it is a predictable emergency. What do you think will be


the effect of that? I mean you say it is a predictable emergency, most


forms of contraception are 100%, I don't think any form is. The whole


point of this is when that fails, because you have to already be


taking some form of contraception to have access to this any way, it is


for people who are already taking contraception but need something to


fall back on sometimes because obviously nothing is ever 100%. The


difference between a morning-after-pill and condom or


something like, is that it doesn't protect you from sexually


transmitted infections, which are on the rise slightly any way. Don't you


worry about that? I mean people when they go to get this stockpile are


going to have to be educated about all types of contraception any way,


so I don't think people will become less aware of condoms or use them


less because that is the thing they will still have access to or still


be taught about. What is your anxiety about the rise, you


mentioned it a moment a a rise in sexually transmitted infections? I


think actually having this so readily available will actually


increase STDs, although people are not educated enough about sexually


transmitted diseases and things like that, so having this available is ju


going to be adding to the fuel it is OK for me to have sex, society says


it is acceptable, we're able now to get these things for free and it is


going to be fooling it. You think there will be a rise in infections?


Absolutely. As a direct consequence of this policy? I think people will


be turning to condoms less and use the morning-after-pill a lot more.


Do you worry about girls, particularly young girls, this is


applying to girls under the age of consent being more vulnerable to


pressure to have early sex now the young man says, well I haven't got a


condom but you can get those morning-after-pills no trouble? I


think generally people need to be educated more about relationships


and consent. I think that's part of a wider issue and it is all about


education. I mean obviously peer pressure has always existed and


probably will always exist, but the more we educate people in be this


stuff, the more likely that is it won't happen in the future. That's


it for tonight, we leave you with a viral video of the day filmed by


Karen Jones from Houston Texas, she recorded a fire in the building near


her home and the construction worker trapped near the edge of it. Oh my


God. Is that a construction guy? Yeah, he was inside there, do they


fricking see him. Oh God, oh my God, oh no, oh no. Oh my God. Hell, he


can jump from there, hell yes. Oh thank yes subjection thank you God.


Oh my God! (Screaming) oh no, my God! Oh!


Download Subtitles