:00:12. > :00:21.Secretary's aide trying to put them off investigating expense why is. I
:00:22. > :00:32.should just flag up when she Doorsteps him, she has her father.
:00:33. > :00:39.The paper says that was a threat to press freedom. Number Ten calls the
:00:40. > :00:50.claim utterly false. Also tonight, getting high legally. It says toxic
:00:51. > :00:53.symptoms may include nausea, restlessness panic. The person
:00:54. > :00:56.making it thinks someone will take it. Should you ban people from
:00:57. > :01:01.getting off their heads on drugs sold over the counter. The minister
:01:02. > :01:15.says you can and you should. This man wants to know how? Good evening,
:01:16. > :01:20.the apology was just 31 second, the fall-out from the Maria Miller
:01:21. > :01:26.expenses episode may take up a lot more air time. Tonight the Telegraph
:01:27. > :01:30.has released an audio transcript of the moments Maria Miller's aide told
:01:31. > :01:38.them to leave the expenses scandal off. He said his staff were
:01:39. > :01:42.threatened with tougher press regulation if they went ahead. The
:01:43. > :01:45.Prime Minister defended his Culture Secretary and declared the Standards
:01:46. > :01:53.Committee which judged her to be independent. A handsome
:01:54. > :02:01.double-fronted period house with excellent entertaining space in good
:02:02. > :02:05.condition. So when the estate agent blurb for the Culture Secretary's
:02:06. > :02:12.five-bedroomed home when it was sold in February. Yesterday Maria Miller
:02:13. > :02:15.was cleared of making false expenses claims related to that house. She
:02:16. > :02:19.still had to pay back ?6,000 in mortgage interest and apologise for
:02:20. > :02:25.her attitude to an inquiry triggered by a story in the Telegraph. Today
:02:26. > :02:31.she still had the support of the Prime Minister. What happened
:02:32. > :02:36.yesterday is that Maria Miller was cleared of the original charge made
:02:37. > :02:40.against her, it was found she had made mistake, she accepted that,
:02:41. > :02:42.repaid the money, she apologised unreservedly to the House of
:02:43. > :02:46.Commons, I think we should leave it there. But that attempt to draw a
:02:47. > :02:51.line under the affair hasn't worked, at least so far. At the centre of
:02:52. > :02:55.all this are now claims by the Telegraph that its reporters were
:02:56. > :02:59.threatened, repeatedly told by Government spin doctors that it is
:03:00. > :03:04.the Culture Secretary, Maria Miller who is in charge of press
:03:05. > :03:11.regulation. This evening the Telegraph released the audio of a
:03:12. > :03:15.phone call between holly Price and Maria Miller's special adviser at
:03:16. > :03:21.the Department of Culture head a and support. It starts with a complaint
:03:22. > :03:30.that the journalists turned up on and harassed Maria Miller's elderly
:03:31. > :03:50.fair -- father who has health problems.
:03:51. > :04:28.Is that reference to the Leveson Inquiry into press regulation, which
:04:29. > :04:32.the Telegraph and its editor claim was a vailed threat to their
:04:33. > :04:37.reporter. Bearing in mind this was a time of anti-press his tearia, the
:04:38. > :04:42.press was feeling -- hysteria, the press was feeling vulnerable after
:04:43. > :04:49.the lever son report, and there was a -- Leveson report and there was a
:04:50. > :04:57.great desire of not falling foul of Leveson. The aide claims the
:04:58. > :05:02.reference to Leveson was a reminder that her bosses speak directly with
:05:03. > :05:06.her boss and therefore likely to raise the issue of harassment. But
:05:07. > :05:09.Craig Oliver, the head of communications at Downing Street,
:05:10. > :05:13.called the then editor at the Telegraph when again the subject of
:05:14. > :05:22.Leveson was raised as a threat the We were no doubt threats were being
:05:23. > :05:25.made. Joanna Hindley was not attempting to be sophisticated about
:05:26. > :05:29.t she menaced openly, "I just want to flag up that Maria Miller is
:05:30. > :05:34.involved in Leveson right now, you might want to talk to your senior
:05:35. > :05:37.bosses", the reporter took that as a serious TLECHLT when you get the
:05:38. > :05:43.Prime Minister's spokesman saying the same thing a few days later, you
:05:44. > :05:49.add the calls up and decide they are trying to harass you and stop you
:05:50. > :05:56.publishing the story. This evening Craig Oliver said:
:05:57. > :06:04.Newsnight understands there is a lot of anger among backbench Tory MPs at
:06:05. > :06:09.the way this has played out. Some believe it has left the PM looking
:06:10. > :06:12.very weak. One MP told us he contacted David Cameron saying he
:06:13. > :06:16.now has two choices, either come out and hammer, as he puts it, the
:06:17. > :06:21.Telegraph for telling lies, or else he has to tell his own
:06:22. > :06:25.communications chief, Craig Oliver, he must now go. Whatever happens all
:06:26. > :06:28.this is starting to bring back memories that politicians of all
:06:29. > :06:33.parties will want to forget. David Cameron said after the 2009 expenses
:06:34. > :06:37.scandal that only through transparency and accountability
:06:38. > :06:41.would the public get its power back from the political elite. His
:06:42. > :06:47.critics will use this latest row to show five years on that isn't yet
:06:48. > :06:52.the case. From Ipswich we now have our guest, the Conservative MP who
:06:53. > :06:58.sits on the culture media and support committee. And here in
:06:59. > :07:04.London Heather Brook, her work led to the exposure of the MPs' expenses
:07:05. > :07:09.scandal originally. Heather I wonder what you heard when we played that,
:07:10. > :07:14.what did you understand from it, the transcript? I don't work for the
:07:15. > :07:19.Telegraph, I never have worked for the Telegraph, but when I heard
:07:20. > :07:24.that, it does strike you as a threat. If you are a reporter and
:07:25. > :07:28.somebody calls you up, mentions that they are involved with a very
:07:29. > :07:34.serious inquiry about regulating the press, and mention that is they are
:07:35. > :07:40.going to talk to your bosses, then that is something that you would, as
:07:41. > :07:44.a reporter, take as a method of intimidation to basically try to
:07:45. > :07:49.shut you out of the investigation you were trying to conduct. Is that
:07:50. > :07:56.what you heard? That is not what I heard. I heard an adviser to the
:07:57. > :07:59.Culture Secretary suggesting it was inappropriate to be doorsteping
:08:00. > :08:04.elderly parents of somebody who has just come out of hospital. I know
:08:05. > :08:09.the reporters said they didn't know, but it is clear that's what the
:08:10. > :08:14.adviser thought, and indeed Craig Oliver has made the suggestion today
:08:15. > :08:17.when he said he contacted the editor of the Telegraph to make the point
:08:18. > :08:22.again. And yet you heard said that when three different sources contact
:08:23. > :08:25.you with the same message it adds up to something that starts to feel
:08:26. > :08:30.like a threat. You are on rather shaky ground at that point when you
:08:31. > :08:36.keep hearing the word "Leveson"? That is your interpretation, that is
:08:37. > :08:40.certainly not mine. The issue about Leveson has been going on for some
:08:41. > :08:44.time, I have not seen any change in newspapers' attitudes in want to go
:08:45. > :08:47.publish what they wish. I think that is the right thing to do I believe
:08:48. > :08:50.in press freedom, it is right for them to pursue avenues and they need
:08:51. > :08:56.to do that appropriately and within the grounds of the PCC. That is the
:08:57. > :09:00.point, if this line from Joe Hindley, the advise e just aed plied
:09:01. > :09:07.to the parents' medical records, that is understandable, that would
:09:08. > :09:14.be intrusion, right? The point we need to focus on, this is a reporter
:09:15. > :09:19.trying to stand up a Tory of allegations an MP's claims on a
:09:20. > :09:24.second home. She discovers the MP's parents are in the house. It is not
:09:25. > :09:28.her fault the elderly people are in the house, it is meant to be the
:09:29. > :09:32.MP's second home, first of all, that is an issue. And secondly that is a
:09:33. > :09:36.public interest piece of reporting. They need to stand up that story and
:09:37. > :09:43.find out who is living in that house, why are they there? It is
:09:44. > :09:47.disingenious of using the argument of privacy and elderly people out of
:09:48. > :09:51.the hospital. The reporter didn't know that. In the context of Leveson
:09:52. > :09:56.to paint this picture at a time when the press was really under attack
:09:57. > :10:02.and you can, to me, it just seems like a very forthright mechanism to
:10:03. > :10:06.try to use a privacy argument for a politician to avoid public
:10:07. > :10:10.accountability. And more widely, there is a lot of anger by MPs,
:10:11. > :10:16.backbench MPs in your own party, the way the Prime Minister has handled
:10:17. > :10:20.this, some four years on, still to be at a place where this message is
:10:21. > :10:24.not getting through. There seems to be one rule for some and another
:10:25. > :10:29.rule for those, if you like, at the bottom of the ladder? I don't see
:10:30. > :10:34.that being the case, there has been claim and counter claim about the
:10:35. > :10:39.special adviser, but the central allegation made by another MP that
:10:40. > :10:43.Maria Miller was subsidising her parents' accommodation through the
:10:44. > :10:48.taxpayer is reject. Her parents lived with her nine years before she
:10:49. > :10:53.was an MP, her second home it became because she spent fewer nights there
:10:54. > :10:56.when she moved to Basingstoke to start family life there. That is the
:10:57. > :10:59.allegation utterly rejected by the commissioner and the committee.
:11:00. > :11:03.David Cameron was the man who was going to clean up politics, let
:11:04. > :11:07.sunshine be the disinfectant, yet here you have the hazy understanding
:11:08. > :11:16.of whether it should have been ?40,000 she paid back, why you why
:11:17. > :11:19.it is only now a ?6,000, and this 36-second apology, this is not a
:11:20. > :11:26.party on top of it, this is the Culture Secretary? There is nothing
:11:27. > :11:30.hazy about it, marryia Miller going back 20 years when the house was
:11:31. > :11:33.caught and subsequent improvements made to T she is the person who
:11:34. > :11:36.found and thought she may have overclaimed on it, did the
:11:37. > :11:40.calculation with her offset mortgage and put it forward. The
:11:41. > :11:46.Parliamentary Commissioner took a view Ishally they -- initially that
:11:47. > :11:51.they should have been paying only on the price paid back in 1996 and not
:11:52. > :11:54.the mortgage that was there when she became an MP. Together the MPs
:11:55. > :11:58.discussed that with the commissioner and they have come out to clarify
:11:59. > :12:02.they recognise it should be the mortgage that was on the house when
:12:03. > :12:06.she became an MP. Does this feel to you like a cleaner system that is
:12:07. > :12:10.starting to work? I'm always amazed that I still get calls to come on
:12:11. > :12:18.programmes like this to discuss a story that I worked on since 2004.
:12:19. > :12:22.Regardless of the intricacies of the investigation and whether we think
:12:23. > :12:26.an independent regulator should be, who is meant to be, whose judgment
:12:27. > :12:30.is final is then overruled by a committee of MPs. I think the point
:12:31. > :12:35.being that if MPs really are concerned about giving the public a
:12:36. > :12:40.different view of politics, one that is more trustworthy, then this isn't
:12:41. > :12:51.giving that view, it looks very shady, dodgy. A cosy cronyistic, we
:12:52. > :12:57.need the reality and an appearance as well of propriety. Thank you very
:12:58. > :13:02.much both of you. They are legal, inexpensive, potentially deadly. So
:13:03. > :13:07.called "legal highs" were linked to 68 deaths in 2012 and despite
:13:08. > :13:11.Government attempts to crack down on the drugs, they seem impervious to
:13:12. > :13:16.all efforts to regulate them effectively. All it takes is a
:13:17. > :13:27.little clever science in lab to bypass restrictions. What is on your
:13:28. > :13:34.local high street? Butcher, baker, legal high maker? Shops like this
:13:35. > :13:39.sell all kinds of smoking paraphernalia, and they can sell
:13:40. > :13:44.legal highs as research chemicals. I can see the chemistry stuff and tiny
:13:45. > :13:50.copy of the periodic table, what about the product, do you stock
:13:51. > :13:58.legal highs here. He We stock research chemicals. Do you have
:13:59. > :14:03.Gogain and Poke. We do stock Poke and Poke Extreme. A couple of
:14:04. > :14:14.packets. Did you notice how the research chemicals have names that
:14:15. > :14:18.make them sound like hard drugs. Let's have a look. Now both of them
:14:19. > :14:26.say not approved for human consumption. That's correct. It says
:14:27. > :14:34.toxic symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, rest ness. If
:14:35. > :14:38.you were to consume them. The person making it thinks somebody is going
:14:39. > :14:43.to take them to put it all on the back. It is a hazard warning label,
:14:44. > :14:51.it says it on the back of bleach. How much for these? ?25 a packet.
:14:52. > :14:56.?25 a packet for a research experiment. What would you
:14:57. > :15:00.recommend? Heating it, adding water to it, that is two chemical
:15:01. > :15:05.procedures can you do on their own. Research into them, that is why they
:15:06. > :15:14.are research products. Thank you very much. ?25. Welcome to my
:15:15. > :15:19.domestic chemical research laboratory. How utterly bizarre that
:15:20. > :15:23.I can walk into a shop where I know they are selling products that other
:15:24. > :15:27.people use for recreational drug use, but they will only sell it to
:15:28. > :15:32.me, and I can only buy it, if we both collude in the belief that this
:15:33. > :15:42.is entirely for chemical research at home. I'm going to ask a proper
:15:43. > :15:52.research doctor what he thinks this is for. What is in these? OK so
:15:53. > :15:57.metethol propane. One has a stimulant with a local anaesthetic.
:15:58. > :16:00.The local anaesthetic is there to pretend this is cocaine or number
:16:01. > :16:05.your nose because snotting these drugs would hurt a lot. What do you
:16:06. > :16:10.think about the kind of labelling on the drugs? It is not a warning, it
:16:11. > :16:14.is exploiting a loophole placing people at risks. It means people
:16:15. > :16:21.owning the shops and produce the packets can't put it on the back it
:16:22. > :16:24.may cause seizures, paranoia and hallucinations, if you take the drug
:16:25. > :16:29.it comes on for five minutes and lasts half an hour but don't take it
:16:30. > :16:34.pregnant or driving. That might make the difference between someone
:16:35. > :16:41.taking a little or a lot and might avoid an A Visit. Without clear
:16:42. > :16:45.information rely on each other to discuss the effects of the drugs.
:16:46. > :16:49.They take to chatrooms and forums. This is Claire writing about a
:16:50. > :17:05.research chemical. I think the thing that is really
:17:06. > :17:08.concerning is thinking about who might be attracted to these
:17:09. > :17:13.substances. Our experience is that it tend to be the less experienced
:17:14. > :17:19.drug user, often the younger drug user and the personal who might be
:17:20. > :17:23.attracted -- person who might be attracted to the legal and safe
:17:24. > :17:27.status. These drugs are anything but safe. The figures we have at the
:17:28. > :17:33.moment suggests one person a week is dying in the UK from the substances.
:17:34. > :17:37.That is probably an underestimate. There is no consistent global
:17:38. > :17:41.response to legal high, Britain has banned more than 200 substances, but
:17:42. > :17:52.as soon as a ban comes in a new compound gets made. This is MDMA,
:17:53. > :17:58.ecstacy, illegal since the 197 0s, but tweak it and bit and it was
:17:59. > :18:04.something else and not banned until 2009. This woman's daughter died
:18:05. > :18:08.after taking it. If you think about any pharmaceutical drug or anything
:18:09. > :18:11.you ingest it has to be through trials, and before human trials it
:18:12. > :18:14.goes through other trials, how come we are allowing these things to be
:18:15. > :18:18.for sale when they have been through no test whatsoever, we don't know
:18:19. > :18:22.what is in them. They could maime or kill our kids for life, yet we allow
:18:23. > :18:27.them to be sold, it doesn't make sense at all. Welcome back to the
:18:28. > :18:30.domestic chemical research laboratory, three big questions,
:18:31. > :18:35.number one is the global response to legal highs fast and effective
:18:36. > :18:39.enough? Number two, if the UK is the legal high capital of the world, why
:18:40. > :18:48.aren't we policing it better? And number three, what does happen when
:18:49. > :18:56.you pour this into water? Nothing, really. It is not very exciting is
:18:57. > :19:00.it? In a moment we will speak to George Lamb a TV presenter who took
:19:01. > :19:05.a legal high when making a documentary about it. First Norman
:19:06. > :19:08.Baker a Home Office Minister. We found out what happened in the third
:19:09. > :19:12.question, the big one is why the system is such a complete joke,
:19:13. > :19:15.Norman Baker, you know people can die from these drugs and yet you
:19:16. > :19:20.would admit you have no control? It is not a complete joke. Thats Josh
:19:21. > :19:23.challenge and the drug world has changed significantly over the last
:19:24. > :19:27.five or ten years internationally, and all countries are trying to find
:19:28. > :19:30.the correct response. Our response is quicker and more effective than
:19:31. > :19:35.other countries but it is not as efficient as it should be. A lot of
:19:36. > :19:40.the legal highs in the review at the end of the last year, we got the be
:19:41. > :19:44.brains in the country from all disciplines coming together to
:19:45. > :19:51.advise me. Why do you need a review if these are sold to one person a
:19:52. > :19:54.week who is dying Flo them? From them? We tried to minimise harm on
:19:55. > :19:59.the streets. The mother there said you don't let them on the market?
:20:00. > :20:04.Sometimes the first we know about it is wh somebody has died. Why do they
:20:05. > :20:09.get licensed? They don't, they suddenly appear, they are imported
:20:10. > :20:12.and dressed up in packaging that looks legal. There is nothing you
:20:13. > :20:19.can do to stop them being sold? As soon as we find out they are
:20:20. > :20:23.damaging we ban them. We have been orders temporarily, and we are
:20:24. > :20:29.trying to anticipate where the chemist might go next. We are trying
:20:30. > :20:32.to arrest those selling illegal substances. You know the shops
:20:33. > :20:41.exist, do you believe anyone goes into them in order to conduct a
:20:42. > :20:45.domestic chemical experiment, so why take the shops? If a shop is selling
:20:46. > :20:48.something ban you had can't run it out of business. I have issues and
:20:49. > :20:52.guidance to local councils in order to enable them to go in and use the
:20:53. > :20:59.different ladies and gentlemenslation and the powers have
:21:00. > :21:03.been used to see substances and close stops -- seize substances and
:21:04. > :21:05.close stops down. You heard what the doctor said about putting a
:21:06. > :21:10.different set of instructions on the back of the packet. Would it be
:21:11. > :21:14.better to legal lies them with all the warnings that would -- legalise
:21:15. > :21:19.them with all the warnings that would help. I have set up a panel.
:21:20. > :21:23.Are you considering legalisation? The review panels had a blank sheet
:21:24. > :21:28.of paper and challenge from me to come up with a way of minimising
:21:29. > :21:31.damages. You have a Home Office Minister, you must have a sense of
:21:32. > :21:34.whether you think these should be banned outright or they shouldn't be
:21:35. > :21:38.imported into the country as chemicals, or whether you think that
:21:39. > :21:44.actually the most realistic thing to do is let them be sold and let
:21:45. > :21:48.people know what they are letting themselves in for? This review panel
:21:49. > :21:51.is looking at different practices across the world, there are
:21:52. > :21:58.different ways to approach, Ireland has taken a draconian view and
:21:59. > :22:02.banning anything that is psychoactive. That is a big extreme
:22:03. > :22:06.position. New Zealand has looked at going down the road you suggested.
:22:07. > :22:11.Looking for some to be given permission to be on the shelves.
:22:12. > :22:15.That has eliminated 90% of those in New Zealand, but some are on the
:22:16. > :22:20.shelves. The third option, the American option, of banning
:22:21. > :22:24.substances which are similar to different ones that are banned.
:22:25. > :22:29.George, when you hear the options do you think we should be the New
:22:30. > :22:35.Zealand? I think New Zealand 100%. You would say you are never going to
:22:36. > :22:38.ban them? You can't ban them, they change the compound every time, as
:22:39. > :22:41.soon as you ban one drug another will appear. You can't regulate
:22:42. > :22:48.that, if you change the rules consistently you will have a
:22:49. > :22:54.continuous stream of untested chemicals on the mark. If you speak
:22:55. > :22:58.to a toxicologist, they want to have research on something. If you are
:22:59. > :23:01.doing recreational drugs you are better off doing illegal ones
:23:02. > :23:06.because we have 20 years of research on the new ones. You have still got
:23:07. > :23:15.one person a week dying of this, that won't change presumably, if
:23:16. > :23:19.they are sold more freely. No but if you sell something with education
:23:20. > :23:25.and you don't create sub-cultures, you know they have a misleading name
:23:26. > :23:30.at the moment which would give the impression her safe and legal. Yes,
:23:31. > :23:34.they are technically legal, but... You know these appeal to the most
:23:35. > :23:39.vulnerable, we heard from that doctor, often the youngest people,
:23:40. > :23:43.people who haven't tried anything that sound legal so he this think
:23:44. > :23:46.they are on safer ground? The first thing that needs to be tackled is
:23:47. > :23:49.the name, that is a real big problem, the second thing is the
:23:50. > :23:53.packaging has no information. The third thing is the fact that kids
:23:54. > :23:56.can buy them freely. We need to get on top of that. If you don't get on
:23:57. > :24:02.top of that you will continue to have a person dying every week,
:24:03. > :24:06.perhaps more. Would you go down the legalisation route for all drugs, I
:24:07. > :24:10.know you raised the Amsterdam thesis, explain would you go down
:24:11. > :24:13.for the one who is are illegal as well? Absolutely. You are
:24:14. > :24:19.pro-legalisation of drugs? I am, if you look at Holland and the way, if
:24:20. > :24:28.you look at their drug analysis, they have an incredibly permissive
:24:29. > :24:31.and forward-thinking attitude to drug taking, they have a lower rate
:24:32. > :24:35.of cannabis uptake amongst young people. You wouldn't consider it
:24:36. > :24:40.immoral to sell these OK drugs or make them? OK so even if I say it is
:24:41. > :24:44.immoral, what are you going to do? Are you going to try to ban it? Do
:24:45. > :24:50.you think it is immoral to sell drugs that you know can kill people?
:24:51. > :24:55.Of course it is to sell drugs that you know can kill young people. Is
:24:56. > :25:00.it immoral to make them? To make drugs that will kill people, of
:25:01. > :25:05.course that is moral. I don't think these people are setting out to kill
:25:06. > :25:09.people. I know you didn't want to be in discussion with George. But your
:25:10. > :25:13.thoughts? I don't mind being in discussion with George, that's fine.
:25:14. > :25:20.You could have come in at any point there. Your sense then would be to
:25:21. > :25:24.what at this point. Do you accept from what George has said that this
:25:25. > :25:28.country, maybe the legal high capital, but we are way behind the
:25:29. > :25:31.curve? I don't accept we are the legal high capital, I accept we are
:25:32. > :25:38.behind the curve. The world is behind the curve but we are up the
:25:39. > :25:42.curve. We are making existing systems unable to take on the
:25:43. > :25:45.challenge we are facing but better than some people. This is a
:25:46. > :25:55.different situation from the traditional world of heroin, OK
:25:56. > :25:59.cocaine, two years ago. I wanted to come up with an evidence-based
:26:00. > :26:03.approach, whatever that is, we should look at it, what is the best
:26:04. > :26:11.way of minimising the damage. We need to go forward with that. It was
:26:12. > :26:19.the equivalent of the CIA and the NSA and biggest, baddest
:26:20. > :26:24.multicorporation on earth. That is the writer Stephen Knight's take on
:26:25. > :26:29.the east India company, the subject of his major new drama the BBC has
:26:30. > :26:36.commissioned to be produced by Ridley Scott. It tells the story of
:26:37. > :26:40.a rogue adventurer, setting out against the shipping organisations.
:26:41. > :26:45.It has profoundly shaped modern trade, but was it ultimately the
:26:46. > :26:52.main institution of much darker episodes in our colonial past. With
:26:53. > :26:59.me now the economic historian and professor, from LSE who wrote East
:27:00. > :27:04.Indian Company, the most powerful corporation. And you wrote a book
:27:05. > :27:08.about it shaping the modern multinational.
:27:09. > :27:18.Do you concede now that company did an awful lot of bad. Well it
:27:19. > :27:26.suddenly started an empire, it is a business firm that started an
:27:27. > :27:30.empire. If you call its political ventures a bad move, then yes, as a
:27:31. > :27:36.businessman it was a very successful one. It gave great value to the
:27:37. > :27:40.shareholders. It left a legacy in the business world in India which is
:27:41. > :27:49.very long-lasting and quite significant. Just to say if started
:27:50. > :27:53.an empire, it tells you the story? It does, I think one of the things
:27:54. > :27:58.you can look at these things coming in. You can see an imperial gene in
:27:59. > :28:02.the make-up that was pushing for market domination, doing it through
:28:03. > :28:07.legal or illegal means, through private army. It would be constantly
:28:08. > :28:12.pushing for its advantage. With quite a few major implications, both
:28:13. > :28:16.back here in Britain, it was a monopoly so keeping out other
:28:17. > :28:25.traders as well. It had its own stock market bubbles. It was
:28:26. > :28:29.admirable? It for such a long time, from the 19600s through to
:28:30. > :28:34.Victoria's time. In some parts it was admirable, when it was engaging
:28:35. > :28:40.in equal trade, but then there was the crazy period after the battle in
:28:41. > :28:48.France, all the restraints were let loose. Give us a sense of how it has
:28:49. > :28:52.shaped the India we know today? The company's biggest support in trading
:28:53. > :28:59.operations in India were the Indian merchants. It couldn't get anywhere
:29:00. > :29:08.without the help and collaboration of brokers, agents, bankers who were
:29:09. > :29:12.helping the company. The The lasting legacy the company left in India
:29:13. > :29:18.were the three port cities that it set up, which attracted a huge
:29:19. > :29:23.number of Indian capitalists in the 18th century to migrate and
:29:24. > :29:29.resettle. It is from that foundation that you have a whole new
:29:30. > :29:35.cosmopolitan domestic world happening in India. This was the
:29:36. > :29:41.first corporation that was too big to fail right? It had its own
:29:42. > :29:46.bubble, the stock market crash and the Government had to come in and
:29:47. > :29:53.bail it out. And one of the terms of the bail out, including restraints
:29:54. > :30:00.on the dividend, and changes to corporate governance, which was
:30:01. > :30:05.allowing them to sentity that was dumped in Boston. It has global
:30:06. > :30:13.ramifications. You are both being certificatably nice about it. It has
:30:14. > :30:16.been called the CIA, the NSA, the biggest baddest multinational
:30:17. > :30:24.corporation on earth. Can you lay the familiar anyone at its feet,
:30:25. > :30:29.opium certainly. It grew and controlled the production of opium
:30:30. > :30:34.in territories and in India, that was smuggled into it. The Bengal
:30:35. > :30:38.familiar anyone after raising taxes? At that stage it was a strange body,
:30:39. > :30:50.commercial but also running taxes. It is a cease of negligence, plus
:30:51. > :30:55.other went in and bought -- it is a it is either negligence or other
:30:56. > :30:58.went in and brought it out. I think it is about the trading world the
:30:59. > :31:04.company belonged in, not the kind of trading world we are used to seeing
:31:05. > :31:08.today. There are no international trade treaties or rules of the game
:31:09. > :31:12.that I will set out. It was very violent and the rivalries between
:31:13. > :31:17.European firms and the rivalries between different types of ethnic
:31:18. > :31:23.trading groups. Anyone who had to succeed in the Indian Ocean trade
:31:24. > :31:33.will have to have t force of arms. That is part of the fascination for
:31:34. > :31:48.the story. 20 years ago tomorrow Nirvana front man, curt Kurt Cobain
:31:49. > :31:52.died. A tune that can be redone many times and still a hit shows the
:31:53. > :31:56.measure of the song. This is the brass band with Smells Like Teen
:31:57. > :31:59.Spirit.