10/06/2014 Newsnight


News stories with Jeremy Paxman. Including Iraq's third city falls, why the Ofsted boss ate his words, rape trials in the Congo, the US Taliban POW goes home and FIFA corruption.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Islamist insurgents seize one of the biggest cities in Iraq, and


Washington declares they now represent a threat to the entire


region. Government forces simply fled. Can the administration for


which so many western soldiers died hold the line against Al-Qaeda's


allies. In the Congo the victims of rape by soldiers get their day in


court. We follow the efforts to bring the perpetrators of sexual


violence to justice. And remember this? You said to the


Secretary of State I want to make unannounced inspections? Yes I did.


And what did he say? The Chief Inspector of schools unspeaks what


he tried to say yesterday. And fish? This is my only first dinner


tonight. Is this a crime against animals, do you care whether or not


the fish on your plate felt pain as it died?


It the Iraq War, which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of


people was fought to overthrow a dictator and to make the country


safe for democracy. Today, 11 years after that war began, control of one


of the largest cities in the country fell to a group linked to Al-Qaeda.


Police and soldiers in moment sul, cap -- Mosul, simply ran away. The


rebels are said to have released a thousand or so people from prison.


Militants, Sunni rebels are in control of one of Iraq's biggest


cities. In many places the security fors just melted away, leaving


uniforms and abandoned vehicles behind. It is a body blow to the


Shia-led Baghdad Government. I think they are the most significant events


to have taken place in Iraq, certainly since the height of the


Civil War in 2007. I wouldn't imagine betting they are even more


significant than those difficult days as well. What has happened in


Mos sum In Mosul is unprecedented. Iraqi security forces melting away,


running away, and the political elite in Baghdad not knowing what to


do. For many months the western cities of Fallujah and Ramadi have


been in open revolt, half a million people reportedly fled as a result.


Then Isis and other Jihadist groups started moving into Nineva province,


freeing nearly 3,000 prisoners in jail. Air strikes followed but


Government forces started to collapse, today the Jew haddists


extended their control over the banks of the tigress taking the


major airport and other bases. Over 100,000 people fled, these scenes


were taken. Victory for Isis extends across to Syria. Imagine you are an


insurgent group and take over a whole city, the Central Bank of the


city, the weapons, the bases, everything there, that will, Isis


was really losing in Syria, they were limited to a tiny little place


on the northern edge of Syria and now taking over Mosul, that is a


huge boost for Isis. It isn't just that the Jihadists of Isis have


captured guns calm glory, they have taken an economic centre and


strengthened their position in Syria too. With much of Iraq slipping


under the control of Sunni Jihadists, and the Government's


inability to export oil and generate revenue now being called into


question, there is a real chance of Iraq being dismembered and the whole


issue becoming a major international security problem. So how did the


Prime Minister, re-elected just two months ago, get into this situation?


He has pursued rather aggressive politics of sectarianism, since 2006


and increasingly so since he became Prime Minister. He has marginalised


the Sunni-Arab community failed to make good on promises made to them


by the Americans during the surge and the awakening of the Sunnis that


saw the last Al-Qaeda insurgency end. And now what we see is a


marginalised, disenfranchised people, not wanting to engage with


the Government in Iraq, and into which the message of Isis seems to


be extremely strong. America has already said it will give more help


to Iraq's security forces, but the shortcomings exposed today show it


will take a lot more than a few Humvees or guns to turn this around.


Mr Malaki may have to make use of Shia militias as the battle


threatens to spread to Baghdad itself.


The Chief Inspector of schools wasn't quite made to eat the words


he made on Newsnight tonight, nothing so crude, but a bit of


clarification, after he seemed to say that the Education Secretary,


Michael Gove, rejected the idea of unannounced inspections of schools


when it was put to him two years ago. Today the minister's office


denied flat out that he had stopped the idea. Sir Michael Willshaw said


later on today it was he who decided not to go ahead with the plan. This


is what he said last night. We need do it. You saw it two years ago and


you didn't do it? That was something I discussed with the Secretary of


State and we pulled back. You said to the Secretary of State you want


to make unannounced inspections? Yes I did. Has the Secretary of State


changed his mind? I think he has. When you put it to him before, he


said what? He said we need to look at this and listen to what head


teachers are saying about needing to be in the school, prior to an


inspection, so they can have a preliminary dialogue with the


inspectors about how the inspection should be conducted. So we pulled


back on that, so they have now just a few hours. On his say so? Yes. He


told you no we're not going to do that? We had a robust discussion


about it, and I'm really pleased that minds have been changed. But he


has come to see your point of view? I hope so.


Now Emily has been speaking to the major players today and has tried to


untangle who really said what? This is the row that keeps on


giving. There was a furious outburst from the Department of Education


after last night, and they flatly denied that Michael Gove had been


the roadblock in this, and said that Sir Michael Willshaw had


misremembered. I was given a blow-by-blow account by two of


Michael Gove's advisers at the time of exactly what happened, it dates


back to 2007 when they said Mr Gove was in favour of this. A no-notice


inspection, a flash inspection with no notice of preamble to the school.


He was in favour in 2009 and 2011 in office, articles to support there.


Michael Willshaw came into Ofsted in 2012 and immediately appeared to


support the idea of the no-notice inspection, the two were singing


from the same hymn sheet. Three months into the job according to


Michael Gove's advisers, Sir Michael Willshaw lost his nerve. He had a


bad run in with the press, he had lots of interviews that hadn't


worked out for him, he didn't want to make an enemy of the head


teachers, he lost his bottle and said he didn't want to go ahead with


it, Michael Gove went and addressed the head teachers' conference and


broke this news, perhaps unfortunately, because it wasn't


really his place to be doing it, and he used very incendiary language,


talking about Ofsted as the "Spanish inquisition". He really slagged them


off, it got Sir Michael Willshaw furious, even though he confirmed a


few weeks later that he was dropping the no-notice policy. Briefly


Ofsted's response? This is what is so curious, this afternoon the


Department of Education put out a press release that put a lid on the


whole thing. They said the Chief Inspector has confirmed the


education secretary did not ask Ofsted to halt its plans. Seems very


clear. So I called Ofsted and said are you retracting those words? No,


they are not I was told. Were they apologising or stepping down, no


they are not. Why did they sign up to the press release? They said


there is no point pick a fight over tittle tattle on a policy on which


we broadly agree. They just thought it looked more grown up to let it


go. But they are not saying that Sir Michael Willshaw was wrong or


backing down, it is over to you and everyone else who is telling the


truth here. The Hollywood star, Angelina Jolie, made a passionate


speech today about the crime of sexual violence against women in


war. Speaking at the International Gathering, organised by the Foreign


Office here in London. She said we all had to recognise that there is


no shame in being a survivor, the shame attaches only to those who


perpetrate rape. It is not, she said, an inevitable part of war.


William Hague likened the campaign of sexual violence to the fight


against slavery. How to bring the rule of law to the conduct of war is


a challenge everywhere. It is very tough work, but not without the


occasional success. Fiona Lloyd Davies reports from the Democratic


Republic of Congo. This is not Afghanistan or Somalia,


it is eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. These women are testifying in


a landmark trial. They are veiled for their own projection, the


defendants are soldiers from the Congolese Army, accused of mass rape


and looting. 39 soldiers and officers up to the rank of


Lieutenant Colonel are on trial in a military court. Over 1,000 victims


of rape and looting have been recorded. Yet is justice being done?


An estimated one. Eight million women have been raped in their


lifetime in Congo. Despite the laws against sexual violence being


revised in 2006, justice has never been taken seriously as a deterrent


here, and a culture of impunity has prevailed, until now. Nadine is an


associate of a law firm in the regional capital, Goma. She is one


of the prosecuting lawyers in what could be an historic case.


Today Nadine is going with a psychologist to the town where the


Congolese Army raped at least 76 women and children in November 2012.


The area is still heavily militarised, and there are many


thousands of disbanded militia. Both the witnesses and lawyers have been


threatened and intimidated. This was an ordinary market town,


but the local people will never forget that night when several


thousand Congolese Army troops arrived. They had been ordered to


withdraw from Goma, leaving their own families vulnerable to the


invading M 23 rebels. Angry and frustrated the soldiers punished the


towns people. This woman was raped and sodomised by three soldiers that


night. She has already testified in court


and found the experience of being a witness a terrible ordeal.


They have arrived in the village. The women know how distressing it is


for the rape survivors to come to court and are here to prepare them.


The psychologist has been working with one woman who was dragged from


her hut and raped by a soldier. At the time her baby was only two


months old. The local population don't believe


the right soldiers are on trial and think they might even still be in


the area. Surrounding the village are more than 2,000 disbanded


militia men in limbo. This Colonel is one of them. His men took part in


the devastation of the village in November 2012.


Locally the suspicion is that the Colonel ordered his men to rape. He


denied the allegations. Yet he seemed heavily dependent on his


advisers sitting next to him. Below the camp, some people still


live in fear of him. Since then the Colonel has left the


transit centre, taking his men with him into the forest. No high ranking


member of the Congolese Army stood trial. I can mention two or three


generals, I would have liked to see them stand trial. But never


happened, it didn't fly well with the political regime. In Goma in the


regional capital, it is another day in court and Nadine is getting


ready. One of the most significant charges


against these soldiers is of officers failing to control their


men. It has been levelled because only one of the raped women was able


to identify her assaliant. This is the man she identified, the


reason she is so certain is because he's missing a finger which she


noticed the night she was raped. And the secretary Lieutenant says he


has a cast iron alibi. He doesn't feel he has seen much


justice. It is the day of the verdict. It is


just five months since this military trial for war crimes started. For


Nadine this will be one of the most important decisions of her career.


When the trial started 40 men were accused of war crimes, including


rape. Since then one man has died in prison and only 27 were detained.


Five of the senior officers accused of failing to control their troops


were never compelled to appear in court.


It is time for the men to hear their fate. None of the witnesses have


come, because it is thought to be too dangerous for them.


Second Lieutenant Sabwe is one of only two accused of rape as a war


crime who have been found guilty. He has been sentenced to life


imprisonment. 18 other soldiers were found guilty of looting, all of the


five senior officers were cleared. As those found guilty are


graphically striped of their rank, whatever the flaws of this trial,


the limited successes should also be acknowledged. It has been brought to


a conclusion, many witnesses did come to testify at great risk and


there were convictions for rape as a war crime, although just two. But if


Congo is ever going to rid itself of the title of "rape capital of the


world", there needs to be a much stronger form of justice. The cost


to society for impunity is still running very high.


With us now is Baroness Warsi, a Foreign Office minister and also


minister for faith and communities. Let's start by talking, we will come


to the question, the Michael Gove, Muslim schools row in a moment,


let's first of all talk about the rape initiative you have going. How


big is the operational squad of Foreign Office and kindred spirits


involved in it? The number of people attending this conference, this


summit will in the end run into thousands. The summit is happening


not just in London but across the world. We have over 115 countries


attending. But it is not just about the numbers, it is about building


momentum, real political momentum. But how many people has the British


Government committed to it? We have committed experts, which runs into


dozens, we are about 70 or 80 experts have already been chance.


What are they doing? They are in a variety of field, some of them are


experts on evidence-gathering, prosecution, some of them are


working on psychological trauma, Victim Support. Some of them are


assisting countries with their legal processes and making sure that the


right laws are put in place so we do get convictions. What that video


showed, more than anything else s that victims need justice, and they


need justice by getting successful prosecutions. One of the biggest


aims of the summit is to make sure we sign an international protocol


that has been agreed set of international standards, which means


that evidence is properly gathered and prosecutions are properly


brought to court and we do get convictions and finally some justice


for the survivors. It makes you wonder why these experts aren't


being sent to places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, in


order in order that women can get justice. We are working with


politicians to get the right political will and we send experts.


We have experts in the DRC working with local commune to ex-some of it


is about working with NGOs and faith organises working on the ground in


the DRC. These are small steps that we have to continue to take to start


to build this culture, trying to build this myth-busting approach to


the culture of impunity that exists for these victims. Given that this


is now a priority of this Government, are we going to take a


more generous attitude towards women who are coming here as victims of


sexual violence in war? I think we have always considered the legal


aspect of war and rape during war as part of people's asylum


applications. I know as a lawyer it was one of the things that would


always be put forward as part of an asylum claim. Taking one particular


case, a woman from Democratic Republic of Congo waiting two years


on to hear whether her application for asylum will be successful or


not. Who felt humiliated by the cross-examination she got when she


came here about her experience, understandably. Who spent the night


sleeping in a telephone box, this doesn't sound terribly sympathetic?


I know from the discussions I have had with Theresa May that she takes


these issues incredibly seriously the work she has done to champion


the lives of women and survivors of rape, domestically and


internationally, is a huge priority for her. I can't comment on


individual cases, but I do think, and I do agree with you that more


can be done in making sure that the rape aspect of a person's claim is


brought forward. I know that when I used to hear about claims, in my


experiences hearing from the women who left the Bosnian war, but the


rape element of the horrific experience would be the last thing


to come out. That is incredibly challenging sometimes to try to make


sure that the full case is put when you make an asylum claim. Can we


talk a little bit about the business of schools in Birmingham and indeed


elsewhere? We have heard people in Birmingham saying these schools were


singled out because they were Muslim schools, that the action taken


against them would not have been taken against them had they been


Jewish or Catholic schools, is that fair? I would like to think that is


not the case or believe that is not the case. These are incredibly


serious allegations which would have serious consequences, it is


therefore right that these inquiries that we have on going do complete


and we get to the bottom of what did and didn't happen and what was and


wasn't said. Are you with Michael Gove, you think that religious


conservatism can lead, step by step, to terrorism? I don't think Michael


is saying that religious conservatism can lead to terrorism.


What I fundamentally believe is you can be religiously observant and


incredibly observant, that doesn't make you a terrorist. It doesn't


mean you are on the pathway to becoming a terrorist. When he talks


about British values, and he cites tolerance and other examples of


British values, are these schools implicitly not teaching British


values? Most schools will in some form of their curriculum talk about


what it means to be British, talking about identity. But British values


are values held by British people, are they not? Yes. So if some


British parents do not wish to celebrate Christmas, do not wish


their children to have sex education in school, those are British values


aren't they? Sorry. If some British parents do not wish their children


to celebrate Christmas, do not wish them to have sex education in


schools, those are British values are they not? Fundamental British


value is tolerance and accepting people who are different to you,


part of that is looking at different religions, celebrating different


faith backgrounds and perspectives. Do you think gay marriage is a


British value? I think accepting people for being different is a


British value. That wasn't quite my question? If you accept somebody who


is different, then you accept somebody who practices a different


lifestyle to you, whether that is difference in race, religion and


sexuality. I don't want to be too persistent here, but you did oppose


the Section 28 legislation didn't you? And I have apologised what I


said back in 2005, we are nearly a decade on. If this interview is


going to be about something I said ten years ago for which I have


apologised and stepped away from then... I'm trying to get to this


very difficult question of how we define what British values are? I


would define British values as freedom, which includes the freedom


of religion and belief, I would define it as tolerance, which


includes tolerating difference. I would define it as fair play, which


means everybody being given the opportunity to succeed in life, and


in Yorkshire I define it as having a sense of humour and coming here to


do an interview with you probably means I have got a sense of humour.


Thank you very much. Officials from the White House, the state


department and the army spent an anxious time today trying to


persuade American politicians that the price the country paid for the


release of Bowe Bergdahl was worthwhile. The US has handed over


one member of the Taliban for every year that Bergdahl was held captive.


As more information has come to light about the deal, and more


rumours swirl about how Bergdahl came to be captured, joy of the


soldier's return has been replaced by anxiety at the price paid. We


have been to Bowe Bergdahl's home town.


Bowe Bergdahl's balloons are still flying in Idaho, even if people here


are feeling a bit deflated. The gloss has come off what they thought


would be a celebration. This cafe has been the headquarterses of a


five-year campaign to free Bowe, it is closed now. This is a book for


people to share their sentiments for Bowe. Saturday I changed it and it


is now freedom. Not everyone left positive comments, after being the


face of the campaign, before and after his release, Sue has been


threatened by letter, on-line and in person. They are angry, I think it


is a bigger picture than Bowe Bergdahl. I think we are seeing a


glimpse of our culture here in America. I think there is a lot of


angry people and they just need something to express it at, that


they feel is a viable channel of expression, I guess. The President


depends his deal to free Bowe Bergdahl... The case of Bowe


Bergdahl is still being picked over by the American news networks.


Backlash there are the right and left. It would have been offensive


and comprehensible to consciously leave an American behind... . But


the question is at what cost... . Sun Valley finds itself at the


centre of it all. The rich and famous come here for the winter sun


and windswept -- summer sun and winter snow, they like it because


people leave them alone. This has been a tough week, particularly in


Bowe Bergdahl's small town. A small and close community finding itself


at the centre of so much negative attention. The lad who used to work


in the cafe, when he was taken in Afghanistan people put yellow


ribbons around the trees, they helped the family campaign for the


release. The joy of him being freed has been replaced by surprise and


confusion about the amount of anger and vitriol aimed at people here. It


is remarkable. Our community is fatigued by being so excited about


Bowe's release and the next day it began to turn. It became vicious,


angry and hateful. We had not anticipated that kind of reaction.


Dale was planning a "Bring Bowe Home" event, they thought it could


be a welcome home party, it had to be cancelled? It is indicative of


how polarised we are in our country. That so quickly so many people could


be so angry and hateful and try to convict Bowe in the public arena,


without hearing his side of the story. Without any kind of


investigation. Bowe Bergdahl was 23 when he was captured by the Taliban


in eastern Afghanistan. There is uncertainty over why he left his


base. His upbringing has been closely scrutinised by the US media.


His home schooling, his unusual interests. He's very strong, he


likes to meditate, he has a very strong spirit, I'm hoping that


throughout this entire time he was able to find an inner place that was


nice. That he could go to. He had a very idea listic view that he wanted


to help and defend the country he believes in. That is what I got from


why he joined the military. He also liked the ballet and fencing and


martial arts as very regimented, you do the same warm-ups and the same


kind of thing and the army is similar, and that appealed to him.


The lease of five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay has had people


in the community asking if Bowe's freedom was worth it. I think on


balance it was a poor deal. Probably if I'm forced into one camp or


another, I'm forced into the camp to say I oppose it. But it is hard to


jump up and say I don't want a local boy to come home. President Obama


has been criticised for the way he announced the deal, alongside Bowe's


parents. I sincerely resent him taking the Bergdahl family and


pushing them out front, in the rose garden, and subjecting this family


to the firestorm of criticism that swept across this nation. Jenny and


Bob have kept out of the spotlight since then, and after threats are


being protected. Even his beard has been the focus of unsubstantiated


allegations that he's a Taliban sympathiser. In town some have taken


their signs down, but most still support Bowe and his family. This is


our home boy, this is our child, we are not involved in this in a


political but loving heart felt way. They hope when Bowe tells his own


story of what he endured t could swing the court of public opinion


back in his favour. Do you care about how happy a life was led by


the animal on your plate? Increasing numbers of us do, apparently. But do


you really care about the sort of death a fish on your plate has had.


An organisation committed to animal welfare is demanding that armed fish


be stunned before they are killed otherwise the whole experience is to


stressful for them. We love to look at our children's literature full of


characters from the animal world, horses, pigs, cows. Fish not so


much. For whatever reason we haven't taken fish to our bosoms in quite


the same way. Perhaps that explains why, when it comes to how we kill


them, they don't have the same legal protections as our meals on four


legs. In Britain, due to voluntary codes of practice from bodies like


the RSPCA, most fish are farmed and dispatched to high standards of


animal welfare. But it isn't like that across all of Europe. Much what


happens behind the scenes to produce your lunchtime tuna sandwich, for


instance, isn't particularly palatable. Now moves are afoot to


change that. A Government advisory body has recommended that inhumane


practices such as live chilling or asphyxiation, be outlawed at the


European level. But such principles have costs. Are we ready to bear the


cost for a creature we love to eat but don't necessarily love. One who


has done some exploring of the fish central nervous system is with us.


She is in Pennsylvania. Joining us from Scotland, the epicentre of


British agriculture, is the head of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation,


Bertie Armstrong. Why on earth are we worrying about this? As you have


just said, the information we have now and have been gathering over the


last decade is fish, just like birds and mammals, have very similar pain


processing pathways. It looks like they experience pain in the same way


that birds and mammals do. If that is the case and we extend birds and


mammals welfare, why not fish. This particular concern is with farmed


fish, by your argument we should extend it to all fish, fish caught


on the high seas as well? Absolutely. Although of course that


is an interesting and difficult area in its own right. From an ethical


perspective you could argue that unlike a farmed fish, fish in the


wild has lived a good life out. It is free to roam the seas as it


wants. Perhaps in from a utilitarian, the short amount of


suffering it goes through at the end, it is justified in terms of


harvesting fish in the sea. You may take the same approach as we have


for a farmed fish now and saying given we have Intertek neology and


we know how to more humanely kill fish on fish farms, perhaps we


should transfer that technology. What do you make of the argument?


I'm here with a slightly nervous curiosity. It does sound cranky, and


I'm a little nervous that it gets extended to wild capture. We are


part of a food chain, apart from the odd Safari accident, but killing


happens for food all the way along. There shouldn't be gratuitous


suffering, but on the other hand, wild capture fish accounts for 15%


of the world's protein. It has to be continued. I'm nervous that we apply


elements of crankiness to this. Wild capturing of fish is at the end of a


long and happy life and has been happening since biblical times and


not regarded as cruel. I'm not sure why we are having this argument. Do


you feel you are a crank? No, I don't think so, I'm a scientist, I


think we need to use science to inform the decisions that we make.


In the same way we want to make those careful informed decision,


good commercial decision making doesn't have to be mutually


exclusive to that. I think absolutely, we want sustainable


fishing, we want sustainable fishing practices and you know if that is


going to include humane killing, so be it. It is something that


confumers are increasingly interested in. They have this right


to, I think they are right to have a long-term view. Just because we have


done something traditionally for a long way or historically, doesn't


mean to say we can't use new information or technologies to


improve the way we do things. If it is the case, as suggested, that fish


do feel pain, surely we are entitled or should be expected to accord them


the same -- afford them the same consideration as farm animals? I


didn't wish to label your guest as a crank, I'm nervous about crankiness


being applied to the fish industry. The balance of evidence, of course


your guest's scientific credentials are apparent. But the balance of


scientific evidence is fish don't feel pain in the same way as humans


do. It is just plain different. My worry is about the volume capture.


We will catch in the Scottish fleet approaching a quarter of a million


tonnes of mackerel. It is caught in a volume way. They are not murdered


or badly treated, they are pumped into refrigerated sea water tanks.


They are not handled individually, and it is not possible to capture


that sort of volume of fish and handle them individually. The real


question is what can we afford to do and what is senseth sensible to do.


That is the crankiness element that I'm trying to be careful not to


insult anybody but to guard against. Do you accept there are certain


practical difficulties in the consideration that you are extending


to fish. For sure, I want to pick up on the fish feeling pain, that is a


given. But we don't feel farm animals feel pain in the same way


humans do but we afford them welfare rights and humane killing. So, yes,


things potentially become difficult, harvesting large amounts and large


catches of fish, absolutely. These are technically challenging, but


there are experimental fleets in Denmark and Norway that are


modifying trawler boats, that are expressly trying to devise better,


more effective ways of maintaining fish in the water. In the same way


we heard mackerel are pumped into sea water VATs, -- vats, bringing


them on to the surface of the deck and letting them suffocate may be


something to avoid if we can put them into vats on the boat. The head


of FIFA, Mr Sepp Blatter, had been looking forward to a feast of sport


over the next few weeks, instead today he had a bucket of cold water


thrown over him by some of the most powerful football organisations


amongst his members. He had just finished telling them he was


standing for a fifth tour, when representatives of great footballing


nations suggested it would be all together better to the game if he


stuck to his previous promise to stand down. So is time running out


for President Blatter. I'm joined now by the former chief executive of


the Football Association. What do you think, is the game up for him do


you think? I don't actually think the game is up for him. I have never


seen such an array of voices against him such as we see today, players,


associations, sponsors and Government agencies. I actually


think it is probably one of the most difficult challenges he has faced.


But he is quite a good politician in that regard. His comments today are


nothing more, or appear to be, if not dedevolutional, they are --


delusional, and show why he shouldn't stand as President. As a


President you would unite the organisation, not seek to harvest


the benefit of disunity that you have sown. How significant is it


footballing nations like England, Holland, opposed to him? You have to


recognise the fact, again it is Sepp Blatter very good at doing the


maths, with 209 organisations with one vote, UEFA is one of the


strongest confederations, it has about 53 votes hast always been


significant, because of the quality of the football and the financial


aspects of European football. But having said that, there has been


over quite a number of years a feeling within the FIFA body that in


fact the Europeans have had enough of a role in terms of running the


place. There is a bit of discord there generally. So the guys may


well rail against the moon. With 53 votes against 209 Sepp Blatter


appears confident. I don't think, whilst it is very discomforting for


him, I don't think he will be unduly concerned that he won't be able to


secure another term. Thank you very much indeed.


That's it for tonight. Hope we were clearer to you than the Disney


corporation's translation of its film Frozen in the Middle East. They


opted for modern standard Arabic instead of the usual Egyptian


Arabic, the use of that very formal and some what archaic way of


speaking has gone down rather badly with some six-year-olds. A professor


of literature has translated it back into English so you can see the


problem. # Conceal don't feel


# Don't let them know # Well now they know


# Let it go # Let it go


# Can't hold it back any more # Let it go


# Turn away and slam the door # I don't care


# What they're going to say # Let the storm rage on


Hello, if you have had enough of the heavy showers and thunderstorms we


have seen recently, relief is in sight. In fact it starts tomorrow.


Most will start the day dry and stay dry throughout the day. One or two


light showers dotted about the northern half of the UK. You will be


unlucky if you u catch one.


Iraq's third city falls. Why the Ofsted boss ate his words. Rape trials in the Congo. The US Taliban POW goes home. Do fish feel pain. FIFA corruption.