19/06/2014 Newsnight

The President who voted against Bush's war, says America would be

ready to act. But Obama won't send troops into direct combat. Yet extra

military personnel are on the way. There are cries of "betrayal" in

Baghdad. We will be prepared to take targeted and precise military

action, if and when we determine that the situation on the ground

requires it. They said Twitter can be a force for good, and make lots

of money. But is the billion dollar business living up to that? One of

the company's founders is here. What is this? Not exactly capability

brown, but a rather more elegant gardener has designs on the Thames.

To make a bridge which crosses this, to me one of the most important

rivers in the world, the River Thames, and to have a garden on it

seems something almost dream-like, almost a magical quality. Good

evening, so America could return to Iraq, with an extra 300 military

advisers on the ground. And what President Obama described as precise

and targeted action, if it proves necessary. But that's only a partial

answer to the cry for help from what remains of the Iraqi Government, but

even limited American intervention in the dangerous and discoughing

state is proving controversial. For those expecting American pilots to

light their afterburners and take to the skies to pummel ISIS, today was

a disappointment. But the Washington debate has now gone to full throttle

over whether to help Iraq and there's movement. For the moment,

just a few hundred Special Forces' advisers will go in. It is not for

the United States to choose Iraq's leaders, it is true that only

leaders with an inclusive agenda will truly bring the Iraqi people

together and help them through the crisis. Meanwhile the United States

will not pursue military actions that support one sect inside of Iraq

at the expense of another. Ies that's the same movement as ISIL is

the game-changer for Washington. Its advances have been sufficiently

alarming that they have forced the President to overturn one of his

policies, complete disengagment with Iraq. This is a President adverse to

getting America endangled in the Middle East or conflicts around the

world in any way. He feels it is a time to consolidate and focus on

problems at home. For him to go back to Iraq, looking at military

options, getting ourselves entangled in the very complicated politics of

that country has to be extremely painful for him on a personal level

and also on a larger strategic level, I think he has to feel this

is a tremendous disappointment and tremenduously bad for US national

interests. The most urgent problem the Iraqi Government faces is at

Baji, where an oil refinery providing 40% of the country's

petrol is close to be overrun. Near Baquba, militias have been fighting

to keep ISIS out of the town. And around Kirkuk, Kurdish forces are

trying to defend their recent gains against the Sunnis. Even if a timely

air strike could help in any of these situations, many Americans are

concerned about the political message it might send. The White

House wants a national unity Government, Shia, Sunni and Kurd,

one that could halt the fragmentation of Iraq. President

Obama has been quite clear on this, this cannot be the United States

being the air force for Shia militias or a Shia on Sunni Arab

fight. It has to be a fight of all of Iraq against extremists who do

happen to be Sunni Arabs. Downing Street too is looking beyond Nouri

Al-Maliki, who it blames for what has happened. There is no doubt that

the Government of Iraq has not given enough attention to healing

sectarian divides, to including Sunni and Kurds in the Government,

to bringing the country together. We have to examine why we have this

crisis in the centre of Iraq, and it is that combination of poor

governance, of ungoverned space, of encouragement of extremism, which

has created this space which is going to be potentially a haven for

terrorism with all the dangers that I pointed out in the House of

Commons yesterday. Iraqi forces, so their Government insist, are

fighting back. And since make is so -- America is so worried about being

seen as stepping into a sectarian and Al-Maliki fight, unless the

Government changes or Baghdad is directly threatened that won't

change. These are fighters in pick-up trucks and small vehicles,

they can be hard to isolate, identify and strike without

significant collateral damage or accidents that kill civilians

nearby. Finally, without it seeming as though we are propping up

essentially a Shi'ite dictator whose record of governing we don't really

approve of and the risk is that moderate Sunnis, other than these

radicals who we would be happy to wipe out, might think we were taking

the sides of the Shi'ites in the on going sectarian battle. There are

too many unknowns still for the USS Bush to launch its planes on bombing

raids over Iraq. The key uncertainties, of course, are

political, but tonight, with President Obama's announcement, they

are starting to address some of the practical, military obstacles to

using these weapons effectively. Mark is here to unpick some of this.

You talked there about the practical obstacle, what do you mean by that?

This is what I'm hearing, the American troops, special operations

forces are already going in. They are going to set up two high-tech

ops rooms, one in Baghdad and one in the Kurdish area. They will be used

for fusion of evidence, taking images from drones unmanned

aircrafts and satellite, all the stuff the NSA gathers, including

people's social media, and all the rest of it, putting it together into

actionable intelligence. That could be used to direct the Iraqis, to

launch American air strikes or even other American actions in the area.

What does make do if Al-Maliki refuses to go, what are the

immicationcations there for whether or not they strike? It does seem to

be a very difficult problem. Listening to President Obama today

it occurs to me the Americans might do what they have done in Yemen and

Pakistan and Libya, put the problem to one side. If they decide it is in

the US national interest to hit ISIS, put the architecture in place

to do it in a time and place of their own choosing. Decide it is in

the US national interest to hit ISIS, put the architecture in place

to do it in a time and place of their own choosing. A key

facilitator and supporter from Baghdad is with us tonight.

President Obama has described what could be targeted action and precise

action, what do you understand that to mean? Well I think the President

has decided to send a team of 300 in part to buy time to get a better

sense of what is going Onyango the On on the ground in case action

against ISIS is taken. But at the same time to buy time on the

political process for a Government of National Unity to at least see if

a unity Government can be formed. He has precluded immediate military

action, but has done enough to gain credibility with the Government that

military action might come and to energise the political process, in

my judgment. Given what's happening on the ground, does he have time,

given how desperate the situation is? As the report now indicates that

Baghdad is not in danger of falling, the situation may not be as urgent

as some believe it is. If Baghdad was in danger of falling, military

action might take place soon and quickly. I think the President is

preparing for possible military action, but at the same time I think

he wants to wait if it is not urgent, if immediate action is not

needed to deal with the political basis of the problem. Because there

is sectarianism that is fuelling, in part, this brutal for that has

gained ground, ISIS. I think's trying to get to the -- I think he's

trying to get to the bottom of the problem. Does Al-Maliki have to go

for a new political and potentially table situation to be set up, you

backed Al-Maliki, did you back the wrong man potentially table

situation to be set up, you backed Al-Maliki, did you back the wrong

man? In 2006 he was one of the broad coalition who had the right ideas

and he was the better of the two and formed a Government. In the 2010

selection in the aftermath of that, while Al-Alawi gained more seats, he

was not allowed to form the Government and the constitution was

not followed. I think with polarisation, sectarian, because of

Syria, the withdrawal of US forces, and the increased Iranian influence

and the intermingling of Syria and Iraq conflicts, Al-Maliki has become

more difficult to work with in terms of the Sunnis and Kurds and I think

that the time has come to see if a new Government that can unite the

Iraqis can be formed. The timing is good because the election results

were just announced so a new Government has to be formed. And

Al-Maliki does not have the votes by himself to form the Government,

although he's in a relatively strong position. But I think a unity

Government is needed as the President said. So you clearly think

that Al-Maliki should move on in some way, but what do you think

America should do in terms of this potential military action, putting

advisers on the ground may not be what Baghdad wanted but it is still

a serious and significant step. What next? What about air strikes? That

will have to wait as to what the assessment is, the main purpose of

the 300 is to do an assessment of what Iraqi units are like, those

that remain. What help do they need, get a better sense of the situation

on the ground, in terms of ISIS and other Sunni groups they are also

helping ISIS. To develop a strategy, not only working with the Government

but the local forces, Sunnis who can help us like they did during the

surge, the Awakening Movement to work against the ISIS group, but all

of that will depend on whether a unity Government is formed that is

acceptable to the Sunnis and Kurds. Because without that military action

by itself can do some counter terrorism benefits but will not

solve the problems of Iraq. Briefly, you were involved right at the start

of this, as part of George W Bush's administration. Did you always think

this might happen, that you might see Iraq tearing itself apart in

this way? Well, our hope was obviously for Iraq not to fall

apart, to give the Iraqis an opportunity to accept each other and

come together to form a Government that could put it on the path

towards freedom and increase the economic prosperity. But in your

gut... But the process has been. In your gut, did you always have a

sense or fear that we might see this happen? At least what I did

personally this was going to be far more difficult and take a lot more

time because we know in societies made of different groups, without

much experience in democratic rule, state and nation building can take a

long time. The experience of Europe itself indicates that. Thank you

very much indeed for joining us from Washington:

You can hardly move for pundits gasping to comment on Ed Miliband's

leading of Labour Party and his getting to Number Ten. What is less

readily available is a clear sense of what Ed Miliband would do if he

were to end up as Prime Minister. Rogue messages from a Labour Twitter

account suggested free owls for all as one idea. In a moment we will

talk to one of Ed Miliband's team. Today he filled in one of the policy

blanks with what appears to be a real idea, removing jobseeker's

allowance for the under 21s. In my view we should not allow the

contributory principle to receive further, instead we should

strengthen it. As one example the next Labour Government will change

the way jobseeker's allowance works, to make sure that someone who has

been working for years and years, paying into the system gets more

help if they lose their job than someone who has just been working

for a couple of years. Well the Shadow Business Secretary is with us

in the studio. Thank you for coming in. After all the talk of radical

ideas that we have been promised in recent days, Ed Miliband today came

up with a policy that will save ?100 million and isn't particularly

different to what the Government is doing in some areas, or one of your

previous policies, it is not exactly radical is it? It is different to

what the Government has proposed, but let's look at the

what the Government has proposed, here, we have too many people in our

country who are not connected, plugged in to the global economy,

and amongst those are young people who have been in receipt of benefit.

Now, what we know is that seven out of ten 18-21-year-olds, who have

been on jobseekers allowance are on it for the second time. That tells

you they are not getting into sustainable work, and also we have a

situation where they don't have requisite skills to get into that

work. What will you do about it? That is what the prose posals are

about. We can -- proposals are about. We can have a debate about

what is radical, but what matters to viewers is what works. We want to

make sure that the young people are getting skills to plug them into the

global economy. As you know well, all the polling suggests and most

people in your party believe, it is for your party to restore an image

of economic competence, this first radical policy will save about ?100

million, George Osborne says he's going to save ?12 billion from

welfare? With the greatest respect this isn't the first policy, we have

said we will use the money Government spends through

procurement, to boost the numbers of apprenticeship, we have made we will

put in place a job guarantee for young people out of work for more

than a year and adults out of work for more than two years. We have

talked about how we actually transform and reconsignificant our

economy, so we have better wage and higher skilled work, to say this is

the first of one of the policies. Labour has to talk about significant

cuts, so on welfare what else would you cut, George Osborne says ?12

billion after the next election, beyond today what will you save

there? George Osborne hasn't specified where the cuts will come

in the next parliament. What was what would you cut? We have already

accepted in this parliament the switch from the up-rating of

benefits from RPI to CPI, that made a saving at the beginning of the

parliament. Which the Government has counted in, what else would you cut

on welfare? The best way we can reduce the benefits bill is getting

more people into work and in respect of those people. And by the way the

benefit that is they have been having to pay out because there have

been large numbers of people unemployed throughout this

parliament, costing way over ?10 billion. We also need to raise the

wages of people in work. Which is spending more money by increasing

the minimum wage, you are not cutting the welfare budget? You have

just said which is wrong that increasing the minimum wage will

cost the Government money. What it will do is employers pay more, that

reduces the amount of benefit Government pays out and reduces tax

credit. If people are able to get jobs? If you are talking about

getting more people on to a living wage by making work pay contracts,

that is fully costed and fully funded. Let's look at the other

areas you may or may not cut money. The NHS budget the Government are

ring-fencing it, would you touch that? You are asking me first of all

spell out Labour's manifesto in ten months time. You are also asking me

to tell you what is in the first budget. We are clear what we will

done d'oh in getting the publicens ifs back on to an even footing after

this Government will borrow ?190 billion. It is about the level which

you are willing to give to restore a picture of economic competence? We

have given more detail in terms of how we will reduce the deficit, at

this point in a parliament, than any other opposition? A generation, we

said no borrowing to fund day-to-day expenditure. If it is so convincing

why is Labour consistent leeway behind the Government in terms of

trust on economic competence, you are 13 points behind right now. The

Conservatives' message at the election will be you cannot trust

Labour at the economy, that will be their one sentence, what will

Labour's one sentence message at the next election be? I don't agree with

you, because you are quoting to me different polls, what I do know is

that since 2010, the Labour Party has put on more than 2,300

councillors, we have votes that delivered more, in the marginal seat

areas where we need to win back support for a majority. What would

the one sentence be in the next election? I won't give you the strap

line for the 2015 manifesto. We know the Conservative message? If you let

me answer the question. We would love to hear the answer? We want to

empower people to meet their aspirations and dreams and to ensure

that everybody in this country can see the benefits that a 21st century

Britain can bring. The prosals we are talking about -- proposals we

are talking about today seeks to plug young people into the global

economy to see the benefits, where we know not enough of them are

seeing them, with 850,000 young people out of work. The talk about

aspirations and living dreams how does that compare to the trusting

message on the economy, and the Government's message which is don't

give the keys back because you crashed it last time? First of all

people are in the future business, what they want to know, and this is

in my constituency in Streatham people want to know, my 15-year-old

child now when they are 25 after two terms of Labour Government, what

will be the opportunities what will be the jobs that they can do. We're

very clear, we want to make sure they get the skills so they can get

really, good secure work that pays them a wage they can live off in a

variety of different industries, which we know the UK are

world-beating in, that is what we are in the business of doing. Thank

you for coming in, and when you have that one sentence please come back

and tell us, thank you. What could be more charming than a

stroll by the river, a stroll across the river, of course, a dream of the

actress, Joanna Lumley, who in planning a garden bridge across the

Thames is following roles as an Avenger, a permanently tipsy

magazine editor, saviour of the Gurkhas, and animal rights

campaigner with another gardener in chief. She gave us a look at her

plans. City living can be wonderful, all

that hustle and bustle, but getting around can also be tough. Like most

city dwellers I sometimes long for a haven, away from the noise and rush.

Now here we are in the middle of London, this is the top of the Queen

Elizabeth hall, this is the roof top garden they have built up here,

completely wild, I'm surrounded by vegtables and plants and bees and

the sound of birds twittering, and beyond that, the City, the concrete,

the hard business of a city at work. It is fantastic, this juxtaposition

of something really strange, gardens in strange places, that is paradise

for me. For the past 17 years I have been working on and dreaming of a

bridge which will cross done in complete silence, a bridge with a

garden on it, a pedestrian bridge with a garden on it. Now, I hope, my

dream is becoming a reality. The with a garden on it. Now, I hope, my

planning work has already begun. The designer is Thomas Heatherwick, the

Da Vinci of our day, the man behind the petal flowers of the Olympic

cauldron. His garden bridge is equally powerful. It will run from

the Temple on the north side to the south side on Queen's Walk. To make

a bridge which crosses this, to me one of the most important rivers in

the world, the River Thames, and to have a garden on it seems something

almost dream-like, almost a magical quality. To be able to walk through

trees and grass with birds and bees over the river, in the centre of a

huge vibrant city. The garden will be filled with trees, 270 of them,

as well as shrubs and wild flowers. Winding paths will snake around

woodland copsess and glades. It will be a destination in its own right. I

hope pedestrians will spend time there, crossing slowly rather than

racing across. The idea for integrated greenery in urban setting

has been used elsewhere, New York's High Line is one example. It is a

concept that is now increasingly popular here in the UK. When cities

were much smaller, people had easy access to the countryside, and then

with the Industrial Revolution all over the country the countryside in

a way receded, the Victorians understood that and then they

brought green back into the city. I think we have really, since then,

moved away from that, I think cities have become denser, noisier, busier,

and I think now we are beginning to realise the value of urban green

extends far beyond the fact that plants and green provide an

aesthetic qualities. This is pretty much where the bridge is going to

be, coming from Temple Tube across there right across to the ITV

television studies on that side. It teams extraordinary in four years

time we will be going underneath it. Why four years? Because the race is

on. Because of the huge infrastructure changes that will go

on in London a great big super sewer will be built on this side, work has

to start on the bridge in 2015 and it has to be completed by 2018, it

is thrilling, we can see the finishing tape already. What to do

in that time, raise the money and build the bridge. Raising the money

is hard but not impossible, because so many people are behind this.

Everyone we have spoken to has fallen in love with it, which is

fabulous, because it is my idea. The bridge is going to cost abou ?175

million, we shouldn't be scared of the number, it will be an iconic

wonderful piece of London skyline. It is something that London and the

UK generally can be very proud of. It is going to cost about ?2. 3

million to run it once it is built. We're obviously from a fundraising

perspective looking at raising the money to build it and maintain it.

We are confident we can do that. By October we should know whether this

project that we have worked on and nutured for so long will finally

become a reality. I hope it does. And I hope it inspires other people

in other cities to create their own garden bridges. After all, I think

there is room for a few more flowers in all our lives. Now the Oxford

Union has been an effective play pen for establishment wannabes for

nearly 200 years. It is probably the country's most famous debating

society, and members who earn their stripes in its sessions include Tony

Blair, Attlee, Asquith, Gove, hissen Tyne and Boris Johnson. But the

Union has been caught up in a different controversy of late.

Campaignsers pressured speakers to stay away, after the current

President of the Union, Ben Sullivan was arrested on suspicion of rape.

The police dropped the case yesterday. It has reignited

questions over whether the accused should have his identity kept

secret. Ben is here now and as well as Sarah who was involved in the

campaign to boycott the Union. We won't go into the case because the

charges have been dropped. You believe those accused of those kinds

of offences should have anonymity? To some degree, I'm not as extreme

as some those who feel you should have your identity not revealed

after charge or conviction. I think there should be happy medium where

your identity is not released straight away. It should be

protected until at least a preliminary investigation. Why

should we give protection to people accused of those kinds of offences,

it is not for people accused of any other kinds of offences, it can

encourage other people to come forward? That is completely true,

that is why I would say not everybody's identity in cases like

this could be kept secret, I'm aware it can be extremely helpful for

police investigations for people's identities to be revealed and for

people to come forward. These are incredibly poisonous allegations and

incredibly difficult to deal with. As you know obviously those

complainants are given anonymity n this country when we introduced

anonymity for complainants it was for those accused as well, only to

revoke it a few years later. What has it been like for you, there has

been an extraordinary international attention on the Oxford Union, what

is the experience like? It has been very difficult, very harrowing, I

think, it puts things in perspective and changes your priorities to say

the very least. It has been very, very difficult, I'm very thankful to

everyone has given me all sorts of support, my friend and family. My

committee has been loyal and supportive, I'm grateful for that,

it has been extremely difficult. Sarah Pine, doesn't Ben's experience

illustrate exactly why there should be anonymity for those accused? No,

I don't think so. I think in these cases what tends to happen is that

if someone is able to be named this can encourage other people to come

forward. You look at cases like the Jimmy Savile case, and scores of

people would not have come forward unless he could have been named in

the press. Being able to name people is something that helps police

investigations go much smoother, because it can encourage more people

to come forward. But Jimmy Savile was extreme example and somebody who

had passed away, he was dead before these accusations came into the

public domain, it is a very different case isn't it? I don't

think so. Because I think there are other reasons why it is important to

be able to name people who have been arrested for these crimes. For

example like you said, don't keep anonymity for people that are

arrested of other crimes, by making this crime a special case it sends a

message that survivors of sexual violence, whoever they may be should

not come forward because they won't be believed, that the state will act

to protect any potential perpetrators more than they will any

potential victims. What about the principle of innocent until proven

guilty, we are not talking about the particularities of this case. But

here, you are involved in a campaign to encourage a boy coat of --

boycott of an internationally renowned organisation, did that

break the principle that have? I have never passed a judgment on

Ben's case, I think it is inappropriate, however... . What

about the boycott That never broke innocent until proven guilty. The

general secretary of Interpol, an internationally renowned lawyer and

expert on these matters said that it is always appropriate, when someone

is arrested for these crimes that they stand down or are suspended

until any investigations are completed. That sends a very

respectful message to any survivors of sexual violence, because it shows

that what they say and any allegations that they make will be

taken seriously. One Show in four women whilst -- when one in four

women whilst at university will experience sexual assault, this is a

particularly poise I don't knowous approach. You took part in a

campaign that whipped up something that was not proven, that does

violate the principle, does it not? We had campaign that was based upon

the fact that the Union should not have acted in the way it did. It was

never against Ben, we talked about the way the Union allocated its

funds for his legal fees and they had no policy to deal with these

sorts of things, we talked about the messages continually being put out

by the Union, you said it was a campaign against one man, it was a

campaign against an institution. But there was a national, indeed

international outcry you had Nobel Prize whippers refusing to appear --

winners refusing to appear at the union. Was it appropriate for you to

invite that kind of scrutiny and attention? I have absolutely no

regrets regarding the campaign. I just like to say I agree with a lot

of what Sarah just said, for one second I don't think she has broken

the principle of innocent until proven guilty, some people have but

Sarah never has, and I'm incredibly grateful for that, honestly. I think

it has obviously been a very difficult time for me and my

committee, for the union, obviously I said before my family. I don't

agree with everything Sarah said about the boycott. But I do think, I

don't doubt that the organisers do have good intentions, I do agree

sexual violence at university is a serious problem at Oxford and other

universities. We need to be careful not to let individual cases get

intertwined with the general, because a general problem, just

because there is a general problem that doesn't mean an individual is

necessarily... Thank you very much indeed for coming in to discuss this

tonight. Now then, the former FA cup and UEFA Cup winner Garth Crooks and

former Spurs and Newcastle winger who won 17 caps for France, David

Ginola, join me to conduct a sad post ortem on England football, it

didn't go too well tonight. Here we have two of the industry's finest to

dissect what went wrong. The finest. David is pointing to you first, is

that it, is it all over, does this small tiny shred of mathematical

miracles? I'm very disappointed, I have just left a huge audience of

people and pundits and we are all shocked and saddened. I think it is

a night for hysteria, to be honest. I think it is a night for calm

reflection. Calm reflection in football! We don't get much of it,

do we. To be honest with you. I have just decided with David here, and he

has some very strong issues about the way the English play or the

national team play. As a team. There are many points that he makes that I

would agree with, but you know what I think we have to be very careful

not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's hear some of the

strong points, what is your diagnosis on why it appears to

happen again and again? I'm pretty sad about not just the result but

the manner. You expect a team to go to play in the World Cup in Brazil

first of all to enjoy yourself. You need to see players to really enjoy

themselves on the football pitch, playing together, as a team, playing

for England for the people back in England, watches the games. I was

watching the game with 200 fans tonight. They were so disappointed,

obviously they were disappointed they lost tonight and against

Uruguay, it is almost done. They realised they will go back to

England with plenty of regrets. Expectations were lower, shouldn't

people just accept it? If you look at the squad and take players

individually, you can see quality there. You can see plenty of

qualities. Your spent they should be better but they don't play as a

team? It is no way if you, you need to pass the ball more than three

times without losing it, you need to possess the ball. This is the key in

modern football. So Garth is that true, should England fans be feeling

let down because they don't gel together as a team? English fans

when they lose feel let down, we are all disappointed tonight. Maybe they

should have lower expectations. We are playing a better brand of

football than we were ten years ago, it is more pleasing on the eye, we

try to pass, maybe not with great success. It is not getting them very

far, tonight Uruguay have got three million people and they managed to

beat the team? But they have a very good football team. Why is that

then? They have a very good football team. And so do Italy. They both

have very good football teams. I'm not making any excuses for the fact

we have lost, we are disappointed. I can't affect the result, I'm trying

to look ahead and say, look what positives can we get out of the fact

that we have Ross Barclay, Sterly, Lelana, new exciting players coming

through. We mustn't lose sight of that. I have a slight problem with

this, because he mentioned those players, and they are very, very

talented players, but when you look at them playing for their clubs they

are different players. They are much better playing for the clubs? I have

been in a situation like that, playing for my country, and it is

more difficult. Because you don't have much time to spend with the

other players to work on the tactics on the relationship, on the links

with the players. So you need to be intelligent, you need to be smart,

you need to be quick. Shouldn't players be playing their heart out

for their country, more so than for their club, how does that stack up?

That is what David is talking about. He's talking about synergy, he's

talking about all being able to connect. Liverpool who had a great

season, Manchester City and Arsenal, it doesn't click in five minutes, it

takes years. National teams don't quite have that. These days you get

a month. Just finally to both of you, should Roy Hodgson stay in his

job? Absolutely, come on. Come on. Absolutely stays in the job. Come

on. England needs stability, they need to look at the future in a

brighter way. They have got talented players, we talk about it and this

is the bright future of England. But, to win major competitions they

need to play as a team and not as individuals. We are disappointed but

we are not hysterical. Thank you both very much for coming in. And

who knows, Costa Rico Italy. Snore if you like, ignore at will, but

more than a quarter of a billion people are signed up to the social

network Twitter, its shares trade at nearly $40 a piece. Many of the

world's leaders and footballers are falling over themselves to share

their thoughts in 140 characters or less with those who have been game

enough to follow them. Whether mainstream popularity like that

turns out to be the death knell of what was once deeply cool, Twitter

is a significant part of the on-line and political landscape.

Twitter had sketchy beginnings, literally, its origins scrawled in

the network of Jack Dorsey, he built it with coconspirator, the first

tweet sent in 2006, one of the it with coconspirator, the first

founders Biz Stone said they can be a force for good and make lots of

money. It spread fast among the geeks, Ashton Kucher was the first

to reach one million followers, and the politicians took a long time to

catch up. The innantness of Twitter means too many twits might make a

twit! That might seem a little left behind. Twitter is the largest

political soapbox of it all, even the Pope is on board, and a Wall

Street float left its creators very wealthy men. Biz Stone has now

written the story of how micromessaging, can in his view

change the world. Spreading the news of the crash on the Hudson, well

before traditional media caught on, to providing a voice for activists

during the Arab Spring to be heard around the world. Big change can

come in small packages. Biz Stone the cofound founder is -- the

cofounder is with us now. You invented a way of sending messages

for 140 characters or less, but chosen to write a book with tens of

thousands of words, why? I was asked to deliver masterclass at a

university last year and it became something all around the world. I

noticed high schools and CEOs found the lessons I learned throughout my

life and at Twitter resonated with them. When someone asked me to write

a book, I thought what shall I write a book about it and I thought I

would base it on the lecture. You could have written it on-line, or

put it on-line for free, you chose a more traditional way of publishing?

I wanted to create an act at the artefact. I came from publishing and

I liked the idea of it. When you started out with your friends on the

west coast, it happened by accident during a hack aen to, as you

describe it in the book. What did you think Twitter would be when you

started? It was more something that was fun. We wanted to, our first

attempt at creating a start-up after leaving Google had failed, and we

just said let's just work on something that we're interested in.

That is all it was. It was just joyful. When did you realise it was

something that could actually be big and people would use it in all sorts

of different ways you didn't expect, when did you realise? My perception

of Twitter was profoundly changed in March 2007 when I went to a

technology conference and I noticed that this was the first time we were

seeing Twitter in the wild and I heard a story about a man who was at

a pub, wanted to, noticed the pub was too loud and wanted to talk with

his friends so he sent out a tweet saying let's move to the other pub,

in the eight minutes it took to move to the pub, there was lines out the

doors. Plan backfired. He sent a tweet his followers decided it was a

good idea, and they tweeted. The image was a flock of birds moving

around a bird in flight, something that looks choreographed and

planned, but the mechanics of flocking are simple. You saw it

changing behaviour? It was the only time ever seen a technology allow

human beings in real time to behave as one organism, it chilled me.

Chilled you, that's interesting, you thought that was frightening? That

was a party what if it had been, the thing I thought what if it had been

something dramatic, something important, something serious like a

disaster. That's when we went back and created Twitter Incorporated,

before that it was a protect. Ject. Then you had the American state

department not to close your servers so Twitter could be up and running

during demonstrations in Iran. Asked us. At one moment it was in a

conference for professional geeks and the next affecting

demonstrations in countries hundreds of miles away? It entered the world

stage, it became part of the vocabulary of the world stage. We

were mentioned, the Twitter brand name got linked to a lot of things.

But I always maintain that it was about the people, it was about the

brave people who were bleeding and dying on the streets and it was, if

Twitter was to be a triumph it was to be a triumph of humanity not

technology. There is a dark side to humanity, Twitter is also catnip for

people who want to abuse other people, who want to be unpleasant,

who want to post abusive sometimes graphic hidious messages. Even ISIS

have been using Twitter. How do you feel about that? In order to create

the platform for freedom of speech you have to honour freedom of

speech, you can't cure rate that, as soon as -- curate that, conditions

you do that you lose the trust of the people. People are basically and

fundamentally good, way more people are good than bad. You have to take

the good with the bad in the large scale platforms. Could Twitter

disappear, a few years ago MySpace was huge, and we have seen, tech

companies come and go, we are fickle. Could it disappear? I see

Twitter as a company of enduring value. Something that is proven that

it is of value to everyone from personal individuals to heads of

state, to organisations, so I think it is here to stay. I won't ask you

to put it into 140 characters. That's all we have time for good

night. Thanks for watching. Pressure is high this side of the

Atlantic, another dry day for most of us on Friday. Sunny spells. The

winds light for the most part, breezy around western coasts for

example, but some cloud, some sunshine. A decent-looking day

across Northern Ireland. Cloud around the northern coasts, the

cloudiest weather in the North West Highlands of Scotland up to the

Northern Isles, one or two spots of rain, cool