25/06/2014 Newsnight

reprecussion for his empire after yesterday's verdict. We ask what

fall-out this trial will actually have. One of his fiercest crickets

is here. Wonga creates a fake law firm to

send threatening letters to its customers, we invent our own and

write bac Some call them terrorists, he says

he's there to help. An ex-cluesive interview with a British man who

fled to Syria to fight. I'm not going to sit there and debate with

you or ask you not to call me a terrorist.

Rupert Murdoch is flying into town to be met with more than a cream pie

this time. The conviction of former News of the World editor, Andy

Coulson, could mean corporate chances against News UK. Those

waiting to see the Murdoch empire implode can wait, the family's

wealth has doubled almost since the hacking scandal began. As the

hacking trial came to an inconclusive end, David Cameron

found himself in the dock rebuked by the judge for his ill-advised

comments. What is the reaction from the verdicts yesterday and whose

reputation is now at stake? Read all about it. Hacking has hung

over the Prime Minister and the press baron for years. David Cameron

will be slapped with new headlines for risking the trial. I think for

my honourable friend is absolutely right. Keeping the promise to

apologise for hiring Coulson if he was guilty. I say again today I take

full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson, I did so based on the

assurances I and the Select Committee received. Always said if

those assurances turned out to be wrong I would apologise fully and

frankly to this House of Commons and I do so again today from this

despatch box. But... That aroused the significant displeasure of

Justice Saunders, because when Cameron first made his apology

yesterday the trial wasn't over. At the Old Bailey today the jury were

discharged, as they just couldn't decide on two final charges.

Cameron's apology was not the reason they failed to conclude. But the

judge demanded an explanation. Number Ten is adamant, David Cameron

had the best legal advice before opening his mouth. The judge is not

blaming him directly for the messy end of this trial. But no Prime

Minister wants to be criticised publicly by a senior judge. Saying

sorry was meanted to meant to make things better and is deeply awkward

instead. One of his colleagues thinks it is a mistake. They were

unwise and there should have been legal wise, I doubt it would have

crossed David's mind. Why was it unwise? I will give a properly

organised interview or no interview at all. But sadly, later he was

reluctant to repeat that criticism. And unfortunately the PM has

previous. A different judge said David Cameron should have kept his

views to himself during the Lawson household fraud trial, and the

former Lord Chancellor, Lord Faulkner, told Newsnight there

should be a review of the contempt laws, yet the lawyer of some hacking

victims believes the judge and the PM were following the same fine

line. The judge this morning clearly didn't agree with the advice of the

Attorney-General. He was very keen that nothing should happen at the

last minute not to fall at the last hurdle. That there was a brink here,

that David Cameron perhaps was hovering on the brink of disaster in

terms of what he had said. But actually it wasn't a disaster

afterall. Ed Miliband was rapid to slam Cameron yesterday, in his

words, "for taking a criminal to Number Ten". But today he was eager

to know why was full security clearance not sought for Coulson at

the start. Let's come to the vetting Mr Speaker, amidst all of the

warnings, the very least he should have done is insisted immediately on

coming to office that Andy Coulson should have the highest level of

security vetting as his six predecessors over the previous 14

years had. Why didn't he insist on it? Leveson concluded this, the

level of security clearance was not the decision of either Mr Cameron or

Mr Coulson, it was the decision of the Civil Service. Labour thinks

there is mileage in pushing David Cameron on why Coulson didn't get

the toughest background checks before he came to work here. They

hoped to show, at least, something distinctly odd went on. Whatever the

official version of events may be, there were nerves at senior levels.

Labour has asked one former senior civil servant to investigate

precisely what Number Ten mandarins got up to, as well as their

political bosses. Number Ten insists this one, Jeremy Heywood, simply

didn't think Andy Coulson needed the highest level of clearance to start

with. That was unworkable so they started the process before he left.

But Gus O'Donnell says the decision to appoint Coulson was nothing to do

with him. The head of the Civil Service at the time will not shed

light on whether he warned the PM off. But how would the other

powerful man in this scandal write his headline. Well no question it

could have been worse. It is not just nice for the wider family, well

the metaphor calm ical one at least, but Rebekah Brooks's Exxon racial

makes it less likely that other senior executives might be dragged

into the net. But flying into town some, Rupert Murdoch himself may

have to talk to police. And the bill to deal with the scandal has reached

?500 million here and in the states. But while Mr Murdoch has had to

split up his business, beyond just closing down the News of the World,

the family and his companies have made lots more money. The opposite

of value being destroyed. As a result of this split, the overall

value of the enterprise has essentially tripled. That has added

around $6 billion to the Murdoch family wealth. In fact it has been

an extraordinarily good thing, both for the company in terms of

modernising it and changing its practices and also for the Murdoch

family in terms of their overall wealth. But there is still

difficulties to come. But in terms of making friends or keeping old

ones, for the first time in decades, Rupert Murdoch is not close to

either of British leader of the opposition or the sitting Prime

Minister. And with more trials to come, both of their reputations

could still stand to suffer. Not even close. We're joined now which

Tom Watson, the Labour MP and author. And from New York by Felix

Salmon, a close observer of the Murdoch empire. We asked News

Corporation for an interview but the offer was declined. Let's look at

the astonishing figures coming out showing the overall value of the

Murdoches has tripled. Gone up by ?6 billion in the last few years. Now

if your goal, or if the goal was to bring down the Murdoch empire that

has manifestly failed? That was not the goal, the goal was to expose

criminality at the heart of the operation of News Corporation. But I

think what these figures show is Rupert Murdoch is still an

extraordinary powerful figure in global commerce and has incredible

reach into politics. The reason you saw the tension in the House of

Commons today is frankly politicians still fear him, he can damage them,

you see what his ins can do, his television companies, his global

reach. He still is a major figure in British politics and that's why the

courage of politicians is important in what we do next. You think he

will be back, neither leader is close to him per se at the moment,

but he hasn't gone from British politics? He has never really gone

away. The company have been very clever, in fact they sacked a lot of

the people that were associated with the old regime at the company. They

have brought some smart hires, they are improving their corporate social

responsibility, I think you can see progress in the way they are

cleaning up their act, but at the end of the day it is still old

Rupert Murdoch who likes to move politicians around the chess board.

Just explain to us why he has done so well out of this? After the

hacking scandal first exploded he finally was forced to spin off all

of his print operations, the newspapers basically, and the books,

into a completely separate MP called news Corp, it was everything,

before, including the TV and movie studios all which make real money.

Now that is a new company called 21st Century Fox, worth $75 billion,

and the massive discount that used to be applied to the old News Corp

on the grounds that no-one likes owning newspapers these days has

completely disappeared. Meanwhile the newspaper company called News

Corp, which is smaller and worth about $10 million. It is looking

healthy, a bunch of cash, the Wall Street Journal and some good

franchises. It is also insulated. The bigger company is insulated from

any kind of bad stuff that happens to News Corp now. This was a

decision that Rupert Murdoch never wanted to make and he was forced to

make it and as a result he has made billions of dollars. It has sort of

done him a favour, having to go through these decisions has done him

a favour? I'm not so sure they are insulated. Rupert Murdoch runs these

companies, and only tonight we have seen Panorama reveal that the

witness protection programme was compromised in 2006 by people

working for the company. We see a Tom Harper story in the Independent

tomorrow showing that senior, former senior, executives have been

interviewed under caution in relation to potential corporate

charges. This company is not out of the wood work yet. Where do you

think that is going then? Which company are you talking about. Go on

Felix? It depends which company you are talking about. News UK is not

insulated and News Corp is not entirely insulated but at this point

21st Century Fox where his real wealth is, that is insulated. I'm

not sure if Rupert Murdoch's business reputation and legal

position is insulated. Let's remember he dominates all of these

companies. But, look, you know, I'm not going to deny, his companies

make immense amounts of money, which gives him immense amounts of power.

The real situation in the UK is where does the police investigation

lie. If you were looking at the verdict yesterday and you say Brooks

has been cleared and Andy Coulson convicted. What does that tell you

about the possibility of corporate criminality now? It is not for me to

convict or to decide where it goes. We now know that having denied it

for five years a senior editor in News Corp was involved in phone

hacking, and five other senior manager in that company have pleaded

guilty. Remember for many, many years the company denied any of

this, and now there is a liability. I think the prosecution authorities

will be weighing that up. How was this received in the US. Because

clearly the papers here for obvious reasons were split on whether they

talked about the one who was cleared or the one who was convicted? I

think that Coulson is considered a David Cameron story, a political

story, Rebekah Brooks was the Rupert Murdoch story. When she was

acquitted the general reaction in the US was well that's the corporate

executive has gone free and Rupert has won this one. I wonder if you

see Andy Coulson as a bit of a firewall really, the person that

sort of kept the Murdoch empire there and the political world there.

Do you have any sympathy for the position he has played and whether

he has done it? In some ways, I also have sympathy that his course of

justice is not over. I don't really want to pass judgment on him myself.

You know it was never personal with him, it was all about trying to

expose what went on with the company. Yes, there is no doubt

about it, but in a funny sort of way the story has gone to David Cameron.

In one sense that's probably obvious because he went to extraordinary

lengths to keep Andy Coulson in office, he took great risks to keep

him there when many people warned him that he shouldn't. But in

another you know, commerce might think this company is out of the

woods, but I'm not sure the British justice system thinks that yet. What

does this all tell us about the role of the police and the CPS, given

that this body of evidence was pretty much available back in 2006?

Firstly I think the meticulous way that priest wheating Operation

Wheating dealt with this shows how inadequate the original

investigation was, and the only way to find out how woeful that

investigation was is some investigation into the police I

think the second stage of Leveson which was the bit about who did what

to whom should take place. There is something very, very wrong happened

with the MetropolitaPolice and their original inquiries. We will only get

to the facts that have if we look in some detail. No police officer has

been asked to explain why in 2006 they knew that the witness

protection programme was compromised by this company and nobody did

anything about it. Thank you very much. Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri

Al-Maliki, has rejected calls for a national salvation Government to

help counter the offensive by ISIS in his weekly televised address he

warned that forming an emergency unity Government could go against

April's parliamentary elections and represented an attempt to end the

democratic experience. We have our report now in Baghdad. Give us if

you can the reaction to today's latest on the ground? Nouri

Al-Maliki is facing two very serious but competing changes here. Number

one he's trying to hold his country together in the face of this very

fierce insurgency, led by ISIS, that has taken over towns and territory

in the west and also in the north, but it is also supported by Sunnis

in those areas who felt frozen out of the political process of a stake

in this country, and further complicated by the Kurds who are

also taking on territory they have long claimed. But Nouri Al-Maliki is

also trying to hold on to his job, those parliamentary elections in

April, he got the most votes, but he didn't win them outright. In Iraq's

system of horse trading and coalition building, that doesn't

necessarily mean that he still gets to be Prime Minister. So his

reactions to calls for a national salvation Government have been

interpreted as a Government that possibly doesn't include him as its

head. He has rejected that very strongly. On the other hand he knows

he needs the help of the Americans to try to defeat ISIS. He has

admitted that much himself. It is clear from what the Americans have

said that they see him as a devisive figure, as a man who has ruled this

country, who has run it in an overtly sectarian manner and is at

least partly to blame for the trouble that we are here now. When

you are on the ground, how palpable is the sectarian divide that we are

reporting? I don't know if you can hear me, when you are on the ground

pow palpable is that sectarian divide we are reporting? I couldn't

hear that question if there was one. But if you were asking me about the

mood here on the ground today as that national salvation Government

was rejected, Nouri Al-Maliki, number one made it clear that he

wasn't rejecting the idea of forming an inclusive Government, which he

says will happen in a matter of days, if not weeks. But on the

ground here, if you go to Sunni areas in Baghdad, like I have been,

you feel a strong sense of fear. Even amongst people who want this

country to stick together. Tales of arrest and arbitary arrest that

people feel very much is simply because of their faith, because they

are Sunni in this country that is dominated by the Shi'ite Government.

Nouri Al-Maliki holds not only the Prime Ministership but also the two

crucial security ministries, defence and interior, and that has led many

to feel in this still unstable nation, many in the Sunni community

that they have simply been frozen out. The Islamic state of Iraq and

ISIS have uploaded up videos of their activities even crucifixions,

but ISIS members do not like to be named by the Islamic term because of

the extremism. Parallels brought -- in a moment an exclusive interview

with a British man fighting in Syria, but first a brief explanation

of what Haraj means. During the last days there will

appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but

their faith will not go beyond their throats. They will leave their

religion as a bird goes after its prey, where you find them, kill

them. These words attributed to the

Prophet Mohammed were said to show the first group of extremists in

Islam, "those who leave". They emerged in southern Iraq in the 7th

century. In the years following Mohammed's death, battle raged

between his son-in-law and the Governor of Syria over who should

lead the Muslims. Is it peace negotiations were started between

the two as to which of them it should be. This angered some of

early supporters who believe God not man must choose the leader, and this

group broke away. Furious with Ali for agreeing to negotiations, and

the other for trying to usurp his title. They were famed for their

religious fervour but also brutality, massacring Muslims who

disagreed with their interpretation of Islam, including Ali. The

original group were eventually defeated and they are considered her

particulars, but their legacy still resonates, the term is used to

describe groups considered too extreme. The Algerian Islamist group

GIA, in the 1990s carried out civilian massacres is thoughed to

have become modern day Khawrij. And Al-Qaeda have been accused of being

the same. Even ISIS have been accused of had heing Khawraji, they

deny being that, while the group continues its march towards southern

Iraq, the birth place of Islam's first extremists. We have

interviewed a British man from Brighton fighting in Syria. He

travelled with his two younger brothers, one of whom was killed

three months ago. He's not part of ISIS, but has been fighting

alongside the Al-Qaeda affiliated group, and more MoD raid Islamist

groups. Senior figures have criticised ISIS and their

activities. It illustrates the divisions between fighters in Syria.

We sent him questions and he videoed his replies.

Joining me now is the chair of contemporary Middle East studies at

the LSE who has written extensively on Al-Qaeda and spoken to hundreds

of fighters in their ranks. Thank you for coming in. Do the opinions

that you heard there of one extremist sound familiar to you. Are

these what other Brits out there fighting in Syria are saying? You

know what you have heard really is a scripted ideolgical template by an

Al-Qaeda operative. A well known view on victimhood and distorted

reading of the Muslim doctrine. He doesn't speak for the Sunni

community, he says he's defending for the Muslim community. He speaks

for a hyper-minority Sunni view, what we call the Al-Qaeda family. He

says they are not interested in returning, for example, they are not

a threat to this country once they return, do you believe that? Emily,

no, I don't. I would not take what he says for granted for two major

reasons, first, we know that wars are transformative. What he says

today might not hold in one or two years. His world might be shattered,

deep scars, we know what wars do. Exactly what we need to understand

about Al-Qaeda, whether you are talking about the parent

organisation, Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and others, or the Islamic

state, this is a top-down vanguard elitist, secretive, self-enclosed

movement. This gentleman here does not basically act and say what he

believes in, he basically has sworn the oath to the chief, the Amir of

the Islamic state. If the Amir, the chief of ISIS says to him, look I

want you to commit to carry out a suicide bombing, he would have to do

it. This is the reality, this is a vanguard, top-down organisation and

elitist organisation. That is why I would not take his words for

granted. Of course this man is not in ISIS, but just the factions, the

sectarianism is mind-boggling now. If you try to explain to our viewers

that Al-Qaeda, who are behind 9/11, consider ISIS to be too extreme,

then... Emily ISIS's extremism gives Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden a good

name, this is how bad it is. Look what has happened between ISIS, the

Islamic state and the official arm of Al-Qaeda. I mean ISIS has

butchered hundreds of the official arm of Al-Qaeda. They have killed

hundreds of them. They not only excommunicate their enemies, the

Syrian Government and civilians, they excommunicate Al-Qaeda-linked

fighters because they disagree with their politics. ISIS is a her

receiptic movement because it celebrates -- her receiptic movement

because it celebrates violence. How will that change if the US and UK

enter the equation? I have no doubt in my mind, when we talk about

Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda is a family, you have sisters and brothers, Osama Bin

Laden was the far enemy to the United States and the enemies. The

main target of the Al-Qaeda groups today is the near enemy, the local,

the Arab and Muslim leaders. But if the United Stat basically decides to

take on ISIS in Iraq and Syria I could easily seen the lines blurred

between the far and near enemy. I could easily see this gentleman

basically deciding and designing attacks against the United States

and its allies, particularly the western countries. It takes a

certain kind of mind to come up with a ruse like this one, Wonga,

Britain's most famous pay-day lender invented a law firm in order to send

its customers threatening letters over legal action against

outstanding debt. They then charged the customers for the time the fake

law firm had spent being well a fake law firm. Today the Financial

Conduct Authority ordered Wonga to pay ?2. 5 million compensation to

their rather real 45,000 customers. Few things are as stressful as

receiving letters from debt collectors and lawyers. But imagine

receiving a letter from a law firm, threatening legal action and then

discovering that the firm doesn't actually exist. That's the situation

45,000 customers of Wonga found themselves in between 2008 and 2010.

With a loan from Wongsawat.com, you will decide the amount you want.

Today the Financial Conduct Authority has forced the company to

pay compensation worth ?2. 6 million to those affected. To put pressure

on those who owed them cash, Wonga sent pressure from what appeared to

be two law firms. Despite coming from Wonga itself, the letters

opened... The letters claimed to come from

Barker and Lowe. We are not surprised but horrified by the news.

The reason is we have been worried about the whole of the payday

industry for a considerable time because of the reports we get from

people coming for assistance to us. It is partly because the business

model for payday lending is all about thriving on deepening debt. It

is also because some of the dubious practices we see across the industry

and we don't accept the argument that this is just rogue outliars, it

is clearly across the industry. These offices in west London were

once home to Wonga's HQ, coincidently they were also the

where the letters from the fake law firms claimed to come. Somewhere in

the rooms in here someone had to sit down and think of names for two fake

law firm, how did they do it, you wonder. In a fervour, even more

striking coincidence, those two fake firms share their names with members

of Wonga's staff. Wonga today have issued a statement:

An apology and compensation payments are one thing, but why won't they be

subject to a fine as well. The Financial Conduct Authority took

over regulation of consumer lenders this April. It says it can't issue

fines for behaviour before this date. But there's another issue at

play here too. Surely people have been asking, pretending to be a law

firm when you might not even have a GCSE is law is, well, against the

law. Not exactly. People can set up and call themselves law firms, they

can't set themselves up and call themselves solicitors, because that

would be an offence, they can call themselves a law firm even though

they are not lawyers, and certain things they can do without actually

being properly regulated at all. That has to be a concern. Calling

yourself a solicitor or a barrister when you are not will get you into

serious trouble. But as long as you avoid those terms and are careful

with your wording, there is quite a big grey area that can be exploited.

We asked Wonga to appear on the programme tonight, they declined. So

since it seems pretty much anyone can call themselves a lawyer now

aday, we thought we would try this. They may not want to talk to

Newsnight, but maybe a letter from Duncan Weldon Associates might

change their mind. Sadly, we didn't make it past reception.

Who knows, maybe the letter did. Campaigners seeking the right to die

without risk of their loved ones being prosecuted lost their

challenge in the Supreme Court today. But in a significant ruling

the Supreme Court concluded it does have the power to declare the law

which creme Ialises acts of those who help to take a life as

incompatible with human life. It directed parliament to consider

assisted parliament or see judges stepping in. The case came from the

widow of Tony Nicklinson and by Paul Lamb, who gave this exclusive

interview. The Supreme Court have ruled against

you, you have lost your case, but they have said that parliament,

effectively, should know change the law on assisted suicide, how do you

feel about that? I think it is a step in the right direction, because

it is now, I believe, forcing parliament to take it on board, and

if they don't, from what I have heard, I will have a right to come

back to the Supreme Court, for them to make a judgment. So it is kind of

a victory wrapped in a defeat, really? Yeah. But whatever way you

look at it, the one thing that I was saying to my two carers last night,

I actually feel proud of myself for what I have done, for myself and a

lot of other people that perhaps haven't got the strength to, the

strength that this journey has taken, which once again it is

knocking the stuffing out of me. What do you say to people that they

have huge sympathy, empathy with you, but life is sacred, and there

should be no change to the law that allows assisting a suicide? I have

all the respect in the world for individuals and their beliefs. All

the respect. It is their views, it is their, it is what they are, and

I'm what I am. But I do resent them stopping me, because these are

people usually that don't experience pain, they really don't. When the

pain is bad what's that like for you? I just literally compared it

with being hit by a bus, laid on the floor and waiting for somebody to

come and pick me up and take me to the hospital and make me better, and

that is the experience I get. And when it comes it is horrible. People

will listen to you, Paul, and they will say, look this is a really

intelligent and articulate man, he's still part of life, he as still able

to converse to enjoy things, to travel, to read, there should never

be a law that allows someone like that to be assisted to die? Firstly

I would thank them for those comments, but when I get a good day

it is, it is fantastic, and you know there will be a granddaughter coming

along soon. My daughter in Australia she's got a little girl and they are

living on the beach, just 800ms up from where they film Home and Away

on television, so I have helped them get there. I mean and I do take a

part in that because between my wife and myself we did a great job with

them and they are fantastic kids. People will say with all of that, to

enjoy, why is it that at some point you want a doctor to assist you to

end your life? I have seen people, I have got to know and be friends with

and I have seen quite a few people die, suffering badly, really badly

and I have actually seen their family come to see these people and

the family has been crying, it makes them so upset seeing a loved one

going through such pain. I just want it there for when I know it is the

end of the road. And I will know. If I can't be got right, I don't wish

to spend years in bed just screaming out in pain. To believe it or not my

son and daughter don't want that. In fact I sent an e-mail out, it was

one to a lot of people, including my son and daughter saying that I'm in

court today and my son wrote one back and said so proud of you dad,

kiss, kiss. It touches me stuff like that. And I love him to bits, I

really do. That was Paul talking to Clive, who is here now. Incredibly

moving that interview, but as Paul says, it was a step forward in one

way, but he lost. What Paul wanted and what the late Tony Nicklinson,

now represented by his widow wanted was a declaration that our blanket

ban on assisting a suicide, which prevents people like Paul and Tony

from getting assistance to end their life at a time that they choose.

That blanket ban was incompatible with his Article 8 right to have a

private and family life. He lost on that by a majority of 7-2, two of

the justices were prepared to grant that declaration, but that was a

loss. However, having said that, by a slim majority two of the justices

ruled that blanket ban was potentially inpatable and the others

-- incompatible and two others thought so too. Six of the justices

effectively said now parliament it is up to you to look at amending

this legislation. So what happened there really was a flexing of the

court's constitutional muscles saying look, over to you parliament,

look at amending this legislation. We don't really think a lot of it.

One said that the infringement into Paul Lamb's private life was grave

as a result of the blanket ban. Have a look at it, and if you don't do

anything we have the power to make a declaration of incompatibility over

this ban. If we did that there would be a prisoner vote situation where a

blanket ban was deemed to be in breach of convention rights. It is

over to parliament now? It is, and will parliament do anything about

it. There is no great signs that there is a huge will to do so. Next

month Lord Faulkner has a bill on assisted dying, this is for people

terminally ill with six months to live. If parliament doesn't do

anything or enact legislation, what could happen is this could come back

to the Supreme Court, and if they then make a declaration of

incompatibility, then you have a real stand-off between our most

powerful court and parliament, you have the makings there of a

constitutional crisis. The teeth marks on his left shoulder had two

explanation, either he walked backwards into Suarez's mouth or he

has been at it again. Suarez has form when it comes to biting, this

is the third time he has chomped an opposition player in anger. He could

face ban from the World Cup, even two years. No doubt aching

frustration from his team-mates. There may also be a hefty economic

cost to the bite as sponsors threaten to abandon the footballer

they nickname "Jaws". We have a sports psychology on the programme.

Andrews Andrea, why, not once, not twice, but why? It is such a strange

act for people to see, particularly in live sport at this particular

level. You have got highly successful, highly competitive

people and obviously he's a star player, to see this sort of thing a

great question. It is repetitive behaviour so it would suggest that

there is some difficulty in changing the behaviour. But I think that it

is almost the question of why begs more questions from me. If he wasn't

a footballer or one of the most highly paid sports men in the world

we would say that is assault. If I did that to you it would be assault,

nobody would be asking why, would they? That's right. It is the topic

of biting typically comes up with toddlers in terms of acting out in

frustration, not quite understanding why they are behaving like that.

There are other areas of psychology that we will look into the act of

biting and it often involves acts of aggression. What about toddlers, it

is presumably because they haven't got words or language? There is the

emotion and frustration. That is what we would assume is going on

with Luis. He's very frustrated in these particular circumstances and

he's acting out in that frustration, but very impulsively. So without any

rational thought. If you were talking to a toddler or footballer

how do you break the cycle, obviously it is at a moment when

they are on the pitch, nobody is going to step in, and say don't bite

that guy? When we think about elite sport and particularly football,

they are competing quite a lot. So in terms of being able to stop,

reset, make some behavioral changes and maybe some cognitive changes as

well t takes time and effort and motivation to want to make that

change. So time out of the sport and... Like two years? Well, you

know, I keep saying it but there seems to be more questions that come

than answers in terms of why this behaviour is repetitive and why it

is on going, we need to investigate the factors leading to this sort of

behaviour. Thank you very much indeed. Let's take you through the

papers and front pages of tomorrow. A clarification now, earlier in the

programme there was a suggestion that Rupert Murdoch was flying into

the country to be questioned by police, although it is understood

the Metropolitan Police are planning to talk to Mr Murdoch, it was wrong

to imply any interview was imminent. That is all we have time for, good

night. Good evening, Thursday is set to be

a fine day for most of us across the country, there is a little bit of

rain on the way. It could turn heavy in the afternoon across the south

west of England and south of Wales too. This is the only place in the

country where we will see the heavy rain, the vast majority of us will

enjoy bright weather. Here is Scotland and Northern Ireland, apart

from thicker cloud and maybe a