25/06/2014 Newsnight


News stories with Emily Maitlis. Including the hacking saga, Wonga and the bogus solicitors, and an interview with Paul Lamb after the latest judgement on his right to die.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


The hacking saga continues for the Prime Minister. The money lender Wonga and the bogus solicitors. The British man from Brighton currently fighting in Syria. Interview with Paul Lamb after the latest judgement on his right to die.

Download Subtitles