15/07/2014 Newsnight


The reshuffle and Gove? A policeman who says he was stopped from investigating child abuse allegations. A war photographer in Helmand. With Laura Kuenssberg.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



exclusively to the man who secured convictions for the murder of


Stephen Lawrence, he says senior interference stopped him


investigating child abuse allegations in the 1990s after he


named the suspects. I was informed that was inappropriate and that in


fact I would be moved from my post. That information included


politicians' names? Yeah, correct. Former detective Clive Driscoll also


shares fresh revelation about how the inquiry into Stephen Lawrence's


murder looked from the inside. Stephen's friend Dwyane Brooks is


here. The longest walk in politics, Michael Gove goes into Number Ten as


Education Secretary and comes out as something rather more junior. Why?


What happens when you send an artist to Helmand? I wish on reflection


that I hadn't gone to Helmand, sending an artist to a warzone is a


complex moral and ethical responsibility. Making work under


those conditions is life-changing. Good evening. It took 18 years after


his death before two of his killers were put behind bars. But tonight,


the detective who built the case against Stephen Lawrence's killers


has told Newsnight that inside the Met some people never wanted a


successful prosecution. Speaking exclusively to Newsnight for the


first time since he retired Clive Driscoll says he believes there were


disruption tactics during his inquiry. He also claims that when he


was investigating child abuse that took place in the 1980s he was moved


from his post when he revealed suspect he is wanted to investigate


including politicians. Here is his story.


Getting to the truth few criminal cases have done more to test that


promise than Stephen Lawrence's murder. When truth was be a secured


by mistakes and fear, trust in the police fell away. Crimes they just


could not or would not resolve. The detective who convicted Lawrence's


killers is now ready to reveal how obstacles were put in the way of his


investigations. Some people did not want a successful prosecution.


Tonight I tells us how in that case and his inquiry into child abuse in


1980s Lambeth, barriers, even politics, appeared. At the time I


just felt that it was all too uncomfortable to a lot of people. In


these most contentious of cases has truth been a victim too?


Clive Driscoll worked for the Met for more than three decades until


just a few weeks ago, his detective work led finally to the successful


convictions of Stephen Lawrence's killers. What he describes as his


for that politically-charged case was perhaps just as contentious. At


that time the detective's involvement had a very different


autooutcome. In 1998 he worked in child protection and was moved to


investigate allegations of child abuse in children's homes in Lambeth


in south London, alleged to have taken place in the 1980s. But his


lines of inquiry quickly proved just too awkward. There was a mistrust on


both sides. It appeared that certainly that people didn't trust


the Metropolitan Police Service and I think the Metropolitan Police


Service possibly didn't trust some of the people it was working with. A


bit like young Stephen's investigation, I never felt there


was wall of silence, but whenever people spoke to you and shared their


fears and their story about what they had seen, it was almost on a


proviso that they wouldn't make a statement and that they would be


scared if you released who those people were that were talking for


fear of reprisals. It was a very, very difficult climate for people to


come forward in. But, very bravely, in my opinion, they did come


forward, and I passed the names on that had been passed to me as


potential suspects. When he revealed those names, including politicians


at a case meeting he was taken off the investigation and subjected to a


disciplinary. After discussing internally with the Metropolitan


Police Service whether or not I should release certain information


to Lambeth Council, which I hadn't done up until then, it was agreed by


my senior management team that That is That is what -- that is what I


should do. And I disclosed suspects' names and I was informed that was


inappropriate and I would be moved from my post. That information


included politicians' names as potential suspects? There was


actually a mix. There were certainly some of the names of people that


were locally working, some people that were, if you like, working


nationally, but there was quite a mix really, because of, it appeared


that it was connected to other boroughs and other movements around


the country. To be clear, when you say a mix, you mean some local


political figures? Yeah, correct. And MPs? That's correct, yeah. Do


you fear that you were stopped from investigating those claims because


you suspected more than one politician of being involved in


child abuse? At the time I just felt that it was all too uncomfortable to


a lot of people. After Clive Driscoll moved, investigations


continued to look at more than 20 children's homes and are still on


going. There have been several convictions, the Met is now looking


into his claims concerning his removal from the investigation and


have called him to a meeting in Scotland Yard this week. Stephen ran


crossing the road and he ran and eventually died up on the right-hand


side of the road there. That experience made Clive Driscoll more


determined to pursue the truth, ultimately in the Lawrence case,


equally controversial. The Met's initial flawed attempts to find his


killers in the weeks that followed his death got nowhere. We are in a


position today where we have an opportunity to learn and we have an


opportunity to maybe put right some of the wrongs that have come out in


recent times. There was no doubt that there were mistakes made in


this decision. There was much debate about whether those mistakes were


corruption mistakes or incompetent mistakes. Prosecutors then didn't


find enough evidence to charge anyone the family's own private


attempts to prosecute collapsed. Despite in 1999 a major inquiry,


where suspects had to give evidence, and the first investigation was


found to be flawed, in 2004 again the CPS ruled out another trial. In


your view were most of the mistakes down to competence, or was there


something more sinister? The difference betwe incompetence and


corruption is a bit like a bad tackle in football. The person who


knows is the person who made the tackle. I can be incompetent all day


long if you want. What was your sense? My sense was I couldn't work


certain things out. There was certain incidents and inquires that


didn't appear to be progressed. There were certain parts of the


investigation that really didn't make any sense to me at all. But I


never investigated whether that was corruption or incompetence. In 2005


the Government changed the law. It was now possible to try suspects for


the same crime twice. Clive Driscoll was put in charge, after years of


disappointment he first had to persuade the Lawrences and the key


witness, Stephen's friend, Dwayne Brooks to trust and confide in him.


It is your deeply-held belief that there were people at senior levels


in the Met that were almost hoping this investigation would fail. You


felt that pressure? There were certainly people in senior levels in


the Met that weren't enthusiastic about the investigation, I certainly


felt that. You know, as I have said before, it is a very serious


allegation to make and I don't have evidence that I could present to any


tribunal for that. It is certainly what I felt was that people in


places I would have expected to have had the enthusiasm didn't. And you


were so concerned about that you even made that complaint to senior


officers? I actually did send an e-mail to senior officers explaining


that I felt that it could be seen, if somebody came behind and actually


looked at what was going on, I think they would probably see it as a


disruption tactic. So yes, I did put that in writing. David Norris and


Gary Dobson were convicted of murder. But still the handling of


the original case continued to challenge the Met's reputation. This


year an independent review found failures and reasonable grounds to


suspect corruption. That inquiry asked the met for full disclosure,


even then Clive Driscoll says there were discussions about handing


everything over. Including a document on covert recording of key


witness Dwyane Brooks. He have been told of incidents where senior


officers were accused of holding back documents? That's correct. I


would urge them to think about that and think about it and I would urge


them to think about it was the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary and


the mayor have every right to know what we are doing. You know that


very senior officers discussed holding back some documents with


lawyers? You could call it a culture, it could be just a mind set


that you have to defend the Metropolitan Police. That is the


only reason you have a lawyer there, to defend, well you don't have to


defend the Metropolitan Police Service, if the Home Secretary or


the mayor ask for something, well you give it to them. But one bad


decision around disclosure undoes the remarkable work that police


officers do up and down the country. And for me, just be open and honest,


warts and all. The Met told us no relevant material was intentionally


withheld, their policy was to be open and transparent, and they are


still committed to continuing the Lawrence investigation. Doreen


Lawrence still speaks to Clive Driscoll most days. She has little


contact with the rest of the Met. He says the relationship is as bad as


just after Stephen's death. Although he believes there could yet be more


convictions. If you were the Lawrence family would you trust the


Met? If I was the Lawrence family, no I probably wouldn't. How do you


feel about that given the years of hard work, effort, struggle almost,


first of all to win their trust, and then to finally prosecute the case?


I actually feel desperately sorry for them. I think that they have


lost their son, let's never forget, that they lost a much-loved son, it


is almost like reliving the trauma of that. For Driscoll the priority


for the police past and present must now be complete and total openness,


after the Lawrence case tore trust away, suspicions is the only path to


go. Before you said you weren't sure if it was incompetence or corruption


in the early investigation. What does corruption look like? A


question I have asked myself many times, what is corruption? Is it


going behind a pub somewhere and getting an envelope of ?50 notes, or


is corruption that you don't go down a certain path, you don't follow a


certain inquiry and therefore you make someone very happy that you


haven't followed that inquiry, therefore your next promotion is


easier for you, your CV looks a bit more glamorous. By the time you


finish your career and at the end of your pension you could have earned


considerably more than what you would ever stuff in an envelope, so


what is corruption? My concern is that the result for the grieving


family or the victim or for justice is exactly the same, is that justice


has been thwarted, and that can't happen at any cost, because the


reality is that is the rule of law, it is part of our freedom. Dwyane


Brooks who we saw in the film is with us tonight. Thank you very much


for coming in. You would be forgiven, with everything that


happened with the Met for not trusting them at all, what was it


about Clive Driscoll when he took over the case that was different?


Clive just comes across as a very honest person, down to earth, south


London person. Bit of Cockney, every now and again in his language. For


me he was just completely different from all the other officers that I


had dealt with. I gave him a chance. He said to me, Duwayno I can crack


this case! I thought let's give him a go. Did you believe him? No, I


didn't believe him. But he made a tremendous amount of effort to


convince me that it could be done. I had no other choice but to trust


him. And Clive and his team came through. When he did come through


and there were successful convictions in the end, what were


your feelings and the Lawrence family's feelings about this? I felt


that the Met should have come out and said well done Clive and Peter


and members of the team, well done. You have done something that nobody


else thought was possible, but it didn't happen. I'm still baffled as


to why senior members of the Metropolitan Police haven't come out


and said thank you to Clive and his team. Why do you think that might


be? We have seen from the clip why it could be. Because there were


senior officers in the Met who just did not want there to be a


conviction in this case. You felt that too? Along the way, yes, up


until Clive got involved. Once life was involved the communication we


had was constant he kept kept me up-to-date about the issues and what


had was constant he kept kept me he needed to do. For me it was just


a matter of time. As we saw we had two convictions. The Met would say


they were always committed to the investigation, they were always


committed to trying to get convictions, but now Clive has


retired, just a matter of weeks ago, do you believe there is still a


prospect of there being more convictions in the case? Without


Clive leading a team, no. I don't think it is possible. All the work


that Clive and his team have done over the past seven, eight years, it


will all be lost. It is all going to be lost? I don't think the officers


who have taken over now are in the same league as Clive and his


previous team, I don't think they have got the leadership or


communication skills. On communication, do you talk to them?


Would you talk to them? I communication, do you talk to them?


spoken to any of the new team at the moment. When I speak


spoken to any of the new team at the see everybody who was involved


convicted. Would I be able to trustn them, I don't know. Why not? Because


the way Clive would have been treated, is not how I would expect


the Metropolitan Police to trust a person who has got a conviction when


anybody else could. Clive is leaving for retirement and in perfectly


reasonable conditions and nothing improper has gone in any way. Do you


feel you would ever have been able to trust the force again, without


him you have said you wouldn't? In relation to the Lawrence case it


would be difficult for me to trust officers coming in now, because of


the way Clive has been treated. But if we were talking about the


Metropolitan Police on the whole, well of course I trust them. We have


thousands and thousands of rank and file officers that do a great job


day in and day out and they protect us all in this fabulous city. In the


Lawrence case it is a bit different from generally the Metropolitan


Police who I do support, who I do trust. What do you feel about


documents, including those relating to you being bugged during those


early days of the inquiry. How do you feel about those being withheld,


the Met says absolutely not intentionally, what do you feel


about that? Saddened, but I'm not surprised. But it is astonishing


that the Home Secretary can order an inquiry, order the Met to disclose


all relevant information and the Met take legal advice and do the


opposite. So we have heard in that piece that the Met say they are


open, they want to be transparent, fine, let's be transparent. Publish


the legal advice tomorrow. Let's see how transparent the Met really are.


The Met says it is still committed to this investigation, they have


still got resources on it, they have got that new team they talked about,


do you believe they are committed to it? You are not talking to them yet?


I haven't seen any evidence of that. So at the moment in time I don't


believe so. The only evidence I have seen around this investigation is


the way they have treated Clive Driscoll and his team, a team that


secured a conviction that we all believed wasn't possible. Briefly,


how often, how much do you still think about what happened all those


years ago? It will stay with me forever. It was a night that I


wished didn't happen. If I had the chance to turn back time of course,


I would turn back time and make different decisions on that night,


but it has happened, we have to move on, we have to be successful. To


show that even though you do have bad times in your life you can move


on and be successful, so I have been trying to do that. But also the


message needs to go out to other victims of crime that even though


things may be hard, at the end of the day justice is still possible.


Thank you very much for coming in and talking to us tonight.


Reshuffles are the equivalent of tacking up a couple of new pictures


on the walls of the Cabinet Room. Others moving a couple of shares an.


This time well there has been proper heavy lifting. David Cameron has


striped two of his biggest and brightest names of the full comfort


of a full season cabinet, he's a modest number of women into the


room, sent a relative unknown into Europe to represent our interests,


and finally put one of his most devisive colleagues in charge of,


wait for it, team work. You may wonder what the Government will do


differently, very much? It took eight hours to carry out, eight


hours you don't have, so here is Newsnight's eight things you need to


know about the reshuffle. # Every day I'm shuffling


So first thing this morning one of those oldies explained David


Cameron's strategy. He doesn't have many reshuffles which is a very good


thing. And then he wants a reshuffle which gives a Government which looks


like the sort of Government he wants in the next parliament. Who does


that mean in practice. Chances are if you are male, pale and a


middle-aged Tory minister then yesterday afternoon you were asked


to David Cameron's private study in parliament over there and asked if


you want to retire. If you didn't want to retire you would have been


retired in time for Newsnight last night when we got a slew of


resignations from the Government. This morning Newsnight was up with


the lark to find out who the lucky ones are, including the chap who has


walked behind me, the new Welsh Secretary. The guys who walk through


the door today are who the Tory Party think are the face of modern


Britain. Average outgoing age 48, in coming 32. He wasn't lucky, the


biggest jobs went to men, Philip Hammond, Foreign Secretary. The


number of women attending cabinet today nearly doubled from five to


eight, new roles for women in education and environment. But we


have been told it would rain women in this reshuffle and in the end it


was more of a light shower. No female Defence Secretary for


instance, Esther McVey had been tipped for a full blown cabinet


post, in the end she said stayed in her current job and got added


permission to attend cabinet. Stow stow Tina Stowell is the leader of


the Lords, but not a full blown cabinet minister, strange. David


Cameron once criticised people, to put it mildly, for tweeting too


much, but today every appointment came on Twitter. One tweet shocked


everyone. The news that all of us here are digesting is that Michael


Gove is being moved from his position as Education Secretary to


become Chief Whip, which is something that nobody expected.


After 30 years of friendship the Prime Minister removed Michael Gove


from his job and vocation. That's fantastic, this is the very hungry


catterpillar. Cameron's pollsters decided he was too unpopular with


teachers, and the zeal that landed the Cameron Government its radical


chick was now a problem. As whip's central to the next campaign, but


colleagues told Newsnight he feels very bruised. Spin was also a winner


today, Esther McVey, William Hague, Michael Gove and Grant Shapps, who


stays as chairman, these people are all in jobs not purely frontline


politics, but communicating the Tory vision. I'm flattered to be asked by


the Prime Minister to be at the heart of his team, deciding on the


people, the ideas and the policies shaping not just the next nine


months but we hope the next Conservative Government. The Prime


Minister has asked me to make sure we have the team in place and the


ideas in place to ensure that the long-term economic plan, which is


now at last generating economic growth can benefit everyone in the


country. This reshuffle didn't really have a bias, the cabinet did


lose big right-wing hitters, but the wider Government saw many on the


right promoted. Instead the Tories seem to be pressing pause on all of


policy. Today we learned Lord Hill is the Prime Minister's choice to be


our EU Commissioner. Nigel Farage was quick to ask Lord who? But there


was substantial movement today on Europe. We have a more euro-sceptic


cabinet on that sending a signal both to voters here at home but also


to Europe that Cameron is serious now, this is getting real it is also


laying the ground work for the big renegotiation that is meant to take


place ahead of that potential 2017 referendum. The Chancellor's


tentacles tightened their grip on Government. George Osborne's former


aide Clare Perry, pretending to be a train, she went to transport, one of


many promoted, all potentially readying George Osborne for a


leadership bit in 2018. That is a long time away. Tonight David


Cameron's last reshuffle before the 2015 election is done, and the great


offices of Whitehall have become glorified election campaign


headquarters. Our political editor is with us now, Allegra what does


this all mean the Government will actually do differently in the next


ten months? I don't think they are going to do very much in the next


ten months. They will look different, so we have this massive


change of people coming on programmes like our's. So they will


look given. Different. There will be a lot of manifesto pledge, we will


get what they would like to do the other side of a general election. In


terms of what they will actually do, it won't be very much. Michael Gove


has been embarrassingly nothing at all, for no reason the change. What


really happened there? Michael Gove is still in a team with colleagues,


he's still David Cameron's friend of 30 years and George Osborne's friend


of a long time, but what actually happened we believe he was happy to


go to it because he wanted to pull together, but the idea that this


radical idealogue, whatever you want to call him, was happy to be moved,


is far fetched, I know from colleagues he feels bruised this


evening. What we will be look to go see in the next couple of days is


quite whether he manages to keep a lid on it. It would be a first in


politics, somebody happy to be demoted. Descriptions of Michael


Gove range very far and wide, as Education Secretary he will be


thanked by generations to come for his radical reforms. A demented


Dalek trying to change the teaching profession, or a charming bully who


lost out for overstepping the mark too many times. Whatever you think,


and he's still Chief Whip, he has never committed the ultimate faux


pas, being dull! Will his reforms really last?


The teaching unions don't always reflect the views of their members,


but when it came to Michael Gove, the former Education Secretary, they


did. In general teachers wanted rid of him, and today they got their


wish. He's not even a Secretary of State any more. A lot of teachers


have been celebrating today. So this reshuffle will be seen as wane for


the educationalists who oppose Mr Gove's reform, often bbed "the


blob". Should they be celebrating? Let's see what he Z his first move


was the introduction of converter academies, more than half of


secondary schools took part in the programme. It meant for those


schools instead of being funded by and overseen by local authorities,


they were instead directly answerable to the Department for


Education. They also got a lot more freedom over their teachers' pay and


the curriculum, that gave them the ability to depart from national


norms when it came to hiring and what they chose to teach.


The second of his big policies was the introduction of so called free


school, he introduced a presumption that new schools should be opened by


private groups, rather than by local authorities. The idea was that


rather than having the same old people running schools, you will get


dynamism and choice and competition by allowing new providers into the


schools' market place. Michael Gove also tried to reform what was being


taught inside schools, he tweaked the cirriculum to put more emphasis


on knowledge and less on skills. He changed the structure of exams so


there was less course work and more so called linear exams, that is old


fashioned exams at the end of the course. Many of the ideas are long


in the tooth. For the last four years in education it has been a


period of enormous change, many of the changes are changes that are


really accelrate rating change -- accelerating change and processes


already in place, especially new types of schools, academies,


converters and free schools, moving power to schools. Not only did Mr


Gove's opponents fail to stop the reform which is have weakened local


authorities and union, but they have been losing for decades. One novelty


is in his hurry Mr Gove accrued a lot of power to the Department for


Education. Perhaps the contradictions, public and private,


have become overwhelming. Public in terms of preaching that there should


be complete autonomy for schools, and then imposing from the


department and other agencies absolute direction from the centre


personally, because when you talk to him in private he's both charming


and prepared to listen. But in public he appears beligerant and


unprepared to listen. It seems that the oversight of schools will change


in the coming years, but there is no support for less school autonomy,


and high-content curriculums are current teaching fashion. A recent


poll found he was the Tory politician most disliked by members


of the public. Perhaps his approach to people who disagree with him is


something to do with it. What I can tell you is that outstanding


teachers and outstanding head teachers are I find overwhelmily in


favour of what we are doing. It is the bad ones that don't get it? Yes.


Maybe he needs to learn that even if you are winning against the blob,


you didn't do everything alone. We did invite the Government's new


Chief Whip and the man David Cameron says has an enhanced role doing


broadcast interviews, to come on Newsnight again, for a broadcast


interview tonight, he was unavailable, nor was any other


Conservative cabinet minister able to come on. Rather than leave the


chair empty, fortunately Labour's Shadow educational secretary is


here. Were you shocked that your opposite number was out? I got the


sense that the Education Secretary had rather run out of road in recent


months. What we saw was David Cameron realising what pupils and


parents and teachers have realised is that Government education policy


is damaging school standard. So whether it was unqualified teachers,


whether it was taking money from the schools' budget for free schools.


Whether it was downgrading technical and vocational skills, all of this


was affecting the Government popularity and finally the Prime


Minister acted. It was really his very public spat with Theresa May


and politicking around Take That got rid of him? That played a part, but


also what we need to realise tonight and my message tonight is the


architect might have gone but the ideology remains n terms of an


atomised schools system, and focus on unqualified teachers the


classroom. All of these things remain Government policy even with


Michael Gove moving on. Most of them in their origin were actually new


Labour ideas? The academy programme was a new Labour programme, school


autonomy was a new Labour programme. When Michael Gove built on those


issues in the early years was fine. We are only in year four? You saw in


the last interview, maybe it is what happens to a Secretary of State, but


he became more ideolgical and antagonistic and more devisive, we


didn't take the teaching profession with him. If you want real


sustainable change over time, the people delivering that in the


classroom are the teachers f you antagonise them so much you won't be


able to make the changes you want, whether knowledge-rich curriculum or


linear exams or the other elements. For teachers and parents watching up


and down the country, it is really about the changes he wanted to make,


not whether or not he wound people up with how he made them. You said


yourself in certain situations his reforms build rather successfully on


Labour Party policy? I think there is now a growing consensus about the


need for autonomous schools, strong leadership. Where we differ from the


Government is we think schools should be co-operating, challenging


and partnering each other. We have a Government that likes to think of


schools in isolation. We saw the results of that law in Birmingham FA


want to think about a symbol of results of that law in Birmingham FA


atomised, fragmented education system, you have to look at


atomised, fragmented education events in Birmingham. The big


principles and the reasons why some people might think about choosing


Labour rather than voting Conservative, is because they didn't


like the sound of what Michael Gove was doing. In fact, you would not


get rid of existing free schools, you support performance-related pay


that is one of the things so contentious with the unions. On the


big principles you agree? The biggest difference between us is we


know that the most important element in a young person's education is the


quality of teaching. In this Government we have focus on


relentless structural reform, as if changing the name of a school to a


free school or academy does the job, it doesn't. The most important


element is improving the teaching and leadership in the school. That


is a big policy difference. This Government has let more and more


unqualified teachers into our classrooms. It has downgraded the


teaching profession and the best education systems around the world


has have qualified masters level teachers. You know the vast majority


of teachers in classm radios right now, in new schools as a product of


Michael Gove's reforms are still qualified teachers, and the


important point for our viewers and parents around the country tonight,


would you not get rid of existing free schools and you support


performance-related pay, the things that Michael Gove had such trouble


convincing the teaching profession of, and you wouldn't get rid of


either of those things? We are not interested in simply change for


change's sake. We see a lot of grandstanding and party politicking.


We will keep the reforms that are sensible, we won't throw things up


in terms of curriculum. We will focus crucially on the forgotten 50%


of young people who want to pursue technical and vocational pathways.


We will focus on teacher quality and rebuild local oversight and


accountability. Thank you very much for coming in. To discuss the events


of the day, not just Michael Gove's departure is my guest, a columnist


for the Times and the Guardian are both here. Thank you for coming in.


You made it your stock and trade to know what is really going on in the


Conservative minds. What really happened with Michael Gove, was he


shoved out uncermoniously, he's going around saying he's pleased


with his new job, are we to believe him? He didn't want to go and leave


this position. But the Conservative Party has admired what Michael Gove


has tried to do. He has been perhaps one of the great education reformers


of the in the post-war years. He has tried to tackle the fact that the


British taxpayer puts more and more money into education and hasn't been


keeping one the rest of the world. His reforms matter. Sometimes the


person building the house or invents the product is not the best person


to sell that product. And Linton Crosby, the Australian adviser to


the Prime Minister saw the opinion polls and this was not a popular


Education Secretary. If you are going to win an election you can't


have an Education Secretary that seems to be antagonising, not just


teachers but parents as well. The mums in particular, the women who


haven't always supported the Conservative Party. And Nicky Morgan


is the David Cameron choice not to unwind the Michael Gove reforms but


to sell them. Does Nicky Morgan believe in the reform, some unkindly


have suggested she doesn't believe in very much, smart, efficient and


pragmatic, can you tell us what she believes in? I think she's someone


who on the gay marriage issue she took a different position, she


opposed it and stood up to David Cameron, she wasn't just someone who


agrees with what the Prime Minister wants. She as an independent


thinker, but crucially will Gove's reforms survive? Look at the junior


ministers, Nick Gibb and others they are people who believe in reforms,


there is no great retreat. Polly what do you make of it? Jo I think


it is worth pausing for a moment for observers and commentators to think


how hellish political life is. You get to the top of the tree and get


stuck into something you care about passionately and suddenly you are


yanked out and gone forever. It happened to Andrew Lansley. It is a


better business. Is this you showing sympathy for Michael Gove? Yes, I


feel sympathy for politicians, I think sometimes as comment it aors


-- commentators, we say what we think about them, they come and go.


It is a rough, rough trade, in that sense I feel sorry for him. He said


it was a great wrench. On the other hand I think, as Tim was suggesting


i think he really had to go. Here is man who will pick a fight with


himself if you put him in an empty room. Partly because he was a


commentator at one time. Part of his job is to debate. He sees everything


in ideolgical terms, whatever the debate he is on one side and you are


on the other. He doesn't bring anyone along with him. What else


does the reshuffle bring, do you think this will fundamentally


reshape what the Government looks like and what the Conservative looks


like in the public mind or not really? Not radically, I think there


is two things that matter, the Conservative Party has moved in a


euro-sceptic direction, we have a Foreign Secretary who is prepared to


countenance leaving the European Union. That is new. This is another


ratchet to the Conservative Party moving in that way. The euro-sceptic


move is huge, if you think who we have lost, we have lost the


moderate, sensible wise heads, we have lost Keneth Clarke, Dominic


Grieve, Damien Green, the people who understand why Europe works and why


it matters to us. Instead we have a lot of much more abrasive, young


people who have been chosen by Conservative Parties who are deeply


euro-sceptic. This is a real shift towards Euro-scepticism. It may be


euro-sceptic for the Guardian but not the population. The Conservative


Party is in touch more with the public than it has ever been. I


don't think so, because when people are asked what they care about


Europe is right down the list? But they care about immigration and


issues that can only be solved. David Cameron was right saying we


mustn't bang on about it, we are in danger of having both sides banging


on. You said there was one other thing we should take note of?


Everyone is looking at the coming together from women in the party,


but it is Tories from a more modest background, it is the son of a


milkman, or the son of a single mother. That is the big problem, not


the gender problem, it is the sense that the Tories are the party of the


rich. It is only two more women and 2011 figures, it looks pretty much


the same, I doubt if it will make a huge amount of presentation or


difference. Poetry or paintings, the work of war artists can bring light


to the gloryies and horrors of war. When the grand exhibition halls of


the imperial war museum open in a couple of days after a major


renovation, with the stories of the first and Second World Wars, we will


be joined by a new tail, the British artist documenting the life of the


modern military. As an artist I work at the


intersection of art and documentary, engaging with working communities


facing difficult circumstances. I'm interested in exploring the social


function of art and asking one central question. How can films and


photographs impact upon the real world? In 2010 I was awarded a


two-month commission to work as a war artist in Helmand, Afghanistan.


It was commissioned by imperial war museum, and First Sight an arts


organisation. I was hosted by 16 air afault brigade, the largest in the


British Army, otherwise known as the Paras. It had never really occurred


to me to take work in the warzone before. It was inexperience that


changed my life in a very profound way. When the invitation to go to


Afghanistan came, it suddenly seemed relevant to my life and my


grandfather's life, I became very curious. My grandfather was captain


of a ship during World War II. He came back from four years at sea


suffering from what I now recognise as PTSD. After the war he took a lot


of amateur photographs, his perspective on life seemed to be


about lens. When I decided to make the commission, I wanted to move


away from the conventions of ne coverage that made us immune to feel


anything new about what is happening in Afghanistan.


In preparation to go to Helmand I attended a three-day course, a death


by power point, which retrospectively left me cold


thinking about living in a warzone. It became apparent, unlike previous


projects that allowed me an extraordinary collaboration with


local communities, it would not be possible in Helmand. The work talks


about this unspanable gulf. My desire to make work that gave the


locals a voice was frustrated on every level. This piece, Bolan


Market was filmed in an area previously part of Taliban-occupied


territory. It began to flourish under ISIS force, but there is a


complex relationship between the local population and the British


soldiers. I asked if I could get out of the tank and film. We were told


by the command I would be killed orchid napped within 20 minutes.


Whilst some of the locals are apparently untroubled by our


prosession, others are obviously feeling disturbed or angered by the


presence of the camera or tank. Which for some might be seeing a


spaceship land in Corby. I left the film mute in an attempt to


communicate the feel Iing had about being trapped in silent nightmare.


Before I left for Afghanistan I made backdrops for my work, based upon


images from previous conflicts. I chose paintings and photographs that


have a strong resonance or emotional charge, and make a blunt telescopic


connection between the past and what is happening today. How many times


have the Brits gone to war in Afghanistan, and has it ever worked


out well, for anyone In Helmand the patrols would last two or three


hours and often frightening, I was shot at. On one occasion there was a


massive explosion after two soldiers stepped on an improvised explosive


device, one lost his legs and the other blinded. During my time in


Helmand the soldiers were closing limbs every day, but these injuries


go largely unreported. The experience was profoundly affecting.


At first when I returned to the UK I felt invincible, everything to do


with life here seemed banal and meaningless, e-mails, supermarkets,


paying bills. I felt I no longer had any re connection to who I was


before I went to hell moneyed, and I have had -- Helmand, and I have had


to remain embedded and carry the work alone until the public dissell


nation three years later. I think validation of one's work, be it as


an artist or photo correspondent is healthy for readjustment to healthy


civilian life. I wish on reflection I hadn't gone to Helmand, sending an


artist is a compolitician and moral responsibility. Making people work


under those conditions is life-changing. It is removed from


the pristine experience of viewing art in a museum, or the academic


experience of curating an exhibition. Aside from the military,


so few of us know what it really means to be involved in a tour of


duty. I was niave in my imagining of it and so were those who sent me.


That's it for tonight, we leave you with the German World Cup team as


they brought that trophy back to Berlin today to an incredible


reception. They are probably still singing now at the Brandenburg


Gates, they were found chant ago few English fans favourites, what is the


opposite of schadenfreude?! Good night.


# It's coming home, it's coming home # It's coming,


# Football's coming home # It's coming home


# Football's coming home # It's coming home


# Football's coming home # It's coming home, it's coming home


# It's coming football's coming home.


# Three lions on a shirt # Jewels


#30 years of hurt Early risers in Northern Ireland




Download Subtitles