:00:07. > :00:10.politicians have been falling over each other to denounce celebrities
:00:11. > :00:15.who invested in tax avoidance schemes. Some of these aggressive
:00:16. > :00:19.anti-avoidance schemes that may not be illegal are morally questionable,
:00:20. > :00:24.I think it is right for politicians not only to make that point, but
:00:25. > :00:28.frankly to go after some of these aggressive avoidance schemes. So it
:00:29. > :00:31.may be more than a little embarrassing to discover that
:00:32. > :00:35.amongst the investors in one vehicle, now deemed by the revenue
:00:36. > :00:41.to be a tax avoidance scheme is one of their own, former Tory cabinet
:00:42. > :00:46.minister, Andrew Mitchell. The police have announced the arrest of
:00:47. > :00:55.650 paedophiles from all walks of life across the UK after a target on
:00:56. > :00:59.on-line activity. Is this too big a problem to arrest our way out of it.
:01:00. > :01:01.People on the Internet should realise that policing across the
:01:02. > :01:05.country and the National Crime Agency is able to see and detect you
:01:06. > :01:09.when you step out of line and break the law. Living sculptures and
:01:10. > :01:16.national treasure sure, Gilbert George have a crack with Steve Smith
:01:17. > :01:28.over their show inspired by nitrous oxide, aka laughing gas! .
:01:29. > :01:33.Good evening, it has been a bumpy couple of years for former Tory
:01:34. > :01:37.cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell. There was the controversial run in
:01:38. > :01:42.with the Downing Street policeman, followed by a long battle to clear
:01:43. > :01:45.his name. Now it seems Mr Mitchell could face more turbulence.
:01:46. > :01:49.Newsnight has learned he was among the investors in a film fund which
:01:50. > :01:55.the revenue has teamed a tax avoidance scheme, and the tax man
:01:56. > :02:00.wants the money back. It is real simple... . Everyone
:02:01. > :02:05.wants to be in the movies, even Andrew Mitchell, the former
:02:06. > :02:09.Government Chief Whip, he's best known for having resigned from the
:02:10. > :02:12.Government in October 2012 over a bizarre argument with some Downing
:02:13. > :02:19.Street policemen, a process that has left him embroilled in high-profile
:02:20. > :02:23.legal proceedings. But back in the mid-2000s in the Shadow Cabinet he
:02:24. > :02:28.put money into a high-profile film financing company, now best known
:02:29. > :02:32.for backing Avatar, the blockbuster. However, this week HMRC, the tax
:02:33. > :02:37.collectors controversially deemed that what he and his fellow
:02:38. > :02:43.investors had actually done was to take part in a tax avoidance scheme.
:02:44. > :02:51.Mr Mitchell invested in the company called Ingenious Film Parters II, it
:02:52. > :02:55.was a vehicle to encourage people to invest in British film. According to
:02:56. > :02:59.the revenue it was a company designed to generate tax reliefs for
:03:00. > :03:06.its investors. The way that the company works is a bit complex. So
:03:07. > :03:10.say an investor put in the minimum ?36,000, if they did that the
:03:11. > :03:15.company would then loan them ?64,000 to invest, taking their total stake
:03:16. > :03:19.up to ?100,000. That would then be used to buy shares in film
:03:20. > :03:26.production, which, in their first year ran a roughly ?90,000 trading
:03:27. > :03:30.loss. Investors could choose to write that off for tax purposes.
:03:31. > :03:35.What does that mean? Well they put in ?36,000 in cash and they get back
:03:36. > :03:42.roughly ?36,000 in tax relief very fast. And, now they own a ?100,000
:03:43. > :03:46.stake in a group of films, so long as the films make enough money to
:03:47. > :03:53.service the debt, the company's structure allows people to invest
:03:54. > :03:59.without looking up a lot of their own cash. Now serious films get
:04:00. > :04:11.financed like this. The company backed X Men: The Last Stand, along
:04:12. > :04:17.with some rather less grand names, Garfield, and... . Virgin
:04:18. > :04:21.Territories. Furthermore the income received from these films is, of
:04:22. > :04:25.course, taxed. Ingenious says its schemes have generated ?1 billion of
:04:26. > :04:51.such income. It continued: A tax tribunal called at the
:04:52. > :04:56.company's question is scheduled for November, they remain confident of
:04:57. > :05:01.the outcome. There are three big reasons why it has broader
:05:02. > :05:05.implications. The first was it was company is run by
:05:06. > :05:08.implications. The first was it was man who has advised the Labour Party
:05:09. > :05:12.on tax and some of its other man who has advised the Labour Party
:05:13. > :05:17.investors include Lord Grade a former chairman of the BBC, and Lord
:05:18. > :05:21.Waldegrave a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. What may be about
:05:22. > :05:24.to happen could be deeply embarrassing for the three
:05:25. > :05:30.politician, as well as potentially expensive. They may be the first
:05:31. > :05:37.politicians to be caught in HMRC's tax drag net and anti-avoidance
:05:38. > :05:41.crusade. It has become a statement of political speeches. Some of these
:05:42. > :05:48.aggressive anti-avoidance schemes that may not be illegal are morally
:05:49. > :05:53.questionable. I regard tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance as
:05:54. > :05:58.morally repugnant. So HMRC has been given more resources to tackle
:05:59. > :06:02.avoidance, more powers and selected more targets. Practices that HMRC
:06:03. > :06:06.wouldn't worry about in previous years are now in their sights. We
:06:07. > :06:09.asked these investors how much they put in, how much they might need to
:06:10. > :06:14.pay back or whether they had already set welled HMRC. Mr Mitchell said,
:06:15. > :06:18.when the last Labour Government introduced tax incentives to invest
:06:19. > :06:23.in the British film industry, along with many other investors I did so
:06:24. > :06:29.through ingenious Film, he resigned from the company in -- I resigned
:06:30. > :06:33.from the film when in Government and paid all tax due. The other two said
:06:34. > :06:37.than I tension was to invest in British film. The second reason why
:06:38. > :06:41.there is a broader interest, is investors in the company may be
:06:42. > :06:49.among the first people to receive accelerated payment notices. That
:06:50. > :06:52.means HMRC, the tax inspectors can send them letters for the tax they
:06:53. > :06:56.should have been paying without going to court. This new process has
:06:57. > :07:02.been attacked as draconian, it adds new terror to investing in a scheme
:07:03. > :07:05.that HMRC might question. The company was identified as a
:07:06. > :07:10.candidate for this process earlier this week. It is one of 1,200
:07:11. > :07:14.schemes that are being primed for it. The law that allows it is
:07:15. > :07:20.expected to get Royal Assent and letters to start going out this
:07:21. > :07:24.week. The third issue is that pursuing alleged tax avoidance can
:07:25. > :07:30.cause political difficulty. The drag net of 1,200 schemes is catching
:07:31. > :07:35.people who can ill afford to repay their taxes, and are now angered
:07:36. > :07:39.that HMRC calls their long standing business arrangements tax avoidance
:07:40. > :07:44.schemes. There is no appeal process, if you receive a notice you must
:07:45. > :07:48.take advice immediately, do not ignore it. Many people that receive
:07:49. > :07:53.notices will probably come out of the blue and many of those people
:07:54. > :07:56.will probably have been mis-sold the schemes in the first place. If
:07:57. > :08:01.anybody feels they have been given bad advice or mis-sold by the
:08:02. > :08:04.advisers they ha chosen that is something they have to take up with
:08:05. > :08:09.the proper authorities. It is not a reason why they shouldn't pay the
:08:10. > :08:14.tax that they owe. HMRC will of course still need to win cases in
:08:15. > :08:18.court, even if they need to pay up soon, Ingenious investors will get
:08:19. > :08:24.their money back if they can triumph there. In the short-term Mr Mitchell
:08:25. > :08:29.and tens of thousands of others may be waiting for a letter from the
:08:30. > :08:32.taxma How damaging is this for the
:08:33. > :08:36.Conservatives? Leaving aside the case of Andrew Mitchell this agenda
:08:37. > :08:41.is something the Conservatives do really care about. You have seen
:08:42. > :08:44.Daniel Alexander, a Lib Dem announce action in this area. But George
:08:45. > :08:48.Osborne and David Cameron pile in behind him because if they want to
:08:49. > :08:53.be able to get tough on those less well off in society, as they have
:08:54. > :08:56.been, ?80 billion in welfare cuts this parliament, they also they
:08:57. > :09:01.believe have to have an agenda on those on the top. That is why they
:09:02. > :09:03.want to be stuck like fly paper to the Liberal Democrats on this
:09:04. > :09:08.agenda, they wouldn't want to be priced apart from it. You have more
:09:09. > :09:11.tonight on the whole welfare issue? Now we have the reshuffle out of the
:09:12. > :09:14.way, we will now have the politics of the manifestos and what ideas
:09:15. > :09:18.will go into their respective manifestos and George Osborne has
:09:19. > :09:21.already told us that he will want to find ?12 billion of welfare cuts for
:09:22. > :09:24.the next two years in the next parliament, and the Lib Dems have
:09:25. > :09:28.already said they don't agree with that, what we will get in the next
:09:29. > :09:33.few months is chatter and fact about how the Tories think they can get
:09:34. > :09:37.there. One idea that is very sensitive is how much child benefit
:09:38. > :09:41.should be dispersed, I know Labour people who think it is completely
:09:42. > :09:44.untenable the situation we have at the moment where every child, every
:09:45. > :09:48.other child you have you get more money. What had been bubbling around
:09:49. > :09:53.was the idea that it would be limited to two children and the
:09:54. > :09:59.Welfare Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith is very keen on this idea. From my
:10:00. > :10:02.calls today seems the Treasury is very nervous about this idea. What
:10:03. > :10:06.is published tomorrow, which perhaps makes this more interesting is an
:10:07. > :10:09.idea by the think-tank, Policy Exchange, is that you would limit it
:10:10. > :10:13.to four children and taper it after two. What is interesting is perhaps
:10:14. > :10:17.it is the way that George Osborne could embrace the idea and bring in
:10:18. > :10:20.some kind of change on child benefit that isn't, dare I say it, something
:10:21. > :10:25.that would really horrify people in the swing seats. Horrify people
:10:26. > :10:29.because of the social engineering nature to it as well? There is many
:10:30. > :10:35.more families that have two children to state the obvious than have three
:10:36. > :10:39.or four. Numerically, so you can see families with two children who might
:10:40. > :10:43.see that policy and think oh my gosh I won't vote Conservative, where as
:10:44. > :10:50.families of four there are few of them that will be affected. There is
:10:51. > :10:54.another political story? The Mirror has a story that Clegg is about to
:10:55. > :10:57.ditch the bedroom tax, I'm looking into it and we will talk about that
:10:58. > :11:01.later. Doctors, teachers a social services
:11:02. > :11:05.worker a scout leader, even former police officers, as a result of an
:11:06. > :11:09.unprecedented investigation for the National Crime Agency into on-line
:11:10. > :11:12.paedophilia, today the police announced that more than 650
:11:13. > :11:16.suspected paedophiles had been arrested in a six-month
:11:17. > :11:22.investigation, and as a result 430 children have been protected. But
:11:23. > :11:25.the secretary for the children's s charities coalition for internet
:11:26. > :11:30.safety said the police alone can't cope with the problem, the volume of
:11:31. > :11:34.images is too large. We will be debating on how to get to grips with
:11:35. > :11:36.the criminality on an internet that is constantly mutating. First we
:11:37. > :11:42.have this. The doctor with a million images of
:11:43. > :11:46.abuse on his hard drive, the pensioner with 17 grandchildren, the
:11:47. > :11:50.foster carer with no previous convictions, all arrested as part of
:11:51. > :11:55.a six-month police investigation. There is no part of the internet
:11:56. > :11:59.that is inpenetrable to us. Anybody who is listening to this programme
:12:00. > :12:02.who offends on the Internet should realise the policing across the
:12:03. > :12:05.country and the National Crime Agency is able to see you and detect
:12:06. > :12:10.you when you stand out of line and break the law. If you break the law
:12:11. > :12:14.we will come after you. That operation involved all 45
:12:15. > :12:20.police force, leading to 660 arrests. Just 39 of those held were
:12:21. > :12:25.on the Sex Offenders Register. 431 children were removed, including 127
:12:26. > :12:31.identified as being at serious risk of harm. It is the job of the
:12:32. > :12:35.Internet Watch Foundation to investigate reports of child abuse
:12:36. > :12:39.images and pass that information to the police. This image here was an
:12:40. > :12:43.example of some of the image that is we have. It has been very heavily
:12:44. > :12:47.pick sellated, because obviously it is a criminal offence to look at
:12:48. > :12:50.images, it is a child we assess to be between seven and ten years old.
:12:51. > :12:55.They are actually tied up, so they are bound. It is a sadistic image,
:12:56. > :13:00.so it is one of the worst types of images that you will see. The number
:13:01. > :13:05.of images like this, seen by the analyst here has doubled since the
:13:06. > :13:08.charity was formed in 2007. We now are 12 analysts and they are
:13:09. > :13:11.occupied full-time, they are occupied doing work looking at
:13:12. > :13:14.content that is on in the public domain on the open internet. What
:13:15. > :13:19.they do know, because they are specialists in this is the majority
:13:20. > :13:22.of the images that we see are all duplicate, so they see the same
:13:23. > :13:26.children again and again and again, and a series of images around the
:13:27. > :13:31.same children. So they do know when they see new images and they are
:13:32. > :13:35.seeing increasing numbers of new images and new children. The
:13:36. > :13:39.National Crime Agency was set up to deal with organised crime, it will
:13:40. > :13:43.not reveal the exact tactics used in this latest operation, but they are
:13:44. > :13:47.likely to be far less dramatic than these scenes. We do know officers
:13:48. > :13:50.received training from the Los Angeles police department, seen here
:13:51. > :13:53.using software that tracks in real time people downloading and swapping
:13:54. > :13:58.abuse images. time people downloading and swapping
:13:59. > :14:02.keen to talk up the scale of this operation, calling it the largest of
:14:03. > :14:07.its type across the UK. Now that may be true up to a point, but ten years
:14:08. > :14:11.ago another similar investigation into child sex abuse led to
:14:12. > :14:18.five-times as many arrests and almost 2,000 convictions. The actor
:14:19. > :14:23.Chris Langham was the most high-profile conviction as part of
:14:24. > :14:27.Operation Orr, police were passed details of 7,000 UK subscribers to a
:14:28. > :14:31.US porn site found to be hosting some child abuse images. It became
:14:32. > :14:37.clear not everyone involved were guilty, some were accessing only
:14:38. > :14:42.adult pornography, others were the victims of credit card fraud. The
:14:43. > :14:44.impact on them and their families was devastating. Several people
:14:45. > :14:47.committed suicide and a number of people were so overwhelmed by it
:14:48. > :14:55.they didn't know what to do and before they had proper legal advice
:14:56. > :14:59.they accepted a police caution as being the better thing to do to get
:15:00. > :15:02.over it and get on with their lives. Police say they have learned from
:15:03. > :15:07.the operation and the tactics used today are far more sophisticated. We
:15:08. > :15:13.have a capability now that is well ahead of what it was a few years
:15:14. > :15:16.ago, I'm confident the people we have identified today we will see
:15:17. > :15:19.with the evidence presented appropriately and a high conviction
:15:20. > :15:22.rate. There is another question here rarely asked, what evidence is there
:15:23. > :15:28.that viewing images on a computer can lead to physical abuse in the
:15:29. > :15:33.real world. Here the evidence is inconclusive, one academic called it
:15:34. > :15:38.the million dollar question. A 2009 study from the US found 85% of
:15:39. > :15:42.on-line offenders had admitted to physical abuse. Another from the
:15:43. > :15:47.same year found the level can be as low as 3%. Some of these men are
:15:48. > :15:50.immediately directly dangerous to children, in my experience the
:15:51. > :15:54.majority are not. Whatever the explanation for their behaviour, and
:15:55. > :15:58.there will be many, including their excessive use of pornography,
:15:59. > :16:02.perhaps. But I have met many internet offenders who are actually
:16:03. > :16:06.very good fathers, and who are very good workers, good husbands, there
:16:07. > :16:10.are aspects of their lives of course that needs to be accounted for. We
:16:11. > :16:13.mustn't stopped them being able to be good fathers or good husband, we
:16:14. > :16:17.need to hold them accountable and help them learn new patterns of
:16:18. > :16:20.living to make sure their on-line life is far better than it has been
:16:21. > :16:23.in the past. That view may be controversial to
:16:24. > :16:27.many, just as the police are learning how to deal with this
:16:28. > :16:31.problem, so we as a society might have to ask some hard questions
:16:32. > :16:38.about the extent of on-line abuse and how we deal with it. With me now
:16:39. > :16:45.is Jim Gamble the former chief executive of see on, the police
:16:46. > :16:49.branch dedicated to on-line protection, he oversaw Operation
:16:50. > :16:53.Orr, the largest UK crime investigation with thousands
:16:54. > :16:59.targeted for on-line images of child abuse, also here is Professor
:17:00. > :17:05.Richard Wortley, head of UCL's Department of Security and crime.
:17:06. > :17:09.Jim Gamble how different is the Internet from when you were using
:17:10. > :17:12.Operation Orr? The Internet has developed, in the case of the
:17:13. > :17:17.operation people went on-line, engaged with the site, made a
:17:18. > :17:19.payment using the credit card and received a password which helped
:17:20. > :17:24.evidence that they had been there, and they went on-line using their
:17:25. > :17:29.computer and very often their IP address. Those tactics were when the
:17:30. > :17:34.Internet was for buying something on it. You don't need to do that. I
:17:35. > :17:38.totally dispute about what was said about it being discredited, people
:17:39. > :17:43.did take their own lives, but there was no evidence of widespread fraud
:17:44. > :17:50.or we attempted tom prosecute those on adult pornography sites, we
:17:51. > :17:54.differentiated. Of course people can access on-line child abuse on the
:17:55. > :18:00.open web, what is different is the development of the dark web and the
:18:01. > :18:09.cloud and so forth, which makes this stuff much harder to access? I was
:18:10. > :18:14.in CEOP until 2011, in 2009 we identified that the overwhelming
:18:15. > :18:17.images were being swapped in nests on the Internet, peer-to-peer
:18:18. > :18:22.website where is I would show you mine and you would show me yours,
:18:23. > :18:26.that was not gotten through Google. Now you make a definite effort to
:18:27. > :18:31.get in there and stay in there? It is a community of paedophiles that
:18:32. > :18:37.huddle together and share images. The NCA deputy said we can't arrest
:18:38. > :18:43.our way out of this. So do you think there is a quantifiable difference
:18:44. > :18:47.in looking at this stuff and actually those who will actually go
:18:48. > :18:54.out and actively commit child abuse, is it different? The overlap between
:18:55. > :19:00.accessing on-line abuse images and committing a contact offence is very
:19:01. > :19:04.controversial and some figures were just presented. An average that is
:19:05. > :19:10.often used in the literature is about 12% overlap. I think the point
:19:11. > :19:17.to make about people who access images on the Internet is they are
:19:18. > :19:22.not a homogenius group, they span an entire spectrum. Certainly at the
:19:23. > :19:27.extreme end they involve people who are extremely deviant, extremely
:19:28. > :19:32.predatory and go to a lot of effort to access these images. It extends
:19:33. > :19:36.into the normal curve, if you like. When you say the normal curve, you
:19:37. > :19:40.actually think the normal curve is people viewing this stuff on-line,
:19:41. > :19:43.but not actively going out and committing acts of child abuse? I
:19:44. > :19:48.think probably we don't know for sure, but I think common sense would
:19:49. > :19:54.suggest that the majority of people who access images on the net aren't
:19:55. > :19:59.involved in contact offending. I would dispute that, my experience
:20:00. > :20:05.and the work that I'm familiar with carried out by the head of
:20:06. > :20:08.behavioural analysis unit in the United States would indicate when
:20:09. > :20:12.they use the lie detector to test that the vast majority of those
:20:13. > :20:15.arrested for viewing offences have been involved in contact doing
:20:16. > :20:20.offences, there is a recent study that backs up his 2008 study came
:20:21. > :20:23.out in February this year which shows across five different
:20:24. > :20:29.agencies, so not linked to one study, that between 57-61% were
:20:30. > :20:34.doing it, not only hands-on offences but they were able to identify 97
:20:35. > :20:38.victims by name and location. That would suggest that actually the
:20:39. > :20:41.majority of people accessing child porn on-line are dangerous? I think
:20:42. > :20:47.there is lots of problems with that figure, in 1980 before the Internet
:20:48. > :20:51.the largest-selling child pornography magazine in the US had
:20:52. > :20:57.about 800 subscribers, 20 years later we had 370,000 subscribers on
:20:58. > :21:00.one site. What has happened and now we estimate the number of people
:21:01. > :21:05.accessing images on the net in the millions. But you are not seriously
:21:06. > :21:10.suggesting that there is some kind of normative behaviour in accessing
:21:11. > :21:14.child porn, surely nobody would think that to be the case? There has
:21:15. > :21:17.been a massive increase in on-line offending, at the same time when the
:21:18. > :21:20.best evidence we have shows there has been a drop in contact
:21:21. > :21:25.offending, what's happened in the 20 or 30 years since 1980 we haven't
:21:26. > :21:30.suddenly created a million new paedophile, what we have provided is
:21:31. > :21:34.platform that provides unparalleled access to abuse images. It seems
:21:35. > :21:37.certain people want to access those, what you seem to be suggesting is
:21:38. > :21:41.that is it is a completely passive thing, you access this stuff and
:21:42. > :21:46.then nothing happens, is that your thoughts? No the people who access
:21:47. > :21:51.this stuff access it to masturbate, it is about sexual deafence, people
:21:52. > :21:54.who have a precondition, a deviant sexual interest in children, that is
:21:55. > :22:01.why they go there. If we are going to look at statistics from the past,
:22:02. > :22:04.consider Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and Max Clifford, because we didn't
:22:05. > :22:09.know doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We shouldn't use language leading us
:22:10. > :22:14.into anti-victim prejudice, a lot of people want to dismiss victims. That
:22:15. > :22:17.is not my experience. If we want to make impact, you seem to suggest
:22:18. > :22:21.there is a burgeoning culture of people looking at on-line child
:22:22. > :22:25.abuse, the police say they can't arrest their way out of it, what is
:22:26. > :22:28.to do? These arrests are absolutely defendable and should have taken
:22:29. > :22:33.place and they do serve a purpose, and the purpose they serve is
:22:34. > :22:36.actually mentioned by some of your commentators they demonstrate that
:22:37. > :22:40.the Internet is not as anonymous as offenders think it is. It is the
:22:41. > :22:44.anonymity of the internet, the ease of access of the images that is
:22:45. > :22:49.driving the behaviour. But, also, ease of access of the image the fact
:22:50. > :22:52.is somebody looking at child porn is actively supporting a culture where
:22:53. > :22:58.children on-line are being abused? No question. So who cracks down
:22:59. > :23:00.where then? I think there is not one answer to that, but we certainly
:23:01. > :23:04.have to look at prevention. We can't answer to that, but we certainly
:23:05. > :23:09.arrest our way out of it but arrests can provide a message to offend that
:23:10. > :23:13.they are not anonymous. The problem has occurred because of the ease of
:23:14. > :23:19.accessing images and the solution is to make it more difficult to access
:23:20. > :23:23.images. I disagree, blocking, we're past a sell by date of blocking, you
:23:24. > :23:26.don't get the images on the open internet but on the Dark Net. You
:23:27. > :23:30.can't arrest everybody? You can't arrest everyone, but we need to
:23:31. > :23:34.arrest someone, the fact of the matter we know 50,000 plus people in
:23:35. > :23:39.the UK have been downloading these images, if we were to arrest 660
:23:40. > :23:43.people a day for the next 75 days we could catch up. If the 660 people
:23:44. > :23:47.had been terrorists it wouldn't take six months to deliver this. We need
:23:48. > :23:52.to declare a war on paedophilia and use all of the resources open,
:23:53. > :23:56.greater investment in acedemia, we need more doors knocked and they
:23:57. > :23:59.need to go speedily from arrest to court to decide innocent or guilty
:24:00. > :24:03.and set an active deterrent, the way we did with drink-driving, they
:24:04. > :24:08.didn't stop because of the adverts they stopped because they realised
:24:09. > :24:12.the chances of getting caught increased radically and there was a
:24:13. > :24:19.stigma attached to it. A war on feed fila? -- paedophilia? Not in the way
:24:20. > :24:23.Jim talks about it, there are things to do to make it more difficult to
:24:24. > :24:27.access images. Nothing will be perfect, you have to make it more
:24:28. > :24:30.difficult, that doesn't mean to say make it impossible. One of the
:24:31. > :24:37.problems with the overlap figure, all of that research is carried out
:24:38. > :24:40.on convicted and in most cases imprisoned offenders. As we learned
:24:41. > :24:44.with this case, police will target the most serious offenders and they
:24:45. > :24:48.should be targeting the most serious offenders but it gives you a
:24:49. > :24:51.distorted picture when you take this very extreme group that you have
:24:52. > :24:56.targeted and arrested and then ask them about their behaviour. There
:24:57. > :25:03.are many people on the Internet who fly under the radar and believe me
:25:04. > :25:07.are not involved in contact offending. I couldn't disagree more,
:25:08. > :25:09.the question for members of the public watching this is if you
:25:10. > :25:12.seriously believe that people go on-line and look at these images
:25:13. > :25:16.that aren't driven sexually the question for you is would you allow
:25:17. > :25:19.them to babysit for your children, the answer will be no, and nobody
:25:20. > :25:22.will be suggesting that we do. The Government need to invest greater
:25:23. > :25:26.resources so we have more of these individuals arrested and put behind
:25:27. > :25:30.bars, that is deterrent. Ahead of Friday's House of Lords
:25:31. > :25:34.debate on assisted dying, we have heard the conflicting voices of
:25:35. > :25:41.senior church leaders, including the former Archbishop of Canterbury,
:25:42. > :25:45.Lord Carey, who is in favour, and Justin Welsby who is against. What
:25:46. > :25:50.about the medical profession, where do they stand on the bill if passed
:25:51. > :25:56.in its present form could see them prescribing a lethal dose of drugs
:25:57. > :26:01.to terminally ill patients with less than six months to live. There is a
:26:02. > :26:06.key vote on Friday and people will be piling into the Lords tonight. A
:26:07. > :26:12.campaigner on the issue is determined she should be able to die
:26:13. > :26:17.how she choses. Margaret John was a teacher for 45
:26:18. > :26:20.years, five years ago she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and
:26:21. > :26:26.the illness is terminal. I asked when she first came to support
:26:27. > :26:38.assisted dying? When I was 12! ? In the early 50s my grandfather had a
:26:39. > :26:41.stroke, but to see a very upright rigid authoritarian ship worker tied
:26:42. > :26:46.in a wooden chair unable to speak or move sitting in his own excrement
:26:47. > :26:51.for four years had a very profound effect on me. And ever since I have
:26:52. > :26:55.believed that one should have a choice at the end of life. It is not
:26:56. > :27:00.about killing people, and I keep saying this, it is about living. And
:27:01. > :27:04.living is not just existing, it is having a full life and doing
:27:05. > :27:08.everything you could. Do you think then that you would preparing to
:27:09. > :27:14.take this decision, if indeed you take it, if you had not cancer? What
:27:15. > :27:17.is important to me is having the information, a full range of
:27:18. > :27:21.options, full information on everything, so that I can make a
:27:22. > :27:25.rational decision. I actually don't have a lot of pain. The fact that I
:27:26. > :27:29.have got cancer is not really an issue. I intend to live and I mean
:27:30. > :27:34.live to the very end. Now there is a difference between living and
:27:35. > :27:39.existing. If my life is reduced to four walls and daytime television
:27:40. > :27:43.I'm sorry I don't want that. Do you accept though that some days you are
:27:44. > :27:50.feeling better than others? Oh yeah, I doubt whether I would actually use
:27:51. > :27:53.anything. It is information, it is knowing what would work. Somebody
:27:54. > :27:58.did say to me you can get stuff on the Internet. Yes you can, but you
:27:59. > :28:02.don't know what it is, you don't know if it is going to work, if it
:28:03. > :28:06.doesn't it is not John Lewis, they don't give you money back. Do you
:28:07. > :28:11.have a faith? No I'm an atheist, if I'm wrong I will apologise. I was a
:28:12. > :28:15.practising member of the Church of England until my late 30s and I read
:28:16. > :28:20.extensively, I have read up on Buddhism, I took instruction in the
:28:21. > :28:24.Catholic faith and couldn't make the act of faith. I wish I did believe.
:28:25. > :28:29.Would it make any difference to your decision do you think? No, because
:28:30. > :28:36.I'm talking about living, I keep forgetting to look up who wrote t it
:28:37. > :28:40.is called the Docolog and it is a poem and based on the Ten
:28:41. > :28:50.Commandments, I love the one about killing, "thoushalt not kill but
:28:51. > :29:00.need not strive to stay alive". We have our guests in the studio. If
:29:01. > :29:05.this goes through it is doctors that really have to implement this, it is
:29:06. > :29:08.a massive moral decision apart from anything else. Jackie you were
:29:09. > :29:17.engaged as a doctor in delivering what is life-savi treatment and yet
:29:18. > :29:20.you support this, why? Because some people cannot be helped in the
:29:21. > :29:24.terminal stages of disease and suffer very badly. And want the
:29:25. > :29:30.choice to die. We know that because people go to Switzerland to Dignitas
:29:31. > :29:34.and only the people who can afford to obviously. I have seen members of
:29:35. > :29:39.my own family, including my brother whose case was used by Dignity in
:29:40. > :29:44.Dying when they were talking to the House of Lords about this, who were
:29:45. > :29:47.afraid of death, afraid of, a fear of death can be allayed by the
:29:48. > :29:53.option of assisted dying if people know it is there. The vast majority
:29:54. > :29:57.of them won't use it. But we cannot stop all suffering. We can't stop
:29:58. > :30:00.all physical suffering and we can't certainly stop all mental suffering
:30:01. > :30:06.that people go through facing a bad death. You heard Margaret in the
:30:07. > :30:11.film completely clear headed, saying that she wants the information, she
:30:12. > :30:13.may not use it, but she feels it is her human right to make that
:30:14. > :30:19.decision about whether to live or die? I think the difficulty we have
:30:20. > :30:22.is that if you do implement the bill that is proposed on Friday doctors
:30:23. > :30:28.are going to have to make the death decision. You are going Toffler
:30:29. > :30:32.essentially death squads which is really out of the context of
:30:33. > :30:38.delivering good health. Is death squads not an emotive way of putting
:30:39. > :30:44.it? I think the way the bill is going to have two doctors'
:30:45. > :30:48.signatures, you can't predict outcome, I made disastrous mistakes
:30:49. > :30:53.with patients because you can't predict the outcomes of cancer and
:30:54. > :30:56.motor neurone disease. That is a heart-breaking and debilitating
:30:57. > :31:01.disease, on the question of cancer that is a right, when would a doctor
:31:02. > :31:05.be able to pinpoint the moment that somebody would succumb to cancer in
:31:06. > :31:08.the end. But you can make an informed decision of the progress of
:31:09. > :31:12.a disease can't you? You can, and cancer is easier than something like
:31:13. > :31:16.motor neurone disease because it is a consistent line. You look at an
:31:17. > :31:20.X-ray, if the tumour is getting bigger you can predict where it is
:31:21. > :31:25.going. But we can be years out, you get remarkable things. I have only
:31:26. > :31:29.twice as 35 years as a consultant been asked by a patient to end their
:31:30. > :31:33.life, I have seen a lot of people in that time. Only two, and I remember
:31:34. > :31:39.them as though it was yesterday. In one case I actually helped them end
:31:40. > :31:47.their life. In what way? By giving high doses of open patients to kill
:31:48. > :31:53.their pain. Is this the -- Opiates. To kill their pain. You are giving
:31:54. > :31:57.these and it may cause their death and you knew that? Yes. Did you
:31:58. > :32:01.actively know you were doing it? You don't know and different patients
:32:02. > :32:05.will tolerate different doses of drugs. The most important thing is
:32:06. > :32:09.making a clinical judgment with that patient. Having a bureaucratic
:32:10. > :32:15.system with politicians involved who have no understanding of medicine is
:32:16. > :32:19.not the way forward. It would be case of death squads? That is a
:32:20. > :32:22.clearly emotive way. It isn't going to be doctors who decide this, it
:32:23. > :32:26.will be patients. Two doctors have to make the decision whether or not
:32:27. > :32:29.to prescribe the lethal medicine that would be needed. So in a sense
:32:30. > :32:36.doctors do have to pacemaker the decision don't they? They will be --
:32:37. > :32:41.they do have to make the decision don't they? They have to decide
:32:42. > :32:44.whether the patient is in the six-month delivery. It is the
:32:45. > :32:50.patient who requests this and takes the dose. This isn't euthanasia
:32:51. > :32:53.where the doctor administers it, it is the patient who asks for it.
:32:54. > :32:56.There are many safeguards in the bill. What the doctor may not
:32:57. > :33:04.necessarily know is another von in the the -- vulnerability in the
:33:05. > :33:07.patient, perhaps she has pressing financial problems or pressing
:33:08. > :33:11.health problems that require money to deal with them, there would be
:33:12. > :33:14.the invisible pressure on the patient to as it were to do the
:33:15. > :33:19.right thing for the family, as they would see it? I think what is really
:33:20. > :33:24.important to look at. This isn't a leap into the dark, this has been
:33:25. > :33:30.happening in other places, in Oregon it has been happening for up to 17
:33:31. > :33:37.years. The Hospice Association originally opposed the Dignity and
:33:38. > :33:41.Dying Bill in the area, because these fears are understandable. They
:33:42. > :33:44.withdrew their opposition because they said there was no evidence of
:33:45. > :33:48.the two things they were afraid of which was one that offering assisted
:33:49. > :33:52.dying would interfere with end of life care, and the other one was
:33:53. > :33:54.there was no evidence that vulnerable people were being
:33:55. > :33:59.affected by this. So if those people are saying we're happy with this,
:34:00. > :34:02.what's the problem. The problem is that palliative medicine has come
:34:03. > :34:07.from nothing when I started as a consultant to be fantastic,
:34:08. > :34:12.palliative care, experts, nurses, doctors, that specialise. People
:34:13. > :34:16.don't need to die in unpleasant painful circumstances.
:34:17. > :34:19.When you say they don't need to die in unpleasant and painful
:34:20. > :34:23.circumstance, a lot of people would prefer to die when they know they
:34:24. > :34:28.would feel better, you seem to suggest that doctors already do this
:34:29. > :34:31.in an unofficial way? They do it and they have been doing it because of
:34:32. > :34:36.the nature of pain control. It is risky because you escalate the dose
:34:37. > :34:42.and you get respiratory regression, it is inevitable. By formalising it
:34:43. > :34:46.don't you give people control of their own destiny? In a modern
:34:47. > :34:51.hospice, hospices at home which is the current way forward, people are
:34:52. > :34:56.given a morphine pump which they can press a button to get more to kill
:34:57. > :35:00.the pain. The most important thing in palliative care is to keep the
:35:01. > :35:05.patient pain free and free from other symptoms which can be
:35:06. > :35:12.distressing. But there will be pressure on people. I have just
:35:13. > :35:16.heard that Norman Lambert, the Lambert -- Norman Lambert has come
:35:17. > :35:20.out in favour of assisted dying on Friday, he has changed his mind.
:35:21. > :35:24.Have you been surprised by some of the people that actually have given
:35:25. > :35:28.you support? I think people are really looking at what is on offer
:35:29. > :35:33.as opposed to a lot of argument that is are based on what is not on
:35:34. > :35:38.offer. What is on offer under Lord Faulkner is a very prescriptive,
:35:39. > :35:41.facing terminal illness, two doctors involved, the patient has to want
:35:42. > :35:45.this, there is a cooling off period, it is not about disabled people or
:35:46. > :35:50.vulnerable people, it is very specific and worked for 17 years in
:35:51. > :35:54.Oregan. Right now I would like to bring in Norman Lambert, we can talk
:35:55. > :35:57.to him right now, good evening. This is very good of you to come in at
:35:58. > :36:09.such short notice. Tell me, you have made a decision and what has made,
:36:10. > :36:15.why have you changed your mind? I'm making this decision as a person not
:36:16. > :36:18.as a minister. It is important to make that distinction clear. It is
:36:19. > :36:22.talking to lots of people who have gone through the experience of a
:36:23. > :36:27.loved-one dying, often going through months of pain and distress, and
:36:28. > :36:31.ultimately you know you have to ask the question, who should it be that
:36:32. > :36:35.decides, should it be me or anyone else in that situation, or should it
:36:36. > :36:41.be the state? Ultimately I think it is a very personal decision and I
:36:42. > :36:45.have gone through a process of re-thinking my position on this, and
:36:46. > :36:51.I think the current position where we have got this confused situation
:36:52. > :36:56.that families do not know what the law actually will do to them, and
:36:57. > :37:02.you have the Crown Prosecution Service reviewing I think something
:37:03. > :37:05.like 60 cases since the most recent guidance. What an invidious position
:37:06. > :37:09.to put families in, not knowing whether you are going to be
:37:10. > :37:12.prosecuted for helping your loved one to end their life. So I'm very
:37:13. > :37:16.clear in the position that I take on this. This is interesting because
:37:17. > :37:20.you say that you are doing this in a personal capacity, but because you
:37:21. > :37:25.are the minister for the care of the elderly, of course your
:37:26. > :37:30.intervention, your decision carries and will be seen to be carrying
:37:31. > :37:37.great deal of weight? I understand that but it has been made clear that
:37:38. > :37:41.this is a personal vote issue, I feel actually having gone through
:37:42. > :37:46.the process of thinking, re-thinking my position, I now feel very clear
:37:47. > :37:54.in my own mind about where I stand myself on this. I think there are
:37:55. > :37:59.clear safeguards and they are critical. In a sense it was the fear
:38:00. > :38:02.of exploitation which always caused me concern in the past. But
:38:03. > :38:08.ultimately should we stand in the way of someone wanting to make their
:38:09. > :38:12.own decision about their life or should we set the safeguards in
:38:13. > :38:16.place to ensure that there is every chance of avoiding that
:38:17. > :38:19.exploitation, I'm very clear in my mind that the individual should be
:38:20. > :38:26.the person who decides, not the state. Now Norman Lamb while we have
:38:27. > :38:31.you here we should talk about a story on the front page of the
:38:32. > :38:34.Mirror tomorrow, that is that Nick Clegg has come out against the
:38:35. > :38:39.bedroom tax, can you give a little more on this? It is in response to a
:38:40. > :38:45.report that has emerged which shows that a very tiny percentage of the
:38:46. > :38:51.people who have been subject to the ending of the spare room subsidy
:38:52. > :38:57.have actually moved home, in my own constituency I have come across many
:38:58. > :39:03.cases where people may be willing to move, may be willing to downsize but
:39:04. > :39:07.the state of the housing market and the shortage of social housing just
:39:08. > :39:12.makes it impossible for that person to move. So they are stuck in the
:39:13. > :39:18.situation, it may well be that they also have a disability and are
:39:19. > :39:22.unable to move because they need a spare bedroom for a carer, or they
:39:23. > :39:25.may have adapted their home, and I think therefore we have to adjust
:39:26. > :39:29.the position in the light of experience to make sure that it is
:39:30. > :39:32.absolutely fair. At a critical moment in the lead up to the
:39:33. > :39:37.election of course you are in a coalition and you have absolutely no
:39:38. > :39:41.chance have you of persuading your coalition partners also to agree
:39:42. > :39:44.with what Nick Clegg apparently said which is that it has been a
:39:45. > :39:47.catastrophe that punishes the POOFRMENT you are having your cake
:39:48. > :39:53.and eat -- poor, you are having your cake and eating it, you are
:39:54. > :40:07.disagreeing with a fundamental tenet of welfare we -- reform. The
:40:08. > :40:11.situation as far as new tenants are concerned there is no dispute in the
:40:12. > :40:15.private sector, individuals who claim housing benefit in the private
:40:16. > :40:18.sector only get housing benefit for the room that is they need. They
:40:19. > :40:22.don't get a spare room subsidy, and it is perfectly reasonable that the
:40:23. > :40:27.same rule applies in both the private and the public sector. The
:40:28. > :40:32.difficulty we have here is people who are in social housing who have a
:40:33. > :40:37.spare room but are simply not able to move because of their
:40:38. > :40:41.circumstances. Does this mean the Liberal Democrats are going to be
:40:42. > :40:45.speaking out against the bedroom tax at every turn? It is a response to
:40:46. > :40:47.the evidence that we have seen and I think it is absolutely reasonable
:40:48. > :40:50.for the party to make its position clear. Thank you very much for
:40:51. > :40:55.joining us tonight. Thank you both for joining us.
:40:56. > :41:00.It may be just time to dust off the old gag about modern artists
:41:01. > :41:03.laughing all the way to the bank. . Because Gilbert George have put
:41:04. > :41:08.their new exhibition together with the help of nitrous oxide, laughing
:41:09. > :41:15.gas to you and me. It is a legal high popular with clubbers and known
:41:16. > :41:18.as "hippy crack". The sculptures didn't inhale themselves, but they
:41:19. > :41:24.collected the bomb-shaped empties of the gas they found near their home
:41:25. > :41:31.in south London. The cylinders loom large in their new show in
:41:32. > :41:41.Bermondsey. We joined them for some street combing in Brick Lane.
:41:42. > :41:47.We start and see these little cannisters on Brick Lane. Did you
:41:48. > :41:56.know what they were? Not at first. Then we started to see the balloons.
:41:57. > :42:03.For Monet it was water lilies, for Van Gogh sunflowers. Now Gilbert
:42:04. > :42:08.George have an old exhibition out of some old cannisters. There is one of
:42:09. > :42:13.the grey ones. Yes, there are different types. These things once
:42:14. > :42:21.contained "hippy crack" and empties of hippy crack are a recurring motif
:42:22. > :42:31.in their newest works. We are on an urban Safari, and apologies to
:42:32. > :42:35.Springwatch et cetera, we present "Crackwatch"! Composing the shot,
:42:36. > :42:40.that is what I like. The artists collected and photographed hundreds
:42:41. > :42:45.of gas containers. It is not every day we have our shots composed by
:42:46. > :42:51.leading artists! Some of them reminded Gilbert George of
:42:52. > :42:55.weapons. They do look like cartridges? That is why it was
:42:56. > :43:01.exciting, because in the evening when we are exhausting we go up and
:43:02. > :43:06.look at Al-Jazeera, they are all bombs, don't you think, it is all
:43:07. > :43:11.Iraq and Iran and Africa, all bombs, that is it. Never more in our
:43:12. > :43:19.lifetime than now, it is extraordinary. In our own way our
:43:20. > :43:24.whole life is bomb, I was bombed by Germany as a baby, bombed by the IRA
:43:25. > :43:26.to the east and west, we had the white supremacist bomber in Brick
:43:27. > :43:33.Lane, then the tubes and buses bombed. The scapegoating pictures as
:43:34. > :43:39.Gilbert George have called them are antic, unsettling, sometimes
:43:40. > :43:44.comic and full of those enlarged hippy crack cannisters. They convey
:43:45. > :43:50.an atmosphere of fear say the artists. We like this what you call
:43:51. > :43:54.they create this threatening atmosphere, this fear in the
:43:55. > :43:59.picture. The pictures do? Because of that. This kind of fear that it is
:44:00. > :44:03.new in some ways in the world. Because if you go to Heathrow it is
:44:04. > :44:07.fear, if you go on the bus it is fear. It is all fear in some way.
:44:08. > :44:11.Untold but it is there. fear. It is all fear in some way.
:44:12. > :44:20.that is a new thing a sense of fear? Yes, I think it is. The pair have
:44:21. > :44:24.been living here since the 1960s, now the only way you could afford to
:44:25. > :44:27.live here is if you are an incredibly successful artist. With
:44:28. > :44:33.so many different cultures and extremes of wealth on their
:44:34. > :44:36.doorstep, they don't want for creative stimulus. The centre of the
:44:37. > :44:40.universe, we always say if a spaceship was coming in to land from
:44:41. > :44:45.another planet, they only have ten minutes to film a typical planet
:44:46. > :44:50.earth place here or Liverpool Street or Bethnal Green. You would be good
:44:51. > :45:07.guides for the Martians? Yeah, take them down all the back alleys. And
:45:08. > :45:09.lots of naughty things! (Phone ringing) Good morning you have
:45:10. > :45:14.telephoned Gilbert George, time to leave a brief message after the
:45:15. > :45:21.tone, thank you, goodbye and good rid dance. Gilbert George say
:45:22. > :45:24.their new show picks up on he will tensions and violence in the air.
:45:25. > :45:30.The west is full of bombs as well. We are full of bombs all well. The
:45:31. > :45:34.exhibition takes its title from a flyer about Islamophobia and
:45:35. > :45:38.scapegoating which Gilbert George picked up as part of their voracious
:45:39. > :45:43.collecting. Are you in any sense warning with these things. Is that
:45:44. > :45:47.part of your work? We are showing it in some way, the new East London. I
:45:48. > :45:54.don't want to have a big view about what is going to happen but we are
:45:55. > :46:01.showing it. We don't want to be part of telling, but showing. Do you feel
:46:02. > :46:05.you are being particularly risky with this work, do you have any
:46:06. > :46:09.reservations about how it might be received? No I think some of the
:46:10. > :46:17.most honest actual pictures being created today it is. After the death
:46:18. > :46:23.of Mrs Thatcher, Gilbert George, perhaps alone among contemporary
:46:24. > :46:30.artists staked out a bit of pavement near St Paul's. Tory supporters and
:46:31. > :46:33.Monday monarchists wanted to pay their respects. We think the funeral
:46:34. > :46:37.of Mrs Thatcher was a wonderful occasion. A lot of people came out
:46:38. > :46:40.of the offices down towards the street and they wanted our
:46:41. > :46:51.autograph, so there was life in the middle of death. ??FORCEDWHIT Do you
:46:52. > :46:55.ever disagree, does one say I think we should do this and I have hit
:46:56. > :47:00.something here and the other one says no, that would look terrible?
:47:01. > :47:09.We call that the great hetrosexual question. Bill ?FORCEDWHITE Gilbert
:47:10. > :47:15.George, that is all we have time for tonight, good night.