22/07/2014 Newsnight


With Kirsty Wark. Looking at the latest on the MH17 plane crash, Marina Litvinenko on her husband, Gaza, whether obscuring corpses' faces is wrong, and English football.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Many of the bodies from the Malaysian airline plane crash


are on their way home, the recovered black boxes are heading to the UK


for analysis but are investigators any nearer to knowing what exactly


Was the Kremlin behind the death of Alexander Litvinenko?


Seven years after his murder, the Government has finally agreed to


This is a very grave allegation that has to be examined. We have to get


to the bottom of it. If the price of it is some of the material being


examine bed hind closed doorsI for one would accept that. We speak to


Marina Litvinenko. Obscuring the faces of the dead. Is this an act of


respect by broadcasters or has television no right to censor what


we see of war? And, after a disastrous England


World Cup performance, does football's governing body need to


take some of the blame? I'll ask Greg Dyke, the chair of the FA.


The bodies of many of the passengers on flight MH 17 are


finally on their way home, six days after their plane was attacked.


There are reported to be the remains of 282 people on the train now in


There is to be a service of farewell in the Ukranian town at


9am tomorrow before the first flight takes off for Eindhoven airport.


Tomorrow is a day of national mourning in the Netherlands.


Gabriel Gatehouse was at the crash site todayIt's taken seven years of


We hear there's been a statement from the US State Department. What


does its contain? Officials briefing journalists anonymously in


Washington said they could find no evidence of direct Russian


involvement in the downing of MH 16 17. They said they still thought it


was likely to have been brought down by a surface-to-air missile in


rebel-controlled territory inside Ukraine. They said they thought that


Russia had created the conditions for the downing of the plane by


arming the separatists, but they stopped short of saying that Russia


armed them with this book surface-to-air missile system. No


direct evidence of direct involvement. Those that believe


Russia was involved, and there are many, will say that absence of


evidence, the rebels themselves maintain they had nothing to do with


it and further more didn't have the capability to bring down a plane at


this height. We know Malaysian officials joined other


investigators, there was tooing and froing with the rebels. What was


happening? There were three Malaysian aviation


experts on the site for the first time today, as opposed to forensic


experts who'd been examining the bodies. They didn't say anything,


but the OSCE, the European security organisation that's been here from


the start accused people of tampering with the evidence, of


taking a saw to some parts of the wreckage and started sawing it up. I


didn't see that, but we saw what seemed to be a crucial bit of


evidence, part of the fuse Raj - we can see some of the pictures we


filmed today - it's the left hand part of the cockpit, what appears to


be extensive shrapnel marks -- fuselage. Experts on these matters,


military aviation experts say these marks are consistent with the kind


of supersonic surface-to-air missile that they believe brought down this


plane. We saw this bit of fuselage propped up by the side of a village


lane that had been put there by a ten-year-old boy all these days


after the crash left totally unattended what appears to be a


crucial piece of evidence. There's dividing opinion about the bodies


being put on the train and taken to Eindhoven. What do you know about


that? It's said that they collected 282 out of the bodies. Dutch


officials said today they thought the number was closer to 200. They


are going to have to two back, and, as they put it, negotiate with the


rebels. We have seen on Sunday, Monday and indeed today, that they


are still pulling bodies from the wreckage. This leaves so much more


uncertainty for the families back home, many of them, of course, in


Holland, as you said, the first 50 of those will be flying from Ukraine


back to Holland, but many of the relatives still no clearer as to


whether their loved ones are on that flight or not.


Thank you very much. Michael Bociurkiw, you have spent


the last few days at the crash site. Can you tell us what you know of the


tampering of some parts of the fuselage by rebels and where they


actually -- and were they actually confronted when they began to do


that? Good evening. Well, first of all, we


have spent the past five days at the crash sites. We were the first


International Organisation there on the scene. Of course. And secondly,


if I may, I would like to correct the correspondent's tape in saying


that we did not accuse anyone of tampering with the evidence from the


crash site. We have said from day one to especially today when we were


with the Malaysian experts is that we have noticed quite marked changes


to some of the crash impact areas of which there are about eight. For


example, Gabriel referred to that big piece of fuselage. Really the


most burnt area of the crash site. That has been moved. Also, the


really, really tough area to locate is where the cockpit came down and


pancaked basically. We observed two days ago, uniformed men, emergency


services uniformed men hacking away with the powered saw into the


fuselage. We can't draw any conclusions from that, but whether


they were looking for more human remains or not, we are not quite


sure. How tough is this site in the sense


that if anything's moved, does it make your job much more difficult to


ascertain what actually happened? It does. I mean, we are there to


establish the facts and to report on them and to facilitate dialogue


also. What we have been doing all along is photographing the site


day-by-day by day. So by now, we probably have about 1,000 images,


and we'll be providing that to the authorities and to the Malaysians,


so they'll be able to tell how much this site has changed. If I could


add, I mean today there was almost an eerie quietness in the whole


crash area. All the emergency rescue effort had disappeared, tents that


were used to process the site have all gone, so it was basically us,


our small security detail and about 17 journalists. The word


extraordinary comes to mind really. But it's also a site, I understand,


where there will still be remains. What do you know of that?


Yes. In fact, today, we shared with our 57 states that we Didak chillily


spot human remains and in some very obvious areas at the side of the


roadway. I can also said that when we went again to the site where the


cockpit came down, the Malaysian experts noted that although they


couldn't see human remains, the own characteristics were there. We


believe the amount of human remains left, it's quite substantial and it


requires a massive search effort, it seems, to detect and collect all of


them. Do you think that for the people that have been there - there


are two different things there - there is an insecurity at the site,


physically. What impact has it had? A number of rescue workers, local


miners who helped, people like yourselves, what impact has it had


on you all in being there? Well, thank you for asking that. I


mean, we are Monitoring Mission of 275 monitors now from 40 different


countries and many from very hardened missions from the past,


many of us have worked emergencies, but I think most of us agree this is


like nothing else we have seen in terms of the extraordinary nature of


not having an act of rescue and recovery effort. Most importantly,


from the moment we arrived there, not detecting any security


perimeter. Also, just quickly, it is an act of conflict area. In fact,


just behind me, I can hear heavy weaponry explosions going off here


in Donetsk, it's a very insecure fluid area.


Michael Bociurkiw, thank you so much for joining us.


I will be speaking to a Dutch MEP later in the programme about how


their nation prepares for the victims of flight MH17 to return


home. It's taken seven years of pressure


by Alexander Litvinenko's widow Marina and her supporters, but


finally, there is to be a public inquiry into her husband's death.


She believes he was working for MI6 and was murdered in London on orders


from the Kremlin, something Russia denies. The decision is a complete


volte fast by the Government now acting with certain knowledge that


Vladimir Putin will be angered by the inquiry. Before the Home


Secretary Theresa May dragged her heels refusing to grant the inquiry


partly she admitted because of the impact on international relations.


Today, that doesn't seem to be an issue any more.


I do this, not against, not Russia, not England. I do this for justice.


I do this for truth. Today, nearly eight years after her husband,


Alexander Litvinenko east death, Marina, won a victory in the battle


to discover how he died in circumstances that he explained on


his death bed like this. The former KGB agent who turned into


a fierce critic of the Kremlin said the Russian state organised the


slipping of polonium into his tea at London's Mill enyum Hotel. That's


never been proved. The Government's now announced a public inquiry which


may do so. The key issue that will be examined


by this public inquiry is the culpability of the Russian state.


Apart from the suspects that remain named who were responsible for the


murder of Alexander Litvinenko, it is important to find out what state


agents acted in perpetrating the crime. How best to investigate crime


has been the subject of a long legal wrangle. In June last year, the


coroner in the Litvinenko inquest said a public inquiry would be the


best way to look at all the evidence, including sensitive


material relating to national security.


In July, the Government said no. It insisted an inquest excluding such


material would be adequate. In February, the High Court backed


Marina Litvinenko's challenge to that decision. Today, on the last


day of Parliament before the recess, the Government gave way for reasons


that appear political, though that's officially denied.


The Government said last year that fear of affecting Russian relations


was one factor in its refusal to hold a public inquiry into


Litvinenko's death. Now it seems that's no longer such a


consideration. Today's decision may have nothing to do with the downing


of the Malaysian airliner but it reflects a hardening in Britain's


attitude towards Russia since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis.


Those who're already seen the evidence in the Litvinenko case have


no doubt what will be revealed. We obviously - considered all of the


evidence very carefully indeed and, as far as I was considered, having


done that, this case bore all the hallmarks of a state execution on


the streets of our capital City and all the indications were, from the


evidence I saw, that Russian state actors were involved in this murder.


Russia's very unlikely to cooperate with the inquiry. It's refused to


extradite Andrei Lugovoi, now a Russian politician, whom Britain


wants to try for Alexander Litvinenko's murder. So the inquiry


will rely principally on British information, including about the


source of the radioactive polonium that killed him.


Whatever evidence links the suspects who met Alexander Litvinenko in this


hotel, with the Kremlin, will be provided by British intelligence and


will be heard in closed session. If it convinces the judge, he may end


up in effect branding Russia as a state sponsor of nuclear terrorism.


That would bring Mr Putin's standing in the world to a new low. If the


inquiry accepts the evidence and declares that to be the case, this


is going to be very significant. It's going to obviously impact very


profoundly on the UK's relations with Russia but it's also going to I


think impact pretty deeply on the way the world views the Russian


state. All the secrets about Litvinenko,


including his exact relationship with British intelligence may still


not be revealed in the inquiry, but much of the truth does now seem


likely to emerge whatever the political fallout.


Joining joining me now is Alexander Litvinenko's widow, Marina.


Marina, did you ever think that you would finally get a public inquiry?


Actually, yes. I did feel it. It's helped me to be, not calm, but to


believe that one day I'd have justice. It's took quite a long time


to wait for, almost one year from the first time, last July, when


Theresa May just decline the rightful public inquiry. It was


quite difficult period for all of us. Then suddenly the decision was


changed? Yes. I would say it was expected but it was suddenly and


particularly in this time when it's everything's strong, talking about


Ukraine and Russia. Do you think that Vladimir Putin


will be angered by the decision to hold an inquiry? I can't charge him


personal, but I believe this decision will be very hard for


somebody in Russia. You think that you know who did this


to your husband? I can't say who exactly but it would be much easier


to know after this public inquiry. But no matter that the public


inquiry does identify the perpetrators of this crime, a public


inquiry is not going to put anyone behind bars is it? No. Any trial


that we have can't put anybody for trial personal because not Lugovoi,


not named suspects. They are in Russia and it's not possible to get


them to trial to London. It's only evidence what we have and the


investigation what was done by Scotland Yard finally it will be


came to public opinion and after this, people will certainly know


about what happened. Of course, as you say, there's no question at the


moment, I imagine, of any form of extradition no matter what the


public inquiry finds, so therefore, for you, is it enough, do you think,


to have a very clear idea of who killed your husband and leave it at


that? I'm wondering what you think the public inquiry will achieve


beyond that? I started the inquest after five years of Sasha's death.


It's took me five years to go to this kind of persecution, I would


say, because no other trial I can get result suspects and then this


inquest started to be slow and slow and slow because evidence where


finally somebody could see something very strong. The poisoning of your


husband was quite blatant an obvious, wasn't it? What do you


think the purpose of it was in terms of who was the message for? It's


difficult again to discuss because using polonium, it's just absolutely


irresponsible. People just gives this order to kill my husband


without any even decision what polonium harmful, not just for one


person. I would say many people in London. How many people as well. Do


you think though, you say you were contaminated too and that was not on


purpose. But I've talked to you about this a while ago before and


you were uncertain. Do you feel possibly that your own life is in


danger daily in London? What I'm in a position to solve is to have this


case done anyway, trial or inquest or public inquiry because any truth


in the end we will have. We will have some evidence or some verdict,


who is behind this crime. It helps people to be sure. It might not


happen again without this. Lump feel safe though? -- will you ever feel


safe though? I would say yes. Thank you very much for joining us.


Returning to our earlier story, in the Netherlands today, Prime


Minister Mark Rutte warned that attitudes towards Russia had changed


fundamentally since the disaster. Anna Holligan reports.


A serene, stable nation, caught up in somebody else's conflict.


This shrine growing every day now marks the spot at departures III,


the point from which the dead departed.


This started with just a couple of bouquets on Thursday evening and, as


more and more people heard about the disaster, just look at the scale of


this shrine now. Schipol is an international hub airport. Hundreds


of passengers pass through these doors every day and many have been


stopping off here to pay their respects to the passengers who were


on board that flight, passengers just like them, many going on


holiday. If you have a look down here, you can see international


nature of the tributes. Beyond the pockets of personal


sadness, there is a widely held public sentiment that Dutch


officials are being too soft. Earlier, the Prime Minister, Mark


Rutte, took a harder line against Russia.


TRANSLATION: In our view, something has changed fundamentally there


since Thursday. According to the Netherlands, all options are on the


table, economic, financial and political. Our priority is to get


the people back and the best possible independent investigation


and justice. The Netherlands is a calm, reserved


country, but a front-page image has moved emotions from shock and


sadness to fury and frustration, combined with disbelief.


Since Thursday, I've been thinking, how horrible it must have been. The


final moments of their lives when they knew the plane was going down.


Did they lock hands with their loved ones? Did they hold their children


close to their hearts? Did they look each other in the eyes, one final


time, in a wordless goodbye? We will never know.


Many here in this serene stable nation feels as though they've been


dragged into someone else's war. The church is going to hold a vigil at 8


o'clock. We are in sadness. After that, there'll be a request for


retaliation. There were quite a lot of Amsterdam people on the plane. We


are a small community so almost everybody in our surroundings are


affected by this, by the crash. So I feel that an entire city is grieving


about this. Tomorrow, the bodies will be flown


into Eindhoven. Families will wait alongside the Dutch King and Queen.


None of them will know whether the coffins will contain their


relatives. The list of names of the 193 missing Dutch victims was


published in the papers this morning. Some of the remains still


lie in eastern Ukraine. At this Dutch military facility just


outside Hilversum, they have been making preparations for the arrival


of the remains. Soon, the eyes of the internationally affected


community will be on this place over the coming days, weeks, perhaps


months. The bodies of those passengers will be driven through


these gates to be identified by forensics before they can finally be


reunited with their families. Tomorrow has been declared a


national day of mourning. The first in the Netherlands since 1962 when


the Queen died. This is a small nation, one that isn't accustomed to


such immense misery. Anna Holligan. Marietje Schaake is a


Dutch member of the European Parliament and a member of the


committee on Foreign Affairs, as well as a committee of international


trade and she is in Brussels. Marietje Schaake, do you think there


is any relief for people in the Netherlands for knowing that some of


the bodies will be repatriated tomorrow?


Well, after all the intense sorrow of the loss of so many innocent


people, particularly so many children after the downing of this


plane, of course people want to have an opportunity to say a dignified


goodbye to their loved ones. But I find it hard to understand how


people can find peace of mind after seeing tampering with the site of


the downing of the plane, looting of the site and personal belongings of


the innocent victims. It's actually appalling that this has happened and


I believe that there is a very deep mix of grief and anger in the


Netherlands that will last for a very long time. Now, in Anna


Holligan's report there, we heard from a young man who said that the


country was in mourning but there was a feeling that there would need


to be some retaliation. I was wondering if there is a terrible


feeling of impotence in the country when, exactly what you are saying,


at the fact that you have no control of what is happening in eastern


Ukraine? That is why we asked firmly, our Government does and we


have today in the European Parliament, for European support for


an international inquiry at the crash site and with all the evidence


that is available and unrestricted access to the site. Again, it is


disgraceful that it took a UN Security Council resolution


disgraceful that it took a UN sure that that process started


moving. So all those who have any influence over the people who're at


and around the site must provide their cooperation to uncover every


detail on this horrible downing of the plane so that we can find out


what exactly happened and that we can talk about how to find justice,


not only for the victims and the immediate loved ones of those


innocent victims, but also for the acquiring of justice for the Dutch,


for all the other ones who've fallen. This is a disaster, a


catastrophe that has impacted many, many countries. We've received


condolences and messages of sympathy from all over the world, and our


priority is to seek justice and to bring those responsible and their


enablers, to accountability. Finally. Today, European Foreign


Ministers agreed to step up the existing sanctions they placed on


Russia. What signal does this give to Vladimir Putin? Would you have


liked to see tougher sanctions today? The perspective of new


sanctions still has to be agreed on and what is essential now is that


Europe stands unite and makes a clear desession on whether it seeks


to continue with trade as if it's business as usual with energy


relations as if it's business as usual or whether we'll finally come


Taggart and take a tough stance for fundamental values, for


international justice, which has not only been challenged through this


terrible downing of the aeroplane, but has been challenged in a number


of incidents over the past couple of months, and it's very, very


important that we reassess our stance towards the Kremlin and


towards events that are happening in our eastern neighbourhood and I


believe it's essential that Europe acts as a strong leader in this


world and the challenges that we are seeing after the downing of the


plane in the context of the annexation of Crimea of the unrest


in the eastern Ukraine, but also of broader questions of international


relations, merit a strong response from Europe, and I think we have to


focus on that all together. Thank you very much. Even more urgently


than we did before. Thank you very much.


Now, tonight, a number of airlines, including Delta, Air Canada, Air


France, Lufthansa and KLM, have suspended flights to an


international airport in response to a rocket strike that landed a mile


from the airport today. There was no let-up in the fighting that's


claimed more than 600 lives. 100 of them, according to Gazan officials


are children. John Kerry and Ban Ki-Moon are


engaged in rounds of talks in Israel and Egypt and tomorrow, Ban Ki-Moon


heads for the West Bank. So far, there is no sign of a ceasefire,


only perhaps the possibility of a humanitarian truce lasting several


days to get aid to the Palestinian territory.


I'm joined by the UN Special Envoy for the Palestinian conflict


negotiations and also the former US Ambassador to Israel.


You left just three weeks ago and when you left, you said you were


battered by the whole situation. Did you simply give up?


No, we didn't give up. We reached a point where the parties themselves


gave up. The Israelis suspended the negotiations because the


Palestinians had decided to reconcile with Hamas which is not


interested in negotiations. There wasn't anything more that we could


do. For nine months, we negotiated intensively at the highest levels


with the Secretary of State heavily involved. I think he made 16 trips


to the region in that process, so giving up was not words in our


vocabulary. But if you thought it was hopeless three weeks ago, what


do you think of it now? Do you think the Israelis were right to start


this offensive in Gaza? They didn't start the offensive.


Take the offensive into Gaza, sorry? With the ground invasion and air


power as well? Yes, the offensive was started by


Hamas rockets into Israeli cities, but the situation obviously is


horrific and it grows worse by the day. It's the opposite of


peace-making. It's all about war-making at the moment. The only


hope in this horrendous situation is that both sides will come to


understand what Secretary Kerry was telling them from the outset of our


efforts to try to Makepeace which was that the status quo is


unsustainable and that chronic conflict is not a way... Well, you


talk about chronic conflict. The figures are 600 dead on the


Palestinian side, more than 30 dead on the Israeli side. But let's look


at the UN figures. Of the Palestinians who've died, the UN


says 75% are civilian, 25 from one family, 100 children, two hospitals.


Is that disproportionate? You know, I'm not here to make


judgments about these kinds of things. I think it's an horrendous


situation that civilian casualties have happened, the casualties are


terrible and I wish that they were not happening, I also wish Hamas


wouldn't use civilians as their shields and hide their rockets. But


the French Foreign Minister's called it a massacre and the opposition


leader Ed Miliband in Washington said that Israel was wrong to go


into Gaza? Gaza. Do you think that Israel should have held back this


time? Look, I don't know what you want from me, I'm not here to make


judgments on either side. But you are here as a man who knows the area


well, you have been negotiating. Let me finish my answer, please. I think


that again, if you look at the record, there were several attempts


at ceasefires. I do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu was a man


who wanted to go into Gaza on the ground. He was seeking ways to


achieve calm before that. But the rocketing of Israeli cities and the


attacks through the tunnels were such that it got to the point that


he couldn't get a ceasefire so he decided to move in and try to


destroy the tunnels. You know, this is the nature of war that both sides


are engaged in, in a process that leads to escalation. But is it going


to make Israel for targeted? It's just not an acceptable situation.


That's why we have to try to get a ceasefire as soon as possible.


But, is it going to make Israel more secure? Right now, Israel looks


isolated by virtue of the fact that the very few flights if any go into


the airport. Is Israel going to be more secure by making more enemies


of Palestinians? Well, clearly, the only way to ensure lasting security


is to try to get peace. That's what we were trying to do, but I think


that you need to answer the question - if you think there's a better way


to stop the rockets from being fired in Israeli civilian populations,


then responding with force, go for it. We have been trying to get a


ceasefire. I don't know what it is exactly that should be done.


Obviously, civilians, casualties should be avoided to maximum effect


possible. The question is, how do you get a ceasefire. The answer to


the question is, how do you stop Hamas from firing rockets? Thank you


very much. Well, the conflict in Gaza and the


high number of civilian casualties has thrown into sharp ways the way


broadcasters deal with images of the dead. Newsnight and other BBC News


and current affairs programmes covering war zones often warn before


showing the films that viewers might find some images contained in the


report distressing. But is it more or less upsetting to obscure the


faces of the dead as we do? The veteran war reporter Robert Fisk


writing this knell independent on Sunday this weekend joined the


critics who say broadcasters may be guilty of sanitising the horror of


war. Here is Katie Razzall's report. This contains some disturbing


images. An iconic picture of the Vietnam War. It might have looked


less powerful or brutal elsewhere. Brutal images too disturbing for us


to show. Blobbing the faces of the dead is censorship of war says


Robert Fisk. Censorship by coward who is avoid death on TV more and


more. The broadcasting code sets rules television companies must


comply with. Before the watershed, it says children must also be


protected from material that is unsuitable for them. Broadcaster can


be severely fined for any harm or offence caused. After 9 o'clock,


offensive images including violence, humiliation, distress and violation


of human dignity can be justified by the context.


Robert Fisk concentrates on Gaza and argues that by making a child's face


blobbed out, it kills them a second time.


Joining us to discuss this is the President of the Royal Television


Society and a defence editor at the Times newspaper, Debra Haines.


Peter, who are we obscuring the faces and bodies for? Television is


a very pervasive medium and it's heavily regulated compared to other


media. We have heard about the censorship. If you are turning on a


documentary about deaths in the Middle East you would know that what


was about. But you would turn on the news and know that war zones and


conflicts would be being covered? But you wouldn't know on any given


night. The 9 o'clock watershed is a critical part. We are protecting the


sensibilities of the viewers, but we should term the whole story after 9


o'clock. Before 9lock, it's a different story. Surely Peter has a


point about protecting viewers? I disagree. I really think that by


sanitising the reality of war, we are not giving the true story to


people back home. People need to know that if someone's being shot by


a high velocity bullet, it causes real damage. Do you believe though


that there should be a line or there should be more censorship of what is


shown of conflict? I think there is no point displaying gratuitous


violence for the sake of it. So I think that newspapers, for example,


take a slightly bolder line in that way and are able to do it in a


responsible way that doesn't protect people's sensibility. The whole


media is changing, isn't it, because with smartphones and so forth,


people are seeing the impacts of conflict, seeing people dying on the


ground. However, doesn't it make the broadcasters look very out of touch


with the times in which we live? Paradoxically, the fact that you can


see any of this stuff, YouTube could be described as... Well... YouTube


could be described as a long snuff movie but it's the very fact that


this stuff is available, shot on mobile phones and so widely


available that points up that television is a different role, has


a different role to play. But it's sending to the world some of the


things happening. But do you know something, I'm not necessarily


against you about your high velocity bullet point, I don't need to see


every detail to understand people have died. That is true, isn't it,


that you talk about gratuitous, but actually, if a reporter is doing his


or her job well, they explain what is happening with a certain


coralling of the images? Absolutely and I'm not talking about them


talking about every last drop of blood on the floor, but to protect


people, the face of an innocent child that's died as a blob isn't


protecting sensibilities, it's masking the reality of war. The BBC


has got it right before 9 o'clock but I would side with you to the


extent that I think after 9 o'clock Newsnight could be more realistic


and more detailed. Do you think that you have to have a new set of rules?


There has to be, as it were, a reality check? Well, I think we are


being challenged even by this, as you make the point, the footage that


is available shot on every mobile phone. I think after 9 o'clock, I


think at the moment television is tending to apply the same rules and


ignoring the watershed. I think we could be more honest and real after


9 o'clock but television's got it right before 9 o'clock. It's


interesting because we are used to horrific violence in movies. We are


becoming detan sized to violence anyway? Were to an extent, but the


reality of war would help people realise that war is not a good thing


and it might lessen war. The care with which you show that footage is


less effective. Thank you very much. Greg Dyke is undoubtably the most


straight-talking chairman in Football Association -- the Football


Association has ever had. He told the committee his forthright opinion


of FIFA, describing the congress like something out of North Korea.


But he hasn't told the world what he made of England's performance in the


World Cup and whether that throat-cutting gesture he made at


the draw when the group was announced meant that he knew they


were heading phone an early fall. He joins me now. Good evening. First of


all, at the Select Committee today. If corruption proved, will England


pull out? No. Well, we are all waiting to see Mr Garcia's report.


When we see Mr Garcia's report, we'll know what level of, if there


was any corruption and what level there was, we at that stage I think


if there is evidence of corruption would ask for a revote.


But in the absence of a revote, you wouldn't pull England out, you would


two? I don't think there's any point in pulling England out. I told the


Select Committee, I've resigned from things before and it's not a good


idea really. Yeah, we all wish you were still at the BBC! Do you think


it's proper to go to Russia in 2018? It's early to say that. You think


there might be an issue? You can't look at it in this week because it's


such a dramatic event this week. Can you imagine Vladimir Putin at the


opening ceremony? As I say, it's too early to know that. In the end, that


decision will be taken by FIFA. Let's have a bit of lacking back now


and deal with the World Cup. It was England's worst performance in more


than 50 years. That's not true. Were you embarrassed? That's not true.


Once we got there, we always knew it you embarrassed? That's not true.


would be a tough group. Said from the beginning, the throat-cutting.


So you were toast at the draw? No, but it was difficult. We didn't want


to play in Manuas and didn't want to play the Italians because it gave us


a very hard group. That is an excuse. Come on? ! You asked me


about the throat-cutting, I'm telling you. But can you imagine


that actually, England's regarded as one of the finest footballing


nations. Wasn't it humiliating what happened to England? No. It was


disappointing, it wasn't humiliating. What was humiliating


would be to lose 7-1, as Brazil discovered. We didn't lose 7-1, we


lost by two-odd goals which could have gon the orthis way. It was


disappointing and we would have liked to have done better -- gone


the other way. You are a man that has been part of several


organisations. Why are you protecting Roy Hodgson? Over 80% of


the public said we were right to keep him. He's got a four-year


contract. We looked at it after the results and said look, we think


we'll stick with this guy for at least another two years. So you did


look at the contract? Oh, we mew the concerns. We looked at the contract.


Well, we were not concerned we said on the day that you have lost, you


have to make a quick decision, we talked to people and said we'd stick


with Roy for the next two years. I think English football's got a


problem with a commission that's being looked into. They were great


footballers. We are a bit short on English footballers. Wait a minute,


you are short on good English footballers? Yes, 70% of the Premier


League are now foreign players, 50% of the Championship are foreign


players. We have a limitation and that's getting bigger every year. Do


you think that's actually footballers playing better when they


finally got there? I think they think they could have done. Do you


think they could? As I say... You are the chairman? It's small


margins, but mistakes, we could have got through to the next round and we


didn't and that was due to a number of mistakes and missed


opportunities. On the park? Yes. Thank you very much.


Well, will Scotland keep the pound in the event of independence? The


latest salvo in this debate came from a report from the chair of the


Westminster Scottish air fairs committee who said the Government


government tries to give the impression a currency unit is still


possible. It's not. The pound is dead, to which Scotland's minister


decided the pound is as much Scotland's as well as England's and


Northern Ireland's, as so it goes on. We spoke to Alex Salmond. Two


months out from perhaps the biggest moment of your political life, do


you accept that you still have a lot of people to convince? I think we


take the average of all the polls. It's now co Al elsing at 55, 45. Can


you make up that sort of gap, yes, of course we can. More than the


polls, it's more important to say why we are going to make up that gap


and why are we going to win. We are going to win because we are putting


forward the case about the future of Scotland. If the no-campaign is


hapless, negative talking about plagues on people's houses, if that


is so ineffective, why have they been ahead for such a long time?


They have always been ahead and comfortable with the idea that they


can always face down the quest for independence and they go back to the


reserve position which is the negativity. But before you get to


that point, Scottish voters is a vested interest in knowing for sure


which currency they'll be able to use, for sure who'd set interest


rates, for sure who would the banks would go to if the financial system


were to collapse? These are questions we've answered. We can't


get the United Kingdom to say that publicly but we know from leaks in


the Guardian that senior ministers say of course there'll be a currency


union, this is all about the campaign, we are just doing what


Alistair Darling wants us to do. But you expect people to be reassured


and secure enough to believe that they'll definitely be able to keep


the pound on the basis of an off-the-record quote to a newspaper?


No. I expect people to take a common-sense position of that.


People are big enough and strong enough in Scotland to see through


Tory Bluesers and threats during the campaign. One Scottish voters said


to me in Glasgow yesterday, if I go and buy a car and the salesman can't


tell me how the financing would work, I wouldn't buy that car. So


many big economic questions, the share of the debt, who'd set


interest rates, lender of last resort? All right, the share of the


debt starts at 0, the sets of interest rates is the Bank of


England, the lender is the Bank of England also. We can put forward a


proposition which is in the best interests of Scotland and the rest


of the United Kingdom. It's not a prop digs... It's backed by the


democratic. Why should the rest of the UK be content for this to be a


political pick and mix, pick what you want from the defence, what the


BBC, the lottery, the currency, bits and pieces of the existing UK as you


wish. It's a bit like a divorce and the husband who walked out gets to


choose who he wants from the -- what he wants from the furniture and the


partner has no say. Why should people accept giving you what you


want? Let's take the cases that you illustrated. These were your


choices. Nobody in England as far as I know is giving uprising or ill


will towards Canada because they have a tell merry to have the Queen


as Head of State in the real world incidentally with the real people of


England, the sort of people I met and on the ferries across the Mersey


this morning. They don't have a metropolitan Westminster. Perhaps


the BBC attitude that everyone ganging up on Scotland. But the


polls suggest that you won't win. Have you thought about your own


position if the polls are right or would you try again? We'll win. This


time. First Minister, thank you very much indeed. Thank you.


That is all we have time for tonight. Have a very good night.


Good night. Hello there. The warmth continues


for the rest of this week. Another fine day for most on Wednesday.


Might start off a bit grey where you


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark. Looking at the latest on the MH17 plane crash, Marina Litvinenko on her husband, Gaza, whether obscuring corpses' faces is wrong, and Greg Dyke on English football.

Download Subtitles