15/08/2014 Newsnight


The stories behind the headlines with Fi Glover. Including Cliff Richard, how the 2003 war in Iraq looks now, South American indigenous tribes and Laura Mvula.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/08/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



No arrest, no charges, not even a shred of proof, as far as we know.


But this man is still all over the front pages.


Should there be anonymity for those accused of sexual offences?


Also tonight, with hindsight, how many different ways did we break


They jump up on the statue. Trouncing it.


Also tonight, with hindsight, how many different ways did we break


brutalised, tortured. We want to give you the chance to rebuild your


country, your lives, to give your families a chance of that better


future. We'll ask, how does what was


said then colour what we do now? And our latest Proms preview,


Laura Mvula. Sir Cliff Richard said in a


statement last night from Portugal, where he has a home, though not


the one searched by police, in Berkshire, that he was happy to


cooperate with the police, should they wish to speak to him to over


an allegation of sexual assault He described the allegation


as completely false. Sir Cliff also noted that somehow


the press, the BBC in this case, had been alerted to


the fact that his flat was going to be searched, thereby making


the allegation very public indeed. No charges


against Sir Cliff have yet been brought, and it's not the first time


that someone being investigated for a crime has found themselves


in the public eye before any We'll discuss whether there should


be more protections for those alleged to have committed


sex offences in a moment. His face splashed all over the


newspapers, inside, pages of speculation on his private life,


about a man who has not been found guilty or charged or been arrested


or questioned. A news helicopter hovered overhead yesterday, as


police arrived to search his flat in Berkshire. The singer is still in


Portugal and was not told about the operation in advance, but BBC news


reporters were clearly waiting for the detectives to turn up in


unmarked police cars. The one thing that we know about Sir Cliff Richard


is that he has denied any wrongdoing, and he says that it


appears that the press knew what was happening before he did. He is right


to be angry about that, that is part of the problem, that people already


have got 0% of the facts, but 100% of the opinions as to what is going


on. How did the media know about the search? Guidelines from the


Association of Chief Police Officers say...


There were two forces involved in this search, this morning Thames


Valley Police released a statement. By late afternoon, the BBC's had of


news-gathering tweeted. But then, a separate statement from


South Yorkshire Police, when a media outlet...


There should always be good relationships between the police and


the media, they should not be cosy, but both sides have something to


gain. In the end, the public have something to gain. One of the


problems in recent years, there has been a knee jerk reaction by the


police, saying, we must not talk to them, which is ridiculous. Let's


welcome Cliff Richard. The investigation is focused on an


alleged assault on a boy under 16 at an event featuring the American


evangelist Billy Graham in the mid-80s. Sir Cliff Richard has


called the allegation completely false, but the publicity has


triggered calls for anonymity to be extended to the accused in cases


like this. There will be people who say it is trial by media again, that


the interesting factor of this situation, he has been named before


he has even been arrested, which is really unusual, it is the first time


in 25 years I have heard of this, I was quite shocked. Other


high-profile celebrities all were cleared of sex offences or had


charges dropped. All were named and had their private lives splashed


over the press. In other cases, like the prosecution of Rolf Harris, the


publicity led to other victims coming forward and a successful


prosecution. The main reason for not introducing anonymity for defendants


is that these cases, once there has been a charge, to encourage


complainants to come forward, because they feel, it was not just


me. That is relevant in cases where the defendant is in a position of


authority or high profile, and we know there are recent cases of this


nature. So, they come forward and give their accounts before trial,


sometimes during trial, and that evidence is often used. Police said


they had received information of the result of the media coverage of the


last few days. But this is the start of what could be a long process will


stop Sir Cliff Richard is innocent until proven guilty.


To discuss anonymity in sexual-offence cases is the former


MP Ann Widdecombe, and Jill Saward, campaigner and rape victim herself.


It was the case up until a change in the Sexual Offences Act in 1988


Jill, the men who raped you and were convicted of that crime, they


The main rapist's name, I found it out the morning I went to court, it


was the first time I was allowed to be told. I asked at low record


levels, I was told I was not allowed to know. It was a horrendous


experience, you have to come to terms with the fact that this is a


real person, suddenly this person who you have known about, but know


nothing about, has a name and becomes a person. When you are


supposed to be concentrating on the evidence you are about to give,


having to think about everything to do with them and about them and


learning their name, it is not the right time, it is not appropriate at


all. It is totally wrong to put that on victims in that situation. You


would not want to see a return to that, but from what the report


mentioned, the problems that a false allegation can cause some people are


not to be ignored. Is there any change in the law that would be


beneficial? I do not think that it is right to have publicised it


before somebody has been questioned. I do not believe that is the right


way ahead. But it is important, from the moment somebody is questioned,


that we are made aware of the name of that person, so that it can


encourage other people to come forward. So many people have been


convicted because other people have come forward. Victims are very


vulnerable, and feel very much quite often that it was their fault that


it happened. It is the wrong feeling. But you are led to believe


by ceremony different people and agencies and perceptions that it was


your fault in somewhere or other. Therefore, you feel guilty about


making that move and going forward and taking the step. To know that


other people out there have been through something similar makes it


so much easier for you to feel that you will be believed. And


Widdecombe, this is the point, and it has been one that has been made


by the police, victims find strength in numbers, so the naming and


publicising of somebody who has an accusation against them has led to


other people feeling strong enough to come forward. Yes, but the law


has to protect the innocent as well as deal with the guilty. From what


we have seen in recent months, this case takes it a whole stage further,


perfectly innocent people being named, other people coming forward,


the case being disproved, 19 charges in one celebrity case, just being


completely disproved, but the people have not been able to work while


their names have been across the press, they have been subject to


social disapproval, they are terribly and chess and worried, and


it is not a level playing field, because if and when the charges


dismissed or the jury throws something out, we still do not know


who brought the allegation. I would say this for the level playing


field, it is perfectly true that if somebody really is guilty, others


may come forward, but it is also the case that where a woman has


previously made such allegations, but people should have the


opportunity to know that. You have made the suggestion that in those


cases, a judge could make those false allegations known. In the


other cases you are referring to, to take the point is a victim of rape,


why would you want to not enable women to feel stronger about the


ability to come forward, those are the facts about some of these


cases? You would not want to take that away from people? First of all,


that is no reason to start naming people before charge. You might want


to do it on charge, but not before that, and that has been very widely


disregarded. Secondly, yes, where a judge believes that an allegation


has been malicious or frivolous or with pound signs in the eyes, he


should be able to name the accuser, but for those for whom the evidence


is not even strong enough to proceed to court, they have had months of


worry, there has to be a level playing field. Either anonymity for


both or no anonymity for either. Do you think there is a place in the


middle where these differing opinions could meet? It is unlikely.


One of the things that she said is that people should be able to be


named if it is proved they have made a false allegation. The law allows


that to happen. For a lot of people, and allegation may not be


seen as false. Somebody may be seen -- found not guilty, but it does not


necessarily mean a victim has endured a sexual assault. This can


affect somebody for the rest of their lives. We talk about how it


affects the offenders for the rest of their lives, many of the people


we have seen, it has not affected them that badly, because they have


gone back to their jobs. That is true of the Thames as well, and


often they spend -- suspend their lives. We do not take the impact on


victims seriously at all in this country.


It's almost impossible to grasp the enormity of the violent events


History needs time in the blind spot of the rear-view mirror before


In a moment we'll discuss where the lessons of history take us with


regards to Iraq and what seems to be the reluctance of the US and Britain


First, a reminder of how that past looked, in the present.


We're going to run two broadcasts made by US President George W Bush


and then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, both were delivered to the


Iraqi people in April 2003, after troops had been sent in to Iraq.


And it is the whole speech and nothing but the speech.


At the moment, the regime of Saddam Hussein is being removed from power.


American and coalition forces are operating inside Baghdad. We will


not stop until Saddam Hussein's corrupt gang is gone. The government


of Iraq, and the future of your country will soon belong to you. The


goals of the coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal


regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique


threat to the world. Coalition forces will help maintain law and


order so Iraqis can live in security. We will expect -- respect


your traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are


essential to a rock's future. We will help you build a peaceful and


representative government that protects the rights of all citizens.


And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a


unified, sovereign nation. The United States and coalition partners


respect the people of Iraq. We are taking measures to spare the lives


of innocent citizens. We are beginning to deliver food, water and


medicine to those in need. Our only enemy is Saddam Hussein and his


brutal regime, and that regime is your enemy as well. In a new era,


your country will no longer be held captive to the will of a cruel


dictator. You will be free to build a better life, instead of building


palaces Saddam Hussein and sons. Free for making prosperity without


economic sanctions, free to speak your mind and join in the political


affairs of Iraq. And all the people who make up your country will be


free of the terrible persecution that so many having your order. The


nightmare that Saddam Hussein has brought to your nation will soon be


over. You are a good and gifted people. A great civilisation that


contributes to humanity. You deserve better than tyranny and torture. You


deserve to live as free people and I assure every citizen, your nation


will soon be free. This is Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United


Kingdom. I am glad to be able to speak to you today to tell you


Saddam Hussein's regime is collapsing and years of brutality,


oppression and fear are coming to an end. That a new and better future


beckons for the people of Iraq. We did not want this war, but in


refusing to give up his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam gave us no


choice but to act. Now the war has begun, it will be seen through to


the end. We will continue to do what we can to avoid civilian casualties.


Our enemy is Saddam and his regime, not the Iraqi people. Our forces are


friends and liberators of the Iraqi people, not your conquerors. And


they will not stay in Iraq a day longer than is necessary. I know,


however, some of you feared a repeat of 1991, when you thought Saddam's


war was being ended, but he stayed and you suffered. That will not


happen this time. This regime will be gone and ended. And then we will


work with you to build a peaceful, prosperous Iraq that you want and


deserve. This Iraq will not be run by Britain, or by the United States,


or by the United Nations. It will be run by you, the people of Iraq. Our


aim is to help alleviate humanitarian suffering and to move


as soon as possible to an interim authority that is run by Iraqis.


That will pave the way for a truly representative Iraqi government,


which respects human rights and the rule of law and spends Iraq's


wealth, not on palaces and weapons of mass destruction, not on you and


the services you need. Saddam Hussein and his regime plundered


your nation's wealth. While many of you live in poverty, they lived


lives of luxury. Saddam became one of the richest men in the world, his


money stolen from you. The money from Iraqi oil will be yours, to be


used to build prosperity for you and your families. I know from my


meetings with Iraqi exiles who live in Britain, that you are an


inventive, creative people. You should be free to travel, to have


access to independent media, free to express your views and develop your


culture. My experience of people the world over is that we all want to be


able to live our lives in peace and in security. We want to give our


families the chance of a decent life and future. Three years, that chance


has been denied to you. Millions of your countrymen and women have been


forced to leave -- fee years. Many have been tortured, brutalised by


the regime. Now, we want to give you the chance to rebuild your country


and your lives, to give your families a chance that better


future. So it is in the spirit of friendship and goodwill that we now


offer our help. Thank you. Tony Blair and George Bush -- George W


Bush. Joining me is John Rentoul, a confirmed Blairite and Peter


Hitchens, not a confirmed Blairite. What do those speeches make you


think? They make me feel very sad because the hopes that people had at


the time proved to be so awfully badly founded. You cannot say


anything other than the present state of Iraq is a disaster. Would


you still say Tony Blair and George Bush's policy was right, or that it


was wrong and they caused what is happening now? It was not completely


wrong. The aims of the policy were good and noble. It turned out


extremely badly. I think the worst lesson to take from Iraq would be


Peter's lesson, that intervention never works. Sometimes it works and


in Iraq, it did not. But I ink we have a responsibility, partly


because we helped to create the mess, to finish the job. Peter


Hitchens, you have been pre-empted, but I would like to know your


reaction to seeing those words again. One thing they make me feel


is the self regard these ignorant people who launched themselves into


a problem they did not understand and created a mess far worse than


the one they claim to be clearing up. It seems to be to be a good


warning to politicians that things are more complicated than they seem.


Since they cannot run their own countries with competence, it


strikes me as wise to steer clear of running other people's. John Rentoul


says that I say you should never intervene. I would not go that far.


There may be circumstances. But it would help if you knew what you were


doing before you intervened. They rejected the advice of people who


knew what they were doing. How can you know what you are doing? You


cannot imagine in 2003 that somebody sat down, no matter how clever, that


a force like IS would be marauding across the country, killing people.


The history of Iraq since we created it has been one of violence and


terrible mayhem, much of which was directed against the British when we


first went there. If anybody knew that, they would have realised it


was more of a problem. I am not sure they understood the divisions


between Sunni and Shia. One thing that has to be rammed home is they


said they would bring democracy to Iraq. A collaboration between the


United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran has overthrown the


democratically elected government of Iraq and replaced it with one more


to its taste. That is not democratic. That is a gross


simplification. It is a straightforward statement. Everyone


would agree that Mr Maliki was part of the problem in dealing with Isis.


Part of the pressure from within Iraq... If you set yourself up as


bringing democracy to the country and then collaborate in overthrowing


the democratically chosen leader, you cannot claim to be the apostle


of democracy. Can I ask you both this question about the shadows of


history. So many believe the reluctance on the part of the US and


Britain to go in is based on the fact the last campaigns have been


unsuccessful. The Gulf Wars. Are we deluding ourselves and allowing


history to skew the present. The situation now is different. The


humanitarian disaster, the potential genocide, it is a different


situation. It would be foolish to ignore any possibility of saving


people from genocide, starvation, all the other terrible things. You


have to be careful not to extend that, which it could easily happen,


into something bigger. The Libyan catastrophe began with claims we


would prevent a massacre. Libya is now one big massacre. Nobody reports


it because nobody goes there. We did prevent a massacre in Libya. There


is no question. It has not turned out very well. The causes of that


are deep and various. They are not necessarily to do with the


intervention, just as the causes of ices are not necessarily to do with


the intervention of 2003, but more with our failure to intervene with


Syria. I would say it is largely a consequence of our destabilisation.


It crosses one of the last frontiers of our


imaginations - lost tribes, whole communities we know nothing about.


When 20 more members of an ancient tribe came out


of the jungle this week they gave us a unique insight into


The first pictures of an Amazonian tribe believed to have fled their


lands in Peru across the border to Brazil. They have told that they


were attacked, possibly by loggers or drug traffickers. But they are


not safe yet. Things easily cured in the outside world have wiped out


communities in the past that have not been exposed to them. They were


forced to make contact because of their land being destroyed. I think


the authorities must provide money to protect their lives. We do not


know the name of the latest tribe but it is believed there are over 70


tribes not contacted in the Amazon and over 100 worldwide. The


challenge now is to prepare tech from a world that is long they have


wanted nothing to do with. One man who has had the privilege


of meeting some of the world's most secretive tribes


is Dr John Hemming, an explorer and historian, who was once head


of the Royal Geographical Society. They have very powerful


personalities these people. Can you describe what it is like to meet


someone who may not have seen a person like yourself. It is


traumatic. Can you imagine, you live all your life in the forest and,


suddenly, you have this extraordinary experience. The four


peoples I have seen at the time of contact have reacted differently.


They are highly intelligent people. Two groups, just in a state of


shock, another was quite aggressive, they had bows and arrows all the


time and would not let us see their village. The fourth group treated us


like gods. They did not know who we were all what we wanted. This


contact was made by Brazilian professionals. They went quite well.


The great problem is disease. And are spreading diseases they have no


antibodies to. They are wonderfully fit. In perfect health. We come


along and ruin it, which is very unfair. What sensation does it leave


you with? Is it like the men and women who go to space who come back


down and save the world is never quite the same again? It had eight


the effect. -- a bit big effect. -- big effect. It turned into three


large books. And the research goes on. You cannot generalise, every


tribe is different, but I cannot think of a single people who did not


want to preserve, or even revive their culture. Like our own


minorities, such as the Welsh, the Scottish, they want to keep and


preserve and treasure their heritage. I read that in your first


trip to the Amazon you were given permission by the Brazilian


government to name areas you discovered and gave them names of


your Brazilian girlfriend will stop that was nothing to do with the


Indians. It was a long time ago. We have to leave it there. Thanks for


coming in this and evening. That is it from me, the last of the bending


machine of standing presenters. We'd leave you with a treat as part of


the Proms preview season. We end tonight with the incredible voice of


Laura M Foula. This is a song from her new album. -- Laura Mvula.


# Saw you wandering in my dream last night.


# Singing wonder, wonder what you might do.


# You can't simply hide a dream in the blue.


# Don't try to fight, don't let me go.


# You've gone too far from what I know.


# I lost my heart in the dark with you.


# Don't try to fight, don't let me go.


# You've gone too far from what I know.


# I lost my heart in the dark with you.


Cliff Richard. How the 2003 war in Iraq looks now. South American indigenous tribes. Laura Mvula sings. With Fi Glover.

Download Subtitles