15/08/2014 Newsnight

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.