18/08/2014 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/08/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Britain is not going to be getting involved in another war in iraq,


we're not putting boots on the ground.


But is the line between what we will and won't do shifting every day?


Despite what David Cameron says, are we back on the road to Iraq?


Tomorrow the Government is ramping up its riots-inspired programme to


It wants to "turn around" another 400,000 of them, but is the


Government expanding a programme without proof that it works?


The National Guard is on the streets of Ferguson Missouri.


Is this a divide that can ever be healed?


We'll ask the American philosopher Cornell West.


Hail the conquering heroes. I will ask Maggie Alphonsi, from the


triumphant England's women's rugby team if it's time they turned pro


like the men. Good evening. David Cameron has


spoken in the most vehement terms about the crisis in Iraq saying that


we are in the middle of a generational struggle against a


poisonous and extremist ideology. If IS is not stopped they could push to


the Mediterranean and to Turkey. That apocalyptic vision does not


appear to be matched by a vision of what British military forces should


do. The Defence Secretary indicated that the role of the British


military had moved beyond a humanitarian task, but to what? Is


the Prime Minister acting decisively or re-acting day by day? British


lives and reputations were lost in Iraq. David Cameron won't be the one


to argue for another military intervention, but our response is


now much more than helping save lives in danger. The Prime


Minister's adamant it doesn't mean troops. Britain is not going to get


involved in another war in Iraq. We're not going to be putting boots


on the ground. Wire not going to be sending in -- we're not going to be


sending in the British Armiment we should -- army. We should use our


diplomacy, the military prowess and expertise we have to help others, we


should use these things as part of a strategy to put pressure on Islamic


State and make sure this terrorist organisation is properly addressed.


Note, he said: We will use our military prowess. Curdish fighters


have been fighting with extremists at the Mosul dam. Control of vital


power and water, they claim now back in their hands. In turn, our fighter


jets have been flying to provide intelligence to the Americans.


Neither the Ministry of Defence nor the rest of the Government is


staying out of it. UK warplanes are already flying over parts of Iraq.


We've offered to give weapons to curds in the north -- Kurds in the


north. Special forces are thought to be in the country already. The


Kurdish leadership has told visiting British MPs they want help with


training their troops. When you hear this description of the frontline,


it's clear why. One division would work for one party. Another for


another political party. Division would be part of the intelligence


department, another one would be part of the police force. One is


Special Forces. Those divisions are not coordinating. That's been part


of the problem. Part this afternoon coordination -- part of that


coordination and training of the Army is certainly in what I would


say, in the medium and longer term, absolutely required. Training


moderates to take on the horror of Islamic State has not been discussed


by Number Ten yet. Sources deny there's been a shift in their wider


position. They say Britain will deal with these extremists and their


terrible ambitions, not with direct combat, instead, what they describe


as an approach that's primarily humanitarian with military


assistance. Could that also be known as keeping their options open? In


using humanitarian assistance to justify Britain's early involvement


when it was clear in a war zone, any humanitarian action always entails


the possibility of combat, first, and second, that the threat poled by


ISIS, a threat that the Prime Minister himself had been


undercorpsing for many months was more than a humanitarian issue --


underscoring. The Prime Minister believes British Governments will


have to deal with Islamic State for generations. Although his foreign


policy ambitions have already been held back by history. This time last


year, defence planners were considering different but direct


action. The Prime Minister argued for intervention against President


Assad. He lost the vote that would have backed it in the Mondays. At


that -- in the Commons. At that moment, foreign policy, in part


because of the shadow of what happened in Iraq ten years before. A


shadow that perhaps looms larger now. Tonight David Cameron made


phone calls to leaders around the Middle East, trying to confront


together a more brutal enemy with regional ambition. While the


problems presented by Islamic State are more and more acute, the


political traps at home of taking action are just as wide.


Here with me now are Fraser Nelson, Editor of the Spectator, and


First of all, Laura alluded to the shadow of Iraq and the shadow of


Syria, do you get the sense that David Cameron is at sea over exactly


how to approach this? I think if there's a tension between his


instincts, he's talking in Churchillian terms of a generational


struggle to defeat ISIS, but not militarily, we're not sending in the


Army. Anybody will think - which is it? We saw him saying we're not


going to get involved in another Iraq war. This afternoon he sent a


geoforce out there. And it's quite a terrifying thought, this idea that


we're facing this for a exwren rags -- generation. He marches up to the


top of the hill, but there isn't any clamour for debate. MPs don't


actually know what they'll be debating. That's right. It's


disappointing there isn't more clamour. British foreign policy


achanging before our eyes here. If Parliament can be recalled to


express condolences on the Queen mum's death, then you can discuss


something as big as this. Should Parliament be recalled? Not quite


yet. Not yet? We haven't actually taken any military action. As soon


as we start thinking about military action, yes. But we're doing


humanitarian action at the moment. But, at the weekend, the Defence


Secretary said it wasn't just humanitarian He's talking action.


About arming the Peshmerga. I don't see a great requirement for


Parliament here. It may well be, but not quite yet. You see, I agree with


Fraser up to a point. I don't agree that we know exactly what's


happening. If you're going to have a strategy, you've got to have


something to rat Is on. We -- strategis E.On. At what point do you


make a decision on whether or not you will take military action along


with the Americans? You don't know that point. You speak from


experience. My experience is, look, I went sent to Bosnia. I didn't even


have a mission for three months. There was no strategy or end game.


Is there Is that a good way to carry on? We know that civilians are being


attacked. Does it not make us look incredibly weak that we seem to be


didge snerg It's a very odd thing to do, to rule out, for example, any


serious military involvement and at the same time, say to I serve, we


hate -- to IS, we hate you, we're out to get you. The Prime Minister


may come to regret ruling these things out. Is he boxing himself


Retorically yes in? . In fairness, the Prime Minister is saying what


everyone feels at the moment. He doesn't want to put, as he says,


boots on the ground. If circumstances change, and our


country is threatened by these people... He seems to suggest that


Britain is being threatened. Threatened on the borders of knave


toe, being threatened here if IS fighters come here for terrorism.


That's in prospect. It's not there yet. I think that in the end, the


Prime Minister will have to make a decision in the national interest.


The national interest, fundamentally is the defence of our country. Yes,


but then what you might have is a situation like 7/7. Only when


something like that happens do we galvanise ourselves into action for


what is happening abroad. The public aren't prepared to do very much.


There'll be a hell of a row if we suddenly started talking about


military forces into northern Iraq. The public aren't up for it. Is that


because Iraq was such a mistake? Yes. My constituents are contacting


me and they're saying, we've got to do more than humanitarian aid. I


say, what would you mean by that? You imply military action and then


there's silence. If you talk about IS as the Prime Minister does, as


being on the shores of the Mediterranean, spilling into Syria,


you really think the Iraqi Army can take them on? The Iraqi Army, no.


They're basically a rabble at the moment. The Kurdish forces are more


efficient. It's funny that Kurds who we regarded as terrorists recently


are now fighting with the American p air cover -- American air cover. War


can quickly change allegiances. Right now, we've got to work out -


do we support an independent Kurdistan. Yes, and break what


Barack Obama keeps talking about as a united Iraq. Yes, but even tonight


Barack Obama was thanking Iraqi and Kurdish forces, even getting into


the swing of things. Are our enemies going to become our friends? Are we


going to need President Assad, are we even going to need the Iranians?


The answer is inevitably, they will. That's what happens in real life.


Enemies become friends. Friends become enemies. I'm afraid that's


politics. In the Middle East, it's most certainly the case. What are


other of your military, former military compatriots telling you


about this and discussing, what is their view? I haven't really talked


to many people. I've been in France for two weeks. The fact is speaking


from my own position, and my own experience, the one thing I disagree


with is people saying we should have an end game, we should have a


strategy now. We can't. Things are moving far too fast. The Prime


Minister, quite rightly, is doing his best to deal with each day as it


comes. When we have something more stable to think about a strategy,


when the situation stabilises, then perhaps a strategy will Thank you


come. Both very much. "Off the barometer" that's the


description of the problems of many of the troubled families


in the UK given by the boss of the Government programme dedicated


to them - families who are chaotic, drug-abusing jobless,


have mental health issues, The Prime Minister emphasised that


families are the bedrock of society. and that dovetails with tomorrow's


announcement that the Government will ramp up the


Troubled Families Programme from 120,000 families to around half a


million, pointing to a success story for 53,000 families who have been,


the phrase is "turned around". In the aftermath of the 2011 riots,


David Cameron came up with a ?400 million policy to deal with 120,000


trouble-making families. Official Dom might call them families with


multiple disadvantages. Some in the press might call them neighbours


from hell. Whatever you call them, we've known for years that a


relatively small number of families are the source of a large proportion


of problems in our society. As the Prime Minister said in a speech


today, that programme to tackle them, the so-called troubled


families scheme, will take in a further 400,000 families during the


next Parliament. The philosophy of the Troubled Families Programme is


that a stitch in time saves nine. Central Government has asked local


authorities about families with a high propensity for truancy and


worklessness. By focussing resources there, we can solve a lot of


problems all at once. We established the family recovery programme


incorporating our Troubled Families Programme which brought a number of


services together, such as mental health, the police, housing, health,


domestic violence and a few more, substance issues, there are a range


of specialists that can offer multiple services and multiple


interventions for our families. There were 120,000 scheme families


are certainly poor and have social problems, for example, 74% of them


had no-one in work. 42% had been visited by the police in the


previous six months. 29% were suspected of domestic violence.


There are oddities about the programme. For example, why 120,000


families? The 120,000 figure is essentially made up. It originally


comes from a figure of the number of families in severe deprivation, not


families that welcome back troubled, but deprived families. It's been


wrenched out of context and used essentially because the Prime


Minister wanted to make a speech. Now the minister-macro and other


ministers have talked about how the Troubled Families Programme is a


success and that is based on the number of people 's lives who have


been turned around by it. It's worth looking at what they mean when they


sit in and around. On the latest statistics, the scheme has turned


around 53,000 families. But of all these, only 4500 have been turned


around because a member of the family could sustain work, remaining


are deemed turned around because of other criteria, for example their


children may have got three suspensions in a year, truancy rate


of less than 15% and the family may have reduced its anti-social


behaviour and offending. So families and offending. So families of school


a week gets suspended twice in a year and are deemed to be turned


around. Clearly when families improve on these outcomes, it is


genuine improvement, but it is absurd to suggest that because the


child of the family is true in things slightly less, but it means


the family has been turned around permanently. The measures don't


address real problems such as domestic violence, and families


deemed to have been turned around aren't on the back of the scheme


even if things go wrong. So it's a bit early to claim that the scheme


is a success. I'm joined by the director general of the Troubled


Families Programme. It is a gargantuan task, did you think it


would be as tough? Yes, I did. I started work in this area many years


go and when the government had they wanted to do this, I knew it was


going to be extremely ambitious. You have got 120 to nearly half a


million, and on that figure of 53,000, only 4500 have found


implement, continuous employment after six months. -- have found


employment. These families are probably the furthest away from the


job market than any. But 4500 out of 53,000 that are deemed to have been


turned around. It is about 10%, in the scheme of things, when you


consider how problematic these families are, layered upon domestic


violence, crime, anti-social behaviour, extremely significant


health problems, we're talking about families which have often never


worked and their parents have never worked. But you have only got under


5000 out of 53,000 into work. I am not saying that's... They are deemed


to have been turned around, because it's not a question of the family


having no suspensions, no offending among miners, and no social


behaviour, it is 60% reduction, three exclusions maximum and an


offending reduction. They are off the programme, isn't that scary? The


first thing to say is, of those who have been turned around, nobody


should underestimate the extraordinary distance those


families have travel. You said yourself that it is gargantuan,


extremely ambitious, they are large families, as we know from the study


we have done, and all of the children, every member of that


family, the reduction has to be by 60% and they had to reduce crime by


30 and they have two get the kid into school. He said they had turned


around, it would seem to me they are just turning around, rather than


saying, tick the box, you are off the scheming to can't get back on


it. People are putting words into mouse here. I am clear that just


because a family has made these very significant moves in the right


direction, doesn't mean to say all the problems are over and everything


is perfect. Why can't face day in the scheme? -- they stay. They get


specialist help? For as long as they needed. There are many families with


the local authorities have claimed their results payment for and they


continue to work with those families. The woman you interviewed


earlier is in that situation. But if you have 53 families who are turning


around, but completely turned around, and are still on the books,


you are moving from a base rate of only managing it was half of 120,000


families, to taking on half a million families. Is there not a


danger you are completely tolerating this, wouldn't it be better to stick


with the families, see them through finally rather than getting more


money... I don't think it is. The thing that is interesting about this


programme is that everybody knows these families have dominated our


public services for years. We need to render that there are hundreds of


different organisations circling around these families and not fixing


them. The difference with this programme is that you have one


worker that completely grips the family and grips all members of it.


You can argue about semantics till the cows come home... Turned around


means they are off the books. It doesn't mean they are off the books.


There's a difference between when a local authority says we have moved


them this far and it's time to make a results claim... Which is a


financial claim. If you get all of the children back into school for


three consecutive terms, almost 12 months, it is a huge movement in the


right direction. You are saying 5000 families isn't a lot to get them


into work, it's an amazing achievement to get these families


into work when you know the background to them. The study I


published a couple of weeks ago showed they had an average of nine


huge problems. Including domestic violence, that doesn't come up in


the scheme. Let me just put it to you that you are talking about being


able to deliver this sort of service on cash-strapped councils with


nearly half a million families. Aren't you building hugely false


expectations of what you can achieve in five years? The most


extraordinary story here is that public services, local authorities


in particular, have gripped this programme, it is they who have said


they want to help more families, get children younger, had earlier


intervention, they are the power behind us to extend this programme.


The matter what anybody says, those families have changed significantly


and can only be a good thing in today. Thank you very much.


This came after the governor of Missouri signed an order


for the National Guard to quell the escalating protests.


The situation remains press after night. These are the scenes that


printed the calling in the US National Guard. The night-time


curfew, intended to quell unrest, has now ended but the fatal police


shooting of an unarmed black teenager more than a week ago, that


a the violent protest last night. Police used tear gas and rubber


bullets as the violence escalated. An initial autopsy found he had been


shot but the police did not disclose how many times. Today a private


autopsy commissioned by the family revealed he was shot at least six


times, including twice in the head, and suggested he was killed while


trying to surrender. The army said mobile part of your body, so it


could have occurred when he was putting his hands up -- the arm is a


mobile part. It could have happened if he put his arms across the


defensive manner, we don't know. His family are calling for the rest of


the officer involved. What is justice to you? Being fair.


Arresting this man, and making him accountable for his actions. This


evening President Obama highlighted the plight for some young black men


in parts of the US. You have young men of colour in many communities


who are more likely to end up in jail or in the criminal justice


system than they are in a good job or in college. Part of my job, that


I can to without any potential conflicts, is to get at those root


causes. Michael Brown's death has sparked days of clashes between


protesters and police. Authorities in the back row will be watching to


see with the end of the curfew will curb or escalate the protests. First


of all, do you think this is a pivotal moment for America? There is


no doubt that once again, we have to deal with the vicious legacy of


white supremacy, once again we have to raise the question. If our dear


brother Michael Brown, were a precious white youths or a precious


Jewish youth, would the president, Congress, legal system, respond in


the same way as being a precious black brother in Ferguson? I think


we know the answer. The American system is an abysmal failure when it


comes to keeping track of the humanity of black poor youth. Is


there a deep mistrust now among young black youth in America of what


hand has been dealt them? It is generational. In my generation, we


are the distrust of the police because of arbitrary police power,


because of a deeply racist legal system, saying is true for this new


generation. We have lost three waves of young, poor youth with a bogus


war against drugs that generated unbelievable expansion of the new


Jim Crow, callousness, indifference, has been the response of


presidents, Congress, and think about the hypocrisy here. Recently


the president said, were tortured some folks but they were real


patriots, they were dealing with anguish, but here we have young


people upset because they rightly see a murder taking place. And he


has to be the manner of law and order. It's not law and order when


it comes to torture. But it's law and order now and it comes to poor


black people. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. You were just talking


about President Obama, do you think his response has been sufficient to


the task in terms of, what do you think of the assessment of the way


he has behaved since the death of Michael Brown? I think his words


reek of political calculation, rather than moral conviction. Keep


in mind that he put out a statement for the death of Robin Williams, who


was at comic genius, before he put out a statement on Michael Brown.


The family asked for an autopsy, they hesitated, they had to get


their own autopsy. Now we know of the six shots, of the head being...


But the grief is overwhelming. But does that excuse... It is disgusting


to have a black president unable to keep track of what is going on with


the young black youth. The grief and anger is understandable but does


that excuse looting? Why should they go together? No, no. I am not


justifying looting. That's wrong, that's wrong. We have to be honest


about calling out what is wrong, but the most important thing is, if in


fact there was a semblance of a just process, a semblance of


transparency, you wouldn't have the young brothers and sisters throw in


the Molotov cocktails because they would recognise. Another is pleading


to have her precious baby, who had been murdered, to have the person at


least arrested so we can begin a fair trial, and she can't get that,


in America, 2014! You are one black leader. What do you think the Black


leadership in America should be doing now? Do you think the black


leadership in America now it's wanting? I am not a black leader, I


am a lover of black people, I am not a leader. I try and tell the truth


about the suffering of poor black people in general, but what we need


now is quality leadership on every level. We don't need the same


everyday folk coming through with the market branding, the names and


photo opportunities. We need local grassroots leaders who have


integrity, and the sad thing is we have such low qwerty black


leadership in America so you get a certain distance from what is


actually happening on the ground, in terms of not just being there but


following room. We have people who have been apologists for the


President Obama administration who every event, come through, was their


justice for Trayvon Martin? Absolutely not. We can go across the


board. We need leadership, especially grassroots, with


integrity. That brings us to the great legacy of Martin Luther King


and the others. And no, this isn't another question


about the Scottish referendum - 95% of Britons think that to


be considered truly British you Yet there are almost


a million people in these islands Newsnight has had first sight


of their report which calls for a complete overhaul


of the Government's language Jim Reed has been finding


out what it's like to live My name is Beatrice. I'm happy to


have this class and teach you this morning. We used to make small talk


about the weather. Now, in this English class, the modern-day


equivalent. Where do you usually go shopping? What about Morrisons? This


couple are from west Africa. He came here from a Portuguese passport to


stack shelves at Tesco. He's just joined this beginners' class. How


old are your children? The boy is 11. The girl is four. Do they speak


English? Yes. As their first language? Yes. They speak English


better than Portuguese? Yeah. How difficult is that as a family? Yeah,


sometimes, some word, they don't understand what they said in my


language. I don't know how to explain them, how, erm...... How do


you get the word. Them say, it is Through your difficult. Relationship


with your daughter, if you can't speak the same language, is that a


problem? Which shop is your favourite shop?


Four million in the UK now live in households where English is not the


main language. Some, like this woman from Egypt, have been living here


for decades without speaking it well. You've been here 25 years, in


this country, why just start to learn English now? Why not before


now? Before because I working, I send money for my family in Egypt.


Now everyone is married from my brother's children and my mum she


passed away. I'm looking for myself. Do you wish you'd started earlier? I


wish. How do we get to the situation where some of the people in your


class have lived here for 20, 30 years even and cannot speak English?


I know, it's absolutely amazing. I do some registration myself and I


say, you've been here 25 years, why haven't you come to learn before?


People have come straight into work. They've got a job in a cafe or a


restaurant, as a chef, and they - They haven't needed language skills


in that situation? Their priority was to get work so they could


survive, basically. The most popular English language course is free to


those on out of work benefits. The rest pay up to ?1,000 a year. A


report out tomorrow criticises Labour for wasting money on the


scheme and then the coalition for cutting funding significantly in


England, leading to a big drop in student numbers. 850,000 people in


this country can't speak English well or can't speak English at all.


That's completely unacceptable. Just to compare that with the number of


people who are on these courses, in the main programme, which isn't


everybody, there are 150,000. You can see, there's a very big gap


between needs and needs that are being met. Of those 850,000, they


might not all want to learn English. That's absolutely right. They might


not want to. Nonetheless there are about 80% of colleges that provide


these courses report long waiting lists of up to a thousand potential


students. These two are charging down this slide, in part because of


Joanna lumly, the actress led the campaign to give Gurkhas the right


to live in the UK. This former soldier and his wife left Nepal to


start a new life here. Laksmi came here with basic English. After her


course, three years later, she might not be fluent, but she's not far off


it. It makes it very, very hard, when you don't understand their


language. And when you are even like alone, among strangers, it is very,


very hard and I felt like I'm confined, I'm in a jail. The report


out tomorrow argues we need to make the process simpler. Immigrants


could be offered loans to cover course fees or told to buy language


lessons as a condition of entry. She's now planning to retrain and go


back to work with her new English skills. After learning English for


three years, I believe that I'm able to speak, I'm able to express my


feeling and I have gained some skills as well. I have planned to do


accounting course from September. I think there's a big jump from three


years ago and now. Do you find you're getting better and better?


I'm getting better. I'm getting better than before, when I was first


in Have you England. Leapfrogged your husband, do you think your


speaking is better than his? Are you competitive about it? Yes, of


course, I'm better than him now. The Government says it has now


tightened the rules for non-EU migrants and a basic language test


is now part of the residency exam. It says Government funding must be


targeted at those whose poor English is stopping them getting into


employment. I was chef nearly 35 years... In the class in west


London, Galia came here to work as a chef in the Ritz Hotel. She never


left. It took her 20 years to start learning English, encouraged by


surprising role models. He's crazy like me. You like this man? I love


it. I love this man. The kind of integration then, the one half of


the coalition would dearly love to see. Immigration is likely to drive


up our population over the next 20 years. Whether those new entrants


will be told to or even be able to speak English, that could make a big


difference to British society. David lamby is in the studio and in


Birmingham the Conservative special advisor on youth and crime Sean


Bailey. Do you think it's acceptable that more than 850,000 people in


this country can't speak useable English? I don't believe you can


build cohesive communities if people can't communicate. But whose


responsibility is it? One of the points in the report is if


immigrants are going to come to this country immigrants learning English


would be part of the package of making sure they pass the test to


come into the country. That's key. Because who takes the responsibility


for paying the bills? There has to be some respect for the communities


that are already here, taxpayers, who will have to cover that cost.


You believe it's the immigrants themselves who should shoulder the


cost? For sure. One way to look at it is to say you're effectively


asking British citizens to shoulder the cost of other people's


immigration. We have a very generous system as it is with our NHS and the


rest of that, this will add to that bill. That will be a hard sell for


the public. There has to be some respect for the people who cover the


bills. What he's saying as to society cohesion, if people can


speak English together rather than be isolated within their own home or


within their own family, do you see a difference between asylum seekers


and economic migrants. There's two things, what Sean says is fatuous.


Asylum seekers are coming from places like Somalia, we see the


problems in Iraq. Many will arrive over coming years. These are


vulnerable people. Often not very literate in their own languages. Of


course the state has to find language courses for them so that


they can get into the employment market. Many are women, like that


woman you saw, 20 years she's not been able to speak She was English.


Wonderful, delight ever, but she had a job from the moment she arrived


here. Surely, you wouldn't think it was incumbent upon her to learn


English? Yes and employers have to play a bigger role in that. You need


courses in churches, in mosques, in community groups. 40% of this


funding has been cut, gone, over the last five years. The criticism was


that Labour frittered it and didn't use proper programmes. The budget


trebled under Labour. We got more people into work under Labour. It


was a good thing. We now have hundreds of thousands of people


sitting at home, unable to enter the job market because they cannot speak


English. Hold on, you've conflated two things. You are talking about


immigration versus asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are very different.


If the Government invites someone here for whatever reason that's


going on in the world, we take some responsibility for them. If you're


an economic migrant, you have to cover your own bill. You can't


charge your immigration to my tax bill. That's ridiculous. A lot of


the economic migrants who come do pay taxes. Yeah, but before they get


into the country, they should be able to say that they will cover the


cost. What do you mean, before they get into the country? You can't


expect them to get here and not speak English. They won't One in


survive. Three are coming within the European Union. They're coming from


Poland. They're coming from France. They're coming from Spain. They have


free movement. What requirement? You can't. Just like when you go to


France... Hang on a minute, do we need to change all that? I'm sure


Sean will say we should pull out of Europe. Don't put words in my mouth.


I've never said no such thing. Should free movement include that


you can show you can speak basic English. If we say that you can


speak basic French and basic Spanish. Perhaps. It's not currently


the system. Do you thi it's reasonable, we have a cash-strapped


NHS. In 2012, in England, there was ?23 million paid for translations


for people within the NHS, do you think that is acceptable? There is a


question about the translation bill, particularly, I think in a library.


But I've got to say that the cost for people not being able to


navigate English is far greater in the NHS. You do need people. You


pick up that bill, if you're socially excluded and you can't


access medicine. Far greater cost to the planning. You can't just wait


for people to arrive. Sean Bailey, finally, we know that the waiting


list for these courses is huge. If you're going to resolve this in the


short-term, what has to be Separate out done? The people who we as


taxpayers are responsible for, because they're coming here for a


particular reason, and who is an economic migrant. If you migrate to


a country, your education, your ability to communicate, surely that


bill rests with you. You have to have some respect for the people who


pay the bills. There's lots of things in this country that


communities need. To ask them to pay for other people's bills seems to be


pushing it. Thank you both. The triumphant England Women's Rugby


team arrived home from Paris today, after beating Canada in the


World Cup final. Their decisive 21-9 win,


in front of the sold-out stadium, and two million people watching


on television, shows just how much of a revolution has taken place in


the sport since women first played, But for the women, all amateurs,


there's none of the glamour of sponsorship, fees,


and big club deals It's back to the day jobs


for the squad. Maggie Alphonsi, one of those


players is here. Many congratulations. You must be on


cloud nine. I'm over the moon. I can't believe it's actually


happened. What a fantastic result to come away with a Gold Medal, after


years of hard work. It's brilliant. Do you thi that the result of your


win, of course, England has won before, but 20 years ago, do you


think the result this afternoon win will be to ramp up both the interest


in women's rugby, but also the desire to take it another stage?


Definitely. I think now the fact that we've won the World Cup in our


own country has made us think we can get more women involved in the


sport. We had the World Cup in 2010 and there was a lot of attention. In


2014 in France, the media coverage was fantastic. We got a lot more


people who wanted to get involved in the women's game, but have never


seen women's rugby before and are interested in it. For a long time,


the television stations wouldn't take women's rugby. When you


actually see the game, you see how extraordinarily talented,


professional and everything else, where go back to your day jobs? It's


one of the things where I started playing at 13 years old. There


wasn't a lot for women's rugby. We played rugby. We didn't get a lot of


attention on tfr or media articles. Over the last 15 years, I've seen


rot depression change so much. It was slow, though. You have to see


that it is frustrating. It is going to take time. Look at women's


football now. What's pleasing about rugby is we're get thering. The men


get paid fees for winning, fees for taking part, going back to the club,


amazing sponsorship. You would think that people would be jumping to


spoonor women's rugbiment Now we've won it. Who knows what will happen


from here. I think it will only get better from now on. Do you think


that every single club should have women's rugby within the club?


Definitely. More girls are getting involved in the Do you sport. Think


because of this win, the same way there's always a bounce from


different sports, that actually, you talked about taking up rugby at 13,


that actually there will be in schools, for young women, rugby.


There is still a prejudice against it in some schools. It's growing


already. I've been looking at social media and the amount of Twitter


comments from positive people interested in getting involved in


the women's game, young girls, you know, women wanting to be part of


it, that's positive. It's Gowing -- it's only going to get better. Is it


a big celebration for everybody? We have been celebrating. But the focus


is the next World Cup in three Thank you years. Very much.


James Alexander Wilson has died. He read the classified football results


on BBC Radio for 40 years before stepping down last year. He was


famous for his distinctive style, especially altering his tone of


voice to indicate whether a result was home or away win or a draw. We


leave you the explanation of the method in his own words. I always


try to make the five minutes really interesting for the listener. Of


course, the best way to do it is to get the inflection right, obviously,


which I hope I do. And for instance, if Arsenal have lost, well, I'm


sorry for them. If Manchester United have won, I'm happy for them. So it


would go something like this. Arsenal one, Manchester United 2.


And so on and so forth. Simple as that.


A fresh start in the morning, plenty of showers over north-west England


and parts of Wales. We are left with a scattering of showers for the


afternoon, sunny spells as well but it won't feel warm. Generally it


will stay dry in the central belt of Scotland. Temperatures in some cases


may not even get to 13. After a wet start in Greater Manchester,


Download Subtitles