01/09/2014 Newsnight


Parents v hospitals. Are new terror laws legal? Is the UK behind Hong Kong protests? Three parent babies. Naked actress stolen pictures. Football transfer day economics.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



A sick child 300 miles away from his parents, who are tonight behind


bars. How do the legal and medical procedures across Europe get to


this, and how much choice do parents have over their child's own


treatment. Also tonight: It sticks in the craw


the idea that someone can go from this country, go to Syria, declare


Jihad, make all sorts of plans do us damage and then contemplate


returning to Britain. Police get more powers to fight terror, are the


new rules legal and will they work? This man was once under a control


order, he thinks the Government have it all wrong.


And this: Technically I have DNA from three


different people. Is there any good reason why science should be able to


create children with three different biological parents. Today science


tries to work out the answer. Good evening. Southampton General


Hospital called it a "breakdown in communication", that breakdown has


resulted tonight in the parents of Ashya King spending the night in the


Soto Real prison in Madrid, whilst their desperately ill son lies in a


Malaga hospital 300 miles away. The family who brought him to Spain


without the consent of the authorities have refused to be


extradited to Britain. As a result they are now banned from seeing


their five-year-old. The situation is desperate. A Kafka plot with a


horribly real outcome. How does the law work to protect a child from its


parents when the parents believe they are only doing what is best.


It is the best treatment for Ashya. Parents in prison, away from their


ill little boy. He's in a hospital room with guards, miles away. The


Kings took a decision to trust their instinct not doctors. But predicted


nothing of what the consequences would be. Obviously we never thought


this would be such a big deal. We just wanted to do what was best for


Ashya. Obviously I'm just grateful for everyone back home. Obviously


petitions being signed and money being raised for his treatment,


obviously I'm really thankful. The King's Speeches refused the


authority's legal request to bring him home, so a Spanish judge ordered


them to stay in custody while the legal machine grinds on. I ask call


it off this ridiculous chase. It is not a crime for parents to remove


their child from hospital, that is unless a court has already put a


legal order in place. But cruelty to children can be a crime, and the CPS


believed there was enough evidence to get a warrant for The King's


Speeches' arrest. No other proton therapy centre around the world has


more advanced technology. Patients from all around the world are


accepted by our team of competent and friendly international


specialists. The King's Speeches plan was to sell their holiday house


in Spain pay for this, proton beam therapy in the Czech Republic, where


small parts of atoms are beamed at cancer tissue, it can be more


precise and less damaging than traditional radiotherapy, but


Ashya's doctors in the UK did not believe it was best for him. The


surrounding healthy tissue is protected and not damaged by


unwanted radiation. I have spoken to the hospital in


Prague where the little boy's family hoped he might be treated. They made


inquiries on August 20th. Tonight they said they are willing to offer


the little boy treatment in a few days' time if his medical situation


is appropriate. In fact they said they approached the NHS back in 2012


offering to make their services available to hospitals that don't


have the equipment. The technology was actually


developed in the UK, but there is only one hospital where it is in


use. Two will follow soon. NHS England say they do pay for


treatment overseas if and win it is appropriate. But when the doctors


say no, a number of families do decide to fund it themselves.


Everybody wants to hang on to that one thing that maybe the difference


between their child living or dying. I think you know sometimes yes, it


can be a false economy, but I think when you weigh the two things up,


you know, weighing one against the other then if my child only had a 1%


chance to beat the cancer I would want to exhaust the 1%. While that


emotion is straight forward, decision making about treatment is


not. Effective treatment really depends on integration. Now the new


organisation has made this more difficult. So many of the national


integration processes have been reduced and it seems perhaps as if


there has been slightly less focus on cancer. The Government's


reorganisation has made it more difficult? I think reorganisation of


the NHS has made it more difficult for cross-organisational specialist


work of this sort. Last year 99 children were sent abroad for just


had kind of treatment, with the NHS covering costs and travel and


accommodation for family too. The attraction and the novelty of a


high-tech new treatment doesn't mean it is always the best choice for any


patients. For some children the question isn't necessarily what kind


of radiotherapy they should have, it is how they would cope with any


treatment at all? But there are some cases where


doctors and parents just can't agree. This time with an


extraordinary outcome, parents in custody, doctors in Southampton


unable to help. Children who have life-threatening conditions, it is


really important that the family and the medical and nursing teams have a


good communication and good relationships. In Ashya's case we


really regret that the communication and the relationship broke down to


the extent that the family lost trust in the team that were caring


for him. And the little boy, table but seriously ill without family by


his bedside. Now under the court's protection, the decision about his


parents' future could take months. This evening, as you heard, the


Southampton Hospital Trust admitted that communication and relationship


with The King's Speech family had broken down. They said they


regretted it. How can the heavy hands of medical professionals and


lawyers come between a child and his parents when the same outcome is


presumably desired by them all. I'm joined by Professor Harrison and


Professor Jonathan Montgomery. Thank you very much for your time this


evening. Professor Montgomery, should the hospital go against the


wishes of the parents? There are two different sets offish use, the issue


first of all about what happens if a child is taken away who is severely


ill, I think the health professionals have to act then and


try to safeguard the child. Clearly that was what they were faced with


on Friday afternoon. If they have more time and the ability to discuss


it through then the issue are slightly different. There it was


unusual to go against the wishes of the parents as opposed to discuss it


with them. Don't you think that is odd, they already met the parents,


they knew the boy, they had seen the parents at the child's bedside. Why


would you be suspicious of parents in that situation? I'm not sure they


were suspicious of them at all until the boy was taken away from


hospital. Then they have to decide how dangerous it is for the boy to


be removed from hospital. It sounds as though from their view they


thought initially it was very dangerous, although we now know of


course the parents had taken significant precautions to make sure


he was safe. Does that ring true then, if they thought he was in


grave danger they had no choice? I don't think that rings true to me.


None of us know the basis on which the CPS took the decision to issue a


parent to hound this poor family. But the reason given by the CPS at


the request of the Hampshire Police was, and I quote "for an offence of


cruelty to a person under the age of 16". Well so far it is fairly


obvious that the only cruelty to this poor little boy has been his


abandonment in a Spanish hospital, where he doesn't speak the language,


without his parents, his mother I understand had been with him


constantly for the month before this, and without his family


present. This is a prima facia cruelty. Whether there was any


danger of any other sort of cruelty we don't know. We would have to, it


seems to me, with all due respect to Jonathan to be fairly powerful and


pressing reasons to believe that they were going to act recklessly or


negligently with respect to their son whom they obviously loved, to


warrant these draconian and heavy-handed measures. Why do you


think they did it, do you think there was professional pride at


play, or do you think this was a misjudgment? I have no idea. I'm not


going to try to guess the motives of people I don't know. But it is not a


crime to withdraw yourself or your children from hospital. And there is


no reason, unless they can show why there was a reason, to suppose they


were withdrawing him for some neferious reason. I think it was


about what was right for the boy. That is not a criminal marks the


oddity is it became a criminal matter. It became unnecessarily,


with respect, it became unnecessarily a criminal matter, and


this has been presented as if there was medical opinion on one side and


the family opinion on the other. As we all know medical opinion is not a


unitary thing, there are many difficult president Di Canio


opinions in case like this. It is not clear without further evidence


that the opinion of this particular team in this particular hospital was


right sort of opinion to take. I agree with that John. Do you know


some of those involved? I know some of the people there. I know this is


a hospital that has a clinical Ethics Committee which is way of


providing a process to discuss these things. What I don't know is whether


that was used in this case. This case emerges, last Friday, as a


sudden urgent problem of the boy being removed. I think if we were


talking about a more timely process and the Medical Director has


recognised that everybody would have desired a proper, timely discussion.


I think it would be very much like John is decribing. We don't know


where the reports came from, but the press reports were very much leaning


towards the parents' religion, they were Jehova's witnesses and the talk


of the battery running down, does that seem completely misplaced


knowing what we know now? As far as we can tell what we can pick up that


wasn't a dimension. What feels to be a dimension is two issues, one is a


question about how much faith one could put in this new treatment


which the doctors seemed to say is not appropriate for the particular


condition the boy is in, and the parents quite reasonably saying we


have reason to think that is something that would be success.


Ful. You would expect that to be worked through in a collaborative


process and you would expect the hospital to make available a second


reason. Absolutely, I agree with Jonathan, that is the nub of the


issue. But in circumstances like that would you not expect the


doctors to insist that they were the only people, this particular set of


doctors who who like all of us, do not have a monopoly of which is Don


Dom on these matters to insist that there must be bad faith and motives


of cruelty. So parents thinking they want to go down a different route of


treatment? That is very important, in the mind of the health


professionals you have to think what they thought might have been


happening. It sounds as if they thought what might be happening is a


boy relying on battery-powered feeding system would be without that


support. We know that is not the case. The analogy in their minds and


probably the minds of the Crown Prosecution Service when it became a


criminal matter was with parents, different groups of parents who in


the past have felt that because of their beliefs about appropriate


treatment they wouldn't, for example, provide insulin for


diabetics which becomes an urgent issue. That is where we have in the


past seen criminal intervention. Maybe this is outside the medical


sphere now, in terms of the ethics involved in a court in Spain keeping


them there and the extradition that would take them away from their son.


Can anyone step in now in terms of what the hospital could say to get


the parents and the child united? I think if this were happening in the


UK we would expect that to happen very quickly. We would expect the


court to take grip on it and make sure it kept the boy safe, it would


also expect them to make sure the parents were with the child. Can the


British Government now step in and tell a Spanish court or hospital


what to do? They could advise, they can't tell them what to do. Spain is


a sovereign state. But they could certainly give very strong


indication of what they thought an appropriate outcome would now be.


But I'm not just blaming the doctors here, I'm perhaps not blaming them


at all. The CPS have a lot to answer for. It may be that they acted on a


particular interpretation of events from one side. And it is always


dangerous when you only have, when you are only listening to one side


of what is clearly an on going and not all together happy relationship


between two sides in the care of this young man.


Thank you very much both of you indeed.


The threat from British Jihadis is real, the Prime Minister told


parliament this afternoon, and in so doing he announced police would have


temporary powers to exclude British nationals from returning to the UK.


Sounds bold, but what that means is currently and crucially pretty


unclear. The Government has not specified whether they would remove


passports or citizenship from suspected terrorists, but both


measures were tonight labelled probably impossible by the former


Attorney-General. We look at the entire package announced today and


what it really means. Ed Miliband today called it a summer


of international instability, August was the serious, not silly season,


such a steady stream of bad events, MPs told me they were convinced


parliament would be recalled. But it wasn't, leaving it all for


parliament today. The Prime Minister came to the House with a long list


of crises to address. But it was the counter terrorism announcements


people were waiting for. In the early days of the coalition Liberal


Democrats and Conservatives forged common cause in protecting civil


liberties, since then they have drifted apart, and over the weekend


Liberal Democrats voiced concerns that David Cameron today might go


too far. Even one Conservative cabinet minister was concerned the


Prime Minister might be too draconian. To confront the threat of


Islamic extremism we need a tough, intelligent, patient and


comprehensive approach to defeat the terrorist threat at its source. He


started with the areas of agreement, legislation to give the border


police temporary powers to take passports away from UK citizens


planning to leave to fight Jihad. Airlines will also be required, by


law, to co-operate with the intelligence agencies on who is


flying where. But everything else was harder. On plans to exclude


suspected British terrorists from returning to the UK, David Cameron


was only able to say he would work up proposals and put them to


cross-party talks. Indeed, in another area, there was something of


a U-turn. The coalition shelved the Labour Party's control orders when


they came to power, today, to racaus laughter by the opposition, the


coalition had to agree they would be looking at bringing back control


orders in all but name. We will produce new powers to add to our


existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures, including


stronger locational constraints on suspects under Tpims, either through


enhanced use of exclusion zones or relocation powers. David Cameron's


position on civil liberties has changed some what over the years,


when he became leader it was against Tony Blair and his tough law and


order Government. David Cameron sensed an opening and it was the


Tories that pledged to protect civil liberties in this country. Even


though, as a young man, he worked for Michael Howard's Home Office,


hardly noted for its lenient law and order agenda, when David Cameron


became leader of the Conservatives it was he that pledged civil


liberties. Part of an agenda to woo over metropolitan Britain. That


agenda has now been seriously downplayed. This is the then leader


of the opposition: Now today I want to focus my remarks


on terrorism. This speech at Munich in 2011 was a turning point, less


than one year of being in office had hardened David Cameron, here he say


the multiculturalism had failed and terrorism was a bigger threat than


thought. Here the parties started to go different ways on civil


liberties. When a white person holds racist views we rightly condemn


then, but when equally unacceptable practices come from someone who


isn't white we have been too cautious, frankly, even fearful to


stand up to them. Tonight it is unclear what elements of the Prime


Minister's package, apart from passport seizures and airline


operation will see the light of day. David Cameron was beaten back by Lib


Dem opposition and legal concerns. Not great first day back at


parliament. Joining me now the one-time control


order detainee, Cerie Bullivant, and the former independent reviewer of


terror legislation Lord Carlile, we will come to Lord Carl in a second.


First, Cerie, how did the control order affect you, you had it for a


year-and-a-half? In my case as in many others the control order


debilitates your life, that is the purpose of it. It left me with


severe depression and it pushed me into a corner where I felt my only


option was to abscond and go on the run for five weeks. How easy was it


to evade it? This is the problem, with all of these measures, if you


have dangerous people you don't want them being held in the community.


They need to be put in prison. The only way to do that is through


criminal charges. Evading these things was relatively easy, and none


of the people that have absconded from control orders or Tpims have


been caught. So the relocation measure being put in would stop


people like you reentering their own community. That is exactly what it


is designed to do? I could have absconded whether on a relocation


order or not. That would have had very little effect on whether I did


abscond. The fact of the matter is the relocation, even according to


Lord McDonald was disproportionate and unjustified. He said in his


report on control orders that it was against British values and norms.


While the Conservative Government are telling Muslims they need to


embrace British value, they themselves are bane donning them


with this internal exile. Could you have left the country, they took


your passport didn't they? I didn't leave the country but the two people


I absconded with left the country. With fake passports? I wasn't with


them when they did, that I handed myself in. You absconded and handed


yourself back in, so you are proving that they do work? No, the only


person who has only faced justice for this was myself. I handed myself


in. I chose to come back in everybody else has not been caught


and has not been brought to justice on this. The fact of the matter is


you have a measure that doesn't protect the British public that


captures innocent people like myself. I had my life ruined for two


years and continues until today on the basis of secret courts and


secret evidence. How is this a British value? The idea is to stop


Jihadies from coming back into Britain, can you see how these new


measures today will be a deterrent? They are not new measures brought in


today. Since April 2014, May has been using the Royal Peroogative to


take-away people's passports. What we see today is grandstanding, the


rehashing of old policies put out as new so the Government can be seen to


be tough on terrorism. In actual fact all it will do is create more


of a ghettoisation, and disenfranchisement in the Muslim


community. These are not used for Ukrainian separatist. Lord Carlile,


I know you don't want to interact particularly, you have heard the


arguments and they are pretty powerful, when you hear someone who


has had a control order saying more disenfranchised, and the whole idea


against British values? I think the arguments we have just heard are


misleading. Relocation orders worked very well, for the last five years


of control orders relocation orders were entirely effective, they were


properly policed, they became before the courts, the courts heard all the


evidence. Some people had their relocation orders varied by a judge,


it was found to be fair, it was found to be proportionate. There was


never a finding that control orders were couldn'try to the Human Rights


Act and to represent so is wrong. You make it sound like there is a


legal structure around this, there isn't a trial, there isn't a charge?


There is a legal structure, there is a complex legal structure around


Tpims and relocation orders under the old control orders' regime.


Every one of these cases went automatically before a senior High


Court judge, not only was the individual represented by his own


lawyers but special advocates were put in to represent the position of


the individual when secret intelligence was being heard in


court. It could not have been a fairer procedure. And yet you have


heard the testimony there of somebody who says they absconded.


Not from relocation, no. Well he said it didn't matter where he would


have been, he could have absconded? That is not true, I'm telling you


the facts, there were not absconds from relocation. As an independent


reviewer as I was at that time, I went to visit people who were


relocated, the system worked well and it was found to be fair and


proportionate. What about the two he was with who left the country? They


have nothing to do with relocation. They were the people subject to


control orders without relocation. We are trying to test whether this


is an effective system. If you have someone, who, OK, without


relocation, if you insist, still absconded, two others who left the


country and an overall impression that they have been maltreated by a


British system? I don't think the British public believes they were


maltreated at all. I repeat this system, which involved relocation


was upheld by the courts repeatedly. I want to talk about this idea of


taking somebody's passport on their way in, how workable is that? You


heard what was said this afternoon, probably impossible for Government


to prevent Britons returning? I agree entirely with the Attorney


General and Sir Ming Campbell who said the same yesterday. If somebody


is a British citizen with no other nationality, then it is unlawful


under international law to remove their passport from them until they


are within the country. Once they reenter the country it may be


lawful. How do you stop Jihadis recentering Britain? If they are --


Re-- reentering Britain? You can't, you re-arrest them if they have


committed criminal offence, if we have relocation, Tpims beefed up,


then that is an option that can be useded against them. Before they


have left? Before they have left or when they return. What we can't do


under international law and it would be asking for trouble if we tried to


do it is prevent British citizens who have no other nationality from


reentering their own country. Doesn't it strike you then that


there is a gap in the rhetoric tonight between what David Cameron


has said he's doing and what he is legally able to produce? What he


said was entirely truthful, he said and I summarise that they were going


to try to find an all-party approach to this question of Jihadis


reentering the country. I think it is certain that the all-party


approach they will find will correspond with what the Attorney


General said, I think the Government should tell us the gist of the


advice they were given by the current law officers, I wouldn't


mind betting that the advice they gave was entirely consistent with


the Attorney General's view. Thank you.


Pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong have vowed to fight a Chinese


Government ruling that effectively gives China control over the


candidates for the territory's next leader. Protesters clashed with


security as the decision was announced last night. It means a


special monitoring body will have to vet everyone standing in the


elections of 2017. The first of question, the Hong Kong chief


executive will be directly chosen by voters. Well the move by Beijing


appears to contravene the joint declaration signed between China and


Britain protecting democratic rights of Hong Kong citizens. In an


extraordinary letter, seen tonight by Newsnight, we learn that the head


of the foreign fares committee, Sir Richard Ottoway, has been advised by


his Chinese counterpart not to hold an inquiry into UK-Hong Kong


relations and has been warned of the consequences if he does.


We have the story. The language is pretty blunt in that letter? It is


very, very strong stuff, and British parliamentarians decided earlier


this year, perfectly properly because of the historic relationship


and Britain's historic responsibility to Hong Kong to take


a look at what was going on and progress towards democracy. This


letter could not be clearer about basically saying back off. The


Chinese do not see it as any of the UK's business. Just to give you a


flavour of that letter it suggests that the MP's intention has sent a


wrong political signal to the outside world, disrupting Hong


Kong's political reform. It says that Britain, these MPs should stop


interfering in Hong Kong's affairs, they should cancel the inquiry. Very


direct message there. Indeed they say China will brook no interference


either directly or indirectly from the UK. Extremely strong language


from the Chinese. The message could not be more straight forward, within


a sense you have British parliamentarians trying to do


exactly what they are meant to do and what they are entitled to.


Extremely strong enough. Stuff, we believe the Chinese Ambassador sent


this message too, very, very directly you will have seen in the


last couple of days due to the decision made by the Chinese


authorities, their move to limit the promise of democracy in Hong Kong,


this is a very tense time. Britain is not just interested because of


our historic role there, but also because of the interests of British


business based in Hong Kong. There is huge financial institutions who


have massive big operations in Hong Kong. What happens there doesn't


just matter because of our nostalgia towards the past, but it also


matters in economic terms, so our relationship is really important.


We go straight to the horse's mouth to Sir Richard Ottoway, you have the


letter, I'm wondering what your response was or would be? Laura has


put her finger on it, it is an intensive time in Hong Kong as soon


assiveties are running high. There is a misunderstanding about the role


of the committee in the UK. Back in 1984 Margaret Thatcher and the


President of China signed a joint undertaking to give ideas about the


future of Hong Kong. My job in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is


to look at whether Britain has complied with its undertakings, and


if China hasn't complied with their undertakings, what is the Foreign


Office doing about it? That is what we do in parliament. Will you carry


on doing that? We decided this afternoon we are going on because


our job is to report to parliament what is going on. This is a right


and proper procedure. But I don't want particularly to irritate the


Chinese, I think I want them to understand the way we work. Just to


give you an example. That sounds like you are sort of rather


pacifying them by this, do you not feel affronted by the letter? I'm


not offended by the letter. He has a job to do and I have a job to do.


But just to give you an example, the President of the Supreme Court was


recently in Hong Kong and invited to have a look at whether or not there


had been interference with the appointment of the judiciary. That


is one of the allegations made to my committee. He concluded there wasn't


any interference. The point is that it may well be that my committee


will decide that actually the Chinese are behaving perfectly


reasonably. What about the new law, the protests come from the decision


by China to essentially vet all the candidates. The joint declaration


you are talking about has at its heart the Hong Kong legal system and


democratic system. Do you think this is a breach? That is to prejudge


what the inquiry will conclude. Doesn't it sound like a breach of


democratic rights? The joint declaration called for universal


suffrage with the chief Executive Committee. If you are nominating a


limited number of comments, there seems a prima facia face that the


undertakings -- case that the undertakings have been given. I


don't want to reach that conclusion yet. The joint declaration is a


legal document, it is legally binding and 50 years, if that is


breached are there sanctions and are you willing to go there if it means


jeopardising commercial interests? We are planning to go there. But as


far as sanctions are concerned, frankly, we are in a fairly weak


position. Indeed we are in a very weak position right from the


beginning when the declaration was signed. But I think we can set out


the standards and norms that we in Britain think are important and that


will of course influence the way we conduct our relations with China. ,


The experimental infertility treatment offered in the US was


later banned but scientists in the UK have pioneered a new, similar


technique, that uses a donor's mitochondria to eliminate severe


genetic diseases. Parliament will vote on whether to legalise it later


this year. This is the hill, let's try to


really pump it. 13-year-old Alanah lives with her mum dad in Michigan


in the United States. She likes riding her bike, hanging out with


her friends, shopping, just like most teenagers. But she's special.


Technically I have DNA from three different people. My two parents


that I live with and my birth parents, but I also contain DNA from


a third donor. A lady that gave part of hermit mit to my mom's egg. Are


She's one of a handful of children born as a result of an experimental


fertility treatment. My family has a history of going into menopause


early. So my eggs weren't so healthy. That is when my doctor


recommended this cyto last Mikel transfer. It is an all consuming


drive to have a child. It is the Washington Post -- Washington Post


feeling because you will do whatever it takes. The treatment involved


tiny structures inside our cells called mitochondria, like little bat


trees they provide the power that keeps our bodies functioning, but


they also contain a bit of DNA. Doctors thought that Sharon's


mitochondria might be faulty. So they injected one of her eggs with


mitochondria from the egg of another woman and it worked. Nine months


later Alanah was born, baby with three genetic parents. Fewer than 50


children were conceived with this technique, but there were


complication. One mother miscarried and two babies developed health


problems. No-one knows if the treatment was to blame, but US


regulators soon stepped in and banned it. More than a decade later


researchers here in the UK have developed a new mitochondria


technique that could soon mean more children born with three genetic


parents. Now it is up to parliament to decide whether cide whether to


allow this. This time it is not to treat infertility, but to prevent


diseases. Ment in mitochondriaal diseases are those that protect the


power stations within ourselves. These diseases are passed down from


mother to child. These diseases tend to involve tissues or organs that


are heavily dependant on energy. Those organs are things like the


brain and sometimes it involves the heart, sometimes it involves the


skeltal muscle. Mitochondria diseases are rare, affecting one in


every 3,000 people. But they can be devastating. This is Holly, and she


was born and then she survived until she was 26 hours. This is Olivia,


she's survived until she was four days. Sharon has lost seven


children, all of them died within hours of being born, apart from her


son Edward. At first he seemed healthy, but he was soon diagnosed


with a mitochondria disease that has affected his central nervous system.


You could have a nice few hours, but then he would have about eight hours


where he would be in pain, screaming with the pain. His face would like


twist up and his hands would get really stiff, which was obviously


hard to see. Edward died three years ago aged 21. But scientists say they


can now stop the disease causing mitochondria from being passed from


mother to child. In the new treatment the nucleus of a woman's


fertilised egg that contains the DNA that determines our height, hair


colour and personality, all the traits that make us who we are is


taken out, leaving the faulty mitochondria behind. It is placed


into an egg from another woman, this egg has had its nucleus removed but


retains its healthy mitochondria, it is then implanted back into the


mother. This technique could completely eliminate mitochondria


diseases. But it would also alter our genetic code forever. Here at


London's Wellcome Collection, all 3. 3 billion letters of the human


genome have been written out. In these 115 book, each 1,000-pages


long, is all the DNA we inherit from our mum and dad. The amount of DNA


in our mitochondria would take up half a page. These are the genes


that would come from a third woman in this new treatment. It is a tiny


fraction. Nonetheless, this DNA would not only pass down to a child,


it would pass down to their children and their children's children.


Critics warn we will be creating entire lippages of genetically


modified -- lineages of genetically modified people. There have also


been safety concerns. Some animal tests suggested the treatment could


lead to health problems. However an extensive scientific review that is


concluded that the procedure is not unsafe. And that wording is crucial,


because scientists cannot guarantee the safety of this procedure because


it hasn't been tested on people. Essentially the British patients who


volunteer for this will do so knowing that they are human guinea


pigs. The champions of this radical new treatment say it could transform


lives and Britain could lead the world. But with no guarantees of


safety, and unprecedented changes to our genetic fabric at stake, it is


up to parliament to decide if this is a price worth paying. Now the


question of whether it is ever-safe to film a sex act on your phone may


have to wait for another day. Tonight we deal with the rather more


pressing issue of what exactly happened to privately stored data of


several Hollywood A-listers, naked pictures of the actres Jennifer


Lawrence, Kim Kardashian and others, they were claimed to have been


hacked from their private accounts. How much do we know about the cloud


and how it works? The cloud descended if you like upon u


everyone signed up to it without quite getting what it does? I don't


think a lot of people do. What it does is data centres that store your


data so you can access it on the move. You have lots of companies


doing t Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Dropbox and hosts of other smaller


companies. You have no idea how they are looking after your data, what


are the curt policies. Where it is. Is it in a server, in a space? In


servers farms. There are implication of who has access to your data from


a legal point of view. If it is the US the US could have access to it


through the NSA, there are all sorts of issues. Who owns it, is it still


mine? Yes, it is yours, but you are giving it to your cloud provider in


return for a service which is usually free, you are giving it to


Google in return for e-mail and map, they use it in return to serve you


adverts. It is a transaction except the power of the transaction is


mostly with the client provider rather than with you. What is your


sense of what might have happened here. You know, we think it was


iCloud, Apple said they can't confirm anything? Apple will never


confirm anything any way. My sense it is probably compromised passwords


rather than an actual hack where somebody would break into database


and steal passwords. What is the difference between a hack and


password? A hack is where they will try to break into servers, it has


happened to big companies. Two types of companies. That wouldn't target


celebrities? It would try to get passwords. This I think is more


specifically targeted at them. The celebrities have filled in a fake


form on-line that has harvested their passwords or perhaps an


assistant has had access to their passwords, or they have weak


passwords and used them everywhere and somebody has broken it. It is


not hard to crack passwords if you try hard enough. Are more people not


putting their stuff in cloud or is it not to do with the cloud? It is


do with the cloud f you keep your data in the house and it is not


on-line nobody has access. We like stuff available on-line. The iCloud


is a sinking service, when you take a picture of your iPhone, unless you


turn it off you sync to the cloud and available on other devices,


people love that but don't think about the implications about the


data. We all do it. Do you think the companies have any responsibility to


protect? Of course they do, and they are going to have more


responsibility. There is a big change coming to how the EU


regulates data protection. If a company is at fault for breach, they


will be up for five-times their global turnover. That will focus the


minds. It is a big one. Thank you very much. Many of you watching will


not care about football, know about football or even be particularly


aware that today was the final 24-hour window for club transfers,


this one is for you. Forget about Falcao, Di Maria, Torres, we give


you the bluffer's guide to the economics of deadline day.


Today is the end of the summer transfer window, it is deadline day,


there will be no more of this until the window reopens for January. The


last day of the transfer window is a day that is already lauded with


cliche, think of all the men holding up shirts to cameras, all those men


hiding from cameras in dark tinted Range Rovers, and Harry Redknapp's


interviews through a car window. It is a new institution, despite all


that tradition. It only started in the early 2000s, it seems fair to


ask is having transfer window even a good idea? Here is a question worth


asking, what is the effect of the transfer window? Arsenal fans might


think it just makes them missable, they haven't had a flurry of new


arrivals to fire them up. The only excitement this week is the arrival


of Danny Wellbeck from Manchester United. Some locals seem to be


giving up on football. We asked an expert on how you work the markets?


A short transfer window will enable the participants in the market to


compare their possible transactions in a short amount of time and there


by find the right price for a player and there is lots of indication that


the prices reflect the prayers very much. Just as you have a market, a


physical market where people come together and compare prices, the


transfer window does this in a short time frame. Why does everyone wait


until the last day of the transperwindow to seal their deals?


-- transfer window to seal their deals? There is lots of things at


play, like buying a house you might have a chain, you have to sell one


player to get another. Every bit of the chain has to work and it takes


place on a single day and the last day is a good candidate for this to


take place. The second one is people play poker, an act of brinkmanship,


because if they have several buyers for transfer they might try to get a


maximum price. If they wait until the last minute they hold out longer


and strengthen the bargaining position. The next Biggs question is


pretty -- big question is pretty simple, can clubs buy success? There


is a well functioning market in football players. There is a lot of


information about the players in the market. A lot of them are traded on


a regular basis. That means that the prices paid in the transfer market


tend to reflect reliably the value of the players. Teams that spend big


are the ones that perform well, you can show that over time to be a


reliable relationship. This Graf shows club spending over league


positions over spending for 2012. Spending more making you more likely


to do well. R Look at how the effect of the


managers is dwarfed by the presence of money. A lot of the big signings


in Europe are stars of the recent World Cup, it is worth pondering how


do World Cups affect the transfer market? Well the Professor's


research suggests that clubs often overpay for World Cup stars. People


overvalue players because they have noticed the performance very


recently, that may not be the best indicator of their long-term


performance. All fans hope their clubs will get a unique player


relatively cheaply who can inspire them to greatness. But, in general,


as Arsenal fans know, you won't win big if you don't spend big.


Whilst we have been on air you will be pleased to know that Ramires has


signed for Hull City. Now the papers.


That's it for tonight. We leave but the debut of 16-year-old Max


Verstapen, who was yesterday unveiled as the world's


youngest-ever Formula One driver to a crowd in his native Rotterdam, he


soon put to bed charges that he just got the gig because of his family


connections. Good evening, generally dryer and


warmer conditions this week compared with recent weeks. We start the day


with mist and low cloud across some central and eastern areas, a grey


start here. Some light rain or drizzle possible. It could be foggy


first thing. Lifting and shifting and a lot of dry and sunny weather




Download Subtitles