30/10/2015 Newsnight


Analysis of the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis. Features Kids Company, Shaker Aamer's release, MP Jess Phillips on twitter threats and an interview with Danny Boyle.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/10/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight - this programme has seen details of the extraordinary


payments made by Kids Company to some of its clients.


Why was the charity authorising spending on designer shoes


Ministers saw these details before authorising a multi-million


One senior Cabinet office source told me these


Either you leave us to die in peace, or either tell the world the truth!


He spent a third of his life in a cell in Guantanmo Bay.


Now Shaker Aamer is released home to Britain - without charge.


What purpose has Guantanmo served - and what do its practices say


We're joined by two men who know Gauantanamo well


Musicians play their instrument, I play the orchestra.


We talk to film director Danny Boyle about his no holds-barred portrayal


A corporation like Apple is so powerful now,


so influential around the world, that it is crucial that writers and


artists tell the stories that they don't necessarily want you to tell.


And on Artsnight, George the Poet explores black culture in the


For me, racism always trumps sexism, for me.


A senior cabinet office source has described as "gobsmacking"


details of the payments made by the charity Kids Company just three days


A preliminary report - seen by this programme - confirms large


sums were made to individual clients - and even to the family of staff.


One individual received ?47,000 over the past year. Government officials


had advised ministers against giving the charity further money.


Kids Company - which shut down in August - had been led by


the charistmatic and high profile founder, Camilla Batmanghelidgh.


Chris Cook who broke the orginal story of Kids Company's


Ministers were sent a report containing concerning


details about Kids Company just three days before they paid it ?3


The document obtained by Newsnight and BuzzFeed News contains new


information about the charity's operations under


And it will increase pressure on Matthew Hancock and Oliver Letwin,


the two Cabinet Office ministers who signed off on the payment.


The report is by PWC, the accountants.


It is an interim response to a set of allegations made to


the Charity Commission by former employees of Kids Company.


Now, here is how Alan Yentob, the charity's chair of trustees


and a BBC executive, characterised its content to MPs a fortnight ago.


Because of the allegations going on, because we had to go to the PWC


and pay them ?50,000 to tell us that there wasn't much substance


in the allegations and therefore the Cabinet Office should go ahead


This confidential report doesn't adjudicate on the allegations that


were made to the Charity Commission.


But what it does do is establishes the facts around them and it finds


For example, patchy record keeping. The thing


The thing that really jumped out from this report, there is


the sheer scale of the spending on some of Kids Company's clients.


Two young people related to staff members benefit from nearly 134


thousand pounds worth of spending. PWC said ?90,000 of that went on


therapy but that still leaves a lot to account for. When they went


through the receipts they found one from this designer shoe shop in the


London West End. ?300 on a single pair of designer shoes. In other


cases the PWC report mentions receipts for Apple computers and


high-end clothes shops. Kids Company refuses to comment on individual


cases but the charity said spending was always motivated by specific of


each client. The document also showed spending on the child of an


Iranian diplomat, document says Kids Company funded their Ph.D. At a


high-ranking British university. Support was costed at ?25,000 per


year. Camila Batmanghelidjh who is herself Iranian, said she had not


been involved in the case. But she said the president needed support


and the donor was sponsoring the spending. But why was Kids Company


sponsoring a foreign student at all? The PWC report also looks into


allegations of employment irregularities. Money for a favoured


crime. It confirms one person received over ?47,000 in untaxed


income in 2014, including thousands of pounds for rent and clothes. This


individual was not required at all but an employee. They were just paid


as a client to avoid taxes. The charity completely denies this but


even if this person was acquired, we still have a problem. Acquired


received almost ?1000 per from Kids Company. This person did not have a


family but this is what Camila Batmanghelidjh said to MPs two weeks


ago. Was it true that people over the age of 18 received over ?100 per


week? That would be very rare and only if it was a family. And they


have two support a family. You are aware that it is contempt of


Parliament to mislead us? Absolutely. This charity leader, who


has had previous disagreements with Kids Company, thinks the money they


spent was not well tailored to the needs of recipient. What I'm seeing


in the report is random, flamboyant largesse as opposed to strategic


support of vulnerable young people. I would want to see in any kind of


paperwork from Kids Company, detailed care plan. Why this


individual was chosen, why the amounts of money were given in this


way and for this purpose. The charity of course disagrees. They


say spending was based on assessment of personal, social and clinical


needs but the report is a problem for ministers and raises questions


for Alan Yentob. A spokesman for


the charity's leaders has told us: The allegations made to the Charity


Commission were not substantiated. When PWC reported on their findings


the evidence they had seen did not This was not a full audit


but an intensive investigation looking at hundreds of documents


and interviews with key staff. Alan Yentob made it clear to


the Public Accounts Select Committee that the PWC investigation


was incomplete. Financial and practical support has


always been part of Kids Company's role providing


a supportive family environment. All the gifts referred to in the PWC


report were funded by private donors,


not by the Government's grant. Chris Cook, he is with us here.


Where does that now leave things? Well the next phase is with the


select committee, there is a session next week and the big one will be


with Matt Hancock and Oliver Aleppo and having to explain themselves.


Their argument is really that ministers have been overruling civil


servants to give money to Kids Company since 2002. They were the


ones who forced Camila Batmanghelidjh to resign. It is sort


of their fault that money was spent recently but they were at least not


as bad as previous ministers. Thank you very much.


For the last 14 years he's been known as detainee 239.


Shaker Aamer has spent nearly a third of his life in Guantanamo bay


- and yet this evening he returned home to the UK without charge.


His plane landed at Biggin Hill airport this afternoon,


and the man - picked up by a bounty hunter in the


Jelalabad region of Afghanistan in 2001 - was released without charge.


He has always denied any form of extremism - and


in later years he became an advocate for other prisoners rights.


He could now be in line for a ?1 million payout


Tonight, we ask why he was kept for so long - and what purpose


The voice of Shaker Aamer, recorded in his cell by an American


documentary team in Guantanamo Bay two years ago.


Today Shaker Aamer, the final British resident in Guantanamo


arrived back in the UK after 14 years of internment without trial.


He was cleared for release in 2007. A Saudi national, he had been living


in the UK before his arrest that has a wife and four children. His


youngest son who he has never seen, was born the same day he was sent to


Guantanamo Bay. Shaker Aamer, would eating the 239, was captured in


Afghanistan in 2001. He claims he was engaged in aid work at the time


but in US documents released by WikiLeaks, is described as a


recruiter, financier and facilitator with a history of participating in


jihadist combat. The documents also state he admitted travelling to


Afghanistan in 2000 to serve with the mujahedin. In spite of these


allegations, he was never charged and his lawyers have said he was


subject to regular beatings, sleep deprivation and spread almost one


year in solitary confinement. His supporters said the delay in this


release was due to security service failures that he could reveal


damaging information. He alleges British intelligence agents


questioned him and they knew that he was being tortured. It is unlikely


then that his return to the UK marks an end to his story. But for now


Shaker Aamer has said he is more pressing priorities, like a cup of


coffee and reuniting with his wife and family.


Our two guests tonight both know it well, but have seen it


Here in the studio, Moazzam Begg, a former detainee incarcerated


there for two years - and from Washington David Rivkin, a former


Thank you both for coming in. Moazzam Begg you have been in touch


with the family of Shaker Aamer today. Of course they are overjoyed,


they have also been apprehensive about what it means to reconnect


with the father, husband. And of course Shaker Aamer has not seen


those children, the last time he saw them they were just babies and he


has never met his youngest until today. So what that means for Shaker


Aamer is to be a father once again, a husband, a member of society. And


to be able to walk out of the four corners of the cell that he used to


being, unrestricted. It is something completely new him. 14 years and


then no charge at all. Guantanamo Bay seems pretty indefensible on a


day like today? On the contrary, the fact that he has not been charged is


not signify anything. He was held for a number of years as an enemy


combatant while the conflict was still going on. It is quite common


not to charge people and despite insinuations to the contrary, he was


held in humane and comfortable conditions. Better than most people


in federal prisons. He was not a charity worker, he was a combatant,


and there was plenty of evidence, he belonged to an organisation that


committed acts of brutality, killing innocent women and children,


torturing people. With all due respect are not greatly moved by his


desire to be reunited with his family. What about people who were


killed and tortured and had their heads cut off? So tonight you do not


see him as an innocent man? Well to not try to deliberate on TV whether


or not he is innocent. It is quite crucial to this. You are accusing


him of things he may or may not have done. In your mind he is not an


innocent man tonight? He is not innocent for the simple reason, the


Bush administration and the Obama administration have been quite


critical about Guantanamo Bay, but he has multiple reviews of his


record by objective and honourable military officers.


It's not a question of convicting him, it is looking at the record and


concluding there is insufficient evidence. I want to ask Moazzam


Begg, when you got home and looking at Shaker's position in society, do


you feel like an innocent man, you've heard this opinion from an


advocate of Guantanamo Bay, do you feel vindicated? We are talking


about countries that advocate the rule of law, countries that talk


about habeas corpus, the right to the body, either you are presented


with the evidence against you and prosecuted, or you are released.


There cannot be this third type of situation the gentleman here is


suggesting. Even Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo. He said it is


an indefensible place. People are being executed dressed in orange


suits in Iraq by Isis, for example. It doesn't alarm you that there have


been fewer than 2% convicted? That is not a concern for you? For the


benefit of your viewers, in a military justice system, which is


very different from the criminal justice system. It does not mean it


is lacking due process. People were held for years in prisoners of war


camp, the vast majority not convicted in World War I and World


War II. It's not a question of conviction, whether there is


sufficient evidence to conclude he was an enemy combatant. Would you


keep the camp open? Would you keep it going? I'd keep Guantanamo open


but that's nothing to do with the question, this individual was given


the benefit of the doubt, numerous reviews were conducted and they


concluded he was a member of Al-Qaeda, which is a horrible


organisation. Shaker Aamer has been cleared by at least six agencies. He


was not cleared, that is a lie. He's been cleared by two consecutive US


governments and never did designated for trial even by military


commission which is the lowest standard. The process that exists...


You are misleading. If you look at the code of justice any advocate


from the military has not been trained to use that process, and


even in that process they were never charging Shaker Aamer. I don't know


on what basis you say he's guilty. He is not. He has been held in false


detention, kidnapped, rendered and tortured. I want to pick up on the


point in terms of the interrogation and torture. David Rivkin, are you


convinced that British authorities supported US authorities in what


they were doing to inmates in Guantanamo? I would be amazed. I


have no factual knowledge of what transpired at any particular time. I


be amazed if anybody was mistreated in Guantanamo. You say nobody was


tortured in Guantanamo Bay? Nobody was tortured in Guantanamo Bay.


Moazzam Begg. Have you missed completely the CAA report? Have you


lived in a different world completely? Why did Obama ordered


the closure of Guantanamo Bay knee came into power? Why did he say I'm


going to end torture. He accepted torture existed. You deny it took


place. The only place it didn't happen was in your brain. Torture


never took place in Guantanamo. President Obama misspoke or


misunderstood? President Obama was referring to an investigation at


so-called CIA black sites, different issue to what happened in


Guantanamo. Nobody alleged there was mistreatment in Guantanamo. Every


single prisoner and American soldiers who served there, and


including some American prosecutors like Matt Diaz who resigned from the


commission process said there was tortured taking place. That is total


rubbish. Captain said torture was taking place and numerous people who


served in Guantanamo said torture took place. What do you think


Guantanamo chief, David Rivkin? Guantanamo has been criticised and


we paid a price, I understand that. Guantanamo symbolises this is a real


war against an implacable enemy which if we don't win will cost us


dearly. This is not a criminal justice exercise and the vast


majority of European friends just don't get it. Why were over 670


prisoners including myself released? If we are so dangerous why


are we free men? It doesn't make my sense will stop you made them had


mistakenly called us terrorists and the worst of the worst without any


legal process at all. Quite frankly this is nonsense. What you are left


with is a place that is a stain on the United States which you are


trying to defend. The viewers know what the recidivism rate of people


released from Guantanamo? Yes, I wrote a book and that is called


recidivism. And also the guys who made a film, it is called recidivism


because they made a film about Guantanamo, that is nonsense,


please! We've run out of time. Many people went back to fighting and


killing innocent civilians! We have run out of time, thank you for


coming in. Does the House


of Commons need to debate the need One Conservative MP - Philip Davies


- thinks the answer is yes. And he put his suggestion to


a backbench business committee. One of its members - Jess Philips -


the only woman on the board - said the gender imbalance,


not least of their own committee, "When I've got parity - when women


in these buildings have parity, then It could have ended there.


But it didn't. Jess Phillips joins us now from her


home in Birmingham, to explain. What happened, Jess Phillips? Hello.


What happened? Philip Davies came to the backbench


business committee and asked for, as you have outlined, asked for a


debate, International Men's Day debate, on the 19th of November.


I've not heard of it before. He led the charge in a sort of: The women


get one and a question session in Parliament so the men should have


one too. Then the fallout from it was that I spoke up against it,


which was presented by a certain newspaper that I had laughed and


joked about male suicide, men dying of cancer, young boys' education,


which obviously I did not do. And then I suffered a huge torrent of


very noisy abuse from men's rights activists, which very unfortunately


led to a very dark bit of the Internet calling for me to be raped,


banged and raped, raped publicly. And then when I published that on


Twitter then there was a torrent of people that said I was asking for


it, and it was my own fault. You called this a dark bit of the


Internet, do you think this is just a very small tiny section of it. Or


do you feel that what happened to you was fairly representative of


what happens to a woman? Well, there are many examples. Stella Creasy,


Kayla Mueller ran, the journalist has suffered from it. Caroline


Criado-Perez, suffered terribly. It is not in anyway just aimed at me so


it seems frilly, and. It goes immediately to sexual violence.


Philip Davies has done some pretty awful things that people have


criticised him on Twitter for today. Today he did a pretty awful thing to


carers. But I very much doubt that as a man anyone is threatening to


rape him and gag him and bind him. What has that done to your


perception of what happened? You said a paper criticised you for


laughing, or for treating its -- it lightly. Do you think any of your


behaviour was wrong in spite of what has happened since? If I was there


again I might not laugh at a man who was clearly not an equalities


champion, suggesting that... The thing that made me laugh was the


suggestion that men don't have an opportunity to speak up in the House


of Commons. Not any other things. If he'd come with a debate about male


suicide I would have been delighted to push that through. The reason he


didn't get his debate was because he didn't fill in the form properly,


nothing to do with me. Country to what you can read. Apps I wouldn't


be so flippant. I will protect myself in future. I will not


speaking up though, against people who frankly using quality as a tool


for their own ridiculous agenda -- I will not stop speaking up. Used to


think of politics as stuffy and out of reach of normal people. You know


what it is like to use an expletive or two against a colleague, Diane


Abbott in a PLP meeting, I'm thinking of. The fact you can call


her names, or burst out laughing at a suggestion, or that people are now


directly contacting you and you are reachable and relate about to, do


you think in one sense that is breaking down barriers between


people and politicians? It is and one of the things people said to me


since becoming an MP is that I speak like normal people, I have a normal


life and the way I react sometimes is sometimes a bit childish. I'm


only human. When I'm cross and angry I behave like most people do when


they are cross and angry, and maybe parliament will beat that out of me


eventually. But while there are a few idiots threatening to rape me


for being a woman with a big voice, the vast majority of people who


speak to me in my constituency, and on the Internet at large, are


delighted that there seems to be more humanity in the place. Anything


that makes a place with the amount of protocols and rules that


Parliament has. Jess Phillips, we've lost the link, we know where you


were going. Thank you, if you can still hear us.


How do you make an epic movie about someone who is already part


of so many of our daily lives, the man who invented Apple?


Aaron Sorkin - the scriptwriter who brought Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg's


Aaron Sorkin - the scriptwriter who brought Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg


to the big screen - was tasked with doing the same for Steve Jobs.


He teams up with Director Danny Boyle - to depict the


scenes backstage as Jobs prepares to face an audience of enthusiastic


The film out next month captures the entrepreneur's life,


In fact it depicts him as something of a brute.


Danny Boyle has been talking to Evan.


What do you do? You're not an engineer.


You're not a designer. You can't put a hammer to a nail.


I built the circuit board. The graphical interface was stolen.


So how come ten times in a day I read Steve jobs is a genius?


Your Steve Jobs has come out, I think a lot of people think,


as quite a jerk actually, quite unpleasant.


I think Michael's portrait of him is uncompromising


and what is extraordinary about his performance as well, and


obviously Aaron Sorkin's writing of it, was that you were not shielded


There are many people who would testify to great devotion to him


and the huge inspiration that they gain from him.


And other people felt they were very damaged.


You're issuing contradictory instructions, you're insubordinate,


You put together an opening ceremony for the Olympic Games.


I had to do a little bit of shouting at the International


Olympic Committee, but anybody, no matter what kind of person you are,


would shout at the International Olympic Committee at some point!


They say with film directors there is


That actually there are things that you're after that you will do


anything to get out, and there needs to be many differentiations in


But I believe in honesty. I try to be honest with people.


And I think that does bring the best out of them.


It's a system error. Fix it.


Fix it? Yeah!


We're not a pit crew at Daytona. This can't be fixed in seconds.


You didn't have seconds, you had three weeks.


The universe was created in a third of that time.


Well, someday you will have to tell us how you did it.


One of the things the film attracted is a bit of an argument about how


far a movie about a real guy can bend facts and have dramatic licence


I think it comes partly out of a despair


So what you end up developing, if you are dealing with real life, is


you end up developing a sense, and listen, this is not going to stand


up in a court of law, it's the bull shit sense where you go, it's the


bull shit detector, where you go, "I don't believe that."


You get that nightmare with actors where they go I'd think


my character would behave quite like this at this moment, which


fills you with this horror moment for a director, when you think,


But actually, it's very important because it's an internal moral


sense that you think we are being honest here and respectful.


You're arriving at that spot on a long lens looking that way.


Have you been annoyed at the argument that has raged


No, I think it's actually one of the reasons why I did the film.


Because, I think that a corporation like Apple is so powerful now are


Because, I think that a corporation like Apple is so powerful now,


so influential around the world, that it's crucial that writers and


artists tell the stories that they don't necessarily want you to tell.


I don't mean that you are digging out stuff about them


that's unacceptable behaviour wise or anything like that.


But you actually do tell stories about how it has happened that this


company that was born in a garage 40 years ago dominates


the world now and is richer than virtually all countries on earth


Do you feel like a Hollywood insider now?


You won an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire.


But you are kind of like an independent film-maker


Are you a Hollywood person now? No, not really.


This is the first script I've ever done that we didn't generate


But then we made this film and we lived


And I kind of understood really. It's an extraordinary town.


And I come from Manchester originally,


which had a lot to do with the first Industrial Revolution.


And it's weird working in a town that is


a modern Industrial Revolution, like the updated version of it.


You got a sense of potential of how things are changing,


It's three years since the Olympic opening ceremony now.


Everybody said Danny Boyle produced a statement of our country that most


people thought, this is rather good, we are proud of this.


And it was a sort of statement of a modern nation at ease with itself.


I just wonder what you think about the state of Britain.


We are always in a state of total self-criticism.


The Olympic opening ceremony was a chance to say that


behind that there is a sense of a progressive, decent country


And we can encourage it, which I think is all you can do.


Has there been any dent in your view of Britain


as a country which is free and which has these core values?


The debate over migrants this summer, for example.


I think any hesitancy about resisting refugees coming to this


country just denies the very nature of what the country is built on.


I mean, we have always had a noble tradition of being a refuge for


people who, for whatever reason, are under threat and I think that's part


of our national identity and what makes us a great country really.


Are you filled with the joy of a new politics, or are you filled with


the horror of a man who you don't think can win the next election?


Which of the various narratives about Jeremy Corbyn do you buy into?


Shall we do a biopic of Jeremy Corbyn?


He's obviously a very admirable man and I admire the way that he has


maintained his own personal principles throughout his time,


Obviously your only concern is that in the sway of things, by the time


the back and forth has finished and you arrive at an election when


you have to make absolute decisions is, will the Labour Party remain a


proper force that can be a government really?


Now on Artsnight, George the Poet explores


the meaning of black culture in music, theatre, writing and