:00:08. > :00:09.The Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan.
:00:10. > :00:12.She's responsible for schools in England.
:00:13. > :00:14.The biggest issue for her is the huge regional gap
:00:15. > :00:20.We'll ask if the Government have the ideas or the money to fix this?
:00:21. > :00:29.We all know that no means no when it comes to sex, but does
:00:30. > :00:35.A BBC documentary puts the complexities
:00:36. > :00:40.The director of public prosecutions is here to guide us through it.
:00:41. > :00:45.And as the bodies of the dead arrive back in Russia, we'll analyze what
:00:46. > :00:52.Was it technical failure or was it terrorism?
:00:53. > :00:55.Yes, there is the possibility of a terrorist attack.
:00:56. > :00:58.Whether that was by a missile or whether it was somebody carrying
:00:59. > :01:15.Tomorrow, Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, gives
:01:16. > :01:18.a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank, which will set our her
:01:19. > :01:23.They're all about tackling under-performance,
:01:24. > :01:27.and include a National Teaching Service - an elite squad of 1500
:01:28. > :01:29.teachers going into low-performing schools to help turn things round.
:01:30. > :01:32.There'll be more academies too - ones that have well-run sponsors.
:01:33. > :01:36.It's not a departure from the polices
:01:37. > :01:39.of the last Parliament and the last Education Secretary, Michael Gove.
:01:40. > :01:44.But lurking in the background is a staggering
:01:45. > :01:50.that over the last two decades, the ones in London went
:01:51. > :01:54.from being some of the worst to some of the best in the country.
:01:55. > :01:55.The contrast with the schools in many older,
:01:56. > :02:00.industrial areas of the north - the Northern Powerhouse - is now stark.
:02:01. > :02:03.So has Nicky Morgan got the polices to close the gap?
:02:04. > :02:07.We'll hear from her in a few minutes, but first
:02:08. > :02:23.One of the hardest subjects in English education is geography. It's
:02:24. > :02:29.been well discussed how schools in London have improved substantially.
:02:30. > :02:33.In 1995 poorer pupils in lopped were four per centage points to achieve
:02:34. > :02:42.five GCSEs than poorer children outside London. By 2003 they were 5
:02:43. > :02:47.per centage points more likely. By 2013 they were 19% more likely to
:02:48. > :02:50.get five good GCSEs than similarly poor children outside the City.
:02:51. > :02:57.While London has soared away, there are parts of England whose results
:02:58. > :03:01.have stagnated. We have a problem with our coastal air yarz and towns
:03:02. > :03:06.and cities across the north of England. Imagine taking two
:03:07. > :03:09.11-year-olds of identical poverty, ethnicity, test results, everything.
:03:10. > :03:13.Put one in a Hackney secondary school in East London and one
:03:14. > :03:16.somewhere else. These red areas are the boroughs where that kid sent
:03:17. > :03:20.elsewhere would expect to end up more than a third of a grade behind
:03:21. > :03:25.the Hackney child in English and maths at the age of 16. That, you'll
:03:26. > :03:33.have to take my word for it, is a very big difference. What does a
:03:34. > :03:37.good teacher make these days? The complex understandable and the
:03:38. > :03:41.mindboggling... Part is down to recruitment. There's a problem at
:03:42. > :03:45.the moment, but particularly severe outside the capital. An oddity of
:03:46. > :03:49.this is that teachers in Central London aren't the best paid. In
:03:50. > :03:54.2012, civil servants estimated that teachers in the high performing
:03:55. > :03:59.Hackney schools were, paid 85% of what other local professionals were
:04:00. > :04:03.getting, in say Knowsley in the North West, they're paid 6% more
:04:04. > :04:11.that. Hackney teacher in 2012 would earn 14% of the cost of a local
:04:12. > :04:14.house, in Knowsley, 26%. The quality of schools matters to more than just
:04:15. > :04:18.the children and the parents they serve. If schools in the great old
:04:19. > :04:22.cities of the north struggle, they'll hold back their economies.
:04:23. > :04:24.The northern powerhouse of the future will need good schools fit
:04:25. > :04:29.for the 21st serge ri. -- century. Joining me now is the Education
:04:30. > :04:38.Secretary, Nicky Morgan. Good evening to you. Good evening.
:04:39. > :04:43.Can we start with one point not in that piece to clarify, testing.
:04:44. > :04:46.You're going to suggest a review of Testing age seven. Some people say
:04:47. > :04:51.this is a retreat from the testing regime. Others say it's to harden up
:04:52. > :04:55.the tests. What's the review about? Let me be completely clear. There is
:04:56. > :05:00.absolutely no change. We want to know the progress that students are
:05:01. > :05:03.pracking -- making from the baseline tests that we introduce this year,
:05:04. > :05:09.when they start primary school, through to Key Stage 2 tests at the
:05:10. > :05:13.age of 11. We want to make sure we can monitor the progress, so the
:05:14. > :05:16.tests children take at the age of seven, we are confident that they
:05:17. > :05:20.are identifying where children are making progress and where they are
:05:21. > :05:25.not. Anybody who has, in the last 48 House of Lords, print aid story
:05:26. > :05:28.saying that somehow -- 48 hours, printed a story saying they're going
:05:29. > :05:34.to change they're being led on a merry dance. No retreat on testing
:05:35. > :05:37.then. Let's focus on the corps this afternoon film -- core of that film
:05:38. > :05:40.there. The weird gap that's between London and the rest of the country.
:05:41. > :05:45.What is your theory as to what happened in London that it went
:05:46. > :05:52.behind to so far ahead snrchlts it's aI combi -- It's a combination of
:05:53. > :05:55.things. I think it was a determination to raise expectations
:05:56. > :06:00.for students, to bring in sponsors from outside and of course, this
:06:01. > :06:04.started with the academies programme, started by Lord Adonis in
:06:05. > :06:08.the last Labour Government, where bringing in strong sponsors, teacher
:06:09. > :06:12.recruitment, the introduction of the highly successful Teach First
:06:13. > :06:18.charity, which takes graduates from top universities and puts them into
:06:19. > :06:21.schools, giving them the confidence and training to do that. Everybody
:06:22. > :06:26.in London was saying we have to change this. That's what we want to
:06:27. > :06:31.spread to other parts of the the terrorism it's one of the things
:06:32. > :06:34.I've -- of the country. It's one of the things I've noticed, excellent
:06:35. > :06:38.teachers and excellent schools, we don't have them everywhere. Zplt
:06:39. > :06:41.northern powerhouse zone of schools under performing, London schools by
:06:42. > :06:45.more than most, must be a pig worry. Let's ask if you have policies and
:06:46. > :06:49.you're announcing them tomorrow that meet the scale of that challenge.
:06:50. > :06:56.Let's start with the national teaching service.. By 2020 we will
:06:57. > :06:59.have 1500 excellent teachers, experienced teachers to go into
:07:00. > :07:03.challenging schools across the country. They will go in, several
:07:04. > :07:08.teachers in a school. They can be invited in by the school, if it
:07:09. > :07:11.identifies its problems or under the education adoption bill, we can
:07:12. > :07:15.tackle failing schools, coasting schools. We can say we think you
:07:16. > :07:22.should have some of these teachers to raise standards. This is 1500
:07:23. > :07:29.teachers. I mean there are 451,000 teachers in English schools.
:07:30. > :07:33.454,000. OK. 1500, it's approximately zero isn't it really.
:07:34. > :07:37.No, I don't think so. Even one new teacher coming in from outside,
:07:38. > :07:41.there'll be more in these challenging schools, but even just
:07:42. > :07:44.one teacher coming in from outside, bringing new ideas, bringing new
:07:45. > :07:49.experiences, offering collaboration, it does make a big difference. Of
:07:50. > :07:53.course, if there were more people who came forward, but I think 1500
:07:54. > :07:56.is the right number to start with. We start with a pilot particularly
:07:57. > :08:00.in the North West. We're going to be asking for teachers to step forward
:08:01. > :08:04.to do this. It's going to be recognised in terms of their career
:08:05. > :08:10.progression. There'll be incentives to do this. Hundreds of teachers...
:08:11. > :08:13.Who want to give up the job at a cosy, good school, perhaps in the
:08:14. > :08:17.south of England and move to the north, a difficult school in the
:08:18. > :08:23.north? Are they cueing up for that? Many do. Many want the best for the
:08:24. > :08:27.children. Many teachers, many heads I speak to, relish the challenge of
:08:28. > :08:31.getting the best for pupils. We have to be more directional about this.
:08:32. > :08:35.There are places like Knowsley in that report where only 38% of
:08:36. > :08:39.students got five good GCSEs. That can't be right. That isn't fair on
:08:40. > :08:43.the students in Knowsley for whom there isn't a choice about anywhere
:08:44. > :08:48.else to go to. In a way, isn't the problem that you can't recruit
:08:49. > :08:51.teachers in some of those areas, there's a recruitment problem,
:08:52. > :08:54.except in London, where salaries don't go as far, there's a
:08:55. > :09:01.recruitment problem. Solving that has to be a bigger priority than
:09:02. > :09:06.bussing in 1500. We're talking about the national teaching service, year
:09:07. > :09:10.seven resits, we're talking about students doing core academic
:09:11. > :09:15.subjects, all of them taking those. Five sponsors coming forward. Five
:09:16. > :09:20.sponsors, five, you're giving them ?5 million as I understand it.
:09:21. > :09:25.They're sharing that money. But again, actually having a strong
:09:26. > :09:28.sponsor operating these hubs, working with other academies, that's
:09:29. > :09:32.one of the exciting things we see in our system at the moment is the
:09:33. > :09:37.collaboration between schools. The real raising of standards. You know
:09:38. > :09:41.we have a million more children in schools rated good or outstanding
:09:42. > :09:45.than in 2010. Our education reforms are making a difference. This is a
:09:46. > :09:48.matter of social justice for these children who otherwise don't get
:09:49. > :09:52.that great start in life they deserve. Understood. In his
:09:53. > :09:56.conference speech, the Prime Minister said, "My next ambition is
:09:57. > :09:59.this: 500 new free schools, every school an academy, yes, local
:10:00. > :10:03.authorities running schools a thing of the past." You buy that?
:10:04. > :10:09.Absolutely. In London you believe that? I think academies have proven
:10:10. > :10:16.to be hugely successful. One of the reasons is bringing in an external
:10:17. > :10:19.sponsor, bringing support, challenge, sharing of experiences -
:10:20. > :10:23.you're going to leap in. You're going to fix the London schooling
:10:24. > :10:25.system, which you've been telling me is so brilliant, what is broken
:10:26. > :10:30.about the London schooling system that you want to change the status
:10:31. > :10:34.of a third of the schools in London, which are run by local authorities,
:10:35. > :10:39.apparently rather well and you want to move them across? We see that the
:10:40. > :10:42.multiacademy trusts and sponsors are great at school improvement. Local
:10:43. > :10:45.authorities do many things well, but actually it's not always in the
:10:46. > :10:48.realm of school improvement. Sorry, are you saying that local
:10:49. > :10:52.authorities in London are not running their schools well? We're
:10:53. > :10:55.not saying, it doesn't have to be - You're proposing to fix a problem
:10:56. > :11:00.and I'm asking you what problem it's fixing. It doesn't have to be an
:11:01. > :11:04.either or choice. What we see in London is what we want to see
:11:05. > :11:07.elsewhere in the country, people coming from outside, bringing that
:11:08. > :11:11.challenge. The best people to run schools are the heads, teachers and
:11:12. > :11:14.govern ors. We want to see what's happened in London, there are still
:11:15. > :11:18.- Sorry what's happened in London is a third of the schools are run by
:11:19. > :11:22.local authorities and they're very good schools. Are you proposing, if
:11:23. > :11:26.you like, to completely change the system in London. Two thirds clearly
:11:27. > :11:31.are not, benefitting from the independence and that's what we want
:11:32. > :11:35.elsewhere in the country. Is this whole conversation we're having
:11:36. > :11:39.about to be engulfed by a tidal wave called the Spending Review, which we
:11:40. > :11:46.get this month, which I think the IFS is saying costs up by St % or --
:11:47. > :11:49.12% in schools, funding rising by 7% over the Parliament. We have
:11:50. > :11:52.committed, you're right the Spending Review is a huge issue for all
:11:53. > :11:55.Government departments to know how much they're going to have to spend
:11:56. > :12:01.in the next few years. We have already as a Government committed to
:12:02. > :12:08.protect per pupil school funding. Sorry, you've committed in cash
:12:09. > :12:12.terms not real terms? Absolutely. That's a 5% real cut. Because the
:12:13. > :12:14.number of pupils is going up in the system over the course of the
:12:15. > :12:19.Parliament, schools will be getting more. One of the other commitments
:12:20. > :12:25.in our manifesto was to look at this issue of fairer funding. Because
:12:26. > :12:28.there are some parts of the country where neighbouring authorities are
:12:29. > :12:32.getting differing amounts. If we get that sorted that will also make a
:12:33. > :12:36.big difference. School budgets like other budgets in the public sector
:12:37. > :12:41.are under pressure. We will do all we can to support schools. That's in
:12:42. > :12:45.three weeks. I want to ask you about a completely different story. The
:12:46. > :12:48.Times loading on a story that the Government has abandoned the idea of
:12:49. > :12:52.a vote on military action in Syria, bombing Syria. Is that correct? I've
:12:53. > :12:55.only just seen the headlines as I came into the studio. I don't
:12:56. > :12:59.recognise that. But the Prime Minister has been very clear that in
:13:00. > :13:05.order to return to the House of Commons he wants to build a clear
:13:06. > :13:09.consensus to win a vote there. But we are absolutely undimmed in our
:13:10. > :13:12.commitment to defeat Isil. That's why we're taking military action in
:13:13. > :13:15.Iraq. But as I say, the Prime Minister's been clear about the need
:13:16. > :13:20.to build that consensus in the House of Commons. To be clear, no change
:13:21. > :13:27.in policy? No, I don't think there is a change in policy. These are not
:13:28. > :13:31.reports that I recognise at all. You'd only have a vote if there was
:13:32. > :13:33.a consensus? The Prime Minister has been clear that he wants to build
:13:34. > :13:35.that consensus in the House of Commons on any vote. Thanks very
:13:36. > :13:38.much. A lot has been said about it
:13:39. > :13:42.in the last few days, but we still don't really know what caused
:13:43. > :13:44.a Russian Metrojet Airbus A320 to The airline says that it was quote,
:13:45. > :13:49.an "external influence" for the crash, but at this stage, the cause
:13:50. > :13:53.has to be said to be a mystery. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban,
:13:54. > :14:12.has been looking In St Petersburg they're bringing
:14:13. > :14:17.home the dead. And the relatives of those who perished in Sinai are
:14:18. > :14:21.preparing to bury their loved ones. Most of the holidaymakers who died
:14:22. > :14:27.came from this city and they want to know why this tragedy happened.
:14:28. > :14:30.TRANSLATION: Without any doubt everything has to be done to make
:14:31. > :14:33.sure we have an objective description of what happened. We
:14:34. > :14:42.have to know what happened and to react in the appropriate way. So
:14:43. > :14:45.what are the possible explanations? When locals affiliated to the
:14:46. > :14:50.Islamic State group claimed to have downed the Russian plane, attention
:14:51. > :14:56.briefly focussed on missiles. But while insurgents in Sinai have shot
:14:57. > :15:02.down low-level helicopters, hitting a jet at 30,000 feet requires a big
:15:03. > :15:08.missile, like the BUK system, with its associated fire control radars
:15:09. > :15:13.and equipment and nobody thinks IS in Sinai has this type of kit. The
:15:14. > :15:20.only weapons we know about in that area with a surface-to-air
:15:21. > :15:26.capability are man portable. They have an altitude they can reach
:15:27. > :15:31.between 10 and 15,000 feet maximum, nowhere near 30,000 feet. Anxious to
:15:32. > :15:35.protect the country's tourist industry, Egypt's president tonight
:15:36. > :15:36.ruled out the possibility that IS could have brought down the plane
:15:37. > :15:47.with a missile. TRANSLATION: This is one way to nail
:15:48. > :15:52.the security of Egypt. The plane was at 35,000 feet altitude, believe me,
:15:53. > :15:58.the situation in Sinai in this limited area is under our full
:15:59. > :16:03.control. Given that the aircraft broke up at 31,000 feet, and
:16:04. > :16:09.wreckage was scattered widely across 20 square kilometres, a bomb might
:16:10. > :16:13.have been smuggled on board. Certainly, that is more likely than
:16:14. > :16:20.a missile but still hard to pull off. And IS itself did not actually
:16:21. > :16:24.claim it had planted any device. But the possibility that someone did is
:16:25. > :16:30.why people will not rule out terrorism. We don't have any direct
:16:31. > :16:38.evidence of any terrorist involvement yet. IS in a Tweet
:16:39. > :16:45.claimed responsibility for this and there is a very aggressive chapter
:16:46. > :16:53.in Sinai but we really do not know and I think that once the black
:16:54. > :17:00.boxes have been analysed, then perhaps we will know more. So,
:17:01. > :17:06.leaving aside terrorism, what about structural failure? Effect that the
:17:07. > :17:11.tale came down relatively intact, some way from the rest of the
:17:12. > :17:16.wreckage, has led attention to focus on a previous tail strike when the
:17:17. > :17:22.rear of the jet hit the tarmac on landing. But it did, however, pass a
:17:23. > :17:28.safety inspection six months ago in Ireland. This particular flight we
:17:29. > :17:36.are talking about did have a tail strike at Cairo airport in 2001. So
:17:37. > :17:40.I would expect accident investigators to be holding in on
:17:41. > :17:45.that as something that they would need to eliminate from the
:17:46. > :17:51.investigation. The flight recorders have been recovered and the nations
:17:52. > :17:55.involved with this disaster must agree who will take charge of the
:17:56. > :17:59.investigation. The pressure on investigators to give answers to
:18:00. > :18:07.leaders as well as families will be intense. Mark Urban reporting.
:18:08. > :18:09.When it comes to consent to sex, no means no.
:18:10. > :18:17.The answer to that in law is no.
:18:18. > :18:20.But is it clear-cut when consent is given and when it is not?
:18:21. > :18:23.The question has been tested tonight in a fascinating BBC Three
:18:24. > :18:28.It took a dramatised scene of oral sex between two teenagers,
:18:29. > :18:32.an uncomfortable scene in which the girl is barely awake.
:18:33. > :18:35.She ultimately accuses the boy of rape, and we see clips
:18:36. > :18:41.What is clever is that the documentary stops the action
:18:42. > :18:44.at key points to ask a panel of real teenagers - and the audience
:18:45. > :18:49.Have a look at this six-minute version
:18:50. > :18:54.of the film, which starts with the party after which the sex occurs.
:18:55. > :18:56.It also includes some of the comments
:18:57. > :19:05.Did the boy think she'd given consent?
:19:06. > :19:47.I thought you had fallen asleep in the kitchen or something.
:19:48. > :20:54.There was absolutely no consent so it definitely,
:20:55. > :21:00.It was a horrible case of miscommunication.
:21:01. > :21:03.If she definitely did not want it, she would have pushed him away.
:21:04. > :21:06.It could have just been because she couldn't be bothered to say no, and
:21:07. > :21:10.we have all been in a situation with a boy trying to force himself on us.
:21:11. > :21:13.In the end, you just kind of go, fine, whatever.
:21:14. > :21:15.Unwanted sexual contact is unwanted sexual contact.
:21:16. > :21:21.She didn't show that she was up for it.
:21:22. > :21:24.But at the same time, she didn't do anything to stop it.
:21:25. > :21:28.I'm not saying it was right, what happened, but I do not think it
:21:29. > :21:30.The girl was awake and she didn't exactly consent
:21:31. > :21:35.And I don't think it would even end up in court.
:21:36. > :21:43.This guy I know, he did something to me.
:21:44. > :21:46.The two of you had a previous relationship, is that correct?
:21:47. > :21:50.We went out for about three months or something.
:21:51. > :21:54.Honestly, when I got the text, I thought she was still interested.
:21:55. > :21:57.You were very happy when Mr Morris came out of the kitchen.
:21:58. > :21:59.You were very happy to give him oral sex?
:22:00. > :22:03.Then why didn't you put a stop to it?
:22:04. > :22:07.All you needed to say was no, it all would have been very simple.
:22:08. > :22:10.You could have called out to a friend in the upstairs room.
:22:11. > :22:24.Now I have realised that she really didn't want that to happen,
:22:25. > :22:27.I kind of look back to the actual situation and think, if you really
:22:28. > :22:32.didn't want it to happen that bad, then you should have said no.
:22:33. > :22:35.She has taken it this far when she could have stopped it right there.
:22:36. > :22:38.His life is going to be ruined for a misunderstanding.
:22:39. > :22:49.Rape is usually when you are intending to sexually assault, yeah?
:22:50. > :22:52.He did it with intent and rape is a big word for it.
:22:53. > :22:56.You can flirt and you can flirt and you can flirt.
:22:57. > :23:02.If he was my friend I wouldn't call the police but he would be shunned,
:23:03. > :23:06.I wouldn't like him as a person but I wouldn't call the police.
:23:07. > :23:10.If we could say that Tom could be charged with a sex offence rather
:23:11. > :23:14.than rape, we would prefer that, but because it comes under rape,
:23:15. > :23:19.although it is such a strong word, it is classed as that.
:23:20. > :23:23.So is it fair that he would get the same sentence
:23:24. > :23:26.as someone who randomly approached a woman, attacked her
:23:27. > :23:32.With the current justice system, the whole thing would fall apart
:23:33. > :23:40.You cannot say it's not that bad because the next thing is not that
:23:41. > :23:44.If it comes under rape, it comes under rape.
:23:45. > :23:47.We had slept in the same bed loads before so I
:23:48. > :24:04.She didn't say anything like stop or anything.
:24:05. > :24:06.But she didn't do anything to indicate that she
:24:07. > :24:11.She definitely would have said if she wasn't into it.
:24:12. > :24:27.I know people who have been in situations where they haven't
:24:28. > :24:30.given consent to their boyfriends, even, for sex for that particular
:24:31. > :24:34.time but their boyfriend has gone ahead with it anyway.
:24:35. > :24:36.And body language, as we have seen in that video, is
:24:37. > :24:43.You can't brush things off, it is not a case of, he is quite nice.
:24:44. > :24:46.He has done this and he has to pay for it.
:24:47. > :24:54.But you say the word rapist to someone
:24:55. > :24:59.and they think of a vile monster of a person and Tom isn't a monster.
:25:00. > :25:04.He is a boy who did a bad thing, but he is a boy.
:25:05. > :25:07.What the actual hell are you people talking about?
:25:08. > :25:19.I don't understand how anyone can verbalise that this isn't that bad.
:25:20. > :25:26.Have I actually done something and not known that I have done it?
:25:27. > :25:28.Because that boy, Tom, he knew what he was doing was wrong
:25:29. > :25:34.Because there are hundreds of different possibilities, you know?
:25:35. > :25:37.What's the chances that 24 people haven't done one of them?
:25:38. > :25:40.That was a six-minute version of a one-hour film.
:25:41. > :25:43.I gave you the three key questions - you may have just
:25:44. > :25:53.These are the results of the teenage panel and the voters.
:25:54. > :26:00.No, consent was not given, the teenagers and
:26:01. > :26:21.Well, we'll hear from the Director of Public Prosecutions for England
:26:22. > :26:25.and Wales in a minute, but I'm joined by two of the teenagers who
:26:26. > :26:38.A manual and Rosie. Thank you both. How did you vote? You voted for
:26:39. > :26:42.rape? And you thought it was rape? How do you feel about the sentence
:26:43. > :26:47.because at the end, he gets seven years. Did you feel that was a lot
:26:48. > :26:53.or not a lot for that to killer defence? I thought that it was
:26:54. > :26:58.justifiable. I thought that seven years is what he should have had and
:26:59. > :27:03.any more would have been too much because he is only a teenage boy
:27:04. > :27:08.after all but then loads of other teenagers thought it should have
:27:09. > :27:13.been longer. And some even thought he should not have any connection at
:27:14. > :27:19.all. What about you, Emmanuel? I thought, therefore doubly longer
:27:20. > :27:23.because seven years is not a short time, it is a long time in prison
:27:24. > :27:32.but for what he did, it comes back to the whole thing, whether it was
:27:33. > :27:36.rape. Once classified as rape, that means a proper sentence, not like
:27:37. > :27:41.six months or something suspended, it means appearing in jail. Even
:27:42. > :27:48.though most of you in the room thought that he probably believed he
:27:49. > :27:52.had consent, I do not know what you thought on that particular issue,
:27:53. > :27:58.but does that mitigate things at all? Well, I don't know, I changed
:27:59. > :28:04.my opinion so many times but in the end I did think he thought he had
:28:05. > :28:09.consent, which makes it a lot harder to see him as a rapist and as a
:28:10. > :28:16.criminal because he could justify his actions. I changed my mind the
:28:17. > :28:22.most, at first I was very firm on the fact that it was rape. Rosie, at
:28:23. > :28:27.some point, do you say that this is a familiar scene? But boys to
:28:28. > :28:36.themselves or try it on in some way? Yes. People might be surprised to
:28:37. > :28:39.think these rather unpleasant awkward scenes that end in something
:28:40. > :28:45.that could be called rape might be happening a lot? Teenagers will not
:28:46. > :28:48.be surprised. It happens at every party, you will see this time of
:28:49. > :28:53.thing happening. Kissing upstairs and downstairs. But there is a
:28:54. > :28:57.difference between guessing that grow in that situation in the video,
:28:58. > :29:03.but does happen because people do stay around but... The difference
:29:04. > :29:14.is, whether it gets taken to court and whether it then... Tell me this,
:29:15. > :29:20.if you had been Gemma, would you have gone to the police? No, because
:29:21. > :29:25.first of all, before I went on the show, I did not even know that oral
:29:26. > :29:35.sex could count as rape? You need to know that. It can. Would you go to
:29:36. > :29:38.the police, having seen that film? Yes, I would, with the knowledge I
:29:39. > :29:42.have got but I know that loads of girls would not because they would
:29:43. > :29:46.not think they would get anywhere with that, they would be asked, what
:29:47. > :29:54.were you wearing? Were you drunk? They would get blamed. I remember
:29:55. > :30:00.saying, if she went there, she would be treated as a suspect, you had
:30:01. > :30:05.your clothes taken off, and it is true, it does come down to things
:30:06. > :30:09.like that and for some women it can be treated like that but it should
:30:10. > :30:12.go to the police. One of the things that really struck me in the full
:30:13. > :30:20.version is how many of you talking about this were grappling for the
:30:21. > :30:27.word which was effectively half rape. Some of the courts, she did
:30:28. > :30:34.not consent but did not say no, he is not a rapist, even though he did
:30:35. > :30:40.rape her. I wonder if you see a spectrum? That is my point, it is
:30:41. > :30:48.not like saying someone is a murderer but they did not murder
:30:49. > :30:53.them. It is not 90% and 10%, that is why I answered the question in full,
:30:54. > :30:59.she was. Do you see this in black and white? I have to disagree, there
:31:00. > :31:03.are definitely different degrees of rape and it is so difficult because
:31:04. > :31:07.you do not know where to draw the line because it is not black and
:31:08. > :31:11.white but then, what do you call it? Thank you both very much indeed. And
:31:12. > :31:13.for that film, it was really good. Alison Saunders, the Director of
:31:14. > :31:20.Public Prosecutions, is here now. It is quite unacceptable to
:31:21. > :31:25.entertain the possibility that there are degrees of rape. Do you accept
:31:26. > :31:29.that lots of people who are not school in the law or history and
:31:30. > :31:32.debate the subject, they naturally do see that you can have a the %,
:31:33. > :31:40.20% or 50%? It's difficult, where do you draw
:31:41. > :31:44.the line? The impact on the victims is very much the same. I think
:31:45. > :31:51.that's really difficult. That's why we have one offence of rain and in
:31:52. > :31:55.order to change it, there would have to be a real adult debate about it.
:31:56. > :31:59.The idea that there's murder one and two in the states, and murder and
:32:00. > :32:05.manslaughter here. But murder and manslaughter are very different.
:32:06. > :32:09.Different intent. You don't see any reason to have a difference between
:32:10. > :32:13.a rape where someone says no and a rape where someone, if you like, is
:32:14. > :32:18.not saying no, but is not saying yes. She's saying no and that's a
:32:19. > :32:24.myth. People don't fight, they freeze and if you don't fight that
:32:25. > :32:29.somehow you're to blame. So she wasn't saying yes. She wasn't
:32:30. > :32:35.consenting in the video. That is rape. It's about sexual intercourse
:32:36. > :32:41.or some form of sexual activity with consent. In the film one of the
:32:42. > :32:47.things the defending barrister says to her is, "If you had just said no,
:32:48. > :32:53.this would be very clear cut." I'm sure a lot of guys will be thinking,
:32:54. > :32:56.I would like to know if this is not acceptable to you, then just you
:32:57. > :33:03.know can't I expect to you tell me and then I will... There are ways in
:33:04. > :33:06.which people react. That's a myth that people put up a fight. People
:33:07. > :33:09.always say no. Some people just freeze. That's their natural
:33:10. > :33:14.reaction. They just can't help it. That's what they do. They think it
:33:15. > :33:17.will be over and done with, I think as the girl said in the film, she
:33:18. > :33:21.would just stay there hoping it would be over and done with, if she
:33:22. > :33:26.did nothing. That is not giving consent. Sexual activity, have you
:33:27. > :33:32.to have consent. Tell me how you would have voted in the three
:33:33. > :33:37.things. Did she give consent? No. Because she was basically half
:33:38. > :33:40.asleep. Mostly asleep. Yes. Did he believe she'd given consent, that's
:33:41. > :33:47.the hardest question of the three. That's not the test, did he believe.
:33:48. > :33:50.It's about objectively would consent be given and was it given freely and
:33:51. > :33:55.with the capacity to give consent? If you look at it objectively. How
:33:56. > :33:59.did he think consent was given. She was asleep. Half asleep when he
:34:00. > :34:04.started kissing her. She didn't react. She lay there. So how did he
:34:05. > :34:07.believe that was consent? Isn't the question then that wouldn't a
:34:08. > :34:10.reasonable person believe he would have had consent. A reasonable
:34:11. > :34:17.person wouldn't have believed, so then it definitely was rape. Yes.
:34:18. > :34:20.Tell me, because it finishes the story, would you have imagined a
:34:21. > :34:24.sentence of seven years for an offence of that kind? There's lots
:34:25. > :34:27.of things we don't know, his previous convictions all those sorts
:34:28. > :34:31.of things. It may not have been quite seven years. So seven years is
:34:32. > :34:38.not unthinkable. It possibly would have been a bit less. In the film,
:34:39. > :34:42.the youngsters see a lot of, a few witnesses come, in a man accused of
:34:43. > :34:50.rape, who was the case was thrown out by a judge. Are you in any way
:34:51. > :34:55.ever sympathetic to the idea that defendants Shh... Should have
:34:56. > :35:01.anonymity. In that category it can be a great deal more damaging to the
:35:02. > :35:04.defendant than in other offences. I can understand why people would not
:35:05. > :35:09.wish to be named. We don't name people up until the point of charge.
:35:10. > :35:12.We never disclose their identity for obvious reasons. Once they're
:35:13. > :35:17.charged, it's a matter of public record. I can see how it would be
:35:18. > :35:22.quite traumatic for somebody especially if they're not convicted
:35:23. > :35:26.at the end of the day. I think you once said a myth persists that
:35:27. > :35:31.establishing whether someone is a willing sexual partner is
:35:32. > :35:34.complicated. The film, in Wei -- in a way, you don't think it makes it
:35:35. > :35:39.complicated at all. Is it really clear cut snrchlts I think the law
:35:40. > :35:43.is clear cut. There are misunderstandings around it. The
:35:44. > :35:47.film has shown that. That's why we did the social moda campaign to
:35:48. > :35:51.explain and get the debate. It's really good to see the film
:35:52. > :35:55.provoking that. What was reassuring was how close the public vote was
:35:56. > :36:05.around yes, it was rape and around the consent issue. Thanks very much.
:36:06. > :36:08.The Chancellor, George Osborne, is in Germany to discuss efforts to
:36:09. > :36:10.renegotiate Britain's relationship with the European Union.
:36:11. > :36:13.It's all part of trying to get a better deal for the Britain ahead
:36:14. > :36:16.of the referendum on the EU, the details of which are still
:36:17. > :36:19.And our political editor, Allegra, has some new details.
:36:20. > :36:23.It's news on the timing of the referendum. We're picking up
:36:24. > :36:27.information that suggests a referendum in all of 2016 could be
:36:28. > :36:30.pretty tricky and it leads back to the House of Lords again. Let me
:36:31. > :36:36.explain. It looks like the Lords are on the verge of giving 16 and
:36:37. > :36:39.17-year-olds the vote. The Labour leader in the Lords has told us this
:36:40. > :36:43.evening that it's likely this will go through. They have the support of
:36:44. > :36:48.the Lib Dems, some cross-benchers. They're hopeful it goes through.
:36:49. > :36:54.Also in the House of Commons, there are Tory MPs who says if it came to
:36:55. > :37:00.it he would vote for it. In the face of such support, the Government
:37:01. > :37:03.would be able to set their face against 16 and 17-year-olds getting
:37:04. > :37:08.the vote in the referendum. How does that affect the timing? Indeed, it's
:37:09. > :37:12.complicated. Today the Electoral Commission has told this programme
:37:13. > :37:15.if it were the case that you had 16 and 17-year-olds able to vote, it's
:37:16. > :37:22.a huge influx, hundreds of thousands of new voters. If that's the case,
:37:23. > :37:25.they expect 12 months to be put in place to allow registration,
:37:26. > :37:31.promotion to get the new voters into the system properly. If you imagine,
:37:32. > :37:32.what most people expect is that this legislation, referendum becomes
:37:33. > :37:38.legislation early next year, you could be looking at all of 2016
:37:39. > :37:43.knocked out. Now it's likely the Government will take the Electoral
:37:44. > :37:45.Commission seriously. They have done previously about the referendum.
:37:46. > :37:48.This will deeply irritate David Cameron and George Osborne. They
:37:49. > :37:52.didn't want this to dominate the first half of the Parliament. We
:37:53. > :37:56.should ask about this story, in the Times, Cameron backs down. And the
:37:57. > :38:05.Guardian. Backs down over plan to bomb Syria. A half denial from Nicki
:38:06. > :38:08.Morgan earlier, doesn't recognise the story. Downing Street have said
:38:09. > :38:13.to me this evening that it's nonsense, to use a technical phrase.
:38:14. > :38:17.That's their phrase. I should say, I have spoken to a source this evening
:38:18. > :38:21.that says the situation is very fluid and that these stories may not
:38:22. > :38:25.be too far off the mark. But they make the point that the Prime
:38:26. > :38:28.Minister's view back in the day, when we all thought he was certain,
:38:29. > :38:35.may not have been completely certain. Now it may be more fluid
:38:36. > :38:39.than we had been led to believe. Crispin Blunt, the chair of the
:38:40. > :38:43.Foreign Affairs Select Committee in Westminster, joins me now. Can you
:38:44. > :38:46.throw any light on this? It will be a humiliation for the Government
:38:47. > :38:53.having been pushing this quietly for months, retreating from it. Well,
:38:54. > :38:56.what's being said on the basis of unattributed briefings is up to the
:38:57. > :38:59.Government and whatever's happened in terms of briefings coming out of
:39:00. > :39:05.the Government. I can't speak to that. Alm I can say is that -- all I
:39:06. > :39:09.can say is my committee is publishing a report in 45 minutes
:39:10. > :39:12.giving our view on the merits of the Government coming to Parliament and
:39:13. > :39:15.asking us whether or not we should authorise the extension of air
:39:16. > :39:22.strikes into Syria from Iraq. What is your view, give us the top line,
:39:23. > :39:29.not the detail, just the top line? You know, I can't. It would be a
:39:30. > :39:34.breach of the embargo if I did. I would be quite properly in trouble.
:39:35. > :39:38.My concern is this story has developed this evening, is that it
:39:39. > :39:42.looks as though the Government may, might have been reacting to an
:39:43. > :39:45.embargoed copy of the report, which they've had during the course of the
:39:46. > :39:52.day in the same way that the press has. I think you're regarded as
:39:53. > :39:57.someone who's been sceptical of a Syria campaign. The report might say
:39:58. > :40:01.you're against it and they may now realise there can be no consensus in
:40:02. > :40:06.Parliament to support hay war in Syria. Would that be a reasonable
:40:07. > :40:11.version of events? That would be a reasonable interpretation of the
:40:12. > :40:15.positions of, public positions of members of the committee taken to
:40:16. > :40:20.date include myself and the comments that I have made. We'll have to wait
:40:21. > :40:24.45 minutes exactly what the agreed position of the foreign affairs
:40:25. > :40:28.committee is. We're very clear in our conclusion, I hope people will
:40:29. > :40:32.believe we are clear in our conclusion. People will have to take
:40:33. > :40:36.their view on the merits of the case as to whether or not Britain's going
:40:37. > :40:43.to make a useful contribution, if it extended its air strikes into Syria.
:40:44. > :40:47.If the Government can't persuade you, there's never anything close to
:40:48. > :40:51.a vote in the Commons that would get that through, is there? Effectively
:40:52. > :40:55.the line they've taken tonight which is - we remain committed to this if
:40:56. > :41:00.we can get consensus, just means we're not going to pursue a vote. It
:41:01. > :41:04.has to mean that. We need to get out of the view of looking at this from
:41:05. > :41:08.the House of Commons and from London. It's a little issue about
:41:09. > :41:11.whether the United Kingdom extends the operations of eight planes from
:41:12. > :41:17.Iraq into Syria. What's a big issue is whether or not there's
:41:18. > :41:21.international consensus on bringing the contesting Syrian parties and
:41:22. > :41:26.the Civil War to a settlement and whether there's then consensus on
:41:27. > :41:29.how to progress an operation to defeat ISIS, taking an occupying a
:41:30. > :41:33.territory they currently hold in Syria and Iraq. Those are the big
:41:34. > :41:37.questions. And those big questions are now beginning to shift. We have
:41:38. > :41:41.saw it quickly, the Russian intervention has changed the
:41:42. > :41:44.dynamic. They've now got an interest in getting a settlement. Otherwise
:41:45. > :41:47.they're in for the long haul of defending the Syrian government in
:41:48. > :41:53.the region. We've seen this developing over the weekend in
:41:54. > :41:59.Vienna. The committee agreed this report on Thursday. The line I've
:42:00. > :42:02.been taking on an embargo basis today and will be taking tomorrow
:42:03. > :42:05.with the media has to take into account what happened in Vienna over
:42:06. > :42:09.the weekend and what's developing in Vienna is quite hopeful. Thanks
:42:10. > :42:12.vouch. -- thanks very much. That's about it
:42:13. > :42:17.for tonight. It's 46 days to the release of the
:42:18. > :42:21.new Star Wars film, and, of course, we'll be tracking the countdown
:42:22. > :42:24.with the fans, every chance we get. Starting with this from Mister James
:42:25. > :42:54.K Crowther and his hoverboard. Still some nasty fog out there
:42:55. > :42:56.tonight and indeed into the morning as well.