:00:00. > :00:07.Clues were scattered all over the BBC, so large you could trip
:00:08. > :00:13.And yet and yet, news of Savile's monstrous behaviour somehow never
:00:14. > :00:30.During the entirety of my time at, neither buying zero, wink, gesture,
:00:31. > :00:33.intimation or innuendo did any information come to me regarding
:00:34. > :00:36.Savile and his deviant behaviour. Dysfunction and deference
:00:37. > :00:37.at the corporation, We will ask what this says about the
:00:38. > :00:46.BBC. Also tonight, in a year of rage
:00:47. > :00:48.in American politics, we look at the Black
:00:49. > :00:50.Lives Matter movement. They killed him for no reason,
:00:51. > :00:55.and they've got every excuse in the world as to
:00:56. > :00:58.why they killed him. The prize is a back
:00:59. > :01:03.door into our iPhones. We'll ask if this is really
:01:04. > :01:07.about privacy, or just corporate You might have thought
:01:08. > :01:23.it was impossible to say anything new about Jimmy Savile's abuse,
:01:24. > :01:26.until that is, the BBC published its independent inquiry
:01:27. > :01:28.into the scandal today. The report from Dame Janet Smith,
:01:29. > :01:31.together with an accompanying one into Stuart Hall,
:01:32. > :01:38.runs to over a thousand pages, documenting the crimes,
:01:39. > :01:40.and just how close the BBC as an institution was to finding
:01:41. > :01:42.out about them. The clues were barely hidden,
:01:43. > :01:45.there were opportunities to spot them, suspicions and some inquiries,
:01:46. > :01:48.yet the knowledge of what Savile was up to, just didn't make it
:01:49. > :01:52.to the senior management. While that has echoes of other
:01:53. > :01:55.corporate scandals, in this case nothing was pieced together,
:01:56. > :02:00.partly down to a dysfunctional A lot of what's in the report
:02:01. > :02:04.is history, but a lot is current: on the BBC, fear of management
:02:05. > :02:17.and deference to on-screen talent. A serial rapist and a predatory
:02:18. > :02:23.sexual abuse are both hid in plain sight at the BBC for decades. It was
:02:24. > :02:29.a dark chapter in the history of the organisation, but a much darker one
:02:30. > :02:33.for all of you. Lord Hall apologised to the victims today Jimmy Savile.
:02:34. > :02:36.Dame Janet Smith's independent review heard testimony that 72
:02:37. > :02:42.people were sexually abused by Savile thanks to his BBC link. The
:02:43. > :02:47.report makes clear Jimmy Savile's abuse took place at a range of BBC
:02:48. > :02:51.premises, including here at the division centre. Some floor managers
:02:52. > :02:56.and producers saw or heard things. Some of the victims were themselves
:02:57. > :03:00.staff members, but the BBC was a hierarchical place, so their
:03:01. > :03:05.concerns were never passed on. Some staff members feared to blow the
:03:06. > :03:10.whistle on a powerful member of the talent. So Dame Janet Smith came to
:03:11. > :03:15.an astonishing conclusion, yes, people at the BBC knew about Jimmy
:03:16. > :03:18.Savile but not BBC management. Jim was in charge of light
:03:19. > :03:23.entertainment. You understand why lots of viewers
:03:24. > :03:28.will be in disbelief that given the volume of what happened, people like
:03:29. > :03:32.you did find out about it? I absolutely understand there would be
:03:33. > :03:39.enormous scepticism amongst the audience. I can only speak for
:03:40. > :03:45.myself and say that genuinely no information had come my way while I
:03:46. > :03:50.was in the post, which would have alerted me or made me curious all
:03:51. > :03:57.looked into potential villainy on SAvile's part. Even so Dame Janet
:03:58. > :04:02.Smith identified three opportunities to stop Jimmy Savile. She thinks his
:04:03. > :04:08.radio producer should have acted. On one occasion he was prepared to act
:04:09. > :04:15.as a provider for a young woman for Jimmy Savile to have sex with. I
:04:16. > :04:20.think he knew that Savile would have casual sex with teenage girls as and
:04:21. > :04:23.when he could get it. I am satisfied Mr Best and must have realised from
:04:24. > :04:28.their appearance at some of the girls might well have been underage.
:04:29. > :04:34.He admired Jim Lee Savill and I do not think it ever crossed his mind
:04:35. > :04:40.that he should report him. BBC leaders also miss signs about Jimmy
:04:41. > :04:44.Savile, like some of his public statements to the press which were
:04:45. > :04:47.dismissed as bragging. When you look back is any incident
:04:48. > :04:52.or moment in your own experience when you think there was a hint,
:04:53. > :04:59.something you should have clocked? I regret to answer you that no. He was
:05:00. > :05:06.in the building doing Jim'll Fix It for 13 weeks of the year. I
:05:07. > :05:11.regularly visited the studio and there was absolutely no evidence
:05:12. > :05:15.that occurred to me stop white one of the oddities they are looking at
:05:16. > :05:19.the BBC, when you come into work there is a crowd of people here
:05:20. > :05:22.outside radio one. Young people and often children. Today there are
:05:23. > :05:28.young people in school uniforms. They are here hoping to catch sight
:05:29. > :05:33.of stars. That is why it is so important the BBC needs good child
:05:34. > :05:38.protection policies. So, how good is the BBC a child protection, now?
:05:39. > :05:43.Well, Dame Janet Smith cited a third party review of the child protection
:05:44. > :05:51.policies and there is a clear message from senior management in
:05:52. > :05:55.courage and employees to raise their concerns. We will do more in regards
:05:56. > :06:00.to whistle-blowing for staff, what they can do and must do and where
:06:01. > :06:03.they can turn to to help. On child protection we will work with the
:06:04. > :06:10.NSPCC to get their advice on how to help us build on what we are
:06:11. > :06:17.currently doing. And we will, as Dame Janet asks, have another
:06:18. > :06:21.independent audit to see how those policies are working in practice.
:06:22. > :06:25.But one campaigner thinks the BBC's policies for child protection are
:06:26. > :06:29.not strong enough. I see nothing of merit, nothing that requires staff
:06:30. > :06:34.to report child abuse. Nothing that indicates abuse will be referred to
:06:35. > :06:38.the Local Authority designated officer. I can see lots of people
:06:39. > :06:41.who will be talked to, what experience they have in child
:06:42. > :06:47.protection is a wonderment, I don't know. I'm not necessarily know that
:06:48. > :06:52.the corporation who assembled this mess know either. Alongside the
:06:53. > :06:58.Savile report there was one on Stuart Hall, another BBC abuser.
:06:59. > :07:04.They found 21 victims and two missed chances to stop him. Two variations
:07:05. > :07:10.today on a terrible story. The BBC letting young people down. Chris
:07:11. > :07:13.Cook far. The BBC didn't want to put anyone up for our programme.
:07:14. > :07:14.Dr Peter Scott-Morgan is a management consultant,
:07:15. > :07:18.who in 2003 was brought in to the BBC to carry out a report
:07:19. > :07:20.on its culture and practices for the corporation's bosses.
:07:21. > :07:25.A little earlier I spoke to him about what he found.
:07:26. > :07:37.Well, it was a time that the BBC was trying to bring in some new values.
:07:38. > :07:42.Things like value for money and respect. So I was brought in over
:07:43. > :07:46.about the year to interview a very large number of people to try and
:07:47. > :07:50.understand what really was going on in the BBC. The unwritten rules, if
:07:51. > :07:54.you like, how to behave, the advice you would get a friend, how to get
:07:55. > :08:03.on and survive and so on. As a result of that various examples came
:08:04. > :08:09.up, and quite early on. An example of some people being more valuable
:08:10. > :08:12.than the values, being seen as so important that sometimes people
:08:13. > :08:16.would put up with behaviour that maybe they wouldn't consider putting
:08:17. > :08:22.up with in their normal lives. After a while, probably the fifth or sixth
:08:23. > :08:27.interview, just as an example, somebody threw in and Jimmy Savile
:08:28. > :08:32.likes young girls, and it just carried on like that. Almost just as
:08:33. > :08:38.a joke. After awhile then picked it up, just as an example, along with
:08:39. > :08:47.many others that had nothing to do with sexual abuse, and more and more
:08:48. > :08:52.people would just nod with the Jimmy Savile reference and move on. Almost
:08:53. > :08:56.as if it was an urban myth. I'm not sure many people necessarily
:08:57. > :09:00.believed it in its entirety, but it was just one of those things that
:09:01. > :09:04.certainly a lot of the people I spoke to, just joked about, as a
:09:05. > :09:09.background to indicate what the place was like.
:09:10. > :09:15.At the time it you weren't interpreting it as anything like we
:09:16. > :09:20.now know Jimmy Savile was up to? It was very inappropriate, possibly
:09:21. > :09:26.illegal, but certainly not rape, as you understood it at the time?
:09:27. > :09:32.Absolutely not. Nor did I ever hear an example that strong. It was far
:09:33. > :09:36.more with regards his predeliction for younger girls.
:09:37. > :09:43.Did you report this or was it not that sort of job you are doing? Did
:09:44. > :09:46.you report the specifics? Everyone had absolute
:09:47. > :09:50.confidentiality, but what I did report was the pattern of what I
:09:51. > :09:54.saw. That was the deal with everyone. They could tell me
:09:55. > :09:59.absolutely anything off the record, but if there was a consistent
:10:00. > :10:05.pattern, that I would share. Indeed, it in the summer of 2004, having
:10:06. > :10:13.already fed back to a number of people, I fed back, I refer to them
:10:14. > :10:17.to the top 300 people in the BBC, however they define top, and within
:10:18. > :10:25.that one of the patterns that I shared was why there was
:10:26. > :10:28.automatically a pressure for people to tolerate behaviour that otherwise
:10:29. > :10:33.wouldn't be acceptable. Did that go right to the top of the
:10:34. > :10:39.BBC, or the level where you wouldn't have heard of the people involved?
:10:40. > :10:47.Certainly some of the people I fed back the overall pattern to, a far
:10:48. > :10:51.more detailed and forensic version for what I had run through with you,
:10:52. > :10:56.as to why you could understand there was pressure for people to not just
:10:57. > :11:05.acts out, but then keep quiet about bullying behaviour, abusive
:11:06. > :11:13.behaviour, that was discussed at all levels. The overall pattern. Indeed,
:11:14. > :11:18.to Mark Thompson himself, because obviously that overall pattern,
:11:19. > :11:24.apart from anything, Mark was in the presentation to the 300. But also of
:11:25. > :11:30.course, I had one on ones with him about the overall pattern. The
:11:31. > :11:36.context of that. For the life of me, before you ask, I cannot remember if
:11:37. > :11:40.I used for Mark the same example I used for so many others and that
:11:41. > :11:46.they picked up on. But I suspect, even if I had, to the other senior
:11:47. > :11:52.people I fed back to, put in that context I earlier, I suspect that
:11:53. > :11:55.many will be hearing it as an example of the sort of behaviour
:11:56. > :12:00.that people conceptually would put up with and they would understand
:12:01. > :12:04.that someone like Jimmy was absolutely more valuable than the
:12:05. > :12:08.values. Did you find the BBC didn't listen
:12:09. > :12:11.to what you said or did you just think they would carry on in their
:12:12. > :12:15.merry old way because it was too difficult?
:12:16. > :12:21.My conclusion was, not a lot is going to happen. But I think, albeit
:12:22. > :12:28.with a bit of naivete, the reason that people were saying that was
:12:29. > :12:31.that they thought, we put in a sort of whistle-blowing system, we are
:12:32. > :12:35.training people exactly what sort of behaviour is a good, and therefore
:12:36. > :12:40.that is a very interesting explanation of what was going on.
:12:41. > :12:44.And thank goodness we have done those things so it won't happen
:12:45. > :12:49.again. I happen not to believe that and I think may have glibly said,
:12:50. > :12:55.what if anything happens, give me a ring in five years. I think Mark had
:12:56. > :12:56.gone by then. Peter Scott-Morgan, very interesting. Thank you.
:12:57. > :12:58.Pleasure. A remarkable drama is
:12:59. > :13:00.playing out in the US. The state wants Apple to produce
:13:01. > :13:06.a key that can unlock the phone of the San Bernadino jihadists,
:13:07. > :13:08.a couple who killed 14 Apple, quite simply,
:13:09. > :13:12.doesn't want there to be keys Big corporation takes
:13:13. > :13:27.on big country. If you're using your smartphone, be
:13:28. > :13:31.under no illusions, if government agencies really want to, they can
:13:32. > :13:38.probably find a way in. Their arsenal of tricks and hacks is
:13:39. > :13:43.growing. They can have big problems, though, if a phone is not being used
:13:44. > :13:54.and is locked. That is the situation the FBI finds itself in with Syed
:13:55. > :13:58.Rizwan Farook. Some believe the US government has been looking for such
:13:59. > :14:01.a clear case to pick a fight with the technology companies. Is
:14:02. > :14:05.particularly good turf for the Government in this case. You can see
:14:06. > :14:09.why a magistrate, as has happened so far, would be inclined to grant the
:14:10. > :14:14.Government's requires. It is why it is also really good in our system,
:14:15. > :14:19.in the UK system and others, there is a chance to fully litigate and
:14:20. > :14:24.ventilate this. Apple is rejecting to the initial order and filing
:14:25. > :14:28.legal briefs with other member of the legal Judiciary Committee why
:14:29. > :14:31.this is very bad president, even as probably all of us would like to get
:14:32. > :14:36.in and see what is on that particular phone. The key that
:14:37. > :14:41.protects the data on the phone is 256 alphanumeric characters long.
:14:42. > :14:45.How safe is that? This is the number of possible combinations. It would
:14:46. > :14:49.take more time than we have before the sun collapses to try even a
:14:50. > :14:51.fraction of them using all the computers on earth simultaneously.
:14:52. > :14:54.Obviously we don't enter such an computers on earth simultaneously.
:14:55. > :15:00.enormous mega code every time you want a phone our mother. We use a
:15:01. > :15:04.four digit pin code, maybe sometimes a bit longer, but that doesn't
:15:05. > :15:08.unlock the phone but the mega code, which then decrypts our data. But
:15:09. > :15:12.get that phone code wrong-un ten times in a row and all that data is
:15:13. > :15:18.wiped, and there is nothing anyone can do to retrieve it. The FBI's
:15:19. > :15:22.director was testifying to Congress today. He wants Apple to write some
:15:23. > :15:28.software that allows officers to have as many goes as it takes to
:15:29. > :15:32.guess the past code on the phone. I love Inc rich in and privacy. When I
:15:33. > :15:35.hear corporation saying we were going to take you to walk when no
:15:36. > :15:40.one can look at your stuff, I think that's great, I don't want anybody
:15:41. > :15:44.looking at my stuff. But I step back and I think law-enforcement, which I
:15:45. > :15:45.am part of, saves peoples lives, rescues kids and
:15:46. > :15:49.am part of, saves peoples lives, terrorists and we do that a lot
:15:50. > :15:53.through quarter orders that are search warrants, and a whole lot
:15:54. > :15:56.through search warrants of mobile devices. Are going to move to a
:15:57. > :16:00.world where that is possible in a more question mark it won't end but
:16:01. > :16:05.it will be a different world to where we are today. But Apple is
:16:06. > :16:08.fighting this request all the way. Their CEO says there is no such
:16:09. > :16:15.thing as a back door only the good guys get to use. If we knew a way to
:16:16. > :16:18.get the information on the phone that we have an order given, if we
:16:19. > :16:23.knew a way to do this that would not expose hundreds and millions of
:16:24. > :16:26.other people's issues, we would honestly do it. The only way we know
:16:27. > :16:31.would be to write a piece of software that we view as the
:16:32. > :16:36.software equivalent of cancer. We think it is bad news to write, we
:16:37. > :16:41.would never write it, we have never written and that is what is at stake
:16:42. > :16:44.here. According to opinion polls most Americans think Apple should
:16:45. > :16:49.actually provide access to the phone. After all, is the logic, if
:16:50. > :16:53.they are only after the terrorists and criminals, why should the rest
:16:54. > :16:58.of us care? Is not just the Government that can access something
:16:59. > :17:02.like this. One security is weakened, it is a nation state that wants to
:17:03. > :17:13.access your private information, medical
:17:14. > :17:16.information, banking is something to be concerned about. Cyber security
:17:17. > :17:19.is really important. We are really only at the start of this battle.
:17:20. > :17:21.Every year there are new smartphones released with better security built
:17:22. > :17:23.in. For more businesses and individuals this is becoming the
:17:24. > :17:29.main feature that they look for. Real test would be if there's an IS
:17:30. > :17:32.should build next-generation phone that even Apple and other phones
:17:33. > :17:36.can't get into. I think Apple would be capable of doing that. At that
:17:37. > :17:42.point it puts it back to the Government, not of what they might
:17:43. > :17:45.ask from Apple but what they want to pre-emptively ask of Apple and
:17:46. > :17:49.others, saying you're not allowed to design the following kinds of
:17:50. > :17:53.phones. Apple has until tomorrow to respond to the court order. Tonight
:17:54. > :17:58.their lawyers have filed a counter motion. How all this plays out could
:17:59. > :17:59.have a huge impact on everyone of us and how our high-tech societies
:18:00. > :18:05.work. David Grossman there. It is a
:18:06. > :18:12.fascinating dilemma. I'm joined now in the studio
:18:13. > :18:15.by the journalist Edward Lucas who writes about
:18:16. > :18:16.technology and security. And from Boston, Kade Crockford
:18:17. > :18:18.who is director of Technology for Liberty and edits
:18:19. > :18:23.the blog Privacy Matters. Kate, this is a game going, it
:18:24. > :18:28.wasn't even his phone, it belonged to the Department of Health, his
:18:29. > :18:32.employer, anti-killed 14 people. What is the best argument for not
:18:33. > :18:39.trying to open up his phone? This isn't just about one phone, in fact
:18:40. > :18:45.it isn't just about phones. If the F ERI succeeds here in obtaining this
:18:46. > :18:50.broad president, it will essentially give the courts and law enforcement
:18:51. > :18:57.agencies the power to issue demands on technology companies, not just
:18:58. > :19:03.Apple, but also Microsoft, medical devices, even devices that haven't
:19:04. > :19:12.yet been invented, to force these companies to send their users
:19:13. > :19:18.malicious code that is signed as if it looks like it is coming from
:19:19. > :19:20.Microsoft doesn't regular product of date, and that would harm physical
:19:21. > :19:25.security from millions of people all around the globe. The War also
:19:26. > :19:30.frankly harm US technology companies, because it would put them
:19:31. > :19:35.at a disadvantage, enabling foreign companies to create secure products
:19:36. > :19:41.that banks and manufacturers would prefer to use. But you are saying it
:19:42. > :19:49.is a precedent. Why can't you just say, if a court says this, then we
:19:50. > :19:54.cant it, but we weren't counted for the hundreds of millions that Tim
:19:55. > :19:59.Cook took about, why not then say in cases like this we need a key but
:20:00. > :20:03.not others? That is simply unprecedented, that is not how US
:20:04. > :20:07.courts work. If a US court rules that in a criminal matter, the US
:20:08. > :20:12.Government has a right to compel Apple to write malicious code to
:20:13. > :20:15.serve to its devices, it can do so in every type of criminal
:20:16. > :20:21.investigation, and that isn't even the subject of debate a more. The
:20:22. > :20:26.FBI, members of law enforcement, have admitted they are seeking this
:20:27. > :20:30.precedent. Let me put that Ed Lucas. In this case it was incredibly
:20:31. > :20:35.clear-cut to a lot of people, but it is not about this case, it is about
:20:36. > :20:40.many others. This is both a very specific case with some very big
:20:41. > :20:44.general applications, but one has to be very careful about jumping from
:20:45. > :20:48.one to the other. This is only possible because it is an obsolete
:20:49. > :20:52.phone where this sort of hacking tool that Apple is being asked to
:20:53. > :21:00.develop would actually work. If he had on a more up-to-date iPhone,
:21:01. > :21:04.this wouldn't work. So it is quite a specific case. I can see why the
:21:05. > :21:13.river to lobby is very worried about precedent, but this is actually not
:21:14. > :21:16.mandating a general back door, ruling out encryption, trying to
:21:17. > :21:22.undermine the whole way in which we depend on cryptography, it is a very
:21:23. > :21:27.specific case, and one can't blame the FBI for choosing a case they are
:21:28. > :21:32.going to win, but their arguments are strong. But the law doesn't work
:21:33. > :21:38.in a way in which this can't be a precedent, Kate says. Is that right?
:21:39. > :21:43.Can we say that in a small number of cases we don't want them -- don't
:21:44. > :21:51.mind having a key, but they can't have Akiva millions of cases? If we
:21:52. > :21:57.wanted to make them produce software that would bust open every modern
:21:58. > :22:00.iPhone, Apple would go back to court and say that this contradicts the
:22:01. > :22:04.fourth Amendment, there would be lots of other cases and aspects
:22:05. > :22:09.coming into play. But here there is zero privacy, because the guy is
:22:10. > :22:13.dead and he dead people don't have Agassi writes, and it wasn't his
:22:14. > :22:16.phone. So on these very narrow grounds, you have to be careful
:22:17. > :22:22.about saying this is a huge precedent. But that is not what the
:22:23. > :22:29.case is about. It is not about whether the Government can give the
:22:30. > :22:34.FBI access to a dead person's phone it is about whether the Government
:22:35. > :22:42.can compel a software company to write code to subvert existing
:22:43. > :22:46.security procedures. But the act which goes back to a few years after
:22:47. > :22:49.the decade of independence -- declaration of independence gives a
:22:50. > :22:54.broad pass to the authorities to ask people them, to help law
:22:55. > :22:58.enforcement, and if you make saves, you may be in a position where the
:22:59. > :23:03.government comes to you with a court order and says, make a skeleton key.
:23:04. > :23:09.But that has never happened, and the case the Government relies on in it
:23:10. > :23:15.re-that the court agreed with his that it is a very different kind of
:23:16. > :23:20.case that has to do with telephone companies, installing a technology
:23:21. > :23:24.to make available to the government information that that company
:23:25. > :23:29.already processed as a central part of its business. Apple is a central
:23:30. > :23:33.part of its business has said that it does not want to know what is on
:23:34. > :23:38.your phone, privacy is a very central part of why Apple has
:23:39. > :23:44.installed these encryption systems, so it is not camp arable at all.
:23:45. > :23:48.Just looking at one point, would you supported if the Chinese Government
:23:49. > :23:53.made a request like this, if it exceeds to an American Government
:23:54. > :24:00.progress, isn't it then under pressure to accede to every request
:24:01. > :24:04.in every jurisdiction? I think we have already seen these companies
:24:05. > :24:12.rolling over under pressure from the Chinese Government, and it is
:24:13. > :24:18.terrible, for instance the Yahoo employee who is in jail, and I wish
:24:19. > :24:23.companies were tougher on the Chinese, but I wish they were more
:24:24. > :24:29.obedient to American courts. I'm sorry, we are out of time.
:24:30. > :24:31.Last year, the slogan "Black Lives Matter" was tweeted
:24:32. > :24:35.Those three words came to be used as a protest against police killings
:24:36. > :24:41.The phrase gained so much traction, many have wondered if it can't
:24:42. > :24:43.transform itself into a broader civil rights movement.
:24:44. > :24:45.This year, of course, sees a Presidential election.
:24:46. > :24:47.Politics has taken some surprising turns and rage is in the air.
:24:48. > :24:50.So could Black Lives Matter shift the American debate on race?
:24:51. > :24:53.Mukul Devichand, the editor of BBC Trending, has been to the US
:24:54. > :25:11.It is 2014 and Laquan McDonald, aged 17, is high and carrying a knife.
:25:12. > :25:14.The rest of the police video was too graphic to show.
:25:15. > :25:19.He falls after one bullet, but 15 more pierce his still body.
:25:20. > :25:21.When it went viral there were street protests,
:25:22. > :25:25.then a murder charge for the officer and the mayor,
:25:26. > :25:35.Rahm Emanuel, sacking his police chief and apologising.
:25:36. > :25:39.Black Lives Matter first trended during the Ferguson Missouri
:25:40. > :25:41.protests in 2014, over the killing of an 18-year-old,
:25:42. > :25:48.In the immediate aftermath I was just filled with rage
:25:49. > :25:51.and I was sitting on my couch on a Friday night watching my social
:25:52. > :25:55.media feed, just streamed these horrific images.
:25:56. > :25:58.It looks like a war zone and it was incomprehensible to me
:25:59. > :26:03.that this was happening five hours away from my home.
:26:04. > :26:05.Black Lives Matter emerged in response to the extra judicial
:26:06. > :26:10.killing of an armed black man by police.
:26:11. > :26:16.An underlying anger had been unleashed.
:26:17. > :26:21.Of the thousand-plus people killed by deadly police force across the US
:26:22. > :26:26.last year, a disproportionate number were black.
:26:27. > :26:28.Black civil rights movements changed America forever.
:26:29. > :26:33.But the new generation say some of them sold out.
:26:34. > :26:36.At some point the civil rights movement of our forefathers had
:26:37. > :26:44.People had to get paid, people had to get jobs,
:26:45. > :26:47.and that money came from outside of the black community.
:26:48. > :26:53.I think that is part of the reason why the work did not go far enough.
:26:54. > :26:56.Reverend Jesse Jackson, Chicago's giant of civil rights
:26:57. > :26:58.history and a mentor to Barack Obama, used
:26:59. > :27:06.Learn to live together, and not die apart in some foolish
:27:07. > :27:16.If your focus is just to take over your local ethnic ward,
:27:17. > :27:19.it will be folk in that ward, but if you want to take over
:27:20. > :27:22.the city, the county, the state, you must see the role
:27:23. > :27:25.in relation to other people who share the same grievances.
:27:26. > :27:27.Urban, poor, high crime areas, like Chicago's south side,
:27:28. > :27:43.Today's actions are about attracting new recruits to the movement.
:27:44. > :27:48.We are riding the pink line through the south and west
:27:49. > :27:55.White trigger and black face be life risking.
:27:56. > :28:01.New cases emerging from all over the country mean
:28:02. > :28:05.The Cedric case, the Laquan case, the Dakota case, the Ronald Johnson
:28:06. > :28:07.case, all these cases are just straight cover-ups.
:28:08. > :28:10.It's a pattern and practice of the Chicago Police Department.
:28:11. > :28:14.I haven't got any, not only justice, but closure, information,
:28:15. > :28:25.Panzy Edwards came here to lobby for her son Dakota Bright,
:28:26. > :28:31.Teenagers can be armed here and the police
:28:32. > :28:38.In many of these cases the police will maintain that they are people
:28:39. > :28:41.who have been engaged in criminal activity, are known criminals,
:28:42. > :28:44.could that be the case with your son?
:28:45. > :28:53.They killed him for no reason, and they've got every excuse
:28:54. > :29:00.in the world as to why they killed him.
:29:01. > :29:02.It's sad, though, because they didn't hurt him,
:29:03. > :29:12.The police union point out that it is dangerous work they do.
:29:13. > :29:14.Over 200 people have been injured or killed in gun violence there,
:29:15. > :29:22.I don't think our officers are involved in shooting quicker
:29:23. > :29:29.Some of the worst neighbourhoods in this country are a stone's throw
:29:30. > :29:40.I'm not going to put myself in jeopardy, to hesitate when deadly
:29:41. > :29:43.But in the popularity contest that is the race
:29:44. > :29:45.for the presidential nomination, Black Lives Matter issues
:29:46. > :29:49.It has been heartbreaking and incredibly outraging to see
:29:50. > :29:57.the constant stories of young men who have been killed
:29:58. > :30:02.The father of shot teenager Michael Brown Jr is now a national
:30:03. > :30:19.A federal investigation and a Grand Jury probe
:30:20. > :30:21.into his son's killing recommended no charges be brought
:30:22. > :30:24.Still, his father believes that the rebirth of black
:30:25. > :30:26.radicalism, that his son's death helped inspired,
:30:27. > :30:35.Mike opened those doors for other people, if not him, to get
:30:36. > :30:42.We're tired, there isn't any more sitting down or sweeping the carpet.
:30:43. > :30:44.We are standing on top of the carpet now.
:30:45. > :30:53.Letting you know that we're not taking it any more.
:30:54. > :30:57.There is nothing new about poor, urban black communities like this
:30:58. > :31:01.taking issue with the criminal justice system.
:31:02. > :31:05.But the fact that Black Lives Matter unites in protest across America
:31:06. > :31:07.with each new killing, is an act of defiance
:31:08. > :31:13.that is already affecting the national debate.
:31:14. > :31:16.Well, joining me now from Washington DC is Danielle Belton,
:31:17. > :31:29.And with me in the studio, Stafford Scott, co-ordinator
:31:30. > :31:30.of Tottenham Rights and Race Advocacy Officer
:31:31. > :31:46.What is the difference between Black Lives Matter and earlier vintages of
:31:47. > :31:51.civil rights movements, do you think? I don't think that big a
:31:52. > :31:59.difference. If you look at the movements you had a that night young
:32:00. > :32:02.people like Julian Bond, were on the front lines fighting for liberation.
:32:03. > :32:06.The same thing is happening now. It just seems different because so much
:32:07. > :32:12.has changed and people's viewpoints have been coloured. People look the
:32:13. > :32:16.style Joe Clee back at the civil rights movement, but I don't see
:32:17. > :32:19.that much of a difference. Young people fighting for black
:32:20. > :32:27.liberation, fighting for change and freedom. Hot hot Black Lives Matter
:32:28. > :32:37.could change America, do you believe that? I believe it has in many ways.
:32:38. > :32:43.They're talking about issues around incarceration and issues around
:32:44. > :32:46.decriminalisation. I don't think we would be having these conversations
:32:47. > :32:50.about police brutality and body cameras if it wasn't for the fact so
:32:51. > :32:56.many people have taken to the streets demanding equality. To what
:32:57. > :33:03.extent has it come to the UK? Root first of all I have to say, as
:33:04. > :33:09.Danielle said, she was speaking about young people, I am not so
:33:10. > :33:15.you're more into social media. But Black Lives Matter is important. I
:33:16. > :33:21.think we spiritually support what the brothers and sisters are trying
:33:22. > :33:24.to do in the USA. To some extent racism is a bigger issue in American
:33:25. > :33:32.politics than British horror ticks, correct? They talk about it in the
:33:33. > :33:35.USA and in the UK we have an English way of doing things, understated and
:33:36. > :33:47.sometimes and an aisle of its existence. -- than British politics.
:33:48. > :33:53.Because of the numbers of people being shot and killed by the state,
:33:54. > :33:57.by police, it is obviously going to be a much more significant issue
:33:58. > :34:06.there. But it is as significant for us here in the UK. As significant
:34:07. > :34:10.for the parents for Mark Duggan. Can we talk about anger? You talked
:34:11. > :34:16.about American politics, presidential elections, they are
:34:17. > :34:22.talking about Black Lives Matter. But one of the notable features, the
:34:23. > :34:25.white anger that has led to an outpouring of support for Donald
:34:26. > :34:31.Trump. Is there a danger that everyone will end up shouting and no
:34:32. > :34:33.one is going to be listening or hearing anything? A sort of
:34:34. > :34:39.dysfunction in American politics, perhaps? There is always a level of
:34:40. > :34:44.dysfunction in American politics. People are passionate and tensions
:34:45. > :34:51.run high. This is an important election year. We have a very
:34:52. > :34:53.un-directory stick - Mac uncharacteristic and boisterous
:34:54. > :35:01.candidate in Donald Trump, whose comments are often perceived as
:35:02. > :35:11.racist. I feel like the anger coming from the black matters... You are
:35:12. > :35:15.upset about any want of the action and progress. You want to see your
:35:16. > :35:18.politicians passed laws and make changes that will improve the lives
:35:19. > :35:23.of black people everywhere in the United States and by extension,
:35:24. > :35:34.other Americans. How dangerous do you think the Donald Trump movement,
:35:35. > :35:41.how dangerous TUC that -- do you see that to the black course? I feel
:35:42. > :35:46.like the discourse is kind of ugly and rather disgusting. It is
:35:47. > :35:52.concerning to me but I don't think it will prevail in the long run. The
:35:53. > :35:57.art of progress in the United States has always leaned towards getting
:35:58. > :36:02.better in regards to race relations, having these conversations and
:36:03. > :36:06.pushing for equality. So yes, things look bad, it sounds bad, but I don't
:36:07. > :36:14.think the Donald Trumps of the world will win this one. How useful is
:36:15. > :36:19.anger as a tall and how much does it scared the other side into counter
:36:20. > :36:28.reacting? That is a great question, but is it the right question? For me
:36:29. > :36:34.it is, is the anger justified? If anger is justified, the fact there
:36:35. > :36:38.is a kick back, how can that then be justified? It cannot be justifiable.
:36:39. > :36:42.If people are used to having privilege and are kicking back
:36:43. > :36:46.because they don't want to share those privileges with less
:36:47. > :36:50.advantaged people... And that only happens when you try to tell the
:36:51. > :36:56.State and explain to the state what is happening to your community and
:36:57. > :36:59.the state refuses to listen and denies and refuses to support or
:37:00. > :37:06.assist. That is what happens in the UK. We saw the memo, the advice
:37:07. > :37:11.given to Thatcher 30 years ago on how to deny our community any state
:37:12. > :37:17.support or help. The impact of those decisions is something we as a
:37:18. > :37:21.community living with today. I think anger is absolutely justified. It's
:37:22. > :37:24.just a pity it has to be shown. We hope and pray we don't have a young
:37:25. > :37:31.people being killed on the streets like we are seeing in the US, or
:37:32. > :37:34.that anger will definitely be shown to people throughout this country,
:37:35. > :37:39.regardless of their position. Thank you both very much.
:37:40. > :37:41.There's a German equivalent of the Elgin Marbles: it's the bust
:37:42. > :37:44.of the Egyptian Queen, Nefertiti which sits in a museum
:37:45. > :37:46.in Berlin, rather than in the vicinity of its creator.
:37:47. > :37:49.The bust was carved in the 14th century BC, and was found by German
:37:50. > :37:51.archaeologists in 1912, who discovered the house
:37:52. > :37:57.and workshop of the sculptor, a man named Thutmose.
:37:58. > :37:59.Now the Egyptians would love to have the bust back,
:38:00. > :38:02.but the Germans have guarded it jealously,
:38:03. > :38:08.So it is pretty amazing that two artists have succeeded in taking
:38:09. > :38:13.Here they are - secretly scanning - back in October last year.
:38:14. > :38:16.Having done it, they can now in effect produce the formula
:38:17. > :38:21.for anyone to make their own accurate copy of it.
:38:22. > :38:23.Well, Nora al-Badri, one of those artists,
:38:24. > :38:34.A very good evening to you. I am fascinated what planning and
:38:35. > :38:40.execution went into this. Take us through how you did it. OK, I will
:38:41. > :38:46.try. It was a huge collaborative effort. We had archaeologists
:38:47. > :38:56.working with us, as well as lawyers. In the end it took us only one-day.
:38:57. > :39:02.Two visits over six hours, circling around and collecting all the data
:39:03. > :39:07.that we then processed. It sounds a bit like oceans 11 or one of these
:39:08. > :39:11.movies. In the film at something has to almost go wrong before the plan
:39:12. > :39:17.is finished. Did anything almost go wrong whilst you were there? No,
:39:18. > :39:21.because we had the advantage of surprise, I would say. Nobody was
:39:22. > :39:27.expecting anyone scanning with a device. What I don't understand,
:39:28. > :39:32.this thing is obviously guarded and you must have been fairer a few
:39:33. > :39:38.hours. How did you not get caught? -- must have been there. How did you
:39:39. > :39:42.disguise yourself? We were very careful. The guards, they are doing
:39:43. > :39:48.a great job and protecting from taking photos and they are only
:39:49. > :39:51.looking for photographs. The audience was the visitors, the other
:39:52. > :39:58.ones who were there didn't really see us or catch us, because there is
:39:59. > :40:05.a selective perception which happens when you focus so much on sculpture.
:40:06. > :40:11.Your point was that really some of these ancient artefacts should go
:40:12. > :40:15.back to their home, correct? Our point was more about activating
:40:16. > :40:20.artefacts from archaeological and so-called ethnic collections, which
:40:21. > :40:26.means bringing them alive somehow to a new discourse and critically
:40:27. > :40:33.reassess the conditions of today and the whole notion of belonging and
:40:34. > :40:36.possession. It is not so much about restitution, having it here or
:40:37. > :40:44.there, because this is a very redundant discussion. It went
:40:45. > :40:49.nowhere. A very complicated answer, but you do think the Germans should
:40:50. > :40:54.give it back, or not? At the moment I wouldn't say that is so clear,
:40:55. > :41:01.because we are working on other narratives and new imaginary is, if
:41:02. > :41:05.you like. Talking about data, what we did, this is actually something
:41:06. > :41:11.that we would amount from the Museum, to make open access to
:41:12. > :41:14.everyone as a first step. Thank you very much.
:41:15. > :41:16.That's it for tonight, but we leave you with Professor David Crystal,
:41:17. > :41:19.who's discovered over many years that our national failure to perform
:41:20. > :41:21.Shakespeare with authentic Elizabethan pronunciation and accent
:41:22. > :41:24.means we're missing a lot of the jokes -
:41:25. > :41:27.plus it doesn't rhyme the way it should.
:41:28. > :41:31.So he's publishing his own guide on how to say Shakespeare properly.
:41:32. > :41:34.Here he is as John Gower, or John Goorrr if you like,
:41:35. > :41:50.To sing a song that old was sung, from ashes ancient Gower is come.
:41:51. > :41:55.Assuming man's infirmities to glad your ears and please your eyes.
:41:56. > :42:00.It hath been sung at festivals,
:42:01. > :42:02.on ember eves and holy days.
:42:03. > :42:11.And lords and ladies in their lives have read it for restoraties.
:42:12. > :42:19.when wits more ripe accept my rhymes,
:42:20. > :42:26.and that to hear an old man sing would to your wishes pleasure bring.
:42:27. > :42:31.I life would wish, and that I might waste it for you like taper light.