25/02/2016 Newsnight


With Evan Davis. What's gone wrong at the BBC? Should the US Government be allowed to hack the iPhone? Plus the Calais migrants, #BlackLivesMatter, and Nefertiti's bust.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Clues were scattered all over the BBC, so large you could trip


And yet and yet, news of Savile's monstrous behaviour somehow never


During the entirety of my time at, neither buying zero, wink, gesture,


intimation or innuendo did any information come to me regarding


Savile and his deviant behaviour. Dysfunction and deference


at the corporation, We will ask what this says about the


BBC. Also tonight, in a year of rage


in American politics, we look at the Black


Lives Matter movement. They killed him for no reason,


and they've got every excuse in the world as to


why they killed him. The prize is a back


door into our iPhones. We'll ask if this is really


about privacy, or just corporate You might have thought


it was impossible to say anything new about Jimmy Savile's abuse,


until that is, the BBC published its independent inquiry


into the scandal today. The report from Dame Janet Smith,


together with an accompanying one into Stuart Hall,


runs to over a thousand pages, documenting the crimes,


and just how close the BBC as an institution was to finding


out about them. The clues were barely hidden,


there were opportunities to spot them, suspicions and some inquiries,


yet the knowledge of what Savile was up to, just didn't make it


to the senior management. While that has echoes of other


corporate scandals, in this case nothing was pieced together,


partly down to a dysfunctional A lot of what's in the report


is history, but a lot is current: on the BBC, fear of management


and deference to on-screen talent. A serial rapist and a predatory


sexual abuse are both hid in plain sight at the BBC for decades. It was


a dark chapter in the history of the organisation, but a much darker one


for all of you. Lord Hall apologised to the victims today Jimmy Savile.


Dame Janet Smith's independent review heard testimony that 72


people were sexually abused by Savile thanks to his BBC link. The


report makes clear Jimmy Savile's abuse took place at a range of BBC


premises, including here at the division centre. Some floor managers


and producers saw or heard things. Some of the victims were themselves


staff members, but the BBC was a hierarchical place, so their


concerns were never passed on. Some staff members feared to blow the


whistle on a powerful member of the talent. So Dame Janet Smith came to


an astonishing conclusion, yes, people at the BBC knew about Jimmy


Savile but not BBC management. Jim was in charge of light


entertainment. You understand why lots of viewers


will be in disbelief that given the volume of what happened, people like


you did find out about it? I absolutely understand there would be


enormous scepticism amongst the audience. I can only speak for


myself and say that genuinely no information had come my way while I


was in the post, which would have alerted me or made me curious all


looked into potential villainy on SAvile's part. Even so Dame Janet


Smith identified three opportunities to stop Jimmy Savile. She thinks his


radio producer should have acted. On one occasion he was prepared to act


as a provider for a young woman for Jimmy Savile to have sex with. I


think he knew that Savile would have casual sex with teenage girls as and


when he could get it. I am satisfied Mr Best and must have realised from


their appearance at some of the girls might well have been underage.


He admired Jim Lee Savill and I do not think it ever crossed his mind


that he should report him. BBC leaders also miss signs about Jimmy


Savile, like some of his public statements to the press which were


dismissed as bragging. When you look back is any incident


or moment in your own experience when you think there was a hint,


something you should have clocked? I regret to answer you that no. He was


in the building doing Jim'll Fix It for 13 weeks of the year. I


regularly visited the studio and there was absolutely no evidence


that occurred to me stop white one of the oddities they are looking at


the BBC, when you come into work there is a crowd of people here


outside radio one. Young people and often children. Today there are


young people in school uniforms. They are here hoping to catch sight


of stars. That is why it is so important the BBC needs good child


protection policies. So, how good is the BBC a child protection, now?


Well, Dame Janet Smith cited a third party review of the child protection


policies and there is a clear message from senior management in


courage and employees to raise their concerns. We will do more in regards


to whistle-blowing for staff, what they can do and must do and where


they can turn to to help. On child protection we will work with the


NSPCC to get their advice on how to help us build on what we are


currently doing. And we will, as Dame Janet asks, have another


independent audit to see how those policies are working in practice.


But one campaigner thinks the BBC's policies for child protection are


not strong enough. I see nothing of merit, nothing that requires staff


to report child abuse. Nothing that indicates abuse will be referred to


the Local Authority designated officer. I can see lots of people


who will be talked to, what experience they have in child


protection is a wonderment, I don't know. I'm not necessarily know that


the corporation who assembled this mess know either. Alongside the


Savile report there was one on Stuart Hall, another BBC abuser.


They found 21 victims and two missed chances to stop him. Two variations


today on a terrible story. The BBC letting young people down. Chris


Cook far. The BBC didn't want to put anyone up for our programme.


Dr Peter Scott-Morgan is a management consultant,


who in 2003 was brought in to the BBC to carry out a report


on its culture and practices for the corporation's bosses.


A little earlier I spoke to him about what he found.


Well, it was a time that the BBC was trying to bring in some new values.


Things like value for money and respect. So I was brought in over


about the year to interview a very large number of people to try and


understand what really was going on in the BBC. The unwritten rules, if


you like, how to behave, the advice you would get a friend, how to get


on and survive and so on. As a result of that various examples came


up, and quite early on. An example of some people being more valuable


than the values, being seen as so important that sometimes people


would put up with behaviour that maybe they wouldn't consider putting


up with in their normal lives. After a while, probably the fifth or sixth


interview, just as an example, somebody threw in and Jimmy Savile


likes young girls, and it just carried on like that. Almost just as


a joke. After awhile then picked it up, just as an example, along with


many others that had nothing to do with sexual abuse, and more and more


people would just nod with the Jimmy Savile reference and move on. Almost


as if it was an urban myth. I'm not sure many people necessarily


believed it in its entirety, but it was just one of those things that


certainly a lot of the people I spoke to, just joked about, as a


background to indicate what the place was like.


At the time it you weren't interpreting it as anything like we


now know Jimmy Savile was up to? It was very inappropriate, possibly


illegal, but certainly not rape, as you understood it at the time?


Absolutely not. Nor did I ever hear an example that strong. It was far


more with regards his predeliction for younger girls.


Did you report this or was it not that sort of job you are doing? Did


you report the specifics? Everyone had absolute


confidentiality, but what I did report was the pattern of what I


saw. That was the deal with everyone. They could tell me


absolutely anything off the record, but if there was a consistent


pattern, that I would share. Indeed, it in the summer of 2004, having


already fed back to a number of people, I fed back, I refer to them


to the top 300 people in the BBC, however they define top, and within


that one of the patterns that I shared was why there was


automatically a pressure for people to tolerate behaviour that otherwise


wouldn't be acceptable. Did that go right to the top of the


BBC, or the level where you wouldn't have heard of the people involved?


Certainly some of the people I fed back the overall pattern to, a far


more detailed and forensic version for what I had run through with you,


as to why you could understand there was pressure for people to not just


acts out, but then keep quiet about bullying behaviour, abusive


behaviour, that was discussed at all levels. The overall pattern. Indeed,


to Mark Thompson himself, because obviously that overall pattern,


apart from anything, Mark was in the presentation to the 300. But also of


course, I had one on ones with him about the overall pattern. The


context of that. For the life of me, before you ask, I cannot remember if


I used for Mark the same example I used for so many others and that


they picked up on. But I suspect, even if I had, to the other senior


people I fed back to, put in that context I earlier, I suspect that


many will be hearing it as an example of the sort of behaviour


that people conceptually would put up with and they would understand


that someone like Jimmy was absolutely more valuable than the


values. Did you find the BBC didn't listen


to what you said or did you just think they would carry on in their


merry old way because it was too difficult?


My conclusion was, not a lot is going to happen. But I think, albeit


with a bit of naivete, the reason that people were saying that was


that they thought, we put in a sort of whistle-blowing system, we are


training people exactly what sort of behaviour is a good, and therefore


that is a very interesting explanation of what was going on.


And thank goodness we have done those things so it won't happen


again. I happen not to believe that and I think may have glibly said,


what if anything happens, give me a ring in five years. I think Mark had


gone by then. Peter Scott-Morgan, very interesting. Thank you.


Pleasure. A remarkable drama is


playing out in the US. The state wants Apple to produce


a key that can unlock the phone of the San Bernadino jihadists,


a couple who killed 14 Apple, quite simply,


doesn't want there to be keys Big corporation takes


on big country. If you're using your smartphone, be


under no illusions, if government agencies really want to, they can


probably find a way in. Their arsenal of tricks and hacks is


growing. They can have big problems, though, if a phone is not being used


and is locked. That is the situation the FBI finds itself in with Syed


Rizwan Farook. Some believe the US government has been looking for such


a clear case to pick a fight with the technology companies. Is


particularly good turf for the Government in this case. You can see


why a magistrate, as has happened so far, would be inclined to grant the


Government's requires. It is why it is also really good in our system,


in the UK system and others, there is a chance to fully litigate and


ventilate this. Apple is rejecting to the initial order and filing


legal briefs with other member of the legal Judiciary Committee why


this is very bad president, even as probably all of us would like to get


in and see what is on that particular phone. The key that


protects the data on the phone is 256 alphanumeric characters long.


How safe is that? This is the number of possible combinations. It would


take more time than we have before the sun collapses to try even a


fraction of them using all the computers on earth simultaneously.


Obviously we don't enter such an computers on earth simultaneously.


enormous mega code every time you want a phone our mother. We use a


four digit pin code, maybe sometimes a bit longer, but that doesn't


unlock the phone but the mega code, which then decrypts our data. But


get that phone code wrong-un ten times in a row and all that data is


wiped, and there is nothing anyone can do to retrieve it. The FBI's


director was testifying to Congress today. He wants Apple to write some


software that allows officers to have as many goes as it takes to


guess the past code on the phone. I love Inc rich in and privacy. When I


hear corporation saying we were going to take you to walk when no


one can look at your stuff, I think that's great, I don't want anybody


looking at my stuff. But I step back and I think law-enforcement, which I


am part of, saves peoples lives, rescues kids and


am part of, saves peoples lives, terrorists and we do that a lot


through quarter orders that are search warrants, and a whole lot


through search warrants of mobile devices. Are going to move to a


world where that is possible in a more question mark it won't end but


it will be a different world to where we are today. But Apple is


fighting this request all the way. Their CEO says there is no such


thing as a back door only the good guys get to use. If we knew a way to


get the information on the phone that we have an order given, if we


knew a way to do this that would not expose hundreds and millions of


other people's issues, we would honestly do it. The only way we know


would be to write a piece of software that we view as the


software equivalent of cancer. We think it is bad news to write, we


would never write it, we have never written and that is what is at stake


here. According to opinion polls most Americans think Apple should


actually provide access to the phone. After all, is the logic, if


they are only after the terrorists and criminals, why should the rest


of us care? Is not just the Government that can access something


like this. One security is weakened, it is a nation state that wants to


access your private information, medical


information, banking is something to be concerned about. Cyber security


is really important. We are really only at the start of this battle.


Every year there are new smartphones released with better security built


in. For more businesses and individuals this is becoming the


main feature that they look for. Real test would be if there's an IS


should build next-generation phone that even Apple and other phones


can't get into. I think Apple would be capable of doing that. At that


point it puts it back to the Government, not of what they might


ask from Apple but what they want to pre-emptively ask of Apple and


others, saying you're not allowed to design the following kinds of


phones. Apple has until tomorrow to respond to the court order. Tonight


their lawyers have filed a counter motion. How all this plays out could


have a huge impact on everyone of us and how our high-tech societies


work. David Grossman there. It is a


fascinating dilemma. I'm joined now in the studio


by the journalist Edward Lucas who writes about


technology and security. And from Boston, Kade Crockford


who is director of Technology for Liberty and edits


the blog Privacy Matters. Kate, this is a game going, it


wasn't even his phone, it belonged to the Department of Health, his


employer, anti-killed 14 people. What is the best argument for not


trying to open up his phone? This isn't just about one phone, in fact


it isn't just about phones. If the F ERI succeeds here in obtaining this


broad president, it will essentially give the courts and law enforcement


agencies the power to issue demands on technology companies, not just


Apple, but also Microsoft, medical devices, even devices that haven't


yet been invented, to force these companies to send their users


malicious code that is signed as if it looks like it is coming from


Microsoft doesn't regular product of date, and that would harm physical


security from millions of people all around the globe. The War also


frankly harm US technology companies, because it would put them


at a disadvantage, enabling foreign companies to create secure products


that banks and manufacturers would prefer to use. But you are saying it


is a precedent. Why can't you just say, if a court says this, then we


cant it, but we weren't counted for the hundreds of millions that Tim


Cook took about, why not then say in cases like this we need a key but


not others? That is simply unprecedented, that is not how US


courts work. If a US court rules that in a criminal matter, the US


Government has a right to compel Apple to write malicious code to


serve to its devices, it can do so in every type of criminal


investigation, and that isn't even the subject of debate a more. The


FBI, members of law enforcement, have admitted they are seeking this


precedent. Let me put that Ed Lucas. In this case it was incredibly


clear-cut to a lot of people, but it is not about this case, it is about


many others. This is both a very specific case with some very big


general applications, but one has to be very careful about jumping from


one to the other. This is only possible because it is an obsolete


phone where this sort of hacking tool that Apple is being asked to


develop would actually work. If he had on a more up-to-date iPhone,


this wouldn't work. So it is quite a specific case. I can see why the


river to lobby is very worried about precedent, but this is actually not


mandating a general back door, ruling out encryption, trying to


undermine the whole way in which we depend on cryptography, it is a very


specific case, and one can't blame the FBI for choosing a case they are


going to win, but their arguments are strong. But the law doesn't work


in a way in which this can't be a precedent, Kate says. Is that right?


Can we say that in a small number of cases we don't want them -- don't


mind having a key, but they can't have Akiva millions of cases? If we


wanted to make them produce software that would bust open every modern


iPhone, Apple would go back to court and say that this contradicts the


fourth Amendment, there would be lots of other cases and aspects


coming into play. But here there is zero privacy, because the guy is


dead and he dead people don't have Agassi writes, and it wasn't his


phone. So on these very narrow grounds, you have to be careful


about saying this is a huge precedent. But that is not what the


case is about. It is not about whether the Government can give the


FBI access to a dead person's phone it is about whether the Government


can compel a software company to write code to subvert existing


security procedures. But the act which goes back to a few years after


the decade of independence -- declaration of independence gives a


broad pass to the authorities to ask people them, to help law


enforcement, and if you make saves, you may be in a position where the


government comes to you with a court order and says, make a skeleton key.


But that has never happened, and the case the Government relies on in it


re-that the court agreed with his that it is a very different kind of


case that has to do with telephone companies, installing a technology


to make available to the government information that that company


already processed as a central part of its business. Apple is a central


part of its business has said that it does not want to know what is on


your phone, privacy is a very central part of why Apple has


installed these encryption systems, so it is not camp arable at all.


Just looking at one point, would you supported if the Chinese Government


made a request like this, if it exceeds to an American Government


progress, isn't it then under pressure to accede to every request


in every jurisdiction? I think we have already seen these companies


rolling over under pressure from the Chinese Government, and it is


terrible, for instance the Yahoo employee who is in jail, and I wish


companies were tougher on the Chinese, but I wish they were more


obedient to American courts. I'm sorry, we are out of time.


Last year, the slogan "Black Lives Matter" was tweeted


Those three words came to be used as a protest against police killings


The phrase gained so much traction, many have wondered if it can't


transform itself into a broader civil rights movement.


This year, of course, sees a Presidential election.


Politics has taken some surprising turns and rage is in the air.


So could Black Lives Matter shift the American debate on race?


Mukul Devichand, the editor of BBC Trending, has been to the US


It is 2014 and Laquan McDonald, aged 17, is high and carrying a knife.


The rest of the police video was too graphic to show.


He falls after one bullet, but 15 more pierce his still body.


When it went viral there were street protests,


then a murder charge for the officer and the mayor,


Rahm Emanuel, sacking his police chief and apologising.


Black Lives Matter first trended during the Ferguson Missouri


protests in 2014, over the killing of an 18-year-old,


In the immediate aftermath I was just filled with rage


and I was sitting on my couch on a Friday night watching my social


media feed, just streamed these horrific images.


It looks like a war zone and it was incomprehensible to me


that this was happening five hours away from my home.


Black Lives Matter emerged in response to the extra judicial


killing of an armed black man by police.


An underlying anger had been unleashed.


Of the thousand-plus people killed by deadly police force across the US


last year, a disproportionate number were black.


Black civil rights movements changed America forever.


But the new generation say some of them sold out.


At some point the civil rights movement of our forefathers had


People had to get paid, people had to get jobs,


and that money came from outside of the black community.


I think that is part of the reason why the work did not go far enough.


Reverend Jesse Jackson, Chicago's giant of civil rights


history and a mentor to Barack Obama, used


Learn to live together, and not die apart in some foolish


If your focus is just to take over your local ethnic ward,


it will be folk in that ward, but if you want to take over


the city, the county, the state, you must see the role


in relation to other people who share the same grievances.


Urban, poor, high crime areas, like Chicago's south side,


Today's actions are about attracting new recruits to the movement.


We are riding the pink line through the south and west


White trigger and black face be life risking.


New cases emerging from all over the country mean


The Cedric case, the Laquan case, the Dakota case, the Ronald Johnson


case, all these cases are just straight cover-ups.


It's a pattern and practice of the Chicago Police Department.


I haven't got any, not only justice, but closure, information,


Panzy Edwards came here to lobby for her son Dakota Bright,


Teenagers can be armed here and the police


In many of these cases the police will maintain that they are people


who have been engaged in criminal activity, are known criminals,


could that be the case with your son?


They killed him for no reason, and they've got every excuse


in the world as to why they killed him.


It's sad, though, because they didn't hurt him,


The police union point out that it is dangerous work they do.


Over 200 people have been injured or killed in gun violence there,


I don't think our officers are involved in shooting quicker


Some of the worst neighbourhoods in this country are a stone's throw


I'm not going to put myself in jeopardy, to hesitate when deadly


But in the popularity contest that is the race


for the presidential nomination, Black Lives Matter issues


It has been heartbreaking and incredibly outraging to see


the constant stories of young men who have been killed


The father of shot teenager Michael Brown Jr is now a national


A federal investigation and a Grand Jury probe


into his son's killing recommended no charges be brought


Still, his father believes that the rebirth of black


radicalism, that his son's death helped inspired,


Mike opened those doors for other people, if not him, to get


We're tired, there isn't any more sitting down or sweeping the carpet.


We are standing on top of the carpet now.


Letting you know that we're not taking it any more.


There is nothing new about poor, urban black communities like this


taking issue with the criminal justice system.


But the fact that Black Lives Matter unites in protest across America


with each new killing, is an act of defiance


that is already affecting the national debate.


Well, joining me now from Washington DC is Danielle Belton,


And with me in the studio, Stafford Scott, co-ordinator


of Tottenham Rights and Race Advocacy Officer


What is the difference between Black Lives Matter and earlier vintages of


civil rights movements, do you think? I don't think that big a


difference. If you look at the movements you had a that night young


people like Julian Bond, were on the front lines fighting for liberation.


The same thing is happening now. It just seems different because so much


has changed and people's viewpoints have been coloured. People look the


style Joe Clee back at the civil rights movement, but I don't see


that much of a difference. Young people fighting for black


liberation, fighting for change and freedom. Hot hot Black Lives Matter


could change America, do you believe that? I believe it has in many ways.


They're talking about issues around incarceration and issues around


decriminalisation. I don't think we would be having these conversations


about police brutality and body cameras if it wasn't for the fact so


many people have taken to the streets demanding equality. To what


extent has it come to the UK? Root first of all I have to say, as


Danielle said, she was speaking about young people, I am not so


you're more into social media. But Black Lives Matter is important. I


think we spiritually support what the brothers and sisters are trying


to do in the USA. To some extent racism is a bigger issue in American


politics than British horror ticks, correct? They talk about it in the


USA and in the UK we have an English way of doing things, understated and


sometimes and an aisle of its existence. -- than British politics.


Because of the numbers of people being shot and killed by the state,


by police, it is obviously going to be a much more significant issue


there. But it is as significant for us here in the UK. As significant


for the parents for Mark Duggan. Can we talk about anger? You talked


about American politics, presidential elections, they are


talking about Black Lives Matter. But one of the notable features, the


white anger that has led to an outpouring of support for Donald


Trump. Is there a danger that everyone will end up shouting and no


one is going to be listening or hearing anything? A sort of


dysfunction in American politics, perhaps? There is always a level of


dysfunction in American politics. People are passionate and tensions


run high. This is an important election year. We have a very


un-directory stick - Mac uncharacteristic and boisterous


candidate in Donald Trump, whose comments are often perceived as


racist. I feel like the anger coming from the black matters... You are


upset about any want of the action and progress. You want to see your


politicians passed laws and make changes that will improve the lives


of black people everywhere in the United States and by extension,


other Americans. How dangerous do you think the Donald Trump movement,


how dangerous TUC that -- do you see that to the black course? I feel


like the discourse is kind of ugly and rather disgusting. It is


concerning to me but I don't think it will prevail in the long run. The


art of progress in the United States has always leaned towards getting


better in regards to race relations, having these conversations and


pushing for equality. So yes, things look bad, it sounds bad, but I don't


think the Donald Trumps of the world will win this one. How useful is


anger as a tall and how much does it scared the other side into counter


reacting? That is a great question, but is it the right question? For me


it is, is the anger justified? If anger is justified, the fact there


is a kick back, how can that then be justified? It cannot be justifiable.


If people are used to having privilege and are kicking back


because they don't want to share those privileges with less


advantaged people... And that only happens when you try to tell the


State and explain to the state what is happening to your community and


the state refuses to listen and denies and refuses to support or


assist. That is what happens in the UK. We saw the memo, the advice


given to Thatcher 30 years ago on how to deny our community any state


support or help. The impact of those decisions is something we as a


community living with today. I think anger is absolutely justified. It's


just a pity it has to be shown. We hope and pray we don't have a young


people being killed on the streets like we are seeing in the US, or


that anger will definitely be shown to people throughout this country,


regardless of their position. Thank you both very much.


There's a German equivalent of the Elgin Marbles: it's the bust


of the Egyptian Queen, Nefertiti which sits in a museum


in Berlin, rather than in the vicinity of its creator.


The bust was carved in the 14th century BC, and was found by German


archaeologists in 1912, who discovered the house


and workshop of the sculptor, a man named Thutmose.


Now the Egyptians would love to have the bust back,


but the Germans have guarded it jealously,


So it is pretty amazing that two artists have succeeded in taking


Here they are - secretly scanning - back in October last year.


Having done it, they can now in effect produce the formula


for anyone to make their own accurate copy of it.


Well, Nora al-Badri, one of those artists,


A very good evening to you. I am fascinated what planning and


execution went into this. Take us through how you did it. OK, I will


try. It was a huge collaborative effort. We had archaeologists


working with us, as well as lawyers. In the end it took us only one-day.


Two visits over six hours, circling around and collecting all the data


that we then processed. It sounds a bit like oceans 11 or one of these


movies. In the film at something has to almost go wrong before the plan


is finished. Did anything almost go wrong whilst you were there? No,


because we had the advantage of surprise, I would say. Nobody was


expecting anyone scanning with a device. What I don't understand,


this thing is obviously guarded and you must have been fairer a few


hours. How did you not get caught? -- must have been there. How did you


disguise yourself? We were very careful. The guards, they are doing


a great job and protecting from taking photos and they are only


looking for photographs. The audience was the visitors, the other


ones who were there didn't really see us or catch us, because there is


a selective perception which happens when you focus so much on sculpture.


Your point was that really some of these ancient artefacts should go


back to their home, correct? Our point was more about activating


artefacts from archaeological and so-called ethnic collections, which


means bringing them alive somehow to a new discourse and critically


reassess the conditions of today and the whole notion of belonging and


possession. It is not so much about restitution, having it here or


there, because this is a very redundant discussion. It went


nowhere. A very complicated answer, but you do think the Germans should


give it back, or not? At the moment I wouldn't say that is so clear,


because we are working on other narratives and new imaginary is, if


you like. Talking about data, what we did, this is actually something


that we would amount from the Museum, to make open access to


everyone as a first step. Thank you very much.


That's it for tonight, but we leave you with Professor David Crystal,


who's discovered over many years that our national failure to perform


Shakespeare with authentic Elizabethan pronunciation and accent


means we're missing a lot of the jokes -


plus it doesn't rhyme the way it should.


So he's publishing his own guide on how to say Shakespeare properly.


Here he is as John Gower, or John Goorrr if you like,


To sing a song that old was sung, from ashes ancient Gower is come.


Assuming man's infirmities to glad your ears and please your eyes.


It hath been sung at festivals,


on ember eves and holy days.


And lords and ladies in their lives have read it for restoraties.


when wits more ripe accept my rhymes,


and that to hear an old man sing would to your wishes pleasure bring.


I life would wish, and that I might waste it for you like taper light.


With Evan Davis. What's gone wrong at the BBC? Should the US Government be allowed to hack the iPhone? Plus the Calais migrants, #BlackLivesMatter, and Nefertiti's bust gets pirated.

Download Subtitles