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.
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.