12/04/2016 Newsnight


Emily Maitlis presents as Newsnight explores how Brexit will affect the economy. Plus academies and schools, Savile abuse and the man who met Islamic State.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight the Culture Secretary insists to Newsnight his role has


not been compromised by what the papers knew about his


Is this a story about bona fide privacy -


What happens to the economy if we leave the EU?


The International Monetary Fund predicts 'severe global damage'.


This is the clearest independent warning of the taste of things


I think we're much better off if we stay in the EU.


That will make Britain stronger, safer and better off.


Ken Clarke and Daniel Hannan are here to debate.


And the survivors of Jimmy Savile's abuse tell their story.


I would get so depressed, I had anorexia as well.


I had absolutely no confidence in myself.


We'll ask a survivor, a police investigator and a prosecutor.


In a moment we'll be bringing you the latest on a story


that is begining to emerge as we go on air -


a statement given to Newsnight from the Culture


Secretary John Whittingdale about a possible conflict


The warning from the International Monetary Fund today


An exit from the EU, they said, could cause severe regional


and global damage - against the backdrop of a slashed


forecast for global growth for the fourth time in one year.


Forget for one second questions of whether the IMF -


which contains firm friends of George Osborne and of the EU -


should be taking a view on British domestic politics.


Forget even that the quote comes from the former economic advisor


to Barack Obama, who has already made his own position


Tonight, those on the Leave side find themselves having to take


on a reputable eeconomic body that is forecasting doom for this


country outside of the European Union.


Is this the kind of statement that makes up a voter's mind?


We'll ask Ken Clarke and Dan Hannan in a moment.


The EU referendum result has been declared and the UK


Will it be Brexit with breakfast, and if so, what will that mean?


Plenty are serving us up their opinions. Today the International


monetary fund voted that if the UK votes to leave the EU that could


have dire global consequences for the world economy. In its latest


Outlook published to date they warned that the planned referendum


on European Union membership has already created uncertainty for


investors. A Brexit could do severe regional and global damage by


disrupting established trading relationships. We already see the


uncertainty of the referendum result playing on the UK economy and a vote


to leave would set off a process of two years, a lengthy divorce, with a


very uncertain settlement at the end. As anyone who has been through


that process knows, it is not a positive event. For those


campaigning to leave the EU, both the timing and the substance of this


intervention is suspect. I think this is a highly political


intervention. I don't believe it is the result of a lot of people with


computers crunching the numbers aren't coming to some objective


conclusion. I think it reflects the opinions of the EU, of the Eurozone


in particular and I think it's highly convenient for the British


government, who have not exactly discouraged this. Far from


discouraging this assessment, the Chancellor was very keen to


reinforce the anti-Brexit message of the IMF. They say that if we did


leave the EU there would be an impact on stability and long-term


cost economies of this is the clearest independent warning of the


taste of things to come if we leave. I think we are much better off if we


stay in the EU, that will make Britain stronger, safer and better


off. He has not always been so keen to accept the judgment of the IM


Ofcom in 2012 they gave dire warnings about the UK economy,


saying the Chancellor was playing with fire unless he relaxed


austerity. George Osborne was furious but one year later the IMF


admitted they got the assessment wrong. We got it


wrong, we acknowledged it, we were not the only ones to get it wrong.


Any democratic vote suggests a level of uncertainty and the poll suggests


the race is tight. Beyond that is there any reason to think that life


outside the EU word in the long-term he was then inside? People. The


buying German cars in this country and we will still buy cars from


outside Europe. Welfare to be a decision to leave the EU, we would


have a period, perhaps two years, in which nothing changed while


negotiations continued, so I think this is way over the top, what the


IMF has said. The IMF is walking a thin line between giving an economic


opinion and intervening in a domestic political question. Listen


how President and Chief Economist gets when asked if Brexit is too big


a risk to take. Well, I think it is a risk. Ah, I think British people


have to consider very carefully what the balance is of risks, political


considerations and political preferences involved as well but in


terms of the bill in economics, we would worry about the outcome. With


ten weeks to go, there will be plenty more arguments about where


the balance of risk lies and some could get quite heated, like this


exchange in the European Parliament today it in a passionate Belgian


European integrationist and a pro-Brexit British MEP. Sometimes


you don't need the simultaneous translation!


Joining me now, MEP Dan Hannan of the Vote Leave campaign,


and former chancellor Ken Clarke for the Remainers.


Very nice to have you both here. Severe global damage, I guess, Dan,


is not a phrase they would use lightly? They have been consistently


wrong and they are wrong about this. They've been wrong in a consistent


way. They have consistently underestimated the strength of the


UK economy and consistently underestimated the severity of the


Euro crisis. I think what you said at the beginning of about them being


mates, I'm pretty sure that it was an Newsnight that I saw George


Osborne half promising Christine Lagarde the job of managing director


of the IMF. She made it clear that her priority was to keep the Euro


together. The IMF has become a sort of adjunct of the EU. I can see why


they want Britain to be continuing part of those bailouts, we are one


of the countries with the resources to keep rescuing others. Yet the


question we face and the one we will face in June is do we need to make


the use am's problems our problems or can we leave them to the rest of


the world? Kenneth Clarke, but has been said that it is highly


convenient politically to say this. Norman is no friend of mine but how


he can dismiss them like that, I don't know. I am joined Fiji 20,


President Obama and most of the people in the City, most business


leaders, the CBI, all of which Eurosceptics have a tendency to wave


away as scaremongering, it will be all right. The two people on tonight


two of the more respectable advocates coming yet they have no


clear idea of what will happen if we leave and this uncertainty is


damaging to economic confidence. And they believe that over two years


they will be able to negotiate a holding pattern of trading with the


outside world and it will be right. Daniel Hannan, do you concede that


they will be uncertainty and that will have a lasting effect on the


British economy? I think it's important to understand what happens


the day after we vote to leave. First, we carry on with the current


arrangement while we discuss it. Then on the day that the exit


happens, two or three years later, everything remains in place and to


one side or the other changes it. We've adopted all of the EU's


regulations on standardisation, there are no tariffs, all the things


like reciprocal health care would carry on until one side or the other


wanted to change. There would be some gradual movement. We would


embrace a different trajectory, although the person who got this


spot on at the launch of the Remain campaign was Lord rose when he said


it would not be a step change, it would be a gentle process, after


five change, - Mac five years, magenta, after ten a bit of change.


The way he describes it sounds like a yacht in a bath tub. The whole


point of negotiation will be the winning side of the Eurosceptics


when they will say they want to change things. They've made it clear


they want to give out free movement of Labour and give up being the


rules of the trading zone. That means huge uncertainty. Even the


risk of Brexit is affecting the economy now. The British economy is


slowing down. Our economy, steady on, Dan, investments are on hold,


there are no major investments going ahead... The pound is strong... The


pound has weakened quite a lot because of the uncertainty and the


governor of the Bank of England got shot down by Eurosceptics when he


calmed things by saying that he did have plans in place Brexit, taking


the lead in the opinion polls, led to a flight of capital out of the


country. There is uncertainty. It's no good saying that it is certain


that for two years nothing will happen. That is not what the Leave


campaigners are saying in general. It is not about what you say, it is


how the markets react and if there is a spooking, that will mean a lack


of investment coming into this country already. You can't say that


for two years nothing will change. Was that addressed to me, Emily? The


whole point of your campaign is that you want to change things and then


you say that nothing will change! Since the referendum was announced


in January 2013 this country has received more inward investment than


any other country in the EU. This country has created more jobs than


any other country, incredibly, more than all the other members of the EU


but together. Never mind speculation, as a matter of


observable fact, the possibility of leaving the EU has had no deterrent


effect on inward investment. I remember Ken sailing exactly these


things 15 years ago about keeping the pound .- saying these things. He


said it would scare away investment and that was a run on the pound, not


only was he wrong, the things that he predicted... Let's read out what


you said! We are running out of time. I'm happy to debate it, what I


said 15 years ago, although that is not what we are talking about now.


We've strongly attracted inward investment because we have one of


the least regulated countries in the Western world and we are in the


youth appeal union. The flow of inward investment is on hold at the


moment -- we are in the European Union. No foreign investor will


invest here until he knows what our trading and political relationships


are with the outside world in a few weeks' time. That's where the


Governor of the Bank of England, no doubt also part of the political


conspiracy, had to say what he would do in case of a flight of capital. I


appreciate it is much harder down the line, down, we've run out of


time, thank you for joining us. Tonight John Whittingdale confirmed


to this programme he had had a relationship with a woman


who turned out, unbeknownst to him, to be a sex worker, a fact


he discovered from a reporter. The details of that


relationship went unpublished - Maybe the newspapers never


considered a story about the private lives of two consenting


adults worth running. Or maybe there were more political


reasons behind the decision But John Whittingdale -


who was at the time - head of the Culture Select Committee


- now sits at the very top of a department whose job


is to regulate newspapers. Indeed, he is currently overseeing


a whole new regulatory framework under consideration in the wake


of the Leveson inquiry. So has his position


been compromised? And should he have told his


bosses in Downing Street Tonight an extraordinary statement


from the culture secretary John Whittingdale confirming a story that


for both the UK newspapers did not run. But he did have a relationship


with the woman who turned out to be a dominatrix. Both he and Downing


Street said it is no 1's business other than his own. John


Whittingdale told Newsnight in a statement, between August 2013 and


February 2014 I had a relationship with someone I first met through


match.com. She was a similar age and live close to me. At no time did she


give me any indication of a real occupation and I only discovered


this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story


about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the


relationship. This is an old story which was a bit embarrassing at the


time. The offence occurred long before I took up my present position


and it has never had any influence on the decisions I have made. As


culture secretary. It is over three years since Lord Justice Levenson


concluded that UK newspapers needed a tougher regulator. Culture


Secretary John Whittingdale has made it perfectly plain he is not minded


to give it all the teeth. George Robson wanted but everything has got


a whole lot murkier but allegations both on the intranet and today in


Private eye that some of newspapers have got something on the Cabinet


minister. The story first surfaced that John Whittingdale had a


relationship with a woman who was a prostitute. His office told


Newsnight he had no idea that his girlfriend at the time was a sex


worker. This is the street were the dungeon lies but this is not the


story about an MP who became a Cabinet minister and a dominatrix.


It is a story about why the newspapers did not run that story.


And why that might be. James Cusick was reporter on the Independent


newspaper. He looked up the story for five months. There are details


of his private life basically which I think the public have a right to


know about, if this individual is making these decisions that will


affect the way people look at newspapers, the way newspapers


behave, the way the BBC behaves. You have a right to know about the


private life of this man if there is something in it he is trying to hold


back. In 2013 Mr Whittingdale and his girlfriend went to the MTV


awards in Amsterdam. The trip was paid for by MTV. He did not declare


this trip with a parliamentary registry of interest because the


cost of the trip his office said, did not meet the reported threshold.


He did declare a similar trip to MTV awards that he made with his then


wife in 2006. Newsnight understands that for newspaper groups


investigated the relationship between the MP and the dominatrix,


the people as part of the Mirror Group, the Mail on Sunday, the son,


and the Independent. All four newspapers spent time on the story


and all four of them did not run the story. Some commentators especially


amongst the hacked off group called foul saying the newspapers are


hypocrites. This may be unfair to editors who now more than ever are


concerned about invading privacy. Whittingdale after all was a single


man, having a relationship with a woman, a consenting adult. Tonight


Number Ten told Newsnight was John Whittingdale is a single man and his


private life is his own affair. But tellingly Number Ten also said it


was not aware of Whittingdale's relationship before he was appointed


culture secretary. To be fair to Whittingdale, he has always been an


advocate of light regulation of newspapers so there's no evidence


that he has anything hypocritical. The question is how much confidence


can the public have in John Whittingdale, secretary of state for


culture, the man in charge of the issue of whether newspapers should


be regulated or not, if they go public, no those same newspapers


have got something on the man from -- the man John Whittingdale. The


issue highlight by Private eye is fairness. The satirical magazine


highlights two cases, of the Tory MP Brooks Newmark and Labour peer Lord


Sewel, both had their sexual shenanigans splashed across the


papers. Max Mosley, for his shaming by the tabloid press after sexual


antics were laid bare and he got a bit of a kicking from John


Whittingdale as well. It is quite funny, when I appeared


in front of his committee back in 2009, he said regarding my story


with News of the World, you must have realised it was a time bomb


that was going to go off. He had similar interests, and I would've


asked if you're not in the same position. In my case it had nothing


to do with what I was known for, working in the motor racing world.


In his world of course, he's involved with the press. When he


said that to me unfortunately I did not know what he was up to. Then the


man arguing for full disclosure on the mystery celebrity who had a


threesome. The Daily Mail asked, whatever happened to the public


right to know. Tonight that seems a good question, not just in Fleet


Street but also in Westminster. It's worth making clear that


all the newspapers who decided not to run the Whittingdale story say


they dropped it because they decided It's also worth pointing out that


many of those criticising Whittingdale today have their own


grievances against him. Some allies of Whittingdale point


to the irony of privacy campaigners castigating newspapers for failing


to invade the privacy One of those critics


is the Shadow Leader Tonight he said that the culture


secretary was entitled to a private life but should have removed himself


from regulation of the press. Joining me now to discuss


this are Brian Cathcart, founder of Hacked Off,


and Roy Greenslade, professor of journalist at City University


and a former editor of the Mirror. Does this compromise his position as


culture secretary? It was, the public cannot have faith that this


man has been at Ding and remember he made important decisions in relation


to the press, decisions that they welcome wholeheartedly and


enthusiastically. The public cannot have faith in his judgment, in his


independence, in making decisions about the media any more. So you as


part of the body that would like to see more privacy is advocating that


this story should be in the public view. It is not a story about John


Whittingdale and his private life. It is a story about why the press


did not cover it. To suggest in the very week when we see newspapers


baying for the right to cover a story about a celebrity and private


which are judge told them they have no right to cover, in that same week


that they would be too scrupulous, too high-minded to report a story


about a Cabinet minister which any judge in the country would tell them


they have a right to. It is absurd for top what do you think the papers


did not pick this up, was there a sense of high-mindedness, or public


interest? You have got to think when it happened, it was not long after


the Leveson Inquiry. They would all be careful about whether or not they


had a public interest justification. They would all have taken separate


legal advice, they would all have looked at the code of practice. I


think it is a bit much to castigate newspapers for doing the right thing


for once. By deciding that this was a story about a man who was


unmarried, who had a relationship with a woman who had not told him


she was a sex worker, when he did know, he ended the relationship. I


cannot see that there was a genuine story there and clearly, with the


sun, the people, the Mail on Sunday, they felt the same. Do feel John


Whittingdale did the right thing, he did not tell his bosses at Number


Ten and he accepted the position of culture secretary? That is a


separate matter. It might be wise to have done that. Although he probably


thought this is a relationship which is over and done with. He was then


just chairman of the select committee, he did not have much


power in that position. When he came to power it was no longer a matter


of amazing interest because it was over. That is surely naive. The man


had just become a minister. Let me put it to you, do you think he is


now compromised, can he oversee regulation of the newspapers and


implementation of whatever is post the Leveson Inquiry? Of course you


can. It does not compromise them one bit. It is pure speculation that the


newspapers have conspired to keep up this story. This is a competitive


industry. It was once pure speculation that newspapers hacked


phones. It is a murky world as John Swinney has said. The idea that


these newspapers are too scrupulous, when he becomes culture secretary,


to tackle him on this, is just naive. These newspapers wanted power


over a minister and they had power over a minister. We do not know the,


how that plays out, but we know this is a minister made three vital


decisions, all of which were incredibly helpful to the press. And


not terribly in the interests of the public. Do you think that is just to


convince -- the conspiracy theory? It is. It is quite straightforward.


Newspapers have decided that they will try to get the story,


investigated the story and discovered there is not a story that


they can justify publishing. That is not true. There are at least five


public interest justifications for publishing the story. What do you


think should happen now? John Whittingdale should get out of the


weight of the legislation passed by Parliament. Passed by all parties in


parliament. -- out of the way. He is blocking this legislation which will


give everyone in this country access to justice in libel cases.


It is quite simple. He has not put that forward. That is not his


decision alone. It is the decision of the Cabinet and the Prime


Minister. I cannot think for one moment that John Whittingdale holds


the fate of UK newspapers in his hands alone. That is just not on.


Thank you both very much. The row about disability


benefits made the 48 hours after the last budget something


of a political low point Plenty of name calling and a faintly


unwilling policy U-turn. It threatened to overshadow just


about everything else. But there were plenty of other


announcements that day that are only One is the high speed move to turn


local authority schools Labour holds its first debate


on that tomorrow. And, as Chris Cook has been finding


out, it is leaving many education Tell us what you found. Since the


budget one thing is clear, when you meet people who are in a fisheries


of this policy, those big academy chains, reforming school leaders and


people who I would characterise as natural allies of the Education


Secretary, what you see is enormous nervousness about where exactly


these reforms will go. There are 850 or so academy sponsors in the


country. The government has done research into the effectiveness of


around 20 and of those we know there are around three that are more


effective than the average school. We are hearing from academy chains


on the ground that they are concerned that there is not the


capacity in the school system to take on a large number of extra


schools from the local authorities without problems for standards.


John Mannix, chief executive of Plymouth Cast -


a Catholic multi-academy trust of 35 schools across the west country.


Sir David Carter is the National Schools Commissioner.


Before that, he was the head of the Cabot Federation,


There is concern that this is happening too fast. We have got to


realise this is not something that has come from thin air. We have been


working towards this since the last ten years. It started of course in


the last Labour government, accelerated throughout the Coalition


Government. We do have a lot of knowledge in the system that this is


working. Chris mentioned in his piece about the government


investigating 20. Regional schools Commissioner 's and National Schools


Commissioner 's have a lot of knowledge about what is working. I


do not underestimate the challenge but the price of getting it right is


tantalising and I'm confident that we can deliver a full academy system


that will give us a single dynamic form of education for this country


and improve life chances of children in our schools. Ayew reassured? --


Ayew reassured. I'm not in a position to judge the capacity of


government to bring this about. I think the area of concern for me


within the debate is that it has been polarised. We used to have this


kind of local authority school, we have decided we do not like that and


there is a new model of the academy school and that has got to be the


way forward. And therefore everyone is trying to look at the evidence,


look at some academies, to be appear to be right and depending on


normally your view of this you would select your evidence accordingly.


The reason I am a supporter of the academy programme is that I do not


see the academies as a single model in opposition to the previous model.


The beauty of it is academies is about new possibilities and


flexibility, creativity. How quickly or slowly would you like it to


happen? Again to say it, one of the things that is exciting about the


programme is that it is being refined and developed and


scrutinised and tweaks. So the good thing about it is for example in our


own multi-academy trust, there are particular academy freedoms,


changing terms and conditions of teachers, pay and conditions, the


way things are operated at local government body level, we can change


those things, we just do not think that they were broken and so we


retain them. Love the chance to take everything that was good here on the


previous system, retaining it but having flexibility to develop it


further. Especially the multi-academy trust dimension, it


brings the benefit that even over a short period of time, we are seeing


that strongly. Sir David when you hear this


considered view from someone who is a fan of academies but regrets that


this one size fits all speed boat has been put on top of everything


does it not make you think twice? Let me make a couple of points. I


have come into this role from 32 years of being a head teacher and


I've been ahead in local authority schools and academies and rummaging


of academies. One challenge I want to address is shifting the debate


whether from weather academies or local authorities are good or bad


and thinking about the single education system we need. John has


rightly talked about the power of a multi-academy trust. While I believe


there is room in assistant for them to support other schools the power


of the multi-academy trust and what it does for parents and children and


staff is very powerful. This is how we will sustain it. Give me a second


and I will talk briefly... Briefly because I want to bring Chris and


again. Of course. Parents who want to educate their children understand


the context in which this works. This is a policy about local


schools. One quick illustration, this afternoon I was in Cornwall


working with a group of 17 schools want to form a multi-academy trust,


15 were primaries and several have less than 100 children in them.


Sustainability for that model is important if it means that that


multi-academy trust can make sure that the best trained teachers are


making the children of those parents, that is a winner. Two


speakers clearly on the same side and yet seeing a very different


approach to how this should be done. There are also particular problems


at school leaders are bringing out and one of these things is about the


right of parents to effectively influence and hold schools


accountable. We are moving to a world where 20 odd thousand state


schools in England are going to have who gets a new roof decided in


Whitehall, who runs your local school decided by original


commission and there will be a panel of teachers who don't get to go to


their board meetings and don't know when the art, don't get problem and


it's from them. And in a silly opaque system. -- and enormously


Paik system. -- I am sorry that we have run out of time. Thank you.


There were wives who'd never heard their husbands speak of it,


husbands who'd never heard their wives speak of it.


Children who'd never heard their parents discuss it,


and parents who went to their graves without ever


knowing their own children had been victims.


They are The Abused - and in one remarkable account -


raw, honest, shattering - we hear from those whose


lives were destroyed by Jimmy Savile - and others.


How initial attempts to report it failed.


And how a public outcry of support for him turned to a clamour of rage.


How the police became overwhelmed when so many spoke out


Here's a clip from the BBC documentary, which aired last night.


I had absolutely no confidence in myself.


The only person I ever told was my husband before we got married.


Some of those speaking out for the first time.


So what can this story tell us about the way we investigate abuse?


And has enough changed since the dark days of the 70s?


Dee Coles, who was a victim of abuse by Savile,


Alison Levitt, QC, a former legal advisor to


the Director of Public Prosecutions, is here.


And Clive Driscoll, former Met policeman.


A very warm welcome to you all. We saw you in the film last night. What


came out most strongly for me was how many other relationships in your


life are affected by about one moment, you spoke movingly of how


you are not able to tell your best friend, your mum. I wonder how much


impact you think that has had them, you with your man, your husbands


Camille wives, it seems never ending. -- your mother, your


husbands, your wives. I think it is a massive impact because in what


comes down to minutes you lose so much, you lose trust and faith and


hope. You lose that with yourself, and you lose that with the world,


and everyone you meet in it. It is gone from that moment. And does that


then play into this whole question of being believed? Does that become


the most central thing to hear somebody say, yes, we believe what


you went through? It was amazing for me to hear that. It was only in the


film that I heard that. Other than speaking to our league, the


director, I had made my statement to the police but that was incredibly


painful. And as much as I know that Operation Yewtree was just forming


and they were overworked and saying, I'm sorry, we can't get to you, that


was the most painful part the process. Allison, one of the


speakers in the film has this howl of grief when she goes through the


court case years later, and half of her own story is rejected, even


then. It comes down to this question of how you are trusted, even in


court. I think it's very difficult to explain to victims that actually


it is not that they have not been believed, it is that the standard of


proof that is required from a jury is that the jury must be sure. It


may like a question of semantics to say that not being sure is not the


same is not believing, that does not help victims. We noticed that the


victims who do best with the process are those who invest not so much in


the outcome but more in the process of saying that I need to speak out,


I need to have my voice heard, and after that, whether there is a


conviction or not is less significant. What we saw was that


actually it was about numbers in the end. When the numbers were


overwhelming the authorities had to believe these witnesses. Absolutely.


And cases where you think, is individual victims had known that


there were others, they would have gone on. That was one of the things


we realised looking at the Savile cases, it was not only with those,


it was with the cases in Rotherham, because of the fear of a false


allegation being made, and that is understandable, that the


investigators were in effect applying a higher standard for


victims of sexual offences than they would for victims of say, burglary


or road traffic offences. Do you think that this has changed now, the


way that investigators ask the questions and the very questions


they ask? I think there has been quite a lot of progress made. It is


a work in progress, we must learn from Mr Savile's case because


mistakes were made, I think they have acknowledged that. I believe


that the police are far better now in dealing with these cases but you


can always get better, and we need to win the confidence, because


really, it is witnesses that are the lifeblood of the police force. We


need to be able to put good evidence before the Crown Prosecution Service


to allow them to make these very important decisions that there is a


realistic chance of success in court. And I believe that the police


suddenly have got better at what they do. I also believe that we have


to learn lessons from nearly every case we deal with, because the


chances are that there is something you have missed, and that can make


it better for the next investigation that is how it must be. Do you think


you are getting better at these investigations? Operation Midland


has now been dropped. Do you feel that was the right decision? The


decision to discontinue the investigation, you would have to


speak to someone within that. My view is, if the evidence is not


going to reach the standard, that you had better not go into court,


because there can't be anything worse for a victim than losing in


court. If you need to stop and reassess the evidence you have got


with a view to may be revisiting it if further evidence comes to light.


I think that all three of us would agree that the fact that something


took place a long time ago or the allegation relates to something a


long time ago does not mean it should not be investigated. I think


it's important that people who did this kind of thing should spend


their entire lives looking over their shoulders knowing we might be


coming for them because it is an important deterrent for those might


be inclined to do it again in the future. There's also a deterrent for


people coming forward if they feel that the system is not on their


site, if it is too adversarial or they feel they will go through a


similar sense of inflation in court. Has enough changed, does more need


to change? I think the courts have made huge strides in the way victims


are treated. Adaptations have been made to the way that evidence is


given, from straightforward things like not having to be in the same


room as the person that accusing, giving evidence from behind a


screen, or through video link, that is quite standard, there are now


more sophisticated systems so that in the case of vulnerable victims


the judge can give directions to say, you must ask questions in a


certain way and you can only do it for a certain time period. If there


are multiple... One thing we learned from the grooming case of multiple


defendants, is, do not allow the victim to be cross examined by a


large number of advocates. Even before getting to court, just making


a statement about a case that is years old, the statement to me


seemed to be taken in the same way as a statement about something that


happened last week. I'm trying to tell a story that is incredibly


difficult, was it his left hand, was at his right hand, one point the


woman taking the statement asked me why I did not push him away.


That is all we have time for now, Evan is back tomorrow, in the


meantime, we wish you good night. Ayr hello, the big temperature


contrast of today goes on through the night so 67 degrees


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis. Newsnight explores how Brexit will affect the economy. Plus academies and schools, Savile abuse and the man who met Islamic State.

Download Subtitles