In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.
Browse content similar to 16/08/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
For many he was the most annoying man in the country.
But he was also one of the most dangerous.
But alongside Choudary, another man was convicted.
Less flamboyant in the media, arguably more of a threat.
We have an interview with him, from earlier this year.
This term radicalising, you need to define it.
Is Jeremy Corbyn radicalising the Labour Party, for example?
By the time this airs, you might be in jail.
Yearn for the days of the old British Rail?
This is the Night Mail crossing the border, bringing the cheque
Letters for the rich, letters for the poor,
the shop at the corner and the girl next door.
Jeremy Corbyn wants the trains back in public ownership.
We'll ask his transport spokesman if that's a good idea.
And Ainsley Harriet clambers off our Throne of Games to get
For years, he enjoyed needling everyone with his silly
pronouncements, that Buckingham Palace will become
But Anjem Choudary was not just a harmless controversialist -
he spread hate for two decades, attempted to radicalise others
and for some of that period invited them to join so-called
Islamic State, an organisation proscribed under the
He could now be handed a maximum jail sentence of ten years.
But, while Choudary is very well known, alongside him was another
character, Mizanur Rahman, a character who had also done a lot
to attract vulnerable minds to jihad.
The police said that Rahman and Choudary had stayed just
within the law for many years, but when they pledged an oath
of allegiance to IS, they had stepped over a line
Talk a bit about Anjem Choudary and when he came from. He was not always
part of the Islamist scene, he grew up in London and when he went to
university he reportedly drank alcohol and had girlfriends. But
after qualifying as a solicitor he helped to found a radical group
outward jackaroo which was subsequently banned. It kept
changing its name all the time to evade the attention of the
authorities. And Anjem Choudary became a source of frustration to
the authorities who thought he was dangerous but not quite ever
breaking the law. Until now. Because today restrictions in court were
lifted allowing us to reveal that three weeks ago he was convicted of
having pledged support online to Isis and having encouraged in his
videos others to support and join the group. This is a significant
moment, the general of Anjem Choudary, he has linked -- been
linked to 100 British jihadis. The followers for example of his when
fourth in the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich. We know other
followers of his way involved in 2010 plot to blow up the London
stock exchange. Not as Tierney UK, a large number of people have gone to
Syria for example, some quite high profile like one who took his young
family to Syria. And another killed in a drone strike in Syria last
year. Others whose names have never come into the public domain. Once I
logged off, a follower from north London who went out to Syria. And
another one of his followers to the right of the screen, and I
understand that he is now dead. That is Anjem Choudary, and also was this
other guy and most people will not have heard of him I think.
Absolutely, there is a clique around Anjem Choudary, some of them have
higher profiles. His co-defendant Mizanur Rahman in my view was just
as significant and perhaps even more so than Anjem Choudary when it comes
to the Syrian conflict. How is the campaign to move Britain
over to sharia law coming along? Anjem Choudary attracted
headlines but amongst jihadi circles he gradually
became less significant. In recent years it was his
right-hand man, Mizanur Rahman, Rahman had spent four years in jail
already for soliciting murder For Islam to prevail,
for sharia to be implemented, to support the state, to help,
it is not just about financing. Just like Anjem Choudary,
Mizanur Rahman was someone that provided the theological basis
for people to go But what was different,
what sets him apart from someone like Anjem Choudary is the fact
that he was very willing and active in engaging directly
with people over social media, Giving direct advice,
theological advice. In January whilst he was still
on bail, I met Rahman. Like Anjem Choudary,
he has always been someone These terms, radicalising,
you need to define it. Is Jeremy Corbyn radicalising
the Labour Party for example? If you mean am I debating people
and convincing people that my ideas might be correct, well,
that's what you do in a debate. Even if those ideas at times
break the law? We have already established
that we stay within At times they break
the law. By the time this airs,
you might be in jail. Because there is a political system
in place which doesn't really Rahman tried to be careful
in his language. This was an exchange of text
messages between him Choudhury says to Rahman,
"open support for Isis or Jabhat Rahman replies, "maybe condemning
Shia and the Free Syria Army and a general call for
sharia in Syria without The declaration of a caliphate
by Isis pushed Rahman towards more explicit support,
but without a passport, One Twitter exchange he had
with a young American Muslim He is asked if preaching is more
important than helping He replies, preaching is important,
but it's also obligatory A few months later, the American
was arrested at an airport And the concept of a Khilafah
is 1400 years old. You know, someone does not have one
twitter conversation and they decide to change their whole
life based on one tweet. Rahman insisted in court
to that his talks were about general There is a network around these
people. What does the conviction of these paired mean for that network?
Well when they were arrested in September 2014, at the time the
authorities I think are desperate to crack this network, not just in the
UK but have franchises across Europe, Belgium, Holland and
Denmark. They were worried about the possibility of attacks here and
subsequently with this conviction, the network has been significantly
disrupted. We have seen large numbers of the network who have
already gone to Syria. And I can reveal that recently quite a large
number of the followers of Anjem Choudary have been placed on
terrorism prevention orders and they're under curfews and restricted
access. For headline writers,
the words rail and misery seem to flow on to the page together,
like fat and cat or rip and off. And today, there are those headlines
of rail misery again - regulated train fares
are going up, we learned this The usual understandable
anger erupted, what with And from the Labour leader,
a potential solution. He called it Transport Tuesday -
jumping on the Super Saturday bandwagon perhaps -
and the solution he promised was public ownership
of the railways. There is one specific pledge: I'll
quote it to you, from "The plans could see rail passengers
save 10 per cent off So the big question is,
complain as we might about our trains, would public
ownership be a solution or a distraction to the problems
of running a railway. We'll talk to Labour's transport
spokesman shortly but first, Chris Cook looks at what
nationalisation might mean. The idea of allowing companies
to run train services was simple - in return for making a profit,
private investors would take some risk off the taxpayer,
encourage innovation, and use their balance
sheet to invest. The misery of Southern Rail
is the latest chapter in a long Industrial action, cancelled
and overcrowded trains, and growing political
support for renationalisation. The best way is for the public
to run it, as the public ran the East Coast Mainline,
at a profit. This is not a sensible way
of running a public railway system which we have all paid
for through huge levels of public investment in the track
and signalling systems. Today we learned that
fares will rise by 1.9% in January in Great Britain,
while consumer price And research by trade unions
suggests rail fares have increased at double the speed
of wages since 2010. Many of the problems we have
with our dysfunctional privatised system as it stands at the moment
is precisely that the fragmentation and of course the cost of that,
which means that instead of our fares going to invest
in the rail system, instead they are going out into the hands
of private shareholders. The underlying problem
is that our railway Back in 2011, an official report
implied a journey that would cost around ?1.20 in fare and public
subsidy in other European countries So, our fares in 2011 were about 30%
higher than those of our peers. The most important reason
why our rail is so important The flip side of our very
beautiful Victorian stations is we have a lot of Victorian rail,
which is expensive We are also, as a country,
tending to run a lot more services with relatively
few passengers on them, and that, too, boosts our
underlying cost base. Those unusually high costs mainly
relate to Network Rail, which runs the track,
and that's already nationalised. The private train operating
companies, they made over ?200 million of profit last year,
but that money would only fund Advocates for franchising see that
as a price worth paying There is one big number
that matters most. Under British Rail, numbers using
the railways consistently fell. Since 1995 when it was privatised,
journeys have doubled in just 20 years, but I think that franchising
has a lot of problems. It's not necessarily a natural
way to run railways. All across the world,
including here, companies build their railways up,
track and train together. Separating them as we do,
forcing them to be separate, Southern's recent woes may be
another cause for pause. In this case, a private company
doesn't actually have that much They are just being paid a fee
to administer the railway Right now, it strikes me
that we are getting We have the privatised system
plus a government that What we would have I think
if the company were properly in public hands, and I don't just
mean the state, we could have more imaginative systems of mutuals,
local authorities getting more involved, but if it were in public
hands, for a start, the contract would be fully public
so we could see what the terms were, and it would be fully accountable
to the public as well. Would a nationalised
rail system necessarily Governments are always
struggling to contain the cost They are always under pressure
to spend more on education. And the experience of British Rail
suggests that in that context, it is very hard to politically make
the case for spending Britain certainly botched
the franchising of its rail services, and we have all paid
the price, but renationalisation Shortly before coming on air, I
spoke to Andy Mangan on from Labour. He is the Shadow Transport
Secretary, and asked how his party would cut 10% from rail fares. It
would come from the savings that are to be achieved by getting out of
this treble franchising system that leaks so much money out of the
system. If we can end that, we have a fund available to deliver those
sorts of cuts. It is something in the order of ?1.2 billion going out
of the system on an annual basis. You say that, but I am looking at
the profits made by those companies. It is not a particularly profitable
business. Total profit of ?220 million in 2014-15. Passenger
revenue is getting on for ?9 billion. One is diddly squat, one is
a large number. If those operating costs were removed by having so many
operators in the system, we have ridiculous multiplicity of providers
in our country. There are so many players in the railway system that
costs escalate. You're going to have a Western Railway, an East Coast, a
Southern, they will still be there. That's right, but at the moment we
have a subsidy system going straight into these companies, often to
Germany, to France, all across the European Union. We are subsidising
some of them, but we make money from some of them. The profits which leak
out are approximately 2.5% of passenger revenues. You cannot cut
rail fares by 10%. You still have 7.5% to find. Research that the TUC
have conducted shows that millions can be taken out of the system on an
annual basis by changing to directly operated railways. Look at what
happened with East Coast, ?1 billion was returned to the Treasury over
the duration of that franchise. The TUC report makes estimates of these
interface cost, one company having to deal with another and work out
whose fault it was that the train was rape. The McNulty report said
that much more can be gained by improving the performance of the
current system rather than embarking on a costly programme of
renationalisation of which is unlikely to lead to an overall
reduction in costs. So, McNulty doesn't think that there is a big
cost saving to be found. But it isn't an expensive process if you
are just allowing franchises to get to them natural termination point
and not be renewed. There are no acquisition costs involved in the
process if they follow one after the other. We would be saving ourselves
fortunate over the term. What might you would agree that this comprises
a top-down reorganisation of the railways, wouldn't you? You want to
describe it that way. Because you have franchises regularly coming up
renewal, it is gradual. It is a top-down reorganisation. Why can't
we have the confidence to do what has been done in Germany and France,
and in Holland? They are content to have their infrastructure and their
operators being under state control. They are extracting value in this
country and taking it back over there. They are taking out a tiny
proportion, 2.5%. But that is a lot of money. The 10% cut in rail fares
is reliant on making hundreds of millions of pounds of savings which
the guy who's estimate of the savings you are quoting does not
believe our there to be made. You have different commentators coming
up with different figures. You quoted the TUC, who are quoting
McNulty, and McNulty says you cannot make those savings. I respectfully
disagree. There are people like Southern who are getting millions of
pounds by way of salaries and bonuses for running the most
appalling service. We hand over ?1.1 billion to that company and it
doesn't matter what happens in terms of the service they provide, they
get paid, come rain or shine. It is unacceptable. In that respect, you
make an interesting point, because is the truth about not that this
railway system in our country is government-controlled already?
Network Rail is part of the public sector. Southern, the Government
gets all of the revenue from the passengers in the case of that
franchise. It instructs Southern on how to manage the service. It has
told Southern to stick to its rules on driverless trains. It is a public
ownership of the railway. Not at all. They are given that money
whether they perform well or indifferently. As we have just seen,
they have taken 341 trains off per day. At the Government's decision.
That is a Government decision, not a Southern one. They should be told to
get things back in order, then. It is a distraction, the discussion
about driverless trains. You want the Government have more say in the
well but clearly not the Conservative Government because you
say they do not run Southern very well. If your team runs the
railways, will you run it better than you run the Labour Party? It is
about having the freedom to do what was done by directly operated
railways between 2009 and 2014, and look at the success they made of the
East Coast service. The highest rate of customer satisfaction, good
industrial relations, a very successful service, so it is freeing
us up from this rigour of trying to produce dividends and profits to
third parties and foreign state-owned companies. Some will say
this is ideological. Do you believe that BT should be brought into
public ownership as well? That is not my view. Do you think it was
right to privatise it? In the fullness of time, I think all of
these services can be looked at. Why are we looking at six companies
providing energy when what people want is reliable energy as cheap as
possible? They don't want to be in competition and trying to switch
providers. They simply want to have a good service, reliable and
affordable. At the moment, those things don't exist. We have been a
big can of worms there. Andy McDonald, thank you very much.
On this programme, we first posed the question, what does
Brexit actually mean, back on October 28th last year.
We didn't manage to get an answer then, and even though a lot of water
has passed under the bridge since, it's fair to say we still don't
Last year, we took a first look at some of the popular options:
Norway and Switzerland for example, and these were much discussed
But we missed one then, and it hasn't had much pick up
OK, so it is not a very big country, but like Norway, it's
in the European Economic Area - unlike Norway, it has restrictions
Helen Thomas is in the principality to see if its status could possibly
This is Liechtenstein's idea of how to celebrate a national holiday.
A garden party, the Royal Family on display, a rather familiar tune.
And of course, a hefty dose of national pride.
Liechtenstein clearly has a lot to recommend it.
Glorious weather, beautiful scenery, and quite a catchy national anthem.
But from the UK's point of view, the country also has
Liechtenstein, like Norway, is part of the single market
through its membership of the European Economic Area.
But the country also has a tightly controlled quota
Now, that is a combination that some in Europe claim is impossible,
that the four freedoms of people, goods, capital and services
An example to point to as the UK starts the long and complicated
process of extricating itself from the EU?
There's an important thing I think is, it's not specifically
What they're doing is adopting what are known technically
as safeguard measures which then brought them a treaty change.
But it doesn't just apply to Liechtenstein.
This is not specifically a Liechtenstein solution.
And when the EEA was first set up there were actually four countries
which took advantage of these provisions.
There are some subtle differences between Liechtenstein and the UK.
The UK's population is about 1750 times larger.
And Liechtenstein is about half the size of the Isle of Wight.
So you see, it's really a small country, and for that,
Without control, we have a lot of people, a lot of aliens
in Liechtenstein and that would be a big problem for Liechtenstein.
So it's not clear that the UK will get an invitation
It's starting from a different position and that's one reason
to question whether the model would work for the UK.
It doesn't set a legal precedent given that the provisions under
which Liechtenstein has been able to negotiate their situation is one
under the EEA agreement of which the UK is not yet a member.
The Prime Minister doesn't think the same deal will be on offer.
Yeah, I think nowadays it would be almost impossible for Liechtenstein
But I think when we would today negotiate such a solution,
And you see the discussions in Switzerland, also in the UK,
free movement is one of the pillars of the EU.
And it's quite difficult to get that special situation.
The mechanics of how the UK could replicate Liechtenstein's
We would need to join both the European Free Trade
Other members could block that happening.
But some in Liechtenstein think the UK has scope to negotiate.
of the EEA or yet another concept, is open.
And I would think that with this Brexit and the pressure from other
EU countries, that this immigration issue has to be changed.
And it can only be solved with changes.
With that, I think that plays into the hands of Britain.
Embracing Liechtenstein's model wholesale may prove complicated.
But its unique situation could prove an illuminating example.
The UK will be looking for any chance to ensure negotiations
While some of you have been contemplating what the offspring of
Laura Trott and Jason Kenny could achieve in future Olympics, we have
been looking at matters closer to home.
I say sofa, it's more like a patchwork quilt of
I'm so glad the Olympics is only once every four
I've been watching you night after night,
and you're starting to look a little bit pasty.
Because you're not eating the right things.
A little coconut milk going in there.
If you can't get yak, go straight to coconut.
It's so much better when you've cooked it yourself.
In the old days, she'd have missed the tape.
Because his upper body is somewhere across the line.
Should this be track, or should this be in
There's a lot of diving going on here, isn't
He looks like he's just fallen out of a
Is this speeded up, or is this normal?
People say, oh you can get up and watch it in the morning.
If it was me, I'd have the old waistband up here.
Well, partly that, but you're not allowed to
Would you like your kids to box, though?
Mind you, you might have to spar with them.
Have you had any problems with the hips?
Well that's great, come on, I'll show you this wonderful...
You've been watching Stephen Smith's Throne of Games.
And you wonder why Julian Fellowes has taken
Don't worry, there will be another programme later today! Good morning!