:00:00. > :00:07.The Garden Bridge across the Thames in London.
:00:08. > :00:21.We love to sneer. That's the brilliant thing about the democracy
:00:22. > :00:26.of our country, that we can all say what we want. But people need to
:00:27. > :00:28.spot through all of that what our people's separate agendas.
:00:29. > :00:34.We'll ask the chairman of the Garden Bridge Trust
:00:35. > :00:37.A year ago, this young Conservative activist killed himself.
:00:38. > :00:40.He said he'd been bullied by a more senior party worker.
:00:41. > :00:42.Today the Conservatives published their own inquiry
:00:43. > :00:49.And yes, they knew it was a risk to put that particular man in charge.
:00:50. > :00:51.So did the party properly discharge its duty of care
:00:52. > :00:59.And guess who's finally hauled Steve Smith off
:01:00. > :01:14.You know how public money so often gets spent in London -
:01:15. > :01:16.sprucing it up, attracting tourists, hosting Olympics.
:01:17. > :01:19.And you know how hard it is for other parts
:01:20. > :01:22.of the country to get the same financial attention.
:01:23. > :01:25.Well, there is one London project that has come to typify the problem
:01:26. > :01:27.more than any other - it's costing the taxpayer
:01:28. > :01:31.It's not even something that all Londoners want.
:01:32. > :01:37.It is a garden bridge across the Thames.
:01:38. > :01:40.It's amazing how controversial it has turned out to be.
:01:41. > :01:54.The designer Thomas Heatherwick - famous for the Olympic
:01:55. > :01:56.torch - is behind it, backed by Joanne Lumley.
:01:57. > :01:58.But can it be dismissed as a celebrity-promoted indulgence?
:01:59. > :02:00.Or is it a cost-effective investment for the national taxpayer?
:02:01. > :02:11.At nearly 370 metres long, and covered with flowers, shrubs and
:02:12. > :02:13.trees, the Garden Bridge Is no ordinary river crossing. It is
:02:14. > :02:19.hoping to be an attraction in itself, as well as Regis in
:02:20. > :02:24.congestion in a busy part of London. It has attracted ?60 million of
:02:25. > :02:28.taxpayer money. Few would argue that the designs for the Garden Bridge
:02:29. > :02:32.are unimpressive, but plenty of people don't want it ever to be
:02:33. > :02:39.built, and they are asking questions, like, will the money ever
:02:40. > :02:42.be had for it to go ahead? It appears that the finances are more
:02:43. > :02:50.precarious than anyone has previously admitted. If we could all
:02:51. > :02:54.slow down for a moment, look up... Many supporters have made their case
:02:55. > :02:59.passionately. This was an example of Britain at its best, proof that we
:03:00. > :03:04.could bear to be ground-breaking. I grew up in the 1970s and 80s, when
:03:05. > :03:11.nothing happened. It felt like Britain was stuck and a bit
:03:12. > :03:18.paralysed was it was cities like Paris and Barcelona that dared to
:03:19. > :03:23.create future culture. And amenity, and celebrate the public dimension.
:03:24. > :03:31.The idea of a free garden that open longer than any of the Royal Parks,
:03:32. > :03:38.for all of us, is a thrilling thing. But the bridge is not having an easy
:03:39. > :03:40.ride. Transport For London have conceded that the procurement
:03:41. > :03:46.process was neither is open or as fair as it should have been, and in
:03:47. > :03:49.July, Newsnight reported that the Government is deciding whether or
:03:50. > :03:54.not to continue underwriting the project. If it doesn't, the bridge
:03:55. > :03:57.is finished. On top of that, the Garden Bridge Trust is yet to buy
:03:58. > :04:01.the land they need on both sides of the river, plus the National Audit
:04:02. > :04:05.Office and Charity commission are investigating. The major problem
:04:06. > :04:10.could well be the money. If the bridge is ever going to be built,
:04:11. > :04:17.the team behind it need to raise ?175 million. They got ?60 million
:04:18. > :04:22.from us, the taxpayers, leaving 115 million to come from the private
:04:23. > :04:24.sector, companies and individuals. Newsnight has learned that several
:04:25. > :04:30.funders have pulled out in the last year, and what we have been led to
:04:31. > :04:35.believe is a ?30 million shortfall is actually more like ?52 million.
:04:36. > :04:42.Newsnight has analysed or public statements made by the Garden Bridge
:04:43. > :04:47.Trust and asked further questions about its finances. This graph shows
:04:48. > :04:52.that despite ongoing claims of successful fundraising, for the 14
:04:53. > :04:55.months up to this June, the shortfall remained broadly
:04:56. > :04:59.consistent, at around ?30 million. When we queried this with the Trust,
:05:00. > :05:05.that shortfall appear to have widened by more than ?20 million.
:05:06. > :05:15.The Trust said it had raised ?34 million of private money in 2014,
:05:16. > :05:22.?17.8 million in 2015, and a further ?11 million this year. Add on the 60
:05:23. > :05:27.million of taxpayer cash, and you get to ?122.8 million, leaving the
:05:28. > :05:33.bridge short of ?52 million. A spokesperson also explained that
:05:34. > :05:36.last year a small number of pledges made by interested organisations did
:05:37. > :05:41.not progress to formal funding contracts. It took until the month
:05:42. > :05:44.of May this year until we got any kind of breakdown of where the money
:05:45. > :05:47.was coming from to pay for the bridge, and when it came, it turned
:05:48. > :05:52.out large numbers of donors didn't want us to know who they were. There
:05:53. > :05:57.have been huge issues with the funding right from the start, with
:05:58. > :06:01.60 million public funds going in, but also amounts of fund raising, we
:06:02. > :06:05.don't know who it is coming from, whether it is individuals or
:06:06. > :06:09.companies, so many have chosen to remain anonymous, which is unusual
:06:10. > :06:12.when you want to sponsor and promote a project or stop we need to
:06:13. > :06:20.understand the issues with these people and companies. Are there
:06:21. > :06:24.conflicts of interest? Raising money for these kinds of project is rarely
:06:25. > :06:30.simple, and when they get negative press, it doesn't help. We love to
:06:31. > :06:35.sneer. That is the brilliant thing about the democracy of our country,
:06:36. > :06:39.we can all say what we want. People need to spot through all about what
:06:40. > :06:44.people's separate agendas are, wanting to believe that somehow
:06:45. > :06:49.there is something other than just wanting to do something great for
:06:50. > :06:55.all of us. Ultimately, whether the bridge is ever built is out of the
:06:56. > :06:57.hands of its supporters. It is politicians, both Labour and
:06:58. > :07:03.Conservative, who will decide whether it has a future.
:07:04. > :07:06.Joining me to answer the serious concerns on the funding and future
:07:07. > :07:08.of the Garden Bridge is Lord Mervyn Davies,
:07:09. > :07:17.We have to talk about the finances, which are so open eight. The
:07:18. > :07:24.estimated cost is ?175 million. More like 185 because of the delays. OK.
:07:25. > :07:32.You have raised how much privately? There are 38 committed sponsors who
:07:33. > :07:37.have raised nearly ?70 million. The pipeline is very strong, so I would
:07:38. > :07:42.say, when you look at these images, this is an iconic project, well
:07:43. > :07:47.governed, I think it is important to remember the history of this. It was
:07:48. > :07:53.started by Transport For London, then the Trust took over in May of
:07:54. > :07:58.2015. We have an experienced group of trustees will stop the funding
:07:59. > :08:06.has good momentum, and inevitably with a project like this, there was
:08:07. > :08:10.some opposition. Last year, there was talk of having raised ?85
:08:11. > :08:14.million privately cos I don't understand the discrepancy between
:08:15. > :08:19.what you are saying, 70, and this 85. In June of this year, you've
:08:20. > :08:26.mentioned ?83 million. I have heard ?63 million. There are a lot of
:08:27. > :08:33.figures. The figure is ?69.5 million, call it 70. We have had one
:08:34. > :08:38.or two mac that have gone away, maybe because of the uncertainty.
:08:39. > :08:42.One of them was because of a change of chief executive in the company,
:08:43. > :08:46.but I think it is important to note that the project as good momentum on
:08:47. > :08:50.fundraising. To be blunt, it looks like you're moving backwards. You
:08:51. > :09:00.have lost more money over the last year 's... Look, we have satisfied
:09:01. > :09:06.nearly 90 conditions for Westminster and Lambeth Council. We have good
:09:07. > :09:10.momentum on planning, on our partnership with the Secretary of
:09:11. > :09:15.State, the Department for Transport, and also Transport For London, so
:09:16. > :09:20.they sit at the table of the trust. I would say with confidence that we
:09:21. > :09:32.as a group of trustees believe we will raise the money. OK. A lot of
:09:33. > :09:35.the money is anonymous. No, 38 committed sponsors who have signed
:09:36. > :09:42.commitments... They are not anonymous. How many of the 38 would
:09:43. > :09:47.not be anonymous? A number of them will only announce their inclusion
:09:48. > :09:53.as donors when the building work starts. We don't have to worry about
:09:54. > :09:59.conflict-of-interest? No. There are five donors, and I have raised money
:10:00. > :10:03.for the Royal Academy, for the breakthrough breast Cancer, a number
:10:04. > :10:07.of situations where great UK philanthropies want their names to
:10:08. > :10:13.be out of the limelight, so we do have five anonymous donors. You are
:10:14. > :10:16.saying, because it is 40 million at the moment of anonymous pledge
:10:17. > :10:20.money, as we understand it, and that is rather a lot, but you are saying
:10:21. > :10:25.that will disappear, or most of it. There will be five donors. I would
:10:26. > :10:29.like to add another thing, when people talk about the Government
:10:30. > :10:32.talk about -- when people talk about the Government contribution. The
:10:33. > :10:43.money from Transport For London we are very paying over a longer
:10:44. > :10:47.period. We are also paying back but might we have been charged VAT, so
:10:48. > :10:53.the Government gives as ?30 million in one hand and takes it back
:10:54. > :10:56.through VAT. I have to ask this, because so far you have not built
:10:57. > :11:02.anything or acquired the land at either end of the bridge, and yet, I
:11:03. > :11:07.think you spent ?36 million. That is 20% of the entire cost of the
:11:08. > :11:10.project. It is about what it cost in today's prices to build the
:11:11. > :11:14.millennium Bridge. You could build a bridge for the money you have spent,
:11:15. > :11:21.and we have nothing to show for it. You like to get the planning,
:11:22. > :11:28.construction and all the work they have done, it is hugely expensive.
:11:29. > :11:33.?10 million was spent by Transport For London before the trust even got
:11:34. > :11:39.started, so actually, the monitoring of the cost... To be clear, the ?36
:11:40. > :11:49.million includes ?10 million before the Trust ever became involved? The
:11:50. > :11:53.36 has been spent since the trust was created. We have wide experience
:11:54. > :11:57.at the Trust and all that money has been spent in preparation for
:11:58. > :12:00.digging in the Thames, getting licences and getting us ready. That
:12:01. > :12:06.doesn't cost tens of millions of pounds. Getting this ready, getting
:12:07. > :12:13.the construction, the prototypes, the design, that takes time. Has a
:12:14. > :12:18.lot of it been spent on fundraising? No. The actual running costs of the
:12:19. > :12:24.trust and fundraising has been financed by a private family. It is
:12:25. > :12:29.going to be a formidable challenge, because you not only have to raise
:12:30. > :12:32.the ?185 million, minus the public's contribution, their results are the
:12:33. > :12:35.ongoing running cost, and the authorities want to know that you
:12:36. > :12:39.have the money to run the thing. And I think that you want a pot of ?50
:12:40. > :12:43.million from which you can invest and earn some money to keep it
:12:44. > :12:48.going. We have money that has been pledged for an endowment for the
:12:49. > :12:54.running of the bridge. That was included in the 70 million? It is
:12:55. > :13:04.separate. You have more money than that? It is separate. We will hold
:13:05. > :13:09.events. We have got planning... There are many ways of raising
:13:10. > :13:14.money. In order to get planning, with Lambeth and with Westminster,
:13:15. > :13:18.we had to present, and to the Government, a detailed business case
:13:19. > :13:21.on how the bridge would be maintained and run afterwards. So
:13:22. > :13:28.all we need to do, we have done the planning, we now need to do a deal
:13:29. > :13:35.to get the land, and we are there. And the rest of the money. Just that
:13:36. > :13:41.small thing! We, as a group of trustees, are very confident that we
:13:42. > :13:46.can get the money. When we look at a project like this, I wonder, because
:13:47. > :13:49.it attracts people to say, procurement was very strange, and we
:13:50. > :13:53.won't go into that now. People object to the money, people don't
:13:54. > :13:58.like the design. If the country wanted projects like this, you would
:13:59. > :14:06.have to break a few eggs in order to create an omelette. If that means
:14:07. > :14:14.riding roughshod over procurement rules, so be it. No, no, no. That is
:14:15. > :14:20.the truth of it, isn't it? It is not. I have a bank CEO and chairman.
:14:21. > :14:25.We have to have good governance, the right skills at trustee level, which
:14:26. > :14:30.we have, then I think you have to be very resilient. This is an iconic
:14:31. > :14:35.project, and I think it is wonderful for Britain. It sums up what is
:14:36. > :14:39.great about Britain. It is creative, imaginative, and I think on an
:14:40. > :14:46.evening like this in London, visitors, Londoners, walking across
:14:47. > :14:53.a bridge with 27,000 perennials, 270 trees, you know, it will be magical.
:14:54. > :14:59.Not nice, magical. 2018 or 2019? 2019.
:15:00. > :15:01.Last summer, 21 year old Elliot Johnson took
:15:02. > :15:05.In one of the letters he left, he said he'd been bullied
:15:06. > :15:07.and betrayed, and he singled out a man called Mark Clarke,
:15:08. > :15:10.the man running the Conservative Road Trip 2015, a roving
:15:11. > :15:12.Elliot's death prompted questions to be asked
:15:13. > :15:17.Should it have known that Mark Clarke was a bully?
:15:18. > :15:20.Well, Mr Clarke has always denied the charge, but today came
:15:21. > :15:23.the results of the official Conservative Party inquiry.
:15:24. > :15:26.From the law firm Clifford Chance, it identified 13 alleged victims
:15:27. > :15:28.of bullying and inappropriate behaviour, as well as six
:15:29. > :15:33.Yes, the party's top managers did know that Mr Clarke had
:15:34. > :15:39.But on the specific issue of whether the two chairmen
:15:40. > :15:41.of the party knew last year of bullying of activists,
:15:42. > :15:51.James Clayton has been reporting on this story since last summer.
:15:52. > :15:59.If anyone expected the law firm Clifford Chance's report into
:16:00. > :16:03.allegations of bullying harassment and inappropriate behaviour to lay
:16:04. > :16:07.blame at the feet of senior party figures they would be sorely
:16:08. > :16:10.disappointed. On the face of it the report cleared both the men
:16:11. > :16:16.responsible for running the party at the time. Its verdict on Lord
:16:17. > :16:22.Feldman was that there was no evidence he was aware of allegations
:16:23. > :16:27.of bullying or harassment of young activists by Mr Clarke or those
:16:28. > :16:31.associated with prior to the August 14, 2016 complaint. That was the
:16:32. > :16:36.complaint made by Elliot Johnson. The same assessment was given to
:16:37. > :16:39.Grant Shapps. This is despite 12 other individuals complaining of
:16:40. > :16:43.bullying or inappropriate behaviour by Mark Clarke on the previous 20
:16:44. > :16:46.months. It's led some to call the report are quite large but a closer
:16:47. > :16:50.look reveals a striking number of warnings which were missed or
:16:51. > :16:55.ignored by the Conservative Party hierarchy. In 2014 when Mark Clarke
:16:56. > :17:01.was being considered for a rollback CC HQ Grant Shapps exam did his
:17:02. > :17:04.candidate file when he ran as a parliamentary candidate in tooting.
:17:05. > :17:13.The findings published today show that candidate report included: the
:17:14. > :17:25.report also said that the then campaign director Lord Gilbert
:17:26. > :17:31.recalled: Paul Abbott was Grant Shapps chief of staff, in 2014,
:17:32. > :17:41.before Mark Clarke was hired he was told: the report also says that Mr
:17:42. > :17:55.Abbott sent Mark Clarke an e-mail about a Conservative future
:17:56. > :17:58.election, describing: the attitude of senior party figures to Mark
:17:59. > :18:02.Clarke was simply summed up in one e-mail from Grant Shapps to Tory
:18:03. > :18:10.election guru Sir Lynton Crosby, he had contacted Grant Shapps is about
:18:11. > :18:14.Mark Clarke. Grant Shapps replied explaining he was aware of the
:18:15. > :18:18.reputation of Mark Clarke but employing him was a calculated risk.
:18:19. > :18:23.Although the enquiry found that Lord Feldman had not been aware of any
:18:24. > :18:27.allegations of Mark Clarke bullying activists before 2015 the report
:18:28. > :18:29.intriguer winger revealed that following the complaint from Elliot
:18:30. > :18:38.Johnson he wrote in an internal correspondence that he had: when
:18:39. > :18:43.asked to clarify his comments he said he was referring to his
:18:44. > :18:46.competence as a campaign organiser. On one specific allegation brought
:18:47. > :18:50.by Newsnight last September the report said it found no evidence to
:18:51. > :18:53.corroborate the claim that Lord Feldman had been handed a dossier
:18:54. > :19:00.about the behaviour of Mark Clarke by Ben Howlett as far back as 2011.
:19:01. > :19:04.The enquiry found the MP had met up with Lord Feldman and handed him a
:19:05. > :19:07.set of papers which mentioned Mark Clarke but they had only discussed
:19:08. > :19:12.political concerns about him and other young activists. Despite the
:19:13. > :19:17.report exonerating senior figures it has left many wondering how so many
:19:18. > :19:21.complaints could have been made to the Conservative Party about Mark
:19:22. > :19:25.Clarke form must of bullying to sexually inappropriate behaviour,
:19:26. > :19:26.all of which he denies without any responsibility being taken by those
:19:27. > :19:29.who ran the party. Now at the centre of
:19:30. > :19:32.it all, Mark Clarke. His solicitors told Clifford Chance
:19:33. > :19:34.that "the allegations made against Mr Clarke are wholly untrue
:19:35. > :19:36.and unsubstantiated. Many are based on totally
:19:37. > :19:39.fabricated media reports". Mr Clarke said he has been
:19:40. > :19:41.cooperating with the police and won't respond to allegations
:19:42. > :19:43.while the police investigation into Elliot Johnson's
:19:44. > :19:48.death is ongoing. Earlier, I spoke to Elliot Johnson's
:19:49. > :19:50.father, who received a summary I began by asking what he made
:19:51. > :20:06.of it. We received an additional letter
:20:07. > :20:13.from Patrick McLoughlin with the summary. He says that the report
:20:14. > :20:17.states that the Conservative Party acted entirely properly. However in
:20:18. > :20:23.the very next sentence they go on to say that they are making changes to
:20:24. > :20:26.the way that they, the volunteer leaders operate as a code of conduct
:20:27. > :20:33.and making changes to the complaints procedure. So what is it? Have they
:20:34. > :20:38.acted entirely properly or having Ortis De Villiers? It interesting
:20:39. > :20:41.that it does imply, or does report that clearly senior figures in the
:20:42. > :20:47.party when they started the road trip which son was involved in, the
:20:48. > :20:52.new that this chap, Mark Clarke, had let's call it an interesting
:20:53. > :20:58.history, that he came with quite a lot of baggage. As I remember Grant
:20:59. > :21:03.Shapps said Mark Clarke came with a chequered history so they were aware
:21:04. > :21:07.of it and prepare to take a risk, take a gamble. The report tells us
:21:08. > :21:13.that a phrase was used by Grant Shapps that this is an "Calculated
:21:14. > :21:19.risk". He's a good campaigner but there is this other history. It's a
:21:20. > :21:22.risk too far, you cannot take a calculated risk with a person like
:21:23. > :21:26.that when you are dealing with young people. A lot of people see you
:21:27. > :21:31.should have been talking to the enquiry but you were reluctant, you
:21:32. > :21:36.did not want to have anything to do with it, why? We saw it as a
:21:37. > :21:40.whitewash from the start, this was run by the Conservative Party, they
:21:41. > :21:44.chose their own solicitors, not independent, and they were paying
:21:45. > :21:51.for it so how can it possibly be independent? Our view was that they
:21:52. > :21:55.wanted to use us as some kind of cover, you might say. Some kind of
:21:56. > :22:00.gloss over the enquiry. We were not prepared to be used as a tool in
:22:01. > :22:04.that way. You have quite a lot of anger at the Conservative Party and
:22:05. > :22:10.the way they dealt with your son. Would you at least concede that
:22:11. > :22:15.looking back on it, as the coroner found in the inquest earlier this
:22:16. > :22:20.year, his tragic death was a more complicated tragedy than simply the
:22:21. > :22:24.bullying by Mark Clarke? The coroner said he believed himself to have
:22:25. > :22:30.failed with money, politics, with his parents and filled with life. We
:22:31. > :22:35.have had our own psychologist report conducted and he said that people
:22:36. > :22:38.put into that kind of extreme pressure, youngsters especially, do
:22:39. > :22:45.react in those ways, make claims they have failed in life and with
:22:46. > :22:51.money. They are lost, they are losing track of the reality of their
:22:52. > :22:55.lives, and I think Eliot was no different. Nothing to do with him
:22:56. > :23:02.being gay or finding that difficult? Nothing to do with that at all.
:23:03. > :23:06.Elliott was openly gay, he was badly bullied, badly treated by people
:23:07. > :23:10.within the Conservative Party and his employer responded by actually
:23:11. > :23:12.making things worse. I know it's been a difficult year for you, thank
:23:13. > :23:16.you so much for talking to us. In the last week, Russia has accused
:23:17. > :23:18.Ukraine of instigating Ukraine has denied it,
:23:19. > :23:22.and there has been a war There have been other reported
:23:23. > :23:25.incidents between the countries, So after a long period
:23:26. > :23:28.in which Ukraine has been in the background,
:23:29. > :23:31.should we worry that a cold war I spoke to the Ukrainian ambassador
:23:32. > :23:36.here, Natalia Galibarenki, and asked her what support Ukraine
:23:37. > :23:43.hopes for from the West. We expect that the West will not be
:23:44. > :23:52.tricked by the Russian so there is a strict sanction
:23:53. > :23:55.policy, there is also a policy of support to Ukraine,
:23:56. > :23:57.and I think that our Western So, sanctions against
:23:58. > :24:01.Russia, support... Let me ask you this: Do you think
:24:02. > :24:07.the West is resigned now to Crimea Of course, there is a tendency
:24:08. > :24:15.of accepting the real politik. The fact that Russia
:24:16. > :24:24.is controlling Crimea, even nevertheless that Ukraine
:24:25. > :24:26.are striving to do everything we can to have Crimea
:24:27. > :24:29.on the top of the agenda Do you think it will come
:24:30. > :24:33.back at some point? I think so, you know,
:24:34. > :24:37.because we cannot be sure that people who are living
:24:38. > :24:40.on the peninsula now are really happy with the Russian
:24:41. > :24:42.authoritarian regime, because we are receiving information
:24:43. > :24:44.and confirmations that there is already a crackdown
:24:45. > :24:50.on human rights in Crimea. People are not really that happy
:24:51. > :24:52.about the restriction of their rights, so our idea
:24:53. > :24:57.is that we will not be fighting for Crimea on a battlefield,
:24:58. > :25:00.we will be trying to create a success story in Ukraine to show
:25:01. > :25:03.people on the peninsula, look, you would be better
:25:04. > :25:07.with us in Ukraine. What about the West
:25:08. > :25:10.and its support for Ukraine? You want sanctions against Russia
:25:11. > :25:14.and support for Ukraine, you've been clear about that,
:25:15. > :25:16.but is the commitment, do you think, of the
:25:17. > :25:22.West really there? If I was to be really ambitious,
:25:23. > :25:27.I would be expecting from the West more military and technical
:25:28. > :25:30.support to the Ukraine. On the other hand, I do
:25:31. > :25:36.understand their argument about, for example, not providing lethal
:25:37. > :25:38.weapons to Ukraine, because they are afraid
:25:39. > :25:43.about the escalation Did the West betray you,
:25:44. > :25:51.do you think, when Crimea was taken, when the war was going
:25:52. > :25:54.on in the Russian end of Ukraine? The only country who betrayed
:25:55. > :25:56.Ukraine was Russia. For years, we were thinking of them
:25:57. > :25:59.as our good neighbour, You know, I even know people
:26:00. > :26:07.in Kiev who are saying, we will never be a victim of any
:26:08. > :26:10.external aggression because we have the Russian Black Sea Fleet
:26:11. > :26:13.stationed in Crimea. Two years ago, we had
:26:14. > :26:19.no armed forces. We were not prepared to encounter
:26:20. > :26:22.Russian aggression. But now, like the situation in
:26:23. > :26:27.Donbas showed, because of the great level of patriotism in Ukraine,
:26:28. > :26:33.we were capable of curbing them We have been hardliners
:26:34. > :26:44.on the Russian issue within the EU. Maybe the EU is going
:26:45. > :26:50.to change policy. The good news is that this country
:26:51. > :26:54.will not just withdraw from all of the continent,
:26:55. > :26:58.so I think that even irrespective of the status,
:26:59. > :27:01.London will be playing a major, important role in all these
:27:02. > :27:03.international affairs and also My idea and hope is that the UK
:27:04. > :27:08.will remain staunch Ambassador, thank
:27:09. > :27:23.you very much indeed. With four days of Olympic action to
:27:24. > :27:28.go it's all about the fight for second place in the medals table,
:27:29. > :27:32.Team GB versus China. Meanwhile from a couch in London team Steve Smith
:27:33. > :27:37.is fighting for a first-place finish, were just not sure of what
:27:38. > :27:40.the contest is. Tonight however, it is Angela Rippon's time to shine.
:27:41. > :27:44.Look, it is either this or Evan and another
:27:45. > :28:05.You know, we discovered Radio 3 hadn't spent their full Olympics war
:28:06. > :28:09.chest so we hired Cal here to essay the Brazilian song book for us.
:28:10. > :28:33.This is a stupendous ride from Laura Trott.
:28:34. > :28:40.And she is engaged to another top cyclist, also a Brit.
:28:41. > :28:43.Do you think they have got a tandem at home?
:28:44. > :28:45.The derny bike is slowly making its way...
:28:46. > :28:46.There goes the derny bike.
:28:47. > :28:56.Because he is the only one not peddling.
:28:57. > :28:59.Have you got any cycling music?
:29:00. > :29:11.He has got to close the gap and towards the line,
:29:12. > :29:19.Bolt wins a gold in less than ten seconds, Andy Murray has
:29:20. > :29:22.four hours to win gold, I mean, you know, come on.
:29:23. > :29:25.I mean, if it took Usain Bolt four hours to do the 100 metres
:29:26. > :29:31.I would say that's a clear.
:29:32. > :29:32.Oh! Oh!
:29:33. > :29:36.The white flag went up is what he is saying.
:29:37. > :29:41.Let's have a look, we can see the official just a left-hand side
:29:42. > :29:45.He is celebrating and that's his reaction
:29:46. > :30:04.Throw the coach in, go on, you've got to throw the coach in. One of
:30:05. > :30:10.the joys I have two seed is looking at those amazing masculine
:30:11. > :30:15.physiques, they are just beautiful. Everyone is talking about Top Gear,
:30:16. > :30:20.you were the first presenter, if Tony hall, who I know watches this,
:30:21. > :30:26.if he got down on his knees and said Angela, please, come back? I would
:30:27. > :30:29.say find somebody else. If you are going to have a successful programme
:30:30. > :30:33.you how to think who is going to be watching it and what their
:30:34. > :30:37.expectation is. We never think about that. You have do think who is
:30:38. > :30:43.watching it and what do they want from the presenters. Everyone is
:30:44. > :30:51.getting very excited about Strictly Come Dancing. Yes. Give me a rhythm.
:30:52. > :30:55.You have been watching throne of games. You know what we say at the
:30:56. > :31:03.BBC, no refunds. I'll Very long time viewers of this show
:31:04. > :31:10.might remember we weren't always very kind to John Major back
:31:11. > :31:12.when he was Prime Minister. We weren't always respectful
:31:13. > :31:15.of his cones hotline or his back However it's now been pointed out
:31:16. > :31:19.that his decision to divert lottery cash to elite sport is in fact
:31:20. > :31:22.the main reason for Team GBs So whatever else he might have got
:31:23. > :31:27.wrong, credit where it's due.