:00:00. > :00:13.Major brands are pulled from supermarket shelves
:00:14. > :00:21.A temporary blip or a new way of shopping?
:00:22. > :00:25.We ask the man who built up one of the UKs biggest supply chains.
:00:26. > :00:29.The election of Hillary Clinton would lead, in my opinion, to the
:00:30. > :00:33.almost total destruction of our country as we know it.
:00:34. > :00:38.Can Trump still beat Clinton?
:00:39. > :00:44.Is it possible that shaken baby syndrome doesn't exist?
:00:45. > :00:47.The pathologist who dared to ask the question faces being struck off
:00:48. > :00:49.- the medical establishment damning in their condemnation of her.
:00:50. > :00:51.Next week she appeals that decision -
:00:52. > :00:58.And Werner Herzog chats happily through a semi-apocalypic
:00:59. > :01:06.vision of the future- his latest creation - Lo And Behold.
:01:07. > :01:25.The Internet is a manifestation of evil itself. Are you a ring I Abaul
:01:26. > :01:26.a reliable narrator, Werner? Absolutely, and it doesn't matter if
:01:27. > :01:32.you enhance facts or change things. When Brexit becomes about Marmite,
:01:33. > :01:36.you can be pretty sure it will start This evening, the product emerged
:01:37. > :01:40.centre stage of a row between a supermarket and a supplier
:01:41. > :01:43.over the strength of the pound. Major household brands
:01:44. > :01:46.are running low at Tesco The Anglo-Dutch company is believed
:01:47. > :01:56.to have demanded a 10% price rise due to the falling value
:01:57. > :01:59.of the pound and halted deliveries to Tesco when the supermarket
:02:00. > :02:20.refused to pay more. This is a very big deal because it
:02:21. > :02:26.is about the main thing happening in the UK at the moment, the
:02:27. > :02:30.double-digit fall in sterling. Against all of our trading partners,
:02:31. > :02:34.the pound is at a historic low, and this is the fundamental fact of life
:02:35. > :02:40.for a bit. What this effectively means is that prices and incomes in
:02:41. > :02:43.Britain have fallen relatively compared to prices and incomes in
:02:44. > :02:46.the rest of the world, so this dispute between Tesco and Unilever
:02:47. > :02:54.is about who bears the burden of that. Is it Tesco and Unilever or is
:02:55. > :02:57.it the customer? But the pound has always been very good for exporting?
:02:58. > :03:03.Yes, and we made a hacker this moment as the critical moment when
:03:04. > :03:11.Britain change the way its industrial model works, and our
:03:12. > :03:19.exporters took off. Our big devaluations have genuinely been at
:03:20. > :03:23.the end of periods when we have had tight monetary policy. So they come
:03:24. > :03:27.with big listenings of policy. This devaluation is being driven by the
:03:28. > :03:31.fact that investors don't have as much confidence in Britain, and
:03:32. > :03:36.don't want a hold as much sterling stuff as they used to, so it is
:03:37. > :03:45.different beast. If they were right to have less confidence in Britain
:03:46. > :03:50.as a trader than they do it, then it will be harder for us to do it. If
:03:51. > :03:53.our exporters can take advantage of this change in sterling, selling
:03:54. > :03:55.will rise back up again. Thank you for that.
:03:56. > :03:57.Lord Christopher Haskins, former head of Northern Foods,
:03:58. > :04:08.Lord Haskins, thank you for your time this evening. We know that
:04:09. > :04:11.these sorts of rows emerge quite often between a supplier and a
:04:12. > :04:16.supermarket. What makes this time different? Because first of all
:04:17. > :04:21.there has been a huge build-up of tension between the brand companies
:04:22. > :04:27.and the supermarkets for years and years. The supermarkets don't like
:04:28. > :04:31.selling with brands who determine the Rawls. And you have had this
:04:32. > :04:36.enormous war within the supermarket between the discounters and the
:04:37. > :04:40.Tescos of this world, so the pressure is there. Thirdly, you have
:04:41. > :04:45.the online tension which affects the supermarket business generally at
:04:46. > :04:49.any rate, people don't want to go to supermarkets as much as they did.
:04:50. > :04:54.Then finally you have Brexit which throws a huge wobble, undoubtedly
:04:55. > :05:00.what Unilever is doing is justified in terms of the economics of it, but
:05:01. > :05:05.Tesco is worried that the others may not follow suit. They will have to,
:05:06. > :05:09.because the costs as a result of devaluation are too big for any
:05:10. > :05:14.company to carry. So your sense is who is going to emerge from this
:05:15. > :05:20.stand-off as the winner? Nobody. They are all going to lose. Unilever
:05:21. > :05:23.will have to suffer a little bit because the premiums they have got
:05:24. > :05:32.for their products won't be as big as they could be, and the Aldis of
:05:33. > :05:35.this world will have to put up their prices, so the relationship between
:05:36. > :05:39.Aldi and Tesco will be an interesting one, there is oversupply
:05:40. > :05:45.in the market, and this is its as abated by a price increase like
:05:46. > :05:49.this. If the pound is weak at the moment, this could be a temporary
:05:50. > :05:56.blip. This could level itself out again and we won't see these prices
:05:57. > :05:59.this - long. I think that is unlikely, I think the pound was
:06:00. > :06:05.overvalued before Brexit, and is now getting to its proper level. I
:06:06. > :06:11.suspect it is going to go below its proper level and there will be a
:06:12. > :06:18.serious problem for inflation in 6-12 months' time. So what about the
:06:19. > :06:27.British shopper and the effect it will have on us now? It will bring
:06:28. > :06:31.back to reality to people the consequences of leaving the European
:06:32. > :06:35.Union. It will certainly relies that whatever benefits that may be, there
:06:36. > :06:41.will be no economic benefits for the consumer as the result of what is
:06:42. > :06:46.happening. As you said, you are a staunch remain, and people on the
:06:47. > :06:49.other side will say, don't jump to conclusions. But in terms of what it
:06:50. > :06:54.means for our shopping habits, it doesn't mean we will never have
:06:55. > :06:58.marmite on the shelves again? No, that is where Unilever will win,
:06:59. > :07:03.because despite the fact that people may grumble about paying more for
:07:04. > :07:07.it, they will pay more, and that is the strength of a good brand. But
:07:08. > :07:12.then those people have less money to spend on something else, so it will
:07:13. > :07:17.affect shoppers' behaviour in eight substantial way, and the argument is
:07:18. > :07:23.which of the products will survive and which will do badly. So tonight
:07:24. > :07:28.we are looking principally at Tesco and Unilever. You think this is
:07:29. > :07:32.going to be a pattern repeated throughout supply chains and
:07:33. > :07:39.throughout supermarkets? Inevitably. Tesco happened to be the biggest,
:07:40. > :07:45.but Sainsbury will be facing the same problem, the same tensions with
:07:46. > :07:50.the likes of Unilever and Nestle. The interesting point is how the
:07:51. > :07:53.discounters who are apparently prospering at the moment, how they
:07:54. > :07:56.are going to deal with this situation, because they will have to
:07:57. > :08:04.deal with these price increases. What would be your estimate in terms
:08:05. > :08:08.of the increase on a family shop? The indication is, Unilever want to
:08:09. > :08:15.put their prices up by 10%, so if they want to do that, it is unlikely
:08:16. > :08:21.that the impact on inflation going forward is going to be less than 5%,
:08:22. > :08:24.something like that. The agricultural commodity products work
:08:25. > :08:29.in a different way, but I would have thought that we are looking at food
:08:30. > :08:34.inflation of 5% in 12 months. At what point do you think this becomes
:08:35. > :08:39.hard politics? I think it was HSBC who said last week the pound is now
:08:40. > :08:46.the de facto opposition. If you see this in terms of Theresa May's
:08:47. > :08:50.comments or statements about a hard Brexit in March, do you expect her
:08:51. > :08:56.to modify that language to change the date, or is that now set in
:08:57. > :09:00.stone? I think that is a big question. The politics seem to have
:09:01. > :09:06.overtaken the economics in the last ten days. The economics may be
:09:07. > :09:09.hitting back now. The moment the great British public realises there
:09:10. > :09:13.is a real cost to pay for Brexit, the Government will have to take
:09:14. > :09:16.account of that, and I suspect in the middle of next year, that is
:09:17. > :09:22.exactly the situation we are going to be in, or there will be a crisis
:09:23. > :09:26.and politicians who want Brexit, never mind what, are going to have
:09:27. > :09:32.to think again. You know the inside story of how a supply chain works. I
:09:33. > :09:35.am expecting a lot of people will be surprised to hear that marmite was
:09:36. > :09:39.imported, or any of the other products that are not made here. Do
:09:40. > :09:47.you think we will start buying more locally now? There is a limit, we
:09:48. > :09:52.have always been big importers of food, 40% of our food is imported.
:09:53. > :09:55.You can do a little bit in terms of improving domestic production, but
:09:56. > :10:01.that could have happened at any time, there is no particular reason
:10:02. > :10:04.why each would strengthen now. Like the doctors, we suddenly say we need
:10:05. > :10:08.those extra doctors, we could have had them five years ago, but
:10:09. > :10:14.suddenly because of Brexit we want them. There are fundamental
:10:15. > :10:20.structural issues which will not go away by a knee jerk reaction to
:10:21. > :10:25.leaving the European Union. Lord Haskins, thank you for joining us.
:10:26. > :10:28.Can Boris Johnson stay on message four days in a row,
:10:29. > :10:30.the Prime Minister quipped just a week ago.
:10:31. > :10:37.The Foreign Secretary finds himself at the centre of his first
:10:38. > :10:40.discomfort after he called for protests outside
:10:41. > :10:46.the Russian Embassy as a response to Moscow's actions in Syria.
:10:47. > :10:48.This was him in the House of Commons yesterday.
:10:49. > :10:50.I would certainly like to see demonstrations outside
:10:51. > :10:54.If Russia continues on its current path, then I believe that great
:10:55. > :10:57.country is in danger of becoming a pariah nation, and if President
:10:58. > :11:00.Putin's strategy is to restore the greatness and glory of Russia,
:11:01. > :11:09.then I believe he risks seeing his ambition turned to ashes.
:11:10. > :11:15.The Foreign Secretary stands accused tonight by Russia of Russophobic
:11:16. > :11:17.hysteria - there's a word you never knew existed.
:11:18. > :11:21.Then this afternoon Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman suggested protestors might
:11:22. > :11:24.just as well target the US embassy, which he said was just as guilty
:11:25. > :11:31.Plenty there to put to Oksana Boyko of TV channel RT, previously
:11:32. > :11:48.Thank you very much indeed. I know it is late where you are. Have the
:11:49. > :11:53.remarks hit home in Moscow? Absolutely they hit home, not only
:11:54. > :11:58.in Moscow but also in Paris, his French counterpart questioned
:11:59. > :12:03.whether it was really the job of a Foreign Minister to call for public
:12:04. > :12:08.agitation or to organise public demonstrations, and this theme has
:12:09. > :12:12.been really taken up either Russian Foreign Ministry. The spokeswoman
:12:13. > :12:18.said that that played into Russia's long-held perception of the British
:12:19. > :12:23.foreign policy and intelligence establishment trying to manipulate
:12:24. > :12:30.public unrest and trying to use civil society for their own less
:12:31. > :12:34.than honourable goals. I don't know if the BBC audience knows, but there
:12:35. > :12:41.has been a well established evidence of a number of British agencies
:12:42. > :12:46.trying to run social media accounts for the opposition, supporting the
:12:47. > :12:54.so-called rebel groups in Syria by providing arms or by providing
:12:55. > :12:59.training... We don't know... Or at least not objecting to the policy.
:13:00. > :13:09.We have no evidence of that. But let me ask you simply, is Boris Johnson
:13:10. > :13:14.welcome in Moscow? Well, Russia will deal with any official. We do not
:13:15. > :13:21.have this concept of welcome or not welcoming anyone. Russia's Foreign
:13:22. > :13:24.Minister Sergei Lavrov just today said that Russia is planning a
:13:25. > :13:29.meeting this coming Saturday with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, and
:13:30. > :13:32.those are countries that have enormous differences with Russia
:13:33. > :13:36.when it comes to Syria, but Russia is ready to engage anyone if that
:13:37. > :13:40.will help to bring peace to Syria and to minimise the civilian death
:13:41. > :13:43.toll. So if Boris Johnson wants to do that, I'm sure he will be
:13:44. > :13:50.welcome. It is very interesting, Oksana, to hear Jeremy Corbyn's
:13:51. > :13:52.adviser saying he thought the ball might as well protest the US
:13:53. > :14:04.embassy. Is he right? Well, again, I am not in the
:14:05. > :14:11.position of deciding who is right or wrong, but if you actually cover
:14:12. > :14:16.that conflict and you try to be objective, and look at this conflict
:14:17. > :14:21.from all the sides, you would recognise that every major power
:14:22. > :14:26.that intervened in that conflict has committed mistakes, let's put it
:14:27. > :14:31.that way. I don't know if they could be called war crimes, but Americans,
:14:32. > :14:36.Turks, Russians, Syrians, they did indeed kill civilians on the ground.
:14:37. > :14:45.If you look at the American advance on my beesh, there are lots of
:14:46. > :14:51.reports of mass casualties there, so if you look at the act of all
:14:52. > :14:58.parties, you can see that all of them have the actions that have led
:14:59. > :14:59.to civilian casualties. D6 Putin is scared of protest outside the
:15:00. > :15:13.embassy is? LAUGHTER
:15:14. > :15:18.The question is maybe very British, but the answer would be very
:15:19. > :15:23.Russian, no, he's not. Thanks for joining us.
:15:24. > :15:25.This time next month, whatever happens overnight,
:15:26. > :15:27.the world will be looking at a brand new US President.
:15:28. > :15:29.Tonight, Donald Trump contemplated losing for the first time,
:15:30. > :15:32.telling voters that if he failed to win the Presidency it would be
:15:33. > :15:35.the single greatest waste of his time and money.
:15:36. > :15:37.So much of the last year has focused on the personalities
:15:38. > :15:42.A billionaire businessman and reality TV star
:15:43. > :15:45.and the first woman ever to have made it this far.
:15:46. > :15:47.But tonight, after a couple of extraordinary new polling
:15:48. > :15:50.numbers, we want to bring you the State of the Race
:15:51. > :15:54.Is it still possible for Trump to win?
:15:55. > :15:58.And why might the battleground states now include places that
:15:59. > :16:01.haven't changed their political allegiance for the last 60 years?
:16:02. > :16:12.It is not just the images which are the same every election, but that
:16:13. > :16:18.most of the states vote the same way by miles, red for republican and
:16:19. > :16:24.blues a Democrat, so the Republicans will always get Texas and the
:16:25. > :16:30.Democrats always get Delaware. This is a reminder of how Obama was
:16:31. > :16:34.victorious in 2008. Taking those traditional
:16:35. > :16:36.swing states of Ohio and Florida. Romney just managed to take Indiana
:16:37. > :16:41.and North Carolina off him. And even in this, the year of Trump,
:16:42. > :16:44.a lot of projections of the result Except over the last couple
:16:45. > :16:49.of days, two extraordinary Today's poll has Trump at just 26,
:16:50. > :17:05.level with Hillary Clinton, and only just outstripping
:17:06. > :17:07.the independent candidate, McCain won it with 59% of the vote,
:17:08. > :17:20.Romney with 55% to Obama's 41%. Now Trump is beating Hillary
:17:21. > :17:22.by just five points there, and this guy is winning the race
:17:23. > :17:32.there with the under 40s. What would you do if you were
:17:33. > :17:43.elected? About Aleppo? What is Aleppo? You are kidding? No. This is
:17:44. > :17:48.a big crowd. The winner is the first to reach 270 electoral college
:17:49. > :17:52.votes, the trouble for Donald Trump, even if he holds everything that
:17:53. > :17:57.Mitt Romney won, he is still 64 votes short, and Clinton comes to
:17:58. > :18:01.the race with a blue walk at the last six elections have seen 18
:18:02. > :18:07.states plus Washington, DC always voted Democrat, that is around 220
:18:08. > :18:14.electoral votes even before the race even starts. It could be there are
:18:15. > :18:17.shy Trump supporters out there who are not telling pollsters what they
:18:18. > :18:20.really think, but if that is true that there needs to be an awful lot
:18:21. > :18:22.of them to deliver him the presidency.
:18:23. > :18:24.Joining me now, Democrat pollster Celinda Lake from Washington DC
:18:25. > :18:26.and Republican strategist and pollster Frank Luntz -
:18:27. > :18:29.who works continuously with focus groups -
:18:30. > :18:39.Frank, I heard Trump speak of the massive electoral disadvantage she
:18:40. > :18:45.has, is that right in mathematic terms? -- he has. The Republicans
:18:46. > :18:50.have the bondage in terms of who comes out to vote, but the polling
:18:51. > :18:54.only matters in terms of who comes out to the polls -- have the
:18:55. > :19:01.advantage. It is almost impossible to move. He has deteriorated so much
:19:02. > :19:06.in the last ten days that it will be a serious uphill climb if he is to
:19:07. > :19:12.make it close on election day. The Democrats must feel they have this
:19:13. > :19:17.comfort ring, the blue wall, if she is already on 240, what you make of
:19:18. > :19:23.polls like Utah and Alaska which almost like they could be in play?
:19:24. > :19:27.-- do you make. We have polled for the Utah Democratic party and I
:19:28. > :19:33.would say that is very much in play. These are idiosyncratic states, Utah
:19:34. > :19:40.has a heavy more modern population, religious group which Mitt Romney
:19:41. > :19:44.was a part of, and which has despised Donald Trump from the
:19:45. > :19:50.beginning. Gary Johnson has real appeal there. There is no question
:19:51. > :19:54.Trump has put into play states like Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina,
:19:55. > :20:00.that have not been in play before, and I think the interesting question
:20:01. > :20:05.is what happens down ballot. The presidency, while not be taken for
:20:06. > :20:08.granted, and my good friend Frank is right, the Democrats have to focus
:20:09. > :20:13.on getting their vote out, but the question on the table is what
:20:14. > :20:17.happens underneath. Where do the disaffected voters go in the Senate
:20:18. > :20:25.and the house races? A spectacle it, presumably. What about postal voting
:20:26. > :20:30.and early voting? -- a split ticket. About a quarter is done ahead of
:20:31. > :20:35.time, and some states it could be 40-50%, a state like Oregon, which
:20:36. > :20:40.votes 100% by postal ballot, but make no mistake, the election has
:20:41. > :20:44.already gone and the voting has all the begun in the central states and
:20:45. > :20:47.even though Donald Trump did relatively well, I use the term
:20:48. > :20:52.relatively in the last debate, his negatives are so high and the
:20:53. > :20:58.hostilities towards him so great across the country, he will need an
:20:59. > :21:07.absolute... I don't use a home run, but he will need, if you can help me
:21:08. > :21:14.with cricket. Poker, inside strip. That is better. You have got to
:21:15. > :21:21.watch Florida, Pennsylvania, Clinton is now up, and Ohio, where they are
:21:22. > :21:25.even, and only one state Iowa, where he is leading, which is a
:21:26. > :21:32.traditional democratic state. I mentioned this idea of the shy Trump
:21:33. > :21:35.supporters, we are very sceptical of pollsters in this country, is it
:21:36. > :21:40.possible that we have just overlooked this, and that there is a
:21:41. > :21:45.very good ground war and a passion which replaces a ground war which
:21:46. > :21:49.could carry him through? There is no ground war, that will carry him
:21:50. > :21:53.through, the grassroots organisations are in a shambles.
:21:54. > :21:59.There is a very good ground ball on the side of the Republicans. You are
:22:00. > :22:07.right, there are two things going on, and I also believe in the secret
:22:08. > :22:15.Trump vote. In online surveys he does better, than in person surveys,
:22:16. > :22:20.especially with women. You could ask how could any woman vote for Donald
:22:21. > :22:24.Trump? But the other thing, who is going to turn out to vote? There are
:22:25. > :22:29.enthusiasts on beat Trump side who will turn out to vote, but Democrats
:22:30. > :22:36.have a great grassroots organisation -- the Trump. We will fight to get
:22:37. > :22:41.the unmarried people and the people of colour out. If there is a big
:22:42. > :22:45.female vote which doesn't admit to pollsters that they actually quite
:22:46. > :22:51.like Trump. I have been challenging that. They are very few voters who
:22:52. > :22:54.are undecided, they are uncommitted, the differences undecided are going
:22:55. > :22:59.back and forth between Clinton and surname Aqua, they are not many of
:23:00. > :23:05.those that, but the uncommitted say they will not vote but they haven't
:23:06. > :23:12.committed to a candidate -- Clinton and Trump. She is winning the
:23:13. > :23:16.uncommitted vote by two to one. The working-class votes at which has
:23:17. > :23:21.been the bulk of the Democratic support for the last 20 years, Trump
:23:22. > :23:25.is doing better amongst them the most Republicans ever do. And that
:23:26. > :23:30.is the only thing he has got left which could put him over the top.
:23:31. > :23:39.You would still call the Republicans the party of the right or has that
:23:40. > :23:45.disappeared? We would call the Republicans the party of the wrong.
:23:46. > :23:49.Yes, they are the more Conservative Party and that hasn't disappeared.
:23:50. > :23:55.In presidential politics it is also about character and about
:23:56. > :23:59.temperament and who is qualified to lead. And whether you have the
:24:00. > :24:04.character to be president, and in the end I think a lot of women in
:24:05. > :24:09.particular will ask themselves to things, is this man a bully, can I
:24:10. > :24:15.let my daughter watch the President of the United States on TV? Do I
:24:16. > :24:22.trust this man with the nuclear" Mark three check marks against him.
:24:23. > :24:25.-- the nuclear codes? What about the turnout question of what is this
:24:26. > :24:31.doing to political discourse and how willing people are to spend the
:24:32. > :24:36.money on the bus? It is giving everyone a headache, everyone is
:24:37. > :24:42.feeling like a child of divorced parents who does not want to live
:24:43. > :24:45.with either of them, make no mistake, 53% of people have an
:24:46. > :24:51.unfavourable opinion of Hillary Clinton, that's never happened to a
:24:52. > :24:56.democratic candidate, but it just happened 63% have an unfavourable
:24:57. > :24:59.opinion of him. If Trump had been locked in the Tower of London jail
:25:00. > :25:04.for a hundred days he would have been elected because the election
:25:05. > :25:07.would have been all about her. Now, she's not defending Hillary Clinton,
:25:08. > :25:16.she is attacking Trump, if it is about him, he loses, if it is about
:25:17. > :25:19.her, she loses. So they should both shut up. And God help us all. Thanks
:25:20. > :25:22.for joining us. A pathologist who questioned
:25:23. > :25:24.whether Shaken Baby Syndrome exists will appeal next week
:25:25. > :25:26.against a decision by the General After 32 years in her job,
:25:27. > :25:31.Waney Squier was denied the right to practice after she was found
:25:32. > :25:34.to have strayed beyond her field of expertise - accused of giving
:25:35. > :25:35.deliberately misleading She claims that she's been silenced
:25:36. > :25:39.because she challenges the establishment -
:25:40. > :25:52.and the medical orthodoxy around When is it right for doctors to
:25:53. > :25:58.challenge established science? That is the test for the judges next week
:25:59. > :26:04.when pathologist Waney Squier appeals against being struck off.
:26:05. > :26:08.She is coming here to the Appeal Court to try and clear her name.
:26:09. > :26:11.Seven months ago the General Medical Council through the book at her.
:26:12. > :26:17.They called her irresponsible, dishonest, and a liar, but she says
:26:18. > :26:24.she is only in trouble because in an out-of-court she dares to call
:26:25. > :26:29.Shaken Baby Syndrome rubbish. Around 250 people a year face criminal and
:26:30. > :26:34.family court cases on the basis of Shaken Baby Syndrome. The theory
:26:35. > :26:37.goes that the babies who suffer three symptoms together, blood over
:26:38. > :26:44.the brain, bleeding behind the eyes, and brain damage, must have been
:26:45. > :26:48.violently shaken. But sceptics like Waney Squier said there is no good
:26:49. > :26:53.science behind the theory. We got in touch with a number of experts who
:26:54. > :26:55.regularly give evidence for the prosecution of Shaken Baby Syndrome
:26:56. > :27:02.cases but none of them would appear on Newsnight. Now 350 scientists
:27:03. > :27:07.have written to the British medical Journal questioning the decision to
:27:08. > :27:13.strike doctor Waney Squier off and they include Professor Peter Fleming
:27:14. > :27:18.the man who cut cot deaths. And a pioneer of evidence -based medicine.
:27:19. > :27:23.And an internationally renowned paediatric pathologist. On Shaken
:27:24. > :27:29.Baby Syndrome the two sides could not be further apart. In March GMC
:27:30. > :27:32.said that doctor Waney Squier's evidence was deliberately
:27:33. > :27:39.misleading, dishonest, and it had the potential to subvert the course
:27:40. > :27:47.of justice. Her fellow pathologist disagrees. The problem is that in 40
:27:48. > :27:52.years we have not been able to demonstrate the traditional theory
:27:53. > :27:57.of Shaken Baby Syndrome and other things that were not considered
:27:58. > :28:02.before are being demonstrated like shortfalls cabbages similar
:28:03. > :28:10.features. -- can reduce similar features for the signs of archers --
:28:11. > :28:14.science advances frequently for the they were upset they were losing
:28:15. > :28:19.cases because of defence experts like her questioning Shaken Baby
:28:20. > :28:25.Syndrome. Do you still give evidence in these cases? No, I don't. Why
:28:26. > :28:29.not? Because I'm afraid of the possible consequences. Did you
:28:30. > :28:37.believe this day would come when you were inside? No. In March Newsnight
:28:38. > :28:42.spoke to Suzanne Holdsworth, her conviction for the murder of toddler
:28:43. > :28:48.Carl Fischer was overturned after Waney Squier re-examines the
:28:49. > :29:01.evidence. It felt like I'd won the lottery. It was amazing. Something I
:29:02. > :29:07.never thought I would do. So if it wasn't for people like Waney Squier,
:29:08. > :29:16.people like me with the imprisoned still. -- would be in prison still.
:29:17. > :29:21.Today there are few experts willing to challenge Shaken Baby Syndrome.
:29:22. > :29:26.In cases where science effectively determines guild or innocence, how
:29:27. > :29:31.fair can a trial be if the defence scientists are silenced in court?
:29:32. > :29:40.It is the real case of science against the law, the tribunal was
:29:41. > :29:49.pretty damning in what it found. John went through that. You have
:29:50. > :29:54.been reckless and irresponsible. That is correct, yes. You don't
:29:55. > :30:00.think they shouldn't be looking into you in this way, presumably? It is
:30:01. > :30:05.the role of the GMC, to look into this sort of complaint, but I
:30:06. > :30:11.challenge the determination and I'm taking this to appeal and that will
:30:12. > :30:18.be held next week. Do you accept any of these findings, that your
:30:19. > :30:21.research did not support your opinion, that you went outside your
:30:22. > :30:29.field, you were looking at things you shouldn't have? No, I don't. But
:30:30. > :30:33.I think... I don't want to discuss by own case now because it is coming
:30:34. > :30:36.to appeal next week and I don't think it is appropriate for me to do
:30:37. > :30:41.so. There are far more important issues we need to discuss and that
:30:42. > :30:44.is the fact that there is the evidence to support this hypothesis
:30:45. > :30:50.of Shaken Baby Syndrome and yet it is still being used every day in our
:30:51. > :30:54.courts as the basis on which is very important decisions are made about
:30:55. > :30:55.whether people might go to prison or babies are going to be taken away
:30:56. > :31:04.from their families. What should they use, then, if they
:31:05. > :31:09.are going to try to ascertain what happened? If they say your research
:31:10. > :31:14.doesn't stand up and you say their research is not solid enough, what
:31:15. > :31:18.should they go on? We need a thorough independent review of
:31:19. > :31:22.shaken baby syndrome. The courts need to know that there is no
:31:23. > :31:27.scientific evidence to support it. There never has been. It has been a
:31:28. > :31:31.hypothesis for 40 years, and research over the last four decades
:31:32. > :31:37.has not provided any evidence to show that this hypothesis has any
:31:38. > :31:42.validity at all, and it is not right that it should be still used in
:31:43. > :31:49.courts when it hasn't any validity, and this must be investigated. We
:31:50. > :31:56.need to have a real, full inquiry into it. Why would the GMC go to
:31:57. > :31:59.these lengths? This isn't a personal vendetta against you, presumably, it
:32:00. > :32:03.is a council trying to get the job right? The circumstances of the
:32:04. > :32:09.complaint against me were that the police were concerned that they were
:32:10. > :32:13.losing convictions because people like me were popping up and
:32:14. > :32:18.challenging shaken baby syndrome, and there have been attacked on
:32:19. > :32:22.people who challenge shaken baby syndrome not only in this country
:32:23. > :32:26.but in the United States and around the world, because we are a minority
:32:27. > :32:33.and we are challenging what is a mainstream hypothesis. And what do
:32:34. > :32:38.you think will happen as a result of if you are struck off, if the appeal
:32:39. > :32:41.doesn't go your way? It is very concerning, because as we have
:32:42. > :32:44.already seen, other people who would be in a position to come and give
:32:45. > :32:51.evidence in the courts in these cases won't do so. There are many
:32:52. > :32:55.people who could give very helpful evidence to the courts, but they are
:32:56. > :32:59.frightened to do so because they may suffer the same fate, which leaves
:33:00. > :33:04.us in the shameful position where our courts cannot get defence
:33:05. > :33:10.experts to come and assist in these cases where parents are being
:33:11. > :33:15.accused of abusing their infants. But it seems like those on the
:33:16. > :33:19.shaken baby side won't talk either. This sounds like an extraordinarily
:33:20. > :33:23.dangerous position to be in where we don't know how to get to the truth
:33:24. > :33:26.of this because both sides are either being silenced or choosing
:33:27. > :33:33.silence. And that is obviously wrong. If the other side don't wish
:33:34. > :33:38.to speak, why not? We need a public debate, a public inquiry to see what
:33:39. > :33:42.is really behind shaken baby syndrome and if it is suitable to be
:33:43. > :33:46.used in court. Waney Squier, thank you for coming in.
:33:47. > :33:50.You know how we like to send you off to bed with a song in your heart?
:33:51. > :33:53.Well, how about this: a solar flare will one day turn the Internet
:33:54. > :33:56.haywire, leading to the end of civilisation as we know it.
:33:57. > :33:59.That cheery prospect is raised in a new documentary, Lo Behold,
:34:00. > :34:01.by the acclaimed and idiosyncratic filmmaker, Werner Herzog.
:34:02. > :34:05.He'll be talking about it as part of a UK wide screening of the film
:34:06. > :34:07.tomorrow night at the BFI London Film Festival.
:34:08. > :34:10.Here's our own inscrutable cineaste, Stephen Smith.
:34:11. > :34:23.We have a certain reverence. In his adventures in the Internet with
:34:24. > :34:28.artificial intelligence, Werner Herzog's gift for the unexpected
:34:29. > :34:33.doesn't desert him. He finds a robot maker in love with his star centre
:34:34. > :34:39.forward. This year is robot eight. Its pattern includes four green dots
:34:40. > :34:49.on top, and it is one of my favourites, actually. Beautiful. Do
:34:50. > :34:52.you love it? Yes, we do. Menus night met the jet-lagged but pretty much
:34:53. > :34:54.in control Werner Herzog earlier today, we asked a well-known
:34:55. > :35:05.football fan if robot layers could be the real thing. If robots becomes
:35:06. > :35:10.mechanically so good that they can run like a human, then they can do
:35:11. > :35:16.it, because strategically, they are very far advanced, and you see
:35:17. > :35:21.computer programmes, how for example they have a free kick, and how they
:35:22. > :35:27.strategise positioning, it is very impressive. Sooner or later,
:35:28. > :35:35.somebody would have to teach them how to cheat. They may already be
:35:36. > :35:40.cheating. We do not know exactly. But we do know that whatever is
:35:41. > :35:48.within human beings will eventually end up on the Internet, and in our
:35:49. > :35:54.anonymity, the human race is a very vile and very debased, and it is not
:35:55. > :36:03.the Internet that is debased, it is the human people. Werner Herzog's
:36:04. > :36:09.beautifully composed oeuvre, which I have done my best to emulate, is
:36:10. > :36:15.surrounded by fan boy reverence. Is it possible that somebody has missed
:36:16. > :36:18.the humour? When you are sitting in the theatre, you feel the rubles of
:36:19. > :36:23.laughter, nobody can miss the humour. The biggest laughter is when
:36:24. > :36:31.you have dissed monks in saffron robes against the empty skyline of
:36:32. > :36:38.Chicago. Then we met some stragglers left behind. They are all on their
:36:39. > :36:44.smartphones. Have the monks stopped meditating? Have they stopped
:36:45. > :36:56.praying? They all seem to be tweeting.
:36:57. > :37:03.Laughter doesn't stop from beginning to end during this sequence. It is
:37:04. > :37:11.like our programme! That is good to. We wanted to get a quick exterior
:37:12. > :37:14.shot of Herzog in his native habitat. There is probably a long
:37:15. > :37:22.German compound noun to describe his good cheer in the face of adversity.
:37:23. > :37:27.Nobody cares about my films. The example... What is that? The last
:37:28. > :37:34.time he spoke to the BBC, someone shot him with an air rifle.
:37:35. > :37:36.Strangely enough, I seem to be a statistical anomaly. I have
:37:37. > :37:50.attracted disasters. You would never guess from close kin
:37:51. > :38:01.ski's tentative performance that he and director Hertzog what always at
:38:02. > :38:06.loggerheads. There was the steamship that Herzog hauled over a mountain.
:38:07. > :38:11.Nobody believed in moving the ship over the mountain. A delegation of
:38:12. > :38:18.actors and technical people came to me.
:38:19. > :38:30.Give it a go! And tried to dissuade me from my own
:38:31. > :38:36.madness. And it was suspicious. The only thing that counts is what you
:38:37. > :38:44.see on the screen. When he is not directing, Herzog has
:38:45. > :38:49.been known to lend some middle European menace to the multiplex.
:38:50. > :38:53.You say nothing, but I see defiance in your eyes. That is a look I have
:38:54. > :38:58.seen many, many times when the soldier comes and you watch how he
:38:59. > :39:02.dies, it will change you. You will want to forget me then.
:39:03. > :39:13.Sources close to Herzog told us he wouldn't disparage an offer to play
:39:14. > :39:18.James Bond baddie. Let's close with an aphorism.
:39:19. > :39:22.It is better to ask the question that is deep and strange and
:39:23. > :39:27.unexpected than having an answer to everything.
:39:28. > :39:32.Werner Herzog on the rights of question to ask. Let's just take you
:39:33. > :39:36.through the papers before we go. In the times, a story that ministers
:39:37. > :39:40.are hiding a report on migrant numbers, it suggests that only 1% of
:39:41. > :39:45.international students break the terms of their Visa by refusing to
:39:46. > :39:52.leave, research which they say threatens to undermine Theresa May's
:39:53. > :39:55.plan to crackdown on student recruitment. They also go with the
:39:56. > :40:01.Marmite row. The Financial Times has the story about the UK facing ?20
:40:02. > :40:08.billion Brexit divorce Berlin Brussels budget wrangle, and it also
:40:09. > :40:16.highlights the Marmite. The Daily Mail has why did Will Young walk-out
:40:17. > :40:23.on Strictly and Theresa: I'm siding with Britain's who voted for Brexit.
:40:24. > :40:27.Now don't go away - No Such Thing As The News
:40:28. > :40:31.But we leave you with a postscript to the current craze for dressing up
:40:32. > :40:35.In Whitehaven, Cumbria, the local fancy dress store has
:40:36. > :40:38.deployed someone dressed as Batman so the local children can sleep
:40:39. > :40:44.But based on our brief research, we think it might not end well.
:40:45. > :40:51.You shouldn't have made Captain Clown mad!
:40:52. > :41:16.OK, captain! Give it the old heave Ho.
:41:17. > :41:26.This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
:41:27. > :41:30.Good evening. High-pressure has dominated the charts, but low
:41:31. > :41:32.pressure is coming our way.