08/12/2016 Newsnight

Download Subtitles




In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Dialogue and discretion: statecraft and savoir faire -


the art of diplomacy used to look like this:


What does that mean for the world in 2017?


We ask whether the traditional tools of the mandarin are being eclipsed


Boris piled into the Saudis and tonight the former


Are we ready for a more truthful conversation


# Never thought I'd ever feel this way again


# But here it is, so why try to explain


# When I hear your name all I want to do is break free


The evergreen songthrush, Petula Clark, tells us what happens


when she and another singer found themselves alone with Elvis Presley


And it was quite obvious that he was impressed at seeing us.


And we were with him because, I mean, he was gorgeous.


There is no shortage of committees trying to sort out


Nato this week in Brussels will be followed by


the General Affairs Council, EU leaders, then the Organization


Each time Syria and Ukraine are top of the agenda and each


will yield resolutions and statements, tough


But anyone who really wants to know what's happening in geopolitics


right now is probably better off reading Twitter, the preferred


form of communication of Mr Donald J Trump,


or listening to the off script remarks of Boris Johnson.


Tonight, we look at what power Nato and these other


global bodies still yield and whether the traditional tools


of diplomacy are being eclipsed by a new kind of state power.


Mark Urban starts us off with this report.


ARCHIVE: This business of building for peace is a very grim business


and it has to be worked for day in and day out.


The very foundation and purpose of the Atlantic Pact is to bring


this freedom-loving peoples together in such a way that they can


For nearly 70 years, Nato has ticked along nicely.


Everybody's understood the shape of the deal.


During his campaign, Donald Trump suggested the US


wouldn't come to the aid of its European allies


unless they paid more towards the cost of defence.


Behind the scenes, in the Alliance, that's caused a sense of crisis.


I want to keep Nato, but I want them to pay.


I don't want to be taken advantage of.


We don't want to be the stupid people any more, OK.


We don't want to be the stupid people any more.


Many in Nato feel Mr Trump has to make things crystal clear now.


It will only be put to bed by the strongest possible signal


from the new President, after the 20th January, that


America will, no ifs, no buts, no prevarication,


come to the aid of a Nato member if attacked.


If that doesn't happen, there will continue to be doubts


about America's willingness to do that under President Trump,


and that will strike right at the heart of Nato's founding


So, potentially, is this the end of Nato?


The foundation of the Alliance is Article 5.


If there is any doubt about that, then it could spell the beginning


Seeing trouble ahead, the British have been trying


to bridge the gap between Trump and their European allies.


Earlier this week, at the Nato meeting, Boris Johnson started


the business of cajoling those who spend too little


It is absolutely vital that everybody steps up to the plate


and puts their money where their mouth is.


From the European point of view, there's been a reluctance historical


to support certain presidents - Reagan, Bush or now Trump.


But look at it from the American perspective.


The Europeans have consistently under spent on defence


Taking it from a point where the US used to provide about half


of the Alliance's defence spending, to one where it's now 75% American.


This was a change election in the United States.


We have an administration with a very different


So there will be change, and I think the allies have to be


prepared to adapt but, hopefully, at the same time,


persuading the new US administration that Nato is a valuable asset


There are 28 countries in Nato and all are committed to a target


of spending 2% of their GDP on defence by 2024.


Five of them already do - USA, Greece, the UK,


Some are moving in the right direction.


But when you look at the bottom five, including some


of the Alliance's richest economies, they're spending under 1%


Less than half the target, with little chance of meeting it.


Add to the disagreements over resources, arguments about Russia


and you have a growing crisis in the Alliance.


President Trump wants a reset of relations with the Kremlin,


and if that means de facto recognition of Putin's


seizure of Crimea or indeed allowing him free rein


in the former Soviet Union, the divisions will get


Basically, ratifying the results of Russian aggression


in Ukraine I think would perhaps buy you some short-term tranquillity


but, in the end, it would create a much more unstable situation


in Europe, encourage the Russians to continue to press forward


for some kind of Yalta II with a new division of Europe


into spheres of influence which I think would bring back some


of the instability that we saw in previous decades.


Nato is now preparing forces to defend the Baltic Republics,


part of the Alliance, but once part of the USSR.


If Nato doesn't make a credible pledge to defend them,


There must be absolutely no doubt about the imperative of defending,


There can be no discussion or deals about 'zones of influence'


'new Yalta's', and that sort of thing, because that strikes


right at the heart of what Nato's about.


You always have to be prepared to walk.


It would be easy to blame Donald Trump for undermining Nato,


but European defence cuts have been going on for 25 years,


If there are tricky times ahead for the Alliance,


that's because many members now see things quite differently.


We need to know what Trump will do, what Putin will do,


what Brexit will look like - the cusp of change.


We can speak to our correspondents in Syria, Washington and London


about where the events of 2016 have left us.


I guess, so much uncertainty. Aleppo is the front-line and the human cost


of all this? Aleppo is at the top of the in-tray for leaders in many


capitals. It is the war of our time. It is in Syria a civil war, a


sectarian war, but it stopped being just about Syria a very long time


ago. It is also a proxy war with all of the regional big hitters,


including Saudi Arabia and Iran entangled in it. A new cold war with


Moscow and Washington as well. It's the humanitarian test of our time,


to use the United Nations phrase, and the world is failing Syria. On


its watch, almost every day here accusations of possible war crimes


by one side or the other. It is a terrible indictment of the


international community. Will it take a different turn come January


with a new United Nations Secretary General and a new President in the


White House? Everyone is watching certainly here. To Jon Sopel in


Washington. Listening to Lyse, you have to ask the question, Jon, how


much does the in-coming administration commend how much is


being suspended as we wait for Trump to begin? We wait for Trump to


appoint who will be his Secretary of State. We have had all the words


that Mark Urban played out. I was with with Rudy Giuliani hoping to be


Secretary of State, he said you have to look at Donald Trump's tweets in


the context of the start of a negotiation. This isn't what he


thinks. This is his starting point for a negotiation where you might


reach some centre ground. The other thing that Rudy Giuliani said is he


doesn't know much about foreign affairs and who gets appointed is


absolutely critical. I think the Secretary of State role will assume


much more importance than it did under Barack Obama because Donald


Trump is going to need to lean on whoever that Secretary of State is.


So the world is waiting for the US response. America is waiting to see


who the Secretary of State will be. Donald Trump, we know what his


instincts are. These are complex issues. We have no idea which way


he's going to jump on certain key policies. To Mark Urban now. If 2016


was the year of shocks, what do you think 2017 is shaping up to be? I


think another very bad year for the West and the Western idea of what is


right. Let's look at some of the things that have been happening


recently. China, in the summer, refusing to accept arbitration over


a dispute with the Philippines in the South China Sea. South Africa


and Russia pulling out of the International Criminal Court. Donald


Trump saying he won't ratified the trans Pacific trade deal. The ideas


have been around for some time about what is right in terms of human


rights, trade, dispute resolution now being actively ignored in Aleppo


or in that case in the south can South China Sea challenged. The core


institutions of the West next year, the EU and Nato I think will also


face serious challenge. Mark, thank you. Thank you all very much indeed.


Well, the day began with comments from Boris Johnson


hitting the airwaves - he had candidly admitted


the Middle East had no strong leadership willing to reach out


That's why, he said, "you have Saudis, Iran


moving in, puppeteering and playing proxy wars."


It was written up as a gaff and Number Ten were quick


to distance themselves from the Foreign


But they echo feelings that come right from within the region itself.


The former President of Yemen, Ali Saleef, gave an exclusive


interview to the BBC Arabic's Nawal al-Maghafi today for an Our World


documentary, in which he agreed the strikes by Saudi on his country


Yemen's former president speaking there.


So how should we interpret those comments from Boris Johnson?


Or has he broken the cardinal rule of British diplomacy?


Our political editor, Nick Watt, is here.


What did Downing Street make of the remarks? There was a certain feeling


in Whitehall today that Theresa May hit the roof when she learned about


the reports that were reported in this morning's Guardian. She had


just returned from a visit to the Gulf where she met the King of Saudi


Arabia and there was incredulity that Boris Johnson made these


remarks last week knowing the Prime Minister would meet the king a few


days later. There was a sense that perhaps he was behaving as a


newspaper columnist thinking of headlines rather than as Britain's


chief diplomat. This morning, you got the slap down from Downing


Street in public where they said that these were his views and not


the government's views and that was really knocking him down a peg or


two. Because if the Foreign Secretary speaks for himself and not


for Britain, he's really going to struggle to establish credibility on


the world stage. So any response from Boris Johnson today to that? I


think there's a feeling in Boris Johnson's circle that the use of the


word property was unwise but there's irritation that Downing Street gave


the story a new lease of life why publicly rebuking him in that way.


-- the word property. He is going to travel to the region in the next few


days and go to Saudi Arabia and my senses he's not going to be in


apology mode because essentially, what he's going to say that the


Saudis know what he thinks because this is he tells them in private,


significantly, an official advice. But what is really interesting is I


get the impression that Boris Johnson think that after the


election of Donald Trump, the downfall of Matteo Renzi after the


Italian referendum, we are in a new world and in that new world, it can


be refreshing if you can hear in public what is being said behind


closed doors and in this case, has been said behind closed doors for 15


years. Briefly, do you think there is a hint we might have more of


this? I think that Boris Johnson really does feel quite strongly that


there is a new world out there. He understands it, if, in a sense, he


was part of that new world because of course he was one of the leading


lights, and there is an argument we may not be talking about leaving the


European Union were it not for Boris Johnson's decision to endorse and


campaign to leave. Interesting. Thank you for joining us.


Joining us now, Sean O'Grady from the Independent and Jill Rutter


Lovely to have you here. Do you think it is right that we have now


entered a different era, a different age? We have to rewrite the rules a


bit of how diplomacy is done? I think there's a lot in that and I


think it is perfectly true that people, fairly obviously, over the


last year or more, have got very tired of politicians missing their


words, not saying what they think. There was a lack of authenticity in


political life and I think what has happened with the Brexit vote and


drum and what is happening on the continent of Europe in some cases,


for various reasons and sometimes it is the radical right and sometimes a


bit more the radical left to benefit from it, people are looking for


politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say. And I think


they have been lacking that and I think that if the politicians then


choose to make a populist appeal, so much the better for them and they


are benefiting from it. There's a huge sort of global peasants revolt


which is happening at the moment. There will be plenty of support for


that, would there? A politician who says it as it is and is admired for


doing so. I think you really need to differentiate a bit between


politicians and government. I think one of the things that is quite


interesting is I think you are right, people want politicians who


are prepared not just to spout lines to take and things like that but


it's a bit different when you are talking about government and


government positions which is quite interesting -- why it's quite


interesting number ten have had to clarify, have been spending the last


three or four months clarifying a lot of their ministers. Quite often,


a minister goes out and freelance is a bit and comes back and number ten


said it was their position, not the government position. It may be a


considered view that it is actually better to foment a bit of debate and


there's only one person who authentically speaks for the


government, which is Theresa May, and everyone else is doing their own


thing but it gets a bit awkward. We've had one area and Heathrow


where they have formally suspended collective responsibility --


collective responsibility. What does Boris Johnson do now? When he goes


to the Middle East, does he stick with his line or the government's?


If I was him, I would stick to the Boris Johnson line. So he set


himself at odds with the UK Government permanently? Orange


Mackreth I think they can live with it and I think we can as well. What


he has done is bring ethics into foreign policy, just like that.


Nobody has noticed but we now have a liberal Foreign Secretary, in


effect, operating in ethical foreign policy. There was this idea that we


can deal with a government that sends out different messages? Think


about being the receiving government, you have someone coming


and are they speaking for the country from which they come or not?


That is when it gets really complicated. In a sense, you almost


devalue the Foreign Secretary's visit because it's not the


government. Theresa May says those things in private to the Saudi


government anyway, we understand so he's just taking it out of the


shadows and putting it into the public sphere. What he's doing, the


point is for 50, 60, 70 years, diplomats, the Foreign Office, what


people are unkindly call the Camel Corps, those people have been doing


quiet diplomacy, behind-the-scenes diplomacy, talking and lobbying in


secret and then they go to the banquet and so forth and they are


very polite and at best you have a coded message. It is not doing any


good in Yemen. Boris Johnson is completely right. Everyone knows it,


there's a proxy war going on in Yemen between Iran and Saudi Arabia.


And other parts of the Middle East as well. If we don't call them out,


as Boris Johnson has done, then you go along with the spin and you just


get nowhere. People suffer as a result. Like the no collective


responsibility, maybe it's a small point in the great scale of things


but there is no point of which you hold the government to it count for


anything they have said? But there wasn't anything Boris Johnson said


that was actually rude. He was just telling them what they know already.


It is like telling the king he's got a beard. May but I think the


interesting thing is if there is an explicit strategy that you want to


maybe pincer attack, the Foreign Secretary saying one thing and the


Prime Minister saying another thing and that is agreed in advance and


they know and the Foreign Secretary knows the Prime Minister might


distance herself slightly from him, then I think that's fine. If


actually, what you are getting is two people shooting off in slightly


different directions, whatever they are saying privately behind closed


doors, I think that makes for policy incoherence and I don't think it is


terribly helpful and it does not help advance British interests. Do


you think he did it deliberately? That he was happy for it to be


picked up? That is the hint we are getting. I'm not a Boris reader, he


might live next door to the Institute by telepathy does not go


through the walls. It's interesting, he's relatively new to a senior


cabinet position and as mayor of London, it was OK to say things on


your own account, the same way that Donald Trump can still say things on


his own account. Once you are a senior government minister, you are


expected to be able to talk for the government. That's an interesting


point because on one level, it is not very collegiate, he's used to


being the Boris Johnson figure. Is there a bit of megalomania coming


into this? I wouldn't call it that. He's a top-ranked politician. They


are all megalomaniacs. So you would? It's not so unusual in that line of


work. But he is one of, like quite a few of them, those who is not


necessarily a very good team player which is not helped by the fact he's


a journalist because journalists like to tell the truth every so


often, as you know. He's not one of those people who is inclined to


follow his lead are always and everywhere. If we move this slightly


away from Boris, the bigger question is perhaps when you look at the


institutions, and I listed them at the beginning of the programme, you


look at what Nato is trying to do, not very successfully and what EU


leaders are trying to do, not very successfully, they can make the


minutes and these emissions and the summit and all the rest of it but


Barnsley, the world has failed in the Middle East, it's failed to so


-- solve the war and diplomacy does not work as we know. Does something


you need to happen even if it comes from a strong statement? I think


it's really interesting, I think there's a good case for saying that


actually, we need political leaders generally who are prepared much more


to level and expose the real choices that they face and have a much more


honest conversation, whether it is an foreign policy or domestic


policy, with the population. Whether actually, the events of this year


have shown there is a real public appetite for that or not, I'm not so


sure I would read it that way but I think there are lots of areas where


there is almost a sort of conspiracy of not asking difficult questions


between the political class which means that actually, there's a


divorced from reality. I think actually, a general move towards


having more debates in public and actually being prepared to admit you


don't know things, that some things are difficult, that sometimes you


will make the wrong choice, will actually improve the quality of


public debate enormously. I think that's different from shooting off


in different directions, though, because it seems like a good thing


to say at the time. I don't know if that is what he was doing a lot but


I don't think you can run government on that basis. Thank you for joining


us. Anyone who's devoted hours


of the last week watching the intricate and detailed legal


argument of the Supreme Court will perhaps have noticed one


extraordinary thing - The make up of the UK's highest


court, in other words, has been overwhelmingly old,


male and white. Chris Cooke's going to


have a go at explaining. One striking feature


of the Supreme Court is, for a public body, how pale,


male and old it is. All white, when 13% of the country


is from an ethnic minority. Only one woman of 11


Justices, all aged over 60. Supreme Court Justices need


decades of experience. Half the population are women,


but only one Justice is, Lady Hale. According to a study


of 34 Supreme Courts from around the world,


that low representation puts us Now, only 16% of judges in England


and Wales over 60 are women. So it's partly a reflection of legal


recruitment of 40 years 34% of 50-something judges are women


and 47% of 40 to 49-year-old judges. Yet there remains a lack


of women across the top In the Court of Appeal, only seven


of the 38 Justices are women. So there's a problem in the pipeline


for women to the senior judiciary. There's not just an absence


of ethnic minority judges in the Supreme Court,


there are no Court of Appeal minority judges either,


and only 5% of High Court judges There's also a basic


recruitment problem here, Only 9% of Justices in England


and Wales, under 40, The minority population share


of adults, aged 25 to 40 in Britain, Building a judiciary which better


reflects the country Karon Monaghan QC wrote a review


into judicial diversity in 2014 and Matthew Ryder QC is London's deputy


mayor for social integration, social mobility and community. Nice to have


you both here. I wonder if you think it actually matters? Does it matter


if they don't look like their country they represent necessarily?


Yes, I think it does. I think it matters for reasons of democratic


legitimacy. We saw this week the Supreme Court dealing with some of


the most important constitutional issues that are likely to be


confronted in law and looking at a court that bears no resemblance to


those who are likely to be affected by the decisions they will in due


course make really calls into question whether or not we can


really buy into that. Secondly, I think it's important because it


makes a difference. It makes a difference, certainly in some cases,


to the outcome. You actually think it changes the way... In a small


number of cases, I think, yes. And I say that based on experience of


being in the Supreme Court but also, I say it because senior judges say


it, senior women judges said. I find that fascinating, do you think your


own perspective has changed? Would you agree with that as well? -- has


changed an outcome? We bring different experiences and in a


collegiate cord, women and other minorities will bring other


experiences which will inform the ultimate decision. So it's not just


about the way law is read? Matthew, you feel, you had a very different


experience coming in to a predominantly all-white, mail...


Yeah, and I think I'm an adviser on the David Lammy review which is


looking at this termination the criminal justice system and the


interim findings have said 51% of British-born non-white people don't


have confidence in the criminal justice system. Now whether that is


well founded on the evidence or not is almost not the issue because the


concern is the confidence within the judiciary and the level to which it


has legitimacy to the public it is serving. So I agree, it is a really


important reason why the judiciary, we really need a judiciary that does


an important public service that looks like the community it serves.


The second point is that you say you find interesting I think is an


interesting phenomenon because when you get a diversity of experience at


a judge level, at the lower level of courts as well, particularly, you


know, when judges are dealing with facts and understanding communities


and understanding where people come from, a wealth of experience can be


really important. That doesn't mean you can't put yourself in someone


else's shoes but it means that the broader breadth of experience you


have do draw on from the judiciary, the more likely you are to get


people that understand the points in front of them. There are levers for


change, are there? On one hand, you could say these are the finest legal


minds and they have endless experience and they are at the end


of their career so they are naturally going to be older. So


there are levers. One, we have traditionally appointed from the


Court of Appeal, as you referred to, or the High Court for the Supreme


Court judges. And they are predominantly white and male. So if


we use that as the pool, inevitably we will have a cord which is


constituted by those who are represented in the scene Yu courts


below. Lord Sumption jumped straight up. He was the first person to do so


in about half a century and he was of course, a white man educated at


Eton and Oxford, unfortunately. So we can widen the pool, there's no


reason we have to recruit from that pool. We widen the pool by, for


example, advertising for academics, for those who are employed lawyers


and so on, a more diverse cohort and there is also a mechanism within the


law that exists now which allows for women to be preferred in cases where


they are of equal merit as compared to a man. And that can be a useful


tool if properly used. To ensure that there is greater diversity but


so far, there's been considerable reluctance both in extending the


pool and using that tool. Looking at the pipeline, as it were, the gender


problem seems to correct itself because there are many more women


coming through. When you look at the ethnic minorities, one thing that is


extraordinary is that throughout school, it tends to be ethnic


minority kids that outperform white kids. Why doesn't that follow


through then into such a strong part of the astonishment? You're talking


about a couple of things, firstly, a legacy. As you pointed out, judges


are of a certain age and a certain point in their careers. We change


the system of how we appointed judges about ten years ago and as a


result, we are looking at... Radically changed, a much more


transparent system, a way, a judicial appointments commission


which is not about a tap on the shoulder from people you know but is


a much more objective system. Ten years later, we are looking at what


has happened but it takes time for it to flush through. At the same


time, it is really important to emphasise, you asked about


experience, my experience of first sitting as a judge is that the


judges I sat with were enormously welcoming and very positive and that


was great but it's almost not the point. The point is, you need to


make sure there are more able people from ethnic minorities feeling they


can apply and there needs to be more rigour, trying to find them. The


important point to note, if I can make two quick points, firstly,


everybody in the debate pretty much agree is that you have to maintain


the very high standard of the Ingush judiciary. Everyone in the debate


also agreed that we can't continue with the same lack of diversity in


the judiciary we have now. -- English judiciary. It's a given


everyone understands that and we are just tried to find the best way to


get there quickly. Barristers are employed on a


case-by-case basis. You can't have a system that is corrected from within


the inside, as it were You looked to a broader cohort. You look outside


the self-employed Bar and look to academia. At the Supreme Court level


you don't need to have those who excel at the Bar. The judiciary as a


whole you will not look outside? At the senior levels, there is no


reason why not. We should be more progressive about the way we recruit


at first instance senior level by, for example, adopting the equal


merit provision identified. I'm less optimistic about Matthew who, I


think if I understood him correctly, is suggesting that things will


change. Can I just say. Of course. We have had 14 white men appointed


since Lady Hale was appointed. Cannot be each and every one of


those men is better than the best of the women who could have been


appointed. I think we need to do something more compelling there. I


do think it's important... In the context of the job I do for the


Mayor of London. He doesn't have anything to do with the judiciary,


when you talk about broader service. You cannot, when have you a problem


with diversity in the public service, you cannot be complacent.


You cannot be complacent. The opposite. What I'm saying is, the


worst thing you can do is take the view - it will be all right, time


will sort it out. It won't. Absolutely. Have you to be rigorous.


As long as you are engaged in that conversation with the profession,


with other people making sure you have the right kind of levers that


you are pulling, that is #2350i7b. Fine. You can't expect it will sort


it self out, because it won't. Thank you very much.


If you've made it this far into the programme,


it can only mean that you're as keen as I am to hear from our


crepuscular culture correspondent, Stephen Smith.


And tonight's effort should be pretty good for once,


as he's joined by one of our most garlanded and best-loved


At the height of Beatlemania in the '60s, Miss Clark


was the female face of the "British invasion" of America,


where she enjoyed 15 consecutive hit singles.


Now aged 84, she came into Newsnight's storied rehearsal


rooms to sing from her new album, From Now On, and to talk


about evading an amorous Elvis, taking career advice


from John Lennon and the transcendent therapy of...ironing.


Stephen's report includes a little colourful language and the usual


# Downtown, where all the lights are bright


# Downtown, waiting for us tonight...#.


When The Beatles weren't topping the American charts


But when she found herself having a hard time with


audiences in bilingual Canada, of all places, she turned


There they were, John and Yoko, sitting up in bed, you


John said, "Hey, what's the matter with you?"


And he was so sweet and wise and funny and he gave


me a piece of advice which I can't repeat.


Even in front of a grown-up like you.


"Well, thank you for that advice, John."


He said, "Go and have a drink in the living room".


They had a suite, so I went into the living room


and there were people humming along to this simple little


song that was coming over the loudspeaker.


They gave us a lyric and we all started singing it.


And little did I know that we were all being recorded.


Capping a long and distinguished career, Miss Clark joined us to


record a prestigious Newsnight session with a song from her new


# Never thought I'd ever feel this way again


# But here it is so why try to explain


I insist on having an iron and an ironing board in my dressing


room, because that's my, that's my therapy, before I go on.


Do you take like the week's wash in and do them or just...


..or just the blouse you are performing in?


No, my musicians did suggest perhaps I did their shirts


# I've heard it all a million times before #.


Like other female stars, Lulu, Cilla Black, Petula Clark had her


own TV series in the supposedly less-enlightened '60s.


# Don't sleep in the subway, darling


What does she make of today's younger singers?


A lot of them seem to be trying to sound like someone


I suppose that's understandable when you're starting


But, you know, the trick is to find your sound


Find a sound that other people will want to imitate.


# Well, I've lost my soul, what's wrong with me #.


At the height of her fame, Miss Clark found herself in Elvis


Presley's dressing room in Vegas, alone apart from the singer Karen


It was quite obvious that he was impressed at seeing us.


I mean, he was gorgeous, and let's face it,


Karen and I were the top two women singers in the world, you know.


And I said, "Elvis, that was so great.


Thank you for the drink, blah blah blah", and we scuttled out of


And as I left, I turned round and Elvis was standing at the door,


# But I love you the way you are


The papers. The Mail, a decision that MPs and military chiefs are


calling "disgraceful." It's by The Police Service of Northern Ireland


to re-examine every British Army killing during The Troubles.


In the Times. A story with a headline, aid blown on foreign


luxury. Hundreds of millions pounds of aid have been poured into hotels


and rest rants. This is a revelation about the Times about the


government's private equity decision. Claims it make as lasting


difference to people's lives. In the Guardian, photo that will shock you.


To talk you through that. In case you can't see the small pribt print.


This is by Alison Jackson, the artist famous for the satirical


photos posed by lookalikes. She was saying she was outraged by lawyers


warningings that a President might sue to restrict artistic freedom.


But just before we go, there was news this evening that


John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, has died.


We thought there would be no more fitting tribute than the footage


Coming down on a ten, circles are open.


Recondition at 10,800 feet and beautiful choux chute.


It it looks as though we will start off on a