The FBI investigates Trump. Is Labour facing a left wing plot? Mervyn King on Brexit and what matters. Did a pregnancy drug cause birth defects?
Browse content similar to 20/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
It's official, the FBI is not just investigating
Russian interference in the US election, but...
That includes investigating the nature of any links between
individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian
government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign
and Russia's efforts. Yes,
it's the strangest An absorbing but bizarre
intelligence drama centred on the election of the president,
who was live tweeting We'll ask this Republican
Congressman whether everyone is playing politics
with national security. The Labour leadership
gathers to douse down REPORTER: Is there a plot to take
over the Labour Party? We'll ask the Shadow Foreign
Secretary, Emily Thornberry, what's All the politicians seem obsessed
with Brexit. Actually the biggest problems we face now are not Brexit.
Former Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King,
is back to warn we've all taken our eye off the ball.
And Marie Lyon believes the pregnancy test she took 40 years
ago caused her daughter's disability, and many, many others.
We'll hear about her campaign for justice.
They'll have to make a movie about it at some point.
The accusations being levelled at Donald Trump,
Public officials in the US have been caught up in a highly politicised
process of inquiry into FBI and NSA investigations.
For Democrats, the issue is the possibility that the Trump
campaign colluded with the Russian state in its attempts to hurt
For the Republicans, the issue is the illegal leaks that
have brought certain of these matters to public attention.
The House Intelligence Committee held hearings on these
matters today, James Comey, the director of the FBI,
and Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Council.
And yes, Britain did get an honourable mention
Here's Newsnight's own intelligence expert, Mark Urban.
It was bound to be dramatic - two spy chiefs cross-examined
publicly for the first time on an emerging investigation
into the Kremlin's role in the US election.
The FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission,
is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere
That includes investigating the nature of any links
between individuals associated with the Trump campaign
and the Russian government and whether there was any
coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.
Time and again, committee members asked what Russian President Putin
It wasn't simply that the Russians had a negative preference
against Secretary Clinton, they also had a positive
preference for Donald Trump, isn't that correct?
And on Putin's aim to weaken the West, there was this
Would they have a preference for a candidate who encourage Brexit
Many times, the witnesses were asked about President Trump's
statements on Twitter, including the allegation that
Trump Tower was bugged by President Obama.
With respect to the President's tweets about alleged wiretapping
during the prior administration, I have no information that
As for the idea, lent credence by the White House,
that Britain's GCHQ had performed the interception of
Trump's Communications, the director of America's
I have seen nothing on the NSA site that we engaged
in any such activity, nor that anyone asked us to engage
And if you were to ask the British to spy on America,
there would be a violation of US law, would it not?
In broad terms, the Five Eyes agreement includes an agreement not
That is the foundation of the agreement.
Beyond that, each country has constraints within their own
domestic law that say they cannot use other Five Eyes partners
or any other intelligence service in order to circumvent
the constraints of their domestic law.
So anything that the United States intelligence community is not
able to do themselves, they are not able to ask a foreign
intelligence partner to do that on their behalf against Americans.
But while the hearing produced some light,
it also produced much heat, partisan, tactical
questioning, with Republicans emphasising not Russian
actions, but the seriousness of leaking about them.
Doesn't that leak hurt our national security?
Can you think of any reason why somebody would want to
And Democrats asked questions which stood no chance of
Being answered because of the ongoing investigation just to put
Do you think Mr Flint's failure to disclose the communication and
contact he had with the Russian ambassador and that topic of
conversation, along with the blatant lie to Vice President Pence, meet
the standard for an investigation by the FBI?
As for collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, the White
House today brushed aside the whole idea.
If you continue to search for something that everybody has been
briefed hasn't seen or found, I think it's fine to look into it.
But at the end of the day, they're going to come to the same
conclusion that everybody else has had.
So you can continue to look for something,
but you're continuing to look for something that doesn't exist.
What we've learned today is that Trump
and his people will be under scrutiny for months to come about
their alleged ties with Russia, and the FBI's judgments could prove
Well, a little earlier, I spoke to Republican
congressman Will Hurd, who is a member of the House
Intelligence Committee and was also a former undercover agent
I asked him how credible it was that intelligence agencies -
ordered by President Obama - had wiretapped candidate Trump.
Admiral Rogers confirmed that they would never have requested a foreign
intelligence agency to do something like that as well. I think a lot of
President Trump supporters would say those people would say that, they're
not going to say yeah, we were told to and we did it. In a way, Trump
supporters are not going to accept the evidence, are they? Well, I
don't know if I agree with that premise. I think one thing that the
American people should be happy with is that the separation and checks
and balances in our government is working. The fact that you have
folks from the majority party in the House and Senate disagreeing with
the executive branch is a sign that the process is working. I haven't
seen any indication from folks, rank and file Americans being concerned
with this. I think what they are concerned with is they want to see
this investigation and the Russian involvement in our elections be done
in a bipartisan, thoughtful and deliberate manner. Do you heart of
heart think that's what the intelligence committee were today,
they were bipartisan? The Republicans seem more concerned with
the leaks. Obviously the Democrats were concerned with potential
collusion between the Trump team and the Russians. It seemed to be
falling down party lines to a large degree. Well, I think we've got to
start with the fact that the scope of our investigation has been made
public. That is manying that generally doesn't happen. We're
looking at four areas: We're looking at what technical means did the
Russians use in order to try to manipulate our elections. Are think
any Americans associated with Russian intelligence that colluded
with the Russians? We're looking at what was the government response to
these actions and whether those could be improved in the future. And
the fourth area is the leaks. I think both sides, Republicans and
Democrats, made it clear that even though somebody may be focussing on
one particular area, that's not an indication that the other areas
don't matter. What you've just spelled out seems like the really
substantive issue facing your committee. Along comes the president
with his allegation that's Obama ordered his Trump Tower to be wire
tapped. Is that just a silly distraction? What is going on there?
What accounts for why that big thing will be thrown into your
proceedings? Well, you'll have to ask the president that question.
Because I don't have any perspective. I always rely on
guidance and advice my father has given me. My dad is 85 years old.
He's told all my friends, right before they got married, it never
hurts to say you're sorry. I think that's the case here. Just one last
one, do you think the president, if he believes the things he says and
the things he tweets, as someone who's been working in intelligence
yourself, not that long ago, do you believe he understands how it really
functions and really works? Well, I think there can be a whole lot more
precision used in language with everybody involved in this scenario.
We can't think of press reporting as if it's intelligence. Some of my
Democratic colleagues tried to use some information gleaned from the
press as if it's proper evidence that's going to stand up in the
court of law. I think we need to be precise in the use of terms like
"wire tapping". We need to be precise in how this information is
gleaned. Ultimately, when it comes to intelligence and law enforcement,
much of this should not be done in the public eye until after its
concluded. I think the American people, and honestly the world, have
an appetite to know what's going on right now, but when it comes to law
enforcement investigations and intelligence investigations these
things take time. When we talk about them, all of our language needs to
be a lot more precise. Congressman, thank you very much.
Thanks for having me on. There's the impending Article 50
process, the Scotland issue, there's been election talk in recent
days, which has been has been resolutely
smacked down by Number 10. But Labour, at this busy time,
is in the midst of some You don't have to be hugely trusting
of opinion polls to think that when the Conservatives have a 19%
lead in them, as they did in a poll today, something
is going badly for the Opposition. There was an explosive meeting
of the Parliamentary Nick Watt was outside,
listening through the door. Tell us about the meeting first.
Well, it was clearly a dreadful atmosphere, as you say, at tonight's
meeting. All the bigwigs were there, Peter Mandelson came out and he said
it reminded him of the dark days of the 1980s. Then Neil Kinnock said
no, it was far worse than that. It was clear there was shouting and at
one point, Jeremy Corbyn was referred to as "our so-called
leader". Now, give us the cause, let's go two steps. What's got all
this going? This blew up after a report in the Observer yesterday
which had a tape of a private meeting addressed by John Landsman,
the veteran left-winger who set up the Momentum group. He outlined
plans to tighten his grip over the Labour movement. He said that if Len
McCluskey, the General Secretary of unite, then unite will affiliate to
Momentum. This is what he said in the tape.
Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, condemned that on the
Today Programme. This is what he said as he turned up at a meeting
today, this morning of the Shadow Cabinet. I've responding to
newspaper reports at the weekend that showed there was a secret plan
to take over from the Labour Party. One of the things on the tape was an
allegation from the head of Momentum that Unite were going to channel
their funds into being part of that process. I think that's very
important. I would like Len McCluskey to publicly distance
himself from that allegation. After that meeting, it was a Shadow
Cabinet away day, reports appeared that Tom Watson had been isolated at
that meeting and had been widely reprimanded and John Crier, the
chair of the PLP and who attends meetings of the Shadow Cabinet said
he did not recognise that account of the meeting and he also said to the
PLP this evening, he hadn't really paid much attention to this tape. He
had made a point of listening to it and some members of the PLP heard
him talking about an attempt to create a party within a party.
Lucky with all this going on, that it looks like we're not having an
election on May 4th, or whatever the date was meant to be. A definitive
statement from Number Ten - there is not going to be an early election.
That's what Theresa May said way back in the summer when she launched
her bid for thor to leadership contest. One group who are
absolutely delighted by that, that's Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters,
because they know 19 points behind in the opinion polls, if there was
an election on May 4, bit tricky for them. Tricky for him. Thank you very
much. With me now is the Shadow Foreign
Secretary. Festival, can we corroborate that
Tom Watson was slapped down for going on the radio this morning and
ecstasy his concerns? He said this was a battle for the future
existence of the Labour Party -- for expressing his concerns. I am going
to be very boring. I abide by the rules, and that is that Shadow
Cabinet meetings are private and they are held in an atmosphere of
trust, and I never say anything about what happens in them. What do
you think of Tom Watson going on the radio this morning and said it was a
battle for the existence of the Labour Party? It is important that
internal discussions and fights within the Labour Party are done
privately. We do not need to discuss them in the media. It seems to me
that these are things we can discuss internally. The Labour Party is
about a great deal more than that. Although you say there aren't going
to be elections, actually, there are. There are going to be local
authority elections, and I think of the elderly woman I met in Warwick
who was so worried about the cuts to social care that she was not going
to be got up in the morning any more, she was going to be got up at
lunchtime. And who was going to help her have breakfast if the cuts to
social care went ahead? The cuts to local authorities and policing,
these are the things we should be focusing on. So many people have
said Labour is letting those people down because it is not serving the
role it should of holding the government to account. I am not
clear on what is going wrong. Is it that Tom Watson went public with his
criticisms? Is it the leader? Is it the MPs? What is it in your view
that explains why Labour is 19 points behind the Tories in the
poll? After the Shadow Cabinet awayday, there was a statement put
out saying that we are a broad church and we have always had
different groupings within the Labour Party and as long as it is
done within the rules, no one is going to criticise. That has got to
be right. That is the settlement on today's argument. Now you have to
deal with the fact that poll after poll has you 20 points behind the
Conservatives. That is why we have to focus on the policies. If you ask
the public about our policies, we are very popular. It is linking
those policies with us. I would like to talk about Donald Trump and about
what has been happening with the allegations against Britain and the
British Secret Service. Instead, I am talking about this. But you can't
blame us for that. I'm not. What I am saying is that Labour ought to be
debating our best policy offer for the public. You can't get to the
policy until you have sorted out the internal dynamics. And yet when it
comes to policy discussions, there is so little disagreement. That is
because you have had so little to say on policy. When we have
discussions on policy, it is actually relatively easy for us to
come together, because we have a dreadful government and we know we
have to be an alternative to it. We want to be
able to put out a policy offer. Then we descend into personality politics
and fighting amongst ourselves, and we have to be more disciplined. We
have to focus on what the Labour Party is about. After the Budget, it
was not the Labour Party that spotted the great flaw that pulled
the Chancellor's Budget and made it unravel. It was backbench Tory MPs.
Your leader didn't mention it in his follow-up speech, even though it had
been trailed three days before. There is something else going on
here, and it is not getting better. A year ago, John McDonnell
suggested, give us a year and it is going to get much better. It is not.
It is getting worse. What is going to get you out of this? I don't
think it's getting worse. The Labour Party is a collective endeavour and
we all have a duty to do our job as well as we can and to work
collectively as one organisation. That is what we should be doing more
than anything else. We should keep our focus on what is happening with
the housing crisis. What are we going to do about the fact that we
are having the number of police officers cut from our streets? These
are the things we should be looking at and setting forward an
alternative. When the party has sorted out the issues, people will
probably give more time to that. Do you want Len McCluskey to win the
election for general secretary of Unite next week? I am a member of
Unite and I will vote for him. So yes, I would think he would be a
good leader. Then can I assume that you have no worries about Unite and
Momentum getting together and perhaps working more in unison and
exerting more power over the Labour Party? Whether Unite affiliate to
Momentum or the other way round am a it is not a matter for the leader of
Unite, it is a decision that Unite had to make collectively. That is
useful. Another issue that is relevant is whether the rules of the
Labour Party should be changed to make it possible for a leader to be
collected with just support from 5% of the MPs. At the moment, it is
15%. It doesn't seem like an enormous hurdle, but John McDonnell
has suggested that it should come down to five. Do you think that
would be a better way of electing the leader? Well, there have been a
number of suggestions. Tom wants it to be a third again. These
discussions will happen internally. To be honest, those discussions will
not get that lady who is being held in bed until lunchtime because the
social services are not coming to get her up out of bed. That is what
we should focus on in public, and that is the important stuff of
politics. Politics is about power and changing people's lives. When
Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader, there was a suggestion that the
Scottish Labour Party would have a resurgence and that he would better
connect with the values of Scotland. Since he was elected leader, the
Conservatives have overtaken Labour in Scotland and indeed, Labour is
seen as being in some difficulty of that. Should those people who
thought that by backing Corbyn, a kind of untapped socialist murmur
around the country would be harnessed and would be brought to
light, should they be disappointed that this has simply not worked? It
has not gone to plan at all. I think that politics in Scotland ought to
focus on the party which has been in power for ten years. The schools are
failing. The health service is failing, and they have just
introduced a huge cuts which they need not have done. They have powers
devolved, and yet they are not using them. But there are continuing to
bring up constitutional crisis after constitutional crisis to cover the
fact that they are not doing their job properly in Scotland. It is up
to Labour in Scotland, and I spoke to Kezia Dugdale tonight. This is
what she will be pointing out during the elections. We need her to have
the space to say that and not spend our time fighting amongst ourselves
and discussing people's personalities. Emily Thornberry,
thanks very much. Not a general election, it's not
a boy, or a girl, it's Article 50. 279 days after the June 23rd
referendum, nine months and a few extra days,
the Brexit process begins. All the arguments, the chatter,
the thinking about this option Clear your diaries -
here's how the timetable now looks. On the day itself, Theresa May
will send a letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council,
and will address the Commons. Within 48 hours, the council
will publish Then everything is put
on pause till late April, when other EU leaders are expected
to meet to agree The talks themselves
should then begin sometime in May after the final
round of the French
presidential election. through the German general
election in September, to a vote in the UK and European
parliaments Then Brexit becomes a reality,
two years from now. Victoria Dean was a diplomat
for 20 years, including being the Foreign Office's deputy
director on Europe and also spokesperson for the UK's permanent
representation to the EU. She now heads the Brexit unit
at Portland Communications. We thought we would get you to help
us understand some of the Kokrak every -- choreography of this. The
other 27 will have a meeting in late April, it seems. That is exactly
what they will do. They will need to coordinate their position in
response to the UK invoking article 50. We expect that they will get
together at the end of April, rumour had it the 27th. I think that is
tricky timing. But they have to agree a line. What if they can't?
Does that store things? It does, and it could take more than one meeting.
But they have been preparing for months. They have had plenty of time
to start to get their ducks in a row, and they then give a mandate to
the commission who will lead discussions. So the commission lead
the negotiations. Can we divide and rule of it here? Can we bung a few
favours to one lot and say, be on our side on this or that?
I certainly think that is what the UK has been trying to do and will
probably continue to have a go at, but there is a strong case for
European Union member states to come together and have some unity on
this. To some extent, it is the job of the lead negotiator to keep the
member states together as much as he can on this. They know they will be
more successful if they are united. We keep talking about the
negotiations of a Dale. Physically, give me the picture of what we mean.
Said David Davis or are we talking people lower down the food chain?
Where will they be? What language will they be talking? Are we talking
thousands of pages of things passing backwards and forwards? None of that
is set in stone, but we expect it will be Barnier on one side and
David Davis. David Davis will not be there every day, though. Of course
not. Barnier has already set out who his team is and has divided them
into different sectors. He has played specialists and financial
services specialists, so we know about his negotiating team already.
I expect there will be lots that happens outside the room and outside
the formal negotiations. And it is going to be in English? It will have
to be in English. I don't know how Barnier will feel about that. So
they have a few things to work out about the citizens of different
countries and the Brexit bill. We have to sort out the bill. If we get
stuck on that, seriously, does nothing happened for the whole two
years while we say no? That is a strong possibility, and plenty of
people will co-you that that is what will happen, that negotiations will
run into the sand over the issue of the bill and the 60 billion euros.
We might never even get into the real meat of the negotiations
themselves. I think there is a way around that. As Newsnight reported
last week, you can park in a separate process between number
crunchers what happens on the 60 billion. That is a concession on
both sides already, that there is a bill to be paid and that the number
can be discussed elsewhere. So perhaps that is a price worth paying
to allow you to get into the meat of the negotiations. You're right that
the other issue that the Prime Minister will want to tackle early
is the status of EU nationals in the UK and in return, UK nationals in
the EU. And in one word, if we agree on a status for EU nationals but
don't agree on anything else, the status will stay as agreed
presumably, or does that fall away when you have no agreement on
anything else? All we know is that it is not agreed until it is all
agreed. Victoria, thank you very much.
Lord King, Mervyn King, who was Governor of the Bank
of England, through the good years and the bad years in
He's at the midst of many of the traumas of the time
and wrote his account of what had gone wrong in a book published last
But it's been a long year and a lot has happened since.
So the new paperback version of the book has a preface updating
He is, for example, more comfortable with Brexit
First, does he have any worries about Theresa May triggering Article
Well, it's bound to be a complex process.
My biggest concern is not about the challenge of Brexit as such,
but about whether we're going to make the decisions early enough
that would enable us to make the practical planning
we should have a simple, clean Brexit and minimise the scale
There's a danger that we won't make progress in negotiations,
at least within the two-year horizon.
But what follows from that is not that we say OK
and give in to everything the other side demands.
We say "These are the things that are under our control",
and a clean Brexit is under our control.
There will be things that we will want to discuss,
but we have to minimise the area of negotiation.
And I think the Government also has to point out
the potential opportunities that Brexit gives.
We could restructure the way we give subsidies to agriculture.
We could, for example, in Northern Ireland,
which is a problem that deserves more attention
than it is getting at present, try and have a conversation
with the government south of the border -
I know they were very nervous about the Brexit outcome,
I was there just before the referendum - and say to them
"Can we find a way of shifting the tax and tariff border
from the land frontier to the sea frontier,
while not disturbing the political arrangements?"
I think it's in everyone's interest to have an imaginative discussion
You mean have a customs border between Northern Ireland
And there's no reason why the rate of corporation tax
in Northern Ireland has to be the same as in the rest of the UK
A lot has been said about the potential for a UK-US
Would such a deal benefit the UK's trade balance
My feeling is that both sides are thinking "We'll sign all these
deals and we'll suddenly be exporting more and bringing our
country into better balance", but both of us have the same problem
and I'm not sure which one of us would benefit.
We in the UK need to do something about our trade deficit.
My biggest worry about economic policy in the next few years is that
all the politicians seem obsessed with Brexit and actually,
the biggest problems we face now are not Brexit.
It's about how we can reduce the trade deficit,
how we're going to save enough as a nation to pay for our pensions,
because the pension scheme has deteriorated over the last 25 years,
how we're going to save enough to pay for care
for the elderly when we all become so old that we need that support.
These are the big economic challenges, and if politicians
ignore those and focus only on Brexit for the next two
or three years, then those big questions will not receive
And you think they might be giving too little weight to those
Well, it's clear that their mind is now completely on Brexit,
I just want to talk briefly about Scotland, which
you mention in your book and you say would have been viable as a nation
at the time of the last referendum and Project Fear
was perhaps overdone at the time of the last referendum.
The revenue that Scotland would derive from oil is much lower.
Do you still think Scotland would be viable as a nation?
Scotland could certainly be an independent country.
There are plenty of small countries the same size as Scotland.
Scotland has both the people and the capital city,
The question is, does it want to be, given the consequences?
I myself don't think there are any major problems in terms of currency.
That was the thing that Project Fear focused on last time.
But there is an issue about public finances.
If the oil price remains low and if they lose the money
which is transferred from the rest of the UK to Scotland,
they would have to make that up in their own budget.
But that is a consequence of deciding to be
It would be a challenge to borrow on the international market
in Scotland decided to run a large budget deficit.
But that's one of the consequences of saying
"If we want to be independent, we have to accept the consequences".
Donald Trump, one of the things he has said he wants to do
the big post-crisis regulatory change in the US.
He thinks it's getting in the way and he wants a more
Is that the right approach, and are you worried
about the fragility of the global banking system still,
which is two years on since you wrote the first edition
I think there is an argument which can be made to support part
of the move that President Trump wants to make, which is that we have
made the regulatory system incredibly complex.
People who work in banks have to go to their compliance officer
What regulators have done is to produce literally thousands
of pages of regulations and say "You must obey each of these".
And they've done it in order to prevent a repetition
But of course, the next financial crisis that comes along
won't look quite like the one that happened before.
Are you scared of any banks having a run on them
But elsewhere in the world, there are concerns
In Europe, the banking system is still fragile.
We've seen concerns about the financial sector in China.
and the thing that everyone needs to be concerned about is,
in the banking sector in one part of the world,
it can quite easily lead to problems with the banking system elsewhere
So our banks are in good shape, but if there were a serious problem
there would be a blowback to our banking system as well.
And for those of you that want to see the full, unedited,
version of that interview, it's up on our YouTube channel now.
Primodos was a drug made by the German company Schering back
in the '60s and '70s, sometimes used as a way
But using powerful synthetic hormones, it may have caused birth
defects in the children of pregnant women.
It was withdrawn from use in the '70s, but the question
of whether the drug was behind a number of birth defects
This week, campaigners are meeting the Department of Health
to discuss the progress, or lack thereof, of an expert
There's a Sky News documentary on the drug tomorrow.
But the story has a twist: in 2015, campaigner Marie Lyon found
internal company documents in the Berlin State Archive
suggesting that our own Chief Medical Officer had warned
Schering in 1975 that Primodos did indeed cause such abnormalities,
and he had then destroyed the evidence so that it
Very good evening to you. Hello. You took Primodos. I did, yes. You think
it affected your daughter. What affect did it have? When Sarah was
born, she had her arm missing from just below the elbow. There was a
tiny pad, five tiny fingers where the arm should have been. It was as
if the growth had just stopped quite abruptly much those fingers and that
tiny pad were actually amputate whenned she was 13 months old. --
amputated when she was 13 months old so she could be fitted with an
artificial arm. She has the artificial arm and working. She is,
yes. She came out of relatively well compared to some. She certainly did.
We have a lot of our members with multiple abnormalities, not just
one. You've got transposition of valves, heart disease, brain
disease, you know spina bifida. What is the actual evidence that the
including was involved in this? We had quite a lot of evidence. There's
the that titical graph that shows that -- statistics graph that shows
it was on track with the abnormalities. We found that there
were testing results in the files and they showed abnormalities in
animal studies. Also, the drug itself was manufactured as an
abortive agent. A drug that's 40 times the strength of oral
contraceptive is a huge thing to give to a woman early in pregnancy.
It is. If you think back to those times, now you just say, what were
they thinking. They weren't. When you took the drug, what was - it was
a pill presumably? Two tablets, yes. Do you even remember taking it? Of
course, I do. It's something because it was my first child. So my initial
thoughts were it would be a urine test. The urine test was very widely
available at that time. When I was given the two tablets, it was sort
of on the understanding that this is new, this is quick. You'll be able
to know you're pregnant within days. So I didn't question because my
doctor gave them to me. Consequently - You didn't know that it was a
powerful hormone? I had no idea. We weren't even told. It was a test, it
wasn't a therapy like Thalidomide. The only purpose for this was money.
Bayer, which now owns the company which produced the drug, reject all
claims that there was a link. There was a court case. There was. The
link wasn't held up in that case, that was in the 80s. We didn't get
to that stage. We had a handful of scientists willing to give evidence.
Schering had the same number of scientists, including I may add Dr
William Inman the commissioner on the safety of medicine. So he was
someone who should have been looking after the health of the women in the
UK, but he actually chose to give evidence on behalf of Scherings
against the association. We had to withdraw and that really is the
bottom line. We withdrew because we were outnumbered and outgunned. But
the judge at the time insisted that the case should not be closed. And
it's not closed for you. No it absolutely isn't. There are too many
people whose lives have been affected for #40 plus years. They've
lived half a life. That's how you've got to look at it. It's about time
that answers were actually given and it's about time that Bayer actually
were big enough to actually release all the documentation. I will stress
that Bayer of course deny it. I understand that. Thank you very
much. You're very welcome. Thank you.
Dame Vera Lynn, the forces sweetheart whose songs kept the home
fires burning during World War Two, celebrated her hundredth today.
Unfortunately the Spitfire flyby in her honour had to be cancelled
because of bad weather, but the rain didn't
frighten the residents of Priory House in Leamington Spa,
We leave you tonight with Dame Vera - and the memories of Esme,
# We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when ... She
represents family and home really, to me. Because she wasn't
particularly young, was she, when she was singing. Everybody could
relate to her. # Keep smiling through, just like
you always do # Till that blue skies lift the dark
clouds far away... We only had radios, we didn't have television.
When she sang, it really did lift us. It really did. I thought she was
marvellous. -- marvellous. We all had to make our own entertainment.
And to sing together was people and choirs, was a lovely way for the
community to get together. You couldn't always have expensive dos,
but you could have a sing along. # Don't know where, don't know when
# But we'll meet again some sunny day
# We'll meet again # Don't know where, don't know when
# But I know we'll meet again some sunny day.
Hello. There warnings of snow and ice for Scotland and Northern
Ireland overnight and into the rush hour. Definite winter chill in the
air. Many central and Eastern parts of England