20/03/2017 Newsnight


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?

Similar Content

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


Download Subtitles