:00:00. > :00:08.I'm here to serve at the discretion of the President.
:00:09. > :00:10.If he wants me to leave tomorrow, then I'm not
:00:11. > :00:16.There's never a dull moment in this White House, but the sacking
:00:17. > :00:18.of the communications director Anthony Scarramucci,
:00:19. > :00:22.after just ten days in post, could be a sign that the grown-ups
:00:23. > :00:25.are imposing themselves. We'll ask the editor in chief
:00:26. > :00:28.of Slate Magazine if Trump's new Chief of Staff is bringing
:00:29. > :00:40.From Russia.. Without much love.
:00:41. > :00:43.To North Korea with a fair bit of hate.
:00:44. > :00:47.Is it right to think the world is at an unusually
:00:48. > :00:54.We'll take stock tonight and ask the big question -
:00:55. > :00:59.Is it wrong to broadcast the private conversations of Princess Diana?
:01:00. > :01:03.Ten years ago, Anita Roddick, the environmentalist and founder
:01:04. > :01:07.of the Body Shop died, one of the most high-profile victims
:01:08. > :01:13.We hear from her daughter Sam for the first time.
:01:14. > :01:17.She was pretty clear that she got it through
:01:18. > :01:23.I could really hear the vulnerability in her voice, because
:01:24. > :01:39.Well, the story tonight is either that the White House is imploding
:01:40. > :01:41.or that it is getting itself into shape.
:01:42. > :01:44.We won't know for a while, but we do know that Anthony Scarramucci,
:01:45. > :01:47.who had made such a mark in his few days as communications
:01:48. > :01:52.US media reporting that the new Chief of
:01:53. > :01:58.Mr Scarramucci spun it with more grace than had been evident in most
:01:59. > :02:04.He felt it was best to give the new Chief of Staff John Kelly
:02:05. > :02:06.a clean slate and the ability to build his own team,
:02:07. > :02:12.At the end of a turbulent week it does seem that President Trump has
:02:13. > :02:14.yielded to the argument that stability is better than chaos.
:02:15. > :02:23.You're here to stay? We'll see, I'm here to serve at the discretion of
:02:24. > :02:28.the president. If he wants me to leave tomorrow then I'm not going to
:02:29. > :02:32.be here to stay. Anthony Scaramucci is an excommunications director.
:02:33. > :02:36.This interview from the White House was recorded earlier today. So the
:02:37. > :02:43.Chief of Staff was literally sworn in about 52 minutes ago, so he is
:02:44. > :02:47.setting in place the procedures by which he will run the White House
:02:48. > :02:52.internally. Where Anthony fits into that you would have to ask general
:02:53. > :02:57.Kelly. Let's give him more than 52 minutes and find out later in the
:02:58. > :03:01.week. We didn't need that long. I love the president. And I'm very,
:03:02. > :03:05.very loyal to the president. When Mr Scaramucci got the job ten days ago,
:03:06. > :03:11.the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer resigned over that
:03:12. > :03:21.appointment. Then last week, Mr Scaramucci publicly the then White
:03:22. > :03:28.House Chief of Chief of Staff. He was replaced last week. That was
:03:29. > :03:32.seen as a win for Mr Scaramucci. But Mr Priebes's replacement, general
:03:33. > :03:37.John Kelly's demappeded Mr Scaramucci's removal in turn. Mr
:03:38. > :03:42.Scaramucci's attack last week may have made that an easier sale. The
:03:43. > :03:46.president certainly felt that Anthony's comments were
:03:47. > :03:52.inappropriate for a person in that position. He didn't want to burden
:03:53. > :04:03.General Kelly also with that line of succession. Mr Scaramucci was
:04:04. > :04:07.actually the second communications director, following Mike Dubcic who
:04:08. > :04:11.resigned in June. And this is the second National Security Adviser,
:04:12. > :04:14.the first, Mike Flynn, resigned after misleading the Vice President
:04:15. > :04:19.on issues around the Russian influence scandal. Irritation with
:04:20. > :04:24.the investigation into that scandal eventually led to President Trump
:04:25. > :04:32.firing the FBI director, James Comey. We also know the president
:04:33. > :04:35.may about be about to fire his Attorney-General Jeff Sessions
:04:36. > :04:38.because he recuesed himself from that investigation. Maybe General
:04:39. > :04:42.Kelly will make the White House work. But they've had a humiliation
:04:43. > :04:45.on health care in Congress, that Russian links investigation is
:04:46. > :04:53.rumbling on and it's still not a normal White House.
:04:54. > :04:57.Our North America Editor, Jon Sopel joins us now from outside
:04:58. > :05:09.So, how many in DC saw that coming as quickly as that? I would love to
:05:10. > :05:12.tell you that we all saw that coming, the truth is I was in the
:05:13. > :05:15.White House briefing room a few hours ago, and we were sitting
:05:16. > :05:18.around shooting the breeze and saying, you know what, it all
:05:19. > :05:21.suddenly feels a very much great deal calmer, compared to last week.
:05:22. > :05:25.Donald Trump going on holiday at the end of the week for a couple of
:05:26. > :05:29.weeks. It's probably going to be a slight lull now and then probably
:05:30. > :05:34.absolutely nothing to do for a couple of weeks. Then came the flash
:05:35. > :05:39.that Anthony Scaramucci was going, note quite as quiet then. Even, we
:05:40. > :05:43.understand, that Mr Scaramucci was escorted off the premises. Ten days
:05:44. > :05:47.ago, he was seen as the answer to Donald Trump's prayers on
:05:48. > :05:52.communication and press relations. Now gone, departed. Briefly, one
:05:53. > :05:57.should say this is incredibly absorbing. Every minute we're
:05:58. > :06:01.talking about the personnel and comings and going, not talking about
:06:02. > :06:05.health care, defence or global problems, Paris climate deals or
:06:06. > :06:08.anything. I think that's why it is important for General Kelly to have
:06:09. > :06:12.notched up this victory today but for future victories. He wants to
:06:13. > :06:16.bring a sense of order, process, a chain of command, a proper reporting
:06:17. > :06:19.structure into the White House so that when you are dealing with
:06:20. > :06:22.issues like, I don't know, North Korea, or even domestic policy
:06:23. > :06:26.questions, you've got a White House that is pulling in One Direction not
:06:27. > :06:30.going off in different directions with everyone briefing against each
:06:31. > :06:32.other, which has been the hall mark of these past six months. Thank you
:06:33. > :06:41.very much. If you were watching on Wednesday,
:06:42. > :06:43.you would have seen what I think was the only overseas broadcast
:06:44. > :06:51.interview with Anthony Scaramucci in that post. It was our very own emity
:06:52. > :06:55.Matlis who captured that scoop. You had a close up glimpse of the chaos.
:06:56. > :06:59.Even before this happened there was a joke doing the rounds that the
:07:00. > :07:03.former apprentice boss one Donald Trump thought he had to eliminate
:07:04. > :07:08.one person each week, he somehow misunderstood the role of president.
:07:09. > :07:11.Now we're on more than one a week. I spoke to him exclusively for the BBC
:07:12. > :07:16.for Newsnight less than a week ago. There was a certain amount of chaos
:07:17. > :07:19.even then. To put it in context, I was standing pretty much where Jon
:07:20. > :07:25.was, that interview should never have happened. Scaramucci was
:07:26. > :07:30.walking past behind me, taking selfies, as is the want of Trump
:07:31. > :07:34.administration, before that infamous dinner. When I realised who it was,
:07:35. > :07:38.I pulled out my ear piece and I tried to lure him onto Newsnight. It
:07:39. > :07:41.was the thing that any journalist in my position would have done. The
:07:42. > :07:44.curious thing was that he didn't seem to need to refer upwards. He
:07:45. > :07:47.didn't ask me what I was going to ask him about. He didn't need to
:07:48. > :07:50.know how long the interview would be or what it was about. He was
:07:51. > :07:55.flattered. He came on - That's kind of what we like about the guy. As a
:07:56. > :08:00.journalist, he is about as good as it gets. When I asked about the
:08:01. > :08:06.British story of the day, the Brexit deal, chlorination chicken to coin a
:08:07. > :08:11.phrase, he fessed up, "I know nothing about your chicken story. I
:08:12. > :08:15.promise if you come back in a week's time, I will know chicken 100%."
:08:16. > :08:20.Unfortunately that won't happen. There was an impromptu and that is
:08:21. > :08:23.being kind, seat of the pants attitude, not just for me, but for
:08:24. > :08:27.him. The way it's played out, it points to a deeper structural issue
:08:28. > :08:30.about the way the White House runs. This is the curious thing. I talk to
:08:31. > :08:34.members of the Trump administration quite often, not just Scaramucci and
:08:35. > :08:39.the grown ups, shall we say, are keen to point out, they tell me,
:08:40. > :08:44.ignore the schtik. That is their way to say, there is a lot of stuff
:08:45. > :08:47.which is part hysteria, it's noise, it's the tweets, it's the press
:08:48. > :08:51.briefings, it's President Trump making a lot of noise around was
:08:52. > :08:56.going on. He says behind all that, there is actually a strategy. There
:08:57. > :08:59.is something going on smoothly beneath the surface, that the media
:09:00. > :09:01.doesn't see because the rest is entertaining. There is a sense
:09:02. > :09:06.tonight that John Kelly has come in and decided to tighten the ship. One
:09:07. > :09:11.member of the administration told me in confidence, they always get
:09:12. > :09:13.excited when they see "recognisable adult behaviour" from the Trump
:09:14. > :09:19.administration. That equates to a good day for them. Perhaps this is
:09:20. > :09:24.General Kelly's way of saying it is not enough to go round telling me
:09:25. > :09:30.like me to ignore the schtik, we have to shut down the circus, kille
:09:31. > :09:34.clowns, make the fanfare -- kill the clowns and make the fanfare go away
:09:35. > :09:37.and make people know there is a strategy to the White House. Thanks.
:09:38. > :09:39.Joining us now from New York is Jacob Weisberg -
:09:40. > :09:42.editor in chief of the online news site "Slate" and the presenter
:09:43. > :09:54.The big question is - is Kelly going to instil some discipline on this
:09:55. > :09:58.tumultuous White House? Well, first let's pause to savour for a minute
:09:59. > :10:02.what we've just been through. In your wonderful interview last week,
:10:03. > :10:07.Scaramucci said he wasn't a back stabber, he was a front stabber. But
:10:08. > :10:13.he didn't go quite so far as to say he would be a front self-stabber
:10:14. > :10:19.with such proefficiency. I mean even in this White House where the shelf
:10:20. > :10:25.life of aides seems to range between milk and yoghurt this was incredibly
:10:26. > :10:31.swift. I think General Kelly has a difficult task before him. I have no
:10:32. > :10:33.doubt that he can function effectively as a gatekeeper for
:10:34. > :10:37.Donald Trump. The question is whether President Trump will allow
:10:38. > :10:41.himself to be gate kept. We know what a strong Chief of Staff looks
:10:42. > :10:48.like in the White House and how they operate. There have been many
:10:49. > :10:55.examples over the past several presidencies. That means the
:10:56. > :10:58.president must not have separate private channels of communication
:10:59. > :11:03.and Trump has shown zero ability to do. Some of his staff has professed
:11:04. > :11:07.it as a philosophy, that chaos is a way of getting things done, smashing
:11:08. > :11:11.systems that are broken and need replacing, this is all part of
:11:12. > :11:15.disruption. Do you think Trump is persuaded, deep down persuaded, that
:11:16. > :11:20.is not the way to get things done, that you need just a bit of
:11:21. > :11:25.traditional governmental competence? No, I don't think he is persuaded. I
:11:26. > :11:30.don't know that chaos is his theory, but it works for him. Creating more
:11:31. > :11:35.chaos at the very least always changes the subject when he's in
:11:36. > :11:42.trouble from one crisis to another. I think you've seen even in the last
:11:43. > :11:45.week, which is by any standard about a chaotic as the White House has
:11:46. > :11:51.gotten. Trump tweeted this morning that there is no White House chaos.
:11:52. > :11:55.What it's done is it's removed the possibility of attention for
:11:56. > :12:03.anything other than Trump. So the Democrats tried to roll out their
:12:04. > :12:07.plan for the mid-terms, senator Schumer and Nancy Pelosi announced
:12:08. > :12:11.their better deal which is their big initiative heading towards the
:12:12. > :12:17.mid-terms. There was no oxygen left for it. I mean it was just a brief
:12:18. > :12:20.flurry because within a few hours, Trump was attacking his own
:12:21. > :12:25.Attorney-General and within a few days, he was bringing in Scaramucci
:12:26. > :12:29.and you know, there's only so much space in the news. No-one was really
:12:30. > :12:35.able to get to anything beyond Trump's chaos. No room for politics
:12:36. > :12:39.as normal. Just in terms of who's up and who's down, which are the
:12:40. > :12:46.different Donald Trumps, if you like, is going to prevail? The big
:12:47. > :12:51.question is Steve Bannon, who has been a bit quiet in the last week.
:12:52. > :12:56.Where is he out of all of this? It's funny Bannon, he got in trouble for
:12:57. > :12:59.appearing on the cover of Time magazine with the headline that
:13:00. > :13:04.suggested he was the real power rather than Trump. There's nothing
:13:05. > :13:08.riskier to do in the Trump White House than claim the lion's share of
:13:09. > :13:11.the attention. I do think Bannon has learned his lesson. I mean, he's
:13:12. > :13:15.been much less visible and prominent. There is an interesting
:13:16. > :13:20.new book about him and Trump out, but he doesn't seem to be making any
:13:21. > :13:22.effort to put himself in front of the cameras the way Anthony
:13:23. > :13:28.Scaramucci obviously was doing all of the time. So I think Bannon has
:13:29. > :13:33.hopes of survival but how he will get along with the new Chief of
:13:34. > :13:37.Staff and the various other officials, it remains to be seen.
:13:38. > :13:41.You wouldn't want to predict longevity for anybody in the White
:13:42. > :13:45.House. You would have to say Kelly is looking pretty indispensable at
:13:46. > :13:48.the moment because Trump, it would be embarrassing to lose Kelly in the
:13:49. > :13:52.next three months and the way they were talking about him at the press
:13:53. > :13:55.briefing this evening as having full authority, new structure and
:13:56. > :13:59.discipline, everybody in the White House is reporting to Kelly, you
:14:00. > :14:04.have to think now, Trump is trusting this guy. I would remain sceptical.
:14:05. > :14:08.I think Trump will do what he wants to do. I think it places limits
:14:09. > :14:13.around Trump's behaviour and probably the most important is it
:14:14. > :14:18.will make it very difficult for Trump to fire the independent
:14:19. > :14:22.counsel Robert Muller. I think Kelly would probably lay down in front of
:14:23. > :14:27.a truck on that one and Trump would be faced with the choice of
:14:28. > :14:30.embarrassingly losing his new Chief of Staff or going through with what
:14:31. > :14:34.he probably does want to do. Thanks very much.
:14:35. > :14:46.As we reflect on the movie of the moment, Dunkirk, and mark the 100th
:14:47. > :14:50.anniversary of Passchendaele, it is possible to be optimist being about
:14:51. > :14:53.the state of the world or pessimistic. Optimist being because
:14:54. > :14:59.we haven't been involved in a war on the scale of the first and Second
:15:00. > :15:02.World War in 70 years. But eeconomists use that term great
:15:03. > :15:06.moderation just before the financial crash. The quiet can foretell the
:15:07. > :15:10.storm. And it is hard not to look at world affairs right now without
:15:11. > :15:13.concern, whether it is the conflicts that have erupted in the Middle
:15:14. > :15:20.East, the deteriorating relationship between Russia and the US or the
:15:21. > :15:21.potential for a North Korean ballistic missile to strike the
:15:22. > :15:36.West. Is it time to worry? Passchendaele from the sky after the
:15:37. > :15:40.battles of the First World War. Just 80 miles from Britain, a scene of
:15:41. > :15:45.total devastation of the kind that most of us have not experienced.
:15:46. > :15:49.Today, the shape of Passchendaele is unmistakably the same yet it is now
:15:50. > :15:55.just a pleasant Belgian village, proof that the world can escape the
:15:56. > :16:00.darkness of the past. And yet new darkness can come, the world today
:16:01. > :16:04.is undeniably in a volatile and brutal phase. We will handle North
:16:05. > :16:21.Korea. We will be able to handle them.
:16:22. > :16:26.It will be handled. We handle everything. Thank you very much. No
:16:27. > :16:28.one has worked out a way to deal with the clear and present danger of
:16:29. > :16:30.North Korea, a country led by a single-minded dictator with nuclear
:16:31. > :16:33.weapons. This weekend he tested another ballistic missile, fired it
:16:34. > :16:35.in the direction of Japan and rails against the US. Is this the most
:16:36. > :16:38.foreseeable way to imagine a million or more people dying right now?
:16:39. > :16:43.Making for an unstable backdrop, the jostling of global powers. Trump
:16:44. > :16:47.blames China for not dealing with North Korea and has new problems
:16:48. > :16:51.with Putin. Each leader has something to prove, the world
:16:52. > :16:56.struggles for an equilibrium. Vice President Mike Pence was in Estonia
:16:57. > :17:00.today. No threat looms larger in the Baltic states than the spectre of
:17:01. > :17:08.aggression from your unpredictable neighbour to the east. The Cold War
:17:09. > :17:14.was of course, in the sense simple. What do I mean by that? That you had
:17:15. > :17:21.two great blocks, the Warsaw Pact on the one hand, Nato on the other,
:17:22. > :17:26.where it that compare to today? It is not so simple, it is much more
:17:27. > :17:37.complicated, there are more actors on this difficult stage and
:17:38. > :17:40.therefore, it is, in my view, more difficult to handle. For those in
:17:41. > :17:44.Syria, they're probably already feels like the end of days, conflict
:17:45. > :17:49.that has already lasted longer than world Wars one and two. The medieval
:17:50. > :17:54.violence of so-called Islamic State adds to the sense of desperation. It
:17:55. > :17:59.cannot kill on a nuclear scale but has taken terror well beyond its own
:18:00. > :18:03.territory. And Syria is just one conflict in the region that is
:18:04. > :18:08.fraught with explosive potential. First you have to know what happens
:18:09. > :18:11.when an atomic bomb explodes. Of course in the nuclear age, there
:18:12. > :18:16.have been periods of Basra we have felt that the end is nigh. Usually
:18:17. > :18:21.human beings are capable of stepping from the brink, but the danger is
:18:22. > :18:27.one thing leads to another as it did before the First World War. One
:18:28. > :18:34.problem triggers the next, reaction leads to overreaction. Care must be
:18:35. > :18:43.to ensure that what is relatively minor does not either by some intend
:18:44. > :18:52.some wire or by accident grow into something more serious and more
:18:53. > :18:56.threatening. A BBC war game exercise last year managed to arrive at a
:18:57. > :19:01.scenario of tactical nuclear weapons being used in Europe. The Americans
:19:02. > :19:07.have decided not to take our advice and have used a tactical nuclear
:19:08. > :19:15.weapons to take out a target in Russia. It would be nice to dismiss
:19:16. > :19:20.such outcomes as television talk are not the real world but the worrying
:19:21. > :19:28.thing is that the years of peace in Europe have been historical
:19:29. > :19:31.exception, rather than the norm. Let's reflect on how serious the
:19:32. > :19:33.threat to the west and the world are.
:19:34. > :19:35.James Jeffrey was deputy National Security Advisor and a US
:19:36. > :19:37.ambassador to Iraq - he's in Washington.
:19:38. > :19:39.Brian Lord was the deputy director of GCHQ, responsible for
:19:40. > :19:41.Intelligence and Cyber Operations - he's in Bristol.
:19:42. > :19:44.And Patricia Lewis is a nuclear physicist and arms control expert
:19:45. > :19:46.who is the Research Director for International Security
:19:47. > :20:00.I would like to start at Patricia maybe you can help me, do you the
:20:01. > :20:04.possibility of what one might call a big war between major powers in the
:20:05. > :20:09.world in the next 20 or 30 years? Yes I do. I see it as a possibility
:20:10. > :20:16.if we do not learn the lessons of history. So, the bad news is that it
:20:17. > :20:20.is very complicated and there are two major hotspots and there are
:20:21. > :20:25.other smaller ones. We do not quite, we never know what will Tibet off,
:20:26. > :20:28.but the good news is that we can learn from history. We do know what
:20:29. > :20:32.has happened before and we have learned a great deals of the end of
:20:33. > :20:36.the Second World War, the UN, all of its structures has helped us prevent
:20:37. > :20:38.conflict and we know almost everything we need to prevent
:20:39. > :20:59.conflict, it is a question of having the political
:21:00. > :21:02.will to do it. To people like me who feel it is inconceivable because we
:21:03. > :21:05.are too sensible now to do these silly things and let one thing led
:21:06. > :21:08.to another and trigger a war, what we would surely sit down and sorted
:21:09. > :21:10.out... That is not what human beings do. If you look through history,
:21:11. > :21:12.people make mistakes, people get angry, they often misinterpret, we
:21:13. > :21:14.have seen many occasions were something has happened and there has
:21:15. > :21:16.been an overreaction. James Jeffrey, do you basically agree with Patricia
:21:17. > :21:21.said there? Only partially. The reason we have not seen a return to
:21:22. > :21:28.the first half of the awful 20th century is that during an after
:21:29. > :21:32.World War II, the United States and the European partners added
:21:33. > :21:37.countries around the world and have created a global collective security
:21:38. > :21:41.system with financial trade, role of law and other aspects but at the
:21:42. > :21:46.centre is collective security. By won the Cold War and was dealing
:21:47. > :21:51.with regional problems such as Saddam Hussein since 1989 but now we
:21:52. > :21:56.see the rise of Russia and China who want to challenge that system and to
:21:57. > :22:00.some degree are cooperating with the regional actors such as North Korea
:22:01. > :22:12.and Iran. The whole complex of threats taken together is quite
:22:13. > :22:14.formidable. You are saying that you would link the different things, the
:22:15. > :22:17.North Korea situation, the jostling between the big powers, these are
:22:18. > :22:21.all linked in your view? Not a conspiracy against the West but that
:22:22. > :22:27.people are organising with a mind to weakening the West? There is no
:22:28. > :22:32.overall battleplan that Beijing and Moscow have agreed on, they have a
:22:33. > :22:35.common ally of interest in undercutting the American security
:22:36. > :22:39.system because it stands in the way of their alternative system which
:22:40. > :22:42.you people in Europe understand from the 19th century, it is great
:22:43. > :22:47.powers, expanding their influence until they run into another great
:22:48. > :22:52.power. That is what led to the First World War and the Second World War.
:22:53. > :22:55.We have tried over the past 70 years defied a different way forward and
:22:56. > :23:02.they are challenging that and even though they do not coordinate on
:23:03. > :23:06.every issue, there a high degree of commonality and the UN votes to
:23:07. > :23:13.block action against North Korea and Iran, and they challenge it. Brian
:23:14. > :23:18.Lord, tell us if you believe a big war is a possibility or whether
:23:19. > :23:24.you're on the more optimistic and? I think a single big war is highly
:23:25. > :23:27.unlikely but what we are seeing, I would agree that what we are seeing
:23:28. > :23:32.is a challenge of traditional western approach to the world. All
:23:33. > :23:38.we also are living through, is a world where the rigidity of Borders
:23:39. > :23:39.is being broken down by technology, trade communication, the
:23:40. > :23:45.availability of information is now no longer as controlled as it was.
:23:46. > :23:51.We have an increasingly bellicose North Korea and Russia plane its
:23:52. > :23:54.usual geopolitical games, whether it is a virtual real space or
:23:55. > :23:57.cyberspace and we have a White House which is perceived from the outside
:23:58. > :24:02.to be unusual and certainly unpredictable. What I would say is
:24:03. > :24:07.the risk of a miscalculation is extremely real and a miscalculation
:24:08. > :24:13.is in effect will have the same effect as a real conflict. Patricia
:24:14. > :24:18.made that point as well. War may itself be very different and as an
:24:19. > :24:21.expert on cyber security, one of the things we need to think about is not
:24:22. > :24:28.thinking what it looks like an 20th-century terms but potentially,
:24:29. > :24:32.is cyber the form it takes on the 21st-century? I don't think it is as
:24:33. > :24:38.binary as that, you have the ability for states to be able to use
:24:39. > :24:43.activity online to be able to exert geopolitical effect all the way
:24:44. > :24:46.through to destructive effect. One of the areas for miscalculation is
:24:47. > :24:49.we are looking at an area of the world where there are still no rules
:24:50. > :24:54.of engagement, the ability to confuse is very high and the ability
:24:55. > :25:07.to hide or deceive and put whose ever is' she want an activity is
:25:08. > :25:10.very high understanding by a public of what a cyber attack means, the
:25:11. > :25:12.lack of understanding of the capability of the reserve --
:25:13. > :25:14.adversary is very different. It all plays into this confusion which if
:25:15. > :25:16.people want to make a miscalculation or want to give the impression of
:25:17. > :25:20.making a miscalculation, just continues to increase the risk.
:25:21. > :25:24.Patricia, to me it would look like North Korea is in a different
:25:25. > :25:28.category to all the other risks, more than the Middle East, because
:25:29. > :25:31.North Korea, there is an unaccountable dictator, it is not
:25:32. > :25:33.like the former Soviet Union, there is not a system that he is a part
:25:34. > :25:59.of, it is just what he wants to has got nuclear weapons and
:26:00. > :26:02.ballistic missiles. He is not the only one with nuclear weapons and he
:26:03. > :26:05.does not have them yet, he has ballistic missiles but as far as we
:26:06. > :26:08.are all aware, he is not at the point where he can make the missiles
:26:09. > :26:10.with a warhead. There is still time to play for. North Korea is
:26:11. > :26:13.different as a country, it does not have any friends and it has many
:26:14. > :26:15.enemies. It is very unpredictable and we cannot understand what they
:26:16. > :26:18.will do. In the Middle East it is unpredictable, however and we have
:26:19. > :26:21.the West coming up against Russia, front to front, right in the middle
:26:22. > :26:23.of a battle space. As Brian said, it has got cyberspace in there as well,
:26:24. > :26:26.another set of tools. We have turmoil in the Middle East in the
:26:27. > :26:30.Gulf, we have Israel still, do not forget that, it is very potent. All
:26:31. > :26:35.of these could be the Serbia is, or the triggers. James Jeffrey, I am
:26:36. > :26:38.interested in your take on North Korea, do you see it as slightly
:26:39. > :26:43.different to some of the other risks, because the potential for
:26:44. > :26:49.massive harm is there, if they get the final formula for nuclear
:26:50. > :26:52.weapons. It is the most immediate crisis and it is very very dangerous
:26:53. > :26:57.because it does have nuclear weapons and it can at least strike with
:26:58. > :27:02.nuclear and commercial weapons the civilian population of South Korea.
:27:03. > :27:08.Yes, it is special. On the other hand, it is not something in and of
:27:09. > :27:13.itself, like Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Serbia 1015 years ago, this is a
:27:14. > :27:19.country that is enabled by China. I disagree it does not have friends,
:27:20. > :27:23.its long-range missiles are now mobile, which is very threatening
:27:24. > :27:27.because they are on Chinese trucks. Those trucks are not something they
:27:28. > :27:31.have 30 years ago, they are recent additions, the Chinese are enabling
:27:32. > :27:35.in many different ways, the North Koreans basically to use them as a
:27:36. > :27:39.chess piece against the United States and the western Pacific and
:27:40. > :27:42.that is a real danger to us and to the entire region including
:27:43. > :27:45.ultimately the Chinese. We need to leave it there. Thank you very much
:27:46. > :27:55.indeed. Plenty to worry about. Anita Roddick found international
:27:56. > :27:58.fame as the founder of the Body Shop She before anyone spotted the
:27:59. > :28:02.potential of the ethical economy - business promoting itself as having
:28:03. > :28:05.a mission bigger than making money, She built the company
:28:06. > :28:07.in an unconventional way, and her character played a huge
:28:08. > :28:09.part in its success. But she died a decade ago far
:28:10. > :28:12.too young, having been She had contracted it decades
:28:13. > :28:15.earlier from a contaminated blood transfusion received
:28:16. > :28:16.while giving birth. Well, a couple of weeks ago,
:28:17. > :28:18.the government announced that there will be an inquiry
:28:19. > :28:21.into the scandal of contaminated transfusions, an issue
:28:22. > :28:23.about which the daughter of Anita Roddick
:28:24. > :28:25.understandably feels strongly. Sam Roddick has been
:28:26. > :28:43.speaking to our special You know what, she was one in a
:28:44. > :28:46.million. She challenged the unchallengeable. She challenged the
:28:47. > :28:50.stock market, she challenged business, she challenged her peers
:28:51. > :28:57.and the way business was done and she did it in a way that was braver
:28:58. > :29:02.than whatever is in existence today. Welcome to the video... For 30 years
:29:03. > :29:05.Anita Roddick did not realise she had unknowingly contracted hepatitis
:29:06. > :29:09.C from contaminated blood. Her daughter remembers the moment her
:29:10. > :29:13.mother broke the news and explained the cause was the blood transfusion
:29:14. > :29:20.she received after complications giving birth to Sam. Got through the
:29:21. > :29:25.transfusion when I was born. And you know I could really hear the
:29:26. > :29:31.vulnerability in her voice. Because my mum really feared death. So she
:29:32. > :29:34.had a phrase which was, isn't it amazing, Sam, every year you pass
:29:35. > :29:41.the date of your death and you don't know it. Thousands of people
:29:42. > :29:45.contracted hepatitis C, some got HIV and we know about that now. To step
:29:46. > :29:49.back from it and think, she went into hospital to have a baby and she
:29:50. > :29:56.came out with this disease and did not know about a that time. For her
:29:57. > :30:03.to be able to contract that during something that was such a kind of,
:30:04. > :30:10.and normal procedure, is really sad. The strange thing is, even I felt
:30:11. > :30:16.responsible, like I, somehow, that sense, it is ironic, because you
:30:17. > :30:19.think as a baby, I can protect my mum, she was going on, she was
:30:20. > :30:28.pregnant with me. There is that first level of irrevocable,
:30:29. > :30:33.unconscious guilt, it is just ridiculous, but it still exist. And
:30:34. > :30:40.if she had found out earlier, what would that have meant? She could
:30:41. > :30:43.have had a treatment, really early, possibly at the time, but she could
:30:44. > :30:49.not have it because of her high blood trash -- blood pressure, she
:30:50. > :30:53.could not get a liver transplant, she was literally deteriorating. She
:30:54. > :30:58.was exhausted. She could have got a lot of medical assistance. Good she
:30:59. > :31:06.have survived much longer? I think she could have. Who do you blame?
:31:07. > :31:11.Personally. I love the NHS, I actually think it is the backbone of
:31:12. > :31:17.British society, I would fight for the NHS the whole time. The people
:31:18. > :31:21.who were making money out of this large pharmaceutical corporations,
:31:22. > :31:23.that is who I kind of they are the ones, who really violated good
:31:24. > :31:36.governance. Did your family think about suing?
:31:37. > :31:40.No, we aren't people who sue. The best thing we can serve is by
:31:41. > :31:43.highlighting this issue and appealing for people to come forward
:31:44. > :31:48.if they've needed or had the procedure of a blood transfusion
:31:49. > :31:53.during the dates that have been highlighted and to get tested. I
:31:54. > :31:57.personally think that anybody who has been affected who doesn't come
:31:58. > :32:07.from my financial background should sue. There has been a huge law suit
:32:08. > :32:10.in America of Bayer and a number of corporations held responsible. I
:32:11. > :32:13.mean, in the billions got paid out. The Prime Minister announced an
:32:14. > :32:18.inquiry recently into this, what was your reaction to that? There needs
:32:19. > :32:23.to be a true independent inquiry. I think it is now about stepping
:32:24. > :32:30.forward and really trying to put the pieces together about why and how
:32:31. > :32:33.this occurred and those responsible should be held accountable. I
:32:34. > :32:37.definitely believe when you actually look at the significant amount of
:32:38. > :32:41.contaminated blood, it seems impossible for there not to be an
:32:42. > :32:44.enormous number of people that this touches. It must have been
:32:45. > :32:49.incredibly painful to watch your mother deteriorate. Yeah, it was
:32:50. > :32:55.incredibly painful. It was incredibly painful to see somebody
:32:56. > :33:00.so powerful, so effective, so energetic, somebody who has a lust
:33:01. > :33:06.for life really have to face her limitations at a time where it was
:33:07. > :33:10.cut short. Like, you know, our family had a huge loss. But the
:33:11. > :33:14.world had a huge loss too. She was the first company to open up a
:33:15. > :33:17.creche in her factory, so people could breast-feed and continue on
:33:18. > :33:22.caring for their children during lunch time. I think that was, shows
:33:23. > :33:28.how she loved her workforce and wanted to create a humane
:33:29. > :33:35.environment. The fact that she changed EU law and got the Anirban
:33:36. > :33:39.of animal testing -- got the ban of animal testing in the EU showed how
:33:40. > :33:43.complished she was when she put her mind to do. All her campaigns were
:33:44. > :33:49.phenomenal, the recycling, the sourcing. She was the first person
:33:50. > :33:51.to take Fairtrade out of the charity sector and put it into the
:33:52. > :33:56.commercial environment. You don't seem to be either bitter or angry,
:33:57. > :34:02.but maybe that's just... I'm not angry. I'm sad. There's bitterness
:34:03. > :34:08.which will eat at your own soul. A part of my utilising my anger is by
:34:09. > :34:14.being available to highlight this issue and trying to encourage and
:34:15. > :34:19.support people to make those accountable be accountable. That's a
:34:20. > :34:23.really healthy way to channel your, my anger any way. Presumably you
:34:24. > :34:28.miss her every day, do you? Oh, yeah, I miss her every day.
:34:29. > :34:31.The directors of the collapsed Kids Company - including
:34:32. > :34:34.Camilla Batmangelidge and Alan Yentob - have been told
:34:35. > :34:36.that they face proceedings to bar them from serving
:34:37. > :34:42.Any such disqualification does have to be tested in the courts.
:34:43. > :34:45.Chris Cook broke the story of problems at Kids Company,
:34:46. > :34:55.What did we learn exactly today. We know that the eight final directors
:34:56. > :34:59.at kids company, plus Camilla Batmangelidge, who wasn't director
:35:00. > :35:02.at the time, will be all considered culpable for the collapse of the
:35:03. > :35:07.charity and way it was run. They face between two-and-a-half and six
:35:08. > :35:10.years, if the process goes through, disqualified from being able to hold
:35:11. > :35:15.offices of responsibility in relation to companies. It's quite a
:35:16. > :35:22.serious process. If they get someone to act on their behalf, that person
:35:23. > :35:25.can get disqualified. It reflects the serious problems at the charity.
:35:26. > :35:29.If you look down the list of things you can be disqualified for, there
:35:30. > :35:36.are a few things you can tick off. Terrible record keeping. They
:35:37. > :35:41.claimed to have 15,000 clients. We still only have records of around
:35:42. > :35:47.2,000. They used to run what they referred to as the bully strategy,
:35:48. > :35:52.telling people if you don't put us money we'll collapse and what will
:35:53. > :35:55.happen to the children. The gap between the trading while insolvent,
:35:56. > :36:00.which gets you disqualified is pretty thin. Is it normal for
:36:01. > :36:04.Charity Trustees or directors to be told they can't run companies? Is it
:36:05. > :36:07.fair take someone running a charity and apply this sanction? If we want
:36:08. > :36:10.charities to have real responsibility it probably is fair.
:36:11. > :36:14.You can't have a situation where people are allowed to do this as a
:36:15. > :36:17.hobby job and it has no consequences. The charities do
:36:18. > :36:21.really matter. You think large charities like kids company, which
:36:22. > :36:25.got ?47 million of public money, this is not a trivial thing. The
:36:26. > :36:28.role it played in people's lives isn't trivial. The trustees have to
:36:29. > :36:30.take it seriously. Thank you very much.
:36:31. > :36:33.Is it right that details of the sexual relations of Charles
:36:34. > :36:36.Channel 4 is controversially poised to play recordings
:36:37. > :36:40.of Diana talking in detail about the breakdown of her marriage
:36:41. > :36:46.Diana was preparing for her interview on Panorama,
:36:47. > :36:48.but the tapes go further than the programme itself.
:36:49. > :36:51.But is Diana entitled to some kind of privacy in death,
:36:52. > :36:54.of a kind that she was rarely accorded in life?
:36:55. > :36:57.With me now are the historian and biographer, Tracy Borman,
:36:58. > :37:01.and the Guardian columnist Dawn Foster.
:37:02. > :37:07.I think you think Channel 4 are right to basically show these tapes
:37:08. > :37:11.and give us the full story. Why do you think so? I think first of all,
:37:12. > :37:17.there's a really huge public interest in Diana. We saw that in
:37:18. > :37:21.19le 7. -- 1987. We see it now. People are fascinated by her, by
:37:22. > :37:26.what happened to her in life and also, exactly how different she was
:37:27. > :37:33.to the Royals. I think for me and many other people she felt stage
:37:34. > :37:37.managed in life. She felt really cloistered and bound by the Royal
:37:38. > :37:42.Family. This gives us a chance to learn more about her and what she
:37:43. > :37:46.maybe would like to have said, if she hadn't been in such a - Are
:37:47. > :37:51.people trying to stop Channel 4 doing it, are they the ones trying
:37:52. > :37:55.to control the media? Or trying to control Diana, or does it matter
:37:56. > :37:58.what Diana thought would happen to these tapes when she recorded them
:37:59. > :38:03.or what she wanted at the time? I think it's very difficult to say
:38:04. > :38:08.what she may have wanted to be put out there. In death obviously we
:38:09. > :38:11.have a huge interest in her. Equally, there's so much we don't
:38:12. > :38:15.know about her that maybe people want to know. I think the fact she
:38:16. > :38:18.was speaking to somebody else about it, preparing for Panorama and
:38:19. > :38:22.clearly wanted to get some of this out there, is maybe a hint that she
:38:23. > :38:27.wanted more of her personal life out there. Let's be honest, NBC have
:38:28. > :38:32.shown a lot of this in the States. You can track it down if you want
:38:33. > :38:37.to. It's not quite as unknown as it might be. Do you see any historical
:38:38. > :38:41.significance or anything that we'll learn from watching this Channel 4
:38:42. > :38:47.programme? As Dawn said, there isn't much new in terms of revelations.
:38:48. > :38:51.But I think the point is that they weren't necessarily intended for
:38:52. > :38:55.broadcast. I do think that it's inappropriate. Certainly when you
:38:56. > :38:59.look at them as historical documents, the National Archives
:39:00. > :39:03.wouldn't release anything unless sensitivity checks had been carried
:39:04. > :39:08.out, including the effect on living persons. Of course, there are still
:39:09. > :39:12.some significant others of Diana who this will affect deeply I think.
:39:13. > :39:18.You're thinking of the children or Charles? I'm thinking of the
:39:19. > :39:21.children more. I understand that there was talk of making a
:39:22. > :39:27.documentary of this ten years ago, it was Sheffield. The BBC --
:39:28. > :39:30.shelved. The BBC was going to look at this and then backed out when
:39:31. > :39:34.they saw the minefield it was. Does it matter to you the brother, the
:39:35. > :39:39.kids, basically everybody who does speak for Diana, who might say they
:39:40. > :39:42.do because they're nuclear family, not royalty, if they say we don't
:39:43. > :39:48.want this stuff aired in public, does that not matter in I think
:39:49. > :39:51.public interest is key here. The family themselves can protect
:39:52. > :39:55.themselves from it. Equally, when I was at university, I read James
:39:56. > :39:58.Joyce's salacious letters to his wife. He probably didn't want them
:39:59. > :40:03.to be in the public domain. But they are. They form part of what we think
:40:04. > :40:07.of Joyce as a character and a public figure. Often, what we don't expect
:40:08. > :40:10.to be in the public domain will be afterwards because there is so much
:40:11. > :40:17.public interest in people. Is there a time theme here? The national
:40:18. > :40:21.archive say there's a 30-year rule. But only when sensitivity checks are
:40:22. > :40:24.carried out. We have more and more restrictive, I mean when you look at
:40:25. > :40:30.the history of private life, the Tudors for example, they laid it all
:40:31. > :40:33.bare and gladly so. They wanted to boast about their marital relations.
:40:34. > :40:38.Like Scaramucci, say what we think. Very topical. They would have wanted
:40:39. > :40:44.their subjects to take an interest in their love lives in all forms. I
:40:45. > :40:47.wonder whether we, you keep saying public interest, it's the
:40:48. > :40:53.distinction between interest of the public and the public interest isn't
:40:54. > :41:03.it and whether there is a public interest in this. For many Diana
:41:04. > :41:07.symbolised a sea change in British history. Moving to a more open, you
:41:08. > :41:10.know tied in with the Advent of Blair. People are very interested in
:41:11. > :41:14.how she stood at the crux of history. We're going to leave it
:41:15. > :41:18.there, thank you very much for coming in.
:41:19. > :41:22.That's all for tonight. Let's finish by returning to Passchendaele. We
:41:23. > :41:26.saw a little earlier, we end with a closer up and sometimes gruesome
:41:27. > :41:31.look at what that battlefield really looked like in the summer and Autumn
:41:32. > :41:35.of 1917. The pictures are accompanied by the firemen of the
:41:36. > :42:27.town of Ypres sounding the Last Post. Good night.
:42:28. > :42:33.Hello. Get ready for more heavy showers across the UK tomorrow. Some
:42:34. > :42:36.places that stayed dry today will not tomorrow. The showers will
:42:37. > :42:38.become more widespread as