31/07/2017 Newsnight


More Trump sackings. Where will the next war come from? The death of Anita Roddick. Kids Company. Diana. With Evan Davis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 31/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



I'm here to serve at the discretion of the President.


If he wants me to leave tomorrow, then I'm not


There's never a dull moment in this White House, but the sacking


of the communications director Anthony Scarramucci,


after just ten days in post, could be a sign that the grown-ups


are imposing themselves. We'll ask the editor in chief


of Slate Magazine if Trump's new Chief of Staff is bringing


From Russia.. Without much love.


To North Korea with a fair bit of hate.


Is it right to think the world is at an unusually


We'll take stock tonight and ask the big question -


Is it wrong to broadcast the private conversations of Princess Diana?


Ten years ago, Anita Roddick, the environmentalist and founder


of the Body Shop died, one of the most high-profile victims


We hear from her daughter Sam for the first time.


She was pretty clear that she got it through


I could really hear the vulnerability in her voice, because


Well, the story tonight is either that the White House is imploding


or that it is getting itself into shape.


We won't know for a while, but we do know that Anthony Scarramucci,


who had made such a mark in his few days as communications


US media reporting that the new Chief of


Mr Scarramucci spun it with more grace than had been evident in most


He felt it was best to give the new Chief of Staff John Kelly


a clean slate and the ability to build his own team,


At the end of a turbulent week it does seem that President Trump has


yielded to the argument that stability is better than chaos.


You're here to stay? We'll see, I'm here to serve at the discretion of


the president. If he wants me to leave tomorrow then I'm not going to


be here to stay. Anthony Scaramucci is an excommunications director.


This interview from the White House was recorded earlier today. So the


Chief of Staff was literally sworn in about 52 minutes ago, so he is


setting in place the procedures by which he will run the White House


internally. Where Anthony fits into that you would have to ask general


Kelly. Let's give him more than 52 minutes and find out later in the


week. We didn't need that long. I love the president. And I'm very,


very loyal to the president. When Mr Scaramucci got the job ten days ago,


the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer resigned over that


appointment. Then last week, Mr Scaramucci publicly the then White


House Chief of Chief of Staff. He was replaced last week. That was


seen as a win for Mr Scaramucci. But Mr Priebes's replacement, general


John Kelly's demappeded Mr Scaramucci's removal in turn. Mr


Scaramucci's attack last week may have made that an easier sale. The


president certainly felt that Anthony's comments were


inappropriate for a person in that position. He didn't want to burden


General Kelly also with that line of succession. Mr Scaramucci was


actually the second communications director, following Mike Dubcic who


resigned in June. And this is the second National Security Adviser,


the first, Mike Flynn, resigned after misleading the Vice President


on issues around the Russian influence scandal. Irritation with


the investigation into that scandal eventually led to President Trump


firing the FBI director, James Comey. We also know the president


may about be about to fire his Attorney-General Jeff Sessions


because he recuesed himself from that investigation. Maybe General


Kelly will make the White House work. But they've had a humiliation


on health care in Congress, that Russian links investigation is


rumbling on and it's still not a normal White House.


Our North America Editor, Jon Sopel joins us now from outside


So, how many in DC saw that coming as quickly as that? I would love to


tell you that we all saw that coming, the truth is I was in the


White House briefing room a few hours ago, and we were sitting


around shooting the breeze and saying, you know what, it all


suddenly feels a very much great deal calmer, compared to last week.


Donald Trump going on holiday at the end of the week for a couple of


weeks. It's probably going to be a slight lull now and then probably


absolutely nothing to do for a couple of weeks. Then came the flash


that Anthony Scaramucci was going, note quite as quiet then. Even, we


understand, that Mr Scaramucci was escorted off the premises. Ten days


ago, he was seen as the answer to Donald Trump's prayers on


communication and press relations. Now gone, departed. Briefly, one


should say this is incredibly absorbing. Every minute we're


talking about the personnel and comings and going, not talking about


health care, defence or global problems, Paris climate deals or


anything. I think that's why it is important for General Kelly to have


notched up this victory today but for future victories. He wants to


bring a sense of order, process, a chain of command, a proper reporting


structure into the White House so that when you are dealing with


issues like, I don't know, North Korea, or even domestic policy


questions, you've got a White House that is pulling in One Direction not


going off in different directions with everyone briefing against each


other, which has been the hall mark of these past six months. Thank you


very much. If you were watching on Wednesday,


you would have seen what I think was the only overseas broadcast


interview with Anthony Scaramucci in that post. It was our very own emity


Matlis who captured that scoop. You had a close up glimpse of the chaos.


Even before this happened there was a joke doing the rounds that the


former apprentice boss one Donald Trump thought he had to eliminate


one person each week, he somehow misunderstood the role of president.


Now we're on more than one a week. I spoke to him exclusively for the BBC


for Newsnight less than a week ago. There was a certain amount of chaos


even then. To put it in context, I was standing pretty much where Jon


was, that interview should never have happened. Scaramucci was


walking past behind me, taking selfies, as is the want of Trump


administration, before that infamous dinner. When I realised who it was,


I pulled out my ear piece and I tried to lure him onto Newsnight. It


was the thing that any journalist in my position would have done. The


curious thing was that he didn't seem to need to refer upwards. He


didn't ask me what I was going to ask him about. He didn't need to


know how long the interview would be or what it was about. He was


flattered. He came on - That's kind of what we like about the guy. As a


journalist, he is about as good as it gets. When I asked about the


British story of the day, the Brexit deal, chlorination chicken to coin a


phrase, he fessed up, "I know nothing about your chicken story. I


promise if you come back in a week's time, I will know chicken 100%."


Unfortunately that won't happen. There was an impromptu and that is


being kind, seat of the pants attitude, not just for me, but for


him. The way it's played out, it points to a deeper structural issue


about the way the White House runs. This is the curious thing. I talk to


members of the Trump administration quite often, not just Scaramucci and


the grown ups, shall we say, are keen to point out, they tell me,


ignore the schtik. That is their way to say, there is a lot of stuff


which is part hysteria, it's noise, it's the tweets, it's the press


briefings, it's President Trump making a lot of noise around was


going on. He says behind all that, there is actually a strategy. There


is something going on smoothly beneath the surface, that the media


doesn't see because the rest is entertaining. There is a sense


tonight that John Kelly has come in and decided to tighten the ship. One


member of the administration told me in confidence, they always get


excited when they see "recognisable adult behaviour" from the Trump


administration. That equates to a good day for them. Perhaps this is


General Kelly's way of saying it is not enough to go round telling me


like me to ignore the schtik, we have to shut down the circus, kille


clowns, make the fanfare -- kill the clowns and make the fanfare go away


and make people know there is a strategy to the White House. Thanks.


Joining us now from New York is Jacob Weisberg -


editor in chief of the online news site "Slate" and the presenter


The big question is - is Kelly going to instil some discipline on this


tumultuous White House? Well, first let's pause to savour for a minute


what we've just been through. In your wonderful interview last week,


Scaramucci said he wasn't a back stabber, he was a front stabber. But


he didn't go quite so far as to say he would be a front self-stabber


with such proefficiency. I mean even in this White House where the shelf


life of aides seems to range between milk and yoghurt this was incredibly


swift. I think General Kelly has a difficult task before him. I have no


doubt that he can function effectively as a gatekeeper for


Donald Trump. The question is whether President Trump will allow


himself to be gate kept. We know what a strong Chief of Staff looks


like in the White House and how they operate. There have been many


examples over the past several presidencies. That means the


president must not have separate private channels of communication


and Trump has shown zero ability to do. Some of his staff has professed


it as a philosophy, that chaos is a way of getting things done, smashing


systems that are broken and need replacing, this is all part of


disruption. Do you think Trump is persuaded, deep down persuaded, that


is not the way to get things done, that you need just a bit of


traditional governmental competence? No, I don't think he is persuaded. I


don't know that chaos is his theory, but it works for him. Creating more


chaos at the very least always changes the subject when he's in


trouble from one crisis to another. I think you've seen even in the last


week, which is by any standard about a chaotic as the White House has


gotten. Trump tweeted this morning that there is no White House chaos.


What it's done is it's removed the possibility of attention for


anything other than Trump. So the Democrats tried to roll out their


plan for the mid-terms, senator Schumer and Nancy Pelosi announced


their better deal which is their big initiative heading towards the


mid-terms. There was no oxygen left for it. I mean it was just a brief


flurry because within a few hours, Trump was attacking his own


Attorney-General and within a few days, he was bringing in Scaramucci


and you know, there's only so much space in the news. No-one was really


able to get to anything beyond Trump's chaos. No room for politics


as normal. Just in terms of who's up and who's down, which are the


different Donald Trumps, if you like, is going to prevail? The big


question is Steve Bannon, who has been a bit quiet in the last week.


Where is he out of all of this? It's funny Bannon, he got in trouble for


appearing on the cover of Time magazine with the headline that


suggested he was the real power rather than Trump. There's nothing


riskier to do in the Trump White House than claim the lion's share of


the attention. I do think Bannon has learned his lesson. I mean, he's


been much less visible and prominent. There is an interesting


new book about him and Trump out, but he doesn't seem to be making any


effort to put himself in front of the cameras the way Anthony


Scaramucci obviously was doing all of the time. So I think Bannon has


hopes of survival but how he will get along with the new Chief of


Staff and the various other officials, it remains to be seen.


You wouldn't want to predict longevity for anybody in the White


House. You would have to say Kelly is looking pretty indispensable at


the moment because Trump, it would be embarrassing to lose Kelly in the


next three months and the way they were talking about him at the press


briefing this evening as having full authority, new structure and


discipline, everybody in the White House is reporting to Kelly, you


have to think now, Trump is trusting this guy. I would remain sceptical.


I think Trump will do what he wants to do. I think it places limits


around Trump's behaviour and probably the most important is it


will make it very difficult for Trump to fire the independent


counsel Robert Muller. I think Kelly would probably lay down in front of


a truck on that one and Trump would be faced with the choice of


embarrassingly losing his new Chief of Staff or going through with what


he probably does want to do. Thanks very much.


As we reflect on the movie of the moment, Dunkirk, and mark the 100th


anniversary of Passchendaele, it is possible to be optimist being about


the state of the world or pessimistic. Optimist being because


we haven't been involved in a war on the scale of the first and Second


World War in 70 years. But eeconomists use that term great


moderation just before the financial crash. The quiet can foretell the


storm. And it is hard not to look at world affairs right now without


concern, whether it is the conflicts that have erupted in the Middle


East, the deteriorating relationship between Russia and the US or the


potential for a North Korean ballistic missile to strike the


West. Is it time to worry? Passchendaele from the sky after the


battles of the First World War. Just 80 miles from Britain, a scene of


total devastation of the kind that most of us have not experienced.


Today, the shape of Passchendaele is unmistakably the same yet it is now


just a pleasant Belgian village, proof that the world can escape the


darkness of the past. And yet new darkness can come, the world today


is undeniably in a volatile and brutal phase. We will handle North


Korea. We will be able to handle them.


It will be handled. We handle everything. Thank you very much. No


one has worked out a way to deal with the clear and present danger of


North Korea, a country led by a single-minded dictator with nuclear


weapons. This weekend he tested another ballistic missile, fired it


in the direction of Japan and rails against the US. Is this the most


foreseeable way to imagine a million or more people dying right now?


Making for an unstable backdrop, the jostling of global powers. Trump


blames China for not dealing with North Korea and has new problems


with Putin. Each leader has something to prove, the world


struggles for an equilibrium. Vice President Mike Pence was in Estonia


today. No threat looms larger in the Baltic states than the spectre of


aggression from your unpredictable neighbour to the east. The Cold War


was of course, in the sense simple. What do I mean by that? That you had


two great blocks, the Warsaw Pact on the one hand, Nato on the other,


where it that compare to today? It is not so simple, it is much more


complicated, there are more actors on this difficult stage and


therefore, it is, in my view, more difficult to handle. For those in


Syria, they're probably already feels like the end of days, conflict


that has already lasted longer than world Wars one and two. The medieval


violence of so-called Islamic State adds to the sense of desperation. It


cannot kill on a nuclear scale but has taken terror well beyond its own


territory. And Syria is just one conflict in the region that is


fraught with explosive potential. First you have to know what happens


when an atomic bomb explodes. Of course in the nuclear age, there


have been periods of Basra we have felt that the end is nigh. Usually


human beings are capable of stepping from the brink, but the danger is


one thing leads to another as it did before the First World War. One


problem triggers the next, reaction leads to overreaction. Care must be


to ensure that what is relatively minor does not either by some intend


some wire or by accident grow into something more serious and more


threatening. A BBC war game exercise last year managed to arrive at a


scenario of tactical nuclear weapons being used in Europe. The Americans


have decided not to take our advice and have used a tactical nuclear


weapons to take out a target in Russia. It would be nice to dismiss


such outcomes as television talk are not the real world but the worrying


thing is that the years of peace in Europe have been historical


exception, rather than the norm. Let's reflect on how serious the


threat to the west and the world are.


James Jeffrey was deputy National Security Advisor and a US


ambassador to Iraq - he's in Washington.


Brian Lord was the deputy director of GCHQ, responsible for


Intelligence and Cyber Operations - he's in Bristol.


And Patricia Lewis is a nuclear physicist and arms control expert


who is the Research Director for International Security


I would like to start at Patricia maybe you can help me, do you the


possibility of what one might call a big war between major powers in the


world in the next 20 or 30 years? Yes I do. I see it as a possibility


if we do not learn the lessons of history. So, the bad news is that it


is very complicated and there are two major hotspots and there are


other smaller ones. We do not quite, we never know what will Tibet off,


but the good news is that we can learn from history. We do know what


has happened before and we have learned a great deals of the end of


the Second World War, the UN, all of its structures has helped us prevent


conflict and we know almost everything we need to prevent


conflict, it is a question of having the political


will to do it. To people like me who feel it is inconceivable because we


are too sensible now to do these silly things and let one thing led


to another and trigger a war, what we would surely sit down and sorted


out... That is not what human beings do. If you look through history,


people make mistakes, people get angry, they often misinterpret, we


have seen many occasions were something has happened and there has


been an overreaction. James Jeffrey, do you basically agree with Patricia


said there? Only partially. The reason we have not seen a return to


the first half of the awful 20th century is that during an after


World War II, the United States and the European partners added


countries around the world and have created a global collective security


system with financial trade, role of law and other aspects but at the


centre is collective security. By won the Cold War and was dealing


with regional problems such as Saddam Hussein since 1989 but now we


see the rise of Russia and China who want to challenge that system and to


some degree are cooperating with the regional actors such as North Korea


and Iran. The whole complex of threats taken together is quite


formidable. You are saying that you would link the different things, the


North Korea situation, the jostling between the big powers, these are


all linked in your view? Not a conspiracy against the West but that


people are organising with a mind to weakening the West? There is no


overall battleplan that Beijing and Moscow have agreed on, they have a


common ally of interest in undercutting the American security


system because it stands in the way of their alternative system which


you people in Europe understand from the 19th century, it is great


powers, expanding their influence until they run into another great


power. That is what led to the First World War and the Second World War.


We have tried over the past 70 years defied a different way forward and


they are challenging that and even though they do not coordinate on


every issue, there a high degree of commonality and the UN votes to


block action against North Korea and Iran, and they challenge it. Brian


Lord, tell us if you believe a big war is a possibility or whether


you're on the more optimistic and? I think a single big war is highly


unlikely but what we are seeing, I would agree that what we are seeing


is a challenge of traditional western approach to the world. All


we also are living through, is a world where the rigidity of Borders


is being broken down by technology, trade communication, the


availability of information is now no longer as controlled as it was.


We have an increasingly bellicose North Korea and Russia plane its


usual geopolitical games, whether it is a virtual real space or


cyberspace and we have a White House which is perceived from the outside


to be unusual and certainly unpredictable. What I would say is


the risk of a miscalculation is extremely real and a miscalculation


is in effect will have the same effect as a real conflict. Patricia


made that point as well. War may itself be very different and as an


expert on cyber security, one of the things we need to think about is not


thinking what it looks like an 20th-century terms but potentially,


is cyber the form it takes on the 21st-century? I don't think it is as


binary as that, you have the ability for states to be able to use


activity online to be able to exert geopolitical effect all the way


through to destructive effect. One of the areas for miscalculation is


we are looking at an area of the world where there are still no rules


of engagement, the ability to confuse is very high and the ability


to hide or deceive and put whose ever is' she want an activity is


very high understanding by a public of what a cyber attack means, the


lack of understanding of the capability of the reserve --


adversary is very different. It all plays into this confusion which if


people want to make a miscalculation or want to give the impression of


making a miscalculation, just continues to increase the risk.


Patricia, to me it would look like North Korea is in a different


category to all the other risks, more than the Middle East, because


North Korea, there is an unaccountable dictator, it is not


like the former Soviet Union, there is not a system that he is a part


of, it is just what he wants to has got nuclear weapons and


ballistic missiles. He is not the only one with nuclear weapons and he


does not have them yet, he has ballistic missiles but as far as we


are all aware, he is not at the point where he can make the missiles


with a warhead. There is still time to play for. North Korea is


different as a country, it does not have any friends and it has many


enemies. It is very unpredictable and we cannot understand what they


will do. In the Middle East it is unpredictable, however and we have


the West coming up against Russia, front to front, right in the middle


of a battle space. As Brian said, it has got cyberspace in there as well,


another set of tools. We have turmoil in the Middle East in the


Gulf, we have Israel still, do not forget that, it is very potent. All


of these could be the Serbia is, or the triggers. James Jeffrey, I am


interested in your take on North Korea, do you see it as slightly


different to some of the other risks, because the potential for


massive harm is there, if they get the final formula for nuclear


weapons. It is the most immediate crisis and it is very very dangerous


because it does have nuclear weapons and it can at least strike with


nuclear and commercial weapons the civilian population of South Korea.


Yes, it is special. On the other hand, it is not something in and of


itself, like Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Serbia 1015 years ago, this is a


country that is enabled by China. I disagree it does not have friends,


its long-range missiles are now mobile, which is very threatening


because they are on Chinese trucks. Those trucks are not something they


have 30 years ago, they are recent additions, the Chinese are enabling


in many different ways, the North Koreans basically to use them as a


chess piece against the United States and the western Pacific and


that is a real danger to us and to the entire region including


ultimately the Chinese. We need to leave it there. Thank you very much


indeed. Plenty to worry about. Anita Roddick found international


fame as the founder of the Body Shop She before anyone spotted the


potential of the ethical economy - business promoting itself as having


a mission bigger than making money, She built the company


in an unconventional way, and her character played a huge


part in its success. But she died a decade ago far


too young, having been She had contracted it decades


earlier from a contaminated blood transfusion received


while giving birth. Well, a couple of weeks ago,


the government announced that there will be an inquiry


into the scandal of contaminated transfusions, an issue


about which the daughter of Anita Roddick


understandably feels strongly. Sam Roddick has been


speaking to our special You know what, she was one in a


million. She challenged the unchallengeable. She challenged the


stock market, she challenged business, she challenged her peers


and the way business was done and she did it in a way that was braver


than whatever is in existence today. Welcome to the video... For 30 years


Anita Roddick did not realise she had unknowingly contracted hepatitis


C from contaminated blood. Her daughter remembers the moment her


mother broke the news and explained the cause was the blood transfusion


she received after complications giving birth to Sam. Got through the


transfusion when I was born. And you know I could really hear the


vulnerability in her voice. Because my mum really feared death. So she


had a phrase which was, isn't it amazing, Sam, every year you pass


the date of your death and you don't know it. Thousands of people


contracted hepatitis C, some got HIV and we know about that now. To step


back from it and think, she went into hospital to have a baby and she


came out with this disease and did not know about a that time. For her


to be able to contract that during something that was such a kind of,


and normal procedure, is really sad. The strange thing is, even I felt


responsible, like I, somehow, that sense, it is ironic, because you


think as a baby, I can protect my mum, she was going on, she was


pregnant with me. There is that first level of irrevocable,


unconscious guilt, it is just ridiculous, but it still exist. And


if she had found out earlier, what would that have meant? She could


have had a treatment, really early, possibly at the time, but she could


not have it because of her high blood trash -- blood pressure, she


could not get a liver transplant, she was literally deteriorating. She


was exhausted. She could have got a lot of medical assistance. Good she


have survived much longer? I think she could have. Who do you blame?


Personally. I love the NHS, I actually think it is the backbone of


British society, I would fight for the NHS the whole time. The people


who were making money out of this large pharmaceutical corporations,


that is who I kind of they are the ones, who really violated good


governance. Did your family think about suing?


No, we aren't people who sue. The best thing we can serve is by


highlighting this issue and appealing for people to come forward


if they've needed or had the procedure of a blood transfusion


during the dates that have been highlighted and to get tested. I


personally think that anybody who has been affected who doesn't come


from my financial background should sue. There has been a huge law suit


in America of Bayer and a number of corporations held responsible. I


mean, in the billions got paid out. The Prime Minister announced an


inquiry recently into this, what was your reaction to that? There needs


to be a true independent inquiry. I think it is now about stepping


forward and really trying to put the pieces together about why and how


this occurred and those responsible should be held accountable. I


definitely believe when you actually look at the significant amount of


contaminated blood, it seems impossible for there not to be an


enormous number of people that this touches. It must have been


incredibly painful to watch your mother deteriorate. Yeah, it was


incredibly painful. It was incredibly painful to see somebody


so powerful, so effective, so energetic, somebody who has a lust


for life really have to face her limitations at a time where it was


cut short. Like, you know, our family had a huge loss. But the


world had a huge loss too. She was the first company to open up a


creche in her factory, so people could breast-feed and continue on


caring for their children during lunch time. I think that was, shows


how she loved her workforce and wanted to create a humane


environment. The fact that she changed EU law and got the Anirban


of animal testing -- got the ban of animal testing in the EU showed how


complished she was when she put her mind to do. All her campaigns were


phenomenal, the recycling, the sourcing. She was the first person


to take Fairtrade out of the charity sector and put it into the


commercial environment. You don't seem to be either bitter or angry,


but maybe that's just... I'm not angry. I'm sad. There's bitterness


which will eat at your own soul. A part of my utilising my anger is by


being available to highlight this issue and trying to encourage and


support people to make those accountable be accountable. That's a


really healthy way to channel your, my anger any way. Presumably you


miss her every day, do you? Oh, yeah, I miss her every day.


The directors of the collapsed Kids Company - including


Camilla Batmangelidge and Alan Yentob - have been told


that they face proceedings to bar them from serving


Any such disqualification does have to be tested in the courts.


Chris Cook broke the story of problems at Kids Company,


What did we learn exactly today. We know that the eight final directors


at kids company, plus Camilla Batmangelidge, who wasn't director


at the time, will be all considered culpable for the collapse of the


charity and way it was run. They face between two-and-a-half and six


years, if the process goes through, disqualified from being able to hold


offices of responsibility in relation to companies. It's quite a


serious process. If they get someone to act on their behalf, that person


can get disqualified. It reflects the serious problems at the charity.


If you look down the list of things you can be disqualified for, there


are a few things you can tick off. Terrible record keeping. They


claimed to have 15,000 clients. We still only have records of around


2,000. They used to run what they referred to as the bully strategy,


telling people if you don't put us money we'll collapse and what will


happen to the children. The gap between the trading while insolvent,


which gets you disqualified is pretty thin. Is it normal for


Charity Trustees or directors to be told they can't run companies? Is it


fair take someone running a charity and apply this sanction? If we want


charities to have real responsibility it probably is fair.


You can't have a situation where people are allowed to do this as a


hobby job and it has no consequences. The charities do


really matter. You think large charities like kids company, which


got ?47 million of public money, this is not a trivial thing. The


role it played in people's lives isn't trivial. The trustees have to


take it seriously. Thank you very much.


Is it right that details of the sexual relations of Charles


Channel 4 is controversially poised to play recordings


of Diana talking in detail about the breakdown of her marriage


Diana was preparing for her interview on Panorama,


but the tapes go further than the programme itself.


But is Diana entitled to some kind of privacy in death,


of a kind that she was rarely accorded in life?


With me now are the historian and biographer, Tracy Borman,


and the Guardian columnist Dawn Foster.


I think you think Channel 4 are right to basically show these tapes


and give us the full story. Why do you think so? I think first of all,


there's a really huge public interest in Diana. We saw that in


19le 7. -- 1987. We see it now. People are fascinated by her, by


what happened to her in life and also, exactly how different she was


to the Royals. I think for me and many other people she felt stage


managed in life. She felt really cloistered and bound by the Royal


Family. This gives us a chance to learn more about her and what she


maybe would like to have said, if she hadn't been in such a - Are


people trying to stop Channel 4 doing it, are they the ones trying


to control the media? Or trying to control Diana, or does it matter


what Diana thought would happen to these tapes when she recorded them


or what she wanted at the time? I think it's very difficult to say


what she may have wanted to be put out there. In death obviously we


have a huge interest in her. Equally, there's so much we don't


know about her that maybe people want to know. I think the fact she


was speaking to somebody else about it, preparing for Panorama and


clearly wanted to get some of this out there, is maybe a hint that she


wanted more of her personal life out there. Let's be honest, NBC have


shown a lot of this in the States. You can track it down if you want


to. It's not quite as unknown as it might be. Do you see any historical


significance or anything that we'll learn from watching this Channel 4


programme? As Dawn said, there isn't much new in terms of revelations.


But I think the point is that they weren't necessarily intended for


broadcast. I do think that it's inappropriate. Certainly when you


look at them as historical documents, the National Archives


wouldn't release anything unless sensitivity checks had been carried


out, including the effect on living persons. Of course, there are still


some significant others of Diana who this will affect deeply I think.


You're thinking of the children or Charles? I'm thinking of the


children more. I understand that there was talk of making a


documentary of this ten years ago, it was Sheffield. The BBC --


shelved. The BBC was going to look at this and then backed out when


they saw the minefield it was. Does it matter to you the brother, the


kids, basically everybody who does speak for Diana, who might say they


do because they're nuclear family, not royalty, if they say we don't


want this stuff aired in public, does that not matter in I think


public interest is key here. The family themselves can protect


themselves from it. Equally, when I was at university, I read James


Joyce's salacious letters to his wife. He probably didn't want them


to be in the public domain. But they are. They form part of what we think


of Joyce as a character and a public figure. Often, what we don't expect


to be in the public domain will be afterwards because there is so much


public interest in people. Is there a time theme here? The national


archive say there's a 30-year rule. But only when sensitivity checks are


carried out. We have more and more restrictive, I mean when you look at


the history of private life, the Tudors for example, they laid it all


bare and gladly so. They wanted to boast about their marital relations.


Like Scaramucci, say what we think. Very topical. They would have wanted


their subjects to take an interest in their love lives in all forms. I


wonder whether we, you keep saying public interest, it's the


distinction between interest of the public and the public interest isn't


it and whether there is a public interest in this. For many Diana


symbolised a sea change in British history. Moving to a more open, you


know tied in with the Advent of Blair. People are very interested in


how she stood at the crux of history. We're going to leave it


there, thank you very much for coming in.


That's all for tonight. Let's finish by returning to Passchendaele. We


saw a little earlier, we end with a closer up and sometimes gruesome


look at what that battlefield really looked like in the summer and Autumn


of 1917. The pictures are accompanied by the firemen of the


town of Ypres sounding the Last Post. Good night.


Hello. Get ready for more heavy showers across the UK tomorrow. Some


places that stayed dry today will not tomorrow. The showers will


become more widespread as