31/08/2017 Newsnight

7,000 gambling addicts tried to ban themselves from betting.

So why did a major firm think they were still fair game?

Tonight, we ask why the government is failing to protect

Formally they tell us nothing's been agreed on the Brexit

negations but Nick Watt's been hearing rumblings.

I've learnt intriguing details about what that the UK

might be prepared to pay on the Brexit divorce bill.

A human catastrophe - that's the UN's verdict on how

we treat disabled people - is it fair?

The waters are receding in Houston, but the clear up

We're with the rescue operation as more families

Imagine the force required to move this thing from wherever it has come

from. It's good food in it and everything. You know that water is

strong but you never really know how strong it is until you've seen what

it does. What did you do? You know there's only so much, I'm a man, I

can't do no more than that. This is God's hand.

And few in the political classes appear to be taking it seriously.

More than 2 million people are at risk of addiction, and today

it was revealed that 7,000 people, who'd voluntarily put

themselves on a nationwide banned list were allowed by one firm -

The firm, which says it is committed to being responsible,

allowed one of those on the list to gamble over

It encouraged another addict to lose his children's home

In fact, the company continued to invite him to gamble online even

when he was in prison - serving time for fraud

Tonight, as the company faces a fine of ?8 million,

we talk to him live about how the system got it so wrong.

And we ask why the problem has gone ignored,

when both Labour and the Conservatives are so eager

capitalism and that need for corporate responsibility.

# Can't read Mike, can't read my, can't read my poker face. #.

Today's fine sounds like a record one.

But it's a drop in the ocean for an industry that brings

Its growth and its success can be traced back to 2005,

and to one policy - Labour deregulated gambling,

and that heralded the start of major change.

Adverts on television for the first time, the rise of casinos,

and a massive boom in fixed betting terminals - online access

which made it possible to lose money anytime, anywhere.

At the time, the Conservatives in opposition warned

that the legislation didn't contain safeguards to protect

So why has nothing changed? Last month there were reports that the

Chancellor had rowed back on his review into fixed odds betting

terminals, critics believed he had been swayed by the huge tax revenues

they had brought in. Today 888 admitted that a technical

glitch had allowed the 7,000 customers who'd put themselves

on the banned list to keep on gambling -

a total of ?50 million in total. The commission who fined the company

said their failure to recognize the problem was so significant it

resulted in criminal activity. Is that enough for the government

to sit up and listen? In a moment we'll speak to Labour's

deputy leader, Tom Watson. First, joining me from

Sheffield is David Bradford, a gambling addict who stole money

from his employer to feed his habit. He was one of those who put himself

on the voluntary banned list. The betting firm 888

continued to pursue him. David, it is very nice of you to

join us. Talk us for your experience, how much were you

gambling at her lowest point? I gambled everyday, every evening. I

worked away a lot so in that sort of after-work period, not only did it

cover the boredom, and sucked me into gambling online, I sought to

get that one big win that probably all gamblers tried to get, to

collate all my financial worries. Did you ever win big? Never.

Obviously to win big is relative to come at you think is not very much.

But from my point of view I never won big. I never lost big other but

I lost and that is what the industry is all about, making us all losers

and shareholders gritter. What do you think you spent on gambling

through the course of your life. I could not give you a figure and I

don't think it matters what the figure is it is what it does to you,

your self esteem, your family, and your friends who all have a

different view and you once they find out that you have been not only

deluding yourself but hiding a secret sort of problem from all

these people that you are closest to. You went to prison for fraud,

and when you were there, you still kept receiving text messages

inviting you to gamble online. Yes. I'd best correct the way you put

that. Obviously I didn't have a mobile phone in prison. Accent my

own mobile phone that was at home, my son had two attempts to stop

these texts coming through, which was a significant task for him to

have to do. And did the company respond to his requests to stop?

From what I understand, not immediately. It took many attempts

before they actually did stop. For me, this is a good example of how

the industry sees its duty of care, which is something that they only

pay lip service to. This measly fine today will do next to nothing in

awakening some kind of customer care that goes a bit deeper than it does

now. Indeed, many people like me will be, and will always continue to

have the problem, even if it is dormant, you know, I strongly

believe in what many doctors have said, which is that this is a mental

problem. Which is obviously a mental health problem. And should be

treated that way, not as just some people being reckless with money. So

what was the impact it really hard on your life, can you put it into

words. In a sense, in no particular order but for me, I've never been

able, from the time in prison which was over three years ago now, I've

never been able to get a job anything like the one I had and I am

now working up to 70 hours a week just to stand still doing mundane

job. I have no self-esteem. I have low self belief. Every time I make a

decision I have to double check and making it in the right way, -- I'm

making it in the right way. And to load that further, the emotional

burden on my family, who feel cheated by me, well, quite rightly,

that is what did happen. I seemed not to care one bit about them and I

was making decisions which in a sense have now ruined our lives. If

you could ask for one thing to change in the way that the industry

operates now, what would that be. I think one is falling short of the

many things I would like to ask them for but I believe a strategy of care

that steps in and assists, in a sense, throws a parachute to a

troubled gambler, there should be more than one NHS surgery dealing

with this issue, unfortunately there is only one, I think it is in

London. There should be access to a raft of precautionary interventions

by the gambling industry, when they see a gambler operating erratically,

I also believe that the software available, the industry and the

banks could talk together so they can see someone is going beyond

their means. But there doesn't seem to be any effort put into looking

for these fairly simple solutions, in my mind. We will try to find some

right now. David Bradford, thank you very much, we really appreciate

sharing that. To Tom Watson, Shadow Culture Secretary, this falls in

your brief, when you hear David's story, and hear what he is asking

for, successive governments have failed him and many others. He talks

about that very coherently as a mental illness, they have been taken

advantage of. , first say, I thought David was very brave to tell his

story live on TV like that. Yet David is one of many hundreds of

thousands of people who currently have a gambling addiction. And

gambling addiction has grown by up to one third in recent years. And

that is what I think we... It has grown since 2005 and it was the

Labour policy of deregulation that created that massive boom. Do you

have remorse for that? Certainly we must acknowledge that there are

negative consequences of that act, particularly where we attempted to

regulate fixed odds betting terminals... You are acknowledging

negative consequences, can you not just say this is a terrible mistake,

as Tessa Jowell has done? I can and I sat on that bill although it did

many good things to regulate the gambling industry. That way it went

wrong was on fixed odds betting terminals. Let's also recognise that

regulation that it created is no longer fit for purpose. Let me just

explain. A piece of legislation was for gambling in the analogue age.

And one decade later we have had an expression of new services... That

was short-sighted then because there were warnings that the time, it came

from the Conservatives in opposition, why did Gordon Brown and

Tony Blair press ahead and ignore those warnings? The focus of that

legislation, and the public discourse and probably on Newsnight

as well was how you regulate large casinos, which paradoxically the

most regulated parts of the gambling industry. They were talking about

super casinos. What we failed to understand was the impact of these

fixed odds betting terminals which are not regulated then. It wasn't

just that, it was adverts on TV, sponsorship, you can't take your

kids to a game without seeing gambling advertised to the very

young. What is all that about. And not running away, we need to

acknowledge cross-party that the current regulations we have

regulating gambling are not fit for purpose. It

is Britain's hidden crisis. There are an estimated 400,000 problem

gamblers in Britain, that's 400,000 families destroyed, communities

under pressure and I think we must act urgently to address these

concerns because I don't want to be on Newsnight in years to come...

Tom, we have just had an election, there was one line in the manifesto

and you know gambling disproportionately affects the poor.

You know that this is predatory capitalism written large. What

happened to the Jeremy Corbyn idea of the many, not a few, they left

behinds, this was predicted to be a problem and was ignored two months

ago. It wasn't ignored, we have raised concerns familiars, be

raising it in the chamber for five years. -- for many years. Would you

roll back everything that happened in 2005? First you have to look at

the stakes, how currently the government can only refute the

sticks of machines in retail outlets. I think there was a case

for looking at online sticks in the online space. Would adverts go?

You've got to look at the gambling industry... You had ten years to

look at this. You've been very concerned, you say, is now clear in

your mind what must change? There needs to be massive reform, we have

an industry that spends millions lobbying generalists uncivil

servants on the message that they believe and responsible gambling and

what we have seen today is irresponsible gambling. The industry

must take responsibility yet the devil is in the detail. I won't make

up policy on the hoof as an opposition Shadow minister on your

show but I will say we won't run away from this and we will demand

that the government take this hidden crisis seriously. We will work with

them. We've got a very good minister in Tracy Crouch whose spoken out

about regulating fixed odds betting terminals but has been muzzled by

the Treasury. They've got a review going on at the moment, in October

will support the government if they want to make radical changes. You

are putting it on their plate. It's been a long summer, the first time

we've heard from you, give us some clarification on some things, Kezia

Dugdale has gone, Scottish Labour leader, I know there's a mix of

reasons but broadly the party has become a harder place for her and

for people like you. She has now shifted the balance on the NEC by

leaving. Do you think they are trying to get rid of you?

LAUGHTER There's always someone trying to get

rid of you in politics! I don't actually see any move trying to

remove me. But I see after the election as the party coming

together, a recognition that under the leadership of Jeremy we did far

better than anyone anticipated, probably more than Jeremy himself.

How does that explain what Kezia did. I read a letter, she said it

was about quality of life, the right time for her and the Scottish Labour

Party to go. You have to respect that decision. I don't think there's

a subtext, that is why she didn't do a press conference. Exit strategies

are the hardest things in politics. You believe what he was. Last Ford,

the Labour position on Brexit seems to have changed or soft and,

whatever you want to call it. If tomorrow is a group cross-party MPs

were to call for Britain to remain permanently in the customs union,

post a transition period, would they have your support? That might be one

outcome of the negotiations we would support but as the opposition... If

MPs stood up tomorrow and say, we want the Labour Party, or we want

Britain to commit to remaining permanently in the customs union,

would that be something you would say, absolutely, I will stand

behind, you have my support. It seems sensible but the sensible way

to do this is to negotiate, if that is negotiated outcome, fine. It

might be where we push on this but I think to tie the hands of

negotiators now would be... Could you put a hand up and say we are the

party of soft Brexit now? Could you say we understand the

importance union, we will do this our we? Grid yes. He seen the

statement from Keir Starmer. We think the importance of being in the

customs union is important because this is the way you protect jobs and

the economy and it might be a permanent outcome of the

negotiations but we must see how they go. Tom Watson, thank you.

Thank you for coming in. There are only so many ways you can

say nothing has been agreed. The EU's Brexit negotiator has

now tried most of them. In today's press conference

Michel Barnier warned no decisive While David Davis called up the need

for "flexibility and imagination". We were all left to imagine

what that might mean. Testy exchanges and the lack of real

momentum in talks so far raises the very real prospect of deadlock

in the two rounds of talks That's when the EU 27 leaders meet

to decide whether they can say To our political editor

in a second, but first, Just listening to today's press

conference, you'd be forgiven for thinking the UK and the EU 27's

representatives hadn't This week we've had long

and detailed discussions across multiple areas and I think

it's fair to say we've seen We did not get any decisive progress

on any of the principal subjects, even though, I want to say,

even though, on the discussion we've had about Ireland,

that discussion was fruitful. Well, there were a few

things to note. First on the argument

about what we owe, the EU 27 claims In July, the UK recognised

that it has obligations But this week, the UK explained

that those obligations will be limited to their last payment

to the EU budget before departure. This matters because the agreed

EU budget runs for 21 And it has day to day running costs

predicated on our contributing. The Bruegel think tank estimates

those costs could be 10-15 billion euros, and that is the hole the EU

needs to fill. The commission has set

out its position and we have a duty to our taxpayers to interrogate it

rigorously. At this round we presented our legal

analysis on on-budget issues, off-budget issues and on the EIB,

the European Investment Bank. It's fair to say that

across the piece we have Second, Michel Barnier also

talked about red tape. It wants to adopt its own standards

and regulations, but it also wants to have these standards recognised

automatically in the EU. So, for example, we won't be allowed

to sign a deal with the EU that lets us get rid of EU rules

and has our exports treated Also, note how the EU

is using its bureaucracy against us. They've set out a negotiating

mandate for the EU 27 which has been agreed,

and that makes it time consuming and difficult

to offer us concessions. This mandate was fixed by us

from the outset on day one by the 27 heads of state and government,

meeting as they were in the European Council under

the presidency of Donald Tusk. Naturally, we also work very closely

with the European Parliament. Mr Davis, meanwhile,

kept talking about our flexibility. The UK's approach is substantially

more flexible and pragmatic It's about pragmatically

driving the process. Taken together, the impression

you get from today is, we are willing to bend

and the EU isn't. The state of play right now is that

both sides are taking different And the EU is holding

a hard line on regulation. But the whole point of a negotiation

is that positions can change. Nick Watt, our political editor,

is with me now and has some That has a pretty scratchy day in

Brussels. The UK hearing figures of 100 billion euros to pay to leave

the EU and David Davis says you must be joking. I was told by quite a

senior EU official number of months ago that they would settle for a

figure of around 34 billion euros. What I have learnt is that in

Whitehall they would be willing to look at a figure of around 30

billion euros. One senior source said to me, if we talk seriously

about that, then we aren't going to the races. How do you achieve that?

-- then we are going to the races. You would use the transition period

of two or three years after we leave the EU, use that transition period

to settle the accounts. Essentially what would happen is the UK would

continue to pay roughly the amount it is paying, around 10 billion per

year, 30 billion over three years, allowing you to do the transition

and it would settle the accounts. What that would do is solve the

problem for the UK and also ensure the EU would not have a black hole

in its accounts because the UK is responsible for 13% of the EU

budget. Two big caveats on this idea. They were put in the public

domain last week by Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for

European reform. The first caveat is this is not policy in Whitehall but

is being looked at very seriously. The second caveat, the UK will not

accept any figure on the back of a cigarette packet, it has to be

legally credible and binding. And that would end after the transition

period, would it? Yes, and then you are saying, what will you do after

transition period Ghosh Theresa May in at Lancaster house speech said

there would be an entity fast payments but the UK would continue

to contribute to programmes including Horizon 2020, an 80

billion euros research fund to take science products to the market. The

Galileo project, and EU global satellite navigation system. Iraq

was, the student exchange programme. And how about this, the civil

nuclear watchdog, and that's a bit of a problem because it's overseen

by the ECJ, but they would use the mechanism of an arms length

relationship with the ECJ to decree that up. -- to divvy that up.

A UN committee has described the situation for disabled people

in the UK as a "human catastrophe" and said it has more

concerns about this country, due to funding cuts,

than any other country in its ten year history.

Theresia Degener has warned that the austerity measures

are affecting half a million disabled people, each one losing

The most acute concern she said was on limitations

on independent living, but she also said Britain

was failing to fulfil its commitment to allow inclusive education,

and a growing number of disabled people were living in poverty.

Joining me now, Tracy Lazard CEO, Inclusion London.

You gave evidence to this report. Is it a fair assessment of what life is

like for people in Britain? It's absolutely a fair assessment. The

deaf and disabled people's organisations that contributed are

very happy with the concluding observations because it does reflect

disabled People's' experience. This is a damning verdict by the UN on

the UK Government's failure to protect and uphold disabled People's

rights. Is no other word for it. The UN disability committee has produced

a 17 page document full of concluding observations and

recommendations. The committee could only find two examples of positive

government action. The rest of it is page after page of serious concerns.

And those concerns are wholeheartedly shared by disabled

people. The situation where we have the chair of the committee saying

that the welfare reform and social care cuts are a human catastrophe

for disabled people is shocking. But although it's shocking, it will not

come as a surprise to disabled people, because it is our little

experience. And yet the government, who we obviously invited on site,

and they declined, says it does not reflect the evidence it gave to the

UN and it fails to recognise, in the government's words, progress that

has been made to empower disabled people in aspects of their lives. Do

you see any of that progress or attempts? Not at all. I was there in

Geneva and it was frankly embarrassing watching the government

try and maintain a position of denial where they are saying that

frankly, everything is fine, when there is a mountain of evidence now,

and our own little experience that is saying, actually, something

terribly wrong is happening. The government needs to use these

concluding observations as a wake-up call and show a bit of humility. Is

it about this government in a particular patch of austerity, or is

it successive governments? What do you see as being at the root of it?

Disabled peoples' situation is a combination of historic exclusion

and discrimination. But the situation since austerity kicked in

means that all the achievements of the disabled People's rights

movement over the last 40 years are being systematically dismantled.

That's the conclusion of the UN committee. And you can say that here

tonight, and the UN can write it, but this is of course non-binding.

The government has dismissed it because it thinks it's doing the

things that are creating progress. Where will we be in 12 months, if

the government thinks it doesn't have a problem and the UN can't

force it to change, what happens? You remember social care back in the

November budget. Social care wasn't even mentioned in that budget.

Because the government was trying to pretend that everything is OK. And

yet in May it's nearly toppled the government. And we believe this is

the situation with disabled people. The government have consistently

dismissed us. Showing disdain for disabled people and the evidence

that points to something badly going wrong, and they can't carry on like

that. They cannot carry on denying the problem that we have. Thank you

for coming in. A slither of good news for those

caught up in the Houston flood... The US Environment Protection Agency

says it's found no major toxic materials emanating from a flooded

chemical plant in Texas. A power failure had led

to explosions and the release The concern over toxins is just one

knock-on from the floods which have now killed more than 35

in the State. Waters are now rising

in neighbouring Louisiana and Mississippi where more residents

are in peril. Gabriel Gatehouse has

been in downtown Houston The floodwaters vanished as fast as

they had come. In the heart of America's fourth-largest city, they

are just beginning to contemplates the aftermath of an unprecedented

storm. This sand here tells you the water was flowing right over this

busy intersection here in downtown Houston. If you look over the edge

of this bridge, you can see just how fast the water has fallen, but also

how high it still is. I was here. I watched the water come all the way

up there. What does it feel like to be back? Devastating. I'm just...

You know the water is strong but you never really, really know how strong

it is until you see what it does, the damage it can do. I'm seeing ice

machines, refrigerators that take three or four people to move, and it

looks like somebody stuck out their foot and flipped it like they were a

human being. What did you do? We all left. There was nothing I could do.

The power was already off in this area. Most of the power was off. I

took the advice of my boss. There is only so much... I'm a man, I can't

do more than that. This is in God's hands. Imagine the force required to

move this thing from where ever it has come from. It's got food in it

and everything. It's not often you get a chance to

walk down the middle of the motorway. This is one of the main

arteries into the city. Now dried riverbed that reveals debris,

expected fishing ground and strange creatures of the deep. The alligator

has been around for 100 million years or so. Parts of Huston are

still under water but downtown, posses of volunteers have began

cleaning up. This is like a once in 500 years flood. The water you can

see behind us was way past our head, six feet or more than will we are

now and we were not prepared for something like this. Being so close

to home, you are used to seeing this on the TV, now it's half a mile down

the street. Maybe it is the alligator that I wondered about

climate change, it politically charged topic especially in Trump's

America. I don't think you can attribute one weather event to

climate change but I like to think of it in two ways, either it is

happening or it is not and either we can do something about it and we

can't. And I think if there's a chance it's happening we as the

human race should do something to at least mitigate whatever it is we are

contributing. That is my take on it. We can make a difference, for us to

sit back and ignore it is dangerous. Most people are not really thinking

about climate change now. They are worrying about their homes or

businesses. Lacey this is a jazz club, Huston's greatest downtown

jazz club, we have live music every Saturday nights that blows people

away. So, you can see, we're trying to clean up and make it better, it's

going to be better when we come back. Come on in, it's dark, but

come on in. You can see how high the water got. All the way a particular.

They say, get the stuff of the floor, I figured it would not come

as high as the stage but it blew me away. It went way over the stage.

Oh, man. Is your piano still working? I'm going to let it dry

out. What was your reaction when you first came in here. Well, you know,

I swe, but I am a grown ass man. So I had to go with the flow. An

unfortunate choice of words. Texan grit and stoicism have been the

hallmarks of the response to the storm. Tens of thousands of people

have been made homeless but more are being evacuated every day, many have

ended up in this conference centre having lost everything they owned.

But for one young couple hurricane army has evoke memories of the storm

12 years ago. I lost my whole immediate family in Katrina. I was

the one who knew how to swim. You how old. I was nine, I was just

making ten years old, when the water came, there wasn't too much I could

do. I had to watch them drunk you know. And going through this it

really was more drama to me -- had to watch them drown. So I'm just

trying to get somewhere to stay, get my mind back because I still have

nightmares and stuff. When the storm came, we were having these

flashbacks of Katrina, we weren't thinking about grabbing this

grubbing about. All we were thinking is putting our instincts to work and

getting somewhere safe. They say that this storm was worse than

Katrina. That's not true. Although a lot of people have lost their homes,

and a few people passed... How they were treated and how we were treated

now, how we got treated them, you understand what I mean, there's a

big difference. In this storm they responded the perfect way that each

person in the United States of anyone else should act towards their

fellow person. Coming together like this, no problems, everybody getting

treated like family and loved by everybody, that's why everything is

so calm, so collected. 12 years ago it was the handling of the aftermath

that turned a terrible natural disaster into one of the darker

chapters in recent American history. So far it looks like the lessons of

hurricane Katrina have been learned but Harvey has been a devastating

storm and it is not over yet. Gabriel Gatehouse there in Houston

for us. One of the big hits of the summer

has been Nicole Krauss's long Two narratives run in parallel,

both located around At the centre of one, a missing

father, at the centre of another, Well, the novelist Nicole

Krauss joins me now. I guess that every author is asked

almost as a cliche how much of themselves is in their book. Another

Margaret Attwood hates that question, she says, I read fiction,

I am a novelist. But you almost seem to be inviting it. I think I am. I

think part of that comes from the experience of everyday being a

writer and understanding that when you are writing you are constantly

expanding your experience of the world. So if I write a story about

an old man, or if I set to the 19th century, I am amplifying and adding

to my own narrative of my life. And then you have that experience and

you go back to life again. It isn't that narrative doesn't exist, you

see it all around you but you see the narrative is that people tell

themselves are actually so fixed. We absolutely need coherence as the

human mind needs it, so we construct these narratives of who we are and

what has happened to us without taking into account that that is a

construction. That memory in a way as a fictional tour. And yet we

stick by them even when the become too narrow for us all if they are

unhealthy. So the question for me was how do you begin with that

narrative and open it or break it so that one has the opportunity for

transformation? But when you are writing about a novelist called

Nicole are you deciding if you will like are all if she will do things

that will annoy you, when you are writing about personal

transformation, does it change you? You are seizing an opportunity to be

free in a way that maybe you can't do in your life. So if I were to,

just like if I were to make up a character, I would be free to become

him or her. If I say, here is Nicole, she looks a bit like me,

doesn't cheat, and she is a writer like me and cheese from New York,

like me, -- doesn't she, and cheers from New York, then the reader says,

yes, I know you, and I, this Nicole and free to make all things happened

to her. And the things in the book become quite surreal. They test the

reader and the reader's believe so although the reader will begin by

saying, this must be autobiographical, the things that

happen to that Nicole are so extraordinary that in the end the

reader has to question that and incorporate into her sense of me

something much larger. I think I understand that! One of the

questions you raise which intrigued me was this question of who art

belongs to. Does art remain the possession of the artist, is it

subject to the artist's wishes. It is a very living question for now

because Terry Pratchett, who I am sure you are familiar with, demanded

just yesterday that a hard drive containing I think ten of his

incomplete novels be flattened by a steam roller to prevent anyone

trying to finish them or publish them sort of, you know, produce them

after his death. Do you have a sympathy with that? The art dying

with the artist? I don't. That is a sense that since foreign to me. It

doesn't so much that I care what happens to my art or to anyone

thought after they die, it is just that I think, it's a kind of act of

generosity, first to yourself, you open a space where you ask questions

and you are able to be changed, when I think of that beautiful line of

poetry that is, you must change your life and I think that is the

imperative of art. You open that, as a writer, and it is a gift,

innocence, to the reader. So never destroy, I do know, if Picasso

thought stuffy thought was terrible is the duty to preserve it because

of who he is? I don't know, just to think it belongs to the artist any

more. When it is no longer in your studio, if you are a painter, or

once you publish a book you let go of it. You've given it over to

readers and they will make what they want a vet. That was yours and the

writing will become hopefully theirs. Nicole Krauss, thank you.

As you might have noticed, it's 20 years ago today

31st August 1997 was a Sunday, but in the following week,

As the nation remembers those events of two decades ago,

we thought we'd leave you with how we covered the shocking

Good evening, in this special programme we will be

paying tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales.

Remembering some of the events of an often troubled life,

talking about the contribution she made through her public work,

and about the extraordinary excitement her very presence

aroused, not just here, but right around the world.

I'm amazed that she's been brave enough to take me on!

When I started my public life 12 years ago, I understood the media

I realised then, their attention would inevitably focus on both our

But I was not aware of how overwhelming that

Let's go first to Kirsty Wark, at the Cafe Diana in Kensington.

All the people here are ones who have laid flowers

at Kensington Palace and have chosen to stay on because they feel

Ten-page supplements being printed, going to press tonight

I would urge everyone in the country who believe the press

had some involvement, directly or indirectly

I will always be glad that I knew the Princess,

and will always think of her in very strong and positive terms.

Everyone who can will support her two fine sons and help them

to have the life and future she would want.

She was undoubtedly one of the best ambassadors of Great Britain.

The crowds that have flocked to Buckingham Palace

In many ways the nation has mourned for the Princess's death

in the way that individuals grieve for a family member.

And she was very loved by everyone too.

We leave you with these pictures of the scenes tonight

Good evening. As we step into September one,