In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.
Browse content similar to 23/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Your house is
deliberately burnt down.
You see your children killed.
You run to safety in
a neighbouring country.
Could you be tempted to return
to your original home?
It's the dilemma that may soon
face Rohingya Muslims.
They've experienced terror
in Myanmar, fled to Banlagadesh
but now may even be sent back.
We'll ask if a new plan to return
the Rohingya to Myanmar is the right
answer for a people who've
endured extraordinary suffering.
It's the day after the Budget.
Our specialist team will take
us through the bits
they missed yesterday.
Does anyone really believe animals
don't have feelings?
Come on, really?
Well, it's been a raging
controversy online this week.
MPs accused of saying animals
are not sentient beings.
Are they guilty or is it simply
a sign of social media hysteria?
Liverpool was European City
of Culture back in 2008.
Now the European Commission says
no British cities need
apply in the future.
That's Brexit, they say.
Should we be surprised?
Ten days ago we presented
you with a shocking
report from Bangladesh
on the Rohingya Muslims who had fled
from neighbouring Myanmar.
The Rohingya refugee crisis has been
described as a textbook case
of ethnic cleansing.
Pushed out of their own country,
the testimony from the refugees
was truly harrowing.
Well, as I say, we brought that
to you on Monday last week.
But there was a remarkable
development on the story today.
Bangladesh has signed a deal
with Myanmar to return hundreds
of thousands of Rohingya Muslims
who fled a recent army crackdown.
It's expected that displaced
people could begin to
return within two months.
Well, that's the theory, anyway.
But given what we've heard
about what the Rohingya
were escaping from, is it really
possible to think of people
returning to Myanmar -
a country that had stripped them
of citizenship back in the 1980s?
Is this a way forward?
Bangladesh and Myanmar say
they are working on the details,
but this will matter for hundreds
of thousands of people.
James Clayton worked
with Gabriel Gatehouse on the last
film and now reports
on this new plan.
This footage almost don't real, the
size of the refugee camp is
bewilder, it is streets and terraced
shack, there are close to a million
people here, it is not camp, it is a
Last week Newsnight aired a film
showing the unimaginable levels of
violence inflicted on the Rohingya.
Months after the attacks they were
still crossing the border.
And yesterday, US Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson said he believed what
happened was indeed ethnic
While we were in Bangladesh one
woman caught of our eye, sitting on
the side of the road she was looking
out across the water to Myanmar at
her former village. You can see your
village? Do you think you will be
able to go back some day?
With international pressure on
Myanmar to act, and internal
pressure on the Bangladesh
Government to reduce the size of the
camp, the two sides came to an
agreement today, to repatriate
An agreement made by two countries
and not the Rohingya.
The situation in Myanmar is
horrendous, sending the Rohingya
back to the state is not acceptable.
Their homes have been burned to the
ground, many people have been
murdered and killed, in the last few
months, we have seen sexual violence
and rape on a massive scale. The
idea you would send people back to
that is very very shocking.
The UN hasn't been able to
independently investigate alleged
astrosties in Myanmar, even if it
could it seems unlikely many
Rohingya would wanted want to return
as it stands, they are denied basic
human rights, they are not even
officially citizens of the country.
This is a refugee we worked with in
the cams, he told me what he thought
of the deal.
What I need is not going to Myanmar
and going to Bangladesh again and
again, all I need to be granted is
my citizenship and national right.
What is clear from the Myanmar
Government is that will be unlikely,
this is Aung San Suu Kyi a month
after the initial attacks.
conxxxx concerned to hear that
numbers of Muslims are fleeing
across the border to Bangladesh. We
want to find out why this exodus is
A leader suggesting she is unaware
of atrocities going on in her own
country will make many think justice
is a long way away. This woman's
parents and child were murdered by
the Burmese military.
Do you think you will ever go back
The refugee camp in Bangladesh is
becoming more and more like a
permanent conurbation what isn't
clear is whether the Bangladesh
Government will force the Rohingya
back in to Myanmar, or if anyone
will ever want to go back freely.
Some of that footage involving
Gabriel Gatehouse. 36
Joining me now is Labour
MP Rosena Allin-Khan,
who has worked as a doctor
in a Rohingya refugee camp
as recently as last weekend.
And from the Asia Programme
at Chatham House, Champa Patel.
Good evening. Did you, while you
were there, did you talk to them
about what they, their hopings and
fears were of going back?
Absolutely. I witnessed fist hand
intolerable suffering, I met people
in the clinics who had fled many of
them had lost three or four children
and had to make the choice between
leaving their children burning in
fire, or grabbing the ones that were
still alive and running to make it
over the border. These people are
fearful. These people have lived
through intolerable cruelty and the
fought of sending them back to meet
with their death is unacceptable.
You think think sending them back
would be to confront with more of
the same of what they have just
Absolutely, we need to ask
ourself what is drives people to
flee, I met people who saw all of
the men folk in their village
dismembered, murdered. Women dragged
by their hair Anne and gang raped
and children thrown on to burning
fire, including baby, how will these
people feel there is trust to go
back, I believe ta if they were to
go back now, if there was to be a
forced repatriation that would be
meeting their death.
Right. What is
going on, this deal, what is Myanmar
true Iing to do, having ethnically
cleansed these people out, are they
prepending -- pretending to say they
are willing to take them back?
Rohingya have the right to return,
but it has to be safe, it has to be
voluntary, dignified and
sustainable. And what was announced
today doesn't really answer any of
those preconditions you would wanted
to see, so I think it is really
difficult not to see this other than
as short-term political
considerations, Myanmar is facing
international criticism and wants to
be seen to be doing something, I
think what has been overlooked a bit
is this is an agreement between the
civilian Government in Myanmar and
Bangladesh, so where is the military
in all of this?
You wouldn't trust,
basically, if Myanmar said, we will
give them the dignity when they
return, you wouldn't trust them,
because they didn't give it to them
when they were there?
Commander-in-Chief said last week
the Rohingya, he referred to them as
Bengali. So it doesn't instil
confidence it is safe for people to
return back there, because it is the
military who orchestrated the scale
of the violence against them.
is the paradox. What is the
alternative? You can see if they
don't go back, the camp, your there,
they are going to get more
permanent. It is not a is solution.
It is not sustainable. I mean
Bangladesh have been amazing in
opening the borders and their hearts
in accepting the Rohingya into their
land, but they are absolutely
overwhelmed. They already have a
fragile economy, 22% of Bangladeshis
live below the poverty line, they
can't manage. In my opinion a number
of things need to happen. There
needs to be an independent
fact-finding mission taking place in
Myanmar, it has to be open,
transparent, for people to see what
is going on and the perpetrators of
the crimes need to be taken to
trial. Secondly, the Bangladeshi
Government need to be supported in
their endeavours to care for the...
Which is money basically.
access for NGOs. I was out there
with Christian Aid who are doing
great work. There are issues.
may add to that. What was striking
about today nobody talked about the
root causes of this crisis. The
statelessness of the Rohingya. It is
striking to announce a deal and not
talk about long-term solution, how
do you provide legal pathways to
citizenship, this will happen again
Is there not a principle,
the rest of the world says they
can't go back, you have rewarded the
ethnic cleansing haven't you because
you have said yes, now your people
are the ones who occupy the land
they used to have.
I agree. It is
clear who the people are that are
responsible for this, they are named
individuals and there has to be
accountability for what happens,
that has to be sit in a broader
programme of reform that recognises
that the Rohingya are part of
Myanmar, that they can't just be
shunted off somewhere else and
discarded, and they have a vital
role to play in the life of that
So how do you invest in them?
how many people were able to go back
to the lace... Does it work.
thing to remember is in Bosnia it is
not the people lacked citizenship.
It is key, the Rohingya in that
respect, are more comparable to the
Palestinian, so I think that
important lessons to be learned,
that these problems don't go way, it
afters many countries in the region.
I am struck about why there isn't...
This is genocide, textbook example
of genocide. We are bystanders to
the genocide and we cannot allow
this to continue, this is not ethnic
cleansing, this has been dehewn
anisation, over an entire group of
people. If they go back, if they are
forcibly reat the rated they will go
back, they will die and this will
continue. Thank you both very much.
It's been around 36 hours
since yesterday's Budget,
but in the past we've seen plenty
of them collapse completely
in that kind of time-frame.
Remember George Osborne's
omnishambles Budget in 2012?
And Philip Hammond's u-turn
over National Insurance
contributions earlier this year?
Well, let's get the day
after reflections from
our trio of editors -
Nick Watt, Helen Thomas
and Chris Cook.
The three wise men and women
who come bearing graphs.
Do we think he got
away with that? Just about. So far?
They seem quite pleased with the
response, they felt they got away
Want to worry this
afternoon said that Parliament felt
like the Mary Celeste, there was
nothing for them to do so they went
back to the constituencies, there
was no feeling of plotting. This
Budget landed as well as it could,
given that dramatic downgrade in the
economic forecast. Relations between
Number 10 a number 11 have been
difficult but from Number 10 I am
hearing words like they are pleased
with this, if ordered landed well
and that it was transparent about
the real challenges from that
downgrade that Helen will be talking
about. The Prime Minister was on a
visit with Philip Hammond earlier
today and it looks pretty much like
he has got a reprieve. She was asked
a simple question, is his job is
safe? Yes, he did a good job in the
All peace and harmony, let
us talk about the economics. What is
the headline of the day?
we had these big downgrades,
productivity growth, economic growth
and the knock-on effect on borrowing
and today the focus was on what that
means in people's pockets. Look at
this chart from the Institute for
Fiscal Studies and this was the talk
of the day, average annual earnings,
adjusted for inflation, this blue
line, you can see the peak before
the financial crisis, the big drop
and partial recovery. In March 2016,
on this next line, the official
forecasts, nice, steady recovery. By
2021 we are back more or less. We
have caught up, yes. The latest
forecasts... The Green line. Very
different picture, flat out, modest
Has anybody extrapolated
that line to see when it gets back
to where we were?
The two things are
the gaps, 2021, the gap is about
£1400. That has been forecast. And
2023, we are nowhere near back to
that peak so that is already 15
years of lost earnings growth and
this is buying power, living
standards. This is what really
matters to people.
A lot of people
have said that this is all Brexit?
This is not Brexit and it is
important to say that. Actually,
what is baked into these forecasts
about Brexit is quite smooth
They have to make a bunch
The other thing to
say is these are forecasts and
economists do occasionally get the
Maybe the fact that
they have told us to carry an
umbrella, the sun will shine...
fact that this is baked into the
official forecasts just reflects
that the productivity, earnings,
living standards, this is a
long-term problem and a real
Chris, you were speaking
to us yesterday about the NHS and
its difficulties, what are the
options to make life within the
Budget they have got?
The NHS in
England is not like other government
departments, it has its own Chief
Executive and board that are not the
government, they are independent and
they have this big thing every year,
the NHS mandate, a list of targets,
and are going to decide next week
that they cannot meet their targets
and do what they are paid to. One
example... One of the targets is the
RTD target, which says that from a
referral to getting to treatment, it
should be no longer than 18 weeks
and they think this will cost 2- £3
We are missing that target.
£2 billion to get back in? To bring
the backlog back down and then half
a billion every year to keep that
under control. They only have £1.6
billion extra next year so they
cannot do that one target, let alone
all of them. Next week will be all
about which targets we meet in which
we do not, they will not say
something like, we will no longer do
hips or cancer treatment, this is
the differing of spending and it is
going to say, your quality of care
will decline but the speed will
decline, that is the conversation.
Looking ahead, presumably the
government think we have managed to
stabilise a patient that is this
government, it is OK, I'll be
It has been Theresa May's
horrible year, the Budget and the
general election backfiring and
conference speech and this is the
big thing that is so far going well.
Is this a turning point? She has two
big challenges, as Chris said, she
has to not have a winter fuel crisis
and candles Brexit negotiations move
onto the next stage, future trade
transition, the Prime Minister has
seen -- is singing Donald Tusk
tomorrow and that is the beginning
of a process over the next ten days
with the UK will outline the extra
money it is putting on the table.
Will be Irish Prime Minister dig in
and if so, and the EU still listens,
maybe he could hold up progress.
Plenty of action. Thank you all very
A right old fuss has been brewing
over the last few days
on the subject of animal welfare.
And as with any story
concerning animals, it has
attracted enormous interest,
particularly on social media
and in some online forums.
Now, we all love animals,
but the question about
the controversy over the last few
days is whether it is all
based on a falsehood.
MPs debating the Brexit Bill didn't
vote to carry an EU treaty
provision recognising animals
as sentient beings.
Does it tell us anything
about MPs or animals,
or about the tendency in this age
towards fevered and
Here's the headline
that captures the row.
MPs voted that animals
cannot feel pain.
Items like these have
quite reasonably been
shared millions of times.
Because most of us -
sentient human beings -
have seen a pet dog and can testify
that, yes, animals do feel pain, do
have strong feelings of attachment
and are capable of emotions.
They have simple tastes
and are easily fulfilled
by simple activities,
such as retrieving a ball.
Dogs are clearly sentient beings.
Cats less so.
But even they have emotions,
apparently, and are just less keen
to express them publicly.
So what were MPs thinking in voting
that animals can't feel pain?
Well, it turns out that they didn't.
They, too, have feelings and mostly
appear to believe animals
are sentient beings.
They simply voted against
registering animal sentience
in the Brexit Bill, lifting it
from the EU Lisbon Treaty.
No need, said the Government.
It's already effectively
I can reassure the Honourable Lady
that it is already recognised
as a matter of domestic law here,
primarily in the Animal
Welfare Act 2006.
If an animal is capable
of experiencing pain and suffering,
it is sentient and under
the Animal Welfare Act
it is therefore afforded protection.
So the argument was not
about animal sentience at all -
it was a legal row about how
to enshrine it.
That is still an open question.
But protests against the Tories have
taken off, as though MPs have voted
to slaughter puppies.
Sue Perkins had a go
at it on Twitter.
"MPs denying what is
obvious", she said.
Ben Fogle did, too.
He has now apologised.
But if you did fall for the wrong
idea that MPs thought
animals didn't feel pain,
well, you would be angry.
Well, Tory MPs are terrified of that
anger, and Michael Gove,
who is responsible for this area,
clarified again today in a written
answer that the "Government
will ensure animal sentience
is recognised after
we leave the EU".
But he said the "Brexit Withdrawal
Bill is not the right
place to address this".
Well, I'm joined by Sue
Hayman from Cumbria.
She is Labour's Michael Gove -
Shadow Defra Secretary.
Robert Courts is a Conservative
MP and represents the
constituency of Witney.
Have you had a public response?
of the Neales, clearly something
people care about.
Do you feel it is
based on a falsehood, that you have
been unfairly maligned?
I would not
say falsehood but there is
misunderstanding. You are right in
the beginning of that piece, this is
a drafting issue and if you read the
text of article 13 and the new
clause 30, it becomes clear the
context is around European
legislation and it simply will not
work if we left that...
What is the legal problem about
taking this thing from Article 13
that recognises animals are
sentience, and putting it into UK
law so we have a provision that says
animals are sentience?
context is about being an EU member
state, it doesn't make sense if you
are not in the EU. Of course,
animals are sentience, there is no
Do any of your colleagues not
No MP believes that,
they clearly feel pain, what is
behind this, the intention of making
clear that animals can suffer, we
should have a protection but this is
not the right way to do it.
draft it ourselves. Have you brought
this on yourselves by killing
badgers and supporting hunting or a
free vote on hunting, which raises
the possibility of hunting
I don't think so, this is
just a misunderstanding on a
But killing badgers
is real, that is not a drafting
Sure, but this is a
government... That is your policy?
For scientific reasons. Scientists
did not think it was a great idea
and you went ahead anyway.
government has done more for animal
welfare than any government for a
very long time, banning ivory and
increasing the sentences for animal
cruelty, mandatory CCTV in slaughter
houses. It has been years since any
government has done as much.
the manifesto, when there was a
provision for a free vote on
hunting, a lot of people, not a huge
mainstream media issue, but a lot of
social media was very exercised by
that provision and you did notice
Of course, British people care
very much about animals and that is
another issue that was controversial
but that should not take away from
our excellent record, nor does it
have anything to do with this
Steve Hayman, can we just
agree... That no MP has been exposed
as not believing that animals are
sentient beings? That there is any
suggestion that Tory MPs do not
believe animals feel pain, that is
Everyone would accept
that animals suffer and feel pain
but the point is, Michael Gove has
said we do not need to bring this
legislation into UK law because of
the animal welfare act which covers
at what what the animal welfare act
does not say is that animals are
sentient, which is why we need to
bring this into UK law.
I just want
to be 100% clear, that you are
condemning all the suggestions on
social media that have portrayed
Tory MPs as having voted that
animals do not feel pain? A lot of
that has been said and you think
that is nonsense, Robert Courts
believes no MP believes that and you
I think we all know
A lot of this debate has been
based on a misunderstanding. Sue
Perkins, that tweet was based on a
misunderstanding. Haven't you been
using that misunderstanding?
if animals feel suffering, if
Conservative MPs appreciate that
then they should have supported our
amendment and should have brought
article 13 into UK law.
Hang on, in
the Commons they explained perfectly
clearly that it was not a matter of
other animals are sentient or not,
on the 18th of October it was said
in the Commons, we are exploring how
the animal sentience principle of
article 13 can be reflected in the
UK. Oliver Letwin said we need to
talk about new clauses, what they
are aiming at and how best to
achieve it because it is a
disagreement about, not one of end
spot means. Yet this debate has
taken off as though it is about
Most of the appeal bill
is to bring existing EU legislation
into UK law and there are only a
small number of things that have
been taken out by the government,
animal sentience is one of them and
other environmental protections. The
question is, why remove it when you
can bring it in and have this in law
without having to go through the
rigmarole of creating new
legislation? That means we have to
trust the government to do that
whereas if they just bring it
straight back, that is the problem
Do you except Michael Gove's
pledge, in written answers today he
said we will sort this out because
it is not our intention to treat
animals as non-sentient beings. Do
you accept this will be enshrined in
UK law in some form or other but not
the Brexit Bill?
What concerns me is
Michael Gove has said a lot about
animal welfare and the environment
yet the two areas where the
important legislation that underpins
the principles underpinning animal
welfare and the environment in the
Brexit Bill have been removed from
the legislation. I think we should
be judged on what we do, not just
what we say.
Shouldn't the principle
be judged on what it does? The
animal sentience principle is
written into the treaty yet there is
foie gras in France and
bull-fighting in Spain, our welfare
standards are much higher!
underpins the ability to build on
animal welfare, the RSPCA and the
British veterinary Association are
very concerned that article 13 has
been removed and the RSPCA basically
says there are areas of animal
welfare improvement that they do not
believe would have happened if it
was not for article 13. For example,
the banning of the battery cages,
the banning of animal testing in
cosmetics, banning importing
products. They see this as an
important part of legislation.
If Donald Trump let it run round
social media for his end, you would
be the first to be decrying fake
news anon sense, wouldn't you? Yet
when it is on your side you are
happy to use this misunderstanding
of whether the Tories have voted
against animals or voted against the
particular legislative proposal,
willing to use that, to get your
particular view of how the
legislation should be seen.
haven't misused anything.
All I have
said is it is important the
Government supports our amendment
and brings article 13 into UK law.
It a critical part of our
Thank you very much indeed. Thank
Thank you both.
You might have heard of Fancy Bear -
a Russian hacking group with a long
history of cyber-espionage.
Experts say it was involved
in the attack on the theft
of Democratic Party emails
in the run-up to the US
election last year.
Also in the release of information
about Bradley Wiggins'
therapeutic use exemptions.
It is hard to find out much
about these hacking groups -
they don't self-publicise.
But with the PM programme on Radio
4, we've obtained exclusive insight
into some of the operations of Fancy
Our story begins not
in Moscow or Washington,
but somewhere much closer to home.
Chris Vallance reports.
When you think of international
what locations spring to mind?
What about a terraced street?
A corner shop in Oldham?
It's the kind of place
you might pop in for some
cigarettes or a pint of milk.
More Coronation Street
than le Carre.
Yet this place, through no fault
of its own, has a connection
to international cyber espionage.
In 2012, an unlikely set
of characters visited an online
business registered to this area.
They weren't customers
after groceries, they were
linked to Russian intelligence.
They were visiting a business
The hackers were from a group
called Fancy Bear, whose
targets include government,
military and security organisations.
They would visit Crookservers'
website to rent computers
used in their attacks.
Experts say Fancy Bear's aim
was to change the way we think.
There are a lot of Russian
cyber groups that engage
in traditional espionage,
so the theft of political
and military information.
What makes this Russian group
particularly notable is they also
appear to participate
in what we call active measures,
which is the Russian notion
of using cyber and other means
to influence popular
opinion in the advancement
of their strategic interests.
Crookservers was a purely
virtual business that
rented out, well, servers.
It was all online, it never
physically owned the machines.
In early 2012, it briefly claimed
to be based at the newsagents
in its website registration
documents, but no-one at the corner
shop had ever heard of it.
Where Crookservers was physically
based is a tricky question.
The online business could have been
run from a laptop, but however small
it was it was popular with Fancy
This Russian hacking group clearly
liked using that service provider
because they had gone back
on a number of occasions
to hire new servers,
and lease new computers,
so I think it shows
that was a service provider
they were keen to use and they felt
safe using them, which is
interesting in itself, I think.
One of the computers leased
from Crookservers under
the pseudonym Nikolay Mladenov
features in computer
code used to attack
the German Parliament in 2015.
Claudia Haydt was the first person
to notice the attack
on the Bundestag.
They sent out an e-mail
which supposedly was sent by a UN,
United Nations organisation,
and this e-mail had an attachment
with reports of the situation
in Ukraine, or supposedly it had
an attachment like this.
I tried to open it.
I found out it didn't work
and I forgot about it,
only later remembered
there is this problem.
Of course I thought it was rather
serious if a computer
in the Bundestag might be victim
of an attack by some Trojan virus.
Then the news comes out
that this is a Russian
linked group, Fancy Bear.
When that news broke,
what did you think?
Well, yes, it could be Russian,
it could be someone else.
Yes, there are a lot of clues
which are pointing to Russia,
because a lot of the software used
in the hack was already used
by other confirmed Russian attacks,
for example in US, and actually
we still don't know what kind
of documents had been downloaded
or uploaded in this case,
to somewhere else.
We don't know what happened
to really sensitive papers.
in October 10th of this year.
Internet records its last business
address was in Pakistan.
But we have traced the company back
to an individual whose social media
profiles show lived in the Oldham
area until around about 2014.
His name is Usman Ashraf.
Ashraf, who is now based
in Pakistan, only communicated
with us via e-mail, but he did
answers to questions.
He said he didn't know his
customers were hackers.
He provided evidence that
when in 2015 he was first alerted
to the use of Crookservers
by Fancy Bear he swiftly
kicked them out.
Lawyers say what he was doing wasn't
And Ashraf's answers
to our questions helped expose a web
of financial transactions,
fake identities and cyber attacks
linked to the hackers.
Mike McLellan says that what we have
learned allows experts
to connect together several
different hacking operations.
The information that has been
received appears to suggest a link
between the attack against the US
Democratic Party in 2016,
with operations against a Polish
defence company, against a Bulgarian
agency for national security,
against the participants
of the 2014 Farnborough airshow
and against the Nigerian Government.
What may have attracted
the hackers to Crookservers,
apart from its name,
was it accepted payment
using a number of hard to trace
methods, including bitcoin.
We were able to identify that
payment to Crookservers came
from a specific bitcoin wallet.
That bitcoin wallet had
received over 200 bitcoins
round $100,000 at the time.
That wallet in turn received funds
from BTCE, a place where you can
exchange bitcoins for cash,
which Tom says was popular
with Russian computer criminals,
until it was shut down
by US investigators.
The indictment mentioned that over
$4 billion worth of bitcoin
were laundered through BTCE.
Much of it transferred
into Russian roubles.
I understand there are other clues
to be found in financial information
from Crookservers that hint
as Russian connections.
We have seen no evidence BTCE knew
it was being used to fund hackers.
We have also seen no evidence
that the shop in Oldham had any
actual connection to Crookservers,
although through Ashraf
there is a clear link to the area.
So in the end what have we learned?
We have obtained a unique
window into a Russian
linked hacking operation,
a window that has enabled us to join
together a number of different
by the security industry.
We have seen the hackers were well
organised and they were well funded.
And the financial information
points, once again,
in the direction of Russia.
It is a hacking campaign
that has no lesser aim
than to influence word events.
It's a hacking campaign that
continues to this day.
On Monday, news came that two big EU
regulatory agencies in London
are being moved offshore
to Paris and Amsterdam.
A disappointment to London.
But it was interesting, of course,
that Britain's allocated EU
institutions were both in London
in the first place.
But today, disappointing Brexit news
came for five other cities -
they'd been competing to be
European City of Culture 2023.
The EU Commission said
they are ineligible because we will
no longer be a member state.
Were we stupid to think
we might be part of the City
of Culture game once we leave?
Or is the Commission
I'm with Rosie Millard,
who is Chair of Hull -
the UK City of Culture 2017.
She is also on the selection panel
for the European City of Culture.
I presume it was.
You mean capital
of dull culture.
Because it has gone
now. You were going to choose one of
the five cities.
Look at the care
that has gone into it. Our place,
that was Belfast.
I am puzzle as to
how it got this far, we voted to
leave some time ago, how could it
have got this far would us
It must have been on
their Risk Register, they must have
had this anxiety this could happen,
but never believe it would happen
because there is precedent, you
know, cities of one Culture, Media
and Sport, from countries which are
not in the EU, like Norway, Capital
of Culture, there is even I think it
is Prague, yes, was the Capital of
Culture before the Czech Republic
was in the EU, so there is
And down with 23
a lot of money into the bid.
preallocated as Britain's year.
I may say that Britain was the
country that really brought the
Capital of Culture into being,
because before Glasgow won it in
1990, the Capital of Culture went to
places like Florence and Paris,
which didn't need it. Glasgow got it
in 1990 and the city was
transformed. It rebranded it. It, I
think you can draw a direct line to
hosting the Commonwealth Game,
equally Liverpool, you know, brought
an astonishing amount of wealth and
tourism. What happened was after
Glasgow it weventry year to a city
that really needed it. So we made it
the success story.
What I want to
know, were we stupid to think, we
are leaving, if you leave you don't
get to play in the game, do you, are
the Commission being unreasonable in
interpreting the rules?
I think this
is EU Commission throwing its toys
out a big European shaped cot. They
didn't need to do that. This is one
of the joys, it is is a joyous
thing, in Hull people are walking
round, it is joyous, the Hull
phenomenon is not the EU, it is the
UK but it is the same idea, and you
know, the creative industries
federation where I work, we have
done a lot of scoping on what will
happen to the creative industries if
there is a hard Brexit, if Brexit
happens an it will hit the creative
industries very very hard, because
here a lot of creative British
people live and work in the EU.
interpret it as very hard.
a lot of flexibility, freedom of
movement is needed. It is not
special pleading, this is is a big,
important factor in the UK economy
Which one was going to win out of
I couldn't say, they were
all marvellous. No, you know, I
You might as well award it
It might come back in some form and
what might happen is that the
collegiate community effort that has
gone into this might stick round.
There might be good results.
Something good might come out of it.
It is good stuff.
The Sun has Harry popped the
question? Bookies suspend engagement
bet, there is a question mark, they
can't say he has but they are
thinking it. The Mail, on the bottom
right hand corner, what do they
know? The bookies stopped taking
bet, are we poised for something
there. That is almost it.
But before we go, it's now been five
years since British war photographer
John Cantlie was kidnapped in Syria
journalist James Foley.
Cantlie is one of more than 20
journalists still believed to be
held captive by so-called Islamic
His current whereabouts
are not known.
To mark this anniversary,
we leave you with a montage
of photos he took in Libya,
Afghanistan and Syria.