0:00:06 > 0:00:0816 years after this 17-year-old private died from gunshot
0:00:08 > 0:00:10wounds at Deepcut barracks, there's to be a fresh inquest
0:00:10 > 0:00:16into what really happened.
0:00:16 > 0:00:18It sometimes seems as though the authorities want everyone
0:00:18 > 0:00:21to move along and think about something else -
0:00:21 > 0:00:23his parents tell us about why they never gave up
0:00:23 > 0:00:26looking for answers.
0:00:26 > 0:00:29I saw my son on a slab and he's 17 years old.
0:00:29 > 0:00:32I promised him then that I would find out the truth.
0:00:32 > 0:00:34I don't think we have found the truth yet.
0:00:34 > 0:00:39And I still owe him that promise.
0:00:39 > 0:00:42We'll ask a leading human rights lawyer whether parents should have
0:00:42 > 0:00:47to fight so hard to get the investigations they need?
0:00:47 > 0:00:49Also tonight, you might have known your phone
0:00:49 > 0:00:52was addictive, but did you know it is properly addictive...
0:00:52 > 0:00:53and deliberately so.
0:00:53 > 0:00:54It's part of my body now.
0:00:54 > 0:00:55It is always with me.
0:00:55 > 0:00:57I don't know.
0:00:57 > 0:00:58I don't want to say it is an addiction,
0:00:58 > 0:01:00but I just need my phone!
0:01:00 > 0:01:03It is not sensational to say our brains are being hacked,
0:01:03 > 0:01:10because that is pretty much what is happening.
0:01:10 > 0:01:13And Stella McCartney tells us why the fashion industry needs
0:01:13 > 0:01:23to be more sustainable.
0:01:24 > 0:01:32This can be fashionable, this can be sexy, this can be young.
0:01:32 > 0:01:34Hello.
0:01:34 > 0:01:35We start tonight with the speculation this evening
0:01:35 > 0:01:39of a settlement in the fraught talks over Britain's Brexit divorce bill.
0:01:39 > 0:01:42We might have an answer to the fifty billion euro question -
0:01:42 > 0:01:46how much do we pay to leave.
0:01:46 > 0:01:49And the answer seems to be a number near to fifty billion euros.
0:01:49 > 0:01:51The papers are full of somewhat varying figures
0:01:51 > 0:01:57as to what Britain is agreeing too - but that's the order of magnitude.
0:01:57 > 0:01:58Certainly, the general pattern of these talks,
0:01:58 > 0:02:02that we say no and then we say yes, while they say very little appears
0:02:02 > 0:02:04to have repeated itself again.
0:02:04 > 0:02:07But our political editor Nick Watt has been around Westminster finding
0:02:07 > 0:02:14out how this is all going down, and he's with me now.
0:02:14 > 0:02:21Can we put a figure on it? We can confirm that the UK has agreed to
0:02:21 > 0:02:25the EU framework for settling that financial divorce bill with EU when
0:02:25 > 0:02:29we leave. Stage one came in the Prime Minister's speech in Florence
0:02:29 > 0:02:33when she said that the UK would agree to cover it share of the EU
0:02:33 > 0:02:38budget up to the end of 2020. The final stage has come just now, which
0:02:38 > 0:02:44is that the UK has agreed that it will meet its liabilities racked up
0:02:44 > 0:02:56as a member of the European Union.
0:03:25 > 0:03:28Where you go from there is a matter of dispute. The sources I have been
0:03:28 > 0:03:31talking to say that they are not putting a number on the table. The
0:03:31 > 0:03:33Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph which broke this story,
0:03:33 > 0:03:36the Daily Telegraph is talking about a figure of up to 55 billion euros
0:03:36 > 0:03:38and the Financial Times is talking about 100 million euros but think it
0:03:38 > 0:03:41could be mass such down to half of that. The UK Government do not want
0:03:41 > 0:03:44the figure at the table at the next summit. They never want a figure on
0:03:44 > 0:03:47the table. What they want to be able to do is offset that against our net
0:03:47 > 0:03:50payment and pay these liabilities as they are due in perhaps as long as
0:03:50 > 0:03:53decades to come. They have an ally in me shall buy. His view is that
0:03:53 > 0:03:56methodology is more important than a number.The papers are going on it.
0:03:56 > 0:04:00Financial Times here. The Times. There is the Daily Telegraph. The
0:04:00 > 0:04:08Guardian. What does this tell us about Theresa May and her whole
0:04:08 > 0:04:14approach to these negotiations? Theresa May once a dealer at the end
0:04:14 > 0:04:20of this process. The idea is to have it by October next year and then you
0:04:20 > 0:04:24can finalise it in Parliament. She feels very strongly that you have
0:04:24 > 0:04:28got to move on to the second stage, the final trade talks and the
0:04:28 > 0:04:32transition talks. You have to do that at the summit next month and to
0:04:32 > 0:04:38do that you have got to come to some sort of agreement in the next week.
0:04:38 > 0:04:42There are some senior Remain Tories who say that the Prime Minister is
0:04:42 > 0:04:48talking a tough game. And then she is quietly sort of doing this deal
0:04:48 > 0:04:53in Brussels. I think what ministers would say is we are making progress,
0:04:53 > 0:04:59we made this big movement, but on the money there will still be a line
0:04:59 > 0:05:03by line and analysis and crucially, they are not there yet on two big
0:05:03 > 0:05:08issues. One is the role of the European Court of Justice in the
0:05:08 > 0:05:13future relationship with EU citizens of this country and also the Irish
0:05:13 > 0:05:17border.Theresa May has gone to the Middle East. She will not be
0:05:17 > 0:05:22answering questions about it tomorrow.It will be Damian Green
0:05:22 > 0:05:29standing in for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Questions. There
0:05:29 > 0:05:34is a report going on into whether he behaved appropriately with a young
0:05:34 > 0:05:39woman journalist who he had a drink with an questions about alleged
0:05:39 > 0:05:44pornography on his computer. The interesting thing is, he is a
0:05:44 > 0:05:47passionate Remainer who is delivering Brexit bar when he was
0:05:47 > 0:05:50asked about it and how he would vote in another referendum, he said he
0:05:50 > 0:05:56would vote to Remain.
0:05:56 > 0:05:58It is only a small Surrey village near Camberley,
0:05:58 > 0:06:01but the name Deepcut has sadly become synonymous with a series
0:06:01 > 0:06:02of deaths at the Barracks there.
0:06:02 > 0:06:05Four young trainees died by gunshot wounds over a number of years
0:06:05 > 0:06:07in the late '90s and early 2000s.
0:06:07 > 0:06:09The strange but similar circumstances made the families
0:06:09 > 0:06:11deeply sceptical of initial suggestions of death by suicide.
0:06:11 > 0:06:13After perseverance by those families, subsequent reviews exposed
0:06:13 > 0:06:16a culture of bullying and harassment at the barracks, and found fault
0:06:16 > 0:06:19in the army's treatment of trainees.
0:06:19 > 0:06:22Questions were raised about the investigations into the deaths.
0:06:22 > 0:06:25And today - one family successfully won a high court action to obtain
0:06:25 > 0:06:30a fresh inquest into the death of their son.
0:06:30 > 0:06:32Private Geoff Gray was only 17 when he died, 16 years ago.
0:06:32 > 0:06:42Should it really have taken so long for the relatives to get
0:06:44 > 0:06:48His parents spoke to us today.
0:06:48 > 0:06:51I saw my son on a slab and he was 17 years old.
0:06:51 > 0:06:54I promised him then I'd find out the truth.
0:06:54 > 0:06:56I don't think we've found the truth yet.
0:06:56 > 0:06:57And I still owe him that promise.
0:06:57 > 0:06:59Private Geoff Gray died in 2001 at the Deepcut
0:06:59 > 0:07:00army barracks in Surrey.
0:07:00 > 0:07:04He was found shot twice in the head with a rifle.
0:07:04 > 0:07:09The Army ruled that his death was a suicide.
0:07:09 > 0:07:12The week before he died he had phoned us and he told us that
0:07:12 > 0:07:17somebody had taken their life in the barracks.
0:07:17 > 0:07:20I think he had taken some tablets and he had died.
0:07:20 > 0:07:24And he said, that's a coward's way out.
0:07:24 > 0:07:26And I thought, you know, he's talking about suicide
0:07:26 > 0:07:27being the coward's way out.
0:07:27 > 0:07:31So I don't think he did.
0:07:31 > 0:07:37It's not in his nature.
0:07:37 > 0:07:40In 2002 an inquest returned an open verdict and today the High Court
0:07:40 > 0:07:42ordered that it was necessary or desirable in the interests
0:07:42 > 0:07:45of justice for a fresh inquest to be held.
0:07:45 > 0:07:48Private Gray's family believe the truth of his death
0:07:48 > 0:07:53at the Deepcut Barracks has not yet been uncovered.
0:07:53 > 0:07:56Looking at the fact that he was shot twice in the head.
0:07:56 > 0:07:59You always have to look at the fact that he may have been murdered.
0:07:59 > 0:08:03Once you've put one bullet in, your body will drop.
0:08:03 > 0:08:06You know, to be really graphic about this, the back
0:08:06 > 0:08:08of your head disappears.
0:08:08 > 0:08:10So your body will drop.
0:08:10 > 0:08:11The rifle will rise.
0:08:11 > 0:08:15You can't do it twice.
0:08:15 > 0:08:17Private Gray's death at Deepcut sadly was not unique.
0:08:17 > 0:08:21Private Sean Benton died of gunshot wounds in 1995.
0:08:21 > 0:08:25A fresh inquest into his case will be heard next year.
0:08:25 > 0:08:27Private Cheryl James was found to have shot
0:08:27 > 0:08:30herself in the same year.
0:08:30 > 0:08:33There was a fresh inquest into her case last June.
0:08:33 > 0:08:35And Private James Collinson was found dead with a single
0:08:35 > 0:08:41gunshot wound in 2002.
0:08:41 > 0:08:44The Army came to my door and said your son has killed himself.
0:08:44 > 0:08:46Families have been fighting for years to learn the truth
0:08:46 > 0:08:47about the Deepcut deaths.
0:08:47 > 0:08:52A heavy burden to add to their bereavement.
0:08:52 > 0:08:54We don't have a choice, there is no choice in that.
0:08:54 > 0:08:56You have to carry on.
0:08:56 > 0:08:57I have another son at home.
0:08:57 > 0:08:59I have to carry on for his sake.
0:08:59 > 0:09:01Life goes on living.
0:09:01 > 0:09:04It's sort of, we do this and then we have to carry
0:09:04 > 0:09:08on with family life as well.
0:09:08 > 0:09:09You know.
0:09:09 > 0:09:10And keep on going.
0:09:10 > 0:09:17And just try to get the truth of what actually happened to Geoff.
0:09:17 > 0:09:19It is also difficult to get the expertise required to question
0:09:19 > 0:09:28the police and Ministry of Defence.
0:09:28 > 0:09:30Bereaved families in inquests should have legal aid whenever
0:09:30 > 0:09:31the state are represented.
0:09:31 > 0:09:34So for instance if you go into an inquest now and the police
0:09:34 > 0:09:37are there, the Ministry of Defence are there, the Fire Services
0:09:37 > 0:09:40are there, the NHS are there for instance, they will be quite
0:09:40 > 0:09:41properly represented by taxpayers money.
0:09:41 > 0:09:44Now if that is the case, why should believed families sit
0:09:44 > 0:09:46in court and simply faced that bank of lawyers against them
0:09:46 > 0:09:50with not a single lawyer being funded for them.
0:09:50 > 0:09:52It is outrageous.
0:09:52 > 0:09:55The families though will press on in the hope that one day,
0:09:55 > 0:10:01hopefully soon, they get a more convincing set of answers.
0:10:01 > 0:10:03Geoff signed up to serve his country.
0:10:03 > 0:10:05He died when he was 17 years old.
0:10:05 > 0:10:15His country should serve him now and we should find the truth.
0:10:16 > 0:10:22Let us look at some of the general issues raised by the difficulties
0:10:22 > 0:10:25parents have in getting inquests.
0:10:25 > 0:10:27Joining me now from Salford is Pete Weatherby QC -
0:10:27 > 0:10:29a specialist in public inquiries and inquests - including
0:10:29 > 0:10:31Hillsborough, Grenfell and a whole raft of others.
0:10:31 > 0:10:38Good evening. We have had a string of cases going back it decades,
0:10:38 > 0:10:42blood contamination, Hillsborough, Orgreave, cases were families of
0:10:42 > 0:10:46those involved, in some ghastly tragedy, seal it justice has not
0:10:46 > 0:10:51been done or questions have been left unanswered.Do you see
0:10:51 > 0:11:00commonalities? Absolutely. These families have got to go through the
0:11:00 > 0:11:04whole process yet again to try and get at the truth, not just one
0:11:04 > 0:11:10family, it is not a coincidence, three of them as you just reported.
0:11:10 > 0:11:16You mentioned blood contamination, I could add to that the Birmingham pub
0:11:16 > 0:11:23bombings, the new inquests 45 years on. In my view there are two common
0:11:23 > 0:11:29problems, the first is a duty, the candour that needs to be a duty, a
0:11:29 > 0:11:36legal duty of candour. What is a common part of all of these cases
0:11:36 > 0:11:40and apparently the Deepcut ones as well is that there is new evidence
0:11:40 > 0:11:46coming forward. Why is that coming forward so long afterwards? What
0:11:46 > 0:11:50went wrong with the original investigations? The original
0:11:50 > 0:11:58enquiries? It appears given all of these historic cases, take the blood
0:11:58 > 0:12:04contamination case, go back to the early 1980s, when the evidence seems
0:12:04 > 0:12:08to show that the Department of Health knew that the blood was
0:12:08 > 0:12:14contaminated yet was still supplying people unknowingly who then went on
0:12:14 > 0:12:19to die from either hepatitis or HIV. In these cases there is a culture of
0:12:19 > 0:12:23denial as there would be in any authority when they are
0:12:23 > 0:12:28investigated.There shouldn't be. There is a culture of denial,
0:12:28 > 0:12:32institutional defensiveness where they reach for the denial first. If
0:12:32 > 0:12:38you look at Grenfell, bringing us right up to date, immediately after
0:12:38 > 0:12:42the fire and you had the council saying that they have done nothing
0:12:42 > 0:12:47wrong, the emergency response, some of the contractor is issuing
0:12:47 > 0:12:51condolences, but at the end of them they were saying, by the way, we did
0:12:51 > 0:12:55nothing wrong either and people are making the denials before they have
0:12:55 > 0:13:00even looked at their own behaviour. The other feature of course is that
0:13:00 > 0:13:05we heard it in the peace there, everybody is very well legally
0:13:05 > 0:13:11represented apart from the families of the victims.Exactly. In any of
0:13:11 > 0:13:16these disasters or tragedies, that is exactly right. The Army, the
0:13:16 > 0:13:22police, the local authorities, the NHS, whatever it is, all entirely
0:13:22 > 0:13:27properly fully represented, but the victims are not. If you look at the
0:13:27 > 0:13:31Birmingham pub bombings, the families after 45 years, were
0:13:31 > 0:13:35spending most of their time trying to get funding so that they could go
0:13:35 > 0:13:46to the inquests of their loved ones. It
0:13:53 > 0:13:57is there a point that sometimes it is right to say it is time to close
0:13:57 > 0:13:59this issue, we are not going to have an enquiry? May be families are
0:13:59 > 0:14:02clinging onto unrealistic hopes of what might emerge or maybe the
0:14:02 > 0:14:04authorities genuinely know that there is nothing to be said. Is
0:14:04 > 0:14:07there ever a defence of Saint, it is time up?I would look at it from the
0:14:07 > 0:14:10other end of the telescope, there should be an enquiry very quickly
0:14:10 > 0:14:13and it should be done properly and you can do that if there is a legal
0:14:13 > 0:14:15duty of candour, which makes a public authority or the public
0:14:15 > 0:14:17facing private entity in these days of privatisation, if there is a
0:14:17 > 0:14:23legal duty on them to be proactive in coming out with the truth and
0:14:23 > 0:14:26owning up to their own shortcomings.
0:14:37 > 0:14:40Only up to the grand shortcomings. This is the proposed law, the
0:14:40 > 0:14:47Hillsborough law. And has quite a bit of cross-party support.It has
0:14:47 > 0:14:51had its first reading, it has strong support and will go back soon I hope
0:14:51 > 0:14:58to the House of Commons and it requires candour. So hopefully we
0:14:58 > 0:15:03will not have these repeat inquests 15 years on. But people proactively
0:15:03 > 0:15:08will have to tell the truth and it will put the -- put victims on a
0:15:08 > 0:15:16level playing field in terms of representation. Linking public
0:15:16 > 0:15:20funding to victims in disasters and unnatural death situations.Thank
0:15:20 > 0:15:21you very much.
0:15:21 > 0:15:24Something is going badly wrong with the way we use clothes,
0:15:24 > 0:15:26according to major study being launched this evening.
0:15:26 > 0:15:28In the last 15 years, across the world, the average number
0:15:28 > 0:15:32of times a garment is worn before it ceases to be used has gone down
0:15:32 > 0:15:33by more than a third.
0:15:33 > 0:15:35In China, clothes are worn 70% fewer times
0:15:35 > 0:15:37than they were in 2002.
0:15:37 > 0:15:40At one level, this just tells us that as we get richer,
0:15:40 > 0:15:42we like to have more new things.
0:15:42 > 0:15:44And fashionable ones at that.
0:15:44 > 0:15:46But the report suggests this could potentially take us
0:15:46 > 0:15:56to environmentally catastrophic outcomes.
0:15:57 > 0:15:58Here's the dilemma.
0:15:58 > 0:16:01Fashion is an industry that's grown in appeal over the decades.
0:16:01 > 0:16:05But by its nature, it promotes obsolescence.
0:16:05 > 0:16:07Fashion today implies out of fashion tomorrow.
0:16:07 > 0:16:10Who wants to wear that?
0:16:10 > 0:16:13The result is what today's report calls the "take,
0:16:13 > 0:16:15make, dispose" model.
0:16:15 > 0:16:18The clothing industry takes non-renewable resources,
0:16:18 > 0:16:20makes clothes and textiles with them, that
0:16:20 > 0:16:22are then disposed of.
0:16:22 > 0:16:26That disposal reflects massive under recycling.
0:16:26 > 0:16:31And disposal itself costs tens of millions in Britain alone.
0:16:31 > 0:16:35The fact is, we've become rather good at this model.
0:16:35 > 0:16:37Going into clothing production is a way of taking a poor country
0:16:37 > 0:16:40towards middle-income status.
0:16:40 > 0:16:46And clothes for consumers are extraordinarily cheap as a result.
0:16:46 > 0:16:48This is the graphic in the report that says it all.
0:16:48 > 0:16:50As the world becomes richer, the number of garments
0:16:50 > 0:16:53being produced has doubled.
0:16:53 > 0:16:57But the number of times each garment is worn has plummeted.
0:16:57 > 0:16:59The solutions the report suggests include radically
0:16:59 > 0:17:01improving recycling, making durability more
0:17:01 > 0:17:08attractive, and even promoting more clothing rentals.
0:17:08 > 0:17:12What the report does not suggest is simply taxing clothes to make
0:17:12 > 0:17:13them more expensive.
0:17:13 > 0:17:18That would hurt the poor.
0:17:18 > 0:17:21And being able to choose clothes and to use them as a form
0:17:21 > 0:17:24of self-expression almost defines what it is to be a modern consumer
0:17:24 > 0:17:29in an affluent society.
0:17:29 > 0:17:33Now the report was produced by the Ellen McArthur Foundation, -
0:17:33 > 0:17:35she was the round the world yachtswoman who now promotes
0:17:35 > 0:17:37the idea that the economy should be circular, -
0:17:37 > 0:17:43with goods recycled round and round, not flowing straight into landfill.
0:17:43 > 0:17:46Contributors to the report included McKinsey the consultants,
0:17:46 > 0:17:50and many clothing businesses, including Stella McCartney's.
0:17:50 > 0:17:52Well, just before the official launch earlier this evening,
0:17:52 > 0:17:55I went to the Fashion Gallery at the Victoria and Albert museum,
0:17:55 > 0:17:57to talk to Ellen McArthur and Stella McCartney herself.
0:17:57 > 0:18:02First I asked Ellen if we should blame the waste of textile materials
0:18:02 > 0:18:08on the very nature of fashion.
0:18:08 > 0:18:15I think the disposable nature of fashion is one of the challenges of
0:18:15 > 0:18:20the other challenge is to try to make that fashion that changes by
0:18:20 > 0:18:24definition fits within a system and that is what the report is about,
0:18:24 > 0:18:29building a broader system within which the design, the materials
0:18:29 > 0:18:35used, when they come out of the far end as fast fashion that material
0:18:35 > 0:18:44can be something that is technical or if by -- is biodegradable.If we
0:18:44 > 0:18:47did this right and we will more eco-friendly in the way we dress,
0:18:47 > 0:18:52you might end up out of the job because you design one piece of
0:18:52 > 0:18:56clothing and instead of us changing it we would wear it for 20 years and
0:18:56 > 0:19:04not need as many new clothes.I do not worry about that. My business
0:19:04 > 0:19:08model is based on sustainability and I have a successful business. This
0:19:08 > 0:19:15report looks at working together at all levels of the industry and
0:19:15 > 0:19:19creating new business from it and looking at essentially the waist and
0:19:19 > 0:19:24finding a way of reusing rate and making it exciting, not looking at
0:19:24 > 0:19:32it as a problem all the time but an opportunity.It is a $500 billion US
0:19:32 > 0:19:35dollar opportunity if we can get this right and will cover that
0:19:35 > 0:19:44material. $100 billion is not recycled every year and that is
0:19:44 > 0:19:47value to the industry.Can you persuade people that durability is
0:19:47 > 0:19:54attractive.If we are burning one truckload of clothing every second
0:19:54 > 0:19:57using it as landfill, there is nothing attractive about that. We
0:19:57 > 0:20:04all live on the planet together and we have to survive it. It is not a
0:20:04 > 0:20:09quick fix, but I think today we are bringing awareness to it and a
0:20:09 > 0:20:21different approach.It is rarely seen here but some companies have 5
0:20:21 > 0:20:25million subscribers to have access to whatever clothing they want. When
0:20:25 > 0:20:29they get a new piece of clothing, the old one goes back. It is
0:20:29 > 0:20:34effectively rental but the clothing goes back into the system. Now if it
0:20:34 > 0:20:40has durability that will go out to someone else. When you build a
0:20:40 > 0:20:44system when clothing goes back they know what it is made from.It is
0:20:44 > 0:20:47also a new way to look at the fashion industry, all industries
0:20:47 > 0:20:52must review their impact on the planet now. It applies to every
0:20:52 > 0:20:57industry.It should apply to everything.It applies to everything
0:20:57 > 0:21:09and there are exciting alternatives. It has a second life. My clothes are
0:21:09 > 0:21:17on their and you can swap and barter clothing.I'm a bit sceptical about
0:21:17 > 0:21:24the rental model with clothes, I like my own clothes.It is a modern
0:21:24 > 0:21:28approach because to have a future we need to have this conversation for
0:21:28 > 0:21:32our children. We will have to have these conversations.What would be
0:21:32 > 0:21:39your advice to an average consumer who likes to spend money on clothes
0:21:39 > 0:21:44and dress well and who sees dressing as a form of self-expression, as
0:21:44 > 0:21:48part of their identity and the way they behave. What could they change
0:21:48 > 0:21:53right now.Right now the consumer in this country cannot be circular with
0:21:53 > 0:21:58fashion decisions, that is hard to do because the industry is not
0:21:58 > 0:22:01circular. With this report we are trying to get the industry to look
0:22:01 > 0:22:06at this vision and have a high level of ambition. And collaborate as
0:22:06 > 0:22:12never before.And incentivise people. It does not have to be
0:22:12 > 0:22:17punishment, it can be sexy and young. I get excited about the
0:22:17 > 0:22:22opportunities. As a fashion designer and businesswoman that is why I'm
0:22:22 > 0:22:28here today, I'm interested in the new.What you did not put in the
0:22:28 > 0:22:34report is the possibility of taxes because people will tell you what
0:22:34 > 0:22:38they've got because they pay more. It is a valid point but just taxing
0:22:38 > 0:22:46clothing will not solve the problem. Clothing now is designed in a linear
0:22:46 > 0:22:52way, we burn or landfill a significant amount.People need to
0:22:52 > 0:22:55look at the opportunities financially and there is massive
0:22:55 > 0:23:00opportunity to make money on every level. There's so much waste, get
0:23:00 > 0:23:05recycling incentives in place but people would get money for recycling
0:23:05 > 0:23:12their clothes properly.We're about to enter I suspect a frenzied
0:23:12 > 0:23:16speculation about what Meghan Markle is going to wear at her wedding when
0:23:16 > 0:23:21she marries Prince Harry. Is it healthy that we are so obsessed with
0:23:21 > 0:23:27the dress.As animals on this planet we are obsessed with strange things.
0:23:27 > 0:23:33It is OK, some people are obsessed, some people do not even know who
0:23:33 > 0:23:38you're talking about. It is all relative. I think the main thing is
0:23:38 > 0:23:45just to bring a new awareness into the conversation.It would make a
0:23:45 > 0:23:53big -- a big statement, the dress. I'm happy to provide some
0:23:53 > 0:23:55eco-options!
0:23:55 > 0:23:57And now Viewsnight.
0:23:57 > 0:23:59And this week we are hearing two very different opinions
0:23:59 > 0:24:00of the Trump presidency.
0:24:00 > 0:24:03On Thursday, we'll be hearing from a critic of the President,
0:24:03 > 0:24:05but tonight it's a chance for Drew Liquerman,
0:24:05 > 0:24:12from Republicans Overseas UK, to make the case for the defence.
0:26:16 > 0:26:18There is a difference between liking something,
0:26:18 > 0:26:21and being addicted to it - I like water and drink it
0:26:21 > 0:26:23several times a day, but I'm not a water junkie.
0:26:23 > 0:26:25However in some cases there is a fine line
0:26:25 > 0:26:28between merely wanting something, and yearning for it to fill
0:26:28 > 0:26:33an acquired chemical need.
0:26:33 > 0:26:35And here's the thing: our attachment to smartphone technology appears
0:26:35 > 0:26:39to be more in the latter category - it is actually addictive.
0:26:39 > 0:26:42You may recognise the problem, but in fact it is not
0:26:42 > 0:26:44accidentally addictive, it is designed to be so.
0:26:44 > 0:26:47Because the online world is funded mainly through advertising,
0:26:47 > 0:26:50those working in it, need to both grab and keep our
0:26:50 > 0:26:54attention to survive and thrive.
0:26:54 > 0:26:56Now understanding how technology addiction works,
0:26:56 > 0:26:59may make you more resilient in resisting it.
0:26:59 > 0:27:02Our technology editor David Grossman has been finding out more -
0:27:02 > 0:27:04and meeting one former Google executive who believes what is known
0:27:04 > 0:27:14as "the attention economy" poses a threat to democracy itself.
0:27:14 > 0:27:17For many of us, reaching for our phones has become automatic.
0:27:17 > 0:27:21As unthinking as blinking.
0:27:21 > 0:27:24Sometimes I'll just unlock my phone and I'll lock it again
0:27:24 > 0:27:27and I won't even know what I've looked at.
0:27:27 > 0:27:30All of a sudden I might just go on my phone and I will think,
0:27:30 > 0:27:33I don't even need to go on my phone right now.
0:27:33 > 0:27:36If I'm crossing the road I can get distracted by my phone
0:27:36 > 0:27:38and realise oh wait, there's a car there!
0:27:38 > 0:27:42It's as if we're driven by a power beyond our conscious actions.
0:27:42 > 0:27:45It's not sensational to say our brains are being hacked.
0:27:45 > 0:27:51Because that's pretty much what is happening.
0:27:51 > 0:27:53Balliol College Oxford was built to withstand the distractions
0:27:53 > 0:27:57of the pre-smartphone age.
0:27:57 > 0:28:00The heavy wooden doors and castellated quad are fortifications
0:28:00 > 0:28:02against attention hijack.
0:28:02 > 0:28:05James Williams is a former Google executive who became concerned that
0:28:05 > 0:28:07Silicon Valley's central mission is to interrupt our
0:28:07 > 0:28:08every waking thought.
0:28:08 > 0:28:13He resigned and now studies at Balliol.
0:28:13 > 0:28:16The way we are monetising most of the information in the world
0:28:16 > 0:28:18is by distracting people, keeping them from doing
0:28:18 > 0:28:20what they want to do, rather than helping them do
0:28:20 > 0:28:24what they want to do.
0:28:24 > 0:28:27Now, I don't know anybody, I've never met anybody at least,
0:28:27 > 0:28:30who wants to spend all day on Facebook or wants to keep
0:28:30 > 0:28:31clicking articles all day.
0:28:31 > 0:28:34If there are people like that, I'd love to meet them, because I'd
0:28:34 > 0:28:38love to understand their mind and their priorities.
0:28:38 > 0:28:40But you know when you think about the goals that people
0:28:40 > 0:28:43have for themselves, they tend to be things like,
0:28:43 > 0:28:45you know the things that when we are on our deathbed
0:28:45 > 0:28:47we will regret not having done.
0:28:47 > 0:28:50Like, you know, I want to take that trip with my family
0:28:50 > 0:28:53or I want to learn how to play piano or, you know, spend
0:28:53 > 0:28:54more time with friends.
0:28:54 > 0:28:57These are the real human goals that people have and these are the goals
0:28:57 > 0:29:00in my mind that technology ought to be helping us pursue.
0:29:00 > 0:29:09If they don't do that then I don't know what technology is for.
0:29:09 > 0:29:11Most technology companies have another goal.
0:29:11 > 0:29:14Welcome to the attention economy.
0:29:14 > 0:29:17Because the internet is funded largely by advertising,
0:29:17 > 0:29:19companies need us glued to their apps, or they
0:29:19 > 0:29:22don't make money.
0:29:22 > 0:29:24Today we're going to set a new mission...
0:29:24 > 0:29:28Although Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg maintains that his
0:29:28 > 0:29:29company's mission is, quote...
0:29:29 > 0:29:33To bring the world closer together.
0:29:33 > 0:29:34..A couple of weeks ago Facebook's first president
0:29:34 > 0:29:39expressed a very different, even sinister, objective.
0:29:39 > 0:29:42How do we consume as much of your time and conscious
0:29:42 > 0:29:46attention as possible?
0:29:46 > 0:29:49And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit
0:29:49 > 0:29:57every once in awhile.
0:29:57 > 0:30:00Because someone liked or commented on the photo or post or whatever.
0:30:00 > 0:30:02And that's going to get you to contribute more content.
0:30:02 > 0:30:05And that's going to get you, you know, more likes and comments.
0:30:05 > 0:30:07It's a social validation feedback group that, I mean,
0:30:07 > 0:30:11is exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up
0:30:11 > 0:30:13with because you are exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.
0:30:13 > 0:30:17You can see these results in places like this.
0:30:17 > 0:30:18These students at Bournemouth University have grown
0:30:18 > 0:30:19up with smartphones.
0:30:19 > 0:30:25They can't imagine being without them.
0:30:25 > 0:30:27The relationship I have with my phone is quite intense
0:30:27 > 0:30:29because I use it like, all the time.
0:30:29 > 0:30:32I think it is part of my body now.
0:30:32 > 0:30:33It is always with me.
0:30:33 > 0:30:36I feel like if I don't have my phone with me,
0:30:36 > 0:30:38and everybody's like, talking about memes, for example,
0:30:38 > 0:30:40I wouldn't understand the joke or what everybody's laughing
0:30:40 > 0:30:47at because I wasn't on my phone.
0:30:47 > 0:30:50So how does technology hack its way into our brains?
0:30:50 > 0:30:54According to psychologists, it taps into our neural reward system.
0:30:54 > 0:30:59We are driven by natural rewards and these kinds of natural rewards
0:30:59 > 0:31:00are very basic rewards.
0:31:00 > 0:31:01Food, water, sex.
0:31:01 > 0:31:04These are the sorts of things that are making us happy
0:31:04 > 0:31:05on an everyday basis.
0:31:05 > 0:31:07But with technology, some of these needs are almost
0:31:07 > 0:31:09being replaced by the kinds of social notifications
0:31:09 > 0:31:11we may have received, by the smartphone technology
0:31:11 > 0:31:15that we are using.
0:31:15 > 0:31:18So, you know, these are technological rewards that can
0:31:18 > 0:31:21be given to us that can trick our brain into having those
0:31:21 > 0:31:23rewarding moments and to receiving most technological rewards that can
0:31:23 > 0:31:28make us happy eventually.
0:31:28 > 0:31:30This is the fundament of our being, though,
0:31:30 > 0:31:32those motivations you describe, that's the fundamental operating
0:31:32 > 0:31:35system of our minds, isn't it?
0:31:35 > 0:31:39Yes.
0:31:39 > 0:31:42Tapping into our reward system is just the start of the way
0:31:42 > 0:31:45technology is engineered to hold our attention.
0:31:45 > 0:31:48In the '50s the psychologist B F Skinner discovered that pigeons
0:31:48 > 0:31:51could be made more obsessed with earning rewards if you made
0:31:51 > 0:31:58those rewards unpredictable.
0:31:58 > 0:32:02Now that produces in a rat or a pigeon or a monkey and in a man
0:32:02 > 0:32:03a very high rate of activity.
0:32:03 > 0:32:05And if you build up, you can get enormous amounts
0:32:05 > 0:32:09of behaviour out of these organisms for very little pay.
0:32:09 > 0:32:13You don't need to give them very much to induce a lot of that.
0:32:13 > 0:32:15Now that is the heart of all gambling devices.
0:32:15 > 0:32:16Bingo!
0:32:16 > 0:32:18Number three...
0:32:18 > 0:32:20The way apps get you to pull down to refresh the screen
0:32:20 > 0:32:22is based on Skinner's work.
0:32:22 > 0:32:24It's just like a fruit machine.
0:32:24 > 0:32:27You pull, it whirrs, and you get a variable reward.
0:32:27 > 0:32:32Sometimes nothing, sometimes you hit the jackpot.
0:32:32 > 0:32:34There is a whole industry of consultants, of writers,
0:32:34 > 0:32:37who are basically helping people who are designers draw
0:32:37 > 0:32:41on this big catalogue of cognable vulnerabilities.
0:32:41 > 0:32:49And exploit them for the purposes of giving us hope.
0:32:49 > 0:32:51Keeping us using these products.
0:32:51 > 0:32:53Another of these vulnerabilities is our brain's in-built
0:32:53 > 0:32:54aversion to loss.
0:32:54 > 0:32:56For example, Snapchat shows what it calls streaks.
0:32:56 > 0:33:00How many days a message chain has gone unbroken.
0:33:00 > 0:33:02Facebook is now testing a similar feature.
0:33:02 > 0:33:04It's all designed to compel you to message.
0:33:04 > 0:33:07And it works.
0:33:07 > 0:33:10It's like a fire emoji and then it will be like oh,
0:33:10 > 0:33:13you have been on a streak for three days and then you want
0:33:13 > 0:33:15to sort of like compete, like with other people.
0:33:15 > 0:33:17Oh, how many streaks do you have?
0:33:17 > 0:33:19And you feel like you have to reply.
0:33:19 > 0:33:22When it goes low, like you're about to lose the streak, it tells you.
0:33:22 > 0:33:25So then you feel the need, even if you weren't going to message
0:33:25 > 0:33:28them anyway, or send any pictures, you feel the need to.
0:33:28 > 0:33:31Smartphones also exploit our brain's in-built drive to finish things.
0:33:31 > 0:33:33If you remove the cue that we've reached the end,
0:33:33 > 0:33:35well, we just keep going.
0:33:35 > 0:33:38A food psychologist discovered that when a soup bowl was fitted
0:33:38 > 0:33:41with a hidden tube that kept it topped up, people would drink
0:33:41 > 0:33:45pints and pints of soup in an effort to finish the bowl.
0:33:45 > 0:33:54That's why the Twitter and Facebook feeds never end.
0:33:54 > 0:33:56We never get a cue to stop.
0:33:56 > 0:33:59And it's why video sites like YouTube and Netflix will start
0:33:59 > 0:34:01the next video even before the one you're watching has finished.
0:34:01 > 0:34:04Before I've been on my phone watching YouTube videos back to back
0:34:04 > 0:34:05for like, two hours.
0:34:05 > 0:34:08When you do actually sit down and try and calculate the hours,
0:34:08 > 0:34:11you realise how much time has been wasted on things that you could have
0:34:11 > 0:34:14been doing that were productive.
0:34:14 > 0:34:15Really?
0:34:15 > 0:34:16You feel like you're...
0:34:16 > 0:34:17So why don't you stop?
0:34:17 > 0:34:19I don't know.
0:34:19 > 0:34:20I don't want to say it's an addiction,
0:34:20 > 0:34:23but I just need my phone!
0:34:23 > 0:34:25Another very powerful way that we are manipulated
0:34:25 > 0:34:28is in what we watch.
0:34:28 > 0:34:30The scientists of the attention economy know that our brains
0:34:30 > 0:34:35are drawn to stories that prompt strong emotions, like outrage.
0:34:35 > 0:34:39Balanced discussions may appeal to our conscious intellects,
0:34:39 > 0:34:42but not the subconscious urges that will keep us clicking and scrolling.
0:34:42 > 0:34:46So that is what we are served, a diet of outrage.
0:34:46 > 0:34:49And it doesn't matter of the stories are fake or real, they all serve
0:34:49 > 0:34:51to grab our attention.
0:34:51 > 0:34:52Even reputable news organisations are having
0:34:52 > 0:34:56to adapt their coverage to compete.
0:34:56 > 0:34:59In the 30s a former student of Balliol College, Aldous Huxley,
0:34:59 > 0:35:01predicted a world where manipulation and destruction combined to create
0:35:01 > 0:35:09a happy, docile populace incapable of self-government.
0:35:09 > 0:35:12One way of looking at this is that you know, the attention economy
0:35:12 > 0:35:15is a kind of denial of service attack against the human will.
0:35:15 > 0:35:18And that has big implications in our own lives because there
0:35:18 > 0:35:21are things we want to do today, this week, this year.
0:35:21 > 0:35:23It has big political implications because, you know,
0:35:23 > 0:35:27the will of the people is the basis of the authority of democracy.
0:35:27 > 0:35:29And if that's being undermined, our political systems,
0:35:29 > 0:35:39the possibility of democracy is very straightforwardly being undermined.
0:35:40 > 0:35:42The distraction and manipulation of the attention economy is only
0:35:42 > 0:35:48going to get more refined and more compelling, and less noticeable.
0:35:48 > 0:35:50For example, Facebook and other big tech firms are investing
0:35:50 > 0:35:53heavily in virtual reality.
0:35:53 > 0:35:56So unless we are prepared to change the way we pay for the online world,
0:35:56 > 0:36:06we could literally lose ourselves in technology.
0:36:07 > 0:36:11David Grossman there. It could be the biggest problem of our time.
0:36:11 > 0:36:13I'm joined by Tristan Harris.
0:36:13 > 0:36:16He is co-founded the movement "time well spent" to spark an important
0:36:16 > 0:36:18conversation about the kind of future we want from
0:36:18 > 0:36:20the technology industry and was a design ethicist
0:36:20 > 0:36:21and product philosopher at Google until 2016,
0:36:21 > 0:36:23where he studied how technology influences a billion users'
0:36:23 > 0:36:24attention, well-being and behaviour.
0:36:24 > 0:36:27He was described by the Atlantic Magazine "as the closest thing
0:36:27 > 0:36:34Silicon valley has to a conscience".
0:36:34 > 0:36:41Good evening. I am interested in how much of a problem we should really
0:36:41 > 0:36:46think this is. You likened it to the slot machines but this isn't going
0:36:46 > 0:36:51to bankrupt you or kill you in the way that some other drugs do. I
0:36:51 > 0:36:57wonder whether addiction is quite the right way to look at it.It is
0:36:57 > 0:37:02much bigger than addiction, I would call it an existential threat to the
0:37:02 > 0:37:07human race and the reason is because there are 2 billion people who use a
0:37:07 > 0:37:11smartphone every day, 2 billion people use Facebook, that is more
0:37:11 > 0:37:14than a number of followers of Christianity, these tech companies
0:37:14 > 0:37:19have more influence over our daily thoughts and some religions given
0:37:19 > 0:37:29that we check our phones 150 times a day. The total surface area of how
0:37:29 > 0:37:33much technology is steering 2 billion people and their thoughts is
0:37:33 > 0:37:37enormous, even when you are not looking at your phone, it is
0:37:37 > 0:37:41implementing or creating the kind of thought you're thinking about now.
0:37:41 > 0:37:45The challenge is as James said and we were allies at Google in trying
0:37:45 > 0:37:53to raise this conversation, is that these companies goals are
0:37:53 > 0:37:56fundamentally misaligned with our goals and the goals of democracy.
0:37:56 > 0:38:02That is why it is an existential threat.It is not an existential
0:38:02 > 0:38:08threat, you need to find the harm it is doing. Yes, we are wasting quite
0:38:08 > 0:38:12a lot of time, yes we are sometimes misdirected to rubbish when we would
0:38:12 > 0:38:16have better things to do with our lives, but talking about existential
0:38:16 > 0:38:20threats, you need to say what actual harm it is doing to all those people
0:38:20 > 0:38:27who choose to use their phones in this way.I would ask in the 150
0:38:27 > 0:38:30times a day will recheck, what is going on in that moment right before
0:38:30 > 0:38:34we check. Is it because we are sitting there and we a conscious
0:38:34 > 0:38:38choice and that is not what is happening, what is happening is that
0:38:38 > 0:38:45we are building up anxieties and as it builds, it causes us to self
0:38:45 > 0:38:50interrupt. We actually interrupt ourselves about every 40 seconds.We
0:38:50 > 0:38:55are complicit in this process, we can, smoking addicts will tell you
0:38:55 > 0:38:58it is very difficult to stop smoking and lock the cigarettes in a
0:38:58 > 0:39:01cupboard but if you're fed up with your phone and you want some
0:39:01 > 0:39:06uninterrupted time, you put the phone away or you turn it off. It is
0:39:06 > 0:39:11not that difficult. The reason we don't is because we like getting
0:39:11 > 0:39:14stuff on the phone and it connects us and we get a reward from it,
0:39:14 > 0:39:19don't we?We get enormous benefits from these technology companies, I
0:39:19 > 0:39:24think the challenges is that their goals are not aligned with ours. The
0:39:24 > 0:39:28one you mentioned, you have 100 million teenagers, a vulnerable
0:39:28 > 0:39:32population and you are basically saying, for each one of your
0:39:32 > 0:39:37friends, it shows the number of days in a row you have sent messages back
0:39:37 > 0:39:51and forth, it is like putting them on treadmills and time their legs
0:39:51 > 0:39:53together, they both have to keep running otherwise they lose their
0:39:53 > 0:39:55streak. It is like we have hijacked what 100 million teenagers view as
0:39:55 > 0:39:58the currency of friendship, the way kids know if they are friends is if
0:39:58 > 0:40:02they keep that streak up. That is where we are developmentally harming
0:40:02 > 0:40:05an entire generation of children. That is one of the clearest examples
0:40:05 > 0:40:14where it is not just addiction...A lot of parents would say, I would
0:40:14 > 0:40:20stop my child doing that. What do you do? Are you an addict? Do you
0:40:20 > 0:40:25feel you have controlled the destruction of your phone?No. I
0:40:25 > 0:40:30haven't and I think one of the things that we said when we talk to
0:40:30 > 0:40:35all these experts in provision technology is that even if you know
0:40:35 > 0:40:44how these techniques work, it still works on you. You're sitting inside
0:40:44 > 0:40:48of this suit, all of these instincts that are getting close, if you wake
0:40:48 > 0:40:54up in the morning and you see photos of your friends missing out, you're
0:40:54 > 0:40:57missing out on what they were doing last night, that will pull on any
0:40:57 > 0:41:02human being, you can be the director of the CIA and that will affect you.
0:41:02 > 0:41:06We are all human. This is about whether or not the goals of
0:41:06 > 0:41:11technologies align with that.Thank you.
0:41:11 > 0:41:13That's all we've got time for this evening.
0:41:13 > 0:41:16But before we go, we bring you news of an exciting new film
0:41:16 > 0:41:18with a soundtrack by the composer Michael Nyman.
0:41:18 > 0:41:20It's called Washing Machine - The Movie, and it consists
0:41:20 > 0:41:22of sixty-six minutes of a particular brand of washing machine
0:41:22 > 0:41:24going through its forty degree wash cycle -
0:41:24 > 0:41:27accompanied by a specially composed minimalist soundtrack by Mr Nyman.
0:41:27 > 0:41:29The movie will premiere in Leicester Square next month -
0:41:29 > 0:41:31but we've managed to get you a sneak peak.
0:41:31 > 0:41:39Good night.
0:41:39 > 0:41:45PIANO PLAYS.