04/12/2017 Newsnight

Ever get the sense you're

being dragged around by someone

who shouldn't be able to do it?

Tonight:

Has Theresa May had her tail

caught by the DUP -

what did just happened to that

Brexit deal over the Irish border.

Is it gone or just on pause?

We were satisfied earlier today

to report substantial progress along

lines that would have enabled us

to advise President Juncker

and the Barnier negotiating team

to report sufficient progress

on these matters to

the heads of state.

We're not quite there yet, no.

But I think with goodwill,

we can get there.

Also tonight:

The besieged Syrian rebel enclave

of eastern Ghouta is struck by one

of the worst bombardments

in nearly five years.

We talk to rescue workers

and medics on the ground.

And...

it might have been Damian Green.

Or it might have been someone else.

But why aren't we more shocked

at the idea of thousands

of pornographic images

being discovered on a work computer?

Has porn become more

socially acceptable?

And what effect is that having?

We'll discuss.

Good evening.

Jean-Claude Juncker wore his

anglophile Burberry tie today,

a hint that the more eagle-eyed

amongst us took to be

a sure sign that a deal

with Britain was imminent.

In the end, it was not to be.

What looked, sounded and felt

like a potential Brexit solution

to the Irish border was put on pause

in the briefest of press

conferences at around four o'

clock this afternoon.

The sticking point?

What the DUP - who prop up

Theresa May's Conservatives -

suggested was "sloppy language"

on the part of the Irish government.

From what we understand,

Ireland had been expecting to sign

off a statement that promised

a continued regulatory framework

north of the border,

after Britain leaves the EU.

But following stern words from DUP

leader Arlene Foster,

the PM appeared to back track,

perhaps fearing she had

misjudged the moment.

The deal is far from dead.

But it needs more time

and perhaps - who knows -

new concessions to the DUP

for their support.

Let's go to Nick Watt

for his take on the day.

The Prime Minister had gone into

these talks with Downing Street

describing them as a staging post on

the way to the European Council next

week. But Theresa May had hoped to

get a deal today and had pencilled

in a statement to Parliament

tomorrow. But it didn't happen

because the DUP took fright at

reports from Dublin in the Brexit

deal, there would be a decoration

that there would be no regulatory

divergence between Northern Ireland

and the Republic of Ireland. So what

is actually in that deal? I

understand from the UK said that the

deal on Northern Ireland covers

three scenarios from good to bad.

The good scenario - there is an

overall free trade agreement between

the UK and the EU at the end of this

process, and you get a frictionless

board automatically from that deal.

Scenario number two is that if that

doesn't happen, there would be a

bespoke arrangement for Northern

Ireland. In the worst-case scenario

which the UK Government doesn't will

happen, you would then have, if you

fail to do that, a decoration that

there would be full alignment of

those elements that are currently

there, cross-border cooperation from

the Good Friday Agreement. So that

is transport, the single electricity

market and agriculture, and then the

document says, how do you achieve

that? It has two ideas. One is to

have harmonisation of regulation,

and the other is to have regulatory

equivalents. The UK would want it to

be regulatory equivalents because

the UK would decide, these are the

regulations, but that you would want

harmonisation because we were just

agree with them. So I have been

looking at how this row broke out

today.

Love wasn't quite in the air, but a

deal appeared to be in sight.

Theresa May pitched up in Brussels

for lunch and over the road, Donald

Tusk dared to joke about how much he

likes Mondays. All seemed fine,

until the lunch run over schedule

and then broke up without agreement

when Theresa May and Jean-Claude

Juncker finally spoke, it was all

over rather quickly.

Ladies and

gentlemen, it was not possible to

reach a complete agreement today.

He

spoke for less than two minutes.

Thank you very much, Jean-Claude. On

a couple of issues, some differences

do remain which require further

negotiation.

She spoke for just 40

seconds. Hopes of a breakthrough

today fell apart over Northern

Ireland. The Irish Prime Minister,

who had been planning to hail a deal

just after lunch, kept his head down

for three hours, and then this.

Following the government meeting

this morning, the Irish negotiating

team receives confirmation from the

British government and the Barnier

task force that the United Kingdom

had agreed a text on the border that

met our concerns. This text would

form part of the border EU - UK

agreement on phase one and would

allow us all to move on to face two.

I was then contacted by the

president of the European

Commission, President Juncker and

the president of the European

Council, president Tusk. I confirmed

to them both Ireland's agreement to

that text. I am surprised and

disappointed that the British

government now appears not to be in

a position to conclude what was

agreed earlier today.

The deal ran

into trouble after reports that one

draft stated that there would be no

divergence in EU rules across the

Irish border would support the Good

Friday Agreement. This was

clarified, but the DUP were furious

at what they saw as an attempt to

prise Northern Ireland away from the

rest of the UK.

We have been very

clear. Northern Ireland must leave

the European Union on the same terms

as the rest of the UK and we will

not accept any form of regulatory

divergence which separates Northern

Ireland economically or politically

from the rest of the UK. The

economic and constitutional

integrity of the United Kingdom must

not be compromised.

There is

frustration in Downing Street, where

there is a feeling that Brussels and

Dublin overhyped the proposed deal.

This has, if only temporarily,

torpedoed Theresa May's efforts to

inch forward the Brexit negotiations

with the support of the DUP. So we

can expect the Prime Minister to

embark on a charm offensive to

reassure the DUP that her plans are

far more modest. At their heart,

this would involve embedding in the

final Brexit deal those elements of

cross-border cooperation emanating

from the Good Friday Agreement. At

the moment, unionists in Northern

Ireland are nervous.

I think it has

made things much more difficult,

what happened today. If there had

been an agreed form of wording with

the DUP beforehand, it might have

been possible to present it as a

joint DUP - Conservative proposal. I

think it will be difficult now.

In

London and Dublin, there is hope

that a deal will soon be reached.

I

think today has been successful. We

understand that later this week,

there is every prospect of a deal,

so satisfying the European Union

that in its words, sufficient

progress has been made, which will

set us up for a favourable

conclusion to the summit on the 15th

of December. That is what we are

working towards. The mood here at

Westminster is far more upbeat than

I have known it for some time. So I

think with compromise on both sides,

because that is the nature of any

negotiation, we are set fair for

some good news before Christmas.

We

have negotiated in good faith with

the entire British negotiating team,

David Davis and Michel Barnier will

meet again this week. Theresa May

and Jean-Claude Juncker had a good

meeting today and we are hopeful

that the Prime Minister will be able

to get this agreement over the line

with the DUP and other factors in

time for the Council meeting in

December. We wish her luck and we

hope Wigan get this resolved as soon

as possible. We desperately want to

move to face two of the negotiating

process.

Today, the hands of history

didn't quite meet. All parties in

the Brexit talks will be hoping we

won't have to wait too long for that

handshake. We heard Andy Muir and

saying he thought it would happen

next week before the summit.

The UK Government has always

believed unofficially that this

Friday is the deadline to get an

agreement, because after that it is

difficult to make substantial

changes to a European Council draft

summit. So the Prime Minister will

be talking to the DUP leader and

possibly going to Brussels to meet

Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk

again this week. One member of the

Cabinet said, we are fundamentally

in agreement with Dublin on this.

But this person said, there is a bit

of a dance. We are a minority

government, and so are they. But the

DUP are really upset. I spoke to one

senior DUP figure at the heart of

this, and this person said to me, we

in Northern Ireland cannot have a

border with GB. It is our biggest

market. We are not stupid. I said to

this person, is Theresa May

listening to you? And this person

said, oh, yes, she has no choice.

So, when and how did it all

unravelled?

Well, earlier I asked Ireland's

Agriculture Minister Michael Creed

what he made of the day's events.

Well, I suppose in essence

we thought we had a deal

in the early afternoon and it turns

out that we didn't and that's

obviously somewhat disappointing

but look, I suppose,

given the commitment of both sides

to further engagement and given

the fact that we have a deadline

of the December Council on the 14th

and 15th of December,

and given the fact that I think

everybody, Irish government

included, wants us to be

in a position to move to phase two,

I certainly think that with goodwill

on all sides, that can be achieved.

I don't want to underestimate

the significance of the issues that

have yet to be agreed.

What do you think actually

went wrong today?

Well, I think in essence,

that is probably a question that

would be best directed

to Prime Minister May.

Because we felt, as I indicated,

that we had the broad outline

of an agreement earlier and that

sufficient progress could be

reported by the European task force

to the heads of state.

It's obvious that the DUP

have issues with regard

to island of Ireland issues.

We have particular issues we have

put to the forefront from day one

and that's been about ensuring

that the UK leaving

the European Union doesn't give

rise to a hard border

with the island of Ireland.

Just to understand that,

was your understanding this morning

that the DUP had been signed

up to it?

Because obviously, they were always

going to have misgivings about this.

Was your understanding

that they were signed up and then

they changed their minds or that

they've never been signed up

and she was going to go

ahead with it anyway?

Look, the negotiations are conducted

primarily by the European task force

with Michel Barnier at the helm

and the UK Government.

Over the weekend, yes,

the Irish government was heavily

involved in the detail over

the issues of the island of Ireland

and in particular our insistence

that in the context

of phase one of these

negotiations, that we get in writing

a commitment that there would not be

a hard border re-emerging.

The DUP are critical to

power-sharing in Northern Ireland.

Wasn't it a mistake to overlook how

essential to these talks they were?

Well, I mean, the DUP are one

voice in Northern Ireland

which regrettably doesn't

have a power-sharing executive

in place at the moment.

They are a critical voice

in the context of the parliamentary

arithmetic in Westminster.

We're not a party to that.

We negotiate in the European Union

with the British government

and with Prime Minister May.

So it's not incumbent on the Irish

government to engage directly,

but we are of course open

and willing to engage with the DUP.

In fact, I personally believe

that our concerns, when they boil

down to it, are concerns that

are broadly shared by

the vast majority of people

in Northern Ireland.

Newsnight understands this evening

that three possible scenarios

were on the table for this deal

which may still go ahead.

Either an all-UK deal,

free trade with the EU,

which would look and sound,

I guess, like a soft

Brexit or a customs union.

Or a bespoke deal for

Northern Ireland or some deal that

would just look at areas

of cross-border co-operation.

Is that what you understand

this deal was about,

the cross-border cooperation?

Well, as I understand,

the deal was about ensuring

regulatory alignment,

that we did not have

the necessity for a border

between Newry and Dundalk,

between Derry and Donegal.

And, you know, whatever means

we employ to achieve that,

regulatory alignment,

remaining in the customs union

or the single market,

whatever political invention

is required to come up

with a solution that

delivers on that, you know,

that's something we are

excessively prescriptive about.

But we do know what it is we want.

Let me try and pin you down

on that, because that seems

to be where the language

is getting confused.

The Northern Ireland agreement,

as things stand, only mentions,

doesn't it, agriculture,

energy and transport.

Are you wanting to see every

regulation across every sector

covered by the same EU deal,

the north and south?

Is that where you're heading?

Is it convergence rather than just

alignment of what you have?

Well, I think the terminology

that was being used,

was regulatory alignment.

It's important to bear in mind

that this isn't in many respects

breaking new ground.

We have alignment on an all Ireland

basis at the moment on issues

that there isn't alignment

between Ireland for example

and the rest of the United Kingdom,

for example in the area of animal

health we have it, in the area

of food safety we have it.

So this isn't, you know,

revolutionary in its concept.

What I'm asking, are you looking

for convergence on all of the other

areas as well, all the other

sectors, or would you be happy

to stick with those three

specifically mentioned

in the Northern Ireland agreement?

No, what we want is a situation

where we achieve in these outcomes

a situation where there

isn't a border emerging.

We are preoccupied by that,

not for trade reasons

but for political reasons.

We do not want an emergence

of a border again and all

of the historical issues associated

with a border.

For good reasons.

These lessons aren't lost on any

section of the community

in Northern Ireland

or the Republic of Ireland.

And indeed in the broader

United Kingdom, they are not lost.

Because we've paid

an excessively heavy price.

We were satisfied with what we had

today in the context

of a regulatory alignment that that

would deliver on that.

Thank you very much indeed.

We wrong we labelled Arlene Foster

as the first minute, she is the DUP

leader.

Our Diplomatic Editor

Mark Urban is here.

There is a theory that there is a

game to what Theresa May is doing

and that there is something in place

here.

If you take today's language

and misunderstanding is out of the

picture, those options you were

discussing, complete convergence,

partial or Northern Ireland or

Justice guarantee that was

controversial all of them would

create some kind of border, if

Ireland were taken to be on the same

regime. We know that is not

acceptable for the DUP. And

actually, in Dublin last week,

talking to a lot of people, it is

pretty unacceptable to the business

community who don't want impediment

on trade across the Irish Sea. That

gives us a clue that the softer form

of Brexit is in sight for the

government here. We've seen all

sorts of other clues, abandoning the

Brexit language, the transition

period, accepting the jurisdiction

of the European Court of Justice

during that period, the cannon of EU

law, it all trends in that direction

and we got a fascinating glimpse,

through the prism of Ireland, at

this possibility that there is a

plan and it's for a pretty soft form

of Brexit.

What would that look

like? We've got examples of what

soft Brexit look like and they've

been rejected, whether it's the

Norway model or whatever.

For

Theresa May, she obviously wanted to

slalom around the critics on all

sides and that's why she came out

with Brexit means Brexit, red white

and blue Brexit, she's trying to

define it her own terms, because as

soon as she says we'd like something

like Norway it would become

impossible for people to coalesce.

Even in the Florence speech she

voiced this idea that no, we don't

want Norway, we don't want Canada,

we must be able to do better than

this binary option. Of course that's

what they hope, people say that it

is impossible, trying to have your

cake and eat it, you can't have this

deal, but it's possible that the UK

will get a bespoke package that, in

her terms, gets what she wants, the

closest possible relationship. That

means going pretty near to

convergence on the customs and

regulatory terms but carving out

British exceptions.

Thanks very

much.

As you may know by now,

this programme has chosen to focus

on a small area in the east

of Damascus, the only rebel-held

enclave between Assad's forces

capturing the whole of Damascus

and the surrounding area.

Eastern Ghouta is suffering

a humanitarian catastrophe -

children are starving,

the aid corridor is blocked.

But this weekend, things got even

worse: a bombardment of heavily

crowded areas by jets believed to be

Syrian and Russian.

The attacks left yet

more civilians dead.

Here's Mike Thompson.

While they discuss peace in Geneva,

bombs, shells and bullets do

the talking in Eastern Ghouta.

Last week's brief ceasefire has

given way to merciless violence,

inflicted mainly on civilians.

TRANSLATION:

The current status quo

is systematic targeting of every

living creature in Eastern Ghouta.

There is a population of more

than 375,000 people here.

Besieged by the regime forces.

Unfortunately, today

we are witnessing the annihilation

of an entire population.

In what is described as the fiercest

bombing of the area in years,

internationally-banned

cluster bombs are among

the deadly weapons being used.

A quick look at a map of Syria

shows why President Assad

is so determined to retake,

at almost any cost, this

rebel enclave sitting

on the capital's doorstep.

The death toll over the last month

has been rising steadily.

TRANSLATION:

More than 224 people

were killed due to the heavy

and deliberate bombardment,

and hundreds of civilians injured.

The tally could go up due

to the lack of medical supplies

in the treatment centres.

This long besieged area,

where malnutrition is rife,

isn't only pitifully short of food.

It's also fast running out

of much-needed medical supplies

to treat the soaring numbers

of ill and injured.

TRANSLATION:

As a doctor I can see

that emergency units

are lacking even basic medical

tools and supplies.

For example we don't have any

anaesthetic or medicine.

And of course we have to work

under heavy bombardment.

The task facing hard-pressed

doctors and rescue workers

grows tougher by the day.

And some now see help

from the outside world

as their only salvation.

TRANSLATION:

We plead

with all international

and humanitarian organisations

to help us lift the siege and stop

this barbaric machine

that is killing innocent people

under siege for the last five years.

And we ask them to open humanitarian

corridors immediately.

But with no sign of any letup

in the terrifying bombardment,

and President Assad evidently bent

on bringing this besieged

rebel area to its knees,

things might only get worse before

they get better for the hundreds

of thousands of people there.

Mike Thomson reporting.

Do you remember what you thought

when you heard police claiming that

a Tory MP's work computer had been

found with thousands

of pornographic images on it?

We were struck by how

little public outcry,

even surprise, there was.

Conservative colleagues rushed

to defend Damian Green,

who denied all the charges,

believing it outrageous

that the police had stored records

of a ten-year-old investigation.

Others reminded us that the images

were not illegal, not extreme.

Of course, we don't know

who downloaded the images,

or who used them, or how.

Instead, tonight we ask a bigger

question:

has porn become socially acceptable,

even in the workplace?

Are we less shockable

than we used to be?

Jerry Barnett is a free

speech campaigner and

author of "Porn Panic!"

Clarissa Smith is Professor

of Sexual Cultures

at the University of Sunderland.

Steve Pope is psychotherapist

who specialises in young people

addicted to pornography.

He's in Salford.

Nice to have you here. As far as we

know, do lots of people look at

pornography at work?

Well, there's

been numerous anecdotal kinds of

stories around that, actually. They

are very from at least 80% of the

workforce looking at five minutes of

pawn a day, down to very few people.

Clearly there are people looking at

pornography.

When you say 80%, is

that divided between the sexes?

This

is the problem with statistics about

pornography, we get straight into

that, they are extrapolations from

questions asked in particular

workplaces. No one really knows what

the stats are around pornography,

who is watching and where. We can be

sure I think that people are looking

at pornographic material simply

because we know that they spend

their time doing other kinds of

wasting work time, looking on eBay,

buying things on Amazon, a bit of

Lolcats.

So people are putting

pornography in that same bracket,

it's like Facebook, Internet

shopping and cat videos?

I think if

someone is looking at these things

on their own in a private office and

aren't involving anyone else, then

the chances are that yes, it is like

that.

Gosh. Did the story surprise

you? We're not bringing names into

it, we are looking to attach blame,

but would it surprise you is a lot

of people spend a lot of time at

work...?

It wouldn't surprise me. I

find from a lot of my civilian

friends, they are much more likely

to share pornographic images on

WhatsApp. It is ubiquitous, small

clips go around and people don't

seem to think much of it. If

anything, it was shocking, the idea

that people would be shocked by the

idea that an MP might look at

pornography that was allegedly

completely legal and not outside the

ordinary. I have been tracking the

pornography panic over at least a

decade. The moral panic seems to

have been within the media class and

the political class and from

campaigners...

When you talk about

moral panic, what do you mean?

Over

many years we'd been told, falsely,

that pornography is linked to sexual

violence, that it's linked to

objectification, sexualisation,

addiction, scary ideas. Actually,

what I wanted to do in writing my

book is look at why the panic is

happening. In the Digital Economy

Act In This Case, The Government

Used Pornography And Excuse To Make

Britain The First Democratic Country

On Earth To Introduce An Internet

Sensor With The Aim of censoring

pornography, a big story that the

media has missed.

Do you accept this

as a classification of panic over

pornography?

I think we should be

concerned about it. I don't do

statistics and labels, people don't

get well from that. People are

dying, kids are having a very

jaundiced view of text and watching

pornography from the age of 12 and

we are having to pick up the pieces

-- jaundiced view of sex. It is

interwoven in our society and to

downplay its the way that gentleman

has just done, it is wrong. It is

very serious.

You say you don't want

to cause panic and then went on to

say that people are dying.

He said

he didn't want to use statistics but

why wouldn't you panic, because he

works with children?

I've worked

with a couple today, a 12 and

13-year-old, both of them think that

50 Shades Of Grey is an acceptable

way to act out. If we think that's

acceptable, then the problem is

bigger than I think.

We've had this

before, we had it in the 80s with

the video nasty 's act, we had it

with the American, horror comics in

the 50s. When we say that people

think this way and they do that and

it's terrible and we need to deal

with pornography because it must be

that that's at the root of this, I'd

take the you make about the fact

that kids are learning about

emotional, well rounded sexual

relationships but pornography isn't

responsible for the education of

children.

You don't believe it's

that damaging?

If we believe that

pornography is a problem then we

should have comprehensive sex

education that recognises that young

people need lots of information,

that it will need to be explicit,

that we'll need to mechanise what's

sex means in a broader context than

just reproduction.

When you talk

about people sharing pornography on

WhatsApp, presumably you get it on

your phone and look at it wherever

you are, I've spoken to female

colleagues who say that the idea

that someone is looking at

pornography is looking on at

pornography and then carrying on a

conversation is freaky.

It probably

isn't best done at work.

But it is

and that is the problem.

If it

upsets people, it's probably not

suitable in the workplace but this

is an employment issue, not a harm

issue. I'd like to quote from the

government to have done research on

this. I'd like to point out, there's

a lot of doubt on whether follow-up

of the addiction exists. People make

money, the pornography addiction

therapy has been compared to the gay

killers of the religious right in

America -- gay cures. A quote

suggesting there is no link between

sex crimes and the use of

pornography at early age but there

is evidence for the opposite.

Let me

go back to Steve.

Here we go again. I work day in, day

out with children from the age of 12

to 17 who are materially influenced

by what they see as being normal

sexual acts which are usually

sexually aggressive acts. They are

acting out behaviours and they look

for a bigger hit. They can instantly

access it on their iPad.

But among

teenagers, sexual violence has

fallen.

I am telling you what I see

on the street. I am hands-on. I see

it happen everyday, and what I am

saying is that children are being

influenced. It is an awful influence

on them by the effect of

pornography. I agree with the lady,

we have to take it into primary

schools and we have to educate

children on the potential evils,

because it is an addictive issue.

Not everyone is affected, but it is

an addictive issue. It is an instant

high for boys looking at pornography

and we have to do something about

it.

Clarissa, the point is the ease

of accessibility. If it is skewing,

there is nothing that shuts this

down. When you talk about people

using it almost as a boredom tool at

work...

There is a whole set of

things at work that we are mixing up

here. When we talk about how the

media influences young people...

There are various levels of reality

that people engage with when viewing

media. Porn is just one form of talk

about sex in our culture. It's not

the only talk about sex. Actually,

one of the problems we have is that

maybe we are not offering good

counters to young people. But

actually, in this process, we are

now talking about porn at work and

we have ended up talking about

12-year-olds. These are not the same

thing. While adults may be looking

at porn at work, we could talk about

why work is so boring if that is

what is happening. If we are going

to talk about accessibility, there

are ways in which our work and home

lives have changed, and a border

between them has disappeared.

We

carry our smartphone is everywhere.

That as a whole bigger question, but

it was great to have the chance to

talk to you all. Thank you very

much.

If you can't tell your Jack Sparrow

from your chicken, your Taylor Swift

from your ostrich or Michael J Fox

from the creature that's knocking

over your bins at night -

then you're not alone.

Losing touch with nature

is a subject that also preoccupies

the travel writer Robert Macfarlane.

For Newsnight, we asked him

to author a film about his concerns.

MUSIC:

Chanson de Matin by Edward Elgar.

There are two things

that the British sentimentalise

more avidly than anything else.

Nature and childhood.

But these are crucial subjects

and to me, it's unmistakable

that a gap is currently widening

between children and the natural

world in this country.

Slugs and snails.

Shall I go and get them?

Three years ago, I read a paper

in the journal Science

and its findings startled me.

It was about children's everyday

knowledge of nature in this country.

And what the researchers discovered

is that children aged 8-11

were substantially better

at identifying common Pokemon

species than they were at

identifying common species

of British wildlife.

For weasel, read Weedle.

For wren, read Wigglytuff.

For badger, read Bulbasaur.

Any conkers under your feet?

I have about a thousand conkers.

You have about a thousand, do you?

That's good.

British children now spend

on average less time outdoors

each day than prisoners.

They're climbing walls, not trees.

Under an hour outside.

Screen time has soared and screen

time is mostly inside time.

Poverty, postcode, ethnicity,

risk perception, these all affect

children's experience of nature,

but they all, in my

opinion, need it.

Shall we run, everyone?

Come on, let's go.

When I first read the Pokemon paper,

as I've come to think about it,

my response was twofold.

An anxiety of what was being lost

and a wish, a powerful wish,

to do something hopeful in response.

And out of that came

The Lost Words: A Spell Book,

which the artist Jackie Morris

and I worked on for two years.

At its heart was a very simple idea.

We'd take 20 names for 20 common

creatures and plants in the British

landscape and then, by a kind

of magical thinking,

by the power of spells that might be

spoken and images that were painted,

we would try and summon back those

creatures and those trees and plants

into the mouths

and mind's eyes of children.

There it is.

I was thinking in a way,

it was and still is a very simple

thing we were trying to do,

to take 20 names

for 20 very common...

20 quite simple words.

Full words, wren, bluebell.

Raven.

Otter, acorn.

Your eyes, when you're

in a bluebell wood, it's almost

like the light comes up

from the ground and it

fills up your eyes.

I know it's called The Lost Words,

but it was only when I sat

in a classroom in front of 32

children and they didn't know what

A wren was, or Kingfisher. But they

would have heard wrens. Now, the

next little brown bird goes past,

they will be curious.

When wren

words from stone to firms, the world

around her slows. Wren song is sharp

song, and a wren's flight is quick

flight, light flight, yes. Each wren

edges, switches, glitches. Yes, now

you think you see wren, now you know

you don't. It's not just children

who are forgetting these things. A

wildlife trust survey from earlier

this year found that a third of

British adults couldn't identify a

bar now. Three quarters didn't know

an ashtray. And two thirds felt that

they had lost touch with nature.

Yes, the basic literacy of the

living world is slipping from us up

and down the ages. We were in the

exhibition and then we came out and

an amazing thing happened. We

released children into the wild, and

it took them about one and a half

seconds to start picking things up,

telling stories, giving names.

Finding leaves, comparing colours.

And a worm became a desert crossing,

this incredible creature machine.

And when you said, how does it move?

It appoints itself into its body.

It

was amazing, and that is exactly it.

We saw this unbelievable ability

that children have, in seconds, they

are natural is the nature. Put them

in a wood, a tree or a field and

they tell stories, they find, they

seek, they hide, they gather. Guys,

we have a raven here. Has anyone

ever seen one? They eat eggs and

they each sheep's eyes as well.

How

do they get them?

It's not a very

nice story. They peck the eyes out

of sheep that are ill or sheep that

are caught in snowdrifts. They eat

other birds' eggs. They are absolute

pirates. Why does it matter, though?

Why do names matter? Why does being

able to tell the difference between

a stunning red blackbird or between

a cherry tree and a hawthorn tree

matter? It matters because we are

losing nature as well as the names

for nature in this country. We have

more than 50% of species in decline.

Many of them are common. We have

stopped darlings and skylarks and

newts and hedgehogs going. Names,

good names, well used, help us see

and they help us care. We find it

hard to love what we cannot give a

name to. And what we do not love, we

will not save.

That was Robert Macfarlane. Let's

take you through tomorrow's papers.

They are all leading on the Brexit

talks. The new Deal shambles, says

the Daily Mail. And the same picture

on the front of the Guardian, DUP

Rex May's Brexit deal, no words

minced.

That's almost it for tonight.

But before we go, have

you ever wondered how some

people have all the luck?

The best job, the most beautiful

life partner, the coolest house.

And you just wonder how it happened?

Well, one British video artist did.

This is Swedemason's own mash-up,

with thanks to Talking Heads.

Evan's here tomorrow.

Good night.

MUSIC: Once In A Lifetime

by Talking Heads

# ..Into the blue again

after the money's gone

# Once in a lifetime,

water flowing underground

# You may ask yourself

# What is that beautiful house?

# And you may ask yourself

# Where does that highway go to?

# And you may ask yourself

# Am I right?

Am I wrong?

# And you may say

to yourself

# "My God!

What have I done?"

# Letting the days go by,

let the water hold me down

# Letting the days go by,

water flowing underground

# Into the blue again...

# Into the blue again...