12/12/2017 Newsnight

No justice - no peace!

Tonight - the council has allocated

more than £200 million

for Grenfell residents.

So why is it taking so long

to find people new homes?

We have to be patient.

We have to be patient.

And also considering moving

into a place is one thing,

moving into a place

which will have to become your

home is another thing.

So, for me, it's, like, OK,

if I move into a place it has to be

something I can turn

into a home and I'll be

there for the rest of my life.

We'll discuss housing

and the public enquiry

with a solicitor representing 17

families and an expert in how

to run housing like this.

Also tonight, Brexit

will be great for animals -

declared the Environment Secretary

today.

Of course we must do

more, and we will.

We will make sure that in law

there is appropriate protection

for animals which recognises

that they are sentient,

that they can feel pain, and that

it's our responsibility to make

sure their welfare is protected.

Why are the Tories so keen

to prove their love of our

four legged friends.

And what does it say about

the party's political positioning?

We'll discuss.

And...

The Last Jedi will dominate

the papers tomorrow.

What did they really think

of the latest Star Wars incarnation?

We have the first reviews.

Good evening.

Six months ago, after

the fire at Grenfell Tower,

I interviewed the Prime Minister.

She promised the residents

they would be rehoused

within three weeks.

Two weeks before Christmas,

more than a hundred households

are still in hotel rooms.

So where have things gone wrong?

The council has allotted huge sums

of money for rehousing -

Kensington and CHelsea have set

aside £235 million to secure

accommodation for the people made

homeless by the fire.

So why is it is stalling?

David Grossman reports.

Justice for Grenfell!

Justice for Grenfell!

No justice!

No peace!

No justice!

No peace!

This protest outside the Council

offices last week was only

a fraction of the size of the ones

in the summer.

They are living a second trauma

because they're not considered

worthy enough to be given housing...

The focus of this is

to demand permanent

new homes for the survivors.

There are still people stuck

in hotels with their children.

Their children are

in a room next door.

It is not an adjoining

room so the children

will sleep with the parents.

So then you may have a family

of five in one room.

Because actually they don't want

their children in the next room,

they want to keep an eye on them.

It is a really horrible way to live.

Christmas is coming,

they're going to spend

Christmas in hotels.

Not much has changed

on the tower itself,

but what has the council done

for the residents who

survived this disaster?

One fact that has hugely complicated

matters for the Council

is that the number of

houses or flats they are

looking for has gone up

by more than 50% since the tragedy.

As groups of people who were housed

in one unit inside the tower have

elected to be rehoused in two

or sometimes more units outside.

That means what was originally

a search for 138 new houses or flats

has become a search for 210.

Of that total just 45 households

are now in new, permanent homes.

54 are in temporary accommodation.

And 111 are still in

emergency accommodation.

That is typically hotel rooms.

That figure includes

Antonio Roncolato.

He was one of the last people to be

rescued from Grenfell.

He was trapped on the tenth floor

of the burning tower for five hours.

He shared his flat

with his adult son.

They will now be

rehoused separately.

In terms of finding permanent

accommodation, it's not easy.

And obviously we have

had our assessment with the council,

with my housing officer.

And there are some requirements

that we have requested

and I understand that it takes time

and it takes a little bit of...

We have to be patient.

And also considering that moving

into a place is one thing,

moving into a place which will have

to become your home

is another thing.

So it's like, OK, if I move

into a place, it has to be something

that I can turn into a home.

And I will be there for

the rest of my life.

So therefore I might have to turn

down one, two or three.

I don't know how many.

Are the council putting any pressure

on you to accept anything?

No, you know, they're lately,

for the last two or three months,

they have been very active

in showing, in trying.

And I must say I appreciate that.

But in the sense of pressure, no.

It is understandable that Antonio

and other Grenfell survivors

don't want to be rushed.

According to one housing charity,

this is straining a system not used

to providing choice.

We have a real crisis in affordable

housing in this country.

And we have a social housing system

that doesn't give people any choice.

Once you actually start asking

people what they want,

you then have to deal with the fact

that actually it can't be delivered.

So I think what we are seeing

is a system that is not used

to any element of choice

and is very disempowering.

Suddenly when you're trying

to empower people within that system

and give them some choice,

the system simply can't cope.

To provide choice, the council has

put aside £235 million to buy

new houses and flats

for the survivors of Grenfell Tower.

That works out at £1.7 million

per original household.

This doesn't include the cost

of hotels, new furniture,

resettlement grants and writing off

rent and service charges

in the new homes until June 2019.

These are being paid

for from another budget.

This is the living

space and the kitchen.

And then through here

you've got two bedrooms...

The council showed us this

place that they bought

for a Grenfell survivor.

It's in a low-rise block

of privately owned flats

not far from the tower.

The director of housing wouldn't

tell me what they paid for it,

but similar flats seemed to go

for around £850,000.

We still do have people

in hotels, that's true.

We've got 28 families

with children under 18 in hotels.

Now, 16 of those have accepted

something, so they will be moving

on and we are trying to support them

at the moment to do that

as soon as possible.

But we have got 12 families

who haven't accepted an offer.

So we're working as hard as we can

with them to try and get something

that meets their needs

and their preferences.

Because of what people have been

through, most people want to live

at lower floor levels.

Most people would like

a bit of outside space.

A lot of people want to be

in the North Kensington

area, not everybody.

And we have got to meet all of those

desires with the properties

that we are acquiring.

But that doesn't include residents

of the surrounding blocks

who were evacuated during the fire.

The blocks themselves were undamaged

although the heating and hot water

systems were destroyed.

They have now been replaced and two

thirds of the residents have

returned to their homes.

But 109 households

don't want to go back.

Some of them don't

feel ready to return.

For example until the tower

is wrapped or some of

those kind of decisions.

So what we're saying to those people

is we will rent you a property

in the private rented sector locally

in Kensington and Chelsea

for you to move into whilst you take

stock of what you want to do next.

And then we will work with them

quite intensively over the next few

months to see what they want to do.

Do they want to return home.

Or obviously we have got

a consultation out at the moment

around awarding people points

for priority on the

housing register.

So actually if they feel

that they can't be on the estate,

that they've got the opportunity

to move.

But that is not enough of

an assurance for Thomasina Hessel.

She shared a hotel room with her son

Jesse for six months.

She doesn't want to go back to her

flat near the base of the tower,

but doesn't feel there is enough

certainty of what will happen

in the long-term to move out of this

hotel room into a temporary flat.

They have not made me any

offers, first of all.

And they have made some

of my neighbours offers and insisted

that they make decisions based

on this draft housing policy

that they have going.

And I think that is unfair

because it is a draft policy.

Anything can change so anyone making

a decision now is making it

on something that may not exist

in a month's time.

So that is unfair.

Their reason for doing that

in my view is because A,

it saves them money to get people

out by Christmas.

And B, it makes them look good.

Is part of the problem though,

that in the initial rush to help,

residents were led to believe that

rehousing would take place

at an ultra fast pace?

Here's the Prime Minister

on this programme in June,

two days after the fire.

Other things we will do as well

to provide support for people,

to ensure they are rehoused

within three weeks...

Today a group of survivors

and the bereaved from Grenfell

arrived at Downing Street to remind

the Prime Minister

of this commitment.

We were given promises

by Theresa May that they would be

housed in three weeks.

It is coming up to Christmas,

it is six months.

Thursday will be a telling day.

You know, if she is coming

to the memorial service,

we hope that she comes

with a message of positivity

and you know, things that have

been accomplished rather

than empty promises.

Nothing can change what happened

here six months ago.

Rehousing those who lost homes

and loved ones is only the start

of trying to repair the damage.

But it is clear there

is still a long way to go,

even on that limited objective.

David Grossman there.

Let's get some reaction

to what we've just seen and look

ahead to the inquiry which has been

meeting for the first time

to discuss the parameters

and how best to effect it.

Emma Norris works at the Institute

for Government and has been working

on how public inquiries can be

carried out most effectively,

Cyrilia Davies Knight

is a solicitor for 13

of the Grenfell Tower families.

It's nice to be here.

What do you

understand from your families is the

hold-up with the housing right now

for them?

Good question. Actually

I'm unclear as to what the delay is

with the housing. A lot of my

clients whom I represent remaining

hotels, in temporary accommodation,

and it's unclear what the issue is

with rehousing them.

The money is

there. This huge sum of £235 million

which has been put aside by the

council. Are the people you are

representing very keen to get into

their new houses? Where is the

delay, do you think?

Certainly my

clients are keen to get into their

new houses. I represent vulnerable,

some bereaved, and some survivors,

and indeed they would like to be

rehoused as quickly as possible.

However, they are not prepared to

accept accommodation that is

inadequate or substandard to what

they had.

Do you think they are

being offered... It was very hard to

see... The apartments we were seen

inside of, something around

£850,000, they looked incredible,

but you think what is being offered

is substandard?

There needs to be a

thorough means tested assessment. So

that the clients I represent are

given appropriate accommodation for

their needs. Many of my clients, as

I said, are vulnerable and

traumatised. And the delay in being

rehoused isn't helping them. I'm not

sure what the delay is but I do know

it is unhelpful.

David was

explaining the numbers. What started

off as 138 families needing to be

rehoused has now become a search for

210 households because they have

splintered off. Antonio said his son

wanted his own house. Some people

want to move out from parents or

other relatives. Was that always

going to be part of the process? How

does that work in terms of these

increasing numbers?

I can only speak

for those I represent. What I would

say is that it is absolutely

paramount that those affected by

this disaster are rehoused as

quickly as possible, as promised by

our Prime Minister.

Emma, look ahead

for us to the enquiry, there is a

lot of momentum at the beginning of

these things. I guess the key is

that some of that actually drives

through to results, right?

I think

that's right. You've picked up on

one of the key issue straightaway. A

successful enquiry isn't about what

happened at the beginning of an

enquiry or during, but afterwards.

Often that is where some of our

institutions are at their weakest.

We need to see the up with a

powerful set of recommendations for

change. But we also need to see the

Government act upon them, and that

is often where enquiries fall down.

As an enquiry got a dual role? I

wonder how much of an enquiry is

catharsis and how much you need to

see things...

Good question. The

enquiries are there to answer three

questions. What happened, who is

responsible to some extent, and what

can we learn from what happened.

Those first two questions speak to

that emotional catharsis you

mentioned. At the moment the

community is understandably

mistrustful of the enquiry process.

It got off to a rocky start. There

are some signs things are getting

better. The chair has appointed a

community engagement specialist to

the panel. But we know from past

enquiries the dangers of failing to

listen to victims and families.

Hillsborough, for example, examples

of when there were failures to put

the victims at the heart of the

process.

You've seen enough of these

enquiries to know that they often

don't deliver, right? How many times

do we get to the end of an enquiry,

the victims seem unhappy, the public

doesn't trust them, there is no

sense anything is going to change.

Do enquiries really work?

Public enquiries are one of the only

tools we have to look independently

as some of the worst tragedies that

we experience as a society. We need

to seek government be far better in

setting out how to implement

recommendations and parliament

following up on that. Looking back

at the 68 enquiries that have taken

place since 1990, only six have

received full follow-up by

Parliament.

We need to do better

than that. Looking at what is coming

in and your families, is there a

sense of expectation?

I think my

clients are distrusting and

expectations are quite low. I have

to say. I think that housing is one

of the key points that needs to be

addressed first and foremost in

order to help rebuild the trust and

confidence in the process that they

are subjected to. I think other

things can be done to help rebuild

that trust. There needs to be a

commitment to psychological one of

our fire and well-being.

Psychological welfare. This needs to

start sooner rather than later, the

enquiry. There needs to be equality

when the enquiry comes to start.

I

wonder if you also think that the

enquiry is up against a particular

difficulty when social media can

spread a sense of not trusting the

right person or questioning the

judges or the figures. It can be

very useful tool but also exacerbate

worries and concerns or perhaps they

do not know.

That is why it's

important to make sure you're

involved in the community and with

the victims properly. Looking at the

Hillsborough inquest, they gave the

Brive the opportunity to talk about

the people they had lost as part of

the inquest process and I think

adopting a similar process in this

enquiry would make sure that the

victims are at the heart of it.

So

there is a sense of them and us, are

you going into this thinking you're

doing battle almost?

I would not say

we're doing battle. I think it is

clear and it has been made clear

that my clients feel they have been,

their voices have gone unheard, they

have not been listened to or

properly engaged thus far. There are

distrusting. They want the truth,

they want justice and

accountability, they want the

answers. There are many ways that

can be achieved. That could be

achieved through disclosure,

disclosure needs to take place

quickly of documents from the TMO,

from the council, so they can feed

into the process. They have lived

this, this is their lives, their

reality.

Thank you both very much.

And more on Grenfell Tower six

months on over the next couple of

nights.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove

has promised to make Brexit work

not just for citizens

but for the animals we love too.

The Conservatives have been talking

about animals a lot recently.

The beavers that will be

released into the wild.

The puppies that will no

longer be smuggled.

The rare sea birds to be saved

by an extension of the blue belt.

Today Mr Gove promised higher

sentences for animal cruelty,

and to reflect animal sentience -

their response to pain - in law.

So why this concentration

on animal rights, right now?

Is it about more than

just, well animals?

Some people call us the nasty party.

When Theresa May spoke

of the danger all those years ago

of being perceived as the nasty

party, she struck a chord

not just with voters,

but with those in her own party

who realised that perception

of niceness was paramount.

It was no coincidence that

David Cameron as he rose to power

spent time with husky dogs

in the polar regions.

The Conservatives, you see,

were modern and compassionate

and environmental.

They even knew about veganism.

They were, the theory ran,

more palatable to younger,

more liberal metropolitan voters

as well as their rural base.

But the austerity years

took care of all that.

The Huskies were put out

into the cold again,

in came badger culling,

a free vote on fox hunting,

the Green went True Blue.

The viral story of the last election

was a failure by the Conservatives

to effect a manifesto promise

of a ban on ivory imports.

And last month a misunderstanding

got reported and shared by millions,

suggesting the Conservatives did not

believe animals could feel pain.

Had even voted against it.

Even though the story

was quickly disproved,

the damage had been done.

The Tories were back

to being in some voters' minds

the nasty party again.

The damage control was instant.

And in the last weeks and months

we've seen DEFRA roll out policy

after policy that shows

the Conservatives' love of animals.

None so enthusiastically perhaps

as Michael Gove who since June has

announced he will be saving

trafficked puppies, freeing beavers,

looking after animals

in slaughterhouses.

The list goes on.

So does the party seem more caring?

Are those younger, metropolitan

liberal voters even listening?

Or is the old image of the Tory out

hunting to attempting to move on?

I'm joined by Deborah Mattinson

the founding partner of the research

and polling organisation

Britain Thinks and Jack Elsom who is

the Chair of the London Universities

Conservatives.

Lovely to have you both. What is

going on, does being nice to animals

actually win votes?

I'm a Young

Conservative voter but it would be

pretty foolish of me to come on here

and say the Conservatives do not

have a problem attracting young

people. Deborah Bull tell you that

I'm sure in a minute. But in my

conversations not just in

conservative circles that

universities but with Labour and Lib

Dem friends, it is not the hot topic

of debate at universities. It is

mainly towards Brexodus tuition

fees.

So do you mean that people

think about it but not at the top,

or do not talk about it at all?

Really not at all but I do think

having said that what Michael Gove

said today is will -- will be able

to unite students whether it is

recognising that animals can feel

pain or good news for animals about

how sentences for maximum abuse...

Well this is interesting, in

university talking about these

things and yet we are told that the

stories that went viral during the

election, that is the story about

not fulfilling the Pledge on the

ivory ban and this one on the

sentience of animals, how are we

getting this wrong.

To say is not

the hot topic is the understatement

of the century, it has never made

more than 1% of the issues... As any

people tell you you have a small

number of people who care a lot

about animal rights. In a way what

is not to like but actually it is

not what drives younger voters or

older voters for that matter. But

the point about the election, fox

hunting for example, the reason why

that was noticed was because it

struck a chord and it spoke to the

Tory brand and is said to people

this is what I believe the Tory

brand to be about. Back to nasty.

Unfortunately which I guess they're

now trying to unpick again at the

moment. Bad blood at the time people

noticed that and people notice

things when they sure up something

they already believe.

So is Michael

Gove, as the Young Conservative is

he right to go on about the animals

now to try to chase people like you

if you're already on board or if you

do not really care. Is he wasting

his time or will he bring people in?

I do not think is wasting his time.

It may not be the hot topic of

debate at universities but I think

it is important and students may not

care as much about it as something

like Brexit or tuition fees but I

think there would be a big concern

since among students about

recognising the sentience of

animals. And great news in terms of

that sentencing for up to five years

for the worst abusers.

Do they trust

the Tories to maintain the message,

if you think back to David Cameron

and the symbolism of the Tory party

was the green oak tree and now with

Brexit there is no green.

Well we

ran focus groups in the election and

we asked people to think of the main

party leaders and who would you

trust most to look after your house

on holiday. They said Theresa May

but they would not trust her to look

after their pet!

Just bring up the

page of the i newspaper tomorrow,

Tories go green to win back the

voters. Is that a strategy that you

would say would be worth adopting

again because David Cameron tried

that and arguably it worked.

It

partially worked and I think the

rebrand worked partially for a

number of reasons and that was one

of them, a striking photo

opportunity. Well young voters in

particular care about housing, they

care about the economy, about jobs.

The environment generally and animal

rights in particular are very low on

that agenda.

So if you do care about

animal rights and clearly there is a

passionate constituency of people

who do. Are they never going to vote

Tory anyway, we'll always be green

voters or Labour voters?

They're

never going to go first to you. Not

at all, it is not at the top of the

agenda in terms of what young people

really care about but I would not

say no when is going to like these

policies or dislike them. I think

students will get behind the fact

that Michael Gove is putting animals

of the top of his agenda. That might

not be top of the student agenda

which is more Brexit or tuition

fees, but I think they could get on

board with this.

Is it done with

conviction? I think there are other

fish to fry, you are unusual as you

know, just 15% of 18 to 24-year-olds

say the Conservative Party is the

party for me. And I think there are

much bigger challenges than this is

able to meet.

Thank you both very

much.

After an ill judged comment

on a radio show, the Brexit

secretary David Davis has spent

today trying to reassure top EU

negotiators that Britain is not

trying to wriggle out of a deal

they agreed last week.

Mr Davis has invited the EU

to work with him to convert

the conversation into a legal text

as soon as possible.

Tomorrow, things move

on to the question of whether MPs

will get the final say

on the overall Brexit bill.

The former attorney

General Dominic Grieve is hoping

to attract enough support to defeat

the government in a vote on his

rebel amendment in the commons.

Nick Watt our political

editor is here, explain

what Mr Grieve is hoping to do?

Do you think you will defeat the

government? Well we have a

government that is very nervous it

could be about to suffer its first

defeat on the EU Withdrawal Bill

because the rebels led by Dominic

Grieve the former Attorney General

are digging in on their call for

that meaningful vote on the deal

figures out of the EU. Double is --

so tomorrow we will get some warm

words from the government and of

course I will say we will not dream

of using the powers in this

legislation to sneak through that

deal without consulting Parliament.

The rebels saying not good enough.

You have got to amend this bill and

if you do not like the wording of

Dominic Grieve you can fiddle around

with them at the later report stage.

I'm hearing the rebels saying the

government is behaving in a

cack-handed and bizarre ways so

tonight we have this band. The cheap

-- the Chief Whip Jordan Smith

follows the example of never losing

a vote so it is losing difficult, do

a deal. But does Dominic Grieve have

the numbers, he has nine Tory MPs

signing his amendment plus others on

his side. The rabble view is if they

have ten they're getting there, if

they have 15 they are in business.

Also quite stern words from Michel

Barnier to David Davis, is there a

sense that he is really upset, that

he has upset his European partners.

I think there is some irritation

with Michel Barnier and in Germany

about this statement from David

Davis that this was more kind of a

statement of intent and Michel

Barnier saying no backtracking.

Michel Barnier also said the best

that can be hoped for in these

Brexit negotiations over the next

two years is that you get a

withdrawal agreement, you get an

agreement on a transition and get

the beginnings of a future trade

deal and a kind of political

statement of what that would mean.

Which is not quite what David Davis

is saying, he's saying I appreciate

they cannot do a future trade deal

in that Article 50 but they could do

it at one minute past midnight.

Michel Barnier saying no way and

that raises questions about the

British approach, nothing is agreed

until everything is agreed. David

Davis tonight saying I know what

Michel Barnier is like, he uses time

as a pressure point.

Thank you very

much.

Time for Viewsnight now -

the programme's place for opinion.

Tonight it's Christopher Snowdon -

the Head of Lifestyle Economics

at the Institute of Economic Affairs

and author of 'Killjoys'.

He asks if we really need so many

public health bodies telling us

how to live our lives.

Tomorrow's Times will hail

the new Star Wars movie

as the best one yet,

calling it a film of wit

and wonder and frequently

devastating emotional power.

The franchise has come a long way

since the much criticised prequels -

not least in terms the revival

of its much loved

original characters -

at The Last Jedi's very centre -

the actress Carrie Fisher who died

a year ago and its creation

of new powerful female roles.

Something inside me

has always been there.

And now it's awake.

And I need help.

I've seen this raw

strength only once before.

It didn't scare me enough then.

It does now.

Joining us now is the film critic

Anna Smith and, from Los Angeles,

is Annalise Ophelian,

who is behind the documentary

Looking for Leia.

One has seen the film, one hasn't,

so we must be very careful. What are

you hoping for? I know you are going

to a screening once you have

finished here. What will you look

out for?

I'm excited to see where

the story goes. That desire to see

the next chapter is the sign of good

storytelling. Star Wars has really

good storytelling.

Do you think she

will get that?

She is in luck,

definitely. I was pleased with the

latest instalment in the series.

It's thrilling, exciting, good

mainstream blockbuster. Lots of

characters jostling for space but

they are well developed, especially

the female characters, as you

alluded to. I was pleased to see

lots more female characters and lots

more diversity.

When you were coming

out, were the critics you were with,

or the audience, pretty unanimous?

Was there divergences?

There was

applause at the end, which never

happens, which is a good sign. Some

were strong on it than others but it

has been a good, critical response.

What is it about Star Wars that set

you off on your documentary that

takes people's childhood memories

and really can play with fire in

what it does with them?

Well,

Looking for Leia is the phenomenon

of the fandom, especially among

girls. I am the class of 1977. I saw

the original film in the theatre

when I was four. Star Wars has

always been a part of my life. It's

one of the central come across

cultural mythologies, I think we can

all read ourselves into this story,

escapism, and adventure of outsiders

fighting their way in. There is

something for everyone. Every

generation has a Star Wars story.

Because we have 40 years worth of

films. It is intersected with so

many different generations,

childhoods, now into adulthood is.

It's amazing when you think of it as

40 years. -- adulthoods. There have

been disasters in the middle of

that. Is this a love letter to the

fans?

Absolutely. It stays true to

the original. The director has done

a good job of putting his stamp on

it but has also remained faithful.

There is something for fans and

people knew to the series, as well.

-- people who are new.

You can see

that the merchandise is already out.

For you it has a strong female

message. Does it ever feel like all

of the branding of it get in the

way?

Star Wars is so interesting,

especially now, it is the

intersection of cinema and pop

culture. We are not just audience,

we are also consumers. I think Star

Wars fans are acutely aware of that.

In the United States, at least, on

the 13th of December we are having

what the Internet is calling the

take your merchandise to work today.

But then Star Wars created the

phenomenon of movie merchandising.

It only makes sense they would be

the best doing it.

I won't be asking

you if you will be taking your stuff

to work tomorrow. What we haven't

touched on yet is Carrie Fisher,

who, sort of, appears from beyond

the grave in this film. Does it do

her justice?

It does. It is poignant

to see her. It brings an extra layer

to the film, knowing what

subsequently happened, but it is a

wonderful tribute and it is

attributed to her in the end. She

has an important part to play in

this film, as well.

You have seen

the strength of the female

characters right the way through.

From the class of 77 onwards. As you

say. For a lot of women this will be

a change. In the early days it felt

like something of a man's world,

Star Wars, do you think it is gender

free now? Do you think it still

plays to weigh more man's

imagination than a woman's? -- plays

more to a man's imagination.

We are

seeing the cultural permission to

expand on the shift. I'm talking to

all of these women who consistently

tell me their stories about their

lifelong fandom but it is only

recently something which is socially

sanctioned and acceptable to show it

off. There is something exciting

about having more and more

characters to identify with, as

well.

Great to have you both here.

Thank you both very much indeed.

That's almost it for tonight.

But before we go, a letter written

by Charles Dickens in 1865

was auctioned for over

£5,000 at Sotheby's today.

It details personal trauma

after being involved in a rail

accident while travelling

with his mistress - and her mother!

Dickens escaped and tended

to the wounded and the dying.

He administered water

in his top hat and passed

around his own bottle of brandy.

But after remembering he had left

that month's episode

of 'Our Mutual Friend' on board,

he climbed back up the side

of the viaduct to rescue his copy.

Dickens was never the

same after the crash.

The letter is evidence, some say,

that Dickens struggled

with what is now known as post

traumatic stress

disorder in later years.

To play us out, here is the actor

and Dickens biographer Simon Callow

reading an excerpt from that letter.

Good night.

My dear Madame Viardot,

I take the opportunity of Chorley's

coming near you to thank

you for your kind and affectionate

letter received after my escape

from that terrible accident.

The scene was so affecting

when I helped in getting out

the wounded and dead that

for a little while afterwards I felt

shaken by the remembrance of it.

But I had no personal

injury whatsoever.

My watch, which is curious, was more

sensitive physically, than I.

For it was some few minutes slow

for some few weeks afterwards.

Except that I cannot yet travel

on the railway at great speed

without having a disagreeable

impression, against all reason,

that the carriage is

turning on one side.

I have not the least

inconvenience death.

Will you tell Chorley how I can best

send you a book next October?

It will be Our Mutual Friend, which

I'm now finishing with great pains.

And which I hope will interest

you half as much as it interests me.

Believe me, always affectionately

yours, Charles Dickens.