0:00:03 > 0:00:06The most explosive Kiss and Tell book we've ever seen
0:00:06 > 0:00:09about a sitting President.
0:00:09 > 0:00:14Does it have the power though to change anyones mind?
0:00:14 > 0:00:15Allegations, accusations, stories and quotes -
0:00:15 > 0:00:18it portrays a man unfit to govern America.
0:00:18 > 0:00:22How much of it is true?
0:00:22 > 0:00:26Do those who work with Donald Trump recognize the chaos it describes?
0:00:26 > 0:00:31We speak to White House insider Sebastian Gorka and Janice Min,
0:00:31 > 0:00:34who was at the pre-inauguration dinner with those closest
0:00:34 > 0:00:35to the President.
0:00:35 > 0:00:40Why was the sentence for John Worboys so lenient and do
0:00:40 > 0:00:44we forget about the victims of sex crime too quickly?
0:00:44 > 0:00:50We'll examine how victims are treated by the justice system
0:00:50 > 0:00:53And is it cruel to breed dogs like this - half of all flat-faced
0:00:53 > 0:00:55dogs needed treatment for health issues last year.
0:00:55 > 0:00:58Why do we insist on making them pets when they find it
0:00:58 > 0:01:00so hard to breathe?
0:01:07 > 0:01:08Good evening.
0:01:08 > 0:01:12"The events I've described in these pages,"
0:01:12 > 0:01:14writes Michael Wolff, "are based on conversations that took
0:01:14 > 0:01:17place over 18 months with the President and most members
0:01:17 > 0:01:22of his senior staff."
0:01:22 > 0:01:25The rest of the book is explosive.
0:01:25 > 0:01:29He describes a President who behaves sometimes like a child,
0:01:29 > 0:01:31other times like an emperor - neurotic, scared, phobic
0:01:31 > 0:01:34and scorned by his own aides.
0:01:34 > 0:01:37The President himself denounced the book as lies -
0:01:37 > 0:01:39denied the author even had access.
0:01:39 > 0:01:41He tried to stop its very publication.
0:01:41 > 0:01:47That only sped things up and put it in the best seller list.
0:01:47 > 0:01:51So tonight, on the day the book is published - four days early
0:01:51 > 0:01:53and at the end of a long week when its dominated
0:01:53 > 0:01:56news the world over - we speak to those inside the
0:01:56 > 0:01:57White House.
0:01:57 > 0:01:59And to one present on the same occasions described
0:01:59 > 0:02:01within the books pages.
0:02:01 > 0:02:03We will ask how much of these allegations are revelations?
0:02:03 > 0:02:06And how much will they change the mind of the base that brought
0:02:06 > 0:02:11Donald Trump to power?
0:02:11 > 0:02:13Despite threats from President Trump, the publishers
0:02:13 > 0:02:16neither ceased nor desisted.
0:02:16 > 0:02:18Instead, they brought the publication of this explosive
0:02:18 > 0:02:21book forward.
0:02:21 > 0:02:24Fire And Fury is the work of Michael Wolff, a journalist who
0:02:24 > 0:02:27says he had access to the White House for much of the last
0:02:27 > 0:02:30year and spoke to the President whilst writing it.
0:02:30 > 0:02:34Trump's dismissed it as lies, says he never allowed the access.
0:02:34 > 0:02:36Others have also questioned the accuracy of the details in
0:02:36 > 0:02:37the book.
0:02:37 > 0:02:40But the President is clearly spooked by the allegations within it.
0:02:40 > 0:02:43I absolutely spoke to the President.
0:02:43 > 0:02:46Whether he realised it was an interview or not, I don't
0:02:46 > 0:02:50know, but it certainly was not off the record.
0:02:50 > 0:02:54It paints a White House in chaos, a paranoid President, who
0:02:54 > 0:02:57was horrified to actually win, and a host of aides and advisers who
0:02:57 > 0:03:00scorned his abilities.
0:03:00 > 0:03:03The big questions it raises are existential.
0:03:03 > 0:03:05Was it treasonous of Trump's son to meet
0:03:05 > 0:03:06with Russian officials during
0:03:06 > 0:03:07the campaign?
0:03:07 > 0:03:12Is the President of sound mind to run America?
0:03:12 > 0:03:15But it's the details that will stop readers in their tracks.
0:03:15 > 0:03:18Accounts of Donald Trump's phobias, his fast food addiction,
0:03:18 > 0:03:22his viewing habits, as well as his relations with his wife, his
0:03:22 > 0:03:27daughter, his own hair, and his early bedtime.
0:03:27 > 0:03:29The book's already claimed its first scalp.
0:03:29 > 0:03:33An almighty row has broken out between the
0:03:33 > 0:03:36President and his former White House strategist, Steve Bannon, whose
0:03:36 > 0:03:37comments first appeared in the book.
0:03:37 > 0:03:39Both have threatened to sue the other.
0:03:39 > 0:03:41Bannon has found himself cut out of big donor funding since
0:03:41 > 0:03:43it appeared.
0:03:43 > 0:03:46The big question is, who is going to get this pen?
0:03:46 > 0:03:47I don't know.
0:03:47 > 0:03:48LAUGHTER.
0:03:48 > 0:03:50It raises the spectre of an open secret, shared by many.
0:03:50 > 0:03:55Do those who worked for, with and around Donald
0:03:55 > 0:04:00Trump recognise this same world Wolff describes, a White House with
0:04:00 > 0:04:04no plan, a leader with no strategy, an impulsive, piqued President, who
0:04:04 > 0:04:06acts upon his instincts time and again, with no interest in
0:04:06 > 0:04:09third-party views?
0:04:09 > 0:04:12Or has the writer hyper-fictionalised
0:04:12 > 0:04:17the world Trump's critics were simply dying to see?
0:04:17 > 0:04:18But the bigger question, the fundamental one,
0:04:18 > 0:04:21perhaps is this -
0:04:21 > 0:04:24will any of what is written in these pages
0:04:24 > 0:04:26change Trump's power or the
0:04:26 > 0:04:28way those who voted for him see him now?
0:04:28 > 0:04:30If the answer is no, then Fire And Fury may
0:04:30 > 0:04:38just be sound and fury - ultimately signifying nothing.
0:04:38 > 0:04:41Joining me now Dr Sebastian Gorka, who was Deputy Assistant
0:04:41 > 0:04:43to Donald Trump and knows the White House well.
0:04:43 > 0:04:45And Dr Gorka, I know in your previous Newsnight
0:04:45 > 0:04:50encounters we have spent a lot of time analysing whether Newsnight
0:04:50 > 0:04:52is fake news, et cetera.
0:04:52 > 0:04:58So for the sake of our viewers and for the sake of moving the story
0:04:58 > 0:05:01on, why don't we agree to recognise that is how you view things and this
0:05:01 > 0:05:04time try and shed some light on how you see
0:05:04 > 0:05:05operations in the White House.
0:05:05 > 0:05:09It's very good of you to join us.
0:05:09 > 0:05:15Was there anything in the coverage of Michael Wolff's book that you
0:05:15 > 0:05:21recognised?Nothing at all especially if you look at the basic
0:05:21 > 0:05:28facts he gets wrong. In if excerpts he can't even get right whether the
0:05:28 > 0:05:31president knew John Boehner. He said on the day he became president, he
0:05:31 > 0:05:37had never heard of speaker of House. Any child can go on Google and put
0:05:37 > 0:05:42in the names and find photographs of two golfing with each other. If you
0:05:42 > 0:05:47look at the book, I haven't spent money on it, but the introduction,
0:05:47 > 0:05:53page 10, Michael Wolff states he cannot verify any of the information
0:05:53 > 0:05:59he has provided and as such it is a work of fiction.What he says is
0:05:59 > 0:06:07many of the accounts are in conflict with one another, it sound as if he
0:06:07 > 0:06:13heard a lot of conflicting accounts, wrote them up and let readers decide
0:06:13 > 0:06:21what to think and the accounts came from multiple sources he wrote up as
0:06:21 > 0:06:30a factual, that is what journalists do.No if you wrote a story that
0:06:30 > 0:06:34conflicted and said I will let the viewers decide, you would be warned
0:06:34 > 0:06:44or fired. A journalist must have two verified sources. Michael Wolff is a
0:06:44 > 0:06:50Charlton and a liar.He paints a pictures others have recognised a
0:06:50 > 0:06:57picture of a president who sounds like he has slightly lost his mind
0:06:57 > 0:07:06and behaves in a child-like way, do you recognise that in the president?
0:07:06 > 0:07:14He repeats the Calumy of all the left-wing Trump derangement
0:07:14 > 0:07:18suffering people.You don't recognise.I actually worked in the
0:07:18 > 0:07:24White House. I'm not a political hack who came in to write a book to
0:07:24 > 0:07:32make money and please the elite that failed both nations, whether the UK
0:07:32 > 0:07:37or the United States. Donald Trump won on the basis of facts that
0:07:37 > 0:07:41Brexit won in the UK and wasn't predicted by the elite. It is a
0:07:41 > 0:07:48joke.Paint a picture of what you know to be true then. For example, I
0:07:48 > 0:07:53I think we are told some of the observations say most days Trump
0:07:53 > 0:08:01preferred to be in bed at 6. 30 watching television and eating
0:08:01 > 0:08:09cheeseburgers.It is such garbage. What time does he go to bed.He
0:08:09 > 0:08:15sleeps less than two and a half hours a day. When he is tweeting at
0:08:15 > 0:08:184am no, one is tweeting for him. That is the president of the United
0:08:18 > 0:08:28States. Forget the palace intrigue. What has he done. He has revitalised
0:08:28 > 0:08:40NATO. We have had a record-breaking stock market rally. Isis industried.
0:08:40 > 0:08:46-- destroyed. One and a half million jobs created. The lowest
0:08:46 > 0:08:50unemployment in 17 years. Judge the president on the facts, not on
0:08:50 > 0:08:56delusional people who want to sell books.Help us with the details, it
0:08:56 > 0:09:02is fascinating and Trump rules - no one touched his tooth brush, he
0:09:02 > 0:09:09liked McDonald's.Are you serious? Somebody's tooth-brushing habits.
0:09:09 > 0:09:14Tell us you know it is not true.I won't waste people's time with this
0:09:14 > 0:09:19rubbish. Let's talk about your tooth brushing. How do you brush your
0:09:19 > 0:09:24teeth?The interesting thing...Do you floss?It is the details that
0:09:24 > 0:09:29allow people to know whether the rest of it is true. Let me quote
0:09:29 > 0:09:37something. Sean Spicer repeating the mantra, you can't make this shit up
0:09:37 > 0:09:48or Kelly Ann Conway who, mimed putting a finger gun to her head
0:09:48 > 0:09:53when she reported the president's word.In one book 13 people demanded
0:09:53 > 0:09:59he retracts the quotes, because they were made up. His book is like Harry
0:09:59 > 0:10:03Potter.He has never been told to issue a correction.I have no idea
0:10:03 > 0:10:07what he has been told. I couldn't careless. I couldn't careless
0:10:07 > 0:10:14whether people have demanded retractions. He is a hack.Let's
0:10:14 > 0:10:21move from the book itself. Just even the quotes that Trump has put
0:10:21 > 0:10:26directly to the public through Twitter, in the last week, taking
0:10:26 > 0:10:34credit for airline safety for seven years or asking for good old global
0:10:34 > 0:10:41warming, boasting of the size of his nuclear button. That language makes
0:10:41 > 0:10:45it easy for people to believe what they're read somethingNo that is
0:10:45 > 0:10:57the language that makes it easy for an outsiding to decimate 16 members
0:10:57 > 0:11:02of GOP and wipe the floor with a woman who thought the position was
0:11:02 > 0:11:05owed to her because of her gender. The president connects with the
0:11:05 > 0:11:10average man and woman what has been ill-served by the elite on the left
0:11:10 > 0:11:15and right for more than 20 years. God bless the president and his
0:11:15 > 0:11:20Twitter feed.A lot of people say it is painting a very accurate picture,
0:11:20 > 0:11:26one that other reporters have written about.That is a very
0:11:26 > 0:11:31scientific term, lots and lots. Lots and lots of people a at the BBC?
0:11:31 > 0:11:37What about Janice Min, she was at the table and at the Roger
0:11:37 > 0:11:41Ailes/Bannon dinner and verified everything she read in the book. Let
0:11:41 > 0:11:49her talk for herself.Thank you very much.Thank you.
0:11:49 > 0:11:51Michael Wolff said today that he stands by "everything
0:11:51 > 0:11:53reported in the book".
0:11:53 > 0:11:55We asked him for an interview, but he wasn't available.
0:11:55 > 0:11:57Janice Min is part-owner of The Hollywood Reporter
0:11:57 > 0:12:00and was invited to the dinner party attended by Steve Bannon
0:12:00 > 0:12:02and Roger Ailes that is recounted in the book.
0:12:02 > 0:12:07She joins me now from LA.
0:12:07 > 0:12:13Thank you for joining us. Tell us what went on that night, you were
0:12:13 > 0:12:18one of a very small select group, just six guests at the din we are
0:12:18 > 0:12:23Roger Ailes, Steve Bannon. What do you remember of it?I remember
0:12:23 > 0:12:29almost every detail. This was a small party of six guests, at
0:12:29 > 0:12:34Michael Wolff's house and listening to your guest, I think that the
0:12:34 > 0:12:39position from Trump loyalists is Michael Wolff is an outsider. It is
0:12:39 > 0:12:45from my experience with Michael, I don't see that. He was such an
0:12:45 > 0:12:52intimate and a so warmly received by Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes and
0:12:52 > 0:12:59Roger's wife and had such a level of trust with them that the
0:12:59 > 0:13:07conversation we had was stunning. It was... The things from start to
0:13:07 > 0:13:10finish, for five hours, they poured their hearts out about the
0:13:10 > 0:13:13Republican Party and how they were going to, who they were going to put
0:13:13 > 0:13:21into cabinet. Roger Ailes offered to coach candidates in their
0:13:21 > 0:13:31congressional testimony. They talked of Rudy Giuliani. Steve Bannon said
0:13:31 > 0:13:36they owed him something, because he had come out forcefully and spoke on
0:13:36 > 0:13:42the shows in the United States, when no one else would after the access
0:13:42 > 0:13:50Hollywood tapes. Roger Ailes said, you know, just let him be
0:13:50 > 0:13:55photographed walking out of Air Force One. Just detail after detail
0:13:55 > 0:14:00that, were they openly spoke so comfortably in front of Michael. To
0:14:00 > 0:14:07any way characterise him. You can try to dispute the facts, but you
0:14:07 > 0:14:12can't dispute the relationship he had with people in the White House.
0:14:12 > 0:14:17At that dinner, did it seem as if Steve Bannon was in the driving
0:14:17 > 0:14:22point, you had the Fox news Executive, Roger Ailes, were they
0:14:22 > 0:14:27still in shock that he had won?No, you know, I think Roger Ailes might
0:14:27 > 0:14:32have been in a bit of shock. He had said that, he had said to me, he was
0:14:32 > 0:14:38sitting to my right, he said, you know, these guys are a little right
0:14:38 > 0:14:45of my tastes and I'm a life long Republican. He was surprised, but
0:14:45 > 0:14:51Bannon, he is full steam ahead. He was invigorated, I think this whole
0:14:51 > 0:14:56notion we have of him that he is foaming at the mouth and crazy and
0:14:56 > 0:15:02he had given an interview to Michael Wolff that made news before this
0:15:02 > 0:15:08dinner where me said I'm Darth Vader, I'm say it tan. He came in
0:15:08 > 0:15:14with a great mood and sat down and one of the first thing he said, we
0:15:14 > 0:15:18are going to move the Embassy to Jerusalem in Israel and they had a
0:15:18 > 0:15:24discussion about that. Then they started ticking off cabinet
0:15:24 > 0:15:28appointments, Supreme Court appointments. They were, he was... I
0:15:28 > 0:15:33would say it was his relationship with the president was he was a take
0:15:33 > 0:15:41charge guy and there were things he said that made me think he didn't
0:15:41 > 0:15:52think Donald Trump was dwell on the details.
0:15:52 > 0:15:55A lot of what Wolff recounts suggests a man in the White House
0:15:55 > 0:16:00who is not really in control of his faculties, who is impetuous, who is
0:16:00 > 0:16:05perhaps losing his mind, who has not had the trust of many of his
0:16:05 > 0:16:11advisers and start first. Is that something that you see and
0:16:11 > 0:16:16recognise, or is this Wolff going too far and just writing down
0:16:16 > 0:16:21conversations without verification, as Sebastian Gorka said?I remember
0:16:21 > 0:16:26Michael Wolff, for starters, I know Sarah Huckabee Sanders got upset and
0:16:26 > 0:16:29said they didn't know he in there, he wasn't allowed. Whatever the
0:16:29 > 0:16:35actual scenario was, let's say Donald Trump really didn't know,
0:16:35 > 0:16:39which I don't believe that there was a reporter sitting in the west wing
0:16:39 > 0:16:45for weeks and weeks without his knowledge? What does it say about
0:16:45 > 0:16:49the organisation of the White House or its press team? I don't think
0:16:49 > 0:16:53there's a good answer anyone can come up with about why Michael Wolff
0:16:53 > 0:16:57was in there, except that he was allowed, which in hindsight it
0:16:57 > 0:17:03embarrassing.One last thought, if this is read by critics of Trump,
0:17:03 > 0:17:08they will happily believe it because it feeds their narrative. Would it
0:17:08 > 0:17:13make any difference to his base, and will this public split with Steve
0:17:13 > 0:17:19Bannon hurt Trump's electoral chances this year or next time?I
0:17:19 > 0:17:24think Bannon and Trump are a lovesick couple that go back and
0:17:24 > 0:17:28forth. I don't think it's anything. It's a mutually beneficial
0:17:28 > 0:17:34relationship. I don't think this is the end of them. I'd be surprised.
0:17:34 > 0:17:39There is such a narrative that's been constructed since Trump was
0:17:39 > 0:17:44running, since he was the candidate, that everything is fake, and it's an
0:17:44 > 0:17:48easy way to dismiss things you don't like, so do think that Michael Wolff
0:17:48 > 0:17:52in a book with troubling details will be treated any differently to
0:17:52 > 0:17:56any member of the press who has sat and reported on Donald Trump for a
0:17:56 > 0:18:02year would be naive. If Michael Wolff had released a bomb cyclone of
0:18:02 > 0:18:07news about Donald Trump, that happens to make their heat on this
0:18:07 > 0:18:10particular book hotter than any story in the New York Times or the
0:18:10 > 0:18:15Guardian for what ever else has been covering Trump for this time.Thank
0:18:15 > 0:18:18you for coming in.
0:18:18 > 0:18:20The former black cab driver John Worboys was convicted of 19
0:18:20 > 0:18:22offences, including one rape, although police believe
0:18:22 > 0:18:23he attacked many more women.
0:18:23 > 0:18:26Yet he was released this week after a decade behind bars,
0:18:26 > 0:18:29to the shock and surprise of his victims.
0:18:29 > 0:18:31What was it that led to such a short sentence?
0:18:31 > 0:18:34And how likely is it that such a prolific offender can be
0:18:34 > 0:18:37reformed to the point where he won't offend again?
0:18:37 > 0:18:40Our policy editor, Chris Cook, has a look at the sentencing,
0:18:40 > 0:18:43parole and rehabilitation of sex offenders.
0:18:45 > 0:18:47John Worboys, the so-called black cab rapist, is suspected of perhaps
0:18:47 > 0:18:51hundreds of assaults.
0:18:51 > 0:18:53After an investigation riddled with mistakes,
0:18:53 > 0:18:58he was finally jailed indefinitely in 2009, but he's been cleared
0:18:58 > 0:19:03for release from prison after just nine years.
0:19:03 > 0:19:07Part of the issue with the Worboys case is that he was only tried
0:19:07 > 0:19:10and convicted for a subset of the crimes for which he
0:19:10 > 0:19:12is the prime suspect, so he was convicted for one count
0:19:12 > 0:19:16of rape, five counts of sexual assault, one attempted sexual
0:19:16 > 0:19:22assault and a dozen cases of drugging his victims.
0:19:22 > 0:19:24For all of that, he got an indefinite sentence,
0:19:24 > 0:19:28so he had to serve a minimum of eight years in prison,
0:19:28 > 0:19:31after which he could be released, but only if he could prove
0:19:31 > 0:19:35that he no longer posed a danger to the public.
0:19:35 > 0:19:38The process is tough on victims, especially as a number were not told
0:19:38 > 0:19:42that Worboys was going to be released at the end of this month,
0:19:42 > 0:19:45and most of the 83 complainants to the CPS never got
0:19:45 > 0:19:48their cases heard.
0:19:48 > 0:19:51There are some victims who want their day in court,
0:19:51 > 0:19:54but there are others who don't want to appear in court and feel
0:19:54 > 0:19:55that's right for them.
0:19:55 > 0:19:58But this comes back to communicating to victims.
0:19:58 > 0:20:02If we are hoping to gain confidence for victims to come forward,
0:20:02 > 0:20:04in such horrific cases, I may add, we have got to have
0:20:04 > 0:20:07better communication.
0:20:07 > 0:20:10Where cases weren't taken to court, it was either because of a lack
0:20:10 > 0:20:14of evidence or because they were not expected to add to his sentence,
0:20:14 > 0:20:19but not taking them to court also means the parole court can't take
0:20:19 > 0:20:22account of them.
0:20:22 > 0:20:27If you think about the sentencing process and the parole review as two
0:20:27 > 0:20:30ends of the same process, with the sentencing judge deciding
0:20:30 > 0:20:36that the person should have their liberty taken away
0:20:36 > 0:20:40from them and the Parole Board deciding at the end of that process
0:20:40 > 0:20:42whether it should be given back to them, you certainly wouldn't
0:20:42 > 0:20:45consider at the sentencing stage taking into account the views
0:20:45 > 0:20:50of people who had made untested complaints against somebody,
0:20:50 > 0:20:52complaints that hadn't been proven in court,
0:20:52 > 0:20:56and it's exactly the same, or it should be, as regards
0:20:56 > 0:20:58the parole review.
0:20:58 > 0:21:02One curiosity of our judicial system is we are not permitted to know how
0:21:02 > 0:21:06Worboys argued he is no longer a risk.
0:21:06 > 0:21:09The statutory instrument governing the Parole Board says information
0:21:09 > 0:21:13about proceedings must not be made public.
0:21:13 > 0:21:17I'm not allowed by law to explain the reasons for our decision,
0:21:17 > 0:21:20and I've said before, I'd like to get that changed,
0:21:20 > 0:21:24and so if this pushes the idea that the Parole Board processes need
0:21:24 > 0:21:27to be much more open and transparent, and we get support
0:21:27 > 0:21:31for that, then I think some good will have come out of all of this,
0:21:31 > 0:21:33and people in future will be able to have much more confidence
0:21:33 > 0:21:34in the system.
0:21:34 > 0:21:37This isn't the first time that Professor Hardwick has made
0:21:37 > 0:21:38this sort of argument.
0:21:38 > 0:21:42Late last year, he gave a speech which said, "At present,
0:21:42 > 0:21:45some of the decisions that we make are subject to ill-informed
0:21:45 > 0:21:48criticism, but how could it be otherwise when we do not provide
0:21:48 > 0:21:51information about why we made a decision?"
0:21:51 > 0:21:56He also has concerns about access to the parole hearings themselves.
0:21:56 > 0:21:59For example, he says that a victim can attend
0:21:59 > 0:22:02to read a victim statement, but must leave after they have done
0:22:02 > 0:22:05so, whereas he was impressed that, in Canada, anyone can apply
0:22:05 > 0:22:08to attend a parole hearing - victims, academics,
0:22:08 > 0:22:14the media and interested members of the public.
0:22:14 > 0:22:16Worboys was a serial predator who drugged women
0:22:16 > 0:22:18before assaulting them.
0:22:18 > 0:22:22Without openness, we do not know how he persuaded the Parole Board
0:22:22 > 0:22:26that he is a reformed character.
0:22:26 > 0:22:29It's extremely difficult for some offenders to persuade
0:22:29 > 0:22:32the Parole Board that they are fit to be released.
0:22:32 > 0:22:35The usual mechanism of doing so is completing what are called
0:22:35 > 0:22:39mainstream sex offender treatment programmes, and a report last year
0:22:39 > 0:22:44found that the mainstream sex offender treatment programme wasn't
0:22:44 > 0:22:46reducing reoffending rates and, in some cases, may have
0:22:46 > 0:22:48been increasing them.
0:22:48 > 0:22:51They've now introduced some new courses, which are again
0:22:51 > 0:22:53completely untested.
0:22:53 > 0:22:56Some of the Worboys complainants had their investigations botched.
0:22:56 > 0:22:59Most didn't have their cases taken to court.
0:22:59 > 0:23:03A number weren't told about his release.
0:23:03 > 0:23:08All of them want to know why he is now considered safe for release.
0:23:14 > 0:23:15Now, Viewsnight.
0:23:15 > 0:23:18Tonight, with another idea for 2018, author and columnist Grace Dent.
0:26:01 > 0:26:03That was Grace Dent.
0:26:03 > 0:26:05In a moment, you're going to meet Spike and Edward.
0:26:05 > 0:26:08Whisper it quietly, but they have squashed faces and short skulls.
0:26:08 > 0:26:09They're French bulldogs.
0:26:09 > 0:26:11And vets are urging pet owners to think twice
0:26:11 > 0:26:13about buying them and their ilk, as they suffer such
0:26:13 > 0:26:15bad health problems.
0:26:15 > 0:26:17According to data from the Kennel Club, registrations
0:26:17 > 0:26:19of these brachycephalic breeds - pugs, French bulldogs -
0:26:19 > 0:26:22have shot up.
0:26:22 > 0:26:26In 2007, just 692 French bulldogs were registered.
0:26:26 > 0:26:29Last year, that went over 21,000.
0:26:29 > 0:26:31More than 50% needed to visit a vet last year
0:26:31 > 0:26:34for respiratory linked problems.
0:26:34 > 0:26:38So is it cruel to create these pure breeds?
0:26:38 > 0:26:40And should we lose the pug completely to
0:26:40 > 0:26:43save these animals pain?
0:26:43 > 0:26:45Joining me now, Lindsey Scanlon, she runs the French Bulldog Saviours
0:26:45 > 0:26:49rescue charity in North Yorkshire, and Dr Crina Dagu from the London
0:26:49 > 0:26:58Vet Clinic, a busy practice.
0:26:58 > 0:27:04And Spike and Edward, who are past their bedtime.
0:27:04 > 0:27:10You used to be agreed about you had a change of heart, didn't you?Yes,
0:27:10 > 0:27:14after I saw how they were mass produced. I had one litter and I
0:27:14 > 0:27:17went to see somebody who was a big reader, a licensed one, and it was
0:27:17 > 0:27:23just something and I thought, if there are that many people wanting
0:27:23 > 0:27:28these dogs, something is going to happen.So you recognise they are
0:27:28 > 0:27:34not help the dogs, are they?In my opinion, if they are bred white and
0:27:34 > 0:27:38they are tested right, they can live happy lives.-- if they are bred
0:27:38 > 0:27:47right. Can they be great in a way that doesn't hurt them?The way that
0:27:47 > 0:27:51a lot of the breed started out, they were not as extreme, so if you go
0:27:51 > 0:27:59back hundreds of years, they were talking. At the moment, we are
0:27:59 > 0:28:02struggling to find a balance between the athletics and what's going on
0:28:02 > 0:28:08inside them and the problems it causes in their lives.When you talk
0:28:08 > 0:28:14about the athletics, is there a hypocrisy in the public mood, that
0:28:14 > 0:28:19they want the look of these dogs... Are we a nation of animal lovers,
0:28:19 > 0:28:25even if it causes the dogs pain? Sure, a lot of celebrities have
0:28:25 > 0:28:30them, they are friendly characters, they are wonderful, very fun dogs.
0:28:30 > 0:28:43It's very hard to not fall for the round, googly eyes, for the Babyface
0:28:43 > 0:28:47but, once you have them, you realise there are not just breathing issues,
0:28:47 > 0:28:53thereafter gastrointestinal issues. -- there are.Your mum didn't even
0:28:53 > 0:29:00get through childbirth.She was brought in to rescue unknown that
0:29:00 > 0:29:03she was pregnant but she was purchased on social media. Somebody
0:29:03 > 0:29:11from the general public purchaser, gave into a rescue, not realising
0:29:11 > 0:29:16she was heavily pregnant. She got to the end of her pregnancy and had big
0:29:16 > 0:29:20problems, she had a Caesarean section, and then we told her larynx
0:29:20 > 0:29:26collapsed.So you understand people saying they should not be bred
0:29:26 > 0:29:33purely?I don't think there was an issue with reading them all. If they
0:29:33 > 0:29:38are bred right, if health tests are done, and we are trying to educate
0:29:38 > 0:29:42people on breed, and if that is done, there isn't an issues.What
0:29:42 > 0:29:49problems are we talking about? These two are putty in your hands, fast
0:29:49 > 0:29:52asleep, they seem fine. But what is it that that happens to dogs like
0:29:52 > 0:29:59this?If we took them outside in warmer weather and we trotted them
0:29:59 > 0:30:03for a few minutes, problems might start coming quite visible. They
0:30:03 > 0:30:10have a hard time breathing oxygenating their blood, because
0:30:10 > 0:30:19anatomically they are not... They are not functioning well. It's not
0:30:19 > 0:30:25just the breathing, it's the dye gesturing, it's everything inside.
0:30:25 > 0:30:28Putting back together, should you be stopping their breed completely? --
0:30:28 > 0:30:36not just the breathing, it that I digestion. Should we see an end to
0:30:36 > 0:30:43bulldogs and pugs?I don't think it's constructive to ban reading. We
0:30:43 > 0:30:51have two breed them right, to breed them back to where they can
0:30:51 > 0:30:58function.Which means mixing? When you hear that could be the end to
0:30:58 > 0:31:03the pure pug and French bulldog, do you think that's a good thing or bad
0:31:03 > 0:31:09thing?It's a bad thing. Health tests should be done before any dog
0:31:09 > 0:31:14is bred.Thank you both. I appreciate you coming down from
0:31:14 > 0:31:17Yorkshire with these little guys.
0:31:17 > 0:31:21That's about it for tonight.
0:31:21 > 0:31:28We are back on Monday. Have a great weekend. Good night.