In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.
Browse content similar to 26/01/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Of course he's going to reoffend,
but I think the one thing that's
worrying me and possibly other
is the fact that he
knows where we lived.
Tonight, one of the women fighting
to keep the black cab rapist in jail
talks at length for the first time
about her own ordeal
and her determination to keep
John Worboys behind bars.
Also tonight, brace yourselves
for Brexit, Round 2,
starting next week.
What are the big battlegrounds?
The EU 27 showed impressive unity
throughout the first phase of
That, for months,
people in Brussels have been telling
me that they're not quite so
confident it will be so united in
And, the beers and the barbies
are out for Australia Day.
But is it time to end celebrations
of the day the British
arrived and the subjugation
of the indiginous people began?
There was some relief tonight
for the more than 100 victims
of rapist John Worboys.
His imminent release from jail
has been put on hold.
Two of the women that he raped today
successfully obtained a High Court
order, which means the man known
as "the black cab rapist"
is staying in prison, for now.
Worboys, who attacked his passengers
after plying them with drink he'd
spiked, was sentenced in 2009
to eight years in jail
plus an indeterminate sentence,
to be decided by the parole board.
That trial involved
just 12 of his victims,
because the then-Director
of Public Prosecutions decided
that the evidence of those 12
was the best way to secure
a lengthy sentence.
Tonight, we speak to one of the two
women who won today's ruling.
She was raped on the 6th of May
2003, but the police
dismissed her story.
It was only five years later,
when the Met appealed for victims
to come forward following many more
rapes, that she was believed.
After Worboys went to jail,
the woman, who wishes
to remain anonymous,
successfully sued the police
for violation of her human rights
in the initial investigation,
a decision they are
I spoke to her today,
before the new Worboys ruling,
about her own 15-year ordeal.
What happened to you that night?
I remember going out, meeting
friends, having a meal, going on to
a couple of pubs and bars with them.
My group of friends hailed a cab for
me. One common particular, was
talking to him for a good five, ten
minutes while I was saying goodbye
to everybody. I got in the cab. Next
memory is waking up in hospital.
Feeling very disorientated, very
distressed, knowing, instantly, that
something had happened.
happened when you got into the cab?
Did he engage in conversation
I mean, he was very,
very chatty, like most black cab
drivers are. Didn't find that
threatening, in any way, because he
seems like a normal cab driver. And
he offered me a drink. Which I said,
first of all, I said, I didn't want
the drink. But then, because he gave
me the drink, I took a sip of it.
But it was not a nice drink. And
because I'd gone home at that point
because I was consciously not
drinking too much because I had to
get on with my baby in the morning.
And it was a very strong this year,
sort of like an orange lick
. We went over a speed bump. But he
gave me another one. It was one of
those situations and failures, beat
myself up over it, thinking, why did
I accept that drink? But it was a
situation where you just think, just
drink it and you're going to get
home and that's fine. And then he
pulled over in a side road. And I
remember him getting in the back of
the cab with me and offering me a
cigarette. And then that's the only
memory I have until waking up the
But, as far as a
But, as far as a rape
was concerned, evidentially, what
Well, I was told by the
police there was no drugs in my
system. And there was, obviously, no
Because he was using a
Yes. Which they said at the
time was what they were expecting. I
was very shocked at them saying
there was no drugs or anything in my
system. Because I knew there was. I
knew, as soon as I had woken up,
that I had been drugged.
was evidence he had tried to use a
lubricant or something?
that was another reason you were
sure. What impact did that have on
you at the time?
The thought that
you've gone to all that trouble of
going to the police, for them to say
that a black cab driver, which they
did say to me, a black cab driver
wouldn't do it, and when they phoned
to say they were closing the file, I
was quite hysterical about it.
Because I said, "You've let him get
away with almost the perfect crime".
He will reoffend.
How does it all
really engage again?
There was an
appeal on the knees. -- an appeal on
the means. I thought, I can't go
through this again, can't be
disbelieved and made to feel that
I've made it all up all over again,
can't do it. I can't get involved in
any of this. So, I did delay
probably for a day or so. But, then,
I just thought, can't not do
anything. I can't... Go forward.
It's just so wrong, I have to do
what I can to help with this appeal.
So, I phoned them, the helpline
number, the number they'd given.
And, actually, the lady I spoke to,
when I gave my details, she said my
deals -- details had already been
flagged on the system and they were
going to be contacting you.
so sure that your case was one of
the cases that would go to court, so
They explained it to
me. That they couldn't... Convict
him of every single one. Because,
obviously, taking 83 victims into
court, it would tie it up in court
for years. It would confuse the
jury. It would just be horrendous to
try and do that.
What was it like
for you, then, during the trial?
I... I just tried to ignore it as
much as possible. It was too painful
at the time. Hearing what had
happened to the other women was
very, very hard for me. I did feel,
that point, very guilty, because I
felt somehow responsible for what
they went through.
because the police didn't believe
you in 2003.
The. I always felt that
had they believed me, they could
have stopped him. -- yes. One of the
hardest days that I've had, through
all of this, was when we went, when
I had to go and identify him and sit
in a room with 20 or 30 other
victims. And feeling that they were
all there because I wasn't believed.
That was one of the worst things
I've ever had to experience will
stop looking at their faces and
thinking, "You shouldn't be here"
stop looking at their faces and
thinking, "You shouldn't be here".
How long do you think they would put
him away for?
I was under the
impression he was going away for
life. I never thought he'd be coming
Where were you when you heard
that Worboys was to be released?
was at home cooking my children's
dinner. And it was on the news.
I'll achieve felt that someone had
kicked me in the stomach. -- I
literally felt. And to hear that
through the media, knowing what we'd
all gone through just felt like we
were being let down by the system
again. It does feel like this
system, as a whole, is more... Tries
to protect Worboys more than his
Has anyone called you to
offer support from, you know, the
No. As yet, nobody
has been in contact with me. But
then I've also heard reports that
when they say "Victims", that only
referring to the 12 victims that
went to court. -- that they are
only. And the other 80 Quill 70 odd
victims, possibly more, that went to
the police, that were linked to this
case, but didn't have their cases
taken to court, not classed as
victims. We are alleged victims, so
we have no rights. We have no voice.
As far as I can see at the moment,
Worboys could come out of prison
tomorrow and live in the house next
door to me and there was nothing I
can do to prevent it.
Of course I am. I am very
worried about this, because I know
for a fact he will reoffend.
Somebody cannot live their life for
so many years committing these sorts
of crimes and getting away with it
for such a long period, refused to
accept they've done anything wrong
and then all of a sudden turn over a
new leaf and be a model citizen. Of
course he's going to reoffend. But I
think the one thing that is worrying
me, and possibly other people, is
the fact that he knows where we
lived. He did what he needed to do.
He took the keys and took you and
dumped you on your bed or your sofa.
He was inside their homes. He knows
where they live. He had a notebook
with all our names and addresses in
So how will you stop it?
that's why we are pushing for the
judiciary review and hoping that
they will reveal the reasons why
they have decided that he is safe to
come out. And then hopefully we can
challenge that because it just
doesn't make sense that somebody
could be safe after being deemed
just over a year ago or unsafe and
open prison. That doesn't make sense
to me at all.
That was a parole
That was a parole
What do you think
that parole board?
I don't know what
they base that on, at the moment.
And that's what we need to know. --
what they based that on. How they
came to that conclusion. Because it
doesn't make sense to anybody. It's
really important that we do this
You are crowdfunding
for case, to keep him behind bars.
What impact does that have on you?
Absolutely. My main motivation at
the moment is that this is a very
dangerous criminal. I have a
daughter and I need to protect my
daughter. And everybody else's
daughter and everybody else's
mothers and sisters. Women need to
be protected from this man and
that's why I'm doing this.
John Worboys remains in prison.
Two contrasting headlines
this morning concerning
the Defence Secretary.
On the Telegraph front page,
Gavin Williamson warned that
Russia is ready to kill us
by the thousands.
In the Mail, Mr Williamson
was confessing to an office
romance and how it nearly
destroyed his marriage.
Our political editor
Nick Watt is here.
What are you hearing? Our ambitious
Defence Secretary, as you say, is in
the news again. That story in the
Daily Mail appears to have appeared
after he was asking questions by the
Guardian about his private life.
There is a feeling in Whitehall that
his account of what happened about
15 years ago is plausible. And it is
believed it is truthful. But I have
to say that eyebrows are being
raised in Whitehall and in the
national security world about that
article, that interview in the Daily
Telegraph, which led to that
headlined "Russia is ready to kill
us by the thousands". He said two
things about Russia, one is that
they will target the gas and
electricity interconnect connectors
that link the UK to continental
Europe. And that they are
photographing power stations,
electricity stations. I'm hearing
language like this from the national
security world. The Secretary of
State for Defence is playing fast
and loose with the national
security, to distract from his
Downing Street, do
I think this was
something that was known in the MoD
that I am not sure other areas of
Whitehall knew. I spoke to a good
friend of Gavin Williams who says
that he believes the Secretary of
State has got pretty close to the
line of what you should disclose,
but hasn't actually crossed that
line. Defence sources, what they are
saying is that none of this
information was classified
intelligence. On those undersea
interconnect is, the Secretary of
State was speculating. But, again,
from the national security world,
they are saying that talking about
Russia photographing electricity
power stations, they believe that is
very, very sensitive information.
Safe in his job?
For the moment. He
is a former Chief Whip. What he
knows is that if you are going to
give an account about your private
life, it needs to be plausible and
it needs to be truthful. He knows
that. So I am sure he will have sure
that is the case.
The art of letter
writing is not dead.
In the last half hour,
business leaders have received
an epistle from three Cabinet
ministers, Hammond, Davis and Clark,
reaffirming their vision
for the next stage of Brexit.
It's a detailed letter.
Here's a highlight, and I quote:
"We will then finalise the text
of the withdrawal agreement to give
the implementation period legal form
at the same time as we build out
with the EU the framework
for our deep and special future
That's their version.
Let's see if our Diplomatic Editor
Mark Urban can make next week's
phase two negotiations sound just
a little bit more exciting.
What happens first?
Well, the Barnier-Davis talks are in
Instead, right now, in order
to avoid a cliff edge,
the UK falling out of the EU
in March 2019, without a deal,
they have to agree
a transition phase.
And they aim to do it very quickly,
over the next few weeks.
It's urgent and it is a high
priority on the agenda.
And we're hoping that that's
going to be negotiated
in the next couple of months.
It's not entirely straightforward.
I think we understand
that the terms on offer are...
It will be basically
a continuation of the status quo.
Although, of course,
the UK would have left the EU,
and therefore won't have a vote
or seat at the table
in future decisions.
To avoid the fabled cliff edge
and secure a transition,
Theresa May's Florence speech
already conceded many principles.
Her Brexiteer MPs may not like it,
but the extension of current EU
rules, ongoing budget contributions
and loss of voting rights
were all signalled back in November.
Now EU states also seem
to be moving, yielding
some important ground on the future
Michel Barnier insisted,
even last month, that UK had
a binary choice between a single
market Norway deal or a Canada-type
trade deal, a point he rammed home
with his graphic about
Britain's Brexit choices.
But the Canada comparison
isn't really that useful,
and is already being undermined
by people like Emmanuel Macron,
who is saying, quite clearly,
that Britain could get something far
more ambitious than Canada's
You will have your own solution.
And my willigness...
There will be a bespoke special
solution for Britain?
Sure, but I take
these two references.
Because this "special way" should be
consistent with the preservation
of the single market
and our collective interest.
But if the EU is ready to concede
a sliding scale of access,
dependent on how closely the UK
alliance with its rules,
it's also used tough language
in its guidelines about
a level playing field.
Under these terms, it'll
try to close off the possibility
of a deregulated Britain gaining
a competitive advantage.
What some Brexiteers
call a Singapore model.
Singapore has a very
And a totally different
conditions for the economy.
But I believe United Kingdom
is competitive, due to the fact
that it has the best
universities in Europe.
That London will remain the most
important financial hub,
not only in Europe, but worldwide.
The EU 27 showed impressive unity
throughout the first
phase of negotiations.
But for months, people in Brussels
have been telling me
that they're not quite so confident
it'll be so united in phase two.
Some countries are far
more closely integrated
with the UK economy, after all.
And some will have to pay
more into the EU budget,
as British contributions taper.
UK diplomats might find
gaps they can exploit.
They're going to be negotiating
a new financial agreement
for the future in 2019.
And without the British
contributions for the future,
the net contributors and the net
recipient states may have
different interests, there.
And amid the snow-covered slopes
of Davos, some European leaders
appear to be going off piste,
suggesting full single market
access could be available,
if the UK pays enough.
There has to be some
price for full access.
And to what extent this access
is going to be available
has to be made dependent
on some other...
Potentially including this
Perhaps the biggest change in Brexit
atmospherics, since the phase one
Perhaps the biggest change in Brexit
atmospherics since the phase one
agreement last month, is that
European leaders taking Britain's
concessions of the Irish border
as evidence that Downing Street
is pursuing a softer way to Brexit,
are starting to discuss
the mutual interests
in minimising trade destruction.
the mutual interests
in minimising trade disruption.
The Dutch, for example,
talking about wanting to minimise
friction in their trade.
The initial reaction that
the United Kingdom must be punished
is now changing and people
begin to understand
that the only reasonable solution
is to find an arrangement
that is the best
possible for both sides.
That takes into account
the interests and the
needs of both sides.
And the hope that the view
of the Dutch Prime Minister
will be the common view
in the European Union.
The Dutch Prime Minister
is in the same situation
as the German Chancellor.
For the German economy,
it is extremely, extremely important
not to damage the economic relation.
Of course, what European leaders
want are further signs that the UK
intends to be very closely aligned
on single market and customs rules.
That possibility delights them.
And one former commission Mandarin
told me it could lead to speedy
trade agreements including on access
for the financial sector.
The only problem in that case,
he said, was, "I don't know how
you could conclude meaningful trade
deals of your own".
Negotiators in Brussels will burn
the midnight oil in coming months.
But key choices, reconciling
the global trading vision of Brexit
with the mutual interest
in keeping trade desruption
with the mutual interest
in keeping trade disruption
to a minimum, must be taken
by Theresa May's government.
Every year, on the 26th of January,
millions of Aussies take
to the pubs, streets and beaches
to commemorate Australia Day.
On Australia Day, we come together
and celebrate our nation
and all of our history.
Happy Australia Day!
They drink beer, enjoy barbies
and take pride in their country,
its culture and its achievements.
It's to celebrate everything that's
good about Australia,
the weather, family, friends.
It's fun, it's Australia.
It's what we do.
But, of late, Australia Day
elicits just as much,
if not more, protest
and controversy than celebration.
It's a day that's,
you know, steeped in blood.
It reminds me of violent
dispossession of my people.
Why are we having this on this date,
if this is the date
that is upsetting so many people?
The date is a painful one,
for indigenous Australians,
because it marks the first arrival
of British settlers in 1788
and recalls past and present
traumas of repression,
loss, exclusion and inequality.
Aboriginal people were only
legally counted as being
Australian as late as 1967.
Some think the day should
be abolished entirely.
Others argue for
a change in the date.
The view of the current
government is that by changing
the date of Australia Day,
you're just denying history,
but the bigger question is,
who decides whose history
should be celebrated?
I am joined now by Douglas Murray
who has written about this issue
in Australia in his latest book
"The Strange Death of Europe"
and from Melbourne by activist
and actor Nakkiah Lui,
a young leader within
the Australian Aboriginal community.
Good evening to you both. Douglas,
is it not time to change Australia
A lot of Australians will
wonder why and they will see it as
an assault on the foundation of
their nation and indeed it is. There
are all sorts of arguments to be had
about history. Nobody would or could
deny the mistreatment and
maltreatment of the aboriginal
peoples. But the problem is, as so
often, the question is whether you
are dealing with critics or enemies.
A lot of Australians will have heard
of organised protests on their
holiday talking not just about the
invasion of Australia, but saying F
Australia, I hope it burns to the
ground. That is not the language of
the critic of a country, that is
somebody talking as an enemy.
that not somebody who is perhaps in
the end so frustrated as it were by
But Australia has not
got denial about this. Australia has
had national sorry days, National
signings of books to say sorry, all
sorts of things. Australia has not
ignored is passed.
What do you say
to that, Australia has not ignored
I think that Douglas is
talking on false premises. A study
recently found that the majority of
Australians would not care what day
it was on. If Australia Day is on
the day that is dividing us, I think
then we need to examine the values
that we are celebrating. And you say
there is no denial of the history of
the past in Australia. Well, there
is, and that is one of the things
why we are protesting. We are having
our national celebrations on a day,
January the 26th, which represents
the day Captain could put that union
Jack in the ground in Australia and
declared sovereign which began
colonisation, which resulted in
genocide. Over 500 massacres on the
east coast of Australia alone. Up to
50% of the aboriginal population
wiped out and that continued into
9067 when my parents were not
considered Australian citizens.
There is denial when you have your
national day on a day that
represents such brutality.
not a situation where you can say,
we live in a new, modern Australia,
modern Australia made up of all
sorts of peoples and we should
create something new?
been having this discussion for
But there is a new
generation coming up.
First of all
what is striking is the tone of
attack on Australia, the tone of
burn this country to the ground.
could agree... That is incorrect. It
is not about that, it is about
changing the date.
But you do not
deny that was said?
I want to come
back to you. But, Douglas, by you
highlighting that, that is a very
political playing card to get your
point across. This organisation and
the organiser has said her comments
were taken out of context.
I want to
ask you, Nakkiah, about this
historical hurt. How deep does go
for your generation?
It continues on
to this day and that is the issue.
Colonisation has made aboriginal
people are very vulnerable.
feel vulnerable growing up? Did it
affect you on a daily basis?
life expectancy is 20 years below
that of a non-aboriginal Australian.
Incarceration rates are much higher,
the majority of aboriginal people
live in poverty. Yes, it did affect
me, I lived in a housing commission
home. My grandparents were afraid of
my parents being stolen and the
children being taken away.
continued through three generations.
Douglas, you are in favour of the
first nation in a country having a
special status. For example, in the
UK we want to celebrate that here.
If the nation is the first nation
and the indigenous nation, surely it
should have a special celebration?
Surely, they do and it should
happen. No, a primary one, they are
the first people of that country.
very similar thing is happening in
America and Canada. This movement is
what Australia is part of as well.
Movements as everywhere the
Europeans went they have colonised
and destroyed. We could have a
sensible weighing up of the
discussion without saying the
Europeans are colonists and they
have done genocide and they are
But they were
colonists, that is a fact.
question keeps on coming back about
historical guilt and the appropriate
weighing up of history. We have not
had that in the past in Australia.
We do not get it with the bird
Australia stuff down either.
you both very much.
Thank you both very much.
Finally, last night,
in a report on the controversial
Presidents Club Dinner,
we said that the Labour
peer Lord Mendelsohn,
had been asked to step back
from the front bench,
having attended the dinner.
Unfortunately, the BBC's automatic
subtitling system wrote
the name as Lord Mandelson,
the former Labour Cabinet minister.
Peter Mandelson was not at the event
and we apologise for the error.
That's all for this evening.
But before we go, German filmmaker
Florian Nick spent six weeks
travelling 3,400 miles
in the western provinces of Canada,
capturing over 54,000 photos
to assemble a series
of time-lapse images.
We leave you with
the stunning results.