26/01/2018 Newsnight

Of course he's going to reoffend,

but I think the one thing that's

worrying me and possibly other

people,

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

negotiations.

That, for months,

people in Brussels have been telling

me that they're not quite so

confident it will be so united in

phase two.

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?

Good evening.

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

still contesting.

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.

What had

happened when you got into the cab?

Did he engage in conversation

straightaway?

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

next morning.

But, as far as a

next morning.

But, as far as a rape

was concerned, evidentially, what

was there?

Well, I was told by the

police there was no drugs in my

system. And there was, obviously, no

DNA evidence.

Because he was using a

condom.

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.

And there

was evidence he had tried to use a

lubricant or something?

Yeah.

And

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.

You were

so sure that your case was one of

the cases that would go to court, so

what happened?

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.

But that's

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

out.

Where were you when you heard

that Worboys was to be released?

I

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

victims.

Has anyone called you to

offer support from, you know, the

police services?

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.

Are you

fearful?

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

them.

So how will you stop it?

Well,

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

board decision?

That was a parole

board decision.

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

crowdfunding.

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.

For now,

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.

Connected?

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

private life.

Downing Street, do

they know?

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.

Thanks.

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

partnership".

Stirring stuff.

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

abeyance.

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

trading relationship.

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

free-trade treaty.

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

authoritarian regime.

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...

Contributions.

Potentially including this

financial contribution.

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.

And soon.

Every year, on the 26th of January,

millions of Aussies take

to the pubs, streets and beaches

to commemorate Australia Day.

Arms!

Arms!

On Australia Day, we come together

and celebrate our nation

and all of our history.

ALL:

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 safe.

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

Day?

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.

Is

that not somebody who is perhaps in

the end so frustrated as it were by

the denial?

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

its past?

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.

Is there

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?

Australia has

been having this discussion for

decades.

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.

We

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.

Did you

feel vulnerable growing up? Did it

affect you on a daily basis?

Our

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.

That

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.

A

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

still guilty.

But they were

colonists, that is a fact.

The

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.

Thank

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,

spelt Mend-e-l-s-o-h-n,

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.

Good night.