01/02/2018 Newsnight

EDL founder Tommy Robinson's

writings were found

in Osborne's possession -

we'll ask him if he bears any

responsibility for the killing.

And we'll ask

if we are witnessing

a resurgence of the far right

Also tonight, religion in schools,

Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman's

comments have sparked

an angry debate.

She is playing divide and rule

politics with different faiths.

We'll talk to Ms Spielman

and discuss whether extremism has

spun out of control in some areas.

Also tonight - darts, Formula One.

Will the boxing ring

girls be the next to go?

We'll debate whether

women should fight

for their right to bare arms

and legs and the rest.

Good evening.

Darren Osborne was convicted of

murder and attempted murder today,

after deliberately driving a van

at a group of Muslim men

near Finsbury Park mosque

in London last June,

killing father-of-six Makram Ali

and injuring nine others.

The CPS prosecuted the case

as a terrorist offence

because Osborne's actions

were in order to advance

a political purpose.

Commander Dean Haydon,

head of Scotland Yard's

counter-terrorism operation,

said the internet had played

a significant role in in fuelling

Osborne's "hate-filled agenda".

The trial heard that far-right

material online played a key part

in his radicalisation and,

in the lead-up to the June

attack, Osborne had searched online

for English Defence League founder

Tommy Robinson, and Britain First's

Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding.

I'll be talking to Robinson

in a moment or two, but first

here is John Sweeney.

The final murder of the summer had

echoes of the other attacks. A

killer radicalised online. A vehicle

marooned on pedestrians. And,

driving it all, hate. This attack

was by a far right fanatic out to

kill Muslims. -- vehicle knocked

down pedestrians. Darren Osborne

appears to have found hate after

watching this, a BBC miniseries

about systematic child abuse in

Rochdale. He went on-line searching

for far right website and followed,

amongst others, Tommy Robinson,

former leader of the English Defence

League. In this pub, the night

before the attack, he wrote a note

condemning men hunt in packs preying

on our children. The court heard

evidence he had become brainwashed.

Darren Osborne, over four weeks in

the lead up to the attack, became,

in my mind, radicalised. It started

with him watching a TV documentary

drama in relation to six abuse in

Rochdale. That, we believe, was the

catalyst for the start of his

radicalisation. -- sex abuse in

Rochdale.

His plan was to kill the

Labour Party leader at a

demonstration. The QC questioned,

were you hoping that you would have

an opportunity to attack Jeremy

Corbyn and kill him?

He could not get close to the

demonstration and drove around

London until he found another

target. This is the moment of

impact, when he drove into a crowd

near the Finsbury Park mosque.

Darren Osborne has been convicted of

murder and attempted murder. Nine

people were injured in the attack.

Seven months on it is worth noting

one other commonality between the

fanatics of so-called Islamic State

and the far right, in their goal of

turning Britain apart they have

failed. -- caring Britain apart.

As you heard there, police have

commented on the speed

at which Osborne was radicalised.

The court heard he had been seeking

out far-right material online

in the weeks before he carried

out his attack.

Among the material he read and saved

were tweets from the man

known as Tommy Robinson -

the former leader of

the English Defence League.

I spoke to Robinson

earlier and I asked him

if he accepted any responsibility

for the radicalisation

of Darren Osborne.

No, of course I don't. I'm insulted

you asking me that. What I cannot

understand is the narrative in the

media this week, every headline has

a picture of me. I did not know this

man, I don't know this man, I did

not direct message him, which is a

lie that has been put out on social

media.

Not the BBC.

Yes, on the BBC.

All of the media said I said Tim

direct messages on Twitter. That is

a lie. -- sent him direct messages.

I work for a media company in

Canada. The problem I have is that

when we are talking about what has

radicalised this man, we had 512

people injured and children blown to

pieces. 48 injured, nine murdered.

49 injured and eight people

murdered. We had all of this in a

five-week barrier. You'd think what

everybody is trying to do is to make

it to the Mac that he was invited to

a silent march.

There is evidence he

was looking you up a lot on the

Internet. -- make it down to the

fact he was. You tweeted, where was

the day of rage after terrorist

attacks, all I saw was lighted

candles. Emerson bombed our kids, we

were told not to look back in anger.

-- a Muslim bombed.

Will you put a

screen shot of that? You have taken

it out of context. After Grenfell

Tower happened far left

organisations had a day of rage

planned. They had leaflets for it.

You have that leaflet. But you have

purposely left it out of it and you

are making it sound like I said

that. I was showing the hypocrisy in

this country. Would you have done is

misrepresent the truth of the tweet.

On purpose.

When a Muslim bombed our

kids we were told not to look back

in anger, what was the purpose of

that? That was on the dashboard of

Darren Osborne's van when he

attacked.

He wrote the reasons why

he done this. Why aren't we talking

about that? I'll tell you why.

He

obsessively look you up online. That

is all I am saying.

He wrote

terrorists marched through our

country today. There was a march.

You are the BBC News. You didn't

report on that March.

Do you accept

there is a lot of hate speech about

Chris you didn't report

Do you take any responsibility for

that being hate speech?

Do you think

it is?

I'm asking you.

You have

Muslims in this country calling for

the death of homosexuals. That is

hate speech. Me saying don't look

back in anger is not hate speech.

Why do you think that he obsessively

looked for you online? It is the

case that you were presenting in a

way that encouraged him to take

action against people.

Absolutely

unbelievable you are saying that. 49

million people watched that video.

The reason why people were searching

for me is because I give them the

truth. Unlike you.

truth. Unlike you.

Fact is, after he

attacked outside Finsbury Mosque. He

wrote a letter. In that letter he

quoted your tweet.

No he didn't.

It

was heard in court.

For your

viewers, read what he said. He

quoted Sadiq Khan. He is a part and

parcel of living in a big city. He

quoted Jeremy Corbyn.

He quoted you

in his letter.

No, he didn't.

We

were told not to look back in anger.

He said don't look back in anger.

The front page of the sun newspaper,

after the Manchester attack, was

don't look back in anger. He quoted

a national newspaper.

Do you deny he

quoted you in anyway?

He didn't

quote me. Why are you not looking at

the reasons. Why are you not looking

at the fact we have three massive

terrorist attacks.

That is not what

this is about.

This is the reason

why he has done it.

It is about the

rise of far right mainstream.

This

is unbelievable.

He was radicalised

in four weeks.

I'm embarrassed for

the BBC. We have three terrorist

attacks in quick succession. Rather

than talking about those and why he

reacted he told you why he reacted,

you want to put it on the fact that

I report the truth.

Terrorist

attacks are appalling.

You do not

think they are anything to do with

the reason why he done this? You

think it is because I said don't

look back in anger?

I'm asking,

there are contributing factors, he

was radicalised online.

His wife

said...

The police said that he

obsessively looked at your, looked

for you online and quoted your

tweets. That's a fact.

His wife said

he was radicalised after that BBC

documentary. Why don't you sit the

producer of that documentary down

and ask if he feels responsible? You

don't.

Is what Darren Osborne did

appalling and reprehensible?

Of

course, what sort of silly question

is that? He has knocked down in the

street. It also would the BBC is BBC

is doing is disgusting and

irresponsible as a media outlet.

Thanks very much.

Joining me now is Fiyaz Mughal,

who founded Measuring

Anti-Muslim Attacks -

a group which monitors anti-muslim

activity and supports

those affected by it.

Good evening. Do you think there is

growing concern about aggression on

the far right?

Absolutely. Over the

last five years my group has been

clearly making the case that there

has been an enormous amount of

anti-Muslim hatred and anti-Muslim

material being pumped out by groups

and individuals, which has been on

the online space and easy to find.

Much of this rhetoric, the issue of

calling Muslims generally

paedophiles, people who prey on

women, this generalisation, creates

mindsets which sadly we have seen

today to kill in our streets.

When

these are put up online. And clearly

offensive. How quickly can you get

them down?

We cannot get them down.

We've been having these discussions

with social media outlets for six

years. There is a lazy approach by

these agencies to remove materials.

They say free speech means counter

speech will flood out the negative

messages. They give this grandiose

view which is unrealistic.

There

is... If you want to call it on both

sides of this divide, and it's a

horrible thing to say, but it isn't

all one-way traffic.

It isn't. Tommy

Robinson is a result of anti-Muslim

extremism. He promotes division in

this country. He has the gall to sit

here and says he has nothing to do

with issues is a problem.

Where do

you see it? On the online space,

posters, do you hear it on the

streets? Where do you think it is

most pervasive?

In the online space.

Less so on the streets. The EDL's

back has been broken. That was

evident in 2012 when they fractured

and fragmented 2013. The online

space is toxic. Social media

companies are not providing

resources for counter speech. And

they are not listening. If they do

not take off material that is

causing fractures in our community

then there needs to be some redress

and measure to make them change

their macro behaviour.

Given that

you say it has been six years since

you have been trying to have some

degree of responsibility with online

providers. -- change their

behaviour. What else can you do to

alter the atmosphere?

To alter it we

need positive messaging. We need

good role models. We need positive

images of Muslims playing a positive

role in our country consistently. We

need fewer voices and less oxygen

given to people like Robinson and

his ilk who pour out of these

messages and take no responsibility

for the fractures and divisions they

cause.

Those fractions and deep --

fractures and deep divisions, you

get them from all sectors of

society. How do you count it from

not just the far right, but the far

left, and different religious

extremists?

Lots of work has been

done on the Islamist side. We tackle

this issue daily. What we are saying

is that what people like Robinson

and the fractures he creates.

Thanks

very much indeed.

Theresa May met China's President Xi

today on the latest

stage of her trip.

Certain corners of the UK were

celebrating after the Prime Minister

used the trip to secure the Scotch

whisky trademark for another decade.

But away from trade,

it's been a week of politics

dominated by Brexit.

Today, battle lines were drawn

between London and Brussels

when Mrs May announced she would be

tough on migrants entering Britain

during the transition period.

But, tonight, the battle was closer

to home, as a row exploded

with her government.

Our political editor

Nick Watt is here.

Yet another round.

Interestingly a

story in the EFTA saying Theresa

May's advisers are looking into

whether the UK could work up a

customs deal with the European Union

that would cover goods -- financial

Times. Downing Street saying this is

not going on. I spoke to a Brexit

Minister, Brexit leading minister

who said if you do that it is not a

coherent trade policy because you

could not sign your own trade deals

and this plays into the row about

the customs union and the fear among

Brexiteers that civil servants are

skewing evidence and reports to walk

ministers towards one conclusion

which is we have to stay in the

customs union. Brexit Minister Steve

Baker appeared in the Commons to

give some support to that view and

around the time he was speaking, Sir

Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet

Secretary, popped up on Twitter and

looks like he was responding to

something Steve Baker said when he

said civil servants are always

wrong. He said...

Steve Baker apologised this evening

for his comments in the House of

Commons today and indicated he had

sort of misquoted Charles Grant, the

director of the Centre For European

Reform who he said had given the

impression civil servants were

skewing things in the direction of

the customs union.

This is what we

think is going on but what else is

happening behind the scenes?

There

is real concern among Brexit

backbenchers and leaning ministers

that that leaked a BuzzFeed that

says UK civil servants as every

option in Brexit makes us poor, they

have two fears, one Eurosceptic Tory

said the civil service out of

control and doing their own thing or

has Theresa May given the authority

to do this and not telling anyone,

and this is what the Eurosceptic

Tory said, if this is what the Prime

Minister is doing, this is how you

kick off a civil war in one easy

step.

Thanks.

Today, Ofsted's Chief Inspector

threw her full weight behind

the head teacher of a predominantly

Muslim state primary school

in London who banned the hijab

for girls under the age of eight -

a move that resulted

in the resignation of the chair

of governors who had originally

supported the ban.

Today in a speech at a Church

of England conference,

Amanda Spielman said that schools

had to pursue "muscular liberalism,"

and that inspectors

are increasingly brought

into contact with those

who want to actively pervert

the purpose of education.

Strong words - but strong words too

from the Muslim Council

of Great Britain who called the ban

"appalling" and discriminatory.

Here's our political

editor Nick Watt.

It is one of the great European

debates. Just where should religion

and fit in our public spaces? The

secular state of France has a simple

view. No religious symbols in any

area associated with the state.

Across the channel and on the other

side of the spectrum Britain has

traditionally allowed religion a

place at the heart of its public

sphere, generally on its terms.

Close to one of England's grandest

cathedral is the Chief Inspector of

Schools declared neither view is

right today. Amanda Spielman hailed

the role of faith schools at a

tolerant society but told her

audience in London that those values

of respect and tolerance cannot be

used to place all belief beyond

criticism.

Ofsted inspectors are

increasingly brought into contact

with those who want to actively

perverts the purpose of education

under the pretext of religious

belief they use education

institutions to narrow young

people'shorizons, and in the worst

cases to indoctrinate impressionable

minds with extremist ideology.

She added... The chief Inspector's

mornings were mainly aimed at

Islamic extremists although she has

concerns about intolerance in other

faiths. In her mind she believes it

is important to tackle extremist

ideology as well as extremist

violence. She has some sympathy for

Michael Gove's phrase about the

importance of draining the swamp and

not just beating back the crocodiles

that come close to the boat. The

former Education Secretary was

speaking in 2014 at the height of a

dispute with the Home Office in the

wake of the so-called Trojan horse

row about extremism in Birmingham

schools. Today Amanda Spielman

praised a London headteacher who try

to stop young girls from wearing the

hijab and she spoke of reticence

among some church schools to

challenge fundamentalist practices,

as she cited a Tower Hamlets school

that lost its outstanding rating in

2014 after failing to respond

adequately to warnings about

extremism.

It means by making sure

being anxious to do the right thing

we do not do the wrong thing. We

have to make sure we have tolerance

and respect for all faiths in

schools but we can accidentally go

so far we find ourselves bringing

community tensions into schools.

She

is recklessly playing divide and

rule politics with different faiths.

There are big questions. Also, it is

not just the divide and rule but the

singling out and demonisation of

Muslim communities that most of

third sector organisations are

uncomfortable with.

Younger children

of all faiths and none will be

skipping, walking or dragging their

feet to school in the morning.

Little do they know they lie at the

heart of a passionate debate about

the values of their country.

Amanda Speilman is with me now.

Can I quote something from your

speech today, you said Ofsted

inspectors of increasingly brought

into contact with those who actively

perverts the purpose of education.

What do you mean? There are schools

in the state sector and independent

schools, where we find

unsatisfactory things being taught.

I have talked before about the kinds

of books, not just in libraries but

being taught from, encouraging

husbands to beat their wives. Those

things are simply not compatible.

They are presumably a minority of

schools? Quite a small minority but

we are also coming across evidence

there are tensions in communities,

often between different parts of the

same

same faith, for example, tensions

between those Muslims who like very

young girls to wear their hijab and

those who do not and we see the

tensions imported into schools so

part of our responsibility is to

make sure all children have the

right educational experience.

You

make it clear we are not just

talking about the Muslim faith but

unfortunately, are there more issues

there than for example in Anglican

schools, civic schools?

It is very

hard, I do not have numbers but we

see it in schools of all faiths.

There are fantastic schools of every

faith and no face and there are

schools that cause concern in every

quarter.

We can turn to the primary

school in new in east London. You

talk about what is happening and the

response to the hijab ban as a

matter of regret and what you said

in your speech today was this school

introduced a ban on young girls

under eight wearing the hijab and

you strongly supported the

headteacher in her freedom to do

that.

This is the kind of thing I

was warning about last year, which

got attention at the time. It was

represented as being Islamophobic

but it is not. This is concern about

bringing adult pressures and

disagreements to bear on young

children in primary schools.

I'm

interested because this new primary

School is outstanding academically

and presuming it had an outstanding

report before you brought inspectors

in yesterday and has achieved a lot.

If that is the case, why do you

think you have to step in and say

what this teacher is doing is

correct if the school is thriving?

We look not just at educational

outcome, we have to look at the

personal development and welfare of

children and if we see things that

suggest any kind of bullying, that

is what inspectors look at. They

talk to children and get a sense of

whether the culture, pressures in

the school are as they should be.

I

suppose you could say that if you

have said in a major speech you back

the teacher because wearing the

hijab for

hijab for under eightis wrong for

the school, is this something you

think you could say wearing the

hijab after puberty is right. I

think I support the idea that no

child under eight should wear the

hijab, or is it simply this school?

The point is that the headteacher

made a decision. On what basis? On

the basis it is the responsibility

of the head to set uniform policy.

What was her reason for not allowing

kids under eight to wear the hijab?

That is before puberty and there is

no religious requirement, it is a

cultural preference.

So that school

is one thing, and another another

thing. Taking a position on this,

are you stepping into an area where

actually you would rather was

devolved to headteachers in the

first place?

This is our concern.

When we see a school is being

bullied. The school took the

decision some months ago. The policy

has been running for a while but

when it attracted media attention

great pressure was brought to bear,

not in the immediate community.

You

put inspectors in yesterday. I

wonder if the outcome could be

anti-theft local to a lot of Muslims

who would say we would rather we

have this policy. You could conflate

what could be seen as conservatism

with extremism.

On the contrary.

There are different issues. It is so

important that schools... Schools

have a responsibility to promote

cohesion in a diverse world. They

can never give every parent exactly

what they want but they have to take

sensible decisions for the benefit

of all children. I am concerned when

I see the schools losing authority

to take the right decisions.

We have

a new Education Secretary. I wonder

if you would like to see that

Education Secretary press ahead with

a revived grammar School programme

given it was in the Conservative

manifesto.

That is something that

was in the manifesto. It is not

something I have taken a position

on. My job is to inspect schools.

Do

you think the addition of grammar

schools would be valuable?

That is

not something I have expressed an

opinion on before and I'm not going

to now.

We can discuss this further.

I'm joined here in the studio

by Gita Sahgal, founder

of the center for Secular Space

and Sajid Gulzar -

chief executive and executive head

of Prince Albert Community Trust,

which currently runs three

schools in Birmingham.

Good evening. What message do you

think Amanda Spielman is giving by

backing new?

I think any school

needs to be free to set its own

uniform policy. There is no

requirement for Muslim girls of the

age of eight and below to wear the

hijab, but equally, I am not sure

how the banning of the hijab fits in

with the British value of mutual

respect and tolerance for all

faiths.

In your school, would girls

of any age be allowed to wear the

hijab, would anyone who wants to

wear something of a religious nature

a cross or what ever, be allowed to

wear ripped?

Within reason. We have

many Muslim girls who wear the hijab

and many who do not. In my almost 20

years in education I have not come

across any community tensions

between those who do or do not. We

have families where you might have

sisters who send their children to

the school, one wearing the hijab,

one not. It has never been a

problem.

Do you think mutual tolerance,

allowing people to wear what they

wish and when, is a good thing for

British society?

I think we are

confusing the issue of growing

fundamentalism with tolerance.

Amanda Spielman, when she gave the

speech in front of the Church of

England audience in considered

words, did suggest faith schools are

not talking to each other

necessarily, the church is not

sufficiently challenging

fundamentalists in their midst and

that the church is hindering the

registration of the inspection of

unregistered schools. So this

problem is wider than that of

Muslims. When we look at the issue

of tolerance, we cannot narrow it to

the issue of the hijab. I think the

promotion of the hijab, and this has

not just happened because of

individual choices, there has been a

policy led by the Muslim Council of

Britain to promote the hijab in

mainstream schools. Many schools

have adopted it as a policy when it

has been completely unrecognised in

traditional Muslim culture.

traditional Muslim culture.

Are you

talking about freedom to choose?

There is a freedom to choose, and

often within families girls dress

differently.

There may be a

difference in families. What we are

seeing in the promotion of very

young children, not only wearing the

hijab, but the promotion of fasting.

St school under fire, the school in

Newham, they had not banned fasting.

Children were fainting in school,

sometimes staff were, that is a

health and safety issue.

We don't

have any proof for that. -- the

school under fire, the school in

Newham.

I don't think he was lying

when he made that claim.

Are there

certain things within your school

that you say are not acceptable?

Would fasting be acceptable? Are

there other things that you say,

this is the curriculum, this is the

way I run my school, this is what I

do?

The point is one of dialogue and

working with the community you

serve, regardless of what faith

background, or cultural persuasion

that community is. We take a stance

on fasting. We strongly discourage

children to fast, particularly if it

is very long, which it has been in

recent years. We have asked the

imams to come in and discuss it with

the parents. When there is

discussion it is OK. The discussion

of the hijab, that is certainly

outside my experience of being a

head teacher responsible for several

schools in Birmingham. It is not

something I have come across in

Birmingham. I do not know of any

promotion of the hijab in that

respect at all.

The

respect at all.

The trust, the one

that was responsible for the mixed

sex school, it was a body that

actually wrote regulations for it.

It is only fair to put it to you.

What you say about that?

That's

right. I didn't catch your name. You

absolutely use your role as they

head to decide what is and isn't

acceptable. And to set boundaries.

You discourage fasting. That's your

responsibility as they head to make

those decisions.

Are the decisions

of head teachers being eroded?

That

is what we saw at Saint Stephens. A

policy which had been put in place

for some months. Not liked by all

parents but accepted. Outside groups

came in and put pressure on the

school to reverse the policy. They

were not part of the school

community.

Will you be on their

macro case? Are you going to follow

this through to get a good

atmosphere in the school? -- will

you be on their case?

All we can do

is report on what we find. That is

why we visited the school, so that

we can report.

Thanks very much

indeed.

Should young women be employed

in the service of a sport

to promote and enhance

the atmosphere around

certain sportsmen?

Until recently the answer was yes -

for Formula One and darts amongst

others.

But the mood has changed in light

of the me too campaign

and the Presidents Club.

Such is the furore around

yesterday's announcement that F1's

"grid girls" will go,

and this debate has gained currency

in a whole host of sports

and encompasses everything

from banner waving to

counting out the rounds

in boxing, to cheerleading.

So what next?

I'm joined in the studio

by former Formula 1

journalist Beverley Turner.

And in Glasgow by Victoria Obahor,

who works in the boxing

world as a "ring girl"

and is worried her job might

be under threat.

Good evening. Victoria, do you think

boxing is about to ban ring girls?

I

hope not. The opinions of people

saying it should be banned is

diabolical. It is absurd.

What do

you do as a ring girl?

I scored the

boxes into the ring. I tell the

audience what the next round is...

It is fun, it is part of the show,

exciting, glamorous. -- I escort the

boxs into the ring.

Do you think it

is part of the entertainment?

Yes.

This is somebody earning a living,

doing what she wants to do. Why do

you have such a problem with that?

It is not that I necessarily have a

problem with it. We must remember

that the girls in Formula 1 have not

been banned. The Formula 1

organisation has decided that that

image of women as the

image of women as the totty no

longer represents the brand. And

quite right. Long gone are the days

of the women being the icing. It

sends a powerful message to the next

generation.

But these are women who

are earning a living, doing what

they enjoy coming you might say the

same of any other entertainer.

It is

an entertainment business. And in

entertainment no job is secure. This

isn't about feminism, taking these

women's jobs away from them.

It is!

To some extent but it is about the

owners of Formula 1 who are

conspicuous by their macro -- by

their absence in this debate.

Bernie

Ecclestone said it was a ridiculous

thing. That might be a generational

thing. The conversation started with

Formula 1. What do you think of the

idea that there will be no more

great girls?

I think it is a shame.

-- no more grid girls. I think it is

political correctness gone mad.

Have

you ever had inappropriate behaviour

towards you or any of the other

women who work with you?

None

whatsoever. It is fun. Everybody is

there for a good show that the

boxers put on and ourselves walking

in the ring. We are not doing any

harm to anybody. People have their

opinions, but it's me, it's my

income, and I love doing it and I

want to keep doing it.

Do you get

power from doing it?

Feminists say

that it is degrading. It isn't. I

have worked hard for the way I look,

my body, and if I want to express

myself in that way then fair enough.

She's right, isn't she?

I don't

think so. I'm not saying that she

couldn't do any other job. I'm quite

surprised by the outpouring of

sympathy from a lot of middle-aged

men who have clearly been worried

about the long-term career prospects

of these girls. Strangely they are

not interested in the long term

career prospects of female drivers,

of which there are none.

But there

are female boxers. You are saying

women shouldn't be there for the

entertainment purposes of

essentially a male sport. NFL is

about to kick off. All of the

adverts have the cheerleaders.

Cheerleaders are completely

different.

Why?

Beer athletic,

gymnasts. You and I couldn't do what

they do. You and I could hold a

number up in a boxing ring. -- they

are athletic.

What you think about

that?

That's ridiculous. We are all

doing a job. Whether we are athletic

or not. I'm doing a job as well as

them. I do not get your views on

that at all.

Do you think male

attitudes are changing? Men are now

saying for themselves, actually,

this is not to do with the sport any

more, maybe they have daughters,

sisters...

It is totally that. We

have so many images of women in the

palms of our hand. You no longer

have to go to a Formula 1 race to

get a glimpse of a woman on the

tarmac. Those days are gone.

I'm

asking... Women are patronising

other women about the decisions and

choices they make.

It's not about

patronising other women. I want my

daughters and my son to grow up with

a very good view of what it is to be

a woman. I don't want them to grow

up thinking we only judge women by

what they look like. In Formula 1

and boxing, the women...

What do you

think?

That's my prerogative. You

don't want your children, for

instance your daughter, to do that

then that is up to you. But my

mother is proud of me when I go up

there.

Thank you both very much. On

the front pages, Theresa May and the

Chinese president.

Cut pay-outs for blunders or the NHS

will go bust on the front of the

Daily Telegraph. And ministers

watering down EU migrant plan in the

Telegraph. In the Guardian, Labour

plan to force cheap sale of land to

the state. And a review of far right

attack after the verdict. That is

all. Goodbye.