20/02/2018 Newsnight

Payday like today is not a day for

sound bites, we will leave those at

home.

sound bites, we will leave those at

home. . I feel the under history our

shoulder, I really do, and I just

think we need to acknowledge that

and respond to it. Maybe it is

impossible to find a way through,

maybe with the best faith in the

world you cannot do it, but it is to

try.

That was two decades ago -

the people voted,

and the Good Friday

Agreement was signed,

cementing the peace

in Northern Ireland.

Now, with Brexit on its way,

comes the idea that the

agreement is flawed.

There's no question

that these Brexit extremists,

in their hard-line support

for a particular dogmatic

position of Brexit,

are actually playing with fire,

they're in danger in the peace

process, and they could incite

dissident IRA groups.

A new potential strain on relations

between the Unionists and

nationalists, the UK and Ireland.

But does it make sense to rewrite

an agreement that is not

delivering self-rule anyway?

We hear from the Irish government.

Also tonight, the rebel-held Syrian

enclave of Eastern Ghouta

could become a second Aleppo,

says the UN.

Almost 200 people

have died in bombings

by government forces there

since Sunday.

And a male model tells us

of the inappropriate

behaviour he faces at work.

Hello.

Two challenges make this a fraught

time in Northern Ireland.

One, it can't agree on self

government, and two, Brexit.

And so it has been interesting

to watch, in the last few days,

a small number of keen Brexit

supporters suggest that the

20-year-old Good Friday Agreement

is past its sell-by date.

Kate Hoey said it's time

for a "cold, rational look at it."

MEP Daniel Hannan wrote a Telegraph

piece arguing that British ministers

should "start working

with their Irish counterparts

on improving the system."

It's gently phrased,

and it's not a Brexit point

they are making per se,

but this sentiment has only

come from that side.

There's an interesting

linguistic point here, too -

critics of the agreement tend

to call it the Belfast Agreement,

perhaps because Good Friday makes

it sound too holy or reverential.

But whatever you call it,

for many, the agreement is,

of course, synonymous with peace.

Today, the Irish government called

those who questioned it "reckless".

The British said they stand

by it "steadfastly".

So what is going on?

Our political editor,

Nick Watt, reports.

Yes, 71.12%.

The British people have

spoken and the answer is we are out.

They were seismic votes changing the

intertwined history of these

islands, and the legacy of those

referendums, nearly two decades

apart, are haunting the politics of

today.

today. Remain supporters trim of

keeping the UK in the EU, and now

some Unionist supporters believe the

time has come to revisit the Good

Friday Agreement after last week's

failure to restore power-sharing.

I

think the word refresh of the Good

Friday Agreement of the Belfast

Agreement, as I would call it, is

actually quite important, because

time changes lots and lots of

things, and of course what we are

seeing under direct rule, we have

that space to look at it. We can't

have a situation where there are two

parties in mandatory coalition and

one can always pull the plug and say

we are walking away, and then they

don't go back in until they get some

new demands.

Today, the Government

made clear it stands foursquare

behind the agreement.

As the House

will recognise, this April marks the

anniversary of the historic Belfast

Agreement. That agreement, along

with successors, has been

fundamental in helping Northern

Ireland moved forward from its

violent past 12 bright, more secure

future, and this Government's

support for the agreements remain

steadfast, as does the commitment to

govern for everybody in Northern

Ireland.

There is fury in senior

parts of government after senior

Tories lent their wits to a rethink

on the agreement, one said it would

be the height of absurdity to make

unilateral changes to the 1998

agreement. From the Prime Minister

downwards, there is a determination

to establish all of its institutions

by brokering a deal between the DUP

and Sinn Fein. But one of the

original signatories to the Good

Friday Agreement says that

government must act by introducing a

short Parliamentary bill to hand the

powers vested in the Northern

Ireland power-sharing executive to

its assembly.

Instead of just going

on with London's intervening from

time to time to do things, but not

having proper decisions made by

people who have their roots in

Northern Ireland and are accountable

to the electorate, the only way we

can proceed is by having a situation

where the assembly can function

without an executive will stop and I

think that is possible, and it would

be a wake of avoiding the present

impasse.

A former Northern Ireland

Secretary who presided over changes

to the Good Friday Agreement a

decade ago act acknowledges that

there is a precedent for amending

the accord. But he warns that today

is's calls for change, mainly from

Brexit supporters, could have grave

consequences.

There is no question

that these Brextremists, in their

hard-line support for a particular

dogmatic position on Brexit, are

actually playing with fire,

endangering the peace process, and

they could incite dissident IRA

groups who are very well armed and

have made attacks and killed people

in recent years, although they are

very isolated and marginalised at

the moment, it could incite greater

support for them and a greater

threat from them.

I don't think

there's any threat, any long-term

threat to what we agreed 20 years

ago. And I don't think there's any

chance of there being a breakdown

and a return to violence.

Sinn Fein

agrees that dissident republicans

pose no threat to the peace process,

but the party warns of the dangers

of challenging the Good Friday

Agreement.

These interventions

represents nothing more than a

wrecker's charter, and in fact the

very wrong-headed and irresponsible

nature of the interventions at this

particular point in time, in fact,

exaggerate the extent of the

political crisis that we are living

through. The Good Friday Agreement

has been under relentless push back

from sections of political unionism

from when it was first signed.

Referendums are meant to settle

political disputes for a generation,

from the Good Friday Agreement to

Brexit, we are learning that to some

they are not the final word.

Nick Watt reporting.

I am now joined from Dublin

by the Minister for European Affairs

in the Irish government,

Helen McEntee.

Good evening to you, thanks for

joining us, what is your reaction to

this debate that has cropped up in

this country over the last few days?

Well, what I would welcome, firstly,

is comments by Karen Bradley and

other members of the British

Government, who have very clearly

said that the Good Friday Agreement

is the only way to move forward and

is essentially the only show in

town. The Good Friday Agreement is

an international peace Treaty and

has been for the last 20 years the

only way that every political voice,

every political view and expression

has been heard and can be heard, and

I think for any suggestions that

have been made that it is past its

sell by date, that it is no longer

of use, I would ask those people too

maybe reflect on what things were

like 20 years ago, before the

agreement was in place. So I welcome

confirmation from the British

Government that it is the only way

forward, and the Irish government

are saying the same.

Let's break

this down, what would happen if the

British Government did unilaterally

change aspects of the Good Friday

Agreement in an attempt to make it

work better, for example? What

actually happens if it does do that?

Well, I mean, the Good Friday

Agreement is an international peace

treaty, a young treaty, and you

would be essentially changing the

way in which citizens north and

South, East and West work with each

other, engage with each other, and

what we have seen over the past 20

years is that we have been able to

work together, parties in the north

have been able to work in a

power-sharing executive. Yes, we

have hit a bump in the road, but

that has not been we need to

completely change path, it just

means we need to work together, and

that is our focus, the Irish,'s

focus -- the Irish's government

focus to work with everyone to make

sure that those elements of the

agreement can be upheld.

Obviously,

we can't go on forever pretending

that the agreement is working if it

is not delivering an assembly or an

executive in Northern Ireland that

is operating. How long would you

give it before everybody has to sit

down and think again? It has been,

what, 30 months now, do you go on

and on saying, let's try?

Well, I

mean, I think it is disappointing

that we are over one year on and

that we don't have an executive, and

last week's events were obviously of

concern, but there are a number of

mechanisms through which we can work

on what is happening, the executive

being the most important one, but we

also have areas of cooperation, the

North-South Ministerial Council and

the British Irish Council, and we

need to make sure, in the absence of

a functioning executive, that they

are given the power and ability to

uphold the elements of the

agreement.

You have said something

very important, sorry to interrupt,

something very important - is that

your backstop, substitute for the

working of the executive and the

assembly? Your substitute is joint

sovereignty of the Republic and the

UK over Northern Ireland? Is that

what you want to see if the parties

in the North don't get together?

Well, what we want to see is an

executive functioning Emma North,

and what we will do is work with the

British governor...

I understand

that, but what is your Plan B?

To

make sure those mechanisms are in

place, the North-South Ministerial

Council and the British Irish

Council are already there, already

functioning, and in the absence of

an executive, we need to make sure

that we are working to the best of

our ability...

I understand your

focus, I understand that getting it

to work, yeah, yeah. But what about

plans to reform our Northern Ireland

works? You could say that he would

move to the Welsh model, the

assembly chooses the executive, you

don't enshrine in an international

peace treaty, you know, a coalition

that will permanently operate

between the two sites, you say, we

will let the assembly picket. If

they can't get it together, would

you be open to the idea of joint

talks, not unilateral, where that

was the kind of thing on the table?

The Good Friday Agreement as, I

think, the full support of the

Northern Ireland citizens, and also

citizens in the Republic as well,

and we heard the statistics at the

beginning of the show, over 71% of

people overwhelmingly voted in

favour of this process, this

mechanism, joint power and

cooperation, and in the south those

figures bring it up to 94%. So the

idea of trying to amend something

that has worked very successfully,

as I said, yes, we have hit a bump

in the road, yes, there are

challenges not just in Northern

Ireland, but obviously with Brexit,

and we are dealing with those, but I

think the Good Friday Agreement is

something that we need to work

with...

Helen McEntee, that point

you have made very clearly, thanks

so much for joining us.

Now, Nick Watt joins me with news

of further ructions in the Tory

ranks this evening over Brexit.

What has been happening?

I was

talking to a Remain member of the

Cabinet this afternoon, who was very

cheerful after the speech by David

Davis, when he said the UK would not

have a race to the bottom with the

EU, but then this letter from 62

members of the Eurosceptic group was

leaked to Sam Coates of the Times,

and this makes clear that they take

a much more restrictive view of what

the Clemente is, the transition

period would look like.

Away harder

line than David Davis was saying?

They are essentially saying to the

Prime Minister, be very careful,

don't go too far in what you

concede. I have been talking to

sources in that European research

group, and they are saying there are

hundreds of us, that is the message

to Number Ten, so you better watch

out. But interestingly, they say

their real target is not Theresa

May, it is the Cabinet Secretary,

and the UK's chief negotiator. They

are concerned that they are going to

lay down what they regard as tricks,

so that in 13 months' time, when we

are out of the EU, our hands can be

restricted.

Briefly, what about

Labour? Has the language changed,

inching towards a clear position

about being in out of the customs

union?

Jeremy Corbyn said that the

UK would have to be in a customs

union with the EU, that would be

important to sort out the Northern

Ireland border, so not the customs

union. Labour says they can't be in

that because you have to

that because you have to respect the

result of the referendum, but the

reason they say a customs union and

not in the single market is that you

don't have the regulatory

requirements of the European Court

of Justice.

Every day, more names are brought

forward in the campaign

against inappropriate behaviour,

of all kinds, at work.

The charity sector is feeling

the heat at the moment,

and today the PM programme

on Radio 4 revealed allegations

of inappropriate behaviour

against the former CEO

of Save the Children

UK, Justin Forsyth.

Now although you may

not have heard of him,

Mr Forsyth is a important player

in international aid

charities.

He was a close associate

of Brendan Cox -

both of them were at Save

the Children, and both also worked

for Gordon Brown at Number 10.

When Mr Brown was caught on mic

referring to Gillian Duffy

as a bigoted woman, he was talking

to Justin Forsyth.

The new accusation is that

while running Save the Children

before 2015, there were three

separate complaints of inappropriate

behaviour towards female

members of staff by him,

sending a series

of inappropriate texts,

commenting on how they looked,

and prompting them to respond.

Mr Forsyth left and has since gone

on to one of the most

senior posts at Unicef,

the UN children's fund.

He admits to having made some

personal mistakes during his time

at Save the Children,

specifically admitting

to what he described as "unsuitable

and thoughtless" conversations

with colleagues, which he

subsequently apologised for.

He added that there were

no formal complaints,

and that they were dealt

with through mediation.

Save the Children told us

that they were commissioning

a root-and-branch review

of its organisational culture,

and that they apologised for any

pain these matters had caused.

To reflect on all of this I have the

Labour MP Peter Carlin, a man who

himself has worked in international

aid crisis charities. Do you think

that Justin Forsyth should be

working for Unicef in a senior role?

There are questions about that right

now. The important thing is that

Unicef is in touch with Save the

Children, Unicef said there doing

that. I do not know the details of

this but it is clear that that needs

to be looked at in light of these

revelations.

Unicef have said they

are aware of the media reports and

welcome the decision of us to

Forsyth to come forward and

acknowledge past mistakes and that

they are discussing this with him

and with Unicef and Save the

Children. Not physical accusations

in this case, but the sheer volume

of things coming out about the

charity sector must be damaging it.

Of course and we know it is. But

some of these accusations are

grotesque and from very senior

managers, that is the thing that is

most shocking. It is clear that in

some of these organisations there is

the sense that protection of a moral

organisation is more important that

individuals working in it. You've

seen the same thing in the church,

and the BBC. Some people feel

organisations are so morally

important and significant that

covering up things within the

organisation is worthwhile and a

means to an end. We've seen that in

the charity sector recently and it

needs to be busted.

Just culturally

I wonder whether part of the

interest in this, it is

organisations that seem to be on the

high moral ground being brought down

by personal foibles and

inappropriate behaviour of the

people within them. I wonder if that

is feeding some of the interest.

No

doubt. It is quite right to hold

people in the charitable sector to a

higher standard than perhaps others.

We do have high expectations of

people doing this moral work.

British aid works, the people

working in the front line, the vast

majority are extraordinary people

who put themselves into harm. We had

four aid workers killed last week.

So people are doing some

extraordinary work. But I have been

a front line aid worker as well and

I've seen the work that does not

meet the moral standards we would

expect from organisations. Sexually?

In almost ten years doing this work

I never saw anything that was

criminal or even a whisper of some

of the things that are being

revealed now. But I did see work

that was overly territorial,

culturally inappropriate for the

kind of work they were doing and

some of that morally indefensible.

One example I could give you if we

have time. I was doing some work,

asking for assistance from a British

Nato general. He told me he had put

up the order to stop working as

well-known, large international

charity based in the UK because he

had offered work and had refused and

the reason given was they had a lot

of money given to that organisation

from British donors and by law that

money must be spent within that

country. And that charity did not

want to be in that country for a

long time so they literally were

squandering money. I have been

saying this stuff for a long time

and now I have the platform as an

MP, people are listening more.

This

goes well beyond the sexual

harassment and exploitation customer

the aid industry has become very

competitive and that tipped over to

becoming territorial and further to

being secret.

So when bad things

happen, whether work that does not

go right, whether a member of staff

not performing right or some of the

really dangerous stuff we have heard

recently, then the instinct is to

hide it. So there is a link between

these different things. Culturally

we need to look at the aid industry,

do the investigations and the

enquiries as the Charity Commission

is doing now and also have a root

and branch think about how we use

these big aid agencies. The

behaviour that we incentivise from

aid agencies. And get off a lot

better at getting the right people

into the right jobs on a front line.

And if they drop perform we have to

get them of there. -- if they do not

perform.

A lot is happening in Syria

right now - a war that is,

if it was possible,

ever more brutal and

ever more complicated.

There has been a tragic

intensification of the bombardment

of Eastern Ghouta, outside Damascus.

Huge numbers of deaths

in the last couple of days.

More on that in a few minutes,

but let's hear more

about the other development first.

Because today, in a sign

of the messiness of the coalitions

fighting with or against each other,

the Syrian government found

itself fighting the Turks,

in order to defend Kurdish forces

who have been fighting

the Syrian government.

Our diplomatic editor,

Mark Urban, is with me now.

To me this just seems very peculiar.

What has been happening? Well since

Islamic State so-called was defeated

in the east of Syria, additional

forces have been available and are

focused on three places. Idlib in

the north, Ghouta and another area

where the incident was going on

today, between Syria and Turkish

forces, in Afrin. The town is that a

key point on the Turkish border.

Kurdish forces are there. They said

they are the PKK, the same people

who have been mounting attacks in

Turkey over many years and they have

gone in there to sort them out. The

Kurds in Afrin have always had an

ambiguous relationship with the

Damascus government certainly in

recent years. In times they appeared

to be in opposition to them but in

general they seem to have some de

facto agreements. Now the Damascus

government is siding with them and

trying to protect them from this

Turkish attack.

Does it look better

for some kind of peace that these

former enemies and can now sit down

and talk?

No, is the short answer

because they always had this de

facto corporative relationship. This

particular area of the Kurdish

resistance. And you have the

Americans bordering on the area, the

Iranians and Russians also involved.

It is a dangerous situation in the

north of Syria.

Well going back to

the issue of Easter in Ghouta. And

we have been looking at how it is

receiving such treatment.

Since Sunday, there's been

a sharp increase in Syrian

military attacks on Ghouta -

dozens of airstrikes a day have been

hitting the besieged enclave,

and the death toll is now

approaching 200 in those three days.

For the quarter of a million

or so people who live there, it's

been one of the worst times in more

than six years of conflict.

We are witnessing some of the worst

fighting of the entire conflict

and the widespread destruction

of civilian infrastructure.

Including medical facilities.

WHO has received reports of attacks

on five hospitals in eastern Ghouta

and is working to verify these

reports and the casualties.

We continue to call for unimpeded

access to eastern Ghouta to provide

medical supplies that will mean

the difference between life

and death for the very sick

and injured and for the immediate

evacuation of urgent medical cases.

From the outset, geography defined

the conflict in Ghouta.

Its location on the eastern

outskirts of Damascus made it easy

for rebel groups to move

to and from Sunni-dominated areas

to the east and north.

And government positions

on Mount Qasioun, which is heavily

fortified, in the al Assad suburb,

as the name suggests a regime

stronghold, and in Adra,

site of another big army base,

all helped to hem in the Ghouta

pocket and were used as launching

spots for attacks on it.

But those holding out inside have

refused to capitulate.

Just a few miles from central

Damascus, Ghouta was the target

of a chemical weapons attack in 2013

- the aim then, according

to the Pentagon, was to follow up

with infantry and storm the enclave.

That attack failed.

Tonight there are also reports

of Syrian troops moving

to assault positions.

Within the enclave are

several thousand fighters

from different groups.

Jaish al Islam -

a militant Islamist group -

holds eastern and northern areas.

Ahrar al Sham, at one stage

Qatari backed and linked

to the Muslim Brotherhood,

a pocket in the west.

And Faylaq al Rahman is in the south

- they're affiliated to the Turkish

backed Free Syrian Army.

At times these factions have

clashed, but equally,

none has been tempted by the Assad

government's offers to switch sides.

Now, earlier today we spoke

to Seraj Mahmoud, a volunteer

with the Syrian Civil Defence team

otherwise known

as the White Helmets.

For the last 48 hours,

Seraj and his fellow

volunteers have been

recovering the dead and the injured

sifting through the rubble.

Earlier today, Seraj told us he lost

one of his colleagues

in the bombardment and in the last

40 days his division

lost four volunteers.

He spoke to us from Douma

city in Eastern Ghouta,

where he was seeking shelter

from the ongoing bombardment.

Joining me now is Geert Cappelaere,

Unicefs's regional director

for the Middle East

and North Africa.

Thank you for coming in. How does

Easter in Ghouta compared to some of

the other names that have become

grimly famous in this Syrian war

such as Aleppo?

The situation is

comparable with what we've seen over

the past seven years. Very

comparable from the point of view of

the children. Today once again

dozens of children have been killed

in eastern Ghouta, several children

have been killed in Damascus.

Children simply continue paying the

highest price of a brutal war that

is not of their making.

UN envoy

Stephane said it has the risk of

becoming a second Aleppo and he

hopes we have learnt lessons from

that. What lessons have we learnt

from Aleppo that we did not already

know? It seems the world is

powerless to do anything.

One

important lesson learned from

eastern Aleppo, is that no single

party has at any moment put the

protection of children at the core

of their action. If we want to

prevent bloodshed, further bloodshed

of children, if we want to prevent

thousands of children being maimed

then we need to learn the lessons

and this time around for the

protection of children of the core

of everyone's attention and action.

Does that basically mean the people

there surrendering, yielding to the

Syrian government? Because often it

looks like they are going to, in the

end, lose and there will be a lot of

suffering in the meantime.

There is

an incredible suffering from

children's perspective. Again, we

have seen, within Eastern Ghouta,

over the last few months only, the

number of children suffering from

severe, acute malnutrition,

life-threatening malnutrition, the

numbers have been increased by ten

in a few months' time, probably one

of the best indicators to show, to

tell the world how dire the

situation of children is today. And

with a very limited means for the

international community, for the

national partners to provide the

assistance, the much-needed,

urgently needed assistance to the

children inside.

But is there an

option for them to surrender, and

deep down is that what you would

like them to do, just to stop the

continual suffering of these young

people? Because they are probably

not... What is the point in hanging

on in there if the Syrian government

will prevail anyway?

From the

children's perspective, this war

needs to stop. Children have

suffered way too much already, and

this is a call for all parties who

are responsible for that endless

children's suffering. Thousands of

children being killed, hundreds of

thousands being maimed, close to 3

million children, Syrian children,

not able to attend regularly school.

The levels of malnutrition, the

children preventing from being

children - this needs to stop, all

parties need to take their

responsibility. Anyone with

authority over the fighting parties

need to take their responsibility,

this cannot be accepted any longer.

Geert Cappelaere from Unicef, thanks

very much indeed, thanks.

Last night, we heard the eloquent

testimony of a Chippendale

male entertainer on the groping

and grabbing that he puts up with

from his mainly female audiences.

He enjoys his job and was relaxed

about most of it,

knowing exactly what to expect -

it's all part of the show.

But among men who are not

Chippendales,

but who do sell their looks,

there is often a simmering annoyance

with the unprofessional

sexualised conduct that they face.

Male models know it's all about

looking right for the part

but do not expect to get work

on the basis of their willingness

to satisfy casting agents' lust.

We've spoken to quite

a number of male models

and have collated

some of the experiences

they've told us about.

Some testimony from male models

there.

Some testimony from

male models there.

Reece Sanders has worked

internationally as a model.

He joins me now.

Good evening to you. Does everybody

have things like this, or is it a

minority experience?

I think people

have been made to feel uncomfortable

more than you'd think in certain

situations, but these tales are a

minority amongst especially male

models, which I can only speak on

behalf of.

What is the worst that

has happened to you? What sort of

things?

Lines crossed in the sense

of a stylist or someone, when

dressing you, has gone a bit too

far, attacking a shirt in, a bit too

handsy, it is noticeable but they

play it like it is nothing.

There is

this phrase, the front tag, what is

that?

That is when a stylist, it

doesn't have to be a stylist, anyone

who is dressing you at the time, is

tucking the shedding, they take

advantage of that.

What about

photographs of you, you are getting

changed, photographers are around,

the making of the campaign, there

are back up photographers? Is a lot

of that inappropriate?

I find the

worst thing is, during Fashion Week,

or when you are doing a show, for

example, if you are backstage, there

are a lot of photographers coming

and going, and they are all licensed

to be there, and you know, someone

wants to take a photograph of you in

your underwear and you are aware of

it, you are selling your image, and

if your image is your body, you

might be fine with that. But if they

are doing it without you knowing,

even if you are OK with it, are you

OK with having it done without your

knowledge? What kind of photo is it?

Where is it going?

What was

interesting, model two in that be

said there is a relationship with

the photographer, and it can be

quite a sexualised relationship, is

that actually part of the sort of

making the thing work, that there is

flirtation or something going on

with the photographer? Or can it be

fairly anonymous and professional?

We have heard stories from people,

and with so many eyes being on

fashion, at the end of the day,

there are thousands of models

working with thousands of

photographers all over the industry,

and people need to understand that

the industry is not one company. It

is thousands of companies making it

up. If somebody leaves a shoot at

the end of the day and tweet or

Instagram, anything on social media

about how well the

about how well the day has worked

with hundreds of photographers, and

I have stayed at their houses, their

families have made me breakfast in

the morning, we have had friendly

relationships. No lines have been

crossed, everything has been fine.

But when it does get crossed, so

many eyes are on the fashion

industry that these are the stories

that come to the surface, some rises

to the top, so we see the stories

about people.

But I am guessing that

you and the other people on the

fashion circuit, you all know who

are the ones who are creepy and who

are not. You are swapping stories

the whole time?

You do spend a lot

of time and castings, you can spend

hours waiting to see a client, and

you swap stories with other models,

someone who has been doing it for

months or years, and we do hear

about certain names of people and

things come to light in the

mainstream media as well, people

that are doing this. So these are

people we try to avoid any way, and

when you fear about these, from my

personal experience, your agency

will do anything to not put you with

these.

They will try and protect

you.

You can go into your agencies.

That is nice.

For myself, I have

found that.

What is striking, you

were saying before, you are 25, now

getting to be considered quite late

career.

Correct, yeah.

What are the

age of your average model?

It

depends, for Fashion Week, they like

a younger looking guy, so 16-19.

Teenagers, who are really not going

to be very experienced and how to

handle all these situations.

Exactly, so when I have been in

these positions where the front tuck

has gone too far, and I have not

said anything because maybe I have

not thought about it that way, but I

should have said something at the

time. There is a lot of young kids

coming through, and I feel that we

need to make and safe. I'm not

saying it is extremely seedy, this

is a minority of people, but if we

can eradicate them and make it safer

for the next generation of models,

that we be the dream, really.

Thanks

very much.

That is all we have time for

tonight. A very good night.