In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.
Browse content similar to 07/03/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
This is being treated as a major
incident involving attempted murder
by administration of a nerve agent.
Confirmation that a chemical
weapon has been used
on the streets of Wiltshire.
Not just a spy and his daughter
suffering the effects -
a police officer is also
in a serious condition.
The stakes have been raised again
not least because the use of a nerve
a sophisticated attack.
And easy as it is to speculate
on Russian involvement,
what does that actually mean?
An underworld connection may not
preclude the involvement of people
with influence in the Kremlin. And
rival factions inside the Kremlin
operating without direct orders
might still be doing so with the
knowledge of those at the very top.
Trade wars aren't so
bad. Do you understand?
The truth is
quite the opposite. Trade wars are
bad and easy to lose.
So we will see
Trump threatens a new world
war - a trade war.
And the EU don't like it.
Is this likely to be
a significant retreat
from the globalised world order?
Word is the age of identity politics
leave people of mixed race?
I am black but I am also white.
And just because I have one parent
that's black and one
parent that's white,
doesn't mean that for me I have
And a love letter to NME
as its printing presses stop.
You've filtered people into those
that read the NME, those that read
Melody maker and those that didn't
read either. People you didn't need
to waste your time with.
So we now know, it was a nerve agent
that was administered
to Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
The case is obviously being
treated as attempted murder,
but also as a major incident.
A nerve agent, a chemical weapon,
used on our streets.
There's the threat to public health
there could have been.
considered low risk now,
but also a police officer
is seriously ill with the effects.
Now these chemicals
are hard to manufacture.
They are not remotely
something any ordinary
criminal could muster.
And that makes it more likely
that a state entity was involved.
It was a nerve agent used to kill
Kim Jong Un's half-brother last year
at the airport in Kuala Lumpur.
The Americans attribute that murder
to North Korea for example.
Mark Urban is with me.
Take us through what we learned
The key thing is this
determination that it was some kind
of nerve agent. I'm told they still
don't know what the nature of this
poison is, but we can come back
through that in a moment. -- to
that. The other key fact was the
officer being seriously ill. This
hardens the sense that you are
either extremely well organised
people or a state. It being a police
officer who is now also among the
victims of this raises the game
Everybody has heard
the phrase nerve agent but no -- but
most of us don't really know quite
what that is and what the
We have to think
outside the box. The obvious ones,
sarin etc, would have been tested
already. The chemical agent
detectors and other monitors that
would have been applied at the scene
and to the victims, they have come
to the determination it is not one
of those. They are typically betide
that work by interrupting the nerve
connections in the body and breaking
them down. It is not a
straightforward one that the
military kits would easily find. So
what is it? They don't know yet. It
is something more exotic. It could
be a specially developed type of
poison specifically for
assassination. It could be something
even like a synthetic form of snake
venom or shellfish toxin which is a
naturally occurring thing which can
interrupt how the nervous system
works, but could be synthesised as
an assassination weapon.
the key thing is whether or not
these people survive, whether they
can determine how to treat them. The
EU usual stuff, -- the usual stuff,
chemical substances which are used
when somebody has organophosphates,
as presumably already been tried.
That would've been the immediate
reaction. Can they be saved? Clearly
a lot could be learned if they could
be. Attention also focusing on who
was around them in the minutes and
hours before they fell ill.
talking earlier. We have had a rice
in attack in this country. That was
back in the 70s. We have had a
polonium attack. Hard to think of a
chemical attack, in nerve agent,
being used on British soil.
Although I will backtrack to the
previous answer and say that because
this might be some unknown,
extremely exotic form of poison for
assassination, self-evidently then
it would be an unprecedented use of
that type of agent.
Mark, thank you.
Now it's all too easy to jump
to some obvious conclusions
about who's behind this.
And no doubt most of us
are thinking Russia.
But there is some nuance here -
Russia is not one single agency,
nor is it synonymous
with Vladamir Putin.
Gabriel Gatehouse knows the country
well, and reflects now
on the complexity within.
When enemies of the Kremlin are
poisoned in Britain...
have their suspicions.
The finger of
blame is quick to point...
To Moscow, and
with good reason.
with good reason. Mark Gough was
poisoned your own Waterloo Bridge in
1978 by a panel of -- pellet fired
from a specially constructed
umbrella. The KGB organised the
assassination. That is the same
organisation that nurtured and
trained the man who is now president
of Russia. Clearly, the practice of
killing its enemies abroad has
survived the collapse of the Soviet
Union. So if today's revelation
about the possible use of a nerve
agent is correct, and there is a
Russian connection, then who gave
the order? There are three possible
options. Option one is Putin. Under
this theory nothing happens without
his say-so. Intriguingly, in 2006
Russia adopted the law that allows
the president and the president
alone to order the killing of its
Putin has two types
of enemies. One group, one faction
is outsiders, those who challenge
the system from outside. And the
other group are those who were part
of the system before. And if they
defect, if they change sides, that
is treated as treason. And they are
treated as traitors.
script would belong to the latter
category. -- surrogate Skibo. So did
Alexander Litvinenko. The
investigation into his death
included the killing was probably
approved by the head of the FSB and
by Mr Putin himself. Option two is
organised crime. This is essentially
the Mac Mafia theory, people who
deal in the murky world of secret
information are likely to find
themselves mixed up in dodgy
business. The Mac Mafia drama
series, in which Russian gangsters
used London and Britain more
generally to launder money and
settle scores, is, according to a
minister last month, very close to
the truth. But no evidence has yet
emerged that surrogate script was
involved in such activities. And
poison seems like an unlikely method
for an underground hit. Option three
is it is complicated. The Kremlin is
not a monolith.
There are different
weaponised factions, armies, groups
connected to the Russian state, to
the power, that use this force,
which used this force, to intimidate
their own opponents.
opposition politician and Putin
critic Boris Nemtsov was murdered
just yards from the Kremlin walls,
many in the West assumed Putin
himself must have been behind it.
But in Russia they know things are a
The tragic story of
Boris Nemtsov at least suggests that
not every badly -- every order comes
from straight broth. -- above. Putin
was not directly involved. He even
most likely didn't know about it
until it had happened.
Sirotkin Arles, who didn't seem to
pose any immediate threat, have
fallen victim to similar power
games? The truth could be more
complicated still. And under world
involvement might not preclude
people from the Kremlin, and rival
factions inside the Kremlin
operating without direct orders
might still be doing so with the
knowledge of those at the very top.
Details of the type of poison used
may give investigators some clues as
to the identities of those
responsible. It still won't tell us
why or why now.
So where does all of this leave
relations with Russia?
What, if anything, could or should
be done if Moscow was found
to have been involved?
I'm joined from New York
by Alex Goldfarb.
He's a Russian microbiologist
and was a close friend
of Alexander Litvinenenko,
the Russian defector
who was believed to have been
murdered by the Russian state
here in London in 2006.
With me here is Sir Tony Brenton.
He was British ambassador
to Moscow at the time
of the Litvinenko affair.
Alex Goldfarb, let me start with
you. Which theories of the different
kinds of accounts, which would you
be focusing on?
be focusing on?
I do not have any
evidence. I would pick the Putin
theory for the simple reason that he
is the only one who had a motive and
an opportunity, and has been he
shown beyond any reasonable doubt to
be involved in the previous
assassination of Little Billing go,
who was my friend. He has a motive.
-- Alexander Litvinenko. Is motive
is the elections which are coming in
about ten days. There is a very low
turnout expected. And he needs to
energise his nationalistic
anti-Western electorate. So he wants
to portray himself as a tough guy
who can get his enemies anywhere in
the world, and who has been
presenting himself as the only thing
that is protecting Russia and the
Russians from the plotting and
scheming of the West.
why you are positive in that theory.
Interestingly though, is this
attempted murder playing big in
Russia? Are all talking about it in
a election way, or are they
basically ignoring it?
bound to play high because it is
being reported on national TV and on
the Internet. And the official
response that this is the West
plotting against Putin, and that is
why they killed this guy, MI5 MI6
have killed this guy, that is what
they said about Alexander Litvinenko
as well. The other half Russians
will think that it serves the
What are the lessons
you took from the Alexander
Litvinenko case as to how Britain
should respond to something like
this happening on its soil? If it
does have two -- Turner to have a
Russian connection, it is
outrageous. Too big to ignore and
yet it is hard to know what to do?
Well, it is a strong sense of deja
vu. For ten years the British
government refused to admit that the
Alexander Litvinenko murder was a
state-sponsored crime. Up to the
very public enquiry which happened
in 2016, ten years after his death,
they maintained this is a regular
criminal matter. The moment an
English judge ruled it was
state-sponsored murder in all
probability ordered by Putin, David
Cameron went on TV and said, "We
knew it from day one. " There were
trying to keep it quiet, not to
annoy Putin. And they invited other
attacks like this. If the response
now will be the same, only words
without any actions. There will be a
third and fourth attempt.
the inaction last time for
effectively Russia thinking they can
do this again?
Of course, there is no price that Mr
Putin has paid for the murder of
Litvinenko. This time, Britain can
do a lot to respond. For example, in
my view, they should not recognise
the legitimacy of the elections.
Everybody knows that these are fake
elections. The two major opponents
of Mr Putin, one of them was killed,
and another was deprived from
running. And he is running
essentially unopposed. So, everybody
knows it's not a real election.
Every observer for the past 15 years
said that the Russian elections are
not fair and honest. I don't
understand why... Why you recognise
Sorry to interrupt, but I have
to move on. Do you yourself feel in
danger? Do you think the Russians
would try something like this on
Well, ironically, I
don't think that they would put
their friend Mr Trump in such a
precarious position, but that might
be wishful thinking - who knows?
Thank you very much. Let me turn to
Sir Tony Brenton. We got the first
idea for what we do, which is not to
recognise the legitimacy of the
We don't recognise
elections but governments. We have
to deal with the Government that
this election produces, whatever you
feel about the quality of the
We have all jumped on
Russia. Russia, of course, says, you
are jumping to conclusions, it's not
fair. You've jumped to the
conclusion as well.
I resist the
suggestion that I have jumped to the
conclusion. I was cautious two days
ago, but us the bag as the evidence
has accumulated that this is a
sophisticated nerve agent, it points
more and more clearly to Russian
state action. They have both
motivation, the victim had already
been accused personally by Putin of
being a traitor, and they are one of
the very few agencies in the world
who deploy this sort of poison,
actually, as a matter of routine.
You were in Moscow at the time of
the Litvinenko killing. What was
going on? I mean, did you feel
anything worked, or did you feel
that kind of, oh, it's not us, how
dare you suggest we would do such a
From the Russians, there was
a... Once we made the accusation,
what we got was denial, but
following that, a whole spate of
false stories - it was the British
state, it was someone else, enough
to muddy the atmosphere quite a lot.
I would expect, if we come to make
the accusation against the Russians,
we will get exactly the same.
take a long time. We took the right
amount of time to do anything,
because we have to go through
process, and we don't jump to...
is not just about process. We wanted
to be absolutely sure we had very
strong evidence of Russian
Week created the case,
the CPS said they thought they knew
who it was, try to extradite him and
they wouldn't. And we impose
sanctions. We didn't
sanctions. We didn't really say it
was a state-sponsored killing in
London until 2016.
We did not have
slam dunk evidence.
But you look for
We got what we got, and we
made that accusation through the
sanctions we impose. I think the
claim that we acted insufficiently
following the Litvinenko murder is a
Miss construction of what happened.
We chose the sanctions rather
carefully, with a view to
discouraging Russia from doing
anything similar again, any kind of
work for the next 12 years. Of
course, in the 12 years, the
situation has changed dramatically
between us and Russia.
We have used
up much of the armoury, so it is
much harder now. Looking at it, you
would think, it can't be Britain on
its own boycotting the World Cup or
anything like this. It's hopeless.
It has got to be... The West has to
say, this is not acceptable. Did you
We did at the time of
Litvinenko. We were keen to get as
much Western supporters we could
get. The Americans were a much
better state than they are now and
were ready to be supported. Our
European partners, I regret to say,
couldn't be seen for dust. They
weren't going to have a row with
Russia about what they saw as a
purely British concern.
They did not see this as an attack
on an international statement?
made statements. We were playing
with the idea of excluding the
Russians from the G8, which happened
subsequently, and the Germans were
What does this
tell us about how to deal with thugs
and bullies that parade around the
world at the moment, do stuff that
is unacceptable? You've got to deal
with them because they run big and
That's a very
big question. Just focusing on
Russia, we now have what looks like
this outrage by Russia and we will
have to be seen to act as powerfully
as we can, but we know that our
reaction is almost certainly going
to be in effect. Russia is enough of
a rogue elephant and enough
unaffected by what the West does to
go its own way. We will have to act
in a tough way, but in the longer
term, the only way to get Russia
back behaving rationally is to begin
to really incorporate it into
sensible international discourse.
Isolating, threatening and
sanctioning it doesn't work. We have
to begin to rebuild relations. I
know that is not what people want as
a response, but that is what we have
Thank you, both.
It's been a chaotic debate
within the White House -
nothing new there.
But President Trump is clearly set
on pursuing his idea of slapping
penal taxes on steel
and aluminiuim imports.
He's lost his top economic adviser,
Gary Cohn, as a result.
And he threatens a trade war -
the EU today spelt out how
it might retaliate,
hitting US exports of bourbon,
peanut butter, cranberries,
among other items.
Who knows where it will end?
Which is one reason why
most economists hate
Whatever the problem,
it's not the solution, they say.
But in this age of populist
disenchantment with globalisation,
on the left and right,
Trump's logic may appeal
well beyond the US.
Take his tweet:
protect our country and our workers.
Our steel industry is in bad shape.
If you don't have steel,
you don't have a country!"
It's a logic most countries apply
to farms, which would
die without subsidy.
Are we about to see it
apply to heavy industry?
Here's our business
editor, Helen Thomas.
When you think about trade
and international economics,
you don't generally think of this.
But a Trump policy
with its roots in America's
rust belt states has quickly led
here, a threat against classic
symbols of Americana.
President Trump wants
tariffs of 25% on steel
imports and 10% on aluminium.
When we're behind in every single
country, trade wars aren't so bad.
These, very unusually, would be
imposed in the name of national
But would hit friend and foe alike.
The European Union has
not treated us well.
It's been a very, very
unfair trade situation.
I'm here to protect,
and one of the reasons I was elected
is I'm protecting our workers,
and protecting our companies and I'm
not going to let that happen.
Today came the start
of the official European response.
If a move like this
is taken, it will hurt the
It would put thousands
of European jobs in
jeopardy and it has to be met by
a firm and proportionate response.
From what we understand the
motivation of the US is an economic
safeguard measure in disguise.
Not a national security measure.
If President Trump acts,
Europe has said it will
respond in three ways.
First, it will appeal
to the World Trade
Organisation, which will take time.
Then it will act to protect European
markets from a surge of steel and
displace from the US.
And it would take other measures
against US peanut butter,
cranberries and orange juice,
as well as tariffs on Levi's jeans
The trouble is that
President Trump has already
reacted with a threat to slap
a tariff on European cars.
It's exactly the kind
of tit-for-tat that
economists fear, a trade war that
leaves everyone worse off.
The policy started here, America's
beleaguered steel industry.
The aim is to fire up
the sector, getting to
levels that are
But the main problem,
a glut of cheap Chinese steel, has
And gains from previous more
targeted steel tariffs
like in 2002, were short lived.
Steel mills reopened,
new money came into the sector.
Prices and profitability fell again.
Tariffs could bring
economic costs for the
If you can increase the price
of steel by 20% for your economy,
then cars, and if it is aluminium,
beer cans, the price of them will
And this will reduce demand from
consumers because prices will be
higher, and this will mean
President Trump's protectionist
instincts should not
be a surprise.
It was a key part of
his pitch to voters.
Could this be bluster, a negotiating
Or is it a genuine threat
to the rules -based world order on
trade built over the past 70 years?
History teaches us that it's
a pretty powerful signal when the
United States unilaterally
When it did it in 1930,
some would say it caused the great
Not just because of the economic
effect, but because when
the United States says we are not
going to abide by the rules, then no
other country needs
to abide by the rules.
In the 1930s, when it broke
the trust of countries
to cooperate with one another,
it is the breaking of trust
that pushed the world
into the great
The WTO, 164 countries,
has been bound together roughly by
the notion that more trade can be
better for everyone.
The US now seems to be
striking out alone.
Helen Thomas there.
How seriously should
we take President Trump's
language on this issue?
And how much would it matter
if he followed through?
With me in the studio
is Pippa Malgrem, a former special
assistant on economic policy
to President George W Bush.
Joining us from Washington
is Jeffrey Schott -
he's a senior fellow
from the Peterson Institute
for International Economics,
and sits on the President's Trade
and Environment Policy
Jeffrey, if I messed up the queue,
25% on steel and aluminium, it's not
such a big industry in the big
picture of American national income.
How serious would it be if President
Trump does this?
Well, the problem
of doing this will be that it raises
the cost of production of goods in
the United States, and the
downstream problems that that will
cause for US production and
employment, and the reaction from
our trading partners, as your
segment just chose. There would be
emulation by other countries and
possible retaliation, which would
affect US export.
affect US export.
-- as your segment
just showed. What would have to
happen for this to be if not the
1930s, to at least be a big reverse
to trade and globalisation?
the 1930s example is a little
exaggerated. But I think your
segment, your reporter, laid out the
scenario is very well. There are a
couple of steps that the European
Union can take that are consistent
with WTO rights and obligations,
calling for consultations and
dispute settlement, and imposing
protections against the deflection
of trade back to the European
market. But taking retaliatory
actions without prior authorisation
from the WTO would be more clearly
illegal of WTO rules than what the
United States is doing. The
tit-for-tat can grow, and where it
stops, nobody knows.
Pepper, is that
the problem here? It's not just
steal, it's the world down of a
world rules -based order.
but I've just finished a job on
leadership, and he was the first
thing about Trump. First committee
throws a punch, and when his
opponent is thrown sideways, then he
says, let's talk. We are confusing
the style that he negotiates with,
and let's face it, he is a property
guy, so with him everything is
negotiable. On the day that this is
announced, no coincidence, you also
have the three most powerful men in
China in Washington, DC, and within
24 hours, the North Koreans agreed
to come to the table on the nuclear
negotiations, and I think there's a
chance that the way Trump is looking
at this is, he's connecting these as
all one thing. Again, who is he
throwing a punch at? It wasn't just
on steel, it was a message to
Your scenario would be
that this is big talk, everyone is
going to sit around, it won't be as
bad as it sounds on the day.
face it, what we have so far is
nothing formal, no policy statement.
What we have is a tweet. You know,
until we have something substantive.
Let's face it, we announced in the
Bush administration steel tariffs
and it took one year from the formal
announcement until anyone had any
Jeffrey, give some advice
to the Europeans so-called Islamic
State our last discussion on Russia
was about how to deal with a thug or
a bully -- gives some advice to the
Europeans - our last discussion on
Russia was about how to deal with a
thug or a bully. But that the
Europeans do? Do they just say,
though, have your silly tariff and
we will not play this game, or
should they retaliate?
There really is no good response.
Pippa is right about Trump wanting
to create a sense of
unpredictability. He prides himself
on that. And so a lot of people here
and abroad don't know what he is
going to do. But the rumours are the
expectations are that he will
announce an action tomorrow, and
that that action is going to be
effective in two weeks. So this is
not something that will be pushed
off for a long time, paper, this
will be implemented soon. What is at
issue right now, still under debate,
is whether some countries will be
exempted and whether some products
will be exempted from the coverage.
Very briefly, you found it very
difficult to try and get someone to
defend it on the programme this
evening, except the voters. The
voters are shying away from
globalisation. They may say, we
would like to pay more for steel and
have a steel injury.
What is more
ironic is that China still has
become more expensive and American
steel has been remarkably
competitive by comparison. In a way
what the president is doing is
fighting a fight that is ten years
out of date. The Chinese are
investing in US manufacturing
facilities. It is pandering to a
particular audience that is maybe as
out of date as the president. I have
my doubts that we will really go
down this road.
Thank you both very much indeed.
For several years now,
identity politics has been
dominating public discourse.
Whether it is race, gender,
or sexuality, the rights of,
and respect for, different groups
has been a prevalent
theme of our time.
But there are those who don't fit
into the most obvious categories.
Bisexual people are not gay
and are not straight, for example.
And then of course,
there are people of mixed race.
Now, that term didn't appear
on the census until 2001,
but it is now the fastest growing
ethnic minority in the UK,
with the number of people of mixed
race expected to rise
to 2.2 million by 2031.
So, how do they feel about the term
mixed race and the rise
of identity politics?
Do we expect people of dual heritage
to self identify as mixed race
even though that is
itself a mixed category?
Or do they have choose
one side of their ethnicity?
Newsnight producer Scarlett Barter,
who has a black mother
and white father, has been
examining her own mixed identity,
and reveals that it is much more
complicated than it may seem.
My parents met in Plymouth in the
'80s, when they were both studying.
I think they were very
awware that they
were maybe slightly unconventional,
being an interracial couple.
They really encouraged
us to embrace both
sides of our heritage and both
sides of their cultures.
I mean, I am black,
but I'm also white.
And just because I have one
parent that's black and
one parent that's white,
it doesn't mean that,
for me, I have to pick.
It means I can be both.
Congratulations from all of us...
But can't mixed race people really
navigate both sides of their
Meghan Markle identifies as mixed
race, but many have still
tried to pigeonhole
her as white or black.
Is it time that society just
accepted that some people feel both?
I definitely feel
very other at times.
I definitely feel like I'm quite
unplaceable in people's minds.
And I think that that makes people
Lots of people, not
everyone, feel much
more comfortable when things
are much more sort of clear-cut -
you know, you're gay,
you're white, you're black, and I've
never really felt
like I can be so easily
defined, and I think that people
do struggle with that.
But no two experiences
of being mixed race are
1.2 million people were recorded
as mixed race in the last
That's 1.2 million different ideas
of what it means to be mixed race.
Even people within the same family
can have totally different
feelings about their identity.
So, you guys are twins.
You know, you have the same
background, the same
parents, - why is it that you think
you identify so differently?
I personally identify as mixed race.
I know that some people try and
identify as black or white, one or
the other, but I think it's quite
hard to determine, especially at a
young age, where you fit
in and who you are.
And I think some people try
and categorise you as one of the
other, or you feel like you need to
make a decision, but I think I got
to the stage where I thought,
I'm mixed race, I am both black and
I'm slightly different.
Whilst I know I'm mixed race, that's
what I tick on forms, I think it's
too broad a term for me,
and I identify mainly as black.
I think what's probably
caused it is, we went
to very different schools.
I think there were less
than ten people of
colour in my whole school, and so,
it's kind of a cycle, coming to
terms with who you are.
I always stuck out like
a sore thumb, really.
And I was always "the black one".
So, that's what I've grown up with,
and I'm embracing that now.
I'm happy to call myself black
rather than mixed race.
I had a different experience.
I went to a different
school to my sister, but
it was predominantly white
and Asian, but I felt that I had
Rather than feeling very much black,
I think there was a lot of,
but you're not black,
and you're not white.
You're kind of somewhere
in the middle.
It was quite weird.
Sometimes it's based on...
People base those judgments on not
necessarily the heritage of your
parents - it's more
about who they perceive you to be.
I've always had my
And that's always hurt quite a lot
because I feel like you're
questioning my relationship
with my mum, and a part of who I am.
Lots of times, I've had people come
up to me and say, oh, you're not
Or, you're not really white,
or whatever it may be.
And that, that can be painful, yeah.
It feels like I'm being forced
by people to pick a side.
Some people do just
identify as white or black,
and that can make the term
mixed race difficult.
I don't like the term
mixed race at all.
I don't identify as
mixed race, but I also
think it's a really problematic term
generally, because it kind of...
It reinforces the idea
that both black
and white, if we're
talking about black
and white mixed raceness, are kind
of neutral and natural racial
categories that exist.
You can't be half white.
The racial construct white
was not invented to allow
entrance to people
who are half white.
You're either white
or you're not white.
So, I often find it...
Interesting and slightly irritating
when people ask about, um...
People ask about choice,
and they say, oh,
like, you are choosing...
The idea that you're
kind of choosing the
black side and you are
erasing your white side.
You're not given the choice.
Mixed race people are held up
as sort of this example of a
post-racial society, but actually,
the reality is is that mixed race
issues and mixed race people
can often be very much
overlooked and misunderstood.
The rise of identity
politics can mean that your
background is becoming more and more
important, but so much
about forming your identity
is about where you
grew up and how you are perceived
rather than your ethnic mix.
Certainly, when I was growing up,
there were like a handful of other
mixed people that I knew,
but whereas I was quite happy to
identify as black and felt really
proud of being Nigerian and stuff,
some of the other people, they were
trying to distinguish themselves
from just an ordinary black person
and be like, no, no, no, but I'm
half white, like, I'm better
than these other black people,
and that's something that just
makes me feel...
That's something that makes me feel
like really uncomfortable.
I don't want to try
and distinguish myself
from blackness, to put myself that
little bit closer to whiteness,
and I think that's one
of the reasons
that I so emphatically like
identify, identify as black.
I think that sometimes
it can feel like, if
you're mixed race, sometimes it
feels like people don't...
Don't understand what
that means, and they
don't sort of engage
with it in the way that
maybe you'd want them to,
so sometimes it can feel like you're
not really anything because you're
not really seen as black and you're
not really seen as white.
But I would like to be seen as both,
because that is what I am.
As the number of people with dual
heritage grows in the UK, will we
become more accepting
of those, like me,
who want to be seen as mixed
Reflections from Scarlet Bartra.
There was something
of a cultural moment today.
NME, the New Musical Express
magazine, announced it
will publish its final print
edition this Friday.
so we brought together two people
this evening who loved the magazine
- writer David Quantinck and former
editor Connor McNicholas -
to bid it farewell.
I grew up in Bradford and the NME
and Melody Maker were my only access
to the world of music. It was so
precious when it turned up on a
Wednesday. When I was looking after
it I had a mental thing -- picture
of some poor sap who had a Saturday
job in Doncaster and this was their
only contact with the outside world
of music. That is the person I wrote
The NME filled a gap.
Records were pressed and deleted,
you couldn't get old records.
filtered people into those that read
the NME, those who read the Melody
Maker and those who didn't read
either, the people you didn't need
to waste your time with.
For me the
enemy has always survived when there
is a popular white guitar book. --
All bands would say it didn't
matter if they were featured but it
The cool bands hated doing an
interview. You felt like saying, you
are getting free advertising for
free. It was like being on top of
the Pops. It was the thing you did.
It was a rite of passage for a band.
Anybody in a band read the NME when
they were younger.
What was great about the NME is it
was a conversation, people talking
to other artists every week about
politics, music, everything. The NME
did die years ago. It has kept going
in loads of different forms. But
what it was hasn't existed for a
very long time.
Everybody knew at
some point the paper publication was
going to go. I knew that in the
years that I was there. You could
see it was going to happen. But
publishing in the digital space is
inevitably just a completely
different experience than what the
NME was previously, and in a way I
suppose we all get the