07/03/2018 Newsnight

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

diplomatically today,

not least because the use of a nerve

agent suggests

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.

Also tonight...

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

what happens.

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

to pick.

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.

Hello.

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.

That's thankfully

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

today?

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

diplomatically.

Everybody has heard

the phrase nerve agent but no -- but

most of us don't really know quite

what that is and what the

imprecations are?

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.

What

happens now?

Well, self-evidently

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.

We were

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.

It is.

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...

Members will

have their suspicions.

The finger of

blame is quick to point...

Have

their suspicions.

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

enemies abroad.

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.

Surrogate

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.

With the

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

little murkier.

The tragic story of

Boris Nemtsov at least suggests that

not every

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.

Could Sergey

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

Britain's diplomatic

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.

I understand

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?

Well, it's

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

traitor right.

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.

You blame

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

Mr...

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

American soil?

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

Russian election.

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

election.

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

thing?

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.

It did

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...

It

is not just about process. We wanted

to be absolutely sure we had very

strong evidence of Russian

involvement.

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

evidence.

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

try that?

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.

Seriously?

They did not see this as an attack

on an international statement?

They

made statements. We were playing

with the idea of excluding the

Russians from the G8, which happened

subsequently, and the Germans were

entirely negative.

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

important countries...

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

to do.

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

Trump-style protection.

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:

"We must

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

security.

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

European Union.

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

aluminium imports

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

and Harley-Davidsons.

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

sustainably profitable.

But the main problem,

a glut of cheap Chinese steel, has

already improved.

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

US, too.

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

increase.

And this will reduce demand from

consumers because prices will be

higher, and this will mean

job loss.

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

tactic?

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

announces tariffs.

When it did it in 1930,

some would say it caused the great

depression.

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

depression.

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

Advisory Committee.

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?

I think

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.

Possibly,

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

everybody.

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.

Let's

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

details.

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

identity?

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

quite uncomfortable.

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 straight,

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

the same.

1.2 million people were recorded

as mixed race in the last

census.

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

white.

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

a lot...

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

blackness questioned.

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

black really.

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

race?

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.

Goodnight.

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

before.

The NME filled a gap.

Records were pressed and deleted,

you couldn't get old records.

You

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. --

NME.

All bands would say it didn't

matter if they were featured but it

did.

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