02/03/2017 This Week

Firstly, I have to alert all our loyal followers

and supporters that the soft coup is under way.

It's planned, co-ordinated and fully resourced.

It's being perpetrated by an alliance between the dark

elements of the This Week sofas and the BBC Yentob empire,

both intent on destroying me and all that I stand for.

The Police Inspectorate reported that budgets have been cut, with

some forces struggling to provide even a six services. An official NHS

watchdog warned that the health service was standing on a burning

platform with four out of five hospitals needing to improve basic

patient safety, and the Independent and to chew for fiscal studies

predicted planned cuts to welfare would drive 1 million children into

poverty by 2020. So I don't know why you are so surprised that Labour is

between 14 points and six team points ahead in the polls. With that

sort of record, why would you not expect the Tories to be trailing

badly. Simple. I'm sorry, what's that? The Tories are 16 points aired

in the polls. I just don't believe that. It's the sort of fake news

that gives journalism a bad name. Next you will be telling me the

Tories won the Copeland by-election. And joining me, hiding in plain

sight is the conspirator-in-chief, the Colour Of Shirt Trojan horse

of late night political chat, Michael #ChooChooseYourFriends

Portillo and with him, restoring the balance

for good in this studio Liz Your moment of the week. I spent

today trying to figure out how what Jeff Sessions said to Congress about

not having had contact with the Russians could be anything other

than lying. Despite my best efforts, I failed. It clearly was a lie, and

the administration has already lost one senior official, the national

security adviser, on contacts with the Russians. I do not see how they

can avoid losing a second, the Attorney General. This issue about

what the Russians were up to during the American election, and what the

Republicans were up to with the Russians during the general election

seems to be not going away. Did you see the Attorney General's press

conference? I did. Then you will see why he in trouble. Your moment? John

Major's Brexit speech. I remember when he beat Neil Kinnock, I

remember ranting at the news. My boyfriend listened patiently for a

while and then said, either shut up, or do something about it. That was

when I joined the Labour Party. If you had told me 25 years later that

I would agree with almost every word of a speech by John Major, I would

have laughed. You are talking about his best friend, John Major. Not so

much has changed for me in 25 years. He did tell us that he won

Maastricht game, set and match. He did well with Maastricht. He was

asked to do a couple of things needed them well. It what happened

after that. Now, we received a mislabelled

parcel this week. On the off chance it

contained Blue Nun I'm afraid our production

team opened it. To their great disappointment,

it was a set of Russian dolls. First out, the biggest,

Vladimir Putin. Next popped Donald Trump,

then Mike Flynn, then Jeff Sessions. Oddly, the last one was just a small

yellow bottle, probably Blue Nun, Anyways, we've forwarded

it on to its original destination, a certain Boris

at The Secret Entrance, So just to be on the safe side,

we sent American Diplomat turned journalist, James Rubin

to the This Week nuclear bunker Long before President Trump took

office it felt like world events War raging in country

after country in the Middle East. And countries in the heart

of Europe being invaded, China laying claim to critical sea

lanes in the South China Sea, with US patrols then sent

to challenge Beijing. He says he wants good

relations with Moscow. The problem is, somehow he can't

find the words to criticise Russia's But he does have the time

to bad-mouth the trade policies and defence alliances that have

served us so well, that have given us peace and prosperity in Europe

and Asia for 70 years now. That's why he sponsors extremists

for elections here in Europe, The White House should be

stopping him, not creating a crisis of confidence that will only end

up helping him. After eight years of overreach under

President Bush and the war in Iraq, the pendulum swung back the other

way, and America retrenched What we need is a steady hand

somewhere in the middle. 50 billion more for defence

is not the answer. We need a new President to inspire,

to restore confidence, Working together, America and Europe

still have the power If only our leaders

would have the will. Thanks to bunker 51 in Greenwich

for releasing Jamie Rubin. Welcome back. You said that the

White House should be stopping Putin, but stopping him from what

and how? Well, first of all, it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities

of the United States to have counteracted all of this

interference in the US election, in the French election now, in the

German election. We keep hearing about Russian efforts to damage our

democratic system. It wouldn't be impossible for the United States to

have responded stronger to Ukraine in the past. And I certainly don't

think we should ignore the fact that Russia has invaded another country.

The thing about Trump, all of this, I don't know what really happened

but I cannot figure out why he can't criticise this invasion of another

country. You don't have to be for sanctions to criticise it. But why

can't he do that? Wasn't it Obama's job to stop Russian interference in

the election? He was the President. I would agree that it is now

apparent that President Obama and his team should have been tough on

the Russians. Every time they interfered, there was no response.

So it is not Donald Trump's fault. It is his fault for not recognising

this is a problem. It is his fault for not telling us we need to gather

together and working unity. The reason the United States and the

West succeeded in all those years is when we were together and United and

agreed on the problem. Right now, Germany, Britain, France, they don't

agree with the United States on Vladimir Putin. Nobody can figure

out why Mr Trump is so calm about Putin's activities. What's wrong

with trying to reset relations with Russia? I don't think there would be

anything particularly wrong about that. I want to go back over where

we have been. Crimea was invaded by Russia when Obama was President, and

Putin predicted there would be no reaction from Obama, and he was dead

right. I think the invasion of Crimea was largely provoked by

European Union Foreign Minister is interfering in Ukraine, which

presented either a threat or an excuse to Russia. The fact is that

since President Trump has become President, nothing has happened.

There may be an absence of language you would have welcomed but nothing

has happened except that he has declared he will increase defence

spending, and has told his European Union and Nato partners quite

rightly that they should increase their defence spending because they

are freeloading on the United States in Europe. That message has been

delivered more strongly by Trump than it was by Obama. If one is

going to talk about what the President has said, it is true there

may have been an absence of Cold War rhetoric... It is not Cold War

rhetoric. But it is also true that he has done two things to the

disadvantage of Russia. Michael, I hope your comfort level with Donald

Trump sustains itself throughout these years. You dismiss as Cold War

rhetoric the idea that the President of the United States should declare,

with vigour and determination, that a country in Europe should not

invade its neighbour and annex a portion of it. That is still going

on right now, Michael. It is not something that happened years ago.

There is a war in Ukraine. What can America do about it? He can declare

it as a problem. The fact that he can't criticise the Russian invasion

of Ukraine is what is troubling me. What you have said is fine, but to

dismiss that as Cold War rhetoric I do not understand. Lives, what is

your take? Coming back to your question of what is wrong with it,

if you take Trump at his word about what he wants to achieve, in many

cases, Russia wants the opposite. Trump says he wants to defeat

so-called Islamic State. In Syria, Russia has actually not been

fighting Islamic State, but fighting the rebels against Assad. Trump

wants to contain China. Russia is too weak politically, economically,

militarily, to do that, actually wants to boost trade with China

because of its struggling economy. Another objective might be to

confront Iran. And again, all the evidence is that Russia is working

with Iran in the Middle East. Russia's primary objective is to

divide and undermine the confidence of the West, and ultimately that

will be bad for Trump. So the truth is, his strategic objectives, even

as he set them, will not be achieved by cosying up to Putin. Mr Trump

thinks that Russia is largely Europe's problem, a regional issue.

He sees China as the threat to US interests. He thinks that Europe

should sort out Russia. It is their problem. I don't know that he has

made that judgment but I would disagree on these grounds. Russia's

behaviour in the last few years is a problem for the world. When a great

power decides to throw away 50 years of policy and invade their neighbour

and annex a piece of it, whether you think Crimea should be Russian or

not, the last great power to do that, we all know, was Germany. So

it's a problem. Maybe not the end of the world, but to not identify it as

a problem, that is where my problem is. He thinks it is Europe's

problem. It is the world's problem. It is a basic rule of international

relations. If you don't except that, we have big problems. Then you go to

Syria and Iran, and if it had not been to Russia working with Iran,

the Assad regime would never be where it is today. That is bad for

the world, to stand by and watch Syria do what it did. And for the

United States to seed the Middle East to the Russians, we will be

sorry one day. It is not a regional problem. When Russia interferes with

elections. None of this happened on Trump's watch. It is happening

today. Interference in Germany and France is happening today. Russian

policy in Syria is happening today. Russian planes are interfering with

Nato officials across northern Europe today. We might have an

incident in the Balkans tomorrow. To dismiss this as ancient history is

not serious. I'm not dismissing it. President

Obama's only just left office, remember, he can come here and, you

know, via us, elected President Trump. You are talking about me. You

haven't been listening. I have. You declared me the man who was Obama's

supporter. I said in the piece, and I hope you were paying attention, I

said that George Bush overreached through the invasion of Iraq and

then I said that President Obama underreached and retrenched in the

United States and that what we need is somewhere in the middle so please

don't dismiss me as an Obama lover who's suddenly criticising Trump.

Listen to what I said on the tape, I think Donald Trump is bad for us

because we need somebody in the middle, we don't want overreach, we

don't want underreach, we should just be the leader that the world

needs right now. I have a feeling that Trump may turn out to be

exactly what you desire: I hope so. Which is something in the middle and

certainly the two things he already said, the extra spending and telling

NATO to gets its act together, would push us in that direction. It's

saying it's time Europe paid more for its defence. They say, you can't

expect the US to pay more for the European children than the Europeans

do. I've been a strong supporter of NATO paying what they said they'd

pay. Misses May said it will be 2024. She runs a massive budget

surplus. If you make a commitment as part of NATO or any organisation,

you should meet it. What I don't think will make the world safer is

to kind of engage in what, as has been announced in some unnecessary

and frankly dangerous nuclear arms race - in cutting funding for the

State Department and foreign aid, I don't think he could be reducing

America's influence in the world and making states less safe. It raises

big questions for the UK because we used to be a leader in Europe and a

bridge between Britain and Europe. Now we are neither. The Europeans

will need us more than ever now. They will on the defence side. Let

me say this. You know, our objectives are also different. This

is actually a point John Major made in his speech. We want to contain

Russia and engage China and Trump wants to, you know, engage Russia

and engage China. We have very different objectives on trade,

refugees and we have a different view about protectionism. I think

this is going to put us in an extremely difficult position if

Theresa May believes that having a much, much closer relationship with

Trump is going to be the solution to all of our problems. Trump wants to

take a tougher line with China, that's clear. That means he can't be

seen to be too soft on Russia because Beijing will see that as a

sign of weakness? Look, what you say on its surface is fair enough. The

problem is, Donald Trump doesn't know what he thinks. One day he was

making a phone call to the President of Taiwan, saying I reject the one

China policy that's been the basis since Richard Nixon and Henry

Kissinger started relations with China and the Chinese said, oh, if

that's really your position, we don't want to talk to you. So Donald

Trump capitulated and he agreed to the one China policy before the

President of China would even get on the phone with him. This is amateur

hour in the extreme. You can find all the silver linings you want but

when an amateur takes over in the Whitehouse when leadership is so

important after eight years of going one way and eight years of going the

other way, it's a real danger for the world. Amateur hour at the

Whitehouse is what I'm worried about. Thank you.

Now it's late, clay pigeon shooting with Francois Hollande late,

but worry not, this program spends half its time misfiring and look

Cause for celebration, so waiting in the wings is the don

of dancing DJs David Rodigan is here to put codes

So save your Facebullets, stand down the twitter tanks,

If we'd never the Oscars wasn't a tedious lovy fest and reinvented

itself as the funniest show on earth, we'd have been off to

Hollywood in a shot. Here is Kevin Maguire with his award-winning

political round-up of the week. Now, the entire This Week team have

been casting their votes It all started when I offered odds

on the Labour winning in Copeland. Now I'm in serious trouble

and unless I get the money back, This Week's production values

will be rubbish. The political week started

with a row over changes The Prime Minister's policy adviser,

George Freeman, defended withholding assistance for people with mental

health issues, arguing Benefits have been given to people

who take pills at home, We want to make sure we get

the money to the really Things are going from bad

to worse with Labour. With odds this long,

perhaps it's worth a punt on Corbyn Then again, with Labour

imploding, who could hold Coming up on the inside,

it's Aaron Banks Moneybags. Arron Banks Moneybags is gaining

on Quisling Carswell. But out of retirement, we've not

heard the last of Nigel Farage, Quisling Carswell has

bitten Nigel Farage. And crossing the line,

the entire Ukip Derby is riderless. Jockeying for position among Ukip's

senior figures has left the party in disarray,

with donor Arron Banks this week threatening to stand

against its only MP, And there were claims Carswell tried

to block a knighthood And unlike Sir Philip Green, Nige

can't afford 363 million to get one. So, Mr Farage pretty much

thinks Carswell should He tried to undermine

everything we've stood for for a very long time,

in terms of policy, Do you think you

deserve a knighthood? The Tories are romping home

and Mrs May's got tight reins But some of the Conservatives

are a bit skittish about Brexit. Eight months ago, a majority

of voters opted to leave I believed then, as I do now,

that was an historic mistake. A hard Brexit, which is

where we appear to be But the Foreign Secretary

was having none of it. Sometimes I get a bit impatient

when I hear people droning and moaning about the state

of the world, and I hear them warn that the sky's

about fall on our heads, or not inconsiderably likely

to fall on our heads. The odds are lengthening

considerably on an easy ride for the Brexit Bill,

after the Lords this week in the committee stage passed

a significant amendment protecting These people need to know now,

not in two years' time, They simply can't put

their lives on hold. Just as Brexit means Brexit, legally

resident means legally resident. And were I in that position,

I would be much more concerned to have a statutory right,

than a political assurance. I borrowed a fiver off Michael,

and when he wanted it back after ten seconds,

he set the bailiffs on me. I just need one high stakes

win to turn it round. Talking of high stakes,

people in Northern Ireland went to the polls today to elect

a new power-sharing executive, but tensions between the DUP

and Sinn Fein mean forming that executive might be difficult,

raising the possibility The Labour leader went

on benefit cuts at PMQs Even up against jokes

as bad as this. Withdraw this deep decision,

this nasty decision, accept the court's judgment,

and support those going through a very difficult

time in their lives. After the result in Copeland last

week, the honourable member for Lancaster and Fleetwood summed

up the by-election result by saying it was an incredible result

for the Labour Party. You know, I think that word actually

describes the right honourable This is the EU's

headquarters in London. They've got loads of money

and experience dealing Ich bin ein desperado

from This Week. They've sold it to

the Tories already. I'm off to busk

outside of Annabel's. They're not going to let him into

Annabel's. And with us, a man who like everyone

else who ends up on the This Week sofa, realises his career

is done and dusted. Former SNP supremo in

Chief, Alex Salmond. Liz, does the House of Lords vote

matter? I hope it does. I hope it persuades some Conservative MPs to

change their mind and back that amendment. I think it is the right

thing to do for people who came here believing their future would be

secure. It's actually right for our economy at the moment because we

need EU citizens doing those jobs. I think it's also, if we did it, it

would be a signal of goodwill in terms of the negotiations with the

rest of Europe. Given all that, Labour's going to throw in the towel

after one round of Ping-Pong, aren't they? Well, we accept the result of

the referendum. I wish it was something otherwise but it is the

referendum, it happened and I believe when we have referendums, we

accept the result. The House of Lords vote then probably won't

matter will it? Not if Labour raise the white flag on it. It's the

weakest point of the Bill because there probably is a natural majority

even in the Commons who if left to their own devices would choose that

amendment. Of course, the point you make about resolve, if a Government

is going to back down, they have to believe the opposition are going to

take the matter all the way. And they don't. And therefore that is a

big weakness. Nor do I accept, people say oh well that's the result

of the referendum and it didn't on the ballot paper say European

citizens low pressure their rights jeopardised, it didn't say we are

coming out the single market. It's a perfectly legitimate case for

putting the heat on the Government far, far more than the opposition is

doing. The House of Lords is full of people who want a soft Brexit,

rather than a hard Brexit. If you give away an important point before

we have had a negotiation, it follows that the Brexit will be

harder than it otherwise would be? It doesn't follow at all. I think it

does. I agree about the gesture of goodwill. At the end of the day,

everybody believes that the rights of European citizens in the UK and

the rights of UK citizens in the European Union will not be

jeopardised and will be protected. Therefore this is a kind of falses a

Margaret Beckett of negotiations -- false aspect of negotiations. Then

don't interfere with the Bill. Except of course that... It's very

well for you to sit on the sofa and say that but for people who're at

the hot end of this, you know, who've had their position described

as a bargaining chip, my constituents do not see this as...

Well, as Norman Tebbit said, you are worrying about people living in

Britain without worrying about the British people. Actually, the more

important amendment is about trying to get Parliament to have a

meaningful vote on the final relationship. That's such humbug.

It's not. How... That is the way that we I think do keep the pressure

up on Theresa May not to have a hard Brexit. It also I think would

strengthen her hand with the E usmt - I know you disagree - she would be

able to say to them, the House won't support it if you give it a bad

deal. That's what's so important about it. -- the EU. We spend years

negotiating. At the end we get the best possible deal and it's brought

back to Britain and Parliament says oh no, that's not good enough. The

European Union will say, sorry, we didn't realise that the House of

Commons wouldn't agree. MEPs can do much more to scrutinise what the

Commission does. We are about to have many more powers by leaving the

European Union. I would have thought you would have wanted British MPs to

have the same power as MPs. Enough of Europe. Let's move on.

Why isn't Nicola Sturgeon as keen as you tap a second independence

referendum. I am sure there is no difference between us on that.

Nicola is going about things the right way. She has offered

compromise proposals which have been knocked down one by one. The last

one is the proposal to keep Scotland in the single market even if the

rest of the UK goes out, an argument which has been described as possible

by a Cabinet minister. That is the one that the UK Government have

still to respond to. If they do not respond in the way that she would

like, will there be a second referendum? The criteria is to put

it in as part of the negotiating position. My understanding is that

they will not go that route. Forgive her if she waits for the decision. I

was struck by a quote from a Downing Street source in the Times which

said, we might have three constitutional crises together,

Brexit, is Scottish referendum and direct rule in Northern Ireland. It

was said as if these things were coming as an act of God. They are

within the ability of Downing Street to have them altogether or not. But

I asked if, in your view, there would be a second independence

referendum. If the government sweeps aside the compromise proposal from

Nicola Sturgeon, if they are not interested in the view of the

Scottish parliament, jobs, security in the marketplace, then in Nicola

Sturgeon's bone words, a referendum becomes very likely. But she is not

going to call for a second referendum unless she thinks she can

win. There is evidence that there is more support for that now than there

was previously. That is a real political problem. Two thirds of

people do not want a second referendum. That is not true either.

Two thirds of people do not want a second referendum and it looks like

it would be the same result, and that is a real problem for the SNP.

There have been 18 polls since the Brexit vote. 17 out of 18 have shown

support for independence on a binary choice higher than it was in

September 2000 and 14. They still show a minority, though. Not all of

them. But on a poll of polls it would still be... About 47, 40 8%.

The last one was 49%. I recall the independence referendum was 28% for

a yes vote back in 2012. If I was prepared to do it at 28%, I do not

think Nicola Sturgeon would mind at 47%. But she has always contended

there would only be a second referendum if it was the clear will

of the Scottish people and the polls do not show that. The manifesto

commitment from last year when she was elected with 47% of the vote was

that the Scottish parliament should have the right to hold a referendum

if Scotland is faced with being dragged out of Europe against the

will of the Scottish people. That is a clear mandate. I interviewed her

and she said we will have won if the Scottish people want one. The only

way to judge that is from the polls, which are quite clear that they do

not want one. I think if we gained as much ground as we did in the last

referendum... I am talking about having a referendum. Nicola has

described the chances of another referendum in the event of that

compromise proposal not being accepted or included in the UK

negotiating position as very likely. With respect to the Westminster

observers, you would be very foolish to underrate the resolve of Nicola

Sturgeon. Are you up for a second referendum? I find it extraordinary

that the UK Government has managed to put itself in a position where

apparently the SNP can call a referendum whenever it feels the

opinion polls are drifting in its direction. The incompetence involved

in the UK legislation that enabled the first referendum is

extraordinary. Alex said, when the first referendum result was

concluded, that it was settled for a generation, and many people would

feel cheated that the SNP view is that whenever opinion polls swing in

their direction they would like another referendum. You do not

dispute the event from the SNP manifesto, that the Scottish

Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum. It is clear

enough. It is clear but we are not bound to agree with it. You said at

the time that it was settled for a generation. Yes, but that was last

year. Yes, and now you are saying something else. Last year in the

manifesto for the Scottish elections, Nicola Sturgeon put

forward that proposition. You have kicked yourself ever since you said

it was settled for a generation. You made one mistake when you said it

was for a generation and another when you left the leadership. I have

made many mistakes. What if the Westminster government says, if you

want a second referendum, you should have one, but you can't have one

until the Brexit deal is done, until the Scottish people know what the

choice is, Britain out of the EU on these terms, or independence? On a

clear manifesto commitment, if there is a majority in the Scottish

Parliament, my view is that the boat sailed when David Cameron first

resisted the idea of a Scottish referendum. You have a referendum

before we knew the terms of Brexit? The soonest we go have a referendum

is next autumn. The shape of the Brexit deal will be done. Not the

way that Europe operates. It would be the prospect of a certain

European future against the uncertainty of Brexit, which seems

an appealing prospect on which to hold a referendum. John McDonnell

thinks there is a soft coup under way against the late -- Labour

leadership, so he's inviting Peter Mandelson ran for tea, a euphemism

for breaking his legs. Here, a cup of tea means just that, and to keep

this well oiled machine running cast and crew have to abide by civilised

norms. No kneeling on the sofas, no knee capping and no Pete Doherty.

That is why we are putting codes of conduct in the spotlight.

Parliament is a place where politicians fight.

I think that word actually describes the right honourable

But do codes of conduct keep scraps good, clean fun?

Not for Labour's Mary Creagh on Tuesday.

I would urge her not to be hysterical about

I expect that sort of language from the sketch writers

of the Daily Mail, not from the Chancellor

What are the rules when it comes to clashes between

Nigel Farage gave Ukip's sole MP, Douglas Carswell,

I dislike him because he damaged me, Ukip and the Leave campaign.

I've been campaigning to get rid of him for a very long time.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump continued to tear up

the civilised rules of engagement between politicians and press.

They say that we can't criticise their dishonest coverage

You know, they always bring up "the first amendment".

But the Donald upheld a collegiate code when he called for politicians

to set aside their differences for the sake of the nation during

Democrats and Republicans should get together and unite

As did parliamentarians and journalists, for charity,

# Sound boy, Rodigan no inna no fuss and fight.#

Clashes are reggae DJ David Rodigan's bread-and-butter.

So are codes of conduct essential to keeping competition fun

Welcome to the prop -- programme. You specialise in sound clash. Does

it have a code of conduct? Definitely, stretching back over 60

years. Jamaicans love contest. In the late 50s and rolling into the

1960s, enormous mobile discos would travel around entertaining local

communities. They were powered and driven by acetate switch were

exclusive recordings. Then they started importing records from

America and then making their own records. And the essence of this

culture is that ultimately boils down to contest, who can draw the

biggest crowd. The quality of the sound system and teams of sound

system players, at least half a dozen, they'll have a job to do. In

later years, that lead to actual clashing. Thousands would turn up

for these. They have them in New York, Jamaica, Japan. It is a

worldwide phenomenon, incredibly popular. To watch an Italian sound

system crashing against German sound systems is something to behold. They

are that obsessed with the culture. And they follow a code of conduct.

The rules are clear. You have to have a spokesperson for your sound

system. They are called a Mike person. And they have too referred

to the track that has just been played. If you go to the grand

finale, the one for one, there is an elimination process with six or

eight sound systems and you are left with two. It lasts for five hours

and you are left with two, a play-off. They played the best of

ten and every recording has to be unique and have then a minute. So

all of this has been customised. If your competitor plays a song by

Johnny Osborne, your speech has to connect to that track, the rhythm

track, or something that would lead you and your team to playing a

better Johnny Osborne, or a reaction to that Johnny Osborne. The speech

is all-important and it can sometimes get a bigger forward, a

Jamaican expression for a response from the crowd, than the record. The

speaker is very important. Listening to you, if this has rules of

conduct, which seems like a clash without rules, it seems that

everything needs rules of conduct in some way, to work. Of course. That

is how it works best. It is when people break the rules of conduct

and punch below the belt and make unnecessary comments because they

are lost for words and do not know what to say in connection to the

music... What draws people to the clash is how exclusive the music is.

Is the arbiter of the crowd? Absolutely. Thousands of die-hard

fans will stand in Brooklyn from 9pm until 4am. They will not like it if

you break the rules. They do not like it. Sometimes the race card is

used, personal comments are made, and the crowd react accordingly. You

love it, don't you? We should go on a trip to see one. It is phenomenal.

I got into it with a fellow broadcaster. I worked for the BBC on

Sunday evenings and years ago I started working with a colleague in

Jamaica and we did a radio clash. Where can we see you next? In a

field somewhere this summer. I did not want to bring them in because

they did not know what you were talking about, and they were

learning something, which is always useful.

Now, that's your lot for tonight bruvs, but not for dis crew.

We be reppin hard at ma girl LouLou's crib innit.

I have strictly no idea what I'm saying.

For those of you who can't hack the pace of an all-

nighter, we leave you with the settling sounds of Melania Trump

reading to children at a New York Hospital.

Nighty night, don't let Dr Seuss, or for that matter,

I came here to encourage everyone to read and to

just think about the books and what you want to achieve in life.

You can steer yourself any directions you choose.

You're too smart to go down any too so good street.