10/10/2016 Victoria Derbyshire

I'm Victoria Derbyshire, welcome to the programme.

Our top story today - some of the ugliest exchanges

ever seen in an American presidential debate -

as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton trade accusations.

I apologised to my family, I apologised to the American people.

He has said that the video doesn't represent who he is.

But I think it is clear to anyone who heard it that it

I was so surprised to see him sign on with the devil.

But when you talk about apology, I think the one that you should

really be apologising for, the thing that you should be

apologising for, are the 33,000 e-mails.

Is just awfully good that someone with the temperament

of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in this country.

More reaction to come throughout the programme.

Also this morning - three former heads of

the British Army slam a long-running investigation into allegations

We began to see, in my time, that it was growing as a many headed Hydra.

We need to wind these investigations as soon as possible. It is not good

for individuals, not fair on individuals and it is harmful to

operational forces. Obviously, I wish to see soldiers that are

innocent of any such behaviour, the burden lifted from them.

More on that exclusive story to come.

Conservative MP and former army captain Johnny Mercer has made

a film for this programme on the issue - we'll bring it

dog-piling and virtual mobbing, you could be prosecuted.

They're all forms of abuse on social media - we'll bring you the details.

We will bring you the breaking news and developing stories. Later, we

will bring you a interview with Ed Miliband, calling for a Commons vote

on Brexit. Do get in touch on all the stories

we're talking about this morning - If you text, you will be charged

at the standard network rate. Our top story today,

Donald Trump has used the second US Presidential debate to dismiss

a tape in which he made obscene remarks about women

as locker-room talk. Mr Trump accused the former

President Bill Clinton He suggested it was wrong to focus

on the tape when there were so many Our Washington correspondent

Gary O'Donoghue has more. Another night when the stakes

for Hillary Clinton were high, Donald Trump again facing questions

about his treatment of women and his seeming willingness

to force himself upon them. Before even a word was

spoken the tone was set. You brag that you have

sexually assaulted women. I don't think you

understood what was said. I apologised to my family,

I apologised to the American people. And he has said that the video

doesn't represent who he is. But I think it's clear to anyone

who heard it that it represents If you look at Bill

Clinton, far worse. What he has done to women,

there has never been anyone in the history of politics in this

nation that has been Repeatedly, Donald Trump called

Hillary Clinton a liar, Their lives have been destroyed

for doing one fifth of what you've done and it is a disgrace and you

ought be ashamed of yourself. He promised to get a special

prosecutor to investigate her e-mails if he won

the White House. It is just awfully good that someone

with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of

the law in our country. At the end, a surreal moment

when they were both asked to name His children are incredibly able

and devoted and I think that says I will say this about

Hillary, she doesn't quit, This was the most petulant

and bad-tempered debate there has been since they started

doing these 50 years ago. The sheer visceral hatred these two

have for one another was plain But despite all his problems,

Donald Trump did deliver a better It just might not be enough to erase

the damage he has already done. Let's get more now with our

Washington Correspondent, Despite those lewd comments, Donald

Trump is still in this? Yes, he is, a huge achievement in itself. He

came into this debate with a very low bar, he was backed into a corner

over this tape, haemorrhaging support from Republican lawmakers

and officials. Dozens had to distance themselves from him. He

really had to rescue that. He did, he forced himself out of that

corner. He did apologise for the tape, at the same time he did not

show very much contrition. He tried to divert attention by highlighting

the sex scandals of former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton's

husband. He went on personal attacks, called her a liar, he said

she had hatred in her heart, he called her the devil, that he would

jail her if he could over her e-mail problems. He went for broke, in the

midst of that, he put in a more disciplined and more feisty

performance than he had in the first debate, all of which means that he

has probably stopped the bleeding in his campaign somewhat. You might not

see more defections, at least not immediately, although Republican

lawmakers will still be on the watch from day-to-day. It is not clear

that he actually managed to deal with the larger issue, which is

trying to repair the damage with women voters that has been building,

but came to a head with the release of this sex boasting tape. And what

did the snap polls say about Hugh They said different things, more of

them said Hilary Clinton won and put in a calmer performance. She was

better at arguing policy, to be expected, that is her specialty. She

had the moral high ground because of this video that shocked not only

Democrats and voters in general, but Republicans, very lewd comments

about women, suggesting that he could sexually assault them. It was

thought she might be able to deliver a knockout blow. Her approach was to

say, they go low, you go higher. Answer the questions, present her

case and let him hang himself, that is what happened in the previous

debate. She was able to bait him on various things and getting to make

self damaging acknowledgements and lose his temper. In this case, he

came out of the gate fighting and went after her in such a strong way

that although she may have won the debate on policy issues, he made a

dent and at least appeals to his base, at least made the Republicans

say he is still in the race. Joanna Gosling is in the BBC

Newsroom with a summary Three former heads of

the British Army have criticised the mechanism set up to investigate

allegations of historic abuse by UK The Iraq Historic Allegations Team

was set-up to examine claims of abuse by British forces in Iraq

dating back to 2003. It's been repeatedly criticised

for its investigative methods and for pursuing claims

against soldiers who've already been And Victoria will have more on that

exclusive story at 9.15am. In the past few minutes the RMT

union has said that Southern Rail is to take legal action to try

and stop a series of strikes The union is planning 14 days of

strikes until December. It is in protest at changes to the role of

conductors. The Company insists moving them to new posts of on-board

supervisor will not affect jobs or safety.

People who publish personal information about someone

on the internet or encourage online harassment could be

The guidelines come into force today in England and Wales.

The CPS says it will exercise considerable caution before charging

those who post "grossly offensive" material online,

Police in Germany say they've captured a Syrian refugee who's

suspected of planning an Islamist bomb attack.

Jaber Albakr - who's believed to have links with the Islamic State

group - was detained in Leipzig after a two-day search

That's a summary of the latest BBC News - more at 9.30.

A couple of comments on the story we are bringing you, three former heads

of the British Army criticised the long-running investigation into

British soldiers accused of abuse in Iraq. One on Facebook, leave service

personnel alone, they just follow orders, go after the colonel in

chief who decides where they go. Another, do not punish servicemen

and women for doing their duty, did not take the word of the men they

were fighting over our men. Another, it is disgusting that Iraqi and

Afghanistan bomb makers can claim anything. One day we will wake up

and need our own ease Armed Forces, they will say, stuff you, stupid

civilians. We need to look after our own.

Let's get the sport now with John, we'll start with football and Wales,

Why might they not be particularly happy with the performance? They

drew 1-1 with Georgia. You might think that Wales, still undefeated

in their qualifying campaign, bidding to reach the first World Cup

since 1958, that would be a good thing. But they were playing 18 127

places below them in the rankings. They made a good start, Gareth Bale

opening the scoring. They were pegged back and it finished 1-1 in

Cardiff. Yes, they are undefeated with five points, but they are third

in their qualifying group. They still have plenty more matches to

come, but their failure to beat one of the more lowly nations will be a

disappointment to Chris Coleman. If they finished third, it will not be

enough to reach the World Cup in Russia.

Well, Andy Murray's still building on his successful year,

and the world number one position could be in his sights too.

Absolutely, a very real possibility that Andy Murray could finish as

world number one. How is he going to get there? He won the China open,

giving him 500 ranking points and his fifth title this year. More

importantly, it sets him up to potentially surpass Novak Djokovic

as the world number one, a rather small trophy, as you can see, that

he got his hands on. There are still 1000 ranking points available for

each Masters title he can win. There are two masters titles available.

Here's 3500 points behind Novak Djokovic.

The end of season finals are coming and he can win points there as well.

Novak Djokovic, it has to be said, needs to drop points as well. But it

is feasible for Murray to go on and become world number one. If he

doesn't do it this year, there is a strong chance he could do it next

year. And finally, England's cricket tour

of Bangladesh was controversial before they flew out,

and why are the England players unhappy during

the one-day series too? I think there were handbags, you

could call it. An altercation between the captain at the moment,

Jos Buttler, when he was dismissed. I think the reason it got a bit

heated, before they went out, there were concerns over security, players

but did not travel. The players themselves have placed real

importance of winning because of all of the controversy about going out

there. Eoin Morgan, the current captain, didn't go. He wants to win

and he was disappointed because his wicket was a crucial one. There were

staging a fightback. England were 26-4. They only needed to reach 239,

a realistic target. I think he knew, when he trudged off, the chances of

winning went with his dismissal. Ben Stokes got involved. He said, what I

will not stand for is a player going in with a shoulder for handshakes.

It seems there were making something of nothing, but I think the players

realised it was unimportant travelled to Bangladesh, they want

to win, the series is level and it goes down to the final match on

Wednesday. Much more reaction to the US

Presidential debate to come. But first, three former heads

of the British Army have told this programme about their concerns over

the way investigations into allegations of abuse by UK

troops in the Iraq War The Iraq Historic Allegations Team

was set-up in 2010 to examine claims of abuse by British forces in Iraq

dating back to 2003. It's been repeatedly criticised

for its investigative methods and for pursuing claims

against soldiers who've already been acquitted of any crime -

claims that have been described Many of those claims have been

bought because war zones and battle fields still have to follow rules

set out in the European Convention Last week Prime Minister Theresa May

announced plans to scrap that for future conflicts -

but, crucially, it won't affect past Johnny Mercer is a Conservative MP

and former army captain he's been looking into the issue for us

in an exclusive film which features the first televised interviews

with those facing some My name's Johnny Mercer and I'm

a Conservative Member of Parliament I served 13 years in the army,

conducting multiple combat operations in Afghanistan

at the height of the One of the reasons I came

to Parliament is because I'm passionate about this nation's

relationship with her military, our obligation towards those

who keep us safe, who we send to fight and sometimes to die

on our behalf. But I'm worried that in recent years

we have breached that obligation and now we are facing one

of the most serious injustices I remember thinking this

can't be real. The untold cruelties of this process

have destroyed my life. It's broken me and the army just

do not seem to care. I think we need to wind these

investigations up as We also need to think

about the victims of the crimes. It was worse than any

war I've ever fought. This story concerns allegations

of abuse by British troops To date, literally thousands

of allegations have been made against our troops and in 2010

the Government set up IHAT, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team,

to investigate a mountain of alleged More recently, Operation Northmoor

has been established to investigate There are currently 1,492 cases

of alleged abuse under investigation to date just in Iraq, including 235

cases of unlawful killing. There are more than 600 cases under

investigation in Afghanistan. If even half of these

allegations are true, that would suggest a catastrophic

breakdown in law and order Many of us who served find this

ridiculous and offensive. I've seen our servicemen

being dragged through the courts for years,

being cleared of wrongdoing, only to face repeat allegations,

endless questioning and harassment, and living under the constant threat

of being tried for war crimes. This is not the way

the British Army does things. We do not treat our

people like this. For me this comes down

to two clear issues. Firstly, the fundamental

misunderstanding involved in trying to apply European human rights law

to war fighting operations and secondly, how we actually look

after those who are subject I'm trying to use being a member

of this place to expose what's I'm chairing an inquiry looking

into how we look after those who are facing allegations

of wrongdoing. The Ministry of Defence has refused

permission for soldiers to come and talk to my committee

about their experiences of going through this process

but these people's voices So two soldiers have agreed to speak

to me about their ordeal but only Their names have been changed

and one of their voices This is John, a soldier who has been

repeatedly investigated despite being cleared of wrongdoing

by court-martial in 2006. He told me about the original

incident that led to the accusation. We were accused of a lad

who drowned to death and the other three

people who were there, the other three Iraqis,

they accused us of beating them It was in the immediate aftermath

of the invasion, right? It was chaos.

I'm not going to lie. It was something I've

never seen in my life. I don't think I could ever

contemplate how bad it was going What was the first you heard that it

was going to be investigated? I come home, done a tour

of Northern Ireland, and then after that a couple

of gentlemen came into my room and they said my name and they said,

"I'm arresting you on suspicion They interrogated me

for hours and hours. When I came home that day

I thought this can't be real. I used to be gutted every

time my eyes opened of a morning. At night I tried

to take my own life. That place I went to that

time was worse than any It became clear that this harassment

going back over ten years has had an incredibly disruptive effect

on his life. They took about eight hours

deliberating. They came down and

found us not guilty. It wasn't until after the trial that

I got worse. It was the drinking

and the sleepless nights So after 2008, when did you first

hear that this was The first time I heard

about it was from the press They said how do you feel

about being investigated? I remember just sitting

on the couch shaking. I just sat there thinking to myself,

"You're going to go through this and drag it all back up again

and you're going to leave me again Chris, not his real name, was

accused of a similar crime to John. He has been injured

repeatedly in operations. I've been investigated between 2003

and 2006 and cleared. I had been named or the case had

been named in 2008 in the Aitken Report but again no

discipline or charges were ever There was a civil case

in 2011 and in 2015, after 12 years, IHAT decided

it was then necessary to arrest me on something that had been

thoroughly scrutinised in the past. I can accept that in 2004 they had

a lawful duty to investigate the allegation however

it was investigated for two years and they abandoned the case

because they had Right now I'm facing a maximum

sentence of life imprisonment. Chris explained some of the bizarre

investigative methods They asked my former girlfriend

about scars on my body. They asked if I was abusive to her,

if I shouted at her, if I was abusive to my soldiers,

if I had a temper or anger They asked her if I had

an alcohol issue. They asked her if I was a racist

or if I held any particularly strong political views

and they asked her other things about our relationship which I don't

wish to speak about now but obviously had no relation

to an event that happened in 2003. I am to understand that they have

interviewed people I have never served with in operations and again

they are asking "Is he violent? Does he have some sort

of little man syndrome?" So when I directly asked

the minister in January, I had heard of this case

and a number of others, that people were looked

after and they were informed and drawn through the

process by the army. Nobody was approached

by IHAT out of the blue. The untold cruelties of this process

have destroyed my life. It has broken me and the army just

do not seem to care. I find what these guys had

to say heartbreaking. I'm ashamed of how this process

is being conducted and those I wanted to understand how we have

let this happen so I decided to go right to the top to try and get some

answers about what's I was head of the armed forces

between 2010 to 2013. Chief Of General Staff from early

2003 to the late summer of 2006. Johnny, as you remember,

I was Chief Of The General Staff Yes, when I was a very

young and inexperienced Well, I am first of all very sorry

that actually we didn't identify As I said, to begin with,

in 2010-2011, it didn't It was just a thing someone had said

they would introduce. It was only subsequently

we began to see, in my time, that it was growing as a many-headed

Hydra. What is really disappointing is

that the authorities, if you like, whether it is the Ministry

of Defence or the chain of command, has been so nervous of the negative

potential consequences of investigations being carried out

and allegations being proven, that they have veered too much

on behalf of those who are making the allegations and not

supporting the soldier. I think this comes out of this

instinct somewhere in Whitehall, within the establishment,

that basically soldiers aren't good and freedom fighters,

we call them terrorists, who kill 3,000 people in one go,

but in the minds of some of these people can be somehow quite good

and we are nasty and we have got Nobody has the guts

to say that's rubbish. We have come to a pretty pass

where this has come about. And we have our absolute standards

and they must be pursued. That does not include soldiers

who find themselves subject to an investigation on the basis

of cooked-up allegations. If I have failed to make these

points strongly enough, I can only The idea that we've got

hundreds if not thousands Anyone who knows any army,

let alone the British Army, So there was a fundamental

flaw in its inception. We need to wind these investigations

up as quickly as possible. It's not fair on individuals

and it's definitely harmful Obviously I would wish to see

soldiers who are innocent of any such behaviour,

the burden lifted from them Many of the allegations have been

brought by one firm representing Iraqis,

Public Interest Lawyers run by Phil We are seeing the systematic use

of coercive interrogation techniques by British forces in Iraq

and apparently nobody But questions have been raised

about their practices In fact they've recently been closed

after being stripped of public funding after it was ruled

they breached their contractual I went to see lawyer

Hillary Meredith who represents some of the soldiers who have been

accused to get some answers There appears to be two

law firms involved. One was called Public

Interest Lawyers. They closed their doors

in August this year. From what I understand,

they had an agent on the ground in Iraq who was looking for families

who had suffered either what they said was an unlawful

killing or injury at the hands of the British Army

and they were taking statements and sending them back to the UK

and then the abuse cases Public Interest Lawyers,

I understand, had Under a Legal Aid contract

you are paid whether you win the case

or you lose the case. Have there been any criminal

convictions at all? As far as I am aware there have been

no criminal convictions Neither Phil Shiner nor

Public Interest Lawyers responded to our request for an interview

about any of these allegations but in the past they have

denied any wrongdoing and say they are the victim

of a political witchhunt. I wanted to know how this process

could be defended so I went to meet Carla Ferstman at the human

rights charity Redress. We also need to think

about the victims of the crimes. They deserve to know what happened

and they deserve to have some The allegations had not

been fully investigated. That was the view that was taken,

so it was felt that there was a need to get to the bottom of all these

allegations to determine whether individuals could or should

face prosecution for them. It's interesting because we spoke

to a couple of the soldiers yesterday and they say,

yes, somebody died here. And now they are hounded

for it 12 years later. Is that in the principles

of justice? Ideally you would have had

a full and effective The fact that you haven't

doesn't mean that there There needs to be one,

it is as simple as that. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team

told us: But that was far from

the experience that John Since I started making this film,

there have been some The Prime Minister has announced

that there will be better legal protection in future conflicts

for those who serve and it looks like the army is beginning

to take this seriously. but there remains a serious failure

in this country when it comes to looking after those who serve

that I'm afraid the The Prime Minister needs

to understand that how we look after this Afghan-Iraqi generation

of war veterans will define this nation's relationship with its

military for the next 50 years. A treaty says soldiers are human,

the situations they find themselves in are beyond human imagination and

yet they are accountable. Being a soldier in the war zone is not like

walking the streets of Britain, you are in a constant state of fear and

your mental state becomes one of survival for yourself and your

comrades. This will cause a rational behaviour. People who have never

been in combat will never understand that. Maria says it is disgusting

headhunting soldiers for carrying out orders in a war zone. If anybody

is to blame, it is the Government, our boys should not be out there in

the first place. We asked to speak to

the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon

and someone from the Iraq Historic A spokesperson for the Iraq Historic

Allegations Team told us, "We are making significant

progress with IHAT. It is likely that the caseload

will be around 250 by early January 2017, to less than 100 within a year

and that the IHAT will have completed its work

by the end of 2019." A Ministry of Defence spokesperson

told us, "We understand the strain that being involved in such

proceedings can place on service personnel, and we are doing

all we can to mitigate that impact to the greatest extent possible,

whilst also recognising that legal scrutiny of the actions

of the Armed Forces is a crucial part of the democracy and rule

of law that they serve to protect." After 10am we'll hear in depth

from a soldier who's being investigated over

alleged war crimes. Still to come: Hard Brexit

or soft Brexit and what do The Former Labour leader Ed Miliband

says there should be a vote in the Commons about how

we leave the EU. We speak to him about

it just after 10am. As of today, internet trolls

who post humiliating photoshopped images or harrass people online

could face prosecution under We speak to the head

of the Crown Prosecution Service Here's Joanna in the BBC Newsroom

with a summary of today's news. Bitter words have been exchanged

between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during their second

US presidential debate. Mrs Clinton said the Republican

candidate's remarks about groping women showed he wasn't

fit to be president. Mr Trump repeatedly called his

Democratic opponent a liar and accused her husband

of abusing women. Three former heads of

the British Army have criticised the mechanism set up to investigate

allegations of historic abuse by UK The Iraq Historic Allegations Team

was set-up to examine claims of abuse by British forces in Iraq

dating back to 2003. It's been repeatedly criticised

for its investigative methods and for pursuing claims

against soldiers who've already been The RMT union says that

Southern Rail is to take legal action to try and stop a series

of strikes due to start tomorrow. The union is planning 14 days

of strikes until December in protest at changes

to the role of conductors. The company insists that moving

conductors to new posts of on-board supervisor will not

affect jobs or safety. Secondary school teachers in England

work longer than those in most developed countries,

with one in five putting A report by the Education Policy

Institute suggests that leaves little time for career development,

and is part of the reason many Police in Germany say they've

captured a Syrian refugee who's suspected of planning

an Islamist bomb attack. Jaber Al Bakr, who is believed

to have links with the Islamic State group, was detained in Leipzig

after a two-day search. People who publish personal

information about someone on the internet or encourage online

harassment could be The guidelines come into force today

in England and Wales. The CPS says it will exercise

considerable caution before charging those who post "grossly

offensive" material online, That's a summary of

the latest BBC News. Wales drew with Georgia last night

in World Cup qualifying. They might remain undefeated, but it will feel

like an opportunity missed, as they failed to beat a nation ranked 127

places below them in the Fifa rankings. They are third in a group,

which would not be enough to see them qualify. Andy Murray won the

China open and it means he could finish the year as world number one.

He trails Novak Djokovic in the rankings at the moment, but with

more points up for grabs with more tournaments to come, showed Novak

Djokovic slip-up and fail to defend his title is, Murray could overtake

him. Johanna Konta is up to eighth in the women's rankings after

finishing runner-up. She is the first British woman into the top ten

in over 30 years. She is on course to compete at the season-ending

finals. It got heated as England lost to

Bangladesh in the second one-day international. Jos Buttler was

unhappy at the way the hosts summer ready. Ben Stokes got involved at

the end. England's hopes of wrapping up the series went as he trudged

off, as they lost the match. It all goes down to the final one-day match

on Wednesday. Well, it promised to be heated -

and it certainly was. It also threatened to end

Donald Trump's hope of being the next US President,

and it probably didn't do that. Instead, the Republican billionaire

used the second Presidential debate to defend vulgar remarks he made

about women and insist alleged abuse of women

by Hillary Clinton's husband, the former US President Bill

Clinton, was actually far worse If you slept through the debate,

here is 90 minutes boiled down Ladies and gentlemen,

the Republican nominee for President, Donald J Trump,

the Democratic nominee You described kissing women

without their consent, You brag that you have

sexually assaulted women. I don't think you understood

what was said. I apologised to my family,

I apologised to the American people. He has said that the video doesn't

represent who he is. But I think it is clear to anyone

who heard it that it If you look at Bill

Clinton, far worse. I'd like to know, why aren't

you bringing up the e-mails? The thing you should be apologising

for the 33,000 e-mails The two boxes of e-mails and other

things last week that were taken I'll tell you what, I didn't

think I would say this, but I'm going to say it,

and I hate to say it, if I win, I am going to instruct my

Attorney General to get a special prosecutor to look into your

situation, because there has never been so many lies,

so much deception. There has never been

anything like it. We are going to have a special

prosecutor. When I speak, I go out

and speak, the people of this In my opinion, the people that

are long-term workers There has never been anything

like this, where e-mails, and you get a subpoena,

you get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena,

you delete 33,000 e-mails. Then you acid wash them,

or bleach them, as you would say. We are going to get a special

prosecutor and we are going to look into it. You know what, people have

been... Their lives have been destroyed for doing one fifth of

what you have done. It is a disgrace. Honestly, you ought to be

ashamed of yourself. I take response ability for using a personal e-mail

account. Obviously if I were to do it over again, I would not. I'm not

making any excuses. It was a mistake and I am very sorry about that. It

is just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump

is not in charge of the law in our country. Because you'd be in jail.

She complains that Donald Trump took advantage of the tax code. Well why

didn't you change it when US senator? It is hard sometimes to get

Congress to do what you want to do. You have to keep working at it. Yes,

President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some

arguments, convincing other people, he used other arguments. WikiLeaks,

that just came out, she lied. Now she is blaming the lie on the late,

great Abraham Lincoln. Honest Abe never lied. That is the difference

between Abraham Lincoln and you. A big difference. The United States of

America should be prepared to use military force to strike the

military targets of the Saddam -- the Assad regime. I disagree, we

have two knockout Isis. We have never been an eight situation where

an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the

outcome of the election. Believe me, they are not doing it to get me

elected. They are doing it to try to influence the election for Donald

Trump. Maybe because he has praised Vladimir Putin, maybe because he

says he agrees with a lot of what he wants to do, maybe because he wants

to do business in Moscow, I don't know the reasons. But we deserve

answers. And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax

returns. I don't know Vladimir Putin. I think it would be great if

we got along with Russia because we could fight Isis together. But I

notice any time anything wrong happens, they like to say the

Russians, the Russians, she doesn't know if it is Russians doing the

hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. They always blame Russia because

they think they are trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know

nothing about Russia. I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the

inner workings of Russia, I don't deal there, I have no businesses, no

loans from Russia. The New York Times published three pages of tax

returns, showing you claimed a $930 million loss, meaning you could

avoid paying federal income taxes for years. A lot of my right of was

depreciation and things that Hillary as a Senator allow. She will always

allow it, because the people that give her money wanted. I understand

the tax code better than anybody that has run for President. It is

extremely complex. Hillary Clinton has friends that want all of these

provisions, including the provision which is very important to Wall

Street people. Here we go again. I've been in favour of getting rid

of carried interest for years. Starting when I was a senator from

New York. But that is not the point. Why didn't you do it? Because I was

a senator with a Republican President. I will be President. If

you were an effective senator, you could have done it. You were not

effective. Please allow her to respond, she didn't interrupt you.

Under the Constitution, presidents have something called veto power.

Take a look at WikiLeaks and see what they said about Bernie Sanders,

what Deborah Schulte had in mind. Between super delegates and her, he

never had a chance. I was so surprised to see him sign on with

the devil. Would either of you name one positive thing that you respect

in one another? I respect his children. His children

are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about

Donald. She does fight hard and she does not quit, she does not give up.

I consider that to be a very good trait. 90 minutes into seven

minutes. If you want to watch more, the BBC News Channel will show it

again at 11am. Let's talk now to some political

commentators from both the Trump Dr Jan Halper-Hayes

is the vice-president Charlie Wolf is a Republican

commentator. Ursula Lauriston is a Democrat

and editor in chief Quinia Fulton is a Democrat

political commentator. Donald Trump is very much still in

this despite the furore of the gross comments which came out on Friday.

Absolutely. I think las night Hillary Clinton definitely won new

votes, but Donald Trump got the spotlight back which is exactly what

he wanted. How did he manage to do that? Well, I think he finally stood

up for himself. He did the prep he needed to do and he stayed on

message, but he did fight back. He was not going to let Hillary pull

the same act of rehearsed lines of the sort of condescending smile and

the roll of the eyes and I thought that key moment was when he was

talking about, you have done this, the 33,000 e-mails, you should be

ashamed of yourself and you know, he was on the side of the people, I'm

going to get a special prosecutor and I'm going to look into what

you've done. You notice he had, I think, of all the applause, the

three or four times it happened, I think three out of four were for

Donald Trump. How did you think Hillary Clinton did, the woman you

support, compared to how Donald Trump did in this second TV debate?

I think Hillary Clinton had a very good night. She stuck on message.

She had a few hiccups and there, the Lincoln comment was quite confusing

to me, but she had a very good night, I think she stuck to her

points and I think she tried to keep it a clean debate without it getting

too nasty as the US election has been. As far as Donald Trump I think

he did what he needed to do for Republicans to stick by his side,

considering the controversial that's been going on with the Trump tape

recently and the other comments he made about women. I think he still

had a decent night. Hillary Clinton didn't really land a

blow on him though, did she? I think that it is all about answering

actual questions and I always listen to hear Donald Trump answer an

actual question and that never ever happens and I don't think it ever,

ever will and the last debate that's what he tried to do and that was his

down fall and once again he went back to his prior strategy and

didn't answer a single question and Hillary Clinton did. Hillary Clinton

has shown grace and real leadership, what leadership actually means and

that's gact r exactly the blow that was needed for voters that were

maybe on the fence. They saw a child and they saw an actual leader who

can lead this country into continued greatness and success... Actually

last night was the first time we have seen a very good adult Donald.

He didn't take the bait. He was very clear on his positions. He had one

liners and a little bit of humour and I can tell you that I am very

glad he apologised once again because that man has never said I'm

sorry and it was 11 years ago and I know the argument is, but he's

running for president. Can we give a little consideration to the fact

that he knew nothing about running a campaign and look what he has

achieved? And can we give a little bit of credit to the fact that he

has been dealing with people and might have developed some awareness

and really is contrite in some ways. He has been disgusting... You come

back The thing about Donald Trump is not childish, he apologised, that's

not true. Donald Trump has said things about women. Last night he

barely apologised for the things that he said about women on that

tape. He is a human being and when he apologises, he apologises as if

he doesn't really want to apologise, he is being forced to apologise for

talking about touching women in an inappropriate way and calling them

fat figures, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, they have baggage.

Funny enough her response on the e-mails and the server reminds me of

my 11-year-old. Every time he says, "I'm sorry." "I was wrong with the

server and I should have known better and I'm sorry and I

apologise." It doesn't work like that. This shows bad judgement to

put Government e-mails on a private server and to come up with the

excuse well, the machine was never hacked. Isn't it the same when he

says, "I'm sorry for making those gross comments. That's not who I

am." No, it is actions versus words. Infidelity, he doesn't apologise

for, not paying people, that he doesn't apologise for. He had words,

he had actions... He has apologised for that. He is not a leader. What

sort of a leader was Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton is not running for

president. We put a stain on the office of president and she was

there as his wife and First Lady and he was be back there if she is

elected and will be running the economy in her words and will be

advising her. Is that the sort of person we want back in the White

House? I wanted to say on his comment about. Polling shows when

you have been bring up the sexual harassment of Bill Clinton or the

adultery, women don't want to hear that because they don't appreciate

Donald Trump and her camp trying to pin that on Hillary Clinton. She is

a victim herself with her husband having committed adultery multiple

times and that happened in the 1990s and we've exhausted that argument.

He was impeached by the House. He wasn't impeached by the Senate.

Donald made comments in a private capacity in 11 years ago so that's

in the past as well. I think all this women stuff and this was said

and everything else, let's look at really important issues. Seven out

of ten Americans think we're headed in the wrong direction. Hillary

Clinton wants to be the third term of president Obama. Well, why does

she want to ride his coat tails and why did she ride Bill's coat tails

and she wants Bill to take care of the economy if we have a woman

president, I would much prefer to know what legacy she wants to

create. You know what, the voters don't really care about some of the

stuff we were just quibbling about. They care about jobsment they care

about economy. They care about national security. And even though

Trump started with immigration, that is the foundation because that, they

think, is the source of the problem, that has taken jobs, has hurt our

economy, and threatens our national security.

Ursula, let's talk about policies? I don't understand how you can say

that Hillary Clinton is riding on anyone's coat tails... Policy. She

had the policy of raising taxes for the rich. Raising taxes? For the

rich to help the middle-class. Because the middle-class was being

stifled by the rich always getting everything. All the time. The top

12% pay half of all the income taxes in the United States. At least Mr

Trump is talking about growing the economy. We have something like $2.5

trillion that is off-shore right now, companies won't bring back

because it is too expensive. He wants to drop the corporate rate. We

have the highest corporate rate in the world. Drop it. Bring the money

in and grow the economy and get people into jobs.

Mr Trump claims he is all about America, and make America great, but

a lot of his jobs are in other countries. How do you explain that?

How are we supposed to trust a man who takes advantage of the tax

system? You're wrong again. To put losses against future earns or

future profits is done constantly - hold on. It is done by everybody. It

is ethical. It is common place. I have talked to my accountant and

accountants and businessmen in the States, you want entrepreneurs like

Dyson or Richard Branson to take risks and when they lose money you

want to make it easier for them to still invest. They will always have

losses and always mess up until they find the right thing and that's what

happened with Trump. ? In 2014, Hillary Clinton used the same law to

take $700,000 off her taxes. The New York Times really committed

malfeasance in saying 18 years. The law requires you show a profit one

out of every five years. They used it when they had pre-tax profits of

$29.3 million. They used the tax laws and instead of paying, they got

$4 million back from the Government, but then they create this ridiculous

misleading 18 years he has not paid. He hasn't paid taxes in 18 years and

he bragged about it on the debates, not once, but twice. Ursula? I don't

understand how it is OK for a billionaire to do these things and

to use these laws, but then someone else can't obey the law... I've used

it. I've used it. In criticising Trump because Trump wants to save

people money, he doesn't want the Government to cost as much, but I

ran a consulting business for 20 years, it is the cost of doing

business, it is deappreciation, it is paying salaries, and there are

some years you make some money and there are some years that you just

might not and you have to tap into your savings.

OK, tell that to the middle-classment You can't even

stand on anything that he says. You can actually see through from

someone who handed in their tax return like every other presidential

candidate has done. Can you tell me something good about Hillary? The

policy seems to be let's critique Trump. She has given women a

platform and negotiated peace treaties wheel she was US senator

and as Secretary of State, so she had years and years where she has

created policies and been there for working families and when you're in

the public eye for so long, you're not perfect, but at the same time,

you're creating real change. Doing business... What change? Let's ask

the question. Let's ask the question back. What change? When you look

what happened especially to black families in America, the increase in

food stamps, we have had growth of less than 2% over the last eight

years. Final, final word to you Charlie, the qualities of Donald

Trump as Ursula talked about He is a businessman. He knows how to get

people around a table and use his judgement to make decisions. Hillary

Clinton has a lot of experience and have very smooth and has a lot of

lines, what she lacks is taking the wisdom in how to present the facts

that are presented to her. Thank you.

We have got comments from you about the report that Conservative MP

Johnny Mercer brought to you this morning. He spoke to three former

heads of the British Army who believe that this historic

investigation into British soldiers really has gone on for too long and

should be wound-up. David, "To the critics of our armed force, if you

can't stand behind our armed forces and support them, feel free to stand

in front of them." Sally tweets this, "A fair legal process presumes

innocence and doesn't violate the rights of the accused to fabricate

cases without foundation. End IHAT." Phil says, "Are they mad? Soldiers

prosecuted for doing their jobs. It is a national scandal." Ian says, "I

am an ex-soldier, I served my Queen and country. I never heard of any

abuses." Stewart says, "My brother witnessed the abuse when he was

serving in the Prince of Wales regiment in Iraq in 2003. He

complained to top brass about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners and the

response of the Army was to place him in military jail for two weeks

and threaten his family and discharge him. There are many

questions that need answering and the top brass of the military should

be forced to answer them." Keep them coming in and we will talk

more about the issue after 10am. Coming up, should Parliament get

a say over the Government's The former Labour leader

Ed Miliband thinks so. We'll be talking to him about it

just after 10am. Let's get the latest

weather update with Carol. Good morning, wasn't it cold this

morning, Victoria, did you notice? I didn't. My head was elsewhere!

We have had the coldest night of the autumn. Now, what we have as we go

through the next couple of days is sunny spells, rather like today,

we've got some showers in the east rather like today, but it is going

to turn colder. Last week some of us had temperatures up to 20 Celsius.

This week, we're not expecting those dizzy heights. We have this great

big blocking area of high pressure across across Scandinavia.

It is dragging in some showers from the North Sea and that is the case

today. We've got the showers coming in. Some of them are heavy. Don't be

surprised if there is the odd rumble of thunder. Through the day some of

them will move across the Pennines, into the Midlands and the London

area, but drift further west and we're under brighter skies and

sunshine. So this afternoon, you can see we have a plethora of showers

around. In between, there will be some sunny spells or bright spells

at worst. That continues into south-west England, heading into

Wales, you could catch the odd shower in Wales. We have had showers

across north-west England this morning, but most of them will fade

and we carry on with a few showers in Eastern Scotland, but a lot of

dry weather in Scotland and after showers, and a cloudy start in

Northern Ireland, things brightening up and also drying up. Now through

the course of this evening and overnight, we will have showers for

a time. Most of them fading back to the east and around the channel

coastline. Still a breezy night. Some clear skies, so under the clear

skies that's where we will have the lowest temperatures, generally in

towns and cities between seven and ten Celsius, but in the countryside

lower, so again, in prone areas tonight, we are likely to see a

touch of frost. So tomorrow morning, we start off

with clear skies, meaning a lovely sparkly start to the day with

sunshine. But there will be more showers around tomorrow. Some of

them could merge and the other thing about tomorrow is, there will be a

brisker breeze and it is coming from the cold east to north easterly

direction. So despite the fact that we've got temperatures between 11

and 16 Celsius, up a touch on today, it will actually feel colder. But

once again, if you're out in the west, that's where we're going to

see the best of the sunshine, not too bad in southern areas either.

For Wednesday, it is more of the same again. Still this keen easterly

breeze, blowing in the showers. Brighter skies out towards the west.

That's where we'll have the sunshine. And temperature values

well in the breeze, feeling cooler, we're looking at 11 Celsius to 15

Celsius. Just a quick look ahead, you can see low pressure moving

across the Bay of Biscay in across parts of France, high pressure to

the north of us, look at that squeeze, that tells you it will turn

windier by the end of this week. It's Monday, 10 o'clock,

I'm Victoria Derbyshire. Welcome to the programme,

if you've just joined us. Donald Trump threatens

Hillary Clinton with jail in what's being called the worst-tempered

Presidential debate in US history. I apologised to my family,

I apologised to the American people. He has said that the video doesn't

represent who he is. But I think it is clear to anyone

who heard it that it I was so surprised to see him

sign on with the devil. But when you talk about apology,

I think the one that you should really be apologising for,

the thing that you should be apologising for, are

the 33,000 e-mails. Is just awfully good that someone

with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge

of the law in this country. We're facing one of the most

serious injustices in British military history -

the words of one former soldier, now a Tory MP,

who in an investigation for this programme says the way

we investigate allegations of abuse by soldiers in Iraq is destroying

the lives of some of our I couldn't sleep that night, I was

crying. I was sick. Most nights I didn't want to wake up. I would be

gutted every time my eyes opened. That night, I tried to take my own

life. It was worse than any war I have ever fought.

We'll hear more of his story and ask whether the system is broken

Also in the programme - why former Labour leader Ed Miliband

is trying to force a vote in Parliament over Brexit.

We speak to him live in just a moment.

Here's Joanna Gosling in the BBC Newsroom

Bitter words have been exchanged between Hillary Clinton

and Donald Trump during their second US presidential debate.

Mrs Clinton said the Republican candidate's remarks about groping

women showed he wasn't fit to be president.

Mr Trump repeatedly called his Democratic opponent a liar

and accused her husband of abusing women.

Three former heads of the British Army have criticised

the mechanism set up to investigate allegations of historic abuse by UK

The Iraq Historic Allegations Team was set-up to examine claims

of abuse by British forces in Iraq dating back to 2003.

It's been repeatedly criticised for its investigative methods

and for pursuing claims against soldiers who've already been

In my time, we began to see that it was growing as a many headed Hydra.

We need was growing as a many headed Hydra.

We need to wind these investigations up as quickly as possible. It's not

on, not good for individuals, not fair for individuals and it is

definitely harmful for operational effectiveness. Obviously I would

like to see soldiers that are innocent of any such behaviour, the

burden lifted from them. The RMT union says that

Southern Rail is to take legal action to try and stop a series

of strikes due to start tomorrow. The union is planning 14 days

of strikes until December in protest at changes to the role

of conductors. The company insists that moving

conductors to new posts of on-board supervisor will not affect

jobs or safety. Police in Germany say they've

captured a Syrian refugee who's suspected of planning

an Islamist bomb attack. Jaber al-Bakr - who's believed

to have links with the Islamic State group - was detained in Leipzig

after a two-day search. People who publish personal

information about someone on the internet or encourage online

harassment could be The guidelines come into force today

in England and Wales. The CPS says it will exercise

considerable caution before charging those who post "grossly

offensive" material online, That's a summary of the latest BBC

News - more at 10.30. The former Labour leader

Ed Milliband is calling for a vote in Parliament on the Government's

plans for Brexit. If you're getting in touch, use the

hashtag. Time for the sport. There semifinalist at the European

Championships, Wales have not hit those heights in the World Cup

qualifying. They have an two draws against Lithuania and last night at

home to Georgia. Wales were clear favourites against a team over 100

places below them in the rankings and opened the scoring through

Gareth Bale. The goal came after ten minutes. They lost control of the

match in the second half and Georgia were able to equalise, and had

chances to win late on. They sit third in the group. Andy Murray is

building up to summer. He won his fifth title at the China open and

has set his sights on becoming world number one. He won in straight sets

to narrow the gap on Novak Djokovic. With high-scoring events in Shanghai

and Paris to come, both of which could see a struggling Novak

Djokovic dropping points if he fails to defend his titles, Murray is

waiting in the wings with a large trophy to capitalise. I never

expected to win that many tournaments. When I first came onto,

you don't expect to win one. As you get older, and experience winning,

you want to continue doing that. I'm glad I managed to get to 40. It has

been the best year of my career. The next target is trying to get to 50,

which is going to be hard. Johanna Konta is on the rise, despite losing

in the women's final in China to Agnieszka Radwanska. She was beaten

in straight sets, but the run to the final means she is now in the top

ten and also in qualifying session for the lucrative world tour finals,

where the best eight players go head-to-head in Singapore at the end

of the month. And it all got a little heated

as England lost to Bangladesh Stand in captain Jos Butler unhappy

at the way the hosts England's hopes of wrapping up

the series went as he trudged off. Ben Stokes later tweeted,

"Congrats to Bangladesh on the win tonight,outplayed us,what

I won't stand for is someone putting a shoulder to my teammate

at handshakes". Emotions running high after

questions about whether the tour should have gone ahead,

it all comes down now The former Labour leader

Ed Milliband is calling for a vote in Parliament on the Government's

plans for Brexit. And Ed Miliband, who voted

for the UK to remain in the EU, Good morning. What exactly is it

that you want? First thing to say is that I accept the result of this

referendum. The British people voted to leave the European Union. We need

to honour that vote. This is not about trying to reverse the result

through Parliament. But what they did not vote for was a particular

type of Brexit. There are lots of decisions to be made about

immigration, the economy and the single market. My point is

Parliament has got to take a view on that, if like, to give the

government a mandate for the negotiations. We now know that

Theresa May is going to be triggering Article 50 to start

leaving the European Union. The Government can't do these

negotiations without getting the consent of Parliament for the way

they are going to go about the negotiations and what they are going

to be arguing for the British people. Ultimately, that is the

point. If this is about sovereignty, the sovereignty of the people, which

lots of people that wanted to leave the European Union said it was, then

Parliament, representative of the people, they have to take a view and

the people have to be consulted. People have to have laid before them

the choices on strategy of the government. The British public voted

to leave the EU, they did not vote to leave the EU subject to a vote by

you and your colleagues in Parliament? Exactly, which is why I

am not saying to reverse the result. Some people said it is an advisory

referendum, we should not go through with this, I am not saying that. I

am saying we are going to believe in European Union, that is what the

British people voted for. But we've got to get the negotiations right.

Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, said last week that the British people

didn't vote to make themselves poorer. He is right about that. What

worried me about some of what we heard at the Conservative conference

was that I understand the concerns about immigration, I see them in my

own constituency, but what I felt was our whole economy was in danger

of being thrown off cliff. The biggest trading relationship, in the

single market, in a cavalier fashion. The way we have to go about

the negotiations is careful, considered and consultative way,

with Parliament and the people. The Government has the authority to

deliver the will of the people without having to go back to

Parliament to check with MPs the terms of Brexit? I think that is an

open question. In principle, politically, for the good of the

country, I don't really think the Government has a right. If they had

begun the negotiations without consulting Parliament, after less

than two years they will come to Parliament and say yes or no. I

assume they will try to get the final negotiation through

Parliament. It will be too late by then. We need to be knowing now what

the Government is going to be negotiating for. I believe they need

to get the consent of MPs. There is no other mandate here. The

Conservative manifesto said the Conservative Party was determined to

stay in the single market. It sounded from what Theresa May and

some of her ministers were saying that we were going to leave the

single market, contrary to the manifesto. There is no mandate for

hard Brexit, a huge separation from the single market, I don't believe.

That is why I think Parliament has to be consulted. What is the process

of how MPs would get a vote? It is for the government EU to think about

this, my suggestion would be they put forward a negotiating strategy

and a white or green paper, and Parliament votes on that. Why would

they show their hand to the EU leaders? The reality is that these

negotiations will be pretty public, pretty quickly. Very little secret

in today's world. Once they go into these negotiations, it will be

pretty clear. It should be done by a series of half briefings and leaks.

The Government should set out the opening position. Maybe not it's

totally final position, but the opening position come in a white or

green paper. But it to Parliament and that will force them to consult

MPs of all parties. It is not just Labour MP saying it, Tory MPs, it is

not just remainers saying for it, people that voted for Leave. I was

talking to Stephen Phillips and he is concerned about this. He is a

Conservative MP supporting Leave. It is not about rerunning the

referendum, it is about getting the right outcome for the country. If

you got that vote and Parliament voted against the Government, would

that mean that Britain remained in the European Union? No, it would

mean the Government would have to come back with a different

negotiating strategy because they would not have got the consent of

Parliament. These negotiations don't just matter for two or three years,

they will matter for the next 20, 30, 40 years, our place in the

world, the economy, jobs and livelihoods. These are too important

to be done in closed-door discussions in Government, when

there is no mandate for the negotiations the government is

involved in. You say it is not about rerunning the referendum, but there

will still be people watching you now that will suspect as a remainer,

you are trying to deny the outcome of the referendum with a vote in

Parliament? I'm not. One of the reasons I am not as my own

constituency. Doncaster voted 69% to leave the European Union. I have

heard the mandate. But I owe it, as somebody that was elected by my

constituents, to seek the best outcome for them, given what they

voted for. People did not vote for a particular type of Brexit. That was

part of the problem of the campaign, it was not clear what we were voting

for. I think a lot of people will be thinking, whether they voted Remain

Leave, the right thing to do is to get the best outcome for the

country. Of course there has to be parliamentary consent. The sovereign

body is Parliament, the people are sovereign, this was supposed to be

returning sovereignty. How can you bypass the sovereign body of the

people, Parliament? Of the mood music was for soft Brexit, still

being a member of the single market with less control on immigration,

would you still be arguing for this? If the mood music from government

was? I am more alarmed by the hard Brexit position the Government is

taking. I will be honest, it is not just me that is alarmed, the CBI is

extremely alarmed. I am worried about the direction it is going. But

I think the principle is right. The principle of Parliament being

consulted is the right one. I want to move on to a couple of other

issues. I would like to play a clip of Theresa May's speech from the

Conservative Party conference last week, which I am sure you heard bits

of. To stand for the week and to stand up to strong. He may be strong

standing up to the weak, but he is always weak when it comes to

standing up against the strong. Where markets are dysfunctional, we

should be prepared to intervene. Some people will blame the

companies. Ultimately, I don't think that is where the blame lies. It

lies with government. I think it lies with government for not having

had the strength to take this on. Not having stood up. Stood up to the

powerful interests. Wet within our society today we see

division and unfairness all around, between a more prosperous older

generation and a struggling younger generation. Between the wealth of

London and the rest of the country. But perhaps most of all, between the

rich, the successful and the powerful and their fellow citizens.

Are you satisfied with the country which shuts out the voices of

millions of ordinary people and licence only to the powerful? Are

you satisfied with a country standing apart as two nations? Well,

I'm not satisfied. We're Britain. We're better than this.

Well... Look, it is true. I helped Theresa May write the speech!

LAUGHTER When you were watching her, what was

your actual reaction? Gosh. It sounds familiar. Look, let me give

her a bit of credit for a second because I think what she did

recognise in her conference speech and before was that this referendum,

this Brexit vote, wasn't just about Europe. Of course, it was about

Europe and immigration and so on, but it was about a deeper

dissatisfaction with the direction of the countriment now, look, the

question for is can she deliver? Can she deliver on the things she is

planning, she will cut tax credits which is bad for the people she is

talking about. I think hard Brexit will be bad fort people that she's

talking about. She was famously I think having dinner with Rupert

Murdoch, I don't think he agrees with the policies she is talking

about. Where is the policy on non-doms? Let's judge her. I'll

judge her on her actions. I want to ask you about the US Presidential

debate last night? Yes. A you are a keen follower of US politics? I

didn't stay up for it. You followed the news this morning, there is a

comparison between Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn, but in the fact that

they attract those people who are anti-politics, do you think that's

fair? I think it is different, but the similarities are these which is

that all around the world people are tapping into deep discontent with

the way the country is going. I think Jeremy Corbyn has totally

different solutions from Donald Trump as I think both of them would

say as well. I think it is very troubling the Donald Trump

candidacy, whatever the outcome, it is troubling because millions and

millions of Americans will vote for him and I think it is a real sign

that the sort of capital system, the kind of system that America and

indeed Britain is putting forward is in real disrepute with people and if

people are willing to ignore that terrible tape, anies racism, it

tells you something about how deep the dissatisfaction is. Do you

believe Labour can win a general election under Jeremy Corbyn?

Absolutely. Absolutely. Look, he got re-elected by our party. We've got

more members than I think we've in in 40 or 50 years. He has mobilised

party members and people who weren't party members in a way that even I

didn't do so. Now the task is for all of us to take this out to the

country and convince the country and you know think there has been a

change in terms of attitude and will among the Parliamentary party since

Jeremy's re-election of the there is an acceptance that he won. An

acceptance that people have got to work with him and support him. It

doesn't mean there won't be disagreements and there won't be,

you know, constant peace, but it does mean there is a sense that

we've got to focus on the country and not the party. How will you

measure his success as we head towards a general election? What are

you looking for in term of the wider electorate? As a former leader, I

never liked it when other leaders commentated and marked me out of

continue. So I'm not going to mark him out of ten. I think this Brexit

thing is really important. It is one of the things I'm concentrating on,

but I'm going to support him. The party made its choice and I think we

should accept it. His latest top team appointments came last week,

were you invited to be a member of it? I wasn't invited formally.

Informally? I made clear for sometime that I thought my role was

best served on the back benches because I have been on the frontline

for a long time. I wanted a break from the frontline. I thought there

was other things I wanted to do from the back benches. So that means you

wouldn't serve on the frontbench under Jeremy Corbyn? It doesn't mean

that, no. At the moment I'm happy doing what I'm doing. OK. A word

about the reshuffle. Two Labour whips, whips people responsible for

party discipline resigned overnight in protest at the sacking of the

Chief Whip Rosie Winterton, do you think that was a brutal sacking?

Well, Rosie is a really good friend of mine and I appointed here as

Chief Whip. She is a brilliant person and she was always the first

name on my team sheet as I would always say to her, but leaders have

to make their decisions and like' not going to commentate on his

performance or reshuffle. He won the leadership election and he is

entitled to do that. Do former Labour leaders comment on former

Labour colleagues being on Strictly Come Dancing? He's brilliant. You

know, he has got better and better, hasn't he? There he is!

Do you think he has got better and better? What are you basing that on?

Didn't he do better last week than he did the week before He has thrown

himself into it. A national treasure. I'm not going to paint my

face green any time soon, but it suits him let me say! Thank you very

much for talking to us, Ed Miliband. A Twitter hashtag "not "OK"

is being used by women to talk about their personal experiences

of sexual assaults after Donald Trump made those remarks

about groping women. We'll be talking to two women

who have shared their stories. This morning soldiers have been

telling this programme their lives are being ruined by investigations

into allegations of And three former heads

of the British Army have broken rank to tell us about their concerns over

the way it's being handled. The Iraq Historic Allegations team

was set-up in 2010 to examine claims of abuse by British forces in Iraq

dating back to 2003. It's been repeatedly criticised

for its investigative methods and for pursuing claims

against soldiers who've already been acquitted of any crime,

claims that have been described The Conservative MP Johnny Mercer,

a former army captain, has been He spoke to "John" -

not his real name - who described going through

the process of being investigated for alleged abuses whilst

on operations, and the affect We were accused, we were accused of

a lad who drowned to death. And, you know, the other three

people who were there, the other three Iraqis,

they accused us of beating So, in the immediate

aftermath of Yeah, it was chaos,

I'm not going to lie. It was something I'd never seen

in my life, and I don't think I could ever contemplate how bad

it was going to be before It didn't last long,

but it was tough because we lost a couple of colleagues,

and two or three others were shot. I remember being in a room,

it was pitch black, I remember sitting, thinking

to myself, I'm not coming home. What is the first you heard that it

was going to be investigated? I'd come home, went on a tour

of Northern Ireland. After that, I came in and a couple

gentleman came into my They said, I'm arresting

you on suspicion of You know, it was the proudest day

of my life and I became a soldier. It became my worst

mistake overnight. They interrogated me

for hours and hours. When I came home that day,

I thought, it can't be real, There's no way this

has happened to me. I came home from a

soldier's life a hero, And most days I didn't

even want to wake up. I used to be gutted every

time my eyes opened in the morning. Why couldn't I just fall

asleep and not wake up? And I shouldn't have

had to feel that way. I shouldn't have had to come down

that road of... And then that night,

I tried to take my own life. And them saying to me,

"you're not well". I wouldn't take it,

I was saying, I'm OK. No one knew how to deal

with me, you know? The place that I went to that time,

it's worse than anyone It became clear that this

harassment, going back over ten years, has had an incredibly

destructive effect on his life. What would you say to those

who would say to you, the end of the day, this young lad

is dead, we want to Do think it is fair

to investigate that? Yeah, somebody has died,

I understand investigating it. It was a tragic accident and I am

truly sorry for the lad If I could save someone's

life, I would. I can certainly tell you it didn't

happen the way they painted it. So, since then, did

the trial collapse? They took about eight

hours deliberating. They came down and

found us not guilty. To be honest, I had so many tears

that just burst out my eyes, It felt like the world

was lifted off my shoulders. But it wasn't until after

the trial that it got worse. It was the drinking,

the sleepless nights, No one came forward and looked

after you in that I went into the Army

as a man and left broken. So, after 2008, when did you first

hear that this was coming The first time I heard

about it was from the press. They said, "how do you feel

about being investigated?" I said, "I'm sorry, you've

got the wrong number." They gave me a number to ring

for the investigation team. I rang it up and he said, "yes,

sorry, we are investigating it." I remember just sitting

on the couch, shaking. When we were found not guilty,

it was a massive weight But then to hear that they were

reinvestigating me again, I went through all the emotions

of sitting there, shaking. And that wasn't even the war,

that is just what was done And I just sat there,

thinking to myself... You're going to go through this,

you're going to drag it all back up again,

and you're going to leave me again, So when I started hearing

about these things, I asked the minister

in Parliament about whether you guys She said to me that everybody

was getting looked after, Yeah, there was no

one looking after us. Whether we were one of the first,

I don't know, but there was no So why is it thought so important

to get to the bottom Nicholas Mercer was

the British Army's chief legal I spoke to him earlier and asked

whether he saw evidence I was the first person to raise

the alarm over abuses, having walked into an interrogation

centre by accident, as it happened, I was going down to the prisoner of

war camp to deal with another issue, and I came across prisoners

being subjected to what are called So when people say these

allegations are spurious, I think one of the main issues

is that British soldiers have been investigated and then cleared,

and find themselves, several years later,

being rearrested and reinvestigated. I think in answer to that, one

of the criticisms of the Baha Moussa trial was that the witnesses

closed ranks and the judge expressed his frustration

that he was never able to get up the truth

because of this rank closing. So, Baha Moussa, we never

got to the bottom of It would seem inequitable,

indeed it would be wrong, if fresh evidence came to light not

to reopen that investigation. It is the closing of ranks,

in many cases, that has Baha Moussa, for those that don't

know, was beaten to death There were dozens and dozens

of injuries found on his body. I take into account the fact

that you say apparently It does not get away from the fact

that people who have been cleared, soldiers who have been cleared

after a three or four year investigation, find themselves,

a decade later, investigated for the same offences

for which they have been cleared? Well, I hear what you say,

but I go back to my original point. Some of these allegations

are very serious. In the case of Baha Mousa,

it is a murder investigation. In the case of Kareem Ali,

who drowned in the Shatt Al Basra Canal, this

is a manslaughter investigation. If evidence didn't come

out or was suppressed, it would be inequitable not

to reopen those cases. But we don't know that

evidence didn't come Well, we do, because we know

from the Baha Moussa trial, by way of example, that the judge

expressed his frustration that he could not get

the evidence from the soldiers. So, why does that make you think

that evidence would be more Well, I think in time people might

break, people might say something, further evidence might

come to light. It's very hard to generalise because

each case turns on its own facts. You would have to be quite heavily

involved in each case to make All I can say is a case

in which I have been involved, in which I followed closely,

because I was a witness, that has been criticism

from the judge. In those circumstances,

it is entirely reasonable, indeed you would not

want to be otherwise. I want to give you another example,

a British soldier investigated over Last he was investigated again

by the Iraq Historic They have since questioned

his ex-girlfriend about whether he was racist or abusive,

or was a drinker. They have questioned

people who he never served That just doesn't seem

logical or right. I think you're straying into very

dangerous territory here. You are not a policeman,

you are not an investigator. I was a military prosecutor

for 20-odd years and the police make inquiries, there can be all sorts

of evidential lines of inquiry It is very dangerous for the public

now to be stepping in and telling They do this all the time,

they have done it all their lives. Nicholas Mercer, the chief legal

adviser for the British Army in Iraq in 2003.

We can speak now to Johnny Mercer, the Conservative MP and former

soldier who presented that film for us earlier and Carla Ferstman

who is a director of the human rights charity Redress.

Hello to both of you. First, let's put the point is that Nicholas

Mercer made, a fresh evidence emerges or there is a chance to get

to the bottom of a murder or manslaughter case, why would you not

want to do that? Absolutely, I agree with that. It's really important to

say that where there is evidence, clear evidence that something has

broken the law, not uphold the standards we worked so hard to

uphold operations, they should feel the full force of the law. But that

evidence has not been forthcoming. The quality of this new evidence

going on, the very concept of doing an operation and then going around

in that country six or seven years later and saying, has anybody got

any problems, maybe we can get you some money, that is a flawed

process. Any evidence that comes out of that process is... I don't

understand how it will hold up in court and neither do the judges. Do

you accept that? I do think that we have to take as a starting point the

seriousness of the allegations. Can you answer the question, is that

flawed as a way of getting fresh evidence? To offer money? The

criminal investigations, the team is not about money, it is about

criminal investigations. I think it is really important to focus on the

job of the IHAT investigators, finding out the truth about what

happened, not about financial gain. With respect to the investigations

themselves, it is very difficult to stop in the middle of them and say

there is not any evidence that has come out, if an investigation is

taken from beginning to end and there is no evidence which emerges

after that investigation has been conclusively finished, then

certainly, nothing should come out of it. That is where we are at. We

are in the middle of ongoing investigations. We clearly disagree

on this. I think once you have have that investigation, these people

have been brought through trials and they are found not guilty, by a

judge who knows what he's doing, assessing the quality of the

evidence, I do not think the principle of them being able to

throw mud for the rest of their lives in hope that some and Nicholas

Mercer made the point, maybe someday we'll break, but we don't treat

people like that. We present the evidence, they are guilty or not

guilty. If they are not, you move on. People are misunderstanding the

characteristics. If somebody invaded Plymouth and then a lawyer came six

years later and said as anything happened you are not happy with, I

will be at the front of the queue. It does not work like that. We are

hanging people out to dry. Not a single prosecution. With any

criminal investigation, domestic or otherwise, if new evidence comes to

light, it is common practice to restart the investigation.

Certainly, in some of the IHAT investigations, new evidence has

come to light. It is a question about where they are in that

investigation. Certainly, one would hope that those investigations can

be concluded as soon as possible. Nobody wants this hanging over

soldiers, if the evidence is not there. The job of the IHAT is to

carry out an infective investigation and to determine one way or another

whether these matters should go to trial or not. I respectfully

suggest, this was established in 2010, it cost ?22 million, 270

people working every day on this. At the evidence was there, it would

probably have come out by now. 240 allegations of unlawful killing

represents a complete breakdown of law and order in the British Army in

Iraq. Do you really think that happened? It is for investigators to

determine whether there is any credible evidence associated with

that. We know that there has been torture, we know that Baha Mousa

died after time in British custody, as a result of 93 injuries on his

body. Those are not spurious allegations. They have been dealt

with. It is important that we separate the truth from fiction and

focus on the investigations which merit criminal prosecution. I agree

with that. But this is not about that, it is about a process that has

systematically destroyed soldier was Mark lives without a single

prosecution. A single one. Baha Moussa, the whole of that,

absolutely indefensible, but this is about judicial process, it is not

difficult to do and it is not the way we treat people who go out to

keep us safe. Let me read some comments from people watching around

the country. An e-mail from Stewart, please excuse my anger, but as an

ex-serviceman myself these are cowards who send our men into

entirely impossible situations without a thought of the

consequences. Maria, disgraceful we are putting brave soldiers through

this. Terry says it is completely disgusting that soldiers find out

about a serious investigation against them from the media. Nigel,

as the founder of Uk Veterans One Voice we have been putting pressure

on the Government to stop IHAT, to prosecute troops now is madness. Do

you get any sense from the MOD or higher that what IHAT is doing is

going to be wound up early, or will they be allowed to continue looking

at the hundreds of cases they are looking at? I have run a campaign

over the last two three weeks and we have seen an increase pressure and

have seen statements from the Prime Minister. That is about future

conflicts? You are right, the pressure is building. Hopefully will

get into a stage where we are looking after these people. There is

a fundamental problem in this country between the political

masters of the military the military. Nothing crystallised at

more than trying to apply the European human rights laws to the

battlefield. I think we are in a really important time. How do we

look after this Afghanistan and Iraq generation. How we do it now really

matters. It will define the relationship with the military for

the next 50 years. I want to see us getting that right. We are a proud

military nation, we look after our people, not getting it right. The

military covenant has not addressed that. We need to look at it again.

It is not a choice, it is not a fiscal policy, something we do if we

have got time, it is a duty to these people we have asked to look after

us and fight wars that we often don't want to know about. The least

we do when they come home is look after them. Thank you both. If you

want to watch or share the full film you can find it on the website.

We asked to speak to the Ministry of Defence,

the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and someone from the Iraq

A spokesperson for the Iraq Historic Allegations Team told us:

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson told us:

Donald Trump has defended his lewd comments against women and suggested

that Bill Clinton's behaviour was worse.

You described kissing women without their consent,

You brag that you have sexually assaulted women.

I don't think you understood what was said.

I apologised to my family, I apologised to the American people.

He has said that the video doesn't represent who he is.

But I think it is clear to anyone who heard it that it

Since Donald Trump's lewd comments were made public,

millions of women have been sharing their personal

It all started when a Canadian author, Kelly Oxford,

shared her own account of five different sexual assaults and asked

others to talk about their own under the hashtag #notOK.

We can hear from two women now who've been sexually assaulted

on multiple occasions and shared their stories

Amanda Junay, who lives in New Jersey.

They've waived their right to anonymity to talk to us.