let's turn our attentions to the weather prospects. sarah keith—lucas has joined weather prospects. sarah keith—lucas hasjoined me and, my weather prospects. sarah keith—lucas has joined me and, my goodness, weather prospects. sarah keith—lucas hasjoined me and, my goodness, a new story alonejust hasjoined me and, my goodness, a new story alone just in spain, clearly? yes, really, really hot in spain, temperatures well above average in southern parts of europe and today almost 30 celsius, just shy of that here so that makes it one of the hottest january day ever across europe. that is in chlva. more typical of the middle ofjuly than the stage injanuary. pretty mild in the stage injanuary. pretty mild in the uk as well. temperatures of 14.1; celsius at stormont castle in county down and in devon as well. 0ver celsius at stormont castle in county down and in devon as well. over the next 2a hours or so it won't be quite as mild. pressure conditions on the way for tomorrow. it will be drier and brighter so a little more on the way of sunshine on the way but before we get there a couple of weather fronts that are just pushing their way eastwards over night. bringing spells of rain for all of

us, really. that rain is across many areas. quite heavy for scotland and northern ireland at the moment and it will spread across england and wales and willjust be sitting across the far south—east and east anglia first thing tomorrow morning. by the post office to pay the stolen money back. they tell us they received little or zero support from the post office following the traumatic events and were told they were liable for the loss of money. i'v e i've worked for the post office, on behalf of the post office, for 43

years and i've never had any sympathy for anything at all. and we'll talk to a subpostmaster who was the victim of an armed robbery twice. also tonight, the chairman of the conservative—supporting spectator magazine, andrew neil, is here. in an exclusive interview he's going to urge the government to block a takeover bid of his title and of the daily telegraph by a uae—us joint venture. he'll be explaining why. nick sits down with the shadow home secretary yvette cooper to hear her plan to combat knife crime. if we could persuade the government to take them out now, we would back that because this is about saving lives and instead they are failing. this man was jailed at the age of 2a for possession of a knife. will the measures announced by both the government and labour today have stopped him from carrying one?

good evening. tonight an exclusive newsnight story which reveals more of the toxic culture at the post office. documents seen by this programme show that at least 16 former subpostmasters were asked to repay money stolen from their post office by robbers, some of them armed. 0ne told us a gun was held to the head of his member of staff. he was later asked by a post office security manager why he'd given the key to the safe to the theif. here's newsnight�*s uk editor, sima kotecha. it was this scene in the itv post office drama that left many viewers shocked. shouting. former subpostmaster martin griffiths was brutally attacked, with the armed robber stealing thousands of pounds. he later took his own life after being accused of fraud by the post office. now nine former and current subpostmasters have told newsnight

that they were treated badly by the post office when they were robbed, saying that in some cases they were blamed and bullied and also told to pay the money back. they say that the horizon it system is not the only problem at the organisation and that there is a toxic culture which runs deep and wide. john is a former subpostmaster. in 2012, his post office in kent was robbed. they stole more than £2000. a knife was being held against my throat, i was being pushed against a safe, so when i was asked to empty the contents of the safe i knew i would have to move in a way that would put me in further danger. but he says the post office was unsympathetic and formal in its response, telling him he was liable for most of the money because he kept more cash in the safe than he was supposed to. the tone of the letter was appalling. we nearly closed the branch there and then, we realised

there was no empathy, there was no concern about us at all. all they wanted was to get as much money off us as possible. john's contract with the post office, like many others, stated... in 2019, a high courtjudge found important aspects of the post office's contracts to have been unfair. he decided that it was for the post office to prove that losses had been caused by the fault of the subpostmasters, not the other way round, as the post office had insisted for years. this is where we had the shop area. john vehemently denies being negligent, saying the post office hadn't repaired

the security door or the alarm system. so it happened there? in the secure area, yes. the crime and the way he says it was handled had a heavy toll on him and his ex—husband. he wrote to the then newly appointed chief executive, paula vennels, saying... he says there was no reply. there was never any compassion from the post office and so you just had this very strong sense of anger towards them that has never gone away. in the end the matter was dropped and he didn't have to pay the money stolen. jonathan's story is one of several we have heard. 0ne subpostmaster who didn't want to go on camera told us that during a robbery a gun was held at a staff member's head. he said that the post office's security manager told him he had never heard of anyone being killed

during a robbery and asked why he gave the thief the key to the safe. leslie spent more than a0 years working as a sub postmistress in the birmingham area. she and her late husband trevor were devastated after being robbed in 2007. the robbers stole more than £10,000. they came in, one came down the left—hand side of the shop and the one with the scarf on came down to where i was standing by the lottery terminal and he was swinging a sledgehammer round his head. leslie says they were told they were liable for the loss because their safety measures were inadequate. she denied that being the case. they were trying to make us, to back us into a corner, to admit that we were the only ones.

i'm not that stupid, and neither is trevor. i worked for the post office, on behalf of the post office, for 43 years and i've never had any sympathy for anything at all with concerns of the running of my shop. like many of those we spoke to ultimately they didn't have to pay, but some did. they're convinced that this culture of blame continues. they argue unless there is radical change in the management and the operation of the post office they won't be satisfied these abuses won't happen again. that organisation is not capable of changing. they will always try to finger anything back onto the sub postmaster. i will never forgive them for the way they treated us, um,

when they should have been supporting us. let's talk to former subpostmaster mark kelly from swansea whose post office branch was targeted twice by armed robbers — a total of £52,000 was stolen. and barrister patrick green who helped represent 555 subpostmaters who were wrongly accused of fraud, theft and false accounting. welcome, both of you. thank you for being with us. tell us about your experience, mark, with the first armed robbery. my experience, mark, with the first armed robbery.— armed robbery. my first armed robbery was — armed robbery. my first armed robbery was in _ armed robbery. my first armed robbery was in november - armed robbery. my first armed l robbery was in november 2003. armed robbery. my first armed - robbery was in november 2003. five armed robbers came in with a shot gun. they fired at the counter and they threw a rock through the counter. that broke the counter and it was going towards our head, so we

had to move our body and head away from the panic button and we went to the back of the house and called 999. the post office later said out of the £46,000 that was stolen from the office we were liable for £26,000.— the office we were liable for £26,000.- they - the office we were liable for £26,000.- they said | the office we were liable for. £26,000.- they said we the office we were liable for £26,000. why? they said we didn't ress the £26,000. why? they said we didn't press the panic— £26,000. why? they said we didn't press the panic button _ £26,000. why? they said we didn't press the panic button that would have set off an alarm and it would have set off an alarm and it would have told across the road that there was a robbery at the time. but would ou have was a robbery at the time. but would you have been _ was a robbery at the time. but would you have been hit _ was a robbery at the time. but would you have been hit by _ was a robbery at the time. but would you have been hit by a _ was a robbery at the time. but would you have been hit by a rock— was a robbery at the time. but would you have been hit by a rock going - you have been hit by a rock going across the counter? that you have been hit by a rock going across the counter?— across the counter? that is why i moved my _ across the counter? that is why i moved my head _ across the counter? that is why i moved my head and _ across the counter? that is why i moved my head and that - across the counter? that is why i moved my head and that is - across the counter? that is why i moved my head and that is why. across the counter? that is why i moved my head and that is why i wrote a letter back telling them that if they come to the office tomorrow and to say that if you stay still and i throw a brick at you, i will take that money.— still and i throw a brick at you, i will take that money. they didn't ask ou will take that money. they didn't ask you to _ will take that money. they didn't ask you to pay — will take that money. they didn't ask you to pay the _ will take that money. they didn't ask you to pay the 26,000 - will take that money. they didn't ask you to pay the 26,000 back. j ask you to pay the 26,000 back. 0kay. what did you think about them

asking you to pay it back anyway? i was always under the impression until that day that if you had an armed robbery, give them the money because the money can be replaced. do not put up a fight. but after that, that changed the whole situation. then it came to our second robbery.— situation. then it came to our second robbery. situation. then it came to our second robbe . ~ . ., , second robbery. which was the next ear. what second robbery. which was the next year. what happened _ second robbery. which was the next year. what happened then? - second robbery. which was the next year. what happened then? my - second robbery. which was the nextj year. what happened then? my wife was there by — year. what happened then? my wife was there by herself _ year. what happened then? my wife was there by herself and _ year. what happened then? my wife was there by herself and that - year. what happened then? my wife was there by herself and that the i was there by herself and that the time there was a young girl hiding at the time and the post office then said you should have pointed the girl out to the people who had broken in. the logic was they would have not proceeded with the crime at the time. at that time, after the second robbery, my executive officer, mark baker, said to the head of security if someone gets injured going forward, he is going

to hold him liable for it because we had a more advanced and secure counter in the garage, but the post office wouldn't let us install it at the time. �* , ., r' office wouldn't let us install it at the time. �* , ., ,~' i. office wouldn't let us install it at the time. �* , ., ,, ., office wouldn't let us install it at thetime. �* , ., the time. and they ask you to pay some of that _ the time. and they ask you to pay some of that money _ the time. and they ask you to pay some of that money back? - the time. and they ask you to pay some of that money back? they l the time. and they ask you to pay - some of that money back? they asked me to -a some of that money back? they asked me to pay 2000 _ some of that money back? they asked me to pay 2000 of _ some of that money back? they asked me to pay 2000 of the _ some of that money back? they asked me to pay 2000 of the 10,000 - some of that money back? they asked me to pay 2000 of the 10,000 that i me to pay 2000 of the 10,000 that was stolen. ~ , me to pay 2000 of the 10,000 that was stolen.- they _ me to pay 2000 of the 10,000 that was stolen. why? theyjust said that was stolen. why? they 'ust said that we didn't was stolen. why? they 'ust said that we dun-t make h was stolen. why? they 'ust said that we didn't make them _ was stolen. why? theyjust said that we didn't make them aware of the person at the time there was too much money in the draw. what person at the time there was too much money in the draw. what do you think of this, — much money in the draw. what do you think of this, patrick? _ much money in the draw. what do you think of this, patrick? it _ much money in the draw. what do you think of this, patrick? it is _ much money in the draw. what do you think of this, patrick? it is sadly - think of this, patrick? it is sadly something _ think of this, patrick? it is sadly something we — think of this, patrick? it is sadly something we have _ think of this, patrick? it is sadly something we have heard - think of this, patrick? it is sadly something we have heard quite| think of this, patrick? it is sadly | something we have heard quite a think of this, patrick? it is sadly - something we have heard quite a lot of. something we have heard quite a lot of it _ something we have heard quite a lot of it is— something we have heard quite a lot of. it is typical of the post office to do— of. it is typical of the post office to do two — of. it is typical of the post office to do two particularly bad things. one was— to do two particularly bad things. one was to make, or try and make all the 0ne was to make, or try and make all the sub— one was to make, or try and make all the sub masters and mistresses believe — the sub masters and mistresses believe they had to pay the money back unless they could themselves

prove _ back unless they could themselves prove their innocence, which obviousiy— prove their innocence, which obviously misterjustice fraser decided — obviously misterjustice fraser decided it wasn't the right construction of the contract, it was not what _ construction of the contract, it was not what the contract meant. but then they— not what the contract meant. but then they would also as well as telling — then they would also as well as telling them that was where the burden— telling them that was where the burden of proof lay, they would also effectively _ burden of proof lay, they would also effectively try and get money back on what _ effectively try and get money back on what seemed to us, looking at it afterwards, — on what seemed to us, looking at it afterwards, on very spurious basis. what _ afterwards, on very spurious basis. what mark— afterwards, on very spurious basis. what mark said gives you an example of a ridiculous stretch to say that a supposed mistress you'd have to point _ a supposed mistress you'd have to point out _ a supposed mistress you'd have to point out an— a supposed mistress you'd have to point out an eight—year—old child hiding _ point out an eight—year—old child hiding in — point out an eight—year—old child hiding in the shot in order to try and prevent money being stolen. it and prevent money being stolen. [it is and prevent money being stolen. is ridiculous. and prevent money being stolen. it is ridiculous. it is also extremely dangerous. this is what the post office are to us. 0ver recent years they have made significant enhancements to the support they offer postmasters and their staff who are victims of attempted or actual robberies. they also say they are sorry to hear the experiences of these robberies and they don't

underestimate the impact the incidents have on them and their families. have they ever offered you an apology? hat families. have they ever offered you an apology?— an apology? not really. i do hope the experience _ an apology? not really. i do hope the experience of— an apology? not really. i do hope the experience of the _ an apology? not really. i do hope the experience of the current - the experience of the current postmasters are having has improved because on the second robbery we got told we had to open the following day and it didn't give us any time to get mental health help or anything at the time. flit to get mental health help or anything at the time. of course. did this have an — anything at the time. of course. did this have an impact _ anything at the time. of course. did this have an impact on _ anything at the time. of course. did this have an impact on your - anything at the time. of course. did this have an impact on your why's i this have an impact on your why's reputation and in the community that you were serving? we reputation and in the community that you were serving?— you were serving? we got caught up in the ost you were serving? we got caught up in the post office _ you were serving? we got caught up in the post office scandal— you were serving? we got caught up in the post office scandal as - you were serving? we got caught up in the post office scandal as well. i in the post office scandal as well. after the office was closed there are quite a lot of people saying, oh, they must have set up the armed robberies at the time and things. people were saying that you and your wife had carried out the robberies? part of the group.—

part of the group. what are the parallels. _ part of the group. what are the parallels, patrick, _ part of the group. what are the parallels, patrick, contractually with what mark went through and the contracts we have heard about of other sub postmaster is more recently? other sub postmaster is more recentl ? other sub postmaster is more recently?— other sub postmaster is more recentl ? , ., recently? the contracts are the same contracts and — recently? the contracts are the same contracts and it is _ recently? the contracts are the same contracts and it is basically _ recently? the contracts are the same contracts and it is basically the - contracts and it is basically the same — contracts and it is basically the same approach they took. so whether it was— same approach they took. so whether it was a _ same approach they took. so whether it was a loss _ same approach they took. so whether it was a loss is because you were robbed _ it was a loss is because you were robbed or— it was a loss is because you were robbed or whether it was losses showing — robbed or whether it was losses showing up on the horizon system that were — showing up on the horizon system that were disputed, the post office would _ that were disputed, the post office would come after you. they had two different _ would come after you. they had two different contracts. the first one actually — different contracts. the first one actually did say you are only liable if it is _ actually did say you are only liable if it is your — actually did say you are only liable if it is your fault. but they would say that— if it is your fault. but they would say that meant you had to find some way of— say that meant you had to find some way of proving your innocence. so everyone — way of proving your innocence. so everyone is — way of proving your innocence. so everyone is pressed and pressured into paying. the second contract said you — into paying. the second contract said you are liable pretty much for anything _ said you are liable pretty much for anything except a criminal offence being committed on you unless again you can _ being committed on you unless again you can prove again it is not your fault _ you can prove again it is not your fault. the judge found that term to be completely unfair and struck it down _ be completely unfair and struck it down. �* ., ii' ' be completely unfair and struck it down. �* ., 11" i. ., down. but not until 2019. so you had one down. but not until 2019. so you had gone through — down. but not until 2019. so you had gone through all— down. but not until 2019. so you had gone through all this _ down. but not until 2019. so you had gone through all this in _ down. but not until 2019. so you had gone through all this in the - down. but not until 2019. so you had gone through all this in the mid - gone through all this in the mid naughties essentially. what does it

say to you about certainly the post office culture back then, mark? it was more, protect the brand at all cost. and i also feel they were doing this as a way to meet targets. if they close in office, they get bonuses and things.— if they close in office, they get bonuses and things. have you ever seen contracts _ bonuses and things. have you ever seen contracts like _ bonuses and things. have you ever seen contracts like this _ bonuses and things. have you ever seen contracts like this in - bonuses and things. have you ever seen contracts like this in any - seen contracts like this in any other sector, seen contracts like this in any othersector, patrick? irlat seen contracts like this in any other sector, patrick?- seen contracts like this in any other sector, patrick? not in what is supposed _ other sector, patrick? not in what is supposed to _ other sector, patrick? not in what is supposed to be _ other sector, patrick? not in what is supposed to be a _ other sector, patrick? not in what is supposed to be a trusted - other sector, patrick? not in what i is supposed to be a trusted national institution — is supposed to be a trusted national institution. and certainly not the conduct — institution. and certainly not the conduct that went with it. gk. institution. and certainly not the conduct that went with it.- conduct that went with it. ok. in the end, did _ conduct that went with it. ok. in the end, did you _ conduct that went with it. ok. in the end, did you end _ conduct that went with it. ok. in the end, did you end up paying l conduct that went with it. ok. in i the end, did you end up paying any of the money back? did they let you off at all so to speak in the end? in the end, it was put into the losses i had when the post office closed down under the post office scandal. and that loss was suspended due to another issue then.—

due to another issue then. goodness me. thank due to another issue then. goodness me- thank you _ due to another issue then. goodness me. thank you very _ due to another issue then. goodness me. thank you very much _ due to another issue then. goodness me. thank you very much for - due to another issue then. goodness me. thank you very much for talking | me. thank you very much for talking to our audience, we appreciate it. thank you for being with us and explaining more of the background. we appreciate it, thank you. who should be allowed to own newspapers in this country? in the last 24 hours, the culture secretary has asked regulators to consider launching a second investigation into the bid by a uae—us consortium which is attempting to take over the daily telegraph and its sister title, the spectator magazine, the oldest magazine in the world, steeped in the history of british conservatism. the chairman of the spectator, andrew neil, will give his first interview on the bid in a moment. spoiler — he wants the government to block it. first, the story so far. the billionaire who bought manchester city in 2008, sheikh mansour — deputy prime minister of the uae — now wants to buy the daily telegraph and spectator magazine, in a joint venture with a us investment partner, under the name redbird imi. the publications, both founded nearly 200 years ago,

are among britain's most influential, especially on the right of politics. critics fear if the pair are owned by a nation where the government tightly controls the media, editorial freedom will be severely limited. the battle for the titles started last year, when redbird imi paid off the billion—pound debt of outgoing owners the barclay brothers, in exchange for the publications. but before the deal was completed, the culture, media and sports secretary, lucy frazer, issued a public interest intervention notice, pausing the deal, citing the need for "accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion". the notice means regulators 0fcom and the competition and markets authority are preparing reports on the risks posed by the takeover — reports which are due on frazer's desk tomorrow. she can then decide whether or not to block the bid. then, yesterday, ms frazer announced that she was "minded" to issue a second public interest intervention notice,

following concerns over a corporate restructure at redbird imi. but that isn't necessarily bad news for the takeover bid. i think it's actually playing into the hands of redbird imi to have this delay. you're negotiating and speaking to the government, and so, that allows you to gain much more information on what their core concerns are and to really understand where their red lines are. the public face of the redbird imi bid is ex—cnn journalistjeff zucker. he has asserted that if he took over the titles, they would be given complete editorial independence, with an editorial charter guaranteeing this. we did askjeff zucker, from redbird, for an interview, but he was not available. in a statement, they said... "imi is a passive investor in the company that will own the telegraph and, as such, will have no involvement in the management or operations of the newspaper.

redbird imi has made legal commitments to the government that it will set up an editorial charter and trust to protect the editorial independence of the telegraph." and presumably, the spectator as well. and they have plans to make "significant investments in the business". now let's talk to chairman of the spectator andrew neil, who hasn't spoken about the bid until now. you want the government to block this bid. bearing in mind the statement we havejust this bid. bearing in mind the statement we have just had from them, what are your concerns? my main them, what are your concerns? ij�*i main concern them, what are your concerns? ij�*i: main concern is them, what are your concerns? ij�*ii: main concern is the people bankrolling this, it is the uae, the united arab emirates. they are a government and the idea government should own newspapers and magazines in britain i think is absurd. but they are notjust in britain i think is absurd. but they are not just a in britain i think is absurd. but they are notjust a government, they are an undemocratic government, a dictatorship. the uae is a terribly successful place, i have done business there, but it is not a democratic government. we are a democracy, our publications are part of the dramatic grit —— are part of the democratic process, how can we be owned by an undemocratic government? it is spectacularly ——

particularly important for the spectator which was founded 200 years ago to fight for the extension of the franchise, to give more people to vote. are we seriously going to contemplate that in 2024, we are going to be owned by people who run a government where nobody has the vote? 50 who run a government where nobody has the vote?— has the vote? so why don't you believe the _ has the vote? so why don't you believe the statement - has the vote? so why don't you believe the statement by jeff . has the vote? so why don't you - believe the statement by jeff zucker believe the statement byjeff zucker when he says the uae will be a passive investor and there will be no involvement in the management or operations and redbird imi has made legal, legal commitments to the government that it will set up an editorial charter and trust to protect the editorial independence. well, he who pays the piper gets to choose the tune. and people paying the piper here is the uae. they have supplied a 75% of the funds for this deal to go ahead. so the idea it is just going to shell out hundreds of millions of pounds and then just disappear i think is for the birds. that is not going to happen. nor does it give us any great comfort

thatjeff zucker would be running it. i have met him, he is a genial chap and a very impressive broadcasting executive. that is his background, he ran a big american let merck, nbc. he knows nothing about britain. he knows nothing about britain. he knows nothing about print, he knows nothing about newspapers and he knows nothing about... he newspapers and he knows nothing about... .. . . newspapers and he knows nothing about... ., , , ., newspapers and he knows nothing about... , ., ., ., , about... he has been a “ournalist for 35 about... he has been a “ournalist forts years. * about... he has been a “ournalist for 35 years. this _ about... he has been a “ournalist for 35 years. this is _ about... he has been a “ournalist for 35 years. this is a _ about... he has been ajournalist for 35 years. this is a different i for 35 years. this is a different matter. for 35 years. this is a different matter- and — for 35 years. this is a different matter. and he _ for 35 years. this is a different matter. and he has _ for 35 years. this is a different matter. and he has never- for 35 years. this is a different i matter. and he has never worked in newspapers and he doesn't know about magazines. and he doesn't know about the particular history of the spectator. i don't think he has ever heard of the spectator until they bid for it, which makes it what it has been and why it has lasted for 200 years. so the idea these two vital vehicles of mainstream centre—right thought should be owned by arab money and controlled out of new york by a left—wing democrat beggars belief. how new york by a left-wing democrat beggars belief-— new york by a left-wing democrat beggars belief. how do you know he is a democrat? _ beggars belief. how do you know he is a democrat? did _ beggars belief. how do you know he is a democrat? did you _ beggars belief. how do you know he is a democrat? did you see - beggars belief. how do you know he is a democrat? did you see cnn i beggars belief. how do you know he l is a democrat? did you see cnn when

he ran it during _ is a democrat? did you see cnn when he ran it during the _ is a democrat? did you see cnn when he ran it during the trump _ is a democrat? did you see cnn when he ran it during the trump years? i he ran it during the trump years? how do you know he is a democrat? because he is, there is no doubt about that. he because he is, there is no doubt about that-— because he is, there is no doubt about that. ., ., , ., ., about that. he never told anyone how he votes. really? _ about that. he never told anyone how he votes. really? there _ about that. he never told anyone how he votes. really? there is _ about that. he never told anyone how he votes. really? there is no - about that. he never told anyone how he votes. really? there is no doubt i he votes. really? there is no doubt he votes. really? there is no doubt he is a democrat. _ he votes. really? there is no doubt he is a democrat. he _ he votes. really? there is no doubt he is a democrat. he turned - he votes. really? there is no doubt he is a democrat. he turned cnn i he votes. really? there is no doubt i he is a democrat. he turned cnn from the mainstream bbc type broadcaster into a rabid anti—3 macro and anti—republican vehicle. everybody knows that. he boasted —— and t trump. knows that. he boasted -- and t trum -. knows that. he boasted -- and t trum n _ , ., ., , knows that. he boasted -- and t trum -. ,, ., knows that. he boasted -- and t trum. , ., ., trump. he boasted to me about it. he said, what trump. he boasted to me about it. he said. what you — trump. he boasted to me about it. he said, what you have _ trump. he boasted to me about it. he said, what you have just _ trump. he boasted to me about it. he said, what you have just said - trump. he boasted to me about it. he said, what you have just said in i said, what you havejust said in terms of the trump stuff. we are is believed our most importantjob was to report the news and stand—up for the truth. some people wanted to paint at as anti—trump, we never set out to do that or saw it as a strategy, we saw it as poetry. ihe strategy, we saw it as poetry. he saw it strategy, we saw it as poetry. he: saw it that way, everybody else didn't. covering trump is not easy, i have done it myself.— i have done it myself. should a government — i have done it myself. should a government be _ i have done it myself. should a government be stepping i i have done it myself. should a government be stepping in i i have done it myself. should a i government be stepping in because you don't want to be owned by a left—wing democrat? ida. left-wing democrat? no, the government _ left-wing democrat? no, the government should - left-wing democrat? no, the government should be i left-wing democrat? no, the i government should be stepping in because we should not be owned by a foreign government, any kind of government and particularly a

dictatorship. what will people think of the british government said, i think we will own the telegraph and the spectator? the very concept is ridiculous on that. but i am not, on the point about who should run and how we should be run, i am not speaking as a regulator, i am not speaking as a regulator, i am not speaking as a regulator, i am not speaking as the government. i am speaking as the government. i am speaking as the government. i am speaking as someone who for 20 years, has been the custodian of the spectator. i have looked after its editorial independence to make sure the editor is independent and that we are faithful to what has made us what we are over 200 years. i do not believe that he is a fit and proper person to do that. he's just not equipped, he is not qualified. he could run the bbc, he couldn't on the spectator. pare could run the bbc, he couldn't on the spectator-— could run the bbc, he couldn't on the spectator. are you saying that the thin . s the spectator. are you saying that the things you _ the spectator. are you saying that the things you would _ the spectator. are you saying that the things you would not - the spectator. are you saying that the things you would not be i the spectator. are you saying that the things you would not be able l the spectator. are you saying that l the things you would not be able to write about that your editors and journalists on the spectator would not be able to write about under the ownership of redbird imi? weill. not be able to write about under the ownership of redbird imi?— ownership of redbird imi? well, i don't know— ownership of redbird imi? well, i don't know because _ ownership of redbird imi? well, i don't know because i _ ownership of redbird imi? well, i don't know because i will - ownership of redbird imi? well, i don't know because i will not i ownership of redbird imi? well, i don't know because i will not be l don't know because i will not be there if redbird takes over, i will be gone. it could be the same with

the president, he can speak for himself. ., , himself. you will quit if they succeed in — himself. you will quit if they succeed in this _ himself. you will quit if they succeed in this takeover i himself. you will quit if they | succeed in this takeover bid? himself. you will quit if they i succeed in this takeover bid? yes because i don't _ succeed in this takeover bid? iszs because i don't believe our editorial independence can be guaranteed. i was a rupert murdoch editor, i had editors that were meant to protect my independence, the only time they intervened was when they tried to fire me, the trustees. not rupert the trustees. he has asked me to be a trustee and i turned it down because he appoints them, he can fire them. he could be fired by the uae at any moment. they are the guys with the money. so the idea there is any kind of protection in this fake trusteeship, it doesn't work. ., ., , ., 4' work. how do you think the government _ work. how do you think the government has _ work. how do you think the government has handled i work. how do you think the i government has handled this so work. how do you think the - government has handled this so far? i think the government had been all over the place. at one stage, the government thought we were part of the telegraph and we are not. we are a separate company. at one stage, we thought we were part of this protective order. it turns out we have no protections at all. the

spectator has been hung out to dry. you said in the introduction we would also have an editorial independence committee. no, we won't. that is only for the telegraph. so won't. that is only for the telegraph-— won't. that is only for the teletra-h. ., won't. that is only for the telet-rah. ., ., telegraph. so who has hung you out to d , telegraph. so who has hung you out to dry. sorry — telegraph. so who has hung you out to dry. sorry chris — telegraph. so who has hung you out to dry, sorry chris mike _ telegraph. so who has hung you out to dry, sorry chris mike we - telegraph. so who has hung you out to dry, sorry chris mike we have i to dry, sorry chris mike we have been hung out to dry by everybody, by the barclay who didn't pay their debts, by the thank you didn't care what happened to us as long as they got their money bank —— money back and by the government which has left us in a state of limbo and hasn't managed to regulate things properly. you have been there for seven months, what has it been like? terrible, purgatory, it has made it very difficult to run the business and deal with all the advisers crawling over is for the sales process. at one stage, we had more advisers than we had employees. we are only now beginning to turn the ship around again. but are only now beginning to turn the ship around again.— ship around again. but isn't this capitalism? _ ship around again. but isn't this capitalism? this _ ship around again. but isn't this capitalism? this is _ ship around again. but isn't this capitalism? this is free - ship around again. but isn't this capitalism? this is free trade. l ship around again. but isn't this i capitalism? this is free trade. you support that, your magazine supports that, this is global britain, isn't it? . ., ., , , it? the spectator believes in the market economy. _

it? the spectator believes in the market economy. and _ it? the spectator believes in the market economy. and as - it? the spectator believes in the l market economy. and as someone it? the spectator believes in the i market economy. and as someone who studied economics at the university, i can tell you all market economies have to be regulated. there are regulations in place and in other countries, there are regulations in place like france that stops for a government owning a major media assets. we government owning a ma'or media assets. ~ .. government owning a ma'or media assets. ~ ., ., ., , assets. we have regulators looking at it now. assets. we have regulators looking at it now- the _ assets. we have regulators looking at it now. the spectator— assets. we have regulators looking at it now. the spectator is - assets. we have regulators looking at it now. the spectator is not i at it now. the spectator is not covered by — at it now. the spectator is not covered by that. _ at it now. the spectator is not covered by that. but - at it now. the spectator is not covered by that. but if they i at it now. the spectator is not i covered by that. but if they stop the telegraph deal, the spectator deal won't go ahead either. let me just ask you this. if this was allowed to go ahead in the uae is allowed to go ahead in the uae is allowed to go ahead in the uae is allowed to own the telegraph and the spectator, how long before some chinese billionaire acting on behalf of president xijinping chinese billionaire acting on behalf of president xi jinping tries to by the times when rupert murdoch goes to the great newspaper in the sky? president putin, his people might. you want the british people to be owned —— the british media to be owned —— the british media to be owned by foreign dictators? iii owned —— the british media to be owned by foreign dictators? ii the owned by foreign dictators? if the redbird lml _ owned by foreign dictators? if the redbird imi deal— owned by foreign dictators? if the redbird imi deal is _ owned by foreign dictators? if the redbird imi deal is blocked, the beneficiary could be the bid led by

paul marshall, early investor in gb news which he famously left after six months, would you say you were to she would rather have him? i won't be keen on paul marshall either, but that is my personal view, i am not enforcing that on anybody. he is a british citizen who lives in britain, i don't think he would know how to run the spectator or the telegraph, but that is a personal view. or the telegraph, but that is a personalview. plenty or the telegraph, but that is a personal view. plenty of other people could come forward to own it and i would rather take my chances in a sales process than see this be handed over to americans who know nothing about us, bankrolled by the uae, who come from a nondemocratic regime. uae, who come from a nondemocratic reaime. .. ~ uae, who come from a nondemocratic reaime. ., ,, i. uae, who come from a nondemocratic retime. ., ~' ,, , uae, who come from a nondemocratic retime. ., ~' , . uae, who come from a nondemocratic retime. ., ~ ,, , . ., regime. thank you very much for talkint to regime. thank you very much for talking to our — regime. thank you very much for talking to our our _ regime. thank you very much for talking to our our audience. i regime. thank you very much for. talking to our our audience. andrew neil, chairman of the spectator. —— our audience. knife crime is on the radar of the main political parties again — it's an elections year, after all. so here are some facts for you. figures from the 0ns out today show there was a 5% increase in knife crime in england and wales last year, compared to the year before.

but overall knife crime is 5% lower than its peak in the year up to march 2020. police numbers declined from 2010 to 2018, but have grown since. youth services have been cut by over 70% since 2010. zombie knives, first defined and banned in 2016, appear to still be in use eight years later. none of those facts gets across to you the absolute horror and pain of those who are stabbed and survive their injuries, and the trauma of relatives who lose a loved one to knife crime. like the mum of nottingham university student grace 0'malley—kumar, who was stabbed to death last year. her killer was sentenced today to detention at a high—security hospital. her mother, dr sinead 0'malley, wants mandatory prison terms for carrying a knife. she talked to bbc breakfast about losing her daughter. we're happy to see her friends but, again, itjust

is the embodiment of our loss. when you see the girls playing hockey, when the friends come to visit, they're growing older, they're enjoying university. ..grace isjust frozen as a 19—year—old. her life is just cut short and it's alljust stopped. today, the home secretary announced plans to close a legal loophole and attempt again to ban the sale of zombie knives, to increase sentences for those carrying the knives from six months to two years. and labour laid out their plan too to combat knife crime. they say if they win the next election, they will guarantee "sanctions and serious interventions" for young people carrying knives, new laws to restrict the sale of knives, and a £100 million youth future programme. we'll askjames atkinson if any of those would have stopped him carrying a knife. earlier, our political editor nick watt sat down with the shadow home secretary yvette cooper in milton keynes. he began by asking her whether she is toughening

up her rhetoric, now that she appears to have dropped the description of the labour plan as "tough love". well, we're talking about all sides of an action plan to halve knife crime, which has gone up by 77% now in the last eight years, and that is devastating for families. we just cannot keep walking by, and that is what the conservatives are doing. so this has all aspects to it. it does include much stronger action on knife sales, we don't think the government is going far enough. it includes action on the criminal gangs who are drawing young people into crime. and it includes young futures, a major overhaul of prevention, including community hubs across the country, working with mental health services. they are about drawing on the experience of the last labour government on the sure start programme and bringing services together to work on prevention for our teenagers. but one of the big things you're saying is the government has recycled lots of initiatives

on knife crime and nothing seems to get any better. aren't you doing exactly that? i mean, you laid out this plan point for point in october. well, you're right that we are talking about some of the things that we set out in october but, sadly, nick, we are not in government. we're not able to implement those things. if we could persuade the government to take them up now, we would back that, because this is about saving lives. and instead, they're failing. all we've got today is this kind of, the 17th announcement of a ban on zombie knives. they've been in government every time they have made each one of those 17 announcements and it still doesn't come into place. i suppose what they would say about zombie knives is that you ban knives and then the design changes and you have to go with the people changing the design. this is what the government would say. and that's the problem though, isn't it? because they're making the definitions much too narrow. but presumably, you don't want to criminalise somebody for going out and buying a bread knife? no, of course not. but honestly, you look at some

of these dangerous weapons that you see online that you could so easily get, teenagers can so easily get. the age verification, it's so easy for them to just get round that, and we've seen it happen in practice and that's what's so dangerous. and if you were home secretary, would your broader strategy involve stop—and—search? stop—and—search is always going to be part of tackling knife crime and it has to be done in the right way, and we've said it needs to be done in accordance with the really good inspectorate report that was done a few years ago, which is what most forces are trying to do. and where is labour on stop—and—search? because there are sometimes mixed signals. sadiq khan, when he was standing for london mayor, said that he would reduce its use and then by the time he is mayor, he is describing it as a very important tool. where is labour? there are quite mixed messages. well, it is an important tool and it has to be used in the right way. we've got to make sure the oversight, the checks, are in place and we've also got to make sure that the police can use that as part of tackling knife crime, serious knife crime, as opposed

to it being used in other ways. you're saying that your plan is modelled on the new labour sure start plan, which was obviously a big state intervention and it cost a lot of money. you're saying that the 100 million for this will be paid for from the vat on private schools. that's a relatively small amount of money being raised by that initiative. it's doing a lot of heavy lifting, it's basically funding most of your ideas, isn't it? well, the vat on private schools raises, i think, over £1 billion and of that, the majority of that money is going into schools, that is our plan, for labour to put that into schools, including additional teachers, and also mental health workers. but every time we hear a new labour initiative that's going to cost money, it's, "0h, don't worry, the vat on private schools will pay for that." well, we've counted it up. so this is 100 million out of that billion pounds and that 100 million is for these community hubs. it would fund about 100 of them around the country. now, you have not been in downing street for 14 years,

but sadiq khan has been in power in london for the last eight years and knife crime has gone up every year in london since the pandemic, so isn't this spate of knife crime either sadiq khan's fault, or it is a national tragedy that is everyone's fault? well, ithink, sadly, we have seen knife crime going up right across the country. if you look on the last three or four days alone there have been stabbings in gloucester, in grantham, in burnley, in blackpool, in bath... but you are trying to pin on this conservative government and there is big knife crime in london and you've had the mayor for the last eight years. there have also been big increases in knife crime across the whole country and actually some of the steepest increases have been in the towns and suburbs rather than in the bigger cities although the bigger cities have high levels that we need to bring down. but that is why we are so concerned that there isn't a national plan to deal with this. now, you were a minister in tony blair's government

and in his last few months in office he gave the callaghan lecture and he talked about knife crime and he said, "we won't stop this by pretending it isn't young, black kids doing it." was tony blair right to say that or was he wrong to talk about one particular community? this is about helping young people from all ethnicities. of course, there are young, black victims of knife crime, there are perpetrators from all ethnicities as well and that means we have to take action wherever you find it and it is really important that we do. yvette cooper, thank you. thanks, nick. let's speak to james atkinson, who used to carry a knife and spent around two yers injail for possession with intent to supply drugs and possession of a knife with intent to use. thank you very much for talking to our audience tonight. just explain to everybody watching what drew you to everybody watching what drew you

to carry a knife and what sort of knives used to carry.— to carry a knife and what sort of knives used to carry. flick knives, zombie knives, _ knives used to carry. flick knives, zombie knives, stanley— knives used to carry. flick knives, zombie knives, stanley blades, i knives used to carry. flick knives, j zombie knives, stanley blades, to protect me. protection from what? everyone anyone, drug dealers, enemies. ., ., ,, , ., enemies. how did it make you feel car int enemies. how did it make you feel carrying that? _ enemies. how did it make you feel carrying that? at — enemies. how did it make you feel carrying that? at ease. _ enemies. how did it make you feel carrying that? at ease. did - enemies. how did it make you feel carrying that? at ease. did it? i carrying that? at ease. did it? yeah, it made _ carrying that? at ease. did it? yeah, it made me _ carrying that? at ease. did it? yeah, it made me feel- carrying that? at ease. did it? yeah, it made me feel safe. i carrying that? at ease. did it? i yeah, it made me feel safe. and carrying that? at ease. did it? - yeah, it made me feel safe. and when you use to leave the house in the morning would you always take a knife? like you have got your phone, your keys, you have got your knife. every day, when i walked out of the house i make sure it was in my waistband. house i make sure it was in my waistband-— house i make sure it was in my waistband. , , house i make sure it was in my waistband. ~ , , ., waistband. will stop you carrying a knife? i waistband. will stop you carrying a knife? i got _ waistband. will stop you carrying a knife? i got arrested _ waistband. will stop you carrying a knife? i got arrested and i - waistband. will stop you carrying a | knife? i got arrested and i thought, i can't do knife? i got arrested and i thought, i can't do it — knife? i got arrested and i thought, lcan't do it any _ knife? i got arrested and i thought, i can't do it any more, _ knife? i got arrested and i thought, i can't do it any more, i _ knife? i got arrested and i thought, i can't do it any more, i am - knife? i got arrested and i thought, i can't do it any more, i am an i i can't do it any more, i am an aduu i can't do it any more, i am an adult now. i am fully grown and i shouldn't be doing this sort of stuff. it shouldn't be doing this sort of stuff. ., . shouldn't be doing this sort of stuff. ., , , ., ., stuff. it was partly maturing and tartl the stuff. it was partly maturing and partly the experience _ stuff. it was partly maturing and partly the experience of - stuff. it was partly maturing and partly the experience of being i stuff. it was partly maturing andj partly the experience of being in

jail and you didn't want that? it is a horrible place. _ jail and you didn't want that? it is a horrible place. in _ jail and you didn't want that? it is a horrible place. in that _ jail and you didn't want that? it is a horrible place. in that sense i jail and you didn't want that? it is| a horrible place. in that sense the punishment _ a horrible place. in that sense the punishment worked? _ a horrible place. in that sense the punishment worked? kindof. i a horrible place. in that sense the| punishment worked? kindof. well, a horrible place. in that sense the i punishment worked? kindof. well, it did. other people _ punishment worked? kindof. well, it did. other people are _ punishment worked? kindof. well, it did. other people are still— punishment worked? kindof. well, it did. other people are still doing i did. other people are still doing it, it has done _ did. other people are still doing it, it has done wee _ did. other people are still doing it, it has done wee justice i did. other people are still doing it, it has done wee justice but i did. other people are still doing i it, it has done wee justice but not everyone else. d0 it, it has done wee 'ustice but not eveenety as..— it, it has done wee 'ustice but not everyone one.— everyone else. do you still have friends who _ everyone else. do you still have friends who carry _ everyone else. do you still have friends who carry knives? i - everyone else. do you still have| friends who carry knives? i know --eole friends who carry knives? i know peeple who _ friends who carry knives? i know peeple who do. _ friends who carry knives? i know people who do, but _ friends who carry knives? i know people who do, but it _ friends who carry knives? i know people who do, but it is - friends who carry knives? i know people who do, but it is a - friends who carry knives? i know i people who do, but it is a different story. people who do, but it is a different sto . ., ., ., ., story. can i go through some of the thins story. can i go through some of the things announced _ story. can i go through some of the things announced by _ story. can i go through some of the things announced by both _ story. can i go through some of the things announced by both the - things announced by both the government and labour who want to be the next government? 50, zombie knives, we are told, are going to be banned from september. we have got some images to show people exactly what they are because they are pretty easy to get hold of. and they have close a loophole which means whether they have got images on the handle or not they are going to be banned. do you think people will still be able to get hold of knives like that? , ., ., ., ., , ., . ~

like that? yes. you have got a black market, like that? yes. you have got a black market. there _ like that? yes. you have got a black market, there are _ like that? yes. you have got a black market, there are ways _ like that? yes. you have got a black market, there are ways of _ like that? yes. you have got a black market, there are ways of getting i market, there are ways of getting everything and you can source it. they need to stop selling knives online. . , . ~ , they need to stop selling knives online. ., , ., ~ , ., online. that is a key thing and labour say — online. that is a key thing and labour say they _ online. that is a key thing and labour say they are _ online. that is a key thing and labour say they are going - online. that is a key thing and labour say they are going to l online. that is a key thing and i labour say they are going to look online. that is a key thing and - labour say they are going to look at the age checks when it comes to buying stuff online, they are going to clamp down on that. would that help? to clamp down on that. would that hel ? ., . , to clamp down on that. would that hel? ., ., , , , help? not really because you can get other people — help? not really because you can get other people to _ help? not really because you can get other people to buy _ help? not really because you can get other people to buy it _ help? not really because you can get other people to buy it for _ help? not really because you can get other people to buy it for you. - help? not really because you can get other people to buy it for you. this . other people to buy it for you. this is what else _ other people to buy it for you. this is what else the _ other people to buy it for you. this is what else the government say. punishment for carrying a band knife going up from six months to two years. going up from six months to two ears. ., y , going up from six months to two ears. ., , , . ., years. for my first offence i got six months _ years. for my first offence i got six months for _ years. for my first offence i got six months for a _ years. for my first offence i got six months for a knife, - years. for my first offence i got six months for a knife, the - years. for my first offence i got i six months for a knife, the second one i got a year, and the third one i got one consecutive, which i got three years. i did 18 months of that and time for the drugs. it three years. i did 18 months of that and time for the drugs.— and time for the drugs. if you have had two years _ and time for the drugs. if you have had two years for— and time for the drugs. if you have had two years for the _ and time for the drugs. if you have had two years for the first - and time for the drugs. if you have had two years for the first one - had two years for the first one instead of six months, with that

have stopped you?— instead of six months, with that have stopped you? possibly, possibly not. this is what _ have stopped you? possibly, possibly not. this is what labour _ have stopped you? possibly, possibly not. this is what labour are - have stopped you? possibly, possibly not. this is what labour are saying, l not. this is what labour are saying, every offender _ not. this is what labour are saying, every offender refer _ not. this is what labour are saying, every offender refer to _ not. this is what labour are saying, every offender refer to a _ not. this is what labour are saying, every offender refer to a youth - every offender refer to a youth offending team who would have a tailored action plan for the individual to prevent them reoffending.— individual to prevent them | reoffending._ a reoffending. say it again. a tailored action _ reoffending. say it again. a tailored action plan - reoffending. say it again. a tailored action plan for- reoffending. say it again. a tailored action plan for an l reoffending. say it again. a - tailored action plan for an offender to stop them reoffending. it is tailored action plan for an offender to stop them reoffending.- to stop them reoffending. it is all about the government. _ to stop them reoffending. it is all about the government. they - to stop them reoffending. it is all| about the government. they don't to stop them reoffending. it is all- about the government. they don't do anything for ex offenders. so they need to have something in place with probation, the police, the courts to actually help someone to try and change their life around. no one gets given a chance for that. the other thing _ gets given a chance for that. the other thing labour say, serious penalties, curfews, tagging, or something called behavioural contracts. ~ ., something called behavioural contracts-— something called behavioural contracts. ., ., , ., ., contracts. what does that mean? that is a really good _ contracts. what does that mean? that is a really good question. _ contracts. what does that mean? that is a really good question. if— is a really good question. if someone said it signed this and when

you sign your name and you are not