according to f.d.a. commissioner margaret hamburg as you know i would like the chemicals in my food kept to a minimum but the thing is the people at the f.d.a. are surely aware of all the hormones and beef and jim o's being produced why does this band have such a very narrow narrow focus in fact when you look at all the things that americans consume smoke use that to swear health some get the violent band hammer while others are completely tolerated if you ever talk to a hardcore marijuana smoker they'll tell you but dude weed is better for you than beer and that's the eagle man and they kind of have a point i think there is this is one of those rare instances where a balance position is a really good idea well the country could go the libertarian route and let it be everything be legal let people make their own choices or do what i think would be much much better actually really ban all the things that are destructive to our health both of these paths have positive and negative effects but they are a lot better than our current plan of ban some harmful things for some reason and allow other harmful things because well they lobby better but that's just my opinion.

hello welcome to sophie. shevardnadze the u.k. press says sunder a chat from two sides at a prayer base being held into alleged phone hacking and then publishing the edward snowden so expensive revelations have latched unfairly disguised threats as the so-called fifth estate losing its power in britain. in the wake of the n.s.a. leaks the brits have learned that their intelligence services have been assisting us spies in europe. the press has been told they are. irresponsible

whistleblowers labeled as all reliable even traitors. partnership with the us is a key policy so how independent is the u.k. in its decisions. how far has power drifted across the atlantic. and our guest today charles powell baron powell of a water a deployment politician and businessman who served as a key foreign policy adviser to british prime minister margaret thatcher back in one thousand nine hundred eighty s. it's great to have you with us today so going to start with the latest news and new royal charter on press regulation has been introduced in britain was newspaper publishers in the u.k. see these as an attempt to control them and believe it's better for journalism for freedom of press and for the public what do you make of it. well you raise a very difficult topic that is quite clear that some of our more don't market popular newspapers to be breaking the rules for many years by bribing people to

give them information by intercepting to the phone calls of many other things like that there are some criminal trials of progress at the moment and they will decide whether people are guilty or not but it's quite clear that some of the bits of our press got completely out of hand on the other hand there is a very strong resistance in this country to anything which is like government control of the media and so a device has been found which is to set up an independent body which would monitor the media and stop it from the worst excesses of course the opponents of that scheme say this is just government regulation under a different name other people think it's not enough. through the stages to troy the new system and see if it works but there is a very strong resistance indeed of britain to anything which looks like government control over the media well like you've said you know maybe something like this was needed because that the media was getting out of hand with all the phone tapping

scandal that was really nothing that has nothing to do with the public interest but i read a statement from aspects person from the u.k. government's department of culture and it said it won't charge or will protect freedom of press whilst offering real redress when mistakes are made it desk sound like there are loopholes in this new legislation that really could be used to manipulate the press now. you know all legislation potentially has to pose it we try very hard in parliament and i sit in the upper house of our part of the house of lords we scrutinize their decision very carefully try to make sure they're old to pose but you could never completely exclude them i do think there's any real appetite in government to regulate the media not least because it would be a very difficult siebel which to fight an election if your opponent. in the election it could say you've been trying to control the independent media i think you would lose a lot of public support for me it's pretty clear that government will be very cautious of the syria and won't want to be caught out well david cameron for

example i mean he pretty much threatened the guardian or anyone else for that matter who wants to publish revelations like this from snowden could this new watchdog help him do that but i think you're talking about a very different issue this is for the majority of the british media thirty opposed to what mr snowden was dumb enough is of course to the release of what was supposed to be secret material which he had stood and that is you could rush or you believe in using standard of goods whether in the media or you were ill served i think to say that to equate that with control of the media is simply quite wrong the guardian have been warned to be very careful of what use they make of this material and i think they have been quite responsible but know this it is clearly damage the interests of our national security of that of many other countries and people here object very strongly to that you were the support for mr snowden and his activities

except about a small number of people on the left of british politics well since we're talking about snowden i'd like to talk about britain's role in n.s.a. spying everyone knows britain is america's number one partner it's always been like that but the question is how necessary and how moral is it so assisting united states inspire and europe including its allies. well i have to suppress a smile of being else that you want to do with russian television or russia generally or given the russian record of spying deception of communications and so on we all know that in the modern world there is a great deal of monitoring of international communications a lot of it is directed to stopping and intercepting terrorist activities and i think that is legitimate and people people support that to my buy into the trouble is this that the technology has run the political control exercised over it if the

technology permits you to do something then on the whole people will do it unless they are specifically told not to do it and it's quite clear that we have perhaps gotten stuck to beyond what is necessary for dealing with international terrorism and international crime into areas where it is a question of. warranted intrusion into people's privacy that is a problem be have admitted it to be have dealt with it very open the due course we will see a similar openness in these matters only on the russian side well i did take your remark about russian tapping with a grain of salt but with all due respect we are a fairly new democracy here compare as with britain and america i mean you guys are the beacons of democracy and transparency so for for the rest of the world it is even more surprising when it comes from someone like america and britain than from russia so the european delegation went to washington so i don't think i really don't think i don't think he was surprised by this everyone has assumed for many

years that all big countries are engaged in the intelligence activities whether it's a better code or russia or britain or china and an awful lot of others too to me the real problem has been the failure of certain people in very sensitive positions like heads of government in western europe not to protect themselves the idea that heads of government think they could talk freely all the telephones with. the risk of being intercepted whether by agencies of another state or even by by private enterprise is crazy most companies these days i speak as a businessman here most companies will take the mobile telephones or the i pads or they go to certain countries like china or russia for fear of deception and i think the responsibility lies pretty heavily on statesmen and in europe and america to protect themselves and that is to me has been the most glaring problem with this is that people are not taking sensible measures to protect themselves from

interception and monitoring. you know many european countries who are in about a breakdown in trust what the u.s. what do you think it will also fact for in their trust to britain. i do think this is going to be a last thing to deal with and i think there are special reasons in germany. to be rather sensitive of these issues given the history of naziism as later the history of the stars in the former east german state and there are generations of german people who remember that bitter experience of their for rather a shock to be reminded of it and to find that some interception of communications has taken place but do i believe that it's going to result in subzero lasting breakdown or damage to relations between germany of the united states or between germany and britain no i don't but the evidence of that is clear today when you see that despite some speculation in the press negotiations about a trade agreement between europe and the united states are continuing so you know there were there won't be a loss to break down to trust there will be

a problem which i believe will go away but what about the mood within the british public how do they view the fact that britain was behind the us to spy on everyone . i don't think there's any great mood in the british public the story doesn't really run here nearly as much as it does in many other countries of the whole we've always accepted in this country that espionage is part of a nation's defense is. what is carried out successfully it is something something to be rather proud of and i've noticed very much the same about attitude in the old soviet you it is these days in russia there's a certain pride at the successes of intelligence services that is really what dominates the mood here people see them fighting on behalf of security all defenses they're happy to see that happen and you want britain does have more c.c.t.v. cameras per capita at that anywhere else than anyone else in the world so the idea

of not surveillance it's nothing's really new fort wainwright is the same concept just being expanded abroad. that we do have more c.c.t.v. cameras than in the world they were all installed during the time of republican terrorism when there were frequent terrorist attacks of the very halt of london but the best way to deal with those attacks and find the people who sold support for them through the use of. surveillance cameras on the streets and they proved extremely successful they be very successful too in finding those who perpetrated. terrorism from extreme loosely available so they've served a very useful purpose there were protests and used to spy on innocent of the vigils why should they be we are really interested in what people do in their private lives in this country all right thank you very much after the break you can be involved in syria and radical east i'm stepping into the breach and honest accounting an opportunity to rest and stay with us.

oh. plenty it was terrible they come up very hard to take a plunge again a little longer disciplined life has never had sex with the perfect there's no legs lets up a little blood. tests . listen to a muslim subluxation

play. live. deliberate george is on a big journey to such a. one hundred twenty three days. through to some other cities of russia. relayed by fourteen thousand people for sixty five dollars a month. in a record setting trip. their. numbers made. a living torch relay. m r t r.

welcome back to the show we're talking to a lower charles powell former he would cave for all foreign policy adviser good to have you back. since we're talking about snowden and i just want to know your personal take on that do you admire likes of snowden and julian assange for their choices or are they traitors and trouble makers for you. traitors in trouble because the basically the what they're doing is they've stolen property and they are making use of that state of the property and so i called anyway can do what they've done but. who can resist

a system when system goes too far if not ok gentle whistle blowers but basically we look to poll the board to make sure into our courts to make sure that the children services behave properly and that is what they do you may have noticed that the street heads of all three intelligence agencies were all summoned before paul but last week and questioned about some of their activities that i think is a very healthy democratic feature of the system and i'm sure you'll be seeing the same in the united states as the various senate and congressional committees question the heads of their agencies to try to make sure that they stay invariably within the law i would like to see that practice spread to other countries intuitive perhaps your country where i'm not sure i don't know about britain but i'm not sure that could actually happen in america because when obama was coming to power he was actually promising to cut down on surveillance but what he did was expand the program so no one really believes that that was going to that's going to be wrapped up anytime soon. well the programs have been extended to deal with the

specific problem of extreme radical islamic terrorism that has been the purpose of stepping up intelligence efforts in recent years which is to defend dog countries against that and we have all suffered from it russia has suffered from it we've suffered from it in britain or the united states suffer from it too that is a legitimate target to have intelligence activities against people governments and our agencies are quite right to do that including the russian ones is when it goes beyond that to the survey to private individuals and private correspondence that one would have objections but i don't really believe that is going on as i said to would be a modern technology makes it possible to scoop up out of the atmosphere vast quantities of. but no one pretends the cooling all of that material to just one or two indicators of people who are trying to plot terrorist activity is looking for needles in a haystack but the haystack is the balls to bow to information which is out there

so i think it's pretty discriminating in the sense that people are not trying to interfere people's private lives they're just looking for this evidence of to resume plans for terrorism but you know after the boston bombing that argument kind of lost its purpose because you would think with all the access to social media that america's secret services had they would actually detect the start my brothers . would you know particular restrictions do a ploy to america. it is just a bit in america too to spoil american citizens it's not surprising that once through the mit but we in this country have had considerable success in tracking. islamic extremists terrorism through the surveillance methods which we have including c.c.t.v. cameras of the cage made it to steps of besiegers and conversations coming out of

the middle east so i don't see any objection to that sort of difference or to please to say that russia does it too and i hope we've had some success in doing so i want to talk a bit about foreign policy with us since you're at pioneer in that field and syria is an ongoing story why do you think the u.k. parliament refused to back a strike on syria was it cameron's weak argument or perhaps fear of getting itself into another war which could stoke islamic radicalization at home. i think it's a difficult question dalton with complete clarity i think there is an element that people feel off to the experiences of iraq and afghanistan that they don't want to see britain dragged into another conflict on the other hand any of course a short time a year or two of the british possible to the doorstep the government's involvement in military action in libya so you can't say there's a clear cut definitive rejection of the idea of using british for surface ease i think the feeling was that the this time it wasn't entirely clear what the

objectives of a military action would be that was not spelled out sufficiently for people to appreciate it the limited nature of the action proposed at the precise targets of the objectives in that situation and paul the moment which was recalled especially to debate this issue perhaps took in my view is for the short sighted. attitude to the proposal on the other hand i have to say that even the possibility of the threat of military force kiddy in my mind clearly had the impression of increasing russian pressure of the syrian regime to get rid of its chemical weapons of the decision of the syrian regime to do so i think the syrians believe that they were about to be subjected to limited military attack on some of their facilities and it was this the two agreed to abolish the chemical weapons but do you believe the u.k. should be involved at all in syria either is for supporting the rebels are an

intervention. well the britain has a long history of being a gauge with the rest of the world but probably more international than almost any country i can think of we all members of the united nations security council we have responsibilities that part of the world of the same way as you noted. russia from some charter of the u.s. so yes of course we should be evolved to a degree because the united nations are involved and therefore its highest organ the security council must be involved was there ever any possibility whatsoever of british forces being engaged on the ground in syria no no not at all the one visit that this was the clear to the syrian regime that there were limits feel which they really should not go on a different topic but also staying with radical islam this time slipping into britain just a couple of weeks ago we spoke to tom robinson the former leader of the english english to sound sleep now despite all the criticism he gets a lot of his words about immigration and islamic radicalism appear to resonate with

some parts of british society do you think the government is doing enough both to help the non brits or just while protecting the interests of the wider population. what do i think. of all the broad scale the answer to that is yes we have been substantially gratian to britain. and so did so so does russia so you all familiar with the problems too we need to even consider this country we need immigrants because they're good people they work hard they help our economy grow and as you may have read our population is set to grow very substantially of the next twenty years to the point where it will exceed that of germany because the german population is declining so immigrants are very important part of that equally immigrants do calls limited social problems in parts of the country where you get big immigrant groups congregating in a particular area the schools are dominated by immigrant children sometimes not

speaking english social services and housing are dominated by the need to be recurrence and that causes some quite natural tensions among the original british population to understand that you have to work with it you have to avoid it try to contain those difficulties but i think most immigrants in this country it is extremely welcome i think back to the problems of the one thousand sixty's and seventy's with the real demonstrations and worse than that race riots in this country that does not really happened and that is a sign of the acceptance of immigrants or the way that immigrants have generally been very successfully integrated into our society but it is a problem i know no one could deny that it's a problem but the danger is that some groups of people will try to exploit that problem for the rather narrow political purposes and yes we have some extremist movements in this country very regrettably who use immigration as

a means to increase social tensions that's we have to avoid that we have to fight against it and we do. but when you bring up schools and you know parts england being dominated by people who don't even speak english that all the it's that creates a lot of annoyance around what can be done to great step rifts between the cultures . well the best thing is to proceed as quickly as possible with integration. the tradition has been successful in earlier generations of immigrants and they are regarded as absolutely full members of the you societies of the world these problems but sometimes with new immigrants those who are just arriving know all scholz from different societies for instance is the restrictions on you groups from from some european union countries for the way the first problems because when immigrants from europe come here they can sign only be it to our social benefits but people think that it's a bit until the they have been here they were just arrived yet they're beginning to

benefit already from the taxes we pay them for the benefits we give to people who are established a distance of this country and that's a good is a problem which is going to be that instant handled it will be our government working very hard on that but when you look at the bigger picture it's not just a britain had that has to problem you do you see things right right all over you do you see nationalists you know coming out in the streets are you concerned about that at all and one sees the ones i'm concerned about that i can so devoted to russia to where we've seen thirteen billion the immigrants in russia since the early one nine hundred ninety s. we hear about politicians in russia to the stability of who who speak very very disparaging terms about the evidence of what should happen to them it's a it's a problem we have all of us and called them except those societies which virtually ban immigration of any sort of if you look. you won't find many immigrants into padley but many immigrants in china that is

a way of dealing with it but even that is not a very attractive way to to deal with the problem simply to exclude them altogether but what it when you say we've got to deal with it how it how exactly do you deal with it now not the boundaries are broken down within the european countries it's just so much easier to to travel i'm just coming back from france i mean people there and i grew up in paris you know and people there you know immigration has been a problem always but it's much more acute now than in ever was. i think this isn't it surely because the numbers of immigrants agree more people are coming into faults from north africa for the distance it all cases particularly the immigration from east europe most of these two opinions we've had here have been wonderful people to have particularly from podiums we've had hundreds of thousands of people from that they were very decent people they don't place much of a buzz and all the social services and so on that is that is very welcome others

who would be entitled to come from rumania of dog area they're going to present a new problem we have to be honest about that but immigration doesn't come from just one source you know there are something like four hundred thousand people living in britain that is really quite a lot of course they do present any problems at all they'll very welcome immigrants as well. thank you very much for the sum total and that's it for today we're talking to lower power ball people used to work as a foreign policy adviser to the british prime minister margaret thatcher thanks but we know that from now we'll see you next time.

if you've. got the opportunity to get in. you start to construct your own because. you don't want to be bad. don't want to meet gangsters you don't want to. deal with they don't want that blow with the time that can be we can see. just me so rather than i was and i was in the. woods. a rocket they keep but it felt like. i said what about the bay. i don't want to die i just really do not want to die a young young a. leg .

length. live . klyn.

margy dot com is launching a special project to mark the appalling scale of violence in iraq. we want you to know. exactly what happened there i don't know but i won't get killed. piers later as when i got arrested for. for a crime i did not do. we have numerous cases where police officers lie about polygraph results. innocent people to confess to police officers don't beat people anymore i mean it just doesn't happen really. in the course of interrogation why because there's been this is like meant no because the psychological techniques are

more effective in obtaining confessions than physical abuse and they were often they could get what they wanted they could say what they wanted and there was no evidence of what they did or what they said. secret laboratory to mccurry was able to build the new rules most sophisticated robot which all unfortunately doesn't give a dollar amount anything tunes mission to teach music creation why it should care about humans in the world this is why you should care only on the dot com.

designing to skeptics to see where it needs the initial targets to get rid of its chemical weapons un inspectors plan the next stage. a new split between old friends burson and the you asked for knowledge of the secret iraq war communications as a major u.k. inquiry tries to get to the bubble some of the country's role in the invasion. and justice and profit rolled into one in a few minutes we'll take you on a tour of the new world of u.s. private prisons when you incarcerate people for the purpose of generating corporate profit you have a built in incentive to incarcerate as many people as you can for as long as possible morality and i think the side of business is booming.